which ship was better??

Yamato...

Her armor is superior in all areas, although German steel is superior to the IJN variety of the time. You also have to look at the design doctrine of each ship...

Yamato was built to outclass American ships by brute force - bigger guns, more armor. The Bismarck and Tirpitz were designed for North Atlantic, and North Sea, close-quarters, flat trajectory gun duels, similar to what the Germans encountered at Jutland...remember, Jutland was a major factor in German ship design in the years that followed. Her armor scheme reflects this, with an armor layout that makes it difficult to put a shell into her vitals at short range, but which is vulnerable to long-range fire, and which reduces the total amount of protected volume in the vessel by carrying her armor deck lower in the ship than her contemporaries. Bismarck and Tirpitz also suffer from very shallow armor belts, which do not extend to the undersides of curvature of the hull, which is why Bismarck suffered severe damage from Prince of Wales 14" guns. This was never addressed with Tirpitz.

With regards to optics, both the Germans and Japanese had very good optics, but again, after 1943, radar gunnery had rendered optical sighting obsolete. In the case of both the German gunnery radar (Fumo 23, and the Japanese Type 2, Mod 2), both lacked training capabilities. Radar operating at meter or decimeter wavelengths is useful for ranging, but lacks the angular accuracy necessary for training. In practical terms, this means that a decimetric set can develop a range solution via radar, but must rely on an optical director to supply training information for the battery. This hybrid fire-control solution is, of course, limited by the quality of the optics available, and also by the visual horizon (which is closer than the radar horizon), and weather conditions. Only with the advent of 10cm and (later) 3cm wavelength sets was true 'blindfire' radar fire-control achievable, wherein the firing ship need never come into visual range of the opposing vessel. The Germans, Japanese, and Italians never developed sets of this capability. Both the Japanese (despite its 10cm wavelength) and German sets were usable for fire control against a battleship-sized target only out to a range of about 27,000 yards, which is close quarters for battleships.

So at long range, no one really hits much of anything...but Tirpitz would fair worse than Yamato if she were hit. At medium range, Yamato's plunging fire will decimate Tirpitz 4.7 inches of deck armor, while her 15" will have more difficulty in penetrating Yamato's 9.1 inches of steel. Again, at close range, Yamato clearly carries the advantage in armor, and her sheer weight of fire would pound Tirpitz.

At short range, Tirpitz carries a speed advantage of 3 knots, and her damage control is probably surperior, however, more damage control will be required when hit with an 18" shell, and the IJN Type 91 shells that fell short were designed to travel through the water and impact the side of the target, which would be devastating for Tirpitz and her shallow armor belt.

When you consider the designs of both ships, Bismarck and Tirpitz were designed to outclass the King George V Class of battleships. Yamato was designed to outclass anything the US could possibly dream up. The notion that the Yamato was designed to better the Iowa, or vice versa, is wrong. Both ships were being designed concurrently, and the tight security around both insured that no one was playing catch up to the other.

At any rate, I digress...

Yamato wins.

Jeff

Jeff your knowledge is astounding, Thank you for putting so much time and energy into your reply. It is greatly appreciated, you must surly be the go to guy when it comes to anything in the ships forum :) :).

Dave

That's a lot of info.

It's all stuffed into this oversized, Jimmy Neutron head of mine... :-)

Prior to setting off to become a full time writer and modeler, I ran a museum, so...I guess you can qualify (quantify) me as a historian.

Jeff

bismarck i think only received 1 14in shell hit in the bow from the prince of wales. when they did the survey of the bismarck wreck with james cameron(?), it showed no real penetrations of the hull itself by shell or torpedo

Valid point DDP,

But only when quantifying her loss with the damage sustained by her initial battle with Hood and PoW. KGV and Rodney pounded Bismarck, and it's a known fact that she recieved two, possibly three torpedo hits during that final battle.

But we're talking apples and oranges here. Yes, Bismarck didn't have inner hull penetrations from torpedos as we've come to know them (she did have outer hull penetrations though), but again, the class was designed for close quarters, flat trajectory gun battles. Extend that range out to 30,000 yards with plunging gunfire, and the scenario changes dramatically, especially against 18.1 inch guns, not the 14" or 15" carried by the Royal Navy.

Jeff

Virtually all experts would agree with "Jedi Master Herne's " analysis on these two ships if they had faced off I am interested in the fact that the 18.1" shells of the Yamoto being designed to continue on and strike the target if they were short Given that they would have to lose a huge amount of energy once they hit the water I was wondering how close the miss would have to be so that the shell would continue thru the water and hit the target and get any meaningful penertration on a target ? I'm sure someone out there can point me in the direction of the correct ans.

I really don't think that the Bismark took anywhere near the pounding the Yamato took before it was sunk. I believe the Yamato took 5 to 7 torpedo hits to sink it.

& 16" of the rodney.
The carrier planes began their attacks in the early afternoon, scoring immediate bomb and torpedo hits on Yamato and sinking Yahagi and a destroyer. Three other destroyers were sunk over the next hour, as the Japanese continued to steam southwards. In all, Yamato was struck by some ten torpedoes, mainly on the port side, and several bombs. At about 1420 on the afternoon of 7 April, less than two hours after she was first hit, the great battleship capsized to port, exploded and sank, leaving behind a towering "mushroom" cloud. Fewer than 300 men of Yamato's crew were rescued. Nearly 2500 of her men were lost, plus over a thousand more from Yahagi and the escorting destroyers. U.S. losses totalled ten aircraft and twelve aircrewmen.

Jedi Master??? Now that's funny...

Regardless, while Bismarck and Tirpitz were formidable designs, they would have been no match for Yamato and Musashi, or, for that matter, North Carolina Class, SoDak Class, or Iowas. While a duel with NC or SoDak would have been more evenly matched in terms of armor and damage control, US gunnery was superior to German gunnery by 1942. Of course, by then, Bismarck was already gathering rust at the bottom of the Atlantic.

With regards to the Type 91 shells travelling through the water, while a penetration is certainly quite likely at short ranges, I would doubt that a hull penetration would occur at extreme distances. It's also highly doubtful as to the consistency of the trajectory of the round once it did hit the water. Had the IJN been able to figure a proximity or magnetic fuse to detonate the round within close hull proximity, the effect an 18 inch shell would have on hull integrity would be tremendous. When you consider what type of damage a torpedo moving at 40knots can inflict, imagine an 18 inch shell hitting at 150-250 knots below the waterline.

Jeff

Jeff

Yes Jedi Master ! As to the type 91 shell wouldn't it be conterproductive to have a magnotic or proximity fuse because if a shell actually hit a target one would want penetration of the armor then an explosion rather than an expolsion before penetration ? On the other hand I presume even an unexploded 18" shell would create some damage when it hit the side of the ship

You might find this link helpful
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

Good point (see, I miss things too). Although I'm no expert in the Type 91 projectile, I'm fairly certain the entire premise of the round was in fact armor penetration. I can't see how 1940s era technology could differentiate a single round to perform two functions, armor penetration, and in the event of a non-penetration, proximity detonation to inflict concussion damage.

That'd be a tough nut to perfect even by today's standards...course, systems today don't miss very often...making it a moot point.

Dazza, the Combined Fleet link you provided has all of the nuts-and-bolts data you could possibly want, including aggragate armor penetration data, velocity and impact data, trajectory mapping, and all sorts of little details. An excellent link. Nathun Okun the author of much the technical data on the site, is without a doubt the foremost naval gun/armor expert in the world.


Jeff

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jeff Herne Bismarck and Tirpitz also suffer from very shallow armor belts, which do not extend to the undersides of curvature of the hull, which is why Bismarck suffered severe damage from Prince of Wales 14" guns. This was never addressed with Tirpitz.

The damage Bismark sustained was in the bow - in an all or nothing scheme, that area wouldn't be protected anyway. If Lutjens had topped off his fuel in Norway that hit would have been a moot point anyway.

I'm still laughing at the Jimmy Neutron comment....

One of the things I love most about modeling is the love of the subjects we model. Points that were brought up that need to be reiterated are the factor of Damage control, Bismark/Tirpitz 's "sensitve" fire control, and secondary damage from short salvos. Damage control may not have mattered very much when a 3500lb projectile smashes through a barbette, however, The Germans also saw first hand from Jutland what can happen if things get out of control. No navy has ever looked at damage control quite the same as the US Navy. Some of the studying I have done indicates that Bismark's gyro-fire control was knocked out in the first salvos from KGV and Rodney. You may have the biggest bang on the block, but if you can't put "lead on steel" you might as well be firing off bags of propellant with a few beer cans in front of them. As for secondary damage from a short salvo, it is highly probable that it could cause massive damage to secondary systems, ie internal plumbing, shipboard communications, electronic gear, ships machinery and the like. As for who would win, The Bismark was a beautiful, formidible warrior, but in my opinion, all things considered, she would have been clearly outclassed by Yamato/ Musashi. Ok I have added my intelligent 2c and now I will go away.

Mr. Herne, it is people like you who make this hobby so much more than putting pieces of plastic together! In this instance of ship vs. ship, it really makes you wonder how things might have turned out, with out stinking CVs hogging up the ocean!

The Yamato was effectivly neutralized (what is sometimes called a "mission kill") after 4 or 5 hits. The Yamato kept taking hits because it was so large that it took a long time to sink. If you look at the sinking of Musashi and to a far lesser extent the sinking of Shinano you'll see the sheer amount of time needed to sink the ship after it had been given the fatal hit.

Authors note: IJN Shinano was the third of the Yamato class that was converted while under construction to a maintanance aircraft-carrier. She was sunk by the USN submarine USS Archerfish in 1945. Shinano was only in a partially completed conditionand might have been saved if it had been completed.

The fourth unit of the Yamato class, which was never named and is know by its builders hull number #111, was canceled very early in construction and materials reused in other projects.

While I'm at it, the Yamato and Musashi did not get commited to combat until the collection of battles known as the Battle of Leyte Gulf. The Musashi was sunk by aircraft from task force 38 in the battle of the Subyan sea. The next day in the battle of Samar island the Yamato fired its 460mm guns at USN CVE, DD, and DE ships. In this very lop sided battle the Yamato made hard evasive manuvers to avoid USN torpedos and steamed right out of the battle. The IJN task force withdrew thinking that USN battleships were approching from the north to cut off their escape out of the Phillipine sea.. The next time she went into combat was the suicide run to Okanawa. This ship was designed to defeat USN battleships (and UK also) but never even saw one.

Tirpitz gained the nickname "The Lonely Queen" because she spent a considerable amount of time sitting in a fijord hopeing not to get sunk. way above the arctic circle. Both Yamato and Tirpitz spent most of their time at anchor short of oil. Whatever technical mertis they couldn't do much at anchor without oil.

It all has to do with the torpedo that hit the rudder disableing her

THe History Chanel did a whole episode on the Bismack a few months ago! Only three people survived when the Bismarck sank, and they had one f the guys on there crying! very emotional. My Grandpa's Ship capsized in the Pacific. He described it in such great detail to me too.

Only three survived the sinking of the HMS Hood by the Bismarck. Around 100 to 200 were rescued from the Bismarck after it scuttled.

AmtrakPaladin,

Thanks. I've spent the better part of my life studying this stuff as a museum professional, and here I am arguing with folks who 'learnt' it from the History Channel...

I should have been a politician instead. Oh well...

Anyone care to debate the ramifications of the London and Washington Treaties??

Jeff

Just a few missing watertight doors on the Shinano, that's all......

London and Washinton Treaties were to the War at sea (especailly the Pacific) as Versallies was to Europe. Pretty down and dirty and K.I.S.S.ed but that's about it. Amazing how the road to war is usually paved with the paper of the treaties written to prevent them, isn't it?
Hey Seasick, Historians aren't so sure it was Bismark that gave Hood the death blow. At that range the trajectory for 8" would have been steeper more likely hitting the weak spot on all battlewagons...the top deck. So my question is why hasn't anyone given possible credit to Prince Eugin?

Great topic,
My vote goes to Yamamoto.
Talking of the Prinz Eugen, here's a good site,
www.prinzeugen.com

I remember reading somewhere that HMS Warspite holds the record for the longest range hit. I think it was against an Italian warship [ someone will know ] .

box-stock, it is yamato, yamamoto was the commanding admiral of the japanese navy. there had been mentioned that the prinz eugen hit the hood in the same spot that the bismarck hit seconds later back in the seventies. whether true or not don't know

There's all sorts of theories about what actually sank Hood. Some say it was Bismarck, others say Prinz Eugen.

In the reseach I've done over the years, coupled with the 'official' Royal Navy account of what happened, here's my take...

As the two groups closed range, Hood and Prinz Eugen were in the lead, with Bismarck and PoW line astern of their respective groups. That means that logically, Hood opens up in Prinz Eugen first (which is pretty much agreed upon). Prinz Eugen opens fire first (also pretty much agreed upon), and most likely targets Hood since she is at the head of the column and closer.

Prinz Eugen manages to score a few hits on Hood, the most important one on the shelter deck aft of the second funnel, Although this hit doesn't penetrate the magazine, as some suggest, it does penetrate the shelter deck and set off the UP launcher ready storage lockers, starting a massive fire and chain reaction which detonates the torpedo storage area, and eventually, the aft magazine. This breaks her back and she sinks.

Accounts from the three Hood survivors, and witnesses aboard PoW, both agree that Hood was on fire for several minutes before she exploded and sank. This means she was hit by someone, and I'd play the law of averages that she wasn't hit in the same spot twice. So...that's my theory...I've read every account that I know of about the action, trying to find something, even looking at the reports of initial salvo falls. Surprisingly, no one from Bismarck can conclusively say they observed hits, and accounts from Prinz Eugen were even less conclusive.

Truth is , no one will really know for sure. Even observation of the Hood wreck is inconclusive, since the explosion was so dramatic, there's not much left to the ship from the bridge area aft.

Jeff

I enjoyed building my Tamiya(?) 1/700 Yamato much more than my Ashoima 1/700 Tirpiz.

Damage control, damage control, damage control, and speed is NEVER armor.

Speed is the best armor since tin or pure copper.

In the case of the Hood, speed actually was armor...

The Royal Navy knew that Hood's battlecruiser configuration was its Achilles heal. Hood was designed to a lesser extent along the same design principles as Bismarck was. Hood was susceptible to plunging gunfire, her deck armor was weak, yet her side armor perfectly capable of taking 14" and 15" shells. This stems back to the 'Jutland Mindset', that while battleships were lobbing shells from extreme range (plunging gunfire), the battlecruisers could rush in at high speed and engage in flat-trajectory, close range combat. Hood increased her speed towards Bismarck not for gunnery reasons, but to flatten the trajectory of Bismarck's (and Eugen's) gunfire to improve her defensive posture.

Now, before someone starts jumping up and down about my comparison of Hood to Bismarck's design doctrine, let me explain. Hood was designed as a battlecruiser, her trade-off for armor protection was her speed. She was also a WW1 era design, so by 1941, the speed of battleships like Bismarck, KGV, etc., had matched Hood's speed while retaining the true battleship configuration.

Both ships placed heavy emphasis on side armor protection, since both sides figured the next naval battle would be a Jutland-esque close quarters slugfest at relatively short ranges. Hood was slated to receive a major refit that would have not only added considerable armor, making her a true battleship, but she would have gotten a new superstructure as well, similar in concept to what the US did with the West Virginia after Pearl Harbor. The war obviously delayed that refit, since Hood was needed elsewhere. The justification was that Hood could handle any capital ship in the Kriegmarine, with the exception of Bismarck. And right up until the breakout, the Royal Navy figured the Germans would not risk a unit of that importance in the North Atlantic.

What's interesting to think about, are the what-ifs...what if Hood and PoW ran into Scharnhorst and Gneisenau instead of Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. What if it were Rodney and PoW, or Hood and Rodney, who's gunnery was online, crew was experienced, that ran into Bismarck, or what about PoW and KGV?

Regardless, it would have made naval history, and Hood might be a museum ship on the Thames today.

Jeff