Bismarck vs. Yamato

The fix for Yamato's belt joint was a relatively simple addition of bracing. It was possible to apply this in the course of repairing the damaged area. However, it was not possible to instal the new bracing along the full length of her citadel, not without a lengthy time in drydock. So only the one area was treated.
I don't know why the Japanese let this faulty joint get into the completed vessel. They had been tinkering with the arrangement for ten years before Yamato's keel was laid.

 

Just realized that I let you distract me from the real point. Which was that Bismark's vertical armor wouldn't keep out Yamato's shells even from 30,000 yards while you were claiming her verticle armor wasd good unless the ranges were very short.

Simply put Bismark's armor wasn't built to hold up to Yamato's guns. While the reverse is not true.

 

The long fuze delay of Japanese AP ammo makes Yamato especially well suited to deal with Bismarck's incremental armor scheme.

 

Not at all. Your comment was that Bismarck's armor would act to initiate the fuses in Yamato's AP shells, implying that the reverse was not true and that Bismarck's AP shells would therefore pass through many portions of Yamato's hull/superstructure without exploding. While this is a remote possibiulity, it is not at all likely. I am not putting words in your mouth, merely pointing out the words you are utilizing are not very accurate.

 

If you want to invoke the authority of published authors, it's customary to cite them first. Since you haven't cited any, I see no reason to accord your words any more weight than mine and I look upon them as merely your opinion.

Richard Worth is a published author, and he has weighed in as viewing Yamato as an example of "all or nothing' armoring, but as I have already explained, that doesn't mean Yamato's hull or superstructure would be afforded the advantage you seem to think "all or nothing' armoring confers.

You wish! If the Bismarck hits the Yamato's hull, at a fairly flat trajectory, it is almost certain to encounter enough thickness of metal to initiate the AP fuses. If Bismarck's shells hit the Yamato's decks anywhere but near the edge the trajectory is likely to be steep enough that they will encounter enough metal to initiate the AP fuses. So in neither case does all or nothing armoring confer any advantage on Yamato or Bismarck.

Your charge of a "straw man" argument is pretty disingenuous as it was you who raised the issue of all or nothing armoring in the first place. It turned out not to have the advantage you hoped for, so now you wish to be done with the argument.

Because Bismarck's belt was vertical. The range at which such a battle would be fought means that both ships shells will describe an arcing trajectory. At an angle of fall of 30 degrees, Yamato's shells will find such a belt an extremely small target with a very small likelihood of hitting.

That;s grasping at straws. The TROM clearly says the trials were " judged a failure." Part of the reason is that the Yamato's gunaimers "YAMATO's gun aimers manning the main rangefinder misread the horizontal settings." That means the ship will miss no matter what the range. Yamamoto felt the erro serious enough that he decided not to use Yamato for his flagship; he sent her back to training and shifted his flad back to Nagato.

I did, and I quoted Russell Spurr in his book "A Glorious Way To Die" to that effect. Spurr interviewed numerous Japanese naval officers who were connected with the Yamato, either as crew members or who worked on her prior to her last mission.

Live fire exercises, whether sub-caliber or with secondary batteries, would require being conducted on a naval gunnery range and are thus most likely to be mentioned in the TROM because they required the ship's movement.

If you have evidence of Yamato exercising her guns beyond what is noted in her TROM, please feel free to cite the source.

 

No, you just don't have a very good grasp of the physics of naval gunnery. Bismarck's vertical armor, at the ranges likely to be involved in such a battle, probably wouldn't be tested by Yamato's guns because of the angle of fall of the shot.

It is true, however, that Bismarck's horizontal armor probably won't hold up to Yamato's shells. But that, of course, begs the question, would Yamato even be able to hit the Bismarck?

IF, as would be likely, the Bismarck hits Yamato first, it doesn't really matter if Yamato's armor would keep out Bismarck's shells. In fact, Bismarck would probably be wise to use HE shells to destroy Yamato's superstructure, knocking out Yamato's FC and command spaces. If that happens Yamato will be largely helpless, provided Bismarck does not allow the range to close.

 

First you are talking decks now you are talking hull/superstructure. In that case it is indeed the intent of all or nothing and it happened at times historically. How likely it is depends a lot on geometry. Given trajectories that are likely to hit decks and the thickness of them I suspect that it is less likely to happen with them but still possible.

 

No you aren't understanding my point which is that Bismark's armor is insufficient to keep out Yamato's shells at any reasonable range. As for the likely hood of a hit on verticle armor the projected length of verticle armor at 30 degrees is about 86% of it's length at point blank. Furthermore the vulnerable portion is greater as the chance of a diving shell hit is there. Shorts at point blank are likely to skip and behave unpredicatbly.

Indeed if Bismark can get multiple hits before being hit she has a good chance. It's far from clear that this is likely.

 

Can you cite any examples of this happening to battleships, as you claim, "historically"?

 

I have never disputed that Yamato's shells may penetrate Bismarck's armor if they hit. I just do not believe Yamato will be able to hit at any reasonable range, and certainly is unlikely to get close enough hit Bismarck's belt. Using your numbers, Bismarck's belt represents a target area of about 40 wide (from gun deck to keel) at an angle of fall of 30 degrees. Considering, Yamato is going to have trouble just hitting a ship-sized target at most ranges, I don't think it's likely to hit such a small target as Bismarck's belt.

As for the vaunted Japanese diving shells, I wouldn't count on them. No Japanese battleship ever seems to have hit another ship with one, and the shape required to give them a predictable underwater trajectory compromised their armor piercing capability.

Considering Bismarck's demonstrated marksmanship at Denmark Strait and Yamato's demonstrated marksmanship throughout her career, I'd say it's more than likely.

 

Who scored more hits, Bismarck at Denmark Strait or Yamato at Samar?

 

Bismarck almost certainly had more hits for rounds fired than Yamato.

 

If we are generous to Bismarck and credit her with 5 main-battery hits, Yamato would have to achieve 5.6 main-battery hits to match Bismarck's hit rate.

 

Well off hand POW bridge was shot through and through and there may have been a 14" hit to SoDak

40 what? Area is generally a 2 dimensional figure yo imply a length when you say gun deck to keel.

Compromised but to what extent? I doubt it's enough to make any difference vs Bismark.

 

This is essentially the same logic that's used to support Iowa over Yamato. However Iowa has several advantages over Bismark.
1) She's faster by quite a bit.
2) She can hit at 30,000 to 40,000 yards where Yamato has almost no chance of hitting.
3) She can maneuver well without loosing her fire solution.
4) Iowa's shells aproach Bismarks in damage capability.
5) At ranges over 35,000 yards where Iowa still has a decent chance of hitting she can penetrate Yamato's decks.

While Bismark may have a slight edge over Yamato it's far from clear that it would be defintive. At long range indeed Yamato may have an advantage at closer ranges the advantage is likely to be fairly low as well. And Bismark's armor is unlikely to reject a single shell and each hit from Yamato is going to do a lot of damage.

 

There was certainly one 14in hit to SoDak's aft barbette. The question that remains is whether this was an AP shell or an HE shell. Other hits to SoDak may have come from 14in Type 3 shrapnel shells. In the official BuShips report, these are recorded as 8in hits due to the level of damage they caused, but the authors of the report did not make the best use of the available references. The report was written c1946, and I don't think there was much urgency associated with it. A review of these hits and of one possibly from a 14in HE will appear in an upcoming Warship International, maybe the next one.

They lost some penetration against face-hardened armor. Their performance against homogenous armor remained excellent. If I haven't posted it yet, here's a page with lots of penetration data:
Partial Penetration – Forward half of shell penetrates armor, rear half of shell is rejected

In my opinion, Yamato would likely beat the snot out of Bismarck. All modern battleships were capable of delivering tremendous amounts of destruction, but the probabilities lie with Yamato. We have two ships, basically contemporaries, one being 50% larger than the other. Bismarck's 14,109-lb broadside is a sad second to Yamato's 28,968 lbs.

 

Yes, but with Yamato's better guns, longer range, and heavier armour, the Yamato is more survivable than the Bismarck. Bismarck has a choice of running, but it will still get hit. And if the Japs have B5N2 Kate torpedo planes in the area, the Bismarck is very vulnerable. My money's on the Yamato.
"I will not have my ship shot out from under my ass!" Admiral Lutjens of the Bismarck

 

Can someone tell me about the importance of a 'zig-zag' in such a conflict?

I assume it makes the 'zig-zagger' harder to hit, but does it also mean that it is harder for the ZZ to score a hit also?


John.

 

Bismarck had a weak main armament, was overweight and had a thin armor belt.

Yamato was very powerful, but had a very poor AA selection and was slow.

I'd vote for Yamato. Missouri is another story... however a slightly weaker armament than Yamato, it had increased accuracy from computer guidance systems, good armor, and adeuqate AA defenses.

 

If I commanded the Bismark, I'd target the steering gear. Then, cross the T, and voila!