Tirpitz shelling New York

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by tommy303 » Thu May 03, 2012 11:41 pm

One thing that no one has thought of so far is the fact that New York was heavily defended by coastal batteries. These consisted of about 25 155mm low angle guns, 2 or three mobile 8-inch railroad guns, about 16 12-inch rifles, and six 16-inch rifles.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by Dave Saxton » Fri May 04, 2012 12:02 am

Hi Tommy,

The shore batteries are alluded to in part on page one -old posts. Tirpitz can probably stand off beyond the range of most of these. Tirpitz and Prinz Eugen had special land bombardment additions to their firecontrol systems. These allowed them to be quite precise in shore bombardment at extreme ranges. They needed a land mark for a point of reference such as a church steeple or the Empire State Building and then land targets could be located and targeted precisely. Schmalenbach's descriptions of the Prinz Eugen shore bombardments indicate some amazingly precise shooting in this mode from ranges exceeding in some cases 30km. It's questionable if the shore batteries could attain very accurate long range shooting at night.
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.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by Dave Saxton » Fri May 04, 2012 12:25 am

yellowtail3 wrote:
Dave Saxton wrote:
But when it comes to guns and armor and FC equipment, no big advantage over the older but much-updated NM...
I disagree. TP holds some significant advantages in those three areas, especially in 1942.
How so?
Let's look at the IZ of each vs the opposing gun.
TP's 15" can defeat the NM's belt and splinter shield all the way out to ~27,000 yards.
NM's 14" can not defeat TP's scarp triangle at any range.
TP's deck is at least 130-150mm effective which means NM can not defeat TP's decks inside of 30,000 yards.
NM's deck's are made up of laminates of multiple thin plates. It calculates out to ~125mm effective. TP can not defeat NM's decks inside of about 30,000 yards as well. NM vitals IZ is 3,000 yards wide vs TP's gun.
New Mexico can not defeat TP's turret protection between 18,000 yards and 30,000 yards. NM 's turret's are probably safe between 18,000 yards and 30,000 yards as well (I seriously doubt that an 18" class A laminate provides that level of protection but the angle helps it). However NM's barbet is probably vulnerable to TP's gun out to about 22,000 yards.

Freidman reports that NM's FC was partly up dated in 1934 but does this put it on par with a new US fast battleship? Tp's FC is. More importantly TP has radar fully intergrated with the FC system in early 42. NM does not. Nobody has said anything about how well NM can battle TP in the dark and/or at long range.

This essentially makes weight of broadside of little weight, because it means only that NM makes more shell splashes than TP.
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.

User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by tommy303 » Fri May 04, 2012 12:37 am

Yes, Tirpitz's guns could outrange the 6-in, 8-inch, and 12-in coastal defence guns, although many of them were on disappearing mounts and so when loading presented no target to the enemy. The 16-in M1919, though, outranged Tirpitz by about 4000 yards. What one needs to remember is these batteries and their associated forts were sited fairly far forward so as to make an attacking enemy have to run a gauntlet in order to bring strategically important parts of New York into range. I believe some of Prinz Eugen's best shooting in support of the army was with army forward observers (according to Schmalenbach) and with aerial spotting. Neither of these would have been available to Tirpitz. Yes she might have been able to do some shooting by radar fixing a known landmark, but even here there are problems. Among the worst was the questionable quality of German maps of the US eastern seaboard. During Operation Drumbeat in 1942, the best the Kriegsmarine could do for New York harbour was give the U-boat commanders a Michelin tourist map. A second problem would be coast defence guns of the sort Tirpitz would face, would have every point within their range bore sited to the inch. They would also have a variety of position finders and range finders available, and possibly shore mounted radar. In general, day or night, an attack on a heavily defended coast by a single ship or even a pair, would have been foolhardy to say the least.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.

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

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by Saltheart » Fri May 04, 2012 3:04 am

Dave Saxton wrote:Hi Tommy,

The shore batteries are alluded to in part on page one -old posts. Tirpitz can probably stand off beyond the range of most of these. Tirpitz and Prinz Eugen had special land bombardment additions to their firecontrol systems. These allowed them to be quite precise in shore bombardment at extreme ranges. They needed a land mark for a point of reference such as a church steeple or the Empire State Building and then land targets could be located and targeted precisely. Schmalenbach's descriptions of the Prinz Eugen shore bombardments indicate some amazingly precise shooting in this mode from ranges exceeding in some cases 30km. It's questionable if the shore batteries could attain very accurate long range shooting at night.
"Or the empire state Building" :lol:

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

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by Saltheart » Fri May 04, 2012 3:11 am

Dave Saxton wrote:The Germans would undoubtly do this at night. Dash in and out under cover of darkness and be well on their way by dawn. As far as I know New Mexico had no radar at all in early 1942. Even in day light Tirpitz's radar ranged salvoes with absolutely state of the art fire control are likey going to hit first, far more often, and harder.
I've always imagined that they would time their run in to arrive at dawn at about 30km from the port and then run in at high speed. This is so they could see the threats in the port like subs and destroyers and knock them out at the get go. Then they'd attack the 16 inch guns and finally the merchant ships.

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by yellowtail3 » Sat May 05, 2012 1:55 am

Dave Saxton wrote: Let's look at the IZ of each vs the opposing gun.
TP's 15" can defeat the NM's belt and splinter shield all the way out to ~27,000 yards.
NM's 14" can not defeat TP's scarp triangle at any range.
oh, that magical scarp.. See as how NM's 14/50 (a potent bit of ordnance) can penetrate better at all ranges that the KGV gun - Something like 13-14 inches at 20k yards, 16-17" at 15k.... I think it would be sufficient to do substantial damage to the GermAn ship. how much of Tirpitz has 13-plus inches of armor on it? If memory serves, her turrets have even LESS armor than a NM on turrets.
I do think getting intercepted by a modernized USN BB would pit an end to her fanciful raid... Best tuen east and open the throttles.
I didn't know T had radar/blind fire capability in early 1942. Better pray to nazi gods that she runs into NM at night, If she must at all!
Shift Colors... underway.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by alecsandros » Sat May 05, 2012 9:58 am

yellowtail3 wrote:
Dave Saxton wrote: Let's look at the IZ of each vs the opposing gun.
TP's 15" can defeat the NM's belt and splinter shield all the way out to ~27,000 yards.
NM's 14" can not defeat TP's scarp triangle at any range.
oh, that magical scarp.. See as how NM's 14/50 (a potent bit of ordnance) can penetrate better at all ranges that the KGV gun - Something like 13-14 inches at 20k yards, 16-17" at 15k.... I think it would be sufficient to do substantial damage to the GermAn ship. how much of Tirpitz has 13-plus inches of armor on it? If memory serves, her turrets have even LESS armor than a NM on turrets.
It's more complicated than that.

The numbers are right, but they don't mean what you think they mean.

For instance, NM's armor was WW1 vintage, at least 20% less resistant than US WW2 Class A armor. And that armor covered much, much less of the ship than on Tirpitz.

The guns were also WW1 productions, rebored in the 30s. They had much wider salvo patterns than the German SK38, lower rate of fire, and poorer fire control.

Looking at Jurens's analyssi of American practice firing in the late 30s, you can easily observe that the old battlewagons couldn't obtain the accuracy of Bismarck at Denamrk Strait allthough firing in a test battle.

And NM was also much slower, and easier to hit by German fire.

In would probably be a similar encounter with that between Hood and Bismarck: allthough "the numbers" seemed similar (50.000 tons vs 50.000 tons, 8x38cm vs 8x38.1 cm, 30kts vs 30kts, etc), the quality behind those numbers made the difference.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by Dave Saxton » Sat May 05, 2012 4:05 pm

yellowtail3 wrote: See as how NM's 14/50 (a potent bit of ordnance) can penetrate better at all ranges that the KGV gun
?? I based my remarks on NM's WWII gun not KGV's.
oh, that magical scarp..

Yes that magical scarp. It's not the belt alone that constitutes the belt protection. Some experts, that are certainly no apologists for German design, have conceded it made TP's belt protection proof vs 16" superheavy down to point blank range.
how much of Tirpitz has 13-plus inches of armor on it?

Well lets see; the turret faces, the exposed barbets, and the conning tower for starters.
I didn't know T had radar/blind fire capability in early 1942

Well now you know.

Any enccounter at night or in poor visibilty will favor TP. Not only does it have superior radar but it has superior night optics. In good visibility, the German day optics are also world class and TP can combine them with extremely precise radar ranging.
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.

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by yellowtail3 » Sat May 05, 2012 4:15 pm

alecsandros wrote: It's more complicated than that... The numbers are right, but they don't mean what you think they mean...
The guns were also WW1 productions, rebored in the 30s. They had much wider salvo patterns than the German SK38, lower rate of fire, and poorer fire control.
....
In would probably be a similar encounter with that between Hood and Bismarck: allthough "the numbers" seemed similar (50.000 tons vs 50.000 tons, 8x38cm vs 8x38.1 cm, 30kts vs 30kts, etc), the quality behind those numbers made the difference.
what I think is... T prob not be as lucky against a modernized NM in 1942 as was Bismarck against Hood in may 41, though she'd probably prevail - probably/maybe, nno certainty. NM had better FC gear than Hood, and better armor... And Though some would disagree, I think a dozen 14/50 Mk 7 or 11 guns aT least as good a setup than 8x15/42s.

On NM having poorer FC than German BB.... How so? What, specifically, was superior In their setup than that on modernized NM? Other than better radar for a short period?

To be clear... I don't think a modernized standard a superior warship to Tirpitz... But I do think them very dangerous to her, easily capable of doing serious damage... And Tirpitz prevailing no certaint.

I think the idea that Tirpitz would run over and dispatch a NM on her way to shelling the Bronx is very dubious... She'd do well to survive such an encounter in good enough shape to head back east.
Shift Colors... underway.

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by yellowtail3 » Sat May 05, 2012 5:30 pm

yellowtail3 wrote:
alecsandros wrote: It's more complicated than that... The numbers are right, but they don't mean what you think they mean...
The guns were also WW1 productions, rebored in the 30s. They had much wider salvo patterns than the German SK38, lower rate of fire, and poorer fire control.
....
In would probably be a similar encounter with that between Hood and Bismarck: allthough "the numbers" seemed similar (50.000 tons vs 50.000 tons, 8x38cm vs 8x38.1 cm, 30kts vs 30kts, etc), the quality behind those numbers made the difference.
what I think is... T prob not be as lucky against a modernized NM in 1942 as was Bismarck against Hood in may 41, though she'd probably prevail - probably/maybe, nno certainty. NM had better FC gear than Hood, and better armor... And Though some would disagree, I think a dozen 14/50 Mk 7 or 11 guns aT least as good a setup than 8x15/42s.

On NM having poorer FC than German BB.... How so? What, specifically, was superior In their setup than that on modernized NM? Other than better radar for a short period?

To be clear... I don't think a modernized standard a superior warship to Tirpitz... But I do think them very dangerous to her, easily capable of doing serious damage... And Tirpitz prevailing no certaint.

I think the idea that Tirpitz would run over and dispatch a NM on her way to shelling the Bronx is very dubious... She'd do REALLY well to survive such an encounter in good enough shape to head back east.
Shift Colors... underway.

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 746
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by Thorsten Wahl » Sat May 05, 2012 7:40 pm

Image
Optical abilities of the 10m Rangekeeper
rangedata were directly fed into the firecontrol computer
Attachments
Emessgeraet10Ua.jpg
(72.09 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

ede144
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by ede144 » Sat May 05, 2012 8:29 pm

Great data Thorsten:-)

Does anyone have similar data for US optics?

Secondly the fire control systems, there is only one comparison between KM shooting and USN shooting. And I doubt that IX 300 gave a bad show. If I'm not mistaken the USN Officiers on board of PG were slickly disappointed about the results.

regards
ede

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by yellowtail3 » Sun May 06, 2012 5:47 am

.
Shift Colors... underway.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by alecsandros » Sun May 06, 2012 4:39 pm

yellowtail3 wrote: what I think is... T prob not be as lucky against a modernized NM in 1942 as was Bismarck against Hood in may 41, though she'd probably prevail - probably/maybe, nno certainty. NM had better FC gear than Hood, and better armor... And Though some would disagree, I think a dozen 14/50 Mk 7 or 11 guns aT least as good a setup than 8x15/42s.
NM's magazines were just as vulnerable to 38cm/L52 gunfire as Hood was. The 13.5" World War 1 main belt corresponded to 11" World War 2 class A belt. This means the German guns could perforate it up to 30km away.

Every other part from NM was vulnerable at 30km and over, except the main turrets.

Here you can see examples of US battleships target practice:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO ... ery_p1.htm

New MExico is one of them... average dispersion 1.2% for 3-gun salvo, 2.4% for 12-gun salvo... At 20km this would be 240m dispersion for 3-gun firing and 480m for 12-gun firing. German 38cm turret salvo (4/8 gun) were about 1/4 of those.

And an excerpt from New Mexico's sister ship Idaho, firing in 1942:

"The reliability of the guns always appears to have varied markedly from ship to ship. In 1942, USS Idaho undertook an exercise deliberately designed to determine ". . . the ability of battleships to maintain an adequate rate of fire under conditions simulating a protracted engagement," expending 597 rounds in 156 salvos. The average salvo interval was 1 minute, 24 seconds, but only 20 of these were full six-gun salvos; the average was 3.82. She suffered no fewer than 205 separate casualties during the firing, mostly requiring adjustment of the gas check pads or rammers. Powder handling, however, was flawless, 2,400 one-hundred pound bags of powder being handled without mishap.27 "


NM was a good ship, but not so good to take on a 50.000 ton state-of-the-art battleship...

Post Reply