Tirpitz shelling New York

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by alecsandros » Wed May 23, 2012 2:39 pm

Thorsten Wahl wrote:


achieved according AVKS 23-25 shells per minute all guns; 19 - 21 sec
And according to the PE movie, Bismarck fired at 23.5sec from the fw guns against PoW. This makes a good case for faster rate of fire, as the time of flight of 38cm shells at 16km (probable distance PoW was at) was about 22 seconds.
The only explanation I can think of was that the gun was already loaded, and waited permission to fire. Once the first salvo was oberved on target, the firing order was given immediately.

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

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by alecsandros » Wed May 23, 2012 2:40 pm

Byron Angel wrote:
BTW - along the lines of comparing WW1 era BBs to WW2 era BBs, when shall we schedule the comparison of, say, SMS BADEN versus USS WASHINGTON? I'd personally be fascinated.

B
:):):)

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

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by ede144 » Wed May 23, 2012 7:40 pm

Byron Angel wrote:It seems to me that all this debate about TIRPITZ versus NEW MEXICO begs the real issue. The greatest danger to TIRPITZ would be the several 16in coastal batteries covering the sea approaches to NY. They were very accurate, largely impervious to any TIRPITZ return fire, and represented a real threat to any ship operating 3,000+ miles from its nearest safe port.

BTW - along the lines of comparing WW1 era BBs to WW2 era BBs, when shall we schedule the comparison of, say, SMS BADEN versus USS WASHINGTON? I'd personally be fascinated.

B
If I read the discussions going on, than we have first the statement anything flying the Stars and Stripes will win over best what had the swastica painted on. If some one proves the contrary than it doesn't matter because it's irrelevant.

Nevertheless I don't know much about the costal batteries around New York at this time, however how old were they and what kind of guns could be found there. I wonder if we are talking about something like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40.6_cm_SK_C/34_gun

Regarding your comparison about SMS Baden versus USS Washington BB-56, I would like to know your opinion. However I recommend to read this http://forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index. ... 856.0.html to get an impression how it could be updated, if the HSF would have survived.
regards
ede

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by Byron Angel » Thu May 24, 2012 12:25 am

ede144 wrote: If I read the discussions going on, than we have first the statement anything flying the Stars and Stripes will win over best what had the swastica painted on. If some one proves the contrary than it doesn't matter because it's irrelevant.
..... By no means, sir. I just find the idea of pitting TIRPITZ against a 14in-gunned battleship launched in 1917 to be rather pointless. The nationality of the other ship is irrelevant What useful purpose is served by such an exercise? What interesting observations might be derived? I'm really at a loss to think of any in either case.

Nevertheless I don't know much about the costal batteries around New York at this time, however how old were they and what kind of guns could be found there. I wonder if we are talking about something like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40.6_cm_SK_C/34_gun
..... You need not wonder at all whether we are talking about smething like the 40.6cm SK C/34, which, like most German artillery designs, was an efficient well designed piece that followed the general German philosophy of a lighter shell and higher velocity. It will hopefully come as no surprise to you that other nations fielded i6in guns in coastal defense roles for the same reasons the Germans did: they were dangerous weapons with a long reach and did a very good job of defending important ports and harbors.

Regarding your comparison about SMS Baden versus USS Washington BB-56, I would like to know your opinion. However I recommend to read this http://forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index. ... 856.0.html to get an impression how it could be updated, if the HSF would have survived.
..... My opinion is that re-built BADEN would have approximately the same chances against USS WASHINGTON as the re-fitted WW2 version of the WARSPITE - assuming of course that her re-building was confined to a fiscally realistic level and not the more fanciful spare-no-expense musings which appear on forum-marinearchiv. In short, my money would be on the USS WASHINGTON.


B

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by Byron Angel » Thu May 24, 2012 12:25 am

Byron Angel wrote:
ede144 wrote: If I read the discussions going on, than we have first the statement anything flying the Stars and Stripes will win over best what had the swastica painted on. If some one proves the contrary than it doesn't matter because it's irrelevant.
..... By no means, sir. I just find the idea of pitting TIRPITZ against a 14in-gunned battleship launched in 1917 to be rather pointless. The nationality of the other ship is irrelevant What useful purpose is served by such an exercise? What interesting observations might be derived? I'm really at a loss to think of any in either case.

Nevertheless I don't know much about the costal batteries around New York at this time, however how old were they and what kind of guns could be found there. I wonder if we are talking about something like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40.6_cm_SK_C/34_gun
..... You need not wonder at all whether we are talking about smething like the 40.6cm SK C/34, which, like most German artillery designs, was an efficient well designed piece that followed the general German philosophy of a lighter shell and higher velocity. It will hopefully come as no surprise to you that other nations fielded i6in guns in coastal defense roles for the same reasons the Germans did: they were dangerous weapons with a long reach and did a very good job of defending important ports and harbors.

Regarding your comparison about SMS Baden versus USS Washington BB-56, I would like to know your opinion. However I recommend to read this http://forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index. ... 856.0.html to get an impression how it could be updated, if the HSF would have survived.
..... My opinion is that a re-built BADEN would have approximately the same chances against USS WASHINGTON as the re-fitted WW2 version of the WARSPITE - assuming of course that her re-building was confined to a fiscally realistic level and not the more fanciful spare-no-expense musings which appear on forum-marinearchiv. In short, my money would be on the USS WASHINGTON.


B

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

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by alecsandros » Thu May 24, 2012 5:30 am

Byron Angel wrote: ..... My opinion is that re-built BADEN would have approximately the same chances against USS WASHINGTON as the re-fitted WW2 version of the WARSPITE - assuming of course that her re-building was confined to a fiscally realistic level and not the more fanciful spare-no-expense musings which appear on forum-marinearchiv. In short, my money would be on the USS WASHINGTON.


B
I thought you were just being ironic :)

I doubt Baden would have had realistic chances against Washington...

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by Byron Angel » Thu May 24, 2012 11:12 am

alecsandros wrote: I thought you were just being ironic :)

I doubt Baden would have had realistic chances against Washington...

..... Hi Alecs. You're actually right: I was being ironic. But the question was asked .....

B

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 » Thu May 24, 2012 3:44 pm

Ah.... that Washington. I was thinking of the Washington that was sinkex'd in the early 20s, one of the Colorados. That would have been an apt comparison to the Baden... and my money would be on that old Washington, too (assuming she was completed).
Shift Colors... underway.

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

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by Saltheart » Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:07 am

I wonder what the chances are of Washington being sunk by hits on it's unprotected 50%? Bismarck had a 70% protected length yet it took a hit in the bow that caused about 2000 tons of flooding. This didn't threaten it with sinking but numerous hits in it's 30% unprotected length, the bow and stern, might have got it in trouble. I wonder if many hits on Washington in these areas might have overwhelmed it's bouyancy and sunk it?

User avatar
Rick Rather
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:15 am
Location: Dallas, Texas USA

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by Rick Rather » Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:45 am

In the same vein (and in the context of this thread), I have been pondering the vulnerability of Tirpitz to the harbor defenses of New York. The 16" guns of Battery Harris at Fort Tilden were the only ones that stood a chance of penetrating her armor at range. However, you can talk about scarps and de-capping from now until Doomsday, but it doesn't matter because if one of those obsolescent 10" or 12" guns at the other forts hit that unarmored manifold, she wouldn't have the fuel to get home. If they collapse her stern, or warp a prop shaft, then she would not be able to run from pursuers. If they hit her radars and/or optical range-finders, her ability to fight would be severely compromised.
Just because it's stupid, futile and doomed to failure, that doesn't mean some officer won't try it.
-- R. Rather

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by Dave Saxton » Sun Jun 03, 2012 3:26 pm

Rick Rather wrote:... if one of those obsolescent 10" or 12" guns at the other forts hit that unarmored manifold, she wouldn't have the fuel to get home. If they collapse her stern,......

There's basically no chance of the stern collapsing from artillery hits. Historically, even the torpedo hit didn't collapse the stern of Bismarck.

I would be surprized if those shore batteries had any better luck hitting TP than the Vichy shore batteries had hitting BB59 at Casablanca. Since the Germans don't need to be "surgical" in a such a raid (assuming they would ever attempt it) they are going to do it at night and from max range. Those shore batteries can only hit the water 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
Rick Rather
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:15 am
Location: Dallas, Texas USA

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by Rick Rather » Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:03 am

Dave Saxton wrote:I would be surprized if those shore batteries had any better luck hitting TP than the Vichy shore batteries had hitting BB59 at Casablanca. Since the Germans don't need to be "surgical" in a such a raid (assuming they would ever attempt it) they are going to do it at night and from max range. Those shore batteries can only hit the water at night.
:?:

Your arguments seem contradictory. You seem to be arguing that the shore batteries are not a threat, but also that Tirpitz should avoid getting closer to shore to access more targets.
Just because it's stupid, futile and doomed to failure, that doesn't mean some officer won't try it.
-- R. Rather

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

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by ede144 » Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:36 pm

No it' s not contradicting. You asume that an outdate 12" can do the same or more damage than the most up to date 14" projetil which would negate ajy improvekents in technology. To the contrary Dave mentions one possibility that make this old batteries completely useless.
Regards
Ede

User avatar
Rick Rather
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:15 am
Location: Dallas, Texas USA

Re: Tirpitz shelling New York

Post by Rick Rather » Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:48 am

You just made the same contradiction. I will ask again: If the 12"ers are useless, why does Tirpitz need to stay at long range?
Just because it's stupid, futile and doomed to failure, that doesn't mean some officer won't try it.
-- R. Rather

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 » Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:10 am

Rick Rather wrote:You just made the same contradiction. I will ask again: If the 12"ers are useless, why does Tirpitz need to stay at long range?
I know! I know! It's because... any damage that reduces her range or speed has very bad consequences, and absolutely positively must be avoided. If she encounters a New Mexico - much more dangerous than a 12" land battery - Tirpitz would be well served to show just how fast she can leave the area.

... in this hypothetical scenario
Shift Colors... underway.

Post Reply