Best WW2 heavy cruiser = Prinz Eugen ?

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Best WW2 heavy cruiser = Prinz Eugen ?

Post by Dave Saxton »

Thanks for the reply! There is a good account of the action at http://www.naval-history.net/WW2Ships-CharybdisAsr.htm

Apparently British bad C&C contributed to the result. The above mentioned account mentions the Germans using "asdic" to locate the British. We do know that German sound location was used in other cases, notably by the PE at Denmark Straits. Could there be something to it that German sound location complemented radar in this engagement?
Yes, it's quite possible that passive sonar could have been used to alert Kohlauf as well. It was used in many other cases. The accounts of this battle I have handy do not mention a GHG detection, but also indicate that the British also gave themselves away to Kohlauf after he was vectored by the shore radar by undisciplined radio chatter.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Best WW2 heavy cruiser = Prinz Eugen ?

Post by northcape »

from "the german fleet at war 1939-1945" by vincent p. o'hara, who is overall much in favour of the actions of the german surface fleet:

"There were other factors that degraded German combat effectiveness. After the war one admiral reportedly remarked: "We Germans knew how to build outstanding freshwater ships.". U.S. sailors considered Prinz Eugen a yacht compared to their own cruisers. Overcomplicated machinery marked a design philosophy focused on theoretical possibility rather than everyday reliability. The destroyers only averaged 40 percent availability and German warships, from Scharnhorst on, had an unfortunate tendency to suffer boiler breakdowns in action. German weapons were seriously flawed. They fixed their faulty torpedoes a year into the war, but continued to fire a high percentage of dud shells to the very end."

of course, just another opinion. forgive my generalisations, but i think he has a point with the german attitude of theoretical perfection vs. everyday reliability.

somewhat related, i find it interesting that bismarck, scharnhorst, and the prinz seemed to suffer from a repeated construction flaw: a weak stern structure. we know from the bismarck wreck, that it sheared off after/during keeling over. if we trust the fuzzy wreck reports from scharnhorst, she also lost her stern, or broke apart there. the same happened to the prinz when she was torpedoed.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Best WW2 heavy cruiser = Prinz Eugen ?

Post by RF »

alecsandros wrote:
My impression is that, at least until 1943 (when the Baltimores were introduced into service), the Admiral Hipper class was the most powerfull heavy cruiser class produced all over the world. That is, on a one-on-one basis, these ships would probably came out on top, in most situations, against any contemporary opponent of their class.
This would be mostly due to their excellent artillery, and somewhat due to their size and overall protection.
What do you think ?
My initial thoughts that for their size they only had the hitting power of a British County class cruiser.

Would Prinz Eugen prevail in a straight shoot out with say either Norfolk or Suffolk?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Re: Best WW2 heavy cruiser = Prinz Eugen ?

Post by RNfanDan »

I think one of the rather un-handsome--but powerful and well-balanced--US Navy's Northampton class heavy cruisers would certainly stand the test against Prinz Eugen, in a one-to-one match.
Image
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Best WW2 heavy cruiser = Prinz Eugen ?

Post by alecsandros »

RF wrote: Would Prinz Eugen prevail in a straight shoot out with say either Norfolk or Suffolk?
... Gun bore and number were identical,
but size, stability, accuracy and gun practical range were not...

During Denmark Strait, Prinz Eugen straddled and hit HMS Hood at over 18km distance.
During the same encounter, Norfolk fired several salvos against Bismarck, from ranges 20-22km, all of them falling short.
Later the same day, Suffolk also fired against Bismarck from 18km, her salvos falling again, short.

During one of Hipper's raids in the Atlantic, he engaged HMS Berwick. The 2 cruisers expanded massive amounts of ammunition, but with only moderate success: Hipper hit Berwick 4 times, without suffereing hits in return, but was forced to back off due to the possibility of attack from British destroyers.

And, during the battle of Barents Sea, Hipper opened fire on HMS Achates (a small destroyer) at range of 18km, hitting her with the first salvos. About 36 x 8" shells were expended on Achates, 4-6 of which hit her directly.

In my opinion, this class of cruisers was more powerfull tahn their conteporaries because of their artillery systems, and especialy gun range and accuracy... [my impression is that at least Hipper and Prinz Eugen had some sort of RPC system , similar to that of Bismarck and Tirpitz]
richtea
Junior Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:48 pm

Re: Best WW2 heavy cruiser = Prinz Eugen ?

Post by richtea »

Ersatz Yorck wrote:
Dave Saxton wrote:Your completely wrong richtea.
The German gunnery radar was not even on the same ballpark as the allies,.


Actually they were, even late war. PG's FuMO26 had a range accuracy of 25 meters regardless of the range to the target, and a brearing accuracy within 0.10*. The large common mode antenna provided a range increase of 30% over the previous model Seetakt sets, which was established at about 30km battleship to battleship. It compares quite well with USN Mk8 and it could out perform the British Type284M of the Duke of York. Scharnhorst was also equipped with a FuMO26 but it was destroyed by a direct hit early in the day of North Cape.
Not to derail the thread, but I am interested. I have seen in various forums people state that German radar and radar fire control was on par with allied systems. Why then did German ships consistently come off second best in late war encounters where radar was decisive, like North Cape?
This is an excerpt from the conclusion of

BATTLE OF THE NORTH CAPE,
The death ride of the Scharnhorst
by Angus Konstam

AFTERMATH

Page 159, 3rd Paragraph.
Once Rear Admiral Burnett's Force 1 was deployed in the path of the Scharnhorst in the early morning of the 26th of December,
then THE OTHER BRITISH ADVANTAGE made itself felt.
While several countries experimented with radar before the war, it was the British who first turned it into a working reality.
Arguably radar played a crucial part in winning the Battle of Britain, fought in the skies over Southern England in the summer of 1940.
By that time radar units were being fitted to Royal Naval warships, and as the technology improved, then new radar sets were issued.
While the Germans had developed their own radar systems, THESE WERE FAR LESS SOPHISTICATED THAN THOSE DEVELOPED BY THE BRITISH.
This meant that when Force 1 met the Scharnhorst that morning, radar would play a crucial part in the ensuing battle.

Page 160 1st Paragraph.
By December 1943 the Scharnhorst had been fitted with a radar that could detect enemy ships up to 12 miles away- ON A GOOD DAY.
It also provided an elementary form of fire control for the battlecruisers 11 inch guns.
By contrast the British search radar sets had a range ALMOST DOUBLE that of the Scharnhorst, and dedicated fire control radars provided targeting information for gunnery direction.
While the Germans enjoyed A SUPERIOR SYSTEM OF OPTICAL RANGE FINDING AND GUNNERY CONTROL, THE BRITISH ENJOYED A SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE IN RADAR GUIDED GUNNERY, which could be used in addition to, or instead of gunnery direction using visual means.
THE BRITISH WERE ALSO LUCKY.
During her first skirmish with the cruisers of Force 1 the Scharnhorst lost the use of her forward radar, which greatly reduced the effectiveness of her gunnery.
For the most part she was forced to rely on visual gunnery direction - a distinct disadvantage in the snowswept darkness of the Barents sea.

END

Upper case used for emphasis only.

Regards
Richtea
SI VIS PACEM,
PARA BELLUM
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Best WW2 heavy cruiser = Prinz Eugen ?

Post by Dave Saxton »

You seem to putting a lot of trust in this secondary source. Actually I would count it as third hand as it seems to be repeating other secondary sources which are just as as much in error. To comment on a few points:
While several countries experimented with radar before the war,
The Germans did far more than experiment. They were years ahead of the British. At the time that Chain Home was detecting flights of aircraft during the Battle of Britian with a range resolution measured in kilometers, Seetakt Calias B was already directing blind fire of shore batterys.
While the Germans had developed their own radar systems, THESE WERE FAR LESS SOPHISTICATED THAN THOSE DEVELOPED BY THE BRITISH.
How do they know that? I have certainly not found this to be the case. It makes me wonder if these people that write these things know much about WWII radar's technical aspects at all.
By contrast the British search radar sets had a range ALMOST DOUBLE that of the Scharnhorst


Not really. Belfast detected SH at about 31km the first time and at about 23 km the second time. SH had already been tracking the British cruisers with radar for some time before Belfast detected SH in the second case. SH's radar, she had been recently fitted with, could reach well beyond 30km, yes, even on a bad day. Its true that DoY detected SH at 42km but thats not near double 30km+.
It also provided an elementary form of fire control for the battlecruisers 11 inch guns.
The Duke of York's radar to FC intergration was actually less sophisticated than SH's.
THE BRITISH WERE ALSO LUCKY.
During her first skirmish with the cruisers of Force 1 the Scharnhorst lost the use of her forward radar, which greatly reduced the effectiveness of her gunnery.
Finally a correct statement
For the most part she was forced to rely on visual gunnery direction - a distinct disadvantage in the snowswept darkness of the Barents sea.
How does he explain SH's accurate shooting during the chase phase after it expanded beyond visual range? At the same time Duke of York had to rely solely on radar. Didn't SH have to do the same?
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Best WW2 heavy cruiser = Prinz Eugen ?

Post by dunmunro »

Dave Saxton wrote:
How does he explain SH's accurate shooting during the chase phase after it expanded beyond visual range? At the same time Duke of York had to rely solely on radar. Didn't SH have to do the same?
IIRC, DoY was of the opinion that Scharnhorst was optically ranging on the 5.25 muzzle flashes (they had run out of flashless powder).
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Best WW2 heavy cruiser = Prinz Eugen ?

Post by Dave Saxton »

IIRC, DoY was of the opinion that Scharnhorst was optically ranging on the 5.25 muzzle flashes...
Nonsense! I don't think that the savy RN would really put too much stock in that. And why would the SH resort to that when they had a functional radar with a range accuracy of 25 meters?
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Best WW2 heavy cruiser = Prinz Eugen ?

Post by dunmunro »

Dave Saxton wrote:
IIRC, DoY was of the opinion that Scharnhorst was optically ranging on the 5.25 muzzle flashes...
Nonsense! I don't think that the savy RN would really put too much stock in that. And why would the SH resort to that when they had a functional radar with a range accuracy of 25 meters?
This is from AJ Watts, The Loss of the Scharnhorst, p77-78:

Image
MikeBrough
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:18 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Best WW2 heavy cruiser = Prinz Eugen ?

Post by MikeBrough »

In a one-on-one fight, I wouldn't expect a County to stand up to PE for long. However, does anyone have a note of the comparative commissioning costs of the 2 classes? If I could get two Counties for the same outlay as one PE, I'd side with the RN.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Best WW2 heavy cruiser = Prinz Eugen ?

Post by dunmunro »

MikeBrough wrote:In a one-on-one fight, I wouldn't expect a County to stand up to PE for long. However, does anyone have a note of the comparative commissioning costs of the 2 classes? If I could get two Counties for the same outlay as one PE, I'd side with the RN.
PE is a lot bigger and newer, but I'd say that a County with modern radar systems could beat PE, depending on conditions and which ship scored first, as PE's armour is unlikely to keep out the RN 8" SAP. Berwick, for example, didn't have a FC radar system when she engaged Hipper, and suffered for it as Hipper did have radar ranging. Norfolk, however, was able to score multiple straddles and hits on Scharnhorst using her type 284 gunnery radar.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Best WW2 heavy cruiser = Prinz Eugen ?

Post by alecsandros »

dunmunro wrote: Norfolk, however, was able to score multiple straddles and hits on Scharnhorst using her type 284 gunnery radar.
Yes, but that was late 1943, and the range was 10-12km.

An engagement between PE and Norfolk would favor the German ship, as it had a larger effective gun range and long-range accuracy.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Best WW2 heavy cruiser = Prinz Eugen ?

Post by Dave Saxton »

dunmunro wrote:[This is from AJ Watts, The Loss of the Scharnhorst, p77-78:

Image

I'm afraid Mr. Watts doesn't know what he's talking about when he describes the performance of the German radar. The bearing accuracy was 0.10*. The range was not read off by visual comparison, but electronically. The discrimination for range on the fine range indicator could be as fine as 10 meters.

It should also be pointed out that Scharnhorst targeted the Norfolk during the second skirmish and opened fire on it before the Norfolk opened fire.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Best WW2 heavy cruiser = Prinz Eugen ?

Post by Dave Saxton »

dunmunro wrote: but I'd say that a County with modern radar systems could beat PE, .
How modern? 1960's? A county is going to be hard pressed to carry more modern radar systems than PG at any time during the war.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
Post Reply