Royal Navy in WWII

[Lord David the Denied]

You're right, but a canny captain on a ship as mean and nasty as Bismarck could have dealt with a convoy escort, especially with a cruiser like Prinz Eugen, and made off with a few dead ships under his belt before the covering groups could intercept. It's not she was slow, and it's not like she couldn't handle ships of her own class. After all, four RN battleships couldn't sink her with hours of bombardment.

Plus, every time she dodged RN covering groups and sank a few transports it would have been a propaganda victory for Germany more valuable than the loss of tonnage inflicted. "Look, our battleships can hit your convoys at will and you can't stop it! Surrender now and you'll have mercy..."

 

[captainsmirk]

The Tirpitz did manage to sink one convoy without firing a shot...
And it wasn't even a convoy it was going to attack...

Nick

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Elaborate...

 

[DM]

PQ17 - convoy scattered when it was reported that tirpitz was sailing to attack (which she didn't). Heavy losses amongst the merchies from submarines and land based air. Tirpitz actually bagged nothing.

After all, four RN battleships couldn't sink her with hours of bombardment.

In modern parlance she was "Mission Killed" by Prince of Wales and "Firepower Killed" in 15 minutes by Rodney and KGV. The coup de gras was delivered by torpedo (including one from Rodney, IIRC the only time a battleship torpedoed another battleship), as it was against Scharnhorst. Tovey had achoice - stand off, reduce the number of hits scored considerbaly but have the chance of causing critical damage by plunging fire (as happened later to Scharnhorst when hit by Duke of York) or close to point blank range and obliterate the uppeworks, which he did. At the ranges the British ships were firing over this resulted in near-horizontal trajectories, hwich after a time served only to (as D K Brown described it) shifting the debris form one place to another.

Either method of disposing of the threat would have worked. Tovey chse the one that would guarantee maximum destruction of the target's ability to return fire and thus made the ara safe for his light forces to deploy torpedoes. Fraser was forced to do otherwise at North Capedue to position and relative speed.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Bismarck wasn't sunk by the torpedo attack, though. She was scuttled by her own crew before they abandoned her after her upper works were smashed. The hull was sound right up to that point and the ship could have been captured by the Royal Navy and rebuilt. So they scuttled her and went over the side, only to perish in the water when the U-Boats sent to escort her in scared off the British ships taking Bismarck sailors out of the water.

 

[DM]

The hull is far from intact. Expert analysis has confirmed that the ship was in a sinking condition regardless of whether or not scuttling charges were used (over which there is considerable doubt).

 

[Lord David the Denied]

The sources I've read, most prominently a German-based site dedicated to the Bismarck and Tirpitz made it clear that the Bismarck wasn't going to sink even after the torpedo attack. This was supported by the logs of the Bismarck crew and the official RN report on the battle.

 

[katadder]

who cares- it was sunk and it had lost its fight anyway.

 

[DM]

My last word on the sinking of Bismarck (probably one of the most over-rated ships of WW2) - my position is based on the recent surveys of the wreck and the opinion of naval architects who have viewed the damage up close and personal and analysed its effects. since I am aware of their impartiality, their backgrounds in battle damage forensics and their professional qualifications I'm satisfied

But yes, in the end she was sunk. Thats all that mattered.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Fair enough about the examinations of the wreck, but it leaves a question. If the ship was sunk as a result of weapons fire, why do the German logs state that the ship was scuttled and abandoned? Surely the men on board knew the state of their ship when they made that decision?

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Fair enough about the examinations of the wreck, but it leaves a question. If the ship was sunk as a result of weapons fire, why do the German logs state that the ship was scuttled and abandoned? Surely the men on board knew the state of their ship when they made that decision?

They may have wanted to scuttle her (after all, they probably didn't send a forensic survey team down during the battle to check...), they may even may have tried, but did they actually succeed before she went down? Examination of the wreck says no.

Wulf

 

[DM]

Fair enough about the examinations of the wreck, but it leaves a question. If the ship was sunk as a result of weapons fire, why do the German logs state that the ship was scuttled and abandoned? Surely the men on board knew the state of their ship when they made that decision?

I believe that reports of the use of scuttling charges were anecdotal rather than recorded in a log (although my memory on this is a bit hazy). Contrary to popular belief it is actually quite difficult and time-consuming to scuttle a ship (I've tried it for real). IIRC there were similar claims of scuttling made for the sinking of Scharnhorst - survey of the wrek has however shown that she sank as a result of having the front third of the ship blown off by torpedoes.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

IIRC there were similar claims of scuttling made for the sinking of Scharnhorst - survey of the wrek has however shown that she sank as a result of having the front third of the ship blown off by torpedoes.

They don't make them like they used to...

Wulf

 

[chaos0xomega]

Ok, a little change of subject here, just because I am entirely curious and pretty much lost on the subject: The fall of the Battleship. Why? Why was it deemed that they were no longer useful in combat?

I always imagined it was because of the fear of air power, but from my perspective, in a fleet of say a battleship, 2 or 3 aircraft carriers, and of course a bunch of supporting vessels, this shouldn't be a serious problem. And then of course we have the capability to build quality AA dedicated vessels, as well as load up with a huge amount of AA guns on the Battleship itself. Then I considered submarines, but that can't really be the case, as submarines these days aren't particularly well-suited for ship hunting(too big and bulky from what I read). And of course, who doesn't want an ocean going mobile artillery piece(with technology these days, I wouldn't be surprised if a battleships main cannon could hit targets really far inland, not to mention launch a shitload of ICBM's/Cruise Missiles.

So whats the reason for it?

 

[DM]

The immediate demise of the battleship was due to the rise of air power, which was amply demonstrated during WW2. You will get a false impression of this in VAS because everything is stuck on the table and it isn't too difficult to bring your battleship guns to bear on a hapless aircraft carrier. In reality the Cvs coudl hit BBs from over a hundred miles away.

Once they'd gone, they'd gone - too expensive, too manpower-intensive, more cost efective ways of doing the same job (DDG-1000 fulfils some of the old battleship roles, carrying two long range guns capable of hitting targets well inland and shedload sof cruise missiles, just without the 15" belt armour ).

 

[captainsmirk]

Though it is notable that a lot of modern antishipping missiles wouldn't be all that effective against ships with large armoured belts, hoever again this is where cost comes in, far to expensive to fit ships with several inches of steel plate.
Plus there's the problem of top weight, all those radars, satcom aerials and missile launchers mean that most modern warships are already fairly top heavy without adding an superfluous armoured belt...


Nick

 

[Baldrick]

Battleships are inefficient. For the amount of crew required to field one battleship, you can field 5 Arleigh Burke Guided Missile Destroyers. Those five DDG can put out more missiles then one Iowa class BB. The Iowa class BB was retrofitted with 8 harpoons and 32 tomahawks, the Arleigh Burke carries two harpoon quad canisters and two 90 cell MK41 VLS which can carry tomahawks - as well as other types of missiles.

While there are no commissioned BBs in the USN at this time, by law, two are kept in a state of readiness in the event that they are needed to provide naval gunfire support during USMC amphib ops.

 

[Baldrick]

Though it is notable that a lot of modern antishipping missiles wouldn't be all that effective against ships with large armoured belts, hoever again this is where cost comes in, far to expensive to fit ships with several inches of steel plate.
Plus there's the problem of top weight, all those radars, satcom aerials and missile launchers mean that most modern warships are already fairly top heavy without adding an superfluous armoured belt...


Nick

The belt armor will protect against an asm, however one laser guided bomb can immobilize a battleship.

 

[DM]

True, although modern anti ship missiles have been developed in response to the types of ships (and submarines - did u know thta harpoon was origibnally developed to meet an anti submarine requirement?) that are prevalent now. If I was looking to take out a battleship these days I'd go for a non-contact underwater explosion (subs are actually pretty darned good against surface ships).

IIRC the law regarding US battleship readiness has been repealed. The battleships will sail no more.

 

[Baldrick]

I thought the navy was still keeping two ready until 2008? Oh well, moot point the days of the battleship are over.

On another note, I really can not wait until I get my copy of VaS so I can actually play the game!n