Bismarck vs Yamato, or, precision gunnery.

[Svartalf]

Okay, the basic of this thread is ludicrous : in a 1 to 1 naval battle between the Bismarck and the Yamato, who would have won...
Please chip in on that if you will, it's there for that, but I also have other questions.
People on another forum have mentioned that Bismarrck had superior mobility, but the Yamato had longer gun range, and better armor.

Then people mentioned that Yamato's armor stopped at the waterline, and that the weakening of armor under that point was a common enough feature of battleships of the time that trying to hit the enemy below the waterline was a standard part of Yamato's tactics.

This is where I call on military experts here... given a moving target and the precision required to get a hit at a precise height, especially since entering the water would wreak hell with the shell's ballistics, just how likely is it that a battleship could have deliberately hit a target below said waterline? Would that be even feasible?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, the basic of this thread is ludicrous : in a 1 to 1 naval battle between the Bismarck and the Yamato, who would have won...
Please chip in on that if you will, it's there for that, but I also have other questions.
People on another forum have mentioned that Bismarrck had superior mobility, but the Yamato had longer gun range, and better armor.

Then people mentioned that Yamato's armor stopped at the waterline, and that the weakening of armor under that point was a common enough feature of battleships of the time that trying to hit the enemy below the waterline was a standard part of Yamato's tactics.

This is where I call on military experts here... given a moving target and the precision required to get a hit at a precise height, especially since entering the water would wreak hell with the shell's ballistics, just how likely is it that a battleship could have deliberately hit a target below said waterline? Would that be even feasible?

"Hit 'em between wind and water" dates back to the sail navies. As for making a hit where the shell lands x feet from the hull at y angle so as get below the armor, all you have to do is fire enough rounds and eventually one would do that, probably. However, the Bismarck was done in by shells hitting her above the water line, the reason Sheffield had to go in and torp up.

Duels between the two, all else being equal, the Yamato would have squashed Bismarck like a bug. The German was just a WWI design with a few modifications and extra armor.

[Svartalf]

That's part of the argument on that other forum... shame Bismarck had no torpedoes, or its odds would be drastically improved.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's part of the argument on that other forum...

Heavy gun ships tended to try and keep a range that allowed for this type of shot. Yamato would be less in need of that "happy shot" because of the weight of metal she could put on target. A single broadside from her, if all nine rounds landed, would have finished the German. In a hot exchange, not a stern chase like "Taffy 2", she would have landed at least that many.

shame Bismarck had no torpedoes, or its odds would be drastically improved.

Not really, as the RN BBs were well away from the Bismarck. She wouldn't have been a position to launch much of a torpedo attack at all.

[klr]

That's part of the argument on that other forum...

Heavy gun ships tended to try and keep a range that allowed for this type of shot. Yamato would be less in need of that "happy shot" because of the weight of metal she could put on target. A single broadside from her, if all nine rounds landed, would have finished the German. In a hot exchange, not a stern chase like "Taffy 2", she would have landed at least that many.

shame Bismarck had no torpedoes, or its odds would be drastically improved.

Not really, as the RN BBs were well away from the Bismarck. She wouldn't have been a position to launch much of a torpedo attack at all.

One torpedo from Rodney may have hit Bismarck, which would make it the only time ever (Dreadnought era) that one battleship hit another with a torpedo. The exception that proves the rule, because the ships had closed in to a couple of miles, which was very rare for engagements between capital ships.

Yamato and Musashi had deficient hull armour around the bow, which American aircraft targeted during the sinking of both ships. But it's one thing for swarms of aircraft (or submarines, destroyers or torpedo boats) to do that, another thing altogether for an opposing battleship.

Bismarck and Tirpitz had (reputedly) weak protection around the steering gear, which would help explain the effect of the aerial torpedo hit near the stern by the Royal Navy Swordfish. But the Japanese ships had no torpedoes either, and even if they had, they'd have been as little use as torpedoes on the German ships.

Fire control and gunnery proficiency is indeed much more important. Usually, only a very small fraction of shells hit their target in naval gunnery duels of the time. Who got ranged in first could make a huge difference, as could hits on vital but poorly protected/exposed areas, like radar installations, fire control stations, etc*. Japanese radar was not as good as German radar, which was in turn lagged well behind British/American radar. On the other hand, the Japanese might have had the edge in a night gunnery duel, if they'd retained enough experienced crew from the early war days.

*Just consider the disparity between the Bismarck's first engagement with Royal Navy capital ships, and the last one.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Kev, the RN had it all over the USN at that point when it came to radar-controlled gunnery. We had went so far as to recall an Eagle Squadron commander to help us with gunnery radar. He was on loan to the Army at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th, helping them get their Fighter Information Center up to speed.

[Seabass]

Yamato, baby. No contest.

[klr]

Yamato, baby. No contest.

Back on the their carriers after sinking her, some US pilots sang "Yamato been a beautiful BB, but BB, look at you now!"

.. "BB" being the US Navy for designation for any battleship.

Another thing: There were relatively few battleship v. battleship encounters that actually resulted in sinkings. Even with 44 dreadnoughts at Jutland in 1916, none were sunk. The major losses were the battle-cruisers, which on the British side suffered from very serious armour deficiencies. The same flaw did for the Hood (another battle-cruiser) against the Bismarck. Apart from Bismarck herself (which her crew scuttled after she was reduced to a floating wreck), Kirishima at Guadalcanal (also scuttled) and Yamashiro at Surigao Strait, I can't think of any other battleships sunk by equivalent ships, at least in WW II. Of those three, Bismarck was first crippled by aircraft, and Yamashiro was opposed by a massively superior force of US battleships plus cruisers and other ships.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

...and Yamashiro was opposed by a massively superior force of US battleships plus cruisers and other ships.

..and in an impossible tactical situation.

[klr]

...and Yamashiro was opposed by a massively superior force of US battleships plus cruisers and other ships.

..and in an impossible tactical situation.

Such dishonorable and defeatist language would never be found in any IJN manual.

[Svartalf]

So it committed the navy equivalent of a banzai charge?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So it committed the navy equivalent of a banzai charge?

Heard of "crossing the T"? There were some very hostile old battleships at the end of the Suriago Strait.

[klr]

So it committed the navy equivalent of a banzai charge?

That's the term I was first going to use in my reply, so the answer is "Yes !!!!!"

In the case of the Yamato it was officially a one-way mission. She was supposed to beach herself on Okinawa and give fire support to the defending Japanese. Crazy, crazy Japs ...

So it committed the navy equivalent of a banzai charge?

Heard of "crossing the T"? There were some very hostile old battleships at the end of the Suriago Strait.

... but with excellent radar, which was also key in the sinking of the Kirishima.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

... but with excellent radar, which was also key in the sinking of the Kirishima.

Hostile and dangerous.

[Svartalf]

So it committed the navy equivalent of a banzai charge?

Heard of "crossing the T"? There were some very hostile old battleships at the end of the Suriago Strait.

I hadn't, but I learn.