Did mix of 10.5 cm/65 (4.1") SK C/33 variants on Bismarck contribute to its AA ineffectiveness?

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Kriegsmarine except those dealing with the U-Boat forces.
Post Reply
Panzerspitze
Member
Posts: 280
Joined: 20 Aug 2009, 00:53

Did mix of 10.5 cm/65 (4.1") SK C/33 variants on Bismarck contribute to its AA ineffectiveness?

#1

Post by Panzerspitze » 16 Jul 2021, 09:51

When I was making the 1/720 models of Bismarck and Tirpitz as a young kid, I was puzzled by the two different types of 10,5cm gun mountings on the former, while Tirpitz had them all of the same type.

Bismarck:
Image
Image

Tirpitz:
Image

A few years ago, I read somewhere online that Bismarck's 10,5cm FlaK were a mix of two variants, which created issue for the AA fire-control onboard. Now I finally thought to post about it, but I cannot find the exact verbiage anymore. All I can find is the http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_41-65_skc33.php page that mentions that the 10,5cm mounting with the half-covered breeches was the newer C37, which were apparently mounted on the after section of the Bismarck while the older C31 was the variant mounted on the forward half. The two variants have different train/elevation/cross leveling characteristics. So the question is, did this mix of large-caliber FlaK contribute to Bismarck's ineffectiveness against the attacking Swordfish? I see there is an often-repeated claim online that the Swordfish was so slow that it caught the Bismarck's ("advanced", by comparison?) AA fire-control by surprise. I am also aware that the German 3,7cm/83 SK C/30 onboard the Bismarck was in itself a rather ineffective FlaK (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_37mm-83_skc30.php), especially after seeing footage of it in action in Die Deutsche Wochenschau aboard Vorpostenboote where gunners were feeding rounds (can't help but think: "Like carrots!") one at a time into the twin breeches, after taking delivery from ammunition personnel standing by with ammo pouches hanging on the chest (no wonder the Fleet Air Arm fighters had a field day decimating Tirpitz's AA personnel during Operation Tungsten).

User avatar
danebrog
Member
Posts: 397
Joined: 17 Nov 2008, 16:59

Re: Did mix of 10.5 cm/65 (4.1") SK C/33 variants on Bismarck contribute to its AA ineffectiveness?

#2

Post by danebrog » 29 Aug 2021, 23:49

The different armament was probably due to a lack of material as well as the great haste during the commissioning:
For the anti-aircraft guns, they took what was available, while the fire control stations were improvised in the same way:
The ones under the SL-8 hoods were special 4-meter devices (hence the hoods) and the rear ones were quasi provisionally installed 3-meter devices from army stocks (by the way, this was still the case on TP in summer 41).
The other coordination system of the C 37 gun carriage had - one may hardly believe it with the German tendency to document everything and anything extensively - been forgotten during the planning of the fire control units: As a result, the forward heavy flak on C 31 gun carriage was accurate, while the rear heavy flak on C 37 gun carriage missed the target.


Thoddy
Member
Posts: 200
Joined: 18 Jun 2017, 12:37
Location: Germany

Re: Did mix of 10.5 cm/65 (4.1") SK C/33 variants on Bismarck contribute to its AA ineffectiveness?

#3

Post by Thoddy » 04 Aug 2023, 18:47

Strictly speaking Bismarcks AA-artillery did not shot down any aircraft.

But all approaching aircrafts came under fire almost no aircraft was unharmed. Several aircrafts had to be stricken after that action. No aircraft could attack Bismarck at optimal attack conditions. So defense was more or less sufficent in repelling the attacks. But in any attack on your own you have to expect the enemy hitting you also in return... and torpedors were the worst weapon to deal with as a BB.

And we should not forget, the ship was on its maiden vojage, the commissioning was hard pressed, and AA-training could be named -Depending on your opinion-, sufficient for peace times... slightly underwhelmig for war times. And the Kriegmarine ships personnel was in its majority 1 year before WW2 almost completely civilian, wheras Great Britain had numbers of significance serving on capitalships even before the war.

The mix of different gun mounts and firecontrol equipment did not solve or improve the primary problem inexperience under war conditions.

I dont think that Bismarcks crew could use all of its equipment to maximum efficency.

The equipment not on bord was caused by contractually guaranteed deliveries towards USSR. Germany did not risk the surprise attack by failure of these deliveries.
"Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!"

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 20 Jan 2019, 11:14
Location: Australia

Re: Did mix of 10.5 cm/65 (4.1") SK C/33 variants on Bismarck contribute to its AA ineffectiveness?

#4

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 05 Aug 2023, 12:40

Germany's largest failing in naval AA was the lack of a high rate of fire 37/40mm gun for it's capital ships.

They later developed some, but by then it was too late and they only showed up on smaller vessels.

A similar problem that Japan faced.

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 20 Jan 2019, 11:14
Location: Australia

Re: Did mix of 10.5 cm/65 (4.1") SK C/33 variants on Bismarck contribute to its AA ineffectiveness?

#5

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 19 Sep 2023, 16:04

noiaten wrote:
19 Sep 2023, 09:38
The 10.5 cm/65 artillery piece, also known as the 10.5 cm leFH 18, was a widely used field howitzer during World War II by the German Army. This artillery piece was known for its versatility and effectiveness on the battlefield.
Go away, you're not even a human. I hope your owner's PC gets ransomware'd.

Post Reply

Return to “Kriegsmarine surface ships and Kriegsmarine in general”