Well I guess you should blame the computer ai that was controlling Bismarck and Scharnhorst. The Nelson and Rodney were controlled by the human player, which obviously was a huge advantage.
It's not intrinsecally the caliber, it's the weight, the speed and the angle. British 16" guns were developed to fire slower shells but fired with higher angles, compared to other 16" of the same period. A larger caliber does not necessarily means heavier shell, (at least while talking about small differences, like 15" and 16", of course 11" is way smaller). Nevertheless, I agree with your comment, Scharnorst was fast, well armoured, but lacked in sheer firepower, her main guns were excellent against any ship smaller than a cruiser but surely unfit against other armoured battleships. Surely her speed could save her from many treats at the time of her construction. After all, the bulk of British, French and American battleship forces were old dreadnoughts, some of which were modernized but were still slower than Scharnhorst. Ultimately she met her demise when she faced a modern battleship that could match her speed.
Bismarck's crew were better shots than in this video, historically, hit both the Hood and the Prince of Wales. Scharnhorst's crew also able to hit a target.
@@wolfgangkloberdanz9562 The shell from the Bismarck hit a tiny gap between the main armour belt and the ocean which also penetrated a small weakness in the 15 inch magasine armour belt. From over 12 miles away.
@@obvious-troll "lucky" hits are still hits. Even Prinz Eigen scored hits on both targets, Hood and Prince of Whales. Bismarck's optical training was exceptional just fragile as it was damaged from the ships own gun fire.
_Great Naval Battles_ could be played over a LAN. I had two of my buddies over and we fought it out between three of the American Standard 16" gun ships and one 14" Gun Ship and the German Navy. Germans had both battleships and both battle cruisers 4 Heavies on each side 4 Cruisers No Destroyers. The guy who was supposed to help me run the Americans didn't show - so - I was a very busy boy - and actually had a collision ... Those 16" guns made all the difference though. What doomed the Germans in this engagement - was that Tirpitz took a steering hit - and could only circle ... The Germans elected to stay with her - and those 16" guns just tore them apart. This match up here - was heavily in favor of the British. The Germans should have had _Bismarck_ and _Tirpitz_ . That would still favor the British but the Germans might have a chance. The other thing here - is that the German's fire was terribly inaccurate vs. the fire of the British. If this was Player vs. The Computer - my assumption here - is that it was set to something like "Easy Mode" where the side opposing the player would play stupidly and not be able to hit anything. IRL - the Germans would have just run away. No way in hell would they have taken on these two ships - when they had such a speed advantage. .
why would any ship not use all turrets in a battle and it's speed ? So unreal it is not close to reality the Rodney class was slow and terrifying to the crew when firing all the broadsides. The Germans would have opened the range and used ALL TURRETS
Rodney and Nelson outranged both. 16 inch rifles to Bismarck's 15 inch and Scharnhorst's 12 inch. At extreme range Scharnhorst is not even going to penetrate the Belt armour of Nelson and Rodney. Realistically they would have disengaged and ran, not tried to fight, even at extended range. Gun for gun Rodney and Nelson have all the advantages. They have more guns per ship, and larger guns....
There is no doubt about it, the AI is atrocious: charging straight in with lousy gunnery. Try elite enemy gunnery in the options setting for more of a challenge. Bismarck and Scharny could have made it interesting by trying to distance themselves and making it a long range engagement where the Germans would have had somewhat of an advantage or lessen the British advantage. Scharnhorst's 11 inchers can only penetrate with plunging fire and the Germans had the fire control for long range.
How so? Scharnhorst is going to struggle at range with those 11 inch guns, even with plunging fire. At the kind of ranges you are suggesting to avoid the majority of the risk from those 16 inch rifles its doubtful she will be able to reach the British ships, let alone hit them. Which leaves the Bismark. Then you have a tube problem, 8 15 inch rifles against 18 16 inch rifles. Even if the Fire Control of the Nelson and Rodney are older, thus not as advanced that is more than double the number of guns, and while older, the Fire Control of the British Ships was still perfectly capable of hitting targets at those kind of ranges. Their only real option is to disengage and run, which they can do.
@@Shigurenjoyer GETS BORING, YOU SAY?!!!. NOT NECESSARILY SO!!!. WITH SOME ADJUSTMENTS(AUGMENTATION, FINE TUNING, UPDATING, ETC.), WORLD OF WARSHIPS COULD TURN OUT TO BE RATHER QUITE EXCITING!!!!!!. RATHER QUITE EXCITING INDEED!!!!!!.
This is pure fantasy. . .@ the sinking of the Bismarck, Rodney almost shook apart with Bismarck's near misses. Were the Germans saving their rear turrets here for a special occasion?
@@nnoddy8161 Videogames aside, real life is another story; what Dennis says about H.M.S. Rodney is true: it was sailors aboard the ship that recalled the near misses from the Bismark made the hull shake and twist and they hoped not to receive a direct hit. The ship was way older than Bismark and has been in service for a long time time. Bismarck - or any battleship, for what it counts, was no Joke, and if you were aboard a ship being targeted by such huge shells, you sure wouldn't play bully and would pray not to be hit. It has nothing to do with "cowardice" nor incompetence, it has to do with the real thing. Just looking at this footage gives me the chills and made me think of what these guys, from both sides, had to witness and endure. Bismarck was sailing at slow speed due to both being bow heavy and the Rudder damage. Due to her jammed rudder she was circling, hence she couldn't manouver and her gunners had to continuosly adjust the bearing and ranging. on top of that she suffered two lucky shots at the very beginning of the engagement: one destroyed her main range finder, the second jamming her aft turrets so she had to fight with half her main armamaent and visual targeting. Being so severely impaired the outcome couldn't be any different. If Rodney and King George V would have faced a fully operational Bismarck they wouldn't go unscathed.
@@matteomaffei5519 Son - those are 16 inch guns on the Rodney. This is something the Bismarck would avoid gladly and it was for this reason the Bismarck in the real world would have simply sailed faster and avoided the engagement entirely. Facing 18 16 Inch guns wouldn’t really help Bismarck.
@@MathewGeorge1989granpa, Bismarck did actually face those 16” shells and just 2 of ~200 (1 in 100) were able to penetrate it’s main belt. Those shells were not able to sink the Bismarck and that is a very well known and proven fact.
@ANGEL THE WOLF. NO ONE SAID IT WAS B-I-S-M-A-R-K!!!!!!. YOUR COMMENT IS CORRECT IN STATING THAT IT IS SPELLED B-I-S-M-A-R-C-K, NOT B-I-S-M-A-R-K!!!!!!. FOR FUTURE REFERENCE, CAREFULLY EXAMINE ALL OF THE COMMENTS/STATEMENTS IN THE COMMENTS SECTION!!!!!!.
@@Angelthewolf NO PROBLEM!!!!!!. THE INGREDIENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1/4 WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?!!!!!!!!!!!!!., 1/4 HUUUUUHHHH?!!!!!!!!!!!!!., 1/4 O DEE O DEE O & A MASSIVE HEAPIN' HELPIN' OF...WAAAAAIT FOR IT...BOW WOW WOW, YIPPEE YO, YIPPEE YEAH!!!!!!!!!.
Getting the guns on a moving, unsteady platform to hit a target which is also moving and bobbing up and down miles away is itself a near miracle when it happens. Most of those shells go waste, throwing up columns of water
@@Angelthewolf They might be better now, but in the early days they depended on spot calculations, approximations, subjective estimates and the experience of gunnery officers. Even a huge ship at ten miles is just a spot in the ocean. Add to that the ocean swells and evasive action, you had a difficult target indeed. No wonder you had more by way of spectacular cascades of water than decisive damage. A hit was about one in ten or twenty, but sometimes one hit was enough to settle the matter. But for one lucky hit, Hood might have trashed Bismarck. It had enough firepower
No, their hull shape coupled with the combination determined captain and very capable engineering officers allowed them to exceed this. Rodney is credited with 25 knots.
@@DeCasoU1 the hull shape was poor for speed. Short and stubby. Real combat speed and trial speeds are two different things. These ships wouldn't be dumb enough to approach Rodney and Nelson. Scharnhorst was never built to engage battleships.
Scharnhorst and Bismarck could easily disengage such a battle with a speed of 30 knots, leaving Rodney and Nelson with their maximum of 23 knots behind.
@@josephkrenzer627 That 25 knots was NOT trial speed. Rodney pulled 25 knots as she was converging onto Bismarck's position. She was at sea, under combat conditions, with 20 year old machinery, and she managed 25 knots. The machinery did not like it, but they were NOT trial conditions. They were actual wartime conditions.... As for your comment about the hull shape, actually the Hull shape of the Rodney and Nelson were highly advanced for their day, very much more so than Bismarck's. Most of the magic with their hull form is under water, so you cannot see it, but for their length to beam ratio they were actually considerably faster than a ship with Bismark's hull design would have been under the same shaft horsepower....
@@alganhar1 The Germans still had enough of a speed advantage to just leave - which is what they should have done - rather than fight such a mismatch. .
Quien desarrollo el juego? El departamento de prensa de la Royal Navi? Porque esta lejos de ser real, Los viejos acorazados Ingleses estaban en perfecta posición con toda la artilleria al costado, eran lentos para correr y tambien lentos oara disoarar, solo 2 rondas por minuto, e hicieron blanco casi simpre, y ganaron 🧐. mientras que el Bismarck y su compañero eran mas modernos conmejor sistema de disparo, eran mas rapidos y tenian mqyor cafwncia de tiro, 3 rondas por minuto. Asi y todo estaban mal puestos, solo con la artilleria de proa solo la mitad de los cañones tenian disponibles, y asi no peleaban, parecia que los artileron del Bismark y su compañero, eran no videtes porque casi no le hicieron blanco a los viejos Acorazasos Ingleses.🙄🤨🧐
Nelson and rodney have 16 inch guns and took out the bismarck earlier in the game and took there time to finish off the scharnhorst, the bismarck ai did not angle correctly to use her full potential.
As usual, the AI ships make the fatal error of approaching bow-on, thus negating a very large part of their firepower. It amazes me that this problem with the AI has never been corrected by the game designers. It does allow the player to usually defeat the AI in anything like an equal match...no matter which nationality the player is commanding. Another point: The German ships have a significant speed advantage, so it is not in their interest to close the range! Better to keep things at long range, in case they get badly damaged and need to make smoke and escape. Nelson and Rodney, being slower, do not have that luxury if things start to go wrong for them.
With such an advantage in speed neither German ship would have approached close, they would have easily controlled the engagement all things considered. Also, why wouldn't the German ships turn to allow the aft turrets to engage? Again, they would have easily set the stage against the sluggish cows Rodney and Nelson.
Lol. Look. You went on in another comment how the short, stubby Nelson and Rodney's hull shape meant they could not be fast, now you are saying they are sluggish. problem is you are counter arguing yourself. You see short, stubby ships are actually more manoeuvrable than long, slender ships. Its a function of length to beam ratio. The Nelson and Rodney were actually very agile for 35,000 ton Battleships. As for Bismarck, well... lets hit you with an unpleasant truth shall we? Of all of the the contemporary Battleships that were laid down and launched at around the same time, the Tirpitz and the Bismarck were hands down the worst. The only thing they were was bigger, but the Italians got better combat power, similar speed (but shorter operational range) with 5000 tons lower displacement in the Littorios. The British got slower ships by a few knots in the KGV's but better gun power (10 tubes to 8), better actual armour (theirs was an all or nothing scheme unlike the turtleback of Bismarck which was less effective in almost every situation), and again, the British did this for 70000 tons lower displacement. The US North Carolinas were laid down about the same time, they were only completed later because the USN decided to redesign the ships mid build for 16 inch guns rather than the 14 inch guns that had originally been planned. As a result they were commissioned later. Again, slightly slower at the same 28 knots of the KGV's. but 9 16 inch rifles compared to the Bismarcks, and again on around 7000 tons lower displacement. The Bismarcks may have looked all powerful, but they were poorly designed and poorly optimised. With the same displacement the British, Americans and Italians would have ALL designed a far superior ship..... But then I suppose they were not as bad as the German Z Class Destroyers, which were garbage....
bismark and sharnhrost essentialy did a suicede run, never using more then hafl there guns and not staying at distance where they could have used there better gunnery, what a shamefull display
@PREMIKA DEVI. A FULL BROADSIDE(FROM THE PROPER RANGE) WOULD BRING ALL GUNS( OR NAVAL CANNON, IF YOU WILL) TO BEAR ON THE TARGET. HOWEVER, IN THIS ENGAGEMENT, I DID NOT, REPEAT DID NOT, SEE ANY STERN TURRET(S) ON THIS NELSON CLASS BATTLESHIP. HOPEFULLY, THIS WAS AN UNINTENTIONAL OVERSIGHT(BOTH IN REAL LIFE AS WELL AS IN THE VIDEO GAME). IF NOT, THIS WAS A TRULY POORLY DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED & EQUIPPED(IN THIS CASE, ARMED) BATTLESHIP. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AND/OR SHOULD BE AT LEAST 4(NO LESS THAN 3) TRIPLE 16" OR, PREFERABLY, 18" GUNS(OR NAVAL CANNON, IF YOU WILL) MOUNTED ON THIS AND EVERY OTHER CLASS OF ALLIED BATTLESHIPS. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
As a student of war history, that was painful to watch. The German navy was far better then what this video shows, as they were far better at ranging then the British and Americans. Rate of fire was another problem, as the Germans were slower then the British and Americans.
Ok wehraboo. What about HMS Duke of York scoring critical hits on Scharnhorst on her first salvo or the fact that Bismarck scored no hits on any British ship in her last engagement. HMS Rodney scored a direct hit on Bismarck’s bridge within her first few salvos killing all the senior officers.
lame.. both english ships fire all weapons .. germans just the front once.. lel.. unrealitic .. and even if.. they are much faster.. easy escape... in a real fight.. the germans would smash them.
Nelsons saw the threat of 15" gun and took them down ASP - the 11" could then be deconstructed at leisure
Why didn't Bismarck and Scharnhorst position to fire all salvos instead of just the forward turrets???
Well I guess you should blame the computer ai that was controlling Bismarck and Scharnhorst.
The Nelson and Rodney were controlled by the human player, which obviously was a huge advantage.
@@Boeing-I-hs2gj just as in real life, Swordfish had the player advantage
@@NiskaMagnusson💀
18×16" shells compared to 8×15" and 9×11" is no contest.
It's not intrinsecally the caliber, it's the weight, the speed and the angle. British 16" guns were developed to fire slower shells but fired with higher angles, compared to other 16" of the same period. A larger caliber does not necessarily means heavier shell, (at least while talking about small differences, like 15" and 16", of course 11" is way smaller).
Nevertheless, I agree with your comment, Scharnorst was fast, well armoured, but lacked in sheer firepower, her main guns were excellent against any ship smaller than a cruiser but surely unfit against other armoured battleships.
Surely her speed could save her from many treats at the time of her construction. After all, the bulk of British, French and American battleship forces were old dreadnoughts, some of which were modernized but were still slower than Scharnhorst. Ultimately she met her demise when she faced a modern battleship that could match her speed.
In reality the Germans would have used their much better speed to run away.
Bismarck's crew were better shots than in this video, historically, hit both the Hood and the Prince of Wales.
Scharnhorst's crew also able to hit a target.
hit HMS Hood with the luckiest shot in naval history
@@obvious-troll Wenn die Deutschen mal was trafen, kann es nur "Glück" gewesen sein. Sie haben recht.
@@wolfgangkloberdanz9562 The shell from the Bismarck hit a tiny gap between the main armour belt and the ocean which also penetrated a small weakness in the 15 inch magasine armour belt.
From over 12 miles away.
@@obvious-troll "lucky" hits are still hits. Even Prinz Eigen scored hits on both targets, Hood and Prince of Whales. Bismarck's optical training was exceptional just fragile as it was damaged from the ships own gun fire.
@@josephkrenzer627 Prince of Wales (not whales) scored a critical hit on Bismarck that doomed the ship
_Great Naval Battles_ could be played over a LAN. I had two of my buddies over and we fought it out between three of the American Standard 16" gun ships and one 14" Gun Ship and the German Navy.
Germans had both battleships and both battle cruisers
4 Heavies on each side
4 Cruisers
No Destroyers.
The guy who was supposed to help me run the Americans didn't show - so - I was a very busy boy - and actually had a collision ...
Those 16" guns made all the difference though.
What doomed the Germans in this engagement - was that Tirpitz took a steering hit - and could only circle ...
The Germans elected to stay with her - and those 16" guns just tore them apart.
This match up here - was heavily in favor of the British. The Germans should have had _Bismarck_ and _Tirpitz_ . That would still favor the British but the Germans might have a chance.
The other thing here - is that the German's fire was terribly inaccurate vs. the fire of the British.
If this was Player vs. The Computer - my assumption here - is that it was set to something like "Easy Mode" where the side opposing the player would play stupidly and not be able to hit anything.
IRL - the Germans would have just run away. No way in hell would they have taken on these two ships - when they had such a speed advantage.
.
why would any ship not use all turrets in a battle and it's speed ? So unreal it is not close to reality the Rodney class was slow and terrifying to the crew when firing all the broadsides. The Germans would have opened the range and used ALL TURRETS
Rodney and Nelson outranged both. 16 inch rifles to Bismarck's 15 inch and Scharnhorst's 12 inch. At extreme range Scharnhorst is not even going to penetrate the Belt armour of Nelson and Rodney. Realistically they would have disengaged and ran, not tried to fight, even at extended range. Gun for gun Rodney and Nelson have all the advantages. They have more guns per ship, and larger guns....
There is no doubt about it, the AI is atrocious: charging straight in with lousy gunnery. Try elite enemy gunnery in the options setting for more of a challenge. Bismarck and Scharny could have made it interesting by trying to distance themselves and making it a long range engagement where the Germans would have had somewhat of an advantage or lessen the British advantage. Scharnhorst's 11 inchers can only penetrate with plunging fire and the Germans had the fire control for long range.
Thanks for the heads up I’ll try that next
How so? Scharnhorst is going to struggle at range with those 11 inch guns, even with plunging fire. At the kind of ranges you are suggesting to avoid the majority of the risk from those 16 inch rifles its doubtful she will be able to reach the British ships, let alone hit them. Which leaves the Bismark. Then you have a tube problem, 8 15 inch rifles against 18 16 inch rifles. Even if the Fire Control of the Nelson and Rodney are older, thus not as advanced that is more than double the number of guns, and while older, the Fire Control of the British Ships was still perfectly capable of hitting targets at those kind of ranges.
Their only real option is to disengage and run, which they can do.
Long live the Royal Navy god save the king
There was never any doubt about who would win this engagement but have you tried doing this match up as Bismarck and Scharnhorst?
I would but , you have to fight allied ships against axis ships the game won’t let you do axis vs axis
@@mnx_2852 sadly I have the game it gets boring but mostly still fun
Well i wouldn‘t say that because the Bismarck can actually win that battle
@@Angelthewolf PERHAPS, PERHAPS NOT?!!!. MAYBE, MAYBE NOT?!!!. PROBABLY, PROBABLY NOT?!!!. WHOSE TO SAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER?!!!!!!!!!.
@@Shigurenjoyer GETS BORING, YOU SAY?!!!. NOT NECESSARILY SO!!!. WITH SOME ADJUSTMENTS(AUGMENTATION, FINE TUNING, UPDATING, ETC.), WORLD OF WARSHIPS COULD TURN OUT TO BE RATHER QUITE EXCITING!!!!!!. RATHER QUITE EXCITING INDEED!!!!!!.
Reminds me of watching Rat Patrole where the poor dumb Germans just couldnt seem to hit anything.
How did you get that ships l play that game and l dont see that ships
There’s 2 versions the free one and the not free one the free one doesn’t have all the ships maybe that’s why I think so at least
Historical accuracity is not a strong part of this game, lol
This is pure fantasy. . .@ the sinking of the Bismarck, Rodney almost shook apart with Bismarck's near misses. Were the Germans saving their rear turrets here for a special occasion?
You need to read more. Rodney turned Bismarck into a blazing hulk within 15mins. Bismarck did not record any hits on any RN ships in her final battle.
@@nnoddy8161 Videogames aside, real life is another story; what Dennis says about H.M.S. Rodney is true: it was sailors aboard the ship that recalled the near misses from the Bismark made the hull shake and twist and they hoped not to receive a direct hit. The ship was way older than Bismark and has been in service for a long time time. Bismarck - or any battleship, for what it counts, was no Joke, and if you were aboard a ship being targeted by such huge shells, you sure wouldn't play bully and would pray not to be hit. It has nothing to do with "cowardice" nor incompetence, it has to do with the real thing. Just looking at this footage gives me the chills and made me think of what these guys, from both sides, had to witness and endure. Bismarck was sailing at slow speed due to both being bow heavy and the Rudder damage. Due to her jammed rudder she was circling, hence she couldn't manouver and her gunners had to continuosly adjust the bearing and ranging. on top of that she suffered two lucky shots at the very beginning of the engagement: one destroyed her main range finder, the second jamming her aft turrets so she had to fight with half her main armamaent and visual targeting. Being so severely impaired the outcome couldn't be any different.
If Rodney and King George V would have faced a fully operational Bismarck they wouldn't go unscathed.
@@matteomaffei5519 Son - those are 16 inch guns on the Rodney. This is something the Bismarck would avoid gladly and it was for this reason the Bismarck in the real world would have simply sailed faster and avoided the engagement entirely. Facing 18 16 Inch guns wouldn’t really help Bismarck.
@@MathewGeorge1989granpa, Bismarck did actually face those 16” shells and just 2 of ~200 (1 in 100) were able to penetrate it’s main belt. Those shells were not able to sink the Bismarck and that is a very well known and proven fact.
@@matteomaffei5519 also Bismarcks gunners had been at action stations for practically 24hrs fighting off destroyers etc through the night. Fatigue
It‘s Bismarck not Bismark
@ANGEL THE WOLF. NO ONE SAID IT WAS B-I-S-M-A-R-K!!!!!!. YOUR COMMENT IS CORRECT IN STATING THAT IT IS SPELLED B-I-S-M-A-R-C-K, NOT B-I-S-M-A-R-K!!!!!!. FOR FUTURE REFERENCE, CAREFULLY EXAMINE ALL OF THE COMMENTS/STATEMENTS IN THE COMMENTS SECTION!!!!!!.
@@lloydacklinjr.2032 whatever u did put in ur cofee this morning, i want some of that too
@@Angelthewolf NO PROBLEM!!!!!!. THE INGREDIENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1/4 WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?!!!!!!!!!!!!!., 1/4 HUUUUUHHHH?!!!!!!!!!!!!!., 1/4 O DEE O DEE O & A MASSIVE HEAPIN' HELPIN' OF...WAAAAAIT FOR IT...BOW WOW WOW, YIPPEE YO, YIPPEE YEAH!!!!!!!!!.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!
@HANS SCHLACHT. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Another lopsided simulation. Why not match up Scharnhorst & Gneiseneau against 4 or 5 British 8" gun cruisers?
or 2 Alaskas
Sharnhorst and gneisenau win
@@Angelthewolf I BELIEVE THAT THE NAME IS SPELLED S-C-H-A-R-N-H-O-R-S-T, NOT S-C-H-A-R-N-H-O-R-S-T!!!!!!!!!.
I MEANT TO SPELL THAT LAST WORD S-C-H-A-R-N-H-O-R-S-T!!!!!!!!!.
Getting the guns on a moving, unsteady platform to hit a target which is also moving and bobbing up and down miles away is itself a near miracle when it happens. Most of those shells go waste, throwing up columns of water
Thats why ships have range finders
@@Angelthewolf They might be better now, but in the early days they depended on spot calculations, approximations, subjective estimates and the experience of gunnery officers. Even a huge ship at ten miles is just a spot in the ocean. Add to that the ocean swells and evasive action, you had a difficult target indeed. No wonder you had more by way of spectacular cascades of water than decisive damage. A hit was about one in ten or twenty, but sometimes one hit was enough to settle the matter. But for one lucky hit, Hood might have trashed Bismarck. It had enough firepower
These columns of water actually aided in zeroing in on their targets.
Both German ships could easily leave both Nelson and Rodney behind, their top speed was 21 knots. Bismarck could do 30 and Scharnhorst 28.
No, their hull shape coupled with the combination determined captain and very capable engineering officers allowed them to exceed this. Rodney is credited with 25 knots.
@@DeCasoU1 the hull shape was poor for speed. Short and stubby. Real combat speed and trial speeds are two different things. These ships wouldn't be dumb enough to approach Rodney and Nelson. Scharnhorst was never built to engage battleships.
Scharnhorst and Bismarck could easily disengage such a battle with a speed of 30 knots, leaving Rodney and Nelson with their maximum of 23 knots behind.
@@josephkrenzer627 That 25 knots was NOT trial speed. Rodney pulled 25 knots as she was converging onto Bismarck's position. She was at sea, under combat conditions, with 20 year old machinery, and she managed 25 knots. The machinery did not like it, but they were NOT trial conditions. They were actual wartime conditions....
As for your comment about the hull shape, actually the Hull shape of the Rodney and Nelson were highly advanced for their day, very much more so than Bismarck's. Most of the magic with their hull form is under water, so you cannot see it, but for their length to beam ratio they were actually considerably faster than a ship with Bismark's hull design would have been under the same shaft horsepower....
@@alganhar1 The Germans still had enough of a speed advantage to just leave - which is what they should have done - rather than fight such a mismatch.
.
Bad choice. The German 11" shells would have been like spitballs to Nelson and Rodney?
Boring. The skills of the computer enemy on lowest level and every Salvo of your ships with several deadly hits. Very realistic. 👎
@THORSTEN BOLLHURST. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Incredibly bad shooting on the german part.
Quien desarrollo el juego? El departamento de prensa de la Royal Navi? Porque esta lejos de ser real, Los viejos acorazados Ingleses estaban en perfecta posición con toda la artilleria al costado, eran lentos para correr y tambien lentos oara disoarar, solo 2 rondas por minuto, e hicieron blanco casi simpre, y ganaron 🧐. mientras que el Bismarck y su compañero eran mas modernos conmejor sistema de disparo, eran mas rapidos y tenian mqyor cafwncia de tiro, 3 rondas por minuto. Asi y todo estaban mal puestos, solo con la artilleria de proa solo la mitad de los cañones tenian disponibles, y asi no peleaban, parecia que los artileron del Bismark y su compañero, eran no videtes porque casi no le hicieron blanco a los viejos Acorazasos Ingleses.🙄🤨🧐
Nelson and rodney have 16 inch guns and took out the bismarck earlier in the game and took there time to finish off the scharnhorst, the bismarck ai did not angle correctly to use her full potential.
As usual, the AI ships make the fatal error of approaching bow-on, thus negating a very large part of their firepower. It amazes me that this problem with the AI has never been corrected by the game designers. It does allow the player to usually defeat the AI in anything like an equal match...no matter which nationality the player is commanding. Another point: The German ships have a significant speed advantage, so it is not in their interest to close the range! Better to keep things at long range, in case they get badly damaged and need to make smoke and escape. Nelson and Rodney, being slower, do not have that luxury if things start to go wrong for them.
In reality there is no way the Germans would of taken this fight on. They would of used their speed advantage and just run.
Great vid on why missiles are better.
bismark and sharnhorst missed to much bismark didnt hit anything
I have beaten Washington and Duke of York playing with Tirpitz without getting a single hit. This game is so unrelistic.
Or ur just that kind of person who 100% trusts the measurement of the AI
@@Angelthewolf HUUUUUHHHH?!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Long live the Royal Navy
wehraboos seething
Well, yeah, cause they crossed the T on them. Dar.
With such an advantage in speed neither German ship would have approached close, they would have easily controlled the engagement all things considered.
Also, why wouldn't the German ships turn to allow the aft turrets to engage? Again, they would have easily set the stage against the sluggish cows Rodney and Nelson.
Just admit your favourite battleship is an overrated POS
Lol. Look. You went on in another comment how the short, stubby Nelson and Rodney's hull shape meant they could not be fast, now you are saying they are sluggish. problem is you are counter arguing yourself. You see short, stubby ships are actually more manoeuvrable than long, slender ships. Its a function of length to beam ratio.
The Nelson and Rodney were actually very agile for 35,000 ton Battleships.
As for Bismarck, well... lets hit you with an unpleasant truth shall we? Of all of the the contemporary Battleships that were laid down and launched at around the same time, the Tirpitz and the Bismarck were hands down the worst.
The only thing they were was bigger, but the Italians got better combat power, similar speed (but shorter operational range) with 5000 tons lower displacement in the Littorios. The British got slower ships by a few knots in the KGV's but better gun power (10 tubes to 8), better actual armour (theirs was an all or nothing scheme unlike the turtleback of Bismarck which was less effective in almost every situation), and again, the British did this for 70000 tons lower displacement.
The US North Carolinas were laid down about the same time, they were only completed later because the USN decided to redesign the ships mid build for 16 inch guns rather than the 14 inch guns that had originally been planned. As a result they were commissioned later. Again, slightly slower at the same 28 knots of the KGV's. but 9 16 inch rifles compared to the Bismarcks, and again on around 7000 tons lower displacement.
The Bismarcks may have looked all powerful, but they were poorly designed and poorly optimised. With the same displacement the British, Americans and Italians would have ALL designed a far superior ship.....
But then I suppose they were not as bad as the German Z Class Destroyers, which were garbage....
The Rodney class was an absolute beast! Rule Britannia! Britannia rules the waves!🇬🇧
But Rodney’s gunnery was recorded as being atrocious ..her crew don’t believe in all of there engagements got more then a few minor hits
@@hankcalder422 Rodney is credited with causing the majority of the damage to Bismarck's superstructure.
that's why Britannia is run over by little boats from France.
In reality the Germans would have run
Really seems to be a bias toward the gunnery skills for the British as clearly history showed the Kriegsmarine had excellent gunnery skills.
They didn't score a single hit on Rodney in the real battle.
Nelson or Rodney by themselves would be able to sink both ships. The Germans would be running out the non existent door.
bismark and sharnhrost essentialy did a suicede run, never using more then hafl there guns and not staying at distance where they could have used there better gunnery, what a shamefull display
How do u download this game?
From happy mod
In this game human beats bot. If you play for Germans you will destroy both "Nelson" easily
Love it.
Oh dear.
@NGC 5139. OH MY!!!!!!. O DEE O DEE O!!!!!!!!!!!!!. GET IT?!!!!!!!!!.
It is no really
how to get the play
Prins eugen?
UK could only win in an American game
Laughs in Royal Navy superiority
is this a PC Game or an Android Game ?
Android.
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Por fin ganaron, los ingleses!!!!!!!!.
There is no need to fire from the side the Nelson class battleships have all of the on the bow
Except the 3rd Gun turret couldn’t elevate on the Nelson Class
@PREMIKA DEVI. A FULL BROADSIDE(FROM THE PROPER RANGE) WOULD BRING ALL GUNS( OR NAVAL CANNON, IF YOU WILL) TO BEAR ON THE TARGET. HOWEVER, IN THIS ENGAGEMENT, I DID NOT, REPEAT DID NOT, SEE ANY STERN TURRET(S) ON THIS NELSON CLASS BATTLESHIP. HOPEFULLY, THIS WAS AN UNINTENTIONAL OVERSIGHT(BOTH IN REAL LIFE AS WELL AS IN THE VIDEO GAME). IF NOT, THIS WAS A TRULY POORLY DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED & EQUIPPED(IN THIS CASE, ARMED) BATTLESHIP. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AND/OR SHOULD BE AT LEAST 4(NO LESS THAN 3) TRIPLE 16" OR, PREFERABLY, 18" GUNS(OR NAVAL CANNON, IF YOU WILL) MOUNTED ON THIS AND EVERY OTHER CLASS OF ALLIED BATTLESHIPS. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
@@alfiemarsh1774 THIRD TURRET COULDN'T ELEVATE, YOU SAY?!!!. THAT SITUATION NEEDS TO BE PROPERLY ADDRESSED & PROMPTLY CORRECTED, IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!!!.
done it both ways. you do it right. you win.
Bismark is missing on purpose
Cpu vs Cpu
😒 No!...
@@thetoanlam124 MAYBE, MAYBE NOT?!!!.
@ARIESKIM LUCINO. POSSIBLY, POSSIBLY NOT!!!!!!.
@@lloydacklinjr.2032 Oh shut up
As a student of war history, that was painful to watch. The German navy was far better then what this video shows, as they were far better at ranging then the British and Americans. Rate of fire was another problem, as the Germans were slower then the British and Americans.
These ships were already obsolete. The Essex Class aircraft carriers were the important naval weapon of the second world war.
Ok wehraboo. What about HMS Duke of York scoring critical hits on Scharnhorst on her first salvo or the fact that Bismarck scored no hits on any British ship in her last engagement. HMS Rodney scored a direct hit on Bismarck’s bridge within her first few salvos killing all the senior officers.
lame.. both english ships fire all weapons .. germans just the front once.. lel.. unrealitic .. and even if.. they are much faster.. easy escape... in a real fight.. the germans would smash them.
Germany have no major naval victories
🤡@@obvious-troll
@@David-wf4mh no valid response = I win
🤡@@obvious-troll
@@David-wf4mh ez wins