Bismarck proper name "He" or "She" - Naval History Forums
Nov 12, 2004 · The battleship Bismarck = El acorazado Bismarck. The frigate Bismarck = La fragata Bismarck. Therefore for the Spanish people reading the translated version of von Müllenheim-Rechberg's book (or any other text in Spanish) there is nothing wrong in using the masculine form when referring to this ship because for us the battleship Bismarck is ...
Why didn't battleship Bismarck have more support?
The primary objective of battleship Bismarck was to sink transporters coming from the U.S. and sailing to Europe transporting goods (oil, food). It encountered HMS Hood and sank it. German cruiser Prinz Eugen was sailing along with the Bismarck all the time apart from the time the Royal Navy engaged heavy forces to sink it.
How many if any crewmembers of Bismarck are still alive?
Apr 3, 2011 · Battleship Bismarck Forums; ↳ Bismarck General Discussion; ↳ Bismarck Crewmember Research; ↳ The Wreck of the Bismarck; Naval History Forums; ↳ Naval History in General; ↳ The Age of Sail (1571-1860) ↳ The Ironclad & Pre-dreadnought Era (1860-1905) ↳ The Dreadnought Era (1906-1921) ↳ Naval History (1922-1945)
Bismarck deck details - Naval History Forums
Sep 5, 2008 · Battleship Bismarck Forums; ↳ Bismarck General Discussion; ↳ Bismarck Crewmember Research; ↳ The Wreck of the Bismarck; Naval History Forums; ↳ Naval History in General; ↳ The Age of Sail (1571-1860) ↳ The Ironclad & Pre-dreadnought Era (1860-1905) ↳ The Dreadnought Era (1906-1921) ↳ Naval History (1922-1945)
Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History
Apr 9, 2018 · Re: Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History Post by RobertsonN » Thu Jul 25, 2019 4:16 pm Another omission in this book is any reference to the post-Jutland German designs for ships of the line and 'fast large fighting ships'.
BISMARCK armor scheme = BADEN? - Naval History Forums
Aug 4, 2010 · The issue of whether Bismarck is really a Baden class battleship has been raised in earlier threads and there is I think a danger that this issue is debated to the nth degree largely focussing on semantics and interpretation without arriving at a productive or useful conclusion. My thoughts for what they are worth.
Bismarck´s paravanes - Naval History Forums
Oct 2, 2005 · Battleship Bismarck Forums; ↳ Bismarck General Discussion; ↳ Bismarck Crewmember Research; ↳ The Wreck of the Bismarck; Naval History Forums; ↳ Naval History in General; ↳ The Age of Sail (1571-1860) ↳ The Ironclad & Pre-dreadnought Era (1860-1905) ↳ The Dreadnought Era (1906-1921) ↳ Naval History (1922-1945)
Bismarck 15" guns. - Naval History Forums
Mar 16, 2006 · Battleship Bismarck Forums; ↳ Bismarck General Discussion; ↳ Bismarck Crewmember Research; ↳ The Wreck of the Bismarck; Naval History Forums; ↳ Naval History in General; ↳ The Age of Sail (1571-1860) ↳ The Ironclad & Pre-dreadnought Era (1860-1905) ↳ The Dreadnought Era (1906-1921) ↳ Naval History (1922-1945)
Bismarck and Titanic - Naval History Forums
Mar 1, 2007 · She was longer and higher than Bismarck whose hull was only 15 meters high. So I began to compare both specifications and found some interesting things. Bismarck´s displacement was: 41,700 tons standard 50,900 tons full …
USS Arizona vs. Bizmark - Naval History Forums
May 30, 2006 · Bismarck: 8 x 15"/L47 Arizona: 12 x 14"/45 cal. Bismarck: 38,880 yds. Arizona: 34,000 yds. Bismarck: 800 kg. Arizona: 636.36 kg. Bismarck: 2,690 ft/sec. Arizona: 2,700 ft./sec. Bismarck: 2.4 per minute Arizona: 1.5 per minute As we can check the Bismarck was not only a bigger ship with more horsepower and speed but with better armor and armament.