Bismarck vs. Yamato

No, and we never will. We will see a never ending debate over who would win between three separate camps.

1. Yamato was huge, therefore nothing can stop her.
2. Bismark sunk Hood in just a few minutes. What did Yamato ever do?
3. Germany and Japan were allies. Why would they fight each other?

About the only useful stuff here is the specs we keep getting like the weapons on each ships spotter plains, Armor, speeds, turning ability etc.

 

Your quite right. IMHO the Bismarck in either the so-called guns versus armor or Immune Zone methods of comparing two ships doesn't match up all that well with the USN /RN treaty BB's which were several thousand tons smaller then Bismarck while here Yamato using the same methods has a huge advantage over the Bismarck. just MHO though.

 

Like most Japanese aircraft, the "Pete" was very maneuverable, particularly since it was a biplane. The Arado might have heavier armament, but you have to be able to place the other aircraft in your sights to make it work. And even with the rifle caliber armament of the Pete, the Arado was largely a fabric covered aircraft, where rifle caliber armament could do a lot of harm.

 

N00b, here!

If I can add my two cents...

Most hypothetical dreadnought duels I find interesting topics because they stir debates that uncover lots of evidence and their sources. Now to the topic at hand...

All variables "equal", the Yamato is the superior ship, and will usually win, though not without a cost.

Most of the debates I've seen over the years were the classic "Yamato vs Iowa". I'd go with the Iowa, on that one, and that one would be close. I don't think the Bismarck would stand a ghost of a chance vs an Iowa. What do I base this on, besides all the stuff I've read over the years? Wargame experience. I've been an avid naval wargamer since the mid-1960's. I've played just about every rules set you can imagine: Fletcher Pratt, Fred T. Jane's, Seapower, Victory at Sea, Seekrieg, etc. The Bismarck is good, but not good enough to take on a Yamato all alone.

A better 'what if' would be a USS Washington vs Tirpitz. That one could have happened.

 

USS Washington 1, Tirpitz 0

We now return you to our regularly programmed thread.

 

Precisely.

 

Hey actually, the Yamato would pummel Bismarck, even in a pursuit. Longer range, and slow speed, means a ship can get hit while running away. I understand nobody amours rudders, but still, Yamato can pwn Bismarck.

 

Well, it depends on distance. If the Bismarck was 8 miles away, she would still get pummeled. 20 miles away, maybe light damage. But it all depends

 

Have you read the old posts?

 

i would say the bismark would win after watching a documentry about all the structure and stuff

 

I think the other important thing that the Hood learned (too late) was you can't go dicking around missing when trading blows with a heavy weight.

Yamato, reach and muscle gives her the odds, but they have to make good on it.

 

Bismarck may have faster speed and a smaller size than Yamato, and the Yamato may have heavier armour, bigger guns, and waaaaaay more ammunition, but let's face it. We would have to see this happen in order to know.

 

No, really. Read the old posts--some people here have written long and well on this subject. Basically for battle cruisers and battle ships, naval action in WWII was fought under ranges much closer than the maximum effective range of their guns and within the range where almost all guns were equally effective against armor.

Few aimed to penetrate the armored belt, the target that the gunners want to hit was the fire direction centers and the bridge. Once a ship was blinded or disarmed, its a matter of time before it succumbed to the weight of shellfire. For these ships, it really depended on whose first blow hits home.

 

Perhaps a captain experience might make a difference as well?

 

well...i guess it would in real life, but thats not really related to the ships, is it?

It's like taking into the equation the position of the sun, or the weather, which could affect the battle as well.

 

Usually but there were so few battleship actions one has to be careful. In a Bismarck vs Yamato action fire would likely be opened between 25,000 and 30,000 yards. Yamato 18" defintily have an advangage there.

Not really the target was generally the ship. It was hoped that the shells would penetrate to vital areas if not then taking out the fire control and such was acceptable. The only case I remember reading about where a specific area was targeted on a BB was one of the engagements of Gaudacanal where a US DD targeted Hiei(?)'s bridge with her AA guns.

 

Hm, I might have taken the man's words out of context, but a battleship armor designer that I had the pleasure to listen to did mention something about deliberate fire vs. the superstructure instead of "vitals" being the appropriate tactic in most situations. I agree bigger guns is an important advantage, I just do not think it's going to be a one-sided affair as some seem to suggest.

 

Yes, if by some mirical the Yamato manages to land a hit

 

I have seen it suggested recently, that especially when the probability of penetration is low firing HE rounds might produce better results. Going for the so called "soft kill". I have seen nothing to indicate that that was a period strategy. Indeed it becomes much more viable as dependence on radar and such increased. However such a tactic usually requires multiple hits to be effective where even a single penetrating hit can sometimes decide the action.

 

Given that she got a first salvo straddle of one of the CVE's off Samar at a range of ~30,000 yards hits in an engagement with Bismarck would hardly seem to require a "mirical".