May 24 1941 - Tirpitz v Prince of Wales

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: May 24 1941 - Tirpitz v Prince of Wales

Postby Steve Crandell » Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:45 pm

Thorsten Wahl wrote:The german loading cycle requires two separate ramming processes also.
1 projectile
2 fore and main charge

ist a matter of required length behind the breech


Thank you for the clarification. :)

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7418
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 24 1941 - Tirpitz v Prince of Wales

Postby RF » Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:08 am

paul.mercer wrote:
alecsandros wrote:TIrpitz rate of fire was substantialy higher then Prince of WAles.

Thank you again for your reply, but why would the rate of fire from Tirpitz (or Bismarck) be substantially faster with fully worked up crew on PoW?


As I have explained to alecsandros above, the thread was started on the premise that POW was NOT fully worked up.

We can of course take additional assumptions that ''what if POW was fully worked up'' but the basis of discussion that was intended when the thread was launched was a combat based on the two ships capabilities as at 24 May 1941 in reality.
That of course means that Tirpitz is very far from being worked up and consequently the rate of fire argument does become somewhat conjectural, along with the ''sloppy shooting'' reputation that Tirpitz seemed to have early in its career.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: May 24 1941 - Tirpitz v Prince of Wales

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:56 am

RF wrote: along with the ''sloppy shooting'' reputation that Tirpitz seemed to have early in its career.


tirpitz has completed their training with a excercise shooting in the Baltic against the target ship Hessen wich is mentioned as "excellent" from SKL side according

DENKSCHRIFT über das Ergebnis der mit Frontvertretern durchgeführten Untersuchung über die Kriegsbarauchbarkeit der Seeziel und Flakartillerie auf Schlachtschiffen und Kreuzern ... B.Nr Skl. Qu A I 2983/41 Gkdos


During this excercise Tirpitz landed 9 hits or so on Hessen at 25 km distance. Derivable scatter within two impact salvos was about 70 meters according target photography.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3973
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: May 24 1941 - Tirpitz v Prince of Wales

Postby alecsandros » Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:22 am

Yes, but the topic was about Tirpitz as of May 1941.....

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: May 24 1941 - Tirpitz v Prince of Wales

Postby Dave Saxton » Sat Dec 10, 2016 2:45 pm

Yes, but the term: " early in its career" implies an ambiguous period of time beyond May 1941. The fact is Tirpitz only exhibited sloppy shooting during the first initial shoots in June, before its career had really begun, and when its fire control equipment was only incompletely fitted. It went back to the yard to complete fitting out, and when it emerged from the yard, began its career, and completed gunnery trials during Sept. it exhibited "excellent" shooting.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3973
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: May 24 1941 - Tirpitz v Prince of Wales

Postby alecsandros » Sun Dec 11, 2016 7:07 pm

It would be so nice to know more about Tirpitz's 1941 year...

Saltheart
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:46 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: May 24 1941 - Tirpitz v Prince of Wales

Postby Saltheart » Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:09 pm

POW would win as in May Tirpiz gunnery is just too bad. POW in spite of mechanical problems would still land far more hits. Luck plays a role as well as a hit might just blast off an anchor chain while another might disable a turret. Both are direct hits and maybe from 15,000 metres but 20 yards to the right and you destroy a turret, 20 to the left and you hit a chain. That kind of luck is massively important. But to have a chance of good luck you must still get hits in the first place and POW would get more.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: May 24 1941 - Tirpitz v Prince of Wales

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:57 am

Saltheart wrote: "But to have a chance of good luck you must still get hits in the first place and POW would get more."

Hi,
you are right, as per May 24,1941, PoW was almost worked up and combat ready while Tirpitz was still incomplete and totally untrained. Shooting of PoW was not bad at all on May 24, while I guess Tirpitz shooting would have been quite bad, especially at long range. Therefore more hits on Tirpitz should be expected.

However, Tirpitz, thanks to her armor scheme, could sustain far more hits than PoW at short/medium range without being stopped or dramatically slowed down due to machinery direct penetration, not speaking of her turret jamming problem.....

Therefore, I guess, in this scenario "lady luck" could have decided whether an incomplete Tirpitz could slip away from PoW.

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: May 24 1941 - Tirpitz v Prince of Wales

Postby Paul L » Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:02 am

Best option was to postpone Rheinubung until the fall of 1941, which should give both BB to work to perfection both gunnery and flak.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: May 24 1941 - Tirpitz v Prince of Wales

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:20 am

Hi Paul,
do you know whether the German oil supply vessel were still present in Atlantic by 1941 fall, in order to support such a delayed operation ?

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: May 24 1941 - Tirpitz v Prince of Wales

Postby Dave Saxton » Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:26 pm

A delay certainly makes both German battleships more efficient and and more deadly*, but other things change too.

During the period from mid June to Oct, Ultra had the current Enigma keys from capturing the weather ships which allowed the rounding up of the tankers. Not until October did the German change the keys, if I recall correctly. During Fall of 41 the British had a good period of time in terms of signal Intel.

By the fall of 41 the Royal Navy is beginning to deploy Type 273 radar on major warships as well. The KGV's type 273 was able to track the Renown to plus 30 km. Luetjen's mistaken report in May that the British had radar effective to 35 km becomes a fact by the fall of 41.

The geopolitical outlook is also less favorable for a successful Atlantic operation with greater American involvement and the new war in the east.

* The AVKS report makes it clear that Bismarck remained deficient in several technical and training categories at the time of the historical operation. Not the least of which was the crew's lack of training for how to better use Bismarck's radar capabilities. If the crew doesn't train to use a capability they will not probably use it unless they have no better option. For example, against Vian's destroyers they had to use it, but previously it seemed to be of secondary utility.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: May 24 1941 - Tirpitz v Prince of Wales

Postby Paul L » Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:59 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:Hi Paul,
do you know whether the German oil supply vessel were still present in Atlantic by 1941 fall, in order to support such a delayed operation ?

Bye, Alberto


Delcyros mentioned on WS-1 that supply ships were sent out weeks ahead of each sortie/operation and in-fact Admiral Raeder had planned to send out more tankers in the fall 41 ahead of a planned sortie, but Hitler overruled him.

If Rheinubung is postponed until late 1941, then I would expect RN sweeps in the summer of 1941 to come up short and plenty of tankers to be deployed. As I recalled in 1942 the tanker numbers increased to over 40 in spite of the loss of a dozen or so after Rheinubung in mid 1941.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7418
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 24 1941 - Tirpitz v Prince of Wales

Postby RF » Fri Jul 28, 2017 7:26 am

Further to the above, RN roundup of supply ships for U-boats remained effective not just in summer 1941 but continued into late autumn/winter, as evidenced with the fate of the hilfskruezer Atlantis and the rescue ship Python.

Note that these operations were effective against known supply ships. They were less effective in chance encounters with supply ships, where the presence of enemy ships was unknown/unexpected, with the disastrous result in the same month when Sydney encountered Kormoran.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest