German Battleships and convoy hunting.

[syscom3]

Getting hit in the rudder does tend to ruin a captains day, doesnt it.

[Glider]

Interesting point on the Heavy AA fire from the Bismark. People have often wondered why no Swordfish were lost in the attack on the Bismark which had the most modern AA guns available. I read about the following theory a few years ago and thought it a bit wild. However there was pro gramme on the sinking of the Bismark and a rep from the Imperial War Museum repeated it so here it is.

I am sure you are aware that one tactic with AA fire was to put a wall of shells up in front of the incoming aircraft , the idea being to hit the aircraft as it came through the curtain. In the Bismark the fusing system had three speeds which reduced the range at which the shells exploded, the idea being that the plane would spend longer in the exposed area whilst coming through the curtain of shells.

The slowest of the speed settings on the Bismark AA guns was equal to 100mph. However the Swordfish only went 80mph on an attack run with a torpedo. As a result the Heavy AA fire was retreating at a faster speed than the plane could go and the plane survived.

A case I think, of being too clever by half.

By the way, people have commented that the SD had better Fire Control. I should hope so seeing as it was sunk before the SD was in service. The big question would be would it be better than Bismark if the Bismark had been given the latest equipment in 1944.

[Erich]

of course not being there, glider brings up an interesting what if. had the bismark been able to mount late 1944 "Barbara" Aa fittings of the Prinz Eugen the Swordfish probably would of not been able to pull anything off.

like I said an interesting thought, the Prinz mounting some 18 4cm Bofors, 6 2cm Flakvierlings

[syscom3]

Considering that the Japanese Kamikazi's on occasion penetrated even more dense AA fire from a massed task force, its possible the Swordfish's could get through the Bismarks AA.

Ive also heard the same thing about the Bismarks fire control not being able to handle slow moving airplanes.

To compare FC radars in 1944, then the Allies are still in the lead.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and the swordfish were often flying lower than the depression of the AA guns would allow.........

[Erich]

again not being there but can tell you that Soviet a/c tried to attack at below deck level agaisnt the Prinz and associated Z's as well as the Admiral Hipper with disasterous results. The 4cm bofors could elevate from flat out to vertical as well as the 2cm twin and four barrel flakveirlings. the Kriegsmarine had learned their lessons early in the war. Again this is all what if

[trackend]

My only take on things is that by 1939 the day of the battleship had come and was rapidly going, by 1945 they had all been relegated to the role of shore bombardment platforms.
The Bismark & Tirpitz where superb vessels but not very successful & their fate was inevitable even before they had left the slipway.
The German surface raider was always going to be on to a looser that's why Donitz concentrated on the U boat. Cheap & quick to build compared to the highly technical battleships and as 99% of Germany's raw materials did not go by sea their was no need to defend a huge mechantial fleet (just attack one) The Carrier was and is the most powerful conventionally armed vessel ever to put to sea and its coming of age was during WW2 just as was the demise of the big gun ship.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but is there anything that will replace the carrier?

[Nonskimmer]

The star destroyer?

[syscom3]

In low intensity conflicts, do we need a carrier battle group?

[trackend]

Originally Posted by syscom3

In low intensity conflicts, do we need a carrier battle group?

I think so SY with a big hammer you only need a gentle tap to crack a walnut (gun boat diplomacy still works even nowadays)

[Nonskimmer]

Besides, as the US is the only nation on earth capable of supporting and sustaining multiple carrier battle groups, it pretty much assures USN superiority of the seas. In reality, even one or two such groups would be enough against the majority of rival naval powers to ensure American dominance. That's what it would boil down to in a conflict, wouldn't it? Even many of the world's air forces would be tested against that kind of might.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The whole point of the Carrier today is being able to project power anywhere in a relativly short period of time. Lets say that a militant group in Zimbabwe takes over the country and takes all westerners hostages and declares war on the World! (This is just a poke fun at the situation scenerio!) Within 24 hours he can have Carrier jets pounding down on him.

[syscom3]

But we can have long range drones begin to do the work.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

True but in the end they will never take completely over man piloted aircraft.