What if: Battleship vs Battleship!

I'm using my 1:700 Forces ships to talk about how I think the real mighty vessels would fair against each other in a fictional 1 vs 1 battle. As I said in the video, this is all in good, nerdy fun! :D

[asgeiriversen]

I live in Norway, 100 meters away from Tirpitz
''Liegeplatz''
i showed two Tirpitz experts from Italy and germany around the fjord this summer. an amazing day, that was.

[deidara]

Finally someone who doesn't base fights off specs but on how life would go. Congratulations :)

[raywest]

Keep in mind that HMS Hood was not a battleship, but a battlecruiser, and was never designed to fight battleships, as she had sacrificed deck armor for speed. Hood could run from anything heavy enough to hurt her, and sink anything fast enough to catch her (Speed = Protection)

[edwardstevens]

Bismarck made for a very interesting story in my youth, but lets get real. She was designed by a country which had been prevented from building battleships for 20 years, and she was base on a design that was 20 years old. She was built that size because her designers lacked recent experience building large warships. The 15 inch gun was very good, but they came out with the WWI Queen Elizabeth class battleships. The last BB's built by Germany were Baden and Bayern, with matching caliber guns. Twenty years later, Germany starts building battleships again, with the same caliber. Other countries have moved on yo 16 and 18 inch guns. So, all that displacement was wasted on a ship with smaller (and fewer) guns, and a lot of important equipment that was not well protected. And while she was capable of soaking up a lot of punishment at shorter ranges, that was because her armor scheme was designed to do just that. While formidable when she was launched, Bismarck was quickly and decisively surpassed by new construction in other countries.

[CrunchyCollectibles]

You forgot to mention that the Tirpitz also had torpedos I believe. And if they were able to close the gap by that much to launch the torpedos, that could of been a game changer but that’s a big what if though.

[thesage]

me at the beginning of vid: hmmm u got the tirpitz huh, wonder why him over his more famous brother, *few seconds later comes out * "ahh there he is, okay" *introduces hood shortly after * me _wheezing_

[dylanwight]

I think you're forgetting that the energy imparted by the higher velocity 16in shells, plus their better armour piercing characteristics, would give Missouri quite an edge over Yamato. The ballistic properties and ability to punch up against thicker or harder armour is what made the Missouri's guns so deadly. The monsters on Yamato could certainly put Missouri's armour to shame, but Missouri's guns are no slouch either. I'd put them on par with Yamato's overall.

[iraqvet]

I think speed is the key. The Missouri was faster and more maneuverable. Combine that with the radar technology, the Missouri would have a better chance of scoring the first hits while being fast enough to keep her distance from all those secondaries

[ToastablePie]

The Yamato could win when the day was perfect, however the Iowa class could win in any other day, due to radar systems, fire control and speed. Really the Iowa could win 80% of the time because weather isn't perfect.

[Gabriel-Kazu]

please tell me where I can get these models. they're amazing

[billwilliams]

Remember the Missouri's guns were radar guided or aimed thus the Missouri could do some wild maneuvering and still score hits where as the Japanese would bracket fire which meant they would have to fire at least
three salves to "zero" in on its target. With the ability of the Missouri to maneuver and fire meant bracketing would be difficult if not impossible. So I give it to the "Mighty Mo" and besides the Japanese talk funny.

[christianreiling]

As a guy that one, loves these sort of comparisons and has done plenty of reading on the subject. Some of the most understated facts of a hypothetical duel are

1. The US didn't fully understand the power of the Yamatos guns, the Japanese went to great lengths to disguise her specifications (they labeled her guns 16in specials if it shows you some of the stuff they did).

2. Thanks to that lack of understanding the US would more then likely have gone full speed into a fight with her, ignoring her advantage of long range accurate gun fire and speed which would allow her to dictate the engagement.

3. The Iowa's were not once by themselves alone, and considering the 7th fleet at some points had 4 Iowa's. Even with the Musashi with her it would still be a struggle for the Yamatos.

4. At the end of the day, it was proven that the Iowa's could penetrate the Yamatos thickest armour compartments from the Yamatos engagement range. although this was done with tests after the war, I feel like they were done with great accuracy once I read up on them. So this ultimately shows that it doesn't make a difference in reality when it comes to the overall amour differences overall.

5. Although this is often stated, it really does need to be fully understood, the US radars and computers would render many engagements in her favor. long distance night fights, rough seas, high speed maneuvering shots and hugely ( the use of smoke screen tactics).

[cptkrk]

an EMP war would be the rebirth of analog technology

[fsttrdl]

Easy to follow, good, enjoyable video. Thank you!

[robertcolfack]

Missouri would win the Missouri had longer range guns even the experts say the Missouri would

[ennep]

Where did you get these models!? They are sick

[michaeljordon]

The Missouri barely had any service in ww2
You should've included the USS North Carolina

[tolbryntheix]

What a lot of people forget is the setting the fight is in: The fight happens in a 1v1 scenario where the sole goal is to destroy the opponent. In ww2 that was not the case, they were trying to keep their heaviest ships secure so they didnt need to use up absurd time and resources to repair the ships. So getting near the enemy is not as hard as you might think. Also in an all out fight simply the endurance of how long a ship can stay afloat is especially important. That gives american battleships a distinct disadvantage, since they werent designed to take heavy punishment alone(not saying they couldnt take it, but compared to german and japanese ships it is something that stands out).

Basically america actually designed their ships according to their strategy, in that when they take heavy damage they already fucked up. Germany and Japan built them with the idea that when they take heavy damage, their ships should at least take it as well as possible. That basically gave them another disadvantage resource wise in the war, but make their ships good fighters in imaginary 1v1 duels, where a more robust design works out better than a design that takes a bigger disadvantages once its damaged.

[jamesanagnos]

Not only was the Big M better with shooting systems but also a more maneuverable ship, advantage Missouri

[johnnywilliams]

And the crew of the Bismarck was trained specifically to take out the hood for nearly 4 months I think