Tirpitz shelling New York

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Postby Rick Rather » Mon May 21, 2012 6:02 am

I agree, Saltheart. PoW had well-known problems with her guns, but with just a couple of 14" hits she compromised Bismarck's mission and seriously jeopardized her ability to make it to a safe port. New Mexico had no such problems and more guns, to boot. Most importantly, she didn't have to destroy Tirpitz to win. She just needed to slow her down enough to allow other forces to close and engage. Although slower than Tirpitz, if NM had made any move to disengage, the German would have let her go rather than risk further damage (as Lütjens did in letting PoW get away).

Of course, all three units of the New Mexico-class were in the Pacific by February, 1942 (when the OP suggested the scenario) so the duty would have fallen to one of the newer battleships if they had been in the area.
Just because it's stupid, futile and doomed to failure, that doesn't mean some officer won't try it.
-- R. Rather
User avatar
Rick Rather
Member
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:15 am
Location: Dallas, Texas USA

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Postby alecsandros » Mon May 21, 2012 6:03 am

yellowtail3 wrote:
alecsandros wrote:Sorry to jump in,

Leaving aside that prolly no 14"/45s hit... what does this tell you? That fourteen (and sixteen!) inch guns are weak reeds, or that a battleship can take a lot of punishment before sinking?

It was more likely a problem with the shells. Older US shells tended to behave badly in high obliquity (corresponding to the ranges of 18-22km the battle was fought)

Other battleships/battlecruisers taking it hard: Hood, Kirishima, Strasbourg, Bretagne, Jim Bean. All silenced/crippled/destroyed by several BB shell hits.
Yamashiro was an old battlewagon, with old and thin armor. IF the geriatric Yamashiro hadn't blown up sky-high when under fire by 3, later 5 battleships, I have serious doubts about the capabilities of the old US BB shells to cripple a ship such as Tirpitz.

@Saltheart: New Mexico's armor was WW1 vintage, at least 20% less resistant to penetration from BB shells than contemporary US class A armor.
Thus, the thicknesses should be trimmed down in order to understand the immunity zone against contemporary battleship guns (such as Krupp SK 38)
alecsandros
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2889
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Postby alecsandros » Mon May 21, 2012 6:05 am

Rick Rather wrote:I agree, Saltheart. PoW had well-known problems with her guns, but with just a couple of 14" hits she compromised Bismarck's mission and seriously jeopardized her ability to make it to a safe port. New Mexico had no such problems and more guns, to boot.


PoW failed to score any hits once it was under Bismarck's fire. With New Mexico alone, and under fire from Tirpitz, it would take hits quickly and could score hits only with some good luck.
alecsandros
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2889
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Postby Rick Rather » Mon May 21, 2012 7:54 am

Twelve barrels makes "good luck".
Just because it's stupid, futile and doomed to failure, that doesn't mean some officer won't try it.
-- R. Rather
User avatar
Rick Rather
Member
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:15 am
Location: Dallas, Texas USA

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Postby alecsandros » Mon May 21, 2012 8:01 am

:)
alecsandros
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2889
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Postby yellowtail3 » Mon May 21, 2012 1:32 pm

alecsandros wrote:
yellowtail3 wrote:
alecsandros wrote:Leaving aside that prolly no 14"/45s hit... what does this tell you? That fourteen (and sixteen!) inch guns are weak reeds, or that a battleship can take a lot of punishment before sinking?

It was more likely a problem with the shells. Older US shells tended to behave badly in high obliquity (corresponding to the ranges of 18-22km the battle was fought)

Well, the New Mexicos weren't using older US shells - they were using newly-issued 1500 pound AP shells that they got in the 30s with their newly-revamped guns. And the 16" gunned ships present at Surigao were also using newly-issued, recently-designed shells.
ref: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_14-50_mk11.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk5.htm

Similar to your description of Yamashiro after being shot up, would be BIsmarck, except she couldn't hold course due to gimpy stern. And she, too, was shot by a bunch of 14"/16" shells. Maybe British shells were just as... compromised as US shells, in 1941?
Tirpitz' chances of a Denmark Strait's style brush aside be much better here, as always, than at sea.
Shift Colors... underway.
yellowtail3
Senior Member
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Postby alecsandros » Mon May 21, 2012 3:25 pm

yellowtail3 wrote:
Similar to your description of Yamashiro after being shot up, would be BIsmarck, except she couldn't hold course due to gimpy stern. And she, too, was shot by a bunch of 14"/16" shells. Maybe British shells were just as... compromised as US shells, in 1941?

Bismarck was comletely on fire, all turrets destroyed, all control towers destroyed.

Yamashiro had at least 2 operational main turrets, and continued to straddle US DDs and CAs until she left the battle.
Only one main turret is reported as destroyed during the shellfire (allthough cause is uncertain). Other 2 main turrets had their magazines flooded after fires erupted early on, caused by 2 torpedo impacts.
It was only after receiving 2-3 more torpedoes, at long range, did she capsize and sink.

And this allthough it was under fire from 5 battleships.
alecsandros
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2889
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Mon May 21, 2012 3:35 pm

would be BIsmarck, except she couldn't hold course due to gimpy stern


I would greatly appreciate to know more about the meaning of "gimpy stern". Some kind of phrase or something meaningful?

Thanks.
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Postby Saltheart » Mon May 21, 2012 4:18 pm

Thorsten Wahl wrote:
would be BIsmarck, except she couldn't hold course due to gimpy stern


I would greatly appreciate to know more about the meaning of "gimpy stern". Some kind of phrase or something meaningful?

Thanks.


A weakness in Bismarck was that the stern was structurally weak. It eventually collapsed after the fatal torpedo hit. I think Prinz Eugen's stern also collapsed after a submarine torpedo hit off Norway.
Maybe if New Mexico (firing from the Pacific) hit the stern it could mean Bismarck heads home basically dragging a bag of wreckage behind it.
Saltheart
Member
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:46 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Postby RF » Mon May 21, 2012 6:05 pm

That closing of the range to get those vital big hits quickly also depends on good gunnery from Tirpitz which on the record of that ships actual history could be a problem.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6965
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Postby alecsandros » Mon May 21, 2012 6:33 pm

RF wrote:That closing of the range to get those vital big hits quickly also depends on good gunnery from Tirpitz which on the record of that ships actual history could be a problem.

What closing of the range ?
Tirpitz had formidable gunnery precision at 25km against target-ship Hessen. [Why do you think all the Arctic convoys that transited in times in which Tirpitz was operational were covered by 2 BBs, out of which 1 was mandatorily a 16" battleship ?]
Bismarck, with the crew insufficiently trained, straddled and sank Hood (a very fast moving, and manouvreing target) at 16-18 km distance.

NM would have been blown to hell before it could find the range.
alecsandros
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2889
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Postby Rick Rather » Mon May 21, 2012 6:55 pm

...But not if the gunners are sleepy. I have it on good authority that german battleship crews that have been at battle stations too long should not be expected to hit
anything other than the Atlantic. During the last 800 miles to their target, and on the subsequent run to open the range, how much rest do you think the Tirpitz crew will get?

Good shooting gives you straddles, but only God gives you hits...
Just because it's stupid, futile and doomed to failure, that doesn't mean some officer won't try it.
-- R. Rather
User avatar
Rick Rather
Member
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:15 am
Location: Dallas, Texas USA

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Postby yellowtail3 » Mon May 21, 2012 7:53 pm

Thorsten Wahl wrote:
would be BIsmarck, except she couldn't hold course due to gimpy stern

I would greatly appreciate to know more about the meaning of "gimpy stern". Some kind of phrase or something meaningful?Thanks.

Glad to clarify, as gimpy is meant to be descriptive. It means... injured, weakened, damaged, not fully functional. Bismarck's stern was busted by torpedo, and it was... broke, gimpy, ruined, beyond the ability of the crew to fix overnight (and they had strong motivation to fix it). Additionally, my understanding is that the Bismarck's stern was was particularly prone to damage, due to design; something the German navy was aware of, and later fixed on their remaining big ships. Can't recall where I've read that, but I've seen it more than once.. that may be bad info? If so, I'll be glad to hear otherwise.

alecsandros wrote:
yellowtail3 wrote:Leaving aside that prolly no 14"/45s hit... what does this tell you? That fourteen (and sixteen!) inch guns are weak reeds, or that a battleship can take a lot of punishment before sinking?

It was more likely a problem with the shells. Older US shells tended to behave badly in high obliquity (corresponding to the ranges of 18-22km the battle was fought) ... Yamashiro was an old battlewagon, with old and thin armor. IF the geriatric Yamashiro hadn't blown up sky-high when under fire by 3, later 5 battleships, I have serious doubts about the capabilities of the old US BB shells to cripple a ship such as Tirpitz.
Yeah, Yamashiro held tough, at least for a few minutes. However... I think that attributing her persistence (for those few minutes ) to poor shells and extrapolating that further to conclude that a New Mexico wasn't a threat to a raiding Tiripitz is... dubious. How can a gun/AP shell that has better armor penetration at 20K yards than EVERY GUN/SHELL COMBINATION IN THE ROYAL NAVY's inventory be considered... a problem? On behaving badly in high obliquity ... I'd be interested to see a link/write-up on how this was a prob with 1930s designed 14/50 Mark 16 & 16/45 Mark 5 AP shells. My understanding is that the USN's efforts to create shells with very good penetratration (at any angle) were pretty successful.

Someone with an affinity for numbers and stats might answer this was there any 14" with better penetration against armor, than the USN's 14"/50cal with 1500 pound Mark 16 AP shell? Or any 16" guns with better penetration than the 16"/45cal Mark 5 or Mark 8, using the 2240 pound Mark 5 [Mods 1 to 6] shells, apart from newer USN 16" guns?
alecsandros wrote:Bismarck, with the crew insufficiently trained, straddled and sank Hood (a very fast moving, and manouvreing target) at 16-18 km distance.
Given the handicpp you've just mentioned - insufficient training - to what do you attribute Bismarck's success against Hood?
Shift Colors... underway.
yellowtail3
Senior Member
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Postby alecsandros » Mon May 21, 2012 8:19 pm

yellowtail3 wrote:
Thorsten Wahl wrote:
would be BIsmarck, except she couldn't hold course due to gimpy stern

How can a gun/AP shell that has better armor penetration at 20K yards than EVERY GUN/SHELL COMBINATION IN THE ROYAL NAVY's inventory be considered... a problem? On behaving badly in high obliquity ... I'd be interested to see a link/write-up on how this was a prob with 1930s designed 14/50 Mark 16 & 16/45 Mark 5 AP shells. My understanding is that the USN's efforts to create shells with very good penetratration (at any angle) were pretty successful.


See here: Decaping revisited.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-085.htm
the shell falls into type 1 category.

and here

http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Ar ... d-4_AP.pdf

Observe that obliquity is no greater than 35*.

Someone with an affinity for numbers and stats might answer this was there any 14" with better penetration against armor, than the USN's 14"/50cal with 1500 pound Mark 16 AP shell? Or any 16" guns with better penetration than the 16"/45cal Mark 5 or Mark 8, using the 2240 pound Mark 5 [Mods 1 to 6] shells, apart from newer USN 16" guns?


British 14"/L45 and British 16"/L45 respectively.
You can find modeled data for them here:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Pe ... ritain.htm

for comparison with US 14"/L50 and US 16"/L45 2240lbs:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Pe ... States.htm

Look at "US EFF", distance 20000 yards for all guns.
Last edited by alecsandros on Mon May 21, 2012 8:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
alecsandros
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2889
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Postby alecsandros » Mon May 21, 2012 8:20 pm

.
double post
alecsandros
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2889
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

PreviousNext

Return to Hypothetical Naval Scenarios

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests