This is a Bismark class battleship, for use as a civ-specific unit for Germany. If you liked my Yamato Class and my WW1 battlewagon, you should like this one, as it's pretty much the same thing.

I think I'll take a break from ships for a while, and make some planes or infantry!:D

I'll try to post a preview picture.

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\civ3unalteredstuff\Bismarkcolag e.jpg

ACH!

Well, I tried, but the picture didn't work. I don't know why not. If anyone can tell me how to make that little button do what I want it to, tell me, and I'll post a picture if I can. I'm not a computer sort of guy.

Here is the run animation for Bismack

And here is a view of the death animation

thanks for posting those Dark Sheer! I would, but as I stated on another thread, I have a VERY slow modem, and don't want to bother downloading animation shop. For my own future reference though, how do you make a still picture work on here?

can you post any icon dude?

Great! :)

very good unit ideas between the Yamoto and Bismark.

what's next i wonder... :D

Help!
I need to know how to view The Bismark and Yamato ships in the game. I have done it with other units by using cost '0' and none requirments, but when I try with the ships, I get an error message. Can someone tell me how to view them.
I just want to make sure that they work. They are great !!!
I will be also posting later the Civilopedia of the Yamato ship.
I have done the one for Bismark.(BTW, my name is also nonnob3, I have two names because I use nonnog6 when I am at work;) )

Thanks

did you give it a build cost? (not citizens, shields)

...yes..0 cost. Tell me, what should I do.

give it a build cost of 1

...thanks, I will try it later on when I get home:D

COME VISIT MINE AND TVA22's SITE .... IT INCLUDES SEVERAL FILES AND EVEN OUR SELF MADE MOD.bic FILE.....come to www.civ3freaks.8k.com (http://www.civ3freaks.8k.com)

Thats a very strange problem.... If you know how to use the civ3copy tool, maybe you should just try it that way. I just went to my friends house today, and gave him that bic that he put on civ3freaks, I used it to get the bismark in his game for him, so I know it can be done that way, but going around the copy tool, and I've been playing with these units in game a lot... I really don't know what the problem could be. If the game is crashing right as you click on it in the build list, it may be something with the .ini file or the default file, as thats what the game shows first. I'd just wipe the slate clean, download them again, and be sure to cross all your t's as it were. If you didn't do anything wrong, then I must have, but I've not had any problems, and nor did my friend. And I assume someone else would have said something on one of my threads by now, if the problem was common... For that matter, is anyone having the same problem? Or have they had it and found out how to solve it?

Just so everyone knows, you DO NOT have to download another bic for my units, its just that I'm going to use a standardized one for my friends and I in the future, which is why that one I'm using now is on civ3freaks.. I didn't even intend for that to be advertized here, as it's really just something I've been using to test my units in game.

Indeed I do have your pics, thanks! Glad everything is fixed up now.

Great units TVA22. Keep them comming.:goodjob:

To TVa22 ,
i DL your files
did what you say in read me file.
when its time to build the bismark the game crash.
:cry:
can you help me?

All I know is make sure you name the unit "Bismark Class," not anything different, or it will not work. Don't call it battleship bismark or bismark, be sure it's Bismark Class. And if you're using the civ3copy tool to add the unit (which is what I do) then it should work.

where should i have name bismark class?
thanx :D

When you use the civ3copy tool, you have to name the unit.

Its not Bismark, its Bismarck...

Yes, the name is Bismarck. I suppose there isn't a problem to change the file names. But this unit is a very good work...maybe someone could make the battleship Tirpitz, changing the Bismarck's camouflage ;)
Great Unit!!!:king:

sorry to change subject, but where does the bismark class fit in in relation to the game?

they could use the Bismarck in WW2 mods

Originally posted by Exsanguination
sorry to change subject, but where does the bismark class fit in in relation to the game?

The Bismarck Class is suppose to be the replacement of Battleship for Germany. And personally I would give it a higher attack and defense. And the other unit, the Yamato Class is suppose to replace the Battleship for Japan.

:king:

well, ww2 is my fav. part of history, so all the units I'm making are for me, and I just put them in the industrial age with the intention of playing on a world map. As such, right now my germany becomes unbelievably powerful in the industrial age, as a result of the tiger, panther, stormtrooper, and V-1 rocket on this site, and my own me262 and this unit. But I usually play as China so it doesn't affect me! :D

Sorry for the question, but: HOW MAY I DOWNLOAD THIS UNIT :mad:??? bismark.zip always becomes attachment.php . . . . .

Originally posted by Phil Schneider
Sorry for the question, but: HOW MAY I DOWNLOAD THIS UNIT :mad:??? bismark.zip always becomes attachment.php . . . . . Try NOT to download it with Flashget, Getright or any that sort of program. Besides, DON'T right click and save "save target as" neither.

Just click on it and let Internet Explorer's own downloader do the job for you. If this doesn't work, then you're doing something wrong.

I got it so! I labeled (right vokabyulary?) "attachment.php" with "bismarck.zip". Sometimes I'm really more stupid than my shoo :rolleyes: . . . .

bismarck has higher armor, good speed, average guns, good fire control. the germany never really see the need of big gun, instead focus on improving accuracy and saving the weight of armor. some argue the armor design was flawed that it still underprotect critical system. but i would give it +2 def.

the iowa and yamato class being "fast battleship" are superior to it in everyway. :rolleyes:

But instead of a bigger gun the 15" guns of the Bismarck and Tirpitz had the greatest range compared with the guns of Iowa or Yamato. The accuracy was also much more improved and the gun was still as good as a 16" gun in many other battleships. The Hood was destroyed with the 3rd salvo! So the Bismarck should also get +2 in attack at least.

Adler

Are you on crack ?! The 15" guns on the Bismark had a range of 38,880 yards. The Iowa's 16" guns had a range of 42,345 yards in WW2, and was increased in the 1980's with different powder charges and sabot rounds. The Bismarck had good optics, but those are useless if you are fighting a ship with fire control radar. The Iowa's and South Dakotas had the best fire control radar there was in WW2. That means they could fire at ships without visually seeing them. The Hood met it's death so fast because it was a Battlecruiser, not a Battleship. Thus, she had battleship size guns, but lighter armor. The Hood's armor would have had problems with even 14" guns hitting her. I suggest you get better informed on the subject before posting inaccurate information.

Okay, concerning this point you´re right. But nevertheless the guns of the Bismarck were superior even to your Iowa class! First the optics. Although having a poor radar the Bismarck hit the Hood with the third salvo. The first two were very close to the Hood. In a fight with the Iowa a gunfight would be interesting, since the Iowa can only shoot two salvos a minute, while the Bismarck was able to fire three. 24 15" shells against 18 16". Then the armor of the Bismarck. Without the order to scuttle the ship, the British would have had very big problems in sinking her. Her sister Tirpitz was only sunk after being hit of tall boy bombs. I agree the Iowa has also very good armour, but I do not think in a gunfight with the Bismarck the Iowa would have always been the winner. I think the Bismarck had very good chances to sink this ship.
BTW the hit on the longes distance had the German battleship Scharnhorst in WW2 after hitting the British carrier Glorious in 1940 with over 22000 yards.

Adler

Total weight of an Iowa broadside:24,300lbs x 2 salvos = 48,600lbs
Total weight of Bismark broadside: 14,112lbs x 3 salvos = 42,336 lbs.The Iowa, with a longer firing cycle, is still putting more ordance on target than the Bismark. Look at the technical history books, the USA had the best fire control radar around. The Bismarck would have some good damage before she could get into her gun's range, remember, the Iowas guns have farther
range. As far as armor goes, the Bismark doesn't hold a candle to the Iowas.

Iowas armor belt was interior of 4 compartments, 2 void and 2 liquid filled, the outer hull was made up of STS plating, which only the USA had the luxury to afford. The STS plate, proved to decap a majority of AP rounds, thus denying them penetration. On top of that, actually behind this setup , was a 12.1" armor belt inclined at 19 degrees from vertical, this was equal to a 17" vertical belt. The deck armor was a total of 6" with STS plate protection, the bulkheads were 11". The barbettes were
17.3" and the conning tower was 17.5".The main turret armor was 17". And it was shown, that the farther the distance, the greater the vertical penetraion the 16/50's had. Add to that, the Armor the USA produced was the best in the world, mainly
because we could afford it.

The Bismark had a 12.6 " vertical ,exterior armor belt with only 2 compartments inboard of that. Her decks were 4.7",the bulkheads were 8.7", barbettes were 13.4",the conning tower was 13.8" and the main turret armor was 14.2". Start reading some books with technical information in addition to history, and maybe you'll see the light. The Bismark did put up a good fight, she fought well, I won't argue that, but to say she would have beat the Iowa, isn't very realistic, if you would compare the
specifications and qualities of each ship design.

Saying the 15" guns were superior to the 16" is false. The 15" had a higher firng rate and the Germans had good optics.But again, with superior fire control radar and longer gun range, the Iowa could blindfire at the Bismark before the Bismark could even get into range to use her optics or guns ! Plus, the 16"/50 shell was heavier and had far more armor penetration than the 15" shell.

Another thing, yes, I have heard the Germans scuttled the Bismark. But what does that matter? Her topside was a twisted, flaming wreck, everything was blasted away. A floating hull full of holes isn't very threatening.

One of my sources, (not my only source), but a good one is here:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

This guys has done a lot work, he has pitted several battleships against each other using armor/gun calculations.

Although recognizing his big work, there are some aspects missing:
1. The quality of the steel is different, because there were different kinds of steel. The Bismarck had the best German steel available called Wotan weich and hart (weak and hard).
2. The good work of the construction team. The Bismarck was for instance hit for hours and still afloating. And ther were more battleships than one Iowa. Only when the ammo was depleted, the order to scuttle the ship was given. Only because of scuttling the ship was sunk.
3, Compare this work with the Tirpitz. Normal bombs up to 500 kg were only like hitting a tank with a MG. She was only sunk because of the new Tall boy bombs of over 5 ts, when she got at least 5 hits of the monster bombs!

This makes the Bismarck at least as good as the Iowa and perhaps the Yamato.

Adler

Just thought I'd add a bit
Giving the Bismarck an increased defence rating propably woudn't be appropriate, for several reasons
Bismarck totally lacked appropriate underwater defences (that ultimately proved her downfall) and most of his/her vital systems where placed above the protected belt armor, thus making them very vulnerable
Bismarck lacked in heavy AA guns and thus wasn't an up to date in terms of AA defence, there wa also a lack of dual purpose guns that made the ship very ineffective against armored aerial targets
Although there's some arguements about the great quality of the armor the Prince of Wales actually managed to pierce rigth through the main armor, also post war studies concluded that even 8in guns could have pierced the belt armor of Bismarck if given a good medium range hit
About the scutteling of the Bismarck there's quite some arguements, you'd propably never get most british naval historians to agree that the Bismarck was scuttled but sunk by Dorsetshire's torpedoes, or at least torpedoes fiered by british warships (That's also what the Royal Navy and Imperial war museums archives state)
Also another fact is that according to surviving german naval personel (only about 117 junior crew members) makes it hard to take this as really credible evidence (The reasons for a lot of the actions taken by by both Lütjens and Holland is today unknown so taking junir crew accounts as facts isn't good enough in most cases) , also the fact that there apparently passed 47 minutes between the scuttling time and the capsizing of the ship plus her main armament was silenced long before the reported scuttling time
The totally stupid way in wich the british ships wa used resulted in that most of the shells fiere would loose a lot of their potential by skipping across the water is most likely the reason for it's long survival not the armor, no armor of that time could have taken those kinds of beatings for that time whitout it beign weakened in some way
There's actually no evidence to prove any of the teories as most of Bismarck's underwater protection shattered the the impact whit the seabed
A fact is that the armored controll room was obliterated by a single hit from a british ship (it's unclear if it was 14" or 16")
Also although the optics and guns used by the Bismarck was good the shells used was horrible and studies concluded that
The Bismarck is an okay ship but not great, it can be regarded as an oversized WW I Super Dreadnought but it was in most ways quite outdated, Germany totally lacked any practical post war battleship experience and used a design that was abandoned by most more experienced navies
Both the Iowa and the Yamato is far better Most naval historians conclude that:
The Iowa, Yamato, North Carolina, South Dakota, Nagato and Nelson are better battleship classes

I thought the Bismark was known as a He

I think it was captain Lindemann that first referred to it that way, and Hitler agreed whit him, that's mainly the reason that it's referred to in that way, usually there's a tradition to refer to warships as "her"

Ships are usually called she. Only very recently the British register wanted to give up this rule, but no other register or even navy is following. Only boats can be male. This fact of Lindemanns referring is new to me.
To Akula: The regisseur of the movie Titanic, I don´t know his name at this moment, dived to the Bismarck and found evidences of the theory, the Bismarck was scuttled. The torpedo of the Dorsetshire MIGHT have fasten this, but was not the cause. Bismarck was hit by an air torpedo, but she was hit on the only point, where she was vulnerable, the rudder. A few meters before, and there would have been minimal damage. Compare it with the Tirpitz, which had several mine hits which were even stronger and she was never in danger of being sunk.
The Flak of the Bismarck was also strong. She had 16 10,5 cm (4,1"), 16 3,7 cm, and 12 2 cm Flak. This was heavy at a point where she sailed, later not. BTW the PoW had a stronger Flak and was also sunk! The Flak of all this ships were insufficient in these days.
The Germans gave the order to scuttle at a moment, where all hope was gone and even the last light gun was out of action or depleted ammo. The ship should be scuttled to save the crew, but the British made mistakes by saving the crew, so only 117 survivors were there. Also the torpedo might have been catastrophic for the crew.
But we can´t be sure in all theories. The British sources should be watched carefully. Because of national pride they would never say, they didn´t sunk the Bismarck or Germany would have won Jutlan- or the Wembly goal was not inside! ;)
Okay this is also German national pride to beat these Tommies ;), but you should know in 1914 the brand new battleship Audacious hit only one single mine- and sunk. Long after the war they publized this fact.

Adler

P.S. No one should be offended. I´m only a Kraut, who is just kidding. We also have humor. It is propaganda we don´t have humor.

Here's an interesting specification, the immunity zone for the Iowa is 16,400 yards while Bismark's is 29,000 yards. What does this mean ? The Bismark would have to get closer to the Iowa for her (Bismark's) guns to be effective against Iowa's armor. Which would not be a good idea for Bismark, since getting closer to Iowa would allow Iowa's shells to hit with more of their initial muzzle velocity, which in return would equal more penetration.

"The quality of steel was different" - That is true, but US Grade A armor was the best in the world, only to be complimented by the STS plating. This armor is superior to the armor the Germans produced.

Another note, England's shells were not the greatest munitions, the Bismark's 15"/47's were better than the 14"/45's fired at her. Given the not so hot performance of the British munitions, no wonder it took a while to chew up the Bismark.

The reason England took out Tirpitz with those huge bombs could be it would have taken too much time to sail the fleet to Tipirtz's location, which could've exposed the fleet to Uboats and/or aerial attack or it was just quicker to take her out with those bombs.

Regarding the Bismark as an equal with the Iowa or Yamato is plain absurb when facing the technical data. Yes, the Bismark was a decent ship, but not an equal.

Adler17, if believing the fairy tale you've convinced yourself of makes you sleep better at night, than who am I to ruin your happiness with technical facts. As far as how you want to rate Bismark in your game, that's your business and choice. That's what makes this game so entertaining, an individual can customize settings to their own liking and have fun with it.

Again, I refer interested persons to these links :


http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm#guns

http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm

http://www.combinedfleet.com/f_armor.htm

In my opinion the Bismarck is equal to Iowa since the British never attacked the ship with other battleships. They retreated even when they were superior, like the sortie of the Tirpitz to attack PQ 17. The British had 2 or three battleships and several cruiser in the area but they retreated. In the last year they had always two KGV BBs to watch the Tirpitz.
But we will never know the end of a theoretical battle. Because one aspect will never be predictable: Luck. Without this even a mighty battleship is doomed because of a lucky hit.

Adler

If you're referring to Robert Ballards exploration of the wreck of the Bismarck then it shows absolutely NO signs of having been scuttled, actually there's no way of saying anything ike that as all the underwater protection was destroyed by the impact
BTW a british exploration of the wreck in 2001 concluded that there where signs of penetrating torpedo damage on the hull, although this evidence is doubtfull it's still the mos solid evidence ever found on weather the ship was sunk or scuttled
About the AA armament the 2cm guns are pretty much useless so we can exclude those, that leaves only 32 guns, and thats very little by any standards also the Prince of Wales was attacked by a large sortie of Japanese planes where as the Bismark was attacked by a few Swordfish torpedo bombers, the fact that the torpedo bombers could actually get whitin fiering range pretty much proves the uselessnes of the AA armament
Also remember that it was according to the surviving german marines that the charges was set to explode 47 minutes before the ship capsized that's all too long time in my oppinion to be the result of the destruction
About hte rudder yes the main uderwater protection could very likely have survived an impact but again the very fact that a single hit can so easely cripple the ship pretty much points to a very flawed construction, the hull itself was also of very old design, about 26 in 1941 Iowa Yamato and King George was all state-of the-art bismarck was an improved WW I wintage battleship, and totally lacked in AA and Underwater protection

It is a mystery, why Bismarck couldn´t even shot down one enemy plane! Tirpitz could shoot down dozens of planes, even with the large 15 " guns! The Flak was as good as any other Flak.
True, Bismarck had an armour, which was thinner compared to other BBs, although it was over 17000 ts of total over 50000 ts. Neverthless because of the quality and the design it was equal to better armoured ships. Although two British battleships and several cruiser and destroyer shot at her FOR HOURS she was still afloating.
The design was not base upon WWI designs. It was competely new, even the 15" guns. The two Scharnhorst class BBs were based on the old BCs of the Mackensen class, but enhenced.
KGV class were also outstanding BBs, but their guns were not so good. Rodney and Nelson, which you mentioned a few posts ago, were very slow. Nagato was faster, but elder. Both ships were WW I Superdreadnaughts, which were modernized. South Carolina were better, but lacked in the fact of being only 35.000 ts big. These ships were very good ships at all, but I would put them all into one category with Scharnhors and Gneisenau, although both lacked in their Artillery of 28 cm guns. Nevertheless I would put them into this category of BBs. Did I forget one? Yes the Italian Littorio class. Although good ships they could not take so much damage, although I do not know anything about the quality of their 15 " guns. The Roma was sunk by 2 Fritz X guided bombs, while Warspite was damaged by 3, but still afloating (with very much luck).
Richelieu. Hmmm. To be honest I do not know much about her, but IIRC the ship was a bit weaker than Bismarck.
So only Bismarck, Yamato and Iowa are left. I think Yamato should be better than both, but I´m uncertain. In my opinion Bismarck and Iowa should be put on one step.
If you can read German you should read : Von der Emden zur Tirpitz by Siegfried Beyer. He has also written a book about BBs, but I didn´t read it. There should be good works about the mentioned BBs.

Adler

P.S. In the final battle NOT a sigle shell pernetrated the armoured deck! I´m in a hurry, so I could give you the source tomorrow.

Naturally no shell pierced the deck the British ships where in a range where horisontal fiered shells where theonly possible solution
Having 48 AA guns makes the ship seem very inadequade in AA defence no matter what and when you take into account that 16 of them is 20mm it seems horrible inadequade, the 105mm guns where somewhat effective if they could actually target the attacking aircraft, they where very clumbersome weapons so those won't serve any prupose against fast enemy aircraft the 37mm guns where single shot, hand loaded weapons, and was replaced as soon as something else was availeble, thus also sub standard of the time
Iowa carried up to 80 40mm and 60 20mm AA guns, this varied a bit from ship to ship
The 1930's AA desing of the South Dakota and North Carolina was about as capable as that of the Bismarck this was quickly replced whit something like 60-70 40mm and about 60 20mm AA guns
The Tirpitz underwent major AA refits so it's pretty much two different ships when it comes to AA Defence, it was still WAY below that of most allied capitol ships though
Again if you hit ABOVE the waterline you retty much need a magazine explsion to take down the ship so that dosn't say that much
KGV's armament not so good?!?!?!?!
The 14" shell of the PoW actually managed to peirce right through 2 layers of the main belt armor of the Bismarck so if those guns are poor the armor on the Bismarck is horrible :p
The 15" guns may be new but the hull was an enlarged version of the Baden class that design is WW I and the gun layout was WW I so categorising the ship as a pure WW II ships is totally wrong also in the 20's and 30's extensive battleship tests where carried out
The total weight of the Bismarck compared to the South Dakota or North carolina is about 5.000 tons that dosn't really mean much in battleship terms, and these ships armor was BETTER than the bismarck, Bismarck armor was horrible distributed compared to "modern" battleships, bismarck carried WW I armor distribution
Here's what the Royal Navy says about Bismarck The japanese Mutsu, American North Carolina and British Rodney was better armed and protected and in the case of the first two faster Bismarck was pretty much a First world war design with Bauhaus styling, her protection was poorly distributed and non existant in some areas, all her internal communications ran above her armored deck, her mashinery was unreliable
Pretty much says all I think
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau was okay designs but if you take their poor mashinery, underpowered guns, weak armor, mediocore speed and the simple fact htat they're WW I designs placing "real" BB's in that category won't be fair, the chnce of Scharnhorst taking down any of the before mentioned is very low at best, after all Scarnhorst was obliterated by Duke of York no even hitting her a single time, the KGV class was FAR superior to the Scharnhorst and yet you categorise them as equals, no german naval officer, with just a bit sence would engage a KGV battleship with a Scharnhorst BC
Actually it's generally accepted the iowa was the best battleship ever so I don't know why you'd place it beneath the Yamato and together whit the Bismarck
It's also accepted that all US WW II battleships where better than anything else exept perhaps the Yamato, and that's by people with far more knowledge about this than any of us here so I take their words above pretty much anything I read here

Always remember tha Germany lacked any real practical modern warship experience as the maximum allowed displacement was 10.000 tons, all large German warships was pretty much built on First World War technology, sometimes, but mostly not enhanced, especially lacking in engine and hull design, armor layout, dual purpose guns and deck layout

"In my opinion the Bismarck is equal to Iowa since the British never attacked the ship with other battleships."

That is the basis for your belief that the Bismark is equal to Iowa or Yamato ?! That is not very logical reasoning. Despite all technical documentation, showing Iowa had the advantage of speed, armor, guns, and fire control radar, you're basing your opinion on subjective feelings due to national allegiance.

For your information, Admiral Tovey pounded Bismark with the guns of King George V and Rodney. Those two are battleships. They closed to within 16,000 yards of the Bismarck, so just as Akula wrote, they were too close for plunging fire to hit the deck ! I've heard of Japan writing the history of World War 2 as if they won it and all the battles, but I wasn't aware that German authors spewed out similar lies. That is my just my opinion based on your strong belief in your misconceptions.

I don't know how old you are, but judging by your sentence structure and conveyed attitude in your posts, I would guess teenager to early twenties. I have been reading about battleships and warships since age twelve. I am now 31, I think it's safe to say, presuming I'm correct about your age, I would have more knowledge on this subject than you, Adler. I do believe your national pride, in conjunction with either misinformation or inability to comprehend what you read, is fueling your illusions about this subject.

Ah, I'm ready for Conquests, is it out yet ?!

sources:

"Jane's Battleships of the 20th Century" by Bernard Ireland

"Battleships" by Paul Stillwell

"United States Battleships, 1935-1992" by William H. Garzke,Jr/ Robert O. Dulin,Jr

http://www.warships1.com/

Yes, I´m a German student of 23 years now. I also read about warships since was 12. And yes I have national pride. And yes, most of the sources I have read are of German origin. This might also be influenced by national pride, but the British sources not??? I know other British sources which are full of national pride and small historical mistakes or misinterpretaions. The British are very proud in their navy. So we´re very proud in the facts of beating them a few times very hard on the sea. This will be one point all of our sources are in danger: National pride. Unfortunately I do not know a Swiss source or a Swedish one.
I think all technical datas are given here. I do understand them all. I do not say they´re wrong, but I say they must be interpreted on another way. German steel was one of the best of the world. The guns of the Bismarck were outstanding. The design made the thinner armour more effective than thicker armour on other BBs. If two enemy BBs fire on one ship at close distance for hours and not even a single shell could pernetrate the armoured deck, is one fact, which is not to comment! On the other hand PoW was damged by 8 hits of 15". And only because of a mistake of Admiral Lütjens the ship escaped.
I know there are mistakes in my posts, but I try to write my best English. But again I understood all facts which were posted here. And although I´m not so old like you, Akula, I know very much about this theme.
I think no one is able to convince the other of his position. And now the national pride is mentioned. I think we should stop the discussion now before it is going under the belt. It was a very good discussion either, which made me a lot of fun. I still think Bismarck was as good as Iowa. So only if you do not want to stop the discussion or if you have new fact, we should commence the discussion.

Adler

Old??? I'm 17 :lol:
I've enjoyed this discussion very much :)
I very much hope this discussion won't turn hostile and I've not meant anything I've posted in that way
I don't think nationality matters in this díscussion I'm half german myself
About the PoW one thin is sertain if Lütjens had engaged it he'd have won, PoW was very new at the time and pretty much not combat ready, e.g. X turret jammed and was disabled for about 2 hours, her guns wasn't tested, had a very high spreading and failed about half the time, it took about 10 minutes for Bismarck to force it out of the combat
If Lütjens had sunk PoW it's not a much a testemony to the greatness of german design as a testemony to the stupidity of the Admiralty of sending it into combat in the first place ;)
It's a bit difficult to judge Bismarck from the actions taken, first of all Lütjens was a fool nothing less, he failed to take sertain great opportunities
I don't know if Bismarck was among the very best ships but, but it was a match for anything the Royal navy had or built later

Sorry, I meant vingrjoe:crazyeye: . Indeed Lütjens was a fool, but the RN was even more foolish to send such a new ship into the battle with no need. With an old BC,which was no match for a modern ship. Indeed I would say the loss of this ship is in one line with the loss of the three British BCs at Jutland. If Lütjens had sunk the PoW and returned to Norway, which I would have done, it would be a disatrous defeat for the RN, especially morally.

Adler

P.S. It is strange why he became commander. There were even some better Admirals, which would have made the right decision.

comparing the Bismark to Iowa is :eek: .

Iowa and Yamato are fast battleship,
sometime even refer to as SUPER-battleship (pride of the fleet).
no other battleship could fight them and expect a win!

Iowa steel might not be the best
(production of steel suitable for armor was limited in US),
but the completed armor (partly made of concrete!) was superior.
we don't just compare quality, we also compare construction technology.

Bismark should be more compare to British Warship which was in the same threater.

The definition of super BB is a BB of over 50.000 ts; Bismarck had indeed 52.000 ts. Only Iowa and Yamato classes were bigger (projects excluded).
The construction of the Bismarck was state of the art, as I mentioned before.
But indeed Bismarck should be in action in the Atlantic and not pacific. And British or French ships should be her counter part. We only speculated about a what if scenario. At least I will stay by my opinion: Bismarck was as good as Iowa.
Adler

Well officially Bismarck was a 35.000 ton battleship ;)
If we stay in the atlantic I'd say that Bismarck was a match for pretty much anything there, exept perhaps Rodney due to her very high firepower and good armor but Bismarck could easely outrun her so it's a difficult one
About the fast battleships
Bismarck reached trial speeds of 32 knts compared to a maximum trial speed of 27.5 for Yamato
Iowa is somewhat faster, but not that much again about 35 knts max officially 33

Originally posted by Akula
Well officially Bismarck was a 35.000 ton battleship ;)
If we stay in the atlantic I'd say that Bismarck was a match for pretty much anything there, exept perhaps Rodney due to her very high firepower and good armor but Bismarck could easely outrun her so it's a difficult one
About the fast battleships
Bismarck reached trial speeds of 32 knts compared to a maximum trial speed of 27.5 for Yamato
Iowa is somewhat faster, but not that much again about 35 knts max officially 33



What kind of Tons ?? 1 Tonne = 1000 KGs or how ?

The official allowed Tonnage for Battleships (pre-1939) was 35.000 'Tonnen' (35.560 t)- although the Bismarck was declared 40.000 "to match French designs" (having been allowed either more or greater tonnage ships)... in the end the Bismarck turned out to outweight 12.000 Tonnen over even the stated 40.000....
Bismarck Class (German) (http://www.waffenhq.de/schiffe/bismarckklasse.html)

Originally posted by Adler17
At least I will stay by my opinion: Bismarck was as good as Iowa.in your opinion :p

it was well armored, but armored at the wrong places. Bismarck lost it fire control and rubber too easily in the battles. the Iowa and Yamato would be able to take more hit before breaking.

what good is the excellent fire control when the fire control is blow off easily? :p

could Bismarck's 8x15" be enough to defeat the equally well trained and reliable Iowa's 9x16" and Yamato 9x18" gunnery?

IMO, Bismarck isn't equal. it is superior to most battleship but not the Iowa. It got famous for the wrong reason didn't it? shortest career! lol! :goodjob:

I know W.I.N.T.E.R. I'm just making fun of it
I know Bismarck was really about 50.000 metric tons, I'm just joking about that when Germany and Britain signed their naval treties (think it was in 1936), it was said it was 35.000 metric tons, and officially it staid that way and to the Royal Navy it was still a 35.000 ton ship in 1941 ;)

Very interesting discussion indeed. I apologize if I got a little too hostile for what should be a civilized(no pun intended) discussion. But we have our own opinions, no matter whether they're based on technical data, historical facts or personal interest. I won't back down on my stance that the Iowa was superior to Bismark, I have plenty of books and data that prove it, but I think we have beaten this dead horse enough.
I just picked up Conquests and am going to try it out, finally, ships have anti air ability! This should be interesting.

Well isn’t it a question of emphasis?
Bismarck is the kind of ship you keep near your weak spot to stop that pesky AI from shipping transport with loads of shock troops behind your main battleline allowing yourself the ability to extend your might just a little bit further. And if somebody drops by with something nastier than your ship you get as many transports as you can before running and hiding behind your costal fortresses and your minefields while your friends in high places drop bombs on him. Bismarck is a brown water school ship. Iowa on the other hand is a blue water search and destroy vessel, and both are rather well suited for their roles.

Consider that the Bismarck was built on empirical data collected from Jutland, and as such designed to take on contemporary British and French opponents. That being at the time of construction two Nelson-class, four KGV-class, HMS Centurion, five Queen Elizabeth-class, five Royal Oak class, three Courbet-class and three Provence-class dreadnoughts as well as Le Richilieu (correct me if I’ve forgotten any). That’s a total of four pre-ww1 dreadnoughts, fifteen dreads completed during ww1 and seven treaty dreads. None of them Iowa class super-dreadnoughts. Let there be no doubt that Iowa would have been the superior warship. That’s what she’s designed to be. Problem with civilization is we don’t get all the nice strato-political titbits, and all those interesting strategic decision-making details…

But it makes an interesting point, as somebody did, designating Bismarck as a WW1 super-dreadnought, especially if the combined fleet statistics are taken into consideration. We’ll recall the two of the reasons, that this excellent source (which I ardently swear by myself) rates Bismarck so weakly, are armour and fire control: The armour rating being a function of belt index based on absolute penetrating power, and the high-rated deck index. Likewise while fire control rates Bismarck beautifully (9) for optics she fares worse than Vittorio while featuring appr. the same radar.
The combined fleet resource rates Bismarck high on guns with excellent ballistics and penetrating power as well as nice destructive power for her gun size. Now if Bismarck had her armour rated on relative penetrating power, say from a possible opponent such as the Royal Oak class HMS Ramilles (which took part in the chase) she’d probably fare a whole lot better. The other armour issue is the deck. Bismarck was created for direct fire action, and as we all know in direct fire actions belt armour and not deck armour is important. Thus the overall armour rating isn’t really that fair. The second factor being fire control, and well Bismarck may not be able to hit you from 39k yards, but she sure as hell can from the 20k she is designed to.
I guess what I mean to say by that tirade is this: numbers means lot, but they do not mean everything. And in short wasn’t Bismarck meant to engage the ww1 dreadnoughts with battle cruiser support of the home fleet and engage and destroy contemporary treaty battleships thus keeping the royal navy from blocking the vital German international trade in the North Sea? – That’s traditional blue-brown thinking. From that point of view she was a superb ship with a good service record.

Instead of fulfilling her role she was pitched against three treaty battleships, two ww1 dreadnoughts, three battlecruiser, two carriers and a number (four?) of cruisers and survived alone for a number of days sinking one battle cruiser and chasing a treaty ship off in the process before succumbing to the combined fire of two treaty ships after being straffed a number of times by planes and destroyers. And it’s easy to judge her on that basis; from the modern blue water school we follow today and which Civilization encourages.

I’d rate Bismarck +1def., +1 att. +1 fp compared to standard dreadnought battleships, while Iowa should get something like a +3 def., +2 att, +2 fp. Details are nice and sure as hell Bismarck wouldn’t have done good against Iowa unless possibly in a head-on Jutland style battle – I mean what’s the idea of building an tactically obsolete WW1 superdreadnought in 1939 – but pitch her and her three mates against the Queen Elizabeth and Royal Oak sisters and they’d most probably be rocking. And who cares if she was scuttled. She lost, give her the benefit of going down horribly outgunned with honour...

First Wamblr, it is a question of honour whether the Bismarck was sunk by enemy forces or scuttled. In the last alternative the enemies were not able to sink her (which I say). But you´re right she is sunk in the last battle.
She WASN`T a Super Bayern class BB. Although Bayern was the last step to modern BBs in WW1, she must be compared with Queen Elizabeth or Nagato class BBs. Bismarck was a completely new design. She was indeed designed to fight against anglo- french warships and not US or even Japanese. And indeed Bismarck had not so much Armour than Yamato or Iowa.
Nevertheless her steel was the best of the world and the construction of the ship in different sections and the structure of the armour in belt and deck was superior. So she needed less armour for the same protection. In her last fight no grenade could pernetrate the armour belt. She was still afloating when the British stopped to fire. Indeed she was hurt badly but not critical. On the other side the PoW was damged very heavily by her guns, which were superior to any other 15" gun. Because of this fact I see this gun as effective as the guns of the Iowa because her guns have another design following the British designs AFAIK. And British guns were not so effective like German guns. For example the German 13 " guns were in WW1 better than British 14" guns. And this changed not very until WW2.
The Bismarck was designed to fight enemy warships in open ocean. This is a classic blue water task. She should attack the British fleet together with her sister. Both ships together with a CA like Prinz Eugen and perhaps even with the CV Graf Zeppelin would have been a task force the British fleet should have only had a chance if using the whole RN.
Well that´s all. I mentioned other facts above, if you think I forgot to metion anything post it.

Adler

Well thaking that the royal navyb y the time tirpitz had finished her trials included:
4 Revenge class battleships
4 Queen Elizabeth battleships
2 King George V battleships
1 Renown Battlecruiser
And that's the heavy units alone, so saying that 2 Bismarck battleships (plus or minus the Hipper class) would have a chance is pretty much totally insane, those ships could fire over 150 tons high explosive each minute and even if only 5-10% of the shell scored a hit it would still be enough to cripple about any warship ever

The Bismarck had an enlarged Bayern hull so it's in a way a super Bayern, and that hull was totally obsolete by the time, and having a a blue water docktrine battleship with weak deck armor or AA armament isn't really that cool, that was demonstrated by the british as early as 1940 with the attack on Taranto harbor
Also comparing the defences on the bismarck in any way with ships like Yamato won't show anything but the weakness of the Bismarck, yamato and Iowa had the best damage resistance ever built into a battleship, so you're going to come short when comparing to those classes
Yamato had 54.500 tons extra buoyancy that's more than Bismarck fully loaded and the Yamato's was designed to maintain stability until her heel reached 20 degrees. no other warship could do that
In fact Yamato's could give any other warship built (exept the Iowa's fully loaded and the Yamato conversion Shinano) a piggy back ride, without sinking that pretty much shows the extend of the extra buoyancy

Also the armor scheme of Bismarck wasn't really that good
Vanguard, King George V, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Anson, Howe, Littorio, Vittorio Veneto, Roma, Richelieu, and Jean Bart had better armor schemes than Bismarck
This could also raise the question:
does it REALLY matter that much how good the armor is if it's wrongly distributed???
Many of the vital parts of bismarck lacked real protection so although the ship wasn't sunk it was very fast crippled, it dosn't only matter how fast the ship sinks, it also matters how long it can keep fighting, and for Bismarck that was surprisingly short
The main reason the Bismarck lasted as long as it did in it's final battle is mostly due to the faliure of the british shells and the in ability of the british guns to hit the Bismarck's underwater protection, in short the coudn't give Bismarck a fatal hit, only damage the superstructure, and if you look at withness accounts and examination of the wreck they did that very very well, also remember that it took a single hit from Rodney to take out the main fire director post on Bismarck, that the about best armored spot on the ship

Examination of the wreck of bismarck has actually found several penetrating hits, but none under the waterline also during the engagement in the Denmark strait PoW managed to pierce right through Bismarck belt armor, so one of the only full distance hits that Bismarck suffered got right through the armor and even exited on the other site

US main 16in guns underwent an independent research program during the 1920's and 30's so simply comparing them to the british isn't correct

Stating what bismarck wass chased by dosn't really prove a thing, it just tells how much the RN wanted to destroy it
What Bismarck was engaged by was:
In the Denmark strait
1 obsolete Battlecruiser
1 totally unseaworthy battleship + non-participating escort
about 30 Swordfish in 2 sorties
in har final battle she did actually only face 2 battleships and 1 cruiser:
HMS rodney
HMS King George V
HMS Norfolk
1 hour later Dorsetshire joined the battle, but at that point Bismarck really coudn't fight back
Bsmarck was a good ship but saying it's an exeptionally ship isn't correct

Okay, I was a bit too fast to write both ships could cripple the entire British fleet ;) . Nevertheless Bismarck was finished by one or two lucky hit(s). First one the torpedo hit of the swordfish, second Rodney´s hit of the fire control. The first one caused the doom because Bismarck could not aviod the combat. The second one stopped an effectfull defense of the ship in her last fight. She might have sunk either but she was most probably not the only ship...
Nevertheless you admitted the British weren´t able to sink her with gunfire because of the structure. And yes her armour lacked on some stations, which were neccessary, but not critical. In her last combat no grenade destroyed a vital area of the ship. Indeed I made a mistake in saying the armoured belt wasn´t pernetrated. The armoured deck wasn´t pernetrated and all interior structure still operational. Only one hit could pernetrate the armoured belt, which was a hit by PoW in the first battle. Neverthless two BB fired at her for hours at clostest distance without damaging vital areas. Even the Bridge was intact afaik. If she was nearer to France the time would have been enough to send help of Luftwaffe bombers. She would have been heavilied damaged but still repairable in Brest. And 1942 not only 2 BB and on CA would have passed the Channel...
I do not think Bismarck was better than Yamato. No! But she was equal to Iowa. That´s why I also think Iowa had no chance in a fight against Yamato. The H 41 class might have been another caliber...
Where did you get the info Bismarck is an enlarged Bayern class and structural out of date ??? ??? ? That´s not true. She was designed completely new and even redesigned after the starting of the building.
Nevertheless I think she was the best ever built BB of the world, without Yamato.

Adler

They were all colossal wastes of resources, if you ask me.

Nope not unless you think about the turret structure on the british warships, that coudn't effectively aim low enough to give Bismarck fatal underwater damage
Again it depends on what you call critical, I'd personally prefer to have such things as wireless communication ;)
Yes i think we can agree that the british carrier air arm wasn't the best in the world at that time and they propably woudn't be able to stop any kind of air attack, but unfortionately for Bismarck se didn't make it within that range
Fighting ships like Iowa would have been extremely challenging, there are many that regard her as the best battleship ever, her firecontroll, speed and manouverability was simply unique, and the guns and armor wasn't bad either, she also had the best AA defence of the time but that propably won't affect 360mm hardened steel ;)
Any warship fighting Iowa would proably want to get in close where their accuracy would be much higher, Iowa would propably hit Bismarck about 75% of the time at a range of 30.000m and the average spread at 25000 m would be less that the lenght of Bismarck
I didn't say Bismarck was an enlargened Bayern battleship :p
What I said was that the hull and belt armor distribution was practiaclly identical, and obsolete by the time of her completion

I actually don't like to compare Bismarck with Iowa as Iowa was somewhat later in the war and thus had the experience of the past actions incorporated, thus if you just think about it it should be somewhat supperior, Bismarck is a good ship but comparing it to the zenith of the battleship devellopment isn't that fair for anyone and both Yamato and iowa represents that, on the other hand if you take what she could be expected to fight in the atlantic at that time she would be capable enough although she might have had a harder time with KGW or Nelson ships (Disregard the PoW engagement as that ship wasn't seaworthy at the time and carried gun technitions into the battle actually turret X failed during the battle)

I don't think you should count on the H class beign that much better than Bismarck (If you take the realistic consepts not that rediculess 110.000 ton ship with 800mm guns ;) )

You can argue a lot about Lütjens desissions, there has been written many books about that and admiral Holland, my personal oppinion is that he was a in desisive fool that didn't take the chances when they where there but steamed on with a damaged battleship right into the main consentration of the Royal Navy, if he had chased Down PoW and returned to germany he'd have saved the hip (for the time beign) and given the british a great morale blow Germany had just as good repair fasilites as France and thus he didn't have to make this gauntlet run with a damaged ship
But instead he exchanged the best ship the Kriegsmarine had for an old BC
Yes they where a waste of resources but isn't all weapons that when you think about it?
If there wasn't any weapons then there woudn't be a need for any weapons (large military weapons that is)

Your not helping. :mischief: ;):lol: trust me Wyrm I feel the same way.

Okay, if there are´nt any other new details I think we should stop this discussion now. The only new aspect I want to add is I read Ballard´s book about finding the Bismarck. He doesn´t give any hard details whether the Bismarck was the best ship or not. He only appoints the wreck is nearly intact. Okay intact is a bad word, but I want to point out the damages are far less then expected. He only says the ship was of very good quality and was most probably sunk by her crew (all German survivors said 10 minutes before the torpedoes hit the ship the bombs were detonating to scuttle the ship). The torpedoes might fasten this but were not causal.
Nevertheless Lütjens was the wrong man. Viceadmiral Ciliax were a far better choice. The battle of the denmark strait is not very good to judge about the qualities of this ship. As well as the final battle. And since her sister Tirpitz wasn´t in ship to ship combat we can only speculate. But that´s the most fascinating in history. In her short time many things happened, which were unexpectable. Stupidity and bravery were, are and will ever be factors, which will change history.
As the last sentence we should remember a ship which stands on the bottom of the sea with many guns seems to be ready for the final battle and en route to a friendly port, which she will never reach, and the crew of the Hood and the Bismarck who gave their lives for her countries.

Adler

Just an idea, but wouldn't it be better to run this kind of discussion in another thread? Something like "Debate History," or such?

I say this only because it's pretty disheartening to check out a thread like this looking for something like an update or pedia icons or whatever ... and instead find nothing.

Superb! When do you release it???

Adler

:eek: :eek: Wow!! Indeed, when can you release some ships Wyrm? We're badly in need of more ww1/ww2 ships, and yours look fantastic!

I see... well take your time, and I'm sure it'll be excellent

Lovely ship ! I use it !


Oh, and...

Bismarck :
Build the 1 jul 1936
Launch the 14 feb 1939
In operations the 24 aug 1940

Iowa (Missouri class)
Build the 6 jan 1941
Launch the 29 jan 1944
In operations the 11 jun 1944

Compare the same thing :mischief:


In my mod, i use the Bismarck as a german flavor BB, and the Iowa as an advanced BB with the need of one tech after the others BB (It's for the Iroquois and the Sioux civ).



P.S. Well, and i dream for a Littorio or a Richelieu BB (think France can't build or *search* for new BB in the war), or for Egyptian/babylonian/roman flavor BB :p





Wooops, i dont' see the year of this post. Sorry :lol:

why is the Iowa a Missouri class? :mischief: ship class takes the 1st ship which should be Iowa not Missouri even when it became the flagship. :p or we will need to keep renaming every ship classes as new ship are built! :lol:

Iowa (Iowa class)
Missouri (Iowa class)
no? :goodjob:

Thats funny TVA you tried linking the GIF animation from your hard drive LOL thats funny a hell...hahahha you just made my day...BTW nice unit....looks like you just took the stock battleship and added longer barrels and deleted one

...This was one of the very very very first units made for Civ 3.. so.. don't make fun of it.

The death is very similar to the actual death of the ship, from a painting and a few pics I've seen over the years. Well done!