parsifal
Colonel
Yes of course, its not that I dont like germans...since i have german family members, and am proud of it. . I just let my emotions get the better of me when the discussion gets heated.
My apolgies for allowing that to happen
Scharnhorst vs Alaska
- Thread starter renrich
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes of course, its not that I dont like germans...since i have german family members, and am proud of it. . I just let my emotions get the better of me when the discussion gets heated.
My apolgies for allowing that to happen
parsifal
Colonel
Vincenzo
I understand what you are saying, however it would be most unlikley that the 14/45 would lose approximately 2 inches of armour penetration (roughly the difference between the 12/50 and the 14/45 at the ranges we are talking about). The worn guns are what destroyed the Scharnhorst, so the new guns of the Alaska (remeber she was brand new in 1945) should r4etain that advantage.
Moreover the figures given from the Nav weapons site actually say that the 14/45 penetration tables are calculated values, meaning I think that they are worked out on the theoretical operating pressures and velocities for the weapon.
If you have different figures from those given in Nav weapons, please share them.
One final thing, the 14/45, once it penetrates wioll do more internal damage, because the shell is heavier
But for the moment we have to disagree, I think the 12/50 has superior AP capabilities over the 14/45
ok we have to disagree
no battle with Scharnhorst in '45, not back actual condition in what if scenario, commonly the guns in a ship aren't new (they are new only for the training time).
also the 12" table are calculated
i'ven't,
p.s. but see here in naval weapons for same conditions calculation http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_index.htm
versus Ger EFF the 12" a 20k yds 11.8" a 30k yds 8.9" the 14" a 20k yds 15.7" a 30k yds 12.1" (the 280 10.6" and 7.1")
no battle with Scharnhorst in '45, not back actual condition in what if scenario, commonly the guns in a ship aren't new (they are new only for the training time).
also the 12" table are calculated
i'ven't,
p.s. but see here in naval weapons for same conditions calculation http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_index.htm
versus Ger EFF the 12" a 20k yds 11.8" a 30k yds 8.9" the 14" a 20k yds 15.7" a 30k yds 12.1" (the 280 10.6" and 7.1")
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #64
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
As I tried to point out in an earlier post, naval gunfire can have varying results on armored ships, depending a lot on luck. I have read that Exeter was hit seven times by eleven inch shells from Graf Spee. Exeter was not sunk but all guns were out of action. I have also read that German naval shells in WW2 were rather unreliable. Perhaps that explains Exeter's "luck." I have also read that USN shells in WW2 were rather reliable and that the twelve inch AP shell Alaska would be using was very effective. Going back to my handloading days, it would seem to me that a twelve inch shell weighing around 1200 pounds would have an advantage both in sectional density and ballistic coefficient over an eleven inch shell weighing around 700 pounds. Has anyone compared the downrange velocity of the two shells at 20000 yards? Another point is that Scharnhorst may have been carrying torpedoes. My Janes, 1942, does not mention torpedoes but if she was carrying them that could be a serious handicap in a gunfight. Mikuma almost certainly blew up because of the torpedoes she was carrying and Hood may have also. If Graf Spee hit Exeter only seven times at the Plate, it seems reasonable to assume Scharnhorst would not hit Alaska any more often. At any rate, Alaska, with a knot or two advantage in speed, heavier guns and probably superior fire control would appear to have a good chance of defeating Scharnhorst. A lot would depend on sheer luck.
Glider
Captain
Parsifal
Conversely, the Alaska can expect to hit around four times for every hit achieved by the Scharnhorst (at least thats what it looks like), and each hit is likely to at least penetrate the belt, though as our german friends point out the sloped deck also provides good secondary protection.
You do have a sense of humour I will give you that. HMS Tiger normally hit her ship targets with the second or third ranging shot, average range about 20-22,000 yards at the start of the shoot. Very similar to Scharnhorst, which hit the Glorious with her third broadside at 26,000 yards. How on earth is the Alaska going to do four times better than that?
The proportional damage done by 11in compared to the 12in is about 80% as its proportional to the explosive in the shell. It isn't in proportion to the weight of the shell. As a result the Scharnhorst isn't giving much away in firepower.
Renrich
If Graf Spee hit Exeter only seven times at the Plate, it seems reasonable to assume Scharnhorst would not hit Alaska any more often. At any rate, Alaska, with a knot or two advantage in speed, heavier guns and probably superior fire control would appear to have a good chance of defeating Scharnhorst. A lot would depend on sheer luck.
The Exeter was a much smaller target and the Scharnhorst carries 50% more guns, plus of course the GS had to keep changing target to deal with the other cruisers. I see every reason as to why the Scharnhorst would hit the Alaska with some frequency.
I do agree though that luck would play a major part as both ships are capable of penetrating each other.
Conversely, the Alaska can expect to hit around four times for every hit achieved by the Scharnhorst (at least thats what it looks like), and each hit is likely to at least penetrate the belt, though as our german friends point out the sloped deck also provides good secondary protection.
You do have a sense of humour I will give you that. HMS Tiger normally hit her ship targets with the second or third ranging shot, average range about 20-22,000 yards at the start of the shoot. Very similar to Scharnhorst, which hit the Glorious with her third broadside at 26,000 yards. How on earth is the Alaska going to do four times better than that?
The proportional damage done by 11in compared to the 12in is about 80% as its proportional to the explosive in the shell. It isn't in proportion to the weight of the shell. As a result the Scharnhorst isn't giving much away in firepower.
Renrich
If Graf Spee hit Exeter only seven times at the Plate, it seems reasonable to assume Scharnhorst would not hit Alaska any more often. At any rate, Alaska, with a knot or two advantage in speed, heavier guns and probably superior fire control would appear to have a good chance of defeating Scharnhorst. A lot would depend on sheer luck.
The Exeter was a much smaller target and the Scharnhorst carries 50% more guns, plus of course the GS had to keep changing target to deal with the other cruisers. I see every reason as to why the Scharnhorst would hit the Alaska with some frequency.
I do agree though that luck would play a major part as both ships are capable of penetrating each other.
Parsifal,
According to all eyewitness accounts the Bismarck was extremely hard to sink considering how it was being pounded. Many of the British couldn't believe it still floated after the first 30min.
The British were also lucky that Bismarck had a heavy list to one side, seriously disturbing its' aim. Plus it could only sail circles very slowly, making it a sitting duck.
Had the Bismarck been fully combat ready there's a good chance that it could've sunk yet another British BB or two. Yes, it was that good.
As for the SH vs Alaska debate, sorry but there's a higher chance of the Sharnhorst scoring the first hit than vice versa.
According to all eyewitness accounts the Bismarck was extremely hard to sink considering how it was being pounded. Many of the British couldn't believe it still floated after the first 30min.
The British were also lucky that Bismarck had a heavy list to one side, seriously disturbing its' aim. Plus it could only sail circles very slowly, making it a sitting duck.
Had the Bismarck been fully combat ready there's a good chance that it could've sunk yet another British BB or two. Yes, it was that good.
As for the SH vs Alaska debate, sorry but there's a higher chance of the Sharnhorst scoring the first hit than vice versa.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #67
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
From "The Encyclopedia of Sea Warfare," "Although credited with great ingenuity of design the Bismarck was very conservative in conception, having an armour arrangement considerably inferior to current British and American ideas, and a cumberson arrangement of low angle secondary guns for surface work and a separate anti-aircraft armament. Her deck armor was badly placed to deal with either bomb damage or plunging shellfire and in her last action she was very quickly silenced by British shells." I have also read that "vital communication lines were placed above the armoured deck, unlike the new British BBs," and these were quickly cut. Her hull was penetrated at least twice by shells from POW in that short engagement. Doesn't sound like such a great design to me. In fact if POW had been fully worked up and operational and if the Hood had not been destroyed by a lucky hit, I believe that Bismarck and PE would have been very roughly handled in the first encounter.
Hello Glider
Quote:" A good point but I believe that they normally went off, there are plenty of things inside a ship that would be sufficient to detonate the shell. It would almost imply that the French unarmoured cruisers were a good idea."
I don't know what was normal but there are many cases when AP shells hitting unarmoured part of a ship went straight through without detonating. For ex vast majority of shells which hit SD somewhere else than on her belt didn't detonate. And much of the things which would detonate an AP shell were inside the armoured part of any BB, for ex engines and boilers.
On hitting IIRC DoY got a hit on Scharnhorst in her first salvo, and that was on stormy sea in arctic darkness.
Hello Soren
Quote:" According to all eyewitness accounts the Bismarck was extremely hard to sink considering how it was being pounded. Many of the British couldn't believe it still floated after the first 30min…"
Bismarck was hard to sink but I doubt that at least the men of artillery branch were much surprised that it was still floating after 30 min, they knew that the best way to sink a ship by gun fire was long range plunging fire, but the fuel state of RN ships demanded hits soon, so most of RN fire was from rather short distance.
Quote:" The British were also lucky that Bismarck had a heavy list to one side…"
Really, and what was wrong in Bismarc'ks torpedo protection and damage control? What has caused the heavy list and why they had not straightened her during the night by counter flooding?
Juha
Quote:" A good point but I believe that they normally went off, there are plenty of things inside a ship that would be sufficient to detonate the shell. It would almost imply that the French unarmoured cruisers were a good idea."
I don't know what was normal but there are many cases when AP shells hitting unarmoured part of a ship went straight through without detonating. For ex vast majority of shells which hit SD somewhere else than on her belt didn't detonate. And much of the things which would detonate an AP shell were inside the armoured part of any BB, for ex engines and boilers.
On hitting IIRC DoY got a hit on Scharnhorst in her first salvo, and that was on stormy sea in arctic darkness.
Hello Soren
Quote:" According to all eyewitness accounts the Bismarck was extremely hard to sink considering how it was being pounded. Many of the British couldn't believe it still floated after the first 30min…"
Bismarck was hard to sink but I doubt that at least the men of artillery branch were much surprised that it was still floating after 30 min, they knew that the best way to sink a ship by gun fire was long range plunging fire, but the fuel state of RN ships demanded hits soon, so most of RN fire was from rather short distance.
Quote:" The British were also lucky that Bismarck had a heavy list to one side…"
Really, and what was wrong in Bismarc'ks torpedo protection and damage control? What has caused the heavy list and why they had not straightened her during the night by counter flooding?
Juha
That's what I read, too. I read that the Germans were lagging behind in big battleship design having had a standstill in design for about 20 years. The Bismarck indeed proved to be almost unsinkable, but very easy to put out of action because of faults in design.
parsifal
Colonel
You do have a sense of humour I will give you that. HMS Tiger normally hit her ship targets with the second or third ranging shot, average range about 20-22,000 yards at the start of the shoot. Very similar to Scharnhorst, which hit the Glorious with her third broadside at 26,000 yards. How on earth is the Alaska going to do four times better than that?
The proportional damage done by 11in compared to the 12in is about 80% as its proportional to the explosive in the shell. It isn't in proportion to the weight of the shell. As a result the Scharnhorst isn't giving much away in firepower.
Picking one event is hardly choosing a representative sample though I notice from the above that we have now moved from one event to hitting usually every 2nd or third salvo....thats at odds with every observed shoot I have ever studied, or observed, which leads me to suspect it is not the same as wwII examples.....
If you are going to choose an event, and analyse that sample, you need to look at the whole sample. For the Glorious battle, the Scharnhost/Gneisenau team (and I dont think it valid to try and argue that the two ships were inhernetly different in their accuracy) managed a 1% hit ratio. Thats under ideal conditions. The range for that battle was an average of 24000 yards, for most of the fight. The US undertook a study that revealed at that range for its heavy guns they could achieve, on average an 8% hit ratio, and I picked one example, in poor weather (in which you dispute the ranges) where the hit ratio was 4%.
Every source I have consulted says that radar assisted gunnery is more accurate than optical, and that includes gunnery in clear conditions, though I concede it is probably a less pronounced advantage when the weather is clear.
You produce an example in the HMS Tiger, which I cannot analyse because there just isnt the data, and then get all huffy because I dont attempt the impossible. You select unrepresentative samples (by picking one incident and trying to pass that off as a "representative sample") and dont acknowledge the frequent occasions that Optical shooting (of any nationality) was attrocious (as radar assisted gunnery could be as well).
If you have the results for the overall shoot (of the Tiger) , and can prove that the average accuracy was as you say, and that the conditions of those shoots are comparable to the wartime conditions, Iwe can have a closer look at this issue.
But picking one event, ignoring all the times you missed, not producing any empirical or verifiable record, leads to the inevitable for me.....I simply cannot verify or rely on the data, because it appears to be using invalid sampling technique.
So why am I being funny, based on all of that.....
The proportional damage done by 11in compared to the 12in is about 80% as its proportional to the explosive in the shell. It isn't in proportion to the weight of the shell. As a result the Scharnhorst isn't giving much away in firepower.
Picking one event is hardly choosing a representative sample though I notice from the above that we have now moved from one event to hitting usually every 2nd or third salvo....thats at odds with every observed shoot I have ever studied, or observed, which leads me to suspect it is not the same as wwII examples.....
If you are going to choose an event, and analyse that sample, you need to look at the whole sample. For the Glorious battle, the Scharnhost/Gneisenau team (and I dont think it valid to try and argue that the two ships were inhernetly different in their accuracy) managed a 1% hit ratio. Thats under ideal conditions. The range for that battle was an average of 24000 yards, for most of the fight. The US undertook a study that revealed at that range for its heavy guns they could achieve, on average an 8% hit ratio, and I picked one example, in poor weather (in which you dispute the ranges) where the hit ratio was 4%.
Every source I have consulted says that radar assisted gunnery is more accurate than optical, and that includes gunnery in clear conditions, though I concede it is probably a less pronounced advantage when the weather is clear.
You produce an example in the HMS Tiger, which I cannot analyse because there just isnt the data, and then get all huffy because I dont attempt the impossible. You select unrepresentative samples (by picking one incident and trying to pass that off as a "representative sample") and dont acknowledge the frequent occasions that Optical shooting (of any nationality) was attrocious (as radar assisted gunnery could be as well).
If you have the results for the overall shoot (of the Tiger) , and can prove that the average accuracy was as you say, and that the conditions of those shoots are comparable to the wartime conditions, Iwe can have a closer look at this issue.
But picking one event, ignoring all the times you missed, not producing any empirical or verifiable record, leads to the inevitable for me.....I simply cannot verify or rely on the data, because it appears to be using invalid sampling technique.
So why am I being funny, based on all of that.....
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
I've read this many times, usually on naval discussion boards where fans argue the superiority of their 'own' design. But there is little behind it - big battleship design, well, there wasn't exactly a battleship building bonanza in any other country either. Basically in the UK they finished only the Rodneys, and in the US, the Lexingtons in the early 1920s - both were conceived during World War I.
Then, nothing until the mid-1930s when all major naval powers began building new, modern battleships again, at around the same time: the KGVs, Richies, Dunkerque, the North Carolinas and Scharnhorst/Bismarcks.
The Bismarck's alleged flaws in its design making it 'very easy to put out of action' is the same category - it has no factual basis, but its often repeated on discussion boards. The Bismarck's were not particularly more difficult to be 'soft killed', ie. putting out of action than any other BB of their era (turret, conning tower, director protection being avarage and pretty much the same as on other BBs, so just as easy to knock out, if the range was proper), only being more resilent because there were more fire directors (three vs the usual two) and more turrets (four vs the usual three) to be destroyed.
I'm missing the discussion on the HMS Tiger. Didn't she only get in a shooting fight two times, Dogger Bank and Jutland? I think here shooting was terrible at Dogger (3K yards long) and pretty bad at Jutland. And she had the more advanced of the FC setup.
At least that is what I'm getting from "Castles of Steel" (in the middle of rereading it).
At least that is what I'm getting from "Castles of Steel" (in the middle of rereading it).
it's not the Tiger of Jutland battle but a cruiser of '60s
- Thread starter
- #74
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I keep hearing about Tiger also and I am wondering which Tiger. I believe WW1 Tiger was not a good gunnery ship. Are youall talking about HMSTiger, the CL in WW2?
Glider
Captain
HMS Tiger the post war cruiser, later hybrid helicopter carrier. Check posting 29
Glider
Captain
Well against the AMC . Rawalpindi the Schaarnhorst hit with the first, second and third salvo. but I dont know the range. I do know that the Glorious was hit with the third salvo at 26,000 yards.
I keep hearing this 1% hit ratio but there is nothing to support that statement. Have you got the details? You may complain about my events but they were real events open to comment and review.
Again we have two problems.
a) Do you know any study that reflected real life even in modern times. In action people get tense and make mistakes. It has been pointed out that the Scharnhorst performed poorly against the Renown a point I openly agreed with, without question. I am confident no study would have given that outcome. Take more modern times the US AA cruiser that shot down an Iranian Airbus at three miles claiming it was an F14, would that tragic mistake have been on a study? In every study I have seen Napolean would have won Waterloo, Nelson lose Trafalgar and the US lose Midway, the examples are endless
b) What 4%. I am not aware of any example or study that says how may shells hit the Scharnhorst. I do know of one that says how many times the DOY straddled her, but hit no. Can you supply that information that supports your comment. Yes I disagree with your estimate of the ranges involved and add a link that supports my statement. Can you supply a link that supports your estimate. It would be interesting to compare the two. Scharnhorst - The History - Operation "Ostfront" - The Battle off the North Cape
This I agree with. I disagree with your statement that the Alaska would be four times more accurate.
Clearly I don't have copies of the practice shoots but I attach a link that gives general support. The main difference is that they say that the Lion a sister ship, normally hit the air target with the first shell which was one better than we managed.British 6"/50 (15.2 cm) QF Mark N5
I have selected the only samples of action, if you know of others involving these ships then please let me know. However give me credit for using real live examples not studies.
This I have covered as best I can earlier. Anything after the ranging shot is not valid. By using single shots and with a ROF of 15 RPM a shell was being fired every two seconds and once the range was found any correction that might be needed was almost walked onto the target. Nothing like that could be done during the war where you basically aimed to straddle the target and hope for a hit.
I should not have used that phrase and for that I apologise, it will not happen again.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
Hi Glider
Maybe we should look at a series of battles to determine the average percentage of hits achieved with and without radar. This is a question for everyone really, as we might get some useful information on an otherwise ugly discussion.
So what battles do you think we should look at to analyse this issue. Should try to be a good cross section of battles I think, as we might have trouble getting reliable data on all of them
Maybe we should look at a series of battles to determine the average percentage of hits achieved with and without radar. This is a question for everyone really, as we might get some useful information on an otherwise ugly discussion.
So what battles do you think we should look at to analyse this issue. Should try to be a good cross section of battles I think, as we might have trouble getting reliable data on all of them
Glider
Captain
Deleted.
Feel better now. That one threw me.
