Bismark vs. Yamato

Chukpike said:
So, why did you start it in the first place?

Quote BritianAfrica;
"As funds were lacking for another overhaul, she was decommissioned, ending her days as an active duty naval ship; she would not sail again for 116 years."

It would have been a lot more enjoyable if you had gone to the official web sites in the first place, and learned about both ships.
Click to expand...

Then I suggest that you heed your own advice.
If you had learned about BOTH ships as you claimed, you would have seen:-
http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/history.htm

1997 July 21 - USS CONSTITUTION sailed under her own power, not under tow, for the first time in 116 years. This event was conducted just outside Boston Harbor captained by Commander Michael C. Beck. Six of the ship's sails were used.

http://www.hms-victory.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=4&id=23&Itemid=49
As Victory has been commissioned for over 200 years she has had many Commanding Officers and Flag Officers.

All ships have Commanding Officers, they are the captains and are responsible for that particular ship and its crew. Flag Officers are Admirals and are in charge of whole fleets of ships. They have a Flagship from where they command their fleet. HMS Victory is the flagship of the Second Sea Lord.

AND the list of Commanding officers right up to today Vice-Admiral Adrian Johns CBE
25th Oct 2005
14th July 2008
Vice-Admiral Alan Massey CBE ADC
15th July 2008


How many Flagships do you know that arent in commission?

At least you did conceed that HMS Victory IS in fact the oldest commissioned warhip in the world.

As for Constitution being the oldest warship afloat, I have never argued otherwise.

As for your "So, why did you start it in the first place?"

I didnt start anything, merely pointing out that Victory was the oldest commissioned ship, but who introduced Constitution into the thread in the beginning?

Oh by the way, If I may, I'd suggest that you contact all the website's who stated that the USS Constitution was decommissioned and recommissioned and tell them that they are incorrect, apart from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution, I've found more sites

Page 144 http://books.google.co.za/books?id=...X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA144,M1

http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/frigates/constitu.htm


Don't you just hate it when people get thing's wrong.
 
Last edited:
So what about that Bismarck then?

Nice ship, big pointy guns and all, and I hear the Yamato is pretty big as well.

Wonder how they would fair against each other?

I am going to back the Bismarck due to technological superiority, anyone else have an opinion?
 
MontyB said:
So what about that Bismarck then?

Nice ship, big pointy guns and all, and I hear the Yamato is pretty big as well.

Wonder how they would fair against each other?

I am going to back the Bismarck due to technological superiority, anyone else have an opinion?
Click to expand...

Monty

The Comparisons between BISMARK and YAMATO is similar to the naval battles between France and Great Britian in the 16th-18th centuries. There to you had a technology superior fleet (France) versus a vastly more experienced Navy (UK). However despite France's better ships (faster, more and bigger guns) they were almost consistly beaten by a navy with vastly superior experiance. The defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 was yet another example of experiance trumping technology.

Getting back to the current scenario, you have Bismark which would be at the cutting edge of technology, vs. Yamato is is crewed by experts in naval warfare. If history has shown us, is that expert seamanship is superior to a slight technology edge.


EDIT: Oh and can either the Original Poster or a Mod correct the spelling in the title, its spelled YAMATO, not Yammatto.

Mod Edit: Done
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mmarsh said:
Monty

The Comparisons between BISMARK and YAMATO is similar to the naval battles between France and Great Britian in the 16th-18th centuries. There to you had a technology superior fleet (France) versus a vastly more experienced Navy (UK). However despite France's better ships (faster, more and bigger guns) they were almost consistly beaten by a navy with vastly superior experiance. The defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 was yet another example of experiance trumping technology.

Getting back to the current scenario, you have Bismark which would be at the cutting edge of technology, vs. Yamato is is crewed by experts in naval warfare. If history has shown us, is that expert seamanship is superior to a slight technology edge.
Click to expand...

Both the Japanese and German navy showed they were both highly trained and good seamen. I think I'd have to go with the Bismark
 
It all depends if Yamamoto is on board. If it was just captain Captain Takayanagi vs
Ernst Lindemann captain of Bismark then Bismark wins hands down. If Yamamoto is on board and takes command then the Bismark would have a real fight on her hands.


I'm going for Yamato if Yamamoto is in command.

Bismark wins if Yamamoto is absent.
 
I am not sure I agree I still think the Yamato was a flawed design once damaged, it had poor damage control systems and suffered from narrow and maze like corridors below deck which would have made damage control an absolute nightmare.

I also have very little faith that the crew of Yamato were of the same standard as the Bismark as the Yamato was pretty much the party ship of the IJN for most of the war (even surviving crew members have spoken about how easy their life was sitting in port for 4 years).

I am convinced that this battle comes down to who hits first and I have little doubt that Bismark had the better fire control systems.
 
I was looking at a copy of the Yamato's blueprints and it appears that in a lot of areas you had to go down 2-3 decks to progress forward or backwards which I cant imagine would have been beneficial for fighting fires or combating damage.
 
BritinAfrica said:
Both the Japanese and German navy showed they were both highly trained and good seamen. I think I'd have to go with the Bismark
Click to expand...

Good Training is one thing, but the Japanese had much more large Fleet Combat Experience. The Germans gained some experience in WWI but their fleet was dismantled during the Armistice. Any lessons they had learned were lost because they were not able to practice it. They didn't start rebuilding a surface force in earnest until the Nazis took power.

While the Germans were bound by the Terms of Versailles, the Japanese however, had almost 20 years to improve their abilities. Remember the Japanese were number #1 in things like night-fighting and Torpedo attacks surpassing even the RN and USN. The Japanese had much more Combat Experienced fighting in both WWI and the Russo-Japanese War.

A quick comparison on paper.

Tonnage -65KT Yamato vs 41KT Bismark (both standard load) -Winner Yamato.

Firepower -Yamato had superior primary, secondary and Torpedoes Weaponry. Bismark had fewer guns and of smaller caliber. (AAA not counted)

Armor - Yamato gun, deck and belt armor was vastly superior. The Belt armor was 4x thicker than Bismark, the deck almost twice as thick.

Speed - Bismarks advantage, 30 knots vs Yamato 27 knots.

Range - Biskmark wins 8000km vs 7000kn

Aircraft Carried - Yamoto 7, Bismark 4. The Yamato also had an additional catapult.

As you see Yamoto is superior in every way except speed and range. Then again the fact that Bismark is only 3 knots faster for a ship significantly lighter is testamount of what a truly amazing design Yamato was.
 
Last edited:
I tend to think people have a somewhat over inflated opinion of the quality of the WW2 Japanese Navy, they were technologically inferior in terms of electronics (radar and fire control in particular) and apart from Pearl harbor which was a surprise attack they retreated from every battle they fought in the Pacific and at times to vastly inferior size and quality forces (Taffy 3 for example).

Regardless of how you look at it the IJN's surface fleet was a complete failure in all respects and other a strange desire to die for very little gain there is little to recommend them on so why should the Yamato be any different?
 
it's the bismarck for me though,
battles are won not only by armanents, and armour. although the bismarck is smaller, and outgunned by yamato, bismarck can outmanuever yamato by it's speed, and it's size which makes it an even more harder target thus turning it's weakness into it's advantage. also, germans had far more better leadership, and crews which were more trained. at that time, british has the most powerful fleet, folled by the americans, then i think germans and french, lastly, japanese and italians. germans had a strong navy because of it's u-boats. at ww2, japanese battleships performed badly, firstly at guadalcanal, then at the following engagements. bismarck also was more accurate as demonstrated at the battle of denmark straight. once the bismarck hit the deck of wooden yamato, a replay of the sinling of the hood might have happened. and also, the japanese always retreated even if they had the advantage(during ww2), example was taffy 3, which they failed to destroy even if yamato will have difficulty hitting them, her escorts would have done that(they're retreat contradicted their bushido). at kriegsmarine, even outnumbered, they would have fought to the last shell IF cornered(example was scarnhorst)
 
Last edited:
Between just the Yamato and the Bismarck, while the Yamato is superior in weaponry, I think the crew of the Bismarck would certain throw in a few good punches.
But I'd say no way to either if compared to the USS Missouri or USS Iowa.
 
Yamamoto without a doubt, it was twice as heavy as an Iowa battleship! Took a whole fleet of planes to sink the darn thing and even that took clever use of torpedoes!
 
I seriously find it hard to understand how people can pick the Yamato, you only have to look at its blueprints to see how much of a problem that ship was going to be for its crew in action, damage control would have been a nightmare given that in some areas to move from one room to another you had to go down 2 floors and then back up again.

It was a big ship thus a big target with a poorly trained crew that had never seen action and had barely even left port during the war (read testimonials from surviving crewman it was the ceremonial ship for the IJN), it had the same substandard fire control that all Japanese ships had and had a poor layout that would have made damage contril impossible against a smaller, faster, more maneuverable ship with better fire and damage control as well enough firepower to sink the Yamato, the only negative I can find for the Bismark in ship to ship action was that her guns were low elevation and therfore could not generate plunging fire.

To me it is a no brainer, unless the Yamato got in a lucky hit at range the Bismark would be the winner.
 
I am bias. I like the Bismarck more. But in truth she was a updated WWI design, her 15" guns most likely would not pen the Yamato's armor and her armor belt and turret armor may not even slow down the 18" ap lobbed at her. But I am shure the
USS Montana would have crushed both!!!
 
Themaster1955 said:
I am bias. I like the Bismarck more. But in truth she was a updated WWI design, her 15" guns most likely would not pen the Yamato's armor and her armor belt and turret armor may not even slow down the 18" ap lobbed at her. But I am shure the
USS Montana would have crushed both!!!
Click to expand...
Are you serious. A ship that never existed!
USS Montana (BB-67), would have been the lead ship of the Montana-class battleship however, the entire class was canceled in 1943.
 
Bigger guns means little. Accuracy and rate of fire means a lot. As does the ship's manuverability and speed. Yeah, maybe the Yamamato was twice as heavy, but I think that only means it can sink twice as fast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top