USS Arizona vs. Bizmark

[Terje Langoy]

My position is that once Bismarck has chosen to fight Arizona she has given up the advantage of choosing whether or not to fight.

It would be absurd to challenge you on this. Neither did I actually make that choice - I simply pointed out that for the faster combatant a choice exist of which the slower combatant do not have. My post did not aim specifically towards the scenario Bismarck vs Arizona. It was a response to one of the previous posters where armor and guns were considered more important than speed. I disagree.

With respect to bringing up various ships that hit another ship at whatever yards, I think that tends to be irrelevant unless you can also show that was the average for that ship type over time. For example, Warspite hit another ship at about the same range as the Scharnhorst hit you describe. Does that make Warspite's fire control better than Bismarcks? I don't think so.

Again I did not state that German fire control was superior to Allied fire control but simply pointed out that their historical achievements support the notion that German fire control was good. I also said it would be difficult to compare navies and nations since equipment alone is part of a process - which includes crew training and skills. I did not compare that either. I provided examples where German ships obtained hits early in battle, this as I consider time an essential factor. Eliminate time from the equation and suddenly every ship afloat in World War two will have a good fire control.

[Bgile]

Terry,

I don't think there is really any significant difference in our positions on this. For example, I agree that in the Denmark Strait engagement Bismarck showed better proficiency than that British at straddling quickly. Her gunnery standard looked very good in that engagement.

I have evidence that North Carolina was very good at gaining quick straddles, but that was later in the war, so who can say how another ship or specifically Arizona would do? We just don't know.

[lwd]

A few not so minor corrections

...
while an American (presumably more modern and better equiped) battleship only managed to hit a stationary target 5 times in 90 minutes (operation torch, naval attack on Casablanca, firing from 22000m).
[/qouote]
Note that Jean Bart was not visible to Mass. in that engagement some of which may have taken place at ranges over 30,000 yards.

It's true that another American battleship, only 1 week after, managed to destroy Kirishima firing 63 shells, out of which at least 9 (16% of the total) hit the IJN BB. ....

If you look around this forum a bit you'll find a link to a report on the damage Kirishima recieved. She apparently took around 20 hits.

[lwd]

...It was a response to one of the previous posters where armor and guns were considered more important than speed. I disagree. ....

I think there point was that once an engagement has begun it is less important indeed of fairly minor importance in determining who wins. It may be critical in determing if an engament occurs and how much damage either side recieves as well as having huge strategic signifigance but on determining who wins a one on one not so much.

[alecsandros]

If you look around this forum a bit you'll find a link to a report on the damage Kirishima recieved. She apparently took around 20 hits.

My friend,
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=647&start=90. See the third post from bottom to top

[yellowtail3]

My friend,
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=647&start=90. See the third post from bottom to top

that's the post where you said the Arizona had only 3" of armor, right?

[alecsandros]

My friend,
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=647&start=90. See the third post from bottom to top

that's the post where you said the Arizona had only 3" of armor, right?

No, I said third from bottom to top, not the other way around

[alecsandros]

True, but why didn't you mention it was at night, against a high speed target on a reciprocal course? I don't really have a problem with your logic except you seem to only use the facts you think will advance your case. I guess that's only human.

One point I'd like to make though is that people have indicated that Bismarck being some seven knots faster than Arizona makes her much harder to hit. Washington was shooting at a target whose relative bearing change was equivalent to a target on the same course going about 50 knots faster than she was. As long as you enter the correct info in the FC computer there is no reason why that is an insurmountable problem, though. Same with a faster target.

Agreed. I didn't know Kirishima was moving so fast at the moment.
Anyway, if we are to look closely at the details, we must also say that the Washington fired at 7.6km, using Mark VII 16'' shells, that had a muzzle velocity of 700m/s. That means the shell would travel some 7-9 seconds before hitting Kirishima. And, as the distance decreased, the time of flight also shrank. In 7 seconds, the Kirishima could only have moved some 90 meters (25kts*1852m/3.6), hardly half a ship's length. So, it was rather normal to hit her, provided an accurate range and bearing. They didn't need to compensate for the Kirishima's movement - the shots would get there anyway.

At longer ranges, the problem is much more complicated, because the time of flight can be 40-50 sec, enough for a change of course, decrease/increase of speed (due to battle conditions), etc.

Cheers

[Bgile]

At long range a significant course change would definitely throw off an enemy ship's gunnery, the more so if you are going fast. However, in 1940 it would also have a serious deleterious effect on your own gunnery, so typically it wasn't done unless you were losing the fight and trying to get away.

[Terje Langoy]

Terry,

I don't think there is really any significant difference in our positions on this. For example, I agree that in the Denmark Strait engagement Bismarck showed better proficiency than that British at straddling quickly. Her gunnery standard looked very good in that engagement.

I have evidence that North Carolina was very good at gaining quick straddles, but that was later in the war, so who can say how another ship or specifically Arizona would do? We just don't know.

I suspect we are indeed at the same wave length, Steve. Yes the battles I mentioned nourish the idea of German fire control quality - their historical ability to find range quickly. Was it the norm..? I don´t know. But I do prefer actual performance over theoretical probability any day. Statistical figures for comparisons provide isolated results and this usually under optimal circumstances - which does not necessarily make a probable scenario. There´s a wide array of factors at play, from rapidly shifting external conditions right down to the performance of the individual sailor in the midst of battle. I have restrained from commenting many of these vs-scenarios of that reason because, as you put it, we just don´t know.

...It was a response to one of the previous posters where armor and guns were considered more important than speed. I disagree. ....

I think there point was that once an engagement has begun it is less important indeed of fairly minor importance in determining who wins. It may be critical in determing if an engament occurs and how much damage either side recieves as well as having huge strategic signifigance but on determining who wins a one on one not so much.

Yes, speed superiority is an entrance/exit ticket to battle but set aside that; presuming battle accepted, then speed will be of significance to keep your opponent where you want him, rather than opposite. The faster ship can also, for as long as speed ability remain intact, withdraw from battle should combat ability be severely reduced whereupon the slower ship, if combat ability be decreased, simply has no choice but to fight back until defeated. I´m no fan of such all-or-nothing policy - I don´t want my ship to fight a battle it cannot win - yes speed is significant. It is significant whether you elude, attack or withdraw.

Another reason why I don´t comment very much these vs-scenarios. I don´t always translate withdrawal as defeat. If battle should decide to suddenly turn against you then it´s better to pull out before you get yourself sunk. One-on-one scenarios does unfortunately not permit sane decisions, this being the sort of decisions that usually includes a temporary withdrawal in order to execute repairs of battle damage. Yes it it impossible to predict and implement the human factor into any theoretical comparison but it only goes to show how potentially flawed those scenarios eventually may be.

At the risk of being labelled prudish and unreasonable, that´s as far as I´ll take it.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Agreed. I didn't know Kirishima was moving so fast at the moment.
Anyway, if we are to look closely at the details, we must also say that the Washington fired at 7.6km, using Mark VII 16'' shells, that had a muzzle velocity of 700m/s. That means the shell would travel some 7-9 seconds before hitting Kirishima. And, as the distance decreased, the time of flight also shrank. In 7 seconds, the Kirishima could only have moved some 90 meters (25kts*1852m/3.6), hardly half a ship's length. So, it was rather normal to hit her, provided an accurate range and bearing. They didn't need to compensate for the Kirishima's movement - the shots would get there anyway.

At longer ranges, the problem is much more complicated, because the time of flight can be 40-50 sec, enough for a change of course, decrease/increase of speed (due to battle conditions), etc.

Cheers

Before addressing the issue of Washington mauling Kirishima, and the way Washington got early straddles, it is more important to address the issue of how South Dakota failed, in that same engagement, to hit anything using RDFC early in the combat. Then we must address how the Japanese, on the other side of the same engagement, did straddle and hit South Dakota (reciprocal) producing the damage that, later,resulted in the blackout. It was good also for South Dakota that Kirishima did not used full AP salvoes since the start of the hitting process. South Dakota did return to be repaired only because of

Just for keeping the reminder on the spot.

[lwd]

.... Yes the battles I mentioned nourish the idea of German fire control quality - their historical ability to find range quickly. Was it the norm..? I don´t know.

If you look at engagements where the Germans were firing 11" or larger ammo I suspect that it is the "norm". I certainly don't have info on all of them but ...
River Platt - Spee shot very well with her 11" guns.
Bismarck got on target quickly in both of her engagments.
The twins did well in at least two of the engagments I'm familiar with. Surely someone here can provide more details.

Indeed I can't think of a one that I'm familiar with where the Germans didn't straddle fairly quickly.

......, then speed will be of significance to keep your opponent where you want him, rather than opposite.

That's probably it's biggest impact during a battle. In some cases it will be very important but usually only if one ship has a large superiority in some range band.

The faster ship can also, for as long as speed ability remain intact, withdraw from battle should combat ability be severely reduced whereupon the slower ship, if combat ability be decreased, simply has no choice but to fight back until defeated.

Indeed, but in a one on one this is an admission of defeat.

Another reason why I don´t comment very much these vs-scenarios.

While they shine a light on some aspects of what makes a ship better they do also tend to hide other aspects. Indeed they completely discount things like range, habitability, and such.

I don´t always translate withdrawal as defeat. ....

In many cases it's not. In others as you suggest better a minor defeat with minor damage rather than a strategic defeat and new reef. Considerations that one on ones tend to mask.

[alecsandros]

If you look at engagements where the Germans were firing 11" or larger ammo I suspect that it is the "norm". I certainly don't have info on all of them but ...
River Platt - Spee shot very well with her 11" guns.
Bismarck got on target quickly in both of her engagments.
The twins did well in at least two of the engagments I'm familiar with. Surely someone here can provide more details.

Indeed I can't think of a one that I'm familiar with where the Germans didn't straddle fairly quickly.

I'll add to that Hipper hitting the Achates with the first salvo from 18.000 m during the Battle of the BS, and Lutzow damaging Obdurate at nearly 16000m, with the first salvo, during the same battle.

[Thorsten Wahl]

The river plate performance was not good as expected and Langsdorff was criticized by KM Officers to lead a Panzerschiff in a torpedoboat behavior, decreasing the chances of his main guns

[lwd]

The river plate performance was not good as expected and Langsdorff was criticized by KM Officers to lead a Panzerschiff in a torpedoboat behavior, decreasing the chances of his main guns

The last time I read about the battle I remember being impressed by the percentage of straddles. The disadvantage of fewer guns is lower number of hits per straddle but the indicator of good shooting is straddles.