Tirpitz AA Fire
- celticmarine10
- Member
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:45 am
- Location: New York, USA!
Tirpitz AA Fire
Hi everyone,
I'm wondering if Tirpitz's anti-aircraft fire was effective at all. I know that Bismarck failed to shoot down the Swordfish...(s?), but what about her sister? I'm finding little on the subject can anyone help please?
...I thougt against putting this in the Bismarck category...
I'm wondering if Tirpitz's anti-aircraft fire was effective at all. I know that Bismarck failed to shoot down the Swordfish...(s?), but what about her sister? I'm finding little on the subject can anyone help please?
...I thougt against putting this in the Bismarck category...
"Permission to Fire!" - Kapitan Lindemann
Re: Tirpitz AA Fire
We had a thread (maybe 2) that got pretty heavily into the AA aspects of various ships and Tirpitz came up a number of times on it. As I recall it's difficult to tell just how good her AA was as it was usually part of an array of AA defences.
Here are at least some of the threads that may be worth examining (or not).
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=740&p=34686&hilit=a ... itz#p34686
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=827&p=10646&hilit= ... itz#p10646
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=65&p=147&hilit=anti ... rpitz#p147
I don't think any of the ones are where we really got into AA discussion.
Here are at least some of the threads that may be worth examining (or not).
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=740&p=34686&hilit=a ... itz#p34686
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=827&p=10646&hilit= ... itz#p10646
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=65&p=147&hilit=anti ... rpitz#p147
I don't think any of the ones are where we really got into AA discussion.
- José M. Rico
- Administrator
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact:
Re: Tirpitz AA Fire
Hello and welcome to the forum.celticmarine10 wrote:Hi everyone,
I'm wondering if Tirpitz's anti-aircraft fire was effective at all. I know that Bismarck failed to shoot down the Swordfish...(s?), but what about her sister? I'm finding little on the subject can anyone help please?
Unlike Bismarck, the Tirpitz was successful in repelling a British air strike at sea.
On 9 March 1942, shortly after 0900 hours while en route to Trondheim, the Tirpitz was attacked by 12 Albacore torpedo biplanes of the 817th and 832th Squadrons from carrier Victorious. The battleship successfully avoided all torpedoes, shot down two Albacores, and damaged several others.
- Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
Re: Tirpitz AA Fire
This performance was all the more impressive when you consider that Tirpitz wasn't able to actually fire at the attacking aircraft during their approach to attack position. The aircraft approached hidden by low lying overcast and didn't pop out of the clouds until they already reached attack position. The British torpedo bombers had ASV radar to allow them to do this.
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.
Re: Tirpitz AA Fire
Here's a list of attacks vs Tirpitz by British aircraft:
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/mi ... rpitz.html
There's an interesting account of the 9 March action in the arcives at:
http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/tp-ktb1-15mar42.pdf
I don't find a lot of evidence in that attack to support much of claim for Tirpitz being much superior to Bismarck in regards to AA. For one thing Tirpitz was accompanied by a signficant DD screen. Furthermore she had plenty of warning of the attack.
Looking at the account at http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/h ... capes.html for instance Bismarck is alone when attacked. She sustains one hit but the visibility doesn't sound like it was very good as the account mentions that the Swordfish only gained sight of Bismarck 8 minutes prior to the hit. I'd assume that the planes were a lot harder to see. While none were brought down they did mention heavy AA fire. Note also that Shefield was attacked by 15 tropedo bombers and was not hit even though she wasn't returning fire.
It's an opinion and little more but is based on a fair amount of reading in particular at this site is that Bismarck's AA while not the best is often under rated. As time passed Tirpitz's AA suite and her fire control obviously improved over that of Bismarck but it's hard to determine any relative standing based on actual combat as there were so many variables and the sample size is so small that statistically one can't support much at all.
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/mi ... rpitz.html
There's an interesting account of the 9 March action in the arcives at:
http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/tp-ktb1-15mar42.pdf
I don't find a lot of evidence in that attack to support much of claim for Tirpitz being much superior to Bismarck in regards to AA. For one thing Tirpitz was accompanied by a signficant DD screen. Furthermore she had plenty of warning of the attack.
Looking at the account at http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/h ... capes.html for instance Bismarck is alone when attacked. She sustains one hit but the visibility doesn't sound like it was very good as the account mentions that the Swordfish only gained sight of Bismarck 8 minutes prior to the hit. I'd assume that the planes were a lot harder to see. While none were brought down they did mention heavy AA fire. Note also that Shefield was attacked by 15 tropedo bombers and was not hit even though she wasn't returning fire.
It's an opinion and little more but is based on a fair amount of reading in particular at this site is that Bismarck's AA while not the best is often under rated. As time passed Tirpitz's AA suite and her fire control obviously improved over that of Bismarck but it's hard to determine any relative standing based on actual combat as there were so many variables and the sample size is so small that statistically one can't support much at all.
- Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
Re: Tirpitz AA Fire
During the March 9th attack, Tirpitz was only accompanied by one destroyer, the Friedrich Ihn, and it was also hampered by the British waiting to the last moment to pop out of the clouds.
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.
Re: Tirpitz AA Fire
OK but it did at least have one escorting vessel.Dave Saxton wrote:During the March 9th attack, Tirpitz was only accompanied by one destroyer, the Friedrich Ihn,
You've said this before. How much did it differ from the first Swordfish attack on BismarcK? Or for that matter the 2nd? I would also expect that aquiring Tirpitz at the last minute didn't help the planes torpedo accuarcy either.it was also hampered by the British waiting to the last moment to pop out of the clouds.
After reading through the account I linked above I also note that Tirpitz apparently used its observation aircraft as CAP the report contains some pretty impressive claims in that regard.
- Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
Re: Tirpitz AA Fire
Don't shoot me, I'm just helping to claify some details is all.
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.
- José M. Rico
- Administrator
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact:
Re: Tirpitz AA Fire
Yes, the Arado Ar196.lwd wrote:After reading through the account I linked above I also note that Tirpitz apparently used its observation aircraft as CAP the report contains some pretty impressive claims in that regard.
The Germans were not very impressed by the British aircraft. From Tirpitz's KTB: "The English aircraft are clearly inferior in speed, maneuverability and firepower compared to our ship's aircraft."
Re: Tirpitz AA Fire
I seem to recall some previous threads where there was speculation as to whether or not this was possible. Maybe one of the Bismarkc threads but a more general one as well I belive. Too bad we missed this reference at the time.
- José M. Rico
- Administrator
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact:
Re: Tirpitz AA Fire
Yes, I remember those discussions too.
The difference is that in the Atlantic there is little possibility to recover the aircraft unless you are close to a friendly shore, and in Bismarck's case the catapult was damaged after the battle in the Denmark Strait anyway. Tirpitz's planes could land in Norway.
The difference is that in the Atlantic there is little possibility to recover the aircraft unless you are close to a friendly shore, and in Bismarck's case the catapult was damaged after the battle in the Denmark Strait anyway. Tirpitz's planes could land in Norway.
Re: Tirpitz AA Fire
In this case the British had a surveilance aircraft in the area for some time as well giving them time to launch the plane to drive it off. I'm sure we could find some other factors but this does illustrate that it was not only considered but done on at least this one occasion. I don't think I've ever heard of others doing it though. I wonder if the IJN or USN had any such plans in the 20s and 30s. Since both were reliant on spotting aircraft for long range fire and viewed each other as possible opponents it would seem reasonable. However that's a fair way from saying it was considered or part of the doctrine.
-
- Member
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:36 am
Re: Tirpitz AA Fire
Tirpitz had exactly the same AA outfit that Bismarck had a year earlier at the time of her loss. The only difference was that Tirpitz's crew, in March 1942, had been operational longer than Bismarck's crew and so was possibly that much more experienced. However, no large German ship really had an active life so it is uncertain how much experience was really accumulated. One difference in the attacks was that one was Swordfish and the other Albacore but there is little to choose between the capabilities of these two biplanes. The main difference was that Bismarck was a long ways from home while Tirpitz wasn't far from docking. As it turned out, this wasn't a factor in this case but the closeness of possible repair facilities should always be considered in a battle.
- José M. Rico
- Administrator
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact:
Re: Tirpitz AA Fire
The heavy and medium anti-aircraft battery was the same, however Tirpitz had a few additional 2-cm mountings.Keith Enge wrote:Tirpitz had exactly the same AA outfit that Bismarck had a year earlier at the time of her loss.
Another difference between the attacks on Bismarck and Tirpitz was the weather. The Albacores had clear visibility and no rain; the Swordfish found very bad weather conditions.
Re: Tirpitz AA Fire
Tirpitz also had improved 10.5cm AA FC and improved 10.5cm mountings. The additional 2cm mountings were also quad mounts and the net effect was that Tirpitz probably had twice Bismarck's AA capability.José M. Rico wrote:The heavy and medium anti-aircraft battery was the same, however Tirpitz had a few additional 2-cm mountings.Keith Enge wrote:Tirpitz had exactly the same AA outfit that Bismarck had a year earlier at the time of her loss.
Another difference between the attacks on Bismarck and Tirpitz was the weather. The Albacores had clear visibility and no rain; the Swordfish found very bad weather conditions.