[CmdKewin]

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

[Shrike]

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.

[Shrike]

Originally posted by CmdKewin
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Ahh, good old Nihon Kaigun.  Great site.  

[Nico]

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.

[TrashMan]

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

[Shrike]

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.

[Nico]

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?

[Shrike]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Shrike
If you don't agree, then post some proof.  Personal opinions are meaningless.  Otherwise concession accepted.

If that makes you pleased, so be it

[Killfrenzy]

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".

[Setekh]

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.

[Killfrenzy]

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.

[Nico]

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

[pyro-manic]

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).