According to QI, all crew and staff had their wages stopped at the time of sinking. This was standard practice at the time. So you have to row a lifeboat in freezing water and you’re not even getting paid for it!
Il-2 pilots claimed their most dangerous AA opponents were that was either quad-20mm or any 37mm cannon, as anything above 37MM moved too slow to track them while anything below 37mm cannon that wasn’t quad mounted lacked the power to stop them.
The IJN had a problem with semi-useless AA batteries, the 25 mm was too light, the effective rate of fire was too low, and the fire control was poor. By 1945 it was either Bofors (40 mm) or 5" guns with proximity fused shells. The IJN had neither, and its ships were r3elatively easy targets for the US Navy. But any ship - even today - has little chance against a swarm of aircraft.
Allied naval intelligence was well aware that the Axis powers were building ships well over the weight limits, insofar as they could be enforced anyway. It was clear from looking at the designs and dimensions. When a British naval designer was asked if the Japanese heavy cruisers came in under the weights, he replied “Only if they are made of cardboard.”
Check out some of the naval websites on this. One interesting point: in the 1930’s the Germans did not have a cadre of experienced naval constructors and the ships they produced tended to be somewhat eccentric by the standards of other navies. Add to this their problems with steam plant and their use of the oddball three propeller layout. Bismark was essentially a slightly updated version of the plans for a Bayern- class battleship that was planned during WW1 but never started. The design was modified to take into account the lessons from the battle of Jutland, emphasizing side armor on the assumption that future engagements would be close up, and its armor scheme was weak against plunging fire.
One on one, the Bismark could hold its own with any RN ships, given that most of the RN BBs were Queen Elisabeth class ships that were 25 years old. Nelson and Rodney were never satisfactory, and the KG V class had 14" guns and the troublesome quadruple turret. It would have been another story against the US ships, with their high speed, 16" guns and good fire control. Make it two on one and Bismark is in trouble. Note also that real BBs, unlike battlecruisers such as Hood, could take a lot of punishment.
Lucky torpedo hits? Prince of Wales was doing fine until its rudder was hit. Also, damage control and/or design errors made a huge difference after a torpedo hit.
Four Bayern class BBs were laid down, 2 were completed.
I agree, Bis’ armor scheme was kind of outdated, but it matched her guns—optimized for fights at short to medium ranges. In the Atlantic theater, visibility beyond 25,000 yards was rare. In a fight at 15,000-20,000 yards, Bismarck’s 15” guns, with their flatter trajectory, made fire control easier, and had better armor penetration than the US and UK guns. Once on target, the German gun could be reloaded and fired faster than the others.
IN 1941, I’d rate Bismarck as an even match for any of her contemporaries except *Yamato *. After 1942, the Allied BBs had a significant advantage thru superior radar.
Many describe Hood as a fast battleship. Har armor was better than a QE class BB. This is argued perpetually, because people that call Hood a battlecruiser just don’t see the error of their ways.
They call it a battlecruiser because it was a battlecruiser. The British themselves designated it as a battlecruiser.
Therefore, if they called it a luxury yacht, it’s a luxury yacht, with 15”guns? Ships were given designations for all manner of reasons. Those designations varied over time, and from one nation to another. From our perspective, 95 years later, we can ignore those reasons, and define ships more consistently based on their characteristics. Battlecruisers gave up fighting qualities in order to go faster. They had less armor, and often fewer guns and/or smaller guns than their BB contemporaries. These characteristics affected their usage. They could run down cruisers, but having them engage BBs would not end well. In combat value, they inhabited the space between cruisers and battleships. The name fits. Not so, Hood. She was originally designed as a BC, but as built, had all the armor and armament to hold her place in the battle line. Her combat value was not less than that of a QE; it was more. She was a battleship. A fast one, but a battleship.
I am willing to bet the British navy knows all the things you just listed and they deemed it a battlecruiser.
The argument is perpetual within the RN, as well.
Perhaps, but not a Raymond luxury yacht.
Small correction: the ship class is spelled Raymond Luxury Yacht but it’s pronounced Throatwarbler Mangrove.
You’re a very silly man and you can’t have a battlecruiser.