Date: 2025-07-02 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00016544
Military / Navy
The Battleship Era
Which battleships would have had a chance of taking down Bismark or Tirpitz one on one?
Peter Burgess
The Nelsons formidable 9 16 inch guns made them pretty much the most powerful ships afloat in the mid 1930’s and they would remain one of the most powerful batteries ever put to sea, eclipsed only by the Amagi battlecruisers with their absurd 10 16 inch guns in 5 turrets, the late war American battleships who had 9 more modern 16 inch guns and of course the Yamato class. However, the Nelson design was old and compromised by the london naval treaty and its Armour scheme was lacking, it was slow and it could not catch the Bismark if the latter declined to fight. These sturdy workhorses nevertheless probably saw more active service than any other battleships in WW2 and it was, in the end, the guns of the Nelson class that defeated the Bismarck, the Rodney reduced the Bismarck to a burning hulk in less than 30 minutes. when the wreck was discovered the huge holes from the 16 inch rounds were visible all over its super structure and probably destroyed all its command capability and most if not all of its turrets. no, the rounds did not sink the Bismarck, but so what? defeated was defeated. Also, 2 16 inch shells from the the Rodney penetrated the Bismarck’s citadel through the top deck at relatively short range, showing the Bismarck’s critical weakness to plunging fire with its outdated armour. at that short range, most other battleships would have been invunerable to deck penetrations. In any case, The Nelson was not a direct peer of the Bismarck, but could match it in a fight where the Bismarck could not run, as happened in real life.
KGV (King George V class)
These there the last modern battleships designed by the UK to see active service. a slightly odd design restricted by the situation of the day, they were planned with 9 16 inch guns but due to a lack of manufacturing capacity, went to sea with 10 14 inch guns instead. These were superb modern rifles however, firing a very high velocity shell that was far superior to the old 15 inch guns of the Queen elizabeth class. the Bismarck’s conning tower, 300mm of armoured citadel, was found to be riddled with 14 and 16 inch shell holes, showing their effectiveness. This ship was modern, with the best armour protection of any battleship ever made except perhaps the Yamato and Iowa class. it was fast, only slightly slower than the Bismarck on paper, and well designed. a superb modern battleship class much maligned by people who thnk size of guns is everything and misunderstand its early setbacks. one of the class, Prince of Wales, was sunk by a very unlucky torpedo hit on its propellor shaft by the Japanese in the opening days of the war. The same battleship had retreated from battle with the Bismarck after the sinking of the hood, but not due to damage, due to the fact its brand new and untested guns were not working properly. the ship was so new that it still had civilian contractors on board. those gunnery problems were fixed and the class served throughout the war, including in the final battle of the Bismarck where the KGV helped the Nelson batter the Bismarck into submission in less than half an hour with its accurate and effective fire. The KGV class was fully capable of going toe to toe with the Bismarck class where they would have been rough equals. I did an in depth analysis of what would happen in an arena match between the KGV and the Bismark a while ago. here is the link.
James Simonds's answer to Who would win in a 1 on 1 engagement between the battleships King George V and the Bismarck?
ITALY:
The Italians designed a class of battleship in the late 1930s called the Littorio class. these ships were superb all round battleships. designed for service in the relatively sheltered Mediterranean they were fast, well armoured, armed with advanced 15 inch guns and with decent secondary and AA capability. however, bad leadership, a terrible strategic situation and devastating surprise attacks by the British on their harbour reduced these fine ships to a footnote in the war. they were undoubtedly peers of the Bismarck class and would have been able to stand toe to toe with them in open water.
FRANCE:
The French were in the process of building a class of 4 battleships called the Richelieu class when the war started. these were an interesting design, inspired slightly by the Nelsons, with all the guns at the front in 2 superfiring quad turrets. this gave them the unique ability to fire 8 15 inch guns over their own bow, a feature not to be underestimated as this presented a much smaller target to return fire. They were also very fast, very tough and very modern as designed. however, they were not ready in time to impact the war and the two that were built spent most of it in refits or in harbour. Their only singificant action being during the allied attacks at Casablanca and Dakar, where they were both badly damaged and unable to maneuver or effectively return fire. This class, had it been completed, was a peer of the Bismarck class for sure, perhaps even superior.
JAPAN
Japan had a class of battleship that were arguably inferior to the Bismark but perhaps would stand a chance if they got lucky, and one class of super battleship that should be superior. the Nagato class were late era super dreadnoughts, heavily updated. It had 8 modern 16 inch guns that were installed in the late 1930’s and very good armour protection. they did not fare well in the late war against modern US battleships with their radar gunnery control and more modern guns. however, in the early war they might have been able to take on the Bismarck. In general on paper this ship was just as good as the Bismarck. in reality, poor training, poor fire control, poor damage control and an older design would have counted against it. in a straight battle, they would need to get lucky hits early to win. in a battle of attrition, the Bismark could come out on top.
The Yamato class was superior in a straight fight. im not even going to go into it. its not even a fair comparison.
USA:
The USA had 2 battleship classes that were a peer or a bit better and from the same era, and one battleship class that was a later design and much superior. The north Carolina and South dakota class were direct peers of the Bismarks and were modern fast battleships. I’m not going to distinguish between these two classes, which were very similar (SD had better armour). They had significantly better armament of 9 modern 16 inch guns, good fire control and very good AP shells. the best of the war of any nation except perhaps those of the Royal Navy’s 14 inch guns which are arguably as modern/effective (in the 1940 period). The USA ships struggled slightly in the armour department. their belt armour was thinner than on many other nations. 12 inches compared to 14 on the bismarcks and 15 on the hugely armoured KGVs. however, that armour was well designed, good quality, and intelligently laid out. it was probably only slightly less effective than the German ship’s protection in real terms, especially on the SD class.
These US battleships would have been able to go toe to toe with the Bismarcks for sure, with either side being able to win in 1940 configuration but the US ships the favorites.
The Iowa class is like the Yamatos. not really a fair comparison. by far the best battleships ever put to sea they were superior in every way. But they would be, they were 10 years more advanced.
SO. the answer to the main question is there were many classes of battleship, from many nations, that could fight a Bismarck on equal terms. in reality. however, the question is clearly inspired by the internet mythology of the Bismark, so lets address that.
The Bismark was ‘unsinkable’. the Bismark was not sunk by close range fire by 2 british battleships and by torpedos and had to be sunk by its own crew.
Well, this is part nonsense and part irrelevant. The Bismark had an outdated armour scheme that was optimised for close range fighting. strong belt armour with an inner layer of sloped armour that would prevent horizontal shells from going into its lower hull and citadel spaces. it also had a comprehensive torpedo belt. Its not all that suprising that point blank fire from battleships didnt quickly sink it. Also, it WAS sinking. the crew scuttled it to prevent capture of technology or sensitive equipment. some of those british torpedoes hit the superstructure. imagine how far towards sinking a ship has to be for some of its superstructure to be underwater. the ship would have sunk anyway, the rest is internet myth.
Also, who cares if the armour stopped it from sinking? it didnt stop it from being quite easily defeated. True it had no rudder control and thus couldnt aim its guns properly to fire back, but the two british ships totally defeated it in 30 minutes. its guns were knocked out mostly by the first few salvoes. a defeated ship is a defeated ship, being afloat hardly matters once you have lost.
The Bismark was a supership, almost invincible and needing the entire royal navy to kill it because they were so afraid. no single british ship could have killed it, as proved by the battle of the denmark strait.
No. a significant part of the AVAILABLE royal navy was needed to catch it and stop it from escaping, because it was one ship in a huge ocean. the RN forces were hugely spread out. the Bismark was eventually disabled by a dozen old biplanes made of wood and bits of string that were 20 years obselete, and it didnt kill a single one of them. which is frankly, pathetic. The British sent battleships in pairs to ensure success and because they could. fair fights are for movies and sport. in war, you play to win. so they sent overwhelming force to ensure victory, not out of fear of because they would definitely have lost a 1 on 1.
Its true the Bismark sunk the hood in 15 minutes and drove off the Prince of Wales. there are many reasons for this. firstly, the Hood was a battlecruiser and very old and out of date. its Armour was insufficient to fight such a modern foe. Secondly, they appear to have had shoddy ammo handling and left blastdoors open, leading to the catastrophe. that generation of British battlecruisers was always fatally flawed, as was shown at Jutland, to long range plunging fire. No proper british battleship was ever sunk in this way, only the battlecruisers. third. Bismark got lucky. they got a lucky hit on a very small critical part. Their gunnery was good, but not that good. luck plays a huge part in war and naval engagements especially. The prince of Wales was so new it was barely functional and wisely withdrew, after hitting and damaging the Bismark it might be noted.
Anyway, enough of this. the internet myth of the Bismark is silly. it was an excellent ship, with a superb crew, well led and utterly wasted in the way it was used. there were at least 15, maybe 20 individual battleships in the world with a good chance against it in 1940 in a 1v1 fight. that should’nt be a surprise, those nations were all watching each other and designing very similar ships. its just logic.
Edit: for a more ‘numerical’ comparison, with very similar conclusions, see this excellent analysis
Battleship Comparison
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
The odd thing about the bismarck story is that it is mostly famous for having ‘super armour’ but in reality, its armour was one of its weakest features according to pretty much every expert out there. it just so happened to be good in exactly one way, stopping very short range fire from sinking the hull, which turned out to be the one that it became mythologised for. The armour was very bad at protecting the mid decks which led to rapid degredation of command and control and mass crew deaths. the armour was inqdequate on the turrets and barbettes, which led to them being rapidly disabled, and it was not sufficient against long range plunging fire, with both the Bismarck and the Scharnhorst taking hits into their boiler rooms at ranges they really should not been pierced into the citadel.