The Bismark

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

[[RWP]DJM]

So what is the forecast on the new game?

Train Sim:

http://www.microsoft.com/games/trainsimulator/

Latest info

[AriesDW]

Train Sim:

http://www.microsoft.com/games/trainsimulator/

Latest info

Thanks - checking it out, and yet again, procrastinating @ the office. LOL!

[[RWP]DJM]

Thanks - checking it out, and yet again, procrastinating @ the office. LOL!

No problem and LOL

[AriesDW]

No problem and LOL

LAME! Hardly any info . . . I cannot wait to see it develop, though.

[[RWP]DJM]

LAME! Hardly any info . . . I cannot wait to see it develop, though.

Same here, especially when Just Trains get involved....that is if they don't mess up the add-ons, like in FSX 

[AriesDW]

Same here, especially when Just Trains get involved....that is if they don't mess up the add-ons, like in FSX 

They are good at messing things up.

[tmmitzzie]

Fuso - now their was a girl that could knock the Bismark about . . .  6 double-barreled 15 inch cannons. YUM!! Not to mention a supterstructure 17 decks high. Talk about a view!!

The Fuso had 12 fourteen inch guns (main armament), and was not as heavily protected as it should have been for a ship of its size.  If it had engaged the Bismarck , which had greater protection and superior 15 inch guns I dont think Fuso would have lasted very long. It was difficult to sink a battleship by gunfire alone, Fuso was one of the few battleships which succumbed to gunfire from other ships.   

[AriesDW]

Again, the vessel had 12 cannons in the main turrets. 2 placements forward, two barrels per placement - 1 placement between the superstructure and the funnel, 2 barrels, 1 placement between the aft tower and the funnel, 2 barrels, and 2 placements on the stern, totalling in 4 barrels. This adds up to 12 barrels in the main battery, which were 36 cm - 14.4 inches approximately.

Her secondary artillary battery, placed in the hull just below the weather deck and in the armor belt, in the secion added to the hull in her first major refit, she weilded 16, single barrel 15cm (about 7 inch) cannons. Which, after 1938 was converted to 14 15cm cannons.

She then also bore 8 12.7 cm gun with an additional 16 13.2mm guns (quad mount).

So . . . Need I say more?

Her artillary was slightly less than that of the Bismark in bore and shell size. However, due to her increaded number of placements, her reload rate weas remarkably fast and she had the ability to take on a multiple targets, quite easily. As a matter of fact, these ships were developed with a new, "caged" strategy in mind.

The vessel had a substainal armor belt, especially after her major refit in '41. I have do doubt in my mind she could give the Bismark a serious run for her money.

Also, as a testiment to the awesome construction of the ship - after Fuso was attacked and the battle of Surigao Strait, she had exploded in half. The two halves were so well made, that after burning for hours, and of course being open to the ocean, the two halves stayed afloat for two days before they sank.

Now tell me that is not some incredible design work.

I have the anatomy of the ship and a set of plans. I have studied the IJN ships and their design for several years. I have also written a paper on Japanese naval warfare strategy and vessel design. I would think I know what I am talking about.

[AriesDW]

Also, the vessels were each designed with different tactics in mind, as well as different theaters of war. I do believe, however, that pending on the angle of attack, or the interception point of both vessels, Fuso would have a very strong upper hand.

The Bismark design was made for taking on vessels of a certain size and at a medium to long range. Of course, anything smaller at a medium distance was just a lot easier to kill than her primary "audience", such as battlecruisers, cruisers, BBs, and the like. She had medium to close range capability, however, it was not the speciality of the design. She (Bismark/Tirpitz) was really designed to be a fast attack, moderate to rough water capable, medium to long range battleship.

The IJN warships were designed with the concept of softening up the enemy at a distance and then taking them out with overwhelming fource when you got within a few miles. If a vessel were to get within say 8 or less miles of the Fuso class, it would be practically raining shells (due to being with in good range of both secondary and primary artillery). This would stand most true in the case of a bow quarter/stern quarter or broadside attack. Of course, this is a different combat approach then that of her successors, the Yamato class which were built to fight in a manner very similar to that of the Bismark class - long -medium range.

With those factors in mind, it is tough to say who would beat who. I do know who would be a bigger target in the scope - and sadly to say that would be the Fuso due to her massive length and sky-scarping forward superstructure.

[Stuart2007]

I might be wrong (it CAN happen) but didn't the Bismarck have a design problem that meant its turrets had a very narrow field of fire- hence when its rudders were damaged by RNFAA they couldn't fight back at all.

Stu

[AriesDW]

I might be wrong (it CAN happen) but didn't the Bismarck have a design problem that meant its turrets had a very narrow field of fire- hence when its rudders were damaged by RNFAA they couldn't fight back at all.

Stu

I would have to look into it to confirm. I have heard that before, but cannot say. I do know that the British forces were at advantage of using Sterlings (I think that is the model of the plane - I am drawing a blank) to drop torpedoes on her because she did not have low firing coverage. She is a strange, considering many vessels of the period still had lower placed, side mounted armaments. Such as the Fuso class, the Kongo Class, the Nagato class, most of the older IJN carriers, the Hood, and many other British vessels.

[Stuart2007]

No. They were swordfish torpedo bombers. Sterlings were bigger and never used for dropping torpedos, as far as I know.

Have a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish

As I understand it was a primitive design, but very fuctional. It was slow and manouverable and excellent stability for sea level strikes against ships.

Stu

[AriesDW]

No. They were swordfish torpedo bombers. Sterlings were bigger and never used for dropping torpedos, as far as I know.

Have a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish

As I understand it was a primitive design, but very fuctional. It was slow and manouverable and excellent stability for sea level strikes against ships.

Stu

Swordfish! THat is what I meant to say. Earlier I was thinking Marlin, but I knew it started with an "S". See, I was in the right thought area. :p Those birds were light, but did the job, for sure. The sinking of the Bismark attests to that!

[Stuart2007]

Also I recall that the RAF/RNAFA used a Grunman aircrft built in Britain under license from America. Can't think what it was though.

Any ideas on that?

Stu

[AriesDW]

Got me.

[Captain Davies]

Swordfish! THat is what I meant to say. Earlier I was thinking Marlin, but I knew it started with an "S". See, I was in the right thought area. :p Those birds were light, but did the job, for sure. The sinking of the Bismark attests to that!

They also attacked the Italian fleet at port in Tripoli (I think that was the name).  These out of date, biplane, carrier launched aircraft were incredibly succesful in their mission.  It is beleived the British attack on Tripoli inspired the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

[AriesDW]

They also attacked the Italian fleet at port in Tripoli (I think that was the name).  These out of date, biplane, carrier launched aircraft were incredibly succesful in their mission.  It is beleived the British attack on Tripoli inspired the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

Yes, Gendo & Yamamoto based their attack plan off of this battle scenario. And of course, it yet again prooved quite successful.

[Stuart2007]

They also attacked the Italian fleet at port in Tripoli (I think that was the name).  These out of date, biplane, carrier launched aircraft were incredibly succesful in their mission.  It is beleived the British attack on Tripoli inspired the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

Yet these airplanes only predated the Hurricane by 2 years and the Spitfire by 5 years. Look at the RAF now... The Jaguar and Tornado are nearly 1/4 century old. Now tell me about outdated!

Stu

[AriesDW]

HA HA HA! But I think they are built to last longer, no?

[Captain Davies]

Yeah, the Tornado and Jaguar are still built to modern day standards of aircraft design (sort of), but the the Swordfish was a biplane where all new planes of the time were monoplanes.

[AriesDW]

Yeah, the Tornado and Jaguar are still built to modern day standards of aircraft design (sort of), but the the Swordfish was a biplane where all new planes of the time were monoplanes.

Well regarding the Swordfish, I know. I do not know as much about the modern planes.

[Stuart2007]

Yeah, the Tornado and Jaguar are still built to modern day standards of aircraft design (sort of), but the the Swordfish was a biplane where all new planes of the time were monoplanes.

If you are saying that the pace of development in the mid 30s is higher than now, and that a 3 year gap then is more serious than a 20 year gap now then I would agree.

The Tornado has had several major upgrades to its electronics, to be sure. And the engines have been modified but I doubt whether it could be called modern. It is only by luck that they haven't gone up against a well armed opponent. If we went to war with America, Russia or China (examples- not to offed these countries) then I suspect the RAF would be ug***ed. The RAF has skill, yes and with the Eurofighter, some modern tools but the Tornado is ageing.

Stu

[Captain Davies]

If you are saying that the pace of development in the mid 30s is higher than now, and that a 3 year gap then is more serious than a 20 year gap now then I would agree.

Yeah that's pretty much what I'm saying.  I suppose the real gyst of it is, building a biplane, instead of a monoplane then, is kind of like building a fighter with a propellor instead of a jet today.

The Tornado has had several major upgrades to its electronics, to be sure. And the engines have been modified but I doubt whether it could be called modern. It is only by luck that they haven't gone up against a well armed opponent. If we went to war with America, Russia or China (examples- not to offed these countries) then I suspect the RAF would be ug***ed. The RAF has skill, yes and with the Eurofighter, some modern tools but the Tornado is ageing.

Stu

It is important to remember that the Tornado is a ground attack aircraft first, and a fighter second.  Although it carries the badge of multi-role, it is only truly good at one of those roles.  Britain does not really have an up to date, fighter first, aircraft, and we won't have one until the Eurofighter Typhoon (or just 'Typhoon' as we should really call them now) goes into full service.

[Stuart2007]

Yeah that's pretty much what I'm saying.  I suppose the real gyst of it is, building a biplane, instead of a monoplane then, is kind of like building a fighter with a propellor instead of a jet today.

It is important to remember that the Tornado is a ground attack aircraft first, and a fighter second.  Although it carries the badge of multi-role, it is only truly good at one of those roles.  Britain does not really have an up to date, fighter first, aircraft, and we won't have one until the Eurofighter Typhoon (or just 'Typhoon' as we should really call them now) goes into full service.

In that respect, you do have a point. But one could compare a 20 year old car to a modern one and say it is comparatively the same when compared to a Ford model T.

Really, a modern aircraft is only as good as its missiles and avionics. The pilot sees the target, fires, and it is down to the missile to make the kill. If the missile is better than the target, it hits. If the missile isn't, the target gets away. Remember that dogfighting is a thing of the past (except in dodgy tom cruise films)

Stu

[Captain Davies]

But there is still the matter of having an aircraft nimble enough to shake a missile, should you be tagged.  The Eurofighter is one of those aircraft, the Tornado certainly is not.