Tirpitz and Bismarck
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
From what I've read, the Tirpitz wasn't anything special, with bad armor and relatively weak guns, and both were blown up on their first time out by the britbongs. Why were the Bismarck Battleships so feared and why does everyone rave about them now?
>>30072936
Because they were a very serious threat to the RN Home Fleet if they had gotten an actual SAG together. It's actual armor wasn't bad at all, it was weak against plunging fire but was very well armored from the sides where it was expected to take the brunt of its fire.
Compared to heavy hitters seen in the Pacific theater, its AP shot was light, but it still outweighed everything the RN used at the time.
>>30072936
Mostly, it was fast. If the Tirpitz or Bismarck made it into the Atlantic the British fleet had nothing big enough to kill it but fast enough to catch it.
How did they stack up against KGV's anyway?
>with bad armor
wrong
>relatively weak guns
You mean guns which outmatched everything the French and Royal Navies had and were only outmatched by the Yamato-class and the later 41cm guns of the later Iowa-class.
The Bismarck-class was better armored, better armed and faster than everything else on the Atlantic.
>>30073799
>guns which outmatched everything the French and Royal Navies had
Bismarck: 15'' guns
Nelson: 16'' guns
Bismarck was ww1 design dragged and modified to fit in ww2 environment. Good ships, but nothing fancy.
>>30072936
Why were ww2 era battelships so wide? Yamato, Iowa, North Carolina and Bismarck all look widewhen compared to earlier warships
>>30074037
its not just about size, the Yamatos mounted 460mm main guns, but the Iowas had 406mm with the same or even better performance overall.
>>30074080
The Iowa and North Carolina not so much, they were both limited in width by the Panama Canal.
The ships were much wider than previous ships due to generally better armour layouts, better internal compartment layouts (damage control) and quite large Torpedo Bulges for sacrificial armour.
>>30073799
This ignores that the South Dakota Class operated in the Atlantic at the same time as the Tirpitz, the North Carolina Class was launching around the same time the Bismark was being built, the Nagato class, the Nelson class, and that the guns found on the queen elizabeths and King Geroge Class were all 15inch and larger, and every class I just named, baring the elizabeths, threw a heavier broadside per salvo.
>>30073006
Wrong.
They were a problem if they got into shipping lanes since nothing fast enough to catch them could take them on without a large numerical advantage.
If they actually tried to attack the Home Fleet it wouldn't have ended well; like I said, the worry was that they'd wreak havoc amongst commercial shipping.
>>30074097
>generally better armour layouts
Can you expand on this?
>>30074082
Diameter no, mass yes. The heavier the shell the more likely to penetrate layers of armor. Specifically the super heavy shells of the 16 inch Iowa class could pen about the same armor as the 18 inch guns on the Yamato. All of the 15 inch guns in use in WWII could penetrate MUCH farther than the rounds found in the Bismark class. Its not its broadside that made the Bisnmark class so dangerous. It was its ungoddly thick and strong horizontal armor, and its even more impressive speed. Speed and armor are everything at sea, they let you decide when and how long an engagement lasts, and the Bismark excelled in both these areas. Gun size is important yess but as the KGV class showed a lower quality gun size could excel in a sea battle when the armor and speed was there.
>>30074134
As time goes on, the shells are getting bigger and quicker, so you need more armour generally speaking, but 1 layer isn't enough especially with large calibre shells or planning ahead for the future, so there are several layers meant to catch splinters or spalling and to help try to prevent future developed shells from reaching important areas of the ship. A side effect of more layers of internal armouring for a ship is making convenient walls and compartments that can be used on top of ones that were planned anyway.
>>30074133
>>30074177
Dont forget how close Britain was to collapse at some points JUST from the Uboat campaign until radar, these surface raiders on top of UBoats would have made Britain suffer much worse.
>>30074134
Different guy but, the US Fast Battleships (starting with the NC class) used the all or nothing principle of armor layout that everyone else by that time was using, but in addition to this they made use of what was known as the armored raft concept, where basically within the citadel of the ship there was basically a floating armored box, about the length of the distance between the first and last main barbettes, about as wide as the whole draft, and extending up to the main armored deck. The theory is that the ship could have the entire bow and stern blown off, most of the super structure blown off, and this armored box or raft would remain afloat. Likewise, this armored raft, typically angled, was partially difficult to penetrate by any sub-16inch gun from both the thickness of the actual armor as well as the fact that it was within the bowels of the ship and thus, ideally, would prematurely detonate an AP rounds that hit.
I think things that made those ships kinda legendary were mostly fear based, but they did build at least one of those ships with newer techniques like using welds instead of rivets for lighter and stronger armor.
It's a damn shame battleship designers didn't change the design to deflect against bombs from planes etc
>>30074177
So would you say that the Bismarck was more of a fast battleship? It sacrificed armament for speed and armor?
>>30074217
cont'
This idea of the armored raft was put to the test at the Second Battle of Savo Island "Battle of Guadalcannal" Where a South Dakota took a number of large, 14inch shells at very close range from a Kongo Class, and although was put out of action due to failure of systems, was in no way damage in a seaworthiness sense.
>>30074213
>radar
Opinion discarded, comment null and void.
>>30074221
Heavy Battlecruiser
>>30074221
It wasnt more of a fast battleship, it is a prime example of one. If the Queen Elizabeth's are the first fast battleships, the Bismarck Class is an idealized version of one. But so was the NC class, the SD class, the Iowa class, the KGV class, the Dunk class, as were a number of others. By 1941 MOST of the available Battleships were of the fast type. The problem with the Bismarck class was it was FASTER than most of them still. With the NC/SD topping out at about 26, KGV's at about 25, QE's at 23, the Bismarck, at 31 on a good day was a MAJOR problem.
>>30074235
it did help spot surfaced UBoats, which was very difficult, but I did mean the early sonar, Im sorry Im going to hang myself now
>>30074237
>I'll just make up my own naval terminology
>>30074221
cont' a fast battleship also, by definition, is a battleship where armor is NOT sacrificed for speed. Again, look at the original fast battleship class the QE's. They were actually more heavily armored and armed then both the class before AND after them, yet a significantly faster. The KGV's were VERY heavily armored for their time and while yes, they went with the smaller 15inch guns, these guns catch alot of heat in history they dont deserve. The BL15 gun was a great naval rifle and its worth noting that at both major surface actions against the Bismarck, the BL15 held its own and contributed heavily to its demise (both at Denmarck Straight where a shell from PoW caused a HUGE oil leak and at the last battle where much of the damage that put the super structure out of action came from a KGV)
>>30074237
Battlecruisers are not built the same way as a battleship. They are often (erroneously) thought to be battleships, minus armor, when it is far more accurate (by both original design and intended usage) to describe them as Cruisers built with battleship guns.
>>30074248
So that's the answer to my thread: it was a fast battleship, a relatively advanced concept for the time, and no warship in the Atlantic could match her speed and armament, save for Battlecruisers. And we all know that turned out.
So how does the armor stack up? Some people in this thread are saying the horizontal armor was shit, while others said it was great.
>>30074248
Kgv's top speed was close to 30 knot. I have no idea where you are getting 25.
>>30074281
Kgv's had 14 inch guns. You should really stop posting.
>>30074303
Deck armour was fucking garbage, pretty much everywhere else was solid
>>30074115
Only that the 15inch guns were inferior to the 38cm guns of the Bismarck.
The 38cm guns had excelent penetration power and accurancy. Something espencially the Britsh naval guns didn't archive.
>>30074337
That's it then. No wonder the RAF blew it to pieces with only three bombs.
>>30074177
>All of the 15 inch guns in use in WWII could penetrate MUCH farther than the rounds found in the Bismark class.
This is wrong.
>>30074303
No. It wasnt a relatively advanced concept for its time. ALL battleships being built, and a large number that had already been launched by the time the keel of the Bismarck was laid down were Fast Battleships. The QE class I keep mentioning was launched prior to WWI, and were still in use (heavily modified) in WWII and at 23 knots was definitely the first fast battleship (when it was launched MOST battleships topped off at 18 or so knots). What made the Bismarck scary was that it was FASTER than MOST fast battleships. The next closest one was the Yamato Class at 28 knots (at time of Launching). And armament there were a LARGE number of ships, in the atlantic no less, that had MUCH better guns than the Bismarck. I would argue the BL15 was at least on par, and the BL16's on the Nelson class far outstripped it (and were the main guns that caused her to at the least be rendered combat ineffective). And battlecruisers were a flawed concept from the word go, thats why EVERYONE stopped building them by the end of Jutland (even the Hood was TOTALLY modified after Jutland, which happened the day before or after it was laid down). The issue with Battlecruisers, a long discussion indeed, stems more from Admirals wanting a more modern navy, but not willing to put aside Mahan-Inspired tactics.
Armor wise, yes, the vertical armor (that is to say,belt along the side) on the Bismarck was awesom, and its thickness was fairly uniform over the whole belt (which is abnormal). The horizontal armor (or deck armor, which contrary to name may or may not be the visible 'deck') was not awful, but way worse than MOST afload battleships at the time (who learned said lesson from seeing what happened at Jutland)
>>30074367
Yeah 3 12000lb bombs.
I'm being b8 right? No one can be that stupid, right?
>>30074354
>Something espencially the Britsh naval guns didn't archive
Why did the British Navy decline so much? Barely any aircraft carriers, outdated battlecruisers and battleships... I mean, this is the nation that produced the dreadnought. What the fuck happened?
>>30074311
>>30074327
In turn, one I've never seen a source that mentions speed for the KGV's faster than the 28, and most operational speeds put them at 25 (most ships in reality were at least 1 knot slower than their posted speed as that posted speed came from sea trails where the ship did not operate at deep load)
Two, the BL14's initially mounted by the KGV's were in turrets expressly designed to take the BL15 inch gun as soon as they could be manufactured.
>>30074383
Maybe you should stop getting so defensive dude.
>>30074384
British battleships suffered from the limits of the treaty.
>>30074396
>I'm retarded
>please, don't call me out
>>30074372
No it's really not. Mass of a shell is what determines more of its penetrating power than anything else (slab side test that is) as the velocity profiles past about 17 km are more or less the same in regard to initial velocity, however the mass of the shell is what gives it more momentum (m*v) and is able to transfer more energy to the opponents armor. The shells supplied to the Bismarck (read: not the Tirpitz, which got heavier shells AFTER the Bismarck sank) were MUCH lighter (almost 200 pounds) than those in use by almost all 15 inch guns at the time.
>>30074398
I wonder what kind of ships we'd all have built if the treaty wasn't imposed.
>>30074407
I'm not the guy you were talking to mate.
>>30074420
>what is muzzle velocity for 200!
>>30074398
>>30074384
That and the enemy their battleline was intended to fight at the time of design was the US, not Germany or Japan. Thats why the US like the Standard Type so much and the British went for lower armor piercing, but SUPER heavy armor, the idea being the US had so many battleships they would ALWAYS get a few shots in, but if you armored against it, no crippling damage would ensue and you just get a battle of attrition which the English hoped they would be able to win).
>>30074429
What is reading for 500.
>velocity profiles past about 17 km are more or less the same in regard to initial velocity,
Meaning once you get to about 17km range (which is medium range at best for a WWII era battleship), regardless of initial velocity, the velocity AT 17km is about the same.
>>30074384
The Washington and London naval treaties didn't allow them to build any battleships until 1936.
>>30074428
They were planning something that might have looked like this after WWI.
>>30074454
Put another way, the shells from a VERY high velocity gun, and the shells from a compartively low velocity gun, when fired, will be traveling at the same rate at about 17km (given that most have similar balistic profiles), meaning that energy delivered, IE momentum, which is mass times velocity, velocity is held constant, and thus the only way to raise it is to raise the mass. Higher mass shell, more energy delivered. Stop trying to use Ungrad level physics to explain shell ballistics.
>>30074454
>(which is medium range at best for a WWII era battleship)
Past 17km is quite long range and didn't happen that often in WW2.
>>30074501
In fact back in the days it would have been considered waste of ammunition for the most time.
>>30074478
>three eighteen inch guns
Oh God, why the fuck can't awesome shit like this just get built
>>30074501
Well battleship v. Battleship only happened about 7 times in all of WWII so 'often' is hard to determine. The guns themselves, as well as the analog computers were calibrated however to shoot in excess of 23-28 km in some ships, so yes, 17 km is about medium range for what the equipment was capable of. Proof of concept was the Warspite on two occasions, where it shelled enemy positions in excess of 24 km away, and it landed the farthest ship to ship shot in history at 24 km.
>>30074551
>landed the farthest ship to ship shot in history at 24 km
>not american
no one cares, faggot
>>30074551
Theoretical max range isn't what would be considered realistic combat ranges.
Fly time, spread, angel of dip etc. would reduce the probability to a minimum.
>>30074478
apparently this is what inspired the nelson class bbs
>>30074579
Actually America has number 3, at the Battle of Sirgauo (SP?) strait where the WV landed a shot, cold shot no less, on a Fuso class at about 20 km, at night. Number 2 is the Scharnhorst hitting a Carrier.
>>30074597
america is always #1 fucking eurocuck
>>30074586
Except shots landing at excess of 20 km DID happen in ship to ship engagements on 3 separate occasions (by 3 separate navies no less, proving that not only was it technologically possible, but widespread) and bombardment ranges (which is what BB's were used for more than anything in WWII) were VERY often in excess of 20 km. D-Day, Caen, and a numerous others had ships WAY the fuck out at 20km shelling inland positions.
The American post WWI design was more normal.
>>30074617
cont'
So its not even theoretical, it was nearly common practice to use the guns in excess of 20km range. And while only 3 hits on moving ships were made at those ranges, Straddling fire was done at those ranges a significant number of times.
>>30074391
>one I've never seen a source that mentions speed for the KGV's faster than the 28
28 is close to 30.
>and most operational speeds put them at 25 (most ships in reality were at least 1 knot slower than their posted speed as that posted speed came from sea trails where the ship did not operate at deep load)
And Bismarck's operational speed was not 30 knot. The 30 knot figure thrown about is from sea trials where it reached 30.1 knot. By comparison, the DoY reached 28.6 knot at trials, a whole 1.5 knot slower top speed.
>Two, the BL14's initially mounted by the KGV's were in turrets expressly designed to take the BL15 inch gun as soon as they could be manufactured.
So what? That doesn't mean that they had 15 inch guns. Fact is they had 14 inch guns and you didn't know that until you googled it minutes ago.
>>30074133
>Wrong.
Yes, you are. The Bismarck class was flat out superior to even the King George V class in many areas, notably it's gun performance. Concern over it getting into shipping lanes was entirely because the RN was greatly concerned that it was ill equipped to find and destroy it with its surface fleet after what it did to the Hood and Prince of Wales. There's a reason why they dedicated such resources to its destruction.
>>30074637
Its the standard type. The US wanted a uniform navy, which makes sense given its largely manufactured based economy its easier if common design and parts are used instead of constant one offs like the KM did. The Bismarck, Sharnhorst and (if we want to call them a BB of sorts) Graff Spee class are all VASTLY different from one another. But the NM class and the PV class? Little to no difference appreciable. And not just visually, same boilers, engines and fixings
>>30074604
Why are Americans so autistic? The guy was basically agreeing with you.
>>30074617
> Spanning a war of 6 years it happened 3 times
wowee
>>30074655
>The Bismarck class was flat out superior to even the King George V class in many areas, notably it's gun performance.
Which you are basing on what exactly? The golden BB on the Hood?
>>30074478
>The Washington and London naval treaties didn't allow them to build any battleships until 1936.
Funny because they built 2 battleships by 1936 while the Washington and London naval treaties were in effect, 3 if you count the Hood.
>>30074654
28 is not close to 30. Not even remotely. By the same token the QE class at 23 was close to 25, which would put it at the nominal speed of most battleships of WWII.
Bismarcks operation speed was 30 knots for the 1 operation she was involved in as she specifcally did not take a large compliment of ammunition (especially anti-aircraft ammunition, half her problem btw) as she was intended to resupply and refuel in South America and Western France (as the Prince Eugen did) and was not intending to actually engage in surface action. The ship in fact had strict orders to NOT engage in surface action and the adrmiral in charge actually held fire so long the captain resorted to more or less insubordination to open fire on the hood and PoW.
The adventage of the high velocity guns of the Bismarck compared to the slower 15inch guns is that the shells would have a flater trajectory which means the hit probability is higher and also the penetration efficiency of the shell.
>>30074659
The South Dakota class wasn't a standard type.
>>30074676
Are you serious?
>>30074717
It wasn't a battleship so no, it wast a standard type. That said it conformed to many of the standard type features such as all or nothing, (initially) 14 inch guns (upped to 16 inch on the design board later), and few other features. Also visually, its very similar, just sleeker, as befitting a Battle Cruisers.
>>30074706
28.6 is 95% of 30.1. Sounds pretty close to me.
>Bismarcks operation speed was 30 knots for the 1 operation she was involved in as she specifcally did not take a large compliment of ammunition
So what? We are talking about capabilities of two classes of ships, not how fast they were on any one occasion. The Bismarck-class was not meaningfully faster than the KGV-class.
>>30074793
>The Bismarck-class was not meaningfully faster than the KGV-class.
Only that the Bismarck-class was meaningfully faster.
>>30074718
Oh sorry I didn't know you had a screen cap of some random chart to back you up. My bad.
>>30074718
Even ignoring that by the ranges that battleships engage at that the shells from Bismarck are moving at the same rate as most other ships, the masses from the vast majority of ships shells are almost 1000 lbs heavier, so even at the MUZZLE of the gun, the Yam, Iowa, Richeliu, Vitto and SD class ALL would deliever FAR more energy and would thus have more penetrating power. the KGV also would have only bee a little behind it, with the delivered energy being, KGV vs. Bis, at 3.9 mil ft*lbs/s vs.4.75 mil ft*lbs/s
>>30074803
The Bismarck was also the more seaworthy design which would gave it another adventage in the rough Atlantic.
>>30074654
>The 30 knot figure thrown about is from sea trials where it reached 30.1 knot.
No, that was the official top speed. The Bismarck reached in sea trials 30,8 knots.
>>30074693
Hood was built before the treaty but you're right that I forgot to mention that Britain was allowed to build two battleships with 16 in guns because the USA and Japan already each had two.
>>30074793
It was literally the only time she moved in combat so yes, it is realavent to the ship itself. I care little, and neither does history, for what paper ships can do. What they do in reality is all that matters. The Bismarck was SIGNIFICANTLY faster than the KGV, and most other Battleships (and even Cruisers) afloat at the time she sailed. That was her chief advantage and also what made her so scary. The KGV's, which where horifically overweight fro their design anyway, were lucky to get over 25 knots in even calm seas (and given that they were AWFUL sea boats, and they operated in the North Sea, you do the math to figure out how their performance in reality looked like).
>>30074803
Yeah it was all of 1.7 miles/ hour faster. That's probably all you needed since the ocean is such a small place.
>>30074840
Actually the only time she moved in combat Bismarck was doing like 12 knot at most.
>>30074842
You realize that 1 knot faster makes a HUGE difference in an engagement right? Like the fact the QE class at Jutland was a few knots faster than the German Dreadnaughts is all that saved them from being sunk.
>>30074865
Not during Denmarck straight. She cruised past the the Prince Eugen at flank speed, while the Eugen was doing full speed, which translated to about 28 knots. Thats what makes the pictures so hard to follow as in the first half, the Bismarck is behind, and by the end its reasonably far ahead.
>>30074807
You sure showed me.
>>30074809
>Even ignoring that by the ranges that battleships engage at that the shells from Bismarck are moving at the same rate as most other ships
Not really. Where are you getting this?
>the Yam, Iowa, Richeliu, Vitto and SD class ALL would deliever FAR more energ
Completely irrelevant when the discussion is about the Bismarck and the KGV.
>only a little behind
>nearly by a million ft*lbs/s
>only a fifth as more powerful
>but that's just a bit
>>30074809
it faced the KGV which use lighter projectiles than the 38cm. the american shells are so heavy since the numbers are from the latewar spacemagic supershells they made.
>>30074894
Isn't it quite obvious that he is one of the Royal Navy fanboys.
>>30074892
>which translated to about 28 knots.
Which is not 30 knot, is it?
>>30074912
the prinz eugen was going 28 knots you mong, and the bismarck overtook it
>>30074894
>>30074907
Why are the Royal Navy fags the ones which trying to prove so desperately how shitty the Bismarck was in reality?
It's like they are offended by the fact that a German battleship was possible superior to the treaty limited battleships of the Royal Navy.
>>30074894
First part comes from Thermodynamics when you become an engineer (which I am), the 2nd part is relevant since we're discussing all battleships (specifically fast types) and the third part was again, looking at the muzzle, as in the muzzle of the Bismarck pressed against the muzzle of a sheet of armor. At 12-17 km where battle ranges took place the velocity profiles are the same so the difference between these delivered energies is becomes even less.
But then fuck all that, cause only history itself showed that the KGV's were capable of dealing with the Bismarck once its chief advantage, speed, was removed.....
>>30074907
Actually I'm not, I'm an engineer who loves large naval artillery. The British had the worst in WWII overall, but yeah, use an ad hominem.
>>30074934
>the velocity profiles are the same
As engineer you would know that's wrong.
You are also ignoring trajectory profiles.
>>30074924
I have no idea. The Bismarck was a fine ship, that's why it performed respectibly in its few engagements. Obviously it was outclassed by those vessels in the Pacific, but against the RN it was an equivalent adversary.
>>30074934
>falling back on the typical 'I know what I'm talking about trust me, I do this for a living, /k/!' excuse
Fantastic. Tell me the shell velocities from a simple flat trajectory of both the KGV and Bismarck at 15km then and tell me that they're the same or that they both have the same kind of power when one is significantly heavier and has a larger bursting charge.
Why did the British want to use 14 in guns so bad?
>>30074876
You realize Jutland happened at a time when RADAR and aircraft carriers did not exist, right?
>>30074968
Logistics and weight.
>>30074966
Well, the tactical and strategical values of the Bismarck-class was ahead of the Yamato.
The only design which clearly outclassed the Bismarck was the late-war Iowa class.
>>30074924
To be fair the bismarck and the KGV's were not great overall together. Both classes were inferior to other BB's afloat or about to be afloat at that time. The battle between the KGV's and the Bismarck is less "which is better" and more "Which didnt suck so much it loses isntantly," with the dynamic being the Bismarck's low deck armor, poor damage control, and just awful stern design, and the English's awful guns which, aside from the actual ballistic performance, faced a bigger issue in that they were unreliable as fuck. That all said, on two occasions a KGV came against the Bismarck, and both times they scored very damaging hits against it with comparatively nothing received in return.
>>30074988
>To be fair
To be wrong
>>30074964
No I'm using knowledge you gain when you take a Physics class that doesn't start with a 1 or 2. Trajectory profiles have little to do with Velocity profiles, as trajectory is influenced BY velocity, not the other way around.
>>30074966
>one is significantly heavier
One is 800kg and the other is 721kg. Meanwhile the KGV has 10 tubes to Bismarck's 8.
>>30074988
I love how much bullshit you are pulling out of your ass.
>>30074973
We're talking about BB's right? So CV's don't factor in, and Radar helps spot yes, and a few nations worked blind firing capabilities out from radar, but overall, speed was still far more important. Put another way, the only reason the Guilo Ceaser was able to escape the WArspite, despite Warspite landing both a crippling AND the longest range hit in history, was because it was 3 knots faster.
>>30074966
>that's why it performed respectibly in its few engagements
You mean in one engagement, right?
Unless you count being sunk like a bitch as respectable.
>>30075015
And the Bismarck can fire 3 times a minute to the KGVs 2.
How does either of this change the fact that the KGVs guns are worse than the Bismarcks again?
>>30074982
Except thats not true, since again, it was sunk by a ship 5 years its senior, and ignores the NC class SD class, the Nagato Class, all of which were better boats with FAR ahead FCS.
>>30075044
Better than the RN's performance in the Pacific against the Nips.
>>30075021
Oh do tell which part?
>>30075033
>Put another way, the only reason the Guilo Ceaser was able to escape the WArspite, despite Warspite landing both a crippling AND the longest range hit in history, was because it was 3 knots faster.
Which has fuck all to do with 1.5 knots being a decisive difference for the Bismarck. Bismarck couldn't count on its 1.5 knot top speed edge to roam the Atlantic with impunity because it's not fucking WW1 anymore and ships with little planes on them can catch it and either attack it directly or chart its course.
>>30075071
>bismarck = 100% of ships lost
>RN in the Pacific = far lower than 100% of ships lost
No I'm pretty sure the Bismarck did much worse.
>>30075064
What is that bullshit?
You know if the Bismarck is so much better than the KGV class, why is it on the bottom of the ocean the Rodney and the KGV's that engaged it (from that battle) not?
>>30075097
Still not as embarassing as the Prince of Wales and Repulse.
>>30075104
Why did the KGV and Rodney have to disengage then?
>>30075111
>Force Z
>lose to 100 landbased two-engine bombers
>Bismarck
>lose to a handful of biplanes
>>30075081
That's a flaw in ALL battleships, again, we're ignoring CV's. If you don't ALL BB's are flawed (which they are) and thus useless. The bigger problem with Navies in WWII was not the actual design choices of BB's, but rather holding onto the Mahan inspired doctrine of naval warfare, which yes, both the KGV and Bismarck was designed around. So yes, if youre building a fleet to looke Mahan-like, that 1.5 knot difference (and it was more than that against the KGV, 30 knot vs. 25 knot) makes a big difference.
>>30074924
Because if you want to look like you know stuff about naval warfare you just say things like Bismarck is overrated and was in fact even shit.
The tank people have the Tiger tank.
The general people have Rommel.
>>30075123
>but rather holding onto the Mahan inspired doctrine of naval warfare
And here we go, some moron who never read a book, let alone Mahan, goes off spouting some nonsense about Mahan battleship doctrine. Happens in every fucking WW2 naval thread.
>>30075111
They disengaged when they ran out of fuel, and bismarck hadn't fired its gun in over 15 minutes and was a total wreck. The Bismarck had already began abandoning ship and was in the process of scuttling the hulk that was left. So to imply, which is what your doing, that they disengaged because Bismarck fought them off, is simply ignoring this niggling little thing called facts of history.
>>30075123
It's not so much as a flaw in ALL battleships as the thing that makes 1.5 knot difference completely meaningless, especially for the side that is not actively seeking out engagements.
>>30075150
>getting your battleships past the 30knots was one of the key requirements in the war
>totally not important, guys!
>>30075135
Except I have, and they did. Most naval powers in the lead up to WWII still believed in the Mahan doctrine of a prohibitively large Battle fleet, with CV's in an envisioned support role (as was seen fore example of the Lexington class mounting the same size and number of guns as a heavy cruiser) and fleets predominately built up around large battleships are HUGE numbers of CA's. Likewise the Mahan battle was seeked out by both Japan and the US, half the reason the Naval war of the Pacific looks so wonky. Judging by what you seem to *think* Mahan wrote, its clear you didnt read his papers though.
The joke is that not just the top speed is important but the cruising speed - and the Bismarck was running circles around the KGV and North Carolina class in that regard.
>>30075160
>getting your battleships past the 30knots was one of the key requirements in the war
You mean something that only the Iowa and the Scharnhorst could do in normal conditions?
>>30075161
Mahan did not have a doctrine of a large battleship fleet with CVs in support. Mahan wrote his book at a time when the dreadnought hadn't even been built, and airplanes, let alone aircraft carriers, barely existed. You have not read a single page of Mahan's Influence of Sea Power on History, which is mostly about pre-19th century naval warfare and not a manual of how to use battleships and aircraft carriers as you seemingly believe.
>>30075178
Vanguard, Richelieu, Iowa
All battleships designed in WW2 archived it.
>>30075140
>They disengaged when they ran out of fuel,
Because Prince of Wales wasn't leaking fuel from hits or anything, right?
>>30075198
Yes, I know that. He envisioned large battlefleets. The form that took by WWII was Battleships and CV's and huge numbers of CA's. Again, you clearly didnt read the book. He doesnt expound on the ideal type of Man-o-War, how many guns it should have, or operating speeds, or even fleet composition between 1st rates an 2nd rates. He talks about the implications of large fleet actions and the desire to maintain large battle fleets (I.e., fleets capable of bluewater naval operations). That's why its called the Mahan Doctrine, not the Mahan Navy, cause a Mahan Navy would would be paddle steamers or at best the HMS Warrior. Following the Mahan Doctrine could, and is somewhat, done today, by still maintaining HUGE offensive battlefleets in the ideal to defeat an enemies navy in one fell swoop and thus maintaining total control of the sea lanes. Why do you think the USSR and the US bought HUGE fleets of attack subs instead of just arming SSBN's with torps and ignoring SSN's in general?
>>30075201
Vanguard wasn't even built during WW2.
Even if you count Richelieu, which is fucking laughable, I don't know how you are making the argument that 30 knot was a key requirement when most battleships, including many that served with distinction, did not reach it.
>>30075243
Yeah, they all were accidently way faster than the KGV.
>>30075223
Okay but again, the Bismarck was underwater and they weren't. So I fail to see the point youre (poorly) trying to imply. If you want to pull the hypothetical out of your ass that the Bismarck could still fight even though half its guns were actually destroyed, and the FCS on the other half knocked out, and total power to the ship no existant, then we can pull the same hypothetical out of our ass that the Rodney and PoW magically got more fuel and could stay and ensure she sank with gunfire instead of torps. The fact is the Bismarck was soundly beaten. I like the bismarck, she's a beautiful ship, great design, elegant really, but she lost, thats what actually happened.
>>30074478
My erection for the G3 and the N3 rages eternal
>>30075232
>He talks about the implications of large fleet actions and the desire to maintain large battle fleets (I.e., fleets capable of bluewater naval operations).
>Following the Mahan Doctrine could, and is somewhat, done today, by still maintaining HUGE offensive battlefleets in the ideal to defeat an enemies navy in one fell swoop and thus maintaining total control of the sea lanes.
There is literally nothing in Mahan that says this fleet has to be made up of battleships and absolutely not carriers. Where the fuck are you getting this from? Literally the only point in Mahan is that the navy's primary goal should be to destroy the other navy. He does not once state that this had to be accomplished through building huge gunboat fleets and not aircraft carriers.
>>30075223
WTF are you talking about?
>>30075291
I guess he's trying to say that Bismarck made the PoW lose fuel even though the PoW wasn't anywhere near. That's how amazing a boat it was.
>>30075270
Okay now I know you just read the Wikipedia article cause you can't even read what I wrote. Again, he doesnt expound on types of ships, rather that battle fleet concept. IIRC he actually coined the term, battle fleet, especially when he starts talking about Britians ship building industry under (and mostly after) Henry 8, and how the political influence of its existence allowed England to rise to prominence. Its the idea of a huge battlefleet that can wipe the floor with an enemy fleet in one fight that keeps a nation economically and stratigically on top, which in WWII, took the form (idealized) of HUGE fleets of BB's, CA's, and support CV's. Now, same concept applies to SSN's and CSG.
>>30075270
cont' I'm gona assume youre a religious person too because you seem to have a failure for the appreciation of something being written one way, and reapplied another. Obviously Mahan couldn't envision a fleet of BB's or CV's in 1800's, but the CONCEPT of a battlefleet WAS his idea, and by the 1930's, a battlefleet DID consist of BB's and CV's.
>>30075306
If anything, it should be apparent to anyone that PoW inflicted significant damage to Bismarck in their engagement.
Superior german armour is no match for chinese sharks that cost $3.99 each
>>30075307
>IIRC he actually coined the term, battle fleet
Go ahead and search for "battle fleet."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13529/13529-h/13529-h.htm
>Again, he doesnt expound on types of ships, rather that battle fleet concept.
Point to the passage where he does this.
> Its the idea of a huge battlefleet that can wipe the floor with an enemy fleet in one fight
There is nothing in Mahan that talks about "one fight" or "huge battlefleet." The point is to have a fleet whose primary purpose is to fight other fleets rather than commerce raiding. If it takes one fight or many, that's what it'll take. If you need a huge "battle fleet" or a small fleet or a bunch of frogmen, that's what you do.
>which in WWII, took the form (idealized) of HUGE fleets of BB's, CA's, and support CV's
According to whom? Definitely not Mahan. He does not once say there had to be HUGE battle fleets centered around BBs, CAs, with CVs in support. Point to the passage where he says this.
>>30075328
>you seem to have a failure for the appreciation of something being written one way, and reapplied another.
Yeah I have a failure for the appreciation of something being written one way and being reapplied in a completely unrelated way. I guess this means I'm religious.
>>30075358
Yep youre an idiot. Letter of law vs. spirit of law comes to mind here. NO HE DOESNT mention CV's or BB's, but he DOES mention powerful battlefleets capable of knocking out enemy battlefleets. Thats how a country gets on top and stays on top. And that, that is how fleets looked in 1930 is evident by... well FUCKING how fleets looked in 1930. It doesnt matter what someone INTENDED its how they ACTUALLY were. The top 3 navies in the world all had huge fleets of BB's, CA's, and CV's. And Mahan DOES talk about a signular battle, not in climatic sense (which is how the Japanese navy took it) but rather that to be the top naval nation your fleet must be capable of wiping out the enemy fleet in one single action.
>>30074133
That's what I've read as well.
>>30075386
>And Mahan DOES talk about a signular battle,
Where? Point to a single passage where he states that it is absolutely necessary to wipe out the enemy fleet in no more than one battle.
>>30075375
You need to stop reading things above your paygrade that are just on the 'armchair admiral' reading list. Out of historical context *AND* application context, most things lose their primary meaning.
>>30074213
Wasn't just radar, it took a while before Britain organized convoys and developed anti-submarine tactics. Many larger ships didn't even have sonar.
>>30075406
>You need to stop reading things above your paygrade that are just on the 'armchair admiral' reading list.
You mean like The Influence of Sea Power on History? It's actually an interesting read. I recommend it.
>>30075404
I'm done arguing with you. Its like a Jahava's Witness saying "God says this in this passage," or "it God never says that in the bible." An implied message is a message. You're what? A HS student with a hardon for naval history? I recommend reading books with symbolism and double meaning, reading up on themes and subtext. What he states verbatim is not all that is there. I recommend you re-read the Balance of Sea power with a history book open.
>>30075421
>An implied message is a message.
So find the implied message.
>>30075421
We're not talking novels friend. "Symbolism" and "double meanings" have no place in a history book.
>>30074217
>>30074228
Holy fuck, dude. That's goddamn impressive.
>>30075064
dude, the early war german radar was incredibly good.
that includes spotting and especially radar rangefinding and FCS. bismarck and prinz eugen was equipped with this shit.
>>30072936
Were they really feared that much? They were basically WWI designs, German naval architecture didn't advance much due to the Treaty of Versailles. It's my understanding that with both ships, Germany basically "got lucky" since they happened to be used in places where much of the RN battleships weren't available.
>>30074080
It seems intuitive that a wider beam will help avoid excessive rolling from gun recoil when firing broadsides, although I'm told that even the recoil of a full broadside is negligible compared to the mass of a battleship so it wouldn't really make a meaningful difference. Maybe the width allowed them some kind of spaced armor effect versus torpedoes?
>>30076924
I think they got pretty "unlucky" when 3 battleships wrecked bismarck.
they were not basically ww1 designs, they borrowed from them, since they could and was not bound by treaty as everybody else.
the armor layout would be and was incredibly effective at closer ranges, and it wasnt too shabby against plunging fire either. comparable or better than other european designs
the atlantic, especially the north is a completely different beast than the pacific, the weather is mostly shitty in NA., thats why you see jap and american ships having more deck armour and much heavier shells, while brit, french and german ships prioritized the belt.
Tirpitz sat in a fjord his whole life, and tied up insane ammount of british resources.
the reason they was feared was because the bismarck sunk Hood, and triggered the huge chase, while tirpitz was sitting in northern norway and threatening the convoys to murmansk, where it could possibly rape entire convoys with escorts and all.
>>30074037
Unless I'm misreading the gun calibers, the Bismarck had some comparatively stubby guns, being only 38cm/34. The South Dakota had much heftier and longer 40.6cm/45 guns, and the King George V, the ship that put the Bismarck down, had 36cm/45 guns.
>>30074301
The British did intend their battlecruisers to stand in the line of battle (although we all know how well that turned out). I'd say they were more like battleships with cruiser-style (high endurance at full speed) engines. Overall, they suffered from being a jack of all trades and a master of none. They were intended to both be a modernized form of armored cruiser, as well as a fast light battleship. Problem was, they were too expensive to use as cruisers, and lacked the armor to survive in the line of battle.
>>30076958
havent looked at the number of ww1 ships, but there was a golden ratio of beam/depth that most ships followed. bismarck was actually overstable, so fat that some engineers could consider it a problem.
the beam/depth ratio has mostly to do with the roll period, aka the speed of the roll. bismarck would have a fast roll period that could impede gunnery. but denmark strait proved it was good.
>>30074384
because we were by along way the most dominant navy in Europe, and building more ships was a waste of resources when the UK was being threatened with invasion.
So instead we outproduced Germany in tanks, planes and pretty much everything else.
The pacific theatre was a pretty small one, IIRC it got about 10% of the total resources of the war from 1942.
Had the US not joined the war the RN could quite easily re deployed once Germany was defeated to take on the Japanese - using the ships that we had planned but didn't decide to build.
Also a British war against Japan would be a land invasion through India into china, linking up with the Russians (possibly) to attack the Japanese mainland.
>>30077055
the 34 is the year designed, not gunlength
the sk c/34 was 52 calibers long
>>30077080
Russia would be so far ahead of the Brits in that scenario, they were already redeployed and fighting in northern China by the time Fat Man and Little Boy made their international debuts. Doubt they'd wait for Britslows to catch up.
>>30074543
Don't you mean 3x3? That's what the drawing shows. Having literally just 3 18" guns would be pretty much useless for anything but shore bombardment. You wouldn't be able to fire fast enough to pick up a target's range.
>>30077109
And here I thought the Japs had a retarded naming convention for their guns.
>>30077111
Russia had to re deploy troops from the far east to repel the Germans, the UK had troops in India and Burma who were on the offensive for most of the war.
People hugely underestimate how many troops the commonwealth had available.
>>30077080
That pic is comfy as fuck - source ?
>>30077111
Assuming the UK didn't go to war with Russia (fighting Russia was a large part in deciding to land in Norway) the Russians would to the sea of Japan and have zero ability to stage a landing without the UK.
>>30077156
Okay yeah fair point. I guess I might have gone too far in a few places.
>>30077253
>Assuming the UK didn't go to war with Russia (fighting Russia was a large part in deciding to land in Norway)
How serious were those plans? Seems like a really bad idea given the state of everyone by that point in the war.
>>30077156
>People hugely underestimate how many troops the commonwealth had available.
Can you imagine what would of happened if Japan pushed out of Burma into India?
Tens of millions of sten gun armed curry monsters would skid across china.
>>30073762
slightly better speed, worse armor, heavier guns but fewer, poorer fire control systems and gunnery radar, and a less effective propeller shaft/steering arrangement. worse AA but marginally better surface secondary battery at significant extra weight cost
one on one, they could run away faster, but had no effective gunpower advantage against a KGV the KGVs 14 inch guns having the same odds of penetrating bismarcks armor as bismarcks 15 inch guns had of penetrating a KGV.
>>30074655
the resources used in hunting down the bismarck were already deployed to hunt and sink it before the encounter with hood and PoW, in point of fact the hood and PoW were one of the task groups deployed on that mission, nor were the Rn greatly concerned that they would have trouble sinking it if they encountered it, they were far more concerned that the bismarck would sucessfully avoid further action than that it might survive a engagement with one of the other hunting parties a confidence borne out by the speed with which bismarck was silenced when brouht to action again.
HMS Hood was a aging battlecruiser that was scheduled for refit when she was deployed, and PoW was so fresh out of the yards that she still had civilian techs working in the gun turrets and hadnt shaken down or worked her crew up to full combat readiness yet
>>30077280
In 1940 Russia and Germany were allies who invaded Poland together.
Helping the Norwegians fight the Russians was a major reason for the conflict in Norway. I'll see if I can dig up some quotes but i watched this episode of world at war like 3 days ago.
>>30072936
Well...the Derpitz has torpedoes for some reason. I'm honestly not sure who thought that that was a good idea.
>>30077365
Maybe because torpedos are fantastic weapons
>>30077426
They're good on ships that are small and/or fast enough to deliver them effectively, ships like...destroyers, PT boats, submarines, and maybe cruisers.
On a giant steel fortress made of guns that's not sneaking up on anyone they're as useful as a one-legged man at an ass-kicking contest.
>>30074876
>Like the fact the QE class at Jutland was a few knots faster than the German Dreadnaughts is all that saved them from being sunk.
or it could of been the fact that german 11 inch and 12 inch guns werent very good at damaging anything better armored than a battlecruiser.
HMS Warspite was the most heavily hit of the QE class at jutland taking 2 11 inch hits and 13 12 inch hits and suffering 14 dead and 16 wounded. the britsh guns were significantly superior in their basic design and performance, the principle problem being that the lyddite filler was too impact sensitive in many of the batches (30-70%) the ones that did work had better accuracy, penetrating power and bursting charges than german guns of the same caliber.
no british ship heavier than a battlecruiser was out of action for long whereas even with defective ammunition and a short engagement heavy damage was done to multiple german battleships, had the ammo not been defective at least 6 of the german battleships would have lost
>>30074968
treaty limitations, the original designs called for replacement with a new 16 inch design in refits once the treaties expired, but the RN was building the things under treaty limits and stuck to them
>>30075104
it certainly wasnt because the bismarck was a threat, at the point at which they disengaged, the bismarck was a blazing wreck, the only parts not actively on fire being the parts that were sinking (and yes whether or not she was scuttled by her crew is largely academic, she was sinking, at most they maade her sink faster) mostly they disengaged to let the destroyers torpedo her without worrying about accidently getting hit by their own battleships main guns
>>30077484
They're still very effective at hullbreaking though right? So if it were up against a ship in its own weightclass, trading blows, having a grand old time - a cheeky torp in the midsection could make a big difference
>>30077606
If you got in a point-blank brawl maybe. There was, what, one instance of battleships even getting near torpedo range of one another, and that was at Guadal?
>>30077658
HMS Rodney fired several torpedoes at bismarck, at least one of which hit, although by that point bismarck was unable to fire anything heavier than a 6 inch gun and the range was effectively point blank.
>>30077606
the torpedoes were mostly for finishing off cripples
>>30074479
>Stop trying to use Ungrad level physics to explain shell ballistics.
He said as he uses undergrad level physics to explain shell ballistics.
>>30074213
Britain did not come close to collapsing due to U-Boats in WWII, that was more for WW1. In fact during the first "happy time", England was able recoup losses. There where shortages yes, but nothing England could not handle.
>>30074177
the KGV had a better belt and much better armour layout than the bismark, the bismarks fire control directors werent even under armour anyway
>>30074228
The SoDak put itself out of commission. Some technician tripped the main circuit breaker and cut power to the whole ship
The SoDak then proceeded to get hammered by Kirishima, a Kongo Class Fast Battleship, and was hit several times by 14" shells. These hits failed to penetrate the armor belt even from the relatively close range at which they were fired.
Kirishima then got her ass opened by Washington. SoDak had to get get repairs done after the battle, but that was mainly due to damage done to her radar and communications from the heavy cruisers Takao and Atago.
>>30074672
Engagements with Battleships against other warships weren't very common though. So it's not really about the time span it's more about the occurrence of Battleship vs X engagements.
>>30072936
They were intended more as heavy raiders than as toe to toe fighters.
High speed, lots of guns, a little light on armor. It was supposed to be able to take on larger numbers of destroyers and maybe a couple of cruisers that might be escorting a convoy, not to go slug it out with the British navy head to head.
>>30078682
I was reading something the other day where the author claimed that, thanks to assistance from the US factories, the number of cargo vessels sailing into England actually INCREASED during "
>>30079281
"the happy times"
What the fuck, fingers.
>>30079222
>They were intended more as heavy raiders than as toe to toe fighters.
I mean why do you write something so obvious wrong?
>>30072936
>From what I've read
You should maybe read better sources.
>>30079620
idiot
>>30079650
He is right though.
None of the points he listed are remotely true.
>>30079672
false
I dont really want to debate with an idiot though
>>30079694
I would rather trust the guy who can into typography.
>>30075358
You are the worst, stop ruining these threads with your pseudo intellectual drivel. Just stop commenting in general until you get a few years of adulthood under your belt.
>>30072936
Look at the Atlantic.
It's very big, many areas can't be patrolled with airplanes because of the bases being very far from them and the weather on the Atlantic doesn't make it easier...
Basically when those would somehow slip through the North see or English Channel to the actual Atlantic it would be really hard to catch them. The could raid for months to no end and still escape because of all big ships Royal Navy had(big = capable of fighting with it without being instantly destroyed) only KGV's, Renown's and Hood had similar speed to it - still quite a lot of ships but for the area of operations... not too much. The two ships that could've smashed it in combat with no survivors - Nelson and Rodney - were too slow to catch it.
It would be hard to predict where it'll strike which would make putting the slower battleships that would still scare it off(not because they were better - because they could still do enough damage to force Bismarck/Tirpitz to go back to base) in specific convoys completely impossible.
Overall though the ships weren't that modern. The main artillery setup they've used was literally out of WW1 super dreadnought, they didn't have all-or-nothing armour scheme, they've had "cost-saving" measures used for propellers. They were big for their times though.
>>30080026
>Overall though the ships weren't that modern.
nice meme
Any design elements of the Bismarck was designed around the idea to bring the Bismarck back home - that mind set was also proven superior in the Battle of Jutland.
Four main guns means simplified mechanics (the Royal Navy were running into big problems with their main guns all the time), addiotional redudancy and superior sustaining fire-rate and accurancy.
All or nothing was a result of the weight limitation of the treaty. And there is nothing modern about it.
All or nothing was designed around the idea that battleship engagements would only happen at max range.
It's in fact the inferior solution for mid and short ranges because HE shells would fucking rape the not armored parts of the ship.
>>30080088
The reason why no one followed the All or Nothing design completly.
Also even the Bismarck wasn't a classic Incremental armor design.
>>30080062
>Any design elements of the Bismarck was designed around the idea to bring the Bismarck back home - that mind set was also proven superior in the Battle of Jutland.
Too bad the Battle of Jutland was completely different from the realities modern navies - which was proven by WW2 over and over again. Americans, French, British, Japanese didn't really cared about it in late 30's anymore.
>Four main guns means simplified mechanics (the Royal Navy were running into big problems with their main guns all the time)
And Americans, and Japanese, and French... somehow only Germans decided that they need "simplified mechanics". Gee I wonder why.
When you use 4 turrets(with all the added weight) to carry the same main artillery that can be carried by 3 or 2(in extreme situations - Richelieu)
>All or nothing was a result of the weight limitation of the treaty.
That's why pre-treaty battleships were designed with it in mind, right?
All or nothing was a result of "2nd thickness armour" being absolutely hopeless against main artillery of other battleships. The N3 designs had it as well, even before they've got cut into what became Nelson.
It is weight saving solution but it's because dockyards have their limits and it's better to save the weight to add more powerful artillery, machinery, propellants(Bismarck had to step down from 4 to 2 because they've had to limit its - gigantic for Atlantic standards - displacement to the amount manageable for German shipyards, in fact another battleship I've mentioned earlier - Nelson had the same to be done to him, for the same reason except the cause was the treaty) than to have some exorbitant armour that's for the most part isn't going to defend you against anything enemy has anyway(as opposed to armour that protects at least part of your ship effectively).
>>30080124
>When you use 4 turrets(with all the added weight) to carry the same main artillery that can be carried by 3 or 2(in extreme situations - Richelieu) you're just wasting materials, space and others that could've been used in better ways
fix'd
The All or Nothing protection is almost solely designed to protect a ship against gunfire, not other, more leathal weapons. Torpedoes will not be encountering problems on ships so constructed and neither would highcapacity bombs. Only short ot medium range heavy calliber gunnery, with AP shelling, can be defeated by such a drastic solution and then only the vitals of the ship. If the enemy changes to HE rounds and hits the unarmored parts of teh ship, this armorscheme will not give any protection at all and still cause severe damage to the parts hit.
It makes sense to conclude the addoption of the All or Nothing concept was good for the Great War period, but not for the period after the start of 1930, when more modern tactics and gunnery were accepted.
>>30080151
There is a reason why past the Great War the All or Nothing armour designs were fist more radical just to move away from it again.
>>30080151
all fighting components are protected in all or nothing, and buoyancy is protected
tell me what vital systems are going to smashed up by HE in an all or nothing design.Shame the bismark was silenced so easily by fucking 14'' guns while all or nothing designs too pounding from 16'' in the pacific and kept fighting back even while sinking LOL
>>30080151
> If the enemy changes to HE rounds and hits the unarmored parts of teh ship, this armorscheme will not give any protection at all and still cause severe damage to the parts hit.
Nice fanfic I guess.
>>30080530
You know that early battleships based on the All or Nothing design philosophy didn't even have splitter protection outside of the armour zone.
>>30080556
It's fanfic because it doesn't resemble reality in the slightest. Most likely because you have little knowledge of historical facts. Let's look at how the *older* incremental designs did vs all or nothing design in gun battles.
>incremental armoring
Hood
>dead after one shot
Bismarck
>loses combat capabilities within minutes, dead
Hiei, Kirishima
>substantial damage from fires
>All or Nothing
South Dakota
>took a fuck ton of hits of all kinds, fires quickly doused, only lost combat capabilities because of human error leading to loss of power
Fanfic.
>>30080571
>dat trolling
>>30080062
>All or nothing was a result of the weight limitation of the treaty. And there is nothing modern about it.
All or nothing concept was a pre-treaty development, and the Yamato-class and the Iowa were all or nothing designs.
>>30074097
Still look wide man
>>30080580
Stunning isn't it?
>>30080571
>Prince of Wales
Completly destroyed after one torpedo hit outside of it's armour zone.
>>30080124
The adventage of the 4 turrent design was that the Bismarck was capable of shelling every 20s when ordered rapid fire against the Hood.
>>30080637
Not that torpedo protection is relevant to the comparison of the two armor schemes but the Prince of Wales fought of the Nips for like 2 hours during which it took 4 torpedo hits and continue to fight for half hour longer.
>>30080656
No, it took one torpedo hit.
>>30080648
4 turret design was used by a single country in WW2. This country also happened to be the one least advanced in warship design. Coincidence? Or did Germany simply get it right in continuing to use WW1 designs while Britain, US, and Japan, all with benefit of extensive post-WW1 testing and further development, had no idea how to build ships?
>>30080660
>The Japanese had achieved eight torpedo hits, four each on Prince of Wales[48] and Repulse,[49][50] out of 49 torpedoes
>>30080666
>Vanguard
>>30080660
It's funny when he claimed that the Bismarck was "dead after one shot" but claiming that the Prince of Wales was capable of taking so many hits.
Although the one torpedo hit against quite a "non vital" part was catastrophic.
>>30080580
He's not wrong, you have zero idea what "All or Nothing" actually means.
Your knowledge of the principles of AON design is limited to what you can rationalize from the name.
>>30080681
Anyone who is really interested in naval warfare and doesn't to that my nation is better than... thing would realize that concepts of All or Nothing was never applied completly on any battleship in history - for all kinds of reasons.
And that the armor design of the Bismarck worked indeed quite well and was capable of withstanding a lot of punishment.
Various post-war analysis also proved the efficiency of the armor design.
>>30080648
Bismarck never fired that fast, she wasn't capable of firing that fast under the best of situations.
Her actual ROF during Denmark Strait varied from 1 round ever 1.5 minutes, to 1 round every 30-40 seconds. The limit on how fast she was shooting wasn't how fast the guns could be mechanically loaded, it was how fast fire control information could be calculated and sent to the turrets.
From a design perspective, Bismarck turrets were by far the worst out of the major navies, perhaps rivaled by the quad turrets on the KGV. They were under-armored, and extremely heavy for the guns they mounted.
>>30080712
Bismarck became combat ineffective in a quarter hour or so. Not sure where this Bismarck was capable of withstanding a lot of punishment meme comes from. Just keeping a boat afloat doesn't do it any good when the enemy is right there shelling you to pieces.
>>30080722
>Bismarck never fired that fast
That's wrong. She archived it when rapid firing was ordered.
But I know you don't know much about naval gunnery but the first shoots in an engagement had the goal of assess range to the other ship and to warm up the guns.
>>30080712
Your first day on /k/?
UK fags are the worst in all topics.
>>30080681
But he said Hood was dead after one shot.
>>30080752
Even that would be wrong.
>>30080712
all the professional naval historians panned Bismarck's armor scheme as a relic from WW1.
Every other navy in the world realized the downsides of the turtle deck scheme, and stopped using it. Germany kept it for their ships because it's what they had from WW1.
Bismarck has awful horizontal protection, her armored belt was too heavy due to covering 80% the length of the ship. Her TDS was subpar, and her turrets were poorly protected.
For only 3000 tons more displacement, the Americans built a vastly superior ship in the Iowa. The fact that you can make arguments for the KGV, a ship that displaced 7000 tons less, is an indictment of how awful Bismarck was.
>>30080766
>all the professional naval historians panned Bismarck's armor scheme as a relic from WW1.
Claiming things is nice.
>>30080737
You read the logs wrong if you think she fired once every 20 seconds.
She was firing half salvos from her front and rear turrets. It's 4 guns every 20 seconds or so, not a full broadside.
>>30080779
>She was firing half salvos from her front and rear turrets
That's wrong. The fifth solvo which destroyed the Hood at the end was fired by all four main guns.
>>30072936
>Why were the Bismarck Battleships so feared
Because it won the first sea battle against a superior enemy (2 battleships vs 1 battleship and 1 heavy cruiser) in six minutes.
>>30080801
> *This is possibly a differing interpretation of the "bracket-salvo" firing technique used by the Germans. The Bismarck fired three half-salvos (four guns) to find the range - the third one straddling - and then fired three more half-salvos at the Hood. The fifth half-salvo struck and exploded the Hood, the sixth half-salvo was fired just before the fifth half-salvo struck. These six half-salvos may be interpreted by the authors as being three full-salvos (eight guns).
>>30080845
>The following notes are by T. DiGiulian, editor and transcriber for the electronic version of this article.
Only the first two salvos of the Bismarck were half-salvos.
The third one was a full salvo.
And the fifth and sixth were under rapid firing.
>>30080666
4 turrets is the optimal layout for shooting at sea,
it provides the best ladder pattern and will allow for the fastest adjustment of fire.
the reason no one else used it was because they were limited by treaties
once people didnt give a fuck about the treaty, the US designed the montana, sporting 4 triple turrets.
>>30074235
>>30074252
Huff-Duff was extremely critical as well.
>>30072936
>why does everyone rave about them now?
Because World of Warships is a thing.
>>30080902
no you fucking idiot the bismark has been raved about for decades, mostly for btfoing the hood
the bismark has had its fanboys since the war, many layman will still call it the 'best battleship of the war' with the yamato LOL
>>30072936
The Royal Navy needed an excuse as to why their entire Atlantic fleet couldn't contain the goddamn u-boat favored Kriegsmarine surface fleet. Especially after those crazy kraut bastards pulled off Operation Cerberus.
the biggest problem with the bismarck class was its shitty and incredibly inefficient anti aircraft armament. Having sold the fire directors to the russians didnt help either, and 10cm AA guns werent calibrated either, the last thing they did with them was fail to shoot down the test target during the trials.
Worst part was probably the low caliber AA guns, being shitloads of 2cm and 3,7cm guns. compared to the biritsh radar directed 40mm AA it was pretty much useless. not that it could stop large air attacks either
It's armor would protect it from the british guns at ranges that was most likely to engage at in the atlantic.
It could outrun all british ships that could potentially defeat it
It's guns were good enough to defeat british armor at shorter ranges.
the deck armor wasnt as shitty as everybody claims it to be, not pacific tier but comparable to british ships, and alltough disputed if it was intentional, the double armor deck had the potential to decap shells.
It had by design superior FCS and radar setup at the time. (before they sold the directors)
The damage control and especially compartmentalisation was good, with automatic balancing due to list from flooding, similar to american ships
and lastly it was fast.
and if let loose in the atlantic it would be an even bigger hassle than gneisenau and scharnhorst
all in all it was an inefficient ship for its weight, but it wasnt any worse than its contemporaries.
all it comes down to are luck and making the right decisions, much more so than the +1 or -1 on the ship.
bismarck survived denmark strait because it lucked out,
it got sunk because admiral fucked up and got really unlucky with that torpedo hit. 4 propshafts wouldnt have helped that hit
>>30080676
Vanguard only had that layout because they had the 15inch's sat about after being taken off of other ships. If britain wasnt so broke after the war they would have had 16inch guns in 3 turrets like the Lion class.
>>30081041
>It's armor would protect it from the british guns at ranges that was most likely to engage at in the atlantic
manifestly untrue, bismarck got wrecked, and even if you want to argue that the KGV and rodney engagement ranges were atypical, bismarck was controling the range during the hood/PoW engagement and her armor failed to stop 14 inch shells from PoW penetrating her and contaminating fuel
>>30079281
That would be correct. Even before the US joined even. Well there was lend lease before the US officially joined as well. The Second Happy Time was the most destructive, sinking a quarter of all shipping lost to U-Boats during the war, but even that wasn't enough to stem the tide.
>>30081383
the PoW shell at denmark strait didnt hit the armor. a destroyer could score that same hit, and actually do more damage.
the 14 inch shells from KGV did not penetrate the belt at the final battle, only rodneys 16 inch shells did. and by that point the ranges were so close that it did not penetrate the turtledeck.
>>30075257
>The Bismarck was destroyed later by something else
>that means that the KGV class was a better ship when it lost its only engagement against the Bismarck class
How does this make any sense at all?
>>30074133
This is the correct answer.
>>30081649
>the 14 inch shells from KGV did not penetrate the belt at the final battle, only rodneys 16 inch shells did. and by that point the ranges were so close that it did not penetrate the turtledeck.
The KGV didn't close in but increased the distance for plunging fire. But nice to know that your reconstruction of history is based on pure fiction.
>>30081649
That one shot bellow the waterline seems damn near impossible. It's a bit like shooting between the treads of a tank and the ricochet penetrating the tank's belly.
Arguably, it's a flaw in the Bismarck's design with the armor belt not extending deep enough or the citadel not covering bellow the waterline or the ship's TDS not doing anything to resist artillery shells.
That being said, the Prince of Wales was chased off and the Hood was completely destroyed. It can be said that the Bismarck was at least as good as the Prince of Wales.
>>30081697
It's blatantly wrong as all that would be needed was a single CV.
>>30081738
the shot below the armor didnt cause the fuel leaks. the hit was in the prow, ahead of the belt.
the underwater hit damaged the spinter armor between the bulge and boiler/electric room. and caused the flooding of a boiler room.
bismarck scored a similar hit below the belt of PoW, but it was a dud.
>>30081698
heres a picture of the fiction btw
>>30080866
The Iowa was a post-treaty design.
Fuck if I know, I'm just here because I know someone's gonna start posting Kantai Collection.
>>30080822
You mean a battleship still undergoing shakedown and a battlecruiser vs a fully operational battleship and a cruiser.
>>30081837
iowa was extended treaty design, not post treaty
>>30081829
The amount of duds the Bismarck fired seems damn near criminal.
>>30081837
Which in turn meant that it was way bigger and tougher than anything the British or Germans produced . The Yamato class beats it simply because the Japanese tossed the treaty out.
>>30081842
There you go
>>30081866
yeah duds were pretty common, but I think I've read that there were some problems with german fuzes.
>>30081924
At least it wasn't as bat as early US torpedoes.
