syscom3
Pacific Historian
French ships are famous for their sailing speed in reverse.
German Battleships and convoy hunting.
- Thread starter carpenoctem1689
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Glider
Captain
My money would be on the Bismark. The French tried to seperate the two turrets as much as possible to ensure that a hit on one wouldn't damage the other but for myself it feels to much like putting all your eggs in one basket.
When the Bismark was attacked by the Rodney, the first 16in hit knocked out both her forward turrets. Had that been the Richleau (completed sister ship to Jean Bart) it would have been game over.
That said it must be admitted that having the Richleau layout does give you more tactical options.
Its a close call, I went with the Bismark as I feel that its a better balanced design but at the end of the day its down to the training of the men and dumb luck as to what part of the ship is hit.
A lot of words are typed about penetration, MV, design of shells but luck comes into it, as in a Naval battle of any distance you try to hit the ship, where you hit it is in the lap of the gods. In the Battle of River Plate a practice 6in fired by mistake in the heat of the moment, ended up in the Graff Spree forward 11in Magazine.
You can make your own mind up if it was the British were lucky that it got so far, or the Germans that it wasn't a real shell.
When the Bismark was attacked by the Rodney, the first 16in hit knocked out both her forward turrets. Had that been the Richleau (completed sister ship to Jean Bart) it would have been game over.
That said it must be admitted that having the Richleau layout does give you more tactical options.
Its a close call, I went with the Bismark as I feel that its a better balanced design but at the end of the day its down to the training of the men and dumb luck as to what part of the ship is hit.
A lot of words are typed about penetration, MV, design of shells but luck comes into it, as in a Naval battle of any distance you try to hit the ship, where you hit it is in the lap of the gods. In the Battle of River Plate a practice 6in fired by mistake in the heat of the moment, ended up in the Graff Spree forward 11in Magazine.
You can make your own mind up if it was the British were lucky that it got so far, or the Germans that it wasn't a real shell.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
According to what I know about the Scharnhorst´s they were the most succesful single Kriegsmarine vessels. (Both ships destroyed 1 Carrier, 4 Destroyer, 16 merchants and three escorts) While classified as a BC they indeed represented a "anti Battlecruiser" in Fischer´s original conception (speed and firepower for protection). They had a 11 inch armement, which was excellent for it´s gunsize (range 42.000 yrds +, very high muzzle velocity, good deck penetration, good preciseness, cyclic rate of fire: 3.5), but inferior to contemporary gunsizes (except maybe Dunkerque-class) of any BB/BC.
Indeed, while most BB have a small immune zone against 15 inchers they have a very wide against the 11 inchers, and this is a disadvantage battling a BB.
Her protection was better than any other BC ever made (including Hood). Subdivision was excellent. Some says this qualifies it as a battleship. Her belt protection was a little better than those of the Bismarcks (350 mm KC vertical + 105 mm Wh at 45 degrees + 45 mm ww inclined) but without stronger upper belt (only 45 mm), her deck armor was inferior to that of Bismarck. This makes the ship even more immune to point blanc ranges of any thinkable gunsize (up to 20.1") but vulnarable at plunging fire even at medium ranges (vitals could be reached by british 15"/42 as soon as 17.000yrds but more reasonably at 19.000 yrds, what is in within the usual fighting distance). The extensive armor layout contributed a lot to the heavy displacement of the ship. While designed for 32.5 kts both ships recorded less top speed than estimated (Gneisenau 31.8 kts, Scharnhorst 31.6 kts at standart displacement), thanks to it´s higher executed displacement (Attention! The main belt begun at full displacement only 1.5 m above the waterline).
All I know underlines that both ships were very "wet" at heavy seas up to the "A" turret. A plus for the design is their large range, At 30 kts usual speed they could achieve ~4.300 nautic miles without refuel. This should play a role in the Atlantic while facing the slower short legged but more powerful RN hunters. Actually, while not Fisher like, these BC were the only ones, which acted like a BC: They used their superior speed to engage inferior enemies (Glorious, Rawalpindi), dictate the range or disengage BB (Renown, Nelson) any time and strictly stayed out of the battle line (Scharnhorst also tried to disengae DoY but two full torpedo salvos from chasing DD forced her to slow down her speed). However, it´s design was a little flawed: Their protection was optimized for close ranges but they were no close range fighter´s like Bismarck but BC depending on speed and range so a better deck protection (even better than Bismarck) would be more reasonable for these ships, I think.
The Gneisenau refit begun in 1943 could have given the design a better performance at all: refit 9 11 incher by 6 15 inchers would give a better punch, replacing the secondary and tertiary artillery by a single dual purpose 128mm calibre (twin tureet C-42 design) would be better, too. The refit with Würzburg Riese Radar could give the ships a better air search capability and the elongation of the bow contributes a lot to additional lift and a better length-beam relation, thus making the ship more seaworthy and considerably faster with the same powerplant (32.5 kts would be achievable surely at standart displacement) or allowing a better main deck protection at 32 kts.
Indeed, while most BB have a small immune zone against 15 inchers they have a very wide against the 11 inchers, and this is a disadvantage battling a BB.
Her protection was better than any other BC ever made (including Hood). Subdivision was excellent. Some says this qualifies it as a battleship. Her belt protection was a little better than those of the Bismarcks (350 mm KC vertical + 105 mm Wh at 45 degrees + 45 mm ww inclined) but without stronger upper belt (only 45 mm), her deck armor was inferior to that of Bismarck. This makes the ship even more immune to point blanc ranges of any thinkable gunsize (up to 20.1") but vulnarable at plunging fire even at medium ranges (vitals could be reached by british 15"/42 as soon as 17.000yrds but more reasonably at 19.000 yrds, what is in within the usual fighting distance). The extensive armor layout contributed a lot to the heavy displacement of the ship. While designed for 32.5 kts both ships recorded less top speed than estimated (Gneisenau 31.8 kts, Scharnhorst 31.6 kts at standart displacement), thanks to it´s higher executed displacement (Attention! The main belt begun at full displacement only 1.5 m above the waterline).
All I know underlines that both ships were very "wet" at heavy seas up to the "A" turret. A plus for the design is their large range, At 30 kts usual speed they could achieve ~4.300 nautic miles without refuel. This should play a role in the Atlantic while facing the slower short legged but more powerful RN hunters. Actually, while not Fisher like, these BC were the only ones, which acted like a BC: They used their superior speed to engage inferior enemies (Glorious, Rawalpindi), dictate the range or disengage BB (Renown, Nelson) any time and strictly stayed out of the battle line (Scharnhorst also tried to disengae DoY but two full torpedo salvos from chasing DD forced her to slow down her speed). However, it´s design was a little flawed: Their protection was optimized for close ranges but they were no close range fighter´s like Bismarck but BC depending on speed and range so a better deck protection (even better than Bismarck) would be more reasonable for these ships, I think.
The Gneisenau refit begun in 1943 could have given the design a better performance at all: refit 9 11 incher by 6 15 inchers would give a better punch, replacing the secondary and tertiary artillery by a single dual purpose 128mm calibre (twin tureet C-42 design) would be better, too. The refit with Würzburg Riese Radar could give the ships a better air search capability and the elongation of the bow contributes a lot to additional lift and a better length-beam relation, thus making the ship more seaworthy and considerably faster with the same powerplant (32.5 kts would be achievable surely at standart displacement) or allowing a better main deck protection at 32 kts.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
While I agree that combined fleet is somehow imbalanced in the points given, possibly motivated by national pride, I have to admit that it is still reasonably sourced and from what I already read, the best.
I cannot agree that the "allies" generally downrate the Bismarck because it is an axis ship. That´s wrong. Have a look at Kbsimarck.com.
Actually it was to a high degree Nathan Okun and his comprehensive armor penetration analysis what lead to underestimate the Bismarck´s abilities to take punishment. His estimations are not reflected in the wreckages hull damages at all because it suffered from medium and close range hits.
The author of combined fleet just weights the strength´s of US ships more and reduces the strength´s of Bismarck (and to some degree KGV as well) a lot.
3.) underwater protection:
The point of compartimentation has two main sides:
1.) [included by the author] the defensive torpedo compartimentation in the armor zone
2.) [not included] the relation of protected to unprotected compartiments plus the total degree of subdivision (this is what makes a ship staying afloat while heavily beeing hitten) -of course this couldn´t be noticed by the author because it would led to a considerably reduce of the US ships points as we will see.
3.1.) system breadth:
I can agree with the exception that the breadth of the TDS of US ships is only 12% of the waterline that large. all other parts, namely at the magazines are much less wide (at turret "B" only 12 feet!)
3.2.) compartimentation:
error: Bismarck has not one void plus one liquid but three (!) orientated threedimansionally: void(from botom to 2/3) -liquid (from sloped 105 mm to 1/3 of bottom) - void (from bottom to 2/3). This clearly plays a role:
a torpedo impact would have no effect, since the gaz effects can be taken by the whole wideness of 18.04 feet (No-1 plus No-3, under No-2), this would allow explosive sizes up to 800 Kg to be contained without effect.
Richelieu: The inability to counterflood the ship because the void space is filled with water exhasutive material is a severe design flaw, as prooved by the few hits of Massachusetts against Jean Bart, this makes counterflooding of the vitals (!) necessary in case of a penetrating hit!
Yamato: The author dinged the Yamato for not using liquid loaded tanks outboard. Why should designers do so? A torpedo blast against a liquid filled tank would not be containable. The liquid is far less compressable than air (void) and thus would simply transfer the impact force more inboardly unreduced. Liquids contain fragmentation to a very high degree but not blast effects. It´s more wise to place the void tanks outboard (like Yamato and Bismarck, Richelieu as well as KGV and unlike Iowa, South Dakota, Littorio) to contain the blast effects or reduce them considerably and contain the following fragmentation by the liquid filled tanks more inboardly
3.3.) Armor belt:
Generally: The percentage of the waterline covered by the main belt or any substantial armor protection is neglected by the author. This is a clear mistake and benefits the US and japanese ships for their very small amount of total percentage covered by their AON armor sheme. As we know, Bismarck covered most of the waterline.
Iowa/SD: The main belt goes down to the bottom but is tapered from 2/3 down to the bottom 19mm and made of class "A" armor. This armor has very worse scaling effects and is inable to contain any larger blast or fragmentation but may even add further fragmentation with it´s own material. One result of Okun is that a single thick plate has much more resistence than three or four thinner plates (with a comparable or even higher added thickness), so this belt surely wouldn´t stop a diving shell nor would it stop the fragmentation of a torpedo blast. The 3-4 STS plates are more reasonable but the wideness of the compartements are restricted. At the magazines the TDS is not able to contain the blast effects of usual japanese or german torpedos nor those of the dangerous long lance.
Bismarck: Main armor is replaced by a inner mounted soft 45 mm Ww armor, which goes down to the bottom of the ship. This armor succesfully prevented diving projectiles (14inch from PoW) from penetrating as well as torpedo blast from reaching the vitals (according to wreckage analysis). The damages inflicted by the 14" hit were all of non penetrating nature. (author dinged Bismarck for a shallow belt)
3.4.) Total compartimentation[not included]:
This includes subdivision in watertight compartments total.
Yamato: 24/1400 total
Bismarck: 22/ 900 total
KGV: 22/820 total
Littorio: 21/ 745 total
Iowa: 20/ 780 total
South Dakota: 18/630 total
Richelieu: 16/530 total
3.5.) relation protected compartments to unprotected compartments[not included]: Protection is defined by 3.1.-3.3.
Yamato: 13/24
Bismarck: 17/22
KGV: 15/22
Littorio: 16/21
Iowa: 13/20
South Dakota: 11/18
Richelieu: 9/16
3.6.) Displacement: While not a "hard" factor, it is clear that larger ships can take more water than smaller ones and therefor should benfit.
1.) Yamato -72.000 t.
2.) Iowa -57.000 t.
3.) Bismarck - 51.000 t.
4.) Richelieu -48.000 t.
6.) Littorio-46.000 t.
5.) KGV- 42.000 t.
7.) South Dakota - 38.000 t.
I cannot agree that the "allies" generally downrate the Bismarck because it is an axis ship. That´s wrong. Have a look at Kbsimarck.com.
Actually it was to a high degree Nathan Okun and his comprehensive armor penetration analysis what lead to underestimate the Bismarck´s abilities to take punishment. His estimations are not reflected in the wreckages hull damages at all because it suffered from medium and close range hits.
The author of combined fleet just weights the strength´s of US ships more and reduces the strength´s of Bismarck (and to some degree KGV as well) a lot.
3.) underwater protection:
The point of compartimentation has two main sides:
1.) [included by the author] the defensive torpedo compartimentation in the armor zone
2.) [not included] the relation of protected to unprotected compartiments plus the total degree of subdivision (this is what makes a ship staying afloat while heavily beeing hitten) -of course this couldn´t be noticed by the author because it would led to a considerably reduce of the US ships points as we will see.
3.1.) system breadth:
I can agree with the exception that the breadth of the TDS of US ships is only 12% of the waterline that large. all other parts, namely at the magazines are much less wide (at turret "B" only 12 feet!)
3.2.) compartimentation:
error: Bismarck has not one void plus one liquid but three (!) orientated threedimansionally: void(from botom to 2/3) -liquid (from sloped 105 mm to 1/3 of bottom) - void (from bottom to 2/3). This clearly plays a role:
a torpedo impact would have no effect, since the gaz effects can be taken by the whole wideness of 18.04 feet (No-1 plus No-3, under No-2), this would allow explosive sizes up to 800 Kg to be contained without effect.
Richelieu: The inability to counterflood the ship because the void space is filled with water exhasutive material is a severe design flaw, as prooved by the few hits of Massachusetts against Jean Bart, this makes counterflooding of the vitals (!) necessary in case of a penetrating hit!
Yamato: The author dinged the Yamato for not using liquid loaded tanks outboard. Why should designers do so? A torpedo blast against a liquid filled tank would not be containable. The liquid is far less compressable than air (void) and thus would simply transfer the impact force more inboardly unreduced. Liquids contain fragmentation to a very high degree but not blast effects. It´s more wise to place the void tanks outboard (like Yamato and Bismarck, Richelieu as well as KGV and unlike Iowa, South Dakota, Littorio) to contain the blast effects or reduce them considerably and contain the following fragmentation by the liquid filled tanks more inboardly
3.3.) Armor belt:
Generally: The percentage of the waterline covered by the main belt or any substantial armor protection is neglected by the author. This is a clear mistake and benefits the US and japanese ships for their very small amount of total percentage covered by their AON armor sheme. As we know, Bismarck covered most of the waterline.
Iowa/SD: The main belt goes down to the bottom but is tapered from 2/3 down to the bottom 19mm and made of class "A" armor. This armor has very worse scaling effects and is inable to contain any larger blast or fragmentation but may even add further fragmentation with it´s own material. One result of Okun is that a single thick plate has much more resistence than three or four thinner plates (with a comparable or even higher added thickness), so this belt surely wouldn´t stop a diving shell nor would it stop the fragmentation of a torpedo blast. The 3-4 STS plates are more reasonable but the wideness of the compartements are restricted. At the magazines the TDS is not able to contain the blast effects of usual japanese or german torpedos nor those of the dangerous long lance.
Bismarck: Main armor is replaced by a inner mounted soft 45 mm Ww armor, which goes down to the bottom of the ship. This armor succesfully prevented diving projectiles (14inch from PoW) from penetrating as well as torpedo blast from reaching the vitals (according to wreckage analysis). The damages inflicted by the 14" hit were all of non penetrating nature. (author dinged Bismarck for a shallow belt)
3.4.) Total compartimentation[not included]:
This includes subdivision in watertight compartments total.
Yamato: 24/1400 total
Bismarck: 22/ 900 total
KGV: 22/820 total
Littorio: 21/ 745 total
Iowa: 20/ 780 total
South Dakota: 18/630 total
Richelieu: 16/530 total
3.5.) relation protected compartments to unprotected compartments[not included]: Protection is defined by 3.1.-3.3.
Yamato: 13/24
Bismarck: 17/22
KGV: 15/22
Littorio: 16/21
Iowa: 13/20
South Dakota: 11/18
Richelieu: 9/16
3.6.) Displacement: While not a "hard" factor, it is clear that larger ships can take more water than smaller ones and therefor should benfit.
1.) Yamato -72.000 t.
2.) Iowa -57.000 t.
3.) Bismarck - 51.000 t.
4.) Richelieu -48.000 t.
6.) Littorio-46.000 t.
5.) KGV- 42.000 t.
7.) South Dakota - 38.000 t.
More interesting stuff mr. Delcyros.
It is not daring to affirm Bismarck was the best overall battleship of Europe during the entire WWII.
The outcome of her first engagement: getting great pyrotecnics out of the pride (and flagship) of the Royal Navy, and heavily pounding and damaging another, tells of what Bismarck was made of, and speaks pretty much for itself.
Replace the RN flagship and the other vessel of that engagement with any other British battleship and you will see the outcome can be pretty much the same, if not worst for them Brits.
Who would you like to put instead of the two toys that enganged Bismarck?
Pick two of the following from the vintage battleship menu of the Royal Navy:
Valiant, Ramillies, Malaya, Queen Elizabeth, Warspite...all very old toys, inferior to Bismarck. There could only be two who could be somewhat more troublesome: Nelson and Rodney, with their three triple 16in. turrets, not as old as those first mentioned, but quite older when compared to Bismarck, and more importantly: significantly slower than the German machine. There is another one, the twin of the pounded Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, why would she be better than her twin was against Lütjenz battleship?
Bismarck would outmanouver and outspeed the Rodney-Nelson couple in the same engagement, and the outcome could be somewhat similar. Or at least, both British battleships end the battle heavily damaged with lots of dead and wounded inside.
Or I would put it in an hypothetical scenario for you:
What would have happened to ANY of the British battleships in May 1941, if it had been caught ALONE CRIPPLED in the opean seas, against Bismarck, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau?
Let me tell you what would have happened: she would have lasted 80% less time than Bismarck effectively did when it got pounded, with perhaps a fireball similar to that of the Hood, when the heavy shells of Bismarck reached her intestines.
Of course the allies move ahead with their stuff: "yeah...but also critical weaknesses of the German vessel rose to the surface during her first engagement..."
A famous Prince of Wales´shell whose effect I do not recall in due accuracy; it was either the shell isolated a critical amount of fuel or caused leakings, therefore a same outcome: inability to use all the fuel.
If I recall correctly none of the mighty British battleships was ever going to catch up with Bismarck, for the simple reason they were all slower. It was not until getting crippled by the Swordfish torpedo hit, she was doomed. So the effect of that very famous British shell was overinflated?
It is not daring to affirm Bismarck was the best overall battleship of Europe during the entire WWII.
The outcome of her first engagement: getting great pyrotecnics out of the pride (and flagship) of the Royal Navy, and heavily pounding and damaging another, tells of what Bismarck was made of, and speaks pretty much for itself.
Replace the RN flagship and the other vessel of that engagement with any other British battleship and you will see the outcome can be pretty much the same, if not worst for them Brits.
Who would you like to put instead of the two toys that enganged Bismarck?
Pick two of the following from the vintage battleship menu of the Royal Navy:
Valiant, Ramillies, Malaya, Queen Elizabeth, Warspite...all very old toys, inferior to Bismarck. There could only be two who could be somewhat more troublesome: Nelson and Rodney, with their three triple 16in. turrets, not as old as those first mentioned, but quite older when compared to Bismarck, and more importantly: significantly slower than the German machine. There is another one, the twin of the pounded Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, why would she be better than her twin was against Lütjenz battleship?
Bismarck would outmanouver and outspeed the Rodney-Nelson couple in the same engagement, and the outcome could be somewhat similar. Or at least, both British battleships end the battle heavily damaged with lots of dead and wounded inside.
Or I would put it in an hypothetical scenario for you:
What would have happened to ANY of the British battleships in May 1941, if it had been caught ALONE CRIPPLED in the opean seas, against Bismarck, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau?
Let me tell you what would have happened: she would have lasted 80% less time than Bismarck effectively did when it got pounded, with perhaps a fireball similar to that of the Hood, when the heavy shells of Bismarck reached her intestines.
Of course the allies move ahead with their stuff: "yeah...but also critical weaknesses of the German vessel rose to the surface during her first engagement..."
A famous Prince of Wales´shell whose effect I do not recall in due accuracy; it was either the shell isolated a critical amount of fuel or caused leakings, therefore a same outcome: inability to use all the fuel.
If I recall correctly none of the mighty British battleships was ever going to catch up with Bismarck, for the simple reason they were all slower. It was not until getting crippled by the Swordfish torpedo hit, she was doomed. So the effect of that very famous British shell was overinflated?
I would not go as far as to say the Bismark was the best Battleship of the war. I would say she was one of the best all around Battleships. She was great in just about all areas. I will go however to say that just because she did that to the Hood on one day, does not mean that any other British Vessel would not do the same.
I will however go as far as saying that she did outclass a good size of the Royal Navy's Battlehsips do to the fact that many of her Battleships were still WW1 era or 1920's technology.
In the end though, due to Aircraft the Bismarck was doomed anyhow.
I will however go as far as saying that she did outclass a good size of the Royal Navy's Battlehsips do to the fact that many of her Battleships were still WW1 era or 1920's technology.
In the end though, due to Aircraft the Bismarck was doomed anyhow.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Bismarck got 3 14 inch hits from PoW. All three hit areas for the ships later yourney important:
*1: A main belt penetrating dud hit the bow region just outside the citadell (where the main belt was reduced to 50 mm Wh) and holed the hull slightly over water (but inside the bowwavezone). It destroyed some four fuel cells and the flooding caused by the shell prevented reaching some 1000 t of fuel in the bow. Furtherly, the bow list by taking water reduced the top speed a little (to around 29 kts).
*2: Another hit stroke the catapult but wasn´t detected prior to the attempts to bring back the war diary of the ship. It prevented the use of airplanes.
*3: The most often cited diving shell hit the ship under its main belt. The shell (losing windscreen and AP-cap) went throught liquid cell2 and void cell3 and was finally stopped by the 45 mm torpedo bulkhead. Nethertheless the fragmentation of this non penetrating hit caused some flooding in the electric turbine room behind which led to it´s controlled closing until minor repairs could be executed. The other turbine room provided still more than enough power for all devices of Bismarck.
In it´s time it was maybe the best BB (May 1941), but there are lot´s of contenders: The RN had the excellent "Jonny come late" Vanguard class. The french Richelieu would be a dangerous foe. And as pointed out above by Glider, luck plays a role. A single hit may cause catastrophic damage on any ship. Had the Hood not suffered conflagration that soon, I expect the outcome of the battle would have been different. The odds were hard against the KM. The RN should have made better use of Norfolk and Suffolk
*1: A main belt penetrating dud hit the bow region just outside the citadell (where the main belt was reduced to 50 mm Wh) and holed the hull slightly over water (but inside the bowwavezone). It destroyed some four fuel cells and the flooding caused by the shell prevented reaching some 1000 t of fuel in the bow. Furtherly, the bow list by taking water reduced the top speed a little (to around 29 kts).
*2: Another hit stroke the catapult but wasn´t detected prior to the attempts to bring back the war diary of the ship. It prevented the use of airplanes.
*3: The most often cited diving shell hit the ship under its main belt. The shell (losing windscreen and AP-cap) went throught liquid cell2 and void cell3 and was finally stopped by the 45 mm torpedo bulkhead. Nethertheless the fragmentation of this non penetrating hit caused some flooding in the electric turbine room behind which led to it´s controlled closing until minor repairs could be executed. The other turbine room provided still more than enough power for all devices of Bismarck.
In it´s time it was maybe the best BB (May 1941), but there are lot´s of contenders: The RN had the excellent "Jonny come late" Vanguard class. The french Richelieu would be a dangerous foe. And as pointed out above by Glider, luck plays a role. A single hit may cause catastrophic damage on any ship. Had the Hood not suffered conflagration that soon, I expect the outcome of the battle would have been different. The odds were hard against the KM. The RN should have made better use of Norfolk and Suffolk
Glider
Captain
Udet
I agree that the Bismark was probably the best all round BB in Europe, but not by that much.
The rest of your posting is more than a little off the mark. The Prince of Wales was sent straight out into action before she had shaken down and she even had some builders on board when she sailed to try to sort out some of the inevitable problems you get on any new ship of that size and complexity. The main problem with the POW was her quad 14in Turrets that were very unreliable. For a good portion of the battle she was only firing 6 gun broadsides and at times only 2. With this in mind, she did well to do what she needed to do, which was to stop the Bismark being able to continue with her mission. Her hit did contaminate a lot of the Bismarks oil forcing a return but the Bismark was also flooded in the bow which slowed her to a small extent.
Taking up your challenge I would suggest that any two of the following Nelson, Rodney, any worked up KGV class BB, Warspite, Queen Elizabeth, Valient would have been able to take on the Bismark. A lot of your argument is based on the ability of the Bismark to out manouver the British ships but that only really helps if you are trying to run away. If you want to fight then that evens things up. What matters then, is can they hit you when you can hit them. I chose the above ships as they are all modernised with Modern fire control and more importantly had the elevation of their guns increased to 30 degrees giving them a range in excess of 30,000 yards.
The Bismark may have a theoretical range of 40,000 ish yards but you would never hit anything. I think I am right in saying that the longest range hit by any BB of any side in any battle in the war was 27,000 yards, so a 30,000yd range would be plenty. In case your interested, the hit was made by the Warspite. In addition, you should remember that the first 16in hit on the Bismark in the final battle knocked out both her forward turrets Don't underestimate the older battleships.
One to one the Bismark would have a number of advantages but two to one, I don't think so.
Finally, off Norway both the Schornhorst and the Gneisenau met the Renown in the open sea with no aircraft around. The action took place in fog at short range and the result was no damage to the Renown, hits on both the German ships and I believe the Gneisenau suffered serious damage to her rear turret, that I would need to check.
I agree that the Bismark was probably the best all round BB in Europe, but not by that much.
The rest of your posting is more than a little off the mark. The Prince of Wales was sent straight out into action before she had shaken down and she even had some builders on board when she sailed to try to sort out some of the inevitable problems you get on any new ship of that size and complexity. The main problem with the POW was her quad 14in Turrets that were very unreliable. For a good portion of the battle she was only firing 6 gun broadsides and at times only 2. With this in mind, she did well to do what she needed to do, which was to stop the Bismark being able to continue with her mission. Her hit did contaminate a lot of the Bismarks oil forcing a return but the Bismark was also flooded in the bow which slowed her to a small extent.
Taking up your challenge I would suggest that any two of the following Nelson, Rodney, any worked up KGV class BB, Warspite, Queen Elizabeth, Valient would have been able to take on the Bismark. A lot of your argument is based on the ability of the Bismark to out manouver the British ships but that only really helps if you are trying to run away. If you want to fight then that evens things up. What matters then, is can they hit you when you can hit them. I chose the above ships as they are all modernised with Modern fire control and more importantly had the elevation of their guns increased to 30 degrees giving them a range in excess of 30,000 yards.
The Bismark may have a theoretical range of 40,000 ish yards but you would never hit anything. I think I am right in saying that the longest range hit by any BB of any side in any battle in the war was 27,000 yards, so a 30,000yd range would be plenty. In case your interested, the hit was made by the Warspite. In addition, you should remember that the first 16in hit on the Bismark in the final battle knocked out both her forward turrets Don't underestimate the older battleships.
One to one the Bismark would have a number of advantages but two to one, I don't think so.
Finally, off Norway both the Schornhorst and the Gneisenau met the Renown in the open sea with no aircraft around. The action took place in fog at short range and the result was no damage to the Renown, hits on both the German ships and I believe the Gneisenau suffered serious damage to her rear turret, that I would need to check.
Udet said:
I was making a General statement, not directed at your post directly.
Glider
Captain
Our postings crossed but I would support Delcs comments.
As I have been, he seems to be very knowledgeable about it.
Mr. Glider:
Thank you very much for your comments.
As I said three postings ago within this particular thread, naval matters are not my specialty, so I am not going to heat up here.
I find all this interesting and I want to learn a bit more naval stuff.
Regarding the engagement between Renown vs Scharnhorst-Gneisenau the outcome was more the consequence of Germany´s obssession about not having another one of the large vessels perhaps crippled or badly damaged in action, and not because the German twins could not punish Renown.
Glider, you touched a very sensitive point in your posting though: the famous British account of HMS Prince of Wales not being 100% battle-ready, and that some civilian workers from the builder were still on board...
jesus...do you detect how scandalous this can be Glider?
The Admiralty should have concealed that piece of information for it could lead many to think the guys of the Royal Navy could be very incompetent about directing the naval affairs of the empire.
So perhaps WWII marked the beginning of the end of a once proud, skilled, professional navy that used to be the most powerful fleet on the planet for such a long time? I do not have the elements to respond this, but I assume you do.
Instead of a futile justification to attempt explaining the fact HMS Prince of Wales got her ass badly kicked by Bismarck, these facts should be a scandal.
So Glider, if I am going to have a kick boxing fight, and have several fighters in my team, am I going to send one who is still recovering from a broken leg?
Am I going to have the doctor and therapist by the side of the ring yelling questions as to how is the broken leg feeling as the process of getting the living crap kicked out of him happens?
If I do, and when the guy returns from combat with his ass duly kicked, will that mean his enemy was not that good? Let me answer it for you: YOU WILL NEVE KNOW. He dealt with what he got sent against him.
Bismarck dealt with what the Royal Navy first sent against her, didn´t her?
I do agree with you once the combat is accepted anything can happen; Bismarck did not try to evade the combat against the two British battleships though; did the guys on board Bismarck know HMS Prince of Wales cuadruple turrest were crap?
So in the hypthetical scenario I suggested, although anything could happen, I believe Bismarck emerges as a winner, or at leat, in the most favorable of the conditions.
My comments, although irrelevant in the end for she was doomed, regarding the Bismarck capability to take brutal punishment during her final combat, without sinking or exploding, tells of the soundness of her construction.
I have not claimed her to be perfect for there were no perfect vessels.
Delcyros:
Thank you for you response. But still, the heavy units of the Royal Navy were not going to catch up with Bismarck, is that correct?
Thank you very much for your comments.
As I said three postings ago within this particular thread, naval matters are not my specialty, so I am not going to heat up here.
I find all this interesting and I want to learn a bit more naval stuff.
Regarding the engagement between Renown vs Scharnhorst-Gneisenau the outcome was more the consequence of Germany´s obssession about not having another one of the large vessels perhaps crippled or badly damaged in action, and not because the German twins could not punish Renown.
Glider, you touched a very sensitive point in your posting though: the famous British account of HMS Prince of Wales not being 100% battle-ready, and that some civilian workers from the builder were still on board...
jesus...do you detect how scandalous this can be Glider?
The Admiralty should have concealed that piece of information for it could lead many to think the guys of the Royal Navy could be very incompetent about directing the naval affairs of the empire.
So perhaps WWII marked the beginning of the end of a once proud, skilled, professional navy that used to be the most powerful fleet on the planet for such a long time? I do not have the elements to respond this, but I assume you do.
Instead of a futile justification to attempt explaining the fact HMS Prince of Wales got her ass badly kicked by Bismarck, these facts should be a scandal.
So Glider, if I am going to have a kick boxing fight, and have several fighters in my team, am I going to send one who is still recovering from a broken leg?
Am I going to have the doctor and therapist by the side of the ring yelling questions as to how is the broken leg feeling as the process of getting the living crap kicked out of him happens?
If I do, and when the guy returns from combat with his ass duly kicked, will that mean his enemy was not that good? Let me answer it for you: YOU WILL NEVE KNOW. He dealt with what he got sent against him.
Bismarck dealt with what the Royal Navy first sent against her, didn´t her?
I do agree with you once the combat is accepted anything can happen; Bismarck did not try to evade the combat against the two British battleships though; did the guys on board Bismarck know HMS Prince of Wales cuadruple turrest were crap?
So in the hypthetical scenario I suggested, although anything could happen, I believe Bismarck emerges as a winner, or at leat, in the most favorable of the conditions.
My comments, although irrelevant in the end for she was doomed, regarding the Bismarck capability to take brutal punishment during her final combat, without sinking or exploding, tells of the soundness of her construction.
I have not claimed her to be perfect for there were no perfect vessels.
Delcyros:
Thank you for you response. But still, the heavy units of the Royal Navy were not going to catch up with Bismarck, is that correct?
Glider
Captain
Udet. If I upset you then there was no intention to do so. There is no doubt that the Bismark and Prinz Eugen won the first battle, it would be stupid to pretend otherwise.
Also I wasn't trying to quote make a futile justification that the POW got her ass kicked'
There is no doubt that the POW broke off the engagement and she did this as to stay would have put her at grave risk. When she turned away the POW was down to one working Turret and her Bridge had received a direct hit wiping out almost everyone on it. She was in no condition to continue the action. She had been hit by three 15in shells and four 8in shells.
Its interesting that the POW and the Bismark hit each other three times.
However, there is also no doubt that the POW did have dockworkers on board and that her quad 14in Turrets were very unreliable. A problem that impacted most of the class for nearly the entire war. There is also no doubt, that she inflicted enough damage on the Bismark to force her to abandon her mission.
The Germans wouldn't have known about the gun problems there is no reason why she should have done and we wouldn't have been keen to tell the world about the problem.
As for the Renown vs Scharnhorst + Gneisenau.
The reason the Germans retreated wasn't because of the fear of damage. It was officially because they were carrying German soldiers for the invasion of Norway and the delivery of those soldiers was the primary objective.
The view in the RN was that if the roles had been reversed and the Renown been German we would have turned to fight.
Would we have done in real life? who knows, but the fact remains that you asked what would happen if ships met in open waters and there was an example.
I should remind you that I actually agreed with the important part of your first posting, that the Bismark was the best european BB around.
I also would like to repeat that there was and is, no intention to cause discord.
Also I wasn't trying to quote make a futile justification that the POW got her ass kicked'
There is no doubt that the POW broke off the engagement and she did this as to stay would have put her at grave risk. When she turned away the POW was down to one working Turret and her Bridge had received a direct hit wiping out almost everyone on it. She was in no condition to continue the action. She had been hit by three 15in shells and four 8in shells.
Its interesting that the POW and the Bismark hit each other three times.
However, there is also no doubt that the POW did have dockworkers on board and that her quad 14in Turrets were very unreliable. A problem that impacted most of the class for nearly the entire war. There is also no doubt, that she inflicted enough damage on the Bismark to force her to abandon her mission.
The Germans wouldn't have known about the gun problems there is no reason why she should have done and we wouldn't have been keen to tell the world about the problem.
As for the Renown vs Scharnhorst + Gneisenau.
The reason the Germans retreated wasn't because of the fear of damage. It was officially because they were carrying German soldiers for the invasion of Norway and the delivery of those soldiers was the primary objective.
The view in the RN was that if the roles had been reversed and the Renown been German we would have turned to fight.
Would we have done in real life? who knows, but the fact remains that you asked what would happen if ships met in open waters and there was an example.
I should remind you that I actually agreed with the important part of your first posting, that the Bismark was the best european BB around.
I also would like to repeat that there was and is, no intention to cause discord.
Mr. Glider:
Thank you very much for your comments again.
Please do not misunderstand the "flavor" of my comments. I am not upset, at all. Sorry, but sometimes I am just too lazy to type emoticons...
Quite the contrary, I enjoy reading your comments, for as I said, I am no expert when it comes to naval aspects of WWII. My knowledge on the matter could be qualified as barely above basic.
I agree HMS Prince of Wales caused damage enough to change the German plans for Bismarck as well. As you correctly said, when the battle begins between large surface vessels anything can happen.
Really Glider, I do think the British official story should have concealed the fact HMS Prince of Wales was not 100% ready for combat. Would you agree it was a very stupid thing to do?
I have heard some people talking about it, did the guys on board the Prince of Wales they were going to have a field day facing Bismarck?
Or were they overwhelmingly confident about some British naval superiority, that even with civilians workers on board trying to gear her up, and with cuadruple main turrets that were crap, they were going to defeat the German enemy?
It was an unconceivable fact to acknowledge from an armed branch deemed as "professional".
Although a fine opponent, I do believe HMS Prince of Wales was lucky to survive the engagement.
Glider, another question regarding the french Jean Bart:
Do you know if the french experienced any trouble with those cuadruple turrets?
If I recall correctly, when the Jean Bart entered combat against US Navy forces off Casablanca -tied to her dock-, she had only one turret installed.
Was that all the combat the Jean Bart had during the entire WWII?
Also if I recall correctly, the Richelieu never entered combat against naval forces during the war, is that about correct?
Thank you very much for your comments again.
Please do not misunderstand the "flavor" of my comments. I am not upset, at all. Sorry, but sometimes I am just too lazy to type emoticons...
Quite the contrary, I enjoy reading your comments, for as I said, I am no expert when it comes to naval aspects of WWII. My knowledge on the matter could be qualified as barely above basic.
I agree HMS Prince of Wales caused damage enough to change the German plans for Bismarck as well. As you correctly said, when the battle begins between large surface vessels anything can happen.
Really Glider, I do think the British official story should have concealed the fact HMS Prince of Wales was not 100% ready for combat. Would you agree it was a very stupid thing to do?
I have heard some people talking about it, did the guys on board the Prince of Wales they were going to have a field day facing Bismarck?
Or were they overwhelmingly confident about some British naval superiority, that even with civilians workers on board trying to gear her up, and with cuadruple main turrets that were crap, they were going to defeat the German enemy?
It was an unconceivable fact to acknowledge from an armed branch deemed as "professional".
Although a fine opponent, I do believe HMS Prince of Wales was lucky to survive the engagement.
Glider, another question regarding the french Jean Bart:
Do you know if the french experienced any trouble with those cuadruple turrets?
If I recall correctly, when the Jean Bart entered combat against US Navy forces off Casablanca -tied to her dock-, she had only one turret installed.
Was that all the combat the Jean Bart had during the entire WWII?
Also if I recall correctly, the Richelieu never entered combat against naval forces during the war, is that about correct?
I just wanted to thank you all in this thread for all your comments. While I have made no comments of my own (not qualified to, lol) I find this thread very interesting. While I did know Bismark was a very good ship, I did not know it was arguably better than anyone else's in Europe during the entire war. Again thank you for this very interesting thread and arguments from both side of the coin. 
Glider
Captain
Udet. The Jean Bart was never completed during the war. She was being built in St Nazaire but was moved to Casablanca before the Germans arrived. At this time she was far from complete but one turret was installed although she had no fire control equipment of any description. All the French could do was set up a manual system that took bearings from three different places and do the calculations to arrive at a firing solution.
When the US forces attacked she was moored at a quay and fought back as long as she could under what can only be described as impossible conditions. French sources admit that she was hit eight times by the USS Massachusetts and at least one torpedo from aircraft before fires forced her to cease firing.
In her incomplete state she was also missing most of her sophisticated damage control equipment and had to rely an the physical efforts of what damage control teams she had. As you may expect she didn't have a full crew which also didn't help.
You asked if the French had problems with their Quad 15in Turrets. I don't know the anwser to this but I suspect not. I say this as the French had already built two Battlecruisers the Dunkerque and the Stratsbourg with Quad 13in. With this experience behind them, I would have thought that they would have learnt some lessons as to what works and what doesn't.
I do believe that she had some problems with the Guns themselves not the Turrets
The Richleau was refitted in the USA in 1943 with modern AA weapons and to have three 15in guns replaced with ones taken from the Jean Bart. All I know is that these needed replacing for 'technical reasons' hence my previous comment re problems with the guns.
As for her war record. In July 1944, the Richleau joined the British Eastern Fleet taking part in bombardments and actions before returning to France before the end of 1944 before returning to the Pacific to take part in the campaign from April 1945 until the end.
Hope this helps
Hunter
I am sure that Udet as well as myself appreciate your comments. This is an aviation site and we have gone a little off track down the Naval route. Personally I was concerned that we may have lost the thread I thank you all for your indulgance
When the US forces attacked she was moored at a quay and fought back as long as she could under what can only be described as impossible conditions. French sources admit that she was hit eight times by the USS Massachusetts and at least one torpedo from aircraft before fires forced her to cease firing.
In her incomplete state she was also missing most of her sophisticated damage control equipment and had to rely an the physical efforts of what damage control teams she had. As you may expect she didn't have a full crew which also didn't help.
You asked if the French had problems with their Quad 15in Turrets. I don't know the anwser to this but I suspect not. I say this as the French had already built two Battlecruisers the Dunkerque and the Stratsbourg with Quad 13in. With this experience behind them, I would have thought that they would have learnt some lessons as to what works and what doesn't.
I do believe that she had some problems with the Guns themselves not the Turrets
The Richleau was refitted in the USA in 1943 with modern AA weapons and to have three 15in guns replaced with ones taken from the Jean Bart. All I know is that these needed replacing for 'technical reasons' hence my previous comment re problems with the guns.
As for her war record. In July 1944, the Richleau joined the British Eastern Fleet taking part in bombardments and actions before returning to France before the end of 1944 before returning to the Pacific to take part in the campaign from April 1945 until the end.
Hope this helps
Hunter
I am sure that Udet as well as myself appreciate your comments. This is an aviation site and we have gone a little off track down the Naval route. Personally I was concerned that we may have lost the thread I thank you all for your indulgance
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
I am going with you, Glider.
PoW, while beeing commisioned, did not completed her seatrials (alike Bismarck), when it left it´s harbour. The problems with it´s quadruple turret are partly engineering based (KGV also suffered over it´s whole service time from that) but mostly due to a lack of training and securing systems.
Nethertheless the ship did a good job.
Bismarck and Prinz Eugen did not break because they believed that CA were closing, not BB/BC.
The turret design of Richelieu is biased. There is a heavy armor plate dividing it into two twin fun units (in case of Strassbourg it indeed worked well, when it was hit, so only one half turret was knocked out). Another plus is it was the only heavy gun to be loaded at any angle (so it is equal in rate of fire at long ranges even to Bismarcks reputated 15"), and it´s ballistic performances are even better. I don´t know about original french shells, but it is clear that later in ww2 Richelieu benefitted from US made shells (rarely duds, very resistent against impact damage). Some aspects of it´s turret design are questionable: Why are the electric and hydraulic cables mounted on the back of the armor plates? Every non penetrating impact of any shell bigger than 8 inch would knock the complete turret out, no matter how thick the armor is or how long the distance, in case this plate is hitten. I personally find it also difficult that all main guns are orientated forward and all secondary rearward. (the third ship of this class: Gascogne, should be executed with one forward and one backward firing turret but France surrendered prior to this)
Beside of this it indeed is a reasonable contender and a very handsome ship. More fuel capacity, improved underwater protection (much better subdivision, void instead of filled cells) and a Gascogne- like layout would make the ship better than Bismarck, no doubt.
PoW, while beeing commisioned, did not completed her seatrials (alike Bismarck), when it left it´s harbour. The problems with it´s quadruple turret are partly engineering based (KGV also suffered over it´s whole service time from that) but mostly due to a lack of training and securing systems.
Nethertheless the ship did a good job.
Bismarck and Prinz Eugen did not break because they believed that CA were closing, not BB/BC.
The turret design of Richelieu is biased. There is a heavy armor plate dividing it into two twin fun units (in case of Strassbourg it indeed worked well, when it was hit, so only one half turret was knocked out). Another plus is it was the only heavy gun to be loaded at any angle (so it is equal in rate of fire at long ranges even to Bismarcks reputated 15"), and it´s ballistic performances are even better. I don´t know about original french shells, but it is clear that later in ww2 Richelieu benefitted from US made shells (rarely duds, very resistent against impact damage). Some aspects of it´s turret design are questionable: Why are the electric and hydraulic cables mounted on the back of the armor plates? Every non penetrating impact of any shell bigger than 8 inch would knock the complete turret out, no matter how thick the armor is or how long the distance, in case this plate is hitten. I personally find it also difficult that all main guns are orientated forward and all secondary rearward. (the third ship of this class: Gascogne, should be executed with one forward and one backward firing turret but France surrendered prior to this)
Beside of this it indeed is a reasonable contender and a very handsome ship. More fuel capacity, improved underwater protection (much better subdivision, void instead of filled cells) and a Gascogne- like layout would make the ship better than Bismarck, no doubt.
Hunter368 said:I just wanted to thank you all in this thread for all your comments. While I have made no comments of my own (not qualified to, lol) I find this thread very interesting. While I did know Bismark was a very good ship, I did not know it was arguably better than anyone else's in Europe during the entire war. Again thank you for this very interesting thread and arguments from both side of the coin.
Im with you on this also. I am not all that knowledgable in navy matters. I really do like to read up and study on the Bismarck though, I was always fascinated with her Titanic type fate.
Erich
the old Sage
interesting I must say, all the hype on the Bismark and a ship that really was not able to prove itself. without starting a flame war it apepars through KM documentation that it's smaller sister the Prinz Eugen was able to deliver the killing blow on the Hood. Even though a grand ship with smaller large caliber weapons they were enough to do the damage and also be quite felt by the Soviets in and around the Baltic in 44 till wars end along with the smaller Z-ships
