USS Arizona vs. Bizmark

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: USS Arizona vs. Bizmark

Post by Legend »

There is no doubt that Iowa would maul Bismarck... the fact that Iowa's superior radar and fire control would put her superior 16in shells into Bismarck (probably) faster than Bismarck could hone in to Iowa herself. I know that Bismarck had superior optics and gunnery crews, by all standards, but compared to radar guided fire...

But that is not the topic here. I believe that we have agreed that shells and speed are irrelevant. At this point the main problem I see is in Arizona's accuracy. I do not know anything about her targeting systems, while I know Bismarck's reputation...
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: USS Arizona vs. Bizmark

Post by alecsandros »

Legend wrote: I believe that we have agreed that shells and speed are irrelevant. At this point the main problem I see is in Arizona's accuracy. I do not know anything about her targeting systems, while I know Bismarck's reputation...
Why are shells and speed irrelevant? I think they are very important...
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: USS Arizona vs. Bizmark

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

However, the harsh reality is that the Iowa's were better in all aspects regarding ship-to-ship battles, so, with great pain, I must say that the Bismarck would only win by luck. In fact, the Iowa would do the Bismarck the same thing Bismarck would do to Warspite: it's just a different league, in terms of armor, guns, speed, fire control, you name it.
That is what I thought time ago but not now, not now. There is a lot of information to check this (which does not mean that it is not that way, per se). Iowa, as North Carolina and South Dakota was a victim of many limitations that started in 1921 and were never ended with World War II because, the design that was supposed to end them, USS Montana, was never built.

Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: USS Arizona vs. Bizmark

Post by alecsandros »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
That is what I thought time ago but not now, not now. There is a lot of information to check this (which does not mean that it is not that way, per se). Iowa, as North Carolina and South Dakota was a victim of many limitations that started in 1921 and were never ended with World War II because, the design that was supposed to end them, USS Montana, was never built.

Best regards,
Well Karl, I've read some of your posts on "Bismarck and her contemporaries" and "Top ten battleships" (sp?) and it's clear that the American (not only Iowa's) battleships had some problems, and I can't disagree with you on that. Maybe my comparison with Warspite was a little off... Also, I stick to my opinion that we can't know what would really happen if 2 behemoths like these would realy meet. They are just to complex.

However, given the fact that we are in the "hypothetical scenarios" board, I'd say that Iowa is most likely to win, with 70-30% odds, mainly because of the following assumptions:
- the battle would take place at over 25000m, at which the plunging fire would be critical, and the Iowa has better armored decks and more powerfull AP shells.
- the American damage control teams tended to do surprinsingly good jobs
- Iowa's turrets were much better protected than Bismarcks, and that would mean a better probability of continous fire from all the turrets throughout the engagement
- finaly, I consider the behavior of German 15" shells to be inferior to that of the American 16" MkVII, regarding battle-tested dud rates.

Again, I don't like this.. Bismarck and Tirpitz are great ships, probably the best European Battleships (in terms of ship-to-ship fighting at least), and I tend to like them very very much :) But still, I think we should give to Caesar's what it's Caesar's....

All the best,
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: USS Arizona vs. Bizmark

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Every Caesar has it´s Brutus...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: USS Arizona vs. Bizmark

Post by RF »

True, but Ceasar had good reason to keep watch on Brutus beforehand, but did nothing to prevent his treachery......

Always be prepared.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: USS Arizona vs. Bizmark

Post by yellowtail3 »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
While 'old', she was well-armored when new - all or nothing - and had been thoroughly modernized ten years earlier. There she got better deck protection, better torpedo protection, better AA armament, modern FC equipment, etc etc. Her guns were modernized, increasing their range to over 30K yards and shooting a heavy shell. Delay coils added to tighten patterns. At likely battle ranges - 15K-20K yards? - she would have been a much more dangerous opponent than Hood (so long as she doesn't have to outrun anything).
Further specialized reading is requested here. All the points are mistaken or misuntestood.
Mistaken or 'misunterstood'? What? Where? How so?

What of the above would you quibble with? The bit about being more dangerous than Hood is opinion, of course, but it is an informed opinion - I was thinking of Arizona's better protection and more modern fire control equipment, compared to Hood's. All the rest was objectively true.

You disagree? How so? What kind of specialized reading do you suggest, anyhow?
Shift Colors... underway.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: USS Arizona vs. Bizmark

Post by Bgile »

I think Arizona is more powerful than Hood, but her slow speed would have made it impossible for her to intercept Bismarck or any of the other German surface units. All the armor and firepower in the world is worthless if you can't bring it into action.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: USS Arizona vs. Bizmark

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

I believe that Arizona as the Maryland or the other "old" bathtubs were WWI ships in a WWII context, even after modifications. They were suitable to do, precisely, what Oldendrof did at Surigao: a Strait, a battleline, guarding the rear of the armada, mauling the Japanese South Force. There they were worth gold when stopped cold Nishimura and Shima. That´s the context we must guard here.

On a one vs one context Bismarck is like a Klingon Battlecruiser when compared against Arizona. Which is why, lately, I do not follow that much the hypothetical scenarios: we forget too many things when going to this 1 to 1 evaluations. That´s why you don´t buy a 1/4 mile dragster to go to work every morning: you buy a normal car that accomplish the mission (Maryland at Surigao accomplished the mission; Iowa escorting fast carriers accomplished the mission; Bismarck at Rheinubung did not accomplished it´s mission)

Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: USS Arizona vs. Bizmark

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Bismarck at Rheinubung did not accomplished it´s mission



But it gave a damn good fight nevertheless!
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: USS Arizona vs. Bizmark

Post by yellowtail3 »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:I believe that Arizona as the Maryland or the other "old" bathtubs were WWI ships in a WWII context, even after modifications. They were suitable to do, precisely, what Oldendrof did at Surigao: a Strait, a battleline, guarding the rear of the armada, mauling the Japanese South Force.
ah a battleline; just what battleships are for, right?
Karl Heidenreich wrote:There they were worth gold when stopped cold Nishimura and Shima. That´s the context we must guard here.
well, most of the stopping cold of Nishimura was accomplished by a squadron of DDs; the BBs just got in some target practice and finished scuppering torpedoed Jap BB. Maybe a little specialized reading is in order for you?
Karl Heidenreich wrote:On a one vs one context Bismarck is like a Klingon Battlecruiser when compared against Arizona.
I don't know much about Klingon battlecruisers. Were they overrated, oversized, undergunned Kraut BBs with a lousy AA armament?
Shift Colors... underway.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: USS Arizona vs. Bizmark

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

I don't know much about Klingon battlecruisers. Were they overrated, oversized, undergunned Kraut BBs with a lousy AA armament?
I do regard that it is your cultural background what is overrated and undersized you moron!
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: USS Arizona vs. Bizmark

Post by yellowtail3 »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
I don't know much about Klingon battlecruisers. Were they overrated, oversized, undergunned Kraut BBs with a lousy AA armament?
I do regard that it is your cultural background what is overrated and undersized you moron!
whaaaat? What cultural background is that?

Here I was, hoping you were gonna explain the connection between a klingon battlecruiser - does that mean it is thin-skinned? - and that short-lived German battleship. I'll be glad to hear it!
Shift Colors... underway.
User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: USS Arizona vs. Bizmark

Post by Legend »

A Klingon Battlecruiser is a reference to a show called Star Trek. From what I know the Klingons had awesome weponry... so being compared to one is probably good. Now back to the topic.

I have to agree with the old chaps and say that Iowa would have come out no problem against Bismarck, considering her 16in shells would make mincemeat of Bismarck's deck armor and superstructure.

Now, I seem to recall many photos of the wreck showing KGV's 14in shells that shattered against the vertical hull armor. What's to say if Bismarck could get into close range she could be impenetrable to Arizona's hail of shells...
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.
yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: USS Arizona vs. Bizmark

Post by yellowtail3 »

Legend wrote:Now, I seem to recall many photos of the wreck showing KGV's 14in shells that shattered against the vertical hull armor. What's to say if Bismarck could get into close range she could be impenetrable to Arizona's hail of shells...
Arizona's guns could penetrate 16" of armor at 15K yards, 14" at 19K yards. How thick were Bismarck's plates?

the closer it gets, the worser it gets for Bismarck.
Shift Colors... underway.
Post Reply