Ranges, angles and velocities

[Terje Langoy]

Hello, everyone.

I've been looking a little into the armament of the Gneisenau and so forth found myself some German sources, partially thanks to Altavista's Babelfish although the translation often gets a little awkward (German sentences are sometimes kind of Yoda-like - they're turned backwards as in placing the substantive before the verb and I'm not surprised if Babelfish gets a little confused by that) Anyway, I'm gonna present some numbers that I hope could either be verified or corrected. Here goes:

28-cm SK/L54,5 guns - Maximum range 40 930 m at 40 deg - Muzzle velocity 890 m/s

15-cm SK/L55C - Maximum range 23 000 m at 40 deg - Muzzle velocity 875 m/s

10,5-cm FLAK/L65 C31 - Maximum range 17 700 m at 45 deg - Muzzle velocity 900 m/s

(I don't know if this applies only for the axis-stabilized mounts)

3, 7-cm FLAK/L83 C30 - Maximum range 8 500 m at 45 deg - Muzzle velocity 1000 m/s

2-cm L65 C38 (Vierling) Maximum range 4 900 m - Muzzle velocity 835 m/s

I came to think of something... Strange idea perhaps but hopefully not that strange. Did they have mobile AA-mountings aboard any warship during WWII? Not necessarily on wheels or something odd like that but for instance rails so that you could slide an AA-mounting from one ship-side to another? It just seemed like a sneaky trick at the moment.

Very best regards

[Tiornu]

You can verify all your weapons figures at the Navweaps site.
I can't think of any purpose to be served by fitting guns onto rails. It would merely encumber the deck and create a mount without precautions against firing into the superstructure.

[marcelo_malara]

Not necessarily on wheels or something odd like that but for instance rails so that you could slide an AA-mounting from one ship-side to another?

Most antiaircraft mountings are located either side of the superstructure, so that to go to the other side you need a passage through it. For those mountings located for example on the stern, they have already an open arc of fire to both sides.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Terje and all,

your question about ' mobility' on A/A guns is very interesting and when it is about Kriegsmarine warships ....very appropriate indeed....

About the guns characteristics,.. I think Tiournu suggestion is very good,.. this website do have all the references you are looking for,...

http://www.navweaps.com/index_links/links_weapon.htm

... buth when you enter the unusual and ' strange ' appearance of A/A guns all over the places on KM warships,.. than only a good research and knowledge can help you.

The answer is YES, they had a sort of 'mobile' A/A weapons availability especially on harbours were they had permanent installations and were they can easily find a weapon that could be mounted easily on top of a turret,...on the quarterdeck or in the forecastle.

So to properly recognize the gun first of all you need to know all the guns themselves, .. than find the good photo were you see this gun on the ship on that particular moment,..and than make the proper evaluations.

Talking Bismarck I think everybody remembers the research made time ago about the single 20 mm on top of the A-Anton turret at Gotenhafen ( Gdynia ) and than later the 2 Wehrmacht type guns she had sailing just at the base of the aft rangefinder.

Than all the Tirpitz correct A/A gun evolution study,..... the Scharnhorst one,.. lately the Lutzow one .... the study of this evolution is very interesting and it is a basic need to research those ships,..I just love to do it,.. like for the camouflage ,....

Gneisenau did had a single 20 mm on top of A-Anton turret too in Kiel if I recall correctly, on winter 1940 ... than that frame placed with the vierling on top of it just before Op. Berlin, .... than some addittion as well in Brest before the Channel Dash ... 20 mm vierlings ... differently located than Scharnhorst for example,...

... any ship commander had is own style and initiatives,.... as you can see.... sometimes you get really surprised to see what they did,... .. but the allied airplanes very progressively more and more a factor ,. .... so they had to adjust to it

.. very interesting to see is a film made by PK ( Propaganda Kompanie ) in Norway,.... in Bogen ( Narvik ) were you see a 20 mm vierling just taken on board,... of the Admiral Scheer,.... and if I recall correctly they were moving the gun into the forecastle just sliding it on some sort of rails thay made to slide it thru the ship deck,.. as the crane cannot reach that position..... is that what you saw ???

Ciao Antonio

[Terje Langoy]

Hello again...

Thanks for the link, Antonio. It's important to get the details right. About the mobile AA-mounts, my intention with these were that if the ship for instance experienced an air attack coming in from the port side, why not transfer the starboard AA-mountings across the deck and bring them into action as well? All the firepower you could muster at the actual side. That was basically my idea. The complications of constructing and operating such a thing it's a whole different story and definitely not my cup of tea. I'm simply playing with the thought of having every AA-gun available where you want them, when you need them.

While speaking of armament, I've been puzzled by something I read at a website (don't recall the name at the moment) regarding the encounter between the Renown and Gneisenau. In this article, Renown engaged the Gneisenau by radar at 11 800 m, (out of sight) whereas Gneisenau responded minutes after. Further, the radar malfunctioned aboard the Scharnhorst and therefore left her out of the gun duel. Both Gneisenau and Renown struck each other and if the Renown truly used radar to direct fire, wouldn't Gneisenau have to do the same thing?

Very best regards

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Terje and all,

OK, now I see were your requests came from,.. it is a good idea in theory but not so easily applicable in reality.

At the beginning of the war you can see specially KM warships were not so well equipped with light A/A guns ( 20 and 37 mm ).

Progressively thru the war they increased the whole amount of guns ( many vierlings all over ), .. and the caliber of them ( more 37 and 40 mm too ) as the airplanes were stronger and they needed more firepower to try to bring them down.

Prinz Eugen and Lutzow are good ships to study and see the whole transformation thru the war years.

Basically they tryied to put more guns as high and free they can to cover more angles of fire, but on the upperwork sides there are not so many free areas, so they used any space they could find even adding more platforms werever possible,..

Top turrets ( B and C especially ) were used and also main decks on quarterdeck and forecastle were they could turn almost 360 degrees free all around.

I think the correct answer is into the Pacific war scenario, it is the '' Task force concept '' with aircraft carriers.

To protect you from the air you need your own airplanes ( fighters ) better than the A/A guns,.. because they are not so efficient anyway, especially if the attacking planes are many and escorted.

Look at Tirpitz into KaaFjord on April 3rd, 1944 during Op. Tungsten.

Tirpitz was very heavily armed with A/A guns and had a lot more all aound the KaaFjord sides, all over the mountains ( I have visited them all the way thru the top of the mountains, and they were many )

.. but the allied attacked with fighetrs escort, .. and at the beginning the fighters ( 42 wave 1 + 42 wave 2 ) took care of the A/A crews,..killing the majority of them,..and after the dive bombers Barracuda ( 21 wave 1 + 19 wave 2) attacked the Tirpitz.

As you can see, even if you had your own fighters it was going to be thought to defend yourself,.... but the A/A crews were just sitting ducks,.. anyway,... and in fact they lost 120 men plus more than 300 enjured.

That encounter you are referring to between Renown and Gneisenau occurred during 1940 in April,... so I suppose Renown like every other Royal Navy warship did not have yet a very good radar fire direction anyhow, .. it was developed better only a year or 2 after.

Surely Gneisenau did not have any radar fire direction system at all, as the KM warships never developed that technology,.. and only used radar to search the horizon,.. or obtain some initial long range estimate,.. but the guns were mainly directed with rangefinders evaluations and not radar.

At North Cape battle Adm Bey radio transmitted to SKL Berlin the fact that he was kept under accurate fire from long distance by the enemy using radar precise fire direction into the complete darkness, .. and he was a lot surprised about it apparently,...Scharnhorst on December 1943 still could not do that as efficinet as the enemy can do, ... while DoY could.

Ciao Antonio

[Terje Langoy]

Hello, Antonio.

Thanks for your reply. With the internet providing you a thousand different perspectives and facts, it's really nice that sites like this can provide the complete and correct answers. From your reply I see that Scharnhorst's malfunctioning radar wouldn't cripple her battle efficiency at all. But I have to ask of something. During the encounter, Scharnhorst appears more or less anonymous. Gneisenau received some hits from the Renown and returned the favour as well but what about the Scharnhorst? Eighteen 11-inches at a range of 11 800 m (assuming this is correct) and still such a poor hit ratio. What the heck was Scharnhorst shooting at? My apologies for all the questions, Antonio, but this is not the most covered event of Weserubung.

Very best regards

[Bgile]

Both German ships suffered terribly from the weather, having sea water enter the turrets through the shell case ejection ports. This caused crewmembers to be washed about and electrical shorts to occur. There is an after action report by Scharnhorst's gunnery officer which is very illuminating. He was extrememly frustrated by the whole episode and comments on how wet those ships were in even moderate seas, making good gunnery very difficult.

[Terje Langoy]

Hello again.

Thanks for your reply, Bgile. It's interesting to note that Gneisenau, despite these problems, still would obtain two hits. But if I'm not seriously mistaking, she also had more "conditional" artillery training than the Scharnhorst at this point. (I'm thinking of the pre-war Atlantic cruise) Perhaps the complications concerning turret flooding was corrected after this cruise? That's however just an assumption and I hope you guys will correct me if this should be nonsense. I also noticed that you refer to a post-action report. Is this report available somewhere?

Very best regards

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Terje, Bgile and all,

the action you are referring to is very well descrived into Whitley book about KM warships.

...I probably have seen also the official battle map if I recall correctly,....

Mainly the sea conditions influenced this event, together with the intention of Adm Lutjens not to accept the engagement under those circumstances, been A turrets of GU and SH both out of action because of the sea water, .. and Scharnhorst having the ' normal' engine problems reducing her speed to 25 knots only,.. and wasting a lot of ammunitions too.

When you think and compare GU with SH always keep in mind that GU was the fleet flagship with the ' creme' of officers and sailors available on that moment, ... while Scharnhorst was not as selected for Officers and crew members.

Ciao Antonio

[Terje Langoy]

Thanks for the tip, Antonio. Guess I just got myself yet another book to buy.