Bismarck construction flaws

[ede144]

If one can asume that the artillery capabilities are similarover all ships, than we have only one occasion were we could compare KM and Us Navy. IT WAS THE shooting exere of PG of Baltimore. Paul Schmalenbach mentioned it in his book: shooting exercise with the forward turret group aborded after 5 salvos. Target disc could not seen anymoe.
Somewhere in net. I read that the Us Navy cruiser did need much more salvos. So I Believe that the Us Navy is often over estimated

Regards
Ede

[Karl Heidenreich]

ede144:

So I Believe that the Us Navy is often over estimated

Quite correct, more than that even. In that regard there is a comment from a forum member called Tiornu (who has written some books on naval topics, some of which I have the honor of having in my library) that goes this way:

If there is a need to differentiate between American and Japanese battleships, there is one characteristic comparison that eclipses all others, and it can be expressed in this way: 27-12.

The US Navy won WWII, as the US and it's allies did in land and air, due to numerical and industrial superiority. On a 1 to 1 analysis, in men, tanks, subs, battleships, fighters, pilots, etc. the axis were by far more efficient and deadly. Bismarck was sunk because it was hunted by a complete fleet of battleships, battlecruisers, aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers. All those resources would not have been available then Bismarck would have done it to France.
Another inconvinient truth: haven't South Dakota at Guadalacanal have not been with USS Washington and fighting an aging "modernized" 14" HE armed Kirishima and Iron Bottom Sound would have had a US battleship at the bottom.

Over estimated? Of course.

[Byron Angel]

Good Lord, not this again ..........

B

[Karl Heidenreich]

Byron:

Good Lord, not this again ..........

Oh, I'm so sorry, I forgot that there are some with the monopoly of truth and historic manipulation and do not like to hear or consider otherwise. Sorry!

[alecsandros]

Good Lord, not this again ..........

B

[RF]

I'm curious what the improvements would be?

It's too late now, but if I were asked then... I'd say, replace that secondary with a battery of 5"/38s, install a 16" main battery, tuck in a more efficient 600 pound steam plant and paint over that unsightly swastika on the fantail - but keep everything else.

This has been discussed on this site over numerous threads in the last few years.

Basically - improved AA weaponry and fire control, use of DP secondary battery rather than separate secondary and tertiary batteries, putting the main armament into triple turrets etc etc

[RF]

And of course, development of high powered diesel engines for battleships.

[yellowtail3]

Karl was so exercised, he quoted hisself!

Quite correct, more than that even. In that regard there is a comment from a forum member called Tiornu (who has written some books on naval topics, some of which I have the honor of having in my library) that goes this way:

If there is a need to differentiate between American and Japanese battleships, there is one characteristic comparison that eclipses all others, and it can be expressed in this way: 27-12.

What's that, the number of battleships in commission in USN/IJN at some point? I'd be curious as to how Tiornu would use that number to differentiate between US/Japanese ships. What is the conclusion we're supposed to draw from those numbers, other than Japan had no business going to war against the largest economy in the world? How does this have bearing on relative merits of those ships? If his point is that IJN battleships were superior in all ways but numbers... then he's be wrong. Perhaps he will chime in.

The US Navy won WWII, as the US and it's allies did in land and air, due to numerical and industrial superiority.

Well, that... and techological innovation, and intelligent battle doctrine. Plus, we weren't busy slaughting five millions Poles and uncounted Russian civilians.

On a 1 to 1 analysis, in men, tanks, subs, battleships, fighters, pilots, etc. the axis were by far more efficient and deadly.

Simplistic balony, that is. Start a thread on each of those, and I'll take some of them apart for you, Karl.

Let me shoot down one of those right now: pilots. Back in those days, after war cranked up, pilot training was a mass-production affair, nothing like what we have these days. Pilot effectiveness in combat aircraft is usually related to a few things: training, experience and proper tactics/doctrine. The USAAF (and USN) were pretty good at those, and got better at time went on. For decades the Zero had an outsized reputation as Super Fighter, when in fact... it wasn't, when countered by proper tactics.

But you go ahead and start threads on the above subjects, Karl, and I'll help to school you.

Another inconvinient truth: haven't South Dakota at Guadalacanal have not been with USS Washington and fighting an aging "modernized" 14" HE armed Kirishima and Iron Bottom Sound would have had a US battleship at the bottom.

Possibly, esp had South Dakota been alone. On the other hand... when she was in worst shape, torpedoes being shot at her and being shelled... she could have opened throttles and headed 180 away from trouble, and prob would have escaped thataway. HERE IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION: how is this an 'inconvenient truth'? I'm thinking you've got a strawman you're hacking away at...

[Rick Rather]

Did anyone else notice that he postulated if South Dakota had been alone, but not if Washington had been alone? Of course, if the latter, then the historical outcome would not have changed (other than BB-56 having a couple dozen more dings). And he complains about "historic manipulation"...

I also noticed that he tried to use the US superiority in number of battleships as relevant to US victory, when they only faced-off against Japanese BBs twice, and the second time was an intentional sacrifice against a known superior force. What's really funny is that he posted this almost 70 years to the day after 7 Japanese battleships ran like a buch of screaming little girls from two depleted carriers and a handful of "over-rated" cruisers.

Of course, he also neglected to mention those surface actions where Japanese battleships faced American forces without battleships and wound-up aborting their missions and withdrawing...

[alecsandros]

Did anyone else notice that he postulated if South Dakota had been alone, but not if Washington had been alone? Of course, if the latter, then the historical outcome would not have changed (other than BB-56 having a couple dozen more dings). And he complains about "historic manipulation"...

Well, to be fair South Dakota absorbed the attention of the Japanese. And their gunfire.

If it wasn't for her, Washington would probably have been discovered and targeted.

[alecsandros]

Of course, he also neglected to mention those surface actions where Japanese battleships faced American forces without battleships and wound-up aborting their missions and withdrawing...

Indeed,
Yet it is quite clear that US Pacific victory came mainly because of the overwhelming number of units available, and dubious mistakes on the Japanese part.

Also, the 12 "battleships" IJN used during WW2 were in fact 4 old battlecruisers, fancifuuly re-labeled "battleships" after reconstruciton work done in the 30s; 4 WW1 era reconstructed battleships, 2 treaty battleships (Nagato, Mutsu), and only 2 modern battleships (Yamato class)

Thus, only 4 could count in a realistic battleship-to-battleship engagement...

[paulcadogan]

2 treaty battleships (Nagato, Mutsu)

Nagato & Mutsu were not "treaty battleships" having been completed in 1920 and 21 respectively. The only modern battleships were therefore Yamato & Musashi. But the US "line" was full of WW1-era reconstructions too.

[Dave Saxton]

Setting aside politics I think Karl has a point about South Dakota being in a bad way. This was the consensus of the US command on the scene, especially Admiral Lee. Karl is right about the SD being probably sunk if not for an undamaged and untargeted BB56 being there to bail it out, by the simple fact that Kondo still had more than enough Long Lances left over to do the job. BB57 was quite uncapable of defending itself at that point; being "deaf, dumb, blind,"- and as it turns out toothless.

This tangent to the thread stems from the fact that it was pointed out that modern fire control with radar in a brand new ship still didn't provide hits for Gatch and his crew during the entire battle, despite what they thought they saw, just as the Bismarck's modern firecontrol in a brand new, albeit crippled ship with a spent crew, didn't score any direct hits from straddles in its last battle, before being overhwelmed by the combined firepower of four enemy heavy ships. SD didn't hit anything in the entire GC II battle, even before it was overwhelmed by the problems of its own making and early hits by Kirishima and company.

What can be drawn from the facts of equally fully modern battleships having a bad time? Nothing, except that sometimes you score straddles without scoring hits, and lady luck among the circumstances isn't yours, just as if a sports team wins one day and looses the next day.

[alecsandros]

SD space was extremely cramped, as written by Friedman. The ship was to short to accomodate more space for men and equipment.

Structural problems existed also, again, mentioned by Friedman.
Excessive vibration at high speedds is also to be mentioned.

[yellowtail3]

SD space was extremely cramped, as written by Friedman. The ship was to short to accomodate more space for men and equipment.

The point of which is... what?
Have you ever been aboard Massachusetts or Alabama?