Germany goes with 6x15in Scharnhorst/Gneisenau development instead of B&T?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
14,716
4,919
Apr 3, 2008
As it says on the tin - instead of going big with Bismarck and Tirpitz, Nazi Germany introduces the changes to the basic S&G design in order to have a capital ship with 3 turrets with two 381mm guns; rest of the ship resembling the S&G more or less.
Main change vs. B&T might be the timing - having both of them in service by second half of 1940.
 
The Gneisenau was being altered to replace the 9 x 11in with 6 x 15in after receiving damage and there can be little doubt that it would be improvement. However it doesn't change a thing at a strategic level. She still couldn't take on any RN capital warship because she couldn't afford to take any damage. An R class would be at a disadvantage but its almost certain that some hits would damage the Gneisenau at some level.
 
The German 11" guns had quite light shells 700 lbs but they were accurate, fast firing and had a good size burster charge 41 lbs. The problem was against deck armour the velocity was too high and the angle too shallow to be good against horizontal armour. Not much use v Battleships that can suck up an 11" APC but very handy taking on Cruisers.

The 15" seems to be much better but you have a slower firing gun and a 3 round salvo. Chances of hitting are considerably less maybe half.

With the 11" they were super heavy cruisers and had no business clashing with a Battleship. With 15" they are Battlecruisers and have no business clashing with a Battleship.
 

Agreed pretty much.

With the 11" they were super heavy cruisers and had no business clashing with a Battleship. With 15" they are Battlecruisers and have no business clashing with a Battleship.
Click to expand...

Why are they to be considered as Battlecruisers if the guns are 15 in?
 
I would say Scharnhorst had good armour scheme and I would say more Scharnhorst and no Bismarcks wouldn't be a bad thing.

As said 6 guns could be tricky to get a range but I would rather have 15 inch than 11.

The belt is too thick to call it a battlecruiser.

Scharnhorst was more Hood than Renown and with 15 inch guns would have been a good match up against DoY rather than the more one sided affair that happened.
 
tomo pauk said:
Why are they to be considered as Battlecruisers if the guns are 15 in?
Click to expand...

The original Battlecruisers were so called because they had Battleship guns but Heavy Cruiser protection. It's my personal opinion but 11" guns make them a very Heavy well protected Cruiser.

In any form the S&G cannot stand toe to toe with a modern Battleship even a modernised Super Dreadnought would also slap them very hard before they could use their speed to disengage. The only reason Scharnhorst lasted so long against Duke of York was the weather and the fact that Scharnhorst ran like the wind. If it had been a toe to toe slog Scharnhorst would have lasted minutes.

The only time that S&G met an equal was HMS Renown off Norway and they both disengaged with difficulty. Suffering from water entering the main armament and taking several hits from Renowns big hammers. Renown was over 20 years older.
 
fastmongrel said:
The original Battlecruisers were so called because they had Battleship guns but Heavy Cruiser protection. It's my personal opinion but 11" guns make them a very Heavy well protected Cruiser.
Click to expand...

Germans didn't called the Twins battlecruisers. Twins (if you think of them) have had thick armor - thicker than what B&T had - and less powerful guns than the current battleships. Battlecruiser is a ship that scarifies armor vs. a battleship, not guns.


Perhaps I was not clear in the 1st post - intention was the 15 in gunned offspring of S&G are actually made instead of B&T, and consequences of that.
 
tomo pauk said:
Perhaps I was not clear in the 1st post - intention was the 15 in gunned offspring of S&G are actually made instead of B&T, and consequences of that.
Click to expand...


Got you I didnt fully catch your point at first, my mistake. I can see the utility of 15" gunned Twins mainly because Bismark and Tirpitz were a monumental waste of steel and men. Smaller cheaper 6 x 15" ships might mean more U Boats in the Atlantic in 1939/40 when they really could have made a nasty difference to Britain.

With the benefit of hindsight I would not build anything larger than a shallow draught Light cruiser with a view to using them in the Baltic. Everything else would be Destroyers (the medium sized ones not the silly 150mm gunned versions), S Boats and U Boats.
 
I would say the armour is thicker on Scharnhorst than your giving. The belt is getting on to 14 inches. Although deck armour is on the thin side.
 
The Basket said:
I would say the armour is thicker on Scharnhorst than your giving. The belt is getting on to 14 inches. Although deck armour is on the thin side.
Click to expand...

Seems to be differing sources on the belt armour. I have seen 11.5 inches, 32cm and 38cm. Maybe she was upgraded when she got the Atlantik bow.
 
I have a couple of detailed books on these vessels. They seem to agree with

Waterline 5in Forward, 13/14in Amidships, 3in Aft
Upper Deck 2in
Main Deck 3.25in Slope, 4in flat
Turret Face 14.25in

If your interested the Alaska which I consider to be the nearest equivalent

Main Belt 5in (lower edge) 8in (Upper edge)
Upper Deck 1.5in
Main Deck 2.75in 3.75in (over Magazines)
Turret Face 12.75in
 
The British called her a battlecruiser due to her speed and underestimated the weight and armour.

In German both Bismarck and Scharnhorst were called Schlactschiff although in ww1 battleships were called Linienschiff or ship of the line.

Schlachtkreuzer was battle cruiser so the Kreigsmarine called Scharnhorst what it called Bismarck.
 
I think its fair to say that the British considered a Battlecruiser to be a battleship that sacrificed something for speed. The British generally sacrificed armour for speed, the Germans tended to sacrifice firepower, but both were battlecruisers.
If you look at WW1 British Battlecruisers generally carried the equivalent weapons as the battleships be they 12in, 13.5 or 15in. German Battlecruisers tended to have the calibre down. So when the BBs carried 12in, the BC's carried 11in. The last German BB's carried 15in and the last BC'c carried 12in
 
I would say Alaska is more of a Kongo or Tiger. It's not the same as a Scharnhorst.

The German battleships and battlecruisers did tend to have same guns for the given year. Bayern and Mackensen would have different guns.

German battlecruisers were not really battlecruisers as they were intended from the start to engage other big gun ships. They were not the cruiser killers that was originally intended with Invincible.
 
It depends on what strategy was in mind, Tirpitz did very little but had a much bigger effect than Bismarck just by existing.
 
pbehn said:
Tirpitz did very little but had a much bigger effect than Bismarck just by existing.
Click to expand...

"The Fleet-in-Being", Beattie's words for the mere existence of the High Seas Fleet after Jutland. This would have resonated with Churchill, as he was First Lord at the outbreak of both wars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Short history of the German navy between the wars.
Replies
1
Views
336
The Basket
Please ID of the aircraft carrier
Replies
1
Views
603
Wurger
The Reign of the Lonely Queen - A History of KMS Tirpitz Part 1
Replies
5
Views
2K
beaupower32
B
Re Extract 2 HMAS Sydney Commsioning to Final Voyage
Replies
7
Views
4K
diversdream
Menu
Log in
Register