Scharnhorst and Gneisenau probably because Britain had enough ships that they coukd have forced battle. It might involve a cruiser group sacrificing themselves to slow Scharnhorst but you can do it. With S&G together you might need a dozen cruisers or or a battlecruiser to go up against the twins slow them down.
Bismarck and Tirpitz canceled for more Scharnhorst-class
- Thread starter FBKampfer
- Start date
FBKampfer
Banned
Well that was kind of the whole rationale behind battlecruisers in the first place.
And really, that's what the twins were, just the German interpretation of battlecruisers instead of the British. They fall perfectly into line with the design philosophy of German WWI BC's.
Which I suppose is at the core of this thread. If Germany were to pursue a surface Navy in WWII, what would be the most useful and effective composition?
And really, that's what the twins were, just the German interpretation of battlecruisers instead of the British. They fall perfectly into line with the design philosophy of German WWI BC's.
Which I suppose is at the core of this thread. If Germany were to pursue a surface Navy in WWII, what would be the most useful and effective composition?
The answer is even more simple: Put the maximum force at sea, meaning all you can make ready to operate at sea at a given time. In case of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, both were often, but not Always ready for service at the same time. So; put them in a group, perhaps with other major units, if possible, like Admiral Hipper and some lesser units, (Gneisenau for a time operated with Köln, while Scharnhorst was not ready to be deployed). The same is true for Bismarck, as she operated with the equally ready Prinz Eugen in consort. She could have operated on her own as well, though SKL thought it would have been better to put the ships together in a taskforce, to enhance its capabilities.
Shifting the goalposts, eh.
You stated that there were 50 British cruisers of "comparable or slightly smaller size". Your words. Evidently at the time you thought size was relevant. So please don't come out now claiming that "size is irrelevant".
That said, yes, given a tonnage of 10,800 to 12,000 tons (and more), I asked you to list warships of at least 9,500 tons. That is my call of what is "comparable or slightly smaller size". (Your words).
Apparently you think that something that weighs less than half another thing is of "comparable or slightly smaller size".
If that's your reasoning, I guess you have some serious problems choosing your garments, since you'll believe you can buy for yourself clothes that fit a child weighing less than half your weight. After all, they are of comparable or slightly smaller size.
I cut the rest of your rambling post; it seems the noise-to-signal ratio in what you write, never good to start with, is worsening.
Size is not limmited to tonnage, but more to basical a mix of one, or more factors, like length, beam, size of the crew etc.
Deutschland class Heavy cruiser = 186 meters long
Kent class heavy cruiser = 190 meters long
York class heavy cruiser = 175 meters long
Cavendisch class = 184 meters long
Leander class = 169 meters long
Arethusa class = 154 meter long (smallest here, still only some 30 meters shorter than a Deutschland)
and compared to this:
Myoko class = 204 meters long
Aoba class = 185 meters long (Furutaka slightly longer)
Here you see why these cruisers are roughly seen as simmilar in size. Visually they were comparable, differing only in technical aspects,. such as propulsion, protection and armament.
SsgtC
Banned
I don't think you understand just how big a difference you're talking about here. 32 METERS is over 116 FEET! In what world is that SIGHTLY smaller? The York-class is over 45' shorter. The Hawkins-class (what you're calling the Cavendish despite the fact that she was completed as an aircraft carrier) is 7' shorter. The Leander-class is 55' shorter (and 5,000 tons smaller at full load). Only the County-Class (what you have listed as the Kent-class) could be considered of comparable size, with the Yorks and Hawkins-class being "sightly smaller."
You also mentioned beam. Ok. Deuschland had a bean of over 71'. The York-class had a beam of only 57'. The Hawkins had a bean of 58' (they were also incidentally 2,000 tons lighter). The Leanders had a beam of only 56'. And finally the Arethusa-class. Their beam is only 51'! And they're only 6600 tons! Some 8,000 tons smaller than the Deuschland.
Now, let's talk guns. Dueschland carried six 11" guns and eight 5.9" guns. Do you not understand how much of an overmatch that is for a ship that only mounts eight 8" guns? And the only class that even mounted that many was the Counties. The Yorks only mounted SIX 8" guns and Hawkins only had seven 7.5" guns. The other two classes of ship you mentioned, they only carried 6" guns. Eight of them on the Leander and the tiny Arethusa-class only mounted SIX! So again I will ask, in what world are these ships even remotely comparable?
FBKampfer
Banned
Then Warspite, you're fully away that physical dimensions have almost nothing to do with combat capabilities. If it did, then RMS Titanic would have been a very formidable adversary.
However for warships, tonnage gives you a decent picture of a ships abilities, assuming it's designers are not, in fact, utter screwups.
However for warships, tonnage gives you a decent picture of a ships abilities, assuming it's designers are not, in fact, utter screwups.
That is debatable, as a Deutschland class cruiser cannot function at sea, when damaged, no matter how light this is. A hunter, chasing the raider can allow damage, as there will always be more hunters than raiders, given the British supriority in numbers. Since a Deutschland class cruiser was just that; a cruiser, with cruiser sized protection, all 6 and 8 inch cruisers could hurt her enough, even the little Arethusa, with her faster rate of fire 6 inch guns, compared to the lumbering, slow 11 inch guns on a Deutschland.
In other words, some of you completely ignore the fact the Deutschland class was designed to be a raider in the first place adn not a fighting ship fighting other cruisers. Mathematically the Raider in a hostile sea (Raiding in friendly waters makes no sense at all), with no supporting yards and ports to mantain her, on her mission, is at a serious disadvantage and cannot risk damage, no matter what sort of damage. Once damaged in a fight, the raider will get hunted down, due to her then known possition, while unable to run away from faster cruisers, that are theoretically inferior in gunpower, but can still hurt her hard.
Therefor heavy armament on a raider type of cruiser is irrelevant to her fightingcapabilites. The best raiders were never the heavily armed cruisers in both world wars, but the HSK typs merchant conversions the Germans also used. (Excluding the U-Boote naturally) These HSK ships had the firepower to take out a merchant ship, but not an allarmed warship (HMAS Sidney was fooled by the seemingly unsuspicious looking freighter when destroyed in a surpriseattack by HSK-8. All other encounters between a British cruiser and a HSK ended quite onesided.)
Deutschland was mostly a politcical statement to show the power of German ingenuity in shipbuilding, during the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty. Pack a number of battleship sized guns on a cruiser hull, something not done before since the ending of the Great War. Theoretically it overpowered any cruiser, but only in numbers, not actual figthing power. (Figtingpower is more relying on how fast you can deal a cripling blow to a target, to dicate terms. This required high rate of fire and this was not what the Deutchland class had. Also a larger number of guns, to compensate for the lwer rate of fire would have been nice, though not possible on a cruiser sized hull. 8 inch cruisers had simmilar problems btw, so either put in a larger number of them (10 in IJN cruisers in twin mountings to allow higer rate of fire, compared to the more cramped and slower tripple turrets on USN cruisers), or a QF type gun, mainly 6 inch.
SsgtC
Banned
Just one little problem with this. Duetschland could blow those 6" gunned ships out of the water before the RN even got in range. Hell, ONE hit from an 11" shell will blow something the size of the Arethusa damn near in two.
Except the 11" gun wasn't "lumbering, slow" as you claim. It fired 2.5 rounds per minute. And had a maximum range of over 38,000 yards. The 6" guns that you promote so loudly had a maximum rate of fire of 8 rounds per min and in practice, usually lower. Their max range was 25,000 yards. So again, Duetschland could blow a light cruiser away before it ever got in range.
Agree on 11" gun effectiveness it was also more accurate down range. Some sources claim the ROF was same as the Scharnhorst's [> 3 RPM]
Navweapons reports the 6" guns could only manage 5-6 RPM.
Saphroneth
Banned
It really depends how it's measured, with RPM. The British had a tendency to report "in use" ROF, and IIRC the Germans oft preferred to report "maximum burst" ROF.
Only if you can hit a fast and nimble target like a cruiser at longer range. You also seem to forget the Deutschland only had 6 guns, with most of the time only one tripple turret bearing at the target. That is not a very good change to hit something at all. Besides that so called 2.5 shots a minute, in practicefire, yes. At sea in combat situation, Just one round a minute. Still seriously slower rate of fire than the QF gunned cruiser opposing it.
Range is irrelevant as well. Gunnery was not accurate at long range so in order to score hits, you must get closer, propably in the same range you can start using torpedoes as well. By then the rapid fire ship can in theory smother the slower rate of fire ship in enough steel to force it into a retreat, simply as it can land more steel on the target thean the larger gunned ship. The British were promoting the 6 inch as ideal cruiser gun for a seriously valid reason, dislikeing the cumbersome mechanised 8 inch gun, deeming it too heavy for a desired rate of fire.
As said many times earlier, the Deutschland class cruiser was not a good combatship for fight against other warships, that were shooting back at her. Her value was politcal only. As a weapon there were much better ships in the German Navy, that were more ballanced in design. The larger Hipper class heavy cruiser was a better fighting ship, with better guns for engaging ships and more speed, if the enignes did not wreck themselves. The much larger Scharnhorst class battleship too was a better fighting ship, though not capable to engage an enemy capital ship, due to her smaller guns. (She was build to take a serious punishment though, like any battleship.)
SsgtC
Banned
Except your wildly maneuvering cruiser will be ever bit as handicapped in her gunnery by those same manuevers. To shoot accurately, they would need to stay on a realitivly steady course themselves and that makes them a sitting duck.
And where are you getting 1 RPM from? Even accounting for combat stress, you're not going to see a reduction in rate of fire by almost 2/3.
So much wrong here. You're about 30 years behind the times on gunnery ranges. Without radar, shooting at extreme range was inaccurate. But you're overlooking something. What is extreme range for the cruiser, is nowhere near extreme for Duetschland. In fact it's some 13-15k yards within range. Meaning those guns will be deadly accurate. You're assertion that they will only be accurate within TORPEDO range is frankly ridiculous. Even in WWI, battles were routinely fought at ranges far in excess of torpedo range. And if by some miracle or utter stupidity a 6" gunned ship gets in THAT close, Duetschland doesn't need all 6 guns. Just one gun firing at point blank range will destroy the cruiser long before the cruiser can "smoother" her.
The British were the ONLY ones to espouse large numbers of small 6" cruisers. And it wasn't because they were so all fired amazing. It was because they were CHEAP. Both the Americans and the Japanese found that their 8" gunned ships were far more practical.
Last point, I see you've now done a 180 on your argument from, "the British had FIFTY cruisers of comparable or slightly smaller size" to, "size doesn't matter! Gun size doesn't matter! Gun range doesn't matter!" It's very hard to take you seriously when you flip-flop like that
There is no burst firing with auto-loading turrets ...at most you have FCS procedure's to best use ranging before engagement. The reason reported for the 6" turret- was to delay middle gun to avoid outer shell path due to dispersion.
At the battle of river plate, AGS got 9 hits on 405 11" shells fired or ~ 45:1 . Exeter got 3 hits on 200 * 8" shells ~ 67:1. Based on RPM the AGS should get I hit after 15 minutes , while Exeter should be 17 minutes, while 6" gun cruisers got 17 hits on 2065 shells launched or 121:1. At 5-6 RPM the 6" gun cruiser should a get hit every 2 minutes , so are a threat to treaty cruisers, but most of the 17 hits on the AGS shattered and did little damage. On the other hand each 11" shell hit caused 'fearsome' damage to cruisers that were hit.