Would what Sunk Bismarck have Sunk an Iowa Class Battleship?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 лют 2021
- In this episode we're taking a close look at the chase, attack, and sinking of Bismarck to determine if the Iowa Class battleships like New Jersey could have fared better.
To support Battleship New Jersey, go to:
www.battleshipnewjersey.org/b...
400 hits of naval gun fire, 4 torpedoes, and finally scuttling charges. Yes I’d say an Iowa would have sunk under these conditions
I think u r wrong because iowa class battleship has much better armor
@@thinhnguyeduy412 The entire British navy throwing everything at it? Yes it would have sunk. It may have taken longer but it would have sunk.
@@mcduck5 Not quite everything though. I don't think they threw the kitchen sink as well. But apart from that, I agree.
@@ranekeisenkralle8265
They're British, it wouldn't even surprise me one bit to suddenly see a toilet being hurled at their enemy,
@@Nightdare hmmm.. you have a point...
How good is this guy !
I'm British and so often when I hear a US commentator talking about US ships you practically hear Stars And Stripes Forever start to be be blended in in the background half way through but Ryan is a real straight shooter and whenever you have a caveat to what he says he inevitably brings it up 30 seconds later himself.
Great no nonsense delivery on every video, I never doubt a word he says.
That's because most of the time one hears an American talk about US military equipment or historical events, it's either a show host for commercial TV stroking the ego of the 'murican' target audience. OR, a US politician fishing for votes in the same way.
This guy, is a historian, a real one!
Real historians don’t do that. I’m sure if you’re listening to random dudes on UA-cam you can probably find patriotically slanted versions of all history, naval and otherwise. But you won’t find any of that if you seek out real scholars and historians. The quality of the information is as good as the quality of its source. True for all things.
I suspect the signal "I am a Pole" meant more than I ought to write.
he is outstanding!
Agreed. Subscribed.
Bismarck during the final battle was :
- all alone, no escorts or hope of support
- getting low on fuel
- steering damaged
- nobody on board had any decent amount of sleep for 72 hours and all were feeling doomed/demoralized
- surrounded by enemy ships with well rested crew eager for a fight
Can't see an Iowa class BB in the exact same situation doing a whole lot better.
Also German BB crew were real men. Meanwhile....
She would because, as stated, Bismack-class battleships only have one rudder and cannot maneuver using propellers alone. An Iowa-class has *TWO* rudders and even if both are damaged, an Iowa-class *CAN* in fact still maneuver using propellers alone.
And also an Iowa-class have far better anti-air defenses than Bismarck.
@@ripLunarBirdCLH The Ark Royal was - at the time - equipped with 30 torpedo aircraft, 12 'dive bomb' aircraft, and 12 fighters. Yes, the Iowa had better AA... but facing so many aircraft, it hardly matters. Multiple squadrons, 5 aircraft per, and instructed to fly at different altitudes and strike from different angles. There is no chance of stopping all of them, at some point, some will get through the AA defences.
I don't care how 'advanced' the AA was for the Iowa - under the same circumstances, since the torpedoes were aimed at the engine area - the results would be the same. It hardly matters if you have one or two rudders, the steering controls for the rudders were destroyed, leaving them locked into a hard turn position. Even if only one rudder was locked, it is still going to make steering the ship difficult, or even moving forward, that locked rudder is going to create drag.
It also really doesn't matter if the ship can turn using the propellers... with the rudder/s locked, any kind of maneuver is going to so very, very difficult - the ship will simply want to go in the direction of the locked rudder - but that just makes the ship an easy target for the warships that came in later.
Arguably lost a fight to a polish destroyer….
To be fair, the aircraft launched torpedo hit might not have happened, meaning that she might just get away.
Also, one of the best verbal explanations I've heard in a long while of the actual historical battle. The Bismarck Chase remains one of those Naval events that would have been thrown out by any editor if turned in as fiction.
You damn right. Its funny how some times things happen in real life, that even the best science fiction writer couldn't make up, and would seem unbelievable. Most people don't or won't entertain the idea that Titanic was hit by a torpedo from a U-boat, and sadly the evidence is 30 feet under the Atlantic ocean floor in the mud.
@@TwistedSisterHaratiofales A german U-boat in April 1912? Subs were abysmally primitive and did not enter active service until 1915 in WW1. Titanic had already hiccuped and sunk 3 years earlier, in 1912.
@@santyclause8034 I hope that you know I am and was joking, although I did that same joke years ago on a Titanic conspiracy YT post and people ran with it, and it can be added into the conspiracy theory field now to my amazement and non intention.
+ Romans 10:9-10 "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." Amen 🙏!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The man in Luke 16:24 cries: ". . .I am tormented in this FLAME."
In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."
Revelation 20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE." And please repent of all of your sins and be baptized by the Holy Spirit before it is too late, you will never know when the time will come 🙏!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Amen 🙏!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@santyclause8034 Because of you we will miss that sci-fi movie, you bastard! ha ha ha!
Bismarck actually had two rudders. the torpedo that disabled her actually hit the steering gear room and forced the rudder back into the center line propeller and jammed both.
One screw was blown off.The other was jammed.
@@markcrampton5549 She had 3 screws
@@tomingejosefsen Sorry.l meant rudders!
if only they had a way to drop them so if they timed it right drop them and put them on the right path towards safety instead of a circle
*laughs in littorio's four prop steering
Rodney put 378 16" shells and 706 6" secondary shells into Bismarck and needed a lot of light bulbs, windows and toilets replacing after the battle due to concussion from repeated full 9-gun broadsides into the Bismarck at close range. It was also the only time a battleship torpedoed another battleship. KGV fired 339 14" shells and over 700 5.25" shells as well. That's quite a paddling (in the words of a salty gnome), and it says something about the Bismarck's design that it had to be scuttled by its own crew after taking that amount of damage.
German propaganda. Germans simply could not count and later they promised the british if they count to german benefit the germans would stop exporting beetles!! UNFAIR AS BISMARCK!!
I read Rodney fired one broadside and half the rivets in the ships armour plating broke, the chief of the boat told the captain and the main guns weren't used anymore, then they did their torpedo run.
Just imagine if they had 10 of these with lots of cruisers destroyers and carriers. Shit would have been bad for the Brits
@macmccartney5760 the best part about the story is that they didn't, so it didn't.
@@coltsfoot9926 And not to mention if the Germans had a fleet anywhere near that size they would not have been wasting time commerce raiding lol
I just wanted to say that I'm really impressed with how balanced and impartial you are, objectively judging each ship fairly. Great job!
If we germans had used the resources that went into failed projects like ships, rail guns, rockets and so on for tanks or u-boots, it would not have made any difference as we allready had way more equipment then we were able to fuel or supplie ;)
Agreed. Oil was what took down Germany in WW2.
What good are another couple thousand tanks when you don't even have enough fuel to transport troops replacements, food, ammo, and other essential supplies to the front?
Of course. Even the north africa campaign suffered because of that
had me in the first half not gonna lie
Yeah but Germany could have had those resources much earlier in the war especially in regard to the Bismark. Several hundred more tanks in the push for the caucuses plus logistics, and 10,000-30,000 more personnel from the defunct Kreigsmarine surface force might have prevented Stalingrad or allowed it to be relieved. Or the Germans actuall capture the Caucuses oil fields and Stalin redeploys a lot of the forces around Stalingrad at that point because they too are also relient on those sources. With several hundred more UBoats, the Russians in that Campaign were highly reliant on Lend Lease logistics and things like fuel. Or ignore the Russians and look at North Africa. Cutting the Suez even for a few months or just plain blocking it when they have it, and capturing Alexandria and trapping/destroying the British fleet would have been huge. With the revolt in Iraq and French Syria not yet seized this may have allowed the Germans to get fuel to there or really put the squeeze on Britain. The point being the Germans might have been able to capture additional Oil even for a year or really put military pressure on Britain and possibly secure the Med for a few months or years. If the Allies were still determined to go the bitter end and Hitler still declares war on US they probably still wouldn't have won. Either the war drags out until 1946/47 or with the Brits cut from helping out in the Pacific War fatigue in Europe sets in and the Western Allies negotiate a peace and leave the Soviets alone. The Soviets without the lend lease advantages in man power (no need for hundreds of thousands of factory workers and they were stripping factory personnel to man the military by 1945), aviation (17,000 planes, most of its spares and ALL of its high octane AVGAS until 1945) , and the backbone that it provided for logistics ( the allies provided 40-60% of tucks, up to 80% of its Air Transport Fleet, the soviets only made 12 locomotives and cars for all of WWII, the Allies made the rest of their rail capacity, most of its medical supplies, huge supplies of food, the us made millions of russian rounds for rifles, most of their aviation aluminum, high quality steel, and factory machinery ) would have either fallen or attempted peace as well. (there is a reason they were able to produce 80,000 T34s because the Allies made most of the rest of their non weapon supplies, and a lot of their ammo).
Long story short just because Germany didn't have fuel for their stuff after 1943 doesn't mean that the additional equipment doesn't enable them to get more fuel or completely screw up the early Allies positions.
@@imjashingyou3461 Germany captured russian oilfields in the Maikop area. They were ofcourse blowen up by the soviets, and tanks unfortunatly don't run on a mud-crude oil mixture. It would have taken a long time to get refinerys operational. More consumers earlier would only mean they run out faster.
The Swordfish was slow and looked antiquated but was capable of operating from heaving decks in the North Atlantic. At that time there was nothing else more capable of doing the job than the “Stringbag”.
The Swordfish also had ASV radar so it could find targets at night and in the day, through cloud and fog, which is something that the USN didn't have until the RN gave it to them in 1942.
@joseph gallacher I believe the AA gunners were not well trained is all. For a torpedo drop the plane has to fly more or less directly at the ship if im not mistaken, so it has a minimal angular speed regardless of its actual speed and is very vulnerable in any case. Im not a 100% sure but i think US ships took a lot more damage too from japanese aircraft in the beginning, when the japanese pilots were trained well and the US AA gunners didn't have much experience. Later on that changed a lot.
Expect those 5" AA shells would have done some serious damage to the Swordfish. Plus the 5" guns had a pretty high rate of sustained fire against not that many Swordfish. Don't care how good the pilots are, when shrapnel pretty much moves most of the fabric from the wings, the plane doesn't fly that well.
@@dmunro9076 The ASV was essential due to the prevailing weather and visibility conditions
@@hernerweisenberg7052 I heard thah Bismarcks problem was, that the Swordfish were too slow for the heavy AA to aim at and the low caliber AA just made holes in the swordfish wings(wich the planes could ignore).
Immobile and getting pounded into a burning wreck by multiple battleships, several heavyweight torpedo hits, and scuttling charges?
_Nothing_ would survive all that.
Torpedo from WWI type biplane lol, they probably could evade or massacre all those plane, but battling those surface fleet it would be hard
@@ramal5708 A WW2 type biplane. In WW1 it would have been the best thing in the sky. The Swordfish is only one year older then the Bf-109 :)
Well presented and well explained. To understand the state of US Navy AA in early 1941 we need only look to the two North Carolina Class ships, which were armed primarily with 1.1 inch and .50 cal BMGs. The Swordfish might have faired better, but certainly no worse because of this. I'm glad I found this channel; one of the few where the presenter actually knows what he's talking about. I must add that the British Swordfish air crews must have expected to die on every mission they flew. I salute these brave men.
You forgot the 5"/38
20mm and 40mm bofors
Re: Bismarck era AA on an Iowa, as noted as noted as on NC or Wash. should be used in the comparison!
@@jonathanlong6987
and again-he forgot the 5"/38.
@@jonathanlong6987 and the USN had vastly better systems. the 5'/38, even without VT, FAR better than the 105 on Bismarck. 1.1 " better than the SINGLE SHOT 37 mm on Bismarck. A single torp would not cripple steering on an Iowa
Great content and video. Thanks to all who helped put this together and Ryan for his captivating, informative and as always, fun level headed delivery. Cheers guys, keep up the great and entertaining work that keeps this old boat alive.!
I dont think amy battleship would have survived that onslaught
I agree, damm those MAGICAL BBs... No ONE can survive those MAGICAL BBs, don't bother watching any follow-on of this series because the answer will always be that those MAGICAL BBs would sink any Iowa class ship...
actually yamato and musashi could have as none of those weapons could penetrate the armour of the ships unless they hit with a large enough torpedo so 25 26 inch to dislodge a piece of armour which is how musashi sank
Tend to agree...
Let's see :
USS Iowa, all alone, no escort - no air cover - no proper steering - not a lot of fuel - none of the crew with any decent sleep for 72 hours and 'just a bit' demoralized,
AND - totally surrounded by numerically superior hostile forces, all with ships in good shape and well rested crew just spoiling for a fight.
Not a good scenario - even for a well - designed, well - built ship with a good crew.
@@ussenterprisecv6805 True, it’s unlikely that the main armour belt of the Yamato would have been penetrated, but there wouldn’t have been much left of the superstructure or armament in much the same way as happened to the Bismarck.
Bismarck Did. The British didn't sink her. The Germans scuttled it. This was proven by the guys who Discovered Titanic.
The swordfish thing reminds me of the Simpson's gag where Sideshow Bob steals the Wright brother's plane and the jet fighters pursuing him are going too fast to acquire the target!!
The last hurrah of bi-planes used in combat was the Polikarpov-2 North Koreans used them in night harassment "wake-up Charlie" raids the way the Nachthexen "night witches" did on the eastern front. They could fly slower than the stall speed of their pursuers and easily out turn them.
When aviation was a gentlemans pursuit, before any Joe Sweatsock could wedge himself behind a lunch tray and jet off to Raleigh-Durham
Fun fact: The Swordfish is one of the only planes in history to replace its own replacement. It was replaced by the Fairey Albacore, which was so bad that the Royal Navy went back to using the Swordfish.
@@nicholasconder4703 The Albacore actually had many advantages over the Swordfish, such as an enclosed and heated cockpit (can you imagine flying a open biplane in north atlantic weather?). Sadly it handled like a dog.
There was a true replacement for the Albacore in the Fairey Barracuda, but it couldn't take off and land on the small escort carriers. The need for an ASW plane to launch from these smaller ships kept the Swordfish in production long after its time.
When the Germans launched their first jets towards the end of the war, they ground they was to fast to target the allied fighters.
I think you do a great job of presenting as honest outcomes approach as possible. Your ability to keep any bias's in check is commendable.
One point not often remembered about the last fight of Bismarck is that Rodney and KGV weren't the only heavy Royal Navy assets nearby. Force H with Ark Royal, Renown and the cruiser Sheffield was just over the horizon, and the crew on Renown could hear the sound of heavy gunfire.
There were two simple reasons why Renown didn't join the Home Fleet in that battle:
1) Admiral Somerville was under direct orders from the Admiralty that Renown was NOT to engage Bismarck in a gun duel
2) Sheffield was still returning from its shadowing of Bismarck during the night, and so Somerville was not going to leave Ark Royal unescorted.
Once Sheffield rejoined Force H then Renown took off like a startled gazelle and got about half-way to the battle when Tovey signaled Somerville that Bismarck had finally sunk.
All of which is a long-winded way of getting to the point: even *if* the German's hadn't set the scuttling charges Bismarck was still going to sink: Force H had no problems with fuel, Renown had six 15" guns, Sheffield had eight 21" torpedoes, and Ark Royal still had all its Swordfish.
Bismarck's guns had been silenced, so any or all of those three British ships could have taken their own sweet time taking turns at Bismarck.
And it doesn't matter how thick the belt was, a brace of 21" torpedoes and dozens of 18" aerial torpedoes is going to send you to the bottom.
".......Fire all of your guns at once and explode into space.........."
BOOOOORN TO BE WIIIIIIIIILD
there's a monster on the loose, it's got our heads into the noose, and it just sits there watching
Apples to oranges. A late-war outfitted US battleship is a totally different critter than at the beginning of the war. A better comparison would be swapping the Bismarck for North Carolina and its weapons suite in May 1941. So no 40mm Bofors, 5” mounts do not have VT fuses. In 1941 NC had nine 16”/45 with optical range finders, no radar. For anti-aircraft there are ten 5” dual mounts that are capable, but not as deadly as they will be later on, only four 1.1” quad mounts and and 12 .50 cal machine guns. North Carolina had more range (similar to the Iowas) so the fuel considerations would not be the same, but max speed is only 28 knots. If the engagements go the same way PoW is hit and maybe knocked out of the chase, Hood may still go down, but maybe not. The US shells might have performed differently - or not at all. The US Ordinance Dept covered up defective torpedoes, and may have had a problem with naval shells too, ie Jean Bart was hit several times and most failed to explode. Fuel loss may not have caused the ship to need to run for port, but County class cruisers wouldn’t have trouble keeping pace with a North Carolina. Anti-aircraft fire would have been equally abysmal as the Bismarcks. Hull/rudder/screw design may have not caused the loss of steering, but In the end a North Carolina gets sunk too. It just isn’t fast enough to escape, even before being damaged.
i agree mostly with you clif. i do think the NC would have had her AA beefed up before that time if it had been the NC.
Comparing apples to oranges is the whole point of this video. He uses the New Jersey because that is the ship he is curator for.
Old Ordinance seems to be a theme in the US; military was using Great War Ord. well into 1942.
@@mikhailiagacesa3406 not to mention ww2 era powder in the Wisconsin.
Still don't see NC faring any worse than Bismarck at the Battle of Denmark Straight, PoW might have taken more of a beating. The break from Norfolk and Suffolk prolly goes unchanged. But even if the Swordfish strike is as lucky against NC, twin rudders and skegs means that she makes it to German air cover and Brest. Agreed that if she stays to fight KGV, Rodney, and their friends, she loses.
A very knowledgeable, unbiased review.......enjoyed that!
This is a very detailed and honest assessment. What is key is the sinking of the Hood. Once that happened there was no way the Bismark could have survived, and, interestingly, one of the survivors of the Bismark claimed that after the euphoria of the sinking, it quickly dawned on the crew that their days were numbered. Churchill wanted the Bismark sunk, it was top priority,
but once Hood is sunk motivation to get the job done is greatly heighten.
Bravo Ryan and Libby! A really well-balanced and detailed video. Appreciated by all. And the use of 'Crapulent' is notable. Thanks!
This is very quickly becoming one of my favorite channels !
Wow! A facinating runthrough of the comparisons between my two favorite battleships. I built models of both when I was a kid.
Impressively detailed information! I feel like I've learned a lot more about the design of the systems involved, thank you!
The Bismark was just one toughly built ship, but like any battle ship, still vulnerable in some ways.
Sub systems located outside citadel, engineering was poor too, 3 props radar also weak, Germans put everything into the hull design honeycomb watertight compartments to, reduce flooding, keep hull afloat, even if the super structure was blown of all the turrets knocked out. Rip
Bismarck
@@leeneon854Honestly that was their biggest design flaw. You used the turtle back armor scheme, you are using one of the toughest armor schemes that are extraordinarily hard to penetrate at the ranges you are fighting, why don't you put all your fire control and other systems within the citadel.
I've been waiting for this comparison, glad you finally did it! However, there were a couple errors and some additional details I'd like to point out. Firstly Bismarck did have two rudders. The torpedo hit completely sheared off one of the rudders and jammed the second into the central propeller. The 2002 expedition to Bismarck's wreck was able to view the damaged stern and determined that it would have been impossible to repair (outside of a drydock) even if the crew had managed to access it. While you did mention that Iowa BB's had some maneuverability using only their props I'm wondering if this capability was only tested in calm seas. If so then trying to do the same in the rough seas Bismarck was in might have extremely difficult or impossible.
Next in the Battle of the Denmark Strait Prince of Wales scored a few hits on Bismarck. The one hit through the bow as you mentioned, however the second actually did far worse damage. This shell hit below the armor belt and damaged the torpedo bulkhead which caused a boiler room to partially flood robing the ship of its top speed and causing a slight list. I'm not sure if New Jersey's armor scheme would have prevented similar damage though. The third shell from Prince of Wales hit Bismarck's seaplane catapult but caused only minor damage.
Lastly the 2002 expedition also found the likely impact site of a torpedo from the final battle on the wreck. The torpedo bulkhead behind was completely intact and thus they concluded that these torpedoes could not have sunk the ship.
It's not possible to tell when the Bismarck's missing rudder sheared off, may have been at the torpedo explosion, or it may have been when the Bismarck hit and then slid down the side of an underwater mountain. What is fairly certain is that the torpedo exploded underneath the stern overhang and the explosion had nowhere to go except up into the ship. Which probably explains why a relatively small torpedo did so much damage.
@@philiphumphrey1548 Actually it is possible to tell. Friction would impart a slow bending moment.....shock-wave moments have a much different signature. Bending to complete shear of a shaft of that diameter is highly unlikely....concussive moments are much more severe. Liquids are non-compressible, so an explosion in near vicinity would have had a catastrophic effect.
@@imtheonevanhalen1557 You may be right, but Bismarck survivors described the ship turning extremely tightly and heeling over at speed immediately after the torpedo explosion, to the extent that some feared it was going to capsize. To me that seems difficult to reconcile with the ship having one rudder entirely missing at that point and only part of the other one left albeit jammed at an angle. To me it seems more consistent with the other rudder still being present, and also jammed at an angle. I'm no expert, perhaps someone better clued up on these things might care to comment.
@@philiphumphrey1548 I am sure that read somewhere that Bismark was manoeuvring violently at the time the torpedo exploded which may explain the survivors reports and why the rudder was jammed at an angle. Also the outer shafts were not aligned completely fore and aft to improve speed and it was this that made it impossible to steer by engines alone. It was a known problem which may explain why two rudders were fitted
slight correction to your final point it was determined that the final torpedoes or the scuttleing charges could be not be conclusively determined to be the main cause of the ship sinking as when she hit the seabed her hull was to badly damaged in the areas hit it was impossible to investigate the final conclusion was that regardless of those torpedoes and scuttling charges the ship would have sank due to the widespeard damage, fires and structural damage they woud have just quickened the enivitable
Excellent breakdown and wonderful job of explaining the real details in a way that's easily understood. I've been a big naval buff my entire life, and learned a lot I thought I'd already known. BWT, I'm the artist who did the colored ink drawing used as a poster for the NJ for the 50th (?) Anniversary of the ship. I haven't been back to Philly in years, but would spend a full weekend on the NJ and the Olympia if I could! ;-)
Excellent dissection, well worth the time to listen to.
@22:00 It's also worth noting that _Bismarck_ - in common with other KM ships of the period - had something of a weak stern. The KM ships _Lutzow_ and _Prinz Eugen_ both later suffered significant damage aft from torpedo strikes - _Prinz Eugen_ to the point of having to cut her stern clear and proceed under a jury rig. Not that KM ship designers were inept but because the three-shaft layout required a shallower stern with less buoyancy and because the centreline shaft has to drive through the keel. _New Jersey_ - without a centreline shaft compromising her integrity aft - might have survived a torpedo hit better than _Bismarck_ did, as _Bismarck's_ issue was the structural collapse of that area of the stern dropping the deck above down into the steering room.
and some US ship did get the bow blown off, a torpedo will do massive damage if it hit outside the torpedo protection. Repulse (or was it PoW) was cripple than a torpedo did hit the stern.
@@kirgan1000 That was _Prince of Wales_ I believe, although that was unusual circumstances - that torpedo hit aft blew a prop shaft loose, which then proceeded to lash around inside the ship and tear most of her watertight bulkheads apart. Note that the USN _Iowas_ learned from this and would not suffer a similar catastrophe from the same kind of damage.
@@AdamSmith-kq6ys You did say it unusual circumstances, Bismark's rudder
was in full turn then it did happen.
I am sure something relay bad can happen to Iowas if it hit at the "right" place. What modification did they do to prevent a PoW fate? Stronger bulkheads around the propeller shaft?
@@kirgan1000 More bulkheads, more bearings to hold even a damaged prop shaft in place without it destroying the insides of the ship.
The issue with _Bismarck's_ rudder was partly the turn, but also the collapse of the stern. The deck above literally fell into her steering gear, and _Bismarck_ didn't carry the kind of cutting gear they could use to cut it loose, as, with the big hole punched in the side, the entire area was flooded. From the moment of that torpedo hit, her rudders were fixed in position, and, with the deficient propulsion setup, _Bismarck_ lacked the differential propulsion to compensate for this.
@@AdamSmith-kq6ys thanks
The Spirit of Johnny Horton compels you!
And Sabaton
Hip Hip, The Battle of NCIS New Orleans !
I mean, with those shells as big as trees, how can you win?
Spirit of SABATON Rules!
@@richardpehtown2412 lol we fired our guns and the British kept on common
Respect from Canada
really interesting discussion, learned a LOT about ships. thanks for posting!
This is a fun one. Thanks for putting in the time Mr. Ryan!😊
Interesting fact. when given the stats of the Nelson class and given the fact that they existed USN constructors stated that such a ship could not be built. Further HMS Rodney though designed for 23kts proved capable of 25kts during the Bismarck chase(on less than 50k SHP not bad hydrodynamics at all)
Aye. Though originally intended to make 23kts as you say, she hadn't managed more than 21 for nearly a decade due to her material condition, but when it mattered Rodney found not only her original designed speed but a couple knots more from somewhere.
I only feel sorry for the poor bastards that had to repair her boilers after the fact.
@@bairdrew she was heading for a long overdue refit in the USA which at that time being"neutral"would have had shipbuilding companies more than eager for well paid work. It must be said though that it would have been a pig of a job
First carrier strike in Bismarck was from HMS Victorious
First carrier strike on Yamato and the last was from USS Intrepid and USS Essex respectively
@@ramal5708 Yamato was worse off the Bismarck, a lot worse her wiring was so bad according to reports the lightbulbs would blow up at times,
Ryan, this is a fantastic analysis. Thank-you.
Something I read about the final dinking of Bismarck.
The book claimed that critical power and communication lines ran above the turtle deck.
Alternatively the turtle deck was placed low, but either way turret power and ship communications were exposed outside the armoured citadel.
It's a vulnerability carried forward form the first world war Baden's design.
Thus when the Royal Navy silences the ship during the final battle, it isn't necessarily a series of lucky/accurate hits.
It could equally be the volume of bangs severing the Bismarck's central nervous system.
I've not visited an Iowa, but was fortunate enough to visit the USS North Carolina at Wilmington.
Many aspects of the NC's design impressed me, but I (an electrical engineer) was hugely impressed by the facilities for damage control teams to re-route critical cable paths in the event of damage.
the usual dumb myths,
This is a very good and remarkably unbiased consideration. I have only one caveat, and that's just how slow the new jersey would be if the shot had blown her bow off? Failing that, I would think that NJ would have made it home. Fun fact, HMS Rodney was carrying about half of our gold reserves to be sent to Canada. If she had been sunk, it would have been a total disaster for the UK
29:22 HMS Rodney was not that ‘ancient’ after all. She was newer than HMS Hood, had impressive armour, and the issues with her nine 16” (same calibre as New Jersey) guns had been sorted by then. She was slow indeed, but boy didn’t she wreck KMS Bismarck before leaving it to the cruisers to finish the job
it was old piece of scrap leaking terribly Throughout the war Rodney was plagued with leaks as a result of panting, and the ship required repairs because of serious leaks in 1940, 1941 and 1944. During one storm, the leaking was severe enough to overwhelm a 50-ton pump. Leaks, defective riveting, and other problems continued to affect Rodney even after a 1941 refit in Boston, Massachusetts. By 1943 officials concluded that she required a complete modernization to extend her service life. The ship never received the necessary upgrades and as a result was unfit for service by the end of 1944.
I think you both have points. She objectively wasn’t ancient in 1941 (13), with big guns and good armor that were very effective against Bismarck. She was however definitely hurting from a lack of maintenance. After the war she was now almost 20 and still in need of a ton of work. With newer ships online and battleships going out of style it’s not surprising she was just scrapped instead.
Ancient is relative when taking about machinery.
Hood was older in terms of time, but her machinery was kept in much better shape due to more funds being allocated to repairs and refits for Hood (the most important refit reinforcing her deck armor never took place, as that would require stripping all the superstructure off and would be very time consuming for a ship that was christened the symbol of the Royal Navy and ceremonially expected to be able to constantly go out on .
Rodney on the other hand was run ragged, her own machinery (and that of her class) was known for faults and issues even when it was new, was given far less frequent repairs and refits, and as Rodney's crew attested, the lone near miss of Bismarck caused Rodney to spring many leaks due to the concussive force and shell fragments during the opening stages of Bismarck's last battle.
^ this. Also, the panting issues were never adequately addressed. The supposedly same-class "Nelson" had a lot of modifications before it's (later) completion. The Rodney once leaked so badly in a storm that a 50 ton per/hr pump was insufficient, and she would have swamped had the weather not broke.
Despite a late '41 refit in Boston, she was declared unseaworthy in '44.
Her 16" guns did savage the Bismarck, but had she showed up alone the poor 35,000 ton Rodney would have found herself on the bottom.
@@jacobmccandles1767 Real history has no time for conditional sentences. Fact is, at this point the mighty Bismarck was unable to hurt neither the Rodney nor the KGV while being pummelled with 16’ and 14’ shells respectively to a state of floating wreck. Also, it doesn’t matter to me if the Bismarck was scuttled or sunk, but the blind fanaticism of its commanders who sacrificed their crew despite being acutely aware of its inability to fight back. What for? To receive a post-mortem reproach by Hitler for not going after the Prince of Wales to finish her off. There is something sinister about the lack of common sense
Really good deep dive lecture of strenghts and weak points of Bismarck. And I read dozens of books on this topic. I even met one of the sailors hunting down Bismarck in Portsmouth 1994...........
Its like the movie "The Final Countdown" Taking modern warships back to 1941.
Or the Anime Zipang. If you like anime and naval history its a good watch. Its based on the same idea as The Final Countdown. In Zipang, a JMSDF(Japan) Kongo class destroyer(Arleigh Burke), is on its way to a joint exercise with the US Navy in Hawaii. The ship finds itself in a storm and emerges right in the middle of an IJN Naval fleet. They must then decide if they will stand by and let history unfold in front of their eyes or if they will intervene, trying to save their countrymen from death and defeat. If they intervene they will be going against their Allies from their own time.
Watched a Japanese anime titled “Zipang”. Which is about a modern JMSDF AEGIS destroyer went back in time to WWII and basically fucked up the US navy with Tomahawks, Harpoons, RAM’s, Sea Sparrows, ASROC’s and SM-3’s..
My favourite scene is the ship used dozens of SM3’s to shoot down a whole torpedo bomber squadron.. In my mind was “Wow, each missile probably cost more than a couple of those squadrons..”
If used properly, in this kind of scenario, one AEGIS destroyer could probably destroy a whole navy..
@@HAPPYFUNTIMEx2 Oh! Didn’t saw your comment. You’re already talking about the anime. Loved it.
1 tomahawk missile with remote controls, down the smoke stack,
1980s New Jersey was nuclear armed:)
A lot of good information in this vid! In a final confrontation with multiple ships more-or-less her equal, the New Jersey would've succumbed just like the Bismarck. However - based on the information you provided -- I believe the New Jersey would have avoided the final confrontation because her superior air defense system would have annihilated the Swordfish torpedo planes which were able to launch all their torpedoes against Bismarck with impunity.
In the final analysis, the German surface fleet of World War II was too small and thus too weak to present a challenge to the British unlike the Imperial German Fleet of the First World War. "Commerce raiding" was best left to submarines.
Ryan, Johnny Horton's "Sink The Bismarck" is one of my favorite tunes too. I like you and Drachinifel's channels. You guys do a thorough expose' on the history and technical aspects of the ships you are talking about. Keep up the good work!
Bismark by Sabaton is really good, too
You, sir, are incredibly knowledgeable! 👍
Love this study, would like to see it expanded to other engagements, including putting New Jersey in Hood's place. Plus some real war gaming aspects with Draq commanding the opposing forces. Yes sir!
HAHA! “...truly crapulent...”
You have expanded my vocabulary, sir.
That shot from the Bismark at the hood was a 1 in a million shot
Hitting the magazine, perhaps- but they had fire control radar so it's not surprising their first shot(s) would be on target or very close
Imagine going in to drydock and they find a 15" shell down below.
same happend in juttland.....so maybe not so rare
@@Azerkeux Bismarck certainly hit both of the British ships. Unless Hood fired and hit its own side.
But how that 15" shell got down into the bowels of a 14" battleship is amazing. They never even realised it was there.
@@user-zu6zp6zn5p
Jutland was different
That was poor practise of the british ships leaving magazine Doors open to speed up firing that caused that
I love your commentary Ryan, the way you stop and think and speak truthfully is wonderful - a lot more people should do that.
I love all your videos, please keep them coming.
This channel is great! Keep it up lads
The simplicity design of the Swordfish and the fewer complex features required for later planes actually mean that you had to kill either the either the engine or the pilot to down the plane...
Comparatively the late early 30s design of the Hawker Hurricane was superior to the Spitfire in regards to repairing battle damage due to the wood and cloth construction as opposed to the Aluminum and metal construction of the Spitfire.
Very fair and balanced analysis. I think however it's also unintentionally indicating what most people, including the narrator, realised about World War II is that larger Iowa, Hood and Bismark class battleships were mostly relegated to a support role rather than as decisive weapons of war in their own right. Americans managed their warships better but far too many (in general) were sent to the bottom unless they were embedded in larger scale fleets capable of all round support. Individual or small groups of warships could mostly be picked off from the air if they were not properly escorted. The larger remaining German warships (i.e. Tirpitz, etc.) were mostly relegated to ports or Fjords after this incident. The German U-boat campaign was generally a lot more successful initially although allied technology (i.e. sonar, Enigma cracking, convoy system, improved depth charges/hedgehog, shortwave radar) eventually made this a nightmare for them.
thank you for your analysis.
As many others has already pointed out, Bismarck had two rudders and three screws. One between the rudders and the two others outside the rudders.
sipmple nonsense, but it`s worth a try .
so My two fav WW2 channels are battleship NJ and Drachinifel. on his Sunday Dry Dock he said that he was really looking forward to visiting the BB NJ. I hope you reach out to him. Seeing you two on the same pod cast would be wonderful.
"Crapulent." That, my friend, may be the greatest word I have ever heard! And it just rolled off your tongue, like you use it every day! I had to back up several times to hear it, and then put on closed captions to be sure. You, Sir, are magnificent, not just in your field of naval architecture or naval engineering (whichever one it must be), but you should also have an honorary doctorate in the English language, I am guessing! I love it! Thank you! And by the way, I am riveted by your battleship videos! I am a battleship sailor, having served on the Mighty Mo from 1989 to the end of 1991 (her last voyage under her own power, returning from the Pearl Harbor 50th memorial). Your videos make me proud once again to have served on such awesome ships! Thank you!
Thorough Report. Thanks.
Put them in the same situation, rudder jammed and the ship doomed into a constant turn to port, here is the difference. The MK-8 Rangekeeper on the New Jersey could develop a firing solution against a closing ship of the British Navy. She could fire accurate salvos and hit her targets even locked into a constant turn, the analog fire control computers would compensate fir it. The Bismarck's much simpler fire control could not so because of her constant turn the Bismarck could not achieve a firing solution and were locked into firing blindly and having to guess range. This is seen when the Bismarck was not able to score a single hit against the British ships in the final engagement.
I would say the crew is pretty green but German have great radar and rangefinder.
@@gkagara The German fire control radar would only give them a range to target, that was it. It didn't give them the targets course and speed. The American analog fire control computer would take the New Jerseys course and speed, the targets course and speed, barometric pressure, wind speed, temperature of the powder, sea state, how many rounds had been fired through the guns since the last time the barrel was relined, curvature and rotation of the earth into account. Once it achieved a firing solution it was updated in real time. So it would fire accurate salvo's from the start. Gone were the days of ranging salvos and correcting your fire off the splash. Where the Bismarck took 5 salvos to hit the Hood the New Jersey would have hit her on the first or second salvo. I point to the battle of the Surigao Strait. The West Virginia, rebuilt after Pearl Harbor had one of these systems onboard. She engaged the Japanese Battleship Yamashiro at 22,800 yards, hit her on the first salvo and five of the next 6. It was LIGHT years better than the German fire control.
Yes and no. There is one problem: New Jersey’s fire control was years better than Bismarck’s because it was literally years better, having not been put into service by then. Fire control systems were continually and rapidly upgraded throughout the war.
I’ve seen the analog computer you speak of on the USS North Carolina. I was a kid at the time but I was very impressed by the number of dials and just how BIG it was to “just shoot a gun”. It was a piece of art. I remember it looked like nothing could damage it because it was so rugged. A fond memory. Might have been the moment I knew I wanted to work with computers.
@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 I agree with you that Iowa-Class had a better firecontrol-system but i would not call it light years better. I don't doubt their capabilities but I really want to know where you have the knowledge about the german fire-control-computer. From the pictures which are available of the C/38 on the internet you cant't tell that much but that he probably used less parameters than Iowa's one. The main reason for Bismarck being in need of about 3 salvos before she was able to archieve a straddling of her target was that even her excellent optical rangefinders were not as accurate as proper radar systems which Germany did not have at the time and therefore you had to calculate the exact distance with the gun splashes from 3 salvos.
I think that Tirpitz later in the war would have performed better in this case because she had better radar devices able to deliver proper data about distance and bearing etc accourding to her crew. When the US investigated Prinz Eugen their conclusion about her radar devices was they were either equal or inferior to American ones but this were mostly surface search radars or old FuMo's as Bismarck had which were classified as surface search radars because there abilities didn't allow them to be used as FC radar.
However the FuMo 26 could be used very well as a FC radar according to her crew but as it was not investigated nobody really knows much more.
Actually you should definetly not underestimate Bismarck's fire control system it was pretty automated for the time.
In general all i want to say is that claims about Bismarck's fire control dooming it as bad or insufficent are not always based on porfound knowledge as there is a lack of secured knowledge or because they aren't well researched.
Im basing my opinion on following sources:
www.kbismarck.com/artillery-testing-report.html#IIC
wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/uss-prinz-eugen/
Bismark, a great and mighty combat vessel, was an enlarged design of the old German WW 1 Battleship Baden. Its short-comings was the secondary 5.9" twin gun turrets that were not multi-purpose. These guns were only used against other warships and not aircraft, the real threat to Bismark. The battleships of WW 1 did not have aircraft to fear, so even at the end of the war just a minimal presence of anti-aircraft guns were put on these ships. This WW 1 design, with weak anti-aircraft defense, was a definite short coming for Bismark. When those British Swordfish bi-planes attacked, the few anti-aircraft armament was not able to put up the defensive screen needed to avoid torpedo hits. That one torpedo hit in the rudder by one of these torpedo bombers doomed Bismark. The rudder damage kept Bismark in a circular pattern, unable to make it into port, and met the over-whelming number of British Battleships (Rodney, King George) and cruisers with great bravery. Bismark took massive damage before turning turtle and sinking. The topside of Bismark was beaten and battered by the big shells of the Rodney and King George. The number of hits on Bismark defied belief and it wasn't until the surviving crew members were given orders to open the sea cocks within the ship to sink it. The Brits destroyed Bismark, but the crew of Bismark actually sunk their own vessel.
It's Bismarck
Lol, "minimal presence of anti-aircraft guns".
16 105 mm
16 37 mm
12 20 mm
No kid. Swordfish was so slow that Germans set their AA fuses to explode too early. And Prince of Wales sinks for the same reason.
Interesting comparison, thanks!
I have family in San Pedro, ca and once visited the USS Iowa.
she's a proud fixture in my old hometown, and is very loved. She is quite a big ship, and I was amazed as to just how steep some of her areas are. At the time I visited, she was fairly new to the area, having just arrived. Not many areas were open yet, but I did get to see her many areas still, notably, the eating area for the crew.
I could see how escaping a sinking ship would be tough, since corridors are tight, and many.
Glad she is in my old hometown, and loved.
In the final engagement Bismarck flodded uncontrallable and listed 20° befor its scuttling. After a few hours the ship would capsized on its own.
The survivors noted the superstructure was touching the waterline at the end, which strangely made it harder to hit the waterline.
Also it was scutled which makes it way harder to not sink apparently
Of course any ship would sooner or later sink if it gets blasted by battleships of equal size for basically an unlimited time. Fact remains Bismarck was scuttled as the analyse of the wreck has shown.
An Iowa would have been able to run away from Rodney and KGV if undamaged, because they are much faster ships.
But if it had stood and fought, it would have been sunk unless very lucky. It's just down to numbers:
The KGV and Rodney have 19 guns aiming at one ship. An Iowa has 9 guns and must distribute its fire over 2 ships, both of which are extremely well armoured with significantly thicker main belts. So an Iowa would be receiving 19 shells a salvo, each of the British ships would be getting an average of 4.5.
The Iowa's best hope would be to concentrate fire on one ship and try to knock it out, but that leaves the other ship to fire unmolested.
Excelent comparison well done sir
Thanks for a wonderfully thought provoking analysis and "what if?".
Thanks much for a great analysis, that adds to advancing the understanding of events. One correction: Bismarck had/has TWIN
rudders, centrally coupled, and close to central propeller. Torpedo hit under stern bent strbrd rudder into arc of central prop rotation, causing Bismarck to travel in port-wise circles--not good for escape, let alone fending off RN warships. Port rudder is missing; the rudder stock--cast steel--completely fractured, but it's not entirely certain whether this is directly attributable to torpedo, or subsequent events. Excellent online reference is "The Wreck of DKM Bismarck; A Marine Forensic Analysis" by J. Cameron, et al, based on May 2002 wreck survey.
One additional thought on the 1941 Iowa/Bismarck vs RN scenario: Iowa, being a latter-half WWII capital ship, derived all the evolving thinking based on everyone's experiences, esp. in '41 & '42 (Bismarck, PoW, Repulse, Houston, Coral Sea, Midway, etc.) Germans were also learning--Tirpitz had much more formidable AA, with mucho & better 2cm & 3.7cm Flak. The 3 converging stream props/closely arranged & coupled rudder system made Bismarck almost impossible to maneuver by props alone, even in smooth seas, and was it's "glass jaw". Design "clairvoyance" would now become crucial for an AA protection, not yet proven by experience, RN got lessons from Stukas starting 1940. Once one is steaming in slow circles, the term "shooting gallery" comes to mind. By their count, RN expended 2,876 shells on Bismarck, most at point-blank ranges.
BTW, Bismark had two fuel bunkers contaminated with sea water from PoW's hits, but was carrying sufficient fuel, in fact, extra, in case of special needs for this cruise. Lutjens, no Patton/Halsy/Rommel, had orders NOT to tangle with RN--recall his reticence, even after straddled, to engage Hood. Immediately after, he went for the safety/air cover of Brest, & not because it was a filling station.
I love those "Experts" without an
The question I want to know is would the USS Johnston be brave enough to go up against an Iowa class battleship.
Unresearched answer;
Yes, and 50% of the displacement of that ship is the brass balls of the sailors and thier captain Evans.
No because the Johnson would know the guys on the Iowa are as good as them.
No the USS Johnston was an American Fletcher Class Destroyer ,same team
What was more suicidal? Johnston charging the Yamato? Or Yamato charging into TF 58's area?
@@keithw4920 both i guess
Surely you mean would an Iowa class be brave enough to take on the plucky Johnston ,we know Johnston never shies from a fight. It's brass ball armour plate would be challenging
Entertaining, thanks. Also instructive.
You are a good man. You remember Johnny Horton's Sink The Bismarck
New Jersey's 5" 38 guns with proximity fuses would have devastated the British aircraft as well as her superior radar directors fire control.
Oddly, that might not be the case for an archaic fabric-skinned aircraft (vs. more modern metal skinned ones). Even without the speed issue, the reduced radar reflectivity might cause issues. Obviously, optical fire control should work just fine.
IIRC, during the cold war, there were similar concerns with the ability to detect the An-2 for the same reasons (low speed, fabric construction).
@@AndreRighetto2 90-knot speed was bog standard for torpedo attacks, though. Usually because of the torpedoes' limitations and not the torpedo bombers' limitations, but still. And at a really basic level, slow speed makes the job of computing a fire control solution much, MUCH easier, not harder... Unless you're a German, I guess, and your engineers have created some fantastically over-complicated AAA fire control system that does everything _except_ the one thing you actually _need_ it for.
In 1944 or 45, yes, in 41 NO !
@@niclasjohansson4333 _New Jersey_ in May 1941 was a pile of materials in a builder's slip, still a year and a half away from being launched and two full years from commissioning. So it's not like we can compare her "actual 1941 AA suite" with _Bismarck's,_ because that's not a thing that ever existed. The AA suite she initially entered service with - the closest real thing to a "1941 fit" she ever had - would absolutely have demolished the penny packets of Swordfish that crippled _Bismarck._
Probably not actually... In this scenario you see the USN are obviously at war with the Royal Navy, and those Proximity Fuses were sent over to the USA as part of the Tizzard Mission.... In other words, the USN would not have had them if the US had not been allies of the UK :).
It is also an unfair comparison, Bismark was Commissioned in August 1940, she had 1940 Fire Control and Radar. New Jersey was Commissioned in May 1943, meaning she had 1943 Radar and Fire Control. Does not sound much, but those two technologies in particular advanced incredibly rapidly during WWII. Comparing a 1940 radar/FC system with a 1943 radar/FC system is like comparing a Lada with a Ferrari.... The Lada is going to lose in every aspect save price....
Another thing not mentioned is that during both battles in which Bismarck fought the weather was appalling and during exercises with the RN and others post war the Iowa class proved to be unable to use their forward barbette in heavy seas meaning that in either fight the Iowa would have been reduced to a six gun ship a serious disadvantage
Re: "...the Iowa class proved to be unable to use their forward barbette in heavy seas meaning that in either fight the Iowa would have been reduced to a six gun ship a serious disadvantage."
Most battleships of that era, including the Iowas, had multiple locations from which targets could be ranged, plotted and fired upon. If heavy seas - or for that matter battle damage - put a local RF out of action, the job could be switched to another station higher in the superstructure or elsewhere, as needed. Depending on the design of the ship involved, there could be as many as four possible locations from which fire control could be exercised. The precise details depended on the navy and specific ship, of course, but pretty much everyone had this ability. They needed redundant systems in the chaos of combat, as well as due to weather and other environmental conditions such as surface fog, which might reduce the effectiveness of a given station.
Of course, none of this can predict the victor in a ship-to-ship duel of the kind being considered. Who hits first and hardest often decided the outcome, but not always. And chance - "Murphy's Law" - always lurks as well.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 The reason an Iowa would not be able to use her forward barbette in heavy weather has nothing to do with fire control or spotting but everything to do with the hull form and bow design of the Iowas,with too much water coming over the bow the barbette could not be operated,no barbette or gun house of the period is completely watertight. This was proved in exercises in the Atlantic where an Iowa was unable to use her forward barbette in heavy weather whilst Vanguard could use all her guns
@@davidmcintyre8145 - I haven't seen this information anywhere else, but thank you for it just the same.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 The writings of DK Brown make mention of this and even the battleship New Jersey channel has commented on the fact that the long thin bow of an Iowa lacks buoyancy. US ships were largely built for the Pacific so named because of it's largely benign and peaceful nature whereas RN ships had to operate everywhere and anywhere on the planet and so seakeeping was a major part of the design. This need to counter extremes of sea state and appalling weather on a regular basis such as in the North Sea,North and South Atlantic and Arctic oceans is also why RN carriers had closed hangers for their aircraft and did not normally use deck parking unlike US carriers until they moved to the Pacific
amazing assesment !
I think Ryan consistently underrates the guns of the IOWA class. The Mark 7 naval rifle firing the 2700 lb AP shell was a tremendously destructive weapon-Significantly more so than the BISMARK’s 15” guns which fired a 1700 lb AP shell. The ballistics of the Mark 7 firing the 2700 lb “Super Heavy” shell were so good, they were comparable to those of the YAMATO’s 18” guns.
The destructive impact of an IOWA’s 16” AP shell decisively exceeds that of any of the ships that participated in the battle.
A worthwhile comparison is just the Mark 7 naval rifle vs the 16"/45 guns of HMS Rodney. While Rodney's AP shells had a significantly greater bursting charge than the American Mark 8 shell, penetration was "only" 12" at 20,000 yards.
The Mark 8 shell penetrates 20" at that range. Overall, an Iowa class could do a better job than Rodney (in real world) did in reducing Bismarck to a flaming wreck from stem to stern.
Ironically, a South Dakota class with Mark 6 guns might do better if it could reliably hit at a range of 25,000+ yards as the lower caliber guns had to fire at a higher trajectory and would do better with plunging fire. Bismarck's armor scheme was more of a WW I style anticipating closer engagements like Jutland rather than long range plunging fire.
But the superior speed and range of an Iowa class makes it the logical choice to engage a ship like Bismarck as it could choose the time and conditions of the engagement.
And, of course, the US Navy was a large navy so like the Royal Navy they would have been unlikely to come alone. Two Iowas, or maybe New Jersey plus South Dakota. Plus cruisers and a swarm of destroyers.
It wouldn't be a boxing match by Marques of Queensbury rules. It would be overwhelming strength applied to put an enemy ship down. Bismarck would not survive.
25:20 - “a truly crapulent antiaircraft gun system”
The AA guns on Bismarck were adequate for their time. They could have been thought out better. The biggest problem is that the crew were not trained yet to use them properly, and they were designed to shoot at faster aircraft.
The Irony being that If you go to hunt a charging Rhino and an Elephant strolls up to you, and then smacks you with its trunk, its embarasing.
@Arsenal Bismarck Note: the operative phrase is "antiaircraft gun system" - NOT "antiaircraft gun" - this refers to the totality of target acquisition, fire control, gun, and projectile performance - NOT just the rifle.
@@TwistedSisterHaratiofales that's what you get when the warship was immediately sent into heavy combat during their first journey
@Arsenal Bismarck you do know no matter how crap the gun is like fifty cal or just a 20mm gun if its equipped with superior fire control and radar like on the Iowa late war it would like as accurate as today's AA guns
I’d like to see a video about New Jersey as a part of Force Z, either as a third ship or replacing either Prince of Wales or Repulse
Another interesting comparison is "What if Bismarck/New Jersey wasn't located , and made it to Brest , then sortied out into the Atlantic ?"
In league with this is "what if Bismarck didn't suffer that Golden BB ?" , and "what if that dud in PoW's keel had exploded ?" .
Another juicy one is "what if Yamato was substituted for Bismarck ?" .
😎
*To examine this subject more closely , read my post #23 at :
quora.com/Since-the-Bismarck-sank-HMS-Hood-rather-quickly-what-is-the-likelihood-that-either-the-Bismarck-or-the-Tirpitz-would-do-the-same-to-an-American-battleship/
Same, maybe tell him one
As New Jersey only completed her working up (shakedown, I believe the US Navy called it) in late 1943, it would be necessary to delay the departure of Force Z by two years.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 and because of that, prince of wales repulse and the escorts will survive for longer
@@dovetonsturdee7033 let alone the japanese invading
In the days, I build a replica on scale of the Bismarck, and she was a sexy ship. The model is still here displayed, but I'm happy that she got sunken. Although, it wasn't easy for the allied fleet. Btw, in my opinion, the IOWA class battleships are also my favorites, You have great content, and I'm following you for a time, thank you very much for sharing this info.
Now that's scary . I am truly glad that none of these hit any allied ships . At a guess , I think the resulting explosion would have been like the USS Arzona from Pearl Harbor .. with catastrophic results . another amazing episode .
Thank You for that thorough analysis. But I think that the determining factor would have been gun accuracy
and which ever battleship lands the first salvo on the other battleship. If your fire control is put out of action early,
there is not much hope in scoring a hit. You would be firing your guns blind. But that is my opinion.
Agreed. The NJ is a hell of a ship and was / is light years ahead of the Bismarck in terms of design. However, after the sinking of the Hood (pride of the Royal Navy at the time) the battle to sink the Bismarck became much more of a matter of service pride. Whatever ship was responsible, nearly any amount of resources would have been thrown at it to make damned sure that the ship never saw port again. There's only so much punishment that any ship can absorb, no matter how well designed & constructed. She would have put up a hell of a fight but ultimately NJ would have suffered the same fate. Great video!
you are falling victim to the same misunderstanding that many other people do. Hood was not the so-called pride of the royal Navy because it was a powerful or particularly well-designed ship. Some people in the upper levels of the royal Navy saw it that way for sentimental reasons, the fact is that hood had some serious design flaws, was completely obsolete by that time, and her engines were half broken down. In fact the only reason she was in the area to intercept Bismarck in the first place was because she had been on her way to drydock for a long overdue refit.
@@micfail2 I'm aware of that. I never said why she was viewed as the pride of the RN, but in the higher ranks and in the imagination of the public at the time, there's no doubt that she was seen as the pride of the Navy.
@@DarkFire515 If the RN had such great faith in the Hood they wouldn't have stopped the class at one hull. The Hood was pretty, and that's why she was such a superstar. But - unlike the Spitfire - she didn't combine looks with effectiveness by the time she went into battle against a more modern opponent.
@@slammerf16 I agree entirely. I think the Admiralty were also well aware of her limitations, which is why the RN were adamant that she was an (oversized) battlecruiser and very definitely not a battleship. This is also why i disagree with the notion that Hood was an early, maybe the first, "fast battleship". She might have been considered as such after the planned '41 refit, but before hand she simply didn't have sufficient protection, and I think the Admiralty were well aware of the fact.
No the RN did not sink Bismarck because of pride. The RN has always accepted combat losses as a fact of life, and Hood was no exception.
Bismarck was relentlessly hunted because of the threat she posed to RN escort resources.
Escorting every convoy with a battleship stretched the RN to the limit, and meant they couldn't be doing other stuff. Destroying Bismarck was crucial to the conduct of the war.
Decent but a few things:
a) Prince of Wales like all the KGVs was armored to defeat 16" shells. While Bismarck did finally score hits the bridge one went through a window and the one that lodged in the bottom was a dud - had it been live it would have detonated upon hitting the water.
b) Prince of Wales scored more than one damaging hit. They not only holed the bow but also wrecked the fuel distribution system from the forward tanks and holed a boiler room.
c) Bismarck had three screws and 2 rudders. The torpedo hit wrecked the steering room and jammed the rudder.
As always a great video
Bismarck´s armor was made from a layer of hardened steel (Wotan hart) and a layer of soft steel (Wotan weich) which was extremly effective at close range.
Armor sheme was outdated but the armor itself was revolutionary.
Nice try.....AP: 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s) HC & Nuclear: 2,690 ft/s (820 m/s)...the Bismark was an idea.....Iowa class was hell on earth
@@imtheonevanhalen1557 Aaaaand? Bismarck´s shells AP 820 m/s (2,700 ft/s), Si.Gr L/4.5 Bdz u. Kz (m.Hb) 1,050 m/s (3,400 ft/s).
Is this in any way helpfull? Nope.
The Iowa was just a showcase battleship which never got a real fight beside bombarding beaches and japanese fisher villages.
@@MesCaLiN21 she did sink Japanese Light Cruiser Katori
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 That must have been a legendary battle:
An already damaged 6k tons cruiser with deadly 4x140mm vs almost 60k tons with
9 × 406mm + 20 × 127 mm.
side note:" A large group of survivors were seen in the water after she sank, but the Americans did not recover any of them. "
That´s exactly what i´m talking about...
@@MesCaLiN21 I never said that it was fair, just that it happened.
Wonderful presentation. Now Im having to my split my time between you me Drachinifel. I have a slight disagreement though, not that the Iowa would have survived against that British task force, largely unable to maneuver, because any batteship, if it cannot maneuver, is going to be pounded to death, one vs. a task force, eventually.
The Kreigsmarine ships apparently had a critical design flaw. This extended from their light cruisers all the way to the Bismark. Several German ships suffered critical damage to their Stern's in WW2. Reports indicate the Bismark's stern was pretty mangled. Also, and I cannot remember the cite off-hand, but supposedly surviviors claimed they could have cut the stuck rudder free if they had the same damage control equipment as the u-boats sailed with.
The US Iowa class had a much deeper and more robust stern. I would strongly suspect with two, or maybe three, screws in operation she could have made it to Brest before the Rodney caught up with her, i.e. cutting the second rudder free and steering with engines only. The 14" guns on the KG5 would have required closing to under 10,000 yards to penetrate the 17.3" armor on the conning tower, barbettes, or 19.5" turret faces.
The Bismark will ironically be able to defend better against a KG5 led task force, due to her split secondary armament. The 15cm 55 caliber guns are going to be much more dangerous to heavy cruisers than the US 5" dual purpose guns. Of course that assumes equal fire control, and I don't know enough to compare the systems versus multiple surface targets.
Lastly, against the US there would have been Naval Air assets deployed at Brest. Within 200 miles the British would have had totally different issues. If General Werner had not died in 1936, Goering might not have nerfed the proper development of German anti-shipping aviation.The He111 turned out to be an excellent torpedo platform, but like the US the Germans struggled with the development of a good aerial torpedo, and ended up borrowing heavily from the Italians. This came in time for the Murmansk convoys, but not for the Bismark.
I loved watching this. Fascinating to hear the comparisons and how similar these two warships were. I just wanted to drop a note about the CIWS/Phalanx. I don't know about 1980-era, but mid-2000s these were used successfully on pirate skiffs off Somalia, so would have been fine on the slow-but-still-faster-than-a-skiff planes. Needed upgrades to train down to waterline so it's not a rebuttal especially as torpedo planes come in low anyway also, but it's an interesting data point.
I don't believe that CIWS or Phalanx was available in the 1941-1945 time period under discussion here.
A couple of suggestions for swapping an Iowa in the place of Scharnhorst at the Battle of the North Cape, and Kirishima vs South Dakota and Washington. Thank you again for the interesting content.
Iowa would likely have sunk earlier as she has less subdivided watertight compartments. That very long slim bow built for speed is a liability when water gets into it. No ship would have survived what Bismarck took, but maybe the closest match would be the Littorio class or the KGV's. Yamato would have done better, as in lasted longer, but she would still go down. No ship was ever built to take 16" shells into the hull at 3,000 yards.
Nice insight, you forget the superior damage control factor. Plus if its flooding by torpedo hit, the British WWI type Biplanes, the Swordfish, would have been easily massacred by the superior AA fire control on the Iowa.
@@ramal5708 What superior damage control? The torpedo damage that led to several thousand tons of water entering her overnight before the last action came from destroyers, they reported hits, the Germans denied them - like they did the swastika being painted on the stern where it is still visible on the wreck today.
Also you seem to ignore that Iowa would not have the critical radar and proximity fused AA shells in mid-1941. Iowa is a very large, not heaviliy armoured, ship built purely for high speed rather than survivability.
@@tashatsu_vachel4477 do you think also any other ship in other nations would survive as well? Don't underappreciate the Iowas
@@tashatsu_vachel4477 you also probably never heard of torpedo bulges and the USN superior dmage control parties
@@ramal5708 Oddly enough I have! As well as intenal main armour belts and angled belts.
Just think if That Bismarck shell exploded in the Prince of Wales! Two magic BB shots in one battle! Beatty's famous line would have certainly applied! Now assuming a jammed rudder on the New Jersey, can the ship steam in a straight enough line using only propellers and make enough speed to get within air cover range off the coast of France? Even damaged, wouldn't the New Jersey dictate the early terms of the battle, having better main gun range, and better fire control? Wouldn't the British battleships have to split their force in order split New Jersey's main battery fire? Not sure if they did that with Bismark. I also wonder how well the secondary 5 inch guns would have contributed as the range decreases. The rate of fire from those ships would have been hell on the upper works of any ship.
Germans were famous with their dud/unexploding shells from their APCBC shells after penetration from their large caliber guns in WWII, same as the US with they're Mark13-14-15 torpedoes fault
I lived aboard the USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) for 2 years. Awesome ship. Still can’t describe 16inch guns volume of sound enough to do her justice.
I'm with you on this one. Enjoyed the video very much, thank you.
I know little enough about said marine warfare but what you said sounds feasible. One thing you may have stressed a little more at the end is the anti-aircraft capabilities would have saved her from the final conflict and she could have ran for home.
Vanguard was an awesome looking ship.
Agree personally my favourite looking ship along with the king gorge v claas they look pretty similar.
The Vanguard was a stunning ship it really had presence 👍
@@keithwells3705 even though I'm british my favourite looking ship is Bismarck I've always been so fascinated by it ever since I was a child. After the Bismarck my other close favourites are Hood, King George v and HMS Warspite
@@JoeCurtis82 I'll agree with vanguard. Warspite is my favorite ship but I'm not a fan of the refitted qe class looks wise. Bismarck, vanguard, Iowa, North Carolina are all fantastic looking vessels.
@@JoeCurtis82 >> Indeed. I think Vanguard is the prettiest battleship. Iowa’s are a close 2nd for me.
LOL.......the reference to the Johnny Horton song made laugh after a moment of confusion.
A big advantage New Jersey would have had over Bismarck would have been her 4 shaft propeller arrangement, in particular her outboard shafts in skegs which would protect her shafts more than shafts on struts such as Bismarck. Also with a broader stern area New Jersey was able to have 4 shafts to Bismarck's 3 shafts. Bismarck did have twin rudders like New Jersey, but the close proximity of her 3 shafts did not provide much in the way of turning ability after her rudders were damaged.
RE: Denmark Strait; I don't think the Iowas historically performed very well in heavy sea states did they? I don't see much of a reason to suppose they'd be any quicker than Bismarck was historically regardless of whether Prinz Eugen was in attendence or not. I'm aware that Vanguard was a much better ship in rough seas than the Iowas and I would actually thing the relationship, so to speak, of Bismarck and NJ would be the same. Bismarck was designed to deal with those sea conditions and the Iowas weren't - especially if we assume she ends up down at the bows following Denmark Strait.
I'm also not convinced that the silhouettes of PE and NJ are similar enough to assume that Hood would make the same mistake that it did historically.
-What I would suppose is that NJ would come under fire from both British ships fairly quickly, but that, range, light, and weather being what they are, this wouldn't necessarily result in any more likelyhood of shells landing on NJ than they did on Bismark statistically speaking. Maybe Hood gets a hitin extra at most, but her 15" shells performed slightly worse than the 14" shells of the KGV class so thats much of a muchness. I'm quite comfortable with the notion that NJ would cripple Hood, but that the particular fashion in which Hood was destroyed (I've always erred towards a shell plunging beneath her vertical protection, and the Drach video you allude to has frankly only convinced me further) is less likely. I'm fairly sure NJ could simply punch through Hoods defences at almost any range, but that this would likely cripple her rather than destroy her in the spectacular fashion we saw historically. The nub of the thing is that if we assume Holland knows he's facing 16" guns, would he still send Hood in before Prince of Wales, or would he transfer his flag to the newer ship? PoW's protection is specifically designed to face down 16" fire within her intended engagement ranges and between thickness and quality the KGVs are the best protected battleships ever to have existed against gunfire; excepting only the cyclopean monstrosity of the Yamato, and so she should, theoretically at least, be relied upon to tank NJ's fire for long enough for the engagement to play out differently.
But only, of course, if Holland puts PoW front and center. I'm not sure he would have done even if he knew the particulars of NJ, because even if most of Hood's crew had been replaced with greener and less well trained recruits, the ship was still more reliable than the completely green Prince of Wales - at least from his point of view. But I think it's still worth keeping in mind as a possibility
RE: the Swordfish attack from Ark Royal; an important factor in the historical event, that i honestly don't know whether or not it is even relevant, is that the weather that evening was extremely poor, both in terms of sea state and ceiling; part of the reason for the Swordfish' success is that they were able to get close enough to attack before Bismarck could even see them.
Now, the thing I'm pondering, is whether or not New Jersey's air defence suite could have dealt with the Swordfish even in these poor weather conditions; I'm fairly sure that they would at least have been able to get a rough approximation of the Swordish' speed and bearing on their attack run, but would that be decisive? Bismarck was pretty much literally firing blind until the stringbags dropped below the low cloud ceiling, at which point they were already pretty much ready to drop their torpedoes thanks to their having their own surface search radar.
On a sort-of similar note; such an attack, with NJ being considerably longer than Bismarck; wouldn't the torpedoes be a bit more likely to hit NJ in or near the propeller shafts, rather than the rudders? That could prove considerably more of a problem than being hit in the rudders if so.
Yea this was my thoughts on Iowa class in Atlantic as well, they conducted tests after the war and Iowas were a very poor firing platform in heavy seas
Pretty much agree with your assessment here. Hood would probably get crippled, and disengage. US shell arcs are unlikely to replicate the blow which took out Hood historically.
Would Hood be sent with just PoW against a 16" armed ship though? This whole discussion is assuming nothing changes on the British side. If Hood is seen as vulnerable, she'd be kept back in a similar fashion to Renown historically.
@@Joshua-fi4ji I'm very much of the opinion that if one doesn't magically drop a 16" gun equipped ship like NJ in to the north Atlantic then Britain's whole naval makeup changes dramatically.
With such a powerful ship construction in Europe even the UK would have ignored the Washington Treaty - thr KGVs would have ended up with 16" rifles, the R-class would have been scrapped early and Hood would certainly have seen her major upgrade rather then wasting years showing the flag. Either the Lions or thr Lusties would have been rushed in to production.
And I mean let's face it, with Britain's soy-game being what it was in the 30s and 40s, whilst Germany could sort of hide the displacement of Bismarck, they couldn't have hidden the additional work and infrastructure required to make a 16" gun ship.
@@bairdrew
The 15" gun used is just and evolution of the design used on Bayern and Baden.
A 16" is new for Germany and may also have all sorts of issues. Germanys naval industry was a bit out of practice since the end of WWI.
They can't hide Bismarck like Yamato was. It's in the middle of Europe and will raise serious questions and concerns if hidden. They have limited slipways and drydocks so any attempt to hide her will set off alarm bells.
As you say, if this did happen the RN would also be looking at an upgraded KGV class and the Lions. Perhaps they'd even think about building some G3 style designs also if the threat was great enough.
The R class will probably get decommissioned, but may still be around to bring back into service. Could be crewed by the other free navies/ Canadians/Australians.
@@Joshua-fi4ji The KGVs had 14 inch guns on the basis that 10 fourteen inch guns would through a greater weight of shot in a broadside that 8 fifteen inch guns.
The RN had a problem with their 16 inch guns on Nelson and Rodney in that the light shell/high muzzle velocity idea didn't really work and the barrels needed replacing after 180 full charge firings. There was also a lot of trouble with the turret roller path not really being up to the 2000 ton rotating structure. This put them off that calibre in future ships.
Vanguard got the 15" Mk 1 gun and turret first used in the Queen Elizabeths in 1912 because it worked (and they had four spare turrets). If it 'aint broke...
If none of the swordfish survive their attack run, and we assume a 1 in a million torpedo still jams the rudder, I still think the NJ would escape the Royal Navy. The Bismarck was forced into sailing in circles which made it easy to find. Even if the British located her, the older ships probably would not be able to close the gap before NJ made it into the protective range of France.
A very interesting talk.
I love learning new stuff. I don’t know why, but I have always thought all these battles happened in the North Sea to the east of Britain. No idea this was all out in the Atlantic.
If anything, an all-or-nothing battleship would probably gone down quicker. At that range even fire from cruisers or even destroyers will cause severe damage to the "nothing"-parts. No ship ever built would have survived what sunk Bismarck, Tirpitz, Yamato or Musashi.
A few things!
I mostly agree with you conclusions. Yes, if an Iowa Class Battleship were forced into the same situation as the Bismarck, she would have sank, but at the same time, there is no reason to believe that an Iowa Class Battleships could ever have been forced into the same situation as Bismarck. Iowa had more fuel, so a run to Brest would have probably not been needed, and she probably could have made it to German ports in Africa, where the British had much less control. If she did turn toward Brest, she would probably have defeated the air attacks and made it to Brest just fine. If she was hit by Air attacks, I doubt she would take the same critical hit that Bismarck took. If she does take that same hit, well then now she is likely going down.
I disagree on the modern New Jersey for one reason only. I think a concentrated missile barrage at Hood and Prince of Wales would have scared them off pretty easily, possibly dealing damage to their superstructures. This means an undamaged Iowa Class would be free to roam the Atlantic sinking merchant shipping as she would not have taken that hit to the bow.
Finally, I noticed that you haven't done a video on the USS Texas yet. I mean, for sure she is nothing compared to an Iowa, but she is the last surviving Dreadnought, and definitely an interesting topic to talk about, seeing that you have gone over HMS Dreadnought, it would shed some light on the differences and similarities of US Dreadnought design as compared to later battleships and contemporary design. Also as a Texan, that poor ship needs all the help she can get so we can get her drydocked, and any bit of coverage of her helps let people know about her current situation.
Is she in bad shape? I believe the Texas was sent to Scapa Flow as part of the 6th Battle Squadron in 1917-8 although I may be wrong about that as she was one of the new oil burners and the RN could not fuel them easily. She needs serious support as she is the only early USN super dreadnaught example.
Here's this VLS Iowa conversion concept. i.imgur.com/06yHCbN.png That's 45 missiles in the rear while being able to retain all of the turrets.
Here's a concept that's a modern take on the Yamato including 180 VLS cells, RIM-116 platforms , and modern day destroyer guns.
i.imgur.com/ZxgaEHM.png
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-162_ESSM
That's potentially 720 anti-air missiles for the Yamato 2 in the VLS tubes.
@@XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX981 Yes, multiple holes in her hull under water, catastrophic flooding. The ship is currently closed for major repairs. She will be moved into drydock to replace her current hull below the waterline with an entirely new hull, then moved from San Jacinto to Port Arthur, Galveston, or Corpus Christi.
I'm personally hoping Corpus gets her so she can be docked next to the USS Lexington.
Putting NJ in a German Colony port would probably have left her as a fleet in being, just like Tirpitz
...and I had to check for sure, but Texas was as I guessed a Coal-burner (Britain had no problems with coal supply, whereas oil was a less available commodity)
I am not sure what you mean with german ports in Africa - there were none except for Libya, but that would have required getting through the Strait of Gibraltar - hardly an option. Or maybe you meant french ports under Vichy control? That might have been possible, you could park her in Dakar beside the Richelieu. But then the british would have massed their fleet outside and blown that port to bits.
Concerning an Iowa having more fuel than a Bismarck, given that Bismarck left Norway without refueling due to a mishap its not a stretch to have the Iowa start this scenario with having the same amount of fuel as Bismarck had - its a "what if" after all :-)
Given the totality of circumstances, New Jersey probably would have survived in her WWII configuration - if she was caught by Rodney and King George V, she would have acquitted herself better but would likely have been unable to win that engagement, of course. However, New Jersey's longer legs and better propulsion system would have almost certainly gotten her closer to France and within range of the Luftwaffe - and once she had air cover, it's an extremely survivable situation. Being better at each engagement, even if not by much, does add up over the series of running engagements to the air cover that could save the ship.
I Really appreciate your knowledge, Dedication and true Warrior spirit! Thanks for running a great simulation of possible outcomes to show how NJ would have fared at each stage! I was watching and remembered a book I forgot I owned, and dug it up. its an autographed copy of "Battleship Bismark" it was inscribed to Rear Admiral Quiqley in 1981 and signed by Count Reichberg. I just found it in an old box a few days ago! I do wonder though about a certain few of the myriad outcomes (Butterfly Effect). That, being able to see and target at night even to a limited ability and with those bigger 16" guns, Jersey could have possibly kept some or all cruisers out of effective range. Also probably has good a chance of stopping or slowing the British battleships. Further, it seems that mabey the R.N. (Running on Nothing) fuel wise, would have either been disuaded from further persuit by a feint to seaward or at least not gotten as many shells on target since New Jersey wasn't steaming in a circle! I can imagine that she would still have given a fair turn of speed for Rodney if "given her head" for awhile for evasion. Did the range close enough for Jerseys 5in guns? Also its probably totally laughable for any swordfish, let alone the 1 out of the twelve that actually managed a hit to penetrate a faster more manueverable WW2 Jerseys trained Defences and score. Also by swinging her tail radar she would probably have known that she had evaded (and at a faster speed and far greater range remaining than Bismark.) The British fleet although this probably would give her away, however because at this point there's no fuel panic and She's a more powerful vessel retaining good speed, I doubt radio silence would be broken at all anyway. In short I see no feasible way that NJ goes down the same outside of incompitence. However, I am most certainly no expert on this, so please feel free to correct my ignorance! And certainly, I mean no disrespect to any person or ship involved in the conflict! Thanks to you all!
I am as ignorant as yourself but I wanted to point out the 1939 encounter of Graf Spee vs 3 Allied Cruisers. Spee had larger guns but trying to defend against multiple ships in a running battle is nearly impossible not to sustain hits. This is in reference to your expressing the New Jersey in a similar situation.