Length of Tirpitz

[MarkM]

Hello,

I'm curious about the overall length (LOA) of Tirpitz. All literature I've seen and most websites (including this one) seem to use the figure of 253.6 meters. However, I have copies of the original plans of Tirpitz, dated August 1941, which show an overall length of 250.5 meters, the same length as Bismarck.

Where did the 253.6 come from? Does anyone have original plans to verify this, or is this the case of someone giving out the wrong figure 40 years ago and everyone's been repeating it since?

Mark

[marcelo_malara]

May be they come from the Atlantic bow?

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bismarck had an Atlantic bow too. But maybe they were different.

[marcelo_malara]

Various source gives different lenghts:

Whitley´s BB of WWII 248 OA 240.2 WL
Brower´s Bismarck AOTS 250.5 OA 241.44 WL
Koop $ Schmolke´s BB Tirpitz 253.6 OA 241.72 WL
Sturton´s All the world´s BB 248 OA 241.5 WL

[RNfanDan]

I'm curious about the overall length (LOA) of Tirpitz. All literature I've seen and most websites (including this one) seem to use the figure of 253.6 meters. However, I have copies of the original plans of Tirpitz, dated August 1941, which show an overall length of 250.5 meters, the same length as Bismarck.

Where did the 253.6 come from?

The two ships were not identical, Tirpitz being fractionally longer and wider to remain within draught restrictions, as the result of increased weights in equipment and fittings. The LOA for Tirpitz as designed was 248m, while Bismarck's plans were for an LOA of 245m.

During construction, both ships acquired virtually identical "Atlantic" bows of 2,5m each, but as Tirpitz' hull length was very slightly exceeded during construction, this resulted in a 253,6m LOA. It should be noted that Bismarck's hull was launched with the original "vertical" stem, while that of Tirpitz was not.

Tirpitz carried two sets of TT amidships (on the upper deck, just forward of P3/S3 15cm turrets), "wobbly pot" aft HA directors, and derricks mounted one deck level above those on Bismarck. There were other minor differences in detail as well, so a modeler building either ship from a kit of the other, should take these differences into account.

I hope this helps!

[marcelo_malara]

So Bismarck was 248 originally and 250.5 with the new bow, and Tirpitz 253.6 from the start due to her being longer? This agree with the published sources.

[RNfanDan]

So Bismarck was 248 originally and 250.5 with the new bow, and Tirpitz 253.6 from the start due to her being longer? This agree with the published sources.

Well, Marcelo....almost! I wrote my post before sleeping, and did not get my best explanation, as I wanted. My apologies!

Yes, you are correct for Bismarck, but I will clarify for Tirpitz:

Hull "F" design was adjusted for Tirpitz, to incorporate additional equipment and numerous other changes, projecting as 251m, becoming 251,1m plus new bow design. Tirpitz was both launched and completed as 253,6m.

It would be good to see an AOTS of Tirpitz published, prepared as well as Brower's on Bismarck.

[marcelo_malara]

It would be good to see an AOTS of Tirpitz published, prepared as well as Brower's on Bismarck.

As good?

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao all,

as many know Tirpitz is my favourite ship

Any info's you would like to get, just feel free to ask.

YES, definitively Tirpitz was longer than Bismarck ( even when Bismarck got the new atlantic bow ).

Tirpitz was born perfect, with her atlantic bow higher and longer than Bismarck.

Ciao Antonio

[MarkM]

The references sited in this email chain are all second hand. As I questioned, who has first hand reference material about Tirpitz's length? Yes, they had atlantic bows which modified the ships' lengths from their desiged LOA, but what was the final length of Tirpitz?

I've seen copies of the original plans from August 1941, long after Tirpitz had her atlantic bow installed and it clearly showed a LOA of 250.5 - 247.5 meters forward of frame 0, 3 meters aft. So, are these plans incorrect? Are there other plans or first hand sources that indicate a length of 253.5?

Mark

[marcelo_malara]

Hi Antonio

So the Tirpitz longer lenght, come just from the longer bow?

[RNfanDan]

Mark:

I am suspicious that the 1941-dated plans to which you refer, may themselves be "second-hand", as the original Tirpitz plans do not date from 1941 (the ship was begun in autumn of 1936, over four years earlier)! After all, what did the builders use, during construction---educated guesses and handwritten notes ?

I can speculate at length but, lacking primary-source proof, I shall not post further on this topic. Despite my sources being secondary, I remain very confident that Tirpitz was slightly longer, very slightly wider, and definitely heavier, than its Bismarck sibling. Perhaps Antonio, with access to many fine resources, can assist you as he has offered.

Best of luck with your quest!

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao all,

usually my source for German warships is the book :

Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945 by Erich Groner

But in this case they only show the Bismarck exact data, not the Tirpitz ones.

YES, the main delta between Bismarck and Tirpitz was due to the Atlantic bow itself.

After the modifications in fact, at waterline the lenght was for Bismarck 241,55 meter ( it was 240,2 initially with classic bow ) while for Tirpitz was 241,72 meters.

But at overall length the difference was greater due to the bow design in fact Bismarck with new bow was 250,5 meters, while Tirpitz was 253,6.

Now you can realize on a simple drawing in scale how the bow was made on both ships; do not forget Tirpitz bow was also a bit higher compared to the main deck, giving her a very beautiful bow silhouette.

You can see it very evidently on the launch photos, Tirpitz bow was superb and I admit was one of those photos that initially attracted me a lot versus Tirpitz, she was really beautiful.

Same things occurred on the Vittorio Veneto class battleships, they initially designed Vittorio Veneto bow, than they modified it for Littorio a bit longer and higher,.. and finally made it even higher and longer for the Roma.

Of course many more differences between the 2 ships due to the constructors been different too, width, power, weight, equipment, etc etc,..
...... usually all in favour of Tirpitz, been newer and more complete.

Anything more you neeed on Tirpitz, just ask...

Ciao Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

Hallo zusammen,

lately I've read a similar discussion, but unfortunately I don't find the link anymore.
If I remember correctly, according to Mr. Gally's plans (based on offical plans) Bismarck's length is 250,5m and Tirpitz's 250,52m. The conclusion of the discussion was, that it's very likely that BS length is 250.5m without flagpole and that 253,6m is Tirpitz's length with flagpole.

Gruss

Marc

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Marc and all,

Mister Hans Gally drawings are the best I have ever seen in my life for Bismarck and Tirpitz.

His opinion is for me very precious and it can be that he is right too.

Still if one looks at the bow photos, of Bismarck and Tirpitz a difference can be easily noticed on the overall shape.

But maybe Mr. gally is right and who took the measurements, did it on different situations.

Thanks Marc for letting us know it .

Ciao Antonio