So sánh sms hood vs bismarck

I was going to pick SMS Hindenburg as she was the best German battlecruiser completed from WW1, but as Hood was not completed during the war it would be unfair to do so.

Im no expert but I would hope that KGV would win, although on paper it would appear to be very close.

Dougie

dunmunro Senior Member Posts: 4372 Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am Location: Langley BC Canada

by dunmunro » Sun May 25, 2008 12:59 am

KGV would have a 50% heavier broadside and quite a wide immune zone from Mackesen, and would greatly outrange the Mackensen unless we allow for some degree of modernization, but Hood had very few changes. At long ranges Mackensen would be at grave disadvantage, even if her guns had their elevation increased. Additionally, once we start adding weight to Mackensen, her freeboard forward , which was marginal to begin with would be very poor for operations in the North Atlantic. Her speed of 28knots would drop to 25 or 26 with age and weight increases. Mackensen would be at a severe disadvantage against KGV.

David89 Member Posts: 82 Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:53 pm

by David89 » Sun May 25, 2008 7:06 am

Looking at the other contemporary battlecruisers, Hood is beginning to look better again. For all the condemnation of Hood and her weak deck armour, Hood was more powerful and generally better armoured than any of her contemporaries, and was a decent match in a fight for any of the WWI battleships. If Hood had survived Denmark Straight, she would still be remembered today as the mighty Hood, the pride of the Royal Navy, who defeated the new and powerful Bismarck. As various people on these forums have been suggesting, had Hood not been leading the battle-line at DS, and had the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen targeted the far better armoured Prince of Wales instead of the Hood, the British would likely have won the battle of Denmarck Straight.

dougieo Member Posts: 88 Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:36 am Location: Scotland

by dougieo » Sun May 25, 2008 1:11 pm

Tiornu wrote:Mackensen's deck armor is significantly worse than Hood's. Ouch.

I thought that the German ships were generally better armoured than there British counerparts, I assume that in their bid to match the gunpower of the newer Britsh ships they had to sacrafice armour as the gunmounts etc would be heavier.

so she may have suffered a similar fate as Hood if faced by a KGV.

I have always taken the Bismarck v Hood as two heavywieght boxers, 1 coming out of retiretment to face the new guy on the block.

Karl Heidenreich Senior Member Posts: 4808 Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm Location: San José, Costa Rica

by Karl Heidenreich » Sun May 25, 2008 2:35 pm

Hood, in comparison with Indefatigable, Queen Mary or Invincible looks like a full armoured Battleship. The Mackensen could be better than the British counterparts but was no better than Hood. Can this be said so replacing Hood by Repulse? MacKensen vs. Repulse?

Best regards...

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Sir Winston Churchill

Tiornu Supporter Posts: 1222 Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am Location: Ex Utero

by Tiornu » Sun May 25, 2008 6:26 pm

I thought that the German ships were generally better armoured than there British counerparts, I assume that in their bid to match the gunpower of the newer Britsh ships they had to sacrafice armour as the gunmounts etc would be heavier.

With regard to vertical armor, the generalization usually held. But German ships were no better than average in deck protection. Hood, on the other hand, had been redesigned after Jutland with much improved deck protectiom. This, of course, was not sufficient to match post-treaty standards, but it was still enough to give some realistic protection at WWI ranges.

dougieo Member Posts: 88 Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:36 am Location: Scotland

by dougieo » Sun May 25, 2008 6:58 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Hood, in comparison with Indefatigable, Queen Mary or Invincible looks like a full armoured Battleship. The Mackensen could be better than the British counterparts but was no better than Hood.

Can this be said so replacing Hood by Repulse? MacKensen vs. Repulse?

Best regards...

Karl

Repulse doesnt come into this. I think she would be hardpressed by the Makenson and would have to use her superior speed to disengage unless she was able to do early damage as a prolonged engagement would favour the heavier armour of the Makenson.

The idea was to take the best German Battlecruiser of WW1 and put it against a new British Battleship so as to reverse the Bismarck/Hood situation.

For example take cars built years apart, Astra GTE 16V(150bhp) v Astra VXR(240bhp) and race them. Then be surprised when the Astra VXR wins!!

David89 Member Posts: 82 Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:53 pm

by David89 » Mon May 26, 2008 7:56 pm

Repulse is more lightly armoured, but despite only having 6 guns she has a heavier broadside than Mackensen. The British 15"/42 has better armour penetration than the 13.78"/45 and also outranges it. The Repulse has 9in belt armour to the Mackensen's 12in and the Repulse has better deck armour than Mackensen, favouring Repulse in a long range engagement. I don't have any data on how the hulls were subdivided, but I suspect the Mackensen has better subdivision following German practise and so would be harder to sink, as opposed to putting her out of action. Overall a close battle, but I would expect Mackensen to win a close range engagement and Repulse to win at longer ranges (around 20,000m).

dougieo Member Posts: 88 Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:36 am Location: Scotland

by dougieo » Mon May 26, 2008 11:17 pm

the hull of the Makenson would most likey be better subdivided but she did have torpedo tubes under the waterline which nearly always cause problems

Tiornu Supporter Posts: 1222 Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am Location: Ex Utero

by Tiornu » Mon May 26, 2008 11:23 pm

Good point. We can note also that hulls do not become increasingly watertight with age.

RF Senior Member Posts: 7742 Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

by RF » Wed May 28, 2008 12:39 pm

David89 wrote: If Hood had survived Denmark Straight, she would still be remembered today as the mighty Hood, the pride of the Royal Navy, who defeated the new and powerful Bismarck. As various people on these forums have been suggesting, had Hood not been leading the battle-line at DS, and had the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen targeted the far better armoured Prince of Wales instead of the Hood, the British would likely have won the battle of Denmarck Straight.

Yes indeed. And possibly also would have won on the basis of the actual battle if Hood had fired on Bismarck instead of Prinz Eugen and hit Bismarck at the same time she was also first hit - enough to upset the German gunnery and delay/prevent the fatal hit from happening.....

With regards to old battle cruiser versus modern battleship we do of course have Scharnhorst vs. Duke of York.... given that DoY was a new ship and Scharnhorst, while not old in the literal sense, was not as new as DoY.

Turning the scenario around we could have had modern battlecruiser vs old battleship during Operation Berlin, if Lutjens had not forbade Kapitan Hoffmann from engaging Scharnhorst with Malaya....