Why did the Germans keep the 11 inch so long ?

Err, the Moltke class and the Sydlitz kept the 11" guns.

Yeah forgot about them and edited it. Still that's only the first class of German Dreadnoughts and the first 3 classes of Battlecruisers. That's actually IIRC faster then it took for the British to improve their guns from 12 inch to 13.5 inch.
 
I had no idea this was about ships!

But having read through the comments I found it most interesting.
 
That's actually IIRC faster then it took for the British to improve their guns from 12 inch to 13.5 inch.
But the next step from the 12in/45 isn't the 13.5in gun- it's the 12in/50. The Royal Navy starts its first ship with the 12in/50 almost a year before the Germans start their first 12in ship, and they also increase the number of guns capable of firing on the broadside immediately after the Germans move to the 12in. EDIT: In fact, now that I think about it, they move to the 13.5in immediately after the Germans move to the 10-gun broadside. They basically remain one step ahead of the Germans at every point of the building process.

HMS Temeraire (5x2 12in/45, 8-gun broadside)- laid down 1 January 1907
SMS Nassau (6x2 28cm/45, 8-gun broadside)- laid down 22 July 1907
HMS St Vincent (5x2 12in/50, 8-gun broadside)- laid down 30 December 1907
SMS Helgoland (6x2 30.5cm/50, 8-gun broadside)- laid down 11 November 1908
HMS Neptune (5x2 12in/50, 10-gun broadside)- laid down 19 January 1909
SMS Kaiser (5x2 12in/50, 10-gun broadside)- laid down October 1909
HMS Orion (5x2 13.5in/45, 10-gun broadside)- laid down 29 November 1909

I should also point out that judging it by the number of classes or ships isn't really fair to the British because of their speed of building and their overall larger fleet. After all, they have four Dreadnoughts laid down before the Germans have one, and four on the water by the time the Germans have four laid down.

really the question should be why the Germans stuck with their 12 inch guns for so long compered to the British.
The first Royal Navy ship to mount a 12in breechloader is HMS Colossus (laid down 6 June 1879); it's been fairly standard since the Majestic-class (first ship laid down 18 December 1893). I suspect it's not the mere amount of time that raises the question, but why the Germans were prepared to accept inferiority of calibre throughout the period- or, indeed, if they would have liked to mount bigger guns but had technological reasons that made it impossible. As always, it seems to be a little of column A and a little of column B.
 
Last edited:
While the focus of this discussion is on World War One, the Versailles Treaty forced Germany to keep the 11" gun as its main heavy caliber gun until the late 1930's, resulting in hopeless compromises like the Deutschlands and the woefully under-gunned Scharnhorsts.

One wonders what the Versailles Treaty may have mandated as the maximum caliber for German heavy guns if the HSF had switched to 12" or 13" inch guns early and there were no active German battleships (pre-dreadnought or dreadnought) in 1918 with anything less than a 13" gun. In OTL, Germany was allowed to keep the last 11-in gunned pre-dreadnoughts (and there is even speculation that they might have been able to retain the Nassaus had the HSF not scuttled itself). If the smallest gun still in German service was a 13" gun, what is the possibility that an ATL Versailles might have let Germany keep a few 13"inch gunned ships in service, thereby making it illogical to require anything less in new construction? Would Germany then build the "Deutschlands" as 10,000 ton slow coast-defense ships instead of "pocket battleships"?
 

JAG88

Banned
The problem is that penetration is only one half of the question, though the people seem to focus on it to the exclusion of the second half- what happens when the shell penetrates. In theory, though the waters are muddied by British shell failures, the larger British gun should have been as effective at penetrating thicker German armour as the smaller German gun was at penetrating thinner British armour. However, larger shells have larger bursting charges, which does more damage when they do penetrate:

British 12in APC Mark VI (850lbs): 26.3lb bursting charge
German 28cm APC L/3.2 (666lbs): 19.74lb bursting charge
British bursting charge 33% larger than German equivalent

British 13.5in APC Mark IIa (1,266.5lbs): 40lb bursting charge
German 30.5cm APC L/3.4 (894lbs): 26.3lb bursting charge
British bursting charge 52% larger than German equivalent

It was also a question of doctrine: the Germans expected the poor weather conditions of the North Sea would result in actions being conducted at relatively short ranges, where a high rate of fire would be helpful.

The 343mm gun was fairly mediocre or average, in post war trials the 305mm Russian gun matched the penetration the RN gun attained using the improved Greenboy shells. That alone tells you a lot and lends weight to the German outlook that their guns were close to equivalent to the RN guns.

Navweapons is great site for finding data about naval matters but for some reason it appear to have a slight bias towards anything British. You can usually count on any "fault" in British designs being underlined (try and read their article on armoured carriers) whereas especially USN "mishaps" usually are set in very small types. But OK it's their party and they can cry if they want to...:cool:

Anyway, by the time they took decision in UK and Germany about calibers on capital ships nobody knew abouit their respective penetration data, but German design philosophy put more emphasis on protection than contemporary British. Protection however has a price, not only in Reichsmark, but also in weight and that was saved by mounting relatively small guns.

Btw, that impression came form actual knowledge, Vickers and Krupp had a technology sharing agreement pre-war so they each had a good idea of their counterparts gun and shell performance.

Even if the RN shells had worked as intended, they didnt have a long delay, they were intended to destroy plate by detonating as they penetrated, thus making a bigger hole. Delayed German shells would still have been far deadlier.

I suppose the Germans would have guessed, that a British ship with bigger guns (or much higher speed) couldn't be as well protected and so their 11 and 12" guns might be "good enough".

No, they were used since they were the biggest QF guns they had available, and kept since they offered similar performace to the heavier RN guns while giving them, a false sense of security. All went to hell when the US and Japan went to 356mm.

At Jutland the British shells shoved tendencies to shatter/break up before penetrating heavy armour and that probably saved the day for the Germans. The British found out immediately and soon after had much better shells (Greenboy) onboard their ships. Had the Greenboy shells being used at Jutland the Germans probably would have lost a handful or more of capital ships.

Greenboys were deployed in the GF early-mid 1918, not before.

Next the effect of the German guns/shells were much exagerated by some faulty propellant handling procedures on the RN battlecruisers. Their boss Adm Beatty was obsessed with high rate of fire and in order to achieve that safety locks to the magazines were kept open and charges in great numbers were unpacked long before they were loaded. The effect was similar to having a man walk the ship Down to the magazines with a leaking powder keg on his back. The result soon shoved when the BCs came under heavy German fire and propellant (Cordite) fires spread to the magazines and ships simply blowing up with heavy loss of life.

That has been pretty much debunked for a number of years, see:

http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/A_Direct_Train_of_Cordite

That was pretty much a RN-wide issue, they simply did not udnerstood cordite behavior until post-Jutland tests.

The problem wasn't so much the relatively thin armour of the BCs being penetrated but that fires were allowed to spread to the magazines. HMS Lion took a great number of hits and had many fires but due to a heroic turret commander flooding his magazine and a chief gunner having ignored the incautious procedures of the rest of the BC squadron the ship and many lives were saved.

Yeah, there are no records of that actually happening, I know the guy received a VC but that has been challenged as well.

And no, the ship would not have been saved by following procedures, it was in the end saved by chance. What determined whether a RN ship would survive or not was the beginning of a chain reaction, if a German shell (due to detonation or spalling) ignited a cordite charge within a RN turret a chain reaction would be set and the ship destroyed. Lion is the perfect example for that, the shell blew up part of the roof so most of the explosive effect vented outwards and no chain reaction was started (not all penetrations caused a chain reaction either, see Tiger and PR for that), the magazine was then flooded and closed, and yet, half an hour later a chain reaction was started by an unknown source burning all 8 charges placed on authorized positions, and in spite of having an outlet due to the missing turret roof and being backed by the water, the magazine doors were buckled allowing flame to enter it. SO in this case we have a ship that followed RN regulation to the letter, and it would have still blown up if the shell had started a propellant chain reaction when penetrated, as it was, it allows us to see that RN regulation simply didnt match cordite behavior.

HMS Warspite also had some serious cordite fires, but was saved due to more sensible safety procedures outside the BC squadron. German ships also had numerous propellant fires, but generally didn't blow up. The German practice of keeping charges in brasscases is often seen as the main reason, but I'll say it was more because they didn't have a bloke like Beatty to play hazard with his ships and men's lives.

Wasnt Warspite, it was Malaya IIRC.

Nope, KM propellant was inherently more stable and didnt generate the overpressures cordite did, brass caisings helped, but Seydlitz had 50+ full charges burn in the magazine without destroying the ship so that isnt it. The Germans did put too many charges in the turret to speed up fire and also lost turrets as a consequence, but they didnt lose ships.
 
Last edited:

JAG88

Banned
But the next step from the 12in/45 isn't the 13.5in gun- it's the 12in/50. The Royal Navy starts its first ship with the 12in/50 almost a year before the Germans start their first 12in ship, and they also increase the number of guns capable of firing on the broadside immediately after the Germans move to the 12in. EDIT: In fact, now that I think about it, they move to the 13.5in immediately after the Germans move to the 10-gun broadside. They basically remain one step ahead of the Germans at every point of the building process.

The 50 calibers 305mm RN gun was a failure, so in order to get the required performance they went up in caliber.


The first Royal Navy ship to mount a 12in breechloader is HMS Colossus (laid down 6 June 1879); it's been fairly standard since the Majestic-class (first ship laid down 18 December 1893). I suspect it's not the mere amount of time that raises the question, but why the Germans were prepared to accept inferiority of calibre throughout the period- or, indeed, if they would have liked to mount bigger guns but had technological reasons that made it impossible. As always, it seems to be a little of column A and a little of column B.

AS stated before, the Germans went for 28cm because it was their largest quick firing gun design, once the 30,5cm became available they used it, although Tirpitz did it reluctantly, the KM knew performance matched the RN guns and he didnt want to spook the RN.

It all went to hell when the USN and IJN went to 356mm.

There were no technological reason, it was all political calculation and/or doctrine considerations and/or budgetary constrains (at some point).
 
According to Meyers Konversations-Lexikon (1905 Edition) the German Navy chose to keep the 28 cm gun. It mentions that other navies mostly haven't gone beyond 30,5 cm caliber and that Krupp has executed development of quick-firing machinery for the 30,5.

Die Panzerartillerie, bei der man in der deutschen Marine die Schnelladeeinrichtung bis zum 28 cm (Krupp bis zum 30,5) Kaliber durchgeführt hat, geht in der Ausrüstung der großen Schlachtschiffe meist nicht über die 30,5 cm-Kanone hinaus (s. Tabelle IV). Frankreich, Italien, England und Amerika haben die 30,5 cm-Kanone angenommen.

In the attached table they even show a Krupp L/50 gun constructed in 1901! So staying with the 28 cm seems to have been purely a matter of choice based on doctrine and a desire to keep down displacement and cost.

070708b.jpg
 
The 343mm gun was fairly mediocre or average, in post war trials the 305mm Russian gun matched the penetration the RN gun attained using the improved Greenboy shells. That alone tells you a lot and lends weight to the German outlook that their guns were close to equivalent to the RN guns.
You mean "much better than the new Greenboy British 12" Mk VII APC shell did and seemingly on a par with the larger British 13.5" APC shells" [source, presumably; my emphasis added]. You've confused Nathan Okun's statement to refer to 13.5in Greenboys when in fact he's talking about the standard 13.5in shell. You've also changed the appearance of parity with the achievement of parity: the test was only between 12in shells, and Okun doesn't say that the Russian 12in was actually as good as the 13.5in gun, only seemingly so. Finally, it's worth noting that that the Russian gun being referred to fires an exceptionally heavy shell, far heavier than those of British and German 12in guns (Greenboys or not):

British 12in/45 and 12in/50 - APC Mark VI (2crh) - 850 lbs
British 12in/45 and 12in/50 - APC Mark VIIa (Greenboy - 4crh) - 854 lbs
German 30.5cm/50 - APC L/3.4 - 894 lbs
Russian 12in/52 - APC mod 1911 - 1,038 lbs

And the 13.5in shells for comparison:
British 13.5in/45 (light) - APC Mark IIa - 1,266.5 lbs.
British 13.5in/45 (light) - APC Mark IVa (Greenboy) - 1,257 lbs.
British 13.5in/45 (heavy) - APC Mark Ia - 1,400 lbs.
British 13.5in/45 (heavy) - APC Mark IIIa (Greenboy) - 1,410 lbs.

I'm not quiet clear why you think the 13.5in guns were mediocre, though. As it happens, particularly with the heavier shells, they didn't compare too poorly with larger guns of roughly the same type:
French 34cm/45 - APC M1912 - 1,224 lbs.
German 35cm/45 - APC L/3.6 - 1,323 lbs.
Japanese 14in/45 - APC Type 3 - c.1,400 lbs.
US 14in/45 and 14in/50- AP Mark 8 Mods 3, 7, 8 and 11 - 1,402 lbs.
Russian 14in/52 - APC Mark Ia - 1,586 lbs.

Even if the RN shells had worked as intended, they didnt have a long delay, they were intended to destroy plate by detonating as they penetrated, thus making a bigger hole. Delayed German shells would still have been far deadlier.
This comes back to doctrine, though, and misses the point of what I was saying. If you're facing your opponent and have the choice between 1) an inch less of armour and an inch more of gun calibre or 2) an inch more of armour and an inch less of gun calibre, you should always take option 1). Option 1) gives you the same chance of penetrating the opponent, but a much higher chance of doing damage to them via bursting charge. The Germans undoubtedly knew this at the time, which makes the question of why they chose inferiority is an interesting one.

The 50 calibers 305mm RN gun was a failure, so in order to get the required performance they went up in caliber.
From /45 to /50 is still a step up, and still done a year before the Germans make a step up from 11in to 12in.
 
Last edited:

JAG88

Banned
You mean "much better than the new Greenboy British 12" Mk VII APC shell did and seemingly on a par with the larger British 13.5" APC shells" [source, presumably; my emphasis added]. You've confused Nathan Okun's statement to refer to 13.5in Greenboys when in fact he's talking about the standard 13.5in shell. You've also changed the appearance of parity with the achievement of parity: the test was only between 12in shells, and Okun doesn't say that the Russian 12in was actually as good as the 13.5in gun, only seemingly so. Finally, it's worth noting that that the Russian gun being referred to fires an exceptionally heavy shell, far heavier than those of British and German 12in guns (Greenboys or not):

This is the statement:

British post-Jutland tests of Russian 12" M1909 APC [M1911 APC - TD] shells gave excellent results at 20 degrees obliquity, much better than the new Greenboy British 12" Mk VII APC shell did and seemingly on a par with the larger British 13.5" APC shells.' - Nathan Okun.

If the comparison doesnt refer to 343mm Greenboys the comparison doesnt make any sense at all, and that is hard to believe coming from Okun.

British 12in/45 and 12in/50 - APC Mark VI (2crh) - 850 lbs
British 12in/45 and 12in/50 - APC Mark VIIa (Greenboy - 4crh) - 854 lbs
German 30.5cm/50 - APC L/3.4 - 894 lbs
Russian 12in/52 - APC mod 1911 - 1,038 lbs

And the 13.5in shells for comparison:
British 13.5in/45 (light) - APC Mark IIa - 1,266.5 lbs.
British 13.5in/45 (light) - APC Mark IVa (Greenboy) - 1,257 lbs.
British 13.5in/45 (heavy) - APC Mark Ia - 1,400 lbs.
British 13.5in/45 (heavy) - APC Mark IIIa (Greenboy) - 1,410 lbs.

Yes, the Russian shells were heavier, but that is not the only relevant metric, isnt it? The Germans were very impressed by the Russian guns and had a healthy respect for them and their accuracy, something that cant be said about the RN guns prior to the 381mm one, which is why they were surprised to find accurate RN fire at Jutland.

Due to past experience with the RN it was a novelty for them.

I'm not quiet clear why you think the 13.5in guns were mediocre, though. As it happens, particularly with the heavier shells, they didn't compare too poorly with larger guns of roughly the same type:
French 34cm/45 - APC M1912 - 1,224 lbs.
German 35cm/45 - APC L/3.6 - 1,323 lbs.
Japanese 14in/45 - APC Type 3 - c.1,400 lbs.
US 14in/45 and 14in/50- AP Mark 8 Mods 3, 7, 8 and 11 - 1,402 lbs.
Russian 14in/52 - APC Mark Ia - 1,586 lbs.

Again, that is just weight of shell a rather outdated metric in the time of capped shells with delay fuzes, their accuracy wasnt anything remarkable and the smaller 305mm guns of other countries were competitive with them. Its own specs were to match the original target performance for the 12"/50, thats it, just intended to be "as good" as the failed project. It was a brute force approach to the issue of penetration at range, increase the mass to attempt to achieve the same penetration in spite of a lesser velocity.

This comes back to doctrine, though, and misses the point of what I was saying. If you're facing your opponent and have the choice between 1) an inch less of armour and an inch more of gun calibre or 2) an inch more of armour and an inch less of gun calibre, you should always take option 1). Option 1) gives you the same chance of penetrating the opponent, but a much higher chance of doing damage to them via bursting charge. The Germans undoubtedly knew this at the time, which makes the question of why they chose inferiority is an interesting one.

The KM valued RoF>caliber, they didnt have a 305mm QF gun when the Nassaus were laid down and the 28cm offered similar performance to the RN's 305mm gun. They expected a short range battle, hence the heavy armour and secondaries, and the numerous TT.

From /45 to /50 is still a step up, and still done a year before the Germans make a step up from 11in to 12in.

Not if the gun turns out to be quite inaccurate, specially at range.
 

JAG88

Banned
According to Meyers Konversations-Lexikon (1905 Edition) the German Navy chose to keep the 28 cm gun. It mentions that other navies mostly haven't gone beyond 30,5 cm caliber and that Krupp has executed development of quick-firing machinery for the 30,5.



In the attached table they even show a Krupp L/50 gun constructed in 1901! So staying with the 28 cm seems to have been purely a matter of choice based on doctrine and a desire to keep down displacement and cost.

070708b.jpg

Thx, very interesting!

I got my data form a Gary Staff booklet, usually it is very reliable and accurate, let me see if I can find the quote.
 
This is the statement:
I know that's the statement, I linked the original source and provided the quote.

If the comparison doesnt refer to 343mm Greenboys the comparison doesnt make any sense at all
Yes it does. "The Russian shell performed better than a contemporary British 12in shell, and apparently [you keep losing this word] on a par with a larger and older British shell." The fact that it performed as well as an earlier British shell that was 1.5in larger is notable enough to merit mention regardless of the type of shell being used. If Okun had meant 13.5in Greenboys, there were a number of ways he could have done it:

"much better than the new Greenboy British 12" Mk VII APC shell did and seemingly on a par with the larger British 13.5" APC Mark IVa shells."
"much better than the new Greenboy British 12" Mk VII APC shell did and seemingly on a par with the larger British 13.5" APC Mark IIIa shells."
"much better than the new Greenboy British 12" Mk VII APC shell did and seemingly on a par with the larger Greenboy British 13.5" APC shells."
"much better than the new Greenboy British 12" Mk VII APC shell did and seemingly on a par with the larger British 13.5" Greenboy APC shells."
"much better than the new Greenboy British 12" Mk VII APC shell did and seemingly on a par with the larger British 13.5" Greenboys."

What you seem to be arguing is that the British had an example of a type of shell which increased the performance of a gun by an entire calibre step and then didn't bother adopting it, which is a stance that I think even the most ardent Wehraboo or Ameriwanker would consider a little out there.

Yes, the Russian shells were heavier, but that is not the only relevant metric, isnt it?
No, but shell weight is an extremely useful proxy for penetration ability in the absence of reliable test data. Are you actually claiming that the fact that the Russian shell weighed 16% more than the German 12in shell and 56% more than the German 11in shell had absolutely no effect on their relative ability to penetrate armour?

It was a brute force approach to the issue of penetration at range, increase the mass to attempt to achieve the same penetration in spite of a lesser velocity.
Except that's the right approach: larger shells, lower initial velocity. The light, quick shell which the British adopt after the First World War, in part based on German guns, is less effective than what they had already. By your argument, the American 16in/45 (2,700lbs, 2,300 fps) was a "brute force" approach to the elegant solution of the British 16in/45 (2,048lbs, 2,525 fps).

Not if the gun turns out to be quite inaccurate, specially at range.
Perhaps this is a language problem, but putting a bigger gun on a ship is still an escalation regardless of whether in practice that gun works as well as might have been hoped.

EDIT:
Good, so it wasn't just me.
My first question was "how long were 11 inches in Germany, and why was that different from anywhere else?".
 
Last edited:

JAG88

Banned
I know that's the statement, I linked the original source and provided the quote.


Yes it does. "The Russian shell performed better than a contemporary British 12in shell, and apparently [you keep losing this word] on a par with a larger and older British shell." The fact that it performed as well as an earlier British shell that was 1.5in larger is notable enough to merit mention regardless of the type of shell being used. If Okun had meant 13.5in Greenboys, there were a number of ways he could have done it:

"much better than the new Greenboy British 12" Mk VII APC shell did and seemingly on a par with the larger British 13.5" APC Mark IVa shells."
"much better than the new Greenboy British 12" Mk VII APC shell did and seemingly on a par with the larger British 13.5" APC Mark IIIa shells."
"much better than the new Greenboy British 12" Mk VII APC shell did and seemingly on a par with the larger Greenboy British 13.5" APC shells."
"much better than the new Greenboy British 12" Mk VII APC shell did and seemingly on a par with the larger British 13.5" Greenboy APC shells."
"much better than the new Greenboy British 12" Mk VII APC shell did and seemingly on a par with the larger British 13.5" Greenboys."

No, what you are implying right now is that Nathan Okun somehow saw fit to needlessly include obsolete 343mm shells in the comparison which would make no sense nor provide any relevant point of reference regarding the performance of the Russian shell. The paragraph mentions Greenboys, had he meant a different type of 343mm shell he would have had to specify so in order to clearly identify the difference, since he did not by context it means he was comparing the Greenboys noted in the paragraph and which, btw, were the standard of the time.

If you want to argue that it is not so you better come up with some sources rather than relying on semantic speculation.

What you seem to be arguing is that the British had an example of a type of shell which increased the performance of a gun by an entire calibre step and then didn't bother adopting it, which is a stance that I think even the most ardent Wehraboo or Ameriwanker would consider a little out there.

Noooo, that is all you my friend, I left the speculation regarding your motives to others.

No, but shell weight is an extremely useful proxy for penetration ability in the absence of reliable test data. Are you actually claiming that the fact that the Russian shell weighed 16% more than the German 12in shell and 56% more than the German 11in shell had absolutely no effect on their relative ability to penetrate armour?

Nope, as experience shows, and specially about WW1 shell that could very well mean squat, specially re RN shells that were brittle, susceptible to early explosions and had no delay worthy of the name. And that is without even discussing crh, impact angle, the lack of a hardened cap nor the fact that the RN didnt really thoroughly research these issue pre-war given that they tested shells at 90º.

Except that's the right approach: larger shells, lower initial velocity. The light, quick shell which the British adopt after the First World War, in part based on German guns, is less effective than what they had already. By your argument, the American 16in/45 (2,700lbs, 2,300 fps) was a "brute force" approach to the elegant solution of the British 16in/45 (2,048lbs, 2,525 fps).

A tenser trajectory gives you a larger danger space, the chance of hit is higher. You cant claim the WW1 343mm is a better approach given the expected battle distances and effectiveness of fire control when the gun was designed. A slower gun is a better deck penetrator, but that was hardly taken into account pre and during WW1 and certainly wanst taken into account when designing the 343mm gun, after all, it was designed to just achieve and match the performance the 12"/50 failed to achieve.

The fact that the RN copied the Germans, but failed to come up with a decent gun, merely confirms the validity of the KMs approach and it only proves that the RN failed in its implementation.

Perhaps this is a language problem, but putting a bigger gun on a ship is still an escalation regardless of whether in practice that gun works as well as might have been hoped.

It was an escalation, but the Germans went for the 30,5cm gun only when the rumors about the 343mm gun arrived.
 
Top