Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Petrarch of the VBB on May 08, 2004, 08:30:09 am
-
We have the Jets and the Helos thread, so I'm starting a warships one. And why not?
Now then, the Kirov, ph34r it.
(http://military.szm.sk/fgaleria/kirov.jpg)
-
Mmm, type 45
(http://news.mod.uk/img/pressdatabase/images/supportingImages/large/type45_01_tn.jpg)
-
Looks like the RN have been studying GTA designs.
-
Such a big turret base, for such a tiny barrel.
-
ph34r the Pauk as well.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/pauk-DNSC9600774.JPG)
-
(http://images.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/gallery/imdex_show_gallery/imdex_01.jpg)
anzac class frigate
-
The torpedo ram Thunder Child
(http://www.treehouseof66.de/Trivial/Mucke/waroftheworlds/warofworlds4.jpg)
-
(http://postwar.homestead.com/files/82_.jpg)
-
Dutch submarines still pwn you all... Well actually, the crews do, not the ship itself :p
-
The Bismarck. (http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/gallery/gallbismdenmarkstrait.html)
The biggest bad-ass destroyer ever created before the class was made useless by long range carriers and aircraft....
-
Originally posted by Singh
The Bismarck. (http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/gallery/gallbismdenmarkstrait.html)
The biggest bad-ass destroyer ever created before the class was made useless by long range carriers and aircraft....
and a low-flying swordfish torpedo plane.
-
(http://www.swooh.com/peon/mattB/Future Carrier1.jpg)
Can't find it on the RN website any more, but here's the future of UK Aircraft Carriers.
DG u might be fired off one of these one day. :D
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
and a low-flying swordfish torpedo plane.
Yeah...
still miss the great era that had big ships with big guns though :(
-
should i whoop out the EAS Omega? :p
-
Can you post a link to the RN website??
-
Originally posted by Ashrak
should i whoop out the EAS Omega? :p
since you suggested Sci-fi boats..;)
(http://www5c.biglobe.ne.jp/~tokituka/tokituka2/big/great%20yamato%20big1.JPG)
and the R.N. website: http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/
-
(http://www.scifinuts.com/images/b5/shadship.jpg)
:nervous:
-
(http://www.kennethfejer.dk/images/spaceship_small.jpg)
:nervous:
-
aww, how cute.
-
Behold, the ultimate weapon. Germany wouldn't dare attack us when we've got this... um... oh
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h61000/h61005.jpg)
-
Well it did scare them from attacking the UK on it's home soil for more than 30 years :D
I've got to say I love the way the Dreadnought got it's name :)
-
Not because it's big, mean looking or has huge guns, but because it - in my opinion - has a certain resemblence to the Fenris model:
(http://www.navalhistory.dk/images/Skibene/Ravnen(1994)_SVN.jpg)
As far as combat ability goes, it resembles the Fenris as well; Weak armor, light guns, but pretty fast and manouverable :p It does have one interesting feature though: The hull is made almost entirely from fiberglass rather than steel, so on radar it looks more like a small fishing boat than a warship.
-
it does look it...kinda..
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
The torpedo ram Thunder Child
(http://www.treehouseof66.de/Trivial/Mucke/waroftheworlds/warofworlds4.jpg)
farewell Thunder Child, farewell Thunder Child
-
Sandown-class minesweeper. Not big or strong, but ****ing good at its job
(http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/data/gallery/medium/988639374m.jpg)
-
Pfff. all your ships suck next to the Lafayette, the first, the only stealth boat in existence in the world :p
(http://taipeitimes.com/images/2003/01/23/20030122175116.jpeg)
(http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lafayette/images/lafayette1.jpg)
(http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lafayette/images/lafayette4.jpg)
(http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/.weapons/france/mm40_1.jpg)
Superfast, super-armored, overpowered, and sexy-looking!
-
Saar 5
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/saar5/saar5_1b.jpg)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/saar5/saar5_3b.jpg)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/saar5/saar5_s1.JPG)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/saar5/saar5_7b.jpg)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/saar5/saar5_2b.jpg)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/saar5/saar5_5b.jpg)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/saar5/saar5_8b.jpg)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/saar5/saar5_9.jpg)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/saar5/saar5_6b.jpg)
:nervous:
-
Pffeee. Low-end clone, a copy is nothing next to the original :p
-
Originally posted by Nico
Pffeee. Low-end clone, a copy is nothing next to the original :p
clone? copy of what? when was what made? the saar is a copy? uuurk?
-
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/mtb.jpg)
The Motor Torpedo Boat. Light. Fast. And the more powerful the target, the more dangerous these boats become.
It took a certain kind of person to crew one of these ships, preferably someone who was (a)insane and (b) Could laugh in the teeth of death and more often than not get away with it :D Admittedly, you can only not get away with it once ;)
-
Nothing beats The Ultimate Coastguard!!!!!
(http://www.comedy-zone.net/pictures/images/work/200503/coastguard.jpg)
-
Nico, actually it is (unoficially) the second stealth boat in existance :D
The first disappeared... :nervous:
-
(http://www.pierluigisurace.it/imagerie/images/nmeii_united_states_uss_iowa_bb_61_01.jpg)
-
Ah, US Navy BBs. Nothing more beautiful on the water, except maybe a fully loaded CVN. :D
-
(http://www.hnn.navy.mil/Archives/030314/images_031403/thumbs/submarine.jpg)
You can't see me!!! :D
688 Class Submarine
-
(http://www.nationalgeographic.com/k19/images/us6_large.jpg)
Ohio class nuclear missile submarine. Quieter than the surrounding ocean. ;7
-
Yamato battleship, 18" cannons, biggest of its kind.
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h63000/h63433.jpg)
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g700000/g704702.jpg)
-
Would that be the "at the bottom of the ocean kind"?
Seriously, though, she might have boasted the largest armament in that war, but not the largest shipboard armament ever. The British deployed the HMS Furious with an 18" gun in 1917. The ship proved unsatisfactory for its intendend purpose, so a revamp removed the 18" gun. Three had been built, however, and were mounted on coastal monitors of the era.
Here's a pic of one of the monitors with an 18" gun. Notice how the damned thing is almost bigger than the tub its on. :D
(http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNBR_18-40_mk1_General_Wolfe_pic.jpg)
There is also some indications that the US deployed coastal monitors at one point with 21" guns, but I'm having trouble finding concrete info on that one.
The Yamato does have an uncontested claim to the biggest AAAF gun ever mounted on a ship, evidently.
-
she was sunk during a suicide run by american bombers.
and she could've been defeated by the Iowa class 'cause they were more agile/faster than the Yamato.
-
hasn't that traditionally been the other way around?
-
Originally posted by Singh
The Bismarck. (http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/gallery/gallbismdenmarkstrait.html)
The biggest bad-ass destroyer ever created before the class was made useless by long range carriers and aircraft....
The Bismarck is overrated. It's a good World War I ship - but in terms of design was two decades behind allied ships.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
There is also some indications that the US deployed coastal monitors at one point with 21" guns, but I'm having trouble finding concrete info on that one.
are you talkin about the land based guns that where placed along the coast during WWII? or a little artifical island with a cannon on it during the same appointed time?
Edit: was looking through Google and found this site that listed the armament of the Bases on each coast...they had a large amount of AAA guns and a few 2-16" cannons connected to railroad cars and such.... (lists from the years 1895-1945)
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Behold, the ultimate weapon. Germany wouldn't dare attack us when we've got this... um... oh
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h61000/h61005.jpg)
And in one fell swoop, the British navy rendered all of its other ships completely defunct, ultimately allowing Germany into the naval race :p
-
Originally posted by Corsair
(http://www.hnn.navy.mil/Archives/030314/images_031403/thumbs/submarine.jpg)
You can't see me!!! :D
688 Class Submarine
ooooh no ya dont you guys want a submarine thread start one.
and I dont care what it has (as alll these have been for the coolest looking contest) those submarines are the butt ugliest cause they have the tower things further in front then centered or even further back. best looking is like the russian akula class... centered tower slants backwards onto the main "deck"
compare this:
(http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/akula/images/akula1.jpg)
and this:
(http://www2.mimer.no/~ivaknu01/shipimg/ssbn735.jpg)
ohio class so disgusting. :ick:
buuuut getting back on track
(http://www2.mimer.no/~ivaknu01/shipimg/iowa.jpg)
(http://www2.mimer.no/~ivaknu01/shipimg/ussenter.jpg)
yaaar shiver me timbers the USS enterprise... sandwich ahs been on it when it was docked here. I was to young so I was only allowed onto a smalish frigate :(
(http://www2.mimer.no/~ivaknu01/shipimg/ss3.gif)
caption reads: The Lockheed stealth ship Sea Shadow, alongside the USS Carl Vinson. another stealth ship? what the....? im confused.
-
Onoz its Elliot Carver's ship!!!!1111oneone
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
Onoz its Elliot Carver's ship!!!!1111oneone
actually, carver's ship has a design consistant with all Incat-built vessels (produced right here in tasmania i might add ;) )
(http://www.bollingershipyards.com/images/incat.jpg)
(this angelfire site was the best i could manage)
http://www.angelfire.com/games5/nightfirerefpics/images/StealthShip.JPG
-
PH33R!
(http://www.rubberimpex.com/images/Tyre/QD0002/InnerTube/ButylRubberInnerTube2.50-2.75-18.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Shrike
The Bismarck is overrated. It's a good World War I ship - but in terms of design was two decades behind allied ships.
yeah right. Ask the brits about it, ask them about the Hood, the pride of their fleet, and how outdated the Bismarck was :p
-
Originally posted by Nico
yeah right. Ask the brits about it, ask them about the Hood, the pride of their fleet, and how outdated the Bismarck was :p
The Hood was sunk by a lucky hit. Had the Bismark not hit the Hoods ammunition store the result of that battle might have been completely different.
-
(http://www.moswin.com/pando%20ferries%20ship.jpg)
But do the Germans have these? Don't think so ;)
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
(http://www.moswin.com/pando%20ferries%20ship.jpg)
But do the Germans have these? Don't think so ;)
(http://www.ferry-site.dk/picture/ferry/8502391d.jpg)
this german-built vessel was later renamed "spirit of tasmania" ;)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
The Hood was sunk by a lucky hit. Had the Bismark not hit the Hoods ammunition store the result of that battle might have been completely different.
Sure, lucky shot, there was 3 or 4 ships against the lone Bismarck, coming out of a river. Then the thing sustained like 15000 shells on its final battle, w/o a single inch intact, and finally the german sunk the thing themselves coz it would never end otherwise, and you tell me that w/o that "lucky shot", the Hood could have won? :lol:
Lucky shot, maybe, but you make your own luck, so your lucky shot is called superior marksmanship :p
Besides that's the brits own fault for leaving the most critical part of a battleship unarmoured.
-
I do have to wonder how the Bismark hit the Hoods ammunition stores... one would've thought they'd think
"where shall we put the stuff we know is going to blow up if hit?"
"Well, nowhere near where it could get hit - that's for sure!"
-
Most historians paint the picture as the Hood having been sunk by a lucky shot. Battleships in WWII don't target each other...they are much more artistic. They "paint" an area with fire...shelling entire sections of ocean to try and score hits.
Such painted barrage managed to fly straight down ontop of the Hood and hit the ammo store. If a similar shot had done the same thing to the Bismarck it would be the Hood that won the day.
As it was, the final battle with the Bismarck saw the King George V and several other British ships close to a rediculously short range which actually hindered their sinking power. The shots would skip off the water and land in the super structure. The Bismarck was done for (it was a living hell apparently)...but it probably never would have sunk had it not been scuttled by the remaining crew. At least not at that range...
-
Originally posted by Nico
Sure, lucky shot, there was 3 or 4 ships against the lone Bismarck, coming out of a river. Then the thing sustained like 15000 shells on its final battle, w/o a single inch intact, and finally the german sunk the thing themselves coz it would never end otherwise, and you tell me that w/o that "lucky shot", the Hood could have won? :lol:
Lucky shot, maybe, but you make your own luck, so your lucky shot is called superior marksmanship :p
Besides that's the brits own fault for leaving the most critical part of a battleship unarmoured.
My point was that since the Hood was relatively unarmoured, old and sunk because a shot hit the magazine store it's not a good example of how modern the Bismark was. You can't claim that Musketeers are modern soldiers cause they can defeat cavemen :p
Had the Hood not sustained that hit I doubt it would have won but there's no reason it couldn't have got in a lucky hit of it's own.
-
Originally posted by neo_hermes
are you talkin about the land based guns that where placed along the coast during WWII? or a little artifical island with a cannon on it during the same appointed time?
Coastal Monitor == Coastal/River Patrol Boat
These were neither man made islands with armament, nor were they land based guns. The technical naval designation for the the group of ships that includes Vietnam era Patrol Boat-Riverine and PT boats is "monitor". Its the class just below corvette (I THINK, I'm not certain that there isn't another class between them).
Originally posted by Kalfireth
I do have to wonder how the Bismark hit the Hoods ammunition stores... one would've thought they'd think
"where shall we put the stuff we know is going to blow up if hit?"
"Well, nowhere near where it could get hit - that's for sure!"
Magazines suffer from a single critical fact of battle. They MUST be near the weapons they serve. On a warship, there's no place that's 'nowhere near where it could get hit' that also satisfies 'near the weapons they serve'.
-
What Mik said.
A monitor is a ship with a shallow enough draft to get into coastal waters, estuarys, rivers and whatnot, but usually with pretty large guns.
-
Yeah, I suppose you're right Mik. But as a designer I would attempt to make anything explosive that much more armored to avoid that very event... ah well.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
If a similar shot had done the same thing to the Bismarck it would be the Hood that won the day.
Nope: the ammunitions were stored in the turrets, and those things were practically intact when the Bismark sunk, the resistance of those is crazy. You should watch cameron's documentary about the Bismark, it was really pretty interesting :)
-
Now some ships with sails
Dar pomorza:
(http://www.zaglowce.ow.pl/polskie/dar_pom/dar1.jpg)
Pogoria:
(http://www.zaglowce.ow.pl/polskie/pogoria/pogoria-1.jpg)
Amerigo Vespucci:
(http://www.zaglowce.ow.pl/zagraniczne/amerigo/amerigo-3.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Nico
Nope: the ammunitions were stored in the turrets, and those things were practically intact when the Bismark sunk, the resistance of those is crazy. You should watch cameron's documentary about the Bismark, it was really pretty interesting :)
Er, like every other big-gun ship did. You have the quick-use magazine inside the turret or the barbette, and then the main magazine decks below that.
The Hood had notoriously weak deck armour - the navy planned to upgrade it all through the 20s and 30s, but never got round to it because the Hood was the perfect ship to tour the Empire with to say "look, we've got ****ing huge ships, so don't mess with us!" :D
She was beautiful, though. One of the best-looking warships ever built.
My favourites:
HMS Rodney - 1920s battleship, unusual design. Awesome superstructure shape. Blew the **** out of the Bismarck, along with the King George V and others.
(http://community.webshots.com/s/image3/8/95/22/4889522KQVxPVULfh_ph.jpg)
The Richeleau - French SWW-era battleship. Cool aft turret layout.
(http://www.voodoo.cz/battleships/pics/richel6.jpg)
Kiev - huge Soviet nuclear carrier. God knows if she still works, but mighty impressive nonetheless.(http://www.cnw.mk.ua/weapons/airforce/svvp/image/kiev.jpg)
There's a load of others, but I can't find decent pictures:
HMS Iron Duke - dreadnought-era battleship. One of the best warship names ever!
HMS Barham - went pop rather spectacularly in the Mediterranean. Google and you should find the videos ;)
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
I do have to wonder how the Bismark hit the Hoods ammunition stores... one would've thought they'd think
"where shall we put the stuff we know is going to blow up if hit?"
"Well, nowhere near where it could get hit - that's for sure!"
The Hood was a battlecruiser, plus it was designed in WWI when the effectiveness of plunging fire was not part of the naval combat paradigm. When the Hood was designed, guns were designed for (relatively) flat arc horizontal fire and ships were not desiged to counter plunging fire.
Had the Hood gone up against a SoDak, for example, and assuming there was no lucky hits very early on, the battle would have gone poorly from the outset. Superior armor scheme, superior guns, superior fire control...
-
Why does the Royal Navy website kick so much ass?
-
Because Royal Navy > j00?
-
Typically, that's the case. They did own the ocean for quite a while after Trafalgar.
-
Yes, they did, and now its ours. ;)
I've got a US Navy shirt that says "74% of the world is covered in water--and it belongs to the US Navy". Arrogant and prideful but fun. :D
-
[q]Yes, they did, and now its ours. [/q]
The UK is still the world's largest sea faring trader.
This is not a debate btw gentlemen - Britannia Rules the waves. Still.
Carry on ppl.
-
Originally posted by Nico
Nope: the ammunitions were stored in the turrets, and those things were practically intact when the Bismark sunk, the resistance of those is crazy. You should watch cameron's documentary about the Bismark, it was really pretty interesting :)
I wish I could have found a bigger version of this image (no scanner) but the Bismarck's turrets were anything but intact!!
(http://www.simonstown.com/images/archivedarticles/gmc005.jpg)
They were as thoroughly smashed as the rest of the ship -- torn off the barbette in one case, hydraulics completely wrecked in two more, barrels smashed....
Another painting of the dying vessel:
(http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/art/pictures/artbismarck12a.jpg)
Bismarck's ammo, as in all battleships, was stored in magazines next to the turrets in the depths of the hull. No turret could house enough ammunition by itself to be useful in battle.
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]Yes, they did, and now its ours. [/q]
The UK is still the world's largest sea faring trader.
This is not a debate btw gentlemen - Britannia Rules the waves. Still.
Source?
-
(http://www.rodlangton.com/nnimages/ns12.jpg)
Santisima Trindad. The most powerful ship of her day. She had 140 guns at Tragfalgar as compared to the Victory's 100.
-
(http://www.urban.ne.jp/home/diresu21/Yamato.jpg)
-
w00t, mighty USS Missouri, may she RIP.
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h96000/h96812k.jpg)
(http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/ti/00000191.jpg)
Icon of history.
-
none of these ships can compare to the Enterprise and her crew :p
A step through history
Sailing the seas, exploring the unknown, well not quite :nervous:
(http://www.sandcastlevi.com/images/sea_enterprise/ent1998.jpg)
Defending... Keeping the peace :D
(http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0109/uss.carriers/uss.enterprise.carrier.jpg)
Protecting Earth, flagship of the Federation fleet
(http://www.deanna-troi.de/ent_1701e.jpe)
-
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
I wish I could have found a bigger version of this image (no scanner) but the Bismarck's turrets were anything but intact!!
(http://www.simonstown.com/images/archivedarticles/gmc005.jpg)
They were as thoroughly smashed as the rest of the ship -- torn off the barbette in one case, hydraulics completely wrecked in two more, barrels smashed....
Coz you consider drawings an historical proof? then at least, find two that show the same damages, coz on pic 2, your missing turret is still there, obviously :doubt:
See, they've been filmed, these turrets, we KNOW how they were, and their armor was NOT pierced. You do are aware that the Bismarck did not die in a fiery explosion coz her amunition stoarge was never hit? You're gonna tell me that out of the 2,876 that were shot at her, NONE hit the ammo storages?
Ah well, I guess that ship did hurt somewhere, people trying to sink her down again 50 years later :p
-
As one of the local Kriegsmarine fans, I would just like to point out a few things about Bismarck.
The hit on HMS Hood on May 24th, 1941 was 100% pure luck. Being a battlecruiser of WWI design, Hood posessed little in the way of deck armour. This left her extremely vulnerable to plunging fire, which killed around three battlecruisers at Jutland in exactly the same way - shell in the magazines.
As for putting Bismarck down, most of the shells fired by King George V and Rodney smacked her superstructure, causing numerous fires and a lot of devastation. They made the mistake of closing the range, not allowing long range plunging fire to do the vital damage that was required to sink her. The end result was that they were pouring shells in horizontally into her, and Bismarck, along with many BBs of the time, was very well protected against horizontal fire.
She was a very well protected warship, easily the superior of any one battleship in the Royal Navy. Our heavy units consisted of two classes of WWI era battleships (Queen Elizabeth and 'R' classes), along with early 1920s designs (Rodney and Nelson), some newer designs with smaller calibre guns (King George V class) and three WWI era battlecruisers (Repulse, Renown and Hood). By comparison, the Kriegsmarine had fewer, but superior ships: faster, better armoured and in the case of the Bismarck and Tirpitz, easily capable of taking on any one of our BB/BCs and sink them. Okay, two of them would have been a problem, but then two against one always is.
Besides, if the Bismarck was an 'inferior WWI design' then why the hell did the Royal Navy go mad over trying to sink her? :D She was as fast as Hood and as well armed and armoured as any comparable battleship of the time you care to name. :) Leave the Iowa class out of that equation as they were post-1941 designs.
However, I present for your viewing pleasure the greatest pain in the arse that ever sailed the North Atlantic, the German battlecruiser Scharnhorst:
(http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/scharnhorst/gallery/pictures/gallscharnseatrials2/gallscharnseatrials201.jpg)
With a speed of 32 knots and posessing 9 11" guns as well as enough armour to possibly class as a battleship, the Scharnhorst was a real problem!
-
Yup.
As a battlecruiser the Hood was built with less armour and more speed, primarily so it could run down the Bismark with its slight speed advantage when they got a report on its position. Least, that's what the History Channel tells me.
I know it shouldn't be funny, but on the documentary they had one of the crewmen from one of the other ships in the Hoods group. He was talking about how horrific the destruction was and how:"We couldn't go after the Bismark because we'd taken damage and wouldn't have been able to do much but scratch her. So all we were doing was retrieving seamen from the water."
Oh, and:
(http://www.gammaquad.com/wallpaper/ships_800_600.jpg)
-
An0n, the Hood was dispatched by the admiralty along with Prince of Wales simply because she was fast enough to catch Bismarck and still match her firepower as they both had 15" guns. Denmark Straight would have been a lot different were it not for a piece of extremely lucky shooting by a German gunnery officer early in the battle.
Hood has often been referred to as a 'next generation Repulse,' largely because of the increased speed and improved armament. The design of the two is quite similar, apart from the length and one twin turret. The Hood was the symbol of British naval power throughout the twenties and thirties, and thus her own legend clouded the obvious disadvantage she had against a modern battleship. She was due for a refit around the end of May 1941 which would have resulted in her appearing a lot more like a King George V class battleship, but obvious events prevented this.
The other mistake that was made on May 24th was not ordering the Suffolk and Norfolk to join in. Sure, they only had 8" guns, but they could have kept Prinz Eugen busy. :)
-
Originally posted by Xelion
Protecting Earth, flagship of the Federation fleet
(http://www.deanna-troi.de/ent_1701e.jpe)
... the Glowy L33t Space Hoover of Impending Doom!!!! Proof that ridicule can kill, the enemies at least, as they die from laughter :p
Heh, remove the nacelles and you have the flying saucer from V :p
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I've got a US Navy shirt that says "74% of the world is covered in water--and it belongs to the US Navy".
...and the other 96% is wheat. That's just not enough. Think about it.
...No, YOU think about it!
-
actually, the bismarck's main turret's(all FOUR of them) fell off when she sunk, she's largely intact now, minus a small part of the stern section...
get the book "looking for the Bismarck" by Robert Ballard.
oh, and
both of these were based off video recordings of the wreck.
(http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/history/pictures/afterfinalbattle/afterfinalbattle8.jpg)
(http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/history/pictures/afterfinalbattle/afterfinalbattle7.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Killfrenzy
An0n, the Hood was dispatched by the admiralty along with Prince of Wales simply because she was fast enough to catch Bismarck and still match her firepower as they both had 15" guns. Denmark Straight would have been a lot different were it not for a piece of extremely lucky shooting by a German gunnery officer early in the battle.
Err....bad phrasing on my part.
I meant that the Hood (and all battlecruisers) was built to out-run big ships, not specifically the Bismark.
-
Are those the anchors, or two bloody huge torpedo tubes?
-
Originally posted by an0n
(http://www.gammaquad.com/wallpaper/ships_800_600.jpg)
w00t, the O'Niel
-
"That's O'Neill. *holds up 3 fingers* Two L's"
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
Are those the anchors, or two bloody huge torpedo tubes?
If you mean the rounded things on the bow of Bismarck then they are anchor cluses, that particular design being very common on German warships of the period. However, they weren't particularly brilliant as they channeled ocean spray up into a fountain which was more than a little annoying! :)
An0n, the battlecruiser idea was indeed for a ship that could maintain a high speed to catch heavy units, but they still had to mount the firepower necessary to demolish or cripple the unit they were catching. The decision to use Hood was partly because she was fast enough to keep up with Bismarck, and partly because she was the only ship at Scapa Flow that could match Bismarck's guns when she got there. HMS Queen Elizabeth was also at Scapa, but she sailed for Alexandria during May, so was unable to participate. Although she was a battleship with 15" guns, she only had a top speed of 24knots, which put her a full six knots behind Bismarck.
The dispatch of Hood wasn't so much a strategic choice as a lack of options as not even Repulse (pulled off convoy duty along with Victorious to join in) could quite catch the Bismarck, and even if she could she'd be one turret short. The duty fell to Hood to put a stop to it, and when she was destroyed by pure chance, it fell to the cruisers and aircraft from Victorious and critically Ark Royal to catch her.
-
The Hood was also weakened by structural stress, as the turrets were placed quite near the ends of the hull, placing a great deal of strain on it.
So I've heard.
-
You people talk like you actually know stuff. Nobody knows. Nobody really knows where it was hit. The information from that time is iffy at best.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
You people talk like you actually know stuff. Nobody knows. Nobody really knows where it was hit. The information from that time is iffy at best.
Well, the case has been studied, and the derelict checked toroughly. Plus there's many reports, and witnesses, even german survivors from the Bismarck. So ow it went is actually pretty well known now. The only dark point was knowing if the Bismarck was sunken by the brits or by its own crew. This was answered with Cameron's expedition, tho: the Bismarck, altho heavily crippled, were not to sunk ( the brits wanted so much to kill it that they actually came too close to it, and no shell would go under the water surface and hit the underwater part of the hull ), the germans decided to put an end to that hell and sunk the ship themselves.
So yeah, we ( general we ) can assume that we know what happened, indeed.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
You people talk like you actually know stuff. Nobody knows. Nobody really knows where it was hit. The information from that time is iffy at best.
Only thing that really matters is the fact that the British vanquished the terror of the atlantic(the Bismark) and avenged the Hood.
Believe it or not there is a song by Johnny Horton about the sinking the bismark.
In May of nineteen forty-one the war had just begun
The Germans had the biggest ship that had the biggest guns
The Bismark was the fastest ship that ever sailed the seas
On her deck were guns as big as steers and shells as big as trees
Out of the cold and foggy night came the British ship the Hood
And evry British seaman, he knew and understood
They had to sink the Bismark, the terror of the sea
Stop those guns as big as steers and those shells as big as trees
We'll find that German battleship thats makin' such a fuss
We gotta sink the Bismark 'cause the world depends on us
Hit the decks a-runnin' boys and spin those guns around
When we find the Bismark we gotta cut her down
The Hood found the Bismark and on that fatal day
The Bismark started firin' fifteen miles away
We gotta sink the Bismark was the battle sound
But when the smoke had cleared away, the mighty Hood went down
For six long days and weary nights they tried to find her trail
Churchill told the people "Put ev'ry ship a-sail"
'Cause somewhere on that ocean I know she's gotta be
We gotta sink the Bismark to the bottom of the sea
We'll find that German battleship thats makin' such a fuss
We gotta sink the Bismark 'cause the world depends on us
Hit the decks a-runnin' boys and spin those guns around
When we find the Bismark we gotta cut her down
The fog was gone on the seventh day and they saw the mornin' sun
Ten hours away from homeland the Bismark made its' run
The admiral of the British fleet said "Turn those bows around"
We found that German battleship and we're gonna cut her down
The British guns were aimed and the shells were comin' fast
The first shell hit the Bismark, they knew she couldn't last
That mighty German battleship is just a memory
"Sink the Bismark" was the battle cry that shook the seven seas
We found that German battleship was makin' such a fuss
We had to sink the Bismark 'cause the world depends on us
We hit the decks a-runnin' and we spun those guns around
Yeah, we found the mighty Bismark and then we cut her down
We found that German battleship was makin' such a fuss
We had to sink the Bismark 'cause the world depends on us
We hit the decks a-runnin' and we spun those guns around
We found the mighty Bismark and then we cut her down.
-
Haha, your ignorance is too great Redmenace :p
And Venom *thumbs up*
-
*cough*
-
Originally posted by Tiara
And Venom *thumbs up*
:confused: why?
making fun of me or what? :doubt:
-
No, you made a good solid argument :)
I'm not that bad... at least not all the time :p
-
Originally posted by Killfrenzy
Besides, if the Bismarck was an 'inferior WWI design' then why the hell did the Royal Navy go mad over trying to sink her? :D She was as fast as Hood and as well armed and armoured as any comparable battleship of the time you care to name. :) Leave the Iowa class out of that equation as they were post-1941 designs.
Bismarck: 29 knots.
North Carolina: 28 knots
Bismarck: 41,700 tons standard.
North Carolina: 37,484 tons standard.
Bismarck: 4 dual 15"/52, 6 dual 5.9"/55, 8 dual 4.1"/65, 8 dual 37 mm, 12 20 mm
North Carolina: 3 triple 16"/45cal, 10 dual 5"/38cal DP, 4 quad 1.1 inch AA, 18 .50 cal MG
Bismarck: 10.6-12.6" belt, 3.1-4.7" deck, 14.2" turrets, 13.8 inch CT
North Carolina: 6.6-12" belt, 5-5.5" deck, 14.7-16" barbettes, 9.8-16" turrets, 7-16" CT
On a smaller displacement, the North Carolina has comparable armor which is actually thicker over the important sections, plus, most importantly, it had bigger guns. The 16"/45s on the North Carolina were not quite as overall good as the 16"/50s on the Iowas, but they are still generally a superior piece of ordnance to the Bismarck's guns, particularly in long range engagements where the heavy 2700 pound shells (a full half-ton heavier than the Bismarck's shells) will be plunging down into the Bismarck's relatively poor deck armor. The Bismarck does have a greater refire rate, allegedly 20 compared to 30 seconds, but I've heard that the gun crews might not have been able to keep that up during a longer engagement.
The Bismarck was a worry not because it could seriously harm the Royal Fleet but because it was a fast, well armed and well protected commerce raider. Had it escaped into the Atlantic and lost its pursuers it could had done incredible damage to allied shipping.
Of course in hindsight we can probably agree the Bismarck would have done more for the Nazi war effort if its metal had gone into making U-boats.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
No, you made a good solid argument :)
I'm not that bad... at least not all the time :p
Ah well, sorry then, and thanks, I guess.
-
Shrike, minor correction:
Bismarck
Speed: 28 knots (designed), 30.8 knots (actual service maximum)
I also would like to point out the word 'comparable.' 16" guns will beat a set of 15" any day, so having many of the US battleships into the Bismarck equation is rather pointless as A) they mounted 16" guns anyway and B) they served in the Pacific rather then the Atlantic, so would never have come into contact even if the US had joined the war before May 1941. Besides, they'd have to catch her first....
A comparable matchup would be HMS Warspite against Bismarck, or HMS Rodney against a the USS South Dakota. That's a 15" vs 15" matchup and a 16" vs 16" matchup.
I said to mention comparable battleships to leave out the 16" sledgehammer carriers such as Rodney and the North Carolina, as they carried greater firepower. Most of the RN battleships mounted a set of 8 15" guns, and it was these ships that the Bismarck was designed against.
The Royal Navy's fear stemmed partly from the sheer damage that Bismarck could do on her own, and partly because of the very real possiblity that she would hook up with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. We'd had enough trouble with them since 1939 and the Deadly Duo had just been on a rampage of the North Atlantic.
Don't get me wrong, I like the US battleships, particularly the Iowa class, which I think is possibly the pinnacle of battleship design. I just prefer the more graceful speed demons that came out of Wilhelmshaven and Kiel. :) If I was given the (hypothetical) choice between sailing the USS Missouri or the Scharnhorst, I'd pick the Scharnhorst for her 32 knots, rapid rate of fire and pretty good armour.
-
You guys just had to do it again, didn't you? Inspired me with all those pictures, so I spent my whole evening making something (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,23517.0.html). Humph!
:p
-
Originally posted by Nico
Coz you consider drawings an historical proof? then at least, find two that show the same damages, coz on pic 2, your missing turret is still there, obviously :doubt:
See, they've been filmed, these turrets, we KNOW how they were, and their armor was NOT pierced. You do are aware that the Bismarck did not die in a fiery explosion coz her amunition stoarge was never hit? You're gonna tell me that out of the 2,876 that were shot at her, NONE hit the ammo storages?
Ah well, I guess that ship did hurt somewhere, people trying to sink her down again 50 years later :p
Note B turret in the drawing (based on the findings of the Cameron expedition and eyewitness testimony).Its too bad the drawing is so tiny, but the turret was knocked off the barbette. You can (barely) make out how askew it is in the image. I didn't mean entirely knocked off the ship. The second painting depicts the ship before its end state in the first pic; notice A turret still operational.
You do are aware that the Bismarck did not die in a fiery explosion coz her amunition stoarge was never hit? You're gonna tell me that out of the 2,876 that were shot at her, NONE hit the ammo storages?
[\quote]
As others mention, the British closed the range, denying them plunging fire into the magazines. Few battleships actually blow up when lost as Hood did.
From http://www.navalships.org/dkm02.html (http://www.navalships.org/dkm02.html)
With the range down to 16,000 yards, King George V turned to starboard to bring her after turret into action and, three and a half minutes later, Rodney conformed, a 16_inch or 14_inch shell penetrated Bismarck's 'Bruno' turret, detonated inside, and blew the rear plate of the gun_house over the ship's side. At about the same time, a shell destroyed her foretop, together with the central armament_control position, and killed most of the senior officers.
[\quote]
I'm sure sure i've read a quote of Mullenheim-Rechberg in which he mentions looking into B turret through the hole torn in it.
An interesting comparison of various battleships may be found at Nihon Kaigun (http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm)
Note that Bismarck doesn't come out too favorably. Bismarck gets quite a bit of attention on their FAQ page.
-
The Alaska Class. The US version of the Battlecruiser.
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h97000/h97268.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Killfrenzy
I also would like to point out the word 'comparable.' 16" guns will beat a set of 15" any day, so having many of the US battleships into the Bismarck equation is rather pointless as A) they mounted 16" guns anyway and B) they served in the Pacific rather then the Atlantic, so would never have come into contact even if the US had joined the war before May 1941. Besides, they'd have to catch her first....
What's wrong with the NoCos? They were laid down at roughly the same time and actually have a lower displacement. The Warspite is twenty five years older than the Bismarck so it's not a particularly good comparison.
-
First, the oldest active duty warship in the world (USS Constitution AKA Old Ironsides):
(http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/maritime/gallery/photocd/Boats/USS%20Constitution.jpg)
And second, the class of submarine my dad served on (Sturgeon-class):
(http://www.subnet.com/images/boats/637.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Of course in hindsight we can probably agree the Bismarck would have done more for the Nazi war effort if its metal had gone into making U-boats.
Only if you ignore the psychological aspect.
The Bismark was the AK-47 of the waves. It couldn't take out a serious collection of ordinance, but it could make the whole Merchant Navy keep its head down and had the firepower to destroy anyone who decided to be a hero.
-
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
Note B turret in the drawing (based on the findings of the Cameron expedition and eyewitness testimony).Its too bad the drawing is so tiny, but the turret was knocked off the barbette. You can (barely) make out how askew it is in the image. I didn't mean entirely knocked off the ship. The second painting depicts the ship before its end state in the first pic; notice A turret still operational.
To me, knocked out meant "out of the ship", sorry for the misunderstanding. But you misanderstand me too: I didn't mean the turrets were intact, of course the barrels were crushed, etc. but at no point did a shell go through a turret and made a hole in it.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Haha, your ignorance is too great Redmenace :p
And Venom *thumbs up*
Ignorance is bliss
-The Matrix :D
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Ignorance is bliss
-The Matrix :D
I sincerily hope you dont actually belive that the matrix coined that.
however you seem pretty blissfull :lol:
-
:lol: Theres so much that is funny here.
-
Originally posted by Splinter
I sincerily hope you dont actually belive that the matrix coined that.
however you seem pretty blissfull :lol:
well I am sure it originated else where. But, instead of getting into an argument with Tiara(probably end up comparing her to communists this week), I thought I would just rebuttle with a joke than something else. But, I still think that the sinking of the Bismarck was symbolic only. The U-Boats were far more effective in actually harming England by destroying shipments from the states than the Bismarck ever was or would have been. However, that set aside, the sinking of the Bismarck was probably severly demoralizing blow to the Nazi Germany Navy as well as the Nazi German Military in General.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
But, I still think that the sinking of the Bismarck was symbolic only. The U-Boats were far more effective in actually harming England by destroying shipments from the states than the Bismarck ever was or would have been. However, that set aside, the sinking of the Bismarck was probably severly demoralizing blow to the Nazi Germany Navy as well as the Nazi German Military in General.
You are correct in assuming that it was a demoralizing blow, but it sure as hell wasn't symbolic...the sinking of the Bismarck and her sistership the Tirpitz were vital to the Allied Fleet, if these ships ever had a chance to be used in full effect, things might have looked a whole lot different.
-
Originally posted by JarC
You are correct in assuming that it was a demoralizing blow, but it sure as hell wasn't symbolic...the sinking of the Bismarck and her sistership the Tirpitz were vital to the Allied Fleet, if these ships ever had a chance to be used in full effect, things might have looked a whole lot different.
Yes if you wanted to bombard the coast of England, but I don't think they would have gotten close enough to England and not be bombed by the RAF. Maybe as a HQ center for U-boats it might be effective. But personally lots of smaller ships would be far more effective against shipping and the Royal Navy. Personally the Germans put their eggs all in one basket. I feel they should have built aircraft carriers instead. In WWII the Germans were concerned with the old technology and dogma of Bigger is Better. In forsight we see the evolution of naval warfare in the pacific, and realize that things were changing.
-
Germany had a massive naval building plan that was halted by WWII. If it had been compelted (around 1946) then Germany would have had a navy to rival the Royal Navy, along with a set of 16" gun Battleships.
Remember that as far as everyone was concerned, big bad battleships were the order of the day. Carriers had yet to prove themselves as viable alternatives as that had to wait until Midway.
Shrike, yes I know the NC was laid a year later than Bismarck, the point is that she's got 16" guns which is an unfair comparison. Besides, she's an American warship and the Kriegsmarine wasn't designed to deal with US warships. Germany designed their heavy units to raid merchant shipping and still be able to deal with heavy units of the Royal Navy. That meant essentially 15" guns for the Bismarck and Tirpitz as with both the QE class and the 'R' class, the RN had around 10 15" battleships sitting around that could be used.
Do not underestimate the Warspite - she certainly smacked the crap out of Italian ships in the mediterranean, hitting the Guilio Cesare at 21km in 1940. Also, she fought at Jutland and had her steering jammed resulting in her circling the German fleet as a target! However, thanks to her excellent construction she suffered little actual damage.
Warspite vs Bismarck is a comparable matchup because of the fact that Bismarck was designed to deal with ships like Warspite and not the North Carolina.
It would have been a different story if the 'H' class had ever been built.....
-
Originally posted by Killfrenzy
Germany had a massive naval building plan that was halted by WWII. If it had been compelted (around 1946) then Germany would have had a navy to rival the Royal Navy, along with a set of 16" gun Battleships.
Heheh - did you ever hear about Hitler's "super-battleship"? She was never built, never named, I don't even think the design was ever finished. All I know is, she was meant to have something like 9 21" guns, and have a displacement of over 100,000 tonnes.... :shaking: Now that would be worth seeing. I heard about her in some documentary about battleships. Mentioned about how there were meant to be 10 Tirpitz-size battleships built, etc, and said about this monster.
Also, there were plans for a German carrier, but it was either scrapped on the slipway, or converted to something else. Can't remember exactly...
EDIT: Ah, the German one was the H44 - 20" guns, 140,000 tonnes displacement. Found a site about 'em here (http://www.chuckhawks.com/super_battleships_projected.htm) .
-
Well well :) An interesting thread.
My personal favourite
(http://www.combinedfleet.com/tone01.jpg)
JIN - Tone Class
Have a look here too: http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
-
Originally posted by an0n
Only if you ignore the psychological aspect.
The Bismark was the AK-47 of the waves. It couldn't take out a serious collection of ordinance, but it could make the whole Merchant Navy keep its head down and had the firepower to destroy anyone who decided to be a hero.
40 or 50 extra U-Boats (if you scrapped the Tirpitz as well) would have gone a lot further towards closing the Atlantic to merchant shipping. That would probably have been an increase of 50% in the number of front-line U-Boats in 41. That's more than worth any psychological factor the Bismarck may have had going for it.
Or to put it another way, the Royal Navy had a large number of warships specifically designed to destroy other surface ships - Germany had almost none. Why play the RN's game?
-
It's not like they would have been able to make those 40 U-boats if they didn't make the Bismarck, so this statement is quite futile, don't you think?
-
Ooh, another favourite of mine - HMS Vanguard. Commissioned in 1946, just too late for the war. All-round kick-ass ship. It's "weakness" was considered to be it's 8 15" guns (!!) - the same as the Bismarck and Tirpitz.
Pictures here (http://battleshiphmsvanguard.homestead.com/PhotoMiscellany.html) - not great quality, but they're good enough to see what she looked like.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Heheh - did you ever hear about Hitler's "super-battleship"? She was never built, never named, I don't even think the design was ever finished. All I know is, she was meant to have something like 9 21" guns, and have a displacement of over 100,000 tonnes.... :shaking: Now that would be worth seeing. I heard about her in some documentary about battleships. Mentioned about how there were meant to be 10 Tirpitz-size battleships built, etc, and said about this monster.
Also, there were plans for a German carrier, but it was either scrapped on the slipway, or converted to something else. Can't remember exactly...
The 'super battleship' was the 'H' class I mentioned. The final plans were to have been a set of 16" guns, and there were to be five of them. :)
The German carrier was the Graf Zeppelin. She was completed but was never used.
Useful information about the 'Z Plan' can be found here: http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/index.html
-
Originally posted by Nico
It's not like they would have been able to make those 40 U-boats if they didn't make the Bismarck, so this statement is quite futile, don't you think?
Why not? Put the resources spent on building the Bismarck into building U-Boats.
-
HMS Warrior ("http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/3513.html")
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Why not? Put the resources spent on building the Bismarck into building U-Boats.
Because you need the drydocks, the people ( it's not like you can atke all the people working on the Bismarck and put them working on a submarine, need more engine specialists on 40 subs than on one ship, whatever its size, for exemple, there's domains of expertise, not numbers alone ), coz it's probably not that easy to build a sub ( nothing prooves it'd be faster to build 40 subs than one cruiser ), coz you need to have the crew to man those 40 subs ( and that's a way different league ), and probably for many other reasons I could not think of. That's not a RTS, it's not at easy than just deciding where you're gonna put credits an waiting for the order to come out of factory, fully equiped and in running order.
-
That said, the Bismarck had a crew of what, 1600?
Divide that by 40 and you get 40, which was the crew of most U-Boats, iirc, if not more.
-
Well, sure Germany had the means, until 1944, to produce more submarines, and to recruit more navymens... but you forget one thing. The Battle of The Atlantic was lost more than by numerical superiority by a Technological one: the Allies had the means to find Submarines before they could even come in range of convoys.
Anyways, the US had won WW2 the day it started. Just look at some of these numbers (i'm refering to a website i usually go to, about the Japanese Imperial Navy):
1. Nearly twice the population of Japan. (and any other European countries)
2. Seventeen time's Japan's national income. (same goes for europe)
3. Five times more steel production.
4. Seven times more coal production.
5. Eighty (80) times the automobile production.
By the end of 1943, US drydocks could chunck out more ships than were destroyed. (About 10 times the tonnage).
link: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
-
Originally posted by Nico
Because you need the drydocks, the people ( it's not like you can atke all the people working on the Bismarck and put them working on a submarine, need more engine specialists on 40 subs than on one ship, whatever its size, for exemple, there's domains of expertise, not numbers alone ), coz it's probably not that easy to build a sub ( nothing prooves it'd be faster to build 40 subs than one cruiser ), coz you need to have the crew to man those 40 subs ( and that's a way different league ), and probably for many other reasons I could not think of. That's not a RTS, it's not at easy than just deciding where you're gonna put credits an waiting for the order to come out of factory, fully equiped and in running order.
I am fully aware that real life is not an RTS. You are the one who is grossly mistaken.
For the metal alone in the Bismarck, one could build roughly 45 Type VII U-boats, which were the most common type. Likewise, for the crew of the Bismarck (a bit over 2000) you can crew those U-boats at normal crewing. This is simple math.
Furthermore, U-boats did not need any of the more difficult to manufacture items on the Bismarck - thick steel armor, large-caliber naval rifles, large steam plants, making them easier to construct. By the virtue of their small size they could be built much faster and in far smaller yards. That's why Germany build literally hundreds of U-boats and only two full-fledged battleships. Ultimately the Bismarck and her sistership the Tirpitz were wastes of metal that detracted from where the Kriegsmarine could seriously damage allied shipping - with subs. The production infrastructure for the U-boats was there, it was a question of resources, not ability.
-
Originally posted by CmdKewin
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
Ahh, good old Nihon Kaigun. Great site. :)
-
Originally posted by Shrike
I am fully aware that real life is not an RTS. You are the one who is grossly mistaken.
For the metal alone in the Bismarck, one could build roughly 45 Type VII U-boats, which were the most common type. Likewise, for the crew of the Bismarck (a bit over 2000) you can crew those U-boats at normal crewing. This is simple math.
Furthermore, U-boats did not need any of the more difficult to manufacture items on the Bismarck - thick steel armor, large-caliber naval rifles, large steam plants, making them easier to construct. By the virtue of their small size they could be built much faster and in far smaller yards. That's why Germany build literally hundreds of U-boats and only two full-fledged battleships. Ultimately the Bismarck and her sistership the Tirpitz were wastes of metal that detracted from where the Kriegsmarine could seriously damage allied shipping - with subs. The production infrastructure for the U-boats was there, it was a question of resources, not ability.
You purposedly ignored 3/4 of what I said, right? Never mind, I don't like talking to walls.
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
she was sunk during a suicide run by american bombers.
and she could've been defeated by the Iowa class 'cause they were more agile/faster than the Yamato.
Yamato was bigger and had bigger guns, but in overall preformance, the Iowa was way ahead.
First it was faster, it had better fire control and targeting, it's armour was made of better steel. Alltough the Ymato had 460mm guns, compared to the 406mm of the Iowa, it had allmost the same range and only slightly bigger penetration power, since the shells and fire mechanism were inferior.
BIG BATTLESHIP TEST (http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm#secondary)
-
Originally posted by Nico
You purposedly ignored 3/4 of what I said, right? Never mind, I don't like talking to walls.
Like what? The fact that if you're building subs, you train submarine crews, not battleship crews, and the Bismarck has enough sailors for 40ish U-boats. Or how a battleship required more high-precision, difficult-to-manufacture equipment than a sub which can be mass produced. Or how Germany built over five hundred type-VII U-boats by the end of the war, with a cumulative tonnage of more than ten times the Bismarck's displacement. It doesn't matter if you don't think it would work because the truth of the matter is that it would have worked. There were no large organizational or production issues with putting the resources spent on the Bismarck and Tirpitz into submarines.
Go ahead. If you think you have an actual counter to all that, feel free to make it.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
There were no large organizational or production issues with putting the resources spent on the Bismarck and Tirpitz into submarines.
That's where I don't agree, but I can't see how I could convince you, so there's no point in arguing, is it?
-
Originally posted by Nico
That's where I don't agree, but I can't see how I could convince you, so there's no point in arguing, is it?
If you don't agree, then post some proof. Personal opinions are meaningless. Otherwise concession accepted. :p
-
Well, it's a question of logistics really. Subs are good, but are vulnerable when surfaced, and can be driven to ground by a corvette or destroyer with Depth Charges. Hence, something is needed to take down the Destroyers and Corvettes. Yes, you could have got a lot of U-Boats for a Bismark. But without ships like the Bismark above water, it would have been a damn sight easier to kill submarines below water.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
If you don't agree, then post some proof. Personal opinions are meaningless. Otherwise concession accepted. :p
If that makes you pleased, so be it :p
-
Originally posted by Shrike
There were no large organizational or production issues with putting the resources spent on the Bismarck and Tirpitz into submarines.
Wrong, there was one: Adolf Hitler.
He was obsessed with equalling the Royal Navy and to do that he needed large warships such as Bismarck. He was the one that suggested 21" guns for the proposed H class before he was finally convinced to accept 16".
-
Still, Shrike, you gotta admit: the Bismarck made a huge psychological impact. Enough for Churchill to stop half the fleet and hunt the sucker down after it took down the HMS Hood. ;)
-
Tirpitz kept a good chunk of the Royal Navy tied down in Scapa Flow when they could have been far more use in the Pacific.
Of course, before mid-1941 the German surface fleet was doing enough damage on its own without factoring in the U-Boats. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were the two biggest pains of the lot and there was a fear that the Bismarck, with her greater armament, could cause even more damage.
Raeder was still in charge at the time, and he was a warship man. It wasn't until Donitz got in after the Bismarck fiasco that the really serious U-Boat building program began in earnest.
The third thing was that carriers had yet to prove themselves. Midway didn't occur until 1942, by which point all the major navies had been constructed on the old battleship-heavy doctrine. Few people still put faith in aircraft at sea, thinking that the big guns of their capital ships would solve problems.
Let us not forget that the Royal Navy sank the French fleet in harbour rather than let them be taken by the Germans. We didn't want them to have any more battleships than we could prevent them having. :)
-
Originally posted by Killfrenzy
Let us not forget that the Royal Navy sank the French fleet in harbour rather than let them be taken by the Germans. We didn't want them to have any more battleships than we could prevent them having. :)
Disregarding the fact that most were crewed andready to leave before the german would arrive. THAT was not directed at the germans, but at us, Churchill bastard. At that time, the dick thought it'd be easy to win over the germans and take the ead in Europe. Bloody idiot, no wonder De Gaulle didn't like him. And that guy is hailed as a hero now coz he made good speaches :doubt:
-
Er, what? The French were destroyed because it was feared they would side with the Vichy government, and therefore the Germans. That was an unacceptable threat to the RN's Atlantic/Mediterranean dominance. The Admiral commanding the RN forces hated doing what he did, because the RN and French Navy conducted joint exercises in the 30s, and many crews and officers knew each other. It was a horrible personal action, but a sound strategic one. The same thing happened when the Italians switched sides later in the war - the Germans wrecked their fleet before they could hook up with the RN.
Yes, Churchill was a cantankerous, stubborn, drunken old bastard, but he was a brilliant leader. That's why he's hailed as a hero. Without his leadership, Britain would have been royally screwed (look at Chamberlain - rolled over to Hitler even after the Czech invasion).