Gentlemen,dunmunro wrote:Ark Royal only added two 8 barrelled pom-poms during her time in service - no radars were ever fitted. She was last docked in Nov 1940, but AFAIK her machinery was in good shape, however S&G had machinery problems constantly - every time they tried to use overload power.
Renown was outrun at Stromvaer because she suffered damage to her forward bulge, which had partially torn away in the heavy seas, and because she couldn't obtain ranges for her forward armament at such high speeds in the prevailing seas, so there was no point in trying for more speed. OTOH both S&G lost all their forward armament due to flooding. If they had found Glorious, in heavy seas, they probably wouldn't have been able to pursue her anyways, since they wouldn't be able to work their forward guns.
By maintaining a 30 deg inclination (very typical in combat and easy to do with an inclined belt), Renown has an immune zone from 28cm guns from about 11,000 yards or less:
broken shells will be rejected by her scarf armour. Both the belt and scarf armour are backed by about 1in of HT steel. Here's the scarf (main deck slope thickness's: main deck (slope) : 4inch (2inch NCD + 1inch HT + 1 inch HT) over magazines, 3 inch and 1inch (1+1+1 or 1 inch HT) over machinery. So Renown was practically immune from the 28cm gun, through her main belt, at 30 deg target inclination.
KM practise was to run trials with full overload power - so there is no way that KM ships can move faster then their trials speeds - 32 knots for S&G is fantasy. G made 30.7 knots on trials with full overload power and she will only be slower in service. Here's a weight breakdown:
http://www.schlachtschiff.com/kriegsmar ... emein.html
note that with only 4900 tons of fuel that displacement is 38443 tons; full fuel = 6500 tonnes and max displacement is therefore about 40,000 tonnes. These ships used so much fuel that it is unlikely that they would a foray into the Atlantic without full tanks and that is why they had such a reputation as wet ships, they were constantly overloaded beyond their design displacements.
Quoting from the book 'Strike Hard Strike Sure' (HMS Renown 1916-1948) by Peter Smith one of the crew members states 'our own return fire from the 15" forward gunsshook the rivets off our starboard bulge forward that 30 feet of it stuck out at an angle of 90% causing a secornd terrible second bow wave'. Another witness states that 'it was apparent that the sea had damaged us more than the enemy, umteen feet of our bulges had torn off on both sides, and resembled giant scoops' It is not surprising therefore that Renown did not attain her full speed.
But surely these references to maximum speed both here and on other posts are all problematical and entirely dependant on conditions at the time. I presume that when a ship has her speed test over the 'measured mile' it will be when she is in top condition in as near perfect conditions as possible and is unlikely to achive the same results after months at sea and in foul weather. For instance, if the KGv class achieved 27.5, 27.6, 27.7, 28.5 or even 29.1 knots under different conditions really makes very little difference overall and this would also apply to any of the German ships who are generally quoted as being much faster than anything in the RN.
I have to repeat what I tried to say in another post, I really do not understand why it almost always seems to be assumed that German capital ships are so much better than those of the RN, i.e. faster, better armour, better guns, better shells, better range finders, etc. etc. I realise the Nelsons were old, but they were still very powerful well armoured ships and that the KGv's had their faults but were again powerful and well armoured and even the uprated QE's were a force to be reckoned with, it seems to be a shame that the RN appears to be so underated on this forum.