Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: 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.

Are you saying you are not taking the 'hijacked' Bismarck thread seriously anymore? Didn't I see that on a Monty Python episode, last season - 1974, Light entertainment wars "their not taking the war seriously anymore"...

They would have been a pushover for the experienced US crews.

OK, I give up. WHAT US BATTLESHIP had an "experienced US crew" in MAY 1941? Where did it get that experience??????

ORIGINAL: el cid again

They would have been a pushover for the experienced US crews.

OK, I give up. WHAT US BATTLESHIP had an "experienced US crew" in MAY 1941? Where did it get that experience??????

Probably the same place the Germans got it before the battle of the Denmark Strait. Trials and "working up"

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.

I recommend US Submarines Since 1945 - which goes on for many, many pages about this sonar and ours derived from it. Your terminology may be used somewhere - we don't use it in USN - but it is not really important: if it uses sound to locate it is a sonar in our terms. Ever since we got our hands on Prinz Eugen we have given a lot more attention to passive sonar than to active - something we have not learned in the world of radar. [An electronic warfare guy, I like to say US forces are "radioactive" since we virtually ALWAYS are transmitting, giveing away our bearing, range, identity and often other information to anyone who is listening and organized to understand what they intercept. A few US admirals have demonstrated that passive operations are often more effective, but this is basically un-American, and now mostly forgotten, if not actually disbelieved.] I don't remember if the sonar on the Prinz and Bismarck could ping or not? But my impression is that it could - it just did not all the time - because pinging tells everyone for a long way where you are. It is smarter to listen. These where hunters, and this sonar enabled them to find targets at greater ranges than radar could - even in theory. It is because of this specific sonar we learned about convergence zone detection, if I remember correctly.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again

They would have been a pushover for the experienced US crews.

OK, I give up. WHAT US BATTLESHIP had an "experienced US crew" in MAY 1941? Where did it get that experience??????

Probably the same place the Germans got it before the battle of the Denmark Strait. Trials and "working up"

Which brings up another question, as far as I know The IJNs last surface action was Tsushima in 1905, so where would any IJN ship get experience in May 1941 ...in a "sea battle/surface action"?

quote:

They would have been a pushover for the experienced US crews.

OK, I give up. WHAT US BATTLESHIP had an "experienced US crew" in MAY 1941? Where did it get that experience??????


Probably the same place the Germans got it before the battle of the Denmark Strait. Trials and "working up"

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. RN had more experience - pretty clearly.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

They would have been a pushover for the experienced US crews.

OK, I give up. WHAT US BATTLESHIP had an "experienced US crew" in MAY 1941? Where did it get that experience??????


Probably the same place the Germans got it before the battle of the Denmark Strait. Trials and "working up"

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. RN had more experience - pretty clearly.

Yes they (the RN) did have more recent experience in 1941 - however that does not necessarily negate training and superior equipment...as the USN painfully showed the RN in 1812

I don't remember if the sonar on the Prinz and Bismarck could ping or not?

It could not ping.

I think you have a fair point about making noise but also think there are lots of people in the US forces at present who do not run around lit up all the time. And I suspect that it is more interesting even than that. I would guess that the lessons of air force stealth technology have not been lost on anyone and these are craft that by definition don't do *anything* actively.

I also know some people who engineer bearings for ex. I suspect that if anyone described WW2 passive detection as sophisticated or, for ex, any BB screws of the day as "quiet" I'd just get a sardonic dopey grin.

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: 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.

Are you saying you are not taking the 'hijacked' Bismarck thread seriously anymore? Didn't I see that on a Monty Python episode, last season - 1974, Light entertainment wars "their not taking the war seriously anymore"...

Just bringing some light to a sometimes too serious discussion. By what I've seen in the last few weeks of reading is that we sometimes forget we're only discussing a game.

Oh...and the Sworfish were able to surprise the Bismarck because the crew was to busy picking fleas from each others fur.

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.

Maybe the length of this debate, and its heated nature, will push Matrix Games to come up with War in the Atlantic? [:D]

ORIGINAL: Pascal

Maybe the length of this debate, and its heated nature, will push Matrix Games to come up with War in the Atlantic? [:D]

Well if they do - I hope it comes with an editor so I can re-arm the Scharhorst and Gneisenau..hehehe[:D]

B

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.

We'll agree to disagree on the definition of passive sonar.[:D]

Even hearing an entirely new ship, one can still obatin a reasonable speed estimate from turncounting. A sonar operator goes through a mental list of target characteristics such as prop RPM, # of props, analysis of cavitational pitch to determine deep or shallow drafted vessel, prop flutter, shaft squeal, etc... Also, the larger the ship the slower the props turn so generally speaking if you have a turncount over about 200 you can say that's a small vessel, like a patrol boat or something along those lines. So if I hear a deep drafted, multi-screwed vessel making 100 RPM, I know that it is probably a large warship making around 12-15 kts. If it were a deep-drafted, single-screw vessel turning 100 rpm, I know that its probably a merchie maing about 10 knots. Doesn't matter whether I've ever heard this particular class before. Propellor noise can tell you a lot about a vessel.

I'm not sure I understand what you said about Bismarck only hearing torpedoes on an active system. Active systems normally don't provide passive information unless its a dual-use system. Own-ship prop noise is not the major interfering factor unless trying to listen astern. Flow noise is the major interering culprit for ship mounted systems. The water rushing over the sensor is what causes passive sonar degradation.

Regardless, if Bismarck were to hear a torpedo on this device, it will already be too close to evade.

Chez

I'm not sure I understand what you said about Bismarck only hearing torpedoes on an active system.

Either I messed up by not being clear or you misread me. Bismarck did not have an active system. I said (or meant to say) that at speed Bismarck probably could only have heard torpedoes with Bismarck's passive system. Well, heard them in the sense of having useful information. A torpedo screw is a very high frequency and loud noise source. Much more easily heard over the noise of Bismarck's propeller cavitation than, say, some distant DD cruising along at 16 knots over the horizon.

Regardless, if Bismarck were to hear a torpedo on this device, it will already be too close to evade.

Really? Hard to see the point of even having such a passive system then.

Really? Hard to see the point of even having such a passive system then.

Torpedoes aren't as easy to hear as most people think they are. Low frequency noises such as ship propellors can be heard a long ways but high frequency noises can't. Generally speaking, a ship won't hear a torp unless its within 1000-1500 yards unless she is moving fairly slowly which means she isn't going to get out of the way of properly aimed torps anyways.

Here is a depiction of the device on Bismarck. Its installed in the curvature of the bow so my guess is that it is limited in direction to about 100-120 degrees on each side. Pretty much rules out any detection of anything from the quarters.

The weblink is here: Bismarck Sonar


Chez

Yes they (the RN) did have more recent experience in 1941 - however that does not necessarily negate training and superior equipment...as the USN painfully showed the RN in 1812

Please tell me,what superior equipment US has in 1941???

Which brings up another question, as far as I know The IJNs last surface action was Tsushima in 1905, so where would any IJN ship get experience in May 1941 ...in a "sea battle/surface action"?

Everyone knows that IJN has realistic and hard trinings in their program. Many Japanese sailors die in peacetime because of this training. When 1st air fleet left Japan to attack PH man and pilots in this fleet was most experinced in the world,far superior to US. Later that change.

ORIGINAL: hawker

Yes they (the RN) did have more recent experience in 1941 - however that does not necessarily negate training and superior equipment...as the USN painfully showed the RN in 1812

Please tell me,what superior equipment US has in 1941???

Mdiehl stated that the optics that the US and Germans used were larger, or superior to British in 1941. I'm pretty sure this is clear in his post.

He didn't state this, but I'm pretty sure the 16" guns on North Carolina were superior to both the British and German 15" guns. I don't know this for sure, but I have heard it before. Tiornu or Mdiel could speak on a more informed basis than I.

ORIGINAL: hawker

[

Which brings up another question, as far as I know The IJNs last surface action was Tsushima in 1905, so where would any IJN ship get experience in May 1941 ...in a "sea battle/surface action"?

Everyone knows that IJN has realistic and hard trinings in their program. Many Japanese sailors die in peacetime because of this training. When 1st air fleet left Japan to attack PH man and pilots in this fleet was most experinced in the world,far superior to US. Later that change.

Oh, all right I'll answer this one, but hawker, your recent track record of debate does not encourage discussion with you. However..

In any point of 1941 - the most "experienced" fleet in the world was the British Royal Navy and the Kriegsmarine, if for no other reason than they were the only major navys that had combat experience since 1905. Both had recent experience in naval warfare in WWI and the first two years of WWII.

The Japanese navy had NO MORE COMBAT experience than the United States Navy in May 1941.

Demosthenes

The IJN pilots would have more experience though, correct? Didn't the IJN operate in China quite a bit?

ORIGINAL: Berkut

The IJN pilots would have more experience though, correct? Didn't the IJN operate in China quite a bit?

Yes - but the question was "experienced fleets", and as far as the IJN pilots are concerned - they could not have had more valuable 'experience' in China than the British and Germans did in the 'Big Leagues' of air combat in 1939, 40, and 41.