Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "KMS Tirpitz - Guide 117" video.

You don't think that, just perhaps, there might be a difference between ships on the open sea, with less than impressive AA guns, their aircraft protection down at sea level, and taken completely by surprise, with a battleship in a narrow fjord, with early warning radar, fighter protection in the immediate vicinity, massed AA support, both on the ship and on hills overlooking the fjord, protective anti-torpedo netting, and smoke pots capable of being operated in 90 seconds/ If you don't think there is a difference, perhaps you should?
6
You don't perhaps detect any difference between a fleet on a peacetime footing, and a battleship tucked away in a fjord, surrounded by AA guns, anti-torpedo nets and smoke dischargers, and supported by fighter aircraft from nearby bases, then?
5
During the time Tirpitz was in Norway, there were five Fleet Air Arm strikes ( Operations Tungsten, Mascot, and Goodwood 1-3) involving a total of 187 dive bombers, followed by three separate Bomber Command attacks, using 98 bombers in total. Tirpitz suffered severe superficial damage from the dive bomber attacks, was crippled by the first Bomber Command attack, and destroyed by the third. 'Lots of losses?' Losses were 18 FAA aircraft and 1 Lancaster. The two strikes that sank Yamato involved 380 US aircraft. However, you are not comparing like with like. Whereas Yamato was exposed at sea with no air cover (and, moreover, already intent upon a suicide mission) Tirpitz was hidden away in a fjord, with a large array of smoke dischargers, shore based AA positions and radar installations to support her, and nearby fighter bases to intercept incoming attacks. Moreover, her sheltered position, and surrounding torpedo nets, prevented the fleet air arm from using torpedoes at all.
4
They all fitted quite neatly into the concept of the 'Fleet in Being.' Their destruction was necessary because of the potential danger they caused. Of the three, Tirpitz was the least realistic threat, as she was barely able to move under her own power by the time she met her end, because of the damage inflicted upon her at various times by X Craft, the Fleet Air Arm, & Bomber Command, although her exact state was probably not known to the Allies at the time of her destruction.
3
No they didn't. She was only sunk in November, 1944, and she capsized.
3
@gtifighter It seems you don't know that Bismarck & Prinz Eugen were sent out to attack Atlantic convoys, but were obliged to abort the operation because Bismarck had been damaged by Prince of Wales, and Prinz Eugen, after being ordered to operate independently, developed engine problems. Using your skill and judgement, would you care to estimate how many Atlantic convoys were disrupted, and how many merchantmen Bismarck sank? Certainly, Bismarck would never have prevailed against such odds, but the fact is that the Admiralty were able to concentrate their forces in order to achieve the desired result, which, put simply, is what the larger navy is likely to do. Leyte Gulf is a typical example of a similar force concentration in the Pacific. If it is ignorance you seek, look closer to home.
3
Indeed. Graf Spee scuttled in 1939, Bismarck sunk after a week at sea, 821 U-boats of 1113 which were commissioned sunk, Tirpitz a 'Fleet in Being' hidden down a fjord until sunk by bombing in 1944. Truly formidable!
2
No, all that work to remove a potential threat to the Russian convoys, and permit reallocation of naval resources elsewhere. In any case, by 1944, Bomber Command had plenty of resources to spare.
2
Battleships had a significant impact on the war against Germany & Italy.
2
@Volnas97 Be fair. Tirpitz did take part in a raid on Spitzbergen, and destroyed a large shed.
2
Performed well ? Bismarck sunk on her first voyage without achieving any of her mission objectives. Tirpitz firing her main guns in anger once, at a shed on Spitzbergen, then acting as a Fleet in Being until destroyed. What would be your definition of performing badly, then?
2
@KatyushaLauncher Also, there were Luftwaffe bases nearby specifically to provide fighter protection.
2
The Operation involved 6 X craft. X5, 6, & 7 were to attack Tirpitz, X9 & 10 Scharnhorst, and X8 Lutzow, X9 was lost en route, with her passage crew, X8 developed serious leaks en route and was scuttled. X10 developed faults, but her attack was cancelled as Scharnhorst was absent on exercises. She successfully met her mother submarine and was towed back to Scotland. X6 & 7 carried out their attacks. X5 was long believed to have been sunk by a hit from one of Tirpitz's 105mm guns, but more recently it has been suggested that she did indeed complete her attack before being sunk, although there is no conclusive evidence either way.
1
If someone did that today they would be acclaimed as a hero!
1
It means, in translation, Kriegsmarine ship. The Kaiser's ships were prefixed SMS, which means His Majesty's Ship.
1
@andrewrolfe7718 I'm sorry, but i am not quite sure what you mean by 'never used.' Surely, it replaced the earlier term 'Reichmarine' which was used between 1919 & 1935?
1
@KatyushaLauncher To a degree, yes. Her threat forced the RN to have two capital ships (and usually a carrier) as cover for Russian convoys, when they could better have employed them elsewhere. However, the same cover would also have been there in any case because of the presence, until December 1943, of Scharnhorst. Furthermore, the Germans ended up devoting a large number of resources (mines, anti-aircraft guns, smoke defences, and air cover) to Tirpitz that eventually she became a major drain on the German military as well.
1
@hughjass1044 The Tirpitz was protected by shore based AA guns, fighter cover from a nearby aerodrome, and smoke pots capable of concealing her in minutes. It really wasn't as easy as you make it sound.
1
That is the whole idea behind a Fleet in Being. Until the potential threat of Tirpitz to the Russian convoys was eliminated, the British were unable to send some of their heavy ships elsewhere.
1
A Soviet submarine, K21, made an attack on Tirpitz on 5 July, 1942, firing four torpedoes. Two explosions were heard, on the basis of which two hits were claimed. However, there were no reports of any damage to Tirpitz at that time, and it seems that the two explosions were not even detected by Tirpitz. The probability is that the torpedoes exploded prematurely, but the certainty is that neither hit Tirpitz.
1
Do your carers know that you have worked out how to switch on the computer? Very clever of you, little chap.
1
What Royal Navy obsession? The Home Fleet screened Arctic Convoys in any case, and Tirpitz was eventually crippled by a midget submarine attack using vessels built on the cheap, powered by second-hand bus engines, and of a type which subsequently served to good effect elsewhere.
1
@bkjeong4302 Would you care to give examples?
1
He didn't. German heavy ships so rarely put to sea that the Admiralty were determined to dispose of this one. Anyway, isn't using your warships to sink your enemy's warships rather the point of having a fleet in the first place?
1
The destruction of the Normandie dock meant that there was nowhere on the French coast capable of receiving Tirpitz for hull repairs. That was why Bismarck was making for St. Nazaire in May, 1941.
1
@gerardmdelaney Actually, nothing. There was a degree of concern within the higher echelons of the German navy about morale aboard Tirpitz, as she had been inactive for many months, and the crew of Scharnhorst, apparently, regarded Tirpitz with some disdain. The Operation, which saw bucketfuls of medals handed out to Tirpitz crew members, was intended to improve the morale problem. Of course, three weeks after the raid, Operation Source made the morale issue more or less irrelevant.
1
@jonathoncopeland7492 I doubt that. Had the American fleet had only one operational battleship, and the Japanese (or Germans, or indeed anyone) had half a dozen, and supporting cruisers and carriers, to oppose it, then do you really think it would have been sent to sea? An American naval Kamikaze perhaps? Tirpitz had a competent captain and crew (although morale, as a result of months of damaged inactivity, combined with the knowledge that the war was being lost, does seem to have deteriorated later on), but the Kriegsmarine high command had realised, from mid 1941 onwards, that to send a heavy surface ship to sea in the face of British naval supremacy was inviting destruction. Their actual use of Tirpitz, as a potential threat (a Fleet in Being) was probably the wisest course.
1