Which aircraft logged the.....

[Anonymous]

The USA was not "in the war" for the Bismark. My point is the Bismark and Tirpitz are made out to be wonder ships, when in fact they were decent but certainly not up to fighting the first class BB's of either the USA or Japan. It might have won against a pre-1943 SD class BB, but it would have taken some luck. Against a 1943 SD class BB, it would have taken a huge amount of luck, and against a mid '44 SD class BB, it would have taken a near miracle.

I'm not sure that, had the USA been in the war and had the right ships in the area, the British would have taken "first crack" at the Tiriptz. It would just have made more sense all around to let the USA do it, or to do it as a joint operation (most likely).

My point about the British not helping with Midway is they refused to because they didn't want to leave Madagascar undefended. This makes me laugh, if the Japanese had gone after Madagascar instead of Midway, what was one British Carrier (Arc Royal) going to do to stop them? On the otherhand, if Midway had been lost, Madagascar was ripe for the picking.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

dude you make the royal navy sound useless, we had several BBs sitting in the atlantic just waiting for the tirpitz, she WAS a wondership, to fact for the ships that could destryer her and the ships that could catch her couldn't destroy her, but give the RN some credit man...............

 

[GermansRGeniuses]

Plus, the Germans had some of the best guns, ammo, and optics...


Remember H.M.S. Hood?


Four shots fired from Bismarck, a direct hit on the ammo/fuel compartments, on the third shot in foggy weather with near-none visibility, or something similar... (Not that sure of the details, but they're similar)

 

[Anonymous]

Plus, the Germans had some of the best guns, ammo, and optics...

Remember H.M.S. Hood?

Four shots fired from Bismarck, a direct hit on the ammo/fuel compartments, on the third shot in foggy weather with near-none visibility, or something similar... (Not that sure of the details, but they're similar)

But that was against a British BB.

Armor Protection
GENERAL COMMENTS: This was the most complex category in terms of trying to quantify and simplify a rating. After all, each of these vessels was designed to operate in a different anticipated threat environment than the others. Bismarck, for instance, was designed for combat in the North Atlantic. Her designers anticipated weather and visibility conditions such as had prevailed at Jutland in WWI. As a result, she was optimized for short-range, flat-trajectory combats. Her armor scheme reflects this, with an armor layout that makes it fantastically difficult to put a shell into her vitals at short range, but which is vulnerable to long-range fire, and which reduces the total amount of protected volume in the vessel by carrying her armor deck lower in the ship than her contemporaries. By the same token, Yamato was simply built to stand up to and utterly outclass any conceivable American or British opponent by sheer weight of gunfire, and elephant-like armor. As such, hers is a sort of 'brute force' approach to protection. Her armor layout isn't the most efficient, but she has a lot of armor, so it doesn't really matter. American and French battleships were designed to do less with more, with the South Dakota, for instance, being perhaps the best protected warship, pound for pound, ever built. One reason the Americans in particular came out with such good designs is that they could afford to. America poured tons of money into making the propulsion plants of their vessels more efficient, meaning that the resulting ships were relatively smaller and armor box correspondingly small. This, in turn, led to the ability to use the armor more heavily in the protected region. By the same token, American BBs, alone of contemporary battleship designs, had hull plating and interior works which were constructed entirely of Special Treatment Steel (STS), a very tough light armor steel, whereas contemporary designs usually reserved such steels for important splinter-proofing locales. The United States alone was capabe of affording such extravagances.

I based my ratings extensively upon the work of Nathan Okun. From his paper detailing the usage of Bismarck's 15"/47 gun to shoot at all seven of 'The Contenduh's', I extracted a quantification of the total zones of vulnerability, for both deck and belt armor, of each of the seven ships. If you want the really gory details on how I did this, click here. Suffice it to say that I am surprised as you that Iowa has the most effective belt armor of the lot; I would have bet on Yamato any day. But Iowa's combination of an inclined belt, and a highly effective STS-steel shell plate outboard of the belt (which has just enough resistance to strip the AP cap off of an incoming shell) tips the score in her favor. Richelieu also had this same design, and very good protection as a result. Bismarck, despite the reputation of her side armor, fares very poorly in this category. From a deck armor perspective, Yamato comes out on top, followed closely again by Richelieu and Iowa. Vittorio Veneto is very vulnerable to high-angle fire, and Bismarck is as well. Yamato thus emerges as the best armored of the lot, followed closely by Iowa and Richelieu. This makes perfect sense to me, as Yamato also had the distinction of carrying the only armor plates which were completely impervious to any battleship weapon ever mounted afloat -- her 660mm turret faceplates. She was, indeed, an awesome beast. It makes the American and French feats of achieving protection within a hair as good, on much smaller displacements (particularly the South Dakota, which has the second smallest displacement of the seven warships detailed here), a very impressive feat as well. On the bottom of the heap, Vittorio Veneto and Bismarck were both penalized for their inability to cope with a long-range gun duel. Bismarck also suffered from the poorest belt armor of the lot.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_armor.htm

Fire Control
GENERAL COMMENTS: The bottom line is that, after 1943 or so, having the world's best optical fire-control systems was largely irrelevant. The night battle between Washington and Kirishima near Savo pretty much settled the point; good radar usually beats good optics in a stand-up fight. And the radar used by Washington off of Guadalcanal was not as good as the sets fitted aboard Iowa.6

Then there's the fact that all radar fire-control is not created equal. Radar operating at meter or decimeter wavelengths is useful for ranging, but lacks the angular accuracy necessary for training. In practical terms, this means that a decimetric set can develop a range solution via radar, but must rely on an optical director to supply training information for the battery. This hybrid fire-control solution is, of course, limited by the quality of the optics available, and also by the visual horizon (which is closer than the radar horizon), and weather conditions. Only with the advent of 10cm and (later) 3cm wavelength sets was true 'blindfire' radar fire-control achievable, wherein the firing ship need never come into visual range of the opposing vessel. The Germans, Japanese, and Italians never developed sets of this capability (both the Japanese (despite its 10cm wavelength) and German sets were usable for fire control against a battleship-sized target only out to a range of about 27,000 yards.) The bottom line is, then, that the Allied vessels, and particularly Iowa and South Dakota, would enjoy an enormous advantage in gunfire control over their adversaries. She would have the ability to lob shells over the visual horizon, and would also perform better in complete darkness or adverse weather conditions.

The final adjusted rating also reflects the fact that American FC systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns.7 This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_fire.htm

Lanc,

I'm not trying to knock the RN, but you have to admit their top of the line ships did not stack up in WWII. Yes they had some good BB's, but these were outclassed by the Bismark, the Yamato, and the US South Dakota and Iowa class ships.

The 14/45 guns of the King George class BB's put it at a rather severe disadvangate. These were a few hundred pounds lighter than the 15/45 rounds of the Bismark, and were a couple of hundred fps lower in velocity. The US SD (and Iowa) class BB's mounted 16/55 guns, weighing about 1100 lbs more than the 14/45's, that's 50% greater weight, which is a huge difference. The Nelson class had 16 inch guns, but it was... old.

As you can see from above, the Armor quality of the US BB's was also much superior, and above all, the Fire Control system after the start of 1943 was far far superior to those of any other nation. The SD (or Iowa) class BB's could have destroyed the Bismark from over 30,000 feet with the Bismark never even getting off a shot! And in bad weather (common in the area) or at night the advantage is even more significant, as the US BB's would be able to fire for effect where the Bismark would be firing blind.

Finally, the USA could afford to risk a BB, where Britain could do so much less easily. Let's say the Bismark had survived and the Tirpitz and Bismark had continued raiding convoys. And lets assume no CV's or CVA's could manage to stop them (a big assumption). After the USA entered the war. Once the US Pacific fleet was relatively secure, about the start of 1943, it would have been relatively easy for the USA to deploy a couple of SD class BB's to corner and kill them with British help. Or alternatively, a single Iowa class BB could have been sent out to simply run them down and dispatch them both.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Lightning Guy]

Germans have good ammo? Maybe you should re-read the account of the Hood. While that ship was sunk, the Prince of Wales was hit by numerous shells that failed to explode. Had the Germans had a half-way decent sheel, the RN would have been out two capital ships instead of one (not that it did PoW any good in the long run).

I think the basic point is that a disproportion number of units were deployed to keep an eye on the Tirpitz that was (granted, in hind sight) justified. It would have been a close fight with the KGV class (because of the small 14" guns and iffy turret situation) but the Tirpitz would have faired poorly against a SoDak and have had no chance with a Iowa.

 

[Anonymous]

Germans have good ammo? Maybe you should re-read the account of the Hood. While that ship was sunk, the Prince of Wales was hit by numerous shells that failed to explode. Had the Germans had a half-way decent sheel, the RN would have been out two capital ships instead of one (not that it did PoW any good in the long run).

I think the basic point is that a disproportion number of units were deployed to keep an eye on the Tirpitz that was (granted, in hind sight) justified. It would have been a close fight with the KGV class (because of the small 14" guns and iffy turret situation) but the Tirpitz would have faired poorly against a SoDak and have had no chance with a Iowa.

I was not making a statement about the shells, just the relative throw weights.

I agree. I think prior to 1943 the Bismark might have had a chance against the SD class BB, but the superior belt armor and deck armor of the SD, along with its much bigger guns, would have given it the edge. After 1943, with the fire control radar and tracking computer, I don't think the Bismark/Tripitz would have stood much of a chance. In fact, I don't think any BB could stand up it. The advantage of being able to fire accurately while engaging in hard evasive manuvers is just too huge to overcome. Every time the enemy straitens out to prepare a shot, it's would take hits. The only way they'd have a chance would be if they managed a lucky hit early on and took out the radar, otherwise, they're toast.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[plan_D]

It's nice that you are both saying that the Bismarck couldn't stand up to the post-1943 US BBs (which is true) but the Bismarck sailed in 1941. To stop the Bismarck in 1941, the US would have had to do the same as the Royal Navy did.

You certainly are making the Royal Navy out to be useless. I'm sorry you fail to see that it had been spread from the across almost every ocean in the world.
And where was the USN in the Indian ocean, Dec 1941? Licking their wounds. See, we can all point fingers to say someone wasn't helping the other, so stop it.

How could the Ark Royal help during Midway? Battle of Midway - June 1942. H.M.S Ark Royal SUNK - 13th November 1941 while escorting Malta Conoys.

It'd have a job helping when it was at the bottom of the Med!

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and where were the americans in the med??

 

[plan_D]

I believe a few USN ships supported the Torch landings. Mostly the Med was a RN affair, destroying the French, Italian and German fleets in the area. As well as surviving the beating from the Luftwaffe and Regina Aeronautica.
The Royal Navy lost over 200 ships in the Med but still deprived the Afrika Korps of vital supplies.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and took out a large force when they were in herbour, the americans couldn't even defend themselfs from such an attack............

 

[plan_D]

You're talking of Taranto, with 21 unescorted Swordfish - only losing 2? You know the Yamamoto's chief of staff was in Taranto at the time of the attack. The Royal Navys attack on Taranto was where the IJN got the idea for Pearl Harbour, the effectiveness of torps in low water levels of a harbour.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes i was aware of that

hehe wo so screwed america over...........

 

[plan_D]

Indirectly blame Britain for Pearl Harbour.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

so we destryed the offensive abilities of a navy protecting the entire pacific, cool!!!

 

[plan_D]

Not really, the IJN didn't get the Carriers. The USN still sat licking its wounds for a few months while the IJN (Nagumo with 5 of the 6 Carriers used on Pearl Harbour) gave the Royal Navy hell in the Indian Ocean. Sinking several ships, only taking slight damage on Nagumos flagship, Akagi, from 11 Sqn. Blenheims.

 

[evangilder]

I believe a few USN ships supported the Torch landings.

It was quite a bit more than a few. You might want to read up on the battle that brewed in Casablanca during the operation. The US Navy not only supported the landings, but a majority of the American invasion force came all the way across the Atlantic before invading!

A couple of sites to look at:
http://www.internet-esq.com/ussaugusta/torch/

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2194206-2.htm

 

[plan_D]

Few doesn't actually mean a small amount when I say it.

 

[evangilder]

AH, I see, a question of symantics. I only knew because I had to present about it once. It was actually operation torch that paved the way for future battles for communications and command and control for combined forces (US and UK).

 

[plan_D]

Well, the 120,000 Vichy French didn't put much opposition up to the US landings.

 

[evangilder]

French and opposition aren't words that fit together! I heard the Champs Elysee was lined with trees because the Germans like to march in the shade.

There was some oppostiton, but it was pretty weak and quelled relataively quickly. I have an interesting story about a couple of USAAF officers going inland to secure a cease fire with the French during Torch. I will find it and post it in the stories section.