Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Why Was The Bismarck The Most Feared Ship Of WW2? | History Hit | War Stories" video.

  1. Bismarck was dealt with on her first operation, without sinking, or even seeing, a single allied merchantman. Titpitz fired her main armament in anger once, when destroying a large shed at Spitzbergen. Other than that, she was kept safely out of harm's way at the end of a Norwegian fjord. A nuisance and a potential threat to Arctic convoys as a Fleet in Being, but a 'nightmare?' Please don't be silly.
    6
  2. You think that an outmoded design like the Bismarck class represented 'quality.' Think again.
    5
  3. What? The British actually had the temerity to sink an enemy battleship in wartime? One which had been sent out to attack convoys of merchant ships? Disgraceful!
    4
  4. The difference being that Medina Sidonia's Armada was trying to meet the Duke of Parma's army and ferry it as an invasion force to England, whereas Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst, & Gneisenau were running for German Home Waters to get away from the firing line after Raeder had given up the idea of operating German heavy ships in the Atlantic.
    4
  5. You mean the wonderful radar which failed when the guns fired? Oh well. Each to his own! Actually, the Nelsons and the KGVs had superior armour, laid out to a design a generation ahead of that of the Bismarck class, as well as heavier weights of broadside. Bismarck did have the advantage of speed, six knots ahead of the Nelsons and 1-2 knots ahead of the KGVs. This was because the British had kept to the terms of the between the wars naval treaties as, had the US with the North Carolinas, and gave her the chance to avoid action. Once that was lost, so was the ship. Still, enjoy your opinions, even though they are not grounded in facts.
    4
  6. It didn't. Four British ships were involved in the final action. Moreover, isn't Force Concentration the whole reason that you have a large fleet?
    3
  7. In certain circumstances, it probably was. But in the kind of conditions for which the Royal Navy was intended, basically commerce protection and operations within range of shore based aircraft, certainly not. The Japanese were poorly equipped to protect supply ships (look at what the US Pacific Fleet's submarines did to them), and the life expectancy of a Japanese carrier in the Mediterranean could probably have been measured in days.
    3
  8. Then you would have had to wait until early 1942 when Tirpitz was declared operational, and the presence of U-boats would have hamstrung the operations of any German surface ship.
    3
  9.  @DidMyGrandfatherMakeThis  Of course the longest range hit by one battleship on another was exceptional. That is why it was the longest. On 27 May, 1941, Rodney opened fire on Bismarck at 25,000 yards, and scored her first hit at around 20,500 yards. King George V, using her Type 284, opened fire at 25,500 yards and, similarly, achieved her first hit at 20,500 yards. Bismarck's first hit on Hood was at 18,200 yards. Her superb optical rangefinders were unable to bring about any hits on either British battleship on 27 May. At North Cape, Duke of York detected Scharnhorst at 45,000 yards, but held fire until 12,000 yards, as Scharnhorst remained entirely unaware of her presence. When DoY did open fire, she hit with her first salvo. Starshells from HMS Belfast revealed that Scharnhorst's main armament was still in fore and aft position when she was hit. Certainly, the RN had the advantage of gunnery radar which actually worked, but Rodney's performance demonstrated that, even without it, British battleships were more than capable of engaging successfully at longer ranges.
    3
  10. Bismarck's career at sea lasted about a week, and she failed on the only mission given her.
    3
  11.  @nightruler666  You have a Pacific centred view of naval warfare in WW2. In the west, carriers were a part of the battlefleet, not the heart of it. Moreover, weather conditions in the Arctic & Atlantic often restricted carrier operations.
    3
  12. Please don't be silly. Bismarck carried 12 x five point nine inch low angle guns, which were outdated by 1940 and never actually managed to hit anything. The British Nelson class , built ten years earlier, carried 12 x 6 inch LA guns, and the King George V class 16 x 5'25 DP. Modern US battleships carried 20 x 5 inch DPs. Perhaps if Bismarck had had a DP secondary armament, she might not have been quite so unprepared to cope with attacks by torpedo bombers? The main guns in Bismarck were so powerful that they fired a broadside of 14,112 lbs., compared to the 15,900 of the KGVs, the 18,432 of a Nelson, or the 24,300 of a Washington, Iowa, or South Dakota. Or, come to that, the 18,000 lbs of a Tennessee, or the 15,504 lbs of a Queen Elizabet or R class.. Do you consider that having radar which failed when the guns fired was really beneficial? The radars of US & British capital ships generally had no such limitations.
    3
  13. When was Britain 'still being overrun by Germany?' The facts are, put simply, these. Bismarck was successful against a 20 years old fast battleship, but was damaged by a semi-operational battleship in the action. Her admiral then abandoned his mission, and made for St. Nazaire for repairs. On the way, Bismarck's AA guns proved totally ineffective, she was crippled as a result, then swiftly destroyed by a 15 years old battleship supported by a new one. How many merchantmen, the targets of her mission, did she sink? Slightly less than one.
    3
  14.  @flowerspires  But her 'fearful' enemies sank her in about a week.
    3
  15.  @warp9p659  Perhaps you mean that Bismarck had been lucky only to have received the level of aerial torpedo damage that she did, crippling though it was? Bismarck was fast, which meant that, undamaged, she could seek to avoid action, but her armour was both laid out to an outdated design, and weaker than that of either ther Nelsons or the KGVs. Her broadside was lighter than that of the KGVs, and much lighter than that of the Nelsons.
    3
  16. Hood was not a traditional battlecruiser. Her armour was on a par with that of contemporary battleships. She was the first real Fast Battleship.
    3
  17.  @morganhale3434  RN carriers were designed with survivability in mind. They were expected to operate within range of land based bombers in areas such as the Mediterranean, not to fight fleet actions in the Pacific. Of course the US Carriers hunted down the Japanese navy's fast carriers. Just as the RN Carriers successfully protected the Arctic convoy route, and played an important role in winning the naval war in the Mediterranean.
    2
  18. Except that Operation Barbarossa changed the face of the war beyond recognition. Actually, the idea that Britain was 'hanging on' is rather overdone. In May 1941, the RAF had over 50 squadrons of fighters and fighter bombers carrying out regular sweeps over Northern France, and the level of monthly sinkings, which Doenitz believed needed to reach 600,000 tons per month, only once exceeded 200,000 tons between July & December, 1941 once, and in three of those months was below 100,000 tons.
    2
  19. 'The Most Feared' depends on the context. To your average U-Boat commander, a capital ship would be more of an opportunity than something to fear. However, a Black Swan class sloop with someone called Walker on the bridge would be a different matter.
    2
  20. You must be American. It has become fascinating how strident some less well informed Americans have become since the US was defeated by a gang of medieval thugs in Afghanistan. A reaction based on loss of self-confidence perhaps? Bismarck sailed from Norway on 22 May, and reached the Atlantic sea bed on the morning of 27 May. It took the Home Fleet five days to corner and deal with her.
    2
  21. Equally, you might ask Bismarck's survivors how feared their ship was.
    2
  22. It is called Force Concentration. In other words, if you have the resources, you use them. As demonstrated by the US Navy subsequently at Leyte Gulf.
    2
  23.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  It's a long time since 'A' level English Lit. I much preferred 'Julius Caesar.' Still, the set text was 'Pride & Prejudice' by Jane Austen. To use another quote, from Joseph Conrad in 'Heart of Darkness,' 'The Horror!. THe Horror!' Especially since the book for the following year was 'The Ship' by C. S. Forester.
    2
  24. Small problem here. In May, 1941, the South Dakotas weren't yet built. The North Carolinas were still working up, but not yet operational. Oh, and the United States was still neutral.
    2
  25. In terms of firepower and armour, probably the Nelsons, although a case can be made for the Colorados, which were slightly slower, had thicker belts, but thinner decks, than the Nelsons. By mid 1941, the KGVs were appearing, although teething troubles had not been resolved. The Littorios were also probably superior.
    2
  26. You mean Bismarck, the ship that was sunk on her first and only operational mission? The ship that failed to achieve her mission objective?
    2
  27.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  Having just been involved in a 'discussion' with one of these odd people in which I was the fortunate recipient of over 100 posts, perhaps I should keep my head down for a while? However, I won't!
    2
  28. You must be one of those Americans who missed attending school. Stop pretending that your country came to anyone's rescue, when it was actually dragged reluctantly into WW2 by Japan and Germany. WW1, of course, was different. You finally arrived after the Central Powers had been driven to the verge of collapse by the British Empire & France. Germany was already on the brink of starvation and revolution as a result of the Royal Navy's blockade, the German Spring Offensive had been defeated, and the British Empire/France were about to embark on their successful Hundred Days Offensive. There are things called books which could tell you the facts about 1914 and 1939. Assuming that you can read, that is?
    2
  29. 'Her final battle?' You mean the one when she failed to score a single hit? 'Her unmatched power?' When, of course, a Rodney or a KGV wasn't around.
    2
  30.  @SchwarzerWolf1000  Hood was 20 years old. Prince of Wales was not worked up, more or less sreaight from the builders. Compare Bismarck to HMS Rodney, which was 15 years old in 1941. Bismarck had weaker armour of an outmoded design. She also had a weaker weight of briadside. Specifically :- Bismarck belt armour 12.6 inches. Deck armour 4.7 inches. Broadside 14112 lbs. Rodney belt armour 14 inches. Deck armour 6.25 inches. Broadside 18432 lbs. King George V belt armour 14 inches. Deck armour 6 inches. Broadside 15900 lbs. This was (under)achieved on a displacement 15,000 tons greater that that of Rodney, and 10,000 tons greater than that of King George V. Bismarck had around 7 knots advantage in speed over Rodney, and, arguably, 0.5 - 1 knot above that of a KGV. Her only advantage was the ability to avoid battle. Bismarck was fortunate that PoW was little more than semi-operational, although PoW's hits did force Bismarck's mission to be abandoned, of course. You asked for comparisons. Now you have them.
    2
  31. No. The scariest battleship ever built was 'armoured frigate' HMS Warrior of 1861, together with her sister, HMS Black Prince. As the commander of the RN Channel Fleet was said to have remarked when first setting eyes on her when she joined his command, 'Good God! Look at that Black Snake.'
    2
  32. As Bismarck was never ' the most feared ship ' your comment is both incorrect and infantile, little chap.
    2
  33. Except that 'The British' at Jutland did nothing of the sort. No battleship in the Grand Fleet behaved in such a manner. Agreed, the battlecruiser fleet, influenced by David Beatty, did, but after Jutland the practice was immediately discontinued. There is, by the way, precisely NO evidence to suggest that that was the reason for Hood's loss in any case.
    2
  34.  @xenaguy01  Whether she was a battleship or a battlecruiser (and actually her armour was on a par with that of the Queen Elizabeth Class battleships) how is that relevant? You should view Drachinifel's examination of her sinking, in which he makes a good case for the fatal shell passing through her side, above her belt, and triggering off her four inch magazine, which in turn detonated her aft fifteen inch magazine. Moreover, the fact of her sinking does not prove that there were any shortcomings in cordite handling. Her last Captain, Ralph Kerr, had served at Jutland, and knew what such shortcuts, within the battlecruiser fleet, could cause. USS Arizona blew up in Pearl Harbor. Does that 'prove' that her codite handling was deficient? Of course not. So why do you think this applies to HMS Hood?
    2
  35.  @xenaguy01  Changes to cordite handling practices were instituted in the Battlecruiser Fleet within days of the Battle of Jutland. That is a simple fact,. There is nothing to prove. Simply read the RN's archives in Kew Gardens, where the National Archives' are kept. It is relevant, because you falsely claimed that the practice remained in use in battlecruisers. As no RN capital ship acted in such a manner after Jutland, how the ship was defined was totally irrelevant. Indeed, I did say that only battlecruisers followed the practice. AT JUTLAND, and not later. Didn't you read my comment in full? 'Therefore, I BELIEVE that Hood followed this procedure.' Isn't that the nub of the issue?' You simply want to believe it, even though you have no evidence to support that belief. It isn't up to me to prove something that didn't happen didn't happen. It is up to you to provide evidence that it did. But, of course, you can't.
    2
  36. You don't actually know much about the events of 1940, or the planning & preparation for Sealion, do you. I think Mr. Kronkite's post sums you up more than adequately.
    2
  37.  @toinewitteveen6907  Then don't believe what you have been told. Just read the books instead.
    2
  38. No, it isn't a fact. Bismarck was located by a Catalina, but never attacked by one, for obvious reasons.
    2
  39. Not quite the same, but the last US carrier to be lost in WW2 was USS Bismarck Sea (CVE 95) although she was named after the Battle.
    2
  40. You read wrongly. USS Iowa was only launched around 15 months after Bismarck's sinking.
    2
  41. Oh look! Another neo. I expect you are word perfect on the Horst Wessel song, little chap.
    2
  42. This would be the Tirpitz which was hidden at the end of a fjord, protected by batteries of AA guns, anti-submarine nets, smoke pots, and nearby airfields affording fighter protection, I suppose? The classic example of a Fleet in Being, almost as useless to ther German war effort as had been the High Seas Fleet after Jutland. The Tirpitz which fired her main armament in anger once, when shelling a large shed on Spitzbergen?
    2
  43. Andrew Choong is an historian at the National Maritime Museum. His comments are not dubbed at all.
    2
  44. Perhaps because many do not accept your 'facts?'
    2
  45. Good idea. The materials, time, & manpower needed would have meant starving the Luftwaffe & Army of resources. Hence, no Blitzkrieg in the west, and a German navy stuck in the Jade. Much like WW1 in fact.
    2
  46. Do you mean France, as the Bismarcks were built as a response to the Richelieus, not as a challenge to the Royal Navy? By the way, her operational career lasted three weeks.
    2
  47. Those WW1 era biplanes entered service with the Fleet Air Arm in the same year that the RAF received the Hawker Hurricane. Actually, in May, 1941, the sea state was so severe than a Swordfish was the only torpedo aircraft capable of getting off a carrier's deck.
    2
  48. Er, HMS Warspite. 13 Battle Honours in WW2, to add to her one from WW1.
    2
  49. 'The british were the only people who thought the bismarck and tirpitz were the scarriest ships.' No, the British didn't. The fact is that Bismarck, Scharnhorst, & Gneisenau were potential threats to the convoy system, and the Admiralty simply hoped to eliminate one or all of them. Seeking to defeat your enemy in wartime hardly suggests that you are 'scared' of him.
    2
  50. Because U-boats had a maximum surface speed of 16 knots, and trying to operate in conjuction with a surface fleet would have restricted the activities of both.
    2
  51. I wonder if you are aware of the average life expectancy of German surface ships at sea in WW2? That probably explains why, after mid 1941, they rarely risked it. Bismarck managed almost three weeks, I believe.
    2
  52.  @Doodle1266  Well, certainly your facts are confused. In the engagement in the Denmark Strait, Prinz Eugen was not damaged, but Bismarck was hit three times by Prince of Wales. On hit, forward, resulted in Bismarck losing access to her forward fuel tanks, and being down by the bows, reducing her speed. Although the trim of the ship was rectified, the loss of fuel was not, and Lutjens abandoned his operation at once, heading for St. Nazaire at reduced speed. He then detached Prinz Eugen to operate independently, but PE more or less immediately developed engine problems and made instead for Brest. On her way to St. Nazaire, torpedo damage to Bismarck's stern compartments crippled her steering and the rest is history. Prince of Wales didn't carry torpedoes, but Hood did, although they were not used. Certainly, an undamaged Bismarck did have the speed to avoid action in the case of the QEs and the Nelsons, but probably not the KGVs. By the way, the new Italian battleships of the Littorio class were actually faster, at 30 knots, than Bismarck's 29. That did not, of course, prevent the 'relics' of the QE class from engaging them on several occasions, and generally having the upper hand. I have already explained what 'modernisation' involved where those ships were concerned. If you cannot understand, the problem is yours not mine. In point of fact, Scharnhorst & Gneisenau actually fled from the unmodified and obsolete British R class battleships deployed on convoy escort duty on more than one occasion. By the way, the 'crappy' carrier aircraft actually sank a greater tonnage of axis shipping than any other allied type. 'She died because the commander was foolish went alone with no escort after the first engagement.' Nonsense, Had Prinz Eugen remained with Bismarck, she would almost certainly have met the same fate. Ever thought of buying a book about the Bismarck action, and reading it?
    2
  53.  @Doodle1266 You don't have a theory. You have a series of fantasies based on incorrect information, and your imagination. Bismarck was well equipped with AA batteries, which were rather badly directed. Hence her inability to hit any of the attacking aircraft from either Victorious or Ark Royal. German destroyers simply lacked the range for extended Atlantic operations. Unlike the Royal Navy they had no means of refuelling. Moreover, their AA weaponry was seriously inferior to that of Bismarck. The aircraft specially attacked Bismarck. Which is why they hit her, actually three times. Do you seriously suggest a destroyer or two could have driven off two heavy cruisers? Or heroically sacrificed herself to save the flagship? 'Assuming they could get to German waters where German air power could nullify the British aircraft carrier advantage.' A rather large assumption, given that the Royal Navy was determined to ensure that Bismarck never reached German (I assume you really mean 'Occupied French') waters. 'Bismarck would make it to Brest and be pounded by the British air force until France was liberated.' Aside from the fact that Bismarck was making for the Dry Dock at St. Nazaire, not for Brest, don't you know what happened to the German surface fleet at Brest? In early 1942, it fled back to German waters. Gneisenau never sailed again, whilst Scharnhorst's appeared in the Arctic once, to be sunk by Duke of York, and Prinz Eugen pottered around the Baltic, well away from the RN. The hits were not minor. They obliged Bismarck to abandon her mission. Simply as that. I wonder if your reading is restricted to comic books, as you seem remarkably ignorant of the events of Rheinubung.
    2
  54. Tirpitz was a 'Fleet in Being' and such a role is never either exciting or, arguably, interesting. She actually fired her main armament in anger once, at Spitzbergen, when destroying a large shed.
    2
  55. Unless you consider the fact that, for some 15-20 years, she had been generally regarded as one of the most powereful capital ships on earth?
    2
  56. Because she was still working up in the Baltic. She was not considered operational for another seven months.
    2
  57.  @QuantenRitter  I did write that Prince of Wales was not fully worked up, didn't I? Moreover, despite her limited operational state, she inflicted more damage on Bismarck than Bismarck did on her. She was able to re-engage later the same day, after Lutjens, as a result of Bismarck's damage, had abandoned his commerce-raiding mission and was already making for St. Nazaire. You might perhaps read a few books about Operation Rheinubung, before trying to comment upon it?
    2
  58. Then list her triumphs and achievements.
    2
  59. The Royal Navy made rather short work of Bismarck in 1941, if I recall correctly.
    2
  60.  @jobson586  'Anything else you got to say??' Actually yes. Apart from your evident inability to understand the difference between siege guns and naval weapons, Schwerer Gustav was not available for use until 1941. Furthermore, as it needed a crew of 250 or so to assemble it, and it took three days to do this, a further 2,500 men to lay the tracks for it, and two entire flak battalions to protect it, perhaps you might explain how it might possibly have the slightest relevance to naval warfare? You might wish to look up the following :- 40.6 cm/52 (16") SK C/34 As these were the 16 inch guns proposed for the projected 'H' class battleships, and a small number only appeared, as coast defence guns, in 1942. Such weapons were complex creations. Put in simple language, you cannot decide to build one on Monday and install it on Thursday. Evolution, in the case of SK C/34, took some eight years. As Bismarck was laid down in July, 1936, launched in February, 1939, and commissioned for working-up from late August, 1940, I hope that you can now grasp the problem?
    2
  61. Yamato. Absolutely no question.
    1
  62. I think the term which best applies is 'Clickbait.'
    1
  63. You must mean the outdated design, obsolete armour layout, AA guns incapable of hitting a cow's backside with a frying pan, and non-working radar? Worked wonderfully a few days later, didn't it.
    1
  64.  @TTTT-oc4eb  So, in your world, your mighty Bismarck did not have the obsolete incremental armour system, did not have largely useless 5.9 inch low angle secondary armament, did not have AA guns which failed to protect her from the attacks of Swordfish torpedo bombers, and her wondrous radar did not fail after she loosed a few 15 inch rounds at one of Wake-Walker's cruisers. Perhaps in your mind, she didn't sink at all?
    1
  65. No. In the Atlantic, the KGVs were as fast, better armed and armoured. The Nelsons were better armed and armoured. In May 1941, the US had no battleship anywhere near as fast, though the Colorados were better armed and armoured. This would, however, change once the Washingtons became operational, but after Bismarck's sinking.
    1
  66.  @TTTT-oc4eb  You are quite correct about the difference in armour between the KGVs and Bismarck. To comfirm this :- Belt Armour : KGV 14 inches. Bismarck 12.6 inches. Nelson 14 inches. Deck Armour: KGV 6 inches. Bismarck 4.7 inches. Nelson 6.25 inches. ( The KGVs had AoN armour, by the way. Bismarck still had the outmoded incremental system ). Weights of broadside : KGV 15,900 lbs. Nelson 18,432 lbs. Bismarck 14,112 lbs. Radar assisted fire control. The British system worked. The German one collapsed when the guns fired, as it did when Bismarck fired at a British cruiser. Optical Fire Control. German fire controls were accepted as being quicker to obtain targets, whereas British ones were better at maintaining a hold on the target. As Rodney was to demonstrate. Bismarck's optical controls failed totally on 27 May, 1941. Bismarck did have an edge of about 1 to 1.5 knots over a KGV, which would have enabled her to flee from an engagement, had her AA armament not been so inept at dealing with torpedo aircraft. When did the alleged inferior seakeeping qualities of the KGVs ever hinder their operations, by the way?
    1
  67.  @TTTT-oc4eb  Oh dear. The thing about you Wehraboos is that you are impervious to facts. If any of the figures concerning weights of broadside or armour thicknesses are inaccurate, you are going to write to a whole host of writers and publishers, I fear. Ok then. Bismarck's belt armour was wonderful. Totally impervious to anything. No wonder many other navys did not switch to AoN instead. Oh, wait a minute. They did. Her deck armour was equally impenetrable. The hit from PoW which left her down by the bows and unable to utilise her forward fuel tanks, forcing her to make for St. Nazaire at reduced speed, didn't really happen, did it? Her guns were wonderful. Even though we can never be sure as on 27 May she never, unlike Rodney, managed to hit anything. Despite her fantastic optical targeting equipment. Obviously, Rodney couldn't possible have knocked out most of her armament and her bridge in the first 20 minutes of the action. It was all propaganda spread by those British cads and bounders. Even today, many people are unaware that Rodney & KGV were both actually sunk. 'Multiple battleships got their radar knocked out by their own guns.' But surely not the invincible Bismarck and her wonder radar, after firing one or two salvoes at a cruiser? Indeed, KGV's 284 did fail as a result of parted solder. Guess what? She used her 279 instead. You have convinced me. Bismarck did not sink, but escaped to France, to live a long and happy life as a cruise liner. Happy now?
    1
  68.  @TTTT-oc4eb  'Why are you even spending so much time on this?' Because I can. After a First in Modern History, I enjoyed a long career in Logistics Management, and had a number of books and articles published about my specialist field, and main interest, that of 20th Century Naval History. The royalties from those, and a nice pension, enabled me to retire early. Since then, I have indulged myself in responding to you Wheraboos and Sealion 'Would haves' about the wonders of the German armed forces in WW2. I am sure you know what a 'would have' is? Those who pontificate about how the mighty Luftwaffe 'would have' destroyed the Royal Navy had Sealion been attempted, yet are unable to explain how less than capable the Luftwaffe actually was in hitting ships at all in 1940. You might believe that Bismarck's armour was made of Mithril, and totally impervious to enemy shells, but survivors, such as Mullenheim-Rechberg knew differently. I wonder if you are aware of his accounts of Bismarck losing internal communications early in her last battle, or of the accounts of her being a mass of internal fires by the time she sank? Or are they just British propaganda as well? Finally, you might account for Bismarck's total failure on her one and only mission. Sent to disrupt supply convoys, she lasted less than three weeks, and didn't even see one. Not what one would have expected of a wonder weapon, was it?
    1
  69. Yet it was. A small fire was started, which had nothing to do with Hood's sinking.
    1
  70. 'The Royal Navy was easily the 3rd most powerful navy in the world in 1939.' This would only be a correct statement were you to remove the '3rd' from it. Perhaps your knowledge of the naval war in the west, where carriers played a supporting but not pre-eminent role, is somewhat lacking?
    1
  71.  @OleLeik  I think you mean that the Bismarck, undamaged, had the speed to avoid action against better armed and armourred ships? Much like the manner in which Scharnhorst & Gneisenau acted during Operation Berlin when faced by convoys protected by unmodernised WW1 battleships, in fact. Bismarck was not built as a raider, by the way. The Bismarcks were built as responses to the French Richelieus, as part of the Franco-German naval race which began in the days of the Weimar Republic. She effectively lost her raison d'etre once the British declared war on Germany.
    1
  72. Feared by whom? In the North Atlantic, the ship most feared by the average U-Boat commander was the Black Swan class sloop, especially when part of a Support Group. Aircraft carriers in the war in the west were a part of a fleet, not the core of it.
    1
  73.  @OutnBacker  Submarines could be spotted if surfaced, or at a shallow depth, when sea conditions were calm, which was quite rare in the Atlantic. The role of aircraft was to force U-boats to submerge, where they were reduced from 17 knots to 4 knots, with limited duration, and then to guide surface escorts to the position. Later in the war, when the allies were able to set up specialist Support, rather than Escort, Groups, the arrival of such a group was extremely bad news for the average U-boat commander. Proof of this is in U-boat losses. Of 638 boats destroyed at sea ( i.e., 808 less those lost by mining, scuttling, accident, or bombing in port or in shipyards), 257.5 were sunk by RN or RCN warships, 48.5 by US warships, and 17 by allied warships. Indeed, the question referred to the whole of WW2. Wasn't the battle of the Atlantic equally a part of WW2? Arguably, a more important campaign, given that had the allies lost it, then D-Day would have been impossible.
    1
  74. You don't perhaps think that, had German U-boat production been ramped up in 1937 - 1939, then so might the British & Canadian production of Atlantic escorts? After all, such U-boats could only have been intended for use against one country, could they? It wasn't, by the way, the Soviet Union.
    1
  75. Bismarck tried to return to France after her encounter with Prince of Wales, but without success.
    1
  76. The action was over too quickly. When it began, they were around 31,000 yards away.
    1
  77.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  At the time Hood & PoW appeared, the most recent intelligence available to Lutjens was that the heavy units of the Home Fleet were still in Scapa Flow.
    1
  78. Hamlet, Act Four Scene 1. 'Mad as the sea and wind when both contend which is the mightier.'
    1
  79. You think that a WW2 battleship would have any use for torpedoes? Most were either built without them, or had had them removed. The only possible occasion when a battleship torpedo was used was when HMS Rodney might have hit Bismarck with one, after Bismarck had already been reduced to a helpless wallowing target.
    1
  80.  @stevetwede9901  Which were launched from a submarine, of course. Don't be a silly boy. Make a determined effort to concentrate, read my earlier post, and grasp the fact that I remarked simply that torpedoes were of no use aboard BATTLESHIPS in WW2, not that torpedoes per se were useless.
    1
  81.  @stevetwede9901  Quite. But you referred to Shinano, you half-wit. If you can demonstrate any occasion in WW2 when battleship-launched torpedoes played any significant role in a naval action, please do it. Rodney's possible hit on a sinking, crippled, wreck at the end of the Bismarck action does not apply, being simply an interesting historical footnote.
    1
  82.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  Perhaps he should rest his case, M'Lord?
    1
  83.  @stevetwede9901  Do you have problems in the understanding of simple concepts? The reference throughout was to the use of torpedoes by battleships. So far, you have pointed to Shinano (sunk by torpedoes from a submarine), Yamato (largely sunk by torpedoes from aircraft) and now Bismarck, crippled by aircraft torpedo, reduced to a wreck by naval gunfire, and then given the coup de grace by a cruiser. Either you are very young, very immature, or both.
    1
  84.  @stevetwede9901  Indeed, research would be a good Idea. You might try it. Dorsetshire fire two torpedoes at Bismarck's starboard side at around 1020, one of which hit, and one at her port side, which hit her submerged superstructure minutes before she capsized. By the way, Dorsetshire was not a battleship. What exactly is wrong with you?
    1
  85.  @stevetwede9901  Again, you poor fool. Suvorov was damaged by surface gunfire, and finished off by torpedoes from Japanese TORPEDO BOATS. Moreover, the last time I looked, 1905 was not during WW2. Rambling on vaguely by picking out irrelevancies from Google is simply cementing evidence of your stupidity. Cannot you get it into your head that the issue is not the usefulness of torpedoes, but their usefulness as a battleship weapon in WW2?
    1
  86.  @stevetwede9901  Sorry, little half wit, but wasn't your first claim 'Tirpitz was more dangerous than Bismark as it had torpedo tubes' if I remember correctly? What have your subsequent ramblings about how Bismarck was sunk to do with the issue? Perhaps you might ask a grown up to read my posts. He or she will tell you that, unlike you, I have kept strictly to the issue, which was the relevance or irrelevance of torpedoes on battleships. However, I will divert briefly on the subject, and refer you to two experts on the wreck :- Bob Ballard. When asked what sank the Bismarck, he replied 'The British.' David Mearns. Who said that any attempt to scuttle would have hastened the sinking by 'a matter of minutes, only.' Perhaps you can then explain how any of this is relevant to the issue of the use of torpedoes on battleships in WW2? Although I seriously doubt it.
    1
  87.  @stevetwede9901  Sorry, little half wit, but wasn't your first claim 'Tirpitz was more dangerous than Bismark as it had torpedo tubes' if I remember correctly? What have your subsequent ramblings about how Bismarck was sunk to do with the issue? Perhaps you might ask a grown up to read my posts. He or she will tell you that, unlike you, I have kept strictly to the issue, which was the relevance or irrelevance of torpedoes on battleships. However, I will divert briefly on the subject, and refer you to two experts on the wreck :- Bob Ballard. When asked what sank the Bismarck, he replied 'The British.' David Mearns. Who said that any attempt to scuttle would have hastened the sinking by 'a matter of minutes, only.' Perhaps you can then explain how any of this is relevant to the issue of the use of torpedoes on battleships in WW2? Although I seriously doubt it.
    1
  88.  @stevetwede9901  Sorry, little half wit, but wasn't your first claim 'Tirpitz was more dangerous than Bismark as it had torpedo tubes' if I remember correctly? What have your subsequent ramblings about how Bismarck was sunk to do with the issue? Perhaps you might ask a grown up to read my posts. He or she will tell you that, unlike you, I have kept strictly to the issue, which was the relevance or irrelevance of torpedoes on battleships. However, I will divert briefly on the subject, and refer you to two experts on the wreck :- Bob Ballard. When asked what sank the Bismarck, he replied 'The British.' David Mearns. Who said that any attempt to scuttle would have hastened the sinking by 'a matter of minutes, only.' Perhaps you can then explain how any of this is relevant to the issue of the use of torpedoes on battleships in WW2? Although I seriously doubt it. There you are. Three identical replies. Perhaps the combined effect might even sink into your limited understanding. Although again, I seriously doubt it.
    1
  89.  @stevetwede9901  'Rodney hit another Battleship with a Torpedo.' Yes, I know. In fact I told you that in an earlier post. I also, correctly, added that it happened at close range after Bismarck had been reduced to a helpless gunnery target by relentless naval gunfire. If a Battleship minus torpedoes is a stupid idea, then it was one shared by every naval officer and warship designer of the time. Consider this :- Washington class. Built 1937-1941. No Torpedoes. Iowa class. Built 1940 - 1944. No Torpedoes. South Dakota class. Built 1939 - 1942. No Torpedoes. King George V class. Built 1937 - 1940. No Torpedoes Yamato class. Built 1937 - 1942. No Torpedoes. Littorio class. Built 1934 - 1942. No Torpedoes. Dunkerque class. Built 1932 -1938. No Torpedoes. Or modernised WW1 battleships:- Queen Elizabeth class. As built. 4 Torpedo tubes. But :- Malaya Reconstructed 1934 -1936. Torpedoes removed. Warspite Reconstructed 1934 -7. Torpedoes removed. Queen Elizabeth Reconstructed 1937 - 1941. Torpedoes removed. Valiant Reconstructed 1937 - 1941. Torpedoes removed. So. Either I, and every British & American battleship designer after the late 1920s, exhibit signs of stupidity, or you do. Using you skill & judgement, if you have any, try to work out which is more likely.
    1
  90.  @stevetwede9901  Oh, and by the way :- Bismarck class. Built 1936 - 1940. No Torpedoes. Two sets of tubes were fitted retrospectively to TIrpitz in 1942. Salvaged from destroyers sunk during the Battle of Narvik. The intention was to use them to sink merchantmen during commerce raiding operations which never happened. Gneisenau Class. Built 1935 - 1939. No Torpedoes. Retrospectively fitted with tubes removed from the light cruisers Nurnberg & Leipzig in 1942, for the same reason as those fitted to Tirpitz, and with the same lack of results.
    1
  91.  @stevetwede9901  But the fitting of the tubes was to make possible the sinking of merchantmen during a commerce raiding operation. Not to enhance the ships for action against other capital ships. As had previously happened with the 'pocket battleships'and the auxiliary cruisers which were intended to avoid action with enemy warships. It is probably a pointless request where you are concerned, but do at least try to grow up.
    1
  92.  @stevetwede9901  As I wrote. To enable them to sink merchantmen more efficiently during the course of commerce raiding cruises. By the way, when that happened, Lutjens was dead. Your astonishing level of ignorance is quite impressive, little chap.
    1
  93.  @stevetwede9901  As I wrote. To enable them to sink merchantmen more efficiently during the course of commerce raiding cruises. Cruises which, of course, never happened. By the way, when that happened, Lutjens was dead. Your astonishing level of ignorance is quite impressive, little chap. If I am stupid, then the battleship designers of the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, & Italy must have been equally stupid. As, initially, must those of Germany, of course.
    1
  94. Perhaps you aren't aware of the difficulties involved in operating WW2 carrier aircraft in the Atlantic? Which largely explains why carriers were never as important in the west as they were in the Pacific.
    1
  95.  @norshstephens2395  When did I say that Bismarck was not over-rated? She had an outdated armour pattern, a low angle secondary armament, and internal communications above her main armour. Both the Nelsons, except in speed, and the KGVs were superior ships. Actually, I have studied the IJN of WW2. I also stand by what I have said. At the time Ark Royal launched her strikes against Bismarck, sea conditions were such that the Swordfish was the only torpedo aircraft in existence capable of getting off the deck of a carrier. I wonder if you are over estimating the abilities of the IJN, by the way. In May, 1941, which Japanese capital ships were capable of challenging even a battleship as limited in design as Bismarck?
    1
  96.  @norshstephens2395  Oh well, perhaps your reading failed to inform you of the poor quality of AA armament, sensors, and anti-submarine weaponry which severely limited the effectiveness of Japanese destroyers. Would you care to tell me of any occasion when a Japanese destroyer flotilla actually did sink any allied capital ship? Fantasising about what one 'would have' done to Bismarck in a wholly imaginary and incredible scenario is hardly any argument. 'The Japanese navy was the best navy in the world in 1941. Better than the British navy.' In terms of what? Certainly, the IJN had well-developed nightfighting skills. Only the Royal Navy came close, but in terms of anti-submarine warfare, the IJN was totally outmatched. Your splendid Japanese destroyers failed utterly in their attempts to protect merchantmen from the US navy's submarine offensive, unlike the success achieved by the RN & RCN's destroyers, sloops, and corvettes in the Battle of the Atlantic. In other words, the RN did all that was demanded of it in WW2. Can the same be said of the IJN?
    1
  97.  @norshstephens2395  Apart, of course, from how a Japanese destroyer flotilla gets to the Atlantic and how, without radar, it actually finds Bismarck. Simply fantasy on your part. Granted, the Long Lance was the outstanding torpedo of WW2, although you seem determined to gloss over or ignore its flaws, and it was only as good as the weapons systems deploying it. 23 Allied warships were sunk as a result of hits involving Type 93s and other weapons. 13 allied warships were sunk by Type 93s alone. Destroyer launched 93s sank one cruiser in the Java Sea, one already damaged cruiser in the Sunda Strait, 8 US destroyers in 1942 -1944, 3 US cruisers in 1942-1943, and one (crippled and abandoned) aircraft carrier in 1942.
    1
  98. 27 May, 1941, 0847. Captain Dalrymple-Hamilton to HMS Rodney's Gunnery Officer, Lieutenant-Commander William Crawford. 'You may open fire, Lt-Cdr. Crawford.'
    1
  99. What purpose would destroyers have served? A Z class had a range of 2150 miles at 19 knots. Bismarck had a range of just over 8,000 miles at the same speed. If you send out a ship on a raiding mission, what possible use would a pair of short range escorts have been? Moreover, British submarines were never involved, and how would a destroyer or two have deterred aircraft?
    1
  100.  @GM-fh5jp  'Actually they found themselves master of the area.' Indeed they did. For the duration of a fleeting raid which lasted for around nine days. The purpose was to ensure that a large troop convoy out of Singapore was safe from attack. The raid itself was considered potentially dangerous by the Japanese, as even minor damage to one of the rather flimsy carriers could have resulted in disaster. The British actually lost two heavy cruisers, and a small carrier without aircraft. The 'R's were never intended to be anything more than the role they actually fulfilled, which was that of a Fleet In Being. The raid did, however, alert the British to the potential threat posed by Madagascar to their Round the Cape convoys, and resulted in Operation Ironclad.
    1
  101. You mean the Iowas, the first of which only commissioned in February, 1943? By the time she appeared, Bismarck was a wreck on the bed of the Atlantic.
    1
  102. Hood had battleship level armour. Prinz Eugen was not capable of engaging her with any hope of success.
    1
  103.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  One word reveals the reason for the obvious lack of knowledge of the poster - 'ARMOR.'
    1
  104. You appear to have a rather pacifiocentric view of naval warfare in WW2
    1
  105. Sunk in three weeks, without even seeing a convoy.
    1
  106. The Iowas did not even exist until 1943. Nor did the North Dakotas.
    1
  107.  @ariancontreras4358  Indeed, but neither she nor Washington had completed working up by the time Bismarck was sunk. Moreover, in May 1941 the United States was neutral, and not on anyone's side. Moreover, the British already had the Nelsons in service, and the first of the KGVs joining the fleet. Both classes, in terms of broadsides and armour, were superior to Bismarck.
    1
  108.  @ariancontreras4358  Fine, but that wasn't what you said. You said 'the Iowas and America's other 16 inch Battleships were on Britain's side.' Which was, of course, incorrect.
    1
  109. The Bismarcks were part of the Franco-German between the wars naval race, which arose from the initial belief that post WW1 Germany's next war would be with France, or France and Poland. They were a response to the French Richelieu design.
    1
  110. Without supporting warships, how long do you expect these carriers to survive, especially with the kind of unsuitable aircraft the Germans intended to use on them? Moreover, carriers did not play anything like the role in the naval war against Germany and Italy that they did against Japan.
    1
  111. No. The biggest mistake was not topping up Bismarck's fuel tanks before she left Bergen. A totally amateurish decision.
    1
  112. 'he thought the stories about the Germans having a super ship must be true.' However, any such stories were greatly exaggerated.
    1
  113. But both are facts, not propaganda. 1). HMS Hood was an important member of the RN Battlefleet. 2). Bismarck was potentally a threat to the convoy system. Which is propaganda?
    1
  114.  @barracuda7018  Sorry, but it is a simple fact, not a comparison., When HMS Warrior commissioned, she created a sensation among the navies of the world only matched by the appearance of HMS Dreadnought.
    1
  115. 'Petrol?'
    1
  116.  @jamesgreen9503  I know what petrol/gasoline is. I also knoe the the Yamato class, just like every other WW 2 battleship, did not use it.
    1
  117. Wrong. Bismarck was built as a response to the French Richelieu class, as part of the Franco-German between the wars naval race. She was used, briefly and totally unsuccessfully, as an (unsuitable) commerce raider, and her first and last operation lasted about a week. Hardly a 'stellar career.'
    1
  118.  @xenaguy01  So, you have no evidence, and content yourself with assuming Royal Navy amateurishness? As I wrote earlier, Ralph Kerr had served at Jutland, and knew better than most the risks inherent in David Beatty's enthusiasm for rates of fire. Beatty had tacitly authorised his battlecruiser captains to follow this procedure. Jutland, even Beatty had grasped the error of his ways, and the practice was not perpetrated. 'Believe' what you want. You could just as easily claim that Hood exploded because s sailot in the magazine was having a crafty drag on a Woodbine. There is just as much, or as little, proof for that.
    1
  119.  @xenaguy01  My evidence is from the National Archives at Kew, which contain the records of RN policy and procedures. I haven't yet come across any book which suggests that flash doors were left open aboard Hood, nor any statement by crew members who served aboard her but were transferred before her last voyage that this happened. You believe something because you want to believe it. Now you appear to be claiming that any author who doesn't support your fantasy is 'lying.' Please explain why a naval historian would feel the need to lie about events which took place over 80 years ago?
    1
  120. No, she wasn't. After her redesign after Jutland, she was lower in the water, but certainly not 'top heavy'
    1
  121. Good optical equipment, but radar which didn't work.
    1
  122. OIh, give me strength! Another of the 'Prinz Eugen sank Hood' people. Indeed, it could, provided of course that you disregard the evidence of survivors, observers, and Prinz Eugen's War Diary.
    1
  123. 'After the two ships slugged away at each other at point blank range for hours, they all wrote to their home offices. Every navy on the planet had instantly become obsolete.' Nonsense. A barely-floating barge carrying a single turret banging away at a cut-down frigate lined with iron plates. Look up HMS Warrior & HMS Black Prince, from 1860, for details of what a real ocean-going armoured warship of the period looked like. Why do you think the Royal Navy never even considered building 'Monitor' type vessels of their own?
    1
  124. Neither. Two ships both built with many outdated or obsolete features. Tirpitz was rather more of a nuisance than anything to be feared. That is what a Fleet in Being is.
    1
  125. Yet ABC's flagship, Warspite, hit an Italian battleship from 26,000 yards.
    1
  126.  @DidMyGrandfatherMakeThis  Your evidence that this was such an exception being..?
    1
  127. The North Carolinas were still working up (undergoing shakedown trials), and the Iowas were two years away.
    1
  128.  @doyoueverwonder2683  Whichever video it was, it cannot alter the date Iowa was launched.
    1
  129. No, the Germans didn't. No the Germans (or anyone else) were not able to target a particular area on a ship, and no HMS Hood didn't have a wooden deck. She had a 3 inch armoured deck, overlaid with teak planking. Just like every other capital ship.
    1
  130. Sunk in a week.
    1
  131.  @callmefelix2339  As I wrote. Sunk in a week. Oh, and after failing in her mission.
    1
  132.  @callmefelix2339  Why? How is it relevant? Wasn't Bismarck sunk in a week, after failing to sink, or even see, a single merchant ship?
    1
  133.  @callmefelix2339  No, little chap, it didn't. Her last action involved two battleships and two heavy cruisers. Moreover, you seem to be one of those people who wish to apply the rules of Tennis to war. Actually, they don't. Perhaps you might read up on 'Force Concentration?' The British had not spent large amounts of money on building the largest navy in the world simply in order not to use it because it would be unsporting. Ask the US Navy, who did something similar at Leyte Gulf, for a further exposition of the reality you ignore.
    1
  134.  @callmefelix2339  Indeed. I have noticed that you are. I wouldn't have bothered educating you otherwise.
    1
  135.  @callmefelix2339  Just as I pointed out a fact or two. Go away.
    1
  136.  @callmefelix2339  You don't approve of people responding to comments, then?
    1
  137.  @callmefelix2339  At least you seem able to acknowledge your errors. Perhaps there is hope for you after all?
    1
  138. Easier said than done. Surfaced speed of a WW2 submarine was about 16 knots, and underwater speed, for a short period, about 6. Bismarck was capable of about 28 or thereabouts.
    1
  139. But sunk on her first operation, of course.
    1
  140.  @iansneddon2956  Indeed. Hving achieved none of her commerce raiding objectives.
    1
  141. What does that actually mean?
    1
  142. It is an oddly Germanic thing. If you claim to have scuttled your own ship, then, in the German mind, it wasn't quite so sunk. The German Navy had a habit of doing this sort of thing.
    1
  143. Providing, of course, that Bismarck had the good manners to wait around for about two years until the first one was commissioned.
    1
  144.  @HenryHaven-c3q  You mean a ship which was still working up (I believe the US Navy refers to this as 'Shakedown') until December, 1941? A ship which did not receive main gunnery radar until 1942? A ship with a 12 inch belt & 3.6 inch deck armour, albeit laid out to a better pattern than Bismarck's 12.6 inch & 4.1 inch deck? A ship slightly slower than Bismarck? In this case, Bismarck would only have needed to sit twiddling her thumbs for around seven months. But 'No Contest?' Don't be so sure.
    1
  145. Which is irrelevant as Bismarck was sunk seven months before Yamato was completed.
    1
  146. 'As it was shown in the Pacific theater.' Quite. Now tell me which battleships were sunk by air attack in the west? There was more to naval warfare in WW2 than carrier actions in the Pacific.
    1
  147.  @helderdaniel1563  I know. Tell me which battleships were sunk by air attack of any sort in the west? Tirpitz was not so much a warship as a hidden fleet in being.
    1
  148.  @helderdaniel1563  Bismarck & Scharnhorst were sunk by air attack? Really? "Back to the atlantic, when aircraft carriers began to escort convoys the u-boats second "happy time ended" The Second 'Happy Time' ended when Ernie King was finally persuaded in August, 1942. to adopt the convoy system which had been so successful for the RN & RCN. The relevanct to allied battleships being? British battleships were frequently under German & Italian air attack in the Mediterranean. How many were sunk by this means? Are you aware that the largest RN warship sunk by the Luftwaffe in WW2 was a light cruiser? The only allied battleships sunk by Japanese carrier aircraft in WW2 were in Pearl Harbor.
    1
  149. I didn't know that WW2 was still in progress in the early 1980s.
    1
  150. I think the term is 'clickbait.'
    1
  151. No in Western waters, it wasn't.
    1
  152. Actually, the Nelson' were better armoured than the Bismarcks.
    1
  153.  @iansneddon2956  True. All or Nothing as opposed to the earlier incremental.
    1
  154. Er, wasn't this video about Bismarck?
    1
  155. There was no such convoy as PQ19.
    1
  156.  @niclasjohansson4333  Yes, Bismarck was better. Apart from the thinner armour laid out to an obsolete WW1 pattern, the lighter weight of broadside, the outdated, twin gun main armament turrets, and the old fashioned low angle secondary armament. Obviously better, apart from those.
    1
  157. 'She was the first fast Battleship with sufficiant armor and guns to survive alone in blue water on the attack.' Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the Bismarck actually didn't survive?
    1
  158. 'Hood was about to be upgraded in an American yard.' No, she wasn't. HMS Rodney was, however, heading for a refit in an American yard, and was actually escorting a liner when she was diverted.
    1
  159.  @iansneddon2956  By the time Tirpitz appeared both KGV & Duke of York were operational. Howe & Anson were also in commission by the end of 1942. The Nelsons rarely if ever were used on Arctic convoy duty, as they were, at 23 knots, too slow to catch Tirpitz.
    1
  160. What did sinking Bismarck ruin?
    1
  161. You appear to have an entirely Pacific-focussed view of the WW2 naval war.
    1
  162.  @benthekeeshond545  How many warships, Allied, German, or Italian, were sunk by aircraft carriers in WW2?
    1
  163.  @benthekeeshond545  The German navy had four battleships, and the Italian navy seven. The German havy had six heavy cruisers, and the Italian navy seven. The Japanese navy had 12 battleships, and 18 heavy cruisers. The combined German & Italian navies were, in size, almost the same as the Japanese one. How many German & Italian large ships, by which I mean heavy cruisers and upwards, were sunk by carrier-based aircraft? Actually, one. In harbour at Taranto. Presumably, you don't accept the Battle of the Atlantic (won largely by the escorts of the British & Canadian navies) the naval war in the Mediterranean (won largely by the British Mediterranean fleet) or the naval war in the Arctic (won by the Royal Navy) as part of the 'naval war of WW2' which you apparently view as won entirely by carriers from the US. As I wrote, you have a Pacific-focussed view of WW2 naval warfare.
    1
  164.  @benthekeeshond545  Of course the Pacific war was part of WW2. When have I suggested otherwise? But the Atlantic, Arctic, and Mediterranean wars were also part of WW2. Indeed, most naval historians would argue that the Battle of the Atlantic was the single most critical naval campaign of the war. The fact is that in these theatres, aircraft carriers played a part, but only in supporting roles. The typical U-boat commander, for example, would consider an escort vessel to be a serious menace, but would regard a large carrier as a tempting target. 'Allow me to ask you this question, is an aircraft carrier a ship?' Seriously? What sort of question is that meant to be?
    1
  165.  @benthekeeshond545  Why? Because you say so? Despite the evidence of history? All surface ships had to contend with submarines. The point is that your 'lethal' carriers were of little threat to U-boats, whereas a properly equipped escort was. Which is why carriers were never the critical factor in the naval war in the west. Incidentally, what actually won the naval war in the west was the successful American submarine campaign against Japanese merchant shipping. The US won their equivalent of the Battle of the Atlantic. Reasoned debate doesn't seem to be your strength.
    1
  166. Cruiser? Actually a ship with a heavier weght of broadside and battleship level armour, supported by a completed but not fully worked up new battleship. Out of interest, what would you have done ?
    1
  167.  @iansneddon2956 Ludovic Kennedy suggested that the demand for the Court Martial probably came from a higher level than Pound! Apparently, Tovey stated that, had it gone ahead, he would have appeared as 'Prisoner's Friend' at the trial. Nothing more was heard about it after that.
    1
  168. Battleships were far from impractical in the west. The Germans, by the way, had no experience of carrier operations, and the only carrier they almost completed was a strange throwback reminiscent of those operated by the RN ten or more years earlier, and intended to operate an air group of hurredly modified and unsuitable land based aircraft.
    1
  169. A battleship which is able to avoid action is of very limited usefulness.
    1
  170.  @drakee9493  Bismarck was built as part of the Franco-German naval race, in response to the French Richelieus. They never actually met, of course, but the Richelieus were faster, more heavily armoured, and had a heavier weight of broadside.
    1
  171. No. Convoys of the time had, at most, an escort of an obsolete, 'R' class battleship, or a heavy cruiser. Most, of course, had neither, as the U boat threat was much more significant, against which old destroyers and corvettes were much more suitable. When German heavy ships did encounter an old battleship or a heavy cruiser, they avoided action.
    1
  172. Sunk in a week.
    1
  173. Which battleships were sunk in western waters by aircraft carriers?
    1
  174. By one of the escorting destroyers which had been trailing behind because of heavy seas. HMS Electra.
    1
  175. Tirpitz was not in commission, Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were both damaged & in Brest, Hipper was undergoing an extended refit in Kiel (until November), Lutzow/Deutschland had been badly damaged by HMS Spearfish in April, 1940, and major repairs were not completed until June 1941, after which trials were necessary, and Scheer had just completed a raiding voyage which had begun in October, 1940, and was refitting until July/August, 1941. U-Boats were likely, with surface speeds not much more than half those of Bismarck & Prinz Eugen, to have been little more than a hindrance to Lutjens.
    1
  176.  @Jimmydb  Tirpitz was only declared operational in January, 1942.
    1
  177.  @Jimmydb  Don't you understand the concept of 'working up' at all? It is a matter of historical record that Tirpitz only completed working up and trials, in the Baltic, in January, 1942. After which she was declared operational, and sent to Trondheim.
    1
  178.  @Jimmydb  I won't waste my time arguing with you. Tirpitz was not declared operational until January, 1942. You do know the difference between a ship being commisioned and one becoming operational I hope. USS Washington , for example. Commissioned on 15 May, 1941. Began builder's sea trials in August 1941, but was still working up in February, 1942, and did not join TF 39 until 26 March, 1942. Or Bismarck herself.. Commissioned 24 August, 1940. Began sea trials on 15 September, 1940, Returned to Hamburg to complete fitting out on 9 December, 1940. She then completed final addition work in January, 1941, before exercising with Prinz Eugen until early May, 1941. Every book ever written on the subject will confirm the above. If you lack the ability to understand these facts, then that is your problem, not mine.
    1
  179.  @Jimmydb  Exactly how much data do you want me to provide? You have the commissioning dates of USS Washington and of Bismarck, and the dates they became operational warships. Would you like a few more, which would say similar things? You are certainly wasting you time however. Probably a result of your ignorance?
    1
  180. Sunk in a week.
    1
  181. By the time the Iowas arrived, the war in the Pacific was dominated by naval aviation, and the axis navies in the west had been disposed of, almost entirely by the Royal Navy. Even when the US Navy triumphed in the last 'traditional' battleship to battleship engagement, at Surigao Strait, there were no Iowas present. Although impressive warships, the Iowas were secondary vessels, largely providing AA support for aircraft carriers.
    1
  182.  @dusfitz  Actually, Bismarck commissioned in August, 1940, then worked up in the Baltic until May, 1941. By the end of the month, she was on the sea bed. IJN Katori was scrapped in 1924-5. But congratulations on travelling back in time to sink her. As I wrote, the Iowas were fine ships, but by the time they commissioned their time was over, except as escorts for carriers and as shore bombardment ships.
    1
  183.  @dusfitz  Bismarck was launched in February, 1939, commissioned in August, 1940, and completed her Baltic sea trials in May, 1941. She was sunk on 27 May, 1941. Why not simply look it up? I agree that there was a training cruiser sunk in Truk in 1944. She was crippled by aiecraft from YORKTOWN, INTREPID, BUNKER HILL, & COWPENS. Then apparently finished off by USS Iowa. Sinking a crippled training ship is hardly an engagement to rank with Surigao Strait, I suggest. Any destroyer or light cruiser would have been more than adequate. Now, if you can find any major sea battle involving any Iowa, thewn tell me about it.
    1
  184. No. The RN was much larger than either the US or Japanese navies for almost all of WW2.
    1
  185.  @ghsense2626  Actually, in 1939 the RN had as more carriers than the US Navy. Other than that, the nearest carrier which might potentially have been hostile was 13,000 miles away. How did the British struggle with a few German ships? Graf Spee was sunk on its first voyage, Bismarck was sunk on its first voyage, Deutschland & Admiral Scheer made one raiding voyage each, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst were both damaged off Norway, made one raiding mission together, then fled through the Channel. Gneisenau never appeared again, Scharnhorst was sunk the next time she appeared, and Tirpitz remained a Fleet in Being for the whole of her career. Half of the total German destroyer force was destroyed in two battles in Norway, and the Germans also lost three of their eight cruisers there, and had a fourth permanently crippled. Oh, and the Royal & Royal Canadian Navies won the Battle against the U Boats. You seem to see naval warfare in WW2 solely in terms of the Pacific. Have you not noticed how, in the West, carriers were an element within a fleet, not the heart of it?
    1
  186.  @pyridonfaltis9761  The questioner simply referred to 'The Most Feared Ship of WW2,' without specifying by whom.
    1
  187.  @pyridonfaltis9761  Why should anyone have done that? The question which introduced this thread was simply, ' Why Was The Bismarck The Most Feared Ship Of WW2?' It was a general question, not directed at anyone in particular. Aside from the fact that Bismarck was not the wondership of legend, what part of that question would deter a German, Italian, or Japanese respondent from expressing their opinion?
    1
  188.  @pyridonfaltis9761  You are rambling and trying to introduce disharmony where none exists. I am disinclined to waste further time and effort upon someone like you. Therefore, I won't.
    1
  189. No, it didn't.
    1
  190. The touted theoretical capabilities of many weapons tend not to match their actual performance on the battlefield.
    1
  191.  @flyingpiggie979  The Bismarck design would have been excellent in WW1, but contained a host of outdated features by the time she was actually completed.
    1
  192. HMS Renown wasn't. You do understand that in war there are inevitable casualties, do you? Perhaps you don't.
    1
  193. No. Because Bismarck had 15 inch guns, and had been quietly rusting for over six months when Yamato was commissioned.
    1
  194. Presumably, what you are saying is that the German navy was a busted flush in WW2. Quite correct.
    1
  195. No. Just under 16,000 yards.
    1
  196.  @MerekGrimaldus  Sorry, but you are wrong. Hood opened fire first, when she was much closer than 15-16 miles. Simply look it up.
    1
  197. Really? How was it then that aircraft carriers played a subsidiary role in the naval war against Germany & Italy?
    1
  198. No, it wouldn't. Aircraft carriers operated best within a balanced fleet, as the US Navy demonstrated in the much larger Pacific Pcean. Germany never remotely approached a balanced fleet. Moreover, the Kriegsmarine had no experienced of air operations at sea, and as a result the proposed airgroup for Graf Zeppelin consisted of wholly unsauitable aircraft types.
    1
  199.  @tjhodge201 I really don't care whether you disagree or not, as your actual knowledge and understanding seems rather limited. Two aircraft carriers built to the early 1930s design that was the Graf Zeppelin, equipped with unsuitable aircraft converted from land based designs? The Bf 109, even the version intended for carrier use, for example, had an undercarriage so frail that it made the FAA's Seafires look like robust carrier aircraft. How many deck landings in Atlantic conditions could a Bf 109 have survived? Italian ships? Have you actually read anything about the record of the Italian navy in the Mediterranean? Moreover, have you heard of Gibraltar? How would your Italian ships get past that? Submarines as escorts? Give me strength. The best surface speed a WW2 U-boat could make was 17 knots. A Bismarck, or a theoretical Graf Zeppelin, could manage 32. Basically, you would simply hamstring the operations of the surface ships. Trying to operate submarines in conjuction with surface fleets was attempted, unsuccessfully, by the RN with their 'K' boats in WW1, and as parts of a trap, by the High Seas Fleet, equally unsuccessfully. You have a very Pacific centred view of naval warfare in WW2, even though you don't apparently know the name of the Yamato. In the west, RN carriers operated as part of a balanced fleet. Moreover, almost all the German warships sunk in WW2 were sunk by surface ships or submarines. Certainly, that applies to Graf Spee, Bismarck, Scharnhorst, and half of the German destroyer force.
    1
  200.  @tjhodge201  Indeed, imagine Carriers in the Mediterranean. British ones. The ones which, with support from USS Wasp, kept Malta supplied with fighter aircraft, and then ensured that the Pedestal supply convoy reached Malta in August, 1942. Again, please explain how your German carrier gets to the Mediterranean? The Italian fleet was indeed larger than the British. Please explain why it spent most of the period between 1940 and late 1943 in harbour? By the way, Bismarck did indeed reach the Atlantic. She is still there! Yamamoto was a person, by the way. Please stop showing your ignorance.
    1
  201.  @tjhodge201  'Imagine if Graf Zeppelin and Italy had completed both their carriers in 1939 or 1940.' You don't seem aware of the faults in Graf Zeppelin's design & conception, or you simply feel the need to ignore them. Actually, the building of Graf Zeppelin was halted in April, 1940, and only briefly resumed in mid 1942, before quickly being abandoned again. The ship ended the war as a floating timber store./ Aquila. Don't be silly, and read a book or two. Work on converting Roma into Aquila only even began in November, 1941, after the disastrous (for the Italian navy) battle of Matapan. Explain how Midway has any relevance at all to the war against Germany & Italy? Especially since the US, Britain, & Japan all had experience of naval aviation, whilst Italy and Germany had precisely none.
    1
  202.  @tjhodge201  'One last thing the fact both nations were taking valuable scarece resources trying to build Aircraft carriers and not more Bismarcks proves my point.' Are you a totally fact free zone, little chap? As I wrote earlier, Graf Zeppelin was cancelled in 1940, before work was recommenced, then almost immediately cancelled, in 1942. The German laid down the keels of two 'superbattleship,' the H class, immediately before the war, before cancelling them in September, 1939. Aquila was only even commenced in late 1941. Your ignorance is, frankly, pheonomenal. The last Deutschland was laid down in 1933, after which the Germans actually moved on to battleships, the Scharnhorsts and then the Bismarcks. How exactly would Deutschlands, with cruiser level armour and speeds of 28.5 knots, have acted as 'protection' for anything? Bismarck was damaged by a battleship, further damaged by an aircraft carrier, then sunk by two more battleships. Tirpitz was sunk by long range land based heavy bombers using a weapon which was inconceivable in 1939. Yamato was sunk by aircraft from several carriers, whilst on a suicide mission, and the bulk of damage was done by torpedoes, a weapon not even available to the German airforce until mid 1942. Ask yourself this. How many British battleships were sunk by axis aircraft, even when operating in the enclosed waters of the Mediterranean with minimal air support? Perhaps you are unaware that the naval war of WW2 was not confined simply to carrier engagements in the Pacific? Or perhaps you are simply unaware of history. Whichever it is, why not go away & buy a book on naval actions in WW2?
    1
  203.  @manilajohn0182  Many people, including the senior naval officers, other eye witnesses, and technical experts involved in both Boards of Inquiry, would dispute that interpretation.
    1
  204. Oh dear, little chap. Do please explain how a country of 10.1 million (1801 census) managed to invade all these countries. The Indian sub-continent, for example, had a population of 159 million at the same time. Perhaps you might go back to your indoctrinators for further advice?
    1
  205. Really? Obsolete armour lay out. Twin turrets rather than triples or quads. Outdated low angle 5.9 inch secondary armament, and radar which malfunctioned when the guns fired. Surely, a tour de force!
    1
  206. Do explain what was 'biased' about the commentary.
    1
  207. the first Iowa wasn't commissioned until almost three years later. By the way, Bismarck was largely despatched by a 16 inch gunned battleship.
    1
  208.  @TTTT-oc4eb  We will never know, as your mighty Tirpitz spent 1942-1944 hiding at the end of a fjord, protected by fighter squadrons, smoke pots, torpedo nets, and massed shore based AA guns.
    1
  209.  @TTTT-oc4eb  Yes, I know. I know what a 'Fleet in Being' is. However, consider the Arctic convoys in total. 78 of them, of which two suffered significant losses. Over 1,400 merchantmen sailed to and from Russia. 85, or 6.07% were lost. The High Seas Fleet did much the same after June 1916 in WW1. By which I mean swinging peacefully around a cable in the Jade, as the Royal Navy systematically starved Germany into revolution, mutiny, and defeat.
    1
  210. You mean apart from the Nelsons and the King George Vs?
    1
  211.  @partygrove5321  It wasn't. Bismarck had an operational life of seven days, and failed to sink, or even see, a single merchantman.
    1
  212. You mean the Brits. who sank Bismarck after she had been at sea for around a week? Or the Brits. of whom Tirpitz was so nervous that almost her entire operational life was spent hiding behind massive defences at the end of a Norwegian fjord?
    1
  213. Or, the Germans sent out a battleship to attack British supply convoys. The British intercepted and sank it.
    1
  214. However, Bismarck's crew would have needed both immense patience and good manners in order to wait around for about two years until the first one was commissioned.
    1
  215. Nonsense. Perhaps you haven't even considered the ranges of the ships concerned, the distances involved, or the impossibility of re-supply. Perhaps, indeed, you haven't even looked at a map?
    1
  216.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  How about the North-East passage? Just as (im)probable.
    1
  217. Old? like Nelson & Rodney, the two most powerful battleships in western waters at the time, or Kigh George V & Prince of Wales, brand new capital ships much better armoured than the Bismarcks, or even Warspite, Valiant, & Queen Elizabeth, all of which had been extensively modernised from the late 1930s. Certainly, Prince of Wales withdrew, but after inflicting sufficient damage on Bismarck to force her commander to abandon his mission and run for France. The British saw the Bismarck sortie as a rare opportunity to destroy a potential threat to the convoy system, which was what they did.
    1
  218.  @Doodle1266  They were not 'refitted' they were extensively modernised. New superstructures, new machinery, modernised main & AA armament, and extensive radar suites. Bismarck was damaged sufficiently badly to result in the cancellation of her operation and her attempted, but failed, run for St. Nazaire. Prinz Eugen was undamaged, and was sent to operate independently, but immediately developed an engine malfunction and returned to Brest.
    1
  219. Actually, the data for the 38cm SK C/34gun fitted to Bismarck was :- Range : 19,685 yards (18,000 m) Side Armour penetraion : 16.50" (419 mm) Deck Armour penetration : 2.96" (75.0 mm)
    1
  220. Actually, it didn't make much differerence, although it did enable Prince of Wales to cripple Bismarck sufficiently to force her to run for St. Nazaire.
    1
  221.  @SimonHoward-fb6tr  The Royal Navy sent so many ships against Bismarck because the ships were available, and the duty of the Home Fleet was to hunt down and destroy enemy warships. The term is 'Force Concentration.' Ask the US Navy at Leyte Gulf about the concept.. Of course it took land based aircraft to destroy Tirpitz. She was the classic 'Fleet in Being' and almost never emerged from her hiding place at the end of a fjord.
    1
  222. No. Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were intercepted in the Denmark Strait because had they reached the wider Atlantic they would have been harder to track down and engage, as Scharnhorst & Gneisenau had been during Operation Berlin. The 'ill=advised' action forced Lutjens to abandon his mission and make for St. Nazaire, and ensured that any threat to the convoy system had been countered.
    1
  223.  @chrislastname1994  That was the whole reason for sending Holland to the Denmark Strait. The intention was not to monitor, as Wake-Walker's cruisers could do that, but to engage. At the time, Tovey was confident that two capital ships, even if one was only partly worked up, were capable of engaging Bismarck.
    1
  224.  @LocoCoyote  Except the German surface fleet didn't actually achieve much. Graf Spee was an insignificant diversion at a time when the Allied navies had more than enough resources to deal with her. Hipper had one brief, moderately successful, sortie in early 1941. Scharnhorst & Gneisenau had a similar degree of success in March, 1941, and Bismarck/Prinz Eugen failed in Operation Rheinubung. After that, the surface fleet either stayed safely out of harm's way (Tirpitz) or failed when it did briefly appear, in the cases of Lutzow, Hipper and, later Scharnhorst. The U-boats, by the way, were nowhere near as effective as those of WW1 had been, and certainly did not come anywhere nearly as close to success as they had done in 1917.
    1
  225. Bismarck Belt Armour 12.6 inches. Deck Armour 4.7 inches. Broadside 14112 lbs. Rodney Belt Armour 14 inches. Deck Armour 6.25 inches. Broadside 18432 lbs. Colorado Belt 16 inches, Deck Armour 3.25 inches. Broadside 17920 lbs. KGV. Belt armour 14 inches. Deck Armour 6 inches. Broadside 15900 lbs. Moreover, KGV, Rodney & Colorado had the more advanced AoN armour system. Bismarck was built with the outdated WW1 type incremental system. Bismarck did have one advantage, however. Her speed, unless damaged, gave her the ability to avoid action.
    1
  226.  @QuantenRitter  Almost certainly. However, an inferior ship is an inferior ship, however the measurements are calculated.
    1
  227.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  I hadn't looked at Wikipedia, but Siegfried Breyer (Battleships of the World, 1905 - 1970) stated 16 inches.
    1
  228.  @QuantenRitter  I just have. THe US Colorado class, the British Nelson class, and King George V. The same description would also apply to HMS Prince of Wales had she been fully worked up.
    1
  229.  @QuantenRitter  The only significant damage done to Prince of Wales was a shell which passed through her compass platform, killing some of the bridge personnel, but not her captain. She was indeed hit seven times by Bismarck & Prinz Eugen. However, none of the shells actually exploded, and there were no hits on her main or secondary armament. You can easily check this from the many sources on Operation Rheinubung, had you the will. The damage done to Bismarck had left her down by the bows and had reduced her speed. Moreover, Lutjens had not expected to encounter any British capital ships in the area, as Luftwaffe air reconnaissance had failed to notice their absence from Scapa Flow. It is doubtful that Bismarck had the speed to close with Prince of Wales, but in any case, Lutjens was more concerned with getting to St. Nazaire for repair, and could not even be sure that, as Hood & Prince of Wales had come as a complete shock to him, there were not other British heavy units in the vicinity. 'Probably Prinz Eugen could have finished her off alone.' That it the most idiotic & ignorant remark on the subject I have read for some time, and it is not worthy of further comment. Just read a few accounts of the engagement rather than wandering into the realms of wehraboo fantasy.
    1
  230.  @QuantenRitter  I'll just bet you will 'stop the discussion' now. You haven't managed to dispute my classification of 1941 battleships, largely because the information I stated can be verified in any sourcebook of WW2 battleships. My details actually came from Siegfried Breyer, who knew his subject. The information about HMS Prince of Wales is also correct, and can easily be similarly checked. As to being biased, I assume that you think your claim that Prinz Eugen could easily have finished Prince of Wales off was a mature and educated assessment? Go away, little chap.
    1
  231.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  Valid advice. I haven't quite determined yet whether this fool is a crazed wehraboo, a silly little child, or a common or garden idiot. The reference to Prinz Eugen finishing off Prince of Wales suggests the latter.
    1
  232. Once Bismarck had been located, she was destroyed, after a torpedo strike, by two battleships, with support from two cruisers. Titpitz didn't go anywhere near Overlord. Neither would Bismarck, had she survived.
    1
  233. Would this be the WW1 technology which entered service in April, 1934? .
    1
  234. Perhaps you misheard the video? It was about Hood in 1941 not Beatty's battlecruiser fleet at Jutland. There is precisely no evidence to suggest than Hood breached any safety protocols in her last action. It is, simply, a myth invented by uninformed people.
    1
  235. Odd that the previous, more successful, Operation Berlin, using Scharnhorst & Gneisenau, didn't come close to anything similar, then? What should have been obvious was that any damage to Bismarck was likely to result in loss of the ship. As actually happened when Prince of Wales damaged her in the Denmark Strait, forcing Lutjens to abandon his mission and make for St. Nazaire.
    1
  236. New Jersey would have done nothing. She wasn't commissioned until two years after Bismarck sank.
    1
  237. Nonsense. 20kms is about 12.5 miles. Using the 1941 Battle of the Denmark Strait as an example, the British ships sighted the German ones at about 30,000 yards which is some 17 land miles. This means that the German ships were at least ‘hull down’ at the time of sighting and were probably only visible as masts and smoke. It was a clear day and the horizon line was visible in most directions. The longest sighting distances I have come across, ship-to-ship, are about 32,000 yards but a little further may be possible from a very tall ship. You will now see why most nations up to WW2 strove to add tall masts to battleships and cruisers. It extended the ship’s view of the visible horizon and extended the distance at which optical rangefinders would work.
    1
  238.  @OnNativeLand  Perhaps your carers didn't read my first comment to you in full?
    1
  239.  @givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935  Actually, on a par with contemporary battleships, as I wrote earlier.
    1
  240.  @givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935  I see that you are well versed in naval terminology. You are wrong. Simple as that.
    1
  241.  @castlerock58  I didn't say that Hood's armour was on a par with that of Bismarck, KGV, or the Nelsons. I said that it was on a par with that of contemporary battleships. These being the QEs, the Iron Dukes, ot the WW1 KGVs.
    1
  242. @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684 My next door neighbour's cat, Euphonium, has taken offence at your comment!
    1
  243.  @biffdanielson2820  'The crew of the Bismarck shouted, "Die Hood!" But they may not have been referring to the grammatical gender of the ship in that instance.' Actually, most sailors believe in the Royal Navy tradition that 'we fight the ship, not the men,' and reports from the German survivors suggest that there was no celebration at all. Partly, it seems, because of their horror at the deaths of so many fellow sailors, and partly because of the realisation that what had just happened was likely to happen to them in the next few days. Personally, I think that Admiral Spee's response to a toast offered by the German community in Valparaiso after Coronel, 'Damnation to the British Navy!' more correctly reflects the feeling:- 'I drink to the memory of a gallant & honourable foe.'
    1
  244. @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684 (just joking) So was I. Believe it or not next door allowed their kids to name their cat. The kids chose 'Megatron.' Often, we hear a voice at their door calling out 'Megatron!' late at night!!!!!
    1
  245. No, it wouldn't. The design of Graf Zeppelin was a throwback to the early 1930s, probably because of the German lack of knowledge of naval aviation. Moreover the proposed Air Group, including Ju87s and, improbably, Bf109s, was almost woefully unsuitable.
    1
  246. What homework did they 'fail to do' do you think?
    1
  247. Just as we all know who destroyed the German Navy, above & below the surface, whilst neutralising the Italian Navy at the same time. USS Missouri did not have a significant war record. By the time she became operational, in January, 1945, the days of battleship pre-eminence had ended in the Pacific, and the German fleet was a distant memory.
    1
  248. Not actually true. In May 1941 the best operational US Battleship was from the Colorado class, as old as the Hood, and the Yamato was six moths away from commissioning.
    1
  249. On a practical note, at the time Bismarck was built, the Germans still lacked the capacity to construct 16 inch guns.
    1
  250. Actually, Hood was as well armoured as a Queen Elizabeth class battleship. Why not look her details up for yourself?
    1
  251.  @JeffDoerr  Was the 'unbelievably fortuitous hit' just like the hits by Albacores in the Mediterranean two months earlier which had brought about the Battle of Matapan? Or is it just possible that the Fleet Air Arm had been training for such eventualities for years?
    1
  252.  @JeffDoerr  Oh dear! An immediate resort to insults. Oh well! Aside from the fact that any such hit has a degree of good fortune, as well as a degree of skill, involved, you haven't explained how it was that the Fleet Air Arm had previously scored disabling hits on two Italian heavy ships in the Mediterranean. The point about the Swordfish was that, in the prevailing weather conditions in May, 1941, no other torpedo bomber in existence, American or Japanese, could even have got off the deck of a carrier in the first place. Moreover, you can hardly blame the Swordfish for the ineptitude of the German AA defences. All those wonderful, state-of-the art, weapons, and all unable to hit a cow's backside with a frying pan!
    1