35,000 ton Scharnhorst-class with 9x16" guns?

[Shadow Master]

As the title says, what if the Germans had decided to build 35,000 ton ships instead of 32,000 ton ships? And what if they had gone the route of the Americans, with 3 triple 16" turrets? Could they have had 4 such ships ready for use by 1940?

I'm thinking here that if the OTL Scharnhorst-class were laid down in 1935, and then a second pair laid down ASAP, the first two should be ready in 1939, and the second pair a year later.

If the Germans started a 16" gun design in 1933, they should have it ready in 1936. If they started it in 1935, then the guns wouldn't be ready till 1938.

What effects would the Germans having battleships of say 26-28 kn, and mounting 9x16" guns have had on the AGNA, and all the battles from OTL BB?

 

[Catsmate]

What would it be armoured with? Tin foil?

 

[FBKampfer]

Addressed in this thread, but basically not technically feasible. Active discussion still underway regarding the Twins.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...scharnhorst-class.421495/page-6#post-15279655

 

[brazen]

What would it be armoured with? Tin foil?

Krupp cemented hope.

Backed by 0.05mm of ductile prayer.

 

[Ak-84]

Well, the Scharnhosts were no much smaller than the SoDaks, which were 35,000 tonnes and had slightly less beam and were actually longer than the SODaks.

So not totally out of the realm of possibility if design changes occur when on paper. After being laid down? Fuggit about it.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Given the Germans' shittastic abilities at weight control, such a ship (9 16", 26-28 knots) might as well be made of paper for all the good its protection would do.

 

[SsgtC]

Well, the Scharnhosts were no much smaller than the SoDaks, which were 35,000 tonnes and had slightly less beam and were actually longer than the SODaks.

So not totally out of the realm of possibility if design changes occur when on paper. After being laid down? Fuggit about it.

Not sure that's the best comparison. The SoDaks needed massive engines to reach 27 knots because of their shitty length to beam ratio. Could Germany even build a poweplant big enough to push Scharnhorst up that fast using a similar hull to a SoDak? And still have it armored sufficiently?

 

[Ak-84]

Scharnhorst's were rated for higher power (111 MW) vs 130,000 SHP for the SoDaks; (slightly less than 100 MW).

 

[Shadow Master]

Welcome to the thread, everyone.

What would it be armoured with? Tin foil?

?? The USN built 6 BB with these specs, so why should the German ships suddenly lack sufficient armor?

Addressed in this thread, but basically not technically feasible. Active discussion still underway regarding the Twins.

What part are you talking about? That thread gave me the idea for this thread, but going in a direction that actually would have given the RN some worthy foes in WWII.

Krupp cemented hope. Backed by 0.05mm of ductile prayer.

I don't follow why a German 35,000 ton BB couldn't be as well protected as a USN ship of the same tonnage and armament.

Well, the Scharnhosts were not much smaller than the SoDaks, which were 35,000 tonnes and had slightly less beam and were actually longer than the SODaks. So not totally out of the realm of possibility if design changes occur when on paper. After being laid down? Fuggit about it.

Yep, I mean had the Germans planned (and built) for 16" guns from the beginning.

Given the Germans' shittastic abilities at weight control, such a ship (9 16", 26-28 knots) might as well be made of paper for all the good its protection would do.

Again, I don't see the problem here?

Not sure that's the best comparison. The SoDaks needed massive engines to reach 27 knots because of their shitty length to beam ratio. Could Germany even build a poweplant big enough to push Scharnhorst up that fast using a similar hull to a SoDak? And still have it armored sufficiently?

Why not? OTL, they had 30+ kn for 32,000 tons of ship, and here they gain 3,000 tons more displacement.

Scharnhorst's were rated for higher power (111 MW) vs 130,000 SHP for the SoDaks; (slightly less than 100 MW).

Not sure, but everyone seems to think that by going 9-16", in three triple turrets, instead of 9-11", in three triple turrets, we are not going to be able to have proper protection?

Why?

I remember reading somewhere that Hitler had ordered that German capitol ships should displace 20% more than their counterparts, and the OTL Bismarck class, with a displacement of 42,000 tons (20% more than 35,000 tons) seems to fit. Is this something that anyone can verify?

 

[naraic]

Welcome to the thread, everyone.
?? The USN built 6 BB with these specs, so why should the German ships suddenly lack sufficient armor?
What part are you talking about? That thread gave me the idea for this thread, but going in a direction that actually would have given the RN some worthy foes in WWII.
I don't follow why a German 35,000 ton BB couldn't be as well protected as a USN ship of the same tonnage and armament.

If the Germans try to build a sodak clone the Royal Navy will be very happy as they can be easily boxed into the North sea. Yes a sodak clone is faster than a lot of the British fleet but not by enough that they can get around a ship that is in ahead of them.

You made the mistake of asking for a Scharnhorst with 3x3 16 inch guns. A Scharnhorst is a lot faster. If you wanted to keep that speed on a ship with 3x3 16 inch guns you would either need an Iowa clone at about 45,000 tonnes or to compromise on protection.

 

[Shadow Master]

Welcome to the thread.

If the Germans try to build a sodak clone the Royal Navy will be very happy as they can be easily boxed into the North sea. Yes a sodak clone is faster than a lot of the British fleet but not by enough that they can get around a ship that is in ahead of them.

You made the mistake of asking for a Scharnhorst with 3x3 16 inch guns. A Scharnhorst is a lot faster. If you wanted to keep that speed on a ship with 3x3 16 inch guns you would either need an Iowa clone at about 45,000 tonnes or to compromise on protection.

Yes, I realise that. But what I asked for was a 26-28 kn ship, on 35,000 tons, with 9-16" guns, just like the USN ships.

Let me ask this, then. Suppose the Germans claim a displacement of 35,000 tons, but actually build them as 42,000 ton ships? So
A) 35,000 tons, 26-28 kn, 9-16" guns
or
B) 42,000 tons, 30 kn, 9-16" guns.

 

[Gudestein]

If the Germans try to build a sodak clone the Royal Navy will be very happy as they can be easily boxed into the North sea. Yes a sodak clone is faster than a lot of the British fleet but not by enough that they can get around a ship that is in ahead of them.

You made the mistake of asking for a Scharnhorst with 3x3 16 inch guns. A Scharnhorst is a lot faster. If you wanted to keep that speed on a ship with 3x3 16 inch guns you would either need an Iowa clone at about 45,000 tonnes or to compromise on protection.

Yes, an Iowa clone indeed. But 3x2 16 inch maybe?

 

[Gudestein]

Welcome to the thread.
Yes, I realise that. But what I asked for was a 26-28 kn ship, on 35,000 tons, with 9-16" guns, just like the USN ships.

Let me ask this, then. Suppose the Germans claim a displacement of 35,000 tons, but actually build them as 42,000 ton ships? So
A) 35,000 tons, 26-28 kn, 9-16" guns
or
B) 42,000 tons, 30 kn, 9-16" guns.

B is basically Bismarck with an extra inch. Should be possible although the OTL design for the purpose was H39. The Germans liked a long castle with turtleback armor and 4 turrets for redundancy. Not sure they could quite get there but 45000 tons should be ok with the tripple turrets.
A, well its a change from OTL priorities, but would be possible if they changes tjose

 

[James Ricker]

Results the KGVs would probably be armed with 16" or more likely 18" guns screw the Washington treaty and screw the Yamatos , Britannia rules the waves.

 

[TonyA]

shittastic

I'm not going to have to pay royalties to use that, am I?

 

[SsgtC]

Why not? OTL, they had 30+ kn for 32,000 tons of ship, and here they gain 3,000 tons more displacement.

So, here's the thing. Battleships need 3 things: firepower, armor and speed. As a designer, you can pick two.

The British went with firepower and speed at the expense of armor. This bit them in the ass at Jutland and with Hood.

The Americans went with firepower and armor at the expense of speed. They couldn't force a battle, but OTOH, no one was stopping them from getting where they were going either.

Germany choose speed and armor at the expense of firepower. Considering their main opponent sacrificed armor for speed and bigger guns, that was smart got them.

You're asking for Germany to choose speed and firepower over armor. That was totally against German philosophy when it came to building Battleships. But to get what you want (9x16" guns on a hull capable of 30+kts), you're going to have sacrifice armor to do it. Even 26-28kts, you're only getting that if you build an unbalanced design. A ship that can't stand up to its own guns

 

[FBKampfer]

What part are you talking about? That thread gave me the idea for this thread, but going in a direction that actually would have given the RN some worthy foes in WWII.

Yep, I mean had the Germans planned (and built) for 16" guns from the beginning.
Again, I don't see the problem here?

The problem is that Germany didn't produce nor had she ever designed 16" naval guns.

The closest she could come would be just scaling up her 15"ers, but redesign would take time, and possibly yield an inferior design anyway. And redesigning from scratch could push the ships out to 41 or 42.

And the Bismarcks were worthy enough designs. 1 on 1, she probably could have held her own against anything up to Iowa Class levels. Hell, granted it was due to a malfunction, but if PoW had stuck around to slug things out with Bismarck, she might have been sunk in the Denmark Strait instead.


And on a related note, I'd say the whole thing comes back down to what exactly Germany wants to do with her navy. What strategic goal are you trying to accomplish with your Super Scharnhorsts?

 

[Ak-84]

The problem is not technical. The problem is design philosophy. The Germans emphasized protection over firepower and in firepower preferred smaller, lighter shells at high velocity. The 28.3 CM Main gun of the Scharnhorst had a higher muzzle velocity (900 m/s v 720 m/s) and maximum range (41,000 m v 35,000 m) than the KGV BL 14 Inch Mk VII of the King George and main belt armour penetration was more or less the same, with actually superior deck penetration.

A SoDak type vessel is basically useless to them.

 

[Obergruppenführer Smith]

The problem is that Germany didn't produce nor had she ever designed 16" naval guns.

Then where did they get these guns? From an alternate world?

 

[Ak-84]

You're asking for Germany to choose speed and firepower over armor. That was totally against German philosophy when it came to building Battleships. But to get what you want (9x16" guns on a hull capable of 30+kts), you're going to have sacrifice armor to do it. Even 26-28kts, you're only getting that if you build an unbalanced design. A ship that can't stand up to its own guns

TBF, once you get past 14 inches, the "can resist own caliber" is more theoretical than real. At most, it's a guarantee that ONE OR TWO hits won't blow the ship up. Probably. Hopefully.

Now, the Scharnhorsts were basically the ultimate Derfflingers . They were designed to take a pounding and still function. Compare with the South Dakota which became disabled after a couple of 14 inch hits and gunfire from fucking Cruisers, necessitating a major shipyard repair.

No way the Germans would ever accept such a ship.