Maximum amount of damage possible for the Tirpitz to inflict?
- Thread starter thezerech
- Start date
She surprises a convoy sinking the escorts and scattering the ships she doesn't sink.The Tirpitz will take some heavy caliber shells and defiantly eat at least one torpedo. Far from home in the North Atlantic that's a problem. The entire British home fleet will be after the Tirpitz as well as everything the Americans have in the Atlantic.
Well the OP said maximum, not realistic. We should be out the were luck, weather, allied miscalculations all combines to serve the targets on a plate for Tirpitz.
Deleted member 1487
Intercepts an Arctic Convoy. This would be a tough one, but if they got in among the convoy ships and avoided the covering force, say with a very good coordinated attack with the Luftwaffe and Uboats, plus a major surface fleet action, it would do real damage to the war effort:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_PQ_16
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_PQ_16
Ahhh
I'm sure someone could write a time line like that.....
Tirpitz carried 108 rounds per main gun so with half salvos ( we don't want to wank the Not-Nazis too much) that's 216 capital ships she'll sink
105 rounds per secondary 6" so at least 210 destroyers or 420 merchant shipso
Plus another 24 sunk to her torpedos
And at least 8000 aircraft
I think that's quite reasonable allowing a little bit of luck for Tirpitz
Ok, maybe a compromise between "maximum" and realistic is needed. Arctic convoys is a good one and there is no reason it should only be one, although it requires luck and timing.
Air power+the threat of Tirpitz was a serious problem in OTL and periodically prevented the arctic convoys. In the winter a reversed "Battle of the barens see" is possible with a short range engagement that Tirpitz was designed for.
Well the Iowas were armed with them from the 1950s until their retirement
On her own or with another ship like Bismark was?
If she goes North with Scharnhorst the Battle of the North Cape would be different and they could win and the massacre the convoy. If that happens then the Arctic convoys would be shut down until they could be dealt with. That couldn't help but adversely effecting the Soviets on the Eastern Front.
It strikes me that Tirpitz was probably more damaging to the war effort as a fleet in being than as a convoy raider. Keeping all the forces near the UK in fear of a sortie combined with Churchill's obsession with sinking her probably did more to hinder the Allies than another convoy being destroyed.
If Tirpitz (perhaps with Scharnhorst) has one good raid then their value as a fleet in being becomes magnified.
Oh yes. Coupling her with one of the Twins ups the ante for sure.
But I imagine the British would focus on her destruction if she actually began to raid.
Deleted member 1487
An Arctic convoy raid that was successful would probably cause an insane British overreaction too. Imagine if the Bismarck never sortied and was around with the Tirpitz and other German capital ships in Norway, the Brits would be freaking out in 1942.
I imagine the British would be trying to sink one or both ships throughout the war regardless of sortie or not.
Deleted member 1487
Without a doubt, they'd devote even more disproportionate resources to the effort.
Tying up forces that could be used in the Med or Pacific, which will be butterfly producing in and of themselves.