How Good Actually Was the Bismarck?

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Kriegsmarine except those dealing with the U-Boat forces.
User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2678
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: How Good Actually Was the Bismarck?

Post by Takao » 05 Jul 2018 17:07

Paul Lakowski wrote: Most pacific WW-II surface actions were in or around islands and island chains and as such this is mostly shallow seas. If you study wave science you may notice that heavy seas rarely ever form over shallow seas

http://www.oceanweather.com/data/

study this site over months and seasons.
Well, that only applies to the Solomons Chain. The Central Pacific chain were atolls surrounded by deep water.

Not to mention that the British fought most of the important naval actions in that relatively placid lake called the Mediterranean Sea.
Image

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2678
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: How Good Actually Was the Bismarck?

Post by Takao » 05 Jul 2018 17:31

Plain Old Dave wrote:Interesting note: USS IOWA served in both Atlantic and Pacific during WW2 and spent most of the 1980s deploying in the Atlantic including a Northlant gun shoot in 1987. NEW JERSEY was homeported out of Norfolk in the 80s IIRC as well.
Several of the "modern" US battleships served, at least sometime during WW2 in the Atlantic...North Carolina, Washington, South Dakota, Massachusetts, Alabama, as well as, the Iowa. The rest of the Iowas were commissioned after the US need for battleships in the Atlantic had already passed.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1379
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: How Good Actually Was the Bismarck?

Post by Paul Lakowski » 21 Jul 2018 03:58

Takao wrote:
05 Jul 2018 17:07
Paul Lakowski wrote: Most pacific WW-II surface actions were in or around islands and island chains and as such this is mostly shallow seas. If you study wave science you may notice that heavy seas rarely ever form over shallow seas

http://www.oceanweather.com/data/

study this site over months and seasons.
Well, that only applies to the Solomons Chain. The Central Pacific chain were atolls surrounded by deep water.

Not to mention that the British fought most of the important naval actions in that relatively placid lake called the Mediterranean Sea.
Image
Heavy sea are 5m or more, while your map covers average of 6 months!

User avatar
Polar bear
Member
Posts: 2511
Joined: 25 Sep 2010 15:49
Location: Hanover, Lower Saxony

Re: How Good Actually Was the Bismarck?

Post by Polar bear » 22 Jul 2018 18:56

hi,
Takao wrote:
05 Jul 2018 17:07
... that relatively placid lake called the Mediterranean Sea.
let me guess that you never sailed yourself in the Med, neither the West and the Lion Gulf nor the Aegean where you can experience the wind inceasing from Bf 1 to Bf 8 and more in just 30 minutes

greetings, the pb
Peace hath her victories no less renowned than War
(John Milton, the poet, in a letter to the Lord General Cromwell, May 1652)

Peter K.
Member
Posts: 155
Joined: 05 Jan 2012 20:50
Location: Austria

Re: How Good Actually Was the Bismarck?

Post by Peter K. » 23 Jul 2018 10:50

... besides the Mistral and the Meltemi also the Bora in the Adriatic is a dangerous opponent!

Greetings from Austria
Peter K.

lartiste
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: 04 Jan 2014 15:08
Location: EU

Re: How Good Actually Was the Bismarck?

Post by lartiste » 22 May 2019 23:39

genstab wrote:
02 Jul 2018 00:09
Another thing the guy said after the "too pretty by half" concerning the Iowa class battleships is they only sailed the calm blue waters of the Pacific. Apparently he never heard about the two great typhoons, one of which sank three destroyers.

There were only two battleship vs battleship encounters in the Pacific war. The first, at Guadalcanal, resulted in USS Washington blowing the guts out of Kirishima, and the second, in the sub-battle off Cape Engano, where six WW1 battleships, most raised and reconditioned after being sunk at Pearl Harbor, crossed the enemy's T and sank two old Japanese battleships- also WW1 vintage but rebuilt.

Best,
Bill

PS- I've stood on the bridge wing of USS New Jersey and seen the life-size photo of Admiral Halsey standing in the same place in the last part of the war. It's spooky.

Best,
Bill
This is not correct, it was USS Washington and USS South Dakota and do not forget that Kongo's were rather BC than BB.

User avatar
genstab
Member
Posts: 1977
Joined: 15 Jul 2003 22:50
Location: The Big City on Lake Erie

Re: How Good Actually Was the Bismarck?

Post by genstab » 22 May 2019 23:55

So you don't know that the Kongos were upgraded to battleship armor between the wars?

Plain Old Dave
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 05:30
Location: East Tennessee

Re: How Good Actually Was the Bismarck?

Post by Plain Old Dave » 22 May 2019 23:59

Polar bear wrote:
22 Jul 2018 18:56
hi,
Takao wrote:
05 Jul 2018 17:07
... that relatively placid lake called the Mediterranean Sea.
let me guess that you never sailed yourself in the Med, neither the West and the Lion Gulf nor the Aegean where you can experience the wind inceasing from Bf 1 to Bf 8 and more in just 30 minutes

greetings, the pb
This. I've been marooned in Haifa because of heavy sea State, got binocular liberty in Cartegena for the same reason, and had at least 2 USO tours canceled as well.

lartiste
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: 04 Jan 2014 15:08
Location: EU

Re: How Good Actually Was the Bismarck?

Post by lartiste » 23 May 2019 00:23

genstab wrote:
22 May 2019 23:55
So you don't know that the Kongos were upgraded to battleship armor between the wars?
I know, but still they did not have armor comparable to BB's. Please do not forget, that just night before Kirishima was destroyed by US battleships, Hiei was crippled just by cruisers.

Don't trust japanese propaganda ... .

Return to “Kriegsmarine surface ships and Kriegsmarine in general”