PDA

View Full Version : Germany's only carrier. What if...



Pages : [1] 2

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 01:26 AM
...Germany had completed and put to sea the Graf Zeppelin in 1942. Would it have changed anything? Would it have become the most hunted ship of WWII? Was it a silly idea?

Would have made for interesting conversation.

http://members.rogers.com/admfisher/grafzeppelin.gif


http://home.t-online.de/home/jgust/zeppeli2.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 01:26 AM
...Germany had completed and put to sea the Graf Zeppelin in 1942. Would it have changed anything? Would it have become the most hunted ship of WWII? Was it a silly idea?

Would have made for interesting conversation.

http://members.rogers.com/admfisher/grafzeppelin.gif


http://home.t-online.de/home/jgust/zeppeli2.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 01:35 AM
that is one formidable looking mutha

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 01:36 AM
Meh, I think its one of those wicked German experiments that were SO SO MUCH, but turned into so so little.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 01:37 AM
I had heard somewhere, that in the 30's when planes were being layed for ships such as the Bismark and the Graph Zeppelin Hitler told the Kreigsmarine that there would be no war before 1945. If this would have been true, Germany could maybe have built up a sufficient fleet to take on the British. But with the war coming so early, you could hardly say the Germans even had a real fleet. I dont think the addition of one aircraft carrier could have had that much effect on the war. I am sure it would have been the most hunted ship in the world, but if it could have joined up with the Tirpitz, it probably could have been very hard to beat. Without the protectoin of something like a battleship or a heavy destroyer, the Graf probably wouldnt have lasted long, but it with a full battle group, it could have been quite interesting.

--lbhkilla--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/FW190.jpg .

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G¶ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 01:40 AM
I wonder if the 109 could have made a good carrier fighter. What would Germany have stocked that baby with?>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 01:40 AM
I can just imagine that carrier, the Turpiz, Bizmark, and the prince Eugan (spelling) along with few U boats as a bloody vicious force to reckon with

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 01:44 AM
I agree... I don't think only one ship would've made much of a difference anyway... Now, with 6 you're talking /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor ="#2B497F";var oa=a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundPosition="center center";oa.backgroundRepeat="no-repeat";var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src='http://members.shaw.ca/cuski4678/avatar1.jpg';</script>

http://members.shaw.ca/cuski4678/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 01:44 AM
Vanity..

That is the only reason i can see for building that thing! Unless, of course, Germany had built a full scale navy. But even Tirpitz himself had to admitt that all Germany could hope to do was create a challenge in the north sea.

By the time it could have been finished it would have had no chance if it ventured out to sea. If war had started later, ie in 1945, Germany would still not have had enough of a navy to mount a significant challenge to the Brittish navy. Any effort to build a German navy would likely have led to a repeat of the arms race before the first war, and with, in all probability, very similar results.

You are right,' said Pangloss, 'for, when man was placed in the Garden of Eden, he was placed there ut operaretur eum, to dress it and keep it; which proves that man was not born for idleness.' 'Let us work without theorizing," said Martin, 'tis the only way to make life endurable.'"-- Voltaire, Candide

<img src =http://www.unicef.ca/eng/unicef/lessons/peace/images/peace.gif>

"There's only one culture: strangle the last priest with the entrails of the last Rosicrucian."
-- Foucault's Pendulum, Chapter 33

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 01:46 AM
The German battle fleet would still have had to escape from the North Sea to reach the Atlantic. Now for a single ship to do, as was proven, not that hard, but for a fleet of 30 or so ships, nope.

In WW1, at Jutland, the German High Seas Fleet, which was technically better, could not defeat the British Grand Fleet.




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 01:50 AM
Imagine the complaining of the 190's view if you had to land it on a boat.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 01:53 AM
When I was young, I want it in some old navy simulations so bad that I talked with some game developers, Most answers was that German have Carriers is bad idea because of Altanta ocean always have storms as British have carriers because of empire run some colonies in whole world so need go everywhere. However with German's advanced submarine model XXI in late war will choke British for sure.http://uboat.net/types/illustrations/xxi_2d.gif


I rather have U-boat because use less metal and less manpower and save extra metal for advanced tanks and jet engines.

Regards
SnowLeopard

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:07 AM
Wasn't a 109 naval variant designated? 109T, maybe?

God, the 109 would have been the worst naval fighter imaginable. I couldn't name a worse plane to base off of a carrier.




---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:10 AM
It's an interesting question..

but you only had to look at the british royal navy.. the size of just the home fleet was vastly larger than the entire german navy. Plus they had dedicated & proven aircraft for the aircraft carriers like seafires and sea hurricanes. The reason Germany relied on U-boats was no secret... its Navy force just wasn't big enough.

And then the US with its excellent carrier planes.. its probably just as well the Graf Zepplin carrier was never launched.


--------------------------------------
We should have all the generalizing extremists taken out and shot.
--------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:10 AM
the fighter was the Bf109T

an Emil with a little bit larger wingspan, 11,08 instead of 9,90.

the T-1 had full carriers stuff , like landing hook.
there was no need for them and they were made to T-2 , no Carrier stuff, BUT with the longer wings. ~70 were build
they saw service with one fightergroup - as i remember on of the JG77 in Norway.
ore this one http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/helgoland.html

and there were a Stuka version with folded wings !


and yes, IF that ship had been ever in service, it would have been the MOST wanted ship for the Royal Navy!
and i think with little chances to survive.



&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFFFF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#000000";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User
Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>
&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src='http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/IIIJG53/bird3.jpg';o.height=65;o.width=65</script>
&lt;script>color="#000000";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-4].bgColor=color;a[a.length-5].bgColor=color;a[a.length-8].bgColor=color</script>
&lt;script>var a=document.body.getElementsByTagName("u");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf["O")!=-1)a[i].style.color="#000080"}</script>
&lt;script>color="white";a=document.all.tags('table')
;a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;</script>
<img src=http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/Links/link_iiijjg53.jpg alt="III/JG53"> (http://www.jagdgeschwader53.de)

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:12 AM
Tsoman wrote:
- I wonder if the 109 could have made a good carrier
- fighter. What would Germany have stocked that baby
- with?>

Bf-109T, basically a navalized Bf-109E-4 IIRC.

Along with a folding wing version of the Stuka.

-

Not sure how well a Bf-109T would do as a Naval fighter. Probably not much worse than the early Seafires.

I wouldn't want to be more than a few miles from my carrier in any plane with a liquid cooled engine, though.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:16 AM
I would agree. Carrier aircraft needed VERY HEAVY and wide landing gear. From all the indications I have heard, the 109's gear was anything but heavy and wide. I think the 190 with folding wings would be an awesome carrier based aircraft. Radial, add more fuel for range, and lots of firepower. Like the F4U. I also agree that 1 ship would not matter. The German fleet as it was had no matter on the war other then jucy targets like the Bizmark and Tripitz. Only the subs posed a great threat, and even that was quashed by mid to late war.

Gib

cowace2 wrote:
- Wasn't a 109 naval variant designated? 109T, maybe?
-
- God, the 109 would have been the worst naval fighter
- imaginable. I couldn't name a worse plane to base
- off of a carrier.
-
-
-
-
-
----------------------------------
-
- From a big bird in the sky,
- All will jump and some will die.
- Off to battle we will go,
- To live or die, hell, I don't know.
- Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
- Queen of Battle, follow me!
- An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
- Oh, nothing in this world is free.
-
- Cowace2
- Commanding Officer
- 7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"
-
- http://www.7jg77.com
-



"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:24 AM
The Fw-190A, with a better wing to lower landing speeds may have been ok. But given a bigger folding wing, and the extra weight of general "navalization", I would foresee a huge performance decrease. Probably a better choice than the Bf-109, though.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:24 AM
What did the Royal Navy have for carriers in the Atlantic or North Sea? I havent heard too much about their action. The Bismark almost broke out, and if it wasnt for its lack of air cover, it probably would have. A carrier would have given it a much better fighting chance. The fighters could deal with Royal Navy fighters, while the Bismark could make damn sure not Navy ships got too close to that flattop. Dont know what wouldve happened, but sure wouldve made one hell of a battle.

--lbhkilla--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/FW190.jpg .

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G¶ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:37 AM
heres the Carrierwing- they never got their planes , T-1 and 87C /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.ww2.dk/air/seefl/trgr186.htm



btw, if the carrier would have been in service 1940 with Bf109T-1 , imagine the fighters of the RN carriers:
i have Fulmars & Skuas in my mind - and as the counterpart of the Ju87C the Swordfish !! not realy frightend for a Bf109T-1 pilot.

didnt know when the first Seahurricanes (but they had already a hard time in the BoB aginst Emils) ore Martlets came in RN service.

nevertheless, the Navyplans of the Kriegsmarine were , to say it nice, very optimistic in building big ships: the Bismarck class and the GZ were only the begining /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
but the realities of war cancelt these planes of a huge Battlefleet with very big Battleships and Carriers.

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFFFF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#000000";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User
Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>
&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src='http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/IIIJG53/bird3.jpg';o.height=65;o.width=65</script>
&lt;script>color="#000000";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-4].bgColor=color;a[a.length-5].bgColor=color;a[a.length-8].bgColor=color</script>
&lt;script>var a=document.body.getElementsByTagName("u");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf["O")!=-1)a[i].style.color="#000080"}</script>
&lt;script>color="white";a=document.all.tags('table')
;a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;</script>
<img src=http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/Links/link_iiijjg53.jpg alt="III/JG53"> (http://www.jagdgeschwader53.de)

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:41 AM
Could it have been in service in 1940?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:46 AM
before / during 1942

HMS Illustrious 5th April 1939
HMS Victorious 14th September 1939
HMS Formidable 17th August 1939
HMS Indomitable 26th March 1940
HMS Unicorn 20th November 1941
HMS Attacker 27th September 1941
HMS Battler 4th April 1942
HMS Chaser 15th January 1942
HMS Fencer 4th April 1942
HMS Pursuer 18th July 1942
HMS Stalker 5th March 1942
HMS Striker 7th May 1942
HMS Tracker 7th March 1942
HMS Ameer 18th October 1942
HMS Atheling 7th September 1942
HMS Begum 11th November 1942
HMS Emperor 7th October 1942
HMS Empress 30th December 1942
HMS Khedive 27th December 1942
HMS Searcher 20th June 1942
HMS Slinger 15th December 1942
HMS Trumpeter 15th December 1942
HMS Archer 14th December 1939
HMS Avenger 27th November 1940 Sunk 15th November 1942
HMS Biter 18th December 1940
HMS Dasher 12th April 1942 Sunk 27th March 1943
HMS Eagle 8th June 1918 Sunk by U-73 on 11th August 1942
HMS Hermes 11th September 1919 Sunk by Japanese aircraft 9th April 1942


lbhskier37 wrote:
- What did the Royal Navy have for carriers in the
- Atlantic or North Sea?




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg


Message Edited on 06/19/0309:48PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:53 AM
Wow, lots of carriers. How many were in Pacific/Indian?

--lbhkilla--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/FW190.jpg .

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G¶ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:54 AM
I don't think WW2 era submarines, (U-boats or any other nations subs) would have made usable escort vessels for a surface battle fleet.

Top speed was around what, about 18-20 knots on the surface and less than 10 submerged? That's awful slow for surface ships like carriers and cruisers to be travelling in a war zone.



Regards,
August

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];}</script>

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://publish.hometown.aol.com/dsterl7739/images/lwshield4.gif'</script>&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

&lt;script>s="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/dsterl7739/images/il2%20sig2.jpg";a=doc.all.tags("table");oa = a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundImage="url("+s+")"</script>

&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#6F8D6B";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFF00";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#475147";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#475147";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#475147";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#475147";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:16 AM
the bismark could not help in defending a german aircraft carrier. remember how the bismark died... it lost its rudder to BI PLANE ATTACKS...this is ALL from memory of reading so correct me if im wrong but bi planes crippled the bismark and made it easy prey. freekin bi planes. the carrier would have lasted one day on the high seas...just long enough to be spotted and the british would have sent every torpedo aircraft they had to sink it and the bismark defending it and any other ship defending the carrier. it would have been a new national holiday for britain. in fact the germans might as well tie balloons all over any carrier they launched cuz the british woulda had a party kickin its backside. just start reading history guys and then take a guesstimate at how badly the germans would have lost. say ALL you want about the airwar but the germans had zero chance in any fleet engagement against the Royal British Navy.oh yea and as to ME109s on carriers? LOL ! remember that one third of all 109 losses were due to take offs and landings! now imagine doing it on a deck moving 20 miles an hour forwards and sideways with rocking and ocean winds to boot! i estimate they would have lost 80 percent of their 109s to take offs and landings... maybe more. thats the LAST plane you want on a carrier. and stukas? on carriers? cannon fodder. they would have had to use their fw190s and i dont know how well that would have worked. any ideas on that ?

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:17 AM
And you missed the Ark Royal. WHich was kind of erm sunk by erm.... er.... our own torpedo in a Naval display in i think was 1942. She sank with all her aircraft of board, oh bum me thinks. Now that is the ultimate friendly fire

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:25 AM
Don't forget RedDeth that those slow little Swordfish torpedo planes that hit the Bismark would have never made it near her if there were German carrier AC in the area.

Generally though you're right. The Royal Navy against the Kriegsmarine slugging it out toe to toe in a fleet sized surface battle would have definitely been a British victory even if the Germans had 10 more years to build up her surface forces.


Regards,
August

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];}</script>

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://publish.hometown.aol.com/dsterl7739/images/lwshield4.gif'</script>&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

&lt;script>s="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/dsterl7739/images/il2%20sig2.jpg";a=doc.all.tags("table");oa = a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundImage="url("+s+")"</script>

&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#6F8D6B";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFF00";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#475147";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#475147";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#475147";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#475147";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:32 AM
well i beg to differ...What german carrier aircraft? what would they have used? and those german aircraft would have been engaged by every single spitfire and hurricane the british had.... the swordfish would have walked right in unopposed....they fly too slow for the bismark to shoot down...same would have applied to the carrier.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:37 AM
lbhskier37 wrote:
- Wow, lots of carriers. How many were in
- Pacific/Indian?
-

Most were 'escort' type carriers and served in the Atlantic. They carried a minimum of 24 a/c.


In Sept 1939, the RN had:

15 Battleships & battlecruisers
7 Aircraft carriers
66 Cruisers
184 Destroyers
60 Submarines
45 escort and patrol vessels

You might find these sites of interest http://www.naval-history.net/index.htm
http://www.german-navy.de/marine.htm

I can't find what the Kriegsmarine had in 1939.




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:38 AM
Also, if Bismarck were to escort, and be escorted by, a carrier, the idiot Admiral (forgot name) probably would have seen the need to fill his/her fuel tanks. The Bismarck had to slow down to conserve fuel.

Also, a carrier would not have allowed that PBY to get close to the Bismarck. But then, if a PBY reported single engine German fighters in the middle of the Atlantic, that would give a rough idea where the carrier was located.

Interesting scenarios.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:40 AM
Well the premise of this thread is a German carrier what if scenario.

Also if the Bismark and the Prince Eugen could break out into the open Atlantic in spite of British efforts, then why not a German carrier as well?

As for German carrier AC being engaged by British AC, perhaps you could tell me what air assets the British had in the North Atlantic besides those from the Ark Royal?

Finally as for what German carrier AC doncha think that if a carrier was going to be a reality the Germans would have developed a decent AC to go with it?

Regards,
August

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];}</script>

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://publish.hometown.aol.com/dsterl7739/images/lwshield4.gif'</script>&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

&lt;script>s="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/dsterl7739/images/il2%20sig2.jpg";a=doc.all.tags("table");oa = a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundImage="url("+s+")"</script>

&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#6F8D6B";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFF00";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#475147";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#475147";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#475147";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#475147";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:43 AM
No I did not./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ARK ROYAL, Aircraft carrier (22,000t, 1938) Torpedoed (13th) by U-boat and sunk, W Mediterranean, 41/11/14

So she is not around in 1942./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Arm_slinger wrote:
- And you missed the Ark Royal. WHich was kind of erm
- sunk by erm.... er.... our own torpedo in a Naval
- display in i think was 1942. She sank with all her
- aircraft of board, oh bum me thinks. Now that is the
- ultimate friendly fire
-
-




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:44 AM
it would have helped the Jap Navy more the German

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:56 AM
bismark couldnt shoot the torpeo bombers because they flew too low , their guns couldnt not be brought to bear on them.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:58 AM
HMS Victorious for one./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


LW_August wrote:

-
- As for German carrier AC being engaged by British
- AC, perhaps you could tell me what air assets the
- British had in the North Atlantic besides those from
- the Ark Royal?
-
-

The GZ could only carry 40 a/c - Me109T fighter aircraft(22), Ju 87 C dive bomber(18) and Fi 167 torpedo bomber and reconnaissance planes(10).




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:04 AM
Hey, i was only saying that had the swordfish attack been contested by German air assets it probably wouldn't have been successful.

Sorry I got the name of the carrier wrong, sue me.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Regards,
August

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];}</script>

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://publish.hometown.aol.com/dsterl7739/images/lwshield4.gif'</script>&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

&lt;script>s="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/dsterl7739/images/il2%20sig2.jpg";a=doc.all.tags("table");oa = a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundImage="url("+s+")"</script>

&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#6F8D6B";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFF00";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#475147";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#475147";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#475147";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#475147";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:10 AM
Other than shock factor and tying up Royal Naval assets for a short time all of Germany's big ships where an amazing waste of assets, men, machines, ammo, reasources, fuel, and shipyard space.

Germany's naval branch was torn between logical thinkers and those that where still in love with the big guns on the big ships.

A more suited surface raider would have been a vessel near the light cruiser range. With german engineering I'm sure they could have given it the durability of a heavy cruiser and retained the speed of a light with its much cheaper construction cost and time. The guns of a Frigate are more than a match for a merchant vessel and a light/heavy cruiser could have easily evaded escorts while picking off merchant vessels, especially if utilized in 2 or 3 ship packs.

In the 16th century the English had long ago figured out that if you don't have the time and infastructure to outbuild an opponent of same class ships (Spanish Galleons) then many more quicker to build smaller ships are better than a few large time consuming vessels.

Imagine the horror 2 Hipper class Cruisers combined with a Niobe type AAA conversion cruiser could have inflicted on convoys.




http://cragger.freeservers.com/images/il2_sig_1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:19 AM
HellToupee wrote:
- bismark couldnt shoot the torpeo bombers because
- they flew too low , their guns couldnt not be
- brought to bear on them.
-


cow dung!

With the 16 37mm, 12 20mm and 16 105mm designated AA guns. Were the Germans that stupid not to expect no torpedo attacks?




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:20 AM
helltoupee you are incorrect. the swordfish flew soooo slow the german guns on the bismark literally couldnt track them. altitude had nothing to do with it

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 06:15 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- before / during 1942
-
- HMS Illustrious 5th April 1939
- HMS Victorious 14th September 1939
- HMS Formidable 17th August 1939
- HMS Indomitable 26th March 1940
- HMS Unicorn 20th November 1941
- HMS Attacker 27th September 1941
- HMS Battler 4th April 1942
- HMS Chaser 15th January 1942
- HMS Fencer 4th April 1942
- HMS Pursuer 18th July 1942
- HMS Stalker 5th March 1942
- HMS Striker 7th May 1942
- HMS Tracker 7th March 1942
- HMS Ameer 18th October 1942
- HMS Atheling 7th September 1942
- HMS Begum 11th November 1942
- HMS Emperor 7th October 1942
- HMS Empress 30th December 1942
- HMS Khedive 27th December 1942
- HMS Searcher 20th June 1942
- HMS Slinger 15th December 1942
- HMS Trumpeter 15th December 1942
- HMS Archer 14th December 1939
- HMS Avenger 27th November 1940 Sunk 15th November
- 1942
- HMS Biter 18th December 1940
- HMS Dasher 12th April 1942 Sunk 27th March 1943
- HMS Eagle 8th June 1918 Sunk by U-73 on 11th
- August 1942
- HMS Hermes 11th September 1919 Sunk by Japanese
- aircraft 9th April 1942


These are their launching date and not of their commission or entry in service.

In service at the beginning of 1942

HMS Argus (old but very slow WW1 carrier)
HMS Hermes (slow small carrier)
HMS Eagle (in refit)
HMS Furious (old but fast WW1 carrier)

HMS Illustrious (fleet carrier)
HMS Victorious
HMS Formidable
HMS Indomitable


HMS Archer (US-build escort carrier)

<center>Qui vainc sans risque triomphe sans gloire.</center>
<center>http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/images/tempestv_t.jpg </center>



Message Edited on 06/20/0301:16AM by eiffel68

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 07:15 AM
Well, the Hermes, Indomintable, and Formidable were all sent to the Pacific in 1942 to combat the IJN in the Indian Ocean (with the Victoris following in 1943), while the Airgroups carred by the Argus and Eagle (for that matter the Hermes as well) were something of a joke in terms of carrier vs. carrier war, consisting almost exclusively of Swordfish. It is possible that the British would have had only two carrier available capable taking on the Graf Zepplin alone.

On the other hand, sneaking an entire carrier task force into the North Atlantic through one of the northern gaps (such as the Denmark straights) would have been near impossible without running into strong British surface and carrier forces, bringing ona general engagement that, no matter how won, would probably prevent the carrier from commerce raiding. On the other hand, while it might be able to slip out alone or with only a couple of small escorts, such a force would have been extremely vulnerable to submarine or surface force attacks (the Germans by 1942 had already sunk carriers by both methods). If confronted with heavy surface forces (BBs, BCs, or CAs), it is doubtful that the airgroup onboard the Graf Zepplin (likely about 20-25 Ju-87s and 10-15 Bf-109Ts) would have been able to defend it from such a force. Carrier aircraft were amazingly ineffective against heavy ships manuvering at sea. It took over 40 G3Ms to sink the BC Repulse and the BB Prince of Wales in 1941, and after that, the IJN carrier arm never again sank an enemy battleship. The German anti-shipping Ju-87 unit involved in the campaign against Malta likewise saw very limited success (under circumstances much more favorable to itself than any carrier-based Stuka unit would have enjoyed, such as a fixed base, abilitiy to conduct repeated attacks against enemy ships in confined waters sailing along to a known objective, little enemy CAP), and still they failed to sink a carrier or battleship. While US carrier planes did sink several IJN Battleships, anywhere from 4-20 carriers could be involved in these efforts, each with a strike force that would equal or surpass that of the Graf Zepplin.

Also, consider the fact that the Germand would have nad no trained carrier pilots when their carrier was launched. The RN, USN, and IJN had all been training carrier pilots for 20 years before World War II broke out and consequently had proficient carrier pilots. The Germans, who would have been starting from scratch, would have been hardpressed to actualy operate their carrier effectivle in combat much before 1944, by which time the presence of one lone carrier able to carry about 45 planes would have amounted to little more than a nuisance.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 08:00 AM
The Swordfish being so slow that German gunners couldn't track it is I'm afraid a famous myth.
If I recall correctly it started as a joke to re-assure the pilots. I have seen several interviews with both pilots and gunners stating this. To be honest it doesn't really make sense either. If you had a fast firing gun what difference would a slow speed target have on you .

I still think the Swordfish is a really odd aircraft. People look at it and tend to rubbish it. However despite being largely obsolete by the wars commencement it proved difficult to replace. Carrier combat was one area where its slow speed proved helpful after all they took off and landed slowly. While they may have been vulnerable to fighters I can't think of too many Torpedo Bombers ( carrier based ) that weren't. Midway being a good example.

Am looking forward to one being in game !

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 08:08 AM
RedDeth wrote:

- just start reading history guys and then take a
- guesstimate at how badly the germans would have
- lost. say ALL you want about the airwar but the
- germans had zero chance in any fleet engagement
- against the Royal British Navy.



Maybe its up to you to do some reading.

Start with the Norway operations, where the german Navy acted quite successful, continue with the heavy losses the RN suffered during the evacuation-operations, then go on and read about the operations of "Admiral Scheer", Scharnhorst", Gneisenau" and "Admiral Hipper" in the Atlantic in 1940/41. Even the story of the raid of "Bismarck" and "Prinz Eugen" was an example for that, for the RN needed a LOT of luck to get them despite their numerious superiority.


As for the "Graf Zeppelin" I`m quite sure the british would have find ways to avoid its actions. The germans realized that and deleted the project.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 08:19 AM
leonid05 wrote:
-
--
- Maybe its up to you to do some reading.
-
- Start with the Norway operations, where the german
- Navy acted quite successful, continue with the heavy
- losses the RN suffered during the
- evacuation-operations, then go on and read about the
- operations of "Admiral Scheer", Scharnhorst",
- Gneisenau" and "Admiral Hipper" in the Atlantic in
- 1940/41. Even the story of the raid of "Bismarck"
- and "Prinz Eugen" was an example for that, for the
- RN needed a LOT of luck to get them despite their
- numerious superiority.
-
-

The Norway Operation was everything but a success for the Kriegsmarine according to everything I read. Look at the losses. The only "success" was in helping the troops land & fight. But the cost was enormous.

The KG could never achieve a real offensive role.
Only the submarines achieved durably a threat to shipping.

This said, the actual use of the few assets was sometimes very good/lucky. As the fate of the PQ-17 demonstrated.

The existence of the threat can play a bigger role than the actual activation of this threat.


And Leonid, numerical superiority is nothing if you cannot find your ennemy.....Once they were found by an actual superior force, they were lost.

<Center>



http://www.wingman-fr.net/fzg/forum/images/smiles/sm167.gif

1.5/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos
(but working on it /i/smilies/16x16_robot-tongue.gif - Woot! 7.25 points awarded make 8.75/10)

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 08:30 AM
The "Graf Zepplin" only made sense for the Germans if Sea Lion had succeeded and Britain had fallen.

Once Britain was out of the way any German naval presence would have needed a carrier. While britain held the "Graf Zepplin" was useless.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 08:34 AM
Germany had a bunch of carriers chimp i seen it on wings yesterday the graf zepplin was the biggest they said and the only name they mentioned

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter


&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];}</script>
&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src='http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/Leadsk1.gif'</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 08:36 AM
i thought Doenitz managed to diverge all the efforts that went into building up a conventional navy into building up the u-boats and their infrastructure?

an aircraft carrier would have looked the most superfluous of all efforts in that light.

<center>Another BlitzPig</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 08:41 AM
NN_Veverka wrote:

- The Norway Operation was everything but a success
- for the Kriegsmarine according to everything I read.
- Look at the losses. The only "success" was in
- helping the troops land & fight. But the cost was
- enormous.


That exactly was their job, and they did it good. Not only that, they had to cover the actions of the landing troops, and together with the Luftwaffe`s actions the RN never had a chance to defeat the germans.

You`re right about the losses, the german navy had to reorganize completely after the Norway raid. In autumn 1940 they started operations in the Atlantic, again with good success.


- The KG could never achieve a real offensive role.
- Only the submarines achieved durably a threat to
- shipping.
-
- This said, the actual use of the few assets was
- sometimes very good/lucky. As the fate of the PQ-17
- demonstrated.


Wouldn`t you call the actions in the Atlantic "offensive"?
And remember that it was never the strategy of the german navy to fight the RN. They had to avoid it strictly, for very well reasons.
But according to the quote I was referring to, the "Marine" was completely crap. Well, it was NOT.


- The existence of the threat can play a bigger role
- than the actual activation of this threat.


True. "Tirpitz" was a good example.


- And Leonid, numerical superiority is nothing if you
- cannot find your ennemy.....Once they were found by
- an actual superior force, they were lost.


Not necessarily, as the "Bismarck"-raid showed.
It was detected several times and lost again.
It needed a VERY lucky shot to get it, and it was the last opportunity to do so. Otherwise it had managed to reach Brest and fighter cover.

And again refering to the post I quoted, the RN believed it would be enough to use the "Prince of Wales" and the "Hood" to fight the "Bismarck". Easy match, so to say. Well, you know the outcome.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:23 AM
One of the most stupid ideas was to let the bismark drive around without a convoy. usually such battleships have a convoi don't they? I think the aircraft carrier, together with some light ships to protect it and the Bismark as the main battleship would have been a problem for the british. the british were lucky to get the Bismarck. The torpedos didn't really harm the ship. just this lucky shot into its only vulnerable part and the pilot who fired said in an interview i saw that he just closed hsi eyes and dropped and was surprised that he was still alive when he opened them again. after this hit the bismarck could only drive in circles because it's rudder got stuck. and then the british needed lots of ships and couple of hours to "convince" the germans that they can not get away from them because of the destroyed rudder. the whole royal navy in that area was not able to do any major damage to the ship. then the germans destroyed it themselves cause they didn't want the british to get it.

If you have such a ship plus a convoy i think the british could have sent whatever they wanted at that time. the germans thought their ship is so good that they can send it to france alone. no one thought that a tiny plane will hit the tiny rudder in the back with a torpedo because the ship was kinda immune against torpedos.

http://www.just-pooh.com/images/eten.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:40 AM
My opinion regarding the inital question is:

If the Graf Zeppelin had been finished, it would have posed a real thread to allied shipping in the North Atlantik. I personally consider the Graf Zeppelin to be a bigger problem than the Bismarck. One of my book states that it has a top speed of 38 knots, which makes it faster than any British ship incl. destroyers. Chances for a succesfull brakethrough are there. As a raider it would have been at least as efficient as a battleship or cruiser.

However, I think it would have shared the Bismarcks fate. RN was strong in 1942, USN added their share and even if it had taken longer to find and hunt down the Graf, it eventually would have ended with the sinking of the German ship.

Regarding he Battle of the North Atlantic in general: This battle was a lot closer than most of you seem to think. It wasn't by much and the German had won. Now imagine a UK without supplies or an eastern front without supplies. The war would have taken a totally different course. Now I don't think the Graf Zeppelin would have made the difference, but it could have made the difference. It's more likely than an enamy U-Boat in Scapa Flow.
Regarding the timetables: If the German Navy had had more time for preperation, it would have posed a more than serious thread to Allied shipping. This is not about surface action, but about the U-Boat. Imagine the war had started in Sept. 1941, the U-Boat arm three times as strong, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Bismarck and Tirptiz in service...the Battle of the River Plate had gone a different way if the German part had been more than a heavy cruiser. Again, the Battle in the North Atlantic was very close. The Kriegsmarine grew by a 100% in the first two years, the RN didn't. This could easily have changed the outcome.

Regarding Battle of Jutland: Nice try, Milo. "In WW1, at Jutland, the German High Seas Fleet, which was technically better, could not defeat the British Grand Fleet." Maybe individual ships were technologically better than individual British ships, but the Fleet certainly wasn't. How many Pre-dreadnoughts took part in the battle on the British side? And how come the Britsh fleet was roughly twice the size of the German? Are you telling me (and everybody else) the entire superior German fleet went out to annihilate the inferior British fleet (which was actually twice the size a more modern?) They didn't achieve that so it was a lost battle?
Man, the half-as-big German fleet sank twice as many ships as it lost. They kicked butt (before they ran).
The Hochseeflotte never attempted a direct slug it out type of battle because the Germans knew they coudln't win. The entire Battle of Jutland shows this. When the Germans realized that they were fighting a bit more than Beatty's Battlecruiser they only tried to escape.So you are wrong in two points: "technically better" and "could not defeat". 1st because it wasn't, 2nd would be true if they had tried, but they didn't.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 12:43 PM
JtD,

have you read "Jutland - An Analsis of the Fighting" by John Campbell? ISBN 0-87021-324-5 If not, I suggest you do. It is an un-biased account and is highly regarded.


The Germans plan was to engage part of the British fleet under conditions of local superiority.

pg 10

"As origianally planned, the German battle cruisers, with the modern light cruisers of the 2cd Scouting Group and 3 fast destroyer flotillas, were to be off Sunderland at dawn and carry out a bombardment. This was expected to draw out part of the British fleet, and to help destroy it, the remainder of the High Seas Fleet with the rest of the light cruisers and destroyers, would be in a position between Flamborough head and the SW patch of the Dogger Bank. The High Seas Fleet submarines would be stationed off Scapa Flow, the Moray Firth and Humber, and to the north of Terschelling, while the submarines of the Flanders flotilla would be off the Thames, and the channels to some bases would be mined by minelaying submarine. All airships were to take part, to guard against a surprise from the Grand Fleet."

The rest is history and the High Seas Fleet never left port again until sailing to Scapa Flow.

How many British pre-dreadnaughts took part > none. Not even HMS Dreadnaught herself.




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 01:31 PM
JtD wrote:
- When the Germans realized that they were
- fighting a bit more than Beatty's Battlecruiser they
- only tried to escape.So you are wrong in two points:
- "technically better" and "could not defeat". 1st
- because it wasn't, 2nd would be true if they had
- tried, but they didn't.
-

One can argue about the relative merits of British/German WW1 battleships, but the German Battlecruisers were simply the best in that time. They took very heavy fighting, first against the British BCs, then the fast BBs that accompanied them, and later on the whole British battle line. But all of them could save their crews, Lutzow being the only one which slowly sunk, on it`s return voyage, but the crew could be saved.

The German strategy was simple: defeat the RN in seperate battles, so that British numerical superiority couldn`t be used. When they realized that in fact the whole Grand Fleet was there, they turned back and awaited for another opportunity. But that never came, both Scheer and Beatty was too cautious. Scheer was concerned about if he has to face the whole RN at one time, and Beatty understood that he could loose the whole war in a single battle, even during Skagerrak he was concerned with the Germans would lure him into an ambush of submarines, minefields etc.. He didn`t want ot risk and turned back as well. The British would feel more the loss of their fleet, than the Germans, it was more important to them. In the end, Skagerrak turned out to be a tactical German victory, but strategically it didnt changed anything.

BTW, it`s ironical that the British named the BC Hood after the commander who led the British Battlecruisers in the battle and died when his battlecruiser suffered a magazine explosion and the whole ship cracked into two...the very same thing happened to the HMS hood 25 years later, it`s magazine exploded, the ship cracked into two. Nomen est omen!

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 01:46 PM
- Arm_slinger wrote:
-- And you missed the Ark Royal. WHich was kind of erm
-- sunk by erm.... er.... our own torpedo in a Naval
-- display in i think was 1942. She sank with all her
-- aircraft of board, oh bum me thinks. Now that is the
-- ultimate friendly fire


*taking on the swimming-suit and the snorkle, holding a Seafire flight-manual in the hand*

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.chrissi007.de/jabog32)

Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu

Come As You Are !

http://www.jg68.de.vu

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:20 PM
that was the biggest amount of BS i've ever read.

1: The bismark was attacked by many! Bi_planes, and theyr AA-Gunnery was not up to date (they used the old one, cause the new one was not aviable for now & Hitler wanted to complete the ship NOW)

2: they menaged to avoid Torpedo-Hits by manouvering

3: 1 single Torpedo-Hit destroyed a part of the rudder system (every ship gets into trubble if an torpedo hit the rudder)

4: the germans sunk the bismark them-selfes, some years ago they found the sunken ship, there was no damage on the main Hull

5: The Graf-Zeppelin was a verry modern carrier, it used steam to start the planes!

6: the germans did not want to attack the entire british fleet, they just wanted that the british fleet has no fuel, and then they'd attack them by the Luftwaffe + Naval-forces

7: many of the 109 get lost during accidents in 44 and later because the pilots were poor trained this time. The Luftwaffe already trained pilots (a special unit) to land & start form a carrier

8: You say stukas are cannon fodder, well some stukas were able to sunk the MARAT and do heavy damage on a British Carrier which was crusing in the Mediterranean.

9: it was 1940 an the war just begun, tell me what carrier Aircraft were in use by the Royal-Navy or the US-Navy ?


"RedDeath

the bismark could not help in defending a german aircraft carrier. remember how the bismark died... it lost its rudder to BI PLANE ATTACKS...this is ALL from memory of reading so correct me if im wrong but bi planes crippled the bismark and made it easy prey. freekin bi planes. the carrier would have lasted one day on the high seas...just long enough to be spotted and the british would have sent every torpedo aircraft they had to sink it and the bismark defending it and any other ship defending the carrier. it would have been a new national holiday for britain. in fact the germans might as well tie balloons all over any carrier they launched cuz the british woulda had a party kickin its backside. just start reading history guys and then take a guesstimate at how badly the germans would have lost. say ALL you want about the airwar but the germans had zero chance in any fleet engagement against the Royal British Navy.oh yea and as to ME109s on carriers? LOL ! remember that one third of all 109 losses were due to take offs and landings! now imagine doing it on a deck moving 20 miles an hour forwards and sideways with rocking and ocean winds to boot! i estimate they would have lost 80 percent of their 109s to take offs and landings... maybe more. thats the LAST plane you want on a carrier. and stukas? on carriers? cannon fodder. they would have had to use their fw190s and i dont know how well that would have worked. any ideas on that ? "

<div style="text-align: center;">
<hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;">
<a href="http://ifh.firstones.com" target=_blank><img src=http://ifh.firstones.com/img/banners/banner01.jpg border=0<>

Message Edited on 06/20/0301:25PM by ToP_BlackSheep

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:53 PM
I agree with you, Chimp - a navalised Fw190A probably
would have been better. They could have reduced the
navalised weight by leaving off the outer set of
guns. The armament would have still been fairly good.

The 109's weak and narrow gear wasn't much worse
than that of the Spitfires. It was in some senses
an advantage in rough landings, in that the gear
would collapse, rather than there being a danger
of nosing over in rough field landings at night.
As to whether this advantage makes up for day-to-day
failures is not something I'd like to put my neck out
on.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:55 PM
Hehe, I am suprised to find such an amount of naval experts in that thread /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bismarck's rudder hit was a lucky shot, nothing more, nothing less. The whole Bismarck episode was a chain of coincidences.
Regarding Skagerrak (as Germans call that Battle in 1916) Leonid allready said what needed to be said. The german navy performed brilliantly that day.

Regarding the Graf Zeppelin, it wasnt the "only" carrier, it was just the only one to be in any stage close to completion. Carrier "B", to be named "Peter Strasser" (Zeppelin Commander of WW1) was planned as well, and was even begun before 1939. The Z-Plan included 4 aircraft carriers. Zeppelin was mainly to be used as a ship to try out tactics and methods in which the german navy had zero experience. So I suppose, if completed, Graf Zeppelin would have spent at least a year or more in the Baltics, training tactics and crews. By that time, more advanced carrier aircraft like the Me 155 fighter would have been available (the Me 155 later mutated into the Blohm&Voss BV 155 high altitude fighter, the prototype is stored at NASM). During the war, after Pearl Harbor and other successful japanese Carrier operations, D¶nitz became interested in carriers. In 1943 there was a carrier program, with completion of Graf Zeppelin and the Conversion of serveral other ships. Candidates were the liner Europa, the gutted Battleship Gneisenau, the incomplete Cruiser Seydlitz or the Liner Gneisenau (whose sistership Scharnhorst had been converted into an escort carrier by the IJN)
Operationally, I guess the carrier would have been used to provide recon and fighter support to a battleship group, preferrably Bismarck and Tirpitz. I dont know what sea endurance Zeppelin had, but since she was fitted with the same high temperature steam turbines as the liners Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (NOT the Battleships, there were two passenger liners with the same name) it must have been not so great, since they used a lot of fuel.
Anyway, the german approach to carrier was equal to the british method: Using a carrier as a support vessel for Battle Groups to provide recon and defense and a limited strike capacity. Not as a seperate group with the carriers as primary weapon like the Japanese and later the Americans used them.
Zeppelin was a "british" type carrier with lots of armor and limited plane capacity. In that role, she would have been quite effective. At least a completed carrier would have compelled the RN to use its fleet carriers as convoy escort in the Atlantic, which would have meant they could not be used in the mediterranean.
Zeppelins aircraft were superior in performance to all british carrier aircraft. The 109T was equal in performance to the late Emils, but had better landing characteristics. Sea Gladiators/Hurricanes or Fulmars would have had no chance against it. The Ju 87 was a proven design which was as stable and easy to fly as an aircraft can be. The Fi 167 was at least faster than a Swordfish. The Croatians liked the 167, which had marvellous STOL characteristics, almost like a Storch. The rear gunner of one of these planes shot down an RAF Mustang, btw /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Generally, with all you "glorious RN sinks it anyway" phantasies. At sea, the major problem is spotting something. Only after you did that, you can attack it. And finding something on the vast Atlantic at that time was an almost unsolvable problem. You always quote the Bismarck, but apart from the Bismarck and the Graf Spee (which was reported by a steamer it had just sunk), the RN was never able to catch any german surface Warship on the open Atlantic. Neither the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst, nor the Admiral Scheer, nor the Lützow or the Prinz Eugen after it seperated from Bismarck. The ocean is a damned large place and finding a tiny dot in it was close to impossible in the pre radar age.

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg


Message Edited on 06/20/0301:58PM by theRealAntEater

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:11 PM
The Bismark is an odd tale because it has been proven the crew scuttled the ship themselves. A CRV exploration of the wreck shows that there is no battle damage below the water line, her armor belt is intact so the only explanation is the crew opened the seavalves like they had long maintained. The torpedo that caused the fatal damage struck the armor belt but did not penetrate, however the concussion wave jammed the rudder into the screw.

A good account of the Bismark's tale can be found here.
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/bismarck_menu.html

There is no doubt that the German shipyards put out amazingly well built ships. The Scharnhorst shows this well, hit by 11 out of 55 torpedos fired at her, pummeled by the Duke of York and her escorts as well as 3 cruisers that escorted the eastern convoy her guns continued to fire until the end, which by investigation of the wreck was caused by a massive explosion forward that tore off everything forward of the bridge.

http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/scharnhorst/scharnhorst_menu.html

http://cragger.freeservers.com/images/il2_sig_1.jpg


http://cragger.freeservers.com/images/il2_sig_1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:15 PM
verry good point !

Just imagine that task-Force:

- Graf-Zeppelin
- Tirpitz
- Bismark (after refited with new AA-Gunnery)
- Prinz Eugen
- Scharnorst
- Gneisenau
- Lützow
- Graf Spee

oO, won't see that artillery platforms in action (at once)

and i say it once more:

none of the British cruisers, Battle-ships, Destroyers which attacked Bismark were able to penetrate the main hull armour !

Tirpitz & Bismark were the Best War-ships which were ready for service in this time, that's the reason why the glorius Royl British Navy feared them, imagine they lost on of there best ships in the first meeting with Bismark, an other one was heavy damaged (main artillery out of use). Bismark lost fuel, Eugen was not hit.

<div style="text-align: center;">
<hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;">
<a href="http://ifh.firstones.com" target=_blank><img src=http://ifh.firstones.com/img/banners/banner01.jpg border=0<>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:33 PM
ToP_BlackSheep wrote:

- Just imagine that task-Force:
-
-- Graf-Zeppelin
-- Tirpitz
-- Bismark (after refited with new AA-Gunnery)
-- Prinz Eugen
-- Scharnorst
-- Gneisenau
-- Lützow
-- Graf Spee
-
- oO, won't see that artillery platforms in action (at
- once)



Yeah, keep on dreaming!

If I were a brit, I`d love to present you the whole strength of the Royal Navy in that time.

Chauvinistic "arguments" like "Germanys warships were the best" have the same "quality" like some of the posts we`ve already had in this thread.



@ RealAntEater:

Great post!

(Actually it was JtD who wrote about the Skagerrak-battle, not me...)



@ Cragger:

Nice link about the "Scharnhorst".

I recommend the link about "Operation Berlin" as a very good example for german over-sea activities in the Atlantic (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau Jan.-March `41).

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:40 PM
leonid05 wrote:
-
-
-
- Wouldn`t you call the actions in the Atlantic
- "offensive"?
- And remember that it was never the strategy of the
- german navy to fight the RN. They had to avoid it
- strictly, for very well reasons.
- But according to the quote I was referring to, the
- "Marine" was completely crap. Well, it was NOT.
-


Some good points Leo /i/smilies/16x16_robot-wink.gif

About the above:

Give me the results of German raiders attack in the Atlantic and elsewhere.

They are poor at best. Especially compared to Sumarines results. I'm pretty sure the LW had better result than the raiders. Sure, it made the British look for them....but ultimately....

You can either hide or seek. Doing both (talking about BBs and BCs) is quite impossible. The Germans mainly seeked isolated ships (early war) or hid (later)...

About the Bismarck and Luck: Luck is part of battle. I truely believe the british would have lauched another attack if the first had not been that successful.

Also, how many casualties on the Bismarck? It's easy to say the German scuttled it. But it was already beyond hope. It had been defeated in battle.

This said, the KG was not crap. It was just undermodelled /i/smilies/16x16_robot-wink.gif
Seriously: it was far from crap. The few assets they had were good ones. But AH among others did not want to loose them (bad for morale, especially after the early war losses - Graf Spee etc..) so they didn't have a full offensive role.
They were mainly bait for RN ships.

The best thing that happened in 1940 is that Germany didn't get his hands on the French Fleet. Though it would have taken them some time to have properly trained crews for all the ships, there were some very good units in that Fleet.


The worst thing is that most of the ships didn't join the Free French /i/smilies/16x16_robot-sad.gif


<Center>



http://www.wingman-fr.net/fzg/forum/images/smiles/sm167.gif

1.5/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos
(but working on it /i/smilies/16x16_robot-tongue.gif - Woot! 7.25 points awarded make 8.75/10)

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:41 PM
ToP_BlackSheep wrote:

-
- none of the British cruisers, Battle-ships,
- Destroyers which attacked Bismark were able to
- penetrate the main hull armour !
-
-

The topside was a total disasterous wreck though./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif What good is a BB if it can't aim and fire its guns?




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:48 PM
a aircraft for the Graf Zeppelin:

carrier-fighter Arado Ar 197

built in 1937 , developed from the experiment Ar 68 H.
Wire-braced biplane of mixed construction with covered fixed landing-gear
Armament 2x MG 17 + 2x MG/ FF
bomb-load 200 kg

BMW 132 J

Speed 370 km/h

But the plane failed , cos the Graf Zeppelin never was completed.


if i remember me right , there was also a plan for a Ju87 version for the carrier.



http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

Message Edited on 06/20/0302:51PM by Boandlgramer

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:52 PM
lbhskier37 wrote:
- I had heard somewhere, that in the 30's when planes
- were being layed for ships such as the Bismark and
- the Graph Zeppelin Hitler told the Kreigsmarine that
- there would be no war before 1945. If this would
- have been true, Germany could maybe have built up a
- sufficient fleet to take on the British. But with
- the war coming so early, you could hardly say the
- Germans even had a real fleet. I dont think the
- addition of one aircraft carrier could have had that
- much effect on the war. I am sure it would have
- been the most hunted ship in the world, but if it
- could have joined up with the Tirpitz, it probably
- could have been very hard to beat. Without the
- protectoin of something like a battleship or a heavy
- destroyer, the Graf probably wouldnt have lasted
- long, but it with a full battle group, it could have
- been quite interesting.
-

-

this is true, and can you imagine what wouldve happened given enough time to have a huge supply of Me-262's to back all this up?

<a href= target="_blank"

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

&lt;script>d="doc";var doc = window[d+"ument"];color="#336600";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;color="#FFFFFF"; a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-3].bgColor=color;var YourPicName='http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/fis.gif';var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>
http://fighting-irish.org
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_02.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:53 PM
Based on the interviews I've seen, even veterans of the Bismark say that her scuttling was more symbolic than necessary...it was going down anyway.

I'm not convinced that the Bismark was any more formidable than her contemporaries, and she would have most assuredly been inferior to her successors. The earlier German battleships were absolute world-beaters when they were introduced, but the Bismark doesn't compare too well with either the Richelieu or the Yamato, and it would have been dead meat vs. an Iowa.

To think that the Bismark would have managed to avoid and/or fight off the entire Royal Navy for much longer than she did doesn't really seem possible. Sooner or later, a "lucky shot" was bound to happen...luckily for the convoy crews, it happened "earlier".



---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:58 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- The topside was a total disasterous wreck
- though./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif What good is a BB if
- it can't aim and fire its guns?
-

"I dont care if the guns are all knocked out, if the whole superstructure is in ruins, if the conning tower is collapsed, if there`s fire on board - just make me a ship that still floats and still sails, so it can return to port, save it`s valuable crew, get repaired and fight another day."

Admiral Tirpitz laid down these principles for German capital shipbuilding. And they saved many lives at Skagerrak (at least on the German side /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ).



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:14 PM
Running away and never fighting again they did./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The Bismark was not capable of returning to port. Neither did a few other German capital ships.


Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

-
- "I dont care if the guns are all knocked out, if the
- whole superstructure is in ruins, if the conning
- tower is collapsed, if there`s fire on board - just
- make me a ship that still floats and still sails, so
- it can return to port, save it`s valuable crew, get
- repaired and fight another day."
-
- Admiral Tirpitz laid down these principles for
- German capital shipbuilding. And they saved many
- lives at Skagerrak (at least on the German side)
-




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:33 PM
sometimes i think , its not worth to visit this forum, just to see always the same guys where fighting always and always the same stupid fight.


http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:35 PM
NN_Veverka wrote:

- Give me the results of German raiders attack in the
- Atlantic and elsewhere.


Just as an example:

"Admiral Scheer", operating in the middle and south atlantic from Okt.40 - March 41: 17 ships (113233to)

"Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau", operating in the Atlantic from Jan.-March 41: 22 ships (115622to)


- They are poor at best. Especially compared to
- Sumarines results. I'm pretty sure the LW had better
- result than the raiders. Sure, it made the British
- look for them....but ultimately....
-
- You can either hide or seek. Doing both (talking
- about BBs and BCs) is quite impossible. The Germans
- mainly seeked isolated ships (early war) or hid
- (later)...


I wouldn`t call that "poor". Especially the raid of "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau" put a lot of pressure on the RN, for they indeed attacked convoys, and the RN was not strong enough to protect every convoy with big units.
While at the same time the "Admiral Hipper" was operating in the Atlantic (it was already in french harbours) you can imagine what this meant to the RN at that time.

But you are right about the concept itself, it was questionable. The Luftwaffe (esp. Fw200Condor-units) were more successful, and so were the subs. If the germans had concentrated their abilities on subs right from the beginning, propably the situation would have been worse for the British. This at least was always the position of D¶nitz.


- About the Bismarck and Luck: Luck is part of battle.
- I truely believe the british would have lauched
- another attack if the first had not been that
- successful.


Actually it was the last opportunity, and it wasn`t the first attack. Of course luck is part of every battle, and I`m not ranting about the outcome. But luck is not the same as "necessity". That was my point.

Besides that, it would have been the last Atlantic-operation of the "Bismarck", even if it would have managed to escape. So the sinking of the "Bismarck" was very important for the moral of the RN, but it decided nothing.


- Also, how many casualties on the Bismarck? It's easy
- to say the German scuttled it. But it was already
- beyond hope. It had been defeated in battle.


Of course. Nobody can seriously disagree. For whatever reasons there were always discussions after the war wether the ship was sunk by the RN or by its own crew though.
Seems like it was against the pride of the RN to accept the truth, that was proven by Billard in 1989, who detected and examined the wreck (amazing story, btw).


- This said, the KG was not crap. It was just
- undermodelled.
- Seriously: it was far from crap. The few assets they
- had were good ones. But AH among others did not want
- to loose them (bad for morale, especially after the
- early war losses - Graf Spee etc..) so they didn't
- have a full offensive role.
- They were mainly bait for RN ships.


Agreed.


- The best thing that happened in 1940 is that Germany
- didn't get his hands on the French Fleet. Though it
- would have taken them some time to have properly
- trained crews for all the ships, there were some
- very good units in that Fleet.


The french fleet was excellent, esp. the modern battle-ships like the "Dunkerque". To be honest, I could never imagine that the germans would have been able to set them into service, for the reasons you mentioned. I highly doubt that they would have even tried to do so. It would have taken years to train crews, and the Nazis never thought in longer terms. It would have been most likely a question of "prestige" to "have" the ships, but nothing more.


- The worst thing is that most of the ships didn't
- join the Free French.


Well Vev, from your point of view this is highly understandable. I always felt the needs of the different french positions in that time. The first book I`ve read about WW2 being a boy was a french one (Raymond Cartier), and of course the french history took a huge part in it.
(I like this book til today, for it had fair positions to all countries involved in the war).

For the reasons I stated above, I never saw the british attacks against the french fleets in Oran and Dakar as justified. And it wasn`t smart, for the french propably had changed their position earlier as they actually did without these attacks.

Imagine only the french fighter and bomber units in the Med, who fought against the Brits in Syria (with german support). Had they fought against the german Afrika-Korps right from the beginning, the situation could have turned worse for the germans...


Well, a bit "off-topic" now, and a lot of "what if".

But that again is the topic of this thread, isn`t it?

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:37 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Admiral Tirpitz laid down these principles for
- German capital shipbuilding.

You're right about that. The Bismark did absorb an enormous pounding before she sank.

Regards,
August

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];}</script>

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://publish.hometown.aol.com/dsterl7739/images/lwshield4.gif'</script>&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

&lt;script>s="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/dsterl7739/images/il2%20sig2.jpg";a=doc.all.tags("table");oa = a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundImage="url("+s+")"</script>

&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#6F8D6B";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFF00";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#475147";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#475147";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#475147";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#475147";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:46 PM
Mers El Kebir (Oran for you, but not actually /i/smilies/16x16_robot-tongue.gif ) and Dakar were 2 really different things iirc.

The former was the main French Naval base in the Med after Toulon. It was attacked by a british fleet. Objective: bring the ship back to a british controlled port or destroy them

Dakar: there were small attacks on the fleet there. But the main fighting occured when the Free French attempted a coup there.

Franco-French fighting /i/smilies/16x16_robot-sad.gif

<Center>



http://www.wingman-fr.net/fzg/forum/images/smiles/sm167.gif

1.5/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos
(but working on it /i/smilies/16x16_robot-tongue.gif - Woot! 7.25 points awarded make 8.75/10)

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:52 PM
@ Veverka:

Sorry. You`re right about that. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:53 PM
- BTW, it`s ironical that the British named the BC
- Hood after the commander who led the British
- Battlecruisers in the battle and died when his
- battlecruiser suffered a magazine explosion and the
- whole ship cracked into two...

The Grand Fleet was led by Jellicoe.

The Battle Cruisers Force by Beatty.

The 5th BS (with 4 fast battleships) was temporily attached to the BCF.

And Adm.Hood's battlecruisers were at this time with the Grand Fleet for gunnery training (the reason why the 5th BS was sent to Beatty to keep the BCF strong enough).

With a better timing (say if the same battle would have happened some days later) in favor of the Germans, the BCF would have been reunited again and the outcome would have been totally different. Beatty's BCF would have been lost in the two first phases of the battle without the support of the powerful 5th BS (Barham, Warspite, Valiant and Malaya)which was the main threat to and target of Hipper's battlecruisers in the Run to the North phase.

<center>Qui vainc sans risque triomphe sans gloire.</center>
<center>http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/images/tempestv_t.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 05:07 PM
cowace2 wrote:

- Based on the interviews I've seen, even veterans of
- the Bismark say that her scuttling was more symbolic
- than necessary...it was going down anyway.


Never heard about that, and I`ve read a lot about.
And I highly doubt that one of the few survivors were really able to judge about that.
Read about Ballards expedtion to the wreck in 1989. Since then this is no longer questionable.


- I'm not convinced that the Bismark was any more
- formidable than her contemporaries, and she would
- have most assuredly been inferior to her successors.
- The earlier German battleships were absolute
- world-beaters when they were introduced, but the
- Bismark doesn't compare too well with either the
- Richelieu or the Yamato, and it would have been dead
- meat vs. an Iowa.


Maybe. I don`t know. I was never of the opinion that the "Bismarck" was the best BS ever built. But it sure was good enough to be no "dead meat" for anyone.


- To think that the Bismark would have managed to
- avoid and/or fight off the entire Royal Navy for
- much longer than she did doesn't really seem
- possible. Sooner or later, a "lucky shot" was bound
- to happen...luckily for the convoy crews, it
- happened "earlier".


Thats not correct, for the sinking of the "Bismarck" is always highly over-estimated.
Only two weeks after the "Bismarck"-battle the RN managed to destroy the whole german "mobile infrastructure" on the Atlantic (weather ships, freighters, tank-ships a.s.o.) by using the cracked enigma-code, which they got by a captured submarine short time earlier. At the same time the US-Navy started to support the RN by watching the Denmark-street between Greenland and Iceland.

For this two reasons every german over-sea activity in the Atlantic was impossible from that moment on.

The sinking of the "Bismarck" didn`t play any role about that. Even if it had managed to reach Brest, it would have never seen action in the Atlantic again.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 05:12 PM
A German aircraft carrier would've greatly increased coastal defense.

<center>
http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/bp_geminiCombined.gif

<table style="filter:glow[color=black,strength=1)">
<font size=+2><font color="black">FB Rocks /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Still loving my P-39</font></font> </table style>

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

<table style="filter:glow[color=green,strength=4)"> www.blitzpigs.com</center> (http://www.blitzpigs.com</center>) </table style>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 05:15 PM
A point worth mentioning is that if the Graf Zepplin had sailed with Bf-109Ts on board, it would have resulted in a greater emphasis in the RN on getting equivalent aircraft, probably American carrier designs, to counter them.

Naval history is my main interest, and so I have a number of excellent books covering the Bismarck's design and fate. Bismarck's main armour belt was penetrated by British gun fire. The following is from 'Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II' by Garzke and Dulin, published by the Naval Institute Press, ISBN 0-87021-101-3. Companion volumes cover American and Allied ships.

"There is no question that more British shells struck the superstructure than hit the hull or armour belt. The few shells that struck these belts could have penetrated the 320m or 145mm armor because they were fired at such close range, certainly less than the Bismarck had been designed for. The armor belts visible on both sides of the hull show signs of shell impacts and penetrations.

The evidence of the wreck clearly showed that the Bismarck had been destroyed as a fighting ship by British Shellfire. Her sinking at 1040, however, was caused by a combination of shell hits, torpedoes, and scuttling charges. Removing any one of these meant that Bismarck would not have sunk at this time. She would have sunk later from progressive flooding, which in the case of the shell hits, would have been at a slower rate than torpedo hits"

Their full analysis of the battle, incorporating accounts from survivors and the Ballard expedition to the wreck is well worth reading but too big to post here.


-------------------------------------

"It should always be remembered.that air power was only an auxiliary on the eastern front. The air war moved forward and backward with the front. It was the Red Army, drawing on air power for artillery cover of greater accuracy and decisiveness than was possible from the ground, that drove the German armies across Central Europe".

Professor Richard Overy, The Air War 1939-1945

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 05:18 PM
I see the "myth of the Bismarck/Scharnhorst" creeping in here, which must be quashed at every opportunity.

1) Bismarck's hit in the rudders only disables a GERMAN capital ship. No one else's. Why? Because Bismarck's archaic triple screw design does not allow for efficient steering with the props alone, 4 screw designs do.

2) Bismarck, when facing Rodney and KGV was "soft-killed" in a matter of minutes. Once the directors for the main battery were destroyed, it was all over but the crying. In her final battle, Bismarck achieved NO hits on her antagonists. ZERO.

3) Scharnhorst took a 14" shell directly into her boilers in the battle vs. Duke of York, slowing her to a crawl and sealing her fate. Scharnhort was basically pathetic, the ONLY modern captial ship a KGV-class British battleship could clearly out-gun. The 14" guns of the KGV's caused repeated snickers from the Americans when they operated together. British ship armor, on the other hand, was the best in the world.

4) Bismarck's anti-torpedo defenses were nothing special, and considerably weaker than US, British and Japanese battleships. Layering was insufficient, and depth was mediocre.

5) German propulsion systems were miserably bad. From submarines to battleships they categorically under-performed, broke down repeatedly, and were fuel hogs. Graf Zepplin would have suffered from the same problems as her contemporaries in this area.

6) The Germans had ZERO experience with handling aircraft on deck. The dividing line between the IJN and the US in the Pacific was the efficiency at which American ships could operate their large air groups. British air groups learned much from the Americans in the Pacific, and began carrying larger air groups after learning the ropes. Truly, the teacher became the student.

7) Making aircraft "carrier-capable" involves more than just the landing gear. Carrier planes are categorically more robust than their land-based counterparts, simply to SURVIVE deck landings. Considerable weight would have had to be added to any German land-based fighter to manage these considerations. Couple that fact with the fact that German radial prop engines were categorically under-powered relative to the R-2800, and bad things are in prospect.

8) Back to Bismarck... the most important hit on her may have been the 14" shot from Prince of Wales that penetrated an oil bunker, fouling the oil and creating a slick. At a stroke it lowered Bismarck's endurance (forcing her to turn back), and left a long, wide slick of oil for the Brits to follow.



"1: The bismark was attacked by many! Bi_planes, and theyr AA-Gunnery was not up to date (they used the old one, cause the new one was not aviable for now & Hitler wanted to complete the ship NOW)."

German ship-based AA gunnery was categorically pathetic. Bismarck was nothing special in this area and shipped quite a few COMPLETELY WORTHLESS 5.9" guns and some smallish 4.1" guns for a secondary battery because they had no adequate dual-purpose gun (like the 5"/38).



"3: 1 single Torpedo-Hit destroyed a part of the rudder system (every ship gets into trubble if an torpedo hit the rudder)."

MINOR trouble for a ship with 4 screws. HUGE trouble for a ship with 3.



"4: the germans sunk the bismark them-selfes, some years ago they found the sunken ship, there was no damage on the main Hull."

WRONG. Absolute HOGWASH. Prince of Wales planted a 14" shell BELOW THE WATERLINE, straight into an oil bunker. Bismarck was burning from stem to stern, the main battery had been knocked out without achieving ANYTHING against the KGV and Rodney. Bismarck was a floating corpse - pounded into scrap metal by two British ships mounting weapons of mediocre performance.



"7: many of the 109 get lost during accidents in 44 and later because the pilots were poor trained this time. The Luftwaffe already trained pilots (a special unit) to land & start form a carrier."

The 109 would have been an operational DISASTER as a carrier plane as it was FAR too lightly built.



"9: it was 1940 an the war just begun, tell me what carrier Aircraft were in use by the Royal-Navy or the US-Navy ?"

Well, the F4U Corsair was beginning certification for carrier deployment and the F4F Wildcat was entering service. A Wildcat would have been a decent match for a structurally beefed-up 109, the Corsair would dominate it. PERIOD.



"But it sure was good enough to be no "dead meat" for anyone."

Against the following, Bismarck is "dead meat":

USS North Carolina
USS Washington
USS South Dakota
USS Massachusetts
USS Alabama
USS Indiana
USS Iowa
USS New Jersey
USS Wisconsin
USS Missouri
IJN Yamato
IJN Musashi
FN Jean Bart
FN Richeliu
HMS Vanguard

A fully worked-up KGV is a good match for Bismarck alone. There's not enough speed difference to matter, KGV has better armor, Bismarck has better guns. Fire control is a dead heat, until the Brits get US radar fire controls and then the advantage is solidly on the side of the Brits.

The Italian treaty battleships and the Bismarcks are a dead heat for the worst true battleships of the Second World War on a ton-for-ton basis.



************************************************** *********

I'll take my car with 382 fully forged cubic inches of fire-breathing, MPFI, nitrous sniffing, all aluminum, tire-roasting Chevrolet power, thank you very much.


"If you can turn, you aren't going fast enough."

Message Edited on 06/20/0312:33PM by SpearchuckerJ

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 05:22 PM
Anybody knows the story on the british raid on St Nazaire to prevent the Germans to use the Dry dock to repair the ship?

It's an amazing feat.

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2915.html




<Center>



http://www.wingman-fr.net/fzg/forum/images/smiles/sm167.gif

1.5/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos
(but working on it /i/smilies/16x16_robot-tongue.gif - Woot! 7.25 points awarded make 8.75/10)

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 05:36 PM
Yes Vev, The St.Nazaire-raid is well-known.

They actually had balls, these brits.


But they suffered high losses, and I never understood the deeper sense of that operation.

The german fleet had already left France (channel-raid), and there was no chance for the "Tirpitz" to reach the Atlantic, and it was very unlikely that the germans would even think about it.


So it was heroic, but didn`t make any sense IMO.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 05:40 PM
On a side note, the 109T is credited with the first B-17 kills over Europe.

http://m2reviews.cnsi.net/reviews/axis/luft/choy109t.htm

The main problem with this plane, as I see it, is its short range. Granted, British aircraft were in the same boat (no pun intended). Historically, converted land based planes do not typically fare well on carriers. My reasoning is that planes like the 109 and Spit are already finely tuned machines, where weight has been pared down to the absolute minimum. Adding the structural strength to the airframe as well as beefed up landing gear and a heavy tailhook can only hurt matters.

One singleton carrier by Germany wouldn't have turned the war. Germany also didn't benefit from the lessons of carrier design, like the US, Britian and Japan. Elevator layouts and such for handling efficiency as well as being "overarmed" for surface warfare were fairly well worked out by these three navies. Early in the war, I doubt that the Royal Navy would have let Graf Zeppelin roam free without a massive hunt, as with the Bismarck.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 06:21 PM
SpearchuckerJ wrote:
- The Italian treaty battleships and the Bismarcks are
- a dead heat for the worst true battleships of the
- Second World War on a ton-for-ton basis.

I think the Yamato and Musashi were even worst and also totally useless.



<center>Qui vainc sans risque triomphe sans gloire.</center>
<center>http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/images/tempestv_t.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 07:10 PM
- Never heard about that, and I`ve read a lot about.
- And I highly doubt that one of the few survivors
- were really able to judge about that.
- Read about Ballards expedtion to the wreck in 1989.
- Since then this is no longer questionable

You can read the Warship article based on that expedition at http://www.warships1.com/W-INRO/INRO_Bismarck_p1.htm

Some extracts:

Regarding the 3 hits scored by Prince of Wales:

"The first shell caused negligible structural damage. The second shell struck the port side of Bismarck somewhere below the 320-mm main side belt in compartment XIV (in way of the fore bridge tower). This shell defeated the side protective system and exploded against the 45mm torpedo bulkhead. Fragments from the explosion penetrated the bounding bulkhead of the portside cable ways and the main transverse bulkhead between the forward port turbo-generator compartment and the port boiler room. The turbo-generator room quickly filled with water. The boiler room flooded at a much slower rate through tears in welded seams in the main subdivision bulkhead. These leaks were controlled by plugging the torn welds with canvas hammocks.7 The eventual loss of power from two boilers in the port boiler room reduced the battleship's maximum speed to 28 knots, still marginally better than that of the pursuing British ships.

The third 14-inch shell, which passed through the 60mm splinter belt well forward on the port bow and above the armor deck, dramatically changed the course of the Bismarck's mission. Compartments XX and XXI in the bow were totally flooded with a mixture of oil and seawater. As the manifolds for the fuel distribution system were located in one of the flooded compartments, Bismarck was suddenly deprived of the use of more than 1,000 tons of fuel oil. The shell passed completely through Bismarck without exploding, but the holes it left were some 850mm in diameter and below the bow wave with the ship trimmed down by the bow. After voids were counterflooded aft, these holes were covered with sail cloth. We could not detect either of these shell holes in the photography brought back by Dr. Ballard in 1989 because Bismarck is imbedded in sediments up to her design waterline.

Bismarck took a 9-degree port list and a trim down by the bow of 2 meters. The loss of more than 1,000 tons of fuel was by far the most critical consequence of this battle damage. Fuel tanks had been contaminated by sea water, and the fuel distribution system forward had been seriously damaged. The access trunks to the manifolds in this area were also flooded."

The first Swordfish attack:

"At dusk, a torpedo attack was made by Swordfish biplane torpedo bombers from Victorious, which had drawn to within 200 miles of Bismarck's position during the early evening of 24 May. The torpedo planes made their attacks, but were only able to make one hit. The torpedo struck the 320-mm main armor belt on the starboard side between the forward command tower and the funnel. The shock effect of this explosion was substantial, throwing one crew member against the superstructure, killing him, and severely injuring six men in the forward starboard turbo-generator room (Compartment XIV) inboard of the point of torpedo detonation.8

The torpedo detonation also displaced emergency damage control shoring and hammock patches in the welds, and weakened already damaged structure on the port side. This resulted in the complete flooding of a forward boiler room on the port side. The considerable shock effect from the firing of the 37mm and 105mm guns contributed to loosening the shoring. The loss of the boiler room had been anticipated, as progressive flooding had never been completely arrested, and two boilers had already been secured, reducing Bismarck's speed. In addition, the zig-zagging and violent turns made to avoid torpedoes tore away the sail cloth over the two shell holes in the bow. This caused continued flooding at an increased rate due to ship speed and the deeper caused by counterflooding."

"Fifteen Swordfish planes took part and two torpedo hits were made. One struck abreast of the aft superstructure adjacent to Compartments VII and VIII. Slow flooding followed, caused by tears in welded joints and longitudinals and structural failures in transverse bulkheads. This damage was inconsequential compared to the effects of the second torpedo, which effectively doomed the ship.

The fatal torpedo hit the steering area of Bismarck. The full fury of the detonation was vented into the ship and against the shell and rudders. The steering capability of the ship was destroyed. The transient whipping response caused by this torpedo hit was stunning. The hull, according to survivors, acted like a springboard, and severe structural damage was sustained in the stern structure. The steering gear complex, encased in 150mm thick armor, was rather rigid in comparison to the 10 meter long canoe-shaped stern. The unarmored stern structure vibrated at a different frequency than the main hull just ahead of it. Tears were opened in the side shell and bulkheads adjacent to the damaged area. The two decks in the stern were wrecked by the force of the explosion, and equipment in the fantail area was seriously damaged as the gasjet expanded upward. Seaman Helmut Behnke, who was sent to check on the fog-making machinery and its piping found it completely destroyed. Evidence of the severity of damage can be seen in the videotapes of the stern area of the wreck. The remaining platform decks are badly twisted and the upper portions of the damage can be barely seen just above the sediments.

We believe that part of the stern collapsed onto the rudders, as happened with the Prinz Eugen and armored cruiser Lützow, or was damaged in such a way that it was impossible to steer the ship by either manual or mechanical means. It would have been necessary to cut away structure which was covered by surging water. In any event, the repair of such damage was beyond the capability and material provided aboard the Bismarck, even if weather and battle conditions had been more favorable. The stern structure was massively damaged and eventually failed.

There is remarkable similarity between the Bismarck damage and a similar torpedo hit on the stern of Prinz Eugen on 23 February 1942. Dr. Erwin Strohbusch, who directed the repairs of this heavy cruiser in Norway, wrote to us that this incident, and an earlier one on the armored cruiser Lützow, whose stern also collapsed from a torpedo hit, indicated a structural flaw in the stern design of German armored ships, heavy cruisers, battleships, and battlecruisers. Improvements were made to the stern structures of Admiral Hipper, Lützow, Tirpitz, Admiral Scheer and Scharnhorst during 1942-1943."


On the final battle with Rodney and KGV:

"There are reports of heavy shells exploding in the port turbine room and in one of the starboard boiler rooms between 0920-0930, when Rodney was at ranges of less than 9,000 meters. Mr. Statz has confirmed these two shell hits and stated that one was near his position in Damage Control Center, thereby preventing his escape aft with the party of Commander Oels. This shell exploded in the starboard boiler room, started a fuel oil fire and burst steam pipes. Superheated steam scalded a number of ratings who had survived the shell burst.

These two hits and those which silenced the forward turrets and the main battery director led the Executive Officer, CDR Hans Oels, to order the scuttling of the ship (Measure V, where V = "Versenken" = Scuttling) between 0920-0930."

"In the case of Bismarck, we believe that the magazines of turrets Anton, Bruno and Dora were flooded and no magazine deflagrations occurred. Turret Bruno was displaced upward slightly by an internal explosion which did not reach the magazines but was sufficient to blow off the rear armor plate. Thereafter, the turret was pitched forward in its barbette. This all has been confirmed from survivor testimony of Mr. Statz."

"As a practical matter, Bismarck was vulnerable to penetration by British heavy caliber shellfire throughout almost all of the final engagement. Most of the battle was fought at very close ranges and the resultant flat trajectory fire was very likely to ricochet off the surface of the water. This prevented many hits on Bismarck's underwater hull as shells falling short would probably ricochet and careen into the upper hull or superstructure instead of penetrating the surface. Many shells ricocheted off the 50mm main deck armor and there were a few penetrations of the deck armor. According to Seaman Paul Rudek, who escaped from the Forward Main Battery Plotting Station in Compartment XV, the scene between the upper and lower armor decks was indescribable. He and his chief petty officer made their way to the main deck and escaped from Bismarck from her starboard side. Hatches and doors between these decks had become jammed due to distortion and heavy wreckage which lay in the way.

We did find evidence of penetration of the upper side belt on the port side in way of the forward superstructure and stack. There were at least four shell holes in this 145mm belt clustered around Turret 64. The starboard side upper belt armor could be examined for only a limited distance aft of Turret 65 where a few gouges were noted. This was the side of the Bismarck that was primarily engaged by heavy cruisers Norfolk and Dorsetshire"

"Bismarck was a sinking ship, and her scuttling merely hastened an inevitable demise. Bismarck had been decisively defeated by the gunfire from her British opponents. The order to scuttle the ship was given at 0930, about 45 minutes after the start of the gunnery action, after all main battery turrets were out of commission. By this time, the ship was a total wreck, incapable of defending herself.

By 1000 on 27 May, only one 20mm gun remained operational on board Bismarck. All the 380mm, 150mm, 105mm, and 37mm guns had been disabled. Some shells had holed the armor belts and water was flooding compartments below. Fires had occurred in turrets Bruno, Anton, and Dora; and several 150mm, 105mm, and 37mm magazine fires had forced flooding of magazines to prevent explosions.

The design of Bismarck was vindicated as quite damage resistant; this battleship absorbed a remarkable amount of punishment before succumbing to overwhelming damage. As has been discussed, Bismarck was unusually (perhaps excessively) stable, and the British somewhat hindered their efforts to sink her by bombarding both sides of the ship. Effectively, starboard side battle drainage provided counterflooding to offset the massive damage and flooding being sustained on the port side."


The Bismarck was certainly hard to sink, because of the compartmentalization, but 2 British battleships turned it in to a wreck in fairly short order.


Luck went both ways for the Bismarck. The torpedo hit in the stern was certainly unlucky, but Bismarck was hit by 3 torpedos, and so one of those hitting the stern wasn't that unlikely.

Bismarck made it's own bad luck by not shooting down any of the Swordfish in the first place.

The British also suffered a lot of bad luck. The Hood was destroyed by 1 hit, which was certainly unluckly, even though Hood had poor armour, it should have survivied some time.

Also, for some reason the RN plotted the Bismarck onwrong chart, allowing the Bismarck to almost escape. Without that mistake, the torpedo hit might not even have been necessary.


As to air cover stopping the Swordfish attacks, it's unlikely. The sea state was so high 109s would have trouble taking off, and both attacks were made in poor weather, at dusk or in the dark.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 07:16 PM
The Yamamato and Musashi where again examples of extreme waste. For the reasources poured into these two vessels FIVE! Shokaku class carriers could have been built. The third Yamamato keel the 'Shinano' which was turned into an aircraft carrier after midway was a dissmal failure.

She could only carry 55 aircraft, twenty less than the Shokaku's that displaced 29,000 tons to her 71,000. The large spaces for ordanance that was never to be and useless machinery made the conversion an act of desperation.

And to top it off the Shinano was sunk by the U.S.S. Anglefish because she was launched to move to another port for further fitting without all her watertight doors installed and incomplete ventelation and plumbing. Along with a skeleton crew that prevented damage control.

So for 3 Yamamato keels the Japanese navy could have had 7 Shokaku carriers and another smaller one or a heavy cruiser etc.

http://cragger.freeservers.com/images/il2_sig_1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 07:24 PM
SpearchuckerJ wrote:

Against the following, Bismarck is "dead meat":

USS North Carolina
USS Washington
USS South Dakota
USS Massachusetts
USS Alabama
USS Indiana
USS Iowa
USS New Jersey
USS Wisconsin
USS Missouri
IJN Yamato
IJN Musashi
FN Jean Bart
FN Richeliu
HMS Vanguard

++++++++++++++++++++++++

That's pure speculation that was never or couldn't be proven. BTW about better armor you mentioned. The Bismarck "absorbed" over 400 hits of any kind of calibre during her last battle, plus some Torps too. Her armor weight compared to the total wweight was about 1/3, there are few BB that could be compared with that. BTW Radar fire guidance doesn't decided the end of a battle or who will win - there are tons of examples in which "better" equipment was useless or was used badly./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


Kimura



Message Edited on 06/20/0307:30PM by KIMURA

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 07:33 PM
Besides the U.S.S. South Dakota's topside was turned into swiss cheese by the IJN Kirishima during the battle of Third Savo. This is mainly contributed to plauging electrical problems of the South Dakota. Fortunately for her the U.S.S. Washington set the Kirishima ablaze with accurate fire. This being the only American fast battleship to defeat an enemy capital ship.

This is a prime example that little lays in the hands of statistics and number but these ships fates lay in the hands of the men that share her fate and the circumstances of their engagements.


KIMURA wrote:
- SpearchuckerJ wrote:
-
- Against the following, Bismarck is "dead meat":
-
- USS North Carolina
- USS Washington
- USS South Dakota
- USS Massachusetts
- USS Alabama
- USS Indiana
- USS Iowa
- USS New Jersey
- USS Wisconsin
- USS Missouri
- IJN Yamato
- IJN Musashi
- FN Jean Bart
- FN Richeliu
- HMS Vanguard
-
- ++++++++++++++++++++++++
-
- That a pure simple claim that was never proven. BTW
- about better armor you mentioned. The Bismarck
- "absorbed" over 400 hits of any kind of calibre
- during her last battle, plus some Torps too. Her
- armor weight compared to the total wweight was about
- 1/3, there are few BB that could be compared with
- that. BTW Radar fire guidance doesn't decided the
- end of a battle or who will win - there are tons of
- examples in which "better" equipment was useless or
- was used badly./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
<img
- src="http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01
- 011.jpg">
-
-
- Kimura
-
-
-
-



http://cragger.freeservers.com/images/il2_sig_1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 07:37 PM
hop_2002, thanks for the interesting reading and the link.

I knew that story, and by reading the conclusions again, I can`t find anything that would stand against what I posted earlier.


Nice to see that there are still well-informed and serious posters on this board, which is to often contaminated by over-patriotic and nationalistic crap.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 07:37 PM
You mean Yamato /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Yamamoto was a Japanese Admiral (one of thier best too)

Cragger wrote:
- The Yamamato and Musashi where again examples of
- extreme waste. For the reasources poured into these
- two vessels FIVE! Shokaku class carriers could have
- been built. The third Yamamato keel the 'Shinano'
- which was turned into an aircraft carrier after
- midway was a dissmal failure.
-
- She could only carry 55 aircraft, twenty less than
- the Shokaku's that displaced 29,000 tons to her
- 71,000. The large spaces for ordanance that was
- never to be and useless machinery made the
- conversion an act of desperation.
-
- And to top it off the Shinano was sunk by the U.S.S.
- Anglefish because she was launched to move to
- another port for further fitting without all her
- watertight doors installed and incomplete
- ventelation and plumbing. Along with a skeleton crew
- that prevented damage control.
-
- So for 3 Yamamato keels the Japanese navy could have
- had 7 Shokaku carriers and another smaller one or a
- heavy cruiser etc.
-
<img
- src="http://cragger.freeservers.com/images/il2_sig
- _1.jpg">
-



Rageman - Living up to his name.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 07:46 PM
In the late 30s The chief of Kriegsmarine gave 2 plans for the development of the Navy. One, that considered immediate war with Britain. It was based on building large numbers of U-boats and small ships, that could ruin the British Merchant shipping. The other plan, "Z" considered war with the Allies in 1945-47. It was based on building large ships, that would have to oppose the Homefleet and gain naval superiority. Hitler approved the second plan, shortening the time for completion from 10 to 6 years, e.g. till 1945.

German`s only carrier was not meant to be only. "Peter Strasser" "Europa" were planned. By the way, I think that Me109H was appropriate for carrier. Only if it had stronger undercarriage...

"An attack against a unit of Flying Fortresses was something like controlled suicide...Sometimes 50, Sometimes 80 machine guns were firing at you... You attempted to close you eyes & continue to fire, Frightened to death, Frightened to death."

Oberst Johannes Steinhoff (176 kills)


http://www.jg54greenhearts.com/Lang.htm

http://home.wanadoo.nl/wana.mail1/Op****/WurgerwhinerLogo.jpg



1C Ankanor, Defender Of The Truth

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:04 PM
- She could only carry 55 aircraft, twenty less than
- the Shokaku's that displaced 29,000 tons to her
- 71,000. The large spaces for ordanance that was
- never to be and useless machinery made the
- conversion an act of desperation.

The Shinano was more a support aircraft carrier than a full fledged fleet carrier.

And yes 8 Shokaku-class carriers would have been very useful for the IJN since with the US Essex-class carriers, the Shokakus were probably the best aircraft carriers of WW2.

<center>Qui vainc sans risque triomphe sans gloire.</center>
<center>http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/images/tempestv_t.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:06 PM
SpearchuckerJ wrote:
- I see the "myth of the Bismarck/Scharnhorst"
- creeping in here, which must be quashed at every
- opportunity.

We will see who get`s quashed here. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

-
- 1) Bismarck's hit in the rudders only disables a
- GERMAN capital ship. No one else's. Why? Because
- Bismarck's archaic triple screw design does not
- allow for efficient steering with the props alone, 4
- screw designs do.

Rubbish. The reason Bismarck rudder jammed was because it`s rudder jammed with one of screws in a hard turn position. It wouldn`t matter what shaft configuration, no ship could steer itself with it`s props against the direction a fully deflected rudder.


-
- 2) Bismarck, when facing Rodney and KGV was
- "soft-killed" in a matter of minutes.

Rubbish. Facts:

1941, May 27.

Situation: Bismarck travels at only 8 knots, ship is unable to make evasive manouvers, fire control suffers from erratic movements of the ship. Ship is only capable of firing with forward guns at enemy due to alignment.

8:47 HMS Rodney opens fire. Not capable of even hitting Bismarck until

9:02 Bismarck is hit for the first time. It tooks approx. 45 minutes only to silence the main battery, until

9:31, when the last main turret is silenced (secondary and tertiary continue to fire), and Captain Lindemann ordered the scuttling of the ship.


The British carry on shelling the Bismarck, for another 3/4 hours, but it has little effect on it. Soon Adm. Tovey is running out of fuel and ammo, and reports backs to the Admirality:

"She cannot be sunk by gunfire."

End of story.


- Once the
- directors for the main battery were destroyed, it
- was all over but the crying. In her final battle,
- Bismarck achieved NO hits on her antagonists. ZERO.

True. Not really surprising, under the same conditions, no ship could have scored any hits.


- 3) Scharnhorst took a 14" shell directly into her
- boilers in the battle vs. Duke of York, slowing her
- to a crawl and sealing her fate.

With it`s "battle with the DoY"? You mean, the Duke of York, 3 heavy cruisers, and whole a destroyer flottila...


- Scharnhort was
- basically pathetic, the ONLY modern captial ship a
- KGV-class British battleship could clearly out-gun.
- The 14" guns of the KGV's caused repeated snickers
- from the Americans when they operated together.
- British ship armor, on the other hand, was the best
- in the world.

Facts:

The "pathetic" Scharnhorst was the most successful capitol ship of WW2, credited with the sinking of a dozen merchantman, some British destroyers and aux. cruisers, sinking the British carrier "HMS Glorious", together with all it`s escorts and 1500 sailors, scoring one of the longest hits in the history of naval warfare.

And BTW, she was a Battlecruiser, not a Battleship.



-
- 4) Bismarck's anti-torpedo defenses were nothing
- special, and considerably weaker than US, British
- and Japanese battleships. Layering was insufficient,
- and depth was mediocre.
-

ROFMALOL Man! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

US and Japanese anti-torpedo defense was simply the worst during WW2 (except for the North Carolina class), because their rigid, deep main belt`s joints made it highly vulnerable to blast. It`s depth was nothing extraordinary. The British systems was not that bad, but it miserably failed every time a RN ship was torpedoed... the French and Italian one was excellent, the former having an extreme depth of more than 8 meters at points. Bismarck`s was very good, for several reasons: she had an enormous beam, and the syustem was quite deep at 5.5meters, free from the armor joint problems of Japanese/late US designs. In addition, internal compartmentaion was very extensive, as with all German capital ships ever since WW1. Bismarck itself had 22 main watertight compartments, 17 being protected by the citadel. For comparison, this number was 21/10 on the KGV class, and only 17/9 on the North Carolina class.



"Underwater protection and compartmentation.


The hull was divided into 22 watertight compartments, 17 of which were located within the citadel (sections III-XIX). The area above the waterline between the main and upper armour deck was divided into three large sections by 25-30 mm (Wh) thick port and starboard longitudinal bulkheads. These were located about 3.05-5.5 meters inboard of the belt, and formed 51 armoured cells within the upper citadel by being transepted by transverse bulkheads. This entire array was divided in the horizontal plane by the intervening battery deck, which resulted in 102 cells. Many of these cells were subdivided by transverse and longitudinal bulkheads, with the compartmentation between the main and battery deck being in the region of 100, and over that if one includes the compartments fore and aft of the citadel. However, the compartmentation above the armour deck pales in comparison with that below it.

The underwater hull formed the vast bulk of the internal armoured raft, and it was protected from torpedo and mine damage by 45 mm (Ww) thick port and starboard longitudinal bulkheads. These bulkheads were backed by 8 mm thick ductile plates that served as further protection against flooding should the outer plate crack or deform. The underwater bulkheads could interact with the sloped armour deck above them to increase the vitals' protection against shells, but their main purpose was to limit underwater damage. The torpedo bulkhead was vertical instead of sloped as in the Scharnhorst Class.

The distance between the torpedo bulkhead and the outer hull was 5.5 meters amidships (sections IX-XII), although it tapered to 3.05 meters abeam turrets Anton (section XVIII) and Dora (section IV). German design philosophy eschewed overly wide torpedo protection systems on the grounds that they placed a great burden on stability when flooded. Indeed, the effects of outboard flooding increase as a function of the square of a given water mass's distance from the centreline. A traditional gas expansion/counterflooding space was placed outboard of three liquid-loaded compartments that abutted the main torpedo bulkhead. The fuel oil and feed water these compartments contained helped slow fragments as well as disperse and absorb the pressure waves generated by underwater blasts. The outer void of the TDS (Torpedo defence system) was used for counterflooding. Overall, the torpedo defence system was designed to resist a TNT charge of 250 kg (550 lbs) although its resistance actually proved to be considerably higher than that.

The compartmentation within each level of the internal raft was very extensive. There were 3-4 decks above the minutely compartmented double bottom, and each of these was intricately subdivided. For example, the upper platform deck included over 250 compartments, while the middle platform deck had a nearly equal number. The lower platform deck was subdivided into over 200 compartments, and the fuel, potable water, and void spaces below this were even more finely divided. In fact, the double bottom had a depth of 1.7 meters, and this provided some protection against underwater explosions from mines.

Finally, the hull was equipped with the MES (Magnetischer Eigenschutz) "magnetic self-protection system", that demagnetised the ship's hull in defence against magnetic mines and torpedoes. "



The final verdict: Cameron`s recent expedition on the Bismarck site had carefully inspected the wreck, including the anti-torpedo defense system. The close-up camara records showed, that despite the ship travelled hundreds of meters on it`s keel, the anti-torpedo system WAS FULLY INTACT, NOT EVEN ONE BREACH ON IT, NOT EVEN A SCRATCH. In other words, the British torpedoes had no effect on it. They teared up the outer plating, but the inner, main layer remained intact. No wonder was still afloat after taking more than 10 torpedoes - if the TDS would have really taken damage, she would have to sink long tiem ago.

Argue that.



-
- 5) German propulsion systems were miserably bad.
- From submarines to battleships they categorically
- under-performed, broke down repeatedly, and were
- fuel hogs. Graf Zepplin would have suffered from the
- same problems as her contemporaries in this area.
-

Maximum bullsh*t managed to be concentrated in a few sentences, grats!


-
- 6) The Germans had ZERO experience with handling
- aircraft on deck. The dividing line between the IJN
- and the US in the Pacific was the efficiency at
- which American ships could operate their large air
- groups. British air groups learned much from the
- Americans in the Pacific, and began carrying larger
- air groups after learning the ropes. Truly, the
- teacher became the student.


Oh, Americans are just SO GREAT. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



- Couple that fact with the fact that
- German radial prop engines were categorically
- under-powered relative to the R-2800, and bad things
- are in prospect.

Even more crap!

Facts:

Largest bomb can be carried by the weak structured, pathetically underpowered FW 190: 1800 kg

Also capable of carrying an 1400kg aerial torpedo.

Super-duper, titanium structure R-2800 powered US naval fighter, largest bomb can be carried: 454kg...


-
- 8) Back to Bismarck... the most important hit on her
- may have been the 14" shot from Prince of Wales that
- penetrated an oil bunker, fouling the oil and
- creating a slick. At a stroke it lowered Bismarck's
- endurance (forcing her to turn back), and left a
- long, wide slick of oil for the Brits to follow.
-

... more like for the Brits to loose shortly Prince of Wales retreated to lick it`s wounds. Bismarck`s sortie was already over when the British CAs spotted her; the cover was blown.


-
- "1: The bismark was attacked by many! Bi_planes, and
- theyr AA-Gunnery was not up to date (they used the
- old one, cause the new one was not aviable for now &
- Hitler wanted to complete the ship NOW)."

-
- German ship-based AA gunnery was categorically
- pathetic.
-

Yeah, more crap from the same mouth... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



- Bismarck was nothing special in this area
- and shipped quite a few COMPLETELY WORTHLESS 5.9"
- guns and some smallish 4.1" guns for a secondary
- battery because they had no adequate dual-purpose
- gun (like the 5"/38).
-

Again, more rubbish. Bismarcks carried a heavy array of 15cm guns for anti shipping purposes only, and a fairly capable cluster of 16x10.5cm guns for AAA, each on a tri-axially stabilised platform for great stability on the heavy seas. The 10.5cm guns were nothing sort of special, they had quite high ROF with 15-18/min, and were certainly a better solution than the overly heavy, limited elevation, low ROF British 5.25" guns, or the too light/too few French/Italian solutions on their modern BBs. US BBs of course were the best in this category, no dobut about that.



-
-
- "3: 1 single Torpedo-Hit destroyed a part of the
- rudder system (every ship gets into trubble if an
- torpedo hit the rudder)."
-
- MINOR trouble for a ship with 4 screws. HUGE trouble
- for a ship with 3.
-

Prince of Wales, 4 screw(ed) Battleship. A single japanese torpedo hits the same spot as with Bismarck.

Result: the whole belly ripped of, screws, rudder smashed, water breaks into the machine comparment, all generators stop, ship`s halted dead in water, water breaks in, pumps not working, ship sinks with heavy loss of life.

-
- "4: the germans sunk the bismark them-selfes, some
- years ago they found the sunken ship, there was no
- damage on the main Hull."
-
- WRONG. Absolute HOGWASH. Prince of Wales planted a
- 14" shell BELOW THE WATERLINE, straight into an oil
- bunker. Bismarck was burning from stem to stern, the
- main battery had been knocked out without achieving
- ANYTHING against the KGV and Rodney. Bismarck was a
- floating corpse - pounded into scrap metal by two
- British ships mounting weapons of mediocre
- performance.
-

Yada, yada, yada. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


-
- The 109 would have been an operational DISASTER as a
- carrier plane as it was FAR too lightly built.
-

Sure Einstein. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


-
-
-
- "9: it was 1940 an the war just begun, tell me what
- carrier Aircraft were in use by the Royal-Navy or
- the US-Navy ?"
-
- Well, the F4U Corsair was beginning certification
- for carrier deployment and the F4F Wildcat was
- entering service. A Wildcat would have been a decent
- match for a structurally beefed-up 109, the Corsair
- would dominate it. PERIOD.


Yeah, yeah. Doh-me-n8. Sure! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



-
- "But it sure was good enough to be no "dead meat"
- for anyone."
-
- Against the following, Bismarck is "dead meat":
-
- USS North Carolina
- USS Washington
- USS South Dakota
- USS Massachusetts
- USS Alabama
- USS Indiana
- USS Iowa
- USS New Jersey
- USS Wisconsin
- USS Missouri
- IJN Yamato
- IJN Musashi
- FN Jean Bart
- FN Richeliu
- HMS Vanguard


Sure, Sherlock, sure. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



USS North Carolina, USS Washington all all outclassed in firepower, speed, and protection.


USS South Dakota, USS Massachusettss, USS Alabama USS Indiana is a better match with slightly improved armor. Their historical record is poor, the USS South Dakota itself was badly beaten by a 20-year old, smaller Japanese Battlecruiser, when the whole ship suddenly broke down in the middle of the battle.


USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Wisconsin, USS Missouri: great matches, being very different from Bismarck in their design philosophy: they have great guns and FC, and really fast, but rather fragile and vulnerable.

IJN Yamato, IJN Musashi: No doubt about that the Yamatos were the most powerful warships on Earth. They could easily smash any opposition without difficulties.


FN Jean Bart, FN Richeliu : 1st it`s Richeliue... at least learn to spell it. Otherwise they are equals of the Bismarck class, with very good defense, and higher speeds, but their secondary armament in awkward and less capable, and they are vulnerable with only 2 main turrets.

HMS Vanguard : In what, really? The same stupid armor scheme as with the KGV, guns from WW1, though speed is quite good. Not really a 100% match.


-
- A fully worked-up KGV is a good match for Bismarck
- alone.

Laugable. Let`s see, inferior firepower, armor layout, weakly protected turrets, which ain`t working 50% of time anyways, inferior firecontrol, and ship size...

As a matter of interest, Winston Churchill in a memorandum to the Admirality ordered that two KGV class BBs to be employed constantly in the vicininty of Tirpitz if it comes to the possibility of an engagement, with a 3rd one in reserve, if one of the KGVs happens to get damaged.


That alone speaks very clearly on how the British beleived in their own equipment. There`s also a letter from a veteran on the HMS King George V. A sentence goes as the following:

"Thanks god we never caught up with the Tirpitz."


- There's not enough speed difference to
- matter,

Rubbish.

- KGV has better armor,

Rubbish. Bismarck carries 18 400 metric tons of armor - 40% of her displacment. KGV: 12 600 tons of armor for the whole ship, representing 32% of her displacment.



- Bismarck has better
- guns.

True. They have 50% higher ROF, higher velocity, they carry more explosives, have better penetration, and most important of all, unlike KGV`s main guns, THEY WORKED.


- Fire control is a dead heat, until the Brits
- get US radar fire controls and then the advantage is
- solidly on the side of the Brits.

Rubbish. Bismarck: 3 fire directors, with the main rangefinder`s lenght of 10.5meters, as compared to only two directors on KGV, with a rangefinder lenght of only 4.6 meters (ridiculusly little for ANY battleship!). In addtion, with the new coating and gas filling the German were using at the beginning of WW2, which greatly enchanced their optic`s quality under poor visibility conditions, there`s simply no contest in this field.


-
- The Italian treaty battleships and the Bismarcks are
- a dead heat for the worst true battleships of the
- Second World War on a ton-for-ton basis.
-

Yeah-yeah, Sherlock, with all the knowladge you have (not) showed here, your word has an especially heavy weight in this conversation. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:33 PM
Thanks for this post Isegrim.


I can`t judge about every single aspect of your long post, but refering to "Bismarck" and "Scharnhorst" this is the story everyone can read and learn in every book, some of the usual references already shown in this thread.


I simply couldn`t believe that this guy is typing such a rubbish, simply disgusting.


I`m not sure if he is a over-patriotic and nationalistic moron, or simply a troll.


Thanks for doing the job, it had to be done.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 10:10 PM
Congrats SkyChimp, this thread is turning out pretty good.

If no lock, I predict 300 or more hits are possible here.

Nice work!


http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 10:33 PM
the only truly wastefull carrier loss, was that of the carrier Taiho during the Mariana Turkey shoot in 1944.
Just prior to launch operations the Taiho took a torpedo that ruptured a fuel line. Apparently, her captain ordered the ventilation system to be activated, allowing fuel vapors to spread throguh the entire ship. The only thing it took to send her down, was a little spark.

I'm a crappy pilot, but one hell of a shot.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 10:33 PM
SpearchuckerJ wrote:


- German radial prop engines were categorically
- under-powered relative to the R-2800, and bad things
- are in prospect.



Please, educate me about the "categorically under-powered" BMW 801 radial engine.


I always like to learn new things.



9: it was 1940 an the war just begun, tell me what
- carrier Aircraft were in use by the Royal-Navy or
- the US-Navy ?"
-
- Well, the F4U Corsair was beginning certification
- for carrier deployment and the F4F Wildcat was
- entering service. A Wildcat would have been a decent
- match for a structurally beefed-up 109, the Corsair
- would dominate it. PERIOD.



In 1940? Beginning carrier certification? Corsair?

Maybe you could share with us when the Corsair was cleared for carrier ops. by the US Navy?


And just for kicks, since we are dealing with a "what if" scenario, how do you think the Wildcat have fared if the German Navy started flying FW190s off the deck of an aircraft carrier in late 1941/early 1942?


You know, the FW190 with the "categorically under-powered" BMW radial engine?


Just for kicks you know.




http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 10:33 PM
FW190fan wrote:

- Congrats SkyChimp, this thread is turning out pretty
- good.
-
- If no lock, I predict 300 or more hits are possible
- here.
-
- Nice work!



/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Do I smell some sarcasm here? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Well, actually I agree: SC did a good a job. This forum need a navy-discussion from time to time.

All these endless "P-47 vs Fieseler Storch" battles becomes boring after a while.

The original thread-title doesn`t matter at all. And choosing an aircraft-carrier makes sure to be "on-topic", well, somehow...



And then, I usually don`t quote signatures, but this one is simply great:

- ====================================
- "I hit you so hard there would be tiny little
- ME-109's flying in circles around your head" -
- USAFHelos
- ====================================


Well, since english isn`t my native language, just allow me one question:

Does "hit you so hard" actually means the same like, erm, well ?

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif







Message Edited on 06/20/0311:09PM by leonid05

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 10:42 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Oh, Americans are just SO GREAT.

Yes, the US Naval Aviation in WW2 was without doubt the best one and without rivals from 1943 onward.

- IJN Yamato, IJN Musashi: No doubt about that the
- Yamatos were the most powerful warships on Earth.
- They could easily smash any opposition without
- difficulties.

Yes if they would have been able to hit something.
At the Battle of Samar, the only time where the Yamato has fired her big guns against enemy warships she didn't hit any of the CVEs with its main armament. Her heavy turrets were revolving too slowly and the 18-in gun rate of fire wasn't outstanding in this fast manoeuvering battle.

- HMS Vanguard : In what, really? The same stupid
- armor scheme as with the KGV, guns from WW1, though
- speed is quite good. Not really a 100% match.

The Vanguard would have been more than a match for the Bismarck.
See its design included the war lessons learned so far and her WW1-vintage (but relatively unused) 15-in guns were very reliable, powerful, accurate and up to the task.

Also don't forget that she had the all or nothing armour distribution which was superior to the layered one used in WW1 and adopted for the WW2 German battleships.

Futhermore, all the battleships sunk or disabled by gunfire in WW2 had the obsolete armour layout:Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Hood, Bretagne, Kirishima, Hiei and Yamashiro.

On the other hand, PoW, DoY, Dunkerque, Richelieu, Jean Bart and South Dakota have all been damaged by large-caliber shells without serious consequences.







<center>Qui vainc sans risque triomphe sans gloire.</center>
<center>http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/images/tempestv_t.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 11:41 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Wisconsin, USS
- Missouri: great matches, being very different from
- Bismarck in their design philosophy: they have great
- guns and FC, and really fast, but rather fragile and
- vulnerable.



I've seen you offer this opinion before. You seem to be the only person that believes it.

Let's compare the "fragile" Iowa class to the "super dooper" Bismarck

Iowa class
up to
belt > 12.1"
bulkheads > 14.5"
decks > 6"
turrets > 17"
barbettes > 17"


N. Carolina class
up to
belt > 12.25"
bulkheads > 11"
decks > 5"
turrets > 18"
barbettes > 17.25"



Bismarck class
up to
belt > 12.6"
bulkheads > 8.7"
decks > 3.15"
turrets > 14.2"
barbettes > 13.4"



The Bismarck looks like a cruiser in comparison.




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg



Message Edited on 06/21/0302:55AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 11:43 PM
FW190fan wrote:

- And just for kicks, since we are dealing with a
- "what if" scenario, how do you think the Wildcat
- have fared if the German Navy started flying FW190s
- off the deck of an aircraft carrier in late
- 1941/early 1942?


A "what-if fantasy plane" versus a real plane that actually flew off the decks of carriers?

Come on, Fw.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 11:51 PM
I didn't intend this thread to rate the qualitative merits of the Graf Zeppelin. It would be fundementally unfair to compare Germany's first try to really first rate American carriers. But since its been brought up...

There were a lot of things wrong with the design of the G. Zeppelin:

It had a poor tower configuration, it had heavy armament that would have been all but useless, all its anti-aircraft guns were on the starboard side, it would have carried a very small compliment of planes, and its range was very small for a fleet carrier.




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 11:59 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- it would have carried a very small compliment of
- planes, and its range was very small for a fleet
- carrier.
-

That's really the heart of the matter right there. She doesn't have the air group size to sustain any kind of action. Against the unsinkable aicraft carriers of England and Iceland she'd be out of luck.

If she ever managed to escape into the Atlantic, simple aerial operations - never mind enemy action - would soon reduce her air group to insignificance. Then she's nothing more than a large cruiser.

How would the Germans have resupplied her? With submarines?




"When you're going through Hell, keep going." - Sir Winston

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 12:12 AM
-- 2) Bismarck, when facing Rodney and KGV was
-- "soft-killed" in a matter of minutes.
-
- Rubbish. Facts:
-
- 8:47 HMS Rodney opens fire. Not capable of even
- hitting Bismarck until
-
- 9:02 Bismarck is hit for the first time. It tooks
- approx. 45 minutes only to silence the main battery,
- until


Rodney hit Bismarck with her third salvo, well before 9:02. 9:02 was the first serious damage, with the forward fire director destroyed.

- 9:31, when the last main turret is silenced
- (secondary and tertiary continue to fire), and
- Captain Lindemann ordered the scuttling of the ship.

By 9:10, the RN recorded the Bismarck as effectively silenced. By 9:20, only 1 main turret was still in operation.

If your time of 9:02 was correct, it would mean Bismarck lost 2 turrets, and was effectively silenced, 8 mins after the first hit.

- "She cannot be sunk by gunfire."
-
- End of story.

There's a huge difference between sinking and destroying. The Bismarck was a floating wreck. She was no longer under control, or able to fight.

The old sailing ships of Nelson's era were hard to sink with gunfire, but that hardly makes them special.

- The "pathetic" Scharnhorst was the most successful
- capitol ship of WW2, credited with the sinking of a
- dozen merchantman, some British destroyers and aux.
- cruisers, sinking the British carrier "HMS
- Glorious", together with all it`s escorts and 1500
- sailors, scoring one of the longest hits in the
- history of naval warfare.

So basically the first time she came up against a warship of the same size, she was sunk? (apart from the time she (and her sister ship) ran from the Renown)

- The final verdict: Cameron`s recent expedition on
- the Bismarck site had carefully inspected the wreck,
- including the anti-torpedo defense system. The
- close-up camara records showed, that despite the
- ship travelled hundreds of meters on it`s keel, the
- anti-torpedo system WAS FULLY INTACT, NOT EVEN ONE
- BREACH ON IT, NOT EVEN A SCRATCH. In other words,
- the British torpedoes had no effect on it. They
- teared up the outer plating, but the inner, main
- layer remained intact. No wonder was still afloat
- after taking more than 10 torpedoes - if the TDS
- would have really taken damage, she would have to
- sink long tiem ago.
-
- Argue that.

Cameron showed that the damage to the torpedo bulges at some locations hadn't penetrated the inner hull. It's not clear wether the hits he investigated were 18 in air dropped torpedos or 21 in torps from the cruisers.

Cameron was not able to examine the entire lower hull, as it's partly buried.

As to sinking from 10 torpedoes, the Bismarck was hit by three torpedoes from the Swordfish, which caused catastrophic damage to the stern, and minor damage elsewhere. She was hit by 3 torpedoes from Dorsetshire, after the battle, and sank soon afterwards.

- Again, more rubbish. Bismarcks carried a heavy array
- of 15cm guns for anti shipping purposes only, and a
- fairly capable cluster of 16x10.5cm guns for AAA,
- each on a tri-axially stabilised platform for great
- stability on the heavy seas. The 10.5cm guns were
- nothing sort of special, they had quite high ROF
- with 15-18/min, and were certainly a better solution
- than the overly heavy, limited elevation, low ROF
- British 5.25" guns, or the too light/too few
- French/Italian solutions on their modern BBs.

And yet in action they failed utterly. 2 attacks by Swordfishes, and none shot down.

- Result: the whole belly ripped of, screws, rudder
- smashed, water breaks into the machine comparment,
- all generators stop, ship`s halted dead in water,
- water breaks in, pumps not working, ship sinks with
- heavy loss of life.

Not quite. The prop shaft began to vibrate, opening a hole and causing flooding, but the POW was still underway. She was then hit by more torpedoes, for a total of 7, plus some bombs.

Thankfully, loss of life on the PoW wasn't that high, the ship took over an hour to sink, allowing most of her crew to be taken off.

-- "4: the germans sunk the bismark them-selfes, some
-- years ago they found the sunken ship, there was no
-- damage on the main Hull."
--
-- WRONG. Absolute HOGWASH. Prince of Wales planted a
-- 14" shell BELOW THE WATERLINE, straight into an oil
-- bunker. Bismarck was burning from stem to stern, the
-- main battery had been knocked out without achieving
-- ANYTHING against the KGV and Rodney. Bismarck was a
-- floating corpse - pounded into scrap metal by two
-- British ships mounting weapons of mediocre
-- performance.
--
-
- Yada, yada, yada.

So facts are met with "yada yada yada"?

Bismarcks hull was penetrated in several places, both above and below the waterline. Even Cameron admits this. In fact, after the 3 hits from PoW, Bismarck already had a 9 deg list, and was down at the bow.

- As a matter of interest, Winston Churchill in a
- memorandum to the Admirality ordered that two KGV
- class BBs to be employed constantly in the vicininty
- of Tirpitz if it comes to the possibility of an
- engagement, with a 3rd one in reserve, if one of the
- KGVs happens to get damaged.

Why fight one - on - one when you can fight 2 or 3 to one?

- Rubbish. Bismarck: 3 fire directors, with the main
- rangefinder`s lenght of 10.5meters, as compared to
- only two directors on KGV, with a rangefinder lenght
- of only 4.6 meters (ridiculusly little for ANY
- battleship!). In addtion, with the new coating and
- gas filling the German were using at the beginning
- of WW2, which greatly enchanced their optic`s
- quality under poor visibility conditions, there`s
- simply no contest in this field.

You're ignoring radar. KGV used radar fire control throughout, even during the fight with the Bismarck.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 12:17 AM
The Germans had a suprisingly large, organized and well stocked setup of supply ships scattered thru the Atlantic. And was concealed well enough its extent wasn't realized until the end of the war.

The real problem would have been spares for aircraft and replacing lost pilots. And thats just a logistical point of view. When it came down to it though it just wasn't thought out well, like much of the Kriegsmarine at the time. The old timers wanted to rebuild the glory of the WW1 era, unfortunately they wished and continued to push for it on a non existant support fleet. One does not build the BBs and CVs first then think about the DD, DEs(FFs), tenders, CLs.

http://cragger.freeservers.com/images/il2_sig_1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 12:34 AM
I read that they were going to make a Bf109T to put on the carrier, but the 109 would have SUCKED as a carrier fighter. No range. Cramped as hell. And it would have been hard as hell to land with its dinky little landing gear. They were also going to make Ju87C's for it, and they would probably be excellent carrier bombers, but again, range is a problem, as is vulnerability. And, it would have a big price on it because it was such an audacious idea. So Graf Zepplin most likely would have gone the way of the Bismarck.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 12:42 AM
the kreigsmarine could have bought liscence on japanese aircraft. And maybe comissioned some carriers in the late 30's and 1940 from japanese shipyards. The japanese had an excellent carrier fleet.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 03:14 AM
I see the Luftwhiner idiocy extends to warships...


"- Rubbish. The reason Bismarck rudder jammed was
- because it`s rudder jammed with one of screws in a
- hard turn position. It wouldn`t matter what shaft
- configuration, no ship could steer itself with it`s
- props against the direction a fully deflected
- rudder."

Oooops. Wrong. Not only could US battleships steer with a rudder at full deflection, so could ANY battleship where the designers didn't make the criminally stupid descision to use a single rudder and 3 screws. ALL modern US ships had 2 rudders and 4 screws. Run two full astern and the other two full forward and the ship turns. End of story. THREE screws = death.



" - Situation: Bismarck travels at only 8 knots, ship is
- unable to make evasive manouvers, fire control
- suffers from erratic movements of the ship. Ship is
- only capable of firing with forward guns at enemy
- due to alignment.
-
- 8:47 HMS Rodney opens fire. Not capable of even
- hitting Bismarck until
-
- 9:02 Bismarck is hit for the first time. It tooks
- approx. 45 minutes only to silence the main battery,
- until
-
- 9:31, when the last main turret is silenced
- (secondary and tertiary continue to fire), and
- Captain Lindemann ordered the scuttling of the ship."

Your timing is flat-out wrong, as shown previously. Bend the facts when they don't suit you.

Naval artillery, my dear ignorant friend, is only as good as the fire control systems used to direct it. Bismarck shifted to LOCAL CONTROL VERY EARLY when the main battery directors were knocked out. Effectively SOFT KILLING her. And for all your bravado, you can't escape the fact that Bismarck managed to hit her antagonists a grand total of ZERO times in the final battle. She was rendered impotent in minutes.



"She cannot be sunk by gunfire."

She would have sunk, had she not been scuttled. Nothing could have stopped it, and she managed to get her impotent self sunk without having to face the truly devastating weapons the US and Japanese could bring to bear. Trust me, a 16"/50 firing a 2700 lbs. shell would go through Bismarck's belt like a hot knife through butter, and Bismarck's MISERABLE deck armor posed no obstacle whatsoever - USS Massachusetts penetrated FAR THICKER deck armor in her duel with Jean Bart.



"- With it`s "battle with the DoY"? You mean, the Duke
- of York, 3 heavy cruisers, and whole a destroyer
- flottila..."

Yes, but I also mean the boilers that sat ABOVE the belt and deck armor - another critical (and also criminally stupid) error in German ship design. Look at ANY other nation's battleships and see how many boilers are above the deck armor. The Lexington-class battlecruisers designed by the US were stopped and redesigned in the 1910's before they got out the door because of this (and the need to build smaller ships).



"And BTW, she was a Battlecruiser, not a Battleship."

Notice the term "capital ship" being used, and not "battleship". Congratulations to the Germans for building two examples of a ship that had been discredited 20 years earlier, and doing it BADLY. At least the Americans had the sense to identify the Alaskas as "carrier escorts" and not "battlecruisers".



Concerning underwater protection:

US systems maintained FAR GREATER DEPTH abeam turrets with more layers. Actually, the deepest part of the system was squarely abreast the after turret in the Iowas.

Bismarcks's underwater protection failed as follows, from a TINY aerial torpedo:

""At dusk, a torpedo attack was made by Swordfish biplane torpedo bombers from Victorious, which had drawn to within 200 miles of Bismarck's position during the early evening of 24 May. The torpedo planes made their attacks, but were only able to make one hit. The torpedo struck the 320-mm main armor belt on the starboard side between the forward command tower and the funnel. The shock effect of this explosion was substantial, throwing one crew member against the superstructure, killing him, and severely injuring six men in the forward starboard turbo-generator room (Compartment XIV) inboard of the point of torpedo detonation.8

The torpedo detonation also displaced emergency damage control shoring and hammock patches in the welds, and weakened already damaged structure on the port side. This resulted in the complete flooding of a forward boiler room on the port side."

Whoops. So much for such great underwater design - lost a complete boiler room to a torpedo any US or British ship would have shrugged off. US CRUISERS showed equivalent resistance to weapons this large.

Bismarck's protection is 10 FEET DEEP ABREAST THE TURRETS. Fully the shallowest of ANY of the modern battleships.



"Oh, Americans are just SO GREAT."

Let's just list some American strengths in WW2:

1) By far the most efficient deck-handling and operational procedures for aircraft onboard aircraft carriers. The US could carry, manage, and launch larger air groups than any other nation. The Japanese met their match at around 70, the Brits at around 54, the US at 132.

2) The single most destructive piece of naval artillery ever put aboard ship. Yes, that's right, even the Yamato's mighty 18.1" guns fell to second when compared to the 16"/50 and 16"/45 at long ranges - where all modern battleships were designed to fight.

3) Far and away the best fire control systems of the war. The only nation to have ships capable of turning complete 360 deg. doughnuts and maintaining a fire control solution. USS Washington hit IJN Kirishima 9 times in less than 15 minutes (10 salvoes), and SANK HER. US battleships could manuver at will and pound their opponents mercilessly at the same time.

4) The best damage control procedures of the war. NO US cruiser sank due to a single torpedo hit, even if the hit was from a Long Lance.

5) The good sense (eventually) to learn from the Brits concerning anti-submarine procedures. 800 U-boats at the bottom because of it, and one that's a MUSEUM IN CHICAGO (U-505).

Great? Safe to say MUCH MUCH better than the platoon of morons who drew up the Bismarck.



"- Largest bomb can be carried by the weak structured,
- pathetically underpowered FW 190: 1800 kg"

Now drop that pig on a pitching carrier. Simply put, the FW-190 wasn't designed for it and could never have survived it without significant structural revision. A tailhook landing would have ripped the tailplane right off.

Holy buckets, you can't be this stupid. Noone is dimwitted enough to try a deck landing with a plane that wasn't designed to do it.



"- Super-duper, titanium structure R-2800 powered US
- naval fighter, largest bomb can be carried: 454kg..."


Corsairs got into the air with 6000 lbs. - about 1000kg heavier than the loadout of your mighty FW-190.

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html

Chalk another one up for the R-2800.



"- Again, more rubbish. Bismarcks carried a heavy array
- of 15cm guns for anti shipping purposes only, and a
- fairly capable cluster of 16x10.5cm guns for AAA,
- each on a tri-axially stabilised platform for great
- stability on the heavy seas. The 10.5cm guns were
- nothing sort of special, they had quite high ROF
- with 15-18/min, and were certainly a better solution
- than the overly heavy, limited elevation, low ROF
- British 5.25" guns, or the too light/too few
- French/Italian solutions on their modern BBs. US BBs
- of course were the best in this category, no dobut
- about that."

As I said:

The 5.9" guns WERE A WASTE and the 4.1" guns were too small and had a lower rate of fire than the 5"/38. Glad we agree.

Couldn't even shoot down a SWORDFISH, for the love of Pete.



"- Prince of Wales, 4 screw(ed) Battleship. A single
- japanese torpedo hits the same spot as with
- Bismarck."


Actually, NOT on the same spot. POW's hit struck a support strut for a screw, NOT a rudder. The shaft flailed badly. Amazingly, USS Pennsylvania SURVIVED a similar hit, and MAINTAINED THE ABILITY TO STEER and was only roughly 30 years younger than Bismarck and POW.



"- USS North Carolina, USS Washington all all
- outclassed in firepower, speed, and protection."

Both American ship classes (South Dakotas and North Carolinas) carry the SAME GUNS and the SAME SHELLS you idiot. Ask Kirishima's crew about firepower sometime. Bismarck had better firepower than North Carolina???? Sure... 16"/45 with 2700 lbs shells against a 15" German gun with shells a good 1000 lbs. (better than 50%) lighter. What you know about naval ballistics could be fit into thimble - with room to spare. Better protection??? You're on crack. Take a look at that deck protection some time. USS Massachusetts planted a 16" shell straight into a secondary magazine on Jean Bart, penetrating FAR deck thicker protection than Bismarck could ever offer. The US belt is INCLINED and has an outer shell to destroy the ballistic caps of armor-piercing shells. Furthermore, the armor is made of MUCH higher grade steel.

Bismarck's armor scheme is INFERIOR to the COLORADO class, let alone the North Carolinas.



"when the whole ship suddenly broke down in the middle of the battle."

South Dakota's protection was never ONCE penetrated. A direct hit to a barbette bounced off. At no point was South Dakota EVER in danger of sinking. Meanwhile, the "weaker" Washington is punching holes in Kirishima from stem to stern - and sinking her with 9 hits. At no point was her propulsion ever compromised.



"- USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Wisconsin, USS
- Missouri: great matches, being very different from
- Bismarck in their design philosophy: they have great
- guns and FC, and really fast, but rather fragile and
- vulnerable."

Here's the height of idiocy. You're too ignorant to bother arguing with anymore. Go to www.warships1.com (http://www.warships1.com) , hit the Battleship vs. Battleship message boards along with the ship data sections and get some education. Norman Friedman's books will also help.



"-- There's not enough speed difference to
-- matter,
-
- Rubbish."

At 30 knots, it takes a 5 knot differential in speed for one ship to "turn the corner" and cross the "T" of another. Again - education will help you struggle through the fog you live in.


Start with Nathan Okun's work on ballistics available at the website mentioned. It will help clear up the fact that British armor was second to none.

Your calculations for armor percentages are also off, due to the fact that every navy calculated armor percentages differently. Some include turret armor, some don't. Some call deck armor ship's structure, other don't.

Your self-gratifying Nazi-worship extends only as far as true knowledge lets it.

Bismarck was junk, plain and simple. Full-on cannon fodder for any modern American or Japanese battleship and the largest French units.


A word on fire controls - US fire controls (and later British models) DID NOT use optics for ranging. They used RADAR. Base length is irrelavant if the other guy is using radar. No warship other than an American one mounted stabilized radar-directed fire controls.


************************************************

I'll take my car with 382 fully forged cubic inches of fire-breathing, MPFI, nitrous sniffing, all aluminum, tire-roasting Chevrolet power, thank you very much.


"If you can turn, you aren't going fast enough."

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 04:04 AM
Damn Speakchucker. Great post!

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 04:25 AM
Chirp, chirp, chirp..

I think that shut somebody up, I have no idea if what he says is right or wrong. I wouldn't want to argue with spearchucker though, he seems to know what he is talking about, anyone disagree with him?





"The Peacock will be on time, fan his tail."

William Frederick "Bull" Halsey

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 04:38 AM
Jean Bart. Damage inflicted by Massachusetts.

http://www.warship.get.net.pl/Francja/Battleships/1940_Richelieu_class/Jean_Bart_damaged_02.jpg


http://www.warship.get.net.pl/Francja/Battleships/1940_Richelieu_class/Jean_Bart_damaged_03.jpg


http://www.warship.get.net.pl/Francja/Battleships/1940_Richelieu_class/Jean_Bart_13.jpg


http://www.warship.get.net.pl/Francja/Battleships/1940_Richelieu_class/Jean_Bart_23.jpg




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 04:47 AM
SkyChimp wrote:


- A "what-if fantasy plane" versus a real plane that
- actually flew off the decks of carriers?
-
- Come on, Fw.



Umm...so you are the one that started this whole "what if" thread and now it's not cool to talk about a "what if" scenario?

Come on, SC.


http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:05 AM
FW190fan wrote:

- Umm...so you are the one that started this whole
- "what if" thread and now it's not cool to talk about
- a "what if" scenario?
-
- Come on, SC.



Ok, lets answer your question:

"And just for kicks, since we are dealing with a "what if" scenario, how do you think the Wildcat have fared if the German Navy started flying FW190s off the deck of an aircraft carrier in late 1941/early 1942?"

I think they would have been formidable. But certainly not up to the standards of the regular land based variant, after the added weight of navalization, and with a proportional decrease in performance.

A navalized Fw-190A would likely have had a speed advantage, and a climb advantage over the F4F-4, but in a dogfight I'd go with the F4F. The F4F was supremely manueverable in comparison to German fighters. It was much more manueverable than even then Corsair, which itself was much more manueverable than the Fw-190A.

I also think the F4F would have been better at altitude. The F4F was a great high altitude interceptor and the Fw-190A lost a lot as it climbed.

I think the F4F is a highly underrated plane. It was underrated in North Africa where it easily shot down faster Vichy French P-36s and D520. It was underrated by the Japanese in the Pacific where in 1944 pilots were still making Ace in the plane.


Now, had the GZ put to sea in late 1942 or 1943 as would be more realisitc, how would its planes have stacked up against Hellcats?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg



Message Edited on 06/21/0308:21AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:44 AM
SpearchuckerJ wrote:


- Simply put,
- the FW-190 wasn't designed for it and could never
- have survived it without significant structural
- revision. A tailhook landing would have ripped the
- tailplane right off.


What "significant structural revision" would be needed to make the FW190 ready for carrier ops?


Key word: Significant


Do you think the Zero was built stronger than the Focke-Wulf?



- Holy buckets, you can't be this stupid. Noone is
- dimwitted enough to try a deck landing with a plane
- that wasn't designed to do it.


You might want to pass this one along to the Royal Navy as well as the US Navy, both of whom did just this during WWII.



- Corsairs got into the air with 6000 lbs. - about
- 1000kg heavier than the loadout of your mighty
- FW-190.


Not from the deck of an aircraft carrier it didn't, if in fact this "overload" was ever used operationally during WWII. I bet it wasn't.


- Chalk another one up for the R-2800


Why, exactly? The R-2800 in the F4U-4 link you gave put out 2,450hp at full WEP.

A contemporary BMW801 developed 2230-2300hp in the FW190A-9 and FW190F-9, giving them a greater power to weight load than the R-2800 gave the F4U-4.


http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:53 AM
FW190fan wrote:
- What "significant structural revision" would be
- needed to make the FW190 ready for carrier ops?


Were I to guess I'd say:

- Substantially strengthened landing gear
- Strengthened wing struts
- Wings made to fold
- Much heavier tail section
- Larger fin/rudder


Navalizing the 190 would have seriously added some weight. Take a look at what navalization did to the performance of the early Seafires.



- Do you think the Zero was built stronger than the
- Focke-Wulf?


Two things:

1. The Zero was so much lighter than the Fw that the stress put on the airframe was much less due simply to the lesser weight of the aircraft.

2. It probably did have a weight-proportional stronger tail and landing gear. I don't think it would be possible to measure this though.



- Why, exactly? The R-2800 in the F4U-4 link you gave
- put out 2,450hp at full WEP.
-
- A contemporary BMW801 developed 2230-2300hp in the
- FW190A-9 and FW190F-9, giving them a greater power
- to weight load than the R-2800 gave the F4U-4.


Yes, but what happens to the Fw's weight when the A-9 is navalized?




---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 06:02 AM
leonid05 wrote:

- Do I smell some sarcasm here?


- Well, actually I agree:

- SC did a good a job. This
- forum need a navy-discussion from time to time.
- And then, I usually don`t quote signatures, but this
- one is simply great:


No, I wasn't really being sarcastic. (OK maybe just a little)

I don't know much about naval ops. and this thread has been a pretty interesting "what if" scenerio.

This forum has been kind of boring lately.



- And then, I usually don`t quote signatures, but this
- one is simply great:


-- ====================================
-- "I hit you so hard there would be tiny little
-- ME-109's flying in circles around your head" -
-- USAFHelos
-- ====================================



- Well, since english isn`t my native language, just
- allow me one question:
-
- Does "hit you so hard" actually means the same like,
- erm, well ?


HeHe, this is where one of our misguided forum "VIPs" told me he would hit me if we met in real life.

I thought it was so hilarious I decided to add it to my sig.





http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 06:18 AM
SpearchuckerJ wrote:
- At least the Americans had the sense to identify the
- Alaskas as "carrier escorts" and not
- "battlecruisers".

USS Alaska (CB 1)was a large cruiser.

- Amazingly, USS Pennsylvania SURVIVED
- a similar hit, and MAINTAINED THE ABILITY TO STEER
- and was only roughly 30 years younger than Bismarck
- and POW.

The Pennsylvania was hit at anchor if she had been at sea the damages would have been worse and afterward she was towed to Guam for repairs.


FYI,the half-finished Jean Bart was unable to move when hit by US 16-in shells.

<center>Qui vainc sans risque triomphe sans gloire.</center>
<center>http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/images/tempestv_t.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 06:18 AM
@SkyChimp,

thanks for playing along. After all, you started it/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


@Cowace,

Good points.


Unfortunately it's 1:15AM here and I've got to get up early tomorrow.

If this thread doesn't get the lockdown I will try and reply to you guys tomorrow.






http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 08:46 AM
Im sorry, but when did the FW-190 take off from a Carrier deck with its full load of bombs? What is the tanke off roll on a fully loaded FW190? Would it ever make it?

Also, yes the FW-190 would need some serious changes to make it on the deck. The tail hook would rip its aft section off on a landing. That would neer to be re-inforced adding weight to the tail. Much more stronger landing gear, additional weight for the folding wings, removal of the outer guns, more fuel for range. Looking at its wing structure (long alarons and wide landing gear) the only place for the folding wings would remove the bomb racks on the wing. So its only stores would be belly. It had a rather low carrage for such a wide stance and it could not load a large bomb on the belly. A carrier based FW-190 would be stuck with only a 250 pound equivilant bomb! No bomb at all with the fuel tank it would need for any extended range. Also, add to that the pilots view. You think its hard now to shoot down fighters? Try landing that thing! US and British were landing aircraft on a pitching deck a LOT longer then the Germans, and it took them a LONG damn time to figure out how to get a F4U on one. Do you think the Germans would do better? Doubt it. Things would get worse as pilot attrition started in 44.

I first said the FW-190 would be good for carrier ops. Now reading the facts and further thinking, I dont think so. I think if the Luftwaffa wanted a serious carrier fighter, it would need to start fresh. We all know that the Luftwaffa really did not have time for a compleatly new fighter. FW-190 was one of the last new designs to be introduced till the Me-262. Meanwile the British and US were constantly pumping out newer and better carrier designs almost every other month!!! F4F, F4U, F6F, F7F, F8F plus the torp and dive bombers were Germany had to stick with ground based fighters addopted for carrier use.

I think if the Graff was compleated, it would be next to useless with its extreamly light and short ranged fighters, and the short range of the carrier itself. It would be a turkey shoot.

Gib

FW190fan wrote:
-
-
-
-- Corsairs got into the air with 6000 lbs. - about
-- 1000kg heavier than the loadout of your mighty
-- FW-190.
-
-
- Not from the deck of an aircraft carrier it didn't,
- if in fact this "overload" was ever used
- operationally during WWII. I bet it wasn't.
-
-


"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 11:15 AM
WOW, this is one HELL of a thread.

I have followed this thread for the past day or two and
find it amazing the vast array of facts and pure BS that
have been posted here.

Posters include flag waving SOB's on all sides, everything
from Hungarian ultra nationalists to British empireists,
from NAZI's to 'Red White and Blue' flag waving americans.

I'd like to weigh in on a couple of opinions.

One of my favorite misconceptions, "The A6M series (zero)
was not a strong airplane". This is pure BS. The A6M
was more than strong enough! Mitsubishi created the finest
carrier plane of the early 40's. What the Zero lacked was
state of the art pilot protection and fire prevention.
The fact that a Zero could be easily shot down had nothing
to do with structural strength!

Second, the adaptability of german planes to carrier service.
I would prefer the Me-109 over the Fw-190. With an enlarged
rudder and extended folding wings the 109 would have posessed
superior power to weight. Like the Spitfire it would
have made at least an acceptable carrier plane.

I can not think the Fw-190 would have been a good carrier
plane. Somehow I feel the results would have been similar to
the P-51's carrier tests. Poor low speed handeling and
lack of rudder responce at low speeds made the P-51
unacceptable as a carrier plane (without major mods).
BTW, the P-51 easily handeled the tail hook with little
modification.

Now for the big question, was the Bizmark a superior battleship?
The answer, in the context of time, is YES. But so were
all the battle ships being completed at that time.
My personal opinion is the Bizmark was second to the
Iowa class by a long shot. In my opinion the Bizmark
would have been sent back for major mods and possibly
rejected outright if not for war.
Truth is that there were no real contenders in a slug fest
with an Iowa class battleship (except carriers).
The reasons for this are amply posted in previous posts.

Ok, I am going to break my own rules against sniping at
an individule. I have noticied that one person in particular
can not accept anything Hungarian or German being second
to anything. And if you can believe his posts, all things
American are at best a waste of raw materials!
His comments about Canada last week caught my attention
and he continues to post propaganda glorifing all things
Third Reich.
I suppose if you are Hungarian you have to hang your hat somewhere.
But hanging your hat on a NAZI hook smacks of desperation!
Isegrim, your "facts" are heavily embellished with spin.
You should get into politics, good spin doctors are in demand.

Oh yes, the thread title, A lone carrier with no battle
group for an effective screen would have been an easy
target. Like the Tirpitz and Bizmark it would have recieved
special attention and quickly destroyed or rendered
ineffective like the Tirpitz. Those heavy guns reflected
the lack of understanding of the role of a carrier.
The Graf Zepplin was doomed on paper, a doomed concept.
The Americans and Japanese got it right. The American
Essex class carrier was BY FAR the best operational
carrier of WWII.

You may be able to spin the Bizmark into a super battleship,
but there is no way in Hell to spin the Graf Zepplin into
anything more than a novelty.

Mr.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 11:45 AM
Why would the tail of the 190 be 'ripped off'? The Spit and Hurrie had their hook attached well forward of the tail. The 190 liked to land in a 3-point attitude and a Spit/Hurrie hook position would be excellent for 3-point landings. Some say the P-51 was weak structurally and it made many simulated and several deck landings with only local strengthening. The 190 is suppose to be a tougher 'bird'.

Someone alluded to a bombload of 1800kg for the 190, well when this load was carried, a runway at least a mile long was required for take-off. Was the GZ a mile long?




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 11:54 AM
GREAT POST SPEARCHUCKER.finally some sense in this mad mad world. well my huckleberry? anything to say http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and a great point brought up with american planes....we cranked out new fighter designs by the Bucket loads...operational and flying in force ! what did the germans have? basically just two fighters....what did america have? somebody got a count of americas front line fighters through the war? and of those how many would be effective against the LW? probably all of them.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 12:20 PM
RedDeth wrote:
- GREAT POST SPEARCHUCKER.

what was the best part in Spearchuckers post ?
was it there ,where he called " Isegrim " an Idiot ?

Edit, everybody has his own taste.





http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0



Message Edited on 06/21/0311:33AM by Boandlgramer

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 12:53 PM
some picture for those people with interest


http://www.luftarchiv.de/gerat/2.gif

http://www.luftarchiv.de/gerat/traeger.htm

Drawing with some Data


http://www.luftarchiv.de/gerat/10.jpg
http://www.luftarchiv.de/gerat/bf109.gif


Bf 109


http://www.luftarchiv.de/gerat/6.jpg

fi 167

http://www.luftarchiv.de/gerat/7.jpg


Ar 197


http://www.luftarchiv.de/gerat/5.jpg


Ju 87 C


http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

Message Edited on 06/21/0311:56AM by Boandlgramer

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 01:15 PM
hop2002 wrote:

--
-- 8:47 HMS Rodney opens fire. Not capable of even
-- hitting Bismarck until
--
-- 9:02 Bismarck is hit for the first time. It tooks
-- approx. 45 minutes only to silence the main battery,
-- until
-
- Rodney hit Bismarck with her third salvo, well
- before 9:02. 9:02 was the first serious damage, with
- the forward fire director destroyed.

No, it did not hit it, it was only a straddle. Bismarck straddled Rodney at about the same time.

-
-- 9:31, when the last main turret is silenced
-- (secondary and tertiary continue to fire), and
-- Captain Lindemann ordered the scuttling of the ship.
-
- By 9:10, the RN recorded the Bismarck as effectively
- silenced. By 9:20, only 1 main turret was still in
- operation.

"Effectively silenced"? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif And how did that happen? If all the rear guns, and all the secondaries were still in action, how was she "effectively silenced"? You are strecthing it quite a bit. Knocking out two turrets is very far from silencing a ship.

But, of course, we can use your methods. KGV had only 20-50% of it`s main armement in working order. She was effectively silenced, right?



-
- There's a huge difference between sinking and
- destroying. The Bismarck was a floating wreck. She
- was no longer under control, or able to fight.
-

Her machinery was fully intact, and if her rudder would have been operational, she could have easily left the slow British BBs in the dust as soon as the battle would be



- So basically the first time she [Scharhorst] came up
- against a
- warship of the same size, she was sunk? (apart from
- the time she (and her sister ship) ran from the
- Renown)


Lot`s of fantasy and wishful thinking on your part, Hop.

ad1, S and G did not run from the Renown. They had orders not to engage with enemy capital ships unless neccesary. And it was not neccesary to engage Renown, it was an old, outclassed and outnumbered ship that could not hope to catch up with Scharhorst and Gneisenau and interfere with their mission at all. A few days later they sink - guess who - HMS Glorious. The Renown failed in preventing that happening, which was it`s job. It also failed to prevent the landings in Norway. It was a complete failure.

Hood also sunk the very first time in engaged a similiar sized ship on the seas, even when it was in advantage. The PoW was defeated in the same engagement, it run away, trailing smoke and with a command post filled with it`s commander`s blood.


-
- Cameron showed that the damage to the torpedo bulges
- at some locations hadn't penetrated the inner hull.
-

Again you are manipulating heavily... "some locations"? LOL, Cameron went all over the lenght of the torpedo bulkhead

-
- It's not clear wether the hits he investigated were
- 18 in air dropped torpedos or 21 in torps from the
- cruisers.
-

Irrevelant, as neither could do any damage to the torpedo defenses. With the loads of evidence that surfaced, experts announced that she was not sunk by torpedoes. Those had NO effect on her.

- Cameron was not able to examine the entire lower
- hull, as it's partly buried.

Irrevelant, as if there would be damage on that part, it would become even worse as the ship slipped kilometers on the bottom. But the torpedo defense was intact - in dire contrast of those 150+ British warships that were sunk by torpedoes..



- As to sinking from 10 torpedoes, the Bismarck was
- hit by three torpedoes from the Swordfish, which
- caused catastrophic damage to the stern, and minor
- damage elsewhere. She was hit by 3 torpedoes from
- Dorsetshire, after the battle, and sank soon
- afterwards.

No, at least 8 torpedoes surely hit her, with a number of other probably hit her. Read Brennecke.

For the PoW, a sigle torpedo was effectively enough to sink it.



-
-- Again, more rubbish. Bismarcks carried a heavy array
-- of 15cm guns for anti shipping purposes only, and a
-- fairly capable cluster of 16x10.5cm guns for AAA,
-- each on a tri-axially stabilised platform for great
-- stability on the heavy seas. The 10.5cm guns were
-- nothing sort of special, they had quite high ROF
-- with 15-18/min, and were certainly a better solution
-- than the overly heavy, limited elevation, low ROF
-- British 5.25" guns, or the too light/too few
-- French/Italian solutions on their modern BBs.
-
-
- And yet in action they failed utterly. 2 attacks by
- Swordfishes, and none shot down.
-

It did not fail during the Channel dash, where the similiarly armed Scharhorst and Gneisenau swept the RAF from the sky, remember? Including the guy who led the attack on Bismarck. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif It seems the RAF had the most fragile planes of the war, if they were brought down so easily by such an "obsolate" AAA fire. And of course we can mention how utterly the British carrier based aircraft failed in their raid of Tirpitz. More than 500 sorties from 5 carriers against an achored ship - well, the British proved they could fail even that easy odds, LOL. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

We can also compare it with the AAA "capabilites" of British carriers.. LOL, they spent more time in drydocks to repair the damage taken in air attacks than on the sea! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

-
- Not quite. The prop shaft began to vibrate, opening
- a hole and causing flooding, but the POW was still
- underway. She was then hit by more torpedoes, for a
- total of 7, plus some bombs.
-

Only 4 torpedoes hit Prince of Wales. But one was already enough.

"Prince of Wales Cammell Laird,Birk Jan.2/37 May.3/39 Mar.31/41

hit and sunk by 4 torpedoes from Japanese land based planes Dec.10/41
off Kuantan,Malaya in South China Sea (c 3-30'N, 104-30'E)
was in company of Repulse (Force Z) "


What a great torpedo defense system, isn`t it? A single torp, and the whole ship goes down...


- Thankfully, loss of life on the PoW wasn't that
- high, the ship took over an hour to sink, allowing
- most of her crew to be taken off.

What a great resitant ship... she tooks a single torpedo, and sinks in an hour... compared to another, which was shelled for hours, took twice as many torpedoes, and in the end it`s own crew had to sink it.


-
--- "4: the germans sunk the bismark them-selfes, some
--- years ago they found the sunken ship, there was no
--- damage on the main Hull."
---
--- WRONG. Absolute HOGWASH. Prince of Wales planted a
--- 14" shell BELOW THE WATERLINE, straight into an oil
--- bunker. Bismarck was burning from stem to stern, the
--- main battery had been knocked out without achieving
--- ANYTHING against the KGV and Rodney. Bismarck was a
--- floating corpse - pounded into scrap metal by two
--- British ships mounting weapons of mediocre
--- performance.
---
--
-- Yada, yada, yada.
-
- So facts are met with "yada yada yada"?

Well if these were facts for you... I really feel sorry for you.



-
- Bismarcks hull was penetrated in several places,
- both above and below the waterline.
-

The hull? Penetrated? Why the hull? The hull itself was sacrificable, it`s the armored citadel that contains the vital parts of the ship: machinery, and magazines. The hull itself was completely unarmored, but had armor behind it, which again the British could not penetrate not even once.

The citadel wasn`t penetrated either, NOT EVEN ONCE. In fact, the whole belt was intact, there are several signs of British shells simply breaking up on it... they also break up like bananas when tested against US naval armor. It seems the Brit shells were just as poor as at Skagerrak.

-
- Even Cameron
- admits this. In fact, after the 3 hits from PoW,
- Bismarck already had a 9 deg list, and was down at
- the bow.
-

Which pretty much irrevelant as the damage was so minor that they didn`t even noticed it at the first time. There were no casulties on Bismarck, and the list was trimmed out within an hour. PoW was not so lucky, it had to run away.



-
- Why fight one - on - one when you can fight 2 or 3
- to one?
-

True. But somehow the British were sooo reluctant to engage Tirpitz with their capital ships... Especially after the Brits learned how easily Bismarck could deal with the Prince of Wales (not to mention what happened to the "mighty" Hood).


-
- You're ignoring radar. KGV used radar fire control
- throughout, even during the fight with the Bismarck.
-

Which KGV? The Prince of Wales, which was shooting at Bismarck with radar all the time during Denmark straits, and hit it 3 times causing neglible damage, and in return received 4 hits, which wiped out the entire command staff on the conning towers, holed the ship below the waterline and it took 500 tons of water in it? And Bismarck was not even using it`s own radar at the time, not to mention it was firing at PoW only half the time, as she was occupied with the destruction of Hood in the first half, where she scored another 3 hits on it?

It seems the British radars were only good to score half the hits compared to German optical fire control. No wonder, with larger rangefinders, better quality optics, and more advanced rangefinding methods...


As for King George, she was busy to get it`s turrets even working, and even the British admit that it`s presence in the battle was rather... a case of "showing the flag". /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 01:51 PM
Mr-Awesome wrote:

- WOW, this is one HELL of a thread.
-
- I have followed this thread for the past day or two
- and
- find it amazing the vast array of facts and pure BS
- that
- have been posted here.


Hmmm...


- Posters include flag waving SOB's on all sides,
- everything
- from Hungarian ultra nationalists to British
- empireists,
- from NAZI's to 'Red White and Blue' flag waving
- americans.


True, but must have missed the "NAZI"-part in here...



- Now for the big question, was the Bizmark a superior
- battleship?



Why is that "the big question"?
It isn`t even topic of this thread. And nobody claimed the "Bismarck" being superior in this thread, until the "spearsucker"-troll decided to jump in here to claim that the "Bismarck" was totally crap and outclassed by every US coast-guard boat.

That is totally absurd. I don`t know any historical source that doesn`t give the "Bismarck" the credit it deserves.


And for the US-battleships:
We had this discussion earlier in the past. These BS were excellent, and propably the best BS ever built.

But don`t make the mistake to compare the technology of 1941 with the one of 1945. That smells stinky.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 02:02 PM
LOL,
this thread is another example that US BS is far superior to the rest of the world's BS
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Leonid, the common abbreviation for Battleship is BB
BS stands for something else
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 02:26 PM
"- LOL, this thread is another example that US BS is far
- superior to the rest of the world's BS."

No, it's not. In more than one post here I have pointed out the strengths of other nation's ships:

1) British ballistic armor - the best in the world, and better than American ballistic armor.

2) The terrific design and capabilities of the Jean Bart - in every meaningful way (apart from weapon separation, obviously), superior to the Bismarck.

3) The strengths of the Japanese battleships - particularly the Yamatos. Bad idea to build them? Yes. Amazing ship? Yes.


I'll spend some time here talking about some other things...

Best 15" caliber gun? Probably the British 15"/42. Dead reliable, decent rate of fire, terrific accuracy - and managed to land the longest hit ever on a moving target (USS Warspite). Other nations had 15" guns with better statistics, but nothing put the package together like the Brits did.

Any discussion of Japanese battleships has to include their escorts, and the best torpedo of the war - the Long Lance. Battleships (except for German battleships...) do not sortie alone, and the escorts are a critical component.

I have no problems giving credit where credit is due - if some nation is the best at something, then they are the best. I NEVER venture to compare US submarines to German ones. The problem is that German surface warships were flat-out miserable on so many levels.

As is typical in any discussion of military equipment in WW2 the "Myth of Universal German Equipment Superiority" creeps in - such as with the nonsensical attempt to compare the German 15" gun with the American 16"/45 and 16"/50 or the Japanese 18.1" gun. There simply is no comparison there, relatively speaking the German gun is a pea-shooter and no amount of histrionics can change that fact.



************************************************** *********

I'll take my car with 382 fully forged cubic inches of fire-breathing, MPFI, nitrous sniffing, all aluminum, tire-roasting Chevrolet power, thank you very much.


"If you can turn, you aren't going fast enough."

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 02:34 PM
SpearchuckerJ wrote:

- 1) British ballistic armor - the best in the world,
- and better than American ballistic armor.

sorry i don't mean any offence, but that struck me as quite funny - best in world AND better than American - is america not part of the rest of the world? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

of course, you may have done this intentionally



Message Edited on 06/21/0301:35PM by Black.Six

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 02:35 PM
theRealAntEater wrote:

- Leonid, the common abbreviation for Battleship is BB
- BS stands for something else /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Uups, damn, you`re right, my mistake.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


But for some reason I`m not in the mood to edit my post.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 02:42 PM
Btw, maybe I should use this thread to remind people of the recent passing away of Korvettenkapit¤n Burkhardt Freiherr von Müllenheim-Rechberg, the highest ranking survivor of Bismarck (second artillery officer, fired the last salvo of Bismarck which straddled KGV). He wrote a very interesting book about his experiences. Müllenheim, career naval officer since 1931 and postwar german ambassador to various countries, died on 1st June 2003, at age 93.
May he rest in peace...

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg


Message Edited on 06/21/0301:43PM by theRealAntEater

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 03:17 PM
No Text

Message Edited on 06/21/0309:33PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 03:22 PM
How many tiger tanks would they be able to build with all that material? Because it's not a carrier that's going to save them on the russian front, and that's where germany lost the war.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar... +1 for shooting him down on HL woohoo!

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 03:32 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
-
- Also, yes the FW-190 would need some serious changes
- to make it on the deck.
-

Like what, adding a tailhook... wow, SERIOUS change, really.


- The tail hook would rip its
- aft section off on a landing.


That`s not surprising, it ripped off the the tail section of Corsairs just as well. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



- That would neer to be
- re-inforced adding weight to the tail.

Why?

- Much more
- stronger landing gear,

A landing gear strong enough to take the weight of 4000lbs bombs not enough to hold the plane w/o bombs? Interesting.

- additional weight for the
- folding wings,

So how much is that? 50kg?

- removal of the outer guns,

Why, did Corsairs removed all their wing guns for carrier ops?

- more fuel
- for range.

Hardly a problem.


- Looking at its wing structure (long
- alarons and wide landing gear) the only place for
- the folding wings would remove the bomb racks on the
- wing.

Why one has to remove wingracks to make the wingtips foldable? As the pics show, half of the wing can be easily folded without touching the guns or racks. Zeros did the same thing.

Did Corsairs/Hellcats remove wing bomb racks when in carrier service? They had long ailrons and wide landing gear.



- So its only stores would be belly. It had a
- rather low carrage for such a wide stance and it
- could not load a large bomb on the belly.

Wishful thinking, as the 1800kg bomb WAS carried on the belly rack.

Is this conviencing enough how much the belly rack can handle? :

http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A5-45.jpg



- A carrier
- based FW-190 would be stuck with only a 250 pound
- equivilant bomb!

ad1, No 250 lbs bomb in German inventroy. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
ad2, It would be stuck with a 4000lbs bomb since that could be carried on the center rack. Or a torpedo, etc.


- No bomb at all with the fuel tank
- it would need for any extended range.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-G3-32.jpg



- Also, add to
- that the pilots view. You think its hard now to
- shoot down fighters? Try landing that thing! US
- and British were landing aircraft on a pitching deck
- a LOT longer then the Germans, and it took them a
- LONG damn time to figure out how to get a F4U on
- one. Do you think the Germans would do better?
- Doubt it. Things would get worse as pilot attrition
- started in 44.

Well finally you have a point. Landing would be hard, no doubt. But where a Corsair can land with it`s awful forward vision on the final, so could a 190.


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 03:52 PM
I'm sorry I didn't get to see and contribute this thread before it became a nationalistic slug fest over the details of battleship design and AP shells. I thought this is a message board to discuss the IL2 game, which, when I last checked, was a flight simulator. Nonetheless, as a bit of a naval warfare fan myself, here's my two cents worth. A single German aircraft carrier shipping about 40 1939-40 vintage Bf109T's and Stukas would have had no substantive effect on the second world war whatsoever. It, like the Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, and every other major fleet unit would have spent the entire war after 1942 bottled up in some Norwegian fiord or at Kiel, being slowly pounded to bits by the RAF. Other than their submarine force, the Germans in WW2 had no deep water surface fleet worth the name, and had absolutely no tradition, knowledge, or experience in naval aviation doctrine. What they knew was borrowed from the Japanese, and in this regard, if you study the Graf Zeppelin's design, they were extremely slow learners. Face it, only the Imperial Japanese Navy and the US Navy had the carriers, planes, and doctrine to wage a modern naval war in the 1940's. Although I by no means want to denigrate the courage of German, US, and British seamen serving in the Atlantic, WW2 in Europe was won by the sacrificies of Soviet soldiers on the eastern front, and that is what this game is about.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 03:56 PM
- No, it did not hit it, it was only a straddle.
- Bismarck straddled Rodney at about the same time.

Everything I have seen says Rodney hit with her third salvo, and the Bismarck sustained it's first serious damage around 9:00

If you want to argue that the Bismarck wasn't hit until (:02, fine, but bear in mind that at 9:02 Bismarck lost it's forward fire control, by 9:10 it had lost 2 turrets, by 9:13 it had lost all fire control. If you want to believe Bismarck had only 2 turrets working, and no central fire control 10 mins after the first hit, go ahead. It suggests Bismarck was even more vulnerable.

- "Effectively silenced"? And how did that
- happen? If all the rear guns, and all the
- secondaries were still in action, how was she
- "effectively silenced"? You are strecthing it quite
- a bit. Knocking out two turrets is very far from
- silencing a ship.

Knocking out central fire control, so that the aft turrets can only fire independantly, with little chance of hitting, counts as silencing.

- But, of course, we can use your methods. KGV had
- only 20-50% of it`s main armement in working order.
- She was effectively silenced, right?

No, KGV had effective fire control, even though her rate of fire was reduced. That didn't stop her hitting Bismarck around 40 times.

-- There's a huge difference between sinking and
-- destroying. The Bismarck was a floating wreck. She
-- was no longer under control, or able to fight.
--
-
- Her machinery was fully intact, and if her rudder
- would have been operational, she could have easily
- left the slow British BBs in the dust as soon as the
- battle would be

Her machinery was not intact. Shells exploded in the starboard boiler room, and port turbine room.

- ad1, S and G did not run from the Renown. They had
- orders not to engage with enemy capital ships unless
- neccesary. And it was not neccesary to engage
- Renown, it was an old, outclassed and outnumbered
- ship that could not hope to catch up with Scharhorst
- and Gneisenau and interfere with their mission at
- all.

So in other words they ran away?

2 to 1, and they turned tail and ran. Must have been confident in their ships, musn't they?

A few days later they sink - guess who - HMS
- Glorious. The Renown failed in preventing that
- happening, which was it`s job. It also failed to
- prevent the landings in Norway. It was a complete
- failure.

Um, Renown encountered Scharnhorst and Gneisenau on the 7th April. Scharnhorst sustained so much damage running away at top speed she had to return to port for repairs, and didn't sail again until 4th June, a month later. They sank the Glorious on 8th June.

- Again you are manipulating heavily... "some
- locations"? LOL, Cameron went all over the lenght of
- the torpedo bulkhead

Bismarck is lying right side up in silt, and has been for 60+ years. A detailed survey of all the underwater protection is impossible.

- No, at least 8 torpedoes surely hit her, with a
- number of other probably hit her. Read Brennecke.
-
- For the PoW, a sigle torpedo was effectively enough
- to sink it.

Strange logic. PoW was hit by 7 torpedoes before it sank, but 1 was enough to effectively sink it. Bismarck was hit by 6 torpedoes, but 10 weren't enough to sink it. Bizarre.

- It did not fail during the Channel dash, where the
- similiarly armed Scharhorst and Gneisenau swept the
- RAF from the sky, remember? Including the guy who
- led the attack on Bismarck.

I think most of the "sweeping" was done by the Luftwaffe, who put up heavy fighter cover, and the armarda of destroyers and flak ships.

Incidentally, the "very happy smiley" for the death of a brave man, who fought for freedom, not tyranny, is tastless, even for you.

- Only 4 torpedoes hit Prince of Wales. But one was
- already enough.

No, at least 6, probably 7.

As to 1 being enough, after the first two, PoW was still under way, and still able to steer, unlike Bismarck.

- What a great torpedo defense system, isn`t it? A
- single torp, and the whole ship goes down...

And yet it didn't. Two torps, and PoW was leaving the area at 15 knots when it was hit by another 4 or 5 torpedoes, and 3 bombs. Then it went down.

- What a great resitant ship... she tooks a single
- torpedo, and sinks in an hour... compared to
- another, which was shelled for hours, took twice as
- many torpedoes, and in the end it`s own crew had to
- sink it.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's still 6 or 7 torpedoes, not 1.

Perhaps I should point out Bismarck was effectively destroyed by 1 torpedo, and not mention the rest that were required to sink her. But that would be silly, wouldn't it?

- Well if these were facts for you... I really feel
- sorry for you.

So you deny that Bismarck was holed below the waterline by 2 of PoWs shells, losing 1000 tons of fuel? That's a simple matter of historical fact.

- The hull? Penetrated? Why the hull? The hull itself
- was sacrificable, it`s the armored citadel that
- contains the vital parts of the ship: machinery, and
- magazines. The hull itself was completely unarmored,
- but had armor behind it, which again the British
- could not penetrate not even once.

Again wrong. At least three of the main magazines were flooded to prevent explosions.

The thickest armour on the Bismarck was the barbettes, at least one of which was penetrated, along with the conning tower (340mm).

- Which pretty much irrevelant as the damage was so
- minor that they didn`t even noticed it at the first
- time. There were no casulties on Bismarck, and the
- list was trimmed out within an hour. PoW was not so
- lucky, it had to run away.

So minor that Lutjens immediately decided to abandon the Atlantic sortie and head for Francer. So minor that the list caused one of the screws to be partially out of the water until they flooded more of Bismarck to counter the list.

- True. But somehow the British were sooo reluctant to
- engage Tirpitz with their capital ships...

Huh? The RN sent battleships as a covering force for many of the PQs, hoping to engage Tirpitz. The Tirpitz rarely came out to play, however.

- Which KGV? The Prince of Wales, which was shooting
- at Bismarck with radar all the time during Denmark
- straits, and hit it 3 times causing neglible damage,
- and in return received 4 hits, which wiped out the
- entire command staff on the conning towers, holed
- the ship below the waterline and it took 500 tons of
- water in it?

How much water does it take for a 9 deg list? More than 500 tons, certainly.

The PoW recieved 4 hits from Bismarck, and got in 3 in return. Given the fact that PoW wasn't even completed, with
dock workers still onboard, that hardly sounds like superior German fire control, especially as PoW had spent some time heading for Bismarck, and thus couldn't bring her rear guns to bear.

- It seems the British radars were only good to score
- half the hits compared to German optical fire
- control. No wonder, with larger rangefinders, better
- quality optics, and more advanced rangefinding
- methods...

Bismarck firing with 8 guns scored 1 hit on Hood, 4 on PoW. PoW firing with at most 6 guns scored 3 hits on Bismarck.

- As for King George, she was busy to get it`s turrets
- even working, and even the British admit that it`s
- presence in the battle was rather... a case of
- "showing the flag".

And yet she scored approx 40 hits on Bismarck. Pity for the Germans they didn't have another capital ship around to "show the flag", isn't it? But Scharnhorst had boiler trouble, and couldn't sail, and Gneisenau had been hit by 1 torpedo, which caused extensive flooding.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 04:46 PM
Gun data tables, penetration, German 15" (I'll feel free to round up) LP 4,4 1764 lbs. shells vs. US 16"/45 w/ 2700 lbs. Mark 8 shells:

German 15"
Range Side Armor Deck Armor
0 yards (0 m) 29.23" (742 mm) ---
5,000 yards (4,572 m) 24.26" (616 mm) 0.76" (19.3 mm)
19,685 yards (18,000 m) 16.50" (419 mm) 2.96" (75.0 mm)
24,060 yards (22,000 m) 15.49" (393 mm) 4.15" (104 mm)
29,528 yards (27,000 m) 11.98" (304 mm) 5.02" (126 mm)



US 16"/45 - Mark 8 Shells
Range Side Armor Deck Armor
0 yards 29.74" ---
5,000 yards 26.6 " 0.76"
10,000 yards 23.51" 1.87"
15,000 yards 20.47" 3.04"
20,000 yards 17.62" 4.29"
25,000 yards 15.05" 5.76"
30,000 yards 12.77" 7.62"
35,000 yards 10.49" 10.57"

If you can read you clearly see the following:

1) At 5000 yards, the US shell is capable of penetrating a 2" greater thickness of belt armor. It never loses its advantage vs. belt armor, but manages to combine it with 1.5" greater deck penetration at 25,000 yards.

2) In practice, USS Massachusetts managed to punch through a combined total of 8.8" of deck armor vs. Jean Bart.


Now, let's add the 16"/50 firing Mark 8 shells:


US 16"/50 - Mark 8 Shells

Range Side Armor Deck Armor
0 yards 32.62" ---
5,000 yards 29.39" 0.67"
10,000 yards 26.16" 1.71"
15,000 yards 23.04" 2.79"
20,000 yards 20.04" 3.90"
25,000 yards 17.36" 5.17"
30,000 yards 14.97" 6.65"
35,000 yards 12.97" 8.48"
40,000 yards 11.02" 11.26"

Once again, the US gun is a more capable penetrator, even against deck armor. At 20,000 yards, the US gun is capable of penetrating 2.5" greater belt armor and 1" thicker deck armor.

Now, let's throw in the Yamato's 18.1" guns and compare them to the 16"/45:

Range Side Armor Deck Armor
0 yards 34.01" ---
21,872 yards 19.43" 4.30"
32,808 yards 14.19" 7.43"


At 0 yards (an impossibility in combat) the Yamato's gun shows terrific penetration, but an amazing thing happens when the 21,872 yards Yamato entry is compared to the 16"/45 - at 20,000 yards (nearly 2,000 yards shorter) the US gun has caught it in deck penetration - and at 30,000 yards, the US shell is superior. At 20,000 yards and up, the US 16"/50 is actually a superior BELT penetrator relative to the Japanese gun, and is basically a dead-on match for deck penetration.

The German gun is basically pathetic in comparison.

Some data is taken from the US Navy Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration and matches with actual penetration curves as shown via experiment. Other data is taken from "Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II".


Will answer the rest of the nonsense later, gotta go get some stuff done.



************************************************



I'll take my car with 382 fully forged cubic inches of fire-breathing, MPFI, nitrous sniffing, all aluminum, tire-roasting Chevrolet power, thank you very much.


"If you can turn, you aren't going fast enough."

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 04:50 PM
"Tell this to the survivors of USS Indianapoles, or the ones the sharks left of them... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif "

Nice one Isegrim. The smiley face at the end adds just the finishing touch. It certainly convinced me you know what you are talking about.





-------------------------------------

"It should always be remembered.that air power was only an auxiliary on the eastern front. The air war moved forward and backward with the front. It was the Red Army, drawing on air power for artillery cover of greater accuracy and decisiveness than was possible from the ground, that drove the German armies across Central Europe".

Professor Richard Overy, The Air War 1939-1945

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:06 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Yeah-yeah, you are truely the light in our darkness,
- Sherlock.

- You actually believe the crap you type?

- Poor, poor
- spamchucker, he beats a parrot.

- Nothing hurts more than the facts, right? Someone
- finally had to correct your lies, and you are now
- left with a bloody nose.

- I think you don`t know sh*t about naval artillery,
- spamchucker.



And so on...

THIS is a debate?


I'm enjoying learning from Spearchucker's posts...he really knows his stuff. It disappoints me that Isegrim feels the need to respond to his expertise with the stuff exampled above.




---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:18 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:


-
- Why, did Corsairs removed all their wing guns for
- carrier ops?
-

What did the F4U use then to shoot down Japanese a/c if its wing guns were removed? Only the wings carried machine guns.



-
- Wishful thinking, as the 1800kg bomb WAS carried on
- the belly rack.
-
- Is this conviencing enough how much the belly rack
- can handle? :
-

With 2 cropped fins. Wunder how that effected accuracy?


-
-
-- A carrier
-- based FW-190 would be stuck with only a 250 pound
-- equivilant bomb!
-
- ad1, No 250 lbs bomb in German inventroy. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif - ad2, It would be stuck with a 4000lbs bomb since
- that could be carried on the center rack. Or a
- torpedo, etc.
-

A 4000lb bomb required a hard surface runway a mile long for a safe take-off. The Fw190 was also modified with more air pressure in the tires, stiffer struts and some equipement was removed. Now was the GZ a mile long Issy? Even a carrier TO with a torpedo would be questionable for the Fw.




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:19 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-
- Everything I have seen says Rodney hit with her
- third salvo, and the Bismarck sustained it's first
- serious damage around 9:00
-
- If you want to argue that the Bismarck wasn't hit
- until (:02, fine, but bear in mind that at 9:02
- Bismarck lost it's forward fire control, by 9:10 it
- had lost 2 turrets, by 9:13 it had lost all fire
- control.
- If you want to believe Bismarck had only 2
- turrets working, and no central fire control 10 mins
- after the first hit, go ahead. It suggests Bismarck
- was even more vulnerable.

It suggest to you, perhaps, but your mind is already set up before any discussion, and this is no exception.

Still, the facts: the original statment was that "Bismarck was effectively silenced within a matter of minutes"... well, the shooting started at 8:47, and she was still firing with the main battery until 9:31. That`s 3/4 hours, not a "few minutes". A few minutes is how long the Hood lasted. The secondary artylarry kept firing until the ship finally sank.

As for Bismarck being "vulnerable", I`d like to remember you that it had 4 turrets vs. 3 on the KGV, and those turrets were also better armored in the front. And they were working. The British couldn`t even get that right. Working turrets - how basic! KGV had simply no chance there.



-
- Knocking out central fire control, so that the aft
- turrets can only fire independantly, with little
- chance of hitting, counts as silencing.
-

For you perhaps, but that`s hardly shared by anybody else. And, besides, the main fire control was not knocked out for 30 minutes, which is again NOT a "few minutes".


-
- No, KGV had effective fire control, even though her
- rate of fire was reduced. That didn't stop her
- hitting Bismarck around 40 times.
-

From where did you got that happy number, Hoppy?

-
- Her machinery was not intact. Shells exploded in the
- starboard boiler room, and port turbine room.

Simply not true. No single penetration in the machinery.



-
- So in other words they ran away?
-
- 2 to 1, and they turned tail and ran. Must have been
- confident in their ships, musn't they?
-


Actually it`s very typical of you to actually believe that the old floating scrap metal could have any chance vs. two more modern, much more heavily armored Battlecruisers. Hoppy, Hoppy you can cry about it, but it was still in the way that the Germans did there whatever they pleased, simply because the crappy British BC couldn`t possible interfere with their mission - and they know that very well.



-
- A few days later they sink - guess who - HMS
-- Glorious. The Renown failed in preventing that
-- happening, which was it`s job. It also failed to
-- prevent the landings in Norway. It was a complete
-- failure.
-
- Um, Renown encountered Scharnhorst and Gneisenau on
- the 7th April. Scharnhorst sustained so much damage
- running away at top speed she had to return to port
- for repairs, and didn't sail again until 4th June, a
- month later. They sank the Glorious on 8th June.


So what does this changed on that the Brits were spanked hard in Norway, not last because the RN`s surface ships could not stop the Germans making their landings there?

Anyway you strecht it, it was a huge failure of Renown, and a great success of S+G.



-
- Bismarck is lying right side up in silt, and has
- been for 60+ years. A detailed survey of all the
- underwater protection is impossible.
-

Really, I saw it sooo different on Cameron`s takes. You know it better than Cameron, right? After all, it was you who was there, not him...

Soo typical, Hop starts to dream as soon as he looses an arguement.



-
-- No, at least 8 torpedoes surely hit her, with a
-- number of other probably hit her. Read Brennecke.
--
-- For the PoW, a sigle torpedo was effectively enough
-- to sink it.


-
- Strange logic. PoW was hit by 7 torpedoes before it
- sank, but 1 was enough to effectively sink it.

And only 4 torps hit PoW:

Name Builder LD LCH COM
Prince of Wales Cammell Laird,Birk Jan.2/37 May.3/39 Mar.31/41

hit and sunk by 4 torpedoes from Japanese land based planes Dec.10/41
off Kuantan,Malaya in South China Sea (c 3-30'N, 104-30'E)
was in company of Repulse (Force Z)



- Bismarck was hit by 6 torpedoes, but 10 weren't
- enough to sink it. Bizarre.

Bismarck was hit by at least 7 torpedoes, and according to Brennecke it was likely more than 10.

Cameron`s expedition confirmed the torpedoes could not do damage significant enough to sink her, as opposed to what the Brits claim.

You can keep fighting the facts, but they always win in the end.



-
- I think most of the "sweeping" was done by the
- Luftwaffe, who put up heavy fighter cover, and the
- armarda of destroyers and flak ships.
-

Oh. Everything, but not the bad, bad AAA on the capital ships, which were attacked. That can be ruled out completely. Sure.



-
- Incidentally, the "very happy smiley" for the death
- of a brave man, who fought for freedom, not tyranny,
- is tastless, even for you.
-

Oh, how mild hearted you have become, Hoppy. Yep, Desmonde was doing his best keep British tyranny in the colonies, and in India. Maybe the Brits call this freedom, hanging out people to the city walls, tie them in front of cannons and tear them apart... sure! Freedom.

And getting critics from You is something very interesting, after all, it is you who tell us that the death of 40000 boer women and children in British concentration camps of hunger and illness happened in a place which had "better conditions than in English cities". Or should we look on your comments on firebombing of cities during WW2 ? The various ways you try to justify them? Or when you were preaching about copyright, and on other forums you discuss what`s the best way to make illegal copies of DVDs?

And it`s really YOU who wants to teach me about morals?



-
-- Only 4 torpedoes hit Prince of Wales. But one was
-- already enough.
-
- No, at least 6, probably 7.


4 torpedoes.


Name Builder LD LCH COM
Prince of Wales Cammell Laird,Birk Jan.2/37 May.3/39 Mar.31/41

hit and sunk by 4 torpedoes from Japanese land based planes Dec.10/41
off Kuantan,Malaya in South China Sea (c 3-30'N, 104-30'E)
was in company of Repulse (Force Z)


-
- As to 1 being enough, after the first two, PoW was
- still under way, and still able to steer, unlike
- Bismarck.

Unlike Bismarck? Brush you memory, Hoppy. 1st Torp that hit Bismarck amidships did nothing. NOTHING.

The next day, 3 other torps hit it, and only the last caused critical damage.

And after 4 torps were taken, there was not even remote danger of the ship sinking from them, unlike with the case of PoW. The same night the ship may or may not took additional torpedo hits from the destroyers, and there was still no sign of sinking. In the morning, the Dorsetshire pumped more torps into it, and probably the Rodney made two as well, and guess what? We have at least 7 certain torp hits, perhaps more than 10, and there`s no damage on the torpedo bulkheads, no mentioning of extensive internal flooding in the memoirs of survivors... Isn`t that funny that with at LEAST 6, absolutely sure torpedo hits, and we see no sign of damage on the TDS?



- And yet it didn't. Two torps, and PoW was leaving
- the area at 15 knots when it was hit by another 4 or
- 5 torpedoes, and 3 bombs. Then it went down.

Last time you said 6 torps, now it 7... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

What does that change on the fact that it was a single torpedo hit that could effectively sink her?


-
-- What a great resitant ship... she tooks a single
-- torpedo, and sinks in an hour... compared to
-- another, which was shelled for hours, took twice as
-- many torpedoes, and in the end it`s own crew had to
-- sink it.
-
- It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's
- still 6 or 7 torpedoes, not 1.
-

Hop the Parrot, isn`t it?

One torp ripped open the hull bottom, flooded the whole machinery, water break into the ship, and they could not pump it out. Ship doomed. Which part of that you argue?



-
- So you deny that Bismarck was holed below the
- waterline by 2 of PoWs shells, losing 1000 tons of
- fuel? That's a simple matter of historical fact.
-

So you are lying that I deny that? You are switching the arguement again. The original post was a pile of bullocks, that blended several timeframes into one, to twist the story. Fact remains that PoW scored only hits where there was NO ARMOR on the outer plating, and thus the whole arguement how Bismarck`s armor protection was "pierced" is null. Period.


-
-- The hull? Penetrated? Why the hull? The hull itself
-- was sacrificable, it`s the armored citadel that
-- contains the vital parts of the ship: machinery, and
-- magazines. The hull itself was completely unarmored,
-- but had armor behind it, which again the British
-- could not penetrate not even once.
-
- Again wrong. At least three of the main magazines
- were flooded to prevent explosions.
-

That hardly proves anything. After the turrets were knocked out, they flooded the magazines - so what, this is standard procedure. The Brits could not pierce the magazines armor, it`s a fact, an cannot be argued, but even if you want, ballistic calculation prove that it was simply NOT POSSIBLE with that armor configuration.



-
- The thickest armour on the Bismarck was the
- barbettes, at least one of which was penetrated,
- along with the conning tower (340mm).
-

Wrong, wrong. The thickest armor was on the conning tower (350mm, not 340mm) and the main turrets (360mm).

And the thickest EFFECTIVE armor was the main belt and the turtle deck behind it, which effectively prevented ANY penetrations into the vitals through the belt.



-
- So minor that Lutjens immediately decided to abandon
- the Atlantic sortie and head for Francer.
-

It was long over before that. Lutjens was detected, that alone was enough to abandon the sortie, and wait till all the ships can be gathered. Lutjenst still had 3000 tons of fuel - almost as much as the whole bunkerage of a fully loaded KGV - which was more than enough than what he needed. Or it`s some strange logic again, that 3000 tons was not enough for anything, but 4000 was very different?

But frankly, for anybody not insane it`s clear that the British were badly mauled at Denmark Straits, loosing a capital ship with all hands on board, another badly damaged with the whole stuff killed - in return to some water in the forecastle on Bismarck. If thing would going that way in the future, how many ships they would have to sacrifice to get Bismarck full of water finally?



- So minor
- that the list caused one of the screws to be
- partially out of the water until they flooded more
- of Bismarck to counter the list.

Great story made up about the screws, Hop.


-
-- True. But somehow the British were sooo reluctant to
-- engage Tirpitz with their capital ships...
-
- Huh? The RN sent battleships as a covering force for
- many of the PQs, hoping to engage Tirpitz. The
- Tirpitz rarely came out to play, however.
-



In your history books maybe.

-----------------------------------------------------------
02 July 1942: Operation R¶sselsprung. At 1800, the Tirpitz leaves Trondheim under the command of Admiral Otto Schniewind and sails North, together with the heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper, the destroyers Friedrich Ihn, Hans Lody, Karl Galster, Theodor Riedel and the torpedo boats T-7 and T-15. Their mission is to join in Altenfiord (Altafjord) with the battle group from Narvik under the command of Admiral Oskar Kummetz and comprised of the heavy cruisers Lützow and Admiral Scheer, and the destroyers Z-24, Z-27, Z-28, Z-29, and Z-30 to attack the convoy PQ-17 with 34 merchantmen. During their voyage to Altenfiord the destroyers Hans Lody, Karl Galster, and Theodor Riedel of the Tirpitz group run on to rocks and are discarded for the operation. The Lützow also runs on to rocks and returns to Narvik.

04 July 1942: Tirpitz's group joins Admiral Scheer's in Altenfiord. At 2215 PQ-17 scatters.

05 July 1942: At 1100, Tirpitz, Scheer, Hipper, the destroyers Friedrich Ihn, Richard Beitzen, Z-24, Z-27, Z-28, Z-29, Z-30, and the torpedo boats T-7 and T-15 leave Altenfiord. The Soviet submarine K-21 attacks Tirpitz with torpedoes at 1702, but obtains no hits. At 2130 the Germans cancel their mission and return home. Finally the German battle group does not engage any enemy ships, but the Luftwaffe and the U-boats manage to sink 22 merchantmen which carry 430 tanks, 210 planes and 3,350 vehicles.
--------------------------------------------------------

You can twist it all along the way you want, but the fact remains: at the FIRST SIGN of the Tirpitz coming, the standing British order was: "Scatter, and run for your lives."



-- Which KGV? The Prince of Wales, which was shooting
-- at Bismarck with radar all the time during Denmark
-- straits, and hit it 3 times causing neglible damage,
-- and in return received 4 hits, which wiped out the
-- entire command staff on the conning towers, holed
-- the ship below the waterline and it took 500 tons of
-- water in it?
-
- How much water does it take for a 9 deg list?

Some 2000 tons.

- More
- than 500 tons, certainly.

Yep, more. On the other hand, Bismarck had no problems with that listing, as her design was the most resistant to capsizing of all WW2 ships, since she had a low CG.



-
- The PoW recieved 4 hits from Bismarck, and got in 3
- in return. Given the fact that PoW wasn't even
- completed, with
- dock workers still onboard, that hardly sounds like
- superior German fire control, especially as PoW had
- spent some time heading for Bismarck, and thus
- couldn't bring her rear guns to bear.


The fact that Bismarck scored TWICE as many hits alone than both British ships (Hood was a new ship, too?) doesn`t prove it? Very funny. Twice as big rangefinders doesn`t prove it? Very funny again. With all the advancments made in optical industry on the German side, their optics being so much better than British ones, and their markers as well, it`s just sooooo very funny as some stubborn Brit closes his eyes, covers his ears and keeps yelling the same mantre: their`s could in no way better than ours!



-
-- It seems the British radars were only good to score
-- half the hits compared to German optical fire
-- control. No wonder, with larger rangefinders, better
-- quality optics, and more advanced rangefinding
-- methods...
-
- Bismarck firing with 8 guns scored 1 hit on Hood, 4
- on PoW. PoW firing with at most 6 guns scored 3 hits
- on Bismarck.

Even with this twist of yours around it, it`s clear Bismarck FC was much better. PoW was firing at all the time, for 2 times as long period than Bismarck, and it didnt even had to dodge shells. Yet it maneged to score 50% less hits on a single enemy ship. That speaks for itself.



-
-- As for King George, she was busy to get it`s turrets
-- even working, and even the British admit that it`s
-- presence in the battle was rather... a case of
-- "showing the flag".
-
- And yet she scored approx 40 hits on Bismarck.

In your dreams perhaps.

-
- Pity
- for the Germans they didn't have another capital
- ship around to "show the flag", isn't it?
-

Pity that the Tovey`s opinion on British guns was that he could do more damage to Bismarck by throwing his binoculars at it, isn`t it?

After all, the British record was that they needed to get together all their fleet to sink a SINGLE enemy capital ship... not very surprising if one is familiar with the RN`s rather poor record.

-
- But
- Scharnhorst had boiler trouble, and couldn't sail,
- and Gneisenau had been hit by 1 torpedo, which
- caused extensive flooding.
-

Pity that Crete surrendered with thousends of British troops on it, just because the whole British Navy was chasing ONE enemy ship, and send no reiforments to the Med ?


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:29 PM
cowace2 wrote:

- And so on...
-
- THIS is a debate?
-
-
- I'm enjoying learning from Spearchucker's posts...he
- really knows his stuff. It disappoints me that
- Isegrim feels the need to respond to his expertise
- with the stuff exampled above.
-


It`s understandable cowace2 respects Spearchucker as his mentor and master. After all, they have one in common, the love of insulting others and the incapability of having a civil debate. Cowace2 had already showed his true face on these boards, he reguarly calls and accuses other board members Nazi, anti-semite, holocaust denier, liar... He does all to poison the life of this community, and make conversations impossible.



Let us see some from the guy from who cowace2 is "enjoying learning " insults:

"I see the Luftwhiner idiocy extends to warships... "

"Naval artillery, my dear ignorant friend..."

"Safe to say MUCH MUCH better than the platoon of morons who drew up the Bismarck."

"Holy buckets, you can't be this stupid. Noone is dimwitted enough to try a deck landing with a plane that wasn't designed to do it."

"Both American ship classes (South Dakotas and North Carolinas) carry the SAME GUNS and the SAME SHELLS you idiot."

"you know about naval ballistics could be fit into thimble - with room to spare."

"Here's the height of idiocy."

" You're too ignorant to bother arguing with anymore."

"Go to www.warships1.com (http://www.warships1.com) , hit the Battleship vs. Battleship message boards along with the ship data sections and get some education."

"Again - education will help you struggle through the fog you live in."

"Your self-gratifying Nazi-worship extends only as far as true knowledge lets it."

"You're on crack."



That`s some guy to worship, LOL ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:30 PM
Some of this debate has genuinely been informative and interesting. However I do not see the point in Isegrim resorting to insults and what at times comes across as downright racism.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:33 PM
Accuse me of whatever you want Isegrim...that's not going to change the fact you're getting owned in this debate.

Maybe you're hoping to change to change the focus of the thread...not that I'd blame you...





---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:37 PM
Barbi is incapable of having any sort of civil discussion. He claims to be a lawyer, but from his writting style he must be one of the ambulance chaser kind.


FlankerK wrote:
- Some of this debate has genuinely been informative
- and interesting. However I do not see the point in
- Isegrim resorting to insults and what at times comes
- across as downright racism.
-
-




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:47 PM
cowace2 wrote:
- Accuse me of whatever you want Isegrim...

Everything I told about you can be read on this thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zeswv&tpage=3


Here, in just 5 posts, cowace2 called other nazi, holocaust denier and anti-semite. Very serious accusations, with no punishment.

You regularly insult others. Like here:

-- Author: cowace2
-- Rank: Over 5000 Postings
-- Date: 06/21/03 09:29AM
--
--
--
-- I hate everything American + I'm an idiot = Isegrim
--



-
- Maybe you're hoping to change to change the focus of
- the thread...not that I'd blame you...
-

Sorry, cowace, it is YOU who are posting off topic accusations here, with the intent to kidnap the topic. I have only posted on topic up to now, unlike you.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim


Message Edited on 06/21/0306:50PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:49 PM
FlankerK wrote:

- Some of this debate has genuinely been informative
- and interesting. However I do not see the point in
- Isegrim resorting to insults and what at times comes
- across as downright racism.



Take notice of the insults this spearsucker-guy threw in here FIRST.


He was the one who turned this discussion without any necessity into an "anti-Bismarck" debate.

Statements like "Bismarck was junk, plain and simple" or "the platoon of morons who drew up the Bismarck" are an insult against the intelligence of everyone interested in WW2-history.


If you guys love to read such crap because it fits your nationalistic agenda, what does that tell us about your intelligence and knowledge?

Its ridiculous. Take ANY book about the Bismarck if you want.
Only on Ubi-IL2-boards we obviously learn different.

Tss...

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:50 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Here, in just 5 posts, cowace2 called other nazi,
- holocaust denier and anti-semite. Very serious
- accusations, with no punishment.



Any decent person would share my opinions of a moral equivalency argument based on the holocaust. I'm not surprised that you do not.




---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:52 PM
cowace2 wrote:
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- Here, in just 5 posts, cowace2 called other nazi,
-- holocaust denier and anti-semite. Very serious
-- accusations, with no punishment.
-
-
-
- Any decent person would share my opinions of a moral
- equivalency argument based on the holocaust. I'm
- not surprised that you do not.
-


LOL, so "any decent person" should agree with you that it`s right to call people NAZI, HOLOCAUST DENIER, ANTI-SEMITE, even if they are not these things, just because COWACE2 wants to accuse others who don`t agree with him.



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:59 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- LOL, so "any decent person" should agree with you
- that it`s right to call people NAZI, HOLOCAUST
- DENIER, ANTI-SEMITE...



As I noted previously, if someone is foolish enough to attempt to make a moral equivalency argument based on the holocaust, then absolutely.




---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 06:04 PM
cowace2 wrote:
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- LOL, so "any decent person" should agree with you
-- that it`s right to call people NAZI, HOLOCAUST
-- DENIER, ANTI-SEMITE...
-
-
-
- As I noted previously, if someone is foolish enough
- to attempt to make a moral equivalency argument
- based on the holocaust, then absolutely.



And it`s YOU who compains about the quality of a debate and it`s style?

Do you have a mirror at home?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 06:04 PM
cowace2 wrote:
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- LOL, so "any decent person" should agree with you
-- that it`s right to call people NAZI, HOLOCAUST
-- DENIER, ANTI-SEMITE...
-
-
-
- As I noted previously, if someone is foolish enough
- to attempt to make a moral equivalency argument
- based on the holocaust, then absolutely.
-



Thats what YOU are always doing, Cowace, nobody else.

Everytime someone is making critical remarks about the bombing of civilians and calling this a war-crime, YOU come along with the holocaust.

So don`t twist facts here.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 06:10 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- And it`s YOU who compains about the quality of a
- debate and it`s style?
-
- Do you have a mirror at home?



I wasn't complaining, I was just noting that a great many of your responses to Spearchucker contained no actual argument, just an insult. I thought it was funny.


By the way...where did I start accusing people of anti-semitism in the thread you linked? Please provide a citation.



leonid05 wrote:
- Everytime someone is making critical remarks about
- the bombing of civilians and calling this a
- war-crime, YOU come along with the holocaust.



Actually, that isn't the case at all...you should probably go back and read some more before you try this slander.




---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 06:16 PM
cowace2 wrote:

- leonid05 wrote:
-- Everytime someone is making critical remarks about
-- the bombing of civilians and calling this a
-- war-crime, YOU come along with the holocaust.
-
-
-
- Actually, that isn't the case at all...you should
- probably go back and read some more before you try
- this slander.



/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Nice try Cowace, but everybody knows better.

You may accuse me of being "a very spiteful person" again, without reason and prove, as always.

It won`t change the facts.


Enough said.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 06:17 PM
Nice argument, leonid. "Everyone knows better" is really overwhelming.




---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 06:22 PM
No, your insulting!
No...Your insulting!
No, you!
No, you!
You started it!
Did not!
Yes you did!
Did not!
I say yes!
I say your a ******!
I say you sleep with nazis!
I say you sleep with ignorant flag wavers!
Your mean, I am gonna tell my mommy.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

----------------------------------------
The pilots lounge was this place you could go to find some humor. Sure, there were some flame wars, but generally it was a good natured place to hang out for a laugh or two.

Then that whole war started in the middle east and a whole bunch of trolls and flag wavers showed up and really ruined the place. I thought it was necessary to close it at the time, but now I kinda miss it. UBI has decided not to re-open a new one so now we talk about vulching and pings.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 07:01 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- JtD,
-
- have you read "Jutland - An Analsis of the Fighting"
- by John Campbell? ISBN 0-87021-324-5 If not, I
- suggest you do. It is an un-biased account and is
- highly regarded.

No, I haven't. I have read other books by various authors from various countries, so I guess I have no problem with biased sources now. If I happen to have enough time I'll look out for that book, too.

- The Germans plan was to engage part of the British
- fleet under conditions of local superiority.

Yes. The wanted to lure a PART of the British fleet. Not the entire fleet. They tried to weaken the British. The Germans never had, and never thought they had, a fleet equal to the British fleet. Therefore they never tried a slug it out battle.

To say "In WW1, at Jutland, the German High Seas Fleet, which was technically better, could not defeat the British Grand Fleet." is superficial at least, if not plain wrong. It's like saying at "In WW1, at Lough Swilly, the most modern British Battleship, which was technically better, was sunk by a German Steamer." (regarding HMS Audaciuos, aux. cruiser Berlin and it's mines)

- How many British pre-dreadnaughts took part > none. Not even HMS Dreadnaught herself.

But one fifth of the German fleet was pre-dreadnought. So what do you mean with "technically better"?

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 07:02 PM
SpearchuckerJ wrote:

"1) Bismarck's hit in the rudders only disables a GERMAN capital ship. No one else's. Why? Because Bismarck's archaic triple screw design does not allow for efficient steering with the props alone, 4 screw designs do."

Even though the three-screw design is more prone to problems like these, four screw design are not immune to this. No way for a four screw design to retain maneuverability in weather conditions like there were in May, 1940. Even if able to turn at zero speed, wind would have pushed the ship back to were it was heading before trhe turn once it startes to move.

"3) Scharnhorst took a 14" shell directly into her boilers in the battle vs. Duke of York, slowing her to a crawl and sealing her fate. Scharnhort was basically pathetic, the ONLY modern captial ship a KGV-class British battleship could clearly out-gun. The 14" guns of the KGV's caused repeated snickers from the Americans when they operated together. British ship armor, on the other hand, was the best in the world."

Scharnhorst and Geneisenau were some of the best ship design in the early 1930's. It's so lame to comment on their low caliber-armament. They were intended as raiders, not as battleships. They simply didn't need a big gun. In addition, the Germans had no big gun ready. In addition, politics prevented big guns even if they had been ready. So what's the problem with 28cm? They were definitly better suited for their task than anything else was. The Scharnhost and Gneisenau were the two fastest battleships until the Iowas came into service. Britsh ship armor made heavy use of D-Steel: Rm = 650N/mm^2, emax: 17% (British). This does not compare well to German armor material.
Wotan hard: Rm 900N/mm^2, emax: 20% (German)
Wotan soft: Rm 700N/mm^2, emax: 25% (German)
The higher the numbers, the better. (However, the Britsh used D-Steel almost everywhere, while the Germans used Wotan only in more important regions).

"4) Bismarck's anti-torpedo defenses were nothing special, and considerably weaker than US, British and Japanese battleships. Layering was insufficient, and depth was mediocre."

Okay, the anti-torpedo defenses were nothing special. But considerably weaker than contemporaries? Now this is wrong and close to ridiculous. The torpedo-bulges were made of Wotan soft and therefore much more durable, than contemporary Britsh contsructions, that did not feature any significant difference in construction than the use of worse material. The only construction I personally consider superior is the French version, used in Dunkerque. The only one considrerably worse is the Italian (Pugliese) version. All German anti-torpedo constructions survived torpedo hits without big problems. And (just like almost every other nation) had in other cases torpedos cause big trouble.

"5) German propulsion systems were miserably bad. From submarines to battleships they categorically under-performed, broke down repeatedly, and were fuel hogs. Graf Zepplin would have suffered from the same problems as her contemporaries in this area."

Surely the German High-Pressure-Hot-Steam system wasn't the most reliable thing fitted to battleships in WW2. However, copared to contemporary Brtitish construction, they had a higher performance. (Renown, 1939: 130000WPS, 3200 tons weight, Bismarck, a bit later: 138000WPS, 2800 tons weight) And I think the performance of the "Deutschland"-class heavy cruisers with their Diesel technology is without doubt amazing.
If I think about poor machinery in WW2 battleships, Nelson and Rodney come into my mind.

"7)Couple that fact with the fact that German radial prop engines were categorically under-powered relative to the R-2800, and bad things are in prospect."

Relative to any German fighter american fighters were categorically oversized and overweight. Now does this make them bad airplanes?

"8) Back to Bismarck...14" hit...left a long, wide slick of oil for the Brits to follow."

But noone followed.

"9) German ship-based AA gunnery was categorically pathetic. Bismarck was nothing special in this area and shipped quite a few COMPLETELY WORTHLESS 5.9" guns and some smallish 4.1" guns for a secondary battery because they had no adequate dual-purpose gun (like the 5"/38)."

You just overestimate the importance of dual pupose guns. In addition, the german 105mm guns were good and the 150mm guns not worthless. Just because USN-BB's weren't attacked by cruisers it doesn't mean that Cruiser-class armarment is worthless. ESPECIALLY if you are out to attack convoys, where main opponennnst are crusier class and smaller. All in all, the German 150 was better in AS role and the 105mm equal to the 5"/38 in AA role.

"Bismarck was a floating corpse - pounded into scrap metal by two British ships mounting weapons of mediocre performance."

Scrap metal doesn't float.

"Against the following, Bismarck is "dead meat":

USS North Carolina
USS Washington
USS South Dakota
USS Massachusetts
USS Alabama
USS Indiana
USS Iowa
USS New Jersey
USS Wisconsin
USS Missouri
IJN Yamato
IJN Musashi
FN Jean Bart
FN Richeliu
HMS Vanguard"

No, they aren't. Now this is a good argument, isn't it?


"A fully worked-up KGV is a good match for Bismarck alone. There's not enough speed difference to matter, KGV has better armor, Bismarck has better guns. Fire control is a dead heat, until the Brits get US radar fire controls and then the advantage is solidly on the side of the Brits."

Speed certainly matters at sea just like it matter in the air. Now the differnce is just about a knot. 1:1
Armor is a draw. 2:2
Guns is pro Bismarck. 4:2 Bismarck
Fire control in 1940 is adraw, too. 5:3 Bismarck
Damage control is pro Bismarck. 7:3 Bismarck.

No, KGV-class is generally no match for Bismarck-class.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 07:03 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

" Italian one (torpedo protection) was excellent,"

Like proven during tests and during the Taranto-raid? The Italian system was crap. (imho)

"USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Wisconsin, USS Missouri: great matches, being very different from Bismarck in their design philosophy: they have great guns and FC, and really fast, but rather fragile and vulnerable."

1st, I don't think the Bismarck could prove a match for these ships. On open seas under fair conditions, it certainly was inferior.
2nd: American warships featured a very good armor and a strong stucture. Damage control was very good, too.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 07:04 PM
eiffel68 wrote:

"Yes if they would have been able to hit something.
At the Battle of Samar, the only time where the Yamato has fired her big guns against enemy warships she didn't hit any of the CVEs with its main armament. Her heavy turrets were revolving too slowly and the 18-in gun rate of fire wasn't outstanding in this fast manoeuvering battle."

But this isn't neccessarily an argument for or against the guns. By the same argument, looking at the single Battle Bismarck vs. Hood & PoW, Bismarcks guns (&FC) would have been worlds best, which isn't true.

"Also don't forget that she had the all or nothing armour distribution which was superior to the layered one used in WW1 and adopted for the WW2 German battleships."

I don't think so. Both systems had their pros & cons, but all or nothing isn't truly superior.

"Futhermore, all the battleships sunk or disabled by gunfire in WW2 had the obsolete armour layout:Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Hood, Bretagne, Kirishima, Hiei and Yamashiro."

The South Dakota was disabled, too.
And than look at cruisers that also features "all or nothing". At Savo Islnad, it didn't help them.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 07:05 PM
hop2002 wrote:

"So basically the first time she came up against a warship of the same size, she was sunk? (apart from the time she (and her sister ship) ran from the Renown)"

DoY was bigger than Scharnhorst. And had a different concept.If you fail to see this, I can't help.
Regarding the Renown thing: That was German doctrine. They weren't allowed to attack British capital ships. So what is wrong with that? It says nothing about the qualitiy of German ships, Navy, engeneering or anything else.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 07:05 PM
SpearchuckerJ wrote:

"Oooops. Wrong. Not only could US battleships steer with a rudder at full deflection, so could ANY battleship where the designers didn't make the criminally stupid descision to use a single rudder and 3 screws. ALL modern US ships had 2 rudders and 4 screws. Run two full astern and the other two full forward and the ship turns. End of story. THREE screws = death."

Did you know Bismarck had TWO rudders? What if you make one screw run full astern and the other full forward?
And running two screws astern and two full ahead would make you go where? Nowhere, just turning in place.

"Bismarck's MISERABLE deck armor"

170mm of Wotan make a good armor. BtW this is 70 mm more than Richelieu had on top of the steering unit and just 40 less than Richelieu had above the magazine.

"Yes, but I also mean the boilers that sat ABOVE the belt and deck armor"

Do you happen to have a drawing that shows the boilers on top of the armour deck? The ones I have show them to be below the armor deck.

" lost a complete boiler room to a torpedo any US or British ship would have shrugged off."

How many modern US-Battleships were hit by torpedoes? How many Torpedoes hit the Nevada and California before they sank? (same concept as in modern US-BB, even though improved there)

"2) The single most destructive piece of naval artillery ever put aboard ship. Yes, that's right, even the Yamato's mighty 18.1" guns fell to second when compared to the 16"/50 and 16"/45 at long ranges - where all modern battleships were designed to fight."

Yes, esp. beyond 38.7 km which was the longest range possbile with 16"/50. (Even Scharnhorsts guns shot further.) No, the Japanese 46cm gun was harder hitting, but suffered from lower ROF and worse fire control.

"USS Washington hit IJN Kirishima 9 times in less than 15 minutes (10 salvoes), and SANK HER."

Germanys Hochseeflotte did better at at the battle at Jutland 30 years before.

" (105mm) lower rate of fire than the 5"/38."

I personally consider 15 rpm to be more than 10, but I might be wrong here.

"16"/45 with 2700 lbs shells against a 15" German gun with shells a good 1000 lbs. lighter."

2700 - 1760 is 940. That is not a good 1000.

" Take a look at that deck protection some time. USS Massachusetts planted a 16" shell straight into a secondary magazine on Jean Bart, penetrating FAR deck thicker protection than Bismarck could ever offer."

200mm compared to 170, wow, that is what I call FAR thicker. Did I mention Wotan?

"The US belt is INCLINED and has an outer shell to destroy the ballistic caps of armor-piercing shells. Furthermore, the armor is made of MUCH higher grade steel."

Outer shell on the North Carolinas? Where exactly? As I already mentioned, the Germans used special material for parts of there armor and structure. This negates disadvantages of worse steel.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 07:06 PM
cowace2 wrote:

"- Substantially strengthened landing gear"

Not neccessary for FW 190. Landing gear was strong enough. I also doubt the structure would have needed a great improvement to accomodate the arrestor hook.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 07:07 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

"What a great torpedo defense system, isn`t it? A single torp, and the whole ship goes down... "

Now, if a torpedo hit a german ship on a weak spot (like, err, Bismarck), would you call the entire torpedo defense system poor? I wouldn't. Bad luck has not much to do with bad engenieering. This applies to all sides, even for the British.
"The citadel wasn`t penetrated either, NOT EVEN ONCE."

From what I know this is wrong. The Rodney blew up the secondary magazine which was protected by Citadel armor.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 07:08 PM
SpearchuckerJ wrote:

"Best 15" caliber gun? Probably the British 15"/42."

I didn't think this would happen: "probably". After all, you are capable of voicing an opinion not absolute truth! (Anyway, I disagree.)

"The problem is that German surface warships were flat-out miserable on so many levels."

Just like British, French, Italian and Japanese constructions. On the other hand, German surface warships were flat out great on so many levels. Just like British, French, Italian, Japanes and American constructions.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 07:16 PM
running from Renown and Repulse was the best they could do, they were severely outgunned by them.
And regarding Kirishima and Washington, Kirishima didnt sink immidiately, she was scuttled three full hours after the hits from Washington (9 hits out of 79 16" shells fired, gives you a perspective on hit chances, even with radar and at point blank range).

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 07:47 PM
SpearchuckerJ wrote:
- US 16"/50 - Mark 8 Shells
- 20,000 yards 20.04" 3.90"
- 25,000 yards 17.36" 5.17"
- 30,000 yards 14.97" 6.65"
- 35,000 yards 12.97" 8.48"
-
- Now, let's throw in the Yamato's 18.1" guns and
- compare them to the 16"/45:
-
- Range Side Armor Deck Armor
- 0 yards 34.01" ---
- 21,872 yards 19.43" 4.30"
- 32,808 yards 14.19" 7.43"
-
- At 20,000 yards and up, the US 16"/50
- is actually a superior BELT penetrator relative to
- the Japanese gun, and is basically a dead-on match
- for deck penetration.

Maybe you do some interpolation for this. Taking a linear approach and going for 30.000yds for the 46 cm gun, penetraion would be:
15.54 belt
6.63 deck

Now I happen to find equal performance against horizontal and a slight advatage against vertical armor. Then keep in mind, that the 46 cm came at a flatter trajectory what explains it's not-better performance compered to 16"/50.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 07:47 PM
Vo101 Isegrim wrote:
-hop2002 wrote:
-- Bismarck is lying right side up in silt, and has
-- been for 60+ years. A detailed survey of all the
-- underwater protection is impossible.


-Really, I saw it sooo different on Cameron`s takes. You know
-it better than Cameron, right? After all, it was you who was
-there, not him...

-Soo typical, Hop starts to dream as soon as he looses an arguement.
I am sorry, but I think Hop is correct. And I just took a look at his pictures to be sure.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 08:09 PM
- Still, the facts: the original statment was that
- "Bismarck was effectively silenced within a matter
- of minutes"... well, the shooting started at 8:47,
- and she was still firing with the main battery until
- 9:31. That`s 3/4 hours, not a "few minutes".

Firing started at 8:47, by 9:10 (or 13, depending on source) the Bismarck had lost 2 turrets, and all central fire control, with the rear turrets getting in the odd shot under local control.

- As for Bismarck being "vulnerable", I`d like to
- remember you that it had 4 turrets vs. 3 on the KGV,
- and those turrets were also better armored in the
- front. And they were working.

Despite their "better armour" all 4 were put out of action in fairly short order. According to your timeline, the first 2 within 8 mins of the first hit on the Bismarck.

- From where did you got that happy number, Hoppy?

Sorry, my mistake. Rodney, a 1920s battleship, destroyed the Bismarck on her own.

- Simply not true. No single penetration in the
- machinery.

Not according to survivors testimony on the Bismarck.

- Actually it`s very typical of you to actually
- believe that the old floating scrap metal could have
- any chance vs. two more modern, much more heavily
- armored Battlecruisers. Hoppy, Hoppy you can cry
- about it, but it was still in the way that the
- Germans did there whatever they pleased, simply
- because the crappy British BC couldn`t possible
- interfere with their mission - and they know that
- very well.

Strange that they didn't try to sink the Renown, isn't it? When they came across unarmed merchant ships, they didn't hesitate, but when they came up against Renown's 15" guns they ran.

- So what does this changed on that the Brits were
- spanked hard in Norway, not last because the RN`s
- surface ships could not stop the Germans making
- their landings there?

Who lost half their destroyer fleet? Who's navy was so mauled it couldn't hope to support Sealion?

- Anyway you strecht it, it was a huge failure of
- Renown, and a great success of S+G.

2 battlecruisers meet 1 battlecruiser. the 2 run away. Stunning victory.

- And only 4 torps hit PoW:
-
- Name Builder LD LCH COM
- Prince of Wales Cammell Laird,Birk Jan.2/37 May.3/39
- Mar.31/41
-
- hit and sunk by 4 torpedoes from Japanese land based
- planes Dec.10/41
- off Kuantan,Malaya in South China Sea (c 3-30'N,
- 104-30'E)
- was in company of Repulse (Force Z)

Source? Again, everything I have read says 6 or 7 torpedo hits on the PoW. Try Corelli Barnett, for example.

- Cameron`s expedition confirmed the torpedoes could
- not do damage significant enough to sink her, as
- opposed to what the Brits claim.

Actually, if you read what Cameron said, he admits the Bismarck was sinking anyway, it just might have taken "half a day" without the scuttling charges.

- Oh, how mild hearted you have become, Hoppy. Yep,
- Desmonde was doing his best keep British tyranny in
- the colonies, and in India. Maybe the Brits call
- this freedom, hanging out people to the city walls,
- tie them in front of cannons and tear them apart...
- sure! Freedom.

Instances of people being tied in front of cannons and hung from city walls, please.

- And getting critics from You is something very
- interesting, after all, it is you who tell us that
- the death of 40000 boer women and children in
- British concentration camps of hunger and illness
- happened in a place which had "better conditions
- than in English cities".

No, I said after the conditions became known, they were improved, and that the death rate fell below that of Glasgow (which isn't an English city, it's Scottish)

Again, it's a matter of record. As is the fact that avout 14,000 British soldiers died of disease in the same time, so the fact that women and children had a higher mortality rate isn't that suprising.

- Or should we look on your
- comments on firebombing of cities during WW2 ? The
- various ways you try to justify them?

War is war. Firebombing cities was part of that war, which Germany started, and thankfully lost.

- Or when you
- were preaching about copyright, and on other forums
- you discuss what`s the best way to make illegal
- copies of DVDs?

I have never preached about copyright, I pointed out your lack of courtesy in taking other people's research and placing it on your website with no credit. As to making illegal copies of DVD's, I have no idea what you are talking about.

- The next day, 3 other torps hit it, and only the
- last caused critical damage.

2

We have at least 7 certain torp
- hits, perhaps more than 10, and there`s no damage on
- the torpedo bulkheads, no mentioning of extensive
- internal flooding in the memoirs of survivors...
- Isn`t that funny that with at LEAST 6, absolutely
- sure torpedo hits, and we see no sign of damage on
- the TDS?

Why was the Bismarck so low in the water before the scuttling charges were fired? Why do survivors report internal explosions? Why does Cameron, Ballard, and everyone who's studied the Bismarck say she was sinking anyway?

- What does that change on the fact that it was a
- single torpedo hit that could effectively sink her?

It didn't. She recieved two initial hits, another two or three, then a futher two. In all, she remained afloat for an hour and a half from the initial hit, and was steaming away from the area.

Pretending that only 1 hit mattered, and the other 5 or 6 didn't, doesn't change the fact that she sank after 6 or 7 hits.

- One torp ripped open the hull bottom, flooded the
- whole machinery, water break into the ship, and they
- could not pump it out. Ship doomed. Which part of
- that you argue?

All of it. The torpedo hit the prop shaft, which ripped open part of the hull, and caused flooding. But then again the Bismarck suffered flooding from the hit on her stern, too.

If the entire machinery space had been flooded, then the ship could not have got underway again, yet she did.

- So you are lying that I deny that?

Sorry, I don't understand that.

You are switching
- the arguement again. The original post was a pile of
- bullocks, that blended several timeframes into one,
- to twist the story.

The original post quite clearly contained two time frames, because it talks first about the damage inflicted by the torpedo, then about the damage by the British battleships.

You claimed that was incorrect, when every fact in the paragraph you objected to was true. As shown by your refusal to to show any points you object to.

- Fact remains that PoW scored
- only hits where there was NO ARMOR on the outer
- plating, and thus the whole arguement how Bismarck`s
- armor protection was "pierced" is null. Period.

PoW didn't just pierce the "outer plating". 1 hit went beneath the main belt (and Bismarck's belt didn't extend anywhere near deep enough), and exploded against the torpedo bulkhead, causing flooding.

The second hit went through a splinter belt, and again did damage, destroying part of the fuel system, and 1000 tons of fuel. Again it didn't hit the main belt, because the main belt covered an inadequate area.

- That hardly proves anything. After the turrets were
- knocked out, they flooded the magazines - so what,
- this is standard procedure. The Brits could not
- pierce the magazines armor, it`s a fact,

At least one of the turrets suffered an internal fire, and the flooding was to prevent that spreading to the magazines.

- Wrong, wrong. The thickest armor was on the conning
- tower (350mm, not 340mm) and the main turrets
- (360mm).

Both of which were penetrated. The conning tower was penetrated several times, in fact one of the survivors who went in to the conning tower describes it as looking like "Swiss cheese"

- You can twist it all along the way you want, but the
- fact remains: at the FIRST SIGN of the Tirpitz
- coming, the standing British order was: "Scatter,
- and run for your lives."

PQ 17 was a merchant convoy. I can't remember suggesting Britain would send freighters to attack the Tirpitz.

Of course, in your world the RN remained in Scapa Flow, whilst the Tirpitz constantly salied from Norway. Everyone else knows the opposite is true.

- The fact that Bismarck scored TWICE as many hits
- alone than both British ships (Hood was a new ship,
- too?) doesn`t prove it?

5 vs 3 isn't twice as many, and Hood was an old WW1 ship.

Very funny again.
- With all the advancments made in optical industry on
- the German side, their optics being so much better
- than British ones, and their markers as well,

German optical rangefinders were certainly better, but inferior to British radar.

- Pity that the Tovey`s opinion on British guns was
- that he could do more damage to Bismarck by throwing
- his binoculars at it, isn`t it?

Even I have never suggested Bismarcks armour was so bad a pair a of binoculars could sink her. But Tovey was an expert, and there at the time, so perhaps I should accept his judgement.

- Pity that Crete surrendered with thousends of
- British troops on it, just because the whole British
- Navy was chasing ONE enemy ship, and send no
- reiforments to the Med ?

What happened to the German sea borne invasion of Crete? It was sunk by the RN.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 08:18 PM
Have I missed something? What is the reference to Cameron that people keep mentioning?

-------------------------------------

"It should always be remembered.that air power was only an auxiliary on the eastern front. The air war moved forward and backward with the front. It was the Red Army, drawing on air power for artillery cover of greater accuracy and decisiveness than was possible from the ground, that drove the German armies across Central Europe".

Professor Richard Overy, The Air War 1939-1945

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 08:26 PM
Found this survivor testimony from the Bismarck:

Now we felt the ship's slight list to port. We were cruising at 27 knots. We found out later that the second hit had entered Compartment 13. A 42 cm shell [as stated. UR] [This is impossible. The British were firing 35.6 cm and 38.1 cm shells. GHE] had severed the welding seams and a several rivet heads near the portside waterline level; which [eventually] resulted in water entering Generating Plant IV. Simultaneous [with the damage to the waterline plating], Boiler Room II's port-side bulkhead was also ripped open by the hit, causing water to fill Generating Plant IV and penetrate into the boiler room. The bulkhead wall was quickly sealed with hammocks and further flooding was prevented. The boiler room was back in operation in a short time. Boiler III ignited, while Boiler IV was salt-encrusted and thus defunct. [The leak] in Generator Plant IV could not be sealed and [the compartment] was therefore abandoned. About 1 hour after the battle, we had to cut out plates with which the leak in compartment 21 was to be sealed. The plate had a diameter of 1 m [in width]. The Master Mechanic told us he believed the holes could be welded shut during [the ship's] periods of reduced speed. The [repair] attempt was dropped because the commander would not reduce the ship's speed. I moved on to the sea watch at 1200. Nothing special [to report] in the afternoon.

The air raid alarm was sounded in the evening via the alarm system. I don't recall the time. Central damage control ordered that the ship be cleared and sealed for action. Shortly thereafter, our firing commenced. We had never experienced such [ferocious] firing. After about a hour, we felt a shock in the ship. A group call [from all damage control stations; all-points phone call? Not sure what "Gruppenanruf" means here. UR] was received by Central Damage Control. From this group call we gathered that all compartments were clear [not damaged]. Firing ceased after approximately one hour. We learned from conversations with comrades that 18 torpedo aircraft had dropped 18 torpedoes at the ship, but only one [actually] hit. It struck the ship's Compartment 8, starboard side, at the height of Generator Plant I, but caused no damage. The shock wave killed a Oberbootsmann (the battle watch officer) [ WO = Wachoffizier? UR] ? (sic) [question is mark within the sentence and may mean that he does not recall his name. UR]. He was our first to fall. Meanwhile, it was getting dark. Furthermore, we heard that the shocks from our shooting had enlarged the sealed cracks in the bulkhead wall between Generator Plant IV and Boiler Room II, port. Boiler Room II, port, could not be secured and had to be abandoned. The ship traveled 27 knots.

http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/debriefing5.html

Fits with every source I've seen, that a shell from PoW went under the main belt, exploded against the torpedo bulkhead, causing flooding which eventually caused the loss of a boiler room.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 08:29 PM
James Cameron, the film director, lead an expedition to film the wreck of the Bismarck. It was televised by the discovery channel.

Isegrim is claiming he examined the entire torpedo protection system, but as the Bismarck is buried up to her waterline in silt, that's not really possible.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 08:39 PM
Eh? We are quoting FILM DIRECTORS as if they were naval architects? Can I bring in Powell and Pressberger then?!

Seriously, thanks hop2002. I also thought from Ballard's expedition that much of the Bismarck's hull was buried in silt, which would tend to hide any evidence of torpedo hits and damage caused.



-------------------------------------

"It should always be remembered.that air power was only an auxiliary on the eastern front. The air war moved forward and backward with the front. It was the Red Army, drawing on air power for artillery cover of greater accuracy and decisiveness than was possible from the ground, that drove the German armies across Central Europe".

Professor Richard Overy, The Air War 1939-1945

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 09:53 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-- Still, the facts: the original statment was that
-- "Bismarck was effectively silenced within a matter
-- of minutes"... well, the shooting started at 8:47,
-- and she was still firing with the main battery until
-- 9:31. That`s 3/4 hours, not a "few minutes".
-
- Firing started at 8:47, by 9:10 (or 13, depending on
- source) the Bismarck had lost 2 turrets, and all
- central fire control, with the rear turrets getting
- in the odd shot under local control.

So they switched from the 10.5m main rangefinders to the 10.5m rangefinders on the turrets?

-
-- As for Bismarck being "vulnerable", I`d like to
-- remember you that it had 4 turrets vs. 3 on the KGV,
-- and those turrets were also better armored in the
-- front. And they were working.
-
- Despite their "better armour" all 4 were put out of
- action in fairly short order.

Fairly short order? What ship you are talking about? First shot fired at 8:47, all 4 turrets were knocked out on sooner than 9:31. That 45 minutes. Short order, huh? Compared to what? Compared to that it took 15 minutes to DESTROY Hood. Which British ship could even last 45 minutes under such situation? I can think of none.

-
- According to your
- timeline, the first 2 within 8 mins of the first hit
- on the Bismarck.
-

And 23 minutes after they started firing. How long the battle lasted and Denmark straits, after fire was commenced Hop, resulting in two defeated British capital ships?


-
-- From where did you got that happy number, Hoppy?
-
- Sorry, my mistake. Rodney, a 1920s battleship,
- destroyed the Bismarck on her own.
-

With some help from the following ships:

King George V
Prince of Wales
Ramillies
Revenge
Repulse
Hood
Renown
Victorious
Ark Royal
Suffolk
Norfolk
Dorsetshire
London
Kenya
Galatea
Aurora
Neptune
Hermione
Edinburgh
Manchester
Arethusa
Birmingham
Sheffield
Achates,
Antelope
Anthony,
Echo
Somali,
Eskimo
Nestor,
Jupiter
Electra,
Icarus
Active,
Inglefield
Intrepid,
Assiniboine
Saguenay,
Lance
Legion,
Columbia
Punjabi,
Winsor
Mashona,
Cossack
Sikh,
Zulu,
Maori
Piorun (Polish),
Tartar
Faulknor,
Foresight
Forester,
Foxhound,
Fury,
Hesperus
H-44
Minerve
P-31
Sealion
Seawolf
Tigris
Sturgeon
Pandora



All this to take down a SINGLE ship? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No wonder Winnie`s thousend year empire went down so quickly.


-
-- Simply not true. No single penetration in the
-- machinery.
-
- Not according to survivors testimony on the
- Bismarck.
-

Namely?


- Strange that they didn't try to sink the Renown,
- isn't it? When they came across unarmed merchant
- ships, they didn't hesitate, but when they came up
- against Renown's 15" guns they ran.

Strange? They had orders not to engage ANY Capital ship, unless neccesary. Since Renown could do nothing about them, it was not neccesary. S+G operated as they pleased, the Brits could do nothing about it.

When it was later neccesary to sink Hood and force PoW to retreat, it was done.


-
-- So what does this changed on that the Brits were
-- spanked hard in Norway, not last because the RN`s
-- surface ships could not stop the Germans making
-- their landings there?
-
- Who lost half their destroyer fleet?

You mean at Dunkerque? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The British had to some 50 warships there, to Stukas (where was the RAF?), torpedoboats etc. Of all 19 or so destroyers commited there, only 7 remained servicable after Dunkerque. That`s 2/3, not half.


-
- Who's navy was
- so mauled it couldn't hope to support Sealion?
-

What Sealion? Were there any actual plan of Sealion? Plans how to conduct landings, where to land, what day etc? No.


-
-- Anyway you strecht it, it was a huge failure of
-- Renown, and a great success of S+G.
-
- 2 battlecruisers meet 1 battlecruiser. the 2 run
- away. Stunning victory.
-

And the next day the British found out that their little invasion of Norway FAILED.

Maybe they should tried to stop those Scharhorsts.



-
- Source? Again, everything I have read says 6 or 7
- torpedo hits on the PoW. Try Corelli Barnett, for
- example.

Everything I have read suggest 4 torpedo hits. Probably you added the poor battlecruisers torps.

-
- Actually, if you read what Cameron said, he admits
- the Bismarck was sinking anyway, it just might have
- taken "half a day" without the scuttling charges.
-

And Cameron says it was not the torpedoes that sank her. You deny that?


-
- Instances of people being tied in front of cannons
- and hung from city walls, please.
-

What happened when Indians revolted against the British to gain their freedom? The Brits took them, tied in front of cannons, and FIRED. Very nice. Do you want me to search for the pictures? It will look nice how the red faced chaps are lined up nicely to look at how people are teared apart.

And of course, the walls of Omdurnam. Kitchener ordered to hand inhabitants of the city to be hanged on the walls, as a demonstration.

The same guy who is responsbile for the death of 40 000 boer women and children.

For his services and the great humanity he showed, he become Lord Kitchener, "Hero of Omdurnam". Strange, in other countries such people are called murderers. In Britain, they honour them, like "Butcher" Harris.

But at least, justice found that vermin, he was drowned when his ship was torpedoed in WW1. Another great British TDS, BTW, at least it served a just cause for once.


-
- No, I said after the conditions became known, they
- were improved, and that the death rate fell below
- that of Glasgow (which isn't an English city, it's
- Scottish)
-

Why to force them into concentration camps in the first place?

- Again, it's a matter of record. As is the fact that
- avout 14,000 British soldiers died of disease in the
- same time, so the fact that women and children had a
- higher mortality rate isn't that suprising.

Yes it isn`t. The British took these women and children from their homes, killed their sheep, burned their homes, put them into concentration camps which were suited in the WORST possible places of the country full of disease and without water.


-
-- Or should we look on your
-- comments on firebombing of cities during WW2 ? The
-- various ways you try to justify them?
-
- War is war. Firebombing cities was part of that war,
- which Germany started, and thankfully lost.
-

Twisting again. United Kingdom declared war on Germany on 3rd September 1939. But even if it was the opposite, it wouldn`t make it a lesser war crime. Britain seems to be unable to face it`s dark past, unlike the Germans, and the Russians, more recently.


-
-- Or when you
-- were preaching about copyright, and on other forums
-- you discuss what`s the best way to make illegal
-- copies of DVDs?
-
- I have never preached about copyright, I pointed out
- your lack of courtesy in taking other people's
- research and placing it on your website with no
- credit. As to making illegal copies of DVD's, I have
- no idea what you are talking about.

No? Really? Should we look for Aces High Forum, a poster who calls himself "Naswhan", and considers himself "A Spit dweeb, and proud of it", and tells about how to copy DVDs for good... Now who could that be?


-
-- The next day, 3 other torps hit it, and only the
-- last caused critical damage.
-
- 2

3.


-
- We have at least 7 certain torp
-- hits, perhaps more than 10, and there`s no damage on
-- the torpedo bulkheads, no mentioning of extensive
-- internal flooding in the memoirs of survivors...
-- Isn`t that funny that with at LEAST 6, absolutely
-- sure torpedo hits, and we see no sign of damage on
-- the TDS?
-
- Why was the Bismarck so low in the water before the
- scuttling charges were fired?
-

Ever heard of trimming a ship?



- Why do survivors
- report internal explosions?

Hmm, how does a scuttling charge work? Order to scuttle ship came as soon as the main battery out of action. And strange, the survivors you refer to tell that the ship was SCUTTLED, not sunk by torpedoes.



- Why does Cameron,
- Ballard, and everyone who's studied the Bismarck say
- she was sinking anyway?

I cannot remember they saying that, you are putting words into their mouth. Sooner or later, she would sunk by fires, that`s true. But she was not sunk by torpedoes. There`s evidence to that. And that`s the point.


-
-- One torp ripped open the hull bottom, flooded the
-- whole machinery, water break into the ship, and they
-- could not pump it out. Ship doomed. Which part of
-- that you argue?
-
- All of it. The torpedo hit the prop shaft, which
- ripped open part of the hull, and caused flooding.
- But then again the Bismarck suffered flooding from
- the hit on her stern, too.

Something very different. Bismarck only flooded in the aft, but PoW flooded all along the way, right into the machinery rooms, which proved to be fatal due to the loss of power. Flooding is natural when torpedo hits the ship, and as a matter of fact, accepted from the designer`s part, and compensated by comparmentation etc.

There`s no doubt it`s TDS proved to be weaker than that of Bismarck.


-
- If the entire machinery space had been flooded, then
- the ship could not have got underway again, yet she
- did.
-

The generator rooms flooded, is that machinery rooms, aint it? What gets the water out the ship? Pumps. What drives pumps? Electricity. What produces the electricity? Generators. Can generators produce electricity if the gen. rooms are filled with water? No. Were they filled with water? Yes. Was it because a single torp ripped open the hull? Yes. Single fatal hit, that doomed the ship in any case? Yes.




-
- You are switching
-- the arguement again. The original post was a pile of
-- bullocks, that blended several timeframes into one,
-- to twist the story.
-
- The original post quite clearly contained two time
- frames, because it talks first about the damage
- inflicted by the torpedo, then about the damage by
- the British battleships.

A VERY patched-up and expanded understanding of the "hogwash" written there.



-
- You claimed that was incorrect, when every fact in
- the paragraph you objected to was true.
- As shown by
- your refusal to to show any points you object to.
-

Is that somethin like Hochdeutsch in German, ie. it`s meaning remaining in secrecy for the mere mortals?


-
-- Fact remains that PoW scored
-- only hits where there was NO ARMOR on the outer
-- plating, and thus the whole arguement how Bismarck`s
-- armor protection was "pierced" is null. Period.
-
- PoW didn't just pierce the "outer plating". 1 hit
- went beneath the main belt (and Bismarck's belt
- didn't extend anywhere near deep enough),

So wasn`t PoWs. Bismarck`s shell passed right under it, in the very same way.

- and
- exploded against the torpedo bulkhead, causing
- flooding.

Minor flooding, localised, ceased in no time, no importance to the ship`s capabilities.


-
- The second hit went through a splinter belt, and
- again did damage, destroying part of the fuel
- system, and 1000 tons of fuel. Again it didn't hit
- the main belt, because the main belt covered an
- inadequate area.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif That`s indeed funny. "Inadequate area." LOL. Bismarck had the LONGEST main belt of any ship, it covered the 170meter of the ~240m long waterline, or 70% of the ship.

The main belt on KGV protected only 59% of the ship lenght, even if it was a much shorter ship. Speaking about inadequate.


-
-- That hardly proves anything. After the turrets were
-- knocked out, they flooded the magazines - so what,
-- this is standard procedure. The Brits could not
-- pierce the magazines armor, it`s a fact,
-
- At least one of the turrets suffered an internal
- fire, and the flooding was to prevent that spreading
- to the magazines.


So? Standard procedure, Hop. The turrets are not the magazines, they are separeted by many blast doors. It was the British warships that exploded in dozens to magazine fires, not Germans. No German capital ship was ever lost to magazine explosions.

The Brits couldn`t pierce the magazine`s armor. Oh, Hop, a hint : magazines are UNDER the Panzerdeck. Not above.


-
-- Wrong, wrong. The thickest armor was on the conning
-- tower (350mm, not 340mm) and the main turrets
-- (360mm).
-
- Both of which were penetrated. The conning tower was
- penetrated several times, in fact one of the
- survivors who went in to the conning tower describes
- it as looking like "Swiss cheese"

So what? The ridiculusly poorly armored Conning tower on the PoW was also penetrated, the whole staff killed there, from a single shot. Survivors of PoW said that blood of their commanders was pouring down to the lower levels.

But this doesn`t change that Bismarck`s design was such, that no shells could harm it`s magazines or machinery with direct hits, on the contrary to British ships like the KGV (or Hood for the matter).

And BTW, it was nothing extraordinary to see 350mm or so armor penetrated in battle, with those calibers. What made Bismarck`s protection powerful, was the fact that it had other armor layers behind that, whereas the KGV was naked once the main belt was pierced.



-
-- You can twist it all along the way you want, but the
-- fact remains: at the FIRST SIGN of the Tirpitz
-- coming, the standing British order was: "Scatter,
-- and run for your lives."
-
- PQ 17 was a merchant convoy. I can't remember
- suggesting Britain would send freighters to attack
- the Tirpitz.
-

Facts: Tirpitz came, and the Brits fled all along the way until they were sunk or escaped. The convoy scattered because they believed they couldn`t stop Tirpitz from butchering it.


-
- Of course, in your world the RN remained in Scapa
- Flow, whilst the Tirpitz constantly salied from
- Norway. Everyone else knows the opposite is true.
-

Yep. Tirpitz alone bogged down half the British fleet. I never heard of a single British ship that would be considered such a threat that it actually worth to be monitored by half the German fleet.



-- The fact that Bismarck scored TWICE as many hits
-- alone than both British ships (Hood was a new ship,
-- too?) doesn`t prove it?
-
- 5 vs 3 isn't twice as many, and Hood was an old WW1
- ship.
-

Hood was a larger ship than Bismarck, as a matter of fact, the proudness of the RN. It sunk in 5 minutes.

Hood was hit by at least 1 shell from Bismarck, maybe 2. We will never know, it`s a bit hard to observe hits on an exploding ship.. the lucky Brits never had this problem.

In any case, German gunnery was far superior during the battle, even if the odds were agaisnt them.


-
- German optical rangefinders were certainly better,
- but inferior to British radar.
-

British radar was found to produce inferior results, that`s another fact.



-
- Even I have never suggested Bismarcks armour was so
- bad a pair a of binoculars could sink her. But Tovey
- was an expert, and there at the time, so perhaps I
- should accept his judgement.
-

Certainly he was right. He correctly realized that even a 1 pounder binocular, thrown by an elderly man can do more damage than the obsolate British guns that had no effect on Bismarck vitals.



-- Pity that Crete surrendered with thousends of
-- British troops on it, just because the whole British
-- Navy was chasing ONE enemy ship, and send no
-- reiforments to the Med ?
-
- What happened to the German sea borne invasion of
- Crete? It was sunk by the RN.
-

Sunk? When? It was scattered at best, and the fun part of it, that a single, twindly-windy Italian torpedo boat could prevent all the proud Battleship of the British navy to sink some small Greek hastened together from ports.

What sunk at Crete was half a dozen British warships, which fell like flies to the Stukas. So they run away and didn`t stop until they reached Alexandria (where an Italian commando sunk what was left of the mediterraian fleet).

The greatest RN blunder ever (not counting the American civil war_.

Do you want some comparison of the forces available and lost at Crete? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 10:03 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-
-
- Fits with every source I've seen, that a shell from
- PoW went under the main belt, exploded against the
- torpedo bulkhead, causing flooding which eventually
- caused the loss of a boiler room.
-

No, you are interpreting it wrongly. Loss of a boiler room? Where? Some boilers temporary fell out of action until the leaks were secured, but the only loss was Generator Room IV, and a single boiler (out of the 12). Boiler room no. kept operating.

And there was no penetrations into the machinery. If there have been, nobody could tell about what it was like.

As can be seen on the drawing:

http://www.kbismarck.com/propulsion2.gif



-A 42 cm shell
- [as stated. UR] [This is impossible. The British
- were firing 35.6 cm and 38.1 cm shells. GHE] had
- severed the welding seams and a several rivet heads
- near the portside waterline level; which
- [eventually] resulted in water entering Generating
- Plant IV.

- Simultaneous [with the damage to the
- waterline plating], Boiler Room II's port-side
- bulkhead was also ripped open by the hit, causing
- water to fill Generating Plant IV and penetrate into
- the boiler room.


- The bulkhead wall was quickly
- sealed with hammocks and further flooding was
- prevented. The boiler room was back in operation in
- a short time.

- Boiler III ignited, while Boiler IV
- was salt-encrusted and thus defunct.

- [The leak] in
- Generator Plant IV could not be sealed and [the
- compartment] was therefore abandoned. About 1 hour
- after the battle, we had to cut out plates with
- which the leak in compartment 21 was to be sealed.

Note: Comparment 21 is the bow of the ship.


http://www.kbismarck.com/proteccion.gif



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim


Message Edited on 06/21/0311:04PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 10:18 PM
Isegrim, I think you have lost the plot completely.

The Bismarck sank on its first operational sortie, and no amount of ranting about the suposed superiority of German designs will change that simple, historical fact. Sorry.

-------------------------------------

"It should always be remembered.that air power was only an auxiliary on the eastern front. The air war moved forward and backward with the front. It was the Red Army, drawing on air power for artillery cover of greater accuracy and decisiveness than was possible from the ground, that drove the German armies across Central Europe".

Professor Richard Overy, The Air War 1939-1945

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 10:37 PM
Absolutely right Mr Nakajima. If we are going to spend this much effort arguing about ships, it should atleast be about ones that had some lasting impact on the war at sea. Bismarck was a good ship, but it was probably no better than the US South Dakota Class, the Richelieu class, or even HMS Vanguard. She would have been at a decided disadvantage against an Iowa or Yamato class ship. The Bismarck did sink the Hood and its story may be a great tale of courage in the face of overwhelming odds, but as a ship, its importance has been hyped way out of proportion.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 10:41 PM
I can agree with most of that, except the part Nakijama being right. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 10:49 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- And there was no penetrations into the machinery. If
- there have been, nobody could tell about what it was
- like.
-

Seems like every time I visit here you're spouting more lies...

The machinery spaces *were* penetrated by RN Shellfire. Sometime between 0930 and 0935 a shell of undetermined caliber (probably 16") hit the armor deck and penetrated to the port engine room.

Bismarck was wrecked by shellfire, and reduced to ineffectiveness very quickly in the action. She never came close to straddling either of the Birish ships after that first decisive series of hits - those that rendered the fore turrets inoperative and destroyed her forward fire control system. After those hits the battle was effectively over no matter how much armor she had.

We seem to be forgetting the fact that Bismarck was a full 20% larger than any of the modern Allied battleships (save the Iowas) and yet was still inferior to almost all of them in terms of offensive power. I'd rate the RN's King George V class equal or slightly inferior to Bismarck. All the modern US ships with their superheavy shells are far and away more powerful.

So all that extra weight goes to buy protection and a few extra knots of speed. We should expect her to take a pounding before sinking, but naval actions (not unlike fighter combat) tend to go to those who can hit decisively first, no matter how much armor a ship is packing. Perhaps all that protection was a waste?

It certainly didn't keep her fighting effectively in the final battle for very long.

You know the only good thing about these rants of yours Babs is that more and more people get to see your true colors. Keep it up. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



"When you're going through Hell, keep going." - Sir Winston

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 10:51 PM
Mr_Nakajima wrote:

- Isegrim, I think you have lost the plot completely.
-
- The Bismarck sank on its first operational sortie,
- and no amount of ranting about the suposed
- superiority of German designs will change that
- simple, historical fact. Sorry.



Huh?

Hello, somebody at home?


Did you actually read the thread?


Well, I`m really impressed by your statement.

I actually thought the Bismarck won the war!


Just in case you (obviously) missed it:

Its not about the "superiority of German designs", but in defence of ridiculous statements like:

"The Bismarck was junk, plain and simple" or
"the platoon of morons who drew up the Bismarck"
(just as examples)

Propably you should read first, before boring us with childish comments like quoted above.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 10:56 PM
LW_August wrote:

- Finally as for what German carrier AC doncha think
- that if a carrier was going to be a reality the
- Germans would have developed a decent AC to go with
- it?

Why should we think that? The Germans crippled thier development program by constantly improving out of date models throughout the war (bf 109 and 110 are prime examples).

So why should we expect they'd have done anything except navalise theor 109's?

With the Royal Navy's superiority, if the Graf Zeppelein had ever been launched, it would have just ended up as another artificial reef!!

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 10:58 PM
zoomar wrote:

- Absolutely right Mr Nakajima. If we are going to
- spend this much effort arguing about ships, it
- should atleast be about ones that had some lasting
- impact on the war at sea. Bismarck was a good ship,
- but it was probably no better than the US South
- Dakota Class, the Richelieu class, or even HMS
- Vanguard. She would have been at a decided
- disadvantage against an Iowa or Yamato class ship.
- The Bismarck did sink the Hood and its story may be
- a great tale of courage in the face of overwhelming
- odds, but as a ship, its importance has been hyped
- way out of proportion.
-
-


Agreed.

Now tell this the spearsucker-troll, and we can finish this thread.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 11:03 PM
Trent_H wrote:

- The machinery spaces *were* penetrated by RN
- Shellfire. Sometime between 0930 and 0935 a shell
- of undetermined caliber (probably 16") hit the armor
- deck and penetrated to the port engine room.



No single evidence of that. But the Bismarck-envy group believes that just as blindly as the "one shell - two turrets" fairy tale.


-
- Bismarck was wrecked by shellfire, and reduced to
- ineffectiveness very quickly in the action.

In England 3/4 hours is maybe quick. And this is against a non-manouvering ship at 7 knots...


- She
- never came close to straddling either of the Birish
- ships after that first decisive series of hits -
- those that rendered the fore turrets inoperative and
- destroyed her forward fire control system.

Again not true, read the Baron, Brennecke, or anybody else, they all agree that Schneider got close to hitting Rodney right before his station was put out of action.

-
- We seem to be forgetting the fact that Bismarck was
- a full 20% larger than any of the modern Allied
- battleships (save the Iowas) and yet was still
- inferior to almost all of them in terms of offensive
- power.

That`s plain ridiculus. The secondaries were the heaviest ones, save Yamato. And really, what makes Littorio, or Richeliue more powerful with their similiar guns and lower ROF?


- I'd rate the RN's King George V class equal
- or slightly inferior to Bismarck.

Very generous for a ship that usually had 50% of it`s guns in working order during battle, which were smaller ones as well in poorly protected turrets.

- All the modern US
- ships with their superheavy shells are far and away
- more powerful.

The superheavy shells were not really impressive for anything else than weight (meaningless) and their deck penetration. Pound for pound, they did the LEAST damage with their tiny bursters. Their ballistics were nightmarish.

-
- So all that extra weight goes to buy protection and
- a few extra knots of speed.

And tons of other things already discussed here, and other places. Not unworthy to mention that 2 Bismarcks could be built for a single SoDak.


- We should expect her to
- take a pounding before sinking, but naval actions
- (not unlike fighter combat) tend to go to those who
- can hit decisively first, no matter how much armor a
- ship is packing. Perhaps all that protection was a
- waste?

Well proven at Denmark straits. Ability to hit first, ability to take punishment won the battle against all odds. As for protection being a waste, you didn`t learned your Skagerrak-lesson.


-
- It certainly didn't keep her fighting effectively in
- the final battle for very long.
-

Which ship would perform better under the same conditions? Maybe Yamato, but all the others would suffer more badly.


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim


Message Edited on 06/22/0312:10AM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 11:14 PM
Isegrim, the following is nothing more than than twisted and in my opinion racist rantings.
I personally find it offensive to suggest that Britain somehow started a War with Germany because it declared it. In actual fact it should have been declared sooner . The Czechs were badly let down in my opinion.
References to the Boer War, American Civil War and I presume the Mutiny in India are
surely taking things somewhat far ? Whats next the execution of the prisoners at Agincourt ? You fail to realise that any argument you make gets lost when you present it in such a biassed fashion.



What happened when Indians revolted against the British to gain their freedom? The Brits took them, tied in front of cannons, and FIRED. Very nice. Do you want me to search for the pictures? It will look nice how the red faced chaps are lined up nicely to look at how people are teared apart.

And of course, the walls of Omdurnam. Kitchener ordered to hand inhabitants of the city to be hanged on the walls, as a demonstration.

The same guy who is responsbile for the death of 40 000 boer women and children.

For his services and the great humanity he showed, he become Lord Kitchener, "Hero of Omdurnam". Strange, in other countries such people are called murderers. In Britain, they honour them, like "Butcher" Harris.

But at least, justice found that vermin, he was drowned when his ship was torpedoed in WW1. Another great British TDS, BTW, at least it served a just cause for once.


-
- No, I said after the conditions became known, they
- were improved, and that the death rate fell below
- that of Glasgow (which isn't an English city, it's
- Scottish)
-

Why to force them into concentration camps in the first place?

- Again, it's a matter of record. As is the fact that
- avout 14,000 British soldiers died of disease in the
- same time, so the fact that women and children had a
- higher mortality rate isn't that suprising.

Yes it isn`t. The British took these women and children from their homes, killed their sheep, burned their homes, put them into concentration camps which were suited in the WORST possible places of the country full of disease and without water.


-
-- Or should we look on your
-- comments on firebombing of cities during WW2 ? The
-- various ways you try to justify them?
-
- War is war. Firebombing cities was part of that war,
- which Germany started, and thankfully lost.
-

Twisting again. United Kingdom declared war on Germany on 3rd September 1939. But even if it was the opposite, it wouldn`t make it a lesser war crime. Britain seems to be unable to face it`s dark past, unlike the Germans, and the Russians, more recently.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 11:18 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Like what, adding a tailhook... wow, SERIOUS change,
- really.

You think that's all it would take to make the Fw any kind of carrier plane?

Add an arresting hook (to the mid fuselage or tail), add some reinforcement.
Replace the wings with wings that have more area, and which fold.
Reinforce the landing gear.

That's quite a bit of weight, isegrim.



- That`s not surprising, it ripped off the the tail
- section of Corsairs just as well.

Landing on a carrier at too fast of a speed will do that to the best of carrier planes (like the Corsair).



- Why?

So the tail doesn't get ripped off at *normal* landing speeds.



- A landing gear strong enough to take the weight of
- 4000lbs bombs not enough to hold the plane w/o
- bombs? Interesting.

How many times did the Fw-190 land with 4,000lbs of bombs? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And how many times did it do that on a pitching carrier deck that may actually be rising to meet the plane.



- So how much is that? 50kg?

How about for a completely new wing? The Fw-190's wing would have been completely unsuitable for carrier operations.



- Why, did Corsairs removed all their wing guns for
- carrier ops?

No.



- Hardly a problem.

Where does that torpedo go it the plane as to carry a belly tank?



- Why one has to remove wingracks to make the wingtips
- foldable? As the pics show, half of the wing can be
- easily folded without touching the guns or racks.
- Zeros did the same thing.

And the number of planes Japanese carriers carried suffered,



- Did Corsairs/Hellcats remove wing bomb racks when in
- carrier service? They had long ailrons and wide
- landing gear.



- Wishful thinking, as the 1800kg bomb WAS carried on
- the belly rack.
-
- Is this conviencing enough how much the belly rack
- can handle? :
-
- ad1, No 250 lbs bomb in German inventroy.
- It would be stuck with a 4000lbs bomb since
- that could be carried on the center rack. Or a
- torpedo, etc.

Now let's see that hog take off from a carrier in that configuration. It would not even have been able to use the GZ's catapult in that configuration.



- Well finally you have a point. Landing would be
- hard, no doubt. But where a Corsair can land with
- it`s awful forward vision on the final, so could a
- 190.

Actually, forward vision on the Corsair was much better than on the Fw-190.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg



Message Edited on 06/22/0302:32AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 11:32 PM
- With some help from the following ships:
-
- King George V
(snip rest of list)

Sorry, I thought you were claiming KGV was no use during the Bismarck battle. Changed your mind again?


- Namely?

Joseph Statz, plus the testimony I quoted above, which showed PoW also penetrated the machinery spaces.


- Strange? They had orders not to engage ANY Capital
- ship, unless neccesary.

Funny, you started off claiming it was the British ships that had orders not to engage the German ships, now you admit it was the other way around. Thank you.

- You mean at Dunkerque?

Well, no, we were talking about Norway, as I recall.

- The British had to
- some 50 warships there, to Stukas (where was the
- RAF?), torpedoboats etc. Of all 19 or so destroyers
- commited there, only 7 remained servicable after
- Dunkerque. That`s 2/3, not half.

Funnily, I can only find 6 destroyer losses at Dunkirk, not 19.

Even 19 would be only a small proportion of the RN destroyer fleet. 6 was an almost insignificant number.

- What Sealion? Were there any actual plan of Sealion?
- Plans how to conduct landings, where to land, what
- day etc? No.

There were actually.

IIRC, they planned to land on a broad front in four seperate zones, 2 each for 9th army and 16th army.

They also modified tanks to wade ashore, gathered thousands of barges, and held an exercise which went badly, but which they claimed was success.

- Everything I have read suggest 4 torpedo hits.
- Probably you added the poor battlecruisers torps.

You could try "The loss of the PoW and Reulse" by Middlebrook, which also states 6 torpedoes.

- And Cameron says it was not the torpedoes that sank
- her. You deny that?

Cameron said she was sinking. Scuttling hastened the end, but she was going anyway.

- What happened when Indians revolted against the
- British to gain their freedom? The Brits took them,
- tied in front of cannons, and FIRED. Very nice. Do
- you want me to search for the pictures? It will look
- nice how the red faced chaps are lined up nicely to
- look at how people are teared apart.

Yes, I'd like to see the pictures, because I haven't heard of any cases like that since well before the advent of photography. BTW, do you mean Indians or native Americans?

- And of course, the walls of Omdurnam. Kitchener
- ordered to hand inhabitants of the city to be hanged
- on the walls, as a demonstration.

Source for that? Omdurman was certainly a bloody battle for the Dervishes, but I haven't seen any allegations of a massacre. Is this from that Africaana neo nazi site you usually quote?

- Twisting again. United Kingdom declared war on
- Germany on 3rd September 1939. But even if it was
- the opposite, it wouldn`t make it a lesser war
- crime. Britain seems to be unable to face it`s dark
- past, unlike the Germans, and the Russians, more
- recently.

Ah, Isegrim's universe, where Britain started the war, not Germany, where Britain committed the atrocities, not Germany, where the Luftwaffe won the Battle of Britain, where the 109 was the greatest plane, the Luftwaffe the greatest airforce, the Kriegsmarine the greatest navy, the Bismarck the greatest ship, etc etc etc.

- No? Really? Should we look for Aces High Forum, a
- poster who calls himself "Naswhan", and considers
- himself "A Spit dweeb, and proud of it", and tells
- about how to copy DVDs for good... Now who could
- that be?

You mean where a guy asked how he could back up his own DVDs (perfectly legaly) and I directed him to a site about video editing and capturing with the PC?

- Ever heard of trimming a ship?

Ever hear of flooding?

- I cannot remember they saying that, you are putting
- words into their mouth. Sooner or later, she would
- sunk by fires, that`s true. But she was not sunk by
- torpedoes. There`s evidence to that. And that`s the
- point.

There's evidence she was flooding before scuttling, and on fire. There's evidence she was torpedoed, and scuttled.

- Something very different. Bismarck only flooded in
- the aft, but PoW flooded all along the way, right
- into the machinery rooms, which proved to be fatal
- due to the loss of power.

But she didn't lose power, she remained under steam for an hour and a half, and for another 5 torpedo hits.

- The generator rooms flooded, is that machinery
- rooms, aint it?

Yes. Though seemingly not in the Bismarcks case, where a generator room and a boiler room both flooded from PoWs hit, yet you maintain no machinery rooms were damaged.

- Is that somethin like Hochdeutsch in German, ie.
- it`s meaning remaining in secrecy for the mere
- mortals?

No, you called a paragraph bullocks and hogwash, but won't try to argue with any of the facts it contains.

- So? Standard procedure, Hop. The turrets are not the
- magazines, they are separeted by many blast doors.
- It was the British warships that exploded in dozens
- to magazine fires, not Germans. No German capital
- ship was ever lost to magazine explosions.

Perhaps because they flooded them as soon as an enemy ship came near?
Seriously, the Tirpitz was lost to a magazine explosion.

Of course, magazine hits usually require plunging fire, and the British ships closed on the Bismarck to fight at close range. At long range, the Bismarck was vulnerable to magazine penetration.

- So what? The ridiculusly poorly armored Conning
- tower on the PoW was also penetrated, the whole
- staff killed there, from a single shot.

The bridge on the PoW was unarmoured.

- But this doesn`t change that Bismarck`s design was
- such, that no shells could harm it`s magazines or
- machinery with direct hits, on the contrary to
- British ships like the KGV

When did the KGV get hit in the magazines?

- And BTW, it was nothing extraordinary to see 350mm
- or so armor penetrated in battle, with those
- calibers. What made Bismarck`s protection powerful,
- was the fact that it had other armor layers behind
- that, whereas the KGV was naked once the main belt
- was pierced.

Which is why they made the main belt thicker on KGV

- Facts: Tirpitz came, and the Brits fled all along
- the way until they were sunk or escaped. The convoy
- scattered because they believed they couldn`t stop
- Tirpitz from butchering it.

Battleship vs destroyers and merchantmen. Wonder what gave them that idea?

Still, as you admitted earlier, German capital ships were under orders not to engage British capital ships, not the other way around.


- British radar was found to produce inferior results,
- that`s another fact.

Well, not in most battles you care to mention. Like DoY v Scharnhorst, for example, or KGV and Rodney v Bismarck. How many hits did Bismarck manage? 0

- Sunk? When? It was scattered at best,

The German invasion "fleet" consisted of approx 70 ships in 2 waves, with an Italian escort. The first waves was intercepted, and all but 3 ships sunk. The second wave wisely stayed in port.


- and the fun
- part of it, that a single, twindly-windy Italian
- torpedo boat could prevent all the proud Battleship
- of the British navy to sink some small Greek
- hastened together from ports.

Excuse me? The Italian escort Lupo was damaged and fled, and all but 3 of it's charges sunk.

- So
- they run away and didn`t stop until they reached
- Alexandria (where an Italian commando sunk what was
- left of the mediterraian fleet).

Which was then unable to resuply Malta which fell, enabling Rommel to take Egypt, link up with the Germans in the Caucuses, defeat Russia, etc. Only in your universe, Isegrim, not in the real one.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 11:33 PM
Funny I was pretty sure this thread started about a German aircraft carrier, yet I have read more about BS than I ever thought I could learn in a forum about a CFS.

Lets face it, German AC would have been pretty useless as a naval aircraft. Not because they were'nt great planes but you have to design a carrier born AC from the beginning, not modify an exsisting ground born AC. And it is not taking off as much as it is landing. The US managed to launch B-25's off a carrier in 1942, I bet the Germans would have had no problems getting any of their AC off a deck. But landing is a whole different story, and without tons of support ships the Germans would have run out of AC very quickly. Carrier landings damaged more US AC in the Pacific than the Japanese ever did. This also being in the realitive calm and predictable waters of the S. Pacific. From many accounts I have read German pilots ( albeight unexperienced pilots) had a hard time landing the 109 because of its undercarriage configuration. Even well trained and experienced pilots would have damaged and even destroyed many of their AC just by landings. Practicing is one thing, trying to land a plane on a deck when you know you don't have the fuel to go around and try again is a different story. I think when you know that, your going to make sure you end up on that deck whether you break the struts or not especially when the alternative is bailing out in the North Atlantic.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 11:36 PM
-- The machinery spaces *were* penetrated by RN
-- Shellfire. Sometime between 0930 and 0935 a shell
-- of undetermined caliber (probably 16") hit the armor
-- deck and penetrated to the port engine room.
-
-
-
- No single evidence of that. But the Bismarck-envy
- group believes that just as blindly as the "one
- shell - two turrets" fairy tale.
-

"There are reports of heavy shells exploding in the port turbine room and in one of the starboard boiler rooms between 0920-0930, when Rodney was at ranges of less than 9,000 meters. Mr. Statz has confirmed these two shell hits and stated that one was near his position in Damage Control Center, thereby preventing his escape aft with the party of Commander Oels."

http://www.warships1.com/W-INRO/INRO_Bismarck_p2.htm

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 11:40 PM
- No, you are interpreting it wrongly. Loss of a
- boiler room? Where? Some boilers temporary fell out
- of action until the leaks were secured, but the only
- loss was Generator Room IV, and a single boiler (out
- of the 12). Boiler room no. kept operating.


Read the testimony I posted again. It's from a man who was part of the damage control party that dealt with it, so he should know:

"Furthermore, we heard that the shocks from our shooting had enlarged the sealed cracks in the bulkhead wall between Generator Plant IV and Boiler Room II, port. Boiler Room II, port, could not be secured and had to be abandoned."

http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/debriefing5.html

Boiler room II port had to be abandoned.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 11:40 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- In England 3/4 hours is maybe quick. And this is
- against a non-manouvering ship at 7 knots...
-

No, but 12 minutes is. 0847 to 0859. That's when the two fore turrets were effectively silenced and the forward director put out of action.

- Again not true, read the Baron, Brennecke, or
- anybody else, they all agree that Schneider got
- close to hitting Rodney right before his station was
- put out of action.
-

Ah yes, but that was 0858. Right before the decisive hits that put Bismarck effectively out of action. Keep twisting the truth. Maybe you'll get something out of it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- That`s plain ridiculus. The secondaries were the
- heaviest ones, save Yamato. And really, what makes
- Littorio, or Richeliue more powerful with their
- similiar guns and lower ROF?
-

Secondaries?!?! You are grasping at straws aren't you.

- The superheavy shells were not really impressive for
- anything else than weight (meaningless) and their
- deck penetration. Pound for pound, they did the
- LEAST damage with their tiny bursters. Their
- ballistics were nightmarish.
-

So weight is meaningless? I see you're as bad at physics as you are at history. Ever heard of F=Ma? That "M" is weight boyo. Why don't we ask the Kirishima how effective they were. Oh, that's right we can't... She was sunk!


-
- Well proven at Denmark straits. Ability to hit
- first, ability to take punishment won the battle
- against all odds. As for protection being a waste,
- you didn`t learned your Skagerrak-lesson.
-

No. You didn't learn the lesson. Hitting matters. Hitting first matters and hitting hard matters.

Yep. Bismarck had this at Denmark Straight. But her armor didn't matter a lick. In fact, the hit PoW scored at Denmark Straight was one of the most decisive of the whole chase. Where was her armor there?

You see, hitting matters. Protection is secondary.

- Which ship would perform better under the same
- conditions? Maybe Yamato, but all the others would
- suffer more badly.
-

Really? Again you're only looking at the uber-armor. Think about hitting. The question is not which ship could have lasted longer - that's a passive argument. Naval battles are won by action.

The question is, which ship could have taken Rodney or KGV with her? Or, if not that, which ship could have hit either of them, just once.

Answer: Any of the modern US Battleships, and probably a few of the old ones. I would expect the old Japanese battleships to have performed better as well. They could hit.

LOL @ Isegrim!



"When you're going through Hell, keep going." - Sir Winston

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 12:00 AM
Trent_H wrote:

- The question is, which ship could have taken Rodney
- or KGV with her? Or, if not that, which ship could
- have hit either of them, just once.
-
- Answer: Any of the modern US Battleships, and
- probably a few of the old ones. I would expect the
- old Japanese battleships to have performed better as
- well. They could hit.


Again and again you ignore the fact that Bismarck fought its last battle at a speed of 7 kn and without ability to manoevre and using her full weapons. So you prove nothing and only waste our time. Ask the Hood about Bismarcks ability to "hit"!


- LOL @ Isegrim!


Sorry, but the one who is making a fool out of himself is you. You seem to have understand nothing, or you are simply ignorant.

LOL @ Trent_H !

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 12:09 AM
Ahem, wasnt this thread about a carrier once?
I just saw the german Magazine "Fliegerrevue" has an extra volume with a 42 page feature on the Graf Zeppelin and its aircraft. I will try to get it and post something about it.

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg


Message Edited on 06/21/0311:11PM by theRealAntEater

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 12:13 AM
theRealAntEater wrote:
- Ahem, wasnt this thread about a carrier once?
- I just saw the german Magazine "Fliegerrevue" has an
- extra volume with a 42 page feature on the Graf
- Zeppelin and its aircraft. I will try to get it and
- post something about it.


Please do.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 12:30 AM
hop2002 wrote

-- Strange? They had orders not to engage ANY Capital
-- ship, unless neccesary.
-
- Funny, you started off claiming it was the British
- ships that had orders not to engage the German
- ships, now you admit it was the other way around.
- Thank you.


Have you really that few understanding of the german tactics and strategy during the Norway-operations, or are you simply shadow-boxing with Isegrim?


-- What Sealion? Were there any actual plan of Sealion?
-- Plans how to conduct landings, where to land, what
-- day etc? No.
-
- There were actually.
-
- IIRC, they planned to land on a broad front in four
- seperate zones, 2 each for 9th army and 16th army.
-
- They also modified tanks to wade ashore, gathered
- thousands of barges, and held an exercise which went
- badly, but which they claimed was success.


So are we now arguing about "Sealion"? There has been no greater myth than that. There have been some studies about the theoretical abilities, but no serious plans. Hitler himself wasn`t even interested in that. So what are you arguing about? Shadow-boxing again?


- Cameron said she was sinking. Scuttling hastened the
- end, but she was going anyway.


What are you referring to Cameron all the time? Since when is Cameron an expert for anything else than Titanic-movies?


-- So? Standard procedure, Hop. The turrets are not the
-- magazines, they are separeted by many blast doors.
-- It was the British warships that exploded in dozens
-- to magazine fires, not Germans. No German capital
-- ship was ever lost to magazine explosions.
-
- Perhaps because they flooded them as soon as an
- enemy ship came near?
- Seriously, the Tirpitz was lost to a magazine
- explosion.


Oh yes, maybe. What kind of bombs exactly were thrown on the Tirpitz to do so? You are shadow-boxing again?


-- Facts: Tirpitz came, and the Brits fled all along
-- the way until they were sunk or escaped. The convoy
-- scattered because they believed they couldn`t stop
-- Tirpitz from butchering it.
-
- Battleship vs destroyers and merchantmen. Wonder
- what gave them that idea?


And again you ignore the point. Why didn`t the big units of the RN stay at the convoy to fight the Tirpitz? Instead of that they sent the whole convoy into their sure death. Even british historians consider this as a big mistake. And why exactly was this mistake done? Hm?



-- British radar was found to produce inferior results,
-- that`s another fact.
-
- Well, not in most battles you care to mention. Like
- DoY v Scharnhorst, for example, or KGV and Rodney v
- Bismarck. How many hits did Bismarck manage? 0


We`re talking about May 41.
The Scharnhorst was sunk in Dec.43. At that time the british radar was highly superior to everything Germany had on warships. Scharnhorst had no chance. She fought bravely, but thats all.
And for the Bismarck, this argument becomes boring. Fighting a ship which lost its manoevreability proves nothing.


- Which was then unable to resuply Malta which fell,
- enabling Rommel to take Egypt, link up with the
- Germans in the Caucuses, defeat Russia, etc. Only in
- your universe, Isegrim, not in the real one.


Oh, now we learn about the great victories of the RN in the Med in summer 41? Sorry, at first I liked to take your posts serious, but besides shadow-boxing and well-formulated nonsense you have nothing to contribute to the discussion.

Do some reading about the Norway-operations, continue with "Sealion" (LOL), and make sure to get the desperate situation of the british forces in early summer 41 in the Med.

Then try again.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 12:30 AM
The "Super-Battleship" Bismark was such a serious threat tot he British because it could fight a British battleship on even terms. The other German merchant raiders, including the Scharnhorst-class BCs and the Lutzow and Hipper class CAs could not, and were under orders to avoid British capital surface ships.

In actuallity, the Bismark never really get a fair test against British BBs. The Hood blew up due to a "freak" magazine hit (something the British battlecruisers seemed to be known for); a hit that ballistic evidence suggests was probaly scored by the Hipper, who's 8" guns would have been firing at the high trajectory necessary to score a plunging hit on Hood's magazines; the Prince of Wales was quickly forced to break off mainly because it was not truly combat-ready. On the other hand, the Bismark herself had already been incapacited by RN Swordfish when the Nelson and KGV caught up to her.

It is ludicrous to argue that the Scharnhorst, Hipper, or Bismark classes were (or might have been) successful as merchant raiders. The tonnoage they sunk could have been sunk just as easily (and much more cheaply) by long range merchant cruisers, light cruisers, or super-destroyers. The only reason to use a battleship as a merchant raider is to use it to defeat convoy escorts, but as the German battleships failed in this respect, they were therefore in all respects strategic failures.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 12:39 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- theRealAntEater wrote:
-- Ahem, wasnt this thread about a carrier once?
-- I just saw the german Magazine "Fliegerrevue" has an
-- extra volume with a 42 page feature on the Graf
-- Zeppelin and its aircraft. I will try to get it and
-- post something about it.
-
-
- Please do.



Yes, I`d appreciate that too.


But it will only take a few moments until the next one jumps in to "prove" that german ships were nothing but crap, and the next will claim the opposite, then again the next will accuse the second of being chauvinistic, then personal insults starts and so on and so on.

Its obviously impossible to discuss an interesting topic like this one in a mature manner.

However, lets try again, and thanks SkyChimp, for starting this interesting topic anyway.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 12:45 AM
I agree 100%! The US had the BEST BS!

Question for everyone here. My navel history is not so good, but I love these massive ships. A lot of people here think the Iowa class were the best in the war. I dont know, but I hope so! Anyways, when was the Iowa class introduced? Compaired to the Yamatto or the Bizmark? If I remember, the Bizmark was in 1940. Very early. I think the Iowa was later?

Gib

theRealAntEater wrote:
- LOL,
- this thread is another example that US BS is far
- superior to the rest of the world's BS
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
-
-


"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 01:16 AM
U-boat losses for Issy/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

9 U-boats lost in 1939 (204 men died and 148 men survived those losses)

23 U-boats lost in 1940 (643 men died and 331 men survived those losses) U-31 sunk twice so is actually 24

34 U-boats lost in 1941 (887 men died and 645 men survived those losses)

85 U-boats lost in 1942 (3277 men died and 818 men survived those losses)

236 U-boats lost in 1943 (10102 men died and 1842 men survived those losses)

216 U-boats lost in 1944 (7978 men died and 2349 men survived those losses)

123 U-boats lost in 1945 (3856 men died and 440 men survived those losses)

U-boats stricken from records (often after sustaining prior combat damage) and boats scuttled by their own crews are not included in this losses figure

http://www.uboat.net/fates/losses/

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 01:16 AM
Lol. Your funny Issy.

Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Gibbage1 wrote:
--
-- Also, yes the FW-190 would need some serious changes
-- to make it on the deck.
--
-
- Like what, adding a tailhook... wow, SERIOUS change,
- really.
-
-

Yes, and the structure to support the stress of the tail hook and the rest of the aircraft pulling on the tail hook.

-- The tail hook would rip its
-- aft section off on a landing.
-
-
- That`s not surprising, it ripped off the the tail
- section of Corsairs just as well.
-
-

Yes, true. That shows how much stress the tail hook causes.

-- That would neer to be
-- re-inforced adding weight to the tail.
-
- Why?
-

Now this is the most STUPID question EVER! After your FIRST TWO question, you answered your third question. OK. The tail hook itself is rather heavy. It must stop 6,500 lb MINIMUM!!!!!!!! Plus the FORWARD MOMENTUM, and the added stress of the engine thrust! Thats a heavy peace of steele. 100 pounds in the hook alone. Now, the structure that will hold that hook with 7000pounds of pull. The FW190 tail is very thin, and the support structure is aluminum. Do you really think that if the FW-190 was hung by its tail, it would not rip off? YOUR HIGH! Add some steele supports connecting directly to the mail fusilodge. Example. The Seafire Mx X empty is 6245lb. Spitfire X empty is 5800lb. Do the math. It took 450 pounds to make the SPitfire deck capable. Also, something you never do. Source. Spitfire, The hostory. Eric B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady.

-- Much more
-- stronger landing gear,
-
- A landing gear strong enough to take the weight of
- 4000lbs bombs not enough to hold the plane w/o
- bombs? Interesting.

How about landing gear strong enough to take 6500 pounds plus slamming onto a deck.

-
-- additional weight for the
-- folding wings,
-
- So how much is that? 50kg?

Again. Adding folding wings and tail hook took 450 pounds.

-
-- removal of the outer guns,
-
- Why, did Corsairs removed all their wing guns for
- carrier ops?
-

The only place to put the fold is were the outer wing guns were without major redesign of the alarons.

-- more fuel
-- for range.
-
- Hardly a problem.
-

Short range for a carrier aircraft IS a problem, unless you dont want a good fighter screen.

-
-- Looking at its wing structure (long
-- alarons and wide landing gear) the only place for
-- the folding wings would remove the bomb racks on the
-- wing.
-
- Why one has to remove wingracks to make the wingtips
- foldable? As the pics show, half of the wing can be
- easily folded without touching the guns or racks.
- Zeros did the same thing.
-
- Did Corsairs/Hellcats remove wing bomb racks when in
- carrier service? They had long ailrons and wide
- landing gear.
-
-

Earlier version of the Corsairs and Hellcats did not have bomb outs outside of the wing mounts. Not till later did they figure out how, with added support. The US had many many years of design knolege in folding wings. Germany had very little development time.

-
-- So its only stores would be belly. It had a
-- rather low carrage for such a wide stance and it
-- could not load a large bomb on the belly.
-
- Wishful thinking, as the 1800kg bomb WAS carried on
- the belly rack.
-
- Is this conviencing enough how much the belly rack
- can handle? :
-

Again, modified hear. That tail would interfiew with tail hook operations. I would also like to see that get off the short deck of a carrier.

-
-
-- A carrier
-- based FW-190 would be stuck with only a 250 pound
-- equivilant bomb!
-
- ad1, No 250 lbs bomb in German inventroy. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
- ad2, It would be stuck with a 4000lbs bomb since
- that could be carried on the center rack. Or a
- torpedo, etc.
-

I did not say 250 pound bomb. I said equivilant! Read. Again, tell me how much runway the FW190 needed for that 4000 pound bomb.

-
-- No bomb at all with the fuel tank
-- it would need for any extended range.
-

Again, mounted were the wing fold would be. Nice try. Also note no outer guns on that. To save weight? Also, what was the takeoff roll on that config?

-
-
-
-
-- Also, add to
-- that the pilots view. You think its hard now to
-- shoot down fighters? Try landing that thing! US
-- and British were landing aircraft on a pitching deck
-- a LOT longer then the Germans, and it took them a
-- LONG damn time to figure out how to get a F4U on
-- one. Do you think the Germans would do better?
-- Doubt it. Things would get worse as pilot attrition
-- started in 44.
-
- Well finally you have a point. Landing would be
- hard, no doubt. But where a Corsair can land with
- it`s awful forward vision on the final, so could a
- 190.
-

Again, you gloss over the point. British and US had a LOT more experance then the Germans on deck landings and they took a lot of time to figure out how to do it. How long would it take the Germans with NO experance?

"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 01:22 AM
Gib, as I pointed out in another post, who says the hook has to be attached at the tail. The Seafire and Sea Hurricane both had the attachment point for the hook well up the fuselage towards the cockpit. This is a better postion for an a/c that likes to land in a 3-point attitude.



http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 01:26 AM
- Have you really that few understanding of the german
- tactics and strategy during the Norway-operations,
- or are you simply shadow-boxing with Isegrim?

Isegrim claimed the British were unwilling to risk their capital ships against German ones. With a little bit of shadow boxing, I got him to admit the truth, that German capital ships were under orders not to engage their British counterparts.

That was probably the right thing for the Germans to do, because they had so few ships.

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau could easily have been lost engaging Renown, which would have been a disaster for Germany, whilst the loss of the Renown would have been an inconvienience for the British. Note it's Isegrim who claimed Renown was no possible threat, although the Germans obviously felt differently.


- So are we now arguing about "Sealion"? There has
- been no greater myth than that. There have been some
- studies about the theoretical abilities, but no
- serious plans. Hitler himself wasn`t even interested
- in that. So what are you arguing about?
- Shadow-boxing again?


There were serious plans, and Hitler may well have gambled on them, if the Luftwaffe had defeated the RAF. Hitler was not adverse to huge gambles of that sort.


- What are you referring to Cameron all the time?
- Since when is Cameron an expert for anything else
- than Titanic-movies?

I'd just as happily leave Cameron out of it, but certain people seem to believfe Cameron "proved" the Bismarck was almost undamaged before scuttling, when in fact every credible source I've ever seen, including Cameron, claims the Bismarck was already sinking even without the scuttling charges.

- Oh yes, maybe. What kind of bombs exactly were
- thrown on the Tirpitz to do so? You are
- shadow-boxing again?

No, Isegrim claimed no German capital ships were lost to magazine explosions, I corrected him.

- And again you ignore the point. Why didn`t the big
- units of the RN stay at the convoy to fight the
- Tirpitz?

Because they weren't in a position to. The capital ships didn't usually sail with the convoy, they provided a covering force. The purpose was to use the convoys as bait, and attack Tirpitz when it came out. The allies knew Tirpitz would not come out if capital ships were in the area.

The convoy was ordered to scatter because it was thought the Tirpitz was about to engage the convoy, when in fact it was nowhere near.

The covering force for PQ 17 consisted of Duke of York, (KGV class), the USS Washington, 4 heavy cruisers (2 British 2 American), the carrier Victorious, two light cruisers and 8 destroyers. The convoy also had several cruisers and destroyers as escort.

The Allied fleet was there purely to attack Tirpitz, and they didn't provide close escort in order to lure out the German ship. In the event, Tirpitz was ordered not to attack because the Luftwaffe couldn't say for certain their were no allied capital ships in the area.

PQ 17 was an example of a vastly superior allied force trying to spring a trap on Tirpitz, not of an allied force running away from Tirpitz. Isegrim knows that.

- Oh, now we learn about the great victories of the RN
- in the Med in summer 41? Sorry, at first I liked to
- take your posts serious, but besides shadow-boxing
- and well-formulated nonsense you have nothing to
- contribute to the discussion.

Great victories? Isegrim just claimed the entire Med fleet was sunk.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 01:37 AM
JtD, I'll try to take these in turn, but may miss some.


"- 170mm of Wotan make a good armor. BtW this is 70 mm
- more than Richelieu had on top of the steering unit
- and just 40 less than Richelieu had above the
- magazine."

At the maximum, the COMBINED deck thickness for Bismarck is 170mm. This is adding the 50mm upper deck to the 120mm (it thinned to 80mm in other areas).

To compared Jean Bart, we have the following:

Upper deck: 150-170mm
Lower deck: 40-100mm

I'm going to refer you to an article I wrote for www.warships1.com (http://www.warships1.com) which will explain why a single deck of 170mm is more effective than 170mm in two (or more) decks:

http://www.warships1.com/index_tech/tech-024.htm

I can take the time to actually calculate the difference in resistance if necessary. Read the article first before you ask, please.



"- Do you happen to have a drawing that shows the
- boilers on top of the armour deck? The ones I have
- show them to be below the armor deck."

Check the "hump" in any section drawings you can find. There is a non-contiguous deck covering the tops of the boilers. Duke of York planted a round squarely through it.

"Fleets of World War Two" by Richard Worth covers the same issue, as will Dulin and Garzke.



"- Yes, esp. beyond 38.7 km which was the longest range
- possbile with 16"/50. (Even Scharnhorsts guns shot
- further.)"

1) How far you can shoot and how far you can control are two different issues. Spotting fall of shot at 38.7 km is basically impossible - although centimetric radar might be able to do it.

2) I'll take the 16"/50 or 16"/45 anywhere inside of 25,000 yards and keep the comparison there if you like.



"No, the Japanese 46cm gun was harder hitting, but suffered from lower ROF and worse fire control."

Actual penetration data states otherwise. I invite you argue with the United States Navy if you find me unreliable.



"- Germanys Hochseeflotte did better at at the battle
- at Jutland 30 years before."

Please refrain from including British battlecruisers in this discussion. Apart from a battlecruiser, I can't recall off the top of my head any other capital ship being sunk in 10 salvoes or less from a single opponent. We could bend the rules and call Kirishima a battlecruiser... but given her reconstruction, I think that would be stretching things a bit.



"- " (105mm) lower rate of fire than the 5"/38."
-
- I personally consider 15 rpm to be more than 10, but
- I might be wrong here."

You have the rate of fire for the 5"/38 wrong, that much is true. Nominal rate of fire comes in at 15-22rpm - faster in integral hoist mounts (like a battleship), slower in carriers.



"- 200mm compared to 170, wow, that is what I call FAR
- thicker. Did I mention Wotan?"

Refer to the above. Read the article and it should help.



"- Outer shell on the North Carolinas? Where exactly?"

South Dakotas and Iowas both had outer shells, North Carolinas did not. In that case, that is what I am referring to. More on point, you will agree concerninng inclination.



************************************************** ****


I'll take my car with 382 fully forged cubic inches of fire-breathing, MPFI, nitrous sniffing, all aluminum, tire-roasting Chevrolet power, thank you very much.


"If you can turn, you aren't going fast enough."

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 01:38 AM
Odd. Normally you are up on your AC tech http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Early seafires were center hook, later seafires were tail. Look up the XV like the one I posted about. The tail took was intergrated into the rudder. I have diagrams showing the re-enforcements on the tail to make this possible. I dont dont you, but I wonder why they went from center to tail if the center was so much better?

http://www.spitfireworld.co.uk/Mk%20XV.jpg


Gib

MiloMorai wrote:
- Gib, as I pointed out in another post, who says the
- hook has to be attached at the tail. The Seafire and
- Sea Hurricane both had the attachment point for the
- hook well up the fuselage towards the cockpit. This
- is a better postion for an a/c that likes to land in
- a 3-point attitude.
-
-
-


"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 01:46 AM
Went over your head Gib./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It was an example of a different hook position, since you seem stuck on a hook from the tail.



http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 01:49 AM
Sorry, it was the only one i new of. The center hooks to me were a new thing till this post. From what I see 90% of the hook system's were tail, thats why I thought the FW190 would go with tail. The 109T went with tail, and the Stuka also. Just going with the flow! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 01:51 AM
Nice article on the Bismarcks armour layout:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm

Battleship comparison:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

"Blackburn finally got to make a plane the way they wanted to, they got a solid block of aluminium and drilled holes in it".
Comment on the Blackburn Buccaneer.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 01:54 AM
Wow! Almost 8 pages!

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 01:57 AM
i want to reply too buhu

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 02:05 AM
Gentlemen (ladies if any) When you post in any thread on UBI Forums it is expected that you maintain a respect for all other posters.

I do not care if any one of you has an issue with another poster. If you have a problem take it to PM or email.

After this message I do not want to see any bickering, keep this thread on topic. Believe it or not the original post was valuable, you have all turned it into another **** fest.

Anybody engaging in personal attacks/insults will be warned a repeat will result in a ban.

Now clean your act up gents

All grow up or face the stick!

<fontsize=2>Unofficial IL-2 Community FAQ (http://mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm)
<fontsize=2>Hunter82's Tech Pages (http://mudmovers.com/tech/tech_pages.htm)

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 02:08 AM
Good stuff! Thanks. Man the Iowa had a lot of AA!!! Its interesting how dismal the score was for the Bismark. Again, I ask when was the Iowa introduced as apposed to the Bismark?

Gib

A-M wrote:
- Nice article on the Bismarcks armour layout:
-
- <a href="http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm"
- target=_blank>http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_bi
- z.htm</a>
-
-
- Battleship comparison:
-
- <a href="http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm"
- target=_blank>http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest
- .htm</a>
-
-
- "Blackburn finally got to make a plane the way they
- wanted to, they got a solid block of aluminium and
- drilled holes in it".
- Comment on the Blackburn Buccaneer.



"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 02:20 AM
Iowa was commissioned in February 1943.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 02:37 AM
SkyChimp wrote:

- Iowa was commissioned in February 1943.



And when did it see service?


So please, if comparing battleships, don`t compare ships of different time-frames. As fast as technology goes forward during war-times, you can`t compare a ship with a concept of the end-thirties (like the Bismarck) to a ship that went into service in 44/45.

I ask for nothing more than to give any ship the credit it deserves.


And for the Iowa:

It might be the best battle-ship ever built.
But then again, the whole concept of battle-ships was obsolete in the time the Iowa saw service.

It were the carriers which ruled the seas (especially the US-ones), and the concept of operating in carrier-groups.

This might be a statement everyone can agree to (unless he is a troll), and maybe we can return to the original topic of this thread: carriers, in this case a german one that never was completed or saw action.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 02:44 AM
Iowa was launched 27 August, 1942, commissioned 23 February, 1943.

South Dakota was launched 7 June, 1941, commissioned 20 March, 1942.

Bismarck was launched 14 February, 1939, commissioned 24 August, 1940.


************************************************** **

I'll take my car with 382 fully forged cubic inches of fire-breathing, MPFI, nitrous sniffing, all aluminum, tire-roasting Chevrolet power, thank you very much.


"If you can turn, you aren't going fast enough."

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 02:48 AM
leonid05 wrote:
-
- SkyChimp wrote:
-
-- Iowa was commissioned in February 1943.
-
-
-
- And when did it see service?
-
-
- So please, if comparing battleships, don`t compare
- ships of different time-frames. As fast as
- technology goes forward during war-times, you can`t
- compare a ship with a concept of the end-thirties
- (like the Bismarck) to a ship that went into service
- in 44/45.
-
- I ask for nothing more than to give any ship the
- credit it deserves.
-
-
- And for the Iowa:
-
- It might be the best battle-ship ever built.
- But then again, the whole concept of battle-ships
- was obsolete in the time the Iowa saw service.
-
- It were the carriers which ruled the seas
- (especially the US-ones), and the concept of
- operating in carrier-groups.
-
- This might be a statement everyone can agree to
- (unless he is a troll), and maybe we can return to
- the original topic of this thread: carriers, in this
- case a german one that never was completed or saw
- action.
-



Wow, a voice of reason!
Lets assume the Iowa class was the best of the best.
Germany and Japan would never get to respond with a new
design, Russia and Britian along with the US saw the
battleship as obsolete.

Carriers did in fact replace battleships as capital ships.
Even the carriers utility was in doubt with the nuclear age.
perhaps this is why the soviet's did not fund a carrier force.

As to the over kill the Bizmark got... It's simple, Graffspe
gave the British a nasty shock. The Bizmark was many times more
dangerous and could not be allowed to run amok in the shipping
lanes. A fair fight was not an option, severe over kill was
the ONLY option.

Tirpitz served it's masters well by tieing down precious
resources required to monitor and later destroy it.

My 2c worth!

Mr.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 02:55 AM
Oh yes, before I forget, in responce to the comment about
american submarines being inferior to german subs??????

The Fleet class subs were equal or superior in all parameters
to the XIC U-boats in all parameters except range and perhaps dive depth.

U-504 had the edge in range and dove a bit deeper.

Comparison, USS gato SS-212. U-504 XIC class. Both were
laid down in 1941.

The US boats were more heavily armed and were quite a bit faster.

US boats were used mostly in the pacific. British subs
seemed to take up the allied cause in the Atlantic.

I would not want to be in any sub in the Atlantic. The
escorts and planes seemed to shoot first and ask questions
later.

Mr.



Message Edited on 06/22/0301:57AM by Mr-Awesome

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:01 AM
"Lets assume the Iowa class was the best of the best.
Germany and Japan would never get to respond with a new
design, Russia and Britian along with the US saw the
battleship as obsolete."


Well... actually... the Montanas are probably the best ever designed. But they all got turned into Midway-class aircraft carriers.



************************************************** ******

I'll take my car with 382 fully forged cubic inches of fire-breathing, MPFI, nitrous sniffing, all aluminum, tire-roasting Chevrolet power, thank you very much.


"If you can turn, you aren't going fast enough."

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:20 AM
Mr-Awesome wrote:

- The US boats were more heavily armed and were quite
- a bit faster.


I also understand that they were much, much quieter, as well. Perhaps the most important attribute of all.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:22 AM
leonid05 wrote:
-
- And when did it see service?
-
-
- So please, if comparing battleships, don`t compare
- ships of different time-frames. As fast as
- technology goes forward during war-times, you can`t
- compare a ship with a concept of the end-thirties
- (like the Bismarck) to a ship that went into service - in 44/45.
-
-

Glad you said that, /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HMS Hood > 1920
HMS Renown > 1916
HMS Repulse > 1916
HMS Ramilles > 1917
HMS Resolution > 1916
HMS Revenge > 1916
HMS Royal Oak > 1916
HMS Royal Sovereign > 1916
HMS Queen Elibeth > 1915
HMS Warsite > 1915
HMS Valiant > 1916
HMS Barham > 1915
HMS Malaya > 1916




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:32 AM
GRAF ZEPPELIN
1938
Displacement: 19,250 tons
Length: 820.3 ft
Beam: 88.5 ft
Draught: 18.3 ft (mean)
Aircraft: 40
Guns:
16 - 5.9 inch
10 - 4.1 inch AA
22 - 37 mm AA
Machinery: Geared turbines
Speed: 32 kts
Armour: Casemates for 5.9 inch guns. No bulges.



Here is her contemporary US Navy competition:


LEXINGTON (3rd Oct., 1925)
SARATOGA (7th April, 1925)
Displacement: 36,000 tons (standard); 47,700 tons (full)
Complement: 2,951(Lexington), 3,373 (Saratoga 1945)
Length: (p.p) 850 ft, 888 ft (o.a)
Beam: 106 ft
Draught: 24 ft 1.5 in
Aircraft: 75
Guns:
8 - 8 inch, 55 cal.
12 - 5 inch AA, 25 cal.
4 - 6 pdr. saluting
Saratoga (1945):
8x2 - 5 inch AA
24x4 - 40mm AA Bofors
16- 20 mm AA
Armour:
Belt 6"
Flight deck 1"
Main deck 2"
2nd deck 1" - 3"
Turrets 1,5" - 3"
Barbets 6"
Machinery: G.E. turbines, electric drive.4 screws. S.H.P.: 180,000 = 33.25 kts. Boilers: Lexington, 16 Yarrow; Saratoga, 16 White-Forster
http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/pics/new/saratoga1.jpg


RANGER (Newport News S.B. Co., Feb. 25, 1933)
Displacement: 14,500 tons
Complement: 1,788
Length: 728ft (w.l.), 769 ft (o.a)
Beam: 80.1 ft (max.)
Draught: 19.7 ft (mean)
Aircraft: 86
Guns:
8 - 5 inch, 38 cal.dual purpose
40 smaller
Armour: 1" flight deck
double hull and internal subdivision, but no side armour beyond small patch shown
Machinery: Geared turbines (high pressure Curtis; low pressure Parsons). 2 shafts. S.H.P.: 53,500 = 29.4 kts.Boilers: 6 Babcock & Wilcox sectional Express.
http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/pics/ranger1.jpg


ENTERPRISE (Oct. 3, 1936)
YORKTOWN (1936)
Displacement: 19,900 tons (standard); 25,500 tons (full)
Complement: 2,919
Length: 761 ft (w.l.), 809.5 ft (o.a)
Beam: 114 ft (max.)
Draught: 28 ft (mean)
Aircraft: 89
space for over 100
Guns:
8 - 5 inch, 38 cal.dual purpose
16 - 1.1 inch M.G. AA
16 smaller M.G.
Armour:
Belt 4"
Main deck 3"
2nd deck 1"- 3"
Machinery: Geared turbines. S.H.P.: 120,000 = 34 kts.Boilers: 9 Babcock & Wilcox Express type. 4 shafts.
http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/pics/enterpr.jpg


HORNET (1940)
Displacement: 19,000 tons (standard); 29,100 tons (full)
Complement: 2,919
Length: 827.5 ft
Beam: 114 ft
Draught: 29 ft
Aircraft: 87
space for over 100
Guns:
8 - 5 inch, 38 cal.dual purpose
16 - 1.1 inch M.G. AA
30 - 20mm M.G.AA
9 - 0.5" M.G.
Armour:
Belt 2.5"- 4"
Main deck 3"
2nd deck 1"- 3"
Machinery: Geared turbines. S.H.P.: 120,000 = 34 kts.Boilers: 9 Babcock & Wilcox Express type. 4 shafts.
http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/pics/hornet1.jpg



WASP (Aprl 4th, 1939)
Displacement: 14,700 tons (20,450 full load)
Complement: 2,367
Length: 741.3 ft
Beam: 80.9 ft
Draught: 28 ft
Aircraft: 80
Guns:
8 - 5 inch, 38 cal.
16 - 1.1 inch AA
30 - 20mm AA
Armour:
Belt 4"
Main deck 1.5"
2nd deck 1.5"
Machinery: 2-shaft Parsons turbines. S.H.P.: 75,000 = 29.5 kts.Boilers: 6 Yarrow. Oil: 1602 tons.
http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/pics/new/wasp.jpg



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg



Message Edited on 06/22/03 06:32AM by SkyChimp

Message Edited on 06/22/0306:36AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:52 AM
SpearchuckerJ wrote:
-
- Well... actually... the Montanas are probably the
- best ever designed. But they all got turned into
- Midway-class aircraft carriers.


Are you sure about that? AFAIK, the Midway's hull was *modelled* on Montana's hull, but that Midway was built keel up as a carrier.

From:
http://members.tripod.com/Cymru_Am_Byth/midway/

The product of the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, she was the lead ship of three 45,000-ton Midway class CVBs, followed by USS Franklin D. Roosevelt, CVB-42 and USS Coral Sea, CVB-43. Two additional ships were canceled. Midway's keel was laid on October 27, 1943. The Midway class hull arrangement was modeled on the canceled Montana class battleships and were a new, much larger design intended to correct certain problems in the Essex class design. They had armored flight decks, requiring a much larger hull and lower freeboard, to reduce top weight. They also carried a very heavy AA battery of 5/54 weapons. The armor requirement was originally meant to counter 8" cruiser gunfire, but by the time the ships were laid down the focus had shifted to defending against aircraft attack.


http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/pics/midway1.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:38 AM
Nice pics, SC!


Thats the spirit!


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:56 AM
Contemporary British Carriers (BTW, I'm trying to stay in the 1930's and very early '40s. Also, I'm leaving out escort carriers.)

ILLUSTRIOUS (April 5, 1939)
VICTORIOUS (Sept. 14, 1939)
FORMIDABLE [ video ] (August 17, 1939)
INDOMITABLE (March 26, 1940)
Displacement: 23,000 tons (standard) 25,500 tons (full)
Complement: 1,400
Length: 753,5 ft
Beam: 95,75 ft
Draught: 24 ft
Aircraft: about 45 (Indomitable about 65)
Guns:
8 - 4.5 inch dual purpose
Numerous 40 mm AA, 20 mm AA
Armour:
Hangar 4,5" (Indomitable 1,5")
Flight deck 3"
Machinery: Parsons geared turbines. 3 shafts. S.H.P.: 110,000 = 31 kts. Boilers: 6 of 3-drum type.
http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/pics/new/indomin.jpg

(BTW, the guy in that Swordfish has balls)


ARK ROYAL (13th April, 1937)
Displacement: 22,000 tons (about 27,720 tons full load)
Complement: 1,575
Length: (p.p.) 685 ft, (o.a.) 800 ft
Beam: 94.7 ft
Draught: 27.7 ft
Aircraft: about 65
Guns:
16 (2x8) - 4.5 inch
42 (6x8) - 2 pdr
32 (8x4) - 0.50" AA
Armour:
4.5" belt
3" - 2.5" bulkheads
2.5" deck
Machinery: Parsons geared turbines. 3 shafts. S.H.P.: 102,000 = 31 kts. Boilers: 6 Admiralty 3-drum type. Fuel: oil, 4,620 tons.
http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/pics/new1/arkroyal.jpg





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg



Message Edited on 06/22/0308:02AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 05:08 AM
Japanese Carriers:

AKAGI
(Kure Dockyard, April 22nd, 1925)
Displacement: (1941) 36,500 tons (standard); 41,300 tons (full)
Complement: 1340
Length: 855.3 ft
Beam: 102.9 ft
Draught: 28.7 ft
Aircraft: 91
Guns:
4 x 8"/50 cal in 2 twin mountings(as built)
6 x 8"/50 cal in 6 single mountings(as built)
10 x 8"/50 cal in 10 single mountings(after mid 1930's reconstruction)
12 x 4.7"/45 cal in 6 twin mountings(as built)
16 x 5"/40 cal in 8 twin mountings(after mid 1930's reconstruction)
25+ x 25mm(after mid 1930's reconstruction)
30 x 13.2mm MG
Armour:
Main Side Belt 11" belt
Deck Armour 0.5" to 2.3"
Flight Deck Armour 1.5"
Machinery: Geared turbines. S.H.P. 133,000 = 28.5 kts.
4 shafts.
Fuel: Coal + oil.
http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/pics/new1/akagi1.jpg



KAGA
(Kawasaki Co., Kobe, 17th Nov., 1921)
Displacement: 38,200 tons (standard); 43,650 tons (full)
Complement: 2016
Length: 812.6 ft
Beam: 108.75 ft
Draught: 31.3 ft
Aircraft: 90
Guns:
4 x 8"/50 cal in 2 twin mountings(as built)
6 x 8"/50 cal in 6 single mountings(as built)
10 x 8"/50 cal in 10 single mountings(after mid 1930's reconstruction)
12 x 4.7"/45 cal in 6 twin mountings(as built)
16 x 5"/40 cal in 8 twin mountings(after mid 1930's reconstruction)
25+ x 25mm(after mid 1930's reconstruction)
30 x 13.2mm MG
Armour:
Main Side Belt 11" belt
Deck Armour 0.5" to 2.3"
Flight Deck Armour 1.5"
Machinery: Geared turbines. D.H.P. 91,000 = 25 kts.
4 shafts.
http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/pics/new1/kaga.jpg



SHOKAKU (June 2, 1939)
ZUIKAKU (Nov. 27, 1939)
Displacement: 25,675 tons (standatd); 32,000 tons (full)
Complement: 1660
Length: 844.1 ft
Beam: 85.4 ft
Draught: 29.1 ft
Aircraft: 75 - 85
Guns:
8 - double 5 inch
up to 96 - 25mm
6x28 - 5" AA rockets (Zuikaku 1944)
Armour:
Main Side Belt 2.0" to 5.8" belt
Deck Armour 4.6"
Flight Deck Armour 2.5"
Machinery: Geared turbines.Speed 34 kts.4 shafts.
S.H.P. 160,000.
http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/pics/new1/Shokaku.jpg



RYUZYO (April 2, 1931)
Displacement: 12,732 tons (standard); 14,000 tons (full)
Complement: 924
Length: 590.7 ft
Beam: 68.5 ft
Draught: 23.3 ft
Aircraft: 36
Guns:
4 - double 5 inch
12 - bouble 25 mm AA
Armour:
Machinery: Geared turbines. Kanpon Boilers. S.H.P. 65,000 = 25 kts. 2 shafts.
Laid down Nov. 26, 1929. Completed May 9, 1933
http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/pics/ruy.jpg



SHOHO (1942)
ZUIHO (1940)
Displacement: 11,262 tons (standard); 14,200 tuns (full)
Complement: 785
Length: 674.3'
Beam: 59.9 feet
Draught: 21.7 feet
Aircraft: 30
Speed: 28 kts
Guns:
8 x 5"/40 cal in 4 twin mounts 2 sets removed .1934
8 x 25mm
56 x 25mm by .1944
8 x 28 barrell rocket launchers .1943
12 x 13.2mm
Machinery: Geared turbines. S.H.P. 52,000 = 28.2 kts, 2 shafts.
http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/pics/new/zuiho.jpg



TAIYO (1941)
UNYO (1942)
CHUYO (1942)
Displacement: 17,800 tons (standard)
Complement: 800
Length: 591.4 ft
Beam: 73.1 ft
Draught: 26.3 ft
Aircraft: 27
Speed: 21
Guns:
8 - 5 inch AA (Taiyo 8 - 4.7")
8 (later 22) - 25mm
10 - 13mm
Machinery: Geared turbines S.H.P. 25,200. 2 shafts.
http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/pics/new2/taiyoc.jpg



SORYU (1937)
Displacement: 18,800 tons
Complement: 1100
Length: 746.5 ft
Beam: 69.1 ft
Draught: 25 ft
Aircraft: 71
Speed: 34
Guns:
12 - 5 inch AA
28 - 25mm
15 x 13.2mm MG
Armour:
Main Side Belt 2.0" to 3.4" belt
Deck Armour 0.5" to 2.3"
Flight Deck Armour 1.5"
http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/pics/new/sorju.jpg



HIRYU (1939)
Displacement: 20,250 tons
Complement: 1100
Length: 745.1 ft
Beam: 73.3 ft
Draught: 25.9 ft
Aircraft: 73
Speed: 34
Guns:
12 - 5 inch AA
31 - 25mm
15 x 13.2mm MG
Armour:
Main Side Belt 2.0" to 3.4" belt
Deck Armour 0.5" to 2.3"
Flight Deck Armour 1.5"
http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/pics/new1/hiryu.jpg





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 05:37 AM
It should be pointed out that, in 1941-1942, few carriers carred their full complent of aircraft, due to shortages of trained pilots and modern planes. USN fleet carriers, despite being designed to accomodate almost 90+ planes, rarely entered a battle with more than 72-75, while IJN carries, including the monsters Akaga and Kagi, generally carried between 60-70 planes.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 05:54 AM
Tsoman wrote:
- I wonder if the 109 could have made a good carrier
- fighter. What would Germany have stocked that baby
- with?>
-
-



The Bf-109T "Trager" [pardon spelling] A Bf-109E with longer wings, uprated engine, tailhook, and spoilers.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 06:38 AM
- But this isn't neccessarily an argument for or
- against the guns. By the same argument, looking at
- the single Battle Bismarck vs. Hood & PoW, Bismarcks
- guns (&FC) would have been worlds best, which isn't
- true.

Yamato 18-in guns were wonderful weapons on paper but British and German 15-in guns have proved more than their value in battle.

- I don't think so. Both systems had their pros &
- cons, but all or nothing isn't truly superior.

Either most naval architects between the 2 WWs were stupid or the all or nothing armour concept had more pros than cons over the old armour scheme.

- The South Dakota was disabled, too.
- And than look at cruisers that also features "all or
- nothing". At Savo Islnad, it didn't help them.

The SD was temporarily disabled and as much by onboard mishaps than the enemy action.

Curiously, the Japanese have never claimed to have put the SD out of action.

At Savo Island, torpedoes have played as much a part in the destruction of these cruisers than the guns.
And torpedo protection is more than just armour distribution or thickness.

<center>Qui vainc sans risque triomphe sans gloire.</center>
<center>http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/images/tempestv_t.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 07:05 AM
great stuff, skychimp, thx.

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 11:38 AM
SpearchuckerJ wrote:
- At the maximum, the COMBINED deck thickness for
- Bismarck is 170mm. This is adding the 50mm upper
- deck to the 120mm (it thinned to 80mm in other
- areas).
-
- To compared Jean Bart, we have the following:
-
- Upper deck: 150-170mm
- Lower deck: 40-100mm

But above the sec. magazines it was 150/40, above main magazines 170/40. The lower deck was 100mm only where there was no upper deck. (steering section)

- I'm going to refer you to an article I wrote for
- www.warships1.com (http://www.warships1.com) which will explain why a single
- deck of 170mm is more effective than 170mm in two
- (or more) decks:

I glanced at the article but I disagree. You only took bending into account, but penetration is not only about bending. And in the end you state something like this "greater thickness makes up for reduced armor piercing qualitites of bombs/grenades for the decks which follow". But this is exactly what I'd like to no more precisly. I just don't believe this because you say so. Do you have another link?

I personally believe that there is no general "one deck is better than two" or vice versa rule. It always depends on the situation.


- Check the "hump" in any section drawings you can
- find. There is a non-contiguous deck covering the
- tops of the boilers. Duke of York planted a round
- squarely through it.

Okay. I agree. But saying "boilers are above deck armor" doesn't quite do it justice, does it?

- 1) How far you can shoot and how far you can control
- are two different issues. Spotting fall of shot at
- 38.7 km is basically impossible - although
- centimetric radar might be able to do it.

Sure. But this longer range is good for fighting stationary targets and, in combination with spotting aricraft, can be quite useful. I think max. range is an important quality of any naval gun and the 46cm beats the 16" here.


- 2) I'll take the 16"/50 or 16"/45 anywhere inside of
- 25,000 yards and keep the comparison there if you
- like.
-
- Actual penetration data states otherwise. I invite
- you argue with the United States Navy if you find me
- unreliable.

If you look at my post a little bit later, I checked the tables you provided. I found them to be of roughly the same performance, with a tiny advatage towards the 46cm gun. I have no problem with arguing any Nations Army/Navy/Air Force. I just woudn't want to waste my time.


- Please refrain from including British battlecruisers
- in this discussion. Apart from a battlecruiser, I
- can't recall off the top of my head any other
- capital ship being sunk in 10 salvoes or less from a
- single opponent. We could bend the rules and call
- Kirishima a battlecruiser... but given her
- reconstruction, I think that would be stretching
- things a bit.

Derfflinger fired 5 salvos (two-turret-salvos) at Queen Mary within 90 seconds and scored at least four hits, probably more. Distance: 13500 meters. I admit, Seydlitz scored at least two hits as well. Same timeframe.
Now if you exclude BC, that were contemporaries with the ships that sank them, how come you don't exclude beefed up BC, that were 30 years older than the ship that sank it? I relation with the gun, (28.0/30.5cm vs. 16") I consider Queen Mary armor superior to Kirishimas.


- You have the rate of fire for the 5"/38 wrong, that
- much is true. Nominal rate of fire comes in at
- 15-22rpm - faster in integral hoist mounts (like a
- battleship), slower in carriers.

This makes a shot every 3 seconds. Are you sure you didn't take numbers for a dual mount? Were the 5"/38 hand-loaded or full auto?


- "- Outer shell on the North Carolinas? Where
- exactly?"
-
- South Dakotas and Iowas both had outer shells, North
- Carolinas did not. In that case, that is what I am
- referring to. More on point, you will agree
- concerninng inclination.

The Iowas had the belt exactly along the hull, iirc. There was nor outer shell there either. Only modern US-design with outer shell was South Dakota. Inclination is a great thing. But the Iowas belt was inclined very little.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 11:38 AM
Mr-Awesome wrote:
- Oh yes, before I forget, in responce to the comment
- about
- american submarines being inferior to german
- subs??????

US-Subs dived as deep as Germans, if you measure Americans with feet and Germans with meters. This also speaks for a substantially better structural strenght as far as damage is concerned.

German boat dived considerably faster, which was very important when attacked by aircraft.

German boat were a lot smaller and had a lot smaller crew, even if you compare to the large type IX.

Type IX had a longer range than US-Boats.

All in all, I consider the German boats to be a lot better than American boats..

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 11:38 AM
Skychimp, even though it's nice to see you posting a hell of a lot of data, I wonder where it's from. In some points it differs considerably with the data I know.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 11:38 AM
eiffel68 wrote:
- Yamato 18-in guns were wonderful weapons on paper
- but British and German 15-in guns have proved more
- than their value in battle.

Sure.

- Either most naval architects between the 2 WWs were
- stupid or the all or nothing armour concept had
- more pros than cons over the old armour scheme.

All or nothing saved weight. This was the most important aspect of this. Without the 35.000ts limit, there might have been different solutions.


- The SD was temporarily disabled and as much by
- onboard mishaps than the enemy action.
-
- Curiously, the Japanese have never claimed to have
- put the SD out of action.

Now I'd say the SD was disabled mainly because of enemy action and I wonder if it had recovered if Kirishima had not been diabled by Washington.


-
- At Savo Island, torpedoes have played as much a part
- in the destruction of these cruisers than the guns.
- And torpedo protection is more than just armour
- distribution or thickness.

Afaik three crusiers sank because of gunfire only, one after beeing hit by two torpedoes and 24 shells.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 12:39 PM
The US Boats were made for a totally different theater.
They wouldnt have survived at all in a north Atlantic scenario. The USN escorts had absolutely no problems "sinking" their own subs in exercises.
US subs had excellent range, strong armament and radar. But regarding diving time, maximum depth and quietness (also in countermeasures) the german submarines were superior.
The Japanese ASW wasnt really up to the task and when it started to improve, the general war situation was so bad it didnt matter anyway.
The best indicator in how different the submarine war was:
In 1943, most US submarines began fitting 5 inch guns, sometimes even two 5 inch guns and a 40mm Bofors. At the same time the germans removed the deck guns.
The Japanese simply were not prepared for submarine warfare, much less in the vast area they had to control. German ASW wasnt really that good either, even though they had the S-Ger¤t (german Sonar) relatively early, I think 1941 or 42. The best Axis ASW force was actually the italians, who sank a lot of british submarines, especially in 1942-43. Most of those british subs are still officially "lost to mines" (meaning they simply went missing and are presumend to be lost to mines).

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 02:42 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-
- Isegrim claimed the British were unwilling to risk
- their capital ships against German ones. With a
- little bit of shadow boxing, I got him to admit the
- truth, that German capital ships were under orders
- not to engage their British counterparts.

No, you have twisted things again, bending two time frames into one. My comment on the British "unwilling to risk their capital ships against German ones" was a comment on WW1 and the German "risk strategy", which is, BTW, well accepted in any naval history books.

You twisted this and said I claimed this about WW2, which isn`t true, but such tricks will only destroy your credibility, and not mine.


And how the heck could you "made me admit" what I was saying all the way?


-
- That was probably the right thing for the Germans to
- do, because they had so few ships.
-

-
- Scharnhorst and Gneisenau could easily have been
- lost engaging Renown,
-

LOL, and how is that? How would Renown sink BOTH ships, when it`s outnumbered, outgunned, and has a LOT WEAKER armor protection than either of S or G?

And BTW, wasn`t the trend that British Battlecruisers explode and sink, Germans stay afloat and fight at Jutland? What changed ever since, the BC`s relative merits were the same in 1940: Germans were heavily armored, British packed heavier guns.



- Note it's Isegrim who claimed Renown was no possible
- threat, although the Germans obviously felt
- differently.

Well quite the contrary. The British believed that it`s too vulnerable. When Rupulse, the sistership of Renown was near Bismarck, and could engage her, they didn`t let her, because the same thing could happen again as with Hood.


The fact that Renown was no threat is a historical fact. Want proof? The British lost at Norway.



-- So are we now arguing about "Sealion"? There has
-- been no greater myth than that. There have been some
-- studies about the theoretical abilities, but no
-- serious plans. Hitler himself wasn`t even interested
-- in that. So what are you arguing about?
-- Shadow-boxing again?
-
-
- There were serious plans, and Hitler may well have
- gambled on them, if the Luftwaffe had defeated the
- RAF. Hitler was not adverse to huge gambles of that
- sort.

That`s sorta wishful thinking. Everybody, who just once studied the "Sealion", knows very well that the Germans were bluffing all the way with the invasion (but the Brits took it). There were no serious planes, no detailed invasion schedule, not even a date set for the invasion. No detailed plans for the Kriegsmarine how to deploy, no plans for the LW what to do on the invasion day. D-Day wasn`t launched without detailed plans, neither.

The whole "manacing invasion" story was invented by British historians, who wanted to write a colourful story about the air war over Britain.



-
-
-- What are you referring to Cameron all the time?
-- Since when is Cameron an expert for anything else
-- than Titanic-movies?
-
- I'd just as happily leave Cameron out of it, but
- certain people seem to believfe Cameron "proved" the
- Bismarck was almost undamaged before scuttling, when
- in fact every credible source I've ever seen,
- including Cameron, claims the Bismarck was already
- sinking even without the scuttling charges.


You put words into Cameron`s mouth for god knows how many times by now.

The fact remains that Cameron PROVED beyond doubt, that Bismarck`s TDS was INTACT. You can argue that, and say it was the opposite, just as well you can argue that the Earth is plain flat, and everybody knows it wrong.



-- Oh yes, maybe. What kind of bombs exactly were
-- thrown on the Tirpitz to do so? You are
-- shadow-boxing again?
-
- No, Isegrim claimed no German capital ships were
- lost to magazine explosions, I corrected him.


Sorry, you didn`t correct anybody, for the simple reason you either don`t know what happened to Tirpitz, or jsut blend it to fit your story, and to get the attention away from how poor British record was for magazine explosions.

Tirpitz WAS NOT lost to magazine explosion. The ship simply capsized after the second attack, as the bomb exploded next to the ship.

Tirpitz sailed under her own power after the first hit on the bow. ("magazine explosion" as you call it). Now it`s either wasn`t really a magazine explosion, or Tirpitz showed again that it could still sail under conditions where Brtisish ships simply sunk with all hands onboard.



-
-- And again you ignore the point. Why didn`t the big
-- units of the RN stay at the convoy to fight the
-- Tirpitz?
-
- Because they weren't in a position to. The capital
- ships didn't usually sail with the convoy, they
- provided a covering force.


And then look to what this develops:



- The purpose was to use
- the convoys as bait, and attack Tirpitz when it came
- out. The allies knew Tirpitz would not come out if
- capital ships were in the area.

So the allies send 15000 airplanes etc. on the Murmansk convoys to Russia with the only intent to lure Tirpitz out, and then when it did, the convoy scattered to the North, South, East and West, and there was no covering capital ships around? I always knew Tirpitz bogged down huge allied resources, but not that much.


Boy, that`s the lamest excuse I ever heard. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


-
- The convoy was ordered to scatter because it was
- thought the Tirpitz was about to engage the convoy,
- when in fact it was nowhere near.

So either the British were complete nuts to scatter a convoy when no enemy ship was "nowhere near", or their hearts just slipped into their underwear when they heard the word "Tirpitz".

The latter is more likely, after reading the comments of KGV`s sailors on Tirpitz ("Thanks God we never caught up with her").



- The covering force for PQ 17 consisted of Duke of
- York, (KGV class), the USS Washington, 4 heavy
- cruisers (2 British 2 American), the carrier
- Victorious, two light cruisers and 8 destroyers. The
- convoy also had several cruisers and destroyers as
- escort.

Then why did they flee if they were so strong ?


-
- The Allied fleet was there purely to attack Tirpitz,
- and they didn't provide close escort in order to
- lure out the German ship.

Jesus Christ. That`s the strangest version on the disaster of PQ17 up to now. Hop, do you actually believe this?


- In the event, Tirpitz was
- ordered not to attack because the Luftwaffe couldn't
- say for certain their were no allied capital ships
- in the area.


Again, you are making up things from scratch. Tirpitz turned back because it was attacked by a Soviet sub and the Germans were concerned with this, as well as the ship that were running on rocks.

"05 July 1942: At 1100, Tirpitz, Scheer, Hipper, the destroyers Friedrich Ihn, Richard Beitzen, Z-24, Z-27, Z-28, Z-29, Z-30, and the torpedo boats T-7 and T-15 leave Altenfiord. The Soviet submarine K-21 attacks Tirpitz with torpedoes at 1702, but obtains no hits. At 2130 the Germans cancel their mission and return home."



- PQ 17 was an example of a vastly superior allied
- force trying to spring a trap on Tirpitz, not of an
- allied force running away from Tirpitz. Isegrim
- knows that.


Oh, man. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You know what, I save that. It`s just so funny.



-
-- Oh, now we learn about the great victories of the RN
-- in the Med in summer 41? Sorry, at first I liked to
-- take your posts serious, but besides shadow-boxing
-- and well-formulated nonsense you have nothing to
-- contribute to the discussion.
-
- Great victories? Isegrim just claimed the entire Med
- fleet was sunk.
-

No, I claimed the whole fleet was practically put out of action at Crete and after.

Face the facts, Hop:

The LW attcked them constantly (where was the RAF?) The destroyer JUNO exploded, crusier AJAX was damaged. But the real messarcre only come in the two days later, when the Stukas (where was the RAF again?) attacked.

The YORK was set on fire, as well as two other destroyers and several merchantman in the Suda-bay. On the 22nd of May, the crusier GLOUCESTER and FIJI is damaged by the bombs. The next morning the crusier NAJAD explodes. The already dameged JUNE receives a direct hit and sinks. The battleship WARSPITE is heavily damaged, and looses many of it`s starboard guns. The next victim of the Stukas is the destroyer GREYHOUND.
The cruiser GLOUCESTER has fires raging on the deck, and sink in a giant explosion at 16hours.
Then a Me110 gets the crusier FIJI as well, which sinks in two minutes at 19:15. The BB Warspite and Valiant fled to Alexandria. The destoyer KASHNMIR exploded, the KELLY capsized.
On 26th May the carrier FORMIDABLE is heavily damaged by Stukas, lists heavily and creeps back to Alexandria.

The next day sink the HEREWARD, DEKOY. The ORION is set on fire, the captain is dead. The DIDO is hit, 3 boiler rooms fell out, the rudder isn`t working, 70% of the officers fell.

Next day: the PEARSE, heavily damged, limps back to base, but the CALCUTTA is sunk by Stukas (where is the RAF?), just 160 miles from Alexandria.


The total losses of the RN alone amount 2000 dead, 3 crusiers, 6 destroyers have sunk, 13 otherships, including 3 capital ships, WARSPITE, VALIANT and BARHAM battleships are damaged. Their single carrier on the Med (all the others are chasing Bismarck) fell out of the fights.

The WARSPITE went for the USA for repair, and didn`t return until June 1943, only to be knocked out of service by glider bombs 3 months later, and did not participated in combat until Normandy.

The BARHAM exploded in November when it was torpedoed.

The VALIANT and QUEEN ELISABETH was mined by italian commando in December, and was not repaired and returned to serivce until mid 1943.



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 02:54 PM
JtD wrote:
-
- US-Subs dived as deep as Germans, if you measure
- Americans with feet and Germans with meters. This
- also speaks for a substantially better structural
- strenght as far as damage is concerned.
-
- German boat dived considerably faster, which was
- very important when attacked by aircraft.


Yes, this is all true. In addition, they had very good listening devices (for example Prinz Eugnen picked up enemy ships at DS with it`s passive sonar long before radar was effective). The Schnorkel was a good thing, and the passive radar detection equipment was EXTREMELY usuful to detect incoming a/c in time. Mid and late U-boats had a large array of AA weapons, especially the type IX ones. But the greatest advantage was their ability to dive to extreme depths, to 250-300m, Erich Topp went down to 340 meter IIRC, which is respectable even for a relatively modern sub`s POV (modern subs can go down to 4-600meters).


-
- German boat were a lot smaller and had a lot smaller
- crew, even if you compare to the large type IX.
-
- Type IX had a longer range than US-Boats.
-
- All in all, I consider the German boats to be a lot
- better than American boats..
-

To give some justice to yanks, there was some gains in those large boats. They made the crews like easier, and not as cramped, which was important on the vast distances of the Pacific. They had 6 forward torp tubes, not bad, and their deck gun was larger. The Gatos were fast as well.

Simply to put, they were for a different theatre of different requirements.

In the Atlantic, they would have surely perform much worser, their size and relative clumsyness, limited dive depth would work against them againts escorts and aircraft. But in the Pacific, these factors were largely nonexistent.



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:08 PM
hop2002 wrote:

-
- Read the testimony I posted again. It's from a man
- who was part of the damage control party that dealt
- with it, so he should know:
-
- "Furthermore, we heard that the shocks from our
- shooting had enlarged the sealed cracks in the
- bulkhead wall between Generator Plant IV and Boiler
- Room II, port. Boiler Room II, port, could not be
- secured and had to be abandoned."
-
- <a
- href="http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/debriefing
- 5.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/de
- briefing5.html</a>
-
-
- Boiler room II port had to be abandoned.
-



But you are twisting it again, again, and again. Selective qouting as always. You qouted a small part to make other belieethat the Boiler Room II had to be abandoned after PoW hit.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE.


Hop attempted to select a part of the the text. What he qouted DOES NOT refers to the battle at Dermark Straits, but the first attack by Swordfish. The stress from AAA firing (really teh shock of a hitting torpedo, but they didn`t notice that at that time) opened up the ALREADY SEALED cracks in the already damaged bulkhead, and water pour into Boiler Room II from the flooded Generator room IV.



Hop wants to sell this story to prove that PoW was capable of penetrating into the machinery, which never happened. It`s shell exploded far from that, in the outer torpedo layer, and made some cracks, which were sealed after the battle. Later, the shock of torpedo that hit the already damaged area opened these again, and water could pour in.

Prince of Wales never penetrated into Bismarck`s machinery. The definition of penetration is a shell ENTERING into the area. This never happened.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:15 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-
- "There are reports of heavy shells exploding in the
- port turbine room and in one of the starboard boiler
- rooms between 0920-0930, when Rodney was at ranges
- of less than 9,000 meters. Mr. Statz has confirmed
- these two shell hits and stated that one was near
- his position in Damage Control Center, thereby
- preventing his escape aft with the party of
- Commander Oels."
-
- <a
- href="http://www.warships1.com/W-INRO/INRO_Bismarc
- k_p2.htm"
- target=_blank>http://www.warships1.com/W-INRO/INRO
- _Bismarck_p2.htm</a>
-



And how could Rodney really hit BOTH SIDES of the ship at the same time, hmm? The answer: in no way. What Statz heard was the scuttling charges exploding in the turbine rooms, which order was givne at that time:

"Four minutes later, at 0931 turret "C¤sar" fired its last salvo. Only a few secondary guns were still in action, but these were soon to be silenced too by the enormous avalanche of British fire. At this time, Captain Lindemann, gave the order to scuttle and abandon ship. "


This is confirmed by the Cameron expedition. They found no shell entry holes on the main belt in the area, as well as the lower hull was also intact.



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:16 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- ToP_BlackSheep wrote:
-
--
-- none of the British cruisers, Battle-ships,
-- Destroyers which attacked Bismark were able to
-- penetrate the main hull armour !
--
--
-
- The topside was a total disasterous wreck
- though./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif What good is a BB if
- it can't aim and fire its guns?


---

what good is a battleship if it explodes after a short fight?
what good is ab battleship if there are many other ships needed to sink it ? > the British couldn't sink it (they made it useless, but not more), the germans sink it after the Artillery was out of use.
what good is a fleet if about 2000 sea-men (swiming in the water) had to die... ?


---
nothing is unsinkable, but cruisers of this class provide a quiet heavy firepower, if they were used meaningfully (in a task-force) than they could bring you in trubble

<div style="text-align: center;">
<hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;">
<a href="http://ifh.firstones.com" target=_blank><img src=http://ifh.firstones.com/img/banners/banner01.jpg border=0<>

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:20 PM
Skychimp,

"Are you sure about that? AFAIK, the Midway's hull was *modelled* on Montana's hull, but that Midway was built keel up as a carrier."

It was a joke on my part.

By the time the Montanas were being seriously considered, aircraft carriers were known to be the Queens of the Seas - Montana production was put on hold, and then cancelled to make way for them (and other ships...).

The sheer weight of armor for the entire class would have taxed US armor steel-making capacity to the maximum and required at least one further armor manufacturing plant to complete them in anything like a timely manner.

Economically and militarily they just didn't make sense any more. Their only legacy is the 5"/54 gun and their underwater protection.

Given those issues, the Midways were considered a much better return on the dollar.


************************************************** **

I'll take my car with 382 fully forged cubic inches of fire-breathing, MPFI, nitrous sniffing, all aluminum, tire-roasting Chevrolet power, thank you very much.


"If you can turn, you aren't going fast enough."

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:23 PM
GATO Class

Displacement: (in tons) 1825 surfaced, 2410 submerged
Length 312'(95m)
Beam 27'(8.23m)
Draft 15'(4.6m)
Test Depth 300'
Speed: (in knots) 20.75 surfaced, 8.75 submerged
Guns 1 - 3" 50 cal, 2 - 20 mm
Tubes 6 - 21" fwd 4 aft
Crew 65 - 74
Power 4 Diesel engines/4 electric motors
Max HP 6500 surfaced, 2740 submerged
Range 11,800 at 10 kts surfaced


BALAO Class

Displacement: (in tons) 1826 surfaced, 2391 submerged
Length 312'
Beam 27'
Draft 15'
Test Depth 400'
Speed: (in knots) 20.75 surfaced, 8.75 submerged
Guns 1 - 3" 50 cal, 2 - 40 mm AA
Tubes 6 - 21" fwd 4 aft
Crew 75 - 80
Power 4 Diesel engines/4 electric motors
Max HP 6500 surfaced, 2740 submerged
Range 11,800 at 10 kts surfaced


TENCH Class

Displacement: (in tons) 1826 surfaced, 2391 submerged
Length 312'
Beam 27'
Draft 15'
Test Depth 400'
Speed: (in knots) 20.75 surfaced, 8.75 submerged
Guns 1 - 5" 25 cal, 2 - 40 mm AA
Tubes 6 - 21" fwd 4 aft
Crew 75 - 80
Power 4 Diesel engines/4 electric motors
Max HP 6500 surfaced, 2740 submerged
Range 12,000 at 10 kts surfaced


Type IXC

Displacement: (tons) 1120 (sf)1232 (sm)
1540 (total)
Length: (m) 76,76 oa, 58,75 ph
Beam: (m) 6,76 oa, 4,40 ph
Draught: (draft) 4,70 m
Height: 9,40 m
Power: (hp) 4400 (sf)1000 (sm)
Speed: (knots) 18,3 (sf), 7,3 (sm)
Range: (miles / knots) 13450/10 (sf), 63/4 (sm)
Torpedoes: 22 4/2 (bow / stern tubes)
Mines: 44 TMA
Deck gun: 105/45, 110 rounds
Crew: 48-56 men
Max depth: ca. 230 m(755 feet)


Type VIIC

Speed:
(knots) 17,7 (sf)7,6 (sm)
Range: (miles / knots) 8500/10 (sf)80/4 (sm)
Torpedoes: 14 4/1 (bow / stern tubes)
Mines: 26 TMA
Deck gun: 88/45, 220 rounds
Crew: 44-52 men
Max depth: ca. 220 m(722 feet)

U-boat data from: http://www.uboat.net/types/


http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg


edit: took out inadvertent 'smilies'

Message Edited on 06/22/0311:26AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:30 PM
Interesting, Milo. It seems U-boots can reach further, dive deeper, carrying more torpedoes and havinga better AAA suite than the carefully selected array of the best US subs. The latter were about 2 knots faster on the surface on the other hand, and were much larger, which effected their manouveribility.

Nonetheless, US boats proved to be extremely successfull on he Pacific after 1943.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:38 PM
ToP_BlackSheep wrote:
-

-
- what good is a battleship if it explodes after a
- short fight?
-

What BB was that? The Hood was a battlecruiser from 1920 vs a modern BB of 20 years its junior.


- what good is a battleship if there are many other
- ships needed to sink it ? > the British couldn't
- sink it (they made it useless, but not more), the
- germans sink it after the Artillery was out of use.
- what good is a fleet if about 2000 sea-men (swiming
- in the water) had to die... ?
-
-

The flooding only quickened the final plunge.
What good is a BB if it is sent out with only one other ship? Yes pure folly on the German's part to send 2000 men to certain death or capture.




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:46 PM
leonid05 wrote:

- Again and again you ignore the fact that Bismarck
- fought its last battle at a speed of 7 kn and
- without ability to manoevre and using her full
- weapons. So you prove nothing and only waste our
- time. Ask the Hood about Bismarcks ability to "hit"!
-

Thanks for helping me prove my point. At seven knots, even with the unpredictable changes of course, the fire control problem facing Bismarck was relatively simple. The fact that she never landed a shell, despite these circumstances reveals the flaws in her fire control system.

Although greatly aided in range estimation by radar, the Bismarck acquired straddles much as her forebears did at Jutland, by firing out a quick ladder of salvoes at increasing ranges and waiting for one of them to bracket the target. The problem with this is that if the enemy acquires the range faster you could be dead before you land a hit. That's exactly what happened to Bismarck.

By 1941 this type of system was old; skillful crewmen (note - positive comment about Bismarck and her brave crew) allowed it to work well enough against Hood (who had a fire control system that was positively ancient - she had real trouble hitting accurately in practice shoots in the 1930s) and the inexperienced crew of the Prince of Wales, but it wasn't up to snuff against the more modern systems in Rodney and KGV.

Other navies, particularly the USN, had spent considerable time in the 1920s and 1930s on developing fire control systems that would allow them to get straddles on the first salvo. No ladder or bracketing necessary if you can get on target with the first shot.

This is what Washington did to Kirishima; it's what Duke of York did to Scharnhorst and it's what West Virginia and her consorts did to Yamshiro at Surigao.

-
- Sorry, but the one who is making a fool out of
- himself is you. You seem to have understand nothing,
- or you are simply ignorant.
-

ROTFLMAO!

Did Isegrim teach you to add personal attacks to your parroting of his arguments or did you learn that yourself? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Don't worry, leonid. It's never too late. Don't think of ignorance as a burden. Turn it into a gift - it means you have something learn.


"When you're going through Hell, keep going." - Sir Winston

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:53 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- And how could Rodney really hit BOTH SIDES of the
- ship at the same time, hmm? The answer: in no way.

Simple geometry (don't tell me you failed that class as well). /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The seas were rough. Bismarck was low in the water and pitching.

Some of Rodney's shells fired at very close range struck the deck (yes, the deck) while Bismarck pitched towards her. Shells could enter spaces on the far side of the hull this way.



"When you're going through Hell, keep going." - Sir Winston

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:05 PM
Trent_H wrote:


- Thanks for helping me prove my point. At seven
- knots, even with the unpredictable changes of
- course, the fire control problem facing Bismarck was
- relatively simple.


Sure, hitting a 20knot + target with only half of your guns, the ship changes it`s direction in an unpredictable manner, the crew haven`t sleeped for a day, forward radar set not working, while under fire from 2 enemy ships etc.

You do this every morning without trouble, eh, Trent? Too bad that your bias is so clear.


- The fact that she never landed a
- shell, despite these circumstances reveals the flaws
- in her fire control system.

Ask Hood and PoW.


- The problem
- with this is that if the enemy acquires the range
- faster you could be dead before you land a hit.
- That's exactly what happened to Bismarck.

Ask Hood how it was. I remember it was a bit different story than yours.



-
- By 1941 this type of system was old; skillful
- crewmen (note - positive comment about Bismarck and
- her brave crew) allowed it to work well enough
- against Hood (who had a fire control system that was
- positively ancient - she had real trouble hitting
- accurately in practice shoots in the 1930s) and the
- inexperienced crew of the Prince of Wales, but it
- wasn't up to snuff against the more modern systems
- in Rodney and KGV.
-

Uhm, Rodney was hardly a modern ship, with hardly an FC that could considered too modern. But she was greatly aided as she had to fire on a non-manouvering, very slow target, which turned towards him and presented maximum opportunity to hit.

Even under such condtition, it took her 3 times a much time to find the range and hit than Bismarck at Denmark strait.

And KGV had the very same FC as PoW, and both yielded very poor results, it took long time to find the range and hit the target, and it was troublesome to hit it constantly at range.


Face it Trent, Bismarck shooting at Denmark Straits was among the best gunneries in naval history. This was how it worked as long as the ship wasn`t damaged and at extreme disadvantage.



- Other navies, particularly the USN, had spent
- considerable time in the 1920s and 1930s on
- developing fire control systems that would allow
- them to get straddles on the first salvo.

True. They improved this system to such an extent, that Iowa was incapable of anything else but straddles. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:08 PM
Nimits wrote:
- In actuallity, the Bismark never really get a fair
- test against British BBs. The Hood blew up due to a
- "freak" magazine hit (something the British
- battlecruisers seemed to be known for); a hit that
- ballistic evidence suggests was probaly scored by
- the Hipper, who's 8" guns would have been firing at
- the high trajectory necessary to score a plunging
- hit on Hood's magazines; the Prince of Wales was
- quickly forced to break off mainly because it was
- not truly combat-ready. On the other hand, the
- Bismark herself had already been incapacited by RN
- Swordfish when the Nelson and KGV caught up to her.
What evidence? All the books and sites (there are several good sites on the Bismarck) say it was indeed probably the Bismarck. Prinz Eugen (NOT Hipper) was firing HE shell and couldn't penetrate even Hood's armour. While Bismarck was incapacitated, she put up a good fight.


- It is ludicrous to argue that the Scharnhorst,
- Hipper, or Bismark classes were (or might have been)
- successful as merchant raiders. The tonnoage they
- sunk could have been sunk just as easily (and much
- more cheaply) by long range merchant cruisers, light
- cruisers, or super-destroyers. The only reason to
- use a battleship as a merchant raider is to use it
- to defeat convoy escorts, but as the German
- battleships failed in this respect, they were
- therefore in all respects strategic failures.
I tend to agree with you here.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:14 PM
Skychimp and everyone else, the Midway is one of my faves, if only because she was the first flattop I built a model of many many years ago. This was in her early 50s cinfiguration with a compliment of Panthers, Skyraiders and Corsairs.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:29 PM
"- But above the sec. magazines it was 150/40, above
- main magazines 170/40. The lower deck was 100mm only
- where there was no upper deck. (steering section)."

The hit I am referring to penetrated at the secondary magazines, not the hit in the steering gear. Check the thicknesses there. The grand total is 8.8" of metal in that area.



"- I glanced at the article but I disagree. You only
- took bending into account, but penetration is not
- only about bending. And in the end you state
- something like this "greater thickness makes up for
- reduced armor piercing qualitites of bombs/grenades
- for the decks which follow". But this is exactly
- what I'd like to no more precisly. I just don't
- believe this because you say so. Do you have another
- link?"

Let me re-cover this in detail. First, are you familiar with a hardness test? Basically, you have a penetrator (diamond-shaped in some cases - it varies depending on the type of test... Brinell, Rockwell, etc...) that gets dropped into a sample of steel. Hardness is measured by how much the penetrator sinks into the sample. It occurs quickly enough that influence from bending is minimal - VERY MUCH like a shell hitting armor.

If you're bored sometime, and have a weapon, shoot the weapon at a thin piece of steel. What you will notice is a penetration with a minor amount of local distortion, and basically ZERO bending throughout the rest of the steel.

Penetration by a shell is not like bending (that's really what the article states), but more like a hardness test. A terrific amount of energy is directed extremely quickly at a (relatively) very small area of a plate.

K, that establishes penetration as a local phenomenon, and not a large-scale structural consideration like bending. Lots of thing happen, very quickly, to a very small area. Very little (if any) bending is seen over the entire plate.

Given the fact that I'm only really stressing a relatively small area of the plate, other larger considerations have to be ignored to mathematically simulate what is going on. This includes structural concern that would be associated with the bending moments a hull would see riding up and down on the waves.

K - so now we are left with the only concern possible - local stiffness (hardness will be ignored for now, as harder plates like U.S. Class "A" are generally designed to destroy the shell by breaking it up... which would take a lot longer to calculate... finite element analysis would be your best bet there). As stated in the article, there are only two ways to geometrically stiffen a given plate made of steel - either make it thicker or give it shape. Shape is not possible if I'm rolling the armor plate (which is how it was made), so I'm left with thickening.

Now, since a single plate of 6" thickness is LOCALLY stiffer than two plates of 3" thickness that are spaced apart, the thicker plate is harder to penetrate. The effect is NOT linear. Local stiffness goes up by the CUBE of thickness (b*h^3/12 is a good approximation). So, if ya add the two 3" thickness up, they aren't as stiff as the single 6" plate LOCALLY.

Further research could include Nathan Okun's work, or some time with a book like the Machinery's Handbook which has the simple (algebraic) forms of the equations involved - but you'll have to 2 and 2 together to follow what is going on... this quick explanation should get you on the right track.



"- I personally believe that there is no general "one
- deck is better than two" or vice versa rule. It
- always depends on the situation."

For the purposes of pure penetration, the rule is absolute and holds. Physics is physics.

But, by the 1930's, the Japanese, French and Americans had developed beyond just looking at pure penetration and were now trying to get the fusing action of armor-piercing bombs and shells to work against them. An upper deck (or vertical de-capping plate against underwater and belt hits - as in US and Japanese designs) was designed to destroy the ballistic cap of a shell or bomb, slow it down, and initiate fuse action. When the projectile detonated, the fragments were stopped by a deck or belt behind the de-capping plate, protecting the vitals.

Here you get into an important difference between US and other nations for the purposes of armor design - the US used armor-grade steel EVERYWHERE. A shell striking a US ship never hit anything other than STS (Special Treatment Steel - a fairly ductile, fairly hard steel designed to chew up the energy of a round hitting the ship, initiate fuse action, and break up the ballistic cap) or true face-hardened armor (Class A or Class B). Other nations used regular old mild steel all over the place for hulls and decks and generally only put armor steels in their dedicated armor belts or decks. For this reason (and huge amounts of money spent on propulsion and fire controls), ton for ton, US battleships were far more expensive than their contemporaries.

The core problem with the Bismarck's deck system is that it isn't thick enough to slow down an incoming shell enough to get the fuse action to detonate it before it strikes the lower deck, this is directly related to thickness. Basically - a poor design. A US 16"/50 or 16"/45 would have zero problems penetrating it and causing terrific damage. A 15"/42 would havoc created havoc also because of the steep angle of fall - muzzle velocity makes for nice statistics... shell weight and sectional density make for nasty weapons.



"- Okay. I agree. But saying "boilers are above deck
- armor" doesn't quite do it justice, does it?"

I think the results pretty much speak for themselves - DOY planted a round right into the boilers. This basically sealed her fate. Any chance an upper deck might have had to help is ruined by the fact that the "hump" and the upper deck are too close together and the hump is presenting a favorable target with reference to inclination. This is the very reason "turtleback" designs like Bismarck were abandoned by the more advanced naval powers - the upward slope of the armored deck presented a MORE FAVORABLE (more square) impact angle for shells that cleared just over the main belt. Couple that with the fact that a "turtleback" has a necessarily shallow belt and you get problems in a big way... a protective scheme that is very good against short-range, flat trajectory shots, but is miserably poor against falling shells.



"- Sure. But this longer range is good for fighting
- stationary targets and, in combination with spotting
- aricraft, can be quite useful. I think max. range is
- an important quality of any naval gun and the 46cm
- beats the 16" here."

For remotely spotted bombardment of a stationary target, I agree. But shore bombardment was not really what these things were designed for. They were designed to kill ships. The shore bombardment mission was almost an afterthought that they were forced by circumstances into... sad, in a way.



"- If you look at my post a little bit later, I checked
- the tables you provided. I found them to be of
- roughly the same performance, with a tiny advatage
- towards the 46cm gun."

I'll agree with a "tiny advantage", as long as some other factors don't enter...

Like the quality of the shell itself - US AP shells were basically indestructible, or rate of fire - another US advantage in this case, or blast - a HUGE issue with Yamato's main armament.



"I consider Queen Mary armor superior to Kirishimas."

I'd be very interested in your reasoning her. No sarcasm at all, I'd like you opinion.



"- This makes a shot every 3 seconds. Are you sure you
- didn't take numbers for a dual mount? Were the 5"/38
- hand-loaded or full auto?"

No WW2 5"/38's aboard battleships were full auto (that I am aware of) but they were all dual mounts. The core issue is ammunition supply - destroyer, cruiser and battleship mounts all had integral hoists. Deck-edge mounted carrier weapons didn't. That's the real difference in rate of fire.



"- The Iowas had the belt exactly along the hull, iirc.
- There was nor outer shell there either. Only modern
- US-design with outer shell was South Dakota.


According to Friedman, the Iowa outer shell was actually slightly thicker than South Dakota's - about 1/4 of an inch (~6mm). The belt designs (including shell) were for all intents and purposes identical (apart from the small variation in outer shell thickness mentioned) between the two.

"- Inclination is a great thing. But the Iowas belt was
- inclined very little."

About 19 degrees - I would consider this a pretty good slope ballistically.


************************************************** *****


I'll take my car with 382 fully forged cubic inches of fire-breathing, MPFI, nitrous sniffing, all aluminum, tire-roasting Chevrolet power, thank you very much.


"If you can turn, you aren't going fast enough."

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:31 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Interesting, Milo. It seems U-boots can reach
- further, dive deeper, carrying more torpedoes and
- havinga better AAA suite than the carefully selected
- array of the best US subs. The latter were about 2
- knots faster on the surface on the other hand, and
- were much larger, which effected their
- manouveribility.


Carefully selected array? That's carefully selected wording. The Gata class was the mainstay of the US sub fleet.

The US Gato class subs were faster on the surface. Had a maximum range of 20,000 miles, carried 24 torps (more than the U-Boots), were manuverable engough to enter, manuever, and escape shallow Japanese harbors, were quiter, infinitely more reliable, and could stay at sea longer. They had far superior radar as well.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:35 PM
The "infinitely more reliable" part was the best of the comedy in my opinion. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:41 PM
Carefuly selected array?? Issy, you were the one that mentioned the Gato.


Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Interesting, Milo. It seems U-boots can reach
- further, dive deeper, carrying more torpedoes and
- havinga better AAA suite than the carefully selected
- array of the best US subs. The latter were about 2
- knots faster on the surface on the other hand, and
- were much larger, which effected their
- manouveribility.
-
- Nonetheless, US boats proved to be extremely
- successfull on he Pacific after 1943.
-




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:44 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- The "infinitely more reliable" part was the best of
- the comedy in my opinion.

Glad you liked it.

Got proof otherwise? Issy? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

If only the Nazis had a sub like the Gato. Perhaps so many U-boat would be at the bottom of the Atlantic right now.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:45 PM
SpearchuckerJ wrote:
- This is the very reason
- "turtleback" designs like Bismarck were abandoned by
- the more advanced naval powers - the upward slope of
- the armored deck presented a MORE FAVORABLE (more
- square) impact angle for shells that cleared just
- over the main belt. Couple that with the fact that a
- "turtleback" has a necessarily shallow belt and you
- get problems in a big way... a protective scheme
- that is very good against short-range, flat
- trajectory shots, but is miserably poor against
- falling shells.
-

This is an interesting point SpearchuckerJ. Many of the features of the Bismarck class make sense if you expect that you might have to fight at close range, for example in the foggy North Sea without radar, against both capital and masses of smaller ships.

German designers put emphasis on armour which could stop short-range fire, and the continued use of differing armour thicknesses perhaps makes sense if you expect to have to stop cruiser and destroyer calibre guns as well as battleship weaponry. Similarly, the 5.9" secondary armament is optimised to kill destroyers rather than be dual-use as per US battleships.

-------------------------------------

"It should always be remembered.that air power was only an auxiliary on the eastern front. The air war moved forward and backward with the front. It was the Red Army, drawing on air power for artillery cover of greater accuracy and decisiveness than was possible from the ground, that drove the German armies across Central Europe".

Professor Richard Overy, The Air War 1939-1945

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:48 PM
BTW, Issy, the Gato could dive much faster, and didn't spit visibile diesel fumes into the sky.

Mayby that's why the U-Boot needed better anti-aircraft protection /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:53 PM
I think all this "Germamy's stuff was better" arguing is kind of funny. American engineers could build warships, subs, and planes capable of accomplishing the mission at hand. The German engineers couldn't http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif