Bismarck, Yamato or Arizona

[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!!

Wulfmann

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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/desi...bismarck_1.pdf

Greets

Z.

[Jimbuna]

Interesting....cheers

[Wulfmann]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

btw. here is a interesting article on both the wrecks of Bismarck and Hood.Enjoy:
http://www.sname.org/committees/desi...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]

Originally Posted by Wulfmann

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:
He was asking for an update of the article posted by Zakalwe. Excellent read, by the way.

[Wulfmann]

Originally Posted by joea

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]

Originally Posted by Cohaagen

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 . 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.

Your Favorite Pit Snipe