Jean Bart vs. Tirpitz

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
APDanno
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: glen burnie, usa

Jean Bart vs. Tirpitz

Post by APDanno » Sat Nov 19, 2005 11:46 pm

So whats the verdict?

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile » Sun Nov 20, 2005 7:14 pm

Short question, short answer. Equal fight.

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1177
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Post by marcelo_malara » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:17 pm

Yes, collecting the data I realized how close they were an exact match. The only disadvantage I see for Jean Bart is the layout of the artillery: may be that a single shot in one of the turrets put half the guns (or all of them) out of action.
Aditionaly, it would be very diffcult for she to break the engagement running away, because Tirpitz would pursuit her firing at will with no risk.

turlock
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:35 am
Location: virginia, USA

Tirpitz vs Jean Bart

Post by turlock » Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:27 pm

Not to be a nit pick,...but it would be Richelieu.
Without the salvo spread problems that plagued the French quads during the war, I'd go with Richelieu...even though the Lonesome Queen is one of my favorite ships. The fact is that the French was a better design and a very formidable opponent...but only assuming she could actually hit her opponent with regularity. This the Germans could do but Richelieu had thicker armor everywhere it mattered except, as memory serves me, on the transverse armored bulkhead aft. No other 35,000 ton battleship had a better side protection system than Richelieu.
With the French salvo spread problem corrected I'd vote Richelieu. As matters stood in the war, with salvo spread problems and against a crack ship like Bismarck...I'd go with the Germans, but I seriously doubt they'd sink the French giant.
Tirpitz never got the chance to prove herself.

User avatar
Matthias
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 9:59 pm
Location: Mailand

Post by Matthias » Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:36 pm

You forgot that Germans pointing apparates proved to be very precise.
Even with a heavier armour, and heavier guns, wath matters is who took who and how many times, and sometimes, like in the case of Hood and Scharnorst, where.
Undoubtably SK C/34 have been one of the best ship mounted guns ever made, and they demostrate it.Who knows if the French ones would have had the same performances?;)
"Wir kämpfen bis zur letzten Granate."

Günther Lütjens

User avatar
miro777
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by miro777 » Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:17 pm

hey

when i first read Tirpitz vs. Richelieu i thought that's obious...
Tirpitz is gonna win this, but after reaing the other comments, i checked up the specifications and saw that the french ship was not a lower opponent.
to the argument Tirpitz did not see any action, i can just say so did the Richelieu.
From the specifications i can just say, yeah they are equal.
Both ships never had a real nval battle and therefre we have to compare their abilities to their's sisterships.
the Bismarck in company of a heavy cruiser won a battle against a Battlecruiser and a Battleship
the Jean Bart, although equipped with only on turrent caused heavy damage on the USS Massachusetts.
therefore i can only agree to the fact of the different arrangement of the turrents and the better german fire-control systems.
i therefore would put my bet on the Tirpitz

miro

turlock
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:35 am
Location: virginia, USA

tirpitz vs Jean Bart

Post by turlock » Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:49 pm

Hi Miro and regards to all.
Jean Bart didn't damage Big Mamie (Massachussetts) at all but Mamie hit JB. A French 7.9 inch shell did explode below decks I slept in the compartment it exploded in back when I was a Sea Scout. The shrapnel damage in the bulkheads and deck was highlighted in red paint. Up on the main deck there was a concrete patch.
One of their prized exhibits was the nose of the 406mm that jammed Bart's turret.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:37 pm

Tirpitz can never win because the French ship turns away to friendly waters like Southampton, New York or Basra.

User avatar
miro777
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by miro777 » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:17 pm

hey

yes i agree.
the french will always have the opportunity to turn away and run for it.
it's also rather unusual that one german ships fights against one allied.
normally the allies never had the 'guts' to take on one-on-one.
they only hunted the German ships...
well

my imrpression, no offence

miro
Die See ruft....

iankw
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Rotherham, England

Post by iankw » Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:07 pm

War isn't a game, miro, to be played on a fair basis. The German ships would have been quite happy to sink unarmed merchant ships - what does that say about guts? If you are a commander and value the lives of your men then it is your responsibility to make sure the odds are as much in your favour as possible. To do anything else is irresponsible and bad strategy, it is not a question of guts. There were many situations were men on both sides show guts eg the loss of Glorious. On another thread you talk of German ships being ordered to flee, hence it is not their fault. Now it seems is shows a lack of guts to follow orders if you were an allied sailor.

Frankly I think your post was offensive to brave sailors who were quite willing to give their lives for their country, but had the misfortune to be Allied rather than working for the German dictatorship that wanted to take over large portions of the globe.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:57 pm

The valour and courage not only of sailors but of soldiers and even civilians at war is not limited by a flag or by a cause. Those who fought for the Axis or for the Allies must be judged as individuals, each at his / hers special circumstances. Can we say that Langsdorf refusal to fight was a lack of courage? I don´t think so.
I always say that is very easy for all of us to sit in front of a computer or the TV set or a book and judge what people at extreme situations did right or wrong.
But I don´t believe that Miro´s comment is offensive because he was referring to this:
We can say, and that´s a historical fact, that Germans, Russians, British (and her colonies), Japanese, Chinese and Americans as nations, as groups of peoples, were the ones who carried the burden of WWII. There was sacrifice and heroism in a lot of other persons of various other nationalities but as individuals, not as a People. The British, for example, were the ones who stand alone for more than a year against an almost invincible enemy. The Russians were the ones that received the bulk of the German wrath. The Japanese did the most outstanding and daring manouvre of WWII (Pearl) and they did a lot of sacrifice; the Chinese, forgotten to all western historians, put a lot of blood in the cause against the IJA, and the Americans came to the rescue of what was, before their entry to the war, an almost lost cause. We cannot forget the bravery of Americans at Coral Sea, Midway, Iwo Jima or Normandy. Other groups made their best effort as Polish General Sosawosky Airborne Brigade at Arnhem Battle; the resistance groups at Norway or Holand, the guerrillas at Ukranine, the montagnards in Thailand, they were all brave and worthy soldiers. And so the Germans, they fought bravely in the air, on land and on the sea. The epithome of their courage is in the sea, because there they were outnumbered and in clear disadvantage: Graf Spee against three Allied warships... Bismarck against a whole fleet: just read the British Order of Battle against only one BB.
But as it was courage there was also the contrary in many, many cases. There were criminals and cowards in every side of the fighting. And there was national weakness in some cases. And weakness feed the agression of others. What would have happened if Churchill and not Chamberlain was the British PM in 1935-1938? Probably no war, no 50 million dead. The war is not a game, as a conclusion, but the French contribution to the allied victory is not a joke either: the Americans and British fought extremely well liberating France only to be despised by De Gaulle at the Cold War, and now at the War Against Terror.
So, in an Hypothetical Naval Scenario of a German warship against a French one we can count, extrapolating the real conduct of both navies in the war, that the French would always turn around and flee.

iankw
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Rotherham, England

Post by iankw » Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:29 pm

Whilst agreeing with you about the French, Karl, I stand by what I said because of this:
normally the allies never had the 'guts' to take on one-on-one.
I don't see any other way to read this statement. I also fully agree with you about the mix of people fighting for all sides in the war, good, bad, saints and criminals. No nation was free of their share of people who would take advantage of the situation to further their own particular agenda.

regards

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:50 pm

Any person who, obeying his country or duty call, goes to fight on land, sea or air doesn´t have to prove to anyone that he (or she) have "guts".
I believe that Miro´s comment doesn´t refer to any lack of guts but to the fact that the Germans (in naval terms) never had a one against one opportunity against other surface ships. I truly believe it´s only a problem of translation.
I´m glad that you agree with my previous comment because it´s a resume of my feelings about such a complex topic. It´s terrible how we, westeners, never listen to the teachings of History and repeat the same mistakes over and over.
Very best regards.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:52 pm

But still, the Tirpitz would have won anytime! :stubborn:

User avatar
miro777
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by miro777 » Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:49 pm

hey
wow there you just saw the power of some simple words.
and i never wanted to bring out disrespect for any ALLIED sailor or soldier
although the old rivalty between england and germany (even about soccer), i have the greatest respect for the allied sailors. Those men from the merchant fleet which crossed the atlantic each second month, whith the constnat thret of the U-boots sinking them, those brave men on the Hood (only to mention a few).
I honestly have deep respect for the british and rather wanted to join the RN than the Deutsche Marine. well
i also agree with ur comments, Karl, about the bravery of all nations and individuals.
with the comment i made earlier, when i said that the British ships had no 'guts'..it's just how Karl said.
There was never a one on one situation.
well who would want to risk a one-on-one battle if u have superiortiy.
hmm i know that war is not a game, i don't know when that came up.
i also say and agree that although the Germans fought for the wrong cause, that does not decrease the breavery they showed on the battlefields...
it's just a good thing that German and British ships will never have to fight against each other again....

adios
miro

(sorry for any unintentional offences)
Die See ruft....

Post Reply