Bismarck vs Iowa: Who would Win?

[MajorRenegade]

What if these two steel giants were to battle each other

 

Despite the vast scope of the Second World War, the navies of the United States and Nazi Germany fought few, if any, direct surface engagements. By the time of America’s entry into the war the Royal Navy had already sunk or neutralized the lion’s share of Hitler’s Kriegsmarine, with only Hitler’s U-boats remaining a substantial German threat.

But what if the UK’s Royal Navy hadn’t been as successful as it was, and the U.S. was forced to hunt down the German Navy’s major surface combatants? What if the Iowa-class fast battleships had been sortied into the Atlantic to square off against their counterparts, the Bismarck-class battleships?

 

The Bismarck-class battleships were the largest surface ships built by Germany before and during the Second World War. Germany had been prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles to build warships over 10,000 tons, but the Anglo-German Naval Treaty of 1935 implicitly allowed them—though the German Navy was not to exceed thirty five percent the size of the Royal Navy.

With that restriction out of the way, Germany immediately began construction on the Bismarck-class battleships. Two ships, the Bismarck and Tirpitz, were planned. The ships were 821 feet long and displaced up to 50,000 tons fully loaded. Twelve high-pressure boilers powered three turbines, giving the ship a top speed of 30.1 knots. Three FuMo-23 search radars could detect surface targets at more than thirteen miles.

 

The Bismarck class had eight fifteen-inch guns, each capable of hurling an armor piercing, capped round up to 21.75 miles. The 1,764-pound killer shell traveled at 2,960 feet per second out the bore, faster than the bullet of a high-powered rifle. At 11 miles, it could penetrate 16.5 inches of armor, or roughly to the horizon at sea level, although it could theoretically hit targets much further.

Both battleships were heavily protected, with 12.5 inches of steel at the main belt, 8.7 inch armored bulkheads, and 14.1 inches of armor on the main gun turrets. The eight guns were installed in four turrets of two guns each. This spread the battleship’s main armament out among more protected turrets, increasing their survivability in a gunfight.

Overall, the Bismarck class was an impressive combination of firepower, speed, and protection.

 

The Iowa-class battleships were the most powerful battleships built for the U.S. Navy. Four ships: Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin were built. Each was approximately 861 feet long and weighed 52,000 tons. Eight water boilers connected to General Electric steam turbines propelled the battleships along at a speedy 32.5-knot maximum speed.

Iowa had nine sixteen-inch guns. Each Mark 7 gun could launch a 2,700 pound armor piercing shell 11.36 miles to penetrate 20 inches of steel plate—and even farther to a lesser penetration. In addition to search radar, the Iowas had Mk 13 fire control radars, allowing them to engage targets at extreme ranges and at night. The Mk 13 had a theoretical range out to 45 miles, and could even spot where the Iowa’s errant rounds landed, making aiming corrections much easier.

 

The Iowas too were heavily armored, with 12.1 inches at the main belt, 11.3-inch bulkheads, and an amazing 19.7 inches of armor on the main turrets. The ship’s vital combat information center and ammunition magazines were buried deep in their armored hulls.

Now, on to the battle. It’s 1942, and the new American battleship Iowa has been rushed into service to hunt the Bismarck. Bismarck, her sister ship Tirpitz, and other large German combatants have made the Atlantic too dangerous to send convoys across, something the United Kingdom desperately needs.

A fast battleship designed to operate alongside aircraft carriers, Iowa can cover a lot of ocean. Operating alone, she detects Bismarck—also operating alone. The duel is on.

 

Despite the Bismarck’s well-trained crew, good design and powerful weapons, Iowa has one technological innovation the German battlewagon doesn’t: radar-directed main guns. Iowa can fire much more accurately at longer distance targets. This allows Iowa to “out-stick” the Bismarck, which must close to within visual range for its fire control systems and procedures to work effectively. While Bismarck would avoid a nighttime duel, Iowa would welcome it—and its 2.5-knot advantage in speed means it can force a night battle if it wants to, chasing Bismarck down before sunrise.

 

Iowa’s combination of the Mk 13 fire control radar and Mk 7 shells means it can fire first, hit first, and hurt first. While Bismarck’s armor protection and distributed firepower could help ensure it lasts long enough above the waves to damage Iowa, it’s unlikely could save itself, damaging the American battleship enough to make it break off the attack.

Iowa wins.

 

The larger context of the battle—the U.S. Navy being forced to take on the German Navy—would have had serious repercussions for the Pacific theater. Germany was, after all, considered the primary threat, with Japan second and Italy third. A more powerful German Navy (or weaker Royal Navy) would have had second order consequences for the Pacific, delaying the Solomons campaign, including the invasion of Guadalcanal, the Battle of the Coral Sea, and even the Battle of Midway.

 

U.S. Navy planners in the Pacific, still overestimating the value of battleships, could have been less daring in their absence and fought a holding action until late 1942 or 1943. Had things been different we might think of America’s initial war against the Axis as taking place in the Atlantic and not the Pacific, the Marines hitting the beach in Iceland and not Guadalcanal, and the cataclysmic battle between the battleships Bismarck and Iowa.

 

 

discussed below

[Czevak]

Iowa would win hands down. Better range, accurate fire control. And well, it's just an awesome ship, Bismarck ain't got nuthin' on Iowa.

[Terrible_Turtle]

Wouldn't North Carolina vs Bismarck be a better comparison?

 

EDIT: Oh, we're not talking about WoWS... nevermind. 

[DoomStomper]

You're just trying to stir up another 10+ page fanboy battle royale, aren't you? 

 

 

 

[MeKanism]

My vote is Iowa. No doubt

[1Sherman]

Iowa would win hands down. Better range, accurate fire control. And well, it's just an awesome ship, Bismarck ain't got nuthin' on Iowa.

 

My thoughts exactly. The Iowa's fire control would mean that it would be able to put long-range, high-accuracy fire onto the Bismarck with near-impunity.

[iHaveNoIntelligence]

Iowa definitely. It can out fight Bismarck with it's superior FCS and fight at long range thus making great shell arc.

Bismarck's armor construction is useless against shells that have shell arc bigger than 15 deg.

Besides Iowa had SHS 16" which is almost as strong as Yamato's 18"

[Czevak]

 

My thoughts exactly. The Iowa's fire control would mean that it would be able to put long-range, high-accuracy fire onto the Bismarck with near-impunity.

 

That and the fact Bismarck has less range than the Iowa. All Iowa has to do is run away angled and it will wreck Bismarck without taking any damage itself.

[mr3awsome]

Given the more adverse conditions of the Atlantic compared to the Pacific, the odds are a lot more even than most seem to appreciate. 

The worse the weather is the more the odds are in Bismarck's favour. 

[devastator5000]

In theory both and neither discussing is pointless as life is never so simple the best answer as with Iowa Vs. Yamato is depends on who sets the terms, as Bismark is the only ship out of all 3 of them Iowa/Yamato/Bismark that actually participated in a major ship v ship battle like Bismarck and even then it wasn't against the best opponent 

[Daigensui]

People need to stop bringing up "superior FCS" for Iowa.

 

That took years to develop, even after the class entered service. Why on earth are people assuming 1945 Iowa versus a Bismarck that sank before Iowa was even launched

[AVR_Project]

Problem with 'What If' leads to many more confusing questions.

Assumption #1:  Survival of the Bismarck will result in the loss of the British Isles to the Nazis. -- Germans now own the home fleet (or what's left)

Assumption #2:  Survival of the Bismarck would bolster confidence in the Kreigsmarine and increased funding to completing more ships i.e. Graf Zepplin and more DDs

Assumption #3:  US would have a less aggressive stance against Germany after loss of Britain.  This would result in less aggressive acts against the Axis (notably Japan)

Assumption #4:  Japan would not attack Pearl Harbor since we wouldn't have any reason to embargo them.  The US would be very much weaker and driven further into neutrality.

My Conclusion:

"We've got to sink the Bismarck, cause the world depends on us".

[Fishrokk]

Given the more adverse conditions of the Atlantic compared to the Pacific, the odds are a lot more even than most seem to appreciate. 

The worse the weather is the more the odds are in Bismarck's favour. 

 

Is it really that simple, though?  Weren't the Germans changing the bow design on later ships (that never got built) because Bismarck and Tirpitz took on too much water over their bows?  I can imagine a ship with that particular weakness not wanting to push the limits of their performance envelope in more nautical weather conditions.

 

This is an honest question, not a knee-jerk disagreement.  I don't have any real world experience on boats.  But I do watch a lot of Deadliest Catch.  And I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[TheBlackWind]

IRL: Iowa. No question about it. The Bismarck was an overhyped inefficiently built ship. 

 

In game? I don't mind taking on an Iowa with my Tirpitz. Iowa has pretty crummy armor in game. Close up Tirp has advantage. Far away Iowa has advantage.

[TacoSallust]

People need to stop bringing up "superior FCS" for Iowa.

 

That took years to develop, even after the class entered service. Why on earth are people assuming 1945 Iowa versus a Bismarck that sank before Iowa was even launched

 

One of these had a quality radar-directed fire control system, the other was Bismarck. That does negate some of the range advantage, but it is literally trading one advantage for another with very similar outcomes. 

[Dunk_Master_Flex]

People need to stop bringing up "superior FCS" for Iowa.

 

That took years to develop, even after the class entered service. Why on earth are people assuming 1945 Iowa versus a Bismarck that sank before Iowa was even launched

 

This premise itself is stupid as hell.

 

Saying "FCS doesn't count" is like saying "Germans get no optics."

 

The Iowa's had FCS, it's getting used in this situation. 

[Dunk_Master_Flex]

Iowa is an unfair comparison, North Carolina is much fairer. Joking, it really isn't.

 

 

A much fairer fight would be North Carolina vs Bismarck and even in that situation, North Carolina is a better ship.

Bismarck was laughably overweight for what they got out out the ships, measuring out at around 50, 900 tons compared to North Carolina's 34,000 tons.

North Carolina had 12" angled at 15 degrees of belt armor compared to Bismarck's vertical 12.6" of belt armor. Bismarck loses out in turret protection 14.1" vs 16", Bismarck loses in deck armor, which is important here at 4.7" to 7.2". Despite her reputation, Bismarck has a quite measly armor scheme for a ship of it's size.

North Carolina completely wrecks Bismarck when it comes to guns. While North Carolina barely beats Bismarck in range with 23 miles vs 22.1 miles, North Carolina can throw out 24,300 lbs broadsides with it's nine 16 inch guns compared to the 14,112 lbs broadside of Bismarck's eight 15 inch guns. Penetration from the Mark 8 super heavy shell is obviously much better than the 15 inch shells of the Bismarck. Her supposed reload speed of 20 seconds is a poor guess of what she can actually do, with real reload speeds being affected by many different factors. Her outdated all around protection scheme also leaves her waterline and deck especially vulnerable to 16" guns.

Bismarck flat out loses to the FCS of any US battleship. Washington superb accuracy in her night battle against Kirishima, even with the relatively close range and the outdated Dreadnoughts at the Surigao Strait show this. The Germans are capable of accurate fire but nothing close to the Americans.

"In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns"

Bismarck also loses in secondary battery and AA armament.

The only main advantage besides belt armor is her speed advantage of 2 knots over North Carolina.

The Bismarck is just not a very effectively designed ship. North Carolina would win most of the time, Atlantic or Pacific. Night and bad weather especially. The Iowas were slightly worse seakeeping ships in the Atlantic but it isn't a deciding factor especially with the FCS.

 

[Triela50]

People need to stop bringing up "superior FCS" for Iowa.

 

That took years to develop, even after the class entered service. Why on earth are people assuming 1945 Iowa versus a Bismarck that sank before Iowa was even launched

I disagree the MK 38 GFCS of the Iowa was the most advance in the world at launch and only got better over time

[Seraphil]

At least link the dumb article you're copypasting from.

 

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/nazi-germanys-battleship-bismarck-vs-americas-iowa-class-who-17172

 

And it's a dumb article just for comparing ships that aren't even contemporaries and smells of America wank.

[Daigensui]

This premise itself is stupid as hell.

 

Saying "FCS doesn't count" is like saying "Germans get no optics."

 

The Iowa's had FCS, it's getting used in this situation. 

 

You seem to not understand the issue here. Yes, Iowa had FCS, but this was after Bismarck was sunk, and years before it reached the potential that allowed wankers to rant about its superiority.

 

 

I disagree the MK 38 GFCS of the Iowa was the most advance in the world at launch and only got better over time

 

It was an over-complicated, constantly breaking down fragile system that only started being fixed by 1944. If Bismarck had the same kind of time and development, the gap would have been covered quickly. This is especially apparent since IJN  managed to catch up to 1944 USN level by 1945.

[1Sherman]

 

You seem to not understand the issue here. Yes, Iowa had FCS, but this was after Bismarck was sunk, and years before it reached the potential that allowed wankers to rant about its superiority.

 

 

 

It was an over-complicated, constantly breaking down fragile system that only started being fixed by 1944. If Bismarck had the same kind of time and development, the gap would have been covered quickly. This is especially apparent since IJN  managed to catch up to 1944 USN level by 1945.

 

People need to stop bringing up "superior FCS" for Iowa.

 

That took years to develop, even after the class entered service. Why on earth are people assuming 1945 Iowa versus a Bismarck that sank before Iowa was even launched

 

 

That is all.

[Triela50]

 

 

 

That is all.

Lol +1

[Super_Dreadnought]

INB4 thread derails into Iowa vs Yamato. Again.

[Dunk_Master_Flex]

 

You seem to not understand the issue here. Yes, Iowa had FCS, but this was after Bismarck was sunk, and years before it reached the potential that allowed wankers to rant about its superiority.

 

 

 

It was an over-complicated, constantly breaking down fragile system that only started being fixed by 1944. If Bismarck had the same kind of time and development, the gap would have been covered quickly. This is especially apparent since IJN  managed to catch up to 1944 USN level by 1945.

 

That is why Iowa Vs. Bismarck is a stupid concept. They are not even in the same era. North Carolina is a much better comparison and even then, Bismarck gets whopped. Check my previous post.

 

I'm sorry, can you please take a look at Washington vs Kirishima and the Battle of the Surigao strait, I'm pretty sure US FCS was working fine far before 1944. Outclassing anything the Japanese or Germans had. Only the British really compare. 

 

The radar sets used in 1944 by Japanese capital ships like Yamato were roughly comparable to NC's radar from 1942-1943. It should be said that Yamato used radar to assist rangefinding but she could not blind fire like US battleships. The Japanese were up to late 1943 era Allied radar by 1945 but they had nothing like the Mark 8 and Mark 1 Fire control computers. Their Type 94 fire control computer however, all data was manually entered, not good. 

 

Yamato's FCS wasn't very good engaging non-static targets since the FCS has to be manually set, which will always be worse than the automatic US FCS which gets data fed into it directly from the radar which it uses to change variables on the fly. Plus they need 4 - 6 men operating the machine. Fast targets move, slow manually set FCS systems aren't very effective. 

 

Japanese fire control was better than the German's but still not very effective compared to the Allies.

[Dunk_Master_Flex]

INB4 thread derails into Iowa vs Yamato. Again.

 

What do you expect when you put Iowa vs Bismarck?

 

That crapisn't fair.