Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all, if I came across as being argumentative, please accept my apology. Second, I admit to a bit of bias in favor of the larger German-built warships, mostly because they usually were the best-in-class.
I defend my claim that Bismarck was larger than the Iowa-class BBs by pointing out that Bismarck's standard displacement was 41,700 metric tons, while the Iowas had a standard displacement of 45,000 "regular" tons. A metric ton weighs 2,204.62 pounds, so 41,700 metric tons is equivalent to 45,966 "regular" tons. Bismarck had about 10 feet more beam than the Iowas. Of course, the Iowa designers had to limit the vessels' beam to 108 feet, so they could transit the Panama Canal. The Bismarck designers didn't have that limitation.
BTW, there were plans to replace the nine 11-inch guns on the German battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with six 15-inch guns (3x2). This would have significantly increased their "bite". It never happened, of course.
Did German BB's have a Kiel canal limitation? I remember it had to be expanded after the Dreadnought but I'm not sure if it was still a consideration during WWII.
Also, on the same topic, I believe the Japanese BB's had to be able to navigate the Inner Sea and thus were made extra long for lower draft.
Did German BB's have a Kiel canal limitation? I remember it had to be expanded after the Dreadnought but I'm not sure if it was still a consideration during WWII.
There were a couple of factors that placed limitations on any German battleship designed after the Kiel Canal expansion of 1914. For one, the maximum draft of a ship could not greatly exceed 10 meters because the average depth of the canal stood at 11 meters. This was also an important consideration because many of Germany's harbors, in particular the Jade Estuary where Wilhelmshaven is located, are on the shallow side. Lastly, in order to make use of the construction facilities and docks at Wilhelmshaven, the beam of the vessel could not exceed 38 meters and the waterline length could be no more than 250 meters. Thus, Bismarck was designed with a beam of 36 meters, waterline length of 241.55 meters, and a draft of 10.2 meters.
Quote:
Also, on the same topic, I believe the Japanese BB's had to be able to navigate the Inner Sea and thus were made extra long for lower draft.
The Japanese, at least with regard to Yamato/Musashi, took a different approach. They first made the decision to build the ships then did whatever was necessary to make it possible to do so. At the Kure Navy Yard, where Yamato was built, the construction dock was deepened by 1 meter to accommodate the ship and the capacity of the gantry crane was increased to 100 metric tons. At the Mitsubishi ship facility at Nagasaki, the slipway was reinforced to take the weight of the hull of Musashi, and floating cranes with respective lift capacities of 150 and 350 metric tons were also built. Dry docks capable of handling either battleship were built at Yokosuka and Sasebo. The Japanese also commenced construction of completely new ship repair and docking facilities at Uga on the western side of the Bungo Straits, and also at Wakayama on the Kitan Strait, but work was halted at both sites in 1943. Lastly, the Japanese actually built a special cargo vessel, the "Kashino", to transport the turrets and guns from Kure to the other shipyards where Yamato's sisters, Musashi and Shinano, were to be constructed.
As to restrictions due to concerns over the ability to navigate the Inland Sea, I'm not sure that was much of an issue. I know the Inland Sea is considered shallow, with an average depth of about 37.5 meters. But Yamato's draft was only 10.4 meters, so there was certainly more than enough room to spare.
First of all, if I came across as being argumentative, please accept my apology. Second, I admit to a bit of bias in favor of the larger German-built warships, mostly because they usually were the best-in-class.
I defend my claim that Bismarck was larger than the Iowa-class BBs by pointing out that Bismarck's standard displacement was 41,700 metric tons, while the Iowas had a standard displacement of 45,000 "regular" tons. A metric ton weighs 2,204.62 pounds, so 41,700 metric tons is equivalent to 45,966 "regular" tons. Bismarck had about 10 feet more beam than the Iowas. Of course, the Iowa designers had to limit the vessels' beam to 108 feet, so they could transit the Panama Canal. The Bismarck designers didn't have that limitation.
BTW, there were plans to replace the nine 11-inch guns on the German battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with six 15-inch guns (3x2). This would have significantly increased their "bite". It never happened, of course.
I appreciate your note. No doubt we all tend to get a little intense at times when discussing a favored subject. The Bismarck has justifiably been the object of much discussion by WWII history buffs over the years. I believe that even Winston Churchill expressed a grudging admiration for the build quality of this incredible ship. BTW, thanks for the clarification on metric tons vs regular tons. I'll have to admit that naval history is of interest, but not my forte. Regards!
The Bismarck and Tipitz were built at the Blohm & Voss yards in Hamburg. Therefore, the key determinant wasn't the depth of the Kiel Canal, but the depth of the Elbe River.
Well done. The Bismarck and Tipitz were built at the Blohm & Voss yards in Hamburg. Therefore, the key determinant wasn't the depth of the Kiel Canal, but the depth of the Elbe River.
Thank you very much. I’m sorry to disagree with you after receipt of a compliment but I’m afraid I must. Though one does need to take in account the depth of the Elbe, the river (at least from Hamburg out to the North Sea) is affected by tidal flow. A vessel with a draft of 12.8 meters maximum can safely navigate the Elbe regardless of whether it is low or high tide. Because of sediment build-up, the Elbe is regularly dredged to maintain a depth of 15.30 meters in mid channel to compensate for the tides. So in this regard, it seems plausible that ships with greater draft then either Bismarck or Tirpitz could have been built at Hamburg.
But with two bodies of water to defend and operate in (the North Sea and the Baltic), constructing a warship that would be forced to sail around the whole of Denmark to get from one to the other, rather than be able to utilize the Kiel Canal, didn’t make all that much sense. The only other option would have been to deepen the canal, but the Germans seem to have been content to deal with the depth restriction rather than expend whatever it would have cost to alter the canal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMarbles
Thanks TonyT. Your knowledge continues to impress me.
A fascinating thread and seeing as this is one of speculation, imagine if the Bimarck, Turpitz et al and Japanese forces had ever combined.
For what it's worth, my Grandfather was on the steel decked aircraft carrier HMS Formidable in the Pacific which came under Kamikaze attack.
My Great Grandfather was on the USS Enterprise during the Pearl Harbor attack.
As for the thread.
It depends on the circumstances and the factors that contribute to the clash. Any battleship can sink any battleship, or at least cripple it, that's how it goes.
I mean sure, the Yamato has bigger guns and more armor, but what about strategy and tactics? I heard that the Bismarck had better fire control systems, which also contributes.
My Great Grandfather was on the USS Enterprise during the Pearl Harbor attack.
As for the thread.
It depends on the circumstances and the factors that contribute to the clash. Any battleship can sink any battleship, or at least cripple it, that's how it goes.
I mean sure, the Yamato has bigger guns and more armor, but what about strategy and tactics? I heard that the Bismarck had better fire control systems, which also contributes.
I don't think large battleships were capable of sinking large battleships under ordinary conditions.
The Yamato and Musashi were expressly designed to be battleship killers. Their shells weighed 6,000 pounds. Our main battleship shells weighed 3,000 pounds. Germany's biggest shells weighed just 1,700 pounds.
The Japanese knew they could not produce nearly as many battleships as we could. So they elected to produce two gigantic battleship killers. These battleship killers were at least 50% larger than our largest battleships.
I must disclose that I am no battleship authority. In fact I am mostly regurgitating material from earlier C-D posts made by battleship aficionados. But I really like the machismo of a battleship firing its main guns.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
