StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Col. Crackpot wrote:umm... great leader the North Carolina is not an Iowa class boat. She is a North Carolina class.

Good for you that you wrote it in small letters.

Our Great Leader is in a good mood now but the NKVD is always watching you!

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Isolder74 wrote:Iowa 16 in
Bismark 15 in

WTF are you comparing?

I would take a supported guess and say gun sizes.

Sea Skimmer wrote: No it wasn’t. The US knew NOTHING of the Yamato class when the Iowa’s where laid down, and thought they where 45,000 ton vessels with 16 inch guns though about 1944. Only near the end of the war was it suggested they might be 60,000 tons armed with 17.7 inch guns.

The US knew that Japan was working on a new class of battleship, and one of the design criteria for the Iowa was to combat this new ship. It was faulty intelligence reports that had the Yamato at 45,000 tons with 16 in guns. The US had heard reports and rumors that the new Japanese ship was larger then 45,000 tons and carried larger guns, but these reports were quickly dismissed. They believed that Japan could not possibly construct such a large ship, so the US went with a more "reasonable" estimate of 45,000 tons and 16 inch guns for the Yamato. And it was this estimate that the Iowa was desinged to counter. So yes, the Iowa was designed to combat the Yamato.

But, like you said, it wasnt until late in the war that the US learned the Yamatos real size. Security around the design, construction and testing was really tight. The dry-dock where the ship was built was covered with netting to prevent anyone from seeing inside and determining its size. Security for the guns was just as tight, the 18.1 inch guns were offically reffered to as 16 inch guns in all documents.

Bismarck has really no advantages in this battle, whatsoever. It would be thouroughly stomped by most US battleships entering WW2, let alone an owa.

Iowa on paper wins the fight hands down. However, given height-of-eye and horizon limitations, neither side will be engaging at maximum range unless you have perfect visibility and weather allowing their spotter planes to be aloft. If I remember correctly, Bismarck and Hood began exchanging fire around 27,000 yards (13.5 nautical miles). Dont forget, this would also be a 1941 ship vs a 1943 ship; more "fair" would be North Carolina or Washington vs Bismarck; Bismarck would likely still lose, but in any cap ship engagement, whoever gets on range first and scores a hit has the edge. If the intercept was the same as Hood and PoW, having all that long deck open to plunging fire doesnt seem like fun
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/us_wwii.htm

For some info on the Montanas - they would have been major heavyweights to rival the Yamato-class

http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm

For a interesting discussion of "the worlds best battleship"

16 Harpoons are quite enough to sink the Bismarck from over the Horizon... (The original poster never said which era Iowa...)

Burak Gazan wrote:Iowa on paper wins the fight hands down.

Paper and reality in fact

However, given height-of-eye and horizon limitations, neither side will be engaging at maximum range unless you have perfect visibility and weather allowing their spotter planes to be aloft.

The radar horizon is slightly longer then the visual horizon. Bismarck's fire control did not prove its self to be particularly good in action and she's going to be under heavy fire by the time she can even see her target anyway. Iowa can open up as soon as she has a contact on the upper structure of the Bismarck on the other hand.

Give the remarkable ability of German heavy warships to lose multiple turrets to single high caliber hits and the ships minimal protection against 2700-pound AP shells these early hits will be devastating. She'd be lucky to stay in action significantly longer then the 23 minutes needed to silence her historically.

If I remember correctly, Bismarck and Hood began exchanging fire around 27,000 yards (13.5 nautical miles).

Thats about right, but neither side had anything like Iowas radar. Blind fire only showed up in 1943-44.

Dont forget, this would also be a 1941 ship vs a 1943 ship; more "fair" would be North Carolina or Washington vs Bismarck;

Irrelevant, go make your own thread if you wish

Bismarck would likely still lose

Likely? You've yet to bring up a single thing that disputes the fact that Iowa would tear the crap out of Bismarck, a ship very worth of its place on the cover of Anthony Prestons The worlds Worst Warship

but in any cap ship engagement, whoever gets on range first and scores a hit has the edge.

Exactly. One side is using optical fire control backed by shitty radar that generally was knocked out by the first salvo of the ships own guns. The other side, Iowa, has blindfire radar that worked perfectly.

If the intercept was the same as Hood and PoW, having all that long deck open to plunging fire doesnt seem like fun
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/us_wwii.htm

Indeed, and Bismarck's thin low main armored deck can be pierced by Iowa outside of 25,000 yards. Bismarck will be lucky not to be crippled by the first few hits. Meanwhile, Bismarck's own guns can only defeat Iowa's deck at ranges over 32,000 yards, where she has no chance of ever getting a hit.

For some info on the Montanas - they would have been major heavyweights to rival the Yamato-class

The Iowa's rivaled the Yamatos. The Montana's would have torn them apart.

Beowulf wrote:16 Harpoons are quite enough to sink the Bismarck from over the Horizon... (The original poster never said which era Iowa...)

Indeed. Bismarck would be totally incapable of dealing with the resulting fuel fires, the needed equipment wont exist until the 50's and 60's and wont work well until the 80's. Not to mention massive blast damage against her poorly protected comm. and power lines. Hell the SAP warhead in theory could defeat the Bismarck's main deck armor.

For extra overkill you could also use TASM as well

phongn wrote:For extra overkill you could also use TASM as well

True, but I thought the armored box launchers held TLAM.

"Paper and reality in fact"

Uh, no actually -- Iowa never fought Bismarck, so any engagement WOULD only be speculative "what if" not fact.

And in that scenario, Iowa holds the big edge.
Repeat: Iowa kills Bismarck barring any lucky bounces
Geez, calm down

This sort of argument always crops up every few years, evading the minor detail that the Iowas never fought any major surface combatants in their entire careers. Frankly, I'd rather bring the North Carolinas or Tennessees to the party

The Armored Box Launcher could carry the full range of Tomahawks.

phongn wrote:The Armored Box Launcher could carry the full range of Tomahawks.

But what were usually fitted with TASM, or with TLAM?

Probably depended on what they were being tasked to do. Might have been a mix of TLAM-N and TASM.

Burak Gazan wrote:"Paper and reality in fact"

Uh, no actually -- Iowa never fought Bismarck, so any engagement WOULD only be speculative "what if" not fact.

And in that scenario, Iowa holds the big edge.
Repeat: Iowa kills Bismarck barring any lucky bounces
Geez, calm down

This sort of argument always crops up every few years, evading the minor detail that the Iowas never fought any major surface combatants in their entire careers. Frankly, I'd rather bring the North Carolinas or Tennessees to the party

Of course..the only modern us battleship to engage another battleship was the USS Washington which torn a Jap battleship apart in a little over 7 minutes..of course that was at night and almost point blank range..

If the Bismark was the worst warship would not the Prince of Wales and King George V have to be seem to be even worst....

In the Bismark's defense, by my estimation Otto Von Bismark could definately take out Iowa.

macman wrote:If the Bismark was the worst warship would not the Prince of Wales and King George V have to be seem to be even worst....

Don't belittle them for their 14" guns. They had thicker armor than the Iowas, among other attributes.
And there were far worse 20th century capitol ships than Bismarck, anyway. And they weren't built by Germany, that's for damn sure!

Frank Hipper wrote:

macman wrote:If the Bismark was the worst warship would not the Prince of Wales and King George V have to be seem to be even worst....

Don't belittle them for their 14" guns. They had thicker armor than the Iowas, among other attributes.
And there were far worse 20th century capitol ships than Bismarck, anyway. And they weren't built by Germany, that's for damn sure!

Have to agree with Hipper.

On the other hand nobody told that the Bismarck was the worst battleship.

Boba Fett wrote:On the other hand nobody told that the Bismarck was the worst battleship.

It's the subject of a book that Sea Skimmer mentioned towards the top of the page.

Frank Hipper wrote:

macman wrote:If the Bismark was the worst warship would not the Prince of Wales and King George V have to be seem to be even worst....

Don't belittle them for their 14" guns. They had thicker armor than the Iowas, among other attributes.
And there were far worse 20th century capitol ships than Bismarck, anyway. And they weren't built by Germany, that's for damn sure!

Indeed, the KGV class were also built at a time when Britian still went by Washington and London treaty limits. Given the design and cost limitations they were not overly bad vessels.

Stuart Mackey wrote:Indeed, the KGV class were also built at a time when Britian still went by Washington and London treaty limits. Given the design and cost limitations they were not overly bad vessels.

By the time Britain realised they were following the treaty limitations by themselves, it was too late to put bigger guns in, or increase displacement. All things considered, they were excellent. No Yamato, but I'd take them over a Richelieu.

Frank Hipper wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:Indeed, the KGV class were also built at a time when Britian still went by Washington and London treaty limits. Given the design and cost limitations they were not overly bad vessels.

By the time Britain realised they were following the treaty limitations by themselves, it was too late to put bigger guns in, or increase displacement. All things considered, they were excellent. No Yamato, but I'd take them over a Richelieu.

Indeed. However, in retrosepect, even if the Brits could have increased tonnage, gun size etc, They were effectivly out of the Large force of BB's game. They simply couldnt afford it, and should have built decent carriers..aint hindsight great?

Frank Hipper wrote:

Boba Fett wrote:On the other hand nobody told that the Bismarck was the worst battleship.

It's the subject of a book that Sea Skimmer mentioned towards the top of the page.

You know as I'm getting older and older my eyes are not as good as they were before... (that's not a "cool", it's a "blind" emoticon)

Frank Hipper wrote:

macman wrote:If the Bismark was the worst warship would not the Prince of Wales and King George V have to be seem to be even worst....

Don't belittle them for their 14" guns. They had thicker armor than the Iowas, among other attributes.
And there were far worse 20th century capitol ships than Bismarck, anyway. And they weren't built by Germany, that's for damn sure!

I was responding to a statement about Bismark being the worst warship...Bismark was tough and certainly more than a match one on one for any British Battleship except for maybe the Rodney or Nelson and both those ships were way to slow to force an action...

Some reports I have read believe that in spite of all the punishmnet the Bismark it was scuttled to prevent capture and not actually sunk by all the shell and torpedeos .....

macman wrote:

Frank Hipper wrote:

macman wrote:If the Bismark was the worst warship would not the Prince of Wales and King George V have to be seem to be even worst....

Don't belittle them for their 14" guns. They had thicker armor than the Iowas, among other attributes.
And there were far worse 20th century capitol ships than Bismarck, anyway. And they weren't built by Germany, that's for damn sure!

I was responding to a statement about Bismark being the worst warship...Bismark was tough and certainly more than a match one on one for any British Battleship except for maybe the Rodney or Nelson and both those ships were way to slow to force an action...

I disagree. A fully worked up KGV would have been a close fight, as would the older Nelson and Rodney, never mind Vanguard, which wasn't that far behind an Iowa. Hood was just damn unlucky, and as a result Bismarck has a rep as an ubership.

No-one suggests that Bismarck was the worst BB ever built, it's not like anyone thinks that the orignal Dreadnought, of half the displacement, could have won. What some people do say is that for its size and time it was very poorly designed. Nelson and Rodney were built over a decade before, and like the KGVs were significantly smaller. Nearly everyone else built ships that were better overall (I rather like Richelieu myself), and everyone (including the Germans) built ships that were better relative to the expense and compatition.

Some reports I have read believe that in spite of all the punishmnet the Bismark it was scuttled to prevent capture and not actually sunk by all the shell and torpedeos .....

Bah. It was already sinking (and had been a hulk for some time). They scuttled it because it's SOP, not because the RN was gonna tow it back home for a refit.