An alternative Battle of the River Plate

[Karl Heidenreich]

In these scenarios we always believe that the always numerical superior allied forces could coordinate their attack in a way that could defeat the axis forces. But History has showed us that such a coordination not always worked properly. At Jutland the signals didn´t worked properly and the British units didn´t coordinate properly. At DS we had the case that Norfolk and Suffolk, that could have added weight to the British side, didn´t took part during the crucial minutes that Hood was blowing and PoW was being hammered; or Washington didn´t knowing where the hell was South Dak at Savo...
So, there exists the posibility (and probability) that the "encirclement" or trap the British tend to do against some of the Twins could not work properly and the German small BB could destroy them piecemeal...

Best regards...

[lwd]

In this case I am in pretty much complete agreement with you. Coordination is more difficult than it seams on paper or the wargame table. Furthermore even if the coordination is done properly the enemy may have something to say about it. If you have two forces that are almost the equal of the one you are trying to encircle or you have a vast speed advantage (ie aircraft) this sort of thing might work but with a force that would have a difficult to impossible time holding it's own splitting up is not going to help. Now if they knew that Scharnhorst didn't have radar and that the visibility was going to be a few thousand yards then maneuvering for a coordinated torpedo attack might make sence. Except of course if they had to use radio to coordinate there's a good chance they'd give things away.

If I'm going to take on even a small BB with 4 cruisers I'd either want Japanese ones if I'm going with torpedos (for the gambler) or late war (or post war) US crusers in a gun engagement.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Napoleon and Clauswitz always focused in the concept of "fricition", being it the difficulty to achieve what you want when you want it. If you can triumph over friction you have a good path to victory already won.

In these case (and almost in all of them) technology doesn´t mean the lot but the psycological value of the contender´s commanders and the morale of their troops. And luck, a lot of luck.

At Jutland the British were capable of giving the HSF a quite good kicking? Yeah.
They did? Nope.
Why? Friction.

At DS the Brtish could have won? Yeah
They did? Nope
Why? Friction.

Things that happened, like gremlins...

So: Schanhorst (if being able to refuel) got a good chance to destroy piecemeal the guys trying to do her harm.

Best regards...

[paul mercer]

I'm afraid the answer is yes, either of the twins would have blown the British squadron out of the water even they took a number of 8" hits, none of which would cause much serious damage to ships of that size and with that armour, just look what Graf Spee did to Exeter. Mind you, if Cumberland had been in the fight I might not have had my Stepfather who was a marine officer in the rear turret!

[RF]

I agree that wars aren't decided on paper. This whole discussion is based on "paper". How else can we have a discussion about the merits of the hypothetical confrontation you have advanced?

Your first sentence has missed out one key word which alters the meaning of what I said - the word I used was necessarily and taken in that context it does not invalidate ''paper analysis'' but adds further dimensions to the possible actions and outcomes that can be discussed.

[RF]

You are suggesting that somehow Harwood can arrange an exact meeting so each of his cruisers is on one side Scharnhorst? How do you do that? If you do somehow arrange this, what keeps the German ship from simply turning toward one of them and destroying it while the others attempt to close the range?

This is not what I mean't.

I am going on the events as they actually happened leading up to the actual Battle of the River Plate. The difference in respect to Harwood is that Cumberland is in company, whereas in reality the ship was stationed at the Falklands to cover the possibility of the AGS attacking there on 8 December 1939, being the 25th anniversary of the 1914 Battle of the Falklands (a thought which incidently did occur to Langsdorf).
On December 12 Harwood had held a conference with his captains on Ajax to discuss his planned tactics to engage the German pocket battleship. His intention would be that on sighting the raider by day his force would divide and attack the raider on opposite flanks to force a division of 11 inch fire or leave either one of his split forces unfired on by the 11 inch guns. This is what happened when Langsdorf attacked the following day.
With Cumberland in company I would anticipate that Exeter and Cumberland would attack as a split force also, giving three attacking units.

In this sceanario the engagement should start as I envisaged.

In the real battle Harwood was well aware of AGS concentrating on the one target, Exeter, while Ajax/Achilles were encumbered with long range, indeed that is what the Germans should have done, by not closing the range as they initially did.


If Langsdorf rushes in, in my scenario we have two 8 inch gun cruisers at different angles, plus two light cruisers acting as destroyers. In the initial confusion of the battle unfolding what does Langsdorf do? Probably what he did in the actual battle and concentrate on the strongest enemy but he now has three directions to watch not two - how long it takes to disable sink Cumberland will depend on how good the German gunnery is, meanwhile Exeter has time (like POW at DS viz Bismarck) to close and target Scharnhorst without being under serious fire herself, while Ajax/Achilles have even longer to approach their enemy.

[RF]

I was under the impression Langsdorf only approached the British because he thought there was one cruiser and two destroyers. Is that not correct?

This is right, but lets set it in correct context. Langsdorf had had a report via B-dienst that a small convoy was expected in the Plate area, which included a large merchantmen, the Highland Monarch. The report was wrong but that is beside the point. When Langsdorf sighted Harwoods force, he thought they were the convoy escorts of one light cruiser and two destroyers, sufficient for AGS to deal with, so he attacked.

Now would Langsdorf in Scharnhorst have acted any differently when his lookouts reported four ships, a County Class cruiser, one light cruiser and two destroyers, when he had the firepower (or so he would have thought and without any KM experience as yet (remember this is 1939 and not 1940 or 1941) of British destroyer attacks) to blow them all out of the water?

[RF]

Did I use the word "supership"?

No, this is a description I have applied to the comparison you used of the Scharnhorst in relation to AGS, bearing in mind previous criticism (not by you) of the design concept of Scharnhorst in earlier threads.

[RF]

AGS fought the British to a standstill.

Not sure I agree with that - after all which ship fled to Montevideo harbour?

Harwood disengaged with the intention of shadowing, neither Ajax or Achilles were seriously damaged or had their speed impaired, and he also was considering the possibility of nightime torpedo attack.
But Langsdorf spoiled that plan - he sought sanctuary.

[Bgile]

The biggest differences I see here (between AGS and Scharnhorst) are:

1. 50% more main battery guns, which are also individually superior.
2. Armor invulnerable to 8" fire.
3. Large difference in speed.

If Scharnhorst turns to open the range similarly to what AGS did, the range isn't going to close like it did in the actual engagement. I believe the 6" cruisers are going to be largely out of the fight. They can't spot their fall of shot beyond about 18Kyds.

If Scharnhorst's speed is degraded after many months at sea due to an unreliable power plant, her options are more limited. If it isn't, I am now thinking shadowing her might be difficult for the British.

Now, if he closes right in, the British have a good chance to smother him with fire, destroying FC positions. What they are unlikely to do (unlike vs AGS) is to cause critical power plant damage. I also think her secondary battery is less vulnerable and more effective overall than that of AGS.

In the actual event I believe one of the British CLs lost half of her guns and one of them lost her main battery FC position. I don't have official info handy, but that's my recollection.

[lwd]

There's a very good account of the battle here:
http://www.bobhenneman.info/bhbrp.htm

[Bgile]

There's a very good account of the battle here:
http://www.bobhenneman.info/bhbrp.htm

Thank you! Looks like I was right about the damage to the CLs.

Can anyone explain why AGS couldn't use her other FC director after the main one was "destroyed"? The author says the turrets switched to local control and I don't understand why that would be.

[RF]

Bgile,

I think you are missing my point about the start of the engagement, by your emphasising the Scharnhorst/AGS ''opening the range'' whereas Langsdorf closed the range and was attacked on opposite flanks. In my scenario the Scharnhorst would be fighting ships in three different directions. Yes it is faster, but this is less of an advantage in having to fight three handed than two handed.

In the real battle yes Ajax had X and Y turrets knocked out by the one direct hit received from an 11 inch shell. And Achilles had its bridge and FC degraded by splinter damage, but apart from that one direct hit the damage to the light cruisers was superficial and blast/splinter based.

AGS also was affected viz fire control, the director for the 15 cm guns was damaged and indeed the 15 cm scored no hits in the engagement - the Germans had to use the AA guns on the the light cruisers instead, and Ajax was directly hit by two 4.1 inch shells which weren't big enough to do much damage.

I don't dispute that Scharnhorst has better 11 inchers than AGS and certainly more and better 15 cm - but would they be enough to ensure absolute victory in a three direction fight? On paper, yes - but in reality, I'm not quite so sure.....

[lwd]

But the ships were correctly identified before closing range. In the same situation Scharnhorst and the British will not necessarily maneuver in the same way. Try sketching out how the British would maneuver to accomplish your 3 way maneuver, I don't see a way that doesn't expose one ship or at least one force while your doing this. Furthermore Scharnhorst can maneuver to concentrate on either group of British if they split. With 9 guns to 6 she is also likely to take one British ship out of the action much quicker and can then concentrate on the other British heavy. When the light cruisers get in range they will likewise be in range or very close to it of her secondaries which are nothing to sneeze at. The British don't want a day time action. Even a night action would be dangerous but it at least gives them a chance of landing some torpedo hits.

[RF]

Logically, lwd, everything you say is correct. But in the heat of battle things can and do start going pear-shaped, and this is the crux behind my original post.

In the real battle the AGS should have won easily - use your reach, keep your distance, sink the Allied cruisers one by one. But it didn't work out that way did it? AGS didn't even follow up its chance to finish off Exeter when it had it.

Krancke had the right approach in dealing with HMS Jervis Bay - but then lost most of the convoy which was his main target.

And equally on paper Vian's destroyers should have been blown out of the water by Bismarcks array of guns and firepower - yet they came out almost unscathed....

As the saying goes, ''there is always the unexpected'' or more coarsely, ''shit always happens.''