Bismarck vs New Jersey: Anti-Aircraft Battery
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- In this episode, we're once again looking at the differences between New Jersey and Bismarck, this time with the help of COBI.
CODE: TYUSSNEWJERSEY
DISCOUNT: 15% off the Bismarcks
Bismarck:
www.buildcobi....
Executive Edition Bismarck:
www.buildcobi....
For our previous Bismarck episode:
• Battleship NJ VS Bisma...
To support this channel and Battleship New Jersey:
www.battleship...
America before Pearl: 4 76mm guns and some .50cals. That oughta be enough AA!
America after Pearl: 60 Quad 40mm, 90 20mm, 20 5" guns with VT Fuses
is that enough?
NOPE! MOAR AA!!!!!!!
@Ronald Lee Kuehne id say that navies have come up with strategies to not get into those situations, like stay out of range of any anti ship missiles and send fighters in to fend off or destroy anything that could be carrying them. idk thats just my guess
@@beans1215 Thats exactly what they would do. You dont park your carriers inside the defense bubble of the enemy before you severely diminished its capacity.
Pre Pearl, North Carolina class had 20 5", cruisers had 8 5" and 1.1s in addition to .50 cal
I remember Drach reading a US Navy report from the battle of the Coral Sea whose author he called Commander Dakka. TL;DR: any space on deck with room for an anti-air gun should have one, and the heavier the better.
Could have been Admiral Lee? Even before Dec '41 he was advocating putting as many 20mms on ships as they could fit.
and thus it was ... Dockyard : we installed 10 quad 40 mounts and radar directors - ships captain: where did you install them ? Dockyard : forward of B turret Captain : HOW! dockyard: removed A turret, anchors, flagstaff, capstans - bunch of small stuff.....I have read real accounts from the British historian Brown where Brits were shocked by the willingness of US dockyards to just pile 20's and 40's on their boats, hell with center of gravity or draft.
The single-shot 3.7 cm SK C/30 used on both Bismarck and Tirpitz had a practical ROF of just around 30 per minute. This was later in 1944 superseded by the fully automatic 3.7 cm FlaK 43, which had a practical ROF of 180 rounds per minute (against 120 for the 40mm Bofors). These did not replace the older guns on Tirpitz, probably because she was not seaworthy at the time.
The "pocket battleships" (heavy cruisers) Scheer and Lutzow used them - and the heavy cruisers Prinz Eugen and Hipper even used 40mm Bofors guns that had been captured in Poland, Norway and France.
Much has been said about how unprepared HMS Prince of Wales was at Denmark Strait, but Bismarck was also sent on her mission before she was fully worked up. She had several well known defects in her AAA, both guns and mounts, and her AA crews had received little and inadequate training. Especialy the latter was to prove fatal. All this was meant to be fixed when she returned after her mission, but... Having said that, all 1941 battleships had poor AAA. Tirpitz had much better AAA, most notably 78 instead of just 20 x 20mm guns.
So Bismarck's Anti-Aicraft gunnery crew were not trained in how to fight Fairey Swordfish
@@Knight6831 Due to the ice conditions in the Baltic sea during the 1940/41 winter, much of the training were done while in harbor. The fatal torpedo attack were done in heavy sea, which the AA crews probably were unprepared for.
@@TTTT-oc4eb I've heard that the problem was the directors weren't designed to track aircraft as slow as the Swordfish.
@@johnlee1297 There were probably multiple problems. There is also the matter of luck. The Catalina and Swordfish crews reported intense and very precise AA fire from Bismarck. Several Swordfish from Victorious and five of the 15 Swordfish from Ark Royal suffered hits from Bismarck’s FlaK.The leader of the first three-ship formation was immediately hit at the starboard aileron. A monoplane aircraft would probably have crashed, not so the Swordfish. Another Swordfish counted 175 holes from Bismarck’s FlaK. Three Swordfish from Ark Royal had to abort their attack and jettison their torpedoes because of the precise AA fire. The intense fire denied the airplanes a coordinated attack. They still managed to land one hit during the attack from Victorious and two hits during the attack from Ark Royal, including the all decisive rudder hit. The courage and skill of the Swordfish crews was extreme.
During the search actions after the first attack four Swordfish from Victorious were lost. Three Swordfish had to be written off due to crash-landing on Ark Royal in the rough weather.
The Lough Erne, Northern Ireland sourced PBY crossed neutral Southern Ireland to find Bismarck and it had ONE neutral U.S. Navy pilot on board. Neutral Sweden leaked the first sighting leaving the Baltic.
I love the use of the models; nothing like using physical ( not to mention scale) props in your history lesson.
Video is a good excuse to get the model set to try out. Or would that be the other way around? I can just see Ryan's wife asking: "So, what did you do at work, today?"
Ryan: "Oh, uh... I played with legos. But it was for work! I SWEAR!" Although I think their technical name is "construction blocks." Sounds much more official! 😀
Well Ryan's wife is Battleship New Jersey so, maybe not. LOL
But the next comparison: Pearl Arizona vs Refit West Virginia =D
The Germans never came up against an air opponent like the IJN and never were faced with the Kamikaze. Necessity is the mother of invention and hence the VT fuse. It changed a lot.
It would be fairer to compare the North Carolina's AA armament to the Bismarck because she was the contemporary ship. I think you might find that the Bismarck is at least as good as the original North Carolina armarment.
unlikely, The NC still had the same 5"/38 and was getting the 40mm bofors when she commisioned.
@@timothyschmidt9566 She was commission with the Chicago Piano. The Navy did not even obtain the license to produce the 40mm Bofors until after the commissioning. Heavy AA guns were not all that effect until the VT fuse was introduced.
It would be fairer, but he IS New Jersey
Nothing came close to the 5"/38 and the Mk 37 director. Nothing else can make up for the difference they make.
Drach has a comparison of all WW II naval AA guns.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005 Until the proximity fuse heavy AA was more promise than reality.
This video says a lot about why several German warships were refitted with 40mm Bofors guns; The Bofors gun was That Darn Good.
On the 16" shells, If I'm not mistook you said about 155 lbs of bursting charge in those shells. Are those fairly thin walled shells that produce great fragmentation or pretty thick walled to penetrate and then explode. Really like the video and thanks, Daniel
Could you do a comparison between New Jersey's AA armament and a late war King George V class's armament?
“Krieg-a-boo” 😂
That’s where I died
How many audiences would get that joke?
I'd be curious to see a comparison of Bismark vs one of the most heavily armed standard U.S. battleships from 1941.
Ryan prefers one side only time travel.
Only the two North Carolinas were commissioned in 1941. Although they got much better AAA later in the war, in 1941 their AAA was actually worse than Bismarck's.
That would be a better comparison
@@TTTT-oc4eb Well, no. A DP battery of 5"/38 is WAY better than Bismarck's split secondary.
@@robertelder164 Bismarck had 16 x 10.5 cm DP guns. The main weakness of the early NCs was their light AA, before it was replaced with the much better 20mm and 40mm guns.
The question could be : Why was Bismarck not fitted with an AA arrangement able to combat torpedobombers of the Swordfish type ?
Tests were were run with the Ju87 Stuka , which was found also to be slow and low flying to help in setting up the AA directors.
Reportedly, Admiral Lütjens main concern were british torpedobombers, as he expressed to both Raeder and Hitler.
kreigaboo that's friggen great.....dammit I need both of those "lego" kits tho........ super awesome !!!
guess I'm headin" to the COBI website!!!!
Drachnifels video on WWII AA is an excelent addendum to this, it's a very entertaining video just like this one
Compare Yamato armament and antiaircraft on day it was sunk, which I assume is the best they could do with all the experience with aircraft.
When you take into account that nearly all US Navy aircraft downed were downed by the blast of the sinking Yamato, I think valid conclusions can be drawn.
Awesome models! I'd be interested in hearing about the effectiveness of the radar and fire control systems for the main guns. If the Iowa Class has a speed and range advantage, could they take advantage with more accurate fire?
👉Agreed. I'd like to hear about radar, too, but compared to Tirpitz to keep the years equivalent.👈
THANK YOU NEW JERSEY CHANEL! I have been wanting one of those Bismarck kits and finally ordered one.
Love the video comparisons despite knowing how they turn out, but I must say with those battleship kits... How many pieces??? Wow!
Have you considered using a water based acrylic paint? Nonflamable paint
A better comparison would have been the Bismarck against the as built Washington/North Carolina in 1941.
This isn't the North Carolina Museum.
NC/ Washington still wins.
Bismarck had early AA guns and theory
NJ upgraded as experience showed what was needed
COBI should have named it the "Museum (Curator) Edition" instead of "Executive Edition" 😁
If the 1944 Luftwaffe had been in charge of 1941 Bismarck's AAA, there would most likely be a Battleship Bismarck Museum and Memorial floating somewhere on the Elbe in Hamburg.
2 German cruisers survived the war, no battleships.
Bull
@@robertelder164 The mid-1944 Luftwaffe, which was responsible for the air defense of Germany, had gotten pretty good at AAA. My point is that, if somehow that capability (experience/armament/training/organization) could have been sent back in time to Bismarck, Bismarck likely would have been able to fend off the air strikes that crippled its maneuverability and therefore ability to evade the pursuing Royal Navy. After that, who knows?
@@SomeRandomHuman717 Even if Bismarck survived the war, it would have gone to the USA and used for nuclear testing and then scrapped just like the Prinz Eugen. No way it would have gotten to be a museum ship.
@@Silamon2 The Deutschland class armoured ship survivors Lutzow and Scheer were sunk by the RAF in the last weeks of the war even though they were more or less useless ships. The wünder Luftwaffe didn’t do much to save them for Bikini Atol.
The Iowas had superior fire control directors for the AAA suites.
So a 1944 / 1945 ship had superior fire control directors compared to a ship that was sunk in 1941 😱
So he is going to compare a German BB with about 44 AA weapons vs a USA BB with 150 AA guns…no comparison.
The 5 in-38's already have that clinched up.
It's more than the number and type of guns; it's about high angle directors and fire control systems, in which respect the Iowa class was all over the Bismarck class like white on rice.
despite the disparity in # of gun, and rate of fire, the biggest deciding factor is the VT fuse for the American 5" gun.
And the Mk 37 FCS
Main gun AA use was used by many ships to fire "Splash" barrages, not to shoot at aircraft. Interestingly, the Des Moines class Cruisers 8 inch auto guns had dedicated AA rounds available.
And they could be or were proximity fuzed, sounds like a fairly effective AA weapon when dealing with piston engine aircraft.
Dear Battleship New Jersey Museum and Memorial: I formally request you stop reading my thoughts and turning them into videos that I didn't even know I wanted...
Okay fine. But only if you keep it up! Love it guys take care!
I doubt the 5.9's could sustain more than 2-3 RPM. Just from the heat of firing. This is about the same size as our M777 155mm gun. The US 6/47 autos in the Worcester class were not very successful. Although the Des Moines 8s were, strangely enough.
Cease fire as well heat in hydraulic fluid recoil dampers
Ryan could you Please do a Video On the 1.1 anti aircraft Guns . I am asking for a Friend and 10 of us .
can you please make a video about how you would have modernized battleships (yamato, bismarck, vanguard, hood, richelieu, roma, andrea dora) through the cold war era and modern era?
Floating coffins keep it real in 21C
Another thing that separates Cobi from other brands is that they only produce in the EU (and especially compared to Lego) don't use stickers at all. It's always mind boggling how detailed their prints are, even something as simple as a grey piece having some sides in different colours (and I'm not talking about left and right but something like left and top, both different as well)
BEST COMMERCIAL EVER!!
Awfully pricy for what looks like Legos.
@Ronald Lee Kuehne That or some people just prefer different model building techniques.
If you really love building accurate ship models, you need to build the Trumpeter 1:200 scale Bismarck (Unfortunately, they don't have the New Jersey, but they do have the Missouri) they are very detailed kits for the model ship enthusiast. I'm a subscriber to the channel and love your videos. Keep up all the good work!! PS... Please sir I mean no disrespect but, that COBI model looks like it was built with Legos.
i would say, the heavy secondary battery was more the norm than unusal. if you look at the contemperaries: Richelieu 9x6in + 12x100mmAA; Littorio 12x6in + 12x90mmAA;
Yamato 12x6in + 12x5inAA; and the planned Sovietsky Soyuz 12x6in + 12x100mmAA. Perhaps if you expect to fight ships of different sizes at the same time?
Given the size of the German navy,
That's pretty much what they expected, plus to be able to engage both air and sea threats at the same time.
So a ship trying to do it all....
old fashioned split secondaries versus modern DP guns
@@robertelder164 "old fashioned"
Both yes and no,
When you have a Fleet the size of the US or British navy, you can afford to have a DP system (though to split hairs, the 105mm guns were DP).
Though given the threat that Bismarck posed,
The Germans should have realised that the British would always be throwing only battleships at it.
@@notsureyou No.They did not rate air defense high enough
@@robertelder164 At the start of WW2 the British Navy had:
15 Battleships and Battlecruisers
7 Aircraft Carriers
66 Cruisers
164 Destroyers
66 Submarines
So the reason for having a split system (secondary plus tertiary), comes down to fleet size.
As well as what "mission" they were intended to fulfil.
Yes all sides underestimated the role that aircraft would play,
But I would more so highlight the ALMOST complete lack of training of the AA gunners on Bismarck prior to their mission.
To show that they underestimated the role of aircraft, rather than the AA suite.
(I would expect there to be no tertiary DP guns, if they were truly oblivious to the threat)
A 21 knot Colorado class battleship would face off against a Bismarck class in *MAY 1941.* In the semi-real world a parallel carrier attack would be needed to slow Bismarck down and torpedoes launched from Wasp or Ranger simply would not explode. U.S. torpedoes were duds until well into 1943.
Really? The Bismark couldn't shoot down slow moving biplanes. Not real impressive.
grumble grumble grumble, I was perfectly happy before learning of these Cobi kits. And, while I haven't bought any of the ships, I now have
Mk V from WWI
Sherman M4A3E8
M26 Pershing
King Tiger
Panzer 1
battle of arras diorama set on order
T34 on order
R35 on order
grumble grumble grumble
Order one of the big ship models and you will be happy again! I've built 14 of them...
Bismark or Tirpitz, never faced true sea battles......their time is combat was brief, sorta like the Japanese Yamato....
The essential difference in most cases, is that Germany was never prepared for a war in 1939, all plans and surviving documents indicate that they would have been ready in 1946 and reached full strength only in 1948.
All the shortcomings that exist at all points in all areas are due to being forced into a war that was not planned.
They had advanced technology that would have wiped out any opponent, superior jet aircraft, tanks, submarines, 30 years ahead of their time, but none of it was built or used in time.
The last model Submarine was virtually undetectable with the sonar technology of the time, clad in a rubber layer that absorbed sound waves, the technology was so advanced that the Allies classified everything after the war. Four radar-guided automatic AA guns, high speed in underwater mode and long range.
Had they had 100 of those ready, it would have changed the war.
Bismark, for example, was not intended as the largest battleship, but as a smaller one, a model the same size as Yamato was planned but could never be implemented.
THAT explains part of the fact that the Bismark is inferior to the American battleships in several ways, it was never intended as an equivalent, but the super battleship that was never built would have taken care of that task.
The unknown story of what was planned but could never be carried out due to the unwanted war, is more interesting than the part that was carried out.
5 inch also has VT fuzes. That's a big deal.
Not using the projectile weights when they are readily available?😢😢😢😢
Light AAA (such as 20mm guns) is also just generally not the best by WWII standards because it lacks the range to ward off attacking planes before they drop their ordinance reliably.
Even with all the effort in the last video to make the Bismark's main guns not seem totally outclassed, they still fired one less shell in a broadside, and in firing much lighter shells at a flatter trajectory, they had a much higher chance of being deflected when striking an armored surface at a glancing angle. In AAA capability, it becomes a real laugher between the Iowa class and Bismark class.
In all honesty I put my money on USS New Jersey Any Day. I still believe the 40 mm bofors were the best.
20 mm Oerlikon cannon were responsible for roughly 40% of all aircraft shot down by the US Navy in WWII.
Video for the krigaboo fanboys? Not at all. These comparisons are terrible for them, as it always turns out NJ was at least equal, usually better 😂
The difference between Bismarck and New Jersey AAA? Seriously? The difference is New Jersey could shoot down a Swordfish.
They wouldn't, just like Bismarck the bullets would pass right through the Canvas and wood, largely unaffecting the swordfish
7 months after Bismarck the U.S. and Brit navies were about equal against Japanese aircraft. No lessons learned. Oh and was New Jersey in service in May 1941? The first fast battleship, the brand new North Carolina first entered Pearl Harbor sailing past the battleship row wrecks in summer 1942.
@@Dont14-r4k Tell us about what parts of Swordfish aircraft were wood please?
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 well literally ANYTHING else besides the metal frame was made of wood and canvas, allowing for bullets to pass through cleanly.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Except for that being true, absolutely. Not worth a point by point discussion herr von coc*sucker.
Revelle Monogram and Tamiya make better kits..
350 scale
Of course the two ships had different missions.
German battleships/battlecruisers were intended to be used as commerce raiders rather than units in a fleet or convoy protection and were not subject to the same mass air attacks that US and UK ships faced in the Pacific and the Far East.
If the iowas used regular weight shells they might of had faster shell speed. But since we used super heavy armor peircing that is probably why the shells werent super fast
5*9inch never could track fast enough ?
Well you can't say all that in 15 min. good video well done!
Bismarck versus North Carolina (as originally built)
In that comparison, Bismarck has the better AA suite (given that at that stage of the war, the proximity fuse hadn't been fully developed / perfected yet)
North Carolina (as originally built):
20 X 127 mm DP guns
16 X 28 mm
12 X 12.7 mm
Bismarck:
16 X 105mm DP guns (18 rounds per minute)
16 X 37 mm (Theoretical 80 rounds per minute, ACTUAL = 30-40 per minute)
18 X 20mm (200 rounds per minute)
Tirpitz (1944 configuration)
16 X 105mm DP
16 X 37 mm (Afaik NOT upgraded to the much improved 3.7 cm Flak 43 which had a ROF of 180 - 250 RPM)
78 X 20mm
Attempts were made to turn the 150 mm secondaries into DP, but the train rate of the turrets was too slow.
The reason for not upgrading Tirpitz's 37mm guns was probably that she was not regarded as seaworthy - or she was sunk before. Scheer and Lutzow received these new guns.
The 5”/38 paired with the MK-37 director automatically makes the NC better than the Bismarck.
@@aidanmattson681 At that stage of the war, the shells (afaik) would not have been equipped with proximity fuses.
Making them far less effective than what we see in the later stages of the war.
It also wasn't until 4 months after Bismarck was sunk, that radar was mounted to the MK37 director.
As originally built, and in the same time frame,
There isn't much in it.
@@notsureyou The light AA took down far more planes than the heavy AA anyway. Even with proximity fuses it was found that it took on average about 1000 rounds to down one plane.
@notsureyou as far as I know, Tirpitz kept her old 37mm guns, the uboats would certainly have priority here.
However, Tirpitz did receive major upgrades to her firecontrol equipment, being able to blindfire her 380mm guns by 1943 and specialised equipment for very precise shore bombardments by 1944.
Also, the H class would have had a considerably improved, fully enclosed 105mm turret with higher ROF, training and elevation speeds.
Consider in the1980's the US Navy mounted Phalanx CIWS. Phalanx is a radar directed, automated system that uses a 20mm 6 barrel Barking gun. At 3000 rounds per minute it can put out a horrendous amount of metal.
The Army's M163 version was frequently used in Vietnam for tree trimming around fire support bases. It was much quicker and safer, in hostile territory, then chainsaws.
The Iowa class that were revived in the 1980's received 4 each. Having seen what a M61 could do from an aircraft and from an M163 on an M48 tank, I would wonder what they would have done in WWII.
That should be 6 barrel Gatling gun, not barking. Damn autocorrect.
Probably spend a lot of time changing out barrels...
They would run those guns out of ammo pretty quickly.
A ship can carry a whole lot more ammo than an aircraft. The Vulcan/ Phalanx has a selectable rate of fire. The A7's I worked on were 6000/4000. Some have a spotting burst for aiming purposes that fires at 1200. The A7 had a round counter that stopped the gun at 100 round intervals. The phalanx was planned with water cooling allowing continuous high rate firing. Additionally there are 6 barrels in a rigid mount such that warping was not an issue. Modern metallurgy allows these barrels to exceed 100,000 rounds before the rifling wears to 50% at which time the barrel is replaced and recycled
Bofors and 3 inch 50's for the win.
Happily, BB62 is still here. Bismarck is down below.
How many shells out for 5*9 inch before ceasefire
I think proximity fuse made US Navy the superior AA in WW2. Probably one Fletcher class destroyer was a bigger threat to enemy planes than Bismarck
Short answer: Iowa > Bismarck, in every single way that matters. Better guns, better rangefinding, better AA, better steel quality, and better survivability.
Better steel quality??
Hopefully they didn't use Class A armour on that ship.....
@@notsureyou They used a mix of B and (mostly) A class armor for the citadel. According to naval historian DK Browne US armor was 25% worse than British and German (and possibly also Italian). But it was actually slightly better for the thinner armor of cruisers.
@@TTTT-oc4eb Navweps now rate the Italian as the best.
At point blank according to a Nathan Okun penetration table,
Bismarck can penetrate (EFF):
At point blank:
29.4 inches of Italian
31.1 inches of British
32.2 inches of German
34.8 inches of US Class A
35.6 inches of Italian
At 20,000 yards:
15.4 inches of Italian
16.3 inches of British
16.8 inches of German
18.1 inches of US Class A
18.6 inches of Japanese
At 30,000 yards
11.1 inches of Italian
11.7 inches of British
12.0 inches of German
12.8 inches of US Class A
13.4 inches of Japanese
@@notsureyouThat's a bit of a surprise. I know the British tested Tirpitz's armor after the war and found it to be 1-2% worse than their own armor.
@@TTTT-oc4eb I'm going by someone else's calculations.
The test that the British used has a few issues.
For example, the damage caused to the German plate when it was removed from the wreck of the Tirpitz,
Combined with the fact that the British plate it was tested against,
Was specifically manufactured for the test (and no doubt made to the highest standards).
Well the Iowa's AA were legends
I think we already know what ship when’s this side of the debate
Did any german ship ever have the 88mm on board
So Ryan, will this series also compare the Arado AR-196 to the Vought Kingfisher? :-P
Beard or no beard...that is the question ...
Fat lot of good those 15" shells being used to make columns of water were
A shell not fired, is even less effective ;-)
@@notsureyou except that firing the main guns disrupts AA operations.
@@aidanmattson681 But you do get a bonus "smoke screen" 😂
@@aidanmattson681 and radar
I believe that the seas scape must have become the problem of not hitting anything. Also the state of the crew as to how none sleep and battle fatigues affected them . My focus is mainly on the super natural, meaning God delivered Bismarck to the hands of the British navy. I say this without malice as the German empire was judgement of God unto the British empire for the way they treated their people.
wonder how graf spee would do. got a bit of manuverability advantage?
I think not so well as she was slower but most importantly as a Heavy Cruiser, one torpedo or bomb could cripple her. Even sink her.
@@willpat3040 That had happened when the ex Deutschland Lutzow took a torpedo in the stern breaking off And they had to repair the heavy-cruiser's stern The ill-starred Lutzow luck which who was getting worse On the 31ST of December 1942 the Lutzow and the Admiral-Hipper attempted to destroy a Murmansk bound convoy JW-51-B Which who was being escorted by several O-class fleet-destroyers and the A-class Achates The Captain D Of the 17TH Destroy er-Flotilla which who knew his O-class destroyers were no match for the Lutzow's 11'' guns and the Hipper's 8''|57 caliber Along-with the eight single 5.9'' aboard Lutzow Sherbrooke 17TH Destroyer-Flotilla officer-commanding decided to keep them out of gun-range with the torpedoes and to keep them occupied against engaging the convoy But they won't attack and launch the flotilla's torpedoes just make the Kriegmarine's nervous nellys to break clear As the SAS motto He who dares wins Hipper wrecked the Onslow's topsides and severely wounding Sherbrooke Compounding the troubles of engaging the Hipper and the Lutzow nearly every-gun before action was frozen literally solid So when Onslow which who was going to just fire 'B' and 'X' guns 'A' and Y-guns useless As flotilla-leader H.M.S. Onslow received the heavier 4.7'' while the rest of the 17TH Flotilla which who received 4'' from 1918 Some of the Convoy and some of the escorts disappeared to be at Murmansk While the Admiral-Hipper which who was going to keep the escorts busy the Lutzow would attack the convoy But luckily Sherbrooke and his flotilla there was a cruiser-covering-force which who was going to be in another sea-battle one-year later involving the Home-Fleet sinking the Scharnhorst And the Onslow and the 1 7TH Flotilla would be escorting another convoy in this case J.W.55-B But under another Captain D commanding Sherbrooke was severely wounded when a 8''|57 from the Adm i r a l-Hipper detonated against the Onslow's funnel Sherbrooke caught a fragment which who made a very-ghastly wound blinding him in one eye He won the Victoria-Cross
but if you compare Bismarck with North Carolina as build, which is more the contemperary: 20x5in 16x1,1in and 28x0,50in; the first looks a bit better.
Like always, you can determine the outcome of a comparison, by good choosing
Even Yamato used her main guns as monster AA guns.
@@ronaldleekuehne1676 I suspect it was a bit too much creative or wishful thinking.
@@TTTT-oc4eb desperation comes to mind
The U.S. Navy had a 16" .50 cal. AA shell for the Iowa class as well. They just never had the need to use it.
That’s in USD right!??? Hard here in Australia if so…
That being said, we know that one well placed shot can change the course of history. So perhaps it a good thing that Bismark was gone before New Jersey came along.
haw
Yes, battleship engagements can snowball either way pretty fast.
I’m waiting for an armor comparison.
Does building models relevant to the "NJ time period" count as work hours for a curator? 😂🤣
Bismark AAA could not track shoot down those antiquated fairy swordfish that spelled her doom that was repeated many times in ww2 on all sides
I would like to know what the slew and elevation rates on the quad 37mm vs 40mm Bofors were.
Did 40mm aa guns have a cease fire limit. recoil was spring not hydraulic ?
What this really shows is how we learned from experience. I wonder how Bismarck would stack up against Arizona?
Ryan, I love most of your videos, but I really couldn't care less about these Lego-esque ship-model kits. I think the word you are searching for--as you try pitch, yaw, and slew--is "roll." The three axes of flight are pitch, yaw, and roll.
Interesting that Bismarck didn't carry 88s for air defence.
I have wondered about the same myself. Maybe they regarded the 105mm as a better DP gun as it also could be used against ships - it actually had better range than the US 5-inch. Anyway, for all parts the heavy AAA shot down relatively few planes compared to the light AAA.
The Germans did have a naval version of the 88mm (3.5"). It was superseded by the 105mm (4.1")
Bismarck’s AA was bad enough that Yamato’s AA during Ten-Go would actually be a significant improvement. The German 37mm was a SINGLE-SHOT weapon. At least the crappy Japanese 25mm was able to do rapid fire.
If Bismarck had survived until 1944-45, she would have had fully automatic 37mm guns and 78 x 20mm guns, the latter outranging the US 20mm Oerlikon guns by a considerable margin.
Too bad you couldn't use the 16" guns as giant shotguns. 1000 lbs of 2" pellets would be devastating. The range of the shot would be poor though.
Would be interesting if you compared; New Jersey A.A. to say the 1944/45 British King George V.
Stephen
They would be very similar as the nations shared technology. By the late war they had very similar director systems and both used the same 40mm & 20mm guns in similar numbers. The main difference was the 5.25" vs. the 5"/38s. The KGV had 8 x 5.25s per side vs. 10 x 5" for the Iowas. The 5.25 had longer range and a heavier shell but a slower rate of fire and their guns couldn't train or elevate as fast.
@@timothyschmidt9566 When you think Princes of Wales & Repulse both sunk by aircraft 1942. A.A. was meant for European War. One would think that K.G.V would have learnt from that action & increased A.A. capable.
Stephen
OK, what about Modern "Exocete" & Cruise Sub-sonic missiles ?
Exocets are 50 years old.
They're not going to do anything more than a battleship shell is going to do.
i hope we see something similar with New Jersey and IJN Yamato, a comparision between their main guns and AA
Like number 610 lol. great video
The only thing that Bismarck doesn’t have is the fire control radar system that will allow Iowa class ships like New Jersey to fight at night without much need of flairs. Refer to the battle of Surigao Straights.
crappy slit secondary, poor armor, no RPC, weak main guns...
Not exactly true. Iowas contemporary, the Tirpitz, was regulary updated with the newest radars and was roughly on par with american ships in that time period.
@@phil3114: …and the Tirpitz spent a good deal of time during the war hiding in a Norwegian fjord. The war only ship to sortie against a convoy was the Scharnhorst, and she was sent to the bottom of the Artic sea by a task force lead by Duke of York. Bismarck did not have any of the upgrades that Tirpitz received before being sent to the bottom.
@@robertelder164: Which ship are you describing?
@@jameshanlon5689 yes. What has that to do with the technical aspects of my comment? I did not enter a debate about nationalistic chest thumping here
Washington vs. Bismarck Am. "Ching" Lee in command.
"Ching" Lee makes all the different there.
A 15” in an AA role? Yea, that’s gonna leave a mark.
Kriegaboo xD
It takes nothing away from the BISMARCK to accurately note the IOWAs were significantly more advanced across all major attributes: Powerplant, fire control, radar, endurance, speed, armament.
The mission environment profile was different, 3-4 years in between them during war is nothing short of a generation, yet the main battery is basically on par and Bismarck, in contrast to all Iowas, actually was tested in battleship combat. Whereas Iowas never got to prove their worth in their primary point of existence. One could say they are paper tigers... 😉
Yes, Bismarck failed. But how many hours and some 400 hits it took to sink her... quite good for a ship that is supposed to be a utterly flawed design according to sone hateboys. 😅
Protection
@@Ganiscol The main battery of the Iowa was WAY more effective. On par my ass, what-1200 lb heavier? Paper tigers? Bull shit.
@@robertelder164 actually no, if you were to look at another Video from this channel, you would know that Bismarck's mains were actually on par with Iowa, despite being older.
@@Ganiscol Actually, Iowa's armor protection was tested - by South Dakota! And to put it mildly - it did not impress. Iowa had basically the same armor protection as South Dakota, which was was shot up by a bunch of Japanese cruisers and destroyers at Guadalcanal. If USS Washington had not been there, South Dakota would very likely had suffered the fate Kirishima eventually did. If anything, Iowa's protection was worse than South Dakota, as she was much longer and thus had much more "nothing". As impressive as the Iowas were, their armor protection was nothing to brag about.
Only the usa got AA.
Luckily with British designed proximity fuses.
If you hit an airplane with a solid 100-pound 5.9-inch shell it will destroy the lane even if the shell does not explode.
Yes but hitting it is the problem
@@Eric-kn4yn Hitting is always a problem. But since they had a good fuse to use on the 88 mm that use could probably be used on these rounds.
Can't wait for later...
My Revell and Monogram and other kits from the late 50s and early 60s were realistic. This one is not. What the heck happened to model manufacturers? Sniff too much glue?
These aren't meant to be ultra realistic models, they're brick built models that are fun to build and resemble the ship.
Lots of details there.