Bismark (NAZI Battleship) Survives

Hood:

Armour: Belt: 12–6 in (305–152 mm)
Deck: 0.75–3 in (19–76 mm)
Barbettes: 12–5 in (305–127 mm)
Turrets: 15–11 in (381–279 mm)
Conning tower: 11–9 in (279–229 mm)
Bulkheads: 4–5 in (102–127 mm)



Renown:


Armour: Belt: 3–9 in (76–229 mm)
Decks: 1–5 in (25–127 mm)
Barbettes: 4–7 in (102–178 mm)
Gun turrets: 7–9 in (178–229 mm)
Conning tower: 10 in (254 mm)
Bulkheads: 3–4 in (76–102 mm)

So the belt is narrower, which I assume is what you mean. But don't forget that "even thinner" is kind of disingenuous - Hood's belt is heavier, but her deck is significantly lighter and it's the deck which killed her.


So you could say "due to her thinner belt armour" (which was battlecruiser grade, as compared to dreadnought battleship grade for Hood) or "overall worse armour" (which is debatable but broadly accurate at short to medium ranges) but "even thinner" is to imply that she's worse in the area which Hood had problems.

I was quoting a TV documentary, which said, "Renown was not allowed to engage Bismarck, because her armour was even thinner than Hood's." It didn't go into the finer points.
 
Sorry, just noticed this - the KGV actually commissioned at her shipyard (before sea trials) in mid-October 1940, not December. December's when she joined the Home Fleet post sea trials.
And Bismarck left the shipyard for sea trials in mid-September.
Both ships finished their sea trials in December, but Bismarck then spent five weeks not able to do practice at sea because of delays due to a blocked Kiel canal.

So if anything KGV's had more time actually operational and training!

Which is why I wrote:

Bismarck completed August 1940 compared to King George V completed December 1940. So theoretically Bismarck is worked up to the higher state of efficiency, but KGV probably had more time at sea than Bismarck.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Which is why I wrote:

Again, it's a case of factual inaccuracy. By any measure of "completed", either KGV was earlier than the date you give or Bismarck was later.
I'm afraid the basic Wiki infoboxes on this are simply wrong - or the main article text is.
 
Again, it's a case of factual inaccuracy. By any measure of "completed", either KGV was earlier than the date you give or Bismarck was later.
I'm afraid the basic Wiki infoboxes on this are simply wrong - or the main article text is.

No, the point is that Bismarck and Tirpitz had more time to work up than KGV and PoW respectively. But they might not have been able to use that time due to ice or poor weather in the Baltic.

I was quoting my copy of Conways All The World's Fighting Ships 1922-46, which has KGV's completion as 11th December 1940 and Bismarck's as 24th August 1940. Even if your figures are correct Bismarck still has a head start of one month. However, I acknowledge that icing in the Baltic and weather conditions might mean that Bismarck was inactive for some of that period.

For the record it also gives Tirpitz's completion date as 25th February 1941 and PoWs as 31st March 1941. Subject to icing and weather conditions in the Baltic, Tirpitz had about 50% more time for working up than PoW.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
No, the point is that Bismarck and Tirpitz had more time to work up than KGV and PoW respectively. But they might not have been able to use that time due to ice or poor weather in the Baltic.

I was quoting my copy of Conways All The World's Fighting Ships 1922-46, which has KGV's completion as 11th December 1940 and Bismarck's as 24th August 1940. Even if your figures are correct Bismarck still has a head start of one month. However, I acknowledge that icing in the Baltic and weather conditions might mean that Bismarck was inactive for some of that period.

For the record it also gives Tirpitz's completion date as 25th February 1941 and PoWs as 31st March 1941. Subject to icing and weather conditions in the Baltic, Tirpitz had about 50% more time for working up than PoW.

I still think they have to be tracking completion differently, by the time of "completion" for those numbers KGV had joined Home Fleet after her sea trials and Bismarck was three weeks short of setting out for sea trials. (The terminology is woolly about this, I'm afraid... "completed" is kind of hard to define.)

Like-with-like would be Bismarck 24 August and KGV 15 October, or Bismarck 15 September and KGV 17 October.

The cause of the confusion is simple - KGV was commissioned twice! Once at the shipyard (same time in her completion process as the time Bismarck was) and again 11 December when handed over to Home Fleet (which Bismarck never did.)
 
If by some astronomical miracle Bismarck survived the war she most like have been rewarded to Great Britain as a War Prize. Then displayed as a trophy for 10 years before being sent to the breakers so to sell the scrap to make money for the UK government.
 
If by some astronomical miracle Bismarck survived the war she most like have been rewarded to Great Britain as a War Prize. Then displayed as a trophy for 10 years before being sent to the breakers so to sell the scrap to make money for the UK government.

I not sure that she would last 10 years, look at the RN battleships post war (or the IJN ships) I would think 10 months would be to long.
 
If by some astronomical miracle Bismarck survived the war she most like have been rewarded to Great Britain as a War Prize. Then displayed as a trophy for 10 years before being sent to the breakers so to sell the scrap to make money for the UK government.

She'd more likely end up as a guinea pig for Operation Crossroads.
 
Top