WWII Battlecruiser matchup

[Scott Cunningham]

What would have been the outcome of a matchup of the WWII battlecruisers. How about the Alaska and the Guam vs the Scharnhorts and Gneisenau. The victor could then take on the Strasbourg and Dunkerque.

 

Looking for comparative analysis based on speed, armor, armament, fire control, etc....

[Richard Lindquist]

Originally posted by Scott Cunningham:

What would have been the outcome of a matchup of the WWII battlecruisers. How about the Alaska and the Guam vs the Scharnhorts and Gneisenau. The victor could then take on the Strasbourg and Dunkerque.

 

Looking for comparative analysis based on speed, armor, armament, fire control, etc....

 

 

Alaska and Guam were not battle cruisers per se. They were representative of what heavy cruisers would have been had they not been restricted by treaty to 10,000 tons and 8in guns. They were "super cruisers" rather than "lightly armored, high speed battleships".

[Guest Sargent]

First, Alaska, Guam, et al weren't Battlecruisers, they were "Large Cruisers." They were intended as cruiser hunters (remember, the CV was still untried when they were designed), not to lie in a battle line. Hence they had no underwater protective system, although I think the extensive compartmentation might have done as well as any TPS that could be fitted on the weight allowance. They were also much later in concept.

 

If Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had a concept, I can't find it. They were mainly political symbols of German resurgence. If they had a role, it was to fight Strasbourg and Dunquerque, which were in turn intended to chase down the German "pocket battleships."

 

By the time the Alaskas were completed, USN radar controlled gunfire would have allowed them, with their superior speed, to pick the best range and riddle either the French or Geman ships. Without radar rangefinding, it would get a lot more tense. Theoretical ranges don't mean much, nobody ever hit anything above 27,000 yards anyway (and that was a WW1 15" on reconstructed Warspite). So to hit, the ships would have to close to the point where they are all vulnerable to the others.

 

From there on, it's pretty much a matter of luck who hits first and what damage is done. Sometimes a hit does great damage, sometimes almost none. At Casablanca Massachusetts put Jean Bart out of service with five 16" hits, none of which exploded (this was blamed on shell fuses dating to 1918). With no detonations, the hits which jammed Jean Bart's turret were pure luck.

[Scott Cunningham]

I think the German ships were mainly Battleships armed with light cannons to keep weight down (there were plans for re-arming the ships with 6x15" guns). In spite of this they did have some issues. I think the French ships were decent BC's that never really had a chance to prove themselves. Of all three classes the Alaskas were the most unbalanced. They had good speed and excellent armament/FCS. Were they able to get in the first hits I feel they would have bester either of the other two. Were is a gunfight at closer range I feel their limited protection scheme would have hurt them against either the German or French ships.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Scott Cunningham:

I think the German ships were mainly Battleships armed with light cannons to keep weight down (there were plans for re-arming the ships with 6x15" guns). 

 

They were armed with the 11" turrets because that was what was available. Hitler wanted them yesterday for political reasons, and the turrets in production for the planned additional "pocket battleships" had to be used.

 

Besides, the 11" was considered adequate to fight the Dunquerques and Hitler wasn't planning on taking on the RN anytime soon (oops!)

 

The German ships also had weak decks, they were pretty vulnerable to plunging fire.

[Colin Williams]

Although experience showed it couldn't handle a modern battleship (did it ever!), how would the Hood stack up against its WW2 contemporaries. I imagine the British would have taken a one-on-one versus the Scharnhorst or Gneisenau in a second.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Colin Williams:

Although experience showed it couldn't handle a modern battleship (did it ever!), how would the Hood stack up against its WW2 contemporaries. I imagine the British would have taken a one-on-one versus the Scharnhorst or Gneisenau in a second.

 

Both Gneisenaus together ran like a scalded cat from HMS Renown during the Norwegian campaign. Commanded by that same Lutjens that was on Bismarck, incidentally.

 

Hood was more of a fast battleship, given her weight distribution. Her demise is one of those things that makes me say, "It's all luck."

[Scott Cunningham]

Hood could have taken on any one of these ships, but two ganged up against it would have ended the Hood's career.

[Dan Robertson]

Originally posted by Sargent:

Besides, the 11" was considered adequate to fight the Dunquerques and Hitler wasn't planning on taking on the RN anytime soon (oops!)

 

Interesting because Scharnhorts and Gneisenau did actually meet Renown, but for some reason ran rather than fight her, even though there were two of them.

 

Another interesting match up that nearly happened was Hood verses Strasborg, which happend after Mers el Kebir. Strasborg was not hit by British fire, it set up a smoke screen and picked its way though the magnetic mines the the RN had laid accross the harbour enterance. It then ran to Toulon and avoided engagement by HMS Hood (also classed as a battlecruiser) because that had a engine fault.

 

That would have been a short engagement,provided it didn't go the way of Hood's later "stort engagement".

[Scott Cunningham]

Dan, I think the Germans hauled ass because the weather was terrible, and they possibly thought that other elements of the RN were nearby.

 

I think they would have pounded the Renown to scrap, but got scared and left. Britain could afford to lose the Renown. The German were not prepared to risk their two BC's.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Scott Cunningham:

The German were not prepared to risk their two BC's.

 

Uff'n ye ain't reddy ter use 'em, ye'd better not bild 'em....

[Dan Robertson]

Originally posted by Scott Cunningham:

Dan, I think the Germans hauled ass because the weather was terrible, and they possibly thought that other elements of the RN were nearby.

 

I think they would have pounded the Renown to scrap, but got scared and left. Britain could afford to lose the Renown. The German were not prepared to risk their two BC's.

 

I would suspect the reason the haul ass probably had something to do with the fact that Gneisenau recieved 3 hits from Renowns 15inch shells. Scharhorts radar wasn't working either. One suspects even if they had engaged Renown on favorable terms they would have at very least be seriously damaged.

 

Certainly the twins appeared to always run away from serious engagement with RN major units. This was Scharhorts undoing as Belfast and Sheffield drove her into the path of Duke of York.

 

A 1-vs-1 would be interesting with a Renown class vessel. The German ship is much better armoured but the British ship is much more heavily armed. If the Renown could keep out in the 25,000 yard range he shells would penetrate any armour on the Gneisenau while keeping her vitals safe even though they were only covered with 9 inch armour.

 

On a similar note has anyone ever produced a decent battleship simulator which doesn't work on hit point, but actually models the shell/armour combinations.

[Keiler]

Dan,

 

the only "serious" surface battle WW2 sim I know of, was and is "Task Force 1942" by Microprose.

It is very old though, IIRC released 1991 and is of course out of print.

 

The "Burning Steel" series never satisfied me after I tried out the mechanics behind it. Hitting a CA at 1000yds was, even at calm sea, both stationary, a matter of stochastics (ROFL!!, what a suck).

 

In TF1942 you were set in the Pacific theatre, USA vs. Japan, and only "gun class" ships, no carriers or subs.

But for its time, it was very well done, shifting day times included, even night combat with star shells and spotlights.

 

I would love to see a newer game that includes realistically modelled battleships and cruisers. Destroyers all the time is extremely boring IMO.

 

[edit] http://old.the-underdogs.org/Microprose.htm

Some of the old pearls

 

[Edited by Keiler (19 Nov 2003).]

[Tony Williams]

There were of course German plans at one stage to rearm the S&G with 15" twin turrets. Evidently they felt that the Renown/Repulse choice of a smaller number of bigger guns was superior.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

[Tiornu]

Allow me to join the chorus. Alaska was not a battlecruiser. Scharnhorst was not a battlecruiser either. But then, neither was Dunkerque.

"At Casablanca Massachusetts put Jean Bart out of service with five 16" hits, none of which exploded (this was blamed on shell fuses dating to 1918)." JB suffered five or six 16in hits. Two exploded fine. One barely clipped the belt while exiting through the unarmored upper hull; no way to know if it exploded or not. One possible hit first struck the pier; again, it's impossible to say exactly what happened with that shell. One shell struck the crown of the barbette; faced with the prospect of trying to penetrate armor that was several deck levels thick, the shell snapped apart. And the other shell glanced off the barbette and lost its base to base slap. No duds resulted from fuze failure. It was the New Yorks that had WWI leftover fuzes. Massachusetts had a fuze success rate exceeding 90%.

"Theoretical ranges don't mean much, nobody ever hit anything above 27,000 yards anyway (and that was a WW1 15" on reconstructed Warspite)." I don't believe you're saying that <Since it hasn't happened, it never will.> However, some people actually think that way. No one will ever hit 60 home runs because that would break Babe Ruth's record.

"Both Gneisenaus together ran like a scalded cat from HMS Renown during the Norwegian campaign." The Twins did not run from Renown--they ran from Renown, a Nelson, and other supporting ships. Now, you and I know that Nelson was nowhere near there, but the Germans had a false sighting. Given this situation, the Germans decided to withdraw due to the following factors: the washing-out of both Twins' A turrets, a shortage of ammo in other mounts, battle damage, Scharnhorst's machinery woes, and the extreme sea conditions which interfered with shipboard equipment.

"It then ran to Toulon and avoided engagement by HMS Hood (also classed as a battlecruiser) because that had a engine fault." Yes, Hood is the one ship in this comparison that was indeed rated as a battlecruiser. However, it was not Hood but Strasbourg that suffered a turbine casualty in this incident (including some fatalities among the crew). Fortunately for her, the British had already given up trying to catch her by that time.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

I don't believe you're saying that <Since it hasn't happened, it never will.> However, some people actually think that way.

 

Point taken. I suppose longer hits were possible, especially with radar ranging. The point is that a lot of designers tortured their ships almost into uselessness for equipment or concepts that didn't work. Carried to absurdity, what's the point in having a gun shoot fifty miles if you can't even find a target at that range?

 

Cases in point:

 

1.British turrets on Nelsons and KGVs. Trying to "one up the Jones" left them with complex equipment that didn't work.

 

2. Japanese "diving shells." Now at ten miles or so it's hard enough to hit a ship, and hit rates are usually in the single %s. So now we are going to aim 50 meters or so short so the shell hits beneath the belt underwater? Riiiight...

BTW, do you know how the "diving shells" performed on normal impact with a target? Did the new form decrease effectiveness?

[Tiornu]

The Twins themselves provide a good example. Someone's pet project involved a complete integration of all FC systems, HA and LA, with the result that the whole thing imploded and left the ships hopelessly unable to target an enemy. This explains why the skippers (without official authorization) had 20,000 meters of cabling ripped out of their ships on the outbreak of the war.

In Nelson's case, there was an unfortunate confluence with the RN starting in a new direction with ultra-light shells at the same time it became necessary to prune out any non-vital weights that could be identified. "Non-vital" being a subjective term.

Japanese shells were very good at penetrating homogenous armor. They were awful when it came to face-hardened armor. As an illustration, we can compare Savo with Esperance; the homogenous turret faces on the New Orleanses were easily pierced, while Boise's face-hardened plate stopped an 8in shell cold. Part of the problem was the explosive rather than the shell form. My best guess is that the Boise hit exploded as soon as it hit the armor. However, a previous hit on Boise's barbette did not premature but broke into pieces and fizzled without exploding. In fairness, the 8in shell was the worst of the IJN diving shells. However, there really aren't a lot of other examples to point to. Off the top of my head, I can think of only one other hit by an IJN AP shell against face-hardened armor through the entirety of the Pacific War: at Guadalcanal, a 14-incher hit SoDak's barbette and once again exploded prematurely. Most accounts say it was a Type 3 shrapnel shell--I assume this is because the shell did such a lousy job--but I've looked at photos of the damage inflicted, and the gouge by an AP nose is plain to see on the barbette armor.

[RETAC21]

Originally posted by Keiler:

Dan,

 

the only "serious" surface battle WW2 sim I know of, was and is "Task Force 1942" by Microprose.

It is very old though, IIRC released 1991 and is of course out of print.

 

The "Burning Steel" series never satisfied me after I tried out the mechanics behind it. Hitting a CA at 1000yds was, even at calm sea, both stationary, a matter of stochastics (ROFL!!, what a suck).

 

In TF1942 you were set in the Pacific theatre, USA vs. Japan, and only "gun class" ships, no carriers or subs.

But for its time, it was very well done, shifting day times included, even night combat with star shells and spotlights.

 

I would love to see a newer game that includes realistically modelled battleships and cruisers. Destroyers all the time is extremely boring IMO.

 

[edit] http://old.the-underdogs.org/Microprose.htm

Some of the old pearls

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Keiler (19 Nov 2003).]

 

Try http://www.navalwarfare.net and go for the Fighting Steel Project

[JOE BRENNAN]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

JB suffered five or six 16in hits.

 

The Massachusetts memorial has shell fragments on display said IIRC to actually be from the two detonating hits, No 1 (in empty secondary battery magazine) and/or No 2 (in compartment below after control station, a nose fragment exiting hull said to have caused much of the flooding). Anyway 16" nose fragments are really big .

 

The non exploding hit striking the No. 1 turret then gouging away at the barbette top silenced the ship by jamming the turret in train til they could cut the obstruction away. That one, whic richoceted into Casablanca, was recovered by the French and put on display per most sources, wonder if it's still around somewhere.

 

Joe

[Tiornu]

A nose piece from a 16in super-heavy can weigh as much as 900 lbs.

The shell that landed in Casablanca was set up in front of a government building with a little sign that read "We come in peace," or words to that effect.

[istvan47]

BTT

[Ol Paint]

Alaska and Guam would have stomped all over the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. (If you're going to take sides, you might as well go all the way, right? )

 

Scharnhorst-class had 12.6" belt armor tapering to 6.7" at the bottom, and 1.9" and 5.9" decks. The Alaskas carried less armor with a 9.5" 10-deg sloped belt, 1.4" STS bomb deck, 3.25" and 2.8" armor decks on 1" STS.

 

Gunpower: Alaska's 12"/50 could penetrate 15" of side armor at 16,000yds and 5.5" of deck at 30,000yds (per Friedman--approx. 15.5" & 5.1" per NavWeaps). So the German armor scheme should be vulnerable to the 12"/50. By contrast, NavWeaps lists the German gun as penetrating 13.2" of belt armor at 16,000yd, but only 3" of deck armor at 30,000yd, so both ships will have to achieve belt hits to do damage, although the American ships probably have a better chance of doing nasty damage to the upperworks at long range, poking holes in the Scharnhorst's upper deck at all ranges longer than ~14,000yards, while the Scharnhorst won't penetrate the Alaska's upper deck at less than 28,000-30,000yds. The German ship's batteries are somewhat better protected with 14.1" face and 7.5" side armor (12.8" face, 6" forward side, 5.25" after side, 5" roof for the Alaska), but I don't think that it makes too much difference in a confrontation--the two ships will achieve penetration at approximately the same ranges (slight advantage to the Alaska--a couple thousand yards). The German guns fire slightly faster at 3.4rpm vs. 2.4-3.0rpm for the US gun. I don't know who has the advantage as far as main battery directors--the Alaska's director is 80' above the waterline, but I don't have a similar number for the Scharnhorst. With US/British radar developments, the Americans should be able to detect and achieve hits at longer range than the Germans.

 

Airpower per ship: 3 x Ar196 (193mph, 665mi range, 2x20mm + 1x7.92 fixed + 1 x 7.92 flexible, 2 x 110lb bombs) vs. 3-4 SC-1 (310mph, 625mi range, 2 x .50cal, 650lb bombload). Alaska wins the dogfight and has the advantage of aerial spotting. Also, the CBs have a better AAA battery of 12x5"/38 with 2 Mk37 directors, 56 x 40mm (14 quads) and 34x20mm, so there is little chance the Ar196 will be able to do much to the CBs. On the other hand, the German ships have 14 x 4.1-inch, 16 x 37mm, and 10 x 20mm giving the SC-1s better survivability.

 

Speed: The CBs have about a 1 kt speed advantage, but may be able to make better use of their speed as they are probably drier ships than the German vessels. I'd give the seakeeping award to the American vessels. I believe the US propulsion systems were probably better/more reliable than the German systems, so would probably be able to deliver closer to their rated performance while in service.

 

Douglas

[John Dudek]

Originally posted by Ol Paint:

Alaska and Guam would have stomped all over the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.  (If you're going to take sides, you might as well go all the way, right? )

 

Scharnhorst-class had 12.6" belt armor tapering to 6.7" at the bottom, and 1.9" and 5.9" decks.  The Alaskas carried less armor with a 9.5" 10-deg sloped belt, 1.4" STS bomb deck, 3.25" and 2.8" armor decks on 1" STS. 

 

Gunpower:  Alaska's 12"/50 could penetrate 15" of side armor at 16,000yds and 5.5" of deck at 30,000yds (per Friedman--approx. 15.5" & 5.1" per NavWeaps).  So the German armor scheme should be vulnerable to the 12"/50.  By contrast, NavWeaps lists the German gun as penetrating 13.2" of belt armor at 16,000yd, but only 3" of deck armor at 30,000yd, so both ships will have to achieve belt hits to do damage, although the American ships probably have a better chance of doing nasty damage to the upperworks at long range, poking holes in the Scharnhorst's upper deck at all ranges longer than ~14,000yards, while the Scharnhorst won't penetrate the Alaska's upper deck at less than 28,000-30,000yds.  The German ship's batteries are somewhat better protected with 14.1" face and 7.5" side armor (12.8" face, 6" forward side, 5.25" after side, 5" roof for the Alaska), but I don't think that it makes too much difference in a confrontation--the two ships will achieve penetration at approximately the same ranges (slight advantage to the Alaska--a couple thousand yards).  The German guns fire slightly faster at 3.4rpm vs. 2.4-3.0rpm for the US gun.  I don't know who has the advantage as far as main battery directors--the Alaska's director is 80' above the waterline, but I don't have a similar number for the Scharnhorst.  With US/British radar developments, the Americans should be able to detect and achieve hits at longer range than the Germans.

 

Airpower per ship:  3 x Ar196 (193mph, 665mi range, 2x20mm + 1x7.92 fixed + 1 x 7.92 flexible, 2 x 110lb bombs) vs. 3-4 SC-1 (310mph, 625mi range, 2 x .50cal, 650lb bombload).  Alaska wins the dogfight and has the advantage of aerial spotting.  Also, the CBs have a better AAA battery of 12x5"/38 with 2 Mk37 directors, 56 x 40mm (14 quads) and 34x20mm, so there is little chance the Ar196 will be able to do much to the CBs.  On the other hand, the German ships have 14 x 4.1-inch, 16 x 37mm, and 10 x 20mm giving the SC-1s better survivability.

 

Speed:  The CBs have about a 1 kt speed advantage, but may be able to make better use of their speed as they are probably drier ships than the German vessels.  I'd give the seakeeping award to the American vessels.  I believe the US propulsion systems were probably better/more reliable than the German systems, so would probably be able to deliver closer to their rated performance while in service.

 

Douglas

 

If memory serves the Alaska's used the same propulsion systems as the Essex Class Fleet Carriers, although they weren't as fuel efficient.

[Ol Paint]

Friedman indicates that the 205,000shp Essex plant was discarded because it would have required eliminating all underwater protection. The final design was rated at 150,000shp, although it made 173,808shp for 32.75kts at 33,148 tons displacement on trials. The 150,000shp plant may have been made up of 5 standard 30,000shp units, but the description would seem to indicate that the 150,000shp plant was not directly modular to the earlier plant.

 

Douglas

[hojutsuka]

Originally posted by Sargent:

2. Japanese "diving shells." Now at ten miles or so it's hard enough to hit a ship, and hit rates are usually in the single %s. So now we are going to aim 50 meters or so short so the shell hits beneath the belt underwater? Riiiight...

BTW, do you know how the "diving shells" performed on normal impact with a target? Did the new form decrease effectiveness?

 

You are looking at this backwards, by assuming that the "diving shell" is only effective when hitting underwater. The "diving shell" was a standard AP shell, with a modified AP cap so that if it hit the water, the ballistic cap and the front part of the AP cap would separate, leaving a flat head projectile which would continue on a stable trajectory underwater. An IJN battleship using the "diving shell" would aim for the target as usual. If the shell hit the target vessel, it would function as a normal shell. But if the shell were to fall short but within 100m or so, it would still continue forward underwater and hit the target underwater. IJN estimated that the hit probability was more than doubled by using the "diving shell" when firing at less than 25000m (at longer ranges, the shell hits the sea at closer to vertical, so the underwater trajectory would be unlikely to hit the target ship).

 

Hojutsuka