Bismarck Battleship vs Modern destroyer 

Anti Ship Missiles Slam into BB armor and do nothing but scratch paint. BB: Gets into range of main battery (Fires Salvo) DD: (No armor at all) Proceeds to be turned into swiss cheese.

Jacob Greve with the radar and speed a modern destroyer could manage a modern DD would never get into its firing range, ASMs can also pop up at the end and come down into the super structure of Bismarck and decimate it

Back at u.

For those idiots who think bismark will win? -if a missile guided destroyer fires a 30-10 missiles at the bismark the bismark will definetly be crippled or sink in way 2 -the bismark crew would be held back cause of the fire -the bismark repair crew would not even get a chance to repair Bismarck fi you constantly on fire -the bismark would not even have a chance to fight back because of the dds range being over a 100 with the help of the sea hawk miles with bismarks puny 20 even with scout planes the dds anti air missile would just destroy it -also I doubt that bismark will even have a chance to react to a missile and even if they do see it its already late -the destroyer needs to hit its turret with is missile but not to destroy the turret and I doubt that its missile would be enough to destroy the turret of bismark but because of the sheer impact of the missiles I doubt that the bismarks 380 mm would be at its best accuracy and if the missile does hit front of the bismarks main battery turret I don't think that 2x 380 mm will still be operational And who said We need to sink bismark -if your gonna say that the bismark just needs to get into range to win? Lol no before the bismark class can get into range its gonna get pummeled buy hundreds of missile and no ship would survive that even yamato would not be able to be battle capable Edit: Also for those people who said ddgs can't carry a 100 ant ship missiles? Yes they can't carry that much but even with 30 or below a bombardment of 30 anti ship missiles is enough to make a huge fire in bismark and even if they try to extinguish it the bambordment of anti ship missiles would kill the repair crew and even if the bombardment stopped its probobly too late 2nd way to sink/cripple bismark -the Burk has mark 46, 50 ,54 guided torpedoes that unlike most torpedoes in ww 2 Explodes under the ship causing fatal damage and Bismarck was built to take torpedoes FROM THE SIDES not under it also it probably will only take 2-5 torpedoes to sink it and Burke has 6 of them also Burk has some anti ship missiles and some of its anti air missiles can be used for anti ship missiles Burk needs to disable its main batteries by firing a harpoon missiles hitting the near the front of the turret disabling the barrel and making the 380mm disabled also burl has some anti air missiles that can be uses for naval surface engagement yes it would do near to nothing but it can take out its 155mm and other armaments putting bismark in a position where it can't fight back and just in case send in a missile to the radar or range finder to disable it then just go in for a torpedo run and boom his sinks/gets greatly crippled It also has mark 50 and mark 54 torpedoes just to make sure bismark will sink Also if u think a torpedo would not sink bismark? Hears the reason bismark has Near to no armor under the hull of the ship unlike the torpedoes from the swordfish which hits the side of the ship That was built to take a beating and the ww2 crew will have no idea what's going on and they might think there's a problem because they can't see the trail of the torpedoes unlike ww2 torps and the bismark was not built to take a hit Under it so in short the bismark would sink (I know mark 46, 50 ,54 torpedoes we built for anti submarine warfare but they can still be used for anti ship capabilites)

Check ORP Piorun part in the hunt for the Bismarck. The Polish destroyer came as close as to 7 km and remained there for an hour during which the Bismarck fired her main and secondary artillery at ORP Piorun and was unable to hit the manouvering destroyer.

poor girls gets forgotten

Bismarck was tirpitz's sister ship and the lead ship of her class but I'm not sure which one is bigger

saber athena the most powerful Tirpitz was heavier, since she was modified to have more equipment, like Torpedos, which Bismarck did not have. It’s a shame we don’t learn more about Tirpitz nowadays, because she was much more feared than even Bismarck was, a so called ‘Fleet in being’. Just by EXISTING, she was disrupting the Allies operations in the Atlantic. I recommend finding a documentary about the Allies operations against her. Really paints a light into how big of a threat the Lone Queen of the North truly was.

Dude Bismarck and tirpitz are literally the same ship with only minor modifications

@@thelvadam2884 The Bismarck was a He so not sure who your calling girl?🤷‍♂️

*Meanwhile in Germany ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-C6BrnQ6LE4g.html

Actually, the steering gear was taken out by Sword Fish from the "Ark Royal" =Stefan=

@@chengloki Well I assume he meant the fact the gear got taken out again. Not that it was taken out by a DD the 1st time. Not trying to be an ass, just wanted to point that out. Kinda depressing a bi-plane takes the pride of your navy out though.

Burke OP, pls nerf

Biplanes equipped with radar to operate at night. People often forget the torpedo runs occured under the cover of darkness.

Awesome comment! Go Sabaton!

@WhomItMayConcern A harpoon??? lol

@WhomItMayConcern No, we still didn't have those in WWII, haha.

*BISMARCK IN MOTION KING OF THE OCEAN HE WAS MADE TO RULE THE SEE AND LEAD THE KRIEGSMARINE*

@@funtimefredboi3877 THE TERROR OF THE SEAS THE BISMARCK AND THE KRIEGSMARINE

Lol

And AC/DC

Hahahahahaha Battleship

kingofmetal1961 I call BS, just stuff some paper around the shell and your good to go...

@@kingofmetal1961 hes talking about the Movie battleship, in that movie the Battleship USS Missouri was shown

Exactly!🤣

Laughs in daring

vlad zaic the shim is the best torp boat and maybe the best DD in the game.. I prefer the 12km 70knot torps tho.. with my upgrades they go 13.5k at 72knots.

@vlad zaic The 20km Shimakaze torps are absolute garbage. Slow and can get detected 2.5km away without hydro. Which means even battleships will have the time to react to them easily. Don't use them!

Yes, because a cheesy kid's video game is the measure of maritime supremacy!

Battleships become obsolute because they cannot defait a lot of planes with heave armour piercing bombs and heavy torpodoes. Planes win a war now and not shipes.

NO MATTER WHAT YOU ALL SAY THE BATTLE SHIPS WERE THE MOST BADASS THINGS THAT SAILED THE SEA !! Once a battleship captain said " you can hit my ship with all you want i will take more than that to sink me ”

@@satvdesai3544 We can reactivate all the Battleships currently being used as museums and send you the bill okay? I sure hope this is your RU-vid account Elon Musk.

battleships are easy to detect, they're big so whatever we fire at it will most likely hit, we have radar they dont, so we can be more prepared than them, we can also use jet fighters to help us with destroying the bb, plus we have missiles they dont

@@satvdesai3544 until a Carrier launches its fighter complement and said fighters start dropping Mk 46 and 48 torpedoes, launching anti-ship missiles, anti-armor missiles intended for tanks, the smaller cruise missiles with larger warheads than the anti-ship variety, bombs of various types, strafing runs on deck, all manners of hurt. After all, it took only one lucky torpedo from an antiquated bomber hitting the right spot to start the beginning of the end for Bismarck

You literally like literally don't know how to use the word LITERALLY.

Well, the Constitution is still commisioned and the light cruisers are not, I think we have a clear winner.

@@ancaplanaoriginal5303 USS Constitution is a frigate, so not a ship of the line. HMS Victory on the other hand was a ship of the line and is still in commission, albeit in dry dock.

@@MrBernard0911 before that guy made "rules" for english, "literally" was used as an exaggeration word

The funny thing is, if the destroyer, or even a light cruiser, were inside the gun range of the sailing ship, the sailing ship would likely come out victorious, due to the tremendous weight of their shot. Even a frigate would have sunk any modern warship- except a museum sourced battleship- because... no armor. Of course, the destroyer could easily sink the sailing ship outside of that ship's own range. A few rounds from a 40mm gun would do the job.

Well, Hollywood would have you believe an Iowa class can take out an alien spaceship. 😀

@@Deevo037 Ever see the original "War of the Worlds" not the version where the germs kill them. A different Hollywood then (1930 something) :)

Point would be how would that style of warship work today. Clearly the modern ship couldn't deliver a killer blow on its own. Been Time travel books mixing it up, fun read (if you know how................)

@@ashthomas5257 Actually the "germ ending" corresponded with Wells original work.

You know it was an outdated biplane that crippled the Bismarck!

I much prefer the song Bismarck from the group Asphyx.

lord topaz , I love that song, 😂

Next sabaton stage: BISMARCK

YES

Yo that songs a banger. It just makes you wanna completely rock out and go crazy

The Iowa guns could go trough the armor of a Yamato (to be fair, a modern tank can go trough that easily)

The Yamato took the biggest beating I think I've ever heard of before finally succumbing. Crazy stuff. It stood no chance without air superiority etc, but it took a shocking amount of ordinance to put that beast down.

@@thorrollosson Battleships are hard to sink. the only way to quickly sink one is with torpedoes. Both the Yamato and Bismark took massive beating from dive bombers and Naval guns respectively. Whiel the superstructures were obliterated the hulls remained in tack.

I'm thinking 3-4 Mark 48 ADCAP torpedoes should do it

Bismarck*

The Missouri would have an advantage whether your talking about its 1940s version or the way it was set up for Dessert Storm. It was faster, had 9 16 inch guns compared to Bismark's 8 15 inchers and a slightly better armor scheme. The German BB would have the advantage of heavier secondaries (5.9 inch compared to 5 inch) but secondaries would be unlikely to be that meaningful in a battleship clash. The more modern version of the Missouri would lose some of the secondaries, but gain more advanced radar and harpoon missiles.

@@timwf11b Awesome response - thank you Tim.

@@ScottDLR the Missouri would win against the Bismarck in its 1940s version.

@Alexi Malenkov - Two harpoons aren't going to sink the Bismarck at least not without some extraordinarily lucky secondary explosions. Two harpoons in to the magazine fine that would take out the ship but they can't hit the magazine because they can't penetrate the armor to get to it. They also can't get through the main armor belt in to the main machinery spaces or penetrate the armor plating on the front face of the main guns. What they can do is penetrate outside the armored citadel. Including things like the bridge and the radar and radio antennas and fire control optics, the secondary and AA guns, maybe damage the front or rear of the BB and reduce its speed or steering ability. And of course the Missouri at the time of Dessert Storm had more than two harpoons. It could release a salvo of them. Which could mission kill the Bismarck or at least greatly reduce its capability (take out its radar and its harder for it to find you esp. in bad weather, take out its fire control optics and it can't hit you except by having a rather incredible amount of luck. The the Missouri could use its big guns to leisurely and at little risk dismantle and sink the Bismarck.

savage

Damn boi, you literally just set Bisko on fire underwater

;-)

This comment is so underrated

Wow

I wish either the,Graff Spie or the Bismark survived. I would like to see one of those. Had to be an awesome sight.

@@TheJoeyboots why did the montana survive tho... or is it new jersey IDK

@@SavageThermo I think after the Bismark destroyed the HMS Hood Churchill made sure both were on the bottom of the ocean.

@@SavageThermo It's the _New Jersey._ _Montana_ and her class were never built.

@@SavageThermo The Iowas are beautiful ships, and were preserved in the Navy for so long because they were not only capable of firing 16 inch nuclear shells, but because her 16 inch shell fire was very effective against any and all shore targets. New Jersey fired her guns in anger from World War 2 all the way to the Gulf War. They were only struck from the Naval Register in 2006.

I disagree on "different purposes"

@Derek Jackson even if they were evil they still had some of the most impressive tech world has ever seen and some really smart and brave strategies. And definitely admirable on that and you'd be lying if you said they didn't considering even enemy generals accept this

@Derek Jackson your point

Yeah like one hit from a musket has a lot of kick but takes a lot to reload but a mg would just win just by the fire rate

i mean, if it was said that a destroyer could struggle againt a BB, then theres a chance some nation would build a much more advance BB or re activate the mighty mo

Well let's say we update the Bismarck i know you said the ww2 one but let's just imagine you get ride of all the old anitaircraft gun with and in place put some ciws (close in weapons systems) like 2 or 3 on each side us Phalanx CIWS for anit ship missile or form aircraft missile get rid of the 12 x 2 cm Flak 30 guns for 1 or 2 RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile on each side get rid of the back 2 15 in guns to add a helipad for 1 or 2 Planes (F35b or c) or helicopter (SH-60 / HH-60H / MH-60 Seahawk) and a hagar And update it electronics and radar and Rangefinder Also most people forget the fact that most ships can't reload there missile at sea with out help from other ship like a Ship tender or support ship now i know Some ship or weapons can be load with out another ship or going back to port but most cant so they have to you the sparenly

Hey there I really love your video! May I also add, that modern destroyers are designed to deflect radar, hence their weird shape. So even if the bismark got in range, it couldn't use its radar targeting system to find its mark, making life all the harder while the destroyer could easily perform evasive action. Love you're content, love the bismark too! All the best!

@MR, I DONT CARE I agree with you, if American Navy can update their old WW2 Battleships and put them in a fleet. Submarines, Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers, "They can do damage that modern ships cannot do.

@@kingofhumanity Yes, if the American Navy did it, so could Germany, with the upgrades and modern support ships.

@@canadiankewldude well I would say just build New ships instead of Refitting the old WW2 battleship and here's why 1. there is only so much you can do with a ship that was designed in the 40s and refitted some time in the 80s so trying to bring a ship refitted in the 80s to a modern Standard is going to be a nightmare with all of the cables works probably getting rid of the wooden deck 2. there were also some aspects of the Iowa class ships that the US Navy didn't like So basically what I'm saying is that they need a modern purpose Battleship instead of a ship built in 1940s with modern rangefinders and radars and a aircraft hanger and a helipad for either the F-35B or the one of the many Variance of the MH-60S Knighthawk Because I have a strong feeling that if the US Navy 🇺🇸 brought back into service the Iowa class that they will convert them into hybrids between battleships and aircraft carriers like they were planning to do in the 80s Ps if the US ever does bring battleship back into service either being the Iowas or a New class of battleships it will probably cause a arms race between the major powers of the world

Yes aircraft carriers rule.from a former flat top salior.NIMITZ.

No wait, swordfish was designed in 1938 It's an advanced biplane, not a ww1 era plane

ok bomer

p_filippo 7uz348 wentninto service in 1936, but was already obsolete. It’s performance belonged to WW1

It still crippled the Bismarck! .....

I agree they were awsome battleships

Wazzi55 well you can dive to the Tirpitz’s wreck, although you’ll only see the bottom of the hull

Bismarck is sunk, Tirpitz is a road

@@alistairdiren5790 i think some of the tirpitz was left in the fjord it sank it

On the flip side, missiles are already becoming obsolete thanks to Phalanx CIWS (or similar) systems. I think that's why the united states navy is really trying to develope a practical railgun, or other gun system. Because inert projectiles have better odds of negating the CIWS systems. So oddly, if we took a modern equivalent of a battleship with large guns equipped with modern electronis, and peppered the ship with CIWS phalanx systems and replace one or two gun turrets with mk41 VLS, the only threats to those ships would be submarine launched torpedoes, and other gun carrying ships. Then with the MK41 VLS submarines would even have a hard time killing them if they got detected.

​@@zfixation9817 That really doesn't hold up as a concept First, CIWS doen't make missiles obsolete, they are a last ditch defense and far from foolproof A Phalanx for example can engage a maximum of 20 times (bursts are 75 rounds, a drum is 1500) before needing the ammo cylinder changing and by best case estimates have a 33% likelihood of intercept in final stage meaning each phalanx mount can be considered to engage 6-9 missiles before being out of commission for 35 mins Thats before considering that it can only engage 1 target at a time before tracking to the next CIWS are simply a counter move to reduce the effect of missiles, they will not and cannot make them completely obsolete. Second, The USN and every major navy has intentionally moved firepower to more dispersed platforms rather than single ships to allow greater coverage and lower risk of losses When we see Raigun use it will likely be in the form of cruiser size vessels, like was originally considered as part of the Zumwalt design

They may be puny slug throwers. On the other side... modern artillery shells.

Zumwalt rail gun.

Major disadvantage to the Bismarck is poor radar and long range problematics and range finding there for modern dd would win at distance at close range it would leave both ships sitting at the bottom of the ocean

So the realistic way with the Bismarck ey Well You might want some aa and not get immobilized

Battleships were sunk by torpedos and (usually dive) bombing Nothing a modern destroyer or cruiser carries, will sink a battleship Only submarines still carry anti-ship torpedos

A harpoon with darken the paint. It is basically a Zero with a 500lb bomb. You can see photographs of Kamikazees that hit US battleships and RN carriers with armored flight decks.

A guided missile destroyer landing cruise missiles inside the Bismarck's magazines would end this real fast. People saying a missile couldn't damage the Bismarck are ignoring some key points, the Bismarck deck armour, is insufficient to stop a cruise missile, they would strike top down, not side in. Even striking side in, an anti-ship missile would penetrate the armour, they have more than enough penetrative force to break battleship armour, the issue is the battleships size and causing enough internal damage to sink it. Hence the top down approach, they can at will disable any turrets with precision strikes, and hit the ships magazines for killing blows. Honestly modern destroyers deck gun could disable the bismarks turrets from outside the bismarks effective range, as modern gunnery is far more accurate, and modern shells can penetrate far more armour than their WW2 era counterparts. The Bismarck literally couldn't touch a modern destroyer, it could never catch one, they have a longer range than it and higher speed.

No, a harpoon could not penetrate the deck armor of a battleship or WWII heavy cruiser. It is not an armor piercing weapon because it doesn't need to be to penetrate a modern unarmored warship. Only a big Russian missile or hypersonic ASM could do it.

Who said anything about using harpoons or ssm's. I mean to hit it with a ship to shore missile, a bunker buster. BB's are too big, to slow and a few inches if deck armour is honestly, nothing compared to a few feet of armoured reinforced concrete bunker. A modern destroyer is 't just armed to fight ships, they are armed to support surface bombardment missions. As for bb killing a destroyer, explain to me how it's going to catch a ship that's faster than it, can fire at it from over 10 times its maximum engagement range, and 20 times its radar range. Hell a modern DD could reasonably sneak upto about 15km away from it at night, and throw harpoons at its superstructure unseen. Sure you won't sink it, but it now has no bridge, no radar, or possibly most importantly, no more gunnery sighting. Don't need to sink a ship that is now just a large floating armoured brick with guns that would have a hard time hitting anything smaller than an aircraft carrier at 5000ft. Oh and quite a few modern destroyer designs are torpedo armed. Some navies still use them in their standard arsenal. The US Arleigh Burke class is torpedo armed, and their effective range is beyond that of the BB's radar, making it a large dead target.

Harpoon isn't penetrating the deck armor of any Battleship, especially not in pop-up mode. Any missile can definitely make a mess of the topside of a Battleship, but they're built for that. Without torpedoes, the Battleship isn't sinking, but the destroyer can remain out of gun range, and then run away when it's out of ammo.

@@SealofPerfection What an illogical statement! If the missile is not fired in pop up mode it will hit the sides of the ship, thus to state that it would have less of a chance of hitting and penetrating the deck in the only mode that it can do such a thing is moronic!

A SM-2 will NEED to be within the visual horizon to hit the Bismarck since they use command guidance from the launch platform. Guess what, if they are within visual range, they are definitely within range of the 15" guns on the battleship. Also, even if you do get a few missiles to hit, your not going to take the ship out of action. On the receiving end, all it's going to take is 1 hit with a high explosive shell to cripple the Burke since she has no armor to keep them out. Oh, as for your Harpoon penetrating the deck armor, good luck with that. The Harpoon warhead is designed to take out thin skinned targets (and will be ineffective against the layered armor on any Dreadnaught or newer battleship)

@@dundonrl You are very wrong. Not only would SM-6 not have that problem due to the active radar it has, but the longest ever ship to ship gun hit was 24 KM, which is less than the range of the target illumination RADARs on the Arleigh Burke (based off their approx 20 meter height above sea level), thus the Bismark would never even get in range (and the Bismark's RADAR was only good to about 25 KM anyway, so a longer range hit would be some stupidly good luck) As for the Harpoons, just because they are not designed to destroy hard targets does not mean that a bunch of them hitting near each other don't have a chance of weakening and going through armor. That plus the fact they would only come after 90! SM-2s or SM-6s have already made a hell of a mess of the ship (also quite possibly going through armor just due to sheer numbers) means that even if not sunk, the Bismark would be extremely badly damaged.

Not to mention her stores of torpedos.

Since when did a vertical-launched anti submarine rocket have the range to engage a battleship from a safe distance?

Harpoon missiles with shaped charge warheads. Bismark wouldn't stand a chance.

Not the light ASW torpedos that Burke carries; today's destroyer torpedo is not a "Long Lance" and neither Mk.48.

@@piotrd.4850 It will still be effective. None of the anti-torpedo measures built into armored warships in WW2 or just before WW2 really worked. The Americans were able to sink both Japanese super battleships with their less effective aerial torpedoes in WW2.

@@robskalas also, the Burke will have at least on helo with Hellfires, which will penetrate the turrets..

Lol

Bismarck: Woah, no scratches lol **missile hits belt armor** **no dmg**

@@theheavytonk928 modern destroyer:but wait theres more *SPAM MORE ANTI SHIP MISSILE AND TARGET THE STEERING GEAR*

@Enterprise best waifu One eternity later.... Modern destroyers: SRSLY, STILL NOT SINKING?! Oh well, let’s bail

@@theheavytonk928 modern destroyer: *calls the whole british fleet*

Oh boy we're you're wrong

Best humorous comment on here by far. Sort of thing I’d notice and say too. You win.

They're nit designed to penetrate over a foot of armour plate, though.

They are designed to explode inside, true. But they are not designed to penetrate 14 inches of Krupp cemented steel. they will get through about two inches top before exploding against them.

And kind of conversely, the Bismarck rounds would just past through the tin can... . But secondary batteries would be a different story

Meh. Couple, three TLAMs thermobaric blast kills everyone above the deck, including all the command crew in the very well armored but not even vaguely immune to overpressure towers. All the antennas are swept away; all the optical gun directors shatter. More TLAMs with BLU-97/B cluster penetrators make swiss cheese of everything except perhaps the main gun turrets. Those are destroyed by hellfire missiles from the LAMPS birds, which would laugh at 14 inches of Krupp hardened.

There may be fires, but this wouldn't sink the ship, and it wouldn't kill everyone on board. But with weapons systems smashed, guidance systems gone, communication gone, and any crew poking their heads up nothing but targets, they have the choice of surrender or scuttle.

Most surface ships are not equipped with the heavy weight torpedoes needed to do this. Arleigh Burkes are equipped with MK 54 light weight torpedoes that can be launched by ship, by helicopter, or by ASROC. Most modern warships could easily disable the Bismark, but sinking her would be very hard.

The crew and discipline would be the deciding factor if both had same weapons and radar.

That's also basically why you don't see them 1v1 with an iowa style refit, it'd stand a decent chance. But for the price of building it, you probably could get 2 destroyers, and 2 v 1 is much better odds.

@@Joesolo13 I wouldn´t really call it a "decent" chance with an iowa style refit. If i was on an Arley Burke class and would be told to engage a refitted Bismark, i would get the hell out of dodge!

@@Killian.Hardegen there is the factor of radar signature. If the Bismark and the destroyer have the same type of radar, the destroyer would detect the Bismark first, due to the destroyer being rather small an optimized to have a small radar signature, whilst the Bismark is fucking massive and is not optimized for radar signature. Although that only comes into effect if the destroyer has weapons with a longer range than what the Bismark can detect the destroyer at.

@@Rotsteinblock True. But we´re talking Iowa Class refit right? This would include counter measures against long range weaponary like some decent CIWS´s, so a harpoon fired from a destroyer would 1. not neccesary mean a hit and 2. would give away their own position. A Destroyer would´ve to fire everything at once to have the biggest impact possible and have the Bismark take care of her own damage, rather then retaliate on 100%. It´s a great thought experiment, but i´m still set for the big girl. ;-)

Iowa is most volleyball!

Kirov class: you guys aren't nuclear powered?

The hood: you guys aren’t at the bottom yet?

@@dreweburchill Admiral Scheer: You guys aren't buried in dirt?

You guys didnt get scrap

It might not be able to stay out of range of a fast battleship, especially in rough seas, and it could probably tank all but the heaviest(*cough* Russian) missiles, and its radar would be able tell that there is something on the horizon even if not as clearly as the destroyer. The destroyer is made for anti-submarine warfare and expects the aircraft carrier it's escorting to protect it from its most probable threat, aeroplanes and in case any surface threat would appear, that too, but on any other day, it doesn't have the capabilities to fight against a battleship.

@@abrahamedelstein4806 An Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is able to stay out of the range of a Bismarck-class battleship with ease since she is faster even in rough seas. The radar of the battleship would be able to tell nothing as it has not got the range even close of 100 miles. Also it has no weapon at all to touch the destroyer even if it sees her (no). The battleship would be sitting on the bottom on the seabed wondering what hit it. That simple.

@@tz-pw6uv Hmkay, forgetting for a moment that the Bismarck had a top speed in excess of 30 knots and is a big ship so wouldn't be as affected by adverse sea conditions, you do know what a horizon is? The Burke class destroyer without the aid of reconnaissance assets would actually spot the Bismarck's smoke before it ever made radar contact which generously would be at around 35 kilometres, if we say that the combined height of masts above the waterline is around 100 metres, which is still within the extreme effective range of the Bismarck's 15 inch guns. I guess I'll give it to the Burke class on the grounds that I'm not sure the Bismarck's excellent anti-torpedo system could withstand a modern torpedo but other than that, I'm pretty certain a Bismarck class battleship could keep up with a Burke class destroyer and tank any incoming missiles, after that, it would be a globe spanning chase in which the Burke would run out of fuel before the Bismarck.

True but the Bismark is still the Bismark, cool and ledgenery

@@tz-pw6uv With ease? A Burke is only slightly faster than the Bismarck (by a couple knots).. Also, the Burke has very few weapons that could hit the Bismarck since not till she's in visual range can she use her SM-2's on the battleship (they use radar guidance to hit a target, so in order to hit the BB would have to be within easy range of the 15" guns on the battleship)

I remember that. The only trouble was that the time tunnel swallowed them up before they could attack the Japanese.

One of my favorite movies because of the F-14 lots of big name movie stars, too. F-14 was the biggest Star🌟 Thank You to those who were the F-14 pilots 👍

Lovely Sabaton reference, I can see you're cultured.

"And the silence of the seas about to drift into a storm"

SIGHT OF POWER!!!

SHOW OF FORCE!!!

Raise the anchor, battleship's plotting its course.

Most Arleigh Burke Destroyers had their harpoon missiles removed in order to enlarge the helicopter hanger. Now they're Reliant upon their Tomahawk cruise missiles for anti-ship capability. And the tomahawks are actually even more powerful than the harpoons and have a greater range. If I remember correctly a tomahawk has a warhead of around 1,000 pounds of TNT. Three or four of those impacting the Bismarck in detonating inside of it would absolutely devastate the ship. An Arleigh Burke sir equipped with about three or four dozen tomahawks.

@@davidteer80 the missiles are designed to take down a destroyer or cruiser, not a super battle ship

@@zking5427 it was a Battleship, alright. Not a Superbattleship tho

@@zking5427 that still not mean that it's unable to

While you may be right that Bismarck was able to tank up several torpedoes that are larger than those found in some modern arsenals, you forget that there's one crucial factor that changed in modern torpedoes that made them deadlier than any other ww2 torpedo. It's that they are designed to explode under the hull of the targeted ship rather than impact the armor belt. What this simple means is that modern torpedoes doesn't give a tit about the Bismarck's main and torpedo armor belt. The resulting explosion of the modern torpedo would cause the Bismarck's entire spine to crack from the stress and effectively be cut in half

At least they were only subject to that for 8 days

Tf???? Who tf builds a 50,000 TON battleship AND FORGETS THE CREW QUARTERS???

@@johnsmith2249 the nazi’s

@@legaming8784 It is not true. Battleships have plenty of sleeping spaces. Due their large size, they have the most spare space for crew quarters. Battleships have, by comparison, the most luxurious of accomodations. Stuff like submarines or corvettes are what you want to stay clear of.

@@johnsmith2249 Relax, it is not true. OP is wrong.

Just throw a Granit at it and we will see.

those destroyers also carry To,mahawk missiles,which can carry nukes for hundreds of miles.Only chance a Ww2 battleship has against an Arleigh Burke,is an ambush.An ambush is not going to happen against an AEGIS equipped warship that can make 35 knots

Nobody remembers the mk48 torpedo. Would be able to launch from outside of Bismarck’s range and one torpedo would ruin that ship. Broken keel doesn’t tend to lead to happy ship problems

@@shadowfox8748 im not so sure, it does have a tnt equivalent of halfe a ton of tnt, but the citadel armour was actually alligend with the vertical armour plating across all decks below the superstructure to increase structural integrity and even hits from tallbois (although only one exploded) didnt break the tirpitz (bismarcks sistership) in halfe (given, some of those happened with her supported by sand) so i dont think hitting the keel will have the same effect as on modern ships.

also bismarcks armour belt was desinged to be immune to any torpedo with a yield of less than 250kg of tnt, that includes 70% of the ships length and thus only excludes some forward boilers and the rudder room in terms of important machinery. also something with a yield over 250kg of tnt equivalent doesnt mean it will sink the ship in one hit, the lack of constant artillery fire on the ship and the missing need for evasive maneuvers will also be in the repair parties favour. also hitting somewhere in the rear of the ship wont ensure it to drive in circles like in WWII as all that happened was jamming the rudder, which in this battle would mean it would drive in a straigth line, not in a circle, as in WWII it was zigzaging before it got hit, locking the rudder in a turn.

Yep, battleship may be big but so is the warhead on a tomahawk cruise missile (450kg) or a harpoon anti-ship missile (221kg). You also have to factor in operational range, a 16inch battleship gun like the ones mounted on an iowa class have a maximum operational range of 32,000M/32Km. A Harpoon anti ship missile has an effective range of 280Km, several times that of the battleship and a tomahawk cruise missile has a titanic 2,500km range (78 times that of a battleship gun) Warfare has changed and anyone that thinks a lumbering steel behemoth like the bismarck can fight against modern detroyers with advanced radar/gps fire control and ranges that span hundreds of kilometres is kidding themselves. A destroyer anticipating a fight with a battleship could simply load its VLS system with only anti-ship missiles insead of a mix which means the destroyer would have 96 missiles ready to fire all of which can be launched with a button press, no reloading like the battleship guns. Sorry for the text wall btw.

@@War_Daddy103 you forget the best anti-ship missile, *Brahmos anti-ship missile* Range: 300-450km Warhead: 300kg The only supersonic anti-ship missile. Known for breaking ships in half during test.

@@hobmoor2042 actually, battleship armour would not offer as much protection as you'd think. Most modern anti-ship missiles use a top down attack approach which means the missile dives down on the target as opposed to attacking straight on. The deck armour and super-structure of a battleship are not as well protected as the armour belt or torpedo bulges. Factor in the sheer mass of a tomahawk missile with its 450kg warhead and travelling at just under supersonic speed or a harpoon anti-ship missile which travels at a much greater speed and has a warhead designed for penetrating naval targets. Now I'm not saying that the missiles would instantly sink the ship or not damage it at all like you claim, I am saying however that modern missiles can do a much greater amount of damage than you would think, and from a far greater range at that. Finnally you have to realise that apart from missiles, modern detroyers carry advanced homing torpedos with warheads capable of damaging even a battleship. All the destroyer has to do is use its missiles to cripple the battleships propulsion systems and damage the bridge before it moves in for the kill with its side-mounted tropedo tubes that it can fire outside of the battleships range and whilst at full speed. Again, I apologise for the huge wall of text.

For those still advocating for battleships. I would like to tell you that there is a reason why battleships are no longer been constructed. A destroyer with VLS can carry more than 8 anti ships missiles and if it anticipated with a fight with a BB than it would load full ASM instead of normal load out. For those who think battleship armor could shrug off the attack, you might been playing world of warships too much, there is a reason for bismark and scharnhorst been sunk, their radar and fire control director are smashed by shells which make them blind to the enemy, a ship need more then just its turrets and engine to function. When the range finder is disabled it will be blind and the modern DD can close in and use its 324mm homing torpedo to start punching holes in the side of it.

Pretty sure bis could take some missiles but not definetly not its equipment making it a floating defenseless brick waiting for a torpedo strike from its underbelly If you want to be mean Torpedoes

I mean, sure, if you remove everything that makes the Bismark a battleship, then okay, Destroyer loses. In reality, the modern destroyer could easily destroy an entire fleet by itself. Because anti-ship missiles

That's like saying if Hitler didn't hate Jews he would've won the war.

Iowa was equipped with modern weapon but it still called a battleship beacuse. It equiped with missile launcher and ciws anti air gun they did not change the guns

That’s the whole point - modern day equipment doesn’t need a Bismarck to carry it, a lighter and cheaper vessel will do the job better.

As a Retired USN Chief Petty Officer I say DREAM ON TENZIN..the last Destroyer I was on had a ARSENAL of Nuke Missles..that Nazi Bucket would be a sinking hunk of Scrap Steel

The destroyer will take the bb out from far away

or just fires a single torpedo and even if the destroyer gets hit the battleship is dead.

If the battleship is accurate

@@shingyanling1856 All of you guys are making one grave mistake. IF a ship like BISMARK where afloat and active today, it would carry modern radar and defensive measures that would remove the advantage of the Arleigh Burke. The only chance the dd would have would be to run and hope they never get close enough to play catch with this monster. One main battery round would turn the Burke into a smokin hole in the water.

@@nickv4665 but it's guns wont be accurate that far range, that why we never use a single artillery in a battle, we uses multiple of them because they're not really accurate, the same as battleships cannons

@@kharkovluzhin8333 bismarck got 8 guns btw

*All Ships from WW2 reappears*

@@albee8259 Modern Destroyers: *Ha ha ha, I'm in danger!*

The armore belts extends under the waterline a bit too

Not true. You’re confused by the “all or nothing” armor architecture.

These all would make for an awesome ship except that most or the usefulness of many destroyers is that they can be all over the place or spread out to defend a carrier. This prevent the need for a “modern battleship”

Because they are insanely expensive to operate and guided bombs cut though any known battleship armor with ease.

The British looked at a design for a BB that could operate in a late 40s early 50s environment. It needed insane amounts of armor and displacement.

USS Missouri was rearmed in the 80's & participated in Gulf War . Fired Tomahawk cruise missiles during Desert Storm.

Answer: Exocet hypersonic antiship missile. The Exocet is virtually unstoppable and can carry a warhead large enough to sink a Nimitz class supercarrier

I mean, they could try He

Exacto, lamentablemente la munición naval Alemana, en especial al AP no fue muy "Feliz" que digamos

lol i see what you did there XD APs don't detonate.

... but imagine the size of the holes? Also they could have used high explosive not armour piercing. Set to instantaneous fuze a single shell would wipe the Burke.

This ain't world of warship, if a round that size makes a hole below the waterline the ship would sink

Battleship Tirpitz was Bismarck sister ship exact same size, armaments and power plants only difference was Tirpitz has torpedoes

@@admiralgrafspee771 You might want to read up on Tirpitz. AFTER Bismarck was sunk additional armor and more importantly more AA guns were installed.

@@lancenorton1117 yeah and the tirpitz pretty much was a floating museum for long periods of time. after the royal navy hunted the bismark and ended it hitler hid the tirpitz in norway. bit of a waste of a powerful ship but it would only have been a matter of time until the royal navy found it and destroyed it. at nearly every point in ww2 up until the end royal navy was largest and most powerful navy of the war. i think america stepped up their game as the war went on certainly after pearl harbour

Kyle Atherton Yeah it was very boring not doing anything

@@admiralgrafspee771 tirpitz was definitely different. Whenever Britain sunk tirpitz it used their big bombs, even with a direct hit it didn't sink,the bombs that missed actually capsized it. The ship was a tank,which is why it was hunted and destroyed at all costs.

The modern warship would Sink the Bismarck without the Bismarck have a good chance of firing back. A modern warship has way greater range than the Bismarck ever had. The Bismarck can only shoot it's guns up to 15 miles. What a warship can fire missiles up to hundreds of miles away.

@@jarrodskufcagaming5203 but their name not famous but when you heard bismarck you can feel it

Not at all. Good riddance to bad Nazis.

not at all LoL

The torpedos on US surface ships do not have the capability to engage surface targets, only subs.

Most modern day destroyers carry anti-sub torpedoes and not anti-ship torpedoes, and modern anti-ship missiles would do nothing against a battleship's armor as they were designed for modern day destroyers and cruisers.

Mission kill with p700, big boom.

Finally, someone defending the Bismark with valid points :D

...the shaped charge of the P-700 would like to disagree. As well as the shaped charges of other missile systems... Those are still moving at supersonic speed, and are very large objects. your armor go bonk.

@@KoishiVibin despite its large warhead and shaped charge ( which most ASCMs have) and high speed, the P700 would not penetrate the bulk of the armor. Superstructure maybe. The shaped charges of a modern ASCMs are not designed to penetrate much armor because no modern warship has thick armor. The P700 would leave a nasty mark for sure, not not close to penetrating it. Also, the vast majority of ASCMs are subsonic, however that is changing fast.

I don't know too much about modern naval warfare however I know what the issues of WW2 era battleships were and how many of them were "defeated". Like the video and you pointed out, the Bismarck would probably not be sunken, especially since the Harpoon missles are HE based. However, the thick armor of Bismarck protecting his machinery and stuff helps from getting blown up but one or two of those missles exploding on top of Bismarcks superstructure would probably render it neigh unoperateable. The fire guiding system would be blown to pieces, communication systems, as would be the bride after 1 or 2 hits, killing many sailors in the process. Also, setting everything flammable on the deck ablaze. With continuing Harpoon missles hitting the Bismarck, containing those fire would be a major issue (all while Bismarck wouldn'T even be able to spot what was hitting it). The Arleigh Burke class destroyer is just as fast as the Bismarck on paper, if not faster. Realisticly, in an open water atlantic battle, Bismarck would be burned down and sunk through inner explosions or at least disabled to a point that it is no longer capable of "precise" combat, with all the auxiliary equipment destroyed by the HE missles. They would never even meet , Bismarck never even seeing the destroyer on the horizon - all while explosions and fires consume the pride of the Kriegsmarine.

Aircraft and radar. If a big ship cant hide it js vulnerable. There is no economic argument for the vast costs involved in a large battleship when a single missile can send it to the bottom. You're better off putting your cash into many smaller vessels

Sad

To be fair all a nuclear blast does is just pepper a ship with radiation. To actually get results you need to bury a nuke inside a ship and detonate it if you wanted results. For ASMs we’re talking about late cold war era ASMs not todays S400s or something. Overall not a good day for a BB

@@timber_wulf5775 s400 is an anti air/anti missile system, not an anti ship missile. Harpoons have been around forever, Iowa even had them fitted at one point

@@timber_wulf5775 The S-400 is a Russian surface to air missile.

Although the heat and radiation from the nuclear weapons would probably kill the crew

Battleships were made obsolete by aircraft-borne torpedos, starting in WW2. Sub fired torpedoes made them vulnerable in WW2, even with large screening forces, and by the 1960s nuclear powered attack subs left them nearly completely vulnerable. And if battleships still existed as a serious threat, anti ship missiles with various armor-piercing warheads would be developed.

Imagine being in a WWII battleship and a giant dragon-fly shots a dong shaped thing at you.

Send in the sopworth Camel.

Same here 😂

Why you! GO TO GULAG

Well,for the record, this wasn't discussed in history class.

Listen to Sabaton! They teach history through the power of MUSIC!

Tomato or Yamato???

Tomato 🤣

Tomato??? Nani??

The Tomato would be reduced to catsup !

The Battleship Tomato? Sorry. Now, a slugfest between Yamato and Bismarck would have been interesting.

...which would not interfere with the ship's ability to fight. the director towers are seriously armoured.

Problem. There is no useful armor in existence capable of protecting a vessel from a shaped charge warhead mounted on a missile. Problem. The ship would be very costly to make and upkeep. You'd be making something that a surface action group would still be able to smite with saturation fires, where you could have more ships.

@@KoishiVibin Systems for shooting down missiles would become the next big race, of course. But you underestimate the ability of armor schemes to defend against shaped charges. Most such schemes however are effectively impossible to use on anything LESS than a large capital ship though, leading to tanks and such using things like ERA. Also, how is the upkeep would not be as bad as you are thinking either. Naval powers have already done just fine fielding battleships before, just as they have the expensive ships of the line back in the age of sail. If they were still viable, then major nations would still have some battleships. Expense and upkeep would only play into factors relating to how large the largest battleships would reach.

As most modern destroyers are faster and can track a BB from a good distance it would be pretty much impossible to get in range in open waters.

Yamato's big problem was that shells didn't explode on impact. They made an "bullethole" 420mm diametre and went another miles till meet an island. Best result was to shoot from 24 miles so shells would land from the top and exploding inside or under.

Johnston survived getting hit by yamato who is the biggest battleship

@@bigboi_zuez Yes that was with armour piercing shells as soon as they switch to explosives Unfortunately the Johnson Went down

The Bismarck's FCS is rather fragile. The shock from its cannons was able to break it.

@@leehongjin6884 Yes, one of the radars (not the entire radar systems) on the Bismarck was disabled. The gunnery crews, however, were well trained enough to get accurate fire on the HMS Hood even without that, though. After that it was able to put accurate fire on the HMS Prince of Wales, too. Therefore, we can surmise that while the radar system might have been helpful, it wasn't needed to guide accurate gunfire in the conditions that reigned in the Battle of the Denmark Strait.

@@Schnittertm1 The Radar on the DD is so good that they can plot the impact spot and just turn away. Bismarck's radar would be jammed so useless!!

No we don't..

Rexford L America does

Ramjet driven projectiles was promising, but the problem was no ramjet was ever invented with carrying a payload

A ram jet shell? You mean a cruise missle, because a shell can't have a ram jet. A shell is a solid shot, a ramjet, induces air, compresses, sprays a little fuel and ignites it out the rear.

@@nathanwright84 I'm an American, retired from the US Navy in 2011 and no, we don't have ram jet shells. Rocket assist, yes. Ram jet no..

The entire Kriegsmarine was the size of a single US Fleet

I was thinking something similar "US 5th Fleet 15 August 1945 vs JMSDF 2021" Even with WWII era carriers, the US fleet has the same problem as the Bismarck - if they are forced to accept battle, then the range of modern weapons would allow the JMSDF to keep the USN at arms length and pick them apart. The USN aircraft can provide OTH recce & strike, but even if all 12 available Essex class carriers combined they would only support ~1000 aircraft, while the JMSDF have 1000+ VLS cells

Glad you enjoyed it

Looking modern is about all it has going for it. Outdated Battleship design, based on old Dreadnoughts.

Looks Modern? No, it looks as outdated as it is.

He's not wrong tho. A modern destroyer can outrun, outrange, and honestly do scary things that a WW2 era BB can't even think of. He uses the armour arguement, but it fails in 1 major regard. A modern destroyer is a missile ship basically, it is armed with cruise missiles, including but not limited to ones designed to make heavy armoured and fortified structures into large piles of rubble. 110mm of armour, sounds alot, but its WW2 era pre-composite steel plate, basically meaning its paper compared to a modern AP weapon. So a cruise missile with an AP loadout, accurate to about a meter, fired at 200km. Aimed directly at the bismarks magazine, set to penetrate via the deck armour, would hit, and in turn detonate the magazine. Sad truth is, even without the missiles the destroyer has a major advantage. Its deck gun, its range is superior to the bismark due to changes in technology, its fire rate is insanely superior, and its accuracy is deadly. Oh and its shells are designed again with the ability to defeat modern armour, so it can sit at 30km, firing 20+ rounds a minute, at a high angle, with probably a 90% accuracy chance, and just watch as the bismarks superstructure and deck begin to look like swiss cheese. This may not sink it, but it will leave it a burning hulk. In the bismarks favour tho, I do admit, it can take far more punishment than the destroyer, it was designed in time when a single hit often couldn't destroy a warship so the aim was to survive as many hits as possible. Modern ships work on the grounds of a single hit will kill you, the amount if armour needed to stop that would be several meters thick. So don't get hit, evade attacks, hit first, and if they do see you, countermeasures instead if armour.

@@cgi2002 I think you're over stating the case for a modern destroyers weaponry. AS missiles like the harpoon do still fly slow enough that they can be shot down(though it's unlikely) and modern destroyers carry remarkably few of them. As for cruise missile which can be used against sea targets(most can't really, their guidance systems arent usually designed to seek out a ship), their warheads are still HE, which isn't the most useful against steal armor, remember that the design requirements for destroying concrete structures is very different from the requirements for penetrating metal armor. Even modern rapid firing 5" guns aren't going through that much armor, the AP shells are not that much better than in WW2 and the velocity isnt much better either. I think likely outcome is that the modern destroyer basically melts everything that's exposed and lightly shielded on the upper decks rendering Bismarck functionally blind and stripped of most secondary and AA defenses but with an intact hull, primary armament and engines. The destroyer would then close range and hit Bismarck with torpedoes(idk if Arleigh Burks have then but most modern destroyers do) launched from the ship or preferably helicopter. I think modern torpedoes have a decent enough range that the destroyer shouldn't have too much to worry about from the mostly blind guns.

@@alexdunphy3716 Modern American destroyers, if they have torpedoes, seem to have the Mark 46 torpedo. Fine torpedo, and guided. Count on them hitting Bismark with every one of them, so say a destroyer could do better than the squadron of Swordfish torpedo bombers except.... The Royal Navy 18" torpedoes carried by the Swordfish were 1,600 lb with 300 lb of TNT. A Mark 46 torpedo is around 500 lbs with about a 100 lb warhead. Explosive is a little better than TNT, equivalent of about 110 lbs of TNT. Bismark's anti-torpedo bulges shrugged off the 300lb warhead explosions fairly well. A Mark 46 torpedo would have much less effect. It is intended to hit submarines and other unarmored targets. Not quite the equivalent of the 5,700 lb torpedo that HMS Rodney hit Bismarck with. We know Bismarck was reduced to a flaming wreck being pounded by a lot of 2,000 lb shells going 760 m/s (16" shells from HMS Rodney), but it took torpedoes to finish Bismarck off. Harpoon missiles are much lighter, total weight about 1,500 lbs but warhead is only 500 lb, and they are slow - just 240 m/s. I am skeptical that Harpoon missiles are really going to cut it either. Not just the Bismarck here. Any WW II battleship would fare quite well against modern weapons. It will take more than just one modern destroyer to take out a WW II battleship.

They were a lot about intimidation as Well.

@Ian Sneddon You can not say that the harpoon has "only 500lb HE" when a battleship shell (even the HE ones) has far, far less. Modern torpedoes are also not going to hit the side of a ship, they go underneath and explode.

The 127mm can shoot down missiles and planes. Pretty good if you ask me.

"I'm not defending German superiority I'm stating the fucking obvious."

What do you mean meant as a joke? BRAKA MODODAAAAA!

Not a good one

You didn't have to say you were joking.

* Stroheim's theme intensifies *

Hahahahahahahahahaha.....

Only if they were using their helicopters, the horizon is a thing remember, it limits surface radar range quite a bit.

@@alexdunphy3716 Well that's the thing, the Navy uses AWACS planes, which are very large aircraft fitted with massive air/ground search radars, among other things. They would see the enemy fleet farm before any ships would, assuming other types of reconnaissance aircraft or just simply fighters on a recon mission didn't see the Bismarck.

@@morteparla6926 Tell me, how many AWACS planes can a modern DD carry? NONE!!! We're talking ship to ship here, not an old WW2 BB against a modern fleet. Your argument is invalid!

@@13stalag13 you are correct. You forgot. The latest Arleigh Burkes carry 2 helos with radars and ASMs. Plus the DDGs are capable to tracking him and fixing his position OTH. Including course and speed. Oh yeah OTH is over the horizon. Him is Bismarck. Hitler declared it a He because of its power.

Isn't it the granit referred to as the P-700?

One well-placed modern torpedo could sink it. Fire enough (cheap) missiles at it and you'd overwhelm any defences. Don't forget the Chinese and Russians have anti-ship ballistic missiles that are difficult to counter. You don't need to sink a ship like that to put it out of the fight - just damage the highly-sensitive electronics and/or weapons systems. Battleships became obsolete because naval air power got better. The Bismark was sunk because a Swordfish hit it with a torpedo and damaged the rudder, so it could only steam in circles. Prince of Wales and Repulse were easily sunk by Japanese aircraft. Yamato was sunk by US aircraft. The US lost 4 battleships at Pearl Harbour; the Italians lost 3 at Taranto. These are just a few examples, and they show why people stopped building battleships after WW2 and instead built aircraft carriers. Old battleships were ship killers - they were heavily armed and heavily armoured because naval warfare at the time was a slug fest - fire shells at each other until one of you sinks or explodes. You needed bigger guns and thicker armour to compete. Modern naval combat is different. You don't need big guns to sink ships - you can do that at much, much longer ranges with aircraft and missiles. Even submarines are better at killing ships - modern attack submarines are incredibly difficult to counter. Sure, a modern battleship would look cool, but it would be large, slow, expensive, vulnerable, would need protecting by a fleet of support ships and would have no mission to perform.

Bismarck would lose vs yamato or iowa

Nah

@@kingkairos2437 Its unknown who would win, first person to get a hit on the citadel or ammo space would probably win. Most skilled crew would probably be Iowa or Bismarck but Bismarck would have a nice advantage due to their turtleback armor protecting the citadel better than the others.

Greek Trireme: *ram the Man-O-War at its stern* (this is meant as a joke)

​@@ya7ioo given the range of 18-23km. It's literally IMPOSSIBLE for bismarck to pen any crucial parts of yamato: turret, citadel, belt armor, the underwater part, command tower. Yamato would win (quite easy actually)

There is very little reason to, though. A shaped charge AShM overcomes all reasonable naval armor schemes, it's a massive logistical sink, etc. A battleship's role can be filled by a missile cruiser group fairly easily.

If the Bismark got one shell on target then it'd be over in a flash. The round would likely over-penetrate and detonate in the water on the other side or below the DD.