Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu » Tue Aug 28, 2007 2:05 am

And is such an ocassion, South Dak doing poorly, I imagine that still Bismarck doesn´t have a chance...?
There's something wrong with your imagination.

User avatar
_Derfflinger_
Supporter
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:01 pm
Location: Missouri, USA

Post by _Derfflinger_ » Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:32 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Gary:

If we see WWII history is relevant to note that the allies never aproached and engaged an equivalent enemy ship on a one to one basis but only with disproporcionate numerical superiority. And being the opportunity, as the sinking of Yamato plainly demostrate, the allies would never risk their own "unvulnerable" BB but used aircraft.
That´s plain that the allied commanders, who knew better than a theoretical naval penetration formulae, considered a great risk to engage their foes on an one vs. one basis, which would make us think what would happened if these commanders would have been in Nelson shoes at Trafalgar: being the British outnumbered 33 to 27?
These events were not football games, but very ugly war battles. If you enjoy numerical superiority, ot technical superiority, or whatever superiority, you are duty bound to use it. Nothing wrong or unfair with that. It gets battles over with quicker and saves lives on both sides in the long run.

And - the allies in WW2 were often outnumbered or in inferior positions. They did themselves proud in many of those events, just as Nelson did. Guadalcanal, Coral Sea, Midway, the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Bulge all come to mind. Very Nelsonian.

derf

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Post by lwd » Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:58 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:...
If we see WWII history is relevant to note that the allies never aproached and engaged an equivalent enemy ship on a one to one basis but only with disproporcionate numerical superiority. And being the opportunity, as the sinking of Yamato plainly demostrate, ...
I seam to recall the Renown taking on the twins. Some of the actions in the Med and Pacific were also cases where the Axis vessels had equal or superior numbers Midway comes to min although the Coral Sea is another big one.

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

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:11 pm

The ocassion were the allies were outnumbered demostrate a great deal of courage and superior warrior skills that, in many other episodes, lacks.
But in those ocassions the allies had other advantages that gave them superiority in an scale bigger than the numerical one:
At the Battle of Britain they had radar as their secret weapon and the Spitfire.
At Midway they had "purple" and Nimitz.
At Guadalcanal the US were not so numerical inferior.
And at the Battle of the Bulge they were not outnumbered and had Patton on their side. As a matter of fact the Germans only achieved local numerical superiority the first days only over their advance axis and not even that. The fact that two complete US infantry divisions disintegrated when struck was what gave the undermanned SS divisions that relative "advantage". But after the US III Army got on the move (because Monty and XXX Corps didn´t want to move) the overall and local numerical superiority was again in allied hands.

And the discussion was about the fact that in naval warfare the allies ever aproached in numerical superiority, as previously stated, and when they had many CV around they even didn´t bother to send their allmighty RFC and indistructible BBs, as the sinking of Yamato gaves testimony...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Post by lwd » Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:38 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:The ocassion were tghe allies were outnumbered demostrate a great deal of courage and superior warrior skills that, in many other episodes, lacks.
I'm not quite sure what you just said. Could you clarify and give some examples of those "episodes"?
And the discussion was about the fact that in naval warfare the allies ever aproached in numerical superiority, as previously stated, ...
Again the wording here is unclear but note that Renown (or was it her sister?) took on the twins by herself.
and when they had many CV around they even didn´t bother to send their allmighty RFC and indistructible BBs, as the sinking of Yamato gaves testimony...
And your point is? Note that they considered it but decided on the low risk approach.

User avatar
Nellie
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:18 am
Location: Stockholm Sweden

Re: Bismarck v SD

Post by Nellie » Sun Sep 09, 2007 7:25 pm

longreach wrote:hi as to a fight between bismarck and SD.its more than likely that bismarck would win that engagement,,,,,her faster rate of fire,, .
One round per 30 seconds for SD against 25 seconds for Bismarck, thats really nothing to talk about!

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3626
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Post by dunmunro » Sun Sep 09, 2007 7:46 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
But in those ocassions the allies had other advantages that gave them superiority in an scale bigger than the numerical one:
At Calabria, the Warspite took on two BBs, out shot them both, damaged one with the longest range BB to BB hit ever, and drove them off, all without RFC.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck v SD

Post by lwd » Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:22 am

Nellie wrote:
longreach wrote:hi as to a fight between bismarck and SD.its more than likely that bismarck would win that engagement,,,,,her faster rate of fire,, .
One round per 30 seconds for SD against 25 seconds for Bismarck, thats really nothing to talk about!
Especially since at the ranges where they would likely open fire there would effectively be no difference in rate of fire. around 1 minute each from what I recall.

kidbandit
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:36 am
Location: toronto,canada

Re: Bismarck v SD

Post by kidbandit » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:33 am

what the hell ru talking about 25 sec. to 30 sec. is nothing to talk about. In 2 m 10 sec. of battle thats an extra round fired & in a full salvo thats 8 rounds fired. So correct me if i'm wrong the more shots fired the more of a chance of hitting the enemy ship & the more u hit the enemy ship the graeter the chance of winning weather it be the BISMARCK or not
Right or wrong? :think:
"Open fire when you have your range"

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck v SD

Post by lwd » Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:09 pm

kidbandit wrote:what the hell ru talking about 25 sec. to 30 sec. is nothing to talk about . In 2 m 10 sec. of battle thats an extra round fired & in a full salvo thats 8 rounds fired. So corect me if i'm wrong the more shot's fired the more of a chance of hitting the enemy ship & the more u hit the enemy ship the graetter the chance of winning weather it be the BISMARCK or not
Right or wrong? :think:
Yes

In general the more shots fired the better the chance / more hits. However in long range battleship engagments the tendency is to wait until a salvo has landed and correct the next one based on where that one hit. If you allow for time of flight you get about 1 minute.

Incidently ru is an abreviation for Russia.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile » Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:40 pm

Observed salvo interval could easily be somewhat more than a minute if you add in time to observe the splashes rising high enough to be observed over the curvature of the earth, and then correcting the next salvo before firing it. I think that amounts to another 10 seconds or so.

Having said that, once she had a good solution Bismarck was capable of firing 16 second salvoes. I've seen one in a film shot at DS. They varied of course ... that was the fastest one and I think the slowest one out of 5 or 6 was 22 seconds. Any time they were observed "off" the target there would be another big pause to bracket the target again though. I guess my point is that Bismarck's rate of fire was an advantage, but you can't just multiply it over the course of a battle because it didn't work that way.

On the other hand, it was not unusual for late war US BBs using radar to straddle the target on the first salvo. Bismarck's deck and turret armor was vulnerable to US 16" AP at long range.

kidbandit
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:36 am
Location: toronto,canada

Post by kidbandit » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:10 pm

Yes i understand travel time, whaiting for splashes but please don't say 25 sec. is nothing to be proud of. My point is thes guys were not shoting sniper rifles on solid ground that 5 sec means U might get your ship shot out from under your ASS !! And yes most ships are vulnerable to even 14" plunging AP rounds GER, JAP, US or BRIT. In my humble opinion i think the BISMARCK would be the one to order " all guns cease fire"
"Open fire when you have your range"

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile » Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:21 pm

kidbandit wrote:Yes i understand travel time, whaiting for splashes but please don't say 25 sec. is nothing to be proud of. My point is thes guys were not shoting sniper rifles on solid ground that 5 sec means U might get your ship shot out from under your ASS !! And yes most ships are vulnerable to even 14" plunging AP rounds GER, JAP, US or BRIT. In my humble opinion i think the BISMARCK would be the one to order " all guns cease fire"
I suggest you might want to read other people's posts more carefully and consider what they are saying before you reply to them. Some of us give quite a bit of thought to our posts and my initial impression is that you don't.

For example, your statement that "most ships were vulnerable to even 14" plunging fire" with no explanation of why you think that is true doesn't leave one with a good impression of your knowledge.

Finally, using capitalized profanity and "ru" makes you look like a 12 yr old and a troll. It's hard to take you seriously when you do that.

kidbandit
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:36 am
Location: toronto,canada

Post by kidbandit » Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:56 pm

yes bgile i read a lot of thes post and agree with alot of them but to come back and insult me by calling me a 12 yr. old and a trol lets me think you like to talk tough from long distances . ferther more if you are going to insult me and call me a trol then thats Mr. trol to you . first of all i did not join KBISMARCK to insult anyone person , nation or ship so pleas don't insult me. And i did not mean to insult you on my last post. You gentleman obviously know what you are talking about so pleas belive me the last thing i want to do is insult you guys if ther is somthing i can learn then pleas teach me . And no i'm not 12 yrs. old i'm 29 i don't know everything as i'm shure you don't ether I was simply saying time is a issue in a navel battle in some cases it is all over in minuts so seconds count. I am and allways have been in love with the BISMARCK since i first heard of the ship at my local hobbyshop when i was 6 YRS. old. I've been looking at this sight for about 4/5 years now and i'm still finding out more things about her . Thank you and happy learning
"Open fire when you have your range"

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:33 am

kidbandit wrote:yes bgile i read a lot of thes post and agree with alot of them but to come back and insult me by calling me a 12 yr. old and a trol lets me think you like to talk tough from long distances . ferther more if you are going to insult me and call me a trol then thats Mr. trol to you . first of all i did not join KBISMARCK to insult anyone person , nation or ship so pleas don't insult me. And i did not mean to insult you on my last post. You gentleman obviously know what you are talking about so pleas belive me the last thing i want to do is insult you guys if ther is somthing i can learn then pleas teach me . And no i'm not 12 yrs. old i'm 29 i don't know everything as i'm shure you don't ether I was simply saying time is a issue in a navel battle in some cases it is all over in minuts so seconds count. I am and allways have been in love with the BISMARCK since i first heard of the ship at my local hobbyshop when i was 6 YRS. old. I've been looking at this sight for about 4/5 years now and i'm still finding out more things about her . Thank you and happy learning
Ok, then I apologize, and hope you continue to get good value here. I took offense with your language, which is fairly unusual here. You also seemed to imply that deck armor thickness is irrelevant since even 14" shells can penetrate it at whatever range.

Post Reply