Could the Bismark have defeated the Yamato?

Bismarck's design was WW1-tier, and no, it wasn't virtually disabled; it was completely disabled with pretty much everyone dead. By the way its shit design was a main reason it was so easy for the Brits to disable it and kill everyone on it.

I don't think so. The Yamato, while not the best work of engineering, was bigger and stronger in every aspect.

Yamato vs an Iowa-class ship would be more interesting.

The Manhattan Project was a mistake. All I wanted from this world was the Yamato and Iowa to duke it out in Yokohama harbor.

>battleships duke in out inside a harbor
Why do people with no knowledge of a subject insist on posting in threads about said subject?

>Bismarck's design was WW1-tier,
>very impressive armour
>30 knots speed
>much farther range of weapons
>enough to one shot an actual world war I battlecruiser (hood)
haha yeah, totally

This, except the Yamato's fire control system was shit. Still, if she landed one salvo on bismarck she'd be sinking in no time. Those guns were massive and had more range as well.

In conclusion, yamato would win by being bigger in everything. I doubt the bismarck could penetrate her armor with the 15 inchers it carried.

>much farther range of weapons
nope, the 18 inch guns on the yamato had 6km more max range.

Thats not forgeting that the carrier didnt yet have a large amount of its water tight doors and the crew hadnt yet been trained in damage control

>very impressive armour
Its armor-scheme was literally WW1 design that every actual naval nations abandoned.

>30 knots speed
So it can run away from the Yamato? Very Impressive. Not going to help much though because
>aircraft

>much farther range of weapons
No.

>enough to one shot an actual world war I battlecruiser (hood)
So what?

Bismarck was a meme boat that sank another meme boat, end of story.

>Bismarck took incredible punishment and even though it was virtually disabled it still took a crew scuttling to sink it.

debateable, firstly because it was not virtually disabled it was completely diasbled, it got absolutely wrecked in a pretty short gun battle.

and secondly because the 'scuttling' happened pretty much the same time as 3 torpedoes hit it and the bloody thing was sinking anyway before that, just rather slowly it would have sun within 24 hours without either the torps or the scuttling.

>>very impressive armour
less well armored than a KGV despite being significantly heavier, its armor failed to prevent its main armament being destroyed.

>30 knots speed
barely and not that impressive, again the KGV was not much slower, it didnt have a decisive speed advantage.

>>much farther range of weapons
nope, certainly not possessing a range advantage over yamato and not possessing a effective range advantage over many of its contemporaries

>>enough to one shot an actual world war I battlecruiser (hood)
a mag hit on a over aged and under armored old ship isnt that great, the other ships that engaged Bismarck werent that threatened.

seriously the Bismarck wasnt even better than the KGVs and those poor ships were somewhat hamstrung by being built to treaty limitations

An improved WW1 design that was succesful.
Yamato, again, wasn't.
Didn't divers confirm it was scuttling that sunk it?
In any case it took half of RN to sink it. Pretty impressive.

>An improved WW1 design that was succesful.

In what way was the Bismarck successful? It was an expensive ship that was used as a crappy commerce raider and got sunk on its first expedition.

>Didn't divers confirm it was scuttling that sunk it?

Some amateur divers have made that claim. Others have noted that it's kind of impossible to tell since pretty much the entire stern is missing.

>In any case it took half of RN to sink it. Pretty impressive.

Learn2count.

The forces committed on the 26-27th of May action were

1 Carrier (Ark Royal)
2 Battleships (KGV and Rodney)
3 Cruisers (Norfolk, Dorsetshire, and Sheffield)
6 destroyers (Cossack, Sikh, Zulu, Maori, Mashona, Tartar, Piorun

Hell, the losses the RN took over Crete are almost as big as the entire task force.

>Didn't divers confirm it was scuttling that sunk it?
no, divers were unable to confirm the scuttling charges sank it, just that it was flooding as it sank, and that some of the torpedo impacts didnt penetrate the inner hull, as some of the impacts were buried in mud and the entire stern was separated on the surface (almost certainly by torpedo and this would have sufficed to flood the ship) it is not and cannot be confirmed what sunk it, and in either case credit goes for to the battleships because she was sinking anyway, just slowly, if you fight a man and leave him dying, does it matter that someone else puts him out of his misery?
it took 2 battleships to sink it, one small carrier to lame it.

significantly less than half the RN was involved in the hunt, and most of that was simply to have enough ships to cover all possible courses, much the same way as a fox hunt has a lot of dogs, one or two is enough to kill a fox, but you need more to be sure of cornering it.

>An improved WW1 design that was successful.

in what sense? it didnt prevent Bismarck from being reduced to a crippled floating inferno? it didnt prevent PoW from cleanly penetrating her with its only hit, sending her back to port, it didnt prevent most of her key systems from being destroyed by KGV and Rodney in a fairly short engagement, a actually good scheme would have preserved her key systems better not merely kept her crippled wreck from slipping under for a little while

haha eat shit bismarckfag, btfo

make it more obvious why don't you

A WILD CARRIER APPEARS AND BTFO BOTH OF THEM

You have to admit that would be rad tho.

In a fistfight?

Drinking contest.

The Bismark was successful in the sense that it took quite a bit of punishment before going down. It was a very well designed battleship. It lost because it was heavily outnumbered, not because of any real problem with the ship itself.

>The Bismark was successful in the sense that it took quite a bit of punishment before going down.

And this is different from the Yamato how exactly? It took the complement of 11 aircraft carriers for several hours pounding away at it for the damn thing to go down. I very much doubt that the Bismarck would have done any better.

> It was a very well designed battleship.

Ehh, not really. It was a modern battleship, in a world where treaty limitations meant that most BB fighting in the early part of WW2 were built during WW1. It wasn't any better than say, the KGV class, and it was a hell of a lot worse than something like the Iowa class.

> It lost because it was heavily outnumbered, not because of any real problem with the ship itself.

Which doesn't change that it wasn't that great of a design given its relative modernity, nor was it well employed.

it took a lot of hits to sink, but very few to disable, it had significant design flaws including but not limited to.

outdated armor scheme.

inferior quality armor (the KGV had better quality armor, i.e. better protection for the same thickness of armor)

poor weapons choices, lacking dual purpose HA/LA guns meant the whip had to carry both secondary anti ship batteries and a separate set of heavy AA guns leading to a significant weight penalty.

poorly designed steering gear and propeller shaft layout, the single rudder and triple screw design was much more vulnerable to being knocked out by damage than the twin rudder and 4 screw design of the KGV, which could in a pinch steer without rudder by reversing one set of shafts and running the other ahead.

it had decent guns and FCS and decent speed but it was in many respects a poorly conceived ship, and showed this in its engagement with the KGV and rodney.

>it took quite a bit of punishment before going down
Its guns were silenced like 20 minutes after combat started. Everybody on board was dead like 10 minutes after that. It doesn't really mean anything that the dead carcass of a boat stayed afloat.

>I'm bleeding making me the victor

>small carrier
Leave my waifu alone

lol

C U T E

Can someone explain to me the infatuation with the Iowa Class? What were the key differences that raised it above it's contemporaries?

Yeah, it had guns as big as steers and shells as big as trees

This. At the beginning of the war the Japanese navy was incredibly formidable.

Because they were not only superior ships, they were superior in just about every single metric of performance. Compared to their contemporaries, they were better armored, better armed, had better FCS, could generate more power, were super fast (faster than some cruisers), had amazing damage repair systems, and were just all around mean as cat piss.

They were kind of obviated due to Aircraft carriers being the real weapon of naval war in the Pacific, but they were unbelievably good battleships.

>This, except the Yamato's fire control system was shit.
Not according to postwar American reports.

US Naval Technical Mission to Japan, Target Report - Japanese Fire Control:
>This report contains miscellaneous data on Japanese fire control...A remarkable fact is that, despite the backwardness of synchro technique, the equipment and systems in general appeared to work well.
US Naval Technical Mission to Japan, Target Report - Japanese Surface and General Fire Control
>The lack of good radar in Japanese surface fire is offset to some extent under certain conditions by their excellently grouped salvos, and, in general, their surface fire is, there fore, not much inferior to that of other navies.

Combined with its excellent optics, the Yamato would not have performed much worse than Bismarck in clear daylight conditions, though it would have performed worse at night or in poor weather.

They are meme boats that served as glorified AAA platforms. US would've been better off building a bunch of AAA-cruisers instead and/or more carriers.

>At the beginning of the war the Japanese navy was incredibly formidable.
They were formidable due to treaty restrictions gimping the USN and RN but what was "incredibly" formidable about them?

>An improved WW1 design that was succesful.
Yamato was destroyed by nearly 400 modern fighter-bombers, dive bombers and torpedo bombers. Bismarck was disabled by a fucking biplane.
We don't know for sure whether Yamato would have been more successful in surface combat, but Bismarck would have been fucking wiped if it had been subjected to the same conditions that sank the Yamato.

>Compared to their contemporaries, they were better armored,

that ones actually debateable, the armor scheme was essentially identical to the south dakotas and the belt and deck were thinner than on the KGV or yamato.

generally speaking the Iowa was superior to the KGV but it was less well armored, sacrificing some armor for much greater speed

>They were formidable due to treaty restrictions gimping the USN and RN
Those same restrictions gimped the IJN too. The USN and RN proposed the treaties in the first place because the USN didn't want to waste funds on an arms race, and the RN couldn't afford another arms race after the first world war.

But early on (i.e. 1941) the IJN Combined Fleet had a much stronger grasp of carrier operations compared to the Fleet Air Arm, and a comparable grasp to the USN.

Part of it is just overconfidence on the part of the USN and RN. Admiral Phillip's dismissal of a lack of air cover just prior to the loss of the Prince of Wales is usually used as an example of the arrogance of battleship captains, but what it doesn't take into account was that British intelligence simply didn't understand that both Japanese Land and Sea-based bombers had ranges far beyond anything the Fleet Air Arm (or the USN at the time), at 1500+ km. Phillips simply didn't think that Japanese bombers could reach force Z, and that was a decision that cost him his life and that of most of the force.

Qualitatively, the Fleet Air Arm in 1941 consisted of the new Hawker Sea Hurricanes, a few obsolescent Brewster Buffalos purchased from the US, and biplanes such as the Fairey Swordfish and its replacement, the Albacore. While the Hurricane's superior high-altitude performance and speed may have allowed it to match the Zero, its range (965km) was significantly inferior to the Zero (1200km), and would either curtail the Albacore and Swordfish' range or force them to engage IJN carriers and their CAPs without fighter support. Add to this a British doctrinal emphasis on carrier protection over capacity, and the Fleet Air Arm would be outranged, outfought and vastly outnumbered.

>Those same restrictions gimped the IJN too.
No, the restrictions favored the IJN. They got to have 70% of USN and RN strength while having only its backyard to concern itself over.

>The USN and RN proposed the treaties in the first place because the USN didn't want to waste funds on an arms race, and the RN couldn't afford another arms race after the first world war.
Japan was the poorest country and the one least likely to afford a strong, modern navy.

>But early on (i.e. 1941) the IJN Combined Fleet had a much stronger grasp of carrier operations compared to the Fleet Air Arm, and a comparable grasp to the USN.
The paragraphs that follow this statement have nothing to do with carrier operations. Para 1 speculates on why Adm. Philips dismissed air cover. Para 2 describes FAA's shitty equipment, which has nothing to do with its "grasp of carrier operations." Looks like a typical community college student/high schooler method of argument to me--just produce volumes of text in the hopes that teacher gives me points for effort.

>it still took a crew scuttling to sink it
>if you cut off my arms and legs and as I'm bleeding out I swallow a cyanide capsule you didn't kill me

>While the Hurricane's superior high-altitude performance and speed may have allowed it to match the Zero, its range (965km) was significantly inferior to the Zero (1200km), and would either curtail the Albacore and Swordfish' range or force them to engage IJN carriers and their CAPs without fighter support.
That's a cute theory but facts show that Zero's range didn't allow the IJN to attack opposing air groups from beyond their range. Something about having to find the other side or something.
Don't theorize about things that are factually known.

>No, the restrictions favored the IJN. They got to have 70% of USN and RN strength while having only its backyard to concern itself over.
Again, this was by the behest of the Royal Navy.

>Japan was the poorest country and the one least likely to afford a strong, modern navy.
By GDP, but the Japanese were far more willing to invest in their navy than the Royal Navy.
From
>jstor.org/stable/40107114?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
>By 1933, the United States had spent five times as much as Great Britain on capital-ship renovation, and had fitted every US battleship with the latest fire-control gear, aircraft equipment, and longer-range gun mountings, while Japan, following suit, allocated three times as much money for battleship reconstruction as the Royal Navy. Further increases were on the way.4

>Para 1 speculates on why Adm. Philips dismissed air cover
A fundamental misunderstanding of the capabilities of the opposing fleet is a clear issue with fleet operations.
> Para 2 describes FAA's shitty equipment, which has nothing to do with its "grasp of carrier operations."
Because I wasn't done writing about the issue with British armored carrier operations before you responded.

The FAA emphasized the use of armored carriers under the belief that the Royal Navy would be operating under attack from ground-based aircraft. However, armored carriers severely reduced hangar space and were still susceptible to incurring permanent structural damage that an American or Japanese carrier would otherwise have survived, due to the usage of the flight deck as the strength deck (see navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm).

Kings don't kill kings.

>That's a cute theory but facts show that Zero's range didn't allow the IJN to attack opposing air groups from beyond their range. Something about having to find the other side or something.
Circumstances vary. I-65 detected Prince of Wales in advance, allowing IJN land-based bombers to strike at the vessel beyond the range of any land-based RN air support. Similarly, during the February 1942 raid on Rabaul, early detection of TF11 allowed the IJN to launch an early attack on the fleet with land-based bombers well before the Lexington could launch its attack, forcing it to withdraw.

>Don't theorize about things that are factually known.
But there are factually known cases of it being used. Circumstances of engagement varied (there were times where the IJN detected the allies well in advance and vice versa), but should the former have occurred in a purely theoretical conflict solely between the Royal Navy and the IJN, Japanese advantages in range would have allowed them to exploit that early detection far more effectively than the FAA.

>The FAA emphasized the use of armored carriers under the belief that the Royal Navy would be operating under attack from ground-based aircraft

this belief was correct in most theatres, particularly the med.

This is true, but in any comparison between the RN and IJN the theater of operation would likely be the pacific and indian oceans, because there's no chance in hell the IJN could ever threaten the Mediterranean or Britain proper.

And while the basis upon they conceived their doctrine was logical, the results weren't great. Illustrious was permanently crippled by a near miss by a bomb; Shokaku was repaired from three hits at the Coral Sea, whereas Intrepid survived and was repaired from direct impacts from multiple Kamikaze bombers.

>Illustrious was permanently crippled by a near miss by a bomb
Nice alternate time line. Let's see what happened in real life.
>Jan 7 1941
Illustrious was hit 6 times by Stukas in the first wave. There were also a couple of near-misses, which is probably what you caught during your 1 min wiki research before making your dumb post. Second wave of Stukas hit the Illustrious again that day. This forced the Illustrious to withdraw to Malta for temporary repairs, where it was hit multiple times again a little bit later.
Illustrious returned to operation in 1942.
1 year in repair = permanently crippled??
After several more years of constant use, Illustrious was crippled by near-misses by 1000kg bombs in 1945.

>Shokaku
1 year in repair after Santa Cruz

History is a facts-driven field. You should try Veeky Forums or /quest/.

>After several more years of constant use, Illustrious was crippled by near-misses by 1000kg bombs in 1945.
So you proved my point?

Before or after the refit?

Looking more carefully at the rest of this, I don't know how anything you said disagrees with what I said at all.

As you said, most of the Stuka hits were glancing blows, and
>Of the fifteen hits, the Illustrious class flight deck armor defeated only one
>In the most famous Mediterranean incident, Illustrious survived numerous hits, but only one 500-kg bomb found her deck armor.12
But even these merited extensive repairs in the United States. Meanwhile, at Santa Cruz, Shokaku took
>Four definite, possibly even six bombs struck the flight deck, one aft of the island and the rest all grouped around the amidships and the aft elevators to port of the flight deck centerline.
And the repairs lasted from November 6th 1942 to February 28th, 1943, a period of four months. Illustrious spent half a year in Norfolk by the most conservative. After the near-miss by the Kamikaze Illustrious was limited to 19 knots (i.e. escort carrier speed) and then capped at 22 knots even after repairs. At the coral sea Shokaku was still moving at full speed.

Your point was that Illustrious survived multiple bomb hits and served for many years?

Illustrious survived a single bomb that actually hit on the armored deck, and was permanently damaged by a near-miss afterwards. Shokaku recovered far more quickly from much more grievous damage, directly on its unarmored flight deck.

>Can someone explain to me the infatuation with the Iowa Class?

1. They were really fast. Their listed top speed is 32.5 knots, but they were able to reach 35 knots on at least two separate occasions. No other battleship ever even came close to that. The only other possible contender would be the Italian Littorio-class, which sacrificed range for speed because Italy only cared about the Mediterranean

2. The Iowas remained in service longer than any other type of battleship. The fact that the Iowas were so damn fast made them ideal carrier escorts and it even allows them to keep up with modern warships that most WW2 era battleships would struggle to keep pace with. The Iowa-class ships were reintroduced into the fleet as part of Reagans "600-ship navy" project. This makes the Iowas unique in that they are the ONLY type of battleship to have been in service in the modern era. It was kind of a dumb idea. The entire concept of battleships was completely and utterly obsolete by that time. And upgrading the Iowas with modern systems was challenging because it was found that the guns shook the ship so much that circuits would snap. But the vessels make a big impression on anybody who sees them, and that effect wasn't lost on Reagan who wanted to project an image of toughness. It is said that the moment it was reported that the vessels were going back into service, the Navy was instantly flooded with letters from old WW2 sailors requesting to be let back in.

nice meme