All myths solved

[Tiornu]

I wonder whether the technology exists to vacuum the mud away from part of the turret.

Sounds iffy. Vacuum too much, and the turret shifts and crushes your vacuum.
How about something like the Glomar Explorer? Unfortunately, Hughes is dead, which means there's no one crazy enough to try it.

[VeenenbergR]

Bismarck had a relative powerful and modern AA-defense for 1941 and the 4 Gyro stbilzed AA-directors are both an effective device and give 7 out of 10 German capital ships a modern appearance.

Weak points were that on Bismarck no intensive training was held with dummy aircraft attacks in the home-waters, so that the shortcomings of the specific AA-guns, AA-directors, the defense concept, were not thorouhly tested.

The Swordfish attacks which materialized came as a nasty surprise and more than that: they doomed Bismarck.

In the movie about the destruction of the Yamato I was struck by the inefficient defence, the unpractical handling of the triple 25 mm guns (one man did the rotation, the other the elevation). 50 huns x 3 x 220 shells per minute were pure fiction!!!
In most minutes of the 2 hours of lethal attacks the Yamato didn't respond at all. When the huge battleship was struck by some torpedo's almost inmediatley the ship took a list of 7 degrees to port, which seriously hindered the handling of the many AA-guns.

Strafing of aicraft resultet in heavy and bloody casulaties, the empty shells in the AA-pits hindered the crew, ammunition resupply was a deadly and almost impossible under heavy air attacks.

Yamato was only effective in the first 15 minutes of barrages when the ship had no list, the defences were coordinated, the crews were still complete and havoc had not set in. After 15 minutes of attack the whole defence collapsed under murderous (criminal?) air attacks killing hundreds of AA-crews and destroying dozens of AA-guns.

The air attacks were very efficient. Destroying 1 super battleship, 1 modern cruiser and 5 destropyers at the cost of only 10 aircraft destroyed.

The Japanese lost 36 capital ships in 7 phases:

1942: Coral Sea: 1 ship (naval air)
Midway: 5 ships (naval air)
Salomons: 6 ships (naval air & naval action)
1944: Phillipine Sea: 3 ships (submarines, naval air)
Leyte: 13 ships in 4 succesive actions (subs, naval air, naval
action and again naval air)
1945: Yamato's last sortie: 1 ship (naval air)
Port bombing: 7 ships in 3 succesive actions (strategic air)

In between during 1944 and 1945 11 individual ships became victim of submarine and other actions.
Most ships went down with heavy casulaties!!!! Of Yamato only 269 were rescued out of 3300 men.

It strikes me that all Axis ships were so defenceless against air and submarine attacks (Japanese, Italians) and so many went down with so many casualties. In the case of the Bismarck and Scharnhorst with roughly 2000+/- men, 1500 jumped in the sea of which 1400 drowned because the victors sailed away: enemy destroyed, job done.

On the bottom the Bismarck is relatively intact, showing some damage, everybody still banned in her myth; Scharnhorst and Yamato however torn by heavy explosions (munition storage) in many separate parts, showing heavy damage but forgotten by the world.

And that after so many heroic hours of battle.......sunk, abandoned and forgotten.

In this respect Bismarck still lives.... the imagination survived. Ok each of those 2000 killed young men is forgotten now. Commander Oels.... Lindemann, Lütjens.... only the Baron has still a face.

I feel sad about their destiny, so many spoiled lives. Betrayed by Ultra, betrayed by their knowing commanders, their country and in the water also by their enemies. Died and sacrified for what??????????

[lwd]

Bismarck had a relative powerful and modern AA-defense for 1941 ...

Which raises the question relative to what? If we look at other BBs commishioned in 40 or 41 we get the following (I've tried to list the AA suite as commishioned.
Bismark
16 -10.5 cm
16 - 3.7 cm
20 - 2cm
KGV
16 - 5.25"
64 - 4cm
South Dakota class
20(16) - 5" ~125mm South Dakota only had 16 rest of class 20
24 - 40mm
16 - 20mm
North Carolina
20 5"
16 - 28mm
Richelieu
12 - 100mm
12 - 37mm
? - 13.2mm
(Jean Bart - not commishioned
24 x 100mm
8 - 40mm
28 - 57mm
20 - 20mm)
Vittorio Veneto (not sure these are as built numbers)
12 - 90 mm (AA)
40 - 37 mm
60 - 20 mm
Looks to me like Bismark's AA suite isn't as powerful as KGV or the US BBs. It is more powerful than Richelieus and it's heavy AA is more powerful than VVs although the latter has a more powerful light AA suite. Take a look at http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_aa.htm for an evalutation of AA suites.

...
In the movie about the destruction of the Yamato I was struck by the inefficient defence,

Be careful about depending on movies for history. That said Yamato was overwhelmed. The Japanese also had some problems with thier AA guns especially their early war ones. See http://www.combinedfleet.com/25_60.htm for some details.

50 huns x 3 x 220 shells per minute were pure fiction!!!

huns?

In most minutes of the 2 hours of lethal attacks the Yamato didn't respond at all. When the huge battleship was struck by some torpedo's almost inmediatley the ship took a list of 7 degrees to port, which seriously hindered the handling of the many AA-guns.

At least according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_b ... ion_Ten-Go
she took 3 torpedo hits very close together possibly in areas not protected by her TDS. Late war US arial torpedos also packed considerably more punch than early war British ones.

...After 15 minutes of attack the whole defence collapsed under murderous (criminal?) air attacks

If you are going to make claims like that be prepaired to back them up or be labled a troll.

....
It strikes me that all Axis ships were so defenceless against air and submarine attacks (Japanese, Italians) ...

I'm not sure that's verifiable. The US and British lost a fair number of subs and planes attacking axis ships. Late in the war the US especially was able to launch huge raids that simply overwhelmed any possible defence. I'm doubt any ship at of WWII could sufvive an attack by several hundred USN planes. The possible exception would be one with plenty of late war escorts equipped with radar controled guns and proximaty fuzed rounds.

....drowned because the victors sailed away: enemy destroyed, job done.

That's rather misleading and similar events happened on both sides.

... everybody still banned in her myth ...

????

Scharnhorst and Yamato ... but forgotten by the world.

And that after so many heroic hours of battle.......sunk, abandoned and forgotten.

Hardly. Yamato may actually be more famous than Bismark and certainly the twins can hardly be classed as forgotten.

[Bgile]

Bismarck had 20 2cm guns as commissioned?

I believe her 3.7cm were single shot weapons, so hardly counted, whereas the 4cm bofors on the US ships were fully automatic water cooled guns with a very high rate of fire.

A gun with a separate pointer and trainer was common in all navies for local control. In the US case each 40mm mount had it's own separate remote lead computing director which normally controlled the gun under rpc.

[VeenenbergR]

Sorry for the bad spelling Iwd. "huns" must be "guns" of coarse.

Now my point is simply that Axis battleships performed worse than Allied battleship under similar circumstances if looking at their AA defences.

Bismarck and Tirpitz were not succesful in warding off a couple of air attacks during the war: Tirpitz evaded the Swordfish attack in 1942, but got severely damaged during the Barracuda attack in 1944. Bismarck could not stop the not too heavy air attacks from Victorious and Ark Royal.

In the Channel Prinz Eugen and "the Sisters" WERE succesful in stopping many air attacks, but did so with the rare help of a very good organized Luftwaffe.

The Italian Vittorio's were attacked several times and got torpedoed by the same Swordfishes in the Med. The only succes was that they managed to limp back to port.

The Japanese were not able to stop any air attack directed against them: the Shoho in the Coral Sea; the Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, Soryu, Mikuma near Midway; the Ryujo, Hiei near the Salomons; the Hiyo in the Phillipine Sea; the Musashi, Chokai, Chikuma, Sozuya, Zuikaku, Zuiho, Chiyoda, Chitose near the Phillipines; Yamato near Okinawa.

Only the Kumano was able to avade for 30 days all air attacks against this superb cruiser.

All overwhelmed as you state? It simply can't be true.

The Axis also carried out lots of air attacks around Norway in 1940, the Mediterranean 1941 and 1942, in the Aegean Sea in 1943, for the Italian Coast in 1943 and 1944, over Krohnstadt in 1941, the Black Sea 1942, naer Malaya 1941, the Phillipines 1941/ 1942, 1942 and near Ceylon in 1942.

They only achieved "moderate" results. Axis submarines DID achieve some fine results but during Weserübung they missed too many chances to kill a lot of British ships.

Enigma, Ultra, Radar??? Ok most Axis plans were known. The sorties of the Bismarck, the Scharnhorst, Axis convoys to Africa, almost all Japanese operations, notably Midway were deciphered and known to the Allies which could set their deadly traps. No crippling surprise attacks for the Axis during the first half of the war. In the 2nd half the Allies got so strong that the Axis forces were completely overwhelmed and with devasting results and huge losses in manpower.

AA fire was effective or ineffective depending on the number of AA-guns, the ROF of the guns and the technical devices to aim the guns.

The German 3,7 had a low ROF. The 8,8 and 10,5 were very good, the 20 mm vierling effective, the 20 mm single rather ineffective. The technical devices were good to very good.
Later in the war the Prinz Eugen changed 3,7 cm AA for 4 cm Bofors, which was a huge improvement!!!

The Japanese 13 and 25 mm's were good, but their rotation too slow to keep in pace with fast flying aircraft. Their 5 inch AA was a DP gun with a low ROF but good performance. Their technical devices were sufficient.

The British used 8 barrelled Pom Poms and 4 & 5 inch AA DP guns. These performed well and had a good to very good technical support.

The USA used quadruple 40 mm guns and 5 inch AA DP guns. These were very good to excellent and had a superb technical support.

Alltogether Axis ships mostly had to fight on their own if attacked, while Allied ships grouped together to give as much firepower as possible.

The latter tactics were quite succesful. Of coarse the Allied navies had plenty of warships.

US planes were very strong and rubust, difficult to down. Axis planes were more fragile and easier to shoot down.

[lwd]

Sorry for the bad spelling Iwd. "huns" must be "guns" of coarse.

I tend not to call people on spelling/typing errors. I make way to many myself and since a lot of people on these forums are not native English speakers I have far less excuse. However in this case I just couldn't figure out what you meant. I'm not normally that dense (at least I hope not). Thanks for the clarification.

Now my point is simply that Axis battleships performed worse than Allied battleship under similar circumstances if looking at their AA defences.
...
In the Channel Prinz Eugen and "the Sisters" WERE succesful in stopping many air attacks, but did so with the rare help of a very good organized Luftwaffe.

CAP seams to be a common theme in most successful AA defences during WWII but so does the density of the attack. Axis BBs typically faced greater numbers with little or no CAP.

.
The Japanese were not able to stop any air attack directed against them: ...

I seam to recall reading a number of cases where they did succeed. In several of the above cases they faced large numbers of attackers and/or were surprised or had breakdowns in their defence. The allies got vary good at making use of radar information something the axis seamed to have had problems with.

.... No crippling surprise attacks for the Axis during the first half of the war.

Some would put Peal Harbor in that class.

...
The Japanese 13 and 25 mm's were good, but their rotation too slow to keep in pace with fast flying aircraft.

Form what I've read they had sustained rate of fire problems.

...
US planes were very strong and rubust, difficult to down. Axis planes were more fragile and easier to shoot down.

I thought German planes were also fairly robust. Late war Japanese planes also got a lot tougher although numbers and pilot quality were problems by then.

[yellowtail3]

About the rudder arragement: Which WWII (or contemporary BBs) had a rudder arragement that would have prevented a similar situation if hit by a torpedo as Bismarck was?

North Carolina, Washington, Massachusetts, Indiana, South Dakota, Alabama, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and New Jersey.

This is old, but I'm enjoying it and want to comment:

Don't agree with lists which rank older (but modernized) battleships higher than modern battleships. ... The british used their 3 modernized old batteships with great vigor and slaughtered the modern big German Z-Jäger nar Narvik and the heavy armoured beautiful Zara heavy cruisers at Matapan.

All of the US battleships modernized after 1930 or so, had updates comparable to the modernized Queen Elizabeths. Those USN's ships all had more armor, and comparable or better armament. And the unmodernized ones - California, Tennessee, Maryland, Colorado, West Virginia - were comparable to Rodney and Nelson, being commissioned at about that time. All were far more capable that Scharnhorst & Gniesenau in all areas but speed.

Back to the ranking: ...Second the 6 modern battlecruisers. Each of them in battle inderior to the modern battleships. ...Fifth come all old and slightly modernized battleships.

none of the standards rebuilt in the 30s were 'slightly' modernized - they were throughly updated. The 'battlecruisers' you mention were all inferior to the modernized Standards in all areas, excepting speed. Hood had an good main armament, if only she could keep from blowing up. And I suspect her fire control equipment was inferior to that on the modernized Standards, but I could be wrong on that. Probably not.

[Karl Heidenreich]

North Carolina, Washington, Massachusetts, Indiana, South Dakota, Alabama, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and New Jersey.

Not a single author or expert will agree with that.

[lwd]

North Carolina, Washington, Massachusetts, Indiana, South Dakota, Alabama, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and New Jersey.

Not a single author or expert will agree with that.

There you go again. Such all inclusive statements are almost guaranteed to be wrong. Indeed within this very thread you are proven wrong even if you have an at worse arguable point.

[yellowtail3]

North Carolina, Washington, Massachusetts, Indiana, South Dakota, Alabama, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and New Jersey.

Not a single author or expert will agree with that.

That's silly. I'm an expert, and I agree with me. Further, I'll expand on why I mentioned those, apart from expecting you'd react like you did:

all those ships named have four screws. They all have broad fantails, with two rudders, with outboard shafts widely separated. Four of them have their inboard screws protected by skegs of outboard screws. With shafts one and four widely separated, it is more likely they'll be able to steer better with screws than Bismarck could. JUST TO BE CLEAR: none of the above should be construed to be guarantees that the named ships wouldn't be disabled by a hit like Bismarck took.... just that their stern structures were better-designed and more likely to be more damage-resistant than that of Bismarck (or Tirpitz, or Scharnhorst, or Gniesenau...).

let me what I've gotten wrong.... ?

[RF]

Weak points were that on Bismarck no intensive training was held with dummy aircraft attacks in the home-waters, so that the shortcomings of the specific AA-guns, AA-directors, the defense concept, were not thorouhly tested.

This is something that Hitler should have raised with Lutjens and then Raeder on occassion of his visit to Bismarck.

[Karl Heidenreich]

That's silly. I'm an expert, and I agree with me.

You are an idiot, that´s what you are. Friedman is an expert, you are an provocating troll.

[Karl Heidenreich]

lwd:

Are you happy to have a waggin dog here with you now?

[yellowtail3]

That's silly. I'm an expert, and I agree with me.

You are an idiot, that´s what you are. Friedman is an expert, you are an provocating troll.

Apparently, Karl, you're easy to provoke. But you're being unkind, Karl, along with unfair and inaccurate - I've not trolled. I provided a substantial post on how I thought the four-screw setup on some ships was superior to a 3-screw, two-rudder setup in terms of damage resistance - and that was something you asked for. I provided some details, which you were welcome to discuss. here they are again:

all those ships named have four screws. They all have broad fantails, with two rudders, with outboard shafts widely separated. Four of them have their inboard screws protected by skegs of outboard screws. With shafts one and four widely separated, it is more likely they'll be able to steer better with screws than Bismarck could. JUST TO BE CLEAR: none of the above should be construed to be guarantees that the named ships wouldn't be disabled by a hit like Bismarck took.... just that their stern structures were better-designed and more likely to be more damage-resistant than that of Bismarck (or Tirpitz, or Scharnhorst, or Gniesenau...)

Rather than acknowledge that post - critiquing its conten? - you've told me I'm an idiot. What was idiotic about my post?

I'm of the opinion that discussion (& civility) are best served by sticking to issues/points discussed, rather than personal attack & contemptuous dismissal - don't you think so?

[Legend]

Apparently, Karl, you're easy to provoke. But you're being unkind, Karl, along with unfair and inaccurate - I've not trolled.

Karl is actually one of our more senior members and one of the few that has donated anything to the site, besides information of course.

And I hate to admit it... but yes you have trolled... posting nonstop.