Models of Naval Combat

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: MkXIV

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
AF Identification Manual Distinguishing Characteristic #12. You might be an "Axis Fanboy" if you really believe that a US ship standing down with half its crew on shore leave reasonably approximates its readiness for action if at sea under way and at action stations.

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!

I have to agree with Mdiehl here you can not compare PH with an gun duel at sea. It isn't even apples and oragnes, it is more like Horses and Orangutans

Hi,

I know[;)]. I made this comparison only because there were no naval battles involving the USN. The only "action" we have about the performance of the USN in 1941 (apart from some actions involving destroyers in the Atlantic) is PH. Actually I think that the USN learned alot during the course of the war and eventually evolved into the finest navy of WW2 (and that not because its sheer size but because of the high standards/quality the USN achieved then). But I also think that the USN was not sufficiently prepared for war in 1941. The problem I have with many statements by Mdiehl is that he often ignores things that actually happened if they don't go the way he likes (he seems to prefer what-ifs over actual historical events).

K

[mdiehl]

I made this comparison only because there were no naval battles involving the USN. The only "action" we have about the performance of the USN in 1941 (apart from some actions involving destroyers in the Atlantic) is PH.

Actually we have a couple other actions as well, but no fleet actions. But then, PH is not a fleet action of any kind no matter how you push and pull the taffey. It doesn't have even a shred of application to the question of what BBs that never fought each other might have done to each other had they met in combat at sea. The only circumstances that came close in 1941 involved Bismarck, though, and the likely opponents were either USS Texas or USS New York (which I think would have favored Bismarck but that's what you get when a BB laid down in 1912 fights one laid down in, IIRC, 1938).

As you note the actions were all ASW. In the Pacific the US started the war with a bang when one of those midgie submarines was destroyed by a DC run inside the security zone near PH. It's one of those many "what if" moments of 7 Dec... what if someone had connected hostile submarines near the harbor with "war has occurred."

The problem I have with many statements by Mdiehl is that he often ignores things that actually happened if they don't go the way he likes (he seems to prefer what-ifs over actual historical events).

You are incorrect. I never ignore things that actually happened, but I likewise do not pretend a monkey is a gorilla or that an aspirin is a sugar coated gumdrop. What is your contribution to this thread? To assert that because the USN was surprised at Pearl Harbor in 7 December 1941 it tells you about the fighting merits of a modern US BB at sea at the same time? And in the context of a discussion about one BB (Bismarck) that "really did" happen to sink a grossly underarmored battlecruiser and repel a BB that for reasons independent of anything done by Bismark or Prinz Eugen could barely get three guns firing in one salvo?

No one said Bismarck wasn't a fine ship, but rational analysis does not make her look that good in comparison with many of her contemporary erstwhile adversary BBs. No one here has ignored a darned thing except you pitching into a discussion that you have not followed very well, and a couple guys whose sole argument reduces to "Omigod Bismarck was like totally the best. Omigod omigod like the USN was so sketchy!"

I'll repeat it just so that we're very clear on this. Rebut substantively the comparsion available for all to read at combinedfleet.com. Or don't. Tully's comparison is very detailed, very thorough, well articulared, and the standards of comparison are all laid out. If you can rebut the facts or the methods he used let's hear it.

[Skyros]

Is it me or do you think that Hawker is pi$$ing his pants with laughter in Croatia. I also note that his grammer changes from talking like the governator in post 228 to very good english in post 272. Mdiehl I think he is yanking your chain sitting at a terminal going "watch me make him squirm" "Bismark very best you know have facts!"

Too many words,way too few facts.
I am not axis fanboy as someone says earlier,i just want good debate and prove something with facts.So far no one proves that i am wrong,and except offends no one provide me real facts.
Eh,James Cameron and Robert Ballard only wastes their time to find that piece of scrap,ships like KGV and Rodney is well known because of that junk ship etc,etc.....

ORIGINAL: hawker

Bismarck's commander, Captain Ernst Lindemann wanted to finish off the Prince of Wales. Lütjens realised that to pursue the Prince of Wales would be contrary to his standing orders to avoid any engagement with enemy naval units except those defending Allied convoys. He also had to consider that any pursuit could lead the German squadron closer to other British naval units that were undoubtedly on their way to intercept the Bismarck, risking the lives of his ships and crews on a venture that had been expressly forbidden.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: Skyros

Is it me or do you think that Hawker is pi$$ing his pants with laughter in Croatia. I also note that his grammer changes from talking like the governator in post 228 to very good english in post 272. Mdiehl I think he is yanking your chain sitting at a terminal going "watch me make him squirm" "Bismark very best you know have facts!"

I suspect that is simply the differnece between when he is posting his words, and cutting and pasting someone elses.

[hawker]

Is it me or do you think that Hawker is pi$$ing his pants with laughter in Croatia. I also note that his grammer changes from talking like the governator in post 228 to very good english in post 272. Mdiehl I think he is yanking your chain sitting at a terminal going "watch me make him squirm" "Bismark very best you know have facts!"

I post facts from other sites corresponing to Bismarck made by experts also.
I am not pi**ng my pants with laughter and i never say that Bismarck is best ever.
Seems to me that some folks here deliberately ignoring facts.
I will say again,BISMARCK IS CRAP BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT MADE BY US.

I know . I made this comparison only because there were no naval battles involving the USN. The only "action" we have about the performance of the USN in 1941 (apart from some actions involving destroyers in the Atlantic) is PH. Actually I think that the USN learned alot during the course of the war and eventually evolved into the finest navy of WW2 (and that not because its sheer size but because of the high standards/quality the USN achieved then). But I also think that the USN was not sufficiently prepared for war in 1941. The problem I have with many statements by Mdiehl is that he often ignores things that actually happened if they don't go the way he likes (he seems to prefer what-ifs over actual historical events).

K

Its not worth of trying K.,when someone came with facts and not "what if" others crucified him[;)].

[Skyros]

Well she was definately not Quincy built!

ORIGINAL: hawker

I will say again,BISMARCK IS CRAP BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT MADE BY US.

[ChezDaJez]

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.

So a "passive acoustic listening device" is not SONAR? The device on Bismarck is as much sonar as any hydrophonic device installed in other surface ships or submarines, even in sonobuoys. SONAR can be either active, passive or both. It doesn't have to have a transducer to be called SONAR.

Speed affects active sonar as well as passive sonar. Anything that decreases the signal to noise ratio will have a negative impact on sonar performance, whether active or passive. Flow noise is probably the biggest controllable factor affecting signal to noise ratio. It attenuates both the outgoing pulse and the returning echo on active sonar.

Chez

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: hawker
I will say again,BISMARCK IS CRAP BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT MADE BY US.

You know, of all the questionable crap you've said, this has to be the most offensive.

Nobody, in this entire thread, has said ANYTHING that suggests anything like the accusation you are making.

Indeed, you ahve been supplied with copious solid and reasoned examples of issues that suggest that the Bismark is not quite as astoundingly superior to the British, the French, and the Japanese battleships as you claim. You have chosen to ignore every single one of them, and instead argue against strawmen that nobody has created but you.

Nobody has said anything about the Bismark being crap, much less crap because it was not made by the US.

Being something of a fan of a ship is one thing - out and out lieing about what others say is something else entirely. If you cannot engage in a discussion with a modicum of intellectual honor or honesty, why bother?

[mdiehl]

Chez -

No offense meant. A passive listening device is not SONAR. (SOund Navigation And Ranging). At least in 1941 it was not. The acoustic passive devices of the day were not capable of accurate ranging nor of navigation. Only active ones were capable of ranging. The Type XXI deployed a range and bearing detection capable active sonar.

My main point is that the underwater listening device to which Hawker referred is a passive device that was useless at more than a few knots of speed. As you noted and I agree the louder a sound is the easier it is to hear at higher speed. Thus the device on Bismarck could, as I have stipulated, probably have picked up the sound from a torpedo had Bismarck been moving at less than 14 knots. Why not at faster speeds? I just picked a number that is consistent with the better Allied results and UK ASDICS of 1943 were superior to anything used by the Germans until the Type XXI came along. Clearly, all that cavitation and engine noise from Bismarck's own propellers will overwhelm any capability to passively acquire any but the loudest sounds. Likewise the device was sure not going to be of any use if Bismarck was firing AAA much less main armament since those sounds are going to be transmitted throughout the hull and in the water around her.

Peace man.

[hawker]

You know, of all the questionable crap you've said, this has to be the most offensive.

I want that to be offensive.

Nobody, in this entire thread, has said ANYTHING that suggests anything like the accusation you are making.

Do you read posts at all[:-]

Indeed, you ahve been supplied with copious solid and reasoned examples of issues that suggest that the Bismark is not quite as astoundingly superior to the British, the French, and the Japanese battleships as you claim. You have chosen to ignore every single one of them, and instead argue against strawmen that nobody has created but you.

I never say that,its a lie and BS statement.In 1941-yes

Being something of a fan of a ship is one thing - out and out lieing about what others say is something else entirely. If you cannot engage in a discussion with a modicum of intellectual honor or honesty, why bother?

So,why you bother. Well,your words is offendig and i am slightly above of that kind of thinking and words that you choose. If you cant talk without offends,why bother.
I hope that you will understand eventually,my young padawan.[;)]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Chez -

No offense meant. A passive listening device is not SONAR. (SOund Navigation And Ranging). At least in 1941 it was not. The acoustic passive devices of the day were not capable of accurate ranging nor of navigation. Only active ones were capable of ranging. The Type XXI deployed a range and bearing detection capable active sonar.

My main point is that the underwater listening device to which Hawker referred is a passive device that was useless at more than a few knots of speed. As you noted and I agree the louder a sound is the easier it is to hear at higher speed. Thus the device on Bismarck could, as I have stipulated, probably have picked up the sound from a torpedo had Bismarck been moving at less than 14 knots. Why not at faster speeds? I just picked a number that is consistent with the better Allied results and UK ASDICS of 1943 were superior to anything used by the Germans until the Type XXI came along. Clearly, all that cavitation and engine noise from Bismarck's own propellers will overwhelm any capability to passively acquire any but the loudest sounds. Likewise the device was sure not going to be of any use if Bismarck was firing AAA much less main armament since those sounds are going to be transmitted throughout the hull and in the water around her.

Peace man.

Actually, passive devices can be used for localisation using TMA in the far field and triangulation in the near field, and prewar hydrophones were good enough. Generally speaking, quiet speeds are up to 8 knots, while hull cavitation sets in at 25 knots.

[ChezDaJez]

No offense meant.

Nor was any intended or taken.

For the most part we agree that the faster a ship moves, the louder a source has to be to be heard. What the level of detection versus speed might be is anyone's guess and quite dependent on hull and dome design. However, a 15 kt speed is generally considered the upper limit for useful active or passive detection work. There are exceptions of course.

A passive listening device is not SONAR. (SOund Navigation And Ranging). At least in 1941 it was not. The acoustic passive devices of the day were not capable of accurate ranging nor of navigation. Only active ones were capable of ranging. The Type XXI deployed a range and bearing detection capable active sonar.

I do disagree with your ascertation that passive listening isn't sonar. The principles of passive sonar today differ little from WWII. Any passive listening device that operates on sound principles is termed sonar. Passive listening is capable of providing a range to a target through a variety of means such as triangulation or analyzation of the doppler efffect. While these methods require substantially more time to obtain accurate range information than does active sonar, they nevertheless do obtain it with the added benefit that the receiving sensor remains covert. As I said, sonar can use either a transducer or a hydrophone or a combination of both.

Now, I know very little about the Bismarck's passive array beyond its ability to detect sound sources from nearby vessels or torpedoes. Indeed, it was this discussion that first informed me that she even had such a device. I simply have not studied German WWII vessels with anything but a passing interest. From what little I have been able to find about it, it dosen't seem to be much different from other passive sonar systems on subs other than its lack of trainability.

Chez

[BLUESBOB]

I read somewhere, I wish I could remember the book, that the Bismarck was actually carved from balsa wood...and was manned by trained monkeys from the Berlin Zoo! It was the most amazing book of facts...I wish I could remember the name.

[herwin]

Very few passive systems (not just on subs) are trainable, although passive biosonar is almost always trainable. The human systems use array processing to create the beams. I'm currently looking at a trainable atmospheric system, but that's to keep the cost down.

[Hipper]

The point the book I was reading way back when so I cannot not even remember the name of it
was that the Bismarks sonar was very large, ie was spread down the length of the hull and that this size was of use in aqquiring targets at long range.

Re the rest of this discussion absent a lucky hit it seems to me that most BB engagements should end up with both ships heavily damaged (at least thats allways what happened in GNB and steel whatever) but interestingly most BB engagements turned out to be very one sided or indecisive I suspect human factors were more inportant in naval battles than the theoretical ship capacity.

Lastly does anyone know what the actual maximum speed of the Hood and Bismark were in May 1941 ?

[Nikademus]

Hood was overdue for a refit. Her max speed was norminally around 28 knots at that point. Bismarck could do 30. (all dependant on sea state of course)

[mdiehl]

I do disagree with your ascertation that passive listening isn't sonar. The principles of passive sonar today differ little from WWII. Any passive listening device that operates on sound principles is termed sonar. Passive listening is capable of providing a range to a target through a variety of means such as triangulation or analyzation of the doppler efffect. While these methods require substantially more time to obtain accurate range information than does active sonar, they nevertheless do obtain it with the added benefit that the receiving sensor remains covert. As I said, sonar can use either a transducer or a hydrophone or a combination of both.

Well I did say that at least in 1941 passive listening was not sonar and I said that because passive listening is much more sophisticated NOW than it was THEN. Yes, based on the same principles, but then a V2 is a ballistic missile but no one would say it was as capable as a Titan III. See what I mean?

For ex deriving ship speed from prop revolutions requires that one have a fairly good catalog of all of the ships and engine types and sound men who are familiar with that audio catalog. If you heard an entirely new ship with a new kind of engine you could figure out the prop revolutions but you still wouldn't necessarily know how fast she was going without a prortracted interval of sustained quiet. The cavitation noise from Bismarck is going to be from her props. Bismarck's *props* were not going to give sustained quiet of the sort that you need at speeds much greater than a few knots. About all a sound operator would have heard would have been torpedoes *because* Bismarck did not have an *active* direction and ranging system.

That's how I understand it anyhow, and that is why the UBoat Aces web site stipulates that the Bismarck's set (which was the same kinds as in the Type VII and IX) specifically says that you could not obtain ranging data. And that jibes with what I've read in a whole bunch of other submarine histories.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Hood was overdue for a refit. Her max speed was norminally around 28 knots at that point. Bismarck could do 30. (all dependant on sea state of course)

Overdue! Hood had been overdue for a complete rebuild since about 1937 (The Spanish civil war cancelled at least one attempt)

[Nikademus]

Yes. When Strasbourg fled the British bombardment, Hood was unable to catch her because of her reduced speed. A full refit and potential rebuild was planned for her but the war interrupted. Had she received it, and all other events happened as they did, she would probably have survived her encounter with Bismarck.

[BLUESBOB]

ORIGINAL: BLUESBOB

I read somewhere, I wish I could remember the book, that the Bismarck was actually carved from balsa wood...and was manned by trained monkeys from the Berlin Zoo! It was the most amazing book of facts...I wish I could remember the name.

Oh...and the Hood actually slipped on a banana peel.