Bismarck class (1939)
 The Tirpitz
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
The Bismarck- class was a class of two German battleships during World War II . It consisted of the type ship Bismarck , named after the former German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck , and its sister ship Tirpitz , named after the former State Secretary in the Reichsmarineamt Alfred von Tirpitz .
history
Planning and construction
After the defeat in the First World War and the arms restrictions imposed in the Versailles Peace Treaty, Germany was only allowed to have an army with a staff of 100,000 and a navy of 15,000. In the late 1920s Germany was allowed to join the League of Nations and take part in disarmament conferences.
Germany demanded equality of rights, that is: all participants either upgrade to German level or Germany is granted full equality in armaments. Since France insisted on the arms restrictions of the Versailles Treaty and Germany was no longer willing to accept them after the Nazis came to power, Germany left the League of Nations at the end of 1933 and left the London Disarmament Conference of 1930. At the same time, planning for rearmament began. In April 1934 the general conditions for the reconstruction of the fleet were set. According to this shipbuilding replacement plan, a total of
- 8 armored ships (including the 3 built ships of the Deutschland type and the armored ships "D" and "E" that are in planning)
- 3 aircraft carriers
- 18 cruisers
- 48 destroyers
- 24 large submarines (800 t)
- 48 small submarines (250 t)
be built.
The entire replacement plan was to be implemented in 15 years from 1935 to 1949 with a total budget of 530 million Reichsmarks. The size of the new armored ships to be built should follow the British disarmament proposal for battleships (25,000 t) or be built in a size that would bring about a new convention and should be able to fight the Dunkerque with a chance of success.
Military demands were made on this type
- Speed 30 kn
- Driving distance 12,000 nm at 18 kn speed (Atlantic capability)
- heavy artillery 8 × 30.5 cm or 9 × 30.5 cm
- medium artillery 8-12 × 15 cm
- very strong flak armor
- high stability, at least as with "D".
- 6 planes
A year was allotted for planning the ships, including the construction of the new towers and discussion of the distribution of the main artillery. The new type was then planned to be installed from October 1, 1935, with completion in the course of 1939.
In the course of the preliminary planning it turned out that for international warship newbuildings neither a limitation to 30.5 cm in caliber nor to approx. 25,000 t in displacement could be expected, but rather 38 cm and 35,000 t were to be assumed for newbuildings. Our own preliminary planning for such a ship resulted in a type displacement of almost 43,000 t as early as March 1935, while maintaining the military requirements. According to the assessment of the naval command, savings in armor protection in particular were unacceptable.
In order to conceal general rearmament intentions, Germany signed a diplomatic note dated June 18, 1935 with the British government, known as the German-British Naval Agreement , with which the German side allowed the German side to expand its navy beyond the limits set out in the Versailles Treaty, generally up to 35%. British strength, legitimized. With regard to the deployment of a battleship, the agreement took over the stipulations according to the Washington Naval Conference of 1922 with 35,000 ts. The naval command officially followed the provisions of the agreement, but deliberately exceeded the size stipulations and disguised this with false information, especially with regard to draft and propulsion towards the contractual partner. A behavior that was also practiced by other sea powers at the time.
The discussion of using 4 twin towers or 3 triplet towers (in the meantime, a quadruple tower solution has also been examined for weight reasons), was decided in favor of the twin tower solution, on the one hand for technical reasons (battery division), less space required by the barbeds and because of the greater division. Differences in weight and staffing requirements appeared insignificant. For the main armament , a certain reduction in the combat value in favor of a reduced total weight was accepted by renouncing the elevation range and initial speed.
On July 1, 1936, at the Blohm & Voss shipyard in Hamburg, the keel of the Bismarck, designated in the budget as "Battleship F", was stretched. In November 1936, work began on her sister ship Tirpitz (“Battleship G”) at the Wilhelmshaven naval shipyard . Both ships were built according to the same design.
From September 1939, when war broke out with Great Britain, the construction of the Bismarck and Tirpitz took place under great time pressure, hampered by the severe winter in the spring of 1940. The ships could therefore only be considered operational in the spring of 1941.
There were minor structural differences between the Bismarck and Tirpitz rivers. The most noticeable of these was the superstructure between the two rear towers of the middle artillery, which was pulled forward to the edge of the upper deck at Tirpitz . Therefore, unlike on the Bismarck , the main cranes of the Tirpitz were not set up on the upper deck, but on the deck above. Behind this lead, in autumn 1941 after the relocation to Norway, the torpedo quadruplets that were still there from the destroyers sunk during the "Weser Exercise" operation in 1940 were installed as additional armament; an armament that was not available on the Bismarck . The additional weight increased the displacement of the Tirpitz and her draft , so that she was almost 1,000 t heavier than her sister ship. This makes the Tirpitz the largest German warship ever completed.
After the construction work on the sister ship Bismarck began , changes were made that could be incorporated into the construction of the Tirpitz, which was started later . These improvements concerned bunker cells in the ship's hull, which were divided differently, and some armor details.
At the Tirpitz , the two aft SL-8 anti-aircraft control stations, which were located behind the main mast, were also protected from splinters by spherical hoods. On the Bismarck , the missing SL-8 anti-aircraft control stations were to be installed in one of the occupied French Atlantic ports after the completion of the "Rhine exercise" operation, which was no longer the case due to the total loss of the Bismarck .
Calls
The Bismarck ran out on May 18, 1941 on her first and last patrol, the " Operation Rhine Exercise ". After the sinking of the British battle cruiser Hood in the Denmark Strait between Iceland and Greenland , British pursuit continued towards Brest (France). After a heavy battle, the Bismarck sank in the Atlantic on May 27, 1941.
The Tirpitz undertook several missions against the British. One of these companies with the code name "Rösselsprung" against the Northern Sea Convoy PQ 17 is the classic example of the so-called " fleet-in-being " role of the Tirpitz : Their mere presence forced the British to protect their shipping in this sea area with heavy units let go, and their departure - without having direct contact with the enemy - influenced the actions of the enemy. As a result of these operations , the Tirpitz was indirectly much more successful than her sister ship Bismarck in terms of fulfilling her primary mission, damaging the Allied supply lines .
Evaluation of the Bismarck class
The two ships of the class are considered in the specialist literature to be a qualitative high point in German and international capital shipbuilding. Breyer speaks of both units as "unusually stable and [...] among the best [among] the [were] ever built." They were also superior to any comparable foreign type. Breyer and Koop also point out the stability, which was "the same as that of the capital ships of the Imperial Navy that became famous [... ]" and probably even exceeded it. Gröner describes Bismarck and Tirpitz as “excellently indifferent seagoing vessels with calm, shallow pitching and slight rolling movements ” and certifies them “even in very heavy seas [great] course stability.” Their maneuverability was fundamentally “excellent”, but it was at slow speeds decreased to a critical extent.
On the other hand, the British naval historian Antony Preston came to a contrary assessment. In his book The World's Worst Warships he devoted a separate chapter to the Bismarck class and asked in particular why a supposedly modern battleship was no longer able to return fire within 20 minutes. Preston notes several design flaws below:
- The stern of the ships had been built too weakly, and even if the steering system of the Bismarck had remained intact after the torpedo hit, the ship would have been difficult to maneuver with a damaged stern.
- Also unusual was the fact that the horizontal armored decks were much lower than on contemporary ships of the Royal Navy and the US Navy, as a result of which some important systems were located outside of armored protection.
- Finally, the secondary artillery was also problematic: the 15 cm guns were not intended for fighting air targets, which is why the 10.5 cm battery was necessary especially for this purpose. In addition to the additional weight of these guns, Preston also questioned the quality of the fire control, whereby the fact that none of the Swordfish torpedo bombers could be shot down during the attacks on the Bismarck was taken as an indication.
Finally, Preston comments that the quality of the Bismarck was overemphasized in Great Britain at the time in order to be able to plausibly explain the loss of the Hood (to which Preston also devoted a chapter in his book).
technology
Weights (construction)
| designation | Weight [t] |
|---|---|
| Hull | 11,691.0 |
| Armor (without rotating armor) | 17,540.0 |
| Main machines | 2,800.0 |
| Auxiliary machines | 1,428.0 |
| Artillery armament of it. Rotating tank (1,590 t) |
5,973.0 |
| Aircraft facilities | 83.0 |
| Barrages | 8.0 |
| General equipment, etc. | 369.4 |
| Nautical instruments | 8.6 |
| Rigging | 30.0 |
| Empty ship | 39,931.2 |
| Artillery ammunition | 1,510.4 |
| Consumables | 155.4 |
| Barrage ammunition | 2.5 |
| Crew m. effects | 243.6 |
| Provisions | 194.2 |
| Drinking water | 139.2 |
| Type displacement | 42,343.5 |
| Feed water (battle cells) | 187.5 |
| Heating oil | 3,226.0 |
| Fuel oil | 96.5 |
| Lubricating oil | 80.0 |
| Aircraft equipment (1st filling) | 17.0 |
| Construction displacement | 45,950.5 |
| Feed water | 187.5 |
| Heating oil | 3,226.0 |
| Fuel oil | 96.5 |
| Lubricating oil | 80.0 |
| Aircraft resources (reserve) | 17.0 |
| Fresh water reserve | 389.2 |
| Ship fully equipped | 49,946.7 |
| Special oil load | 1,009.0 |
| Ship with special cargo | 50,955.7 |
This list of weights reflects the planning status from approx. 1936/1937. In the context of the construction and the preparation of the war-readiness of the ships, there were additional weights, which are mainly divided into the following areas.
- Main engines approx. 650 t
- Artillery armament approx. 450 t (remote controls of the SA, radio measuring devices)
- Torpedo armament ( Tirpitz only ) approx. 80 t
- Increase in special oil load to 2,000 t
The weight-increasing measures led to an increase in the maximum displacement to around 53,500 t with a (theoretical) heating oil storage of up to 8,400 t. According to the war diaries, however, this amount was not exhausted. In the further life cycle of the Tirpitz , there were further increases in weight due to the considerable increase in flak armament and the corresponding increase in ammunition doping (for example 20 mm flak: 144,000 rounds in 1944 compared to 44,000 rounds of the war target in 1941).
Hull
From a shipbuilding point of view, the Bismarck class was a completely welded smooth decker in a combined longitudinal and transverse frame construction of 250.5 m in length (in the CWL 240.5 m), a maximum width of 36 m and a height above the upper edge of the keel in the main rib increasing from 15 m to 17 .91 m at the stem or 16.40 m at the stern with a double floor up to 1.70 m high. The main construction material was high-strength unalloyed engineering steel St 52 KM. The hull was divided into 22 watertight compartments with a maximum length of 15 m (I-XXII). For a further watertight subdivision, the 9 longitudinal frames were designed as lengthways bulkheads and the individual decks were made watertight.
The main drainage device, the side drainage device, the auxiliary drainage device, the drainage device and the pressurized water drainage device were available for removing water from the ship.
The main draining devices were 18 electrically operated leak pumps with a delivery rate of 15 m³ / min each at a delivery height of 12 m. Total output thus approx. 16,200 m³ / h. These were also used to flood the ammunition chambers. The main bilge systems were relocated according to the group bilge system, that is, each pump sucked from the rooms of its department and the neighboring departments. In addition, almost all pumps could suck from the side bilge of the department concerned.
The side drainage device served to drain the naturally flooded cells of the outer wall passage from one side of the board to the other. In the event of damage to the outer skin, the 10 side bilge pipes compensated for the water level on both sides of the ship and were intended to prevent or reduce the list due to one-sided weight changes.
The auxiliary bilge system, consisting of the auxiliary bilge line, which can be subdivided several times by means of a gate valve, and 4 centrifugal pumps with a capacity of 50 m³ / h each, was used to drain the leakage water that had accumulated in the bilges in departments I to XXI.
Rooms without a connection to the auxiliary bilge system or without drainage facilities could be drained via the pressurized water bilge system, for which four hydraulic or two electric bilge pumps - each portable - with a delivery rate of around 0.5–1.5 m³ / min each were provided.
Main machines
The drive of the battleships of the Bismarck class consisted of three independent turbine systems, each with its own oil supply, steam generation, sea water cooling, steam turbines, propeller shafts and screws. In the event of an accident, the corresponding components of the other power plants could be supplied as required via reserve and emergency circuits.
The performance data of the engine systems on both ships differed slightly. Additional marching turbines were used at Tirpitz, which led to fuel savings (approx. 10%) in the partial load range up to 18 kn.
The steam required to drive the main turbines and auxiliary machines was generated in 12 high-pressure hot steam boilers of the same size, which were housed in 6 boiler rooms.
Performance data of the Marine Wagner boiler (Tirpitz)
- Generated amount of steam normal: 35 t / h
- Maximum amount of steam generated: 50 t / h
- Boiler working pressure: 58 at (5.7 MPa)
- Steam temperature: 450 ° C
- Test pressure: 100 at (9.8 MPa)
- Fuel consumption at extreme load: 3,950 kg / h
- Boiler efficiency: 80%
- Flue gas loss: 17%
- Line losses / radiation losses: 3%
A heating oil with a specific weight of 0.9594 kg / dm³ and a calorific value of 8,800 kcal / l (36.8 MJ / dm³) was used.
Speed / power / steam consumption - characteristics of the entire turbine system (Tirpitz)
| Shaft power PS ( MW ) |
at speed [1 / min] |
Total steam consumption [t / h] |
|---|---|---|
| 3 × 1,880 (1.4) | 95 | 30th |
| 3 × 4,660 (3.4) | 122 | 57 |
| 3 × 10,050 (7.4) | 160 | 108 |
| 3 × 16,000 (11.8) | 190 | 165 |
| 3 × 25,800 (19) | 220 | 255 |
| 3 × 32,000 (23.5) | 235 | 321 |
| 3 × 42,100 (31) | 253 | 417 |
| 3 × 48,000 (35.3) | 270 | 492 |
| R * 3 × 16,000 (11.8) | 190 | 375 |
Armor
introduction
Total armor mass 18,990 t, including rotating armor 1,590 t. Regarding the masses, there are also different armor masses in the range of around 200 t in the original documents. This is due, on the one hand, to the calculated construction values at different times due to changes in the construction and to the actually weighed tank weights.
Armor materials
Hardened armor plates KC nA (armor steel hardened on one side according to the Krupp type, cemented, new type),
Unhardened (homogeneous) armor sheets and plates -Wh and Ww (Wotan hard or Wotan soft)
| Material type | Yield point [kp / mm² (N / mm²)] |
Breaking limit [kp / mm² (N / mm²)] |
Elongation at break L = 5d [%] |
Constriction [%] |
Notch toughness [%] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KC nA | at least 55 (539) | 70-80 (686-785) | at least 20 | at least 20 | |
| Wh | at least 56 (549) | 80-90 (785-883) | at least 18 | at least 22 | at least 60 |
| Ww | at least 48 (471) | 65-75 (637-735) | at least 22 | at least 28 | at least 65 |
Tank arrangement
General installation of the heavy armored armor in the area of the citadel: Vertical outer belt, at the height of the towers of the heavy artillery, inclined up to 15 ° according to the hull of the ship, up to 10 cm above the battery deck. With an operational displacement of around 50,000 t, it was around 2.2 m below and 2.8 m above the waterline. The hull of the fore and aft hull was designed as light armor in the waterline, shatterproof. Only the stern up to the frame 10.5 m was unarmoured.
Due to the war experience in World War I and as a result of the development of weapons, armor protection had primarily been improved in the following ways:
- against hits that can hit the armored deck at great distances and correspondingly large angles of fall
- against bombing raids.
These two reasons made it necessary to use a considerably larger part of the armor's weight on the horizontal protection and the barbeds , since the total proportion of the total armor could not be significantly increased. The barbeds, as far as they were not covered by closed casemates, etc., had to go through to the main armored deck in full strength, since with the larger angles of fall, these parts were no longer partly behind the protection of the side armor as they used to be. With this new distribution of the tank, it was no longer possible to make the belt armor so strong that it could not be penetrated "safely" by projectiles. It must therefore be aimed, as far as possible, to integrate the horizontal armor into the overall system of side protection. In this way it can be achieved that the destructive effect is kept away from the vital parts of the ship, at least at the main combat distances. As before, the strongest armored deck is to be laid as deep as possible and pulled down to the lower edge of the belt with as flat an embankment as possible, but, unlike in the past, now to be made so strong that even projectiles that penetrate the belt with a considerable excess and hit the embankment will do so can not penetrate, but are either broken or rejected.
Despite the reinforcement, the armored deck itself cannot be made so strong that projectiles that hit the armored deck directly at the greatest distances are rejected, since the armored deck is so extensively reinforced that it also protects against the heaviest tank explosive shells at greater angles Weight reasons for larger parts of the ship is impossible. It will only be possible to push out the distance at which the horizontal protection can still penetrate upwards.
Just as full stability against the heaviest projectiles is possible in these higher distance ranges, unconditional protection against the threat from the air can be achieved, because the heaviest tank bombs that can be built and used can also protect the currently strongest armored deck punch through. The prerequisite for this is a very high drop height or rocket drive. Due to this requirement, the use of these bombs is severely restricted because of the low impact ability from great heights and because of the low proportion of explosives in the tank bombs (≈ 6% explosive charge). It is therefore considered most expedient to armor the top deck in such a way (≈ 50 mm) that normal thin-walled explosive bombs (with 50% explosive charge) break and only thick-walled explosive bombs with considerably less explosive charge (≈ 25%) can penetrate this deck . These half-armored bombs, which correspond to the principle of our high-explosive shells with bottom fuze, can then detonate inside the ship, but only above the armored deck. Only in a few cases, such as hits next to chimney shafts, can such bombs destroy vital parts of the ship in heavy ships.
In order to limit the explosive and fragmentation effects of such bombs and projectiles detonating above the armored deck, longitudinal and transverse bulkheads made of 30 mm Wh material are to be installed in the area of the central nave of the newest heavy ships. Furthermore, the chimney shafts above the upper deck are to be provided with a splinter protection of 30 mm Wh material.
As mentioned above, the armored deck itself can only be penetrated by the actual tank bombs with an explosive charge of ≈ 6%. The effect will therefore correspond to the effect of a high-explosive grenade with a bottom fuse of the same weight.
Making the top suitable deck strong is also beneficial for reasons of shipbuilding strength in order to achieve good longitudinal strength; it also protects the rooms below against the effects of explosive bombs without delay.
With regard to the security of the horizontal protection against penetration, it must be noted that the penetration expectations can only provide a guide at the relatively small impact angles. Small differences in material often result in great effects. For example, differences in cap shape and hardness alone have the effect that in one case the bullet penetrates the plate, in the other case under otherwise the same conditions, i.e. at the same impact speed, only with a different cap, the bullet is rejected. Also, the values, namely both the angle and the impact speed, at which a projectile is rejected or the plate just struck, are often so close together that they cannot be separated exactly. Furthermore, at the already relatively small angles, the difficult to detect deflection (straightening up) naturally has an even stronger effect than at larger angles of incidence. This is particularly important when the breakdown occurs through several plates. Here it can even happen that the projectile is inclined to the direction of flight, so that it has to penetrate the plate with a much larger cross-section.
Armor strengths
According to general building regulations, the torpedo bulkheads and the armored deck including the embankments were made by riveting. Due to advances in welding technology, the upper deck could be completely welded instead of the riveting that was also provided. Calculated savings for unnecessary lashing of armor plates were used in the area of the heavy artillery towers for local reinforcement of the embankments (10 mm) and the armored deck (5 mm). At the Bismarck, these changes came partly too late due to the more advanced construction. As a result, the Tirpitz had an increased tank weight based on the weighed material.
citadel
from frame 32 m to 202.7 m
- Main belt armor: 320 mm tapering to 170 mm (for the lower 1.35 m) KC nA approx. 5 m high
- Citadel armor: 145 mm KC nA, at the height of the front tower from frame 186.7–202.7 m 120 mm Wh approx. 2.30 m height above the main belt
- Upper deck: 50 mm
- Reinforcement in the area of tower groups II and III of the middle artillery frame 91.3–102.3 and frame 126.2–137.1 by doubling plate on 80 mm Wh
- Armored deck:
- over the engine rooms: 80 mm (slopes 110 mm) Wh
- above the ammunition chambers: 100 mm (slopes 120 mm) Wh
- Longitudinal torpedo bulkhead from ship's bottom to 1400 mm above armored deck: 45 mm Ww
- Splinter bulkhead (extension of the torpedo longitudinal bulkhead) 30 mm Wh
- Armored transverse bulkheads: frame 32 m or 202.7 m above armored deck 145 mm below 220 mm
Foredeck
- Outer skin above waterline protection frame 202.7 m to frame 224 m: 35 mm Wh
- Outer skin waterline protection approx. 3.50 m height frame 202.7 m to stem: 60 mm Wh
- Upper deck frame 202.7 m to frame 224 m: 50 mm Wh
- Upper platform deck frame 202.7 m to frame 233 m: 20 mm Wh
- Armored transverse bulkhead frame 224 m: 20 mm Wh
Stern / rudder
from frame 10.5 m to 32 m
- Outer skin above water line protection: 35 mm Wh
- Outer skin waterline protection approx. 3.50 m height: 80 mm Wh
- Upper deck: 50 mm Wh
- Armored deck or embankment of the steering gear system: 110 mm Wh
- Armored transverse bulkhead frame 10.5 m below armored deck 150 mm, above 45 mm Wh
artillery
- Heavy artillery barbeds: 340 mm KC nA to about 20 cm below the upper deck, including 220 mm to the armored deck
- Heavy artillery towers
- Front wall: 360 mm KC nA
- Side walls: 220 mm KC nA
- front sloping ceiling: 180 mm KC nA
- horizontal ceiling: 130 mm Wh
- rear sloping ceiling: 180 mm Wh
- lateral sloping ceilings: 150 mm Wh
- lateral horizontal plates: 150 mm Wh
- rear tower floor: 50 mm
- medium artillery: 40-100 mm Wh
Others
- Front command tower: sides 350 mm KC nA, ceiling 200 mm Wh
- Rear command tower: sides 150 mm Wh, ceiling 50 mm Wh
- Artillery control station: sides 60 mm Wh, ceiling 20 mm Wh
- Shaft for command and signaling systems below the front command tower 220 mm
- In addition, parts of the superstructure that were important for the ship's command were provided with 20 mm splinter protection Wh
immunity
The basic military requirements for armor protection on battleships F and G were immunity to 38 cm projectiles at combat distances between 20,000 meters and 30,000 meters. The following general protective effect was expected against British 38.1 cm projectiles weighing 875 kg and an initial speed of 745 m / s:
- The lower breakdown zone
- Side protection: safe from 21.0 km (for more detailed information, see armor arrangement)
- Barbetten: safe from 25.0 km
- The upper breakdown zone
- Horizontal protection over engine rooms: safe up to 19.4 km
- Horizontal protection over ammunition chambers: safe up to 25.0 km.
According to British shooting records, the following armor protection against British battleship calibers was expected:
- 35.6 cm
- Side protection: safe from 14.6 km
- Horizontal protection over engine rooms: safe up to 19.1 km
- Horizontal protection via ammunition chambers: safe up to 25.5 km
- 38.1 cm
- Side protection: safe from 15.3 km
- Horizontal protection over engine rooms: safe up to 18.3 km
- Horizontal protection via ammunition chambers: safe up to 15 miles
- 16 inches
- Side protection: safe from 15.3 km
- Horizontal protection over engine rooms: safe up to 19.1 km
- Horizontal protection via ammunition chambers: safe up to 25.5 km
Based on these expectations, from 1942 onwards, distances of more than 20 km were considered to be the optimal combat distance against the Tirpitz .
Artillery devices
conditions
After the First World War , the further development of the sea target and anti-aircraft cartillery was promoted under the following premises:
- Getting the first hit on the opponent as quickly as possible, if possible with the first volley, while at the same time locating the opponent faster and more safely
- Independence from rolling and stomping influences in the Atlantic even in bad weather
- Independence from maneuvers by your own ship
- 100% technical reserve of fire routes, straightening options and ammunition feed.
Sea target artillery
Heavy Artillery (SA)
two 38 cm SK C / 34 in four balanced two-axis stabilized rotating towers with attached rotating shafts (Drh. L. C / 34e)
- Directional range (height): −5 ° to 30 °
- Tower weight: 1,048 t or 1,056 t
- maximum swivel speed: 5 degrees / s
- maximum elevation speed: 6 degrees / s
- Tube weight (with cap): 111,000 kg
- Tube length (to the bottom of the lock): 19,630 mm = L / 52
- Length of drawn part: 15,062 mm
- Muzzle velocity: 820 m / s
- maximum range:
- at 30 ° elevation: 35,600 m
- Rate of fire: ~ 2 rounds / minute
- Firing sequence in loading position 2.5 °: 24 s
- Shot rate at 15 ° elevation: 30 s
- Firing rate at 30 ° barrel elevation: 35 s
- Lifespan: 242 rounds per tube
- Propellant charge divided into two parts consisting of
pre-cartridge: 38 cm pre-cartridge 34 - 38 cm pre-cartridge 34 with 104.0 kg propellant powder RP 38
main cartridge: 38 cm case cartridge 34 - 38 cm case cartridge 34 with 108.0 kg propellant powder RP 38 - Bullet types 800 kg each
- Tank explosive grenade with bottom detonator and ballistic hood - Psgr L / 4.4 m Bdz (with hood)
- High explosive grenade with bottom detonator and ballistic hood - Spgr L / 4.6 m Bdz (with hood)
- HE grenade with head detonator and ballistic hood - Spgr L / 4.6 KZ (with hood)
- Ammunition supply:
- Construction: 864 (108 rounds per barrel; the size of the ammunition chambers allowed an ammunition target of 125 rounds)
- War quota: 1.004 (of which 353 Psgr with Bdz, 338 Spgr with Bdz, 313 Spgr KZ)
- Penetration performance (Psgr m.Bdz):
| Distance [km] |
Impact speed [m / s] |
Angle of fall [°] |
Vertical penetration (KC nA) * [mm] |
Horizontal penetration (Wh) * [mm] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 820 | 0 | 840 | 0 |
| 5 | 730 | 2.5 | 723 | 30th |
| 10 | 640 | 6th | 602 | 45 |
| 15th | 570 | 10.5 | 501 | 60 |
| 20th | 510 | 16.5 | 392 | 77 |
| 25th | 475 | 23.5 | 332 | 98 |
| 30th | 460 | 32 | 275 | 125 |
| 35 | 460 | 40 | 228 | 165 |
Middle Artillery (MA)
15 cm SK C / 28 in six biaxially stabilized twin towers (Drh. L. C / 34)
- Tower weight (with range finder): 116.25 t
- Pipe weight: 9.08 t
- Rate of fire: 6–8 rounds / min
- Lifespan: approx. 1100 shots
- Muzzle velocity: 875 meters / second
- Range
- at 35 ° (HE grenade): 22,000 m
- at 40 ° (high explosive grenade): 23,000 m
- Ammunition types 45.5 kg each
- High explosive grenade with bottom detonator and ballistic hood - Spgr L / 4.5 m Bdz (with hood)
- HE grenade with head detonator and ballistic hood - Spgr L / 4.6 KZ (with hood)
- Flare grenade - Lg. L / 4.3
- Ammunition supply:
- Construction: 1,260 (105 rounds per tube)
- War quota: 1,288 (of which 622 Spgr with Bdz, 666 Spgr KZ) plus 240 Lg. L / 4.3
Fire control
Heavy and medium artillery
10.5m stereoscopic rangefinder
FuMo 23 on Bismarck and Tirpitz until 1942
FuMo 27 from 1942 on Tirpitz
Directional and firing procedures
Heavy artillery
- Main
procedure altitude remote control, side pre-ignition - Ancillary procedures
direction indicator (RW), height indicator (HW), central firing or central ignition mechanism for rolling and stamping with a preselected level - Reserve method
height and side directly Turmabfeuerung
Middle artillery
- Main process
direction indicator (RW), height pre-ignition - Ancillary procedures
direction indicator (RW), height indicator (HW), central firing - Reserve method
height and side directly Turmabfeuerung
Anti-aircraft artillery
Heavy flak
10.5 cm SK C / 33 ( Bismarck : 4 C / 33 and 4 C / 37 double mounts; Tirpitz : 2 C / 33 and 6 C / 37 double mounts, from August 1941 8 C / 37 double mounts, the mounts were each triaxially stabilized)
- Weight with carriage: 27.055–27.805 t
- Pipe weight: 4.56 t
- Rate of fire: 15-18 rounds / minute
- Lifespan: approx. 2,950 shots
- Muzzle velocity (Spgr): 900 meters / second
- Directional range (height): −9 ° to 80 ° b
- Ballistics (HE grenade)
- longest firing range: 17,850 m
- highest shot height: 13,000 m
- largest range: 10,750 m (due to detonator running time = 28 s)
- Effective range: 2,000 m to 9,600 m (up to 25 s ignition time)
- Ammunition types each 15.1 kg
- High explosive grenade cartridge with time fuse or head fuse - Spgr Patr. 33 L / 4.4
- Light grenade cartridge - Lg Patr 33 L / 4
- Ammunition supply:
- Construction: 6,400 (400 rounds per tube)
- War quota: 6,825 Spgr Patr 33 L / 4.4 plus 337 Lg Patr 33 L / 4.3
Light flak
3.7 cm SK C / 30 (L / 83) in eight triaxially stabilized Dopp LC / 30 twin mounts
- Weight with carriage: 3.67 t
- Tube weight: 243 kg
- Muzzle velocity: 1,000 meters / second
- Directional range (height): −10 ° to 80 °
- ballistics
- longest firing range: 8,500 m
- highest shot height: 6,700 m
- maximum range: 4,700 m (due to the cutting time = 10.5 s)
- effective range: 2,400 m
- Rate of fire: 50-60 rounds / minute per tube
- Lifespan: 7,500 rounds
- Types of ammunition
- Anti-tank explosive shell cartridge with light trail and decomposer - Psgr Patr L'spur Zerl. to 0.820 kg
- HE grenade cartridge with light trail - Spgr L / 4.1 LH37 at 0.748 kg
- Incendiary HE grenade cartridge with light trail - Br Spgr L / 4.1 LH37 at 0.730 kg
- Ammunition supply:
- Construction: 32,000 (2,000 rounds per tube)
- War quota: 34,100
2 cm flak ( Bismarck : 18, Tirpitz : up to 90 tubes)
- 10 × 2 cm Flak 30 in base mount 30
- 2 × 2 cm Flakvierling 38
- Muzzle velocity: 875 meters / second
- Directional range (height): −20 ° to 90 °
- ballistics
- longest firing range: 4,600 m
- highest shot height: 3,500 m
- maximum range: 2,000 m (due to the cutting time = 5.5 s)
- effective range: 1,200 m
- Rate of fire (SL 30) (theoretical / practical): 280/120 rounds / minute
- Rate of fire (Flakvierling 38) (theoretical / practical): 1800/800 rounds / minute
- Ammunition types Total weight of cartridge: 0.305-0.333 kg, of which projectile: 0.120-0.148 kg
- Anti-tank shell with light trail and dismemberer - Pzgr Patr L'spur Z
- Anti-tank shell cartridge Lichtspur - Pzgr Patr L'spur
- Anti-tank explosive shell cartridge with light trail and decomposer - Psgr Patr L'spur Zerl
- HE grenade cartridge with light trail - Spgr Patr L'spur W
- Incendiary HE grenade cartridge with light trail - Br Spgr Patr L'spur
- Incendiary HE grenade cartridge without light trail - Br Spgr Patr o. L'strack
- Incendiary HE grenade cartridge, shortened light trail - Br Spgr Patr vk L'spur
- Ammunition supply:
- Construction: 36,000 (2,000 rounds per tube)
- War quota: 44,000
Torpedo armament
53.3 cm deck torpedo tubes (type: G7a T1) in two groups of four (only Tirpitz from autumn 1941)
- Stock: 24 torpedoes
Aircraft facilities
The ships of the Bismarck Class were with four seaplanes type Arado Ar 196 equipped for reconnaissance and aerial surveillance. You belonged to the 1st squadron of the 196 flight group. Pilots and technicians were members of the Air Force.
The Ar 196 had flip-up wings. Two machines ready to go were in the two standby hangars on the side of the chimney, while the other two could be serviced in the workshop hangar under the aft structure. With the catapults connected in opposite directions (double catapult), which were located in the middle of the ship and could be extended from 32 meters over the side wall to 48 meters, the aircraft were started. However, they had to land on the water and then they were lifted on board by one of the two 12-tonne cranes on both sides of the ship.
Dinghies
The ships of the Bismarck class had an extensive range of dinghies. This included:
| boat | Storage place |
|---|---|
| 3 admiral or commander boats ("chief boats") | On the roof of the standby hangar to starboard |
| 1 motor launch | On the roof of the standby hangar to port |
| 2 motor pinasses | |
| 4 traffic boats (short: V-boats) | On the roof of the workshop hangar in the aft superstructure |
| 2 rescue cutters for man overboard maneuvers | The cutters hung in davits , which were located on both sides between the front and the central 15 cm tower and were swung out to be ready for use at sea |
| 2 dinghies | One dinghy and one dinghy were stacked one inside the other on the two side decks between the aft 15 cm tower and the catapult. |
| 2 dinghies |
The pinasses and traffic boats as well as the barge were mainly used to transport people between the ship and a landing stage when berthed in the roadstead .
Web links
- schlachtschiff.com
- Information on the Bismarck class
- http://www.bismarck-class.dk/ (engl.)
- The Bismarck- class on Waffen-HQ
Footnotes
- ^ File shipbuilding replacement plan ship types from 1934; BA-MA-RM-20-1901; here minutes of the meeting about a lecture given to the chief of naval management on March 19, 1934 about shipbuilding replacement plan and type questions; A IV a 1196/34 Gkds.
- ^ Siegfried Breyer: Battleships and Battle Cruisers , Erlangen 1993, p. 320.
- ^ Siegfried Breyer and Gerhard Koop: Von der Emden zur Tirpitz , Bonn 1995, p. 103.
- ↑ Erich Gröner: The German Warships 1815-1945 (Volume 1), Bonn 1998, p. 58.
- ^ Antony Preston: The World's Worst Warships . Conway Maritime Press, London 2002, ISBN 0-85177-754-6 .
- ↑ a b hand file general construction data surface ships, secret commando matter
- ↑ a b c Comparison between Richelieu and Bismarck KK III A No. 587-41, G.Kdos, Berlin May 31, 1941.
- ↑ a b c d Building regulations for the hull of the battleships "F" and "G" (replacement Hanover and replacement Schleswig-Holstein)
- ↑ Bismarck dock drawing RM 25/3 - 243.
- ↑ Battleships "F" u. "G" (replacement Hanover and Ers, Schleswig Holstein), scheme for oil- and watertight walls
- ↑ War experience with the battleship type “Bismarck / Tirpitz”, gained during the restoration work of the battleship “Tirpitz” after attacks with special mines and aerial bombs , chief construction officer Krux
- ↑ M.Dv.Nr. 371 ship customers for ships of the Kriegsmarine; Issue 4 Battleship Tirpitz
- ^ Report 166 of the Lilienthal Society : The processes involved in the bombardment of armor plates , lecture stresses and properties of armor plate steels , E. Houdremont, Essen; Berlin 20./21. May 1943; secret commando operation
- ↑ a b M.Dv No. 147, General Building Regulations I, No. 27 Delivery specification for armored material
- ↑ Documents and guidelines for determining the main combat distance and the choice of projectile , booklet a, text volume, section II.B. Tank arrangement
- ↑ Documents and guidelines for determining the main combat distance and the choice of projectile , booklet a, text volume, section IV: The upper penetration zone
- ↑ a b Drawing of the tank development "Battleship F" valid for tank thicknesses, changed in the course of construction, secret matter of command
- ↑ a b Note for OB. d. M.; Oversized caliber for new warships November 6, 1942 B.Nr. 7763-42 gKdos
- ^ Breyer: Battleships and battle cruisers 1921–1997. International battleship building . P. 141.
- ↑ a b Documents and guidelines for determining the main combat distance and the choice of projectile , booklet h, Own penetration information for battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz
- ↑ CB 04039 ARMOR PROTECTION 1942, Armor efficiency diagrams of Tirpitz
- ↑ Memorandum on the result of the investigation carried out with representatives from the front into the war bellyability of the sea target and anti-aircraft cartillery on battleships and cruisers and the experience to be gained from this for new builds, B.No. Skl.Qu AI 2983/41 Gkdos.
- ↑ M.Dv. No. 233,208 Ia Preliminary description of the 38 cm rapid loading cannon C / 34 (38 cm SK C / 34)
- ↑ a b instruction boards for artillery, volume I, Seeziel, compiled by the 1st Department of Ship Artillery School in 1942
- ↑ Krupp data sheets SK 38 C34 WA52-444 and WA52-453 (e)
- ↑ a b c d e M.Dv. No. 185.2 Dimensions, weights and space requirements of ammunition and their packing containers
- ↑ a b c d e battleship "Bismarck" artillery ammunition overview from February 1, 1941, secret
- ↑ ADM 213-951 Penetration Steel AP and theory of ; 1946; London, pp. 70 ff. Interogation of Gercke, Krupp; 10.2 Armor piercing formulas for single plates
- ↑ M.Dv. No. 170.30 booklet on ammunition for the 15 cm SK C / 25 of the ship artillery
- ^ Bismarck Fire Control. Retrieved February 7, 2020 .
- ↑ Best Battleship: Fire Control. Retrieved February 7, 2020 .
- ↑ Memorandum on the result of the investigation carried out with representatives from the front into the war usefulness of the sea target and anti-aircraft cartillery on battleships and heavy cruisers, High Command of the Navy, B.No. Skl.Qu AI 2983/41 gKdos, July 18 - August 4, 1941
- ↑ a b c M.Dv. No. 700, IIc, Naval Warfare Instructions Part III, Waffentaktik, Booklet c, Coastal Air Defense, Appendix 10 Performance specifications for anti-aircraft guns
- ↑ M.Dv. No. 170.3 Merkbuch about the ammunition for the 3.7 cm SK C-30 in double LC / 30, unit LC / 34 u. Ubts LC / 30
- ↑ M.Dv. No. 170.1 Merkbuch for the ammunition of the 2 cm Flak 30 and 2 cm Flak 38
- ↑ Construction regulations for the hull of battleships "F" and "G" (replacement Hanover and replacement Schleswig-Holstein, section SI group 46 facilities for dinghies)