Today’s Navy is focused on shifting towards utilizing its “small boys,” i.e. destroyers and cruisers, independently of the carrier strike group in what is called the distributed lethality task force (DLTF). The idea behind the DLTF, as Vice Admiral Tom Rowden says, is to focus the U.S. Navy in four areas – tactics, talent, training, and tools.[1] Vice Admiral Rowden believes these mission areas will help the US Navy dominate in the next big conflict. With this focused shift towards operating around destroyers and cruisers instead of large-deck ships like carriers (CVNs) and amphibious ships (LHAs and LHDs), the future of naval warfare looks much like it did in the age of the battleship. Vice Admiral Rowden’s push towards a DLTF-focused Navy brings back the need for more agile ships, like battleships, which aircraft carriers were meant to replace. Vice Admiral Rowden’s DLTF Navy needs to look back to the age of the battleship and their captains to study the winning tactics and strategies necessary to dominate in the coming age.
It has been that the Navy has the talent and the tools. The talent is visible in the graduates of the U.S. Naval Academy, the Naval Reserve Officer Training Program, and Officer Candidate School, all of whom go through difficult and rigorous admissions processes to gain entrance into these select programs. The tools are there, too; the creation of the Zumwalt-class destroyer and the littoral combat ship (LCS), as well as the incorporation of Aegis and the newest in ballistic missile defense on all destroyer platforms are moves in the right direction to incorporate the best modern technology on naval vessels. The tactics and training, however, need to constantly undergo reevaluation. While tactics are lessons that must be learned through hands-on scenarios, more wholesome training can begin with the study and evaluation of past battles and the leaders that emerged or fell from grace. This evaluation can start here—with the legendary Bismarck and why she is a success story for future leaders.
The most legendary battleship battles are attributed to the German battleship Bismarck and her captain, Captain Ernest Lindemann, during World War II. The Bismarck was the first of its class, named after Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the man who unified Germany in 1871. At the time of her build, the Bismarck was the largest battleship in use. The Bismarck remains the largest battleship ever built by Germany, and one of the largest ships built by any European power. Based on these facts, the Bismarck was destined for great things.
Technically speaking, Bismarck was nothing special. Compared to the HMS Hood, the Bismarck was average. Where the Hood displaced 48,350 tons of water, had a length of 860 feet and could reach top speeds of 29 knots, the Bismarck only displaced 41,700 tons, had a length of 792 feet, 8 inches, and reached a top speed of 30 knots.[2], [3] As for armament, the Bismarck had a 145-320 mm (5.709-12.598 inches) belt, as well as 110-120 mm (4.331-4.724 inches) deck plating, 220 mm (8.661 inches) thick bulkhead plating, 130-360 mm (5.118-14.173 inches) turret plates, 342 mm (13.465 inch)-thick plating on the barbettes, and 360 mm (14.173 inches) of protection on the conning tower.[4] By comparison, the Hood had a 152-305 mm (5.984-12.008 inch) belt, 102-127 mm (4.016-5 inch)-thick bulkheads, 127-305 mm (5-12.008 inch)-thick barbettes, 279-381 mm (10.984-15 inch) turrets, 229-279 mm (9.016-10.984 inch)-thick conning tower plates, and 102-127 mm (4.016-5 inch)-thick plates on the deck.[5] By comparison, the best of both the German Kriegsmarine and the British Royal Navy were similar technologically, so the battle between the Bismarck and the HMS Hood became a battle of tactics and training, instead of a battle of technology.
The first lesson future naval officers is to have no fear of engagement with superiors or other ships. In the Bismarck’s first battle with the Prinz Eugen against the the HMS Hood and the HMS Prince of Wales in the Denmark Strait, Fleet Chief of the Kriegsmarine Admiral Günther Lütjens refused to give the order to fire on the HMS Prince of Wales. While Admiral Lütjens hesitated to give the order to return fire on the Prince of Wales, Captain Lindemann intervened and told his first gunnery officer, Adalbert Schneider, to return fire, refusing to let the fight continue to be one-sided.[6] Captain Lindemann showed neither fear of his commanding officer—in fact, the commanding officer the Kriegsmarine—nor fear of an enemy vessel. Captain Lindemann directed his crew to fire a 38-cm armor-piercing shell at the HMS Hood, the pride of the British Navy, penetrating the thin armor of the Hood’s deck before reaching the rear ammunition magazine and detonating roughly 112 tons of cordite propellant.[7] The skillful shot allowed the Bismarck to sink the Hood and place its stamp in the history books as the great Nazi battleship that sunk the pride of the Royal British Navy.
The second lesson is to not let pride get the best of a level head. Following the sinking of HMS Hood, Captain Lindemann wanted to chase the HMS Prince of Wales so that it, too, would fall to the great power of the Third Reich. However, Admiral Lütjens’s cool head prevailed and the Bismarck did not pursue the Prince of Wales because the standing orders for the Kriegsmarine were to avoid unnecessary engagements with the enemy forces unless operating in the protective detail of a convoy. Had the Bismarck pursued the Prince of Wales as Captain Lindemann desired, the Bismarck could have faced a similar fate. After the Bismarck sunk the Hood, the British Royal Navy was at a loss—the Nazis had developed a seemingly ordinary battleship that bested the best ship the greatest navy had to offer. In pursuit of earing back the title of “best in the world,” British Admiral John Tovey, admiral of the fleet, made capturing the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen his goal. Instead of worrying about the ongoing war, Admiral Tovey called on all available British ships in the area to find and capture the Bismarck before she could reach land after sinking the Hood. The goal was to capture or sink the Bismarck to gain back a sense of personal and national pride. The result was the occupation of most the Royal British fleet in a manhunt for the Bismarck. While the British were, in the end, able to sink the Bismarck, the Bismarck succeeded in occupying the might of the British fleet and going down, not only with a fight, but on their own terms.
The third and final lesson to be learned is one all Naval Academy graduates are familiar with—don’t give up the ship. Something that has only recently come to light is that the captain and crew of the Bismarck scuttled their ship once they realized death was imminent instead of seeing her get captured by the British. The British fleet, with the help of a bomber squadron, incapacitated the Bismarck via her weakest point—her undefended rudders. The result was a giant hole in the Bismarck’s hull and damaged steering, which left the Bismarck a sitting duck only capable of sailing in large circles.[8] After a night of circles, Admiral Tovey ordered the HMS Dorsetshire to fire torpedoes at the Bismarck until she sank. And sink she did. After a successful volley of torpedoes, the Dorsetshire sank the Bismarck, not even ten days after the Bismarck’s maiden voyage. In 1989, however, Dr. Robert Ballard, famed oceanographer responsible for finding the RMS Titanic, proved that the Bismarck sank as a decision made by her captain and crew, and not by a vindictive Royal Navy ship. Ballard found no penetration of the ship’s armored citadel; instead, the holes found in the hull of the Bismarck were all above the waterline, all likely the results of the Dorsetshire’s torpedo volley. Ballard also found the hull of the Bismarck was well intact, meaning there was no vacuum created by rushing water that would have occurred if the Bismarck’s hull had been penetrated from enemy shells, forcing Bismarck to fall in on itself because of the negative pressure created in the penetrated hull of a ship. Instead, Ballard concluded that the Bismarck’s crew scuttled the infamous ship rather than see her in the hands of the vengeful Royal Navy.
The world has been in a constant state of unrest since the early 21st century. Today, when North Korea runs missile tests \ and President Bashar al-Assad uses chemical weapons against his own people with no international intervention, the military leaders of tomorrow need to prepare themselves for situations we cannot predict in the classroom. The U.S. Navy needs to look to those officers and enlisted who were successful leaders and emulate their attitudes and ideals so that, when confronted with the tough decision of sinking their vessel or letting themselves and their men get captured, they can protect the image and ideals of their homeland. Especially while they are still stuck in the classroom, the future leaders of our Navy and Marine Corps need to look towards the battle tactics and decisions made by past leaders to prepare ourselves to make any decision we could be confronted with.
When countries gain technology that once exclusively belonged to the United States, such as nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers, ICBMs, and ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, today’s wars and battles will be less about who has the technological advantage, and more about who can outthink and outmaneuver their enemies. At the Naval Academy, instead of focusing on knowledge of facts about ships, weapons systems, and naval history, the focus of the Brigade should be on how to outthink the enemy and how to advance our naval forces. Before they enter the field and take command of our ships, the future leaders of our military should practice answering the thought-provoking questions of how and why. How can this weapon system help me execute my mission or my commander’s intent? Why should I emulate one leader over another? Why did the captain of the Bismarck make the decisions he made, and how can I make sure, if the time comes, I could do something similar? These are questions most detailers answer for plebes during Plebe Summer at the Naval Academy, but once the academic year begins, many of us forget to answer these questions while in naval history class or ethics class. This mistake needs to be corrected here and now—the questions of how and why should not be what midshipmen ask to their commanders; instead, commanders should be asking these questions of their subordinates, and their subordinates should begin to ask these questions of themselves, too. The future of our military—specifically our surface navy—relies on the junior officer’s ability to outthink and outperform the enemy, and not simply who knows more about the enemy’s ships and their systems.
Endnotes
[1] Filipoff, Dmitry. 2016. “An Interview With Vice Admiral Tom Rowden On The Future Of The Surface Navy”. Center For International Maritime Security. Accessed April 13 2017. http://cimsec.org/interview-vice-admiral-tom-rowden-future-surface-navy/29010.
[2] Gröner, Erich (1990). German Warships: 1815–1945. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-790-6.
[3] C. Chen. “Battlecruiser HMS Hood,” WW2DB (2017). http://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=91.
[4] C.Chen. “Battleship Bismarck,” WW2DB (2017), http://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=89.
[5] Chen, “Battlecruiser HMS Hood.”
[6] Niklas Zetterling, Michael Tamelander, Bismarck: The Final Days of Germany’s Greatest Battleship (Drexel Hill, PA: Casemate, 2009).
[7] David J. Bercuson, Holger H. Herwig, The Destruction of the Bismarck (New York, NY: The Overlook Press, 2003).
[8] Christopher Klein, “Remembering The Sinking Of The Bismarck – History In The Headlines,” The History Channel – Online, http://www.history.com/news/remembering-the-sinking-of-the-bismarck.
