I think a better title for this video would have been "The most important ship the US NEVER sunk". This scenario is also assuming the Bismark wasn't upgraded after 1941. If she was still afloat in 1943 the Bismark would have had better radar than she had in '41 and by that time a very experienced crew.
Look Bismarck was Technically more advanced than anything floating around.Very accurate guns very fast for a ship that size just way beyond at that time no updates needed long term.
Right--Iowa wasn't even launched until after Bismarck was sunk. This was one of those fantasy "what if" scenarios, which I can take or leave, but I wish they'd make that clear in the captions so we don't have to wonder if Dark Docs has gone daft, or save these for April Fool's Day.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned they got the deck armor of the Iowa wrong. It uses spaced armor with the top layer being the quoted thickness. But it was designed to trigger AP shells and bombs before it hit the actual armored deck of 6 inches.
@@tommckinley111 yeah you're right, Bismark sunk on 26/27 May 1941 while the USA was still on "summer hiatus". I think this is introduced as a work of fiction, but only implies that right toward the end with a "what if" kind of summary.
@@tommckinley111yeah I was sitting here going no... Iowa didn't face Bismark, the british fleet did... wtf? Only to realize it's a "what if" at the end but they made it sound so absolute
@@MrBruinman86 It really doesn't matter what you do with the shells, but those are the original shells. Americans had much heavier shells than their European and Japanese counterparts, from light cruisers on up. Destroyers too, but that was only 5 lb heavier. The Iowa, South Dakota, and North Carolina class had a super heavy shell and a lighter shell for their main guns. For European battleships, their heaviest were 1400-1800 lb. If there had been a battle line like they were designed for, American battle ships would have just leveled anything that wasn't a Yamato.
The Bismarck had a less accurate surface radar, that was poorly placed. It disabled its own radar firing at the two British cruisers that were tailing it.
I LIKE YOUR TAKE ON THIS SANRIO IF THIS BATTLE HAD TAKEN PLACE BETWEEN THE U S AND GERMANY WITH THESE TWO SHIPS , BUT THANK GOD OUR BROTHERS AND ALIES THE BRITISH TOOK CARE OF THAT PROBLEM , AMEN !!!
Let's get real, the Royal Navy sank the Bismarck and combined British forces destroyed the Tirpitz. The USN took out the Yamato and Musashi (and others).
After Pearl everyone realised what they really needed were planes. Ships like Bismark or even Yamato represented to many assets that only needed to be sunk once.
One thing to note in this what-if that you missed. The Iowas had STS steel armor which was designed to de-cap the warhead on the incoming round much like Vickers armor. Most people forget to recognize this in what-if scenarios where the Iowas face off against other ships. The other thing that is missed is the slopping of the armored belt on the Iowas which was designed in such a way to increase the effective armor thickness of the Iowas. That slopping added an effective inch or two the armor and with the STS steel as well, increased the Iowa's effective armor scheme. The Iowas' armor was designed to repel equivalent caliber guns to what they carried.
The battleship North Carolina was originally ordered to hunt the Tirpitz but was sent to the Pacific theater instead, that would've been a great showdown.
@@828enigma6Yes I feel that NC wouldn’t fair so well against the Tirpitz! The South Dakota BB’s on the others hand would’ve been perfect matches for the Bismarck class BB’s! They were one the best battleship designs with an almost perfect balance of armor, speed, and firepower!
Been on board that ship many times. I grew up in the area where it is home-ported on display. They used to shoot the big guns off every year on the 4th of July, but the tradition was stopped sometime in the early 80's as the Wilmington waterfront started to build up. There were too many complaints of broken windows in the newer buildings across the river.
@@76629online The N.C. Battleship Museum is definitely on my bucket list! I’ve already been aboard the battleships Massachusetts and New Jersey when me and my grandpa went on our Boston to Washington road trip back in 2018! Very cool touring those ships a lot of history!
In my opinion, it would been the Tirpitz that would have been at a huge disadvantage up against the USS North Carolina. The North Carolina had a Mark 3 Fire Control Radar system, the same system that was on the USS West Virginia (Wee Vee). As an example, at the Battle of Surigao Strait, the Wee Vee picked the Japanese fleet up at 44,000 yards (22 NM), opened fire, and hit the Japanese Battleship IJN Yamashiro with her first salvo, essentially put her out of action before the Yamashiro could even get one salvo off. North Carolina and Tirpitz had similar speed (30 knots) but North Carolina would have had a HUGE advantage in locating, targeting and firing on Tirpitz long before she knew who was shooting at her. If Tirpitz chose to stay anchored in the 8km long Norwegian Kafjord Fjord, the stationary Tirpitz would have been at even more of a disadvantage with North Carolina able to "cross the T" at will from out of line of sight and pound a stationary target with nine guns while Tirpitz only able to fire back with only four guns - if she knew where she was shooting!. Tirpitz had search radar but no fire control radar - she only had the use of her float planes to direct fire out of line of sight. Also, NC had nine 16 inch guns to eight 15 inch guns on Tirpitz and the US Navy had much better screening forces (destroyers and cruisers) than the German Kreigsmarine had. US Navy had exceptionally better damage and control ship design and procedures which showed during the course of the war with a number US Navy ships surviving damage that would have sunk most enemy ships. Examples: One, The Kreigsmarine's newest cruiser Blucher was sunk in 1939 in a Norwegian Oslofjord by a two hits from a World War One 11" coastal gun and a torpedo fired from the fortress. Poor ship design and poor damage control led to a fire engulfing the ship and causing the ammunition and fuel bunkers to explode. Two, the huge Japanese carrier Taiho was sunk by ONE torpedo hit (Google Taiho to read the story) and the Japanese super carrier Shinano - build on a Yamato class Battle ship hull 69,000 tons - was sunk by four torpedo hits which caused the ship to take on so much water from lack of watertight doors that the rivets holding the bulkheads together popped from the water pressure and the ship sunk in less than six hours
The Iowa class has 9 16"50 calibre guns, the Iowa was also just getting laid down when the Bismarck got turned into a deep water coral reef. Little known fact, the Iowa had a secondary role as a commerce raiders (to go after the Japanese supply chain). Another thing, the Bomb deck of the Iowa's was 3" of STS, the main Horizontal Armour was on the 3rd deck and was between 4" and 6" thick, the bomb deck was used to slow the bomb and to initiate the fuse sequence, Iowa's also had sloped main armour, you just can't see it as the armour is internal to the outer hull unlike most other battleships. This is from the book US Battleships by Norman Friedman.
I get this is a “what if” scenario but in reality the Bismarck was already sunk but it is possible She could’ve survived until the US joined the war in the Atlantic in ‘42. In reality the newly commissioned Iowa was sent on a mission in mid 1943 to quote “block the Tirpitz” so she couldn’t rampage US convoys in the Atlantic. It was an anticipated encounter that never actually happened much like the close encounter with Yamato that Iowa’s sister ship almost had but never happened either.
Unless I'm misinformed, the Bismarck did have radar! In the navel battle in the Denmark Straight, one of the first few salvos from the Bismarcks guns knocked out her radar. Imagine the concussion from the guns needed to do that. After this battle, Prinz Eugen lead the way because her radar was intact! I have modeled the Bismarck, and saw the original British movie about the Bismarck! That was 1960, if I remember correctly!
I'm surprised Dark Docs didn't cover this. The Tesla connection. Bismark's fire control system Seetakt. 50m at 20,000km (13.7km), vs the typical optical range finding equipment of the era, which would typically be accurate to about 200 m at 20,000 m. It operated between 71 and 81 Hz with pulse peak at 500hz frequency. It certainly explained partly the accuracy of the Hood sinking. There are no statistics for the Mark 8 radar fire control system of the Iowa, except for a 1944 record setting case of straddling the Japanese destroyer Nowaki at 32.6km
Have you ever analyzed the firepower of HMS Rodney, the ship that probably inflicted most of the damage to Bismarck's main deck and superstructure? Bismarck was actually pummeled by 16-inch shells into a mangled burning hulk, but one that was actually still afloat, albeit effectively disarmed. In addition to all of this, what kind of ordnance and what amount thereof would it take to destroy the Bismarck's watertight integrity so as to sink it (it was actually scuttled as far as I know)? Would the amount of punishment that Musashi and Yamato would receive from torpedoes and aircraft bombs later in the war be enough for Bismarck to be sunk in battle? Bismarck was sure a very hard nut of an armored hull to crack.
The Germans claimed it was scuttled, but they seem to have scuttled all their ships if we believe the propaganda. let us say that, if it was scuttled, it was probably by the torpedoes of HMS Dorsetshire.
@@tomhenry897 This is my understanding as well. After all, it took several Tallboys to capsize and sink the sister ship Tirpitz. And Tallboys packed a lot more punch than either torpedoes (these were direct-impact and not proximity under-bottom detonated to create the bubble jet effect, right?) or shells.
The German battleship Bismarck was sunk in 1941. The USS battleship Iowa was launched in 1942. The Iowa class battleships were launched by the US to battle the Japanese battleship Yamato. It was sunk by Carrier based torpedo and bomber aircraft.
Sorry to say nothing was known about the design of the Yamato class ships until about mid-1942 when Musashi was spotted and photographed. Even then the estimates about guns, armor and speed were just that ... estimates. She was thought to mount a variant of the 16" gun mounted in Nagato (man, were they wrong!) It wasn't until after the war when incomplete archives and records were found in the Yokosuka shipyard offices, the Imperial Navy had ordered those records and the few photos of the two battleships and the Shinano (carrier conversion) destroyed. The three ships had been built in absolute secrecy in screened off graving docks. 18.1" main guns plus 6" and 5" secondary batteries and armor more than 20" thick with it reaching 27" on the conning tower and turret faces. To my knowledge no single other battleship including the never built Montana could engage Yamato successfully without about a ton of good luck, catching her alone in fog at long range (her radar was crap.) And yes, I know about the problem the Japanese had with their armor manufacturing process, often leaving it excessively brittle.
The main problem for Bismark would have been that the USN wouldn't have just sent an Iowa, Bismark would like to be facing something more like Iowa, Washington and Indiana.
USS Iowa came into Portsmouth Harbour in 1986 and 1989. I got on board both times for a tour around the deck. To say she was Impressive is an understatement. Very very impressive. I was very saddened to hear about the disaster of her Number Two turret. Interesting video.
If you ever come to Los Angeles, you can see her again. She's at Pier 87 in Los Angeles Harbor and is a museum ship. Did you get to see Franklin Roosevelt's bathtub? He used her to sail to one of his wartime conferences. Because of this she's known as the Battleship of the Presidents.
I believe Bismarcks deck armour was no stronger than in the RN or USN. However, it was several decks lower so, whilst making much harder to sink it was easier to put it out of action. Once out of action it’s a moot point how hard it was to sink.
The Bismarck's armoured citadel was too small for the overall size of the ship. So even if it remained completely intact it would have had insufficient buoyancy to keep the ship afloat if the less well protected parts of the ship had been progressively flooded.
Bismarck was battered by the 14" of HMS King George V and 16" of HMS Rodney after being damaged by HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales. It took that many capital ships to sink the Bismarck proved it was a tough battleship to be neutralized.
It was British torpedo bombers from the HMS Ark Royal that damaged the Bismark so that the rest of the fleet could come in and sink her. After the torpedo bombers disabled the Bismark they wanted to finish her off but were told to stand down so the surface craft could finish her off.
@@marktuttle3609 Yes, that fateful rudder jam from the torpedo hit sent Bismarck to her ultimate doom. I can imagine as a sailor's fear onboard knowing their ship was sailing to its destruction... sigh.
@@TaichoCyclistGermany must have really not cared about the Bismarck. They could've sent U-boats to her area to rile up the attacking ships or sink a few.
Not like dark seas to use clickbait titles, the US navy never even SAW Bismark let alone engaged her in combat, at the time the Bismark was sunk the US wasnt even IN the war yet preferring to remain an isolationist neutral until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour and Hitler declaring war on the US straight after it, all this SEVEN MONTHS after she had effectively been dealt with by two Royal Navy battleships resulting in her being dead in the water and slowly sinking, eventually being scuttled by her crew to prevent the British from capturing her.
Your thumbnail is misleading and your conclusions are unlikely. If Bismark had reached a "safe" harbor in France after the Battle of the Denmark Strait, the RAF would have bombed it incessantly until it was damaged beyond repair or sunk.
Should have labeled it as a what if video. Almost made me choke on my coffee.😂 The curator of the New Jersey has a good video out comparing the Iowas to the Bismarck. Good video also, recommend it as well.
@5:26 thats not the Hood blowing up. It's the detonation of the magazines of HMS Barham, a Queen Eliabeth class battleship, on 25th November 1941. She had been torpedoed by the German submarine U-331 commanded by Oberleutnant zur See Hans-Diedrich von Tiesenhausen. The footage is one of the most dramatic and oft-repeated film clips of WW2. It was shot by Pathé News cameraman, John Turner, who was on board Barham's sister ship HMS Valiant.
There are two facts regarding Battleships that are woth mentioning. Battleships, and to some extent Battlecruisers, where always built by the idea: "outgun what you can't outrun, and outrun what you can't outgun" in the battle that took place between Bismarck and the Royal Navy that idea can be seen pretty well, as Bismarck was able to both outrun and outgun British Battleships of the King George V class, as Bismarck had both bigger guns (15" compared to British 14") and higher speed (30 Knots vs 28), even though the Royal Navy Battleships had greater number of guns, 10 in the King George V class, and 9 in Nelson class. In a comparison between Bismarck and Iowa, Iowa is able to both outgun (16" guns vs 15" Guns) and outrun Bismarck (33 Kntos vs 30); but when it comes to an Iowa vs Yamato, Yamato wins in terms of outgun as she posses 18.1" Guns, compared to Iowa 16", but no one of the two can outgun the opponent in terms of Main Guns numbers as both possesed 9 Main Guns; in terms of speed Yamato looses against Iowa as the ship had rather crappy speed for the time being able to reach a maximum speed of 27.5 Kntos, barley 2.5 Knots faster than the Nagato class Super Dreadnoughts; while Iowa sported the highest speed of all battleships at a wopping 33 Knots. In the end while the Yamato class could have been able to sink all US Battleships, as they posessed bigger Guns and thicker (don't know if better) armor; the slow speed, comparable to that of the South Dakota class, and not so strong AA defenses doomed them to be sunk by US carriers using Dive and Torpedo Bombers.
For all it's fancy nonsense, the Bismarck was disabled by cloth-winged torpedo biplanes and then finished off by the Royal Navy's big guns in May 1941. Comparisons to Iowa Class ships isn't really apt, since not only were the Iowas better engineered, but they also weren't sent out with only one accompanying cruiser to hunt merchant shipping. American strategic naval thinking didn't use ships as one-and-done throwaway gadgets but integrated them in larger task forces.
I realize this is a "What IF" scenario kind of thing but the only NEW USN battleship in service when Bismarck was sunk was USS North Carolina (BB 55) and Washington (BB 56,) but they were nowhere near ready for combat. They were still in post commissioning "shakedown" and trials, even less ready than Prince of Wales whose story most of us are familiar with. That said, on paper at least the NC class was a close match for Bismarck, 27 knot top speed, 35,000 tons standard displacement, 9 Mk-6 16"/45 caliber main guns with 10 twin 5"/38 mounts. Her armor was not quite as heavy as the German ship but her main battery could reach out over 20 miles and hit harder than Bismarck's 8-15" Krupp guns. NC's sister USS Washington (BB 56) was deployed after her commissioning and training to Scapa Flow where she was thought to be able to take on Tirpitz but that never happened of course. Instead, she later met IJN Kirishima off Savo Island near Guadalcanal in a barroom brawl sea fight where she proceeded to tear the older battleship apart after identifying her target in the darkness, not a fair fight but one of the very few BB vs BB actions in the Pacific war.
0:38 "Iowa"s sonar" What a joke! I don't know for certain if any battleship had sonar but I do know that their "own ships noise" would make it impossible for them to hear anything unless they went DIW (Dead In the Water) and shut down most of their machinery. Imagine going to a large stadium for a game, everybody's shouting and cheering. Now imagine trying to listen in to a conversation on the other side of the field. Radar wasn't the only advantage we had over the Bismarck. We had analog fire control computers that took in raw radar bearings and ranges along with own ships speed and course inputs, wind speed and bearing, atmospheric pressure, humidity and barrel wear to account for changes in muzzle velocity for each gun tube. It would then compute the ballistics for each gun and transmit this info to each turret. This would in turn point each turret and elevate each gun tube, allowing for the range and movements of each ship and you could then shoot and the computer kept a running plot during the engagement. We also had radars that would detect shell splashes so we could correct our fire. The Germans had inferior radar and antiquated fire control. They still relied on visual gunfire directors on the mastheads and used primitive computers. Iowa class would would have cleaned the Bismarck's clock in both a daytime and nighttime engagement because of her superior fire control equipment. American fire control equipment for gunfire and torpedoes was superior to the rest of the world after about 1940. German engineering superiority was a myth created by Britain to explain their naval loses in WW1 and WW2. You tell your stories with lots of drama but you don't know squat about reality
The USA should build 2 or 3 Grand Battleships with 12 - 20 foot guns. A True battleship is long overdue and there’s still a need for such a WAR Machine
This video is a complete FAIRY TALE. The Bismark was sunk by the British Royal Navy in the Atlantic before the Iowa entered service in the Pacific. Arguments about thickness of armour etc are completely irrelevant - dream on ! ! !
Is this a joke you must know that the Bismark was sunk by the British Royal Navy right? It was sunk by the British battleships King George V and Rodney supported by the heavy cruisers Norfolk and Dorsetshire and planes from the Ark Royal Aircraft Carrier.
This mistitled video is well below what I expect from the channel, and frankly is BS. While the video had clips of the Rodney/Nelson neither ship was mentioned in the comparisons. And later the video posits about what could happen if Germany had continued building battleships after the war started, does not seem to have been in the cards. And if, as some do, the war had started later Germany may have built more battleships, but ignored the British warship construction plans. They would have built new battleships too.
Of course, this does beg the question, of how the Iowa class would have fared against Yamato and Musashi, without air support, had Japan ever actually staffed those monsters with experienced staff and sailors. I expect that will be the next 'what if' video?
Yamato and Musashi's armor was thick, but poor quality steel, very brittle. The USN tested the Japanese armor after the war and the 16" shells penetrated it. And example from the tests is still on display at the Naval Academy. Another factor, The higher velocity shells from the American 16" 50 caliber shells actually had better penetration than the 18.1" shells fired by the Japanese ships. Additionally the Iowas had far superior fire control radar, and invariably, would have probably been trained by and had Admiral Ching Lee in command. Results would probably have been the same. Yamato and Musashi sunk.
On a clear daytime battle, Yamato and Musashi would of had a range advantage with it's guns. But still overly dependent on optics to determine range and assist with firing solutions. Iowa's had radar to assist with tracking targets and firing solutions, lots of experience with using those radars by later 43/44 when a battle of these titans could of taken place, and also very accurate guns with it's manual fire control computers. In cloudy or night time engagement, the Japanese advantages with range would be been neutralized.
My problem with these "what if" scenarios is they are solely based on stats, biggest guns, longest range, best equipment, fastest speed, etc.... They dont account for that one in a thousand hit striking a magazine, disabling a boiler or the superior tactics of one CO over the other or one crew over the other. While the comparisons are interesting they basically boil down to a ship to ship slug fest to see which can last longest.
I remember passing down from 2nd deck to 3rd deck on the USS Iowa and those armored hatches were absolutely 5" thick not 3.9" the armored citadel was 17.2" from main deck to the 05 level, but the turret faces won the contest at 19" there is a pock mark on the side of turret 2 that's about 4.7" round and .25" deep from a Japanese shell.
Germany did not have the resources to build a surface fleet of capital ships large enough to challenge the Royal Navy. The capture of the British Isles may not have stopped the British Empire from fighting on. Germany went to war without enough submarines to destroy the British merchant marine.
Some of the comments…I can’t believe it. There’s a “what if” in the transcript but it occurs- to my defiled attention span, anyway, at 8:16 minute mark. “The US was not involved [in the Bismarck sinking]” No they weren’t. But the what if for another day might be “what if FDR had not been able to lend the RN those Catalina surveillance planes that helped locate the Bismarck after she went missing?” I’m sure the RN would have handled things. Or perhaps another encounter happens, this time with either the So Dakota or Washington (what if, remember?)
@@dovetonsturdee7033 pardon me. I guess the bigger snag was that some of the pilots sent to familiarize the Brit pilots to the Cat were actually involved in finding the Bismarck- Tuck Smith for instance, sent in late March ‘41- just weeks after Lend Lease was enacted
Hood wasn't a battleship, she was a battlecruiser, which makes a huge difference. Battlecruisers, while fast and armed like battleships, were very lightly armoured. Designed mainly to take on commerce raiders and enemy cruisers, they were never intended to be in the line of battle against battleships. It also didn't help that King George V was still no completed when she sailed. In fact she sailed with dockyard workers onboard trying to complete her main armament, among other things.
The HMS Hood was scheduled for a major armour upgrade in 1936-37 but the guv chose not to. Much like the Scorpion loss in the US in 1968. She was not SUBSAFE certified even though the USN knew she was unsafe. Similar to the loss of the York.
Nice what if scenario, but I would advise you to better try another one, more likely to happen. PQ-17 doesnt disband, Germans sortie Tirpitz to intercept and USS Washington leading the distant covering force gets to fight her.
Germany never got a chance to learn all the lessons about carrier damage control that the US learned (and that the Japanese mostly failed to learn) during the war. Engineers examined the wreck of the Graf Zeppelin (the Soviets had used it for target practice) after the war; it basically would have exploded the first time it came under attack. Think of how Akagi got taken out by a single bomb hit, except the GZ would have been doomed by a hit almost anywhere on the ship
Well, talking about the Bismarck you failed to mention the major ballast issue with that ship that limited what she could actually do, it was also an issue with their other ship also.
It’s worth remembering in these war game scenarios that the Bismarck could have done it’s foray into the Atlantic a thousand times - only one of which would have her rudder hit by a torpedo and forced into a turn position.
Not sure about of the point about this 'Dark Seas', but arguably the most important ships the US ever harmed were the Shōkaku and the Zuikaku at Coral Sea.
The battleship Bismarck was sunk in May 19 41 long before the Americans entered into the war after the attack at Pearl Harbour I have never ever heard any indication that there were any American battleships anywhere near the Bismarck. I think this whole story Hass to be considered bullshit.
Bismarck did have 2 different types of radar. Iowa and Bismarck never faced off. German Radar would have improved by 1943 making this whole thing a moot point.
'Americans were not involved.' Surely, 'Not Yet'. Doubtless a remake of the Action is on the cards. If made by Disney, a transgender crew aboard Iowa, commanded by Denzel Washington, will deal with Bismarck. In this, however, Bismarck's captain will survive, and begin a loving, same sex, relationship with the captain of Iowa. All this whilst Admiral Joan Tovey, played by Helen Mirren, and HMS Rodney, captained by Idris Elba, gaze on admiringly at American prowess. Later, Winston Churchill (Lenny Henry) sends a personal letter of thanks to FDR. My services as a scriptwriter are available, for an agreed fee.
I think a better title for this video would have been "The most important ship the US NEVER sunk". This scenario is also assuming the Bismark wasn't upgraded after 1941. If she was still afloat in 1943 the Bismark would have had better radar than she had in '41 and by that time a very experienced crew.
Look Bismarck was Technically more advanced than anything floating around.Very accurate guns very fast for a ship that size just way beyond at that time no updates needed long term.
The Iowa wasn’t even close to being ready when the Bismarck was sunk.
Right--Iowa wasn't even launched until after Bismarck was sunk. This was one of those fantasy "what if" scenarios, which I can take or leave, but I wish they'd make that clear in the captions so we don't have to wonder if Dark Docs has gone daft, or save these for April Fool's Day.
Don't have the attention span to watch more than the first two minutes, huh? 😊
@cmdrflake This YT channel host is totally ignorant click bait character.
WHat happend to HMS RODNEY, HMS KING GEOEGE V and the cruisers >HMS DORSETSHIRE and HMS NORFOLK ? Where they off to a pic nick?
Exactly! Bismarck was sunk before the U.S. even got in world war II.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned they got the deck armor of the Iowa wrong. It uses spaced armor with the top layer being the quoted thickness. But it was designed to trigger AP shells and bombs before it hit the actual armored deck of 6 inches.
They got a whole lot more than that wrong, 1943 - Bismarck was sunk in 1941.
@@tommckinley111 yeah you're right, Bismark sunk on 26/27 May 1941 while the USA was still on "summer hiatus". I think this is introduced as a work of fiction, but only implies that right toward the end with a "what if" kind of summary.
@@tommckinley111yeah I was sitting here going no... Iowa didn't face Bismark, the british fleet did... wtf? Only to realize it's a "what if" at the end but they made it sound so absolute
Iowa's 16 incurred could shoot 2750 lb Armor Piercing shells 23 miles. I was a fire controlman in USN for over 13 years
ew surface fleet
Are we talking 1940's shells or modern shells?
The shells from the 40's are the same used in the 90's. There wasn't a need to make new ones as the Navy still had a sizable stockpile.@@MrBruinman86
@@MrBruinman86 It really doesn't matter what you do with the shells, but those are the original shells.
Americans had much heavier shells than their European and Japanese counterparts, from light cruisers on up. Destroyers too, but that was only 5 lb heavier.
The Iowa, South Dakota, and North Carolina class had a super heavy shell and a lighter shell for their main guns. For European battleships, their heaviest were 1400-1800 lb.
If there had been a battle line like they were designed for, American battle ships would have just leveled anything that wasn't a Yamato.
The Bismarck had a less accurate surface radar, that was poorly placed. It disabled its own radar firing at the two British cruisers that were tailing it.
I LIKE YOUR TAKE ON THIS SANRIO IF THIS BATTLE HAD TAKEN PLACE BETWEEN THE U S AND GERMANY WITH THESE TWO SHIPS , BUT THANK GOD OUR BROTHERS AND ALIES THE BRITISH TOOK CARE OF THAT PROBLEM , AMEN !!!
scenario
O K MY ERROR. THANKS. JAMES
Let's get real, the Royal Navy sank the Bismarck and combined British forces destroyed the Tirpitz. The USN took out the Yamato and Musashi (and others).
After Pearl everyone realised what they really needed were planes. Ships like Bismark or even Yamato represented to many assets that only needed to be sunk once.
One thing to note in this what-if that you missed. The Iowas had STS steel armor which was designed to de-cap the warhead on the incoming round much like Vickers armor. Most people forget to recognize this in what-if scenarios where the Iowas face off against other ships.
The other thing that is missed is the slopping of the armored belt on the Iowas which was designed in such a way to increase the effective armor thickness of the Iowas. That slopping added an effective inch or two the armor and with the STS steel as well, increased the Iowa's effective armor scheme. The Iowas' armor was designed to repel equivalent caliber guns to what they carried.
Wow, people missed the fact that this is a what-if video.
At first I was wondering what the heck he was on about.
They missed it because he is absolutely useless at writing normal and understandable titles and properly explaining at the videos.
Nothing new....
This was nothing but CLICKBAIT! "IF this & IF that!!! If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its butt on the ground!
How are you surprised people would thing a video was factual from a channel like this?
11 mins and 29 seconds of my life that I can't get back.
As will be with almost all Dark Seas, Dark Sky and Dark Docs features!
The battleship North Carolina was originally ordered to hunt the Tirpitz but was sent to the Pacific theater instead, that would've been a great showdown.
Indeed, but it was a blessing to the men of the USS NC that they didn't.
@@828enigma6Yes I feel that NC wouldn’t fair so well against the Tirpitz! The South Dakota BB’s on the others hand would’ve been perfect matches for the Bismarck class BB’s! They were one the best battleship designs with an almost perfect balance of armor, speed, and firepower!
Been on board that ship many times. I grew up in the area where it is home-ported on display. They used to shoot the big guns off every year on the 4th of July, but the tradition was stopped sometime in the early 80's as the Wilmington waterfront started to build up. There were too many complaints of broken windows in the newer buildings across the river.
@@76629online The N.C. Battleship Museum is definitely on my bucket list! I’ve already been aboard the battleships Massachusetts and New Jersey when me and my grandpa went on our Boston to Washington road trip back in 2018! Very cool touring those ships a lot of history!
In my opinion, it would been the Tirpitz that would have been at a huge disadvantage up against the USS North Carolina. The North Carolina had a Mark 3 Fire Control Radar system, the same system that was on the USS West Virginia (Wee Vee). As an example, at the Battle of Surigao Strait, the Wee Vee picked the Japanese fleet up at 44,000 yards (22 NM), opened fire, and hit the Japanese Battleship IJN Yamashiro with her first salvo, essentially put her out of action before the Yamashiro could even get one salvo off. North Carolina and Tirpitz had similar speed (30 knots) but North Carolina would have had a HUGE advantage in locating, targeting and firing on Tirpitz long before she knew who was shooting at her. If Tirpitz chose to stay anchored in the 8km long Norwegian Kafjord Fjord, the stationary Tirpitz would have been at even more of a disadvantage with North Carolina able to "cross the T" at will from out of line of sight and pound a stationary target with nine guns while Tirpitz only able to fire back with only four guns - if she knew where she was shooting!. Tirpitz had search radar but no fire control radar - she only had the use of her float planes to direct fire out of line of sight. Also, NC had nine 16 inch guns to eight 15 inch guns on Tirpitz and the US Navy had much better screening forces (destroyers and cruisers) than the German Kreigsmarine had. US Navy had exceptionally better damage and control ship design and procedures which showed during the course of the war with a number US Navy ships surviving damage that would have sunk most enemy ships. Examples: One, The Kreigsmarine's newest cruiser Blucher was sunk in 1939 in a Norwegian Oslofjord by a two hits from a World War One 11" coastal gun and a torpedo fired from the fortress. Poor ship design and poor damage control led to a fire engulfing the ship and causing the ammunition and fuel bunkers to explode. Two, the huge Japanese carrier Taiho was sunk by ONE torpedo hit (Google Taiho to read the story) and the Japanese super carrier Shinano - build on a Yamato class Battle ship hull 69,000 tons - was sunk by four torpedo hits which caused the ship to take on so much water from lack of watertight doors that the rivets holding the bulkheads together popped from the water pressure and the ship sunk in less than six hours
The Iowa class has 9 16"50 calibre guns, the Iowa was also just getting laid down when the Bismarck got turned into a deep water coral reef. Little known fact, the Iowa had a secondary role as a commerce raiders (to go after the Japanese supply chain). Another thing, the Bomb deck of the Iowa's was 3" of STS, the main Horizontal Armour was on the 3rd deck and was between 4" and 6" thick, the bomb deck was used to slow the bomb and to initiate the fuse sequence, Iowa's also had sloped main armour, you just can't see it as the armour is internal to the outer hull unlike most other battleships. This is from the book US Battleships by Norman Friedman.
maybe re-title so that so many that have no clue what they are saying and can't figure out it is a "WHAT IF" scenario can figure it out
HMS Hood was a battlecruiser, not a battleship. It had much less armor than a battleship.
Hood's armour was equal to that of a Queen Elizabeth class battleship.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Absolutely correct
Equal to a WWI Battleship? Which had thinner deck armor?
@@edtrine8692 Neither, Hood - 3 inches. Queen Elizabeth - 3 inches.
For comparison, Iron Duke - 2.5 inches. Arizona - 3 inches.
Kaiser - 2 inches. Konig - 1.8 inches. Lorraine - 2.8 inches.
Caio Duilio - 1.6 inches. Viribus Unitis - 1.9 inches.
Gangut - 1,5 inches.
I read the title as ...'never' sunk. Thinking this would be about Prinz Eugen.
I get this is a “what if” scenario but in reality the Bismarck was already sunk but it is possible She could’ve survived until the US joined the war in the Atlantic in ‘42. In reality the newly commissioned Iowa was sent on a mission in mid 1943 to quote “block the Tirpitz” so she couldn’t rampage US convoys in the Atlantic. It was an anticipated encounter that never actually happened much like the close encounter with Yamato that Iowa’s sister ship almost had but never happened either.
Unless I'm misinformed, the Bismarck did have radar! In the navel battle in the Denmark Straight, one of
the first few salvos from the Bismarcks guns knocked out her radar. Imagine the concussion from the guns
needed to do that. After this battle, Prinz Eugen lead the way because her radar was intact! I have
modeled the Bismarck, and saw the original British movie about the Bismarck! That was 1960, if I
remember correctly!
naval*
I'm surprised Dark Docs didn't cover this. The Tesla connection. Bismark's fire control system Seetakt. 50m at 20,000km (13.7km), vs the typical optical range finding equipment of the era, which would typically be accurate to about 200 m at 20,000 m. It operated between 71 and 81 Hz with pulse peak at 500hz frequency. It certainly explained partly the accuracy of the Hood sinking. There are no statistics for the Mark 8 radar fire control system of the Iowa, except for a 1944 record setting case of straddling the Japanese destroyer Nowaki at 32.6km
The Bismark was sunk in May 1941, at whihc time the US was not at war. The USS Iowa was launched the following year
The USS Iowa was Commissioned on 22 feb 1943.
Have you ever analyzed the firepower of HMS Rodney, the ship that probably inflicted most of the damage to Bismarck's main deck and superstructure? Bismarck was actually pummeled by 16-inch shells into a mangled burning hulk, but one that was actually still afloat, albeit effectively disarmed.
In addition to all of this, what kind of ordnance and what amount thereof would it take to destroy the Bismarck's watertight integrity so as to sink it (it was actually scuttled as far as I know)? Would the amount of punishment that Musashi and Yamato would receive from torpedoes and aircraft bombs later in the war be enough for Bismarck to be sunk in battle? Bismarck was sure a very hard nut of an armored hull to crack.
yes, but the Bismarck was sinking.
The Germans claimed it was scuttled, but they seem to have scuttled all their ships if we believe the propaganda. let us say that, if it was scuttled, it was probably by the torpedoes of HMS Dorsetshire.
Bismarck used better steel then used by everyone else
Wrong
When a deep,sub went down showed scuttled not sunk
@@tomhenry897 This is my understanding as well. After all, it took several Tallboys to capsize and sink the sister ship Tirpitz. And Tallboys packed a lot more punch than either torpedoes (these were direct-impact and not proximity under-bottom detonated to create the bubble jet effect, right?) or shells.
The German battleship Bismarck was sunk in 1941.
The USS battleship Iowa was launched in 1942.
The Iowa class battleships were launched by the US to battle the Japanese battleship Yamato. It was sunk by Carrier based torpedo and bomber aircraft.
Sorry to say nothing was known about the design of the Yamato class ships until about mid-1942 when Musashi was spotted and photographed. Even then the estimates about guns, armor and speed were just that ... estimates. She was thought to mount a variant of the 16" gun mounted in Nagato (man, were they wrong!) It wasn't until after the war when incomplete archives and records were found in the Yokosuka shipyard offices, the Imperial Navy had ordered those records and the few photos of the two battleships and the Shinano (carrier conversion) destroyed. The three ships had been built in absolute secrecy in screened off graving docks. 18.1" main guns plus 6" and 5" secondary batteries and armor more than 20" thick with it reaching 27" on the conning tower and turret faces. To my knowledge no single other battleship including the never built Montana could engage Yamato successfully without about a ton of good luck, catching her alone in fog at long range (her radar was crap.)
And yes, I know about the problem the Japanese had with their armor manufacturing process, often leaving it excessively brittle.
As long as you don't believe that this ever happened.
BISMARCK - sunk by the Royal Navy 27th May 1941.
USS IOWA - commissioned 22nd February 1943
Yes, as we were reminded by Mr. Johnny Horton.
Love this, regardless of some timeline differences, this is obviously for alternative history enjoyment, and this one is excellent!
The main problem for Bismark would have been that the USN wouldn't have just sent an Iowa, Bismark would like to be facing something more like Iowa, Washington and Indiana.
and dont forget about the North Carolina and her 16in turrets
No the problem was by 1943 the Bismarck had been at the bottom of the ocean for 2 years.
And a nice squadron of destroyers and cruisers
Classic click bait title. It speaks about a real battle that happened, while the whole scenario is nothing but an imagination. Shame on you.
USS Iowa came into Portsmouth Harbour in 1986 and 1989. I got on board both times for a tour around the deck.
To say she was Impressive is an understatement.
Very very impressive.
I was very saddened to hear about the disaster of her Number Two turret.
Interesting video.
If you ever come to Los Angeles, you can see her again. She's at Pier 87 in Los Angeles Harbor and is a museum ship. Did you get to see Franklin Roosevelt's bathtub? He used her to sail to one of his wartime conferences. Because of this she's known as the Battleship of the Presidents.
I've been on the Iowa and the Missouri. Those guns are awesome.
@@pedalboy Thankyou, No, we were only allowed to roam the main deck. I would LOVE to have had a look inside a main turret. :)
@@fredericksaxton3991 Come to LA and see her again. You will be in awe
I toured the NJ
The armor around the bridge was ridiculous
I believe Bismarcks deck armour was no stronger than in the RN or USN. However, it was several decks lower so, whilst making much harder to sink it was easier to put it out of action. Once out of action it’s a moot point how hard it was to sink.
The Bismarck's armoured citadel was too small for the overall size of the ship. So even if it remained completely intact it would have had insufficient buoyancy to keep the ship afloat if the less well protected parts of the ship had been progressively flooded.
Bismarck was battered by the 14" of HMS King George V and 16" of HMS Rodney after being damaged by HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales. It took that many capital ships to sink the Bismarck proved it was a tough battleship to be neutralized.
Exactly. This seems to be yet another example of "How America won the war"!
It was British torpedo bombers from the HMS Ark Royal that damaged the Bismark so that the rest of the fleet could come in and sink her. After the torpedo bombers disabled the Bismark they wanted to finish her off but were told to stand down so the surface craft could finish her off.
@@marktuttle3609 Yes, that fateful rudder jam from the torpedo hit sent Bismarck to her ultimate doom.
I can imagine as a sailor's fear onboard knowing their ship was sailing to its destruction... sigh.
@@marktuttle3609Correct, it was only one lucky hit that got her. In reality she should've sunk the Prince of Whales.
@@TaichoCyclistGermany must have really not cared about the Bismarck. They could've sent U-boats to her area to rile up the attacking ships or sink a few.
Not like dark seas to use clickbait titles, the US navy never even SAW Bismark let alone engaged her in combat,
at the time the Bismark was sunk the US wasnt even IN the war yet preferring to remain an isolationist neutral until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour and Hitler declaring war on the US straight after it, all this SEVEN MONTHS after she had effectively been dealt with by two Royal Navy battleships resulting in her being dead in the water and slowly sinking, eventually being scuttled by her crew to prevent the British from capturing her.
The Bismarck was sunk before the Iowa was commissioned? Try Tirpitz?
The Bismarck was at the bottom of the Atlantic a year before Iowa was even built !!!!! It was sunk by the British I was told .
even the fantasy of this showdown gives me goosebumps
Remember that Bismarck sunk Hood with just 1 hit while it was poor visibility and great distance.
You know itd be a good idea it put "What If" in the title.
Look ma , World of warships 1v1 😂😂😂
That this was a "What-if" should have been in the title. I almost clicked the do not show button and reported as click bait.
LOOVE how these ships are FEARLESS!
Iowa didn't have sonar, cruisers normally didn't either. I doubt Bismarck had torpedo tubes.
correct no torpedoes however the Tirpitz got some later.
The Love Boat was armed with 24x21 inch guns.
She was exciting and new.
Just damn!
This sounds like the what if arguments we had when i was in highschool.
Your thumbnail is misleading and your conclusions are unlikely. If Bismark had reached a "safe" harbor in France after the Battle of the Denmark Strait, the RAF would have bombed it incessantly until it was damaged beyond repair or sunk.
Yes. Bomber Commands target selection process would have been greatly simplified...
Should have labeled it as a what if video. Almost made me choke on my coffee.😂 The curator of the New Jersey has a good video out comparing the Iowas to the Bismarck. Good video also, recommend it as well.
Bismarck was sunk by the British Royal Navy in May 1941
@5:26 thats not the Hood blowing up. It's the detonation of the magazines of HMS Barham, a Queen Eliabeth class battleship, on 25th November 1941. She had been torpedoed by the German submarine U-331 commanded by Oberleutnant zur See Hans-Diedrich von Tiesenhausen. The footage is one of the most dramatic and oft-repeated film clips of WW2. It was shot by Pathé News cameraman, John Turner, who was on board Barham's sister ship HMS Valiant.
There are two facts regarding Battleships that are woth mentioning. Battleships, and to some extent Battlecruisers, where always built by the idea: "outgun what you can't outrun, and outrun what you can't outgun" in the battle that took place between Bismarck and the Royal Navy that idea can be seen pretty well, as Bismarck was able to both outrun and outgun British Battleships of the King George V class, as Bismarck had both bigger guns (15" compared to British 14") and higher speed (30 Knots vs 28), even though the Royal Navy Battleships had greater number of guns, 10 in the King George V class, and 9 in Nelson class. In a comparison between Bismarck and Iowa, Iowa is able to both outgun (16" guns vs 15" Guns) and outrun Bismarck (33 Kntos vs 30); but when it comes to an Iowa vs Yamato, Yamato wins in terms of outgun as she posses 18.1" Guns, compared to Iowa 16", but no one of the two can outgun the opponent in terms of Main Guns numbers as both possesed 9 Main Guns; in terms of speed Yamato looses against Iowa as the ship had rather crappy speed for the time being able to reach a maximum speed of 27.5 Kntos, barley 2.5 Knots faster than the Nagato class Super Dreadnoughts; while Iowa sported the highest speed of all battleships at a wopping 33 Knots. In the end while the Yamato class could have been able to sink all US Battleships, as they posessed bigger Guns and thicker (don't know if better) armor; the slow speed, comparable to that of the South Dakota class, and not so strong AA defenses doomed them to be sunk by US carriers using Dive and Torpedo Bombers.
Bismarck was sunk before Iowa was even completed.
For all it's fancy nonsense, the Bismarck was disabled by cloth-winged torpedo biplanes and then finished off by the Royal Navy's big guns in May 1941. Comparisons to Iowa Class ships isn't really apt, since not only were the Iowas better engineered, but they also weren't sent out with only one accompanying cruiser to hunt merchant shipping. American strategic naval thinking didn't use ships as one-and-done throwaway gadgets but integrated them in larger task forces.
This is equally as 'factual'
as most Hollywood WWII movies
I realize this is a "What IF" scenario kind of thing but the only NEW USN battleship in service when Bismarck was sunk was USS North Carolina (BB 55) and Washington (BB 56,) but they were nowhere near ready for combat. They were still in post commissioning "shakedown" and trials, even less ready than Prince of Wales whose story most of us are familiar with.
That said, on paper at least the NC class was a close match for Bismarck, 27 knot top speed, 35,000 tons standard displacement, 9 Mk-6 16"/45 caliber main guns with 10 twin 5"/38 mounts. Her armor was not quite as heavy as the German ship but her main battery could reach out over 20 miles and hit harder than Bismarck's 8-15" Krupp guns.
NC's sister USS Washington (BB 56) was deployed after her commissioning and training to Scapa Flow where she was thought to be able to take on Tirpitz but that never happened of course. Instead, she later met IJN Kirishima off Savo Island near Guadalcanal in a barroom brawl sea fight where she proceeded to tear the older battleship apart after identifying her target in the darkness, not a fair fight but one of the very few BB vs BB actions in the Pacific war.
LMFAO! Battleship sighted on SONAR, sir!
0:38 "Iowa"s sonar" What a joke! I don't know for certain if any battleship had sonar but I do know that their "own ships noise" would make it impossible for them to hear anything unless they went DIW (Dead In the Water) and shut down most of their machinery. Imagine going to a large stadium for a game, everybody's shouting and cheering. Now imagine trying to listen in to a conversation on the other side of the field. Radar wasn't the only advantage we had over the Bismarck. We had analog fire control computers that took in raw radar bearings and ranges along with own ships speed and course inputs, wind speed and bearing, atmospheric pressure, humidity and barrel wear to account for changes in muzzle velocity for each gun tube. It would then compute the ballistics for each gun and transmit this info to each turret. This would in turn point each turret and elevate each gun tube, allowing for the range and movements of each ship and you could then shoot and the computer kept a running plot during the engagement. We also had radars that would detect shell splashes so we could correct our fire. The Germans had inferior radar and antiquated fire control. They still relied on visual gunfire directors on the mastheads and used primitive computers. Iowa class would would have cleaned the Bismarck's clock in both a daytime and nighttime engagement because of her superior fire control equipment. American fire control equipment for gunfire and torpedoes was superior to the rest of the world after about 1940. German engineering superiority was a myth created by Britain to explain their naval loses in WW1 and WW2. You tell your stories with lots of drama but you don't know squat about reality
Maybe it was a tow behind sonar? Those did exist ...
The USA should build 2 or 3 Grand Battleships with 12 - 20 foot guns. A True battleship is long overdue and there’s still a need for such a WAR Machine
This video is a complete FAIRY TALE. The Bismark was sunk by the British Royal Navy in the Atlantic before the Iowa entered service in the Pacific. Arguments about thickness of armour etc are completely irrelevant - dream on ! ! !
I’ll pick the ship commanded by Willis Lee every time.
Another great video 👍
😂😂
Is this a joke you must know that the Bismark was sunk by the British Royal Navy right? It was sunk by the British battleships King George V and Rodney supported by the heavy cruisers Norfolk and Dorsetshire and planes from the Ark Royal Aircraft Carrier.
This mistitled video is well below what I expect from the channel, and frankly is BS. While the video had clips of the Rodney/Nelson neither ship was mentioned in the comparisons. And later the video posits about what could happen if Germany had continued building battleships after the war started, does not seem to have been in the cards. And if, as some do, the war had started later Germany may have built more battleships, but ignored the British warship construction plans. They would have built new battleships too.
Well said, It represents kind of thinking that Americans did everything......
Great show
Of course, this does beg the question, of how the Iowa class would have fared against Yamato and Musashi, without air support, had Japan ever actually staffed those monsters with experienced staff and sailors. I expect that will be the next 'what if' video?
I believe this is a hypothetical narrative in case they HAD ever fought.
Yamato and Musashi's armor was thick, but poor quality steel, very brittle. The USN tested the Japanese armor after the war and the 16" shells penetrated it. And example from the tests is still on display at the Naval Academy. Another factor, The higher velocity shells from the American 16" 50 caliber shells actually had better penetration than the 18.1" shells fired by the Japanese ships. Additionally the Iowas had far superior fire control radar, and invariably, would have probably been trained by and had Admiral Ching Lee in command. Results would probably have been the same. Yamato and Musashi sunk.
On a clear daytime battle, Yamato and Musashi would of had a range advantage with it's guns. But still overly dependent on optics to determine range and assist with firing solutions. Iowa's had radar to assist with tracking targets and firing solutions, lots of experience with using those radars by later 43/44 when a battle of these titans could of taken place, and also very accurate guns with it's manual fire control computers. In cloudy or night time engagement, the Japanese advantages with range would be been neutralized.
Quite well, there was two Iowa class ships involved in the battle of Leyte Gulf.
My problem with these "what if" scenarios is they are solely based on stats, biggest guns, longest range, best equipment, fastest speed, etc.... They dont account for that one in a thousand hit striking a magazine, disabling a boiler or the superior tactics of one CO over the other or one crew over the other. While the comparisons are interesting they basically boil down to a ship to ship slug fest to see which can last longest.
I remember passing down from 2nd deck to 3rd deck on the USS Iowa and those armored hatches were absolutely 5" thick not 3.9" the armored citadel was 17.2" from main deck to the 05 level, but the turret faces won the contest at 19" there is a pock mark on the side of turret 2 that's about 4.7" round and .25" deep from a Japanese shell.
Germany did not have the resources to build a surface fleet of capital ships large enough to challenge the Royal Navy. The capture of the British Isles may not have stopped the British Empire from fighting on. Germany went to war without enough submarines to destroy the British merchant marine.
Historically wrong. The Bismarck was already sunk by the time the USS Iowa was ready.
It's a "What if...?" video, homie.
The U.S. didn't sink the Bismarck. It's still a controversy wether the British did, or the Germans scuttled her.
Does it really matter after nearly 90 yrs? The ppl who fought in WW2 are almost all deceased 💀
Some of the comments…I can’t believe it. There’s a “what if” in the transcript but it occurs- to my defiled attention span, anyway, at 8:16 minute mark.
“The US was not involved [in the Bismarck sinking]” No they weren’t. But the what if for another day might be “what if FDR had not been able to lend the RN those Catalina surveillance planes that helped locate the Bismarck after she went missing?” I’m sure the RN would have handled things. Or perhaps another encounter happens, this time with either the So Dakota or Washington (what if, remember?)
The Catalina which located Bismarck was not 'lent.' It was bought by The British Purchasing Commission, before Lend-Lease was in force.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 pardon me. I guess the bigger snag was that some of the pilots sent to familiarize the Brit pilots to the Cat were actually involved in finding the Bismarck- Tuck Smith for instance, sent in late March ‘41- just weeks after Lend Lease was enacted
The problem of this "what if" scenario is that some morons will think it really happened.
Captained by Grossadmiral zur See Errol Von Flinn I believe.
😂
If the battle happens at night the Bismarck wouldn’t stand a chance
Hood wasn't a battleship, she was a battlecruiser, which makes a huge difference. Battlecruisers, while fast and armed like battleships, were very lightly armoured. Designed mainly to take on commerce raiders and enemy cruisers, they were never intended to be in the line of battle against battleships. It also didn't help that King George V was still no completed when she sailed. In fact she sailed with dockyard workers onboard trying to complete her main armament, among other things.
The HMS Hood was scheduled for a major armour upgrade in 1936-37 but the guv chose not to. Much like the Scorpion loss in the US in 1968. She was not SUBSAFE certified even though the USN knew she was unsafe. Similar to the loss of the York.
Sank. The Us didn’t sunk a ship. It sank a ship.
@5:25, that ISN'T the Hood exploding, it's HMS. Barnham.
Bro the Brits sunk the Bismarck before the Iowa was even laid down.
Nice what if scenario, but I would advise you to better try another one, more likely to happen. PQ-17 doesnt disband, Germans sortie Tirpitz to intercept and USS Washington leading the distant covering force gets to fight her.
Germany never got a chance to learn all the lessons about carrier damage control that the US learned (and that the Japanese mostly failed to learn) during the war. Engineers examined the wreck of the Graf Zeppelin (the Soviets had used it for target practice) after the war; it basically would have exploded the first time it came under attack. Think of how Akagi got taken out by a single bomb hit, except the GZ would have been doomed by a hit almost anywhere on the ship
the Bismark was sunk in 1941, the Iowa was launched in 1942
The battleship USS Iowa was commissioned feb 22 1943.
Well, talking about the Bismarck you failed to mention the major ballast issue with that ship that limited what she could actually do, it was also an issue with their other ship also.
Iowa was sent to help deal with the Tirpitz. Bismark was sunk 2.5 years before Iowa was Commissioned.
If you like “ what if “ scenarios watch or read “ Man in the high castle “ , story about the US loosing WW2
BOTH ships are impressive, but, make mine a SoDak, if you please !
We know it wasn't the Iowa. But after the Hood was sunk by the Bismarck, the new spec became armor thickness.
Bismarck wouldn’t even stand a chance against Iowa
PLEASE tell us what was “The Most Important ship the US ever sunk?” to answer your own title question.
It’s worth remembering in these war game scenarios that the Bismarck could have done it’s foray into the Atlantic a thousand times - only one of which would have her rudder hit by a torpedo and forced into a turn position.
[shaking my head in sorrow/annoyance/self-reproach for being taken in . . . YETTA GINN!!!
A lot of what if and an incorrect title, which should be "The Most Important Ship the US Never Sunk".
And here's the SOUTH DAKOTA class! (Shows photo of USS Texas circa 1910)
Not sure about of the point about this 'Dark Seas', but arguably the most important ships the US ever harmed were the Shōkaku and the Zuikaku at Coral Sea.
Wtf?
Bismarck scuttled in 1940 Iowa launch is 1942.
They never shared the same ocean at the same time.
Bismarck was sunk 1941.
The battleship Bismarck was sunk in May 19 41 long before the Americans entered into the war after the attack at Pearl Harbour I have never ever heard any indication that there were any American battleships anywhere near the Bismarck. I think this whole story Hass to be considered bullshit.
The US was not involved in WWII when the Bizmark was sunk.
The Iowas" had better long range targetting radar.
In a gun fight the first ship hit often losses, as was the case with the Hood.😢
Considering that Bismarck had been sunk in 1941, leave this to the wargamers. 3,000 men died all told.
Iowa never fought the Bismarck! Were you getting your info from?! Or is this a” what if” video?
You are wrong regarding lack of radar on the Bismarck. They had radar, albeit not very robust.
Good video, but...Iowa's...sonar?🤣
Bismarck did have 2 different types of radar. Iowa and Bismarck never faced off. German Radar would have improved by 1943 making this whole thing a moot point.
Last I. checked, the Brits sunk the Bismarck in 1941, not 1943.
on wows legends i be tearing bismarck up with iowa and new jersy
Hmm, Bismarck was sunk in May of 1941, by the British. Americans were not involved
'Americans were not involved.' Surely, 'Not Yet'. Doubtless a remake of the Action is on the cards. If made by Disney, a transgender crew aboard Iowa, commanded by Denzel Washington, will deal with Bismarck.
In this, however, Bismarck's captain will survive, and begin a loving, same sex, relationship with the captain of Iowa.
All this whilst Admiral Joan Tovey, played by Helen Mirren, and HMS Rodney, captained by Idris Elba, gaze on admiringly at American prowess. Later, Winston Churchill (Lenny Henry) sends a personal letter of thanks to FDR.
My services as a scriptwriter are available, for an agreed fee.
Bismark Sank in May of '41. Iowa launched in August of '42. Not sure how this fight happened
And here I thought Bismarck was sunk in May '41 by the British.