Doubts about the anti-aircraft guns in Bismarck battleship

[redcoat]

It should be noted that in a recent TV documentry one of the Swordfish pilots stated that the Bismarck also fired her main 38 cm guns during the attack, hitting the water in front of the aircraft in the hope of spashing the aircraft in order to either cause them to crash or break off the attack.

[Paul_G_Baker]

IIRC the "Splash Barrage" was a standard tactic against torpedo-bomber attack.

[ChristopherPerrien]

It should be noted that in a recent TV documentry one of the Swordfish pilots stated that the Bismarck also fired her main 38 cm guns during the attack, hitting the water in front of the aircraft in the hope of spashing the aircraft in order to either cause them to crash or break off the attack.

Find some real sources and post. Also you could research, "Is this tactic mentioned as a way to avoid torpedo attacks in any Kriegsmarine doctrine/orders of WWII for the Bismarck?"

[Takao]

Is Burkard Freiherr von Müllenheim-Rechberg a real source? In his book, "Battleship Bismarck: A Survivor's Story" he tells of the main armament being used against both the Victorious & Ark Royal Swordfish attacks. However, other sources dispute that the main armament was used against Ark Royal's Swordfish, just the Victorious's Swordfish attack on May 24th.

The "splash barrage"(going back to the early '20's) was usually reserved for the fast-firing, faster-elevating secondary batteries, and not the main batteries of a battleship. However, as they say "desperate times call for desperate measures." Still, the chances of the main batteries actually splashing an attacking bomber with this tactic were miniscule(AFAIK, it was never successful, especially against the faster more modern aircraft later in the war), but it was better than doing nothing. More for the moral of the crew than any practical defense.

[Janef]

Both Bismarck and Tirpitz was issued with a number of time-fuse Z.Z.S/60 n.A. allowing them to use of the 38 cm Sprenggranate L/4,6 Kz as a barrage against incoming aircraft. The fuse time was set manually before ramming the shot (the "haube" was not used), and then the fore- and maincharge had to be loaded before the barrel was elevated to the correct elevation and the gun fired. Tirpitz used this feature against the incoming bombers when it was attacked and lost in 1944.

JEF

[vladalex]

... but was extremly inefficient
...

[Von Schadewald]

It is generally held that even a Force Z consisting of two 1959-style HMS Vanguard-type battleships with a total between them of 142 Bofors, 32 automatic 5.25" and all the latest radars, would also have succumbed to a 1941-style Japanese air attack ie gun-armed battleships without air cover will always lose to a dedicated air attack.

[mescal]

Do you have a source for the "generally held", because I've serious doubts of the efficiency of the 1941 Nells & Bettys against even a 1945 state of the art AAA.

[LWD]

It is generally held that even a Force Z consisting of two 1959-style HMS Vanguard-type battleships with a total between them of 142 Bofors, 32 automatic 5.25" and all the latest radars, would also have succumbed to a 1941-style Japanese air attack ie gun-armed battleships without air cover will always lose to a dedicated air attack.

I'd certainly be willing to debate that one. Indeed if POW hadn't started one of her shafts back up she would likely have survived as would a hardier capital ship than a BC. Certainly two US fast battleships with US DD's escorting them would have had a very good chance of surviving. If PoW's radar was fully up Force Z would have had a better chance as well.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Just a theoretical academic exercise...

The overpressure wave of expanding gas from the guns is documented to have caused damage to items on the ships decks and light structural features. Let suspose a approaching aircraft enters this 'bubble' of expanding gun gas. The aircraft is approaching at say 435 KpH the compression wave is expanding outwards at a faster rate, say 500 KpH. I've no idea what the density of the compression wave will be, 20% the density of water sounds as good as anything. So what will be the effect on the aircraft as it passes through this compression zone of air and burned propellant gasses?

[LWD]

Since the volume is going to increase as the cube of the radius of the "bubble" I would expect the densit gradiant to be bretty small in a short period of time. I wouldn't be surprised if an aircrft near the guns was seriously damaged but distance would moderate the effect pretty rapidly. A referance point might be SoDak of Gaudalcanal. One salvo managed to set one of her planes on fire and the next blew it off the ship I beleive.

[Takao]

It is generally held that even a Force Z consisting of two 1959-style HMS Vanguard-type battleships with a total between them of 142 Bofors, 32 automatic 5.25" and all the latest radars, would also have succumbed to a 1941-style Japanese air attack ie gun-armed battleships without air cover will always lose to a dedicated air attack.

I too question this statement, I'd like to know whom generally holds that belief. The British AA fire control had improved by leaps and bounds from the early HA directors and radars that the POW possessed. Barring any "lucky" stern hits, I would think that both Vanguards would survive, especially if escorted by four proper AA destroyers. Also, the HMS Vanguard was equipped with the American Mark 37 gunfire control system for the 5.25s, with VT fuzed shells becoming available in 1944. So I firmly believe that two British Vanguards will be well equipped to fight off an attack similar to that used against Force Z.

However, the Americans sent roughly four to five times the number of aircraft that attacked Force Z(more even than the Japanese used at Pearl Harbor) to sink the Yamato. While I see the two Vanguards surviving an attack similar to that used against Force Z, I don't see them surviving an attack similar to that flown against the Musashi or Yamato.

[Terry Duncan]

It is generally held that even a Force Z consisting of two 1959-style HMS Vanguard-type battleships with a total between them of 142 Bofors, 32 automatic 5.25" and all the latest radars, would also have succumbed to a 1941-style Japanese air attack ie gun-armed battleships without air cover will always lose to a dedicated air attack.

I would echo the thoughts of others here in asking who actually holds this view? Generally held by yourself does not count, so where has such a conclusion been reached?

I am perfectly happy to state here and now that such a conclusion is rubbish and ill-thought out. As it was Prince of Wales was very unlucky but still remained afloat for some time having done herself more damage that the torpedoes, and Repulse did very well avoiding hits for some time. If they had these far better AA suits, and more importantly the much improved damage resistance of the Vanguard towards underwater damage, the likelyhood is that the attackers would have been butchered and failed to sink either ship. It is also quite likely that such an attack on a late war US force of similar make-up would have been very roughly handled. How about giving these 'Vanguard' types a similar number of Daring destroyers as escorts to see what happens too?

[alonf]

I would imagine that this was all due to enemy ships both combat and non combat alike, getting defence/offence priority as they were expected to come into contact with shipping more so than aircraft even though aerial defence was perhaps in place to serve as a deter ant in order to chase away Hurricanes/swordfishes and not as a full fledged combat utility apparatus.