Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

[bunnyboy]

I'd rather have 500mm turret armor and the best 16-inch guns ever made over sexy welding, I don't care HOW mind-blowingly sexy the welding is. When your life (or your countries future) is on the line craftsmanship is NO substitute for performance.

So those looks are good, if it comes with biggest guns?

the IMPORTANT bits are made with craftsmanship and care, that is essentially required for good performance, the unimportant bits are made "good enough."

Would be nice. In real world, if somebody can slack on some parts, he soon learn to slack in all parts and he never learn to make good work.

IF BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY WELDS, YOU MAY WANT TO AVOID AMERICAN BRITISH, RUSSIAN AND CANADIAN, SUBMARINES, NAVY FRIGATES AND AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. Try this section

[Trantor]

So those looks are good, if it comes with biggest guns?

...

IF BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY WELDS, YOU MAY WANT TO AVOID AMERICAN BRITISH, RUSSIAN AND CANADIAN, SUBMARINES, NAVY FRIGATES AND AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. Try this section

Fins to the rescue! YAY!

And thank you for the cool link! Lotsa things to read about SNAFU! I like!

[Aralonia]

Armour protection scheme is not only thickness. Angled belt matters; a slight angling of the belt armour can make thinner armour act as if it were thicker, because the shell is impacting at an oblique angle.

Torpedoes matter less the further out you are, as torpedo speeds were so low during WWII that they would take far longer to arrive on target. A clever commander might be able to use them properly, but a similarly clever opponent can detect and avoid the area in which torpedoes are known to travel.

A turning course inherently covers less practical ground than a straight line does. This is obvious. While Bismarck does have a higher rate of fire than Iowa, practical firing conditions limit one's accuracy to "as quickly as conditions allow". In the North Sea, such conditions would limit the fire rate to, at least during the Battle of Denmark Strait, approximately 2 rounds per minute, equivalent to the Iowa. http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/h ... attle.html

Hood is a bad comparison to Bismarck due to the extreme differences in the histories of both ships. Hood was a pre-Jutland battlecruiser design that was pressed into service and continuously modified until it no longer truly resembled the original plans for that vessel. It was designed not as a mainline battleship, but as an interceptor ship. It was not designed for the sustained combat which her commander forced her into.

[Karst45]

IF BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY WELDS, YOU MAY WANT TO AVOID AMERICAN BRITISH, RUSSIAN AND CANADIAN, SUBMARINES, NAVY FRIGATES AND AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. Try this section

Canadian dont have their own submarine (we buyed them from the british and kind of were screw by that. We also dont have aircraft carrier. We dont have the need for it

For frigate well they are made to resist heavy weather "stress" but not equipped as ether a support or assault kind of mission

[Cdr Straker]

But there´s little sense in denying their downsides: Panamax demands made them too slender, and their center of gravity was too high. In harsh conditions they were no good gun platform.

Eh? The Iowas could keep acccurate fire even during the most harsh manouvers. They were an excellent fireing platform.

In sunny weather.

You seem to be stuck on this meme about superior seakeeping of Bismarck. Bear in mind, that came from a redesign of the Sharnhorst/Gnisenau because they sucked so badly in heavy seas. As you know, they were german-built too.

The Iowa is:
a) faster
b) bigger
c) has bigger guns and longer range
d) had better radar fire control
e) has better AF defences
f) better overall armor protection scheme and thickness

a) by 2kn in sunny weather. In harsh conditions she lost a lot of speed, also her slender hull made her roll. In sept. ´53 NATO exercise 'Mariner' (North Atlantic only, not even Arctic Ocean) she performed poorly in comparison to HMS Vanguard. In every aspect, even in speed, although Vanguard was 4kn slower "by the nummbaas". Her forward turret1 failed repeatedly ´cause of severe wash. That leaves only 6 guns...
b) by 7000 tons. That´s not so much.
c) by 1"/Yes, marginally. But SK34 was the most accurate big gun. It also fired more rapidly. Especially in harsh conditions.
d) Only if it worked. But Mk. 38 radar was flawed in many ways, which is not uncommon for early stages of tech. Also Gun stabilization was sub par. The US navy had nowhere nothing like the german balance trim system "Askania". (The whole company was rounded up after war in Operation Paperclip, guess why...)
e) doesn´t matter in an environment where you can´t rely on aircraft or have to face them.
f) Armoured Belt: Iowa 307mm, Bismarck 320mm (up to 370mm RHA-equivalent).

And don´t forget: Iowas didn´t carry torpedoes. Tirpitz did.

Yes, and they were so effective they destroyed a bunch of....... Oh, wait......

And I really don't see how Bismarck could hope to win. Iowa outranges her and is faster, with more accurate guns. This means that it dictates the battle. If Iowa decides to keep outside Bismarcks range, and pepper it with long-range fire, what can the Bismarck do? It can't close the distance, since Iowa is faster. It can't escape either, for the same reason. It can't outgun her. It can't outlast her.

Your conclusion is flawed.

As is yours.

Look, if the germans were such suckers in all aspects, why didn´t you just end the war earlier?

Please don't give a straw-man argument. This debate is about your contention that the Bismarck was the best battleship in the world, ever. If you want to debate the mindset of the german leadership in continuing a conflict beyond any hope of victory, start another thread.

In combat there are things like "manouvers". Sully little thingys like "zigzag-course" and others. The range gap would have been easily closed by the germans, and then the rapid precise fire would have been very uncomfortable for the Iowas. Cripple one ship a time, then finish it off. Next one.

Did the germans have a corner on the combat manuver market? Let's see: The Bismarck, with a too-closely spaced, exposed rudder system and unprotected wing-shafts was rendered unmaneuverable- even with engine steering- by a 19" torpedo. Iowas have twin rudders with seperate motor-rooms and control systems, as well as armored skegs housing the outboard propellor shafts, making Iowas, even in 1986, more manuverable than most of her escorts. Also, as I personally witnessed in 1986, the Iowa is capable of speeds in excess of 36 knots, not 34 knots as officially published. No upgrades were made to her engines in the post-war period. Iowa's machinery was, and is, an incredibly efficient and powerful installation. To claim otherwise is simply disingenuous. With that in mind, and fighting in average conditions (since Bismarck was not afloat during the "´53 NATO exercise 'Mariner'", it's not possible to compare her seakeeping performace in identical conditions), it's reasonable to assume that Iowa will manuver at least as well (or better) as(than) Bismarck, which brings us back to guns, armor and fire-control. You've claimed that the Mk. 38 FCS had numerous, serious flaws, which is odd, since the system was never replaced in any of the wartime or postwar overhauls. In fact, it's the same system that pulverized Syrian artillery positions in Lebanon in two salvos and was aboard New Jerseywhen she was specifically named by the North Vietnamese during cease-fire negotiations, as she was terrifying to NVA and VC formations, due to her amazing first-round hit capability, which gave no warning before impact. So it looks like the Mk.38 was/is pretty good at what it was designed to do. With regard to armor, I note that you have expressed contempt for Nathan Okun's work at http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm, but unless you can produce another source with as much scholarship as Mr. Okun's I'm going to go with my expert, which means that Bismarck was simply a scaled-up version-with improvements- of the Ersatz-Yorke protective scheme from WWI (never built), origianlly installed in the Sharnhorst. It's good, but, like any design, has flaws. Now, other than a potentially faster rate of fire, what of the 38 cm S.K. C/34 is superior to the 16"/50 Mk.7? The answer, of course, is nothing. So much for the "gunnery advantage".

So to recap: Bismarck is slower and less manuverable than Iowa, has comparable armor protection, inferior fire-control and fewer, less-powerful guns firing AP rounds weighing only 2/3 as much as the Mk.8 AP projectile. You contend that Bismarck was the better gun platform, but a day's research failed to confirm that. Perhaps you can provide a link.

Given that the Iowa has the best AA defense of any battleship ever...you're gonna need a bit more than that.

Try again. Remember: It was a lucky punch from that swordfish.

A lucky puch that did what?
Crippling the rudder. Please at least pretend to have read the history books.

I have read the history books, and Bismarck was hamstrung by a torpedo hit that Iowa could easily deal with, due to her superior spaced, independant rudders and skeg-mounted outboard shafts. Bismarck was a product of her time, but was eclipsed by the technological advances that resulted in Iowa and her sisters.

BTW: If you make it to the 'States, you can visit any of them; they're all still afloat and in inactive reserve status, meaning that they can be reactivated, if needed.

[Cdr Straker]

And can anyone point out the owner of the rash statement below?

IF BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY WELDS, YOU MAY WANT TO AVOID AMERICAN BRITISH, RUSSIAN AND CANADIAN, SUBMARINES, NAVY FRIGATES AND AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. Try this section

[BattleRaptor]

At some point, one wonders what the use of argument, when both sides have no real indepth knowledge of what they are talking about.
The Comparison is of two ships
different sizes.
Neither are spaceships.
neither were designed by aliens.

I am quickly comming to the conclusion that these forums need better moderation.. threads kept on topic with post deletes and forum bans if need be.

Also maybe, if you are going to argue topics be it physics to history, you at least hold one diploma in a relevant field and are willing to provide credentials to prove it.(Incidently only having a general knowledge of WW2 ships and there production and design I didn't get involved)
Or to put it simply, you shut your face.
First time I have ever felt the need to suggest such a thing on a forum too.

As the forums grow.. assuming they grow, sooner or later such order will need to be imposed.
Till then I think I will refrain from posting at all.

I have no doubt my post will have no effect, so carry on, and may the man with the Biggest E-peen win.

[CptWinters]

These kinds of discussions happen, and have happened since before I got here. Just because someone lacks a diploma does not mean that they lack relevant knowledge in the field. It helps, obviously, but to dismiss someone's point of view simply because they lack a degree in the area of discussion is ridiculous.

[fredgiblet]

And can anyone point out the owner of the rash statement below?

Click on the link.

[Trantor]

You seem to be stuck on this meme about superior seakeeping of Bismarck. Bear in mind, that came from a redesign of the Sharnhorst/Gnisenau because they sucked so badly in heavy seas. As you know, they were german-built too.

See how quickly we learn?
Also, it´s not only about the bow, but also a matter of center of gravity and beam. Beam on the Iowas was predetermined by Panamax.

And don´t forget: Iowas didn´t carry torpedoes. Tirpitz did.

Yes, and they were so effective they destroyed a bunch of....... Oh, wait......

Oh, yes!!1! And the big cannons of the Iowas hit how many important ships? .... wait...

Look, if the germans were such suckers in all aspects, why didn´t you just end the war earlier?

Please don't give a straw-man argument.

Oh. Is it?

This debate is about your contention that the Bismarck was the best battleship in the world, ever.

No sir. As repeatedly stated by now, the keyword is "Arctic Ocean".

You know, icing, harsh conditions, high waves and stuff.

I also pointed out that Iowas were surprisingly well built and fast.
It seems to me merely the other way round: Some people have a hard time to understand that Iowas weren´t perfect.

Also, as I personally witnessed in 1986, the Iowa is capable of speeds in excess of 36 knots, not 34 knots as officially published.

And you personally measured it how? At which drift? Winds?

No upgrades were made to her engines in the post-war period. Iowa's machinery was, and is, an incredibly efficient and powerful installation.

Efficient? For an american design of those times, yes. I stated that before, also.
But the keyword here is powerful. Iowas have 220.000 SHP.
Bismarck had 151.500.

To claim otherwise is simply disingenuous. With that in mind, and fighting in average conditions (since Bismarck was not afloat during the "´53 NATO exercise 'Mariner'", it's not possible to compare her seakeeping performace in identical conditions), it's reasonable to assume that Iowa will manuver at least as well (or better) as(than) Bismarck,

No, please google for the both exercises i´ve metioned.

which brings us back to guns, armor and fire-control. You've claimed that the Mk. 38 FCS had numerous, serious flaws, which is odd, since the system was never replaced in any of the wartime or postwar overhauls.

But vastly improved. Eg they improved adverse-weather-performance, tubes, supportive electrical systems and overall integration with gun control. You should know that.

Gun control. Key word: "in harsh conditions/high waves". And this was by far better integrated in the german system. Please google "Askania". The US had nowhere near such a system. Till after the war. Google Operation Paperclip.

Now, other than a potentially faster rate of fire, what of the 38 cm S.K. C/34 is superior to the 16"/50 Mk.7? The answer, of course, is nothing.

Come again?
SK 34 was by far the most accurate big gun in moa.
No wonder you have to undermine your false claim with a semantic trick.

As you pointed out, Bismarck wasn´t afloat after the war. Sadly. Otherwise she would have proven her qualities. Eg as Prinz Eugen did.

You contend that Bismarck was the better gun platform, but a day's research failed to confirm that.

Blame it on cognitive dissonance.

[Trantor]

Also maybe, if you are going to argue topics be it physics to history, you at least hold one diploma in a relevant field

Here! Here!! I´m an engineer!
And you all know how GOOOD we german engineers are! Looky looky at our cars!!1!

and are willing to provide credentials to prove it.

To convince who? You? I could scan my diploma, but i would anonymize it. And then? Then you would claim it´s fake.

First time I have ever felt the need to suggest such a thing on a forum too.

Oh. You´re new to the interrnetzzz. You should have that mentioned first.
So be welcome, be attentive and you´ll feel comfortable within short time.

threads kept on topic with post deletes and forum bans if need be.

Yeah, that´s something you´d like, eh? Assuming you to be the head of the inquisition comitee, of course.

As the forums grow.. assuming they grow, sooner or later such order will need to be imposed.

Order? That´s not order. That´s censorship. And that´s a thing only desired by "people" with no arguments. Always.

Or to put it simply, you shut your face.

Watch your tongue.

As long as no one is insulted (argumentum ad hominem) and discussion is kept more or less on the (then actual) topic, there´s no need for a censorship like this.

Till then I think I will refrain from posting at all.

Please feel free to go ahead.

[Arioch]

I am quickly comming to the conclusion that these forums need better moderation.. threads kept on topic with post deletes and forum bans if need be.

Very well. BattleRaptor has been banned for repeated ad-hominem attacks, even after two official warnings.

I have no problem with spirited debate, but I do insist that you keep things civil. Let's keep the discussions on the point (even if that point wanders) and off the other guy.

[dfacto]

Very well. BattleRaptor has been banned for repeated ad-hominem attacks, even after two official warnings.

The irony, it is delicious.

And you all know how GOOOD we german engineers are! Looky looky at our cars!!1!

Eh, you're slipping to be honest. They used to be a lot more reliable.

[Trantor]

And you all know how GOOOD we german engineers are! Looky looky at our cars!!1!

Eh, you're slipping to be honest. They used to be a lot more reliable.

I (sadly) know.
I used it ironically. Sometimes the best instrument to trash devious demands.



Well, to shorten the flamewar and to prevent possible further losses: I agree that say Iowa/Missouri have the edge over Bismarck/Tirpitz in sunny conditions. Speed and 1200Kg HE-shells are argument enough. Would have been (technically) interesting to see what damage these beasts would have inflicted on the german ships. Maybe a catastrophic loss like Hood, maybe "just" severe damage to one turret. A tiny chance for the germans would have been only wise use of Tirpitz´ torpedoes in collaboration with manouvers that gain some benefit of the then evasive manouvers of the Iowas. AND a lucky punch on one of the the US Ships. But i´d rate this less than 1:50, and the surviving Iowa could easily leave the theater (intact engines assumed) and profit from her longer range of fire.

Only Bismarck vs. Missouri (1 to 1) in sunny weather: Advantage Missouri. No question.
HTH.

[Majincarne]

Personally it would have been entertaining to have seen the fallout at the British Admiralty one it was found out he Germans had decided the Americans were better waltz partners for battleship duels.

I might be a good thing they never tried that as it may have fouled up a few diplomatic relations.

[TrashMan]

a) by 2kn in sunny weather. In harsh conditions she lost a lot of speed, also her slender hull made her roll. In sept. ´53 NATO exercise 'Mariner' (North Atlantic only, not even Arctic Ocean) she performed poorly in comparison to HMS Vanguard. In every aspect, even in speed, although Vanguard was 4kn slower "by the nummbaas". Her forward turret1 failed repeatedly ´cause of severe wash. That leaves only 6 guns...

Failed repeatedly? There was only 1 incident with the Iowas turrets I can recall.
and it's more than 2kn..Iowas can reach up to 35 knots

c) by 1"/Yes, marginally. But SK34 was the most accurate big gun. It also fired more rapidly. Especially in harsh conditions.

Sez you. I've seen the Mark7 lauded as the better one repeatedly.

d) Only if it worked. But Mk. 38 radar was flawed in many ways, which is not uncommon for early stages of tech. Also Gun stabilization was sub par. The US navy had nowhere nothing like the german balance trim system "Askania". (The whole company was rounded up after war in Operation Paperclip, guess why...)

I guess that is why it can repeatedly hit within 100 meters at almost max range....

f) Armoured Belt: Iowa 307mm, Bismarck 320mm (up to 370mm RHA-equivalent).

Armor distribution is better in the Iowa.

And don´t forget: Iowas didn´t carry torpedoes. Tirpitz did.

You'd have to get in range to use those....not bloody likely.

e) doesn´t matter in an environment where you can´t rely on aircraft or have to face them.

Air defense is part of a battleship design. I'd say it's very important, especially given that how many BB's were sunk by aircraft.

And I really don't see how Bismarck could hope to win. Iowa outranges her and is faster, with more accurate guns. This means that it dictates the battle. If Iowa decides to keep outside Bismarcks range, and pepper it with long-range fire, what can the Bismarck do? It can't close the distance, since Iowa is faster. It can't escape either, for the same reason. It can't outgun her. It can't outlast her.

Your conclusion is flawed.
Look, if the germans were such suckers in all aspects, why didn´t you just end the war earlier?

In combat there are things like "manouvers". Sully little thingys like "zigzag-course" and others. The range gap would have been easily closed by the germans, and then the rapid precise fire would have been very uncomfortable for the Iowas. Cripple one ship a time, then finish it off. Next one.

Yes, because closing a distance to a enemy that outguns you, outranges you, outpaces you and is more accurate is super-easy. Why didn't the US just surrender to glorious Germany?

- Given that the Iowa has the best AA defense of any battleship ever...you're gonna need a bit more than that.
- Try again. Remember: It was a lucky punch from that swordfish.
- A lucky puch that did what?
- Crippling the rudder. Please at least pretend to have read the history books.

Of the Iowa? Whaaaaaa????

Nah, the Bismarck's rudder was shot. And that's because it didn't have as awesome AAA.

[bunnyboy]

For clarity, are you comparing best battleship on...
...today?
...their own time?
...end of WW2?
...during WW2?

How I had seen it, German didn't lose it because of inferior technology or quality, but production capacity.
And also, it don't help in long way if your factories are leveled, teachers cremated, bankers robbed, most scientists escaped, fuel consumed and leader is a madman.

[Aygar]

At one time I did a lot of research into capital ship design. My conclusion from my research is that the only reliable way to tell if one design was better then another is to have 10 or so on engagements where one ship sinks the other. The ship that is the most successful is the better design. Anything else is speculation.

Because there are so many design variables that directly and significantly affect the combat performance of a design. Many of these design variables are also idiosyncratic to the specific ship design. The interactions between 2 ship's design variables also tends to be unique per ship(as built) pairing, let alone between ship(as designed) pairings.

For example the way a certain armor formulation reacted to different AP hard cap shell designs could be wildly different. This has bearing because pretty much each country had a different AP hard cap shell designs. So the exact same piece of armor could be extremely effective against shells of one navy while being marginally effective against shells of another, causing the exact same ship to be very effective against ships of one navy while being ineffective against ships another navy.


--Aygar

[dfacto]

How I had seen it, German didn't lose it because of inferior technology or quality, but production capacity.

Actually no. Germany lost because of bad planning and lack of manpower. They were actually at peak production at the end of the war (at least the factories around Essen), but nobody was there to use the gear.

[Trantor]

@ TrashMan: It´s all answered in the Fred.

For clarity, are you comparing best battleship on...
...today?
...their own time?
...end of WW2?
...during WW2?

Yup. Let´s say autumn 1943. In the arctic sea theater, two ships each.

How I had seen it, German didn't lose it because of inferior technology or quality, but production capacity.

And fuel.
And lousy overall strategy. You cannot simply put it up with the whole world.

And also, it don't help in long way if your factories are leveled, teachers cremated, bankers robbed, most scientists escaped, fuel consumed and leader is a madman.

Exactly.