Best World war two warships?

[Juha]

Hello Soren
the 335mm penetration for 11in at 15km isn't test result but is from "Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War Two" for a muzzle velocity of 2,920 fps (890 mps) and is based upon the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration.

The data based on the pre-war Krupp test shoots on their range in Meppen with L/4,4 APC projectiles using RPC/32 propellant against KC-type armor at an impact angle of 70 degrees gives 11in shell penetration at 15km as 11.02in / 280mm. But it should be noted that RPC/32 propellant was replaced by the more powerful RPC/38 type which was the only propellant used in World War II, so that is somewhat undervalue.

Juha

PS it seems Parsifal just beats me.

 

[Soren]

Krupp would've fired the guns at a target laid back 30 degrees and standing at a side angle of 20 degrees AFAIK, as this was std. practice. Which means that actual penetration at a 30 degree angle was around 320mm. While with improved powders the MV was increased from 890 to 925 m/s, increasing armour penetration to 350mm against an armoured plate laid back 30 degrees.

 

[Soren]

Parsifal,

In a straight match between the Scharnhorst Iowa I think there's no doubt that the SH is going down, and I never meant to insinuate otherwise. It would be like pitting a M26 Pershing against a Tiger Ausf.B in a long range shooting contest = no contest at all. But the SH's 28cm guns would still be lethal if they were allowed to get within 15km, such as on a very foggy day in very lively sea. But mostly on a normal day that was never gonna happen ofcourse, the Iowa would sink the SH before it could close to 15km.

The only point I was trying to make was that the guns on the SH were lethal, even at 15km, to the biggest BBs around.

Also I'd lik to point out that the SH could return fire as soon as the Iowa would be able to engage it, and even at a 40km range the 28cm shells will be able to hurt the Iowa's superstructure and possible take out the fire control radar and other vital parts. And keep in mind that the SH fired some 3.5 round pr. min pr. gun, thats 31 28cm shells raining down towards the Iowa every minute, each one with the potential to damage the ship in important areas. On the same note however a single shell from the Iowa could brng the SH down even at that range, so like I said, in a one vs one the Iowa comes out on top by a wide margin.

 

[parsifal]

Parsifal,

In a straight match between the Scharnhorst Iowa I think there's no doubt that the SH is going down, and I never meant to insinuate otherwise. It would be like pitting a M26 Pershing against a Tiger Ausf.B in a long range shooting contest = no contest at all. But the SH's 28cm guns would still be lethal if they were allowed to get within 15km, such as on a very foggy day in very lively sea. But mostly on a normal day that was never gonna happen ofcourse, the Iowa would sink the SH before it could close to 15km.

The only point I was trying to make was that the guns on the SH were lethal, even at 15km, to the biggest BBs around.

Also I'd lik to point out that the SH could return fire as soon as the Iowa would be able to engage it, and even at a 40km range the 28cm shells will be able to hurt the Iowa's superstructure and possible take out the fire control radar and other vital parts. And keep in mind that the SH fired some 3.5 round pr. min pr. gun, thats 31 28cm shells raining down towards the Iowa every minute, each one with the potential to damage the ship in important areas. On the same note however a single shell from the Iowa could brng the SH down even at that range, so like I said, in a one vs one the Iowa comes out on top by a wide margin.

I know basically what you are saying. It is always possible for the Scharnhorst to defeat the Iowa, however, I think as a ballistics expert you know that the odds are extremely low. Even at your nominated range of 15000 yards only a fraction of the 28cm rounds are going to penetrate the belt, and those that do are going to do relatively small amounts of damage given the very heavy transverse bulkheads and other protection systems built into the Iowas design. The reverse is not true.....every hit achieved by the Iowa is almost certain to overpower the Scharnhorsts defences.....those big US late war 2700 lb charges are going to make a hell of a mess.

I agree that if somehow the Scharnhorst couldclose the range to less than 12000 yards, undamaged, and was able to pump a full salvo into the iowa, that might do the trick.....but this is highly unlikley, given the gunnery radar advantages the US ship would enjoy

 

[Soren]

I know basically what you are saying. It is always possible for the Scharnhorst to defeat the Iowa, however, I think as a ballistics expert you know that the odds are extremely low. Even at your nominated range of 15000 yards only a fraction of the 28cm rounds are going to penetrate the belt, and those that do are going to do relatively small amounts of damage given the very heavy transverse bulkheads and other protection systems built into the Iowas design. The reverse is not true.....every hit achieved by the Iowa is almost certain to overpower the Scharnhorsts defences.....those big US late war 2700 lb charges are going to make a hell of a mess.

I agree that if somehow the Scharnhorst couldclose the range to less than 12000 yards, undamaged, and was able to pump a full salvo into the iowa, that might do the trick.....but this is highly unlikley, given the gunnery radar advantages the US ship would enjoy

Exactly, that's all I wanted to point out.

 

[renrich]

It is interesting to look at real results of naval gunfire in real battles. The Graf Spee with 11 inch guns in a fairly long battle eventually put Exeter out of action but could not sink her. Her 5.9s and 11 inchers could only damage the pair of small CLs. Bismarck may have blown up Hood with only a few hits. Hiei was so beat up by 5 inch and 8 inch bullets that she was almost out of action the next day. Her sister ship Kirishima, if memory serves, took 30 hits from 16 inch guns at 9000 yards and eventually sank but only grudgingly. Pretty hard to predict what will happen based on size of guns although if one's guns practically have no chance to penetrate the opponents armor one is likely to be in trouble. The British BCs at Jutland looked pretty fragile but Tiger and Lion took a lot of 11 inch and 12 inch hits and were still full of fight. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau took a lot of 12 inch bullets before finally sinking.

 

[Juha]

Hello Soren

Quote:" …such as on a very foggy day in very lively sea…"

At least that didn't work in stormy weather in Arctic at the darkest time of year as the Battle of North Cape showed.

Quote: "Krupp would've fired the guns at a target laid back 30 degrees and standing at a side angle of 20 degrees AFAIK, as this was std. practice. Which means that actual penetration at a 30 degree angle was around 320mm. While with improved powders the MV was increased from 890 to 925 m/s, increasing armour penetration to 350mm against an armoured plate laid back 30 degrees."

The site clearly stated 70deg impact angle, and persons, Nathan Okun and Co, behind the site are pretty famous in naval armament and armour circles. But of course mistakes may happen. Maybe you should contact the site if you think that they give wrong/misleading info.

Also your result is clearly better than what Dulin and Garzke give in their Battleship series for Sch's 11in. According to their figure side protection of Iowas (and SDs) were very narrowly capable to keep German 11in shells out in side by side engagement at 15km distance, if one uses rundimentally LOS analyze..

Juha

 

[Soren]

70 deg? That's very steep.

Ofcourse it could also be refering to the 20 degree side angle, assuming a 90 degree starting point. Usually however the Germans measured from 0 as vertical and then onwards.

 

[Juha]

H

 

[delcyros]

Some points to consider:

(A) IOWA has a general advantage in larger calibre shells but a disadvantage in volume of fire (15km is almost on the very edge of effective range for the 5in/38 while inside effective range of 5.9in/55 secondary guns and even in within the range for the 4.1in/65 tertiary guns). IOWA probably also has a serious advantage in firecontroll and enjois the larger hull (better in absorbing damage)

(B) At the specified range, deck hits are unlikely. Most hits would involve the exposed vitals and the side protection system of both ships.

(B) The side protection system of IOWA is barely able to keep out 11 in APC at the specified range. The Meppen trials are with slightly less powerful propellent but more importantly against face hardened plates with superior resistence power to those installed into IOWA. 11in Krupp APC are not going to be decapped by IOWA´s outer hull shell (so called decapping plate).*

(C) At the specified range, IOWA´s shells are unlikely to penetrate SCHARNHORSTS side protection system (it was the most powerful side protection system ever installed into a battleship. Much better than YAMATO´s for the embedded vitals of the hull)

(D) While IOWA´s embedded vitals are not yet exposed -and SCHARNHORSTS are pretty safe- the exposed vitals (superstructures, barbettes, CT, turrets) of SCHARNHORST are exposed to IOWA´s guns while IOWA on it´s own is pretty safe from 11in.

It wouldn´t be wise to engage SCHARNHORST one to one at the specified range of 15km or partcularely at closer distances. Altough 15km (ca. 16.400 yards) wouldn´t be untypical for bb fighting distance in ww2, IOWA better keeps a distance of 25km+ (stay under 30.000 yards, as the hit probability closes to nil -guessing from real world results) and can lob shells into SCHARNHORST with impunity. This makes best use of IOWA´s strengths (large cal. shells, firecontroll), while still exploiting SCHARNHORSTS weaknesses (upper side belt and deck protection).

*)
Nathan Okuns facehardv. 6.2. gives us the minimum striking velocity to achieve full penetration against 12.1in US class A +0.75in STS backing for 16.400 yards (= 29 deg. netto obliquity with inclination and angle of fall) for the 727.5lbs 11in Krupp L4.4 APC:
~2042 fps.
Striking velocity however, is more closer to 1900 fps with RP/C 38.
Note that this is still in within the zone of "mixed" results as defined by Nathan Okun, so You may experience some penetrations at this range!
On the other hand, while the 16in will pass the 13.8in belt of SCHANRHORST, it cannot pass the slope behind not the deck after belt penetration at the specified range and thus will be unable to damage machinery or magazine spaces.

 

[Juha]

Hello Delcyros
the discussion was on the lower limit of Iowa's immunity zone against German 11in, I completely agree with you that it would have been strongly recommended that Iowa would have kept the engagement distance at least over 20km, which it was capable to do being a bit faster with excellent radar suite.

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

i'm agree that iowa it's a best and larger BB of scharnhorst, but i've two consideration
1) imho the best warship of WW II it's a carrier, now idk what but sure a carrier
2) if i need choice within scharnhorst and iowa (hipotetical) i choice scharnhorst because it's more rapresentative of WWII of iowa, scharnhorst also in inferior of iowa it's best for 4 and half years and came take over from iowa only in the last 1 and half year of war. (i know my english it's so bad and maybe this is not clear sorry)

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo
I think we all agree that carriers were more important than BBs during WWII but the discussion is lately concentrated on BBs, how one compare to other BB.

IMHO for ex Tirpitz was better than Scharnhorst, it was more balanced, if slower, design even if the twins were clearly more active.

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

Hello Vincenzo
I think we all agree that carriers were more important than BBs during WWII but the discussion is lately concentrated on BBs, how one compare to other BB.

IMHO for ex Tirpitz was better than Scharnhorst, it was more balanced, if slower, design even if the twins were clearly more active.

Juha

my example was take: there are only iowa and scharnhorst, not a real world situation. the important point was that a ship that fightning for all the war (or near all, or can fight but unlucky was sunk) it's more rapresentative for WWII that one used only in the last 1/4

 

[renrich]

Vincenzo, there was a situation and I am hazy about the exact situation and ships involved where in 1940 or early1941, a US force was sent to intercept a German raiding force. I think the German force was Scheer and Lutzow and the US force was Texas and New York. The intercept did not take place because one of the the German ships had engine trouble and the German raid was cancelled. Would have been interesting if it had taken place.

 

[delcyros]

Hello Delcyros
the discussion was on the lower limit of Iowa's immunity zone against German 11in, I completely agree with you that it would have been strongly recommended that Iowa would have kept the engagement distance at least over 20km, which it was capable to do being a bit faster with excellent radar suite.

Juha

I am not quite convinced that IOWA in 1943 was capable of doing this under normal conditions. She was fast, altough we don´t know exactly how fast. We know that the IOWA-class had very fine hulls with a long, sleek bow section and powerful propulsion to allow for such high speed. IOWA itselfe was recorded to be good enough for 31.8 kts in 1943, altough we hardly know the conditions, displacement and powerload associated with this record. Other ships of the class claimed 32.5 kts and even 33+ kts. Unfortunately, this long narrow bow section in the same time didn´t displaced much water and thus was prone to dig itselfe in the sea much sooner than other designs at anything worser than Beaufort 3-5. It was fast but unless the seastate was calm, the fine lines made the turrets wet and produced a lively gunplatform. I don´t expect fine conditions to prevail in the northern Atlantic, after all I know, the DKM sortied preferably at poor weather conditions due tothe limitations for enemy flight ops caused by poor weather conditions. We know that SCHARNHORST was recorded in the british radartracks of the North Cape engagement to sustain 30+ kts at force 10 with gale during it´s run to the South (top speed recorded for a brief period was 32+kts).
I am also not sure what exactly the RADAR capabilities of SCHARNHORST and IOWA in late 1943 were. I understand that both ships had RADAR sets efficient enough to track an enemy BB-sized target and develop gunlaying solutions for the firecontroll using RADAR. I also understand that the US later build in a radarset to track gunsplashes which the DKM sets could not. I am not sure if this holds true for late 1943 as well. If so it would create a notable advantage for IOWA.
Finally, in late 1943 IOWA was a new ship with a lot of bugs to be worked out (faulty propellent range tables f.e.), while SCHARNHORSTs crew was already experienced and most technical issues hardened out. Some of her problems (boiler room No.1 constantly made problems) remained through her final sortie, however.

That beeing said, I just wanted to underline that a surprise one on one engagement at close range in mediocre or poor north atlantic weather is not a simple work over for IOWA as the stats may imply.
IOWA is the better ship and has lots of advantages but people often underestimate the threat factor created by SCHARNHORST judging on her performance against DUKE OF YORK or the paper statistics. After all, her guns are potentially dangerous and at 16000 yards or less may punch through any modern battleship if the conditions of the fight allow such a distance to happen.
IOWA can easily win this fight with clever tactics on focussing on distance. However, remember that this couldn´t have been known by then.

 

[Juha]

Hello Delcyros
I judge Scharnhorst on its specs and on its performance against DoY, Renown and Glorious. IIRC Sch. had problems with its gunnery during the Spitsberg raid earlier in 43. On belt, one could always improve protection of one's belt simply trying not to show full broadside to enemy so that the hit angle has also horizontal component in it. And I know that in gunnery duel there was always a "luck" component present. That was shown for ex. during the engagement between the Twins and Renown on 9 Apr 40. The one 15in hit the Renown got on Gneis. had clear impact on how the Germans continued the engagement. Also the 4.5in hit on A turret of Gneis. had effect not easily predictable from specs.

Iowas were not great seaboats for the reason you mentioned, I have known that for decades, but also the Twins were wet forward. If tactical situation demanded one simply took risks of weather damages, on 9 Apr 40 engagement both Twins lost the use of A turret becauseof the amount of water they took over the bows but the Germans were ready to pay that price for disengagement.

On radar, I don't have time to check that, Christmas preparations take too much of my time just now, You know. But you might well be right on that.

Juha

 

[parsifal]

Hi Del

Most of what you have written I agree with, but there are some issues that you raise that I dont

Finally, in late 1943 IOWA was a new ship with a lot of bugs to be worked out (faulty propellent range tables f.e.), while SCHARNHORSTs crew was already experienced and most technical issues hardened out. Some of her problems (boiler room No.1 constantly made problems) remained through her final sortie, however.

I agree that the Scharnhorst had a fully trained and worked up crew, and that early on in 1943 the Iowa had teething troubles whilst working up in European waters. However, her crew was fully worked up and most of the problems with the ship worked out by the time she was transferred to the pacific, which from memory was late '43.

You could argue the same about the Scharnhorsts crew, with long periods in port, no safe training havens, long stretches between proper overhauls. There is no way of telling which ship might suffer catastrophic breakdowns

That beeing said, I just wanted to underline that a surprise one on one engagement at close range in mediocre or poor north atlantic weather is not a simple work over for IOWA as the stats may imply.

I agree, the stats tell only half the story, a committment to battle can always have unknown effects. In naval battles luck is as important a factor as the tactics. However a ship of the calibre of the Iowa has far less reliance on luck than Scharnhorst would as her opponent. Scharnhorst would be relying on not being detected, being able to close to relatively point blank range, and then being able to hit with a lot of shells, and achieve penetrations before the Iowa could react. Thats a tall order

IOWA is the better ship and has lots of advantages but people often underestimate the threat factor created by SCHARNHORST judging on her performance against DUKE OF YORK or the paper statistics. After all, her guns are potentially dangerous and at 16000 yards or less may punch through any modern battleship if the conditions of the fight allow such a distance to happen.

The Iowa went to the Pacific with perhaps the best radar fit of any warship to that point. It was at least equal to that in the DoY Decmber 1943. And the DOYs gunnery at North Cape demonstrates the effectiveness of her systems....are you saying that Iowas radar fit would be leess effective than that? Whilst it is plausibke that the Iowa could be caught napping, it is highly unlikley. In contrast, whilst the Scharnhorst may have a quite good radar fit (I am in debate about that in another thread at the moment) KM operational policy was to keep radar off until battle had commenced. The chances of the Scharnhorst beiung surprised using that policy are relatively high I would think, whilst the active use of radar policy used by the allies tended to lessen that risk, as the DoYs use of Radar at North cape demonstrates


IOWA can easily win this fight with clever tactics on focussing on distance. However, remember that this couldn´t have been known by then.

Why not? The basic characteristics of the skc 34 and the Scharnhorst were known to the allies from prewar, added to which the British had ben gathering mountains of information on the ship throughout the war, and freely passing that technical intellignece onto the Americans.

The same could not be said for the KM concerning such a new ship as the Iowa (i dont think.....). Given the general lines and appearance of the ship as a battlecruiser, the Scharnhorst may well attempt to engage at range, which would lengthen the odds even further.

Regarding the armouring scheme of the scharnhorst, I agree that she was very heavily protected behind thick armour that was well designed. But it is illogical to argue that she would be substantially immune from 16 inch fire (in the sense of being knocked out as an effective unit), when as a battle worthy unit she was first disabled, and then sunk by fire from a 14 inch armed ship, albeit with a lot of assistance.

It took an enormous effort to sink the bismarck as well, yet I would just point out that the effort needed to remove that ship as an effective fighting unit took only a relatively short space of time. I acknowledge that the bismarck was labouring under enormous difficulties, but German defensive schemes, whilst very good, and certainly able to keep ships afloat long after they had ceased to be viable fighting units, could not prevent those same ships from being knocked out as such.

 

[renrich]

A point that, IMO, needs to be made during this discussion is that modern capital ships were very difficult to sink, failing an unlucky hit that causes a magazine explosion, by gunfire alone. At Jutland Warspite took 13 hits from eleven and twelve inch guns and was not sunk or even seriously disabled. Even BCs could absorb a lot of damage from shellfire without being sunk. Lion-12 hits, Tiger-17 hits, Princess Royal-9 hits, Derfflinger-17 hits, Seydlitz-21 hits, all from major caliber shells and none sunk. Kirishima took many 16 inch hits, perhaps more than 20 and only eventually sank. However, those ships could be substantially put out of action without being sunk by gunfire. Bismarck, Hiei, Kirishima and Scharnhorst were essentially defenseless before finally sinking, often put out of their misery by torpedoes. To me, in a a gun fight an Iowa would probably put a Scharnhorst out of action before the relatively puny eleven inch guns of the Scharnhorst could do much damage. None of the British BCs above were put out of action by the numerous hits from German 11 and 12 inch shells.

 

[Glider]

The only way the Scharnhorst could defeat the Iowa is dumb luck. The 16in is a far more powerful weapon and the Iowa had the most up to date fire control available. Her armour was to the latest layout and she lacked nothing, the only ships to match her are the Japanese Yamato class.

The next debate is likely to be can the Scharnhorst take on the Yamoto!!