Who would Win early 1942

[zach b]

Ok Early 1942 before the US has has experianced decent results with its FC radar, or anyone else for that matter. Who would be the victor on any engagement. 1 on 1 only, no air cover no escorts, just a brawl between 2 prized fighters. Conditions are force 3 conditions, and daylight. Good visability, and standard displacement, not deep. The ring is set, lets have a good clean fight...

[Filipe Ramires]

Zach...I think you meant Tirpitz not Bismark correct!?!?!?!?

[JWintjes]

Hmmm, taking into account that Richelieu wasn't combat ready until after her January 1943 refit I'd say she'd rather come off worse...

Jorit

[Mark Petersen]

I'll go with the Yamato simply based on the potential weight of shell fire. The Bismark probably had the best armor vs displacement but in the end given the amount of ordinance the Yamato absorbed in her death ride I think she'd come off on top. Gunnery IMO would go to the Bismark but I don't think it would be enough.

[zach b]

Darn I thought this was going to be airtight. Ok if Richelieu had been ready, and Bismark was around, but then that would mean Hood should be on the board. Would it kill you to admit Yamato would be the victor Jorit?

[Filipe Ramires]

Yamato beating off Hood!!?!?!? Hum...I found that a hard one to get!!!!

[chuck]

Hmmm, taking into account that Richelieu wasn't combat ready until after her January 1943 refit I'd say she'd rather come off worse...

Jorit

Since the time frame in question sees the Bismark is already lying turretless on the bottom of the Atlantic, and destined to remain so for a good long time, I'd say Richelieu dodges the fate of "rather come off worse" by merely keeping in touch with real breathable air through out the period and exhibit evidence of possessing real bouyancy.

[Werner]

History demonstrates Japanese can't hit the broad side of a barn at battle ranges, I have to give the tip to Bismarck. The Germans have a demonstrably efficient fire control system (as seen vs Glorious and Hood) and worked up crews.

Anyone who thinks the Japanese would do well is completely ignoring the record of history and voting with their emotions.

W

[chuck]

History demonstrates Japanese can't hit the broad side of a barn at battle ranges, I have to give the tip to Bismarck. The Germans have a demonstrably efficient fire control system (as seen vs Glorious and Hood) and worked up crews.

Anyone who thinks the Japanese would do well is completely ignoring the record of history and voting with their emotions.

W

O, please.

[Werner]

Chuck, you can carry on jousting with windmills if you wish. The Germans scored many more hits with their battleships then ever did the Japanese.

Can you point to a single hit on an enemy ship by Yamato? She had the opportunity.

The Japanese record shows about half the hits 1941-1945 as Germany at Jutland in 1916. There is simply no evidence you can put forth (other than your half-baked theories) that the Japanese battleships would do anything!!

In fact, the record shows no hits were ever scored by Japanese guns greater than 14-inch caliber!

Only one 14-inch hit after 1942!

W

[JWintjes]

Since the time frame in question sees the Bismark is already lying turretless on the bottom of the Atlantic, and destined to remain so for a good long time, I'd say Richelieu dodges the fate of "rather come off worse" by merely keeping in touch with real breathable air through out the period and exhibit evidence of possessing real bouyancy.

Really a good point - although it might be debatable whether real bouyancy isn't overrated as a combat capability...

Jorit

[JWintjes]

Somewhat more seriously - well, just barely so... - I'd like to point out one important thing: None of the battleships in question are able to withstand a critical direct hit by any opponent in the same league without losing significant combat capability. Thus, while on theory Bismarck's gunnery may be superior to that of, say, KGV, a chance 14" hit would disable Bismarck.

And it's these chance hits that decide battles much more than others - look at Hood and PoW against Bismarck.

Jorit

[chuck]

Somewhat more seriously - well, just barely so... - I'd like to point out one important thing: None of the battleships in question are able to withstand a critical direct hit by any opponent in the same league without losing significant combat capability. Thus, while on theory Bismarck's gunnery may be superior to that of, say, KGV, a chance 14" hit would disable Bismarck.

And it's these chance hits that decide battles much more than others - look at Hood and PoW against Bismarck.

Jorit

I am not entirely sure if Bismark's gunnery is indeed superior to KGV's. I never fully accepted the contention that Bismark is a stronger ship in ship-to-ship combat than KGV. A Shaken British confidence and a nagging sense of inferiority on the part of the British is probably the main reason for Bismark's reputation.

[chuck]

Really a good point - although it might be debatable whether real bouyancy isn't overrated as a combat capability...

Jorit

Although many advanturous battleships have tried to continue the battle after submerging, their actual score after going under has been rather low. This circumstantial evidence supports the argument that positive pouyancy positively effects a battleship's combat capabilites.

[Werner]

British major calibre ships seem to suffer less from fire control issues than their cruisers. It would appear the British lacked some confidence, purchasing American control elements for Vanguard, but whether this is a reflection of confidence in the design or in the manufacturing capacity of British industry is unclear.

We can assume King George V's much more modern gear would perform better than Hood's WW.I equipment, and Nelson's would be intermediate in abilities.

W

[Werner]

Here are some comments by Jon Parshall (my emphasis added):

Some discussion is obviously in order here, because my scoring runs counter to some of the established and accepted 'battleship lore' out there. For instance, my scoring indicates that King George V was a pretty close match for Bismarck in a stand-up fight. So, if this was such an even fight, why did Prince of Wales break off her action with Bismarck, instead of just duking it out in a manly fashion? There are a few things to remember in this regard. First; this comparison shows a King George V-class battleship in a late-war configuration equipped with Type 274 radar; a luxury the Prince of Wales did not enjoy in 1940, but which would have been a huge equalizer later in the war. If one assumes British fire control to be equal or slightly inferior to the Germans in 1940, Bismarck starts looking better again. Second; the British had little idea that Bismarck was as tough a low-angle target as she was, and thus closed the range to come to grips with her (which, had she made it that far, also would have reduced Hood's exposure to high-angle deck hits - a vulnerability the British were acutely aware of, and another reason why they tried to close the range with Bismarck as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, they cut their intercept course too fine, and couldn't run the gauntlet before Hood was fatally hit). In retrospect, a ship like King George V is better off fighting Bismarck at long range, where the German ship's own vulnerability to high-angle fire would be heightened. Third, of course, is the fact that Prince of Wales was suffering from teething problems in her main mounts, to put it mildly, and was not getting nearly the output of shells she might have enjoyed in a late-war engagement when all the bugs with the British 14"/45 mount had been worked out. Late-war, at long range, with blindfire radar fire-control, and turrets working, I believe King George V was a decent match for the Bismarck.

Second, I'm saying that South Dakota would have usually whipped the Bismarck. Not only that, but if handled correctly, she ought to have had a better-than-even shot against Yamato, a statement that on the face of it seems absurd! Yamato was fully 27,000+ tons heavier, had much thicker armor, and possessed the largest naval rifles ever mounted afloat. However, the American ship had the world's best fire-control system, a fantastic armor belt, and guns which delivered very large projectiles at high-angle trajectories which could go through thicker deck plates than Yamato's 18.1" shells. Again, fire-control and the ship's fighting instructions become crucial. If the American stays at range (30,000-35,000 yards), she should be able to deliver many more hits to Yamato than she receives in return, because she can both shoot and maneuver (due to her much better stable vertical fire-control system elements). Further, Yamato's internal subdivision is not as good as SoDak's, and American hits are therefore likely to be more damaging than the Japanese. On the other hand, historically the Americans had little idea of Yamato's capabilities, and were likely to have attempted to close the range with her, not knowing the extent of her armoring, or that she was, in fact, armed with truly enormous 18.1" guns, rather than the 16" guns everyone on the American side of the lake assumed was the case. Closing the range with Yamato would likely have resulted in the American ship learning a painful lesson in gunfire supremacy. South Dakota's belt is better than Yamato's (barely), but at close range Yamato's guns have much better penetration. Further, Yamato's secondaries are very powerful, and would have begun to take a possible toll on SoDak's exposed radars and fire-control equipment, which would reduce her advantage in fire-control substantially if disabled. The bottom line is that South Dakota is a boxer, and should maintain her distance from a slugger like Yamato. Under the right circumstances, however, she was perfectly capable of dishing out critical damage to her hulking opponent.

I guess I'm not the only person Chuck would consider an idiot.

(Source: http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm )

[Vlad]

I have been told to take that article with more than a pinch of salt last time I brought it up, thought I can't remember the exact circumstances.

Anyway, I withhold my vote because IMO each ship has its own strong and weak points, and given a hypothetical set of circumstances either could win. The point brought up about closing to close range or not could evidently flip the result of a battle. Because the scenario we are given is set before FC radar could open the gap between ships, its an even tougher call to make.

That is partly why I find these sort of comparative threads slightly tedious, because one will usually be able to find situatinos to favor either ship, or arrive at a stalemate, even with quite different ships (I am sure you could argue that H.M.S. Queen Elizabeth, with late-war RADAR, could have a "better-than-even shot against Yamato")

So nothing is left but to enjoy each ship, and if you wish, vote with your heart, because your guess as to the outcome of a "fair" battle is as good as anyones.

[Werner]

Very well considered, Vlad.

I think you may be left standing when I'm done with my scythe.

I think anyone who disagrees with the article would say "pinch of salt", and the ones who agree would say "gospel". For my part, I think he overstates the value of armor and underwater protection on the American ships he chose.

Hard to argue with his analysis of the AA abilities, on the other hand. Of course, we have much more history to judge by.

That doesn't make his entire analysis worthless, though.

W

[zach b]

I would assume Yamato would be the victor of any match on the poll, unless she was run from.

[Werner]

I would assume Yamato would be the victor of any match on the poll, unless she was run from.

You obviously haven't read http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm