Now that this thread has demonstrated the clear superiority of the USS Iowa over the KM Tirpitz (at least to this observer), I pose a similar question: How would the Tirpitz might fare against a contemporary battleship far less capable than the Iowa? Of course, what sprang to mind is the King George V.
A quick review of the facts suggests this would a far more even match. Here are some of the facts to consider. The Tirpitz was bigger, faster, and possessed more armor by weight, but KG V had a far better armor lay-out. The Tirpitz also possessed a better radius of action by over half--around 8500 nm at 19 knots for the Tirpitz to 5800 for the KG V at a slower 18 knots. When it comes to the main batteries, things become complicated. Gun range probably probably would not be an issue in reality and the ranges are reasonably close. The Tirpitz has heavier shells for its 38 cm guns, 1760 lbs, over the 14" guns of KG V, 1590 lbs. The KG V has an advantage, at least in theory, in weight of broad side--15,900 lbs against 14100 lbs. Reality demonstrated the advantage in broad side weight that the KG V possessed to be at best limited, as the KG V class as a whole had tremendous problems with their main guns. Even as late as the end of December 1943 during the Battle of North Cape, the Duke of York still fired less than 70% of her possible output during this battle because of mechanical and "errors in drill" problems. The KG V definitely had the advantage in radar, while honors usually go to the KM shiff for optical sights. Of course, there are many other facts to consider such as both ships weaknesses in the stern. (The sinking Bismark demonstrating the weakness the Tirpitz possessed, while the sinking of the Prince of Wales demonstrated the KG V had.)
All things being equal (which we know they never are), Comrades,I ask the following question: Which ship would be the be victor in a match and why do you feel that way?
Personally, I would call it for the KG V, particularly if its radar and the turrets were working well. But I imagine it would be close and the turrets working well is not a sure thing.
A quick review of the facts suggests this would a far more even match. Here are some of the facts to consider. The Tirpitz was bigger, faster, and possessed more armor by weight, but KG V had a far better armor lay-out. The Tirpitz also possessed a better radius of action by over half--around 8500 nm at 19 knots for the Tirpitz to 5800 for the KG V at a slower 18 knots. When it comes to the main batteries, things become complicated. Gun range probably probably would not be an issue in reality and the ranges are reasonably close. The Tirpitz has heavier shells for its 38 cm guns, 1760 lbs, over the 14" guns of KG V, 1590 lbs. The KG V has an advantage, at least in theory, in weight of broad side--15,900 lbs against 14100 lbs. Reality demonstrated the advantage in broad side weight that the KG V possessed to be at best limited, as the KG V class as a whole had tremendous problems with their main guns. Even as late as the end of December 1943 during the Battle of North Cape, the Duke of York still fired less than 70% of her possible output during this battle because of mechanical and "errors in drill" problems. The KG V definitely had the advantage in radar, while honors usually go to the KM shiff for optical sights. Of course, there are many other facts to consider such as both ships weaknesses in the stern. (The sinking Bismark demonstrating the weakness the Tirpitz possessed, while the sinking of the Prince of Wales demonstrated the KG V had.)
All things being equal (which we know they never are), Comrades,I ask the following question: Which ship would be the be victor in a match and why do you feel that way?
Personally, I would call it for the KG V, particularly if its radar and the turrets were working well. But I imagine it would be close and the turrets working well is not a sure thing.
Last edited: