TLG_ Players 157 posts 5,514 battles Report post #1 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) The Bismarck was a modified Battleshipdesign from 1918 it had rather small main Guns , 38 cm versus Yamatos 46cm or even Iowas 41cm its famoues fight against the Hood, a Battlecruise build in 1920 designed in 1917, was dumb. a Battlecruiser like the Hood should not have engaged a Battleship like the Bismarck. especially scince the Hood was 20 years older. and then the Bismarck got sunk. i think if the Bismarck had meet the Iowa, or the Yamato, contemporaries, it would have been destroyed by both of these superior battleships. the Bismarck was a pretty good Battleship, it just wasn t up to the top tier of Battleship design. P.S. if germany had used the recources to build Bismarck and Tirpitz to build Aircraftcarriers, the battle of he Atlantic might have been diffrent. thank god Hitler liked BIG GUNS Edited July 20, 2015 by svenhauke 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sharana Alpha Tester 2,271 posts 1,040 battles Report post #2 Posted July 20, 2015 Bismarck stonK! 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gerudan Beta Tester 203 posts 3,197 battles Report post #3 Posted July 20, 2015 Just as the Yamato and the Musashi the Bismarck was a waste of perfectly good steel, that didn't do any meaning ful contribution the the war effort whatsoever. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deamon93 Sailing Hamster 3,124 posts 1,275 battles Report post #4 Posted July 20, 2015 Was Bismarck the greatest? No since there were ships which were superior to her. She was wasted early on but her sister helped achieving results like the destruction of PQ17 and the fact she drew a lot of attention from the Brits. The main issue is that the Kriesgmarine had to achieve results with a limited amount of ships since it was far from ready by the time WWII started. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
_Maou_ Players 206 posts 8,147 battles Report post #5 Posted July 20, 2015 This again...sigh...there were many ships stronger and better than her(Iowa,Nelson,Yamato,even statistically looking HOOD was as strong as her but practice shown otherwise for HOOD and the BISMARCK).She was big,good, and very fearsome opponent to face and sadly the HOOD learned that the hard way ,but RN was much bigger and stronger than the Kriegs and she would have been sank however you look at it ( Tirpitz,Gneisau etc.) compared to RN Kriegsmarine couldn't do much and all of their capital ships started to explore the depths of the ocean BUT the germans had very good sub warfare and they gave much bigger headaches to the british than the Kriegs.And this HOOD shouldn't have engaged BISMARCK is retarded,if you compare stats HOOD and POW were stronger than BISMARCK and PRINCE EUGEN then again as i sad practice shows otherwise,stats don't mean everything even luck has her share in warfare. Now let the BISMARCK FANS RAGE BEGINS..and discussions xd 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TLG_ Players 157 posts 5,514 battles Report post #6 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) actually the only stats in favor of Hood where size of guns and speed. Hood should have run and just phoned home for support, which the royal Navy had a lot off. keeping in touch out off harms way. Edited July 20, 2015 by svenhauke Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
_Maou_ Players 206 posts 8,147 battles Report post #7 Posted July 20, 2015 actually the only stats in favor of Hood where size of guns and speed. Hood should have run and just phoned home for support, which the royal Navy had a lot off. keeping in touch out off harms way. xD if you're going to diss something learn stats of the ship you're dissing mate -.- And if you look at armour stats they have very similar armour mate -.-.but then again this are STATS practice has to do otherwise i mean Swordfish crippled the Bismark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TLG_ Players 157 posts 5,514 battles Report post #8 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) swordfishs crippled the rudder of the bismarck .. which shows that airplanes can disable Battleships airplane 50 000 $ disables Battleship 50 000 000 $ very efficent those planes in reality these thoughts about best Battleship are useless cause the best Battleship is an Aircraftcarrier Battleship main Guns Range = 40 Km, Aircraftcarrier main Bomber Range = 1000 Km Edited July 20, 2015 by svenhauke Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TLG_ Players 157 posts 5,514 battles Report post #9 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) Before WW 1 the Kaiser wanted to have a Navy. a Battle Fleet to chalenge the Roayal Navy. the Kaiser even painstakingly painted warships. which where pretty useless. Hitler wanted another Battle Fleet to chalenge the Roayal Navy, thats why he had the Bismarck and Tirpitz Build. Hitler was a WW 1 man. he had useless ships build. Edited July 20, 2015 by svenhauke Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gerudan Beta Tester 203 posts 3,197 battles Report post #10 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) xD if you're going to diss something learn stats of the ship you're dissing mate -.- And if you look at armour stats they have very similar armour mate -.-.but then again this are STATS practice has to do otherwise i mean Swordfish crippled the Bismark. One entry for armor for a battleship is not exactly useful. Only because her armor was about as thick as the armor of the Bismarck at a certain point doesn't mean she was equally well protected. To compare armor you would actually need detailed schematics of both ships. Edited July 20, 2015 by Gerudan 7 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
_Maou_ Players 206 posts 8,147 battles Report post #11 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) One entry for armor for a battleship is not exactly useful. Only because her armor was about as thick as the armor of the Bismarck at a certain point doesn't mean she was equally well protected. To compare armor you would actually need detailed schematics of both ships. Are you people blind or what i said STATS i didn't said detailed or anything -.- I am aware of HOOD's faults etc etc but the main point of this was to show that HOOD's wasn't that weaker than BIsmarck but that their were even in most aspects comparable, nothing else,because latley there's been a trend to overglorify the Bismarck..A LOT if i may add in some cases -.- Before WW 1 the Kaiser wanted to have a Navy. a Battle Fleet to chalenge the Roayal Navy. the Kaiser even painstakingly painted warships. which where pretty useless. Hitler wanted another Battle Fleet to chalenge the Roayal Navy, thats why he had the Bismarck and Tirpitz Build. Hitler was a WW 1 man. he had useless ships build. yeah and what about Japan,USA,UK,France,Italy they were all building battleships,battleships were symbol of seapower and national pride at that time,the carriers only started to shine at the end of the war and their strenghts were shown by the british(the raid Taranto) and the japanese(pearl harbour) and those two events and nations have presented the power and usage of carriers .Don't judge people from that time by todays standards.Hitler wanted to defy the RN and show of the German..Reich power to the world in every way(land,sea and air) so he bulit those bb's,but in vain because the brtiish took care of them Edited July 20, 2015 by _Maou_ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[ST-EU] JeeWeeJ Supertest Coordinator, Alpha Tester 892 posts 2,628 battles Report post #12 Posted July 21, 2015 Soooo, what German navy are we talking about? Kaiserliche Marine? Reichsmarine? Kriegsmarine? Bundesmarine? Volksmarine? Deutsche Marine? That makes a somewhat BIG difference... And Bismarck greatest battleship of all time? No. Most overhyped? Yes. (thank you NatGeo for useless "documentaries" called "Super Battleship Bismarck" etc etc.)Anyway, useless poll is useless. Was the Kriegsmarine doomed from the start? Yes. That's simple math given the size of her enemies. Even when plan-Z had been completed the Brits wouldn't have sit still and do nothing. Germany would always have been at a disadvantage on the seas, but all the Kriegsmarine needed to do was (temporarily) control the North Sea with air cover from France so they could protect an invasion fleet heading for the UK...not that Mr Moustache gave that any thought...given the lack of proper ships. 8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thonar Beta Tester 626 posts Report post #13 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) The Bismarck was a modified Battleshipdesign from 1918 it had rather small main Guns , 38 cm versus Yamatos 46cm or even Iowas 41cm its famoues fight against the Hood, a Battlecruise build in 1920 designed in 1917, was dumb. a Battlecruiser like the Hood should not have engaged a Battleship like the Bismarck. especially scince the Hood was 20 years older. and then the Bismarck got sunk. i think if the Bismarck had meet the Iowa, or the Yamato, contemporaries, it would have been destroyed by both of these superior battleships. the Bismarck was a pretty good Battleship, it just wasn t up to the top tier of Battleship design. P.S. if germany had used the recources to build Bismarck and Tirpitz to build Aircraftcarriers, the battle of he Atlantic might have been diffrent. thank god Hitler liked BIG GUNS What is a "battle navy"? Also: Bismarck was pretty much on par, partly better, than Nelson-Class, KGV-class and North-Carolina-Class. Better than Iowa? Nope. We could open up a "what if Germans developped Radar further" and the Bismarck would go out with a few small Advantages in some Areas but would still be on the loosing site. Better than Yamato? No... but the combat record seems to favor Bismarck ^^ This again...sigh...there were many ships stronger and better than her(Iowa,Nelson,Yamato,even statistically looking HOOD was as strong as her but practice shown otherwise for HOOD and the BISMARCK).She was big,good, and very fearsome opponent to face and sadly the HOOD learned that the hard way ,but RN was much bigger and stronger than the Kriegs and she would have been sank however you look at it ( Tirpitz,Gneisau etc.) compared to RN Kriegsmarine couldn't do much and all of their capital ships started to explore the depths of the ocean BUT the germans had very good sub warfare and they gave much bigger headaches to the british than the Kriegs.And this HOOD shouldn't have engaged BISMARCK is retarded,if you compare stats HOOD and POW were stronger than BISMARCK and PRINCE EUGEN then again as i sad practice shows otherwise,stats don't mean everything even luck has her share in warfare. Now let the BISMARCK FANS RAGE BEGINS..and discussions xd Hood was never on par with Bismarck and PoW and Hood only engaged Bismarck due to simple maths: 2 Capital Ships vs 1 Capital Ship + Cruiser. In the end the training and decisions made are deceisive... and in terms of training the crew of Bismarck was actually subpar. xD if you're going to diss something learn stats of the ship you're dissing mate -.- And if you look at armour stats they have very similar armour mate -.-.but then again this are STATS practice has to do otherwise i mean Swordfish crippled the Bismark. The armour isn't similar. And while we are at "Swordfish crippled Bismarck"... Hood was blown up by a single round and PoW was later sunk by planes only. Your comparison is deeply flawed and favourable for one side. In the end Bismarck was doomed by the lack of training of her crew. Before WW 1 the Kaiser wanted to have a Navy. a Battle Fleet to chalenge the Roayal Navy. the Kaiser even painstakingly painted warships. which where pretty useless. Hitler wanted another Battle Fleet to chalenge the Roayal Navy, thats why he had the Bismarck and Tirpitz Build. Hitler was a WW 1 man. he had useless ships build. "Hitler wanted another Battle Fleet" ... not really. The idea of the Kriegsmarine, even with the Z-Plan, was never to challenge the British fleet in a deceisive battle like during WWI. Are you people blind or what i said STATS i didn't said detailed or anything -.- I am aware of HOOD's faults etc etc but the main point of this was to show that HOOD's wasn't that weaker than BIsmarck but that their were even in most aspects comparable, nothing else,because latley there's been a trend to overglorify the Bismarck..A LOT if i may add in some cases -.- yeah and what about Japan,USA,UK,France,Italy they were all building battleships,battleships were symbol of seapower and national pride at that time,the carriers only started to shine at the end of the war and their strenghts were shown by the british(the raid Taranto) and the japanese(pearl harbour) and those two events and nations have presented the power and usage of carriers .Don't judge people from that time by todays standards.Hitler wanted to defy the RN and show of the German..Reich power to the world in every way(land,sea and air) so he bulit those bb's,but in vain because the brtiish took care of them Hell, you are arguing against yourself: You compare STATS... and then you say that STATS are not detailed enough.... but you use STATS as prove that Hood was comparable to Bismarck? That makes no sense. It isn't overglorifying Bismarck if one said that Hood simply wasn't on par with her at the time of the engagement... Hood lacked in armor, speed, armament and when I'm not mistaken also in Firecontrol and Radar. Bismarck is for sure not on par with Iowa or Yamato, like some Bismarck Fans want her to be, but: The Royal Navy had actually no ship in Service during WWII that was plain superior to Bismarck... not to mention that Royal Navy Guns of the second World War were pretty subpar if not to say plain bad. Something the heart of a RN fan can't accept. Bismarck will be a good T8 ship, end of story. Edited July 21, 2015 by Thonar 6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[EZYS] Tamcia Beta Tester 6 posts 9,491 battles Report post #14 Posted July 21, 2015 I'm imagining a Lowe. Will be quite a good ship, but driven by complete donkeys, thus earning a bad reputation. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[USN-7] Fokera Players 74 posts 6,774 battles Report post #15 Posted July 21, 2015 Stats, truth are not important songs , propaganda , stories and songs are - Sink The Bismarck - Johnny Horton Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[ROGUE] LeeQuid Players 111 posts 21,702 battles Report post #16 Posted July 21, 2015 xD if you're going to diss something learn stats of the ship you're dissing mate -.- And if you look at armour stats they have very similar armour mate -.-.but then again this are STATS practice has to do otherwise i mean Swordfish crippled the Bismark. Hood being as strong as Bismarck is nonsense. They\re not comparable, and those stats tell only half of the truth. Behind that 12 inch belt Hood had nothing else to protect the vitals; Bismarck had another sloped 4 inch deck turtleback which made it next to impossible to penetrate. Bismarcks vertical protection was vastly superior to Hood's 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
_Maou_ Players 206 posts 8,147 battles Report post #17 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) Hell, you are arguing against yourself: You compare STATS... and then you say that STATS are not detailed enough.... but you use STATS as prove that Hood was comparable to Bismarck? That makes no sense. It isn't overglorifying Bismarck if one said that Hood simply wasn't on par with her at the time of the engagement... Hood lacked in armor, speed, armament and when I'm not mistaken also in Firecontrol and Radar. Bismarck is for sure not on par with Iowa or Yamato, like some Bismarck Fans want her to be, but: The Royal Navy had actually no ship in Service during WWII that was plain superior to Bismarck... not to mention that Royal Navy Guns of the second World War were pretty subpar if not to say plain bad. Something the heart of a RN fan can't accept. Bismarck will be a good T8 ship, end of story. Most part yes but in speed and manuverability and armament no,Bismarck was newer and so she surpassed Hood not by a a large margain in armamenet and the main difference between them is armour and HOOD loses her by a large margain(mostly because the british were to cocky and arrogant to get her a refit but no matter -.-) and Hood could have engaged Bismarck she would have lost most likely yes but her firepower was the same and she could have also inflicted trumendeous damage to the Bismarck and HOOD and POW together against BISMARCK and PRINCE EUGEN they had even advantage(Eugen is a heavy cruiser she could have done something but nothing remarkable) and in the end Germans got lucky with her magazine and so did the british with swordfishes .And yes i may be overglorifying Hood but i am simply trying to prove that she wasn't as weak as everybody is saying,she was without a doubt weaker than BIsmarck but not that weaker.I think the main reason for Hood's sinking was that the british were so arrogant and confident about themselves that they didn't give Hood the refit she desperately needed.In the end the biggest enemy to the british ships is the britain herself[Warspite(scrap),Vanguard(scrap),Hood(refit -.-)etc etc]. Edited July 21, 2015 by _Maou_ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thonar Beta Tester 626 posts Report post #18 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) Most part yes but in speed and manuverability and armament no,Bismarck was newer and so she surpassed Hood not by a a large margain in armamenet and the main difference between them is armour and HOOD loses her by a large margain(mostly because the british were to cocky and arrogant to get her a refit but no matter -.-) and Hood could have engaged Bismarck she would have lost most likely yes but her firepower was the same and she could have also inflicted trumendeous damage to the Bismarck and HOOD and POW together against BISMARCK and PRINCE EUGEN they had even advantage(Eugen is a heavy cruiser she could have done something but nothing remarkable) and in the end Germans got lucky with her magazine and so did the british with swordfishes .And yes i may be overglorifying Hood but i am simply trying to prove that she wasn't as weak as everybody is saying,she was without a doubt weaker than BIsmarck but not that weaker.I think the main reason for Hood's sinking was that the british were so arrogant and confident about themselves that they didn't give Hood the refit she desperately needed.In the end the biggest enemy to the british ships is the britain herself[Warspite(scrap),Vanguard(scrap),Hood(refit -.-)etc etc]. Speed: Hood: was only able to make 28kn max as she met Bismarck Bismarck: something above 30kn Armament: Hood: worse RoF, much worse penetration capability (nearly 100mm less vs vertical armour on all distances), less range, less accurate. Bismarck: Pretty much the opposite (check navweaps) Maneuverability: Hood: Makes at 20kn a 180° turn "only" 50s faster, 6:11min Bismarck: 6:51min The armour of Hood could never reach the vertical armour of Bismarck, because for this you would have to change the whole interior of the hull... in such a case you could simply melt the hood in and use the steel to built a completely new ship. Not to mention: Every further "simple" armour-refit would have cost the Hood even more maneuverability and the edge Hood had there isn't big at all, while the speed difference would even rise. Sure it was a lucky hit... but what is actually more important: RN Fans can't stand that Bismarck and Prinz Eugen defeated Hood and PoW in a fair fight... they can't even stand the fact that their glorious navy was never able to achieve a "glorious" victory over some continental Europeans which just started a "few years" back to build a navy. The biggest victory the German navy achieved during both world wars was that it became the thorn in the honor of the mighty Royal Navy. Deal with it. Edited July 21, 2015 by Thonar 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deamon93 Sailing Hamster 3,124 posts 1,275 battles Report post #19 Posted July 21, 2015 Hood was pretty much a pre-Jutland battlecruiser which underwent some corrections before being built. From then on her armor layout remained the same making her obsolete by the time WWII started. ON the other hand PoW wasn't ready to fight but she had to be rushed into action due to lack of ships since most of them were all over the place. Considering it the best victory in both wars is a bit exagerated though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thonar Beta Tester 626 posts Report post #20 Posted July 21, 2015 Considering it the best victory in both wars is a bit exagerated though. Who said this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deamon93 Sailing Hamster 3,124 posts 1,275 battles Report post #21 Posted July 21, 2015 Who said this? Sorry i read prior the edit and didn't see you edited the post, my bad . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thonar Beta Tester 626 posts Report post #22 Posted July 21, 2015 Sorry i read prior the edit and didn't see you edited the post, my bad . That wasn't what I edited Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thoddyx Players 354 posts Report post #23 Posted July 21, 2015 Maneuverability: Hood: Makes at 20kn a 180° turn "only" 50s faster, 6:11min Bismarck: 6:51min the 6:51 min refers to a complete 360 degree turn with rudderangle 25 degrees at hard rudder the time is again better Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thonar Beta Tester 626 posts Report post #24 Posted July 21, 2015 the 6:51 min refers to a complete 360 degree turn with rudderangle 25 degrees at hard rudder the time is again better Well... in this case... Time for Hood for a 360° turn at 20kn: 11:45min Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KMS_Tirpitz Players 303 posts 1,634 battles Report post #25 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) Better than Iowa? Nope. We could open up a "what if Germans developped Radar further" and the Bismarck would go out with a few small Advantages in some Areas but would still be on the loosing site. Better than Yamato? No... but the combat record seems to favor Bismarck ^^ The Tirpitz had just as good a set of radar equipment as the Iowa by 1944, infact the latest German FCR was slightly more accurate in range and the same in bearing accuracy. The Bismarck class also had a few advantages against the Iowa, such as better optical rangefinders (important for bearing, even when using radar), a higher rate of fire and probably a smaller dispersion due to the dual gun turret layout. But that would be about it, the Iowa was better in most other places, which isn't surprising considering it was a newer design. Edited July 21, 2015 by KMS_Tirpitz 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
