Matrix Games Forums

It has been thirty years since I translated the German design materials for Nathan Okun, and I hardly remember anything from them. (However I do remember why American naval architects were rather negative about the inter-war German warship designs.) OK, the issues as I recall were the general protection scheme layout (based on that of the Bayern), the mediocre quality of the armor (not that important), the old-style design of the armor belt (vertical and low), the thin and very low deck armor, and the limited reserve buoyancy. Then there was the relatively low rate of fire and mediocre performance of the main armament, the use of SP secondary guns, the propulsion plant layout (based on that of the Bayern), and the short radius of action.

Everything you say is false exept action radius.
I found a nice book which can help you understand:
"Die panzerung der deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1920-1945" by Siegfried Breyer

"MEDIOCRE PERFORMANCE OF MAIN ARMAMENT",my god,what you talking!
Bismarck has finest gun crew of her time and guns with stereoscopic directors doing extremly well.
Example:with 3 salvos Bismarck manage to hit POW with 4 granades at 17000m.

You can say that Bismarck is Bayern/Baden upgrade which is very false but commonly spoken by people which do not now history of Bismarck well,but you CANT say that Bismarck main guns are mediocre!!!Well,those guns sent HMS "Hood" to the bottom in six minutes and set POW on the run.
BTW,HMS "Hood" is not tin can as someone may say.

For Baden:
Baden was a much smaller ship. Bismarck was about 50,000 tons at a full load and had 308% more propulsive power on tap. Baden had a length to beam ratio of 6.3:1, but Bismarck's was 6.7:1. I'm not sure that any hull form calculations between the two designs would be of any use at all.

ORIGINAL: hawker

It has been thirty years since I translated the German design materials for Nathan Okun, and I hardly remember anything from them. (However I do remember why American naval architects were rather negative about the inter-war German warship designs.) OK, the issues as I recall were the general protection scheme layout (based on that of the Bayern), the mediocre quality of the armor (not that important), the old-style design of the armor belt (vertical and low), the thin and very low deck armor, and the limited reserve buoyancy. Then there was the relatively low rate of fire and mediocre performance of the main armament, the use of SP secondary guns, the propulsion plant layout (based on that of the Bayern), and the short radius of action.

Everything you say is false exept action radius.
I found a nice book which can help you understand:
"Die panzerung der deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1920-1945" by Siegfried Breyer

"MEDIOCRE PERFORMANCE OF MAIN ARMAMENT",my god,what you talking!
Bismarck has finest gun crew of her time and guns with stereoscopic directors doing extremly well.
Example:with 3 salvos Bismarck manage to hit POW with 4 granades at 17000m.

You can say that Bismarck is Bayern/Baden upgrade which is very false but commonly spoken by people which do not now history of Bismarck well,but you CANT say that Bismarck main guns are mediocre!!!Well,those guns sent HMS "Hood" to the bottom in six minutes and set POW on the run.
BTW,HMS "Hood" is not tin can as someone may say.

For Baden:
Baden was a much smaller ship. Bismarck was about 50,000 tons at a full load and had 308% more propulsive power on tap. Baden had a length to beam ratio of 6.3:1, but Bismarck's was 6.7:1. I'm not sure that any hull form calculations between the two designs would be of any use at all.

Please read what has actually been written in this thread. People are not saying that the Baden drawings were taken out of a store, and altered to make the Bismark. They are saying that the design philosophies were taken from the Baden. Hull form is only one aspect. You cannot deny that dual secondary and heavy AA batteries was an old fashioned concept by 1941. The protection system has been widely reviewed, and IS regarded as inefficient. Also, a couple of points on the Hood/POW battle, and the sinking of Bismark: Hood was a battlecruiser designed in 1916, and never substantially updated. Bismark doesn't get much technological credit for sinking her. PoW effectively doomed Bismark with 1 hit. In the final engagement Bismark scored zero manin armament hits.

It is not surprising that a Navy that built no battleships between 1918 and 1937 should fall behind in current thinking. The pocket battleships were a very poor design, and claiming that Bismark was a development of them does her no favours!

BTW,HMS "Hood" is not tin can as someone may say.

It was not a tin can - and taking her on with a small warship would be a problem - but it was a seriously flawed design, protection wise. She was not sunk so much because Bismarck's guns were superior as because she was unable to stand up to ANY heavy gunfire - if the shell scored a lucky hit. These flaws were understood at the time, but they were not easy to fix (being structural) and they were expensive not only in money, but in time: it would take her out of service to make even modest changes and this was not done (although it appears to have been intended). When three older battlecruisers blew up in short order at Jutland, the fleet commander remarked "there is something wrong with our ships today." Indeed there was - and of all capital ships serving RN - only the other battlecruisers (Repulse and Renown) were even worse off than HMS Hood.
None of the battleships suffered from the same protection flaws in anything like as severe a degree.

PoW effectively doomed Bismark with 1 hit.

That is a stretch. It is a torpedo from a Swordfish that doomed Bismarck, and that in a different action on a different day. Until that moment, Bismarck was a viable warship. Wether or not the mission made any sense is a different matter? These relatively short legged ships were a long way from friendly bases (there was a cruiser with Bismarck named Prinz Eugen - a fine ship in some ways - but not in range). What if they did "break out" into the Atlantic? I think they were really just trying to get to Brest as a base by a safer route than goind direct, and also to score some propaganda points. They were not going very far in the central Atlantic without more fuel than they carried in the first place. Unless there is more to the story than we know - a way to get fuel on the raid. But Bismarck had sufficient fuel to make Brest and fight and maneuver by indirect courses - so she was hardly doomed - until she was rendered unable to turn. THAT may be said to indicate a design flaw: no rudder protection seems odd for a raider.

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Most of that was to scuttle the hulk.

Surely, but you could say that about Bismarck as well. Although in the Hornet's case the Japanese gave up and left her there (she sank, alone, unobserved by anyone, some time the following day). Whereas Bismarck simply sank under the RN pounding. Which naturally means that the Hornet was a much more tough nut to crack than the Bismarck.
Ducking now! [;)]

Funny, but that is an interesting comparison(Bismark and Hornet).[:)]
The other thing this thread touched on - when measuring the toughness of warships we look at how many times the were hit before they went down, and assume that's what it took to sink them.
Obviously that's not the case at all - that's just how much punishment they took before they 'escaped beneath the waves'...
B

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it makes the SAN FRANCISCO the most successfull design ever. Look at the pounding she took at 1st Guadalcanal and still was sailing at full speed. The problem with discussing naval events in terms of how many hits something took before sinking is that it ignores the most critical factor. WHERE they were hit. 50 hits in the superstructure will make a mess, but it won't sink anything. One hit in a magazine will generally sink anything. It's not just the number, but the placement of hits that needs to be studied..., and unfortunately when a ship sinks it makes it hard to discover which hits were important and which weren't.

Torpedoes are generally considered more dangerous than bombs because the strike below the waterline.
All torpedo hits effect flotation, though obviously some are more damaging than others. Bombs and shells are a more random proposition. They can be very damaging, but they can also hit the "Goat Locker" and only annoy a few Chiefs. Tossing numbers of hits back and forth is almost meaningless unless you can provide the areas hit as well.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Most of that was to scuttle the hulk.

Although in the Hornet's case the Japanese gave up and left her there (she sank, alone, unobserved by anyone, some time the following day).
Ducking now! [;)]

Makes you wonder how they actually know it sank, could still be floating around out there in the South Pacific, waiting for someone to see her on google earth [:D]

ORIGINAL: MkXIV

Makes you wonder how they actually know it sank, could still be floating around out there in the South Pacific, waiting for someone to see her on google earth [:D]

Oh, it is...with ghost pirates onboard! Or was that pirate ghosts? Well anyhow, it only travels at night and searches for booty. Which may or may not include hookers.

You are very wrong,Bismarck is not improved Baden. I am kind a expert for BB Bismarck and anyone who tell that her are improved Baden knows nothing.
So,first do some researching and dont jump to conclusion of something you (obviusly)dont know.

Regretfully you are unable to understand this in English, but I cannot post on this board in German. The problem is linguistic, not technical. This writer and others are correct - the Bismarck is indeed an evolutionary improvement on the Baden design - see Seigfried Breyer - a German naval architect and authority (Schlachtshiffe and Schlachtkreutzer). They are not saying the Bismarck IS the Beyern - they are saying it is a development of it - and they are technically correct: in layout of armament and many details of armament, in layout of propulsion and many details of propulsion, and in the general protection scheme and man detials of the protection scheme, the ship is remarkably similar.
I for one do not regard that as a technical criticism. The AA battery of Bismarck is adequate for what was understood in the year of her design.
ALL ships designed in that period were undergunned by the standards of a few years later, and had she survived, Bismarck would have had some AA added - see Tirpitz. Bismarck had a novel dual radar installation - one faced forward and one aft - and this was a technical advantage tactically in her actual operation. That feature, at least, had nothing whatever to do with Bayern. But more generally, she was a technical mistake not understood at the time she was funded. She represented too much capital in one machine at a time that gunships were becoming outmoded as true capital ships. The same investment in steel could have produced two fine aircraft carriers each with much more useful naval power at about ten times the range of her guns. Battleships have some utility even to this day, but it is not enough to justify their cost, which is why they ceased to be built - even during the war. Even rich USA cancelled ships already laid down as well as all planned ships not laid down. Japan suspended construction on two battleships too. And Germany also suspended construction of the laid down H class, and never laid down the rest of the class.

ORIGINAL: hawker

It has been thirty years since I translated the German design materials for Nathan Okun, and I hardly remember anything from them. (However I do remember why American naval architects were rather negative about the inter-war German warship designs.) OK, the issues as I recall were the general protection scheme layout (based on that of the Bayern), the mediocre quality of the armor (not that important), the old-style design of the armor belt (vertical and low), the thin and very low deck armor, and the limited reserve buoyancy. Then there was the relatively low rate of fire and mediocre performance of the main armament, the use of SP secondary guns, the propulsion plant layout (based on that of the Bayern), and the short radius of action.

Everything you say is false exept action radius.
I found a nice book which can help you understand:
"Die panzerung der deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1920-1945" by Siegfried Breyer

"MEDIOCRE PERFORMANCE OF MAIN ARMAMENT",my god,what you talking!
Bismarck has finest gun crew of her time and guns with stereoscopic directors doing extremly well.
Example:with 3 salvos Bismarck manage to hit POW with 4 granades at 17000m.

You can say that Bismarck is Bayern/Baden upgrade which is very false but commonly spoken by people which do not now history of Bismarck well,but you CANT say that Bismarck main guns are mediocre!!!Well,those guns sent HMS "Hood" to the bottom in six minutes and set POW on the run.
BTW,HMS "Hood" is not tin can as someone may say.

For Baden:
Baden was a much smaller ship. Bismarck was about 50,000 tons at a full load and had 308% more propulsive power on tap. Baden had a length to beam ratio of 6.3:1, but Bismarck's was 6.7:1. I'm not sure that any hull form calculations between the two designs would be of any use at all.

Thanks for the response. Yes, I've seen Breyer, but I've also seen declassified copies of the design documentation for the Bismarck, which was probably Breyer's primary source (if he had access to it at all). The 15" rifles were good, but not outstanding, and their rate of fire was a bit slow. I won't even go into a discussion of their operational performance. How hull forms were developed was a black art, but the naval architect usually began with an existing hull and adapted that for the balance of protection, propulsion, and payload that was desired. The literature indicates the starting point was the Bayern, which was the most recent BB design with operational experience available to the KM.

I won't even go into a discussion of their operational performance

Please realize tho that you COULD, and still get an almost intelligent debate out of it. There is so much useless knowledge on these boards that, you could have a debate about the "operational performance" of the heads that were installed on the Bismark.

-F-

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Big B

.....
The other thing this thread touched on - when measuring the toughness of warships we look at how many times the were hit before they went down, and assume that's what it took to sink them.
Obviously that's not the case at all - that's just how much punishment they took before they 'escaped beneath the waves'...
B

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it makes the SAN FRANCISCO the most successfull design ever. Look at the pounding she took at 1st Guadalcanal and still was sailing at full speed. The problem with discussing naval events in terms of how many hits something took before sinking is that it ignores the most critical factor. WHERE they were hit. 50 hits in the superstructure will make a mess, but it won't sink anything. One hit in a magazine will generally sink anything. It's not just the number, but the placement of hits that needs to be studied..., and unfortunately when a ship sinks it makes it hard to discover which hits were important and which weren't.

Hi Mike, just as an aside - actually, I think the Astoria's were the best class of cruisers made before the war.. but your point above is well taken.[8D]

B

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Big B

.....
The other thing this thread touched on - when measuring the toughness of warships we look at how many times the were hit before they went down, and assume that's what it took to sink them.
Obviously that's not the case at all - that's just how much punishment they took before they 'escaped beneath the waves'...
B

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it makes the SAN FRANCISCO the most successfull design ever. Look at the pounding she took at 1st Guadalcanal and still was sailing at full speed. The problem with discussing naval events in terms of how many hits something took before sinking is that it ignores the most critical factor. WHERE they were hit. 50 hits in the superstructure will make a mess, but it won't sink anything. One hit in a magazine will generally sink anything. It's not just the number, but the placement of hits that needs to be studied..., and unfortunately when a ship sinks it makes it hard to discover which hits were important and which weren't.

Hi Mike, just as an aside - actually, I think the Astoria's were the best class of cruisers made before the war.. but your point above is well taken.[8D]

B

I also agree. Note that we're talking about *treaty* cruisers, most of which were either overweight or under-protected. Some were both, for example, the Hippers. The Prinz Eugen came through Los Angeles on the way to Bikini and the local naval architects gave it a thorough going over. Their reaction? "A yacht." Of course, the design mission was a complete hoot--attack the French transports carrying the North African divisions to Toulon. The Japanese Takeos were mean bastards, but vulnerable to hits on their torpedos. AIR, it happened more than once.

Well,those guns sent HMS "Hood" to the bottom in six minutes and set POW on the run. BTW,HMS "Hood" is not tin can as someone may say.

Ah, but at that range Hood was indeed a "tin can." And while hitting early does reflect well on Prinz Eugen's or Bismarck's gunners (I've heard it said that critical analysis suggests it was Prinz that started the fire that did for Hood), one has to bear in mind that the Hood was closing the range, not salvo chasing, and providing a low deflection shot. The circumstances represent the easiest ones for hitting an enemy ship at long range.

Bismarck's main armament was adequate for her job... running the Royal Navy gauntlet and engaging in hit and run confrontations. Against a heavily armored and armed vessel like Richelieu, North Carolina, or Rodney, Bismarck would likely have lost. Circumstances in her initial sortie put her against the two least capable heavy ships in the Royal Navy... one underarmored and adequately gunned, the other adequately armored but effectively undergunned giving the bugs in her turret and elevation trunions.

I don't think Bismarck's AAA was up to the standards of the day. Of course the only BBs that were up to the standards of the day were the US ones with the paired 5"38s.

These comparisons however are a bit like the "Balao vs Type IX" comparisons. The missions were different. The designs were optimized around the missions. Bismarck was in the end just a big raider. Not really up to line of battle work (because of her inadequate caliber guns). She got lucky against Hood and because of that lived ten days longer than one might otherwise have expected.

Be that as it may, I think the 15" gun was still a practical and effective BB gun in WWII - even though the standard for a BB gun had been upped to 16" by the world's major navies as far back as the 1920s.

As you pointed out each country built for their own needs. This is one of the cases where I think Hitler was right in demanding that Scharnhorst and Gneisenau be armed with 3 twin 15" guns as well.
The Bismarcks and Scharnhorsts would have made a tremendously powerful raiding fleet/mini battlefleet, and would have given the Admiralty no end of headaches if they had been properly used.

B

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Well,those guns sent HMS "Hood" to the bottom in six minutes and set POW on the run. BTW,HMS "Hood" is not tin can as someone may say.

Ah, but at that range Hood was indeed a "tin can." And while hitting early does reflect well on Prinz Eugen's or Bismarck's gunners (I've heard it said that critical analysis suggests it was Prinz that started the fire that did for Hood), one has to bear in mind that the Hood was closing the range, not salvo chasing, and providing a low deflection shot. The circumstances represent the easiest ones for hitting an enemy ship at long range.

Bismarck's main armament was adequate for her job... running the Royal Navy gauntlet and engaging in hit and run confrontations. Against a heavily armored and armed vessel like Richelieu, North Carolina, or Rodney, Bismarck would likely have lost. Circumstances in her initial sortie put her against the two least capable heavy ships in the Royal Navy... one underarmored and adequately gunned, the other adequately armored but effectively undergunned giving the bugs in her turret and elevation trunions.

I don't think Bismarck's AAA was up to the standards of the day. Of course the only BBs that were up to the standards of the day were the US ones with the paired 5"38s.

These comparisons however are a bit like the "Balao vs Type IX" comparisons. The missions were different. The designs were optimized around the missions. Bismarck was in the end just a big raider. Not really up to line of battle work (because of her inadequate caliber guns). She got lucky against Hood and because of that lived ten days longer than one might otherwise have expected.

The Bismarcks and Scharnhorsts would have made a tremendously powerful raiding fleet/mini battlefleet, and would have given the Admiralty no end of headaches if they had been properly used

I'm not so sure. I think the notion of a German battlefleet to confront the RN just won't fly. Even if you brigaded Scharn, Gneis, Bmck, and say Trptz, you'd just make them easier to find. That means more likely a head to head with the Royal Navy home fleet assembled. The Germans would just be horrendously outgunned. In the end Bismarck was a status symbol first, a raider second, and a line of battle dreadnaught least of all.

I think the best German surface ships ton for ton were the "pocket BBs." Since Germany could only really be very good at raiding, they were the best optimized for the job. Well, them and certain auxiliary cruisers like Kormoran.

I think Scharn and Gneis would have been better armed with 2xtwin 15"s and some sort of medium caliber mount. 8" or 6" for doing the raiding part of raiding. Save the heavies for fending of UK CBs.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The Bismarcks and Scharnhorsts would have made a tremendously powerful raiding fleet/mini battlefleet, and would have given the Admiralty no end of headaches if they had been properly used

I'm not so sure. I think the notion of a German battlefleet to confront the RN just won't fly. Even if you brigaded Scharn, Gneis, Bmck, and say Trptz, you'd just make them easier to find. That means more likely a head to head with the Royal Navy home fleet assembled. The Germans would just be horrendously outgunned. In the end Bismarck was a status symbol first, a raider second, and a line of battle dreadnaught least of all.

I think the best German surface ships ton for ton were the "pocket BBs." Since Germany could only really be very good at raiding, they were the best optimized for the job. Well, them and certain auxiliary cruisers like Kormoran.

I think the PBs were great raiders too. But a German battle fleet of the Bismarck's and Scharnhorst's (w/15"ers - that would be critical because it would allow them to compete with British BBs) could have been a great tool in shielding the PBs to get loose.

I think in 1939-1941(maybe 1942) the Atlantic ocean was not at all dominated by naval air power as the Pacific would be soon - and for those years a German strategy somewhat like what the US Navy tried early in the War of 1812 may have worked.
Individually superior ships on the loose - whereabouts unknown, should have caused the Admiralty to concentrate their ships to meet them (opening up the sea lanes further) and with an overall German speed advantage the KreigsMarine should have been (theoretically) able to accept and decline battle at their choosing.
Not perfect - but I think it may have served them well for a couple of years. Throw in the U-Boat threat , the KM looks a lot better positioned to cause disruption in the Atlantic.


B

Ah, but at that range Hood was indeed a "tin can." And while hitting early does reflect well on Prinz Eugen's or Bismarck's gunners (I've heard it said that critical analysis suggests it was Prinz that started the fire that did for Hood), one has to bear in mind that the Hood was closing the range, not salvo chasing, and providing a low deflection shot. The circumstances represent the easiest ones for hitting an enemy ship at long range.

Bismarck's main armament was adequate for her job... running the Royal Navy gauntlet and engaging in hit and run confrontations. Against a heavily armored and armed vessel like Richelieu, North Carolina, or Rodney, Bismarck would likely have lost. Circumstances in her initial sortie put her against the two least capable heavy ships in the Royal Navy... one underarmored and adequately gunned, the other adequately armored but effectively undergunned giving the bugs in her turret and elevation trunions.

I don't think Bismarck's AAA was up to the standards of the day. Of course the only BBs that were up to the standards of the day were the US ones with the paired 5"38s.

These comparisons however are a bit like the "Balao vs Type IX" comparisons. The missions were different. The designs were optimized around the missions. Bismarck was in the end just a big raider. Not really up to line of battle work (because of her inadequate caliber guns). She got lucky against Hood and because of that lived ten days longer than one might otherwise have expected.

I cannot believe my eyes!!
First of all,HOOD is not tin can,she is underarmored but upgraded and refittet,those refits she was good battleship.Yes battleship and not battlecruiser.
Second,you mentioned Rodney.My god,20 knots Rodney against 30 knots Bismarck. Rodney has also bad underwater protection,so do little examinations before you came with those words[:-].
Third,US navy "class A" armor was unadequate to modern BBs,US continue to buils those armor in BBs in war. Germans has BETTER armor,thicker armor is not always better[;)]

Thanks for the response. Yes, I've seen Breyer, but I've also seen declassified copies of the design documentation for the Bismarck, which was probably Breyer's primary source (if he had access to it at all). The 15" rifles were good, but not outstanding, and their rate of fire was a bit slow. I won't even go into a discussion of their operational performance. How hull forms were developed was a black art, but the naval architect usually began with an existing hull and adapted that for the balance of protection, propulsion, and payload that was desired. The literature indicates the starting point was the Bayern, which was the most recent BB design with operational experience available to the KM.

I say again,BISMARCK HAS FINEST GUN CREW OF HER TIME.

Please read what has actually been written in this thread. People are not saying that the Baden drawings were taken out of a store, and altered to make the Bismark. They are saying that the design philosophies were taken from the Baden. Hull form is only one aspect. You cannot deny that dual secondary and heavy AA batteries was an old fashioned concept by 1941. The protection system has been widely reviewed, and IS regarded as inefficient. Also, a couple of points on the Hood/POW battle, and the sinking of Bismark: Hood was a battlecruiser designed in 1916, and never substantially updated. Bismark doesn't get much technological credit for sinking her. PoW effectively doomed Bismark with 1 hit. In the final engagement Bismark scored zero manin armament hits.

It is not surprising that a Navy that built no battleships between 1918 and 1937 should fall behind in current thinking. The pocket battleships were a very poor design, and claiming that Bismark was a development of them does her no favours!

POW doomed Bismarck,dont maqke me laugh,Swordfish doomed Bismarck with torpedo hit in rudders,do you know history at all[:-]
POW runs away and if Lutjens pursue her Japanese plane later in war will never see her because she rest on bottom of the sea.

Bottom line is,100 years from now when children of our children debates about warships in history they will speak of Bismarck,most famous ship of WW2,Rodney,Richeliau,Yamato,Iowas etc,etc..,all will be more of less forgoten,but not Bismarck. That ship is legend and legends never dies,you can see documentaries of eminent authors,debates of specialists in naval history only for one ship-BISMARCK. She is not best BB of all time for sure but she is most thriling,intriguing, which is not fade away after 65 years. Not many ships desrved to enter the legend,Bismarck did, so lets stop talking about gunnery,armor,designs flaws,who cares,you can not kill legend by those. Legend lives and will lived long after we all gone,Bismarck is in bottom of the sea but legend of that ship will live next 1000 years.
Which ship of WW2 you can compare to that?

First of all,HOOD is not tin can,she is underarmored but upgraded and refittet,those refits she was good battleship.Yes battleship and not battlecruiser.

Ah no. Hood was a battlecruiser plain and simple. Her deck armor was insufficient in critical spaces to stop an 8" round at a low angle of incidence (plunging) much less a 15" round. All of Hood's post war retrofits were largely in the arena of torpedo protection and armaments. She had less deck armor than, for example, Hiei and most really honest American scholars won't call Hiei a "real battleship."

Second,you mentioned Rodney. My god,20 knots Rodney against 30 knots Bismarck. Rodney has also bad underwater protection,so do little examinations before you came with those words.

I don't need ot be lectured on Rodney's speed. On the other hand, for one on one engagements ship speed is not all that important. For Bismarck to shoot at Rodney, Bismarck had to be in range of Rodney's guns. All of them. You can't "cross the T" against a 1 ship enemy TF with a speed advantage of 10 knots... not even in calm waters like the Med or the Pacific. In the North Atlantic Bismarck's speed advantage would have been less because of the typically more agitated sea state.

Third,US navy "class A" armor was unadequate to modern BBs,US continue to buils those armor in BBs in war. Germans has BETTER armor,thicker armor is not always better

That claim is incorrect. I refer you to the BB comparison at Combinedfleet.com. There are additional considerations including armor thickness and placement, and quality of shells oncoming. The US 16" round had penetration enough to easily hole Bismarck's armor at any range. Sof if it is a head to head comparison of, say, North Carolina vs. Bismarck, I'd say it's anyone's fight in 1941 and North Carolina's advantage in 1942.

I say again,BISMARCK HAS FINEST GUN CREW OF HER TIME.

Whatever. A "one off" does not make a statistic. If you picked Bismarck's best shots of the war (against Hood) you can say Bismarck's gunners had a game but rather easy target and they did their job well. If you likewise cherry picked the UK's war shots you'd be really impressed by Rodney's (IIRC) long range gunnery in the Mediterranean.. which was every bit as impressive as Bismarck in the Skag but fired at a target half again as distant. I think Rodney would have hit Bismarck first in almost any engagement.

POW doomed Bismarck,dont maqke me laugh,Swordfish doomed Bismarck with torpedo hit in rudders,do you know history at all POW runs away and if Lutjens pursue her Japanese plane later in war will never see her because she rest on bottom of the sea.

In fairness to the guy who wrote that, PoW punctured Bismarck's fuel tanks, forcing Bismarck to attempt to retire from France. I don't think the fellow was claiming that PoW *sank* Bismarck, only that PoW basically ended Bismarck's mission. And I agree with his assessment.

Bottom line is,100 years from now when children of our children debates about warships in history they will speak of Bismarck,most famous ship of WW2

Only if they know nothing about WW2 or I suppose if they use whatever Dutch cleanser you've been smoking (apologies to Arlen Spector). Bismarck was a decent enough ship for the job, but way out of her league against Richelieu, South Dakota, Iowa, or Yamato. Based on the sorts of things that people heap praise upon, I'd say that if any battleships from WW2 are the "only ones remembered 100 years from now" they will be the Arizona (for being sunk) and the Yamato (for being huge).

Again I refer you to the BB comparison at combinedfleet.com.

Which ship from WW2 would I choose to be remembered 1000 years from now? Based on demography I'd pick that Chinese auxiliary cruiser that got into the Japanese invasion TF at Khota Baru. The Japanese gave that skipper a posthoumous decoration.

Based on actual accomplishments, my money would be on USS Enterprise.

Now i am really tired,i am stick to your claim of Rodney vs. Bismarck.
Speed is important.
Nelsons underwater protection is very bad against shells,i say shells not torpedoes because tese two things are not related,Bismarck can with ease put a shell in Rodney machinery because of bad underwater protection against shells.
Rodney main guns is also problem and furthermore apart from the bohemian layout (Citadel at the back, main armament forward) the turrets were not all superimposed (Ie C Turret was below the higher B Turret) This meant that the Nelsons could only bring all turrets to bear broadside or as near as.
So,i pick Bismarck over Rodney anytime.

South Dakota class is much better to confront Bismarck,but again its slower and Bismarck could penetrate SA armor just lke SA could penetrate Bismarck armor. Tirpitz is better option for fight against SA.
SA against Tirpitz ,i will choose Lonesome queen anytime.

Richelieu has problems with salvo spreading.

Dont forget that in last battle Bismarck gunners must fight against superior power and fatigue,these man are,before last battle occur spend 24 hours by the guns. Brittish also score lucky hit in last battle,in Bismarck one of stereoscopic range finders and since than every turret on Bismarck fires separately.

Put it this way,
Bismarck and Tirpitz encounter Rodney and Nelson on open sea.
I think 90% people will stick to Bismarck and Tirpitz because they will blow Nelsons.

I'd rather be on the Rodney or Nelson in that fight. [:D]