The Effectiveness Of The Bismarck + Other Nazi Superweapons

[Tyyr]

Actually that's a pretty horrible example for your point. The Char B1 wasn't an underrated tank on paper and a dynamo in the field. It was a crappy tank saved by the fact that German tanks were worse. At that point in the war the Panzer III had a 37mm anti-tank gun and the IV had a low velocity 75mm howitzer. Combine with mediocre armor they were low end medium tanks at best and the Char was just a big fucking hunk of metal.

Contrary to what a lot of people think early WWII German tanks were pretty pathetic. It wasn't until they introduced the PzIVG in late 42 with it's longer barreled 75mm gun that the Germans had a solid medium tank to work with.

[Captain Seafort]

The reality is that any fully worked up, 1930's or later, US or RN battleship probably paste the Bismark in pretty short order.

An early 1920s battleship did paste her in pretty short order - the early stages, including the critical early hits that knocked out Anton and Bruno and the forward gunnery station, were effectively a one-on-one slugging match between Bismarck and Rodney. The bulk of the action consisted of the two British ship wasting ammo by pouring fire into her at short range - the sort of engagement the Bismarck was best suited to. If they'd stood off and delivered plunging fire, there's a decent chance she'd have taken a magazine hit and blown up - her dual-deck armour arrangement meant that any AP shell that got through the upper deck would also go through the lower deck.

Yeah, but they're just making bigger and bigger 1920's era ships.

Not even that. Bismarck was a 1916 design, badly updated. The armour layout was a big part of the problem, but her triple screw layout and the general weakness of the stern structure (something that German WW2 heavies are notorious for) made her extremely vulnerable to the sort of damage the Stringbag's torpedo did, her AAA was shite and her rangefinding gear, while very good for finding the range quickly, was tiring to use and led to a loss of accuracy in extended engagements (the same problem was experienced at Jutland).

Most of the problems can be traced back to the allied abolition of the naval design bureau at the end of WW1 - when it was reformed lost the institutionalised experience of it's Imperial predecessor.

But still, we aren't sure how powerful the Bismark would really had been in a classic engagement. She had weaknesses, but I can't really find any design that doesn't.

Her final action pretty much was a classic engagement, and one that played fairly well to her strengths - she was silenced in a bit over twenty minutes.

seriously damage the Prince of Wales

No she didn't. She got some decent hits in, but PoW was still in fighting order when Wake-Walker called her off. Bismarck suffered far more serious damage in that action.

she was meant to fight in the North Sea

No she wasn't - she was intended as a commerce-raider in the North Atlantic, hence her huge range.

Without manoeuvrability, she was easy picking for the long-range weaponry of the Royal Navy, which wouldn't had been the case for that lucky shot.

She was certainly vulnerable, but Tovey deliberately closed to point-blank range to take advantage of the excellent vertical protection of his ships. Given Bismarck's weaknesses he would've been better off staying at long range, but his ships still punched holes through Bismarck's sides.

[Captain Seafort]

Combine with mediocre armor they were low end medium tanks at best and the Char was just a big f***ing hunk of metal.

Depends on your definition of "medium". Compared with mid- or late-war armour, sure, but by the standards of 1940 it was a decent heavy tank.

[Tyyr]

By medium I meant the German tanks, the Char at the time was very much a heavy tank.

[Captain Seafort]

By medium I meant the German tanks, the Char at the time was very much a heavy tank.

That I can entirely agree with. Pity the only decent armoured commander the French had was a jumped-up Colonel with an ego that would've embarrassed Napoleon.

[BigJKU316]

An early 1920s battleship did paste her in pretty short order - the early stages, including the critical early hits that knocked out Anton and Bruno and the forward gunnery station, were effectively a one-on-one slugging match between Bismarck and Rodney. The bulk of the action consisted of the two British ship wasting ammo by pouring fire into her at short range - the sort of engagement the Bismarck was best suited to. If they'd stood off and delivered plunging fire, there's a decent chance she'd have taken a magazine hit and blown up - her dual-deck armour arrangement meant that any AP shell that got through the upper deck would also go through the lower deck.

Yeah, one could likely expand opponents likely to best Bismark backwards for both the RN and USN. To be fair I try to block Rodney from my memory. For as pretty as the QE's were the Rodney was nearly as ugly.

[Captain Seafort]

Yeah, one could likely expand opponents likely to best Bismark backwards for both the RN and USN. To be fair I try to block Rodney from my memory. For as pretty as the QE's were the Rodney was nearly as ugly.

She got the job done though. I like the Nelson design - they certainly aren't graceful, but they look solid and purposeful. While I like the QEs, they'll never look as good as Tiger.

[Atekimogus]

Probably a moot point and I am not saying the Bismarck was a brilliant design but did she ever fought an engagement were she was not seriously outnumbered? Even if she fought one on one with the Rodney for a while as Seafort wrote it still stands that Bismarck was operating alone, while Rodney could fall back and let others fight for a while. (True, Prinz Eugen escorted her for a while but not during her final engagements).

In other words, were other Navys every spread so thin, that they resorted to let their capital ships operate without proper escort? Considering how hugely outnumbered they were I guess the main design flaw is that she never should have been built, they should have put the ressources into their excellent electro-uboote imho. (But then the threat of the Tirpitz was enough to bind a sizeable force for a time, so maybe those ships did pay off...I don't know)

[Reliant121]

Unterseebooten....type 21 was it? Impressive little ship. Far too late though.

[Tyyr]

No ships will ever be as gorgeous as....





The Alaska class battlecruisers.

Yeah, pretty much all of German's surface Navy was a tribute to Hitler's ego. Though one has to wonder if they might have managed a decent, if small, navy by 1944 when the war was supposed to start.

[Reliant121]

Aesthetically at least, I have never been a fan of the American WW vessels. I generally preferred Jap ships.

[Atekimogus]

Well the same problem as the Bismarck imho, sure the Yamato was impressive but did she actually manage anything? Afaik she was mainly just used as troop transport...... .

[Reliant121]

I didn't mean the big guns. I was talking purely aesthetically, I like the Mogami's. Although i have a soft spot for the Nagato class.

[Mikey]

Aesthetically at least, I have never been a fan of the American WW vessels. I generally preferred Jap ships.

Even subs? I think the Gato-class was one of the sexiest maritime vessels of its time.

[Reliant121]

I prefered the Tambor. but the US subs were pretty nice.