A one sided battle: USS Iowa vs Bismark

Odds...

The odds VASTLY favor Iowa in most regards--but when this kind of artillery is flying around, there is no certainty. Had anyone suggested, in April 1941, that the world's largest warship and a brand new battleship couldn't beat a single battleship with a solitary CA as escort, they would have been told, "Very unlikely." Then, in May of 1941, Hood blew up.

Anything can happen in battle.
 
The odds VASTLY favor Iowa in most regards--but when this kind of artillery is flying around, there is no certainty. Had anyone suggested, in April 1941, that the world's largest warship and a brand new battleship couldn't beat a single battleship with a solitary CA as escort, they would have been told, "Very unlikely." Then, in May of 1941, Hood blew up.

Anything can happen in battle.

But if you said 'an ageing battle cruiser who's thin deck armour hasn't received the identified, necessary upgrade and a battleship so new she still has contractors on board' people would be less surprised.
 
Conversely there are not may, if any examples of German gunnery skill at night. Anyone have data from their night gunnery training?

On 26th December 1943 Scharnhorst engaged the british in the Arctic Night, in complete darkness and she did hit her opponents HMS Norfolk and HMS Duke of York twice. As her radar was gone already, she used the vissible muscleflashes of both British ships as a target and her experienced gunnery succeeded in landing some shells on the target by doing so.

HMS Norfolk:


December 23rd Deployed with Home Fleet.
Provided cover for passage of Russian Convoy JW55B and returning Convoy RA55A with HM Cruisers BELFAST and SHEFFIELD as Force I by patrol east of Bear Island.

26th Engaged German battleship SCHARNHORST after radar contact by HM Cruiser SHEFFIELD and joined by Home Fleet destroyers. Twice hit by enemy fire which damaged X turret and radar equipment. Seven of ships’ company were killed and five wounded. Took part in the subsequent surface gun action against SCHARNHORST with HM Battleship DUKE OF YORK, HM Cruisers BELFAST and SHEFFIELD. For details see THE KOLA RUN by D. Campbell and D. Macintyre, ENGAGE THE ENEMY MORE CLOSELY and Naval Staff History).

HMS Duke of York had been hit in both masts; One nitching the lower part of the mainmast, one holing the upperpart of the foremast.
 
But if you said 'an ageing battle cruiser who's thin deck armour hasn't received the identified, necessary upgrade and a battleship so new she still has contractors on board' people would be less surprised.
Never mind that, Jutland showed that despite a theoretically huge advantage, the British could be badly bloodied.

On 26th December 1943 Scharnhorst engaged the british in the Arctic Night, in complete darkness and she did hit her opponents HMS Norfolk and HMS Duke of York twice. As her radar was gone already, she used the vissible muscleflashes of both British ships as a target and her experienced gunnery succeeded in landing some shells on the target by doing so.
Scharnhorst was being chased, and it was her forward rangefinder radar that was out, her rear one was still working
 
Last edited:
I am getting a little confused on this thread. I hear time and time again that the USN had superior fire control, but I hear here that they really couldn't hit anything at long (20000+) range.
Eg. the Iowa only competent for hitting surface ships in 1946. USN performance as almost hitting an island.

If this is the case for the Iowas, then what about the South Dakota and North Carolinas. Why would they be better?
And what did the British do better than the US (they at least scored hits on Bismarck when she was sailing).
 
Never mind that, Jutland showed that despite a theoretically huge advantage, the British could be badly bloodied.

Scharnhorst was being chased, and it was her forward rangefinder radar that was out, her rear one was still working

Wasn't it the aft Radar that did the range finding? The British found the conditions completely unsuitable for visual correction.
 
Top