Iowa Class real performance

[Tiornu]

Yes, for a WWII setting, Bismarck's turrets are fairly secure against Iowa's guns at a range of 43,000 yards.

[ontheslipway]

And, at zero meters, Iowa's barrels can't rotate to Bismarcks turrets, due to obstruction of Bismarcks own turrets.

[Karl Heidenreich]

At the end, what I´m talking about is the following:
any artifact, tool or machine built can only be tested in the real situation which was the purpose of her design and building. Returning to my analogy of race cars: IF we know, via the specifications, which one is the best race car, then no competition is required. I remember that in 2003 the MacLaren Mercedes F-1 was regarded as the superior design in the pre-temp. But when the races begin that model never achieved any success (as a matter of fact there were plenty of times it didn´t even started on the grid). 2003 went Ferrari which, by her specifications, was not the superior car that year.
And a Battleship is a much bigger and complex machine than any fancy sports car. We know about Bismarck´s flaws because of what happened at DS and beyond.
So, which virtues or flaws would be evidenced if an Iowa got enganged in a battle against another equivalent BB? We will never know, because the ocasion never came.
The only moment would have been if, instead of stopping Yamato with naval air power, the USN send the BBs present (if a Iowa was present which I don´t know).
Bismarck, KGV, PoW, Warspite, South Dak, DoY, the Twins, North Cal, Hood, Kirishima, etc. etc. are the ships that had their "test"... Yamato or the Iowas didn´t had it, they as uncertain as the Spruce Goose...

Best regards

[yellowtail3]

I´ve always stated that there are two main new myths about battleships:
1. That Bismarck was a faulty design, not very well built that could not sustain itself against vessels like KGV Class, Richelieu, North Dak, South Cal or Iowa.

Oh, I don't know that Bismarck was faulty. She does have an out-sized reputation. Not faulty, but... somewhat inferior, in some aspects, to other nations' battleships. Better in some areas, worse in others. She was big, and some might say she accomplished less on more displacement.

2. That Iowa will defeat anything floating including Yamato with no sweat.

"no sweat" would be a stretch - unless it was a night/dusk/bad weather, where Yamato couldn't see Iowa, in which case she'd likely get perforated without accomplishing much in return. In daylight, both seeing each other... probably a close-run thing.

In both cases I strongly disagree.

Me, too - see above.

Bismarck was a very powerfull ship and so she show it in real combat, combat that could very well have ended in the sinking not only of Hood but also of PoW if Lutjens gave the the chance to Lindemann and Schneider.

Well... it could just as well have ended with Hood and PoW sinking both German ships, if you go down that route. I think the idea that Bismarck would have sunk PoW, if only Lutjens had allowed it... is extremely unlikely. How the heck would Bismark pull that off? PoW had broken off, was making smoke, and running at full throttle. She's roughly as fast as Bismarck - probably faster, considering Bismarck's bow was trimmed way down and a she has a boiler room leaking. PoW is making smoke, which will make her even hard to hit, esp. in a tail-chase. Bismarck has no substantial speed advantage over PoW, and the undamaged RN cruisers are certain to join in. PoW has a four-gun turret aft, the Bismarck has four guns forward... sounds like a recipe for burning a lot of fuel and ammo for unlikely worthwhile return. And if PoW sorts out her gun problems, she just might turn around and engage Bismarck - she did okay in the first few minutes at DS, didn't she?

Chances of Bismarck actually sinking PoW were pretty low - whatever comes right before zero, I'd say. Chances that such an attempt would turn out badly for Bismarck, were much higher.

[yellowtail3]

Bismarck, KGV, PoW, Warspite, South Dak, DoY, the Twins, North Cal, Hood, Kirishima, etc. etc. are the ships that had their "test"... Yamato or the Iowas didn´t had it, they as uncertain as the Spruce Goose...

that's silly. The Spruce Goose was flown (barely), and not considered practical or needed, considering military needs of the country. The Yamato & Iowas were both in service; the Iowas performed well, well enough that they were retained for fifty years. The Yamatos were capable ships, though not a very good use of Yen in terms of return. One might say the same of the Iowas - I'd trade one for three or four cruisers or a DesRon - but the diff was, the US could afford to operate the Iowas profitably; the Japanese couldn't make good use of Yamato & Musashi (but they were very pretty ships....)

[lwd]

.... We know about Bismarck´s flaws because of what happened at DS and beyond. ...

Do we really? While for instance the rudder arrangement can be regarded as a flaw it was an extremly unlikely hit that caused it. One simply can't plan for everything. On the otherhand apparenlty one hit form Rodney took out half of Bismarck's main armament. Was this another freak shot or was it due to a serious flaw? I know that I don't know and I suspect there's not enough evidence readliy available to tell.

[Thorsten Wahl]

Was this another freak shot or was it due to a serious flaw

mr Campbell on bord Rodney saw only 3 splashes out of a 5 gun salvo - maybe a double hit

[lwd]

Was this another freak shot or was it due to a serious flaw

mr Campbell on bord Rodney saw only 3 splashes out of a 5 gun salvo - maybe a double hit

Indeed that's a possibility. I think someone on this board has even posted that 2 hits were observed although that may have been deduced from the above. But even with 2 hits they would have had to have been quite close together. Possible but how likely? And if it did occur it just points to another problem with trying to judge whether or not something is a flaw based on a single data point especially when the details of that data point remain unclear.