Hunt for the Tirpitz

[Kermit]

I have found 11 operations to sink the Tirpitz by aircraft mainly bombing missions.

This ship is the second and last battleship of the Bismarck class. It has been been patrolling the Atlantic disrupting shipping.

Top brass has deemed this target to be the highest priority.
"The destruction, or even the crippling, of this ship is the greatest event at sea at the present time. No other target is comparable to it. The entire naval situation throughout the world would be altered." ~Winston Churchill

87899
87900
87897

TECHNICAL DATA

Displacement: standard 43,900 mt, full load max. 53,500 mt.

Dimensions: Waterline length 241.72 m, overall length 253.6 m, beam 36 m, maximum draft 10.61 m, depth 15 m.

Armour: main belt 315 mm, main turrets 130-360 mm, upper deck 50-80 mm, armour deck 80-120 mm, conning tower 220-350 mm, torpedo bulkhead 45 mm.

Armament:
A) 8 x 38cm/L52 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_cm_SK_C/34_naval_gun)
B) 12 x 15cm/L55 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_SK_C/28)
C) 16 x 10.5cm/L65 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10.5_cm_FlaK_38)
D) 16 x 3.7cm/L83 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.7_cm_SK_C/30)
E) 20(38)1 x 2cm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_cm_FlaK_30)
F) 8 x 53.3cm torpedo tubes in two quadruple mounts.
87896
1Note some of the 2cm guns have been added/upgraded after the first deck view. While the Tirpitz was docked at Gotenhafen (Gdynia, Poland) in October 1941, the antiaircraft battery was increased. The battleship now boasts 28 twin 2cm guns with Dopp LC/30 mounting and 10 2cm single guns with Ein LC/34 mountings. In addition two quadruple torpedo mounts are installed on the upper deck to each side of the ship amidships.

Aircraft: 4 x Arado ar 196 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_196).

Propulsion plant: 12 Wagner boilers, three Brown Bovery turbine sets, 163,026 hp (maximum obtained).

Speed: 30.8 knots (maximum obtained).

Endurance: 9,280 nm at 16 knots, 8,870 nm at 19 knots, 6,693 nm at 24 knots, 4,728 nm at 28 knots.

Fuel capacity: 8,297 mt.

Crew: 2,608 (108 officers and 2,500 men).

Not sure how attacking a ship works but you may want to bring in fighters and dive bombers to take out the AA guns first. Then try torpedo planes and high altitude bombers to finish the job. It takes a lot of punishment though enough damage sustained to remove the ship from combat is still a success, albeit a temporary one.

[Marechallannes]

This nice little ship defended Norway and Danmark quite alone. ;)


Not sure how attacking a ship works but you may want to bring in fighters and dive bombers to take out the AA guns first. Then try torpedo planes and high altitude bombers to finish the job. It takes a lot of punishment though enough damage sustained to remove the ship from combat is still a success, albeit a temporary one.

Not so easy.

You have to fly into a fjord guarded by many AA batteries (8,8 cm, 3,7 cm & 2cm single and quad) & then to deal with the ships own armament.

Torpedoes were nearly impossible to launch in the fjord. There were torpedo nets, too.

...and a few German fighters of course. :eek:

[Kermit]

People say that Tirpitz was a failure but it did stop a lot of shipping and the Allies devoted a lot of ships/planes to finding the Tirpitz instead of going after other targets.

[Marechallannes]

Maybe a failure because the Tirpitz sunk no enemy battleships.

But this ship was the reason, that the Allies didn't invade Norway or Denmark 1942-1944, securing the supply with iron ore for the Reich.

I call this a strategic victory. ;)


Here a a few pictures:

Torpedo nets guarding the battleship:

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=87910&d=1367162137

A camouflaged giant:

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=87908&d=1367162137

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=87911&d=1367162137

10,5 cm AA ammo:

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=87909&d=1367162137

[Jager]

This nice little ship defended Norway and Danmark quite alone. ;)

I'm sure the 450,000 troops and 6 Gruppe of aircraft had something to do with it too ;)
Karl

[Jager]

Maybe a failure because the Tirpitz sunk no enemy battleships.

But this ship was the reason, that the Allies didn't invade Norway or Denmark 1942-1944, securing the supply with iron ore for the Reich.

I call this a strategic victory. ;)

The Tirpitz did epitomize Mahan's definition of a fleet in being, tying down far more of it's enemy's resources than it consumed itself.
Karl

[Marechallannes]

I'm sure the 450,000 troops and 6 Gruppe of aircraft had something to do with it too ;)
Karl

I read something about 300.000 German troops there. (...and Norway has a long coastline)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Norway_by_Nazi_Germany

[Jager]

I'm sure the 450,000 troops and 6 Gruppe of aircraft had something to do with it too ;)
Karl


I read something about 300.000 German troops there. (...and Norway has a long coastline)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Norway_by_Nazi_Germany

Yes, that's where I got the 450K from; on 8-MAY-45:

At this time there were no fewer than 400,000 German troops in Norway, which had a population of barely three million.

I couldn't find occupation figures for Denmark, so added a guesstimate of 50,000. Luftflotte 5 had 4 full Gruppe, and attached nightfighters, bombers and transport.
Yes, the coast is long, but there's not many good invasion points that can get you anywhere.
From all my reading, I don't think the Allies ever gave serious thought to liberating either country, until the surrender of Germany; too costly with too little gain. They probably wouldn't have been attacking the Tirpitz as vigorously , except for the threat to the convoys to Russia and propaganda value. As it was, a lot of resources were spent until they finally put her down.
Karl

[csadn]

I'm sure the 450,000 troops and 6 Gruppe of aircraft had something to do with it too ;)


Not to mention: Invading Norway still means having to cross the Baltic, while invading Denmark stuffs a whole bunch of troops into a country about a defensible as a tabletop.

The only reason so much effort was expended on _Tirpitz_ was because Britain's government and Navy were desperate for any sort of "victory" they could hang their hats on. _Tirpitz_ would not provide it.


The Tirpitz did epitomize Mahan's definition of a fleet in being, tying down far more of it's enemy's resources than it consumed itself.


Only because the British allowed it to be. The "fleet-in-being" concept only works on people who are incapable of taking the long view; anyone looking ahead could see _Tirpitz_ wasn't going anywhere, or doing anything; and could be safely ignored.

[Jager]

Not to mention: Invading Norway still means having to cross the Baltic, while invading Denmark stuffs a whole bunch of troops into a country about a defensible as a tabletop.

Not sure what the Baltic has to do with Norway; if the goal is liberating Norway, the Baltic isn't involved. If your trying to cut the Swedish Iron ore supply, then you can pick some options after the Germans are gone.
Karl

[Marechallannes]

Not to mention: Invading Norway still means having to cross the Baltic, while invading Denmark stuffs a whole bunch of troops into a country about a defensible as a tabletop.

The only reason so much effort was expended on _Tirpitz_ was because Britain's government and Navy were desperate for any sort of "victory" they could hang their hats on. _Tirpitz_ would not provide it.

I think they had the end of the battlecruiser Hood (41) in good memory an now what a ship & crew of the same caliber could do to supply convoys and own surface warships, especially when operating in range of the Luftwaffe.

To be honest, the effort around the Tirpitz was a little bit overstreched, but I will not say that aloud. Finally it was one of the biggest warships Germany ever had. ;)



From the view of mission history I would compare the Tirpitz to the battleship Yamato. No bigger ship to ship action and finally sunk by Allied aircraft. :hmm:

[csadn]

Not sure what the Baltic has to do with Norway; if the goal is liberating Norway, the Baltic isn't involved. If your trying to cut the Swedish Iron ore supply, then you can pick some options after the Germans are gone.


It's that if one invades Norway, one still has to cross another body of water in order to invade Germany (the Kattegat and Skagerrak are generally considered part of the Baltic Sea). Cutting off the iron ore won't be enough.


I think they had the end of the battlecruiser Hood (41) in good memory an now what a ship & crew of the same caliber could do to supply convoys and own surface warships, especially when operating in range of the Luftwaffe.

And yet, the one time it had that chance, it accomplished nothing; the damage was entirely the result of a sickly (he'd be dead in just over a year) old man in Britain panicking, and giving the one order guaranteed to cause the loss of the convoy.

[Marechallannes]

Sometimes you don't need to fight.

It's ok if you're just present.

[csadn]

Sometimes you don't need to fight.

It's ok if you're just present.

Only if you opponent is paranoid, or a coward. There's as many examples of commanders who have seen bluffs for what they were, and ignored them, as commanders who have fallen for them. The Great Commanders tend to fall in the former category; the latter, not so.

[Blackronin]

Chris: Ignoring an asset is more crazy than being paranoid about it. And your reasoning is made with all data in hands more than 60 years after the conflict. Trying to estimate tactical and strategic outcomes before they occur it's much more difficult and I guess that the possibility of a battleship attack against a convoy would serve as continuous sleepless nights for many people.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

And what the mere threat of Tirpitz did for PQ17!

[Grey]

"In 1942, BB-56, USS Washington, was sent to the North Atlantic to fill in for British ships that had been redeployed around Madagascar. She was assigned to guard against a possible sortie by the German battleship Tirpitz, and to provide distant cover for several Iceland–Murmansk convoys." In fact, there was one time when the Washington & the Tirpitz were both at sea at the same time. Of course, they never met.

http://www.directart.co.uk/mall/images/800s/dhm1265.jpg

USS Washington with HMS Duke of York

[Grey]

USS Washington vs Tirpitz...what a match that could have been.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1452312_583263568388665_1066199656_n.jpg

[steel_ratt]

Sandhurst Military Academy put out a book of wargames in 1982. (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/22094/book-sandhurst-wargames) One of the four wargames was one called Fjord; it was about the northern convoys to Russia and the effects of the Tirpitz in that theater. The game alternated between two phases -- there was a convoy phase where the allies would try to get one convoy to Russia, and another back home. Then there was a phase where the allies would try to sink the Tirpitz using one of a variety of methods... mini-subs, human torpedoes, bombers, destroyers, or commandos.
As I recall, it was quite well done and quite entertaining to play. Well worth a look if you want some ideas for this theater of operation.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Just reminded me that I need to get my Bismark out of mothballs for a sortie in the North Atlantic.
Rob.

[Naharaht]

The mere presence of the Tirpitz in Norway tied up many British warships, which were needed elswhere.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

I have this somewhere...just where I can't remember. Agincourt, a Napoleonic Game, The Atlantic one and one in the Pacific if I remember right.


Sandhurst Military Academy put out a book of wargames in 1982. (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/22094/book-sandhurst-wargames) One of the four wargames was one called Fjord; it was about the northern convoys to Russia and the effects of the Tirpitz in that theater. The game alternated between two phases -- there was a convoy phase where the allies would try to get one convoy to Russia, and another back home. Then there was a phase where the allies would try to sink the Tirpitz using one of a variety of methods... mini-subs, human torpedoes, bombers, destroyers, or commandos.
As I recall, it was quite well done and quite entertaining to play. Well worth a look if you want some ideas for this theater of operation.

[steel_ratt]

The last one was set in North Korea and was based on a study that revealed that 90% of the US combatants didn't actually shoot to kill the enemy -- some fired 'suppressive fire' in the general direction of the enemy, some fired at nothing in particular, and some didn't even fire at all. The game had a neat set-up where each player was given a random secret goal like "Don't fire your gun" etc. Then you went through a tabletop-like battle where only the GM could see the actual positions and would describe to the players what they could see... and you'd have to make excuses to your team-mates why you weren't firing. "I don't have a good shot from here, I'm gonna move around to try to get a flank!"
It sounded like a really cool set-up, but I never actually got to play it.

(This study, incidentally, played a large part in the widespread introduction of automatic weapons in the US forces -- weapons designed more for suppressive fire than shooting at point targets.)

[Grey]

The last one was set in North Korea and was based on a study that revealed that 90% of the US combatants didn't actually shoot to kill the enemy -- some fired 'suppressive fire' in the general direction of the enemy, some fired at nothing in particular, and some didn't even fire at all. The game had a neat set-up where each player was given a random secret goal like "Don't fire your gun" etc. Then you went through a tabletop-like battle where only the GM could see the actual positions and would describe to the players what they could see... and you'd have to make excuses to your team-mates why you weren't firing. "I don't have a good shot from here, I'm gonna move around to try to get a flank!"
It sounded like a really cool set-up, but I never actually got to play it.

(This study, incidentally, played a large part in the widespread introduction of automatic weapons in the US forces -- weapons designed more for suppressive fire than shooting at point targets.)

Sounds a lot like "Wargaming in Miniature", by Michael J. Korns.