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
Glider
Captain
Ouch
parsifal
Colonel
Well this thread has lain dormant for more than a year. It contans some great information, some hard nosed debate, and downright argument. Classic Forum stuff. but one would have thought it dead, except that last night I was blind sided in a cowardly and premeditated attack in an unrelated thread with the following:
Well, I have done some research and am ready to debate the subject with the person that calls me stupid and tells me to undertake the research. I refute that I have "said so many stupid issues about German ships". I see that as the argument of a person facing intellectual bankruptcy. I stand by the statements I made, and the observations made about german and allied ships.
You want fight, but you will get debate from me, I refuse to bow to that childish and bullying level, and will never bow to cowardice, bullying or abuse. if you have the courage and the intelligence, come out and debate the issue. I AM NOT AFRAID OF YOU, AND I REJECT YOUR METHOD OF ARGUMENT.
I see from the foregoing discussion (ancient history now) that others grudgingly accepted that the 12/50 had greater penetrating power than the 14/45.
So, bring it on if you have the courage. I am more than willing to debate the issue. Be warned, if you call me stupid again, or get abusive (as you always do) expect consequences, as happened in the other thread. I want debate, discussion, exchange of ideas, not abuse, illtemper and politicised debate.
!
Well, I have done some research and am ready to debate the subject with the person that calls me stupid and tells me to undertake the research. I refute that I have "said so many stupid issues about German ships". I see that as the argument of a person facing intellectual bankruptcy. I stand by the statements I made, and the observations made about german and allied ships.
You want fight, but you will get debate from me, I refuse to bow to that childish and bullying level, and will never bow to cowardice, bullying or abuse. if you have the courage and the intelligence, come out and debate the issue. I AM NOT AFRAID OF YOU, AND I REJECT YOUR METHOD OF ARGUMENT.
I see from the foregoing discussion (ancient history now) that others grudgingly accepted that the 12/50 had greater penetrating power than the 14/45.
So, bring it on if you have the courage. I am more than willing to debate the issue. Be warned, if you call me stupid again, or get abusive (as you always do) expect consequences, as happened in the other thread. I want debate, discussion, exchange of ideas, not abuse, illtemper and politicised debate.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Have you considered switching to decaf coffee?
Crimea_River
Marshal
Pay nice kids. Remember, Santa's watching.
Play nice. Warnings from other threads will carry over to this one.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
26 to 27 Feb 1942.
KM Gneisenau seriously damaged in an air raid. The damage was not repaired and the ship never returns to operational service.
25 to 26 Dec 1943.
KM Scharnhorst sunk off North Cape, Norway in a night battle.
29 Jan 1945.
U.S. S. Alaska departs Pearl Harbor on her first war patrol.
So….
By 26 Dec 1943 both Scharnhorst class dreadnoughts were out of service. 13 months before U.S.S. Alaska began its first war patrol. These ships cannot fight each other without rewriting history.
Point of Departure. March 1942.
Historically there were tentative plans to rebuild the damaged KM Gneisenau. As part of the rebuild the triple 28.3cm main gun turrets would be replaced with twin 38cm turrets similar to those on the Bismarck class. Let's assume the rebuild is accomplished and KM Gneisenau completes sea trails by the end of 1944.
Rebuilt late 1944 KM Gneisenau.
30 knots. 8,380 miles @ 15 knots.
6 x 38cm main guns. Three twin turrets.
12 x 15cm secondary guns.
14 x 10.5cm heavy AA guns.
…..Dop.L C/37 twin mounts. An improvement over the original C/31 mount.
16 x twin 3.7cm Flak M43 AA guns.
…..A huge improvement over the original 37mm guns.
10 x Flakvierling.
…..A huge improvement over original 20mm single flak weapons.
Rotterheim gun laying radar.
…..Supposedly resistant to jamming by chaff.
Aphrodite and Thetis radar decoys.
80 to 95mm armor on deck.
350mm armor belt.
360mm armor on main gun turrets (i.e. similar to KM Bismarck).
U.S.S. Alaska.
31 knots. 12,000 miles @ 15 knots.
9 x 12" main guns. Three triple turrets.
12 x 5" DP secondary guns.
56 x 40mm AA guns.
34 x 20mm AA guns.
3.8 to 4" deck armor.
12" armor belt
12.8" armor on main gun turrets.
Hmmm….
KM Gneisenau has more powerful guns. U.S.S. Alaska has more of them.
KM Gneisenau has significantly better armor. I don't think the American ship had a TDS. A serious deficiency if hit below the waterline.
Both ships have good gun laying radar. They can shoot in the dark.
I'd give the edge to KM Gneisenau. However as with all naval battles the side lucky enough to hit first usually wins.
KM Gneisenau seriously damaged in an air raid. The damage was not repaired and the ship never returns to operational service.
25 to 26 Dec 1943.
KM Scharnhorst sunk off North Cape, Norway in a night battle.
29 Jan 1945.
U.S. S. Alaska departs Pearl Harbor on her first war patrol.
So….
By 26 Dec 1943 both Scharnhorst class dreadnoughts were out of service. 13 months before U.S.S. Alaska began its first war patrol. These ships cannot fight each other without rewriting history.
Point of Departure. March 1942.
Historically there were tentative plans to rebuild the damaged KM Gneisenau. As part of the rebuild the triple 28.3cm main gun turrets would be replaced with twin 38cm turrets similar to those on the Bismarck class. Let's assume the rebuild is accomplished and KM Gneisenau completes sea trails by the end of 1944.
Rebuilt late 1944 KM Gneisenau.
30 knots. 8,380 miles @ 15 knots.
6 x 38cm main guns. Three twin turrets.
12 x 15cm secondary guns.
14 x 10.5cm heavy AA guns.
…..Dop.L C/37 twin mounts. An improvement over the original C/31 mount.
16 x twin 3.7cm Flak M43 AA guns.
…..A huge improvement over the original 37mm guns.
10 x Flakvierling.
…..A huge improvement over original 20mm single flak weapons.
Rotterheim gun laying radar.
…..Supposedly resistant to jamming by chaff.
Aphrodite and Thetis radar decoys.
80 to 95mm armor on deck.
350mm armor belt.
360mm armor on main gun turrets (i.e. similar to KM Bismarck).
U.S.S. Alaska.
31 knots. 12,000 miles @ 15 knots.
9 x 12" main guns. Three triple turrets.
12 x 5" DP secondary guns.
56 x 40mm AA guns.
34 x 20mm AA guns.
3.8 to 4" deck armor.
12" armor belt
12.8" armor on main gun turrets.
Hmmm….
KM Gneisenau has more powerful guns. U.S.S. Alaska has more of them.
KM Gneisenau has significantly better armor. I don't think the American ship had a TDS. A serious deficiency if hit below the waterline.
Both ships have good gun laying radar. They can shoot in the dark.
I'd give the edge to KM Gneisenau. However as with all naval battles the side lucky enough to hit first usually wins.
parsifal
Colonel
The 15 inch upgrades for the two German Battlecruisers were designed to address the major weakness of the design....their distinct lack of firepowe. They were specifically designed to make the BCs competitive against the Hood, R class and I believe the Alaskas.
With 6 x 15 in plus a radar upgrade, these ships would be formidable. With 11in guns they are pushing their luck against the Alaskas, which were designed specifically to deal with ships like the Scharnhorst (as well as traditional "treaty" Heavy Cruisers). They had a long range, high penetration gun, high speed, pretty light on defences though.
I agree with your summation except that a rebuilt Scharnhorst Gneisenau wont have a minior advantage....they would have a major advantage
With 6 x 15 in plus a radar upgrade, these ships would be formidable. With 11in guns they are pushing their luck against the Alaskas, which were designed specifically to deal with ships like the Scharnhorst (as well as traditional "treaty" Heavy Cruisers). They had a long range, high penetration gun, high speed, pretty light on defences though.
I agree with your summation except that a rebuilt Scharnhorst Gneisenau wont have a minior advantage....they would have a major advantage
davebender
1st Lieutenant
The new gun laying radar might compensate for having fewer main guns with a higher hit probability. Then again it might not. We would need to see some weapon tests with the new gun laying radar.
vinnye
Senior Airman
An up- dated Scharnhorst would in my opinion have been the victor in most encounters.
If you were in the Alaska, you may try to use a small edge in speed to keep the encounter on favourable terms?
Given the lack of support the Scharnhorst would be able to call upon, she would need to keeo the encounter short and sharp - in case other Allied warships were in the vicinity and could intervene.
If you were in the Alaska, you may try to use a small edge in speed to keep the encounter on favourable terms?
Given the lack of support the Scharnhorst would be able to call upon, she would need to keeo the encounter short and sharp - in case other Allied warships were in the vicinity and could intervene.
DonL
Banned
Coming back to this!
First to the hits to Scharnhorst!
DoY opened fire at a range of 11,920 yd (10,900 m) and scored a hit on the first salvo. Scharnhorst's foremost turret Anton was disabled after this hit.
At 11920y this hit had taken out every turrent of every Battleship (except perhaps Yamato)ever in service!
After World War II Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables from the NavWeaps side
Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables
Britain Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables
the British 14/45 had the ability to strike through 500mm (20inch) steel in condition fit to burst (Effective Limit EFF)!
No BB ever built had Barbettes that could withstand such a hit at 12000y only Yamato had a turrent face of 650mm, so we don't exactly know if it was the turrent or the barbette wich was hit.
Also the battledistance of the North Cap battle was very exceptional because of the artic conditions. Normal distances in WWII were 16000-30000yards.
Next to the 14/45 and 12/50.
If you want to compare guns, then compare them with the same tools and parameters!
At your post 52 you have shown the data from the NavWeaps side
As you can see you have compared the guns with two different formulas! The US 12/50 gun only after USN Empirical Formula and British 14/45 partly after USN Empirical Formula and partly after an other formula.
If you want to compare, then please with the same formula for all comparable guns.
The World War II Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables from the NavWeaps side were developed from Nathan Okun to compare (or try to compare with the best possibility) WWII guns against different used steels from different Navys.
This was till now the best work that was done on this issue besides primary sources from real world tests!
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_index.htm
United States Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables
Britain Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables
As you can see, the Us 12/50 had much less power then British 14/45!
This also very logical, because both guns have near the same muzzle velocity, but the British 14 inch shell has 200kg more weight!
The kinetic energy MJ (Wkin= 1/2 mV²) of the brithis 14 inch shell will always higher, because both guns and shells have near the same angle of fall and striking velocity at the same distances.
At 18000 yards the german 11/54 had the ability to strike through 300mm (11,8inch) (EFF) US Class A Armor 1935 - 1943, what will be enough for the main belt of the Alaska Class. The US 12/50 could penetrate 323mm (12,7inch) (EFF) German KC n/A 1936 - 1945, what is neither enough for the main belt (without turtle deck), all barbettes (350mm) and all turrents (360mm).
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_United_States.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_Germany.htm
the last sentence of your quote is simply rubbish!
You can't compare a 16inch shell from Rodney with a 12 inch shell from Alaska. And Rodney did the job to silence Bismarck!
If we take it very konservativ and KGV and Rodney shot only one full salvo per minute, then we have 19 shells per minute that were shot to Bismarck. 10 minutes 190 shells, 20 minute 380 shells, 30 minutes 570 shells, 40 minutes 760 shells.
Also Bismarck was disabled (control surface at 45 degree) and could only steer by her shafts with 9kn.
Ideal condition for a target practise.
First to the hits to Scharnhorst!
DoY opened fire at a range of 11,920 yd (10,900 m) and scored a hit on the first salvo. Scharnhorst's foremost turret Anton was disabled after this hit.
At 11920y this hit had taken out every turrent of every Battleship (except perhaps Yamato)ever in service!
After World War II Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables from the NavWeaps side
Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables
Britain Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables
the British 14/45 had the ability to strike through 500mm (20inch) steel in condition fit to burst (Effective Limit EFF)!
No BB ever built had Barbettes that could withstand such a hit at 12000y only Yamato had a turrent face of 650mm, so we don't exactly know if it was the turrent or the barbette wich was hit.
Also the battledistance of the North Cap battle was very exceptional because of the artic conditions. Normal distances in WWII were 16000-30000yards.
Next to the 14/45 and 12/50.
If you want to compare guns, then compare them with the same tools and parameters!
At your post 52 you have shown the data from the NavWeaps side
As you can see you have compared the guns with two different formulas! The US 12/50 gun only after USN Empirical Formula and British 14/45 partly after USN Empirical Formula and partly after an other formula.
If you want to compare, then please with the same formula for all comparable guns.
The World War II Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables from the NavWeaps side were developed from Nathan Okun to compare (or try to compare with the best possibility) WWII guns against different used steels from different Navys.
This was till now the best work that was done on this issue besides primary sources from real world tests!
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_index.htm
United States Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables
Britain Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables
As you can see, the Us 12/50 had much less power then British 14/45!
This also very logical, because both guns have near the same muzzle velocity, but the British 14 inch shell has 200kg more weight!
The kinetic energy MJ (Wkin= 1/2 mV²) of the brithis 14 inch shell will always higher, because both guns and shells have near the same angle of fall and striking velocity at the same distances.
At 18000 yards the german 11/54 had the ability to strike through 300mm (11,8inch) (EFF) US Class A Armor 1935 - 1943, what will be enough for the main belt of the Alaska Class. The US 12/50 could penetrate 323mm (12,7inch) (EFF) German KC n/A 1936 - 1945, what is neither enough for the main belt (without turtle deck), all barbettes (350mm) and all turrents (360mm).
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_United_States.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_Germany.htm
the last sentence of your quote is simply rubbish!
You can't compare a 16inch shell from Rodney with a 12 inch shell from Alaska. And Rodney did the job to silence Bismarck!
You should rethink your statement.
If we take it very konservativ and KGV and Rodney shot only one full salvo per minute, then we have 19 shells per minute that were shot to Bismarck. 10 minutes 190 shells, 20 minute 380 shells, 30 minutes 570 shells, 40 minutes 760 shells.
Also Bismarck was disabled (control surface at 45 degree) and could only steer by her shafts with 9kn.
Ideal condition for a target practise.
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
That depends on where the battle takes place. Germany had air superiority over Norway. If the weather had been better HMS Duke of York might have been sunk by German aircraft off North Cape. U.S.S. Alaska has the same operational risk.
DonL
Banned
The whole North Cape szenario was exceptional.
Scharnhorst turned off her Radar to make no radar emission, with the hope nobody would detect her.
With a turned on radar, DoY had never ever had the chance to quit the battledistance to 12000y.
Scharnhorst was totaly taken by suprise.
With the knowledge from today, the decision to turn of the radar was simply rubbish.
Scharnhorst turned off her Radar to make no radar emission, with the hope nobody would detect her.
With a turned on radar, DoY had never ever had the chance to quit the battledistance to 12000y.
Scharnhorst was totaly taken by suprise.
With the knowledge from today, the decision to turn of the radar was simply rubbish.
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Luftwaffe units in Norway as of 30 November 1943.
Luftwaffe in Norway
13 x Ju-87 dive bombers.
40 x Ju-88 dive bombers.
16 x Fw-200 maritime patrol bombers.
16 x Me-110 fighter-bombers.
I don't understand why the German admiral chose to attack in such bad weather. Why not wait until the Luftwaffe could assist?
Luftwaffe in Norway
13 x Ju-87 dive bombers.
40 x Ju-88 dive bombers.
16 x Fw-200 maritime patrol bombers.
16 x Me-110 fighter-bombers.
I don't understand why the German admiral chose to attack in such bad weather. Why not wait until the Luftwaffe could assist?
IMHO not very conservative estimate, you forgot that fairly many barrels missed plenty of salvos, especially on KGV, there are info on that for ex. in the naval weapons site.
Juha
Last edited:
Maybe because that would not have made any difference there was Artic Night at that time, that is about two months long night from late Nov to mid Jan.
Juha
Hello Don, my understanding was that Bey ordered radar silence but that was only until the first contact with RN cruisers, the problem was that during the first firefight HMS Norfolk hit the foretop of Scharhorst and put its main radat out for good, the radar on the rear range finder couldn't see to some 60 deg forward sector bacause it was blanketed by superstructure and being lower on the ship had less range.
Juha
Last edited:
DonL
Banned
forced to, because the KM wanted to proove that the capital ships can do anything.
Hitler had ordered that all KM capital ships should be disabled.
Rodney: 380 x 16inch, 716 x 6inch
KGV: 339 x 14inch, 660 x 5,5inch
Norfolk: 527 x 8inch
Dorsetshire: 254 x 8inch
Edit:
No Juha, after the contact with the RN cruiser it was turned of again.
You are correct about the hit of Norfolk, but before the end battle started the radar of Scharnhorst was turned of!
Last edited:
