USS Massachusetts BB-59 vs Bismarck

[shadow01]

Here is a question I have long pondered but have to admit my choice is tainted by hometown, (State) bias, who would win in a one on one encounter "Big Mamie" or the Bismark?

[Tiornu]

Given an equal level of readiness, there's no reason why Mamie shouldn't be favored over Bismarck. Broadside weight, 24,300 lbs vs 14,109 lbs. Yikes.

[USSWisconsin]

I would favor the Big Mamie, with her big 2700# shells, and radar fire control, but thats not to say it couldn't go the other way.

[Dreadnought]

Penetrating ability and steel on target would favor the Mass. Indirect fire control (from over the horizion) and not seen would also favor the Mass. Bismark was pretty accurate though and could run, Mass (27k) wasnt as fast as Bismark (30.2k). If the contest went based upon armor, armament and FCR then I would choose Mass. If it was based upon speed or some other non forseen incident (night engagement/storms/squaw) then I would give 50/50. Bismark was older and faster but lacked the FC systems that Mass had by 1942 when in commision. If you notice, the Brits (KGV, Rodney etc.) although in the area didnt even approach Bismark until the following morning to ensure accurate shooting.

Jean Barts armor:
Armor: 13.6 inch belt, 5.9-6.7 inch deck, 16.9 inch (max) turrets, 13.8 inch CT.

Bismarks armor:
Armour: Belt: 145–320 millimetres (5.7–12.6 in)
Deck: 110–120 millimetres (4.3–4.7 in)
Bulkheads: 220 millimetres (8.7 in)
Turrets: 130–360 millimetres (5.1–14 in)
Barbettes: 342 millimetres (13.5 in)
Conning tower: 360 millimetres (14 in)

*(Bismarks armor needs to be verified)

*If these numbers are correct, then Mass shouldnt have any problems whatsoever in penetrating her decks, vitals and magazines as she did with the Jean Bart.

IMO, FC and skill will tell the tale above all else. Clash of the dinosaurs.

[Tiornu]

The salient fact of Bismarck's armor is this: bizarre as it may seem, the turrets are penetrable by ANY modern battleship gun at ANY range. By comparison, Mamie's turrets have an "Immune Zone" from Bismarck's guns of approximately 16,000-36,000 yards. Your numbers look generally right, though I think the conning tower is a bit overstated (340mm?). However, Bismarck's armor scheme was more complex than that in most of her contemporaries, as she had an upper belt and an upper armor deck as well.

[RustyBattleship]

I would also question the accuracy of Bismarck's main batteries. Yes, she did get a couple of hits on the Hood but missed Prince of Wales entirely. Also firing command from the bridge was awful. The after turrets were ordered not to fire on the Hood but keep tracking the two British Cruisers that originally spotted her in the fog.

Also, before meeting the Hood, Bismarck opened fire on the cruisers a few hours before. Visibility was only about 3 miles. And all shots were total misses. Additionally, those shots knocked out Bismarck's RADAR and had only the Prinz Eugen's RADAR for navigational guidance only.

Then after separating from Prinz Eugen (a horribly stupid thing to do) the American Coast Guard Ship, USS Modoc, was within visual range to witness the first aerial torpedo attack. Without the extra AA guns of Prinz Eugen, Bismarck attempted to fire her main guns into the water hoping the spray would knock out the fragile bi-wing Swordfish torpedo planes. Britain later admitted that one plane was taken out that way but earlier denied any were lost.

Then in Bismarck's final battle with the entire British fleet, I don't recall reading anything where it hit any British ships at all.

So, based upon that hind sight, the Bismarck would have been dead meat for any sole South Dakota class, North Carolina class or Iowa class Battleship. Bismarck was very well armored and the only appreciable torpedo damage was a lucky hit to the rudders in the first aerial engagement. Otherwise, it couldn't Erschießung für Scheiße.

[Tiornu]

Bismarck scored no hits in her final fight. She landed a salvo close enough to Rodney that it damaged a submerged torpedo hatch, but that was it. Part of the problem was that one of the first hits Bismarck suffered landed right on the forward director. Control switched to the secondary station, which then landed a straddle just before it too took a direct hit. I still do not understand what was going on with Bismarck's gunnery at that time. Rodney fired more than a dozen salvos before straddling, and I'm not sure Bismarck had even opened fire by then. Very strange. Bismarck did score perhaps a couple hits on Hood and at least three on PoW.

[Gun Boat]

To much hindsight with regard to RFC.

The doctrines of the time did not call for standing off and utilising the RFC to bombard the target. The ranges would have been closed to where optics could be utilised. (Was it 26000 yards for USN???)

The way RFC is regarded today anybody new to the subject would think that no hits could be scored without RFC. That is nonsense and hits could be made from great distances without RFC.

RFC was an advantage but in no way the trump card it is made out to be today. A clash between the Bismarck and Mamie would see both ships left in tatters barring any 'lucky' hits.

The Bismarck had the poo poo slogged out of him and is still in one piece after he's voyage through the abyss to the bottom of the ocean. To still be in one piece after what she went through credit must be given to the robustness of the hull.

Probably the Mamie would win due to her shell weight and armor scheme but I don't think you would get much for her on trade in after the battle!

[Tiornu]

Radar covers a broad scope of differing capabilities. It was initially nothing but a rangefinder, and knowing the range doesn't do you any good unless you also know the proper bearing of the target. It wasn't until late-1943 or 1944 that a blind-fire radar was available. The Battle of Surigao Strait is the best illustration of this radar variance; three US battleships laid down highly accurate fire, and three couldn't really see the target.
The condition of Bismarck's hull has a lot to do with the nature of gunfire she incurred. The main belt received only three or four heavy shell hits. The vast majority of hits occurred in the superstructure, which was turned into charred metal origami.

[connaye]

The accounts from a recent History Channel show recited that the superstructure was glowing red towards the end of the battle. That seems to be quite a few BTU's to heat up Krupp steel.

[Dreadnought]

Radar covers a broad scope of differing capabilities. It was initially nothing but a rangefinder, and knowing the range doesn't do you any good unless you also know the proper bearing of the target. It wasn't until late-1943 or 1944 that a blind-fire radar was available. The Battle of Surigao Strait is the best illustration of this radar variance; three US battleships laid down highly accurate fire, and three couldn't really see the target.
The condition of Bismarck's hull has a lot to do with the nature of gunfire she incurred. The main belt received only three or four heavy shell hits. The vast majority of hits occurred in the superstructure, which was turned into charred metal origami.

*The USN had acquired "Blind fire capability" by late 1942. The Mk. 33 director could use coincidence from either the US Navy FC ( Later Mk. 3 Fire Direction radar) which was mounted atop the forward main battery director onboard US ships. The Mk 33 director took is source information from either optical range finders or the Mk.3 FC. The Battle of Cape Esperance marked its debut. The cruiser Helena caught the Japanese ships in the slot completely by surprise.

The Salt Lake City, Boise, and Farenholt quickly added their fire to that of the Helena, and shortly thereafter the U.S. fleet crossed the Japanese "T" (sailed ahead of the Japanese column and at right angles to it) so that a majority of the American guns could bear on each Japanese ships as it came forward. The Japanese destroyer Fubuki sank almost at once,the cruiser Furutaka took such a mauling that she limped away to sink later, and the Aoba caught fire. The only sound survivors, cruiser Kinugasa and destroyer Hatsuyuki, withdrew. On the American side, the Boise, Salt Lake City, Farenholt, and Duncan suffered damage, and the Duncan sank the following day.

*Not exactly a victory, but live to fight another day. You would be surprised at how many innovations were made in radar operations while technology had not yet caught up with the present in late 1942. The following years are even more impressive as far as FC would go and SG & SK bands.

[Dreadnought]

The condition of Bismarck's hull has a lot to do with the nature of gunfire she incurred. The main belt received only three or four heavy shell hits. The vast majority of hits occurred in the superstructure, which was turned into charred metal origami.

*Including the 16" hits in the deck/barbette area from Rodney that racked the turret training mechanisms altogether. For a ship heading to US yards for refit and being recalled while underway she did pretty dam good for the old lady that she was. Between gunning down Bismark and the Normandy landings support what more could you ask of such a aged battlewagon.

[Tiornu]

Mk 3 radar did not provide much in terms of blind fire. It was little more than a rangefinder. An expert operator could generate some bearing data, but not much of use for gunnery. At Guadalcanal, USS Washington (a crack gunnery ship) could fire only when in visual contact with the enemy. Her Mk 3 radar did prevent her needing to close to absurdly close range before opening fire on Kirishima.

[connaye]

"Most significantly, however, Washington soon engaged Kirishima in the first head-to-head confrontation of battleships in the Pacific War. In seven minutes, tracking by radar, the Washington fired 75 rounds of 16 in (410 mm) and 107 rounds of 5 in (130 mm) shells at ranges from 8,400 to 12,650 yd (7,700 to 11,600 m), scoring at least nine hits with her main 16 in (410 mm) battery, and about 40 with her 5 in (130 mm) guns, silencing the IJN battleship Kirishima in short order, and setting her on fire. Subsequently, Washington's 5 in (130 mm) batteries went to work firing on other targets spotted by her radar sets."

For the naval gunnery men who lurk on these boards, is a ratio of 9 hits out of 75 rounds fired considered "great" when using Radar ?

[Pacfanweb]

I thought I read a recent report on another board that concluded, based on surveys of Kirishima, that BB56 scored 20 or more 16" hits.