Bismarck Battleship - Is it a wrong choice for Kriegsmarine to send it to Atlantic in May 1941

Will you take the risk and send Bismarck to Atlantic in May 1941?

  • Total voters
Jun 2017
I am going to get all pedantic on you because I have been known to make exactly the same mistake ;)

The Lord Nelson class were all scrapped shortly after WW1 - I going to assume we are talking about the Nelson and the Rodney.

That mistake cost me $56.00 at an online hobby store.
Yes of course lol. This is probably not the first time I've made the mistake either. There's obsolete for WWII and then there's obsolete for WWI lol.

I'm sorry. Model ships? The pre dreadnoughts were more expensive or you just bought the wrong one?
Jun 2017
Manifestly false. Royal Navy main fleet ships were pretty active pretty constantly doing stuff. And they ensured British control of impoertnat parts of the Seas.
Relative to other navys yeah. But given how navy's had been downsized that isn't that much. That's why I was talking about it taking less for the Germans to gain naval superiority the scale of everything was much smaller(and the UK fleet was split in three). UK fleet was dominant but when you have considerably less ships doing the dominating it takes to overwhelm them.

Anyhow acknowledging that naval ships roles in WWI and WWII was quite minor(except carriers) is just one of the inherent unfortunate reality's for naval history buffs. I love my ships but that doesn't mean they didn't do much and the most unrealistic part of naval simulators are the battles they are simulating There's a reason we have an 8 page thread on what's objectively a pretty minor incident cause as far as naval warfare goes it's pretty notable cause we have so few major incidents with capital ships that the skirmishes we do have are going to be examined with a microscope that other military history buffs who have a greater wealth of events to focus on will be less inclined to use.
Last edited:
Jun 2017
Hangs head - bought the wrong one. I have always been interested in interwar treaty battleships.
Well team Hood or POW(forgot which one) thought Prinz Eugene was Bismarck, it happens! WOWS taught me the biggest differences between ships(especially from the same country) are ones that aren't super clear to the eyes. While some are pretty distinctive(like Iron Duke what a weird looking ship) a lot of the British battleships look like bigger or smaller versions of the same ship. Perfectly understandable.


Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
the weirdest one was the Rodney , cut down to fit in the requirement of the Washington treaty
it had been compared to a boot floating on the water , leaking water
it still did service but was in a constant state of repairs
the Home fleet couldn't come close to enemy shores as aircrafts proved to be more than a match
once the Bismark , Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were out of the picture ,
there really was no task for which capital ships would be suited in
Britain ans the US ruled the waves
the war was
to use them for convoy duty against U-boats was a waste of fuel with the serious risk of being sunk


Forum Staff
Aug 2016
once the Bismark , Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were out of the picture ,
there really was no task for which capital ships would be suited in
Starting about September 1944 the British began decommissioning seven or eight battleships in rapid succession. Once the armies in France advanced inland beyond the range of battleship guns, there was nothing for battleships to do. The last half dozen or so RN battleships were sent to the Pacific in 1945 but all they did was shoot down Kamikazis, maybe the occasional shore bombardment around Okinawa. It's not like the US didn't have enough battleships for that.