macbolan00

well, time magazine declared him the best ground commander of the 20th century. they stated the reasons: his undefeated record in north africa against germany's best tank commander, and because he planned and commanded the two maneuvers that represented the zenith of 20th century fighting: the normandy invasion and the arnhem attack. both attacks are unparalled to this day in terms of size of personnel and material involvement, normandy succeeded, but it was eisenhower who envisioned it. monty did the tactical preparation and was overall coordinator. arnhem failed but it was the basis for later successful large airborne assaults.

one of the hardest what-if i encounter is how hitler could have finished off britain. sea lion was a no-go. even if the gemans had enough air transports, which they didn't, and the battle of britain won.

the most feasible i still see is destuction of british air power (starting 1940 and ending maybe 1942, with no russian front.) they would have to have a fleet of heavy bombers and a special long-range fighter escort developed. people will have to accept that the me-109 was a short-ranged interceptor. and then, germany should gradually build a brown water navy consisitng of frigates, destroyers, cruisers, subs and escort carriers. guadalcanal at least proved that one can grab and maintain a toehold on a beachhead while having an inferior navy. but an air invasion would have been feasible. at least, arnhem proved that one can transport several divisions under the enemy's nose, that paratroopers can hold ground much longer than expected; and seapower gradually strengthened.

but the germans will have to be even richer and more productive than the americans. at guadalcanal, things were basically hopeless for the japanese roughly 90 days after the first landing. after 90 days, there were already 20,000 marines on the island. they had a tank company, an amtrak battalion, a working harbor, 5-inch shore defense guns. henderson already had 200 planes, 90mm AA guns and two operating airfields (the seabees were then constructing 2 more.)

also, the germans should be prepared to lose as many men, planes and ships as the americans did in the solomons to even just maintain a toehold on british soil. very tall order.

mybe so but i wonder, with 270 planes and all their bombs and fuel, could you even manage 30 knots, when a battleship is after your blood?

plan z, as agreed in 1939, required a balanced surface and sub-surface force. with enough resources, the germans would have completed the entire plan by 1946. but i suppose your what-if assumes this was possible by 1941 (from the non-existent polish invasion.)

alright, the british would have spotted such a large build-up and tapped its commonwealth allies to augment its already strong navy. additional lend-lease agreements with the US would further boost its surface fleet. if, in 1941, the completed german force would stream out of the north sea (not sure if you're assuming france would be overrrun as really happend. the germans would probably not have enough metal for tanks and artillery due to your plan z,) there will be a jutland-type engagement. you're back to world war 1. the french and british army will likely resist your western invasion, given your diversion of resources into your navy. and what will that navy achieve assuming it beats the british on the high seas? invade britain? how many transports and auxillaries can you build? the UK had some 16 divisions inside britain waiting for the germans to invade, whether by sea or air.

face it. germany was a land power. it cannot compete with the british at sea. and we usually see that in a long war between a continental power and a sea power, the sea power wins. TBH, i dind't really think much of plan z. resources (and time itself) was simply too big a constraint.

dude, fitting 200 airplanes on one midway-class carrier is a physical imposibility, unless you do a really far-out modifaction. i would put your air strength to 1,800 - 2,000. capital ships operating without escorts? possible. think ww1 scenario for battleships. for carriers, still possible, the way the british used them. carriers don't need scouts as much as they need escorts. no submaries to worry about. just 30-knot battleships.

the condition is supremacy in the high seas. it doesn't matter from what point in the globe you start. you can assume you have access to unlimited supplies and replenishment (but not of lost ships,) whether in your base or at sea (though you run the risk of your supply ships being destroyed.) your can choose which location you can base from, at what lattitude you wish to come and challenge your opponent, whether day or night.

i always go with the battle ship and my opponent the carriers. i wonder why.

my force: 15 iowa-class battleships modified by removing B turret and replacing that with additional AA guns. the 12 5" guns will be reduced to 6 to make way for more 40MM and .50 cal guns. same engine to provide a flank speed of 30 knots and boosts to 35 knots.

my base? various supply depots within the visayan island group (Cebu, bacolod, panay, leyte, etc..) all those islands offer several points that can be modified for deep-draft capital ships.

your carriers? stick to WW2 actual deployed vessels.

ok, let's move back to capital ships. which of the two groups would you choose if you were to drive the other group out of the high seas:

15 battleships or 15 fleet carriers?

Well considering that the French haven't won a war since the Franco-Prussian war, I'm not so sure they could have bottled up the Germans in North Africa. Rommel did make fools of a lot of British officers who are, on average, better than their French counterparts.

correction: the french were "part" of the allied victory in ww1 and even in ww2. in the latter, the belatedly organized french army took part in the final drive into germany.

The Royal Navy was the largest with the US Navy a close second, the IJN was the 3rd largest, with the Italian Navy and Kriegsmarine in 4th and 5th place. So Allies vs. Axis would still be a close match.

 

In a straight out fight (without placing the terrain into consideration), who would win?

you forgot the french fleet with four battleships. this is one one interesting "what if." supposing right after the germans overrun southern france, the remnants of the french army, airforce and navy retreated to french-held north africa and decided to fight on? with more than 200,000 soldiers, a small airforce and four battleships, they could have helped bottle up the italians and eventually germans in north africa and make a counter-invasion of southern europe by americans and british far easier.

oh i forgot completely, if they were 20 feet of each other abreast, the yamato would win for sure: at 20 feet, their main guns will bang and clang against each other when swivelling so the yamato, with bigger and more guns, will dent and bend the bismark's guns in a few minutes, nya! ha! ha! ha!

as of 1939, the royal navy alone would have more tonnage in ships than japn and germany put together. the US would have an equal tonnage but most of these are world war 1-vintage ships and all battleships are pre-washington treaty level.

if i were the axis, i'd fight in inland seas like the channel area, the med, or around the japanese islands. topography and shoreline can easily negate one's numerical superiority (think salamis, tsushima straight, even leyte gulf in a narrow sense.) the germans, though far from having a high seas fleet as of 1939, had a passable "brown water" navy capable of fighting a littoral battle. the japanese, on the other hand, have preserved much of their pre-washington battleships even after they were forced to scuttle some of them to comply with treaty requirements.

Well if we are going to go for worse case scenario, then let's call it at a shoot-out at point blank range, 20 feet apart. At night, in the middle of a hurricane. In which case both ships would sink PDQ. LOL, its a granted that both ships could win, but, the Yamato has a better chance I think.

i don't have the numbers right now but you might. check the bismark's draft and height of hull above water in relation to the yamato's. also check the size and height above water of their respective superstructures. if the bismark is considerably lower than the yamato, then the yamato doesn't stand a chance. first, the yamato can't lower its guns below horizontal (that's why it couldn't shoot at destroyers at close range at leyte gulf.) second, the bismark would love a close-in fight. deck armor is not critical up close since shells will just deflect due to the low elevation. the yamato's waterline armor is thicker but the bismark has a very wide beam for its weight and its compartments are miniscule. that's why the bismark was able to stay afloat even after receiveing so many hits from the rodney and king george v.

your assessment is correct in that the yamato could commence fire from (only a slightly) longer distance. but that's just one scenario and it assumes a clear day with ideal conditions. the thing is, no gun-to-gun battle between BBs was ever won and lost past 20,000 meters. the reason's simple: accuracy past 10,000 meters falls to a very large degree. no, the battle will be won and lost from distance less than 10,000 meters.

the only possibility to yamato's favor is a line confrontation involving 2 or more BBs on either side. the addage that two is better than one cannot be better demostrated than with battleship fighting. one's effectiveness by adding a second battleship is more than tripled. of course, you have exceptions. at the denmark strait, the bismark managed to fight off two BBs. days later, with a sleepless crew, it failed against two more british battleships.

so here's a curved ball: i think the yamato and musashi would win against the bismark and tirpitz tandem if the fight began at 40,000 meters.

The Yamato's armor is 410mm with an additional 355mm thick bulkheads, that is 30" of armor protecting her sides, inclined at a 20^o angle. Not to mention that her armored decks protect more of the ship being set higher than that of the Bismark. While I'm certain that the 38cm guns of the Bismark would, eventually, given sufficient time, get through the Yamato's armor, the probability of the Yamato's 46cm guns going through the Bismark's armor is much higher as they were designed to go through 200mm of armor, which is almost double that of the Bismark's 100-110mm deck armor.[/color][/size][/font][/i]

agreed

The Bismark has 8 38cm guns with an average firing rate of 1 shell per minute with an effective range of 35.5 kilometers as opposed to the Yamato's 9 46cm guns with an average firing rate of 1 shell per 2 minutes with an effective range of 42 kilometers, thus while the Yamato can use her guns for effective volleys from 42 kilometers (and assuming that they maintain a closure rate of 16 kilometers per hour or 266.67 meters per minute, that means that effectively, the Yamato can be pounding away at the Bismark for 24 minutes or 12 full volleys by the 46cm guns, each shell of which will penetrate the armor of the Bismark). Once within range of the Bismark, even though they can fire twice as quickly, the 38cm shells will still have to go through 200 to 230mm of armored decks (the thinnest part of the Yamato's shell) which would require 3 to 5 hits on the same spot (+/- 1 meter) to have a chance of penetrating the armor of the Yamato.[/color][/size][/font][/i]

first, don't think of the yamato as some kind of floating anvil, or any battleship for that matter. even the best battleship is susceptible to secondary caliber fire (from 8-inch cruiser guns or even 5-inch destroyer guns.) it's main armore may not be penetrated by hits elsewhere could start fires, knock out communication lines or k*ll enough number of sailors to force it to withdraw.

as i said, cylic rate of fire is only half the story. but let's reserve that for a few more things: first, radar is needed for long-range firing and no battleship engagement was ever decided at long range, by only only the first or second salvo. both fighters close in and inevitably switch to visual sighting. this is the case even when the kirishima got busted by washington during a night engagement at guadalcanal.

the yamato, on a clear day at long range, might get the range sooner using a combination of radar and its huge optical sights. but no battleship was ever sunk with just one or two shells. the two combatants will invariably close to point-blank range, assuming they can still fight. and at close range, the bismark's gunnery was proven effective.

going back to who can heave more shell over time. if we go by just machine rate of fire, the yamato can throw 45 shells in five minutes as against the bismark's 60. but get this: at ten miles, the shell has to travel at least 6 seconds. and you cant change your elevation and traverse without first seeing where your last shot landed (either an explosion hit or a 100-foot water fountain.) then your re-aim and fire. now, the bismark's shells travel at a very flat trajectory and at a much higher velocity than the yamato's. that means that even with a similar cyclic ROF, the bismark can fire the next salvo sooner and more accurately. in fact, the only other BB that can match the bismark's firepower rating is the new jersey and the latter had better take the bismark out at long range.

lastly, we go to actual performance. one thing the war books tend to overlook is the fact that the bismark had the best shooting record of all battleships that saw engagement. it dueled with three enemy battleships and it found the range for each within 4 salvos. no other BB can boast a similar record. the yamato, on the other hand, wasn't able to train its main guns at destroyers on a clear day at close range. it hit one destroyer with a shell at leyte gulf and it was a dud.

so my conclusion is that in a one-on-one engagement, the bismark will likely pound the yamato deaf-dumb and blind after 10 salvos (slightly less than 20 minutes.)

Does this really have to be debated? Yamato will sink the Bismark PDQ.

 

Yamato

Displacement: 71,111 metric tons (standard), 73,000 metric tons (full load)

Speed: 27 knots (50kph)

Armor:

650mm on the main turrets

410mm side armor

200-230mm deck armor

Armaments:

9 x 46cm main guns

6 x 15.5cm secondary guns

12 x 12.7cm secondary guns

24 x 25mm AA guns

13 x 13mm AA guns

 

Bismark

Displacement: 41,700 metric tons (standard), 50,900 metric tons (full load)

Speed: 30.1 knots (55.7kph)

Armor:

360mm on the main turrets

220mm side armor

110-120mm deck armor

Armaments:

8 x 38cm main guns

12 x 15cm secondary guns

16 x 10.5cm secondary guns

16 x 37mm AA guns

20 x 20mm AA guns

 

So while the Bismark is a tiny fraction faster, its armor is roughly half that of the Yamato and its guns are severely outranged and outpowered by the Yamato.

let's take them one by one:

1. speed - usueful to a battleship in pursuing or running away. but you're there to fight, not run. and when you're slugging it out with an enemy battleship, speed is not an issue. you both cruise on even keel at around 16 knots. any faster than 20 knots and your firing won't be accurate.

2. armor. yes, the yamato seems able to take more punishment in vitals such as turret, midships. but read on battleship gunnery. there's this thing called "overmatch." a 14-inch shell traveling supersoning (whther from the british prince of wales or the US new mexico class) can smash the yamato's armor assuming sufficient number of hits. what i'm saying is a bttleship can't feel comfortable just because his armor is thicker than the other guy's

3. gunnery - ok, the yamato's guns are far more powerful but here's the thing. the bismark within 4 minutes, will end up heaving more shell at the yamato than vice versa. and mind you, cyclic rate of fire is only half the story. in fact, of all battleships built in WW2, the bismark has the highest firepower rating (even more than the US new jersey class.) even i was surpised.

try this 'what if':

Bismark vs. Yamato

explain your stand.

the best war book i've read and one of the best books i've read is "the caine mutiny" by herman wouk.

how about legionnaire by simon murray? now that was one great book, written like only an englishman can.

let's play a "what if" game. me first: what if operation amrket garden succeeded? remember, the objective of market garden was to break through into western germany three months ahead of western allies' schedule. it was september 1944. eisenhower's timetable was to "broad front" the germans north to south from the netherlands and denmark, all the way south near the swiss border. timetable was the break into germany by december 1944. so monty hatched a daring plan to snatch three bridges via airborne assault, for the paratroopers to hold those bridges, and let the ground forces pour into germany.

it failed.

had it succeeded, the british 30th armored corp would have driven into germany but would it have gotten far? the 21st army group under monty was the northern-most arm of the western allies' offensive. whereas it was a formidable force, it did not have the same manpower and material as the 12th army group in the center commanded by omar bradley. and the 21st was at the heels of the german 7th army under von runstedt that was fleeing france. the germans could have turned around and met horrocks' 30th corp.

likely scenario, the british beyond arnhem might have bogged down 50 miles into germany and would have needed to wait until december (as originally planned) for the american forces to swing north and make use of the arnhem bridgehead.