Bismarck, Yamato or Arizona

[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]

Originally Posted by Wulfmann

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.

Originally Posted by Wulfmann

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]

Originally Posted by Wulfmann

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".

Originally Posted by Wulfmann

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

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

[Wulfmann]

Originally Posted by bertle

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]

Originally Posted by Cohaagen

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.

Wulfmann

[Wulfmann]

Originally Posted by SteminDemon13

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.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Wow. An armour-plated zombie thread.

[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