King George V and Rodney vs. Bismarck and Prinz Eugen

Several posters have made an issue of the blast damage that the Rodney suffered. One of the prime reasons for this damage was the short ranges at the end of the battle. The Rodney was engaging the Bismark at ranges under 4000 yards. At this range, the elevation of the guns would be less than 3 degrees. The gun barrel was essentially parallel to the deck with the muzzle only a few feet above the deck, especially for turrets "A" and "X".

The close proximity of the muzzle to the deck would cause overpressures greatly exceeding any design specification. The decks, and any structures or fittings adjacent or below would naturally be damaged.

All battleship designs are compromises, and no designer in the early 1920's, when the Rodney was planned, would ever imagine, or design for, a battleship engagement at these ridiculously close ranges.
 
Except that Nelrods had problems with blast damage in other situations. The blast damage in the shelling of the Bismarck was just especially severe. Also, some of this blast damage was presumably inflicted at longer range. While other battleships did suffer from blast damage in close range I can't think of any as severe. For example, the South Dakota suffered blast damage, which destroyed its catapult and spotting plane, during the Battle Guadalcanal. This was caused by firing directly over the stern during the heated night engagement. Notably and in contrast, the USS Washington fired at close range and low elevation (probably about 4 degrees) in the final stages of the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal but managed to avoid suffering the sort of severe blast damage the Rodney suffered.

Presumably, too, given that the Bismark was moving at 7 knots or so at most, the Rodney should have had the speed to manuever to position the guns in the safest possible manner. This should have been easier after the Bismarck stopped firing and the Rodney then closed. The Rodney's poor maneuverability may have prevented this being done.

Of course, blast damage issues were just one of many problems with the flawed NelRods, the sum of which lead Worth and other experts to label the Nelrods as an unsuccessful design.
Several posters have made an issue of the blast damage that the Rodney suffered. One of the prime reasons for this damage was the short ranges at the end of the battle. The Rodney was engaging the Bismark at ranges under 4000 yards. At this range, the elevation of the guns would be less than 3 degrees. The gun barrel was essentially parallel to the deck with the muzzle only a few feet above the deck, especially for turrets "A" and "X".

The close proximity of the muzzle to the deck would cause overpressures greatly exceeding any design specification. The decks, and any structures or fittings adjacent or below would naturally be damaged.

All battleship designs are compromises, and no designer in the early 1920's, when the Rodney was planned, would ever imagine, or design for, a battleship engagement at these ridiculously close ranges.
 
Last edited:
If Rodney was as bad as you say how on earth did she manage to hit Bismark so hard at such ranges.

Blast damage well everyone knows the Nelrods were built too light to get under the Washington limit plus the effect of 3 closely grouped mounts magnified the damage. Big deal she sank a big modern battleship a few months in dry dock getting new light bulbs fitted is worth the effort (sarcasm for effect)

Dispersion only caused problems if all 3 guns in a mount were fired at once something which didnt happen very often.

Mount problems yes you keep going on about how bad it was in the early 1930s

Lightweight shells they still weighed a ton :eek: yes they should have been heavier and a heavier shell was designed just the Royal Navy didnt have the money and had other things on its mind at the time and never got round to it.

Manouvering problems yes they had manouvering problems at low speeds such as entering harbour the rest of the time big deal theres lots of elbow room in the Atlantic.

For an old odd ship desperately in need of a refit she didnt do so bad did she. Not my favourite battle wagons I have always thought they would have looked okay when they finished building them.

The Bismark brigade always seem to forget there vunderschiffe was sunk by the cumulative effects of 1 ancient battlecruiser which desperately needed modernisation and had a glass chin, 1 brand new battleship which should still have been in the fitting out basin, 1 old battleship in need of a refit, 1 new battleship which had main armament problems and a Biplane.
 
Haven't you read the linked materials I posted and the other facts posted about the Rodney? If you are interested in learning something you might try this. These, along with the earlier the issues you raise.

The simple answer is that Rodney was able to hit the Bismarck because Bismarck was moving at 7 knots, the Bismarck could not maneuver, and the Rodney was firing at a range of less than 4000 yards for much of the battle. The RN gunnery apparently was not good. Tovey has been reported to have complained he would have a better chance hitting the Bismarck by throwing his binoculars than he would with the guns of KG V. From what I can I find, almost 2900 shells (2876 shells of all calibers by one count) were fired at the Bismarck by the KG V, the Rodney and the 2 cruisers, with around 300 to 400 shell estimated to have hit. Understandably, this is not considered exemplary gunnery.

Anyway, theNelRod guns had a dispersion problem even when the adjacent guns were not fired simultaneously because the guns wore so fast and used mismatched liners. The guns were no real improvement over the older 15" in range and were worse in accuracy per Worth. This would go to explaining the shooting at the Bismark.

As to the weight savings being a contributing factor to blast damage, this is a bit of a red herring. Consider this: only one capital ship, the Hood, had a greater displacement than the NelRods in the 1920s. The NelRods displaced more the Musashi and Nagoto in their original trim (eta: according to some sources--there seems to be a difference among sources as to this) and more than the Colorados. This suggests that blast damage problem was more than a cause due to weight savings--it suggests that it was due to a mediocre design of ship and weapon. For whatever the reason the NelRods suffered from blast damage that does not lessen the fact that blast damage was a problem.

Again, experts such as Worth describe the ship as less than successful. I realize that such a conclusion is unappealing to the fans of the Royal Navy, but that does not make the conclusion incorrect. The facts support it. I suggest rather than arguing with me using emotional statements, you use facts to rebut the conclusions I am reporting. Facts supporting your claims are far more impressive than illogical appeals to emotion.

I also must note, despite your attempt to label me as such, I am not a fan of the Bismarck. I noted earlier in this discussion that the Bismarck was also consider a poor design by such experts as Preston and Worth. To reiterate what I had he armor scheme was bad, the engines temperamental, the guns indifferent, and the platform unsteady.

Really, as Worth notes in Fleets of WW II, the real issue is that the Royal Navy did not design and build a truly successful capital ship after the superb Queen Elizabeths in World War. The Nelsons and KG Vs both had major issues.

There are numerous reasons for the RN's decline in capital ship design. These included such reasons as economics (the UK was broke after WW I), institutional arrogance (the RN thought they were better at designing warships than everyone else and did not realize the advances others made according to sources such as The Royal Navy and Nazi Germany, 1933-1939: a study in appeasement and the origins of the Second World War), and politics (pick your political reason). As a result, the US and the Japan surpassed the UK.

If Rodney was as bad as you say how on earth did she manage to hit Bismark so hard at such ranges.

Blast damage well everyone knows the Nelrods were built too light to get under the Washington limit plus the effect of 3 closely grouped mounts magnified the damage. Big deal she sank a big modern battleship a few months in dry dock getting new light bulbs fitted is worth the effort (sarcasm for effect)

Dispersion only caused problems if all 3 guns in a mount were fired at once something which didnt happen very often.

Mount problems yes you keep going on about how bad it was in the early 1930s

Lightweight shells they still weighed a ton :eek: yes they should have been heavier and a heavier shell was designed just the Royal Navy didnt have the money and had other things on its mind at the time and never got round to it.

Manouvering problems yes they had manouvering problems at low speeds such as entering harbour the rest of the time big deal theres lots of elbow room in the Atlantic.

For an old odd ship desperately in need of a refit she didnt do so bad did she. Not my favourite battle wagons I have always thought they would have looked okay when they finished building them.

The Bismark brigade always seem to forget there vunderschiffe was sunk by the cumulative effects of 1 ancient battlecruiser which desperately needed modernisation and had a glass chin, 1 brand new battleship which should still have been in the fitting out basin, 1 old battleship in need of a refit, 1 new battleship which had main armament problems and a Biplane.
 
Last edited:
I think you need to calm down a bit I never said you were a Bismark fanboi, read my post before you start slagging me off. Equally I am not a Royal Navy fanboi I might live in Britain but I am not British and have no particular interest in either bigging up or doing down any particular nation.

If your going to be rude and patronising I will exit this thread pursued by a bear.

Happy Christmas everybody.:)
 
Well, that is one way to respond to a post with facts and citations.

Just to be clear, I read your statements. Let me respond to this most recent post, which I have also read and which does not appear to address the issue

As to my conclusion that you were labeling me, I reached it because your post apparently was made in response my posts. Consequently, the implication in your last paragraph is that you mean to paint as a member of "Bismarck brigade" when you wrote:
The Bismark brigade always seem to forget there vunderschiffe was sunk by the cumulative effects of 1 ancient battlecruiser which desperately needed modernisation and had a glass chin, 1 brand new battleship which should still have been in the fitting out basin, 1 old battleship in need of a refit, 1 new battleship which had main armament problems and a Biplane.
Of course, this paragraph in its attempt at sarcasm is not only incorrect in implying I am a fan of the Bismarck but also factually incorrect on another level as it fails to mention the cruisers, aircraft carries, destroyers, and searchplanes. Logically, it also appears to be incorrect by being a strawman argument. It heither addresses the issues I had raised about the shortcoming of the NelRods nor does it really adddress the original post. Rather, it makes another statement tangential to the questions I raised and raised in the original post, offering nothing to advance the discussion.

I am sorry you feel that my response that raised facts about the thread and facts about the NelRods that undermine your assertions and with which disagree you make you feel I am rude and patronizing. I guess we both will have to live with that.

I probably should not have pointed out that your post, which asked several issues previously addressed, indicated to me that you had not read the thread or my citations. As your post appeared to me be an undocumented defense of the Rodney that did not address the issues raised in prior posts in the threads, I think you can understand how this lead me to conclude, apparently mistakenly, your post was suggestive of one by a RN apologist or fanboy. Forgive me for reaching such a conclusion based on your post and the facts before me. Should I again run into similar situation, I will not endeavor not to point out such a conclusion.

Of course, this still does little to disprove Worth's conclusions that the Nelsons were not a successful design and the fact that the gunnery by the Rodney an the gunnery in the final engagement with the Bismack was rather poor. Nor does it change the fact that I feel the Bismarck was a deeply flawed design.

Have happy holiday.

I think you need to calm down a bit I never said you were a Bismark fanboi, read my post before you start slagging me off. Equally I am not a Royal Navy fanboi I might live in Britain but I am not British and have no particular interest in either bigging up or doing down any particular nation.

If your going to be rude and patronising I will exit this thread pursued by a bear.

Happy Christmas everybody.:)
 
Wow even more patronising than the previous post keep it up my good man :D

posted from my poserphone in the pub having a good time. I think you need to climb down off your soapbox and come down the alehouse I will buy you a pint of good cheer.

Ho Ho Ho
 
Top