Tirpitz v. King George V

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.
 
Last edited:
Some recommendations about the loss of HMS Prince of Wales;

HMS Prince of wales was lost due to a lucky torpedohit aft, which disrupted the electrical backupsystems and caused unstoppable flooding through the wrecked shafttunnel of the outer port shaft. In early 1942, the surviving King George V class ships were refitted with more powerfull secondary electrical systems, so something like happened with the doomed sister was not longer possible. (it should be noted that USS North Carolina too had a falthy electrical backup system, as the torpedohit from I-19 put her out of power for a hour, before some power was regained for only the most primary systems. She was not in danger of sinking as the hit was very well foreward, but the shockdamage which created the failure was the primary cause of concern.) All USN ships seemed to have this fragile powersystem, as occasionally electrical failures occured every now and then. (USS Hornet lost all power at Santa Cruz, USS Northampton at Guadalcanal, USS Boise at Bougainville, USS South Dakota at Savo, etc.)

Something about shell's:
The British 14 inch 1560 lbs AP shell had a very good penetration capacity, compared to older models of shell's mostly from the Great War. It was suggested to be equal in capacity to the larger 15 inch 1980 lbs AP shell of most BB's in the Fleet.

Saddly enough the guns were troublesome, due to too many safetylocks and measurements, somcething also seen in the 16 inch turrets of the Nelson Class and the 8 inch turrets of the County type cruiser. These older ships were cured from these problems, just before the war, after some ten years of adjusting and addapting the systems. The newer 14 inch/45 cal weapon lacked this time needed for this. Luckily the gun itself was accurate, so the fewer shots actually fired did do enough damage in most cases.
 
Lots of Naval topics all of a sudden - yahoooo!!

Tirp vs KGV - a better match up than T vs Iowa

I'll give a nod to the KM on this one. Say 55 - 45 Germans. They were better shooters, their armor was a slight bit better arranged for a practical ranged gun duel, and face it, they had a 10,000 ton advantage.

OTOH, the RN had more guns although in crappy over-complicated mounts.

assume both ships in good weather on parallel course without assistance, and no orders not to engage. (Totally invalid assumptions)

Both ships take heavy damage before mutually withdrawing 4 out of 5 engagements. One ship will likely turn away once only 1 turret remains firing. Other ship will be too battered to prudently pursue.

If either ship gains a speed/manueverability advantage, they'll likely call it a Win and sail off, rather than press the advantage and risk major damage to finish the other off.
 

Markus

Banned
In 41 PoW hit BM two or three times. Pretty impressive considering PoW wasn´t not fully operational at the time. PoW was hit several time too but it seems the damage was not severe or wouldn´t have been had she been fully operational. The two could turn each other into scrap metal if neither break off the action.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Best guess is a draw with both ships taking a pounding.

The 14" gun of the KGV simply isn't up to the job of killing the Tirpitz, the men who allowed a 1940 design out of the design phase with that weapon should have been flogged. The RN ship has a huge advantage in its gunnery radar (10 cm vs. 82 cm, or nearly decimeter for the Tirpitz) although it is slightly less of an advantage compared to the even better 3 cm systems that the Iowas and South Dakotas mounted it is still enormous. The British armor is better in construction than the German and is more proof against the German 15" gun than the Tirpitz will be against the British 14" but neither can, ship on ship, defeat the other unless one vessel or the other is very poorly handled.

If the RN ship could remain "over the horizon" from the KM vessel it would eventually defeat its target since the British gun-laying radar was good enough to allow for blindfire while the German radar was not nearly so capable. The KM ship is, however, around a full knot faster, so the KGV does not have the ability to maintain range at will and the German vessel will be able to close to visual range in under an hour. If the KM vessels optical gear has survived (and because of weaknesses in the protection scheme for these critical, fragile items this is not a sure thing).

Overall the KGV has a very slight advantage, unfortunately this is seriously undermined by the inadequate main battery.
 
Best guess is a draw with both ships taking a pounding.

The 14" gun of the KGV simply isn't up to the job of killing the Tirpitz, the men who allowed a 1940 design out of the design phase with that weapon should have been flogged. The RN ship has a huge advantage in its gunnery radar (10 cm vs. 82 cm, or nearly decimeter for the Tirpitz) although it is slightly less of an advantage compared to the even better 3 cm systems that the Iowas and South Dakotas mounted it is still enormous. The British armor is better in construction than the German and is more proof against the German 15" gun than the Tirpitz will be against the British 14" but neither can, ship on ship, defeat the other unless one vessel or the other is very poorly handled.

If the RN ship could remain "over the horizon" from the KM vessel it would eventually defeat its target since the British gun-laying radar was good enough to allow for blindfire while the German radar was not nearly so capable. The KM ship is, however, around a full knot faster, so the KGV does not have the ability to maintain range at will and the German vessel will be able to close to visual range in under an hour. If the KM vessels optical gear has survived (and because of weaknesses in the protection scheme for these critical, fragile items this is not a sure thing).

Overall the KGV has a very slight advantage, unfortunately this is seriously undermined by the inadequate main battery.

Calbear. I think you are incorrect about the 14" gun.
It put a fair number of holes through Bismarks conning tower - at 14" or armour, the most heavily armoured part of the ship.

To me, the deciding factor would be who gets the hit that knocks out the others fire control. That pretty much dooms a BB against a similar ship unless it can run away from it. While the Tirpitz does have a speed advantage, it isnt that big, it would take a while to get clear (shades of Scharnhost!)

But I think the most likely result is damage to both ships, and unless the RN get lucky Tirpitz gets away. However she's going to have taken enough damage the RN is going to send her to the bottom before she gets home, unless she is really close to air cover. KGV isnt going to let up - trading a KGV for the Tirpitz is very much a win for the RN.
(Remember, the RN BB's tended to hunt in pairs... unsporting lot! :)
 

Bearcat

Banned
I've read that the decision to go with the 14" gun on the KGVs, before the decision of the Japanese to Abrogate the London Treaty, was to do with the barbettes. The US design for the North Carolinas was twin-tracked, with two possible guns (a 14" and a 16"), either of which could be accomodated in the design. The UK initially planned to do the same, but as the design developed, the barbettes were fixed at a size which would not allow adoption of the sixteen-inch gun.

The real problem of course was the state of the British economy: the Brits desperately wanted London to be maintained, or even a rollback in BB main guns to 12 inches. The admiralty even wasted paper on a few ten-inch designs. Wishful thinking is no way to run a navy, unfortunately.
 
Yeah, the 14" decision was pretty odd. They'd already gone from 15" to 16" on Rodney, dropping back to 14 just to meet the 35,000 ton req was sorta weird. Different turrets was expensive when money was tight. They werent even terribly advanced 14 inch. Why not 3 x 3 15"? THEN they build 5 of em!! Churchill said if they'd have waited 6 months they would have had a new 16 in design as good or better than the American 16/45.
 
Yeah, the 14" decision was pretty odd. They'd already gone from 15" to 16" on Rodney, dropping back to 14 just to meet the 35,000 ton req was sorta weird. Different turrets was expensive when money was tight. They werent even terribly advanced 14 inch. Why not 3 x 3 15"? THEN they build 5 of em!! Churchill said if they'd have waited 6 months they would have had a new 16 in design as good or better than the American 16/45.

From everything I've been able to pick up (British posters on other forums, including one on Navweaps whose spent a lot of time crawling through the Admiralty's archives), it was political- during the treaty era, the British had been the ones most insistent on trying to control the size and armament of warship through the treaties, for economic reasons and to get the larger numbers of smaller units they desired, while the British government was quite insistent that the RN would strictly comply with the relevant treaties, which for battleships, meant that under the LNT, 14" were the max allowed (as a means to further reduce the size of battleships, the 1935 LNT reduced main armament from 16" to 14"), until someone else invoked the escalator clause. The design of the KGVs started right afterwards, to be built ASAP- there were 9x15" designs, but those were studies not really in the official design lineage because the British Cabinent would have vetoed such a ship in an effort to comply with the treaties. The decision to go with 10 instead of 12x14" guns was a tradeoff to get better protection on 35k tons standard displacement.
 

Graehame

Banned
The Tirpitz had 2 uses in view-- implementing the fleet-in-being strategy & commerce raiding. Any time a German heavy sighted a KGV it laid smoke & ran like hell, because if you got damaged on the high seas you'd get sunk. There was no help coming, & your chances of making it back to Brest were slim. The whole point of the Tirpitz was to EVADE KGVs so you could engage convoys escorted by maybe a QE-class BB or even a CA. Sorry, guys, but I think evaluating the Tirpitz vs the Iowa or the KGV misses the point. (Having said which, I remember reading a really excellent article years ago evaluating the Iowa vs the Yamato. But then the Yamato wasn't designed to run from a fight with another BB.)
 

Redbeard

Banned
The time when this takes place is important. In short Tirpitz got worse as time progressed and KGV improved.

Tirpitz because being bottled up in a Norwegian fiord most of the time deteriorated her training level and the damages taken in various attacks never were fully repaired. She wasn’t seaworthy for six months after the midget sub attack in September 1943 and in April 1944 she was again attacked and seriously damaged by the Fleet Air Arm, repairs taking at least two months. She was declared operational by summer of 1944, but AFAIK not in good health. By August a bomb hit took out B turret and in September a near miss bent a propeller shaft and the Kriegsmarine itself declared Tirpitz not seaworthy for good. She was sunk by Lancasters in November 1944.

At the time when Tirpitz was operationally deployed in early 42 the original troubles with KGV’s main armament were not an issue any longer. The output trouble experienced in DoY in late 43 at North Cape were more due to the very heavy seas than technical insufficiency. Data from practice firings from 1942-44 show output rates (> 90%) at least as good as of other ships and navies. It also must be remarked, that KGV’s trouble in May 41 was only experienced after several salvoes (IIRC 30). Any ship would have mounting technical trouble in prolonged firing. USN carried out an experiment aboard USS Idaho in 1942 simply having her expend an entire ammo stock. The first salvoes went OK but soon all kinds of technical mishaps and drill errors started to occur putting out down output to IIRC 60-70%.

KGV’s class main problem was that they fired so much that all potential problems were revealed and Bismarck similarly was exposed to so much pounding that all potential weaknesses were exposed. Who knows what would have been revealed if USS Iowa had been through a similar treatment? And what would have been said about USS South Dakota if USS North Carolina hadn’t bailed her out after SD being blinded by superficial fire and a flaw in her electrical system?

From 1942 and until September 1943 KGV and Tirpitz will be two worthy opponents. If Tirpitz can get in close, she will have the best chance, as her guns can penetrate the belt of KGV (and any other ship) and her own protection optimized for short to medium range. At longer range KGV's 5-6” decks will keep out plunging shells but Tirpitz will herself be vulnerable. In bad visibility KGV’s much superior radar will give her a distinct advantage.

After September 43, in one of the brief periods of Tirpitz actually being able to leave her moorings, Tirpitz will need extreme luck to be anything than cannon fodder for KGV.

Regards
Steffen Redbeard
 
Why a battle...

The reason both ships engage has a lot to do with the outcome, as does weather. If, for example, the Germans think that Churchil is on King George V--or that the convoy the British are escorting is carrying a bomb labled "Instant sunrise" then they will press the attack at all costs. Likewise, if the Brisish are blocking the route home, Tirpitz has to engage, soince running around gives reinforcements time to close.

Sea conditions can also make a big difference--the Admiralty's demand that King George V be able to fire dead ahead at zero elevation let to a ship that's very wet forwards. Very bad weather can also mess up radar.

Clear weather, perhaps the ships get their spotting planes off. That would be an advantage for Tirpitz, IMVHO, assuming they got equal numbers up. The Arado's could shoot down the Walruses, then spot shellfire.

There's a lot of conditions that can have serious effects on the outcome, some favoring one, some, the other. Perhaps you could describe the situation, and the desperation of each side?
 
Simple scenario:
Denmark Strait II
Tirp and Prinz Eugen attempt breakout - Hitler desperate and says sortie at all costs

KGV and Norfolk intercept in perfect weather

Cruisers engage first, each quickly badly damage the other.

Now the BBs feel compelled to win to retain ability to protect damaged cruiser, disengage means other BB sinks your friends at leisure.
 
From everything I've been able to pick up (British posters on other forums, including one on Navweaps whose spent a lot of time crawling through the Admiralty's archives), it was political- during the treaty era, the British had been the ones most insistent on trying to control the size and armament of warship through the treaties, for economic reasons and to get the larger numbers of smaller units they desired, while the British government was quite insistent that the RN would strictly comply with the relevant treaties, which for battleships, meant that under the LNT, 14" were the max allowed (as a means to further reduce the size of battleships, the 1935 LNT reduced main armament from 16" to 14"), until someone else invoked the escalator clause. The design of the KGVs started right afterwards, to be built ASAP- there were 9x15" designs, but those were studies not really in the official design lineage because the British Cabinent would have vetoed such a ship in an effort to comply with the treaties. The decision to go with 10 instead of 12x14" guns was a tradeoff to get better protection on 35k tons standard displacement.

Another important consideration for having the 14" armed KGVs was how long it would take to get the ships into service. The 14" gun and the ship design with the 14" gun was ready. Another 6 months might have brought the 16" gun into service. That also means redesigning the ship to take the 16" gun. Triple 15" turrets also means a new turret design, with more time and expense.

What does waiting 6 more months for the new battleships mean for the British war effort? Their guns were sufficient for dealing with any realistic opponent. In my view, the KGVs won't be fighting Yamatos without a bunch of other factors reducing the importance of the 14" guns.
 

Graehame

Banned
SAXON DOG
"Now the BBs feel compelled to win to retain ability to protect damaged cruiser, disengage means other BB sinks your friends at leisure."
Tirp disengages & runs like hell. Better to lose the PE than to risk the Tirp 1-on-1 vs the KGV. Besides, Hitler said to sortie at all costs, so the Prinz is an acceptable loss. Also, the Tirp on the loose in the N Atlantic disrupts convoy traffic & diverts the Home Fleet. The Tirp in port getting repaired does nothing but provide a lucrative target for the RAF.
 
A similar scenario almost did occur with PoW facing the Bismarck after the destruction of the 'Ood. Let's assume the PoW been working a bit better and had not been ordered to withdraw. What results?
 
Top