Was the Bismarck based?
>>65552600based on what
>>65552607It's Biblical>Matthew 7:24-27>Luke 6:46-49
>>65552607On Otto von Bismarck.
>>65552600Yes, at the bottom of the sea.
Yes it was based at Gotenhafen along Gdansk Bay in Poland
>>65552600Yeah, all ships are based, retard. Where else are you supposed to keep them when not underway?
>>65552600It was propaganda, they would have been better off building more smaller ships instead of getting into a pissing competition.
she was cute
>>65552675Not really. Bismarck was a flop but Tirpitz tied up an obscene amount of RN resources for one bote. At least they're both cuties.
>>65552621Fat fuck who in hindsight did more harm than good? I guess.
>>65552600I'll say something controversial and say the Bismark, on the whole, was a good work.>Coming off a period with little shipbuilding legacy of knowledge and resource scarcity.>Already in a fucked situation because they could never keep up with the Brits/Americans, but could equally not afford to just not bother with a surface fleet.>On paper, ship would have been able to outpace most allied ships of the time, able to threaten it with guns.>Described by axis and allied observers as "a beautiful ship, with good lines and a proud, noble profile, exactly what one expects of a battleship".>Took concerted time, sleep deprivation, action, and a considerable pounding to finally sink her/him.Yeah sure, could have been better designed on paper in certain areas. But, given the various circumstances of it's birth, it's mission profile being a little unorthodox, coming from the shipyards and technology basis it was from, and it's performance in it's singular voyage (it was always going to go down, with that many vessels engaging her/him), I'd say the Bismark was decently good. Not 'great', but closer to that than 'shit'.
>>65553044>it was good>well, decently good>not great>better than shit?
>>65552675It wasn't propaganda, it was British trickery. They made Hitler sign a treaty to stop building small ships and instead copy the Royal Navy.
>>65552600tho' outnumbered and outgunned she:-sunk the biggest warship of the time-crippled one of the most modern warships of the time-required an entire fleet to sink her and she crippled major opponents of this fleet till she scuttled, all on her maiden voyage-bongs were so scared they put half the home fleet in front of a fjord to guard her sistership -if you ask a rando anon for a rando battleship, 99% percent will answer her namehow much more based can a battleship be? And whoa, she's a booty beauty.
>>65553107>-sunk the biggest warship of the timeShe sank Yamato?!?
>>65553122Biggest enemy? Bad form to sink an ally, unless you are Italian or French. Or American. Or Jewish.
>>65552607It was based in the North Atlantic.
>>65553122an illiterate nigger you areyamato commissioned dec '41hood bismarqee'd may '41
>>65553107>how much more based can a battleship be?Getting her crew home, for starters.
>>65553107>she scuttledOkay wehraboo>>65553107>if you ask a rando anon for a rando battleship, 99% percent will answer her nameImagine only asking for answers from jeets and wehraboos. What kind of BRICs living individual would do such a thing?
>>65553107>how much more based can a battleship be?
>>65552607Jesse what the fuck are you talking about?
>>65553218She was scuttled. That is a fact. Would she have ended up sinking anyways? Probably. But she was, in fact, scuttled.
>>65552600Absolutely, she makes the british seethe to this day. Hood was caught without a 10 to 1 advantage and sunk like a bitch. Island monkeys then chimped out hard. Sure Bismark got sunk, but nazis losing the war was the good ending anyway. We simply got some british tears aswell.
>>65552600well it did something right. it went into history as one of the most famous battleships. Still easily named by even shallow laymen today. In comparison, there is a reason its clone Tirpitz is barely remembered
>>65553044>Took concerted time, sleep deprivation, action, and a considerable pounding to finally sink her/him.she's literally me
>>65552675You assume the military exists to win wars, rather than as a display of the state's wealth.
As was typical of Kriegsmarine-designed ships, they were heavier than needed and included redundancy. With the expectation they could stay out at sea for a long time and survive battle damage to continue the fight or disengage. All of which didn't matter because all their notable vessels to engage/be sunk at sea got caught in situations where they were outnumbered and took hits that caused loss of speed, removing the ability to disengage anyway. So the end result were ships which looked sleek, but which had arguably less capability than comparable ships that came in at less tonnage.
>>65553917>there is a reason its clone Tirpitz is barely rememberedThat reason being the British wanted to forget how long it was a thorn in their side and how much time, material and men they threw at her in a years-long campaign that really didn't have a huge payoff at the end.Against Bismarck they could claim a quick and easy win, and avenge the loss of Hood.
>>65553107>-crippled one of the most modern warships of the timePOW had a turret malfunction because it was a new boat.
>>65552600It was a mediocre battleship that gets fellated because it blew up the HMS Hood more by chance than anything else.
No, the Bismark was scuttled to avoid capture.
>>65554776Bait needs to be believable, see how >>65553262sounds just plausible enough to be someone's actual position
I went to a British airshow recently, they still found room in their schedule to seethe about the Bismarck, and play evil music for two old German planes. I'd say it's pretty based to still be generating seethe all these years later.
>>65552600No, but she was the only Nazi surface combatant to at least squeeze out a turd before getting her shit pushed in.
>>65553156kek
