In fact, the Yamato's optical rangefinder had a base length of 15 meters which was 4.5 meters longer than Bismarck's. However that doesn't mean the actual range finding capability was better. German optics were also very good. Stereoscopic range finders were very dependent on well trained and skillful operators. Tired, poorly trained, or inept, operators had a definite negative effect on any ship's fire control capabilities. Again, not that I doubt your veracity, but I would like some authoritative source confirming that Japanese optics were at least on par with German optical systems.

As for stable verticals, they most certainly are necessary, if not "specific", to optical fire control systems. All fire control systems, regardless of how range and bearing were determined (which is all the optical rangefinder did), require some way of establishing an artificial horizon. The USN had developed the finest vertical stables, using gyro's of any navy during WW II. The USN report on Japanese stable verticals note that they were primitive and the word "backward" features prominently in the postwar report of Japanese capital ship LA FC systems.

Just mentioning the optical side of a FC system is neglecting a whole range of vitally necessary functions which must take place before a ship can place a shell on target. Arguably, the Yamato's FC system was more primitive and less capable than Bismarck's, and her gunnery crew was less well trained than most. The fact that Yamato never managed to score even one well documented main battery hit on any target at any range stands in stark contrast to the rather good shooting accomplished by Bismarck at Denmark Strait. To expect Yamato to be able to consistently score hits at something like 30,000 yards is contrary to the known facts.

See:

Best Battleship: Fire Control

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/prima...ort%200-29.pdf

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/prima...ort%20O-31.pdf

I really doubt that there was any significant difference between the quality of the optics or design of stereoscopic rangefinders between major combatants in WW 2. Basically, it comes down to the whole system on a ship as to accuracy. This includes the rangefinder, the fire control system itself, the gun and turret design, and the crew.

Optical rangefinders become less and less accurate with increasing range. A base figure can be had from the formula:

e = 58.2R^2/BM

Where:
e = error in yards
R = range in thousands of yards
B = base rangefinder length in yards
M = Magnifying power of the optical system

(Just take this as a PFM formula. It is official US Navy so I won't dive into a page of how it is derived).

In addition, the accuracy of the rangefinder reference marks and their accuracy also need to be known. There is both a horizonal (bearing) and vertical (range) error introduced here depending on the marks and the operator.

Next, the height of the rangefinder above the waterline needs to be known. This will determine the distance to the horizon. Ranging on a ship that is hull down to the horizon is far more difficult than on one that can be completely seen.

Lastly, there is the spotter's method of determining fall of shot. This will determine how quickly and accurately fire can be brought onto an enemy vessel.

The Bismarck was not only the most famous Battleship but also feared to the point of Churchill sending the entire Britsh fleet after Bismarck. As far as gun size goes actually the 15 inch and American 16 inch guns were actually superior to the Japanese 18 guns as far as velocity, accuracy and deep penetration. this is a quote from KBismarck about it's main guns "The calibre of the German 380 mm guns (i.e. diameter of bore multiplied by number of calibre to give length of barrel) has traditionally been stated at 47. This figure is no longer quoted in qualified sources and it has been impossible to trace its origins. Furthermore, cal. 47 seems to be inconsistent with the considerable weight of the piece (more than 110 tons) compared with the weight of other modern battleship guns." Bismarck buns were actually 52 caliber which gives it walloping hitting power. People only look at the inches when comparing gun power which is only half of the equation. The Bismarck would have won this battle; also look at the fact that Bismarck is in one piece on the bottom of the ocean; whereas Yamato went kerplewy" blew up into two pieces like Hood. Bismarck wins.

Forgive me my non existing knowledge on naval issues, but instinctivley I would say Poor Bismarck.

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

Best laugh I've had in weeks

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

"Sigh....." I need a beer....

And some asprin....

No where close to the entire British fleet was sent after Bismark and the British considered 2 to one adequate to insure her demise. Unfortunatly the first two were an old BC and an BB that was not yet worked up.
Can you document the accuracy part? As for penetration at accoording to navweapons the Yamato has an advantage at all ranges and has a velocity atvantage over 15,000 meters.

Maybe 6 times in 100. Have you even looked at the respective immune zones?

Way ahead, I'm on #2

Bismarck was lucky and unlucky in her only major engagement.
That says more than any statistics could.

It won & lost when it shouldn't have done either.

The Japanese should've used Yamato & other BB's at Guadalcanal, blown the crud out of Henderson Field, and denied all allied surface ships until the place was theirs again. Instead of wherever she/they was/were.

Bismarck & perhaps Tirpitz & the BC's should've prevented the Northern convoys from getting anything through.

Alone (practically alone) ... they died. Ego kills.

__________________
There's one way to find out if a man is honest-ask him. If he says "Yes", you know he's a crook. Groucho Marx

This is complete nonsense. The Bismarck was armed with the 38cm SKC 34 gun. The design details and characteristics are well known. In fact, several are still in existance such as the ones mounted in Battery Vara in Norway or Battery Todt at Cape Griz Nez in France.

The 38cm SKC 34 gun had a overall caliber of 48.4. The gun including breech weighed 244,713 pounds. Overall length was 64.442 feet.
It used a loose built up liner with 90 rifling grooves with a twist of 1/36 at the breech and 1/30 at the muzzle. Overall length of rifling was 724.596" and a powder charge of either 452.4 or 575.4 lbs was used.
The AP shell weighed 1,763.70 lbs and was fired at a muzzle velocity of 2,690 fps. Maximum range as mounted in the DRH LC/34 twin turret as aboard Bismarck was 39,589 yards theoretically.

The US 16"/45 Mk 5 (as on the Maryland class), 16"/45 Mk 6 and, 16"/50 Mk 7 all out perform the German gun at any range using either the lighter AP Mk 5 2,240 lb shell or more substancially using the later 2,700 lb Mk 8 round. The French 380mm Mle 1935 mounted on the Richelieu class equal the German gun in performance while the Italian 381mm Model 1934 gun of the Vittorio Veneto class slightly out performs it.

If anything, the SKC 34 had good, if unspectacular, performance on par with other nation's 15" naval guns. It was easily outperformed by 16" and even the rather poor Japanese 18.1" guns across the board.

As for her sinking in one piece: Only the fact that all the main magazines were flooded long before she sank and that there were no direct penetrations into a magazine saved her that fate. Scharnhorst, like Yamato had her forward magazines detonate in her final battle (North Cape). So, claiming any superior performance based on this claim (that the magazines did not explode) is just supercilious in nature.

Also posted on the Atlantic board for completeness.

They couldn't or at least didn't think they could. The Yamato wasn't fast enough to make the run under cover of darkness so would have possibly been subject to air attack at either end. There is also the problem of how much fuel would have been consumed in a high speed run like this.

Sir, I understand you may feel that you are smarter than every one else because you post that you are a veteran but I to am a veteran from the Vietnam war; so please try not to be rude as it is very unbecoming of a U.S. veteran. Below are excerpts from sources on the "Bismarck". So you are going to tell me your sources are better?From post treaty battleships By Chuck Hawks "She and her sistership, Bismarck, proved very difficult to sink. They may, in fact, have been pound for pound the hardest of all battleships to actually sink." Also from Bismarck-class.dk "380 mm/L48,5 grooves, cal. 52 overall (14,96") caliber SK C/34
Note :
The calibre of the German 380 mm guns (i.e. diameter of bore multiplied by number of calibre to give length of barrel) has traditionally been stated at 47. This figure is no longer quoted in qualified sources and it has been impossible to trace its origins. Furthermore, cal. 47 seems to be inconsistent with the considerable weight of the piece (more than 110 tons) compared with the weight of other modern battleship guns."
Please see:
- Schlachtschiff Bismarck - Eine Technikgeschichtliche Dokumentation by Siegfried Breyer and Gerhard Koop, page 42
- Battleships - Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II by William H. Garzke, Jr. and Robert O. Dulin, Jr., page 502
- Naval Weapons of World War II by John Campbell, page 229)
- Fortress Europe - The Atlantic Wall Guns by Karl-Heinz Schmeelke and Michael Schmeelke

No you are the best laugh I have had in weeks; it is very funny how people hide behind emails when in fact they would not have the guts to say rude things in person. The Bismarck is in fact upright and the hull is one solid piece unlike the Hood which was blown apart.

From KBismarck.com per Jose Rico. " A special characteristic of these guns was their high muzzle velocity and low shell trajectories with a short flight time, which permitted to obtain a very accurate and rapid fire. This was fully demonstrated in the morning of 24 May 1941 during the naval engagement with the British battlecruiser Hood. "

So what ?????
She's still at the bottom of the ocean

Just think about what you wrote.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

The accuracy was missing in its last battle when it failed to score a single hit on any of the British warships.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

I assume that this is directed at me.
No, I don't "feel that [I am] smarter than every one else because [of a] post that [I am] a veteran but I to am a veteran from the Vietnam war;" That makes absolutely no difference here. The information I posted is accurate. I have researched naval weapons and battleship engagements in WW 2 extensively.
In fact, one of the sources you list I would cite myself: Battleships - Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II by William H. Garzke, Jr. and Robert O. Dulin, Jr., page 502.

Dulin and Garzke's figures calculated using the US Navy Immunity Zone Slide Rule formula show exactly what I cited. I could list a half dozen or more other sources to no particular value as well.

As for the difficulty in sinking Bismarck she proved no moreso than other modern battleships. It took the British at the final action about 20 minutes to completely silence Bismarck. Once the main fire control director station was hit, Bismarck was finished; just like every other battleship that suffered such a hit.
Certainly, Yamashiro proved equally resiliant to a much worse pounding at Saguro Strait in 1944.

As for rate of fire, this is predicated in Bismarck, just like any other battleship, by the equipment used for loading the guns. In Bismarck's case, the theoretical rate of fire is somewhere between 2 and 2.33 rounds per minute depending on elevation (loading is at a fixed angle or 2.5 degrees thus the variation).
I also cannot see any outstanding performance by Bismarck in the Denmark Straights battle. The fuzing of her shells proved highly defective with the majority failing to detonate. While Bismarck managed to score about a dozen hits total on the two British ships, it was only luck of the draw that sank Hood. Without the lucky magazine hit the fight might have gone differently.
The PoW even while suffering severe problems with the loading systems in the quadruple turrets managed to damage Bismarck fairly badly. The hit forward in particular was very destructive.

No, her weakened stern fell off when she sank




She suffered 3 hits from the POW during the Denmark Straights battle, two of which caused flooding, leaving her with a list of a few degrees. So the claim that her hull wasn't penetrated is incorrect, even discounting her last battle.

ps; she's lying on her hull in several feet of mud, so any inspection of hull damage would be limited

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

That's simply not true. There were a number of penetrations including several through her belt..