New Unit: Bismark Class

[Adler17]

Ships are usually called she. Only very recently the British register wanted to give up this rule, but no other register or even navy is following. Only boats can be male. This fact of Lindemanns referring is new to me.
To Akula: The regisseur of the movie Titanic, I don´t know his name at this moment, dived to the Bismarck and found evidences of the theory, the Bismarck was scuttled. The torpedo of the Dorsetshire MIGHT have fasten this, but was not the cause. Bismarck was hit by an air torpedo, but she was hit on the only point, where she was vulnerable, the rudder. A few meters before, and there would have been minimal damage. Compare it with the Tirpitz, which had several mine hits which were even stronger and she was never in danger of being sunk.
The Flak of the Bismarck was also strong. She had 16 10,5 cm (4,1"), 16 3,7 cm, and 12 2 cm Flak. This was heavy at a point where she sailed, later not. BTW the PoW had a stronger Flak and was also sunk! The Flak of all this ships were insufficient in these days.
The Germans gave the order to scuttle at a moment, where all hope was gone and even the last light gun was out of action or depleted ammo. The ship should be scuttled to save the crew, but the British made mistakes by saving the crew, so only 117 survivors were there. Also the torpedo might have been catastrophic for the crew.
But we can´t be sure in all theories. The British sources should be watched carefully. Because of national pride they would never say, they didn´t sunk the Bismarck or Germany would have won Jutlan- or the Wembly goal was not inside!
Okay this is also German national pride to beat these Tommies , but you should know in 1914 the brand new battleship Audacious hit only one single mine- and sunk. Long after the war they publized this fact.

Adler

P.S. No one should be offended. I´m only a Kraut, who is just kidding. We also have humor. It is propaganda we don´t have humor.

 

[vingrjoe]

Here's an interesting specification, the immunity zone for the Iowa is 16,400 yards while Bismark's is 29,000 yards. What does this mean ? The Bismark would have to get closer to the Iowa for her (Bismark's) guns to be effective against Iowa's armor. Which would not be a good idea for Bismark, since getting closer to Iowa would allow Iowa's shells to hit with more of their initial muzzle velocity, which in return would equal more penetration.

"The quality of steel was different" - That is true, but US Grade A armor was the best in the world, only to be complimented by the STS plating. This armor is superior to the armor the Germans produced.

Another note, England's shells were not the greatest munitions, the Bismark's 15"/47's were better than the 14"/45's fired at her. Given the not so hot performance of the British munitions, no wonder it took a while to chew up the Bismark.

The reason England took out Tirpitz with those huge bombs could be it would have taken too much time to sail the fleet to Tipirtz's location, which could've exposed the fleet to Uboats and/or aerial attack or it was just quicker to take her out with those bombs.

Regarding the Bismark as an equal with the Iowa or Yamato is plain absurb when facing the technical data. Yes, the Bismark was a decent ship, but not an equal.

Adler17, if believing the fairy tale you've convinced yourself of makes you sleep better at night, than who am I to ruin your happiness with technical facts. As far as how you want to rate Bismark in your game, that's your business and choice. That's what makes this game so entertaining, an individual can customize settings to their own liking and have fun with it.

Again, I refer interested persons to these links :


http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm#guns

http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm

http://www.combinedfleet.com/f_armor.htm

 

[Adler17]

In my opinion the Bismarck is equal to Iowa since the British never attacked the ship with other battleships. They retreated even when they were superior, like the sortie of the Tirpitz to attack PQ 17. The British had 2 or three battleships and several cruiser in the area but they retreated. In the last year they had always two KGV BBs to watch the Tirpitz.
But we will never know the end of a theoretical battle. Because one aspect will never be predictable: Luck. Without this even a mighty battleship is doomed because of a lucky hit.

Adler

 

[Akula]

If you're referring to Robert Ballards exploration of the wreck of the Bismarck then it shows absolutely NO signs of having been scuttled, actually there's no way of saying anything ike that as all the underwater protection was destroyed by the impact
BTW a british exploration of the wreck in 2001 concluded that there where signs of penetrating torpedo damage on the hull, although this evidence is doubtfull it's still the mos solid evidence ever found on weather the ship was sunk or scuttled
About the AA armament the 2cm guns are pretty much useless so we can exclude those, that leaves only 32 guns, and thats very little by any standards also the Prince of Wales was attacked by a large sortie of Japanese planes where as the Bismark was attacked by a few Swordfish torpedo bombers, the fact that the torpedo bombers could actually get whitin fiering range pretty much proves the uselessnes of the AA armament
Also remember that it was according to the surviving german marines that the charges was set to explode 47 minutes before the ship capsized that's all too long time in my oppinion to be the result of the destruction
About hte rudder yes the main uderwater protection could very likely have survived an impact but again the very fact that a single hit can so easely cripple the ship pretty much points to a very flawed construction, the hull itself was also of very old design, about 26 in 1941 Iowa Yamato and King George was all state-of the-art bismarck was an improved WW I wintage battleship, and totally lacked in AA and Underwater protection

 

[Adler17]

It is a mystery, why Bismarck couldn´t even shot down one enemy plane! Tirpitz could shoot down dozens of planes, even with the large 15 " guns! The Flak was as good as any other Flak.
True, Bismarck had an armour, which was thinner compared to other BBs, although it was over 17000 ts of total over 50000 ts. Neverthless because of the quality and the design it was equal to better armoured ships. Although two British battleships and several cruiser and destroyer shot at her FOR HOURS she was still afloating.
The design was not base upon WWI designs. It was competely new, even the 15" guns. The two Scharnhorst class BBs were based on the old BCs of the Mackensen class, but enhenced.
KGV class were also outstanding BBs, but their guns were not so good. Rodney and Nelson, which you mentioned a few posts ago, were very slow. Nagato was faster, but elder. Both ships were WW I Superdreadnaughts, which were modernized. South Carolina were better, but lacked in the fact of being only 35.000 ts big. These ships were very good ships at all, but I would put them all into one category with Scharnhors and Gneisenau, although both lacked in their Artillery of 28 cm guns. Nevertheless I would put them into this category of BBs. Did I forget one? Yes the Italian Littorio class. Although good ships they could not take so much damage, although I do not know anything about the quality of their 15 " guns. The Roma was sunk by 2 Fritz X guided bombs, while Warspite was damaged by 3, but still afloating (with very much luck).
Richelieu. Hmmm. To be honest I do not know much about her, but IIRC the ship was a bit weaker than Bismarck.
So only Bismarck, Yamato and Iowa are left. I think Yamato should be better than both, but I´m uncertain. In my opinion Bismarck and Iowa should be put on one step.
If you can read German you should read : Von der Emden zur Tirpitz by Siegfried Beyer. He has also written a book about BBs, but I didn´t read it. There should be good works about the mentioned BBs.

Adler

P.S. In the final battle NOT a sigle shell pernetrated the armoured deck! I´m in a hurry, so I could give you the source tomorrow.

 

[Akula]

Naturally no shell pierced the deck the British ships where in a range where horisontal fiered shells where theonly possible solution
Having 48 AA guns makes the ship seem very inadequade in AA defence no matter what and when you take into account that 16 of them is 20mm it seems horrible inadequade, the 105mm guns where somewhat effective if they could actually target the attacking aircraft, they where very clumbersome weapons so those won't serve any prupose against fast enemy aircraft the 37mm guns where single shot, hand loaded weapons, and was replaced as soon as something else was availeble, thus also sub standard of the time
Iowa carried up to 80 40mm and 60 20mm AA guns, this varied a bit from ship to ship
The 1930's AA desing of the South Dakota and North Carolina was about as capable as that of the Bismarck this was quickly replced whit something like 60-70 40mm and about 60 20mm AA guns
The Tirpitz underwent major AA refits so it's pretty much two different ships when it comes to AA Defence, it was still WAY below that of most allied capitol ships though
Again if you hit ABOVE the waterline you retty much need a magazine explsion to take down the ship so that dosn't say that much
KGV's armament not so good?!?!?!?!
The 14" shell of the PoW actually managed to peirce right through 2 layers of the main belt armor of the Bismarck so if those guns are poor the armor on the Bismarck is horrible
The 15" guns may be new but the hull was an enlarged version of the Baden class that design is WW I and the gun layout was WW I so categorising the ship as a pure WW II ships is totally wrong also in the 20's and 30's extensive battleship tests where carried out
The total weight of the Bismarck compared to the South Dakota or North carolina is about 5.000 tons that dosn't really mean much in battleship terms, and these ships armor was BETTER than the bismarck, Bismarck armor was horrible distributed compared to "modern" battleships, bismarck carried WW I armor distribution
Here's what the Royal Navy says about Bismarck

The japanese Mutsu, American North Carolina and British Rodney was better armed and protected and in the case of the first two faster Bismarck was pretty much a First world war design with Bauhaus styling, her protection was poorly distributed and non existant in some areas, all her internal communications ran above her armored deck, her mashinery was unreliable

Pretty much says all I think
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau was okay designs but if you take their poor mashinery, underpowered guns, weak armor, mediocore speed and the simple fact htat they're WW I designs placing "real" BB's in that category won't be fair, the chnce of Scharnhorst taking down any of the before mentioned is very low at best, after all Scarnhorst was obliterated by Duke of York no even hitting her a single time, the KGV class was FAR superior to the Scharnhorst and yet you categorise them as equals, no german naval officer, with just a bit sence would engage a KGV battleship with a Scharnhorst BC
Actually it's generally accepted the iowa was the best battleship ever so I don't know why you'd place it beneath the Yamato and together whit the Bismarck
It's also accepted that all US WW II battleships where better than anything else exept perhaps the Yamato, and that's by people with far more knowledge about this than any of us here so I take their words above pretty much anything I read here

Always remember tha Germany lacked any real practical modern warship experience as the maximum allowed displacement was 10.000 tons, all large German warships was pretty much built on First World War technology, sometimes, but mostly not enhanced, especially lacking in engine and hull design, armor layout, dual purpose guns and deck layout

 

[vingrjoe]

"In my opinion the Bismarck is equal to Iowa since the British never attacked the ship with other battleships."

That is the basis for your belief that the Bismark is equal to Iowa or Yamato ?! That is not very logical reasoning. Despite all technical documentation, showing Iowa had the advantage of speed, armor, guns, and fire control radar, you're basing your opinion on subjective feelings due to national allegiance.

For your information, Admiral Tovey pounded Bismark with the guns of King George V and Rodney. Those two are battleships. They closed to within 16,000 yards of the Bismarck, so just as Akula wrote, they were too close for plunging fire to hit the deck ! I've heard of Japan writing the history of World War 2 as if they won it and all the battles, but I wasn't aware that German authors spewed out similar lies. That is my just my opinion based on your strong belief in your misconceptions.

I don't know how old you are, but judging by your sentence structure and conveyed attitude in your posts, I would guess teenager to early twenties. I have been reading about battleships and warships since age twelve. I am now 31, I think it's safe to say, presuming I'm correct about your age, I would have more knowledge on this subject than you, Adler. I do believe your national pride, in conjunction with either misinformation or inability to comprehend what you read, is fueling your illusions about this subject.

Ah, I'm ready for Conquests, is it out yet ?!

sources:

"Jane's Battleships of the 20th Century" by Bernard Ireland

"Battleships" by Paul Stillwell

"United States Battleships, 1935-1992" by William H. Garzke,Jr/ Robert O. Dulin,Jr

http://www.warships1.com/

 

[Adler17]

Yes, I´m a German student of 23 years now. I also read about warships since was 12. And yes I have national pride. And yes, most of the sources I have read are of German origin. This might also be influenced by national pride, but the British sources not??? I know other British sources which are full of national pride and small historical mistakes or misinterpretaions. The British are very proud in their navy. So we´re very proud in the facts of beating them a few times very hard on the sea. This will be one point all of our sources are in danger: National pride. Unfortunately I do not know a Swiss source or a Swedish one.
I think all technical datas are given here. I do understand them all. I do not say they´re wrong, but I say they must be interpreted on another way. German steel was one of the best of the world. The guns of the Bismarck were outstanding. The design made the thinner armour more effective than thicker armour on other BBs. If two enemy BBs fire on one ship at close distance for hours and not even a single shell could pernetrate the armoured deck, is one fact, which is not to comment! On the other hand PoW was damged by 8 hits of 15". And only because of a mistake of Admiral Lütjens the ship escaped.
I know there are mistakes in my posts, but I try to write my best English. But again I understood all facts which were posted here. And although I´m not so old like you, Akula, I know very much about this theme.
I think no one is able to convince the other of his position. And now the national pride is mentioned. I think we should stop the discussion now before it is going under the belt. It was a very good discussion either, which made me a lot of fun. I still think Bismarck was as good as Iowa. So only if you do not want to stop the discussion or if you have new fact, we should commence the discussion.

Adler

 

[Akula]

Old??? I'm 17
I've enjoyed this discussion very much
I very much hope this discussion won't turn hostile and I've not meant anything I've posted in that way
I don't think nationality matters in this díscussion I'm half german myself
About the PoW one thin is sertain if Lütjens had engaged it he'd have won, PoW was very new at the time and pretty much not combat ready, e.g. X turret jammed and was disabled for about 2 hours, her guns wasn't tested, had a very high spreading and failed about half the time, it took about 10 minutes for Bismarck to force it out of the combat
If Lütjens had sunk PoW it's not a much a testemony to the greatness of german design as a testemony to the stupidity of the Admiralty of sending it into combat in the first place
It's a bit difficult to judge Bismarck from the actions taken, first of all Lütjens was a fool nothing less, he failed to take sertain great opportunities
I don't know if Bismarck was among the very best ships but, but it was a match for anything the Royal navy had or built later

 

[Adler17]

Sorry, I meant vingrjoe . Indeed Lütjens was a fool, but the RN was even more foolish to send such a new ship into the battle with no need. With an old BC,which was no match for a modern ship. Indeed I would say the loss of this ship is in one line with the loss of the three British BCs at Jutland. If Lütjens had sunk the PoW and returned to Norway, which I would have done, it would be a disatrous defeat for the RN, especially morally.

Adler

P.S. It is strange why he became commander. There were even some better Admirals, which would have made the right decision.

 

[akinkhoo]

comparing the Bismark to Iowa is .

Iowa and Yamato are fast battleship,
sometime even refer to as SUPER-battleship (pride of the fleet).
no other battleship could fight them and expect a win!

Iowa steel might not be the best
(production of steel suitable for armor was limited in US),
but the completed armor (partly made of concrete!) was superior.
we don't just compare quality, we also compare construction technology.

Bismark should be more compare to British Warship which was in the same threater.

 

[Adler17]

The definition of super BB is a BB of over 50.000 ts; Bismarck had indeed 52.000 ts. Only Iowa and Yamato classes were bigger (projects excluded).
The construction of the Bismarck was state of the art, as I mentioned before.
But indeed Bismarck should be in action in the Atlantic and not pacific. And British or French ships should be her counter part. We only speculated about a what if scenario. At least I will stay by my opinion: Bismarck was as good as Iowa.
Adler

 

[Akula]

Well officially Bismarck was a 35.000 ton battleship
If we stay in the atlantic I'd say that Bismarck was a match for pretty much anything there, exept perhaps Rodney due to her very high firepower and good armor but Bismarck could easely outrun her so it's a difficult one
About the fast battleships
Bismarck reached trial speeds of 32 knts compared to a maximum trial speed of 27.5 for Yamato
Iowa is somewhat faster, but not that much again about 35 knts max officially 33

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Originally posted by Akula
Well officially Bismarck was a 35.000 ton battleship
If we stay in the atlantic I'd say that Bismarck was a match for pretty much anything there, exept perhaps Rodney due to her very high firepower and good armor but Bismarck could easely outrun her so it's a difficult one
About the fast battleships
Bismarck reached trial speeds of 32 knts compared to a maximum trial speed of 27.5 for Yamato
Iowa is somewhat faster, but not that much again about 35 knts max officially 33

What kind of Tons ?? 1 Tonne = 1000 KGs or how ?

The official allowed Tonnage for Battleships (pre-1939) was 35.000 'Tonnen' (35.560 t)- although the Bismarck was declared 40.000 "to match French designs" (having been allowed either more or greater tonnage ships)... in the end the Bismarck turned out to outweight 12.000 Tonnen over even the stated 40.000....
Bismarck Class (German)

 

[akinkhoo]

Originally posted by Adler17
At least I will stay by my opinion: Bismarck was as good as Iowa.

in your opinion

it was well armored, but armored at the wrong places. Bismarck lost it fire control and rubber too easily in the battles. the Iowa and Yamato would be able to take more hit before breaking.

what good is the excellent fire control when the fire control is blow off easily?

could Bismarck's 8x15" be enough to defeat the equally well trained and reliable Iowa's 9x16" and Yamato 9x18" gunnery?

IMO, Bismarck isn't equal. it is superior to most battleship but not the Iowa. It got famous for the wrong reason didn't it? shortest career! lol!

 

[Akula]

I know W.I.N.T.E.R. I'm just making fun of it
I know Bismarck was really about 50.000 metric tons, I'm just joking about that when Germany and Britain signed their naval treties (think it was in 1936), it was said it was 35.000 metric tons, and officially it staid that way and to the Royal Navy it was still a 35.000 ton ship in 1941

 

[vingrjoe]

Very interesting discussion indeed. I apologize if I got a little too hostile for what should be a civilized(no pun intended) discussion. But we have our own opinions, no matter whether they're based on technical data, historical facts or personal interest. I won't back down on my stance that the Iowa was superior to Bismark, I have plenty of books and data that prove it, but I think we have beaten this dead horse enough.
I just picked up Conquests and am going to try it out, finally, ships have anti air ability! This should be interesting.

 

[Wlambr]

Well isn’t it a question of emphasis?
Bismarck is the kind of ship you keep near your weak spot to stop that pesky AI from shipping transport with loads of shock troops behind your main battleline allowing yourself the ability to extend your might just a little bit further. And if somebody drops by with something nastier than your ship you get as many transports as you can before running and hiding behind your costal fortresses and your minefields while your friends in high places drop bombs on him. Bismarck is a brown water school ship. Iowa on the other hand is a blue water search and destroy vessel, and both are rather well suited for their roles.

Consider that the Bismarck was built on empirical data collected from Jutland, and as such designed to take on contemporary British and French opponents. That being at the time of construction two Nelson-class, four KGV-class, HMS Centurion, five Queen Elizabeth-class, five Royal Oak class, three Courbet-class and three Provence-class dreadnoughts as well as Le Richilieu (correct me if I’ve forgotten any). That’s a total of four pre-ww1 dreadnoughts, fifteen dreads completed during ww1 and seven treaty dreads. None of them Iowa class super-dreadnoughts. Let there be no doubt that Iowa would have been the superior warship. That’s what she’s designed to be. Problem with civilization is we don’t get all the nice strato-political titbits, and all those interesting strategic decision-making details…

But it makes an interesting point, as somebody did, designating Bismarck as a WW1 super-dreadnought, especially if the combined fleet statistics are taken into consideration. We’ll recall the two of the reasons, that this excellent source (which I ardently swear by myself) rates Bismarck so weakly, are armour and fire control: The armour rating being a function of belt index based on absolute penetrating power, and the high-rated deck index. Likewise while fire control rates Bismarck beautifully (9) for optics she fares worse than Vittorio while featuring appr. the same radar.
The combined fleet resource rates Bismarck high on guns with excellent ballistics and penetrating power as well as nice destructive power for her gun size. Now if Bismarck had her armour rated on relative penetrating power, say from a possible opponent such as the Royal Oak class HMS Ramilles (which took part in the chase) she’d probably fare a whole lot better. The other armour issue is the deck. Bismarck was created for direct fire action, and as we all know in direct fire actions belt armour and not deck armour is important. Thus the overall armour rating isn’t really that fair. The second factor being fire control, and well Bismarck may not be able to hit you from 39k yards, but she sure as hell can from the 20k she is designed to.
I guess what I mean to say by that tirade is this: numbers means lot, but they do not mean everything. And in short wasn’t Bismarck meant to engage the ww1 dreadnoughts with battle cruiser support of the home fleet and engage and destroy contemporary treaty battleships thus keeping the royal navy from blocking the vital German international trade in the North Sea? – That’s traditional blue-brown thinking. From that point of view she was a superb ship with a good service record.

Instead of fulfilling her role she was pitched against three treaty battleships, two ww1 dreadnoughts, three battlecruiser, two carriers and a number (four?) of cruisers and survived alone for a number of days sinking one battle cruiser and chasing a treaty ship off in the process before succumbing to the combined fire of two treaty ships after being straffed a number of times by planes and destroyers. And it’s easy to judge her on that basis; from the modern blue water school we follow today and which Civilization encourages.

I’d rate Bismarck +1def., +1 att. +1 fp compared to standard dreadnought battleships, while Iowa should get something like a +3 def., +2 att, +2 fp. Details are nice and sure as hell Bismarck wouldn’t have done good against Iowa unless possibly in a head-on Jutland style battle – I mean what’s the idea of building an tactically obsolete WW1 superdreadnought in 1939 – but pitch her and her three mates against the Queen Elizabeth and Royal Oak sisters and they’d most probably be rocking. And who cares if she was scuttled. She lost, give her the benefit of going down horribly outgunned with honour...

 

[Adler17]

First Wamblr, it is a question of honour whether the Bismarck was sunk by enemy forces or scuttled. In the last alternative the enemies were not able to sink her (which I say). But you´re right she is sunk in the last battle.
She WASN`T a Super Bayern class BB. Although Bayern was the last step to modern BBs in WW1, she must be compared with Queen Elizabeth or Nagato class BBs. Bismarck was a completely new design. She was indeed designed to fight against anglo- french warships and not US or even Japanese. And indeed Bismarck had not so much Armour than Yamato or Iowa.
Nevertheless her steel was the best of the world and the construction of the ship in different sections and the structure of the armour in belt and deck was superior. So she needed less armour for the same protection. In her last fight no grenade could pernetrate the armour belt. She was still afloating when the British stopped to fire. Indeed she was hurt badly but not critical. On the other side the PoW was damged very heavily by her guns, which were superior to any other 15" gun. Because of this fact I see this gun as effective as the guns of the Iowa because her guns have another design following the British designs AFAIK. And British guns were not so effective like German guns. For example the German 13 " guns were in WW1 better than British 14" guns. And this changed not very until WW2.
The Bismarck was designed to fight enemy warships in open ocean. This is a classic blue water task. She should attack the British fleet together with her sister. Both ships together with a CA like Prinz Eugen and perhaps even with the CV Graf Zeppelin would have been a task force the British fleet should have only had a chance if using the whole RN.
Well that´s all. I mentioned other facts above, if you think I forgot to metion anything post it.

Adler

 

[Akula]

Well thaking that the royal navyb y the time tirpitz had finished her trials included:
4 Revenge class battleships
4 Queen Elizabeth battleships
2 King George V battleships
1 Renown Battlecruiser
And that's the heavy units alone, so saying that 2 Bismarck battleships (plus or minus the Hipper class) would have a chance is pretty much totally insane, those ships could fire over 150 tons high explosive each minute and even if only 5-10% of the shell scored a hit it would still be enough to cripple about any warship ever

The Bismarck had an enlarged Bayern hull so it's in a way a super Bayern, and that hull was totally obsolete by the time, and having a a blue water docktrine battleship with weak deck armor or AA armament isn't really that cool, that was demonstrated by the british as early as 1940 with the attack on Taranto harbor
Also comparing the defences on the bismarck in any way with ships like Yamato won't show anything but the weakness of the Bismarck, yamato and Iowa had the best damage resistance ever built into a battleship, so you're going to come short when comparing to those classes
Yamato had 54.500 tons extra buoyancy that's more than Bismarck fully loaded and the Yamato's was designed to maintain stability until her heel reached 20 degrees. no other warship could do that
In fact Yamato's could give any other warship built (exept the Iowa's fully loaded and the Yamato conversion Shinano) a piggy back ride, without sinking that pretty much shows the extend of the extra buoyancy

Also the armor scheme of Bismarck wasn't really that good
Vanguard, King George V, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Anson, Howe, Littorio, Vittorio Veneto, Roma, Richelieu, and Jean Bart had better armor schemes than Bismarck
This could also raise the question:
does it REALLY matter that much how good the armor is if it's wrongly distributed???
Many of the vital parts of bismarck lacked real protection so although the ship wasn't sunk it was very fast crippled, it dosn't only matter how fast the ship sinks, it also matters how long it can keep fighting, and for Bismarck that was surprisingly short
The main reason the Bismarck lasted as long as it did in it's final battle is mostly due to the faliure of the british shells and the in ability of the british guns to hit the Bismarck's underwater protection, in short the coudn't give Bismarck a fatal hit, only damage the superstructure, and if you look at withness accounts and examination of the wreck they did that very very well, also remember that it took a single hit from Rodney to take out the main fire director post on Bismarck, that the about best armored spot on the ship

Examination of the wreck of bismarck has actually found several penetrating hits, but none under the waterline also during the engagement in the Denmark strait PoW managed to pierce right through Bismarck belt armor, so one of the only full distance hits that Bismarck suffered got right through the armor and even exited on the other site

US main 16in guns underwent an independent research program during the 1920's and 30's so simply comparing them to the british isn't correct

Stating what bismarck wass chased by dosn't really prove a thing, it just tells how much the RN wanted to destroy it
What Bismarck was engaged by was:
In the Denmark strait
1 obsolete Battlecruiser
1 totally unseaworthy battleship + non-participating escort
about 30 Swordfish in 2 sorties
in har final battle she did actually only face 2 battleships and 1 cruiser:
HMS rodney
HMS King George V
HMS Norfolk
1 hour later Dorsetshire joined the battle, but at that point Bismarck really coudn't fight back
Bsmarck was a good ship but saying it's an exeptionally ship isn't correct