German Battleships and convoy hunting.

[delcyros]

Wrong.

...The one who thrust this page is a fool...

It´s so full of errors, I don´t name them all. but a few, proving that he always underrates the Bismarck, while on the other side overrating the US ships much:
1.) armor: all a question of statistics. He is referring Nathan Okuns comprehensive analysis of the Bismarcks protection system. Okun prooves that unlike all other ships, the Bismarck cannot beeing critical hit from even zero distance. Deck penetration may occur as soon as 27.000yrds (using 15"/52) - call it Luke Skywalker! The critical distance is about 3000.yrds (30.000-27.000yrds, hits from higher distance have no probability), while those of Yamato is 8.000 yrds (0-8000 yrds), South Dakota/Iowa is 10.000 yrds (0-9000 + 30.000 - 29.000 yrds), Richelieu, Litorrio and others far more. What he did not noticed is that you need to pass 3 armor belts to get a critical hit, not only the main belt. The percentage of waterline covered by armor is also not taken into consideration (Bismarck also wins this)
Winner is Bismarck.
2.) underwater protection:
Error: small belt. Agaion he doesn´t take the main 45 mm Wotan w torpedo bulkhead into consideration, it´s going down to the bottom of the ship. Take notice that it has comparable strenght than the 3 19 mm armor plates and the sts plate of Iowa and North Caroliona. Compartimentaion also speaks for the Bismarck: 18 out of 23 compartments are main armor protected, in comparison of only 7 out of 14 (Richelieu) and 16 out of 27 (Yamato). Unprotected compartments will fill with water quite very soon. The Scharnhorst, while beeing a much smaller ship has a comparable protection system and it withstand the same number of torpedo hits than Yamato. POW, Littorio are far less resistant, North Carolina took a good deal of water by a single hit, Analysis of Bismarck wreckage showed that not a single torpedo hit managed to damage the ship beyond it´s torpedo bulkhead. So the winner is?
3.) guns:
What is really amazing here is that the author downgrades the Bismarcks artillery by half of it´s capabilitys in terms of rate of fire. Instead of the prooven 3 salvos per minute he reduces it to 1.8 (compare 1.7 Iowa, what an advantage) in order to uprate the Iowa/Littorio/Yamato compared to Bismarck. With a better main battery output Bismarck must get a 10+.
4.) fire control:
The optical rangefinders of Bismarck were clearly superior to anything except Yamato. It´s not only a matter of length but also of Zeiss quality.
The radar fire controll was able to do blindfire and it did in case of Scharnhorst/Gneisenau.
It´s also a myth that the german fire controll was unable to make solutions while turning the ship. Bismarck and Prinz Eugen subsequently turned to new heading and continued to fire and hit both, Hood and POW. It should be noted that the fire was splitted into two half salvos, hits are even more rare, underlining the excellent fire controll of Biosmarck. Another mistake is that the author compares the best US radar with an old german one (no temporary). There is no way to say that Iowa is 100% better than Bismarck.
5.) tactical factors:
Speed of Bismarck is rated 30 kts (while recorded 30.8 kts), Iowa is rated 33+ kts (while best recorded was only 32.5 kts)
That were just a very few.

[syscom3]

Sorry Delacros, many people have tried to debunk his figures, but in the end, his figures hold up.

The US fire control was radar controlled which was decisively proven to be superior in the 2nd naval battle for Guadalcanal. The USS Washington was using radar control on all batteries with devestating effect on the IJN. In fact it was so accurate, the first salvo's against the IJN battleship "Kirishima" which were for ranging, actually bracketed the target. As proven in this battle, optical gunsights had become secondary to radar

In the same battle, the USS South Dakota came under intense gunfire from the IJN and the USN concept of heavily armouring the vitals and minimizing the armour for all other area's was proven a sound design. The Bismark tried to protect everything, and ended up protecting nothing.

The speed of the US battleships are listed in many many many independant sources as 33 knots.

If a "long lance" torpedo had hit the Bismark, it would have taken a lot of damage. Dont compare small aerial torpedo's against the best torpedo's of WW2.

For rate of fire, the Bismark could not sustain 3 rounds per gun per minute.

Finally, the Bismark was sunk. No US fast battleship was.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Finally, the Bismark was sunk. No US fast battleship was

ok i don't really know enough to get involved in this discussion but i know that that doesn't really count for a huge ammount! the bismark had half the RN chasing it!

[Glider]

I am with most of what Delcryos says. The main advantage of radar rangefinding is that it works at night and in bad weather when for obvious reasons the optics don't work.
In daylight however the optics have the advantage. The second battle that you refer to was at night and at close range, around 10km ideal for the Radar control as the USA fired first and the IJN had to aim at the flashes of the USA ships. A worse situation for the IJN its hard to think of.
The South Dakota did take a pounding but wasn't hit by torpedo's and that was the saving grace.
The Bismark was hit by far more shells and bigger shells than the South Dakota as well as large numbers of torpedos. At the end of this, the Engine room was still dry. There are reputable sources than claim that she finally sank ofter being scuttled. In all probability she would have sunk eventually but the two ships had very different experiences. The USA ships are overated in the combined fleet website. There is a lot of good stuff there but there is an imbalance.

As for the speed of the USA Battleships the Iowa class had a design speed of 33 knots, the South Dakota and North Carolina had a design speed of 28 knots.

Hope this helps

[delcyros]

Thanks.
In addition to this:
The North Carolina wasn´t hit by a long lance, since no japanese submarine had long lance torpedos. It was hit by a far inferior 53,3 cm torpedo. The damage done by it is worth more. Had Bismarck been hit, well only a fluke could do harm to her in such a situation(like any other ship also). Comapare also Scharnhorst: It was hit by 11+ (englisch) shipbased torpedos, which had more impactforce than those airborne US torpedos hitting Yamato.
The reason why South Carolina was so bad in combat isn´t because it is a bad design but own crewmember made failures, reducing it´s abilities by much. Washington saved the day at close distances in the night.
I also quote the author of combined fleet:
"I gave Bismarck a 5 (in armor protection, which was the lowest figure of all by far) -Why? -Why not?"
The protection of Bismarck is inferior to US at distances where US ships never hit an freely moving enemy target, regardless of size, any closer distance makes Bismarck better, read Nathan Okun.

"I reduced rate of fire in order to come to more comparable numbers, not uprating the fast shooters (Bismarck only) and giving the slow shooters a better profile"
Hey come on...
According to TK of KM (dated 1940) It was asked if it could be possible to increase the rate of fire of 15"/52 to at least 11" rate (2,5 per minute). The answer (Dr. Bergmann): It is already possible, we even estimate that 3 rounds per minute could be in possibilities with additional automotion"
Subsequent tests in the Baltic showed that rate of fire was best at 18 sec. worst at 22 sec. for Bismarck, 20 sec. is the middle(3 per minute).
However, this would only come into play only at very short distances, so 2.5 at usual distances are more probable.
Just for comparison: Take two salvos per minute for Bismarck (already reduced from 3 or 2.5), that are 160 rounds fired in 10 minutes compared to 140 rounds of Iowa in the same timeframe. With such an advantage, Bismarck would get a 10 and Iowa a 9....
Radaraiming not always tops optical solutions. 42-45 Radar had it´s shortcomings with atmosspheric interferences and problems to get a correct distance managment at distances beyond 20.000 yrds. Optical solutions are more precise as long as the circumstances (weather, lightconditions) are good, reagrdless of range. When circumstances are worse, radar is better.
Don´t forget that Bismarck and Tirpitz also had radar controll for firing solutions. Compare contemporary designs. 41 Bismarck vs 41 North Carolina, 43 Iowa vs 43 Tirpitz... It´s not prior to mid 44 that US ships generally had better Radar for firing solutions.
It´s also of limited worth what the books write. Give me records. I can proove that the design speed of Scharnhorst was 32.5 kts but best recorded naval speed (compared to displacement) was 31.8 kts at 38.000 tons. Bismarck had designed 29 kts but achieved 30.8 kts at known displacement (see above) What about Iowa? We don´t know any figures except for a circumstance in wartime where it was forced to hunt down a japanese cruiser with max speed. 32.5 kts was achieved. Not 33 or even more.
If a page is unbalanced than combinedfleet.com

[delcyros]

I should further add that both, Okun and the author underline the US protection system as the best (raft body protection -all or nothing). My point is that each nation developed the best protection system for it´s purposes:
The germans were in fear of large fast cruiserfleets attacking their capitalships, so they had to protect much of the ship. That´s why they optimized the zitadellprotection and the compartimentation of their ships.
(Iowa had a poor compartimentation outside it´s main armor zone, few hits could sink her there) Both, face hardened and homogenoius armor were of very good quality.
The british forces -examining captured german ww1 ships- developed an excellent protection with very high quality (british cementated armor was the best in ww2) and good compartimentation (Vanguard), too.
The US and japanese - soon developing all or nothing- had no fear of small ships. Their concernings were a huge jutland like sea battles between US and japanese ships. So both designed a ship which under no circumstances would blew up like the british ww1 ones but these designs in the same time are vulnarable outside the main armor zone(..and this zone is rather small...) Their cementated armor is of worser quality (mostly thanks to the scaling effects), forcing them to use homogenious armor (US homogenoius undoubtly was the best) in very thick layers for turrets.I stay with my estimation: 43 Iowa vs Tirpitz would be an equal matching, my money would be on Tirpitz (more experienced crew).

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Sorry Delacros, many people have tried to debunk his figures, but in the end, his figures hold up.

The US fire control was radar controlled which was decisively proven to be superior in the 2nd naval battle for Guadalcanal. The USS Washington was using radar control on all batteries with devestating effect on the IJN. In fact it was so accurate, the first salvo's against the IJN battleship "Kirishima" which were for ranging, actually bracketed the target. As proven in this battle, optical gunsights had become secondary to radar

In the same battle, the USS South Dakota came under intense gunfire from the IJN and the USN concept of heavily armouring the vitals and minimizing the armour for all other area's was proven a sound design. The Bismark tried to protect everything, and ended up protecting nothing.

The speed of the US battleships are listed in many many many independant sources as 33 knots.

If a "long lance" torpedo had hit the Bismark, it would have taken a lot of damage. Dont compare small aerial torpedo's against the best torpedo's of WW2.

For rate of fire, the Bismark could not sustain 3 rounds per gun per minute.

Finally, the Bismark was sunk. No US fast battleship was.

Read the Book by Robert Ballard and watch the movie about the search for it. They disproved many many things. The Bismark was litterally hit with thousands of rounds in engagement that ultimatly sunk her. Her complete superstructure was destroyed most of the rounds did not penetrate her vital parts including her hull. You can litterally see how the shells deflected off.

This is a story of heated debate. Either theory is up for grabs in my opinion. The surviving crew members of the Bismark state that they scuttled it rather than her being sunk. The movie that I have on DVD which shows footage of the Bismark at her resting spot actually goes with this theory. The major underwater holes that would sunk the Bismark were actually blown out from the inside rather than penetrated from the inside.

Now which story I actually believe, I dont know.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Finally, the Bismark was sunk. No US fast battleship was.

Uh so are you saying that Pearl Harbor never happened? Okay!

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Uh so are you saying that Pearl Harbor never happened? Okay!

Those were not considered the fast battleships.

The fast BB's were those that were built starting with the USS North Carolina class in 1937.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Oh my bad....

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Glider

I am with most of what Delcryos says. The main advantage of radar rangefinding is that it works at night and in bad weather when for obvious reasons the optics don't work.
In daylight however the optics have the advantage. The second battle that you refer to was at night and at close range, around 10km ideal for the Radar control as the USA fired first and the IJN had to aim at the flashes of the USA ships.

Rare is the battle where all the enviornmental factors work for you. The USN radar not only picked up the IJN at long range but had firing solutions for it. The only problem the US battleships had were seeing the IJN ships stick out positively from Savo island. If this had been in the Atlantic, then there would have been no issue of what they were shooting at. By the time the optical rangefindres come into play, then its too late. Youre already under fire.

Originally Posted by Glider

The South Dakota did take a pounding but wasn't hit by torpedo's and that was the saving grace.

True. Just for info though, three US destroyers were sunk by a well aimed salvo of IJN torpedo's. The USS Washington missed the torpedo's by a narrow margin.

Originally Posted by Glider

The Bismark was hit by far more shells and bigger shells than the South Dakota as well as large numbers of torpedos. At the end of this, the Engine room was still dry.

Agreed, but then the Bismark wasnt hit by the 16" shells the US BB's were armed with, wich would be coming in at long ranges and higher trajectories.

Originally Posted by Glider

The USA ships are overated in the combined fleet website. There is a lot of good stuff there but there is an imbalance.

Thats cause the US BB's are that much better than everyone else.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Disagree. While I believe that the US made the best Carriers the BB's were not much better than the Yamato/Musashi and the Bismark/Tirpitz.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by delcyros

The North Carolina wasn´t hit by a long lance, since no japanese submarine had long lance torpedos. It was hit by a far inferior 53,3 cm torpedo.

Technically correct. However it was hit by a type 95 torpedo which was slightly smaller than the type 93. Main difference between the two is the Type 95 had a 1080 lbs warhead and the type 93 had 893 lbs. The type 93's warhead was more than enough to punch a nice big hole in the Bismark, or any other ship for that matter. As matter of indication on how well the US battleships were designed and how well trained the crews were, the ship slowed down only by a small ammount and its battle efficency wasnt really impacted.

Originally Posted by delcyros

The reason why South Carolina was so bad in combat isn´t because it is a bad design but own crewmember made failures, reducing it´s abilities by much. Washington saved the day at close distances in the night.

the Washington saved the "night" because of the superior radar controlled fire control allowed the ship to engage multiple targets with excellent accuracy using excellent main and secondary batteries.

Originally Posted by delcyros

"I gave Bismarck a 5 (in armor protection, which was the lowest figure of all by far) -Why? -Why not?"
The protection of Bismarck is inferior to US at distances where US ships never hit an freely moving enemy target, regardless of size, any closer distance makes Bismarck better, read Nathan Okun.

Point taken. I intrpeted it to mean that the superior US radar controlled main batteries were going to lob shells at the far off distant target with enough accuracy, that at least the CEP showed eventually they were going to get a hit. The US could keep the Bismark at arms length. Remember, the Bismarks armour didnt protect it against HA shells coming in.

Originally Posted by delcyros

According to TK of KM (dated 1940) It was asked if it could be possible to increase the rate of fire of 15"/52 to at least 11" rate (2,5 per minute). The answer (Dr. Bergmann): It is already possible, we even estimate that 3 rounds per minute could be in possibilities with additional automotion"
Subsequent tests in the Baltic showed that rate of fire was best at 18 sec. worst at 22 sec. for Bismarck, 20 sec. is the middle(3 per minute).
However, this would only come into play only at very short distances, so 2.5 at usual distances are more probable.

I stand corrected that it could fire at 2-3 rounds per minute

Originally Posted by delcyros

Just for comparison: Take two salvos per minute for Bismarck (already reduced from 3 or 2.5), that are 160 rounds fired in 10 minutes compared to 140 rounds of Iowa in the same timeframe. With such an advantage, Bismarck would get a 10 and Iowa a 9....

The US 16"/50 cal guns had a broadside weight that was five tons better than the Bismarks, plus they could fire them from 3000 yards farther away. The US 16"/45 cal guns had a broadside weight that was five tons better than the Bismarks, but they had a range 1900 yards shorter than the Bismark.

The Iowa class batteries were clearly superior as they could shoot at the Bismark from further away with a heavier throw weight. The SD and NC class guns would probably be a draw. Bismark firing further away (with an inferior fire control) against the US having heavier shells.

Originally Posted by delcyros

Radaraiming not always tops optical solutions. 42-45 Radar had it´s shortcomings with atmosspheric interferences and problems to get a correct distance managment at distances beyond 20.000 yrds. Optical solutions are more precise as long as the circumstances (weather, lightconditions) are good, reagrdless of range. When circumstances are worse, radar is better.

The Allies had the radar perfected well enough in 1943 to not have those probelms in the open ocean. In fact, in the many sea battles off of New Georgia island in mid 1943, the radars were good enough to see the IJN ships from well beyond the horizon and against the island backdrops.

Originally Posted by delcyros

Don´t forget that Bismarck and Tirpitz also had radar controll for firing solutions. Compare contemporary designs. 41 Bismarck vs 41 North Carolina, 43 Iowa vs 43 Tirpitz... It´s not prior to mid 44 that US ships generally had better Radar for firing solutions.

The USN's radar fire control was superior in late 1942. The admiral (Lee) in command of the Washington task force had a good radar, knew how to use it, and was the first to use in a battle situation, a CIC setup. He stayed in the plotting room watching the battle unfold on the radar, decided what to shoot at and let the skipper handle the battleship. Events proved it was a great idea and well executed.

Originally Posted by delcyros

If a page is unbalanced than combinedfleet.com

many people try to debunk it, and many people fail.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Disagree. While I believe that the US made the best Carriers the BB's were not much better than the Yamato/Musashi and the Bismark/Tirpitz.

The Iowa class BB's were clearly better than the German and Japanese BB's. The SD and NC class's were probably equal.

[Glider]

Where I believe the USA BB's scored was that they were the best in the world, for the conditions that existed in WW2.
On Firepower they banked eveything on the Main guns dealing with enemy ships, and everything else targeted against aircraft. The USN didn't get sidetracked into designing the secondary guns for a naval battle.
Every other nation designed their secondary guns to be used in a surface battle. The Japenese, French, German, Italian navies all carried 5.9 - 6.1 in guns for use against ships and 4.0 - 5in against aircraft. The British had the 5.25 which although a dual purpose gun was much more effective against ships.
The weight and space that this saved could and was used to good effect by the USN to ephasise those priorities.

Conversely the British had the best modernised old battleships in the Queen Elizabeth which they fitted with 20 modern DP 4.5in guns and disposed of the 6in secondary.

As for maximum ranges this was in many ways a diversion. No naval battle in WW2 took place over about 28000 yards. What mattered was how accurate your ship was up to a range of about 32,000 yards, not if your guns could fire 35,000, 38,000 or 40,000 yards. That only helped in shore bombardment.
For that reason the last BB in the RN the Vanguard was armed with 15in guns built in 1915, the same as in the Warspite. In exercises after the war she regularly outshot the Iowa class BB's.