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

SsgtC

Banned
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.

In all fairness to the SoDak, she was disabled because her chief engineer tied down a circuit breaker that kept tripping and this caused the whole damn panel to go into series. If he actually repaired the faulty circut instead of trying to force it, she would likely not have had the issues she did.
 
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
Good information, thanks.

The problem is that Germany didn't produce nor had she ever designed 16" naval guns.
True, but historically, when the Germans wanted to upgun from the 12" to the 15", that entire design cycle was just three years, as was the RN 15" gun development. Also, let's remember that the RN then went from 15" to 18" in just 2 years, and neither design was it an inferior gun.

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.
I did posit two possible designs timeframes, one starting in 1933 and going the standard 3 years, to 1936 to have the guns available, or a 1935 start time, with the guns available in 1938. In either case, the ships should be ready for their guns as soon as they are ready, right? But to get this al set and ready, let's just go with Hitler orders the development of 16" guns on day one, in 1933.

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.
True enough, but with the heavier hitting 16" guns, German BB might have been able to do that anyway.

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?
Knowing they cannot match numbers, the Germans want a ship that is newer than the NelRods, faster than the NelRods, but with the same main armament as the NelRods. This way, even if they encounter a NelRod, they can match it in kind, and actually outgun any other RN BB. So, the strategic goals are simply qualified as being required to mount guns as large as any in the RN, for any missions an outnumbered German BB might be given.

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.
Ok, this is fair enough.

Now I ask a better question.
Considering all the above input, and keeping the same design philosophy (with regards to speed and armor), what would all you folks think a German BB with 9 16" guns would look like tonnage wise?
 
Last edited:

hipper

Banned
Good information, thanks.

True, but historically, when the Germans wanted to upgun from the 12" to the 15", that entire design cycle was just three years, as was the RN 15" gun development. Also, let's remember that the RN then went from 15" to 18" in just 2 years, and neither design was it an inferior gun.

I did posit two possible designs timeframes, one starting in 1933 and going the standard 3 years, to 1936 to have the guns available, or a 1935 start time, with the guns available in 1938. In either case, the ships should be ready for their guns as soon as they are ready, right? But to get this al set and ready, let's just go with Hitler orders the development of 16" guns on day one, in 1933.

True enough, but with the heavier hitting 16" guns, German BB might have been able to do that anyway.

Knowing they cannot match numbers, the Germans want a ship that is newer than the NelRods, faster than the NelRods, but with the same main armament as the NelRods. This way, even if they encounter a NelRod, they can match it in kind, and actually outgun any other RN BB. So, the strategic goals are simply qualified as being required to mount guns as large as any in the RN, for any missions an outnumbered German BB might be given.

Ok, this is fair enough.

Now I ask a better question.
Considering all the above input, and keeping the same design philosophy (with regards to speed and armor), what would all you folks think a German BB with 9 16" guns would look like tonnage wise?
H39 56,000 tonnes
 

SsgtC

Banned
Knowing they cannot match numbers, the Germans want a ship that is newer than the NelRods, faster than the NelRods, but with the same main armament as the NelRods. This way, even if they encounter a NelRod, they can match it in kind, and actually outgun any other RN BB. So, the strategic goals are simply qualified as being required to mount guns as large as any in the RN, for any missions an outnumbered German BB might be given.

Except the guns on the NelRods were considered failures. The RN actually felt that the 15"/42 was a far superior gun. Germany would have been well aware of this. I don't think the pressure would have been there to match the Nelsons.

Considering all the above input, and keeping the same design philosophy (with regards to speed and armor), what would all you folks think a German BB with 9 16" guns would look like tonnage wise?

Between 45,000 and 55,000 tons. Depends how much the designers let it creep.
 
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.

Yep, I mean had the Germans planned (and built) for 16" guns from the beginning.
Again, I don't see the problem here?
Why not? OTL, they had 30+ kn for 32,000 tons of ship, and here they gain 3,000 tons more displacement.

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?
Let me explain my position.

Overweight for the given specs was a consistent problem for German warships of the era. The Hippers, for instance, were the size of a Baltimore but inferior in firepower and armor thickness and no faster. Case in point, the Bismarck class, where the Germans tried to stay in the 35,000-ton limit. Key word being tried. Preliminary designs called for 8 13.8" guns, 13.8" of belt armor, and a top speed of 28 knots. This design weighed 37,200 tons. So to start with you need to reduce protection to reach the 35,000-ton limit, and then you needed to reduce armor still further to fit 9 16" instead of 8 13.8".

Or to put it another way, the turrets of the South Dakota class weighed 1400 tons, while the turrets of the OTL Scharnhorst class weighed 750. Just considering the weight of the gun mounts you're adding 2000 tons of displacement, and that's without considering the larger barbettes needed to accommodate the turret, the larger magazines to accommodate the shells, the structural modifications you'd need to do to fit these bigger turrets, etc, etc.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I think they considered it about the same as the 15", rather than far inferior.

Actually, let me clarify. It wasn't so much the GUN that was inferior. It was the SHELLS. They tried using German principles of a lighter, faster shell and it just didn't work. I copied this from wiki, so take it for what it's worth, but it does cover why I said that:

These guns broke with the example offered by the earlier 15 inch Mk I gun, which fired a heavy shell at a rather low muzzle velocity, and instead fired a rather light shell at a high muzzle velocity; this was not a success, as at the initial muzzle velocity the gun wore down rapidly and the accuracy was unsatisfactory, so much that it was lowered. Furthermore, a heavier shell was proposed but not adopted because of stringent budget policies of the 1930s; therefore, this naval gun wasn't seen as particularly successful.[1]
 
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?

Adolph_Gun_Harstad_2007-01-31.jpg
No appreciates actual facts being brought to a discussion, lol.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
I think many are underestimating the fighting ability of the Scharnhorst-class. The noted above, those 11"ers packed a hell of a wallop for their caliber. And Scharnhorst herself took one hell of a beating before finally going under (same story with Bismarck).


Frankly even as built in OTL, I'd say two would be a match for any single battleship in the world, minus perhaps Yamato and Musashi, and the Iowas. They'll take three to match.
 

Ak-84

Banned
I think many are underestimating the fighting ability of the Scharnhorst-class. The noted above, those 11"ers packed a hell of a wallop for their caliber. And Scharnhorst herself took one hell of a beating before finally going under (same story with Bismarck).


Frankly even as built in OTL, I'd say two would be a match for any single battleship in the world, minus perhaps Yamato and Musashi, and the Iowas. They'll take three to match.
Yeah, well I think the SoDaks especially would have a lousy time against them. The North Carolina's would have been better off as would have the Vittorio's.

I do think it CV's had not ended the reign of the Battleship, the next generation would have gone to firing lighter shells at smaller caliber at high velocities. Besides the German 28CM mentioned; the 12/50" on the Alaska's had better performance than any other US Naval guns other than the 16/50" and 16/45".

Probably you go to 4 x 3 turret 12" inch as standard. Firing an intermediate shell at high velocity.
 
The Germans could design a 35,000 ton ship with 9 16" guns. I think those ships will grow to over 35,000 tons. I don't think all four ships will be ready by 1940.

If the Germans are doing this, what are other countries doing? The French and British won't be happy. The British will want to build 16" gunned battleships, which means the Americans and Japanese will also be building them; the 14" gun limit gets scrapped.
 

SsgtC

Banned
the 14" gun limit gets scrapped.

The only country that actually obeyed that limit was the UK. The US paid no more than lip service to it as the North Carolinas were designed from the keel up to swap their 14" guns for 16". And they did that right after being laid down.
 
Useful thing that escalator clause, claim someone else is building 16" battleships and the limit goes away. Even if you're lying by the time your ship is launched everyone is building 16" BBs.
 
I think many are underestimating the fighting ability of the Scharnhorst-class. The noted above, those 11"ers packed a hell of a wallop for their caliber. And Scharnhorst herself took one hell of a beating before finally going under (same story with Bismarck).


Frankly even as built in OTL, I'd say two would be a match for any single battleship in the world, minus perhaps Yamato and Musashi, and the Iowas. They'll take three to match.
This assumes their fire control works for more than the first twenty minutes of the fight, which, uh, is not borne out by their combat record or what I know of those setups.
 

Anderman

Donor
BTW is 35 000 tons the real tonnage of the SoDaks iirc to read somewhere (Beyer?) that the real displacement was higher.
 

Archibald

Banned
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

You nailed the issues pretty well.
 
Top