Redesigning Bismarck - Can she realistically be made more efficient?

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@bkjeong4302]

If you could swap out Bismarck with any other WWII-era battleship design (and no non-battleship warship) for the sake of the Kriegsmarine, which ship would you choose?

[@Aelxi]

Have you watched other channels that covers naval warfare like you? Which ones do you like the most and would recommend?

[@joshthomas-moore2656]

Of the two ships lost in Force Z which was the bigger loss Repulse or Prince of Wales? I know Wales was the newer and better protected ship but Repulse is faster and has bigger guns.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@joshthomas-moore2656 I’d say PoW, because she took more resources, money and infrastructure to build.

[@leogazebo5290]

Do one for Bearn please lol

[@readhistory2023]

My suggestion is to paint a red stripe on it to make it go faster.

[@joshthomas-moore2656]

Wouldn't painting it purple so its invisible be better?

[@culex818]

That only works for Orkz.

[@RT-rx2sj]

Ordos Xenos.xe wants to know your location

[@dmj92002]

the racing stripe idea is a scam...what you really want are speed holes. you have to ask for them special, but if you can get them in the 14-16" range they really do a number

[@enjoyingend1939]

Maybe paint it blue so it more lucky and doesn't get crippled by the swordfish or so it detonates everything it ever meets.

[@spitefulwar]

I'd suggest an 80cm Gustav in Spinal Mount configuration to finally show that Super Space Ship Yamato who's boss.

[@glauberglousger6643]

Nah, they’d expect that, instead put a few dozen 91cm mortars, Or better yet, use both, Mortars as main guns, and Gustavs as secondaries, hopefully the ship doesn’t get torn apart from those, but if so, make it stronger

[@swaggaming2564]

ah yes, the nova cannon configuration

[@joshuahadams]

Just for full UNSC with it. Build the ship on the cannon instead of the cannon on the ship. Edit: thinking more on it, something like the UNSC Infinity’s “double barrel” cannons might work. Or UNSC Pillar of Autumn’s quick loading magazines.

[@champagnegascogne9755]

Why compete against your Japanese friend when you can accompany her in hogging up kills?

[@Caktusdud.]

I think a more "practical" wunderwaffe since we're going there is ripping out let's say the aft most turret and reusing the turret ring for a reloadable V-2 rocket launcher. Where you have a few at the bottom and the launch pad near the top. Something similar to what Orochi has. I couldn't think of a better ship to compare with I'm sorry.

[@wildward93]

Personally i think a jump drive would've been the deciding factor

[@TheEDFLegacy]

Space Battleship Bismarck?

[@aaduwall1]

Need to replace those Aredo floatplanes with Vipers while we're at it

[@psikogeek]

A Wave Motion gun would have been neat, too.

[@user-mp3eq6ir5b]

Hand Wavium had not been produced in sufficient quantity at that date & Hitler wouldn't wait.

[@cabalamat2289]

If we're going for futuristic technology that could actually have been put on a 1940's warship I suggest: 1. radar-guided 30 mm Gatling guns 2. anti-ship missiles guided by either beam-riding, active radar homing, anti-radiation, or infra-red; or some combination of the above

[@matthiasmeyer1124]

My suggestion is to add an emergency jettison button for each individual rudder.

[@khaelamensha3624]

Quite brilliant idea!

[@gustaveliasson5395]

Iirc that option *was* studied for the final H-class design, the H-41, because of what happened to the bismarck.

[@Headbreak1]

Given how the individual rudder which was not ejected by the torpedo became entangled with the center propeller I don't think that would have made any difference.

[@Rammstein0963.]

I felt it might have been prudent to try having divers cut or blast it off, yes this would require stopping (briefly) but it could have worked, then you floor it toward France until under cover of the Kustenflieger.

[@mnxs]

​@@Rammstein0963.The reason they didn't, according to Drach in his video on Operation Rheinübung, was because they worried that the amount of explosives required would wreck other propellers and/or rudders (don't remember which).

[@haroldburrow4363]

Wanted to thank you again for all the awesome content you provide. I (29) was speaking to my uncle who served in Vietnam (67) yesterday, and discovered that we both share an interest in naval history and your channel came up in the conversation. Maybe it wasn't on purpose, but you brought two distant family members together over the incredibly dry subject of naval history. Thanks Drach.

[@Melody_Raventress]

Awww...

[@MrNicoJac]

"dry" subject, hihi 🤭

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

Give her a robot dragon or maybe a Keter-class anomaly

[@TruForenStakr]

Make sure the dragon has 3 heads, and loves headpats

[@captaincool3329]

@@TruForenStakr And is named Geryon.

[@champagnegascogne9755]

*Truth can only be found within my range!*

[@MonkeyJedi99]

Ooh! Gaiking punch!

[@dragonbutt]

You had me at dragon

[@steveclarke6257]

I agree with the most if these changes to secondaries and adding 15" triple turrets.. However i would ensure that i could retro-fit with twin 128mm when that system is proven to work....and then getting rid of the 37mm with a pile of quad 20mm is the the most likely thing that Germany could have done and it would simplifyed logistics I dont think that German designers had the ability to build "all or nothing" as the design is a warmed over WWI design. However they could have fixed the reserve buoyancy issues in the current scheme and then put the fire-control cables under the armour belt.

[@agwhitaker]

Modify the heavy anti-aircraft analog fire control computers. They were not able to track, follow, and calculate a targeting solution for aircraft as slow as the Swordfish bi-plane torpedo bomber.

[@WigSplitters]

I dont really understand the buoyancy thing, yes it might not technically have need to get the citadel penetrated go sink but it's not reasonable to assume all the other compartments would have ever gotten penetrated enough to cause it to sink, I would like to think rhe designers were at least more compentnt the him when it comes to ship design

[@josephkugel5099]

I have always found it curious when people bash the Bismarck as if it was a bad ship or something, so i ask one simple question, can any of you name one single ship in the British navy that would have survived the onslaught brought to bear on the Bismarck? i sure as Hell can't, The Bismarck faced off against no less than 1 = Aircraft Carrier 3 = Battleships 1 = Super Battlecruiser 3 = Heavy Cruisers 1 = Flotilla of Destroyers In the final battle it was crippled with no radar or steering and a speed of 10 knots. It took 400 heavy caliber shells and at least 5 torpedoes plus scuttling charges to finally sink the damn thing and everyone on this talk back is like "WOW what a piece of shit it was" You all need to step back and rethink your stance on this and realize that is was a lucky hit that doomed the ship and nothing more, Hell if anything i would lay more blame on the bad 15" shells it had, if the one that hit the bridge on POW exploded God knows what other damage it would have caused besides just killing all the command crew and then the one that didn't detonate that punched into the fuel bunker, can you imagine if that one exploded it could have sunk the Prince of Wales and then how would the Bismarck's tally look, The bottom line is this, when she was fully functional she went up against a Battleship, a Super Battlecruiser and two heavy cruisers and came out on top. I will give you the radar being damaged by gun blast as a bad design flaw and the abysmal AA set up but in reality i think it did pretty damn good considering what was sent against it. One to think about, what if instead of detaching the Prinz Eugen she escorted the Bismarck home, its very likely that had its AA guns been added to the fight they may have stopped the Swordfish that scored the lucky hit and its also possible that the Swordfish would have split the attack against both ships and once again maybe the lucky hit doesn't happen and Bismarck lives to fight another day, then to make matters worse what if it did come back out with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau plus an appropriate number of escorts, oh what could have been!!!! And before any of you say anything i am well aware that the British would have bombed any harbor with those three ships in it 24-7 and twice on Sunday but i can still dream can't I ?????

[@rikk319]

Piece of shit or not, just knowing the Allies could muster their numbers to sink one ship shows who had the winning strategy, whether British vs the Bismarck or US vs the Yamato.

[@mememan2.074]

I don't think that what it went up against matter The polish succesfully destroyed a surprising number of tanks using anti tank rifle on horse back but that doesn't mean that anti tank on horse back is an effective strategy Its that with 50k displacement the allies made better ships such as the North Carolina for example For a 50k displacement ships Bismarck isn't anything special

[@tombogan03884]

The best way to make Bismark more efficient would have been to build her as a series of U-Boats, or small combatants that were more than single use. The surface fleet in general were more of a liability to Germany than benefit.

[@ferdievanschalkwyk1669]

Even 2 more Scharnhorst class ships would have been better.

[@mliittsc63]

How many tanks can you make out of a battleship?

[@williamzk9083]

Battleship raiders worked well with u-boats. The only way to protect merchant ships from u-boats and the Luftwaffe's aircraft was to form them into convoys, If a Tirpitz intercepted a convoy it would be able to sink it probably in ;less than half an hour including many of he escorts. Hence when the RN suspected Tirpitz was about to intercept convoy PQ17 the convoy was dispersed and subsequently almost completely sunk by u-boats and the Luftwaffe.

[@rupertboleyn3885]

@@mliittsc63More than you can crew by moving her sailors into the tanks. With U-boats it's the same - you'd need to find hundreds more men. However, a lot of the industry required to make a battleship wouldn't be that useful for making submersibles or tanks - the engines are totally different, for one. Also, while maybe 50 more U-boats would've made life for the British unpleasant in the early war, in the greater scheme of things as over a thousand U-boats were constructed in the war, and most were sunk, and I don;'t think they'd have lasted long enough to make a great difference. In the event the German capital ships of WWII weren't very useful (aside from /Tirpitz/ tying up a pile of RN heavy ships just by existing), but that's at least in part because the war the Nazis got was not the war they were planning for (which describes most combatants in WWII).

[@cabalamat2289]

@@mliittsc63 Roughly the same weight, so 1x40,000t battleship is about 1000x40t tanks. So for the 2 Bismarcks and 2 Scharnhorsts they could have had 3000-4000 Panther tanks. Of course the Panther could have been made more efficient too (e.g. put the drive sprockets at the back, lower the desk, so it needs less armour) and if they'd done something like the Entwicklung series in the 1930s, maybe 5000 tanks. But they'd still have lost the war because they had no fuel.

[@robro2214]

Redesigning Bismarck is an awesome topic to do a video as my friends and I have talking about this for so long I love it

[@Wohlfe]

More AA guns might be a good idea

[@MonkeyJedi99]

Not having to shoot explosive rounds at fabric-covered planes would have helped.

[@Deadxman616]

Maybe some better rudders

[@icetea1455]

And better radar placements

[@taskforce3833]

conversion to 4 prop shaft layout with wider spaced rudders, movement of electrical cables to below the armored deck, a more uniform secondary dual purpose battery, adding a few Torpedo tubes above water like Tirpitz, the 150's would be replaced by dual purpose 128 weapons as would the 105m aa weapons. I'm not touching the armor as that was pretty good, and we don't want to make her to heavy.

[@Rohrkrepierer88]

I fee like pointing out how and why the ship became what it was . Sec guns , the Km simply never had dp cannons of the right caliber , 105mm was deemed not to be enough to fight of ships . An heavier 128mm was planed for the Gneisenau refit but she was scutteled out of the lack of resources , but that gun simply wasn´t avaible as the Bismark twins where build . Keep in mind that the KM never had the resources other navies had , they made plans and build some ships but just the number of ships should tell you that we are truely talking about a tiny navy . Armour layout , let me tell you that this ship was not build for long range indirect fire engagements , issue is that the north atlantic and Nordic sea are quite rawer seas as like the pacific . Wave patterns bouncing of coasts and storms quickly apear that kind of stuff . Its also the reason of her size , length up the biggest yard avaible and width so that it justs passes though the middleland channel or KW channel . You know biggest platform is most stable . Also the engagements shown that the british also favorited to get in close too . So the main belts job was it to keep most of the shots towards critical sectors out . It was believed that shots that could penetrate it where simply to strong to be stopped on any amour thickness possible to field . The turtlebacks angeled armour was therefore the last resort in order to deflect the slowed down and damaged shell up where i can hopefully damage something less critical . Making the belt higher would have saved more room but any shoot that could penetrate the belt could make the worst of her . Gun layout The idea of four turrets wich each two guns was supposted to be a very balanced layout . ( reminder how small the Km was ) No matter where the enemy was to her did she had two turrets to fight , if one was knocked out she still had one . Both turrets could also support each other , with local rangefinding and some system like hydralics where also connected so one´s aggregate could support both in an emergency . Each turret had its gun as much apard from each other as possible , it was believed ( otehr ships proven that ) that the force of one could diviate the other causing higher disperson . In scharnhorst they made sure to fire the middle cannon slightly earlier , but it wasn´t perfect . She was not the best ship , a lot could have been made different . At the end it was a knowledge and money question . Also not sure if making her another Iowa or roma would have made a better ship .

[@russellcollins52]

I do remember hearing a tale about a destroyer being hit by 3 x 18inch AP shells and being back in the fight. But secondary battery is a big one, Totally agree on the armor layout needing to be heavily modified For the gun layout I believe in the American concept of having 4 triple turrets.

[@bkjeong4302]

Those hits (one in particular near the keel) did in fact prove fatal to Johnston. It was just that she took so long to go under that she kept up her last stand for a while after that.

[@tomasdawe9379]

Also 18" AP against a destroyer probably went in one side and out the other. HE or the like probably would have finished the ship quite quickly.

[@rembrandt972ify]

If you are thinking of the USS Johnston, she was hit by 3 14 inch shells before hiding in the smoke long enough to return to the fight. However this requires an Evans, something that all navies at the time suffered from shortages of. ☠

[@bkjeong4302]

@@rembrandt972ify Johnston was definitely never hit by 14” shells. Kongo wasn’t even shooting at any ship when those hits happened (based on Kongo’s own logs) and was on the opposite side of the Japanese formation.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

Four triples would have been untenable given how overweight the ship was to begin with.

[@paulthiessen6444]

You are not going to come up with an entire detailed set of blue prints? I was expecting you to actually build a new redesigned ship.

[@aegonthedragon7303]

Torpedo protection around the steering rooms would be a good start I reckon..

[@alexzenz760]

America BB had kind of. Hull was protecting the propeller shafts. Quiete unique.

[@VRichardsn]

There is not much you can do, really. Bulges cannot be placed there. At most what you could do is copy the Italians: in the Littorios, a single main rudder was supported by two auxiliary rudders for a triple rudder layout. The auxiliary rudders were mounted just after the outer screws, some 25m (82′) ahead of the main rudder. This layout prevented a single torpedo from damaging all three rudders. In addition, it seems that two rudders were sufficient to manoeuvre the battleship even with one rudder inoperable.

[@Yaivenov]

Below the waterline: change to two or four screws, and make it a proper independent double rudder. (Sorry for the tandem rudder confusion.)

[@williamzk9083]

The 3 screws were chosen to help keep the ship narrow enough to use the emden canal. Bismark had twin rudders but the tiller arms were joined and jammed 15 degrees to port. No ship could be manoeuvred in such condition. You would have to have rudders that were independent and further apart.

[@Yaivenov]

@@williamzk9083 the combination of three screws has particularly bad hydrodynamics that results is diminished performance for the given power and the centerline screw causes extreme vibration to be transmitted throughout the hull. It nothing else it would be better to just omit the center prop.

[@gustaveliasson5395]

Emergency rudder?

[@Yaivenov]

@@gustaveliasson5395 (I am dumb dumb and confused other designs here. This doesn't apply to Bismarck.) There was a smaller (useless for the size of the ship) second rudder mounted ahead of the main rudder. Being both too small to be effective and physically linked to the main rudder it is particularly useless deadweight. Best to go to a side by side fully independent rudder set like the American fast battleships.

[@williamzk9083]

@@Yaivenov Many efficient ships used 3 screws. I’m sure it has its challenges but I doubt it was significant. The rudders jamming and not being independent was the main one.

[@JevansUK]

So if you switched to 4 screws, the hull in the stern could be deeper and the torpedo might strike the ships side rather than under the stern between the rudders.

[@duanefrost4110]

When you switched to the medium AA the Bofurs was the first thing I thought of. I believe the Germans would have had a easier time with mass producing the guns then the US since they never would have to convert from Metric to English measurements.

[@scottbaase4042]

Americans didn't have a problem converting to metric, we had a problem with the way the parts on the bofors were produced. Hand fitting in america means you suck at machining, and some parts were changed from milling to castings. America produced the most bofors in ww2. The weapon that gave America problems were the aircraft 20mm, because we produce from the blueprint, even if the blueprint is wrong and even if the machinist and engineers know it's wrong.

[@phoenixbird6]

The Germans actually had a factory producing the 4cm Bofors. When they overran Norway, they got the Kongswerk factory intact and it already had the Bofors in production.

[@duanefrost4110]

@@scottbaase4042 Totally agree. Forgot about the hand made parts issue as well. Still the conversion takes time and since standard and metric don’t exactly line up (some play between them) I’m not sure if the American version had more of a greater tolerance then the Norwegian mounts.

[@PhantomP63]

The 20mm Oerlikon in American production was converted from metric on or after the Mk2, with the Mk4 being entirely US spec.

[@thorstenh.5588]

Very interesting thoughts. But what do you think are the reasons why the Bismarck was built the way it was? Too little experience in building battleships because of the restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles? All other nations built battleships between 1918 and 1939 and were able to make great strides. Germany only had the "Deutschland"- and "Scharnhorst"classes to gain experience. And what about the Washington Treaty? The Bismarck had an official displacement of 35,000 tons but in reality was much more. With all your improvements it maybe becomes more heavy.

[@warspiteschannel4817]

My changes: 1) a dual-purpose secondary armament in the 5-inch range, eliminating the 5.9-inch secondary battery and the 4.1-inch heavy AA or tertiary battery. 2) a workable 37mm or 40mm heavy auto-cannon to replace the actual 37mm which fired far too slow. 3) a workable AA/predictor system as British examination of Hipper and others said the German system was next to useless. 4) deck torpedo tubes, as later fitted to KM Tirpitz. 5) cruising diesels to extend range for anti-commerce work.

[@battleshipfleet]

I would honestly recommend replacing most of the boilers with a wave motion engine, with some some retractible wings for lower altitude flight.

[@tomandtinadixon]

Interesting thought experiment. AA was the game changer for many ships that managed to survive engagements. Germany was out of major capital ship design for over a decade after 1919, and it showed.

[@bkjeong4302]

AA was only useful in defending a ship and any ships around it. It did little to allow you to actually fight back against wherever the aircraft came from.

[@tomhenry897]

Had standard AA for the time

[@abyssaljam441]

That pipe being sounded at the start sounded like the beginning of special call

[@larscelander5696]

The secondary ant-surface 15cm mount needs to be retained to ward off destroyers. The heavy AA can be removed, the threat from high level bombers turned to be effectively non-existant. DP secondary is not worth it against single-engine aircraft and a bit weak against surface threats. The big change urgently needed is a much heavier medium AA battery. The 37 mm were manually loaded and had a total RoF equivalent to a single quad 40 mm. In short, sprinkle the deck with upwards of 100 barrels of 40mm and ditto directors. That would have made quick work those pesky Swordfishes.

[@LoneWolf2267]

But the issue with the 4.1 was that the mounts failed consistently due to their complicated electrical systems which were open to the elelments... so putting them closer to the water would just hinder them further, and increase the number of failing gun batteries.

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

Considering that Bismarck had a magnificent moustache and sideburns, I find the lack of them in World of Warships off-putting. 😉

[@tsuaririndoku]

Petition to make Yamato Class redesign to be outclass carrier. *Shove Wave Motion Technology on Yamato*

[@davidwild66]

A bit more torpedo protection for the rudder might be handy...

[@AdamSmith-kq6ys]

That's actually quite hard. Nobody in WWII had a design that could guarantee decent function if they took a torpedo hit aft, though some were worse than others. HMS _Prince of Wales_ is probably a worst-case failure, but if you look at the KM there's _Bismarck_ herself, and both _Lutzow_ and _Prinz Eugen_ took disproportionate damage aft as well.

[@ssanneru]

@@AdamSmith-kq6ys POW was hit on the screws/shafts, not the rudder, but yes. Given a sufficiently awkward hit and a bit of bad luck no amount of armour can save you. And you can't really armour a rudder in the first place, it has to stick out into undisturbed water to be able to do its job. The same goes for the propellers and their shafts - skegging may help a bit there though. Even then the best that can happen when a screw installation is hit by a torp is that you lose the use of that propeller instead of the ship tearing its own guts out like the Prince of Wales did.

[@MartinChadwick-xe7gh]

The accident with the rudder was unfortunate. But being sunk at some point was almost inevitable. (Bismarck was lucky that Prince of Wales had problems with its guns.) Given the extended time the disabled Bismarck took to sink then the ship would have been most improved by stuffing it full of life rafts etc. so that more than 114 of its 2200 crew could have been saved - and to what would have been Germany's credit more than 3 of the 1400 of the Hood. May also have improved its commander's mindset.

[@GregPrice-ep2dk]

Maybe I missed it, but did you address the Bismak's unarmored stern? Extending the armor all the way aft might have prevented the crippling torpedo hit to her steering system.

[@bkjeong4302]

No, that would make her garbage armour layout even worse, and fail to provide enough protection to her stern anyways.

[@GregPrice-ep2dk]

@@bkjeong4302 Then do it in combination with the change Drach suggested.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

No battleship had armored stern (or bow), even in WW1 the armored belt tapered off toward the stern and bow. At 70% coverage, Bismarck's belt already covered more of the waterline than any other new battleship.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@bkjeong4302 Nothing wrong with Bismarck's armor layout - she was just slightly different.

[@threecedarshomestead1330]

I was thinking about flack 88's, but barrels wearing out due to the very high velocity shells, kinda scuppered that.

[@firefox5926]

and if you were wondering its springsharp not spring shop or spring shot

[@deckape714]

Please Keep at it Drach. Your your friend in seattle

[@dingbell5498]

4 prop shafts rather than 3. as a result of a 3 shaft design all the german capital ships had problems with the sterns being weaker, as well as limiting manoeuvring in the event of rudder damage.

[@VRichardsn]

Watch until the end. He addresses this.

[@johnestauffer69]

The Germans seemed to favor the 15cm as the ideal anti-shipping gun. For a capital ship it was a better alternative than the available 10.5cm gun. It was also useful as an anti-escort weapon, as the capital ships would be generally operating independently as raiders and would not have any other support. 38cm or 28cm guns would be overkill for anti-escort or destroying merchant ships.

[@lewiswestfall2687]

Thanks Drach

[@matthewyang7893]

I think it would be difficult not to, if the German engineers had actually gone along with the trends of their time. Realistically, you could get an Iowa or a G3 for this tonnage, which is insane:

[@williamzk9083]

The downside of Iowa and KGV class all or nothing armour is they really do have lots of areas of very thin armour and virtually no armour on the bridge. Bismark class armour would have worked well against the 6 inch and 8 inch guns of cruisers she would have encountered. It’s wrong to compare Bismarck Class to the Iowa which were laid down years latter. Bismarck = Carolina class. H39 class = Iowa class.

[@AWMJoeyjoejoe]

​@@williamzk9083The whole armour on the bridge thing? No battleship has ever been built with enough armour on the bridge to protect against a 15" shell. Better to just save the weight really.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@williamzk9083 You’re never going to be able to protect the bridge adequately, why waste tonnage trying to do so?

[@doabarrellroll69]

@@AWMJoeyjoejoe besides, even if you armored the bridge enough for it to survive a 15" shell hit, the resultant concussion on the inside of the bridge would probably turn everyone inside into red mist.

[@peterkapunkt6783]

​@@doabarrellroll69They said against 6 or 8 inch shells, not battleship shells. It's not a bad idea if the plan was commerce raiding. If a convoy has battleships as protection, you abort, but if there are cruisers you can still go for it and don't risk too much damage if you get hit.

[@Dunkerque351]

We did it Patrick! We turned Bismarck into an American battleship 🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸

[@timp3931]

What a brave video!

[@gallendugall8913]

Don't forget to upgrade the ship's cat. Bombay are the best ship's cat.

[@danielstickney2400]

Sorry, but that's simply not possible. Oscar survived three sinkings in two navies before he was given a shore posting. He was the ultimate ship's cat.

[@Evgen991]

@@danielstickney2400Objectively the best-designed element of the entire ship.

[@jonathonhass4178]

I like your suggestions except I’ve always thought that, since Bismarck would always be outnumbered, keep the 4 turrets but 3 guns each turret. 22,800 lb broadside which gets you much closer to say an Iowa’s broadside of 24,300 lbs

[@thcdreams654]

Dig the new music bro. Thanks for the content.

[@alhillx]

The theme music at this beginning of this category of videos sounds sort of like the theme to Gilligan's Island.

[@woofdogmeow]

I would suggest the following changes during the design phase. 1. A transom stern instead of the slim and weak German stern installed. This would give the following improvements 1 more buoyancy. 2 It would force the engineers to install 4 shafts instead of the troublesome 3. 3 the rudders would be farther away from the screws, so a bent rudder won't get caught in the screws. 4 the extra width of the transom stern would offer far more protection to the rudder machinery from torpedo hits. Second change is to the secondary battery I would develop a dual-purpose battery instead of the separate secondaries installed. The weapons that come to mind for development would be the 4.1" AA gun batteries or build an AA gun based on the 128 mm gun then in development. The third would be to install 2 more armored decks above the main deck as in US practice at the time. The purpose of these decks is to decap shells and force them to detonate above the armored deck. The other possibility to put much more of the power and communication cables in heavily armored conduits to protect them from nearby hits. This was done to some extent but not enough really and the conduits needed to be of thicker armor 3" should do in most cases. Welp that's my 2 cents any way.

[@joshbarton3936]

what displacement could you get her down to? I'm wondering if you could make her a 30k tonner and maybe squeeze out a 3rd of the class

[@thomasgray4188]

paint it purple, nobody's ever done that before

[@jeromethiel4323]

Bow and/or stern thrusters would have been game changers for battleships and carriers. They just hadn't been invented yet. Rudders knocked out, no problem, we can use the bow thruster to point the ship wherever we want. Even today, a modern US aircraft carrier requires tugs to dock. A modern mega cruise ship does not (they usually do for safety, but they don't require them).

[@bigsarge2085]

Fascinating.

[@SamAlley-l9j]

Thanks Drach.

[@mikedrop4421]

Wasn't Bismarck already redesigned for under sea duties in service of Davy Jones?

[@bigbob1699]

Best move would have been to but her in the middle of a proper battle group .

[@wastelander89]

I agreed 100 percent with ur changes to Bismarck Great video 🙂👍💯

[@sanguiniusonvacation1803]

Here my redesign. First, you take her hull and you scrap it, same goes for the guns, power plant, and super structure. Now you take all that steel and build planes and u-boats.

[@WardenWolf]

Bulbous bow is an easy addition. That would have increased her speed and dramatically improved her fuel efficiency at lower speeds.

[@rupertboleyn3885]

Not necessarily, depending on exact shape and speed you're looking at, and it may well have made matters worse at other speeds.

[@WardenWolf]

@@rupertboleyn3885 It would have allowed her to attain her 30 knot design speed with less engine power, thus freeing up space and tonnage for other things.

[@kennethbriner5390]

Loved the video. I strongly agree with your assessment of the armor and revisions to it. The main communications trunk would thus be within the citadel. The secondary is my second major concern with Bismarck. I would prefer the 12.5 solution if viable at the time. You solution of the 10.5 is a good compromise since thee mounts could have bee available. I greatly enjoy your videos.

[@davidluck1678]

best way to "re-disign" Bismarck: don't build it at all. If the raw materials, time, and labor spent on near-useless Bismarck and Tirpitz had been put into building U-boats, Germany in 1939 could have begun WW2 with more than 200 subs.....instead of c. two dozen....and built up from there. Totaly different Battle of the Atlantic w hundreds more U-boats out there at any given time.

[@bkjeong4302]

While not building the Bismarcks would have been the smartest idea, the issue of limited shipyard construction capacity would mean you would not get THAT many additional subs, though you’d get more subs than what the Germans had historically. Same with the Yamatos and carriers and in their case it’s actually worse because Japan only had four slipways total capable of building the Shokakus, two of which were historically built in two of those shipways with the Yamatos using the other two: not building Yamato and Musashi thus gets you 4 instead of 2 Shokakus, which is an improvement, but not a massive one.

[@aseriesguy]

Battleships and tanks have a common weakness. Such large unwieldy targets attract every possible kind of weapon. No amount of armor insures any level of invulnerability. In WW II their best use was offshore gunships with overwhelming air protection. Anytime there was not complete ait cover battleships took some amount of damage. The Royal Navy proved that fact in 1941 out of Singapore with no air cover when the HMS Prince Of Wales and HMS Repulse were sunk by Japanese ground based bombing in a matter of hours. The other case was IJN attempt to break up the USN invasion fleet landing in the Philippines Leytey Gulf. A few destroyers and some small aircraft carrier air attacks scared off a powerful task force of cruisers and battleships. I believe many folks think only of pure battleship vs. battleship encounters.

[@deplorable1-2]

Way more Carley Floats and life boats were needed. Self sealing fuel tanks. A better rudder system and emergency steering. A Nixie anti-torpedo device.

[@gustaveliasson5395]

The fuq is a Nixie anti-torpedo device?

[@deplorable1-2]

Join the Navy and find out.@@gustaveliasson5395

[@noname117spore]

So what if, on the main armament of the ship, you wanted to keep 8 guns, and by doing so instead cut a triple down into a double? 2 triples, 1 double, and you get the same armament she had for even less weight.

[@StuartKoehl]

The Germans had a potentially world-beating dual-purpose gun in the form o the 1.28cm FLAK 40, which was actually built in a FLAKzwillige twin mount. With a barrel length of 62 calibers, it was comparable to the U.S. Navy's post-war 5-inch 54-caliber gun, and would have been as effective against surface targets as the 15-cm low angle gun, and more effective against aircraft than the 10.5-cm FLAK gun.

[@sugarnads]

We want it less efficient. Bloody huns. Harumph. Thinner armour Smaller guns Triple expansion donk.

[@sskuk1095]

You could use the empty space on the stern now and install a spoiler for extra speed.

[@citamcicak]

I don't play a lot of World of Warships, and I didn't progress far, but I do have Triplitz, witch end up playing more like a big cruiser. I got the ship as a part of a promotion ( for the Extra Credits series Hunting the Bismarch)

[@citamcicak]

I'm not sure I'm any better then either of the captains.

[@strixaluco7423]

Arent there ways to easier/faster improve the design by buying some tech from the outside? Like the Littorio turret / breech block design and adapting it for their own 380mm guns. The Dutch also wanted their own Scharnhorsts but with some design changes. The last design had twin Bofors 120mm dual purpose guns. Couldnt germany get their hands on these, or modify the mounting for their own 128mm gun?

[@brettphillips9949]

Would be interesting to see a video like this on the Yamato considering how big it is

[@bkjeong4302]

There aren’t nearly as many changes you have to make for Yamato but I would fix her torpedo belt at the very minimum.

[@killersax]

The real issue is mission. Bismarck was a poor design for a commerce raider. One hit on an unarmored area killed the commerce raiding mission. Drach's improvements certainly make a stronger ship in a fight against naval units, but don't help with the declared mission. What the Bismarck needs is better strategy.

[@Jasonwkey]

Fantastic content. I would love to see more deep dives like thus into different ship classes. Yamato? Iowa? KGV? Vanguard? Litorio?

[@geoffburrill9850]

Love to similar vid on redesigning HMS Hood.

[@ChrisK-LTC]

The British sent 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Battleships, 1 Battlecruiser, 2 Heavy Cruisers, 1 Light Cruiser and 8 Destroyers against 1 German ship. They fired over 2800 rounds at it, hitting it approx. 400 times and then torpedoing it before it went down. That wasn't a bad design and didn't need improvement. If you think so, name any other ship that could stand up to that and survive.

[@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684]

FAR more ships were mobilised to hunt the Bismarck than you suggest, but that number of ships is NO comment on Bismarck's supposed "uberness" though as the vast majority of the RN ships that joined in the hunt never saw her and were required simply to corral a small fast task force that was busily avoiding enemy contact in the 41,000,000 square mile N. Atlantic in the era before over the horizon radars, satellites and even comprehensive air cover. When she was finally stopped from running away she was decapitated, declawed and dismantled in 90 minutes. How many men do you think it would require to catch an evasive greyhound on a football pitch? Now how many men do you think it would require to "finish it off" once it had been caught?

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

​​@@walterkronkitesleftshoe668490 minutes is an eternity in a battle like that, with 4 heavy units firing on one, single already crippled ship. Bismarck used 13 minutes to sink Hood and send off PoW.

[@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684]

@@TTTT-oc4eb "4 heavy units"? You mean two "heavy units" and 2 cruisers with 8" guns. Bismarck scored a one in a million hit on Hood. The RN didn't have that RNG with their gunnery dice rolls, and so had to dismantle Bismarck bit by bit. All guns knocked out by the RN in less than 30 minutes was good no matter which way you choose to look at it.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 It wasn't a one in a million hit - if so, there were a lot of such hits in the few battleships actions of the war. As long as you straddle, anything can happen. Rodney's shooting was not good - she didn't straddle until her 18th salvo - a full 15 minutes after she started firing - longer than the entire battle of Denmark Strait lasted. KGVs's FC operators initially confused Rodney's splashes with their own, so had to start over again. A heavy cruiser is a "heavy unit".

[@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684]

@@TTTT-oc4eb 1. A full salvo of main gun fire from a battleship is analogous to a scatter of lead shot from a shotgun. During the battle of Denmark Strait, the Bismarck aimed at Hood from 8-9 nautical miles away. At that range the 38 cm SK C/34 (Bismarck's main armament) had a CEP (circular error probability - effectively the radius of a circle within which 50% of its shots would fall) of 100m. That means that if 8 of Bismarck's 15in guns fired at a single point 8-9 nm away, 4 of her shells would be expected to land (with completely random distribution) within an ellipse (think of it as a stretched circle, due to the angle of fall of the shells) measuring approximately 200m (660ft) wide, (or to put it another way 76% of HMS Hood's 860ft length), by more than three thousand feet long. The other 4 shots would land even FURTHER away from the aiming point. That being the case, how can an individual shell be aimed specifically at a tiny part of HMS Hood's structure, namely the 4in HA magazine, that its believed triggered off Hood's detonation? I'll give you a hint, there's a little clue in my paragraph above....where it says "completely random distribution". A simplified analogy is that if you prop a dartboard up 50 yards away and can consistently knock it over with a shotgun at that range then that is pretty good shooting, just as Bismarck / PE achieved during the Denmark Strait encounter. Now you can "knock the dartboard over" all day long with the shotgun and STILL NOT hit the bullseye (magazine) with an individual pellet. As opposed to being a skillful shot by knocking over the dartboard, whether you hit the bullseye with an individual pellet is complete luck. 2. Where did you get the "Rodney didn't straddle until her 18th salvo" nonsense from? If you're just going to make complete nonsense up there's no point continuing the discussion. As was recorded in HMS Norfolk's war diary HMS Rodney obtained hits with both her 3rd and 4th ranging salvoes at 08:48. Please refer to "Battleship BIsmarck - A Design and Operational History" (Produced by the US Naval Institute) Appendix "B" Pg 518. 3. A heavy cruiser is neither a capital ship or a "heavy unit" in a firefight against a battleship. Trying to portray an 8" cruiser as a "RN heavy unit" is simply trying to make Bismarck's final drubbing look even more one sided. Even James Cameron's description of Bismarck's battle damage illustrated the point thus "On her main belt was counted HUNDREDS of shell gouges and splashmarks, almost all of which were from secondary and cruiser hits".

[@admiralfaffy]

Here's a stupid awesome idea, put a triple 11" 283mm scharnhorst turret in the rear C turret position while maintaining all other end of video design modifications... because introducing enemy destroyers and light cruisers to the power and gun range of 3 anzio Annie's would be amazing and probably would've helped Bismarck's chances of survival and evading detection before her engagement with HMS Hood

[@galacticthreat3164]

If you want to redesign Yamato, I’d recommend using the 100mm guns from the Akizuki’s alongside or even replacing the 127mm even though it was decent in lager models, using the Vickers 40mm/62 cannons used on some Akizuki’s and their coastal vessels instead of half the 25mm mounts, and I’d also spend some time working on the AA fire directors and building redundancy between them and the individual mounts so the Musashi incident doesn’t happen again when they begin to fire blind. I’d also make sure the fire protection and damage control crew is in the citadel but just high enough to access the ship, and honestly the torpedo bulges and armor were fine as is. Honestly it was a good ship in most rights but this is what I’d change.

[@galacticthreat3164]

Otherwise Yamato was an amazing ship. Fight me. And honestly the fact that it took FOREVER to sink Musashi because of the counter-flooding and heroic effort of the damage crews. Yamato had a dedicated operation to sink it and with neither any air cover nor any adequate support (no… a sendai cannot provide any acceptable support in 1945)

[@miguelmederos8634]

PRIDE OF A NATION, A BEAST MADE OF STEEL! BISMARCK IN MOTION, KING OF THE OCEAN, HE WAS MADE TO RULE THE WAVES ACROSS THE SEVEN SEAS!!!!

[@crazywarriorscatfan9061]

this sounds quite interesting

[@daividhopkins2722]

Previous signature intro is far better

[@mjoelnir1899]

For me the question would if using the 88mm instead of the 105mm would have been sensibel. The 105mm was developed against very high flying bombers, a negligible concern aboard of ships as the 88mm has a effective ceiling of 8,000m. The maximum ceiling is 9,900m. The 88mm was Germany´s most effective anti aircraft gun. It´s lighter weight would have allowed more guns. It has a higher rate of fire than the 105mm. A combination of the 88mm and 20mm would have been a very effective anti aircraft system. The 150mm would than have been retained in the anti surface role.

[@micheal6898]

For 41000 tons , with late 1930s design Bismarck is most likely the worst design From the around ww2 era (engineering wise) , goes to show how Hard designing a battleship is from scratch when there's a 20 year Gap In experience.

[@JoveGable]

The worst 1930s era battleships were North Carolina and South Dakota classes and probably King George V-class too.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@JoveGable Lmao what

[@micheal6898]

@@JoveGable Considering Treaty Limitations The South Dakota and KGV class are Engineering marvels Compared to the Bismarck , The KGV is Exceptionally well protected ships and the South dakotas where Really well rounded Capable ships . they are no where near the worst ships from a engineering front at all , allthough the treaty limits , Limited there capability somewhat

[@tomhenry897]

Sunk the Hood and damaged another Could have done the same if could maneuver

[@tomhenry897]

Withstood all the British fleet could throw at it Sunk by her own crew NOT the British navy

[@johnholt890]

Great stuff and kind of what I was expect multi purpose secondary raise armoured belt all or nothing and triple turrets. Just show how far Germany was behind current Royal Navy and US design practice, but that could really be anticipated with the huge knowledge and experience gap between the wars in Germany against extensive particular British testing and development post WW1 One wonders if with more efficient use of the huge displacement or even a slight enlargement going a bit bigger could she have gone up to even 12 x 15”. With hindsight removing the hanger and aircraft would have been an option as well as radar was quickly replacing them.

[@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020]

I think, the Bismarck basic design is good enough, it just needs a better radar sets and better a Oerlikon AA protection

[@cold_raptor]

I would consider it quite the weakness, that the ineffeiciently armored citadel doesnt have enough Reserve boyancy to keep the ship afloat

[@Cancun771]

Shorter Drach: *"Just make it a USS Massachussetts!1"* Well more or less.

[@DanWells-uv4se]

I completely agree with Drach's suggestion, but even WITH them, she still seems displacement inefficient. She's about halfway between a North Carolina and an Iowa in displacement, and even with the Drach main battery, she's still an inch shy in caliber of either of those ships. If Wikipedia's right, the Nazi 15" armor-piercing shell was only around 1800 lbs. The US super-heavy 16" shell is widely (and almost certainly correctly - many of those shells still exist in museums) cited as 2700 lbs. Yes, that US shell IS unusually heavy, as its name implies - but the difference in broadside is ENORMOUS. Bismarck fires 14,400 lbs of hot steel (16,200 with Drach's battery) per broadside, the US ships are shooting 24,300. For comparison, Yamato fires 28,962 lbs (just over twice Bismarck). Yes, North Carolina is much closer to Yamato than Bismarck is to North Carolina. Adding an extra turret (four triples), Bismarck would still have a lighter broadside than the significantly lighter American ship. Even the 14" armed King George V class could put significantly more metal in the air (15,900 lbs) than a stock Bismarck , and almost as much as a Bismarck with an extra gun (although nothing close to a 12-gun version). If she's a pure commerce raider,. how about an absurd number of the 11" guns from Scharnhorst instead? Either 15 barrels in five triples or 16 barrels in four quad mounts? With enough rangefinders, it would give the ability to engage four or five ships (merchant vessels, destroyers or cruisers) at once. 11" shells are plenty for those targets. Of course, you don't want to run into a real battleship if you have 11" guns - but Bismarck didn't fare terribly well against those anyway - and if she had survived until the US entered the war, would have fared even worse against any of the American fast battleships with their enormous broadsides (and worse yet against a pack of Essex-class aircraft carriers, but that's true of ANY battleship - such a pack made short work of Yamato with little danger to themselves).

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Weight isn't everything. The Germans always went for relatively light shells fired at high velocity - both in WW1 and WW2. The shells from Bismarck's guns penetrated as much as the 16/45 of NC and SD, and only slightly less than Iowa's 16/50 (the curator of New Jersey battleship was surprised how little difference there were between the two guns). And even carried a larger bursting charge (the British viewed the bursting charge more important than the weight of the shell). Bismarck's guns were also more accurate (less dispersion) than the US guns and had a faster ROF, which meant that over time the weight difference would be less.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

@@TTTT-oc4eb ROF is largely a non-factor in Battleship engagements because most of the time between salvos is taken up by something called "aiming"

[@Al.J_02]

@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 Aye. At the Battle of the Denmark-Strait in particular, no ship came even close to achieving it's theoretical max ROF.

[@ChapBloke]

What's the intro music? Sounds like something from a mid-90's DOS/PC game like Great Naval Battles.

[@CAP198462]

I suggest this new improved Bismarck be given the new name KMS Drachmark.

[@johnnynielsen3006]

This Bismarck 2.0 with these design changes would be a better battleship. Bismarck with 9 fifteen inch guns in three triple turrets A, B and an elevated Z tower. 14 to 18 twin 105 mm secondary twin turrets for close surface action against convoy ships and destroyers. As many 20 mm firling flak turrets as possible as anti air defense and 3-5 Seaplanes launched from the stern deck. However the curved belt armor I would have internally in two straight lines. The space between the thinner belt armor and the straight citadel armor should be damage absorption rooms. Fire damage to fx. crew quarters should be dealt with water sprinklers. Pipes leading to pumps should criscross all decks ready to remove water from either side of any room. Stuck rudders should be blown free by detonating a small bomb on the top nut thus letting it drop straight down.

[@KF99]

The only way to make it more efficient - scrapping the whole project and making another one panzer army.

[@kellysmith1144]

I was under the impression the four turret layout was to enable to ship to fire at more targets at once as a commerce raider?

[@ploppysonofploppy6066]

What about arc welding? Saves a shed load of weight. But we've learned that extra strengthening is needed to allow for the fact that the rigidity in a welded hull puts more stress on it. The stern collapse of Lutzow, Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst and Bismarck could be explained by this. Germans have been characatured as inflexible. Not so. Perhaps they should have been more inflexible here and rivetted the hull?

[@DarkFriday1408]

Could you share a link to the program Spring Shop that you used?

[@BurkhartBerthold]

Reasonable ideas - but the hypothetical most promising change would have been the mass installation of 20 mm Vierlings (pronounced with a sharp sound linke "f") instead of the old 37 mm. Anyway, even the original Bismarck and Tirpitz proved to be very tough nuts to crack.

[@Croatoan140]

I say we put 16 inch guns on and make it have 4 propellers and a bulbous bow as well as have a small seaplane exit from the back

[@stevebarrett9357]

Apart from the technological improvements, I was wondering what your take is if comparing Bismarck with SMS Baden, perhaps in a general sense. I'm curious how German dreadnought building compares between the teens and the 30's

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The design of Bismarck had as little to do with Baden (or even less) as HMS Vanguard had to do with HMS Revenge. Much larger ships, much faster, much better range, much better horisontal protection etc.

[@stevebarrett9357]

Perhaps I mis-phrased myself. This video suggested possible changes to the Bismarck's design. I was wondering if Drachinifel would have similar or perhaps other concerns about the design of SMS Baden. My thought is more one of are these kinds of concerns general with regards German warship design xor did something change as a result of the interwar period and the gap in years of German ship design between said wars. For example, is the concern about Bismarck's citadel's buoyancy also a problem with SMS Baden? His remark about citadel buoyancy going all the way back to HMS Warrior would suggest this is not the case and that most other navies did not have this concern. If German ship design changed in this regard, are there any other design changes that occurred?

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@stevebarrett9357 The Germans selected a relatively low armoured deck to keep metacentric height as low as possible for stability reasons, and so a higher armoured deck as in British and American battleships was not feasible in the necessarily shallow draught hulls dictated by the shallow waters of German coastal and inland water ways. Each country had their own requirements and doctrine. The British evaluated Baden at Scapa Flow (her sister Bayern were "successfull" scuttled) and found her armor protection very good, better than their own QE and Revenge classes. The Germans liked the turtleback, and the H-Class would have taken it further with a thinner main belt and thicker turtleback. The low armored deck was copied in Bismarck, and the armor is probably where Bismarck is most similar to Baden/Bayern, albeit still only superficial. Bismarck was actually much closer to a all-or-nothing ship than Baden. Baden had a thicker main belt and much thicker upper belt, the belt also covered almost the entire waterline, although it tapered off at the ends. Due to the newer threats from airplanes and potensially plunging fire, Bismarck had much thicker horisontal armor (including the slopes of the turtleback). Bismarck's main belt covered "only" 70% of the waterline (still considerably more than any other new battleship) and did not taper off at the ends. The upper deck was designed to be thick enough to set off the bursting charges for bombs and plunging shells before they reached the main armor deck. The upper belt was also designed to decap AP shells and/or set off their bursting charges before they reached the main deck. Areas below the weather deck, but above the armoured deck, were considered a sacrificial zone for shells which penetrated the side armour or bombs which penetrated the weather deck armour. Such hits were expected to burst before reaching the main armoured deck. Consequently, radio rooms and telephone exchanges, and damage control, transmitting stations, magazines, propulsion, and power generating rooms were placed below the armour deck, while non-vital installations occupied the areas above the armour deck. The non-vital areas included galleys, storage rooms, workshops, aid stations, ward rooms, offices, and canteen. The "sacrificial zone" was divided into more than 100 cells , and in addition Bismarck had the largest pumping capacity of all. So I think Drach is exaggerating the "buoyancy problem". If anything, it should have showed up in her last battle, but it did not. Other major differences were a lack of a forecastle in Bismarck and a very different layout for the secondaries. Then you have the obvious differences in size, speed and range.

[@professor-josh]

In World of Warships is there a skin for what she looks like now (in Davy Jones's Locker)? Zombie World of Warships? On the other hand, Ally or Axis, those are war graves so never mind.

[@redvraven3285]

I would add even more extra anti aircraft with the extra space. Quad 20 mills. More than anything, I would have the Luftwaffe support my navy from land at all times.

[@Hugh.Gilbert]

Would the 40mm from the Ostwind be suitable for naval applications? It's a ship so dual mount those. Another option since we're playing "what if?"... Bin the aircraft and finish the Graf Zeppelin then sail together, logistics be damned. Also on the AA side... take the US approach and strap on 20mm guns on any free deck space. Moar dakka! IF this results in too much weight just add racing stripes for the horsepower buffs.

[@markrobinson9956]

Not sure how I feel about the new intro music. Trying to keep an open mind.

[@migeary]

Joking aside what were the documented actions where battleships during WW2 effectively used their anti surface secondaries other than perhaps shore bombardment? The USN got it right there, the 38 caliber 127mm was a mediocre anti surface gun, but it was an effective AA gun, which was what was really needed.

[@bkjeong4302]

The issue is that battleships, strategically, are sea control strategic assets intended to face enemy fleets over who gets to control that part of the ocean. If your battleship ends up being used as a gigantic destroyer on AA duty, you’ve just built a capital ship that cannot be used as a capital ship. Hence why building battleships was never going ti be a good idea for anybody in WWII, albeit nobody figured this out going into WWII.

[@ssanneru]

Honestly, if any navy on the planet NEEDED heavy anti-ship secondaries for the capital ships, it was the German one. Most people used destroyers for that job, the German destroyers were deeply dysfunctional so the cap-ship would have to to it all herself...

[@gregorywright4918]

Without looking it up, I'd guess Hiei and Kirishima, Washington and South Dakota, Matapan and North Cape (not sure on the latter), and Surigao Strait. Your definition of "effectively" may differ, especially in Hiei's case.

[@ssanneru]

@@gregorywright4918 Scharnhorst did not use her secondaries in the latter stages of her last battle at least; her wreck has the secondary turrets still in the fore-and-aft position. The weather during the battle was awful of course; firing the secondaries may very well have been utterly pointless.

[@prussianhill]

This honestly could be the start of a new series. Drach's Resdesigns of Badly Designed ships. Maybe the Admiral Hippers or the Koingsburg cruisers next?

[@AdamSmith-kq6ys]

"For the new _Konigsburg_ design, we're going to start as follows: Hans, fetch me the _flammenwerfer_ - the _heavy_ flammenwerfer!"

[@bkjeong4302]

I’d also like to see a series on “how to make well-designed ships even better”. “Redesigning Yamato”: keep her size, speed, main armament, and armour layout. Use the 100mm dual-purpose gun or even the Japanese 5” instead of the 6” triples secondaries. Fix the flawed TDS. Better yet, not build her at all (not that it would be enough to let Japan win the war, not by a long shot). “Redesigning Iowa”: keep the overall design but cut down around one knot of speed in exchange for better seakeeping. Use a North Carolina-esque TDS instead. Better still, not build her at all (so the US can win even harder in the Pacific). “Redesigning KGV”: drop the “fire horizontally across the bow” requirement for better seakeeping. Maybe not build her at all, but there’s a *slightly* better argument for building her than building Yamato or Iowa. “Redesigning Shokaku”: Replace the 5” dual-purpose with the 100mm dual-purpose. Use the foam fire suppression system used on Unryu.

[@RedXlV]

The Hippers are pretty easy since they're practically Bismarck in miniature.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@RedXlV Except even more inefficient.

[@gwcstudio]

"New design for Hood: better magazines!" Ooo good idea!!

[@chrishall5283]

My late father-in-law wanted to make a large and very detailed model of the Bismarck, so he wrote to Blohm und Voss asking if it was possible to get a copy of the plans for the ship. He received a very nice reply letter saying that they would love to be able to, but that unfortunately the plans were destroyed by his air force during the war.

[@JevansUK]

Yes, a lot of data was lost that way, a lot of documents were taken by the Admiralty too. They were returned in 1965 but had been totally reorganised

[@piotrd.4850]

More likely, that was excuse for PR reasons - not wanting to reveal that they have nazi-era weapon plans.

[@JamesThomas-gg6il]

Well that kinda sucks, why didn't them flyboys be more careful where they dropped things?

[@iangreenhalgh9280]

Well, considering how heavily Hamburg was bombed, it's no surprise the plans didn't survive....

[@FelipeScheuermann1982]

​@@JamesThomas-gg6ilin fact, they where. Bombed tons of civilians to prevent Germany from having a industrial workforce, so bombing the production bureaus was a logic step... i would say a logical prior step but for allies was a logic next step. 🤔

[@SuperAKJR]

I would move the foward radar array out of the blast zone of the foward guns so the ship doesn't blind itself after firing it's main guns.

[@williamzk9083]

The triode vacuum tubes used on the Bismarck’s FuMO 23 radars were known as TS1. They indeed did suffer from shock of the 15 inch guns (ok on prinz Eugene) but the TS6 triodes of the FuMO 26 used on Tirpitz only 5 months latter didn’t suffer from shock.

[@frankbodenschatz173]

❤or something to that effect. Isolating the cabinets, whatever it took!

[@myparceltape1169]

If the ship is going to shoot the radar must be protected. Or at least to withstand the electromagnetic pulse of a bursting shell.

[@Nik111333]

The forward looking Radar is not blinded from the smoke or blast from the main guns, it was the shock which make them drop out. In the case of "Bismarck" the firing against the both CA which shadowed them, this resulted in a "Nummerntausch" means "Prinz Eugen" changed to first position because of her working forward looking radar. Ryan, the Curator of "Battleship New Jersey" mentioned in one of his Videos that the US Navy have initially problems with Radars which dropped out if the main battery is firing. I think this is not a Kriegsmarine problem, it is more a teething problem with the early Battleship based radar which all Nations has to figure out.

[@richardcutts196]

@@williamzk9083 That answers my question. I had always thought it was lack of shock mounting and not muzzle blast that had disabled Bismarck's radars.