That one time the Royal Navy attacked Tirpitz with 6 aircraft carriers

[dseehafer]

Greetings all,

 

 

It has come to my realization that you people on the World of Warships forums really enjoy threads about warship history... go figure. So here's another one of those naval battles lost into the armpits of history... This is the story of Operation Tungsten, the largest carrier air raid ever taken out on Tirpitz.

 

I'll try to be as brief as possible. ;)

 

 

     After the successful mini-sub attack on Tirpitz in September/1943, the British began searching for options to take Tirpitz down once and for all. Another mini-sub attack was ruled out because Tirpitz's underwater defenses had been strengthened and the Luftwaffe was now running daily air patrols in the region. A Heavy Bomber raid was also out of the question as no British heavy bomber had enough range to attack Tirpitz in Kaafjord from Britain. The only remaining logical option was a carrier raid...

 

   Planning for the raid began in December 1943 under the code name "Operation Thrustful" (lol) but was later changed to "Operation Tungsten" with the actual attack being planned for March/1944 (by this time it was believed repairs on Tirpitz would be nearing completion). However, the operation had to be pushed back so that HMS Victorious could receive new radars and was almost canceled entirely in February because the Allies desperately needed another fleet-carrier in the Indian Ocean. Luckily, the USN made arrangements to temporarily send the USS Saratoga to the Indian Ocean so that Victorious could be used for Tungsten. Hooray for Allies!

 

HMS Victorious. Her airmen were perhaps most excited for the opportunity to have another go at Tirpitz after they failed to torpedo her at sea the year previous.

 

   Previously, bombs of all sizes and types had proven utterly useless against Tirpitz but it was hoped that the brand new 1,600lb armor piercing bomb could hopefully, maybe, sort-of, penetrate Tirpitz's first armor deck (lol) IF the bomb was dropped from above 3,500 feet. It was hoped that the resulting damage would be enough to keep Tirpitz out of service. However, because this weapon was so new, only 9 aircraft would be armed with these bombs, the remaining aircraft would carry 500lb bombs (both armor-piercing and general-purpose would be used as well as anti-submarine versions which would hopefully cause underwater damage to Tirpitz). The British weren't expecting any miracles from these smaller bombs, their job was to knock out AA guns and kill the crewmen that manned them (anti-submarine bombs exempt). 

 

British airmen writing a special message for Tirpitz on a bomb before the raid

 

Here's the quick and dirty plan of attack for Arpil/2/1944 ... A total of 6 aircraft carriers (Victorious, Furious, Emperor, Pursuer, Searcher, and Fencer) would launch a total of 40 Barracuda dive-bombers, and 80 Hellcat, Corsairs and Wildcat fighters in two waves. The dive-bombers would attack Tirpitz while the fighters concentrated on strafing the AA emplacements in the fjords as well as the 7 AA ships stationed around Tirpitz and would also strafe Tirpitz. Meanwhile, the Battleships Duke of York and Anson would take up position outside the fjord in case Tirpitz tried to make a run for it.

 

Being briefed on the mission

 

   The British achieved complete surprise against Tirpitz in the first wave. In fact, Tirpitz had just been making preparations to leave for sea-trials so her torpedo nets had been removed and her crew was in the process of unmooring her. The 5 destroyers that were with Tirpitz had departed for their own trials a day earlier and had not yet returned. By the time Tirpitz received warning of incoming aircraft from land-based radar installations the aircraft were already on top of her. The fighters cut down the AA crews before the could man their stations and Tirpitz's watertight doors had not yet been closed. Shortly after this the 21 Barracuda's began their attack, hitting Tirpitz with 10 bombs including 3 of the brand new 1,600lb bombs. Amidst the chaos, Tirpitz managed to ground herself, though she would be refloated by the time the second wave arrived...

 

 

    The second attack consisted of 19 Barracudas (only 2 carrying 1,600lb bombs) and 40 fighters. The second attack played out much like the first, the fighters strafed Tirpitz and targets on land and the Barracuda's bombed. During this attack, Tirpitz was hit with 4 bombs including a single 1,600lb bomb. The planned 3rd raid for the following day was canceled as the British assumed that Tirpitz was already badly damaged and also didn't want to expose their fatigued airmen to a now alert enemy. The British fleet arrived back at Scapa Flow on the 6th.

 

 

   Tirpitz had been struck by 14 bombs but none of these managed to penetrate her upper deck as the Barracudas were releasing their bombs too low in order to achieve better accuracy (These were newbies, 85% of the aircrews had never been to sea before this attack). Damage to Tirpitz was limited to a destroyed boat-crane, 2 damaged 150mm turrets, 2 Arado floatplanes destroyed, and of course damage to her superstructure (she also received self-inflicted damage when salt-water from the fire-fighting equipment got into her boilers). This was all very minor and Tirpitz would be ready for action again by June/2/1944. Aboard Tirpitz 122 sailors were killed and a further 316 were wounded, this accounted for 15% of Tirpitz's total crew. The British lost 4 aircraft and 9 airmen. Along with the necessary repairs, Tirpitz received even more 20mm AA mounts, her 150mm turrets were modified to be usable against aircraft and even her 15" guns received special AA shells. These new modifications would be put to good use as the British Home-Fleet would attack Tirpitz with carrier aircraft 5 more times over the next few months. All of these attacks combined managed to score only 2 bomb hits against Tirpitz (both on the same raid) in exchange for 13 aircraft shot down. Still, Tirpitz would not survive the year as the 3 air-attacks that followed the 5 carrier attacks would be carried out by Tall-boy laden Lancaster heavy bombers which would be the end of her. 

 

During the first wave

 

 

One of the more well-known images from the attack

 

 

Multiple bombs explode on and around Tirpitz

 

 

Tirpitz's superstructure after the attack, burnt and riddled with bullet holes

[Valdez_Raptor]

Nice work.

[Spooooooooooooooooooooon]

That was a badass ship

[Dunk_Master_Flex]

Keep in mind Victorious herself was the only proper fleet carrier present. Furious was something akin to a light carrier, being fully converted in the mid 1920's while Emperor, Pursuer, Searcher, and Fencer are all escort carriers.

 

Still, an impressive feat surviving that many aircraft, even if the Fleet Air Arm was generally quite ineffective when compared to the USN or IJN's air arms. 

[RadSammichEater]

Good read. Thank you for putting that together.

[dseehafer]

58 minutes ago, xX_Critical_ClopOut69_Xx said:

Keep in mind Victorious herself was the only proper fleet carrier present. Furious was something akin to a light carrier, being fully converted in the mid 1920's while Emperor, Pursuer, Searcher, and Fencer are all escort carriers.

 

Still, an impressive feat surviving that many aircraft, even if the Fleet Air Arm was generally quite ineffective when compared to the USN or IJN's air arms. 

 

In my studies, there have been a few things I've noticed about carriers. Everybody knows that carriers replaced the battleship, this is because during WWII aircraft supposedly made battleships obsolete.

 

But one must consider the following...

 

1: Never once did a lone carrier ever sink a battleship. No seriously, never once.

 

2: In every example of aircraft sinking a battleship at least 2 of the following conditions were present...

 

A) Hundreds of aircraft were involved
B) Torpedoes were used
C) The battleship was stationary
D) Special or otherwise unique bombs were used

 

The sinking of Yamato? Both A and B apply.
The attack on Taranto? Both B and C apply.
The sinking of Tirpitz? Both C and D apply.
Pearl Harbor? A, B, C, and D all apply.

 

Now let's look at aircraft attacks that failed to sink the targets...

 

Operation Tungsten? Only A applies.
Operation Sportpalast? Only B applies.
Battle of Cape Matapan? Only B applies.
Attacks on Bismarck? Only B applies.

 

The only example that I've found that breaks these rules is the sinking of Roma as only D applies but she still sank. Though, other conditions were present. For example, the enemy aircraft were unidentified and they didn't know if they were friend or foe. The bombs were dropped from an extreme height and at an extreme angle, for a normal bomb, a hit would not have been possible. So on and so forth.

 

I thought to myself "Wow! No single carrier ever once managed to sink a battleship on its own? Why then do they get the reputation of being battleship killers? They've proven that they can't kill battleships unless they are assisted by other carriers or ships! Certainly, a single battleship would be more effective against another lone battleship, no?"

 

But then I considered other reasons why carriers replaced battleships and realized that I was looking at it all wrong. Carriers didn't replace battleships because they were better ship killers, they replaced them because...

 

A) They are cheaper to build and maintain

B) They don't need to be within the gun range of enemy ships. Meaning that they don't have to put thousands of lives at risk to engage in combat like battleships do. The only lives at risk are those in the aircraft. Further, you can attack another ship without risking damage to your own ship. Repair bills are expensive. If a battleship is engaging another battleship, both are likely to receive damage. Like I said, damaged ships are expensive to repair and may be out of service for months while undergoing repairs.

C) You replace planes far less than you have to replace ammunition. And even the used up ordinance of the planes is easier/quicker to replace as battleships can and will expend hundreds of shells in a single battle but I doubt a carrier will expend a hundred torpedoes in a single battle. This also ties in to the overall cheapness of a carrier over a battleship.

 

There are more, I'm sure, but those are the big ones that stick out in my mind. In short, carriers replaced battleships because they were cheaper, safer, and though they weren't as offensively potent as battleships on their own (at least not in WWII), they make up for it by being able to attack a target many miles away without ever being in harm's way itself, on top of being cheaper and safer.

[anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT]

Excellent write up. Thankyou Dseehafer.

[dseehafer]

Here is a detailed look at the damage Tirpitz recieved

 

 

 

1	The 227-kg bomb exploded on contact with the upper deck behind and to the right of the "Dora" tower. The deck is slightly deformed; damage is minimal. (1st wave)
2	A 227-kg bomb pierced the upper deck and exploded in the sergeant's room, causing damage to the shell and equipment. (1st wave)
3	A 227-kg bomb struck the deck of the superstructure and exploded in the vicinity of the officers' cabins to the right of the aft anti-aircraft missile system, causing the deck of the superstructure to collapse. (1st wave)
4	A 227-kg bomb interrupted the starboard crane and exploded in the officer's messroom, seriously damaging the superstructures. (1st wave)
5	A 726-kg armor-piercing bomb struck the upper deck just behind the left catapult and exploded on the battery deck. The outer skin of the port side is destroyed; The internal longitudinal bulkhead received numerous splinter holes; the upper deck is tucked away for 8 m. The main watertight bulkheads in the area of the X and XI compartments are broken off; The air ducts of boiler fans and cable channels are destroyed. The armor grates of chimneys in the X compartment are damaged by fragments. As a result of the fire, two airborne "Arados" were completely destroyed. (1st wave)
6th	A 272 kg deep bomb exploded from a blow to the chimney, severely hampering it; destroyed the projectors located on the platform and seriously damaged the 20 mm installation. (1st wave)
7th	A 227-kg bomb exploded on the superstructure from the inside of the middle right 150 mm tower. The officers' cabins were destroyed. (2nd wave)
8	A 726-kg bomb exploded on the upper deck inside the superstructure to the right of the pipe, causing a violent erosion of the superstructure. (1st wave)
9	A 726-kg bomb exploded on the upper deck between the bow and the middle 150 mm left port towers. The deck is punched with splinters; The nearby rooms on the upper and battery decks were seriously damaged. (1st wave)
10	A 227-kg bomb exploded on the superstructure to the right of the combat deck. The 7-meter range finder of main caliber and anti-aircraft missile system "B" are damaged. Apparently, as a result of this explosion, the commander of the ship was concussed. (2nd wave)
11	A 227-kg bomb exploded on the upper deck to the left of the "Bruno" tower just above the longitudinal armored bulkhead. The upper armored deck is deformed; nearby superstructures are damaged by debris. (2nd wave)
12	A 726-kg bomb exploded on the roof of the "Bruno" tower, destroying the 20 mm installation there and causing potholes in the armor plate. (2nd wave)
13	The 227-kg bomb exploded on contact with the edge of the upper armored deck behind the "Anton" tower on the starboard side. The deck is punched with debris and deformed; but the damage done to the under-deck rooms is insignificant. (2nd wave)
14	A close gap is likely to be a 272-kg deep-well bomb, in the area of compartments XII-XIV on the starboard side. From a strong hydraulic impact, the sheathing sheets broke apart and were partially pressed into the body. (1st wave)
15	The 726-kg bomb fell into the water near the board in the area of the IX compartment, broke through the bottom edge of the armored belt and exploded in the fuel tank in the second-bottom compartment. The outer covering of the PTZ in the area of the IX-X compartments is completely destroyed; splinter holes in a PTP with a diameter of 0.5-1 m. (1st wave)
16	A close rupture of a bomb of an unidentified caliber on the starboard side in the stern. (1st wave)

[mofton]

On 9/3/2017 at 5:47 PM, dseehafer said:

1: Never once did a lone carrier ever sink a battleship. No seriously, never once.

Although 2B and 2C apply, the Illustrious strike on Taranto effectively sank Cavour (never returned to service) and forced Littorio and Duilio to run aground. It's a bit more tenuous but Hermes' strike on Richelieu put her stern on the bottom of the harbor, and although already partially grounded Dunkerque was knocked out by Ark Royal - both with 2B and 2C scenarios again.

It's also noteworthy that Formidable's Albacore strike at Matapan inflicted more damage to a battleship than any British or Italian battleship inflicted to another one in the entire campaign. Warspite's hit at Calabria was pretty minor and about the sum of it.

If you look at Bismarck, had the home fleet not been out there I'm not sure what would have happened after Ark Royal's lucky disabling hit. Steamed around in circles until out of fuel, waited for Prinz Eugen to return and try and make a tow? You could argue that Ark Royal sank Bismarck, she just took a few days. On the other hand, Victorious did launch a strike too, though if there are 2 separate carrier strikes on different days I'd say Ark effectively did it alone.

 

 

As for the Tirpitz write up, nice work and a good summary - I always like to see pics I've not seen before too. I'm not sure what PTZ and PTP are in your lower table? I'm also curious - was the 7m forward rangefinder Tirpitz' primary one? Also it's lucky hit 5 didn't strike the torpedo tubes - though the great advantage of having them on deck is that most of any explosion will go up and out rather than in like the IJN cruisers (the firecracker in the open palm/closed fist analogInsert other media y from Armageddon comes to mind).

[dseehafer]

12 minutes ago, mofton said:

 

 

 I'm also curious - was the 7m forward rangefinder Tirpitz' primary one? 

 

 

No sir, that would be the 10.5m range-finder. The 7m rangefinder is the one on top of her armored bridge...

 

 

 

Here are the 10.5m rangefinders

 

[mofton]

4 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

No sir, that would be the 10.5m range-finder. The 7m rangefinder is the one on top of her armored bridge...

That makes more sense, I was sure she had >10m. Thanks.

[SinqueScheiDeMona]

The Albacore pilot committed suicide basically. Flying within a 1000 meters. 

[dseehafer]

3 hours ago, SparvieroVV said:

The Albacore pilot committed suicide basically. Flying within a 1000 meters. 

 

Albacore? You mean Barracuda? 

[mofton]

1 hour ago, dseehafer said:

 

Albacore? You mean Barracuda? 

He's referring to HMS Formidable's air strike at Matapan. The dropping Albacore got very close and the aircraft was shot down.

It's not all that uncommon for near-suicidal torpedo attacks to be pushed beyond the sensible point, the IJA strike on Repulse was similar (with 2 of 3 aircraft shot down even by her obsolete AA) and the British attempt on Scharn/Gneisenau during the Channel Dash were similar. Torpedo Squadron 8 at Midway comes to mind too.

[SinqueScheiDeMona]

42 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

Albacore? You mean Barracuda? 

 

No Albacore, the Matapan strike while it proved a huge boon to the British cause was only achieved because the pilot got so close he basically committed suicide.

[Jumarka]

Amazing post, like always.

 

The Tirpitz sure was a magnet for British attention.

[Lord_Slayer]

bombs only let in air

 

to sink a ship, you need torpedos to let in water......

[dseehafer]

11 hours ago, Lord_Slayer said:

bombs only let in air

 

to sink a ship, you need torpedos to let in water......

 

But... but.... what about Tallboy bombs? Fritz X? Both of those let in a helluva lot of water.

 

The fact that the British did not use torpedoes during Tungsten was not because the British though bombs would work better, but because using torpedoes would have been virtually useless as Tirpitz was surrounded by torpedo nets. Or, at least she was when the British were preparing for the attack. When the attack ACTUALLY happened Tirpitz's torpedo nets had just been removed as she was preparing to go out on Sea Trials. So they could have used torpedoes... but the British could not have known for sure whether or not they would be removed. They knew Tirpitz was planning on going on trials soon, but they did not know exactly when.

[SireneRacker]

On ‎12‎.‎09‎.‎2017 at 10:06 PM, dseehafer said:

Here is a detailed look at the damage Tirpitz recieved

 

 

-snip-

 

-Long text snip-

And what about #17?

 

But anyway, great write-up on a battle I've never heard of, thanks.

[ArmouredCarriers]

It certainly took a lot of airpower to sink a well prepared - and modern - battleship.

It took 11 USN fleet carriers to take down Yamato,for example.

But that airpower was available -  cheaper, and much more tactically flexible - than the battleships they were up against.

[mofton]

1 hour ago, HMS_Formidable said:

It took 11 USN fleet carriers to take down Yamato,for example.

It didn't really 'take' that, they didn't attack with one carrier and then wait and see, go again, wait and see. Yamato was massively overkilled, we know it takes a maximum of 11 carriers to put her down, not how few could do it.

[ArmouredCarriers]

7 hours ago, mofton said:

It didn't really 'take' that, they didn't attack with one carrier and then wait and see, go again, wait and see. Yamato was massively overkilled, we know it takes a maximum of 11 carriers to put her down, not how few could do it.

 

A poor choice of phrase, I guess. My point was people fight with what they have at the time.

And it was cheaper and more tactically useful to have an aircraft carrier.

 

Thanks to the OP. These Norway/Arctic carrier raids are drastically under-reported. Especially Kirkenes. But the early ones especially were vital (and harsh) lessons learnt that  informed and to some degree helped enable the strike fleets of 44-45.

[Grapefruitcannon]

On 9/19/2017 at 0:23 PM, Lord_Slayer said:

bombs only let in air

 

to sink a ship, you need torpedos to let in water......

tell that too the uss arizona..

[dseehafer]

8 hours ago, Grapefruitcannon said:

tell that too the uss arizona..

 

Arizona was not hit by a bomb, she was hit by a shell. :P

[Grapefruitcannon]

8 hours ago, dseehafer said:

 

Arizona was not hit by a bomb, she was hit by a shell. :P

A modified 16.1 inch shell.......that was dropped from a plane....hence its a bomb...  it was dropped...not fired.