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

Shortround6 · Jan 22, 2021

who the enemy was changed in the years between the Duechtland and 1939. France was initially the big enemy.
Which treaties were in force is another question. Germany was bound by the treaty of Versaille but not the Washington treaty of 1922.

German ships were also propaganda tools, presenting an image of strength.

Newsreel footage of ships like these was not going inspire fear in most other nations.

Germans were banned from building U-boats so until they fake out their opponents with some sort of surface fleet they are not going to be able to leap into production of U-boats on a grand scale.

The Basket · Jan 23, 2021

Interesting comment that Scharnhorst may be a giant screw you to Versailles and a propaganda tool.

I can dig it.

From what I read German Navy was all about Jutland 2. Maybe not in the actual but very much in the dreamworld.

The last actions of the old navy was scuttling in Scapa and the Soviet style mutiny in 1918. So hardly covered in glory. So maybe the Kreigsmarine had to double down on waving the flag.

The Basket · Jan 24, 2021

Based on knowledge the 11 inch Scharnhorst would be no better or worse off although perception of the sisters may have been different.

Gneisenau was chopped up for 15 inch guns so if she had 15 inch guns already then she may have been repaired and turned around.

Against thinner skinned vessels it's very much no thang between 11 and 15 and I doubt they would taken on Malaya because of a possible mission kill hit and then a swift RTB.

Maybe a 15 inch hit against Renown maybe although not sure if Renown armour could survive an 11 inch hit.

Scharnhorst from what I remember didn't do much good hits to DoY so if u don't hit target the choice between 11 or 15 inch shells don't matter.

Would DoY faced 1v1 a 15 inch Scharnhorst? Maybe not.

Glider · Jan 24, 2021

A DOY vs a Scharnhorst would have an advantage but not a great one. The worse the weather, the better the advantage to the DOY.

The Basket · Jan 24, 2021

An 11 inch shell is not going through a KGV armour belt at sensible battle ranges.

However a 14 inch shell is going through the Scharnhorst armour belt.

Had Scharnhorst had 15 inch guns then they may have held an advantage but as was Scharnhorst didn't hit DoY in any meaningful way so it's a moot point.

Although Scharnhorst was been tag teamed by cruisers and destroyers so it was a very sticky wicket and DoY was one of the many warships so any battleship in its place was going to be mission killed so any discussion is moot as the sheer firepower against Scharnhorst was pure destructive. Not much was coming out in one piece.

Thumpalumpacus · Apr 10, 2021

tomo pauk said:
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.

I've read that that was the original plan: build out with 9x11", up-gun to 6x15" later.

Thumpalumpacus · Apr 10, 2021

fastmongrel said:
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.

It always baffled me why the Brits referred to the "Ugly Sisters" (I think they were quite handsome) as "battleships" in literature. 11" guns and lighter armor spell battlecruiser to my American brain.

tomo pauk · Apr 10, 2021

Thumpalumpacus said:
I've read that that was the original plan: build out with 9x11", up-gun to 6x15" later.

My understanding is that the S&G would've needed to wait until the 15in guns are designed, de-bugged and produced, so KM decided to go with 11in guns.

Thumpalumpacus · Apr 10, 2021

tomo pauk said:
Two in the front. Has less severe consequences if the enemy crosses your 'T'.

Two in the back means you can fire more weight as you're using your speed to break off against heavier ships. Seems like a draw to me.

Thumpalumpacus · Apr 10, 2021

tomo pauk said:
My understanding is that the S&G would've needed to wait until the 15in guns are designed, de-bugged and produced, so KM decided to go with 11in guns.

Mine as well. IIRC, the turret rings were sized to accept the larger guns, and it was envisioned to emplace them.

Shortround6 · Apr 10, 2021

Thumpalumpacus said:
"battleships" in literature. 11" guns and lighter armor spell battlecruiser to my American brain.

Lighter armor than what?

Certainly lighter than some 35,000 ton an up battleships but a whole lot stronger than many of the WW I left overs even if refitted. Since they were faster than most of the existing battleships they did present a problem even if the armament was light.

Thumpalumpacus · Apr 10, 2021

nuuumannn said:
Something else to add to the collective with an appropriate bent. In late 1939 a number of 44 Sqn Hampden bombers was detached to Scotland to hunt for the German cruiser Admiral Scheer and were detected by local radar, which hadn't been notified of the bombers' approach. Spitfires from 602 Sqn out of RAF Drem, near Edinburgh were sent out after them, a Hampden was shot down before the mistake was realised, crashing near May Island in the Firth of Forth. The rest of the bombers were then diverted to land at Drem, where they spent the night. The next day before they were recalled to their base in England, the Hampden crews went round every toilet at Drem, took as much of the toilet paper as they could and stuffed it in their bomb bays. On take off, the Hampdens then beat up the airfield, opened their bomb bays and the base's toilet paper supply was scattered across the airfield!

That beats any Halloween TP'ing we ever did in my misspent youth!

Thumpalumpacus · Apr 10, 2021

Shortround6 said:
Lighter armor than what?

[...]

Certainly lighter than some 35,000 ton an up battleships[...]

I think you answered your own question, there.

Thumpalumpacus · Apr 10, 2021

The Basket said:
A German ship that gets damaged gets set upon by every RN with a gun.

The very fact that any KMS warship damaged in the Atlantic would have to sail past one end or the other of Britain makes that inevitable, really. Not a good situation.

Thumpalumpacus · Apr 10, 2021

pbehn said:
If the people who ordered these ships could see just a few years into the future they probably wouldn't have been built. Without any aircraft carriers and the growth in long distance aircraft with radar ships like Bismarck and Tirpitz were too hard to protect and therefore easy to lose. Such a force may have had a brief success but may have left a worse situation.

How to get a vulnerable aircraft carrier safely into the Atlantic from Germany?

Shortround6 · Apr 10, 2021

timing

Gneisenau commissioned 21 May 1938
Scharnhorst commissioned 7 January 1939

Duke of York commissioned 28 February 1940
North Carolina commissioned 9 April 1941
Vittorio Veneto commissioned 28 April 1940 (Cheated over 41,000 tons)
Dunkerque commissioned 15 April 1937 (only 26,500 tons)
Richelieu commissioned 15 July 1940

Dunkerque had this armor according to wiki.

Belt armor: 225 mm (8.9 in)
Main deck: 115 mm (4.5 in)
Gun turrets: 330 mm (13 in)
Conning tower: 270 mm (11 in)

Armor Belt for the North Carolina was a bit thinner but decks and turret faces were thicker.

The debate about battlecruisers usually says they sacrificed both guns and armor for speed. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau seem to have sacrificed only guns.
The Richelieu was supposed to have had 330mm belt armor although other parts of the armor scheme were thicker than the Germans.

Shortround6 · Apr 10, 2021

Thumpalumpacus said:
How to get a vulnerable aircraft carrier safely into the Atlantic from Germany?

British S class submarine.

The Germans were not the only navy that could use submarines as the Germans learned in the Norwegian campaign.

However, we have discussed this before. If the Germans don't build at least a few large ships the British don't have to build all of their large ships either.
The Large German ships tied up a disproportionate amount of British effort and caused a number of older battleships to stay at sea as distant escorts tying up man power, maintenance and tens of thousands of tons of fuel oil.

Thumpalumpacus · Apr 10, 2021

Nothin' but blank here, bud.

Shortround6 · Apr 10, 2021

Thumpalumpacus said:
Nothin' but blank here, bud.

try now

The Basket · Apr 10, 2021

Scharnhorst didn't sacrifice guns.

The 15 inch guns were not available but it was always planned to convert them when it was feasible. So the Treaty of Versailles strikes back.

The armour on Scharnhorst was as good as anything thickness wise.

The RN called anything big and fast a battlecruiser. Also the 11 inch guns were not battle ship grade guns.

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

Major General

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Captain

Senior Master Sergeant

Major

Major

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Major

Major General

Major

Major

Major

Major

Major General

Major General

Major

Major General

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads