What was the most powerful battleship in a straight duel, May 1941?

What was the most powerful battleship in a straight-out duel, May 1941?

  • Total voters
    92

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Raises the question, who would win between the Veneto and the Bismarck, in say 1941 (given that both sides have no constraining orders regarding engagement). I have not thought this through properly, but my money is actually on the Italian BB. If you look at her closely, she was a very advanced ship
 

Vittorio Veneto does hold the advantage as long as endurance does not play a role. The advantage is very distinctive at long range.
Vittorio is significantly better protected but suffers from less protected stability (e.g. Bismarck will absorb more non critical hits).
 
The German crew were very famous for being very good at aiming their battleships and I think that the Bismarck would be better in battle than the Italians. The Germans was also very well trained and if you also look at the Battle between the Bismarck and the Hood with the Prins of Wales you can note that the Germans was very well trained and could use everything they had on their ships.
 
Hello Delcyros
Yes, Betty was big and vulnerable. On the other hand it was fast and was armed with probably the best aerial torpedo of that time which had more relaxed dropping parametres than other torpedos ie it could be dropped higher and at higher speed than the other aerial torpedos in use in 41-42.
 

to say nothing of the increased launch range for the 21" torps they carried
 
Parsifal, Juha,

please keep track with the context. Not the thread imposed by Beatty torpedo bomber was under discussion but the AAA ability of the defending ships. With regard to this ability, target size, exposure time and vulnarability does play a role.
 
Delcyros
Torpero release paramets are important for exposure times, higher speed reduced it. Higher release altitude increses options and made attack parameters more dificult to predict for defender. That's why for ex USN constantly improved their aerial torpedoes during the war.
 

Agreed completely. The torps used by the bettys were such that launch could be achieved outside the effective range of the Allied Light AA (ie 20mm and below).

Also, Divebombers were gnerally exposed to AA fire for longer than TB, and once committed to a dive, were extremely predictable in their flight path and with the pilot struggling to control the plane, not able to manouvre all that easily. For these reasons, D/Bs are generally considered the most vulnerable to AA fire

Compared to a swordfish, the betty was relatively better off because it could launch from a greater distance, and was much faster. The Swordfish, however, had the priceless advantage of being Night capable, probably more sturdily constructed, and apparently somewhat immune to enemy fire because of their low speed.

The german D/B suffered quite heavily against the Brits not because the brits possessed heavy AA (they didnt, until after 1943) but because they had to spend a relatively long time within the kill zone, and suffered the problems associated with ordinance delivery by D/B.

IMO, no-one, for various and differing reasons produced a really satisfactory Lt AA system. however, the best of the bunch were the Americans, who were very much enhanced by the extensive use of the bofors. The very heavy AA suites as compared to the Axis toward the end of the war is also worth mentioning. I know that i have somewhere the estimated ammunition expenditures per kill by the USN, which by late 1944 was about 1500 rounds per kill. By comparison, the land based flak units of the LW were expending about 16000 rounds per kill. Probably not comparable, however, as the primary target of the german flak at this time was high level bombers.
 
parsifal said:
Agreed completely. The torps used by the bettys were such that launch could be achieved outside the effective range of the Allied Light AA (ie 20mm and below)
Click to expand...

Light AA by this state of the war were not controlled by high angle / low angle FC systems and RPC. No Beatty released their torpedoes outside the effective range of 40mm /5" guns and it is questionable whether or not 20mm firing non mine rounds have a decisive effect on twin engined bombers to justify this differentiation, but it is possible, at least.

As far as can be judged from Force Z, the Beatty torpedo bomber released their torpedoes from distances of about 2.000m, which would be well within effective firing range of 20mm light AA.
The torpedoes indeed could be dropped at even larger distances but to what effect? Dropping range and deflection are in direct relationship with hitting probability.

I have not seen the damage report files of the US cruisers but will have a look to them for comparison.

Agreed.


Wasn´t the Beatty called "type one lighter"?


Agreed.

Agreed.

As You have already mentioned, this comparison compares apples with oranges. There are ammunition breakdowns for naval vessels of KM and USN readily accessable in the net to make proper comparisons.
Note that naval AAA doesn´t "need" to kill in order to be successive.
 
Hello mates,

Don't let yourselves feel disturbed at your present topic by my posting. Regarding the title thread let me say very clearly;

B I S M A R C K

Regards
Kruska
 
Light AA by this state of the war were not controlled by high angle / low angle FC systems and RPC.

Agreed. however the 20mm effectiveness was greatly increased in effectiveness later in the war, according to the Nav weapons site, which states as follows "In 1943 the revolutionary Mark 14 Gunsight was introduced which made these guns even more effective. This gunsight was developed by Dr. Charles Draper of MIT, who calculated that since the guns fired at relatively short ranges, a crude but simple and effective relative-bearing system could be used to control these weapons. The Mark 14 gunsight used two gyros to measure vertical and lateral rate of change, calculated the lead angle to the target aircraft and then projected an off-set aiming point for the gunner. Use of the Mark 14 did require that an electric power connection be provided to the formerly free-standing mountings. This gunsight was later adopted as part of the Mark 51 director which was used to control the 40 mm Bofors, greatly increasing their effectiveness"

No Beatty released their torpedoes outside the effective range of 40mm /5" guns and it is questionable whether or not 20mm firing non mine rounds have a decisive effect on twin engined bombers to justify this differentiation, but it is possible, at least.

A "Beatty" is a wwi admiral in the RN. A "Betty" is either a womans name, or the code name for the principal land based torpedo bomber used by the IJN during the war.

The reference to a 40 mm I assume could be either a 2 pounder, or a bofors. A 2 pounder had a max range of 6200 metres (approximately), and an effective range of about 3400 metres. The Betty could not launch torps outside of 2000 metres, so it would on average be in the kill zone of the 2 pounder for about 15 seconds.

The Bofors had a theoretical range of about 10500 metres, but an effective range of about 3200-7000 m (depending on nationality and ammunition type), As a broad generalization the gun had an effective AA range of about 4000 metres. Against the betty target, it could engage for about 20-25 seconds before the torps were released.

The US 5 In from memory had an effective range against aircraft of about 8500 metres (from memory, have not checked properly), If this is correct, the bettys would be under fire for abour 50 seconds

As far as can be judged from Force Z, the Beatty torpedo bomber released their torpedoes from distances of about 2.000m, which would be well within effective firing range of 20mm light AA.

Ah, no. The effective range of the 20mm did not exceed 1000 metres until much later in the war (source Nav weapons). Incidentally, the main attackers of Fze Z were the much older Nells. If my memory is correct, the Bettys were not even committed, being held back as a reserve wave, if needed.


The torpedoes indeed could be dropped at even larger distances but to what effect? Dropping range and deflection are in direct relationship with hitting probability.

Ah no, 2000 was the max efffective range for the Type 91 torps used by the IJN


Quote:
Compared to a swordfish, the betty was relatively better off because it could launch from a greater distance, and was much faster. The Swordfish, however, had the priceless advantage of being Night capable, probably more sturdily constructed, and apparently somewhat immune to enemy fire because of their low speed.

Wasn´t the Beatty called "type one lighter"?
Yep, and the Swordfish was the Stringbag. both were unarmoured, and vulnerable. the Betty was more prone to ignition because of its unprotected fuel tanks, but the swordish was much slower. Its launch distance was 1500 yds @ 40 kts, or 3500 yds at 27 kts. AFAIK the longer range setting was not used against warships. because of the poor speed. That means that the exposure times for the stringbag was much greater when they were engaging the bismarck and Tirpitz (and the italians as well, of course). By simply turning to run in the same direction as the Swordfish a warship travelling at 30 ktd could reduce the closure rate to under 50 kts, particualrly in a headwind.

Quote:
I know that i have somewhere the estimated ammunition expenditures per kill by the USN, which by late 1944 was about 1500 rounds per kill. By comparison, the land based flak units of the LW were expending about 16000 rounds per kill. Probably not comparable, however, as the primary target of the german flak at this time was high level bombers.

As You have already mentioned, this comparison compares apples with oranges. There are ammunition breakdowns for naval vessels of KM and USN readily accessable in the net to make proper comparisons.
Note that naval AAA doesn´t "need" to kill in order to be successive

I have not seen the average ammunition expenditures for any axis navies, Can you provide the links please, i would like to have a look.
 
parsifal said:
the main attackers of Fze Z were the much older Nells. If my memory is correct, the Bettys were not even committed, being held back as a reserve wave, if needed.
Click to expand...
Your memory is inaccurate. The third final attack was carried out by 26 Mitsubishi G4M 'Betty' torpedo bombers from the Kanoya Air Corps which are credited with the lethal hits on HMS REPULSE.
Launch distance for the british torpedo in question was 200m - 1.740m in march 1942 during the attack against TIRPITZ.
The G4M was more likely to be hit in the first place due to it´s larger size. The typical AAA-shell by this time deployed fragmentation in spacial distribution not uncomparable to a spherical lense with positive mensicus (actually not absolutely true but not uncomparable, either). The great Swordfish torpedo bombers never attacked TIRPITZ. The famous air attack by HMS VICTORIOUS in march 1942 against BB TIRPITZ and DD FRIEDRICH IHN in open waters were carried out by Fairy Albacores instead.
I have not seen the average ammunition expenditures for any axis navies, Can you provide the links please, i would like to have a look.
Click to expand...
There are no ammo expendeture figures for navies, You will find some for individual ships and events.
The above mentioned Tirpitz incident can be found here:

SCHLACHTSCHIFF TIRPITZ | Schlachtschiffe Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau

Die Flak hatte insgesamt 345 Schuß 10,5 cm, 4269 Schuß 37 mm und 20 mm verschossen, die MA etwa ein Dutzend Schüsse, während die 38 cm zwei volle Breitseiten gezieltes Sperrfeuer und zwei Salven Fernsperrfeuer abgegeben hatte.
Click to expand...
ammo expendeture of TIRPITZ and the DD (2 Albacores downed, 3 further damaged):
4.1"/65: 345 rounds
light AA: 4.269 rounds (including 20mm)

Comparable ammo expendeture figures for US task forces are published in Campbell, Naval weapons of ww2 and related to oct-44 to jan.45:

Crosley's Secret War Effort - The Proximity Fuze

The numbers suggest not a decisisve difference in abilities altough the sample is smaller for Tirpitz and thus offers less statistical significance.

I have also filed down Prinz Eugens after action report for AAA actions in the Baltic campaign 1945 and altough I cannot publish them here (a legal question as a collegue has the rights to publish the material at first), I can assure You that the ammo expendeture figures and kills correlate even better than Tirpitz record 1942. The reason is not clear but her improved AA-suites (40mm batteries) and centimetric FC radar FuG-Berlin 0 may play a role.
 
Sorry Freebird but if you want the two battleships to approach head on, Rodney (or Nelson) would only have been able to fire 6 of their 9 guns. They would also have the disadvantage of a larger "head on" silhouette. Presuming at some point in your battle the ships made a course alteration, the Bismark,being faster, would have an advantage and would presumably make for an area to the stern of Rodney (those Washington ships were bad at turning) and pound away.(presuming no major 16 inch hits.)
I must also say that Bismark lost gunnery control very early in the battle so she could,nt have concentrated on one ship. Also, scuttling charges or not,her hull integrity had been damaged to the extent that she was sinking.
 
I would have to go for the North Carolina class BB-55. It had a very good battery and secondary battery as well as a streamlined well armoured hull and great fire director.
 
Amsel hit the nail on the head.

The North Carolina (NC) had more armor firepower then the Bismark, and was 100ft shorter (smaller target). The only thing the Bismark on the NC was speed (2 knts faster) as stated in "Battleship" by Crescent
 
Freebird, in your hypothetical engagement, a washington treaty ship(Rodney or Nelson) would only be able to fire 6 of her 9 in a head on approach, she would also have a larger head on silhouette, so the out come is not that simple.
Presuming your protagonists started manouvering, Bismark was the faster and would, I presume work her way (at long range) round to the stern of her opponant and, presuming no 16 inch hits, blast away whilst closing the range . (Nelson and Rodney were very slow in the turn) I'd bet on Bismark. So much for theory!!




This is the second attempt at posting this, I'm trying to fathom this site out!!!!
 
Welcome to the site, Herrkaleut. I hope you bring some interesting naval warfare conversation to the board, like your name implies.
 

Firstly welcome to the site.

Secondly I am afraid I don't follow your posting.
a) If the Rodney is head on to the Bismark then the Bismark is almost certain to lose as its 6 against 4.
b) The Rodney would be the first to get a broadside off due to the ships layout.
c) The Bismark would be unable to work her way around the stern of the Rodney unless the Rodney is stupid enough to keep going in a straight line, which is more than a little unlikely.
d) I like the phrase 'presuming no 16in Gun hits' If the RN can assume no 15in hits its would be a long hot day.
 
Interesting! Let us discuss...{Presuming Max range about 22 to 24 thousand yards}.
1)Agreed, 6 to 4 is numerically superior but the likelyhood of landing 6 shells onto an end on target with a compact head on profile profile with a closing speed of 50 plus knots (32 for Bismark, 28 max for Rodney/Nelson) is , to say the least, doubtful. The "Queen Anne's mansions" of R. and N. on the other hand woul have made a slab of a target for the german gun sights, not that i'm saying they would have got 4 out of 4. I envisage the Bismark a.s.a.p. opening her "A" arcs (still at long range) and crossing the"T" making it 8 to 6. That would negate your second point.
2)The R. and N. were notoriously slow in the turn as I said and given the accuracy of the german gunnery, I suspect that by the time all three turrets could bear there would be more than a little damage done to either guns or fire control. One of the concerns from the outset of this triple layout was the very likely possibility of a hit knocking out all three turrets in one go . (A lucky hit I will agree) but the Admiralty were very concened.
3) My presumption of no hits was a little tongue in cheek I must admit.
4) Bismark, having damaged her opponant, then goes hull down to the british directors , works her way round and spends the rest of the battle staying out of the british arc of fire (by virtue of better speed and turning ability)and hammers them in from the quarters. (or b, goes hull down and gets the hell out of there to fight another day.....more likely!!!!)

Scenario 2. Range 22 to 24 thousand yards and closing at 50 plus knots.
At around 20 000 yards both ships open fire, Bismark straddles after 3 salvoes, the inferior british gunnery systems take 5. Salvo 4 from Bismark knocks out the main directorand mid turret, the british 6th salvo hits Bismark with 2 shells, jamming turret Dora and causing engine room damage and speed reduction to less than 30 knots..........over to you..what happens next
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

What is a Quonset Hut?
Replies
14
Views
716
HP52
H
W
What effect would a cross channel tunnel have on WW2?
Replies
17
Views
794
Airframes
O
British Balloon Bombs in the Balkans, Summer 1943?
Replies
2
Views
302
Old MacDonald
O
WWII remnants in Tunisia and Algeria
Replies
0
Views
512
Ghosts of War
A
Interwar examples where a heavy presence might have made a difference?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register