Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
__NASA__Apollo__11__

If Hannover was actually built in steel, how many officers and sailors would it take to man her?

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

5,129
[RLGN]
Members
16,628 posts
29,071 battles

I would say it depends mostly on the anti-aircraft suite.

The Iowa’s in Korea and Vietnam got by with 1,500-ish? (Not sure the 80s-90s,) but we’re running 2.5, 3-thousand in late WW2 because of all the 20 and 40mms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,573
[REVY]
Members
8,442 posts
6,118 battles
3 hours ago, __NASA__Apollo__11__ said:

My guess would be about 3000 men since Bismarck had 2040 men and Yamato had 2500 men. Any opinions?

 

At a displacement of 90,000t, she's approaching the size of a 100,000t Gerald Ford Super Carrier which has a crew of 2,600.  I'm guessing physically the ship isn't getting that much bigger, it's just the weight of all that armor and armament that increases, which means crew spaces have not really increased.  2,600 is my guess.  When you compare an Iowa to a Gerald Ford, their sizes aren't all that different, despite Ford weighting twice as much.  And I know Battleships can be manned with skeleton crews, Jean Bart when into the Suez Crisis with a crew only of 1,280.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,460
[SR-_-]
Members
4,966 posts
46,534 battles

I would say about 3500. Most definitely a ship of complexity.

That is a lot of leather pants, Member's Only jackets, and hair gel aboard.

The parties aboard had to be epic like a Berlin disco. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
565
[BUOY]
Members
1,430 posts
17,307 battles

My guess would be 2200 men in 1939 and 2800 in 1944 due to a massive need for AA gun crews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,250
[PISD]
Members
1,999 posts
6,619 battles
6 hours ago, Sventex said:

At a displacement of 90,000t, she's approaching the size of a 100,000t Gerald Ford Super Carrier which has a crew of 2,600.  I'm guessing physically the ship isn't getting that much bigger, it's just the weight of all that armor and armament that increases, which means crew spaces have not really increased.  2,600 is my guess.  When you compare an Iowa to a Gerald Ford, their sizes aren't all that different, despite Ford weighting twice as much.  And I know Battleships can be manned with skeleton crews, Jean Bart when into the Suez Crisis with a crew only of 1,280.

Technology let's you get by with fewer crew, and the Ford have almost no guns, which require a lot of crew.

 

And yes you can have skeleton crew in time of peace, but to be combat ready you need the full crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,203
[HINON]
Members
9,164 posts
13,743 battles

none, because it wouldnt live to see itself slip off the drydock, because the second the RN caught wind of this thing, theyd be sending every spare bomber they had to it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,573
[REVY]
Members
8,442 posts
6,118 battles
1 hour ago, tcbaker777 said:

none, because it wouldnt live to see itself slip off the drydock, because the second the RN caught wind of this thing, theyd be sending every spare bomber they had to it

They didn't destroy Bismarck when it was being completed.

photo099.jpg

The Bismarck in dry dock June-July 1940.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,013
[WOLFG]
Members
13,270 posts
12,560 battles
1 hour ago, Sventex said:

They didn't destroy Bismarck when it was being completed.

photo099.jpg

The Bismarck in dry dock June-July 1940.

It would have been later, so Barnes Wallis' toys would have been ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[HFC]
Members
251 posts
2,203 battles
On 6/25/2021 at 11:45 AM, Sventex said:

They didn't destroy Bismarck when it was being completed.

photo099.jpg

The Bismarck in dry dock June-July 1940.

A little thing called the Battle of Britain was going on at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,573
[REVY]
Members
8,442 posts
6,118 battles
5 minutes ago, Dr_Seadog said:

A little thing called the Battle of Britain was going on at the time.

I don't recall the British Bomber fleet playing a big role in the Battle of Britain, but that could just be a gap in my knowledge.  I know when London was bombed, Berlin was bombed, but I don't see why they couldn't divert to target the Bismarck while they were at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[HFC]
Members
251 posts
2,203 battles
5 minutes ago, Sventex said:

I don't recall the British Bomber fleet playing a big role in the Battle of Britain, but that could just be a gap in my knowledge.  I know when London was bombed, Berlin was bombed, but I don't see why they couldn't divert to target the Bismarck while they were at it.

 

In actual fact, the "accidental" bombing of Berlin at night by the RAF started the reprisal bombing of London, which saved the RAF as the Luftwaffe, per Hitler, diverted from the airbases and factories serving the RAF, to terrifying (but purposeless) bombing of London. A clever bit, that.

But you don't send night bombers to try and bomb a pinpoint target like a battleship. Even in the day, you will have a hard time hitting it.

And you don't dare send bombers in the daytime against the most heavily defended coastline in Europe when you need every single fighter you can muster to prevent invasion. If you send daytime bombers without escorts, they will be murdered wholesale by the Luftwaffe which, at this time, was the most powerful air force on the planet.

 

So that's why.

Edited by Dr_Seadog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,573
[REVY]
Members
8,442 posts
6,118 battles
6 minutes ago, Dr_Seadog said:

But you don't send night bombers to try and bomb a pinpoint target like a battleship. Even in the day, you will have a hard time hitting it.

Even just damaging the drydock or destroying the Bismarck's construction materials would have been considerable.  Ports are substantial in size, it could have been worth making night sorties on such a big target.

9 minutes ago, Dr_Seadog said:

And you don't dare send bombers in the daytime against the most heavily defended coastline in Europe when you need every single fighter you can muster to prevent invasion. If you send daytime bombers without escorts, they will be murdered wholesale by the Luftwaffe which, at this time, was the most powerful air force on the planet.

If the Luftwaffe is over Britain, shouldn't that logically leave the German drydocks relatively undefended?  Even the US began unescorted bombings of German for a substantial amount of time.  Fighters simply lacked the firepower to take down bomber fleets.  While the Focke-Wulf 190 would eventually be equipped with canons to take down bombers, the 190s were not used in combat operations in the first phase of the Battle of Britain.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[HFC]
Members
251 posts
2,203 battles

If you think Bf109E3 and 20mm cannon couldn’t take down bombers, amigo you are woefully ill-informed. The RAF had no problems doing it with rifle caliber machine guns. 😆 

 

Also, FW190A didn’t exist until 1941.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,573
[REVY]
Members
8,442 posts
6,118 battles
7 minutes ago, Dr_Seadog said:

If you think Bf109E3 and 20mm cannon couldn’t take down bombers, amigo you are woefully ill-informed. The RAF had no problems doing it with rifle caliber machine guns. 😆 

11 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Fighters simply lacked the firepower to take down bomber fleets.

I feel you did not read my comment closely.  There is a substantial difference between a single bomber and a bomber fleet.  Ammunition capacity would remain a factor for just how much damage a single BF109 could do in a single engagement.  And overlapping fields of fire would give the bombers a decent defense.

7 minutes ago, Dr_Seadog said:

Also, FW190A didn’t exist until 1941.

11 minutes ago, Sventex said:

190s were not used in combat operations in the first phase of the Battle of Britain.

I feel you did not read my comment closely.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,573
[REVY]
Members
8,442 posts
6,118 battles
2 minutes ago, Dr_Seadog said:

It didn’t warrant reading closely. 

I see you're just wasting my time on purpose then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,203
[HINON]
Members
9,164 posts
13,743 battles
31 minutes ago, Dr_Seadog said:

If you think Bf109E3 and 20mm cannon couldn’t take down bombers, amigo you are woefully ill-informed. The RAF had no problems doing it with rifle caliber machine guns. 😆 

 

Also, FW190A didn’t exist until 1941.

but arent heavy bombers usually above the range of AA? like "high altitude"?

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,573
[REVY]
Members
8,442 posts
6,118 battles
22 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

but arent heavy bombers usually above the range of AA? like "high altitude"?

No.  The most dangerous part a WW2 bombing run was when the bombardier takes control of the bomber, because he'll fly it stright and level with only narrow adjustments to get the bombs on target.  This however gave the German flak batteries the perfect opportunity to get accurate fire on the bomber as it's path was now entirely predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,257
[WOLF3]
Members
31,765 posts
26,651 battles
10 hours ago, tcbaker777 said:

but arent heavy bombers usually above the range of AA? like "high altitude"?

For stuff like 20mm, 37mm, 40mm guns, yes.  But there were much larger guns found around like 88mm, 90mm, 128mm that could.

 

B-17G had a service ceiling of 10.8km.  However, I'm not sure when the G version entered service, I think later in the war, and if her ceiling was notably different to earlier variants.

Avro Lancaster 6.5km.  They started entering RAF service in early 1942.

He-111H-6 had 6.5km ceiling also.

Ju-88A4 ceiling was 8.4km.

 

The German 88mm had an effective ceiling of 8km.

The Germans also had a less well known 105mm AA gun, effective ceiling was 9.4km.  There were a good number of these, at least compared to the next gun.  I say "less well known" despite there being a lot of these AA guns, it's just the 88 is "the face" of German guns for a lot of people.

However, the Germans had a 128mm AA gun and that had the ceiling of 14.8km to engage those high altitude American Bombers.

 

US 90mm M1A1 had a ceiling of 14.3km.

US 120mm had, according to wikipedia a 17.5km max altitude, but not sure how much of that is effective range.

US 127mm/38 that you see on tons of US Navy ships, had 11.3km.

40mm Bofors had max range of 6.7km, at least for USA.

US 20mm Oerlikons had 3km.

 

One of the reasons the Bf109 soldiered on despite the arrival of the Fw190 was that the 109 had a much better ceiling than the typical 190, and behaved better at high altitude.  It couldn't all be just left to AA guns against high altitude American bombers.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,203
[HINON]
Members
9,164 posts
13,743 battles
9 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

For stuff like 20mm, 37mm, 40mm guns, yes.  But there were much larger guns found around like 88mm, 90mm, 128mm that could.

 

B-17G had a service ceiling of 10.8km.  However, I'm not sure when the G version entered service, I think later in the war, and if her ceiling was notably different to earlier variants.

Avro Lancaster 6.5km.  They started entering RAF service in early 1942.

He-111H-6 had 6.5km ceiling also.

Ju-88A4 ceiling was 8.4km.

 

The German 88mm had an effective ceiling of 8km.

The Germans also had a less well known 105mm AA gun, effective ceiling was 9.4km.  There were a good number of these, at least compared to the next gun.  I say "less well known" despite there being a lot of these AA guns, it's just the 88 is "the face" of German guns for a lot of people.

However, the Germans had a 128mm AA gun and that had the ceiling of 14.8km to engage those high altitude American Bombers.

 

US 90mm M1A1 had a ceiling of 14.3km.

US 120mm had, according to wikipedia a 17.5km max altitude, but not sure how much of that is effective range.

US 127mm/38 that you see on tons of US Navy ships, had 11.3km.

40mm Bofors had max range of 6.7km, at least for USA.

US 20mm Oerlikons had 3km.

 

One of the reasons the Bf109 soldiered on despite the arrival of the Fw190 was that the 109 had a much better ceiling than the typical 190, and behaved better at high altitude.  It couldn't all be just left to AA guns against high altitude American bombers.

ah, all this time i thought that, other than fighters being deployed on them, high level bombers were practically immune to most AA, man, im really taking that old saying of "you learn something new everyday" to the max, cause about every other day now ive learned something i didnt know before

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,257
[WOLF3]
Members
31,765 posts
26,651 battles
3 hours ago, tcbaker777 said:

ah, all this time i thought that, other than fighters being deployed on them, high level bombers were practically immune to most AA, man, im really taking that old saying of "you learn something new everyday" to the max, cause about every other day now ive learned something i didnt know before

Nah man, those USAAF B17s still had plenty to worry.  It's just not as much compared to trying to bomb at altitudes that as you can see, more guns can be used against you if you were doing it lower!

 

For "fun" here is a late war 1944 video about it.  It still looks dangerous despite the measures.

 

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[HFC]
Members
251 posts
2,203 battles

I hate getting FLAK (Fliegerabwehrkanone)

 

It's just a catch 22 sometimes

 

Hope you get my jokes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,272
[LEGIO]
Members
3,573 posts
9,111 battles

I think USAAF B-17 and B-24 crews had some of the worst mortality rates of all US forces. Only the B-29 could fly above all but the heaviest AAA but by the time it was mature enough for combat use it wasn't needed in Europe.

Even if you want to debate just how effective the strategic bombing campaign was the huge amount of German resources it tied up meant many less German guns, aircraft, and soldiers on the Eastern front or elsewhere. At terrible cost those bombers and their fighter escorts ground down the Luftwaffe until it could hardly manage to do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[HFC]
Members
251 posts
2,203 battles

The true mission of the USAAC

 

The mortality rate of the daylight Allied bombers and the U-boats is shocking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×