USS Alaska VS the Graf Spee

[Scott Cunningham]

I'd love a similar book (even if much smaller) on the WWI navies. I could give a damn about the destroyers and such, but the larger units were always fascinating.

[FlyingCanOpener]

Originally posted by Scott Cunningham:

I'd love a similar book (even if much smaller) on the WWI navies. I could give a damn about the destroyers and such, but the larger units were always fascinating.

 

 

Without references to smaller craft, my HPS Naval Campaigns career shall be ruined!

[Guy Off the Wall]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

Washington was using Mk 3 radar, which was a capable range-finder but unable to to differentiate bearing to a satisfactory degree. Therefore the turret training was directed optically.

The battleships at Surigao may have relied on radar alone--not sure. West Virginia scored at a range of 22,000 yards...on her first salvo!

 

...eventually leading to a situation where any naval gunnery with a modern FCS is a quantum leap ahead of the optically controlled gunnery of WW1 or early WW2. As Range and accuracy go way up, the value of rate of fire gives way to the value shell caliber.

 

I would bet that a modern FCS controlled Iowa class BB could beat all 4 Iowa class BBs of the WW2 era. Hits would be scored at distances rarely encountered in earlier eras. Instead of just laying alongside an opposing ship and fighting at close in distances a modern FCS controlled ship could fire while manuevering. The older FCS ships would have to constant readjust their fire and would forever be playing catchup. An optically controlled BB would be trashed long before they could get of a salvo.

 

PS: according to my college professor the computers of today got their start doing ballistic computations for naval artillery. Our more advanced ones just do it better. Counter battery fire calcs the origin point of an incoming round.

[capt_starlight]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

Washington was using Mk 3 radar, which was a capable range-finder but unable to to differentiate bearing to a satisfactory degree. Therefore the turret training was directed optically.

The battleships at Surigao may have relied on radar alone--not sure. West Virginia scored at a range of 22,000 yards...on her first salvo!

 

While HMS Warspite hit the Italian battleship Giulio Cesare during the Battle of Calabria, 9 July 1940 at 26,500 yards using optical means and within her first couple of salvos......

 

Frank

[Tiornu]

Warspite hit Cesare on her seventh salvo, and Scharnhorst hit Glorious on her third salvo at a similar range. That's all from memory. There are some accounts incorrectly crediting Warspite for a first-salvo hit.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

Now, this is the kind of conversation I like! You know, the holidays will be upon us soon, and nothing says "I love you" like a signed copy of FLEETS OF WORLD WAR II by Richard Worth.

 

And so much more! I'm selling them for just twenty bucks, so pick up that spare copy you've been wanting for the bathroom.

 

Not wanting to cross the rules here BUT, how would one go about procuring a $20 dollar signed copy?

[Tiornu]

Send an e-mail over to my screen name @att.net.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

Send an e-mail over to my screen name @att.net.

 

 

I'm at work(shhhh!) so I'll have to send it when I get home tonight, Thanks a lot.

 

As noted in another topic, we are blessed with the knowledge available here. As an aside, it was an honor to meet Mr. Hunnicutt at the SF I&I a few years ago, quite the gentleman. I almost choked when he said that he actually loses money on each book. It almost made me want to stop buying them.....almost! Hopefully you do a little better!

[Tim the Tank Nut]

How fast could an Alaska class ship train its guns on terget? Is turret traverse even a factor in naval warfare?

 

In any event the US ships were light years ahead of their German counterparts.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Tim the Tank Nut:

How fast could an Alaska class ship train its guns on terget?  Is turret traverse even a factor in naval warfare?

 

Assuming the traverse works, not really with heavy guns. The turrets can train faster than a big ship can change course, so once they have a target they can stay on it, within the limits of angle of train (i.e., how far the turret turns before it hits an obstacle).

 

With AA weapons, traverse becomes a bigger factor as they have to engage faster targets.

[Ol Paint]

Originally posted by Tim the Tank Nut:

How fast could an Alaska class ship train its guns on terget?  Is turret traverse even a factor in naval warfare?

 

In any event the US ships were light years ahead of their German counterparts.

 

 

Warships1 lists the rate of train for the Alaska class turrets as 5deg/sec and the Iowa turrets as 4deg/sec. Elevation rates were 12deg/sec.

http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.htm http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

 

Doug

[Tiornu]

The Germans were the kings of turret training. I believe the Deutschland turrets had the same rates as Scharnhorst's, 7.2deg/sec. Alaska had 5deg/sec.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

The Germans were the kings of turret training. I believe the Deutschland turrets had the same rates as Scharnhorst's, 7.2deg/sec. Alaska had 5deg/sec.

 

 

And would there have been any practical difference in an engagement?

[Tiornu]

Perhaps in a surprise short-range encounter, but then wouldn't you think training rate would not be the limiting factor?

The Americans were kings of gun elevation rates, which makes sense only if you intend to make RoF an issue.

[Tiornu]

Wait, how about if you want to rapidly shift targets? Then training rate might come onto play. But again, I'd expect the firing cycle to be the limiting factor for big guns. For smaller mounts, like 15cm mounts with high RoF, you'd have maybe just five seconds to get to another target.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

Wait, how about if you want to rapidly shift targets?

 

In a single-ship engagement like the 'raider-hunter' Alaska was designed for, the ship could turn to assist turret train in switching targets. Well, they obviously wouldn't in a single-ship engagement, but I think you catch my drift.

 

In a battleline engagement, the individual ships would have restricted independent maneuverability, but the targets (presumably an enemy battle line) would be close together so the train to switch targets would be only a few degrees.

 

Correct me if I err, but didn't radar fire control have the effect of permitting faster RoFs to be used? With radar, there would be no need for visual spotting and re-acquiring a target.

[Tiornu]

I'm not aware that radar would hasten the spotting process, but it would give a quick indication of change in target course. Thus plotting rather than spotting would seem to benefit. In any case, long-range spotting and RoF appear antithetical. Going to "good rapid fire" at long range means you're spotting only to detect when you went off-target two salvos ago.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

I'm not aware that radar would hasten the spotting process, but it would give a quick indication of change in target course. Thus plotting rather than spotting would seem to benefit. In any case, long-range spotting and RoF appear antithetical. Going to "good rapid fire" at long range means you're spotting only to detect when you went off-target two salvos ago.

 

 

I think that when the radar gave an accurate range the need for spotting was minimal (otherwise how did they shoot at night when they couldn't see the splashes?).

 

Given accurate ranging and target bearing, why should they go off target at all? The radar could (in more advanced sets) actually track the shells, which visual spotting can't.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Originally posted by Sargent:

I think that when the radar gave an accurate range the need for spotting was minimal (otherwise how did they shoot at night when they couldn't see the splashes?).

 

Given accurate ranging and target bearing, why should they go off target at all? The radar could (in more advanced sets) actually track the shells, which visual spotting can't.

 

Need for spotting would be less because of the accuracy of a properly calibrated radar compared to an optical RF. But there could be other errors in the FC loop. So spotting was still desirable and was done more accurately (as range finding itself) by radar ranging on the shell splashes. Even pretty primitive radars lacking the bearing accuracy/resolution for blind fire could range accurately on BB caliber shell splashes at pretty long range, though not as long as that at which they could detect a BB. Besides detecting gross errors between the intended range and where the guns were really pointed I'd guess there would be situations where due to calibration errors the absolute range readings on target and splashes were both wrong but radar spotting would still facilitate correction.

 

Joe

 

[Edited by JOE BRENNAN (03 Dec 2003).]

[Tiornu]

Radar did not put optics out of business, even for clear-visibility situations. Right through the end of the war, optics continued to give better deflection information than either radar or aerial observers.

The method by which you get your range and deflection information is not that important--you must continue to spot shells to determine how far off your plotting has been. Once you have straddled, you must continue spotting to assure you remain on target. Some people will tell you that spotting is more important than plotting.

One advantage to radar spotting is that it tends to set the MPI right on target, while a top spotter has the human tendency to put it beyond the target as shorts make a greater impression than longs.

[Ol Paint]

Warships1 (now NavWeaps) had a couple of relevant articles posted that address points earlier in this thread.

 

Analysis of the longest gunfire hits: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-006.htm

 

Analysis of the performance of US BBs at Surigao Strait: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-079.htm

 

(Hmm, this prune idea has me revisiting all sorts of old topics. )

 

Douglas

[Scott Cunningham]

Alaska would have smoked the Graf Spee. I think the Scharnhost class would have bested the Alaskas.

 

The Alaskas had far better fire direction and the guns (12") were considered excellent, but the Scharnhorst class was built pretty ruggedly. The Alaska class was arranged moire like a cruiser than a battleship. It was fragile.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Scott Cunningham:

Alaska would have smoked the Graf Spee. I think the Scharnhost class would have bested the Alaskas.

 

The Alaskas had far better fire direction and the guns (12") were considered excellent, but the Scharnhorst class was built pretty ruggedly. The Alaska class was arranged moire like a cruiser than a battleship. It was fragile.

 

I don't think ANY US ship of Alaska's generation could be considered "fragile." Despite a paper "lack" of armor, US ships came home with damage that would have put any other navy's ships on the bottom, and got repaired and back into service faster than any other navy to boot.

 

Even some of the ships that sank would have survived except for the tactical situation (such as the enemy close and approaching). US ships sailed home minus bows and sterns, with their backs broken, and burned out - they still came home.

 

True the Alaska was arranged like a cruiser - she was a cruiser. Not "battlecruiser," Large Cruiser. She lacked the Torpedo Protection System built into the big BBs.

 

But so did a lot of other US cruisers lack TPS and came home. One of the smallest class in the fleet, the CLAA Reno{/i] took two torpedoes. A CL with a design displacement of 7400 tons displaced 20,200 tons after the hits, by BuShips estimate. Reno came home. So did several other cruisers who had bows blown off.

 

Even a little DD that was torpedoed and had its stern blown off up to the after deckhouse came home. The screws and rudder were in the damage area, so they sawed the shafts off, fitted new screws, and she came back across the Atlantic under her own power.

 

"Fragile" is not a word to describe a US warship.

[Scott Cunningham]

I see your point. Yes, US did build the worlds best ships by 1943.

 

When I look at the damage ships took before going down (look at the un-armored carrier Hornet for example) and compare it to highly rated foreign designs (Ark Royal, one torpedo and its abandon ship time).

 

Hell, When you look at what happened to the USS Franklin you start to understand what US ships were really made of.

 

Many other foreign ships took a pounding too (Yamato, Bismarck) but all went down eventually.

[Tiornu]

Reno took two torpedoes?

Alaska's armor scheme was much more extensive than those in wartime CA and CL. In fact, it looks a lot like BB armor layout.

As battleships go, Scharnhorst was a hunk of junk. In a fight with Alaska, the winner would probably be the more accurate shooter.