The KGM Bismarck

Sir, i did say the Bismarck and Tirpitz were great mighty ships.
Considering that the Commonwealth Navies had to fight for there own country as well,Commonwealth Navies could not be present all the time to help Britain.
IT sounds like the brits were very smart in that case.
I can see some of you're posts got really good points.
Sir it is only my opinion not facts.

 

Nonetheless the Commonwealth were there and supplied Destoryers and other warships to the Channel and convoy areas. Although these areas may seem irrelevent, had the TIrpitz or the Bismarck broken out into the Atlantic, it would be those few commonwealth destroyers alongside the RN that would hut them down.

AS I said to you in another thread, maybe you should turn your sole opinions into opinions with facts.

 

Sir, I Know they could of match the R/N ships Single ship by ship yes.
I get you're point, All i'm saying is that there overrated that's all.

I think that the R/A/F is actually underated,even they don't get much respect than the Bismarck gets, and the R/A/F was the underdog,s againts the luffwaffer and they actually won there battle.
That's what i don't understand.

 

If the RAF won then it appears they were the real TOP dogs and the "luftwaffer" (correction: Luftwaffe) who is much overrated, right?

 

Sir, you maybe right but at the start of the airwar RAF were the underdogs.
I nearly got Luftwaffe right.

 

I would suggest reading one or all of the Battle of Britain threads that fill this forum, on why they lost.

 

Sir,
I think Luffwaffe lost cause they took the RAF for granted..............................................I was only joking,i wanted you're hart to pump hard.
I will read the threads and i'll read my ww2 third reich books ,you will be happy now!

 

Don't stop there matey, read about the RAF, the Luftwaffe and all the commonwealth nations, as well as the American contribution to the BoB. Read about the commanders and there decisions, the reasoning behind the it and the logistics. Learn about the different types of aircraft and uses.

And that is just to start

 

Sir,you are right about me to learn about aircrafts and use,i'm not that bad at the rest. You're heart must of bumb really hard, i can tell bye you're answer.
I try and learn more about aircraft.

 

\

Not really, more surprised more then anything.

Any member here is willing to teach anything they know to anyone who is willing to learn.

 

No they weren't, the trouble is that the Luftwaffe had a fatter Marschall who boasted a lot louder. Yes, and you almost spelt Luftwaffe right

Ah, there's the point. I don't worry at all if a member doesn't know much. What concerns me is whether said member is willing to shed his/her preconceptions and is willing to learn. To me that's what separates a jackass from a great member. Honesty and willingness to learn.

As I haven't abandoned all my prejudices and stubbornly refuse to learn anything I suppose I will remain on the jackass shelf for a while, but then I'll be in fine and abundant company

 

There are many reasons for the failure of the Hood. She suffered many of the drawbacks of the Battlecruiser concept and relatively thin deck armour was one of them. (The decks of all Royal Navy capital ships were armoured and were covered with a layer of teak planking ). The sheer length of time spent 'flying the flag' in distant waters had also led the Hood to have various technical difficulties through insufficient maintenance. She was in reality a rather tired old ship, pitched against the World-leading capital ship technology as exemplified by Bismarck.

Incidentally, it was not so much the Treaty of Versailles as the Treaty of Washington which placed onerous limits on capital ship production. The Germans circumvented many of the 'rules', the British did not which led to the development of rather unsatisfactory ships such as Nelson and Rodney.

 

Sirs, i want to learn of you guys
Za Rodinu, I think i know who the fatter marshall is- Is it Hermann Goering

 

Treaty of Washington? I have never heard of this Martin, what is it?

 

Sir,How many battles did the Hood have in her life time compared to the Bismarck?
You mention Leading capital ship technolgy as exemplified by Bismarck and you mention the Hood being tired old ship and the Bismarck Destroyed it , yes true.
But an tried old swordfish managed to cripple Bismarck rudder that caused her doomed.
She maybe danderous to other ships but to Aircrafts she was kind of vonabale in someways.
Didn't the R/N call the Hood there pride of joy for a very long time if so,Hood must of been a great ship in her time?

 

The Hood was unquestionably a great ship in her time : the inter-war years.

Hood and Bismarck took both took part in just one capital-ship action ( I'm not counting the French fleet ) - against each other ( and don't forget that Bismarck was facing two battleships - Hood and Prince of Wales ). The sad fact is that Hood failed to secure a single hit on Bismarck. With just five salvoes, Bismarck totally destroyed Hood.

It was certainly a great achievement for an obsolete aircraft - the Swordfish - to cripple the Bismarck. But even then, the combined point-blank firepower of two battleships ( KGV and Rodney ) two large cruisers ( Norfolk and Dorsetshire ) plus a demolition charge couldn't sink it.

 

Then why is it at the bottom of the ocean ???????

 

Sir,but she did sink, even i knew that and i'm a learner. Sorry sir.
Sir Bismarck destroyed the Hood cause she was an old lady compared with the Bismarck.

 

Sir,
I know why the Bismarck was so much greater than the other war ships of www2. Germany broke the law, there's a law called International treaty limits which every ship has to meet, but the Bismarck went over that limit.
So really she the Bismarck should of been much smaller like the other ww2 ships and that would of put her greatness down a bit.