that song i actually dislike the most because it continues to perpetuate the myth that Bismarck was some kind of uber battleship when every one of her contemporaries were superior from a naval architecture perspective and I will stop myself there before I write more than anyone here wants to read.
Bismarck was a very mediocre ship from a design perspective and really overrated cuz of Wehraboos and :le-pol-face: type "history nerds".
Design problems:
-3 propellers instead of 4 which reduced the ability of the ship to steer if a propeller or rudder gets damaged (and ultimately, the British scored a lucky torpedo hit that jammed Bismarck's rudder and doomed the ship)
-Radar would get damaged after a salvo from the main guns
-The 105 mm dual purpose guns were exposed instead of put into armored turrets (because I guess German steel is magically immune to sea water corrosion?) Every other navy had the sense to put their dual purpose guns in proper turrets
-Fire control for the 105 mm guns were bad and they were unable to properly track the British torpedo bombers that attacked Bismarck
-Low levels of short range AA guns (though this was common for most battleships launched during the late 1930s and early 1940s)
380mm/45 Calibre mle 1935 Point Blank Penetration (Richelieu): 701 mm
38cm SKC/34 Point Blank Penetration (Bismarck): 510mm
APC mle 36 Bursting Charge: 21.9 kg
APC L/4,4 Bursting Charge: 18,8
Even in comparison with similar calibre weapons systems, Bismarck's main guns were deficient and built based off of WWI era tech. Richelieu's maligned dispersion issues were a flaw that would have been fixed if France hadn't surrendered, and post-war demonstrates that the Quad-gun system became quite accurate and potent when matured. Very underrated design.
You could argue it was theoretically the best. Richelieu put all its guns in the front which allowed the armored citadel to be shorter which meant either a faster ship for the same armor or a more heavily armored ship for the same speed. You don't lose too much because the rear turrets are not as important as the forward turrets in a battle line. (And in Richelieu's case, it was the fastest ship of its day so it also had the initiative of choosing its battles)
The British Nelson class (which were built in the 1920s) also did the "put all guns in the front" but they had issues with gun blast causing damage to the deck and interfering with each other because the turrets were placed too close together.
i maintain its cringe to name something after richelieu but that's an impressive boat. of course making the nicest battleship was ultimately completely pointless but nevertheless
It is a French boat so :france-cool: Richelieu was probably the most well balanced battleship of WW2 but Yamato takes home the prize of big gun boat becoming obsolete by the end of the war
The Bismarck shit is so funny, particularly given that it was not only beaten by Swordfish, but was terrified of the decades old HMS Rodney cause for all her weird layout, she had that 16 in gun. Large surface vessels already where a waste at that point, but Bismarck couldn't even compete with older vessels when it wasn't one v one with no retreats. The pocket-battleships fared better
I would contest the assertion that surface ships were obsolete in like '41, and the carrier dominant view of naval history is mostly due to USN domination of english Naval historiography, because that was what the Americans were best at. That said, Bismarck sucked lmao, and everything else is basically true.
Yeah, most of the actual naval battles at that point were still being won with traditional battleships because for the most part dive bombers and torpedo bombers still couldn't really finish them off, though they could do things like fuck up their propellers so they'd have to be towed back to port. Carriers became more important strategically because carrier-based bombers had a much longer strike range than even the biggest naval artillery, but most of their role in naval battles was something along the lines of finding and harrying enemy ships rather than outright wiping out fleets.
Arguably carriers are now obsolete for basically the same reasons, since modern missile tech puts basically the same functionality of a carrier-based-bomber in a smaller, disposable package that can be launched from anything big enough to mount a launcher instead of requiring a 5,000 person floating football field (although the latter is still probably meaningful logistically).
see Midway... Guadalcanal was literally one of two battles in the Pacific where battleships actually fought.
Europe doesnt seem so aircraft carrier focused because ze Germans had a pitiful surface navy and the Italians got owned by fucking Swordfish.
i think the fact that most battleships in WW2 faced no or very little contact with enemy ships is highly indicative of.the fact they were obsolete going into the war
I mean I have my disagreements but this is going beyond the scope of the thread and at the end of the day this shit barely matters, so whatever and military analysis as a field is way less objective than people think it is. You're not wrong on the first two points, I just think it's reductive to characterize the entirety of surface capital ships as a 'waste', especially as early as '41.
Agreed. I meant huge battleships. The English made advances in destroyers that helped win the war, Germany went hard on fast battleships, investments they couldn't justify ever using. A surface fleet needs to be about to fight, not just be a fleet in being
that song i actually dislike the most because it continues to perpetuate the myth that Bismarck was some kind of uber battleship when every one of her contemporaries were superior from a naval architecture perspective and I will stop myself there before I write more than anyone here wants to read.
i very much want to read Bismarck hatemail
Bismarck was a very mediocre ship from a design perspective and really overrated cuz of Wehraboos and :le-pol-face: type "history nerds".
Design problems:
-3 propellers instead of 4 which reduced the ability of the ship to steer if a propeller or rudder gets damaged (and ultimately, the British scored a lucky torpedo hit that jammed Bismarck's rudder and doomed the ship)
-Radar would get damaged after a salvo from the main guns
-The 105 mm dual purpose guns were exposed instead of put into armored turrets (because I guess German steel is magically immune to sea water corrosion?) Every other navy had the sense to put their dual purpose guns in proper turrets
-Fire control for the 105 mm guns were bad and they were unable to properly track the British torpedo bombers that attacked Bismarck
-Low levels of short range AA guns (though this was common for most battleships launched during the late 1930s and early 1940s)
:stalin-approval: might post about it later then, if I remember and feel up for it.
the guy, the boat or the town in America because I have strong negative views on all three
this is the correct leftist take
Also, Grand Forks < Comically Large Spoon
If you compare Bismarck to similar battleships from its era on paper, it doesn't have anything that's remarkably better:
(name, displacement, main guns, top speed, main belt armor, turret armor)
Bismarck Class: 41,000 tons standard, eight 15 inch guns, 30 knots, 320 mm main belt, 360 mm turret
Littorio Class: 41,000 tons standard, nine 15 inch guns, 30 knots, 280 mm main belt, 380 mm turret
North Carolina Class 37,000 tons standard, nine 16 inch guns, 28 knots, 305 mm main belt, 406 mm turret
Richelieu Class: 37,000 tons standard, eight 15 inch guns, 32 knots, 320 mm main belt, 430 mm turret
King George V Class: 37,000 tons, ten 14 inch guns, 28 knots, 380 mm main belt, 320 mm turret
Will add some technical details here:
380mm/45 Calibre mle 1935 Point Blank Penetration (Richelieu): 701 mm
38cm SKC/34 Point Blank Penetration (Bismarck): 510mm
APC mle 36 Bursting Charge: 21.9 kg
APC L/4,4 Bursting Charge: 18,8
Even in comparison with similar calibre weapons systems, Bismarck's main guns were deficient and built based off of WWI era tech. Richelieu's maligned dispersion issues were a flaw that would have been fixed if France hadn't surrendered, and post-war demonstrates that the Quad-gun system became quite accurate and potent when matured. Very underrated design.
Thanks for the info. I always heard the thing where "Bismarck is just a really oversized Bayern" but I didn't know it was that bad lmao.
im no navy guy but of these, Richeliu (good god is that fr*nch?) is the best on paper? lighter but big turrets and same size guns?
You could argue it was theoretically the best. Richelieu put all its guns in the front which allowed the armored citadel to be shorter which meant either a faster ship for the same armor or a more heavily armored ship for the same speed. You don't lose too much because the rear turrets are not as important as the forward turrets in a battle line. (And in Richelieu's case, it was the fastest ship of its day so it also had the initiative of choosing its battles)
The British Nelson class (which were built in the 1920s) also did the "put all guns in the front" but they had issues with gun blast causing damage to the deck and interfering with each other because the turrets were placed too close together.
i maintain its cringe to name something after richelieu but that's an impressive boat. of course making the nicest battleship was ultimately completely pointless but nevertheless
they named the other one after a pirate, Jean Bart, which is much cooler.
Pirate and the Hammer of the Prots
Based Battleship Names
spoiler
(i know i just said Riche was cringe, christian sectarianism is fun in either direction)
It is a French boat so :france-cool: Richelieu was probably the most well balanced battleship of WW2 but Yamato takes home the prize of big gun boat becoming obsolete by the end of the war
The Bismarck shit is so funny, particularly given that it was not only beaten by Swordfish, but was terrified of the decades old HMS Rodney cause for all her weird layout, she had that 16 in gun. Large surface vessels already where a waste at that point, but Bismarck couldn't even compete with older vessels when it wasn't one v one with no retreats. The pocket-battleships fared better
I would contest the assertion that surface ships were obsolete in like '41, and the carrier dominant view of naval history is mostly due to USN domination of english Naval historiography, because that was what the Americans were best at. That said, Bismarck sucked lmao, and everything else is basically true.
Yeah, most of the actual naval battles at that point were still being won with traditional battleships because for the most part dive bombers and torpedo bombers still couldn't really finish them off, though they could do things like fuck up their propellers so they'd have to be towed back to port. Carriers became more important strategically because carrier-based bombers had a much longer strike range than even the biggest naval artillery, but most of their role in naval battles was something along the lines of finding and harrying enemy ships rather than outright wiping out fleets.
Arguably carriers are now obsolete for basically the same reasons, since modern missile tech puts basically the same functionality of a carrier-based-bomber in a smaller, disposable package that can be launched from anything big enough to mount a launcher instead of requiring a 5,000 person floating football field (although the latter is still probably meaningful logistically).
see: Matapan, Guadalcanal campaigns, Narvik, North Cape etc...
see Midway... Guadalcanal was literally one of two battles in the Pacific where battleships actually fought.
Europe doesnt seem so aircraft carrier focused because ze Germans had a pitiful surface navy and the Italians got owned by fucking Swordfish.
i think the fact that most battleships in WW2 faced no or very little contact with enemy ships is highly indicative of.the fact they were obsolete going into the war
I mean I have my disagreements but this is going beyond the scope of the thread and at the end of the day this shit barely matters, so whatever and military analysis as a field is way less objective than people think it is. You're not wrong on the first two points, I just think it's reductive to characterize the entirety of surface capital ships as a 'waste', especially as early as '41.
true and i hope i didnt come off combative lol. this is just banter it dont matter. :deng-cowboy:
Agreed. I meant huge battleships. The English made advances in destroyers that helped win the war, Germany went hard on fast battleships, investments they couldn't justify ever using. A surface fleet needs to be about to fight, not just be a fleet in being
i do like sabaton but that one is both cringe and not even good if you discount the cringe