Bismarck, Yamato or Arizona

[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."



Now THAT is one helluva gun!

[Wulfmann]

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

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]

Originally Posted by Wulfmann

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.

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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.

[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

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]

Originally Posted by Wulfmann

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.

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Wulfmann

...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