New Unit: Bismark Class
- Thread starter TVA22
- Start date
Jagdpanther
Dying...
Its not Bismark, its Bismarck...
Pablostuka
King
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!!!
Great Unit!!!
Exsanguination
No longer here
sorry to change subject, but where does the bismark class fit in in relation to the game?
Jagdpanther
Dying...
they could use the Bismarck in WW2 mods
Dark Sheer
Deity
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.
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! 
Phil Schneider
Chieftain
Sorry for the question, but: HOW MAY I DOWNLOAD THIS UNIT 
??? bismark.zip always becomes attachment.php . . . . .
??? 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.Originally posted by Phil Schneider
Sorry for the question, but: HOW MAY I DOWNLOAD THIS UNIT
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.
Phil Schneider
Chieftain
I got it so! I labeled (right vokabyulary?) "attachment.php" with "bismarck.zip". Sometimes I'm really more stupid than my shoo 
. . . .
. . . .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.
the iowa and yamato class being "fast battleship" are superior to it in everyway.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
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
Adler
vingrjoe
Landlocked Shipwright
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.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
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
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
vingrjoe
Landlocked Shipwright
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.
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.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
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
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
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
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I thought the Bismark was known as a He
