Karlsruhe V Leander

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
Gary
Senior Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Northumberland

Karlsruhe V Leander

Post by Gary »

Hi all :cool:

We dont hear much about the German K class CL's.
Karlsruhe and Konigsberg were historically lost (Seperatly) in Norway.

Supposing Karlsruhe had run into a Leander, how/which way do you think the battle would go?

Thoughts?

Thanks
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Karlsruhe V Leander

Post by Bgile »

They don't seem to have been used much in the open ocean so there must be something wrong with them, but I really don't know what. Maybe someone can tell us.
User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: Karlsruhe V Leander

Post by hammy »

The ships were structurally too weak , with low freeboard from the break of the forecasle aft , and extended distant water cruises pre-war as "show the flag exercises" caused weather damage in open ocean storm conditions , requiring varying degrees of reconstruction . Their power plant of turbines plus cruising diesels was greedy on space and they all suffered as well from the common congenital Km engine problems .

Whereas the British , French and US navies designed their light cruisers for reliable and seaworthy Blue water operation around the World , the three K class were intended as Fleet scouts and Flotilla leaders in the North sea and Baltic , a simple progression in design from where the HSF Light cruiser designs had left off , but with no development in thought about their anticipated role at all from the era of 1918 .
A fair demonstration of how the Versailles treaty had restricted not only the size , but also the capacity of the Naval Staff .
Several Km commanders are on record commenting on the "Torpedo-boat mentality" of those responsible for progressing Km ship design and the repeated problems of the ships being "bad sea-boats".

The "K" class predecessor , the singleton "Emden" , was a straight single step onwards from the Last HSF CL class ( although the intended fit of four twin 5.9s , prevented by the Allied controls on Weimar weapons production , would have made her a more advanced ship , and perhaps a more realistic test-bed for the following "K"s , and for the Kreigsmarine's ongoing cruiser designs . )

With the Weimar political leaders uninterested in any further Global power status , and "Land-sinnig" Uncle Adi following on , it would not be until the "Z" plan that the Kreigsmarine's thinking would be directed to expanded roles , and their first designs , the "Spahkreuzer" ( 6x5.9s in three twin turrets with destroyer speed and no armour) as a dedicated fleet scout/DD leader ,
and the Ocean going "M" class ( 8x5.9s in twin turrets but weak on heavy AA , roughly like an Appollo/Sydney ) were not exactly paragons of the art of Naval architecture .

the Ks were built with 3xtriple 5.9 mounts , one forward in A spot and two aft as X+Y ( C+D in Km practice ) , and this plainly proved to be a jump too far from the foregoing designs , as they were put into insufficiently beamy hulls , as a comparison with the British "town" and "colony" classes , and the French "La Galissoniere"s makes clear.
The addition of four triple torpedo tube mounts , and three twin 88mm flak , and a heavy forward fighting mast , and a requirement for minelaying , all added to the topweight problem , and so ballast had to be fitted , which gave you the required stability , but slowed you and reduced still further the freeboard .

The two aft 5.9 mountings were each moved to an opposite side , so that each was on the ( fairly narrow here ) beam of the ship , one to Port , one to Starbd , in semi-echelon .
( Looking squarely up the centreline of the ship from dead aft the offset would be clear , the stbd gun in the superimposed X turret showing over the portside gun of Y , aft and below , closer to you . )
MJ Whitley ( Cruisers of WW2 ) says that " the reason is obscure . If it was intended to improve the ahead arcs it was only marginal and was not repeated in later designs " , which I find odd comment from such a usually good source .
Of course it was to improve the ahead arcs of fire ,
and far from being marginal it increased what the ship could bring to bear to be at least six guns all around the horizon except for about 30degrees either side of dead ahead , and retained the usual full broadside on most of the beam .

As these were scouts , and expected to have to run from big trouble , it made sense to fit one mount fwd + two aft .
The reason the layout was not repeated is that assymetric layouts cause difficulties in layout of accomodation spaces below
and that cross-deck firing in broadsides causes blast damage and sets up cross-stresses and " whip vibration " on the hull , a big problem in a ship that is already a bit on the flimsy side , structurally , and so the follow-on singletons , Leipzig and Nurnburg reverted to centre-line mountings .

I would expect that an encounter somewhere in the North Sea between one of the Ks and a single Leander would be a fairly even match , with the usual German gunnery exellence showing through .
Two or three hits on either ship would be likely to degrade the hit ship significantly for both are "tin-clads" , and with fast shooting guns like the 6inch and 5.9 this would not take long to happen .
In a case where the Leader's aft turrets were "wooded" ie couldn't bear , then you are looking at six German guns and four British ones , so its like the Denmark strait all over again , except that the Leander gets disabled (a la Exeter) rather than blows up , and the K makes good its escape .
But broadside to broadside its a fair match and you are down to the luck/skill thing again as to who gets the good hard hits first .
( Unless the K is waggling its back end so much that the crews cant see to shoot straight of course , or the decks aft are awash on a blowy day ! )
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Karlsruhe V Leander

Post by RF »

Hello Gary,

You have raised a very similar scenario to a thread I initiated back in 2006, namely Leipzig vs Ajax.

I had assumed an Atlantic confrontation rather than North Sea.

Essentailly would there be much difference if Leander was substituted for Ajax?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: Karlsruhe V Leander

Post by hammy »

No essential difference in my view , Leipzig and Sydney are improved variants of the other two , Leander and Karlsruhe .
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Karlsruhe V Leander

Post by RF »

hammy, note that the Sparhkreuzer or ''Reconnaisance Cruiser'' concept was a continuation of the concept of the K Classe as scout ships and flotilla leaders for the main battle fleet in being, but this time under the Z Plan. These vessels were intended for Atlantic operation, they were designed with some deck and hull armour plating, and their main armament layout was exactly the same, except they were to have twin instead of triple gun turrets, but retaining the stern turret offsets.

Given the state of planning for the Z Plan, the hull designs for these ships could have been used to develop a modern version of hilfskreuzer, rather than use the existing ships the Germans requisitioned. The hulls would have been about the right size.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply