Just when the day couldnt get any better (Bismarck TF's)

[ltforce]

I completely forgot the put this hahah



Thank you for your kind words PavelKirilovich.

You are both right on this one and I must go with torplexed on this one as soon as the Bismarck would have arrived in Brest, the RAF would have let the KM get the ship on the dry dock....and then have bombed into next millennium....but then again not sure how well that would have worked since they bombed the Tirpitz on many occasions and it took them 2 years to actually sink it.

[Lt.Fillipidis]

If that actually happened in WW2, that would be a massive blow for the RN indeed.
Anyway, Good work!

[Hanomag]

Outstanding work Herr Kaluen!! Congratulations!!

[Jimbuna]

You've just brought Britain to her knees 4 years earlier then anticipated

[Heffalump]

Good thing you got that torpedo boat!

[ltforce]

Originally Posted by Heffalump

Good thing you got that torpedo boat!

[PavelKirilovich]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Don't forget that the PQ convoys weren't the only supply route to Russia. About 50% of the Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union was via the Pacific Ocean through Vladivostok and the Alaska-Siberia air corridor. In addition, there was the overland route through Persia which accounted for another 25%. Plus, aside from the PQ-17 debacle, the German surface fleet didn't exactly have a enviable wartime record even on those rare occasions when they came to grips with an arctic convoy. The best example being the unsuccessful attack on convoy JW-51B, the so-called Battle of the Barents Sea where a superior German surface fleet was bamboozled and chased off by a smaller British force. This embarrassing defeat led to Hitler demanding the big surface ships be scrapped and Admiral Raeder tending his resignation. It was at this point that Admiral Doenitz got the job as C-in-C of the German Navy. The defeat pointed out that were some serious deficiencies in the German navy that weren't just material.

My guess in this scenario is that the Bismarck and her sisters at some point in the war would have eventuality met their actual WW2 nemesis in the form of lots of planes. I've always been of the opinion that had she survived her first sortie and made it safely to Brest she not only would have received a hero's welcome by Hitler but also the loving attention of RAF Bomber Command while anchored there even if they had to forgo bombing German cities to do it. That's ultimately why the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau were pulled out of there. They were just slowly getting battered by aerial nuisance raids and you can't fit a battleship in a U-Boat bunker.

I agree with you in part. The trans-Pacific supply route is valuable thanks to Japanese apathy; for some reason the Japanese never seemed to do much - if anything - to interdict this line of supply. However, the extremely limited lines of communication in this part of Russia make it difficult to relocate supplies once offloaded from Vladivostok and similar ports to the fighting fronts further West. Operation AUGUST STORM was a masterpiece of operational and strategic planning in a large part because in 1945, the Soviets achieved an immense buildup of supplies and materiel without over-stressing the available LOCs in the area of operations. This kind of effort cannot be applied while the Germans are literally pounding down the front door (prior to 1942-43) and so the value of the Pacific route is balanced by the bottleneck caused by a paucity of viable LOCs to relocate these supplies to where they're needed.

Good point regarding the overland via-Persia route. More expensive in terms of moving supplies, but it does the job. Only the entry of Turkey into the war on the side of the Axis, or significant successes by the DAK (precluded by appointing Rommel as a commander there, in my opinion), would have been able to affect this.

I don't see how the Battle of the Barents Sea proves that the Kriegsmarine were significantly deficient in a training and tactics sense to the Royal Navy. As is noted in the link you supplied, the battle was fought during the polar night, presenting significant IFF and CIC difficulties for both forces. Eckholdt and Richard Beitzen's mistake is perhaps the most egregious case of "ACH SCHEISSE" I've ever seen regarding the KM. The Germans didn't press home an attack as they should have and gone for a decisive victory, but like any other navy during WWII they are being very chary with their capitol ships. The Royal Navy missed many such opportunities in the Mediterranean, as did the Italians, as did the Japanese, and the Americans.

You forget that while Operation Rheinubung is underway the RAF is suffering significant losses during "fighter sweeps" of the French Atlantic coast and that bombing raids are exceedingly costly; hence the implementation of night bombing techniques by the RAF. I agree that RAF Fighter Command, Bomber Command, and probably Coastal Command as well would have thrown everything they had against docked capitol ships in the French ports, but the Luftwaffe was still quite capable, at this time, of deploying an effective fighter screen to severely attrit both the numbers and the effectiveness of any deployed bomber force. As was noted earlier, it took the RAF a lot of tries to eventually kill Tirpitz, and she had less protection than the Bismarck and her accompanying ships would have had given the times.

Assuming that the RN just lost significant combat power as the ficticious patrol by U-123 here demonstrates, it's probable that further convoy attacks would have been successful, particularly when the striking force is built around something like Bismarck. A strong destroyer screen to protect the capitol from enemy destroyers, enabling the capitol to engage targets which need engaging (cruisers, etc) and once the RN has removed itself from the equation by seeking to drive off the Kriegsmarine force attacking the convoy, the convoy is left vulnerable to being very rapidly destroyed.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by PavelKirilovich

You forget that while Operation Rheinubung is underway the RAF is suffering significant losses during "fighter sweeps" of the French Atlantic coast and that bombing raids are exceedingly costly; hence the implementation of night bombing techniques by the RAF. I agree that RAF Fighter Command, Bomber Command, and probably Coastal Command as well would have thrown everything they had against docked capitol ships in the French ports, but the Luftwaffe was still quite capable, at this time, of deploying an effective fighter screen to severely attrit both the numbers and the effectiveness of any deployed bomber force. As was noted earlier, it took the RAF a lot of tries to eventually kill Tirpitz, and she had less protection than the Bismarck and her accompanying ships would have had given the times.

Indeed, the Tirpitz has acquired a formidable reputation for the way she stood up to air attacks, but I feel part of the reason she survived so many is because the topography of the Norwegian fjord she was anchored in provided a superb natural defense against air attack. It was all but impossible to aim a bomb or torpedo when she was nestled under the steep side of the fjord behind nets and smokescreens, and the story of the many attacks on her is really the story of attempts to overcome the twin problems of geography and distance given how far north and remote Altenfjord was from most Allied bases. The Sept. 15th, 1944 Lancaster raid that finally damaged her with 12,000 lb. "Tallboy" bombs was staged from a Russian airfield after many months of wrangling for Stalin's consent to do it. When she was towed south to Tromso for repairs that put her in easier range of bomber bases in Scotland, and in November the Lancasters quickly finished the job they had started two months earlier.

In any case, a fun site to check out is http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/. It's a forum where they discuss all things Bismarck (and her sister and half-sisters) They also have a section devoted to hypothetical and what-if naval scenarios (Bismarck sailing with the Tirpitz, Bismarck vs USS Iowa, HMS Vanguard, Space Aliens that sort of thing) Okay...I made up the part about space aliens.

[PavelKirilovich]

Torplexed: That is a favourite site of mine. I'll have to join the forums sometime soon. I take it you're a member?

Altenfjord did provide superb protection against low level attacks but as you demonstrated yourself, high altitude bombing raids were successful. The Lancs were able to score hits with the Tallboy, and then when she was towed south she was destroyed by further high altitude raids. Given the context of the times, despite Bismarck being an easier target in the Channel Ports she'd still be much better protected than Tirpitz was in a situation analogous to the "Battle of Britain in Reverse"; whereby the British fighters are low on fuel and have to disengage early, potentially before the bombers reach the target area. German radar is superior to what the Allies have until 1942-43. They will have raid warning and the benefit of ground-controlled intercept.

And, by the way, the Bismarck can totally take the little grey dudes.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by PavelKirilovich

Torplexed: That is a favourite site of mine. I'll have to join the forums sometime soon. I take it you're a member?

No...I'm still a lurker. I've already got more forum memberships than I can handle. I've always been fascinated by the naval hypotheticals sections tho.

[ltforce]

Originally Posted by PavelKirilovich

And, by the way, the Bismarck can totally take the little grey dudes.

Personally I think the Bismarck could take any battleship ever made in a one on one fight. The Yamato may have had more Armour but it had a huge weakness between its upper and lower armour belts right at the waterline which....is where most aircraft launched torpedoes would hit. The japanese also used inferior metals comparings to the Krupp Cement armour.

As for the Iowa class, when the bismarck was built the armour was slanted and designed to be almost invincible between 11000 and 21000 yards and at point blank range could withstand numerous 16inch shells (Iowa and Nelson class). We all know invincible doesnt exist but it was very very strong. Compared to all other battleships ever made the Bismark's hull was 70% armour covered compared to many other battleships which were 60% or less.

Its upper deck armour was 50-80 mm....most battleships had none and the ones that did had usually 30mm or less. If we compare Amour per ton, Bismarck has more than any other ship except the Richelieu which is about the same.

Its 8 15inch/L52 main guns had a max range of 38 800 yds, were effective to 35 500yds and were EXTREMELY accurate. Only problem was the Gunnery radar was was effective to 25 000 yds, eventhough its gunnery radar was knocked out after the first shots fired at the Hood(correct me if im wrong) It still had 2 more gunnery radars incase this event happend.

Personally out of all battleships ever made I find it would go

1: Bismark class (Powerful, Well Armed and Very well designed)
2: Iowa class (very close to Bismrck when I do all comparisons)
3: Yamato Class (Armed to the T but had many design flaws and poor metals)
4: Nelson (Lacked speed)
5: Richilieu (If you knock out 1 main turret there goes half your main guns.)
6: KGV (Designed with max tonnage of 36000 {treaty of Verseille} but for the limits it had it was a very well built ship)

There will always be some discussion on this and I dont know everything but after reading many books on naval warefare and world war 2 since I was 10 y/o (now 22) These are my results. Every ship has always had flaws such as Bismarcks 3 shaft design which sealed its fate and lack of ability to drop the rudder should it be damaged.

What do you guys think your list would be?? I'd like a nice professional and polite disscusion about it.

[Torplexed]

The Combined Fleet site did an extensive article on this very subject once.

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

Makes for fascinating reading, but it's one of those things that can be debated forever since there are myriad factors involved in any naval battle beyond thickness of armor and caliber of guns. Best example being the Yamato which in her only surface naval engagement off Samar was steered out of the path of torpedoes and took so long to get back into the action that she accounted for almost nothing in the battle. The old Kongo class battleships contributed more to the Japanese war effort than the 'mighty' Yamatos ever did.

[ltforce]

After reading that for 5 seconds they clearly didnt do much research they just said ohh look this ship has this much armour lets give it a 10 if it has more than the other....theres many factors that come into play when comparing....just the quality of the metals used for the armour could change everything.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by ltforce

After reading that for 5 seconds they clearly didnt do much research they just said ohh look this ship has this much armour lets give it a 10 if it has more than the other....theres many factors that come into play when comparing....just the quality of the metals used for the armour could change everything.

You have to click the 'detailed information' link under each category like guns or armour to get their rationalizations.

[ltforce]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

You have to click the 'detailed information' link under each category like guns or armour to get their rationalizations.

I think they are full of crap, they are clearly Americans who only like American products....Like those people who only buys crappy American cars hahaha. I think that entire site should be re-done because all I read was a bunch of crap there....

Just here in the armour for example...


Face-hardened: average quality. U.S. homogeneous:Best in the world.
For the Iowa

and

Very good
For the Bismarck

Krupp cement Armour was probably one of the best in the entire War.

I quote this from Kbismarck.com which i have been reading for over 2 years.

Post WWII proving ground test indicated that KC was only slightly less resistant than British cemented armour (CA), and markedly superior to US Class A plates.

In modern day there is depleted uranium and such but back then the Germans and the British had the highest quality and best metals. The Germans have always had the highest of standards for manufacturing and building.

I also read this stupid sentence.

Bismarck also suffered from the poorest belt armor of the lot.

Bismarck had more armour per ton than almost any other ship, notably more than the Iowa class and Yamato.

Iowa weighed 48 110 tons empty and had 18 700 tons of armour while the Bismarck weighed 41 700 tons and have 17 540 tons of armour

I also noticed they said the Bismarcks belt armour had no inclination

12.6" @
vertical

it infact had a 17 degree inclination.

The belt armour also covered 70% of the waterline compared to the Yamato and Iowa which were 60% or less for the other battleships...

These guys are just pissed that it was so good and they wanted their American ships to be the best....I think they are full of crap. They are clearly American biased and ruined the entire site!!



Edit: after reading through the entire site and going and checking through my collection of WW2 naval books on Battleships...these guys didnt get many facts straight, I'm not impressed and think that site is complete garbage.