Naval History Forums

That nazi battleship did put on quite a chase. The outcome in the end was a good one, otherwise she probably would have interfered with supplies to our friends the Brits, which would have furthered the nazi cause.

thank goodness she was impotent when they caught up with her...

yellowtail: some quarters, criticism of Lutjens is popular because practitioners think the Admiral cheated Bismarck out of greater glory - !if not fore Lutjuns, Bismarck would have sunk PoW and the RN cruisers, then wreaked havoc in the Atlantic, kept Hitler from Russia, and ....NAND... And...' ......

The assault by Hood & PoW caught Lutjens in a very risky situation that he was forced to deal with - he came under attack and had to fight it out - i.e. he had no choice in that matter. Once the British attack ended with Hood sunk and PoW in retreat the immediate risk to his two ships was over....

Karl, you mentioned that the Iowa had only sunk a trawler. To what do you attribute that? Was she... too slow to catch anything else? Were her guns insufficiently powerful to sink anything else? What?

Just be happy, that people have started, thanks to the contributers mentioned above, to reevaluate BS from mediocre to a very good design. (shrug) I think it was a pretty capable ship. I don't think that there's all that much diff between WW2 battleships as some folks thing. None of them were guara...

Fanboy? I'm not trying to impress you, Karl, and I don't know how to answer that 'time machines' crack - have you been drinking?

yellowtail: Exception... I think the South Dakotas were somewhat better ships, if we're measuring by the pound (or kilo) and they were a little smaller. Not a a great diff, but enough to make that exception... a notable exception. Otherwise.. when it comes to warships, guns, horsepower, and bank ac...

@yellowtail Why an eexception? They had neither the largest nor the most guns Which of the larger BB's proved it's ccapabilities againstso many other BB'S Regards Ede Exception... I think the South Dakotas were somewhat better ships, if we're measuring by the pound (or kilo) and they were a little ...

Ah.... that Washington. I was thinking of the Washington that was sinkex'd in the early 20s, one of the Colorados. That would have been an apt comparison to the Baden... and my money would be on that old Washington, too (assuming she was completed).

ede144 wrote:regards
ede

PS It might be strange for Americans, but more and bigger is not always better :-)

Well, regarding battleships, bigger generally is better; Bismarck & Tirpitz are an exception to that generality...

No, they aren't bogus, just that things are more complicated. I understand, alecsandros, and can appreciate that - but in fact, they're nowhere near as complicated as you're making them out to be. Most of us here are interested in this stuff - how hard, how far, how much, which shell is x percent b...

I posted the US EFF limit for comparsisons of armor penetration capabilities. THe British 14"/L45 could perforate 16.8" of armor at 20000 yards, while the US 14"/L50 - 15 inches of armor . Well... that oughta to be enough to prevent Tirpitz from shelling Manhatten! You're thinking al...

for comparison with US 14"/L50 and US 16"/L45 2240lbs: http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_United_States.htm Look at "US EFF", distance 20000 yards for all guns . I looked at it, though I'm not sure what to make of it. Is this explaining how the USN's 14"/50 AP...

would be BIsmarck, except she couldn't hold course due to gimpy stern I would greatly appreciate to know more about the meaning of "gimpy stern". Some kind of phrase or something meaningful?Thanks. Glad to clarify, as gimpy is meant to be descriptive. It means... injured, weakened, damage...

Leaving aside that prolly no 14"/45s hit... what does this tell you? That fourteen (and sixteen!) inch guns are weak reeds, or that a battleship can take a lot of punishment before sinking? It was more likely a problem with the shells. Older US shells tended to behave badly in high obliquity (...