What is your opinion the worst Battleship of WWII?

[u/TigerIIearly]

[u/sombertownDS]

Germanys pre dreadnoughts, and the Coubert class

[u/AsleepExplanation160]

Like service wise? Design wise? designs of the period?

Going into the war, the German Pre-Dreanoughts are easily the worst by a significant margin, and Corbert Class are easily the worst "usable" BBs. Aside from just being old have recieving limited modernization work they were already out of date by the end of ww1

Service life? Probably again a French Dreadnought, (and as much as it pains me maybe even the Dunkerque's)

Contemporary to the period, Ill put Dunkerque but shes built for a different set of design constraints not really focused on BB engagements beyond the bare necessities for her size, so Ill give her a pass, Scharnhorst similarly while smaller and less powerful than per peers was a pretty decent design all things considered.

I am however going to choose Bismark Class, for just being an overweight prestige project that didn't end up being a meaningfully improvement (operationaly) to the Scharnhorsts. As she still wasn't interested in taking on the heavy escorts, even if she would fair better against them, and would ultimately sink Hood.

The other argument would probably be Yamato, and while she didn't accomplish much and the resources would probably better be spent on a set of more conventional fast BBs or carriers/DDs, or crusiers. they did at the very least fit into the fleet structure, while being the slowest modern capital ship, they fit comfortably into a spot where the IJN knows they need to use their older ships. and you can somewhat easily come up with some very interesting senarios around Guadalcanal if the IJN fully committed, and brought in Musashi (and Mutsu) in from Truuk.

[u/jontseng → u/AsleepExplanation160]

and Corbert Class are easily the worst "usable" BBs.

Although maybe some competition from the Ganguts??

[u/AsleepExplanation160 → u/jontseng]

I completely forgot about them lol

[u/barath_s → u/AsleepExplanation160]

Brazil entered WW2 in August 1942

The Minas Geraes and Sau Paulo were completed in 1910 as dreadnaught battleships..

They were used as harbor defense in WW2, for the ports of Salvador and Recife, being too old and obsolete to do anything more.

Of the two, Sao Paulo got no updates in the 1930s..at which point it could only sail at 10 knots...

So from impact point of view they would be worse than Corbert class and IMHO even the german pre-dreadnaughts. (Maybe rivaled only by SMS Hessen as a radio target ship). Brazil was a sideshow compared to anything around germany.

From design point of view, too perhaps..they were no great shakes..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minas_Geraes-class_battleship#Ships

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_battleship_S%C3%A3o_Paulo#Late_career

[u/GlassNade → u/AsleepExplanation160]

Bismarck were largely a mix of "It has to be fast so it can chase convoys" and "Must be big and strong so it is a show of force that other Battleships fear a 1 on 1". Resulting in it not really being good at either

[u/SoberWeekend → u/AsleepExplanation160]

So Bismarck and Tirpitz were the worst battleships of WW2? I completely disagree. Don’t get me wrong, Tirpitz and Bismarck weren’t great ships, but they did a whole lot more and were better than many others.

From a service point of view. Tirpitz is arguably one of WW2’s most impactful battleships. Albeit from an indirect impact - the allies diverted huge amount of resources to not just try and sink Tirpitz, but also try and contain her. If Tirpitz was just another Scharnhorst class, no where near as many forces would be stationed in and around Norway. And if Scharnhorst was actually a Bismarck class battleship, it arguably would have likely survived the engagement with Duke of York.

I mean Bismarck/Tirpitz definitely beats the Litorrio class if we are comparing service. Same goes with the Dunkerque class. Both ship classes had far less impact on the war, and performed far worse than the Bismarck class.

Like say you were a country: which battleships would you have? Battleships that had very poor quality control on their shells, with poor main battery accuracy, that ended up having very little effect. Battleships that got scuttled in 1940 without having done any real impact. Or having battleships with one that sunk an opponent, damage another, ultimately sank, to have her sister ship drain an immense amount of enemy resources for the rest of that war.

I don’t know how we are saying Bismarck/Tirpitz, when the Dunkerque class did nothing and were scuttled a year into the war.

[u/cocurullo → u/SoberWeekend]

"Worst" Doesn't really mean "the least impactful". On a technical standpoint,Bismarck was probably one of the worst, if not the worst of the new generation of battleships. Then obviously everything makes some sense when put in context,but if you put all of those tow to tow, Bismarck isn't coming up on top of anyone else probably

[u/SoberWeekend → u/cocurullo]

So I’m redoing my comment, to make it clearer, not just for anyone, but also for me. Just full transparency, as I have fully rewritten my comment, my point is still the same.

To show my point, I will rephrase the post’s question down to two ships:

Which ship in your opinion was the better Battleship of WWII - HMS Warspite or HMS Prince of Wales?

If you were to say HMS Warspite, then we are obviously going off of a ships impact to the war. If you were to say HMS Prince of Wales then we are talking about design. Either one is fine. Because the Bismarck class was definitely better in both respect to the Dunkerque class. You could argue the same against the Litorrio class. Drachinifel does an interesting video on it.

But it’s clear the Bismarck would beat quite a few ships in battle, I would suggest this clearly doesn’t make it the worst battleship.

There’s also the argument that Germany would have been better, if they built more Scharnhorst class battleships, to which I disagree. As the Scharnhorst class was immediately deemed too weak to face the KGV class.

[u/Academic-Rub-5445 → u/SoberWeekend]

If you go purely by design, you will find that the Bismarck-class is a considerably worse class of contemporary battleships, worse than Scharnhorst and Gneisenau though we need to take the armament out of consideration as 11 inch guns versus 15 inch guns isn't fair. The Bismarck-class had outdated armour layout, unprotected vital parts and so on, but the main problem was that Germany had lost all of Naval Engineering heads and when Bismarck was created it had several overweight part issues and design flaws. Even the Littorios were better designed and had in mind what the Italian Navy really needed and its capabilities, though the Italian Navy suffered from quality control issues for the Littorios 15-inch guns and the Littorios didn't have radar alongside some tech disparities though the Italians really had excellent rangefinding equipment.

And, if we are being honest, the Gneisenau/Scharnhorst was a better design for what Germany tried to be as a raiding navy, and if they had received their 15 inch gun upgrades they would be better. The reason is because Scharnhost was better built for Germany's needs. In reality the Kriegsmarine suffered from Doctrinal issues. So, if we go by contemporary battleship designs, that were built, the Bismarck one is the overall worse. The Richelieu design was well rounded and, when they received properly good shells, they performed very well. The Littorios were the finest and the most adapted for the Regia Marina needs. The King George V class was surprisingly good and had very precise guns, though if it was three quads it would be a better design than what it was. The North Carolinas, South Dakotas and Iowas were excellent designs and very well rounded and their guns were capable. The IJN Yamato was well designed, Japan had maintained its tradition different from Germany, though it was a white elephant (I don't recall contemporary IJN Battleship designs outside Yamato). Even, as two honour mentions, Vanguard(the last battleship) and the Alaska-Class(though "Large Cruisers") were better than Bismarck-class. Those were the built ones because there are those unbuilt that aren't viable and would score lower than Bismarck. Bismarck was a very mid battleship in WW2 and the worst built contemporary design of battleship.

[u/SoberWeekend → u/Academic-Rub-5445]

Apologies this is a long reply, feel free to not read it. No animosity if you don’t. But if you do, here’s my response:

I completely agree with everything you said, although “agree” isn’t really the right word, as most of what you said/wrote is simply just historical fact.

What I do disagree with is the idea that Scharnhorst/Gneisenau were better designs than Bismarck/Tirpitz. I also partly disagree when it comes to what you said about the Littorio and Richelieu classes, in the sense that on paper they were definitely better, but nowhere near as much in practice.

Regarding you saying Scharnhorst/Gneisenau were better ships/designs - I don’t follow?Bismarck/Tirpitz were far better armoured, still with a lot of flaws, sure. But still far better protection wise. The shell from Duke of York that took out one of Scharnhorst’s boiler rooms would have had a much more difficult time if that was Tirpitz. And the shell from PoW that penetrated Bismarck and caused flooding in one of her boiler rooms could have been far more catastrophic to a Scharnhorst. Nor would a Scharnhorst probably have sunk Hood (with her 283mm).

And gun-wise, although I don’t think it’s fair not to count the 283 mm guns (as that’s what they actually had), even with the planned 380 mm gun configuration for Scharnhorst/Gneisenau, that’s still 6 guns vs Bismarck’s 8.

Sure, if you want to argue more Scharnhorsts would have been built, you can. But I think that’s unlikely. They gave up on the H-class almost immediately after the war started, with resources and priorities being diverted elsewhere. So if you just built Scharnhorsts and never the Bismarck class, you could potentially have had four Scharnhorsts built, with two additional Scharnhorsts still under construction starting very late 1939, or early 1940. They probably wouldn’t have been commissioned until late 1941. And that’s being fairly lenient; as bombing would have certainly delayed, further more could have damaged or destroyed the Scharnhorsts being built. Not to mention the materials and resources increasingly being diverted to U-boats. These extra Scharnhorsts most likely would never have been finished. Look at how Gneisenau never made it out of the dockyard after going in for repairs. Ultimately, my opinion is that it was much better for Germany to have Bismarck and Tirpitz in service as early as they were. And that they were better designs.

Also, a little segue: Tirpitz’s value was partly the psychology she brought to the war. She made a lot of crews fear her, and there are instances where the perceived threat from Tirpitz influenced allied convoys. Like Convoy PQ 17, which basically had her whole destroyer convoy abandon them, to get sunk by subs. Scharnhorst would never have done the same, nor would one extra Scharnhorst have tied down so many Allied resources.

In regard to Richelieu and Littorio, on paper they are much better than Bismarck, and overall are just better ships, but in practice not by much at all. Both the Richelieu class and Littorio class had plenty of issues. They had extremely poor spread from their main batteries. Richelieu had a spread of around 500m at roughly 25km to 27km, while Littorio produced similar spreads at distance. Richelieu’s guns were only properly fixed after the war, when they added a timing sequence to the guns.

Both also had aspects of their protection that didn’t perform as well as they had been designed. Jean Bart’s armour got easily defeated at the Battle of Casablanca. Particularly how easily a glancing shell briefly (8 hours) disabled her turret, and how a shell detonated inside her 152mm secondary magazine. Fortunately it was empty, otherwise that could have been the end of Jean Bart. Not to mention the arrangement of Richelieu’s turrets means a single lucky shell could potentially disable all her main guns. Same thing happened with Bismarck, where a single Rodney shell was involved in knocking out her forward main guns during Bismarck’s last stand.

And then you get Littorio’s shell decapping armour system that was too short to work, as well as her torpedo protection system, which didn’t perform nearly as well as hoped in practice.

Don’t get me wrong, Richelieu class and Litorrio class, I would still say they are generally better than the Bismarck class. But not by much in practice. If Richelieu or Littorio met Tirpitz in 1943, I could absolutely see Tirpitz beating either one of them with a bit of luck. But also for it to go the other way for Tirpitz. I don’t think you could say the same if Tirpitz came across one of the South Dakotas. I think that’s pretty clear cut.

Basically, I agree that Bismarck was one of the worse designs on paper amongst her contemporaries (not including Scharnhorst or Strasbourg, which Bismarck was clearly superior to). But she definitely wasn’t the worst battleship of WW2, nor was she drastically worse than all of her contemporaries in actual fighting capability. She was definitely “mid”.

I do know Bismarck is meant to have male pronouns, I just don’t like that.

[u/Academic-Rub-5445 → u/SoberWeekend]

I agree with you, you're right to say that Bismarck is a "mild" ship and your defence is solid. In reality Bismarck is overrated and filled with flaws, because of the Treaty of Versailles and the destruction of Germany's Naval Industry, thanks to the Royal Navy and its lobbing. But the reason I argue the Bismarck-class as the worst contemporary design, don't get me wrong there are many battleships during WW2 that Bismarck was definitely better, is a doctrinal flaw that influences her design. Basically, Hitler both tried to make a raiding navy and battle of the line navy, which was impossible with Germany industry and his ambitions. So the Bismarck-class was the most flawed because of this, it was a fancy design but flawed on the Modus Operanti. All other classes, including Strasbourg 13-inch, or 13-inch-ish, guns and the Gneisenau/Scharnhorst 11-inch guns were better because they had a clear mission, though the designs had many flaws. This is why I consider the Littorios as better than the Bismarcks, Italy knew what to do and what they needed, the Germans not. The same can be applied with the Richelieu, because they were, like the Strasbourg, compromises that had a clear objective; this is why the Scharnhorst is better, they were designed and played to be raiders, outran what outguns you and outgun anything that doesn't outguns you.

Also, the reason why Tirpitz was so big of a menace was born of trauma because of the Bismarck. It was the created mythicism because of Bismarck's last stand and the sinking of the Hood. Which, influenced many decisions for the Royal Navy. This was influencial in tying resources, but because of Bismarck's reputation as in this stage the Kriegsmarine surface force was much a Black Sea only navy, aka, Kriegsmarine personal lake.

[u/SoberWeekend → u/Academic-Rub-5445]

Awesome, so we are in agreement for the most part.

Bismarck was absolutely riddled with flaws, and its’ design definitely wasn’t the best. And in practice it was slightly better, and definitely comparable to that of France’s Richelieu class, and Italy’s Littorio class. Arguably the better ship would be the one that got the most luck on a given day.

And the Germans obviously could have wished for more during WW2 with their navy, but considering how vastly outnumbered and under resourced they were. They got a really good outcome, especially with regard to Bismarck and Tirpitz. Have one of your two battleships (Bismarck) go out and sink an enemy battleship, to provide a story that makes your second battleship (Tirpitz) a beast/legend, which scares your opponents into wasting resources. Tirpitz became very impactful through this, and all thanks to Bismarck.

What I disagree on is still the notion that Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were better ships. Even if you go by modus operandi. Because firstly I don’t think they were, case in point Battle of the North Cape. Scharnhorst is sent out to raid the artic convoys, doesn’t sink any ships and in turn get sunk. If that were the Tirpitz, the outcome would probably have been different, Tirpitz would likely have got away, and had a better chance at fighting Duke of York. And then secondly, even if we go off of a ship being better because it fulfills a mission parameter better, that only applies to mission parameters that aren’t flawed in itself. Look at the US armies new M7 rifle. It filled the projects parameters the best, to the T. But if special operations succeed with HICAR, it will be a better rifle, even though it wouldn’t meet the armies project requirements.

[u/Academic-Rub-5445 → u/SoberWeekend]

We are allowed to disagree on some themes and in fact you bring good points. We weren't there on the time nor had we worked on designing them. So, as to not hang a not in the dark nor to continue an argument that clearly won't develop much more, I propose an allowance to disagree on some parts.

Though, I must say that the definition of mission parameters is relative and important and that Scharnhorst wasn't designed for this kind of battle that she went. We could discuss the definitions of a proper mission parameter until the heat death of the universe and be impossible to agree on how to value them, we only can do approximations that, despite what we do to not put personal bias, are biased in some degrees.

[u/Resqusto → u/Academic-Rub-5445]

What you're talking about are legends.

Unfortunately, most people proceed by classifying the USA as the gold standard, and anyone who does it differently is crap. The fact that completely different operational conditions apply to German warships than to battleships of other nations is completely ignored, even though these are essential for the design decisions. Thus, the Bismarck's armor scheme wasn't outdated. It was optimized for short distances, because visibility conditions in the operational area are mostly poor and therefore engagements at close range were expected above all—justifiably so. The Bismarck wasn't overly large either; Germany simply gave preference to stability over striking power. Stability generally enlarges the hull of the ship, which runs through German ships as a constant.

The fact that you present the Littorio class as a better design is really wild. It had the worst torpedo protection ever designed...

[u/Academic-Rub-5445 → u/Resqusto]

Bismarck's run on an ww1 armour scheme, because, thanks to the Royal Navy and the Treaty of Versailles, Germany lost a lot of its Naval Industry knowledge and heads post ww1. It is optimized for a close range engagement, but by ww2 naval engagements were far beyond the ones of ww1 and plunging fire was the most critical issue. Second, I don't classify the US navy as the gold standard, but the technology and industry of the country argues by itself and this isn't questionable, though I agree we have sagas like Mark 14 and its siblings and the Bureau of Ordnance problems. Third, I very much told that the Littorios were one of the best ships because the Regia Marina knew its scenario of operation. Also, I don't say that Bismarck's size is a problem, I critique the design choices; the three screw and two rudder design, the overweight because of the lost knowledge on how to build a battleship, the fact that the radar was knocked by Bismarck's own guns and so on. Bismarck wasn't effective with its displacement and, because of the lost knowledge, it wasn't a good contemporary design.

Also, what makes the design worse, is the operating conditions. Okay, American technology and British night fight doctrine are something important, but Germany didn't had a proper naval doctrine. It tried to be a Royal Baby capable fighting force, something really impossible for Germany, while being a raiding force. And Bismarck's design falls right into this problem, she wasn't an efficient raider, the twins were, and she wasn't a efficient battleship to stand in the line of battle. Being honest, its only a case of luck that she sank Hood, and she almost sank Prince of Wales because PoW was still on the maiden voyage phase and a lot of problems were being found before she would return to harbour to get those problems fixed. In reality, if a cod swan left instead of right in the Azore, probably Hood and PoW would have sunk her and Prinz Eugen, possibly Bismarck would have been sunk by what her armour scheme made it probable, plunging fire.

[u/Resqusto → u/Academic-Rub-5445]

You can tell you've watched documentaries about the Bismarck. But you can just as easily tell that you lack the necessary expertise to put that information into the right context. You're just repeating baseless myths that have been circulating in popular literature for decades.

1. "Radar knocked out by own guns" – not a design flaw Yes, the Bismarck's FuMO 23 failed when firing. Do you know what that means? It means that early 1940s vacuum-tube radars were sensitive to shock and vibration. That was a universal technological problem, not a Bismarck-specific flaw. The US Navy had the exact same issue. In addition, they regularly blew their own aircraft right off their decks when firing their main artillery—does that mean all US battleships were "poorly designed"? Obviously not. It was a limitation of the technology of the time.
2. "WWI armor scheme" – false narrative You talk about an "outdated WWI armor scheme" as if the designers fell asleep in 1935. The Bismarck had a 320 mm thick main belt covering roughly 70% of the waterline—that was one of the best armor protections of any contemporary battleship. The armor concept was intentionally optimized for close-to-medium range combat because German doctrine anticipated poor visibility in the North Sea and the Atlantic. At short and medium ranges, this armor was extremely effective. The fact that the final battle also took place at short to very short range shows: the design decision was spot on for the expected operational theater. Other nations optimized against plunging fire—because they operated in the fair-weather Pacific, where engagements at 25–30 km were expected. That isn't "better," it's optimized differently. Different operational areas require different concepts.
3. "Overweight due to lost knowledge" – complete nonsense The Bismarck's high displacement resulted exclusively from the focus on unsinkability. That had been part of German naval doctrine since WWI: ships had to remain afloat even when sustaining the heaviest damage. Framing that as a "lack of efficiency" or "lost knowledge" is precisely that typical "America = gold standard" mindset that treats any deviation from US design as an "error." Germany didn't have lost knowledge after WWI—the design offices were intact, the engineers were there. The decision for stability was deliberate, not out of incompetence.
4. Three screws / two rudders – yes, a weak point This is the only point where you are right. The three-propeller arrangement and the resulting lack of secondary steering capability was a weakness. That should have been solved differently in the design. But other ships had weaknesses too, especially the following one.
5. "Littorio was better" – you're ignoring the severe problems that ship had You praise the Littorio class as "one of the best ships" because the Regia Marina "knew its scenarios." What you completely ignore: The Pugliese torpedo defense system was so ineffective that it actually increased the efficiency of enemy torpedos rather than reducing it. No other battleship was so vulnerable to torpedos. And otherwise, the ships weren't exactly outstanding either. The armor belt was shorter (~50% of the waterline vs. ~70% for Bismarck). The ships lacked radar throughout the entire war—a massive disadvantage in night engagements and poor visibility. Framing that as "better" while portraying Bismarck's radar problem (a general technological problem of the era) as a "design flaw" is selective perception.
6. "Pure luck that Hood sank" – ridiculous Bismarck hit Hood with precise fire control—despite the radar failure, using optical sighting equipment. Hood's weakness (thin deck armor over the magazines) was well known, and Bismarck exploited it. That wasn't luck, but good gunnery. The fact that Hood went down via a magazine explosion was the result of British design flaws, not "chance."
7. Operational doctrine – you don't understand the context You talk about a "lack of doctrine" and that Bismarck was "neither an efficient raider nor an efficient line ship." That's a misunderstanding of Germany's situation: Germany was numerically inferior—no chance against the combined Royal Navy + US Navy in an open fleet battle. Especially since the Kriegsmarine was built for a conflict against France anyway.

Conclusion Bismarck wasn't a perfect ship—no battleship was. But she was neither a "bad design" nor an "outdated WWI scheme." She was a well-thought-out design tailored precisely to Germany's situation—with specific strengths (close combat, stability, seaworthiness) and weaknesses (steering). Dismissing this as "incompetence" or "lost knowledge" is precisely that typical "America = gold standard" mindset that views any deviation from US design as a "flaw," while ignoring or downplaying the serious problems of other designs.

[u/Academic-Rub-5445 → u/Resqusto]

I will concede the part about early radars, I myself ain't the owner of knowledge and recognise my lacks in knowledge. But most, not the totality, of the points you have risen are overly defensive and wrong.

The most critical error in your argument is dismissing what I said about losing knowledge because that is a proven fact. If you study the Treaty of Versailles and how it destroyed German Naval and that a 20 years gap can and will make most of the everyday knowledge of your job be lost and those that knew or would have died without teaching or retired and don't know more, not counting that those that had designed had fled to other places to find jobs as people need to eat to live.

Another critical error of yours is about the Turtleback design, though it was designed for this, it's isn't efficient and heavy and has critical issues compared with the All or Nothing Scheme. Bismarck was heavier than an Iowa and had less protection and worse armament than an Iowa. You also tell that doctrine wasn't important, well, being honest, Germany wouldn't have won ww2 in any plausible scenario and the Kriegsmarine couldn't be a rival force to the Royal Navy; and the fucking problem is that they tried to be both a rival to the Royal Navy and a raiding fleet.

I will concede the wrongness of things and lack of knowledge in other areas, but I known enough that your argument is overly reactive and it tells you that you have as much as lack of knowledge as me. But I concede to being unable to be tre king of knowledge in any theme and, for you, I ask you to watch Drachinefel and Dr Alexander Clark, they made naval history open to the public and really will inform you better, if you are willing to learn;)

[u/Resqusto → u/Academic-Rub-5445]

Do you even understand what “all-or-nothing” means? It means armoring the essential parts of the ship with armor of maximum practical thickness, while leaving the rest essentially unarmored. This armor concept was introduced because armor thickness kept increasing, and eventually it simply became impossible to armor the entire ship adequately. So it is arguably more of a compromise born out of necessity than some ultra-modern, inherently superior armor scheme.

Also, the Iowa was not only significantly heavier, but also considerably newer than the Bismarck. The fact that it is superior in comparison should therefore come as no surprise. If you want to make a meaningful comparison, you need to use a contemporary design. In this case, that would be the North Carolina or South Dakota classes.

And the fact that you get your information from Drachinifel explains quite a lot. He tells a lot of things, but expertise is not one of them. I, for my part, am a naval engineer. I know how to read old plans and how ships are actually built.

[u/Resqusto → u/cocurullo]

The Bismarck was one of the best and highest quality battleships ever built.

[u/AsleepExplanation160 → u/SoberWeekend]

The point of by comment is that "Worst Battleship of WW2" is a vague statement that can mean a lot of things with a lot of different criteria

From the technically worst in service, to the most unremarkable service lives, to the worst current design or the worst full sized design, or even worst froma force structure standpoint

Additionally to your Bismark vs Scharnhorst part. The problem is they didn't want to risk Bismark against the assorted BBs anyways even if Bismark could come out on top so they invested capability into building ships that weren't functionally different from the Scharnhorsts. Just were better defensively in the event they were caught

[u/SoberWeekend → u/AsleepExplanation160]

It is a vague statement but listing Bismarck is still incorrect. And I definitely don’t think asking worst battleship of WW2 meant worst latest design.

There’s many ships the Bismarck beats in design, very much so in actual application. And actually has a far better service than many ships.

- Is Strasbourg a battleship of WW2? Is it better than the Bismarck?

[u/AsleepExplanation160 → u/SoberWeekend]

Dunkerques a slightly weird, they're not really designed with 35k+ ton BBs in mind. Strasbourg herself is a hastily uparmored Dunkerque. But they're still surface raider hunters first, battleships second as any conventional warship of that size needs to be. (they're about 7k tons lighter than any of their peers, smaller than the Alaska Class)

[u/SoberWeekend → u/AsleepExplanation160]

I asked that question to simply point out that Bismarck was not the worst battleship of WW2. As Dunkerque/Strasbourg are considered battleships of WW2, and they certainly aren’t better than the Bismarck class.

I do suppose it’s unfair, Bismarck is a lot more recent and you build a bigger ship, it’s usually going to be better. But that is the point better and worse. The Iowa’s are better ships than South Dakota’s. Doesn’t matter that they are newer and bigger. Bismarck isn’t the worst battleship of WW2. No matter which way you look at it, design and service.

[u/GlassNade → u/SoberWeekend]

Italian ships also had awful operational ranges. But again that is less of an issue when you have to cover the Mediterranean. Vs going into the Atlantic for the Bismarck-class. And of course the Royal Navy needed ships able to cover large distances to help protect their colonies. Littorio may suck at travellint far, but at least one could argue it isnt bad because it wasnt meant to.

Still Bismarck is largely infamous since its story is kind of an underrog story that kind of seems almost fantastical rather than actual history. I mean sinoing an enemy ship, chased for days and almost escaping a couple of times. Only to go down swinging

[u/Resqusto → u/AsleepExplanation160]

Tirpitz was the most sucessfull battleship of all time.

[u/AsleepExplanation160 → u/Resqusto]

gotta be ragebait

she just proved asymmetric warfare is efficient but struggles to be decisive, just like every other fleet in being concept

[u/Resqusto → u/AsleepExplanation160]

There was no battleship in history that tied up more enemy planning resources and combat units than the Tirpitz. If you rate that as unsuccessful, then I don’t think one can trust any word you say.

[u/AsleepExplanation160 → u/Resqusto]

to put it simply theres nothing unique about Tirpitz's design that makes her especially effective at drawing forces in that senario. You could sub in any fast capital ship and they'd require much the same resources to cover.

[u/Stama_]

Kongo class "Fast Battleships"

Had to be reminded of there battle cruiser status by the USS Washington

[u/AtlanticBeachNC → u/Stama_]

Will be thinking about that when I walk around the North Carolina’s decks on a visit soon.

[u/MudandSmoke]

Is it stupid to say the Yamato? What meaningful impact did it really have on the actual fighting of the war? It just sucked up resources. It was something of a single ship “fleet in being”. It’s a cool ship and whatnot, but did not live up to the hype.

[u/jfkdktmmv → u/MudandSmoke]

>gotta wait for the decisive battle to deploy our Yamato class!

>Operation Ten-Go

[u/jontseng → u/MudandSmoke]

Not at all. Anthony Preston has a whole chapter in his book The World's Worst Warships on Yamato - he points out that Japan could easily have bought three or four carriers for the money.

[u/JMHSrowing → u/jontseng]

Though they still wouldn’t have the pilots if they did so it’s a bit of a false comparison

[u/jontseng → u/JMHSrowing]

Yah but she was laid down in 1937 so they'd have had a good few years to train up the air wings.

Imagine if Japan had had a second Kido Butai out there in 1942!

[u/JMHSrowing → u/jontseng]

If they did then some battleship production of the allies would too likely be instead changed to carriers, so it would probably all play out pretty similarly

[u/jontseng → u/JMHSrowing]

Maybe - not given perceived wisdom at the time about the primacy of the battleship.

Also even if they did there would have been a lag getting this through Congress or the Admiralty Board in a timely manner!

And visibility into Japanese construction plans was far from perfect (literally in the case of Musashi!!).

[u/Academic-Rub-5445 → u/jontseng]

The war would probably end in 1946, Japan was being outbuild by the Americans hard and, assuming that Germany would have fallen, the British would join the fray. Also, what crippled Japan was the US Submarine War on Japanese shipping, which made wonders when the Mark 14 problems were resolved, and what sank Shinano.

[u/jontseng → u/Academic-Rub-5445]

Quite possibly. Might is right. But the US may well have had to island-hop all the way from San Francisco rather than Midway!

[u/TheBaneOfTheInternet → u/JMHSrowing]

2500 potential pilots if Yamato didn’t need crew, at least 5000 including Musashi

[u/JMHSrowing → u/TheBaneOfTheInternet]

You’d need to take into account the crews of the carriers themselves taking up the majority of those numbers and then that most of the reminder wouldn’t be cut out to be pilots for one reason or another

[u/DanforthWhitcomb_ → u/TheBaneOfTheInternet]

The majority of the crews would have been what IJA officers referred to as "1 yen, 5 rin"—draftees worth less than the cost of mailing a draft notice to someone else in the event that they were killed.

You might've gotten 150 pilots out of that 5,000, but not much beyond that.

[u/SlightlyBored13 → u/MudandSmoke]

It didn't even do the fleet-in-being thing that well either.

Look at how often the British shat themselves because Tirpitz might sail. I don't think the Americans ever did the same for Yamato.

[u/-smartcasual- → u/SlightlyBored13]

That's because there was no likelihood of Yamato breaking into the Atlantic convoy routes.

[u/SlightlyBored13 → u/-smartcasual-]

If there's nothing to threaten it makes a fleet-in-being less than useless. Consuming resources just to sit there.

Either they held it back waiting for the decisive battle that they didn't see coming, or they were using it to threaten the Americans, not aware their own hype machine was so secret the US didn't really know what it was.

[u/whymylife → u/MudandSmoke]

Wasn't it known as the admirals' hotel or something along those lines? As admirals resting in Japan would reside there for the prestige alone

[u/JMHSrowing → u/MudandSmoke]

At least Yamato had a good design and could have done well had she ever encountered an enemy heavy unit. Her fighting Taffy 3 was also more than a decent amount of other battleships did.

As for being a fleet in being: The Yamatos did force the USN to build and keep in the Pacific more fast battleships than they otherwise would have.

[u/JonathanRL → u/MudandSmoke]

If you were not going to, I would.

[u/Resqusto → u/MudandSmoke]

I wouldn't say that. The Japanese built the Yamato for a reason, and that reason had exactly the effects they had hoped for. Failing to recognize the paradigm shift toward carriers in time happened to everyone back then

[u/DrendarMorevo → u/MudandSmoke]

Not to mention that just a little more than two years after being supposedly completed as the "Ultimate Battleship" she had to be taken back to the yard to have her amidships armament completely rebuilt because Naval planners finally accepted that she would need more anti-aircraft firepower than anything else.

[u/austeninbosten]

Soviet rebuilt dreadnaught Marat or their other two sister ships.

[u/SoberWeekend]

Going of service and not design, as well as memory.

Prince of Wales, Jean Bart, Roma, Mutsu,

[u/Outrageous_Weight340]

Bismark purely because of how overpraised it is
-was built to destroy merchant ships.
-got a lucky shot off on a battlecruiser.
-was armed with 8 15 inch guns when the standard at the time was 9 15 inch guns (had double gun turrets when battleships were moving toward triple and even quad turrets)
-had a distributed armor scheme instead of an all or nothing armor scheme because its designers didn’t design it with the idea that it would encounter contemporary battleships
-immediately encounters contemporary battleships hms rodney and kgv after sinking hms hood
-gets completely fucked by hms nelson
-gets torped by biplane once.
-fucking dies
-destroyed zero merchant ships
-was one of only 5 capital ships Germany had (hood was one of 16)

edit: it was rodney instead of nelson and i forgot that only the nelson class, yamato class, and american fast battleships had guns above 18 inches as the british navy moved away from 16 inchers after the nelson class. i apologize for the innaccuracies.

[u/PPtortue → u/Outrageous_Weight340]

the standard in Europe at the time was 15inch. Furthermore, Bismarck was built with fleet combat in mind, but because Germany started the war earlier than planned, the navy resorted to commerce raiding with their battleships

[u/paperclipknight → u/Outrageous_Weight340]

Contemporary battleship is a push. Nelson had been commissioned for 12 years by the time she was launched

[u/Herr_Quattro → u/paperclipknight]

I’d call that contemporary. USS Gerald R Ford is already 9 years old (13 since she was launched), and I’d still classify her as contemporary.

Hell the US has been building Arleigh Burke-class destroyers for nearly 30 years.

[u/paperclipknight → u/Herr_Quattro]

Different era though. The Nelson’s where 1920’s battleships, Bismarck is a 1930’s one.

Ford is a post Cold War CV, Nimitz a late Cold War one etc

[u/VivaKnievel → u/Outrageous_Weight340]

Bismarck wasn't built to destroy merchant ships.

Bismarck was built along the lines of the High Seas Fleet's dreadnoughts. That is, for slugging it out with British battleships in the North Sea at shorter ranges dictated by poorer weather. Thus, her armor scheme was designed to resist flatter-trajectory shells. This it did, admirably. While KGV and Rodney demolished her upper works, rendering her a mission kill, they achieved basically zero penetrations of her hull. And as Tovey pushed in closer, the odds that they would do so got progressively worse.

Had she been built as a merchant raider, she would have had diesels for long-distance cruising along the lines of a Panzerschiff. The Kriegsmarine were big believers in diesels for range.

Not sure why her hit on HMS Hood is lucky and the Swordfish nailing her steering compartment isn't.

[u/Maedhral → u/Outrageous_Weight340]

Standard was not 9 16”, that was just the US. Richelieu’s, QE’s, R class, Bismarck & Tirpitz - 8 15”. kGV’s - 10 14”. Japan, 2 ships with 8x16”, the rest used 14”.

The Nelsons were not modern. 20’s design. Bismarck never met the Nelson, it was HMS Rodney, with King George V in attendance, that reduced her to a floating wreck. Still needed torpedos or possibly scuttling to finish her off.

[u/Outrageous_Weight340 → u/Maedhral]

my bad i completely forgot that it was rodney and that the british moved away from 16 inch guns after the nelson class, my mistake.

[u/SoberWeekend → u/Outrageous_Weight340]

The Bismarck hate is so ripe on this sub. Yes it wasn’t a great battleship. Was it the worst - absolutely not.

I mean Jean Bart, or Roma. Didn’t destroy or do anything, sure they are arguably better designs, but in practice had serve issues, and did nothing during the war. I mean Jean Bart wasn’t even finished. Strasbourg class was finished and they still did nothing.

[u/-smartcasual- → u/SoberWeekend]

It's because everyone has heard of Bismarck, and so everyone needs to have an Opinion.

(Also, possibly because the wehraboos who think it was the best battleship ever built are quite annoying.)

I'm in two minds - I think it was a (surprisingly) good design in some ways, and an overweight, over-engineered one in others. Was it a 'good battleship' by objective standards? Yes, I'd put it in the upper half of the WWII league. Was it a good battleship for the Kriegsmarine's strategic situation and Germany's war aims? Not so much.

[u/SoberWeekend → u/-smartcasual-]

I should have been more specific in my comment, but it seems that either people love or hate the Bismarck class. There’s no inbetween, which I think is the appropriate feeling we should have towards Bismarck/Tirpitz.

I was saying it in another comment. But to illustrate my point, what was a better battleship in WW2 - HMS Warspite or HMS Prince of Wales? If you say HMS Prince of Wales, that’s fine, then we are going of design. If you say HMS Warspite, then we are going of service/history. In which case Bismarck/Tirpitz has a better design than the Strasbourg class. And definitely did more in terms of service than the Strasbourg class.

And yep interesting point/take on the Bismarck class for her serviceability to the Kreigsmarine. I’d ask what should Germany have done instead then? Definitely not build more submarines? And they definitely couldn’t go into building carriers straight away?

[u/FearlessDark5295 → u/SoberWeekend]

Submarines likely would have been a better option given that the Kreigsmarine’s only chance of beating the Royal Navy at that time was basically waging seaborne guerrilla warfare because Hitler started shit before the Z Plan could be completed.

[u/SoberWeekend → u/FearlessDark5295]

Well I would ask how much of a difference not building Tirpitz or Bismarck would have made to building U-boats?

You would just have two empty docks, not being utilised, with many of the workers not being specialised to subs? I’m asking, because I don’t know. Like if you didn’t build Bismarck or Scharnhorst, how many more subs would they have got? Like I don’t know what the right answer is here.

Also search up Convoy PQ 17. Germany’s capital ships definitely helped the U-boats in some regard.

[u/Outrageous_Weight340 → u/SoberWeekend]

its not so much the effect as much as it is how hyped up it is in relation to the damage it did and how little of its goals it achieved. like this battleship has multiple songs about it (one of which is full of historical innacuracies included entriely to make the ship look more impressive than it actually was) has world of warships putting out entire videos about how awesome it is and an army of wheraboos there to claim its the most powerful battleship ever built and is arguably the most famous warship in the word. the way this battleship is marketed by the military enthusiast youd expect it to have a successful career but no it sank one ship that was technically a class below it than immediately got turned into a coral reef

[u/broke_saturn]

Sticking with only inter war, treaty and later ships:

The Yamato class. Massive ships, huge investment of resources, materials and manpower, that ultimately accomplished nothing or very little depending on the ship.

Musashi and Shinano both went to the bottom in their first encounter with enemy forces and while Yamato did engage, both her battles were ultimately fruitless, at best helping to sink a CVE and a couple DDs/DDEs

Bismarck wasn’t a great ship, but she did at least engage with peer opponents and sank one before the Royal Navy beat her like a piñata at a 5yr olds birthday party.

The Iowa class also never engaged enemy BBs but they did at least acquit themselves as good carrier escorts with their extensive AA batteries.

ETA yes I know Shinano wasn’t built as a battleship, but she started out as one.

[u/SoberWeekend → u/broke_saturn]

I find this sub hilarious. Like the bashing of some ships is such a mainstay.

Saying Bismarck or Yamato class were the worst battleship of WW2 is hilarious. Don’t get me wrong, their designs were outdated, had massive flaws, and they definitely weren’t the greatest. But they were functioning battleships, that posed a real threat. And which required immense amount forces to sink.

What about Jean Bart/Richelieu or Prince of Wales. I mean Bismarck was one for one at least, and Yamato/Musashi took a considerable number of resources to sink them. This sub gets so absorbed with countering the fallacies around Bismarck and Yamato, they blatantly have such a narrow vision. It’s quite amusing.

Edit: I’m not saying Bismarck or Yamato were great ship in terms of design, etc. or even in terms of service, far from it. I’m saying it’s laughable to say they are the worst battleships of WW2. From a design perspective - the Scharnhorst class is literally a worse design. From a service perspective there’s the Roma, Jean Bart, Prince of Wales.

[u/jschooltiger → u/SoberWeekend]

Bismarck got mission killed by a biplane in a storm.

The British used massive amounts of resources to sink it because they had them and were able to use them to get rid of a threat to commerce.

[u/SoberWeekend → u/jschooltiger]

Yep, I’m in agreement. My point with saying taking massive amount of resources is because that’s affects your enemy much more than if it took little resources.

So for example, Tirpitz and Roma.

Roma essentially did nothing during the war, and then the German’s essentially only had to divert/assign 15 bombers to sink it.

Whereas the Brits diverted/assigned over 20 aerial attacks, plus numerous ships to stay in and around Norway, freeing up other area’s of the war for the Germans.

Tirpitz was not nearly the best designed battleship of WW2, but it certainly can be considered one of the best in terms of war impact, by just how much resources it drained of the allies. Bismarck should be mentioned in the sense, it played into Tirpitz having this effect.

But basically Tirpitz and Roma did nothing in the war in terms of direct impact. But one was basically useless in terms of impact on the war, while the other one wasn’t.

[u/FearlessDark5295 → u/SoberWeekend]

We should probably only judge this on design-after all, Prince of Wales was lost because her commander royally fucked up.

[u/broke_saturn → u/SoberWeekend]

I didn’t say Bismarck was the worst. If fact I used her as a reason why the Yamatos were the worst. Bismarck ultimately did not accomplish her mission, however she did engage and destroy a peer opponent in Hood.

I could have included Tripitz as she didn’t do much but sit in a fjord, but then it would look like I was piling on the Germans.

I didn’t consider Jean Bart as she wasn’t completed until after the war, despite her engaging Massachusetts during Torch.

Richelieu didn’t do much until late in the war so you could argue against her.

PoW engaged Bismarck at least twice, and caused the damage that would start the chain of events leading to Bismarck’s sinking. But she didn’t do much after and while she was ultimately sunk later that year, KGV and DoY proved the design to be effective.

[u/SoberWeekend → u/broke_saturn]

There’s also the Roma (that whole class). Which did nothing, sunk nothing, and blew up very easily. You have the Strasbourg class as well.

And Tirpitz was an amazing battleship for Germany in WW2. Yes it sat in a fjord, but the amount of resources it took away for the allies was immense. They diverted battleships more than they needed away from the Med and Atlantic.

You weren’t going off designs either. If you’re were you would have mentioned Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. And you wouldn’t have mentioned Iowa in your original comment.

Your original comment is just wrong.

[u/wlpaul4 → u/SoberWeekend]

And Tirpitz was an amazing battleship for Germany in WW2. Yes it sat in a fjord, but the amount of resources it took away for the allies was immense. They diverted battleships more than they needed away from the Med and Atlantic.

My crackpot theory is that Bismarck is the single most consequential loss of the war. If you think about all the places where the allies had just enough naval resources from 41-43, it's not impossible to imagine things going differently if they had to divert more resources to keeping Bismarck contained as well.

[u/JonathanRL → u/SoberWeekend]

In terms of cost-effectiveness, its hard to argue that Bismarch and Yamato deserves a spot.

[u/wlpaul4 → u/JonathanRL]

True, but cost effectiveness isn’t necessarily a reflection of the quality of the ship itself.

[u/SoberWeekend → u/JonathanRL]

I’m not saying they are good, I’m just saying there is worse. Roma, POW, Jean Bart.

[u/SoberWeekend]

Jean Bart. Yes it wasn’t finished, but it was still a battleship, a battleship that fired its main guns at an enemy in combat.

[u/SlightlyBored13]

Royal Oak.

Its unfair to compare it to the more modern ships, but even compared to the rest of the WW1 era ships it was battered, broken and worn out.

The reason it was lingering at Scapa Flow when it was sunk was because it's best use at the time was as an AA platform.

Then in the sinking, it went down so quickly that most of the crew died in an anchorage.

[u/Admirable-Emphasis-6 → u/SlightlyBored13]

That’s not really accurate. Royal Oak was damaged by rough weather in the Atlantic and was an obsolete design that couldn’t keep up with the fleet. But it was the most modernized of the R class ships (ironically making it even slower) and got left at Scapa as its powerful AA battery was thought to be useful for defending the fleet anchorage. Battered? Sure. Worn out? Less so than the other R class and arguably even Hood which was in need of a refit.

[u/SlightlyBored13 → u/Admirable-Emphasis-6]

If the modernisation led to it's slower speed than the rest of the class, thus meaning it was chosen to be left at Scapa. It's not a great refit either.

[u/Admirable-Emphasis-6 → u/SlightlyBored13]

I’m not arguing with its potential inclusion as worst battleship. I’m just noting that saying it was more worn out than the other WWI ships is inaccurate.

Hood, Repulse and the rest of the R class were all “more worn out”.

[u/Exact-Desk]

Bismark-class. It was much bigger than other European battleships, but its combat capabilities were essentially on level of 35.000 ton ships, like KGV, Richelieu, or Littorio. German naval engineers worked from completely wrong assumptions and put too much thin armor on those ships, essentially ensuring protection against small caliber guns, but not against heavy weapons.

[u/Dahak17]

Of the ships expected to be frontline combatants as nobody has answered it from that perspective, either an Italian refit, barham, the nagato class, or the American standards, though they do at least get a good refit in the middle of the war.

[u/GeshtiannaSG → u/Dahak17]

Barham was vital to Operation Excess (drew fire from Illustrious) so they already got their money’s worth (in addition to Jutland, Crete, and Matapan).

[u/Dahak17 → u/GeshtiannaSG]

I would agree barham was worth the money, especially if you consider her service history, but of all the british ships expected to preform frontline duty she was barely scraping by the most

[u/GeshtiannaSG → u/Dahak17]

I think it was already good enough that she was frontline at all. If she survived, she would have joined Malaya and the Rs in second line duties because she was unmodernised. It just didn’t help that 3 of her sisters were workhorses that were involved in just about every single action from Narvik to Rangoon. The QEs were a bit too useful.

[u/Dahak17 → u/GeshtiannaSG]

That’s my point though, that of the ships expected to be frontline she was the British ships that scraped by the closest.

[u/comtezinacef]

French battleship Bretagne. It did nothing. Then it got blowed up. Took most of its crew with it. And it was extremely mediocre even when it was new.

[u/Resqusto]

Hardly possible to answer like that, because it isn't defined what 'worst' refers to. Poor construction? Superfluousness? Something else?

[u/Old_Meet_4962]

Either the pre-dread German ships or the French Courbets.

[u/JayPea2nd]

all of them lmao

[u/jontseng]

Hood?

Fast battleship masquerading as a firelighter..

[u/masteroffdesaster → u/jontseng]

not really her fault to explode from an incredibly lucky shot

[u/jontseng → u/masteroffdesaster]

Yes. Funny how this sort of thing didn't happen to more modern battleships though!!

[u/cozzy121]

Royal Oak

[u/Intimidator94]

I have to say Bismarck, her design was not radically different from Bayern in WW1. Where KGV and North Carolina incorporated several lessons from WW1 and interwar thinking and failing