Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by dunmunro »

I would agree that the modernized Colorado would be more powerful than many on the list, but at 20 knots, she would be too slow to be a contender, IMHO. If Nelson had another 3 knots she would also rate somewhat higher, as well, IMHO.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

David89:
Where is Colorado on that list? I know this would lead to a preponderence of American battleships on the list, but Colorado is a better ship than either of her contemporary 16in gunned battleships, Nelson and Nagato. And like dunmunro said, KGV is way to far down the list, she should hold at least 5th or 6th place out of these ships.
David, sorry but the idea of bringing up the list was for the sole purpose to show how an old and quite visited thread can be of assistance in this discussion. You could visit it at:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=740

I believe that someone brought forth the Colorado, but I´m not that sure. Anyway It´s interesting to hear why it could be considered a much better BB than the Nagatos and Nelsons.

dunmuro:
I certainly don't agree with that list, and I would put KGV at position 5, which in May 1941, would make her the most powerful BB in commission, in the world. Bismarck was pitted against an elderly BC and an unworked up new BB in the DS. Had she met a fully worked up ship like KGV, and a couple of cruisers, to tackle PE, the outcome would have been very different.
That´s not for sure, it just a guess. KGV at the final battle against a crippled Bismarck lasted quite long to achieve a hit. And lasted more (with a Nelson Class helping) to destroy the target. How long lasted Bismarck at DS in hitting Hood in much dificult circumstances than KGV? How long PZ lasted in scoring her hits against Hood? And against PoW?
If it was so easy a thing to tackle and destroy a Bismarck Class BB then why the Allies (US+GB) had almost a complete fleet waiting for Tirpitz to steam out of Norway in order to challenge her? So easy a target could be dealt with just KGV and a couple of cruisers so why have two BBs plus cruisers and destroyers waiting whilst they were badly needed in so many war theatres?

I imagine that the Allied Admirals knew better what they were dealing after a combat in which the German Squadron began in clear inferiority (British: 8 x 15" + 10 x 14" + 12 x8" vs German: 8 x 15" + 8 x 8") and ended blowing a BC in five minutes and leaving a brand new BB quite damaged with her bridge torn apart. History doesn´t mislead us.

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: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

I would agree that the modernized Colorado would be more powerful than many on the list, but at 20 knots, she would be too slow to be a contender, IMHO. If Nelson had another 3 knots she would also rate somewhat higher, as well, IMHO.
Nelson, I believe, was such a compromise in her design that I doubt she could rate higher than were she is already. And, sadly, she didn´t had the three knots more. I admitt that a combat against the Nagato would be something to see, though.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by dunmunro »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
That´s not for sure, it just a guess. KGV at the final battle against a crippled Bismarck lasted quite long to achieve a hit. And lasted more (with a Nelson Class helping) to destroy the target. How long lasted Bismarck at DS in hitting Hood in much dificult circumstances than KGV? How long PZ lasted in scoring her hits against Hood? And against PoW?
If it was so easy a thing to tackle and destroy a Bismarck Class BB then why the Allies (US+GB) had almost a complete fleet waiting for Tirpitz to steam out of Norway in order to challenge her? So easy a target could be dealt with just KGV and a couple of cruisers so why have two BBs plus cruisers and destroyers waiting whilst they were badly needed in so many war theatres?

I imagine that the Allied Admirals knew better what they were dealing after a combat in which the German Squadron began in clear inferiority (British: 8 x 15" + 10 x 14" + 12 x8" vs German: 8 x 15" + 8 x 8") and ended blowing a BC in five minutes and leaving a brand new BB quite damaged with her bridge torn apart. History doesn´t mislead us.

Best regards
PoW had difficulty getting a good opening range, and required many salvos for her first straddle. KGV had the precise range via her FC radar, almost immediately and would have begun to hit Bismarck, probably on her 2nd or 3rd salvo. KGV had no gunnery issues for 30 minutes, during the final battle. The final battle was fought in a force 8 gale, which hampered gunnery considerably and KGV inadvertently ranged on Rodney's splashes, and this is why Holland fought Hood and PoW in close order, so that they could coordinate their fire, something which was impossible to do when fighting in open order, as Tovey opted to do. Yet KGV fighting alone would not have made this error, and her gunnery would have been extremely accurate. KGV would probably have hit Bismarck at least 9 times in the same time frame as PoW's 3 hits. Would this have assured an RN victory? I don't know, but Bismarck would have been severely mauled in the encounter, that much is certain.

The Allies were not in the business of proving BB design through one on one encounters, and a fast BB like Bismarck required large numbers to counter her possible movements. The raider always has the initial advantage over a navy forced to defend scattered convoys.
David89
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:53 pm

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by David89 »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:David89:
Where is Colorado on that list? I know this would lead to a preponderence of American battleships on the list, but Colorado is a better ship than either of her contemporary 16in gunned battleships, Nelson and Nagato. And like dunmunro said, KGV is way to far down the list, she should hold at least 5th or 6th place out of these ships.
David, sorry but the idea of bringing up the list was for the sole purpose to show how an old and quite visited thread can be of assistance in this discussion. You could visit it at:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=740

I believe that someone brought forth the Colorado, but I´m not that sure. Anyway It´s interesting to hear why it could be considered a much better BB than the Nagatos and Nelsons.
I would go for the Colorados because they are generally better armoured than the Nelson or Nagato classes, though Nelson has better deck armour, and the US 16"/45 is the best of the three 16in guns. But you're right, they are horribly slow so I guess this merits their exclusion from the top 10.
dunmunro wrote:I certainly don't agree with that list, and I would put KGV at position 5, which in May 1941, would make her the most powerful BB in commission, in the world. Bismarck was pitted against an elderly BC and an unworked up new BB in the DS. Had she met a fully worked up ship like KGV, and a couple of cruisers, to tackle PE, the outcome would have been very different.
That´s not for sure, it just a guess. KGV at the final battle against a crippled Bismarck lasted quite long to achieve a hit. And lasted more (with a Nelson Class helping) to destroy the target. How long lasted Bismarck at DS in hitting Hood in much dificult circumstances than KGV? How long PZ lasted in scoring her hits against Hood? And against PoW?
If it was so easy a thing to tackle and destroy a Bismarck Class BB then why the Allies (US+GB) had almost a complete fleet waiting for Tirpitz to steam out of Norway in order to challenge her? So easy a target could be dealt with just KGV and a couple of cruisers so why have two BBs plus cruisers and destroyers waiting whilst they were badly needed in so many war theatres?

I imagine that the Allied Admirals knew better what they were dealing after a combat in which the German Squadron began in clear inferiority (British: 8 x 15" + 10 x 14" + 12 x8" vs German: 8 x 15" + 8 x 8") and ended blowing a BC in five minutes and leaving a brand new BB quite damaged with her bridge torn apart. History doesn´t mislead us.

Best regards
The reasons that the British had so many ships waiting for Tirpitz are first, they needed to cover a large area, because you can't be sure one battleship is going to run into Tirpitz if she breaks out, and secondly the whole incident with Bismarck and the sinking of Hood scared the British Admiralty quite badly, and Bismarck's sinking did little to relieve these fears. To avoid a repeat incident, they wanted overwhelming firepower to be availible, so no 1v1 fights if possible and absolutely no battlecruisers involved in any chase. To have overwhelming firepower, they reckoned 2 to 1 odds were needed, so this mean't keeping the KGVs in the North Sea along with some of the Americans 16in gunned BBs so that at least 2 ships would be able to counter a breakout in any direction.

And if we look at the DS fight objectively, it was Hood and Prince of Wales vs Bismarck and Prince Eugen, the two British CAs were not involved in the fight because they were out of range. Hood blew up following the lucky hit by Bismarck, and that left Prince of Wales facing the two undamaged German ships. PoW did more damage to Bismarck than she recieved, and after breaking off to get her guns back online PoW re-engaged. But for the lucky hit on Hood, that battle would likely have been a British victory, even a small change like PoW leading the battleline would most likely have resulted in British victory, and an even smaller change like Hood targeting Bismarck rather than Prinz Eugen and getting a hit at the point where she straddled PE could have resulted in a British victory. So the German victory at DS came down to a few small points, and any change to these points would most likely result in a British victory.

Finally, no one is saying a KGV could take out Bismarck or Tirpitz easily, rather that the odds favour a KGV but it would be a punishing fight for both ships, unless battle took place at night, in which the KGV might get off with very little damage because of her superior RDFC.
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by Tiornu »

For continuitu's sake, it would probably be better to move the discussion about that other thread back to that other thread.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by lwd »

I think one reason the Nelsons were lower on the list was their speed. I'd personally place the Nelson's, Nagato's and Colorado's in a tie for whatever place they were in. Like wise the Modern 15" gunned BB's are very difficult to say who is better. One reason is the design philosophies were so different. So again I'd place the Bismark's, VV's, and Richelieu's in pretty much a tie. Depending on what's considered the KGV's could place either in this group or a little below. We've had knockdown drag out fights over the Yamato's vs the Iowa's tends who's on top depends on whether or not you count radar fire control or crew quality.

Back to the topic at hand. Bismark would probably be considered by most a better BB than Rodney. She's enough faster that it makes a real difference. However that doesn't mean she will prevail in a one on one. As others have said I'd give her a slight edge vs Rodney but it could go either way and in reality neither would be likely to sink the other.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

lwd:
I think one reason the Nelsons were lower on the list was their speed. I'd personally place the Nelson's, Nagato's and Colorado's in a tie for whatever place they were in.
lwd, are you sure the Colorados were a match for both of them: Nagato and Nelson? Nelson was pretty much modern and the armor slopes quite impregnable. Even with her slow speed, as I said before, it was a floating castle.
So again I'd place the Bismark's, VV's, and Richelieu's in pretty much a tie.
That´s been considered many times. As a matter of fact I believe combinedfleet rate Richelieu better than Bismarck. From my part I don´t like the quadruple mounts, nope, too risky for a disabling hit, too complex a system. Don´t you agree?
We've had knockdown drag out fights over the Yamato's vs the Iowa's tends who's on top depends on whether or not you count radar fire control or crew quality.
Granted. There is a very close call in this one. Still being Yamato my favorite in the heavy weight place this RDFC business is spooky.
Back to the topic at hand. Bismark would probably be considered by most a better BB than Rodney. She's enough faster that it makes a real difference. However that doesn't mean she will prevail in a one on one. As others have said I'd give her a slight edge vs Rodney but it could go either way and in reality neither would be likely to sink the other.
Well, in WWII there is hard evidence that a modern BB could sink, single hand with artillery, an adversary of her same quality. Bismarck was fast and was needed to be fast in order to hit and run in the Atlantic. Even with PoW´s hit on her bow she was faster than many contemporary BBs. I still believe her design (with a very good crew and commander) could defeat Rodney (which, sir, I don´t mean to sink Rodney, but disable her, make her a 2 year reparation work at Harland and Wolf or John Brown´s).

Well, I rest my case for the night, gentlemen. Godspeed to all of you, friends...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
David89
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:53 pm

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by David89 »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:lwd:
I think one reason the Nelsons were lower on the list was their speed. I'd personally place the Nelson's, Nagato's and Colorado's in a tie for whatever place they were in.
lwd, are you sure the Colorados were a match for both of them: Nagato and Nelson? Nelson was pretty much modern and the armor slopes quite impregnable. Even with her slow speed, as I said before, it was a floating castle.
It has been said before on these forums, the only thing harder than penetrating Nelson's belt is hitting Nelson's belt.
So again I'd place the Bismark's, VV's, and Richelieu's in pretty much a tie.
That´s been considered many times. As a matter of fact I believe combinedfleet rate Richelieu better than Bismarck. From my part I don´t like the quadruple mounts, nope, too risky for a disabling hit, too complex a system. Don´t you agree?
The french quad mount is a very sophisticated design, proven reliable in service, and because of its internal subdivision, a single hit is unlikely to knock out more than half the turret. But don't rely on combinedfleet as a completely fair evaluation of these ships, after all they count Bismarck's belt as the only part of her side protection, ignoring the scarp and the sloped edges of the deck. Bismarck is also shown in her 1941 specification, and Richelieu would not score so highly if she was compared at the same time period.
Well, in WWII there is hard evidence that a modern BB could sink, single hand with artillery, an adversary of her same quality. Bismarck was fast and was needed to be fast in order to hit and run in the Atlantic. Even with PoW´s hit on her bow she was faster than many contemporary BBs. I still believe her design (with a very good crew and commander) could defeat Rodney (which, sir, I don´t mean to sink Rodney, but disable her, make her a 2 year reparation work at Harland and Wolf or John Brown´s).
Perhaps, but I would not call the Hood an adversary of equal quality to the Bismarck. And Rodney would not blow up like the Hood did, so the point is moot. Any fight with Rodney will therefore come down to a pounding match, and Bismarck will not win that fight, even if Rodney takes more damage Bismarck will be slowed down and will as a result be sunk by other British battleships.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by Bgile »

David89 wrote:But don't rely on combinedfleet as a completely fair evaluation of these ships, after all they count Bismarck's belt as the only part of her side protection, ignoring the scarp and the sloped edges of the deck.
That was really strange. He quotes Nathan's article in the same paragraph and then ignores the scarp, which Nathan most definitely did not.

I actually think the Rodney could blow up like the Hood. All it would take would be a hit under her belt penetrating into a magazine.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by RF »

But the chances of Rodney blowing up would I think be far less than that of Hood.

However that scenario does throw up an interesting proposition - what would have happened if such a hit blew up Rodney in the opening minutes of the action on 27th May 1941? - say at the point of Bismarck's third and straddling salvo?

Would KGV have been sufficient to dispatch a crippled Bismarck on its own?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by lwd »

Karl Heidenreich wrote: ...
lwd, are you sure the Colorados were a match for both of them: Nagato and Nelson?
They are pretty close and all of them received significant up grades which could potentially change their relative rankings. I think they are close enough that a good argument can probably be made for any of them so I'd rate them a tie. Perhaps someone can make a conclusive case one way or another but that's probably best left to another thread.
... From my part I don´t like the quadruple mounts, nope, too risky for a disabling hit, too complex a system. Don´t you agree?
It's a trade off you can put more armor over the magazine with such an arrangement. As others have mentioned the French put a fair amount of effort into preventing a single hit taking out a turret. That said Jean Bart had one of her turrets jammed in train by a single hit, admittedly from a 2700 lb shell.
... I still believe (Bismark)... could defeat Rodney ...
I have never questioned that she could and I'm not sure any others on this board have either. Indeed many of us would give her at least the odds on chance of doing so in a one on one.
paul mercer
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Tavistock, West Devon

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by paul mercer »

RF wrote:But the chances of Rodney blowing up would I think be far less than that of Hood.

However that scenario does throw up an interesting proposition - what would have happened if such a hit blew up Rodney in the opening minutes of the action on 27th May 1941? - say at the point of Bismarck's third and straddling salvo?

Would KGV have been sufficient to dispatch a crippled Bismarck on its own?
A very interesting question, bearing in mind that KGV also had problems with her guns (although not as bad as POW) I think the answer would be that the end result would have been the same with Bismarck taking a battering and cruisers finishing her off as Bismarck got only steam in circles so KG could chose her angle of attack (a wounded but steerable Bismarck would probably be a very much tougher proposition). However, as has been noted on these columms before the Nelson class were also tough old birds so the chances of one blowing up from a shell hit must be remote!
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

RF:
Would KGV have been sufficient to dispatch a crippled Bismarck on its own?
It depends how mcuh time it would require. Remember that KGV was low on fuel and expending all her ammo. The hits that disabled Bismarck´s armoured bridge were from Rodney though as were those that penetrated the main belt.
KGV would need the help of the cruisers and the torpedoe launching destroyers. But, let´s have this in mind, KGV would not dispatch Bismarck on her own because fuel capability, not because she, as a BB, wans´t able ot finish the job herself. One more hour pounding the crippled German BB and she would have reduced her as done with Rodney´s help.
With a crippled Bismarck...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by Bgile »

It seems to me that Ark Royal could have sunk the Bismarck if the battleships had failed to do so.
Post Reply