U.S. BB vs. Tirpitz

I have seen photos of U.S. North Carolina class BB in service with KGV-class in the Atlantic, mid-war, I think for a russian convoy run.
How do think a North Carolina or Alabama class U.S. BB would do against Tirpitz?

 

The modern US battleships were better gun fighters than Tirpitz. The main question is whether or not the Germans could successfully withdraw before getting smooshed.

 

Just nit-picking but the USS Alabama is a South Dakota class ship. She's better than the Tirpitz in every way.

I could be just a little biased since I live about 30 minutes away from the Alabama.

 

TIRPITZ could outrun a NORTH CAROLINA-class BB; the two of them had a top speed of 28 knots, while TIRPITZ could do better than 30, IIRC. But even with that in mind, I'd still vote for the American ship.

 

i also go for the american ship. more and bigger guns, better radar + radar controlled fire.

 

The American ship... Although I know nothing of Naval tactics I do know how small and un-trained the Russian Navy was, as the Japanese demonstrated in 1905 during the Russo-Japanese War... The Americans however had the experience of actually defeating the Japanese Navy

 

But the Tirpitz (in this scenario) is attacking a convoy protected by the NC, so extra speed makes no difference.

On another board there is a lot of discussion about the Bismarck Class and the general consensus is that it was a very good design for the First World War but badly outclassed in the second. This was because Germany had no experience designing / building battleships during the 20s and most of the 30s so they fell back on an improved Baden design.

Tom

 

There is a superficial resemblance between Baden and Bismarck, but Bismarck was a design evolution from Scharnhorst rather than from Baden. Oh, but there was one feature that was identical aboard Baden and Bismarck. They had the exact same kitchen.

 

And a vitally important feature it was, too!

 

I think a North Carolina class BB could manage to pull off a win, although it would be a VERY hard fight. The armor and gunpower of both ships are pretty equal, but I think the North Carolina's tech will help it win.

 

I find it hard to get past the fact that Bismarck's gun turrets were penetrable at ALL ranges.

"And a vitally important feature it was, too!"
I have my priorities....

 

yeah but that was 40 years later. a lot changed in that time. the carrier became the most powerfull vessel and a mass attack of submarines against the japanese convoys prevented the japanese ships out off the dutch indies off getting their oil. without oil, those ships are only a artificial island with guns on it.

 

JCalhoun wrote that the South Dakota class BB was "better than the Tirpitz in every way".
----------------
And they seemed very compact considering the wealth of 16", 5" & AA firepower - I have the impression that it would have been very manueverable; if so, this could have been very useful in say the areas around Guadalcanal where there were torpedo attacks.
Does anyone have any info on turning radius or manueverability comparisons between this class and other BB's?
Thanks!

 

Here's some stats from the USS Alabama website:

USS ALABAMA STATS
Sister Ships: Massachusetts, Indiana, South Dakota
Launched: 16 February 1942
Commissioned: 16 August 1942
Displacement: 35,000 to 44,500 tons.
Length: 680 ft.
Beam: 108 ft. 2 in.
Height of truck light
above keel: 194 ft.
Design Draft: 33 ft. 8 in.
Actual weight when
fully loaded: 42,500 tons.
Speed: 28 knots
Range: 15,000 Nautical miles at 15 knots
Crew: 127 Officers, 2,205 Enlisted Men
Armament:
9 16"/45 cal. Guns (3 turrets)
20 5"/38 cal. Guns (10 mounts)
48 40mm Guns (12 mounts)
52 20mm Guns
Armor:
Turret faces: 18 inches
Conning tower: 16 inches
Side armor: 12.2 inches, tapering to 1 inch at bottom.
Power Plants:
Horsepower: 130,000 hp
4 engine rooms. each carrying 2 boilers and 2 turbines. Four propellers, 2 five bladed and 2 four bladed, each weighing 18.2 tons.

 

The South Dakota class sounds to me like the perfect solution to the 35,000-ton battleship design;
The only thing I would want is covered aircraft accomodations as on the KGV's, but then again, with U.S. mark 8 radar, maybe I wouldn't need spotter aircraft anyway!
Thanks much JCalhoun for the statistics -

 

well, a spotter plain alwayscomes in handy to search for people on see or for looking what is going on at an island. that are things that a radar can't. but then again, the Americans mostly sailed in Task Forces = carriers supported by battleships, cruisers and destroyers. so why use a spotter plain if you can use a whole carrier for that task :-?

 

Not listed are two Kingfisher planes on catapults.

 

Oops what I should have said was that I would have liked to have covered aircraft accomodations (as on KGV etc) instead of storing the aircraft presumably on the catapults.
This would be nice esp considering that South Dakota was used in conjunction with the British Home Fleet (sounds cold and wet) in 1943...............WHICH REMINDS ME, that timeframe makes a confrontation between South Dakota and Tirpitz perfectly plausible :bang:

 

There were hangers fro the aircraft. They were not stored on the catapaults.

 

No hangars in the modern US battleships. Two stored on the catapults, the other 1-2 on deck.