A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

[Dave Wooley]

One of those speculative threads of naval history that never came to pass , a BIG GUN duel between the KM Tirpitz and the USS Iowa. It could have happened but some would say it would have been a close run thing. Well could such an engagement have taken place? If so which of these two mighty Battleships would have survived ?
Dave Wooley

[chuck]

When and under what circumstances?

The only time when Tirpitz and Iowa might conceivably have met, the Iowa wasn't worked up. If Tirpitz at the time was as proficient as Bismark was at Demark strait, and visibility is good out to 25000 yards, then I think Tirpitz would have won handily. But if crew proficiency is equal, then I don't see Tirpitz as being the material equal of the Iowa in a gunnery battle.

[niicccllas]

Tirpitz would win, no dobht, Tirpitz crew never gained to mutch experience in surface combat but the same goes for all the Iowas, Tirpitz higher rate of fire and ability to absorb punishment would make the differens. nick

[chuck]

Tirpitz would win, no dobht, Tirpitz crew never gained to mutch experience in surface combat but the same goes for all the Iowas, Tirpitz higher rate of fire and ability to absorb punishment would make the differens. nick

1. Bismark didn't have much experience before she sank the Hood and chased away the POW with, if I recall, less than 10 salvos. One might say that the almost full year of excellent training in the Baltic and the good quality of equipment made the Germans extraordinarily proficient despite the lack of actual combat experience.

2. Higher rate of fire probably doesn't make too much difference at long range engagement because much of the accuracy improvement in long range fire comes from waiting to spot shell fall. So effective firing rate is probably somewhat limited by how long it takes for the shell to land, not how fast the guns would load.

3. The issue of fundamental survivability might favor the German ship if this was a torpedo duel or a short range gunnery battle. But there is no question that WWI style armor layout made the Bismark class inferior to all other WWII era battleship in the area of protection to vital equipment against long range gun fire. So in a long range gunnery duel where accuracies are equal, Tirpitz's combat power is likely to be crippled before those of Iowa.

[Werner]

Iowa's guns were defective until after a 1944 refit. Bismarck's Radar would tend to fail after the first couple of salvos.

[ae]

One of those speculative threads of naval history that never came to pass , a BIG GUN duel between the KM Tirpitz and the USS Iowa. It could have happened but some would say it would have been a close run thing. Well could such an engagement have taken place? If so which of these two mighty Battleships would have survived ?
Dave Wooley

Nightime or daytime?

[chuck]

Keep in mind that Iowa can dictate the range of engagement and choose the best range to maximize her advantage, and more likely than not, can chase down the Tirpitz if the fight goes well, and can run away if it does not. So Iowa's upside is bigger than Tirpitz, and her down side is less.

[Guest]

Keep in mind that Iowa can dictate the range of engagement and choose the best range to maximize her advantage, and more likely than not, can chase down the Tirpitz if the fight goes well, and can run away if it does not. So Iowa's upside is bigger than Tirpitz, and her down side is less.

Exactimundo...... The Iowa would chose the grounds of engagement with range and manouver (speed).. Most likely a night engagement would be on the Iowa's agenda..This is not a fair fight unless the skipper of the Iowa was named Halsey..

[Sean Hert]

Iowa's guns were defective until after a 1944 refit.

Can you tell us more about this?

[Werner]

Sumrall discusses this. There was an alignment problem within the turrets that made for very poor shooting until it was corrected.

[chuck]

It seems that this is the sort of assembly or adjustment defect that are not intrinsic to the design and so is not of a great deal of importance to evaluation of the relative merits of the 2 designs. Besides, maybe there had been similar assembly or adjustment defects in the Tirpitz we don't know about. Also these get ironed out when the ship is worked up.

[Tiornu]

Iowa's guns were defective until after a 1944 refit.

This claim first appeared in Friedman's book on USN weapons and has since been passed down to Campbell, Whitley, etc. It is almost certainly wrong. The records for Iowa's practice shoots show no special problems, and Iowa-class gunnery in the Truk incident was perfectly fine.
Iowa is a far more capable battleship than Tirpitz. Larger and newer, she had better be the superior design. If not, something must be terribly wrong.

[chuck]

Iowa is a far more capable battleship than Tirpitz. Larger and newer, she had better be the superior design. If not, something must be terribly wrong.

Although I agree with the general assessment that Iowa is considerably ("far" might be a slight stretch) superior as a surface combatant in the anti-ship role in this case, I think it is actually common for designs from different countries to exhibit different displacement to combat power relationships due to substantially different design philosophies, detailed technical practices, and operating constraints. These difference can probably go a long way towards masking the effect of 3000 tons of displacement and 2 years of design difference on actual combat effectiveness.

[Walt]

Well here's the fact sheet..Iowa 9 16" guns at 2 rounds per min, shell weight AP 2700lbs at ranges to 42300 yards.
Tirpitz 8 15" guns at 3 rounds per min, shell weight AP 1700lbs at ranges to 38300 yards.

Iowa better speed 33 Kts vs Tirpitz 29 Kts.. Iowas better armoured and better rangeing and Fire control systems and an almost 3 mile effective range advantage in main battery.

If given a choice I think I would ride the Iowa on this one. The Iowa could engage or dis-engage at will and only a fool for a skipper would shift the balance to Tirpitz or great luck on the Tirpitz side. Even if exchanging hits with each other the 2700 lb AP round vs the 1700 lb round are vastly different in their affect and hitting power. The damage control systems on Iowa were much more advanced than the Bismark Class due to different design requirements of both Navys at the time of building.

[chuck]

Well here's the fact sheet..Iowa 9 16" guns at 2 rounds per min, shell weight AP 2700lbs at ranges to 42300 yards.
Tirpitz 8 15" guns at 3 rounds per min, shell weight AP 1700lbs at ranges to 38300 yards.

Iowa better speed 33 Kts vs Tirpitz 29 Kts.. Iowas better armoured and better rangeing and Fire control systems and an almost 3 mile effective range advantage in main battery.

If given a choice I think I would ride the Iowa on this one. The Iowa could engage or dis-engage at will and only a fool for a skipper would shift the balance to Tirpitz or great luck on the Tirpitz side. Even if exchanging hits with each other the 2700 lb AP round vs the 1700 lb round are vastly different in their affect and hitting power. The damage control systems on Iowa were much more advanced than the Bismark Class due to different design requirements of both Navys at the time of building.

I do not agree damage control on Iowa is much more advanced than those on the Bismark class. Just because American damage was good one should not automatically assume it was better than everyone else's. Among the things that would elevate my opinion of the damage control capabilities of the German ship include greater reserve generation capacity, advanced damage and flood isolating features such as un-pierced longitudinal bulkheads and flood isolating deck access trunks that clearly anticipated developments that didn't take place in other navies until 1942-43, and the clearly demonstrated capacity by much smaller German capital ships such as Scharnhorst to withstand the level of torpedo damage equal to what the Iowa class was designed to withstand.

[Dustermaker]

I believe that the Iowa class would come out on top, simply because it would be a 4v1 fight......lol just figured I would randomly say something....

[Tiornu]

the clearly demonstrated capacity by much smaller German capital ships such as Scharnhorst to withstand the level of torpedo damage equal to what the Iowa class was designed to withstand.

No such thing was ever demonstrated. In fact, Scharnhorst's torpedo defenses are known to have had significant structural flaws.

[chuck]

So are the Iowa's side defenses. The effect of the lower armor belt on the elastic absorbency of the liquid loaded TDS is negatively commented upon by the USN. Scharnhorst's TDS is also deeper than Iowa's over much of the center portion of the ship. Scharnhorst's TDS also covers a greater fraction of the ship's length, and leaves shorter ends unprotected and open to large trim moment flooding.

Scharnhorst is credited with absorbing 12 full sized 21" torpedos during the North Cape action. USN design information suggests Iowa class will capsize after taking 5 on one side on the TDS. Admittedly this is brushing details under the rug and extrapolating over a considerable distance from only 2 instances, but it seems reasonable to assume a ship that would capsize after 5 hits to one side would probably be close to foundering after taking twice that many on both sides. At the very least, one would have to credit Scharhorst's TDS with punching considerably above the ship's weight when compared to those of Iowa, even if it is not entirely certain whether Scharnhorst's actually exceeded Iowa in absolute total resistance.

[Walt]

Well here's the fact sheet..Iowa 9 16" guns at 2 rounds per min, shell weight AP 2700lbs at ranges to 42300 yards.
Tirpitz 8 15" guns at 3 rounds per min, shell weight AP 1700lbs at ranges to 38300 yards.

Iowa better speed 33 Kts vs Tirpitz 29 Kts.. Iowas better armoured and better rangeing and Fire control systems and an almost 3 mile effective range advantage in main battery.

If given a choice I think I would ride the Iowa on this one. The Iowa could engage or dis-engage at will and only a fool for a skipper would shift the balance to Tirpitz or great luck on the Tirpitz side. Even if exchanging hits with each other the 2700 lb AP round vs the 1700 lb round are vastly different in their affect and hitting power. The damage control systems on Iowa were much more advanced than the Bismark Class due to different design requirements of both Navys at the time of building.

I do not agree damage control on Iowa is much more advanced than those on the Bismark class. Just because American damage was good one should not automatically assume it was better than everyone else's. Among the things that would elevate my opinion of the damage control capabilities of the German ship include greater reserve generation capacity, advanced damage and flood isolating features such as un-pierced longitudinal bulkheads and flood isolating deck access trunks that clearly anticipated developments that didn't take place in other navies until 1942-43, and the clearly demonstrated capacity by much smaller German capital ships such as Scharnhorst to withstand the level of torpedo damage equal to what the Iowa class was designed to withstand.

Even if this is the case I think a few of Iowa's AP rounds coming in on Tirpitz from places unseen by her would negate Tirpitz's damage control greatly.. Unless of course they had damage control plugs the size of a Panzer V on board The American Navys damage control abilities were legendary.. It all comes down to crew training and leadership under fire.. We all know the affects of smaller calibre and weight gun fire had on Tirpitz's sister..and most of that fire was low trajectory shorter range fire....

[Werner]

A centerline bulkhead and armored deck at the lower edge of the belt put Tirpitz at a decided disadvantage from a damage resistance standpoint.

Go look at CombinedFleet's "baddest" page: http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm