Models of Naval Combat

[el cid again]

plenty of stereoscopic directors which basicaly means that Bismarck can fire more precise.

Nope. A sterioscopic director works alone. Having more of them only provides redundency. You don't use two of them to find the range - you use opposite lenses on the same one to find the range. The quality is more or less a function of the length of the thing, and also it has more functional range if it is mounted higher. But good for detection of the enemy also is good for being detected by the enemy - either visually or by radar. I like sterioscopes - but they work alone. In a battle one would not want to attempt a more complex procedure anyway.

[Berkut]

I always find the debate strategy of posting lots of facts that do not address the issue somewhat amusing.

Kind of a Soviet Army strategy of debate - what you cannot make up for in quality, you simply innundate with quantity.

[mdiehl]

Kind of a Soviet Army strategy of debate - what you cannot make up for in quality, you simply innundate with quantity.

[:D] Spot on!

From another era, an apt acronym: GIGO.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: hawker

Another FACTS:


PROTECTION

Battleships must be able to withstand repeated hits and continue fighting, so their armour expanse, distribution, and thickness are extremely important. In terms of expanse, the Bismarck devoted 18,700 mt to belt, deck, turret, underwater, and splinter armour, which amounted to 40% of its designed combat weight (46,980 mt). Only the 69,100 mt Japanese battleships of the Yamato class carried more armour (22,895 mt), ablet at a much smaller percentage (33.2%) of the ship's total weight.

<snip lots of data that is uninteresting since it is not comparative>

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.

Source:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_armor.htm

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: hawker

Few more FACTS:

Navy Memorandum Aug.1941
1.Atlantic is the most important, because here we can win the war in see.
2.While Tirpitz is existing, we are need 2 "KGV" to work together versus him.
4.To have 2 "KGV" at any time, we need 3 "KGV" in case of damage of 1 of them.
6.If Tirpitz appear in Atlantic, he can paralyzed our shipping in North Atlantic so much, so we need to compel him to fight. That's why we can't let to go even 1 "KGV" from this area.

Churchill response at next day.
3. ____ . _____ . He (Tirpitz) create general fear and danger in all points at once. He appear and disappear, provoke his opponents.
4.The fact that Navy needs 3 "KGV" versus Tirpitz, talking about quality of our newest battleships, ___ . It is see that Navy thing them (KGV) useless for fight one versus one. But even take this on mind I don't thing it is right to keep 3 KGV in Atlantic. I have mined a) US ships, which we can count now; b) the ability at Aircraft Carriers to reduce the speed of the ship, like Tirpitz, if he try to escape. ___ . Germans must take in mind the destiny of Bismarck. ____ .

FACTS IS FACTS.

Uhh, those aren't facts. They are opinions and arguments set forth to justify a proposed set of actions or policies.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: hawker

Oh,my god. Another one.READ THIS:

Eight 38 cm guns comprised Bismarck's main battery. The principal purpose of these guns was to destroy surface targets at sea, although they could also be used for shore bombardment and, exceptionally, against aircraft. Designed in 1934, the 38 cm SK C/34 were the most powerful guns ever mounted on a German warship. These were housed in four armoured twin turrets alphabetically arranged from forward to stern. Thus, turrets "Anton" and "Bruno" were located forward, while turrets "C&#65533;sar" and "Dora" were aft. Each turret weighed 1,056 metric tons, and was supported on a roller track platform. Below there were a series of levels that extended from the upper deck down to the bottom of the ship. The turrets were especially big compared with 38 cm twin turrets of other foreign warships, and the barrels were very separated from each other, therefore reducing interferences between them. Each gun barrel could fire and be elevated independently of the other. A special characteristic of these guns was their high muzzle velocity and low shell trajectories with a short flight time, which permitted to obtain a very accurate and rapid fire. This was fully demonstrated in the morning of 24 May 1941 during the naval engagement with the British battlecruiser Hood.

An excellent example of simply posting a lot of data that doesn't really address anything. Great, the Bismarck carried 8 guns, what does that tell us about their compartive firepower? Why, nothing at all.

And the turrets had alphabetical names! Wow, that seals the argument right there!

GENERAL COMMENTS: The Japanese 18.1"/45 reigned supreme as the most destructive piece of naval ordnance ever mounted afloat. However, its ballistic performance was not particularly inspiring, and the performance of its Type 91 shells was inferior to the norm, partly because they were optimized for underwater trajectories 7. Immediately below it in terms of power is the US 16"/50. Good ballistics, and superb shells, give this gun a tremendous whallop, and in combat terms I rate it as the equal of the Japanese weapon, largely because of its shells. Below that, in an upset, comes Richelieu's 15"/45, as the best all-around 15" gun, and feel the most useful in an actual combat situation. The Italian 15"/50 was an enormously potent weapon from a raw power perspective, but it sacrificed a lot in order to achieve that performance, and had decidedly inferior shells. I should note, though, that I am still investigating this particular gun and her shells in more detail; the information available on her shells is rather spotty. Bismarck's 15"/47 shell is 10% lighter than the French and Italian, although her cyclic rate is attractive, and her guns were very accurate. At the bottom of the spectrum, King George V's 14" gun clearly doesn't have nearly the oomph necessary to compete with the rest of these guys.

From

http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_guns.htm

Lots more detailed infor there as well, including (gasp!) *comparative analysis* of the various factors that go into the debate about gun power.

[hawker]

Berkut,
I am not debating of gun power,i will not talk about Yamato or Iowa class ships. Yamato NEVER fired her heavy guns at other ships,Iowa is used as carrier escort.
I count ships that ACTUALLY used main guns vs. another ship. I say that Bismarck is capaple to destroy any other BB and any other BB is capable to destroy Bismarck.
Example:Bismarck vs. Iowa,"with second salvo Bismarck guns destroys Iowa radar range finders,hit bridge and kill all personel there,Iowa is cripled".THAT IS "WHAT IF"
Only ships that was in combat must count,so KGV class,Bismarck class,Nelsons etc.
With all class of BB that Bismarck ACTUALLY fights she had a good score,she destroy Hood and POW runs away from her. Bismarck is destroyed by superior power of almost whole Brittish fleet.
In all these posts i was try to tell that Bismarck is capable ship,but some guys tell that she is only good for scrap,i argue with those folks which dont know anything about matter.
Bottom line is,Bismarck can destroy any other BB and any other BB can destroy Bismarck. I think that many will agree with me.

[Berkut]

Ahhh. so of we decide to go ahead and ignore any ships that the Bismark cannot take on, we can conclude that the Bismark can take on any ship.

Gotcha.

Of course, using this debate logic, we can conclude that the Mogami can take on the Bismark. See, it just runs in at night, parks a few long lances into the side of the Bismark, which then sinks, and leaves. See? THAT IS "WHAT IF"! FTW!

And Iowa was used as many things, including escorting carriers. Which she was astoundingly good at, btw. Lots of AAA firepower, something that Bismark was rather sorely lacking, I might add, and which ended up being the death of her. Do you think some Brit biplanes could have parked a torpedo into an Iowa or South Dakota???? Uhhh, that would be a no.

Bismark was a fine ship, and I don't think anyone is arguing otherwises. She was not, however, superior to her contemporaries, and in many ways was inferior.

[anarchyintheuk]

Both the Yamato and some of the Iowas fired their main armament at enemy ships (just not other bbs).

[hawker]

Ahhh. so of we decide to go ahead and ignore any ships that the Bismark cannot take on, we can conclude that the Bismark can take on any ship.

Gotcha.

Of course, using this debate logic, we can conclude that the Mogami can take on the Bismark. See, it just runs in at night, parks a few long lances into the side of the Bismark, which then sinks, and leaves. See? THAT IS "WHAT IF"! FTW!

And Iowa was used as many things, including escorting carriers. Which she was astoundingly good at, btw. Lots of AAA firepower, something that Bismark was rather sorely lacking, I might add, and which ended up being the death of her. Do you think some Brit biplanes could have parked a torpedo into an Iowa or South Dakota???? Uhhh, that would be a no.

Bismark was a fine ship, and I don't think anyone is arguing otherwises. She was not, however, superior to her contemporaries, and in many ways was inferior.

I was telling of fight BB vs BB,who needs AAA in that fight, btw Tirpitz gain AAA later in war.
Iowa and Yamato never fired any shell at other BB!! That is FACT.
You keep telling of WHAT IF. Bismarck sunk or disperse combined forces of Hood,POW,Sufollk and Norfolk.THAT IS FACT not if. You cant denied that fact,and fact that she was chased by WHOLE Brittish fleet.
Bismarck is better than KGVs,and could destroy ANY other BB in world,and also be destroyed by any other.
Keep the facts in mind,not what ifs.

Ahhh. so of we decide to go ahead and ignore any ships that the Bismark cannot take on, we can conclude that the Bismark can take on any ship.

Facts,give me facts,experience. Not words.

[mdiehl]

Thanks for taking the hurdle on this one, Berkut. It is refreshing to see someone else playing King Arthur to the latest Monty Python Black Knight.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Thanks for taking the hurdle on this one, Berkut. It is refreshing to see someone else playing King Arthur to the latest Monty Python Black Knight.

Oh my God, I can't believe this thread is still going!

Bismarck was famous - but enough is enough...[8|]

[spence]

Agreed!

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: hawker
...

You keep telling of WHAT IF. Bismarck sunk or disperse combined forces of Hood,POW,Sufollk and Norfolk.THAT IS FACT not if. You cant denied that fact,and fact that she was chased by WHOLE Brittish fleet.
Bismarck is better than KGVs,and could destroy ANY other BB in world,and also be destroyed by any other.
Keep the facts in mind,not what ifs.
...

Facts,give me facts,experience. Not words.

If you think that what faced Bis in her final battle was the Whole RN, you are sadly mistaken - No QE's, No R's, no Renown/Repulse, need I go on.. It wasn't even the whole home fleet!

Bismarck did not 'sunk or disperse combined forces of Hood,POW,Sufollk and Norfolk'. Hood was sunk, and it is entirely possible Bismarck did it without help from PE. PoW broke off the action - not due to any significant damage from Bis, but due to mechanical problems casued by he being brand new and not properly worked up. She was lucky the underwater hit didn't expload, however not that lucky, as by some accounts she was only hit because the shell tumbled on water entry which caused a strange underwater trajectory (thus lowering the chance of correct fuse operation)- similar to the IJN intent for 18'1". However, Bis and PE were very lucky to break contact with Norfolk and Suffolk. She did not disperse them!

Just some facts for you!

[mdiehl]

Maybe we should rename the thread to "The Bismarck Thread." That way AFs can continue to believe that that which is sunk doth in fact still float.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: hawker


I was telling of fight BB vs BB,who needs AAA in that fight, btw Tirpitz gain AAA later in war.
Iowa and Yamato never fired any shell at other BB!! That is FACT.

These two comments when taken together are rather interesting.

On the one hand, you claim that AAA is unimportant, and on the other you claim that since Yamato and Iowa never engaged in a BB vs. BB surface action they somehow don't count when talking about the ability of battleships to engage in surface action with other battleships.

Well, the reason they never engaged in surface action is the exact same reason they had all that AAA - because surface actions were no longer the decisive factor in securing naval control.

Which is fine, I enjoy a good round of Big Gun discussion as much as anyone. But claiming that since these ships never engaged in surface actions they are excluded from the comparison is spurious - you are making that claim for the purpose of excluding two ships which were indisputably superior to Bismark. If we are going to chat about surface engagements as if they were important, then lets not contrive artificial limitations in order to achieve the results we want. The Iowa and Yamato never engaged in surface actions against other battleships, but they certainly could have - they were designed to do so, in fact.

You keep telling of WHAT IF. Bismarck sunk or disperse combined forces of Hood,POW,Sufollk and Norfolk.THAT IS FACT not if. You cant denied that fact,and fact that she was chased by WHOLE Brittish fleet.

I can certianly deny THAT "fact". There were large number of British ships not chasing the Bismark.

And, of course, all those ships chasing the Bismark was not a testament to her ability to sink Battleships, but a testament to her ability to sink merchant ships. Indeed, if the Bismark was so very superior, what in the world was she running from, and hence needed to be chased? Sounds to me like she was the hunted, not the hunter...

Bismarck is better than KGVs,and could destroy ANY other BB in world,and also be destroyed by any other.

I thought we were sticking to facts, instead of speculation?

Like i said, the Mogami COULD destroy the Bismark.

It isn't likely though. And it isn't likely that the Bismark could destroy any other BB in the world either, although I will grant the her chances were better than the Mogami's.

Of course, at the end of the day the Bismarks vaunted uberness was brought low by a biplane. That has got to just annoy you to no end, I bet...a little old biplane effectively destroyed the pride of the Kriegsmarine...

Keep the facts in mind,not what ifs.

Indeed, I have posted vast quantities of facts for your perusal. They tend to conclude that the Bismark was a fine ship, but not particularly superior to her contemporaries.

[HMSWarspite]

In the area of What if - I think it would be an interesting fight between a (fully worked up) KGV and Bis. With likely crew training and experience differences, I think it would be an interesting fight, I suspect the KGV would have to break off, with significant damage, but would do enough in return to guarantee subsequent sinking of Bis once other ships caught up. Due to the likely tactical stituation, there would be no chance of Bis staying to finish the KGV, so it would depend on how badly she could cripple her as to whether the KGV makes it home.


Would depend on the weather, what phase of the war etc etc of course. I think Bis/Tirp in the 1943 DoY vs Sch battle wouldn't have been any different to Scharnhorst (you can't wander around without the slightest idea a BB is chasing you until it opens fire and expect to do very well!) Anyone any views?

[mdiehl]

And it isn't likely that the Bismark could destroy any other BB in the world either, although I will grant the her chances were better than the Mogami's.

Didn't you mean "any of the above named?" For ex I think Bismarck could easily destroy, say, USS New York (which was engaged in middle Atlantic "neutrality patrol" when Bismarck sortied). And even Nate O's analysis suggests that Bismarck was a good contender when faced with a KGV class ship.

And I agree that Hawker is laying smoke pretty thick now. He's reaching for factoids that can be distorted to seem plausibly germane. Here's a couple "it has nothing to do with it but if I distort it enough I can pretend it matters" bs factoids.

Does the loss of CB Hiei make USS San Francisco "as good as Bismarck" since the latter also only managed to sink a CB (Hood)?

Is USS West Virginia the "mightiest BB of all time" for whacking IJN Yamashiro at 30,000 yards with WVs' first salvo?

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

And it isn't likely that the Bismark could destroy any other BB in the world either, although I will grant the her chances were better than the Mogami's.

Didn't you mean "any of the above named?" For ex I think Bismarck could easily destroy, say, USS New York (which was engaged in middle Atlantic "neutrality patrol" when Bismarck sortied). And even Nate O's analysis suggests that Bismarck was a good contender when faced with a KGV class ship.

Well, my point was not that Bismark could not sink ANY battleship, but that the claim that the Bismark COULD sink ANY battleship was false. Although I worded it poorly, on reflection.

I think the Bismark was an excellent battleship for its time and place.

It was also a collosal waste of money and resources, but then, so much of the Nazi war effort fits that description.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


Is USS West Virginia the "mightiest BB of all time" for whacking IJN Yamashiro at 30,000 yards with WVs' first salvo?

Well, it is clearly much better than the Yamato, since it fired a shell at an enemy battleship.

That fight does illustrate aother glaring weakness to the Bis compared to the US battleships - the fire control. The lack of radar guided fire control would have meant that the US ships would have a significant advantage in a fight, especially in any kind of weather or at night.