Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:52 pm

Bgile:

Yamato didn't fight another battleship. Neither did Vanguard. You can say all you want about fighting bravely, which the Iowas also did under intense Kamikaze attack.
Again: Yamato didn't because the USN battleships never, ever, presented themselves to fight. It's like a boxer waiting on the arena for the opponent to show up. It's correct: Yamato never fought another battleship... because the USN unwillingness to risk one of theirs.

About heavy kamikazeattacks you are correct. But not like Bismarck fighting the Swordfishs alone or like Yamato against 300+ planes alone or almost alone, the Iowas were always part of a gigantic, disproportionate fleet in which barriers of fighters, barriers of AA destroyers and cruisers and hundreds of batteries from the CV with the battleships worked together. So, you cannot compare Yamato in his last mission, the only capital ship of it's minimal force, with an Iowa and the tens or hundreds of friendly escorting ships fighting together. The Iowas were never in risk of being sunk, just look at their casualties.

You need to balance your comparisons. The USN vs the IJN is like comparing the army forces in Europe with what the russians had to fought, was like a ride in the park.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships

Post by lwd » Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:52 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Bgile:

Perhaps you can show us what Yamato accomplished, apart from trying to sink some small carriers? When did she show her awesome power against another battleship?
Yamato was part, alongside her sistership Musashi, of the Japanese Force at Leyte Gulf. Both of them fought there and Yamato was heavily damaged whilst Musashi was sunk by 10+ torpedo hits and another equivalent number of bombs hitting directly on her.
Not sure what your point is but the above is incorrect. Mushashi never made it to Leyte Gulf.
Despite the damages Yamato carried on
What damage? According to Wikiat : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_b ... Leyte_Gulf
Yamato emerged from the battle without serious damage; only three near misses from bombs and seventeen casualties from strafing were suffered during the battle itself,
.... Everybody else agrees that there were misterious reasons that made Kurita disengage when having a good breakfast in front of him,
Not really.
.... But Yamato fought there against everything the USN put in front of her; if they have confront her with battleships the Yamato would have fought them.
And this is different from the Iowa's how?
And... Yamato's last mission, the Ten Icho Go, it fought against impossible odds going to the bottom with 2,000+ sailors. In that particular action Yamato would have fought whatever the USN decided to put in front of her: it was the USN decision not to send the battleships but to attack with carrier based planes. The Yamato, even if because it has no other choice, would have fought the battleships (many of them), again: it was the USN call not to.
And your point is?
Yamato went down fighting bravely, as Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Hood, PoW, Repulse, Barham, Kirishima, Fuso, Hiei, Roma, Johnson, Yorktown, Lexignton, etc. etc.
And your point is? Maybe that they were better ships because they got sunk?
And about Vanguard, she missed the war. The Iowas didn't, they were there. They didn't fought a surface action when there were chances for them.
Wrong again. They fought surface actions when they had the chance. The fact that they were never committed to action vs opposing battleships is hardly their fault.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships

Post by lwd » Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:55 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote: ... About heavy kamikazeattacks you are correct. But not like Bismarck fighting the Swordfishs alone
Iowa would probably been happy to engage a few swordfish all by themselves.
the Iowas were always part of a gigantic, disproportionate fleet in which barriers of fighters, barriers of AA destroyers and cruisers and hundreds of batteries from the CV with the battleships worked together.
Indeed that's called combined arms and it wins wars.
So, you cannot compare Yamato in his last mission, the only capital ship of it's minimal force, with an Iowa and the tens or hundreds of friendly escorting ships fighting together. The Iowas were never in risk of being sunk, just look at their casualties.

You need to balance your comparisons. The USN vs the IJN is like comparing the army forces in Europe with what the russians had to fought, was like a ride in the park.
But it's you who keep making the comparisons.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:27 pm

Lee,

Your capability for evasion is outstanding!
Mushashi never made it to Leyte Gulf.
Leyte Gulf is the name for the whole action and both ships were engaged in it AND YOU KNOW IT VERY WELL. You shift your definitions and contexts to fit your purposes:
In order for you not to misguide anybody else with your lawyer's chitchat the specific place in which both ships (and many others) were attacked was Sibuyan Sea... your word games do not work here, pal. As a matter of fact it only makes you look ridiculous.

For reference:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf

It's not navweaps but it works just fine.
What damage? According to Wikiat : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_b ... Leyte_Gulf


http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-f ... mato-k.htm

It was damaged, at least more than an Iowa ever got in combat (???)
.... Everybody else agrees that there were misterious reasons that made Kurita disengage when having a good breakfast in front of him,
Not really.
So you need to read some serious books on that particular battle, because besides your own admision of ignoring that Sibuyan Sea was part of it, then you are playing dumb, very dumb, with Kurita's decision and the potential outcome of him taking another course of action. Instead of wasting your time reading the comics of navweaps maybe you can read some serious book:

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Leyte-Gulf ... 814&sr=8-1

And this is different from the Iowa's how?
Yamato was there for surface action. The Iowas were never risked for one. Of course I asked from you the evidence of the Iowas battleship vs battleship actions, which you claimed there was in an earlier post, and you have avoided it with this smokescreen so typical of yours.

And your point is?
Have you forgot how to read? Read again, maybe is puzzling for someone as deceiving as you, a direct argument.

Iowa would probably been happy to engage a few swordfish all by themselves.
Non consequential. In 1941 the AA systems were of a kind totally obsolete for 1945. But you know, very well, what I am refering to and you are simply avoiding it, again you shift your definitions and contexts to fit your purposes.

Indeed that's called combined arms and it wins wars.
Non consequential again. We are talking individual battleship capabilities AND combat records and you came with one of your smokescreens which, by the way, I have pointed out in several ocassions refering to doctrine tendencies.

But it's you who keep making the comparisons.
The thread invites to comparisons. And when talking of the Iowas your friend Bgile came and made the comparison with Yamato. So, please, stop your decieving tactics.

And, please, answer the question I made earlier today.

Regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships

Post by Bgile » Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:41 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:You need to balance your comparisons. The USN vs the IJN is like comparing the army forces in Europe with what the russians had to fought, was like a ride in the park.
What comparison would meet with your approval? You seem to think that the USN didn't fight anything challenging in the whole war. You think Japanese ships are better, but defeating them doesn't count for anything. Kamikazes don't count for anything ... it was a walk in the park, right? From your point of view, the US just went to the Pacific and had a holiday, didn't lose any ships or sailors or soldiers, and waltzed through Europe and had a holiday there too. You kept saying US ships didn't fight surface actions and when I point out the Yamato didn't either, you bring up other things and imply that that somehow makes a difference. There are few people my age who's families didn't lose someone in that war, but let's face it ... you are so biased against US ships (and everything else) that you will find a way to make them insignificant in your mind no matter what the comparison.

I don't think this is the Bismarck forum so much as the anti US forum. Everything ranks above the USA in all respects here, not just from your point of view but most others here as well. I used to love discussions here because they were balanced, but I think you will soon get your wish and noone will post here who doesn't think the way you do.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:19 am

Bgile:

Again you are wrong. Never I have said that Japanese ships were better than the USN ones; I have said that Yamato Class was.

On the fighting of the USN, I have never implied such thing at least as you put it. From Pearl Harbor up to Guadalcanal and island landings the USN, the Marines and McArthur made a pretty good fight, having a specifc peak at Midway and then at Guadalancal where the fight was to death and decisive. That was not the case at Philipne Sea nor at Leyte: the US cannot lose the war then and the ships hardly faced a life or death scenario, specially the battleships.

On my bias you are wrong the third time. I like very much and love the US. But during the last three years I have been standing this "US is the only one that made a good ship, a good fighter and had the best of this and the best of that" from a certain and precise group of people. And you know what? After a little time in front of the computer you can check that during WWII USA did not have the best tanks, nor the best pilots, nor the best battleship. So what is wrong in making the point? You came forward at any opportunity to point out something that navweaps or Hogan"s Heroes say about the nazis or the japs.

And you know how much I do miss Ronald Reagan: someone that hates the US cannot miss Reagan, as a matter of fact is complety the opposite: I would like to see the enemies of the US in a smoking crater. The enemies of the US are my enemies.

But let's do the following, Bgile, just for the fairness of it: I will stop posting for a time. I think that this forum is very valuable to risk it to a "silence war". So, see you later.

Karl

PD By the way, it's never been personal, just business Michael.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships

Post by Bgile » Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:07 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:... But during the last three years I have been standing this "US is the only one that made a good ship, a good fighter and had the best of this and the best of that" from a certain and precise group of people.
I wonder who you are referring to. I've sure never said the above. I've only lately been trying to defend against the majority here who feel the USN is the worst, behind the Germans, British, Italians, and Japanese, at least with respect to battleships and their equipment. I suspect this extends to pretty much everything, except perhaps for the Italians and the French. When good performance is shown, such as penetration of Jean Bart's thick deck armor, it's just ASSUMED that it was because the armor was inferior. It's like that with everything. There is always a reason found to justify a low ranking. There is even one person who claims to think Iowa was just as vulnerable to instant destruction as Hood.

I'm a lot more out of place here than you are, Karl. Most of the posters here are closer to your point of view. Take every single characteristic of US fast battleships, and the posters here either believe Bismarck and Yamato and KGV and Littorio are at least as good and usually better. Every good characteristic of the US ships is either questioned or believed to be unimportant. It's become completely one sided and I'm tired of swiming upstream.

JtD
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships

Post by JtD » Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:51 am

So it was the US who never risked their modern BB's in surface action. Probably their fault to fight all over the Pacific instead of attacking the main IJN bases where Musashi and Yamato spent almost the entire war - safe for two or three occasions.

Tirpitz never fought an enemy BB in the entire war, must be proof that it sucked.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships

Post by lwd » Fri Oct 22, 2010 1:52 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Lee,
Your capability for evasion is outstanding!
What evasion?
...Leyte Gulf is the name for the whole action and both ships were engaged in it AND YOU KNOW IT VERY WELL.
Actually I've seen some variation on just what that term refers to but it's hardly worth argueing about.
You shift your definitions and contexts to fit your purposes:
Not really.
... It was damaged, at least more than an Iowa ever got in combat (???)
was it? Do near misses and 12.7mm bullets do more damage than 4.7" shells? And certainly Missouri took more being hit by a couple of kamikazes. And Wisconson was hit by a 152mm shell. And New Jersey also took a hit from a 4" gun and lost crew to an airburst. But it's not at all clear how this is relevant to anything.
.... Everybody else agrees that there were misterious reasons that made Kurita disengage when having a good breakfast in front of him,
Not really.
So you need to read some serious books on that particular battle, because besides your own admision of ignoring that Sibuyan Sea was part of it, then you are playing dumb, very dumb, with Kurita's decision and the potential outcome of him taking another course of action. Instead of wasting your time reading the comics of navweaps maybe you can read some serious book:
My reading is hardly going to correct inaccuracies of your statements. The problems with the statment above are your use of the terms "everyone" and "mysterious".
And this is different from the Iowa's how?
Yamato was there for surface action. The Iowas were never risked for one.
Niether correct or relevant as far as I can see. And of course there's Vangard which saw even less action than the Iowas so by your standard must be inferior to even SoDak.
Of course I asked from you the evidence of the Iowas battleship vs battleship actions, which you claimed there was in an earlier post, and you have avoided it with this smokescreen so typical of yours.
You really didn't think she'd engaged in other surface actions? OK. I'll use wiki as a quick reference I'm sure your various books have more details and are probably more accurate but this will give you a start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_( ... dmiral_Lee
During this action, Iowa helped sink the Japanese light cruiser Katori
It's also worth noteing that Iowa in reference to your comments about the US risking the Iowa that it spent some time guarding against a sortie by Tirpitz. See:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battles ... i.htm#bb61
and of course the Iowa and company were pulled back at the last minute from enageing the Northern force at Leyte in case they were needed vs the center force. Clearly it wasn't a lack of confidence that prevented them from engaging in more surface action it was lack of opertunity combined with luck and tactical/strategic errors. Of course that's hardly any different from most capital ships.
And your point is?
Have you forgot how to read? Read again, maybe is puzzling for someone as deceiving as you, a direct argument.
I can read. You just keep bringing up irrelevancies as far as I can tell.
Iowa would probably been happy to engage a few swordfish all by themselves.
Non consequential. In 1941 the AA systems were of a kind totally obsolete for 1945. But you know, very well, what I am refering to and you are simply avoiding it, again you shift your definitions and contexts to fit your purposes.
Make a silly statement and you can expect a response pointing it out either directly or indirectly.
Indeed that's called combined arms and it wins wars.
Non consequential again. We are talking individual battleship capabilities AND combat records and you came with one of your smokescreens which, by the way, I have pointed out in several ocassions refering to doctrine tendencies.
[/quote]
You are the one who keeps bringing irrelevancies into things and confounding capabilities with combat records. The point of this discussion was the former and while the latter may give some clues your over dependence on it weakens your arguments to the point of making them irrelevant.
But it's you who keep making the comparisons.
The thread invites to comparisons. And when talking of the Iowas your friend Bgile came and made the comparison with Yamato. So, please, stop your decieving tactics.
[/quote]
Perhaps I should have said you keep making comparisons that are superficial or irrelevant. The fact that Iowa or for that matter Vangard or Yamato didn't see surface action vs other battleships implies exactly 0 as for their capability to do so. Indeed if it was action vs other battleships that is the indicator of the "best battleship" then we likely end up with WWI battleships at the top of the list.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships

Post by lwd » Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:04 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote: ... But during the last three years I have been standing this "US is the only one that made a good ship, a good fighter and had the best of this and the best of that" from a certain and precise group of people.
Who? I certainly haven't seen anyone saying that. But then we've come to expect strawmen like this from you.
And you know what? After a little time in front of the computer you can check that during WWII USA did not have the best tanks, nor the best pilots, nor the best battleship.
That's clearly debateable. In part because exactly what defines "best" is unclear or in dispute.
So what is wrong in making the point?
It's the fact that the points you try to make are either debateable or wrong. Let's take an example from the above. You say the US didn't have the best tanks correct? In that case what tank existant at that time would have doen a better job for the US in WWII? I.e. I'm defining best as most useful to the US in defeating the axis. Or if you want to go with direct stats who produced a better light tank than the US during WWII? The same can be said of battleships. Who produced a more useful battleship than the US in world war 2? I can even open this up to useful to any of the participating countries and I don't think the answer will change.
You came forward at any opportunity to point out something that navweaps or Hogan"s Heroes say about the nazis or the japs.
....
I don't know what you have against navweapons other than it often refutes your points. As has been said many times it is hardly the last word but it's a good place to start and I've yet to see anything from you that brings that into question yet you keep complaining about it.

Post Reply