 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
The Bismarck and Tirpitz were hardly "junk"--they were magnificent and powerful war vessels. They were, however, geared more towards WWI naval tactics than WWII. In particular, Bismarck was probably unmatchable at closer range ship-to-ship combat. However, she was weak against was to prove her undoing--aircraft.
In terms of ships outclassing the Bismarck, the Iowa-class ships beat it in almost all respects. Better armor, faster, more maneuverable, and better sensors. The Bismarck was just a little too old-fasioned.
It was certainly not, however, "junk."
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Like what? The Missouri? When was that tested in a real ship to ship battle? The Yamato? A sluggish behemoth.
How many capital ship classes were launched after WWII anyway. The Vanguard?
German heavy ships proved their superior construction at Jutland in 1916 and the Bismarck managed to take a massive pounding from two British Battleships while immobilized and still had to be scuttled by her own crew. If the British Navy had been confronted with a German force of similar size it would have been no contest.
And German naval gunnery was superior in both wars. The US doesn't really come into it. I'd bet the Bismarck would have reduced any US heavy ship of its era to twisted metal in no time. |
hi ,
correction at the first battle of jutland , at the second they where send to swim with the fish , indefinatly , ......
actually they where worth zip , .......
and the germans where not superior , in neither war
as for the bismarck , all it took was a 2315 pound sterling torpedo , .......
blup-blup
the tirpitz was a bit harder , but still they spend loads of money on it and for what , to lay in a fortified aqaurium with concrete in its belly , ....
have a nice day 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Like what? The Missouri? When was that tested in a real ship to ship battle? The Yamato? A sluggish behemoth. |
Iowa-class ships had better armor:
quote:
The issue of 16" vs. 15" main armament isn't just about one inch. It's about 10,000 lbs. of extra weight in the broadside (24,000 lbs. vs. 14,000). Quantifying it further, the Iowa is putting 72% more weight into the air starting from almost three miles further out against an enemy whose armor that is generally 20% to 40% thinner (granted except in the belt). |
The Iowa Class ships were faster, having a 3 knot advantage:
quote:
Iowa was had a 3+ knot advantage in speed, had better AA (throw weight almost 500% more), a deeper underwater armor belt (the battleship Bismarck was critically hit by the PoW underwater), had better radar (and radar trumps optics), about 12% more throw weight in secondary armament, and a combat radius that was more than 50% greater than the German. |
Better sensors:
quote:
The Iowa could shoot and maneuver because of its fire control systems which the Bismarck couldn't. |
The one advantage the Bismarck had that I could see was her being a more stable gun platform due to being wider, but that also makes it bigger target to hit.
How about AA? The Bismarck had a heck of a time fending off 6 Swordfish!
quote:
German heavy ships proved their superior construction at Jutland in 1916 |
Irrelevant. The U.S. once made the best cars. 1916 isn't 1943.
quote:
and the Bismarck managed to take a massive pounding from two British Battleships while immobilized and still had to be scuttled by her own crew. If the British Navy had been confronted with a German force of similar size it would have been no contest. |
Oh malarky. Let's look at the Bismarck's battle testing... It sank the Hood. Because of any superior ability? No, because of a lucky shot. It then got crippled by a torpedo plane and pounded to death by the Brits. In 41 minutes of combat, the Bismarck did not land ONE hit on the KGV or the Rodney. Sure, the Germans scuttled it...but was it a threat by that point? No, she was toast.
quote:
And German naval gunnery was superior in both wars. The US doesn't really come into it. I'd bet the Bismarck would have reduced any US heavy ship of its era to twisted metal in no time. |
And I bet you haven't a clue what you're talking about. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Not only are you an idiot panag, but completely ignorant on this issue to boot.
The Germans sank the Bismarck themselves because the Royal Navy couldn't sink her. This was proved by recent dives on the wreck. The only reason they got to her in the first place was a million to one lucky hit on the steering gear which effectively hobbled her.
The Tirpitz was sunk at anchor by, if I remember correctly, 617 Squadron "The Dam Busters" using very heavy bombs. I don't think any ship could have survived such an attack.
FYI concrete was for a long time (and perhaps still is) used to repair naval ships. A friend of mine used to do that. |
hi ,
there is only one person who is insulting , again , ..... sigh
and learn your history and the thruth , ........
the recent dives proved that the valves where still shut , .....
the aerial pics clearly show that she is sinking towards the stern , .........
the tirpitz was sunk twice , ...... so before you start to trow names around , .........
and anyone who repairs a ship with concrete deserves the name you like to trow around so often , .......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
Hee hee hee... Anna Nicole's butt...
>|D
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The Bismarck and Tirpitz were hardly "junk"--they were magnificent and powerful war vessels. They were, however, geared more towards WWI naval tactics than WWII. In particular, Bismarck was probably unmatchable at closer range ship-to-ship combat. However, she was weak against was to prove her undoing--aircraft. |
All of them were. Even the latest British capital ships like Prince of Wales. It doesn't matter anyway, I'm thinking of straight ship vs ship combat.
quote:
In terms of ships outclassing the Bismarck, the Iowa-class ships beat it in almost all respects. Better armor, faster, more maneuverable, and better sensors. The Bismarck was just a little too old-fasioned. |
There's more to it than thicker armour and bigger guns. It's the whole design that matters and the crew. Yamato was huge, but really a very silly battleship. The Nelson and Rodney were weird looking ships, but surprisingly effective. Bismarck could have done with more AAA but was only crippled by a very lucky hit.
I'd pick Bismarck over the Iowas any day, not least because of the crew and superior German gunnery. I'd also have taken the Royal Navy over the US Navy in such an engagement. Better training more tradition, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
All of them were. Even the latest British capital ships like Prince of Wales. It doesn't matter anyway, I'm thinking of straight ship vs ship combat. |
How did the Bismarck fare in straight ship-to-ship combat, excluding the Hood lucky shot?
quote:
There's more to it than thicker armour and bigger guns. It's the whole design that matters and the crew. Yamato was huge, but really a very silly battleship. The Nelson and Rodney were weird looking ships, but surprisingly effective. Bismarck could have done with more AAA but was only crippled by a very lucky hit. |
I don't think AAA could have helped the Bismarck... 
quote:
I'd pick Bismarck over the Iowas any day, not least because of the crew and superior German gunnery. I'd also have taken the Royal Navy over the US Navy in such an engagement. Better training more tradition, etc. |
Yeah, and that superior German gunnery helped the Bismarck land how many shots during the battle with the KGV and Rodney? Zero.
You're grasping at straws. Look at the facts and data, and you'll see the Iowas outclass the Bismarck.
At any rate, the question was greatest ever built, not which had the best-trained crew. So what if they had great gunnery crew, we're talking about ship performance.
Another great flaw of the Bismarck was her lower armor deck, which left her communication and data systems exposed. This was a critical part in rendering her inoperative.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
How did the Bismarck fare in straight ship-to-ship combat, excluding the Hood lucky shot?
I don't think AAA could have helped the Bismarck...
Yeah, and that superior German gunnery helped the Bismarck land how many shots during the battle with the KGV and Rodney? Zero.
You're grasping at straws. Look at the facts and data, and you'll see the Iowas outclass the Bismarck.
At any rate, the question was greatest ever built, not which had the best-trained crew. So what if they had great gunnery crew, we're talking about ship performance.
Another great flaw of the Bismarck was her lower armor deck, which left her communication and data systems exposed. This was a critical part in rendering her inoperative. |
hi ,
the captain made a couple serious errors on his ditch for france , okay it was under pressure from the fleet adm who was on board , but still , .....
the crew , well most of them where hand picked nazi party scum who had never seen the sea before , let alone fired a shot , ..... many cold not even swim , ......
the design was outdated and the ship was actually never finished the way it was designed , the saved on numerous things , .......
the overall performance was well below average , and if you are ever in germany , you can see the original hand written reports that say that the ship aint ready yet for war , ......
greatest battleship
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
So what? Comparing ships using just those statistics is ridiculous. |
So instead of comparing the ships based on their numbers, what is there? Oh wait there's:
quote:
And the superior German gunnery. |
Superior gunnery that didn't land one hit in 41 minutes of combat.
Agathon, you have to compare the ships based on the physical construction if you're going to talk about "greatest ever built." Why is it ridiculous to compare statistics like which ship had better armor, better design, were faster? Those are factors in how the ships will perform in combat!
quote:
I'll admit that, but I was talking about ship to ship. |
Ship-to-ship, Bismarck got squashed. She was great at short-range battles, like were fought in WWI. Long range, she was weak. Since Iowa-class ships excel in long-range combat, Bismarck would be toast, and likely wouldn't be able to land a shot.
quote:
It went up against two British heavy ships accompanied by one heavy cruiser and managed to beat both of them off. That's pretty good to me. |
None of which attests to how it would fare against Iowa-class ships, which could shoot at it before the Bismarck could shoot back, thanks to greater range.
quote:
I'd like to see how well either of those two ships would do if they couldn't steer. |
So the Bismarck's inability to steer caused her expert gunnery crew to be inable to land any shots?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-07-2003 04:19
1
ACK!
|