Though much is made of the legendary Bismarck, isn’t it fairly evident that, if the two leviathans had squared off, the larger Yamato would have have the decisive edge?* Didn’t the U.S. have a hell of a time sinking her?
(*Or were there intangibles that someone would like to inform me of?)
(Note to mods: hopefully, we’ll keep this reasonably factual)
According to this page, Bismarck had superior firepower overall (not just the size of the guns but their rate of fire; Yamato had bigger guns than anybody else, but they didn’t fire as fast)–Bismarck is given a rating of 118% vs. the Yamato’s 86% (with the U.S.'s Iowa-class battleships the benchmark at 100%); Yamato had considerably better armor, scoring 127% to the Bismarck’s 81%; Bismarck has a slight edge in speed, 88% to 82% (or 29 knots to 27 knots).
Bismarck was a bit faster, and could fire faster with its smaller guns, but Yamato had considerably better armor.
Considering the Bismarck was disabled due to two lucky hits (especially the second, a torpedo hit that damaged the rudders) you can’t answer this question just by comparing numbers. Weather, timing and random chance play a huge role.
Now, if the two ships were parked 1500 yards apart in calm weather and just started blasting away at each other when someone blew a whistle, I’d give Bismarck the edge because of its greater rate of fire.
MEBuckner
Interesting site - best explanation of why the calibur on the Yamato’s 18" guns made it effectively identical to the 16" ones on the Iowa.
In poking around, I came across this site:
http://64.124.221.191/baddest.htm
It comes to mainly the same conclusion, but with a slightly different analysis. This one also grants a somewhat bigger edge to Yamato vs. Bismarck. Not sure that the edge qualifies as “decisive”.
A comment here that I didn’t see addressed in either of the two references cited so far. I’ve read in the past that the recoil from the Yamato’s 18" guns was such that the Japanese were reticent to fire them in less than optimal comditions.
Is the Yamato allowed to use the Wave Motion Gun?
(ducking and running)
Interestingly, the Bismarck, Hood and Scharnhorst all suffered from “lucky” hits. The Hood exploded after one or more shots penetrated a weak point in her armour when she was at the optimum range for it (the weak point) to be exposed. Had she been closer to the Bismarck, the shell would not have penetrated and in all likely hood the Bismarck would have been sunk by the Hood and Prince of Wales. Had the Prince of Wales (newer, much better protected) led the line and drawn the Bismarck’s fire, she would have been far less likely to suffer a “lucky” hit and again the Bismarck would have been sunk.
In return, the Bismarck’s rudder was damaged by the “lucky” hit from the Ark Royal’s torpedo strike, slowing her down enough for the King George V and Rodney to catch up. Once the battle started, there were no more lucky hits. The Bismarck was pounded to a wreck and sunk by torpedoes (or scuttled according to the Germans), the KGV and Rodney suffered next to no damage. It could be argued that the Bismarck was over protected, in that her armament was entirely destroyed but her belt armour was not penetrated. Too much protection for the hull, not enough for the guns.
The Scharnhorst was also cursed by a “lucky” hit. This time, it was by the cruiser escort to the convoy she was attacking. Eight inch cruiser gunfire took out the Scharnhorst’s search radar and 11” director. As a result, she was surprised, twice IIRC, by the Duke of York and unable to fire her main armament accurately without the 11” director. Again, she was pounded to a wreck and sunk by torpedoes.
All of which goes to show that despite the huge effort put into protection, “lucky” hits could still turn the battle. Where there were no lucky hits, modern battleships proved extremely difficult to sink.
Incidentally, commenting on the battleship.org page cited by MEBucknor. The statistics for protection use a bad measure – maximum armour thickness for a series of key features. This favours ships with extremely thick armour over limited area. It also discounts anti-torpedo and anti-mine protection. A better measure is the percentage of the ship’s displacement (such as the standard displacement as defined by the Washington Treaty) given over to protection. Harder to measure but a truer reflection of the ship’s standard of protection. I recommend Norman B. Friedman’s Battleship Design & Construction 1906 – 1945, IMHO the reference for battleship design.
Actually, the Yamato didn’t have a chance, what with that alien computer virus and all.
<singing>*We’re off ot outer Space…
We’re Leeeaving
Mother Earth!
To Saaavve
The Human Race!
Ouuurr
Starrrr
Blazers!* 
We need a “singing” smiley!
Possibly so, but debatable. As you noted, even in Bismarck’s last battle, her hull integrity was never breached until she was scuttled by her crew (this according to James Cameron’s Expedition: Bismarck, which aired on the Discovery channel last week). Apparently, even the torpedo hits she suffered during her fatal battle only penetrated her outer hull.
On the other hand, her superstructure had been riddled, she had lost coordinated fire control, and her main guns were out of action fairly early on. On the other other hand, her secondary guns were as big as most ships’ mains and were (presumably) still operational.
In a Bismarck/Yamato one-on-one duel, I’d probably give the edge to Bismarck. Either way, it would have been something to see.
RR
The major problem with Bismarck was that it was a collossal waste of resources. The Germany Navy couldn’t go toe-to-toe with the RN, so they cooked up this strategy of using Bismarck as a commerce raider.
The problem with surface commerce raiders is that any steering or propulsion damage to this ship and, boom, the opposing force can find and sink it.
Hitler would have been better off with more submarines. Its a good thing though that he and his people made so many mistakes.
As for Yamato vs Bismarck:
Yamato. The Japanese have the experience and training edge, bigger guns and more armor.
The better crew would have won. The two ships were close enough that superior accuracy and manuver would have carried the day.
Unfortunately, this proved not to be the case in regards to air power, as the American, German and British Navies (not to mention the poor Italians) found out the hard way at the beginning of the war. Modern battleships proved all too vulnerable to submarine and air attack.
Even in a “straight up” naval engagement, the big ships tended to suffer way too many “lucky” hits. Battleships were a solution to WWI’s naval issues and continued to be over produced and over valued by the “big gun” admirals who saw the evidence of the power of air attacks on battleships (example the pre-war Dolittle tests) but ignored or discounted anything which would hinder their battleship fixation.
Just in case you want to laugh at the silly Navy people in the past, look at all the time, money and crew training which was wasted on the very expensive New Jersey and Iowa refits, only to have them sent back to mouthballs again. How many Aegis cruisers could have been built with the money wasted on the battleship debacle of the 80’s?
:smack:
But is there any sure way of avoiding “preparing for the last war”? A battleship might be useless against the Russian navy, but might it not be cost effective for delivering shells into Iraq?
As for the Aegis cruisers being more effective, again, that would depend. Only a couple Russian torpedos are necessary to sink a U.S. aircraft carrier, and the same must be true for the cruisers. “Submarines of the Russian and Soviet Navies” (1991) also remarks “There is some evidence that (the pending) fourth generation of submarines could be technologically superior to the only (new) U.S. submarine class … in the mid-1990s, the SEAWOLF”. I.e., I’d question whether either a battleship or a cruiser would be of any use against Russian subs.
The concept of “lucky hit” is of decidedly dubious value. A hand grenade taking out a battleship? Inconceivable – it’s hard to imagine how it could happen under any circumstance. But a torpedo or a shell from a battleship that happens to take out a system that wasn’t considered by the designers isn’t “lucky” so much as an unanticipated or unexpected failing.
That’s important for this discussion about whether the Yamato or the Bismark would have won. One of the lapses in naval planning in general is that actual battles that test entire surface fleets against each other were so rare in the 1900s each one was essentially a special case. Navies are not only planning the future based on a previous war, but on a particular engagement.
Not only, as suggested, would the skills of the crews have played a part in the encounter, but also the intelligence (and its accuracy) each battleship’s commander had about the other ship would be critical. Example: which ship’s guns had the longest range? Did the captain of that ship know his guns had the longest range? For the sake of discussion in the thread, one might be tempted to say: “Let’s suppose both captains knew everything about the other ship.” But even that doesn’t work, since it’s apparent that even the ship’s designers don’t really “know everything” about how their ship will perform in combat.
My guess between the Yamato and the Bismarck is that it could easily go either way, depending on circumstance.
(Parenthetically, regarding Ringo’s comment about the Yamato only being able to fire under optimum conditions, I remember reading recently that if a recent U.S. battleship fired its main guns at once, the ship would capsize.)
I wonder if one could make some extrapolations from the battle of Jutland? After all, the Japanese ship-designers learned their trade from the British and appear to share the same theories in battleship design. A conflict between Bismarck and Yamato could be viewed as a sort of mini-Jutland on steroids.
At Jutland, when it came to battleship-to-battleship combat, the smaller-caliber German guns proved to have a higher rate of fire and better accuracy, but the British battleships were better armored and though many were damaged, all British battleships were ready to sail the day following the battle.
The German ships, on the other hand, suffered serious damage from the fewer, larger caliber hits from British guns. The High Seas Fleet was considered unready to sail for weeks or perhaps months after the battle.
But probably most importantly, none of the post-Dreadnought battleships on either side were sunk. The sinkings of capital ships on both sides were of either battlecruisers (predecessors of Hood and Scharnhorst) or pre-dreadnoughts (Pommern).
No, its not. In Gulf War I, the battleships stayed out of range, called in aircraft to destroy possible missile site, and then still couldn’t get close enough due to mines to have any sort of effect on the war.
We don’t need 16" rifles for fire support. A couple fast firing 5" guns would doe the job faster and better. Heck, \which ships were most effective on D-Day? 5"-armed destroyers in close to the beach.
The Russians have no money for subs. All the paper designs in the world don’t mean crap. We have 688I and Seawolf NOW.
Quite frankly, battleships are helpless against subs. They need a battlegroup to protect them. The Tico-cruisers on the other hand, do have helos and sonar.
No. However, the shock of 16" gunfire plays havoc on electronics.
Battleships were obsolete in 1941. They’re big, expensive to crew, and their major abilities, namely large calibre gunfire and armor, are irrelevant in the modern age.
XPav said: “The Russians have no money for subs. All the paper designs in the world don’t mean crap. We have 688I and Seawolf NOW.”
The Typhoon, Oscar, and especially the Akula are in many respects better submarines. The Russian torpedoes, last I read, put ours to shame.
Even if the Russian subs were not not better, one still questions whether building Aegis cruisers is necessarily the best use of money. Say, compared with buying diesel-electric submarines from the Germans.
As far as a battleship capsizing when all guns were fired, I believe it was a 1950s U.S. battleship my source was referencing.
http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/russia/submar.htm
One of the Typhoons may be in service, the rest are gone or rusting away.
The Oscars have no corresponding US class.
The Akulas are good subs, but they aren’t LA class.
One serious problem with diesels electrics: We couldn’t get them to where we wanted to go fast enough. German U-Boats can barely scrape by 20kts, while our SSN are 30+ knots.
The German U-Boats are ideal for coastal protection and short trips, but aren’t capable of the long range patrols that the US SSN fleet is. There’s a good reason why the US dumped all its diesels, and its not just because Hyman Rickover could scream very very loud. 
Whereas the Aegis ships provide protection from the entire range of threats and can fire more cruise missiles than you could put on a sub.
Subs, especially diesel electrics, are great for sinking enemy ships and subs, but they’re absolutely lousy at doing things like stopping & searchings ships and waving the flag.
I still don’t buy it. The only US battleships still in active service post 1947 were the Iowa class, and well,
“Fireing a full broadside of nine 16”/50 and six 5"/38 guns during a target exercise near Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, 1 July 1984."
The “typhoons” and “akulas” are quietly rusting away. Even the getting the Kursk to sea was a challenge. Those boats get damned little sea time these days. Many of them get none at all.
And I’ve been in an environment where Typhoon-class boomers were about. In an American submarine. They’re big, alright, but not all that capable. Rather inferior, actually, IMHO.
Akulas were scary, but there never were very many of them, and they were only even-reaching with LA boats. Flight 1 LA boats, that is. What made them scary? That they were even-reaching with the LA boats. That was a 20-year leap in technology in one single class, thanks to our friends in Japan and West Germany.
XPav and Tranquilis, since this sub stuff is off topic, and I’m resolving to try and stay more within the dotted lines, I’ll just note that Russian subs are: faster, dive deeper, are more automated, and have faster torpedoes. Their degree of rustedness seems appropriate for an entirely different thread.
I couldn’t get to that page you cited, XPav, but was interested to find that the Iowa is stored in a dock an hour from my place. Hmmmm.
Back to the OP, the Yamato could fire 25 miles, (http://www.vlewis.net/page8a.html), the Bismarck 23 miles, if I got the calculation right. (http://www.kbismarck.com/armamenti.html).
Doesn’t that automatically make the Yamato the winner in a “straight duel”?