Do you know what the Tirpitz is? [Archive] - Civilization Fanatics' Forums

Spectator

Mar 21, 2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Sh3kel
Wasn't it the last real threat to the British navy after the Bismarck took to her watery grave (courtesty of the RAF, american and british navy)?

DING DING DING! We got a winner!
I was just browsing some site on the Tirpitz and I learned that it was much more powerful and faster than the Bismark. Also, the Bismark sunk 23 ships including the HMS Hood but the Tirpitz sunk more than 30. The tirpitz also lasted 2 and a half years in the sea before it got sunk (Because it became Britain's primary target) and the Bismark lasted less than 1 year (Cuz the captain was stupid but that's another story).
The tirpitz should have all the fame the Bismark has but it doesn't. I find that really sad. I just had to tell some people.

Here go see: http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/bismarck_menu.html

Spec.

zippy

Mar 21, 2003, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Sh3kel
Wasn't it the last real threat to the British navy after the Bismarck took to her watery grave (courtesty of the RAF, american and british navy)?

What part in the sinking of the Bismark did the American navy play?:confused:

Spectator

Mar 21, 2003, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by zippy

What part in the sinking of the Bismark did the American navy play?:confused:

None. The Brits sunk it. I took them 2 battleships, 2 cruisers and 3 destroyers....at the same time. And it only got sunk cuz the captain of the Bismark didn't want to fill up the Oil in Danemark so 2 days later it ran almost out, they had to slow down. So the brits catched up, they torpedoed the bismard with a plane and hit the rotor. The Bismark was immobilized and got sunk. But it still took 6 ships to do it.
But the Bismark sunk the Pride and Glory of the British Navy, the HMS Hood. It only took one blow. Impressive.

Spec.

ZultanofZex

Mar 21, 2003, 08:12 AM

If my pictures of germans still alive wasn't right, this one belongs in the History Forum.

Good thread, though.:)

CurtSibling

Mar 21, 2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Sh3kel
Wasn't it the last real threat to the British navy after the Bismarck took to her watery grave (courtesty of the RAF, american and british navy)?

The USN did not take part, it was a RN action.

George Bush wasn't in charge at that point.

Simon Darkshade

Mar 21, 2003, 08:16 AM

Meanwhile, back in the real world...:rolleyes:

The Bismarck sunk one ship on its one short cruise. It lasted less than a bloody week, let alone a year.
The Tirpitz had an even more inglorious career.

She did keep a sizable portion of the Home Fleet tied down watching her, but apart from that, did nothing material. Her threat was one thing; her actual achievements are miniscule.

She would not have lasted long if she had came out against USS Iowa when she was based over in England... :evil:

As the resident long time battleship addict, one felt moved to comment. :p

Sh3kel

Mar 21, 2003, 08:17 AM

It was not until 1010 on 26 May that British luck changed. A British Catalina aircraft of No. 209 Squadron, piloted by US Navy observer Ensign Leonard B. Smith, USNR (US Naval Reserve), spotted Bismarck at a range of about eight miles. While Ensign Smith flew the aircraft and evaded accurate German antiaircraft fire, his British copilot radioed a report of the enemy warship's location

Minor part - they only spotted it before the British moved in for the kill :)

Cimbri

Mar 21, 2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by CurtSibling

George Bush wasn't in charge at that point.

Oh? You never know :mischief:

Spectator

Mar 21, 2003, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Meanwhile, back in the real world...:rolleyes:

The Bismarck sunk one ship on its one short cruise. It lasted less than a bloody week, let alone a year.
The Tirpitz had an even more inglorious career.

She did keep a sizable portion of the Home Fleet tied down watching her, but apart from that, did nothing material. Her threat was one thing; her actual achievements are miniscule.

She would not have lasted long if she had came out against USS Iowa when she was based over in England... :evil:

As the resident long time battleship addict, one felt moved to comment. :p

Ummmm...no. The tirpitz participated in more than 7 mission and in only ONE of those mission they sunk 19 Convoys comin from England and gowing to Russia. 32 left, 19 got sunk, 2 turned around on 11 made it. THAT is the most succesful mission of the Tirpitz.

The Bismark sunk 22 Convoys and the HMS Hood.

Facts are facts. Just read and learn.
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/bismarck_menu.html

Spec.

Cimbri

Mar 21, 2003, 08:30 AM

I fail to find these “facts”. Nice art though…

Simon Darkshade

Mar 21, 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Spectator

None. The Brits sunk it. I took them 2 battleships, 2 cruisers and 3 destroyers....at the same time. And it only got sunk cuz the captain of the Bismark didn't want to fill up the Oil in Danemark so 2 days later it ran almost out, they had to slow down. So the brits catched up, they torpedoed the bismard with a plane and hit the rotor. The Bismark was immobilized and got sunk. But it still took 6 ships to do it.
But the Bismark sunk the Pride and Glory of the British Navy, the HMS Hood. It only took one blow. Impressive.

Spec.

Wrong again. The only vessel the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen sunk was Hood, a battlecruiser. It did not take only one blow, nor only one shot. It did happen early in the engagement, with a plunging shot penetrating the deck after exploding torpedo tubes, and causing a chain explosion.
A lucky shot, but one that British battlecruisers were susceptible to.
HMS Prince of Wales was damaged in the initial Battle of the Denmark Strait, but not sunk.
Bismarck did not sink the vessels you claim it did. Do get your facts right.

The reason it was sunk was not because of the decision not to oil in Denmark, which was taken for reasons of operational security among others, but because of the minor yet significant damage caused during the aforesaid battle.
It then began a run for Brest, was caught by the last possible Swordfish strike from HMS Ark Royal, and had its rudder damaged and jammed.
It then could not manuever properly, save to go in circles, and was engaged and blasted to pieces by HMS King George V and HMS Rodney, with the coup de grace being given with torpedos from the HMS Dorsetshire.

It took not a long time, and permanently hamstrung the surface assets of the Kriegsmarine, with the Fuhrer most displeased at the loss of such an expensive vessel. This affected the use of Tirpitz.

But overall, Bismarck was a costly failure of a ship, compared with the Hood, which gave 20 years of sterling service in peace and war.

knowltok2

Mar 21, 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Sh3kel
"While Ensign Smith flew the aircraft and evaded accurate German antiaircraft fire"

Minor part - they only spotted it before the British moved in for the kill :)

Well was the fire accurate, or did he evade it? Seems you really can't have both.

Also, on the ships sunk, if you are going to count transport ships (and that's fine), then you should put it in perspective to some of the more successful U-boats and American Submarines. Much greater results from a much smaller expenditure.

Sh3kel

Mar 21, 2003, 08:35 AM

The Germans were far more advanced in the field of submarines. If only Donitz had had his way and more U-boats would have been manufactured instead of what was proven to be less and less important in warfare (the battleship) there would have been a serious threat to the shipping operations between the US and the UK, with disastrous results.

Spectator

Mar 21, 2003, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade

The reason it was sunk was not because of the decision not to oil in Denmark, which was taken for reasons of operational security among others, but because of the minor yet significant damage caused during the aforesaid battle.

YOU are wrong, because it did not oil, the Bismark had to run at 20knots instead of 30 to save up on oil. If it had it would've reach the cost in time to have the air cover it needed.

Let me just get the facts and post them. I read it yesterday for christ sake....BRB!

Dralix

Mar 21, 2003, 08:39 AM

Sink The Bismark
Johnny Horton

In may of nineteen forty-one the war had just begun
The germans had the biggest ships
That had the biggest guns
The Bismark was the fastest ship
That ever sailed the seas
On her deck were guns as big as steers
And shells as big as trees
Out of the cold and foggy night
Came the british ship the Hood
And ev'ry british seaman he knew and understood
They had to sink the Bismark the terror of the sea
Stop those guns as bid as steers
And those shells as big as trees

We'll find that german battleship
That's makin' such a fuss
We gotta sink the Bismark
'Cause the world depends on us
Hit the decks a-runnin' boys
And spin those guns around
When we find the Bismark we gotta cut her down

The Hood found the Bismark and on that fatal day
The Bismark started firin' fifteen miles away
We gotta sink the Bismark was the battle sound
But when the smoke had cleared away
The mighty Hood went down
For six long days and weary nights
They tried to find her trail
Churchill told the people put ev'ry ship a-sail
'Cause somewhere on that ocean
I know she's gotta be
We gotta sink the Bismark to the bottom of the sea

We'll find that german battleship
That's makin' such a fuss
We gotta sink the Bismark
'Cause the world depends on us
Hit the decks a-runnin' boys
And spin those guns around
When we find the Bismark we gotta cut her down

The fog was gone the seventh day
And they saw the mornin' sun
Ten hours away from homeland
The Bismark made its run
The admiral of the british fleet said
Turn those bows around
We found that german battleship
And we're gonna cut her down

The british guns were aimed
And the shells were comin' fast
The first shell hit the Bismark
They knew she couldn't last
That mighty german battleship is just a memory
Sink the Bismark was the battle cry
That shook the seven seas

We found that german battleship
Was makin' such a fuss
We had to sink the Bismark
'Cause the world depends on us
We hit the deck a-runnin' and
We spun those guns around
We found the mighty Bismark
And then we cut her down

We found that german battleship
Was makin' such a fuss
We had to sink the Bismark
'Cause the world depends on us
We hit the deck a-runnin' and
We spun those guns around
We found the mighty Bismark
And then we cut her down

Richard III

Mar 21, 2003, 08:39 AM

The USN offered covert assistance in covering search areas for the RN. For which the UK was covertly grateful.

R.III

Spectator

Mar 21, 2003, 08:40 AM

Here it is, and read it right now.;)

At 1740, the Sheffield obtained contact with the Bismarck and started to shadow her.

The fuel shortage caused by the Prince of Wales' fateful hit required the Bismarck to steam at only 20 knots so that she would have sufficient fuel to reach St Nazaire. Topping off her tanks in Norway or from a tanker at sea would certainly have eased the situation, but that had not been done. Had the Bismarck been able to steam at 28 knots, she would have already been under the protective cover of the Luftwaffe by that afternoon.

Cimbri

Mar 21, 2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Spectator

YOU are wrong, because it did not oil, the Bismark had to run at 20knots instead of 30 to save up on oil. If it had it would've reach the cost in time to have the air cover it needed.

Let me just get the facts and post them. I read it yesterday for christ sake....BRB!

Yeah, contradict our evil genius. I don’t think you know who you’re up against :lol:

Cimbri

Spectator

Mar 21, 2003, 08:43 AM

Yea well just follow the link I posted.

Simon Darkshade

Mar 21, 2003, 08:44 AM

Tsk, even though it did not oil from Weissenbung or Wollen, this was compounded by the hits it took from Prince of Wales during the battle.

As for the other arguments that Bismarck sunk x amount of ships, the facts do not support it; she simply was not out for long enough.

http://www.warships1.com/GERbb08_Bismarck_history.htm

And now, a copy of their operational history, care of the reputable Warships of the World website:

BISMARCK

trials in Baltic Sea Sep.14-Dec.5/40
refitted Jan.24/41
trials and training in Baltic Sea in May./41
set out on Operation Rheinuburg May.19/41
leaved Gotenhafen that day
anchored in Korsfjord,Norway May.21/41 sighted by UK recon plane
leave fjord that day
detected by HMS's Norfolkk and Suffolk May.23/41
sank Hood, damaged Prince Of Wales May.24/41
received 3 hits from Prince Of Wales
hit by torpedo later in day, no damage
hit on stern by torpedo from RAF Swordfish May.26/41
Damaged steering gear not repairable
sunk May.27/41 by HMS's Rodney,King George V,cruisers & destroyers and also crew scuttling
ship found by Robert Ballard Jun.5/89

TIRPITZ

trials in Baltic Sea until Jan./42
transferred from Wilhelmshaven to Drontheim Jan.14/42
took part in unsuccesful Operation Sportpalast Mar.5-9/42 against convoys PQ-8 & 12
sailed into Bow Beight near Narvik following operation
unsuccesful operations against convoys PQ13 & 17
docked in Loo Fjord,Norway 1942-Feb./43
transferred to Bow Beight Mar./43 then to Ka Fjord
took part in Operation Sizilien against base at Spitzbergen Sep.6-7/43
damaged by British X6 midget submarine Sep.22/43 that laid limpet mines on her hull
turbines blasted off mountings,shafts and rudder disabled.
repaired Sep 1943-Mar./44
damaged again by RAF Barracuda's Apr.5/44 being hit 15 times by bombs
damaged by one bomb from RAF bombers Apr.17/44
under air attack later part of Aug./44
hit by one bomb on bow Oct.14/44
moved to Tromso,Norway (Sande Sound) Oct.17/44 (8 knots best speed)
bombed by 32 RAF Lancasters with 13,200 LB Tallboy bombs Nov.12/44
3 hits several near misses caused her to capsize
scrapped on site 1948-57

Furthermore, it matters not if ye read the resources yesterday or not. This happens to be an area of unhealthy interest for one, and therefore, one does know a little bit about it.

Cimbri

Mar 21, 2003, 08:46 AM

Nuff' Said :goodjob:

I feel encouraged to start a thread in the history forum…

Spectator

Mar 21, 2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
[B]Tsk, even though it did not oil from Weissenbung or Wollen, this was compounded by the hits it took from Prince of Wales during the battle.

As for the other arguments that Bismarck sunk x amount of ships, the facts do not support it; she simply was not out for long enough.

Ok....let me look.....looking.....HA! Found it! Please read.

Originally it was planned to use Germany's newest, and the worlds largest, battleship (Bismarck) and two other German battleships, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, for the operation

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had, between 22 January and 22 March 1941, conducted a successful operation called "Berlin" in the North Atlantic. Within 2 months they had sunk 22 allied ships totalling 115,622 brt. The man in charge of this successful operation was Admiral Günther Lütjens.

OMG.....I didn't read right. You are right for the total of ships Simon. I'm sorry. BUT, it's a fact that if Bismark had filled up in Norway or with and oil Tanker it would've saved the ship cuz even if it had been hit by the Prince of Whales it would,VE made it to the cost.

Spec.

Dralix

Mar 21, 2003, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Spectator
BUT, it's a fact that if Bismark had filled up in Norway or with and oil Tanker it would've saved the ship cuz even if it had been hit by the Prince of Whales it would,VE made it to the cost.

I think that is an opinion.

Spectator

Mar 21, 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Dralix

I think that is an opinion.

Hi Dralix, wassup man! Good to see you still alive.
About the Bismark, it's not an opinion, it's a fact that the Bismark had to slow down to save up on oil because it got hit by the Prince of whales AND because it had not topped off his tanks. If it had only been hit by the Pince of Whales and had his tank full the Bismarck would have not slown down, thus, would have reached the cost on time.

Spec.

joespaniel

Mar 21, 2003, 09:00 AM

This thread rates a 9 on the silly scale.

Spectator

Mar 21, 2003, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by joespaniel
This thread rates a 9 on the silly scale.

Why? Cuz you dont like history of war? I think that Iraq and Bush threads are getting annoying and redondent but I dont go around posting stupid remarks on those threads. If people want to talk about it fine, I just dont click on them. As for the scale, I think you bust it big time.:rolleyes:

Spec.

joespaniel

Mar 21, 2003, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Spectator
Why? Cuz you dont like history of war? Well then I think you bust the scale.:rolleyes:

Spec.
Im a military historian, newbie. :lol:

Spectator

Mar 21, 2003, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by joespaniel

Im a military historian, newbie. :lol:

Also you have a problem with your self confidence. How am I a newbie? Cuz I dont know you? I'm glad I dont, you sound like an ass. Second how is this silly? Cuz you're a big War historian and know it all we cant talk about it? I like to learn stuff about war and history and I'm glad to admit when I make mistakes and when I do , I learn, So if you're here just to troll, we dont need you on this thread. Thank you

Spec.

Dralix

Mar 21, 2003, 09:11 AM

Spectator

Mar 21, 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Dralix

Any speculation as to what might have happened had Bismark stopped to fill her tanks is just that, speculation. We can never know what might have happened.

It stayed anchored for 16 hours, it had time to do so. The Brits even tried to bomb the Bismark but it had already left 6 hours ago.

Spec.

Simon Darkshade

Mar 21, 2003, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Spectator
About the Bismark, it's not an opinion, it's a fact that the Bismark had to slow down to save up on oil because it got hit by the Prince of whales AND because it had not topped off his tanks. If it had only been hit by the Pince of Whales and had his tank full the Bismarck would have not slown down, thus, would have reached the cost on time.

Spec.

It is very much opinion and interpretation.
The very quote of the source you employ states at one point

Topping off her tanks in Norway or from a tanker at sea would certainly have eased the situation, but that had not been done.

The key words there are "certainly eased the situation". This does not imply that if they had, then the hits by the Prince of Wales would not have mattered. It was the hits in combat, in the main effecting the oil supply, that caused her to run for port.

And, like Joe, I too am a military historian; tossing up whether to do a specific study of an aspect of battleships, or The Development of Naval Surface Warfare since 1945 as a doctorate topic in a few years when I take a break from teaching and flee back to academe for a while.
It is always advisable not to burst into a forum shouting that your arguments are utterly factual and irrefutable; it is like running into a room full of strangers and doing the same. :ack:
Just a friendly piece of advice to be considered or discarded as ye see fit.
Having a thread on battleships is something that I welcome...it is a "hobby" of mine... :evil:

Spectator

Mar 21, 2003, 09:24 AM

Simon, since you are a war historian, I have a question for you. Do they still make battleships? I mean, would the Iowa be usefull in todays wars?

Thanks

Spec.

Cimbri

Mar 21, 2003, 09:27 AM

I think Iowa was re-commissioned in 1984 and decommissioned again in 1990… Battleships are a thing of the past… Way to expensive toys.

Cimbri

thestonesfan

Mar 21, 2003, 09:31 AM

The day of the Battleship is over. They sure were cool though.

They are only useful for bombardment, but it's the general consensus that it's just not worh it.

Spectator

Mar 21, 2003, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Cimbri
I think Iowa was re-commissioned in 1984 and decommissioned again in 1990… Battleships are a thing of the past… Way to expensive toys.

Cimbri

I've been told on another forum, well, the forum I posted a link for earlier, that The Iowa for example has an armor that is, Still today, very hard to penetrate even with todays firepower and weapons that are almost not match in terms of strenght. Is that true? look:

This sounds wishy-washy, but they are & they are not.
Nobody is building battleships, like Tirpitz or the Iowas, anymore. Too much national treasure. Check out the cost of a modern cruiser or an aircraft carrier. Does your national prestige require it? Read the history of the battleship buiding mania of the late 19th & early 20th Centuries. The Washington Treaty(s) were supposed to control all that.
On the other hand, there isn't much out there that is going to penetrate their armor. These beautiful ships were virtually castles in their defensive armor. Probably the biggest reason why the US took the Iowas out of mothballs/storage in the 1980's; hard to damage them with most weapons. These vessels are high value assets, so surround them with a modern Surface Action Group (SAG), like you would an aircraft carrier. Having dealt with this problem of attacking a SAG in my former career, getting inside their protective zone will be verging on the impossible. Load them up with Tomahawks & a few 16 inch projectiles, they have better firepower than anything else out there, short of a tactical thermonuclear device.
What is really the point is more of a romantic issue, "the Lonely Queen of the North", etc.. We all appreciate the graceful lines & wish we could see more of them. Unfortunately, we only have a few left to visit. So, if you have the opportunity, visit one of the remaining ships. Just my 2 cents worth.

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=228

What's your opinion Simon?

Simon Darkshade

Mar 21, 2003, 09:57 AM

Do I ever think that battleships would be useful! :yeah:

All four Iowas have only been in active service for a fraction of their lives; they are quite young for ships - Ticonderoga is older operationally than any of the Iowas.

They were all bought back into service and modernized in the 1980s, and then decommissioned with perverse haste and glee by the Navy from 1990 onwards. There is a great chance that they would have been scrapped, just so they could not raise their heads again.

But, Congressional order means that two must be kept on the Navy Register as Class 2 Mobilization assets until such assets are in service that replace their capabilities. With the cancellation of the DD-21, this will be a while.

Further, such statements as "they are thing of the past...way too expensive toys...useful only for bombardment" are rather simplistic, and do not see important parts of the issue.

There is a big gap in NGFS present in the USN to this day; 5" guns simply do not have the range or punch. Nor can the platforms they are on go right on in to surf city, as they are too expensive, and bereft of passive protection - armour.
Armour, of which there is over a foot thick of on the Iowas.
A 5" projectile cannot be compared with a 16" projectile.
As for range, there was work done in the late 1980s/early 1990s on an 11" extended range sabot round that could be fired from a battleship gun up to 100nm away.

More modernization work could be done, giving more missile capability than the current 32 Tomahawks in ABLs and 16 Harpoons; transforming these very well armoured and fast (35 knots) platforms into BBGs - guided missile battleships.

They aren't a Tico or an Arleigh Burke, but they would complement those vessels in a very impressive manner.

They are designed for flagship ops - the current command vessels used as fleet flagships are unarmoured and virtually unarmed. They have room for hospital, storage and forge facilities.

There is a lot of information on Warships of the World, Battleships.org, and most of all http://www.usnfsa.com/index-new.htm
Do have a read and think some before making hasty judgements, and calling things expensive toys.

As for their utility in the current conflict, as well as launching Tomahawks, they would be able to provide heavy NGFS for actions such as the taking of the port of Umm Qasr, and fighting near Basra. And battleship gunfire fits right into the very definition of "shock and awe".

Never say never.

Spectator

Mar 21, 2003, 10:23 AM

Just to make sure this is clear, I am not the one that called them expensive toys and such, it was replied to me on another forum.

I have another question for you. Why dont they merge battleships with carriers? Why dont they make a Carrier with 16" cannons and AA guns with homing torpedos? That would be a real floating forteresse, no?

Spec.

Alcibiaties of Athenae

Mar 21, 2003, 10:56 AM

This is a history topic, and belongs in the history forum...moved.

Tirpitz' entire offensive career consisted of bombarding a wheather station on Spitzbergen, and she was identical to Bismarck in every way except she had more light AA weapons.

Bismarck sank exactly one ship, the aging HMS Hood.

Simon Darkshade

Mar 21, 2003, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Spectator
Just to make sure this is clear, I am not the one that called them expensive toys and such, it was replied to me on another forum.

I have another question for you. Why dont they merge battleships with carriers? Why dont they make a Carrier with 16" cannons and AA guns with homing torpedos? That would be a real floating forteresse, no?

Spec.

I know that you did not say such things; some other replies above did.

Why not build carrier-battleships? The Japs did some studies on such hybrids, but they proved to be unworkable. Such attempts at getting the best of all possible worlds rarely work out successfully - consider the Kiev class aircraft cruisers.
Basically, building such a vessel would need to be done from scratch, and there could only be a limited amount - 24 max of VSTOL aircraft, and two front turrets. The effects of the gun blasts on carrier operations would also present a problem.

Nay, if ye want a real floating fortress, do not go for a jack of all trades a master of none. Go for a Darkshade class BBGN...the specs and discussion are floating around here somewhere... :evil:

Spectator

Mar 21, 2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade

Nay, if ye want a real floating fortress, do not go for a jack of all trades a master of none. Go for a Darkshade class BBGN...the specs and discussion are floating around here somewhere... :evil:

I would really like to see those, could youpost a link to a good site or something.

Thanks

Spec.

ravensfire

Mar 21, 2003, 12:31 PM

An interesting option for the Iowa class would be to remove the rear turret and magazines, replacing them with a VLS system. upgrade the radar,

If I remember right, one of the issues the Navy had with the Iowa's were the massive crew requirements. For one BB, they could crew several other ships.

Case

Mar 21, 2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Spectator

Ummmm...no. The tirpitz participated in more than 7 mission and in only ONE of those mission they sunk 19 Convoys comin from England and gowing to Russia. 32 left, 19 got sunk, 2 turned around on 11 made it. THAT is the most succesful mission of the Tirpitz.

The Tirpitz didn't fire a shot during the destruction of Convoy PQ-19. What happened is that when the British recieved reports that the Tirpitz had sortied, the convoy commander ordered the convoy to scatter, thereby making the merchant ships easy targets for German submarines and bombers. The Tirpitz returned to base shortly after the convoy scattered because the Germans didn't want to risk it further.

AFAIK, the only time the Tirpitz fired her main guns in anger was during a bombardment of an Allied weather station on Spitzbergen island.

The Bismark sunk 22 Convoys and the HMS Hood.

:confused: The Bismark sunk the Hood and mauled the Prince of Wales. The Bismark never even got close to an Allied convoy.

Case

Mar 21, 2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Spectator
I have another question for you. Why dont they merge battleships with carriers? Why dont they make a Carrier with 16" cannons and AA guns with homing torpedos? That would be a real floating forteresse, no?

It would also make a rather expensive pile of metal on the bottom of the sea. Aside from the obvious problems of deck and hanger crowding and blast effects on carrier planes, carriers and battleships have very different operational requirements. Carriers need sea room to launch aircraft and to evade counter attacks, and battleships need to close with the enemy at all times. Clearly, these two missions can't be combined into one ship.

The USS Saratoga and Lexington were armed with 8 Inch guns to counter attacks by enemy cruisers. However, AFAIK these were never fired in anger, and the Saratoga had her 8 inch guns removed during the war.

Simon Darkshade

Mar 22, 2003, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Spectator

I would really like to see those, could youpost a link to a good site or something.

Thanks

Spec.

Here is a link to a snippet from the beginning of the Darkshade class BBGN project: :evil:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28555&perpage=20&display=&highlight=Darkshade%20Battleship&pagenumber=8

Panda

Mar 22, 2003, 06:02 AM

:rotfl:

This thread started in OT, proceded to History, and if you keep up the great work, will end in Humour and Jokes. :lol:

Simon Darkshade

Mar 22, 2003, 06:07 AM

I would have you shot for insolence, but leaving you to live in Finland is more punishment.

Panda

Mar 22, 2003, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
I would have you shot for insolence, but leaving you to live in Finland is more punishment.

If you try anything, Sam will kill you. :p

Oda Nobunaga

Mar 22, 2003, 02:28 PM

Ahhh, battleships.

Who can't love those sleek, deadly weapons of doom?

Just too bad stupid and ungainly carriers deprived us of ever finding out the answer to the greatest question of history : Which would win between an Iowa-Class and a Yamato-Class in a one on one battle? :-)

Simon Darkshade

Mar 22, 2003, 11:17 PM

There is some naval fiction out there on Warships of the World which explores that scenario. My money is on the Iowa; more manueverable, longer range shot, better damage control, and overall a magnificent weapons platform and fighting ship.

Oda Nobunaga

Mar 23, 2003, 12:08 AM

My money would be on the Iowa too, but it still sucks that we never got to find out what the result would have been.

Oh, well.

onejayhawk

Mar 23, 2003, 12:38 AM

I talked to an old Vietnam vet. He had a story of being out on mechanized patrol (someone can correct me, but I think that's a couple of light tanks and/or a troop carrier) when they sighted a much larger VC force. They backed back out over the ridge crest and squawked for help. In plain language apparently. A reply on the same channel requested ID and location of them and of the VC. 20 Minutes later "The whole freakin mountain moved." When they asked who (the freaking hell) was on the other end of the "line", a voice drawled "USS Missouri, pleased to be of service.

Of course that's an Army battle story, and you know the old line about them and fairy tales.

J

PS Simon, have you ever gotten plans drawn up for your flagship?

PPS I think it is amusing that People have given the Tirpitz credit for sinking ships. The convoy that was destroyed by Tirpitz action was destroyed by U-boats and planes. The most the Big T could claim is that the rumor of her coming caused the disruption of the formation. Tirpitz never was within 200, possibly 300, knots of any part of the convoy.

Simon Darkshade

Mar 23, 2003, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by onejayhawk
I talked to an old Vietnam vet. He had a story of being out on mechanized patrol (someone can correct me, but I think that's a couple of light tanks and/or a troop carrier) when they sighted a much larger VC force. They backed back out over the ridge crest and squawked for help. In plain language apparently. A reply on the same channel requested ID and location of them and of the VC. 20 Minutes later "The whole freakin mountain moved." When they asked who (the freaking hell) was on the other end of the "line", a voice drawled "USS Missouri, pleased to be of service.

Of course that's an Army battle story, and you know the old line about them and fairy tales.

J

PS Simon, have you ever gotten plans drawn up for your flagship?

It would have been the New Jersey, as she was the only one deployed off Vietnam, part of the error of not using all the bloody firepower available when they should have.

I have modified specs, with changes in secondary armament, and a few more guns, and various other missiles. They are being employed in a fictional alternate history context, so they have a few fictional/experimental missiles fitted.

I am working on a large program whereby line drawings and 3D models can be produced of BBs, as well as working out battle capabilities, gunfire models, etc. This is a bit of a long term project, as it involves inputting a very large amount of data - all known engagement data, and all assorted types of variables. It could be a nice finished result, whereby inputting your chosen specs gives you plans and a visual model, as well as comparative capabilities. :ack:

But I will dig up some of the modified stuff on the Darkshade class BBGN, a vessel that if built, could sink anything, and withstand anything short of a nuke.

Simon Darkshade

Mar 23, 2003, 01:17 AM

An interesting quote:

Battleships - Even though these great warships do not figure in this novel at all, I can't resist commenting on them. From the earliest days of naval warfare, even the dumbest commanders have known that the thing which is the number-one most important gotta-have-it asset in a fight is weight of metal on the enemy. You can screw up the tactics, but if you've got the biggest guns and the heaviest shells coming down on the bad guys accurately, you will probably win. There are all sorts of annoying exceptions to this rule, but it still holds most of its water.

The BBs were the rulers of the sea up until the Japanese took their little trip to Hawaii in 1941, then were supplanted by the carriers (out of sheer necessity since the American battleships had been abruptly turned into hazards to navigation). The battleships were relegated to a supporting roll and, except for getting dragged out of mothballs for every war we've had since World War II, were pretty much finished.

In the eighties, we recommissioned all four of our Iowa class battleships and deployed them around the world. They carried sixteen-inch guns and fired rounds weighing around 2,700 pounds apiece. The effect was like shooting an entire showroomful of Ford Escorts, packed with high explosive, about twenty-five miles. When the rounds hit, they made instant holes in civilization that were the size of tennis courts. I got to see the New Jersey fire a broadside at somebody in Beirut once, and I still haven't found the words to describe it.

This was also effective because the people who were fired upon immediately quit annoying their neighbors and repaired to their graves. The surviving terrorists went home for an underwear change and all was quiet for awhile.

The battleships have all been mothballed again now and it doesn't seem the same anymore. When one sees a battleship steaming along, one is seeing Navy and all that that meant through the centuries. There is no weapon on earth that will make a little tinpot dictator sit up and take notice like a battleship slowly cruising off his coast well out of pistola range with her guns trained on his presidential palace. It sort of gives him a little peek at his relative importance in the grand scheme of things. If that peek stops one firefight, however small, or saves one life, or ensures the fairness of one election, then the battleship has earned her keep.

But, since those things usually happen outside the Capital Beltway, and Dan Rather doesn't mention them, they matter not at all to the geniuses in Washington. Those events have no bearing on the next election, and every congressman knows that money to measure the effect of cow farts on the ozone layer is far more important than wasting it on a battleship. They're quite correct, too. It'll help next year, when the bill to teach cows to say "excuse me" comes out of committee.

Case

Mar 23, 2003, 03:57 AM

My money would be on the Iowa too, but it still sucks that we never got to find out what the result would have been.

Somehow, I suspect that the crew of the Iowas in WW2 didn't think that it sucked at all.

onejayhawk

Mar 23, 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
It would have been the New Jersey, as she was the only one deployed off Vietnam, part of the error of not using all the bloody firepower available when they should have.

As I said, war stories and fairy tales. Still a broadside from a battleship sitting off, say, Da Nang, would be awesome to watch. The 16" and 18" guns could sweep the depth of the country into Laos or Cambodia.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
I have modified specs, with changes in secondary armament, and a few more guns, and various other missiles. They are being employed in a fictional alternate history context, so they have a few fictional/experimental missiles fitted.

I am working on a large program whereby line drawings and 3D models can be produced of BBs, as well as working out battle capabilities, gunfire models, etc. This is a bit of a long term project, as it involves inputting a very large amount of data - all known engagement data, and all assorted types of variables. It could be a nice finished result, whereby inputting your chosen specs gives you plans and a visual model, as well as comparative capabilities. :ack:

But I will dig up some of the modified stuff on the Darkshade class BBGN, a vessel that if built, could sink anything, and withstand anything short of a nuke. You might post some drawings in the drawings thread, or here in History. I would like to see the the mighty Darkshade.

J

Oda Nobunaga

Mar 24, 2003, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Case

Somehow, I suspect that the crew of the Iowas in WW2 didn't think that it sucked at all.

Of course not, I'm speaking from a battleship amateur's point of view here, not from that of a crewman.

It is certainly a question that is of interest.

Simon Darkshade

Mar 24, 2003, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by onejayhawk

As I said, war stories and fairy tales. Still a broadside from a battleship sitting off, say, Da Nang, would be awesome to watch. The 16" and 18" guns could sweep the depth of the country into Laos or Cambodia.

You might post some drawings in the drawings thread, or here in History. I would like to see the the mighty Darkshade.

J

Indeed. Another of my favourite anecdotes is of a similar nature. Whether it is precisely true or not is irrelevant; it certainly goes down quite well with a fairly knowledgable audience after dinner, for example:

A US Navy destroyer is patrolling the waters off the DMZ in 1969, and gets a radar contact coming towards it.
It raises the contact on the radio:
"Unidentified vessel, this is a US Navy ship. Please identify yourself"
No response.
The message is repeated, with added vehmence:
"Unidentified vessel, this is the USS Lawrence. Identify yourself immediately, or we will be forced to take active measures"
No response.
A last warning then:
"Unidentified vessel, this is the USS Lawrence, a US Navy destroyer equipped with two 5" guns. Identify yourself or we will open fire"
A response:
"This is the USS New Jersey. You may open fire when ready." :D

As for the plans, I am working on them; they have elements of the Iowas, the Montanas, and the Yamatos.