US vs. German subs - which was better?

[Phaedrus]

According to Roskill's 'The War at Sea' - the official history of the Royal Navy during the second world war; Rodney, King George V, Dorsetshire, and Norfolk all continued to fire at Bismarck after her guns were silent, and the Royal Navy Staff History "Battle Summary Number 5: Chase and Sinking of German Battleship Bismarck, 23-27 May 1941" also confirms this.

The engagement began with the first British shots at 0847, with Bismarck's last salvo fired around 0920.
Hits to the port turbine room and boiler room from Rodney (which had closed distance to 9000m - shells most likely from Rodney because King George V's "a" turret was out of action) led to the scuttling.

"These two hits and those which silenced the forward turrets and the main battery director led the Executive Officer, CDR Hans Oels, to order the scuttling of the ship (Measure V, where V = "Versenken" = Scuttling) between 0920-0930."

By 0930 Rodney had closed on Bismarck's starboard quarter to 5000m, and at 1000 had closed further to 3700 m.
King George V resumed fire with all turrets at 0954.
Rodney's last salvo was at 1014, King George V's at 1021.

She then took torpedo hits from Dorsetshire and sank at 1040.

As far as sources to suggest a combination of extensive battle damage and scuttling, see the two above, as well as Baron Burkard von Mullenheim-Reichburg's "Battleship Bismarck: A Survivor's story" (the author was the senior surviving officer on Bismarck), and Kennedy's "Pursuit: The Sinking of the Bismarck".

Also see the International Naval Research Organization's Warship International - Bismarck's Final Battle" by William Garzke Jr., and Robert Dulin Jr..
(These author's were the historical counsel for Robert Ballard's expedition)

[Kaleu_Mihoo]

Originally Posted by Hitman

I don't really understand what the difference is between being sunk by shells or scuttled before the shells did their job :hmm: Even if the crew had scuttled the Bismarck, it was just a matter of some minutes (And shells) more before it would go down anyway. And of course, since the last gun went off, it was a defeated ship

The Bismarck episode has much of epic and in the popular folklore it was sure augmentated a few times but overall it was just another of the many dramatic actions in the war. Only it received more propaganda.

I coudn't say it better myself, Hitman!

I think the obvious problem in such endless “which one was better” discussions is considering only the technical data of the German equipment “on the paper”, and to disregard the real production capacities, materials availability etc. Let me give some examples: The King Tiger tank, best of the best, with front armor fragmenting and thus killing the crew after a hit with HE shell , revolutionary He-162 Volksjäger, capable of doing 1100 km/h when diving and constructed from wood or the XXI Elektroboot, consisting of parts that doesn’t fit because produced in 1000 works using slave labor . They were good designs, but only designs, so I don’t think it is a good idea to put their real combat value on a same level with figures calculated in design offices. My 2 cents.

Greets

Originally Posted by Kaleu_Mihoo

I coudn't say it better myself, Hitman!

I think the obvious problem in such endless “which one was better” discussions is considering only the technical data of the German equipment “on the paper”, and to disregard the real production capacities, materials availability etc. Let me give some examples: The King Tiger tank, best of the best, with front armor fragmenting and thus killing the crew after a hit with HE shell , revolutionary He-162 Volksjäger, capable of doing 1100 km/h when diving and constructed from wood or the XXI Elektroboot, consisting of parts that doesn’t fit because produced in 1000 works using slave labor . They were good designs, but only designs, so I don’t think it is a good idea to put their real combat value on a same level with figures calculated in design offices. My 2 cents.

Greets

Please differ between early and late war production. German construction quality levels up until the end of 42 were superb, and only then wartime conditions and slave labor later on detoriated quality to very low levels. Bismarck was a product from a time where german construction was still at the highest. But it is interesting you took only examples of 44/45 to prove your point about a ship from a different "era".

[Kaleu_Mihoo]

Yes, I agree about Bismarck, but please see the things realistic, when her "legend" was born, Bismarck was nothing else as a smoking, devastated can, so like Hitman said, it makes no difference how she sunk and how she was built. She was defeated and that's fact.
I took my examples form the different “era”, because the thread is about German vs. US subs, and I honestly see only minor differences between the earlier designs. The first better German design was in my eyes the XXI, but there you must also consider factors I mentioned before.
Greets

Originally Posted by Kaleu_Mihoo

Yes, I agree about Bismarck, but please see the things realistic, when her "legend" was born, Bismarck was nothing else as a smoking, devastated can, so like Hitman said, it makes no difference how she sunk and how she was built. She was defeated and that's fact.
I took my examples form the different “era”, because the thread is about German vs. US subs, and I honestly see only minor differences between the earlier designs. The first better German design was in my eyes the XXI, but there you must also consider factors I mentioned before.
Greets

I never disputed she was beaten and sunk. Hard to argue otherways, anways. Neither did I ever promote or denounce Bismarck in anyway.
I merely pointed out why the british in general have a problem with the argument of self scuttling, no matter if it is a fact or not and that Bismarck and King Tiger/Type XXI/Volksjäger are not comparable in production quality.
The rest you imply I said is purely in your head.

That said, I am going to say something now. And that is that the Type VII and even the Type IX maybe followed a rather old construction philosophy taken from WW1, but that this did not make the boats any less capable in their intended roles or gave them bad production quality. Old does not nessecarily mean worse, as quite a few folks make it out to be completly unrelated to the boats actual performances compared to other deisgns of their time. Thats more of a "club to death" argument then anything substantial, nevertheless brought up again and again when it comes to discussions like this. As if it's a last straw ppl have to hold upon to not "lose" the argument.

[Sailor Steve]

Bewolf, I completely agree with everything you just said, including the part about "not losing the argument". The only point I ever tried to make was against people who say "this was the best", no matter whether it's ships, tanks or planes. A true discussion of this kind has to take each machine on its own merits, including what it was designed for. The Type VII was the best boat for what it was designed to do, period. Germany needed a boat that could be mass-produced, and one that could dive fast, turn fast and dive deep. Some people say that American fleet boats would have been in big trouble if the Japanese had as good ASW as the Allies did. They are probably right, but we'll never know. On the other hand, the Type VII could never have made the long trips the Gatos did. The Type IX could do that, and more, but they had pretty much the same limitations as the American boats, with less torpedoes and worse sonar and radar.

Which was truly best? I think the answer is yes. The engineers on both sides designed the best weapon for the job.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Which was truly best? I think the answer is yes. The engineers on both sides designed the best weapon for the job.

Precisely.....and in full agreement

[Puster Bill]

Originally Posted by Kaleu_Mihoo

Yes, I agree about Bismarck, but please see the things realistic, when her "legend" was born, Bismarck was nothing else as a smoking, devastated can, so like Hitman said, it makes no difference how she sunk and how she was built. She was defeated and that's fact.

True, but having said that, you don't account for the fact that later it was raised and turned into an interstellar space battleship by a peculiar race of small people with green hair and orange skin. Very strange, and quite Darwinian in their outlook, but good singers.

I believe they also did the same thing with some swamped sampan out in the Pacific. Can't remember the name, though.

Oh, yeah, I remember now: Space Battleship Clamato.

[barkhorn45]

i read somwhere that a lucky shot from the Prinz Eugen might of sunk the hood.

[Cohaagen]

Originally Posted by barkhorn45

i read somwhere that a lucky shot from the Prinz Eugen might of sunk the hood.

15 years ago I read in a magazine that Val Kilmer ate a live locust on the set of Tombstone - doesn't mean it actually happened.

Personally, I give the locust story more credence.

[Puster Bill]

Originally Posted by Cohaagen

15 years ago I read in a magazine that Val Kilmer ate a live locust on the set of Tombstone - doesn't mean it actually happened.

Personally, I give the locust story more credence.

It were time and space travelling Oompa-Loompas, I tell ye!

[Kaleu_Mihoo]

Originally Posted by Puster Bill

True, but having said that, you don't account for the fact that later it was raised and turned into an interstellar space battleship by a peculiar race of small people with green hair and orange skin. Very strange, and quite Darwinian in their outlook, but good singers.

I believe they also did the same thing with some swamped sampan out in the Pacific. Can't remember the name, though.

Oh, yeah, I remember now: Space Battleship Clamato.

Man, I'd like to try that stuff you smoke :rotfl:

[Puster Bill]

Originally Posted by Kaleu_Mihoo

Man, I'd like to try that stuff you smoke :rotfl:

Inhale diesel fumes, and drink a mixture of canned milk with fresh squeezed lemon juice.

When you are finished vomiting that back up, throw ice cold salt water in your face.

Then wait for inspiration.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Bewolf, I completely agree with everything you just said, including the part about "not losing the argument". The only point I ever tried to make was against people who say "this was the best", no matter whether it's ships, tanks or planes. A true discussion of this kind has to take each machine on its own merits, including what it was designed for. The Type VII was the best boat for what it was designed to do, period. Germany needed a boat that could be mass-produced, and one that could dive fast, turn fast and dive deep. Some people say that American fleet boats would have been in big trouble if the Japanese had as good ASW as the Allies did. They are probably right, but we'll never know. On the other hand, the Type VII could never have made the long trips the Gatos did. The Type IX could do that, and more, but they had pretty much the same limitations as the American boats, with less torpedoes and worse sonar and radar.

Which was truly best? I think the answer is yes. The engineers on both sides designed the best weapon for the job.

signed.

I'd be interested in the capabilities and introductions of sonar in both american and german boats, though. Hard to get any infos on that. :hmm:

[ECAaxel]

personally I think any swiss navy sub has got to be the best