A desicive battle WW2

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby aurora » Tue Dec 09, 2014 3:55 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:
alecsandros wrote:... Modifications were done after the Baltic deployment,
Topp declared the Tirpitz fully operational in Jan 1942.

Do you know what modifications these were?


The ship's antiaircraft battery was strengthened and the 10.5 cm guns on the superstructure next to the catapult were moved outboard to increase their field of fire. The two quadruple 53.3 cm torpedo tube mounts were also installed during this refit. The ship's commander, Kapitän zur See (KzS—Captain at Sea) Karl Topp,[18] pronounced the ship ready for combat operations on 10 January 1942. The following day, Tirpitz left for Wilhelmshaven, a move designed to conceal her actual destination.
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2865
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby Dave Saxton » Tue Dec 09, 2014 4:25 pm

aurora wrote:It certainly would-with three BBs-1USN,1 CV(RN)2 Heavy cruisers (USN) 1st Cruiser Squadron (RN),umpteen destroyers RN and USN v two German BB;s 2 BC.I pocket BB and 2 Heavy cruisers and destroyers.Pretty well matched I would say-the odd player at sea would be Victorious; but she would be the FIRST target for the Luftwaffe-yessir quite a scrap!!!



The KGV was at Liverpool dry dock during PQ17. On May 1st it ran over the destroyer Punjabi in a heavy fog. It received hull damage and all the radars were destroyed (from shock of the depth charges going off). KGV did not return to Scapa until July 10th-a week after PQ17. Tovey sent for the Duke of York which was not there to replace KGV and KGV was sent to Liverpool for repairs.

Also damaged was the Washington as it progressed over where the Punjai's stern sank as more depth charged went off. This may have been why the Washington went to NY Navy Yard for repairs of the hull, a machinery refit, and restoration of destroyed radars right after PQ17, and before redeployment to the Pacific.

During the time Battle Group Tirpitz sortied from Alta Fjord the Home Fleet was 190 miles north west of Bear Island. Tovey's strategy was to keep the Home Fleet out of harms way and keep in a position where it could intercept Tirpitz should the Germans decide to use the convoy as a diversion and make an end run for the Atlantic. If Tirpitz put to sea, then he would close at full speed to get with in Albacore striking range. If the torpedo bombers succeeded in crippling Tirpitz he would then move in with the battleships, judging that the prize would be worth the risk of exposing the battleships to Luftwaffe attack.

The German force was also depleted, Luetzow had run aground on uncharted rocks as had three destroyers.

The Germans knew the correct location of the Allied naval units and knew that they could not intervene with a German attack. The British had been unaware of the German location until submarines sighted the Tirpitz and Hipper 55 miles north of the North Cape on the 5th of July. It is confirmed that Ultra was limited to traffic analysis with the lack of Enigima traffic being the indicator that something was up. The Germans were aware of the sightings by Allied submarines.

The only likely clash between German and Allied naval forces would have been the destruction of the Allied cruiser force.
Last edited by Dave Saxton on Tue Dec 09, 2014 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 2865
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby Dave Saxton » Tue Dec 09, 2014 4:26 pm

aurora wrote:
Dave Saxton wrote:
alecsandros wrote:... Modifications were done after the Baltic deployment,
Topp declared the Tirpitz fully operational in Jan 1942.

Do you know what modifications these were?


The ship's antiaircraft battery was strengthened and the 10.5 cm guns on the superstructure next to the catapult were moved outboard to increase their field of fire. The two quadruple 53.3 cm torpedo tube mounts were also installed during this refit. The ship's commander, Kapitän zur See (KzS—Captain at Sea) Karl Topp,[18] pronounced the ship ready for combat operations on 10 January 1942. The following day, Tirpitz left for Wilhelmshaven, a move designed to conceal her actual destination.

This is merely declaring a ship once again fully operational after being in dock yard hands.
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.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby alecsandros » Tue Dec 09, 2014 4:38 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:
alecsandros wrote:... Modifications were done after the Baltic deployment,
Topp declared the Tirpitz fully operational in Jan 1942.

Do you know what modifications these were?


It must have concerned fire control also,
because the main battery performed firings in late Oct 1941 (probably against Hessen), and that is when the efficiency of the turrets and guns was praised and no longer shots were required.

Other users hint towards the possibility that Tirpitz experienced similar troubles with her RPC systems as Bismarck did, and those needed gradual adjustments...

User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby aurora » Tue Dec 09, 2014 4:49 pm

Do you know what modifications these were?[/quote]

The ship's antiaircraft battery was strengthened and the 10.5 cm guns on the superstructure next to the catapult were moved outboard to increase their field of fire. The two quadruple 53.3 cm torpedo tube mounts were also installed during this refit. The ship's commander, Kapitän zur See (KzS—Captain at Sea) Karl Topp, pronounced the ship ready for combat operations on 10 January 1942. The following day, Tirpitz left for Wilhelmshaven, a move designed to conceal her actual destination.[/quote]
This is merely declaring a ship once again fully operational after being in dock yard hands.[/quote]

--and what else was I supposed to say-were not the armament modifications-- modifications??? and the Captain stating that the ship was ready for operations-beyond that I am not clairvoyant.
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2865
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby Dave Saxton » Tue Dec 09, 2014 4:56 pm

No, the shoots that revealed defects was during June 41, The shoots against Hessen were Sept 41 and they revealed the FC was defect free. Tipitz was considered fully combat ready on Sept 21 1941. In fact in early Sept 41 the SKL proposed sending the Tirpitz and the Hipper through the Denmark strait and into the Atalantic during Oct 41. the Aland Island mission was made up as a substitute after Hitler rejected the plan.
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: 2865
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby Dave Saxton » Tue Dec 09, 2014 5:02 pm

aurora wrote:--and what else was I supposed to say-were not the armament modifications-- modifications??? and the Captain stating that the ship was ready for operations-beyond that I am not clairvoyant.


Don't worry about it. I'm just clarifying that it wasn't the first time that it was fully operational and that Tirpitz was ready for combat well before Jan 42. It was far from combat ready in May 41 though. There was never a chance it could have sortied with Bismarck unless the Bismark operation was postponed until Oct.
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: 2865
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby Dave Saxton » Tue Dec 09, 2014 5:07 pm

alecsandros wrote:It must have concerned fire control also,
because the main battery performed firings in late Oct 1941 (probably against Hessen), and that is when the efficiency of the turrets and guns was praised and no longer shots were required.
...

This is a date error.

Other users hint towards the possibility that Tirpitz experienced similar troubles with her RPC systems as Bismarck did, and those needed gradual adjustments...


Isn't that speculation?
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
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby aurora » Tue Dec 09, 2014 5:28 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:
aurora wrote:--and what else was I supposed to say-were not the armament modifications-- modifications??? and the Captain stating that the ship was ready for operations-beyond that I am not clairvoyant.


Don't worry about it. I'm just clarifying that it wasn't the first time that it was fully operational and that Tirpitz was ready for combat well before Jan 42. It was far from combat ready in May 41 though. There was never a chance it could have sortied with Bismarck unless the Bismark operation was postponed until Oct.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apologies for my "attitude" Dave-and I am pleased to know that you understood my dilemma- in not being fully conversant with what had transpired earlier on in 1941; but now I know thanks to you. Will keep truckin'
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby alecsandros » Tue Dec 09, 2014 6:40 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:
alecsandros wrote:It must have concerned fire control also,
because the main battery performed firings in late Oct 1941 (probably against Hessen), and that is when the efficiency of the turrets and guns was praised and no longer shots were required.
...

This is a date error.

Other users hint towards the possibility that Tirpitz experienced similar troubles with her RPC systems as Bismarck did, and those needed gradual adjustments...


Isn't that speculation?


... There are a few members who follow this line of thought. I do not know many details, as they are using documents in German, which I can not read...

One issue must be noted in this line - Bismarck was comissioned in Aug 1940, and not yet fully combat ready in May 1941 (9 months). Tirpitz was comissioned in Fev 1941...

there are several informative posts from Delcyros and Thorsten about this on Kbismarck and Navweaps, but it's getting increasingly difficult for me to find anything... :?

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2865
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby Dave Saxton » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:45 pm

I agree that Bismarck was not fully ready in May 41. For one thing its radars were not even all installed before March 41, and the operators of the rangefinders mountings were still learning how to operate some of features at the time that the AVKS evaluations were terminated. In fact they mentioned that nobody on the crew could operate these features at that time. One of the reasons why Bismarck's work up lagged was the unusually harsh winter which prevented training and testing operations.
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: 1526
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby tommy303 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 12:28 am

I agree that Bismarck was not fully ready in May 41. For one thing its radars were not even all installed before March 41, and the operators of the rangefinders mountings were still learning how to operate some of features at the time that the AVKS evaluations were terminated. In fact they mentioned that nobody on the crew could operate these features at that time. One of the reasons why Bismarck's work up lagged was the unusually harsh winter which prevented training and testing operations.


...and the two after heavy Flak directors were not yet installed due to the two intended for Bismarck and two for Prinz Eugen being diverted to Russia in fulfillment of treaty obligations.

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
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby aurora » Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:18 am

Quote Dave
"Also damaged was the Washington as it progressed over where the Punjai's stern sank as more depth charged went off. This may have been why the Washington went to NY Navy Yard for repairs of the hull, a machinery refit, and restoration of destroyed radars right after PQ17, and before redeployment to the Pacific"

So why did she remain with the Distant Escort if she was not battleworthy????
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2865
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby Dave Saxton » Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:40 pm

aurora wrote:Quote Dave
"Also damaged was the Washington as it progressed over where the Punjai's stern sank as more depth charged went off. This may have been why the Washington went to NY Navy Yard for repairs of the hull, a machinery refit, and restoration of destroyed radars right after PQ17, and before redeployment to the Pacific"

So why did she remain with the Distant Escort if she was not battleworthy????

I don't know. It was certainly less severely damaged than was KGV. It may have waited until the return of KGV to maintain the 2:1 advantage vs Tirpitz.
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
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby aurora » Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:55 pm

Correct me if I am wrong Dave- but wasn't Rodney with the HF at that time-given that she was the BB count would have been two 9 X 16" gun BB's and one 14" BB- ranged against the major KM units Bismarck,Tirpitz and Scharnhorst????
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

cron