Bismarck sinks Hood, POW & Rodney

Proctol · Jul 31, 2004

In OTL Bismarck sank only Hood. But she badly damaged Prince of Wales and if she had pursued, could have deep sixed her as well. In addition even when surrounded, she straddled Rodney & could have sunk her as well.

WI in addition to sinking three RN capital ships, Bismarck had made
good her get away under air cover, which was very close, the Luftwaffe sinking a fourth eg King George V.

What would have been the British & German reactions & strategy to a major German naval victory in 1941?

David S Poepoe · Jul 31, 2004

Damaging the Prince of Wales is plausible. Sinking the Rodney is implausible. While she may be nearly 20 years old when she faces off against the Bismarck, the Rodney is still a far more powerful and heavily armored warship. The Rodney, and her sistership Nelson, were built to withstand fire from other ships bearing 16in guns. I think the Luftwaffe could only provide aircover through the use of its longest range shore based aircraft, and those aren't usually fightercraft. The crucial damage is that done to the rudder of the Bismarck which completely hampers her.

Tom_B · Jul 31, 2004

Axis Lose

Concur with David but even more strongly. Rodney might get roughed up a little but she ain't going to sink. The real best case for the Bismarck is after pursuing Prince of Wales she assuredly has taken more damage and so Lutjens abandons the Atlantic sortie and either returns to Nrway or immediately heads for Brest. There is some chance in either case he makes it. But if a heavily damaged Bismarck limps into Brest she gets pounded by Bomber Command and is never a major threat to the sea lanes.

Probably the best chance for the Axis (which still lose the war of course WWII POD TL's are so easy) is the return to Norway. After a few months of repair Bismarck is stationed in Norway along with Tirpitz to threaten the convoys to Russia.

Proctol · Jul 31, 2004

WI Lutjens seeing that his case is hopeless actually surrendered?! What would be the effect on German morale at having Bismarck escorted by the RN into Portsmouth? Could it actually break Nazi morale? Would the Allies have put her to subsequent war use eg on convoy escort duty out of Scapa Flow: could we see Bismarck vs Tirpitz?! Or displayed her as a trophy?

David S Poepoe · Jul 31, 2004

I think Lutjens will be looking at the sinking of the Admiral Graf Spee really carefully. I don't think he will surrender, but attempt to fight it out. Tom suggests another possibility that the Bismarck and the Tirpitz form a 'fleet in being' in the Norwegian fjords that tie down alot of Royal Navy units.

If the Bismarck had made it to Brest, and not sunk at its moorings by the RAF, its possible to consider that it may attempt a 'Channel Dash' much like the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau did in 1942. I don't think it likely that she will be all too successful in such an attempt. However, it most probable that should she successfully accomplish that she will butterfly away the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau's any possibility of success. The RAF and Royal Navy will be far more prepared the second time.

DuQuense · Jul 31, 2004

WI the resources Men & Material had been put into Subs, or Planes.
instead of Bismarck and the Tirpitz and the Graf Spee

Weapon M · Jul 31, 2004

DuQuense said:
WI the resources Men & Material had been put into Subs, or Planes.
instead of Bismarck and the Tirpitz and the Graf Spee

Or tanks...lots and lots more tanks. I love tanks....

David S Poepoe · Aug 1, 2004

DuQuense said:
WI the resources Men & Material had been put into Subs, or Planes.
instead of Bismarck and the Tirpitz and the Graf Spee

That would be a different WI thread now wouldn't it?

aktarian · Aug 1, 2004

DuQuense said:
WI the resources Men & Material had been put into Subs, or Planes.
instead of Bismarck and the Tirpitz and the Graf Spee

Just remember you can't directly translate one resources to another. You can't say "BB uses X tons of steel. Tank uses Y tons of steel. Divide X by Y and you get how many tanks you could have more." It's question of apropriate factory tools (you can't convert factory producing furniture to factory producing cars). Tool used to make 16in naval guns needs a lot of modification to produce 50mm tank guns.

The best translation you could amke is BBs to U-boats.

Wasn't there U-boat in area when Bismarck was sunk? IIRC it ran out of torpedoes or soemthing. If it had them could Bismarck be saved and limp to Brest?

Proctol · Aug 1, 2004

If the Bismarck had surrendered, Hitler could have been so scandalised that he would have ordered his Furehrdirektiv 53 in July 1941 instead of December 1943 as in OTL, ordering the scrapping of all surface ships and their conversion of the Kriegsmarine into a U boat force only. The result:100 more u boats on patrol during the critical March 1943 Battle of the Atlantic, which the Allies loose, thus delaying D Day, & resulting, as always, with 3 atom bombs being dropped on the Germans in August 1945.

David S Poepoe · Aug 1, 2004

Proctol said:
If the Bismarck had surrendered, Hitler could have been so scandalised that he would have ordered his Furehrdirektiv 53 in July 1941 instead of December 1943 as in OTL, ordering the scrapping of all surface ships and their conversion of the Kriegsmarine into a U boat force only. The result:100 more u boats on patrol during the critical March 1943 Battle of the Atlantic, which the Allies loose, thus delaying D Day, & resulting, as always, with 3 atom bombs being dropped on the Germans in August 1945.

Which is exactly why Lutjens wouldn't have surrendered. Reguarding the scrapping of the surface fleet, it wouldn't be accomplished as fast as you suggest and in the end the balance wouldn't be changed as much as you predict. The Allies have the technological advantage with sonar and radar. There will just be more u-boats on the sea floor permanently.

Cockroach · Aug 1, 2004

Given that the sinking of HMS Hood was due to a lucky hit I find it hard to belive that the Bismark would stand a chance against any futher forces sent to intercept it.
There is admitadly a chance that the Bismark could send POW to the bottom but persuit mean using up a significant volume of fuel and given that Bismark's fuel avalible fuel had been reduced by damage already this is a good as suicide.

WI Lutjens seeing that his case is hopeless actually surrendered?! What would be the effect on German morale at having Bismarck escorted by the RN into Portsmouth? Could it actually break Nazi morale? Would the Allies have put her to subsequent war use eg on convoy escort duty out of Scapa Flow: could we see Bismarck vs Tirpitz?! Or displayed her as a trophy?

No way the ship would be surrendered until the moment it was certainly going to be lost. However there is the possibility of the Bismark (post final battle) being left to burn out and then towed into port rather than sunk, however the chances are that the hulk and probably the ship towing would get torpedoed. As for the use of a crippled ex-Bismark it will depend upon exactly what damage the vessel has taken, but being a brilliant trophey I cannot see it being scrapped for quite some time.

If the Bismarck had surrendered, Hitler could have been so scandalised that he would have ordered his Furehrdirektiv 53 in July 1941 instead of December 1943 as in OTL, ordering the scrapping of all surface ships and their conversion of the Kriegsmarine into a U boat force only. The result:100 more u boats on patrol during the critical March 1943 Battle of the Atlantic, which the Allies loose, thus delaying D Day, & resulting, as always, with 3 atom bombs being dropped on the Germans in August 1945.

Well the German surface fleet is gone so the British fleet can all head to the Med and the Pacific giving Japan some trouble in the future.

JLCook · Aug 1, 2004

Bismarck sink RODNEY????? NOT!

The Royal Navy had at least two ships, which BISMARCK stood absolutely NO CHANCE AT ALL against! RODNEY was one of them! Rodney had armor rated to withstand 16", which is a heck of a lot MORE powerful than the 15" BISMARCK carried, and RODNEY had one more gun tube as well. In fact, the only advantage BISMARCK's size has over RODNEY is the higher speed! If BISMARCK encountered RODNEY, 1:1, the best response BISMARCK can give is to RUN FOR IT! It might get the BISMARCK's commnader court martialed, but it's the ONLY way to save the ship!

Proctol · Aug 1, 2004

Hood had a "glass jaw" which doomed her. Bismarck was a whole 7 knots faster than Rodney and had better fire control, accuracy and rate of fire. Due to hull stress from its unique lay out, Rodney could not fire broadsides. Its 16" guns, although slightly more powerful than Bismarck's, were not deemed a successful design

http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNBR_16-45_mk1.htm

One on one, Bismarck will beat Rodney. But against Rodney and a KGV class as in OTL, no chance.

sikitu · Aug 2, 2004

Proctol said:
Hood had a "glass jaw" which doomed her. Bismarck was a whole 7 knots faster than Rodney and had better fire control, accuracy and rate of fire. Due to hull stress from its unique lay out, Rodney could not fire broadsides. Its 16" guns, although slightly more powerful than Bismarck's, were not deemed a successful design

http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNBR_16-45_mk1.htm

One on one, Bismarck will beat Rodney. But against Rodney and a KGV class as in OTL, no chance.

I definitely agree on that statement. However, it must be considered that Bismarck already emerged with some damage after sinking the Hood. Yes, she very probably could have sunk the Prince of Wales as well, but afterwards, even without the lucky airstrike, she no longer was at 100% operations capability.

By the way, when looking for Bismarck PODS, consider the following:
a) The torpedo hit that jammed her rudder was a true "one-in-a-million" hit...without, she might have escaped to Brest (but I doubt that would have changed much in the war)
b) There were U-boats in the area. One even was close to Ark Royal...but it did not have any torps left. So maybe, with torps, things might have turned out differently.
c) To take the other side, the hit that destroyed the Hood also was a very lucky one. Without, probably Bismarck would have taken more damage during Denmark Straits.
d) It is told that the RN had orders to stop Bismarck at any cost after sinking the Hood. This meant that several BBs were operating on the very last drops of fuel...what about some U-boats turning up in the wrong moment then?

Just some ideas.

JLCook · Aug 2, 2004

RODNEY certainly can fire broadsides!

If she could not, she most certainly would have been rebuilt until she could! It is true she cannot fire all nine guns dead ahead, and cannot fire any, dead astern. It may be true that blast effects would produce some superficial damage to her own decks, by firing broadsides, but fire them she could and did! What do you think she was doing when she engaged BISMARCK?

RODNEY possessed an armor belt 14"-13" thick, had 14"-12" bulkheads, 6.25" deck armor, 15" barbette armor, 16" turret armor, and had 15" on her conning tower! These values are ALL better than BISMARCKS'!

BISMARCK had 12.6" armor belts, 8.7" bulkheads, 4.7" decks, 8.7" barbettes, 14.1" turrets, and a 14.1" conning tower!

RODNEY and NELSON only lacked speed, and of course, are considered UGLY AS SIN by nearly everyone, but they were in fact very effective units!

Personally, I'd prefer to be standing aboard a SOUTH DAKOTA or an IOWA class, but even NORTH CAROLINA and MARYLAND could take BISMARCK. NC due to her 2700#, 16" shells, and MARYLAND because she was even heavier armored than RODNEY.

sikitu · Aug 2, 2004

JLCook said:
If she could not, she most certainly would have been rebuilt until she could! It is true she cannot fire all nine guns dead ahead, and cannot fire any, dead astern. It may be true that blast effects would produce some superficial damage to her own decks, by firing broadsides, but fire them she could and did! What do you think she was doing when she engaged BISMARCK?

RODNEY possessed an armor belt 14"-13" thick, had 14"-12" bulkheads, 6.25" deck armor, 15" barbette armor, 16" turret armor, and had 15" on her conning tower! These values are ALL better than BISMARCKS'!

BISMARCK had 12.6" armor belts, 8.7" bulkheads, 4.7" decks, 8.7" barbettes, 14.1" turrets, and a 14.1" conning tower!

I will have to do some research in my collection of naval history books, but I mean to remember that Rodney did have some damage after the battle, not as the result of hits, but caused by its own artillery. After all, she was built in the 1920s and actually underway for a refit.
However, one thing can be said right now: Never ever make an analysis based on either armor thickness or gun caliber only. Otherwise, I will assign you a late 19th century battleship with some 25" armor and wish you a lot of fun when fighting a WW2 battleship.

JLCook · Aug 2, 2004

RODNEY

Rodney is not all that older than BISMARCK, only about 13 years! The British Battleships benefitted from actual combat experience from WWI also. BISMARCK, on the other hand, did not gain any new insights over previous German designs. While BISMARCk is probably not just an enlarged BADEN, there was a long interuption in German naval design. I am NOT comparing something from the 19th century here! Also, while the British did not repeat the 16" gun for any other ships, it wasn't because the 16" triple used on RODNEY wasn't any good. It was because of POLITICAL considerations, and the fact that the British were backing the concept of SMALLER battleship guns in the 1930's. They were the ONLY ones who reverted to this smaller caliber too!

RODNEY, if enlarged by 10,000 tons, and given more powerful machinery would in fact be close to being a "G3". a ship capable of giving IOWA a hard time!

Proctol · Aug 2, 2004

The trouble with three close together turrets is that one well placed shell could take out the Rodney's entire main suite. With all its secondary armament at the rear, Rodney would be disadvantaged in a stern chase.

Bismarck's 38cms had the fastest ROF of any large naval gun and one on one would soon pummell Rodney's huge 5 storey bridge structure, which housed all the command, control, Fleet staff and gunnery control positions, into mangled Sheffield's finest
http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm

If Bismarck had pursued POW in a stern chase, KGV's rear quad 14" turret, even though functioning erratically, could yet have saved the day.

With the Neslon (Rodney) Class, the RN succeeded in getting the maximum advantages out of the Washington Treaty design limitations, but the Nelson (Rodney) Class suffered from poor manoeuverability, especially in cross winds & shallow waters.

JLCook · Aug 2, 2004

WHY would RODNEY run from BISMARCK???

RODNEY has heavier armor!

RODNEY has heavier guns!

I would think RODNEY would turn towards BISMARCK! There is no reason for RODNEY to run! If it were BISMARCK AND TIRPITZ together, perhaps, but then, there would be several more RN Battleships present as well, so perhaps not!

RODNEY has no reason to be afraid of BISMARCK, would not have thought so at the time, and today, if we ignore the false claims in the song, we'd have even less reason for RODNEY to run!