Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
XX_Emeraldking_XX

Germany still makes bad ships

207 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

668
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,077 posts
51 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

Dunkerque did...

Image result for dunkerque armor

 

Machinery spaces cramped below the turtleback and subsequent deck ^

 

Same with Richelieu....

Image result for richelieu armor armor

 

Only the Italian ships did not suffer from a lack of machinery space on account of their turtlebacks.

 

In any event, none of the low-turtleback ships suffered so terribly that they could not pull off impressive +29kn speeds all while benefitting from the extra protection afforded by the turtleback.

So what's it going to be, cramped machinery spaces or just poor design for the Bismarcks's class complete inability to use propulsion steering? This is your hill to die on, not mine fam. :cap_popcorn:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,742
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
59 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

So what's it going to be, cramped machinery spaces or just poor design for the Bismarcks's class complete inability to use propulsion steering? This is your hill to die on, not mine fam. :cap_popcorn:

 

They did not have a complete inability for propulsion steering, this has already been covered. The Germans obviously did not believe it was a poor design or it would not have been carried over from every battleship previous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
668
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,077 posts
1 hour ago, dseehafer said:

 

They did not have a complete inability for propulsion steering, this has already been covered. The Germans obviously did not believe it was a poor design or it would not have been carried over from every battleship previous.

Wow, thanks for the complete non-answer. Quite impressive really. The fact is, they had abysmal propulsion steering and poor design was the cause of it. So indulge me, why do you think that is? An ineffectual turtleback holdover design from the Great War or just general terrible machinery spaces?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,742
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
1 hour ago, TornadoADV said:

Wow, thanks for the complete non-answer. Quite impressive really. The fact is, they had abysmal propulsion steering and poor design was the cause of it. So indulge me, why do you think that is? An ineffectual turtleback holdover design from the Great War or just general terrible machinery spaces?

 

It is because the Germans used a 3 screw layout to allow for the center shaft to receive a VPP (it was decided that more than one VPP would cause extreme vibrations) and it doesn't make much sense to have a single off-center VPP on a 4 screw layout. The other reason for using the 3 screw, 2 rudder layout was that it provided the best maneuverability at medium-high speeds (albeit at the expense of maneuverability at low speeds). You cant always have your cake and eat it too, to accel in certain areas you have to make sacrifices in others. The Germans went for superior high-speed maneuverability and improved stopping power at the expense of low-speed maneuverability and the ability to turn adequately with propulsion alone. Good maneuverability at high speeds and the ability to accelerate and decelerate quickly can come in handy in a multitude of combat situations... maneuverability at low speeds can be sacrificed because a ship will usually be assisted by tugs in confined waters anyways and steering by propulsion is really only useful in a situation where you do not have control over your rudder(s).

 

I'm not sure what the turtleback would have anything to do with why the ship would be a poor propulsion steerer. And it certainly wasn't ineffectual, Bismarck's machinery remained operational even as she was sinking because the turtleback could not be penetrated, the magazine was also never penetrated for the same reason.

 

In either event, after Lindeman ordered the port and starboard screws to be turned at different speeds, the Bismarck managed to temporarily stop turning in circles despite the fact that both rudders were jammed hard over. However, shortly thereafter the wind and waves picked up and the battleship resumed turning in circles. At about this same time is when she was engaged by Plavski's destroyers. While engaged with the destroyers, Bismarck ran only one propeller and was able to hold a steady north-westerly course at a speed of 7kn, despite the wind, waves, and jammed rudders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
668
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,077 posts
2 hours ago, dseehafer said:

I'm not sure what the turtleback would have anything to do with why the ship would be a poor propulsion steerer. And it certainly wasn't ineffectual, Bismarck's machinery remained operational even as she was sinking because the turtleback could not be penetrated, the magazine was also never penetrated for the same reason.

Don't act stupid, please, it's beneath you. There is limited volume inside a ship, turtleback armor design necessitates compromises when it comes to placing systems inside the ship. Specially when it comes to large objects like screw shafts and turbines/boilers. Also, don't kid yourself, turtleback is a liabilty against plunging fire, something it would of faced everywhere if it was in the Pacific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,249 posts
On 1/29/2018 at 6:23 PM, TornadoADV said:

Were the 76mm OTOs transplants from the F123 class? That seems the only logical explanation for the use of non-LO deck gun design.

 

I think you're right, or if not from other older ships.   The German K130 or Braunschweig class corvettes also had rounded Otos.  The Danish also took them off from their own older ships so they can be used on the Iver Huitfeldts.

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,742
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
9 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

Don't act stupid, please, it's beneath you. There is limited volume inside a ship, turtleback armor design necessitates compromises when it comes to placing systems inside the ship. Specially when it comes to large objects like screw shafts and turbines/boilers. Also, don't kid yourself, turtleback is a liabilty against plunging fire, something it would of faced everywhere if it was in the Pacific.

 

It limits the size only vertically (most armor decks connect with the upper edge of the armor belt, in Bismarck and Tirpitz it connects with the upper edge of the turtleback and is about half the height of the belt), but certainly does not limit width. A citadel's width is limited by a torpedo bulkhead or a longitudinal bulkhead. As a rule, the deeper the torpedo bulkhead lies within a ship, the better protected a ship is against torpedoes. In other words, you want this bulkhead to be well within the ship. On Bismarck and Tirpitz, this bulkhead extended from the point where the main deck meets the upper edge of the turtleback.. 

 

Related image

 

 

On Richelieu, they placed their torpedo bulkhead even further inward, it doesn't even touch the turtleback!

 

Image result for richelieu armor

 

 

 

This on top of Richelieu already being some 8' slimmer than the Bismarck class. And yet, despite Richelieu having less space, she has 4 screws, so does Dunkerque.

 

Let's do some simple math, Bismarck's torpedo bulkhead is 5.5m deep amidships compared to South Dakota and Iowa class battleships with 5.45m deep torpedo bulkheads. Bismarck's bulkhead is .05m deeper than SD and Iowa but Bismarck is 3m wider than Iowa and SD... meaning that Bismarck has a wider citadel than Iowa and SD. 

 

Simply put, I don't see how a citadel's height would limit the number of screws you can have. Certainly the Bismarcks weren't hurting for citadel width, since they had more room than SD and Iowa in this regard! Iowa and SD still had 4 screws despite having less space. The fact is the Bismarcks had 3 screws, not because that's all they had room for, but because that's all they wanted. It is further worth pointing out that any space lost by having the main armor deck below the upper edge of the main belt was more than made up for by the extra space afforded by the citadel's length. The Bismarck class were the only modern battleships with a 4th main battery turret and as a result, ended up with the longest citadel of any modern battleship as well as the greatest citadel volume of any modern battleship.

 

Bismarck and Tirpitz were liable to plunging fire because they had thin decks, not because they used a turtle-back. Certainly, the turtleback did not force the deck to be thin because Richelieu had a 150mm thick deck! Was Richeleieu vulnerable to plunging fire?? She did have a turtleback after all! The fact is the Germans decided not to waste displacement on extra deck armor because they believed it impossible to fight at long ranges in the North Atlantic (wartime experienced proved them right). And another thing! Plunging fire does not exist! There was not a single naval battle at sea during WWII in which the combatants sat and flung shells at each other from beyond 30km (the range at which plunging fire becomes "a thing"). The majority of the time fighting was spent between 15-25km and almost all battles worked their way within 20km regardless of the ocean the battle was fought in. That is to say, even normal combat ranges in the Pacific did not exceed 25km and the Bismarck class, therefore, would not have been vulnerable to plunging fire because the ranges aren't great enough for plunging fire to be a great threat.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,249 posts

 

 

Here is how I think the F125 can be saved.  

 

U43a3aP.jpg

 

zHzBYVB.jpg

 

K2ihgIi.jpg

 

It doesn't take much to salvage it.

 

There is definitely a sonar on the bow, just not an antisubmarine sonar.  Get that changed to the right one.

 

The RAM on the front should be moved further forward so its close behind the 127mm gun on the second step.  The second step area needs to be reduced, while the upper step area where the RAM is currently sitting on, extended further forward.  This entire box may have been designed for a possible VLS and might potentially fit 32 to 48 VLS.  

 

I would get rid of the two 27mm light cannons amidships.  That would clear you with space for another 8 anti-ship missiles for a total complement of 16.

 

The radar might be an issue.  The TRS-4D is one of the truly cutting edge radars today, an AESA that uses GAN.  But it happens to be a C-band, and you can't use that to target illuminate for Standards and ESSMs which requires X-band frequencies.  This leaves you with three options.

 

1.  The VLS would have to be Sylvers, and use active guided independent illuminating Aster 15s or Aster 30s.  Probably the easiest of the AAW solutions and I tend to favor this one because its quick and easy.

2.  Wait for future Blocks of Standards and ESSMs to have active guidance and independent illumination.  Using this gains you the flexibility of using the MK. 41 VLS but renders the ship unusable with current inventories of Standards and ESSMs which also is the problem with the first solution.  

3.  Replace TRS-4D with APAR Block II.  APAR Block II is the successor to the APAR used in the F124 frigates, which the substrates switching from GaAs to GaN.  APAR works on the X-band and can provide target illumination for current blocks of Standards and ESSMs.   This is the most expensive solution.

 

One issue with using APAR that as an X-band, your search range won't be as good as C-band.  In the F124, an L-band SMART-L is used for long range search.  However, the use of GaN on APAR Blk II would still mean it would significantly out range its APAR predecessor, and an X-band will confer higher rates of tracking and target resolution over C-band that benefits both missile and gun targeting.  

 

3B.  One can choose to modify the front mast so all four APAR Blk II panels would right on it with 360 degree coverate, and a SMART-L array placed on the second mast.  More expensive than 3, but you truly gain long range search ability and allow you to be anti-ballistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
668
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,077 posts
1 hour ago, Eisennagel said:

 

 

Here is how I think the F125 can be saved.  

 

U43a3aP.jpg

 

zHzBYVB.jpg

 

K2ihgIi.jpg

 

It doesn't take much to salvage it.

 

There is definitely a sonar on the bow, just not an antisubmarine sonar.  Get that changed to the right one.

 

The RAM on the front should be moved further forward so its close behind the 127mm gun on the second step.  The second step area needs to be reduced, while the upper step area where the RAM is currently sitting on, extended further forward.  This entire box may have been designed for a possible VLS and might potentially fit 32 to 48 VLS.  

 

I would get rid of the two 27mm light cannons amidships.  That would clear you with space for another 8 anti-ship missiles for a total complement of 16.

 

The radar might be an issue.  The TRS-4D is one of the truly cutting edge radars today, an AESA that uses GAN.  But it happens to be a C-band, and you can't use that to target illuminate for Standards and ESSMs which requires X-band frequencies.  This leaves you with three options.

 

1.  The VLS would have to be Sylvers, and use active guided independent illuminating Aster 15s or Aster 30s.  Probably the easiest of the AAW solutions and I tend to favor this one because its quick and easy.

2.  Wait for future Blocks of Standards and ESSMs to have active guidance and independent illumination.  Using this gains you the flexibility of using the MK. 41 VLS but renders the ship unusable with current inventories of Standards and ESSMs which also is the problem with the first solution.  

3.  Replace TRS-4D with APAR Block II.  APAR Block II is the successor to the APAR used in the F124 frigates, which the substrates switching from GaAs to GaN.  APAR works on the X-band and can provide target illumination for current blocks of Standards and ESSMs.   This is the most expensive solution.

 

One issue with using APAR that as an X-band, your search range won't be as good as C-band.  In the F124, an L-band SMART-L is used for long range search.  However, the use of GaN on APAR Blk II would still mean it would significantly out range its APAR predecessor, and an X-band will confer higher rates of tracking and target resolution over C-band that benefits both missile and gun targeting.  

 

3B.  One can choose to modify the front mast so all four APAR Blk II panels would right on it with 360 degree coverate, and a SMART-L array placed on the second mast.  More expensive than 3, but you truly gain long range search ability and allow you to be anti-ballistic.

I assume the last two pictures have your modifications to the hull? Just want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
668
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,077 posts
7 hours ago, dseehafer said:

blah blah blah

So what you're say is it was intentionally poorly designed. Thank you, say no more, good day! :cap_yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,249 posts
10 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

I assume the last two pictures have your modifications to the hull? Just want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. :cap_like:

 

No.  The last two pictures are the way she is right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
668
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,077 posts
1 hour ago, Eisennagel said:

 

No.  The last two pictures are the way she is right now.

Got it, anyway, I agree with your changes. But as you say, the crux is going to be how to deal with the radar band and missile issue. I'm tempted to say the quick and easy route is best as you suggest, but then it locks out a lot of flexibility and current missiles that are abundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,742
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
2 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

So what you're say is it was intentionally poorly designed. Thank you, say no more, good day! :cap_yes:

 

Boy, they're going to bury you with your head sticking out of the ground, aren't they?

 

They made sacrifices in trade for much more useful aspects such as improved maneuverability at medium-high speeds and superior deceleration and acceleration characteristics... as I explained previously. It was a design which excelled in some areas and performed poorly in other less important areas. Calling the entire thing a poor design is a fallacy.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,809
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,728 posts
2,122 battles

It's also worth noting it's not even clear if it's possible to obtain plunging fire against anything with a 40-50mm upper deck with anything that doesn't have a Type 2 cap (aka, limited to German and Italian ships) simply because the angles of impact involved suggest almost any caliber of Type 1 cap would be decapped and quite probably fail against the main deck armor.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
668
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,077 posts
1 hour ago, Phoenix_jz said:

It's also worth noting it's not even clear if it's possible to obtain plunging fire against anything with a 40-50mm upper deck with anything that doesn't have a Type 2 cap (aka, limited to German and Italian ships) simply because the angles of impact involved suggest almost any caliber of Type 1 cap would be decapped and quite probably fail against the main deck armor.

The Mark 5 and later Mark 8 Super Heavy for the USN's 16 inch rifles had no such problems and were capable of deck piercing capability of 50mm as quickly as 15K yards out, rising as high as 357mm of deck piercing capability at maximum range. (42.5K yards)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,809
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,728 posts
2,122 battles
13 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

The Mark 5 and later Mark 8 Super Heavy for the USN's 16 inch rifles had no such problems and were capable of deck piercing capability of 50mm as quickly as 15K yards out, rising as high as 357mm of deck piercing capability at maximum range. (42.5K yards)

But that's not at all what I'm talking about.

You're talking about raw penetrative power.

I'm talking about what happens when you factor in the fact that, realistically speaking, any serious upper deck armor is going to decap the shell that hits it, which then means a de-capped shell is going to be hitting the main deck armor.

 

For example, 42mm deck will decap a 406mm shell (Type 1 cap) almost certainly at any impact angle of 75° or less. Even at it's maximum range, the Mk.6 16" gun will give an impact angle of only 47.2° with the Mk.8 shell, and the Mk.6 has the best plunging-fire attributes of probably any gun ever put to sea.

 

So now your decapped shell has to hit the main deck armor, and is unlikely to penetrate any significant main deck armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
668
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,077 posts
1 hour ago, Phoenix_jz said:

But that's not at all what I'm talking about.

You're talking about raw penetrative power.

I'm talking about what happens when you factor in the fact that, realistically speaking, any serious upper deck armor is going to decap the shell that hits it, which then means a de-capped shell is going to be hitting the main deck armor.

 

For example, 42mm deck will decap a 406mm shell (Type 1 cap) almost certainly at any impact angle of 75° or less. Even at it's maximum range, the Mk.6 16" gun will give an impact angle of only 47.2° with the Mk.8 shell, and the Mk.6 has the best plunging-fire attributes of probably any gun ever put to sea.

 

So now your decapped shell has to hit the main deck armor, and is unlikely to penetrate any significant main deck armor.

It will either crush through or it will explode to defeat the shearing effect that causes de-capping. So you either have a shot that defeats the armor completely or it craters all the way down to the primary bulkhead for a follow-up shot. Completely ignoring any turret top hits that would cause a catastrophic explosion. (Considering you are completely incorrect at maximum angle of impact for the 16" USN rifles, it's not 47.2 degrees, it's 53.25 degrees.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,809
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,728 posts
2,122 battles
3 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

It will either crush through or it will explode to defeat the shearing effect that causes de-capping. So you either have a shot that defeats the armor completely or it craters all the way down to the primary bulkhead for a follow-up shot. Completely ignoring any turret top hits that would cause a catastrophic explosion. (Considering you are completely incorrect at maximum angle of impact for the 16" USN rifles, it's not 47.2 degrees, it's 53.25 degrees.)

 

No, I'm not incorrect in the slightest - I'm talking specifically about the Mk.6 (which armed the North Carolina and South Dakota classes). You're referring to the Mk.7, which has a steeper angle of impact, but only at much longer ranges. The Mk.6's deck penetration performance is much better than that of the Mk.7 once you get past 26000 yards, the Mk.7 only surpasses it in penetration by having longer range - and even then, only at the most extreme range does it have better penetration. The Mk.6 at 36000 yards has the same penetration as the Mk.7 at 40000 yards. The Mk.7 only performs better as a result of the increased range, although this range is utterly useless as dispersion just gives you a big fat 'lol' at this range even if you had the most exact FCS the world could ever hope to see.

Turret top hits are a different story (decapping isn't an issue since you're only worrying about one plate), but in this era would not lead to a catastrophic explosion by any means - although the turret would almost certainly be disabled.

 

 

Anyways, on to the original point; 

If the shell hits the upper deck (in this case we're talking about 42mm, just to keep going with the same example), it's going to be decapped, (cap being knocked off but intact). At the very least (because who knows how much yawing and the like might happen at that point), the shell has lost at least 10% of it's mass (according to Campbell the cap of SHS was about 10% of it's mass).

 

Italian tests upon Littorio's armor scheme found that the decapping of the 16" shells was enough to prevent it from penetrating the main deck (108-158mm eff), although denting & distorting was noted. Their results just about line up with what you'd expect from Okun's Decapping Revisited. 

Given that is the case (and Littorio's machinery spaces constituted some of the weakest deck armor of any of the 1930s BBs, with the exception of Bismarck), it is doubtful than any deck armor scheme with at least a 100mm main deck is vulnerable to penetration so long as the shell is decapped - although if there was ever a shell to be an exception to this, it would most likely be the MK.8. Since this is deck armor, it's a tricker question than your typical belt - where a decapped shell would just shatter (if it had the velocity to penetrate), as deck armor is homogenous rather than Face-Hardened. 

However I'm pretty sure it would not defeat your typical main deck armor. Unless the shell's body is actually harder than the armor plating (which is pretty much never the case), than without a cap it's unlikely to do much more than dent your main deck armor. I suppose it's possible, considering it's SHS, that when it comes to a plate as thin as 80mm (Bismarck's machinery armor) is could smash it's way though for achieve a partial penetration, but I wouldn't put my money on it. One would have to know how hard the body of the MK.8 is ultimately.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
668
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,077 posts
10 hours ago, Phoenix_jz said:

 

No, I'm not incorrect in the slightest - I'm talking specifically about the Mk.6 (which armed the North Carolina and South Dakota classes). You're referring to the Mk.7, which has a steeper angle of impact, but only at much longer ranges. The Mk.6's deck penetration performance is much better than that of the Mk.7 once you get past 26000 yards, the Mk.7 only surpasses it in penetration by having longer range - and even then, only at the most extreme range does it have better penetration. The Mk.6 at 36000 yards has the same penetration as the Mk.7 at 40000 yards. The Mk.7 only performs better as a result of the increased range, although this range is utterly useless as dispersion just gives you a big fat 'lol' at this range even if you had the most exact FCS the world could ever hope to see.

My apologies, was thinking about the Colorado and then the Iowa classes and completely forgot about the Mark 6/7s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,809
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,728 posts
2,122 battles
13 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

My apologies, was thinking about the Colorado and then the Iowa classes and completely forgot about the Mark 6/7s.

No problem, it happens :Smile_teethhappy:

People tend to overlook the Mk.6 because of the 'last is best' syndrome and the fact the Mk.7 was such a great gun - if not the best battleship gun ever put to sea outright, then it's in the top 3, never mind 5.

I always liked the guns as even though they had such a low MV (something a lot in the USN were not pleased with) this allowed them to get more bang out of the Mk.8 SHS than the Mk.7 - when it comes to plunging fire, there tends to be a 'tipover' point where the angle of descent causes the deck penetration to spike up in a way that (short of decapping) no deck armor can ever hope to counter with a reasonable thickness. For the Mk.7, this starts to happen around the 32-34 kyd range - which is pretty long range, and the likelihood of hits has dropped drastically. For the Mk.6, this range is more is the 28-30 kyd range - which is a much more reasonable range for engaging enemy ships where the likelihood of hits doesn't take such a sharp drop-off.

Of course, this comes at a cost of belt penetration compared to the Mk.7, but if you want belt penetration that's calling for a different kind of gun, and for the armor protection of the USN fast BBs, fighting at longer ranges was a much better decision than getting in close - their thin belts were just too vulnerable, they needed distance to start letting that incline really work for them, at which point their deck armor starts to shine. When you get to heavily armored designs like the Montana, that's where the Mk.7's start to make a lot more sense, as they favor closer-ranged fighting that would emphasis belt penetration.

 

But that's just my opinion I guess.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,515 posts
10,798 battles
On 1/15/2018 at 6:19 AM, XX_Emeraldking_XX said:

Ok, so I meant to say something else. Almost all German ships had some design flaw. Bismarck got hit by one torpedo at the back which killed her propulsion and steering.

that wasn't a design flaw...that was a lucky strike....no rudder can be invulnerable, by dint of how and where it's used...and her propulsion wasn't entirely killed...

and Bismarck had plenty more to dole out after that and did....and was scuttled, (altho her sinking or capture was inevitable in the overmatched circumstances once she couldn't make France)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,514
[REVY]
Members
6,247 posts
5,164 battles
21 minutes ago, commodore_torakula said:

that wasn't a design flaw...that was a lucky strike....no rudder can be invulnerable, by dint of how and where it's used...and her propulsion wasn't entirely killed...

and Bismarck had plenty more to dole out after that and did....and was scuttled, (altho her sinking or capture was inevitable in the overmatched circumstances once she couldn't make France)

At best, Bismarck only scratched HMS Rodney, and that was due to the damaged rudder throwing the aim off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles

This is ridiculous.

German battleship/crusier positives

1)Um, while Jutland was a lost cause due to numbers, the German BC's took out a 3 British BC's, almost 4 and beat up the state of the art QE's pretty bad at the cost of a pre dreadnought and a battlecruiser. Bayern and Baden weren't there the Germans had not one ship at Jutland with more than 12 inch guns, most of the UK capital ships had 13.5 inch guns or more. 

2)Bismarck sunk Hood and might have sunk POW if allowed to follow. Bismarck also had no steering when she got attacked. Not saying she would beat Rodney and KGV for sure but it's a possibility and it's a near certainty she would have done at least somewhat better. Rodney had better guns(but was twenty years old) than Bismarck, KGV had weaker ones, and they had two cruisers in support things looked good but without her steering knocked out Bismarck could have escaped and it is likely(based on DS) she could have taken out at least one, we don't know. What we do know is that Bismarck took more than 400 hits including many from 16 inch guns over the course of several hours and while clearly mortally wounded(not giving any credence to the "wahh she was scuttled, German engineering is unsinkable, wahhh" crowd) was still mostly afloat at the end of that barrage and had she been able to aim properly and fire back would have been capable of giving them a hell of fight. Not saying the ship was an unsinkable death machine those of us who play her and Tirp in WOWS know she wasn't but she took a really really heavy beating and did pretty well as a punching bag. No shame in sinking to the bottom of the Atlantic after getting hit 400 times. 

German battleship/cruiser negatives

1)At Jutland they lost a pre dreadnought and a battlecruiser(which did not blow up in spectacular fashion).

2)Scharnhorst got outgunned by DOY. When a 14 inch battleship goes up against an 11 incher(who doesn't have THAT much of a speed advantage) what do you expect to happen? 

3)Gneisenau and Tirpitz got knocked out by aircraft(and Gneisenau wasn't sunk until she was out of service she was badly damaged). Yamato got knocked out by aircraft, aircraft are what made the battleship obsolete, this isn't exactly a point of shame. Was there a battleship constructed that enough torpedos couldn't sink. Tirpitz proved pretty durable against CV's but the British were just really really persistent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,249 posts

 

The Thyssenkrupp entry to the FFG(X) competition got knocked out early.  It was a late entrant and a dark horse anyway.  

 

Due to the F125 fiasco, the German Navy is running out of useful ships.

 

http://www.maritimeherald.com/2018/german-navy-running-useful-warships/

 

The German sub fleet is still not operational.

 

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201802171061748416-german-navy-submarines-not-functional/

 

But the export business is still good, despite losing the FFG(X) competition.  Sa'ar 6 corvettes have now been laid for the Israel customer.

 

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/MAGAZINE-navy-gearing-up-for-its-latest-mission-protecting-gas-rigs-1.5446236

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,742
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
17 minutes ago, Aristotle83 said:

 

2)Scharnhorst got outgunned by DOY. When a 14 inch battleship goes up against an 11 incher(who doesn't have THAT much of a speed advantage) what do you expect to happen? 

 

1

 

Scharnhorst wasn't actually outgunned by DOY. Scharnhorst scored 8 main battery hits during the battle out of no more than 200 shells fired for, at worst, a 4% hit ratio while DoY fired 446 main battery shells for 13 hits or 2.9% hit ratio. Especially impressive given the fact that Scharnhorst was without her forward radar. In either event, it was the destroyers what sank Scharnhorst, not DoY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×