Jean Bart vs. Tirpitz

Bgile · Post by **Bgile** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:33 pm

Well, yes. No english channel and the Germans beat the English in 1940.

Also, no English channel and no Great Britain, no US, no British Empire, and a whole different world. Great Britain existed in the first place because it was an island.

If the Germans had F16 jets and Photon Torpedoes they'd probably have won, too. :).

You still made an interesting point, but I couldn't resist.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:03 pm

Hi everybody!

Okay, returning to the thread let´s say ostriker is right about putting Richeliu against Tirpitz (it´s a shame Fighting Steel doesn´t have the italians nor the french in her scenarios: a lot of ships missing). So:

Jean Bart vs Tirpitz isn't real.
Richelieu vs Tirpitz is !

Richelieu 1940 (95%) vs Tirpitz or Bismarck, the german win because french shipyard didn't have enough time to install radar in 1940, and the french ship didn't try her main and secondary guns.

Richelieu 1943 (after refit) vs Tirpitz : No winner ! because the Richelieu had still his problem of dispersion, but she has a radar, and new shell and guns with better settings than in 1940.

But if you want a fight between Jean Bart after achievment and Tirpitz,
there is o doubt in my mind that the french ship will destroy her opponent.
Between these two ships, there are a lot of new tech and JB had new radar, no more dispersion problem, and super secondary armament .

On top of that, Jean Bart and Richelieu managed to run at 32 knot whithout push her engines to 100%, and according to yours post, if the jean bart must escape, remember that her superstructure were flat in order to give a good train, so the german ship must be in back of Jean Bart.

The first thing is that from some weeks now we are creating these scenarios not counting the Radar Directed Fire Control because that doesn´t give us a proper perspective of BB against BB. The reason is that with the Radar Directed Fire Control then the Iowa wins everytime, even over Yamato! Since we stripped her of the RFC then things are quite more fun.

In this case let´s have a 100% Richelieu but without the radar and the Tirpitz just before she was sunk. I made my homework and began reading about the French BBs to understand them a little bit more. Also I read about Richelieu´s history. It was a very good looking ship, better than Iowa anytime. And... if we attend to what Jon Parshall of Combined Fleet has to said about it, using the Nathan Okun´s Armour Penetration, then the main belts of Richelieu (that go deeper than Tirpitz) and her gunnery gives her advantage over Tirpitz. (Why did these people give an advantage in gunnery, I don´t know). I see one main problem in her design and it is the 2 x 4 main gun turrets: both in front, both with many guns. Instead of having them distributed in a 4 x 2 arragement which makes a hit in one turret a 25% loss of firepower then they have, in case of hit, a 50% loss. Also having all main guns in the bow may handicap her combat ability as some said the Rodney and Nelson were. We can give Richelieu, over the Rodney Class, that there was no thrid turret behind and below the second one.
But I have to say this: naval war is like a car race. You can build a magnificent car but is in the racetrack that each shows her value. See what happened with the F-1 Mclaren Mercedes from 2001 until today: on paper it´s a jet fighter... if they managed to turn the engine on. The Tirpitz, being sistership of Bismarck had the proven fact that in combat she is a very worthy ship. The advantage of Richelieu is nominal. I place my bet on Tirpitz.

Richelieu specifications:

Displacement: 48,950 tons
Length: 248 m
Width 35 m
Draught: 9.60 m
Propulsion: four Parsons geared turbines, 150 000 hp (112 MW) (Parsons?)

Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h)

Range: 7671 nautical miles (14,207 km) at 20 knots (37 km/h); 3181 nautical miles (5,891 km) at 30 knots (56 km/h)
Complement: 911 men in 1950 (incomplete)
1280 men during the Suez affair.
Armament: 8 x 380 mm in 2 quad turrets on the bow
9 x 152 mm AA in 3 triple turrets at the aft
24 x 100 mm AA in 12 twin turrets
8 x 40 mm AA
28 x 57 mm AA in 14 twin turrets
20 x 20 mm AA.
Shielding belt: 330 mm
upper armoured deck: 150 mm
lower armoured deck: 40 mm

nwhdarkwolf · Post by **nwhdarkwolf** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:58 pm

LOL @ Bgile.

Karl:

I'd place the bet on Tirpitz as well.

Richelieu might be better in a broadside to broadside contest. However, once the manuveurs started, all bets are off.

By putting the turrets forward, and no aft, you open the ship to free shots on the stern. Yes, you have less to armor, but still.

My money is Tirpitz. Heck, I would almost take Tirpitz over Bismarck. There's a shocker.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:56 pm

Now that there is a lot of talk about shells and duds and fuses... What about the French shells? Is it there some assesment over their performance?

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:00 pm

Hey, friends, see this:

http://www.french-battleships.fr.st

Guess who´s website?

Bgile · Post by **Bgile** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:05 pm

I don't know. My French consists of a term or two in high school about 40 years ago.

Tiornu · Post by **Tiornu** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:14 pm

The first batch of French 15in shells had a small cavity in the base to accommodate a poison gas capsule. This was dumb in a couple different ways. As pertains to this discussion, it created a structural weakness in the shell. Upon firing, the propellent could break through the base and work its way into the burster. That's bad. In fact, this is exactly what happened the first time Richelieu fired her guns. Two (?) of the shells burst in the barrels and ruined the guns. The problem was so immediately apparent that it would have been worked out prior to the ship's going into action against Tirpitz. The AP shells used by Richelieu during her war service with the Free French were made in the US.
How fast does Tirpitz have to go to maneuver onto Richelieu's stern before the French can turn? 400 knots?
The German guns did not suffer excessive dispersion as the French guns did. And I believe the French back-up gunnery station was close to the primary station. Other than that, I don't see any significant advantages for Tirpitz. My tendency is to favor the French, but you can't win if you can't hit.

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:48 am

Many people have spoken very highly of the Richelieu design.
Its a shame she never got into a major BB V BB action because by all accounts she would have done herself proud.

ostriker · Post by **ostriker** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:51 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Hi everybody!

(it´s a shame Fighting Steel doesn´t have the italians nor the french in her scenarios: a lot of ships missing).

It exist a patch, that rebuild the game engine. This patch also add french and italian navy. but it is no limited to that because it had also great WW1 unit like scharnorst or great WW2 unit no present like iowa classe or vanguard !

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:31 pm

Hi friends! How was the weekend? A lot of football

... and Alonso won again the F-1 in Silverstone

Tiornu wrote:

The AP shells used by Richelieu during her war service with the Free French were made in the US.

Also the Radar Directed Fire Control was installed in the US. But Richelieu´s WW2 life was wasted escorting convoys, instead to deploying her in harm´s way (a much better existence for a BB). Do somebody knows about her skipper, officers and crew? Where they french or the allies put another crew?
If the French had colonies in the East, like Viet Nam, why wasn´t Richelieu sent there to fight the IJN?
Still, in this particular scenario my bets are still with Tirpitz.

Gary:
That cutaway of the Richelieu is from the "Jane´s Fighting Ships of WWII"? Isn´t it?

Very best regards to everybody!

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:21 pm

Hi Karl

I got it from here

http://www.voodoo.cz/battleships/

Tiornu · Post by **Tiornu** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:45 pm

Richelieu was deployed in the East with the British. She had some opportunity to use her big guns in bombardment duty.
The crew was French. The propellant was American except for some that remained from the original loadout. The crew distrusted American propellant for some reason, so they saved a batch of French-made powder to be used when it REALLY counted.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:49 pm

Tiornu, you´re right! I correct myself

:
But glad to be wrong: it is stated that the Richelieu´s crew didn´t stand De Gaulle

, and that in some measure that was the reason of some distrust from the Free French to her.
After she rejoined the Allied cause in 1943 she went for a refit in USA and then she sailed with the British Home Fleet and saw action in Norway in 1944. Then she was ordered to join the British Eastern Fleet and served with other BBs and Aircraft Carriers, including US task forces in various operations. Then went for a major refit and returned to the Pacific. She was indeed in harm´s way! Also, after some action, in September 1945 Richelieu went to Tokio Bay with the USS Missouri at the Japanese surrender. As a matter of fact she did a lot in a very short time from 1943 to 1945. I also read that in December 1945 she did some shore bombardment against Indo China lands as part of the French colonial re-occupation forces... Maybe she was igniting the futile conflict that was later known as the Viet Nam war and some of her victims later became Ho Chi Ming´s Viet Ming and Viet Congs...

The fact that she didn´t fight a straight BBs against BBs battle is not a particular thing: a lot of allied BBs, specially American ones, never taste a duel against a similar ship, not even at Leyte. A kind of luck that she must share with the Iowa Class BBs. We can say that some of the most powerfull and sophisticated BBs of the world never saw action in a Jutland or Denmarck Straits sense. (Well, in Mers El Kebir there was somekind of action but it´s not the same).
Well, now things are straight. Is it?

marcelo_malara · Post by **marcelo_malara** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:58 pm

The fact that she didn´t fight a straight BBs against BBs battle is not a particular thing: a lot of allied BBs, specially American ones, never taste a duel against a similar ship, not even at Leyte

We can even say that the BBs that fought others were the exceptions in WWII (or in WWI barring Jutland).

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:03 pm

Marcelo:

We can even say that the BBs that fought others were the exceptions in WWII (or in WWI barring Jutland).

That´s right. Good old Bismarck was one of the excpetions!