El Cid --
The device on
Bismarck was not "Sonar." It was a passive acoustic listening device, not an active "echolocation" device. Acoustic devices then (not even German ones) could not operate at speed. (As you will verify if you read about the particular acoustic device that
Bismarck used by clicking on the UBoat link that I provided. Uboats had the same listening device that
Bismarck used).
The active pinging devices worked at higher speeds because the signal you would get from reflected sound was much stronger than the noise of a screw. Of course torpedoes are much louder than some distant ship or submerged boat, which is really why
Bismarck had such a device installed -- it would be a waste to have a nice ship lost to some cheap submarine.
Whomever:
Yes, of course. They would have been a pushover for the experienced US crews.
That's not what I am saying. IMO the RN crews in a fully capable modern BB might beat a fully modern USN BB, in 1941, if it were the right RN BB. So
Prince of Wales, assuming her guns were working as intended, might beat a
North Carolina (but not a
South Dakota because there was no way the 14" guns on a
KGV were going to penetrate a
SoDak's armor. Even the 15" on
Bismarck were incapable of penetrating
SoDak with an intact bursting charge.) And
Hood was just not capable of standing up to the pounding from ANY BB. Not even some old clunker like USS
Texas.
And while it is conventional wit to pretend that USN crews were green as grass, there is no wisdom behind the wit. As with all navies, crew "experience" was largely based on the experience of her commander, xo, officer complement, and time in service of crew. Some of those USN ships were likely staffed by crews far more experienced and better trained than
Bismarck's. Of course, those would have been older boats like USS
Pennsylvania, which for other reasons would have been an inferior opponent to a
KGV or a
Bismarck class ship.
The point is.
PoW looks good on paper but in May 1941 she was not fit for combat duty as her chronic gun malfunctions in the Denmark Strait battle show.
Prince of Wales, independent of anything
Bismarck could do to her, went into the battle in effect as a "1 turrett battleship."
Hood was basically a large cruiser with big guns -- wholly vulnerable to anything bigger than 11" rifle. So I maintain that any modern BB built after 1937 could have beaten these two particular ships (
Hood and
PoW) on that particular day. Everything changes if you posit a fully worked up Royal Navy BB, like
King George V, or
Rodney.
Completely wrong assumption.
No assumption was made at all. My point is that if a person deploys some straw man argument that in effect reads "Well, US ships could not have been very good at naval combat because a bunch of them were sunk by aircraft carriers in a harbor" then the person deploying such an argument in the context of a discussion comparing
Bismarck to Allied BBs might be an Axis Fanboy.
Why would anyone who is (a) well informed, and (b) intellectually honest look at the results of a surprise attack on ships in port not at steam with incomplete crews and say "well, that means if these ships were at sea their crews would have been ineffective or less effective at doing the jobs for which they were trained?" The only reason I can see to make such a bizarre assertion is that the person making the argument is grasping at any absurd straw they can reach in lieu of making a rational comparison.
It tells at least something about the general state of readiness (or preparedness) of the USN in 1941. Only real facts we have in this regard!
It tells you something about the state of readiness in Pearl Harbor on 7 December. It hasn't a single thing to do with a discussion of relative combat capability if we assume that two ships are at sea and cleared for action. The only way the straw man argument makes any sense is if one imagines that in 1940,
Bismarck under the pretext of a diplomatic tour, would sail into Chesapeake bay and sink the USS
New York at her berth. If your assertion is merely that
Bismarck (or some othe Axis ship) could sink any USN battleship of the day if the USN BB were anchored, did not have steam up, and had much of her crew on shore leave then I agree. But that doesn't have jack handy to do with a comparison of what the two ships might do to each other in a fight at sea.
For an Austrian citizen you're really an Allied fanboy!
Nope. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read Tony Tully's BB comparison and compare its detail and quality to the "
Bismarck is best" type arguments I have heard in this debate. Tully's analysis is detailed, thoughtful, logically presented, and thorough. Hawker's argument is empty rhetoric; it amounts to nothing more than "Are ve not der schupermen? Yes ve are der schupermen! Schuper Duper DUPERmen." (Apologies to Spike Jones may he RIP).
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
