RoG Bismarck, Pray for me!

I have never understood the fascination with ships that had such a short and unremarkable service life--IMO, like the Bismarck...the cost of the ship compared to the damage (or lack thereoff) it inflicted was ridiculous...but, good luck !!! 

I think The bismarck has alot of history behind it. at the time it was an engineering marvel. it sank the flag ship fo the royal navy in 7 minutes. it's size and fire power were something that the allied forces realized needed to be destroyed as soon as possible. I don't think that there was more effort put into sinking one ship throughout the war.  i think that is what makes it remarkable. but that's just my

enemeink wrote:

I think The bismarck has alot of history behind it. at the time it was an engineering marvel. it sank the flag ship fo the royal navy in 7 minutes. it's size and fire power were something that the allied forces realized needed to be destroyed as soon as possible. I don't think that there was more effort put into sinking one ship throughout the war.  i think that is what makes it remarkable. but that's just my

 

agreed although it was a very lucky hit that killed hood it was still an immense piece of engineering

enemeink wrote:

I think The bismarck has alot of history behind it. at the time it was an engineering marvel. it sank the flag ship fo the royal navy in 7 minutes. it's size and fire power were something that the allied forces realized needed to be destroyed as soon as possible. I don't think that there was more effort put into sinking one ship throughout the war.  i think that is what makes it remarkable. but that's just my

Disagree...the Hood was WW I technology, which only had symbolic value to the British fleet...there is even credible evidence that the Bismarck didn't even fire the shell that sank the Hood...It was a nice-looking ship that was state of the art, but it was not really unique in that it was ahead of its time...

...the only claim to fame I'd give her was the story of her sinking that has become legend, only because the Brits propagandized it to the hilt...after all, it could be considereed Germany's first defeat, on land, in the air or on water...it was a white elephant that the Germans could never possibly use as it was intended, just like the Tirpitz...

...hmmmmm, I think more effort went into sinking the Yamato...

Manny wrote,

"I have never understood the fascination with ships that had such a short and unremarkable service life--IMO, like the Bismarck...the cost of the ship compared to the damage (or lack thereoff) it inflicted was ridiculous...but, good luck !!!"

Simply stated, Bismarck and Tirpitz were very beautiful ships.  That said, how many warships can lay claim to actually sinking another ship?  Very few.  Neither Yamato or Musashi did; no other Japanese, Italian, French, or Soviet battleships did, nor did very many American or British battleships.  Yet, they have their devotees!

Bismarck sank Hood.  It took a fleet a week to track down and sink Bismarck.  It is a compelling story.

Bill Morrison  

enemeink, i think there was more effort to sink the tirpitz then there was to sink the bismarck. you had x subs & various types of aircraft for a couple of years trying to sink her. it was finally lancasters with 12,000 lb tallboy bombs that finally sank her.

ddp59 wrote:

enemeink, i think there was more effort to sink the tirpitz then there was to sink the bismarck. you had x subs & various types of aircraft for a couple of years trying to sink her. it was finally lancasters with 12,000 lb tallboy bombs that finally sank her.

DITTO, and as I stated before, there is strong evidence that Bismarck DID NOT sink Hood, but rather the Heavy Cruiser Prinz Eugen did...

My understanding is that Prinz Eugen's gunfire hit Hood, starting a bad fire on the boat deck. It was Bismarck's fire that penetrated to the magazines, blowing up the ship.  But, I am open to hearing contrary evidence.

Bill Morrison

ddp59 wrote:

enemeink, i think there was more effort to sink the tirpitz then there was to sink the bismarck. you had x subs & various types of aircraft for a couple of years trying to sink her. it was finally lancasters with 12,000 lb tallboy bombs that finally sank her.

yeah but that effort was spread out over a couple of years and not 3 days. again it's just my opinion on the matter.

warshipguy wrote:

My understanding is that Prinz Eugen's gunfire hit Hood, starting a bad fire on the boat deck. It was Bismarck's fire that penetrated to the magazines, blowing up the ship.  But, I am open to hearing contrary evidence. Bill Morrison

If we assume that your version is fact, then I'd call it a shared "kill"...Maybe the myth of the Prinz Eugen should be inflated to match the Bismarck's?

I'm not anti-Bismarck; just feel that the ship is over-rated...Of course, the fact that Germany only built 2 modern battleships for WW2 probably has a lot to do with it as well...I mean, there isn't a lot of German subject matter, so by default the ship has to be popular...

Every creditable reference that I have read credits Bismarck with the kill.  I read some supposition that it may have been Prinz Eugen but never any real evidence.  For my money, Bismarck sank the Hood, making her one of the few capital ships to ever sink another.

But, I was simply addressing Manny's comment that he couldn't understand the fascination with ships that seem to have accomplished nothing. I explained my interest.  Bismarck did achieve the distinction of sinking Hood, whether or not assisted by Prinz Eugen.  I am also interested in Prinz Eugen and relish the prospect of a model of her in 1/350 scale!  Every manufacturer has done Bismarck (RoG's kit is far better than any other), but none have attempted PE in 1/350 scale.

I would also be interested in Conte di Cavour, Giulio Casare, Littorio, Queen Elizabeth, etc., although they did not achieve Bismarck's distinction.

Bill Morrison

Blah, blah, blah.. The story of the Bismarck is one for the ages, and for this reason alone, the ship is of interest.  Yes, in many ways, it was a 'update' of the old 'Baden' design.  So what?  The old 'Queen Elizabeths' were still around, so why not build a ship to beat them?  Certainly, the HMS Hood, as the Flagship of the British Navy, was certainly a 'scalp' to be proud of, and with a bit more effort (one which I have never understood why it was not followed up), could have been equaled by the scalp of the most modern battleship in the British fleet (POW).  In any case, the whole saga of the distruction of the Hood, and chase of the Bismarck, and perhaps more importantly, the fear engendered which was transferred to the Tirpitz (which never deserved it!), is more than enough to make Bismarck a model industry 'standard.'

searat12 wrote:

...the fear engendered which was transferred to the Tirpitz (which never deserved it!)...

Blah, blah, blah...I agree...and where did the great "fear" of the Bismarck come from? oooooooooooooh (in a scary, ghost-sounding tone)...Seems it was unfounded...I mean, it was sunk on its maiden voyage!

It was a British propaganda coup when it was needed the most...I mean, did anyone with ANY real sense of warfare believe the Germans were going to dominate the Atlantic with one surface ship, even if it was the Bismarck!?!...until then the Germans had been handing the Brits their collective arse on a silver platter...when they finally scored a clear victory, they made the most of it by trumping up the dangers of a lone SUPER-UBER-battleship roaming in the open ocean... 

I think that I am now confused . . . are we discussing the actual historical importance of the Bismarck, or why modelers are attracted to that ship?  They are two different issues!

On the one hand, Bismarck is simply a beautiful ship that has gained historical or mythological interests.  On the other hand, Bismarck accomplished more on her maiden voyage  that most other battleships ever did in 20+ year careers. She sank another capital ship.

Bill Morrison

I think the two are intertwined...historical interest is usually involved in choosing subject matter...

...the interesting thing about battleships in general is that that were husbaned like no other ship after WWI...everyone was reluctant to allow them to be engaged with opposing surface fleets throughout the war--that's why those actions were so rare...Yes, there were the late-war Japanese suicide missions that involved obsolete BB's and the infamous Yamato operation, but that's another story...

It wasn't that the Bismarck was such a superior design -IMO- or neccessarily more "dangerous" than other BB's, it was that it happened to be caught with its "pants down" by an opposing surface fleet (which is was ordered to avoid at all costs) and hammered to the ocean floor...if you think about it, the sortie was rathy foolish...there was no way a German surface task force was going to roam the Atlantic in 1941 raiding merchant ships and not eventually be forced to fight a surface action that was almost certainly going to be superior in numbers and with air support...

quote:

...there was no way a German surface task force was going to roam the Atlantic in 1941 raiding merchant ships and not eventually be forced to fight a surface action that was almost certainly going to be superior in numbers and with air support...

 

---

 That sounds very logical from here, doesn't it?  But take a look at what the two battlecruisers and the three pocket battleships had accomplished, convoy-raiding wise, by 1941. Graf Spee was the only one at that time that had met those surface forces.

I believe you're judging people in history in the light of the outcome you know.  By the same token, it was silly for the Germans to start the war in 1939, because you know they would lose miserably by 1945.  And same thing goes for Japan - it is obvious to us now that they could not sustain a war and win it.  But if you look from 1941 or 1942 eyes, things were not nearly so certain. 

 And indeed, as discussed on another historical discussion thread on this same modeling forum, the Battle of the Atlantic was very close to being decisive with the opposite results.  At the time, things were much closer than they appear from 2009.  "IF one more Russian convoy was lost, and IF the Russians had not held out, believing the were supported by  the other allies, or IF a few more convoys from USA to Great Britain had been damaged badly..."  The outcome could have gone the other way, even though the USA had enough manufacturing capability to ultimately win things a few years later.  By the same token, IF the Bismarck had gotten into the Atlantic and encountered a large convoy or two with nothing except old destroyers and corvettes, or even an old "R" class battleship, against the backdrop of conditions in May 1941, the pendulum could have swung too far against the Allies at that time.

IF

 Enjoy your Bismarck model.

Don't forget the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had just completed their rather successful cruise in March, 1941.  The original plan for Operation Rheinubung was for Bismarck and Tirpitz to cruise together against the convoys.  Tirpitz was not ready in time; Prinz Eugen was substituted instead.

Following the engagement between HOOD and PoW, and the BISMARCK and PE, the BISMARCK was damaged and taking water in her bows. She also lost fuel oil, meaning that she had to return to port. Admiral Lutgens decided to head for Brest, where she could link up with SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU.  His reasoning made some sense, although, in retrospect, he should have headed back to Germany instead.  In a masterful demonstration of planning and maneuvering available resources, the British succeeded in damaging Bismarck's rudders and/or propellors, rendering her unmaneuverable.  KGV, RODNEY, and DORSETSHIRE did the rest.  We all know the story.

Now, it is important to remember, BISMARCK SANK THE HOOD!!!  The only other battleship that sank another in the Atlantic during WWII was when DUKE of YORK sank SCHARNHORST.  Both are therefore very noteworthy events.  The importance of the Bismarck episode is that it marked the turn in the surface war in the Atlantic.  No German surface warship ever again ventured out into the Atlantic Ocean. She is worthy of building for that reason alone.

However, I love her lines! BISMARCK is a beautiful ship!

Bill Morrison

warshipguy wrote:

Don't forget the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had just completed their rather successful cruise in March, 1941.  However, I love her lines! BISMARCK is a beautiful ship!

The sortie that the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau made was actually below expectations, based on my refs, especially when you look at it from a cost to benefits ratio...they were no more successful than had they been U-boats...

As far as the Bismarck being eye-candy to a sailor---no dispute there...

I agree that more was expected of Scharnhorst and Gnesenau in March, 1941.  But, it was the most successful foray of the guerre d'course to that date.  It did offer the potential of better results given the power of both the Bismarck and Tirpitz.  Therein lies the importance of the Bismarck episode . . . the British succeeded in exploding that potential.

Bill Morrison

Whoa!  I think everyone is getting rather more 'wound up' about this than is strictly necessary!  Manny has raised some significant points, some of which I happen to agree with.  However, there are OTHER points which I think Manny may either not know of, or has not mentioned.

 YES, Bismarck was NOT the 'world-beating' battleship that it has often been described as.  In fact, in many ways it was an 'old-fashioned' design harking back to the 'Baden' of WW1.  HOWEVER, it WAS a real threat to be reckoned with, and certainly more than a match for any operational British warship at the time.  Perhaps the greatest legacy of the Bismarck is not so much what it actually accomplished, but what EFFECT it had on the British and other allied navies of the time.  The news of its advent into the Atlantic caused multiple squadrons to be mobilized to counter it.  Aircraft carriers, battleships, battlecruisers, cruisers, you name it, ALL were mobilized and directed against this SINGLE ship!!!  The entire Atlantic supply system was in shambles!!  The same thing happened with the Tirpitz, when only the RUMOR of it putting to sea would cause all convoys to be re-routed, battle-squadrons assembled, etc.  In other words, the THREAT of what these ships MIGHT do, was enough to cause the allies to jump through innumerable hoops to try to address these 'possible' scenarios.  This is the effect of the 'fleet in being,' and regardless of whether the threat actually 'lives up to' its menace, it certainly has a VERY significant impact on subsequent operations in a manner far outside 'reality.'  And in this respect, both Bismarck AND Tirpitz were of immense benefit to the Germans during the war (and besides, it IS a very pleasing aesthetic design, even YOU must admit Manny!).

Surface_Line,
While I agree with your "hindsight" point, I find the assessment of Manstein's Revenge to be right on point. The Bismark/Turpitz were a pure waste of money. It seems ironic that as "far thinking" as the Germans were, and throwing in their alliance with the Japanese, why on earth did they not seek to develop/build more aircraft carriers?
Perhaps they suffered the same plight as the U.S. Navy did and were enraptured with the thought of the "glamour and prestige" still surrounding the classic battleship.
Look at the outright vilification of Billy Mitchell, having the gall to suggest that a little ol' aeroplane could sink a mighty battleship.
The day the Wright brothers took to the air, all surface warfare vehicles, be they land or sea based, became secondary in importance. Control of the air has been the foremost consideration ever since.
Not intending to insult anyone's love of ships, because I too agree that Bismark/Turpitz, as well as Missouri are beautiful. But we have seen it develop for the past 50 years. The two most important ships in the fleet are now the aircraft carrier and the ballistic missile nuclear submarine
Anyhow, enjoy you build, rabbiteatsnake.
Regards, PWB.

Actually, the idea that battleships were husbaned after WWI is misleading.  For example, the Germans used their battleships/battlecruisers/armored ships fairly actively up to the Bismarck episode, and even to December, 1943 with the loss of Scharnhorst. The Italians regularly put battleships to sea, although they were loath to fight. The French battleships engaged in surface sweeps against German Armored Ships and fought the British and Americans from their African bases. The Americans actively used their battleships in many settings throughout the war, engaging in ship-to-ship surface engagements, as carrier escorts and AA platforms, and in shore bombardment. Similarly, the British used their battleships extensively and aggressively throughout the war in all oceans.

Only the Japanese kept their battleships in reserve and away from the action.  Even so, their Kongo class was used extensively.

In other words, battleships were used to a much greater extent in WWII than in WWI and were quite effective in their many roles.

Bill Morrison

warshipguy wrote:

Actually, the idea that battleships were husbaned after WWI is misleading.  For example, the Germans used their battleships/battlecruisers/armored ships fairly actively up to the Bismarck episode, and even to December, 1943 with the loss of Scharnhorst. The Italians regularly put battleships to sea, although they were loath to fight. The French battleships engaged in surface sweeps against German Armored Ships and fought the British and Americans from their African bases. The Americans actively used their battleships in many settings throughout the war, engaging in ship-to-ship surface engagements, as carrier escorts and AA platforms, and in shore bombardment. Similarly, the British used their battleships extensively and aggressively throughout the war in all oceans. Only the Japanese kept their battleships in reserve and away from the action.  Even so, their Kongo class was used extensively. In other words, battleships were used to a much greater extent in WWII than in WWI and were quite effective in their many roles. Bill Morrison

Disagree strongly...you cite that they were used as AA platforms, shore bombardment, carrier escorts---true (mostly by the Americans and Brits)...but as far as seeking surface engagements with other BB's, almost always this was avoided...

The fact of the matter is that BB's were so costly and took so long to build that any losses to most nation's fleets was catastrophic and could not be replaced...you admitted that the Italians avoided fights, so did the Germans in most cases (altough technically the ships you referred to were not BB's)...In fact, Raeder was sacked after he failed to be agressive enough...when the French fought it was only when they were cornered, and many of their ships were destroyed in port because they refused to sortie to sea...I just don't think you made a very convincing argument...   

Manny,

I believe that I referred to German battleships/battlecruisers/armored ships, not just battleships. And, even the most cursory review of capital ship involvement in WWII shows that they were far more engaged than in WWI.

British and American capital ships participated as convoy escorts, AA platforms, carrier escorts, in shore bombardment, and against surface warships. HMS Renown engaged Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in the Norwegian campaign, HMS Warspite devastated German destroyers in the Norwegian fjiords. HMS Hood and Dunkerque hunted for Graf Spee.  USS Massachusetts engaged Jean Bart in a gunnery duel, putting her out of action. Countless older British and American battleships served as convoy escorts, even during the U-Boat "Happy Days".  HMS Renown, Warspite, Barham, Queen Elizabeth, and Valiant actively fought against Italian surface ships in the Mediterranean. USS South Dakota and Kirishima fought; Kirishima and USS Washington fought.  Surigao Strait saw American battleships fight Yamashiro, Fuso having been sunk by destroyers earlier. HMS Hood was sunk by Bismarck; Bismarck was sunk by HMS King George V and HMS Rodney.  And, I am just scratching the surface; American and British capital ships fought in virtually every major naval engagement of WWII. Of this there can be no doubt.  In WWI, they mostly sat at anchor.

German capital ships were engaged from September 1939 and remained very active through May of 1941. Granted, they were not supposed to engage warships due to their limited numbers, but clashes did occur. Graf Spee, Deuchland, and Admiral Scheer each engaged in commerce raiding. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau participated in the Norwegian campaign, sinking HMS Glorious (a CV) and fighting with HMS Renown. They also actively participated in commerce raiding, culminating in their successful cruise of March 1941. Following the loss of Bismarck in May 1941, German capital ships were less active, with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau being continuously damaged in Brest. But, Tirpitz was positioned in Norway to operate against the Murmansk convoys. After the channel dash, Scharnhorst joined Tirpitz and Lutzow in Norway. Lutzow participated in the Battle of the Barents Sea (a fiasco for the Germans) and Scharnhorst was sunk by HMS Duke of York in December, 1943, ending active German capital ship activities against the convoys.  In WWI, they mostly sat at anchor.

Again, French capital ships sailed against Graf Spee, Deuchland, and Admiral Scheer.  They engaged British and American battleships.

The Japanese Kongo's were heavily engaged against American forces, Kirishima being so heavily damaged by Washington that she later sank.  Unquestionably, the other Japanese battleships remained in reserve.

The Italian battleships avoided action but sailed on numerous sorties.

I really fail to see how capital ships were less active in WWII than in WWI. Far from avoiding conflict, they actively fought throughout the war.

Bill Morrison

Again, they WERE used for many things, but rarely were they committed against other BB's...and you should re-read my statement. I wrote that after WWI (Jutland) BB's were husbaned...I did not write that BB's were less active in WWII than WWI...

Battleships had a big role as playing part in a concept known as "fleets in being". Where a navy's capital ships, just by staying in port and posing an active threat, could be a part of sea denial (although not sea control) to an area in its vicinity. The attacks on the massed fleets in Taranto and Pearl Harbor made this an unsafe option in later years.

I think the eye-candy argument is the most compelling to build a great model of her!

The Fleet in being concept was a valuable one for the Germans, they didn't even have to weigh anchor to pose a threat.

Much of the Home Fleet was tied up on a 'just in case' basis for much of the war, whilst more useful purposes for the RN fleets could not, or would not be executed.

Atlantic convoy traffic for example, could have done with much more support, but whilst the K.M. capital ships were sitting in Norway, the RN couldn't redirect those heavy units of the Home Fleet for convoy escort work, and neither could the shipbuilding industry construct more destroyers and other escort vessels whilst the yards were tied up with KGV Class construction.

The effects of a 'Fleet in being' go way beyond the frontline.

Manny,

If I misread your comment that after WWI battleships were husbaned as meaning that they were husbaned after Jutland, I agree that that was so during WWI. I apologize for the misreading.

As for anyone actually believing that the Kriegsmarine surface force could dominate the Atlantic, even Admiral Raeder scoffed at that idea.  He said that, with the war beginning in September 1939, all the Kriegsmarine could do was to show how to die gloriously. The Bismarck hit the Royal Navy hard by sinking Hood but died gloriously.

But to answer your original question concerning building a model of Bismarck, the story is compelling, the propaganda effort has made her famous even today, and she was a very beautiful ship.  I believe that Revell of Europe has done her justice.

However, I also think that there are more than enough models on the market of both Bismarck and Tirpitz. To summarize: in 1/700 scale, Aoshima, Dragon, Trumpeter, and Matchbox have released models of them.  In 1/350 scale, Tamiya, Academy, and Revell have done so.  In 1/400 scale, Heller and Kangnam have released kits. Hasegawa did so in 1/450 scale. Revell also has them in 1/570 and 1/1200 scales; Airfix has them in 1/600.  Numerous other companies have released them in 1/800 and other miscellaneous scales.  How many model kits of these ships do we need?

I would rather that the manufacturers focus on other battleships!  See Searat12's thread on recommended kits.

Bill Morrison