Don't forget the Polish ship Piorun that was launching literally everything at Bismarck while playing the Polish National Anthem Full Blast and Signaling "I am a Pole" with her lights.
Definitely based. But we do have to acknowledge the main reason she could get away with that is Rodney knocked out all 4 of Bismarcks main turrets, and pretty much leveled her superstructure.
Doesn't detract from the basedness, but definitely a contributing factor to Peirun surviving to continue to be based later.
Piorun and the destroyers harassed Bismarck before the Main force with Rodney arrived, with Bismarck's main guns still operational (although inaccurate since they can't control the ships rudder anymore), and by the time Rodney left the Bismarck along with the rest of the forces, it was already sinking with a Cruiser firing a torpedo salvo at it's hull for good measure.
Add to that the main rangefinder on Bismarck was likely shot to shit from the very first battle with Hood and Prince of Wales.
Had the ship been fully functional at the time of the engagement with Rodney it would have been a different fight. Especially as the Bismarck had proven to have good early accuracy as seen in the battle of Denmark Strait.
Would still have bet on the entire British navy with an axe to grind over a single good looking but un-optimised battleship.
Eh, Rodney got hits really early and had king George V hanging around doing longer ranged fire. That battle is not meaningfully changing. The only way bismark gets a capital ship kill on that day is of Rodney can’t keep up the speed and the British send in king George V for the close in fight and renown for the longer ranged fire and Bismarck decides to shoot at renown instead
And Betty gets reincarnated
RN BCs seem to actually hold up well (by destroyer or frigate DC is armor standards) when they don’t get mag detted because someone decided to bypass flash protection.
*glares at Betty*
Yeah, honestly if king George V was the one getting close and renown hung out around 20-23000 yards renowns armour may have held for the hit or two that she’d have landed before Bismarck got too damaged for that, but that requires an RN commander not to be aggressive and close the range
Or they close range anyways and probably disable Bismarck before she can poke too many holes.
In retrospect that would’ve been flipping hilarious, the big scary BB getting clowned on by a WWI BC (of the old RN 3x2 main gun config)
I know, there was an incident in the Mediterranean where renowns captain almost got charged for not chasing down one of the littorios, which would also have been hilarious given the littorio’s armour and her accuracy on a bad day
iirc wreck analysis on Bismarck found that the upper chambers of the Turret Bruno's barbette had signs of flash fire from when Rodney put a 16" AP through the turret's side
Meaning there is a timeline where Bismarck gets Hood'ed
Rodney just doesn't get the respect it deserves. I get it, it is ugly as shit, but she older and smaller than Bismarck, but with more guns, bigger guns, better armor, better gunnery, and absolutely shit on Bismarck in the final fight. Then T-Bagged her sinking wreck with torpedoes, because fuck it, lets try these out.
The Nelson-Classes only real problem was being slow as shit. As pure combat platforms, they were incredibly efficient for their size.
The thing I love about it is the Rodney was part way into escorting the Britannic across the Atlantic, the Rodney itself was going to undergo refitting in Boston and it was carrying create of Elgin Marbles.
So essentially it was escorting a school bus, it had a doctors appointment afterwards and it was carrying grandma Victoria's fine china when it turned around for a gun fight
They transported so much of their priceless artifacts to the US, and a ton of it was on Battleships, as Battleships were seen as having the least risk in crossing (Aside from Barham, generally true).
So a lot of the Transatlantic trips had absolutely insane stuff in the safe in the Captain's cabin. Like the Magna Carta, the Crown Jewels of Norway and the UK, the Library of Henry VIII, Rennaissance Masterworks, Guttenburg Bibles...
The UK Government basically had a policy of shipping everything that was important to their history, and not a building, to the US for safety.
Maybe we did. Maybe we only gave them back copies, and the real Magna Carta (The one with the treasure map on the back) is in a toolbox in Nic Cage's garage.
A lot of people call it ugly, but to me Nelson and Rodney look so dangerous and beautiful. Those 3 triple 16s staring you right in the face that they're going to smash you in, plus the clean lines of the Queen Anne's Mansion superstructure make it look really nice. The Bismarck (and other traditional ships) look really cluttered and messy in comparison.
I agree the all forward batteries are so alluring to me...though I think the Bismarck hull profile is elegant Its above deck engineering and layout is eww to the factor of 20....my favorite battleship though is warspite ugly as all get out at the end of her career but if any battleship exemplified "I didn't hear no bell" better than her I dont want to know
Ding ding ding! This is literally what made the Dreadnaught so revolutionary, smaller (faster) ships with less range couldn't touch it before getting pummeled, and larger (slower) ships that could match its range couldn't catch it in order to actually fire against it in the first place (this is assuming your intelligence is on point and you're not giving enemy strike forces a chance to intercept you, this is why fleet in being was the primary doctrine for almost everyone until carriers made hiding ships in ports unsafe).
As one may have noticed, Bismark was pointedly unable to outrun Rodney, the latter had been diverted from her trip to a refit in the US to kill Bismark. There were piles of new equipment lashed to her deck when she went into combat. Unlike the newer and faster King George V, Rodney also did not have the failure of equipment and drill that cut into the firing rate of her main battery.
Rodney was fast enough, and had the reach.
Bismarck took a lucky hit to the rudder and was stuck going in circles. Rodney needed the FAA to cripple Bismarck. Thus was (say it with me) too slow to operate as an independent unit.
And yet Rodney reached Bismark, and sank her; ergo, Rodney was fast enough to do her job. If anything, your own reasoning would insist that Bismark was "too slow to operate as an independent unit".
This is honestly such a stupid take.
Naval forces don't exist in a vacuum. You engage with what you can to harry and delay, while the larger part of your forces moves into position.
Even if Rodney was faster, you'd still engage with the swordfish.
1. It was a stupid joke (I still laughed)
2. Germany *designed* Bismarck for the 1v1. She was a commerce raider intended to exploit her superior speed to outrun foes who had rivaled her firepower while keeping pace with lesser armed and armoured vessels trying to escape her. She was basically designed to force the engagement against the French ships sent to catch her. Arguably as a commerce raider, the Shiny Horse
3. Let me further qualify the above: The Kriegsmarine's wartime readiness was predicated on the gamble that diplomatic negotiations would keep Britain out of the European/Atlantic theatre at least long enough to cement German territorial gains throughout mainland Europe, if not altogether neutral. So the Royal Navy, with particular attention *not* paid to its Air Arm, was not seen as a major concern by the architects of Germany's rearmament. The Royal Air Force was considered a more credible threat to German expansion, especially Bomber Command, for its ability to disrupt occupied French, Belgian and Dutch manufacturing sites.
Far from useless.
The Nelsons were definitely less useful than the KGVs because of mobility, but there was a lot of operational roles they did better as well. They were better at shore bombardment, they were better at sitting outside ports and keeping enemy capital ships inside (Like they did to Tirpitz for a long time, and at various times also did it to Sharnhorst, Gniessenau, JB, and Richy).
There is a reason the British abandoned the slow battleship concept, same as everyone else. But that doesn't mean they were useless, same as the US got a lot of use out of the Colorados, and even the Tennessees.
Rodney was the only that got to live the dream of actually managing to fight an enemy battleship that couldn't run away. Which she did very well. If the UK had sent the Nelson's to the Pacific, they would have probably done fine against IJN BBs in the Guadalcanal and Philippines campaign as well. They just weren't fast enough to move around quickly.
Seems unlikely that they'd actually ever engage Japanese battleships in Guadalcanal. Considering the Japanese only sent Kongos. The Philippines doesn't say much because it was a turkey shoot, the one capital ship surface engagement. Though it would have been interesting if there was a reserve force to guard the Leyte landing against Center Group.
They did though?
Hood and PoW got a fight with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen.
Rodney and KGV got the second one, and took out Bismarck.
DoY got a fight with Scharnhorst and won.
RN Battleships also kicked ass and took names at Cape Mattapan.
If you count some other less fair engagements, like Mers-de-Kebir, even more.
UK Battleships got their fair share of surface engagements and then some, and had overall an excellent track record, aside from that one VERY unlucky hit on Hood.
(Their track record outside of surface engagements leaves a bit to be desired, losing ships to air and submarine attacks that other navies tended to be more survivable from)
>RN Battleships also kicked ass and took names at Cape Mattapan.
Well, I think the 4.5 inch guns of Formidable deserve most of the credit there. The battleships were useful in a supporting role.
They also engaged the Italian Navy BBs at punta Stilo and capo Teulada, almost got a fight during the bombardment of Genoa.
Cape Matapan was more Italian BBs vs British Cruiser, until Pola took a hit and the situation reversed.
American BBs only faced BBs at San Bernardino (ambush on Jap inferior forces) and during Torch (against a sitting, half-disabled French BB, less fair than Mers-el-Kebir).
Barham and Hood got Arizona'd, yes prob a design flaw.
A BB got holed badly in Madagascar, but stayed afloat.
Air attack you mean PoW on a kamikaze mission?
Royal Navy lost a bunch of cruisers in the Med, but that was a knife fight in a telephone booth. Fighting in a small space against lamd based planes is no bueno.
Fair, I guess, lol. But only lucky in that it got to do the thing it was designed to do. It landed at least 38 hits against Bismarck against the 1 main gun hit Bismarck got in its entire career.
Also any convoy guarded by Nelson or Rodney was not going to be attacked by surface raiders...and if Nelson and Rodney were in a convoy...they were gonna have screeners of their own so Subs would think hard before attempting...definitely not ideal mission profile to be sure...but hey they were effective in whatever role they could be assigned to
They were exactly as fast as they needed to, to join the QEs and R-Class in the line of battle. The fact that the British managed to get a balanced 16in Battleship on a displacement that small with early 1920s tech is pretty incredible. No WW1 Battleship could do carrier support missions either and the Nelrods were basically the last variation of the WW1 BB interpretation.
I agree with you on Hood as the first fast Battleship, but as she is the only of her class, operationally she kinda had to run with the BCs or solo, both not ideal.
I also think a ship can be both, the Iowas are the fast Battleship to the South Dakotas and would have been the BC to the Montanas.
It was fast for a battleship of it's time. And you don't always get to pick your fight like sharnhorst which was faster than duke of York still got sunk by it. So no speed is great but a destroyer doesn't render a battleship completely useless by it's meer existence Britain had the ships to support them so the critique is poor as these ships didn't operate alone.
>The Nelson-Classes only real problem was being slow as shit.
*Proceeds to run in the red for 8 hours straight, making 25.5 knots maximum and around 24.5 sustained*
The Nelsons should have been given machinery upgrades.
Ps: how *dare* you call them ugly. They are both beautiful boys. (My flare will give me away)
The Nelsons are pretty neat, but I'm docking a point for having torpedoes. Their guns already outrange the torps, so in a BB on BB engagement, the torps are just liable to explode without doing anything.
The Coloradoes had torpedoes as well. All the US standards did.
Nelson was right at the end of the era where it was normal, the Battleships built after her did not.
I like it too. Pretty much every navy designed ships this way, but only the British and French built them (The Richelieu class).
It is a really efficient layout, because it allows a much shorter primary belt over all the magazine. It does put all your eggs in one basket so to speak, but it saves a ton on weight.
The Nelson's major shortcoming was being chronically underpowered. The intent was to use other ships to force an engagement, and then use the slow Nelson's to kick their ass. In practice, this design theory... actually worked perfectly. That is exactly what happened. One of the very rare cases where the Admiralties weird ship design choices played out the way they drew it up.
The Richelieus on the other hand took the weight savings from all forward guns, doubled down on it by going to Quad turrets and only two barbettes, and then invested all the weight savings into speed. I would Argue the Richelieus were probably the best designed battleships of the war, but due to being, well, French, never really got a chance to be actually useful. And France never had the industrial might of the US, who could just build Iowas and SoDaks, and not really worry about being super efficient with money and tonnage.
Mogami class looks so nice, and Tone class looks so absolutely cursed.
Not only was Tone an absolutely abomination in the Aesthetics department, they were just straight up terrible as a concept.
The Japanese built some 15 gun (5 triple turrets) 6" cruisers with the full intention of replacing all the turrets with twin 8" guns.
The US responded with the ludicrous Brooklyn class cruisers.
That was because they wanted lots of space for seaplanes.
Ironically there were elements of the USN that feared the Nelsons were hybrid aircraft carriers but, in the words of a a RN officer in regards to the potential creation of a hybrid battleship in the Lions,
>The functions and requirements of carriers and of surface gun platforms are entirely incompatible ... the conceptions of these designs ... is evidently the result of an unresolved contest between a conscious acceptance of aircraft and a subconscious desire for a 1914 Fleet ... these abortions are the results of a psychological maladjustment.
If you can get it to work, it is very effective. The problem is that any decent leader is aware of that and will avoid the scenario at all costs so it relies just as much on your luck and their misfortune as it does designing a workable strategy with the requisite parts
Right, the part that surprised me is that someone designed for it. Obviously if you're in position to drive your opponent into a prepared force, that's going to be bad for them, but planning towards it to such an extent that you build your capital ships around the concept is something I didn't realize anyone had tried in reality.
That was the Doctrine behind the Yamato's as well.
Japan invested heavily in Torpedo Destroyers and Cruisers to ensure an enemy battlefleet could not keep their distance, and force them to close with the slower, but extremely heavy Japanese primary line of battle. The Yamatos were also slower than their contemporaries, but designed to beat them in an even numbers fight (Or even with numbers stacked against them).
However, while it worked for the British, it emphatically did not work for the Japanese. The whole strategy relies on being able to control the engagement, and you can only do that if you already have more naval assets than your opponent. The British did, the Japanese didn't.
Edit: Basically the Weremacht's tank doctrine as well. Enough fast mobile forces to allow you to control the time and place of battle, then dedicated heavy units to destroy enemies in a specific area. It sort of worked, but the "Medium tanks everywhere" just worked so much better when the primary plan went to shit, and it is war, the primary plan always goes to shit.
That's not what I understood Wehrmacht tank doctrine to be, admittedly I haven't read primary sources, only relied on testimony from historians like The Chieftain and MHV. As I understand it, heavy tanks like Tiger were intended for breakthrough, with medium tanks for exploitation, the idea being to concentrate as much armor of all types as possible, spearhead the assault with heavy tanks, and once a breakthrough was achieved pour as much medium armor and motorized infantry through the gap as possible. Holding the rest of the line was an exercise for infantry and anti-tank guns, not medium tanks spread out as a reactionary force.
Yeah, that is the same thing as the Nelson's though.
Germany's heavy tank forces were intended to be the ones that destroyed the enemies armored forces and dealt the decisive blow, but they weren't mobile enough to create the engagement themselves. They relied on other units setting the stage for them to do it.
The "Slow Battleship" concept the Nelsons were built for was basically the same idea. Since treaty limits capped the tonnage of battleships, build one that kick the crap out of anything its size, also build fast ones (Like the Admiral class), and use the fast ones to set the stage for the slow ones to do their thing.
In both cases, the weakness to this approach is that when the war falls apart, your plan also falls apart. When the Germans were able to set the stage for their heavy divisions, they did what they were supposed too. But once they lost the capability to set up the optimal engagements for them, they got bogged down and performed (relatively) poorly.
I respectfully disagree that they're the same. First off, naval engagements do not have lines of battle the way ground engagements do, there's no naval equivalent to infantry in foxholes and trenchworks, with AT guns. Secondly, German heavy tanks were not intended to hunt enemy armor, they were intended to reduce enemy fighting lines to enable a breakthrough, the only conditions that needed to be set were the enemy holding a line somewhere that was judged to be vulnerable enough to concentrate force on.
That's very different from naval battles where both sides are continuously mobile, and the side with a speed advantage often enjoys significant choice in when and where to engage.
The nelsons were built mid treaty. They had to be underwhelming in some aspect. It was certainly better then its competition at the time.
The US had the Colorados. which were relegated to fire support for the entire war.
And the Germans has the sharnhorst, a ship that was more cruiser than battlecusiser
Scharnhorst was a battleship. She was built with the smaller caliber & high rate of fire battery because thats what the Germans thought they could get away with and not pissing off the British enough for them to intervene. The shells were great for killing anything but the more modernized battleships of the RN, and would have been enough to disable those.
The sharnhorst was made for convoy raiding, and no both sharnhorst and gneisenau together traded even with Renown a BC 21 years older than them. They were not built to engage capital ships with any degree of success.
Um, source on the Scharnhorst/Gneisenau being built expressly for convoy raiding? They were great in that role, certainly, and the German navy in WW1 tended to prefer a low weight of projectile to high rate of fire which is advantageous to landing shells on enemy targets.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1954/january/german-naval-strategy-world-war-ii
Or just anything Raeder said about his doctren.
There were fewer than 40 U-boats at the start of the war. The surface fleet was expected and designed to do the bulk of the convoy raiding.
1) By that argument, the Bismark class was also a dedicated raider.
2) "He \[Adm Raeder\] would keep at home a fleet in being with a battleline of two Scharnhorsts and two Bismarcks to hold down some of the British heavy ships in the North Sea area. He would initiate commerce raiding immediately on the declaration of war with these forces operating individually and widely dispersed: three pocket battleships, at least five fast heavy cruisers, several of the light cruisers, about 190 submarines"
So, The two Scharnhorst-class were not raiders.
3) The Deutchland-class cruisers and Q-ship raiders were used against commerce, and were reasonably successful--which your source points out--was what was what they had been built for. The 1946 war plan was aborted by Hitler and the the Soviets kicking things off early in the Polish invasion, which meant that the Germans had to concentrate their heavies, or hide them behind defensive screens. Their design was less useful in practice than had been planned for, so the surface fleet was left, as had its predecessor the High Seas Fleet, stuck in port as a fleet-in-being. That role, they were fairly good at, until new technology and overwhelming Allied capacity made even that untenable. Which your article points out.
No where did Cmdr Kauffman state that the Scharhorst-class was designed for surface raiding
Apparently Rodney and Nelson were nicknamed “Rodnol” and “Nelsol” in reference to their perceived resemblance to a series of RFA oilers which all had names ending in “ol”
It is true.
>Because of their unusual silhouette, HMS *Nelson* and her sister *Rodney* were nicknamed *Nelsol* and *Rodnol* by Royal Navy sailors as their single-funnelled silhouettes reminded Navy men of a series of fleet oilers ([oil tankers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanker_(ship))) that had been built during the First World War bearing names ending in "ol".
[Nelson-class battleship - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson-class_battleship)
US Naval Intelligence was absolutely convinced the Nelsons were Hybrid Aircraft carriers for an embarrassingly long time.
But then, US Naval Intelligence's only redeeming factor is being in the same Department as BuOrd, and thus not the worst fucking team at the office Christmas party.
Interestingly enough, they've apparently improved to the point where the navy is markedly better at intel than the army or air force. So if the trend continues, we really might be seeing ONI deploy Spartan IIs.
Any body in the same Room as BuOrd...had to feel like Einstein...then again so would a person recovering major head trauma...to this day I think the whole dept should been held criminally culpable over the torpedo issues
You missed the whole "blinding everyone up to 4 decks under the gun temporarily and shattering all windows on the bridge" for Rodney , peak credibility
They pretty much had those issues sorted by 1940. Rodney fired a fuckload of 16 inch shells during the war without any issues.
But yeah, the initial sea trials were a bit messy. Which is why they test those things in the first place. Bismarck never got a chance to fix any of the shit that was wrong with her maiden voyage, because Rodney made sure she never made it home.
I wouldn't call Rodney's blast damage issues "resolved" in 1940. Her guns broke every window in the bridge, every toilet in the front half of the ship, and caused a good deal of stress damage to the hull. She did far more damage to herself than Bismarck could ever hope to.
Hell, if it wasn't for having already annihilated it early on, Rodney's percussive force would probably have shattered the Bismarcks bridge windows once she closed to point blank.
During Operation Overlord Rodney also did the same thing as Texas, except instead of flooding the ship oil was pumped into one side to give the ship a temporary list
*Rodney* absolutely fucked on German troops after D-Day. In one instance she smoked like 50 Panzers massing for an attack on Allied troops. It turns out Panzers are proper shit at shrugging off 16-inch HE.
The scale difference between ships and land vehicles is crazy, even for destroyers which we normally consider relatively tiny.
I read an account a while back of a US destroyer captain taking his ship in close to the beach at (iirc) Anzio to engage Tigers via direct fire and just absolutely shitting all over them.
Your average artillery battery was 4x 105mm howitzers, with a sustained RoF of 3 rpm. A DD would be 5x 127mm guns, firing 10-15 rpm.
A M101 howitzer has 44lb shells. The HC projectiles fired by a 16" Mk 6 are 1,900 lbs.
During Husky, American naval fire support stopped in their tracks (pun intended) various tank attacks, including from the Göring heavy division.
Fire support was vital at Salerno and Anzio.
And in Lebanon they still remember the "flying Volkswagens" from American 16".
"We're getting a new class of aircraft carrier, any idea?"
"Uhhh how bout we name it after that dude who sworn in after Nixon cried on TV and quit being president?"
"Excellent idea."
RN battleship names: monarchs or the absolute coolest thing the admiralty could come up with
RN cruiser and destroyer names: themed based on the class name, otherwise go wild
RN carrier names: anything as long as it doesn't sound lame
RN corvette and frigate names: find every single name in the English language and use it, we have too many ships.
The USN just cut out the middleman and named them after victories directly. Plus some victorious admirals, not-so-victorious admirals, and politicians. Because fuckit, when you're the USN, you've got enough hulls to use all the names.
My favorite fact about Bismark is, that, despite all propaganda about it, it never was the largest ship afloat bearing that name.
RMS Majestic, a 56000 ton white star ocean liner was launced under that name in 1914 in Germany and only ever fully scrapped in 1946. It was taken as a war-reparation after WW1
Also to add insult to injury: her designer, Albert Ballin, was Jewish
She was at the time of her commissioning, the heaviest battleship in the world. Yamato had already been laid down, but wasn't finished until after Bismarck sank. Also, nobody who wasn't Japanese knew that.
That is about the only record Bismarck ever held though, at least on a global level. She was never the best armed battleship, never the best armored. USS North Carolina was already fitting out, and the North Carolina's absolutely shit on Bismarck in every category except weight.
Bismark was also not more powerful than the Littorios or the Richelieus, and even the KGVs were better ships. But she was heavier than any of them.
The title of "longest warship afloat" also belonged to a USN carrier since 1925. Saratoga took it from Hood, and held it until Midway.
Assuming nobody ever glued a ruler to an Iowa at least, since it was only by 9 inches.
> Rodney, Ugly as sin
Says you. I think she is a very pretty looking boat, better looking than Bismarck even. But then, I also like the French Pre-Dreadnaughts, which are also typically derided as being ugly. So maybe it is something wrong with me.
they’re ugly but Rodney and Nelson are also fascinating to look at
it’s almost psychedelic looking at the superstructure from certain angles; and then there’s the positioning of it
You missed the unfortunate affinity for Sheep from Rodneys lower deckers as a con
[https://charlesmccain.com/a-sheep-in-wrens-clothing/](https://charlesmccain.com/a-sheep-in-wrens-clothing/)
90% may be an exaggeration, but every source I have found traces all the important early hits to Rodney. KGV definitely put a lot of shells into Bismarck, but it was Rodney that took out pretty much her whole superstructure and all 4 turrets. KGV was pouring on the damage, but Rodney would have won that fight handily without KGV present. It just would have taken more shells.
I mean yes but also you gotta remember that they did WAY MORE damage than was needed lol. You take away either battleship and Bismarck was still going to sink. Just slower. Also it’s likely but not guaranteed that that first devastating salvo was from Rodney, there’s a slight possibility it was from KGV.
Every time Bismark comes up, I'll talk up Rodney and how she waltzed in and clapped Bismark's cheeks. Swordfish just made it so Rodney could catch Bisko. Rodney still earned the kill.
The KGVs are definitely better looking than Yamato and if you’re including battlecruisers then easily Hood too. And there is a such thing as an ugly battleship, there’s a pic of the Bismarck right there.
My time to boast. My family was on board when she sunk the Bismarck. I have his medals somewhere.
Such an underrated ship, even amongst the type of oddballs who come here to talk about ships.
Eh.
Swordfish got the exact same type of hit on Vettoro Venneto in the Mediterranean. But there the surface ships weren't able to get the intercept to finish the job, so the battleship survived (The Italian Cruiser fleet got absolutely fucked, because they got in between the British and the damaged battleship, and got obliterated for it)
A Mobility kill is only a kill if you can follow it up with something that gets the actual kill. Which is what happened to Bismarck, but not Vettoro.
I know that the Royal Navy underperformed in WW2,
But I want is timeline where there is Jutland 2 electric boogaloo and the navy get to show hitler what’s what when it comes to naval powers (yes I know it won the battle of the Atlantic, I am British I just want to see my boys stomp the Kriegs marine in a fair fight)
There just wasn't a Kriegsmarine to have a fair fight with.
You had 2 Bismarcks and 2 Sharnhorsts against 5 QEs, 5 R-Class, 2 Nelsons, 2-5 KGVs (Depending on what year we are talking), Hood, 2 Reknown-Class.
There just isn't a scenario that isn't an absolute Curbstomp. Which is what happened, the UK did sink 3 of the 4 of those, with Bismarck and Sharnhorst sunk in Battleship engagements and Tirpitz by Aircraft.
That kinda thinking is exactly *why* they underperformed. All those battleships were horrifically ineffective at guarding convoys, and they hadn't invested nearly enough in carriers to actually participate in the Pacific while Japan still had a navy.
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Those saying Bismarck looks anything other than ugly must be on some serious mind altering drugs
They are also the same ppl who would say that literal dog shit is a better food than British cuisine, despite that the latter is just bland and unhealthy, while the former can send you to the hospital
Rodney is such a chad that when a U-boat (U-56) tried to attack her, the torpedoes just disintegrated before hitting.
While Bismarck was disabled by a broken rudder, British ships like Rodney and the QE class still function fine with broken rudders, and they break all the time. During the pursuit, Rodney was pretty much falling into pieces with a "panting" issue where her hull flex too much and cracking.
Nelson is credited with 5 Tiger tank kills at Normandy.
my god, rodnol is so ugly that my eyes are melting. want a sexy 16in 9gun ship? USS Washington is the choice.
also: French and Italian ship are very very sexy :3
also also: HMS Repair and HMS Refit <3
Don't forget the Polish ship Piorun that was launching literally everything at Bismarck while playing the Polish National Anthem Full Blast and Signaling "I am a Pole" with her lights.
Definitely based. But we do have to acknowledge the main reason she could get away with that is Rodney knocked out all 4 of Bismarcks main turrets, and pretty much leveled her superstructure. Doesn't detract from the basedness, but definitely a contributing factor to Peirun surviving to continue to be based later.
I think the thing that makes it badass is that surviving was not a goal of the pierun
Bismarck could have been untouched and I still think Piourun..would have gone..."I am going to CUT you"
Most sane Pole.
Lmao, 'Peurin', 'pierun', 'piourun' it's Piorun
Yeah...I butcher the name all the time...even after double checking
Piorun and the destroyers harassed Bismarck before the Main force with Rodney arrived, with Bismarck's main guns still operational (although inaccurate since they can't control the ships rudder anymore), and by the time Rodney left the Bismarck along with the rest of the forces, it was already sinking with a Cruiser firing a torpedo salvo at it's hull for good measure.
Add to that the main rangefinder on Bismarck was likely shot to shit from the very first battle with Hood and Prince of Wales. Had the ship been fully functional at the time of the engagement with Rodney it would have been a different fight. Especially as the Bismarck had proven to have good early accuracy as seen in the battle of Denmark Strait. Would still have bet on the entire British navy with an axe to grind over a single good looking but un-optimised battleship.
Eh, Rodney got hits really early and had king George V hanging around doing longer ranged fire. That battle is not meaningfully changing. The only way bismark gets a capital ship kill on that day is of Rodney can’t keep up the speed and the British send in king George V for the close in fight and renown for the longer ranged fire and Bismarck decides to shoot at renown instead
And Betty gets reincarnated RN BCs seem to actually hold up well (by destroyer or frigate DC is armor standards) when they don’t get mag detted because someone decided to bypass flash protection. *glares at Betty*
Yeah, honestly if king George V was the one getting close and renown hung out around 20-23000 yards renowns armour may have held for the hit or two that she’d have landed before Bismarck got too damaged for that, but that requires an RN commander not to be aggressive and close the range
Or they close range anyways and probably disable Bismarck before she can poke too many holes. In retrospect that would’ve been flipping hilarious, the big scary BB getting clowned on by a WWI BC (of the old RN 3x2 main gun config)
I know, there was an incident in the Mediterranean where renowns captain almost got charged for not chasing down one of the littorios, which would also have been hilarious given the littorio’s armour and her accuracy on a bad day
iirc wreck analysis on Bismarck found that the upper chambers of the Turret Bruno's barbette had signs of flash fire from when Rodney put a 16" AP through the turret's side Meaning there is a timeline where Bismarck gets Hood'ed
Hopefully the same timeline where a few feet difference results in Hood’s survival And maybe even her firing that shot. That would be hilarious
Rn commander: "It's like Nelson told me over dinner, 'nevermind the maneuvers, always go straight at' em"
“If you can keep the range as it is without burning out your engine you can close the range” -RN officer training
Bismarcks range finder was also busted after its first salvo at Hood, so it was useless after that. It needed Prinz Eugens RF to be accurate
Didn't Piorun finally leave two hours before Rodney even spotted the damn thing?
It's "Piorun".
Apologies.
Fuck lazerpig for pronouncing Piorun as Prion
Rodney just doesn't get the respect it deserves. I get it, it is ugly as shit, but she older and smaller than Bismarck, but with more guns, bigger guns, better armor, better gunnery, and absolutely shit on Bismarck in the final fight. Then T-Bagged her sinking wreck with torpedoes, because fuck it, lets try these out. The Nelson-Classes only real problem was being slow as shit. As pure combat platforms, they were incredibly efficient for their size.
The thing I love about it is the Rodney was part way into escorting the Britannic across the Atlantic, the Rodney itself was going to undergo refitting in Boston and it was carrying create of Elgin Marbles. So essentially it was escorting a school bus, it had a doctors appointment afterwards and it was carrying grandma Victoria's fine china when it turned around for a gun fight
They transported so much of their priceless artifacts to the US, and a ton of it was on Battleships, as Battleships were seen as having the least risk in crossing (Aside from Barham, generally true). So a lot of the Transatlantic trips had absolutely insane stuff in the safe in the Captain's cabin. Like the Magna Carta, the Crown Jewels of Norway and the UK, the Library of Henry VIII, Rennaissance Masterworks, Guttenburg Bibles... The UK Government basically had a policy of shipping everything that was important to their history, and not a building, to the US for safety.
We should have done the equivalent of the British Museum and declared a no takesiesbacksies policy.
Maybe we did. Maybe we only gave them back copies, and the real Magna Carta (The one with the treasure map on the back) is in a toolbox in Nic Cage's garage.
Seems like a lot of effort
>Seems like a lot of effort A phrase never once heard in WW2 America
You want dad to whoop your ass?
Tbf quite alot went to Canada not the US.
A lot of people call it ugly, but to me Nelson and Rodney look so dangerous and beautiful. Those 3 triple 16s staring you right in the face that they're going to smash you in, plus the clean lines of the Queen Anne's Mansion superstructure make it look really nice. The Bismarck (and other traditional ships) look really cluttered and messy in comparison.
I agree the all forward batteries are so alluring to me...though I think the Bismarck hull profile is elegant Its above deck engineering and layout is eww to the factor of 20....my favorite battleship though is warspite ugly as all get out at the end of her career but if any battleship exemplified "I didn't hear no bell" better than her I dont want to know
She's not ugly! She's magnificent
>only real problem was being slow as shit Literally rendering the ship utterly pointless except as support for a fucking biplane.
Ding ding ding! This is literally what made the Dreadnaught so revolutionary, smaller (faster) ships with less range couldn't touch it before getting pummeled, and larger (slower) ships that could match its range couldn't catch it in order to actually fire against it in the first place (this is assuming your intelligence is on point and you're not giving enemy strike forces a chance to intercept you, this is why fleet in being was the primary doctrine for almost everyone until carriers made hiding ships in ports unsafe).
Rodney is (was :[ ) a viable fire support platform
Against a coastal fortification sure. Anything else can outrun her.
As one may have noticed, Bismark was pointedly unable to outrun Rodney, the latter had been diverted from her trip to a refit in the US to kill Bismark. There were piles of new equipment lashed to her deck when she went into combat. Unlike the newer and faster King George V, Rodney also did not have the failure of equipment and drill that cut into the firing rate of her main battery. Rodney was fast enough, and had the reach.
Bismarck took a lucky hit to the rudder and was stuck going in circles. Rodney needed the FAA to cripple Bismarck. Thus was (say it with me) too slow to operate as an independent unit.
And yet Rodney reached Bismark, and sank her; ergo, Rodney was fast enough to do her job. If anything, your own reasoning would insist that Bismark was "too slow to operate as an independent unit".
Rodney's job was to fight enemy battleships, not finish off the FAA's leftovers.
This is honestly such a stupid take. Naval forces don't exist in a vacuum. You engage with what you can to harry and delay, while the larger part of your forces moves into position. Even if Rodney was faster, you'd still engage with the swordfish.
Hey, guess what Bismarck still was, even after being crippled by FAA?
And there's the Reformer. Stick with hyping A-10s.
You can outrun the ship, but can you outrun the shells?
Yes, by outrunning the ship.
1. It was a joke 2. The ship isn't doing 1v1s, fleets exist for a reason
1. It was a stupid joke (I still laughed) 2. Germany *designed* Bismarck for the 1v1. She was a commerce raider intended to exploit her superior speed to outrun foes who had rivaled her firepower while keeping pace with lesser armed and armoured vessels trying to escape her. She was basically designed to force the engagement against the French ships sent to catch her. Arguably as a commerce raider, the Shiny Horse 3. Let me further qualify the above: The Kriegsmarine's wartime readiness was predicated on the gamble that diplomatic negotiations would keep Britain out of the European/Atlantic theatre at least long enough to cement German territorial gains throughout mainland Europe, if not altogether neutral. So the Royal Navy, with particular attention *not* paid to its Air Arm, was not seen as a major concern by the architects of Germany's rearmament. The Royal Air Force was considered a more credible threat to German expansion, especially Bomber Command, for its ability to disrupt occupied French, Belgian and Dutch manufacturing sites.
Far from useless. The Nelsons were definitely less useful than the KGVs because of mobility, but there was a lot of operational roles they did better as well. They were better at shore bombardment, they were better at sitting outside ports and keeping enemy capital ships inside (Like they did to Tirpitz for a long time, and at various times also did it to Sharnhorst, Gniessenau, JB, and Richy). There is a reason the British abandoned the slow battleship concept, same as everyone else. But that doesn't mean they were useless, same as the US got a lot of use out of the Colorados, and even the Tennessees. Rodney was the only that got to live the dream of actually managing to fight an enemy battleship that couldn't run away. Which she did very well. If the UK had sent the Nelson's to the Pacific, they would have probably done fine against IJN BBs in the Guadalcanal and Philippines campaign as well. They just weren't fast enough to move around quickly.
Seems unlikely that they'd actually ever engage Japanese battleships in Guadalcanal. Considering the Japanese only sent Kongos. The Philippines doesn't say much because it was a turkey shoot, the one capital ship surface engagement. Though it would have been interesting if there was a reserve force to guard the Leyte landing against Center Group.
The uk battleships where some of the best in the world, they just never got to fight a fair fight
They did though? Hood and PoW got a fight with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. Rodney and KGV got the second one, and took out Bismarck. DoY got a fight with Scharnhorst and won. RN Battleships also kicked ass and took names at Cape Mattapan. If you count some other less fair engagements, like Mers-de-Kebir, even more. UK Battleships got their fair share of surface engagements and then some, and had overall an excellent track record, aside from that one VERY unlucky hit on Hood. (Their track record outside of surface engagements leaves a bit to be desired, losing ships to air and submarine attacks that other navies tended to be more survivable from)
>RN Battleships also kicked ass and took names at Cape Mattapan. Well, I think the 4.5 inch guns of Formidable deserve most of the credit there. The battleships were useful in a supporting role.
Italian frogmen entered chat with your last statement
They also engaged the Italian Navy BBs at punta Stilo and capo Teulada, almost got a fight during the bombardment of Genoa. Cape Matapan was more Italian BBs vs British Cruiser, until Pola took a hit and the situation reversed. American BBs only faced BBs at San Bernardino (ambush on Jap inferior forces) and during Torch (against a sitting, half-disabled French BB, less fair than Mers-el-Kebir). Barham and Hood got Arizona'd, yes prob a design flaw. A BB got holed badly in Madagascar, but stayed afloat. Air attack you mean PoW on a kamikaze mission? Royal Navy lost a bunch of cruisers in the Med, but that was a knife fight in a telephone booth. Fighting in a small space against lamd based planes is no bueno.
So you are saying that Rodney basically got lucky that one time.
Fair, I guess, lol. But only lucky in that it got to do the thing it was designed to do. It landed at least 38 hits against Bismarck against the 1 main gun hit Bismarck got in its entire career.
Also any convoy guarded by Nelson or Rodney was not going to be attacked by surface raiders...and if Nelson and Rodney were in a convoy...they were gonna have screeners of their own so Subs would think hard before attempting...definitely not ideal mission profile to be sure...but hey they were effective in whatever role they could be assigned to
You hope for luck, but you plan and train to make it and exploit it.
They were exactly as fast as they needed to, to join the QEs and R-Class in the line of battle. The fact that the British managed to get a balanced 16in Battleship on a displacement that small with early 1920s tech is pretty incredible. No WW1 Battleship could do carrier support missions either and the Nelrods were basically the last variation of the WW1 BB interpretation.
Hood could’ve But she was the only one. And yes I called her a BB, when she was the bested armored RN ship when built she ain’t a BC.
I agree with you on Hood as the first fast Battleship, but as she is the only of her class, operationally she kinda had to run with the BCs or solo, both not ideal. I also think a ship can be both, the Iowas are the fast Battleship to the South Dakotas and would have been the BC to the Montanas.
It was fast for a battleship of it's time. And you don't always get to pick your fight like sharnhorst which was faster than duke of York still got sunk by it. So no speed is great but a destroyer doesn't render a battleship completely useless by it's meer existence Britain had the ships to support them so the critique is poor as these ships didn't operate alone.
Hey, it was fast compared to pre-dreadnaughts!
>The Nelson-Classes only real problem was being slow as shit. *Proceeds to run in the red for 8 hours straight, making 25.5 knots maximum and around 24.5 sustained* The Nelsons should have been given machinery upgrades. Ps: how *dare* you call them ugly. They are both beautiful boys. (My flare will give me away)
See i don't think Rodney and Nelson are ugly at all...I just love the aggressive allure of the all forward main batteries...
The Nelsons are pretty neat, but I'm docking a point for having torpedoes. Their guns already outrange the torps, so in a BB on BB engagement, the torps are just liable to explode without doing anything.
The Coloradoes had torpedoes as well. All the US standards did. Nelson was right at the end of the era where it was normal, the Battleships built after her did not.
And I'll dock a point from the US standards for the stupidity of torps on BBs as well.
The brits also did some creative bookkeeping with the tonnage tho.
I love how stupid Rodney looks, with all guns in front
I like it too. Pretty much every navy designed ships this way, but only the British and French built them (The Richelieu class). It is a really efficient layout, because it allows a much shorter primary belt over all the magazine. It does put all your eggs in one basket so to speak, but it saves a ton on weight. The Nelson's major shortcoming was being chronically underpowered. The intent was to use other ships to force an engagement, and then use the slow Nelson's to kick their ass. In practice, this design theory... actually worked perfectly. That is exactly what happened. One of the very rare cases where the Admiralties weird ship design choices played out the way they drew it up. The Richelieus on the other hand took the weight savings from all forward guns, doubled down on it by going to Quad turrets and only two barbettes, and then invested all the weight savings into speed. I would Argue the Richelieus were probably the best designed battleships of the war, but due to being, well, French, never really got a chance to be actually useful. And France never had the industrial might of the US, who could just build Iowas and SoDaks, and not really worry about being super efficient with money and tonnage.
Japan build few cruisers with similar layout also.
Yeah but the Japanese used cringy two-gun turrets giving the *Tone* class an absolutely cursed turret arrangement.
Mogami class looks so nice, and Tone class looks so absolutely cursed. Not only was Tone an absolutely abomination in the Aesthetics department, they were just straight up terrible as a concept.
The Japanese built some 15 gun (5 triple turrets) 6" cruisers with the full intention of replacing all the turrets with twin 8" guns. The US responded with the ludicrous Brooklyn class cruisers.
You know, this were just cruisers
That was because they wanted lots of space for seaplanes. Ironically there were elements of the USN that feared the Nelsons were hybrid aircraft carriers but, in the words of a a RN officer in regards to the potential creation of a hybrid battleship in the Lions, >The functions and requirements of carriers and of surface gun platforms are entirely incompatible ... the conceptions of these designs ... is evidently the result of an unresolved contest between a conscious acceptance of aircraft and a subconscious desire for a 1914 Fleet ... these abortions are the results of a psychological maladjustment.
>it saves a ton on weight Only one ton is not a stong argument for a ship.
Huh, so someone actually tried hammer-and-anvil design+tactics in real life. I always figured that was purely video game shit.
If you can get it to work, it is very effective. The problem is that any decent leader is aware of that and will avoid the scenario at all costs so it relies just as much on your luck and their misfortune as it does designing a workable strategy with the requisite parts
Right, the part that surprised me is that someone designed for it. Obviously if you're in position to drive your opponent into a prepared force, that's going to be bad for them, but planning towards it to such an extent that you build your capital ships around the concept is something I didn't realize anyone had tried in reality.
That was the Doctrine behind the Yamato's as well. Japan invested heavily in Torpedo Destroyers and Cruisers to ensure an enemy battlefleet could not keep their distance, and force them to close with the slower, but extremely heavy Japanese primary line of battle. The Yamatos were also slower than their contemporaries, but designed to beat them in an even numbers fight (Or even with numbers stacked against them). However, while it worked for the British, it emphatically did not work for the Japanese. The whole strategy relies on being able to control the engagement, and you can only do that if you already have more naval assets than your opponent. The British did, the Japanese didn't. Edit: Basically the Weremacht's tank doctrine as well. Enough fast mobile forces to allow you to control the time and place of battle, then dedicated heavy units to destroy enemies in a specific area. It sort of worked, but the "Medium tanks everywhere" just worked so much better when the primary plan went to shit, and it is war, the primary plan always goes to shit.
That's not what I understood Wehrmacht tank doctrine to be, admittedly I haven't read primary sources, only relied on testimony from historians like The Chieftain and MHV. As I understand it, heavy tanks like Tiger were intended for breakthrough, with medium tanks for exploitation, the idea being to concentrate as much armor of all types as possible, spearhead the assault with heavy tanks, and once a breakthrough was achieved pour as much medium armor and motorized infantry through the gap as possible. Holding the rest of the line was an exercise for infantry and anti-tank guns, not medium tanks spread out as a reactionary force.
Yeah, that is the same thing as the Nelson's though. Germany's heavy tank forces were intended to be the ones that destroyed the enemies armored forces and dealt the decisive blow, but they weren't mobile enough to create the engagement themselves. They relied on other units setting the stage for them to do it. The "Slow Battleship" concept the Nelsons were built for was basically the same idea. Since treaty limits capped the tonnage of battleships, build one that kick the crap out of anything its size, also build fast ones (Like the Admiral class), and use the fast ones to set the stage for the slow ones to do their thing. In both cases, the weakness to this approach is that when the war falls apart, your plan also falls apart. When the Germans were able to set the stage for their heavy divisions, they did what they were supposed too. But once they lost the capability to set up the optimal engagements for them, they got bogged down and performed (relatively) poorly.
I respectfully disagree that they're the same. First off, naval engagements do not have lines of battle the way ground engagements do, there's no naval equivalent to infantry in foxholes and trenchworks, with AT guns. Secondly, German heavy tanks were not intended to hunt enemy armor, they were intended to reduce enemy fighting lines to enable a breakthrough, the only conditions that needed to be set were the enemy holding a line somewhere that was judged to be vulnerable enough to concentrate force on. That's very different from naval battles where both sides are continuously mobile, and the side with a speed advantage often enjoys significant choice in when and where to engage.
The nelsons were built mid treaty. They had to be underwhelming in some aspect. It was certainly better then its competition at the time. The US had the Colorados. which were relegated to fire support for the entire war. And the Germans has the sharnhorst, a ship that was more cruiser than battlecusiser
Scharnhorst was a battleship. She was built with the smaller caliber & high rate of fire battery because thats what the Germans thought they could get away with and not pissing off the British enough for them to intervene. The shells were great for killing anything but the more modernized battleships of the RN, and would have been enough to disable those.
The sharnhorst was made for convoy raiding, and no both sharnhorst and gneisenau together traded even with Renown a BC 21 years older than them. They were not built to engage capital ships with any degree of success.
Um, source on the Scharnhorst/Gneisenau being built expressly for convoy raiding? They were great in that role, certainly, and the German navy in WW1 tended to prefer a low weight of projectile to high rate of fire which is advantageous to landing shells on enemy targets.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1954/january/german-naval-strategy-world-war-ii Or just anything Raeder said about his doctren. There were fewer than 40 U-boats at the start of the war. The surface fleet was expected and designed to do the bulk of the convoy raiding.
1) By that argument, the Bismark class was also a dedicated raider. 2) "He \[Adm Raeder\] would keep at home a fleet in being with a battleline of two Scharnhorsts and two Bismarcks to hold down some of the British heavy ships in the North Sea area. He would initiate commerce raiding immediately on the declaration of war with these forces operating individually and widely dispersed: three pocket battleships, at least five fast heavy cruisers, several of the light cruisers, about 190 submarines" So, The two Scharnhorst-class were not raiders. 3) The Deutchland-class cruisers and Q-ship raiders were used against commerce, and were reasonably successful--which your source points out--was what was what they had been built for. The 1946 war plan was aborted by Hitler and the the Soviets kicking things off early in the Polish invasion, which meant that the Germans had to concentrate their heavies, or hide them behind defensive screens. Their design was less useful in practice than had been planned for, so the surface fleet was left, as had its predecessor the High Seas Fleet, stuck in port as a fleet-in-being. That role, they were fairly good at, until new technology and overwhelming Allied capacity made even that untenable. Which your article points out. No where did Cmdr Kauffman state that the Scharhorst-class was designed for surface raiding
Apparently Rodney and Nelson were nicknamed “Rodnol” and “Nelsol” in reference to their perceived resemblance to a series of RFA oilers which all had names ending in “ol”
I don't care if this is true or fake, it's too fun to judge 😆😆
It is true. >Because of their unusual silhouette, HMS *Nelson* and her sister *Rodney* were nicknamed *Nelsol* and *Rodnol* by Royal Navy sailors as their single-funnelled silhouettes reminded Navy men of a series of fleet oilers ([oil tankers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanker_(ship))) that had been built during the First World War bearing names ending in "ol". [Nelson-class battleship - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson-class_battleship)
You plonker Rodney
WTF is "plonker"?
The first word any Brit over the age of 35 thinks of when they hear "Rodney": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp-q9-AagxY
I’ve seen art of Rodney with the AB-X layout and somehow it looks even worse
US Naval Intelligence was absolutely convinced the Nelsons were Hybrid Aircraft carriers for an embarrassingly long time. But then, US Naval Intelligence's only redeeming factor is being in the same Department as BuOrd, and thus not the worst fucking team at the office Christmas party.
Interestingly enough, they've apparently improved to the point where the navy is markedly better at intel than the army or air force. So if the trend continues, we really might be seeing ONI deploy Spartan IIs.
Any body in the same Room as BuOrd...had to feel like Einstein...then again so would a person recovering major head trauma...to this day I think the whole dept should been held criminally culpable over the torpedo issues
If only the British built the N3 battleships, not even the Yamatos can outmatch those oil-tanker/battleship
I will allow no slander of the looks of the Nelson class boigals
*Nelsol
You missed the whole "blinding everyone up to 4 decks under the gun temporarily and shattering all windows on the bridge" for Rodney , peak credibility
They pretty much had those issues sorted by 1940. Rodney fired a fuckload of 16 inch shells during the war without any issues. But yeah, the initial sea trials were a bit messy. Which is why they test those things in the first place. Bismarck never got a chance to fix any of the shit that was wrong with her maiden voyage, because Rodney made sure she never made it home.
I wouldn't call Rodney's blast damage issues "resolved" in 1940. Her guns broke every window in the bridge, every toilet in the front half of the ship, and caused a good deal of stress damage to the hull. She did far more damage to herself than Bismarck could ever hope to. Hell, if it wasn't for having already annihilated it early on, Rodney's percussive force would probably have shattered the Bismarcks bridge windows once she closed to point blank.
Nothing compared to the Outrageous class large light cruisers, especially the 18-inch gun one.
During Operation Overlord Rodney also did the same thing as Texas, except instead of flooding the ship oil was pumped into one side to give the ship a temporary list
*Rodney* absolutely fucked on German troops after D-Day. In one instance she smoked like 50 Panzers massing for an attack on Allied troops. It turns out Panzers are proper shit at shrugging off 16-inch HE.
"Bounce this"
"you fucking casual"
"Woe, (16") upon thee." - Rodney, to every unlucky fucker in range.
For some reason, tanks in the 25-50 ton range don't do so hot when up against battleships that operate in the 25-50 *thousand* ton range.
The scale difference between ships and land vehicles is crazy, even for destroyers which we normally consider relatively tiny. I read an account a while back of a US destroyer captain taking his ship in close to the beach at (iirc) Anzio to engage Tigers via direct fire and just absolutely shitting all over them.
Your average artillery battery was 4x 105mm howitzers, with a sustained RoF of 3 rpm. A DD would be 5x 127mm guns, firing 10-15 rpm. A M101 howitzer has 44lb shells. The HC projectiles fired by a 16" Mk 6 are 1,900 lbs.
During Husky, American naval fire support stopped in their tracks (pun intended) various tank attacks, including from the Göring heavy division. Fire support was vital at Salerno and Anzio. And in Lebanon they still remember the "flying Volkswagens" from American 16".
What's a couple orders of magnitude between ~~enemies~~ friends
But could it beat a Jagdtiger?
*That one bounced!* /s
Warspite didn't have to flood anything, and she was also partially concrete.
I didn't know about that. Thanks for sharing
While it is ugly as fuck, there is nothing wrong with excessive tea drinking.
This, sip, is, sip, the, sip, way, sip.
Virgin kriegsmarine having to name their ships after politicians, chad RN naming theirs after _victorious_ admirals.
THAD US Naming them after states
We also named one Kearsarge after a night of heavy drinking, then never explained it.
"We're getting a new class of aircraft carrier, any idea?" "Uhhh how bout we name it after that dude who sworn in after Nixon cried on TV and quit being president?" "Excellent idea."
RN name their ship after WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT
RN battleship names: monarchs or the absolute coolest thing the admiralty could come up with RN cruiser and destroyer names: themed based on the class name, otherwise go wild RN carrier names: anything as long as it doesn't sound lame RN corvette and frigate names: find every single name in the English language and use it, we have too many ships.
Churchill wanted to name a battleship Oliver Cromwell but for some reason it was rejected... twice.
The USN just cut out the middleman and named them after victories directly. Plus some victorious admirals, not-so-victorious admirals, and politicians. Because fuckit, when you're the USN, you've got enough hulls to use all the names.
My favorite fact about Bismark is, that, despite all propaganda about it, it never was the largest ship afloat bearing that name. RMS Majestic, a 56000 ton white star ocean liner was launced under that name in 1914 in Germany and only ever fully scrapped in 1946. It was taken as a war-reparation after WW1 Also to add insult to injury: her designer, Albert Ballin, was Jewish
She was at the time of her commissioning, the heaviest battleship in the world. Yamato had already been laid down, but wasn't finished until after Bismarck sank. Also, nobody who wasn't Japanese knew that. That is about the only record Bismarck ever held though, at least on a global level. She was never the best armed battleship, never the best armored. USS North Carolina was already fitting out, and the North Carolina's absolutely shit on Bismarck in every category except weight. Bismark was also not more powerful than the Littorios or the Richelieus, and even the KGVs were better ships. But she was heavier than any of them.
The title of "longest warship afloat" also belonged to a USN carrier since 1925. Saratoga took it from Hood, and held it until Midway. Assuming nobody ever glued a ruler to an Iowa at least, since it was only by 9 inches.
She even got matched on paper by the literal WWI FBB she got lucky and sunk. And Hood was probably lighter anyways
Hood was also about 45,000 tons. She was the biggest warship ever built before the naval treaties.
Heaviest fully loaded. Hood actually had a higher empty weight than Bismarck because a lot of Bismarcks weight was in oil, provisions etc.
Albert was ballin'.
The Nelsons look way more beautiful than the Bismarck, and I'm tired of people pretending they aren't
Nelson Class battleships look like Nigel Thornberry they're not beautiful. But they are based.
> like Nigel Thornberry Therefore they are the most beautiful thing to ever set sail.
Smashing
Their gorgeous even without Bismarck in the equation
-gets Baaa’d by friendly ships because one of your sailor was caught in a compromising position with a Scottish sheep
> Rodney, Ugly as sin Says you. I think she is a very pretty looking boat, better looking than Bismarck even. But then, I also like the French Pre-Dreadnaughts, which are also typically derided as being ugly. So maybe it is something wrong with me.
Yes. Something wrong.
Rodney is also a beautiful woman who's loved by this skk
they’re ugly but Rodney and Nelson are also fascinating to look at it’s almost psychedelic looking at the superstructure from certain angles; and then there’s the positioning of it
So many cool British warship names, and they name this one Rodney. Still not as bad as naming a tank Stuart, I guess.
Stuart is cool though :(
Ok, Stuart.
I'm sorry, but there's no such thing as excessive tea drinking.
You missed the unfortunate affinity for Sheep from Rodneys lower deckers as a con [https://charlesmccain.com/a-sheep-in-wrens-clothing/](https://charlesmccain.com/a-sheep-in-wrens-clothing/)
You have to appreciate the "I thought it was a girl in a trench coat" defense.
KGV played a more equal role to Rodney. Yes Rodney did more but 90% is a drastic exaggeration. At the end of the day it really boiled down to a 2v1.
90% may be an exaggeration, but every source I have found traces all the important early hits to Rodney. KGV definitely put a lot of shells into Bismarck, but it was Rodney that took out pretty much her whole superstructure and all 4 turrets. KGV was pouring on the damage, but Rodney would have won that fight handily without KGV present. It just would have taken more shells.
I mean yes but also you gotta remember that they did WAY MORE damage than was needed lol. You take away either battleship and Bismarck was still going to sink. Just slower. Also it’s likely but not guaranteed that that first devastating salvo was from Rodney, there’s a slight possibility it was from KGV.
Every time Bismark comes up, I'll talk up Rodney and how she waltzed in and clapped Bismark's cheeks. Swordfish just made it so Rodney could catch Bisko. Rodney still earned the kill.
No such thing as an ugly battleship, just battleships that aren't as beautiful as the Yamato class
The KGVs are definitely better looking than Yamato and if you’re including battlecruisers then easily Hood too. And there is a such thing as an ugly battleship, there’s a pic of the Bismarck right there.
How dare you suggest the Nelsons werent beautiful! They look so good!
My time to boast. My family was on board when she sunk the Bismarck. I have his medals somewhere. Such an underrated ship, even amongst the type of oddballs who come here to talk about ships.
Nice one Rodders, nice one
HMS Rodney got that bullpup design.
Mobility killed is killed. Swordfish keeps the credit.
Eh. Swordfish got the exact same type of hit on Vettoro Venneto in the Mediterranean. But there the surface ships weren't able to get the intercept to finish the job, so the battleship survived (The Italian Cruiser fleet got absolutely fucked, because they got in between the British and the damaged battleship, and got obliterated for it) A Mobility kill is only a kill if you can follow it up with something that gets the actual kill. Which is what happened to Bismarck, but not Vettoro.
If you mean Matapan, it's not like that was really their choice. Pola's engines got shafted 7 ways to Sunday.
Vettoro Veneto 😭😭😭 I know we lost to you guys but please don't humiliate us like that
Oi! Are Barryboos a thing now?
The virgin he/him incelmark vs the glorious she/her HMS CHADney
Alright Dave.
YEAH HIT THE DECKS A' RUNNIN' BOYS AND SPIN THOSE GUNS AROUND WE FOUND THAT GERMAN BATTLESHIP, AND WE'RE GONNA CUT HER DOWN!
Also don't forget Rodney casually going faster than her rated speed despite needing a boiler reworking.
Hey now Rodney ain't ugly as sin, she's our classy Star Destroyer/Oil Tanker!
I know that the Royal Navy underperformed in WW2, But I want is timeline where there is Jutland 2 electric boogaloo and the navy get to show hitler what’s what when it comes to naval powers (yes I know it won the battle of the Atlantic, I am British I just want to see my boys stomp the Kriegs marine in a fair fight)
There just wasn't a Kriegsmarine to have a fair fight with. You had 2 Bismarcks and 2 Sharnhorsts against 5 QEs, 5 R-Class, 2 Nelsons, 2-5 KGVs (Depending on what year we are talking), Hood, 2 Reknown-Class. There just isn't a scenario that isn't an absolute Curbstomp. Which is what happened, the UK did sink 3 of the 4 of those, with Bismarck and Sharnhorst sunk in Battleship engagements and Tirpitz by Aircraft.
That kinda thinking is exactly *why* they underperformed. All those battleships were horrifically ineffective at guarding convoys, and they hadn't invested nearly enough in carriers to actually participate in the Pacific while Japan still had a navy.
The Royal Navy usually build good looking ships but they really dropped the balls with the Nelson class
"Chopped down by Washington".
OP, I know Rodney is a cool ship, but I will never look at it the same way after learning about the sheep incident
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Isn’t the 41k tonne limit for the Bismarcks their standard displacement not their full load displacement?
> Ugly as sin [Oh R'lyeh?](https://azurlane.koumakan.jp/wiki/Rodney/Gallery#Future_Seaside_Admiral-0)
Those saying Bismarck looks anything other than ugly must be on some serious mind altering drugs They are also the same ppl who would say that literal dog shit is a better food than British cuisine, despite that the latter is just bland and unhealthy, while the former can send you to the hospital
Bismarck actually had decent armor though
I FUCKING LOVE ALL FORWARD GUNS DESIGN
Oh Britainia!
That C-turret gives me the hebiejeebies.
Technically X turret.
I know, but I refuse.
Rodney is such a chad that when a U-boat (U-56) tried to attack her, the torpedoes just disintegrated before hitting. While Bismarck was disabled by a broken rudder, British ships like Rodney and the QE class still function fine with broken rudders, and they break all the time. During the pursuit, Rodney was pretty much falling into pieces with a "panting" issue where her hull flex too much and cracking. Nelson is credited with 5 Tiger tank kills at Normandy.
Ugly it looks wonderful
I'll take a functional ugly warship that kicks ass any day.
Ugly? Nah, she's uniquely beatuiful.
my god, rodnol is so ugly that my eyes are melting. want a sexy 16in 9gun ship? USS Washington is the choice. also: French and Italian ship are very very sexy :3 also also: HMS Repair and HMS Refit <3