Jonathan C. Gillespie, Author - Latest Comments

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

Historian — Tue, 28 May 2013 12:30:53 -0000

Something tells me that the Musashi was sunk while in company of the Yamato transiting to attack the USN fleet train of Samar, at Surigao the task force intended to meet his as reinforcement was destroyed by USN battleships, He lost a cruiser on the way to submarines he was on it and transfered to Yamato. The Admiral was capable enough but by the time he got there he'd pretty well had it, his 'mistakes' were ordering General Attack rather than acting in concert, as a result he lost three cruisers and not pressing on, and on the other side Halseys was loosing his self control, he was a 'hot head' like Wellington said of Waterloo... 'it was a close run thing'

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

Historian — Thu, 23 May 2013 21:59:11 -0000

In a night action off Savo Island the Japanese sank 4 Allied cruisers, damaged another and 2 destroyers, at the Java Sea Japanese Cruisers outfought the ABDA forces also

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

bolly97 — Thu, 23 May 2013 18:13:28 -0000

No one said that Iowa would win hands down, just that it was capable of defeating Yamato under the right circumstances and vice-versa.

The fact that 4 battleships, 6 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers and 11 destroyers could only sink 2 escort carriers,2 destroyers and a destroyer escort speaks volumes about the effectiveness of Japanese gunnery. "Marshall spirit" or not, any capable admiral in the shoes of Kurita would surely have decimated the American force, given such overwhelming odds in his favour.

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

Historian — Wed, 22 May 2013 01:02:34 -0000

If yamato had hit the Gambier she would have hit the Iowa or the Bismarck or the KGV in this scenario, and lets not forget that at the time of that action the Japanese Admiral had had two ships sunk from underneath him (from memory) on the way there, they had negotiated waters under the control of the USN carriers, and had learned of the disastrous battleship action further south... these men were highly stressed, if he had practiced the marshall spirit in that instance the war would have lasted another two years... for while the USN would be intact the Marine corps and its shipping train would not have. Of course the Yamato and escorts would have been sunk there also, but that was not the point, if the Japanese plan had been carried out (it worked but the Admiral lost his nerve) they hoped for a negotiated peace due to American losses.

I shake my head at the fortune of the western world at that moment... It was a huge roll of the dice by the Japanese and it came off but they didn't collect. Phew!!

Also one of the main design philosophies behind Yamato was the ability to fight more than one battleship at the same time and win... the only one designed for that purpose that I am aware of... Iowa a cinch to win? not under any circumstances... could Iowa win? of course but it is not a lay down misere!

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

bolly97 — Tue, 21 May 2013 17:21:52 -0000

Heavier guns does not necessarily mean Yamato has the advantage over Iowa. Would she have been able to hit anything? You can count on your fingers the number of times Yamato fired her guns, whereas Iowa would have had gunnery practice several times a year. Yamato fired her guns once in a combat situation (Leyte). Sure, she contributed to the sinking of Gambier Bay, but an escort carrier is hardly comparable to a battleship. You're right in saying that Yamato would sink Bismarck easily, but Iowa would in all likelihood be engaging her as well. This could give Iowa a slight head start in terms of who lands the first blow, and as we all know, BB vs BB combat is usually down to luck. I'd give KGV a better than even shot against Bismarck. As I pointed out before, she had a heavier broadside than Bismarck, and her armour could withstand the 15 inch guns. Who knows?

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

JonathanCGillespie — Mon, 20 May 2013 11:11:57 -0000

Historian,

I have deleted your other post. No one said the Japanese didn't have damage control; I simply said that they had questionable damage control capacities. That is a far cry from the words you put in my mouth, and to then imply that I'm racist or might be racist is over the top.

The Japanese were and are fine sailors, but that doesn't mean they get a pass for some of the rather bone-headed losses that happened under their mismanagement of damage control in World War II. Find me a U.S. carrier lost from explosive fumes, or show me an example of counter-flooding as an institutional doctrine on the part of the U.S. Navy.

I detect a certain amount of prejudice on your part against Americans, and a certain bias towards the RN. This a for-fun, hypothetical discussion, not a place for you to get worked up and attack me personally. You feel free to make any points you want--I am enjoying your analysis, and you are still welcome here--but I won't tolerate name-calling.

Thanks in advance.

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

Historian — Sun, 19 May 2013 11:00:51 -0000

Actually the Hoods armour scheme was better than you admit, she had a sloping 12 inch belt... so did Iowa, her deck protection had a total of 5-6 inches albeit in two-three decks, in most respects Hood and Bismarck had more in common with their protection schemes... Bismarcks was as flawed as was the Hoods, but for slightly different reasons... If Hood had had her planned rebuild in 1940 She would have been a match for Bismarck no question. Bismarck's design rationale was not to fight other battleships, she was a commerce raider which may be why she had a duplicated secondary armament and the Germans did not have the design expertise to design a 16" gun or a triple 15" turret in the time allowed, their naval design staff had emaciated due to the Versailles restrictions... within it's limitations and design flaws she was a magnificent ship... give them a break. All of the modern European battleships were challenged by direct action and war damage from other battleships which no modern USN ship can claim with the exception of the Japanese bungle at Guadalcanal.

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

Historian — Sun, 19 May 2013 10:46:29 -0000

An open fight in the Indian Ocean with small islands 300ft high... blocking radar!... I can see a Yamato waiting for any ship to blunder onto it, yep 3200 pound shells smashing into the bridge and main armament of an Iowa still steaming at 32kts... leaving no radar plots, no leadership, 1 or 2 front turrets unable to train even if they survived, or another scenario Yamato waiting in the full knowledge that an Iowa knows it is there, circles close to the Island the Iowa has to close to enable it to outrun the Yamato around the Island... no radar range advantage there!... Yamato blasts Iowa under the waterline belt with 3200 pound shells actually designed to do the job, flooding lowers hydrodynamic performance worsened by counter flooding to correct list... Yamato closes the range and devours her less armoured opponent.

As for the Bismarck undeniably powerful yet flawed... any of the other 3 ships on their best form as stated would render this ship a flaming wreck, it's design concept allowed it to be put out of action too quickly. KGV's armour scheme was superior to Bismarck by design and thickness, superior to Iowa in quality and overall thickness, but inferior to Yamato... KGV would also succumb in this scenario... The USN would have to exact revenge in the way Yamato should have been sunk in the first place... Dive and torpedo bombing.

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

Historian — Sun, 19 May 2013 10:02:33 -0000

What I always see on these sites is a derision of Admiralty design philosophies. Time and again US citizens constantly deride or show lack of understanding for designs which were born from savage lessons learnt at Jutland. Lets state for the record that US battleship design post WW1 was derisory just look at the Lexington/Saratoga poorly armoured battlecruisers with boilers on two levels... come on guys their designs didn't make sense til they saw the plans for the HMS Hood, and any design flaws you aim at the Nelson/Rodney (which were superior their contemporaries in most areas as well as some later designs) could more than fairly be lain at the South Dakota... yes that slow battle wagon with 12*16's... and before you criticise me just remember the Nelson design was imposed by treaty whereas the SoDak wasn't. Then there is the Bismark... lets just say that the Bismark design was fundamentally flawed... hard to sink yes but that was much less important than the speed with which she could be rendered a blazing wreck. Also the quality of Bismarks armour has risen to mythical proportions... Bismarks fire control conning tower protected against battleship calibre shells was pierced by a humble heavy cruiser shell, not looking good for the main belt is it?. Now the Iowa, lets see, a ship that displaces more than the Hood, but with more displacement given to propulsion and firepower and range than any contemporary... sounds like a battlecruiser to me, lets be gracious and call her a fast battleship (ironically just about what every WW1 German battlecruiser and the Hood were). A sloping main belt to give extra protection, decapping external plate... given that US armour was of inferior quality to UK standards its an unproven asset. Sloping belt means a smaller armoured reserve of buoyancy... something to think about when other battleships also use the all or nothing principle, and a speed advantage can be lost with extra displacement coming from the flooding of an unarmoured TDS from hits or even exploding near misses. One thing that RN research from WW1 did find was that destruction could only be ensured at lower ranges... I mean really if the Bismark was all that good and pointblank 16" fire couldn't sink her then nothing afloat could, anyway the Bismark didn't need to be sunk it could have been left for the weather to sink. British WW1 battlecruiser tactics at Jutland allowed the Germans to sink their ships... RN fire control was as competent as anyone elses, Admiral Beatty did not control his squadron with the technicalities of the kit in mind, and he was not well advised by timid and awestruck subordinates... these shortcomings were well and truly exorcised by WW2, witness the RN performance in WW2 Mediterranean, against not just superior ship numbers in every category but air inferiority and almost impossible strategic geographical situation. If you doubt that let me say that Admiral Cunningham was a naval tactician of genius proportions who used up staff at a prodigious rate, yet they were always able to discuss any matter with him... he let men do Their jobs. Lets just say that in a duel Iowa is not invincible, not even close, the exigencies of war are too great, any optics will be blinded by a wall of water from the first ship to get a sustained straddle, the longest ranged hits are only obtained from LoS radar, optics or otherwise, optics are going to be more reliable than radar, just ask the men on board South Dakota when human caused electrical faults closed down everything. enough straddles cause their own luck.smoke from fires can blind optics, splinter damage can kill command personnel and smash electronics. Lets not talk of any vulnerable materiel surviving for too long. and for those who state that a KGV can't stay in the fight, the Admiralty designed them to take punishment whilst closing the range to that deemed necessary to destroy the opponent. If you still believe that the Iowa can leisurely cruise at 33000 yrds and destroy any opponent think again, hit percentages are rare at close range and are worse as range increases. Read Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland by John Brooks, it is an eye opener.

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

dark113 — Fri, 17 May 2013 02:19:52 -0000

i think you need to check your facts Bismark was never scuttled i have read several artacals one righten by a survivor stating Bismark was not scuttled unlike the Graf Spay

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

dark113 — Fri, 17 May 2013 02:15:34 -0000

the heavy shells were not interdicted until after 44 i think

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

dark113 — Fri, 17 May 2013 02:12:13 -0000

i was reading your artical about the titans of the sea and i believe you may have got your winner incorrect firstly the IJN Yamato out gunned the USS Iowa with better main armament Yamato's main battery consisted of nine 46 cm (18.1 in) 45 Caliber Type 94 range up to 42 km the USS Iowa main battery consisted of nine 16" (406.4mm)/50 caliber Mark 7 guns up to 37 km IJN Yamato would have more than certainty disabled the fire control on the USS Iowa in the first salvo rendering them blind forsing the eather to withdrew or move in to bring there own battery's in to visual range making them posable vonrbul to the Yamato,s secondary armament

you comented " Being the most prominent target on the battlefield, she is going to draw fire right out the gate. I see an unholy alliance between Iowa and Bismarck until Yamato goes to the bottom. " i truley beleve again the Yamato would put the bismark to the botom ferley quickley

As for Bismark v King George v although i am British i probley would have to go for the Bismark but the KGV would more than likely cased significant damage to Bismark before withdrawing for the battle feld
again leaving the Yamato and Iowa to slug it out

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

bolly97 — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:31:04 -0000

Glad to be of help, Iowa is my favourite ship of all time! About the Hood, one of the theories is that the shell from Bismarck set off the aft magazines, a lucky shot indeed.

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

bolly97 — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:26:12 -0000

Bismarck was sunk in 1941, Tirpitz in 1944. The difference in AA technology between those years is vast. The Germans would have had time to correct the faults in the Bismarck-class AA armament. Besides, Tirpitz spent most of the war holed up in Tromso Fjord, Norway, surrounded by anti-torpedo nets, land based AA and Luftwaffe fighter squadrons. Hardly comparable to Bismarck. Sure, Tirpitz shot down a few bombers, but those bombers had to fight their way through a wall of AA and Bf 109s before flying up and over the sides of the fjord, exposing them perfectly to the AA guns in the area. It's impossible to say how much Tirpitz contributed to her own defence.

I wouldn't rule out North Carolina based on size. I'm no expert on armour, but as far as I know the Bismarck's armour scheme was inferior to US, British and Japanese schemes. She had something called a turtleback armour scheme, I believe, which made it almost impossible to penetrate the engineering and other important spaces at close range.(This reflects the fact that Bismarck was designed for a North Sea engagement, i.e. close range) It was a direct copy of the WW1 Bayern-class battleship's armour scheme. This is why HMS Rodney and HMS KGV fired so many rounds without noticeable effect; it was the ideal range for Bismarck's armour to work as intended. If they had stayed at long range, their plunging shellfire would have made Swiss cheese out of Bismarck. However, the US and British( and Japanese in the Yamato-class) adopted the "all or nothing" protection system. This created an armoured citadel from the fore turret to the aft turret, with a burster deck above the main deck to decap AP shells. This protected ships in long range engagements that were more likely with battleships. All modern US and British battleships had this system. Also, Bismarck's gun turrets could be penetrated by ANY heavy gun(14"-18") at ANY range. This meant that her guns could easily be knocked out, rendering her a sitting duck.

Also, if Bismarck was indeed upgradable to 16" guns, why not design her like that in the first place? The Germans must have known the capabilities of her likely opponents, so why not try and give her an edge?

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

JonathanCGillespie — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:42:30 -0000

Both of those are fine boats, particularly Richelieu. Maybe another time.

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

JonathanCGillespie — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:41:18 -0000

Let's not underestimate the Bismarck's AA load-out. Yes, it could have definitely been better, but the British were forced to press the Swordfish into service against the boat, and you must remember that they flew so low to the deck that they were under the big guy's AA curtain.

For a better analysis of Bismarck's AA load-out and its capabilities, one needs to consult her sister ship, the Tirpitz. When anchored in Norway, and despite being an immobile target, she still managed to shoot down several bombers and other craft sent against her over the period of several months, sometimes downing quite a few during the attacks.

I won't comment on the USS North Carolina, as I am no expert on the class. What I will say is the Bismarck was designed to eventually upgrade to (at least) 16" guns. I will also state, publicly, that I think North Carolina wouldn't have lasted near as long in this fight as the Bismarck did. She's a fine boat, but in looking at raw gun caliber, I think you're missing the fact that Bismarck was simply a much larger ship.

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

JonathanCGillespie — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:31:12 -0000

I appreciate your thoughts, but the premise is incorrect. Bismarck was hit several times by Rodney's 16" guns and her torpedoes. From Wikipedia:

"Rodney fired 340 16" shells, some in 9-gun broadsides and 716 6" shells during the battle, scoring many hits from a range of under 3000 yards, inflicting most of the damage suffered byBismarck whose stern was blown off. During the battle Rodney also fired 12 24.5" torpedoes at her whilst zig-zagging across "Bismarck's" bows, mostly with no hits but later one hit Bismarck amidships on the starboard side, thus being the only battleship in history to have successfully torpedoed another battleship."

All this, and Bismarck still didn't sink. As I alluded to in the post, the sailors onboard "him" maintain to this day that they scuttled the ship. That's a tough boat, any way you slice it.

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

Alan — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:45:42 -0000

I am a land locked Iowan without any naval background aside from what I read when I was a kid. And, I appreciate greatly your observations and those of bolly97 as well. It is difficult to know what the ultimate outcome could be in such a hypothetical battle amongst the titans of the sea - WWII era. However, if you look at the Battle of Jutland and how the Germans withstood the fire power from the British, with what one could say were less numerous but probably superior warships, and comparing that naval experience with the onslaught the Bismarck withstood in its final battle, that may have ended with the ship being scuttled and not sunk, my only point is that that ship was at that time the top of the line. It, plus the Tirpitz, plus the Scharnhorst, all were pounded to no end, and yet still floated and functioned.

Bolly97 seems to point out that the Bismarck was not such a hot shot - and in fact may have gotten off a lucky shot to sink the Hood. He may be right about that, much as the Germans got a lucky shot in hitting I think the Queen Mary battleship at Jutland. (Churchill has a fascinating account of that battle in World Crisis in which he discusses extensively what happened in the battle from the British perspective. What happened to the Queen Mary also probably happened to the USS Iowa when its turret exploded from a powder ignition. They were fortunate the IA did not explode completely in that terrible mishap, given what happened to the Queen Mary).

Nevertheless, I do recall one of the Navy guys on the Iowa indicating that the Iowa was designed to withstand a 15" or 16" shell in its conning tower. Whether it would it have withstood an 18" shell from the Yamato or Mushashi is unknown. Eventually too, enough 15" shells with superior training and dedication from a great naval tradition which I think the Germans had might have eventually breached the conning tower of the Iowa or any ship for that matter.

I just know that having read extensively about the WWI and WWII naval battles and the history surrounding same, given the combat history involved in the actual battles in which the big guns participated, I cannot help but guess, just like anybody else, that the Bismarck was the ship that would have won ultimately in all probability. I had the impression from now almost 30 years ago when I was a kid that the British had numerical superiority, spread thin throughout the world, the Americans had massive fire power - although there was little chance after Pearl Harbor for engagement with the big guns vs. big guns, the Japanese had lumbering firepower with disjointed engagement strategies that made little sense, and the Germans had speed and finesse when it came to their battles, except for the weird history of the Tirpitz and Graf Spee - the former which ended up being bottled up by air and sub power by the British and the latter which ended up being scuttled.

I find the other commentary interesting. I find, from a personal level, that it is my fondest hope that the Iowa would have prevailed in such a battle amongst the titans. However, given the limited engagement history by the US in both WWI and WWII, given the artillery function of the US ships during the second world war and the containment strategies of the US ships during the first world war, I just do not think the US had the same naval experiences and history which would have allowed the Iowa to prevail over the Bismarck. From memory, for instance, the Germans had a fascinating history of naval engagements in WWI. The East Asiatic sea battles, the Battle of Coronel, the Falklands battle, the daring raids of the Emden and Konigsberg (I think), the running of the Goeben through the Dardenelles, and not to mention the Battle of Jutland all lend to a "history" that helped to define what the Bismarck was as a ship, as a tradition in the German Navy. There was a certain daring and panasche that guided them. Look at the Channel run by the German ships in WWII. Consider the meandering about in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans of the Graf Spee early in the war. These traditions were a part of that make up that created what the Bismarck was too.

Again, no one can say with certainty what the result would have been amongst the titans, or between I think at the very least the top two: Iowa and Bismarck. I suspect the latter would have "won" but just by a hair. Just a guess.

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

Leonard L. Church — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:38:06 -0000

The Bismark may have taken a pounding, but it did so from ships that had inferior guns to the 16"/50cal guns of the Iowa class. The largest guns the Royal Navy used against Bismark were 15" guns and they were much shorter (about 45cal) than the 50cal length of the Iowa class 16" guns, which means lower muzzle speed, less penetration, and shorter range. Iowa's guns could punch through the 13" of Bismark's armor, because the super heavy shells she carried gave her almost equal armor piercing ability of the Yamato's 18" guns, but with far greater accuracy. Iowa's armor was also designed to withstand hit from the previous 16"/45cal guns of the Colorado, North Carolina, and South Dakota Classes, which were better than the 15" guns of the Bismark which were also about 45cal in length. So Iowa could withstand Bismark's firepower much better than Bismark could withstand Iowa's firepower. Iowa could also have withstood the fire from the Royal Navy because, as I said, they were using older, but equal sized guns to Bismark, and she was designed to withstand heavier fire.

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

bolly97 — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:30:44 -0000

Seeing as your a Bismarck fan, I hate to put you down, but in my opinion she was the greatest waste of steel ever commissioned. Here's why:

Bismarck weighed 50,000 tonnes full load. She was 793ft long with a 118 ft beam. However her main battery was only 8 15''/47 guns. USS Iowa, a ship with a slightly higher weight full load, was 880 ft long, had a 108 ft beam and mounted 9 16''/50 guns. Ok, they were designed for different theatres of operation (North Atlantic compared to Pacific) but the Bismarck was still woefully undergunned for her size.Her AA battery was appalling compared to contemporary battleships:16 4.1 inch, 16 1.5 inch and 12 0.79 inch guns. USS North Carolina, a Treaty battleship of 35,000 tonnes, had 20 5 inch, 60 40mm(in 15 quad mounts) and 46 single 20mm guns. As Ark Royal's Swordfish proved,the Bismarck's AA battery was unable to shoot down even one obsolete biplane. She only scored two hits on Hood, an obsolete battlecruiser (not battleship, contrary to popular belief) whose armour was never designed to stand up to 15 inch gunfire anyway. Also she did not disable Prince of Wales' forward turret (again contrary to popular belief), rather the turret jammed as this was PoW's shakedown cruise. Bismarck only hit her three times as she was disengaging. Compared to the KGV class, she was around 10,000 tonnes heavier, yet her guns had very similar range and weight of projectile to KGV's 14''/45 guns. Bismarck's broadside weighed 14,112lbs to KGV's 15,900lbs. What I'm saying is, I know Germany wasn't and isn't a sea power, but they could have got a hell of a lot more bang for their buck with Bismarck than they did.

Re: Battleship Shootout: KM Bismarck vs. USS Iowa vs. IJN Yamato vs. HMS King George V

Radical Gopher — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 01:08:22 -0000

What, only 4 ships? You should have added the Italian battleship ROMA and the French battleship RICHELIEU in order to bring your free for all up to an even half-dozen. (I don't include the Soviet Union because their newest battleship was hopelessly outdated by the beginning of World War II.)

Re: The Beacon Saga Continues!

JonathanCGillespie — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:46:36 -0000

Slow, so far. Right now, I'm moving less than fifteen copies a month (on average). It's a marathon, not a race, as they say.

Re: The Beacon Saga Continues!

Michaelanthony — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 12:48:39 -0000

Thanks :) Every rejection is one step closer to a sale, right? If I stacked them all up, I think I could reach K2. How are your sales coming along? I might end up seeking your advice in a few months :)

Re: The Beacon Saga Continues!

JonathanCGillespie — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 07:24:07 -0000

Man, I remember that well...the infamous query-go-round. Good luck with it.

Re: The Beacon Saga Continues!

Michael Anthony — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:58:46 -0000

Congrats, Jonathan. I envy your proclivity. I just finished my novel, and have been fishing around for agents. Responses to my query letters are starting to trickle in: "Thanks, but no thanks." :)