Battleship NJ VS Bismarck: Guns!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 เม.ย. 2023
- In this episode we're talking about the difference between Bismarck and New Jersey, in particular the difference between the two types of main battery guns.
To get a copy of the book:
www.usni.org/press/books/batt...
To send Ryan a message on Facebook: / ryanszimanski
To support this channel and Battleship New Jersey, go to:
www.battleshipnewjersey.org/v...
![แฟนแนวใด๋ - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4_XVMuhhbsU/mqdefault.jpg)
My grandchild came and looked over my shoulder; "Is that man reading the shells a bedtime story?"
Yes, yes he is. He is insane.
@@rogersmith7396 Not insane, just American. 😜
@@spinetanium3296 can't hear you from the moon you didn't land on 😊
Best comment right here.
@@tygonmaster Tricked the Russians !
9 years ago I purchased a book “BATTLESHIP MISSOURI An Illustrated History” by Paul Stillwell. It is almost the same size book and it is just as heavy. And the reason why I was interested in purchasing this particular book is because of my three years tour on the Battleship Missouri BB-63 (1985-1988) OA Division.
I should have bought a copy when I was Material Officer (1983-85), LBNSYD, and got to climb up in a barbette to free up the State Seal of Missouri mounted in the wardroom, and also have to sign for the surrender plaque.
Thanks for serving sir for
I was in the yards on the Peleliu when the Missouri was in drydock 85-86. I was an FC and also had buddies on the Jersey. Awesome ships!
How much armour could the book penetrate at maximum range, t?
If New Jersey and Tirpitz had met, you can be sure movies and documentaries would be available for us to watch. Interesting video Ryan.
The New Jersey could make it a one-sided fight if it wanted to in more ways than just range.
@@jackt6112 In the North Atlantic it comes down to either skills or luck, and Iowa's speed would work against them, the wider ship design shown in the British, French & German ships were better suited for those rough waters,
In my opinion, you need to hit the other ship. By the time the Ohios came on the scene, the Americans and British has greatly improved their radar directed fire control. Especially at the longer ranges, that, along with their analogue computers, definitely give New Jersey a huge advantage.
But remember, when finally sunk, the Bismarck was a floating wreck. There was little recognizable above the water line. The Rodney and King George V had poured fire into Bismarck from medium long all the way to very close. It took some torpedoes to finally sink it. Would the New Jersey have any better luck? Could Bismarck or Tirpitz do the same to the New Jersey with a few well placed (lucky?) early hits?
There was a brief period, think it was september 43 when Tirpitz was still operational and uss Iowa was placed somewhere on the Icelandic waters when a confontation was theoretically possible. This was passed when Tirpitz was crippled by the rn midget submarines and needed lenghy repairs and Iowa was moved elsewhere. And after that Tirpitz never gained full operational condition again and the lack of fuel curtailed it`s sorties even more.
Had it taken place, Tirpitz would have been too slow to run and too weak to survive, unless something extremely lucky in their part would have happened. The poorer the visibility, more one sided it would have been, since Seetakt was so much inferior compared with american systems. West Virginias fire opening at Surigao Strait sums up the accuracy of american radar fire control.
(Now I will face the full wrath of the followers of the Bismarck - religion… 😂 )
@@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723 If it came down to the skill of the respective crews in 1943 I would take the American ship every time over the German one. Lots of time spent at sea with frequent battle and gunnery drills versus sitting in port.
In memory of all comrades, of all nations, who never came home... RiP 😢 peaceful greetings from Germany - ExF213 Augsburg
Thx for the Video
The German guns also used vertically sliding breech blocks, as opposed to the more common interrupted screw breech.
That's actually the biggest difference for me.
And I remember Drach touching on this and saying Krupp hadn’t yet worked all the bugs out of the sliding-breech system when Bismarck and Tirpitz were deployed.
Wait, were they vertical? I thought they moved horizontally which was why the turrets were so wide with only 2 barrels per turret?
Sliding breech block vs Welin breech is also the reason why the Germans had to have a casing right against the breech.
AFAIK the sliding breech would not be able to get a good gas tight seal with a pure bagged charge.
@@kilianortmann9979 I think sliding breech blocks worked great for smaller caliber guns, I mean just think about how big the breech block needed to be to withstand the pressure of a 15" projectile being fired off to who knows where. But reasons beyond me, Krupp took one looked at it and said their sticking to their guns. No pun intended.
Ryan, do you ever take a second and enjoy the fact that you have the coolest job in the world?
The most important thing you didn’t cover was the fire control system. Doesn’t matter what the gun is if it not hitting the target.
The title of this video is Guns, not Fire Control.
@@GraemeCree- *¡without control, guns are almost ineffective!* - 11:45 am Pacific DayLight Savings Time on Thursday, 20 July 2023
@@maxwaller734 Again, the title of the video is Guns, not Fire Control.
Speed and Armor are pretty important too, but the video isn't about those things either.
OK, fine gun for gun, Iowa Class is better, being as the shells are heavier, longer range, better penetrative power, more explosives, ECT. The Iowa Class outperforms the Bismark and Tirpitz, granted not by much, but from a pure GUN PERFORMANCE perspective, without taking into account any other factors, I will take Iowa's guns EVERYY DAY!@@GraemeCree
@@keithcharboneau3331 Main gun wise Iowa-class was lot stronger than Bismarck:
Broadside weight was 11 tons with nine 1225 kg shells vs 6.4 tons with eight 800 kg shells.
So armour penetration was certainly very significantly better.
As for accuracy IJN destroyer Nowaki took splinter damage from shells of Iowa and New Jersey firing at 35000+ yards.
I just got myself a Bismarck Bible! My favorite book as a kid was a nice illustrated book about the Bismarck and Dr. Ballard discovering it.
Yes! That book is what got me really into battleships back in 5th grade! My uncle, who was in the navy knew a lot about battleships and was super interested in the photos and illustrations of the wreck. I remember him commenting on how good of shape the wreck was in. Honestly with the shelling and the distance the ship fell underwater, It's amazing how in-tact it is!
Had the same book in German when I was a kid. It got me into naval history, building ship models and all that stuff :)
@@alsosprachzarathustra5505 Funny enough, New Jersey was the first ship I built a model of, I built Tirpitz soon after that.
Did it have a painting of the Bismarck sinking on the cover? And was it dedicated to Ballard's late son? If so I have the same book, somewhere in storage, got it at a boon fair in elementary school in the late 80s 👍
@@drumking241 Yep, that's the one!
It was interesting and informative having the explanation of 50 caliber guns. I often wondered how large and small guns could both be referred to as the same.
Caliber is a pretty good measure of velocity. For example, the original close support gun on the Panzer IV was a 75mm 24 caliber gun (75L24 for short.) The higher velocity guns on the later Mark IVs were the 75L40 and 75L43. The Panther's main gun was the 75L70. The 75L70 was equal or superior to the legendary German "88" (88L56.) Superior armor penetration, but smaller HE charge. Plus with smaller lighter shells you could store more of them in a tank. and handle them easier. The King Tiger gun was a 88L71.
And the Jagdtiger had a 128L55, specifically for knocking out the Russian's superheavy end-of-the-war tanks at any range. Basically a 5 inch naval gun mounted on a mobile chassis.
I like "Story Time with Ryan" surrounded by shells.
Would have been nice if the shells kept saying, 'Another story Ryan'
Captain Ryan just need to be smoking a pipe. NOT!
Would love to see a similar comparison with the Iowa’s and Yamato’s main battery!
Almost the same conclusion ! Yamato s have the edge but Iwoa s come remarkably close in performance considering their smaller size !
@@christianjunghanel6724 Same opinion. It's pretty much a Range/Speed and 'Who lands the first damaging hit' contest. Plus, Yamato's radar suite was probably nowhere near the complexity of an Iowa's radar suite.
The ‘Combined Fleet’ website has a comparison.
For gun power stats, I use Navweapons.
The Yamato class ships, like the Bismarck class ships, did not have fire control radar. That would be fatal.
@@alanjameson8664 Bismarck actually had fire control radar FuMO 23. But it was knocked out by the blast from their own guns.
Really great episode, the best yet. Keep up the good work!
Story time is my favorite. Thanks for explaining the meaning of caliber in relation to the size of the shells.
Actually you CAN sit in a Bismarck type loading platform, in a Bismarck type gun.
There where two batteries closing the Skagerak gap, one in Denmark, one in Norway.
The one in Denmark was dismantled early in the 1950's, to my knowledge.
But the one on Norway still remains as a museum, outside Kristiansand, at Mövik batteri.
These two batteries did not have the rage to close off Skagerak entirely, so the germans mined a 10km strech in the middle of the gap.
I visited the place in Kristainsand back in 1997, taking my baby boys to a trip to a fantasy village outside the city, we reserved one day for the trip to the artillery museum.
There also are examples of the shells, 15 inch and also the larger german 16 inch shells from the "Adolph" cannon set up by the germans for the defence of Tromsø, up in the north where Tirpitz actually was sunk.
There i also a remaining gun battery outside Trondheim in middle of Norway, 12 inch battery, also kept as a museum.
These guns where taken off incomplete german ships, like the 16 inch was a refit gun for the Bismarck class, we're told.
The 15 inch guns was from the never finished german aircraft carrier, that had no use for those guns, and the 12 inch guns came from one of the german pocket battle ships, or maybe from the Scharnhorst class of ships that apparently was to be refit with 15 inch guns. Most of these german ships was bombed in dry dock or under repairs.....
The planned German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin was meant to have 15 cm guns, not 15 inch guns. 15 cm is the light cruiser 6 inch caliber. Putting battleship caliber guns on an aircraft carrier would be self defeating, as you'd lose too much space for additional planes and ammo and fuel for them. Even the amount of 15 cm guns should have been toned down on that carrier in my opinion.
@@Schnittertm1 Graff Zeplin started out as Gneisnau which was meant to have the 15 inch guns.
@@pkx_phant0m456 Uhh no? Graf Zeppelin was built from the ground up as a carrier
@@Ent1610 not even 5 minutes of research would show that you are mistaken. Graff Zep started its life out as Gneisenau, Scharnhorst's Sister Ship. Just google "What Happend To German Battleship Gneisenau."
Because of your recommendation, I bought that book and thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Great book for interested people and it really is massive.
I have 4 Bismarck books and have watched "Sink the Bismarck" many times. I've always believed German acting in war movies is the best. I'm of Dutch descent. I felt sorry for the German officers and sailors of Bismarck because they were on a suicide mission as Bismarck was badly outnumbered. The first gunnery officer Schneider said so himself. The interplay between the Lutjens and Lindemann actors is extremely interesting and sophisticated. When Bismarck is nearly done for at the end and all is lost. Lindemann asks Lütjens "where is your Luftwaffe now sir?" as a cheap shot that reveals the antagonistic relationship between the two at the end. Captain Lindemann was Germany's top naval gunner. And a former commandant of the German naval gunnery school and was involved in ship design in the 1930s. As a little boy he dreamed of being a captain of a German warship and going down with his ship as a glorious naval warrior. Eyewitnesses in the water say Lindemann was still alive before Bismarck sunk. He was hanging on to the foremast at the stem and saluted the men in the water as the ship rolled over. It's enough to make you cry.😪
I'm not sure "Sink the Bismarck" is 100% realistic, though. First of all: Lütjens was not a devoted Nazi, and he was a very experienced and highly respected commander. Doesn't necessary mean he was the right man for the mission, though.
@@TTTT-oc4eb I agree. The Kriegsmarine was a Catholic enclave. Even Admiral Canaris head of German intelligence was Catholic and opposed Hitler as a double agent right till near the end of the war. In the book "Hitlers spy chief" he was in favor of German power and protector of the German ethnicity but opposed to Nazism. Lots of factual errors in the movie, the ships were facing the wrong way in the movie during the battle of the Denmark strait. Bismarck was firing its guns from the port side and Hood was firing from starboard the movie had it the opposite. The character relationship I thought was accurate though your right Lutjens wasn't a Nazi. He gave Hitler the naval salute in defiance of Nazism.
Hood was making a turn to port when it was hit fatally by Bismarck. Lutjens also brought on an entourage of 56 men onto Bismarck. I'm sure that's always a source of antagonism. It was Lindemann who gave the order to fire back at Hood when Lütjens froze. As Ryan has said Lindemann said "I will not have my ship blown up from under my Arse! Open fire!🔥
@@martinhiemstra5067 In hindsight it probably would have been better if Lindemann had commanded the ship. He would have gone after POW, and then back to Norway (probably).
@@TTTT-oc4eb I agree for sure. Lutjens was overcomplicated he was concerned about not knowing the extent of the British navy north of them. Too bad this was a sad tragedy just because these were fine sailors victimized by a bad regime. Burkard Mullenheim Rechberg was the 4th gunnery officer on Bismarck and was Lindemanns personal adjutant at one time. He survived the sinking and was a POW at a camp near Bowmanville Ontario Canada during the rest of the war. I grew up there. The camp was 2 miles from my elementary school. I only read about that recently. Rechberg studied law at the camp and joined the German diplomatic service was an ambassador and general counsel for Germany in Toronto. He is mentioned extensively in Bismarck books and wrote a book called "Battleship Bismarck" I have this it's very good. Rechberg was truly an officer and a gentleman.
I always wondered what caliber the Bismarck's guns were because in pictures they always seemed longer than other battleships guns. Wasn't sure if it was just the angle of the pics or they really were longer. Thanks for the info. Keep up the good work
The "Sink the Bismarck" movie used a Heavy Cruiser with 8" guns to represent the Bismarck..
The Bismarck guns were 15” SK C/34 8x38cm
They seem longer because they were actually pretty long, 52 caliber lengths to be precise, that means 52 times the gun caliber. British and US battleships used mostly guns with 45 caliber lengths.
@@michaelkovacic2608 with one exception, the Iowa's had the 50 caliber 16in guns.
bruh, its easily googled
The parity of the Bismarck to Iowa class despite being designed and built several years later, is why the allies were afraid of her. Truly an amazing piece of technology and design, in both cases. I was aboard the pre-refit BB63 when she was at Bremerton in 1979, pretty awesome.
Allies afraid of her, what a weird thing to say. The only people afraid of the Bismarck were Merchant sailors, in fact every Merchant sailor on both sides were afraid of any Naval vessel.
The RN had ships just as capable as the Bismarck and Tirpitz. The only problem the RN had was finding them because they were very good at running away.
Uhh... No. If you dig into the design aspect of Bsmrk you see that (as was the case with much of the Nazi war machine) they were on the cutting edge of technology, often years ahead of the Allies. (Rocketry, Jets, tank design, FW190, et al). The documentary team that dove on Bsmrk revealed that even her sinking wasn't the result of the Allied ships, but her own crew. Sure the allies could overwhelm her with #, but one on one? She was the most advanced BB of her time, more so than the contemporary KG V. class @@MultiVeeta
@@Apollyon-er4ut absolute nonsense, you speak as though the rest of the World were far behind. Sounds to me like you transfer arcade games into real life.
Britain invented the first Jet engine, the British Gloster Meteor which was the only Allied jet to fight in WW2 was a better design than the Me262, it required no maintenance and just needed refueling and sending back out, the Me262 engines had a 20hr life, the maintenance meant many ended up grounded.
German tanks like the Tiger and Panther were too heavy and too fuel thirsty for truly effective support they were just defensive platforms, the Allies designs were on speed and efficiency ensuring rapid advancing not needing to wait for supplies so often.
Rolls Royce built the best plane engines in WW2, so good the put them in the P51.
The Bismarck was an old design compared to the KGV, the armor on the KGV was layered in an improved fashion and the guns were far more efficient and known as the best naval gun of WW2.
@@MultiVeetaOf all you said, the only thing I disagree with is the 14" guns of the KGV class being better than the Mk 7 16"/50. Better range and penetration.m Where the 14" excelled was bursting charge and possibly accuracy, but radar guided fire control on the Iowas might have helped overcome that. At this point...
I always give a nod to the EXCELLENT Mk I 15"/42 that enabled Warspite, with optical rangefinders, to lay the hurt on Guilio Cesare. Gotta love it when WW I technology stand tall and delivers!
@@MultiVeetaa lit of wish thinking. The Bismarck showed in the sea how capable it was despite outnumbered by far and hunted by a fleet incl the Arc Royal and King Georg V. In a fair fight, the Bismarck would sink most ships.
Ryan, you always come up with videos that get me engrossed and I can't stop watching when I should be going to sleep!
I'm very glad you are discussing calibers correctly. Most people don't get it or mess it up.
I would think the biggest reason for the Iowa punching through far more deck armor is the angle: the Iowa shell is coming down at a much steeper angle, so there's far less deflection and effective armor thickness.
This is indeed a massive point to note ! Getting above the armor rather than punching through it !
From elementary applied mechanics this is only true at very different ranges. At the same range and _similar_ trajectory the vastly heavier AP shell will still hit harder.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 at similar ranges, the lower velocity 16" shell (referring to this specific case, not as a general rule based on caliber) will have a significantly higher trajectory. That will make it better at penetrating deck armor, with all else equal. The longer, heavier shell will also help it penetrate more deck armor.
@@totensiebush and at similar ranges AND at similar trajectories there are exponentially more variables.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 given the significant difference in muzzle velocities, at similar ranges the lower velocity shell will have a significantly steeper plunge angle/trajectory.
I suppose it's possible you could use a reduced charge on the (normally) higher velocity gun to get a similar muzzle velocity and plunge angle, I don't know if that was a tactic they ever used (I doubt it).
I think another great gun specific comparison would be the US 45 and US 50 cal 16" along with the Japanese 16.1" of Nagato and the UK's 16" on NelRod.
And all of your metrics were great. Please add, if available, concrete penetration against hardened targets as well as the angle of impact at any given compared range.
Thanks again for another great video!!!
Nagato was an older ship with big but dated guns. They only got radar assisted fire control around a year after the war with the officially started.
Sublime presentation. Thank you!. I do this all the time when comparing calibers, aircraft or artillery. I love it!
Thank you Ryan. You are awesome.
@8:42 Describing a shell as being "Only 5 feet tall" is kinda funny. Great video Ryan.
Rate of fire during a battle doesn't always give a good indication of max ROF. During the battle of the Denmark Strait, the three first salvos from Bismarck were ranging salvoes - thereafter followed three quick salvoes, before she shifted her fire to POW - then a torpedo alarm from Prinz Eugen caused a break, before POW got away. In 13 minutes of action she fired 93 rounds.
Bismarck was lucky that Prince of Wales "got away." The PoW scored more damaging hits than the Bismarck. Much is made of the dud that RN found in PoW after the battle but if were not a dud it would exploded when it hit the water.
At 11 miles they were also firing secondary armament.Wonder what the ROF was on them.
@@johnshepherd9676 And that has exactly what to do with ROF?
Nothing. Your "before the PoW got away" implies that Bismarck could have caught and defeated the British Battleship. The Bismarck was only capable of 27 knots after the engagement. If you did not include that line I would not commented.
@@johnshepherd9676 She certainly "got away".
The way he's sitting with a book makes me think of Christmas
Brilliant analysis, very enjoyable and informative.
Love the videos and what you guys do. One idea for "story time with uncle Ryan," is that you advance the pages turned as you do cutaways to videos or edits. Sort of like you are progressing though the book.
All modern 15 inch guns of that era, including of course french and italian ones, were in the same ballpark of the 16 inches guns. They were actually more potent than the older 16 inch guns on Colorados and Nelsons (and probably Mutsus).
The French and Italian BB's were underarmored.
I don’t know how you come to that conclusion? You don’t provide any evidence or sources of info?
And yet Rodney made virtual mincemeat of Bismarck. History tends to demolish pet theories.
@@alecblunden8615 Bismark had her fore, aft, and superstructure essentially FUBAR from all the fire she received , but all evidence points to her citadel never being penetrated, despite the number of hits she sustained. She was scuttled, because all her softer bits were battered well past the point of combat ineffectiveness. The sinking of Bismark, if anything, only proves the weakness of her steering, propulsion, and fuel tanks.
@@CptLang97 I am constantly amazed at the fanboy refusal to believe Bismarck was sunk, but sunk she was,- comprehensively. Bismarck was an updated Baden with all her weaknesses.
Hi, a very informative video,thank you,looking forward to part 2.The autonomy of the ship about the Bismark is good reading and information.Cheers Roly🇬🇧.
Excellent Video. This was a very fair and amazingly well reasearched topic. I have always enjoyed the videos from New Jersey and this one was in the top category. Well read Ryan.
Someday I will get out of the Canadian Praries to see the New Jersey.
I'd love to see a comparison between a Iowa and Bismarck powerplants
Iowa had a three knot speed advantage
Battleship comparisons usually come down to comparing statistics. Stats are like a bikini, they'll show you some things, but they won't show you everything. There's so many intangibles in a battle like that, it usually just ends up as an opinion piece, not hard fact. But, they can be fun, to a degree.
Thank you for explaining caliber on these guns, I was totally confused about that before!
4:48 - THANK YOU for clearing this up for me/us!!!
A very interesting comparison between those two battleships! I didn't realise how they were similar with the big exception of the twin guns of the Bismark compared to the New Jersey. Both were very good ships despite having a very short carreer of the Bismark. Thanks for sharing this video 👍👍👍
Carrier or career?
@Shimshon Ben Dan of course the very short carreer...
Excellent video Ryan! I have the same book you referenced tonight and found it to be the best book by far on the Bismarck. I have many other Bismarck books but this one has the benefit of the many expeditions to the Bismarck wreck. Like you I found the chapter on the rudder damage with photos very interesting as it appears that the damage was far more severe than previously known. As for the gun comparison it is surprising that both guns would be so similar. There is no question to me that with the superior elevation and heavier armor piercing shell the Iowa's would have the advantage over Bismarck in a long range battle as well as superior radar fire control. Thanks for the video.
Do we need a Patreon to send Ryan to Bismark's turret ring in diving gear?
The force of the Mark-12 aerial-torpedoes which who had banged the twin-rudders which who was pushed into the central propeller jamming one of them into the central-propeller The Bismarck's officers and their damage-controlmen which who hadn't and didn't realized the amount of the Mk-12 torpedo damaged their ship
I got that book, as well as all the other great books regarding Bismarck. Amazing work.
_Tome_ is a good word to know, thanks Uncle Ryan.
Will be interestring to see how you compare the key element of fire control.
I agree that the fire control should provide an advantage as well as the more modern radar array.
I don't think there's going to be that much difference? Mechanical calculators will make the calculations little faster however.
The ‘automatic’ guns on the USS Salem are super cool too..
I bought one of their 8 inch 55 brass cases...4 feet long and about 13'' across the base. It was heavy enough to throw my back out putting it in the rear seat of my car. The Salem Class guns were the largest US guns to have brass propellent cases.
@@kimmer6how the fuck did you buy a naval gun
Very nice video... lots of information. I think this one was the best.
Great video, I thought I knew a lot about both ship classes but you taught me more
My father worked in Portsmouth dockyard during the later years of WW2 and many times he told me about the superior German ship's fire control equipment when compared to the equipment used by the Royal Navy. He, as a young engineer, was part of the team that stripped out this equipment from captured ships for assessment and comparison. His view point from this work that it was far better made, far more sophisticated, more accurate and far quicker at plotting a solution than the RN equivalent. I have no idea of the relative performance of USN and RN equipment of the time but if they were similar then I would suspect, from my fathers actual experience of both systems (RN and German) that the Bismark may have had the advantage in this area.
You can’t do a software upgrade on a massive mechanical computer. They often lasted the age of the ship.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 I'm not sure what point you are trying to make? Nearly all computational devices of the 1940's and before were mechanical. In fact I think Colossus at Bletchley Park was probably one of the first, if not the first, electronic programmable computational devices ever. I doubt it would have survived a trip across a mill pond in a (very large) row boat, let alone a trip on rough seas. As a very old engineer myself I'm well aware of the progress in electronics and computers since WW2. My point was, my father had experience of both RN and German fire control systems used on ships during WW2 and his opinion was that the systems used on the German ships were far better than the ones on RN ships.
P.S. He saw a number of different German systems and plenty of RN ones as part of his job at the time.
As in Ryan's video I think this is due to doctrine not only the quality of German optics. The Germans went for delicate but precise ranging systems that had an unfortunate quality of breaking down in combat. The British thought that they would be numerically superior so a more robust system would allow them to overwhelm their enemies. But what do I know your father took them apart and was there his view as remembered by you so is more reliable.
It was the ability of the better German optics to provide more accurate information to allow the mechanical computer to calculate the information. There was very little difference between British, German, or American fire control systems at that time, but German stereoscopic rangefinders were much better.
@@robhartley3930 I beg to differ based on my father's remembrances, he said the German systems were considerably smaller and more accurate than their RN equivalents, irrespective of the relative quality of the optics. I fully appreciate better optics will allow for better target acquisition but I'm not sure that would necessarily translate into quicker and more accurate future position predictions and therefore solutions for the guns to be aimed and fired with a reasonable probability of a hit.
Shot placement is always more important then shot size. It always has been and always will be. There are many historical examples of this. Including the first and last battle that Bismark was in.
Best shot placement I’ve read was battle of matapan, the Italian cruisers got literally obliterated before they knew the British battleShips were near. Must have been horrifying.
Exactly, that’s why the debate between double or triple barreled turrets didn’t matter all that much compared to the accuracy
@@Icetea-2000 I read a paper on a match up between Iowa and Yamato. The authors gave Yamato many fire power advantages. But the authors concluded that Yamato would lose.
1) Iowa's 6 knot speed advantage allowed Iowa the choice to accept or decline battle.
2) Iowa's superior surface search radar could keep Yamato in sight while staying out of range until night fall.
3) At night, Iowa's fire control radar and fire control computers would allow Iowa to fire at Yamato with impunity. The authors cited the battle of Surigao Strait as an example where in the darkness of night U.S. battleships score opening salvo hits on the Japanese fleet. The Japanese fleet never saw the U.S. battleships that sank them.
Very informative Video Thanks for your comparison etc
thank you, another fantastic video. I need to get the book
My guess would be that an engagement between a Bismarck and an Iowa would come down to something similar to tank versus tank combat. Given the destruction power of their shells, victory would tend to go whoever scored the first hit.
while likely true, Iowa wins the Radar fight thus will be putting out more accurate fire sooner. The extra speed lets an Iowa dictate range.
Really little contest as one is a product of a defunct ship design/building industry by a nation that didn't have the resources (time) to do better, the other is pure economic luxury applied to a well developed ship pipeline.
I considered speed and radar, but since the periods of active service of the two classes did not exactly overlap I decided to limit the comparison to main battery gun power. Otherwise, you end up with problems similar to attempting direct comparisons of aircraft types not exactly contemporary with each other.
@@xt6wagon not true. The german ship had the most advanced fire control (on its secondaries) i wouldn't like to call the comparison when we do not have their development plans, especially considering their massive advancements in radar guided anti air artillery. There are also ways to mitigate that.
so, Bismark and Tirpitz had an incredible fatal flaw, not in their design but in their entire purpose. It's not really the fault of the Germans, but they lacked air cover at sea, which by the time Tirpitz and Bismarck were operational was essential. Any time they left port and were more than 100 miles from home they were going to get hit with air attacks they could not counter. Bismark found this out the hard way. The Germans learned this lesson well enough and did not repeat it. Therefore their guns are somewhat beside the point.
Actually the first CRITICAL hit.
Did Ryan get to see the 19 foot-long scale Lego Battleship Missouri when he was in California a couple of weeks ago? It is located in Vallejo, California, near former Mare Island Shipyards.
Where's it at? I think the museum on base is closed?
That is a LOT of LEGO bricks!
steve
Very interesting comparison. Nice video BNJ team!
Yes A video on Bismarck meeting NJ. YES !!!!!
I wonder if the ship’s design for the two different environments would come to play. The New Jersey was designed for the longer swells of the pacific compared to the shorter swells of the Atlantic. A chief steward of a British container ship company told me about this as their ships were built in Hong Kong for Pacific service but ended up in Atlantic service and it made a difference in how the ship sailed.
Bollocks
And that is literally the only advantage Bismarck and Tirpitz had over an Iowa-class; being able to sail better in rough seas.
@@sausageseggandchips Why?
One stat not mentioned and very important to accuracy is the Beam or Width of the Ship. Bismarck was said to be an extremely stable gun platform by the highest ranking officer that survived the Sinking of the Bismarck. This Officer was in the Rear Main Gun Fire Director. The 823 foot long Bismarck had a Beam of 131 feet. The 860 feet long Iowas were built for even higher speeds and the beam was only 108 feet. So there would be less rock-n-roll on the Bismarck. And in this battle, the ship who gets the first ship crippling hits wins.
Bismarck had a beam of 118 feet, Yamato around 128 feet, and if the Montana's were built around 121 feet.
@@alexrebmann1253and as we all know the montanas were definitely built.
Thus the development of the stable vertical, which would only fire New Jersey’s guns when the ship rolled back to vertical.
Great episode!
Love these videos!
I find the theory behind the Escalator Clause interesting. Pre-empting future needs/requirements is a thing navies did often (UK County class and the armour belt that appeared suspiciously quickly comes to mind) so the German's doing the same with the Bismark and Tirpitz is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Bismarck's my love. She's like Robert Ballard said very similar in her fate to Titanic. Nonetheless, I am so glad that you guys in the states did such an awesome job in preserving so many historical ships! That is absolutely outstanding and invaluable for future generations.
Remarkable video with unexpected conclusions. Thank you!
I'm still pissed we didn't save Enterprise, the biggest crime against military ships.
JUSTICE FOR MY GIRL ENTERPRISE!
@@Rogue_Shad0w A wonderful ship and with such famous sisters.
@@Rogue_Shad0w agreed, she should have been a museum ship in Hawaii
Very interesting video. Amazing engineering and the gun control computer systems are fascinating. Thanks a lot. Colin UK 🇬🇧
Great stuff!
Interesting video. As an old FT(G) who worked on 5"38's and the Mk 37 system, I would have liked to have learned about the respected fire control systems including radars. In your video, I saw something that looked like a Mk 1A fire control computer (although it seemed larger). How did the Iowa system compare to that of the Bismark?
Because of the NJ's radar systems, longer firing range, and higher speed; she gets to determine the engagement in a 1v1 scenario. Assuming equally skilled captains, that should give the win to NJ.
I doubt it
don't compare the German technology of the early 1940s with the American technology of the early 1943 - that's comparing a 1939 Me109 with a 1943 P51 is ridiculous.
If it were the combat in 1944 the technological difference would be terrible since Germany since 1942 tested with long-range guns and rockets the fire was slow but the range was more than 300 miles, an example the German long-range gun " Anzio Annie caliber 283 mm or 11 inches " its fame was its long range. 32 miles or 50 kilometers, and with the rocket 184 miles or 300 kilometers. the 8 guns of the Bismark was 15 inches or 380 mm, imagine if they used a Fritz X guided bomb bullet adapted to the Bismark or replace two twin turrets of 380 mm or 15 inches with missile launchers of a V-1 or a V-2
I remind you that the Germans had technological superiority an example the Me 262 or the Ho 229
or the Pw V - Phanter or the famous Pw VI Tiger. the Fritz x or the V-1 the V-2, I remind you that they were Nazi German engineers at the service of America like Wernher von Braun who took man to the Moon
Germany loses the war is because of its numerical disadvantage and scarce natural resources not only were the Americans, British, and other allies, many ignore the great eastern front where Germany fought to the death with the USSR and its eastern allies from 1941 to 1945
@@carlosgilbertoespinozamedi7086 Disagree, around the time of the sinking of the Bismark, America was becoming the dominant Naval power. The Germans just didn't have the experience or skill in surface warfare. There were also some extravagant and useless features on the Bismark. American battleships were killing machines. That said, they served very little purpose, a tactical destroyer fleet would have hunted the Bismark down like a group of hungry wolves. On top of that. The Americans wouldn't have bothered with ship to ship engagement. They would have used a fleet tactically to hound the Bismark then lay it low with air attacks.
@@donorbane Exactly; America’s navy went from 700~ ships when it joined the war to 6700+ ships at the end of the war, and they had their own innovations as well like the proximity-fuse aa shells
How a flotilla of 3 British and 1 Polish Destroyers could not score a hit on the Bismarck in a night engagement and the Bismarck had a stuck rudder and could make only 6 Knots? I don’t think Destroyers are going to hunt down the Bismarck, just like they could not hunt down a New Jersey.
Also, the Germans did not sit on their butts with the Tirpitz. If the Bismarck would have survived to fight a New Jersey in 1943, new fire control radar systems would have been installed on the German ships. Also, the German crews would have been battle tested versus cherry USA Sailors. Remember the first time the BB South Dakota fired in anger, the electrics went out throughout the ship. After restoring power, she fired again and caused a huge fire on the aft deck as she blew up her spotter planes on her catapults. Not to worry the 3rd time she fired it blew the planes overboard and blew the fire out. Good thing because her electric system breakers tripped again.
It is hard to beat an experienced crew.
@@danhryniszak6612 There are a couple of things with the torpedoes, I think the sea state was still rough which might have affected the torpedoes' accuracy and did the British have problems with them running too deep still as they did in Norway? Did they have the same issues with magnetic exploders that the aerial torpedoes had when used the day before (which was lucky as it was their own cruiser they attacked)?
great job , very informative .....
Excellent asseratation and comparison in my opinion
Ryan,
The longest hit by a battleship in WWII was ~ 25 to 26,000 yards. Past that hits are just long shot luck. Per NavWeapons, the USN 16” super heavy AP shell weighed 2,700 lbs. The Bismark’s was a little above 1,700 lbs. The USN AP hard cap was also superior.
Longest hit ever recorded was by HMS Warspite at 28 000 yards during the Battle of Matapan on a Italian battleship. It was no long odds shot, as all of Warspite's salvo's were landing close aboard the Vittorio de Vennetto.
@@towgod7985 It was not 28,000 yards, it was not the Battle of Cape Matapan, and it was not Vittorio Veneto.
From Wikipedia:
During the battle of Calabra, Warspite achieved one of the longest range gunnery hits from a moving ship to a moving target in history, hitting Giulio Cesare at a range of approximately 24 km (26,000 yd), the other being a shot from Scharnhorst which hit Glorious at approximately the same distance in June 1940. The shell pierced Giulio Cesare's rear funnel and detonated inside it.
No. Was 26000 yards on par with scharnhorst
Actually scharnhorst was several hundred yards longer.
Warspite: longest bb v bb shot
Scharnhorst: longest bb v cv shot, and with gneisenau only bbs to sink a cv.
Ranges were approximated, both were either 26k or 28k range. Would love to have had modern rangefinding equipment back then to see which was actually further, but that would allow much better equipment for the ships so...
I used to play the naval simulation computer game Harpoon. I know it's just a game, but it's a well researched enough game that Annapolis had the students play it for several years as part of their introductory surface warfare curriculum.
Anyway, as of the late 1980s there was not a ship afloat that could survive being hit by one turret of an Iowa class. Even in the days of real battleships USS New Jersey was a formidable ship, and damned few opponents could survive a broadside. In the post battleship age, she is a black swan event.
What an interesting comparison! 👍
Great story, uncle Ryan!
I know nothing about naval warfare, but found this comparison fascinating! - thanks for uploading this(and all your others!) - as a complete "know nothing" would crew training have played any significant part in the comparison? - might the battle come down to whichever ship scored the first hit(s)?
Watch a few dozen of Drachinifel's videos, especially the ones on the destruction of the Hood, the Bismarck, and the Battle of Samar. Oh, and the last stand of the Revenge is good too.
@@chrismaverick9828 His video description of Samar should be required viewing for any naval warfare buff.
I appreciate you talking more about the Bismarck. I don’t know why, but I find myself romanticizing the Bismarck and it’s Follies. I love the iowas but there’s just something about the Bismarck that draws me to it. and its potential reign it could have had in the Atlantic.
Everyone loses the 5v1. Even a battleship.
It was a big PR campaign by the British at the time. The US PBY was involved.
As usual, great presentation. Appreciate you and your efforts. Thank you
Had Bismark survived by 1943 it is likely that radar would have been installed. That said, this was a very informative video. The context of what the ship would be used for is so important and you bring that out really well. It was the same with the Luftwaffe, Italy had a long range bomber that could deliver a load like the B17, but the Germans did not go that route because strategic bombing was (thankfully) not part of their doctrine. Similarly, Japan was all about range with everything they had, which was not really important for the Germans or Russians.
Definitely an interesting video! Although I agree the Iowa class BB's were largely better than the Bismarck class, I find the Bismarck class aren't as bad as many people say they are, so it is interesting to see the comparison between these 2 ships (at least for the guns) come to be so similar.
Yeah, there has been a trend over the last 20 years to shittalk everything German, to a degree it has lost all footing by now. Very much agree to you
@@phil3114 That's true, though perhaps it's due to a backlash from the hyperbole of everyone saying how great all the German kit was.
With everyone saying how fantastic the German engineering and know-how was, other 'experts' feel the need to begin poking holes in those views.
Expert 1 - Me-262 could shoot down everything in the sky!!!
Expert 2 - But it couldn't fly far and was dangerous to its pilots
And so on...
Expert 3 - I'm taking this jet home to figure out how they did it so I can copy it!!!
Good episode, Ryan! Due to 'luck', any two ships fighting comes down to who gets in the lucky shot first which may be as simple as destroying RFC as with the South Dakota. I don't think we spend enough time on the American WWII solution with naval equipment: build it well and build a lot of them. Four NJ beat two BISMARCKs every time. The ten BBs built by the US simply overwhelm whatever the competition can muster.
I bought this book from Naval Institute a couple weeks ago, glad I bit the bullet before it sold out!
Very interesting , thankyou.
Great comparison. One thing to note is that if I am reading the gunnery tables correctly for the 16"/50 is that the AP rounds had roughly half the drift and thus gave a more accurate impact point than the HC rounds. The 16"/50 HC rounds are largely similar to both the 8"/55 HE and AP rounds of the Des Moines in terms of meters of drift per kilometer of flight. I would attribute this to the extra mass giving a higher sectional density. Since the Bismark's guns are largely similar to the HC rounds in terms of speed, weight, and diameter I would expect the drift to be similar as well. This would imply that between the 16" AP rounds flying more accurately and the advanced targeting computer systems in a notional battle between the two classes the Iowa would land hits more accurately, that deliver greater penetration, against a target with less armor.
Except that the Bismarck was much better at delivering on target much sooner than the British were able to accomplish. So then how does your statement ring true? I do believe that the American fire control system with radar is much more accurate in its calculations for target solutions. Its hard to compare really, since the Germans hardly had time to perfect their systems. Its actually quite remarkable that they actually were as successful as they were in their design. Certainly they had flaws in their design. But it must be considered to have been a successful design over all. Had they had time to improve / debug their systems and a more seasoned crew, they may have faired better. Jus unlucky to get a torpedo in the rudder.
@@michaeldobson8859 First of all, Bismarck v Hood means nothing in a Bismarck v Iowa discussion.
Second, there is always a factor of luck, such as how that round happened to hit Hood in the worst place possible.
If the two met, I expect that the fire control on an Iowa class would mean that Bismarck wouldn't know what hit them, sort of like Washingon vs Kirishima at second Guadalcanal
Iowa would have met Tirpitz which had comparable FC.
Germans sank glorious at nearly 30+k yds good shooting English were amazed at graf spee gun accuracy they thought radar was responsible but was German optics
@@Eric-kn4yn The survivors from Glorious also said that already the first salvo from Scharnhorst/Gneisenau was scaringly close.
Nothing wrong with German fire control. As with the US ships, proven in real world conditions.
Oh, worse!
Great video. Not at all a Naval history buff or Battleship nerd. But I still watch lots of Ryan’s videos.
You will be.
The Bismarck's partially radar guided fire control suite and its high rate of fire allowed it to get the range quick and shred Hood even though it's guns were silent for a good portion of the opening.
Rounds missed were fired post destruction of Hood and during the initial ranging.
1 problem the first shot from Bismarck knocked out it's radar they were firing the old fashioned way just using sights and adjusting each shot
@@kuninagako9035 A bit off topic but it's kinda ironic that the problem of battleships knocking out their own radar occured not only on the German side. Even USS New Jersey had this event during her sea-trials (Ryan mentioned this in the Video "Would have New Jersey survived what sunk Bismarck")
I will take radar based fire control for 7 alex. Plus it never hurts to have proximity fuses on the air defense.
Both ships have radar. Air defense is not relevant.
Very interesting. How about a video comparing their powerplant and propulsion systems. It seems there are significant differences.
I think its very interesting. I didn't know they were that close. Its also interesting to see how these things work in operations. too often people get stuck on paper stats.
In a hypothetical fight, if an Iowa can keep Bismarck at range statistically the Iowa should win. Remember Bismarck had problems with her Fire Control, if I remember correctly she disabled one of her own directors with the blast of her main guns in the fight with Hood. This is likely a larger problem with Pressure sensitivity. And of course the 16in gun was designed to be used at range, and the higher speed of an Iowa lets her dictate the tempo of the engagement. In my opinion: it’s an Iowa’s fight to lose, she has the advantages where it counts
Some of Iowas advantages wouldn't be as pronounced if they fought in the North Atlantic where the waters are more choppy. Iowas hull shape is better suited to the calmer waters of the Pacific and as such in one exercise with HMS Vanguard (similar shape and displacement to Bismarck) suffered severe roll that made seamen throw up and gunnery less accurate.
@@Aaron-cb2dd I'm not sure how much of an affect sea state would have on New Jersey's gunnery, when they had the 'stable vertical' gyro in the fire control computer. If the ship was rolling the gryo would wait until the precise moment the ship was level and then fire the guns.
Bismarck didnt had problems with her fire Control,he disabled her forward Radar with the blast of her guns but not the directors.Wasnt just a German problem.
@Rico H. The Germans fixed this problem relatively quickly. The radar set issued to Bismarck was the last one of an old production run, Tirpitz received a newer model and afaik never had any difficulties with shock damage. Tirpitz was able to fully blindfire her guns by January 1943. German naval radar was better than generally acknowledged.
at 20000 yards, 16.5 inches penetration vs 20+ inches penetration. Given the accuracy Bismark has displayed in the battle and the fact that neither side armor is heavier than the number above, the battle will be a dice rolling. Iowa has full superority on speed and firepower but it is not immune to lethal damage. I believe both can straddle each other in 3 salvos if Iowa didn't start firing from 26000 yards which depends on whether and sea condition. The rest is luck. So, I assume even the battle is in place, there will be several cruisers and destroyers around Iowa and probably air power for support. Any admiral risk a precious battleship on a 1 to 1 scenario to gain an edge on "who's a bigger badass" will be court martialled...
The book,
The Battle of the Denmarck Strait
By Robert J. Winklareth is an excellent book that maps out all of Bismarcks shots as well as could be done with the information we have. It is a good book to see why Bismarck didn't appear to meet 3 rounds per minute or why Bismarck may have missed some rounds.
Lost touch with this channel. Glad to see you're still making content! Love Bismarck and Tirpitz stories.
Welcome back!
There were only some 10 battleship vs. battleship battles during WW2, and many of them involved older battleships or battlecruisers, plus smaller support vessels as well. In WW1 we saw a couple of monstrous battles, but other than that nothing. So there are really very little to draw any conclusions from.
However, what we know is that no battleship ever built is immune to battleship shells, be they 14, 15 or 16-inch (let alone 18-inch). At some ranges, the armored citadel will be difficult to penetrate, but anything outside the citadel have no protection against these monster shells weighing in at 700-1400kg. Even within the armored citadel the gun turrets will be weak points, as direct hits will very likely knock them out, even without penetrating. USS Iowa (and her class) was probably the best battleship ever built - but given the chance, even an old Kongo class BB/BC would turn her into swiss cheese if she managed to land the first critical hits on her FC etc.
Careful, my friend! You just said we could be fighting words on channels like this! Congo versus New Jersey with a potential win by Congo? everybody knows what happened to Karashima when she went up against 16 inch guns.
@@BlindMansRevenge2002 And what do you think would have happened to USS South Dakota, which basically had the same armor scheme as USS New Jersey, if USS Washington hadn't been there?
See South Dakota.
@@BlindMansRevenge2002 Totally f'd up South Dakota.
The Bismarcks armour scheme at short to medium range comes into it with that slope behind the belt. Nothing is getting through that but Bismarck theoretically seriously disadvantaged at long range with the relatively thin horizontal protection. Have to hit it though.
Yes, but both Kriegsmarine and the Royal Navy had a doctrine of fighting at below 20,000 yards. At those ranges, Bismarck's armor scheme is very effective. She wasn't designed to fight US battleships.
@@michaelkovacic2608 Bismarck was designed to fight any of her contemporaries including US but not at long range. She was a North Sea / Atlantic type where battle ranges were expected to be short. This is different to what was envisaged by the US and Japan for Pacific conditions. The US and Japan had a doctrine of being able to (theoretically) fight at very long range and US offensive power certainly supported this though in the end no battleship ever built had the horizontal protection to be able to survive serious hits at such long ranges, not even Yamoto let alone Bismarck.
When I was in the Navy our ship under went a refit in Bremerton, WA. A couple of days after we left the dry dock the NJ pulled in across the pier from us. She was coming home fro Vietnam.What a ship. I didn't get a chance to go on board. Fast forward many years. Our reserve unit was in Bahrain during Desert Storm.. I was just getting off security watch when a Coast Guard boat came in asked if I want to check out the big MO. Of course I said yes. When we got to where she was moored it was good to see her alive and well. The last time I saw her was when she was in moth balls in Bremerton. I went to the ships store and tried to buy a mug, but they were sold out. I did get a ball cap. Some day I'd like to visit the NJ. I'm also happy they are trying to save the Texas. My step grandfather served on her as a cook at the start of WWI. Oddly we have a set of photos that my father in law took of her when he was in WII. I think they were taken in Subic Bay. EN1
I think it is interesting that the Bismark's very green crew managed almost one shot per minute. Suppose they had more time to train...
Bismark had to switch targets too in that time to be fair.
Then again the useless Hood was firing at the cruiser.
Her advance FCS gave her huge advantage.
I would not call Hood useless as Hood is the victim of everything that could go wrong does
Much of that time was taken by the target plotting. The actual loading of the gun is only one part of firing it.
One thing that does puzzle me, Bismarck's shooting at the Battle of the Denmark Strait was quite accurate, PoW hit Bismarck's bow and Bismarck hit Hood both with their fifth salvoes, so Bismarck's shooting was on par with the British (all be it, PoW was still working up). However, for the rest of her last voyage she is not able to hit any surface target other than causing splinter damage to HMS Sheffield and damaging HMS Cossack's radio antenna. What explains the difference in performance? Was it crew fatigue, luck, equipment breakage, the damage caused to the rudder by Swordfish, a combination of all of these or something else?
The best you could do with WW2 technology was to straddle - and then pray one or two rounds from the straddle actually hit. Bismarck straddled every ship she came in contact with within the first 1-3 salvoes - including the five destroyers in rough conditions at night - that is excellent shooting from a green crew.
Bismarck probably had the most accurate full calibre battleship guns of all with a dispersion of around 100 meters at 20-22K. For a comparison USS Massachusetts had around 200 meters at the same distance against Jean Bart (which had a horrible dispersion of about 500 meters at the same distance, only improving to around 300 meters after her late war upgrades).
Rodney took out Bismarks main fire control in an early salvo, until then she was straddling Rodney pretty regularly.
The Bismarck's crew after the the rudder torpedo strike was mostly drunk and at battle stations for much of the time if their officers could keep them there. During the final battle the main turret crews were kept in their stations at gunpoint and there is evidence Bruno turret's crew abandoned their stations and hid under the rear overhang of the turret .
Compared to the performance of the Scharnhorst's crew in her final battle the Bismarck's performance left a lot to be desired.
@@emilkarpo Scharnhorst had a chance to get away. Bismarck was doomed before the battle began..
@@emilkarpo A breakdown in morale, discipline and drunkenness onboard a doomed ship. That paints a pretty desperate picture.
Ryan I bought the Bismark book and one on battleships S & G!
Thank you for the book recommendation. Others that would like to read it, I found that it is available as a Kindle version that does not weigh as much.
How much of an advantage does the more modern radar as well as the Ford firing solution computer provide the Iowa class BBs over the Bismarck class ships? Also, are the two Bismarck class ships identical, or was one equipped with improved features when compared to the other? I'm thinking if I was the captain of the NJ and fighting the Bismarck, I might start at a long distance until I have managed to damage her and thus downgrading her capabilities......just a thought.
Tirpitz, naturally enough, had much improved AA and radars than Bismarck. Late war US, British and German radar assisted FC were pretty comparable - as shown by the US evaluation of Prinz Eugen after the war.
Radars probably would have been pretty state-of-the-art as far as function and ability.
The Huns never had the vastly superior centimetric radar.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935The huns never had any radars, not much need for it when you use bows and arrows, the Germans however had centimeter radars, but not until the end of the war !
So the Bismarck's 15" guns are being compared to the New Jersey's 16" guns
Bismarck class is nowhere even near iowa class league she should be comparable to, KGV, littorio,richleau, class i dont know why ppl even compare her to iowas and yamato.
Because she is this supership
Really enjoyed the stats of the two class ships. I never knew how close they were until you went through it. It seems that the Bismarck was slightly ahead of her time compared to the Iowa. Thank you for sharing the info!
Although not on the Bismark I did read a paper on a match up between Iowa and Yamato. The authors gave Yamato many fire power advantages. But the authors concluded that Yamato would lose.
1) Iowa's 6 knot speed advantage allowed Iowa the choice to accept or decline battle.
2) Iowa's superior surface search radar could keep Yamato in sight while staying out of range until night fall.
3) At night, Iowa's fire control radar and fire control computers would allow Iowa to fire at Yamato with impunity. The authors cited the battle of Surigao Strait as an example where in the darkness of night U.S. battleships score opening salvo hits on the Japanese fleet. The Japanese fleet never saw the U.S. battleships that sank them.
Bismarck is such a time sink but it's such a good source of views. Drach recommended the book as well.
Considering that New Jersey's shells are over 50% heavier than Bismarck's, I have a pretty good idea who is going to win this comparison.
Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better, (looking at you yamato) but yeah, NJ probably has the best guns ever put on a battleship.
Edit: grammar
@@pedrofelipefreitas2666 Yamato did have better guns than the Iowas though. Longer range, slightly higher velocity, better penetration.
The biggest exception to the rule would be the Littorios, with high velocity 15" shells that had impressive penetration. If only they had decent quality control on them.
@@Quasarnova1 no lol look is yamato video , most of what you say is wrong
@Quasarnova1 fire control which besser you gotta hit what your shooting at.
@@TheJimyyy Maybe you should re-watch it, I just stated easily verifiable facts about the guns.
@Eric-kn4yn 100% True, but I was only talking about the guns themselves.
I'm thinking it's really gonna come down to the range the two engage at. No sane Iowa commander would want to close with the range and fire control advantage they have, and just use their speed to stay inside their own comfort zone and out of the Bismark classes ability to really hit back. If somehow they ended up at a closer range somehow (bad weather or radar issues on the Iowa class or something) I'm going with your highly likely to just end up with two "mission killed" ships unless someone gets lucky and sets off a magazine somehow. Betting the Iowa class is fast enough to evade some of the Bismark classes fire, and the Bismark is tanky enough to absorb at least a little bit of the Iowa's AP shells they probably just end up shredding each other's superstructure until both can't really effectively hurt the other and then limp away as best they can. At those ranges it would probably be the secondary batteries that would tip it either way really.
BB engangements hardly ever happen under ideal conditions. Especially not in the north sea. So unless Iowas just run all the time, they will have to deal woith engaging under conditions the ships were desgined for. the Iowas were designed for the Pacific, the Bismarcks for the North Sea. Both will be at a disatvantage when engaging the opponent in the environment that very opponent was designed for.
@@phil3114 Very true. Honestly I think bad weather would probably still favor the Iowa though. True it would probably close the practical engagement range, however the fire control difference would still show out I think. To your other point, unless she was on a clear defensive posture for some reason - about the last place you would want a fast battleship - why wouldn't you run until conditions favored you. Iowa's have a huge sailing rage advantage over a Bismark as well as the speed. No one says you have to fight fair - run the Bismark out of fuel to the point she has to slow or try to return to supply chains for fuel then you can pick her apart when at maximum advantage.
I agree this encounter would likely be in the north sea or at best off of France somewhere if it ever came to pass, I'm just not sure it changes much. Heh although I'm not a naval historian by any means so could be completely wrong here too
@@shawnarner469 The fire control difference is not as big as you might think. Bismarck in it's 41 outfit would struggle, but Radars and fire control got updated for german ships just as well. Do not forget Germany was the leader in Radar technology at the beginning of the war, contrary to popular belief. The allies pulled ahead in 41 43 with the magnetron but in 44 they were pretty much on par again.
Also, in a long distance engagement the Iowas have the advantage of their armor scheme. In more close quarters though, as was usually the case in the North sea (just compare the typical engagement ranges in that area during that time, even with Radar included) the Bismarcks with their old but highly effective turtlebacks are basically unsinkable, even with the Iowas 16 taken into account. It is debatelable if the Iowas could have a survied a beating like the Bis got, for example.
The Iowas are still better ships. Faster so they can just run (which they won't if their task is to actrually hunt the Bis), worlds better AA and AA guns, simply a much more modern ship which got lessons from WW2 already included into it's design. But I think ppl are way to used to shittalking the Bis to recognize the menance she actually was, especially in the european theatre.
@@phil3114 I definitely see your point, and also agree that I doubt in the hypothetical 1 v 1 engagement either ship is likely to utterly sink the other outside of someone getting to a magazine. In all likelihood you would end up as Ryan puts it "mission kills" with whoever gets the first really solid hits in being the ship who arguably "wins". In most situations I just see that being the Iowa, since she would have her greatest advantage during that first strike portion of an engagement. Especially if the first salvos are from the bows of each perspective ship and not on a broadside, since if nothing else the Iowa gets 2 more shells in her salvos.
Definitely not saying a Bismark isn't a threat to an Iowa - it's definitely an any given Sunday situation probably - it's just my theory on how it would play out.
@@shawnarner469 fair enough. the conditions under which such an engagement would happen are probably more important then individual ship quality