Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-17-2014, 10:15 AM
 
2 posts, read 3,661 times
Reputation: 16

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Well, the snarky answer is neither. Battleships were already outdated by the beginning of WW2. Carriers ruled the oceans and it has remained that way since then. For direct evidence, both of these ships were crippled and/or destroyed by carrier based planes.

On the battleship front, I think both of the designs fell short of the U.S. Iowa class that was the pre-eminent WW2 battleship design incorporating firepower (not just weight and distance of projectile, but accuracy as well), speed, armor and anti-aricraft capability these ships didn't possess.

As it was these two ships were of very different design with different roles to play. The Yamato class was designed as a Japanese counter to the numerically superior American battleships. They knew they could never equal the U.S. in ship production, so they invested into large ships that were designed to engage multiple American battleships simultaneously. The idea was to use the superior weight of fire and range to engage the American ships.

The Bismarck was designed as a heavier "fast" battleship that emphasized speed and puch, but was optimized for battles in the North Sea and North Atlantic. Since visibility was incredibly hampered in that environment the Bismarck was setup more for close range gun battles. Even the armor was designed to be resist shells from close range, not arcing shells that would come from the top, a major difference versus U.S. and British ships at the time.

Only the Bismarck has a real combat record, where it engaged HMS Hood. Hood, however, was virtually a relic at the time and was quickly destroyed. The Yamato and Musashi never really engaged in any direct combat.

I think if Yamato fought Bismarck, the Yamato would win. As someone else said, the battle would be on Bismarck's terms, but Yamato's superior range, firepower and armor give it the clear advantage. The wildcard here is whether or not Bismarck could score a couple critical hits early on and give itself a leg up. The Bismarck did have better accuracy and fire control, but the Yamato's armor was designed to withstand 16" shells which was more than Bismarck had. One lucky hit, as with most naval engagements, and the tide could be turned.

However, it needs to be stated again that both of these designs were obsolete by the beginning of WW2. Carrier based aircraft were what won battles and both of these ships amounted to little more than floating targets.
ww2 carriers had the advantage in range. battleships couldn't get close enough, that was the advantage but you are wrong about the advantage in modern combat. countries spend billions of dollars on carriers so they have taken a huge investment from the success's of ww2 (tried and true) however, modern day anti air missiles and high rate anti air guns can shoot down attacks from modern fighter missiles etc.. a modern battleship would be packed full of these goodies and with the invention and research on rail guns its only a matter of time before battleships will rule again why? you can block a missile shoot down a jet but its highly unlikely you will intercept shells/solid slugs from a battleships main gun. furthermore space will eventual be the new battlefield so atmospheric fighters and sea navy will be obsolete. also I think in the case of ww2 battleships the guns did way more damage then their hulls could tank so It would really come down to who gets the 1st clean shot. Yamato would have had the advantage in range and the amount of guns also the captain and crew probably had more combat experience. anyone who just writes battleships off as obsolete is just going with popular opinion. its a question of money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-17-2014, 11:45 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,043,295 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrflagg View Post
you can block a missile shoot down a jet but its highly unlikely you will intercept shells/solid slugs from a battleships main gun.
Over 30 years ago the British had Sea Wolf which could shoot down shells in flight. They used in it the Falklands conflict.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2014, 01:47 AM
 
2 posts, read 3,661 times
Reputation: 16
that's why I say its highly unlikely. also I think the new rail gun tech shoots solid sabots much faster than current conventional weaponry. 780 m/s (2,600 ft/s) is the speed of a 40cm /45 type 94 naval shell used by the Yamato which is an old naval gun. 150mm rail gun can shoot a sabot in direct fire as fast as Mach 7.5 or 2 552.175 m / s and indirect fire Mach 5 while a Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet travels at 1,915 km/h so the question remains.. a 40 million dollar manned aircraft or $1500 piece of tungsten.

also my wording was wrong in my last post the Yamato less big guns than the Bismarck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2014, 04:29 PM
 
447 posts, read 731,367 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
I doubt they were cheap. The whole plane was metal except the top wing of the bi-plane which was wood to reduce weight. Outdated? It looked outdated however was proven not to be by its outstanding performance. With state-of-the-art radar at the time it excelled in the roles it was given. No other plane could do what it did. That is why it was kept on when it was expected to be discontinued just after the outbreak of WW2. It could be said it was ahead of its time.

The British used the carrier in a different mode to the USA in 1939. Carriers were for reconnaissance, fleet protection and to direct the big guns of the Battleships to bare. The USA had the carrier as an attack ship operating in the vast Pacific, as did the Japanese. UK carriers were smaller and were not meant to be at sea more than a week as there was always an nearby friendly port having the world's largest ever empire. British carriers were expected to operate nearer land and in range of land based planes, hence the armoured carriers as opposed to the wooden decked US carriers. Hence why the Swordfish was a perfect plane for the role in the mid-1930s. The plane was based on a requirement for the Greek navy. The Greeks pulled out and the RN took interest.

The Swordfish planes that attacked and disabled the Bismarck had open cockpits and a machine gunner behind the pilot as in WW1. They were spraying the decks with bullets as they flew over. Later versions had enclosed cockpits.

They did hold up well and could take some flak damage and keep flying where other planes would fall out of the sky.

I rate it is the most remarkable plane of WW2. Forget the Spitfires, Mustangs, Lancasters, jets, etc. This visually looking relic, was ahead of many of them.

BTW, the Swordfish that disabled the Bismarck were launched from the Ark Royal of the Med fleet. Once the Bismarck was turning in circles, another flight was launched to finish her off. The Home fleet fired on the Swordfish telling them to keep away as Bismarck was theirs to sink. The RN fired on its own planes.




I heard the Swordfish were shot at by a British cruiser because they attacked the British cruiser by mistake and the cruiser fired on them to scare them off. I would not say the Swordfish sunk the Bismark as they only had one hit that disabled the rudder and they could not steer it. Thats not sinking it but it did help by slowing it down so the British battleships could catch up since it was going in circles.

It may have been a good plane for what it was but no way would I ever say it was the best plane of WWII. I would rather be in a Mustang or Spitfire anyday over the Swordfish. And I sure would not want to be in a Swordfish if enemy fighters are around. Ron
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2014, 02:43 PM
 
Location: West Phoenix
966 posts, read 1,337,671 times
Reputation: 2547
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
I doubt they were cheap. The whole plane was metal except the top wing of the bi-plane which was wood to reduce weight. Outdated? It looked outdated however was proven not to be by its outstanding performance. With state-of-the-art radar at the time it excelled in the roles it was given. No other plane could do what it did. That is why it was kept on when it was expected to be discontinued just after the outbreak of WW2. It could be said it was ahead of its time.

The British used the carrier in a different mode to the USA in 1939. Carriers were for reconnaissance, fleet protection and to direct the big guns of the Battleships to bare. The USA had the carrier as an attack ship operating in the vast Pacific, as did the Japanese. UK carriers were smaller and were not meant to be at sea more than a week as there was always an nearby friendly port having the world's largest ever empire. British carriers were expected to operate nearer land and in range of land based planes, hence the armoured carriers as opposed to the wooden decked US carriers. Hence why the Swordfish was a perfect plane for the role in the mid-1930s. The plane was based on a requirement for the Greek navy. The Greeks pulled out and the RN took interest.

The Swordfish planes that attacked and disabled the Bismarck had open cockpits and a machine gunner behind the pilot as in WW1. They were spraying the decks with bullets as they flew over. Later versions had enclosed cockpits.

They did hold up well and could take some flak damage and keep flying where other planes would fall out of the sky.

I rate it is the most remarkable plane of WW2. Forget the Spitfires, Mustangs, Lancasters, jets, etc. This visually looking relic, was ahead of many of them.

BTW, the Swordfish that disabled the Bismarck were launched from the Ark Royal of the Med fleet. Once the Bismarck was turning in circles, another flight was launched to finish her off. The Home fleet fired on the Swordfish telling them to keep away as Bismarck was theirs to sink. The RN fired on its own planes.
The Swordfish was a tubular fuselage covered by fabric, The only thing modern about a Swordfish was some actually had radar installed


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2014, 04:07 PM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,043,295 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by West Phx Native View Post
The Swordfish was a tubular fuselage covered by fabric, The only thing modern about a Swordfish was some actually had radar installed
The lower part was all metal as the lower pictures shows of the lower wing. There was little modern about the Swordfish. It was basic but did more than what was required of it. Its avionics were state of the art for sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2014, 04:33 PM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,043,295 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by 383man View Post
I heard the Swordfish were shot at by a British cruiser because they attacked the British cruiser by mistake and the cruiser fired on them to scare them off. I would not say the Swordfish sunk the Bismark as they only had one hit that disabled the rudder and they could not steer it. Thats not sinking it but it did help by slowing it down so the British battleships could catch up since it was going in circles.

It may have been a good plane for what it was but no way would I ever say it was the best plane of WWII. I would rather be in a Mustang or Spitfire anyday over the Swordfish. And I sure would not want to be in a Swordfish if enemy fighters are around. Ron
The Home fleet were firing at the Swordfish to tell them to get out of there as the Bismarck was theirs. It is true that the Swordfish hit HMS Sheffield by mistake and none of the magnetic torpedoes detonated. They then fitted contact detonators for the Bismarck.

The Swordfish had a number of hits on the Bismarck and one hit the rudder. They were aiming at the Bismarck and got it. One disabled by the Swordfish the Bismarck was doomed.

The Swordfish was the most remarkable plane of WW2 for sure. No Mustang could take off a deck heaving up and down over 500 foot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2014, 07:27 PM
 
Location: West Phoenix
966 posts, read 1,337,671 times
Reputation: 2547
Sorry, the wings on a swordfish are not metal, as in metal covered, they are covered with fabric like the rest of the plane, they do have metal ribs and spars, but that was hardly modern at the time, the Hurricane was built the same way, but it did make maintenance easier as they did not have to deal with wood spars and ribs swelling with moisture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2014, 03:40 PM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,043,295 times
Reputation: 2154
Swordfish II had metal lower wings to accommodate the mounting of rockets, making all the bottom section metal. Swordfish III had a large centrimetric radar unit (a dome) between the undercarriage.
The Swordfish acted like helicopter at times and the avionics also made it special.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2014, 08:25 PM
 
Location: West Phoenix
966 posts, read 1,337,671 times
Reputation: 2547
they were not metal wings, only the bottom side of the lower wing was metal. You are right about the speeds, that is one thing about British planes, They were easy to land since their landing speeds were so low. I have 10 hours in a Tigermoth that goes no where fast, and a couple of flights in a TR.9 Spitfire and it lands so slow compared to a Mustang.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:33 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top