Best World war two warships?

redcoat · 08-23-2006, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

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.

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

If the hull was not penetrated by a shell , how did over 2000 tons of sea water enter her hull, during the action with the POW and the Hood ????
Did a sailor accidentally leave a water tap running ??????

Henk · 08-23-2006, 06:10 PM

The ship was not penetrated by two torpedo's but one and it was a shell from the Prince of Wales that went in and out of the bow. The dives done by Dr Robert D. Ballard proved that the British did not sink her with torpedo's but that she was scuttled.

Look at the picture I posted of the bow with the hole in it with the fake bow wave still showing. If you guys want more pictures of the hull I would be glad to post some for you.

Read the THE DISCOVERY OF THE BISMARCK by Robert D. Ballard and you would get a new look into the story of the ship and what really happend.

Glider · 08-23-2006, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Bismarck was 29 knots not 30.8 which seems like a trials speed not one that reflects operational loading.

Bismarch was and always will be a legend. However being a Legend doesn't make you the best which she clearly wasn't, not by a long shot. The Iowa was and always will be better than the Bismark.

You seem to be making a huge assumption that the Iowa (or any other battleship) without its Radar wouldn't be able to hit anything due to the lack of training of the crew. Anyone who served on the Iowa would I suggest not agree with that.
Pretty difficult to agree with that when you consider how well the POW did with huge difficulties and the very very limited number of shells she actually fired.

The Tirpitz/Bismarch class should be measured against equivalent ships, designed and built in the same period. That shows how advanced or otherwise the design was.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-24-2006, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcoat

If the hull was not penetrated by a shell , how did over 2000 tons of sea water enter her hull, during the action with the POW and the Hood ????
Did a sailor accidentally leave a water tap running ??????

Her hull was never penetrated by shells. Read some interviews from Bismarck survivors. Ill take there word over anyone elses anyday.

Hop · 08-24-2006, 11:20 AM

Bismarck survivors reported shells exploding in at least one starboard boiler room and a port turbine room during the final battle. One of PoWs shells had earlier caused flooding in a boiler room and turbine room, which had to be abandoned.

Quote:

The dives done by Dr Robert D. Ballard proved that the British did not sink her with torpedo's but that she was scuttled.

According to Ballard (and the later British expedition) Bismarck is buried in silt up to her waterline for most of the length of the hull, so it's not possible to say how many underwater penetrations occured.

redcoat · 08-24-2006, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Her hull was never penetrated by shells. Read some interviews from Bismarck survivors. Ill take there word over anyone elses anyday.

Then explain to me, how the water ( over 2000 tons) got into the Bismarck during the action against the POW and the Hood ???

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-24-2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hop

Bismarck survivors reported shells exploding in at least one starboard boiler room and a port turbine room during the final battle. One of PoWs shells had earlier caused flooding in a boiler room and turbine room, which had to be abandoned.

According to the survivors in the interviews (The links to the interviews are posted in a thread here) shells penetrated the superstructure, turrets and so forth but no the hull. Torpedos yes but not shells.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hop

According to Ballard (and the later British expedition) Bismarck is buried in silt up to her waterline for most of the length of the hull, so it's not possible to say how many underwater penetrations occured.

That is true however...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-24-2006, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcoat

Then explain to me, how the water ( over 2000 tons) got into the Bismarck during the action against the POW and the Hood ???

According to the same survivors that I am talking about above the Bismarck did not take water until she was struck by torpedos from the Swordfish and then later from the Destroyers in the final battle.

timshatz · 08-24-2006, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgm1962a

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.

Might as well jump in here about the Battlecruiser arguement.

Don't think it was a viable concept. It was essentially a Cruiser with Battleship armament. Made it very vunerable to Battleships. Unfortunately, many people (admirals in this case) see what looks like a Battleship and they treat it like a Battleship.

The concept was flawed in much the same way the idea of the Tank Destroyer was flawed. Don't make Tank Killers, make Killer Tanks. Something that will survive in the give and take of a battle with vessels their own size. If it could not stand up to ships with the same guns, it was not much good.

However, to give the devil his due, when the concept came around it had some merit. This can be seen in the battle of the Falklands where two British BCs ran down and sank two German Armored Cruisers.

But by the time WW2 came around, the concept was done. The Bismark V Hood, Duke of York V Scharnhorst and Washington V Kirishima proved the point. Even the cruisers of the time took one down (Hiei V Everybody).

It was an interesting concept that might've had limited viability in the early part of the last century, but the combination of aircraft, weapons advancements, warship design advancements, all rendered it obsolete.

redcoat · 08-24-2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

According to the same survivors that I am talking about above the Bismarck did not take water until she was struck by torpedos from the Swordfish and then later from the Destroyers in the final battle.

If they are saying that, they are wrong !

KBismarck.com - Operation Rheinübung

"However, the Bismarck had been hit on the port side by three heavy shells probably from the Prince of Wales. The first shell hit Bismarck amidships below the waterline in section XIV, passed through the outer hull just below the main belt, and exploded against the 45-mm armoured torpedo bulkhead. This hit caused the flooding of the port electric plant No. 4. The adjacent No. 2 boiler room also took some water, but this was contained by the damage control parties through the use of hammocks. The second shell hit the bow in section XXI, just above the waterline. This projectile entered the port side, passed through the ship above the armoured deck without exploding, and exited the starboard side leaving a hole of 1.5 meters in diameter. Around 2,000 tons of salt water got into the forecastle, and as a consequence of this 1,000 tons of fuel oil were blocked there. The third shell simply passed through a boat without any appreciable damage at all.
As a result of these hits, the top speed of the Bismarck was reduced to 28 knots. The battleship was 3º down by the bow and had a 9º list to port. Because of this, the blades tips of the starboard propeller were out of the water at times. Therefore the starboard void tanks in sections II and III were flooded to reduce the bow trim and list. "

Bismarck - The History - The Bismarck Escapes

"Bismarck had received three hits altogether. One had carried away the captain's motor-boat amidships, damaged the aircraft launching gear, landed in the sea beyond without exploding. The second had also struck amidships, penetrated the ship's side beneath the armored belt, destroyed one of the dynamoes, put No. 2 boiler-room and its two boilers out of action, wounded five men by scalding, caused some flooding. The third and most serious hit had struck the port bow about the level of the water-line, penetrated two oil tanks, come out the starboard side without exploding. This hit not only let sea-water into the oil tanks and quantities of oil into the sea, but knocked out the suction valves, and cut off from the engines a further thousand tons of oil.
Because of flooding the bow was down by two or three degrees, there was a list to port of nine degrees, the starboard propeller was coming out of the water. Captain Lindemann ordered counterflooding aft to restore the trim, and maximum speed was reduced to 28 knots. Collision mats were put down to cover the two holes in the bows, divers were sent to the flooded compartments. Presently the collision mats stopped any more water getting into the ship, though the oil continued to leak out of it. Some officers suggested a big reduction of speed and further counterflooding to bring the bows right out of the water, enable the holes to be repaired by welding; but Admiral Lütjens was not prepared to risk the dangers of delay. Schlüter (a technician from Blohm and Voss) suggested lightening the bows by cutting loose the anchors and cables, dumping them overboard, but this idea was also rejected. Despite the difficult working conditions the divers finaly managed to make temporary repairs, pump out some of the water so the bows began to rise."

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-25-2006, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcoat

If they are saying that, they are wrong !

Believe what you wish. I believe the people who were on the ship. They are the ones the witnessed and experienced it. If someone who was on it says it did not happen, then to me it did not happen.

Do me a favor as well. Calm down with the attitude...

redcoat · 08-25-2006, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Believe what you wish. I believe the people who were on the ship. They are the ones the witnessed and experienced it. If someone who was on it says it did not happen, then to me it did not happen.

Even though the facts I've given you are not in dispute with historians,
Every account be it British, German or Neutral, of the Bismarcks last mission gives the same story.

Quote:

Do me a favor as well. Calm down with the attitude...

I am calm

Henk · 08-28-2006, 05:11 PM

Hi everyone long time no see, been working very hard 12 to 13 hours straight.

Ok, Adler mate I do not want to start a fight but in Ballard's book he also stated that the shell from the PoW went straight through and caused the flooding. This information were from the survivors of the Bismarck.

The whole thing is she still fought like a mean war machine and never stopped until she could not anymore.

A ship is nothing without its radar and range finders, you will fire blind and will only waste your shells and give the enemy the time to hit you where it will hurt. So what is a tank with poorly trained crew, worth nothing, the enemy will take advantage of it and destroy it, the same with a battleship.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-29-2006, 01:17 AM

I am going to have to look through my book on the Bismarck but I dont recall that. I am going from reading interviews and from watching documentaries.

timshatz · 08-29-2006, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I am going to have to look through my book on the Bismarck but I dont recall that. I am going from reading interviews and from watching documentaries.

Adler, I think these guys are on it with this one. The Bismark did take at least one shot from the POW. Went through the forward part of the ship and caused an oil leak. Also shipped water because of it. Better question would be did that hit go through the armour or did it go through an unarmoured part.

Pretty good shooting from the POW, considering she was brand new with an untested crew. Better shooting from the Bismark. Sank one Capital ship and wounded another.

One question that always bothered me about the Battle of the Denmark Straights was why was the Hood's shooting so poor. I know that they started out shooting at the Prinz Eugen but switched to the Bismark. Still, none of the shots hit and she was shooting for a decent length of time. Was it the range finders? Gunnery Controls? What up with that one?