I know that this site has been posted on this forum before, but I don't know if it has ever had its own thread. It's been a while since anyone has seen it anyway, so I figure that I'd post it again.
http://64.124.221.191/baddest.htm
Logan Hartke
Best Battleship
-
Logan Hartke
- Member
- Posts: 1226
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 19:30
- Location: Illinois, USA
Yes, saw that site years ago! Good one, though.
The Bismarck was probably the best battleship in the world in May 1941, beating not only the elderly Hood but also the brand new Prince of Wales (same class as King George V but with many teething troubles).
But three years later, the Tirpitz would have had a much more difficult time against the King George V, because by then the British had better radar-directed fire control. (The Germans had also improved, but not by the same amount.) And against the heavily armed and armoured US South Dakota, the Tirpitz wouldn't have stood much of a chance.
The Bismarck was probably the best battleship in the world in May 1941, beating not only the elderly Hood but also the brand new Prince of Wales (same class as King George V but with many teething troubles).
But three years later, the Tirpitz would have had a much more difficult time against the King George V, because by then the British had better radar-directed fire control. (The Germans had also improved, but not by the same amount.) And against the heavily armed and armoured US South Dakota, the Tirpitz wouldn't have stood much of a chance.
What do you want to know?
I could go on for quite awhile johhny_bi...Anything specific you want to know?
The evaluation of each ship's performance in the site above has some seriously weird points. For example, Bismarck's secondary battery, usually considered a liability for mounting two different types of guns for antiship(150mm) and AAA(105mm) is rated at 10, far better than King George V's dual-purpose battery.
~Ovidius
~Ovidius
-
Aufklarung
- Member
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: 17 Mar 2002, 05:27
- Location: Canada
Same for Bismarck and PoW, along with the Tirpitz.Yamato & Musashi??
7 more words
Bombed to the bottom of the sea.
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-f ... yamato.htm
Yamato, lead ship of a class of two 65,000-ton (over 72,800-tons at full load) battleships, was built at Kure, Japan. She and her sister, Musashi were by far the largest battleships ever built, even exceeding in size and gun caliber (though not in weight of broadside) the U.S. Navy's abortive Montana class. Their nine 460mm (18.1-inch) main battery guns, which fired 1460kg (3200 pound) armor piercing shells, were the largest battleship guns ever to go to sea, and the two ships' scale of armor protection was also unsurpassed.
Commissioned in December 1941, just over a week after the start of the Pacific war, Yamato served as flagship of Combined Fleet commander Isoroku Yamamoto during the critical battles of 1942. During the following year, she spent most of her time at Truk, as part of a mobile naval force defending Japan's Centeral Pacific bases. Torpedoed by USS Skate (SS-305) in December 1943, Yamato was under repair until April 1944, during which time her anti-aircraft battery was considerably increased. She then took part in the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June and the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October. During the latter action, she was attacked several times by U.S. Navy aircraft, and fired her big guns in an engagement with U.S. escort carriers and destroyers off the island of Samar.
Yamato received comparatively light damage during the Leyte Gulf battle, and was sent home in November 1944. Fitted with additional anti-aircraft machine guns, she was based in Japan during the winter of 1944-45. Attacked by U.S. Navy carrier planes in March 1945, during raids on the Japanese home islands, she was again only lightly damaged. The following month, she was assigned to take part in the suicidal "Ten-Go" Operation, a combined air and sea effort to destroy American naval forces supporting the invasion of Okinawa. On 7 April 1945, while still some 200 miles north of Okinawa, Yamato was attacked by a massive force of U.S. carrier planes and sunk.
A (silly) question:aufklarung wrote:Yamato & Musashi??
7 more words
Bombed to the bottom of the sea.
Why exactly didn't the commander of the American fleet engage the Yamato(escorted just by a light cruiser and a few destroyers) in the classic manner, ship against ship, with his entire fleet, and asked Admiral Mark Mitscher to send the bombers instead?
~Ovidius
Take a look here:
http://www.voodoo.cz/battleships/german ... horst.html
There is a video clip of Scharnhorst at high speed in rough seas - a must see!
~Ovidius
http://www.voodoo.cz/battleships/german ... horst.html
There is a video clip of Scharnhorst at high speed in rough seas - a must see!
~Ovidius
-
Karl da Kraut
- Member
- Posts: 341
- Joined: 16 Sep 2002, 13:00
- Location: Germany
I wouldn't say the Yamato-class battelships were the best. Both ships were sunk quite easily, whereas "Bismarck" and "Tirpitz" proved much better taking capabilities.
I don't know about the American battelships, but I assume they were (and are) excellent vessels.
A side note: Armor alone doesn't define the survivability of a ship.
I don't know about the American battelships, but I assume they were (and are) excellent vessels.
A side note: Armor alone doesn't define the survivability of a ship.
Bismarck/Tirpitz vs. Yamato/Musashi
Were the Bismarck & Tirpitz better at taking damage than the Yamato & Musashi. I don't think so.
The circumstances of the sinking of the Bismarck & Tirpitz were much different than the Yamato & Musashi. The Bismarck was sunk in a surface action. The damage inflicted on the Bismarck was, for the most part, shellfire damage. Few if any hits penetrated the ship's armor belt. It has been proven over and over in naval battles that to sink a ship, damage must be done below the waterline. For the Tirpitz, 3 of the 12,000lb. or 24,000lb. bombs(IIRC) hit the Tirpitz, and a few were near misses.
The Yamato & Musashi were sunk by massed air attacks. The Americans attacked the Yamato with more planes than the Japanese used to attack Pearl Harbor. The Yamato's sinking was a forgone conclusion. It was only a question of when would it sink. The Yamato absorbed some 15-20 torpedo hits and many bomb hits before she sank. One can say that the Bismarck sank after only a few torpedo hits(one from the swordfish & a few more from the HMS Dorsetshire). The Musashi abosorbed a similar amount of punishment inflicted by roughly the same amount of aircraft.
If the Yamato & Musashi had been subjected to the same bombardment as the Bismarck, I believe they would have lasted much longer. Don't forget the Yamato had a auxiliary rudder system that allowed for her to steer if the main rudder was damaged. The Bismarck did not have one and paid the ultimate price for the designers lack of foresight.
There has been the argument that the hull structure of the Yamato was to rigid and this excaberated the effect of torpedo hit against the hull. This I believe to be true.
The circumstances of the sinking of the Bismarck & Tirpitz were much different than the Yamato & Musashi. The Bismarck was sunk in a surface action. The damage inflicted on the Bismarck was, for the most part, shellfire damage. Few if any hits penetrated the ship's armor belt. It has been proven over and over in naval battles that to sink a ship, damage must be done below the waterline. For the Tirpitz, 3 of the 12,000lb. or 24,000lb. bombs(IIRC) hit the Tirpitz, and a few were near misses.
The Yamato & Musashi were sunk by massed air attacks. The Americans attacked the Yamato with more planes than the Japanese used to attack Pearl Harbor. The Yamato's sinking was a forgone conclusion. It was only a question of when would it sink. The Yamato absorbed some 15-20 torpedo hits and many bomb hits before she sank. One can say that the Bismarck sank after only a few torpedo hits(one from the swordfish & a few more from the HMS Dorsetshire). The Musashi abosorbed a similar amount of punishment inflicted by roughly the same amount of aircraft.
If the Yamato & Musashi had been subjected to the same bombardment as the Bismarck, I believe they would have lasted much longer. Don't forget the Yamato had a auxiliary rudder system that allowed for her to steer if the main rudder was damaged. The Bismarck did not have one and paid the ultimate price for the designers lack of foresight.
There has been the argument that the hull structure of the Yamato was to rigid and this excaberated the effect of torpedo hit against the hull. This I believe to be true.