Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

U.S. BB vs. Tirpitz

Discussion in 'The War at Sea' started by churchill17sp, Aug 9, 2006.

  1. churchill17sp

    churchill17sp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    portland, oregon
    via TanksinWW2
    I have seen photos of U.S. North Carolina class BB in service with KGV-class in the Atlantic, mid-war, I think for a russian convoy run.
    How do think a North Carolina or Alabama class U.S. BB would do against Tirpitz?
     
  2. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    The modern US battleships were better gun fighters than Tirpitz. The main question is whether or not the Germans could successfully withdraw before getting smooshed.
     
  3. JCalhoun

    JCalhoun New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mobile, Alabama- Heart of Dixie
    via TanksinWW2
    Just nit-picking but the USS Alabama is a South Dakota class ship. She's better than the Tirpitz in every way.

    I could be just a little biased since I live about 30 minutes away from the Alabama. :D
     
  4. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    TIRPITZ could outrun a NORTH CAROLINA-class BB; the two of them had a top speed of 28 knots, while TIRPITZ could do better than 30, IIRC. But even with that in mind, I'd still vote for the American ship.
     
  5. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    i also go for the american ship. more and bigger guns, better radar + radar controlled fire.
     
  6. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    The American ship... Although I know nothing of Naval tactics I do know how small and un-trained the Russian Navy was, as the Japanese demonstrated in 1905 during the Russo-Japanese War... The Americans however had the experience of actually defeating the Japanese Navy
     
  7. Ossian phpbb3

    Ossian phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    via TanksinWW2
    But the Tirpitz (in this scenario) is attacking a convoy protected by the NC, so extra speed makes no difference.

    On another board there is a lot of discussion about the Bismarck Class and the general consensus is that it was a very good design for the First World War but badly outclassed in the second. This was because Germany had no experience designing / building battleships during the 20s and most of the 30s so they fell back on an improved Baden design.

    Tom
     
  8. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    There is a superficial resemblance between Baden and Bismarck, but Bismarck was a design evolution from Scharnhorst rather than from Baden. Oh, but there was one feature that was identical aboard Baden and Bismarck. They had the exact same kitchen.
     
  9. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    And a vitally important feature it was, too! :wink:
     
  10. Blaster

    Blaster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    I think a North Carolina class BB could manage to pull off a win, although it would be a VERY hard fight. The armor and gunpower of both ships are pretty equal, but I think the North Carolina's tech will help it win.
     
  11. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    I find it hard to get past the fact that Bismarck's gun turrets were penetrable at ALL ranges.

    "And a vitally important feature it was, too!"
    I have my priorities....
     
  12. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    yeah but that was 40 years later. a lot changed in that time. the carrier became the most powerfull vessel and a mass attack of submarines against the japanese convoys prevented the japanese ships out off the dutch indies off getting their oil. without oil, those ships are only a artificial island with guns on it.
     
  13. churchill17sp

    churchill17sp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    portland, oregon
    via TanksinWW2
    JCalhoun wrote that the South Dakota class BB was "better than the Tirpitz in every way".
    ----------------
    And they seemed very compact considering the wealth of 16", 5" & AA firepower - I have the impression that it would have been very manueverable; if so, this could have been very useful in say the areas around Guadalcanal where there were torpedo attacks.
    Does anyone have any info on turning radius or manueverability comparisons between this class and other BB's?
    Thanks!
     
  14. JCalhoun

    JCalhoun New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mobile, Alabama- Heart of Dixie
    via TanksinWW2
    Here's some stats from the USS Alabama website:

    USS ALABAMA STATS
    Sister Ships: Massachusetts, Indiana, South Dakota
    Launched: 16 February 1942
    Commissioned: 16 August 1942
    Displacement: 35,000 to 44,500 tons.
    Length: 680 ft.
    Beam: 108 ft. 2 in.
    Height of truck light
    above keel: 194 ft.
    Design Draft: 33 ft. 8 in.
    Actual weight when
    fully loaded: 42,500 tons.
    Speed: 28 knots
    Range: 15,000 Nautical miles at 15 knots
    Crew: 127 Officers, 2,205 Enlisted Men
    Armament:
    9 16"/45 cal. Guns (3 turrets)
    20 5"/38 cal. Guns (10 mounts)
    48 40mm Guns (12 mounts)
    52 20mm Guns
    Armor:
    Turret faces: 18 inches
    Conning tower: 16 inches
    Side armor: 12.2 inches, tapering to 1 inch at bottom.
    Power Plants:
    Horsepower: 130,000 hp
    4 engine rooms. each carrying 2 boilers and 2 turbines. Four propellers, 2 five bladed and 2 four bladed, each weighing 18.2 tons.
     
  15. churchill17sp

    churchill17sp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    portland, oregon
    via TanksinWW2
    The South Dakota class sounds to me like the perfect solution to the 35,000-ton battleship design;
    The only thing I would want is covered aircraft accomodations as on the KGV's, but then again, with U.S. mark 8 radar, maybe I wouldn't need spotter aircraft anyway!
    Thanks much JCalhoun for the statistics -
     
  16. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    well, a spotter plain alwayscomes in handy to search for people on see or for looking what is going on at an island. that are things that a radar can't. but then again, the Americans mostly sailed in Task Forces = carriers supported by battleships, cruisers and destroyers. so why use a spotter plain if you can use a whole carrier for that task :-?
     
  17. JCalhoun

    JCalhoun New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mobile, Alabama- Heart of Dixie
    via TanksinWW2
    Not listed are two Kingfisher planes on catapults.
     
  18. churchill17sp

    churchill17sp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    portland, oregon
    via TanksinWW2
    Oops what I should have said was that I would have liked to have covered aircraft accomodations (as on KGV etc) instead of storing the aircraft presumably on the catapults.
    This would be nice esp considering that South Dakota was used in conjunction with the British Home Fleet (sounds cold and wet) in 1943...............WHICH REMINDS ME, that timeframe makes a confrontation between South Dakota and Tirpitz perfectly plausible :bang:
     
  19. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    6
    via TanksinWW2
    There were hangers fro the aircraft. They were not stored on the catapaults.
     
  20. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    No hangars in the modern US battleships. Two stored on the catapults, the other 1-2 on deck.
     

Share This Page