Battle of North Cape.

[Animal Mother]

Been reading a Norwegian book about the battle and the search for the wreck of Scharnhorst. One thing mentioned in the book got my interest. German intel indicated to Admiral Bey that he might face heavy British or American forces, possibly carriers and battleshps.

 

So my what if is as following. Replace the RN with the USN during the battle, ship for ship.

 

What would be a likely combination of US ships? And what would be the most ideal combination of ships?

 

The ORBAT was was following:

 

RN:

1xBB

1xCA

3xCL

9xDD

 

KM:

1xBC

4xDD

 

For me the ideal USN force would be an Iowa class BB replacing Duke of York, HMS Norfolk replaced with an Baltimore class cruiser, the three CL's with Brooklyn's and the destroyers with Fletchers. How used was the USN to fighting in those kind of conditions though?

[KingSargent]

For me the ideal USN force would be an Iowa class BB replacing Duke of York, HMS Norfolk replaced with an Baltimore class cruiser, the three CL's with Brooklyn's and the destroyers with Fletchers. How used was the USN to fighting in those kind of conditions though?

I doubt that there would be a full USN TF. The USN sent ships to reinforce the RN Home Fleet, not supplant it. The newer USN types often saw combat in Europe as a kind of "final work-up" while on their way to the Pacific (eg Quincy firing bombardment at Normandy).

 

As for the conditions, the RN may have had some experience in Arctic conditions, but basically both navies would be winging it. The better habitability of the USN ships might have been a benefit, at least the crews would be warmer (DK Brown has some horror stories concerning RN 'climate control').

[DKTanker]

For me the ideal USN force would be an Iowa class BB replacing Duke of York, HMS Norfolk replaced with an Baltimore class cruiser, the three CL's with Brooklyn's and the destroyers with Fletchers. How used was the USN to fighting in those kind of conditions though?

Iowa likely wasn't available having spent the autumn of '43 doing convoy duty, she would have been in port December of '43 waiting for New Jersey and their movement to the Pacific in January '44. Wisconsin and Missouri wouldn't see the open ocean until well into 1944.

[harryRIEDL]

I doubt that there would be a full USN TF. The USN sent ships to reinforce the RN Home Fleet, not supplant it. The newer USN types often saw combat in Europe as a kind of "final work-up" while on their way to the Pacific (eg Quincy firing bombardment at Normandy).

 

As for the conditions, the RN may have had some experience in Arctic conditions, but basically both navies would be winging it. The better habitability of the USN ships might have been a benefit, at least the crews would be warmer (DK Brown has some horror stories concerning RN 'climate control').

how things change in the RN with the new classes with 6 to a room for ratings and i pod connectors rather than 100's to a mess deck i rember slightly horrified that the took out the washing machines on the lend lease ships and the UK admiral saying all the salours need was a bucket of water and soap to keep clean

[DesertFox]

Did this on another board, substituting Alaska for the British Battleship

[DKTanker]

Did this on another board, substituting Alaska for the British Battleship

Now that would be a major "what if" considering neither the Alaska nor Guam were completed until 1944.

[KingSargent]

Now that would be a major "what if" considering neither the Alaska nor Guam were completed until 1944.

Oh, picky, picky, picky....

[DesertFox]

Now that would be a major "what if" considering neither the Alaska nor Guam were completed until 1944.

 

Would you prefer an Iowa?

[DKTanker]

Would you prefer an Iowa?

At least the USS Iowa had been in the Atlantic doing convoy duty during the late summer and autumn of '43. So if one ignores that Iowa was joining up with New Jersey for their January '44 Pacific sortie, both ships could hypothetically have been sort of available to fight a battle off of Norway late December '43. At least they were manned and had or were completing sea trials unlike the yet completed Alaska and Guam.

[DesertFox]

At least the USS Iowa had been in the Atlantic doing convoy duty during the late summer and autumn of '43. So if one ignores that Iowa was joining up with New Jersey for their January '44 Pacific sortie, both ships could hypothetically have been sort of available to fight a battle off of Norway late December '43. At least they were manned and had or were completing sea trials unlike the yet completed Alaska and Guam.

 

True, I won't argue with you. It is just than an Iowa would be overkill.

[Animal Mother]

True, I won't argue with you. It is just than an Iowa would be overkill.

 

Nothing wrong with overkill though, especially if you are setting a trap.

[DesertFox]

Nothing wrong with overkill though, especially if you are setting a trap.

 

People usually get mad when you suggest a fight which is overkill.

Of course, sometimes you wonder like the person who tried to tell me that the USS Texas could beat the USS Iowa

[Getz]

For me the ideal USN force would be an Iowa class BB replacing Duke of York, HMS Norfolk replaced with an Baltimore class cruiser, the three CL's with Brooklyn's and the destroyers with Fletchers. How used was the USN to fighting in those kind of conditions though?

 

If the DoY was replaced by an Iowa then the Scharnhorst would have escaped.

 

Why? The Iowas' were very wet in severe weather and would probably have been unable to work their main armament in the kind of conditions experienced at North Cape - both DoY and Scharnhorst were barely able to operate their main armament in the conditions and both ships were designed (indeed, arguably optimised) for North Atlantic operations.

 

With the BB unable to intervene, the Schanhorst is not slowed by enemy firepower and flees.

 

If instead we substitute one of the North Carolinas, the Scharnhorst outruns them with ease, as the she was a clear four knots faster even if we ignore the vibration problems that were still restricting the NCs to about 24 knots at this time.

 

The best US battleship to be employed in this scenario would be a SoDak - but I very much doubt they would have performed any better than the DoY did historically. The real enemy at North Cape was the weather, and on the whole US battleships were not optimised for north Atlantic conditions.

Edited October 16, 2007 by Getz

[KingSargent]

If the DoY was replaced by an Iowa then the Scharnhorst would have escaped.

 

Why? The Iowas' were very wet in severe weather and would probably have been unable to work their main armament in the kind of conditions experienced at North Cape - both DoY and Scharnhorst were barely able to operate their main armament in the conditions and both ships were designed (indeed, arguably optimised) for North Atlantic operations.

The only RN BB drier than an Iowa was Vanguard, so that argument is specious. At least Iowa's guns went off most of the time.

 

With the BB unable to intervene, the Schanhorst is not slowed by enemy firepower and flees.

There is no reason outside of your imagination that an Iowa would be "unable to intervene."

 

If instead we substitute one of the North Carolinas, the Scharnhorst outruns them with ease, as the she was a clear four knots faster even if we ignore the vibration problems that were still restricting the NCs to about 24 knots at this time.

Bovine feces. The NoCars were restricted in December 1941, not December 1943. And I fail to see how the Scharnhorst can outrun a NoCar "with ease" when she was not able to outrun DoY, which was one knot faster than NoCar on paper. The KGVs had Winter Arctic Superchargers to boost their speed?

 

The best US battleship to be employed in this scenario would be a SoDak - but I very much doubt they would have performed any better than the DoY did historically. The real enemy at North Cape was the weather, and on the whole US battleships were not optimised for north Atlantic conditions.

Neither was anybody else, but US BBs had been operating in the North Atlantic in winter for quite some time, and they handled the North Pacific pretty well too.

 

And by what stretch of the imagination can a SoDak catch Scharnhorst when a NoCar can't?

[DesertFox]

The only RN BB drier than an Iowa was Vanguard, so that argument is specious. At least Iowa's guns went off most of the time.

 

Also, a 16 inch US super heavy shell makes for a worse day than a 14 inch British shell.

Muzzle Energy of a US 16/50 is 355 Mega-Joules compared to 192 Mega-Joules for the British 14/45. As range gets greater, this difference will increase as Kinetic Energy decreases.

[Getz]

The only RN BB drier than an Iowa was Vanguard, so that argument is specious. At least Iowa's guns went off most of the time.

 

The KGVs were wet ships thanks to their lack of sheer forward, but they were still capable of fighting in extreme weather conditions such as those experienced at North Cape, largely on account of the fact that they tended to "flood" their foredeck rather than raise spray and because they had a very steady roll even in very sharp seas. The Iowas "poor" seakeeping is often exaggerated, but in heavy, north atlantic seas the spray forward alone would have severely hampered her shooting and significant pitching and rolling would make accurate shooting very difficult (legacy of the ship being designed for Pacific wave conditions). Furthermore, the fact that she had a tendency to pitch her bow forward in heavy seas would have also forced her to slow down, negating her speed advantage.

 

I'm sure the Iowa would have been able to fire her guns, but the odds of her actually hitting anything were virtually zero - It's one thing to be able to survive heavy seas, but it's quite another to be able to fight in them.

 

As to the KGV's guns, now that is truely a specious argument - partly on the basis that it has no revelance to the question of whether an Iowa could fight under the conditions experienced at North Cape and partly because the KGV's weapons clearly were equal to the task, otherwise how did the RN sink the Scharnhorst?

 

Bovine feces. The NoCars were restricted in December 1941, not December 1943. And I fail to see how the Scharnhorst can outrun a NoCar "with ease" when she was not able to outrun DoY, which was one knot faster than NoCar on paper. The KGVs had Winter Arctic Superchargers to boost their speed?

 

You need to get your facts straight. Although some of their speed related problems had been solved, the NCs were still operating under speed restrictions in 1944, albeit not as severe ones as they were under in 1941. The KGVs were faster under arctic conditions solely because they could actually do their designed speed without the vibration causing their radar to fall apart or rendering optical fire control impossible.

 

The NC's vibration problems were never completely solved, but the USN went through a lengthy process of stiffening the ship, fiddling with the skeg design and ultimately replacing the props before the problem was solved enough for the ships to operate as intended. This was not something they solved in an afternoon during her trials. Do you know how long it takes to design and manufacture large ship propellers?

 

Also, you're neglecting the impact of sea state on speed. The NC's vibration problems were not caused by the speed she was runnng at, but the engine revolutions required to reach it. You have to run you engines much harder to attain a given speed in rough conditions...

 

Neither was anybody else, but US BBs had been operating in the North Atlantic in winter for quite some time, and they handled the North Pacific pretty well too.

 

Once again, you are wrong. The Germans clearly optimised their designs for North atlantic operations (very apparent from their armour schemes) and the RN placed it high on their list of priorities in design terms (seeing as the North Atlanti contained their home waters). US ships were, on the whole, designed for the Pacific as this was considered their most likely theatre of operations. It also has to be understood that the wave conditions in the Atlantic are very different to the Pacfific. Both Oceans can serve you up with terrifyingly violent storms (in fact, the Pacific is probably worse on this count) but whereas Pacific waves tend to be huge, long rollers, Atlantic waves tend to be short but very steep. Both stress hulls in very different ways and create different demands in terms of seakeeping.

 

This is not to say that USN BBs were incapable of serving in the North Atlantic, far from it - but the weather experienced at North Cape was very extreme, and exactly the kind of circumstances where these kind of design choices become critical. Both the Scharnhorst and KGV classes were designed for these conditions and they had great difficulty fighting at North Cape, why do you think that a vessel not designed for them would do better? Because it had bigger guns and a DP secondary battery? Don't make me laugh...

 

And by what stretch of the imagination can a SoDak catch Scharnhorst when a NoCar can't?

 

On the basis that, as of Dec 1943, the Sodaks were capable fighting at 27 knots, whereas the NCs were not. Of course you've already disputed that point...

Edited October 17, 2007 by Getz

[DesertFox]

According tho Friedman, when operating with the British Fleet, the North Carolina had an operation speed of 26.5 at deep load. One the experiments were performed seemed to be between 17 and 20 knots. She appears to have "Smoothed Out" at higher speeds. As well, the problem with vibration appears to effect her after fire control tower not her forward one.

 

Cruisers and destroyers were both able to make attack runs on the battlecruiser. In that situation, stating that the weather would slow down the Iowa and prevent her from hitting appears to overstate the situation.

[Getz]

We are also neglecting the fact that the US Cruisers had no torpedos. Seeing as the Scharnhorst was actually sunk by torpedos and not gunfire (inclunding a significant number of fish fired from HMS Jamaica and HMS Belfast) I think that is probably a more significant factor than the choice of Battleship.

 

In fact, to take that point a step further, it is also unlikely that the US destroyers would have been able to operate effectively under the conditions experienced at North Cape. The flush decked US destroyers were regularly found to be completely unsuitable for service during very severe conditions in the North Atlantic winter.

 

However much we like to obsess about the Battleships, it was actually the cruisers and destroyers which sank the Scharnhorst. US cruisers wouldn't have been able to do it because they didn't have torpedos and US destroyers were unlikely to have been able to operate under the conditions - therefore you can put pretty much any battleship you like in the scenario and have it operate at full capacity - the Scharnhorst would probably still have got away if you are using US cruisers and destroyers.

 

This is not a criticism on the US Navy, incidentally. The North Atlantic was not in their expected theatre of operations, so why would they design ships to fight there rather than the central and south atlantic region (which were not considered very likely theatres of operation) or the Pacific (which was considered the most likely theatre of operations). By contrast, the Royal Navy were absolutely certain they'd need to operate in the extreme North Atlantic as it was right on their doorstep, so they had to design their ships with such weather conditions in mind - the payoff was that their ships were not terribly suitable for Pacific operations (epsecially in terms of range and their behavior on the long, rolling waves ofthe Pacific).

[DesertFox]

One item is that I am not sure teh weather is as bad as you state. The Scharnhorst was suppose to have run at a full 31 knots. Being that I have read that he class had problems in high seas even after the new clipper bow, I am not sure how high a sea stae it really was.

[Getz]

One item is that I am not sure teh weather is as bad as you state. The Scharnhorst was suppose to have run at a full 31 knots. Being that I have read that he class had problems in high seas even after the new clipper bow, I am not sure how high a sea stae it really was.

 

The Battle was conducted in near darkness, in a snow storm with gale force winds. The sea state was described as "heavy" or "very heavy" depending upon your source.

 

The Scharnhorst was able to run at that speed because she was not attempting to use her main armament. She was almost certainly pitching and rolling beyond the limits of her guns elevation and derpession at the time and therefore would have found accurate shooting impossible. That isn't such a problem, however, when you're trying to escape...

[DesertFox]

The Battle was conducted in near darkness, in a snow storm with gale force winds. The sea state was described as "heavy" or "very heavy" depending upon your source.

 

The Scharnhorst was able to run at that speed because she was not attempting to use her main armament. She was almost certainly pitching and rolling beyond the limits of her guns elevation and derpession at the time and therefore would have found accurate shooting impossible. That isn't such a problem, however, when you're trying to escape...

 

I am not so much concerned with being able to fire the main battery but talking about personal experience. In really bad seas, we litterally could not maintain top speed on the ship I was on. I don't have an experience on an Iowa class so I don't know how severe weather would effect them. I talked to crew (new a gamer on the Iowa herself) and they said she was very stable in high seas.

[Getz]

I am not so much concerned with being able to fire the main battery but talking about personal experience. In really bad seas, we litterally could not maintain top speed on the ship I was on. I don't have an experience on an Iowa class so I don't know how severe weather would effect them. I talked to crew (new a gamer on the Iowa herself) and they said she was very stable in high seas.

 

the obvious question here is "compared to what?" Big ships on the whole are more stable than small ones, so if your friend had previously only served on a destroyer I'm sure an Iowa would feel stable even if she rolled like a wheel...

 

That said, I have only read that the Iowas struggled in heavy seas and have no personal experience to back that up. My understanding is that they had a tendancy to plunge their nose into the oncoming wave rather than ride up it, which would significantly slow a ship and put tremendous pressure on the bow at high speeds.

[KingSargent]

The KGVs were wet ships thanks to their lack of sheer forward, but they were still capable of fighting in extreme weather conditions such as those experienced at North Cape, largely on account of the fact that they tended to "flood" their foredeck rather than raise spray and because they had a very steady roll even in very sharp seas. The Iowas "poor" seakeeping is often exaggerated, but in heavy, north atlantic seas the spray forward alone would have severely hampered her shooting and significant pitching and rolling would make accurate shooting very difficult (legacy of the ship being designed for Pacific wave conditions). Furthermore, the fact that she had a tendency to pitch her bow forward in heavy seas would have also forced her to slow down, negating her speed advantage.

Ummm... FYI, the guns were no longer aimed by the men sitting at the guns. I doubt spray forward is going to bother masthead radar and buried Fire Control centers. Also the guns fire electrically at the proper angle as the ship rolled, so ship motion was not that big a deal.

 

I'm sure the Iowa would have been able to fire her guns, but the odds of her actually hitting anything were virtually zero - It's one thing to be able to survive heavy seas, but it's quite another to be able to fight in them.

See above.

 

As to the KGV's guns, now that is truely a specious argument - partly on the basis that it has no revelance to the question of whether an Iowa could fight under the conditions experienced at North Cape and partly because the KGV's weapons clearly were equal to the task, otherwise how did the RN sink the Scharnhorst?

If DoY's guns were up to the task despite their problems (and they were), why do you insist that much superior guns on a US ship would be ineffective under the conditions?

 

You need to get your facts straight. I suggest that it is not MY facts that are in question. YOU are the one making unsuppoerted assertions.

 

Although some of their speed related problems had been solved, the NCs were still operating under speed restrictions in 1944, albeit not as severe ones as they were under in 1941. The KGVs were faster under arctic conditions solely because they could actually do their designed speed without the vibration causing their radar to fall apart or rendering optical fire control impossible.

As has been pointed out, when the NoCars HAD a problem it did not affect the main radar or fire controls. Washington's shooting was certainly effective in November 1942. According to you she would have been too shaken to hit Kirishima.

 

The NC's vibration problems were never completely solved, but the USN went through a lengthy process of stiffening the ship, fiddling with the skeg design and ultimately replacing the props before the problem was solved enough for the ships to operate as intended. This was not something they solved in an afternoon during her trials. Do you know how long it takes to design and manufacture large ship propellers?

Not two years, and your depiction of the "problem" is exaggerated.

 

Also, you're neglecting the impact of sea state on speed. The NC's vibration problems were not caused by the speed she was runnng at, but the engine revolutions required to reach it. You have to run you engines much harder to attain a given speed in rough conditions...

So? You're reaching.... Nope, miss.

 

Once again, you are wrong. The Germans clearly optimised their designs for North atlantic operations (very apparent from their armour schemes) and the RN placed it high on their list of priorities in design terms (seeing as the North Atlanti contained their home waters). US ships were, on the whole, designed for the Pacific as this was considered their most likely theatre of operations. It also has to be understood that the wave conditions in the Atlantic are very different to the Pacfific. Both Oceans can serve you up with terrifyingly violent storms (in fact, the Pacific is probably worse on this count) but whereas Pacific waves tend to be huge, long rollers, Atlantic waves tend to be short but very steep. Both stress hulls in very different ways and create different demands in terms of seakeeping.

1) The Germans were optimized for North SEA, not North Atlantic. There is a difference.

2) We are not talking about what is "normal" in the oceans, we are talking about extreme conditions. As you concede "extreme" in the Pacific tends to be VERY extreme. Ships are not designed for "normal" conditions (or shouldn't be), they are designed to operate in the crappiest conditions. And if you impute a British superiority in designing for crappy conditions, the British NEVER operated in extreme conditions in peacetime. They went South when it got cold and north (south in the southern hemisphere) when it got hot. British experts acknowledge that the USN was more capable in extreme climates.

 

This is not to say that USN BBs were incapable of serving in the North Atlantic, far from it - but the weather experienced at North Cape was very extreme, and exactly the kind of circumstances where these kind of design choices become critical. Both the Scharnhorst and KGV classes were designed for these conditions and they had great difficulty fighting at North Cape, why do you think that a vessel not designed for them would do better? Because it had bigger guns and a DP secondary battery? Don't make me laugh...

On the basis that, as of Dec 1943, the Sodaks were capable fighting at 27 knots, whereas the NCs were not. Of course you've already disputed that point...

And correctly. And I do not laugh, but sneer at your imputation that the US designed "good weather" ships.

[KingSargent]

the obvious question here is "compared to what?" Big ships on the whole are more stable than small ones, so if your friend had previously only served on a destroyer I'm sure an Iowa would feel stable even if she rolled like a wheel...

So if a big ship is more stable, and a NoCar and a KGV are the same size and both bigger than Scharnhorst, why is the US ship less stable than the German while the RN one is not?

 

That said, I have only read that the Iowas struggled in heavy seas and have no personal experience to back that up. My understanding is that they had a tendancy to plunge their nose into the oncoming wave rather than ride up it, which would significantly slow a ship and put tremendous pressure on the bow at high speeds.

And RN ships did not? Care to look at pictures of RN ships burying their bows and keeping turrets reversed in comparatively moderate seas in WW1, let alone WW2? KGVs buried their bows in moderate seas. As I stated previously the only RN BB that did not was Vanguard, the last BB design built.

[DesertFox]

One item is that there were US Cruisers with torpedo tubes as well.