Developing Bismarck

[@centralcrossing4732]

At 9:55, I say 1937, it should be 1935.

[@outlet6989]

Oh! What's a few years between friends?

[@rickkephartactual7706]

Excellant video, thank you for making and posting it.

[@manilajohn0182]

Outstanding video!

[@TooManyHobbies58]

Excellent video and thank you for your work. Interesting to hear the facts. Like others my most favorite WWI warship.

[@robertmills8640]

Another rrason for twin instead of triples was the horizontal breech blocks on the 15" guns. This made the turrets large while still not having space for a 3rd gun.

[@FireDragon16180]

Very good video, thank you.

[@takashitamagawa5881]

I've always wondered why the Germans went with triple rather than quadruple screws in these designs. Among other considerations one would think that this limited the ships' ability to steer with engines if the rudder or rudders were disabled.

[@rob5944]

I did read that while Vanguard was on the stocks the British spead the four screws further apart, and/or strengthened boss arms after the loss of PoW. They were concerned that one torpedo knocking two out, and also the shift causing extensive underwater damage after it was bent and still turning.

[@jaydee3993]

Thank you!!!

[@rob5944]

Plenty of information here, not least the communiques that reveal how the German government and navy were thinking and their approach to battleship construction prior to WW2.

[@legiran9564]

2:20 a 41,000 ton design armed with 35 cm (13.8 inch) guns. What material did the Germans plan to build that ship with? Tungsten?

[@rob5944]

Lol. No I'd say that they intended to build some latitude into the design so that they could upgrade the main armament at a later date. The Sharnhorsts had this feature I believe, it would also avoid drawing unwanted attention to the project and perhaps they also felt that German industry might struggle to deliver the heavier weapons in time.

[@Dilley_G45]

​@@rob5944it was planned to replace the triple 28cm with dual 38cm. Reminds me of the Japanese Mogami Cruisers with the triple 15.5cm changed to dual 20cm

[@niclasjohansson4333]

Not the largest Battleships built in Europe by standard displacement, Vanguard was a few thousand tons heavier.

[@Species5008]

And Vanguard was laid down YEARS after Bismarck and Tirpitz were sunk. Which mean that the Washington Naval Treaty had been abolished by then. The United States had begun construction of the Iowa class also.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@Species5008 Not that the Naval Treaty and the Bismarcks were even vaguely connected.

[@Joe-j5j1u]

The most beautiful battleship

[@rob5944]

I prefer to think that they had a menacing appearance, while Hood was beautiful. But being British I expect there's a bias at play. Certainly well balanced and clean though. No wonder Prinz Eugen was mistaken for her, a mini-me if ever there was one lol.

[@Backwardlooking]

👍🏻🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 As events would prove their design proved that compared with contemporary British and American vessels their fire control and communications were easily disabled. This was a consequence of relying on pre1914 designs.

[@simon4781]

Tell that to HMS Hood lmao

[@Dilley_G45]

Pre 1914? Well at least they don't blow-up like British ships

[@jurkoskvarka2154]

​@@Dilley_G45 a lucky hits on hood, thats all When it comes to ww1. British battlecruisers which exploded werent meant to be a part of the battleline so its obvious they would explode when subjected battleline level firepower.

[@Dilley_G45]

@@jurkoskvarka2154 lucky hit? No she was hit several.times and insufficient protection did her in. Same as several British ships in ww1. What WAS lucky was the torpedo hit on Bismarck. The first two she took without trouble but that third one hit THE vulnerable spot. Also VERY lucky was Swordfish planes attacking Sheffield first. Had they attacked Bismarck with the magnetic detonators no hit would have occurred. A third time RN was lucky was when U 556 (?) had Ark Royal in the sights but out of torpedoes. German gunnery was excellent, better than RN and so where German optical range finders. We still use Zeiss products today

[@jurkoskvarka2154]

@@Dilley_G45 In WW1 british battlecruicers(the early ones indefatiquable and invincible) were poorly protected but because they were never meant to engage in battle line. Which is what exactly they found themselfes at Jutland. Those battlecruisers shouldnt have been there in the first place. As for the hood. Yes, germans had excelent gunnery but they were still aiming center mass. Italians also hsd excelent gunnery, just terrible shell dispersion. But back to the germans, that hit was lucky in terms of its placement, not if it hit or not. Hood was vulnerable there because the wake she created exposed an underwater portion of her hull near the magazines. Likely, nobody acounted for this when designing the Hood. So in the end, It was a once in a blue moon hit. The chance for a shell to land exactly there while Hood was sailing just fast enough to have the wake expose that portion is insane.

[@janwitts2688]

A 45k ton battleship.. with the power of a 35k newbuild

[@rob5944]

Faster and with arguably a more reliable main armament. She stood up to a lot of heavy shell fire too.

[@bkjeong4302]

How not to design a WWII-era battleship, which was already an inherently terrible idea as things turned out, but the Germans failed not only the “strategically viable” part but also the “well-designed” part.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Bismarck was arguably the best balanced and executed design of all the new battleships - being very good to excellent in all the important categories. Only HMS Vanguard came close.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@TTTT-oc4eb Apart from the obsolete armour layout, the outdated low angle 5.9 inch secondaries, and the twin as opposed to triple gun turrets, do you mean?

[@thecurlew7403]

@@TTTT-oc4eb Correct there were plans to build 6 plus the big H battleship with 2 funnels a larger version of bismark with bigger guns maybe 16 inch but hitler never funded through and to neglect the navy proved a disaster he had plans for 4 aircraft carriers giving these ships better air cover a formidable force indeed and all new .

[@francon4753]

hi

[@alsanchez5038]

hi

[@mrbeep8096]

@@alsanchez5038 Hello

[@mcs699]

hi