Most noteworthy Battleship of WWII

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Admiral Oozel	Best BB of WW2	#81	[-]
Posts: 23 (03/09/04 04:43:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Just wanted to precise my choice: Why these two vessels?Obviously they were the best of their class and with no match at their time. First Bismarck class: The Germans have built a very efficient vessel, incredibly strong (just think the amount of shell fired on her and the incapacity of the Brits to sink her) with a long range autonomy, superior fire power against any counterpart and a top of the class optics (Nobody could seriously doubt that the Germans have the best telemeters) Second Yamato class: The biggest battleships of all times, the most powerful guns (even today) and an amount of shield unrivalled at her time or today. I am sure that with the proper air cover these ships are practically unsinkable by any other battleships, including the Iowa's class. Just look at the destruction of the Hood and the quick defeat of the Prince of Wales to verify the superiority of the Bismarck, and try to imagine the disastrous results of a confrontation with the Iowa or the New Jersey.. With their superior firepower and their shields Yamato and Musashi would have destroyed any U.S bttlewagon in a few salvos.
Dave AAA	Re: Best BB of WW2	#82	[-]
Posts: 315 (03/09/04 09:46:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* incredibly strong (just think the amount of shell fired on her and the incapacity of the Brits to sink her) with a long range autonomy, superior fire power against any counterpart You do recall that BISMARCK was sunk at the end of that engagement? A hit from an cruiser's eight inch round was enough to neutralize BISMARCK's fire control and it was methodically pounded to scap iron in short order. Whether the hulk was scuttled or not is moot. Even if by some miracle, the Germans were able to get it back to a port, it was damaged beyond repair. As for superior fire power, BISMARCK had eight fifteen inch guns. No less than ten RN ships had that armament in May 1941. Two more RN battleships had nine sixteen inch guns. The KING GEORGE V Class ships with their ten fourteen inch guns proved more effective against BISMARCK than BISMARCK was against them. Even the older USN battleships, were as good or better - seven had twelve fourteen inch guns and two had eight sixteen inch. The new US battleships, two of which had just been commissioned when BISMARCK was sunk, had nine sixteen inch guns.
Pz gen	Bismarsk....over blown	#83	[-]
Posts: 47 (03/09/04 18:11:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I think the Bismarsk reputation is hugely overblown...and based on what exactly?...Sinking a WWI Battle cruiser and seeing off a WWII battleship still being worked up...and a song. I suggest the result would have been different if the Bismarsk had faced the modernised HMS Renown and the a fully worked up KGV. Coupled with the decision the unmask all of the guns.
Admiral Oozel	Bismarck	#84	[-]
Posts: 23 (03/10/04 02:16:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	When I talk of "superior fire power" I don't mean of gun caliber only, you can't compare the ultra modern Krupp guns of the Bismarck with the old barrels of same or higher caliber of her opponents. After all the late Hood has a main gun caliber identical to Bismarck but it is unwise to compare them (the shells of the Bismarck were faster and more lethal, the barrels of the Bismarc were longer etc..) Then to think of a battle with a "modernized Renown" or "a fully worked up KGV" seems a folly... That good old Renown would have been blown away in a few salvos by the Nazi juggernaut! To send this ship against Bismarck was just an illustration of how desperate were the Brits then.... Concerning the Prince of Wales it is true that ship wasn't fully "in service" but to be honest that ship was ready to fight with all her main guns operationnal. Despite all the Brits assertions on this matter ten 356mm guns are no match against eight 380 mm Kruppkanonen! Yes Bismarck has been sunk but that was the consequence of her rudders damage, without that problem and with the assistance of Prinz Eugen (don't forget Bismarck would have been in safety at Brest, waiting for repairs and for Sharnhorst...) i'm quite sure some British vessels would have been heavily damaged or sunk!!!
Dave AAA	Re: Bismarck	#85	[-]
Posts: 315 (03/10/04 07:41:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* you can't compare the ultra modern Krupp guns of the Bismarck with the old barrels of same or higher caliber of her opponents. Why not? They certainly don't come off as being all that impressive. They all had the same effective range and rate of fire - a limitation imposed by optical fire control systems. Each could penetrate the other's armour at combat ranges, as was proved in both BISMARCK battles. *Quote:* That good old Renown would have been blown away in a few salvos by the Nazi juggernaut! Only if BISMARCK managed the same fluke hit as it achieved against HOOD. Otherwise, this combat would go very much like BISMARCK's last action. This is less likely as RENOWN's deck armour was up to two thirds thicker than HOOD's. At five inches (127 mm) that means BISMARCK's ability to penetrate it was marginal at worst and nonexistent at best. Having been equipped with modern fire control, RENOWN should have been able to shoot better than HOOD. BISMARCK's ability to fire back would likely soon be removed and it would be destroyed as happened later with RODNEY in place of RENOWN. *Quote:* Concerning the Prince of Wales it is true that ship wasn't fully "in service" but to be honest that ship was ready to fight with all her main guns operationnal. Operational until they fired a few salvoes at any rate. Form Bismarck's Final Battle by William H. Garzke, Jr. and Robert O. Dulin, Jr. ". . .This permitted Prince of Wales to hit Bismarck with her sixth salvo, before she received seven hits and suffered multiple mechanical failures of her 14-inch guns which forced her to turn away from the Germans.6 The British battleship had fired a total of seventeen salvos, all involving five guns or less. One gun in Prince of Wales' "A" turret had problems with its rammer and could no longer fire after the first salvo. Her "Y" turret jammed and was out of action for approximately one hour. . . ." But more importantly, with a crew composed mostly of new hands who had never worked together before. This has serious implications for all aspects of operation including manoeuvring, shooting, and damage control. *Quote:* Yes Bismarck has been sunk but that was the consequence of her rudders damage, without that problem How did that affect BISMARCK's ability to absorb damage and keep firing? It took only twenty three minutes for the RN to silence BISMARCK on 27 May 1941 while BISMARCK landed no hits at all during that time. Considering how easily that was done, a single fully worked up KING GEORGE V, like the ship of that name, would very likely have ended up the winner even if RODNEY were left behind. http://www.warships1.com/index_tech/tech-016.htm (Incidently, the damage from hits from PRINCE OF WALES proved crucial in causing Luetjens to abandon his mission and in slowing BISMARCK enough so that the RN could catch it.)
Tiornu	Re: Bismarck....overblown	#86	[-]
Posts: 87 (03/10/04 09:42:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Since the question is about the most noteworthy battleship, Bismarck certainly deserves a nod, though I'd say Pz gen has identified the reason better than Adm Oozel. A myth rose up around her. At a range of 20,000 yards, Bismarck's guns could penetrate 17.4in of C belt armor and 2.6in of NC deck armor. Hood, still using the 1920-lb shell, could manage 13.5in and 3.3in respectively--in other words, 78% as much belt armor and 127% as much deck armor. The British shell has the advantage of carrying more explosive and a more reliable fuze. For fun, you can check the penetration tables and see that the French 15in gun penetrates 17.5in and 2.7in while the Italian 15in gun gets 18.2in and 2.5in. And by the way, KGV's guns get 15.3in and 2.7in. Bismarck's guns were perfectly fine, but nothing special. Great caution must be used when considering Renown's deck protection. It was an unrestrained patchwork, not all of which was armor-grade. However, in a hit exactly analogous to the one that killed Hood (based on the most likely trajectory), Renown had a modernized and fully horizontal armor deck that would likely have defeated the fatal shell. As I've often mentioned in the past, Bismarck's performance under the final barrage was what one could expect of any modern battleship. The close-range bombardment she received was great for knocking out turrets and smashing the upper works but the worst possible choice for compromising the ship's buoyancy.
Dave AAA	Re: Bismarck....overblown	#87	[-]
Posts: 315 (03/10/04 09:45:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I have to agree with you about BISMARCK being the most noteworthy battleship of the war, or indeed, of all time, and for the same reason. It's the most famous one and an extrordinary myth has grown up around it.
Admiral Oozel	Bismarck	#88	[-]
Posts: 23 (03/10/04 10:07:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Humph!!! Quote: Why not? They certainly don't come off as being all that impressive. They all had the same effective range and rate of fire - a limitation imposed by optical fire control systems Just some precisions: Bismarck: Muzzle velocity: 2690 Ft (Hood 2462) Max range for a salvo: 38880 Yrds (Hood 30180 Yrds) Firing cycle: 20 secs (Hood 2 shots per minute) See, despite the same calibers for the main guns of these fine vessels, the pride of the Reich was far ahead any opponent in 1941. Quote: Only if BISMARCK managed the same fluke hit as it achieved against HOOD. Otherwise, this combat would go very much like BISMARCK's last action. This is less likely as RENOWN's deck armour was up to two thirds thicker than HOOD's. At five inches (127 mm) that means BISMARCK's ability to penetrate it was marginal at worst and nonexistent at best. Having been equipped with modern fire control, RENOWN should have been able to shoot better than HOOD. BISMARCK's ability to fire back would likely soon be removed and it would be destroyed as happened later with RODNEY in place of RENOWN. You "fluke hit" was the proof of the lethal power of Bismarck's guns. The old Renown, despite her modernization would have been destroyed in a few salvos, don't forget too the accuracy of the german's fire due to their superior optics and their "computerized "telemetry. Quote: How did that affect BISMARCK's ability to absorb damage and keep firing? It took only twenty three minutes for the RN to silence BISMARCK on 27 May 1941 while BISMARCK landed no hits at all during that time. Considering how easily that was done, a single fully worked up KING GEORGE V, like the ship of that name, would very likely have ended up the winner even if RODNEY were left behind. Did you pretend that a fight against superior forces with an unmaneuverable ship is not a great disadvantage? (Don't talk too of an exhausted and demoralized crew) I don't think there is any glory to score numerous hits against an incapacited ship, in naval combat speed is a key factor and Bismarck was limited too on this issue due to her rudders damage. With all her steering power and at combat speed she would have fight brillantly against the british fleet, one could say she would have been assisted by her running mate Prinz Eugen during the battle. With her superior speed she would have easily escape the slow Rodney or even any KGV at her pursuit. The main problem of our little dispute is that Tirpitz has never fight against any British battleship. That would have been a perfect demonstration of the power of her late sister....
Pz gen	"Old" Renown	#89	[-]
Posts: 47 (03/10/04 14:27:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* You "fluke hit" was the proof of the lethal power of Bismarck's guns. The old Renown, despite her modernization would have been destroyed in a few salvos, don't forget too the accuracy of the german's fire due to their superior optics and their "computerized "telemetry. Admiral I think you have been listening to that song too much. The "old" Renown was thoroughly modernised and that the time of the battle was the best gunnery ship in the RN. Furthermore HMS Renown was earmarked as the ship to taken on the Tirpitz if it ever sail. If you read the book "Pursuit"...a few 14/15" hits were enough to spell the end of the Bismarsk's sortie. So much for ..."How did that affect BISMARCK's ability to absorb damage and keep firing".....It had to return to port
Tiornu	Re: Bismarck	#90	[-]
Posts: 87 (03/10/04 16:21:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"Humph!!!" It does no good to quote a passage about effective range then give figures for maximum range. Did you quote the maximum range for Rodney? Bismarck's firing cycle was 26 seconds at 1.5deg above the loading angle, which translates into a minimum firing cycle of 25 seconds or so. The 20-second figure is oft-quoted silliness. Rate of fire would have been approximately the same for British and German 15in guns. What the "fluke hit" proved was that an unmodernized ship was vulnerable to catastrophic plunging fire, which is what everyone had known at least since deck augmentation was codified in the Washington Treaty of 1922. Renown's FC was not up to German standards. That's why she got the best of two German battleships in 1940...?
Pz gen	Renown	#91	[-]
Posts: 47 (03/10/04 22:56:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Renown vs Scharnhort and Gneisenau...off Vestfjord 9 April 1940. Question: How would have HMS Vanguard have fared aganist the Bismarsk....given that her guns were from the Couragous abd Glorious?
Tiornu	Re: Renown	#92	[-]
Posts: 87 (03/10/04 23:48:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	To be pedantic, I'll say Vanguard got her gun mounts from those ships, but her guns came from all over--the barrels were exchanged regularly around the fleet. With her highly advanced radar and FC system, Vanguard would likely have plastered Bismarck; a half-generation difference was pretty significant. In addition, Vanguard had the latest 15in shell design and super-charge propellants. Bigger and Newer is hard to beat.
Dave AAA	Re: Bismarck	#93	[-]
Posts: 315 (03/11/04 01:56:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* Bismarck: Muzzle velocity: 2690 Ft (Hood 2462) Max range for a salvo: 38880 Yrds (Hood 30180 Yrds) Firing cycle: 20 secs (Hood 2 shots per minute) Higher MV does not in itself necessarily mean a more effective weapon. Look at the figures Tiornu posted about armour penetration. The record for longest range hit against another ship at sea happens to be held by HMS WARSPITE. It was in 1940 against GUILIO CESARE at a range of about twenty-four thousand meters. None of the engagements in BISMARCKs last sortie were even near thirty thousand yards. Rate of fire is not that important either. The time of flight to 20,000 meters for battleship guns is about thirty seconds. The next round cannot be fired until the first one lands so that fire can be adjusted. This gives an effective ROF of less than two rounds per minute for German and British capital ships. Whatever theoretical improvements the German gun had over the British one were of no practical benefit. *Quote:* The old Renown, despite her modernization would have been destroyed in a few salvos As has been pointed out, thats not likely to be the case. *Quote:* don't forget too the accuracy of the german's fire due to their superior optics and their "computerized "telemetry. Youve claimed this a few times. Can you provide any proof that BISMARCKs optics and FCS were markedly superior to British optical equipment, let alone the radar fire control with which the KGVs were fitted? *Quote:* Did you pretend that a fight against superior forces with an unmaneuverable ship is not a great disadvantage? *Quote:* I especially like the way BISMARCKs reduced speed and manoeuvrability affected its gunnery in that last battle. They didnt score a single hit.. *Quote:* she would have been assisted by her running mate Prinz Eugen during the battle. With her superior speed she would have easily escape the slow Rodney or even any KGV A difference of exactly one knot over the KGV is not enough to dictate the terms of engagement. As for PRINZ EUGEN, I see youve forgotten about the heavy cruisers and destroyers accompanying the RN task force.
Tiornu	Re: Bismarck	#94	[-]
Posts: 87 (03/11/04 11:39:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	After Denmark Strait, PoW tagged along with Bismarck for some time. The two ships exchanged a few shots. At ranges just over 30,000 yards, PoW achieved some straddles on Bismarck. Bismarck's response was not as accurate, and the Germans ceased fire after only a few rounds. The idea that Bismarck with her superior speed would easily escape a KGV is almost funny, considering we know she failed to do so.
Admiral Oozel	Re: Bismarck	#95	[-]
Posts: 23 (03/12/04 06:23:36) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	As I see, you remain unconvinced of the German superiority on the matter of Naval Optics and Fire Control systems. I will compilate all the technical specs on this issue but I will need more time to be complete. However, it is a pleasure to discuss with other passionates of these matters even when we are not of the same opinion. A bientot!
Dave AAA	Re: Bismarck	#96	[-]
Posts: 315 (03/12/04 06:27:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* I will compilate all the technical specs on this issue And we'll just look at the real world results where this so-called superiority was not manifest.
mmartaih	Most noteworthy battleship of WWII	#97	[-]
Posts: 1 (11/04/06 12:32:41) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Interesting comparisons being made about the ability of a battleship to sink another. I wonder, except for some magazine-explosion induced sinkings, when in either World War did a battleship sink due entirely to shell damage? Being destroyed (Bismark - or even cruser Aoba) or knocked out is extremely important and relevant, but sunk...? Seems only Lutzow (a battlecruiser) was sunk by shells. True, the Germans torpedoed her at the end, but clearly she was a goner by then. Kirshima was very possibly or likely a goner? after being pounded by Washington, but Kirshima was scuttled pretty quickly, yes? and less armored of a battlecruser than Lutzow. Would the Bismark, which took the most brutal shell beating ever, and was far less better protected than many other battleships, would have sunk without torpedo damage? To sink a battleship at sea, you need torpedoes? (or late in the war maybe Fritz-X?). Maybe you don't have to have torpedoes but in actual combat that seems to be the reality?
jade rat	Re: Most noteworthy Battleship of WWII	#98	[-]
Posts: 10 (01/06/08 09:43:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I don't know much about BBs, but i think Iowa class BBs where the most effective, as it served in the US navy from WW2, to the gulf war. Thats got to say somthing about its ability to serve effectively. With fire control systems that let it fire beyond the horizon.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Most noteworthy Battleship of WWII

Quick Reply