WWII Question...

[Sea Skimmer]

Just to nitpick: from what I gather, Bismark WAS a bad ship. Quite a terrible ship in fact. It was essentially a WWI design, with all the flaws left in.

Bismarck was flawed in about every way a WW2 battleship could be; however any battleship, especially a fast one, was still a very powerful weapon system that had to be respected. Bismarck fanwhores however are 100% incapable of comprehending this concept. More then once I’ve seen people try to claim she was better protected and armed then Yamato.

Bismarck was most certainly not designed as a raider, you cannot logically design a battleship for that role, and the very concept was totally obsolete. The Germans designed the thing to fight other battleships in a close range (under 25,000 yards or so) engagement, and didn’t even do a very good job of it. It’s pretty hard to figure out what they spent all that tonnage on.

A ship designed as a raider would have at the very least have had a range better then a mere 9,000 miles (some American battleships could cruise 20,000 miles at low speeds) and the entire waterline would have been armored, so that some merchant ship with a 4in gun couldn’t flood the bow.

I can't give exact numbers on tanks etc, (roughly 200+ Shermans and Sturts) but it basically consisted of an armoured regiment, an armoured infantry regiment and a self-propelled artillery regiment divided into three combat commands (CCA, CCB and CCR) of one battalion each, as well as signals, cavalry, engineers etc.

The US actually had two kinds of armored divisions. The first type was known as the heavy type and had six tank battalions organization in two or three regiments (depending on the ratio of medium to light tank battalions) plus one armored infantry regiment with three battalions and one three battalion artillery regiment. This gave it 400 plus tanks but only two divisions used this organization in combat; the others either converted or got formed from the start as smaller formations.

The light type armored division is as you describe with had three tank battalions in one regiment, three infantry battalions in another regiment and a three battalion artillery regiment fighting in three evenly divided combat commands. Each tank battalion had a paper strength of 77 tanks and the reconnaissance battalion had 25 more, a total of 256. The armored divisions almost always had at least one tank destroyer battalion attached as well, how this formation and any other attachments would be deployed depended on the tactical situation and the opinins of the divisional commander.

The US did mass multipul armored divisions together for several major operations, but most of the time it just had no need to do that. The US had very good tank repair services, so it could sustain the strength of its units in combat, and US infantry divisions had anywhere from 1-3 battalions of tanks and tank destroyers as well.

[Mlenk]

More then once I’ve seen people try to claim she was better protected and armed then Yamato.

Just out of curiosity, just how did the Yamato fare in terms of armor, structure and design? Was the Yamato really all that its fans claim it is?

[petesampras]

The King George V class were a very poor design, so the fact she was roughly equal is not that great a feat.

The KGV-class wasn't that bad, given the limitations placed on the design, and they were lighter than Bismarck (by several thousand tons IIRC); in fact most of the complaints I've heard about the KGVs are directed at their main battery, not the design in and of itself.

Ok, fair enough, but you can't really discount the main battery in accessing her design. 14 inch guns on a WW2 Battleship is ridiculously under powered, and you can't really blame it on her displacement. The earlier Nelson and Rodney were considerably lighter than KGV, but were able to field a respectable main battery.

[petesampras]

More then once I’ve seen people try to claim she was better protected and armed then Yamato.

Just out of curiosity, just how did the Yamato fare in terms of armor, structure and design? Was the Yamato really all that its fans claim it is?

Heaviest guns and armour of any battleship, by some distance.

Vastly inferior fire control and AA to US battleships, though.

Yamato would have been a sure winner against any battleships except the US Iowa class. Hard to say who would win that one.

[Stuart]

Remember, all German ships were destined to be raiders, not floating fortresses like Yamato to take on entire war fleets of opponents. They fit that role well.

I'd argue that. The problem with using a battleship as a raider is that she can't do anything that a converted merchant ship armed with a hadful of old six-inch guns can't do better. The only time being a battleship helps is when she has to attack a convoy that is escorted by another battleship. That's when the problem starts. The "raider-battleship" only needs to take one solid hit from the guns of the escorting battleship (which may be very old and slow) or a torpedo from an escorting destroyer and its all over. She can't get home to repair the damage.

The real design requirement for the Bismarck et al was to tackle the French Navy so the correct comparison is with the Richelieu and Jean Bart. Personally, I'd rather have a KGV than either of them.

[Sea Skimmer]

The KGV-class wasn't that bad, given the limitations placed on the design, and they were lighter than Bismarck (by several thousand tons IIRC); in fact most of the complaints I've heard about the KGVs are directed at their main battery, not the design in and of itself.

The only flaw of the KGV I think matters are the secondary guns, not really a specific attribute of the ship, and the torpedo defense system. The firepower was sufficient to deal with any Italian or German ship, and even a 16in battery would have been marginal against Yamato in the absence of superheavy shells, something only the US had. The armoring was excellent.

But anyway hears a partial comparison

Bismarck is 42,000 tons standard, 51,000 tons full load, KGV 35,500 and about 44,000

Bismarck could make 30knts on trial with 150,000shp, KGV made 29kts on trial with 110,000shp despite being designed for 27.5knts. The realistic maximum speed of both ships is about a knot less then trial speed.

Bismarck could carry 7,400 tons of fuel for a maximum range of 8,525nm at 19knts. KGV carried 3,800 tons of fuel for a maximum range of 15,000nm at 10knts or 6,300nm at 20knts

Bismarck has 8 x 38cm L52 main guns, KGV has 10 x 14in L45 main gun, KGV has a slight advantage in weight of broadside.

Bismarck has 12 x 15cm low angle and 16 x 10.5cm high angle secondary guns, KGV has 16 x 5.25in duel purpose secondary guns.

Bismarck has an 320mm armor belt, KGV has a 380mm armor belt on the magazines which covers a relatively larger area of the hull, though it thins by 25mm over the machinery.

Bismarck has a 145mm upper armor belt, KGV has a 25mm upper armor belt

Bismarck has an 80mm thick main armor deck with a 50mm upper armor deck that increases to 80mm over the magazines. KGV has a 127mm main armor deck increasing to 152mm over the magazines, with a 25mm upper armor deck.

Bismarck has 340mm barbettes and 360mm turret faceplates, KGV has 406mm on barbettes and faceplates

Bismarck has a 18ft wide TDS with two layers intended to defeat 550lb charges, KGV has a three layer system 13ft wide plus an additional bulkhead meant only to stop leaks designed to defeat a 1000lb charge (no way that was happening!). Both these systems failed in combat against torpedoes with warheads less then 400lb.

This isn’t a complete comparison, Bismarck has even more useless medium thickness armor I’m ignoring for example, but you can see that all in all Bismarck gains very few advantages for the 6,500-9,000 extra tons of weight she carries around.

If you want a detailed comparison of the two ships armoring BTW, and that of all other WW2 built battleships, see the following article. It even has a Star Wars reference for how screwed Bismarck would be against Yamato!

http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm

[Stuart]

The King George V class were a very poor design, so the fact she was roughly equal is not that great a feat. The ancient Rodney and Nelson had more firepower than Bismarck and the best battleships of the Japanese and US were vastly superior.

Oh no, not at all. The KGVs were about as good as one was going to get on 35,000 tons given the technology the British had at their disposal and treaty limitations. They were about as fast as any other in real terms, they had a good 6 - 7 knots over Nelson and Rodney, they were very well armored and their gunpower wasn't bad (10 14 inch guns stacks up well against 8 15 inch). The Nelson and Rodney weren't actually much better off in the gunnery department; their guns were defective and fired a relatively light shell.

The real problem of the KGVs was that the British didn't have the engine technology to produce the same power and range in the small volume that American ships had.

Above all, the KGVs were cheap. Remember there were two North Carolinas, two Bismarcks, two Richelieus but five KGVs.

[PainRack]

Just how useful were the germans mortars? I heard claims that based on the Normandy fighting, the germans mortar doctrine was superior to the British and American equivalent.

[Black Admiral]

Ok, fair enough, but you can't really discount the main battery in accessing her design. 14 inch guns on a WW2 Battleship is ridiculously under powered, and you can't really blame it on her displacement.

But I can place the blame for that on the decision to build the KGVs in compliance with treaty regulations, which did place a limit of 14-in. as the maximum calibre for battleship main guns.

The earlier Nelson and Rodney were considerably lighter than KGV, but were able to field a respectable main battery.

According to the figures I can find from a quick Google search, the Nelsons were only about two thousand tons lighter than the KGVs, and a good six knots slower. And their 16-inch guns, as Stuart says, had their own problems vs. the KGVs' 14-inchers.

[Sea Skimmer]

Just out of curiosity, just how did the Yamato fare in terms of armor, structure and design? Was the Yamato really all that its fans claim it is?

Yamato was certainly the most powerful battleship ever built, but she wasn't too efficient at using her massive weight and the torpedo defense system proved to be flawed in multiple ways. If the ship is all the fans claim to be depends on how rabid the fans are; but Bismarck fans are simply worse in every way.

Heaviest guns and armour of any battleship, by some distance.

Vastly inferior fire control and AA to US battleships, though.

Yamato would have been a sure winner against any battleships except the US Iowa class. Hard to say who would win that one.

The fire control was only inferior in that it did not have a high precision radar to feed into it. That’s not a design fault of Yamato though, the USN didn’t exactly desing its ships to fight with godlike radar power either. The Japanese produced very good optical equipment and could build fire control computers on par with those of the USN, though they required more operators which meant they had a higher risk of error. If you want to read about the Type 98 low angle system installed for the 18.1in guns on Yamato, this is the official USN report on Japanese fire control for surface action.

The Japanese Type 94 anti aircraft director was the best of any Axis warship, and is considered to be on the same level as the US Mk37, which was the best of the war.

The anti aircraft did suck, the 5in guns are highly unimpressive and the 25mm was awful as was its Type 95 director.

If Iowa has a chance against Yamato, then by default so does South Dakota, the two ships have near identical armor and the 16/45cal guns on South Dakota fire the same shells at a higher angle, giving them better deck penetration. Neither ship is likely to get close enough for a belt penetration. The Iowa class pretty much uses 10,000 tons to add six knots of speed and a half inch of deck armor to a South Dakota’s specifications.

[lord Martiya]

Not with Poland (overwhelming German numbers and land materials), Norway (see 'Poland') or France (damn, I read that some French soldiers escaped when they heared the engines of THEIR OWN TANKS!!! And even without this, I seriosly doubt that they were capable to resist).

Indeed German aquisitions in Europe went relatively well - Austria, Czechoslovakia... but when they infringed on British interests, i.e. Poland, Norway - they were fucked. That simple.

I know. Simply I wanted to tell that in some case the Germans beated their enemies.

[CaptHawkeye]

In reality, of course, the Type XXI was a shoddily made deathtrap that didn't meet any of it's hype. And I love pointing it out to idiot fanboys, and watch them squeal to explain how a u-boat immune to aircraft could've been sunk by said aircraft almost immediately after leaving port

In concept, the Type XXI was kind of jarring. But as with most German super weapons, the concepts were WAY to fucking optimistic and ignored many important factors the allies had going for them.

Concept wise? It was pretty good. Application wise? PeZook is dead on. Even if Q magically provided a shit load of them to the Germans, they just weren't that good anyway. The boat is designed to avoid cruising on the surface and have dedicated use of its battery engines. The Type XXI's diesel engines were pathetically underpowered, they were designed to recharge the battery engines, NOT move the sub around. The "Shnorkel" was designed to supply the diesels with air while underwater, but to add to what PeZook said, it didn't fucking work at all.

A. The Snorkel was stressed very much by the drag from the water passing by it. The Type XXI could not exceed 8 knots with the snorkel deployed otherwise it would literally sheer off.

B. The snorkel could only be used in dead seas. Even in relativly calm oceans, water had a tendancy to wash up into the snorkel and choke the engine. This often resulted in the depressurization of the hull, which caused many painful ear injuries for the crew.

C. Allied Radar was so advanced by the time of the Type XXI's usage that the snorkel could be seen on radar screens anyway. This is the biggest strike against the Type XXI, because it literally renders the whole design moot.

The Type XXI was a kind of cool experiment with submarine lifespans. But that was it.

[Sea Skimmer]

What’s best of all about the XXI is that the modular dispersed construction plan that was supposed to build 60 of them a month simply did not work. The individual hull sections distorted in transit and simply would not fit together, many early sections had to simply be scrapped and the extensive braces had to be installed in latter ones for transport. That killed off most of the supposed production advantage of modular construction.

But then to give an idea of how realistic Nazi planning was, in 1936 Hitler launched a ‘Four Year Plan’ which had the objective of completely removing Germanys’ need for imports, including oil! To say this plan failed is quite the understatement.

[Sidewinder]

Remember, all German ships were destined to be raiders, not floating fortresses like Yamato to take on entire war fleets of opponents. They fit that role well.

When I watched a History Channel special on the Bismarck, and how it was sent to raid British commerce, I thought, "A submarine could do the job better. Why waste a battleship on something like that?"

Seriously, why the hell did the Germans design their battleships to attack unarmed merchant ships instead of enemy battleships or shore fortifications? Why wasn't the Bismarck used the way the Iowa class battleships were?

[petesampras]

If Iowa has a chance against Yamato, then by default so does South Dakota, the two ships have near identical armor and the 16/45cal guns on South Dakota fire the same shells at a higher angle, giving them better deck penetration. Neither ship is likely to get close enough for a belt penetration. The Iowa class pretty much uses 10,000 tons to add six knots of speed and a half inch of deck armor to a South Dakota’s specifications.

I didn't realise how close South Dakota was to Iowa in guns/armour. Still, those extra 6 knots still make a big difference, in my opinion. I'll try an read all that stuff you posted links to.

Neither Iowa nor South Dakota can risk getting in a close range slugging match with a Yamato. The only hope is to use the advantage of superior fire control attacking from long range. They won't sink the Yamato this way, but can damage critical structures - like the Yamatos own fire control.

Iowas 6 knots on SD lets her decide the range.

[petesampras]

Seriously, why the hell did the Germans design their battleships to attack unarmed merchant ships instead of enemy battleships or shore fortifications?

They didn't. They obviously didn't.

8 * 15 inch guns to fire on merchant ships and maybe a destroyer is beyond over kill.

[Sea Skimmer]

When I watched a History Channel special on the Bismarck, and how it was sent to raid British commerce, I thought, "A submarine could do the job better. Why waste a battleship on something like that?"

What else was Bismarck going to do? Every surface ship Germany ever had in WW2 put together could not challenge the RN in an open battle, using the ships as raiders was the only realistic option, and it was a damn stupid one. The Germans main mistake as building the ships at all.

Seriously, why the hell did the Germans design their battleships to attack unarmed merchant ships instead of enemy battleships or shore fortifications? Why wasn't the Bismarck used the way the Iowa class battleships were?

Bismarck was not designed as a raider, no battleship ever was, that is a cruiser job. However the very concept of a surface raider was obsolete by 1941 and really even by the end of WW1 since ever merchant ship started having a radio, and then air patrols made things even worse. It certainly wasn’t a job worth using anything more then a converted merchant ship for. Germany did use a number of merchant raiders, and they proved far more effective then proper warships.

I don’t know what you mean by a comparison to Iowa. Iowa escorted carriers,, made one offensive anti shipping sweep around Truk (accompanied by New Jersey and some smaller ships; resulting in the sinking a light cruiser, and a straddle on a destroyer at no less then 32,000 yards!) and from time to time joined up with all the other fast battleship to form a surface action group that never actually got to see action.

I don’t see how any of this is compatible with the tiny size of the German fleet and the requirements of the German war effort. The mistake was building the things; once Germany had them they might as well have been pissed away as raiders because sitting at anchor was an even bigger waste.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

If Iowa has a chance against Yamato, then by default so does South Dakota, the two ships have near identical armor and the 16/45cal guns on South Dakota fire the same shells at a higher angle, giving them better deck penetration. Neither ship is likely to get close enough for a belt penetration. The Iowa class pretty much uses 10,000 tons to add six knots of speed and a half inch of deck armor to a South Dakota’s specifications.

I didn't realise how close South Dakota was to Iowa in guns/armour. Still, those extra 6 knots still make a big difference, in my opinion. I'll try an read all that stuff you posted links to.

Neither Iowa nor South Dakota can risk getting in a close range slugging match with a Yamato. The only hope is to use the advantage of superior fire control attacking from long range. They won't sink the Yamato this way, but can damage critical structures - like the Yamatos own fire control.

Iowas 6 knots on SD lets her decide the range.

The Iowa sacrificed a fair bit for speed. They could do 30 knots if I am not wrong, with the aim of matching the carriers with speed. The basic fear was that the Japanese Fast Battleships (the Nagatos and Kongos) would run amock with the carriers and sink them.

However, the Yamato has inferior fire control, and the super heavy shells of the Iowa even the playing field a fair bit. The real problem with the IJN was their serious lack of radar development which hampered their abilities late in the war.

[PeZook]

In concept, the Type XXI was kind of jarring. But as with most German super weapons, the concepts were WAY to fucking optimistic and ignored many important factors the allies had going for them.

You know what's best about the Type XXI?

Except for sonar and homing torpedoes, it didn't actually use any advanced technology!

Everything it used was invented by the Dutch way before the war, including the snorkel and hydroprofiled hull. It was just a question of Nazi designers being too dumb to think "Hey, let's make a big sub and put a crapload of batteries into it" quicker than they did, toying with ridiculous hydrogen peroxide engines instead. IIRC, it was a young Kriegsmarine lieutenant who looked at a Walther U-Boat design and went "Hey, there this huge fuel tank here...why not just put additional batteries there?"

Had the Nazis developed the Type XXI quicker, it may have done more damage.

Of course, it would probably increase shipping sunk from 0,5% to something like 2%

A. The Snorkel was stressed very much by the drag from the water passing by it. The Type XXI could not exceed 8 knots with the snorkel deployed otherwise it would literally sheer off.

Well, modern diesel subs suffer from the same problem. There's really not much you can do about it.

B. The snorkel could only be used in dead seas. Even in relativly calm oceans, water had a tendancy to wash up into the snorkel and choke the engine. This often resulted in the depressurization of the hull, which caused many painful ear injuries for the crew.

Ear injuries?

They could fucking kill the entire crew if they got blocked just right. They had a system installed in the snorkel that was supposed to temporarily block it when sea water would cover the opening. Unfortunately, the system didn't always unblock the snorkel. So the diesel engine mometarily used up all oxygen from inside the ship. Oopsie.

IIRC there were two accidents like that, and they didn't end in total disaster only because of quick-thinking engineers.

[CaptHawkeye]

Except for sonar and homing torpedoes, it didn't actually use any advanced technology!

Well, I guess that leaves the Germans with just the StG 44 as their technological claim to fame. And it's not that much of a claim either. Oh they've got a cool gun for their infantry! Wow.

Other typical wank myths include:

Me-262- Sorry, the Allies have got the Meteor AND the Shooting Star so this isn't special at all.

Panther- It's a medium tank? It's a heavy tank? Surprise! It doesn't know what the hell it is! And in trying to be everything in one it just gives a blankly mediocre experience in all categories!

Bismarck- Enough has been said already. "Zomg Hood" is not an example of the Bismarck's capabilities as a warship, but rather, how everyone can just have really bad luck sometimes.

Cruise Missles- It didn't take long for the Allies to get the hang of shooting the thing down. Not like they needed to, since even the V1 was only useful for attacking enemy morale. The V2 was even worse. How many of these things blew up on the launch pad again?

[Stuart]

Well, I guess that leaves the Germans with just the StG 44 as their technological claim to fame. And it's not that much of a claim either. Oh they've got a cool gun for their infantry! Wow.

Well, actually the Russians thought of that first. They built the world's first assault rifle in 1917, a thing called the Federov that was chambered for 6.5mm Arisaka (an intermediate round by European standards). Then, Simonov designed the 7.62x39 cartridge before WW2 (the Russian 7.62x54R beat hell out of his semi-automatic rifle due to its power so he designed a downsized round to make a controllable semi-auto.) Interestingly, the Russian 7.62x39 pre-dates the German 7.92x33 and its at least possible that the Germans captured some experimental Russian rounds and copied them. The 7.62x39 was held up by the war starting and wasn't standardized until 1943.

Simonov's SKS was first issued for trials in 1944 and the weapon was standardized in 1945 - some were used in the Berlin fighting.

The Germans did invent ginger candies to hide beer-breath though.

[Raptor 597]

I can't give exact numbers on tanks etc, (roughly 200+ Shermans and Sturts) but it basically consisted of an armoured regiment, an armoured infantry regiment and a self-propelled artillery regiment divided into three combat commands (CCA, CCB and CCR) of one battalion each, as well as signals, cavalry, engineers etc.

In many ways it's comparing apples and oranges though. The obvious difference is that while tank corps would operate independently as the armoured component of rifle formations, they would also be concentrated into the 6 tank armies, each with 400-500 tanks each, for major penetration operations. This reflected wider Soviet ideas of concentration of force, which were mirrored in the structure of rifle divisions, additional support units, and the raising of fortified districts. The US Army never really saw this need, so armoured divisions generally operated independently or with their CCs under infantry division/corps control. For the same reason, infantry divisions brought a lot more firepower to the table than their Soviet counterparts, because they were all expected to be able to undertake relatively independent offensive operations.

The decision to form the armored divisions the way they became stems from observing the Wehrmacht. In preparation for Operation Barbarossa the Heer spread out their tank strength across all twenty or so panzer divsions that were going east. This came out to about two hundred tanks per panzer division, a so called medium armored division. This was not a doctrinal change as believed by Lt. Gen. Leslie McNair, commander of Army Ground Forces. The Germans simply could not re-equip all their panzer divisions to 1940 strength. He advocated a lighter armored division than the heavy armored division tankers such as Patton were pushing for. He also nixed the idea of armored corps based off of his observations, a mistake in my opinion.

Three armored divisions were already created in the heavy format and remained that way. They were the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. The second two were renowned for their punching and staying power while operating in northwestern Europe. The other medium armored divisions did not have this staying power because they were chronically understrength due to losses and refits. The same goes for the infantry divisions. Before the war regular Army units had a square structure, consisting of four regimental combat teams. In World War I the first series of divisions raised were even larger, pentomic divisons consisting of five regiments. At the start of the war General McNair cut all of these divisions down to three RCTs, and were thus called triangular divisions. As a result, the ETO in northwestern Europe was critically short of rifleman until the end of the war. After World War II the Army would return to the pentomic division structure. All of this information can be found in Eisenhower's Lieutenants by Russell F. Weigley, a book I highly recommend.

[Sidewinder]

I don’t know what you mean by a comparison to Iowa.

After WW2, the Iowa class battleships were almost exclusively used to bombard shore installations. I assumed that would be a better use for the Bismarck, e.g., bombard British ports and coastal defenses.

The mistake was building the things; once Germany had them they might as well have been pissed away as raiders because sitting at anchor was an even bigger waste.

I guess the construction of the Bismarck class battleships made a significant contribution... to the Allied war effort, e.g., by wasting so many resources on the damn floating gunnery targets, the Germans had fewer resources to spend on tanks, artillery, and fighters.

[phongn]

I don’t know what you mean by a comparison to Iowa.

After WW2, the Iowa class battleships were almost exclusively used to bombard shore installations. I assumed that would be a better use for the Bismarck, e.g., bombard British ports and coastal defenses.

Getting in that close would be suicide.

[thejester]

Three armored divisions were already created in the heavy format and remained that way. They were the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. The second two were renowned for their punching and staying power while operating in northwestern Europe. The other medium armored divisions did not have this staying power because they were chronically understrength due to losses and refits. The same goes for the infantry divisions. Before the war regular Army units had a square structure, consisting of four regimental combat teams. In World War I the first series of divisions raised were even larger, pentomic divisons consisting of five regiments. At the start of the war General McNair cut all of these divisions down to three RCTs, and were thus called triangular divisions. As a result, the ETO in northwestern Europe was critically short of rifleman until the end of the war. After World War II the Army would return to the pentomic division structure. All of this information can be found in Eisenhower's Lieutenants by Russell F. Weigley, a book I highly recommend.

I'm interested as to why you thing problems with formations being understrength in the ETO were to do with divisional structure, not the replacement system, the lack of structured rotation of divisions out of the line, and General Hodges. US divisions were considered ridiculously oversized in WW1, I'm not sure why things would have changed by WW2; especially as in some of the more fluid battles of the war controlling five regiments would have been near impossible for a divisional staff.

EDIT: And surely the success of the 4AD in Lorraine would be proof of the power and flexibility of the medium armoured division, both in the breakout role and against opposing armour.