"The Deadliest Warrior: Bismark vs. Washington?" Topic

Ok, this topic was really started by my 6 year old boy! He watches (parts that is) of Spike TV's Deadliest Warrior series and he is hooked. He is also hooked on my growing collection of Axis and Allies: War At Sea minis too! (hey, start them young!) Anyway, I recently purchased a North Carolina Class Battleship and a Bismark. My son it totally hooked on both!

Anyway, he asked me, a landlubber if there was ever one, which of these two battleships was "the deadliest warrior?" Being a ground pounder… well, I'm not sure.

What do you guys think? In a toe-to-toe slugging match, who would win? Both of these ships are proven capital ship killers (both killed battlecruisers too: the Washington laid waste to a Kongo while the Bismark smashed the Hood) but neither ever faced each other on the 'battlefield'.

Also how about this as a scenario: The Battle of the Denmark Strait…

Bismark and Prinz Eugen vs. Washington and San Francisco.

How do you think this battle would go? I'm thinking about gaming it out myself just to see.

Who is the Deadliest Warrior?

My son, Jeremy, says that the Washington would win because "it would clobber the Bismark with its 16" guns!"

To me, the Americans would have a slight edge having a few more, heavier guns… but the Bismark had an excellent crew and her 15" guns were really good.

Then again, Jeremy is 6 and I was in the Army…. :D

Shucks, I thought it was going to be George Washington vs. Otto von Bismark: Clash of the Nation Builders.

My money would be on Washington- heck, he single handily started the French and Indian War (or Seven Years War for the euries out there).

Bismark was essentially an ugraded WW1 Baden while Washington (and North Carolina) were probably the second best battleships the US ever built after the Iowa's. The US 16/45 on the Washington's could use the heavyweight 3300 lb shell which meant that despite the only one inch difference in shell size, the Washington (with an extra tube) could throw a weight of metal per broadside of nearly 30,000 lbs while the Bismark's best was about 15,000. Assume Denmark Straight in 42 (which makes it Washington v Tirpitz) and US radar fire control is better and slightly more reliable as well. Washington wins but luck could still be a factor.

San Francisco versus Eugen is about a push in combat although overall, the absolute unreliable garbage that constituted the engines of Eugen make the San Francisco a much better warship if you count actually being able to sail for any length of time without breakdown.

Well… Washington was on alert when BismarCk broke out. It would have been an interesting scenario indeed. It would probably have boiled down to who could hit first. Bismarck had a slightly higher ROF per gun according to Breyer, but Washington's 16" shells hit a whole whole lot harder than Bismarck's 15s and even Rodney's 16s, being about a third again as heavy as either.

Protection edge would probably go to Bismarck, but again, those heavy 16" probably could have gone places and through things Rodney's could not.

Washington liked to surprise druken Germans before breakfast, so I do not think Bismarck would have been ready.

San Francisco vs. Prinz Eugen: Let's assume that all the stars are in the right alignment and that the Prinz's engines decide to behave… at least until battle damage creeps in to do its worst.

Bismarck couldn't handle a fitting out at sea Prince of Wales,a fight with the fully functional Washington is not even close.

Oh, here is an interesting bit I pulled off Wikipedia (for what it's worth):

"In 1942, she (the Washington) was sent to the North Atlantic to fill in for British ships that had been redeployed around Madagascar. She was assigned to guard against a possible sortie by the German battleship Tirpitz, and to provide distant cover for several Iceland–Murmansk convoys."

Also, the Washington was commissioned on 15 May 1941.. just four days before Bismark went on her voyage! She wouldn't get her radar until early 1942. She was also having teething problems with her propellers so the engineers were trying out various fixes at this time.

Oh, one last thing. The squadron she was with actually had the USS Tuscaloosa which was a New Orleans class cruiser. So I guess the Tuscaloosa would be a better fit for my scenario. Also another article suggests that the Admiral Hipper was to support the Tirpitz.

So: the Tirpitz and Admiral Hipper vs. Washington and Tuscaloosa?

The squadron she was with actually had the USS Tuscaloosa which was a New Orleans class cruiser. So I guess the Tuscaloosa would be a better fit for my scenario.

Wichita was also part of that squadron, and may have been a slightly better match for PE than Tuscaloosa.

<Wichita was also part of that squadron, and may have been a slightly better match for PE than Tuscaloosa.>

Maybe so, but I don't have a Wichita. I do have a pair of New Orleans though! :D

But, maybe one of my Boise CLs could stand in for the Wichita? Weren't they pretty much the same ship class (just one was a bit bigger and had 8 inchers?)

I think I would have to put my 50 pence on the Washington.

Bismarck was a fine vessel, no question about it, but she did have a number of design faults which can't be overlooked.

Her 15" guns were not as good as some people might believe, indeed in Pursuit: The Sinking of the Bismarck, Ludovic Kennedy rates them only as average. Just like the ship herself, they were based on the 15" guns of the Baden class, and they were basically, a pile of junk. Let's not forget it was actually Prinz Eugen which hit HMS Hood first, setting the great ship on fire.

Bismarck's armour plating scheme was not as good as it could have been either. One of her biggest weaknesses was that the infrastructure of her communications system wasn't protected by her armour (yet again a throw back to her WW1 parentage), and collapsed quite quickly during the final action.

And despite all the rubbish spouted by daydreamers and history revisionists, the quality of her armour plating must also be questioned. One of the biggest clues to just how bad her armour was, is that in the final action the ship's forward armoured control tower, designed to withstand hits from 15" shells, was actually knocked out by an 8" shell from HMS Norfolk.

Bismarck remains one of my favourite ships of WW2, but I do think it doesn't hurt to be honest about her strengths and weaknesses.

I suspect Bismarck's radar was operational, aiding the hit on the Hood, so that should probably be factored in as well.

Of course, if the 16" guns are that much more powerful, that will be a force to be reckoned with, assuming they can get them on target.

Sounds like it would make a good convention scenario for the variety of WWII naval wargames.

"Bismarck couldn't handle a fitting out at sea Prince of Wales,a fight with the fully functional Washington is not even close."
Bismarck sunk the Hood and was close on sinking the Prince of Wales if Admiral Lutjens had let Bismarck's Captain have his way. Maybe some light history reading prior to posting would bein order….

Agreed, PoW was pretty badly battered, and was lucky to escape the battle.

Given more reasonable, and aggressive orders, I suspect it would not have survived the battle either.

My group has played out a Tirpitz vs Washington scenario and it wasn't fun for Tirpitz. Time was 1942 and the forces were Tirpitz, Hipper, Scheer and 4 DDs vs Washington, Wichita, Philadephia and 4 DDs meeting off Norway. Weight of fire, better fire control and better protection resulted in a German rout.

As to "Bismarck sunk the Hood and was close on sinking the Prince of Wales". First, Hood, for all her glory, was woefully under armored. She hadn't had any substantial upgrades to her late WWI protection scheme. In retrospect, it would've been more surprising if she had survived. Second, given the state of Prince of Wales (not nearly worked-up and still having teething troubles with her main turrets), withdrawing was the only sensible thing to do. Especially with the rest of Home Fleet at sea. Could Bismarck have sunk her? Given her protection, possible but unlikely. And certainly Bismarck would've been severely damaged in the event.

There is a fairly extensive article on what happened to Hood here:

warship.org/no21987.htm

Much of it is based on eye-witness testimony from men on the PoW who were watching Hood (they were on the un-engaged side of PoW. Among the theories is that Hood blew up as the result of an internal accident instead of a hit; that a German shell fell short, but hit the water at such an angle as to get it to carom up under the Hood's Armored belt; and several explanations of how a direct hit might have set off the powder magazines.

Anyway, the Bismark class were highly over-rated. Their armor scheme was WW1-type. This is basically the 'armored bathtub scheme, with the side plates both interlocking with an armored bottom plate. This scheme was best suited to stopping shells hitting in a flat-trajectory, instead of plunging from above. This later type of hit would only be stopped by the armored deck at the bottom of the ship, after it had passed through all sorts of vulnerable areas of the ship. It was to the great benefit of her reputation that the British BBs closed with her so as to make sure the kill, so their tactics played to her strengths.

I have to wonder what would have happened to Bismark if Hood or PoW had scored first with a long-range hit.

As to "Bismarck … was close on sinking the Prince of Wales"

PoW was nowhere near sinking, and not as beat up as some of the popular historical reading suggests.

When she turned away to clear the range and fall back on the cruisers, she'd been hit three times by Bismarck and four times by Eugene. The three Bismarck hits pulped a few officers and destroyed a binnacle on the bridge, sprayed shrapnel around the boat deck damaging a funnel, a crane and an aircraft, and caused some minor flooding, respectively.

Eugene's hits knocked out the forward AA director and caused minor flooding aft. Two of the three Bismarck shells and all four of the Eugene's shells were duds.

Just like South Dakota after Guadalcanal, POW was full of little holes, cut wires and blood, but her surface fighting ability and integrity were not impaired by her damage, and mechanical problems not withstanding, she was still in the same combat condition when she turned away as she was when she started the engagement.

She was not driven off, she did not barely escape, nor was she lucky to get away. Rather, her withdrawal was a tactical decision based on:

- her fuel situation
- a sound tactical decision to shadow the Bismarck until additional units could come into play.

PoW shadowed Bismarck for some time after the battle. The fact that the slower PoW remained in the area where she could be reengaged by the faster Bismarck, should Bismarck have chosen to do so, speaks to the fact that she was not "nearly sunk" by Bismarck, but in fact was ready to engage again if required.

Maybe some light history reading prior to posting would bein order….

The Bismarck was a WW1 ship with modifications made by a country that hadn't built large armored warships in almost a generation.

The POW guns were going down to mechanical problems. The ship was in fighting shape except for the guns

"More importantly, the damage to the bow cut access to the forward fuel tanks' 1,000 tons of fuel oil. It also caused Bismarck to trail a visible oil slick and reduced her speed by two knots. Bismarck was soon listing 9 degrees to port and her bow lost 2 metres of freeboard."

And that slick was the real problem..Bismark had some real flaws and it suffered from Germany's armored shipbuilding problems.

If it was the KGV does the Bismarck escape?

The Nazis were excellent at the PR thing though.

3300lb shells in a 16" gun? I thought the heavyweight US shells were 2700lbs!

Still a lot of ouch to drop on the Biz, and I think the 16"/45 Mk6 guns had a slightly better rate of fire than the 15" guns on the Biz.

Bismark and Prinz Eugen vs. Washington and San Francisco.

I rate Washington superior to Bismark, the latter being generally over-rated due to it's fame, IMO.

San Francisco and Prinz Eugen would never get into the fight, or have any significance in the outcome, most likely.
-Kle.

USS Washington will beat Bismarck hands down. The Bismarck is really overrated.

link

Yes, absent a "golden BB" in a Washington vs. Bismarck engagement, Washington comes out on top by a mile.

Bismarck was a pretty good battleship in comparison to its European conemporaries. But in a 1 on 1 engagement, the 10 U.S. fast battleships (North Carolinas, South Dakotas, and Iowas) could manhandle anything afloat in the European theater.

In fact, I generally prefer playing games involving the older U.S. battleships, because they are a more even match against their opponents.

Bismarck's radar was put out of action by the blast of her own guns when firing on the Norfolk, so it played no role in the battle against Hood and PoW. Washington would not have her radar installed yet, so they're even.

German optical rangefinders were among the best in the world, but the US stable vertical was THE best, so they're even.

The Washington was armored against 14" shells, not 15". But German AP shells in WWII were almost as bad as British AP shells at Jutland, breaking up or bursting prematurely rather than penetrating. So they're even.

The German gun might have had a higher ROF, but the USN ship had one more gun, so they're even.

The big difference is that Bismarck's armor was good against flat trajectories, not so good against plunging fire. And the US superheavy shell, due to weight and ballistics, would be plunging at medium ranges where Bismarck's 15" shells would be on a flat trajectory. In USN parlance, the Washington would be safely within her immunity zone against Bismarck, while Bismarck would remain vulnerable.

Barring a lucky shot, Washington wins.

I took a quick look at the site taskforce58 has linked to in his comment.

I would tend to be a little wary with the conclusions on that site. Giving the Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto an "8" for her underwater protection is totally unrealistic.

Fitted with the infamous Pugliese Defense System, which was to prove a major weakness in an otherwise well balanced design, this class of warship was notoriously vulnerable to hits under the waterline.

If that site got this so wrong, I would approach the rest of the information on in with some caution.

If Fire Control Radar was available, whose was better? The one with the better radar wins nine times out of ten.

The PoW withdrew because her guns jammed--It was a new design and as said she was still on trials…
The PE did hit Hood first and set fire to some ready use ammo on the deck--However it was Bismarks fith salvo that blew her up…The RN was aware how vulnerable she was to plunging fire--Considering that out of all the battlecruisers lost in WW1 and WW2 only Repulse didn't get sunk by an explosion it shouldn't be a suprise--
USS Washington v's Bismark? I would say they were quite well matched and it would take a golden BB shot to get an advantage!!…If you read about it,naval actions largely rely on luck to get an advantage--If HMS Hood had got a shot in first and clobbered Bismark in some way then she would probably have survived and been able to batter Bismark…

"If Fire Control Radar was available, whose was better? The one with the better radar wins nine times out of ten."

In 1942, hands down, the US radar was superior on grounds of reliability and effectiveness.

"In 1942, hands down, the US radar was superior on grounds of reliability and effectiveness."…Sort of…it was still quite unreliable until the late war period….But still better than the Germans…