Best Battleship

Ovidius · Post by **Ovidius** » 06 Oct 2002 23:29

Try the same scenario for Bismark vs. Iowa

(IMO even if Iowa wins - which is almost sure - she is going to be hit so hard that she would become useless)

~Ovidius

Logan Hartke · Post by **Logan Hartke** » 06 Oct 2002 23:50

Iowa had armor to take the 15 inchers of Bismark and better gunnery to boot, or at least that's what the website says.

Logan Hartke

Ovidius · Post by **Ovidius** » 07 Oct 2002 01:11

Logan Hartke wrote:Iowa had armor to take the 15 inchers of Bismark and better gunnery to boot, or at least that's what the website says.

12inch belt could be pierced not only by Bismark's 15in guns, but also by Scharnhorst's 11in. Practically no battleship in WWII was protected against capital ship guns - the battle line had to be forgotten even from WWI, together with the idea that the most heavily armored one survives. Survivability in WWII depended on two factors: 1) to be able to outrun/outmanoeuver the enemy, and 2) internal subdivision, to defend against the certain armor penetrations. Bismark took 700 shells and still sunk only after scuttling. How many shells could Iowa take?

~Ovidius

Logan Hartke · Post by **Logan Hartke** » 07 Oct 2002 01:25

http://64.124.221.191/b_armor.htm
...far more than the Bismark apparently. It had more armor and its armor was of better quality. Also, the Iowa's guns were better, gave a FAR heavier broadside, and had a longer range.
http://64.124.221.191/b_armor.htm
Also, the Iowa's fire control was far better.
http://64.124.221.191/b_fire.htm

Any other category that you want to compare them in? What about underwater protection? No, wait, the Iowa still wins. Operational factors? No, the Iowa still wins. What about secondary armament? Nope, the Iowa still wins. Tactical factors? Well, that goes to the Iowa as well. Maybe AA guns? Nope, the Bismark would get slaughtered in that category (oh wait, that's right; she DID!). You read the numbers, Ovidius, have you any backing for your argument?

Logan Hartke

Logan Hartke · Post by **Logan Hartke** » 07 Oct 2002 01:30

The Iowa won in all categories but one (in which the Iowa trailed 1st by half of a point). Also...

An example of this might have to do with Bismarck's protective scheme. It is a well-known fact that some of Bismarck's major communications lines and hydraulic feeds, which were only lightly protected, lay above the level of the main armored deck. This was a very serious design flaw, and one which demonstrably contributed to her being defeated by her British opponents perhaps more quickly than she might have otherwise.

Logan Hartke

William Wagner · Post by **William Wagner** » 07 Oct 2002 03:39

One must remember that the modern American Battle ships were built from the lessons learned by the Bismark engagement. I doubt that the USS washington as origionally designed would have survived the Bismark. Considering how poorly her hull was built. Such as the large use of rivits. She did not fair the best against a Jap WWI battle wagon. The south dakota was a bit better but her small size caused problems with storage and damage from the guns firing. Also speaking of guns the Rodney with her 16" guns did not help in sinking the bismark. Gun fire causes a ship to sink in three ways first it causes the ship structure to be strained and unstable. Second a hit below the waterline. Third a large explosion. If one were to look at the wreakage of the bismark. The only real damage to her ARMORED hull is some dents, the missing stern, and holes in the deck. It looks pretty good for all the hits she took. (more than 700 "Victory at sea") Germans have always had their warships beable to take the worst of beatings and survive. For example the Sydeltz from Jutland took a huge beating and survived. In fact the British BC's blew up after only a few rounds. This ship took over a hundred rounds and managed to survive and it was a BC.

Logan Hartke · Post by **Logan Hartke** » 07 Oct 2002 06:20

But Bismarck was designed before Iowa, so this isn't fair..."

As numerous people have mentioned to me, my comparison is inherently 'unfair', because it pits ship designs which were sometimes several years older against ships like the Iowa, which was designed fairly close to the outbreak of hostilities. The following graph illustrates this phenomenon:

As you can see, Vittorio Veneto was laid down more than five years before Iowa was. There's no question that the Americans gained from having the latest design. They also benefitted from having an enormous industrial capacity, which meant that we could build Iowa in roughly half the time the Italian's took to build Vittorio. So I acknowledge that time does make a difference. On the other hand, that's just the way life is sometimes. We are not always granted pure apples-to-apples comparisons, and we just have to make do with what we have. My goal was to portray the most modern designs of the major maritime powers during the war, and pick a winner. I have done that. I note, too, that the second-oldest design of the lot, the Richelieu, performed very, very well in this comparison. So I reject the assertion that a later design is necessarily going to defeat an earlier one.

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

Man, that FAQ section covers just about everything if you ACTUALLY READ IT, doesnt it?

Logan Hartke

Andy H · Post by **Andy H** » 07 Oct 2002 16:07

Did the Iowa class actually sink any ships with there manin arnament?

William Wagner · Post by **William Wagner** » 09 Oct 2002 01:45

If they did it was in the Philipeans Surigia Straights Pardon my spelling'

Caldric · Post by **Caldric** » 09 Oct 2002 02:03

The Bismark was a good ship, but it was far from being the best. The Washingtons were much older design, and the Iowa was the best without much doubt. The Germans wasted good resources on the surface fleet, either you are going to build one all out or not at all, it is just to expensive to dabble in like the Germans did.

William Wagner · Post by **William Wagner** » 10 Oct 2002 01:39

well that depends on what you are doing with it. Remember that small navy of Germanies did tie up huge amounts of allied resources. And early in the war the surface ships took there toll and enabled Germany to Invade Norway. If you are creating a force of merchant raiders Germany did it right, however they could have had more effective tactics, more cruisers and battle cruisers. The sad thing is that the German navy did not know how to win. They were always fighting a cautious battle... They did not need a navy to win the war so they could have taken more risk.

Ovidius · Post by **Ovidius** » 10 Oct 2002 17:44

Logan Hartke wrote:http://64.124.221.191/b_armor.htm
...far more than the Bismark apparently. It had more armor and its armor was of better quality. Also, the Iowa's guns were better, gave a FAR heavier broadside, and had a longer range.
http://64.124.221.191/b_armor.htm
Also, the Iowa's fire control was far better.
http://64.124.221.191/b_fire.htm

Any other category that you want to compare them in? What about underwater protection? No, wait, the Iowa still wins. Operational factors? No, the Iowa still wins. What about secondary armament? Nope, the Iowa still wins. Tactical factors? Well, that goes to the Iowa as well. Maybe AA guns? Nope, the Bismark would get slaughtered in that category (oh wait, that's right; she DID!). You read the numbers, Ovidius, have you any backing for your argument?

That's why I'd take the data on that site with a big grain of salt.. they claim poor protection for a vessel that took 700 hits(which is far more than the immense Yamato could withstand) and still didn't sink.

~Ovidius

Logan Hartke · Post by **Logan Hartke** » 10 Oct 2002 17:48

Like the site says, they just do the math and numbers don't lie. You don't have to believe it, but then again, I haven't seen anything more analytical or better in the quality of info. Just because you don't want to believe the numbers doesn't mean that they are wrong.

Logan Hartke

Caldric · Post by **Caldric** » 10 Oct 2002 17:49

Ovidius wrote:
Logan Hartke wrote:http://64.124.221.191/b_armor.htm
...far more than the Bismark apparently. It had more armor and its armor was of better quality. Also, the Iowa's guns were better, gave a FAR heavier broadside, and had a longer range.
http://64.124.221.191/b_armor.htm
Also, the Iowa's fire control was far better.
http://64.124.221.191/b_fire.htm

Any other category that you want to compare them in? What about underwater protection? No, wait, the Iowa still wins. Operational factors? No, the Iowa still wins. What about secondary armament? Nope, the Iowa still wins. Tactical factors? Well, that goes to the Iowa as well. Maybe AA guns? Nope, the Bismark would get slaughtered in that category (oh wait, that's right; she DID!). You read the numbers, Ovidius, have you any backing for your argument?
That's why I'd take the data on that site with a big grain of salt.. they claim poor protection for a vessel that took 700 hits(which is far more than the immense Yamato could withstand) and still didn't sink.

~Ovidius

Yes she did take a bunch but she looked like swiss cheese, the only reason she was floating is because they were almost all above the water line, after that she was either scuttled or the torpedos finished her off.

philodraco · Post by **philodraco** » 10 Oct 2002 18:27

I think the Iowa class is the best BB that ever be built, because of thier 33kt speed and outstanding fire-control system.

but I like Richelieu more!

Axis History Forum

Best Battleship

Bismark vs. Iowa