Best World war two warships?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by pgm1962a

Also IOWA would have pulverized BIZMARK. And the 'Battlecruiser' concept by WWII was a dinosaur. No battlecruiser could hope to hold its own against virtually any type of battleship.

Its spelled Bismark and she was a Battleship not a Battlecruiser. I really dont think the Iowa would have been able to deal with her so easily. Her hull was never penetrated by a shell from 5in to 16in. She was scuttled my friend.

[trackend]

Originally Posted by pgm1962a

Also IOWA would have pulverized BIZMARK. And the 'Battlecruiser' concept by WWII was a dinosaur. No battlecruiser could hope to hold its own against virtually any type of battleship.

mmmmm intresting thought I think you over estimate how good the Iowa class was compared to the Bismark. The Hood was not alone when it went against the Bismark but as you say pgm the battle cruiser was very much out of date by the out break of WW2 the Hood having been launched in 1918. At the end of the day the Bismark was scuttled and not directly sunk by gunfire and torpedo's (although having been rendered a flaming hulk by the time of it's demise). Although a very elegant vessel I don't think the Iowa class ship was particular any better or worse than many other classes of battleship built around that time all had become superseded by the aircraft carrier as the capital ship by the beginning of WW2 due to there vunerability from air attack and as such quickly became relegated to shore bombardment duties.

[pgm1962a]

wether BISMARK was scuttled or not is of no importance (several of the Japanese carriers were scuttled at Midway...but no one doubts they were mortally wounded by US aircraft). When your superstructure is a flaming wreck...your main guns out of action...your steering crippled & your speed reduced to 9knots (which it was before the engagement with KING GEORGE V and RODNEY)..and you are in the middle of the Atlantic, what does it matter. The Bismark was doomed either way.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Trackened I agree fully with what you said up there.

Yes pgm1962a was doomed however the point still remains her hull was not breached by shells fired from another warship and that has been proven by the many dives to the ship.

We had an interesting thread here for a while with excerts from an interview from a surviver from the Bismark and he described the last few hours of the ship and how she went down.

He was an intersting chap. I can not remember his name and died a few years ago. His grandson is an officer in the US Navy today serving as a Captain on a Cruiser I believe.

[plan_D]

It's spelt Bismarck, actually, gentlemen.

On the matter of Battlecruisers, I don't think they were out-dated. The BC was never supposed to stand up to the BB. The armour of any BC was well known to be too thin to combat a BB head-on. On the contrary, the BC was always supposed to flee the BB as naturally it would have been faster. The BC was a raider, it was designed from the outset to out-gun everything that it couldn't out-run and out-run everything it couldn't out-gun.

As it happens, the HMS Hood was an out-dated design in itself. Not only that but it was put in a situation where it shouldn't have been, going head-on against a modern BB, the KMS Bismarck and CA KMS Prinz Eugen.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

OOps you are correct with the Bismarck.

[redcoat]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Its spelled Bismark and she was a Battleship not a Battlecruiser.

Actually, it was spelled Bismarck, in honour of the famous 19th century German

Her hull was never penetrated by a shell from 5in to 16in.

You have stated that both British shells or torpedoes didn't penetrate her hull, then how do you explain that when the Prince of Wales hit her with 3 shells during the action against the POW and Hood, she shipped over 2000 tons of salt water into her hull, leaving her 3 degrees down at the hull and with a 9 degree list to port ( which was only corrected by counter flooding).
Also the torpedo which hit the rudder also caused extensive flooding in the steering and adjacent compartments which foiled attempts to repair them.
So as we can see, even before the final battle the Bismarcks hull had suffered considerable damage.

The tale of the 'undamaged hull' is a myth

ps An excellent and highly detailed account of the Bismarcks final battle (with links to the same on the loss of HMS Hood )
Bismarck's Final Battle - Part 1

hope its of help

[Henk]

Like redcoat said....

Ok the whole thing of the Bismarck is that she was penetrated on two places by both torpedo's and a shell. The first one was the shell of the battle with the Hood and Prince of Wales that penetrated the bow and went right through the bow and thus caused flooding and her speed thus reduced. If you look at the following picture you would see what I mean. The shell came from the Prince of Wales and it caused the shut down of the port boiler room due to flooding and the forward feul could not be used due to the flooding and also was the cause of the speed being reduced.



and this is the hole in the hull.


The second one was the torpedo that caused the rudders to lock and made a hole near the stern below the steering gear rooms flooding these compartments and jamming the rudder mechanism.

Like we all know who knows something about the German trained crew of battleships that they were famous for their well placed salvos and were great aimers.

Now a battle between the Bismarck and the Iowa class battleship would be great to see but I must say that the crew makes the ship what it is and not the ship it self and also the commander of the ship.

The Bismarck was scuttled and not torpedoed like said by the Royal Navy and I must say the crew of the Bismarck fought like real men against the enemy although everything was allready lost, they were brave men.

My sources is the book The Discovery of the Bismarck by Robert D Ballard that did interviews with the survivors of the Bismarck and I have the video of it as well. The pictures come from Bismarck & Tirpitz.

[Glider]

An excellent article and I thank you for posting it. I had not realised how much damage was done by he 18in torpedo's over and above the jamming of the rudders.
It also shows how well the POW did in what can only be described as the worst possible situation and the way she used Radar to assist the Gunnery.

[Henk]

Yes, but the sad thing is that all her main guns ceased to work during the battle and thus retreated due to that. Still what the Germans had on their ships they could use it effectively.

[pgm1962a]

The IOWA was superior to BISMARK in several key ways- 1) IOWA had 9 16in guns to BISMARKS 8 15in (IOWA had a superior fire control system. 2) IOWA was faster than BISMARK (32k to BISMARKS 29k). 3) IOWA had by far a superior turn radius. 4) IOWA's protection was based on the 'all or nothing' principal, which meant that all of the ships vitals and magazines were protected in an armoured box like structure with 2 large armoured bulkheads and a heavy armoured deck on top of the bulkheads. The BISMARK was not designed in such a way. Many of her command & control stations were exposed to enemy fire. 5) IOWA had 20 rapid fire 5" secondary batteries. As for 'no damage from shell fire', one must remember that in the final engaement with BISMARK, the British battelships were to close. There shells tended to slam into the ships structures then actually plunge into the ships vitals. Also the outdated Battelcruiser concept is justified. Remember the British tended to regard them as capital ships. Many of the losses of Battecruisers in the Battle of Jutland in WWI were do to fire from other Battlecruisers.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by pgm1962a

The IOWA was superior to BISMARK in several key ways- 1) IOWA had 9 16in guns to BISMARKS 8 15in (IOWA had a superior fire control system. 2) IOWA was faster than BISMARK (32k to BISMARKS 29k). 3) IOWA had by far a superior turn radius. 4) IOWA's protection was based on the 'all or nothing' principal, which meant that all of the ships vitals and magazines were protected in an armoured box like structure with 2 large armoured bulkheads and a heavy armoured deck on top of the bulkheads. The BISMARK was not designed in such a way. Many of her command & control stations were exposed to enemy fire. 5) IOWA had 20 rapid fire 5" secondary batteries. As for 'no damage from shell fire', one must remember that in the final engaement with BISMARK, the British battelships were to close. There shells tended to slam into the ships structures then actually plunge into the ships vitals. Also the outdated Battelcruiser concept is justified. Remember the British tended to regard them as capital ships. Many of the losses of Battecruisers in the Battle of Jutland in WWI were do to fire from other Battlecruisers.

Can someone tell me why people always compare the Bismark to the Iowa. One was designed prewar when radar was in its infancy. The other built at the end of the war with all the lessons from the war built in, was 10-15% bigger.
Of course the Iowa was better, she damn well should have been.

If you going to compare like with like, then compare the Bismark with the N Carolina. They were designed, laid down and completed within 12 months of each other and are a true comparison.

[plan_D]

It was called the Bismarck.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by redcoat

Actually, it was spelled Bismarck, in honour of the famous 19th century German

Yes several other people had allready corrected me on that mistake and I am well aware of who it was named after. See the flag under my name.

Originally Posted by redcoat

You have stated that both British shells or torpedoes didn't penetrate her hull, then how do you explain that when the Prince of Wales hit her with 3 shells during the action against the POW and Hood, she shipped over 2000 tons of salt water into her hull, leaving her 3 degrees down at the hull and with a 9 degree list to port ( which was only corrected by counter flooding).
Also the torpedo which hit the rudder also caused extensive flooding in the steering and adjacent compartments which foiled attempts to repair them.
So as we can see, even before the final battle the Bismarcks hull had suffered considerable damage.

No I stated that no shells penetrated it. If I said torpedos that was typo mistake. Everyone knows that aprox. 2 torpedos penetrated her hull.

Originally Posted by redcoat

The tale of the 'undamaged hull' is a myth

No it has been proven by Robert Ballard, Cameron and several other people who inspected the hull on there dives.

[Henk]

Firstly are you blind or something cant you see how we said it is Bismarck and not Bismark? And no it was not 29 knots for the Bismarck it is 30.8 knots top speed.

The fact is that the Bismarck and Iowa were some of the best battleships of WW2 and that is why they compare them.

The Bismarck will always stay a legend.

The thing is that if your radar was destroyed by enemy fire that hit the mark most of the time and your crew can not get to hit the enemy what will it help you then? Like I have said what will the ship help you if its crew is not well trained?

Remember for those of you who do not know it is BISMARCK and NOT BISMARK.