Talk:German battleship Tirpitz: Difference between revisions

	German battleship Tirpitz has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 29, 2011 Good article nominee Listed

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Military history: Maritime / European / German / World War II / Operation Majestic Titan GA‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force European military history task force German military history task force World War II task force Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Shipwrecks GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: edit history watch purge To Do Lady Elizabeth (1879) Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed! Improve grammar Add any additions if needed Still adding more information Discuss desired additions -None Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ships GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

On July 5th, 1942 the Russian submarine K-21 located the German escort of Operation Rösselsprung and claimed to have hit Tirpitz with two torpesdoes. However, the ship's war logs report no such incident, and she reportedly wasn't damaged. One Russian theory dictates that the Tirpitz was indeed damaged, but was quietly brought in to berth and repared to avoid the Führer's wrath. This seems somewhat far-fetched, however.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.213.157.4 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 March 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Western historians tryed to prove that K-21 missed. How they did it ? Look in the book of David Irving "The Destruction of Convoy PQ-17" http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/PQ17/2009edition.pdf at this map http://zhurnal.lib.ru/img/t/tonina_o_i/tirpitz-lunin-01shtml/002.jpg Mr.Irving so aspired to pull a CONDOM on an ELEFANT that HAS crossed out ALL GEOGRAPHICS! At this map the point 23°40′E is to the west from the point 23°10′E. That is mr.Irving, in struggle against Russians, has decided to change ALL GRID of GEOGRAPHICAL COORDINATES ON MOTHER EARTH!195.26.84.250 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Arthur[reply]

There's simply no evidence that the torpedoes hit - the Germans would have recorded the maintenance done to repair the alleged damage, as they did in every other instance. I don't know what you're trying to prove with the link to Irving's book. Can you be more specific? Parsecboy (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismarck_class_battleship wrote the Tirpitz after the operation "Knight's Move" about : "a large caisson was built to allow the rudders to be replaced.[52] Naval historians William Garzke and Robert Dulin stated that "the repairs to this ship were one of the most difficult naval engineering feats of World War II." The replace of the rudders was finished in jan.1943. And at what here K-21? The rudders were cracked itself.:)

You may not be aware, but ships require periodic maintenance to keep them operational. As for the refit for Tirpitz, it happened in October, the K-21 attack occurred in June. How do you explain the 4 month gap? And do you mean to tell me the two alleged hits forced the replacement of the water tubes in the boilers as well? Parsecboy (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion over the units and notation. For example "Length: 253,6 m overall". Shouldn't this read "2,536 m" (two kilometers long) or should it read "253.6 m"? There are similar problems else where, for example speed is given as "30,8 knots" rather than "30.8". Curioulsy the crews complement is listed as "2.608,", in other words just over two and a half men! But others areas appear correct such as "3 three-blade propellers, 4.70 m ". This needs sortign out as the article looses credibility. --ManInStone 10:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The continental system has now bene changed to the English notation. GraemeLeggett 11:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, German switches the . and the , like 203,8 (203.8) and 2.123.234 (2,123,234) Cyborg999 21:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyborg999 (talk • contribs)

the picture needs to be decreased in size, it's quality is WAY to low for it to be displayed at that size.

I have added descriptions (some minor) of various attacks on the Tirpitz. It arguable that these should be described individually in separate articles. Could do this, but some are very minor and being together they show the progression and linkage between the attempts. Or should I expand the major ones into articles? Folks at 137 17:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stated dimensions are: 251m x 36m x 8.7m

251m is length, 36m is probably height, and 8.7 - width?

Judgin by this picture, the width should be at least 4 times that.

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/germany/battleships/tirpitz/22_kaafjord_mar_1943.jpg

Please verify.

36 m is width, 8.7m is draft. But draft should be 10m or more, see Bismarch article for data. --Denniss 18:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This site [1] has these dimensions:

Length (Total): 251,0 m

Length (Waterline):241,6 m

Beam: 36,0 m

Draft: 10,6 m

This site [2] gives 9.9m for "designed draft" and 10.61m as "maximum draft", and compares Bismarck & Tirpitz.

Hope this helps. Folks at 137 19:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, soon might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.^[1]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[2]
• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.^[3]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[4] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.^[5]
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[6]
• As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some�?, “a variety/number/majority of�?, “several�?, “a few�?, “many�?, “any�?, and “all�?. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.�?
• This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References�? or “Footnotes�?, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.^[7]
• The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. ^[8]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Bwhack 09:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This:-
"She is also the biggest warship ever built in Europe"
Has been changed and reverted a couple of times; whats the thinking, here?
She was one of a pair, so there can't be much in it; and I thought the Hood and the Littorio's were about the same size, and that Vanguard was bigger (though that page says 48,000 tons, which seems too big). Any thoughts? Xyl 54 17:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

48,000 t is probably the full load displacement of Vanguard she is described as marginally heavier than Hood but Hood was longer. GraemeLeggett 20:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked Conway for this; unhelpfully, they don't give a standard displacement for Hood, but full load was 48,360t in 1940; Littorio was 40,724t standard, 45,236t full load. So they're a bit smaller. Vanguard was 44,500t standard, 51,429t full load; so, make of that what you will. A bit bigger when empty, a bit smaller when full. (Conway gives the same displacements as this page for Tirpitz). Xyl 54 (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written this section;
This : “On 4 July 1942 Tirpitz and her escorts left port to sail to a new base.�? Is misleading;
And this : “but due to the efficiency of the U-boats and aircraft in dealing with the convoy the sortie was aborted�? is plain wrong.
So I’ve corrected it.
(There is a discussion here if anyone is interested).
Xyl 54 (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the general CN tag. I don't think it applies as a whole to the article. I may add individual tags as are required. Protonk (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With proper referencing and inline citations, this article would easily qualify as B class. --dashiellx (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits have imposed US spellings and terms on what is, primarily a British or European topic. I've added the "British English" banner to alert future editors and I'll revert the changes, keeping any substantive new info. No offence intended (note spelling!) Folks at 137 (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added "Verification needed" to two comments in this section. First, regarding the sentence, "However, a large portion of the bow remains where it sank in 1944." At least one photo exists that shows the tip of the bow being removed, and can be found (among other photos) at http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/gallery/themes/gallthemetirscrapping.html. Also, regarding the comment, "the ship's electrical generators were used for a temporary power station", I question whether any of the ship's equipment would have been usable after the attack. I think these two sentences are rather important, and as such should be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsquared (talk • contribs) 00:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I realise that the fanbois need a way to justify this ship's career, I'd be interested to know how many additional RN units were deployed to the NE of the UK because of Tirpitz's existence. Somehow I suspect the answer is rather small. Any ideas for a reference? Greglocock (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example: Operation Tungsten. Your recent edits regarding removal of the fleet-in-being information (stated by numerous authors btw) is not supported, either in this article or in the Bismarck class article. Would you kindly restore the previous consensus view? Yours truely, a 'fanboi' (please refrain from incivility in the future). Kurfürst (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that is a task force that was raised for a specific mission. A fleet in being succeeds if it locks up units on a continuous basis, otherwise it is merely an intermittent nuisance that you attempt to eliminate when you have spare capacity. So, I repeat, how any additional units were stationed off the NE of the UK specifically to suppress Tirpitz over the long term? A reference would be nice. Greglocock (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say what your (or my opinion) on the matter is rather irrevelant, as it would be OR, but you seem to wielding a hatchet against the so-called 'fanbois' rather than constructively editing. In any case, I have added the reference to Tirpitz role's as 'fleet-in-being', and hopefully, this is where it ends. Kurfürst (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunlin and Garzke say nothing about "huge naval and air forces" so this source has been falsified. Dapi89 (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so the clue would be that anything that sounds like fanboi exaggeration (we actually have a different word) probably is. Well, K, you have two choices, if you wish to improve your rep then make sure the refs support the wording you use, or else leave me to clean up your mess. If the latter do not expect to enjoy the result.Greglocock (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this as well. As can be seen from [google books Garzke and Dunlin don't say either. More falsifications! Dapi89 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this is merely much hair being lost and some undue excitement shown over basically nothing, with the basic statement - Tirpitz's role as a 'fleet in being' - remaining essentially unchanged. Kurfürst (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not kidding anybody Kurfurst. We know what you're about. Dapi89 (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to change the sentence, "The main part of the hull (less the decking) is clearly visible". First, I just looked on Google Earth and a ship's hull is not visible anywhere in the area. Not only that, but the given coordinates are incorrect; Tirpitz was actually much closer to shore. At coords 60 38'49.80"N 18 48'26.21"E is a large rectangular shape, which may have been mistaken for the hull. But it's actually a work platform from the scrapping. Elsquared (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

APOLOGIES. Google Earth was apparently experiencing some difficulty tonight. Inputting the original coords did not send me to the correct spot. They are correct, but I understand the object at that spot to be a work platform. Possible corroboration is found at http://www.bobhenneman.info/Tirpitzwreck.htm, where an image shows what's left, but underwater. I'm going to research this further to hopefully find a definitive answer. Elsquared (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE. A forum thread at http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=84544 shows a good photo from the surface of this large object, which it indicates is, quote, "The remains of the dock on the photo is just were the Tirpitz was sunk. It was used when they scrap[p]ed the ship after the war." Elsquared (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link (for the second time!) to a photoshopped image of Tirpitz, as its hardly encyclopaedic.
OTOH the website has some useful views, so I've replaced it with another image from the same source.
If anyone wants to replace the original image, perhaps they should say first what on earth the point of it would be. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it accurate to describe the Tirpitz as having been "sunk" in Operation Catechism? As I understand the sources, Tirpitz was moored on a sand bar and had only a few feet of water under her keel so as to make her incapable of sinking in the traditional use of the word. I assumed that she capsized belly up and THEN sunk a few feet, leaving it resting on the sea bed with her crew trapped inside and most of her hull above the water line. Can someone enlighten me? Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone who's interested, I've started a new draft of the article here with the goal of bringing the article eventually to FA. If you want to help with the project, feel free to do so, but only add material if you have a reliable source to back it up. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved the draft over to the article space. Parsecboy (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:German battleship Tirpitz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   A couple of tags to resolve.

   I only saw one - let me know if my change resolved it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Need publisher location for the Norwegian book.

    Done: It's Oslo. Manxruler (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Link standard and full load displacement as well as waterline and overall length in the infobox. What electronics did she have when built? What about her armor? Why do the figures for shp differ between the infobox and the main body differ?

   Links and armor added, shp in the infobox was for Bismarck, not Tirpitz, radar equipment added. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Disambiguate caisson and add the armor to the infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

"Shortly after Tirpitz left Norway, the Soviet submarine K-21 fired a pair of torpedoes at the ship, both of which missed." K-21 fired 4 torpedoes at the Tirpitz. And 2 explosions were fixed. Source: War logbook of K-21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.26.84.250 (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there were torpedo hits on Tirpitz, wouldn't you think it would have been recorded somewhere in german archives? Just hearing an explosion does not indicate a hit on target, it only indicates either a hit on something or they exploded at the end of their run after exhausting their fuel (if they were equiped with a timed fuze for self-destruction or having a similar installation). --Denniss (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Garzke & Dulin, the sub fired only two torpedoes, both of which missed. Wartime first person accounts are notoriously unreliable and should not be given as much credence as the research of reputable historians. Parsecboy (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i see there are some coalition here . First of all this user parsecboy ,started to edit this topic on 8 march 2011. And he started to edit characteristic,changing everything there, and NO ONE FROM HERE SAYING NOTHING ABOUT THIS.

And i edited photo which was before coming this user to edit here,and also edited characteristic like it was. parsecboy ,i would not allow you to mode this page like you want ,coming with stuff you take from who knows where ,if you have a problem go change americans war ships ,not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 14:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of my edits are sourced to reliable and highly regarded naval historians. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly attempted to insert uncited material. This is simply unacceptable. It doesn't matter what you will and will not allow. I'll be blunt: I'm an administrator, I've been here for 5 years, and am very experienced with Wikipedia, both in writing articles and the rules we must all follow as editors. I can assure you that if you continue to behave as you are currently behaving, you will be blocked indefinitely in a rather short period of time. The choice is up to you. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you on the statistics, but the photo is in the public domain and comes from the US Navy Historical Section[3]; it has been cropped to remove the NH number, and it probably could be cropped more and make a decent photo for the article. I am going to revert back to your version based on sources, but give some thought to the image. Regards Seaphoto^Talk 19:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Altafjord image is fine copyright-wise (I used it lower in the article, FWIW) - this image is the one that does not demonstrate that it is either PD in the US or otherwise suitably licensed. The reason I didn't use the Altafjord photo is because it's low resolution and very grainy - it's not at all a good lead image. I also considered this image, but this is even worse, in my opinion, as it also suffers from low resolution and graininess, but it is also badly warped on either side. I actually gave it a great deal of thought when I started the rewrite, and I wasn't initially thrilled with using the recognition drawing. That being said, I think it's the best image to use in the infobox, especially considering the poor quality of the alternatives. Parsecboy (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that the higher displacement figures be placed in a footnote, with an explanation that it was common for ships to add weight over time? Both sets of displacement figures are probably correct. Battleships of the Bismarck class, Koop and schmolke, p.18: Tirpitz= full load 1944 = 53500 mt, length overall = 253.6m, beam = 241.72m. Now having said this it seems to me that repeated changes with no sources by BogdaNz is not acceptable behaviour, and should have consequences.Damwiki1 (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in including both sets of figures. I have changed the heading to a more neutral one. --John (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see this guy instead to talk to us about all the changes that he did wrong, he go reports every person who wants to correct,probably his problem is mental. First of all ,does this guy understeand that we (readers)dont want to see a machete made by american in ww2 ,exactly in info box? Why?Because this machete dont ilustrate tirpitz and bismarck class.Is very poor image ,and there are mistakes that dont ilustrate bismarck class.in front behind the second turret,housing has a shape that is not listed in the design of bismarck class ,have a unusualy form ,not like tirpitz which is more like a triangle..... and there a some other issue. Even so,why on all warship from british and american side there are real photo on infobox ,and here is some toy illustrate picture?

On General characteristic ,i cant find a better source than the book made by Kjetil Åkra and John Asmussen "Tirpitz" which had over 386 page ,about the story of Tirpitz and the many attacks against her,contains camouflage schemes and 3-D images, information about life on board, based on many interviews, technical details, casualty list and many other things. It is the biggest book ever made of Tirpitz ,and it's highly accurated ,especialy on technical details,because Kjetil Åkra and John Asmussen had acces on Kriegsmarine documents ,and they did research for years ----It is not something they have made for them. In this are follows:

Displacement:-standard 43.900 tonnes

            -maximum 53.500 tonnes (1944) 

Length Overall:253,6 m

      waterline:241,72 m

Maximum draught:10,61 m (1944)

Speed:official recorded 30,8 knots

Sensor :FuMO 30 Hohentwiel was installed in 1944

971 men lost we should then added both displesment in 1941 and 1944 ,the speed is official recorded ,length same — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 14:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why we're still having this discussion - I won't waste the time to respond to your personal attacks. Erich Gröner, a German who had wartime access to the Kriegsmarine archives states 42,900t displacement as designed and 52,600t at full load. Conway's All the World's Battleships (the chapter on Germany was written by John Campbell, a highly regarded naval historian) reports the same figures. Siegfried Breyer gives the same figures in Battleship "Tirpitz". The same holds for the length figure (though Conway's gives a slightly different length: 241.1m lwl and 248m loa).

As for the speed and radars, the infobox should give the design of the ship as built. For instance, Tirpitz had the FuMO 30 for less than a year of her operational life, and did not carry it on a single operation. And trial speed rarely matches operational speed, especially when the former is conducted in the calm waters of the Baltic and the latter is the stormy North Sea and even more inclement Arctic. The ship would be hard-pressed to reach even design speeds in those conditions. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you really have problem boy,you seem that you dont want to discuss with nobody.ch iYou dont understeand that the speed design is just theoretical,which do not apply on seas,the official speed of tirpitz was 30.8 knots,was achieved in autumn of 1941 ,when autumn and winter of 1941 were brutal of the century in point of view of tempertature.You dont interest subject,you only want to edit a subject that you didnt read a book about it. What to trust more: a book whis the biggest about Tirpitz or a citations in a chapter of a book?You must understeand that there are designed displesment which are wrong,is 43,900 mt not 42,900 and full load was 53,500 mt For those who want to see some samples about book made by Kjetil Åkra and John Asmussen : http://www.bismarck-class.dk/miscellaneous/book_reviews/mtm/mtm_tirpitz_book_review.html