Fritz-X was a glide bomb. It is not going anywhere from a boat. Not a beam rider either.
Well yes, Fritz-X was a glide bomb, but technically it is a beam rider, the operator navigates the bomb by pointing a radar beam at the target, where the bomb is left or right of the beam, above or below it, is denoted by dashes and beeps over the operator's head set. i.e. when the bomb is "riding" the beam, the operator will get tone.
For argument sake, the technology is there to guide the bomb, it may only need to be rocket powered, or alternatively we can settle for a Fieseler Fi 103R Reichenberg or an Okha type bomb?
Most battleship don't rely on armor for protection against underwater explosion. Look at the diagram, underwater protection derives from a careful arrangement of wet and dry compartments to absorb the force of explosion.
From the same diagram you can also see that KGVs armor protection was far more extensive than Bismark. Bismark's main-belt was shallow and the secondary 6" belt was useless against battleship guns. Therefore much of Bismark vital system was vulnerable and battle experience proves that. While Bismark was hard to physically sink (due to its good compartmentalization), its fire control and electric power was knocked out early in its final battle. After that Bismark was essentially a helpless drunken giant at the mercy of its enemy.
I don't think that is a fair assessment, no battleship have shown that it could take continuous punishment. the POW (the japanese engagement off singapore) lost aux power and steering after taking a torpedo hit - which also disabled her 5.25" mounts. The south dakota lost, fire control and electical system when struck by a 14" salvo from Kirshima.
Just one thing is certain, the ship on the receiving end is often worse off. regardless of what armor scheme they have.
I wasn't think about the 2x4 main turrets arraignment when I wrote Bismark was an inefficient design for its weight class. The easiest example of Bismark's outdated design is its single purpose secondary batteries. It carried 12 6" single purpose gun that can only engage surface targets and another 16 4.1" AA guns against air targets. Other nations already moved on dual purpose secondary battery that can do the job at a significant weight saving. The best example was the excellent US 5"/38 DP guns.
Bismark's mixed armor protection scheme and single purpose secondary batteries are both vestiges of WWI era capital ship design philosophy that reflect the outdated naval thinking in Nazi Germany.
This i disagree as well, there are several school of thought, and the 5" or 5.25" were a bit weak for surface action, i.e. insufficient against cruisers or heavy cruisers. while the 5.25" on the KGVs were too slow in elevation to track flying aircraft. the 5.25 also suffered from heavy shell weight which limited it's firing cycle to ~ 8 RPM instead of the designed ~ 12 RPM while hte US 5" can do 20 RPM. As such, for example, the Yamato have suface action only 6" in triple mounts - hence the world haven't really move forward to dual purpose guns. But as history goes, WW2 was a carrier war, hence the 5" was exceptional. but it doesn't mean that the single purpose AA guns are bad.
Shall the battleships duke it out elsewhere?
edit/ one thing about the bismark is that it find straddle very quickly, in engagements, it mainly stradles by the 3rd salvo, and 50% of her salvo stradles. compare this to the hood having no straddle for 9 salvo... and other country's gunnary, there must be something there in the FCS that is great.
