- Location
- North Carolina
Okay, I see that. Dammit, but next time be more amicable and nice about it.
Changing Destiny (Kancolle)
- Thread starter Skywalker_T-65
- Start date
Okay, I see that. Dammit, but next time be more amicable and nice about it.
CV12Hornet
Riter.
- Location
- Tacoma, Washington
Show that you've actually learned from this and I will.
CompassJimbo
Where’s Your North?
- Location
- The former Rubber Capital of the World
Seconded.
- Location
- New York
"A force like that would be able to sweep aside almost any similar sized force". Don't make me laugh. That force is literally the three least capable ships in the North Atlantic - two BBs that despite being designed in the late 1930s are so terribly designed for the age that they'd be more appropriate at Jutland than any WWII battlefield, and a horribly overweight heavy cruiser with constant reliability issues. Any two active service Royal Navy BBs except Prince of Wales and a decent heavy cruiser would be able to take that force apart without much issue at all. Remember, the only reason Bismarck did as much damage as she did was because of a luck shot against Hood and because Prince of Wales had prior mechanical issues - against two BBs that actually worked, Bismarck would be forced to retreat or outright sunk without being able to do any serious damage in return. Same goes for Tirpitz.
Shroobmaster
Commander of the fun guy army
- Location
- california
Pray tell, where did you get this information from?
CV12Hornet
Riter.
- Location
- Tacoma, Washington
*sighs*
You're wrong, because three of the four Rs are still plying the North Atlantic, and Bismarck would eat one of those for breakfast.
Shroobmaster
Commander of the fun guy army
- Location
- california
Agreed. What source of information does it say that the Bismarcks were terribly designed?
- Location
- North Carolina
Yeah, the Bismarcks weren't terribly designed. If anything, they were some of the best battleships ever built. I mean, let's see she took more than 400 hits, of the 8in, 14in, and 16in variety, plus at least four torpedoes maybe more. Plus, while the Bismarck would have sank, eventually from damage thanks to the torpedo attacks, HMS Rodney, HMS King George V, HMS Dorsetshire, and HMS Norfolk almost empitied their magazines of shells. The only reason Bismarck sank when she did was thanks to the fact that she was scuttled by the Germans. When Doctor Robert Ballard discovered her wreck, he found huge dents in her belt where many shells from King George V bounced off, having failed to penetrate her belt. The armor of Bismarck held up rather nicely, but her poor superstructure and armaments were utterly demolished.
Considering that it took the combined efforts of a Fleet Carrier, several destroyers, two Battleships, and two Heavy Cruisers to put the big German Battleship down. I'd say she was very well built, if anything, she would have given the British a real fight if her Fire Control Radar wasn't knocked out at the very start of fight. Another note, they think one of the torpedoes that hit Bismarck came from HMS Rodney meaning that if it's true, then it was the first and only time where one Battleship torpedoed another.
Not to mention the Admiral Hipper class Heavy Cruiser was also a well-designed ship that was no laughing matter either. It's eight 8in guns were just as good if not better than it's American and British Counterparts. The one argument you bring against her is that she struggled to maintain speed in a hard turn. The Admiral Hipper class would often lose 50-percent of it's speed when traveling at Flank Speed and they enter a hard turn, plus they heeled quite a bit, up to fourteen degrees. But, there has never been a ship that has lost speed or heeled over when they turn, so it's not much of argument. Plus they didn't have engine troubles constantly, they were good ships all around as well.
Last edited:
Dirtnap
Kanmusu Affecionado
They aren't designed for the age, they're designed for the area. Operations in the North Sea means closer ranges, where their thicker horizontal armor comes into play. Their turtleback armor scheme, meant to defeat/deflect shells up to and including 15" guns of the RN. Their own heavy 15" battery. An absolutely massive secondary battery, more than capable of handling lighter ships, freeing up the main batteries for shooting at capital ships.
The Admiral Hippers, while not the best heavy cruisers, were still very respectable. At steam they were considered good stable ships and each one was 16k, heavier than most interwar/early war cruisers. They had 3" of deck armor and 3" of belt armor. The belt didn't get thinner at the ends by much. Their AA batteries were pretty well rounded as well, twelve 105mm guns, twelve 3.7cm guns (later upgraded to a german bofors variant) and eight 2cm flak guns. And their engines were only finicky when they weren't properly maintained. Guess what, they've got a full crew of trained Geman sailors capable of keeping the ship in working order, getting the most out of her engines.
True, in a way.
But that's false. They had their good points but also some glaring weak points, and took a lot of tonnage to do what other ships did on far less.
Most of those were bouncing the rubble of her decks in her final moments. After three 14" hits she was forced towards a port, after two torpedo hits she was out of control.
Actually, according to Tovey the Bismarck was sinking, but only slowly when they stopped firing. Then the British shot four torpedoes which hit just about when the crew opened her to the sea.
It's also impossible to see what happened to the shell hits below the waterline as the wreck lies deep in the mudd.
It took one battleship to send her to port and one carrier to make her out of control. You're taking what actually showed up at the sinking and think that the ships were there because they were needed instead of merely present. And even that isn't complete because there was also Glasgow and Renown about, but out of sight.
'They' also think that this report is false. It is IIRC unsupported by the German survivors.
No, they were not well designed.
They were 14,000 tonnes, yet had worse armor, less 8" guns, less range and unreliable machinery compared to US 10,000 ton heavy cruisers of the same era.
It could break down anytime. This is acceptable if you're plying close to port, but most worrisome if you're in the middle of the ocean with no friendly port nearby. As they would be when raiding.
Last edited:
CrabMonarchy
Allegedly Dutch
- Location
- the Netherlands, apparently
Paging @Skywalker_T-65, local naval expert. What insight can you grant us on the Bismarck?
On the subject of the Bismark being the best battleship ever, hahahahahaha I'm sorry, but no. That award goes to Eagleland and the Iowas, IMO. Problems include worse AA (40mm Bofors and 5-in/38 DP + radar FC and VT fuses), worse AP ammo (Mark 8 Super-Heavy Shell), worse guns in general (38 cm SK C/34 vs. 16 in. Mark 7), worse radar, worse speed (29 knots vs 32), and superior US damcon, among other things.
Even if I think the 3x3 turret layout is ugly.
Also notable is that while the Bismarck only sank after being beat to death by several ships, she still sank.
Last edited:
Dirtnap
Kanmusu Affecionado
- 16,170 t (15,910 long tons; 17,820 short tons)
- Full load:
- 18,200 long tons (18,500 t)
Last edited:
Shroobmaster
Commander of the fun guy army
- Location
- california
While they weren't as good as USN fast battleships, they were pretty decent for their time.
Skywalker_T-65
Writer with too many ideas.
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- Plural/They/He/Her
Erm...currently working on figuring out how to animate an ocean in Blender?
Right then...
Well, fundamentally Bismarck is a product of her time. Germany has not built any capital ships for twenty years by the time Scharnhorst (let's not count the Deutschlands, as oversized cruisers) rolls out. This is a major intellectual and practical experience drain. Its a common knock on Scharn and Bisko that they're 'World War 1 designs in a WW2 skin'. Which isn't inaccurate. Scharn in particular is clearly based on the last Imperial German designs to some extent.
(one of the GK-series battlecruiser proposals was basically Scharn with 16.5 in guns. Same belt thickness though I can't say on coverage, same-ish speed, same number of main guns...)
This said, it's completely understandable if the Third Reich's capital ships are based on the Second's. German designers had to start somewhere and with how relatively little time they had to work with, going back to old proposals and plans is quicker than starting from scratch. This said, they aren't entirely the same as Imperial German designs. There are definite modernizations and differences to be seen. The closest one gets is using turtleback armor, having the same main battery layout as Bayern, and the same triple screw design.
Scharnhorst is designed as a fast commerce raider, and this is obvious in her speed and weaponry. Even if she had the 15in she was originally designed for, she'd be at best a match for a Renown, other than her tough armor.
Bismarck, as Dirtnap mentioned, is a brawler. Much as with Imperial German ships, she's designed to operate in the North Sea to some extent. Commerce raiding is also part of her mission though, so she has engines that give decent range. Because this isn't Imperial Germany and she has no way to refuel at sea. This said, her armor scheme is based around close-quarters brawls. This is why you see Bismarck bouncing shells from Rodney and KGV when they chased her down. Because they closed in on her and fired at what she was designed to take. Close-in combat and impacts to her hilariously thick horizontal protection. This makes her a bit weaker in long range fights like what an American would do but...
These ships were designed to counter the French. Bismarck and Tirpitz got 15in guns because Richelieu did. They were never designed to fight the USN or RN. In fact, the Germans were not fond of taking Bismarck against Hood, as most of their simulated battles saw her lose. IIRC. Bismarck was a ship designed to go up against Richelieu and the other French ships, which meant that being designed to go up in close-quarters brawls isn't a bad thing. Operate in the North Sea, make the French come to you, and then smack them in the face.
You can see this in her heavy secondary layout as well. The French are infamous for their big destroyers, so having a hilariously heavy secondary armament on Bismarck makes her more able to stand up to destroyer attack.
All this said?
Bismarck is a good ship. She's inefficient in some ways- her secondaries aren't dual-purpose, the triple screw is an Achilles heel more than it helps -but for what Germany had she's a perfectly serviceable design. Neither the best nor the worst of WW2 warship design. She'd probably lose in a straight up fight against an Iowa, but then, most ships would.
Whitley, cruisers of WW2, p57: 14,475 tons standard, 18,500 tons full load.
Compare this to the US Vincennes:
Same source p243: 10,298 tons standard, 12,692 tons full load.
If you really want to go for full load fine, but then the difference in displacement between the Hippers and the final (longer ranged, better armed, better armored) Treaty cruisers just becomes more pronounced.
They certainly needed long range in the Atlantic. Refueling was a constant concern for the cruisers and fuel considerations a major limited on possible deployments there.
The companion book on German cruisers contains a litany of machinery breakdowns due to the over complication of the propulsion system and it mirrored the situation in the destroyers and torpedo boats. Much accolades are given to the engineering staff who kept the ships running despite breakdown after breakdown. It was not just a maintenance issue, but an over ambitious engine design that was needlessly complicated as well.
Last edited:
CV12Hornet
Riter.
- Location
- Tacoma, Washington
Most sources I've read have said 2" of deck armor, which is still quite respectable in an era of tinclad cruisers.
Dirtnap
Kanmusu Affecionado
she has two armored decks, first is 30mm, the second is 50 over the machinery/magazines.
- Location
- North Carolina
In terms of European Guns, the guns that the Bismarcks had were very impressive, plus the 16in/50 Caliber Mark 7 Naval Gun is an unfair comparison anyway, capable of hurling a 1,764 pound APC round 36.52 Kilometers, at a range of 35 kilometers one it's AP rounds could cleave through 6.69 inches of steel, which is impressive. They had a fast rate of fire for a gun it's size as well. With a rate of fire of 2.3 to 3 rounds per minute. At a range of 22 kilometers on of these shells could go through, based on the USN Empircal Formula for shell penetration around 15 inches of side armor. These rounds could pen in theory pen the belt of an Iowa class.
Also, the AA was very nasty for a Battleship, the only reason it gets such a bad rap is because when Bismarck came under air attack, it was by Fairey Swordfish Torpedo Planes, and that was a good design for 1918, it was hopelessly obsolete by 1941. The German AA Gun Directors simply weren't calibrated for aircraft going that slow. Plus, the German 10.5cm DP gun actually had a higher muzzle velocity than the American 5in/38, the problem that it had was that it's training and elevation rates were slow, but it was a reasonably good weapon. The 3.7cm gun was just terrible, I agree with you their. However when the Bismarck was sunk, VT Fuses weren't even around yet.
As for speed, I would argue against that, because at the the Bismarcks were commissioned the only ships that were faster than them were the Kongous and they weren't even true Battleships, they were a knot quicker than the North Carolina class, South Dakota class, and King George V class Fast Battleships, plus they were good eight knots faster than the Standard Battleships. At the time, they were the fastest Battleships in the entire world.
Now on the damcon, that's actually debatable, if anything German Damcon was also really damn good, I mean U-505 took a hit that should of sunk her, but damcon prevailed and she came home. However, on the flipside if you look at the hammering the Royal Navy laid onto Bismarck, I doubt even an Iowa class would have survived that fight.
But as @Skywalker_T-65 put it best, she wasn't designed to fight the USN or the RN. She was designed to kick the French Battleships around the moon pretty effectively. Not to mention, fight off those ludicously fast Destroyers and Large Destroyers that the French had. The Bismarcks were solid ships.
Last edited:
Shroobmaster
Commander of the fun guy army
- Location
- california
Yamato could probably beat an Iowa one on one in good weather. Most battles between equals are decided by the setting.
(Discounting crew experience.)
(Discounting crew experience.)
Weather deck 12-25mm, lower deck 30mm. That's about 2" in two layers, which is less effective than one layer. Belt armor was 80mm or ~3.15".
Compare this to, say, Vincennes again: belt 5", armor deck 2.25", plus more guns, double the range, and all that on much less tonnage.
Those were not the best of ships, especially not considering how much they displaced.
EDIT: they had some lower deck 40mm patches covering some, but not all. of the magazines.
EDIT2: Source is Whitley, German cruisers of WW2, Hipper class protection description on p40 and the general armor arrangement drawings on p38-39.
Last edited:
- Location
- North Carolina
Oh, that is most certainly debatable. But that is for another thread.
CV12Hornet
Riter.
- Location
- Tacoma, Washington
Ah, that makes sense.
Vincennes achieved that by making the belt really, really short. As in, only long enough to cover the machinery spaces. Compare that to the Hipper-class' armor belt:
Of course, a lot of it was also simply less experience on the part of the Germans for designing ships to tight tonnage limits, too.
- Location
- 'Murica
The 16in/50 mark 7 fired 2700 pound AP shells, not 1,764.
The Hippers were also blatant cheaterbotes. They could afford to be a little more lavish with the armor than tightly treaty-constrained cruisers.
- Location
- North Carolina
I meant the German 15in guns that the Bismarck had, they fired a 1,764 pound APC round, albiet one that at certain ranges could in theory pen the belt of an Iowa class Fast Battleship, that it was unfair to compare them to the Mark 7 Naval Rifle. The 15in gun that the Bismarck had were designed in 1934 whereas the Mark 7s were designed in 1939.