Anson and Tirpitz

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by alecsandros » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:10 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:01 pm
The main reason given was to obtain ammunition, especially powder, and for dockyard assistance in making the ship operational. The main and secondary armament suffered breakdowns during her first action which is not surprising since the ship had no proper workup period.
So the ship wasn't completed ?

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by dunmunro » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:20 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:10 pm
dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:01 pm
The main reason given was to obtain ammunition, especially powder, and for dockyard assistance in making the ship operational. The main and secondary armament suffered breakdowns during her first action which is not surprising since the ship had no proper workup period.
So the ship wasn't completed ?

PoW was completed but suffered repeated main armament breakdowns. Completion and workup where equipment is given vigorous testing is still vital.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by alecsandros » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:27 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:20 pm
PoW was completed but suffered repeated main armament breakdowns. Completion and workup where equipment is given vigorous testing is still vital.
But was Richelieu completed or not in June 1940 ?

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by dunmunro » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:36 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:27 pm
dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:20 pm
PoW was completed but suffered repeated main armament breakdowns. Completion and workup where equipment is given vigorous testing is still vital.
But was Richelieu completed or not in June 1940 ?
Jordan and Dumas state that she was and I gave you the page number where they state it. Reading J&D and G&D it seems that all the needed material for operational status was installed aboard Richelieu.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by alecsandros » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:48 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:36 pm
Jordan and Dumas state that she was and I gave you the page number where they state it. Reading J&D and G&D it seems that all the needed material for operational status was installed aboard Richelieu.
Are you deliberately trolling or simply bored ?

Jordan and Dumas mention the ship was "commissioned" on June 15, and NOT completed. It would be impossible to be completed, since the same book , on page 110, mention the installations progress of DESIGNED AAA guns of the ship , between Apr 1940 to July 1941. Page 121 gives details of installation of the radar in May 1941.

The note on page 123 clearly states that "unusualy, Richelieu was commissioned BEFORE she ran her acceptancy trials. Richelieu's entry into service was never officialy pronounced. The ship was declared 'available' in Oct 1943"

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by dunmunro » Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:08 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:48 pm
dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:36 pm
Jordan and Dumas state that she was and I gave you the page number where they state it. Reading J&D and G&D it seems that all the needed material for operational status was installed aboard Richelieu.
Are you deliberately trolling or simply bored ?

Jordan and Dumas mention the ship was "commissioned" on June 15, and NOT completed. It would be impossible to be completed, since the same book , on page 110, mention the installations progress of DESIGNED AAA guns of the ship , between Apr 1940 to July 1941. Page 121 gives details of installation of the radar in May 1941.

The note on page 123 clearly states that "unusualy, Richelieu was commissioned BEFORE she ran her acceptancy trials. Richelieu's entry into service was never officialy pronounced. The ship was declared 'available' in Oct 1943"

Jordan and Dumas state ON page 123:
Laid down_Launch trials_Acceptance trials_Commissioned_Completion_In service
22.10.35_17.01.39._15.10.39_14.04.40_01.04.40_15.06.40_11.43

But she needed dockyard assistance to properly workup and after Sept 1940 she was never able to fully repair battle damage from RN torpedoes and shells.

Pages 109-110 state that in late 1939 Richelieu's planned AAA battery was revised and she did fully complete her revised AA complement by 15 June 1940. Like all WW2 battleships her AA was augmented as time went on.
Last edited by dunmunro on Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by alecsandros » Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:16 pm

Taking 15min to transport shells had nothing to do with RN damage.

Richelieu wasn't completed until 1943.

Again, pg 110 and 121 present the timetable for installment of aaa guns and radar - up to 1941 - thus the displacement from june 1940 is not that of a completed ship.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by dunmunro » Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:31 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:16 pm
Taking 15min to transport shells had nothing to do with RN damage.

Richelieu wasn't completed until 1943.

Again, pg 110 and 121 present the timetable for installment of aaa guns and radar - up to 1941 - thus the displacement from june 1940 is not that of a completed ship.
You obviously don't have J&D. Richelieu was fitted with a prototype radar in 1941. Strasbourg which was sitting in a French port was not fitted with radar until 1942. In June 1940 the French navy had no operational radar systems available. In 1939 it was realized that the planned AA armament was not going to be available in 1940 and alternate weapons were provided.

Anyways, since you just want to dispute what the sources state, there's no further point in continuing this discussion.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by alecsandros » Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:34 am

:)
What 'alternate aaa guns' were installed instead of the 37 and 13:2mm, and when ?

What is that reload time of 15 minutes ? Do you honestly think that ship was completed ? Perhaps that's why an extra 3000tons of weight was added after the refit in the US in 1943 ? (they can't be all coming from aaa guns and radars)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by dunmunro » Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:18 am

alecsandros wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:34 am
:)
What 'alternate aaa guns' were installed instead of the 37 and 13:2mm, and when ?

What is that reload time of 15 minutes ? Do you honestly think that ship was completed ? Perhaps that's why an extra 3000tons of weight was added after the refit in the US in 1943 ? (they can't be all coming from aaa guns and radars)
LIGHT AA WEAPONS

For close-in air defence Richelieu was originally to have
had six 37mm MLe 1935 twin automatic (ACAD)
mountings. These were to have been divided into two
groups: two mountings on the forecastle deck abeam
turret II, and four mountings at shelter deck level
sbeam the after funnel structure, The fully enclosed
base-ring mountings were electrically. powered. with
Seutter-Harlé RPC for training but not for elevation.
Replenishment was by pusher hoist: one was provided
for each gun. the six-round magazines being fed from
an ammunition lobby directly beneath the mounting
(see Chapter 7). There were to be four associated direc
tors with integral 2-metre rangefinders and RPC: two
at the forward end of the shelter deck above the
forward pair of mountings, and two on projecting plat-
forms on either side of the auxiliary director for the
main guns, Just above the after group [see drawing).
When in November 1939 it became clear that the new
ACAD mounting would not be ready in time for the
ship's completion it was decided that the secondary
and batteries would need to be radically
revised The two midships 152mm triple turrets were
reallocated to the third ship, Clemenceau. and replaced
by twelve 100mm MLe 1930 HA guns in six open twin
MLe 1931...
Light AA as fitted April -June 1940:
4 x 37MM CAD Mle 1933
6 x 13.2mm CAQ Mle 1929

During 380mm gunnery trials, prior to leaving France, the guns attained a RoF of 1.3rpm. J&D don't say anything about Richelieu having 38cm specific loading problems but they do state:
Repairs were carried out to the run-out cylinders of
the guns and the converters for training and elevation.
the defective cabling was replaced. and the replenish-
ment systems modified for barrage fire, Considerable
work was necessary on the replenishment systems of
both the main and the secondary guns. which were
unfinished when Richelieu arrived at Dakar and which,
despite the best efforts of the crew and DCN Dakar,
had never worked satisfactorily.
During her USA refit Richelieu was fitted with 14 x 40mm quad mounts and a large number of 20mm guns. Further 40mm guns and radar were fitted in the UK, and the weight of these guns and the needed alterations absorbed much of the weight increase but there's no full explanation for the weight increase.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by alecsandros » Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:24 am

dunmunro wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:18 am
Light AA as fitted April -June 1940:
4 x 37MM CAD Mle 1933
6 x 13.2mm CAQ Mle 1929
Yes but that wasn't the designed AAA suite. The designed suite was 2x larger, and the remaining weapons were installed until July 1941.
During her USA refit Richelieu was fitted with 14 x 40mm quad mounts and a large number of 20mm guns. Further 40mm guns and radar were fitted in the UK, and the weight of these guns and the needed alterations absorbed much of the weight increase but there's no full explanation for the weight increase.
I understand the hoists were replaced during the refit... further turret modifications were probably done as well.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by paul.mercer » Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:19 pm

Gentlemen,
We seem to have gone a little off track here, Given that there was not a huge difference in overall weight between the two, (using either Anson or Howe) and Tirpitz my original question was basically if they had gone head to head - both with fully working guns,radar, experienced crew and with excellent Captains/Admirals on board,with no supporting RN ships, who would have won or would they have just battered each other to a standstill and steamed off to lick their wounds?

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2973
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by Dave Saxton » Sat Sep 22, 2018 2:07 am

paul.mercer wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:19 pm
Gentlemen,
We seem to have gone a little off track here, Given that there was not a huge difference in overall weight between the two, (using either Anson or Howe) and Tirpitz my original question was basically if they had gone head to head - both with fully working guns,radar, experienced crew and with excellent Captains/Admirals on board,with no supporting RN ships, who would have won or would they have just battered each other to a standstill and steamed off to lick their wounds?
The Germans have no incentive to fight it out to the bitter end. They will seek to disengage. So I expect they will batter each other and steam off after having bloodied each other briefly in the storm. Neither can defeat each others deck protection at a likely battle range.

My money would be on Tirpitz to give better than it gets. It has more powerful guns, stronger belt protection, and superior fire control radars circa Dec 1943.
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.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by paul.mercer » Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:08 am

Dave Saxton wrote:
Sat Sep 22, 2018 2:07 am
paul.mercer wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:19 pm
Gentlemen,
We seem to have gone a little off track here, Given that there was not a huge difference in overall weight between the two, (using either Anson or Howe) and Tirpitz my original question was basically if they had gone head to head - both with fully working guns,radar, experienced crew and with excellent Captains/Admirals on board,with no supporting RN ships, who would have won or would they have just battered each other to a standstill and steamed off to lick their wounds?
The Germans have no incentive to fight it out to the bitter end. They will seek to disengage. So I expect they will batter each other and steam off after having bloodied each other briefly in the storm. Neither can defeat each others deck protection at a likely battle range.

My money would be on Tirpitz to give better than it gets. It has more powerful guns, stronger belt protection, and superior fire control radars circa Dec 1943.
Thanks Dave,
I think you may well be right, however with 10 guns v 8 (and all firing properly!) would Anson not cause an immense amount of damage to Tirpitz's upperworks, including her radar, fire control systems etc even though her shells might not actually penetrate the main armour, in a similar way that happened to Bismarck - although I realise that the range was much closer in the Bismarck action?
The reason I ask is that while in the early years the KGV's had problems and are usually judged in that light, the final versions, Anson/Howe seem to have been a lot better overall and are perhaps not always given the credit they deserved.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2973
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by Dave Saxton » Sat Sep 22, 2018 2:46 pm

paul.mercer wrote:
Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:08 am


Thanks Dave,
I think you may well be right, however with 10 guns v 8 (and all firing properly!) would Anson not cause an immense amount of damage to Tirpitz's upperworks, including her radar, fire control systems etc even though her shells might not actually penetrate the main armour, in a similar way that happened to Bismarck - although I realise that the range was much closer in the Bismarck action?
The reason I ask is that while in the early years the KGV's had problems and are usually judged in that light, the final versions, Anson/Howe seem to have been a lot better overall and are perhaps not always given the credit they deserved.
The Duke of York with ten guns did not do much further damage to Scharnhorst's upper works during the chase phase of the historical battle. With both opponents having functional radars at the beginning of the battle, the battle range will probably not start at 11,000 meters as in the historical battle. Although being the polar night and during a raging storm it will not be a long range battle either. Perhaps the Germans allow the range to fall to 17,000 meters to ID the radar contact, which allows a battle to develop. The slightly longer ranges favor Tirpitz in my opinion. Anson's type 284M will have a more limited maximum range that it could provide consistent spotting in the conditions. Tirpitz's sea keeping in the storm allow it to gradually pull away into the night, once the range exceeds 21,000 meters.
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.

Post Reply