2nd best WWII DD design

[DuckofTindalos]

[8|]

[bobogoboom]

yeah but armor configuration didn't change that much and that was one of the main areas where bismark was deficient.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

The Akitsukis were beatiful ships. Only 4 longlance tubes and a bit on the slow side, but great CV TF escorts.

In all honesty, the torpedo tubes could have been completely removed and it wouldn't have mattered. The Akizuki's did have the one thing that WWII in the pacific needed, a very effective AAA suite in the 3.9"/65 guns she carried instead of the 5"/40 or 4.7"/45 on the other destroyers. If Akizuki had only had a good medium weight throwing AAA gun like the 40mm Bofors or even the German 3.7cm/69 M42, she would have have been perfect for the theatre she fought in. As it was, the Hotchkiss 25mm guns she carried were obsolete and ineffective.

[Dora09]

Not just about armor. The late war King George had updated Radar and fire control. As I understand it the Bismark had great low angle armor because it was assumed (incorrectly) that its foes would be trying for close range, low angle attacks. The fact is the Bismarck had great armor for low angle attacks, and not as good armor for high angle attacks.

"There are a few things to remember in this regard. First; this comparison shows a King George V-class battleship in a late-war configuration equipped with Type 274 radar; a luxury the Prince of Wales did not enjoy in 1940, but which would have been a huge equalizer later in the war. If one assumes British fire control to be equal or slightly inferior to the Germans in 1940, Bismarck starts looking better again. Second; the British had little idea that Bismarck was as tough a low-angle target as she was, and thus closed the range to come to grips with her (which, had she made it that far, also would have reduced Hood's exposure to high-angle deck hits - a vulnerability the British were acutely aware of, and another reason why they tried to close the range with Bismarck as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, they cut their intercept course too fine, and couldn't run the gauntlet before Hood was fatally hit). In retrospect, a ship like King George V is better off fighting Bismarck at long range, where the German ship's own vulnerability to high-angle fire would be heightened. Third, of course, is the fact that Prince of Wales was suffering from teething problems in her main mounts, to put it mildly, and was not getting nearly the output of shells she might have enjoyed in a late-war engagement when all the bugs with the British 14"/45 mount had been worked out. Late-war, at long range, with blindfire radar fire-control, and turrets working, I believe King George V was a decent match for the Bismarck."

All I am saying is that compared to late war BBs the Bismarck is inferrior (just as the Bf109E would be inferrior to a P51D) but if compared to contemperary designs it fares well. Best ever? Of course not, but not a pile of dung either.