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

Archibald

Banned
I use to see the "ideal battleship" as
- 8*16 inch guns (variant: 9*15 inch)
- 30 kt
- Armored against his own guns / shells.

Such an ideal design couldn't be achieved in WWI (Hood was very close, but lacked armor), but by the 30's it become possible. Albeit is could not be achieved under the WNT 35000 tons limits, more 40 000 tons.
 
Siegfried Freyer wrote in "Schlachtschiffe und Schlachtkreuzer 1905 - 1970" about 38 000 tons standard.
You are, of course, correct. I was trying to give a quick answer as I was tired and not feeling so great, and posted just the "class" tonnage on wiki. Here is what they have to say for each ship in the class (some of which are at least more detailed, and so I suspect, correct)


USS South Dakota (BB-57)
Displacement: 35,000 long tons (So, no more correct info over on wiki, even by going to the individual ship page directly)
USS Indiana (BB-58)
37,970 long tons (38,580 t) (standard)
44,519 long tons (45,233 t) (full load)
USS Massachusetts (BB-59)
Displacement: 35,000 tons
USS Alabama (BB-60)
Displacement: 35,000 long tons standard

I hate it when you have to dig a bit to get the information you are looking for, and then discover just how bad a job the wiki pages were done in. With only the second ship in class giving specific numbers, I'll have to assume that these are the more accurate and correct, rather than just the party line of "35,000 tons each" given on the class and specific ship pages for the others.

Good catch, and thanks.
 
Something I didn't realise, the USN was designing quad 14" gun turrets (Or at least, so they say...) for the North Carolina class, but then claimed that the Yamato class was going to mount bigger than 14" guns, and so the escalator clause kicks in and the 3 quad 14" turrets became 3 triple 16" turrets.

So, so far it seems that the Germans are building ships much tougher than the RN, but their displacement is not even close to what it is supposed to be. If a 35,000 ton, 9*16" gunned class is not possible for a first post ToV German BB class, then let's ask, how much smaller would the ships have to be, realistically, for 8-9*15" guns? Unlike others, I discount anything below 15" being a serious threat to modern RN BB's, no matter how 'good' the 11" OTL guns were. The first class after ToV is shrugged off, is going to either have to be limited to 42,000 tons like onto the OTL Bismarck class, or be delayed until after the war starts, so that needed infrastructure upgrades can be done to accommodate a larger class.

So, given a nod to the 42,000 ton limit imposed by existing German infrastructure, what could the ATL Scharnhorst class have done with the extra 10,000 tons, but being required to mount at least 15" guns?
 

Rubicon

Banned
Can't be done with the same amount of armour protection and/or speed.

Quick and dirty done in springsharp, prolly several faults, but it bloats to 45K tons for a 3x3 16" gun ship

Scharnhorst, Germany Scharnhorst-class laid down 1935

Displacement:
40 136 t light; 42 734 t standard; 45 275 t normal; 47 309 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(755,06 ft / 741,47 ft) x 98,43 ft x (31,79 / 33,03 ft)
(230,14 m / 226,00 m) x 30,00 m x (9,69 / 10,07 m)

Armament:
9 - 15,98" / 406 mm 45,0 cal guns - 2 059,37lbs / 934,11kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1935 Model
3 x Triple mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 5,91" / 150 mm 45,0 cal guns - 103,86lbs / 47,11kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1935 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
14 - 4,13" / 105 mm 45,0 cal guns - 35,62lbs / 16,16kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts, 1935 Model
7 x 2-gun mounts on centreline, evenly spread
16 - 1,46" / 37,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 1,56lbs / 0,71kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1935 Model
8 x 2-gun mounts on centreline, evenly spread
10 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 0,25lbs / 0,11kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1935 Model
10 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 20 307 lbs / 9 211 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13,8" / 350 mm 481,96 ft / 146,90 m 11,91 ft / 3,63 m
Ends: 5,91" / 150 mm 259,48 ft / 79,09 m 11,91 ft / 3,63 m
Upper: 6,69" / 170 mm 481,96 ft / 146,90 m 8,01 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
2,60" / 66 mm 481,96 ft / 146,90 m 29,27 ft / 8,92 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 91,86 ft / 28,00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 14,2" / 360 mm 7,87" / 200 mm 14,2" / 360 mm
2nd: 5,51" / 140 mm 3,94" / 100 mm 5,51" / 140 mm
3rd: 0,79" / 20 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 3,74" / 95 mm
Forecastle: 1,97" / 50 mm Quarter deck: 1,97" / 50 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 13,78" / 350 mm, Aft 39,37" / 1 000 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 148 258 shp / 110 600 Kw = 29,00 kts
Range 8 000nm at 15,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4 575 tons

Complement:
1 551 - 2 017

Cost:
£19,680 million / $78,721 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3 394 tons, 7,5 %
- Guns: 3 394 tons, 7,5 %
Armour: 15 921 tons, 35,2 %
- Belts: 5 176 tons, 11,4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1 356 tons, 3,0 %
- Armament: 4 276 tons, 9,4 %
- Armour Deck: 3 659 tons, 8,1 %
- Conning Towers: 1 455 tons, 3,2 %
Machinery: 4 212 tons, 9,3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 16 609 tons, 36,7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5 139 tons, 11,4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0,0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
65 164 lbs / 29 558 Kg = 31,9 x 16,0 " / 406 mm shells or 9,5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,01
Metacentric height 5,0 ft / 1,5 m
Roll period: 18,5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1,18
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,20

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,683 / 0,687
Length to Beam Ratio: 7,53 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27,23 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 10,00 ft / 3,05 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20,00 %, 41,00 ft / 12,50 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Forward deck: 30,00 %, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Aft deck: 35,00 %, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Quarter deck: 15,00 %, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m, 31,00 ft / 9,45 m
- Average freeboard: 28,42 ft / 8,66 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 74,2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 191,0 %
Waterplane Area: 57 609 Square feet or 5 352 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 107 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 210 lbs/sq ft or 1 025 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,94
- Longitudinal: 1,70
- Overall: 1,00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
 
Something I didn't realise, the USN was designing quad 14" gun turrets (Or at least, so they say...) for the North Carolina class, but then claimed that the Yamato class was going to mount bigger than 14" guns, and so the escalator clause kicks in and the 3 quad 14" turrets became 3 triple 16" turrets.

So, so far it seems that the Germans are building ships much tougher than the RN, but their displacement is not even close to what it is supposed to be. If a 35,000 ton, 9*16" gunned class is not possible for a first post ToV German BB class, then let's ask, how much smaller would the ships have to be, realistically, for 8-9*15" guns? Unlike others, I discount anything below 15" being a serious threat to modern RN BB's, no matter how 'good' the 11" OTL guns were. The first class after ToV is shrugged off, is going to either have to be limited to 42,000 tons like onto the OTL Bismarck class, or be delayed until after the war starts, so that needed infrastructure upgrades can be done to accommodate a larger class.

So, given a nod to the 42,000 ton limit imposed by existing German infrastructure, what could the ATL Scharnhorst class have done with the extra 10,000 tons, but being required to mount at least 15" guns?
8-9 15" guns requires a Bismarck-sized ship if you want decent speed and armor as well, as we see with OTL.

As for mounting 15" guns on a Scharnhorst, you could mount six 15" with only a couple thousand extra tons.
 
8-9 15" guns requires a Bismarck-sized ship if you want decent speed and armor as well, as we see with OTL.
As for mounting 15" guns on a Scharnhorst, you could mount six 15" with only a couple thousand extra tons.
So basically, following Germans ship designs of the times, they could mount only a BC's main armament on 35,000 tons?!?! Ouch!

That being the case, say a 35,000 ton Scharnhorst class, with 6*15" guns, what speed? And if we went with the infrastructural limit of 42,000 tons in 1935, what, if anything, could they do with those extra tons, or was I to literal with the Quoted statement?

Personally, I would want to still have the 16" guns, so I know that whoever I come up against is going to take some serious damage from any hit, but I wouldn't want to have to lessen my own ships designed survivability just to increase my chances of killing my attackers.
 
So basically, following Germans ship designs of the times, they could mount only a BC's main armament on 35,000 tons?!?! Ouch!

That being the case, say a 35,000 ton Scharnhorst class, with 6*15" guns, what speed? And if we went with the infrastructural limit of 42,000 tons in 1935, what, if anything, could they do with those extra tons, or was I to literal with the Quoted statement?

Personally, I would want to still have the 16" guns, so I know that whoever I come up against is going to take some serious damage from any hit, but I wouldn't want to have to lessen my own ships designed survivability just to increase my chances of killing my attackers.
Heh. As I pointed out earlier, with the Bismarcks the Germans failed to stay under 35,000 tons even when working with basically 8 14" guns.

Speed depends on whether the new bow hydrodynamics and the increase in tonnage interact. You'd probably be able to stay north of 30 knots with the same power plant, though.

Knock it up to 42,000 tons and you've basically got a Bismarck.
 
Welcome to the thread, and not sure how I missed your post till now.
Site said 1934 design, not in service till 1942, but then I dug a little deeper and 3 were in Danzig in 1940, so, yeah I guess they could have built them and had them ready in 1940 after all. Does anyone know weather these guns were made with priority, or were they finished later than normally, as the ships they were intended to go on were never going to be built?
 
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


That’s a bit of a simplification

Your comments above only consider the British Battlecruiser designs vs the German Battlecruiser design before and during WW1 – where the British went for Firepower and Speed over Armour with the German ships concentrating on Speed and Armour over firepower – this due to the differing needs of their navy’s – the British ships designed to hunt down Armoured Cruisers acting as Commerce raiders (such as the destruction of Graf Spees force off the Falklands in 1914) in defence of Britain’s Empire – the German ships on the other hand were expected to hunt down Armoured Cruisers (but mainly in support of the main fleet) and also take their place in the line of battle as they knew that their fleet would be potentially outnumbered in the north sea. – Neither really designed their BCs to fight each other

Hood was a modified pre-Jutland design – however she was one of the best armoured ships in 1921 – it’s just that the scheme was obsolete

The US did not build Battlecruisers!

If we consider ‘Battleship’ design then we have to conclude that the British Battleships at Jutland where ‘Ship for Ship’ Better armed and faster than their contemporary German Ships with comparable armor and the most powerful warships at Jutland – by a considerable margin were the 4 Queen Elizabeth class followed by the 2 Revenge class.

The US was by WW1 building ‘All or Nothing’ armour scheme vessels (see the ‘Standards’) !

Now by the time we get to the 30s when the twins are being designed and built Germany has not built a capital ship larger than a Panzerschiffe since the Bayern Pair which are Pre-Jutland designs and therefore German Designers, ship builders and the supporting industries are going to be at a disadvantage when it comes to building a 16” armed ship as they have not got the combined experience in building such ships.

Note that the Bismarck and Tirpitz had twin 15” turrets at a time when everyone else was building triples and Quads – this reflected their lack of experience (even the Italians were able to build Triple 15” turrets).

So not only (as you say) would building a 35,000-42,000 ton ship with 16” guns result in a reduction in either speed and/or armour but would also provide nigh on impossible for them to build a warship with 3 x 3 16” guns – certainly at that time.

OTL the Twins were supposed to be armed with 3 x twin 15” guns but the German industry was not able to deliver.
 
Now by the time we get to the 30s when the twins are being designed and built Germany has not built a capital ship larger than a Panzerschiffe since the Bayern Pair which are Pre-Jutland designs and therefore German Designers, ship builders and the supporting industries are going to be at a disadvantage when it comes to building a 16” armed ship as they have not got the combined experience in building such ships.

Note that the Bismarck and Tirpitz had twin 15” turrets at a time when everyone else was building triples and Quads – this reflected their lack of experience (even the Italians were able to build Triple 15” turrets).
Ah, the evil that was the ToV rears it's ugly head. As intended, that treaty did indeed play merry hell with the Germans 'Next time' capabilities. This kind of explains why the only two post WWI classes of German BB's, took so long to build, and had so many problems as they did in OTL. We know that the Germans had 3 16" guns in Danzig by sometime in 1940, built from a 1934 design, and this is twice as long as WWI Germany needed to bring big guns from design into service, weather or not this is the fastest they could put big guns into service I do not yet know, just that this is how they did it historically.

Actually, here is a link for the 15" guns. Now I just need to look up the 16" guns...
Ah, here we go...

So not only (as you say) would building a 35,000-42,000 ton ship with 16” guns result in a reduction in either speed and/or armour but would also provide nigh on impossible for them to build a warship with 3 x 3 16” guns – certainly at that time.

OTL the Twins were supposed to be armed with 3 x twin 15” guns but the German industry was not able to deliver.
So, with the insights gained from those that have responded to the thread so far, it seems that what happened in OTL was that German ship design and construction, as well as the armaments industry for big naval guns, had, as planned by the ToV folks, been adversley affected by said treaty, and that Germany was no longer taking 3 years from design to in service for her big guns, and here BB were taking longer to commission as well.

EDIT*
So it looks like my post was wrong again, in that the Germans did indeed seem to make their big guns as they had in WWI. All that this really tells us is that, whatever the production problems they had getting their new, big-gunned ships into service, the guns themselves were not likely the problem.

Interesting.
 
Alternate Spring Sharp model of BB with 9 x 16" guns.


Bismarck III 16 + 30 knots, Deutschland Battleship laid down 1936
Displacement: 42,469 t light; 44,794 t standard; 46,971 t normal; 48,712 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)

(836.29 ft / 790.68 ft) x 111.55 ft (Bulges 114.80 ft) x (29.69 / 30.59 ft)

(254.90 m / 241.00 m) x 34.00 m (Bulges 34.99 m) x (9.05 / 9.32 m)

Armament: 9 - 15.98" / 406 mm 50.0 cal guns - 2,271.00lbs / 1,030.11kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1936 Model
3 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 4.13" / 105 mm 65.0 cal guns - 39.16lbs / 17.76kg shells, 400 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1928 Model
4 x 2-gun mounts on side ends, evenly spread
4 raised mounts

16 - 4.13" / 105 mm 65.0 cal guns - 39.16lbs / 17.76kg shells, 400 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1933 Model
8 x 2-gun mounts on side ends, evenly spread
16 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm 93.0 cal guns - 1.80lbs / 0.82kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1930 Model
8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
8 raised mounts

32 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 65.0 cal guns - 0.27lbs / 0.12kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1930 Model
4 x Quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
4 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck forward
4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 21,416 lbs / 9,714 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.8" / 300 mm 492.13 ft / 150.00 m 17.72 ft / 5.40 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 2.36" / 60 mm 524.93 ft / 160.00 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
Main Belt covers 96 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.69" / 43 mm 492.13 ft / 150.00 m 45.93 ft / 14.00 m
- Hull Bulges: 0.00" / 0 mm 492.13 ft / 150.00 m 19.69 ft / 6.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.7" / 400 mm 7.87" / 200 mm 12.2" / 310 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm
3rd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm
- Protected deck - multiple decks: 5.12" / 130 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 0.79" / 20 mm Quarter deck: 3.94" / 100 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 14.17" / 360 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 141,230 shp / 105,358 Kw = 29.80 kts
Range 9,700nm at 12.15 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,917 tons

Complement: 1,594 - 2,073
Cost: £22.106 million / $88.423 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 4,666 tons, 9.9 %
Armour: 15,761 tons, 33.6 %
- Belts: 5,377 tons, 11.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,416 tons, 3.0 %
- Armament: 3,014 tons, 6.4 %
- Armour Deck: 5,556 tons, 11.8 %
- Conning Tower: 398 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 3,963 tons, 8.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 17,027 tons, 36.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,502 tons, 9.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 1,053 tons, 2.2 %
- Hull below water: 1,000 tons
- Bulge void weights: 3 tons
- Above deck: 50 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
66,571 lbs / 30,196 Kg = 32.6 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 10.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.24
Metacentric height 8.7 ft / 2.6 m
Roll period: 16.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.46
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a straight bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.610 / 0.614
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.89 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.68 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 45.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 9.68 ft / 2.95 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):

Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 25.00 %, 35.93 ft / 10.95 m, 23.95 ft / 7.30 m
- Forward deck: 24.00 %, 23.95 ft / 7.30 m, 18.57 ft / 5.66 m
- Aft deck: 28.00 %, 18.57 ft / 5.66 m, 19.23 ft / 5.86 m
- Quarter deck: 23.00 %, 19.23 ft / 5.86 m, 25.72 ft / 7.84 m
- Average freeboard: 22.75 ft / 6.93 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 87.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 162.0 %
Waterplane Area: 67,876 Square feet or 6,306 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 215 lbs/sq ft or 1,051 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.20
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Modified Bismarck made lighter by replacing the 8 x 15" with 9 x 16"" guns and replacing the propulsion system with the more compact V 12 Diesels. The three 30 x 10m ; 1700t V12 diesel propulsion units are installed to generate the133,000hp needed to reach 29.8 kts deep and 140,000 hp forced to reach 30.4 kts standard displacement. The 3900ton diesel bunker allows for range of 9700nm@ 19knots.

This allows for a narrower hull also reducing the armor mass from 19,500 tons to 15,750 tons. However this also requires deleting the 6`inch secondary’s and replace with more twin 4 inch flak mounts.
 
Top