Bismarck, Yamato or Arizona

[Capitan_Viejo]

Wich of this incredible battleships you think it's the best, the bismarck was the best Ship in the kriegsmarine, the Yamato was the best ship of the japan imperial navy, and everyone knows the Arizona, the lost one in pearl harbor. But which of these is the most incredible battleship of the WWII.

http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/war/bismarck.jpg
Bismarck

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/japan/battleships/yamato/02_yamato.jpg
Yamato

http://www.ibiblio.org/phha/BB-39_ARIZONA9.GIF
USS Arizona

[Torplexed]

Hmm. Best WW2 battleship ever. This one has been argued many times.:hmm: Combined Fleet's website did a comprehensive arguement on this one once....

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

These three warships do summarize the fall of the battleship from grace well. All were victims of airpower. Maybe Bismarck to a lesser extent, but they still sealed her fate.

[CaptainNemo12]

What happened to the Iowa class?:hmm:

[Torplexed]

What happened to the Iowa class?:hmm:

You can always vote 'other'. ;)

[kenijaru]

Bismarck, she's sexy and she's got one hell of a story. (or should I say "he" like Lindemann did?)

[PavelKirilovich]

Bismarck. Technologically she is superior in all aspects to the IJN Yamato and USN Arizona. One exception: Her RADAR equipment is inferior to the Arizona's (assuming Arizona would have been refit with updated technology). Bismarck's armour plate is superior to American Class "A" plate by a rather significant amount and her gunnery is superlative. As a battleship, the KM Bismarck is the terror of the seas.

By the by... why no Royal Navy option? RN had some pretty fierce battlewagons armoured with some very good ("CA," cemented armour) plate, even superior to what Bismarck was protected by.

[K-9]

The Arizona was a sister to the USS Texas, Both were built for WWI and were small enough to survive the "Washington Treaty" Limiting battleship size and production. Had the Arizona not been sunk at pearl harbor it would have likly been scrapped in 43 to build something else.

Name the only 3 battle in which Battle ships enguaged each other as they were ment too.

[Torplexed]

Name the only 3 battle in which Battle ships enguaged each other as they were ment too.
2nd battle of Guadalacanal, Suriago Strait, the Bismarck vs Hood and Prince of Wales and her finale with KGV and the Rodney. You also could probably make an arguement for the 1943 North Cape battle. 'Battlecruiser' Scharnhorst was taken unawares and pounded by the HMS Duke of York in the frigid waters north of Norway.

[kiwi_2005]

Yamato for me, Bismark and Arizona come an equal 2nd.

Has anyone seen that CG documentary from HBO on the fate of the Yamato. Brilliant how they did it I watched it on Stage6 awhile back. A must see.

[BulSoldier]

IJN Yamato has the bigest guns ever but it showed the key weakness to every battleship(funny all of these BB had been sunk or damaged criticaly by airplane).

May be the bismark would win here simply because she had short but glamorous carrier.

[K-9]

Ok First time the BBs met in battle was during the Chrimean war. The russians had a bunch of mixed gun dreadnaughts, the Japs had the more modern big gun only BBs, the Japs mopped the Ruskies butts.

2nd Battle of Jutland WWI. The Germans, though vastly outnumbered and outgunned, managed to out manuver the British battle fleet, scoring some very serious hits. The Brits had not armored the decks of thier BB's and as a result suffered a couple of very serious hits. The Germans however would never sortie thier fleet again for the entire war and thier ships would later be scuttled in Scapa Flow after the war.

Final time was Seriguia Straight. This was really the only time in wich BBs of similar size and class met in a battle that had meaning, and outcome. The US Admiral managed to cross the T against the Japs, bringing all of the US guns to bear, and as a result inflicted heavy damage and turned the Jap fleet.

From 1890-1943 World navies consider the BBs the ultimate superweapon, even when faced with OVERWHELMING evidence that it was unlikely that the BBs would ever be used for thier intended purpose, and that they were vunerable to both plunging fire from BBs as well as smaller ships with large calibre guns, and Air attack. The Washington Treaty that limited the Size and construction of BBs prior to WWII was an attempt to stop an arms race between the US and Britian. It has been said that the Washington Treatie may have adversly affected both the US, and British Navies at the start of WWII, but it also likely prevented a war between the US and Briton in 1930.

I know you didnt ask, but thought you might be intrested. As far as my favorite BB. I would go with the Fairy Swordfish.

[TarJak]

Bismark for threat, Yamoto for looks, would have gone one of the Queen Elizabeth class rather than the Arizona for mine.

[Mush Martin]

on this we disagree Tarjak

imho bismarks greatest strength was "spin"

measured against her contemporaries she was not
as capable a ship.

far and away the Best overall BB in WWII and history
is the USN Iowa Class.

bismarks rep far outwieghed her combat power.
she wasnt the most powerful battleship in the world
at the time she sailed. She was sold as that to the brits by
churchill who overemphasized her threat as a naval
unit to put priority on her destruction as a commerce
raider.
but in direct comparison she doesnt stand up.
M

[TarJak]

Mush, I said threat not strength. In this I was taking into account her "rep" which was a far greater part of her power than most of her other attributes.

No other ship was as hunted, except maybe Tirpitz, but she was never really used to her full potential either.

I agree the Iowa class was probably the most powerfull to sail.

[nikimcbee]

Hmm. Best WW2 battleship ever. This one has been argued many times.:hmm: Combined Fleet's website did a comprehensive arguement on this one once....

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

These three warships do summarize the fall of the battleship from grace well. All were victims of airpower. Maybe Bismarck to a lesser extent, but they still sealed her fate.

AAHH you beat me to the combinedfleet post. That's a great comparison. The Arizona wouldn't last 5 seconds against the Yamato or Bismarck. An Iowa class though...:hmm: I think that would kick ass.

[Mush Martin]

Yamato and Musashi also while quite clearly tremendous ships
with exquisitely streamlined hulls. had short legs and flawed
protection as well as mounts that while elevating and depressing
handily turnded as slow as a WWI mount. also with the american
16 inch having twice the rate never mind the ships better range and protection
I dont think that yamato rates more than mention in the consideration.

its interesting to observe that if yamato had been caught alone on the open
sea by two Des Moines class cruisers they probably wouldve taken her
with there extreme ROF of 30000 lbs of metal per minute better speed and
better protection and damage control.

Dont get me wrong Yamato Musashi and Shinano Capture the imagination
but they didnt achieve there design potentials by any stretch I dont think
further in the case of the BBs it seems likely they could have done it
on 4000 tons less and may have been better advised to go with a
smaller Calibre main armament of twelve faster guns.
penetration difference for 18.1" vs US 16" ap is not that much and under
some circumstances the 16" comes out on top.

jmo
M

[Mush Martin]

These three warships do summarize the fall of the battleship from grace well. All were victims of airpower. Maybe Bismarck to a lesser extent, but they still sealed her fate.

Indeed its the airplane not the torpedo boat or submarine
that killed the battleship
secondary batteries were largely flawed that way outside the US.

Roma, Conte d Cavour, Tirpitz, Prince of wales, Repulse ,Arizona,
Oklahoma, Yamato and Musahi can attest to the effectiveness of
aircraft in naval combat.

only Hiei, Fuso, and Scharnhorst support an anti surface secondary

shore bombardment by battleships while impressive psychologically
was better done by six and eight inch gun cruisers which were
cheaper too. the only effective wwII role for battleships really
was as superior AA escorts in the carrier groups and at least
in the case of the USN they knew no equal.

M

[Darkcyde]

I vote Iowa class.:up:

[joea]

Yamato for me, Bismark and Arizona come an equal 2nd.

Has anyone seen that CG documentary from HBO on the fate of the Yamato. Brilliant how they did it I watched it on Stage6 awhile back. A must see.

Yamato was great, but I voted other. My fave has to be the Warspite....no other ship did so much and saw so much at least in the RN, the KGVs are a bit underestimated. I do think the USN's best were the Iowa...just for the AA battery.

BTW kiwi awesome sig mate. :up:

[Mush Martin]

Warspite would be my contender for greatest single battleship

but if we were talking designs that went to production then I
would pick Iowa which is what my vote for other will stand to
mean.

[mrbeast]

Think Warspite wins for coolest name! :cool:

[Torplexed]

Think Warspite wins for coolest name! :cool:

Warspite had quite the illustrious career....not to mention fighting in two World Wars.

The last British battleship Vanguard probably would have been a good contender for best all-around battleship. Too bad she was late for the 'party'.

[NealT]

My choice is the Battleship Texas.

1. At the time, she was the best in the world.
2. She made it all the way through WW II, even participating in the D-Day events.
3. She is still around - moored near Houston, TX.
4. She is named after Neal Stevens' home state!

[did I mention she is named after my home state as well? :yep: ]

NealT

[Saldiray]

I think Yamato was far ahead of its time in both design and architecture. Yamato suffered enormous punishment from US aircraft and finally went down to her final grave, the ocean floor but Bismarck? It never gave me that gigantic look of a BB but thinking of her final battle, how she had been shelled at to death and still managing to stay afloat is a miracle. I was really shocked when the documentary "Expedition Bismarck" revealed that it was sunk not by British shells or torpedoes, but by her own crew's scuttling her. Yamato or Bismarck? Still can't decide, but i'm certain on one thing, Arizona is just like a joke when compared to the other two.

[JAKE]

Yamato..Just for being the biggest.LOL

[mrbeast]

I think Yamato was far ahead of its time in both design and architecture. Yamato suffered enormous punishment from US aircraft and finally went down to her final grave, the ocean floor but Bismarck? It never gave me that gigantic look of a BB but thinking of her final battle, how she had been shelled at to death and still managing to stay afloat is a miracle. I was really shocked when the documentary "Expedition Bismarck" revealed that it was sunk not by British shells or torpedoes, but by her own crew's scuttling her. Yamato or Bismarck? Still can't decide, but i'm certain on one thing, Arizona is just like a joke when compared to the other two.

German BBs had a reputation of having to be beaten into submission, some of those at Jutland came very near to sinking but managed to hold on long enough to reach Wilhelmshaven and safety, after suffering terrible damage. Take Seydlitz in this picture here:

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8126/smsseydlitznachskagerrayt5.jpg

One of the reasons Bismarck lasted so long in her final firefight with Rodney and KGV was that the RN ships closed the range so much that their shots were hitting Bismarck at a flatter trajectory than normal. So hits tended to pass through the superstructure and sides of the hull rather than penetrating through the bottom of the ship or hitting vital areas. Some shots actually bounced off the surface of the water and up into the conning tower and funnel.

[TriskettheKid]

Iowa-class, of course.

USS New Jersey.

[NiclDoe]

Iowa-class, of course.

USS New Jersey.
:yep: :yep: :yep: and i got a photo of her when i went there last year cause i live in NJ
<a href="http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pict0001xr7.jpg" this baby can kick all other BBs buts becuase her 16 AP inch ammo has the same power as the yammys 18 HE in ammo.

[TriskettheKid]

Iowa-class, of course.

USS New Jersey. :yep: :yep: :yep: and i got a photo of her when i went there last year cause i live in NJ
<a href="http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pict0001xr7.jpg" this baby can kick all other BBs buts becuase her 16 AP inch ammo has the same power as the yammys 18 HE in ammo.

Despite going to college, and now living, in Boston, Philadelphia is my hometown. I've visited the Black Dragon quite a few times, the first being before it was even finished for it's role as a floating museum. I remember walking through one of the exhibits, which was of rough sea conditions, and it not being finished. Most notably, the seaman over the head, which was full of vomit, had not been finished being painted.

My grandfather laughed when he saw that. Said it reminded him of one storm his DD went through in the North Atlantic. The only two people who weren't ill at some point were him and the ship's captain.

[Rwolf]

Yamato ftw, in her resurrected version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Battleship_Yamato_(spaceship)

[Mush Martin]

I actually had a mod for that model in Freelancer (nondriveable)
M

[Sailor Steve]

The question was which of those three was the best. No doubt, Yamato was the most powerful, and had the best protection. Arizona was a First World War retread, and wouldn't have stood a chance against either of the other two.

[USS Sea Tiger]

Yamato, Big Guns, Well made ship, but POOR damage control. and POOR gunnery

Arizona, Useless by WWII Ship to ship action except as a shell catcher to buy the rest of the fleet time .

Bis ,, Fire control was good, damage control was great, Crew training was great. If she could close rage on the Yamatp, then she could kill her.

Other, A wide open for debate, Iowas could challenge and be the odds on bet for any of these,

my conclusion, take a type XXI and make them all beg for mercy.

[danurve]

I think there is a romance with these steel marvels regardless of their origin.

Had to vote other. Durring a second deployment our battle group sailed with BB-62. And so that my be a slight preference. :smug:

Thought of tieing in an ex-wife joke as option-other, eh.

[joegrundman]

Ok First time the BBs met in battle was during the Chrimean war. The russians had a bunch of mixed gun dreadnaughts, the Japs had the more modern big gun only BBs, the Japs mopped the Ruskies butts.


I think you mean the Battle of Tsushima Strait, part of the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05.

The Crimean war was in the Crimea, the peninsular in the Black Sea area, in the 1850s. Featured an alliance of Britain, France and Turkey to stop Russian expansion into Turkey.

(also, when you say dreadnoughts, perhaps you mean ironclads? Dreadnought was the name of the first true 20th century style battleship, designed by admiral Fisher of the RN)

Also, could you tell me more, or give me some links, about this chance of war between the US and Britain of which you speak? I've never heard of this before and it sounds most intriguing. What, apart from pure arms race and the desire to be the strongest, were the sources of friction?

[Cohaagen]

2nd Battle of Jutland WWI. The Germans, though vastly outnumbered and outgunned, managed to out manuver the British battle fleet, scoring some very serious hits. The Brits had not armored the decks of thier BB's and as a result suffered a couple of very serious hits. The Germans however would never sortie thier fleet again for the entire war and thier ships would later be scuttled in Scapa Flow after the war.
I think you might have the wrong end of the stick there, mate - I can't think of anyone, historian or amateur, who thinks that the High Seas Fleet outmaneuvered the British. On the contrary, the Germans were consistently outmaneuvered and spent most of their time running away. Scheer's plan to lure out the Grand Fleet and destroy it piecemeal failed, and it was only the robustness of their ships that prevented the Germans from suffering greater losses.

The problem with British ships was not armour (I can assure you that they did have horizontal armour plate) but the shell handling of the Rosyth battlecruiser squadron who, being forward-based, disregarded safety procedures which were enforced on the main battle fleet, leading directly to the catastrophic explosions at Jutland. HMS Lion, not much better armoured than the earlier BCs, stood up to a huge pounding and was back in service relatively quickly.

Warspite? Greatest battleship of all time, easily. Read up on the Battle of Cape Matapan, just one of her numerous actions - an entire Italian heavy cruiser squadron destroyed in less than five minutes at point-blank range by Warspite and the other QE-class ships. Three CAs, two destroyers and about 2,500 dead in not much more time than it takes to write it :arrgh!:

By the way, I thought the Jim Cameron doc was pretty suspect - he seemed to be implying that KGV and Rodney were incapable of penetrating Bismarck's armour belt, not mentioning of course that the conning tower and each of the turret barbettes (armoured to about 13") were pierced and destroyed in quick order. Bismarck's crew have said that opening valves and seacocks was simply a normal part of abandoning ship...warships are not abandoned unless all hope of salvage is lost. Cameron seems to suffer from that rather creepy habit of fetishising of the German war machine. I'm sad that so many German sailors were lost, but in a choice between that and the deaths of potentially hundreds or thousands of British, Canadian, American, etc. merchant seamen...well, **** 'em.

The German surface fleet always had pretensions toward grandeur right from the beginning but, unlike the U-boat waffe, didn't excel at very much except scuttling their own ships.

[Jimbuna]

I have read this thread most avidly, but in the end I voted 'other'.

Whilst I appreciate the pros and cons of both the Yamato and Bismarck, and whilst failing to see how even the most patriotic amongst us (by that I mean our American cousins) can even begin to compare either of the above with a WWI vessel.
I have opted for the Iowa class as the best overall....the only one that could ever have a post war future, regardless of survival, since Japan and Germany would have been forced to surrender any surviving capital ships.
There is however a part of me that would have liked to have seen the Vanguard given a stay of execution in the post war years to see how her future may have evolved when compared to that of the Iowa class.

http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif

[Sailor Steve]

2nd Battle of Jutland WWI. The Germans, though vastly outnumbered and outgunned, managed to out manuver the British battle fleet, scoring some very serious hits. The Brits had not armored the decks of thier BB's and as a result suffered a couple of very serious hits. The Germans however would never sortie thier fleet again for the entire war and thier ships would later be scuttled in Scapa Flow after the war.
The problem with British ships was not armour (I can assure you that they did have horizontal armour plate) but the shell handling of the Rosyth battlecruiser squadron who, being forward-based, disregarded safety procedures which were enforced on the main battle fleet, leading directly to the catastrophic explosions at Jutland. HMS Lion, not much better armoured than the earlier BCs, stood up to a huge pounding and was back in service relatively quickly.
Excellent summary, to which I would just like to add a little. According to John Campbell's Jutland: An Analysis Of The Fighting, the main reason for the disregard in safety procedure was the fact that the squadron was the one which chased down the German squadron at Dogger Bank the previous year. They noted that the Germans were firing faster, and decided that they could do the same if they pinned the anti-flash doors between turret and magazine open. There is no evidence that it helped, but Indefatigable, Invincible and Queen Mary were all observed to take turret hits shortly before exploding. HMS Lion also took a major turret hit, and is presumed to have been save solely due to the quick action of major Francis Harvey, who, despite his ultimately fatal wounds, managed to close the magazine doors and flood the turret.

[Wulfmann]

I have studied battleship design and history since about 1960.

There are different ways to grade these and since we are talking WWI (you can not compare a 1965 F1 car to a 2207. Can you?)

Warpsite is the epitome of the spirit of the Royal Navy. She was in so many places and never failed to deliver. Even when they disgracefully decided to scrap her she broke free and embedded herself on the rocks defiant to the end.

Bismarck by deed, no doubt of all modern warships she sailed behind enemy lines (not under) blasted the symbol of the Royal Navy (Who's name was forever changed from "The Mighty Hood" to "Sunk by the Bismarck"!!!) and died much like the gallant 300 at Thermopylae.
While Cameron is off IMO as Bismarck was actually sinking the fact the crew scuttled the ship was to prevent the disgrace of being boarded. He (Captain Lindenmann asked Bismarck be so addressed) sits proudly on the ocean floor majestically. More movies, TV documentaries books articles have been written about this warship than any other in history.

Best, technically IMO, the 4 Iowa class battleships. of all completed battleships.
Had the H-39 been built it would (???) have been in the same category.
Yamato was over sized but mediocre. Her 18.1 inch guns were big but about equal to the excellent 16/55s of the Iowa. In a straight fight I would bet on Iowa. Superior fire control, able to dictate the range at her choosing but luck would really be the deciding factor in the end.
Vanquard was a great design but here WWI main armament was vastly inferior to Iowa's main guns. V was the best the Royal Navy ever built but its like getting the fastest Indy racer to the track a week after the race.
Bismarck was from an earlier class and one size smaller so not fair to compare. Bis and the South Dakota would have been a good match and Richelieu with a German or British crew would also have been their equal.

Best capital ship of WWI, IMO was the Derrflinger and more than any other ship pointed the way to the modern battleship. As to deeds well Derrflinger certainly took a punch and delivered knock out blows but all the German battlecruisers were of the same spirit and that unit of Hippers was ton for ton the baddest bunch in WWI.

I spent a day on the Texas and got a special inside tour of her. Went down into the magazines, even sat in the captain's chair.
Too bad more are not preserved and that takes us back to Warspite the battleship that earned the right above all others to be preserved. Sad and she would have been better off sunk maybe where ships of similar stature survive say 200 miles or so west of Brest!

Wulfmann

[Wulfmann]

As to Jutland German ships also took turret hits and even had magazine fires that certainly destroyed British ships.
The big difference was German powder was in brass cases no silk bags so there was extra time to fight the blaze or flood the magazine and save the ship.
The German learned the lessons of Doggerbank the Brits did not!

Wulfmann

[joea]

Are you talking WWI or WWII? :doh: You're mixing up ships from both wars.

[linerkiller]

Surely Bismarck, esthetically she was really a princess of the seas, also if ships like Yamato or Iowa would have easily outrunned and outgunned her:roll:

But my favourite warship was the WWI battlecruiser Derfflinger.

[mrbeast]

Warspite? Greatest battleship of all time, easily. Read up on the Battle of Cape Matapan, just one of her numerous actions - an entire Italian heavy cruiser squadron destroyed in less than five minutes at point-blank range by Warspite and the other QE-class ships. Three CAs, two destroyers and about 2,500 dead in not much more time than it takes to write it :arrgh!:


Warspite had a reputation for excellent gunnery control too. In one action in 1940 Warspite managed to land hits on the Italian BB Giulio Cesare at the extreme range of 26,000yds! :|\\

[cheese123]

Arizona cause it sunk:rock:

[Sailor Steve]

Calling Warspite the greates belies the fact that one of her sisters, HMS Barham, was sunk by only three torpedoes from U-331. That Warspite survived more battles and recieved more awards than any other battleship attests mostly to crew quality and luck.

How would Warspite have fared in a one-on-one battle with any of the other ships listed?

[Jimbuna]

Calling Warspite the greates belies the fact that one of her sisters, HMS Barham, was sunk by only three torpedoes from U-331. That Warspite survived more battles and recieved more awards than any other battleship attests mostly to crew quality and luck.

How would Warspite have fared in a one-on-one battle with any of the other ships listed?

That's the million dollar question :hmm:

[Mush Martin]

She'd have kicked arizona's a$$ wheres my million.
Luck is a strong mitigating factor in the history
of succesful Warships.

[Jimbuna]

LMAO http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/ROFLMAO.gif http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/ROFLMAO.gif

[Wulfmann]

The truly great ships were great because of their deeds.

Warspite, Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Houston/Perth, Cossack, Norfolk, Adrias, Penelope, Derrflinger and Seydlitz and others all earned their reputation for what they did not their technical read outs no matter how impressive some of those have been.
Great ships by their newer equipment, often improved because of the deeds of earlier ships had the bad luck of showing up after the show as over.
The Iowa class was the all around best battleship but when commissioned the battleship no longer played the center stage role nor were they the deciding factor in the war's outcome just helpers to those that now were.
The Bismarck battle was crucial because it could have changed the course of the war but in 44 no such possibility existed for any battleship no matter how "super".

Wulfmann

[linerkiller]

The truly great ships were great because of their deeds.

Warspite, Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Houston/Perth, Cossack, Norfolk, Adrias, Penelope, Derrflinger and Seydlitz and others all earned their reputation for what they did not their technical read outs no matter how impressive some of those have been.
Great ships by their newer equipment, often improved because of the deeds of earlier ships had the bad luck of showing up after the show as over.
The Iowa class was the all around best battleship but when commissioned the battleship no longer played the center stage role nor were they the deciding factor in the war's outcome just helpers to those that now were.
The Bismarck battle was crucial because it could have changed the course of the war but in 44 no such possibility existed for any battleship no matter how "super".

Wulfmann100% right:yep:....Personally I care very much about the esthetical profile of a ship, you can call me a feticist :D.
some drawings/photos of my favourite girl:D : (sorry for the big images)
http://www.sms-navy.com/SMS_Derfflinger-stbdqtr_1918.jpg

http://www.sms-navy.com/SMS_Derfflinger-linedrw-side.jpg

She took a lot of kicks, but she came back:D
http://www.sms-navy.com/SMS_Derfflinger-linedrw-Jutland_BDA.jpg

[mrbeast]

.......And in the British corner we have HMS Warspite......

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6180/warspite2sgq4.jpg http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/2402/warspitekc3.jpg http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/1126/hmswarspiteindianocean1jt7.jpg http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/2285/thewarspitestrandedatprqh6.jpg

The image at bottom right shows her beached while on her way to the breakers, the old girl wouldn't go down without a fight!:arrgh!:

BTW cool pictures linerkiller.:up:

[linerkiller]

Find them and more other here:
http://german-navy.tripod.com/

[Jimbuna]

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

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/battleships/warspite/hms_warspite.htm

[Biggles]

USS Missouri.

Famous for, as an example, the fact that the unconditional surrender of the Japanese Empire to the Allied Forces was signed onboard the Missouri.

[Jimbuna]

Surrender photos http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/japansur/js-8.htm

[Wulfmann]

Great post with positive thought of favorite ships all deserving of them and their brave crews.

While I would like to agree on USS Missouri considering my Uncle served on her from before commissioning until his discharge and he met my aunt to whom he was married for over 50 years when the Mighty Mo went from port to port showing off the plaque the truth is that great ship served as an escort and shore-bombarder and even her glory of the surrender was a bit unfair as Whiskey (USS Wisconsin) was in the bay for a week but Truman insisted his home state's ship be the one that got that honor.

When Mo entered the war the battleship was no longer "the" ship. That ended with a torpedo in the stern of Bismarck and the sinking of the HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse.
The seas were no longer to be ruled "on" the seas but above and below the water.

Can one look at Derrflinger, put stack covers, enclose the mast and add an Atlantic bow and wow what a beautiful ship we would have. Trunk the exhaust into one stack and poof, Scharnhorst and/or Bismarck, close enough

Wulfmann

[linerkiller]

Can one look at Derrflinger, put stack covers, enclose the mast and add an Atlantic bow and wow what a beautiful ship we would have. Trunk the exhaust into one stack and poof, Scharnhorst and/or Bismarck, close enough

Wulfmann Very accurate observation Wulfmann:yep:
Actually, the Scharnhorst class was based on the WW1 plans of the 32000-ton battlecruiser Mackensen, which was never completed. Only differences were the "cruiser" stern, the planned two funnels trunked into one, a more massive tower and, lately, a clipper bow... The mackensen was in fact an improved derfflinger, bigger, slightly faster, and with 355mm guns
http://www.sms-navy.com/SMS_Mackensen-linedrw_b.gif

The next projected step, the Yorck class armed with eight 15 inch guns:arrgh!:
http://www.sms-navy.com/SMS_Ersatz-Yorck-linedrw_b.gif
In the end, they were only bigger copies of the Derfy;)

[Zakalwe]

Hi,

as we are getting a little into WWI, maybe someone is interested in "Jutland" which is soon to be out.

http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/public/Html/se_Jutland.html

The graphics aren`t as glorious as in SH3, but it`s ok.

I already have the earlier title from SES, "Distant Guns", which deals with the Russo-Japanese war at sea in 1904/05. Interesting for us Sub-simmers, is the goal of the campaign as the Russian player, you have to disrupt the re-supply through sinking or capturing as many merchants as possible, this is the only way to halt the Japanese ground attack. Unlike in SH3 your efforts at sea really decide the war.

DG for sure is the best Navy RTS since the "Fighting Steel" series from SSI. A free Demo download is available, but here you are only able to play a single scenario, the game really shines in the campaign. What one has to get used to is the short ranges these battles where fought, effective gun range begins only at around 3 km.

Greets

Z.

PS.: Some of my favourite screenshots from DG:

My Armoured cruisers hunting down some unlucky light cruisers:

http://www.zakalwe.de/pics/DG/DG7.jpg

Admiral Togo`s fleet

http://www.zakalwe.de/pics/DG/DG8.jpg

My heavy metal (three Battleships and two Armoured Cruisers) in heavy weather, notice the smoke is blown ahaed of the ships)

http://www.zakalwe.de/pics/storm2.jpg

Into the sun:

http://www.zakalwe.de/pics/DG/DG3.jpg

[mrbeast]

JUTLAND!!!!! :eek:

How in the universe did I miss that in dev!

Very cool can't wait togive that a spin when its released:cool:

[Zakalwe]

yup,

sometimes I think marketing isn`t very well done by SES. Even their own website is dead for months at times, so you could come to the conclusion the project is dead.

btw. never realized that Warspite and sisters once had two funnels.... :oops:

[Cohaagen]

As to Jutland German ships also took turret hits and even had magazine fires that certainly destroyed British ships.
The big difference was German powder was in brass cases no silk bags so there was extra time to fight the blaze or flood the magazine and save the ship.
The German learned the lessons of Doggerbank the Brits did not!

Wulfmann
I've heard people quote this often too, but I think most imagine the charge bags lying around in a sort of heap. They were actually stored until needed inside brass-lined metal drums known in Britain as "charge bins" - they still have similar things for the 105 Light Gun - when they would be removed and placed on the ammunition hoist/elevator which would then ascend to the gunhouse. The problem was that the Rosyth battlecruisers removed the lids from the bins thereby negating their protective value. The whole catalogue of safety blunders was recorded by one Royal Marine Warrant Officer Grant. Besides, battlecruisers should never have been used in fleet engagements.

As for the Iowas, they're magnificent ships, but utterly superfluous and in fact a drain on a naval budget that could have better spent the money on the real American area of expertise - carriers. A number of the WWI-vintage US dreadnoughts were horrible coal-fired relics that were painfully slow, had poor acceleration and suffered from vibration problems. Even so, the refits made good use of them, and all performed bombardment duties admirably. Despite the constant lauding, the Iowas had totally unillustrious battle careers, unless you count America's regular post-'45 pygmy-bashing adventures :D. Even then, a monitor could have done those jobs just as well...the Royal Navy kept the 15"-gunned HMS Lord Roberts until 1965.

Apparently, you can still see wee reminders of Warspite down at Prussia Cove. Nothing big - rivets, fittings, the odd bit of 1/2 inch plate, that sort of thing. All the good stuff (armour plate especially) went long ago. Somewhere in that part of the world there are much bigger bits of Torrey Canyon too.

[Torplexed]

As for the Iowas, they're magnificent ships, but utterly superfluous and in fact a drain on a naval budget that could have better spent the money on the real American area of expertise - carriers.
Luckily, somebody had the fiscal sense the cancel the Montanas. ;) Basically an Iowa with one more turret and a lengthened hull.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_class_battleship

[Jimbuna]

A wise decision as it turned out. The Iowa class gave all the service they were called on to give. An additional class would have been a real luxury.

[Lurchi]

My favourite Battleship, especially from aesthetical standpoint, are the italian Littorio's:

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/9783/littorio1ei7.th.jpg (http://img293.imageshack.us/my.php?image=littorio1ei7.jpg)http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/872/roma1ky0.th.jpg (http://img170.imageshack.us/my.php?image=roma1ky0.jpg)

Best Battleships?: Without doubt, Yamato & Musashi. They both took a lot of damage so their protection was obviously not bad. Firepower was massive and they had huge and excellent optics.

Vanguard must have been also a pretty good ship: A very reliable armament with the overall excellent 18 inch guns which were improved and developed over 30 years - all in combination with a well-protectected and balanced hull and armour system built with the experience of two world wars and many fought battles.

Bismarck is a beautiful and famous ship - it was a good balanced design. But it had several weaknesses especially a protection scheme based on the latest WWI designs with lower fighting distances. It didn't feature an all-or nothing armour concept - by using that some weight could have been saved and used for a stronger horizontal protection instead.

[seafarer]

IMO, kind of a pointless poll. Arizona was commissioned in 1916, and based on a class designed in 1913. Despite updates, she was basically antiquated compared to Bismark or Yamato. She would have been comparable to an IJN Kongo or Fuso class, or a German Konig class - something like that anyway.

It would be like asking what's better, an Arleigh Burke class or a Gearing class - but the two just are not really comparable.

[Sailor Steve]

As for the Iowas, they're magnificent ships, but utterly superfluous and in fact a drain on a naval budget that could have better spent the money on the real American area of expertise - carriers.
The problem there is that they were authorised in 1937, ordered in 1939 and laid down mid-1940; all long before the superiority of airpower was recognized. Taranto was in 1940, Pearl Harbor in December '41 and Midway in June '42, by which time the four ships were well on their way to completion.

Besides, Congress recognized that they had plenty of money to spread around, and they completed more than 100 aircraft carriers during the war. Would more have been built - or needed - if the Iowas had been cancelled. Also consider that the existence of Yamato and Musashi were part of the justification for those ships, and they made sure that the US ships outnumbered the big Japanese ships 2-to-1.

[Wulfmann]

I've heard people quote this often too, but I think most imagine the charge bags lying around in a sort of heap.
I do not believe I said they were. Fact is in any battle enough were exposed at any one time that a rightly placed splinter could cause a disaster. The results seem to indicate that as well.

Besides, battlecruisers should never have been used in fleet engagements. You mean "British" battlecruisers. German versions did very well, again, as far as results proved.


As for the Iowas, they're magnificent ships, but utterly superfluous and in fact a drain on a naval budget that could have better spent the money on the real American area of expertise - carriers. Perhaps you skipped what i said on these. I agree and believe I stated such


Despite the constant lauding, the Iowas had totally unillustrious battle careers, unless you count America's regular post-'45 pygmy-bashing adventures :D. Even then, a monitor could have done those jobs just as well...the Royal Navy kept the 15"-gunned HMS Lord Roberts until 1965.
Korean vets as well as those in Nam and the Gulf would disagree with your opinion. For one they were (with drones) extremely accurate and used old ammo that no longer cost anything as it was surplus. The Viet Cong claimed the two things they feared most were B-52s and the New Jersey. They did not have our luxury of distance observation just the sudden crash of huge HE from nowhere. The cruise missiles also were effective from Iowas and they could carry a bunch and while I still agree they were too expensive we also have the luxury of hindsight which they could not afford when these ships were authorized.
Reagan put them in service to counter the Kirov class which we labeled as battlecruisers and in military circles tit for tat, as dumb as later it proves, is just how things are done
However, in 1968 I was asked to submit an opinion on what would amount to a useful Vietnam support ship. While my idea was bigger than a monitor it would have used a 12' turret form Alaska type with a helio-deck for attack copters but not much different than an over sized monitor. I also pointed out using the Iowa type was more practical than the cost of building a new ship that may have limited future value

Apparently, you can still see wee reminders of Warspite down at Prussia Cove. Nothing big - rivets, fittings, the odd bit of 1/2 inch plate, that sort of thing. All the good stuff (armour plate especially) went long ago. Somewhere in that part of the world there are much bigger bits of Torrey Canyon too. I am still upset that ship was not made into a museum. A disgrace to British history, IMO!~!

As for Yamato being great they were simply over sized not great at all. Their 18.1 inch guns were mediocre and their extra size meant a few more inexpensive bombs and torpedoes over something costing millions less. Plus, they were so costly to operate they sat most of the war in port. The Kongo class (British Tiger class CBs) rebuilt as fast battleships were the only useful Jap BBs.

Vanguard had the same 381MM (15") guns as did the other older ships like Hood, R-class and QE class. the 4 turrets were in reserve and the ship was built to use them. It was the best Brit BB as it had very good fire control and was very stable.

Bismarck was the last hoorah for the outdated concept of the mammoth steel floating castle. Her voyage was the ultimate sea story as is shown by how much has been written about it since. Her design was conservative but it is inaccurate to say she was a WWI German battleship design.
She was a 4 turret Scharnhorst with heavy above main belt armor and Scharnhorst was based on the Mackensen class CB not on Bayern.
Again, when Bismarck was designed it was to counter Jean Bart not to fight what the still unknown of WWII reality was.
It was Panzerschiff made Dunkerque made Scharnhorst made Littorio made Richelieu made Bismarck
Tit for tat. It is how one scares governments into spending large amounts of money on vague perception. The only really useful ships were the 3 Panzerschiff types. They too, however, would have been useless after 1941

Wulfmann

[Cohaagen]

I do not believe I said they were. Fact is in any battle enough were exposed at any one time that a rightly placed splinter could cause a disaster. The results seem to indicate that as well.
I don't believe that you said it either. I wasn't referring to or addressing you.

You mean "British" battlecruisers. German versions did very well, again, as far as results proved.
That would be expected, since the German ships were designed, keel up, to form part of the battle line or be in the van of any fast action, as opposed to the armoured cruiser-smashers of the RN.

It's only post-1919 that the German ships became widely known as battlecruisers, and I don't believe the Kaiserliche Marine ever referred to them as such. It's a lazy Anglocentric description. The two represent entirely different concepts, and it's a triumph of brain-damaged comparative logic that they have been lumped together.

Perhaps you skipped what i said on these. I agree and believe I stated such
I didn't read what you said at all, I'm afraid. I was offering my own thoughts apropos of nowt. Think you might have jumped the gun a bit, old sword.

Korean vets as well as those in Nam and the Gulf would disagree with etc.etc.
The cost of war-stock shells is the least of it - I wonder what the monthly cost of fuel and maintainence for one 50,000 ton battleship (plus food and pay for over 2,000 crew) is, and how it stacks up against B52 or B58 strikes.

As for the old chestnut about Mighty Mo' and her sisters striking sheer icy cold numbing terror into the hearts of inscrutable Commie gooks everywhere (I'm paraphrasing here)...I have heard reasonably big guns too, and they all sound enormous. Even Rarden sounds like a field gun when going overhead.

Besides, I would have thought that the obvious thing that frightened the Viet Cong was dying, regardless of circumstances.

[Torplexed]

As for Yamato being great they were simply over sized not great at all. Their 18.1 inch guns were mediocre and their extra size meant a few more inexpensive bombs and torpedoes over something costing millions less. Plus, they were so costly to operate they sat most of the war in port. The Kongo class (British Tiger class CBs) rebuilt as fast battleships were the only useful Jap BBs.


Spot on. An even poorer investment than the USN's Iowas were the Yamatos for a resource-starved Japan. For the majority of the war the Yamato and Musashi sat in Truk Lagoon and then Palau idle at anchor. Officially they were waiting for a giant decisive fleet battle with the U.S. Navy, but other than occasionally running away from air raids or briefly chasing false leads about the location of the U.S. Fleet they pretty much sat around, trying not to waste fuel. At one point the Musashi was even pressed into use as a freighter with bombs, fuel and equipment lashed to the deck, making it surely the worst designed freighter in history. This unsurprisingly came to nothing however as heavy seas started moving the cargo and it had to be thrown overboard.

At the same time the old Kongos did the heavy battleship lifting in the Solomons. The Kongo Class were the only Japanese battleships fast enough to scuttle in to bombard Henderson Field at night and then be far out of the range of aerial retaliation by daybreak. The Hiei and Kirishima eventually paid the ultimate price dying in pitched night battles.

The history of the remaining Japanese battleships classes is rather ignominous. The Fuso and Ise classes were too old and slow for carrier escort duty. The Fusos were eventually sacrificed at Leyte Gulf. The Ise Class were converted into carriers without planes or pilots. One of the Nagato Class, the Mutsu simply blew up in 1943 while anchored in Hiroshima. Nagato ended up as atomic fodder at Bikini Atoll.

[Cohaagen]

Yamato worship is weird. Bismarck worship is slightly less weird. I've always taken it as a big creepy naval penis-measuring contest - "my battleship's bigger than yours" sort of thing. I'm glad no old matelots from those ships use the internet, God only knows what they'd make of it.

[Sailor Steve]

Well said. I have always compared ships to soldiers:

Destroyers are like footsoldiers: they do the fighting and dying.

Cruisers are like sergeants: they direct everything, and are efficient at killing when they have to be.

Battleships are warriors like Hector and Achilles: they stand brave and tall, they kill a lot of the enemy and there are very few of them, so when they finally fall everyone sees it and weeps and wails.

Of course our submarines are like secret agents and saboteurs: they sneak in and destroy something, and then try to sneak away again.

[Jimbuna]

Yamato worship is weird. Bismarck worship is slightly less weird. I've always taken it as a big creepy naval penis-measuring contest - "my battleship's bigger than yours" sort of thing. I'm glad no old matelots from those ships use the internet, God only knows what they'd make of it.

Not many of them left I should imagine :hmm:

[Wulfmann]

More good points from all.

The bottom line on the Iowas is we did not know they would be white elephants when being built. Looking at a 1942 Jane's no one knew what the Japs were up to nor did we have the advantage of our hindsight.
But, quite true they were expensive to operate and in reality not worth their money.
Practically!!
However, that is the practical aspect and anyone that has seen an Iowa coming into port knows the term "Battleship Diplomacy" is a striking bit of awesomeness.
Nothing carries the appearance of raw power as do huge gun turrets. The fact it is only a perception by comparison is irrelevant.
Perception is reality to those that are doing the perceiving and battleship gun turrets say it like nothing else can.

Wulfmann

[Steeltrap]

More good points from all.

However, that is the practical aspect and anyone that has seen an Iowa coming into port knows the term "Battleship Diplomacy" is a striking bit of awesomeness.
Nothing carries the appearance of raw power as do huge gun turrets. The fact it is only a perception by comparison is irrelevant.
Perception is reality to those that are doing the perceiving and battleship gun turrets say it like nothing else can.

Wulfmann

Had the pleasure of visiting Missouri when she visited Sydney. As a history buff it was a blast (pardon the pun!).
There was a picture of her firing a full broadside off the coast of Sydney - wow!!
At least I felt confident we, the Aussies, weren't ever going to be looking down the wrong end of those huge barrels!

After 9/11 you can't get on board visiting ships - sad (but obviously understandable).

Cheers

[bookworm_020]

None of them get my vote.

The Arizona gets the flick as she was the oldest and least up to date of the three. The Bismark was based on the Bayern Class battleship from WW1 ( a modernized version, but simlar layout), IT had a short but spectacular life, but it still gets the chop. The Yamato gets the flick as well, due to it the things listed in the in the first post comparing battleships.

The Iowa's were the best overall, but I do have a soft spot for HMS Warspite;)

[Graf Paper]

I'd have to vote for the Iowa-class BBs. Specifically the USS Missouri, BB-63, as it was on her decks that World War II finally came to an end with the signing of the unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan.

You can well understand why the USS New Jersey's firepower was feared by the Vietcong. The following description about the 16-inch main gun was given by a naval gunnery officer aboard the USS Missouri during the First Gulf War in 1991:

"Try to imagine an old Volkswagen hurtling through the air at over 2,000 m.p.h. and travelling a distance of 22 miles before smashing into your house."

:huh:

Now THAT is one helluva gun! :arrgh!:

[Wulfmann]

The Bismark was based on the Bayern Class battleship from WW1 ( a modernized version, but simlar layout)

Making capital letters does not actually authenticate the statement.
Some do say this and there are inherent similarities but while designers looked at all the data to draw on; the Bismarck was an evolution that came from Scharnhorst and that came from Mackensen which came from Derrflinger.
Look at the plans for all the 4 classes or just assume the similar turret arrangement trumps hull design armor layout etc and believe what makes you feel good.
The fact some particularly in British circles having had a bug regarding Bismarck's success and in so doing made bias statements did not actually make them fact.
I remember discussing this at the Imperial War Museum after Iowa's turret exploded and this "expert" now concluded this is what happened to the Hood and she had not been sunk by the Bismarck.
I then asked if he really felt without any proof that he was so desirous to diminish the reputation of the German warship he would suggest the Hood was not beaten in a fair fight but rather self destructed by shear incompetence of her crew????
I then stated I would not without proof dishonor the brave crew of the HMS Hood and most in the room strongly agreed.
There are many that study history with an agenda and some sadly, do so with Bismarck vainly trying to take away her rightly deserved victory and at times not realizing they disgrace those that they intend to lift up.
This also occurred over Jutland a series of excuses as Britain expected to crush the Germany navy when fully engaged and the fact they had them dead to right and the Krauts punched them in the eye and got away was a national disgrace as Britannia ruled the waves so the excuses started.
Those of us that enjoy, objectively the search for the truth are not bound by a preconceived outcome to then fashion any facts.
Facts being difficult to ascertain but results are easier and even they have their set of excuses to cloud reality.
Makes for fun research and discussion.

Wulfmann

[Cohaagen]

The Bismark was based on the Bayern Class battleship from WW1 ( a modernized version, but simlar layout)
The fact some particularly in British circles having had a bug regarding Bismarck's success and in so doing made bias statements did not actually make them fact.
Wulfmann
Can you give an example, other than a hazy name-dropping anecdote? All the recent treatments of the Bismarck chase and Jutland by British authors (that I've read) have been pretty even-handed. A historian stakes his reputation on lack of bias and partisan thinking. And who was this "expert"?

The only thing that "bugs" the British is the tedious claim, carried out ad absurdum by the likes of Cameron, that Bismarck was scuttled and not sunk, thereby preserving some honour of the wistfully noble, faintly Imperial, not-in-the-least-bit-Nazi, German navy.

I can't think of any excuses over Jutland either. The main controversy was whether or not Jellicoe had been aggressive enough. In fact, the Royal Navy was ungrudging in their assessment of the Imperial German Navy's superiority in night-fighting, range-finding and so on. Read some Admiralty reports from the WWI thru Interbellum period - the findings on the qualities of KMS Baden's armour plate are practically fawning.

Not many of them left I should imagine :hmm:
Not many at all. The Force Z and HMS Hood reunions are still well attended though.

[Jimbuna]

I wonder how many are alive today ? :hmm:

I believe there were approx 1285 from Prince Of Wales, 796 from Repulse and 3 from Hood

[NiclDoe]

Yepp Jim your right about the surivors. the Hood was a great ship with little to no deck armor. :know:

[Wulfmann]

Please refer to the drawings of the ships mentioned and it will be self evident.
Look at Scharnhorst, next to Bismarck then look at Bayern.
This is not that difficult.
While I have been studying this stuff since 1960 anyone can easily see this by simply looking at the line drawings.
The hull designs the placement of various sections and how they were deposed regarding armor and subdivision etc is just not hard to see unless you just do not want to.
If I understand you correctly you are stating Bismarck is closer to Bayern than Scharnhorst?????
Start by comparing Bismarck to those two ships and see where you think she hails but if you are set in that idea have at it.

However I will quote Garzke and Dulin series of books on battleships, considered the ultimate study on modern (WWII) built battleships.
In the description of the lead up to the building of Bismarck page 204 in Axis and neutral battleships of WWII they state:

"The main battery arrangement closely resembled that of baden and Bayern of WWI. This development has resulted in speculation that the Bismarck class battleships were mere copies of these older ships. This is false, the new ships had to ne faster and have more protection, range, and gunpower. The percentages allocated to armor protection, propulsion, and armament were not the same. The triple shaft arrangement and the distribution of the main armament and its caliber were the same, but these were the only similarities"

Looking at the plans of any of these German ships and recognizing that because they had three shafts and happen to have a same main gun layout which was a very common one (USS Maryland, HMS QE and R classes, HMS Hood) or simply having three shafts as their only major similarity is extremely weak in drawing lineage.

Compare Bismarck to Bayern in side and top layout drawings then do so with Scharnhorst. Even Stevie Wonder will recognize which is Bismarck's kin.

(BTW, I strongly disagreed with Cameron's conclusions being, IMO, Hollywood hype but consider the source)

Wulfmann

[Sailor Steve]

I used to spend a lot of time at the old Warships1 boards, which can still be accessed through www.navweaps.com (http://www.navweaps.com)

They've had many arguments of this type over the years, and several actual naval historians have pointed out areas where they felt Garzke and Dulin were wrong, preferring people like Burt and Friedman.

My only purpose here is to point out that most comparisons of Bismarck to the older ships concern not turret layout (is Bismarck descended from the British QE class?) but armor layout. After all, Bismarck and Tirpitz were the only WW2 heavies still using the old 'sloping deck' theory of internal protection.

Like it or not, there is a connection (as there is with almost all ship design).

[Wulfmann]

OK, I will quote Siegfred Breyer's Schlachtshiffe und Schlachtkreuzer.

"By and large there was a great similarity to the Scharnhorst class."

Never did he suggest Bismarck was based on Bayern and just having the general turret layout and number of shafts while most other design spects are different is weak.

The British have always criticized the Bismarck's design as outdated and vainly tried to tie her to Bayern with only those ignorant of naval architecture buying into it.
The fact was Bismarck was outdated in many ways but again by hindsight we know that when they could not in the mid thirties.
She was not built to fight the Brits but to counter the the French Richelieu which was the expected enemy with Britain hopefully a friend.
Her original concept was for 3 turrets like Scharnhorst but with nine 380MM guns and a shortened citadel allowing for thicker armor. They adopted 4 twin turrets because they felt they would be outnumbered and face opponents from different points as well as less likelihood of more guns by a single hit being disabled. Also because Bismarck was unique in having brass cased main charges that required heavy equipment similar to that which lift the shells the distance between each gun was bigger (look at a top view and notice how far apart these were and then compare other twin turrets, it is a big difference)
Her often criticized secondary guns are also 20/20 hindsight again. The 105MM was the heavy AA available and that was considered to weak for destroyers and cruisers she would have to face again anticipating being outnumbered and at a time when ship vs ship was still the main reason to consider. This outnumbered attitude was why they went with extended armor over the all or nothing concept.
Remember Germany knew her ships would fight mostly "behind" enemy lines
Likewise her armor was geared towards the weapons of the mid thirties and looking back is easy to say it could have been better.
No one knew what to expect and frankly had any foresaw reality there would have been no battleships at all.
I do not have an agenda to bolster Bismarck nor knock the Royal Navy.
As a bystander I have listened to years of sour grapes by many Brits making excuses (not all many have an objective view as well). I can't recall the same attitude from the Germans on this subject and in fact I hear more respect for the Hood from them than Brits whining about the 24th and being soundly beaten in what was the only half way fair fight in all of WWII by the billions wasted on grand floating castles of limited value.

Another whine is Hood was thinly armored. She was actually heavily armored and was more a fast battleship than a battlecruiser (Her original design was strengthened after the 3 ships blew up at Jutland really making her a BB). Her weakness was in the hull design being way to lite. Her armor was increased by over 50% when redesigned after Jutland but the hull remained the same. It was this weakness that caused her loss. Bismarck could pierce her armor at battle ranges but when the torpedo warhead magazine was hit the explosion broke her weak back. The resulting huge magazine explosion (more like a fast fire) made the results more spectacular and much faster but she would have sunk even had they not ignited.
However, media tends to edit things to their level of thinking and then never corrects itself as if admitting they were ignorant is worse than continuing inaccurate reporting.
Hood's great flaw was her weak hull not her lack of armor. It was not that bad and considering her era actually pretty good.
This greatest of British giants died a noble death and three days later her adversary did as well.
No matter what view you have or how you choose to see it and with all the ridiculous excuses I hear about Bismarck the fact is that ship is the most talked about, argued over and for most of us that love naval history respected in a manner unsurpassed by any other.
She (He!) sailed out took on the best the enemy had beat them and was then pounded into submission but never yielded and now rest proudly on the bottom still receiving visitors in awe of her and making international headlines almost seventy years later. Only Titanic is in the same class as Bismarck.

Wulfmann

[Sailor Steve]

The fact was Bismarck was outdated in many ways but again by hindsight we know that when they could not in the mid thirties.
And this is where I switch sides and come to her defense. I would describe Bismarck's design as dated, but not outdated. This was true of a lot of the ships designed during the era.

About the guns, I won't argue. There were problems with the AA that couldn't be concieved before the fact. And even the much praised American ships would have had trouble with a whole squadron of torpedo planes and no friendly air support.

Another whine is Hood was thinly armored. She was actually heavily armored and was more a fast battleship than a battlecruiser (Her original design was strengthened after the 3 ships blew up at Jutland really making her a BB). Her weakness was in the hull design being way to lite. Her armor was increased by over 50% when redesigned after Jutland but the hull remained the same. It was this weakness that caused her loss. Bismarck could pierce her armor at battle ranges but when the torpedo warhead magazine was hit the explosion broke her weak back. The resulting huge magazine explosion (more like a fast fire) made the results more spectacular and much faster but she would have sunk even had they not ignited.
The best study I've seen suggests that the fatal hit was nowhere near the Hood's torpedo flat; rather it was the after AA magazine that was hit, igniting Q magazine.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Hood_p1.htm

It also suggests that there was nothing really wrong with Hood's armor, nor did she have a "weak hull"; it was only bad luck that put the hits at the worst possible range for her.

Note the author of that article, Bill Jurens, is, or at least used to be a regular contributor to the previously mentioned discussion board.

As far as Bismarck's strengths and weaknesses, she fought a two-against-one battle (does anyone really credit Prinz Eugen with more than harrassment value?), which she should by all rights have lost, and won handily, albeit with a good dose of luck. That she was brought down by two more capital ships says nothing bad about her record.

I think Bismarck was a great ship. I just also think the Iowas and Yamatos were better. But not by a lot.

[Cohaagen]

There was nothing especially weak about Hood's hull. The post-Jutland arrangement (dated 4th August 1916) was comprehensive. It's bizarre to think that the DNC and J. Brown & Co. were so stupid as to add thousands of tonnes to a ship without otherwise altering the design...I believe they knew about building warships. In fact, bracing and all relevant load-bearing structures were strengthened. If anything weakened Hood it was the constant 30's updates. Ted Briggs at least once thought that these caused her to "flex" at the quarterdeck at deep load/high speed. Besides, I think the survey of the wreck finally laid to rest the "weak steel" argument.

I'm interested as to what your concept of a "fair fight" is, and what place fairness has in warfare. It seems a rather odd idea followed by big ship fans who think that their personal favourites should have just draw up alongside and slugged it out in a "bear vs. shark" contest, and that history has somehow (excuse the expression) gypped them on the deal by being conducted according to the ideas of naval warfare.

My final word on Bismarck is that he/she/it was a grand ship that did, after all, have two huge swastikas painted on her deck, and that he/she/it is currently in the best place for all ships flying the swastika and rising sun - at the bottom of the sea.

I wonder how many are alive today ? :hmm:

I believe there were approx 1285 from Prince Of Wales, 796 from Repulse and 3 from Hood

The Hood reunions are open to anyone who served on the ship prior to May '41, which boosts the numbers.

[yamato9]

I think that the Yamato was best, MOOOWWWHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

I JUST KIDING!

Every ship from every sides got something in advantage and also in his/her disadvantage.

Yamato = displacment,tick armor(i hear that is maded from lower quality) and gun caliber

Iowa = Hybrid from good displacment, design, armor, gun caliber and superior electronic.

Nelson = like Iowa and also long ship building tradition.

Bismarck = well you know Jerry, what they produce must be good.
(remember battle of Jutland: those german Battlecruisers good punishment but still be able to sail)

[Wulfmann]

Perhaps outdated was not as good as dated but the fact remains Bismarck was designed as a medium range battleship intended to fight multi surface targets and was ill prepared to deal with what WWII actually brought but again, there was no way to foresee this so was a flaw by unforeseen events and understandable.

HMS Hood was lightly framed. Her frames were spaced too far apart which caused flexing but adding the 5,000 tons of armor in her redesign in 1916 without strengthening the frames has been considered by some as part of the reason for her loss.
I still believe and also believe the dive on Hood shows the torpedo flat to be the likely explosion that sank the ship. Her back was broken and the AA magazine was not sufficient even with the weak frames, IMO but that theory would highlight the weak frames as being beyond ridiculously weak.
When the after main gun magazine went off there was no explosion only a sheet of flames 200 feet high with a whooshing sound, this much we can confirm by both survivor reports and from the Prince of Whales (The ship not Charles:rotfl: )
If you believe it was the AA rocket ammo that sank the Hood than you must believe it was the Prinz Eugen that destroyed her as that hit came from the Prinz.

Wulfmann

[yamato9]

I also read some time ago(8 or more years) that the hit in Hood´s torpedo position was resposible for his/her sinking.

[Sailor Steve]

...the AA magazine was not sufficient even with the weak frames, IMO but that theory would highlight the weak frames as being beyond ridiculously weak.
If you believe it was the AA rocket ammo that sank the Hood than you must believe it was the Prinz Eugen that destroyed her as that hit came from the Prinz.
I never said I believed the AA magazines sank the Hood. I said it was likely that the explosion of the AA magazines also set off the 15" magazines. HMS Bulwark, USS Arizona and the three battlecruisers at Jutland were all sunk by explosions in the main magazines.

And are you really so unsure of your argument that you feel you must resort to telling me what I must believe regarding Prinz Eugen? The one conclusion has nothing to do with the other.

The torpedo-flat theory is a valid one, but no more so than any of the others.

[Wulfmann]

Most now agree Hood was destroyed before the main magazines ignited, they did not explode, they burned.
The explosion that destroyed Hood, IMO and that of many others, was the torpedo warheads. The warheads were pound per pound the most lethal devices on the Hood. Doing simple math what ever destroyed Hood had to be big enough to break her back. The AA magazine the Prinz Eugen ignited caused a large fire which gave Adalbert Schneider a perfect range fix with the excellent optical range finders on Bismarck that gave him such a precise reading he ordered a full eight gun salvo instead of 4 guns per salvo previous. That eight gun salvo landed all around and in HMS Hood and that caused the explosion that sank the Hood. We know it was not the after magazines because they went off after that and vented up which means, unlike Arizona, Yamato, Barham and Roma which exploded because the ignition pressure could not be relieved in Hood there was no hindrance to the magazine burning fast and bright (as a shooter and reloader I can tell you gun powder burns it does not explode, it is a fuel not an explosive).
The AA ammunition was stored above the main deck and even if it had exploded the chances of it doing fatal damage are not a reasonable assumption to say the least.
Is it possible a secondary explosion then set off the torpedo warheads. Can't say could be but the warheads were the only thing with destructive potential to break her back other than the main magazines which we know beyond any doubt they did not explode, they burned. Very fast very bright but burn they did and that fact is the single most documented one we have.
It most certainly does have something to do with my argument. It was Prinz Eugen that hit the AA rockets that set off the fire that allowed for the exact targeting. If the AA explosion caused the main explosion than Prinz Eugen sank the Hood. IMO it was the Prinz aiding the gunnery officer that allowed the hit(s) that hit the torpedo magazine that broke her back splitting her open allowing the magazines to ignite and vent through the now split open ship.
That or the God Thor struck the Hood with a bolt of lightning but that seems less plausible, at least to me!!!

Wulfmann

[Cohaagen]

What do you make of this?

http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/2001expedition/hood/0818e.jpg

If it was a torpedo flat explosion that sank Hood, why are large pieces of torpedoes lying around the wreck?

Only some AA ammunition was kept above deck - the 4" ready use, and perhaps an Unrotated Projectile reload.

Even in a world full of amateur naval theorists, you're way out on your own with the torpedo thing, and this thread has more than an inkling of :damn: to it.

Egads.

It's Wales, by the way, not "Whales". It's a country, not an animal.

[joea]

Guys you might want to read this article by William J. Jurens on the Loss of HMS Hood.


http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm

[Cohaagen]

Thanks joea, I had the Bill Jurens article bookmarked but for whatever reason didn't post it. I think it was first published in Warship about 20 odd years ago, obviously Hood has been visited since then. It more or less refutes quite handily any speculation about torpedoes and such, as well as talk of weak deck armour.

Incidentally, Wulfmann, despite your repeated jibes about "Brit whining", the first reference to - and apparent origin of - the Bismarck class being a retreat of Bayern/Baden comes from an official US Navy study of 1942.

[Wulfmann]

What do you make of this?
If it was a torpedo flat explosion that sank Hood, why are large pieces of torpedoes lying around the wreck?

Because the torpedo warheads were stored in the warhead magazine and were not with the torpedoes and were not attached to the bodies.

Wulfmann

[Wulfmann]

Incidentally, Wulfmann, despite your repeated jibes about "Brit whining", the first reference to - and apparent origin of - the Bismarck class being a retreat of Bayern/Baden comes from an official US Navy study of 1942.

Please look at the "studies" of what the Yamato was by Britain and the US in 1942 then explain how half way around the word with no relevant design data that speculation has any merit with what we can see now?????????

Please don't ask me to start posting all the whining the Brits have done in their attempt to find another reason for Hood's loss negating Bismarck's day.
Those that made excuses diminished themselves their country their navy and did little to persuade anyone that was not in their choir.

Many Brits never accepted this poor loser attitude BTW so perhaps the way I put it could be meant to say all Brits felt that way and that is certainly not true the more silent majority likely never considered the whining as having enough merit to address.

The whining was not about Bayern so I don't see your comment as relevant being a different subject altogether.

Wulfmann

[Sailor Steve]

Most now agree Hood was destroyed before the main magazines ignited, they did not explode, they burned. Most? Show me a link to an article, or give me the name of a book or study.

As the article pointed out 'most' are agreed that they don't know for sure. I'm glad you know more than they do.

@Joea: that's the same article I posted above; the one I've been arguing from.

[Wulfmann]

Since 1960 I have never read anywhere that the after magazines made an explosion sound. The survivors stated it was a whooshing sound but no explosion. The reports from PoW stated the same thing as did Bismarck survivors.

That was always the puzzle.
How is it the after magazines ignited but vented instead of exploding????
Do you know the difference???

Anyone that has ignited gunpowder knows the difference between one where the pressure is contained and then explodes as in the above mentioned magazine explosions of other battleships.

Are you now suggesting Hood's magazines blew up but made no sound in doing so???

That would be an interesting theory.
Soundless explosions; a secret British weapon!!!

Wulfmann

[Sniper_Fox]

well you cant really vote the arizona, as it never saw combat in WWII, other then getting sunk in port. (im not sure aboot WWI but im 90% sure it didnt, and someone will chime in and either support me or ridicule me im sure)


i'd vote the bismark, it took out the HMS Hood with one salvo :rock:

[Jimbuna]

well you cant really vote the arizona, as it never saw combat in WWII, other then getting sunk in port. (im not sure aboot WWI but im 90% sure it didnt, and someone will chime in and either support me or ridicule me im sure)


i'd vote the bismark, it took out the HMS Hood with one salvo :rock:

Utter rubbish (one salvo) :nope:

Read some of the prior posted links http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/images/smilies/wiki.gif

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/images/smilies/google2.gif

[Cohaagen]

Please look at the "studies" of what the Yamato was by Britain and the US in 1942 then explain how half way around the word with no relevant design data that speculation has any merit with what we can see now?????????
I don't even understand what all that means. Why are you talking about the Japanese now? Did I even mention Yamato?

The British have always criticized the Bismarck's design as outdated and vainly tried to tie her to Bayern with only those ignorant of naval architecture buying into it.
Yours of 08/01/08, which is what I was referring to...and if you're not going to back up or cite your rather rude, unsubstantiated claims of "Brit whining" and "excuses" then stop going on about it. I've never even heard of any "excuses" that you speak of, and I live in Britain.

The reports from PoW stated the same thing as did Bismarck survivors.
Since the Bismarck was 13 miles away I suppose they heard very little, yeah :roll:

And yes, I do know about how sound propogates over and through water.

Because the torpedo warheads were stored in the warhead magazine and were not with the torpedoes and were not attached to the bodies.
As it happens, I stopped by the library after work about an hour ago and glanced through the Channel 4/PBS book, Hood And Bismarck...and what did I see? Yep, a photo of Hood's torpedo room, complete with armed torpedo on a hoist above the tube and a stack of very much armed torpedoes ready to go. The only things missing from the torpedoes prior to launch were the pistols.

By the way, referring to your response to Sailor Steve...

I almost expected to hear the corresponding noise but I did not. I do not remember hearing any noise.
Captain Leach, HMS Prince of Wales
Did you hear any noise from the explosion?

-No.
Petty Officer James Crowley, HMS PoW
Witnesses variously reported either a dull roaring sound or no noise at all.

[Sailor Steve]

Since 1960 I have never read anywhere that the after magazines made an explosion sound. The survivors stated it was a whooshing sound but no explosion. The reports from PoW stated the same thing as did Bismarck survivors.

That was always the puzzle.
How is it the after magazines ignited but vented instead of exploding????
Do you know the difference???

Anyone that has ignited gunpowder knows the difference between one where the pressure is contained and then explodes as in the above mentioned magazine explosions of other battleships.

Are you now suggesting Hood's magazines blew up but made no sound in doing so???

That would be an interesting theory.
Soundless explosions; a secret British weapon!!!

Wulfmann Again you try to use sarcasm as a debating tool. The problem there is that the "whooshing sound and no explosion" applies to everything, not just the magazines. Nowhere does anyone say the torpedoes exploded but the magazines just went "whoosh". If it was the torpedoes, then they just went whoosh.

And again you say "Since 1960 I never read anywhere...". Exactly what have you read? Please post sources and give relavent quotes. So far all I've seen is you insisting you are right, but not backing it up. As I've said, I'm not predisposed to any one argument, and if you can show adequate evidence of the torpedo theory I'll gladly accept that.

Until then, please stop trying to dismiss opposing arguments by making fun of them. It just makes you look like you have nothing else to say.

[Sailor Steve]

I almost expected to hear the corresponding noise but I did not. I do not remember hearing any noise.
Captain Leach, HMS Prince of Wales
Did you hear any noise from the explosion?

-No.
Petty Officer James Crowley, HMS PoW
Witnesses variously reported either a dull roaring sound or no noise at all.[/quote]
I'll just add to that:
There was no explosion that I could hear. We were thrown off our feet and I saw a gigantic sheet of flame which shot round the compass platform. The ship started listing to starboard, about 10-12 degrees, then it started to right itself.
-Hood survivor Ted Briggs http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2002/0207/1002072501.asp

This clip starts after the explosion, but it's a nice recreation and contains Briggs telling his story in his own words. Not relavent to the discussion, but something everyone should see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWJGGT4dvNw

[Wulfmann]

I am not making fun of anyone I am just having fun. Lighten up.

Odd, your last post seems to back up my posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have always studied WWII outside the box. I never from 1960 adhered to what I was told to think and constantly pissed off my teachers.
Follow the evidence as it seems having no agenda will cause most to disagree with you. Most that study this enter with a conclusion they seek to prove and ignore any facts that disagree with them

As your post confirms, something occurred before the magazines ignited. Had they ignited and not been able to vent the ship would have exploded much like the other 4 BBs that did so and left a mushroom cloud..

So, if we assume because the magazine vented something else split the ship open what possibilities are there?????

While we can all make any case that either we believe or we hold onto regardless of logic the fact is something ripped open HMS Hood and it did so before the magazines ignited.

Now, deduction gives us two possibilities. The after 102MM small magazine or the torpedo warhead magazine.
While it is possible that the 102MM magazines could have been hit and caused enough of a flash to set off the after magazine the fact is or seems to me that would not have split Hood open and allowed the main ignition to vent as it did.
However, the torpedo warheads were the most potent explosive devices on the ship and had they exploded it would have been enough to rip open the ship and set off the after magazines which now would, because gun powder is a fuel a propellant, burn and do what in fact it actually did.

Is there another possibility, who knows.
IMO, the torpedo warheads sank the battlecruiser and the magazines were just an after fact.
Is it possible that had the torpedo warhead magazine been removed and say turned into crew quarters the Hood may not have been sunk????
That I have no idea on as for all we know or will never know the shell exploding may also have been enough to ignited the magazines but then that would have caused them to explode not burn through a split open Hood.

We are exchanging ideas and theories of which many will never be on the same page so enjoy the debate and stop assuming it is meant to be won by anyone.


Don't agree, that is fine just remember except for the times I am wrong I am always right!!!

Wulfmann

[mrbeast]

Speaking as a Brit can't say that I have ever heard any 'whining' or excuses being given for the loss of the Hood either.

[Sailor Steve]

Another possibility: the magazines are at the bottom of the ship, and the majority of the blast went down.

As I've said, I don't have a real opinion on this; I just trust Bill Jurens' scholarship. So far he's the best source I've read.

[Sledgehammer427]

i always found the yamato to be my favorite....
they all have their perks i guess

Bismarck, sheer horror, and decent firepower
Yamato, a true battlewagon with huge amounts of firepower, however, there was no fear factor.
and the Arizona. im sure the only thing good abot the 'zona was its speed, it was i think the lightest of these three and could make some tracks if the need arose

all suffered from the same fate really.

i thought for waht the battleship was built for, the Yamato was the best but my a very small margin. for it had good fire control, large guns to put it to use, and a large, stable ship with lots of armor to keep it afloat. as well as an amazing amount of anti aircraft. (im talking the conversion with the huge battery of AA)

as for the hood, it was a tragedy, it was sunk, and my heart goes out for the families of the sailors on board. but, its beyond the point

[Cohaagen]

It's not really an exchange of ideas, Wulfmann. All you've done is state your opinions, fail to provide any kind of evidence, ignore sensible refutations, treat every message as if it were a sermon from the mount, come out with non sequitors, insert sly digs about "whiny Brits", and tell us you've been studying since 1960. It feels like a colossal wind-up. Personally, I've learned nothing...except that the internet can be frustrating, which I learned in about 1994. What bothers me is that some people will actually believe your talk of HMS Hood and her "weak hull", and those "whiny Brits".

I have provided corroboration for everything I've claimed, and can supply you with muuuuuch more if needed, but to be honest, I really don't believe you'd be interested. If I told you that torpedo detonation was more or less discounted by expert witnesses at the Hood Inquiry (which is available on the internet, by the way), would you care? Would you care that an explosives expert testified under oath to the Admiralty that Cordite can both burn (deflagrate) and explode, depending on environmental pressure? After a dozen or so messages, the picture I'm getting is "no".

It's a bit like trying to have a discussion with the Argentine conspiracy theorists who believe that Invincible was sunk during the Falklands War. Despite being presented with mountains of evidence to the contrary, they simply respond by expounding on their pet theory in even more detail - all speculation - and then decorating it with scraps of fact, not for support, but as window dressing for credibility's sake.

You're flattering yourself if you think I'm interested in changing your beliefs - I'm not the evangelical type. But when you come out with utter guff about sour grapes/excuses/etc about Bismarck/Jutland and the like, it needs to be challenged. It's obvious you feel your theories and...studies...have great value, but speaking honestly the idea of an impressionable type visiting this thread and taking you for a Hood expert galls and frightens me.

[Wulfmann]

C, what you say would actually matter if you were not one of the sheep that believe what your are told.

Most of my reference material is packed away so I only have Garzke and Dulin, claimed here to not be credible, yeah,, right., Breyer and Conways.
The ones I made reference too regarding whining etc are packed away because they are bias lacking objectivity.

I do not care that you are both ignorant and insinuate I am not entitled to post my views.

You back up nothing, You refer to someone else incapable of ascertaining possibilities that follow what they have been told to believe.
These discussions are to throw ideas around not quote what some so called expert of which view are.
If your lacking in matter of propellants, explosives, naval architecture etc are so limited you insist the conversation be limited to parroting what some "official" stated perhaps you can quietly make fun of me for not reading what I am suppose to and actual thinking for myself.

Wulfmann

[Wulfmann]

SS, if it was absorbed by the water why would the huge 200 foot flame have vented straight up?
It did not explode, it burned.
In Roma the main magazine actually exploded it did not burn as in Hood. Same with Yamato, filled with many holes from hits so it seems this might have more chance of venting but did not. Pictures and accounts of all these ships are remarkably similar explosions and day and night with the Hood event.
Gunpowder, somewhat similar to rocket fuel, burns and creates pressure. If confined the pressure builds and attempts to relieve itself.
In all major magazine explosions only the Hood (that I remember) burned and did not explode. That much propellant had to have a big opening straight up to do what it did and saying some official has to say it to make it credible is well, I will be polite and not finish that!

As to Arizona being lighter and therefore faster is not the case. With 33,376BHP on her trials she made 21Kts and by the time 1941 rolled around I doubt she could make 20Kts.

Now as to what we remember we are all capable of hearing and even remembering what we read wrongly.
My father was at pearl and saw the Arizona blow up although she was furthest away from his ship the gunboat USS Sacramento the second ship in from the point across from battleship row.
He described the events as he remembered to his kids many times and somehow my younger sister remembered him saying he personally destroyed many Jap warship all by himself. Being I studied what I could from the earliest of days as naval history was my biggest interest I knew full well he never said anything remotely along those lines but my sister to this day tells people our father destroyed many Jap ships and trying to explain there were no Jap ships there to destroy and how this is ridiculous well reminds me of this thread.

x
x
x
x
x

Just kidding (Not about my sister, that is actually true!!)but you have to admit that is funny and I could not resist making a joke!!:yep: :lol: :yep:

Wulfmann

[Sailor Steve]

SS, if it was absorbed by the water why would the huge 200 foot flame have vented straight up?
It did not explode, it burned.
As I said before, that observation is true whether it was the magazines or the torpedo flat that ignited. Witnesses did not say "the magazines burned, but the torpedoes exploded"; they said the ship burned, rather than exploded.

As I've also said, I'm willing to look at and discuss all possibilities. You, on the other hand, are convinced you're right and seem unwilling to look at anything but your own notions. I see no reason for further discussion until you find your other sources and produce an actual case.

[Wulfmann]

I see no reason for further discussion until you find your other sources and produce an actual case.

You have no idea how funny that is to someone that has written many magazine and newspaper stories.
While I have never written about either Hood or Bismarck, been done to death I have written about the Graf Spee and Scharnhorst and if we have a discussion on either of them can I use myself as a source?????

Many times in talking with other writers and authors we laugh at how once something we have printed somehow becomes more factual because it is inked.

I had written an essay on the Graf Spee in 99 for the 60th anniversary for the World and I in DC (I met the editor doing a story in Burma). The grandson of the Uruguyan ambassador that handled the negotiations for the incident emailed the magazine stating for the first time in 60 years someone actually gave an accurate account of those events.
No one cared
And, no one cares now.
I thought I had scored a big first but the fact is going against what is considered the norm is frowned upon as the original journalist that reported the events in their bias manner also wrote the books and correcting them was not well received so I am very use to being snubbed by ignorance and am not offended

One of my recent hobbies has been playing with K98k Mausers. I have most of the noted reference books and the first thing old Germans (members of the old Karabiner Club) will tell you is the books are good but have many errors so one must learn to discern the truth and not trust what is printed.

Apparently parroting others is the preferred method here which is actually how it is in most places so don't feel like you are doing anything wrong. You are doing exactly what is expected of you.

But, have fun, lighten up Francis!

Wulfmann

[Sailor Steve]

Okay, so you are your own source. The Hood article by Jurens shows links to official documents and much source material. You so far have shown links to nothing. You said your books were buried; I believe you and said we could table the discussion until you had access to them. Rather than accept that, you respond that you are your own source.

Repeatedly you resort to belittling what you can't prove wrong, and then you belittle the people arguing with you, and when they object, you tell them "lighten up". All I'm asking you to do is point me to any shred of evidence, and so far you haven't been able to do that. I've even said I was open to believing you, but you still show nothing but arrogance and insults.

I think it's fascinating that you were able to interview someone who had inside information on Graf Spee, and I would love to read your article. That doesn't change the fact that you have shown lots of opinion, and attitude, where Hood is concerned, but not much else. You say you are a published writer, but that doesn't prove it to us. You and I don't know each other from Adam. Just because you and other writers laugh at those who trust an acknowledged expert in the field doesn't help any of us. He's done the research. You say you know better but show nothing. Who exactly should we trust?

[Zakalwe]

btw. here is a interesting article on both the wrecks of Bismarck and Hood.

Enjoy:

http://www.sname.org/committees/design/mfp/website/recent/research/hood_bismarck_1.pdf

Greets

Z.

[Jimbuna]

Interesting....cheers http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

[Wulfmann]

btw. here is a interesting article on both the wrecks of Bismarck and Hood.Enjoy:
http://www.sname.org/committees/design/mfp/website/recent/research/hood_bismarck_1.pdf
Z.
That is excellent but being this is the 2001 report and analysis of the data done following this dive and report has changed some of what is reported here.
Where, if I may ask, is a link to the updated data that draws some varied conclusions from the examination of all the excellent data?

Wulfmann

[joea]

btw. here is a interesting article on both the wrecks of Bismarck and Hood.Enjoy:
http://www.sname.org/committees/design/mfp/website/recent/research/hood_bismarck_1.pdf
Z.
That is excellent but being this is the 2001 report and analysis of the data done following this dive and report has changed some of what is reported here.
Where, if I may ask, is a link to the updated data that draws some varied conclusions from the examination of all the excellent data?

Wulfmann

Just curious, did you read the Juren's article I posted??

[Sailor Steve]

Yes, he did, joea; that's what we were arguing over. Did you miss my post where I mentioned I'd posted it earlier?:rotfl: :sunny:
He was asking for an update of the article posted by Zakalwe. Excellent read, by the way.

[Wulfmann]

Just curious, did you read the Juren's article I posted??

I clicked on your link and it came up register.com and had various naval headings but nothing on the HMS Hood or the author

Wulfmann

[Wulfmann]

BTW, as Copenhagen mentioned his horror I could be confused for an expert on the Hood I will be sure to make it clear I am an expert on pretty much nothing.

I am a student and will always consider myself one and to add we will neither un-sink the Hood or the Bismarck in this thread nor change the results of WWII and this bull session should be approached as a casual conversation and not a forum to decide what the official explanation for the loss of the Hood or what last act sank the Bismarck.

Have fun, don't be annoyed or you are missing the point.

Wulfmann

[SteminDemon13]

As for the Iowas, they're magnificent ships, but utterly superfluous and in fact a drain on a naval budget that could have better spent the money on the real American area of expertise - carriers. A number of the WWI-vintage US dreadnoughts were horrible coal-fired relics that were painfully slow, had poor acceleration and suffered from vibration problems. Even so, the refits made good use of them, and all performed bombardment duties admirably. Despite the constant lauding, the Iowas had totally unillustrious battle careers, unless you count America's regular post-'45 pygmy-bashing adventures :D. Even then, a monitor could have done those jobs just as well...the Royal Navy kept the 15"-gunned HMS Lord Roberts until 1965.

The cost of war-stock shells is the least of it - I wonder what the monthly cost of fuel and maintainence for one 50,000 ton battleship (plus food and pay for over 2,000 crew) is, and how it stacks up against B52 or B58 strikes.

As for the old chestnut about Mighty Mo' and her sisters striking sheer icy cold numbing terror into the hearts of inscrutable Commie gooks everywhere (I'm paraphrasing here)...I have heard reasonably big guns too, and they all sound enormous. Even Rarden sounds like a field gun when going overhead.

Besides, I would have thought that the obvious thing that frightened the Viet Cong was dying, regardless of circumstances.

I vote for the Iowa's.
Cohaagen, first off the Iowa's have proved themselves every time they were called upon, and their performance in ODS was outstanding also. As far as Vietnam goes, the New Jersey only spent a short time there, but yet her performance and impact was outstanding, just look at what she accomplished while on her Vietnam tour. The original plan was to reactivate all four Iowa's, but that later got squashed. The north vietnemese cited the New Jersey as a road block to the paris peace talks. And afterwards in an unwise move the New Jersey was sent back home. Very political war though.

Gen. Leonard Chapman said about the BB in nam, "Thousands of American lives were saved." , and also the Marines calculated that 80 percent of 1,067 U.S. planes lost in Vietnam could have been saved had battleships fought the entire war.

You had also said that that the Iowas have had "unilustrious battle careers" which is totally untrue. You just need to do some more research.

It is no "fact" that the Iowa's were a "Drain" on naval budgets. That is politics talking. To answer your question of how much it costs for beans bullets, oil and pay, 71 Million O&M (with pay raises, inflation, modernization and some other things taken into account maybe 80 Million) per year. That is relatively inexpensive as far as Ship O&M goes. As to manning, if they would quit making cuts we would have the people. Many a ships have horrible watch rotations, but because some pencil pusher knows best, thats the way it is.

The Iowa's don't cost enough, that is the problem. Carrier O&M is 460+ Million Dollars a year. With Litton, Raytheon, GD, etc involved in many pork barrel projects, and cost plus fee nightmares it is the mainstream to be anti battleship. In the 80's it was proven that a SAG saves a tremendous ammount of operational costs over a CVBG (refer to above O&M costs), and also that they take pressure off of the carriers. Our SECNAV is a former top Dog out of northrop gruman, so if you think special interests aren't involved than you need a wake up call. We need a mix of systems and history is repeating itself. The word back in the day was we only need battleships, not carriers, now it is the reverse. We need a mix of systems.

There are many issues that the average joe does not see, nor can even comprehend. Maintenance defferment is what did in a certain ship that had a boiler explosion. "we have to get underway, we'll wait to fix it", captains time, or admirals time is another maintenence killer. Then there is the "we dont have the money, but go over to the carrier, they get anything they want" ;) .

Darpa projects, ScramJet, and other battleship projects that were in development would cost less than other traditional ammo. Cost less is a cuss word nowadays. The Battleships would bring on call 24/7 fire support to the table along with many other capabilities. AEGIS cannot as of now be mounted on a battleship due to blast pressures, what happens if that ship is attaced? why not build it better, the Iowa's are Whore's for technological development, and are great platforms for testing new things, which they showed in the 80's. For the past 16 years there has been no effort, or should I say a dispicable effort to fill the NSFS gap, mostly due to politics, fear of competition from the BB's, and it is really sad. Take a look back to lebanon, we lost planes from the JFK and "Sara". EUCOM opposed bringing the Battleship to the crisis, along with the carrier admirals. SECNAV John Lehman stormed into Reagans office and asked why wasn't the New Jersey sent in the first place? Reagans answer was that the carrier admirals said they could handle it. Barracks were then bombed, so then the New Jersey was sent out amidst all this political opposition, showed up and kicked some @$$. After that the batteries fired no more and the targets silenced, even a top commander was wiped out. After all this the BDA (battle damage assesment) was postponed, delayed and anything they did to hide the New Jersey's Success, they did. So then John F. Lehman Jr (SECNAV) went and conducted his own inquiry and mum was the word. Those are the types of dirty politics involved and it is a shame. Thank God we had a SecDef, and SecNav who saw past all the BS. Nowadays, the cloud is back. PL104-106, a mesure meant to support our military, meant nothing to those bums that wanted nothing more than the Iowa's stricken from the naval vessel register:nope:.

Your Favorite Pit Snipe:D

[Zakalwe]

Wulfmann,

I searched the page, but nothing newer shows up. I unfortunatly didn`t even find the drawings the author referrs to in his article.

Z.

[bertle]

OK, I will quote Siegfred Breyer's Schlachtshiffe und

Another whine is Hood was thinly armored. She was actually heavily armored and was more a fast battleship than a battlecruiser (Her original design was strengthened after the 3 ships blew up at Jutland really making her a BB). Her weakness was in the hull design being way to lite. Her armor was increased by over 50% when redesigned after Jutland but the hull remained the same. It was this weakness that caused her loss. Bismarck could pierce her armor at battle ranges but when the torpedo warhead magazine was hit the explosion broke her weak back. The resulting huge magazine explosion (more like a fast fire) made the results more spectacular and much faster but she would have sunk even had they not ignited.
However, media tends to edit things to their level of thinking and then never corrects itself as if admitting they were ignorant is worse than continuing inaccurate reporting.

Wulfmann


So when you say whine you mean "incorrect" because I don't see how people are whining when they say "thin armour" but it's ok to say "weak hull". If your point is that "thin armour" is a poor excuse then so is "weak hull". But at the end of the day i've yet to meet a British person who actually thinks the Hood was a good ship.


She (He!) sailed out took on the best the enemy had beat them and was then pounded into submission but never yielded and now rest proudly on the bottom still receiving visitors in awe of her and making international headlines almost seventy years later. Only Titanic is in the same class as Bismarck.


The Hood was not our best ship. It's bizarre that you're apparantly buying into WWII era British propeganda. The hood was a poor mans battleship. A battlecruiser design known for exploding turned into a pseudobattle ship that had gross weight on its side but not design. It was rushed out because it made the public happy and its fire control wasn't even working properly. The same reason the Hood was rushed into its ill fated battle was the same reason Bismark became so famous. Churchill and the British government played up the threat of the German battleships beyond all proportion because the Royal Navy really wanted some prestige that had been missing since the mess that was Jutland. Bismark and Tirpitz were turned into boogeymen that needed destroying at all costs. For publicity.

Now ignoring all the people that have to die in these battles my personal match up would have been a King George V class vs Bismark. Only 14 inch guns but Bismarks armour was nothing special.

Against any of the modern American battleships she wouldn't have stood a chance.

[Cohaagen]

C, what you say would actually matter if you were not one of the sheep that believe what your are told...(snip)

...I do not care that you are both ignorant and insinuate I am not entitled to post my views.
I've never implied that you're not entitled to post. The problem is with your stating opinion as accepted fact. It's actually quite skilful how you manage to aggrandise yourself and toss out a baseless insult at the same time. By dismissing me as a "sheep" you of course, by implication, cast yourself as a steely-eyed, fearless seeker of the truth chopping through lies and propaganda to find the truth at the heart of the matter. Since 1960.

(to which the reply usually is:)

"But hey! Have Fun! We're just tossing ideas back and forth, don't mind while I pitch out made-up points and the odd insult too, then stick my fingers in my ears when someone actually posts some facts, nananananana-I-can't-hear-you"

In effect, what you're been saying all along is "I'm right by virtue of my saying so, and anyone who disagrees is a naive, daytripping, armchair-war buff, which is by my say so too".

I am a student and will always consider myself one and to add we will neither un-sink the Hood or the Bismarck in this thread nor change the results of WWII and this bull session should be approached as a casual conversation and not a forum to decide what the official explanation for the loss of the Hood or what last act sank the Bismarck.

You don't say :roll:

Still waiting on those sources. Some of them there articles you've written'd be nice too. Baa baa.

[Wulfmann]

Churchill and the British government played up the threat of the German battleships beyond all proportion because the Royal Navy really wanted some prestige that had been missing since the mess that was Jutland. Bismark and Tirpitz were turned into boogeymen that needed destroying at all costs. For publicity.

Finally, someone that reads between the lines even if he attacks me for so doing.

The other even bigger reason Churchill played up Bismarck was an attempt to make Roosevelt believe the battleship was a threat to the security of the United States in hopes of bring the US into the war.
You will not find this documented and I am sure few will believe me when I say I have talked with people that have confirmed the president was going to ask for a declaration of war on May 27, 1941 all being led by the master statesman, the most important single person to defeat Germany, Winston Churchill.
Unfortunately before he could do so the Bismarck, unsinkable and unstoppable as Churchill played her up, was sunk so all Congress would give Roosevelt was a declaration of a state of emergency.
Please, someone say that did not happen and I will take a pic of my father's US metal for the declaration on May 27, 1941.

Good comments on the Hood but her crew were still top notch and British sailors were like Greek soldiers, they never counted the number and size of the enemy before a headlong charge.

Wulfmann

[Wulfmann]

In effect, what you're been saying all along is "I'm right by virtue of my saying so, and anyone who disagrees is a naive, daytripping, armchair-war buff, which is by my say so too".

Finally you are talking some sense. Nice to see you come around!!!:rotfl:

I have plainly stated, except for when I am wrong I am always right.:know:

Wulfmann:sunny:

[Wulfmann]

Gen. Leonard Chapman said about the BB in nam, "Thousands of American lives were saved." , and also the Marines calculated that 80 percent of 1,067 U.S. planes lost in Vietnam could have been saved had battleships fought the entire war.

You had also said that that the Iowas have had "unilustrious battle careers" which is totally untrue. You just need to do some more research.

Excellent observations.
To add a little to that post the ability to make a battleship by any country no longer exist. the infrastructure to produce the armor and large guns are gone as well as the trained personal and a new start would be astronomical if begun today.
Therefore, in any arms race the reinstating of the 4 Iowas (or 2 which are in ready reserve) would create a huge drain on any potential enemy as producing the type of ordinance to effectively harm them would be a whole new industry (I am over simplifying) to which they could be withdrawn nullifying the now unneeded weapons.
Point is, their unique threat creates cause and effect in a chess game that drains enemy resources and even those that disagree militarily can not ignore the psychological effect which would net the same military expenditure response and since the ships exist as well as their main ordinance there is little cost compared to the cost effect it creates in our enemies.
War economy is a big battle all in itself and the Iowas can create havoc on the enemy money front.
And, as was pointed out they are militarily effective.

Wulfmann

[Palidian]

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Hood_p1.htm

[RED JOHNSON]

..

It would be either Yamato Class , or Iowa Class.... the other Ships have had far too much said about thier Super duper ness... , How many torpedoes and Bomb hits would it take to sink the Bismark ? Far less than 19 torpedoes and 17 Bombs.....Far Far less....even if Krup steel was made out of Kriptonite , It Was not the only Factor , The 1147 Water Tight Sealed and Preasure tested Doors on the Yamato and the Musashi , and the Anti Flooding countermeasure Pumping System was Far Superior to Any other Ships of WWII and the Design and Armour Placement offerd more Protection also.
Perhaps the Iowa Class Ships would have won in a Drawn out Battle.....But if the outcome depended on a " LUCKY SHOT" as in the case with Bismark vs Battle Cruiser Hood , the odds would Favor the one with the biggest Punch...And that Without Question, was the Yamato Class.
Logically in a quick three Salvo battle , Dependant on one good Hit. The Yamato Class would Have the best Chance of aflicting the most damage with a
single lucky shot.
But in a long drawn out Exchange the Iowa Class would perhaps have the edge.


RED JOHNSON

.

[Torplexed]

Wow. An armour-plated zombie thread. :ping:

[Jimbuna]

Wow. An armour-plated zombie thread. :ping:

http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img110/1235/zombiexv8.gif http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img110/1235/zombiexv8.gif http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img110/1235/zombiexv8.gif http://imgcash3.imageshack.us/img152/9959/rollingaroundlaughingly2.gif

[Sandman_28054]

The North Carolina class, specifically, the USS North Carolina.

The only battleship that was at every major encounter in the Pacific, and was the first battleship to enter Pearl Harbor after 7/12/40.

Of course I'm partial, I live in NC, and only about 4 hours from the USS North Carolina.

Also, for future reference, the USS North Carolina is currently under plans to be refloated, towed to Norfork, Virginia, to be cleaned, repainted, and have repairs done. It would be a real sight to go and watch the grand old lady sail again.

[msalama]

ROTFL @ Plexed