KMS tirpitz

[d5j55]

Just last week i finished a 30 page essay on the tirpitz and commaired any other ship it was awsome... well if you include all 72 guns and the fact that it survived for 4 years of being attacked. now having a ship like that would be quite fun.

[Sailor Steve]

Were you aware that the Iowa class carried more than 150 guns of various types? Tirpitz and her sister, Bismarck, were indeed powerful ships, but they had plenty of company; and most of them would have fared about as well as Tirpitz, given the nature of the attacks.

I'm not knocking a great ship; just trying to keep it in perspective.

[d5j55]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Were you aware that the Iowa class carried more than 150 guns of various types? Tirpitz and her sister, Bismarck, were indeed powerful ships, but they had plenty of company; and most of them would have fared about as well as Tirpitz, given the nature of the attacks.

I'm not knocking a great ship; just trying to keep it in perspective.

well you do have a point

[andycaccia]

Those battleships were some of the most effective ones of the entire war. Maybe not as powerful as Yamato or Iowas, but indeed fearful vessels.
I'd like to command one.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by andycaccia

Those battleships were some of the most effective ones of the entire war. Maybe not as powerful as Yamato or Iowas, but indeed fearful vessels.
I'd like to command one.

Bismarck sunk the Hood then sunk herself, Tirpitz did NOTHING throughout the entire war but sit around in the Baltic and force the Royal Navy to tie down masses of Aircraft and Ships for Convoy Defence in the case that she might sortie

But as Merchant Raiders, which was their intended purpose, Both could've been very effective

[Sniper_Fox]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Bismarck sunk the Hood then sunk herself, Tirpitz did NOTHING throughout the entire war but sit around in the Baltic and force the Royal Navy to tie down masses of Aircraft and Ships for Convoy Defence in the case that she might sortie

But as Merchant Raiders, which was their intended purpose, Both could've been very effective

not really if the germans put their all their naval budget into uboats and the Hilfskreuzers they would have kicked royal navy butt. Fortunately they didn't.

look how successful the HK's were! http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/misc...roduction.html

In anycase i'd love to rock it out with the tirpitz anyway. It'd be much more interesting as a battleship than a merchant raider.

[Doolittle81]

Originally Posted by d5j55

Just last week i finished a 30 page essay on the tirpitz and commaired any other ship it was awsome... well if you include all 72 guns and the fact that it survived for 4 years of being attacked. now having a ship like that would be quite fun.

Cut-and-pasted from some Navy Forum: Yamato's main armanant was nine 18.1/45 guns, divided into threes per turret. Secondary armanant was 12 6.1 guns, divided into twos per turret. Additinal secondary was also twelve 5 in guns. Main AA armanant was some 150 25mm guns. An additinal 4 thirteen milimetres was also used.

That's about 187 guns. A LOT!

[ivank]

TO get back on subject, anyone willing to make one?

[Doolittle81]

Originally Posted by ivank

TO get back on subject, anyone willing to make one?

We are off subject?

[akdavis]

I feel compelled to link this article whenver biggest and baddest comparisons come up:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

:hmm:

[d5j55]

Originally Posted by akdavis

I feel compelled to link this article whenver biggest and baddest comparisons come up:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

:hmm:

well some of that stuff i do aggree with but some i don't, mainly because i just spent an hour a day for about 70 days writing an essay on the bismarck and the commparison from "him" to the other capital ships. the armmament was most definantly not the biggest but it was one of the fastest. also the tirpitz had many more AA guns almost as much as the other ships, and the bismarck used KC n/a which was an offly good steel even better than most other types. sorry for the bold i couldn't get it off.

[akdavis]

Originally Posted by d5j55

well some of that stuff i do aggree with but some i don't, mainly because i just spent an hour a day for about 70 days writing an essay on the bismarck and the commparison from "him" to the other capital ships. the armmament was most definantly not the biggest but it was one of the fastest. also the tirpitz had many more AA guns almost as much as the other ships, and the bismarck used KC n/a which was an offly good steel even better than most other types. sorry for the bold i couldn't get it off.

I think the article they reference for the armor comparison is the product of far more than 70 hours of research:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm

Bismark/Tirpitz did have an incredible secondary battery, on par with Iowa/South Dakota and Yamato for anti-ship fire, but its usefulness against aircraft was far less than US ships secondary batteries (but perhaps equal or greater than any other contemporary, fire control aside). I simply quote the authors here: "Iowa and SoDak have by far the best heavy AA suite of the seven. The 5"/38, coupled with the Mark 37 fire-control system, was the best heavy AA system of the war. Period."

On the light AA armament, I think their ranking of Bismark/Tirpitz (and note they used the late-war Tirpitz light AA complement in the comparison, not the much lighter early war complement) below Iowa, South Dakota King George V is indisputable. Not even considering superior, rate of fire, fire-control and proximity fuses, the US/British ships exceed Bismark/Tirpitz in throw weight/minute to a very significant degree. Iowa = 31,392 lbs./min.; Tirpitz = 6,713 lbs.

Combining the secondary battery and light AA leads to the following rates: Iowa = 48,992 lbs./min.; King George V = 35,593 lbs./min.; and Tirpitz = 20,677 lbs./min.

Then factor in the increasing use of fire control radar and proximity fusing on all the AA guns on the US/British ships and the comparison is a foregone conclusion.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by d5j55

...and the bismarck used KC n/a which was an offly good steel even better than most other types. sorry for the bold i couldn't get it off.

Yes, Krupp Cemented Armor is arguably the best that can be made. But, it was developed in 1893, and the formula sold to other countries, so KC has been in use by everyone since before 1900; that is to say that all battleships use it. I say arguably, because German Wotan was an improved development of it, but so was American STS, and there have been many discussions over the years as to whether either of those was really any better than the original. My point here is that Bismarck's armor was no better structurally than anyone elses; they were all KC.