Thread: the Bismark
View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)  
Old February 19th, 2007, 02:18 AM
T. A. Gardner's Avatar
T. A. Gardner T. A. Gardner is offline
WW2F Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: U. S.
Posts: 4,741
Salute!: 4
Saluted 288 Times in 197 Posts
T. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to behold
Default Re: the Bismark

The Bismarck was over-rated. Given that it weighed in at roughly 45,000 tons and only carried 8 15" guns for its main battery, 12 6" single purpose secondaries and, 16 4" AA guns it was badly under armed for its weight. In addition, its belt was only 12.5" thick at most and alot of weight was wasted on intermediate armor that had been abandoned by everyone else as worthless.
Compare the Bismarck with the Iowa class. Both displace roughly the same amount. Yet, the Iowas have 9 16" guns, 20 5" dual purpose guns for their secondary armament, make about 3 to 5 knots more speed and have more armor. Even earlier Washington Naval Treaty US battleships with about 8,000 tons less displacement are better equipped even if about 2 knots slower.
Even the French Richelieu and Italian Vittorio Veneto classes are as good on less displacement. What this says is that the Germans put alot of useless weight into their design for little or no return.
Reply With Quote