StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Sidewinder wrote: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.

As phongn mentioned, that would be a very bad idea. Although the RN did execute similar raids to what you're proposing (the battleship Revenge made night bombardment raids on Cherbourg and Calais in October of 1940), the circumstances are rather different.

thejester wrote: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.

As it was, the post-Korea pentomic divisions were unwieldy and probably could not be effectively controlled with the C4ISR technology of the day. Granted, they were intentionally designed so that they were forced to defend themselves with nuclear weapons, but organizationally they left much to be desired.

Sidewinder wrote: 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.

That’s because the ships had no other possible use at all; and the effectiveness of a battleship at shore bombardment is minimal without extensive training and aerial spotting, something the USN only learned after the Marines got massacred at Betio island. Even then, only the old battleships learned the proper tactics, and when the USN sent it fast battleships to support them in the bombardment of Saipan, the new ships accomplished little but to destroy blatantly obvious targets like buildings.

The Germans did raid the British coast with battlecruisers in WW1, and it accomplished absolutely nothing except to further demonize the German state in the allied and US press. By WW2 the threat of mines, submarines and air bombing, not to mention RN surface forces and shore guns had increased to the point that no possible target would justify risking Bismarck.

If they’d really wanted, the Germans could simply have emplaced the 15in guns on land and used them to fire at Dover across the English channel. As it was Hitler ordered all big ships scrapped in 1943 so the guns could be used in shore batteries, and while the order was reversed, it was almost certainly a better use of resources. The guns for the canceled H class battleships, and the guns of the bomb damaged Gneisenau did in fact end up as coast batteries, some of which still exist. You can even see one of Gneisenau’s main battery turrets on Google earth, its been preserved as a museum, after having been preserved as a deterrent to communist naval infantry.
63°42'30.12"N
9°43'18.82"E

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.

Exactly, each of the things cost 100 million reichsmarks at a time when a Panzer IV was about 110,000 reichsmarks. In 1939, the year Bismarck was launched, Germany produced a total of 45 Panzer IV tanks! Even the super expensive limited production Tiger and Tiger II cost ‘only’ about 250,000 and 310,000 reichsmarks respectively. The ships also guzzled a whole lot of precious fuel just to train the crews. The German fuel situation was so bad in WW2 that in 1941 it was seriously suggested that some motorized infantry divisions should convert back to horses!

Captain Lennox wrote: 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.

That had far more too do with the lack of planning and organization for replacements (something like 80,000 needed per month) then the weakness of the units themselves. Bigger units would simply end up attacking on larger frontages for deeper objectives, taking more losses in the process because fewer divisions would have been in the line.

The WW1 division was big on the logic that its 29,000 men would easily absorb casualties and would need fewer scare officers. The problems was that the resulting 240 man rifle companies could not be commanded properly, and ended up taking even heavier losses then they should have.

Sea Skimmer wrote: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.

According to John Dunnigan, the Iowas (and SoDaks) also enjoyed the advantages of a heavier shell combined with a more powerful gunnery charge than the two Yamatos were equipped with, giving the American 16" shell faster velocity, longer range, and greater penetrating power.

Patrick Degan wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote: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.

According to John Dunnigan, the Iowas (and SoDaks) also enjoyed the advantages of a heavier shell combined with a more powerful gunnery charge than the two Yamatos were equipped with, giving the American 16" shell faster velocity, longer range, and greater penetrating power.

From the site Skimmer posted a while back.

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

These figures would seem to conflict, though don't know how accurate they are. Also, they indicate that the Iowas had significantly more firepower than the South Dakotas.

Read the table: THe Iowa had a longer caliber gun than the S. Dakotas. Longer Caliber = Longer time the shell stays in the barrel = Longer time for the shell to accelerate.

Patrick Degan wrote: According to John Dunnigan, the Iowas (and SoDaks) also enjoyed the advantages of a heavier shell combined with a more powerful gunnery charge than the two Yamatos were equipped with, giving the American 16" shell faster velocity, longer range, and greater penetrating power.

Then John Dunnigan is a moron who knows nothing it would seem
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

the following specifications are all for the Japanese 46cm/45 and then US 16in/50 firing superheavy rounds

Shell weight for APC shell: 3,219lb vs. 2,700lb
Muzzle Velocity for APC shell: 780m/s vs. 762m/s
APC shell burst charger: 40.9lb vs. 74.6lb
APC shell propellent charge: 794lb vs. 664.6lb
APC shell maximum range: 45,960 yards at 45 degrees max elevation, 42,345 yards at 45 degrees max elevation.

The Japanese gun is clearly superior. It was a poor weapon considering its great size, but it beats the 16/50. The 18in gun did not have any great advantage in penetration, in part because of its shell design which was optimized for an underwater trajectory, but only Yamato has proper protection against this level of firepower. An Iowa had armor sufficient only against the earlier 2,240lb 16in shell; the ship would more or less not have an immunity zone at all. Yamato has one more then 10,000 yards wide in contrast.

The only US battleship design which did have something like a proper level of protection against the 16/50 was Montana. This ship would have had a 16.1in belt vs. 12.2in on Iowa with both belts angled 19 degrees. The main deck armor was to be 6.2-5.8in thick with a 2in upper deck vs. 5-4.7in thick main deck and 1.5in upper deck on Iowa. Still, even Montana only had an immunity zone from 28,000-32,000 yards against the 2,700lb shell.

Yamato for comparison had a 410mm thick belt angled at 20 degrees and a single 230-200mm thick main deck armor. The ship was designed to have an immunity zone of 20,000-30,000 meters against 18in gunfire and in practice probably had greater protection then that.

One single armor deck BTW is much better for repeling heavy shellfire then two thinner decks of the same total thickness. The reason the American ships used two major armor deck is it provides better protection against aerial bombs, though Yamato was still extremely well protected.

CaptHawkeye wrote:

PeZook wrote: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.

Ugh, thanks for bringing that up. I once had a guy claiming that Germany could have wone WWII if they had the StG 44 a few years sooner

wautd wrote: Ugh, thanks for bringing that up. I once had a guy claiming that Germany could have wone WWII if they had the StG 44 a few years sooner

I should start cataloguing this shit.

I once had a guy claiming that Germany could have wone WWII if they had the StG 44 a few years sooner

Of course! Stupid Russians would've made mincemeat out of those Germans with SKS and the coming AK, but since when rationality was a trait of Nazi fanboys?

Stas Bush wrote:Of course! Stupid Russians would've made mincemeat out of those Germans with SKS and the coming AK, but since when rationality was a trait of Nazi fanboys?

"Infantry is the queen of the battlefield but artillery is the king of war. And we all know what the king does to the queen."

I think the claim Germany could have won the war with the StG-44 is just another example of just how brain-damaged the Nazi fanboys are. An infantry rifle isn't going to make much of a difference one way or another. If it appeared earlier, the British (certainly) and the US (possibly) would have back-engineered it and the Russians would have pushed the SKS through with maximum priority - so we would see that probably as early as 1942 and the AK would follow. End result? Infantry casualties go way up, the hard core of German professionals is depleted sooner, the German Army collapses sooner. Would it actually have gone that way? We have no way of knowing of course, but its as defensible a proposition as the other.

In a more general sense, it's incredible the lengths the Nazi fanboys will go to in an effort to justify their constant "just six months more and we'd have won" whine. From what I've seen the moronic infants on spacebattles and SAHWI are probably the worst, I've seen claims that the Ta-152 first flew in 1942 for example (the requirement for its design was first formulated in 1942, teh aircraft didn't fly until 1944 and the airframes then were converted FW-190s.

I wonder what the psychological mechanism for that is. Probably the desire to play up the opponent (has anybody noticed how Nazi fanboys aren't usually Germans?) so that you can get your nation into the role of an underdog who triumphed against incredible odds.

But that's just my personal opinion.

On the "six more moths and we win!" thing...I'm reminded of a quote from a Polish war series from times long past.

The war is almost over. One of the characters is shot by a Volkssturm kid, who uses his last bullet to do that.

As he is being disarmed, he yells out "HEIL HITLER!!!"

To which one of the protagonists replies:

"Hitler, Hitler...if you got another Hitler, pretty soon there woudn't be anybody left to speak German."

It always struck me as amazingly insightful. Even if, in 1944, the Nazis got a massive amount of their various uberweapons, they'd still have to actually man them and mount operations with them using their horribly massacred manpower pool.

PeZook wrote:
On the "six more moths and we win!" thing...I'm reminded of a quote from a Polish war series from times long past.

Depends on the moths, I guess. 6 mothras would probably have swung the balance.

PeZook wrote:I wonder what the psychological mechanism for that is. Probably the desire to play up the opponent (has anybody noticed how Nazi fanboys aren't usually Germans?) so that you can get your nation into the role of an underdog who triumphed against incredible odds.

I don't understand it; its wholly inexplicable to me. If they stuck with the adulation of bits of equipment that actually existed I could sense some glimmering of understanding but its the fanatical extent to which they'll howl down any effort to suggest that Nazis were anything other than heroic supermen.

Even if, in 1944, the Nazis got a massive amount of their various uberweapons, they'd still have to actually man them and mount operations with them using their horribly massacred manpower pool.

And that ignores the fact that the Allies had their uberweapons to and they were a lot more practical than the Nazi ones. Quite apart from the obvious two, there's the small matter of jet engines. By 1945 Anglo-American jet engines were pushing out between two and three times as much raw power as German ones and had a life four to ten times greater. All those Nazi uberaircraft the fanboys worship couldn't fly, they didn't have engines.

It's utterly, incredibly inexplicable. The only thing I can come up with is that they are clinically insane and/or mentally retarded.

petesampras wrote:Depends on the moths, I guess. 6 mothras would probably have swung the balance.

Channeling nazi fanboys here....... Aha but what you don't know is that the moths were yet another nazi underweapon. Genetically engineered moths that would eat the uniforms of the allied troops and cause them to die of the cold. Just six months more......

Stuart wrote: I don't understand it; its wholly inexplicable to me. If they stuck with the adulation of bits of equipment that actually existed I could sense some glimmering of understanding but its the fanatical extent to which they'll howl down any effort to suggest that Nazis were anything other than heroic supermen.

This is why I suggested that mechanism - particularly since the Americans just love their underdogs, and for some reason like to be seen as such.

Or maybe they just plain don't like the idea that Allies won through massive superiority in men and materiel, because that suggests bravery, courage and Moral Superiority doesn't actually win wars.

Perhaps them going on about all those various experimental superweapons is another way of saying "See? They had this incredible advantage in technology! Defeat was right around the corner, If it wasn't for our incredible fighting spirit and righteousness, everyone would be speaking German by now! Boy, aren't we great?"

Then there's the "I like repeating stupid anti-mainstream claims because it makes me look like I know something" syndrome.

Stuart wrote:By 1945 Anglo-American jet engines were pushing out between two and three times as much raw power as German ones and had a life four to ten times greater. All those Nazi uberaircraft the fanboys worship couldn't fly, they didn't have engines.

And Allied engines didn't randomly explode, too, which I suppose made their jets a bit more combat effective

Or maybe they just plain don't like the idea that Allies won through massive superiority in men and materiel, because that suggests bravery, courage and Moral Superiority doesn't actually win wars.

Yes, that may be a reason. After all, pointing out that wars aren't a matter of "bravery, courage" and other similar words that are non-characteristic for most, but professionalism, weapons and resources gets the ground out from "ooh if not for the brave men of Spartaaaaaaaaaa!" bullshit.

The terrible drool over 300 Spartans in the US wasn't built on nothing.

PeZook wrote:

Stuart wrote: I don't understand it; its wholly inexplicable to me. If they stuck with the adulation of bits of equipment that actually existed I could sense some glimmering of understanding but its the fanatical extent to which they'll howl down any effort to suggest that Nazis were anything other than heroic supermen.

This is why I suggested that mechanism - particularly since the Americans just love their underdogs, and for some reason like to be seen as such.

Or maybe they just plain don't like the idea that Allies won through massive superiority in men and materiel, because that suggests bravery, courage and Moral Superiority doesn't actually win wars.

I think I heard similar arguments regarding the Viet Cong, the Taliban, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, al-Qaida...

Basically, some idiot claiming the side that took more casualties claiming that the enemies' weapons-- that which inflicts the casualties-- and is useless against the other side's morale-- that which allows them to fight on in the face of such casualties. These idiots seem to forget what a Pyrric victory is.

PeZook wrote: because that suggests bravery, courage and Moral Superiority doesn't actually win wars.

Even that partially falls apart because if one wants bravery and courage one needs look no further than the Russian Army (try taking the casulaty rates they took and keep fighting). Bravery and courage were universal commodities and don't distinguise between nationalities.

That brings us to moral superiority. It has to be a pretty warped mind that looks at Nazi Germany and say that it represents a moral superiority over anything. Sadly though, I think you have hit on it here. The Nazi fanboys want to associate themselves with nazi germany because they can identify with the central power of that regime. In other words, they all like to see themselves as strutting SS men. (Interesting to note how many of them use SS ranks etc as internet handles).

Perhaps them going on about all those various experimental superweapons is another way of saying "See? They had this incredible advantage in technology! Defeat was right around the corner, If it wasn't for our incredible fighting spirit and righteousness, everyone would be speaking German by now! Boy, aren't we great?"

Except that's what they don't say. Again I'd refer you to the infantile morons on Spacebattles and SAHWI who spend their lives trumpeting about how wonderful the Nazis were, what marvellous ideas they had and how they were treacherously done down by the cowardly allies who swamped them with men and machines.

Then there's the "I like repeating stupid anti-mainstream claims because it makes me look like I know something" syndrome.

In this case, I think it's a lot more along the lines of there is a clique and they can only be part of the clique by chanting the accepted party line. It ties back into what we were saying earlier about them identifying with the ruling clique of Nazi Germany. I bet if we found some of these Nazi fanboys they're all in the mid-late teens, are social and educational failures at their schools and are compensating for that by trying to identify with those they perceive as a powerful ruling clique. By the way, when one reads Nazi party leader biographies have you noticed how frequently the word "failure" appears? Failed artist, failed chicken farmer, failed journalist, failed architect? Goering was the only one who actually was a success in his pre-Nazi life and he got one (possibly both) of his testicles shot off.

And Allied engines didn't randomly explode, too, which I suppose made their jets a bit more combat effective

On the other hand, the Nazis would claim that the fragments flying around after their engines exploded could damage a bomber. AHA -another uberweapon........

Stuart wrote:

And Allied engines didn't randomly explode, too, which I suppose made their jets a bit more combat effective

On the other hand, the Nazis would claim that the fragments flying around after their engines exploded could damage a bomber. AHA -another uberweapon........

Aren't these things called Kamikazes? (I laughed when I read that line. Maybe I should use it for one of my stories.)

Sidewinder wrote: Aren't these things called Kamikazes?

Well, the Kamikaze were those who made a specific decision to go out in a blaze of glory by crashing their aircraft into an American ship and thus delay the invasion of divine Japan by 0.03 seconds.

The German jet and rocket plane pilots did it by accident when poor engineering made their aircraft spontaneously discombobulate. (By the way, have you wondered about the sanity of the Me-163 designers who had to install two tanks of highly corrosive chemicals in the air frame so put them in the cockpit???????)

Fascist Germany was a formidable enemy despite all it's failures, but saying it could "win" is nonsense.

The question is, could Germany "win" locally in one of their campaigns, etc. etc. and what would the consequences of that be? The answer is simple, all slavs are dead, a little later most Germans are dead since the US nuke-bombs Germany.

So each day that prolonged Germany's defeat is a day of extended death and suffering. A German "victory" would result into innumerable increase in suffering of people, primarily in Eastern Europe (wiped out), and later the Reich (wiped out).

So is the victory meaningful? Yes, very much so. It's not "a handful of big mean countries punished stupid Germany", more like "one country went batshit insane and turned it's military into a machine for ethnic cleansing of unseen scale", followed by "an exceptionally dangerous gunman was taken down with massive losses by the police".

No one underestimates the danger a gunman posed, but the local police are clearly going to overwhelm him in the end, the only question is how many policemen and civilans are dead before he is dead.

petesampras wrote:

Patrick Degan wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote: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.

According to John Dunnigan, the Iowas (and SoDaks) also enjoyed the advantages of a heavier shell combined with a more powerful gunnery charge than the two Yamatos were equipped with, giving the American 16" shell faster velocity, longer range, and greater penetrating power.

From the site Skimmer posted a while back.

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

These figures would seem to conflict, though don't know how accurate they are. Also, they indicate that the Iowas had significantly more firepower than the South Dakotas.

I'd misquoted Dunnigan (from poor memory) and the man in question was James Dunnigan, not John.

Stuart wrote:
Channeling nazi fanboys here....... Aha but what you don't know is that the moths were yet another nazi underweapon. Genetically engineered moths that would eat the uniforms of the allied troops and cause them to die of the cold. Just six months more......

Funny enough, even such an absurd weapon already has a ready made countermeasure in the US arsenal.... we could simply take all the bats from the program for bat carried incendiary bombs and unleash them to eat up the moths!

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Stuart wrote:
Channeling nazi fanboys here....... Aha but what you don't know is that the moths were yet another nazi underweapon. Genetically engineered moths that would eat the uniforms of the allied troops and cause them to die of the cold. Just six months more......

Funny enough, even such an absurd weapon already has a ready made countermeasure in the US arsenal.... we could simply take all the bats from the program for bat carried incendiary bombs and unleash them to eat up the moths!

Better yet make the uniforms out of Nylon which the moths won't eat.