Models of Naval Combat

[DeepSix]

I think it's "Ich Hatt Einen Kameraden" (but I'm not sure if I'm spelling it right, either -- all I know is I haven't said "I am a jelly doughnut.") and it's a real weeper. Very good but very sad.

No, you didn't kill it -- at least not for me. I just had to get in a turn of WITP between posts.[:D]

[MkXIV]

Well one minor point for what I would have rather been on...
North Carolina is tied up in Wilmington, NC. and Bismark is a great place for tuna to hide when trying to avoid ending up in a can of Starkist...

So I would have to give the nod to the "Showboat" [8D]

[treespider]

For what its worth here's my choice...[;)]

[DeepSix]

ORIGINAL: MkXIV

Well one minor point for what I would have rather been on...
North Carolina is tied up in Wilmington, NC. and Bismark is a great place for tuna to hide when trying to avoid ending up in a can of Starkist...

So I would have to give the nod to the "Showboat" [8D]

[&o] /me flushes with pride....[:D]

[bradfordkay]

Query: what was the name of the longest running thread in Matrix Forums history?

[pauk]

eerrr... Bismarck? and she was scuttled....[:D]

[bradfordkay]

WE HAVE A WINNER HERE, FOLKS!! [&o]

[Ursa MAior]

While I do have some serious doubts with classing Bismrack as a second rate BB (esp inferior to Richelieu or KGV), all of the BB fans should admit that 3 years difference in wartime means a lot. I mean Bismarck was launched in 41 and Iowa in 44. All of the lessons fom the early war battles should have and probably was incorporated into the Iowas design while Bismarcks's clearly prewar. NC and SoDak would be more interesting to compare but again you must not forget for what missions they were desgined.

When I first saw warships.com's battleship comparison my first thought was that the victors write the history.

Nice pic treespider. Is it from spaceship Yamato?

[String]

ORIGINAL: Iridium

While Musashi sustained those 19 torpedo and 17 bomb hits it still took 4 hours for it to capsize. While she was beyond saving it is interesting to note that it took that much punishment and still was in one piece, let alone afloat.[:D]

EDIT: Check lower in the TROM String, Musashi's gives the total hits etc there.

Why? I know the TOTAL hits. The goal of the survey was to see how many hits did she take and still remained operational and was not in a sinking condition.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

While I do have some serious doubts with classing Bismrack as a second rate BB (esp inferior to Richelieu or KGV), all of the BB fans should admit that 3 years difference in wartime means a lot. I mean Bismarck was launched in 41 and Iowa in 44. All of the lessons fom the early war battles should have and probably was incorporated into the Iowas design while Bismarcks's clearly prewar. NC and SoDak would be more interesting to compare but again you must not forget for what missions they were desgined.

When I first saw warships.com's battleship comparison my first thought was that the victors write the history.

Nice pic treespider. Is it from spaceship Yamato?

One of the Star Blazers sites out there. I remembered it from sometime in my past and couldn't resist.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

PoW effectively doomed Bismark with 1 hit.

That is a stretch. It is a torpedo from a Swordfish that doomed Bismarck, and that in a different action on a different day. Until that moment, Bismarck was a viable warship. Wether or not the mission made any sense is a different matter? These relatively short legged ships were a long way from friendly bases (there was a cruiser with Bismarck named Prinz Eugen - a fine ship in some ways - but not in range). What if they did "break out" into the Atlantic? I think they were really just trying to get to Brest as a base by a safer route than goind direct, and also to score some propaganda points. They were not going very far in the central Atlantic without more fuel than they carried in the first place. Unless there is more to the story than we know - a way to get fuel on the raid. But Bismarck had sufficient fuel to make Brest and fight and maneuver by indirect courses - so she was hardly doomed - until she was rendered unable to turn. THAT may be said to indicate a design flaw: no rudder protection seems odd for a raider.

Wow - don't read the thread for a few days...!

The two German ships had pre-positioned tankers, and were not just heading for Brest when they started. The shell hit from the PoW to which I referred hit the port bow, on the water line. It penetrated a fuel tank, contaminating it, but that was not too significant. The real damage was to the valve gear for the tanks further forward - some 1000tons of fuel could not be used. This damage, as much as anything else determined the course of the campaign, and is why I said the Bismarck was doomed. Yes the torpedo hit on the rudder allowed KGV and Rodney to catch her, but in reality only a RN plotting mistake allowed the situation to get that far...

On the subject of rudder protection - show me a major ww2 ship with a rudder/screws that would survive a torpedoo hit that far aft without issues. Bismarck had design flaws, but that wasn't one of them.

And as for the PB's - 2 triple 11" turrets was the worst possible armament for those ships. They were far too under protected to fight anything that needed 11" guns to hurt it, and 2 turrets mean only 2 targets can be engaged with MA (and then not very well, 3 gun salvoes make life difficult to shoot effectively at range). There were very few ships that I would say could catch and beat a PB one on one in 1939 (Hood, Renown/Repulse, Strasbourgs). But they were never going to meet one ship! The role of raider would almost inevitably put them up against convoy escorts, or small cruiser forces. As was shown by Graf Spee, they could not handle 1 (budget) 8" (the Exeters were not well regarded heavy cruisers), and 2 6" cruisers. Had she met 2 County class, she would have lost also! Even an R class (with a marked speed difference) might well have landed enough hits to slow a PB and catch it - or at least set it up for later.

Were I to have built them, I would have gone for something much more like a big 8" cruiser (or even a British Town - 12 6").

The German raiders were always handicapped by the same problem: one hit in any number of wrong places could end their war. No Allied ship ws in the same state to the same degree (that is, you needed the Hood type lucky hit).


Despite the generally poor record of the Ge capital ships, they do seem to attact more than the average degree of hero worship!

[el cid again]

While I do have some serious doubts with classing Bismrack as a second rate BB (esp inferior to Richelieu or KGV), all of the BB fans should admit that 3 years difference in wartime means a lot. I mean Bismarck was launched in 41 and Iowa in 44. All of the lessons fom the early war battles should have and probably was incorporated into the Iowas design while Bismarcks's clearly prewar. NC and SoDak would be more interesting to compare but again you must not forget for what missions they were desgined.

No wartime lessons were incorporated into USS Iowa's design. It is also a prewar design. But I don't think Bismarck is inferior to KGV or Richileiu.
It is comparable, and possibly superior. I prefer four turrets, for example. You lose one, it is not such a major fraction of your armament.
A quad is an awful thing to lose in a battle.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

While I do have some serious doubts with classing Bismrack as a second rate BB (esp inferior to Richelieu or KGV), all of the BB fans should admit that 3 years difference in wartime means a lot. I mean Bismarck was launched in 41 and Iowa in 44. All of the lessons fom the early war battles should have and probably was incorporated into the Iowas design while Bismarcks's clearly prewar. NC and SoDak would be more interesting to compare but again you must not forget for what missions they were desgined.

No wartime lessons were incorporated into USS Iowa's design. It is also a prewar design. But I don't think Bismarck is inferior to KGV or Richileiu.
It is comparable, and possibly superior. I prefer four turrets, for example. You lose one, it is not such a major fraction of your armament.
A quad is an awful thing to lose in a battle.

But you have to remember the weight penalty. The Germans didn't mind because they were cheating on the restrictions of the Naval Treaties...., but the Brits and the French were trying to stay within the 35,000 ton limit. Considering how much they were cheating, Bismarck wasn't much to brag on.

[hawker]

But you have to remember the weight penalty. The Germans didn't mind because they were cheating on the restrictions of the Naval Treaties...., but the Brits and the French were trying to stay within the 35,000 ton limit. Considering how much they were cheating, Bismarck wasn't much to brag on.

Wrong,wrong,wrong.
Battleships of KGV class has 38,600 mt normal and 44,400 mt full load displacement.
Richelieau has 38,450 mt normal and 45,438 mt full load displacement.
Bismarck has 41,700 mt normal and 50,900 mt full load displacement,Tirpitz has some more.
Aditional displacement is use for armor protection because Bismarck has much heavier armor than KGV or Richelieau.
So,in this case bigger means better.

No wartime lessons were incorporated into USS Iowa's design. It is also a prewar design. But I don't think Bismarck is inferior to KGV or Richileiu.
It is comparable, and possibly superior. I prefer four turrets, for example. You lose one, it is not such a major fraction of your armament.
A quad is an awful thing to lose in a battle.

Agree KGV class has 10x356mm main guns in quad turrets,Bismarck has four turrets and plenty of stereoscopic directors which basicaly means that Bismarck can fire more precise.
Problem for Bismarck is action radius because her turbo-electric propulsin burns lot oil and twelve Wagner Hochdruck high pressure steam-heated boilers has a big consuption.
There is no other serious construction flaws.

[HMSWarspite]

Guys, we have the ultimate fan boy here.
Hawker:
ALL ships have compromises in their design. From the beginning of Dreadnoughts, RN favoured ships with bigger guns, and good range, to some extent at the expense of protection. This held until the KGVs, which were a good attempt at a treaty battleship, and whose armament size and layout was not a good idea (the quad turret point above), but was done because of what it was thought the treaty would limit. They were over 35000tons when in service, because it was obvious by the time they were launched that other ships would be nowhere near treaty size. All ships grow (rarely does extra kit get taken off!).

Other navies took compromises other ways. You do yourself no favours in trying to argue that Bis/Tirp were some sort of super ships representing the height of perfection!

Bismarck was significantly over the size of a KGV, and for her size and launch date, was not as well protected as some other ships. PLEASE read http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
Read it carefully and slowly. Then come back and continue this discussion,

And remember, I am British. KGV scores badly in the comparison. However, I am able to discuss things without (too much) bias.

Mind you, for a really thorough comparison, extra parameters like sea keeping, and cost should be added. KGVs might have been a little wet over the bow, but were fine sea keepers. Of course, Vanguard was the best of the lot I believe[;)]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: hawker

But you have to remember the weight penalty. The Germans didn't mind because they were cheating on the restrictions of the Naval Treaties...., but the Brits and the French were trying to stay within the 35,000 ton limit. Considering how much they were cheating, Bismarck wasn't much to brag on.

Wrong,wrong,wrong.
Battleships of KGV class has 38,600 mt normal and 44,400 mt full load displacement.
Richelieau has 38,450 mt normal and 45,438 mt full load displacement.
Bismarck has 41,700 mt normal and 50,900 mt full load displacement,Tirpitz has some more.
Aditional displacement is use for armor protection because Bismarck has much heavier armor than KGV or Richelieau.
So,in this case bigger means better.

Actually the KGV's had a thicker belt than the Bismarcks's. Most of the 6,000+ additional tons in the Bismarck went to greater beam, sub-division, powerplant, and crew berthing. Take a look at the crew numbers. German AAA guns required HUGE crews passing ammo. Check the numbers.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: hawker

But you have to remember the weight penalty. The Germans didn't mind because they were cheating on the restrictions of the Naval Treaties...., but the Brits and the French were trying to stay within the 35,000 ton limit. Considering how much they were cheating, Bismarck wasn't much to brag on.

Wrong,wrong,wrong.
Battleships of KGV class has 38,600 mt normal and 44,400 mt full load displacement.
Richelieau has 38,450 mt normal and 45,438 mt full load displacement.
Bismarck has 41,700 mt normal and 50,900 mt full load displacement,Tirpitz has some more.
Aditional displacement is use for armor protection because Bismarck has much heavier armor than KGV or Richelieau.
So,in this case bigger means better.

No wartime lessons were incorporated into USS Iowa's design. It is also a prewar design. But I don't think Bismarck is inferior to KGV or Richileiu.
It is comparable, and possibly superior. I prefer four turrets, for example. You lose one, it is not such a major fraction of your armament.
A quad is an awful thing to lose in a battle.

Agree KGV class has 10x356mm main guns in quad turrets,Bismarck has four turrets and plenty of stereoscopic directors which basicaly means that Bismarck can fire more precise.
Problem for Bismarck is action radius because her turbo-electric propulsin burns lot oil and twelve Wagner Hochdruck high pressure steam-heated boilers has a big consuption.
There is no other serious construction flaws.

??[&:]

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
...
I have a cunning plan, My Lord

hehehe...I love that guy

[el cid again]

but the Brits and the French were trying to stay within the 35,000 ton limit.

False. Mere propaganda. EVERY signatory to the Washington Naval Treaty cheated on battleship size. Now it is true that some cheated more than others...but ALL were overweight. You can go measure US battleships serving as Museums for yourself.

[el cid again]

Other navies took compromises other ways. You do yourself no favours in trying to argue that Bis/Tirp were some sort of super ships representing the height of perfection!

IF they were, why did Germany design the H-42 class? Why not just lay down more Bismarcks? Because Bismarck had serious flaws - range for example. In fact, Germany designed a whole series of later H class - to show what it would require to survive with progressively more protection - given the increasing threat from bombs. The later ships were not practical.

Something not well understood - the Z plan was utopian. It could never have been fueled if built. Germany didn't have a good strategic naval vision that made sense.