Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Country_revalution

USS TEXAS VS GERMAN BISMARK

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

631
[SYJ]
[SYJ]
Members
1,576 posts
2,611 battles

In game or in real life? In game maybe if there was a legendary skill gap. 

 

In real life... extremely unlikley. The bismark was revolutionary for it's time, and the Texas was already 25 years old. Of course all it takes is a penetrating round to the magazine, but the Bismark was leagues more advanced than Texas

 

Edit: found this. Might be closer than I thought

Edited by _1204_
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
213
[DAKI]
Members
226 posts
8,488 battles

Umm, no...

Not a chance, unless Texas gets some hand of god luck, no chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26,055
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,658 posts
8,142 battles
22 minutes ago, _1204_ said:

The bismark was revolutionary for it's time

There are many words I would use to describe Bismarck.  Revolutionary isn't one of them.  Bismarck was as revolutionary as the Hood was prone to not-exploding suddenly.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
327
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor, Supertester
780 posts
4,435 battles
3 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

There are many words I would use to describe Bismarck.  Revolutionary isn't one of them.  Bismarck was as revolutionary as the Hood was prone to not-exploding suddenly.

I feel bullied already. No bullying my Brit boats. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13
[DAKI]
Members
9 posts
4,856 battles
29 minutes ago, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

I feel bullied already. No bullying my Brit boats. :(

Brit boats wouldn't be bullied if they were good for anything other than blowing up

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
433
[WOLF8]
[WOLF8]
Members
3,414 posts
3,991 battles

There's only one way to sort this out: the training room! LOL! x)

You never know, lel.

For real life? Who knows? Ahaha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[RKN]
Members
7 posts
5,759 battles

The Texas probably could've sunk the entire Kreigsmarine surface force singlehandedly because it's American. :cap_rambo:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
327
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor, Supertester
780 posts
4,435 battles
18 minutes ago, HatsuzukiKai said:

Brit boats wouldn't be bullied if they were good for anything other than blowing up

I dislike you immensely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,586
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,430 posts
2,075 battles

Yeah... while 'freak event XYZ' is always a thing, 99 times out of 10 Bismarck is likely to win this one.

 

Assuming the timeframe of our fight is still early 1941, when Bismarck sortied historically (and when Texas wasn't very far away)... well, Texas had been modernized somewhat, but is still pretty darn old.

 

First; Texas firing on Bismarck - 

Texas has a main battery consisting of ten 14"/45 Mk.8. These throw a 680.4 kg APC shell at 792 mps out to a maximum ballistic range of 21.030 meters at the maximum elevation of +15º. Rate of fire was around one round every ~45 seconds, although with a fixed loading angle at +1º and an elevation rate of 4º/sec, a more likely maximum rate would be around 1 round every ~50 seconds at 20 km, optimistically. Output is thus about 40.824 metric tons over the course of five minutes. She's able to penetrate Bismarck's main armor belt at a range of about 19000 yards (17.4 km), but this does not account for the protective turtleback behind it, which Texas likely could not penetrate. Texas is incapable of penetrating Bismarck's deck armor at all. Bismarck's turrets offer some hope - their faces can be penetrated, along with her barbettes, at around 16000 yards (14.6 km), although it's worth noting that the sloping armor on the turrets connecting the sides to the roof are easily penetrable at any range by Texas and pretty much any other battleship.

In terms of fire control, with no slight meant against it, Texas's rangefinder suite is badly outclassed - If I'm not mistaken, she used a suite consisting of 20-ft (6.1-meter) rangefinders. She were one of the first American ships to have director control, which is nice, and she used the Mk.I Rangekeeper - a decent interwar system, although not quite as good as many of the more modern wartime systems afaik. I'm not sure if she had RPC for her main guns at this point.

 

Next - Bismarck firing on Texas

Bismarck has eight 38cm SK C/34, which fire 800 kg shells at a velocity of 820 mps, to a maximum ballistic range of 36.52 km at an elevation of +30º. Not all of this was usable - effective range limit for gunnery in WWII was around 32 km, or 35,000 yards. Rate of fire, even accounting for elevation and depression (26 sec firing cycle, +2.5º loading angle, 6º/sec elevation rate), would be about 2 rounds per minute. Output at 20 km would be about 64 metric tons (56.8% greater than Texas). Bismarck should be able to comfortably rip through Texas's belt armor at around 32-33,000 yards (around 30 km), but probably won't be able to achieve deck penetrations until around 30,000 yards (27.4 km). In spite of good deck armor performance, Texas as no immunity zone against Bismarck.

In terms of fire control - Bismarck's fire control suite is composted entirely out of modern 10.5-meter stereoscopic rangefinders, which will be much more accurate than those of Texas. Her fire control computer was the C/38S, which was quite a good system - it had been developed from the C/35 used on Scharnhorst (which scored the longest-ranged hit in naval history at 26,400 yards), which was developed from the Italian RM-1 fire control computer (which is responsible for the longest-ranged 6" and 8" hits in naval history). Her turrets have RPC for elevation, but not traverse - training uses FTP. She also came equipped with fire control radars, FuMO 22/23, effective out to 25 km. However, it's not terribly accurate - bearing accuracy is poor and prohibits the set from being capable of blindfire, although range accuracy is decent and likely superior to her own rangefinders beyond 20 km. Like most early fire control sets, it is very vulnerable to being knocked out by the concussions of the main battery guns firing. Still, with or without the radar, Bismarck's fire control system is far superior to Texas's.

 

At the end of the day... the above should have told you all you need to know. Bismarck's fire control is significantly better - Texas is, at the end of the day, using an old system. The German battleship will be more likely to hit, especially given the greater volume of fire (80 shells versus 60 shells over five minutes). Furthermore, Texas is vulnerable in one way or another to Bismarck's fire at any range - meanwhile, Bismarck is functionally immune to penetrations of vital areas by the fire of Texas, and furthermore she has the best armor possible of being beyond Texas's physical range if she doesn't stray below 21 km range - Texas simply can't fire any further, creating an 11,000 meter (12,000 yard) range band where Bismarck can fire with a chance to hit Texas where the American battleship has no hope to respond.

 

As if that wasn't enough - Bismarck can make up to 30 knots, Texas can't exceed 20-21 knots, giving Bismarck a huge range advantage (9-10 knots). 

 

 

To put it simply, Bismarck pretty much holds all the cards imaginable in a '1-on-1' encounter, and barring a freak occurrence, will likely win in every encounter.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,519
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,237 posts
11,044 battles
1 hour ago, HatsuzukiKai said:

Brit boats wouldn't be bullied if they were good for anything other than blowing up

Two world wars, one world cup, zero nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44
[DAB]
Members
183 posts
3,465 battles
16 hours ago, mofton said:

Two world wars, one world cup, zero nukes.

If you were French, you could say two world cups. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26,055
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,658 posts
8,142 battles
1 minute ago, HP_Lovesauce said:

If you were French, you could say two world cups. 

What's preferable, though?  A World Cup win or a World War win? 

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
408
[CVA16]
Members
2,780 posts
10,470 battles

Of course, IRL the Texas might be included as a convoy escort. It would not be expected to win the battle vs the Bismark but was still a deterrent because the Bismark could not really afford to take damage. One hit from the POW meant its mission was over and it had to head for home. The Texas would also have a few DDs on its side so an in-game version of the battle might be Bismark vs Texas and a couple of Farraguts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
651
[RED2]
Members
475 posts
7,568 battles

I read an interesting article once on of Arkansas, New York, and Texas could have beaten the Yamato. The conclusion was they probably wouldn't be able to sink her, but under the right conditions they could take her lunch money. That all came down to radar though, the scenario posed had the three ships ambushing Yamato at night armed with flashless powder and using their better radars. Unfortunately this doesn't work quite as well against Bismark, especially alone, since Bismark had good radar (though not protected from its own muzzle blasts) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44
[DAB]
Members
183 posts
3,465 battles
27 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

What's preferable, though?  A World Cup win or a World War win? 

Both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26,055
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,658 posts
8,142 battles
26 minutes ago, HP_Lovesauce said:

Both.

France had to swap one for the other...

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4 posts
108 battles
17 hours ago, mofton said:

Two world wars, one world cup, zero nukes.

 

1 hour ago, HP_Lovesauce said:

If you were French, you could say two world cups. 

 

and 200 nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4 posts
108 battles
24 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

France had to swap one for the other...

Actually France won both

Edited by NinehundredBR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4 posts
108 battles
19 hours ago, _1204_ said:

In game or in real life? In game maybe if there was a legendary skill gap. 

 

In real life... extremely unlikley. The bismark was revolutionary for it's time, and the Texas was already 25 years old. Of course all it takes is a penetrating round to the magazine, but the Bismark was leagues more advanced than Texas

 

Edit: found this. Might be closer than I thought

Interresting on the site you pointed, most of them says the Texas would won, i didn't expect that.

Edited by NinehundredBR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26,055
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,658 posts
8,142 battles
10 minutes ago, NinehundredBR said:

Actually France won both

Politically, yes, and it was a close thing with the USA originally not wanting to consider France as one of the victors.  Militarily, very no.  It's like saying Italy won WW2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4 posts
108 battles
41 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Politically, yes, and it was a close thing with the USA originally not wanting to consider France as one of the victors.  Militarily, very no.  It's like saying Italy won WW2.

Well then you can say the same for most countries in Europe, even the UK barely fought, they just standed on their Island during most of the war and got theirs a*s kicked in Asia.

Edited by NinehundredBR
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
283
[UFFA]
[UFFA]
Members
1,121 posts
63 battles
1 hour ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Politically, yes, and it was a close thing with the USA originally not wanting to consider France as one of the victors.  Militarily, very no.  It's like saying Italy won WW2.

wth? The French where abandoned by the British, still gave a massive technology transfer to the UK and US. Where once again backstabbed by the British to prop up their war effort. Then had the fun of being a battleground later in the war. Yet don’t deserve credit for being on the winning side?

Ok. :cap_fainting:

Why Britain gets a pass for not being ready for the war and effectively quitting on France halfway through the Battle of France. All this after being the spearhead of the appeasement and condoning the build up of the Germans is beyond me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
689 posts

 

16 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Politically, yes, and it was a close thing with the USA originally not wanting to consider France as one of the victors.  Militarily, very no.  It's like saying Italy won WW2.

Wow, what an astoundingly ignorant statement from someone who I always considered very knowledgeable. I see that your history does not extend itself very far beyond WoWS.  Incredible.

I don’t even have the energy nor the will to go into how dumb of a statement that is.  Another thread spiraling towards toxicity.  Count me out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,627
[RKLES]
Members
8,272 posts
10,506 battles
On 2/25/2019 at 7:03 PM, _1204_ said:

In game or in real life? In game maybe if there was a legendary skill gap. 

 

In real life... extremely unlikley. The bismark was revolutionary for it's time, and the Texas was already 25 years old. Of course all it takes is a penetrating round to the magazine, but the Bismark was leagues more advanced than Texas

 

Edit: found this. Might be closer than I thought

Even in game if to be fair we game both ships a 19 point captain, the security ndary guns alone would be brutal to USS Texas, and then you add in the 15” guns... 

Armor and speed differences as well, Bismarck can fire apfull main gun salvo and then turn to angle again quickly. Texas lacks the secondary firepower and in order to bring  all her main guns to bear she needs to expose her broadside a lot longer. You can see what heavy 15” guns do to Texas just by taking Warspite out to battle even. Also if Bismarck really wanted to it could fire beyond Texas’s firing range even, granted if Texas had the proper upgrades it could force Bismarck far enough out to take a long time to kill USS Texas  in this manner thanks to German dispersion in the game. But just listing that last option simply because it’s technically possible despite being least efficient choice.

 

Real life the Bismarck was far superior, and while Texas was said to still be surprisingly accurate in WWII when doing shore bombardment missions, the targeting system would have struggled in comparison to Bismarck. Add in the rest of the  lists of stats between the 2 Warships and Bismarck comes out ahead in most of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×