PDA

View Full Version : The "BEST" Battleship of WWII.



Pages : [1] 2

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-18-2006, 10:56 AM
Battleship lovers....
The "Bismarck class" Battleship are the toughest ever made http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Some intel(Bismarck):
The German battleship Bismarck is one of the most famous warships of the Second World War. Named after the 19th century German chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Bismarck's fame came during the Battle of the Denmark Strait in which the flagship and pride of the British Royal Navy, the battlecruiser HMS Hood, was sunk in May 1941, and for the subsequent relentless pursuit by the Royal Navy which ended with her loss only three days later.
--------------------------------------------
At approximately 05.30 on Saturday 24 May, as the German squadron was about to leave the Denmark Strait, Prinz Eugen's hydrophones detected the presence of two additional ships some distance to port. By 05.45 both were in sight, although the German fleet had not yet identified the enemy force. In reality, it was a British battle-group comprising the new battleship Prince of Wales and the battlecruiser Hood, under the command of Rear Admiral Lancelot Holland. Prince of Wales had only recently been completed and was still being worked up (indeed, she sailed to meet Bismarck with dockyard workmen still on board completing her fitting-out). Hood had been built as a fast battlecruiser and modified to give her protection more like a battleship, but still had relatively weak deck armour. That other British ships had detected them was not unexpected by the Germans but that they would turn out to be capital ships was a nasty surprise.

At 05.49 Holland ordered fire to be concentrated on the leading German ship, Prinz Eugen, believing it to be Bismarck. Fortunately for the British, the captain of Prince of Wales was soon to realize the error and changed his target. Holland amended his order on the correct ship to be engaged but this did not reach Hood's gunnery control before the first salvo. Hood fired first at 05.52, in daylight, followed very soon afterwards by Prince of Wales. The range to the German ships was c. 12.5 miles. More than two minutes went by as Admiral Lütjens hesitated to respond, before Captain Lindemann took the initiative and ordered fire to be returned on the lead British ship, the Hood, which the Germans had identified when the British ships made a turn towards them at 05.55, having fired several salvoes. This manoeuvre was undertaken, it appears, in an attempt to place themselves in the "zone of immunity". Closer in, the Hood would be less vulnerable to plunging fire and the advantage of superior German gunnery control would be lessened. The disadvantage was that, during the dash, eight of the eighteen British heavy guns could not be brought to bear and speed and spray severely hampered fire control.

Both Bismarck and Prinz Eugen opened fire on the Hood, at a range of 11 miles. The early gunfire from the German ships was very accurate and within two minutes the Hood had been hit by an 8" shell from Prinz Eugen. It struck the British ship near the mainmast and caused a huge fire which the Hood's crew tried to bring under control. However, Bismarck had also been hit by the Prince of Wales, causing a fuel leak from the forward tanks; therefore Lütjens ordered his cruiser to switch its guns towards the Prince of Wales, which his own secondary guns was now targeting. At 06.00 Hood, which was about to turn to port to bring her full weight of armament to bear on Bismarck, was hit amidships by at least one shell from Bismarck at a distance of under 9 miles. Very shortly afterwards observers on both sides saw a huge jet of flame race skywards, followed by a rumbling explosion that split the huge ship in two. Splinters rained down on Prince of Wales, half a mile away. The Hood's stern rose and sank shortly before the bow, all within three minutes. Admiral Holland and 1,415 crewmen went down with the ship. Only three men (Ted Briggs, Bob Tilburn and Bill Dundas) survived this disaster and were rescued about two hours after the sinking by the destroyer HMS Electra. The British Admiralty later concluded that the most likely explanation for the loss of the Hood was a penetration of her magazines by a single 15" shell from Bismarck, causing the subsequent catastrophic explosion. Recent research by submersible craft suggests that the initial explosion was in the after 4" magazine and that it spread to the forward 15" magazines via the ammunition trunks.

Prince of Wales had to turn towards the German fleet to avoid hitting the wreckage left by the flagship and was hit hard a number of times, losing several crew on the compass platform. Still, her own gunfire had caused damage to the Bismarck. The British battleship turned away, laying smoke, her aft turret firing briefly under local control. She had received 7 hits (3 of them from Prinz Eugen) and mechanical failures had left her with all but one of her main guns out of action. Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were forced into emergency manoeuvres when they believed they had detected the sounds of torpedoes and then by the appearance of a Sunderland flying-boat. Although Captain Lindemann wanted to chase Prince of Wales and "finish her off", Admiral Lütjens ignored his suggestions since delay risked the possibility of encountering more warships and prejudiced his main task of convoy destruction. Incredibly, in a battle lasting less than 20 minutes Bismarck, with her impressive consort punching far above her weight, had destroyed one capital ship and forced another to turn away, something almost unknown in the Royal Navy and which was to cause the Admiralty to hold a special board of inquiry.

Faulty intelligence had led the Germans to believe that Prince of Wales was not yet ready for action, therefore reports from Bismarck referred to her as King George V, the first of that class, which had been active for some months.

Despite the jubilation onboard the Bismarck, the battleship was not safe. The British knew her position; her forward radar was out of action (a consequence of the skirmish with the British cruisers the previous day); and she had received three hits, one of which caused water to leak into and contaminate fuel oil in storage. From then on, she had to reduce speed to a maximum of 20 knots to conserve fuel. Lütjens eventually decided that he would have to head for the French coast (the dry-dock in St Nazaire) for repairs. The British continued to shadow her, the Prince of Wales having rendezvoused with Norfolk and Suffolk. At one stage Bismarck rounded briefly on her pursuers, in order to give Prinz Eugen the opportunity to detach and escape with the message: "Good hunting".

some intel(Tirpitz):

Tirpitz was the second Bismarck class battleship of the German Kriegsmarine, sistership of Bismarck. She was named after Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz.

Tirpitz was launched 1 April 1939 and deployed in a manner similar to Bismarck, as a commerce raider to be sent against Allied merchant shipping in the North Atlantic. She was titled the "Lonely Queen of the North" ("Den ensome Nordens Dronning") by the Norwegians.

As a result of the Arctic convoys and the Commando raid on V¥gs¸y Tirpitz was sent to Norwegian waters where she spent most of World War II in the fjords. She made three offensive sorties; an attempt to interdict convoy PQ12 in March 1942 (Operation Sportpalast), a similar attempt against PQ17 in July 1942 (Operation R¶sselsprung) and a raid on Spitsbergen in September 1943 (Operation Sizilien). She acted as a fleet in being tying up Royal Navy resources and the decision was taken to sink her while she was in port. Several separate operations were needed to achieve this objective completely.

---Career---
Ordered: 1935
Laid down: 2 November 1936
Launched: 1 April 1939
Commissioned: 25 February 1941
Fate: Sunk by enemy action on 12 November 1944
General Characteristics
Displacement: 42,900t standard; 52,600t full load
Dimensions: 251m x 36m x 8.7m
Armament: 8 x 380 mm (15 in) (4Ӕ2)
12 x 150 mm (5.9 in) (6Ӕ2)
16 x 105 mm (4.1 in) (4Ӕ2)
16 x 37 mm (8Ӕ2)
20 x 20 mm (20 x 1) (later 90)
8 x 533 mm torpedo tubes
Aircraft: 4, with 2 catapults
Propulsion: 163,026 hp = 30.8 kts
Crew: 2,608

Photos:
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/germany/photos/battleships/bismarck/18_bismarck.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/BismarckColor.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Tirpitz_altafjord.jpg

Nobody can argue lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

FoolTrottel
05-18-2006, 11:05 AM
617

Bremspropeller
05-18-2006, 11:25 AM
7354

Fork-N-spoon
05-18-2006, 11:28 AM
Is it just me or is "razzle dazzle" camouflage on ships alluring...

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-18-2006, 11:29 AM
Lancasters sunked the "Tirpitz" the hard way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
"617"Sqdrn.=Dam Busters http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Megile_
05-18-2006, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
617

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bremspropeller
05-18-2006, 11:32 AM
"7354" = 1337 for "TESA", a well known tape-producer http://www.schildersmilies.de/special/ghostbuster.gif

WOLFMondo
05-18-2006, 11:33 AM
Still not sure why Bismark is so famous. She sunk a battlecruiser that was badly in need of modernisation and then was sent to the bottom only a few days later!

HMS Warspite, now theres a ship that should be held in the light Bismark gets.

Hoarmurath
05-18-2006, 11:35 AM
maybe you should check this webpage :

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

Lucius_Esox
05-18-2006, 11:40 AM
Errr, Bismark, toughest Battleship of the 2WW..

Hmm, let me see. Iowa Class, Yamoto class, Nelson class. Anybody care to add some more?

Myth!

PBNA-Boosher
05-18-2006, 11:42 AM
Yeah... I think this has already been covered. The fact that it was sunk so easily shows just how powerful it is, am I right?

Bremspropeller
05-18-2006, 11:45 AM
The Yamato also was sunk relatively easily - does this give an account of the ship's firepower ?

Don't think so.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-18-2006, 11:46 AM
the bismarck was sunk because its simply out numbered,if those brit ships fought the bismarck 1 on 1,they have "No chance in hell"
Iowa class has a chance but the result will be disputed.

Hoarmurath
05-18-2006, 11:47 AM
well, indeed i prefer this one, if only for aesthetics reasons :

http://membres.lycos.fr/generationcuirrasse/Images/Richelieu/Richelieu_32.jpg

http://membres.lycos.fr/generationcuirrasse/Images/Richelieu/Richelieu_16.jpg

http://membres.lycos.fr/generationcuirrasse/Images/Richelieu/Richelieu_33.jpg

http://membres.lycos.fr/generationcuirrasse/Images/Richelieu/Richelieu_52.jpg

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-18-2006, 11:49 AM
That french "Battleship" fell to the hands of the Brits later on!

woofiedog
05-18-2006, 11:56 AM
Hoarmurath... Excellent link... Thank's for Posting.

A few photo's of the USS Massachusetts... I took on a visit to Battleship Cove last summer.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/Picture113.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/Picture087.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/Picture003.jpg

Werg78
05-18-2006, 12:00 PM
yes the bismrack is famous and was without a doubt a fine ship. the yamato was huge and had the biggest guns all nice and well but imo in a 1v1 the us iowa class battleships with their superior fire and damage control would come out on top.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-18-2006, 12:00 PM
interesting link,..Iowa class is the overall winner according to that page

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-18-2006, 12:16 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/hist-1024x768-3.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

woofiedog
05-18-2006, 12:19 PM
Low_Flyer_MkVb... Your Cheating again! LoL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-18-2006, 12:21 PM
Much cheaper than a battleship, old boy - lower wage bill and better fuel economy too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WOLFMondo
05-18-2006, 12:24 PM
The Swordfish! I hope one of those comes in BoB! Too slow for German gunners to hit!


Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
the bismarck was sunk because its simply out numbered,if those brit ships fought the bismarck 1 on 1,they have "No chance in hell"
Iowa class has a chance but results will be disputed.

We'll never know. Against the brand new and still being fitted Prince of Wales, most likely, against the already fitted and well oiled Duke of York, Nelson, Rodney or Warspite etc who knows. The RN had some very fine ships and some very experianced commanders and crews.

Fact of the matter is after the sinking of the Hood the Admiralty didn't want another moral hit, so they made sure when they faced any German surface ship they could sucker it in a sink it.

Hoarmurath
05-18-2006, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
That french "Battleship" fell to the hands of the Brits later on!

that french battleship was damaged by british at dakar, then after liberation of north africa was sent to new york for refitting (still under french flag), was used to escort convoys (even did an escort to murmansk, the allies expected the tirpitz to attack the convoy, and the richelieu was the best suited available BB to catch and sink it. But the tirpitz didn't attacked, it turned back as soon as the BB got detected by luftwaffe recon plane).

After that its aaa armament was reinforced, and the ship was sent in the pacific. It was in the bay of tokyo at japan surrender (still under french flag). It was finally scraped in 1956, last battleship of french marine nationale.

Platypus_1.JaVA
05-18-2006, 12:33 PM
Certainly the biggest battleship that saw WWII service was the Japanese Yamato class wich consisted of 2 ships. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato


The U.S. Navy launched 386 aircraft to intercept the task force, and the planes engaged the ships starting at 12:30 that afternoon. Yamato took 8 bomb and 10 torpedo hits before, at about 14:23, she capsized to port and her aft magazines detonated. She sank while still some 200 km from Okinawa.

Pretty impressive yes?

Hoarmurath
05-18-2006, 12:38 PM
For people interested in battleships, i suggest this webpage also :

http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-18-2006, 12:45 PM
Thanks for the link http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Why did HMS hood became the "PRIDE" of the Royal navy?

becoz of this:
"she was attacked by JU88,s and one bomb hit HMS Hood, but it failed to explode and only caused minor damage" LOL
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/images/hmshood5.jpg

Jug_Jock
05-18-2006, 12:48 PM
My vote goes with the Iowa class as well. Much better ship design and they were very adaptable to new missions, thus why they served for so long.

Monty_Thrud
05-18-2006, 12:58 PM
I http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif Battleships

JZG_Thiem
05-18-2006, 01:04 PM
tho playing IL2 a lot i have a strong interest in warships and (tried to) read a lot about that stuff.
Determining which is "da best " bb ever is a tricky one. For sure id say its not the proper way to do it by judging "1v1", just like for any plane in IL2.

Now for the characteristics of Bismarck

1) speed: hardly any BB faster (Iowas for sure)
2) gunz: 8x15in, just like any other good BB of that time had, some of em even stronger (Yamato comes into my mind http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
The shells themselved were said to be rather "non-good", looks like lots of hits on the POW were duds.
3)fire control: afaik, it was said to be excellent but fragile (after main director was hit after 5mins in final battle, her fire did not score ANY hits on adversaries)
3) secondary gunz: bad, hands down, because the CONCEPT of split secondaries and flak was a waste of displacement (especially US BBs showed something more useful, proven by the fact they were used as AA batteries for carriers vs the kamikaze). Jap BBs had lots of small caliber AA later too.
4) range: 9200sm/16kn: not bad, but from a strategic point not enuff ( if ur not the UK and have lots of bases to refuel). Pocket-battleships showed how inportant this factor can be.
5) armor: good quality, just like USA steel or UK. No "wonder wood" as sometimes stated. Armored deck was plced quite low, thats why Bismarck was not much damaged internally, but shot to pieces above armored deck. The deck was designed to withstand 1000lb bombs, which was impressive in 1939 when Bismarck was launched, however bombs grew bigger as the war went on (tallboys, OMFG!, they ripped Tirpitz open like a tin-can).
6) seaworthyness: ok, but not impressive, freeboard was not very good, especially on forecastle (look how she looked after POW hit her)
7) achilles-heel: definitely the aft with rudder and screws. Was proven by Luetzow (hit by brit sub and almost sunk), and later Prinz Eugen as well as Scharnhorst when she was hit aft by a torp (think by Acasta). Since german BC and BB shared some common design-features, it seems they had this common achilles-heel

overall id say she was a excellent BB, not really bad in any decisive factor. However Yamatos and Iowas most prolly were better (well, they were considerably bigger).

JZG_Thiem
05-18-2006, 01:16 PM
the Hood:

http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/2001expedition/index.html

Yamato: wow, lots of damage, looks liek she thoroughly blew herself up

http://www.warship.get.net.pl/Japonia/Battleships/1941_...Yamato_wreck_02.html (http://www.warship.get.net.pl/Japonia/Battleships/1941_Yamato_class/Wreck/_Yamato_wreck_02.html)

briyeo
05-18-2006, 01:19 PM
HMS Warspite "The Old Lady" held the record for the longest range shot on a moving target.

During the summer of 1940, Warspite was transferred to the Mediterranean theater, and during a battle with the Italian navy, is credited with achieving the longest range gunnery hit from a moving ship to a moving target in history. This was a hit on the Giulio Cesare at a range of approximately 26,000 yards .

She was of course was a WW1 Battle Cruiser, modernised for WW2 she served in many important conflicts, even after being badly damaged at Naples in Italy she still was able to take part in the Normandy invasion bombardment, although not under her own steam. But Im biased, It was the ship my father served on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a388/yogi1950/52.jpg

luftluuver
05-18-2006, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by briyeo:
She was of course was a WW1 Battle Cruiser, modernised for WW2 she served in many important conflicts, even after being badly damaged at Naples in Italy she still was able to take part in the Normandy invasion bombardment, although not under her own steam. But Im biased, It was the ship my father served on The Queen Elizabeth class, of which the Warspite was one of 5, WERE NOT battlecruisers.

The Nelson/Rodney were a couple of waddling pregnant old cows.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-18-2006, 02:07 PM
briyeo - couple of nice Warspite wallpapers here (you've probably got them, but would be a shame if you haven't, with your family connection)
http://www.warspite.dk/gallery_01.htm

luftluuver
05-18-2006, 02:10 PM
dp

whiteladder
05-18-2006, 02:55 PM
The Bismark class has a gain a reputation far beyond their actual ability and utility. I think the British obsesion with them has built this.

As some has pointed out they had the same flaw as a number of other German ships, a area of high stress across the stern, that resulted in a number of failures.
http://img320.imageshack.us/img320/7261/bismarkstern1nr.jpg

There is some evidence that the steel used was weakened in cold weather.

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/9130/bismarkstern25co.jpg

When Ballard surveyed the ship he noted that while the horizontal surfaces of the ship looked in good shape the vertical one`s looked like swiss cheese.

http://img320.imageshack.us/img320/2228/bismarkbow5kr.jpg

The belt armour of the Bismark was 12 1/2 "" which compares with the following

belt deck
KGV 15" 6"
N Carolina 12" 4.1"
S.Dakota 12.5" 5"
Littorio 13.8" 4.6"
Richelieu 13.5" 6.8"
Yamato 16.1" 9"
Bismark 12.5" 4.7"

Of cause actual thickness only tell part of the story, the actual arrangement plays a big part, Bismarks was good in this respect.

In the Hood the arrangement was poor, the deck armour was split into 3 decks.

http://img320.imageshack.us/img320/189/hood5ei.jpg

When actually it was better to have one thick deck covering the citadel as in the Yamato

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/430/yamato2jg.jpg

BSS_CUDA
05-18-2006, 04:03 PM
you want tough, this is the account of the sinking of the IJN Musashi. taken from this site
http://www.combinedfleet.com/musashi.htm
by my count it took 11 near misses, 14 bomb hits 500 and 1000lb, and 20 Torpedo's to sink her



1025: The MUSASHI opens fire.

1027: The MUSASHI, making 24 knots, is attacked by eight Curtiss SB2C "Helldivers" from the INTREPID. Four near-misses around the bow cause minor leaks below the waterline. One 500-lb bomb hits turret No.1 but fails to penetrate its roof armor.

1029: The MUSASHI is attacked by three of the INTREPID's Grumman TBF "Avengers". One torpedo hits starboard amidships slightly abaft the bridge and causes a 5. 5-degree list to starboard. She takes on 3,000-tons of water. After counterflooding, the list is reduced to one degree. A torpedo also hits the cruiser MYOKO. Two "Avengers" are shot down. An "Avenger" from the USS CABOT (CVL-28) fails to score because of the heavy flak.

The blast from the torpedo jams the MUSASHI's supposedly shockproof main armament director. This loss affects Rear Admiral Inoguchi's whole plan for the MUSASHI's AA defense. Prior to the battle, Inoguchi, known as the best gunnery theorist in the IJN, designs an elaborate AA scheme based on prolific use of "sanshikidans". The fact that the main director is knocked out so easily depresses him so much that he mentions it in his last letter to Admiral Toyoda, the Commanding Officer of the Combined Fleet.

During this attack, the MUSASHI fires forty-eight 155-mm (6.1-inch) and one hundred sixty 127-mm (5-inch) rounds at the American planes.

1047: Lookouts from the MUSASHI, YAMATO, cruisers CHOKAI, NOSHIRO and the destroyer KISHINAMI report periscope and torpedo wake sightings from that time on.

1154: The MUSASHI's Type 13 air-search radar detects approaching enemy planes on bearing 290, range 81 kilometers.

1157: Another contact is made with aircraft bearing 210, range 80 kilometers.

1203: Enemy planes are sighted. A second attack by eight "Helldivers" from the INTREPID scores two bomb hits and five near-misses. A dud penetrates two upper decks, demolishes the crew's head and exits above the waterline. A second bomb strikes portside ahead of 127-mm AA gun No. 4, penetrates two upper decks and explodes on the middle deck in crew space No. 10. Fragments rupture a steam pipe in engine room No. 2 directly below. This engine room and the adjacent boiler room No. 10 fill quickly with superheated steam and are abandoned. The damage results in the loss of the port inboard shaft. The MUSASHI's speed falls off to 22 knots. Two "Helldivers" are shot down.

1206: Nine TBM "Avengers" launch another "hammer and anvil"attack. One TBM is hit by flak and turns away. The eight remaining torpedo planes score three hits to the MUSASHI's portside amidships areas that cause a 5-degree list. The first torpedo hits abreast the main gun turret No. 1. The second floods hydraulic machinery compartment No. 2 and the third torpedo floods engine room No. 4. Nearby compartments are shored up and the main guns switch over to reserve hydraulic pumps. After immediate counter-flooding, the list is reduced to one degree port, but the MUSASHI is down about 6 feet by the bow. Her three remaining three propellers are throttled up for a maximum speed of 22 knots to keep pace with the rest of the fleet.

During this attack, the MUSASHI switches over to her second main armament director. She fires nine 460-mm Type 3 shells, seventeen 155-mm and over two hundred 25-mm rounds. After the first main gun salvo, a bomb fragment penetrates the muzzle of the middle 460-mm gun of turret No. 1 and detonates a Type 3 shell that has just been loaded. The resulting explosion disables the turret's elevating machinery, rendering it inoperable. After this turret is disabled, the remaining two turrets fire 45 "sanshikidans" for a total of 54 fired in the attack.

1312: Kurita orders fleet speed reduced to 22 knots so that the MUSASHI can keep up.

1331: The MUSASHI undergoes a third attack, this time by 29 aircraft from the USS ESSEX (CV-9) and the USS LEXINGTON (CV-16). The MUSASHI is strafed by two F6F "Hellcats". Then four SB2C "Helldivers" score two near hits starboard amidships and abreast the aft main gun turret No. 3 that cause casualties among the nearby AA gun crews.

Six TBM "Avengers" launch three more "hammer and anvil" attacks. They score four torpedo hits. The first torpedo hits starboard forward of the main gun turret No. 1. The blast from it penetrates fuel tanks, watertight compartments and wrecks the log and sounding rooms. A temporary hospital at the bow fills with carbon monoxide. There are many casualties.

Next, three flights of "Helldivers" score four bomb hits port side near main gun turret No. 1. Another torpedo hits the starboard bow area and floods storerooms and causes a further list to starboard. The third torpedo hits portside forward of the main gun turret No. 1 and the fourth hits port amidships.

1350: The third attack is over. Counter-flooding reduces the heavy list to starboard to one degree. The ship is now down 13 feet by the bow with almost all trim tanks and voids filled. The MUSASHI's speed drops to 20 knots and she starts to lag behind the First Section of "Force "A". During this attack, the MUSASHI fires thirty-five 460-mm Type 3 shells, seventy-nine 155-mm and over five hundred 25-mm AA rounds.

1412: The fourth attack by eight "Hellcats" and 12 "Helldivers" from the ESSEX is directed against the YAMATO and the NAGATO. The MUSASHI continues to steam behind her section. Rear Admiral Inoguchi reports to Admiral Kurita that, despite the damage to his ship, he is able to make 20 knots.

1445: Captain Mayuzumi Haruo, the skipper of the cruiser TONE, suggests that the entire Second Section of the First Striking Force provide fire support for the MUSASHI to defend her against further torpedo attacks.

1455: Sixty-nine aircraft from the USS ENTERPRISE (CV-6) and the USS FRANKLIN (CV-13) begin the fifth attack of the day on Kurita's fleet. Pilots from the ENTERPRISE report the MUSASHI lagging behind the other ships, trailing oil and making but eight knots. The MUSASHI hoists the signal 'Enemy aircraft sighted'.

1515: Nine of the ENTERPRISE's SB2C "Helldivers" score four 1,000-lb AP bomb hits. The first three strike in the port bow area and cause damage below decks. The entire forward damage control team is annihilated. The fourth bomb wrecks the Chief Steward's office.

Eight "Avengers" launch a "hammer and anvil" attack and score three torpedo hits. The first two torpedoes hit the bow from both sides. The third hits starboard abreast the funnel, near the where the first attack's torpedo hit. Cooling machinery room No. 3 and starboard hydraulic machinery compartment flood. Leaks start in Damage Control Central that are shored up. The departing American pilots report the MUSASHI smoking, heavily down by the bow and dead in the water.

The MUSASHI is, in fact, down by the bow, but is making 16 knots on three shafts. After counter-flooding, her starboard list is reduced to 1-2 degrees, but her speed falls off to 13 knots.

Seventy-five aircraft from the INTREPID (34), FRANKLIN (30) and the CABOT (11) make the day's sixth attack on the fleet replacing the departing ENTERPRISE's planes. Thirty-seven planes attack the MUSASHI. (Note: Over 50 years later, the total number and location of all hits during this last attack is still under dispute. Most Japanese sources give 11 torpedo hits, 10 bomb hits and six near misses.)

1525: Three of the FRANKLIN's "Helldivers" claim two 500-lb AP bomb hits. Nine of her "Avengers" attack next. Two are shot down.

1530: Seven of the INTREPID's "Helldivers" attack, followed by two of her "Avengers". A 500-lb AP bomb penetrates the right wing of the air defense station and detonates on the first bridge. Both the bridge and the adjacent operations room are set afire. Fifty-two crewmen are killed and 20 wounded, including the MUSASHI's skipper, Admiral Inoguchi. After the fire is extinguished, Inoguchi assumes command from the second bridge.

Three bombs detonate in a row portside on the forecastle deck, abreast the forward main gun turrets. They knock out two single and one triple 25-mm AA gun mounts, the main communications room, telegraph room No. 1 and the telephone room. The blast penetrates boiler rooms Nos. 4 and 8.

The next two bombs explode on the forecastle deck starboard, abreast the superstructure. They wreck two single and one triple 25-mm AA mounts. The seventh bomb hits the middle AA gun crew shelter, causing extensive damage on the flag deck. The eight bomb explodes portside in crew's space No. 5 and demolishes the nearby hospital. The ninth bomb strikes the forward main gun turret No. 1. Finally, the tenth bomb explodes starboard in the officer's wardroom.

Three torpedoes strike to port and two strike to starboard almost simultaneously, causing extensive damage and flooding in starboard area. The first of these torpedoes hits port (near a previous hit from the second attack) abreast the main gun turret No. 1, flooding its lower powder handling room. The second torpedo slowly floods port boiler room No. 8 and soon thereafter the adjacent No. 12 abaft. Almost simultaneously, a bomb explodes over boiler room No. 8 and its blast penetrates that boiler room.

The next four torpedoes strike port, further flooding boiler room No. 8 and the aft 25-mm gun magazine. Three of those four torpedoes strike port amidships in the vicinity of engine room No. 4. A 30-foot long section of the ship's side is gouged out. The engine room floods causing the MUSASHI to lose her other portside shaft. Her speed drops to six knots.

The last two torpedoes strike port aft, flooding the 127-mm AA gun No. 6's magazine, the after gyro room and the port outboard shaft's tunnel. One of those two hits under the aft 155-mm. turret. The MUSASHI develops a 10 degree list to port. The crew counter-floods again and reduces the list to six degrees. The MUSASHI's main steering engine is shorted out temporarily and her main rudder jams 15 degrees left. She starts to swing to port, but the damage is repaired quickly and she resumes course. Another "Avenger" is shot down and three others damaged, as are three "Helldivers".

In all, Force "A" endures raids by 259 U.S. carrier aircraft during the day. The MUSASHI sustains a total of 19 torpedo (10 port, 9 starboard) and 17 bomb hits, as well as 18 near misses.

1530: Vice Admiral Kurita orders the fleet to assume course 290.

1621: Kurita's force again approaches the MUSASHI. She is heading north with a 10-degree list to port, down by the bow more than 26 feet, with her forecastle deck awash. Kurita dispatches the cruiser TONE and the destroyers SHIMAKAZE and KIYOSHIMO to escort her.

All free hands and the wounded are assembled topside starboard to counter the list. The port main anchor is dropped into the sea. Rice and other consumables from the storerooms, as well as timber used in damage control operations, are loaded on the starboard side. In a last attempt to reduce the list, the crew's spaces starboard aft, some boiler rooms and starboard outboard engine room No. 3 are flooded using the Kingston valves. As a result, the MUSASHI loses another shaft. Admiral Inoguchi attempts to beach the MUSASHI, but her engines stop before he can do so.

1915: When the list reaches 12 degrees, Inoguchi gives the order to "standby to abandon ship". The Executive Officer, Captain Kato Kenkichi (former XO of CA CHOKAI), assembles the crew on the afterdeck. The battle flag is lowered. Admiral Inoguchi retires to his cabin and is not seen again.

1930: After her list reaches 30 degrees to port, the MUSASHI slowly starts to turn over. Captain Kato gives the order to abandon ship. He orders the Emperor's portrait removed. The SHIMAKAZE removes 635 of 769 of the MAYA's survivors earlier taken aboard the MUSASHI.

Sunk: At 1936, the MUSASHI capsizes to port and sinks by the bow in 4,430 feet of water in the Visayan Sea at 13-07N, 122-32E. Two explosions are heard.

The destroyers KIYOSHIMO and the HAMAKAZE rescue 1,376 survivors including XO Captain Kato, but 1,023 of her 2,399 man crew are lost including her skipper, Rear Admiral Inoguchi.

The Americans lose 18 planes shot down.

The MUSASHI's survivors are taken to Manila then to Corregidor Island. Most are then sent home, about 200 on the carrier JUNYO and some on the YAMATO. Three hundred of the remaining 620 survivors are divided between IJN units defending the Cavite Naval Base, Fort Drum in Manila Bay, Clark Field, the Caraballo Mountains and the Cabaruan Hills. The remaining survivors are incorporated into the Special Landing Force of Rear Admiral Iwabuchi Sanji's (former CO of KIRISHIMA) 31st Naval Base Force and most are killed defending Manila.

31 August 1945:
Removed from Navy List.

cam1936
05-18-2006, 04:17 PM
the Iowa class battleships were the most beautiful in my opnion. I dont believe that the bismark was anything special, its claim to fame was sinking a outdated capitol ship. pretty lame

briyeo
05-18-2006, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
briyeo - couple of nice Warspite wallpapers here (you've probably got them, but would be a shame if you haven't, with your family connection)
http://www.warspite.dk/gallery_01.htm

Thanks Low-Flyer, yes I know that site well, one of the sites that refers to the Queen Elizabeth class in "Battlecruiser action" in the context of the Battle of Jutland of WW1. As Luftluuver states they were Battleships but created a sort of grey area due to their speed and manouverability.

JG53Frankyboy
05-18-2006, 04:23 PM
i would say the Iowa Class was superiour over all other BB because of its speed. so it could control the fight !

the Hood, Renown/Repulse , all three actually more Battlecruisers than Battleships,and the "overworked" WW1 Italian BBs were barely able to stand a gunfight against heavy artillerie with their "thin" armour.

also the japanese Kongo Class was more a WW1 Battlecruiser.


but as you can see with the Yamato and the Prince of Wales - even modern BBs had no chance against hordes of Aircraft.

Bewolf
05-18-2006, 05:05 PM
Just to throw this in, Comparing Pacific and Antlantic Battleships to eachother kinda does not make sense. Pazific Ships just had to be larger, to make up for the huge masses of water they had to cross, in parts for ages withut ablities to refuel. Atlantic Battleships were smaller in general.

About the Bismarck I think it wasa neat and fine Battleship design, build to last. Maybe not the best BB ever built, but good enough.

It's fame thus also less stems from it's build, but from the story behind it. It was a pure thriller, the stuff legends are born off. One should keep that in mind.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-18-2006, 05:21 PM
When I was in the US, we saw the USS Alabama - awesome battleship, even from the highway a few miles away http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


The Tirpitz and the Bismark were awesome ships, but too static. It was the total lack of misunderstanding the new technologies from Hitler, that made the ships vulnerable. They were simply designed to attack ships but the defense against air-threats was never up to the new technologies.

The Gneisenau was way more effective, cause it was a very good combination of firepower, maneuverability and speed. For the tactics used by Germany, this was simply more fitting.

Overall the Yamato was one of the most feared ships. The Japanese Navy had a lot more experience than the German forces.

My personal favourite still is the British Nelson-Class. The HMS Rodney and the HMS Nelson had to apply to the peace-treaty-limits, but the design of 3 main guns in the front opened a wider variety of tactics. They surely had their flaws, mainly because of the superstructure, engines and fuel-bunkers all placed in the back of the ship, making them difficult to maneuver, espcially in windy conditions.
Nevertheless the 1922 ship design played a vital role in the hunting of the Bismark.

http://www.mo-na-ko.net/images2/PlanHMSNelsonl01.jpg

Chuck_Older
05-18-2006, 05:44 PM
USS Constitution gets my vote. The Axis steered well clear of her the entire time if you notice. They knew the score

JG53Frankyboy
05-18-2006, 05:45 PM
the Nelson and Rodney were very slow in comparison to the other BBs build at the same time.......
but sure, they were well armed (im personaly see proplems to fit all main guns so close together ! but it saved weight .) and well protected - with all experiences of WW1 battles.


about Pacific and Atlantic BBs. well, the USN had no proplems to use the same ships there and there !
the only point about the size of US BBs were the Panama Canal ! the BB must fit in its locks that they could fast deployed from one ocean to the other.


the Gneisenau/Scharnhorst were dangerous to smaller units - but against a modern BB they had no chances. if they couldnt run away, they were dead. even 20cm shells from heavy cruisers were dangerous for their armour !

Lucius_Esox
05-18-2006, 06:31 PM
Nelson and Rodney were actually cut down versions of the original design

The G3 class as originally envisaged had two turrets at either end (12x16") and had a top speed of close on 30 knots. If built in their original format they would have undoubtedly been mighty capital ships, even mightier perhaps than the Yamoto and Iowa classes.

Britain in her wisdom decided to stick to the Washington treaty, others did not.

Britain even had plans laid for an N3 class of Battleship which had 9 18" guns, again shelved because of the Washington treaty.

mynameisroland
05-18-2006, 08:10 PM
Shocking lack of knowledege displayed here regarding battkeships. One of the 1st things to mention was the concept of AON armour for battleships. This translates to All or nothing armour. Bismark and Tirpitz represented old school armour arrangement as in Hood and other World War 1 era ships. The US heavy ships from the period pioneered AON armouring and it was a scheme that the Royal Navy and the U=IJN also pursued. One of the most notable AON ships was the Rodney, 16 inches on the turrets 14.5 inches on the belt and 6.5 inches on the decks ove rthe magazines. On a straight numbers fight the Rodney owns the Bismarck and any other BB until the Yamato appears. The Bismarck had its armour distribuited along muck less efficient lines. 12 inches main belt and layered deck armour maximum 3 inches thick at any one point. 3 inches is useles against a 16 inch shell. To put in to context read up on the Bismarcks last engagement in a few minutes a 16 or 14 inch shell ripped through the fore turrets disabling both A and B turrets. This was one shell here wrecking both barbettes. This is pretty atrocious performance as far as cutting edge 40's design BBs go.

My vote for best treaty BBs goes to the King Geaorge the Fifth class. Fast very well protected and reasnobly heavily armed. Decent hard worked ships ready when the Royal Navy needed them to be and given a baptism of fire few other ships received ie sinking the Bismarck and the Scharnorst.

Question for the Iowa class lovers, why when given the chance , did the USN cower away from engaging the IJN in a straight up fight and instead rely on air power? You can argue it makes common sense all you want but a true battle ship commander confident in his ship would have sought a battle ship engagement to settle matters.

Truth is Iowa would have been owned by Yamoto class one on one. The Iwo fire lighter shells and had a 12.5 inch inclined belt with a split armoured deck. Even with superior speed, better fire control and damage control the Iwoa would be struggling to beat a heavier superior BB. "Better leave it to the torpedo and dive bombers boys".

Mackg1
05-18-2006, 08:12 PM
The toughest battleships were the ones that had all those planes with bombs flying off of them. The ones with the 16 inch guns were obsolete.

HellToupee
05-18-2006, 08:23 PM
well then my vote for toughest bb with planes flying off it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illustrious_class_aircraft_carrier

woofiedog
05-18-2006, 10:33 PM
mynameisroland... I disagree with your statement... Truth is Iowa would have been owned by Yamoto class one on one.

Far Better Radar and Gunnery Control aboard the Iowa class ships would have gave the Iowa's more than a better chance in a all out shooting match with the Yamato or her sister ship the Musahi.

ForkTailedDevil
05-18-2006, 10:48 PM
I LOVE BATTLESHIP's probably why I like Star Wars and the Empire with all of its oversized massive Star Destroyers paroling the galaxy.

Talamir
05-18-2006, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
you want tough, this is the account of the sinking of the IJN Musashi. taken from this site
http://www.combinedfleet.com/musashi.htm
by my count it took 11 near misses, 14 bomb hits 500 and 1000lb, and 20 Torpedo's to sink her


It didn't take that many bombs and torpedoes to sink her, thats just how many she took before sinking (if that makes sense). Think overkill.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-18-2006, 11:18 PM
on a 1 0n 1 basis,The BB who has a brighter captain will come up on top,specially when the 2 BB are almost equally matched.They need to point out each others stress and weaknesses.

In the case of the Iowa vs. Mushasi,Iowa will come up on top because it is much "sophisticated" overall

FritzGryphon
05-18-2006, 11:26 PM
Dictionary.com defines toughness as:

Able to withstand great strain without tearing or breaking; strong and resilient

Hard to cut or chew

Strong-minded; resolute

By these criteria, it has to be Yamato. It withstood the greatest strain before it broke, it is hard to cut or chew (in the end is was destroyed by neither!), and it's crew was the most strong minded and resolute, to go along with such a pointless suicide mission.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-18-2006, 11:33 PM
IJN did a lot of pointless things during 44-45
And the USN punished them for being "pointless"

But the Iowa class still ruled the waves of the pacific it is way more accurate than the musashi in terms of fire control.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Hoarmurath
05-18-2006, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
IJN did a lot of pointless things during 44-45
And the USN punished them for being "pointless"

But the Iowa class still ruled the waves of the pacific it is way more accurate than the musashi in terms of fire control.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

History of engagements between surface forces in 1942 show that the "superior fire control" wasn't enough to ensure superiority against IJN. After that, the USN always prefered to crush IJN ships with planes, rather than risk their own precious ships in direct confrontation. The outcome was just not as certain as you seem to think.

Von_Rat
05-19-2006, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
IJN did a lot of pointless things during 44-45
And the USN punished them for being "pointless"

But the Iowa class still ruled the waves of the pacific it is way more accurate than the musashi in terms of fire control.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

History of engagements between surface forces in 1942 show that the "superior fire control" wasn't enough to ensure superiority against IJN. After that, the USN always prefered to crush IJN ships with planes, rather than risk their own precious ships in direct confrontation. The outcome was just not as certain as you seem to think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wasn't there some big battleship to battleship actions in 1944? i seem to remember the usn winning those.

Talamir
05-19-2006, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
IJN did a lot of pointless things during 44-45
And the USN punished them for being "pointless"

But the Iowa class still ruled the waves of the pacific it is way more accurate than the musashi in terms of fire control.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

History of engagements between surface forces in 1942 show that the "superior fire control" wasn't enough to ensure superiority against IJN. After that, the USN always prefered to crush IJN ships with planes, rather than risk their own precious ships in direct confrontation. The outcome was just not as certain as you seem to think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wasn't there some big battleship to battleship actions in 1944? i seem to remember the usn winning those. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be the battle of Surigao Strait.


Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Dictionary.com defines toughness as:

Able to withstand great strain without tearing or breaking; strong and resilient

Hard to cut or chew

Strong-minded; resolute

By these criteria, it has to be Yamato. It withstood the greatest strain before it broke, it is hard to cut or chew (in the end is was destroyed by neither!), and it's crew was the most strong minded and resolute, to go along with such a pointless suicide mission.

I believe it was Yamato (could have been Musashi) would have succumb to a single 500lb bomb. It started a fire in a magazine and magazines explosions have a habbit of sinking ships. All of the other hits didn't help naturally, but that 500lber would have been the fatal hit otherwise.

The Yamato and Musashi took so many hits and sunk because there were so many aircraft attacking them. I'm not saying they weren't tough buggers, but they sure as hell didn't require all of the hits they took to sink.

Hoarmurath
05-19-2006, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
wasn't there some big battleship to battleship actions in 1944? i seem to remember the usn winning those.

At surigao strait, Oldendorf with 6 BB, 3 CA, 5 Cl and 28 DD ambushed two japanese task forces, the first one under command of admiral Nishimura consisted of 2 BB, 1 CA and 4 DD This first japanese TF was first decimated by DD torpedoes, then the heavies finished them. The second TF under command of admiral Shima was composed of 2 CA, 1 Cl and if i remember correctly half a dozen DD. it managed to escape.

It is hardly comparable with the battles fought in the solomons.

It is funny to see you people so affirmative about naval battles outcome. Well, i presume it is in line with the usual "this plane is 10 kph faster than this one, so it should win every fight 1v1", "ah yes, but this one does a 360? turn in 21 seconds while this one need 22, so it should win every turning fight!", if only it was this simple...

Talamir
05-19-2006, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
wasn't there some big battleship to battleship actions in 1944? i seem to remember the usn winning those.

At surigao strait, Oldendorf with 6 BB, 3 CA, 5 Cl and 28 DD ambushed two japanese task forces, the first one under command of admiral Nishimura consisted of 2 BB, 1 CA and 4 DD This first japanese TF was first decimated by DD torpedoes, then the heavies finished them. The second TF under command of admiral Shima was composed of 2 CA, 1 Cl and if i remember correctly half a dozen DD. it managed to escape.

It is hardly comparable with the battles fought in the solomons.

It is funny to see you people so affirmative about naval battles outcome. Well, i presume it is in line with the usual "this plane is 10 kph faster than this one, so it should win every fight 1v1", "ah yes, but this one does a 360? turn in 21 seconds while this one need 22, so it should win every turning fight!", if only it was this simple... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think thats one of the reasons the US built 4 Iowa's. Yamato and Musashi were formidable ships, and they figured, if an Iowa wasn't quite up to the job they could at least overwhelm the Yamato's with numbers. Of course, at the time they didn't realize carriers were going to be THE ship to have in the pacific.

All in all though, an Iowa vs a Yamato is a pretty good match up, but I'd put my money on Iowa regardless. Hoarmurath put up a good link early as to which was the best.

Hoarmurath
05-19-2006, 01:33 AM
if you really want to know, install this :

http://www.subsim.com/ssr/fsbox2.jpg

then i suggest you get Fighting Steel Project latest updates there :

http://www.navalwarfare.net/

And create the situation. I suggest playing each battle several times on each side...

Beaufort-RAF
05-19-2006, 02:03 AM
Tragically the British scrapped the lot, didn't preserve a single ship. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

What an attraction it'd be now, moored in Portsmouth or whatever.

woofiedog
05-19-2006, 02:37 AM
Quote... Hoarmurath... History of engagements between surface forces in 1942 show that the "superior fire control" wasn't enough to ensure superiority against IJN. After that, the USN always prefered to crush IJN ships with planes, rather than risk their own precious ships in direct confrontation. The outcome was just not as certain as you seem to think.

Report from the USS Washington and USS South Dakota firing againest the INJ BB Kirishima during a night action on November 1942.

Quote... hits were definitely obtained by the third salvo... [also] Fire was opened with a gun range of 18,500 yards.

In this decisive action WASHINGTON and SOUTH DAKOTA (link to BB57 website) engaged a Japanese force termed around the battleship KIRISHIMA. SOUTH DAKOTA (link to BB57 website) suffered extensive topside damage, but WASHINGTON's accurate fire mortally injured KIRISHIMA. Set aflame and racked by explosions, KIRISHIMA was scuttled by her crew. The last major Japanese naval thrust at Guadalcanal had been turned back, and WASHINGTON had done what she had been designed to do -- sink one of her own kind in a gunnery action. WASHINGTON was the only American fast battleship to defeat another capital ship.

MAIN BATTERY
This ship's gunnery appeared highly effective. Fire was opened with a gun range of 18,500 yards initially by this vessel using radar ranges and optical train and hits were definitely obtained by the third salvo. It is believed target was stopped and sinking after third salvo rounds were fired.

In the second phase target had been tracked by radar ranges and bearing and later by optical train. Fire was opened at 8,400 yards and a hit was probably obtained on first Salvo and certainly on the second. Fire was rapid, on one turret ready light, for about 2 minutes 39 seconds, firing about 39 rounds. It was interrupted for 1 1/2 minutes due to an erroneous report that target was sunk, and resumed for 2 minutes and 45 seconds, during which time 36 rounds were fired. A total of 75 rounds was fired on this target which was believed to be the KIRISHIMA. Star shell illumination was used on this phase after about the second salvo, 62 rounds being fired.

Quote... COMMENT

The following comments are submitted:

Our radar is effective for accurate gunfire at long ranges at night. Japanese radar aboard ships present, if any, is not effective for surface targets.
Japanese are sufficiently familiar with radar and aware of our use of it to make full use of land cover both between them and ourselves and closely backing them up.
Our optical vision is superior to Japanese.
Our fire control and the effectiveness of our projectiles meet or exceed our expectations.


Link: http://www.usswashington.com/1stbatt.htm

woofiedog
05-19-2006, 02:47 AM
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/k15000/k15103.jpg
USS Washington

http://hush.gooside.com/name/k/Ki/Kirishima/LD1941.gif

IJN Kirishima

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_14-45_t41_Kirishima_pic.jpg

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h97000/h97264.jpg
USS South Dakota

Sergio_101
05-19-2006, 03:26 AM
This is an old flame war that seems to pop up
now and then.

The Iowa class battle ships were top Dinosaur.
In an obsolete class of ships Bizmark
may have been top for it's day, but the Yamato class
and Iowa class were an even more effective
waste of steel ans manpower.

One small "Jeep" aircraft carrier could defeat a dozen
battle ships.

Few battleship duels materialised during WWII.
The Washington sinking the IJN Kirishima (British designed kit battleship)
was the last duel of the big guns. After that
they became little more than mobile
atillery platforms.

Bizmark was more dangerous than good.
Dangerous to Allied shipping.
In a big gun slug fest, it was likely
to loose against it's contemporarys.

The Washington was more than it's match.
An Iowa class would have laid waste to it
in a few minutes.

Sergio

JG53Frankyboy
05-19-2006, 03:39 AM
one has to say that the Kirishima (Kongo class)was barely a full class BB , it was more a modified Battlecruiser.
but anyway, even a Nagato, Ise or Fuso Class BB wouldnt have had a chance i such a situation most propably agianst the Washington.

woofiedog
05-19-2006, 04:22 AM
Sergio_101... The Washington sinking the IJN Kirishima (British designed kit battleship)
was the last duel of the big guns.


The Battle of
Surigao Strait

October, 1944

Halsey was right in one respect; the battleship would have her day €" or, perhaps, her night. For sailing eastwards towards Surigao Strait on the night of the 24th was Vice Admiral Shoji Nishimura, and the battleships Fuso and Yamashiro. Accompanying them would be the heavy cruiser Mogami, the destroyers Shigure, Michishio, Asagumo and Yamagumo. Following close behind would be a second force sailing from Japan under the command of Vice Admiral Kiyohide Shima. This second force would consist of two heavy cruisers, one light cruiser, and four destroyers. Unfortunately for Nishimura and Shima, the Americans would be perfectly deployed and anxiously waiting for all of the Japanese ships to sail into their trap.

Vice Admiral Thomas C. Kinkaid had a pretty good idea where the Japanese were headed and what they planned to do when they got there. And, although the carrier attacks throughout the day had been unable to sink the Japanese force, Kinkaid had with him Rear Admiral Jesse B. Olendorf, and a collection of old battleships. Among them were the West Virgina and California €" both of which had been officially "sunk" at Pearl Harbor nearly three years earlier. But they had been recovered, rebuilt, and redeployed to exact a measure of revenge from the Japanese. Armed with the latest radar and fire control systems, they waited. Along with these two were the Maryland, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania, also veterans of the Pearl Harbor attack (these three were all damaged but not sunk) and the Mississippi which had managed to avoid damage during the Pearl Harbor attack only because she had not been there at the time. The battleships and cruisers of the Seventh Fleet formed the final immovable wall in a layered defense deployed by the Americans. In order for them to come into play, the Japanese would first have to run a gauntlet of PT boats and destroyers.

As the Nishimura€s force transitioned from the Sulu Sea to the Mindanao Sea on the way to Surigao Strait, they came under attack from squadrons of PT boats hidden among the Philippine Islands. The PT boats, less than 100 feet long and made largely of wood, made valiant runs at the Japanese force. These little boats would speed towards the Japanese warships in a desperate attempt to launch their torpedoes in the hopes of sinking several Japanese ships, or at least slowing down the Japanese force. In the end, they accomplished neither. As the PT boats approached, they were illuminated by Japanese searchlights, and riddled with concentrated fire from the much larger opposing destroyers. In one attack, PT-152 made a run at the Japanese and was hit by gunfire from the destroyer Shigure. One man on board was killed, and three were wounded, as the forward part of the boat erupted in flame. Just when it appeared that PT-152 was doomed, a near miss sent a huge column of water into the air which fortunately rained down on the boat extinguishing the flames of the prior hit. And so PT-152 ran a slalom between the columns of splashes in an attempt to evade the Japanese shells and searchlights. Although none of the torpedoes launched by the heroic little boats found their mark, the PT boats reported Nishimura€s progress through the Mindanao Sea as they headed straight for the trap that the Americans had laid.

As the Japanese entered the waters of Surigao Strait itself, Nishimura ordered his ships into a single column to navigate the narrow waterway. On both sides of the strait the American destroyers lay in wait. Dashing out from the darkness, they launched a total of forty-seven torpedoes at the Japanese column from both flanks. Six torpedoes found targets and detonated, and this was only the first wave. By the time the Japanese had completed running the gauntlet posed by the American destroyers, the Yamashiro was broken in two, and the destroyers Asagumo, Yamagumo, and Mishishio were either adrift on their way to sinking or already sunk. Nishimura€s force was down to the lone destroyer Shigure, the cruiser Mogami, and the battleship Fuso.

Admiral Olendorf called off the American destroyer attacks, for he did not want friendly ships fouling the range being calculated by his "heavies" €" the cruisers and battleships of the Seventh fleet. And so the destroyers moved away, and this final phase of the battle was fought using tactics centuries old, with Olendorf "capping the T" of Nishimura. At 3:51AM, Olendorf ordered the cruisers Louisville, Portland, Minneapolis, Denver, Columbus, Phoenix, Boise and HMAS Shropshire to commence firing, followed by the battleships two minutes later. The Japanese suffered a terrible beating. The West Virginia fired 93 rounds of 16" armor piercing (AP) ammunition, while the Tennessee and California added another 132 rounds of 14" AP. The other three battleships did not have as sophisticated fire control radar, and were therefore slower to join in the mauling being delivered. The Maryland picked up the splashes from West Virginia€s rounds on radar, and soon added 43 rounds of her own to the mix. The Mississippi fired a single salvo, and the Pennsylvania never had a chance to fire at all.

But it didn€t matter. The Fuso was burning red-hot. The Mogami was a shambles. And the little Shigure was running away as fast as she could manage with no working instruments at all. When the helmsman of the Shigure cried out that he no longer had control of the rudder, she too came to a full stop dead in the water. Into this confusion, a new column of ships was steaming from the south. It was the second wave of the attack €" two cruisers and four destroyers under Vice Admiral Kiyohide Shima, following about an hour behind what had once been Nishimura€s proud force.

Shima€s lookouts sensed disaster as they sailed northwards, as they passed the silhouettes of two adrift and burning Japanese battleships. In reality, they were seeing two separate halves of what used to be the Yamashiro. The Fuso was being mauled further ahead. Finally, the lookouts spotted a friendly ship that was not aflame, and Shima signaled "I am Nachi" to which the friendly destroyer gave the less than complete report of what had just happened "I am Shigure €" having rudder difficulties." With the Shigure being all that appeared to remain of Nishimura€s column, Shima ordered his force to reverse course to avoid a similar fate. All would have gone flawlessly if not for Shima€s flagship, the cruiser Nachi, colliding with what remained of the Mogami. Shima was able to escape, along with the now all alone Shigure. The Mogami would be sunk the next day by American aircraft as she tried to make good her own escape.

And thus ended the Battle of Surigao Strait. Two Japanese battleships, one cruiser, and three destroyers became the final victims in history of classic battle line tactics. It is perhaps fitting that this fight would take place among ships a quarter of a century old, given one final curtain call to fight in the manner of centuries of naval engagements.

Ratsack
05-19-2006, 05:20 AM
I don€t think the fight between the Yamato and Iowa class would be such a cut and dried affair, particularly in regard to fire control systems. Complexity and ease of use play a big part under battle conditions. If the fight is fairly evenly matched, and the big heavies are lobbing shells in right general vicinity, it could very well decide the issue.

The Brits had found out earlier that their outmoded gun laying equipment meant the Germans often got close to the target first. However, because the Brit gear was more robust and easier to use, the RN€s shooting usually improved over the course of an engagement, whereas the German gunnery usually went the other way and deteriorated as the fighting dragged out.

I€m not saying the Iowas would get caned, or that the Yamatos would be beaten to a pulp. I€m saying the technical differences were probably not sufficient for us to say, at this distance, that the conclusion is certain. I reckon that tactical and human factors would decide it, and these are always contingent.

Cheers,
Ratsack

joeap
05-19-2006, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
if you really want to know, install this :

http://www.subsim.com/ssr/fsbox2.jpg

then i suggest you get Fighting Steel Project latest updates there :

http://www.navalwarfare.net/

And create the situation. I suggest playing each battle several times on each side...

Great game!! Got it and the update ... and the campaign generator "Thunder at Sea" this group made for it. Really the sea war came down to resources, manufacturing and logistics like the land war=win for the Allies.

woofiedog
05-19-2006, 06:34 AM
Ratsack... A Clear Cut Battle... No. The Fog of War or Murphy's Law always comes into play on the Battlefield.
Ask Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto or Napoleon about that. LoL

But technology would have played a large part into the deciding factors of an Iowa versus Yamoto encounter.

Given the radar and other technologys that made up the Gunnery Controls of the Iowa's... I'd have to give the Iowa's a better overall percentage in the outcome of a battle between the two BB's.

Von_Rat
05-19-2006, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von_Rat:
wasn't there some big battleship to battleship actions in 1944? i seem to remember the usn winning those.

At surigao strait, Oldendorf with 6 BB, 3 CA, 5 Cl and 28 DD ambushed two japanese task forces, the first one under command of admiral Nishimura consisted of 2 BB, 1 CA and 4 DD This first japanese TF was first decimated by DD torpedoes, then the heavies finished them. The second TF under command of admiral Shima was composed of 2 CA, 1 Cl and if i remember correctly half a dozen DD. it managed to escape.

It is hardly comparable with the battles fought in the solomons.
QUOTE]
__________________________________________________ _____

how is it not comparable? because of the japanese being outnumbered. if i recall they were outnumbered several times in the solomns too. were any single engagements in the solomns this large?

woofiedog
05-19-2006, 06:48 AM
Beaufort-RAF... It still amazes me that the Royal Navy never saved any of the Proud Battleships that protected her shores.

The saving of at less one BB in memory of those that Served and also for those who were Lost while serving aboard HMS BB's over the years.

JtD
05-19-2006, 12:25 PM
I am surprised no one has mentioned the Dunkerque class yet, imho the best design of the 1930's.

The popular opinion that all or nothing protection was endlessly superior over conventional armor distribution and that dual purpose guns were better that dedicated secondary plus dedicated AAA can easily be questioned. As usual, there are pros and cons for everything.

Btw, the Bismarcks armor was thick enough to defeat 16" shells at point blank range. Why on earth is any thicker belt better? It's just a waste of weight - or in the Nelsons case a waste of armored area.

Ah, and also claiming that the German ships were poorly contructed around the stern - I challenge you to show me an Allied ships that would take a direct hit into the rudders and remain maneuverable. But admittedly, structurally it wasn't the strongest part.

Anyway, Iowa class was probably the best of the lot, best looking were the WW1 battlecruiser refits like Kirishima, Renown or Hood and also the British Vanguard was a well done ship.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-19-2006, 01:47 PM
sO...which BB has the best "Optical Range finder"?
This is a great advantage on a BB,it provides accurate aiming

woofiedog
05-19-2006, 01:53 PM
Dunkerque Class

The Dunkerque was the first of a new type of warship of the French Navy, labeled as "fast battleship". Not quite the size of a full battleship, they were designed to counter the threat of the German pocket battleships of the Deutschland class. The design was very innovative. The whole of the main armament was mounted forward. This had been the case for the Royal Navy's Nelson class battleships but they had three turrets carrying nine guns and the angles of fire for the rearmost were limited by the turret in front. The Dunkerque used two quadruple turrets which gave unrestricted fire. The mounting of all the armament in quadruple turrets was a feature unique to the late design French battleships, and was also found on the subsequent Richelieu and Jean Bart.

During the Phony War, she was used, along with her sister-ship Strasbourg, to escort convoys.

After the collapse of France, she was docked in Mers-El-Kebir, along with the Strasbourg; the ships became one of the main objectives of the Destruction of the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir by the British on the 3 July 1940. The Dunkerque was heavily damaged by the British fleet; three month later, she sustained further attacks by torpedo-bomber aircraft from the Ark Royal.

The Dunkerque returned to Toulon for repairs in February 1942, and was still there when the Germans invaded the so-called "Free Zone" on the 27 November 1942. She was scuttled, along with her sister-ship Strasbourg and most of the French Fleet, to avoid capture by the Germans.


http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/france/battleships/dunkerque/dunkerque1.jpg
Dunkerque

Dunkerque was used for convoy escort before the French surrender. On 3rd July 1940 at Oran, she was badly damaged by British shells. Three days later, during a British air raid, a lighter alongside Dunkerque carrying torpedoes and depth charges exploded when torpedoed by a Swordfish from Ark Royal, and caused more serious damage.

In February 1942 she was moved to Toulon after temporary repairs were made, but on 27th November 1942 she was scuttled in dry dock. The wreck was removed in 1945 and sold for scrapping in 1958.

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/france/battleships/dunkerque/strasbourg1.jpg
Strasbourg

Strasbourg was used for convoy escort before the French surrender. Strasbourg was at Oran with her sister, but managed to escape to to Toulon. She was scuttled there on 27th November 1942. In 1943 she was raised by the Italians, but again sunk in an Allied air raid on 18th August 1944. In 1945 she was raised and used for experiments until being sold for scrapping in May 1955.

Dunkerque Class

Name Builders Laid down Launched Commissioned
Dunkerque A 17th January 1939 2nd October 1935 15th April 1937
Strasbourg L 25th November 1934 12th December 1936 December 1938

Builders:
A : Arsenal de Brest, Brest, France
L : A.C. de la St. Nazaire, Penhoet, France

Dimensions:
703' 9" x 102' x 28' 6" / 214.50m x 31.10m x 8.70m

Displacement:
30750 tons std / 35500 tons max

Complement:
1431

Armament:
8 x 13"/50 Mod 33 guns in quad turrets (800 rounds in total)
16 x 5.1"/45 Mod 35 guns in four triple and two twin turrets (7865 rounds in total)
8 x 37mm guns in twin mountings (20200 rounds in total)
32 x 13.2mm guns in quad mountings

Aircraft Facilities:
One catapult was fitted and four seaplanes were carried.

Armour:
Belt: 5.5" - 9.5"
C.T.: 10.6"
5.1" Turrets: 3.5"
13" Turrets: 5.9" - 13.2"
Deck: 1.6" - 5.5"

Powerplant:
Six Indret boilers were fitted with four Parsons steam turbines providing a total of 112500shp on four shafts.

Maximum speed was 29.5kts and maximum fuel load was 6500 tons oil.

Electronics Fit:
Radar:
None

Sonar:
None

Links:
http://www.warship.get.net.pl/Francja/Battleships/1937_...unkerque_photos.html (http://www.warship.get.net.pl/Francja/Battleships/1937_Dunkerque_class/_Dunkerque_photos.html)
http://www.warship.get.net.pl/Francja/Battleships/1937_...rasbourg_photos.html (http://www.warship.get.net.pl/Francja/Battleships/1937_Dunkerque_class/_Strasbourg_photos.html)

woofiedog
05-19-2006, 02:08 PM
Optical Rangefinders

The longest recorded distance for optical rangefinder controlled
gunfire, successfully firing on a moving target from a moving battleship, is 26,400
yards, achieved in 1940 by the British.

http://ussnewjersey.com/images/rect52-19.jpg
USS New Jersey BB-62 View of the Range Finder looking from Starboard to Port inside Turret #2.

There was extensive research and development on these fire control instruments
during the 1920s, and they were the primary tool used to aim naval guns through most
of this century. The longest recorded distance for optical rangefinder controlled
gunfire, successfully firing on a moving target from a moving battleship, is 26,400
yards, achieved in 1940 by the British. These rangefinders were designed around a
particular gun, and the distances at which they were accurate were determined by the
range of the gun. In the U.S. Navy, the Mark 41 (1930s) and Mark 75 (1950s) had
objectives eleven feet apart, a near focus of 1200 yards, and maximum useful range of
20,000 yards. These were made by Keuffel & Esser, weighed about 1200 pounds,
and had 147 glass elements, including lenses, prisms, wedges, reticles, mirrors, and
frosted elements. There were 15 foot models, weighing about 1500 pounds, in a
motorized mount that was connected with servos to a gyroscope, to maintain the
horizon at a level. The 11 and 15 foot models could be targeted on aircraft, and longer
instruments were used to range ships and targets on shore. Larger models were
made by Bausch and Lomb, including the 26.5 foot used with the common 16 inch
guns. The Mark 52 consisted of a 25 power system with objectives 46 feet apart,
weighing 10,500 pounds and costing about $100,000 during World War II. Near focus
was 5,000 yards, maximum use at 45,000 yards.

One interesting aspect of later rangefinders is that they were gas charged with
helium, since it is the only gas with an index of refraction that does not change in the
temperature range encountered by these instruments, and the extreme length of the
rangefinders mandated this stability. The use of helium necessitates yet another level
of maintenance for personnel; one source notes that it can leak through steel, and no
doubt all seals & joints are somewhat porous to helium.

These instruments were closely held secrets during their era (still used in foreign
fleets,) and their size and weight ensured their dismantling on retirement. Very few
persons have had the privilege of viewing through one, and the effect can only be
imagined.

Bismarck

Link: http://www.bismarck-class.dk/technicallayout/rangefinde...angefinder_bism.html (http://www.bismarck-class.dk/technicallayout/rangefinder/bismarck/rangefinder_bism.html)

The fire of the main and secondary batteries was directed from the command posts, which were located forward, astern, and above the foretop platform. Each of these three posts mounted a rotating dome with an optical rangefinder and a FuMO 23 radar instrument. Each of the four main battery turrets was equipped with a 10.5-meter base rangefinder, and in case all three command posts were put out of action in battle, the turrets could then proceed individually to local fire. The anti-aircraft fire was directed by four command posts, each equipped with a 4-meter rangefinder.

links:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_fire.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-078.htm
http://www.ijnhonline.org/volume1_number1_Apr02/article...an_inventors.doc.htm (http://www.ijnhonline.org/volume1_number1_Apr02/article_johnson_angloamerican_inventors.doc.htm)

JtD
05-19-2006, 02:12 PM
This is not the best data, i.e. both ships were faster than their construction speed. Strasbourg managed more than 31 knots, which puts her ahead of Gneisenau.

Also Strasbourg carried more armour than Dunkerque (more than 11" belt).

I also think that the Standard displacement was more around 28000 ton than 30000.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-19-2006, 02:15 PM
Thanks a lot for the info about the Dunkerque class and the RangeFinder,woofiedog.You have been very helpful indeed.
The Dunkerque looks good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Please post a photo of a "gunsight view" from a rangeFinder pls pls pls

Thanks Again! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
05-19-2006, 02:39 PM
There is no such BEST BB.


In WW2 each BB was built with soem special function in mind, most of them never thinking in line battles like in WW1.


Bismarck for example. Germany never had conditions to build a massive fleet to make a line battle agaisnt UK or US. So Bismark was not built to do it.

It was built to be the supreme comerce raider and make RN task much harder. Bismarck was build to close combat, in northern seas where visibility is SHORT. It was built to be almost unsikable, and it was! Bismarck critical compartments were NEVER damaged. All were protected by a double layer of armor, where the first layer when penetratted would bend the projectile trajectory such that it would hit the second layer at a predeterminated angle. An angle where not even Yamato and Musashi guns could penetrate it! But bismack was not made to keep in long battles, so it sacrificed quite some protection from combat systems (its turrets and fire control were not incredbly protected when compared with other BB). A bismack BB could be disabled (guns or fire control out) much faster than an Iwoa BB, but it could survive MUCH longer before sink. Its critical sectiosn were completely out of reach even for a torpedo hit under the keel.

Bismarck focused in not so big guns, but with a very precise fire control for medium and shorter distances, and the fastest fire rate of all BB. At medium and close ranges it could land more tons of ammo per square meter than ANY other ship, even Yamato or Iwoa. And it did not needed huge guns. It needed to be able to quickly dispach UK Batle Cruisers, Comerce ships and weaker BB. It it proved excelent on that when fighting hood and PoW, both less armored ships. If enemy deployed a superior BB, it would be MUCH easier to use U boats against it and not risk Birmarck. Germany intended to keep operations fairly close, so they could use this tatics. It was also a very stable ship, important in north atlantic seas.


Iwoa ships were also not really line ships like WW1 ones. They were made to be able to keep up with carriers. Also intende to be used much farther away from home. They needed to be more powerfull than anything else that could catch them or menace the carriers. And they WERE!. They intended to fight at long distances, never close up like Bismarck intended. They were suposed to be very hard to take out of a fight. And they were. But they were not as protected against critical damage as Bismarck was. US BB used decap layers of armor to remove AP caps from projectiles before main armor belt. Effective, but not as much as the Double deflection scheme used on Bismack at critical sections. But light enough to be used in larger section of the ship.


Yamato and Musashi were probably the only ships tought to be used in a " I am bigger, so I am gonna smash you " tatics. They were more armored than ANY other BB against cannon fire. They were almost impossible to take out of a fight of BB. But were not that protected against other types of attacks like torpedoes. They were slow (when compared to their oponents). So they never had the capability to force the battle. They were the least useful, since US would simply NOT engange in a BB battle against them.

The Vanguard was maybe soemthing to be more studied. It was a terrific ship, best stability of all BB ever build, something VERY important in northern seas.


Italy had some fine ships, but they were not intended to be oceanic ships. They were not stable enough to be used in North atlatic for example. They also focused in cannons with extreme range and muzzle velocity.

UK BB were needed to keep presence on a HUGE area around the world. They had a difficult task. They needed to be reasobaly good at everything, but masters of none. They could not keep up with US ships of fight them at distance, they coudl not fight Bismarck on point blank range. They coult not fight Yamato at all. nelson and Rodney were BIG, very armored and gunned. But with HORRIBLE stability. They simply could not have any good firing at any reasonable speeds. That limits their capabilities a lot. With no damage to Bismarck , it would never by sunk by one of them. Because it could run away and at a high speed battle be MUCH more precise on its shooting. But a Neslon ship on the other side could simply stay stil awayting for it (so it was unwise for a Bismarck ship to seek fight).

Also when looking at armor plating you must keep in mind that different type of armor ahndle different kind of hits. Hardened face armor ar good to defeat hits zero deflection angle (direct hit). But were much less effective on shallow angle hits. Homogeneous armor was the oposite. So the Armor on top of BB , was usually homogeneous, very good to deflect the shallow hits that could come from another BB. But EXTREMELY innefective against bombs comming from planes!

One important US advantage was better AA fire defense.

WarWolfe_1
05-19-2006, 03:48 PM
My Favorite happens to be the BB35 USS Texas, a thing of Beauty. The Battleship TEXAS is the last dreadnought in existence in the world today. She was invloved in almost every major Landing including North Africa, Southern France, D-day, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and Philippines.

http://www.usstexasbb35.com/introduction.htm

By the Way, After Normandy the Texas returned to Brittin With a almost empty magaizine. She supported the troops with everything she had, even though there was standing orders to save ammo in case of a German Naval countersrtike.

fordfan25
05-19-2006, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
Errr, Bismark, toughest Battleship of the 2WW..

Hmm, let me see. Iowa Class, Yamoto class, Nelson class. Anybody care to add some more?

Myth! north dakota class

BSS_CUDA
05-19-2006, 10:22 PM
the baddest of the bad. too bad they were never built

Montana Class (BB-67 through BB-71)
1941 Building Program. Construction cancelled 1943.

The five battleships of the Montana class, authorized under the 1940 "Two Ocean Navy" building program and funded in Fiscal Year 1941, were the last of their kind ordered by the U.S. Navy. With an intended standard displacement of 60,500 tons, they were nearly a third larger than the preceding Iowa class, four of which were the final battleships actually completed by the United States. The Montanas were intended to carry twelve 16"/50 guns, three more than the earlier class. Protection against underwater weapons and shellfire was also greatly enhanced. They would have been the only new World War II era U.S. battleships to be adequately armored against guns of the same power as their own. To achieve these advances, the Montana class was designed for a slower maximum speed than the very fast Iowas and had a beam too wide to pass through the existing Panama Canal locks.

Completion of the Montana class would have given the late 1940s U.S. Navy a total of seventeen new battleships, a considerable advantage over any other nation, or probable combination of nations. The Montanas also would have been the only American ships to come close to equalling the massive Japanese Yamato. However, World War II's urgent requirements for more aircraft carriers, amphibious and anti-submarine vessels resulted in suspension of the Montanas in May 1942, before any of their keels had been laid. In July 1943, when it was clear that the battleship was no longer the dominant element of sea power, their construction was cancelled.

The Montana class would have consisted of five ships, to be constructed at three Navy Yards:
# Montana (BB-67), to be built at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, Pennsylvania;
# Ohio (BB-68), to be built at the Philadelphia Navy Yard;
# Maine (BB-69), to be built at the New York Navy Yard, Brooklyn, New York;
# New Hampshire (BB-70), to be built at the New York Navy Yard; and
# Louisiana (BB-71), to be built at the Norfolk Navy Yard, Portsmouth, Virginia.

Montana class design characteristics:
# Displacement: 60,500 tons (standard); 70,965 tons (full load)
# Dimensions: 921' 3" (length overall); 121' 2" (maximum beam)
# Powerplant: 172,000 horsepower steam turbines, producing a 28 knot maximum speed
# Armament (Main Battery): Twelve 16"/50 guns in four triple turrets
# Armament (Secondary Battery): Twenty 5"/54 guns in ten twin mountings (ten guns on each side of the ship)

WarWolfe_1
05-19-2006, 11:19 PM
Yamato and Musashi were probably the only ships tought to be used in a " I am bigger, so I am gonna smash you " tatics. They were more armored than ANY other BB against cannon fire. They were almost impossible to take out of a fight of BB. But were not that protected against other types of attacks like torpedoes. They were slow (when compared to their oponents). So they never had the capability to force the battle. They were the least useful, since US would simply NOT engange in a BB battle against them.

Odd that makes me think of the Tiger and Panther tanks.
Not much Real use and a waste of resources that could have been better used else where. From reading Cudas post it would seem that the USN saw what a waste such a large BB would have been aswell.

The thing is that we have the benefit of hindsight today.

gkll
05-19-2006, 11:31 PM
Nathan Okun into google will get you to this excellent site with lots of info about the guns and the armor. Lots.

A few observations on some battleship classes and ships;

Best all around were the Iowa's I would think. Only weakness really was being a bit light on the armor side. But this is arguable... by 45 the Iowa main armament with fire control and shell enhancements was best in class, probably superior to the 18" of the Yamato. Shell weight was not that far behind.

Best value per dollar probably the King Georges. And these were best protected outside of the Yamatos. Had an initially unreliable main armament, during the engagement with the Bismarck the King George V also suffered main armament difficulty (Prince of Wales had had problems in the Denmark Strait action earlier). One thing that skews somewhat the comparison of Brit warships just into service, with most other navies in WW2, was 'training and prep'. The Bismarck for example did extensive shakedown exercizes and training in the Baltic, and was fully worked up on her sortie. The Prince of Wales, on the other hand, basically sailed straight out of the dockyard and into action, green crew, and the ship herself not sorted. And this unlucky ship never did get any training time... from one task to another until a moron admiral took her to her doom....

Most damaged - perhaps the old Warspite. This ship saw a <lot> of action, including the above mentioned hit at 26,400 yards on an Italian battleship. Very active service history... was battered repeatedly. Quite a few books on this ship, rightfully so, worth a look. Luck counts.... and having fine 15" naval rifles, well served, doesn't hurt either....

The 15" on the Bismarck have a much larger calibre than the Brit 15", and look (considering the gunhouse too) much more imposing than the Brit twin 15, but the two weapons were very similar in performance, arguably the Brit rifles were superior. The Brits and the Germans had for half a century a different philosophy on battleship naval rifles. The Germans favored light shells fired at high velocity, the Brits liked heavier shells fired at a lower velocity. The subject is not at all simple, but it can be argued that the Brit solution was somewhat better. Or not... data available at the Nathan Okun site.


Just a few thoughts I didn't see elsewhere. Take care, there is a certain amount of bad information in this thread mixed in with the good. Naturally you can trust all I say Im referring to the other fellows of course. S!

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-20-2006, 12:23 AM
Somebody forgot the legendary "Graf Spee",This may not be a Heavy BB but it gave the Royal Navy a headache

Battle of (River Plate) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Plate

Photos and charts:

SHIPS THAT WERE SUNKED BY GRRAF SPEE (MAP) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/HMSO_Graf_Spee_cruise.jpg


http://www.bw-hilchenbach.de/Admiral_Graf_Spee_01.jpg
http://www.battlestations.org/clubs/nzbg/im/Gerships/gskcan.jpg
http://www.battleships.spb.ru/Foto/Spee/Pic53.jpg
http://www.smc-ge.com/assets/images/spee_brennt.jpg

SPECS
Laid down: October 1, 1932
Launched: June 30, 1934
Commissioned: January 6, 1936
Fate: Scuttled December 17, 1939
(General Characteristics)
Displacement: 12,100 t standard; 16,200 t full load
Length: 186 m (610 ft)
Beam: 21.6 m (71 ft)
Draft (max.): 7.4 m (24 ft)
Armament: Six 11 inch (280 mm) guns in two triple turrets,
eight 5.9 inch (150 mm) guns,
six 150 mm guns
eight 37 mm anti-aircraft guns
ten 20 mm anti-aircraft guns
eight 21 inch (530 mm) torpedo tubes in 2 quadruple mounts
Rate of fire: 28 cm guns: 2.5 round/min each
15 cm guns: 6 to 8 round/min each
Gun range: 28 cm guns at 40 deg; (armor-piercing shells): 36,475 m
Estimated gun life: 28 cm guns: about 340 rounds; 15 cm guns: about 1,100 rounds
Munitions supply: 28 cm guns: 105 to 120 rounds per gun
Armor: turret face: (160 mm)
belt: (80 mm)
deck: 40 mm)
Aircraft: Two Arado 196 seaplanes, one catapult
Propulsion: Eight 9-cylinder double-acting two-stroke MAN diesels
two screws, 52,050 hp (40 MW)
Speed: 28.5 knots (53 km/h)
Range: 8,900 nautical miles at 20 knots (16,500 km at 37 km/h)
or 19,000 nautical miles at 10 knots (35,000 km at 18.5 km/h)
Crew: 1,150

woofiedog
05-20-2006, 01:46 AM
Top_Gun_1_0_1... Excellent posting.

joeap
05-20-2006, 03:20 AM
You guys are fogetting that Scharnhorst tied Warspite for longest gun hit on an enemy warship look at this:

Longest hit? (http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-006.htm)


Poor old HMS Glorious...stuck with an imbecile for a commander. Who would and refuse even recon flights?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

OldMan____
05-20-2006, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by gkll:
Nathan Okun into google will get you to this excellent site with lots of info about the guns and the armor. Lots.

A few observations on some battleship classes and ships;

Best all around were the Iowa's I would think. Only weakness really was being a bit light on the armor side. But this is arguable... by 45 the Iowa main armament with fire control and shell enhancements was best in class, probably superior to the 18" of the Yamato. Shell weight was not that far behind.

Best value per dollar probably the King Georges. And these were best protected outside of the Yamatos. Had an initially unreliable main armament, during the engagement with the Bismarck the King George V also suffered main armament difficulty (Prince of Wales had had problems in the Denmark Strait action earlier). One thing that skews somewhat the comparison of Brit warships just into service, with most other navies in WW2, was 'training and prep'. The Bismarck for example did extensive shakedown exercizes and training in the Baltic, and was fully worked up on her sortie. The Prince of Wales, on the other hand, basically sailed straight out of the dockyard and into action, green crew, and the ship herself not sorted. And this unlucky ship never did get any training time... from one task to another until a moron admiral took her to her doom....

Most damaged - perhaps the old Warspite. This ship saw a <lot> of action, including the above mentioned hit at 26,400 yards on an Italian battleship. Very active service history... was battered repeatedly. Quite a few books on this ship, rightfully so, worth a look. Luck counts.... and having fine 15" naval rifles, well served, doesn't hurt either....

The 15" on the Bismarck have a much larger calibre than the Brit 15", and look (considering the gunhouse too) much more imposing than the Brit twin 15, but the two weapons were very similar in performance, arguably the Brit rifles were superior. The Brits and the Germans had for half a century a different philosophy on battleship naval rifles. The Germans favored light shells fired at high velocity, the Brits liked heavier shells fired at a lower velocity. The subject is not at all simple, but it can be argued that the Brit solution was somewhat better. Or not... data available at the Nathan Okun site.


Just a few thoughts I didn't see elsewhere. Take care, there is a certain amount of bad information in this thread mixed in with the good. Naturally you can trust all I say Im referring to the other fellows of course. S!

Probably true on the armament. But on the protection I have my doubts. The PoW got pretty damaged when engaged Bismarck. And bismarck guns were nto that powerfull (although they had the highest fire rate of all, somethign very usefull when engaging any other type of target). Tha comes partially from the fact that germans used lighter shells. So they coudl in fact deliver more tons of ammo per hour than Brittish, US or JP ships. But each projectile was less likely to get trought a very heavy armor. But they were more than enough to cripple sensitive equipment like PoW command bridge. And with high fire rete.. is more likely to hit something.


This supports the idea that every nation had a different concept of how to use their BB. Each more adequate at a certain situation.


For example. When engaging the Hood. Bismarck was a much more apropriated ship to target a Battle Cruiser, it had enough hit to penetrate their armor and high fare rate to hit a fast target. A Nelson ship would take quite some hard work to kill the hood (since it has low fire rate and cannot fire with precision while at speed). But when facing the yamato for example... no doubts I would bet Nelson would have better chances than Bismarck.

luftluuver
05-20-2006, 06:13 AM
From many here at UBI I get the impression they would rather get their info from the net instead of from 'hard copy'. Though I must say, this naval crowd is more knowledgable than the aviation crowd here.

For those whose primary source is the net, if you do decide to spend some money and expand your knowledge, a good investment would be the Anatomy of the Ship series of books. BBs in this series include Warspite, Bismarck, Fuso, Yamato, Dreadnaught, Hood. Cruisers in the series Belfast, Takao, Bartolomeo Colleoni.

WOLFMondo
05-20-2006, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by gkll:
And this unlucky ship never did get any training time... from one task to another until a moron admiral took her to her doom....

It wasn't quite his fault. He knew he was in trouble when he was sent to the far east. I don't know what he would have done other wise but he was ordered there.


Originally posted by OldMan____:
The PoW got pretty damaged when engaged Bismarck. And bismarck guns were nto that powerfull (although they had the highest fire rate of all, somethign very usefull when engaging any other type of target).

She was only hit 4 times by Bismark and the turrets failed due to mechanical problems. Even well worked out ships had these problems. Belfasts entire engagement against the Sharnhorst had one of her turrets diesel engines playing up and the engineer had to cool the engine with a hose pipe for 12 hours!

BH-21
05-20-2006, 07:15 AM
If you were a crewman aboard a battleship, then the best one would be the ship that took no damage or wasn't sunk by the end of the war.

OldMan____
05-20-2006, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
From many here at UBI I get the impression they would rather get their info from the net instead of from 'hard copy'. Though I must say, this naval crowd is more knowledgable than the aviation crowd here.

For those whose primary source is the net, if you do decide to spend some money and expand your knowledge, a good investment would be the Anatomy of the Ship series of books. BBs in this series include Warspite, Bismarck, Fuso, Yamato, Dreadnaught, Hood. Cruisers in the series Belfast, Takao, Bartolomeo Colleoni.

I wish I could ahve more of such books. But this isthe type of book impossible to find here (Brasil). And buying at Amazon makes it unpayable. Amazon stupidly always send the books first to germany then back to Brasil. The Cost of book usually rises in 40 or 60 $ from this simple delivery system.

OldMan____
05-20-2006, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Yamato and Musashi were probably the only ships tought to be used in a " I am bigger, so I am gonna smash you " tatics. They were more armored than ANY other BB against cannon fire. They were almost impossible to take out of a fight of BB. But were not that protected against other types of attacks like torpedoes. They were slow (when compared to their oponents). So they never had the capability to force the battle. They were the least useful, since US would simply NOT engange in a BB battle against them.

Odd that makes me think of the Tiger and Panther tanks.
Not much Real use and a waste of resources that could have been better used else where. From reading Cudas post it would seem that the USN saw what a waste such a large BB would have been aswell.

The thing is that we have the benefit of hindsight today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Panther tanks were quite fast in fact. They were mobile and powerfull , maybe one of the best tanks of war. The tiger tanks were support tanks. Small units mixed to other forces. Used in actions were enemy had no other choice but engange it. If you avoid a Tiger comming upon you position.. in a few minutes the position will be its position.... it won.

Since BB do not take ground.. they do not have this possibility.

Yamato and Musashi would be usefull only in a Jutland like battle, where they could wreck havoc and destruction. But they were simply not usable to escort carriers like Iwoa class and were in a theater were Bismarck function was not needed.

Snow_Wolf_
05-20-2006, 09:08 AM
I got a few battleships that i like Beside the Iowa ,Yamato, Bismack , KGV (you know King George V). So here is my list

1. HIJMS Yamashiro
HIJMS Yamashiro was the second battleship in the Fuso class. Fuso, the lead ship and laid down in March 1912, was the first battleship in the world armed with twelve 14" guns. The USN€s answer, USS Pennsylvania, was not laid down until 19 months later in October 1913. As constructed the two sisters were almost identical, except that Yamashiro had a stern walk, slightly different foremast control top and a larger conning tower with different director arrangement. They were built with tripod foremast and mainmast and two funnels. During the 1920s the IJN kept adding additional platforms to the fore tripod to this class.

http://www.steelnavy.com/images/HM%20Yamashiro/Yama1065photo20.JPG

LAID DOWN: November 20, 1913 LAUNCHED: November 3, 1915 COMPLETED: March 31, 1917
MODERNIZED: December 1930 to March 1935
SUNK: October 25, 1944 at the Battle of the Suriago Straits (part of the Battle of Leyte Gulf)

DIMENSIONS: (as modernized): Length- 698 ft (212.75m) (oa); 689 ft (210m) (wl)
Beam- 100 ft (30.64m), 118 feet (wl), 127 feet underwater at bulge;
Draught- 32 ft (9.69m) (mean); Displacement- 35,255 tons (std), 39,780 tons (fl);

ARMAMENT: twelve 14"; fourteen 6"; eight 5" DP; sixteen 25mm AA; three aircraft; one catapult

MACHINERY: six Kampon oil fired boilers; 76,889 shp; 24 knots

ARMOR: Main Belt- 12 in tapering to 4 in; Casemates- 6 in; Turrets- 12 in; CT- 13.75 in; Bulkheads- 2 5/8 in max;
Deck- 1.25-2 in; Barbettes- 8 in; Total Armor Weight- 12,199 tons (42%)

COMPLEMENT: 1,400 (1941)

In 1930 both ships were placed out of commission in order to receive a major modernization. Fuso€s lasted from April 1930 to May 1933, while Yamashiro was in the dockyard from December 1930 until March 1935. Their hulls were lengthened by 25 feet and new machinery installed which almost doubled the horsepower. These changes more than compensated for the addition of torpedo bulges, and the ships€ top speed increased by two knots. Both ships were reduced to one funnel. The biggest difference between the two was the shape of pagoda superstructure. Still supported primarily by the tripod foremast, Fuso€s pagoda had an undulating, almost baroque appearance on a small base. Apparently, the designer€s learned from their experience with Fuso, because Yamashiro's superstructure base was larger and extended further aft. Fuso€s P turret faced forward whereas, because of the enlarged superstructure, Yamashiro€s P turret faced aft. The Yamashiro also had a support structure built into the after face of the pagoda. This very prominent support structure provided a back-brace (and additional strength) for the pagoda. Instead of undulating, the Yamashiro pagoda went almost straight up. Also, Yamashiro's pagoda at 135 feet above waterline was not quite as high as Fuso's 150 foot structure. Other noticeable differences included the searchlight towers around the stack and the catapult arrangement (Fuso€s on top of P turret and Yamashiro€s on the quarterdeck). Fuso returned to the dockyard in September 1934 for additional changes. The catapult was moved to the quarterdeck, as in Yamashiro. Both ships received eight five inch DP guns in four mounts mounted high on the superstructure and sixteen 25mm AA guns in twin mounts.At the start of the War both ships remained in the Inland Sea as a strategic reserve because of their age and relatively slow speed, while the even older Kongo class ships were very active because of their much higher speed. They were capable of supporting the fast carriers. On April 18, 1942 both ships sortied in an attempt to catch the USN carriers (Hornet and Enterprise) that had launched the "Doolittle" raid. They were recalled three days later. On May 20, 1942 both sortied again as support for Northern Force Aleutian campaign but returned to Japan on June 17, 1942 because of the disaster that befell the IJN at Midway. Neither ship was used in the Guadacanal campaign primarily because of oil shortages. During the war most of their time was spent in training on the Inland Sea, although Yamashiro did load supplies for the Truk army garrison and make a supply run to Truk, departing October 15, 1943 and arriving at Truk on October 20. After unloading the supplies for the army, she sailed back to the Inland Sea from October 31, 1943 to November 5, during which time she evaded a submarine attack.

2. HIJMS Nagato
Nagato (Japanese: "€, named after Nagato province) was a battleship of the Imperial Japanese Navy, the lead ship of her class. She was the first battleship in the world to mount 16 inch (410 mm) guns, and she was the flagship of Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku during the attack on Pearl Harbor. In the war she saw action only once, during the battle of Leyte Gulf, due to the Japanese Navy's strategy of keeping major units in reserve for a decisive battle.

Nagato was laid down at the Kure Naval Arsenal on August 28, 1917, launched on November 9, 1919, and completed on November 15, 1920. She underwent a major refit in 1936, removing her coal-burning boilers and upgrading her armour and anti-aircraft guns.

At the outbreak of World War II, Nagato, under the command of Captain Yano Hideo, and her sister ship Mutsu formed Battle Division 1. Nagato was the flagship of the Combined Fleet, flying the flag of Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku. On 2 December 1941 Nagato sent the signal Niitakayama nobore 1208 ("Climb Mount Niitaka on 12/08") that committed the Carrier Strike Force to the attack on Pearl Harbor and Japan to the Pacific War.

On 12 February 1942 Admiral Yamamoto transferred his flag to the new battleship Yamato.

In June 1942 Nagato accompanied the First Fleet to the battle of Midway but saw no action. She returned the survivors of Kaga to Japan.

In 1943, under the command of Captain Hayakawa Mikio, Nagato was based at Truk in the Caroline Islands. After the evacuation of Truk in February 1944, she was based at Lingga near Singapore.

In June 1944 she took part in Operation A-Go, an attack on Allied forces in the Mariana Islands. In the battle of the Philippine Sea on 19 June 1944 she came under air attack but was not damaged.

In October 1944 she took part in Operation Sh-1, an attack on the Allied landings on Leyte. On 24 October 1944 in the battle of the Sibuyan Sea Nagato was attacked by several waves of American dive-bombers. At 14:16 she was hit by two bombs dropped by planes from Franklin and Cabot. The first bomb disabled a number of guns and damaged the air intake to the No. 1 boiler room, stopping one shaft for 25 minutes until the air intake was cleared. The second bomb hit the canteen and forward radio room, killing 52 and wounding 106. On 25 October the Central Force passed the San Bernardino Strait and headed for Leyte Gulf. In the battle off Samar, Nagato engaged the escort carrier and destroyers of the US Task Group 77.4.3. At 06:01 she opened fire on St. Lo, the first time she fired her guns at an enemy ship, but missed. At 06:54 the destroyer Heermann fired a spread of torpedoes at Haruna; the torpedoes missed Haruna and headed for Yamato and Nagato on parallel courses. The two battleships were forced to turn away from the action to the north for 10 miles (16 km) until the torpedoes ran out of fuel. After returning to the action, Nagato continued to engage the American carriers, firing 45 16 inch (410 mm) shells and 92 5.5 inch (140 mm) shells.

At 09:10 Admiral Takeo Kurita ordered the fleet to break off the engagement and head north. At 10:20 he ordered the fleet south again, but as the fleet came under increasingly severe air attack he ordered a retreat again at 12:36. At 12:43 Nagato was hit on her bow by two bombs but the damage was not severe.

As it retreated on 26 October the Japanese fleet came under continuous air attack. Nagato was attacked by dive-bombers from Hornet and hit by four bombs, suffering 38 killed and 105 wounded. In the course of the day she fired 99 16 inch (410 mm) shells and 653 5.5 inch (140 mm) shells.

On 25 November 1944 Nagato arrived at Yokosuka, Japan for repairs. Lack of fuel and materials meant that she could not be brought back into service, and in February 1945 she was reassigned as a coastal defence ship. In June 1945 her secondary and anti-aircraft armament were moved ashore. On 18 July 1945 she was attacked at Yokusuka by torpedo bombers from Essex, Randolph, Shangri-La and Belleau Wood and hit by three bombs, one hitting the bridge and killing her commanding officer, Rear Admiral Otsuka Miki.

On 30 August 1945, following the Japanese surrender, Nagato was boarded and secured by American sailors, the last active Japanese battleship.
Japanese battleship Nagato after the Baker blast. Arthur Beaumont, Watercolor, 1946.
Enlarge
Japanese battleship Nagato after the Baker blast. Arthur Beaumont, Watercolor, 1946.

In March 1946 she was taken to Bikini Atoll for Operation Crossroads, a series of atomic bomb tests. On this, her last voyage, she was commanded by Captain W. J. Whipple with a United States Navy crew of about 180 men. She was in such poor repair that on the way she had to be towed to Eniwetok Atoll for emergency repairs.

In the first test (ABLE, an airburst) on 1 July 1946 she was 1,640 yards from ground zero and was not severely damaged. In the second test (BAKER, an underwater explosion) on 24 July 1946 she was severely damaged, and capsized and sank five days later
http://www.hokuriku.ne.jp/montanyu/zero/nagato.jpg

Uss Alaska
SPECIFICATIONS
Displacement: 29,779 tons (standard), 34,253 tons (full load)
Dimensions: 808 ft 06 in length x 91 ft 01 in beam x 31 ft 10 in draft (full load)
Armament: 9x12in 45cal (3x3); 12x5in 38cal (6x2); 56x40mm (14x4); 34x20mm (34x1); 3 aircraft
Armor: Main belt 9-5in
Turrets 12.8in
Conning tower 10.6in
Machinery: 4-shaft General Electric turbines, 8 Babcock & Wilcox boilers, 150,000 shp=33.0kts
Oil Capacity: 3619 tons
Endurance: 12,000 nautical miles at l5 knots
Complement: 1,517

Although these large cruisers are often considered capital ships (in view of their main batteries and their general appearance) in fact they were simple developments of US cruiser doctrine and requirements; they were in effect, heavy cruisers finally unencumbered by the Treaty limits of 8 inch guns and a maximum displacement of 10,000 tons. They are often described as white elephants, since by the time two out of the six originally ordered finally appeared in 1944 the tactical concepts which had inspired them had been completely superseded. However, that is not to deny their validity in the context of 1940, when nearly all senior US commanders afloat enthusiastically supported a 'super-cruiser' to replace the existing 8 inch type. It is often said, too, that these ships were imposed on the Navy by President Roosevelt, but such statements are at best difficult to verify. What is clear is that a 12 inch cruiser project surfaced in the Bureau of Construction and Repair as early as 1938, and that the President may well have inspired it on the basis of his notions of foreign 'battlecruiser' and 'supercruiser' development. Later discussions always began with the 12 inch ship, often designated CA2 to distinguish it from a conventional heavy cruiser (CA1) as one alternative in a spectrum of possible future cruisers.

Cruiser practice shows in the provision of one rather than two rudders (which, unfortunately, ensured a very large tactical diameter) and in the requirement for enclosed stowage for aircraft. This latter was responsible for the unusual aircraft arrangement: hull depth aft was too restricted to permit a hangar in the conventional location there. However, it should be noted that the abortive light and heavy cruiser designs of 1940, which were related to this one, also showed aircraft amidships; the Bureau of Aeronautics flirted briefly with this idea, but ultimately rejected it. In 1945-46 there were proposals to remove the two catapults and replace them with an additional pair of twin 5 inch/38 gunhouses; a single catapult (no hangar) was to be fitted on the fantail.

The 12 inch/50 guns were a new design and, because they were unique among wartime US ships, they were the most expensive heavy US guns of their period. The initial Alaska design called for eight guns in two triple and one twin turret, and the design finally adopted (three triples) was justified in part because it would simplify turret production. Armour was designed to assure immunity against the 12 inch 1140 lb shell between 18,000 and 24,000 yards at target angle of 60? - a requirement typical of prewar cruiser practice. The original characteristics specified the protection of machinery spaces only against 8 inch (cruiser) fire, but in view of the positioning of the 5 inch magazines in way of these spaces, the designers had to provide uniform protection against 12 inch fire there too.

Neither ship was modified during the war, and both were laid up soon afterwards. Hawaii was retained incomplete, at first for conversion to a missile ship; later she was very nearly converted to a command ship, a kind of larger sister for Northampton. They were expensive to maintain, and a poor substitute for a battleship; moreover, in the postwar naval world, even a Baltimore could quite overpower any Soviet cruiser, so that there were no more potentially hostile 8 inch cruisers to overwhelm - not to mention that, with a plenitude of carriers, surface commerce raiders presented rather less of a threat than prewar planners had imagined.
http://www.geocities.com/batdev/ship/CB-01_Alaska001.jpg

fordfan25
05-20-2006, 10:33 AM
to bad the montana never got built. that woulda been a bada**

1.JaVA_Hornet
05-20-2006, 03:49 PM
For me personally its the Cruiser Java and her
sistership Sumatra because my grandfather
worked on bothe of them and because the
Java was sunk during the battle in the
Javasea against the japanese fleet in 1942.

Photo one the Java and the second Sumatra.
(bothe dutch)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/hornetsting/IMG_1014Medium.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/hornetsting/Sumatra1939.jpg

Ishmael932
05-20-2006, 10:57 PM
http://www.bosamar.com/

The above is a link to a site about the Battle of Samar, where 5 escort carriers and 5 destroyers and escorts drove off Kurita's Center Force, saving the Leyte landings from certain destruction.

On another note, I met a retired Chief Gunner's Mate at the casino last week who was mount captain of mount 51(the forward 14-inch gun turret)aboard USS California BB-44 from Pearl Harbor throughout the war. He personally received 2 Bronze Stars for his actions at Surigao Straits and at Lingayen Gulf when his turret was hit by a kamikaze plane and he saved his turret crew and prevented the fire from spreading to the magazines. He referred to her by her old nickname,"The Prune Barge". He also invited me to the California reunion in September in Albuquerque. I'll be attending to collect oral histories and to see if an old friend attends who was a plankowner on the USS California CGN-35.

I lived in Vallejo, Ca. where the old California was built and saw the pictures of the launching ceremony where she went across the Napa river and smashed the old Georgia St. pier.

luftluuver
05-20-2006, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by Ishmael932:
The above is a link to a site about the Battle of Samar, where 5 escort carriers and 5 destroyers and escorts drove off Kurita's Center Force, saving the Leyte landings from certain destruction. Actually TF74.4 had 6 carriers and 7-8 destroyers in each of its 3 groups.

Kurita thought he was attacking the US 3rd Fleet and broke off when signals from Ozawa had disabused him of the notion that he was attacking the whole of the 3rd Fleet, which meant that the longer he continued to engage, the more likely it was that he would suffer devastating air strikes from Halsey's carriers.

panther3485
05-21-2006, 09:24 AM
What does BB stand for anyway?

luftluuver
05-21-2006, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
What does BB stand for anyway?

BB = battleship
CL = light cruiser
CA = cruiser
DD = destroyer
DE = destroyer escort
CV = carrier

OldMan____
05-21-2006, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
And this unlucky ship never did get any training time... from one task to another until a moron admiral took her to her doom....

It wasn't quite his fault. He knew he was in trouble when he was sent to the far east. I don't know what he would have done other wise but he was ordered there.


Originally posted by OldMan____:
The PoW got pretty damaged when engaged Bismarck. And bismarck guns were nto that powerfull (although they had the highest fire rate of all, somethign very usefull when engaging any other type of target).

She was only hit 4 times by Bismark and the turrets failed due to mechanical problems. Even well worked out ships had these problems. Belfasts entire engagement against the Sharnhorst had one of her turrets diesel engines playing up and the engineer had to cool the engine with a hose pipe for 12 hours! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Quoted form a net source (since all my books are in portuguese and I am not in the mood to make a translation...

"
PoW was hit four times by Bismarck and three times by Prinz Eugen. One of these shells passed through the upper superstructure, killing every member on the compass platform except for Captain John Leach and another officer. An 8-inch shell from Prinz Eugen found its way to the propelling charge/round manipulation chamber below the after 5.25-inch gun turrets, and a 15-inch shell from Bismarck hit underwater very close to the after magazine. Fortunately neither shell exploded, if they had the Prince of Wales might have succumbed to a fate similar to the Hood. By this point the combination of damage from enemy shells and mechanical malfunctions had put all but one of the main guns out of action "


As you can see. It was a struck of luck that it didn't sunk. In fact probably Bismarck should have pursued it and achieve a complete victory.

panther3485
05-21-2006, 10:07 AM
Thanks, luftluuver

Somebody else on this thread was using the abbreviation 'BC', which I had assumed stood for Battle Cruiser.

May seem like a stooooopid question, but how do they get 'BB' out of Battleship or CA out of Cruiser? (I can understand CL for Light Cruiser, i.e; 'Cruiser, Light'? - or did someone just dream these things up?)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

You're dealing with a thick-headed armour enthusiast here, who is used to the obvious, such as MBT = Main Battle Tank.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

JtD
05-21-2006, 10:31 AM
CA - Cruiser, Armored
BB - 1st B for Battleship, 2nd B for Battleship. It's a two letter designation system, so what can you do?

panther3485
05-21-2006, 10:50 AM
OK, thanks JtD

Is this primarily a US Navy system of designation, or do the British RN, for example, use it as well?

[Please excuse my ignorance here.]

Best regards,
panther3485

woofiedog
05-21-2006, 10:56 AM
Snow_Wolf_ & 1.JaVA_Hornet... Excellent post's
Thank's

http://www.geocities.com/dutcheastindies/deruy.jpg
A picture taken during the bombing of Striking Force off Kangean on 4 February 1942.
On the right the Dutch light cruiser De Ruyter, on the left USS heavy cruiser Houston.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Battle_of_Java_Sea_-_HMS_Exeter_under_Attack.jpg
The cruiser HMS EXETER under air attack during the Battle of the Java Sea. Bombs can be seen falling astern of the ship. In an attempt to stop the Japanese invasion of Java and Sumatra the Allies had formed a joint Command of the American, British, Dutch and Australian naval forces. The ABDA force was, with the exception of four American destroyers, completely decimated during two engagements by the Japanese air force on 27 February and 1 March 1942.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/thumb/a/a3/De_Ruyter.jpg/800px-De_Ruyter.jpg
HNLMS De Ruyter

"All ships -- follow me."

The Java Sea Battle, February 1942

Link:
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/hnms/java.html
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/hnms/de_ruyter.html
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/provinces/indonesia_javasea.html
http://www.microworks.net/PACIFIC/battles/java_sea.htm
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-PzLfb6k1crC48VxvCde0NwwpRA_DGCg-?cq=1&p=53

woofiedog
05-21-2006, 11:33 AM
The Almirante Latorre (named after the Chilean Juan José Latorre Benavente) was a battleship which served with the Chilean Navy from after World War I through World War II into the late 1950s.

The Latorre was ordered from and built by the British shipyard of Armstrong Whitworth to a design of Armstrongs Eustace Tennyson d'Eyncourt. At the outbreak of World War I she was purchased by the British for service in the Royal Navy and completed as HMS Canada. Her sister ship the Almirante Cochrane was less far forward in construction, and was purchased at a lesser price in 1917 to be converted into an aircraft carrier, HMS Eagle. After the war, Latorre was delivered to Chile in 1921 for a price of one million pounds (about half her original cost) after refitting. Eagle was not repurchased. Latorre was well maintained in Chilean service, and after the outbreak of World War II, she even tendered an offer from the United States to purchase her. The offer was declined however.

Latorre displaced 28,500 tons with ten 14 inch guns as her main armament. Her secondary armament comprised of fourteen 6 inch and four 4 inch Dual Purpose (DP) guns along with four 21-inch torpedo tubes. She was capable of 22 knots. Lack of modernization resulted in the range of the main batteries being poor, and her armor only gave protection roughly equivalent to World War II battlecruisers. Despite this, she was respected internationally, partially due to the reputation of the Chilean Navy.

She was the last survivor of the Battle of Jutland afloat, until scrapped in Japan in 1958.

Displ: 21,630 tons normal; 26,000 tons full load
Dim: 667 x 105 x 24.5 feet
Prop: Steam turbines, 32 boilers, 50,000 hp, 4 shafts,
22.5 knots
Crew: 950
Arm: 9 6/45, 4 4/45, 6 21 inch TT, 21 aircraft
Armor: 1-4.5 inch belt, 1-1.5 inch decks


http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Marina/8163/features/Chile/chile6.jpg


http://www.voodoo.cz/battleships/pics/latorre.jpg

Link;
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Marina/8163/Chile.htm

BSS_CUDA
05-21-2006, 04:52 PM
just a few from my collection.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/USbb61_pic_45_frt_firing.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/USbb63_pic_44_fring.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/BB-64_Wisconsin.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/016339d.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/016222.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/016221.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/016220.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/015729.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/015623.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/015605.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/015510.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/014309.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/015607.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/014827.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/fire2t.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/USbb62_pic_90_Ausfirlg.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/USbb64_pic_89_sil.jpg

luftluuver
05-22-2006, 01:27 AM
Dragon Models Limited is producing the USS Arizona BB-39 in 1:700 scale.

http://www.dragonmodelsltd.com/45thShizuokaHobbyShow2006/index.htm

gdfo
05-22-2006, 05:29 AM
I am coming to this thread a little late.

I have a book named 'TIRPITZ' by David Woodward.
It was first published in 1953 and reprinted in 1975.

In chapter 2, Rebuilding by violation of treaty, there are some details of other battleships that Hitler wanted to build. There were two keels laid down in 1939 that were never finished and were supposed to be the next ships after the Bismark class. They were supposed to carry 8/16.25 inch guns and be a little heavier than the Bismark Class. The acutal building of the ships had begun but been stopped and then later cancelled. The german war effort on the eastern front and the increased production of U boats were the cause.

mynameisroland
05-22-2006, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
Nathan Okun into google will get you to this excellent site with lots of info about the guns and the armor. Lots.

A few observations on some battleship classes and ships;

Best all around were the Iowa's I would think. Only weakness really was being a bit light on the armor side. But this is arguable... by 45 the Iowa main armament with fire control and shell enhancements was best in class, probably superior to the 18" of the Yamato. Shell weight was not that far behind.

Best value per dollar probably the King Georges. And these were best protected outside of the Yamatos. Had an initially unreliable main armament, during the engagement with the Bismarck the King George V also suffered main armament difficulty (Prince of Wales had had problems in the Denmark Strait action earlier). One thing that skews somewhat the comparison of Brit warships just into service, with most other navies in WW2, was 'training and prep'. The Bismarck for example did extensive shakedown exercizes and training in the Baltic, and was fully worked up on her sortie. The Prince of Wales, on the other hand, basically sailed straight out of the dockyard and into action, green crew, and the ship herself not sorted. And this unlucky ship never did get any training time... from one task to another until a moron admiral took her to her doom....

Most damaged - perhaps the old Warspite. This ship saw a <lot> of action, including the above mentioned hit at 26,400 yards on an Italian battleship. Very active service history... was battered repeatedly. Quite a few books on this ship, rightfully so, worth a look. Luck counts.... and having fine 15" naval rifles, well served, doesn't hurt either....

The 15" on the Bismarck have a much larger calibre than the Brit 15", and look (considering the gunhouse too) much more imposing than the Brit twin 15, but the two weapons were very similar in performance, arguably the Brit rifles were superior. The Brits and the Germans had for half a century a different philosophy on battleship naval rifles. The Germans favored light shells fired at high velocity, the Brits liked heavier shells fired at a lower velocity. The subject is not at all simple, but it can be argued that the Brit solution was somewhat better. Or not... data available at the Nathan Okun site.


Just a few thoughts I didn't see elsewhere. Take care, there is a certain amount of bad information in this thread mixed in with the good. Naturally you can trust all I say Im referring to the other fellows of course. S!

Probably true on the armament. But on the protection I have my doubts. The PoW got pretty damaged when engaged Bismarck. And bismarck guns were nto that powerfull (although they had the highest fire rate of all, somethign very usefull when engaging any other type of target). Tha comes partially from the fact that germans used lighter shells. So they coudl in fact deliver more tons of ammo per hour than Brittish, US or JP ships. But each projectile was less likely to get trought a very heavy armor. But they were more than enough to cripple sensitive equipment like PoW command bridge. And with high fire rete.. is more likely to hit something.


This supports the idea that every nation had a different concept of how to use their BB. Each more adequate at a certain situation.


For example. When engaging the Hood. Bismarck was a much more apropriated ship to target a Battle Cruiser, it had enough hit to penetrate their armor and high fare rate to hit a fast target. A Nelson ship would take quite some hard work to kill the hood (since it has low fire rate and cannot fire with precision while at speed). But when facing the yamato for example... no doubts I would bet Nelson would have better chances than Bismarck. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The King George the Fifth class were excellent value for money. Their armour protection was thicker and covered more area than either the Washington or the SOD class. Their armour coverage and thickness was second only to the Yamato class. Their 14 inch rifles were more than capable of defeating other BB's armour with the possible exception of the Yamatos. A much better option in my opinion would have been to revert back to the tried and trusted 15 inch guns of WW1 vintage. 9 of these mounted in a 3x3 arrangement would have provided greater weight of fire and a proven weapon. They had advanced dual purpose secondary guns which again proved to be troublesome but eventually matured in to excellent mounts. They reached a good speed in service circa 29 knots, again faster than most of their contemporaries and good enough to keep pace with the Bismarck.

What a lot of people dont realise when talking about BBs from WW2 or WW1 is that quality of armour is a big factor. The Hardened steel used in British Battleships of WW2 era was between 8 to 12% superior to all other countries armour for example US class A armour. When you look at US ships of WW2 era their turret faces use Class B armour which is not as effective as Class A at keeping out direct hits and breaking up armour piercing shells. To put that in to context a ship like the North Carolina had a 12 inch belt and a layered deck armour arrangement where its thickness is spread over several decks. The KGV had a 15.1 inch belt along the magazines and 14.1 against the machinery and a 6 inch single layer deck over magazines and 5 inches over machinery spaces. Another very important factor was radar, again the RN here had an advantage over most of its foes. I would argue however that radar although very useful at night and in bad weather ie North Cape, did not fully come in to its own until after WW2. The Warspite's long range hit still ranks as a kind of fluke rather than a regular achievable result even with radar plotting of salvos.

Most important of all these ships were ready in the nick of time. They provided an effective deterrant to stop the Kriegsmarine from launching an all out raid on British convoys with their fast heavy units. They were cheap, 5 of them were commisioned and they gave a good account of themselves against some tough foes. As a class they were amongst the most vital and effective class to have served. I rank them up with the Queen Elizabeth class although they achieve much less acclaim. One on one Id take a KGV over the Bismark or Littorio any day of the week. And the beauty of it was that the RN never had to go in to a fight one on one. Five KGVs against two Bismarck class would have been no contest.

Maj_Solo
05-22-2006, 06:01 AM
The Iowa class ships performed well, aim fire and hit = boom, enemy sunk. = best ships, still afloat also = best ship.

mynameisroland
05-22-2006, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by Maj_Solo:
The Iowa class ships performed well, aim fire and hit = boom, enemy sunk. = best ships, still afloat also = best ship.

How many battleships did the Iowa class sink ? Lets face it how many ships did the Iowa class sink full stop?

You must be basing your ship knowledge on that Transformers battleship toy you got for Christmas

WOLFMondo
05-22-2006, 06:44 AM
Optimus Prime would have kicked the Iowa's a@@! :P

mynameisroland
05-22-2006, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Optimus Prime would have kicked the Iowa's a@@! :P

Lol! Iowa was teh best cos its roxor. It sunk all the other BBs in teh world and is now the only one left = teh best No. 1

Lucius_Esox
05-22-2006, 07:26 AM
Turned into a long thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Haven't read it all so am sorry if this has been posted before.

Warspite was at Jutland, the largest by far BB v BB engagement ever. At one point in the proceedings she had her steering gear damaged and sailed around in circles in front of the whole of the advancing High seas fleet, she was hit several times before gaining steerage, and survived http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Off Salerno in the 2WW she was damaged by a glider bomb, the first ship to be damaged by a guided weapon I believe.

Reading that ships exploits are incredible, she saw so much action.

In the Thames we have the Belfast moored as a floating museum, a fine ship with a fine tradition. It is a shame it was not the old Warspite though.

No other ship in Britains long tradition of naval history better embodies Britains pre-eminance in this area over so many years imho.

I do not know if this is urban legend but I read somewhere that when she was scrapped after the 2WW the steering gear that was repaired at Jutland broke and she grounded herself!

Soul in machines?

BTW read the account of Jutland it's an incredibly exciting story.

hotspace
05-22-2006, 09:28 AM
I've read all these posts and I've never heard so much twaddle in my entire life........we all know that this was the greatest Battleship ever built.....

http://www.playtimeinflatables.co.uk/products/pirateboatmain.jpg

I mean, just look at that Nose Gun? It can throw a 18 inch shells at least....a few millimetres from it's own bow........plus look at that little rubber captain, he could help your wife out if she's bored cooking if you catch my drift http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

erco415
05-22-2006, 10:01 AM
As was said earlier, the folks over at fighting steel project know everything that you ever wanted to know about fighting ships (and lots more besides).
On thing not mentioned in the Iowa vs Yamato fight is the vastly better ROF of Iowa's main battery. That, coupled with better FC etc would be decisive. (IIRC, Yamato's gunnery wasn't that impressive the only time she actually fired at surface targets in anger.) I've always been fascinated by the 18in anti-aircraft shells (San-shiki I think they were called?) developed by the Japanese - whatta shotgun!

WOLFMondo
05-22-2006, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
Turned into a long thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Haven't read it all so am sorry if this has been posted before.

Warspite was at Jutland, the largest by far BB v BB engagement ever. At one point in the proceedings she had her steering gear damaged and sailed around in circles in front of the whole of the advancing High seas fleet, she was hit several times before gaining steerage, and survived http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Off Salerno in the 2WW she was damaged by a glider bomb, the first ship to be damaged by a guided weapon I believe.

Reading that ships exploits are incredible, she saw so much action.

In the Thames we have the Belfast moored as a floating museum, a fine ship with a fine tradition. It is a shame it was not the old Warspite though.

No other ship in Britains long tradition of naval history better embodies Britains pre-eminance in this area over so many years imho.

I do not know if this is urban legend but I read somewhere that when she was scrapped after the 2WW the steering gear that was repaired at Jutland broke and she grounded herself!

Soul in machines?

BTW read the account of Jutland it's an incredibly exciting story.

She's certainly credited as the Royal Navies most decorated ship. She was bombed, mined, torpedoed, hit by the most powerful guns in the German navy, rammed, run aground and still soldiered on. The story of her final demise is also true, theres pictures of her on a sand bank. She was eventually broken up at sea. She was literally unsinkable.

There was an effort to restore her and park her in the Thames where Belfast sits but because of Britains bankruptcy she was scrapped.

I don't understand why her, or one of the other last great British BB's was never kept as a museum. Even Illustrious would have been a fantastic museum, being the Royal Navies most decorated aircraft carrier.

GerritJ9
05-22-2006, 10:20 AM
The reason not one British Dreadnought survived is very simple- The Royal Navy obeyed Jackie Fisher (surely the RN's most brilliant First Sea Lord ever): "Scrap the lot, sir, scrap the lot!"

"Almirante Latorre" the last Jutland survivor? Not quite- HMS "Caroline" still exists if I'm not mistaken.

Not mentioned here so far is the Dutch battlecruiser design of 1939/1940, intended to counter the Japanese superoirity in 8" cruisers. They were basically similar to the "Scharnhorst", but with two funnels, armour protection against 8" gunfire and a designed speed of 35 knots. Armament was to be nine 11" guns in three turrets. The invasion of the Netherlands in May 1940 prevented them from being built.

BSS_CUDA
05-22-2006, 10:45 AM
well I see that some of our day-care pupils have show up to grace us with their wealth of knowledge http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif ok children time for your afternoon naps

woofiedog
05-22-2006, 10:50 AM
http://www.nhsc.org.uk/images/300/N7953.jpg

Yes the Light Cruiser is atill around.

Caroline class light cruisers
HMS Caroline, Carysfort, Cleopatra, Comus, Conquest, Cordelia Laid down 1913-1914, completed 1914-1915.

HMS Caroline (1914)

HMS Caroline is a C-class light cruiser of the British Royal Navy (RN). She is the second-oldest ship in RN service €" the oldest being HMS Victory €" and acts as a static headquarters and training ship for the Royal Naval Reserve (RNR), based in Alexandra Dock, Belfast, Northern Ireland.

Caroline was built by Cammell Laird of Birkenhead, launched in 1914 and commissioned on 4 December.

She served in the North Sea throughout the First World War. Caroline spent much of the war serving with the 4th Light Cruiser Squadron. As part of the squadron, Caroline fought in the Battle of Jutland in 1916 under the command of Captain H. R. Crooke.

She later served on the East Indies Station before being placed in Reserve and converted to a headquarters and training ship for the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve's (RNVR) Ulster Division in 1924.

Caroline €" the last afloat training establishment in the RNR €" is expected to be decommissioned by 2011. The Royal Navy intends to replace her by an onshore training establishment (commonly known as a stone frigate). When she is decommissioned, Caroline could possibly be moved to Portsmouth as a museum ship.

The ship is the last remaining British WWI light cruiser in service and the last survivor of the Battle of Jutland still afloat.

F19_tintin
05-22-2006, 10:55 AM
remmember the uss indianopolis becom a film
The Good Sailor
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/good_sailor/

JZG_Thiem
05-22-2006, 11:04 AM
mynameisroland, i think you got something wrong - given the fact i understood your post correctly.

The KGV-class never stopped the KM from attacking convoys. At the time when KM stopped surface raiding with warships - and that was just when Bismarck went down- only POW and KGV were finished. POW was still on trials (thats why she performed bad in denmark strait), and we all knew how she fared vs Bismarck. What would you call operation "Rheinuebung" then, if it was NOT an attempt to raid convoys anyway?
You also may want to notice that POW had a similar achilles-heel like Bismarck, the rear quarter. A single torpedo hit took out several boiler rooms, made her take thousands of tons of water, and cut her electrical power down by an extend that refused her to use enough pumps to fight the water. She was basically dead in the water and doomed long before Repulse was hit.

Personally im not that impressed by KGV-class, especially since the excellent (some say "best heavy naval gun ever") british 15" was not used.

As a matter of fact the older british BBs and the lack of heavy 15" guns kept the KM from attacking british convoys. Thats why the "ugly sisters" disengaged several times at the sight of a WWI revenge class or other BB during operation "Berlin".
It was the Bismarck class that was intended to actually FIGHT any british BB escorting a convoy while the CA (Hipper class) or BC (Ugly sister) would take care of the convoy itself. That was precisely the plot for "Rheinuebung".

woofiedog
05-22-2006, 11:06 AM
De Zeven Provincin class cruiser

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNNeth_59-53_m1942_de_Zeven_Provincien_pic.jpg

The De Zeven Provincin class (also called Eendracht class) was a class of light cruisers of the Royal Netherlands Navy; the "De Zeven Provincin" or "The Seven Provinces" name refers to the United Provinces, as the Netherlands were called from 1581 to 1795. There were two ships in the class: HNLMS De Zeven Provincin and HNLMS De Ruyter.

Originally designed in 1939 as a replacement for the aging Java class, both De Zeven Provincin (then named Eendracht) and De Ruyter (then named De Zeven Provincin, as there already was a HNLMS De Ruyter in the Dutch navy at that time) were laid down in 1939, but when Germany invaded on May 10, 1940, both ships were still far from completed. The Kriegsmarine intended to finish the ships for use as training cruisers, but work only advanced very slowly as the dockyards' capacity was used for other purposes.

However, in 1944 the ship that was to become De Ruyter was complete enough to be used as a blockship for the Nieuwe Waterweg. Both ships survived World War II and were commissioned by the Royal Netherlands Navy in 1953.

De Ruyter was decommissioned in 1973, and De Zeven Provincin in 1975. Both ships were sold to the Peruvian Navy, and became Almirante Grau and Aguirre respectively.

Xiolablu3
05-22-2006, 11:21 AM
Interesting discussion, I know nothing about Ships.

I would class myself as 'history channel level', ie not very much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thanks for the information in this thread.

mynameisroland
05-22-2006, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:
mynameisroland, i think you got something wrong - given the fact i understood your post correctly.

The KGV-class never stopped the KM from attacking convoys. At the time when KM stopped surface raiding with warships - and that was just when Bismarck went down- only POW and KGV were finished. POW was still on trials (thats why she performed bad in denmark strait), and we all knew how she fared vs Bismarck. What would you call operation "Rheinuebung" then, if it was NOT an attempt to raid convoys anyway?
You also may want to notice that POW had a similar achilles-heel like Bismarck, the rear quarter. A single torpedo hit took out several boiler rooms, made her take thousands of tons of water, and cut her electrical power down by an extend that refused her to use enough pumps to fight the water. She was basically dead in the water and doomed long before Repulse was hit.

Personally im not that impressed by KGV-class, especially since the excellent (some say "best heavy naval gun ever") british 15" was not used.

As a matter of fact the older british BBs and the lack of heavy 15" guns kept the KM from attacking british convoys. Thats why the "ugly sisters" disengaged several times at the sight of a WWI revenge class or other BB during operation "Berlin".
It was the Bismarck class that was intended to actually FIGHT any british BB escorting a convoy while the CA (Hipper class) or BC (Ugly sister) would take care of the convoy itself. That was precisely the plot for "Rheinuebung".

The Germans certainly did attempt to attack convoys but the simple fact that the RN was constructing/had in service 5 modern battle ships made their excursions somewhat more urgent. Had they waited until they had the Tirpitz and the Bismarck together with the Scharnorst and Gneisenau the RN would have 3 or 4 KGVs along with HMS Hood , Renown and Repulse to counter them with.

If the old WW1 vintage Battleships were enough why do you think that the Royal Navy or the USN developed later superior ships ?

As for protecting convoys with R - class ships thsi meant maintaining and manning 15 plus Battle ships when a force of 4 or 5 fast ships would act as sufficient deterant to stop the Germans from trying another raid in the first place.

Your criticism of the KGV class is down to one instance where it was overwhelmed by Japanese torpedo bombers with no air cover. Put the Iowa in that exact same scenario and it would have been sunk to.

If you seriously consider the KGV class to be poorer than their contemporaries please post something that supports your views. So far I see no argument or understanting of the class of ships or the subject in general.

If the Royal Navy did not have the KGV or the POW in service who would have ran the Bismarck down and sunk it in the first place ? Every other capital ship was too fragile or too slow.

"we all knew how she fared vs Bismarck."

Yes we do, the POW inflicted a decisive hit on her bow causing her to cut short her mission due to the isolation of her forward Oil tank. It also caused a reduction in sailing speed and a reduced responsiveness to rudder inputs. Which in turn led to the Bismarck being found by a catalina and then being damaged again by swordfish before finally being sunk by ... wait for it.... another KGV and the Rodney.

The damage the POW sustained in this action along side the action where it was sunk in the Pacific as part of Force Z were a result of circumstance rather than design flaws. The damage sustained by torpedo hits were not fatal alone what was fatal was the commanding officer in charge of Damage control failed to see the severity of the situation and take appropriate action resulting in the loss of electrical power. This meant no lighting / pumps or voice comms. Try and save any ship under those circumstances and you will not get very far.

1.JaVA_Hornet
05-22-2006, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by woofiedog:
http://www.nhsc.org.uk/images/300/N7953.jpg

Yes the Light Cruiser is atill around.

Caroline class light cruisers
HMS Caroline, Carysfort, Cleopatra, Comus, Conquest, Cordelia Laid down 1913-1914, completed 1914-1915.

HMS Caroline (1914)

HMS Caroline is a C-class light cruiser of the British Royal Navy (RN). She is the second-oldest ship in RN service €" the oldest being HMS Victory €" and acts as a static headquarters and training ship for the Royal Naval Reserve (RNR), based in Alexandra Dock, Belfast, Northern Ireland.

Caroline was built by Cammell Laird of Birkenhead, launched in 1914 and commissioned on 4 December.

She served in the North Sea throughout the First World War. Caroline spent much of the war serving with the 4th Light Cruiser Squadron. As part of the squadron, Caroline fought in the Battle of Jutland in 1916 under the command of Captain H. R. Crooke.

She later served on the East Indies Station before being placed in Reserve and converted to a headquarters and training ship for the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve's (RNVR) Ulster Division in 1924.

Caroline €" the last afloat training establishment in the RNR €" is expected to be decommissioned by 2011. The Royal Navy intends to replace her by an onshore training establishment (commonly known as a stone frigate). When she is decommissioned, Caroline could possibly be moved to Portsmouth as a museum ship.

The ship is the last remaining British WWI light cruiser in service and the last survivor of the Battle of Jutland still afloat.

Woofiedog i am so grateful that you have
uploaded these great photo`s!!

Since 2 months i am investigating the history
of my grandpa. He died on 27th june 1940 at
Den Helder by a british bombardment.

I have downloaded your photo`s and will put
them into my album.

Here are my messages onto the dutchmarineforum.
I think you are dutch otherwise enjoy the photo`s.

http://www.dutchfleet.net/viewtopic.php?t=4484

http://www.dutchfleet.net/viewtopic.php?t=4476

JtD
05-22-2006, 12:14 PM
The PoW suffered one critical torpedo hit. Due to shortcomings in design this lead to the extensive flooding which sealed her fate. All the later torpedos together did not do as much damage as this first hit.

1.JaVA_Hornet
05-22-2006, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by woofiedog:
De Zeven Provincin class cruiser

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNNeth_59-53_m1942_de_Zeven_Provincien_pic.jpg

The De Zeven Provincin class (also called Eendracht class) was a class of light cruisers of the Royal Netherlands Navy; the "De Zeven Provincin" or "The Seven Provinces" name refers to the United Provinces, as the Netherlands were called from 1581 to 1795. There were two ships in the class: HNLMS De Zeven Provincin and HNLMS De Ruyter.

Originally designed in 1939 as a replacement for the aging Java class, both De Zeven Provincin (then named Eendracht) and De Ruyter (then named De Zeven Provincin, as there already was a HNLMS De Ruyter in the Dutch navy at that time) were laid down in 1939, but when Germany invaded on May 10, 1940, both ships were still far from completed. The Kriegsmarine intended to finish the ships for use as training cruisers, but work only advanced very slowly as the dockyards' capacity was used for other purposes.

However, in 1944 the ship that was to become De Ruyter was complete enough to be used as a blockship for the Nieuwe Waterweg. Both ships survived World War II and were commissioned by the Royal Netherlands Navy in 1953.

De Ruyter was decommissioned in 1973, and De Zeven Provincin in 1975. Both ships were sold to the Peruvian Navy, and became Almirante Grau and Aguirre respectively.

Nothing to add, you have said it correctly!

mynameisroland
05-22-2006, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
The PoW suffered one critical torpedo hit. Due to shortcomings in design this lead to the extensive flooding which sealed her fate. All the later torpedos together did not do as much damage as this first hit.

The bulkheads that ruptured were modified in subsequent ships, yet I guarantee you that any other 'Treaty' 35,000 ton ship that was hit in the same place in the same attack would have gone under too. Had the British let the KGV class design slip a little they too could have come out at 50,000 tons gross and would perhaps have been better ships.

Part of the problem with the KGVs was they adhered to the Washington treaty while other countries opted to just 'grow' their designs. Displacement buys you beam and beam buys torpedo defence arrangements. The KGV class was tested to withstand larger lb warheads than those that actually hit the POW yet the freakish nature of the hit and the subsequent poor decision making caused the loss of the ship.

hop2002
05-22-2006, 12:20 PM
You also may want to notice that POW had a similar achilles-heel like Bismarck, the rear quarter. A single torpedo hit took out several boiler rooms, made her take thousands of tons of water, and cut her electrical power down by an extend that refused her to use enough pumps to fight the water. She was basically dead in the water and doomed long before Repulse was hit.

What happened to the PoW was a real fluke hit, the torpedo hit either the prop shaft or the skeg holding it. The damage to the hull was caused by the unsuported shaft whipping as it spun.

mynameisroland
05-22-2006, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You also may want to notice that POW had a similar achilles-heel like Bismarck, the rear quarter. A single torpedo hit took out several boiler rooms, made her take thousands of tons of water, and cut her electrical power down by an extend that refused her to use enough pumps to fight the water. She was basically dead in the water and doomed long before Repulse was hit.

What happened to the PoW was a real fluke hit, the torpedo hit either the prop shaft or the skeg holding it. The damage to the hull was caused by the unsuported shaft whipping as it spun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

this would never have occurred on any other ship therefore I deduce the KGV class suck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Its fashionable to knock these ships yet they were amongst the best designs to come out of the Washington Treaty and were capable of fighting and beating much heavier ships.

JZG_Thiem
05-22-2006, 12:46 PM
The Germans certainly did attempt to attack convoys but the simple fact that the RN was constructing/had in service 5 modern battle ships made their excursions somewhat more urgent. Had they waited until they had the Tirpitz and the Bismarck together with the Scharnorst and Gneisenau the RN would have 3 or 4 KGVs along with HMS Hood , Renown and Repulse to counter them with.

well, as a matter of fact the captain of the Tirpitz offered to participate in "Rheinuebung" but was rejected, because she was still doing trials (final stage tho).
So i think your assupmtion is wrong, if u say that 5 KGVs would have been ready until 2 Bismarcks were too. Just look at the completion dates of later KGVs (means finish of trials):

Duke: Nov 41
Howe: August 42
Anson: June 42
by that date Tirpitz was already in service.

Again: it was not the KGV class that "urged germans to attack convoys before KGV is rdy"
it was the fact that until Bismarck and Tirpitz arrive, no german capital ship could risk fighting them, since they could not risk to get considerably damaged.

HMS HOOD, renown and Repulse: Well, Hood was a bit outdated and had real bad luck, the two BCs, certainly were nothing the KM was afraid of with Bismarck. Repulse and Renown were hardly able to take 8" shells.


As for protecting convoys with R - class ships thsi meant maintaining and manning 15 plus Battle ships when a force of 4 or 5 fast ships would act as sufficient deterant to stop the Germans from trying another raid in the first place.

I think you didnt understand the strategic aspects of war at sea: 4-5 fast BBs roaming the sheer endless Atlantic are....useless (or escorting <= 5 convoys). Just look at the efforts in 1939 to hunt subs with carriers (hint: courageous).
15 slow old BBs running close escort with convoys, deterring faster but less armored BCs are ....useful


Your criticism of the KGV class is down to one instance where it was overwhelmed by Japanese torpedo bombers with no air cover. Put the Iowa in that exact same scenario and it would have been sunk to.

well, thats why BBs were outdated anyway in 1941 , right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I never meant to criticize the KGV in general, just wanted to point out thety had a weak spot as well- were talking about ONE single fatal aerial torpedo, it wasnt even a "long lance".
Details about that (single) torp-hit:
POW takes 2400ts water in 4 mins, more compartments flooding even.
one propeller-shaft and half of the propulsion is lost (boiler- and engine-rooms).
3/7 of internal (electrical) power supply lost. As a matter of fact the complete rear section was without electric power. Messages from the bridge had to be transmitted as written letters to the rear section. POW lists by 11 degrees.
Loss of electric power also disables most of the pumps. due to 11 degree list NONE of the 8 x 5,25" turrents could be operated, they were dead. Ventilation in boiler-rooms and engine-rooms also suffered. Temperatures in excess of 150?F (66?C) had to be suffered by crew.
Rudder: was not damaged, but since it was electrical driven....inoperable
POW was not sunk, wasnt unable to defend herself (pompoms were operable and later some 5,25 as well, by hand), but she was crippled.
...and all that from a single aerial torpedo.


If you seriously consider the KGV class to be poorer than their contemporaries please post something that supports your views. So far I see no argument or understanting of the class of ships or the subject in general.


One last point, if the Royal Navy did not have the KGV or the POW in service who would have ran the Bismarck down and sunk it in the first place ?

KGV AND rodney were not able to sink Bismarck, she was scuttled (tho it makes no big difference, she was "dead" anyway).

i never said they were poorer than contemporaries. I just said that they could have been better, while you were stating they were BETTER than contemporaries, which i doubt.

Anyway, i seem to have hit a nerv with my reply, i never intended to attack POW and your affection to it. Actually her scale model rests up a shelf here, right next to Bismarck and Scharnhorst and Iowa.

JZG_Thiem
05-22-2006, 01:01 PM
this would never have occurred on any other ship therefore I deduce the KGV class suck Roll Eyes Its fashionable to knock these ships yet they were amongst the best designs to come out of the Washington Treaty and were capable of fighting and beating much heavier ships.

read it from my lips: I never said they "suck".
They WERE actually nice "Wasington ships".
Which "much heavier ships" did they sink?
Bismarck? -> POW had to run (okok, trials, i dont blame her),
KGV -> with support of half the home fleet and force H, she shot the B. to pieces, but didnt sink her. Afaik admiral Tovey suggested to "throw his binoculars at B. if it would help to sink her".
Duke -> she sank the -alread torpedoed and outnumbered Scharnhorst, which was by no means "much heavier", she was a BC actually.

zeno303
05-22-2006, 01:46 PM
Re Bismarck --

Naah, the Bismarck wasn't the "best." She sank the Hood, but the Hood was still living under the curse of the WWI battle cruisers -- speed and guns at the expense of armor & protection. A very lucky hit -- some say from the Prinz Eugen. And the Primce of Wales wasn't even fisnished & had a raw crew wghen she got mauled. For my money, the Nelson or Rodney would have given the Bismarck a better run for her money than the Hood, Yes, they were a few knots slower, but they were much better protected than the Hood, presented a narrow profile steaming into action, and threw a 16" shell.

Much of Bismarck's reputation rests on her so called "unsinkability." That may have been true of her hull, but her turrets and superstructure we'ren't particularly tough and her protection scheme was base on the World War I Baden class, so she ended up as an unsinkable cheese raft with no guns working. Speaking of which, she and other German capital ships suffered from the old fashioned splitting of secondary guns into medium artillery and heavy AAA, instead of combining them the way the Brits and the US did in DP guns. Much more efficient use of weight.

IMO, the Yamato would have cleaned the Bismark's clock before it ever got in range. The Bismarck was disabled by one out of 3 torpedo hits. Yamato & Musahi took a couple of Air Groups worth of direct bomb & torpedo hits to slow them down. And those 18" guns -- whew.

The Iowa's & South Dakota's wouldn't havehad much trouble with Bismarcks eitjher. More modern protection, their radar was as good as the Germans and their computer guided fire control was better than anything the Germans had The Iowa's super heavy, 2700 lb 16" shels would have ripped up the Tirpitz et al. (They only threw a 1700 lb shell).

OTH, I really enjoy the old "Sink the Bismacrk" flick. Great surround sound!

OldMan____
05-22-2006, 01:47 PM
Keep in mind that UK had to spred its fleet in 3 oceans. They never had all BB avalaible to guard north Sea. The hunt to bismarck moblized everything they had avalibale. Otherwise they would never use a untrained ship like PoW.

If Bismack raid was successfull, 2 germans BB would be enough to be a BIG thread to UK. Mainly ebcause they would need to have at least 2 BB in each search group. So diminishing largely the amoutn of search groups to coutenr such raids.


Remeber germans never intended to face RN directly.

woofiedog
05-22-2006, 01:49 PM
1.JaVA_Hornet... Guess, I just like History. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Dutch... Nope... But 2nd Gen. Irish & Swedish on my Father's side... and 11th gen. English & Scotish on my mother's side.

My mother and family belong to the Pilgrims Society and the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Thank's

OldMan____
05-22-2006, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by zeno303:
Re Bismarck --

Naah, the Bismark wasn't the "best." She sank the Hood, but the Hood was still living under the curse of the WWI battle cruisers -- speed and guns at the expense of armor & protection. A very lucky hit -- some say from the Prinz Eugen. And the Primce of Wales wasn't even fisnished & had a raw crew wghen she got mauled. For my money, the Nelson or Rodney would have given the Bismarck a better run for her money than the Hood, Yes, they were a few knots slower, but they were much better protected than the Hood, presented a narrow profile steaming into action, and threw a 16" shell.

Much of Bismarck's reputation rests on her so called "unsinkability." That may have been true of her hull, but her turrets and superstructure we'ren't particularly tough and her protection scheme was base on the World War I Baden class, so she ended up as an unsinkable cheese raft with no guns working. Speaking of which, she and other German capital ships suffered from the old fashioned splitting of secondary guns into medium artillery and heavy AAA, instead of combining them the way the Brits and the US did in DP guns. Much more efficient use of weight.

IMO, the Yamato would have cleaned the Bismark's clock before it ever got in range. The Bismarck was disabled by one out of 3 torpedo hits. Yamato & Musahi took a couple of Air Groups worth of direct bomb & torpedo hits to slow them down. And those 18" guns -- whew.

The Iowa's & South Dakota's wouldn't havehad much trouble with Bismarcks eitjher. More modern protection, their radar was as good as the Germans and their computer guided fire control was better than anything the Germans had The Iowa's super heavy, 2700 lb 16" shels would have ripped up the Tirpitz et al. (They only threw a 1700 lb shell).

OTH, I really enjoy the old "Sink the Bismacrk" flick. Great surround sound!

Not it would not. Just look at good information sources lke nathan Okun site, using data from penetration formulaeused by all navies in 40´s. Bismarck main armor could withstand a direct hit from yamato guns at poitn blank shot!!! Iwoa guns would not sunk it either. Nelson class guns are also 16´ and they didn´t sunk it. Low trajectory shots were completely unable to sink it. Bismack was vulnerable only at deck armor. But its whole idea was to get close fast and deny such type of attack.


About the usikable but unable to fight. The only relevant damage was the rudder one. Without it even after gettin punded by BB from RN it would get closer to france and into LW and U boat protection so it could be repaired. It was a completely valid viewpoint. But bismack was incredbly unlucky with that topedoe hit that lock its rudder.

JtD
05-22-2006, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

The bulkheads that ruptured were modified in subsequent ships, yet I guarantee you that any other 'Treaty' 35,000 ton ship that was hit in the same place in the same attack would have gone under too.

Not the modified KGV's.

zeno303
05-22-2006, 02:18 PM
If you read my post, you will see that I conceded that Bismarck had a very tough armored raft.I suspect that had more to do with the advanced steel used than the design. That does not make her the Best.

Ironically, the reason Bismarck was subjected to low trajectory hits is because all her guns were already disabled at longer range and the British were now firing point blank.It took much less to diable and sink her than either the Musashi or the Yamato.

As far as closing the range quickly to get low trajectory hits. That idea died at Tsushima

OldMan____
05-22-2006, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by zeno303:
If you read my post, you will see that I conceded that Bismarck had a very tough armored raft.I suspect that had more to do with the advanced steel used than the design. That does not make her the Best.

Ironically, the reason Bismarck was subjected to low trajectory hits is because all her guns were already disabled at longer range and the British were now firing point blank.It took much less to diable and sink her than either the Musashi or the Yamato.

To disable yes.. to sink... they would never sink it at that angle. Just study bismack armor layout. Armor was built so that this type of shot would pass by a first armor and chage direction (bullets crossing a plate change direction to match plate normal) and make them hit an angled defense that would deflect projectiles quite bigger than anything available at that time.


Since at that time no one knew that... It was not unlikely that any engagements with bismarck would become apoint blank fight (since probably RN would be seeking fight and would welcome a poitn blank fight). So Bismack would be a pretty good mach for a KGV ship, in fact I dare to say in advatage. It already proved in previous battle that it could damage one. If the threat was a Nelson ship... just don ´t engage.. go away.

My main tought is, bismack should never had gone to sea without Tirptz. With both combined. You must agree that RN youd be forced to send more powerfull battle groups (2 BB would be dangerous since a 50% chance battle is not a good bet). And that would increase a lot the chances of evasion by the german group.

Bismack never needed to be able to line fight RN. Just be powerfull enough so that no BB alone, could engage it with large chance of success.

It was not a perfect ship, but it was pretty good for the use it was intended. Although a better Turret (or even better, Rudder)protection would be great.

Also you must keep in mind that during the whole night while awaiting fro KGV and Rodney bismack was kept under constat pressure from RN smaller ships. That compeltely broke off their condition to fight back wehen the BB arrived. So its not strange that Bismack did not damage on its final engagement.

JtD
05-22-2006, 02:31 PM
Tirpitz survived as many bomb hits as the Japanese ships. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

JtD
05-22-2006, 02:34 PM
WRT to final fight of Bismarck, I think you are underestimating the effects of erratic ship movement, caused by the damaged rudder, on fire control. How on earth do you want to correct your fire by 0.1 degress if the ships course randomly varies by 2 degrees between each salvo?

OldMan____
05-22-2006, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
WRT to final fight of Bismarck, I think you are underestimating the effects of erratic ship movement, caused by the damaged rudder, on fire control. How on earth do you want to correct your fire by 0.1 degress if the ships course randomly varies by 2 degrees between each salvo?

Just standing still. As far as I know in taht situation would be the best to do. And try to slow down RN ships while U boats come to help. You muast agree that a pair of U boats there would have caused havoc. In fact RN excuse for leting so many Bismack survivors at sea was that U boat presene was feared. ( I say excuse vecause there is no proof)

Kurfurst__
05-22-2006, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by zeno303:

Much of Bismarck's reputation rests on her so called "unsinkability." That may have been true of her hull, but her turrets and superstructure we'ren't particularly tough and her protection scheme was base on the World War I Baden class, so she ended up as an unsinkable cheese raft with no guns working. Speaking of which, she and other German capital ships suffered from the old fashioned splitting of secondary guns into medium artillery and heavy AAA, instead of combining them the way the Brits and the US did in DP guns. Much more efficient use of weight.

Grand, so Bismarck was badly designed because... she doesn't follow the layout and design of a USN or RN ship. Brilliant logic. Though I guess you missed the point. Old-fashinoed or not, the Germans still had a powerful AAA battery that worked well, and secondary medium arty on their ships, especially as the AAG could fire in both roles - that 28 heavy guns. 'her turrets and superstructure we'ren't particularly tough', true, neither was the other BBs, none of them was designed to fight impossible scenerios like Bismarck had to fight in her last battle.

The claim that it's an offspring of Baden is simply silly. Her protection scheme was about multiple layers of armor localizing the damage, eventually stopping it, and if not, a generous hull providing survivability. It was an uncompromised design. The so-called superior All or Nothing designs, that dispensed completely with the protection of the upper hull, and comprimised the protection of the belt by placing the main armored deck on the top of the belt, all because they HAD to save weight by whatever means to fullfill the Treaty. The Germans simply didn't need to bother, they could make whatever big hull they saw fitting for the BB they wanted, and put as much armor onto whatever places they want to protect. And ever since Tirpitz laid out the lines for capital shis, they wanted tough and survivable ships. Tirpitz's doctrine was that a ship may loose a battle, but if it can get back to port damaged, the navy won't loose the crew or the ship and it will fight another day. It perfect sense in Germany's strategical position and the likely places of engagements.

The Germans wanted themselves a powerful, well armed, tactically flexible and above all, TOUGH battleship, conceived for a Jutland-type battles against the FRENCH, and they got it. They got a well armed, fast, modern battleship that proved to be extremely survivable and tough, and had great combat potentional. Sorry but I don't think they cared if their ship was a good design or not by Anglo-Saxon warship-building concepts or suitable for their needs.



IMO, the Yamato would have cleaned the Bismark's clock before it ever got in range. The Bismarck was disabled by one out of 3 torpedo hits. Yamato & Musahi took a couple of Air Groups worth of direct bomb & torpedo hits to slow them down. And those 18" guns -- whew.

Yamato was in a class on her own. Otherwise, your facts stink.



The Iowa's & South Dakota's wouldn't havehad much trouble with Bismarcks eitjher. More modern protection, their radar was as good as the Germans and their computer guided fire control was better than anything the Germans had The Iowa's super heavy, 2700 lb 16" shels would have ripped up the Tirpitz et al. (They only threw a 1700 lb shell).!

massive loads of optimism for my ship vs. his ship... CHECK!
'was better than anything the Germans had'-phrase...CHECK!
'da super-heavy shell' myth.... CHECK!



Originally posted by mynameisroland

If you seriously consider the KGV class to be poorer than their contemporaries please post something that supports your views. So far I see no argument or understanting of the class of ships or the subject in general.

How about :

Poor range

Armor lazout
- single layer of rather thick armor, which is unfortunately not thick enough to stop the likely enemy shells at reasonable battle ranges,
- poorly armored turrets (though the top was quite reasonable).
- very thinly armored conning tower, ask PoW's staff about that.

Small caliber main guns, nd unreliable mountings
25% of PoW's, 50% of KGV's, 75% of DoY's guns worked on avarage in their respective action, seriously compromising the ship's firepower. Effectively a ship with five 14" guns... out of which the two-gun turret was reliable, so if it was knocked out, the ship could be without any firepower at all.

poor AA suit with 5
-5.25s w very limited rate of fire due to simply being too much to manhandle such a big shell in cramped turret.
-add to the joy, the guns could only elevate to 70 degrees...
-Pom-Poms.

I'll not kick it for the parts where it was just not so impressive but avarage, like, speed. Overall it was a mediocre design in most of it's capabilities, with some design areas mentioned above were sub-par or outright silly. IMO the WW1-era 15" gunned British BBs were far more impressive for their time.

zeno303
05-22-2006, 03:29 PM
If you examine sinking or disabling of capital ships by ship to ship gunfire in both World Wars (eg, Jutland, the Bismarck, Guadelcanal, Surigo etc) I think you'll find that decisive hits delivered at the armored belt are extremely rare. Disabling dammage was almost always sustained through the deck, turrets or superstructure. This was even true at night off Savo Island where battleships blazed away at close range.

Kurfurst__
05-22-2006, 03:47 PM
True, but let me question it. Weren't disabling hits occuring on other places of the hull because in the mentioned examples, most of the ships had WW1 style belts w. turtle deck behind like Bismarck, which proved to be difficult to defeat? OIW, reversing the thesis, if you can't defeat the belt, you can't disable the ships through it. And, of course disarming/disabling hits did not occur through the belt - and amidship hit on the belt would find hard to render the turrets inoperable.

One must remember that the belt is protecting the single most important vitals of the ship : bouyancy, machinery and magazines. Loss of any of these means the loss of the entire ship, usually with all hands.

Basically it comes down to the AoN is superior because it weakly protects the belt and usually placed strong protection on the deck armor against long range hits. The poor part of the argument is that WW2 naval engagements occured at much shorter ranges than expected, where single layer vertical armor could be penetrated, and at ranges all new ships were equally well protected against plunging fire. IOW, AoN was an answer to a question never asked in WW2 - the shared 'longest hit by naval gun' by Scharhorst/Warspite at 26 000 yards was a rare exception that occured twice.

JZG_Thiem
05-22-2006, 04:13 PM
Yamato: of course a class on its own, not limited by the 35000ts threshold (like Bismarck). We have to take into consideration that those ships didnt suffer from the struggle the allies had, to stick to 35000, so its a bit "unfair" to compare em with each other.
The 18" shells were "OMG" of course, but its maybe worth considering if the low ROF would have impared any engagement, cuz first u have to straddle a target before you try to get hits. So high ROF is maybe more advisable .
Funny sidenote about Yamato: afaik, allied intelligence was irritated about this new BB that was just laid down. They asked the Jap government then if they intend to arm it with 16" even (since it was the biggest arty they could imagine and Japan refused to renew Washington treaty). Japs answered "no", which was kinda correct http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

About penetration of Bismarcks man belt: i have same info that it wasnt penetrated even by Rodney. However it was -320mm- on the LOWER end of thicknesses of contemporary BBs (not considering layout here). So i assume they wouldnt have suffered any penetration as well!? (think Kirishimas 14" couldnt penetrate South Dakotas belt as well, and that WAS "point blank" for sure).

zeno303
05-22-2006, 04:26 PM
If memory serves, Krupp had developed a new steel (W something) that substially increased the effectivemess of the armor plates.

Maj_Solo
05-22-2006, 04:28 PM
Well, you how know so much, how many times in history, has before a duel experts said this or that ship is better, and when the actual duel occurs people goes "oops" and stand there gawking at the result. So how right are we here to talk about hypothetical duels, Iowa class did not shame itself IMHO.

JZG_Thiem
05-22-2006, 04:36 PM
Blohm & Voss today STILL has a steel-plate, that was used to fit the belt of Bismarck. So once the USN re-activates the New Jersey again and pays a visit, we should put that plate up in front of the 16"s to sort that out once and for all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

zeno303
05-22-2006, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
True, but let me question it. Weren't disabling hits occuring on other places of the hull because in the mentioned examples
twice.

My point is that "unsinkability" is only one factor in "best." If a lot of ships were on record for being sunk by gunfire at point blank range, Bismarcks record might mean more. Yet it's still touted as a huge achievement.

Yes, it took a long time to sink her, but she was a floating coffin at that point. Better to not get into a position where your rudder is stuck with the Home Fleet bearing down on your tail.

You can say a lucky torpedo got her, but Hood was singularly unlucky too.

Sergio_101
05-22-2006, 05:14 PM
You can say a lucky torpedo got her, but Hood was singularly unlucky too.[/QUOTE]

Yup. And this is the logic that most of you
have missed. If the WWII Battlewagons had dueled
on a grand scale, the lucky hit would have
likely determined the outcome.

In a slug fest non of them, not Bizmark, Not the Iowa
were armoured agequately to stop major damage
from a 2,500lb projectile moving at mach2.
I suggest a US 16" AP round could punch clear through
most, if not any battleship.
Same for the Japanese 18" AP.

In a slug fest size should matter.
16 or 18 inch guns should result in the greater
chance of the "lucky hit".

I don't pretend to be a naval expert. But the
Yamato and Iowa were clearly more than a match
for the Bizmark.

I saw a post earlier in this slugfest suggesting
that the US navy avoided contact with the two
Japanese super battleships.

I seriously doubt any battleship commander
would miss a chance for glory in a battle ship
slugfest.

In a day engagement the Yamato would be a tough
fight.
At night with the Iowa's superior RADAR it would
have been a turkey shoot.

http://www.geocities.com/fort_tilden/damage.jpg

This is a piece of Yamato class face plate, 26" thick
shot by a US 16" 2,700lb AP round at 30,000 yards!
Muzzle velocity was 2650fps.
I figure there is nothing that floats can stop
the large calibre AP rounds.

Sergio

OldMan____
05-22-2006, 07:22 PM
If you look at jutland battle you will see there are quite some good exampels of shipd being obliterated by a shot penetrating its armor, and not being disabled.

Not be sunkable is a very imporatant issue when you are fated to have numerical inferiority.

For germany that was far more important than for RN or USN. But since it never intended to go fight in other side of world... being disabled was not as big deal as it would be to RN or USN.


Bismarck was not the thoughest ship in overall. Yamato and Iwoa were quite tougher to get out of a fight. But it was the toughest one to sink or at least close to Yamato on that regard.

At the end. Bismack was not the ultra MTF ship soem want to beleive neither was a piece of **** like some other want to beleive. It was an excelent ship for its purpose.

Imagine that.. do you think would be smart to send a BB into norway fiords to hunt Tirptz? In a condition of 100% sure close combat (Iwoa and KGV out), where maneuverability is critical ( ok.. Nelson out of this one too) where disabling it would mean very little since was close to bases?

A captain of RN bringing its ship onto this condition was for sure getting into a serious trouble.

So there are scenarios and scenarios...

OldMan____
05-22-2006, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
You can say a lucky torpedo got her, but Hood was singularly unlucky too.

Yup. And this is the logic that most of you
have missed. If the WWII Battlewagons had dueled
on a grand scale, the lucky hit would have
likely determined the outcome.

In a slug fest non of them, not Bizmark, Not the Iowa
were armoured agequately to stop major damage
from a 2,500lb projectile moving at mach2.
I suggest a US 16" AP round could punch clear through
most, if not any battleship.
Same for the Japanese 18" AP.

In a slug fest size should matter.
16 or 18 inch guns should result in the greater
chance of the "lucky hit".

I don't pretend to be a naval expert. But the
Yamato and Iowa were clearly more than a match
for the Bizmark.

I saw a post earlier in this slugfest suggesting
that the US navy avoided contact with the two
Japanese super battleships.

I seriously doubt any battleship commander
would miss a chance for glory in a battle ship
slugfest.

In a day engagement the Yamato would be a tough
fight.
At night with the Iowa's superior RADAR it would
have been a turkey shoot.

http://www.geocities.com/fort_tilden/damage.jpg

This is a piece of Yamato class face plate, 26" thick
shot by a US 16" 2,700lb AP round at 30,000 yards!
Muzzle velocity was 2650fps.
I figure there is nothing that floats can stop
the large calibre AP rounds.

Sergio[/QUOTE]

Bismack armor was IMUNE to even Yamato guns at low angle shots! No sea weapon ever built was able to penetrate the dual layer angled armor scheme at close range. It was jut not a brute force tatic. It used a first layer to put projectile in optimum deflection trajectory for second layer.

At correct degree angle an armor plate will ahve its efficiency increased by almost an order of magnitude! The rpice is that Birmack armor scheme compromissed quite some space for flutuation reserve and was not effective against attacks from above.

klower
05-22-2006, 09:45 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...
the Germans still had a powerful AAA battery that worked well,
...

I don't think you can say Bismarcks AAA battery worked well, she was attacked by swordfish 3 times and shot down none.

Nimits
05-22-2006, 10:59 PM
The Bismark may have been the best all around battleship when she was commisioned in 1940, but she was not the best in any one category. The British Rodney and IJN Nagato had better armor and firepower and would probably have shredded the Bismark in short order if she had been foolish enough to slow up and stand toe to toe with them, and the IJN Kirshima and the RN Hood were faster (okay, the last one was rated as a Battlecruiser, but the British did tend to use her as a normal battleship).

The slightly later built South Dakota was arguably marginally better than the Bismark, but in the case of of Iowa and Yamato classes, there would have been no contest. Not to say that a lucky hit or extremely well-handled ship could not turn the tide, but techically speaking, the Bismark and Tirpitz were a league behind the 1942-1943 battleships. The only real question is who would have won in an Iowa vs Yamato show down (and I tend to favor the Iowa, simply due to her much superior fire control; she probably could have landed about 2 hits for every one of the Yamato's).

Vigilanty
05-22-2006, 11:10 PM
But, dude..... there is *NO WAY* an Imperial class Star Destroyer could take out the Enterprise ... and those photon torpedos would cut *right through* the weak dorsal armor of the Imp ..... Oh, you are *SO WRONG* dude.....


Jeez.

JtD
05-22-2006, 11:33 PM
Just a small reminder:

Bismarck class laid down in 1936, 42000ts
KGV class laid down in 1937, 38000ts
North Carolina class laid down in 1937 & 1938, 40000ts
Yamato class laid down in 1937 & 1938, 65000ts
South Dakota class laid down in 1939 & 1940, 40000ts
Iowa class laid down in 1940 & 1941, 48000ts

I don't quite see a point in a comparism between ships that are several years and thousands of tons apart.

You wouldn't seriously compare a P-40 with a Spit XIV, would you?

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-23-2006, 12:34 AM
Great pictures & tales guys! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I think the american BB designers were forced to limit the size of their BBs because some of the major manufacturers are based in the US east coast right?(they nead to squeze their long and hard stick thru the opening...of panama canal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) -->like the IOWA class manufacturer.
maybe the US goverment decided to build the BB factories at the east coast becoz of the european theater.

can anyone pls list the US BBships during WWII that were created at the US west coast?

If it wasnt for the narrow Panama canal,The USN would have buit the largest BBs ever created http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Iowa class is one heck of a BB http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

stathem
05-23-2006, 12:37 AM
Same ****, different mode of transport.

Badsight.
05-23-2006, 01:13 AM
could you imagine a sweeter AA target than this POS ?

but the canvas wonder attacked right at the Mighty Bismark without a single casualty

3 TIMES !

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/815/zoernigswordfish600pxl1zu.jpg

WTF!

try this in FB - its a Slaughter!

i wonder if you could have gotten those guys to try FB before they went out & then get them to have gone on that attack anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-23-2006, 01:15 AM
Thats Ironic Isnt it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

RAF boys are "Fearless" !

WOLFMondo
05-23-2006, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

I'll not kick it for the parts where it was just not so impressive but avarage, like, speed. Overall it was a mediocre design in most of it's capabilities, with some design areas mentioned above were sub-par or outright silly. IMO the WW1-era 15" gunned British BBs were far more impressive for their time.

THe reason for this? The British had an ounce of decency unlike everyone else and actually honoured a treaty they signed.

I'd say the KVG's were impressive for 35,000 tons. And its not like the AA defences were not uprated and the range was so short they didn't operate in the Pacific.

JtD
05-23-2006, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

THe reason for this? The British had an ounce of decency unlike everyone else and actually honoured a treaty they signed.

This is simply not true.

Japan did not sign any treaties and thus did not violate them.
The US would built the South Dakotas with less than 45000ts when this was the valid limit.
Germany would built the Scharnhorst, which was below 35000ts.
France would built the Dunkerque, which also was below 35000.
The UK matched treaty specifications with the Rodney.

The Bismarck, Vittorio Veneto, Richelieu, KGV, North Carolina all did exceed the 35000ts, which was the limit when they were laid down. However, at the time these ships were comissioned, the limit already was 45000ts.

This leaves the Iowas, which were finished during the war but were oversized for the 45000ts limit valid when they were laid down.

joeap
05-23-2006, 03:42 AM
Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
Thats Ironic Isnt it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

RAF boys are "Fearless" !

No they were Royal Navy FAA boys. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Not that RAF pilots were not fearless.

mynameisroland
05-23-2006, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland

If you seriously consider the KGV class to be poorer than their contemporaries please post something that supports your views. So far I see no argument or understanting of the class of ships or the subject in general.

How about :

Poor range

Armor lazout
- single layer of rather thick armor, which is unfortunately not thick enough to stop the likely enemy shells at reasonable battle ranges,
- poorly armored turrets (though the top was quite reasonable).
- very thinly armored conning tower, ask PoW's staff about that.

Small caliber main guns, nd unreliable mountings
25% of PoW's, 50% of KGV's, 75% of DoY's guns worked on avarage in their respective action, seriously compromising the ship's firepower. Effectively a ship with five 14" guns... out of which the two-gun turret was reliable, so if it was knocked out, the ship could be without any firepower at all.

poor AA suit with 5
-5.25s w very limited rate of fire due to simply being too much to manhandle such a big shell in cramped turret.
-add to the joy, the guns could only elevate to 70 degrees...
-Pom-Poms.

I'll not kick it for the parts where it was just not so impressive but avarage, like, speed. Overall it was a mediocre design in most of it's capabilities, with some design areas mentioned above were sub-par or outright silly. IMO the WW1-era 15" gunned British BBs were far more impressive for their time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You argue that the Bismarcks armour scheme was not obsolete yet every other nation building modern battleships chose to move on to AoN. The Bismarck was a poor use of 50000tons worth of Battleship potential. What do you end up with ? A ship with thinner main armour and deck armour and EIGHT rifles of 15 inch. In a stand up fight a Queen Elizabeth class stood a very good chance against the Bismarck let alone the Rodney or the KGV.

Your comments re the KGV are pretty one sided and you are clearly using your famed double logic here. You have argued your case that the Bismarck was 'perfect' for Ayran needs (not bound by Anglo Saxon common sense or treaty.

point 1: Lack of range - Maybe if you are a German ship and dont have bases located everywhere this would be a problem as it was Britian possessed refulling bases everywhere. The KGV class did not have to meet the same range requirements as the USN or the Kriegsmarine.

point2: Armour layout- Here you have a ship that utilises the result of unbroken years of testing and battleship building. The Royal Navy not only tested their own armour schemes but also captured German ships ie the Baden. Knowledge was also shared between the USA and Japan. These countries were the three leaders of capital ship building and design. All or nothing armour did not come about because of the Washington Treaty it came about as a progression of naval design. The expected range of fighting increased. This is why ships turrets were capable of elevating their guns to 30 or 40 degrees. This is why ships had armoured decks of up to 6 inches, this is why turrets roofs became exponentially thicker. Roof and Deck armour is more important than vertical armour. Even at 20,000 yards 60 % of strikes will land on the deck of a ship.As for Armoured conning tower, well that did a lot of good for the Bismarck didnt it. A single 8 inch round penetrated her outside her citadel and isolated all of her turrets and Bridge from cenral command. Her heavily armoured conning tower made a hell of a lot of difference when the KGV and Rodney ripped through it at point blank range.

All or nothing armour was designed to protect the vitals. Shells that sturck any where else would not have time to detonate. Armour piercing shells would pass straight through the bridge or other unarmoured portions of the KGV. On the other hand most shells that hit the Bismarck would meet some armour. Thick enough to set the shell off but not thick enough to keep the shell out.

point3: Despite having 14 inch versus 15 inch the KGV fired a shell that was much heavier per calibre than the Bismarcks 15 inch shell. This again was the result of treaty restrictions but the British knew that heavier shells with a lower velocity were the way to go for accurate plunging fire. The US knew this as well as did the Japanese. The Germans on the other hand built an excellent high velocity gun unfortunately naval warfare is not like tank vs tank combat. Plunging fire was what was needed, the deck penetration figures for the German 15 inch at combat ranges were unremarkable making the KGV much more immune to the Bismarcks plunging fire than the other way round. You also have ten 14 inch guns agianst eight 15 inch guns. This means that the KGV actually had a greater weight of fire than the Bismarck.

point4: poor AA suite- Lol this is comming from someone who is defending the Bismarck yet the Bismarck gunners could not deal with Fairey Swordfish flying at 90 knots towards them. The KGV 5.25 inch DULA purpose AA guns were power opporated and possesed a higher rate and weight of fire than many other dual purpose guns. Again Dula purpose was cutting edge at the time and was the more advanced concept. Sure not sticking to any weight restrictions other than Hitlers own ego would allow for more weight to be spent in this area but hey some Countries adhere to rules and treaties some dont.

Overall you are still left with a 35,000ton designed ship that has thicker armour, greater weight of fire ( designed - the 14 inch mounts were very unreliable initially ) had a similar top speed and was designed to a more modern design. Not bad id say.

mynameisroland
05-23-2006, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

THe reason for this? The British had an ounce of decency unlike everyone else and actually honoured a treaty they signed.

This is simply not true.

Japan did not sign any treaties and thus did not violate them.
The US would built the South Dakotas with less than 45000ts when this was the valid limit.
Germany would built the Scharnhorst, which was below 35000ts.
France would built the Dunkerque, which also was below 35000.
The UK matched treaty specifications with the Rodney.

The Bismarck, Vittorio Veneto, Richelieu, KGV, North Carolina all did exceed the 35000ts, which was the limit when they were laid down. However, at the time these ships were comissioned, the limit already was 45000ts.

This leaves the Iowas, which were finished during the war but were oversized for the 45000ts limit valid when they were laid down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry mate the KGV was a nominal 35,000 tons with no fuel or feed water onboard. It was 38,000 tons in the water and fully loaded it nudged 40,000tons. The Bismarck on the other had was something like 49,000tons fully laden.

The escalator clause was actuated because OTHER countries did not sick to the treaty! not because that was the way it was going anyway. Similarly the RN was stuck with 14 inch guns when seh could have easily taken 15 inch because of the treaty. The 16 inch guns were again if the signatories felt the naval building situation around the world merited it. Seeing as the RN and the USA were the only real signatories they decided to escalate as a result of Italian and German ambitions for Britain and Japanese for the US.

Kurfurst__
05-23-2006, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You argue that the Bismarcks armour scheme was not obsolete yet every other nation building modern battleships chose to move on to AoN.

Well based on your logic, France, Germany and Italy was not building modern BBs then. Both German and Italian BBs relied on layered armor, the French seems to be keen to keep some extra protection behind their main belts, instead of keeping everyting naked behind a single main belt.

The importance of this is appearant when one considers how much main gun's power increased after WW1.

The KGV for example, had 13.7" main belt protection, and 14.7" protecting the magazines. There was absolutely nothing behind it, once that belt was penetrated, the vitals - magazines, machinery - were damaged.

Tough part is, it was good as nothing. Bismarck's 15" would punch through 15.5" of belt armor even at the distance of 24 000 yards, and the longest naval hits (Sch/Wspt) occured at 26 000 yards maximum. At all battle ranges, KGV was vulnerable even it's thickest vertical armor.

Bismarck's MB was only 320mm, but with the turtle back behind, it could protect it's vitals from anything at any range.




The Bismarck was a poor use of 50000tons worth of Battleship potential. What do you end up with ? A ship with thinner main armour and deck armour and EIGHT rifles of 15 inch. In a stand up fight a Queen Elizabeth class stood a very good chance against the Bismarck let alone the Rodney or the KGV.

That's nice theory and all, but in practice Bismarck literally run over the PoW after blowing up the Hood.



Your comments re the KGV are pretty one sided and you are clearly using your famed double logic here. You have argued your case that the Bismarck was 'perfect' for Ayran needs (not bound by Anglo Saxon common sense or treaty.

I advise you to take pills against both of your mouth foaming and chauvinism.
And of course you are right - Bismarck's design followed the domestic ship design and horrible to say, not the by their nature origin overly superior ways of some others.

You might find it a shocking new information that since Germany was never a signatory of the Washington T., the 35k ton did not apply to her at al either.




point 1: Lack of range - Maybe if you are a German ship and dont have bases located everywhere this would be a problem as it was Britian possessed refulling bases everywhere. The KGV class did not have to meet the same range requirements as the USN or the Kriegsmarine.

Fine theory, but both KGV and Rodney was running out of fuel chasing Bismarck.



point2: Armour layout- Here you have a ship that utilises the result of unbroken years of testing and battleship building. The Royal Navy not only tested their own armour schemes but also captured German ships ie the Baden. Knowledge was also shared between the USA and Japan. These countries were the three leaders of capital ship building and design.

You are just proving my point - your blinkered reason of judging of a ships protections merely a yes or no check wheter any given ship is following The Only Correct Way of Building a Ship as The UK and the US Do, otherwise anything else is stupid, German,Italian and French naval designers being just a bunch of lame idiots bumping into each other with their funny concepts.



All or nothing armour did not come about because of the Washington Treaty it came about as a progression of naval design.

Oh of course. AoN is about giving up protection where it is less vital, leaving vulnerable spots for fires raging and water breaking in. It's about saving weight - curious coincidence with a treaty that was about limiting weight.



The expected range of fighting increased. This is why ships turrets were capable of elevating their guns to 30 or 40 degrees. This is why ships had armoured decks of up to 6 inches, this is why turrets roofs became exponentially thicker. Roof and Deck armour is more important than vertical armour. Even at 20,000 yards 60 % of strikes will land on the deck of a ship.

Too bad that this 'expected increase in the range of fighting' did not go according to expectations, isn't it?



As for Armoured conning tower, well that did a lot of good for the Bismarck didnt it. A single 8 inch round penetrated her outside her citadel and isolated all of her turrets and Bridge from cenral command.

Source?



Her heavily armoured conning tower made a hell of a lot of difference when the KGV and Rodney ripped through it at point blank range.

"at point blank range".


All or nothing armour was designed to protect the vitals. Shells that sturck any where else would not have time to detonate. Armour piercing shells would pass straight through the bridge or other unarmoured portions of the KGV.

Remind me to ask P of W's staff about the grandure of this idea, tons of metal passing through the tower, fired 15-20 000 yards away.


On the other hand most shells that hit the Bismarck would meet some armour. Thick enough to set the shell off but not thick enough to keep the shell out.

The theory is grand, but sadly just about any place on a ship would initiate a WW2 fuse, it would only pass through if it hits a narrow section of the ship. As for Bismarck, it made advantage exactly of that, the top deck would slow down the projectile and initite the fuse, and with the low-mounted main deck, there was a good chance of the projectile blowing up before it would reach main deck below protecting the vital internals of the ship.



point3: Despite having 14 inch versus 15 inch the KGV fired a shell that was much heavier per calibre than the Bismarcks 15 inch shell.

Well that was certainly conforting to know you have some meaningless statistics on your side, while the enemy has the more potent gun that is working, too!



This again was the result of treaty restrictions but the British knew that heavier shells with a lower velocity were the way to go for accurate plunging fire. The US knew this as well as did the Japanese. The Germans on the other hand built an excellent high velocity gun unfortunately naval warfare is not like tank vs tank combat. .

Ignorance is showing. The Germans, Italians, and French all built high velocity 15" guns, the US itself went to the high velocity 16" guns after low-velocity 16" guns. I see a trend here.




Plunging fire was what was needed, the deck penetration figures for the German 15 inch at combat ranges were unremarkable making the KGV much more immune to the Bismarcks plunging fire than the other way round.

deck penetration figures, at 25k yards.

Brit 14" - 4" at 25 k
Germ 15" 4.15" (at 24k, ie. worser cond. for deck penetration)

Bottomline : this is about the longest range hits occured in WW2, and both ships are immune to the other on the decks/roof plunging fire. However, just about any naval main gun from WW2 punches through all vertical surfaces on KGV at this range, with chance of reaching vitals. Bismarck on the other hand is not endangered with the same way.



You also have ten 14 inch guns agianst eight 15 inch guns. This means that the KGV actually had a greater weight of fire than the Bismarck..

Sad that out of those ten 14" guns, sometimes only two happened to work isn't it...?
And besides, since when weight of fire apart from Nelson's era is a true measure of a ship firepower that fires explosive shells...?




point4: poor AA suite- Lol this is comming from someone who is defending the Bismarck yet the Bismarck gunners could not deal with Fairey Swordfish flying at 90 knots towards them.

You forgot to mention those planes were not spotted in time - aerial visitors of Tirpitz had different experience about the effectiveness of the AA.




The KGV 5.25 inch DULA purpose AA guns were power opporated and possesed a higher rate and weight of fire than many other dual purpose guns.

Tony Williams, a British expert of guns and ammunitions, has to say of the 5.25 RN DP guns :


"The 5.25 in was only produced (for shipboard use) in a twin enclosed mounting offering an elevation of 70ş. It was used in the Dido Class light AA cruisers (4 or 5 mountings) and the King George V Class and Vanguard battleships although it was also planned for the Hood as a part of the postponed refit. The Vanguard was fitted with modified mountings with a larger gunhouse.

The problems with the new calibres arose as wartime experience revealed that the maximum weight which the loading numbers could handle comfortably was much lower than 80-90lb and the weight of the 4.5in and 5.25in ammunition caused serious difficulties. This was subsequently remedied in the 4.5in by separating the shell from its case and its rate of fire was increased to 15 rpm. However, initially nothing could be done about the 5.25in (not helped by its cramped gunhouse) which could reportedly manage a rate of only 7-8 rpm instead of the designed 10-12, a failing which significantly reduced its AA effectiveness. The problem was not remedied until the introduction of the improved mounting in HMS Vanguard, which achieved the intended rate."

In comparison, Bismarck's DP 4.1" guns fired at 16-18 rounds/min, max elevation being 80 degrees, even the anti-ship artillery on Bismarkc with much bigger 5.9" guns fired at 6-8 rounds/min. All in all it meant the ship had sixteen 4.1' guns for AA use, and no less than 28 guns of 4.1 and 5.9 calibre for anti shipp use.

The US 5" DP was probably the best of the lot, with great ROF and good punch against all targets.



Again Dula purpose was cutting edge at the time and was the more advanced concept. Sure not sticking to any weight restrictions other than Hitlers own ego would allow for more weight to be spent in this area but hey some Countries adhere to rules and treaties some dont.

Perhaps you miss the point that Bismarck's 4.1" were DP guns, she also mounted a good number of heavier guns for anti shipping work apart from those.

Again, Germany was not limited by the Washington Treaty it did not sign. The Anglo-German Naval Treaty did not specify other than overall tonnage limit for the entire fleet relative to the RN.





Overall you are still left with a 35,000ton designed ship that has thicker armour, greater weight of fire ( designed - the 14 inch mounts were very unreliable initially ) had a similar top speed and was designed to a more modern design. Not bad id say.

I think the best part of the above comedy is the ship designed to be more modern.

We have already seen how much the 'thicker armor' helped KGV. The KGV class carried 13,545 mt of armor, which formed an aremored citadel protecting 55% of the ship's lenght. It was divided 18 watertight compartments, but only 8 of those were within and protected by the citadel. Max speed was 28 knots, range 4,750 nm at 18 knots

Bismarck devoted 18,700 mt to belt, deck, turret, underwater, and splinter armour, which amounted to 40% of its designed combat weight (46,980 mt). Only the 69,100 mt Japanese battleships of the Yamato class carried more armour (22,895 mt), ablet at a much smaller percentage (33.2%) of the ship's total weight. She had an armored citadel protecting 70 % of it's total lenght, 22 watertight compartments out of which 17 were protected by the citadel. Max. speed was 30 knots, range 8,525 nm at 19 knots.

RCAF_Irish_403
05-23-2006, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You argue that the Bismarcks armour scheme was not obsolete yet every other nation building modern battleships chose to move on to AoN.

Well based on your logic, France, Germany and Italy was not building modern BBs then. Both German and Italian BBs relied on layered armor, the French seems to be keen to keep some extra protection behind their main belts, instead of keeping everyting naked behind a single main belt.

The importance of this is appearant when one considers how much main gun's power increased after WW1.

The KGV for example, had 13.7" main belt protection, and 14.7" protecting the magazines. There was absolutely nothing behind it, once that belt was penetrated, the vitals - magazines, machinery - were damaged.

Tough part is, it was good as nothing. Bismarck's 15" would punch through 15.5" of belt armor even at the distance of 24 000 yards, and the longest naval hits (Sch/Wspt) occured at 26 000 yards maximum. At all battle ranges, KGV was vulnerable even it's thickest vertical armor.

Bismarck's MB was only 320mm, but with the turtle back behind, it could protect it's vitals from anything at any range.




The Bismarck was a poor use of 50000tons worth of Battleship potential. What do you end up with ? A ship with thinner main armour and deck armour and EIGHT rifles of 15 inch. In a stand up fight a Queen Elizabeth class stood a very good chance against the Bismarck let alone the Rodney or the KGV.

That's nice theory and all, but in practice Bismarck literally run over the PoW after blowing up the Hood.



Your comments re the KGV are pretty one sided and you are clearly using your famed double logic here. You have argued your case that the Bismarck was 'perfect' for Ayran needs (not bound by Anglo Saxon common sense or treaty.

I advise you to take pills against both of your mouth foaming and chauvinism.
And of course you are right - Bismarck's design followed the domestic ship design and horrible to say, not the by their nature origin overly superior ways of some others.

You might find it a shocking new information that since Germany was never a signatory of the Washington T., the 35k ton did not apply to her at al either.




point 1: Lack of range - Maybe if you are a German ship and dont have bases located everywhere this would be a problem as it was Britian possessed refulling bases everywhere. The KGV class did not have to meet the same range requirements as the USN or the Kriegsmarine.

Fine theory, but both KGV and Rodney was running out of fuel chasing Bismarck.



point2: Armour layout- Here you have a ship that utilises the result of unbroken years of testing and battleship building. The Royal Navy not only tested their own armour schemes but also captured German ships ie the Baden. Knowledge was also shared between the USA and Japan. These countries were the three leaders of capital ship building and design.

You are just proving my point - your blinkered reason of judging of a ships protections merely a yes or no check wheter any given ship is following The Only Correct Way of Building a Ship as The UK and the US Do, otherwise anything else is stupid, German,Italian and French naval designers being just a bunch of lame idiots bumping into each other with their funny concepts.



All or nothing armour did not come about because of the Washington Treaty it came about as a progression of naval design.

Oh of course. AoN is about giving up protection where it is less vital, leaving vulnerable spots for fires raging and water breaking in. It's about saving weight - curious coincidence with a treaty that was about limiting weight.



The expected range of fighting increased. This is why ships turrets were capable of elevating their guns to 30 or 40 degrees. This is why ships had armoured decks of up to 6 inches, this is why turrets roofs became exponentially thicker. Roof and Deck armour is more important than vertical armour. Even at 20,000 yards 60 % of strikes will land on the deck of a ship.

Too bad that this 'expected increase in the range of fighting' did not go according to expectations, isn't it?



As for Armoured conning tower, well that did a lot of good for the Bismarck didnt it. A single 8 inch round penetrated her outside her citadel and isolated all of her turrets and Bridge from cenral command.

Source?



Her heavily armoured conning tower made a hell of a lot of difference when the KGV and Rodney ripped through it at point blank range.

"at point blank range".


All or nothing armour was designed to protect the vitals. Shells that sturck any where else would not have time to detonate. Armour piercing shells would pass straight through the bridge or other unarmoured portions of the KGV.

Remind me to ask P of W's staff about the grandure of this idea, tons of metal passing through the tower, fired 15-20 000 yards away.


On the other hand most shells that hit the Bismarck would meet some armour. Thick enough to set the shell off but not thick enough to keep the shell out.

The theory is grand, but sadly just about any place on a ship would initiate a WW2 fuse, it would only pass through if it hits a narrow section of the ship. As for Bismarck, it made advantage exactly of that, the top deck would slow down the projectile and initite the fuse, and with the low-mounted main deck, there was a good chance of the projectile blowing up before it would reach main deck below protecting the vital internals of the ship.



point3: Despite having 14 inch versus 15 inch the KGV fired a shell that was much heavier per calibre than the Bismarcks 15 inch shell.

Well that was certainly conforting to know you have some meaningless statistics on your side, while the enemy has the more potent gun that is working, too!



This again was the result of treaty restrictions but the British knew that heavier shells with a lower velocity were the way to go for accurate plunging fire. The US knew this as well as did the Japanese. The Germans on the other hand built an excellent high velocity gun unfortunately naval warfare is not like tank vs tank combat. .

Ignorance is showing. The Germans, Italians, and French all built high velocity 15" guns, the US itself went to the high velocity 16" guns after low-velocity 16" guns. I see a trend here.




Plunging fire was what was needed, the deck penetration figures for the German 15 inch at combat ranges were unremarkable making the KGV much more immune to the Bismarcks plunging fire than the other way round.

deck penetration figures, at 25k yards.

Brit 14" - 4" at 25 k
Germ 15" 4.15" (at 24k, ie. worser cond. for deck penetration)

Bottomline : this is about the longest range hits occured in WW2, and both ships are immune to the other on the decks/roof plunging fire. However, just about any naval main gun from WW2 punches through all vertical surfaces on KGV at this range, with chance of reaching vitals. Bismarck on the other hand is not endangered with the same way.



You also have ten 14 inch guns agianst eight 15 inch guns. This means that the KGV actually had a greater weight of fire than the Bismarck..

Sad that out of those ten 14" guns, sometimes only two happened to work isn't it...?
And besides, since when weight of fire apart from Nelson's era is a true measure of a ship firepower that fires explosive shells...?




point4: poor AA suite- Lol this is comming from someone who is defending the Bismarck yet the Bismarck gunners could not deal with Fairey Swordfish flying at 90 knots towards them.

You forgot to mention those planes were not spotted in time - aerial visitors of Tirpitz had different experience about the effectiveness of the AA.




The KGV 5.25 inch DULA purpose AA guns were power opporated and possesed a higher rate and weight of fire than many other dual purpose guns.

Tony Williams, a British expert of guns and ammunitions, has to say of the 5.25 RN DP guns :


"The 5.25 in was only produced (for shipboard use) in a twin enclosed mounting offering an elevation of 70ş. It was used in the Dido Class light AA cruisers (4 or 5 mountings) and the King George V Class and Vanguard battleships although it was also planned for the Hood as a part of the postponed refit. The Vanguard was fitted with modified mountings with a larger gunhouse.

The problems with the new calibres arose as wartime experience revealed that the maximum weight which the loading numbers could handle comfortably was much lower than 80-90lb and the weight of the 4.5in and 5.25in ammunition caused serious difficulties. This was subsequently remedied in the 4.5in by separating the shell from its case and its rate of fire was increased to 15 rpm. However, initially nothing could be done about the 5.25in (not helped by its cramped gunhouse) which could reportedly manage a rate of only 7-8 rpm instead of the designed 10-12, a failing which significantly reduced its AA effectiveness. The problem was not remedied until the introduction of the improved mounting in HMS Vanguard, which achieved the intended rate."

In comparison, Bismarck's DP 4.1" guns fired at 16-18 rounds/min, max elevation being 80 degrees, even the anti-ship artillery on Bismarkc with much bigger 5.9" guns fired at 6-8 rounds/min. All in all it meant the ship had sixteen 4.1' guns for AA use, and no less than 28 guns of 4.1 and 5.9 calibre for anti shipp use.

The US 5" DP was probably the best of the lot, with great ROF and good punch against all targets.



Again Dula purpose was cutting edge at the time and was the more advanced concept. Sure not sticking to any weight restrictions other than Hitlers own ego would allow for more weight to be spent in this area but hey some Countries adhere to rules and treaties some dont.

Perhaps you miss the point that Bismarck's 4.1" were DP guns, she also mounted a good number of heavier guns for anti shipping work apart from those.

Again, Germany was not limited by the Washington Treaty it did not sign. The Anglo-German Naval Treaty did not specify other than overall tonnage limit for the entire fleet relative to the RN.





Overall you are still left with a 35,000ton designed ship that has thicker armour, greater weight of fire ( designed - the 14 inch mounts were very unreliable initially ) had a similar top speed and was designed to a more modern design. Not bad id say.

I think the best part of the above comedy is the ship designed to be more modern.

We have already seen how much the 'thicker armor' helped KGV. The KGV class carried 13,545 mt of armor, which formed an aremored citadel protecting 55% of the ship's lenght. It was divided 18 watertight compartments, but only 8 of those were within and protected by the citadel. Max speed was 28 knots, range 4,750 nm at 18 knots

Bismarck devoted 18,700 mt to belt, deck, turret, underwater, and splinter armour, which amounted to 40% of its designed combat weight (46,980 mt). Only the 69,100 mt Japanese battleships of the Yamato class carried more armour (22,895 mt), ablet at a much smaller percentage (33.2%) of the ship's total weight. She had an armored citadel protecting 70 % of it's total lenght, 22 watertight compartments out of which 17 were protected by the citadel. Max. speed was 30 knots, range 8,525 nm at 19 knots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfy's fudging the facts again...Germany was prohibated from having certain classes of warships from the Versailles Treaty...which is why they were not invited to the Washington Naval Talks....it was just assumed that they wouldn't build large BB's

JtD
05-23-2006, 05:49 AM
The 35000ts limit is for standard displacement and the offical British number for KGV class is 38000.

WOLFMondo
05-23-2006, 05:55 AM
Its just an example of how dishonourable Hitler and the German command was.

The British stuck to the treaty which they never had to sign but a wave of pacifism was over the country between the wars, so they stuck to it. The KVG's were pretty good for a 35,000 ton vessel.

No matter how good the German ships were, they didn't have enough of them and were reduced to sinking unarmed merchant ships.

The lack of a serious German surface fleet is highlighted in 'The Second World War' by Winston Churchill. The Admiralty just didn't see the German surface ships as a threat, just an annoyance to merchant shipping but nothing compared to the U-boats. Just look at the history of each and every German surface warship in WW2. Sunk or went into hiding then sunk or sat in dock awaiting repairs. Even Hitler thought them a waste of time.

Personally, I think the time and effort the Germans spent on the large battleships should have been spent on more smaller faster ships like the Scharnhorst, which was a really impressive ship.

JtD
05-23-2006, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You argue that the Bismarcks armour scheme was not obsolete yet every other nation building modern battleships chose to move on to AoN.

Well based on your logic, France, Germany and Italy was not building modern BBs then. Both German and Italian BBs relied on layered armor, the French seems to be keen to keep some extra protection behind their main belts, instead of keeping everyting naked behind a single main belt.

The importance of this is appearant when one considers how much main gun's power increased after WW1.

The KGV for example, had 13.7" main belt protection, and 14.7" protecting the magazines. There was absolutely nothing behind it, once that belt was penetrated, the vitals - magazines, machinery - were damaged.

Tough part is, it was good as nothing. Bismarck's 15" would punch through 15.5" of belt armor even at the distance of 24 000 yards, and the longest naval hits (Sch/Wspt) occured at 26 000 yards maximum. At all battle ranges, KGV was vulnerable even it's thickest vertical armor.

Bismarck's MB was only 320mm, but with the turtle back behind, it could protect it's vitals from anything at any range.




The Bismarck was a poor use of 50000tons worth of Battleship potential. What do you end up with ? A ship with thinner main armour and deck armour and EIGHT rifles of 15 inch. In a stand up fight a Queen Elizabeth class stood a very good chance against the Bismarck let alone the Rodney or the KGV.

That's nice theory and all, but in practice Bismarck literally run over the PoW after blowing up the Hood.



Your comments re the KGV are pretty one sided and you are clearly using your famed double logic here. You have argued your case that the Bismarck was 'perfect' for Ayran needs (not bound by Anglo Saxon common sense or treaty.

I advise you to take pills against both of your mouth foaming and chauvinism.
And of course you are right - Bismarck's design followed the domestic ship design and horrible to say, not the by their nature origin overly superior ways of some others.

You might find it a shocking new information that since Germany was never a signatory of the Washington T., the 35k ton did not apply to her at al either.




point 1: Lack of range - Maybe if you are a German ship and dont have bases located everywhere this would be a problem as it was Britian possessed refulling bases everywhere. The KGV class did not have to meet the same range requirements as the USN or the Kriegsmarine.

Fine theory, but both KGV and Rodney was running out of fuel chasing Bismarck.



point2: Armour layout- Here you have a ship that utilises the result of unbroken years of testing and battleship building. The Royal Navy not only tested their own armour schemes but also captured German ships ie the Baden. Knowledge was also shared between the USA and Japan. These countries were the three leaders of capital ship building and design.

You are just proving my point - your blinkered reason of judging of a ships protections merely a yes or no check wheter any given ship is following The Only Correct Way of Building a Ship as The UK and the US Do, otherwise anything else is stupid, German,Italian and French naval designers being just a bunch of lame idiots bumping into each other with their funny concepts.



All or nothing armour did not come about because of the Washington Treaty it came about as a progression of naval design.

Oh of course. AoN is about giving up protection where it is less vital, leaving vulnerable spots for fires raging and water breaking in. It's about saving weight - curious coincidence with a treaty that was about limiting weight.



The expected range of fighting increased. This is why ships turrets were capable of elevating their guns to 30 or 40 degrees. This is why ships had armoured decks of up to 6 inches, this is why turrets roofs became exponentially thicker. Roof and Deck armour is more important than vertical armour. Even at 20,000 yards 60 % of strikes will land on the deck of a ship.

Too bad that this 'expected increase in the range of fighting' did not go according to expectations, isn't it?



As for Armoured conning tower, well that did a lot of good for the Bismarck didnt it. A single 8 inch round penetrated her outside her citadel and isolated all of her turrets and Bridge from cenral command.

Source?



Her heavily armoured conning tower made a hell of a lot of difference when the KGV and Rodney ripped through it at point blank range.

"at point blank range".


All or nothing armour was designed to protect the vitals. Shells that sturck any where else would not have time to detonate. Armour piercing shells would pass straight through the bridge or other unarmoured portions of the KGV.

Remind me to ask P of W's staff about the grandure of this idea, tons of metal passing through the tower, fired 15-20 000 yards away.


On the other hand most shells that hit the Bismarck would meet some armour. Thick enough to set the shell off but not thick enough to keep the shell out.

The theory is grand, but sadly just about any place on a ship would initiate a WW2 fuse, it would only pass through if it hits a narrow section of the ship. As for Bismarck, it made advantage exactly of that, the top deck would slow down the projectile and initite the fuse, and with the low-mounted main deck, there was a good chance of the projectile blowing up before it would reach main deck below protecting the vital internals of the ship.



point3: Despite having 14 inch versus 15 inch the KGV fired a shell that was much heavier per calibre than the Bismarcks 15 inch shell.

Well that was certainly conforting to know you have some meaningless statistics on your side, while the enemy has the more potent gun that is working, too!



This again was the result of treaty restrictions but the British knew that heavier shells with a lower velocity were the way to go for accurate plunging fire. The US knew this as well as did the Japanese. The Germans on the other hand built an excellent high velocity gun unfortunately naval warfare is not like tank vs tank combat. .

Ignorance is showing. The Germans, Italians, and French all built high velocity 15" guns, the US itself went to the high velocity 16" guns after low-velocity 16" guns. I see a trend here.




Plunging fire was what was needed, the deck penetration figures for the German 15 inch at combat ranges were unremarkable making the KGV much more immune to the Bismarcks plunging fire than the other way round.

deck penetration figures, at 25k yards.

Brit 14" - 4" at 25 k
Germ 15" 4.15" (at 24k, ie. worser cond. for deck penetration)

Bottomline : this is about the longest range hits occured in WW2, and both ships are immune to the other on the decks/roof plunging fire. However, just about any naval main gun from WW2 punches through all vertical surfaces on KGV at this range, with chance of reaching vitals. Bismarck on the other hand is not endangered with the same way.



You also have ten 14 inch guns agianst eight 15 inch guns. This means that the KGV actually had a greater weight of fire than the Bismarck..

Sad that out of those ten 14" guns, sometimes only two happened to work isn't it...?
And besides, since when weight of fire apart from Nelson's era is a true measure of a ship firepower that fires explosive shells...?




point4: poor AA suite- Lol this is comming from someone who is defending the Bismarck yet the Bismarck gunners could not deal with Fairey Swordfish flying at 90 knots towards them.

You forgot to mention those planes were not spotted in time - aerial visitors of Tirpitz had different experience about the effectiveness of the AA.




The KGV 5.25 inch DULA purpose AA guns were power opporated and possesed a higher rate and weight of fire than many other dual purpose guns.

Tony Williams, a British expert of guns and ammunitions, has to say of the 5.25 RN DP guns :


"The 5.25 in was only produced (for shipboard use) in a twin enclosed mounting offering an elevation of 70ş. It was used in the Dido Class light AA cruisers (4 or 5 mountings) and the King George V Class and Vanguard battleships although it was also planned for the Hood as a part of the postponed refit. The Vanguard was fitted with modified mountings with a larger gunhouse.

The problems with the new calibres arose as wartime experience revealed that the maximum weight which the loading numbers could handle comfortably was much lower than 80-90lb and the weight of the 4.5in and 5.25in ammunition caused serious difficulties. This was subsequently remedied in the 4.5in by separating the shell from its case and its rate of fire was increased to 15 rpm. However, initially nothing could be done about the 5.25in (not helped by its cramped gunhouse) which could reportedly manage a rate of only 7-8 rpm instead of the designed 10-12, a failing which significantly reduced its AA effectiveness. The problem was not remedied until the introduction of the improved mounting in HMS Vanguard, which achieved the intended rate."

In comparison, Bismarck's DP 4.1" guns fired at 16-18 rounds/min, max elevation being 80 degrees, even the anti-ship artillery on Bismarkc with much bigger 5.9" guns fired at 6-8 rounds/min. All in all it meant the ship had sixteen 4.1' guns for AA use, and no less than 28 guns of 4.1 and 5.9 calibre for anti shipp use.

The US 5" DP was probably the best of the lot, with great ROF and good punch against all targets.



Again Dula purpose was cutting edge at the time and was the more advanced concept. Sure not sticking to any weight restrictions other than Hitlers own ego would allow for more weight to be spent in this area but hey some Countries adhere to rules and treaties some dont.

Perhaps you miss the point that Bismarck's 4.1" were DP guns, she also mounted a good number of heavier guns for anti shipping work apart from those.

Again, Germany was not limited by the Washington Treaty it did not sign. The Anglo-German Naval Treaty did not specify other than overall tonnage limit for the entire fleet relative to the RN.





Overall you are still left with a 35,000ton designed ship that has thicker armour, greater weight of fire ( designed - the 14 inch mounts were very unreliable initially ) had a similar top speed and was designed to a more modern design. Not bad id say.

I think the best part of the above comedy is the ship designed to be more modern.

We have already seen how much the 'thicker armor' helped KGV. The KGV class carried 13,545 mt of armor, which formed an aremored citadel protecting 55% of the ship's lenght. It was divided 18 watertight compartments, but only 8 of those were within and protected by the citadel. Max speed was 28 knots, range 4,750 nm at 18 knots

Bismarck devoted 18,700 mt to belt, deck, turret, underwater, and splinter armour, which amounted to 40% of its designed combat weight (46,980 mt). Only the 69,100 mt Japanese battleships of the Yamato class carried more armour (22,895 mt), ablet at a much smaller percentage (33.2%) of the ship's total weight. She had an armored citadel protecting 70 % of it's total lenght, 22 watertight compartments out of which 17 were protected by the citadel. Max. speed was 30 knots, range 8,525 nm at 19 knots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfy's fudging the facts again...Germany was prohibated from having certain classes of warships from the Versailles Treaty...which is why they were not invited to the Washington Naval Talks....it was just assumed that they wouldn't build large BB's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just figured I'd also full quote this to make the topic even less readable...from 1935 on, Germany was allowed to build large capital ships.

zeno303
05-23-2006, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Just a small reminder:

Bismarck class laid down in 1936, 42000ts
KGV class laid down in 1937, 38000ts
North Carolina class laid down in 1937 & 1938, 40000ts
Yamato class laid down in 1937 & 1938, 65000ts
South Dakota class laid down in 1939 & 1940, 40000ts
Iowa class laid down in 1940 & 1941, 48000ts

I don't quite see a point in a comparism between ships that are several years and thousands of tons apart.

You wouldn't seriously compare a P-40 with a Spit XIV, would you?

I believe the subject of thus thread is "The "BEST" Battleship of WWII." Beyond that, the useful service life of a BB at that time was much longer than a fighter plane,

mynameisroland
05-23-2006, 07:38 AM
You could look it at it the other way JtD and see that Kufy's method of replying is to deliberately cloud actual information with his special brand of homemade turdformation. I thought it was only the Bf 109 he got wood for now it turns out anything with the 'made in germany' tag on it works for him.

As for your data you are correct with regards to penetration figures. How effective was the Bismarcks horizontal protection against plunging shells. If you are energetic enough to look up that you should try reading about the Bismarcks destruction. It was a shell from Norfolk which porked her in her final battle.

For all her layered protection and turtle decked full hardiness and one 8 icnh shell takes out her fire control. Or one heavy cal hit taking out both Anton and Bruno turrets.

Lucius_Esox
05-23-2006, 07:44 AM
Can we now argue about who won the Battle of Jutland please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Right I will go first. The British of course..

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stathem
05-23-2006, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
Can we now argue about who won the Battle of Jutland please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Right I will go first. The British of course..

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif +1

JtD
05-23-2006, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by zeno303:

I believe the subject of thus thread is "The "BEST" Battleship of WWII." Beyond that, the useful service life of a BB at that time was much longer than a fighter plane,

Best BB or best fighter of WW2 - the answer is the same. There is no single "best". There were a lot of designs, all had their strong points and shortcomings. They were intended for different roles and were used in different environments.

----
Sidenote, the only hit that got through the Bismarck class horizontal armor intact was a 5.44t bomb. No battleship had enough armor to stop a bomb like that.

GerritJ9
05-23-2006, 08:29 AM
For the record, the All-Or-Nothing armour arrangement was introduced by the U.S.S. "Nevada", designed before WW1 broke out.

luftluuver
05-23-2006, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
Can we now argue about who won the Battle of Jutland please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Right I will go first. The British of course..

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Be sure, it was the Brits. Any enemy that runs from the 'field, err sea of battle' is the looser.

HellToupee
05-23-2006, 09:05 AM
the hood didnt have AoN armour scheme it had layed armour kurfy seems to insist is the best, it was proven it wasnt.

JtD
05-23-2006, 09:13 AM
You Brits can have the Battle of Jutland, but I claim the Germans won the Skaggerakschlacht.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-23-2006, 09:17 AM
Prinz Eugen, anyone? Survived the war and a nuke test...

joeap
05-23-2006, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
Prinz Eugen, anyone? Survived the war and a nuke test...

A heavy cruiser, not a battleship. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Lucius_Esox
05-23-2006, 09:23 AM
You Brits can have the Battle of Jutland, but I claim the Germans won the Skaggerakschlacht

Yee gods,,, is that how you spell it!!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

JtD
05-23-2006, 09:26 AM
No, it's Skagerrakschlacht. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-23-2006, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
Prinz Eugen, anyone? Survived the war and a nuke test...

A heavy cruiser, not a battleship. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But still the only sizeable Kreigsmarine ship to survive WWII, I think we can bend the rules a little here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

JZG_Thiem
05-23-2006, 11:34 AM
my, oh my....the usual mudthrowing contest.
But lets put some numbers straight (anyone got better/more accurate sources please PM me):

Displacement was divided in
1) standard ("washington" definition"
2) design
3) max

Since different nations had different standards for determining "design" displacement, its best to compare max. displacement.

displacement: KGV was originally planned 35000, then plan was modified to 36700 (design). Final build was 40000 (design) displacement. Fully laden KGV had 45000.

Bismarck had 46000 design and 51000 max. So Bismarck was like 12%"heavier" than KGV, not more, not less.

Swordfish attack: of course they didnt get hit by the AA, but not since AA and fire control sucked in general. The fact that the AA crews missed was due to them being trained to aim at FAST MOVING MODERN torpedo planes, which the swordfish was....not.

about Washington treaty: ppl like RCAF_Irish seem not to know about anlgo-german treaty of 1935. UK allowed germany to increase its navy to 35% of total tonnage of RN, this 35% rule was also valid for each CLASS of ships. So germany was allowed to build up to 180000ts worth of BBs. Since germany wasnt invited to washington treaty, the Bismarck was NO violation whatsoever. Even a single 180000ts BB would have been "ok".

zeno303
05-23-2006, 12:11 PM
Swordfish attack: of course they didnt get hit by the AA, but not since AA and fire control sucked in general. The fact that the AA crews missed was due to them being trained to aim at FAST MOVING MODERN torpedo planes, which the swordfish was....not.


I'd say it came down to lousy shooting by a poorly trained crew. Given the nature of a torpedo attack, this was a low deflection shot. Even factoring in the speed of the Bismarck, torpedo attacks are the easiest to defend against. Slow speed just made their exposure longer. Look at what the Japanese did to poor Torpedo Sqaudron 8 at Midway. TBD-1 weren't much quicker. Finally, the Swordfish was still widely used in the RN. It's lack of speed, even if it was a factor,should have been known and anticipated in gunnery drills, if they ever had them.

JtD
05-23-2006, 12:25 PM
Swordfishs don't count. That plane is just a miracle and cannot be taken seriously. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Just look at how the Italians did in Tarento and compare with Pearl Harbour. The latter was a real attack, the former...dunno...Swordfishs are just unreal.

joeap
05-23-2006, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by zeno303:

I'd say it came down to lousy shooting by a poorly trained crew. Given the nature of a torpedo attack, this was a low deflection shot. Even factoring in the speed of the Bismarck, torpedo attacks are the easiest to defend against. Slow speed just made their exposure longer. Look at what the Japanese did to poor Torpedo Sqaudron 8 at Midway. TBD-1 weren't much quicker. Finally, the Swordfish was still widely used in the RN. It's lack of speed, even if it was a factor,should have been known and anticipated in gunnery drills, if they ever had them.

Hmmm, I thought they were TBD Devastators, and that most were shot down by Zeros not Japanese AA, which was not that great. BTW in 1942 Tirpitz was attacked by groups of Albacores and shot down a couple of them while escaping any hits, so it seems the Germans learned a bit.

zeno303
05-23-2006, 01:01 PM
TBD-1 = TBD Devastator

Tirpitz managed to make it further in AAA school. Bismarck flunked out in primary. Hard cheese.

OldMan____
05-23-2006, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland

If you seriously consider the KGV class to be poorer than their contemporaries please post something that supports your views. So far I see no argument or understanting of the class of ships or the subject in general.

How about :

Poor range

Armor lazout
- single layer of rather thick armor, which is unfortunately not thick enough to stop the likely enemy shells at reasonable battle ranges,
- poorly armored turrets (though the top was quite reasonable).
- very thinly armored conning tower, ask PoW's staff about that.

Small caliber main guns, nd unreliable mountings
25% of PoW's, 50% of KGV's, 75% of DoY's guns worked on avarage in their respective action, seriously compromising the ship's firepower. Effectively a ship with five 14" guns... out of which the two-gun turret was reliable, so if it was knocked out, the ship could be without any firepower at all.

poor AA suit with 5
-5.25s w very limited rate of fire due to simply being too much to manhandle such a big shell in cramped turret.
-add to the joy, the guns could only elevate to 70 degrees...
-Pom-Poms.

I'll not kick it for the parts where it was just not so impressive but avarage, like, speed. Overall it was a mediocre design in most of it's capabilities, with some design areas mentioned above were sub-par or outright silly. IMO the WW1-era 15" gunned British BBs were far more impressive for their time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You argue that the Bismarcks armour scheme was not obsolete yet every other nation building modern battleships chose to move on to AoN. The Bismarck was a poor use of 50000tons worth of Battleship potential. What do you end up with ? A ship with thinner main armour and deck armour and EIGHT rifles of 15 inch. In a stand up fight a Queen Elizabeth class stood a very good chance against the Bismarck let alone the Rodney or the KGV.

Your comments re the KGV are pretty one sided and you are clearly using your famed double logic here. You have argued your case that the Bismarck was 'perfect' for Ayran needs (not bound by Anglo Saxon common sense or treaty.

point 1: Lack of range - Maybe if you are a German ship and dont have bases located everywhere this would be a problem as it was Britian possessed refulling bases everywhere. The KGV class did not have to meet the same range requirements as the USN or the Kriegsmarine.

point2: Armour layout- Here you have a ship that utilises the result of unbroken years of testing and battleship building. The Royal Navy not only tested their own armour schemes but also captured German ships ie the Baden. Knowledge was also shared between the USA and Japan. These countries were the three leaders of capital ship building and design. All or nothing armour did not come about because of the Washington Treaty it came about as a progression of naval design. The expected range of fighting increased. This is why ships turrets were capable of elevating their guns to 30 or 40 degrees. This is why ships had armoured decks of up to 6 inches, this is why turrets roofs became exponentially thicker. Roof and Deck armour is more important than vertical armour. Even at 20,000 yards 60 % of strikes will land on the deck of a ship.As for Armoured conning tower, well that did a lot of good for the Bismarck didnt it. A single 8 inch round penetrated her outside her citadel and isolated all of her turrets and Bridge from cenral command. Her heavily armoured conning tower made a hell of a lot of difference when the KGV and Rodney ripped through it at point blank range.

All or nothing armour was designed to protect the vitals. Shells that sturck any where else would not have time to detonate. Armour piercing shells would pass straight through the bridge or other unarmoured portions of the KGV. On the other hand most shells that hit the Bismarck would meet some armour. Thick enough to set the shell off but not thick enough to keep the shell out.

point3: Despite having 14 inch versus 15 inch the KGV fired a shell that was much heavier per calibre than the Bismarcks 15 inch shell. This again was the result of treaty restrictions but the British knew that heavier shells with a lower velocity were the way to go for accurate plunging fire. The US knew this as well as did the Japanese. The Germans on the other hand built an excellent high velocity gun unfortunately naval warfare is not like tank vs tank combat. Plunging fire was what was needed, the deck penetration figures for the German 15 inch at combat ranges were unremarkable making the KGV much more immune to the Bismarcks plunging fire than the other way round. You also have ten 14 inch guns agianst eight 15 inch guns. This means that the KGV actually had a greater weight of fire than the Bismarck.

point4: poor AA suite- Lol this is comming from someone who is defending the Bismarck yet the Bismarck gunners could not deal with Fairey Swordfish flying at 90 knots towards them. The KGV 5.25 inch DULA purpose AA guns were power opporated and possesed a higher rate and weight of fire than many other dual purpose guns. Again Dula purpose was cutting edge at the time and was the more advanced concept. Sure not sticking to any weight restrictions other than Hitlers own ego would allow for more weight to be spent in this area but hey some Countries adhere to rules and treaties some dont.

Overall you are still left with a 35,000ton designed ship that has thicker armour, greater weight of fire ( designed - the 14 inch mounts were very unreliable initially ) had a similar top speed and was designed to a more modern design. Not bad id say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that everyone else cahnged to AoN armor does not prove anything. History if full of facts were being with majority does not result in best result.

AoN armor Is more suited to fighting huge shots. But if you lot at Bismack guns, they were relatively light ones with very high rate of fire. There would be a lot of hits hiting NOTHIGN areas. And there was no guarantee that they would NEVER detonate. You can make fuses and projectiles specailly for hitting such targets.

In fact if you look at Bismack armor load out at its mission the vast majority of its ammo was NOT heavy AP one. But high explosive intended to be used agianst soft target like COMERCE ships. If any of such hits got ina NOTHIGN armor are the target battleship would be in same situation as a cargo liner.

There is nothing such as completely superior armor layout. Germans took one decision, UK took other. Uk decision was based on the Idea of using BB only to fight other BB.


On weight of fire. Fire rate on Bismarck was far greater than on KGV shps. If you count tons per minute of fire, Bismarck delivered MORE than KVG ships. So the overall firepower is simmilar.

You must keep in mind. RN mission was COMPLETELY different from Kriegsmarine mission.

Is the same as trying to compare P51 vs FW190. Both exceletn planes. But FW was completely unable to make a P51 mission of long escort, while P51 was completely unable to shot down B17s.

OldMan____
05-23-2006, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You could look it at it the other way JtD and see that Kufy's method of replying is to deliberately cloud actual information with his special brand of homemade turdformation. I thought it was only the Bf 109 he got wood for now it turns out anything with the 'made in germany' tag on it works for him.

As for your data you are correct with regards to penetration figures. How effective was the Bismarcks horizontal protection against plunging shells. If you are energetic enough to look up that you should try reading about the Bismarcks destruction. It was a shell from Norfolk which porked her in her final battle.

For all her layered protection and turtle decked full hardiness and one 8 icnh shell takes out her fire control. Or one heavy cal hit taking out both Anton and Bruno turrets.

The norfolk got the credit for the kill with a TORPEDO hit. And after the wreckage was found and inspected it was confirmed that this hit did not penetrate the armor. And there was not a SINGLE penetration into its main vital areas.

Today is widely accepted that the real cause of Bismack sinking was intentional flooding.

Bewolf
05-23-2006, 03:36 PM
Something I found on Wikipedia which may be of interest. Now I know Wikipedia may not be the best source of information, but this sounded legit



-------------------------------
Controversy

The second Bismarck expedition was funded by British entities as part of a tour to the wreckage of Hood, which was found and filmed in 2001. The new research firmly centered on an otherwise insignificant issue of the Bismarck sinking under British fire versus self-scuttling to avoid capture, even though the cause of the ship's final demise was enemy action. This question gained propaganda status in Britain after the Hood's extremely shredded and mangled remains were shown on TV, which many British people considered humiliating in the face of Bismarck's easily recognizable and relatively well-preserved hull.

The British crew first conducted its own sonar survey from scratch to find the Bismarck wreck site, based solely on publicly available information that it was resting at the feet of an undersea volcano, the only one located in the particular area. Then they used ROVs to film the Bismarck's hull externally and firmly concluded the ship sank due to combat damage, receiving numerous artillery and torpedo hits from British vessels.

Dr. Ballard, the original discoverer of Bismarck's wreck criticized the documentary, citing what he considered nationalistic, biased research of limited historic value due to lack of thoroughness. A new American expedition visited the site using smaller and more agile ROVs. These provided some interior shots of Bismarck for the first time, which were aired as part of a one-hour documentary film on NGC.

That survey found no underwater penetrations of the Bismarck's fully armoured citadel and only four direct hit holes on it above the waterline, all of them on one side, as delivered by the Rodneys 16-inch (406 mm) guns. Each of those hits killed 150 to 200 sailors on average, but did not threaten the Bismarck's structural integrity. Huge dent marks signify that the 14-inch (356 mm) shells fired by the King George V bounced off the Wotan type German belt armour. Interior ROV footage showed that the "terrible destruction" the British expedition reported was in fact the torpedo bulges, which were designed to absorb the energy of torpedoes and plunging shells. Underneath the torn bulge sheeting, Bismarck's 320 mm (12.6") thick main belt armour is intact.

The American expedition's final conclusions were strikingly different from the findings of the British expedition. They determined the Bismarck still had floating capacity for at least one day when the British vessels ceased fire and could possibly have been captured by the Royal Navy. Thus the direct cause of sinking was due to self-scuttling, the sabotage of bottom valves by her crew, as claimed by German survivors. A detailed look at computer analysis of the hull's eventual impact on the seabottom explains unintuitive damage as a result of hydrodynamic impact shock inside the ship which was still girded by an uninterrupted curtain of armour. Extensive video footage of the wreck shows the hull is in excellent condition and expected to last at least 300 years.

Although no research infringes on the basic fact that the root cause of Bismarck's crippling and sinking lay in the gigantic British naval effort, the NGC has refrained from re-airing the critical programme since 2004, while the allegedly flawed British documentary is regularly re-run on NGC and the Discovery Channel.

----------

here to find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck

OldMan____
05-23-2006, 03:46 PM
EXACTLY!!!

JZG_Thiem
05-23-2006, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
Prinz Eugen, anyone? Survived the war and a nuke test...

A heavy cruiser, not a battleship. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But still the only sizeable Kreigsmarine ship to survive WWII, I think we can bend the rules a little here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

can we bend the rules maybe for THIS BB? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SMS Goeben, transferred to Turkey during WWI. Was in Service until 1953. They tried to sell it back in 1970, which was refused. So she was scrapped in 1973. http://www.deutsche-schutzgebiete.de/sms_goeben.htm

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-23-2006, 04:36 PM
SMS Goeben, transferred to Turkey during WWI. Was in Service until 1953. They tried to sell it back in 1970, which was refused. So she was scrapped in 1973. http://www.deutsche-schutzgebiete.de/sms_goeben.htm

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

zeno303
05-23-2006, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Bewolf:

That survey found no underwater penetrations of the Bismarck's fully armoured citadel and only four direct hit holes on it above the waterline, all of them on one side, as delivered by the Rodneys 16-inch (406 mm) guns. Each of those hits killed 150 to 200 sailors on average, but did not threaten the Bismarck's structural integrity.

Spam in a can

Nimits
05-23-2006, 05:49 PM
Just a small reminder:

Bismarck class laid down in 1936, 42000ts
KGV class laid down in 1937, 38000ts
North Carolina class laid down in 1937 & 1938, 40000ts
Yamato class laid down in 1937 & 1938, 65000ts
South Dakota class laid down in 1939 & 1940, 40000ts
Iowa class laid down in 1940 & 1941, 48000ts

I don't quite see a point in a comparism between ships that are several years and thousands of tons apart


Exactly. THe Bismark was arguable the best overall battleship in 1941 (though by a slim margin; KGV could have given her a run for her money, and a Nelson or Pennsylvania could have done serious damage if the Bismark allowed herself to be caught). But alot of people erroneously continue to state that the Bismark was the best battleship if the war. When you compare the Bismark to the South Dakota, Iowa, and Yamato, that claim does not hold any water.

joeap
05-24-2006, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by zeno303:
TBD-1 = TBD Devastator

Tirpitz managed to make it further in AAA school. Bismarck flunked out in primary. Hard cheese.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Bewolf
05-24-2006, 03:50 AM
Well, no matter the pros and cons, arguable the Bismarck and Tirpitz were right there with the most beautiful and elegant Battleships ever built =)

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/gallery/themes/pictures/gallthemetiraltafjord/gallthemetiraltafjord01.jpg

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/gallery/themes/pictures/gallthemetiraltafjord/gallthemetiraltafjord03.jpg

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/paint_schemes/pictures/1940/paintbism19401sidelarge.gif

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/paint_schemes/pictures/1944/11_tp_march_44_scheme_6_camo_K_starboard_big.gif

btw, the last two pics pretty well show the increase in AAA capacity later on. The first is the Bismarck, the second the Tirpitz.

If the pics are too large I can try to make them smaller. Unluckily details will be lost then.

hop2002
05-24-2006, 06:46 AM
Something I found on Wikipedia which may be of interest. Now I know Wikipedia may not be the best source of information, but this sounded legit

Interestingly, the whole "controversy" section seems to have been written by an anonymous Hungarian, without giving references. Wonder who that could be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


A new American expedition visited the site using smaller and more agile ROVs. These provided some interior shots of Bismarck for the first time, which were aired as part of a one-hour documentary film on NGC.

Is this the Cameron expedition? Repeated many times.


That survey found no underwater penetrations of the Bismarck's fully armoured citadel and only four direct hit holes on it above the waterline, all of them on one side, as delivered by the Rodneys 16-inch (406 mm) guns.

Sounds very muck like the Cameron expedition.

The problem is, though, Cameron didn't manage to find the PoWs hit on Bismarck which went in below the armour belt and flooded one of the boiler rooms and one of the generator rooms.

There are also survivors testimonies, like Josef Statz, who was stationed in damage control. He reported shell explosions in the port turbine room and one of the starboard boiler rooms.

Baron von Müllenheim-Rechberg, in charge of the aft fire control, reported that the list, initially caused by PoW, worsened during the final battle, prior to the scuttling order.

Camerons conclusions do not follow his observations. For example, he took a look inside one of the hull gashes, assumed it was caused by a torpedo, found no gaping hole in the inner hull and concluded the torpedo caused no major damage, and no flooding. But PoWs shell did not cause a gaping hole in the inner hull, it sprung welds and caused splinter damage, and that stil lresulted in the loss of a boiler room and generator room to flooding.

Bewolf
05-24-2006, 06:51 AM
Well, obviously Ballard resisted that documentary about the english influence in the sinking of the Bismarck as well. But I am not enough into the topic to be able to judge, really. I just brought up a source I stumbled upon.

Nevertheless it appears as if this incident really hurts some national feelings/pride, so I will keep some distance to this special controversy.

mynameisroland
05-24-2006, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You could look it at it the other way JtD and see that Kufy's method of replying is to deliberately cloud actual information with his special brand of homemade turdformation. I thought it was only the Bf 109 he got wood for now it turns out anything with the 'made in germany' tag on it works for him.

As for your data you are correct with regards to penetration figures. How effective was the Bismarcks horizontal protection against plunging shells. If you are energetic enough to look up that you should try reading about the Bismarcks destruction. It was a shell from Norfolk which porked her in her final battle.

For all her layered protection and turtle decked full hardiness and one 8 icnh shell takes out her fire control. Or one heavy cal hit taking out both Anton and Bruno turrets.

The norfolk got the credit for the kill with a TORPEDO hit. And after the wreckage was found and inspected it was confirmed that this hit did not penetrate the armor. And there was not a SINGLE penetration into its main vital areas.

Today is widely accepted that the real cause of Bismack sinking was intentional flooding. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a complete myth Oldman. Take a look at pictures from the wreck. If you think that the wreck looks as though no shots penetrated the Bismarcks vitals then maybe we are looking at two different ships.

As for the Bismarcks 12.6 inch steel belt being impenetrable by 14 and 16 inch shells that is utter rubbish. How then did the same shells silence all of the Bismarcks turrets armoured with the same quality of steel? The Bismarck has been built in to a myth mainly by the British.


Nope no Britsh shell ever penetrated the armoured citadel of this behemoth

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/no21993-pic6.jpg

stathem
05-24-2006, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Something I found on Wikipedia which may be of interest. Now I know Wikipedia may not be the best source of information, but this sounded legit

Interestingly, the whole "controversy" section seems to have been written by an anonymous Hungarian, without giving references. Wonder who that could be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He wouldn't...would he?

Actually after re-reading the article I can see your point.

Bewolf
05-24-2006, 07:37 AM
So, obviously I am an advocate for Bismarck here, but with out propper knowledge, as already stated. Still I think I remember the Bsimarck having two layers of armor, as was mentioned in this thread.
So those penetrations seen there may only be the the first layer?

LStarosta
05-24-2006, 07:37 AM
Looks like poor ol' Bismarck had its guns in a cross. Senile...

Kurfurst__
05-24-2006, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Interestingly, the whole "controversy" section seems to have been written by an anonymous Hungarian, without giving references. Wonder who that could be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I rarely visit Wikipedia, and I never made or edit an article there. Care to post the link to the IP address of that 'anonymous Hungarian' - luckily Wikipedia seems to keep track of every IP adress which made an edit - I found ones from Hessen, Germany and Canada, and one very frequent, 82.21.106.20 UK UNITED KINGDOM - - NTL INFRASTRUCTURE - HUDDERSFIELD - guess who could that be - someonewho argues with everybody in the world that British is superior in everything, some of his favourity topics being tales about sadistic Israeli settlers beating arab children with rifle butts, that the RAF BC did not do terrorbombings at all, there were no British run concentration camps in the Boer War, and as opposed to aviation historians opinion, every Jagdwaffe claim filed was 'automatically confirmed as a matter of course', that the Spitfire would outdive the P-47 etc, the 'alternate version of how Bismarck sunk' being just one of them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif




Sounds very muck like the Cameron expedition.

The problem is, though, Cameron didn't manage to find the PoWs hit on Bismarck which went in below the armour belt and flooded one of the boiler rooms and one of the generator rooms.

Hop, can you give us your reference which says Cameron didn't manage to find the PoWs hit on Bismarck ?

All PoW's shell managed is to get under the main belt, and then explode within the torpedo buffer zon against bulkhead, cracking some steams making some cracks on it, and slowly filling two adjacent rooms with water in about 2 hours time - one out of 6 boiler rooms in fact - it's hardly surprising.

Of course, that was a shell fired from far away, diving deep under the belt, and exploding within the buffer zone, unlike torpedoes or shells fired from close range and flat trajectory.



Baron von Müllenheim-Rechberg, in charge of the aft fire control, reported that the list, initially caused by PoW, worsened during the final battle, prior to the scuttling order.

Curiously, in an German documentary's interview with Baron von Müllenheim-Rechberg, he said the ship was scuttled.

The - rather insignificant - list that was caused by the PoW's hit at section XIV was trimmed out soon after the battle - standad procedure. Later on Bismarck receieved a 18" torpedo to the same spot, with no damage taken.

I am sure PoW was eventually sunk from the list it took from Bismarck, too, and not the Japanese torpedo attacks, LOL.

Kurfurst__
05-24-2006, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

This is a complete myth Oldman. Take a look at pictures from the wreck. If you think that the wreck looks as though no shots penetrated the Bismarcks vitals then maybe we are looking at two different ships.

I see artistic drawings - I suppose if I post a picture of Mona Lisa, and label it 'Hop's ex-mother in law' it not neccesarily means that this is how she actually looked?


As for the Bismarcks 12.6 inch steel belt being impenetrable by 14 and 16 inch shells that is utter rubbish. How then did the same shells silence all of the Bismarcks turrets armoured with the same quality of steel? The Bismarck has been built in to a myth mainly by the British.

I'd agree that it's utter rubbish, but let me remind you that you are the only one who is saying that here. Bismarck's 320mm main belt was not particularly hard to penetrate. What made it very effective, that immidiately behind it was a heavily sloped 'turtle' deck of up to 80-120mm thickness, protecting the vital stuff under it, and no shell could through those plates as well, after going through 320mm belt already.

http://www.kbismarck.com/proteccioni.html

zeno303
05-24-2006, 09:01 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

I'd agree that it's utter rubbish, but let me remind you that you are the only one who is saying that here. Bismarck's 320mm main belt was not particularly hard to penetrate. What made it very effective, that immidiately behind it was a heavily sloped 'turtle' deck of up to 80-120mm thickness, protecting the vital stuff under it, and no shell could through those plates as well, after going through 320mm belt already.
QUOTE]

Turtle turtle turtle!

See yer pal Okun:

"FINAL CONCLUSION: The BISMARCK's internal vitals could not be directly reached through the side belt armor under any normal circumstances due to the sloped "turtle-back" armored deck design, making its design the best of all given in this article for this purpose. However, there are several costs for this:

(1) Due to the main armored deck's low position in the ship, extensive flooding of the ship above the sloped/flat armored deck is likely if the side armor is holed, which could cause serious stability problems and which reduced protected reserve bouyancy by one complete deck

(2) The upper hull area can be destroyed at much longer ranges than any other design due to the weak side belt armor. Furthermore, some important equipment, cables, etc. were in this region, compromising the effectiveness of the protection to some (possibly critical) extent

(3) The weak lower main deck armor design -- especially the close-range zone of vulnerability after the projectile penetrated the 1.97" weather deck and was deflected downward through the thin 3.15" main armor deck over the amidships region -- allowed the possibility of reaching the vitals by hits that were deflected off of other structures, such as barbettes, or which hit "shot traps" where ricochet was inhibited (such as where a solid object was bolted to the armor deck and the projectile hit the joint, requiring the projectile to lift the solid object up or to punch through it in order to ricochet)

(4) The requirement for a rather heavy upper side hull armor belt to protect the thin main armor deck from side hits above the main armor belt, which costs considerable weight that could be used to beef up the deck armor or belt armor or both

(5) Unlike the USS SOUTH DAKOTA (and USS IOWA) or the VITTORIO VENETO, the BISMARCK's side armor does not ensure that a completely penetrating projectile is virtually always shattered and rendered "ineffective" by being decapped prior to hitting the face hardened belt armor, which reduces the damage that the projectile will usually case even if it does not penetrate through the belt

(6) The armored transverse bulkheads at each end of the Citadel were weakly protected and had no sloped deck behind them, making the BISMARCK very vulnerable to raking fire from either end, especially as the main magazines were located directly behind these bulkheads

(7) The shallow extension of the belt allowed hits below it to frequently occur, as was demonstrated during the fight with the HMS Prince of Wales, bypassing the main armor belt and aggravating any flooding effects that projectiles punching through the belt above the low main armored deck might cause

The USS SOUTH DAKOTA (or, better yet, the USS IOWA) armor scheme shows that for most naval battles, an improved "conventional" side armor design (thin armored weather deck, high mounting of the heavy main armor deck at the top edge of the main armor belt, thin upper belt armor, inclined main armor belt, thin fragment screen plating spaced behind the belt armor, decapping plate in front of the main belt, and tapered lower belt armor to protect against diving projectiles) gives protection to the vitals that is just as good, if not better, than the BISMARCK's side armor protection with equal weight of armor and without most of the bad points that the BISMARCK's low and, in the flat regions, thin main armor deck gave. If the enemy can get close enough to frequently punch through an Iowa-type belt, the battle is probably already lost, anyway, as the last battle of the BISMARCK demonstrates."

http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm

Cheers!

Kurfurst__
05-24-2006, 09:17 AM
That's a very old article from Nathan, and he revise it himself long ago. Some data were wrong, ie. missing armor layers from Bismarck, and the decks thickness was also wrongly understood at that time.

What gave the SoDak and Iowa good belt protection was the hypothesis that the outer thinner splinter belt on them would decap the incoming shells and those would shatter on the main deck; however, Nathan acknowledged long time ago after discussions with Elder and Saxon that the thickness of that outer plate was simply insufficient for decapping purposes. Such feature was only on the VITTORIO VENETO, but that outer decapping plate was some 3 times thicker than on the US ships, where it was just really splinter protection, given the inclined belt design.

Even with some of the data wrong, Nathan's calculations showed that basically Bismarck vital were pretty safe from plunging fire up to around 30 000 feet distance, which happens to be some 5000 yard above the longest naval hits occured in WW2, whereas through the belt they can't be harmed at any distance. In practical terms, she was perfectly well protected against all likely attacks. Though Yamato is even more of a brute. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I suggest you search for the posts of Saxon and Elder on Bismarck site's forum, they are researching it for perhaps more than a decade now and learned a lot of it.

zeno303
05-24-2006, 09:35 AM
You can quibble about details, but I find his criticism of Bismarck's design convincing.

Blutarski2004
05-24-2006, 09:53 AM
Those interested in reading a professional analysis of the loss of BISMARCK (and HOOD) are encouraged to go here -

http://www.sname.org/committees/design/mfp/website/rece.../hood_bismarck_1.pdf (http://www.sname.org/committees/design/mfp/website/recent/research/hood_bismarck_1.pdf)

- and read the paper prepared by Dr Bill Jurens.

Blutarski2004
05-24-2006, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
... Nathan's calculations showed that basically Bismarck vital were pretty safe from plunging fire up to around 30 000 feet distance, which happens to be some 5000 yard above the longest naval hits occured in WW2, whereas through the belt they can't be harmed at any distance. In practical terms, she was perfectly well protected against all likely attacks.


..... Immune zone limits of both vertical and horizontal armor vary depending upon what gun/projectile threat is under consideration.

That having been said, it can be said with a reasonably high degree of confidence that BISMARCK's vitals were proof against direct penetration in the range and sea state conditions which prevailed at the time of her loss.

Blutarski2004
05-24-2006, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zeno303:

I'd say it came down to lousy shooting by a poorly trained crew. Given the nature of a torpedo attack, this was a low deflection shot. Even factoring in the speed of the Bismarck, torpedo attacks are the easiest to defend against. Slow speed just made their exposure longer. Look at what the Japanese did to poor Torpedo Sqaudron 8 at Midway. TBD-1 weren't much quicker. Finally, the Swordfish was still widely used in the RN. It's lack of speed, even if it was a factor,should have been known and anticipated in gunnery drills, if they ever had them.

Hmmm, I thought they were TBD Devastators, and that most were shot down by Zeros not Japanese AA, which was not that great. BTW in 1942 Tirpitz was attacked by groups of Albacores and shot down a couple of them while escaping any hits, so it seems the Germans learned a bit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... True. The vast majority of USN losses at Midway were inflicted by the Japanese CAP; AA fire accounted for only a handful. See SHATTERED SWORD, by Parshall & Tully.

Blutarski2004
05-24-2006, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
Great pictures & tales guys! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I think the american BB designers were forced to limit the size of their BBs because some of the major manufacturers are based in the US east coast right?(they nead to squeze their long and hard stick thru the opening...of panama canal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) -->like the IOWA class manufacturer.
maybe the US goverment decided to build the BB factories at the east coast becoz of the european theater.

can anyone pls list the US BBships during WWII that were created at the US west coast?

If it wasnt for the narrow Panama canal,The USN would have buit the largest BBs ever created http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Iowa class is one heck of a BB http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


..... IIRC, the beam (hull width) limit to transit the Panama canal is 103 feet. It's still an issue today in merchant shipping circles - hence the "Panamax" standard.

The MONTANA Class battleships were designed without concern for Panama Canal beam limitations. Not certain whether they exceeded the YAMATO class in tonnage/size.

hop2002
05-24-2006, 11:08 AM
Well, obviously Ballard resisted that documentary about the english influence in the sinking of the Bismarck as well.

There doesn't seem to be any source for this claim other than the Wikipedia article, which isn't referenced.


Care to post the link to the IP address of that 'anonymous Hungarian'

It's 195.70.32.136, which is a proxy server for interware.hu The section was added on 9th November 2005 at 13:44, according to the edit history of the page (I have no idea what time zone that time is valid for)


I rarely visit Wikipedia, and I never made or edit an article there.

It was actually half in jest, although the point is not to trust unsourced Wikipedia articles, and the very fact it was an unknown Hungarian who wrote that just illustrates the point.


I found ones from Hessen, Germany and Canada, and one very frequent, 82.21.106.20 UK UNITED KINGDOM - - NTL INFRASTRUCTURE - HUDDERSFIELD - guess who could that be

It could be me if I was from anywhere near Huddersfield. I've never been as far north as Huddersfield, though, and live a lot further south than that.

Mind you, as the entire contribution of the mystery man (or woman) from Huddersfield is the addition of the name of the Swordfish pilot who hit Bismarck, it's hardly worth getting worked up about.


Hop, can you give us your reference which says Cameron didn't manage to find the PoWs hit on Bismarck ?

Cameron's film.

Also, the fact that for most of it's length, Bismarck is buried up to it's waterline in sediment. PoW's shell hit below the waterline.


Curiously, in an German documentary's interview with Baron von Müllenheim-Rechberg, he said the ship was scuttled.

Oh, there's no doubt it was scuttled. The only question is how much the scuttling hastened the end. Although some seem to want to claim that without the scuttling the Bismarck would have survived; that's not a conclusion supported by either the British or Cameron's expedition. Cameron is on record as saying Bismarck was sinking anyway, just more slowly.


The - rather insignificant - list that was caused by the PoW's hit at section XIV was trimmed out soon after the battle - standad procedure.

It was 9 degrees before counterflooding, and from surviving crew reports got better, then worse again before the final battle.


Later on Bismarck receieved a 18" torpedo to the same spot, with no damage taken.


Apart from the flooding getting worse, and the boiler room, which had been made almost watertight and pumped out and one of the two boilers restored, had to be totally abandoned.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-24-2006, 11:42 AM
I'm not sure about this conspiracy allegations about the sinking of the bismarck, but one thing is certain!,Germany have a history of self-dismantling to keep the enemy from capturing their ship like what happend to the Heavy Cruiser "Graf Spee".

Asgeir_Strips
05-24-2006, 12:20 PM
Iowa Class obviously

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-24-2006, 12:51 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
served well into the Desert Storm!

BSS_CUDA
05-24-2006, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... IIRC, the beam (hull width) limit to transit the Panama canal is 103 feet. It's still an issue today in merchant shipping circles - hence the "Panamax" standard.
.

This is not quite correct, beam with for the Canal transit was 108 ft the canal is 110 ft wide,leaving 1 ft on each side. I served on board a USN ship with a 106ft beam USS. Belleau Wood LHA-3 and was onboard for our transit through the canal.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/ships/10070301.jpg

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-24-2006, 01:00 PM
WOW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
a guy from the USN!

What kind of recreation did sailors do?

Its fun at LHAs CVs & CVNs than in other ships http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

what is LHA ?

Ishmael932
05-24-2006, 01:59 PM
The only battleship built on the west coast was "The Old Prune Barge", USS California BB-44 built and launched at Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, Ca. in 1919. Another BB, the original USS Montana BB-51 of the South Dakota Class was started there but never completed. Carrying a main armament of 12 16-inch 50 caliber guns, The Montana and her sister ships of the South Dakota class were broken up on the building ways after the Washington Naval treaty was signed in 1922.

The link below gives a lot of great info on US BBs with their performance, dimensions and armament info.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb.htm

All other BBs in the USN inventory were built on the East Coast in various shipyards. Incidentally, I have been aboard all 4 Iowa class BBs. I went aboard the Iowa & Wisconsin when my ship, USS Elmer Montgomery(FF-1082) was in drydock in Philly in 1977 as they were mothballed there next to our drydock. The Missouri and New Jersey, I went aboard in the early 80's when they came to San Francisco for Fleet Week celebrations. Since I had also visited the Arizona memorial, I have been aboard all US BBs in commission at that time.

OldMan____
05-24-2006, 02:53 PM
It is no myth at all. You cannot judge critical area on thi drwaings. All critical compartments were completely protected by a tturtle armor on a seconds level. This armor could only be hit at 68º due to the efcet that the main belt would produce.

Just use ANY armor penetration formulae and you will se no naval weapon EVER built could penetrate at that angle!!


The torpedoes never passed completely the anti-torpedo protection.

If you think that this damage you show on Bismack was result from between 200 and 400 hits (and that is on the lower estimative!!!)

How many ships in history kept afloat after even 50 hits of such type? No one with the least sense of non-biasign can deny that Basmarck was hellish difficult to sink.


Probably with exception of Iwoa ships Bismarck had the best armor layout for survivability (survivability is not the same as invulnerability).


You don´t have idea how much research I already made about this. I am workign currently on a BB simulation computer game (np publisher set yet so no names). And have studied and implemented in computer simmulations almost all models on calculation or armor penetration for BB level armor. And not a single one support any chance of critical damage on Bismarck with ANY weapon the british had to use, unless by a highy vertical hit from extreme range or heavy bombs from planes. The 18 inch guns form IJN are the only ones that from SOME models of armor penetration calculation, could achieve penetration on the internal sloped turtle armor from point blank. And that is because larger caliber (not the weight here, just the caliber) makes the projectile less affected by the change on trajectory when crosing the first armor layer.

RN just made a dumb move when gettin gclose to bismarck to kill it. If they kept at long range it would probably sunk in much shorter time.

Also there is a controversy about if a heavier armor at the towers would help at all. Whe a tower like that is hit by a 50 or 16 inch projectile. Even is not pierced, the shockwave will kill everyone inside on any direct hit or at least damage lots of equipment. A hit that would not kill poeple inside it by shockwave propagation would be deflected by medium level or armor like bismack carried anyway. So a heavie tower would mean only that it could be repaired in a very short time. But would have a good chance of being put out of action anyway under a direct hit.

hop2002
05-24-2006, 03:22 PM
RN just made a dumb move when gettin gclose to bismarck to kill it. If they kept at long range it would probably sunk in much shorter time.


Perhaps they were more interested in destroying the Bismarck than in bragging rights 60 years later? As it was, by getting close the RN eliminated any possible threat from Bismark after about 40 minutes firing. From that point on, the RN could have left and been confident that the Bismarck would never be a threat to them again (unless the hulk got washed into the path of another ship)

OldMan____
05-24-2006, 03:23 PM
Before I forget. I noticed many remeberred about the montana class. But how many know that germany in fact had lay down 2 other hulls for BB much larger than Bismarck. The H class. 2 hulls laid down all scraped. The plan was to have 6 of them by 1944.

Sergio_101
05-24-2006, 06:17 PM
Oldman, you and Kurfy will NEVER admit
anything German was anything less than superior.

Your posts on Bismark's armour are good comedy.
But because it's German steel a 16" AP shell
would not cause major damage........

26" of casemate armour penetrated at 30,000 yards.
Think about it.
At 8000 or 12,000 yards those 16" AP rounds
would have pissed through Bismark like
a hot knife through butter.

Bismark was good for it's day.
That all Battleships were rendered obsolete
by carriers mutes the point.
battleships were good for little
more than floating atillery during WWII
in need of air cover!

Sergio

panther3485
05-25-2006, 04:04 AM
Hi guys

My quote:
Posted Sun May 21 2006 09:50
"OK, thanks JtD

Is this primarily a US Navy system of designation, or do the British RN, for example, use it as well?

[Please excuse my ignorance here.]"

I was referring to designations such as 'BB' for 'Battleship' and 'CA' for 'Cruiser, Armored'. Sorry if I missed it but anyone got the answer to this question? Is this primarily a USN designation system? How many of the world's navies use it?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

BSS_CUDA
05-25-2006, 06:25 AM
dunno Panther, it might be USN only, I dont know or any british Kriegsmarine or IJN designations.

P.S. topgun LHA = Landing Helicopter Assault.

Landing = floodable welldeck able to launch landing craft
Helicopter = self explanitory
Assault = carried 2500 marines

OldMan____
05-25-2006, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Oldman, you and Kurfy will NEVER admit
anything German was anything less than superior.

Your posts on Bismark's armour are good comedy.
But because it's German steel a 16" AP shell
would not cause major damage........

26" of casemate armour penetrated at 30,000 yards.
Think about it.
At 8000 or 12,000 yards those 16" AP rounds
would have pissed through Bismark like
a hot knife through butter.

Bismark was good for it's day.
That all Battleships were rendered obsolete
by carriers mutes the point.
battleships were good for little
more than floating atillery during WWII
in need of air cover!

Sergio

You are the one geing biased nationalist here.

I never told anythign about german steel being superior or the main belt stopping a 16 inch shell. You are the one trying to read thatm proving who is biased here.

In fact german steel, was inferior to US and UK steel, although still very good. And the Main belt on Bismarck was not able to hold anything above 15 inch. But it was not made to.

Aftetr the main belt there was a second belt a 68 degreess. That Will deflect any projectile up to 18 inch. Since the projectile WILL hit at 68 degree. When passign trough the main belt the trajectory is changed to match the normal of armor surface. If you had studied terminal ballistics you would know that.


Where do you think Germans spent all tha much larger weiht of Bismarck when compared to KGV? Specially since KGV have more armor and weapons? Wanna know? A lot of if in a VERY efficient defensive system against low angle projetiles. A very thick turtle armor covering all vitals.


Richelieu had a similar armor system, But it used a Turtle armor only HALF of Bismarck one, and they considered that enough to hold most low trajectory projectiles!!

At that angle it was impossible to any US gun to penetrate the turtle protected areas. Fact! Jsut use american developed Thompson Armor penetration model to calculate yourself.

At point blanck range probably both Bismarck and Iwoa would be unable to sink each other (in a reasonable fight period).

At long range on the other side, it would be a massacre and an Iwoa ship would shred a Bismarck ship in pieces (although probably not without receiving quite some shots since BM had a VERY high rate of fire ).


At end Bismarck was a much superior ship to be used agaisnt CA and BC and Comercial Ships than any other BB ever built. But was for sure in disadvantage against Iwoa (sicne Iwoa was faster It could dictate the distance of the fight)

OldMan____
05-25-2006, 03:06 PM
http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm

read it. By NATHAN OKUN, the best speciallist in BB armor you can find. Or maybe you can co directly to this part:

" Using the 1.67 caliber nose shape with the body weight and diameter of the 38 cm Psgr. L/4,4 projectile without its AP cap, I plotted the striking velocity needed for complete penetration of a 4.33" Wh plate (assumed to be similar to U.S. Navy WWII STS plates against which my test data was compiled) versus obliquity from 45o to 68o. On the same graph I then used my face-hardened armor penetration computer program to plot the remaining velocity and the impact obliquity on the 4.33" plate - which equals the 68o backward plate slope minus the projectile's downward exit angle after penetrating the side armor - for the 38 cm projectile after it hits the 12.6" belt (plus backing) at a Target Angle of 90o (only angle of fall affects obliquity). The two curves gradually converged but never met, indicating that the sloped deck was impenetrable to the German 38 cm projectile at all ranges, as designed.

Similar computations with British 14-16" projectiles concerning hitting the sloped 4.33" deck after going through the 12.6" belt gave identical results. Even the 18.1" (46 cm) guns on the IJN YAMATO would have had to be placed directly against the side armor of the BISMARCK to have even a chance of penetrating that sloped deck. The German designers had done a very good job in this one protection area!

Note that the 4.33" plate extends only slightly above the ship's waterline at normal draft, so a close-range, almost horizontal shot has to hit very near to or below the waterline to hit the sloped part of the deck, even if penetration were possible. If the ship is partially flooded and has a higher waterline, then only underwater hits an the belt could hit this sloped deck, with all other hits ricocheting off of the flat center deck area or passing above the deck and hitting the far side of the ship if the fuze did not detonate the projectile first. On top of this, it is difficult to get a projectile to penetrate the surface of the water at such shallow impact angles, even with Japanese-style diving shells, so underwater hits at these ranges would be very rare. Needless to say on top of all that, if you can get close enough to get any side/deck penetrations with a big-enough gun, the target that you are firing at is already "kaput" and such penetrations are of no consequence anyway!

My computations also indicate that, as expected, the 3.15-3.74" horizontal portions of the lower armored deck could not be penetrated under any conditions after penetrating the 12.6" side belt by any projectile used on any actual warship.

FINAL CONCLUSION: The BISMARCK's internal vitals could not be directly reached through the side belt armor under any normal circumstances due to the sloped "turtle-back" armored deck design, making its design the best of all given in this article for this purpose. However, there are several costs for this: "

luftluuver
05-25-2006, 03:08 PM
The Anatomy of the Ship series has put out one on the Bismark. If it is anything like the other books in the series, it would be well worth buying.

Sergio_101
05-26-2006, 02:37 AM
But really, it's German.
(While stomping his feet)
"It's uber"
"It's uber"
"It's uber"
"It's uber"
"Se my math, I can prove it's uber!"

Oldman, have Kurfy make an authentic graph
for you.
Oops! You are Kurfy.......
Maybe not, but you post the same brand of absurdity!

Sergio

joeap
05-26-2006, 02:42 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
But really, it's German.
(While stomping his feet)
"It's uber"
"It's uber"
"It's uber"
"It's uber"
"Se my math, I can prove it's uber!"

Oldman, have Kurfy make an authentic graph
for you.
Oops! You are Kurfy.......
Maybe not, but you post the same brand of absurdity!

Sergio

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Oldman good post.

Lucius_Esox
05-26-2006, 03:50 AM
But really, it's German.
(While stomping his feet)
"It's uber"
"It's uber"
"It's uber"
"It's uber"
"Se my math, I can prove it's uber!"

Oldman, have Kurfy make an authentic graph
for you.
Oops! You are Kurfy.......
Maybe not, but you post the same brand of absurdity!

Sergio


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Yep,,, nice one m8 lol.

People can post any old sh1te they want and give it "authenticity"

One thing for sure though,,,, the German surface fleet in the 2WW wasn't exactly their most powerfull and effective arm was it.

Probably rank alongside their pushbike soldiers in terms of net effect,,, lololol, sorry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mynameisroland
05-26-2006, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm

read it. By NATHAN OKUN, the best speciallist in BB armor you can find. Or maybe you can co directly to this part:

" Using the 1.67 caliber nose shape with the body weight and diameter of the 38 cm Psgr. L/4,4 projectile without its AP cap, I plotted the striking velocity needed for complete penetration of a 4.33" Wh plate (assumed to be similar to U.S. Navy WWII STS plates against which my test data was compiled) versus obliquity from 45o to 68o. On the same graph I then used my face-hardened armor penetration computer program to plot the remaining velocity and the impact obliquity on the 4.33" plate - which equals the 68o backward plate slope minus the projectile's downward exit angle after penetrating the side armor - for the 38 cm projectile after it hits the 12.6" belt (plus backing) at a Target Angle of 90o (only angle of fall affects obliquity). The two curves gradually converged but never met, indicating that the sloped deck was impenetrable to the German 38 cm projectile at all ranges, as designed.

Similar computations with British 14-16" projectiles concerning hitting the sloped 4.33" deck after going through the 12.6" belt gave identical results. Even the 18.1" (46 cm) guns on the IJN YAMATO would have had to be placed directly against the side armor of the BISMARCK to have even a chance of penetrating that sloped deck. The German designers had done a very good job in this one protection area!

Note that the 4.33" plate extends only slightly above the ship's waterline at normal draft, so a close-range, almost horizontal shot has to hit very near to or below the waterline to hit the sloped part of the deck, even if penetration were possible. If the ship is partially flooded and has a higher waterline, then only underwater hits an the belt could hit this sloped deck, with all other hits ricocheting off of the flat center deck area or passing above the deck and hitting the far side of the ship if the fuze did not detonate the projectile first. On top of this, it is difficult to get a projectile to penetrate the surface of the water at such shallow impact angles, even with Japanese-style diving shells, so underwater hits at these ranges would be very rare. Needless to say on top of all that, if you can get close enough to get any side/deck penetrations with a big-enough gun, the target that you are firing at is already "kaput" and such penetrations are of no consequence anyway!

My computations also indicate that, as expected, the 3.15-3.74" horizontal portions of the lower armored deck could not be penetrated under any conditions after penetrating the 12.6" side belt by any projectile used on any actual warship.

FINAL CONCLUSION: The BISMARCK's internal vitals could not be directly reached through the side belt armor under any normal circumstances due to the sloped "turtle-back" armored deck design, making its design the best of all given in this article for this purpose. However, there are several costs for this: "

Nice post Oldman, Nathun Okuns essays are excellent and I used to frequent the BB vs BB discussions forums back in 2001 to 2003 and posted there regularly. I also have that little programme where you can 'design' ships and it calculates their displacement based on dimensions and armament ect. Springfield or something?

Anyway, regarding the Bismarck's belt there are some things that need to be mentioned to put your posts in to proper context. The Bismarcks designers did intend for the the Bismarck to only fight at close ranges. When I say close I mean 20,000 yards and under. This is why the Bismarck is often claimed to have been an old fashioned design. The concept of naval warfare had progressed since the end of WW1 and most nations - especially those who signed the Washington treaty decided that plunging fire posed the greatest danger to Battleships. studies showed that once range increased beyond 20,000 yards greater than 60% of all hits would occur on the decks and turrets. Those hitting the belt would be in the minority and there would also be a lot of plunging hits. Shells that fall short and travel under the water and hit the ship below its main armoured belt.

The Japanese in particular were very interested in this phenomenon and designed the ballistics of their 18.1 inch shells so that they would have improved performance once they hit the water just short of their target.

The Royal Navy fought the Bismarck at a low range because after a lengthy chase at top speed they were low on fuel and partly because they intended tio wreck the Bismarck. They achieved the total destruction of the Bismarck fairly quickly but the method of its destruction was deliberate. The Royal Navy intended to exorcise the Demon of the Hood's slayer and they did this very dramatically. In a more even engagement where the Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnorst and Gneisenau were in concert the Royal Navy would fight them using different tactics. Most likely the German ships would try to disengage resulting in a running fight. The KGV class would be superior in this sort of fight because they have 6 barrels firing over the bow and have lower velocity shells which are more conducive by their nature to achieving deck hits.

Two further questions, Oldman have you seen construction drawings of the Bismarck and compared the depth of her main belt to that of a ship like the KGV or SOD? And secondly how do you feel that the Vanguard and the Bismarck would compare in a battle?

Kurfurst__
05-26-2006, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Cameron's film.

Also, the fact that for most of it's length, Bismarck is buried up to it's waterline in sediment. PoW's shell hit below the waterline.

Oh, Hop, please. Everyone who seen Cameron's documentary seen the footage he made in the torpedo bulkheads, which's outer plating was torn off at places as the ship slided on the ocean bottom. Mind you, those bulkheads happen to start just under the main belt - which itself is two or three meters BELOW the waterline, and there's at least 5 meters seen from lower edge of the waterline. In other word, what you say is nonsense, and you know it well. Only the fore raised a mud-hill in front of it up to the level of the waterline, the rest of the ship isn't dug in, in fact the screws with the entire stern are out and can be seen how a screw jammed with the rudder.

The entire arguing about PoW shell is pointless anyway, since it's just a simple fact that it never went through the internal vertical bulkhead, and was stopped in the torpedo bulkhead, just cracking some welds on it and caused minor flooding as it exploded.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Curiously, in an German documentary's interview with Baron von Müllenheim-Rechberg, he said the ship was scuttled.

Oh, there's no doubt it was scuttled. The only question is how much the scuttling hastened the end. Although some seem to want to claim that without the scuttling the Bismarck would have survived; that's not a conclusion supported by either the British or Cameron's expedition. Cameron is on record as saying Bismarck was sinking anyway, just more slowly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that question doesn't interest me enough to debate much on it, it's rather about a prestige question for the opposing sides. Of course Bismarck was in a rough shape, and would have probably sink from fires or other factors, the cause is hard to tell, given the beating she took. What Cameron showed is that the torpedo bulkheads worked well and no serious damage is visible to them; and frankly, the moral of the story for me is rather that the protective system of ship, that was designed for survivabilty above all worked remarkably good through the operation, not some silly, endless and pointles arguing who gave the coup de'grace to a ship that probably took more hits alone than both side's capitol ships combined at Skagerrak.




Apart from the flooding getting worse, and the boiler room, which had been made almost watertight and pumped out and one of the two boilers restored, had to be totally abandoned.

Oh, that's sounds awful. And how did the flooding get worse? The ship ws hit by the main caliber arty below the belt and waterline, then by one of the three torpedo on the same spot, and all what happens is that the temporary fixes the crew made in haste got loose and leaky again, and the room that was already sealed off had to be abandoned again with no further damage than what was already there, same room flooded again. I mean that hit alone utterly compromised the whole intergrity of the ship, compared to what happened, let's say - HMS Barham after being 'fished'?

Kurfurst__
05-26-2006, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Anyway, regarding the Bismarck's belt there are some things that need to be mentioned to put your posts in to proper context. The Bismarcks designers did intend for the the Bismarck to only fight at close ranges. When I say close I mean 20,000 yards and under.

... and wasn't that the typical way Navies fought in WW2 - 20 000 yards and under?



studies showed that once range increased beyond 20,000 yards greater than 60% of all hits would occur on the decks and turrets. Those hitting the belt would be in the minority and there would also be a lot of plunging hits. Shells that fall short and travel under the water and hit the ship below its main armoured belt.

Curious, I've seen this a lot of times, do you have something specific, numbers or something like that?



Two further questions, Oldman have you seen construction drawings of the Bismarck and compared the depth of her main belt to that of a ship like the KGV or SOD?

If the point is that Bismark's belt was extending less into the waterline than on the KGV, let's just point out that at Denmark's straits, Bismarck hit PoW as well below the waterline, and it went under the belt as well.

Blutarski2004
05-26-2006, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... IIRC, the beam (hull width) limit to transit the Panama canal is 103 feet. It's still an issue today in merchant shipping circles - hence the "Panamax" standard.
.

This is not quite correct, beam with for the Canal transit was 108 ft the canal is 110 ft wide,leaving 1 ft on each side. I served on board a USN ship with a 106ft beam USS. Belleau Wood LHA-3 and was onboard for our transit through the canal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks for the correction, Cuda.

It has been a while since I've plumbed my memory banks on that topic (used to be in the international freight forwarding biz) - hence my caveat "IIRC".

Blutarski2004
05-26-2006, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Japanese in particular were very interested in this phenomenon and designed the ballistics of their 18.1 inch shells so that they would have improved performance once they hit the water just short of their target.


..... This diving shell design was employed for Japanese naval projectiles down to 8-inch caliber. In fact, the one occasion upon which such a projectile actually made an underwater penetration of a target occured in the course of firing by a Japanese cruiser upon a US heavy cruiser during the Solomons campaign. The projectile actually penetrated into the forward magazine ofthe American ship, but the magazine did not explode.

I can provide fuller details, if anyone is interested.

WOLFMondo
05-26-2006, 06:51 AM
So the conclusion is:

Bismark was really well armoured, but every hit she took killed vast amounts of her crew but never got her vitals?

Great design that is :P

Blutarski2004
05-26-2006, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">studies showed that once range increased beyond 20,000 yards greater than 60% of all hits would occur on the decks and turrets. Those hitting the belt would be in the minority and there would also be a lot of plunging hits. Shells that fall short and travel under the water and hit the ship below its main armoured belt.

Curious, I've seen this a lot of times, do you have something specific, numbers or something like that?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... It's a trigonometric projection. The tangent of the angle of fall multiplied by the beam of the target ship will give the vertical projection of the deck as it would be viewed from the perspective of the approaching projectile (assuming the lineof fire to be 90 degrees to the center line of the target ship).

Very broadly speaking, the angle of fall of a projectile is approximately 1.5-1.6 x the angle of elevation for any given range.

Example:

Assume a target ship of 30 feet freeboard and 100 feet in beam.

A heavy caliber projectile fired at 10 degrees elevation would reach out to a range of about +/- 16,000 yards, with an angle of fall of about 16 degrees.

The tangent of 16 degrees = 0.2867. Therefore the vertical projection of the deck would be about 29 feet. In practical terms, a hit would be equally likely to hit the ship's side (30 feet) or weather deck (29 feet vertical projection).

Much of Bismarck's armor layout was based upon expected visibility conditions in the North Sea, Baltic, and North Atlantic waters where she would be anticipated to operate. Visibility in the North Sea averaged about 15,000 yards. This goes directly to the issue of ship design being dictated by projected/intended operational use.

stathem
05-26-2006, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
So the conclusion is:

Bismark was really well armoured, but every hit she took killed vast amounts of her crew but never got her vitals?

Great design that is :P

And thus had to be scuttled in order to prevent the RN capturing her, towing her back to Camel Lairds, repairing her and sending her back out on patrol. Just like they used to do with Ships of the Line in the old days, which were also virually unsinkable.

luftluuver
05-26-2006, 07:05 AM
Bismarck armour

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/technicallayout/armour/armour.html

http://www.kbismarck.com/design.html

Blutarski2004
05-26-2006, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
So the conclusion is:

Bismark was really well armoured, but every hit she took killed vast amounts of her crew but never got her vitals?

Great design that is :P


..... Keep in mind that Bismarck was both crippled and beset by an overwhelming number of attackers who were able to choose their fighting range. At those ranges (<10.000 yds) few, if any, battleships of any nation could have survived any better. The survival of Bismarck's machinery and magazine spaces (the "vitals") was the result of her good horizontal armor protection and the short shooting ranges which produced very acute angles of fall.

You can see similar results if you study the damage effects suffered by various German capital ships at Jutland. A number of them them were pretty well knocked about from shooting at ranges which generally did not exceed 15,000 yards; yet no British shells reached any of their vitals. This was the case even with Lutzow, the only modern German capital ship sunk at Jutland by gunfire. No shell penetrated below her armored deck. Lutzow succumbed to progressive flooding caused by damage suffered above her armored deck level.

WOLFMondo
05-26-2006, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
So the conclusion is:

Bismark was really well armoured, but every hit she took killed vast amounts of her crew but never got her vitals?

Great design that is :P


..... Keep in mind that Bismarck was both crippled and beset by an overwhelming number of attackers who were able to choose their fighting range. At those ranges (<10.000 yds) few, if any, battleships of any nation could have survived any better. The survival of Bismarck's machinery and magazine spaces (the "vitals") was the result of her good horizontal armor protection and the short shooting ranges which produced very acute angles of fall.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Despite this massive and excellent armour, its easy to see that the designers attributed the word vital to the machinery and magazines and did not see the crew as vital?

I think the conclusion is the Bismark, in fact all the highly advanced and excellent German warships were let down by bad stratergy i.e. not building enough support ships like cruisers and destroyers to support there capital ships.

Blutarski2004
05-26-2006, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Despite this massive and excellent armour, its easy to see that the designers attributed the word vital to the machinery and magazines and did not see the crew as vital?


..... The crew was certainly "vital" as well. The problem is that the crew must be in many places aboard such a ship, but it is impossible to provide perfect protection everywhere on the ship. Interestingly, casualty rates aboard an armored ship in a naval battle were not normally too terrible unless the ship blew up or sank in cold seas without friends nearby. The Bismarck situation was unusual indeed - in fact many German sailors survived the battle but died in the cold and heavy (Force 9 winds) seas. The British ships left the area due to an air raid or submarine alert (cannot remember which) before they were able to save very many survivors.




I think the conclusion is the Bismark, in fact all the highly advanced and excellent German warships were let down by bad strategy i.e. not building enough support ships like cruisers and destroyers to support there capital ships.

..... IMO, the German Navy would have been better served by building two large aircraft carriers instead of Bismarck and Tirpitz. These would have changed the calculus of the naval war in the Northern seas. Any commerce raiding could have just as easily and more economically been performed by Scharnhorst Class or Graf Spee Class ships.

Slater_51st
05-26-2006, 01:20 PM
..... IMO, the German Navy would have been better served by building two large aircraft carriers instead of Bismarck and Tirpitz. These would have changed the calculus of the naval war in the Northern seas. Any commerce raiding could have just as easily and more economically been performed by Scharnhorst Class or Graf Spee Class ships.

BLUTARSKI

Two carriers would probably had more impact on shipping than Bismark and Tirpitz, but when the war broke out, the effect of naval air power had not yet fully been realized. I've always found it interesting that Germany never finished her aircraft carriers. But, more than surface ships, I think Germany would have been better served by more u-boats. Imho, the german capital ships served best by diverting a large amount of allied resources into the hunting of them, as well as to the protection of convoys.

As for the "best" battleship of WWII, I'll take the copout answer and say there was no "real" best. All of them had faults, and all of them had strong points.

And now for some sinking pictures...
HMS Barham:
http://www.historialago.com/av_h_barham_01a.jpg
http://www.historialago.com/av_h_barham_01b.jpg
http://www.historialago.com/av_h_barham_01d.jpg

Roma:
http://www.regiamarina.net/others/roma/images/roma3.jpg
http://www.regiamarina.net/others/roma/images/roma4.jpg
http://www.regiamarina.net/others/roma/images/roma5.jpg

Yamato:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g300000/g309662.jpg
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g270000/g272550.jpg
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g310000/g313714.jpg
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h62000/h62580.jpg
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h62000/h62579.jpg
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h62000/h62584.jpg

OldMan____
05-26-2006, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm

read it. By NATHAN OKUN, the best speciallist in BB armor you can find. Or maybe you can co directly to this part:

" Using the 1.67 caliber nose shape with the body weight and diameter of the 38 cm Psgr. L/4,4 projectile without its AP cap, I plotted the striking velocity needed for complete penetration of a 4.33" Wh plate (assumed to be similar to U.S. Navy WWII STS plates against which my test data was compiled) versus obliquity from 45o to 68o. On the same graph I then used my face-hardened armor penetration computer program to plot the remaining velocity and the impact obliquity on the 4.33" plate - which equals the 68o backward plate slope minus the projectile's downward exit angle after penetrating the side armor - for the 38 cm projectile after it hits the 12.6" belt (plus backing) at a Target Angle of 90o (only angle of fall affects obliquity). The two curves gradually converged but never met, indicating that the sloped deck was impenetrable to the German 38 cm projectile at all ranges, as designed.

Similar computations with British 14-16" projectiles concerning hitting the sloped 4.33" deck after going through the 12.6" belt gave identical results. Even the 18.1" (46 cm) guns on the IJN YAMATO would have had to be placed directly against the side armor of the BISMARCK to have even a chance of penetrating that sloped deck. The German designers had done a very good job in this one protection area!

Note that the 4.33" plate extends only slightly above the ship's waterline at normal draft, so a close-range, almost horizontal shot has to hit very near to or below the waterline to hit the sloped part of the deck, even if penetration were possible. If the ship is partially flooded and has a higher waterline, then only underwater hits an the belt could hit this sloped deck, with all other hits ricocheting off of the flat center deck area or passing above the deck and hitting the far side of the ship if the fuze did not detonate the projectile first. On top of this, it is difficult to get a projectile to penetrate the surface of the water at such shallow impact angles, even with Japanese-style diving shells, so underwater hits at these ranges would be very rare. Needless to say on top of all that, if you can get close enough to get any side/deck penetrations with a big-enough gun, the target that you are firing at is already "kaput" and such penetrations are of no consequence anyway!

My computations also indicate that, as expected, the 3.15-3.74" horizontal portions of the lower armored deck could not be penetrated under any conditions after penetrating the 12.6" side belt by any projectile used on any actual warship.

FINAL CONCLUSION: The BISMARCK's internal vitals could not be directly reached through the side belt armor under any normal circumstances due to the sloped "turtle-back" armored deck design, making its design the best of all given in this article for this purpose. However, there are several costs for this: "

Nice post Oldman, Nathun Okuns essays are excellent and I used to frequent the BB vs BB discussions forums back in 2001 to 2003 and posted there regularly. I also have that little programme where you can 'design' ships and it calculates their displacement based on dimensions and armament ect. Springfield or something?

Anyway, regarding the Bismarck's belt there are some things that need to be mentioned to put your posts in to proper context. The Bismarcks designers did intend for the the Bismarck to only fight at close ranges. When I say close I mean 20,000 yards and under. This is why the Bismarck is often claimed to have been an old fashioned design. The concept of naval warfare had progressed since the end of WW1 and most nations - especially those who signed the Washington treaty decided that plunging fire posed the greatest danger to Battleships. studies showed that once range increased beyond 20,000 yards greater than 60% of all hits would occur on the decks and turrets. Those hitting the belt would be in the minority and there would also be a lot of plunging hits. Shells that fall short and travel under the water and hit the ship below its main armoured belt.

The Japanese in particular were very interested in this phenomenon and designed the ballistics of their 18.1 inch shells so that they would have improved performance once they hit the water just short of their target.

The Royal Navy fought the Bismarck at a low range because after a lengthy chase at top speed they were low on fuel and partly because they intended tio wreck the Bismarck. They achieved the total destruction of the Bismarck fairly quickly but the method of its destruction was deliberate. The Royal Navy intended to exorcise the Demon of the Hood's slayer and they did this very dramatically. In a more even engagement where the Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnorst and Gneisenau were in concert the Royal Navy would fight them using different tactics. Most likely the German ships would try to disengage resulting in a running fight. The KGV class would be superior in this sort of fight because they have 6 barrels firing over the bow and have lower velocity shells which are more conducive by their nature to achieving deck hits.

Two further questions, Oldman have you seen construction drawings of the Bismarck and compared the depth of her main belt to that of a ship like the KGV or SOD? And secondly how do you feel that the Vanguard and the Bismarck would compare in a battle? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have Tirptz Blutprints somewhere at home. Send me your e-mail to tiago@thunder-works.com and I will send them to you )if I still can find them). I am still loockign for a good KGV blueprint to use in my current game project. Anyone have one?

On the Vanguard issue. I would have bet on it for sure. These fights are never easy (contrary to some beliefs like " Iowa would completely vaporize that ship X and suffer no damage". These fights almost always end with both sides hurt. On the end Vanguard was probably better balanced ship than Bismarck.

It was by FAR the most stable BB (as gun platform in rough waters) ever built (second is Bismarck). There are reports of operetional exercices in North atlantic when sea was rough enough that "no man was able to stand on foot at Iowa deck without grab on something, while in vanguard the deack was still completely dry".

It was a very good ship. Again, a design for north sea.



About the " Bad german strategy". Some people forget tha Germany had a Z plan that intende to build a few Carriers and more 6 BB of H class (quite larger than Bismarck). It would be a fleet quite capable of match UK fleet at north sea (since UK needed to keep themselves all around the world).

At northern sea, without BB escorts 1 or 2 carriers would be dead meat. Don't forget that at North Sea's weather condition, you may have to wait a few days without beign able to launch planes. And at that conditions, even a Pocket battleship would be able to crush them.

But when war erupted they were all canceled. If war had erupted an year later probably at least the first 2 w H class BB would been completed.


Soviet Union also had laid down 3 hulls for HUGE battleships (Class Sovetsky Soyuz). They were more armored than anything else but Yamato. In fact there are indications that they had plans to build a fleet FAR bigger than UK.

WOLFMondo
05-26-2006, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Despite this massive and excellent armour, its easy to see that the designers attributed the word vital to the machinery and magazines and did not see the crew as vital?


..... The crew was certainly "vital" as well. The problem is that the crew must be in many places aboard such a ship, but it is impossible to provide perfect protection everywhere on the ship. Interestingly, casualty rates aboard an armored ship in a naval battle were not normally too terrible unless the ship blew up or sank in cold seas without friends nearby. The Bismarck situation was unusual indeed - in fact many German sailors survived the battle but died in the cold and heavy (Force 9 winds) seas. The British ships left the area due to an air raid or submarine alert (cannot remember which) before they were able to save very many survivors.




I think the conclusion is the Bismark, in fact all the highly advanced and excellent German warships were let down by bad strategy i.e. not building enough support ships like cruisers and destroyers to support there capital ships.

..... IMO, the German Navy would have been better served by building two large aircraft carriers instead of Bismarck and Tirpitz. These would have changed the calculus of the naval war in the Northern seas. Any commerce raiding could have just as easily and more economically been performed by Scharnhorst Class or Graf Spee Class ships. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think 2 carriers would have made a difference. They would have been torpedoed by a sub or swordfish pretty quickly, if not taken out by destroyers. I'd agree that it would have been allot better spent on more Scharnhorst size ships as they would have done allot more serious damage than tiny insignificant hit and run raids than 2 ships of that class did. I've not much doubt they would have all met a bad fate though, the german surface fleet was too out numbered, so easily trapped.

OldMan____
05-26-2006, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Despite this massive and excellent armour, its easy to see that the designers attributed the word vital to the machinery and magazines and did not see the crew as vital?


..... The crew was certainly "vital" as well. The problem is that the crew must be in many places aboard such a ship, but it is impossible to provide perfect protection everywhere on the ship. Interestingly, casualty rates aboard an armored ship in a naval battle were not normally too terrible unless the ship blew up or sank in cold seas without friends nearby. The Bismarck situation was unusual indeed - in fact many German sailors survived the battle but died in the cold and heavy (Force 9 winds) seas. The British ships left the area due to an air raid or submarine alert (cannot remember which) before they were able to save very many survivors.




I think the conclusion is the Bismark, in fact all the highly advanced and excellent German warships were let down by bad strategy i.e. not building enough support ships like cruisers and destroyers to support there capital ships.

..... IMO, the German Navy would have been better served by building two large aircraft carriers instead of Bismarck and Tirpitz. These would have changed the calculus of the naval war in the Northern seas. Any commerce raiding could have just as easily and more economically been performed by Scharnhorst Class or Graf Spee Class ships. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think 2 carriers would have made a difference. They would have been torpedoed by a sub or swordfish pretty quickly, if not taken out by destroyers. I'd agree that it would have been allot better spent on more Scharnhorst size ships as they would have done allot more serious damage than tiny insignificant hit and run raids than 2 ships of that class did. I've not much doubt they would have all met a bad fate though, the german surface fleet was too out numbered, so easily trapped. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If germany wanted to defeat UK navy they had 2 choices. Develop a long range air force or develop U boats focused on attacking military ships (like the XXI type was able to).

In fact. Germany lost a chance of preparing a perfect trap with Bismarck. They should new RN would launch everything on it. So they shoudl hae lauched a LARGE U boat eascort ahead of it. Hidden awaiting. Then bismarck would lead pursuers on them ( BBs pursuers since everything else was no match for Bismarck). DD would not be ASWing ( doing so in a BB battle would be just stupid). I would bet that with this move, usign 8 Uboats at least 2 UK BB could be sunk, and Bismarck could return port and wait for Tirptz.