Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Bismarck vs USS Iowa

Discussion in 'Ships & Shipborne Weaponry' started by JimboHarrigan2010, Aug 29, 2011.

  1. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,709
    Likes Received:
    1,500
    I do wonder about that "Washington saving the day". Kirishima hit South Dakota once or twice in the entire engagement (reports vary), never hit the Washington ​with a single shot, and took hits from both US ships to the tune of seven or eight in its bowels and went to the bottom. Proving that the best night fighting optical work is helpless against even rudimentary, but reliable radar fire control.
     
  2. IntIron

    IntIron Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    20
    From what I have read, the South Dakota suffered an electrical malfunction of some sort and lost power. Hence why the Washington had to save the day. Regardless radar fire control was more effective than the Japanese vaunted night fighting ability.
     
  3. ickysdad

    ickysdad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Clint,
    Actually there's now evidence that Kirishima hit South Dakota maybe up to 5 times whilst Washington may have hit Kirishima upwards of 20 times with her 16" guns.
     
  4. syscom3

    syscom3 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    182
  5. scrounger

    scrounger Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2011
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    12
    View attachment 15050 This photo is The U S S Iowa fireing it's 16" guns during a NATO trip sometime in the mid 80's , you can see the projectiles flying past the flames. There's no way I would want to be on the receiving end no matter what I was in ...
     

    Attached Files:

  6. 1ST Chutes

    1ST Chutes Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    25
    This. The Mk8 AP (Capped) Super Heavy round gave the Iowa, South Dakota and North Carolina Classes the heaviest broadside of any vessel other than the Yamato Class.
     
  7. USS Washington

    USS Washington Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    The Good old USofA
    I have always wondered why he did that in the first place? It was a foolish move on his part, and if USS Washington had not been there to intervene, it could have resulted in the loss USS South Dakota and possibly the battle too.
     
  8. Triple C

    Triple C Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    230
    There's a screw up in every outfit. Sometimes incompetence goes unnoticed until it was too late.
     
    USS Washington likes this.
  9. USS Washington

    USS Washington Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    The Good old USofA
    I concur, incompetence is, sadly, a plentiful commodity among people.
     
  10. USS Washington

    USS Washington Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    The Good old USofA
    I'm confident Iowa would win this; She has superior gunpower, superior radar fire control, and has advanced stable verticals that gives Iowa the ability to shoot with a great deal of accuracy even while making radical maneuvers. B)
     
  11. Thoddy

    Thoddy Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    4
    the same could be said from Bismarck class.

    the 2,700 lb shell fired from the 16"/50 gun had 30% more energy to start with. Nominally the winner
     
  12. ResearcherAtLarge

    ResearcherAtLarge Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    60
    South Dakota's Damage report for the action can be read here, for what it's worth. The electrical damage section doesn't mention breakers being tied down other than:

     
  13. Gromit801

    Gromit801 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    132
    Eyewitness' reported that the chief electrician attempted to centralize the circuit breakers to one panel.
     
  14. Dave55

    Dave55 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,377
    Likes Received:
    190
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Wow. Wouldn't that fireball kill all the 20 and 40mm gun crews on that side of the ship if they were on deck?
    I guess the USN probably thought of that and had some procedure for getting them the heck out of the way
     
  15. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,546
    Likes Received:
    1,574
    Location:
    God's Country
    Yeah takes a lot of propellant to throw a bullet that big 23-24 miles. Here's one being used as a chair.

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,332
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Usual procedure was for the 20mm & 40 mm gunners to move to the opposite side of where the main guns were firing.
     
  17. USS Washington

    USS Washington Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    The Good old USofA
    At the time of her sinking, what radar set did Tirpitz have, was it still the Seetakt, or did she get upgraded? Also, what radar set did Iowa have when she was commissioned, and how does Seetakt compare to it?
     
  18. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,332
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Location:
    Reading, PA
  19. SymphonicPoet

    SymphonicPoet Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    130
    I believe I've found a PDF copy of agreement you described here: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/LNTSer/1938/93.pdf

    I've been looking it over and I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of it. For the sake of convenience I've typed out the sections I believe to be relevant and include them here:

    The disagreement seems to hinge around article 2:

    [SIZE=12.3636360168457px]"After the date of the coming into force of the present Agreement, no vessel exceeding the limitations as to the displacement prescribed by this Part of the present Agreement shall be acquired by either Contracting Government or constructed by, for or within the jurisdiction of either Contracting Government."[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=12.3636360168457px]The word "constructed" is somewhat ambiguous and was probably a poor choice. You appear to interpret this to mean that any vessel presently under construction that exceeds the treaty specifications cannot be completed without violating the treaty, which seems a reasonable position though it is by no means clear. Elsewhere in the treaty, specific construction events are referenced: annual program, keel laying, completion, and so forth. Article 10 goes so far as to make specific provisions for vessels previously laid down that exceed the specifications. Such a clause would be unnecessary were your interpretation correct. Based on this I think "constructed" as a poor word choice, but the intent seems to have been fairly clear: no new ship exceeding specifications could be ordered or laid down. Ships already under construction do indeed appear to have been fair game, strictly per this agreement. I make no reference to other Anglo-German agreements of which I am completely unaware. I read this to be "Sure, we'll sign on to your treaty with future construction."[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=12.3636360168457px]As I read the treaty, Germany had an obligation to provide information on Bismark no later than time of completion, and possibly before then, but I see nothing in the treaty that realistically prevents her completion as designed. Sale to the Soviets of [/SIZE]Lützow [SIZE=12.3636360168457px]or ordering of the H-class would have violated the treaty, had it still been in force, but by 1939 it was moot. Do you have information suggesting Britain felt Germany was in violation of the agreement? This is far outside my area of expertise, but it's certainly interesting.[/SIZE]
     
  20. USS Washington

    USS Washington Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    The Good old USofA
    @Thoddy,

    I know Bismarck had her own gunnery radar and damage control, I wasn't saying she didn't have either, what I meant was that Iowa had superior RFC sets in the form of the Mk. 8(when she was commissioned) and the late war Mk. 12, which were certainly more advanced than the sets Bismarck had at the time of her loss, in addition to this, Iowa(and all US fast BBs of WW2) had advanced stable verticals that enabled her to maintain a solution on a target even while conducting evasive maneuvers, while the battleships of other nations could only do one or the other ,which is a big advantage for any warship. Also with that 30% more energy from the Mk. 7 16"/50, combined with the heavier shell(Mk. 8s 2700 lbs vs. L/4,4s 1764 lbs) makes Iowas guns more potent, so with the other two advantages noted, I maintain my position in favor of Iowa. Alright, I'll admit, in regards to damage control, there never seemed to have been extreme cases(That I know of) of Kriegesmarine ships suffering damage similar to say what New Orleans took at Tassafaronga yet still managing to make it back home, so the damage control aspect is uncertain.
     

Share This Page