HMS Nelson vs The Tirpitz
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- In this video you can see that Tirpitz is hard to sink so here's some few objectives to sink a Bismarck class first knock out all of the principal armament of a Bismarck class then hit the hull many times so there will be a severe flooding in the ship's hull and cause it to sink
Rodney knocked out Bismarck forward turrets in the first 12 minutes of their battle. German gunnery in every WW2 battle usually fell apart after the first salvos. Scharnhorst failed to damage Duke of York, KGV and Rodney were not hit by Bismarck. Hipper and Lutzow failed against cruisers in N. Atlantic.
partly correct. Bismarck was crippled, slow and a sitting duck. The British could engage 'at leisure' from an ideal position. her fire was accurate, until Rodney hit her fire control centre and knocked out the fire control radar and forward director. From then it was individual fire per turret, very ineffective. Also they shelled from two directions, so Bismark's fire would have been split, and they could 'zig zag' to throw off bracketing, Bismark could be zeroed in on very quickly as she could not steer or speed up.
Scharnhorst did damage the DoY, she had multiple incidents of splinter damage. Again, if you read the full account, initially Scharnhorst 'knocked out' DoY's rangefinding radar. A near miss disrupted the antenna's. A sailor went aloft and physically re-aligned them. Scharnhorst also recieved a hit to her Radar director and from then on DoY enjoyed far more accurate gunfire. Weight of shell plus greater accuracy, the end was inevitable. One would have to consider the hypothetical battle had the Scharnhorst class been fitted with the 6X15inch guns originally intended. Scharnhorst was noted to have scored the longest range direct hit of main battery in WW2.
Hipper and Lutzow were cruisers themselves, it's easy to criticise with hindsight, just as Langsdorf has been 'criticised' for splitting his fire and engaging 3 cruisers at close quarters instead of sitting off and using superior range. I've always considered that Bismarck should have persued PoW and sunk her, but christ, 2,000+ deaths, including Hood? But then, that basically happened anyway when she went down.
@@19Graywulf An 11" shell went through one of the legs of DoY's fore tripod mast cutting the cable from the radar, the cable was reconnected by a feat of climbing.
Did Scharnhorst ever get in range of Duke of York? I mean, she was trying to escape the bigger vessel. It was during a storm and it was pitch dark. Radar knocked out. Criticism a bit unfair. However in five minutes Bismarck sank Hood and damaged PoW. Not shabby, but definitely exceeded expectations. General point that German surface navy overall underperformed is a good one - but all this criticism is conveniently after the fact. When 35,000 tons of German steel is coming in your direction and all your crew could die if your ship sinks, you don't know how it all turned out.
@Jonah Whale The Royal Navy had 180 destroyers at the beginning of the war. Hitler mad to take on those odds.
@@shanecagney7451 Yes, an 11" shell from Scharnhorst damaged the fore tripod mast of DoY, severing the radar cable.
I won this battle several times, with minimal damage. The key is to hit Tirpitz’s fire control quickly. Also managed to defeat Bismarck with two old “R” class battleships, by approaching in a smokescreen until I was in range. It ended with Bismarck sinking, Ramillies scuttled, and Revenge with minor damage.
Nelson likely knocks her into a disabled wreck to be finished off by half a dozen destroyer torpedoes, though ends up in dock for a couple months herself.
In the process, Nelson frees the carriers to go east, and Churchill gets Culverin instead of Tungsten and Goodwood.
Did I hear a Rooster crow? Didn't think that they were on Tirpitz or HMS Nelson either!
The British capital ships don't fire, they SHOOT!
Rodders couldn't keep up with Tirpitz but she has NINE sixteen inchers!!!! And had a crack shooting team. Ask Bismark !!!
Why is a ship that can just off center, about 15 degrees, fire all of its 9 main weapons. Sat doing broadsides at the enemy ship, when it could steam into it still firing all weapons but present a 1/5 or less of a width of target? Thus allowing the enemy to fire broadsides of 12 guns without having to move much, at its full length.
Sorry. Just asking?
Tirpitz would try to use greater speed to get behind Nelson. Also Nelson should angle ship to use 3 main guns but reduce exposure to Tirpitz. Broadside is too easy a target. Just my 2 cents.
My thoughts entirely!
How would it get behind Nelson? The Nelson has a rudder..
Well normally this battle would never occur because a warship would never attack one with bigger guns and - the faster Tirpitz could just steam around the slower ship. But if it absolutely had to attack Nelson, I'd recommend high speed maneuvering and evasion using lots of smoke for cover and trying to get close enough that Nelson makes a mistake and turns the wrong way. When in closer range, Tirpitz pretending to line up torpedoes could help send Nelson in a specific direction. Nelson has no main guns aft, so has to keep Tirpitz ahead or to sides. It's risky for Nelson to turn away. Tirpitz would still take a lot of punishment and probably get sunk anyway. My criticism of the video is that Tirpitz is not maneuvering enough.
The Tirpitz spent most of its pointless life not moving, Nelson was deployed elsewhere.so the RAF destroyed it.
Job done.
@Erich Von Manstein No disrespect but the fact that the Germans spent a huge amount of resources keeping Tirpitz out of harm's way, would somewhat undermine that theory. No way they'd have risked their last battleship in a one-on-one with Nelson. Highly academic scenario anyway; Nelson never went anywhere without sizeable escort. Think of Tirpitz as like the King chess piece.
dropping your guns elevation would increase your hits, and slow your speed down
Just to point out to all the wehraboos, in real life Hms Rodney, Nelsons sister ship fought Tirpitz sister ship Bismarck and not just won. Just one of Rodney's shells took out both forward turrets and the bridge.
fist, it is not known wether there were 2 hits on the ship at the same time. second, it is not rodney alone. she is only part of a fleet and the target has lost maneuverbility.
Not true. Rodney took out the 2nd battery and temporarily disabled the 1st, then took out the bridge and the main direction finder, the Suffolk took out the 2nd, then Rodney pummeled away at her hull, while the cruisers took out the top deck infrastructure, and I think Rodney or the King George took out the other turrets. Rodney had the best radar on either side so hit Bismark first on her 4th salvo.
Bismarck was crippled by simple swordfish torpedo bombers, otherwise would have escaped. Nelson wasn't the only ship on the seen. Reality, the RN was way too big to fight with just a few ships. Germany entered the war with the 5th most capable navy behind US, Japan, UK and Italy. I put Japan at 2 due to their forseeing the use of carriers first, Taronto aside, the royal navy never really got that and the US did only after the early decimation it received ar Pearl.
Nice can u try North Carolina vs schanhorst
The standard of gunnery is pretty poor.
I can't believe this game was created 5-6 yrs ago
Tirpitz all the time to long?? Impossible!
Too many septics on here. 1 Rodney (Sister ship of Nelson) was dropping shells on Bismark before the range decreased enough for Bismark to fire back
not really correct, Bismark's guns were 15 inch and had a similar range, KGV and Rodney could manoeuvre and pick their range, and avoid shell fall. Bismark was a sitting duck, unable to steer and at reduced speed. Bismark's rangefinding equipment was knocked out early, which reduced her ability to return fire drastically.
In reality, the KMS Bismarck artillery pieces had the same reach as HMS Rodney and their firing directors were far superior.
@@JorgeRodriguez-rl7tn In the vivid account of the action given by Bismarck's gunnery officer, he describes the destruction of his fire directors. The Seetact radar attennae went at the same time as they were mounted on top. The gun traverse systems went soon after. Bit awkward if you can't point the guns or track the enemy, especially when they have 9x16" and 10x14" between them. He was rescued by HMS Dorsetshire along with several hundred others (still a terrible loss of life all round).
When I refer to the Bismarck's 15 "artillery pieces having the same range as the 16" guns that fitted the Rodney, this according to the acceptance tests of both models, and in the final combat the Bismarck responded to the fire of the Rodney three minutes into the fire for this and given that the Rodney was moving at a speed of 20.5 knots at 26,000 yards away from Bismarck, at the time the fire responded the Bismarck, the Rodney could not shorten the distance more than a few 2000 yards.
In terms of Bismarck's directors being superior to those of Rodney, it is based on the fact that they were superior in design and performance and with almost two decades of development by the Germans, something that was amply proven in the fight of Denmark Strait, which in the final battle the English could achieve a higher performance than the Germans was due to the failure of the rudder of Bismarck prevented the analog computer in charge of giving the shooting solution lacked several data that fed automatically to this to be in good condition the rudder, by which this data had to be entered manually in the final battle against the Rodney and the KGV, creating a great uncertainty in the shooting solution Bismarck, a situation that did not happen in the Battle of the Denmark Strait. Finally, there is ample reference to the comments made by the members of the crews of the British ships when observing that the first broadsides of the Bismarck straddled the Rodney, while those fired by them against the Bismarck were long, this despite the problem faced by the shot directors of the Bismarck.
@@JorgeRodriguez-rl7tn Interesting. By the way that's the British Royal Navy, not English, the distinction matters.
The two actions you cite were very different. Hood was old, had a weak overstrained hull, and missed out on the major refit that would have seen the armoured conning tower deleted and the tonnage used in some useful armour additions over vulnerable positions. PoW was brand new and still working up, the contractor's men were still on board trying to sort the malfunctioning quad turrets amongst other problems. I reckon the odds of losing both RN battleships were uncomfortably high.
The final action was very different. Rodney and KGV were fully worked up. Rodney did have some problems, her 16"/45 Cal guns were a departure from the RNs usual heavier shot lower velocity rubric and were closer to the lighter shot higher velocity adopted by others . The result was reported to be disappointing (the 16"/45 s planned for the cancelled Lion class would have been Mk II and modified to address the problems). That said they still delivered quite a clout. KGV's guns were excellent and being new were not of the "older built" up pattern. They also delivered a heavier shell with a bigger bursting charge to compensate to some degree for the smaller 14" calibre. So that's still 19 pieces of heavy artillery in play and will hit something. Bismarck lost her fire control systems early on no matter how good they were, Rodney and KGV did not. Also Rodney and KGV were not alone, their supporting heavy cruisers could spot for them if push came to shove.
In his account of the action Bismarck's gunnery officer described a chilling moment when his sight turned blue. He was relieved, all things are relative, when he realised that his gunnery optics had been smashed and the blue glass optical filters had fallen into his line of sight.
The guns on Tirpitz have more velocity than the Nelsons
Nóri Ellends yeah i agree
And much higher rate of fire, the Nelsons triple 16" mounts was a faliure, the old, ww1 era 15" dubbles where better IRL, after all he last British BB (Vangard) got the old 15". Tirpitz was a superior ship in many ways, faster better range finder etc
Tirpitz also had turtleback making her very difficult to sink.
Tirpitz mounted 8x380mm 48cal SK C/34 guns each firing a 1,800lb AP shell to max c22 miles at 30 degrees gun elevation and with muzzle velocity of 2,700ft/sec.
Nelson mounted 9x16" (406mm) 45cal BL Mk1 guns each firing a 2,050lb AP shell to max c 23 miles at 40 degrees elevation and with muzzle velocity of 2,586ft/sec.
So not much in it on velocity, tbh, and in any case wrt penetrative performance re AP fire, heavier shells and a lower m.v. would have served both ships far better. In fact the penetrative performance of the rather older British 15" (380mm) Mk1 42cal gun firing a 1,938lb AP shell at 2,458ft/sec was rather better than the German gun detailed above and in truth, only marginally inferior to the British 16" one! The reason there being mistaken conclusions drawn from firing tests leading to the adoption of the low-shell-weight-high-mv combination and saddling the Nelsons with a less effective weapon than they should've had in consequence. The US Mk6 45cal 16" introduced in the '30s for their North Carolina class and firing a heavy 2,700lb AP shell to max c23 miles at mv of 2,300ft/sec was significantly better.
Wrt other salient facts/characteristics;
The main battery installation on Bismarck/Tirpitz had a design rate of fire of c2.5 rounds per min although in the Denmark Strait action Bismarck managed only a little over 1 round per minute under actual battle conditions. I'd suggest though that there are several mitigating factors, including the quite short total duration of the action and the need to shift target when Hood blew up after just five minutes in action. In a sustained single ship-on-ship duel it's likely approaching 2 rounds per minute average would be attained by well trained Kriegsmarine crews.
By WW2 most of the serious issues with the Nelsons' over-complex triple turrets, unconventional 'cordite above shells below' magazine layouts and consequent separate shell and propellant handling systems that had restricted rates of fire severely in earlier years, had already been solved.. or at least reduced. That being said and with UK governments of the age being almost as 'pikey' as they are today, the cash for a comprehensive update was never found and the ships remained reliant on systems that were innately temperamental. So on the whole, their wartime performance was surprisingly good given the continuing limitations. Without going into the minor (or major) arcana of brackets, range and rate spotting, 400yd steps and half salvo ladder groups (fee-fi-fo-fucking-fum with a cherry on top) and being careful not to confuse "half" salvoes with full ones (always a danger especially given std UK practice) it's likely that a sustained rate of c1.6 rounds per minute average could be achieved in battle by the very experienced RN gunnery crews in these ships from 1941 onwards.
All of which leaves just the other two classic battleship metrics to consider.
So, re protection, sorry iconic Bismarck class fans, but there's no comparison. Not only does the class's (max) 12.6" belt, 14" turret and 4.7" (main) deck armour compare poorly with the earlier UK ships' (again, max) 14" belt, 16" turret and 6.25" (main) deck but the layout on the Nelsons is far and away more effective too. From the inclined, internal belt with provision for 2000 tonnes of water protection outboard of that to the 7.25" main turret roofs vs 5.1" in Bismarck. As for quality, it's recognised that both German and British armours of the period were superior to any others and equivalent to each other. Alas for the Bismarcks, the main deck's low position in the hull and mistaken preference for a "turtle back" format (fine if the ships are going to slug it out exclusively at average WW1 battle ranges; an almost total waste of effort otherwise) meant a plethora of vital systems and pipe and cable runs too were mounted outside the armoured citadel anyway, and hence were extraordinarily vulnerable.
Finally, wrt speed the situation is diametrically reversed. The Nelsons as treaty ships sacrificed speed for guns and armour and could make 23kts at best. The Bismarcks could do a design 30kts and iirc exceeded that in practice. No doubt about who could choose the range at whim and likely 'chase' salvoes more effectively.
And who'd win?? In this game, whichever ship the player picks! It seems to be written into the software as a pre-set that the "player" will have a marked gunnery advantage whatever the historical record might suggest. In this instance then, had Tirpitz been played and Nelson operated by the game, the latter would've been battered into submission just as effortlessly. IRL? Who knows? It'd depend on the usual range of ponderables AND imponderables. From considerations based on data such as I've quoted here, to the inevitable vagueries of blind chance! Of the sort, in fact, that dictated Hood was struck fatally at just 'that' place and at precisely 'that' second, so at exactly 'that' point in her turn to port to unmask her aft turrets and present her thick belt armour to Bismarck... ...or for that matter Bismarck's own one-in-a-million misfortune in sustaining just 'that' torpedo hit from one of Ark Royal's Swordfish only three days later.
@@niclasjohansson3390 Spent most of its life going nowhere and destroyed by the RAF, whatever its "superiority" was, became irrelevant when it ended up upside down in a Fiord.
En el 1 contra 1, el Rodney y el gemelo Nelson no le hubieran ganado al Bismark y al gemelo Tirpitz, los acorazados ingleses eran muy viejos, el Bismark y Tiepiz tiraba 2 y hasta 3 rondas por minuto su artillería principal, el Rodney y Nelson solo 1 y hasta 2 veces por minuto. El Bismark era mucho más rápido y se hubiera puesto en la popa del inglés, que no solo era lento en tirar, era muy lento en velocidad además de los problemas de motores que siempre tenía, además de la maniobrabilidad, y por carecer de artileria principal en la popa, no eran rivales esos viejos acorazados Ingleses para los nuevos acotados Alemanes.
Yeap.Bis zu drei Schuß waren drin.Und Wir (deutsche) schossen nur Teilsalven-sprich nur mit zwo Türmen=4 Rohre.So waren die vier Einschläge beim Heranschießen/Gabelverfahren zu zu korrigieren.Und man sparte Munition.Taten wir im 1.Wk bei der Skagerakschlacht ebenfalls.Und gegen die Hood in der Dänemarkstraße.Die Briten schossen drauflos-und schossen daneben.Zu den langen Ladezeiten der USA und Briten kommt der Längsverschluß(Schraubenverschluß) mit Glühzünderverfahren(eine art Zündvorrichtung im verschluß)der zu viel zeit und Platz raubte.Wir hatten seit ende des 19.Jhd. den Querverschluß im gebrauch.Schnelles Laden garantiert.Und Messinghülsen.Die Briten und USA nutzten den Antiken Kartuschenbeutel aus Stoff für das Treibpulver.Musste vor dem schiessen aus der Schutzkartusche entnommen werden,was lange Ladezeiten beanspruchte.Und empfindlich gegen Feuer.Daher die großen Detonationen bei den Schiffen der Briten im Skagerak-mit hohen Personalverlusten.
POV: you're a bitter spanish loser mad that the british ships were more powerful than the Bismarck and probably still mad that the spanish empire fell due to the british.
Let me know what warship do you want to see
I would like to see a battle that COULD have occurred between HMS Malaya and Gneisenau AND Scharnhorst! Admiral Luetjens declined action and allowed the battleship convoy to pass without action.
From what game is this?
Atlantic Fleet
Great game what is this game called?
atlantic fleet, you can download it at play store or app storr
Its called summertime saga
German gunners always score first hits.
2 British battleships lost to 1 battleship and 1 heavy cruiser.
Bismarck with Tirpitz would had obliterated any 2 allied battleships.
What a nonesense statement. Bismarck sunk a 30 year old battle cruiser and managed to score hits against a brand new battleship with civilian contractors still on board. It then came up against a 20 year old battleship and the slightly newer KGV and got absolutely blown out of the water, as for tirpitz, well she was good at hide and seek.
Rubbish and wishful thinking.
Hey they are the same
chickens and kid noises? Big thumbs down! 👎
Yes children do make noises.when you have some kids you may understand that they do play even when you play games ;)
I defeded the whole British fleet in the final battle Bismarck against Rodney, KGV, Dorsetshire and Suffolk several times lost only one fight by huge British losses but in this game Bismarck could normal maneuver. All battles were really hard to do.
Selbst beim letzten Gefecht konnte die Bismarck einen Treffer verbuchen-auch wenn die Inselaffen es nicht wahr haben wollten (Geschichte wird immer von den Siegern geschrieben).Eine 15cm Granate schlug in der Stromzufuhr der feuerleitung der KG5 ein,konnte aber wieder repariert werden.
Just not credible! Sorry! I'd back the Tirpitz any day over any British Battleship in WW2!
Really? Despite the thinner armour, laid out to an obsolete incremental design, the weaker weight of broadside, and the outdated twin gun main turrets? All a Bismarck had in her favour was the speed to avoid action, and even that was problematic where the KGVs were concerned.
In an actual real life battle between these 2 the Germans would use there much greater speed 30kt+ against 23kt to use the Nelsons great weakness against it, the lack of the ability to fire to the rear. The Germans would look to get in behind the Nelson, would certainly not conduct a broadside battle in this fasion.
Even if the Tirpitz could manage 60kts it wouldnt be fast enough to out turn the Nelson at reasonable engagement ranges.
@@127mungo True. That's alot of ocean to cover.
Auf jeden Fall.Wir hätten die Nelson Buchstäblich "Eingesackt".
@@127mungo Die Tirpitz konnte die Nelson Mühelos übertrumpfen.Da nützten der Nelson ihre 9 40,6cm wenig.Ausserdem war die Nelson restlos veraltet.Genietet.Ein Treffer und der Pott wäre in seine Einzelteile zerfallen.
These aren't fighters. They're battleships. You don't simply get in behind... the Nelson was more than capable of manoeuvre in order to keep her main battery arcs open.
every round over ? German optics were excellent and the range shown is spit ball both ships secondary would be engaged
i dont understand why the Tirpitz is sailing so strange that only here forward guns fire at Nelson. She should be able to dominate the Range the engadement takes place and be able to use all there 4 guns o.O
False Nazi/Wehraboo stats are commonly used in Internet arguments, For example the Wehraboos use the Nelsons 1920 Muzzle Velocity to Claim that the Nelsons have less range not realising that the Nelsons have more effective Armor than the awful turtle armour, They also use Nazi Propaganda to Claim that Bismarck could do 30 Knots,
Ha,ha,ha .......!!! This old goose Nelson have no Chance against the Tirpitz in a real fight ;-))))))
The Nelson had better armor over critical parts & 9 x 16" guns - it was built for a head on slugging match
Tell that to Bismarck...
@@ScienceChap
Bismarck the best !!! She sank your glory Hood in 5 Minutes and the PRINCE OF WALES she was wounded very hard !!!!
Minutes later ;-))))))))))))))))
@@wernermunzberger7341 Its hardly a boost to say a modern battleship beat a old WW1 battle cruiser was winged by a tube and canvas biplane and never even landed one hit on the ships sent to execute it
The Nelson & Rodney were built to slug it out head on
i like the tirpitz and the bismarck
Me too
They did`nt last long-admitedly they were fine looking battleships
@@grahampaice5696 but They are also highly overrated by most
Nelson had the advantage of additional chicken crew.
Rodney gutted Bismarck like a herring. Why not Nelson doing in Tirpitz?
Esto es imposible dado que el Tirpitz tiene más rango y velocidad, solamente un novato puede perder con el KM
Tirpitz captain ever hear of something called a rudder?
Nice battleship mate ⚓👍😉🇺🇸
I haven't sunk yet .....
Great job taking out the primaries
One on one take Tirpitz. The Nelson was a slug at sea. Any reasonable ship commander would simply keep his distance and sail circles around the slug. Gunnery was lucky against Hood, but still landed early. Prince of Whales took hits too. None were great ships, but of the 3 classes Bismarck, KGV, then Rodney. Fire control on Bismarck class was pretty goos pre radar, second only to Japanese.
Rodney and Nelson was ment to be even bigger g3 or n3 class I think they was going to be with 18 inch guns on some designs I think
Who's in charge of Fire Control .......... the family Cat !! : D
I was thinking Helen Keller
@@georgedistel1203 Lol
The HMS Nelson is weird weird
Tirpitz gunnery officer H. Keller
Something to note the Tirpitz only fired it’s guns in combat once and that was at a land target. The Nelson spent most of WW II at sea where Tirpitz was mostly at anchor. Even an elite crew would rust with last of any activity. If Tirpitz actually went to sea it would have been a solo effort. Nelson would have sailed with a powerful squadron and most likely with a carrier.
Bull shit!
El gemelo del bismark, no tenia marinos prácticos y oficiales de artillería perdón por mi ignorancia, si se enfrentaban, dichos acorazados, el ingles , no tenia. Ventaja, alguna. Lo destrozaba el tirpiz,
Nelson-class had been such an ugly class of ships....
Love the chickens and typewriter in a naval battle
Your result is failed it is not really
Show the S I N K I N G!!!
What is this game called?
Atlantic Fleet
Sure, but there is the fleet-in-being argument in favor of Tirpitz. Her mere existence was dangerous. very Arctic convoy had to beef up its escort and I imagine lots more resources were tied up trying to sink her than maintenance.
Tirpitz sunk in 42 or 43 would have freed twice as many British carriers to go east in 44, enabling sustained amphibious offensives and bringing the British back to Singapore in early 45.
That's the Rodney, not the Nelson.
horselips it says "BB Nelson" in the top left. Also Rodney and Nelson are sisters so they are identical
If they were so good why are the both of them at the bottom of the ocean PLONKERS
And when was HMS Nelson sent to the bottom of the sea... PLONKER?
Neither was sunk read the reply before you comment both Rodney and Nelson outranged anything the Germans had now you really are a plank
@@michaelhannah7189 English must be your fourth or fifth language, clearly you don't really understand it. Your original post is nonsensical bullshit.
@@Warriorking.1963 He's referring to Tirpitz and Bismarck, not Nelson and Rodney.
Plonker.
honestly you need to really read the design and capabilities of both types. The fact was there was no British Capital ship that was superior in a one to one fight. Bismarck class were faster, the actual armour composition (cupro-nickel stell) was superior to the british armour and they were built specifically to withstand the pounding they'd receive in a broadside fight. Plus they had superior rangefinding equip (radar) at that point in time.
Cameron's detailed exploration of the Bismark wreck showed that only a few 16 inch shells actually managed to penetrate the side armour even from the 1 mile point blank range the battle ended up at. Superstructure and conning tower were indeed shot to hell. but as the Germans pointed out below the armoured decks the ship was functioning well (apart from the jammed rudders etc). also to understand how 'tough' those two ships were constructed read how many times Tirpitz received a direct hit from a 5 ton talboy bomb AND first time was still afloat, second time took 2 direct hits, but was turned turtle by several near misses. That's a 5 ton 'bunker buster' not a 16 inch AP shell packed with only about 50lb of HE.
Since this never happened its a pretty bloody pointless debate
Thats the bismarck,not the tirpitz and also that game is atlantic fleet
It was the Tirpitz
Dude if he sees the name the name of bismarck in the bismarck class he would put bismarck vs rodney. Common sense.