The original question also included the British navy - and I believe they HAD some experience! The allegation was made that US battleships could eat the British ones (as well as German ones) due to their "experienced crews" - and I think that is wrong.
The only person who suggested that was Hawker IIRC and he was being a dope. Of course, Bismarck had no experience when she went into combat so her success if it is partly attributable to crew quality once again points the finger at training and tech. Now that I've reviewed Tulley's page once again I think one factor for
Bismarck shooting better was the rather small optical rangers on the British ships.
*I* said that on that particular day almost any modern BB could eat the UK's lunch if they were up against
Hood and
Prince of Wales. I do not think that is a matter of "crew quality" I think it is a matter of the well known and well established vulnerability of
Hood to plunging fire and to the fact that
Prince of Wales was simply not fit for combat. A 1 turret BB does not adequately represent the capability of the ship class as designed.
I think the whole thing changes if you put
King George V into the same fight in lieu of
Prince of Wales.
I will note however that the subtantially larger optical ranger on US modern BBs gave them a substantial advantage in training on bearing and the radar on US ships gave the US the same capability as the UK had in range estimation, even in 1941. So it would not surprise me terribly if in a potential encounter between
North Carolina and any other ship the
North Carolina should start hitting first.
The consistent lesson of WW2 that given outstanding technology and a well trained but inexperienced crew a ship (or airplane) could handily defeat a highly trained and battle hardened crew using dated technology. The gaps between Allied and Axis capability simply increased as the war progressed.
In 1941 any given German ship was the equal of any other Allied ship and superior in some ways to UK ships for gunfire accuracy. In 1942 the Allies would consistently have had the edge. In 1944 the equation was so one sided in favor of the Allies that the discussion ceases to be interesting at all.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
