Best Designed Ship of WWII

[Iridium]

Well, to change the topic slightly, I'll make a rather bold statement and then allow people to continue the argument.


Yamato > Bismark


Feel free to freak out and make other crazy and absurd statements.[:D]

EDIT: Honestly though, any ship of any design (even the best) can fall prey to a set of circumstances beyond it's control and become fish food. Just because something did happen does not mean it would happen again (but it is possible, however unlikely).

[Gem35]

Can we all agree that Nik wins this arguement?[;)]

[DuckofTindalos]

Well, the other side of the fight is unarmed, so LogBoy wins by default.[:D]

[AW1Steve]

I've got to say it. Bismark was a conservatively designed , uninspired , functional, safe design. Nothing flashly , just basic. Her design was less of a factor in her demise than her absolute lack of good luck , and the bad judgement in her deployment. No aircover, no screening destroyers and a shabby escort of one heavy cruiser. Her designers did fine, it's her admirals that should be shot. [:)]

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I've got to say it. Bismark was a conservatively designed , uninspired , functional, safe design. Nothing flashly , just basic. Her design was less of a factor in her demise than her absolute lack of good luck , and the bad judgement in her deployment. No aircover, no screening destroyers and a shabby escort of one heavy cruiser. Her designers did fine, it's her admirals that should be shot. [:)]

Not really sure Bismark could do much even if it arrived in the open Atlantic. How long would it be till it accidentally ran into a bunch of DDs at night or caught by CV aircraft. A lone BB plying the waters is an accident waiting to happen.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I've got to say it. Bismark was a conservatively designed , uninspired , functional, safe design. Nothing flashly , just basic. Her design was less of a factor in her demise than her absolute lack of good luck , and the bad judgement in her deployment. No aircover, no screening destroyers and a shabby escort of one heavy cruiser. Her designers did fine, it's her admirals that should be shot. [:)]

Exactly - the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen should have returned home after the battle of the Denmark Straight!

Given the strong numerical inferiority the German navy tactics should have been the one and only: hit and run (if encounter enemy)... [:)]

BTW, IMHO, all heavy (BB & CA) German ships used together could have caused serious damage to the UK Navy...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Nikademus]

First off, want to acknowledge that i'm wearing the Hindsight Helmut, which looks much like Cerebro in the X-men movies so i wont try to crap too much on OKW for making bad decisions, but it seems like they were whistling in the dark a little bit. The UK compounded their challenges by instituting the policy of using battleships to help escort convoys. This was bad news for Scharnhorst and Gnesenau who would be "outgunned" in the sense that their armament was lighter even if the two ships outclassed in the oldest UK BB's in terms of tech and having more gun barrels. Essential problem was that even one bad hit could spell the loss for the raider which was where the Germans were caught on the horns of the dilemma. The more powerful the raider, the worse the risk should the ship be lost or crippled. Bismarck, i'm sure the thinking went, soothed things somewhat given her very powerful armament but in reality the risk remained the same.....one bad hit and you have an even more expensive, valuable and prestigious ship that might be lost. Basically using captial ships as raiders had the same issues as capital ships on the battleline.....too expensive to risk in many situations. The UK got over this somewhat and used their assets quite aggressively unless the odds were bad. In the end there wasn't much else for the Germans to do since they were outnumbered.

Hindsight suggests that they should have waited for S/G or at least for Tirpitz to be fully operational. One reason i read, that the operation went ahead was that indications to the Germans at the time was that the UK was reeling in terms of ship losses and they wanted to try to increase the pressure....perhaps in hopes of changing minds in governmental offices. I don't think they realized for a bit the extent of the fuel situation due to PoW's damaging hit. IMHO, this was what they should have done....waited for at least Tirpitz to be ready. That would have been a formidable challenge to the RN, dispersed as they were at the time.

Hindsight also suggests that had Luthjens turned back after destroying Hood, they'd have preserved their tactical victory which, while not really changing the war would have at least given Gobells something to crow about for a while. In the end Luthjens almost made good his escape to Brest but for the one hit.

[Historiker]

Hindsight also suggests that had Luthjens turned back after destroying Hood, they'd have preserved their tactical victory which, while not really changing the war would have at least given Gobells something to crow about for a while. In the end Luthjens almost made good his escape to Brest but for the one hit.

And then think about the other ships that were at Brest... [X(]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

And then think about the other ships that were at Brest... [X(]

Could be dangerous for the UK, but on the same token Bomber Command could make life difficult for them as well. They were the reason S and G weren't available for the German operation.

Too bad they couldn't build a BB pen. [;)]

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I've got to say it. Bismark was a conservatively designed , uninspired , functional, safe design. Nothing flashly , just basic. Her design was less of a factor in her demise than her absolute lack of good luck , and the bad judgement in her deployment. No aircover, no screening destroyers and a shabby escort of one heavy cruiser. Her designers did fine, it's her admirals that should be shot. [:)]

Exactly - the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen should have returned home after the battle of the Denmark Straight!

Given the strong numerical inferiority the German navy tactics should have been the one and only: hit and run (if encounter enemy)... [:)]

BTW, IMHO, all heavy (BB & CA) German ships used together could have caused serious damage to the UK Navy...


Leo "Apollo11"

No, they couldn't. As for "hit and run", that was the standing order at the start of the war for all the big German ships: you see a Royal Navy capital ship, you run. Hitler didn't want to give the British the propaganda victory. Later, of course, the order changed to "go to sea or be scrapped in port". It was a good thing for everyone that Hitler was on the side of the Allies.[:D]

[Historiker]

It was a good thing for everyone that Hitler was on the side of the Allies.

Well, that seems to be a good subsumption...

[mdiehl]

Her design was less of a factor in her demise than her absolute lack of good luck ,

The fact that Bismarck survived as long as it did is evidence of her very very good luck. To have scored an improbably lucky hit on Hood before the latter could close to her safer range, and to have engaged the only 1st line BB in the British fleet that wasn't ready for combat were two strokes of luck. Under any other set of circumstances vs against Rodney or KGV, Bismarck would have been badly cut up and forced back to port or sunk.

[hawker]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Her design was less of a factor in her demise than her absolute lack of good luck ,

The fact that Bismarck survived as long as it did is evidence of her very very good luck. To have scored an improbably lucky hit on Hood before the latter could close to her safer range, and to have engaged the only 1st line BB in the British fleet that wasn't ready for combat were two strokes of luck. Under any other set of circumstances vs against Rodney or KGV, Bismarck would have been badly cut up and forced back to port or sunk.

Many things at wars are good or bad luck, Stalingrad,Kursk,PH,Leyte etc...
I admit that Bismarck has very good luck striking the Hood in magazines,but also has a good gunnery crew.
Furthermore, brittish has very good luck to hit Bismarck in rudders. Without that lucky hit Bismarck would flee to safety of Brest.
Also,PoW has a very good luck because shells from Bismarck refuse to explode when hitting Brittish BB.
Not a single BB in the world would not stand a chance to force that brittish engaged in hunt for Bismarck. And remember that KGVs was in that time best BBs allies has. Far better than those US have in PH.

One more thing,if KGV and Rodney ever engage Bismarck,do you really think that Bismarck would stay to fight. No,she will use superior speed to run away and hunt for for convoys or something less dangerous.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The fact that Bismarck survived as long as it did is evidence of her very very good luck. To have scored an improbably lucky hit on Hood before the latter could close to her safer range, and to have engaged the only 1st line BB in the British fleet that wasn't ready for combat were two strokes of luck. Under any other set of circumstances vs against Rodney or KGV, Bismarck would have been badly cut up and forced back to port or sunk.

No, I don't think it was very very good luck. More like good luck (bad luck for the RN that the penetrating shell actually detonated, which they didn't always - on the other hand, the shell that penetrated PoW beneath the main belt didn't). The fact is that Bismarck generated hits on Hood faster than vice versa. That's always not good. I also think that KGV in place of PoW might not have given a better result. IIRC, KGV, too, had major troubles with her guns. And don't forget that PoW off Malaya lost all electrical energy due to a close miss and non-existent shockproofing of secondary machinery, a design flaw that could have bitten any of the class in any combat.

KGV and Rodney look good in the end fight against Bismarck because they had an opponent that was almost stationary, couldn't maneuver, couldn't keep a steady heading, and had a crew that was exhausted. If they had been present at Denmark Strait, the gunnery would certainly have been better, if the guns had fired, which was no foregone conclusion with Rodney, either. But Bismarck was much faster than Rodney, and still somewhat faster than KGV. so maybe there wouldn't even have been a battle. (Remember that Scharnhorst almost walked away from Duke of York at North Cape).

I saw the documentary about the Cameron expedition to the wreck of the Bismarck. It looked like the starboard rudder had wrapped itself around the center propeller. If that was the result of that torpedo hit and not caused by the impact of the wreck upon the seabed, I'm not surprised the crew was unable to do anything.

As to the question of how well the Bismarck could have been steered by propellers alone, the plank-owner captain of Tirpitz once remarked that on their common exercises in the Baltic before Bismarck's sortie, he had noticed that Tirpitz did that better than Bismarck. Either a crew matter, or a result of some slight differences between the ships - ships built to the same design may have surprisingly big handling differences.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I've got to say it. Bismark was a conservatively designed , uninspired , functional, safe design. Nothing flashly , just basic. Her design was less of a factor in her demise than her absolute lack of good luck , and the bad judgement in her deployment. No aircover, no screening destroyers and a shabby escort of one heavy cruiser. Her designers did fine, it's her admirals that should be shot. [:)]

Exactly - the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen should have returned home after the battle of the Denmark Straight!

Given the strong numerical inferiority the German navy tactics should have been the one and only: hit and run (if encounter enemy)... [:)]

BTW, IMHO, all heavy (BB & CA) German ships used together could have caused serious damage to the UK Navy...

No, they couldn't. As for "hit and run", that was the standing order at the start of the war for all the big German ships: you see a Royal Navy capital ship, you run. Hitler didn't want to give the British the propaganda victory. Later, of course, the order changed to "go to sea or be scrapped in port". It was a good thing for everyone that Hitler was on the side of the Allies.[:D]

They could have!

The UK Navy started escorting the convoys with BBs and, thus, limited the number of BBs available for concentration against possible German em-masses heavy (BBs + CAs) fleet deployment...


Leo "Apollo11"

[John 3rd]

At the risk of commenting on the original topic of this Thread...
 
I would like to put a vote in for the Shokaku-Class CVs.  These carriers were large, fast, had good ship-handling, carried a good sized air group, and could handle a lot of punishment.  Consider that last element was despite terrible Japanese damage control! 
 
Additionally, I like the Moon-Class of AA DD too.  In my opinion they were far superior to the Atlanta's due to cost and capability.  Those 3.9" guns were magnificent and it is too bad the Japanese didn't place more of them on CVs and BBs to increase AA power.
 
For cruisers, I have to admit to the reality of those Brooklynn-Class CLs.  Great ships!  I hate them as a Japanese player...
 
 

[Dili]

There's a difference between criticism and labeling a ship Flawed. I am arguing that Bismarck had strong and weak points, same as any other BB. I do not consider her a "flawed" design anymore than i do Littorio which also had strengths and weaknesses.

If you didnt understood it yet: It is a question of degree. I think the degree is enough to call it that way.

You said no other incident occured where serious flooding resulted with the Littorio's. That was incorrect. However what i find relevent to your demand that I provide more examples other than Taranto, which you originally brought up, is why I must do so to prove a point when you on the other hand, are only required to cite one incident. That is inconsistant.

No i said "What came different in other hits against similar ships?" very different.
You have to bring others than Taranto because you need to dispute my point that after Taranto things were fixed!!!
After the crew retraining and reorganization (which puts more blame in Leaders than in men contrary to what you have been implying) in what instances Littorio were torpedo hits worse to other general BB's hits that was my question.

I think i've mentioned it several times now. One; Noone can gurantee that any one class is immune to one type of damage. In relation to this, I do not feel that any other ship would have done much better given the exact same circumstances that day in which Bismarck was badly damaged. While Littorio's redunancy might have assisted her, there is no gurantee that it would have made a difference in the end, especially in those sea conditions and with the additional damages suffered as it is just as probable that the Littorio's crew would have been just as hindered in making emergency repairs as Bismarck's crew was. You have no problem blaming the crew for Littorio's poor showing at Taranto, saying they were unprepared and/or untrained. Using that same logic one can cite that Bismarck's crew was handicapped by the heavy seas which made it more difficult and dangerous to attempt emergency repairs. In calmer waters, they might have unjammed the rudders and established manual control.

I asked none of that. I asked your opinion if Bismarck could have maneuvered it would have escaped?

Two: Bismarck's designers opted for a more traditional arrangement as did other nations while the Italians opted for an alternate arrangement that conveyed less overall maneuverability in exchange for redundancy of systems. As Tiornu mentioned several pages back, If not having one main + 2 aux rudders is indicative of a design flaw than all battleships save Littorio were flawed. Myself, I feel that each class traded pros and cons based on what the designers felt was most important to them and that this is an example of such a choice.

Yes they were more or less more vulnerable than Littorio. Bismarck is special because in no other ship all propellers and rudders are so closely placed. Even an hit in the bottom of the sea could have made a disaster, without enemy action. That is why i call it design flaw.

Three: As mentioned in Garke, and also in this thread by Tironu, the only reason Bismarck's steering arrangement recieves such scrutiny today is because of the lucky hit she recieved that led to her destruction during her maiden voyage. Outside of that hit, I doubt much scrutiny would be made.

And? I can't really understand that line of thinking, of course we talk about that like we talk about Hood deck armor etc. most people, even specialist articles arent making a BB study so talk about what happen of course, if there was a comprenhensive BB study it would have showed up . I am bit off here since it is unsual that someone is opposing the mighty German Battleship Vs floppy Italians that didnt made anything right and when did it was a copy , what would they would be thinking if i would say that they also had probably one of the best steel armor in ships. Btw Is the Hood hit lucky too ? If Hood not hit, Bismarck would be at bottom of Ocean and would not have a fanbase, all failures like not even destroying an airplane would have been shown.

I didn't say they were equal in maneuverability. What i said, repeatedly, was that a traditional two primary rudder layout conveys more manueverability vs the arrangment chosen for Littorio. This doesn't mean Littorio wasn't maneuverable or that she wasn't more maneuverable than Bismarck...it means she could have been still more manueverable had the designers opted for a different choice. However the Italians preferred redunancy over extra maneuver ability. You can find this in Gazrke's Volume on Axis BB's of WWII. I recommend it. An essential set for battleship enthusiaists.

Okay i understand now , but i dont understand the point you are trying to make then since that doesnt shows a high degree of Littorio vulnerability.

You are misreading: "The Bismarck class rudder has been criticized as being too small to effectively turn the ship quickly, and is excessively vulnerable compared to the double rudder setup of the American Iowa class. These latter criticisms are justified by the single torpedo hit scored on Bismarck's rudder by Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers during the British pursuit of the vessel.[14]"

Not misreading. The salient point is "These latter criticisms are justified by the single torpedo hit scored on Bismarck's rudder by Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers during the British pursuit of the vessel.

You are misreading because who makes that contention: "These latter criticisms are justified" also says "has been criticized" so who have been criticizing Bismarck "as being too small to effectively turn the ship quickly" is another person or persons who doesnt necessarely made that contention.


Here are even other persons: William H. Garzke, Jr. and Robert O. Dulin, Jr.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p1.htm

"Locating the rudders midway between the centerline and wing propellers meant that the center to center distance of the rudders was considerably smaller than it would have been in a quadruple-propeller arrangement with the rudders positioned between the propellers on either side. It would appear that the triple-screw arrangement chosen by the German naval constructors resulted in an approximate one-third loss of turning power when compared to a quadruple-screw ship of the same power."

"The need to provide clearance for the centerline propeller also resulted in a longer than usual overhang in which the weights of the rudders, steering gear and the protective armor for the steering gear was located. Buoyancy aft was limited by the smaller immersed volumes that resulted from the cutaway. These characteristics led to problems in German cruisers and battleships when they were torpedoed in the stem. Because of the lighter structure and smaller buoyancy than that found in a quadruple stem form these ships were more prone to damage from the whipping phenomena which occurs when the extremities of a ship are subjected to explosion-induced forces. The spectacular stem failures of the armored cruiser Lützow and heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen were examples of this."

I stand by what i wrote in response to this assumption based on one hit, particularily given the reference to the torpedo hit does not allow for Bismarck's already damaged condition and the sea state, both of which impeeded her max speed and maneuverability. Despite this she avoided most of the missles aimed at her. I also note that the original claim by you that Bismarck was "flawed design" was based on the steering gear/prop vulnerability due to close proximity to each other. With that argument going nowhere, we now get criticism of Bismarck's turning radius. Yet in reading up on Bismarck and her sister's action vs torpedo planes in Garzke, both ships managed to avoid plenty of torpedoes aimed at them quite competently. It would appear that Bismarck's steering ability worked just fine in RL.

Well that(close proximity of proppeller and rudders) is my main contention of Design flaw like i said even an hit in the bottom could lead to a disaster or a very serious situation. Reading more on Bismarck showed more flaws (maneuverality, strutural deficiencies) that lead me to think the whole back of the ship wasnt well tought.

I'm highlighting the fact that you keep picking and choosing your design elements in your dismissal of the Bismarck class without acknowledging that its all connected. Your now criticising her ability to turn and as your proof you google up a Wikipedia entry that basically criticises Bismark's ability to steer based on sole fact that the already damaged warship received a lucky hit to the stern. I mention that if Bismarck was not the most maneuverable ship this was due in no small part to the fact that the designers were most concerned with buiding a ship of great stability for firing and ability to absorb damage. One cannot dismiss the importance of stability and strength anymore than one can maneuverability. Further as I already mentioned, based on the battle accounts, Bismarck and Tirpitz both maneuvered just fine in avoiding potential damage.

Read above, you misread. If indeed the (lack of)maneuverality of Bismarck was only due to better stability that would be an understandable trade off. It wasn't.

I know...and i disagreed and still do. All ships are inherantly vulneable to stern hits by torpedoes and bombs. Littorio's spread out arrangment with reduancies was a good response to the threat at the cost of additional maneuverability and increased area where propulsion and steering damage can occur. Other nations chose more traditional methods. A closer arrangement means a smaller area of vulnerability but increases the danger of collateral damage. In the end there's no guarntee. Despite the closeness of the arrangements, only Bismarck's steering gear was impacted, not her propulsion. One would have thought both would be based on this discussion. By the same token Veneto suffered both propulsion and steering damage despite her more spread out arrangement and at one point was immobilized completely with serious damage.

I totally agree, that is the reason that redundancy is paramount in that area.
I would say that the trade off for Littorio is speed not maneuverality.
So it was a lucky hit but not lucky that the propulsion stayed on? The fact that propulsion stayed on dont denies the higher risk. I didnt imply that in 100 hits there would be 100 failures i implied that there will be an higher risk of failure of whole Steering/Propeller.
Precision:Veneto Steering damage was one of auxilary rudders the other two were ok, like i and you have said redundancy increases complexity and chances something gets hit for the whole system/ship etc. be able to better survive. Speed went fast to 16kt and later to 19kt.


P.S: thanks for the reference on the book.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Dili

If you didnt understood it yet: It is a question of degree. I think the degree is enough to call it that way.

I don't agree. I don't consider Littorio or Veneto's poor performance as indicators of a label of flawed.

No i said "What came different in other hits against similar ships?" very different.
You have to bring others than Taranto because you need to dispute my point that after Taranto things were fixed!!!
After the crew retraining and reorganization (which puts more blame in Leaders than in men contrary to what you have been implying) in what instances Littorio were torpedo hits worse to other general BB's hits that was my question.

I disagree. By that same token you must then present another example of a Bismarck class suffering a crippling hit to it's stern section which also demonstrates that the crew would be unable to repair it even were they not in a poor sea state. Your logic also goes on the assumption that Littorio's difficulties are soley the blame of the crew which I feel is unwarrented based on information examined. I also won't blame the crew of Veneto for it's ongoing issues with progressive flooding after Matapan that nearly resulted in the ship sinking. Finally, as I've mentioned already, no other Veneto class BB took three torps in one action which does make it rather hard to present a 2nd issue.....kind of like with Bismarck.

I asked none of that. I asked your opinion if Bismarck could have maneuvered it would have escaped?

Whether you ask none of it or not....it remains relevent. As for whether or not Bismarck might have escaped had she full maneuver, speed and better sea conditions......certainly it is possible. (Tirpitz did) Could she have escaped after suffering the damage she did to her stern......possible but the odds were not great. The distance to home and the sea state made things would be a difficult challenge for any warship thus afflicted. Better conditions would have improved the crew's efforts.

Yes they were more or less more vulnerable than Littorio. Bismarck is special because in no other ship all propellers and rudders are so closely placed. Even an hit in the bottom of the sea could have made a disaster, without enemy action. That is why i call it design flaw.

You can call it that if you want.....i don't and neither does Garke or any other source I own. The website doesn’t either.

And? I can't really understand that line of thinking, of course we talk about that like we talk about Hood deck armor etc. most people, even specialist articles arent making a BB study so talk about what happen of course, if there was a comprenhensive BB study it would have showed up . I am bit off here since it is unsual that someone is opposing the mighty German Battleship Vs Floppy Italians that didnt made anything right and when did it was a copy , what would they would be thinking if i would say that they also had probably one of the best steel armor in ships. Btw Is the Hood hit lucky too ? If Hood not hit, Bismarck would be at bottom of Ocean and would not have a fanbase, all failures like not even destroying an airplane would have been shown.

We're even then because I don't understand what you are saying here either. I know i'm not defending the "Mighty German battleship vs. the Floppy Italians." I believe i've said good things about both classes. It might provide some insight into your motivations if thats what you are thinking. Don't know.....frankly don't care. I stand by the opinions i've made in good faith. I don't consider either class to be flawed. Strengths and weaknesses and yes......as mentioned in an acredited book source I personally rate highly, not a flawed design in either case. Of course one man's fact is another man's fantasy. Opinions can and will vary. I own another BB source that labels the Veneto as flawed due to issues with her protective scheme and AA defenses. I don't agree with the former in full though in the latter case it was a weakness, not enough to label the ship as "flawed" however. In th end I chose the one over the other after thinking it out. You can choose whatever online reference you dig up up too.

Okay i understand now , but i dont understand the point you are trying to make then since that doesnt shows a high degree of Littorio vulnerability.

How many times do you want me to repeat it?

You are misreading because who makes that contention: "These latter criticisms are justified" also says "has been criticized" so who have been criticizing Bismarck "as being too small to effectively turn the ship quickly" is another person or persons who doesnt necessarely made that contention.

No....i'm not. The salient point is your Wikipedia entry "justifies" its criticisms based on the sole fact that a damaged Bismarck ate a torpedo in heavy seas that struck an unfortunate area for all battleships.

Here are even other persons: William H. Garzke, Jr. and Robert O. Dulin, Jr.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p1.htm

"Locating the rudders midway between the centerline and wing propellers meant that the center to center distance of the rudders was considerably smaller than it would have been in a quadruple-propeller arrangement with the rudders positioned between the propellers on either side. It would appear that the triple-screw arrangement chosen by the German naval constructors resulted in an approximate one-third loss of turning power when compared to a quadruple-screw ship of the same power."

Yes. An improvement in googling vs. Wikipedia. I note that here as in their published work, that they do not label Bismarck's steering as "flawed" nor do they condemn Bismarck as a flawed design. I already stated several times that Bismarck was not the most maneuverable of battleships after you switched the argument of "flawed" from the positioning of her rudders and props to her general ability to steer.....a facet that did not prevent either ship of this class from being conned with good agility when faced with torpedo attack from the air. The stem issue, as mentioned, is yet another switch within the original argument. I still consider it a separate issue. I note too that this particular nugget, like that of the Veneto's bow structure problem....was remedied after completion. I don't condemn Veneto for the minor and correctable flaw......I don't condemn the German ships either.

Well that(close proximity of proppeller and rudders) is my main contention of Design flaw like i said even an hit in the bottom could lead to a disaster or a very serious situation. Reading more on Bismarck showed more flaws (maneuverality, strutural deficiencies) that lead me to think the whole back of the ship wasnt well tought.

Yet Bismarck's propulsion was unimpaired despite this. Had the sea state been more cooperative, the DC crews might have freed the rudders for manual control. Reading more about any ship class, especially from acredited book source, will show many potential flaws in a design. I've yet to read up on one that didn't have them. The perfect warship has never been built.

Read above, you misread. If indeed the (lack of) maneuverability of Bismarck was only due to better stability that would be an understandable trade off. It wasn't.

No....you misread me. The online article only confirms what I’ve already said.....that the Bismarck wasn't the most maneuverable battleship built. It also wasn't simply due to the choice highlighted but like with Veneto and the choice of a main rudder + 2 aux rudder arrangement, it reduced overall potential maneuverability. I mentioned that preference in one area can and does impact another. They are all related. Despite this loss of potential maneuverability, the Bismarck and Tirpitz were both handled in a quite agile fashion and avoided a good number of missiles launched at them from airplanes. Such a task is difficult for all large battleships to do...a key reason why the entire genre was made obsolete in an age of mature aviation. They are after all mainly designed to fight their own kind, not to avoid torpedo attack from biplane aircraft. If Veneto and her sisters had always avoided such damage....i suppose i could see your viewpoint though it would still be a strange requirement for a battleship to have that as it's main design feature, that and an expensive one. (why not just build agile cruisers if you expect to mainly go up against biplanes?)

I totally agree, that is the reason that redundancy is paramount in that area.
I would say that the trade off for Littorio is speed not maneuverality.
So it was a lucky hit but not lucky that the propulsion stayed on? The fact that propulsion stayed on dont denies the higher risk.

It highlights the fact that despite what you've been saying, the close prox. of the props and rudders did NOT result in both being damaged as one would expect given you highlighted it and labeled it as your original proof of the ship being "flawed". Veneto on the other hand with her dispersed arrangement was affected in such a way, being completely immobilized for a time with damage to both props and rudders. She also suffered far more extensive progressive flooding which over time, threatened the entire ship despite favorable positioning and sea state. Greater redundancy is therefore *not* equivalent to a ship class being immune to a type of damage as you originally stated and to which I first disagreed. My other opinion remains in that "stern hits" in general are unhealthy to all battleship classes and that any BB in Bismarck's place at that time would have had problems that might have led to the same conclusion history witnessed.

P.S: thanks for the reference on the book.

Your welcome.

[pasternakski]

Best had to have been the carrier Katsuragi. How many other figments of the imagination participated in so many operations (including the Pearl Harbor strike), worried the enemy high command so much about their whereabouts, were sunk so many times, and survived the war to become a leading figure in a Hollywood WWII submarine movie?

As Clint Eastwood said about the MiG he stole, "What a machine!"

My vote for second place goes to WREN 2nd Officer Ann Davis, a classy little battlewagon if ever there was one. Just ask Captain Shepherd, Director of Operations;.

[ilovestrategy]

I am going to get in so much trouble for posting this picture of the best designed ship. [:D]