# Could the Hood \*possibly\* Have Whipped the Bismarck? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 17, 2020, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754 "2020-11-17T01:22:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2020, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/21 "2020-11-18T16:49:52Z")
Some other threads that may be of interest. > [@Who sank HMS Hood?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-sank-hms-hood/824020): > > The \*Prinz Eugen/I] oil thread made me remember an old question which AFAIK has never been discussed here, though elsewhere it has. Which German ship struck the fatal blow on the not so mighty Hood? Eugen did hit Hood early on, and started a pretty big fire. She is supposed to have adjusted to engaging Prince of Wales when the loss occurred, which is why any chance of her having fired the fatal shot is discounted. However, she fired several salvos at Hood before changing targets. As the actua… > [@Battleships Bismarck vs. Yamato: Which Wins?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleships-bismarck-vs-yamato-which-wins/143959): > > 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) > [@What if Battleships never lost favor in WWII?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915): > > We all know how World War II heralded the end of the battleship; the pacific was dominated by carrier groups, in the Atlantic the Germans used their few battleships as commerce raiders. Battleships lingered as long as they did out of tradition, since some navies took a while to understand the effectiveness of carriers (and also submarines). I’m curious how much longer Battleships could have perservered in an enviroment that neglected naval aviation. Maybe carriers exist in this alternate timel… > [@In the World Wars (I & II) should battleships have been used more aggressively?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-world-wars-i-ii-should-battleships-have-been-used-more-aggressively/912230): > > When looking at both WWI and WWII we see that battleships were usually kept well back from danger and rarely used to do what, presumably, they were meant to do…beat the crap out of the opposing navy. Certainly in WWII they were vulnerable to planes and, while true, they did not sail alone and had protection and were very resilient. Anytime we see a battleship in WWII go down it takes a massive effort (Yamato, Bismarck). Would it have made sense to form robust fleets around these ships and use… > [@Bring back the battleships](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/716806): > > Ever since Billy Mitchell, a lot of people have claimed that battleships are obsolete–a sentiment that became common after WW2. I don’t believe it. I believe that battleships have a role to fill in modern force-projection. The trouble is that almost everybody is stuck 70 years in the past. I contend that a modern, well-designed battleship would be able to take care of itself quite well. One of the most common arguments against battleships is that they are an inefficient use of manpower. T… ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2020, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/22 "2020-11-18T17:08:15Z")
Ref Blazing Saddles: > Gang Applicant: … Rape, arson, murder, and rape. > Gang Boss: You said “rape” twice. > Gang Applicant: I _like_ rape. Apparently we _like_ **Bismarck** 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Capn\_Carl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/838e76/32.png) [@Capn\_Carl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capn_Carl)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2020, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/23 "2020-11-18T19:27:38Z")
Interesting. I’ll bet the first-hit advantage has come about over the years, as warships have become deadlier. A wooden ship of the line could absorb 100 cannonballs and still fight and sail. A 20th century BB could do the same after 10-20 hits, or a couple torpedoes. A modern destroyer would be mission killed by a single Harpoon or Exocet hit. Regarding the Nelson’s all-fwd main armament. A Nelson wasn’t likely to be running away. It would be a serious threat to any axis BB, and too slow to get away. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/24 "2020-11-19T01:39:07Z")
I read a book recently on the history of fire-control computers – big ol’ gangling mechanisms with rotating-plate integrators – and, amazingly, they actually did improve chances of hitting the target. One of the things the book mentioned was “standard” battle computations, where you simplified things to single numbers. In naval miniatures gaming, it’s sort of like fixing all die-rolls to be 3.5s. In such a “standard” game, the Hood loses…but harms Bismarck. ( **LSLGuy** – oh, no doubt about it, the Rodney/Nelson configuration is flawed. I just like it _because_ it’s distinctive, and vaguely pretty. One of the secrets of Battleship Fandom – we think these big bruisers are _lovely_! Anyone remember wishing for the “Battlewagon” toy battleship for Christmas?) ---
**Author:** ![Sepp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Sepp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sepp)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/25 "2020-11-19T02:26:02Z")
Someone told me that shells with a diameter higher than 10 inches, weighing more than 1,500 pounds, and moving faster than 2,000 fps, are sufficient to smash the most heavily armored battleship (the Yamato, or the South Dakota pound-for-pound). It’s the “overmatch” principle according to him. Whether he’s right or not, I must say I like American battleship designs. Very practical, very robust. And if one of the three cornerstones of battleship design (armor, speed, firepower) has to be dropped, they will invariably choose to let go of speed. The Iowas appear to be the only exception. That said, my favorite American battleship is a pre-Washington Treaty ship, the USS New Mexico, Moves only 24 knots max. But it’s armored as hell. And its 12 14-inch guns can pound the Bismark silly. > **[Battleship USS New Mexico May 1930 | World War Photos](https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/us-navy/new-mexico/new-mexico-may30/)** > > USS New Mexico May 1930 ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/26 "2020-11-19T16:37:17Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > …( **LSLGuy** – oh, no doubt about it, the Rodney/Nelson configuration is flawed. I just like it _because_ it’s distinctive, and vaguely pretty. One of the secrets of Battleship Fandom – we think these big bruisers are _lovely_! Anyone remember wishing for the “Battlewagon” toy battleship for Christmas?) I always thought HMS _Nelson_ looked vaguely science fictiony, but I like it: > **[HMS Nelson (28)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Nelson_(28))** > > HMS Nelson (pennant number: 28) was the name ship of her class of two battleships built for the Royal Navy in the 1920s. They were the first battleships built to meet the limitations of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. Entering service in 1927, the ship spent her peacetime career with the Atlantic and Home Fleets, usually as the fleet flagship. During the early stages of World War II, she searched for German commerce raiders, missed participating in the Norwegian Campaign after she was ba... I think the best-looking battleship remains IJN _Kongo_, though. > **[Japanese battleship Kongō](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Kong%C5%8D)** > > Kongō (金剛, named for Mount Kongō) was a warship of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War I and World War II. She was the first battlecruiser of the Kongō class, among the most heavily armed ships in any navy when built. Her designer was the British naval engineer George Thurston, and she was laid down in 1911 at Barrow-in-Furness in Britain by Vickers Shipbuilding Company. Kongō was the last Japanese capital ship constructed outside Japan. She was formally commissioned in 1913, and patrol... ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/27 "2020-11-19T16:47:16Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > > [@Trinopus](#): > > > > …( **LSLGuy** – oh, no doubt about it, the Rodney/Nelson configuration is flawed. I just like it _because_ it’s distinctive, and vaguely pretty. One of the secrets of Battleship Fandom – we think these big bruisers are _lovely_ ! Anyone remember wishing for the “Battlewagon” toy battleship for Christmas?) > > I always thought HMS _Nelson_ looked vaguely science fictiony, but I like it: @Trinopus: Battlewagon was sure on my list a couple of years! And yes, HMS _Nelson_ is really cool in a retro-futuristic way. @Elendil_s_Heir: Here’s your science fictiony battleship. And yes, it does resemble HMS _Nelson_. [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=space+battleship+yamato](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=space+battleship+yamato) It also vaguely resembles another unarmed but nevertheless really cool bit of SDMB science fiction: > [@Ice Cruiser Norlandia](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-cruiser-norlandia/918507): > > This is my latest sci-fi model. I finished it a month or two ago, but we had a series of home-related repairs that distracted me from sharing it here. The little sci-fi model club I belong to is having a challenge: “Build a land or water vehicle propelled by a reaction engine (but not an airplane or spaceship)”, simplified for sanity’s sake to Jet Car Challenge. This is my entry, Ice Cruiser Norlandia. It started out as a submarine hull, part of an estate purchased by my local hobby shop, w… ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/28 "2020-11-19T16:59:02Z")
Cool model. I think Space Battleship _Yamato_ looks more like some other actual battleship than HMS _Nelson_. Now, if only I could remember its name… ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/29 "2020-11-19T17:35:09Z")
I think HMS Hood was certainly at a disadvantage versus the Bismarck. But I do not think it was a big disadvantage. Hood was not armored well which the deck plunging shot from Bismarck showed all too well (IIRC she was due for a refit to up-armor her). But that was a lucky shot and in naval warfare one of them is all you need. Hood was an older design and suffered for it. Both ships were a legitimate threat to the other. It came down who landed a devastating shot before the other. I think Bismarck had the advantage here with better optics for range finding. But remember these shells were massive and devastating. One would not kill a ship but it would certainly nerf their effectiveness. Bismarck landed a lucky shot. No one expected that to happen. Lucky shots count though. If it stretched to a real slug-fest I still think the Bismarck would have come out on top but that is splitting hairs. Both ships would be damaged and need to return to port for repair. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/30 "2020-11-19T18:36:39Z")
As to plan-view hull shape of course it resembles its namesake and other WWII-era battleships of all nations. But it also has all heavy armament forward and a very aft-mounted superstructure which is quite unlike those same WWII battleships. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/31 "2020-11-19T19:16:36Z")
_Prince of Wales_ sustained another underwater hit from a shell which lodged in the hull and failed to explode (and caused consternation when the ship was dry-docked) ---
**Author:** ![Capn\_Carl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/838e76/32.png) [@Capn\_Carl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capn_Carl)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/32 "2020-11-19T20:02:43Z")
Yes, and PofW achieved a mission-killing hit on Bismarck: the hit forward contaminated fuel, which forced Bismarck to head for base. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/33 "2020-11-19T21:49:26Z")
Also worth noting, almost any operational damage for Bismark was a disaster becuase the Nazis never understood the concept of global power projection - you can;t just have noce big shiny ships, you need ports, facilities, fuel, engineering facilities and protection for it all, and you need it all over the world. Also worth noting, there is more than one way to cripple the ability of a major warship, if this battle had lasted any appreciable time - which was a likely outcome, Bismark would have used up most of her main armanent ammo, which would have effectively have neutered her. As an example look at Graf Spee - she was engaged by three cruisers with much more modest weaponry, she inflicted severe damage but did not sink them. For many years the debate was centred around why she did not simply come out of Montevideo and sink the badly damaged cruisers, she had suffered only very minor damage and certainly nothing that would have prevented her from crushing the British squadron. Turns out that she had pretty much used up all her main armanent - she only had enough ammo left for a few salvos and then she was screwed - not enough to take on three cruisers and her secondary armanent would not have cut it, not even to take on one cruiser. ---
**Author:** ![Capn\_Carl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/838e76/32.png) [@Capn\_Carl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capn_Carl)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2020, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/34 "2020-11-21T13:02:45Z")
IMO, the Germans understood the need for global ports, and was acquiring them, but lost them all at the end of WW1. Agreed, the Graf Spee was doomed. Damaged and down to her last third of ammo, she faced Achilles, Ajax, and Cumberland, which was more powerful than Exeter. They were waiting in advantageous position, knowing where the Spee was, with advance warning of her every move. Also, the Brits had ‘leaked’ false info that Renown was also present. Captain Langsdorff was correct to order scuttling. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2020, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/35 "2020-11-21T17:48:00Z")
> [@Sepp](#): > > Someone told me that shells with a diameter higher than 10 inches, weighing more than 1,500 pounds, and moving faster than 2,000 fps, are sufficient to smash the most heavily armored battleship (the Yamato, or the South Dakota pound-for-pound). It’s the “overmatch” principle according to him. That’s awfully simplistic. Shell sizes evolved from 12 inches on _Dreadnaught_ (the game changer) through 13 and 14 onto 16 for most navies, 18 for Japan. If the ship designers in the US, UK, Germany, Italy, France, and Japan all did this when 12 inches would do, they were foolish – and I don’t think they were foolish. ---
**Author:** ![Capn\_Carl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/838e76/32.png) [@Capn\_Carl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capn_Carl)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2020, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/36 "2020-11-21T20:41:57Z")
I’ll 2nd what DesertDog said, a 10” gun would not penetrate the main armor of any WW2-era battleship. After the war, the USN tested a turret faceplate intended for the 3rd Yamato class BB. They determined that the USN 16”, firing a 2700 pound shell at 2500fps, would not penetrate the Japanese plate _at any range._ ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2020, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/37 "2020-11-22T17:08:18Z")
??? At the [Washington Navy Yard](https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/94nr0b/a_2750pound_american_16inch_armor_piercing_test/), there’s a giant hunk of Japanese armor plate from the _Shinano_, (which was going to be a BB until the IJN decided they needed a carrier instead), with an equally giant hole in it from a 16 inch AP shell. Test details [here](http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.php). ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2020, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/38 "2020-11-22T17:17:38Z")
Edit timed-out. And nevermind. Punching a hole at 0 degrees oblique is a lot different than punching it at the 30-40 degrees inclined to normal that it was actually installed at. As the conclusion of my cite states, in agreement with @Capn_Carl That said…impact velocity of ~2000 fps is a lot different than 25-2700 fps MV for those rifles, and I’m not sure the penetrative effects scale linearly with velocity. IOW, even with the armor plates inclined, and their effective thicknesses increased, I’m not sure that a point blank engagement (like _Washington_ sneaking up on _Kirishima_) wouldn’t result in a first round penetration of that armor. ---
**Author:** ![Capn\_Carl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/838e76/32.png) [@Capn\_Carl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capn_Carl)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2020, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/39 "2020-11-22T18:05:11Z")
The 45 degree inclination does more than increase the effective thickness. It forces the axis of the projectile to leave the direction of travel; so the round “face” of the shell isn’t the only portion that is punching through the armor. The shell is slightly skewed and must punch a larger hole than if it was 0 degrees. I was curious about the loss in velocity at 8000-9000 yards, where Washington opened fire. With a brand new gun, the velocity would be about 1900 fps at impact. The higher velocity 16” on an Iowa would impact at 2100 fps at that range. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2020, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754/40 "2020-11-22T18:33:54Z")
When discussing angled armor, remember the guns are not lasers. Naval gunfire is generally low-angle, unlike land artillery fire that is often high angle, or mortar fire that’s always high-angle. But nevertheless, at a range of 8-9K yards ~= 5 miles, the shell is going to be striking the ship at some angle below the horizon. Lacking ambition to Google up a ballistics chart I’ll WAG it at 5 or 10 degrees. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-hood-possibly-have-whipped-the-bismarck/925754.md?page=3)