What was the most powerful CA and CL in a straight duel, December 1941?

[renrich]

I was incorrect in my earlier post, there were 8 hunting groups including the one headed by Exeter. The hunter groups that GS would have most likely met ( I feel sure Langsdorff did not have this information) were Force Y, off coast of Brazil, Strasbourg(BB) Neptune (CL) or Force K, off Freetown coast, Renown(BC), Ark Royal(CV) Either would have been a disaster for GS, even more disastrous than the position of von Spee in WW1. Rather than meet them he would have been better off to seek a fight with Cumberland, Ajax and Achilles. I wonder if Achilles and Ajax had any torpedoes left? From all accounts Langsdorff was a humane and gentlemenly seaman, a credit to the KM and a good example to all sailors. His end was a tragedy for all concerned.

 

[delcyros]

I always wonder, if the press-term that stick to the Deutschlands was inappropriate; they were dubbed as 'pocket-battleships', but for all practical purposes, they were pocket-battlecruisers.

The Panzerschiffe do have a lot in common with the RN´s late ww1 pocket-battlecruisers: Glorious, Furious and Courageous. All three had a comparable layout as designed but underwent subsequent rebuilds into aircraft carriers...

 

[Glider]

I admit that I didn't know about the fuel and lube oil filtration having been destroyed. Can either of you point me to a book on the topic mine are not as comprehensive as I thought.

However what started this line was the observation that the Graf Spee could be swamped by the fire of another CA or CL. Its my view that this wouldn't happen and the Graf Spee could take on any other cruiser in a straight fight.

 

[renrich]

Glider, my info came from a book, "Cruisers, An Illustrated History 1880-1980" by Anthony Preston. This book calls the Scheers an armoured ship but they also call her an over gunned and rather slow heavy cruiser. Actually they remind of the WW1 armoured cruiser which could overwhelm any light cruiser if they could catch her but were too slow to get out of the way of battle cruisers. Actually a "normal" CL or CA would need to be really backed into a corner to have a sraight up fight with a Scheer. If they did not want to fight the Scheer could not force her to as she was too slow. Guess it boils down to definition of a cruiser or" it depends on what the definition of the word is is" LOL

 

[delcyros]

Actually they remind of the WW1 armoured cruiser which could overwhelm any light cruiser if they could catch her but were too slow to get out of the way of battle cruisers. Actually a "normal" CL or CA would need to be really backed into a corner to have a sraight up fight with a Scheer. If they did not want to fight the Scheer could not force her to as she was too slow. Guess it boils down to definition of a cruiser or" it depends on what the definition of the word is is" LOL

We have to be very careful with this point of view, my friend. The PBB´s were designed as raiders, not as cruiser killers. The latter wasn´t their intended purpose. So instead of the cruiserlike offensive "to slow to catch anything weaker, to weak to kill anything slower" the intention was raiderlike defensive: "faster than anything stronger and stronger than anything faster". The latter must have to be modified for Hood, which was the only ship worldwide beeing faster stronger better protected before the advent of the fast battleship. Renown Repulse deserve to be mentioned in this capacity, too, altough they are not immune to 28cm shells.
It was a very rational and in fact innovative solution for the limitations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. It denied Washington Treaty cruisers the ability to engage a PBB on favourable terms while making them in the same spot fast and long legged, able to sweep trading lanes independently and giving them initiative to disengage heavier forces. I have filed somewhere an interesting USN commentary dating to 1935, which praises this assymetric solution. It, however, had only effect as long as the signatarnations do feel relied to the Treaty limitations.

 

[renrich]

It is obvious Del, that the Scheers were not designed as cruiser hunters as they could not catch them. Like trying to hunt coyotes with Bassets. It does seem to me that CAs would serve as well for the guerre de course since the 11 inch guns had limited use against merchant vessels. Was the 10000 mile range of the PBs a radius of action? By the way, I believe Tiger was available when the first PB was launched and the four Kongos could catch and defeat them.

 

[Freebird]

It is obvious Del, that the Scheers were not designed as cruiser hunters as they could not catch them. Like trying to hunt coyotes with Bassets. It does seem to me that CAs would serve as well for the guerre de course since the 11 inch guns had limited use against merchant vessels. Was the 10000 mile range of the PBs a radius of action? By the way, I believe Tiger was available when the first PB was launched and the four Kongos could catch and defeat them.

The 11" guns worked quite well against merchants, Ad. Scheer did rather well as a raider.

Also don't forget the French "Dunkerque" class BC's, designed to be able to catch destroy the PB's {Dunkerque - 29.5 knots, 8 x 13.5" guns}

 

[delcyros]

It is obvious Del, that the Scheers were not designed as cruiser hunters as they could not catch them. Like trying to hunt coyotes with Bassets. It does seem to me that CAs would serve as well for the guerre de course since the 11 inch guns had limited use against merchant vessels. Was the 10000 mile range of the PBs a radius of action? By the way, I believe Tiger was available when the first PB was launched and the four Kongos could catch and defeat them.

I am pretty sure that the normal CA wouldn´t be able to fullfill this role properly. The choice towards an 11" gun had a notable effect in superiority against enemy cruisers. A PB was perfectly able to fight down a Treaty cruiser, which was supposed to escort a convoi. Replacing the PB with a normal CA is not helpful in this role. You trade superiority in arms for speed. A single CA in the escort role (or for that matter even a good CL) will present an obstacle hard to overcome. From a simplified gunnery point of view, I agree in Your observation: 11" are overgunned against merchants and there is little a 11" projectile could do what a 6" couldn´t against this kind of targets. However, replacing this gun will reduce the important superiority the PB has over escort cruisers. An important consideration for the guerre de course.
The 10.000nm range of Deutschland and Scheer (8.900nm for GS) is operational range at At 10-12 Kts it´s actually close to 19.000nm and thus the Diesel driven PB´s were the first warships to have a truly global range. Comparison with steam driven powerplants are difficult. If the boilers are shut down, IOWA, to name a very long legged design, may go 20.000nm at very low cruise speed, too but to reflect the PB´s ability one has to take into account that Diesels can go to full power in very brief timeframes (they do develop this power on the shafts in within a minute or two), while Steam driven plants with caged boilers (to safe fuel) will have to bring the remaining boilers online, lit them up, heat them and develop full power in the first before they can apply the steamflow to the turbines in order to develop shafthorsepowers. The degree of fuel consumption is very dependent on the "ready status" of the boilers not in use by steam driven ships during cruise condition. Using a ready status which reflects this for comparison will likely demonstrate the PB´s superiority in range against any contemporary warship, esspeccially at high cruise speeds.

Note also speed is important but in order to catch a ship, you need a tactically useful superiority in speed. How this is defined varies from country to country but both, Royal Navy and US Navy considered 4 Kts speed advantage to be qualifying for this. The top speed of the Pb´s was in between 28.0 and 28.5 Kts, substract 1 Kt for operational concerns (trial speeds hardly reflect this properly) and You get a top speed of 27 Kts min. which made them superior in speed to all ww1 dreadnoughts (the Dunkerque class was designed as a response to the Pb´s and counts towards early fast BB designs).
Any design able to "deal" with those ships speedwise should achieve a design speed of 31.0 Kts min. Most Treaty cruisers qualify. HMS TIGER was rated 29.0 Kts but by the late 20´s it was actually closer to 27.5 Kts due to faulty bottom and engine wear. It does not qualify. Renown Repulse and Hood qualify. The KONGO-class BC´s as designed (27.5 Kts) do not qualify. Kongos was rebuilded starting in 1935 and finished 1938 to fast BB standarts for 30.0 Kts design speed after the Washington Treaty already was expired.
For their time, the three PB´s only had to fear HMS HOOD, HMS RENOWN and HMS REPULSE. Quite a good odd evening measure if You compare the vast number of CA´s and CL´s which a normal CA would be confronted with in this role...

 

[Freebird]

Any design able to "deal" with Pocket BB's speedwise should achieve a design speed of 31.0 Kts min. Most Treaty cruisers qualify. HMS TIGER was rated 29.0 Kts but by the late 20´s it was actually closer to 27.5 Kts due to faulty bottom and engine wear. It does not qualify. Renown Repulse and Hood qualify. The KONGO-class BC´s as designed (27.5 Kts) do not qualify. Kongos was rebuilded starting in 1935 and finished 1938 to fast BB standarts for 30.0 Kts design speed after the Washington Treaty already was expired.
For their time, the three PB´s only had to fear HMS HOOD, HMS RENOWN and HMS REPULSE. Quite a good odd evening measure if You compare the vast number of CA´s and CL´s which a normal CA would be confronted with in this role...

Excellent post delcyros, except that by 1940 Repulse was badly overdue for an overhaul, with her old engines she could only do about 28-29 knots, unlike Renown that had her re-fit overhaul completed

 

[timshatz]

Wait a minute, I think we swapped threads.

 

[Freebird]

Wait a minute, I think we swapped threads.

Not "We" my friend, that would be ME that screwed up....

But now that I've edited it put the battleship reply in the right place its like IT NEVER HAPPENED.

 

[renrich]

Del, the Pensacola class CAs launched in 1929-30 had a RADIUS of action of 13000 miles at 15 knots with 1500 tons of fuel. That is substantially better than the PBs. Of course you are right that the 11 inch guns of the PBs would be a deterrent to an enemy cruiser. The answer to the PBs was of course what actually happened. Several cruisers. Actually I think two well handled CAs would have had a good chance of defeating a PB. The 11 inch guns were as far I know never used against a merchant ship. The 5.9s were all that was needed.

 

[Glider]

My books give it a range of 10,000nm at 15kts which is similar to the G Spee.
I do agree that 2 x 8in CA would give a G Spee a run for its money. I dont think 6in guns would have the punch required. All the serious damage seem to have been caused by the 3 x 8in hits.

 

[Freebird]

My books give it a range of 10,000nm at 15kts which is similar to the G Spee.
I do agree that 2 x 8in CA would give a G Spee a run for its money. I dont think 6in guns would have the punch required. All the serious damage seem to have been caused by the 3 x 8in hits.

Agreed the 2 CA's could probably do the job, but there is always the risk of a quick bad 11" hit knocking out one CA, leaving only 1 left.

Now if it was "Graf Spee" along with a "Hipper" it makes it more interesting, even 3 "County"s CA's would be hard pressed

 

[renrich]

Glider, my source is Janes 1944-45. They give the Augusta class the same specs. Janes is usually pretty accurate. The difficulty the PBs would have with two CAs would be similar to the real battle with GS. GS concentrated her fire from the 11 inchers on what she at first perceived as the only cruiser(thinking the CLs were DDs) As the action progressed the two CLs only had to contend with four 5.9s(see plan of GS) but the CLs were at too great a range to be effective with their 6 inchers. The CLs were on one beam of GS, the CA was on other beam. CA was facing six 11inchers and four 5.9s and the CA could only reply with six 8 inchers. When Harwood ordered the CLs to close( 11000 yards) the GS had to switch the 11 inch guns to the CLs and let the CA only have to deal with the 5.9s. When the CLs withdrew after it got too hot for them then GS finished putting the CA out of action. If you look at the plan of GS, two CAs with their superior speed could force the PB to confront 12 or more 8 inch guns with only three eleven inch guns all in one turret and a few 5.9s. Of course all ships would be altering course to unmask as much of their main battery as possible. The 11 inch guns had a big range advantage over the 8 inch guns but the action at the Plate began at about 20000 yards which was almost at the limit of visiblity but still well within range of the British 8 inch gun. Of course a lucky hit with an 11 incher could put a CA out of action but a lucky hit with an 8 incher could do the same. If people were not involved and would get killed, it would be a fun contest to witness. If one knew how(I certainly don't) it could be computerised and run just like a real battle. Perhaps Del will do it?

 

[Glider]

As I said I agree it would be a close fight, one that could go either way. If it were I, I would concentrate all 11in on one until its basically out of the fight either by damage to the guns or a large reduction in speed. Let the 5.9 guns harrase the other. Then concentrate on the second ship with everything. Its a risk but one worth taking

Re sources I tend to use Conways All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946 which I commend to anyone and a volume of Navies of the Second World War. These are small books but with a lot of data and I have them for the USA, German, Russian and British (BB's and Carriers) Navies. I also have a number of books on the British, Japanese, Italian and French Navies. So in most cases I have two sources for each navy.

 

[renrich]

The problem for a PB is that if the CAs approach on either beam from astern, if the PB tries to turn one way or another to unmask her forward turret the cruisers can maneuver to stay in her (to use a modern submarine term) baffles and of course she masks all four of the 5.9s on one beam. In every case it looks as if only four 5.9s at a time could bear on both CAs. In the meantime all forward turrets of the CAs are bearing and possibly from time to time the after turrets also. The PB probably has no option but to train all main guns in one turret on one target. I don't know what the rate of fire of the 5.9s but doubt it would be as high as those in a CL where the main guns are in turrets. The PBs 5.9s look like they are in splinter shields.

 

[delcyros]

Del, the Pensacola class CAs launched in 1929-30 had a RADIUS of action of 13000 miles at 15 knots with 1500 tons of fuel. That is substantially better than the PBs. Of course you are right that the 11 inch guns of the PBs would be a deterrent to an enemy cruiser. The answer to the PBs was of course what actually happened. Several cruisers. Actually I think two well handled CAs would have had a good chance of defeating a PB. The 11 inch guns were as far I know never used against a merchant ship. The 5.9s were all that was needed.

World War 2 Cruisers
The Pensacola class is reported to have a range (not radius!) of 10.000nm at 15 Kts with a max. oil buncerage of 2.116tons. A figure showing a very efficient fuel consumption. A radius of action in this level would imply a more effecient fuel consumption than all post war classes of cruisers well into the late 50´s. Note that this range was with caged boilers!
To put this in prospect with the Panzerschiff Deutschland (the first of it´s class), it had a range of 10.000nm @ 19 Kts with a max. diesel buncerage of 3.300 ton. The corresponding range for 15 Kts was 18.650 nm.
Janes is a credible source but will not provide unquestioned datas, esspeccially from the wartime issues. Glider has named Conways, which is excellent for this purpose.
I agree in the two CA vs PB issue with the limitation that I am not convinced that this belongs to County class CA, due to their terrible turret protection (these are NOT splinterproof vs 11" lateral fragmentation, not to speak of the heavier nose base pieces nor a direct hit).

The difficulty the PBs would have with two CAs would be similar to the real battle with GS. GS concentrated her fire from the 11 inchers on what she at first perceived as the only cruiser(thinking the CLs were DDs) As the action progressed the two CLs only had to contend with four 5.9s(see plan of GS) but the CLs were at too great a range to be effective with their 6 inchers. The CLs were on one beam of GS, the CA was on other beam. CA was facing six 11inchers and four 5.9s and the CA could only reply with six 8 inchers. When Harwood ordered the CLs to close( 11000 yards) the GS had to switch the 11 inch guns to the CLs and let the CA only have to deal with the 5.9s. When the CLs withdrew after it got too hot for them then GS finished putting the CA out of action. If you look at the plan of GS, two CAs with their superior speed could force the PB to confront 12 or more 8 inch guns with only three eleven inch guns all in one turret and a few 5.9s. Of course all ships would be altering course to unmask as much of their main battery as possible. The 11 inch guns had a big range advantage over the 8 inch guns but the action at the Plate began at about 20000 yards which was almost at the limit of visiblity but still well within range of the British 8 inch gun.

Agreed. From my memory of fighting steel resims, I lost out three of four matches from River Plate if the enemy handled more agressively than historically. On range (GS opened at 210hm = ca. 22.000 yards), the 11" no doubt is better than an 8" could be, due to A) it´s flatter trajectory, which translates into a larger dangerspace behind the target and thus a higher hit probability in the first, B) it´s better salvo consistency due to the heavier projectile, C) the shorter time to range figure and D) the generally more advanced firecontroll gears in use by PB´s (basically on par with what was used on a BB).
At this range 8"ers did not straddled that much but the CA´s are in a position to close the range on their own initiative and thus to get into their optimal firing range as they historically did.
Renrich is also right on the 5.91"ers on GS- they are pedestal mounts behind splinter screens and suffer from a lower rof accuracy.

 

[renrich]

Del, I have another book about WW2 warships. One chapter is about Boise, a 10000 ton CL. The book states that with" 2200 tons of fuel the radius of action at 15 knots was around 14,500 miles." That would tend to validate the SLC's 13000 miles rad. of action with 1500 tons of fuel since the Boise was somewhat larger than SLC. Perhaps some of these sources are confusing maximum range with radius of action but one would not think Janes would make that mistake. However a 14500 mile rad. of action could theoretically give range enough to go around the world on "one tank of gas" Seems optimistic. Same book has a chapter on Ajax and mentions although thinly armored, during the Plate, "there were no fatal penetrations" (obviously) and "other ships of the type proved able to survive heavy punishment." I do know the "County " class CAs were not heavily armored and were referred to as "tin clads" If I was going to engage a PB with two CAs, I would prefer an American cruiser, perhaps Wichita or even the good old Salt Lake City, CA25, with my uncle having charge of the 5 inch secondary battery. This same book has a photograph, taken in Pearl Harbor in 1943, bows on, of SLC, Pensacola and New Orleans. Interesting contrasts.

 

[Glider]

To be honest the armour question is of importance but not massive. An 11in would go through any Cruisers armour but I admit there is a minimum to stop splinter damage.
Some of the County Class were given a decent belt armour which deflected 8in shells from Admiral Hipper. Some of the class took a lot of damage, the prize would I suggest going to the Australia which survived a total of 6 Kamikaze hits.
That said, I would rather be in a US cruiser, the Algerie or a Zara class CA if I had to go against a GS.