Being a 1 on 1 match, is totally useless when even at the worst point of the war, the allies could could send 5 or 6 battleships after each of them. One can admire them from a technical perspective, but that doesn't change the fact that these two ships was little more than floating wastes of resources in high demand that never accomplished what they were built for, nor anything else of significance. Their mission was to sink allied merchant shipping, not obsolete WW1 battle cruisers.
The only reason that the "Bismark" was destroyed was a lucky punch from a swordfish torpedo...just fucking luck...not more. And in the end they burst themselve away...the british navy was not able to destroy the "Bismarck" ...no time. Excuse my bad english...but its not my mother tongue...I hope you understand what I´m try to say... (:
@thorasenspross But if the weakness is there, then it is there to be hit! I could say that it was 'lucky' that Bismarck hit HMS Hood in such a critical place on the 5th salvo. That ignores the fact that the Bismarck outclassed Hood in many ways. And anyway, all Battleships are vulnerable to air power, which Germany could not project at sea. (Yamato, Prince of Wales, Tirpitz were all sunk by airplanes)
@sthill1993 That wasn´t "luck" my friend, that was just the good fire control system, which was in this time the best of the world...(: And the torpedo was al lucky shot, not more... everybody knows that (:
@thorasenspross The hit on the Hood was just as lucky as the Torpedo Hit! Hitting a 200m ship with an air-launched torpedo is not difficult. If it had missed though, more planes would have been launched. Bismarck never shot sown any aircraft. If you truly believe that the Royal Navy would not have sunk the Bismarck, just look at how many ships have been sunk by aircraft, and what has Germany never had; Aircraft Carriers!
Not exactly, when the German cruisers made their English Channel run, the attacking swordfish were cut up into fillets without scoring a hit. if it hadn't been for that lucky Torpedo disabling the rudder and a propeller shaft, Bismarck would likely have reached friendly airspace with fighter support - And then he probably would have spent the rest of the war bottled up in some harbor before eventually ending bottom up there like his sister ship did.
@knutgordon The German cruisers had something Bismarck didn't; AIR COVER. Shooting at a biplane held together with string is not difficult. But then again, IF Germany had launched its invasion of Russia earlier, they might have won. IF Germany had kept pressure on Britain by airpower and submarine power, they may have won. IF Britain had fallen, maybe Germany would have dominated Europe. All German capital ships had weak stern assemblies, and if there is a weakness, it is there to be exploited.
They was cut up into fillets by the cruisers and escorts flaks. Shooting at slow planes that approaches in a straight line and need to release their weapons relative close on is not difficult either. Those pilots had spectacular bad survivability rate at times. If you can look beyond your display of IF nonsense, I think you will find that most historians will agree that Bismark's fate on that trip depended on whether the launched air strike from Ark Royal succeeded.
@knutgordon Then why did Bismarck never shoot any planes down? And why would a historian say that? Was it not the hit from Prince of Wales that made her go back to Brest instead of continuing her commerce raiding mission? In any case, Ark Royal launched the strike and dealt a knockout blow in one fell swoop. It wasn't the only hit, and it would have been attacked again if it had not worked. Ark Royal carried 60 aircraft.
27 Swordfishes that is, in addition to 27 fighters. Dense clouds. Evening darkness, Heavy sea, Worn out crews, these things matter for AA efficiency. Most of the torpedoes launched missed, though two found their mark. One amidships doing little damage, the fatal second one hit the rudder, badly jamming it and causing severe loss of steering and speed. At current speed and course, Bismark would have reached the protection of the Luftwaffe umbrella in less than a day.
@knutgordon Why were the crews worn out? 9 days into a voyage, with the last 2 days before the sinking undetected. HMS Repulse was sunk in Dec 1941 by the Japanese. But it shot down 3 planes, damaged 5, dodged 19 torpedoes, and was only brought down by a pincer attack. Repulse had less AA guns, and it was from WWI. The planes were also better than the Swordfish. For Bismarck, the numbers are 0 downed, 0 damaged, then 8 and 11 torpedoes dodged in 2 engagements. I think Bismarck didn't deliver.
Some will say Prince of Wales also played a role in the Repulse incident. Less than one year later Bismarck's sister ship Tirpitz avoided all torpedoes and her AA battery shot down two of the attacking planes. While none planes were lost against Bismarck it wasn't the case that they were not hit by AA fire............
............Back in the days thousands of rounds was fired for each downed aircraft, and the great majority of aircraft launched weapons hit nothing but water. I think most would agree that a combination of assorted conditions, applied firepower, and (un) luck played a rather large part in such engagements.
@knutgordon But you claim that it was pure luck that the Bismarck's rudder was disabled, rather than looking at the very slow speed of the Swordfish (guns had trouble calibrating to such slow speeds) and the inexperience of the crew. Also the Swordfish pilots weren't stupid, they placed and timed their runs in a way that allowed most torpedoes to run successfully. It's not just about luck, it's about skill and training as well. (So Repulse did well). Tirpitz had a better crew than Bismarck.
If by 'protection' they are refering to the construction itself rather than accompanying ships, then the score should be higher. She was hit in the rudder and could only go in circles at low speed, and still it took 3 hours of continuous shelling to sink her. I find it hard to believe that any other ship of the time could have matched that. And the 'innovation' score is also strangely low.
@GermanMilitaryPower right, but those battleships never got built. My point was that the Iowas, and pretty much every American battleship since the USS Colorado could probably sink the Bismarck in open combat, and that's why it wasn't #1. The Bismarck was a nice battleship, though.
@gocanux15 I never said it was the best battleship ever built, but it was definately the most famous of all time. Putting this ship on #7 is a joke of unknown kind.
Bismarck deserves definately #3, closely following the #2 Iowa, #1 Yamato.
But please show respect to this ship and its crew. It may had a swastika on it, but it fought for its home country, for Germany.
Rest In Peace Bismarck and your crew, you will always remain the pride of our navy.
I disagree, the most advance American ship at the time were the North Carloina's, and the only thing that gave them any advantage was the 2700 pound shell. Without that shell, the gun capabilities of the 2 ships is near identical.
@gocanux15 You compare a battleship of 1940 (Bismarck) with a battleship of 1943 (Iowa).
Obviously you have never heard from the H-39/40/41/42/43 and 44 class. The production of 2 battleships of the H-39 had already started but got stopped because of needed rescources.
If you admire the Yamato, then you gotta fall in love with the H-44 class (345m / 131,000t, 8 × 50.8 cm (20.0 in) guns, 12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) guns, 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in) guns, 28 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in), 40 × 2 cm (0.79 in) guns ...
The Protection Rating of the Bismarck should have been larger as the scale of this (imo) crappy show! It catched over 400 heavy/critical hits of the "Home-Fleet" and the "Force-H" and didn´t even sink! It just stopped firing (mostly because of the lucky torpedo hit that damaged the rudder, so they were not able to stop turning)!
not sure, I've read some reasons, but most people dont actually understand the amour scheme of Bismarck. Some people believe that Bismarck did not have a sloped main belt, when in reality 50% of the main belt was sloped. Also the quality to the amour (belt) was superior to the steel used on american battleships.
Out of this battle the Bismark had a damaged stearing& was trying to reach the french harbour.The fanatic Churchill wanted revenge,so they searched for hours for the Bismark in order to destroy her.
After they found the Bismark trying to reach the french harbour,they attacked the Bismark with many Ships and some torpedo planes& fired continuously for over 2 hours on the retreating& damaged ship!When the Bismark sank,the british navy command tried to avoid the rescuing of the german sailors
The "Bismark" wasn't 20% bigger than the royal navy ships.The Bismark was the biggest german ship,but the HMS Hood was totally comparable.The Hood was 11 meters longer,the Bismark 4 meter wider,due to the heavy armor.
The major error of the hood was the lack of armor on the top.British politicians wanted to save money.The Hood started to fire at the Bismark!
The Bismark defended herself by firing a well placed over 20 mile shot on the top of the Hood
@HousekaterClaudio I kinda disagree. Technically the Hood was no match, being a battlecruiser had the firepower, but not the armour to withstand a fight with the Bismark. That's why both Hood and Prince of Wales were together, Hood to counter the prinz Eugen and Prince of Wales the Bismark. However, we have to agree, the Bismark was by far the superior ship...the Royal Navy never sank her, she had to be scuttled once all the turrets were down and she was mainly a floating hull.
i think there is something wrong with this video , it says it'been sinked 3 days after the hood and that bismarck had low protection , according to other source it was ultra protected and lasted monthes fighing versus the whole british navy . and at the end it was cornered not by torpedoes directed to the hull but when air torpedoes jammed it's rudder , and then again it was used as a costal defense in northern France where it came to it's very end .it lacked of defenses against air not ships
@N1ghtStalkerNL this "sunk" argument has absolutely nothing to do with that... Iowa class is first place... this crappy non inovative piece of junk... propaganda
Bismarck was sunk by it's own crew. After investigating the wreck there was found out that the torpedos that where fired to finish her off, weren't able to penetrate the hull.
This is a big Lie typical american im not anti america but everything that isnt americanscores low firepower was the highest mark protection too but the service length thats right. but it was a mordern ship with much inovastions.
@MsAchmedtheterrorist : No doubt about it, for it's size, it kicked ass. Germany had some top equipment: too bad they were led by a psychopath führer.
The Tirpitz was a fleet in itself. Docked in Norway, Britain and America were forced to protect their convoys to Russia with large amounts of battleships, battlecruisers and cruisers in case the Tirpitz came out to play, even though it never did, its presense kept a large part of the Royal Navy tied down in North Atlantic ocean.
The sinking of the bismarck was the worlds perfect example of how battleships, no matter how powerful, could be sunk or disabled by a handful of planes armed with torpedoes.
@SuperYogSothoth IT get scutled for ine reason admiral lütjens dont want to get this ship under british command. it was unable to defend against 2 battleships and cruiser with the jammed rudder.
HMS Hood for many years was the worlds biggest, heaviest, most awesome military ship in the world. Because of tis size and massive guns it was referred to as a "battleship" rather then a "battlecruiser"
we need ONE ship 3 Rounds (24 Projectils) and 4 MINUTES to sink 1ship (Hood)
The royal navy needs 4 ships, 2 hours and over700 Projectils to shoot the Bismarck unfit for fighting? You didn´t sink her only unfit for fighting! sorry i say more place 7 its not enough!!!
Yes okay but all battleships or warsystems for ships after 1941 is the Bismarck the Basic. A lot of things and Basics comes from germany sorry, but its real and then its place 7 not enougth i think. USA build it wat germany have had for a long time ago
Google that "Horten IX" USA build it 1995? i think? we build it long time ago!
The Bismarck was designed with an 8000 mile range so He could roll down the Eastern coast of the US and shell it, including Washington DC and New Your City!
You're goddamned lucky Churchill had the presence of mind to shut her down!
OH, CHRIST ON A BIKE, YOU BRITS KNOW YOU WERE OUTMATCHED, SHIP-FOR-SHIP!
That been said, the Yamamoto had bigger guns.
What I wanna see is Japan, US, England, Germany, France KICKIN THE SHIT OUT OF LIBYA, and every other terrorist cocksucker who dares to stick his neck out!!!
National pride aside, when us Western European bastards WORK TOGETHER:
NO FORCE ON EARTH CAN STOP US!
Saddam Huissen: hanged
Quaddafi: - near the gallows - KEEP IT UP ASSHOLE - WE GOT YOUR NUMBER!
My top 5: Iowa, North Carolina, Bismark, Prince of Wales and, of course, Andrea Dorea. Yamato doesn't deserve even the top 50 ships, and Renown was an even weaker Hood class... Both ships were useless.
the Bismarck attempted to sneak into the north atlantic, was discovered and shadowed, then during the battle of the denmark straight fought Hood and POW, of which hood was sunk. POW recieved some damage, Bismarck recieved 3 hits from POW (not bad for a new battleship ;) ), then Bismarck managed to break contact and headed for France (due to the damage recieved from POW). then after being rediscovered recieved a crippling torpedo hit that locked the rudders hard over and so had no steering
its dindt take on the might of our navey, they never took on a battleship, just cruisers and destoyers and yet the crew of the hood died fighting till the end.
@notsureyou: You seem to be confusing the terms battleship, battlecruiser, and cruiser... which are admitted somewhat ill-defined. Battlecruisers were similar to the German pocketbattleship concept, in principle. A near-battleship-displacement vessel, uparmored or uparmed to battlewagon standards but lacking one or the other as a concession to save weight/speed/range and/or cost. The German capital ships proved very tough, well-engineered and difficult to sink.
I would have rated the Bismarck and Tirpitz higher for protection, much higher in fact, it took several torpedoes and gunfire to sink Bismarck, plus the surviving crew were setting scuttling charges......Bismarck class were far superior to King George 5 class.
actually, most records state that the crew scuttled her instead of risk her being captured because they couldn't control her, one torpedo had hit the rudder and fused it so she couldn't be steered, and was stuck in a long port (i think) turn.
like all german ships, the stern of the bismarck was very vulnerable, if a direct hit could be scored the entire stern would give way, resulting in the rapid sinking. In many cases the sterns of the scharnhorst class battleships and the admiral hipper class cruiser, were often ravaged and destroyed by torpedoes and heavy shells. Which would take several months of repairs.This happened to Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst, and admiral hipper.
result in rapid sinking? can you please provide me one example where a failed stern due to a torpedo hit on any german warship resulted in rapid sinking?
I think the main issue isnt the tripple screw design, but rather the location of that rear most amoured bulkhead, and the fact that the 'softend' protection that bismarck had didnt go all the way to the rear. instead it terminated pretty much in line with the rudders.
my main issue with the amoured protection is the horizontal protection. perhaps the angled turtle back should have extended up to almost the top of the main belt, this would also allow extra amour to be re-distributed to the third amoured deck. also shaving 12mm from the weather deck ( this would actually help prevent penetration at shorter ranges) and adding that to the third amoured deck.
Rating of armour protection must be a bad joke! Way lower than QE class, that's ridiculous. You can say about Bismarck what you want (the steering problem, failing AA, main guns not powerful as they could have been, even a stupid admiral ;-), etc.), but her armour was topnotch. Maybe the one single ship which could take most punishment ever.
Even harder to believe that so few people, like you, have no clue of the real facts(Not your fault).
The Littorio's guns had the highest muzzle velocity of any gun, that’s what gave them their devastating power.
These guns were made by what is now called the Oto Melara company. Even today they make the majority of the guns (those little bubble like guns on modern ships) on most of today's modern navies including for the US and Brits.
@311nonono The Littorios did not have the most powerful gun - high muzzle velocity does not equal power. Weight of shell (& thus size of the exploding charge) is far more important. The Italian 381mm gun fired a 1,951lb shell, while the American 16in fired a 2700lb shell.
The American turrets also allowed for a much greater elevation, which corresponds with a much greater angle of impact at long range. At 30k yards, the 16in can penetrate up to 6.65in of deck armor - it's 5.11in for the 381mm.
@311nonono The muzzle velocity for the Italian 15in is 2,789ft/s compared to 2,500ft/s for the 16in 50-cal Mark 7 used on the Iowas. If you look at striking velocities, it actually favors the American gun as the range increases. At 10k yards, it's approx 2,250 for the 15in, and 2,075 for the 16in, but at 40k, its 1,585 and 1,607, respectively.
As for armor penetration, at 0yds, the 15in penetrates 32.07in, the 16in does 32.62in. At 30k, its 14.93in and 14.97in, respectively.
@311nonono What you said is patently false. The striking velocities (which are documented) for the 15in gun trail off more rapidly than the 16in, and at longer ranges, the 15in is inferior to the 16. The flatter trajectory of the 15in gun at extreme range is also a handicap, as it causes the shell to hit at a less oblique angle, which decreases its ability to penetrate heavy armor.
@311nonono Something else to consider: The German 15in C/34 guns used on Bismarck had a muzzle velocity of 2,690f/s. Surely that means their 1,764 lb shell is more powerful than the Iowa's 16in, right? But its armor penetrating ability is lower than any of the other three guns (15, 16, 18.1) at any range, even though it's only marginally slower than the Italian 15. The facts simply don't back up your assertion that muzzle velocity is the most important factor.
@311nonono You have no clue what you're talking about. Yamato's 18.1in gun penetrated 34.01in at 0yds, 2 more inches than the 15in and 1.5 more than the 16. In terms of armor penetration it was inferior to both the 15 and 16 as range increased.
I don't see how you think deck penetration is a specious argument, given that computerized fire control gave BBs the capability of reliably hitting targets at 30k+ ranges.
while i agree about the importance of modern fire control, im going to have to disagree with you in terms of reliably hitting targets at 30k+.
because the longest hit scored by one naval vessel against another naval vessel was about 26Kyards, and that was in 1940. no hits beyond that were recorded. One person has mentioned a straddled caused at i think it was 38Kyards. but thats not a hit.
@notsureyou American radar-equipped battleships did not have the opportunity to fight other warships at extreme range - the two hits at approx. 26k yards were Scharnhorst on Glorious and Warspite on Giulio Cesare. The major surface actions fought by American BBs (Surigao, Guadalcanal, etc.) were at relatively close range
the problem is that by the time that radar truly came of age in terms quality combined with a great fire control there was no-one really to fight. And the few threats that remianed it was easier (and cheaper) to sink them with aircraft.
im sure any battleship on battleship engagement in 1945 would have been a real fight between titans.
it seems as though radar was mainly used to aid in the surprise sneaking up on a target, closing the range before hitting them hard
@notsureyou That's very true. I was mainly speaking in theoretical terms, as 311nonono made the erroneous assertion that the Italian 15" gun was the most powerful naval gun ever designed.
By 1945, long-range radar was mainly used to locate targets for the carrier aircraft.
@notsureyou Right, it was used to locate targets so attack aircraft could be launched to destroy them.
This was not the same type of radar used for fire control, however, which was specialized for relatively short-range use (i.e, within range of the ship's guns).
so the german cannon in VERTICLE protection is better than the 16/45 which is of the same time period, the US gun is much better at HORIZONTAL penetration. though the german gun out ranges the US gun by 3000yards
@notsureyou I don't know where you're getting your figures. For the 16in Mk 7 gun used on the Iowas, the figures are 0k: 32.62, 20k: 20.04, 30k: 14.97.
For the 16in Mk 6 used on the North Carolinas and SoDaks, the figures are 0k: 29.74, 20k: 17.62, 30k: 12.77
These figures are from "Battleships: United States Battleships, 1935-1992"
@311nonono The gun cannot be judged by itself, it is part of a weapon system, which includes the turret, ammunition hoists, etc. The greater degree of elevation for the 16in turret makes it superior in terms of armor penetration in actual combat situations, which is what really matters.
Higher arcs are actually preferable, as they allow the shell to strike the thinner deck armor at more oblique angles as opposed to the thick belt armor.
@311nonono No the Littorio class did not have the most powerful gun not at all and the you claim that
from one website is total bullshit there sucked, their projectiles suck thier powder charges suck their steel suck there navy sucked and there fleet was only saw port or the bottom of the port where they were sunk.
@CDMJDMHHC That was not true the Italian navy was a formidable force and could of easily beaten the french navy, spanish navy or the German navy but the one thing that led to its downfall was the fact that the royal navy outnumbered the italian navy with overwhelming odds. the British had over 15 battleships. The italian navy had 4 modernized ww1 battleships, and 4 Vittorio Veneto class battleships. ( i am not sure if they had more) the Vittorio Veneto class was superior to all spanish, french
@CDMJDMHHC BB's and superior to all but the Nelson class and King george 5 class british battleships. so next time you decide to be racist @$#$#@%#$%%#%%#. so fuck off and get a life you racist fuck
@darthreven9999 their is nothing racist about my comments the Italian navy was miss handled by their commanders. The Italian war machine was not ready to produce more modern equipment the soldiers with good leadership where effective when led my good officers. I know little of the Spanish navy and of the French navy except it had some modern ships. All naval guns had high pressure.
@CDMJDMHHC you may not of meant it to be racist but the way you said it made you sound like you were being racist towards Italians. No it was not that they mishandled their navy and did not have good officers ect... it was that the italian navy was a bit old fasioned in thinking and still believed battleships to be the main naval war weapon. Germany made the same mistake. it was because the allies had aircraft carriers where germany did not finish construction of their CV graf zepplin feeling ..
@CDMJDMHHC it was unecessary to win a naval war. italy had the same thinking and therefore no carriers were even laid down (although there were designs and plans to make 2). But mussolini that incompitent prince of terror ordered that no further work be put into designs. that is why many people think the italian navy was bad. it was not they had some of the best and most powerful/advanced ships of the time. they did not have sufficient air cover in the way of carriers to protect their ships.
@darthreven9999 correcting myself It was not that they had badly designed ships. it was that they lacked sufficient aircover in the form of carriers. their Littorio/ Vittorio veneto clas battleships were some of the best and most powerful/advanced ships of the time.
@311nonono Really? Littorio battleship? Get real man. Italian navy was smashed by the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean. In multiple battles, admiral Cunningham sailed off from Alexandria and took the Italians to school. You're crazy if you think Littorio should've been in Top 10 fighting ships, it would barely be in, say, top 25 battleships, just for the sake of taking something from Italy. Best BBs in WW2, imo, are in the following order: Iowa, Bismarck, Yamato, North Carolina, Kongo, Renown...
@M1cool1 Yamato and Renown don't deserve to be in the list. Renown was a weaker, older version of Hood, and Yamato was nothing more than a big waste of metal that couldn't target anything in range. By the time she would've targeted Iowa, she'd be half under-water. :P
@TheRedWolf01 Yeah, I know what you mean. But Kongo was really the most used and most effective Japanese battleship / battlecruiser. Fought well at Guadalcanal. Nagato may have its 16 inchers to brag with, but did nothing in the war, really. So Kongo > Nagato. Yamato was the strongest BB ever built... and she is definitely on any best BB list at Top 3. I cannot forgive those 14 inch guns to PoW... Churchill was going crazy about that. Renown beat two Scharnhorsts, so I guess he is better.
@M1cool1 YEAH REALLY ! I'm talking about the ship NOT the war ! FOCUS ! Italian Terni armor and 381/50 guns were second to none. Littorio's 15" guns had with more range and penetrating power than both Yamato's 18" or Iowa's 16". Belt and deck armor was BETTER than both Iowa & Yamato, as fast as Iowa(-1/2knot). It shot 4 miles FURTHER than Iowa. Sorry these are the facts. Look it up. Don't say anything else without the proof ! Words are CHEAP ! Bring the FACTS ! LET"S SEE YOU PROVE ME WRONG.
@311nonono Evidence? My only evidence is how WW2 played out in the Mediterranean. You may talk about Littorio "potential", "what could've been" or simply claim that they have the best "characteristics" of all BBs. Not true. Outranged Iowa? Really? Does that mean it was her effective range? Hell no. What 3 ships of Littorio class did in the war is all we can talk about. You speak of information, well you better INFORM yourself. Italy, Regia Marina and the Axis got RAPED in the Mediterranean War.
@311nonono you're a funny little man. Things you call "evidence" are not true. You go around youtube videos describing battleships and show up saying Littorio class had the most powerful guns. The 15'' guns made by Italians anything near U.S., British, German or any other nation's guns. But you're a rare species, I'll tell you, because absolutely nobody mentions these ships as anything of good quality, nobody but you that is. You try to prove something and you utterly fail every time. Go away!
@311nonono And now, coup de grace. Italian guns had a short barrel life. Powder charges were bad. Littorio could not outrange nobody. It had nothing near the Allied radars. Its range, which you think is greater than Iowa or Yamato', is in no way effective range. At theoretical 42 km Littorio's guns couldn't hit an immobile tanker. Because of the inadequate gunner and crew training, and Italian spirit of being cowards, Littorio would not even survive against British WW1 era battleships! Go away.
Being a 1 on 1 match, is totally useless when even at the worst point of the war, the allies could could send 5 or 6 battleships after each of them. One can admire them from a technical perspective, but that doesn't change the fact that these two ships was little more than floating wastes of resources in high demand that never accomplished what they were built for, nor anything else of significance. Their mission was to sink allied merchant shipping, not obsolete WW1 battle cruisers.
knutgordon 1 month ago
the reason why i loved this ship because it helped me win in every battles in empires and allies im about to get 3 more bismarck yes!!!
TheDarkshadow427 1 month ago
The only reason that the "Bismark" was destroyed was a lucky punch from a swordfish torpedo...just fucking luck...not more. And in the end they burst themselve away...the british navy was not able to destroy the "Bismarck" ...no time. Excuse my bad english...but its not my mother tongue...I hope you understand what I´m try to say... (:
thorasenspross 1 month ago
@thorasenspross But if the weakness is there, then it is there to be hit! I could say that it was 'lucky' that Bismarck hit HMS Hood in such a critical place on the 5th salvo. That ignores the fact that the Bismarck outclassed Hood in many ways. And anyway, all Battleships are vulnerable to air power, which Germany could not project at sea. (Yamato, Prince of Wales, Tirpitz were all sunk by airplanes)
sthill1993 1 month ago
@sthill1993 That wasn´t "luck" my friend, that was just the good fire control system, which was in this time the best of the world...(: And the torpedo was al lucky shot, not more... everybody knows that (:
thorasenspross 1 month ago
@thorasenspross The hit on the Hood was just as lucky as the Torpedo Hit! Hitting a 200m ship with an air-launched torpedo is not difficult. If it had missed though, more planes would have been launched. Bismarck never shot sown any aircraft. If you truly believe that the Royal Navy would not have sunk the Bismarck, just look at how many ships have been sunk by aircraft, and what has Germany never had; Aircraft Carriers!
sthill1993 1 month ago
@sthill1993
Not exactly, when the German cruisers made their English Channel run, the attacking swordfish were cut up into fillets without scoring a hit. if it hadn't been for that lucky Torpedo disabling the rudder and a propeller shaft, Bismarck would likely have reached friendly airspace with fighter support - And then he probably would have spent the rest of the war bottled up in some harbor before eventually ending bottom up there like his sister ship did.
knutgordon 1 month ago
@knutgordon The German cruisers had something Bismarck didn't; AIR COVER. Shooting at a biplane held together with string is not difficult. But then again, IF Germany had launched its invasion of Russia earlier, they might have won. IF Germany had kept pressure on Britain by airpower and submarine power, they may have won. IF Britain had fallen, maybe Germany would have dominated Europe. All German capital ships had weak stern assemblies, and if there is a weakness, it is there to be exploited.
sthill1993 1 month ago
@sthill1993
They was cut up into fillets by the cruisers and escorts flaks. Shooting at slow planes that approaches in a straight line and need to release their weapons relative close on is not difficult either. Those pilots had spectacular bad survivability rate at times. If you can look beyond your display of IF nonsense, I think you will find that most historians will agree that Bismark's fate on that trip depended on whether the launched air strike from Ark Royal succeeded.
knutgordon 1 month ago
@knutgordon Then why did Bismarck never shoot any planes down? And why would a historian say that? Was it not the hit from Prince of Wales that made her go back to Brest instead of continuing her commerce raiding mission? In any case, Ark Royal launched the strike and dealt a knockout blow in one fell swoop. It wasn't the only hit, and it would have been attacked again if it had not worked. Ark Royal carried 60 aircraft.
sthill1993 1 month ago
@sthill1993
27 Swordfishes that is, in addition to 27 fighters. Dense clouds. Evening darkness, Heavy sea, Worn out crews, these things matter for AA efficiency. Most of the torpedoes launched missed, though two found their mark. One amidships doing little damage, the fatal second one hit the rudder, badly jamming it and causing severe loss of steering and speed. At current speed and course, Bismark would have reached the protection of the Luftwaffe umbrella in less than a day.
knutgordon 1 month ago
@knutgordon Why were the crews worn out? 9 days into a voyage, with the last 2 days before the sinking undetected. HMS Repulse was sunk in Dec 1941 by the Japanese. But it shot down 3 planes, damaged 5, dodged 19 torpedoes, and was only brought down by a pincer attack. Repulse had less AA guns, and it was from WWI. The planes were also better than the Swordfish. For Bismarck, the numbers are 0 downed, 0 damaged, then 8 and 11 torpedoes dodged in 2 engagements. I think Bismarck didn't deliver.
sthill1993 1 month ago
@sthill1993
Some will say Prince of Wales also played a role in the Repulse incident. Less than one year later Bismarck's sister ship Tirpitz avoided all torpedoes and her AA battery shot down two of the attacking planes. While none planes were lost against Bismarck it wasn't the case that they were not hit by AA fire............
knutgordon 1 month ago
@sthill1993
............Back in the days thousands of rounds was fired for each downed aircraft, and the great majority of aircraft launched weapons hit nothing but water. I think most would agree that a combination of assorted conditions, applied firepower, and (un) luck played a rather large part in such engagements.
knutgordon 1 month ago
@knutgordon But you claim that it was pure luck that the Bismarck's rudder was disabled, rather than looking at the very slow speed of the Swordfish (guns had trouble calibrating to such slow speeds) and the inexperience of the crew. Also the Swordfish pilots weren't stupid, they placed and timed their runs in a way that allowed most torpedoes to run successfully. It's not just about luck, it's about skill and training as well. (So Repulse did well). Tirpitz had a better crew than Bismarck.
sthill1993 1 month ago
protection low?
over 2800 shell were fired at it and the bismarck did not sank.
jef934 1 month ago
@jef934 but a torpedo claimed its fate.
USSWISCONSIN64 1 month ago
@USSWISCONSIN64 not just one torpedo
dont forget the torpedos used by the swordfish torpedo bombers
jef934 1 month ago
@jef934 thats what i meant by. but good that you know that.
USSWISCONSIN64 1 month ago
If by 'protection' they are refering to the construction itself rather than accompanying ships, then the score should be higher. She was hit in the rudder and could only go in circles at low speed, and still it took 3 hours of continuous shelling to sink her. I find it hard to believe that any other ship of the time could have matched that. And the 'innovation' score is also strangely low.
OliverLarson 1 month ago
@GermanMilitaryPower right, but those battleships never got built. My point was that the Iowas, and pretty much every American battleship since the USS Colorado could probably sink the Bismarck in open combat, and that's why it wasn't #1. The Bismarck was a nice battleship, though.
gocanux15 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gocanux15 I never said it was the best battleship ever built, but it was definately the most famous of all time. Putting this ship on #7 is a joke of unknown kind.
Bismarck deserves definately #3, closely following the #2 Iowa, #1 Yamato.
But please show respect to this ship and its crew. It may had a swastika on it, but it fought for its home country, for Germany.
Rest In Peace Bismarck and your crew, you will always remain the pride of our navy.
GermanMilitaryPower 1 month ago
@gocanux15
I disagree, the most advance American ship at the time were the North Carloina's, and the only thing that gave them any advantage was the 2700 pound shell. Without that shell, the gun capabilities of the 2 ships is near identical.
notsureyou 1 month ago
Fear Factor: Maximum
Fire Power: Maximum
Innovation: Maximum
Protection: Maximum
Service Length: Minimum
This is the rating that Bismarck deserved. Rest In Peace.
GermanMilitaryPower 2 months ago 5
Low protection my blooming ass. It's hull was almost indestructible.
Crixilis 2 months ago
they didnt take into account that it took a whole fleet to stop 1 ship... in my opinion, it should be #1
Sum0nelse 3 months ago
@Sum0nelse yeah, but an Iowa could take one of these on easy. It was completely outmatched by American ships
gocanux15 2 months ago
@gocanux15 You compare a battleship of 1940 (Bismarck) with a battleship of 1943 (Iowa).
Obviously you have never heard from the H-39/40/41/42/43 and 44 class. The production of 2 battleships of the H-39 had already started but got stopped because of needed rescources.
If you admire the Yamato, then you gotta fall in love with the H-44 class (345m / 131,000t, 8 × 50.8 cm (20.0 in) guns, 12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) guns, 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in) guns, 28 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in), 40 × 2 cm (0.79 in) guns ...
GermanMilitaryPower 2 months ago
they stoped it form moving. and it was just sitting there taking hit after hit!
and it tould 3 hours to get fliped and she sunk because of that! She had shit tones of armour!
angryhippo2910 4 months ago
This Thing was way ahead of its time. but uhhhh it was an evil nazi ship, so lets make it bad.
Dihydrogenmonoxid42 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did they forget about th Yamato?
Josetismo 5 months ago
A 50,000 Ton cruiser? I don't think so, It was similar in displacement to an IOWA class.
ybody94 5 months ago
Does anyone Actully Know The Bismark is a Heavy Crusier!?!!?
kittylovermybut 5 months ago
Low Innovation? it was a very modern design!
dalekbitch 6 months ago 4
BISMARCK should of been at least in no.3
rockstar9003 7 months ago 2
The Protection Rating of the Bismarck should have been larger as the scale of this (imo) crappy show! It catched over 400 heavy/critical hits of the "Home-Fleet" and the "Force-H" and didn´t even sink! It just stopped firing (mostly because of the lucky torpedo hit that damaged the rudder, so they were not able to stop turning)!
Not even Iwoa could deal with her!
TheWTFworks 7 months ago 6
Why Protection is so low ?
Schneiderbeck2 7 months ago
@Schneiderbeck2
not sure, I've read some reasons, but most people dont actually understand the amour scheme of Bismarck. Some people believe that Bismarck did not have a sloped main belt, when in reality 50% of the main belt was sloped. Also the quality to the amour (belt) was superior to the steel used on american battleships.
notsureyou 7 months ago 3
These American made top tens are so obvious!
m5rule 7 months ago 5
1 - hood was larger then the bismarck - hood was the royal navy flagship;
2 - mai 1941 there was NO East war;
3 - German policy was: you can't let a ship move if the enemy KNOWS where it is and where it is heading - Royal Navy was HUGE vs DKM was tiny;
4 - the torpedo hit was "one in a million" shot - nothing to do with "modern system could adjust to the slow aircraft".
Sinking the Tirpitz was a WASTE - she was the last high sea german ship (nearly ZERO threat at the time it got bombed).
himmelsfaust 7 months ago
Out of this battle the Bismark had a damaged stearing& was trying to reach the french harbour.The fanatic Churchill wanted revenge,so they searched for hours for the Bismark in order to destroy her.
After they found the Bismark trying to reach the french harbour,they attacked the Bismark with many Ships and some torpedo planes& fired continuously for over 2 hours on the retreating& damaged ship!When the Bismark sank,the british navy command tried to avoid the rescuing of the german sailors
HousekaterClaudio 7 months ago 5
This Dr.Harrison is talking bullshit!
The "Bismark" wasn't 20% bigger than the royal navy ships.The Bismark was the biggest german ship,but the HMS Hood was totally comparable.The Hood was 11 meters longer,the Bismark 4 meter wider,due to the heavy armor.
The major error of the hood was the lack of armor on the top.British politicians wanted to save money.The Hood started to fire at the Bismark!
The Bismark defended herself by firing a well placed over 20 mile shot on the top of the Hood
HousekaterClaudio 7 months ago 2
@HousekaterClaudio I kinda disagree. Technically the Hood was no match, being a battlecruiser had the firepower, but not the armour to withstand a fight with the Bismark. That's why both Hood and Prince of Wales were together, Hood to counter the prinz Eugen and Prince of Wales the Bismark. However, we have to agree, the Bismark was by far the superior ship...the Royal Navy never sank her, she had to be scuttled once all the turrets were down and she was mainly a floating hull.
MrSergeSC 7 months ago 4
alot of people dont get this channel is run by many militarys not just the US
xXKxTrainsXx 8 months ago
yea inovation was the best for its time i would rank it top 3
Benderswe1 8 months ago 5
i think there is something wrong with this video , it says it'been sinked 3 days after the hood and that bismarck had low protection , according to other source it was ultra protected and lasted monthes fighing versus the whole british navy . and at the end it was cornered not by torpedoes directed to the hull but when air torpedoes jammed it's rudder , and then again it was used as a costal defense in northern France where it came to it's very end .it lacked of defenses against air not ships
bonefaith 8 months ago 2
I hate the commercials Google has put on YouTube !!
prydonian460 8 months ago
If you want to hear more about the massive Turpits battleship that was sunk, search on youtube, "The Greatest Raid of all time"- by Jeremy Clarkson.
GunsOfThePhoenix 9 months ago
can somone please explain to me why the bismarck is in this list and the Yamato somehow is not?
N1ghtStalkerNL 9 months ago
@N1ghtStalkerNL because it's US propaganda... and MilitaryChannel = full of retarded idiots
KhamulYT 9 months ago 3
@KhamulYT
Bismark = german ship sunk by brits
Yamato = Japenese ship sunk by US
your propaganda claim hereby fails a little dont you think?
N1ghtStalkerNL 9 months ago
@N1ghtStalkerNL this "sunk" argument has absolutely nothing to do with that... Iowa class is first place... this crappy non inovative piece of junk... propaganda
KhamulYT 9 months ago 4
@N1ghtStalkerNL
Bismarck was sunk by it's own crew. After investigating the wreck there was found out that the torpedos that where fired to finish her off, weren't able to penetrate the hull.
Schlachti10 9 months ago 3
@N1ghtStalkerNL
"SUNK" has no value in a comparison, unless you are comparing it with the ship that sank it.
How about?
" Iowa = not sunk while hiding under the aircraft carrier's skirt. "
If you don't like the above, then let's keep the lame "sunk" analysis out of the picture.
311nonono 9 months ago 2
@N1ghtStalkerNL bismark wasn't sunk by brits it was self destoyed by germans ,beacuse it was only a costal defense when it's rudder was jammed .
bonefaith 8 months ago 3
7th place,redicules far too low, 1st place i say
TheYamR6Sp 9 months ago 2
even so, they didn't scuttle it because they were in the clear did they? They scuttled because there was no option left!
mrbones652 9 months ago
This is a big Lie typical american im not anti america but everything that isnt americanscores low firepower was the highest mark protection too but the service length thats right. but it was a mordern ship with much inovastions.
MsAchmedtheterrorist 10 months ago 16
@MsAchmedtheterrorist : No doubt about it, for it's size, it kicked ass. Germany had some top equipment: too bad they were led by a psychopath führer.
69wabbit 6 months ago
@MsAchmedtheterrorist Keep bitching, British faggot.
Tyco200 4 months ago
@Tyco200 They're from Germany. Just saying....
sthill1993 2 months ago
The Tirpitz was a fleet in itself. Docked in Norway, Britain and America were forced to protect their convoys to Russia with large amounts of battleships, battlecruisers and cruisers in case the Tirpitz came out to play, even though it never did, its presense kept a large part of the Royal Navy tied down in North Atlantic ocean.
mrbones652 10 months ago
The sinking of the bismarck was the worlds perfect example of how battleships, no matter how powerful, could be sunk or disabled by a handful of planes armed with torpedoes.
mrbones652 10 months ago
@mrbones652 The Bismarck get scutled by her own crew.
MsAchmedtheterrorist 10 months ago 21
@MsAchmedtheterrorist It was scuttled only because our brave boys had torped and pounded the little shit so hard it was doomed anyway.
SuperYogSothoth 10 months ago
@SuperYogSothoth IT get scutled for ine reason admiral lütjens dont want to get this ship under british command. it was unable to defend against 2 battleships and cruiser with the jammed rudder.
MsAchmedtheterrorist 9 months ago
@MsAchmedtheterrorist So you agree that the ship was scuttled directly due to damage taken from being fired upon? I'm glad thats cleared up.
SuperYogSothoth 9 months ago
Comment removed
BBCKT 9 months ago
HMS Hood for many years was the worlds biggest, heaviest, most awesome military ship in the world. Because of tis size and massive guns it was referred to as a "battleship" rather then a "battlecruiser"
mrbones652 10 months ago
HMS Hood wasnt even a battleship, it was a battlecruiser
tecna64 10 months ago
And i know more somthing sorry,
we need ONE ship 3 Rounds (24 Projectils) and 4 MINUTES to sink 1ship (Hood)
The royal navy needs 4 ships, 2 hours and over700 Projectils to shoot the Bismarck unfit for fighting? You didn´t sink her only unfit for fighting! sorry i say more place 7 its not enough!!!
Boing747400LH 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes okay but all battleships or warsystems for ships after 1941 is the Bismarck the Basic. A lot of things and Basics comes from germany sorry, but its real and then its place 7 not enougth i think. USA build it wat germany have had for a long time ago
Google that "Horten IX" USA build it 1995? i think? we build it long time ago!
Boing747400LH 10 months ago
Comment removed
Boing747400LH 10 months ago
HMS Hood was sunk on May 24th and NOT May 25 as this video states.
spookespook 10 months ago
it was a damn good ship al right but no match for the RAF and RN! (it was sunk by Airplanes in case you want to remove the RAF)
jasincl 10 months ago
fucking nazist
piotr2416 11 months ago
I know so friggin much about battleships! (flips to Wikipedia) For instance; (copies and pastes information)...
SKUSMC 11 months ago
The Bismarck was designed with an 8000 mile range so He could roll down the Eastern coast of the US and shell it, including Washington DC and New Your City!
You're goddamned lucky Churchill had the presence of mind to shut her down!
JackBootLip 11 months ago
OH, CHRIST ON A BIKE, YOU BRITS KNOW YOU WERE OUTMATCHED, SHIP-FOR-SHIP!
That been said, the Yamamoto had bigger guns.
What I wanna see is Japan, US, England, Germany, France KICKIN THE SHIT OUT OF LIBYA, and every other terrorist cocksucker who dares to stick his neck out!!!
National pride aside, when us Western European bastards WORK TOGETHER:
NO FORCE ON EARTH CAN STOP US!
Saddam Huissen: hanged
Quaddafi: - near the gallows - KEEP IT UP ASSHOLE - WE GOT YOUR NUMBER!
JackBootLip 11 months ago
@JackBootLip you mean Yamato...
kornek21 11 months ago
@JackBootLip
"nd every other terrorist cocksucker who dares to stick his neck out!!!"
Many Al-Queda members in Iraq have become from same areas where this rebellion started.
"NO FORCE ON EARTH CAN STOP US!"
I can think few.
"Quaddafi: - near the gallows - KEEP IT UP ASSHOLE - WE GOT YOUR NUMBER!"
I bet you dont even know why you are angry. Few months ago your country didn't have any problems with Gaddafi.
MokomaSusi 11 months ago
Comment removed
Boing747400LH 10 months ago
This is a great ship because of what it took to put these bastards down.
Aircraft, ship fire... steering malifuction... fire... I mean... talk about your overkill.
I shudder to think what would have happened if the germans had built more than 2 of these ships.
turkey12356 11 months ago
My top 5: Iowa, North Carolina, Bismark, Prince of Wales and, of course, Andrea Dorea. Yamato doesn't deserve even the top 50 ships, and Renown was an even weaker Hood class... Both ships were useless.
TheRedWolf01 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What? @parsecboy
"erroneous assertion" ?
One would think that you actually READ the data from notsureyou.
Now that.... is an erroneous assertion.... on my part !
311nonono 1 year ago
@notsureyou
HMS prince of wales-while still not fully operational, she was sent into action with the German battleship Bismarck (yes battleship i apologise)
HMS Rodney (launched 1925) alot OLDER than the bismarck (launched 1939)
HMS Hood-BATTLE CRUISER
so yes it went up against a few battle ships but not in one hit.
and the bismarck spent more time hiding and running. and it was ment to be the best ship on the waves. erm ye germany nice try.
didnt the germans scuttle it rather than fight
pezzlauk 1 year ago
@pezzlauk
the last battle she went up aghainst the KGV and Rodney (so 2 battleships) plus at least 2 heavy cruisers.
Im not sure off hand how much Rodney was modernised in the interwar period but she was due for a full overhaul. But her guns were still lethal.
I think in all honesty you are thinmking of the graf spee
notsureyou 1 year ago
the Bismarck attempted to sneak into the north atlantic, was discovered and shadowed, then during the battle of the denmark straight fought Hood and POW, of which hood was sunk. POW recieved some damage, Bismarck recieved 3 hits from POW (not bad for a new battleship ;) ), then Bismarck managed to break contact and headed for France (due to the damage recieved from POW). then after being rediscovered recieved a crippling torpedo hit that locked the rudders hard over and so had no steering
notsureyou 1 year ago
she was then harrassed throughout the night by destroyers (no hits scored by either side) which served to wear down the crew.
than in the final battle she was attacked by the battleships KGV and Rodney, and the heavy cruisers Norfolk and Dorsetshire.
Once her guns were disabled the order to scuttle was given to prevent the ships from being captured.
notsureyou 1 year ago
its dindt take on the might of our navey, they never took on a battleship, just cruisers and destoyers and yet the crew of the hood died fighting till the end.
pezzlauk 1 year ago
@pezzlauk
So the Prince Of Wales (10*14inch guns) which is King George V class battleship is a cruiser?
so the Rodney (9*16inch guns) and King George V (10*14inch guns) are not battleships but cruisers?
And the Hood (8*15inch guns) was a cruiser?
Just so you know British cruisers were armed with 8inch, 6inch or 5.25inch guns
notsureyou 1 year ago
@notsureyou: You seem to be confusing the terms battleship, battlecruiser, and cruiser... which are admitted somewhat ill-defined. Battlecruisers were similar to the German pocketbattleship concept, in principle. A near-battleship-displacement vessel, uparmored or uparmed to battlewagon standards but lacking one or the other as a concession to save weight/speed/range and/or cost. The German capital ships proved very tough, well-engineered and difficult to sink.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 year ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961
lol my strange answer was because of the comment by pezzlauk who said that Bismarck never took on a battleship.
i was being a bit silly and pointing out that he/she clearly had no idea what they were talking about.
notsureyou 11 months ago
I would have rated the Bismarck and Tirpitz higher for protection, much higher in fact, it took several torpedoes and gunfire to sink Bismarck, plus the surviving crew were setting scuttling charges......Bismarck class were far superior to King George 5 class.
GRAHAM5020 1 year ago
@GRAHAM5020
the crew had started scuttling almost an hour before she slipped beneath the waves, pls the amount of pounding she took.
the only time any KGV ship took damage from gunfire was the POW against bismarck.
notsureyou 1 year ago
@notsureyou Yes i agree, the Bismarck certainly took heavy punishment, she proved very difficult to sink.
GRAHAM5020 1 year ago
awesome ship!
Helyzz82 1 year ago
I love it how the program disrispects the Bismarck so much, and how they give so much priority to British and yank weapons.
MrMadpenguin 1 year ago
actually, most records state that the crew scuttled her instead of risk her being captured because they couldn't control her, one torpedo had hit the rudder and fused it so she couldn't be steered, and was stuck in a long port (i think) turn.
Nathan5027 1 year ago
like all german ships, the stern of the bismarck was very vulnerable, if a direct hit could be scored the entire stern would give way, resulting in the rapid sinking. In many cases the sterns of the scharnhorst class battleships and the admiral hipper class cruiser, were often ravaged and destroyed by torpedoes and heavy shells. Which would take several months of repairs.This happened to Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst, and admiral hipper.
mrbones652 1 year ago
@mrbones652
result in rapid sinking? can you please provide me one example where a failed stern due to a torpedo hit on any german warship resulted in rapid sinking?
I think the main issue isnt the tripple screw design, but rather the location of that rear most amoured bulkhead, and the fact that the 'softend' protection that bismarck had didnt go all the way to the rear. instead it terminated pretty much in line with the rudders.
notsureyou 1 year ago
at least one survivor was near the stern when she rolled over and went down, he claims that the stern was intact when she slipped beneath the waves.
so if what he claims he saw is correct, the stern must have failed on the way down, or when she hit the bottom.
notsureyou 1 year ago
This was unsinkable,the ship was scuttled by the crew to not be captured by british which after over 3,200 shells didnt sink it .
SyberiaDreams 1 year ago
@SyberiaDreams
The design and distribution of the armor was superb, the hull had 22 water tight compartments. The crew had to "help" the British sink it.
The rudder design was it's Achilles heal.
311nonono 1 year ago
@311nonono
my main issue with the amoured protection is the horizontal protection. perhaps the angled turtle back should have extended up to almost the top of the main belt, this would also allow extra amour to be re-distributed to the third amoured deck. also shaving 12mm from the weather deck ( this would actually help prevent penetration at shorter ranges) and adding that to the third amoured deck.
notsureyou 1 year ago
interesting
f100010 1 year ago
Rating of armour protection must be a bad joke! Way lower than QE class, that's ridiculous. You can say about Bismarck what you want (the steering problem, failing AA, main guns not powerful as they could have been, even a stupid admiral ;-), etc.), but her armour was topnotch. Maybe the one single ship which could take most punishment ever.
kannjanichtsein 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And What about the Yamato ? ? ? ... are you classifying it as a row boat ?
311nonono 1 year ago
Odd... that, in this series, you excluded the Littorio class of battleships that had the most powerful guns ever placed an any battleship.
These guns out ranged Iowa's guns by FOUR(4) miles and Yamato's gun's by TWO(2+) miles, with more armor penetrating power than both.
I DO NOT THINK YOU DID YOUR HOMEWORK !!
311nonono 1 year ago 19
@311nonono you crazy Littorio class have 15 inch gun bismarck too have 15inch gun and the yamato have the biggest gun with 18inch
Bonanoqc 1 year ago 3
@Bonanoqc
Hard to believe hey!
Even harder to believe that so few people, like you, have no clue of the real facts(Not your fault).
The Littorio's guns had the highest muzzle velocity of any gun, that’s what gave them their devastating power.
These guns were made by what is now called the Oto Melara company. Even today they make the majority of the guns (those little bubble like guns on modern ships) on most of today's modern navies including for the US and Brits.
311nonono 1 year ago 4
@Bonanoqc
DO SOME RESEARCH AND TELL ME WHAT YOU FIND, I PROMISE YOU WILL BE SURPRISED !
311nonono 1 year ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bonanoqc
By the way;
They *COMPLETELY* out-classed the 15" guns of the Bismarck class. It was almost embarrassing !
311nonono 1 year ago
@311nonono The Littorios did not have the most powerful gun - high muzzle velocity does not equal power. Weight of shell (& thus size of the exploding charge) is far more important. The Italian 381mm gun fired a 1,951lb shell, while the American 16in fired a 2700lb shell.
The American turrets also allowed for a much greater elevation, which corresponds with a much greater angle of impact at long range. At 30k yards, the 16in can penetrate up to 6.65in of deck armor - it's 5.11in for the 381mm.
parsecboy 1 year ago
@parsecboy
where do you get the figure of 5.11 inches (of penetration) for the italian 15inch gun?
of Italian deck amour it penetrates at 30KY 4.6inches, IOWA penetrates 6.4 inches
notsureyou 1 year ago
@notsureyou Navweaps.com, which derives most of its WWII info from John Campbell's Naval Weapons of World War II.
parsecboy 1 year ago
@parsecboy
The Littorios ** DID ** have the most powerful guns. Period !
Shell weight by itself means nothing !
Both SPEED and WEIGHT is the determining factor.
A shell with twice the weight of the Iowa shell at ZERO speed has ZERO penetration !
The SPEED and WEIGHT of the Littorio’s shells made it’s guns much more powerful than Iowa’s guns, and even Yamato’s.
The excessive muzzle velocity caused the guns excessive wear, so these guns were also designed with quick replacement liners.
311nonono 1 year ago
@311nonono The muzzle velocity for the Italian 15in is 2,789ft/s compared to 2,500ft/s for the 16in 50-cal Mark 7 used on the Iowas. If you look at striking velocities, it actually favors the American gun as the range increases. At 10k yards, it's approx 2,250 for the 15in, and 2,075 for the 16in, but at 40k, its 1,585 and 1,607, respectively.
As for armor penetration, at 0yds, the 15in penetrates 32.07in, the 16in does 32.62in. At 30k, its 14.93in and 14.97in, respectively.
parsecboy 1 year ago
@parsecboy Try reading what I said AGAIN ! Consider a remedial course in physics, with some emphasis on projectile trajectories !
311nonono 1 year ago
@311nonono What you said is patently false. The striking velocities (which are documented) for the 15in gun trail off more rapidly than the 16in, and at longer ranges, the 15in is inferior to the 16. The flatter trajectory of the 15in gun at extreme range is also a handicap, as it causes the shell to hit at a less oblique angle, which decreases its ability to penetrate heavy armor.
parsecboy 1 year ago
@311nonono Something else to consider: The German 15in C/34 guns used on Bismarck had a muzzle velocity of 2,690f/s. Surely that means their 1,764 lb shell is more powerful than the Iowa's 16in, right? But its armor penetrating ability is lower than any of the other three guns (15, 16, 18.1) at any range, even though it's only marginally slower than the Italian 15. The facts simply don't back up your assertion that muzzle velocity is the most important factor.
parsecboy 1 year ago
@parsecboy
Littorio’s guns out ranged both Yamato and the Iowa by 2 to 5 miles.
In armor penetration, Yamato’s and Iowa’s guns just eked out the Littorio’s guns at point blank range.
Beyond point blank range the Littorio’s equaled them and then exceeded them as range increased.
HORIZONTAL penetration is a specious argument.
It is NOT representative of the power of the gun but rather the parabolic arc used to reach the range.
Weaker guns will required a higher parabolic arc to the same range !
311nonono 1 year ago
@311nonono You have no clue what you're talking about. Yamato's 18.1in gun penetrated 34.01in at 0yds, 2 more inches than the 15in and 1.5 more than the 16. In terms of armor penetration it was inferior to both the 15 and 16 as range increased.
I don't see how you think deck penetration is a specious argument, given that computerized fire control gave BBs the capability of reliably hitting targets at 30k+ ranges.
parsecboy 1 year ago
@parsecboy
while i agree about the importance of modern fire control, im going to have to disagree with you in terms of reliably hitting targets at 30k+.
because the longest hit scored by one naval vessel against another naval vessel was about 26Kyards, and that was in 1940. no hits beyond that were recorded. One person has mentioned a straddled caused at i think it was 38Kyards. but thats not a hit.
notsureyou 1 year ago
@notsureyou American radar-equipped battleships did not have the opportunity to fight other warships at extreme range - the two hits at approx. 26k yards were Scharnhorst on Glorious and Warspite on Giulio Cesare. The major surface actions fought by American BBs (Surigao, Guadalcanal, etc.) were at relatively close range
parsecboy 1 year ago
@parsecboy '
the problem is that by the time that radar truly came of age in terms quality combined with a great fire control there was no-one really to fight. And the few threats that remianed it was easier (and cheaper) to sink them with aircraft.
im sure any battleship on battleship engagement in 1945 would have been a real fight between titans.
it seems as though radar was mainly used to aid in the surprise sneaking up on a target, closing the range before hitting them hard
notsureyou 1 year ago
@notsureyou That's very true. I was mainly speaking in theoretical terms, as 311nonono made the erroneous assertion that the Italian 15" gun was the most powerful naval gun ever designed.
By 1945, long-range radar was mainly used to locate targets for the carrier aircraft.
parsecboy 1 year ago
@parsecboy
i thought the carrier radar had longer range?
notsureyou 1 year ago
@notsureyou Right, it was used to locate targets so attack aircraft could be launched to destroy them.
This was not the same type of radar used for fire control, however, which was specialized for relatively short-range use (i.e, within range of the ship's guns).
parsecboy 1 year ago
@parsecboy
ahhh i didnt realise that they also had a search radar, though it makes sense :)
notsureyou 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@parsecboy "erroneous assertion" ?
One would think that you actually read the data from notsureyou.
Now that is an erroneous assertion on my part !
311nonono 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@parsecboy
"erroneous assertion" ?
One would think that you actually read the data from notsureyou.
Now that.... is an erroneous assertion.... on my part !
311nonono 1 year ago
@parsecboy
at 0yards against british belt (results are of EFF) Italian: 31.9, American 29.5 (then with improved shell 1945-1996 use) 33.6 Japan 31.7
20ky italian 18.2 American 16.7 (again improved shell) 18.6, japanese 17.7
30ky italian 14.2 American 13 (again improved) 14.5 japanese 13.5
but to be fair and compare guns of the same period im going to use the us 16/45 now (still using 'super shell')
0: 26.6, 20: 14.8, 30: 11.4
notsureyou 1 year ago
the german 15inch gun:
0: 31.1, 20ky: 16.3, 30ky: 11.7
so the german cannon in VERTICLE protection is better than the 16/45 which is of the same time period, the US gun is much better at HORIZONTAL penetration. though the german gun out ranges the US gun by 3000yards
notsureyou 1 year ago
@notsureyou I don't know where you're getting your figures. For the 16in Mk 7 gun used on the Iowas, the figures are 0k: 32.62, 20k: 20.04, 30k: 14.97.
For the 16in Mk 6 used on the North Carolinas and SoDaks, the figures are 0k: 29.74, 20k: 17.62, 30k: 12.77
These figures are from "Battleships: United States Battleships, 1935-1992"
parsecboy 1 year ago
@parsecboy
i quote from a site ill send you the link via msg.
It gives the penetration of different belt amour (each country used their own special alloy) and gives different types of penetration.
my quote for all the guns was against british amour.
Ive found most sites quote the same ball park figures for penetration (very small differences) as the site i quote from.
notsureyou 1 year ago
@311nonono The gun cannot be judged by itself, it is part of a weapon system, which includes the turret, ammunition hoists, etc. The greater degree of elevation for the 16in turret makes it superior in terms of armor penetration in actual combat situations, which is what really matters.
Higher arcs are actually preferable, as they allow the shell to strike the thinner deck armor at more oblique angles as opposed to the thick belt armor.
parsecboy 1 year ago
@parsecboy
The major part of the shell's weight is the steel.
The shell’s powder charge difference between Littorio and Iowa differed by only a few pounds.
You can verify all this stuff for yourself.
311nonono 1 year ago
@311nonono No the Littorio class did not have the most powerful gun not at all and the you claim that
from one website is total bullshit there sucked, their projectiles suck thier powder charges suck their steel suck there navy sucked and there fleet was only saw port or the bottom of the port where they were sunk.
CDMJDMHHC 1 year ago
@CDMJDMHHC That was not true the Italian navy was a formidable force and could of easily beaten the french navy, spanish navy or the German navy but the one thing that led to its downfall was the fact that the royal navy outnumbered the italian navy with overwhelming odds. the British had over 15 battleships. The italian navy had 4 modernized ww1 battleships, and 4 Vittorio Veneto class battleships. ( i am not sure if they had more) the Vittorio Veneto class was superior to all spanish, french
darthreven9999 1 year ago
@CDMJDMHHC BB's and superior to all but the Nelson class and King george 5 class british battleships. so next time you decide to be racist @$#$#@%#$%%#%%#. so fuck off and get a life you racist fuck
darthreven9999 1 year ago
@darthreven9999 their is nothing racist about my comments the Italian navy was miss handled by their commanders. The Italian war machine was not ready to produce more modern equipment the soldiers with good leadership where effective when led my good officers. I know little of the Spanish navy and of the French navy except it had some modern ships. All naval guns had high pressure.
CDMJDMHHC 1 year ago
@CDMJDMHHC
311nonono 1 year ago
@CDMJDMHHC you may not of meant it to be racist but the way you said it made you sound like you were being racist towards Italians. No it was not that they mishandled their navy and did not have good officers ect... it was that the italian navy was a bit old fasioned in thinking and still believed battleships to be the main naval war weapon. Germany made the same mistake. it was because the allies had aircraft carriers where germany did not finish construction of their CV graf zepplin feeling ..
darthreven9999 1 year ago
@CDMJDMHHC it was unecessary to win a naval war. italy had the same thinking and therefore no carriers were even laid down (although there were designs and plans to make 2). But mussolini that incompitent prince of terror ordered that no further work be put into designs. that is why many people think the italian navy was bad. it was not they had some of the best and most powerful/advanced ships of the time. they did not have sufficient air cover in the way of carriers to protect their ships.
darthreven9999 1 year ago
@darthreven9999 correcting myself It was not that they had badly designed ships. it was that they lacked sufficient aircover in the form of carriers. their Littorio/ Vittorio veneto clas battleships were some of the best and most powerful/advanced ships of the time.
darthreven9999 1 year ago
@darthreven9999
You let him off easy, I had a few email with him.
And you're right, he is one VERY stupid racist !
The Italians had only 3 LIttorio/Veneto Class ships, a forth the Impero was only about 70% completed.
311nonono 1 year ago
@darthreven9999 Nelson, sadly, was an inadequate design. Fire all the guns at the same time, and the ship will tear its deck apart. :P
TheRedWolf01 11 months ago
@TheRedWolf01
Are you saying the Nelson was capable of sinking itself with it's own guns ?
Then, it would be the most powerful battleship ever.
Because none was capable of inflicting so much damage on itself !
If the enemy did not surrender it could hold it's breath and blow itself up.
311nonono 11 months ago
@311nonono Really? Littorio battleship? Get real man. Italian navy was smashed by the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean. In multiple battles, admiral Cunningham sailed off from Alexandria and took the Italians to school. You're crazy if you think Littorio should've been in Top 10 fighting ships, it would barely be in, say, top 25 battleships, just for the sake of taking something from Italy. Best BBs in WW2, imo, are in the following order: Iowa, Bismarck, Yamato, North Carolina, Kongo, Renown...
M1cool1 11 months ago
@M1cool1 Yamato and Renown don't deserve to be in the list. Renown was a weaker, older version of Hood, and Yamato was nothing more than a big waste of metal that couldn't target anything in range. By the time she would've targeted Iowa, she'd be half under-water. :P
TheRedWolf01 11 months ago
@M1cool1 Kongo, Yamato and Renown don't deserve their place in that list. More like PoW, Nagato and the Schornost.
TheRedWolf01 11 months ago
@TheRedWolf01 Yeah, I know what you mean. But Kongo was really the most used and most effective Japanese battleship / battlecruiser. Fought well at Guadalcanal. Nagato may have its 16 inchers to brag with, but did nothing in the war, really. So Kongo > Nagato. Yamato was the strongest BB ever built... and she is definitely on any best BB list at Top 3. I cannot forgive those 14 inch guns to PoW... Churchill was going crazy about that. Renown beat two Scharnhorsts, so I guess he is better.
M1cool1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
311nonono 11 months ago
@M1cool1
And....It's obvious you know NOTHING, HAVE NO CLUE, ARE DEFICIENT and LACKING in this area.
BUT YOU SURE CAN TALK. (Don't make a case for me to think you have no brain.)
Remember to bring the EVIDENCE, on guns and armor, and prove me wrong !
SOURCES and REFERENCES, or say you ain't got them !
After you admit you ain't got them. Then you can ask me to present them, but NOT UNTIL THEN.
GOT IT ? Genius, Mr. Cheap words.
REMEMBER after you admit you ain't got them, NOT UNTIL THEN !
311nonono 11 months ago
@311nonono Evidence? My only evidence is how WW2 played out in the Mediterranean. You may talk about Littorio "potential", "what could've been" or simply claim that they have the best "characteristics" of all BBs. Not true. Outranged Iowa? Really? Does that mean it was her effective range? Hell no. What 3 ships of Littorio class did in the war is all we can talk about. You speak of information, well you better INFORM yourself. Italy, Regia Marina and the Axis got RAPED in the Mediterranean War.
M1cool1 11 months ago
@M1cool1
That's your evidence because you said "not true" !.
Wow, well let me wrap me head around that, "he said not true", that is deep! and profound!
Well if he said "not true" then it must be so. N O T !
NO EVIDENCE ! (Your Honor M1cool1 is wasting the courts time)
So far regarding my two(2) statement on the Littorio's guns and armor, they still stand.
You brought no evidence except diversions, subterfuge and obfuscation.
TRY AGAIN.....If you can stay focused?
311nonono 11 months ago
@311nonono you're a funny little man. Things you call "evidence" are not true. You go around youtube videos describing battleships and show up saying Littorio class had the most powerful guns. The 15'' guns made by Italians anything near U.S., British, German or any other nation's guns. But you're a rare species, I'll tell you, because absolutely nobody mentions these ships as anything of good quality, nobody but you that is. You try to prove something and you utterly fail every time. Go away!
M1cool1 11 months ago
@311nonono And now, coup de grace. Italian guns had a short barrel life. Powder charges were bad. Littorio could not outrange nobody. It had nothing near the Allied radars. Its range, which you think is greater than Iowa or Yamato', is in no way effective range. At theoretical 42 km Littorio's guns couldn't hit an immobile tanker. Because of the inadequate gunner and crew training, and Italian spirit of being cowards, Littorio would not even survive against British WW1 era battleships! Go away.
M1cool1 11 months ago
@M1cool1
No Evidence, IDIOT !
311nonono 11 months ago
@311nonono Get a brain, loser! You're a failure and so are your theories.
M1cool1 11 months ago
@M1cool1
You talk about a brain, get real, you have already shown what you are !
Your INSULTS to ITALIANS are a sure sign of your BIGOTED RACIST mental INCOMPETENCE.
Bigots like you will never be allowed in the USA.
I know some Italians and I am sure they would love for you to tell them some of your thoughts to their face.
ITALY is right near you go find some CALABRESE or SICILIANs and tell them.
The will slice you up like the piece HUMAN BOLONY that you are.
You RACIST MORON ASSHOLE !
311nonono 11 months ago