|
Post by archelaos on Mar 29, 2019 1:08:00 GMT -6
In Paradox forums I engaged in discussion about Bismarck. In HoI4 Bismarck has one tech advantage over other mid 1930s battleships like King George V or North Carolina. I suggested it should be moved down tech tree to the same level as those ships, but crashed into Bismarck defenders.
So I ask people here, what do you think? Was she "head and shoulders above anything RN had available" as one poster said? Or was she just big due to being fast and having inefficient armour scheme, but her overall combat capability was on par with other same era ships?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 29, 2019 1:51:10 GMT -6
In Paradox forums I engaged in discussion about Bismarck. In HoI4 Bismarck has one tech advantage over other mid 1930s battleships like King George V or North Carolina. I suggested it should be moved down tech tree to the same level as those ships, but crashed into Bismarck defenders.
So I ask people here, what do you think? Was she "head and shoulders above anything RN had available" as one poster said? Or was she just big due to being fast and having inefficient armour scheme, but her overall combat capability was on par with other same era ships?
I can see issue with Bismarck as a ship that can never should be build by Germans. If this ship is part of Royal Navy they will use her much better. However the main issue is the plan for battleship. Germany could not build fleet large enought to jeopardize UK.
Graf Spee sunk 50000 GRT in about 3 months, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau about 20 ships in 3 months. Could Bismarck do better? Probably not. So even if Bismarck can get to Atlantic it will not change the war. But it will force Royal Navy tu use their old battleships to escort convoys but I do not think Bismarck would attack these battleship as any damage sustained could be fatal.
However if you look at any battleship vs. battleship engagement during WW2 and other attacks on battleships, there are just a lot of examples when some lucky hit/cicrumstances made battleship crippled (Bismarck (aft torpedo hit), Hood (probably magazine hit), Prince of Wales (aft torpedo hit with restarting shafts), South Dakota (power failures), Scharnhort (lucky hit to machinery).
It is my opinion that the difference in quality of several modern battleships were not as important as some lucky hit disabling important system/systems.
But back to your question I think Bismarck overall capability was on par with other modern battleships.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 29, 2019 10:18:13 GMT -6
You might find this link interesting. www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htmMy assessment has always been that a capital ship without air support is a target. The British lost PoW and Repulse for that very same reason. Bismarck was lost primarily to lack of air support. It really does not matter how well armed, armored or how well they are built, without air support, they have essentially no chance. Yamato and Musashi suffered the same fate. No air support. Most of the Japanese fast battleships were lost due to lack of air support: Kirishima and Hiei. I will be little caution about this. This page exists for years but several knowledge was discovered. Especially underwater protection is most difficult to assess and there are a lot of different opinions on that topic with very good argument. I will mention one, KGV and no protection upward to non-essential parts. That can lead to opposite to force explosion in some way. It is similar to discussion about damage on open and closed hangar.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 29, 2019 10:52:03 GMT -6
You might find this link interesting. www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htmMy assessment has always been that a capital ship without air support is a target. The British lost PoW and Repulse for that very same reason. Bismarck was lost primarily to lack of air support. It really does not matter how well armed, armored or how well they are built, without air support, they have essentially no chance. Yamato and Musashi suffered the same fate. No air support. Most of the Japanese fast battleships were lost due to lack of air support: Kirishima and Hiei. I will be little caution about this. This page exists for years but several knowledge was discovered. Especially underwater protection is most difficult to assess and there are a lot of different opinions on that topic with very good argument. I will mention one, KGV and no protection upward to non-essential parts. That can lead to opposite to force explosion in some way. It is similar to discussion about damage on open and closed hangar. Okay, I've deleted the post so I don't deceive people. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 29, 2019 15:25:20 GMT -6
I am sorry, I did not mean that there is needed to delete link.
I think it is quite interesting and years ago this site give me some ideas to study battleships more.
However I cannot see any changes for several years. So I think it is good link to start but it should be read with cautions in cases there are not links to sources (the ones which link to Okun is excellent). And I think comparison in torpedo protection is the most problematic because: - South Dakota had problematic TDS as was revealed later by USN tests
- founding on HMS Prince of Wales did not find any TDS breach, RN did full test of designed TDS so it would be strange that explosing going up is not intentionally done
- overall a lot of TDS did not worked as expected (Italian battleships), others were never tested so comparison between TDS is very difficult it seems that at time of WW2 it was still dificult to make TDS that achieve what was designed.
However by no means I am expert, I just found that there are still some question without answers.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 29, 2019 16:14:58 GMT -6
I am sorry, I did not mean that there is needed to delete link.
I think it is quite interesting and years ago this site give me some ideas to study battleships more.
However I cannot see any changes for several years. So I think it is good link to start but it should be read with cautions in cases there are not links to sources (the ones which link to Okun is excellent). And I think comparison in torpedo protection is the most problematic because: - South Dakota had problematic TDS as was revealed later by USN tests
- founding on HMS Prince of Wales did not find any TDS breach, RN did full test of designed TDS so it would be strange that explosing going up is not intentionally done
- overall a lot of TDS did not worked as expected (Italian battleships), others were never tested so comparison between TDS is very difficult it seems that at time of WW2 it was still dificult to make TDS that achieve what was designed.
However by no means I am expert, I just found that there are still some question without answers.
You don't have any reason to be sorry. I could not be certain if anyone had seen that particular site and their conclusions. The creators are very well known and respected for their knowledge of warship construction. I think at least one is a marine architect but I am not certain. Anyway, in the combat operation that Bismarck found herself, she was helpless against the aircraft. Her only possibility was if the aircraft and the carrier could not find her after the Battle of the Denmark Straits. I blame the loss on Admiral Lutjens. He should have retired back to Wilhelmshaven and waited for Tirpitz and more help.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 29, 2019 16:35:52 GMT -6
I am sorry, I did not mean that there is needed to delete link.
I think it is quite interesting and years ago this site give me some ideas to study battleships more.
However I cannot see any changes for several years. So I think it is good link to start but it should be read with cautions in cases there are not links to sources (the ones which link to Okun is excellent). And I think comparison in torpedo protection is the most problematic because: - South Dakota had problematic TDS as was revealed later by USN tests
- founding on HMS Prince of Wales did not find any TDS breach, RN did full test of designed TDS so it would be strange that explosing going up is not intentionally done
- overall a lot of TDS did not worked as expected (Italian battleships), others were never tested so comparison between TDS is very difficult it seems that at time of WW2 it was still dificult to make TDS that achieve what was designed.
However by no means I am expert, I just found that there are still some question without answers.
You don't have any reason to be sorry. I could not be certain if anyone had seen that particular site and their conclusions. The creators are very well known and respected for their knowledge of warship construction. I think at least one is a marine architect but I am not certain. Anyway, in the combat operation that Bismarck found herself, she was helpless against the aircraft. Her only possibility was if the aircraft and the carrier could not find her after the Battle of the Denmark Straits. I blame the loss on Admiral Lutjens. He should have retired back to Wilhelmshaven and waited for Tirpitz and more help. I agree with you that Bismarck was doomed. I think that even if she got Atlantic she was doomed as soon as any carrier gets in range. He cannot defend herself, and even if only 1 torpedo hit every strike he was doomed as nearest port was too far. And even if TDS held there is still some damage and eventually will be his demise.
I agree that Lutjens should turn back. Going further was just completely against intuitive thinking, going deeply into enemy territory, it suicide.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 29, 2019 17:23:26 GMT -6
You don't have any reason to be sorry. I could not be certain if anyone had seen that particular site and their conclusions. The creators are very well known and respected for their knowledge of warship construction. I think at least one is a marine architect but I am not certain. Anyway, in the combat operation that Bismarck found herself, she was helpless against the aircraft. Her only possibility was if the aircraft and the carrier could not find her after the Battle of the Denmark Straits. I blame the loss on Admiral Lutjens. He should have retired back to Wilhelmshaven and waited for Tirpitz and more help. I agree with you that Bismarck was doomed. I think that even if she got Atlantic she was doomed as soon as any carrier gets in range. He cannot defend herself, and even if only 1 torpedo hit every strike he was doomed as nearest port was too far. And even if TDS held there is still some damage and eventually will be his demise.
I agree that Lutjens should turn back. Going further was just completely against intuitive thinking, going deeply into enemy territory, it suicide.
If we examine the other side of the coin. Lutjen's was an ardent Nazis and owed his position to them. He understood that Hitler was not a big fan of the Navy and he was more interested in destroying convoys than whether the operation made any sense. Lutjen's knew that. So, he has the choice of returning to Germany, with nothing to show for his expenditure of fuel or continuing the operation, hoping that the bad weather might help him get loose. If he returns, he looses face and that might not be good for his career or the Navy. So he continued forward until he was damaged enough that he had to sail to Brest for repairs. It was only by a little luck and a bad rudder design that he did not escape. One last bit of information: I have a PDF of Warship Profile 18 which is very detailed about the Bismarck. It is too big to upload but Amazon has the paperback version. You might try it. Here is another link, but I suspect you have seen it. www.kbismarck.com/
|
|
|
Post by enrico69 on Mar 30, 2019 7:42:28 GMT -6
However if you look at any battleship vs. battleship engagement during WW2 and other attacks on battleships, there are just a lot of examples when some lucky hit/cicrumstances made battleship crippled (Bismarck (aft torpedo hit), Hood (probably magazine hit), Prince of Wales (aft torpedo hit with restarting shafts), South Dakota (power failures), Scharnhort (lucky hit to machinery). It is my opinion that the difference in quality of several modern battleships were not as important as some lucky hit disabling important system/systems. But back to your question I think Bismarck overall capability was on par with other modern battleships.
Totally agree. If we examine the other side of the coin. Lutjen's was an ardent Nazis and owed his position to them. I am surprised to read that. I saw in many books it was almost the opposite, that he tried to avoid as much as possible to deal with the regime (without forgetting of course, what was good for his career). Are these books spreading false ideas (it won't be the first time) ?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 30, 2019 8:13:55 GMT -6
If we examine the other side of the coin. Lutjen's was an ardent Nazis and owed his position to them. I am surprised to read that. I saw in many books it was almost the opposite, that he tried to avoid as much as possible to deal with the regime (without forgetting of course, what was good for his career). Are these books spreading false ideas (it won't be the first time) ? Admiral Gunther Lutjens was very quiet, humorless man, and according to those whose served with him, inflexible and forbidding. A man like that is no longer with us, is going to be hard to read. He was dedicated to the German Navy. He was the best choice for this hopeless mission. I don't think with his attitude, we can really judge his position, he simply adapted to whatever he needed to further his career and the Navy. It's hard to know, I am basing it on my own feelings about some of the message sent back to Germany. I am just speculating, you could be correct. He did send a letter to the Nazis objecting to their pogrom against the Jews. Does that make him anti-Nazis, he wasn't that stupid.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Mar 31, 2019 17:50:19 GMT -6
In Paradox forums I engaged in discussion about Bismarck. In HoI4 Bismarck has one tech advantage over other mid 1930s battleships like King George V or North Carolina. I suggested it should be moved down tech tree to the same level as those ships, but crashed into Bismarck defenders. Sounds about par for the course for the paradox forums. Back when the game was in development, the designers said that they were using names and models in a purely cosmetic fashion for overall tech levels. Customization was supposed to create the differences so there would be no reason why a Panther couldn't be a cheap mass production vehicle of a T-34 couldn't be an overarmored mechanical nightmare. So in that paradigm, the Bismarck could be a 1941 battleship, just one without any upgrades because the Germans had mostly missed out on two decades of advances in armor scheme, propeller hydrodynamics, AA, fire control, etc. The North Carolina's and KGVs on the other hand would have all of those advances so they would be lower tier base model but higher tech. If however the German player diverted sufficient resources to replicating those advances there is no reason the Bismarck couldn't be the match for an Iowa. It was an ingenious concept and something paradox completely and utterly failed to follow through on, much to my annoyance. Instead the design just defaulted back to the HOI 2 style researching a complete package ship and the names stuck around as a vestige of a plan I doubt they even remember. Pretty typical for their development cycle these days.
|
|
|
Post by ksbearski on Apr 1, 2019 20:39:21 GMT -6
Hood was a battlecruiser, not a full-fledged battleship. Kirishima and Hiei were also battle cruisers up-armored at some point if memory serves. They had battleship caliber guns, but Hood especially certainly did not have battleship armor protection. So yes, the argument could be made that Bismarck lucked out by taking out the Hood as she did, but one man's luck is another's excellent gunnery.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 1, 2019 21:31:26 GMT -6
Hood was a battlecruiser, not a full-fledged battleship. Kirishima and Hiei were also battle cruisers up-armored at some point if memory serves. They had battleship caliber guns, but Hood especially certainly did not have battleship armor protection. So yes, the argument could be made that Bismarck lucked out by taking out the Hood as she did, but one man's luck is another's excellent gunnery. We have to examine the situations, under which the three ships were sunk. Hood was not armored well enough to lead the engagement, it should have been Prince of Wales. The shell that caused the explosion was what we term “a golden BB”. Holland was attempting to close the range because he was aware of Hood’s weakness in deck armor. Unfortunately, he was a little late. As to Kirishima and Hiei, they were both engaged in a very narrow strait, which limited movement and they did not have radar like Washington and South Dakota. Hiei was fighting in a similar area. She was fighting US heavy cruisers at close range, so close that she could not depress her main guns. So, she was badly damage but did sail away only to lose her steering and became just a floating ship. From there, she was polished off. She should never have been in that narrow area, just like Kirishima. It’s where you are fighting and your combat tactics that decide a battle. The only reason that those two ships were at Guadalcanal is because they were the only capital ships that had the range to be able to sail from Truk to Guadalcanal and back. Hood was in position only because she was positioned to guard the gap between Iceland and Greenland. Operational situations sometimes force naval forces to use a ship that isn't really designed for the mission.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 2, 2019 12:20:19 GMT -6
In regard to the losses of Hiei and Kirishima. There were many reasons why the Japanese risked those two battlecruisers. They had risked Kongo and Haruna earlier and flattened Henderson Field. Now some facts. A battleship generally uses about 8-16 tons of fuel at cruising speed with cruising speed being about 51-16 knots. The larger the ship, generally the better the fuel consumption but it does climb at higher speeds. But remember, that at higher speeds, destroyer, their escorts consume even more fuel.
A mission profile for such an operation was to sail from Rabaul down the Slot, at cruising speed. The one-way distance was about 800 miles zigzagging when possible. So, they might sail 650 miles at 16 knots then dash at night, about 150 miles into the combat area at 25 knots. There it is, when in Florida Straits, they would commence bombardment turn and head back.
So, how much fuel would they use. For the Kongo-class, at 16 knots for 650 miles, their endurance was 9.25 hours. Total miles would be 1300. For the run in, at 25 knots, 300 miles. When at combat speeds for the bombardment, 30 knots for about 60 miles. Total miles traveled would be 1660 miles.
One mission of this profile, with those ships and others for escort, would consume 4000 tons of oil. That is about 1.4% of the total monthly consumption of 305,000 tons. That is a lot of fuel for one four-day mission considering that the rest of the fuel has to feed the whole of the Japanese Imperial Navy. Now, an alternative profile; use Yamato. She consumes 14 tons of oil per hour at 16 knots and she has to sail from Truk which 1400 miles one way. The total fuel consumption for such a mission using Yamato would be 15,535 using her escorts. That equates to 5.1% of the monthly allotment of fuel for the IJN.
Keep in mind, the mission objective was to silence US air power at Henderson Field. The problem with that is the US engineers, SEABEES, were very good at repairing that airfield. So you are going to have to repeat that mission regularly and eventually the enemy is going to know your battle plan and be waiting for you. That is what happened to Kirishima and Hiei. So, Henderson Field was thorn in the Japanese side and they expended numerous transports, destroyers and even one or two carriers along with two battlecruisers attempting to silence it. But the most important point to gain is that the battlecruisers were used because they consumed the lowest amount of fuel and were the fastest. This is what happens in all modern wars, you are forced by geography, logistics and ship availability to use what every you have. As the statement goes in the movie Battle of Britain, “We’ll go with what we’ve got”.
Now, if you want to create a mission profile for Hood and Bismarck, you have the same issues but a few more. You have the basic time, distance and fuel consumption issues that all missions have. But you also now have the problem of which of the four passages is Bismarck going to take. You have to protect all four with scouts and capital ships. Weather is a big factor because it controls aerial reconnaissance. If the home fleet sails with good intel, she still has to control her fuel consumption before closing on Bismarck. For Hood, once Bismarck is sighted, Hood has to close with her had full speed and get into a tactical situation to protect her weak deck armor. Holland knew all this. That is some of the information that you need to find and use to setup the mission profile. Some other questions could be: why was Prince of Wales sent out with Hood, since you had just left the builders yard and her crew was new? What ship was an alternative? Rodney? KGV? Rodney was probably too slow and KGV was the Home Fleet flag ship. This would leave Hood, Repulse, and Prince of Wales. Repulse was a battle cruiser just like Hood and her speed was 30.5 knots but at cruising speed she had an endurance of 3650 miles. She was used but was running low on fuel so she had to return to base for refueling.
Lots to consider for the mission profile besides the armor on the ship. Mission profiles are very important when studying naval history. Its not just who has the biggest guns and thickest armor. There are a host of other variables that need to be considered if you want to do a mission profile and understand the event of the operation.
Hood and POW sailed about 800 miles from Scapa Flow to where they met Bismarck. It's actually about 650 but I've added a little for zigzagging and other movements. Hood's endurance was 7500 miles at 14 knots but only 1700 miles at 32 knots., that gives you something to work with. The consumption was at full speed. Everyone on that ship knew of Hood's weakness; her deck armor. Admiral Lancelot Holland, newly appointed fleet commander, knew it. He adopted his predecessor's conops of sailing to the stern of the Bismarck, titled an end attack to reduce the guns that could fire at Hood. Unfortunately, Bismarck was too far south, so, as a good English admiral, he performed the Nelson Touch. He engaged immediately and sailed straight towards Bismarck. This was the same tactics that Beatty had performed at Jutland; which of course led to the loss of two of his battle-cruisers. It was a one hundred year old British Naval doctrine and this time, as at Jutland, it failed.
No ship is perfect, they all have weaknesses, including the Iowa's, despite the hype. But Hood's weakness were such that, poor tactics and superior German fire control could cause a disaster. Most of the messages, letters etc. that I've read from former crew members and some sent home later, show that they expected something to happen; not necessarily an explosion of such magnitude, but they did expect that the ship would be badly battered by Bismarck. In a such a battle, you have to expect such damage and losses. The weakness of the Hood was evident, everyone knew it, but the situation called for what the British had available and what they thought was the best ship to deal with Bismarck. Superior weapons, fire control and handling made no real difference, it was the tactics that failed because it placed Hood's weakness in a position to be exploited by the German's.
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on Apr 15, 2019 14:47:08 GMT -6
Back on the subject of Bismarck one thing that pops up in other forums is how the armor scheme led to important fire control, damage control and electrical cabling mains being run outside the armored deck, but inside the initial 5" armored strake. Good against cruiser fire and I expect lighter non-AP bombs, but vulnerable to battleship fire. All things that are fairly important to the continued operation of your ship.
|
|