HMS Dreadnought vs German Battleship Bismarck

Who of these two ships would win battling each other.

The HMS Dreadnought and her five turreted twin 12" cannons, or the Bismarck and its four turret twin 15" cannons?

This is up for discussion rather than poll to cover armaments and other specs when comparing a great WWI ship to a relatively great (for Germany) WWII ship.

I need to move this someplace else (I posted it in the wrong forum subtopic)

I just do not know . . . I hope a moderator can help me >_<.

Well at the moment we don't have any other staff but me... something eventually we probably
could use to fix.

Are you opening this up to general un-Seikai specific discussion? So the Sofa?

I would say move this to the intellectual section on military discussion or so.



In absolute terms the Bismarck will always win. In terms of design the Dreadnough is more rounded.
See, if you consider the number of cannons available to each side (front, side, aft)
Dreadnough: 6:8:8 relative even / nearly all canons on all sides
Bismarck:4:8:4 uneven ; all or only half on all sides.
If both have the same tech and weapons I bet the dreadnough will win.

But isn't the Dreadnought from WWI and the Bismark from WWII so aren't we talking about a 30 year disparity of battle tech between the two of them?

mitsuki lover wrote:But isn't the Dreadnought from WWI and the Bismark from WWII so aren't we talking about a 30 year disparity of battle tech between the two of them?

That's why I said the Bismarck would win in absolute terms. When I say it this way I always meant as is considering everything.

actually, even without the technology difference of 30 years, the Dreadnought's design has some serious flaws. Unless this fight is taking place in some perfectly utopian world where the seas are glassy calm and gun shock isnt a factor, Bismarck would almost certainly win.

(NOTE: before i go into this any further, i say alot of it in the Space Battle thread)

Dreadnought was a poorly designed ship. There are a few glaring reasons why this is so. First is seakeeping. The Royal Navy always had a strange fascination with their warships being able to fire at 0 elevation straight over their bows, and so, never incorporated the clipper bow that all other major navies used into their battleship designs. This led to very poor seakeeping, and the bow of the Dreadnought would often "dig in" or submerge under waves in rough weather, making the foremost turret almost unaimable. Also, the positioning of the turrets off the centerline made the ship very liable to roll heavily in rough weather. The second major flaw was in the positioning of the middle 3 turrets. The shock from firing these turrets, which were positioned directly under the bridge and the crows nest, made being in these places extremely shaky and uncomfortable while the battleship was engaged, and made gauging the fall of shot (essentially how the battleships would aim their next salvo) more of an extreme guessing game rather than anything resembling artillery science. Having main armament turrets amidships like this was a design trend later dropped from battleship design (the last battleship with this layout was the IJN Fuso, which had the same recoil problem I've described with Dreadnought). And finally is the issue of turret efficency or lack therof. The armament layout of Dreadnought, while THEORETICALLY allowing more firepower per ton of warship, actually was relatively inefficent. Even broadside to broadside, the preferred method of combat between battleships, one turret was ALWAYS out of action. The second to aftmost turret was also extremely poorly positioned, as it could not fire directly forward OR aft, and was out of comission unless the battleship was engaging in broadside combat, which, as I've said, negated one of the side turrets anyways. The turret layout of the Dreadnought also made it so the entirety of the ship's interior had to be heavily armored against enemy shellfire, instead of only armoring the key parts, since the turrets were all too spaced out to allow them to be armored in one "box", if you will. This added the weight of a lot of mostly superfluous armor, and made the armor layout rather inefficent and difficult to repair.

So, now we come to the actual battle. In perfect utopia world, the Dreadnought's armament layout of 6 fore, 8 broadside, 6 aft would make it a more competitve opponent than the Bismarck in all modes of combat save broadside engagements. However, if the seas were any heavier than light, the Dreadnought would suffer severe rolling and the bow would often "dig in" to the waves, making the front turrets unreliable. Plus, once the shooting started, the Dreadnought's aiming capabilities would be severly hampered in comparison with the Bismarck's, as the shock from the guns firing right under the crows nest would make tracking shell fall like trying to spot splashes in an earthquake. And finally, once it came to either ship getting hit, the very fact that Dreadnought's armor was all spread out made for a much more difficult repair job than did the Bismarck's. Also, assuming both ships are captained by standard battlewagon captains, they would try and get broadside to broadside as soon as possible, negating any numerical advantage dreadnought could have theoretically had. IMO, regardless of whether or not the 30 years of technology advancement were nullified, the advancement in naval architecture would almost guarantee Bismarck the W.

oh, and here's something fun:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

*clap clap *

Lt. Schwenkdawg wrote:And finally is the issue of turret efficency or lack therof. The armament layout of Dreadnought, while THEORETICALLY allowing more firepower per ton of warship, actually was relatively inefficent. Even broadside to broadside, the preferred method of combat between battleships, one turret was ALWAYS out of action.

Yes, but overall still more efficient than Bismarck which cannot use two when attack or retreating.

Lt. Schwenkdawg wrote:
The second to aftmost turret was also extremely poorly positioned, as it could not fire directly forward OR aft, and was out of comission unless the battleship was engaging in broadside combat

Wrong. It can fire as indirect fire at higher angles. Combined you get a triangulation for precision fire. Also higher angle allows higher kinetic for above kills. There is not even a range disadvantage, just direct five disadvantage.

Lt. Schwenkdawg wrote:
This added the weight of a lot of mostly superfluous armor, and made the armor layout rather inefficent and difficult to repair.

Similary, the bismarck does not cover its command, communication and fire observation stations.

Lt. Schwenkdawg wrote:


IMO, regardless of whether or not the 30 years of technology advancement were nullified, the advancement in naval architecture would almost guarantee Bismarck the W.

That's technology advancement also. lol


Edit: about the bow this is what you meant right?

What I think is interesting is that future ships will use the british approach of nose diving.

I'll go bottom to top so i dont have to scroll as much.
As for the picture, the first two are correct, but the future design was meant to be in space, where it would not have to contend with rough weather on the high seas (i think).

Although it is true that naval architecture is a form of technology, the original question is moot if the ships are of the same design anyways. 30 years of advancements in naval architecture add up over time.

Although you are correct about not armoring its bridge AS MUCH as other battleships of its era (the Iowa-class had enough armor on the bridge to take a 16 inch shell without damage to the interior, beyond shock, etc), the Bismarck's fire control centers, and the bridge were armored (this is as much a reflection of the German fascination with armor over firepower as anything else). On the other hand, the bridge of the Dreadnought wasn't very well armored at all, and "fire control" stations were pretty much the crow's nests, while the KMS Bismarck had separate stations for each of the 2 fore and aft turrets (theyre the funny-looking things between the turrets and the superstructure).

As for turret positioning of the second to last turret (the British letter their turrets, as do the Germans, while the Americans number em), I can't prove you wrong specifically, as I don't know the maximum angle of elevation the Dreadnought's turrets were designed to achieve. However, i can say that this turret could not feasibly have been able to fire forward, as the barrels of the guns themselves would hit the superstructure. As for firing aft, once again, since i don't know the turret elevation of Dreadnought's guns, you could be right. However, i would guess that the elevation wasn't higher than 45 degrees max, which would end up shooting right through the aft crows nest if fired directly astern. As it stands i would guess that this turret probably had about a 200 degree angle of fire, spread out over the port and starboard sides of the ship. (EDIT: Maximum elevation of the Dreadnought's turrets was 13.5 degrees above flat, and could be depressed 3.5 degrees below flat. Therefore, it is impossible that the Dreadnought's second to last turret could have been used for anything save off-angle firing and broadside combat)

As for your first point, that question comes down to how the battleships were intended to be used. In old-school naval warfare, all the commanders' wet dreams were about broadside to broadside combat, and this is exactly what these ships were designed for. Therefore, although you may be correct that the Dreadnought had better fore-and-aft armament concentration capabilities, this was not the type of battle it was designed for. Also, as i said, the forward 3 turrets were often very miserable places to be in rough weather, and while not making them unusable, made working in them slippery, cold, and difficult. And finally for the consideration of the stern. Even if both battleships were equal in speed, a commander would never willingly turn his stern towards the enemy (as the armor belt of most battleships was concentrated along the sides, in accordance with the broadside to broadside doctrines of the day) unless he was losing the battle, and if he's losing, then usually the battleship has more concerns than maintaining fire on its opponent (casualties, repairs, squeezing the last possible drops out of the engines), and since Dreadnought was a coal-fired ship, oftentimes men in positions of less importance would be "drafted" to go help the stokers with shoveling the coal.

However, your statements have pointed an error out to me that i should have noticed in my last conclusion. ASSUMING that both battleship commanders fought like their ships were built to fight and how they had been trained, then Bismarck, on an equal footing with broadside power, and advantages in sea-keeping and fire control would win the day. HOWEVER, if the commander of the Dreadnought was particularly bright, or the commander of the Bismarck particularly dense, then the Dreadnought COULD win. But, given the design of the ships and the training of the average battleship captain, i doubt that would come to pass

Battle Tech aside it always comes down to how good the commanding officer is.You may have the best equipped ship in the history of the world's navies but still loose to a 'weaker'ship simply because it has a superior commander.
Someone like Kirk or Sheridan is always going to beat his opponent no matter how badly he's
armed.
Remember Sheridan beat an entire Minbari squadron on his own even though the Minbari had better ships,he was still able to out think them.

There is no need to discuss crew performance as that is pretty much useless. Tactics and strategy is all we can talk about regarding crew because they are likely tought everywhere. You can't tell me there is a military without training in those areas. or without any analysis or recommendation how to do things.

As to Kirk/Sheridan, I don't see much genius in these two's action. None of them even used mines or tractors just some simple maneuver (even spock needed to remind kirk that he is in 3D space). The only hignlight I ever saw (in Trek) is the Picard maneuver. Finally someone was smart enough to acount time lag...which is normal in space.
And the only weapons highligh was the Shadow bomblet mine/bombet fighter weapon.
But the good thing about B5 were the fighter dogfight with use of inertia and momentum.

haha once we get to star trek I'm hopeless and of no help at all

Try to get your hands on ST: Command I/II game. This will teach you the basics of ship combat. The things you have to do can be applied to other tech so it's really good for getting to know space combat with advanced tech. Learn all the tricks in the book and you are ok to go. I have some more tricks up my sleeve, but honestly, there are scary guys out there.
My rating is one frigate against a BC&frigate with 50% success rate or 6 DN on one-on-one. I nearly got the 7th but by the time my resources were exhausted and couldn't keep up with repairs. It was really is close call.

Since we're far off topic now anyway,I wonder how Spoor would do against either the Shadows or the Borg.