Jump to content
Wulfgarn

Interesting article about "what if" Bismarck vs Yamato

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[FOXEH] Umikami 1,350
6,010 posts
12,211 battles

Was this ever a serious question? 15 " guns vs 18.1 " guns? AND the IJN gets 1 more than the German ships do? (3 x 3 vs 4 x 2).

I read the title and thought it was a joke post of some kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CVA16] Sabot_100 133
1,301 posts
7,804 battles

Bismarck is faster. It would just run away from such a stupid match-up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
488 posts
5,440 battles

I question on if the ships that met would even look like their WW2 namesakes.

 

Based on the article, should France have fallen in 1914 and then the British and Germany did conclude a treaty, then Jutland (1916) would never have happened.

Think about all the flaws in design or data from that battle that was used to correct and even design later warships. The flaw in British powder handling that resulted in the loss of 3 Battlecruisers comes to mind.

 

Also if the US never entered the war, there may be no Washington/London Navel treaties limiting Battleships in either number or design. Perhaps the UK/German treaty would cover this, but would that cover only Germany and the UK? Think of all the battleships (and battlecruisers) that were under construction during the original Washington treaty that were canceled.

 

There is also the fact that the Bismarck and Tirpitz may not be Nazi warships. The Kaiser did no abdicate until 1918. Thus he, or his successor could still rule Germany.

The Kaiser may also have different priorities that don't bring Germany and the US into direct conflict. Remember, it wasn't until the Lusitania sank and the later message to the Mexicans that turned American attitudes against Germany during World War 2. It's very possible that the US could have aided Germany against Japanese expansionism as the US has assets there (Philippines).

 

So with the war over before Jutland and that battles data, with construction continuing on, maybe not to the extent it was before World War 1, but with each new class trying to outdo the opposing's countries newest, what would that kind of Battleship look like in the 40s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sventex 1,069
4,432 posts
4,824 battles

More likely the Japanese would rejoin the Allies for WW2 in exchange for serious territorial and trade concessions to overcome the oil embargo and deploy the Yamato in the Atlantic, using CVs for scouting the fog for cover bombers to hamstring any German ships operating in the area for the Yamato to hunt down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
224 posts
3,169 battles

Great article. Very interesting and informative. Kind of reminds me of the Deadliest Warrior - World War II ships edition. I like how they thought in the end the Imperial Japanese Navy would save the Bismarck and tow her all the way back to Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,354 posts
4,623 battles

Should have at least given the Germans the H-class battleships as originally laid down. 16" guns instead of 15". Probably wouldn't change the outcome much however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sventex 1,069
4,432 posts
4,824 battles
50 minutes ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

Should have at least given the Germans the H-class battleships as originally laid down. 16" guns instead of 15". Probably wouldn't change the outcome much however.

People are less interested in paper fights.  The flaws of a blueprint aren't always obvious on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmckay 478
2,788 posts
4,239 battles

What if's are kinda fun but pretty unreliable as to being definitive as to outcomes of battles such as this. One major problem is that so frequently in history real battles are a study in screw ups which so often happen and very frequently determine the outcomes IRL.   Those are not predictable and "what if" scenarios have no way of predicting that. Take Hood vs Bismarck. Hood fired on the wrong ship for several salvos...I forget how many....failing to identify Bismarck who was who she should have been shooting at. Hood finally got it right but never hit Bismarck with a single shell.  PoW did all the damage to Bismarck and she put up a hell of a fight even though her turrets were messed up. What if PoW and Hood and both targeted Bismarck right from the get go.  Focused fired on her?  Things may have turned out differently. But Hood did not shoot at Bismarck for quite awhile. This was a screw up.  Who would have predicted that in a what if scenario? 

Lee screwed up at Gettysburg on the 3rd day. Underestimated the strength of the Union center but attacked it anyway (Pickett's Charge)  and thus insured his defeat. Actually the only really bad/dumb decision he made in the entire war...it can be argued.

Etc. Etc. Blah blah.  Babble babble.

Edited by dmckay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[90THE] Hurlbut 171
2,605 posts
1,681 battles

like what if Bismarck's last salvo that landed the fatal hit on Hood was delayed one second before firing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sventex 1,069
4,432 posts
4,824 battles
On 1/19/2018 at 9:41 AM, dmckay said:

What if's are kinda fun but pretty unreliable as to being definitive as to outcomes of battles such as this. One major problem is that so frequently in history real battles are a study in screw ups which so often happen and very frequently determine the outcomes IRL.   Those are not predictable and "what if" scenarios have no way of predicting that. Take Hood vs Bismarck. Hood fired on the wrong ship for several salvos...I forget how many....failing to identify Bismarck who was who she should have been shooting at. Hood finally got it right but never hit Bismarck with a single shell.  PoW did all the damage to Bismarck and she put up a hell of a fight even though her turrets were messed up. What if PoW and Hood and both targeted Bismarck right from the get go.  Focused fired on her?  Things may have turned out differently. But Hood did not shoot at Bismarck for quite awhile. This was a screw up.  Who would have predicted that in a what if scenario? 

Lee screwed up at Gettysburg on the 3rd day. Underestimated the strength of the Union center but attacked it anyway (Pickett's Charge)  and thus insured his defeat. Actually the only really bad/dumb decision he made in the entire war...it can be argued.

Etc. Etc. Blah blah.  Babble babble.

Funny thing about the Civil War, I watch Ken Burn's documentary and he seemed to have it out for General McClellan, criticized for being too cautious, too defensive and being one of the worst Generals in the US, yet I can't help but notice that when he was replaced with more aggressive generals, the battles devolved into bloodbaths that favored the Confederacy.  Given that defense was king in WWI, I can't help but wonder if history's judgement has been unfair.

Once Lee went on the offensive in the Civil War, he got crushed.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmckay 478
2,788 posts
4,239 battles
21 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Funny thing about the Civil War, I watch Ken Burn's documentary and he seemed to have it out for General McClellan, criticized for being too cautious, too defensive and being one of the worst Generals in the US, yet I can't help but notice that when he was replaced with more aggressive generals, the battles devolved into bloodbaths that favored the Confederacy.  Given that defense was king in WWI, I can't help but wonder if history's judgement has been unfair.

Once Lee went on the offensive in the Civil War, he got crushed.

Mac never REALLY won a battle. hE NEVER GRASPED WHAT THAT WAR WAS ABOUT.  It took SERIOUS fighting to defeat Lee. Those bloodbaths did not favor the Confederacy. GRANT went on the offensive in 1864 in the East.  hEADED SOUTH IN THE OVERLAND CAMPAIGN. Lee knew it was over once Grant got South of the James River.  SEIGE!  Killing more than they kill you wins. Grant (backed by LINCOLN) KNEW THE MATH.  LEE WAS TOTALLY ON THE DEFENSIVE AFTER THE battle OF THE wilderness. GRANT PINNED LEE IN 3 MONTHS. SUMMER 1864. petersBurg. no ONE HAD EVER DONE THAT.  3 MONTHS.

 

wHY YOU SAY BLOODBATHS FAVORED THE cONFERACY.  no.....JUST NO.

 

dAME.....pUTER TYPING IS MESSED UP....SORRY. 

Edited by dmckay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sventex 1,069
4,432 posts
4,824 battles
27 minutes ago, dmckay said:

Mac never won a battle. It took SERIOUS fighting to defeat Lee. Those bloodbaths did not favor the Confederacy. GRANT went on the offensive in 1865 in the East. Lee knew it was over once Grant got South of the James River. Killing more than they kill you wins. Grant (backed by LINCOLN) KNEW THE MATH.  LEE WAS TOTALLY ON THE DEFENSIVE AFTER THE bATTLE OF THE w

General McClellan was dismissed in 1862, years before Grant was put in charge and a lot of bloodbaths were fought by McClellan’s replacements in the interim.

The wiki says he won a number of battles, Williamsburg and Antietam.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmckay 478
2,788 posts
4,239 battles
51 minutes ago, Sventex said:

General McClellan was dismissed in 1862, years before Grant was put in charge and a lot of bloodbaths were fought by McClellan’s replacements in the interim.

The wiki says he won a number of battles, Williamsburg and Antietam.

Williamsburg was the Peninsula campaign in1862.  Minor battle.  He LOST that campaign in the Battle of the 7 days when Lee took command. Read about it. Chickened out when Lee attacked. Retreated ALL THE WAY South to the James River. Folded. THEN tried to shift blame onto Lincoln who had done all he could to help him.

 

Antietam?  At best a draw.   Mac had 100,000 men there in Maryland.  Lee had about 45,000.  Horrible battle. 1 day.  Lee still held the field after  that day and sat there for 2 more hoping Mac would attack him again. Mac....being Mac.................did not.  Was too afraid to lose so he never could win. Like some football types! He did not attack the next day.  Sat on his azz. Lee got back South of the Potomac.  Had Grant been in command he would have crushed Lee and never allowed him to withdraw.  Would have had those Potomac River crossings covered. Mac was very very flawed....ya need to read up on him. Just not a killer. Fearful.  Only 34 years old. Egotist. Sucked as a battle commander. Read his pathetic letters to his wife. Whining baby.

Edited by dmckay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmckay 478
2,788 posts
4,239 battles
1 hour ago, Sventex said:

Funny thing about the Civil War, I watch Ken Burn's documentary and he seemed to have it out for General McClellan, criticized for being too cautious, too defensive and being one of the worst Generals in the US, yet I can't help but notice that when he was replaced with more aggressive generals, the battles devolved into bloodbaths that favored the Confederacy.  Given that defense was king in WWI, I can't help but wonder if history's judgement has been unfair.

Once Lee went on the offensive in the Civil War, he got crushed.

Mac was replaced with more aggressive generals....but they sucked at being aggressive. Burnside?  Hooker? Meade was solid but not the killer that was needed. Grant was the killer....that is war. He got it and Lincoln got that Grant got it. Grant headed South in Spring of 1864.....Lee was pinned and under siege in Petersburg/Richmond lines in 3 months. Took a LOT of killing. No other way actually. Lee was good....but GRANT would not let up and that is what it took.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sventex 1,069
4,432 posts
4,824 battles
1 hour ago, dmckay said:

Mac was replaced with more aggressive generals....but they sucked at being aggressive. Burnside?  Hooker? Meade was solid but not the killer that was needed. Grant was the killer....that is war. He got it and Lincoln got that Grant got it. Grant headed South in Spring of 1864.....Lee was pinned and under siege in Petersburg/Richmond lines in 3 months. Took a LOT of killing. No other way actually. Lee was good....but GRANT would not let up and that is what it took.

Yes, I was referring to Hooker and company.  I noticed that Mac being replaced did not automatically bring the Union success till perhaps Meade.  Though Lee contributed more to the Union victory at Gettysburg it seems.  As warfare approached WWI, battles progressively favored the defenders. The weapons had outgrown the Napoleonic Tactics being used.  Aggressive generals went far up the chain of command, until they got their men massacred.  So I’m wondering if caution was more warranted than “LOTS of killing”.  I’m trying to gather more information on this idea.  I admit I’m not as well studied on the civil war as I like to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOLF3] iDuckman 170
1,555 posts
646 battles
On 1/20/2018 at 7:45 PM, Sventex said:

I watch Ken Burn's documentary and he seemed to have it out for General McClellan

Little Mac's main problem was that he had this complex ...

:Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×