Author Topic: Yamato BB. (Read 1722 times)

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #75 on:** September 12, 2002, 06:14:32 PM »

OK I know I am gonna be wrong, as usual, but didnt the Yamato take something like 24 bombhits and 6 or 8 fish before going under?

And, are 24 bomb hits really a lot, if you compared that to the absolute mauling the Bismark took before the Germans scuttled her?

I'm pretty much here to learn, not add to the debate, so...thanks!:rolleyes:

palef · « **Reply #76 on:** September 12, 2002, 07:23:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Red Tail 444
OK I know I am gonna be wrong, as usual, but didnt the Yamato take something like 24 bombhits and 6 or 8 fish before going under?

And, are 24 bomb hits really a lot, if you compared that to the absolute mauling the Bismark took before the Germans scuttled her?

I'm pretty much here to learn, not add to the debate, so...thanks!:rolleyes:

I think you'll find that the qualitative improvements in weaponry and delivery systems were fairly substantial from 1941 to 1944-45.

The Bismarck engagement was made with pre-war Capital Ship engagement doctrine in mind and aircraft were almost an after thought, even though the telling blow that lead to her demise was delivered by an aircraft.

By 1944-45 aircraft bombs came in AP and HE formats for large targets and revised Capital ship doctrine meant that the BBs avoided each other, and were used largely for Shore Bombardment.

The weapons used against the Yamato and Musashi were designed to kill a large armoured platform, where the 1941 equivalents were much more generic in design.

palef.

Angus · « **Reply #77 on:** September 13, 2002, 04:39:24 AM »

The Bismarck took about 700 hits from various calibers and maybe a torp or two before she went down.
An examination of the wreck revealed that it did not really matter whether the crew had tried to scuttle her or not, she was really shot up really bad. Still, that's one heck of a pounding...
I wonder what the Scarnhost and Gneisenau took... anyone?

hyena426 · « **Reply #78 on:** September 15, 2002, 03:16:19 PM »

bismark took more than a few torpedos, and a lot of shell shots,,but what i can remmeber of what i seen of the reck underwater she in pretty good shape,,,and lots of people say looks like it can still float,,,all the turrets fell off on the way down,,and germans say they scuttled it,,and british say they sunk it. im not sure which one but i know it would of went down anyways it was way out numberd in that battle and rudder being stuck in a turn dont help much.and its 15inch guns could load faster than usa's 16 inchers and had just the same punch and range. very deadly ship in its time

Thud · « **Reply #79 on:** September 16, 2002, 05:17:38 PM »

Well she may have been very deadly, but I can't help wonder why she was predominantly defeated by a much older battleship. During the final battle the Rodney almost singlehandly shot the Bismarck up, especially since the King GV was suffering from the same teething problems that had rendered the Prince of Wales virtually useless in the earlier battle. And all that considering that the Bismarck had retained all but her full battle capability (apart from manouevrability of course.

So how come a Nelson class vessel could perform so well against a much more modern enemy?

hyena426 · « **Reply #80 on:** September 16, 2002, 05:50:39 PM »

ever play fighting steel?,,,,play that senario with bismarks final moments,,,and you will see why,,had half the british fleet on her,,no ship can stand up too 800 shells and dozens of torpedos,,and plus they attacked her from behind at first,,so she couldnt use all her main guns,,till they picked her apart,,a battle ship that cant turn is dead

hyena426 · « **Reply #81 on:** September 16, 2002, 05:55:22 PM »

and the hms rodney wasnt a joke,,or old ship!!,,she was british newist battle wagon,,,and top of the line tech,,with escorts ca's,,dd's,,,bc's,,,there was no way one battle wagon could fight that off,,not even yamato would of survived that onslaught or any othere battle wagon

palef · « **Reply #82 on:** September 16, 2002, 06:13:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thud
Well she may have been very deadly, but I can't help wonder why she was predominantly defeated by a much older battleship. During the final battle the Rodney almost singlehandly shot the Bismarck up, especially since the King GV was suffering from the same teething problems that had rendered the Prince of Wales virtually useless in the earlier battle. And all that considering that the Bismarck had retained all but her full battle capability (apart from manouevrability of course.

So how come a Nelson class vessel could perform so well against a much more modern enemy?

My Grandfather served on the Nelson, and they were tremendously battle worthy as a class. The Nelson was torpedoed twice in the early part of the Med. campaign, and sailed back to Porstmouth with a large part of it's bow missing on one occasion.

The biggest disadvantage the Rodney and Nelson suffered was a comparatively underpowered propulsion system which left them a full 10knots slower that KGV class BB. According to my grandfather, they never attained the rated speed during sea trials, so the differential may have been greater than 10knots.

For a couple of Capital ships that were supposedly nobbled by post WW1 treaty limitations, they performed sterling service throughout WW2. It is also worthwhile to remember that the RN had a great deal of pride in their tradition, and at the start of WW2 they probably enjoyed operational primacy over their oppponents.

palef.

hyena426 · « **Reply #83 on:** September 16, 2002, 08:12:12 PM »

i heard they were good battle wagons,,,ahead of there time in bulkhead and water tight design,,and the 3 turrets up front was kinda diffrent,,they were suposta be the best british had to offer during the peace time treaty restrictions,,but they were a little underpowerd,,made it up in firepower and armor

Hobodog · « **Reply #84 on:** September 17, 2002, 09:43:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Wonder what kind of fire control the Yamato had.
I know that the Germans had a good system aided by radar, somewhat better than the British had, however the Brits trained extensively at sea, and managed to keep an excellent record at hitting things far out.
The Bismarck did not have so bad odds when it faced Rodney/Nelson. While the Bismarck was damaged and thereby not able to maneuver, the british ship was a lot slower. They approached roughly head on, both firing, and this time the Brits were the ones to score the first hit. The British ship was a lot smaller and not so well armoured, however armed with 9 16 inch gun all on the foredeck, so posing quite a threat. The Germans therefore directed their fire onto it, trying to knock it out as soon as possible.
The Bismarck was tough, - it was estimated that it took more than 700 hits of various calibers:eek:
Another engagement was HMS Belfast vs Scharnhorst (or was it Gneisenau). While Belfast was only a cruiser armed with 6 inch guns, the Brits were the first to score hits and totally fix their aim on their target while the Germans did not. The battleship had to evade against the enemy who was only about 1/4th of their size!!
The world record against a moving target was scored by the HMS Warspite at cape Matapan in an engagement against the Italian navy. The WWI veteran managed to slam one of its 15 inch shells into one of the italian ships at the stunning range of 26 km!!!!
I wonder if the 18 inch guns were any better. The Americans were happy about their 16 inch guns, the British and Germans mostly kept to the 15 inch guns, and the King George class only had 13 inch guns, - Scharnhorst/Gneisenau 11 inch guns, as well as the three "pocket" battleships of the Krigsmarine.
The smaller calibre meant lighter projectiles of course, but a greater rate of fire. The 11 inch guns were quite fast!
And in an engagement of battleships, the one who manages to get a fix on his target sooner is most usually the winner.
In a slugout between Yamato/Bismarck/King George/Iowa I would not necessarily put my money on the Yamato. Depends on aim, luck and tactics. But shelling a field in AH, I'd sure wanna have it:D
Come to think of it, - AH could do with a little more navy stuff. Would be heaps of fun!

What fire control? Is the answer to your first question. Also the American rolled homogenous armor was of MUCH higher quality than the Japanese armor. The Germans was good also.

Check this out!!!!!

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #85 on:** September 18, 2002, 02:24:45 PM »

The Bismark lost it's firing control system for the forward two turrets within the first 15 minutes of battle. That's 50% of her firepower.

However, her fate was sealed when the torpedo froze her rudders into position. Even with 100% firepower, she cant hit ehat she couldnt range.

Gainsie

hyena426 · « **Reply #86 on:** September 18, 2002, 02:30:49 PM »

germans had the best fire controll on there guns,,,usa had best radar at the time,,japanies were best at night fighting,,they all had there good and bad,,british ships were good all around,,under armored a little but good ships no dout

Sakai · « **Reply #87 on:** September 18, 2002, 03:43:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hyena426
germans had the best fire controll on there guns,,,usa had best radar at the time,,japanies were best at night fighting,,they all had there good and bad,,british ships were good all around,,under armored a little but good ships no dout

Actually, US BBs had computer controlled main armaments and they were deadly. The Iowa class is considered by some to have been the deadliest built for that very reason. Japanese heavies that engaged even older us Warships commented on the rate of fire and accuracy of our ships. I doubt German ships were more accurate than the US, we'll never know I reckon.

Bismarck was a fine ship but she couldn't compete by herself and ultimately she proved what we knew after Pearl: It's all about air power baby.

Sakai

hyena426 · « **Reply #88 on:** September 18, 2002, 04:39:27 PM »

only one reason air power got the bismark,,was because its guns were rigged to track faster planes,,they didnt expect torpedo bomber bi planes,,so there guns were too fast to track such slow moving planes,,it was a big mistake,,and lucky draw for british:),,{fire controll has nothing to do with accuracy},,its how good all there guns track a target at the same time,,there guns were better on german ships for tracking fast and rate of fire,,go check us big 16s were slow loading compared to germans 15's..with same range and power,,,but us ships had better radar .and accuratcy was never known if it was better or not,,,we will never know who's was better in that department,,,uss iowa and sister ships were bad to the bone,,i been on new jersy and missouri while she still had all the old guns,,and stood on the spot were japanies signed the surrended,,,tirpiz vs iowa would of been a mean battle

BenDover · « **Reply #89 on:** September 18, 2002, 04:59:39 PM »

wasn't the tirpiz was squeak slaped by tall boy deep penetration bombs (didn't it take 2 direct hits to disable it though?)

hmmm, i just got an idea, when we get u-boats, we should have sub-pens at ports that can ONLY be destroyed by tall boys and grandslams (of course then we will need the lanc mk 1 SE)