Anson and Tirpitz

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 686
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Anson and Tirpitz

Post by paul.mercer » Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:42 pm

Gentlemen,
I have taken a post from Alecsandros in the Bismark & Tirpitz myth and planted it here (hope you don't mind Alecsandros).
'KGV displaced 37500 tons standard and Bismarck 41700 tons standard. Yes, Bismarck was heavier , but not in the proportion usually considered.
Tirpitz weighed 44200 tons standard, while Anson displaced ~ 42200 tons standard, both in 1942.
Contrary to popular opinion, KGV was heavier on a per meter basis then Bismarck was'.
It appears that the RN also exceeded the Treaty limit and that Anson was actually only slightly lighter than Tirpitz, so let us look at putting Tirpitz instead of Scharnhorst at North Cape and Anson, together with her latest radar and all 10 guns working properly, leaving out the the RN cruisers and destroyers for the time being. What is going to happen, will Tirpitz smash Anson into disengaging or will it be the other way round?
Bearing in mind we know all about the armour protection, rate of fire for Bismarck, PoW and KGV etc from other posts.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by alecsandros » Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:00 pm

It would depend on HOW would Tirpitz be commanded.
IF commanded the same way as Scharnhorst - she would be sunk, allthough the damage produced to British forces would probably be larger (Norfolk, Sheffield, etc)

IF commanded better, Tirpitz would have chances to escape .

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by dunmunro » Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:14 pm

paul.mercer wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:42 pm
Gentlemen,
I have taken a post from Alecsandros in the Bismark & Tirpitz myth and planted it here (hope you don't mind Alecsandros).
'KGV displaced 37500 tons standard and Bismarck 41700 tons standard. Yes, Bismarck was heavier , but not in the proportion usually considered.
Tirpitz weighed 44200 tons standard, while Anson displaced ~ 42200 tons standard, both in 1942.
Contrary to popular opinion, KGV was heavier on a per meter basis then Bismarck was'.
It appears that the RN also exceeded the Treaty limit and that Anson was actually only slightly lighter than Tirpitz, so let us look at putting Tirpitz instead of Scharnhorst at North Cape and Anson, together with her latest radar and all 10 guns working properly, leaving out the the RN cruisers and destroyers for the time being. What is going to happen, will Tirpitz smash Anson into disengaging or will it be the other way round?
Bearing in mind we know all about the armour protection, rate of fire for Bismarck, PoW and KGV etc from other posts.
The treaty expired with the outbreak of war and the RN was then free to increase the displacement without regard to the treaty excepting that the KGV hull had been designed to meet the treaty limits and could not accept large increases in weight.

Anson's standard displacement was about 39k tons in 1942:

KGV 1940 38,031 tons Standard
KGV 1940 41,630 tons Trials
KGV 1940 42,237 tons Full Load
KGV 1944 44,460 tons Full Load

Howe 1942 42,530 tons Trials
Howe 1942 43,337 tons Full Load
Howe 1944 44,512 tons Full Load
Howe 1945 45,226 tons Full Load

Anson 1942 42,600 tons Trials
Anson 45,360 tons Full Load (data from G&D)

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2988
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by Dave Saxton » Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:02 pm

paul.mercer wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:42 pm
leaving out the the RN cruisers and destroyers for the time being. What is going to happen, will Tirpitz smash Anson into disengaging or will it be the other way round?
If we leave out the RN cruisers that changes everything.

Historically, the Norfolk hit to Scharnhorst's foretop set in train the events that lead to the outcome 10 hours later. Scharnhorst was thereafter blind forward and was surprised by the approach of Fraser. Even if we assume that Tirpitz has its foretop radar knocked out like Scharnhorst, it has another forward radar. If the German command has better situational awareness than was possible during the historical battle, then they do not allow Anson to bring them to battle.

If we take away the RN cruiser force, then the Tirpitz successfully attacks the convoy and gets back to base without having to give battle. The British battleship was hundreds of miles away. It only was able to bring Scharnhorst to battle by the late afternoon because it was able to intercept SH on the approach back to the North Cape. But Tirpitz will likely see Anson coming on radar and take avoiding action. Moreover, historically Scharnhorst was being shadowed on the way back to base so Fraser knew Approx. where to go.
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: 2988
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by Dave Saxton » Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:53 pm

paul.mercer wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:42 pm
Gentlemen,
I have taken a post from Alecsandros in the Bismark & Tirpitz myth and planted it here (hope you don't mind Alecsandros).
'KGV displaced 37500 tons standard and Bismarck 41700 tons standard. Yes, Bismarck was heavier , but not in the proportion usually considered.
Tirpitz weighed 44200 tons standard, while Anson displaced ~ 42200 tons standard, both in 1942.
These are the official Bismarck weights. TP was a bit heavier but not much:

Light ship. Includes oil and water in the machinery. 41,243 metric tons.

Standard displacement The Germans did not include boiler feed water and lubricating oils reserves, or diesel fuel in the standard displacement, nor aircraft supporting liquids, nor fresh water reserves. It did include ammunition and minimum stores for the crew. 43,646 metric tons (42,956 long tons).

The Germans also used an in between classification they called the construction displacement which includes the minimum essential liquids to operate the ship but does not include maximum fuel load nor lubricating oil reserves or fresh water reserves. Those amounts were variable. 47,253 metric tons (46,488 long tons). This included about 3000 metric tons of fuel.

Full load displacement including full fuel loads and reserves was 51,395 metric tons (50,582 long tons). The ship would normally operate in the variable range from the construction displacement to the full load displacement.
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: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by alecsandros » Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:22 am

Hello Dave,
What I think needs to be underlined is that full loads for battleships varied very much, according to their designs.
If we compare Tirpitz with Richelieu, at full load, we get the impression that Tirpitz was a much larger battleship. In fact, they were about the same size (about 250m long and 43/44000 tons standard displacement in 1943). The huge difference was made by the fuel stores: 8000tons versus 4500tons, which jumped Tirpitz to 52600tons and Richelieu to 47500tons.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by dunmunro » Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:25 am

alecsandros wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:22 am
Hello Dave,
What I think needs to be underlined is that full loads for battleships varied very much, according to their designs.
If we compare Tirpitz with Richelieu, at full load, we get the impression that Tirpitz was a much larger battleship. In fact, they were about the same size (about 250m long and 43/44000 tons standard displacement in 1943). The huge difference was made by the fuel stores: 8000tons versus 4500tons, which jumped Tirpitz to 52600tons and Richelieu to 47500tons.
This is from the KM itself:
Now that the actual weights of the battleship "Bismarck" are more accurate and the information about "Richelieu" can be supplemented, the following picture emerges about the weights (rounded numbers):

Richelieu Bismarck
standard displacement 38,450 t 43 150 t
http://www.kbismarck.com/bismarck-riche ... leich.html

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by alecsandros » Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:30 am

dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:25 am

This is from the KM itself:
That is what Kriegsmarine THOUGHT about Richelieu.

The real displacements of Richelieu are given in Jordan/Dumas "French battleships".

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by dunmunro » Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:43 am

alecsandros wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:30 am
dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:25 am

This is from the KM itself:
That is what Kriegsmarine THOUGHT about Richelieu.

The real displacements of Richelieu are given in Jordan/Dumas "French battleships".
The KM had the opportunity to inspect the ships and their design specifications right at the builders offices.

Jordan and Dumas: Richelieu as completed = 37250 tons ( = 37847 tonnes) Page 99.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by alecsandros » Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:50 am

dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:43 am
Jordan and Dumas: Richelieu as completed = 37250 tons ( = 37847 tonnes) Page 99.
When was Richelieu completed ?

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by dunmunro » Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:18 am

alecsandros wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:50 am
dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:43 am
Jordan and Dumas: Richelieu as completed = 37250 tons ( = 37847 tonnes) Page 99.
When was Richelieu completed ?
According to Jordan and Dumas, on 15 June 1940 (p.123). They also had this to say:

Full power trials were scheduled for 15 June. but
with the Germans approaching, these were advanced
by two days, At 0800 on 13 June, Richelieu again
sailed for the Bay of Douarnenez, where she achcieved
32 knots over three and a half hours at full power
(155,000shp) during the morning and. during a half
hour 'forcing' trial In the afternoon. she achieved 32.63
knots with 179.000shp - an impressive performance
by any standards. and all the more remarkable given
that these trials were run at an Initial displacement of
43,800 tonnes. On 13 and 14 June, six rounds were
fired from each of the 380mm and 152mm guns
without incident. Only the replenishment systems for
the main guns gave concern. although it was clear that
the ship was still some way off full operational status.
On her return to Brest, Richelieu moored in the outer
Grande Rade at Brest (p.124)

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by alecsandros » Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:50 am

dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:18 am
They also had this to say:[...]
So 15 June was not the date when she was completed.

What was it then ?

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by dunmunro » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:01 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:50 am
dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:18 am
They also had this to say:[...]
So 15 June was not the date when she was completed.

What was it then ?
J&D say 15 June 1940 but physical completion doesn't equal operational status.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by alecsandros » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:16 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:01 pm

J&D say 15 June 1940 but physical completion doesn't equal operational status.
If she was physically completed on June 15th, why was the ship scheduled to be sent to the Clyde in July ?
And how is considered 'completed' a battleship that takes 15min to hoist the shells from the main mags into the turret ?

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Anson and Tirpitz

Post by dunmunro » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:01 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:16 pm
dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:01 pm

J&D say 15 June 1940 but physical completion doesn't equal operational status.
If she was physically completed on June 15th, why was the ship scheduled to be sent to the Clyde in July ?
And how is considered 'completed' a battleship that takes 15min to hoist the shells from the main mags into the turret ?
The main reason given was to obtain ammunition, especially powder, and for dockyard assistance in making the ship operational. The main and secondary armament suffered breakdowns during her first action which is not surprising since the ship had no proper workup period.

Post Reply