H class guns on Tirpitz

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
Saltheart
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:46 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: H class guns on Tirpitz

Postby Saltheart » Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:43 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:
The US 2700pdr was a battleship killer, and it proved it 2 times.


The Hood was a stronger opponant than Kirishima. The German 15" shell was a proven capital ship killer as well.

....and even if the shells did not necessarily ha(ve) bigger vertical perforation than the German 38cm, they delivered far more destruction once inside


The German shell used a far more potent explosive burster charge, and IIRC a larger burster charge as a % of shell weight.



I agree with this, it's burster charge that really determines the internal damage and the Germans used a powerful charge for the shell weight. Reliability of detonation like whether it's high order or not is the key.
By the way the guys who brought us US battleships of WW2 and Axis and neutral battleships of WW2 give the US 16 incg 45 penetration at 20,000 yards as 17.6 inches while the German 38cm is put at 16.5 inches. If it's true then the US weapon is slightly more powerful against vertical armor.

Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: H class guns on Tirpitz

Postby Tiornu » Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:54 pm

To get good comparisons of armor penetration, you have to use the same type of armor and a range of obliquities.
Internal damage from exploding shells results from the synergistic load of explosive and ballistic energy and metallic mass.

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: H class guns on Tirpitz

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:29 pm

ORD 653 pentration curves 1942 predicts ~16.6 inch at 22 kyard for the US 16" 45 gun 2700 lb projectile against US Class A

GKdos 100 predicts 16.1 inch at 22 kyard for the german 38 cm Panzergranate m BdZ against german KC na.
if we believe in a ballistic advantage of german KC nA of about 5 %, the thickness of 16.1 inches seem equivalent to 16.9 inches of US Class A
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2915
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: H class guns on Tirpitz

Postby Dave Saxton » Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:52 pm

Tiornu wrote:To get good comparisons of armor penetration, you have to use the same type of armor and a range of obliquities..


Absolutely. In my earlier post indicating a ~10% differential within 20k, I used a chart for the two guns based on a computor model for the same type of amour. I don't know how accurate it is, but for relative comparison purposes it's handy.
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.

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

Re: H class guns on Tirpitz

Postby Saltheart » Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:53 pm

Thorsten Wahl wrote:ORD 653 pentration curves 1942 predicts ~16.6 inch at 22 kyard for the US 16" 45 gun 2700 lb projectile against US Class A

GKdos 100 predicts 16.1 inch at 22 kyard for the german 38 cm Panzergranate m BdZ against german KC na.
if we believe in a ballistic advantage of german KC nA of about 5 %, the thickness of 16.1 inches seem equivalent to 16.9 inches of US Class A


With hindsight Admiral Holland's tactic of rushing in in order to protect his deck armor was pointless. Bismarck's shells could penetrate any part of his ship so he might as well have shadowed and shot from far out. 18 guns on a parallel course should hit sooner and more often than 8. They could have just exchanged shots at 25,000 with the occasional hit until King George V and the carrier arrived. There is no way Bismarck and Prinz Eugen could have shaken 4 shadowing ships before the rest of the British battleforce arrived as it was only about 5 hours away.
The fight would have happened at midday with Bismarck attacked by 3 capital ships, numerous cruisers and destroyers plus torpedoe bombers. Both German ships would have been sunk with Lutjens reporting to Navy Group West about overwhelming forces and hopeless odds.
Engaging like they did was a catastrophe against a ship that could just hole them so easily.

Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: H class guns on Tirpitz

Postby Tiornu » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:31 pm

To be precise, we don't know that Holland's purpose was to protect his deck armor. But we need to understand that penetration of deck armor is not the same as penetration of belt armor. The RN's stated preference for shorter ranges derived in part from the idea that deck hits were more likely to prove catastrophic. Knowing that the opponent is likely to have better deck protection makes longer ranges less desirable. Have we veered off-topic?

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

Re: H class guns on Tirpitz

Postby Saltheart » Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:44 am

Tiornu wrote:To be precise, we don't know that Holland's purpose was to protect his deck armor. But we need to understand that penetration of deck armor is not the same as penetration of belt armor. The RN's stated preference for shorter ranges derived in part from the idea that deck hits were more likely to prove catastrophic. Knowing that the opponent is likely to have better deck protection makes longer ranges less desirable. Have we veered off-topic?


Yes we have a bit.
Well it seems Bismarck's armament was adequate and upgunning would not have been feasable so I guess that's that.
If I could do anything to improve the Bismarck class it would be to thicken the main armor deck at it's central flat part by an inch, even if it added a thousand tons to do it.
Cheers

Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: H class guns on Tirpitz

Postby Tiornu » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:32 am

I'd go with a turret armor upgrade.

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

Re: H class guns on Tirpitz

Postby Saltheart » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:56 am

Tiornu wrote:I'd go with a turret armor upgrade.


I wouldn't because to make a difference against 16 inch gunfire would require about 18 inches of face armor. Where as even just one inch more armor on the MAD could make a big difference against shells that have come through the weather deck.

Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: H class guns on Tirpitz

Postby Tiornu » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:24 am

One inch of deck adds 600+ tons. How much turret increase would that buy you?

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7510
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: H class guns on Tirpitz

Postby RF » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:43 am

Saltheart wrote:The H class turret weighed nearly 1500 tons as against 1050 for a Bismarck class turret. The Tirpiz could have mounted 8 16 inch guns with a total greater ship weight of about 2000 tons more. Even after strengthening of bulkheads and barbettes the weight increase wouldn't have been much more than that. If Tirpitz could do 30.8 knots at 163,000 mazimum output it could still have done 29 after conversion, at least as good as a King George V or North Carolina.
Maybe this would have mean't the Bismarck class would finally have been fully gunned for ships of such size?


Looking at the posts in response to this I am mindful of the law of diminishing returns applying to having 16 inch guns on the Bismarck classe. Would Bismarck have done better during Rheinubung with 16 inch? I don't see that it would make any difference at all.

Another aspect is firing rate. The 16 inch presumably would be slower firing. Instead of applying 16 inch guns would the Germans not have been better off obtaining a faster firing rate for the 15 inch?
''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 4 guests