2nd best WWII DD design

[Dora09]

The Bismark class was formitable. Perfect, of course not. Uprotected stearing was a huge flaw(and got it killed). It had inadequate anti-aircraft batteries as well (but just about every capital ship from every navy in 1940 had inadequate AA, the threat of aircraft was not considered a major concern when they were designed). Everyone here can claim that the Bismark and Tirpitz were crap, but they were all destroyed by airpower, not by some "superior" allied BB. The Tirpitz was bombed by Landcasters when the war was all but over and the Bismark (after easily dispatching the Hood) was disabled by air attack and only lost in a surface engagement when she was alone and hopelessly outnumbered.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Dora09
The Bismark class was formitable.

But it sucqued as the second best DD design in WWII, eh?
[:D]

[bobogoboom]

[:'(]

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Dora09
The Bismark class was formitable.

But it sucqued as the second best DD design in WWII, eh?
[:D]

You never noticed them hidden depth charge racks on the stern? Pfft, and I thought you were good

[DuckofTindalos]

The Bismarck was not "formitable", and she is also not relevant to this thread.

[Dora09]

Formidable. So you caught me, I am terrible at typing and worse at spelling. Congratulations! Well I took the time to spell check this one just for you.

So many Bismarck haters… Jeez, okay the Allies were superior in every regard, happy? The Bismarck was brought up by someone else and I was replying. You know, the boards are like a conversation not a Ph.D. thesis, one topic or idea might spur the discussion of another and that isn’t a bad thing. It is not like this was a very serious thread to begin with.

The Bismarck was a good ship. It had strengths and it had weaknesses (just like almost every weapon), but to say that is was crap is taking it a bit too far. With out the help of air power neither Bismarck class ever lost a surface engagement during the war. That has to account for something. As for its AA inadequacies, all BB and CAs built in this time were inadequate because the aircraft wasn’t thought of (or had been proven) as a threat to these vessels. It wasn’t until after Taranto, PH and oddly enough the sinking of the Bismarck until AA was a major concern.

[AW1Steve]

I have to subscribe to the "what's it designed for" club. If you had asked "What's the best ALL-AROUND destroyer", I'd say the Fletchers". There were better at ASW(almost anything British) anti-ship (almost anything Japanese) , bigger gun- any German destroyer , faster, almost any Italian or French. But if asked "what's the most balanced" , I'd have to go with the Fletchers.
 
 
 AQnd my 2cents worth on Tiger vs. Sherman.....Both were designed for different purposes. The Tiger was a tank killer. Period. It was designed to eat other tanks for lunch.  The US Army did not subscribe (through-out most of WW2) to that doctrine. They saw the tanks primary mission as anti-infantry (or in infantry support). Or as a friend of mine once descibed it as "running over people and equipment". Patton himself considered the Sherman's main armament to be it's machine guns.
 
 The US Army kept it's faith in Tank-destroyers and anti-tank guns. It did not visualize tank on tank fights, and it's doctrine called for tankers to avoid such fights.
 
 
 Using the standard that I mentioned for destoyers , the Tiger (and it's derivatives) was one of the best at destroying tanks (along with T-34/85 and JS3 Tanks). The Sherman was probably the best for running over people. [:D]

[John Lansford]

The Josef Stalin-3 tank didn't see combat, although it did participate in victory parades.  That's like saying the US heavy tank with the 90mm gun was a 'tank killer' when it probably killed fewer than 5 tanks at the end of WWII.
 
The problem with telling Sherman crews to avoid enemy tanks and leave them for the tank destroyers was there never was a TD around when you needed one, and to the infantry a tank was a tank was a tank, and they should deal with the enemy tanks rather than let the infantry try and kill them.  Otherwise, why did the M4A3E8 with the 76mm gun firing HVAP ammo get developed???

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Dora09
So many Bismarck haters… Jeez, okay the Allies were superior in every regard, happy?

The Allies did not just beat the Axis naval forces, they annihilated them. Thus, it is hard to find a lot of bright spots if you I grew up as a Germany Navy and Japanese Navy Fanboy as I did.

The Bismarck was a good ship. It had strengths and it had weaknesses (just like almost every weapon), but to say that is was crap is taking it a bit too far. With out the help of air power neither Bismarck class ever lost a surface engagement during the war. That has to account for something.

It does count for something, but she labors under a "Super Battleship" expectation. She looked so modern and deadly, but she really was a new battleship with an old armor layout, ok guns and a well trained crew. However, she remains one of the few battleships of the war to engage and sink an enemy capital ship--one of those few bright spots for the Axis Navy Fanboy.

German Destroyers also generally looked modern and deadly, but faired even worse.

[Dora09]

I agree Wirraway. The Axis naval forces were beat pretty bad by the end. But then again, so were their air forces and armies. However, the navies of both Japan and Germany were some of the only bright spots. You mentioned the sinking of the Hood, but the Battle of the Atlantic was almost won by the Wolf Packs.

On the Japanese side, their Navy was much more advanced than their Army and scored some huge victories besides PH (Sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse, Battle of the Java Sea, Battle of the Sunda strait, Savo Island, Tassafronga, and even Coral Sea and Santa Cruz were pretty good showings by the IJN).

Japan and Germany suffered more from poor leadership, incoherent, inflexible and inconsistent naval doctrines (Germans spending much on Bismarck and Tirpitz when more U-Boats would have made more sense, Japanese sub doctrine etc.), feuding between military branches (no cooperation between IJN and IJA air forces etc.) and from not having the industrial capacity to compete with the Allies. Many of the Axis (not all) designs were superior or on par to the Allies but they were hampered by the issues mentioned above and were almost always outnumbered.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Dora09

Many of the Axis (not all) designs were superior or on par to the Allies but they were hampered by the issues mentioned above and were almost always outnumbered.

Of course, this was the goal of both the KM & IJN (individually superior ships) while it was not the goal of either the RN or USN (competent designs in the largest possible quantity). In a historic irony, the USN in particular understood Stalin's concept of quantity having a quality all its own.

It should also be noted, that by the end of the war, the USN was designing and building ships that were both individually superior and more numerous than anything they would face. They had the fewest constraints (materials, cost, capacity, tech base, etc.) of any major power which tended to make even their allies a little testy...

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Dora09
So many Bismarck haters

Why is pointing out that a BB is not necessary a great DD equated to "hating"? I don't much love or hate ships, I may ask what were they designed to do, I may look at the evidence of whether they did that (or something else). But loving or hating ships (they are not my own) doesn't much enter my frame of thought.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

The Josef Stalin-3 tank didn't see combat, although it did participate in victory parades.  That's like saying the US heavy tank with the 90mm gun was a 'tank killer' when it probably killed fewer than 5 tanks at the end of WWII.

The problem with telling Sherman crews to avoid enemy tanks and leave them for the tank destroyers was there never was a TD around when you needed one, and to the infantry a tank was a tank was a tank, and they should deal with the enemy tanks rather than let the infantry try and kill them.  Otherwise, why did the M4A3E8 with the 76mm gun firing HVAP ammo get developed???

Of course you are right John. But a B-17 wasn't designed as a fighter, yet it shot many down. I'm sure the crews were delighted when the only fighters seen were their own. The point that I was trying to make , is that each tank was designed for a specific doctrine, and like all things in life , had to meet a different reality. You stick to your doctrine as much as possible . An ainti-aircraft gun that is also great for shooting holes in tanks is a really cool bonus. But it's first job is to shoot down airplanes. You don't say , "That 88mm or 120mm or whatever isn't as good as blowing holes in tanks as whatever". You say , "that 88mm was great at shooting down planes, and oh by the way was a pretty good anit-tank gun".

All I'm saying is don't compare apples and oranges and be surprise if the apple doen't taste like an orange.

[Dora09]

I don’t think anyone ever implied that a BB is the same as a DD. The thread started off about the best DD designs. I put my bid in for Shimakaze, and the Yugumo class. Then someone brought up the Bismarck and everyone started claiming that it sucked (that was the hating part, exaggerated criticism is just as ridiculous as exaggerated praise), I simply was pointing out that while the Bismarck had some significant flaws, it was still a very powerful ship class.

“I don't much love or hate ships, I may ask what were they designed to do, I may look at the evidence of whether they did that (or something else). But loving or hating ships (they are not my own) doesn't much enter my frame of thought.”

Why no love? Many of these ships (aircraft and tanks too) are works of art. How could you not fall in love with the lines of the p38, or the fragile beauty of the Ki43, the aggressive and purposeful look of the Yamato (and the Iowa), the sinister look of the Tiger or my favorite, the poetry in the evolution of Nakajima’s wing design (Ki27 through to the Ki84)?

[Yamato hugger]

Wow - 3 subjects at once in 1 thread! Bonus!

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Wow - 3 subjects at once in 1 thread! Bonus!

Well as we are trying to be all encompassing here, let me add this:

Ginger or MaryAnn?

[DuckofTindalos]

Both, surely?

[thegreatwent]

Ginger or MaryAnn?

C'mon Betty Page would've beaten them both... Wait that could have been fun[;)]

[Wirraway_Ace]

Since this thread has further devolved. Is there a decent Atlantic and/or Med wargame for the KM or Italian Fleet Fanboy?

[DuckofTindalos]

NWS's Supremacy at Sea, although it doesn't start shipping until 1/1. I think it's fun.