Page 1 of 48

Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 6:25 pm
by Karl Heidenreich
Well, I believe this IS the scenario. I know that South Dakota wasn´t available when Bismarck sunk but they were contemporaries. Both of them were their nation´s development to the new surface units (Bismarck was Germany´s step to the H Class and South Dakota was the step of the US to the Iowas and Montanas). So, let them fight!

Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 6:44 pm
by Gary
If SoDak's circuit breakers jump out then she wont absorb German 15" hits anywhere near as well as Japanese 5", 6" and 8".

Goodnight SoDak

Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 11:24 pm
by Gary
On the subject of SoDak - here are some photos

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/57a.htm

Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:38 am
by Coyote850
Toss up. I think whomever scored the first hit that causes some serious damage would win. But I would not want to be on either ship, I think they would beat the crap outa each other.

Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:42 pm
by Karl Heidenreich
Coyote:
Toss up. I think whomever scored the first hit that causes some serious damage would win. But I would not want to be on either ship, I think they would beat the crap outa each other.
I agree: any of the two ships are the match for the other. I don´t see a real advantage if you strike out the radar fire control of South Dak. But that radar didn´t help the South Dak very much in Guadalcanal: as a matter of fact the Japanese closed a lot to her position (5,000 yds) and blew the radar.
The assertion that this combat would probably be a bloodbath is quite correct. I´ll see what happens with Fighting Steel, but I´ll use the Tirpitz instead of Bismarck: both for a 1942 engagement.
Best regards.

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:12 pm
by nwhdarkwolf
As you state, it would come down to the FCS, really.

That question would be if the Bismarck FCS was better than the SoDak. If that's the case, my money would be on Bismarck.

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:44 pm
by Karl Heidenreich
Nwhdarkwolf wrote:
As you state, it would come down to the FCS, really.

That question would be if the Bismarck FCS was better than the SoDak. If that's the case, my money would be on Bismarck.
I must confess that I always put my money on Bismarck, no big secret. Only against an Iowa or a Yamato I´m not as sure. :negative:

Best regards.

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:55 pm
by nwhdarkwolf
Very true. I would as well.

The industrial might of America is/was a huge factor in World War I and II. History, indeed, repeats itself and those who don't learn from it are doomed to repeat it. My major fall out would come from this question: Assuming all things equal, what would happen? What I mean is this, if not for the industrial capabilities of the US, how would things have turned out? Is that one factor so vital?

IMO, it made all the difference. I'm not sure that individual ships of the US can be compared with other nations. Based upon greater numbers, nothing can stand the onslaught that was brought to bear by the Allies, and the US in particular. The ships were not always of the greatest quality, but the greatest quantity was most important.

Take the Liberty ships, for example. How much quality can you have in a ship that can be created in under a day, from start to finish? The History Channel has a really documentry on the Liberty's and how fast they could be created. I am sure that some of those practices were transferred from other places to the general warship yards. I just question the quality of some of these ships.

I'm not convinced that the Arizona should have sunk, to begin with. Yes, I have seen the data and such, but I get the feeling that something else is there, that I'm not seeing. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it.

I think, on the basis of quality, the Bismarck was a much better ship, IMO.

Bismarck v SD

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:43 am
by longreach
hi as to a fight between bismarck and SD.its more than likely that bismarck would win that engagement,,,,,her faster rate of fire,,better targeting system(if more fragile),higher speed and higher percentage of armour.give her a advatage...but I would'nt like to be on either ship!!!!!! it would be one NASTY fight.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:15 pm
by lwd
I disagree.

The SoDaks radar will give her a fire control advantage (as long as the circuit breaker problem is corrected). Also US doctrine is to fight at long range where this will make the most difference. At range the Bismark will not have a significant rate of fire advantage. However the SoDak does have huge advantages at range both in as far as deck penetration and shell weight. If Bismark doesn't get a lucky hit in early SoDak wins with very little damage. Even if Bismark gets a lucky hit early SoDak has a good chance of still winning although she'll take more damage.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:26 pm
by Bgile
How much of Bismarck's 40% armor weight is devoted to the upper belt and upper deck area, which is useless against battleships? Her turrets are vulnerable to 16" shell fire at pretty much all ranges.

SDak's circuit breaker problem was due to battle damage and poor damage control. If that sort of thing was present against Bismarck she could be in trouble, but all ships vary to a certain extent. US damage control was generally excellent, but SDak's electricians seem to have been poorly trained IMO.

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:29 am
by longreach
hi bgile yeh you are most likely right,but like i said i wouldnt like to be on either ship.it would not be a walkover for anyone.

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:22 pm
by Tiornu
SoDak's electrical problems were a glitch known to exist throughout the class. The problem for SoDak was that one of her crewmen chose to "cure" the problem of tripping circuit breakers by tying the circuit breakers down so they couldn't trip. It apparently didn't occur to him that they're designed to trip when there's a reason for them to do so. That's what caused the crisis off Guadalcanal.

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:44 pm
by Bgile
longreach wrote:hi bgile yeh you are most likely right,but like i said i wouldnt like to be on either ship.it would not be a walkover for anyone.
True enough, and if the range was to get under 25,000 yds and shorter without a decisive outcome I think Bismarck's faster rate of fire might begin to be a significant factor.

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:57 pm
by Karl Heidenreich
A lot is been given to the Radar Directed Fire Control. It seems to me that all the "pro allied battleship" agenda at the end goes to that factor: if the ship has this or that problem, then let´s summon the RFC and then we have an allied victory.
But remember that the FRC needs a qualified skipper and crew to be what´s intended to be.
And there is ghost whispering... Savo Island... Savo...