Battleship NJ VS Bismarck: Guns!



In this episode we’re talking about the difference between Bismarck and New Jersey, in particular the difference between the two types of main battery guns.

To get a copy of the book:

To send Ryan a message on Facebook:

To support this channel and Battleship New Jersey, go to:

Compra online la Camisetas de fútbol! En JD encontrarás las del FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, la selección de España y equipos internacionales.

22 pensamientos sobre “Battleship NJ VS Bismarck: Guns!

  1. Interesting. In a video a couple of years ago, Drachinifel said that one of the smaller US fast battleships, Alabama or Washington (both of which served with the Home Fleet), would have beaten Tirpitz; doesn't sound like you agree.

  2. Can we please just acknowledge 1 simple fact.
    Ever since the Battle of Jutland there's a simple fact with guns this big. Whoever hits who first wins.
    If you look at the final Battle of Bismark one of Bismark's Salvos had shells land either side of HMS Rodney.
    Against the Hood Bismark got the shot that mattered but didn't get a similar shot against any other ship.

  3. Had Bismark survived by 1943 it is likely that radar would have been installed. That said, this was a very informative video. The context of what the ship would be used for is so important and you bring that out really well. It was the same with the Luftwaffe, Italy had a long range bomber that could deliver a load like the B17, but the Germans did not go that route because strategic bombing was (thankfully) not part of their doctrine. Similarly, Japan was all about range with everything they had, which was not really important for the Germans or Russians.

  4. The Bismark would probably have out shelled the Missouri since it was just a beast and had insane brainwashed crew totally for the fatherland. After exchanging 200 direct hits each, then it means both are floating death barges. so then the crew would take over

  5. I noticed that the shells do not narrow down near the rear or end – no kamtail. Was there ever development of a squash head plastic explosive or shaped charge shell and or solid fuel assist shell? Imagine the penetration value of a 16" hollow shape round. I visited the battleship Massachusetts and the hatches for the bridge were 16" thick. The contemporary anti-tank missiles can penetrate several feet of homogeneous steel armor. The question is what combat vessel can sustain more than 2 or 3 hits by contemporary anti-ship missiles?

  6. I spent a lot of years on American fast attack submarines… we never worried about which shell the battleship loaded or how far they would travel…BUT I am pro American. In my experience a crew trained together and in combat together will succeed in their mission. Remember an antique and out of date Biplane and a old torpedo put an end to one of the finest ships ever made and a fine well trained crew. Any ship that cannot navigate or has lost steerage-way in combat… Is now simply a very big target and the little guys WILL take them down…

  7. Europeans stored their powder above the shells, US stored the powder lower, under the shells. Maybe that fact and the lighter armor of the HMS Hood tends to explain why she blew up when hit. Set off the powder room on any ship and she is done for. I wonder where the Arizona powder was stored.

    I was not aware that the Bismark was that large and that formidable. I can see why the British sent the fleet including aircraft after her. If she had been part of a larger force, she would have been more formidable.

  8. Interesting academic debate, but at tbe end of day, it's a good thing nazi Germany built it. Completely and utterly waste of resources better spent elsewhere. But it was a vanity blink blink item, so they had to have it.

  9. A few knots extra speed and longer ranged guns, are important in a fight since NJ would get to decide when the fight occurred. Also important was the NJ cruising range advantage

Los comentarios están cerrados.