Scharnhorst vs a KGV

[Vic Dale]

In various discussions the question has arisen as to Scharnhorst's chances against a KGV. Some say no chance and others say she stood a chance. I believe under the right conditions, Scharnhorst would come out on top.

In order to set the scene, Bismarck is at sea having shaken off her pursuers and repaired her battle damage sustained at the Denmark Strait. Having gone north to begin anti commerce work with PG once more, she has been surprised by the appearance of Prince of Wales who had replenished her fuel stocks and has overcome her gunnery problems. PoW has engaged and scored a damaging hit which has slightly reduced Bismarck's speed, equal to that of PoW. PoW is in hot pursuit, but cannot get into a favourable position from which to engage.

Tovey in KGV has replenished and has taken his flagship to sea once more in the hope of forming a new hunting group to track Bismarck down and sink her. He has received PoW's enemy sighting report and is now heading to intercept the fleeing Bismarck. Unless KGV can be stopped, she will make contact with Bismarck in the next 36 hours.

In order to support the anti commerce campaign, Scharnhorst has sailed and is looking for convoys to attack. SKL has received recce reports from long range aircraft who have identified KGV and given her position and heading. They have Bismarck's action reports and can see that Lutjens will be facing two very powerful opponents very soon. They have alerted Lutjens to this possibility but reports from other recce planes show that Lutjens has little room to evade KGV owing to the presence of two aircraft carriers to the north and to the south of him.

SKL has intervened and ordered Scharnhorst to break off her anti commerce activity and steam to intercept KGV and stop her at all costs. Her captain has been given freedom to engage the enemy and fight her to the death. Disabling KGV is mandatory, in order to save the KMs greatest naval asset. Captain Kurt Caesar Hoffmann, has addressed the ship's company and told them of the great task ahead. Captain and crew know their ship and the gravity of the task they have been given. They know the balance of the Atlantic campaign could hinge on the outcome of this single battle and on everyone's lips and in their hearts to a man is the watchword, "Scharnhorst Vorvärts!" This is what they had been waiting for. Morale is extremely high especially since the sinking of the Hood and now it is their turn to show what they can do.

After 12 hours hard steaming a shadow is sighted on the starboard bow, a strong northeast wind is carrying smoke in their direction, so identification is not going to be easy, but at that speed it can only be a warship, a large one too and since the position of all German heavy units is known, it can only be an enemy, or a "neutral." The ship goes to Action Stations and within minutes reports from the numerous stations are coming in, "Position closed up and ready for action!"

The ship's radar and every possible optical instrument is on the shadow which as the distance closes becomes slightly more distinct, though not clearly due to it's funnel haze. The range is now 50,000 yards so the order, "All guns load with APCBC!" is given to the main turrets. The tension builds as the range gradually closes, 45,00 yards, 40,000 35,000, then at 30,000 yards the shadow turns to port and issues a challenge by lamp, "What Ship?" Scharnhorst tries to delay by sending the same signal back even as it is being sent. This fools no one on the mystery ship which immediately opens fire with all turrets. The flash on her upperworks illuminates significant structures through the smoke making it possible to clearly Identify the target as a KGV class battleship. So, Tovey himself.

In response, Captain Hoffmann turns Scharnhorst to port also and answers with his ship's first salvoe. All turrets can bear and a shell from each flashes away to the target. Immediately after another salvoe belches out from Scharnhorst's main battery, followed by a third. Now they must wait to see where the enemy shot will fall..... Five huge fountains rise silently into the air a long way over, but it is quickly realised by the ship's command that they are good for line at least.

Observers in the Scharnhorst's superstructure see three huge flashes on the enemy warship, "Have we hit her already?" No this is the enemy firing her second salvo. Then almost at the same instant a cluster of three white fountains rise near to the enemy. Officers and men are ferverishly counting and comparing notes before making their report to the gunnery central. No sooner have these reports gone off than another group of splashes can be seen near the target. The third salvoe from Scharnhorst should have fallen by now, so it is assumed that they went over. The report on the gunnery intercom informs those who can listen that the enemy has been bracketed. Another salvoe thunders out followed by another and another. Enemy shells are falling ever closer with each salvoe and as the noise of battle blankets the hearing of those able to watch, sensory deprivation robs them of the ability to follow what is going on. Each man must now concentrate on his specific job and do it regardless of what is going on around him.

In Scharnhorst's command centre, they are convinced that they have successfully bracketed the target and now it is necessary to sub divide the distance between the two salvoes which did the job. A soon as gunnery central has computed the figures, elevation and deflection figures are sent to the turrets in preparation for the next salvoe, which is already lying in the locked breeches.

In KGV they are pleased to note that the enemy is held for line and now all that is necessary is to keep hammering in the salvoes whilst the range is brought down by 500 yard increments. The target should soon be straddled. Gun smoke is now becoming a problem in the British flagship. With the wind to starboard, the gun smoke is carrying down the range, making observation of the fall of shot around the target difficult. Some observers are not getting fall of shot reports in at all. Tovey orders a further turn to port to try and clear the range, but Hoffmann in Scharnhorst sees this and turns slightly to starboard to counteract Tovey's move and keep the smoke between them whilst at the same time closing the range.

In this scenario, Tovey is fighting at a disadvantage. His observers do not have a clear view of the target for long periods after the guns have fired so out going salvoes might need to be timed to their own fall of shot to permit accurate spotting. The enemy meanwhile has his own gun smoke quickly blown to windward, clearing the view quickly.

I such a scenario Scharnhorst has an advantage in that she can see the target more clearly and she also has a faster rate of fire. Her own fire is not hampered in any way.

Sooner or later, straddles will be achieved, but if for any reason the fall of shot is not properly spotted no corrections can be applied to the next salvoe, making the achievement of straddles that much slower. With this in mind, Scharnhorst could find herself with a tactical advantage, being able to straddle early. The shells falling close and short may well penetrate the soft bottom of the target.

As we know from the experience of Bismarck and PoW at Denmark Strait, a hit in a wing compartment will induce a list of about 9 degrees and if this cannot be corrected, it could be decisive and the battle lost within minutes.

At 27,000 yards, the normal opening range, Scharnhorst's shells can easily penetrate an armour thickness equal to that of KGVs decks and turret roofs. The problem being the angle of strike, which with her high velocity guns would be quite shallow, so that the relatively thin armour deflects the shell. However, with a list towards the enemy the angle of fall is increased to the point where any shell which strikes a horizontal surface will penetrate.

KGV would have no option but to turn away and try to get out of it, because unless she turned her opposite side to the enemy her decks would be vulnerable, but then if she turned her high side toward the incoming fire, her more exposed bottom would be vulnerable. The best she could hope for would be a second hit in the bottom on the opposite side to counter act the list.

In a battle with Scharnhorst, a KGV would not be guaranteed a victory. With a slower rate of fire added to a slower speed she could not dictate terms and if for any reason her damage control was not up to snuff, a list induced by battle damage could see her beaten.

I have tried as far as possible to create realistic circumstances by which Scharnhorst would engage to the death with a KGV and I have given my own version of what I think could be the outcome. Others may have a different view point and hopefully we can have a rewarding discussion on this theme.

[northcape]

Although both the Scharnhorst (or was it Gneisenau?) and probably also DOY scored hits at large distances, I still consider a hit at 27,000 yards as a lucky hit (and it makes no sense to me to discuss lucky hits in hypothetical scenarios).
10 times 14inch vs. 9 times 11inch, with comparable fire controls, are still a strong argument to favour KGV. I would definitely set my money on KGV.
Tovey would simply close the range quickly such that the 11inch can't do any harm to his main armament nor to his machinery. Scharnhorst would have to run for her live.

[dunmunro]

As we know from the experience of Bismarck and PoW at Denmark Strait, a hit in a wing compartment will induce a list of about 9 degrees and if this cannot be corrected, it could be decisive and the battle lost within minutes.

At 27,000 yards, the normal opening range, Scharnhorst's shells can easily penetrate an armour thickness equal to that of KGVs decks and turret roofs. The problem being the angle of strike, which with her high velocity guns would be quite shallow, so that the relatively thin armour deflects the shell. However, with a list towards the enemy the angle of fall is increased to the point where any shell which strikes a horizontal surface will penetrate.

Can you provide some sources for the above bolded statements?

[alecsandros]

I have tried as far as possible to create realistic circumstances by which Scharnhorst would engage to the death with a KGV and I have given my own version of what I think could be the outcome. Others may have a different view point and hopefully we can have a rewarding discussion on this theme.

What is usualy very easily forgotten is that Scharnhorst was better protected than KGV.

Scharnhorst:
Belt : 350mm+backing, 110mm slopes, 45mm TDS
Turrets: 350mm faces and barbettes
Con: 350mm

KGV:
Belt: 374mm+backing
Turrets: 330mm faces, 305mm barbettes
Con: up to 100mm

[given the artillery of the 2 ships, horizontal protection is of little importance, as both guns had poor horizontal penetration at ranges below 25km]

===
The entire volume of KGV situated outside the armored citadel is vulnerable to Scharnhorst's artillery fire inside 25km - including command positions, main and secondary turrets and barbettes, stearing gear and forecastle, funnels and uptakes, sensors, etc.

Comparatively, the vulnerable volume of SCharnhorst is actualy smaller than KGV's.

The big problem though, would be that the 330kg shell of Scharnhorst woudl do much less damage than the 721kg shell of KGV, so even if several hits would be scored, the damage would still not be to severe.
===
My guess would be that the winner would be the ship would the best firecontrol and reliability of main artillery

And, given the fact that both KGV and Scharnhorst class experienced problems with their turrets, the confrontation might become rather hilarious.

[alecsandros]

Late edit:
I was in a hurry,
KGV turret face and barbettes were 324mm thick.
According to GKDOS 100 curves for SK C32 28cm gun, with V0 = 890m/s, perforation in grenz condition occurs at a minimum of 520m/s , assuming 80* obliquity (10* from the normal)

520m/s corresponds to a range of about 17km.

===

So the above should read "The entire volume of KGV situated outside the armored citadel, but except main turrets and barbettes is vulnerable to Scharnhorst's artillery fire inside 25km - including command positions, secondary turrets and barbettes, stearing gear and forecastle, funnels and uptakes, sensors, etc.

===

Scharnhorst's 360mm turret faces and barbettes would be vulnerable to intact perforation of British 14" shells at around ~ 19km at 10* obliquity

[northcape]

[given the artillery of the 2 ships, horizontal protection is of little importance, as both guns had poor horizontal penetration at ranges below 25km]

If that would be the case, so why DOY disabled Scharnhorst's turret A with a single nearby hit in the deck at ~12,000 yards distance? As survivor Willi Gödde stated, "the deck got ripped off, now there only was a giant hole". And the same with turret B later?

I sometimes wonder how rather obvious insights (like the double-weight of KGV's heavy armament broadside (7.21 tons) vs. Scharnhorst (2.97 tons)), which are further corroborated by historical events, can be ignored that easily while emphasis is laid on technical/theoretical details which are sometimes irrelevant or simply wrong. Excuse this comment, but with respect to your last sentence, this is the only thing which justify the word hilarious here, in my opinion.

[alecsandros]

[given the artillery of the 2 ships, horizontal protection is of little importance, as both guns had poor horizontal penetration at ranges below 25km]

If that would be the case, so why DOY disabled Scharnhorst's turret A with a single nearby hit in the deck at ~12,000 yards distance? As survivor Willi Gödde stated, "the deck got ripped off, now there only was a giant hole". And the same with turret B later?

... Neither KGV's nor Scharnhorst UPPER decks were not expected to resist armor piercing projectiles.

What matters is the citadel armor - and her main armor deck.

I sometimes wonder how rather obvious insights (like the double-weight of KGV's heavy armament broadside (7.21 tons) vs. Scharnhorst (2.97 tons)),

What about broadside per minute ? How does that compare ?

[dunmunro]

What is usualy very easily forgotten is that Scharnhorst was better protected than KGV.

Scharnhorst:
Belt : 350mm+backing, 110mm slopes, 45mm TDS
Turrets: 350mm faces and barbettes
Con: 350mm

KGV:
Belt: 374mm+backing
Turrets: 330mm faces, 305mm barbettes
Con: up to 100mm

[given the artillery of the 2 ships, horizontal protection is of little importance, as both guns had poor horizontal penetration at ranges below 25km]



===
The entire volume of KGV situated outside the armored citadel is vulnerable to Scharnhorst's artillery fire inside 25km - including command positions, main and secondary turrets and barbettes, stearing gear and forecastle, funnels and uptakes, sensors, etc.

Comparatively, the vulnerable volume of SCharnhorst is actualy smaller than KGV's.

The big problem though, would be that the 330kg shell of Scharnhorst woudl do much less damage than the 721kg shell of KGV, so even if several hits would be scored, the damage would still not be to severe.


===
My guess would be that the winner would be the ship would the best firecontrol and reliability of main artillery

And, given the fact that both KGV and Scharnhorst class experienced problems with their turrets, the confrontation might become rather hilarious.

KGV's belt is much deeper than Scharnhorst's and KGV's armoured deck runs across the ship from the top of the belt, so that the total protected volume is much larger than on Scharnhorst. Unlike Bismarck Scharhorst has only 45mm of side armour above the belt, so that her MAD is much more vulnerable to plunging fire than Bismarck; Scharnhorst would be at a severe disadvantage to KGV in any long range engagement. Like Bismarck, Scharnhorst's turret faces have a thinly armoured frontal facet (150mm), which again is easily penetrated, so that her turrets have much less protection than KGV's and are very vulnerable to KGV's 14in guns. The overall assement shows Scharnhorst to be highly vulnerable to KGV's 14in at almost any range, where Scharnhorst is only a threat to KGV at very close ranges, with low inclinations.

[northcape]

... Neither KGV's nor Scharnhorst UPPER decks were not expected to resist armor piercing projectiles.

But initially you were referring to the poor (horizontal deck) penetration capabilities of both guns. While I agree on this for the smaller 11inch, both history and I think also common sense tell us something different for the 14inch...

What matters is the citadel armor - and her main armor deck.

Well, the knock-out of Scharnhorst's A-turret by DOY by a hit close to the turret (as well as for Bismarck vs.Rodney) tells us a different story (I'm maybe technically wrong here, since I'm not sure if these hit areas were actually protected by the main armour deck; but in any case the 14inch (and 16inch) hits on the deck disabled the main armament)

[alecsandros]

But initially you were referring to the poor (horizontal deck) penetration capabilities of both guns. While I agree on this for the smaller 11inch, both history and I think also common sense tell us something different for the 14inch...

Do some research pls.

Well, the knock-out of Scharnhorst's A-turret by DOY by a hit close to the turret (as well as for Bismarck vs.Rodney) tells us a different story (I'm maybe technically wrong here, since I'm not sure if these hit areas were actually protected by the main armour deck; but in any case the 14inch (and 16inch) hits on the deck disabled the main armament)

...It is not certain how the first salvo from Duke of York actualy hit the Scharnhorst.

Again, the 20-50mm thick upper deck of Scharnhorst was not expected to stop heavy shells. It's function was to decap and slow and initiate the fuze of the shell.
[by the way - have you questioned why wasn't Anton turret blown off completely by such a powerfull hit ?]

By comparison, KGV had 0mm of armor on her upper deck. Consequently, a 11" shell would certainly perforate it and explode somewhere between the MAD and uppper deck.

But this is not the issue - fact is horizontal citadel armor of both ships was imune to the opponent's gunfire.

[alecsandros]

KGV's belt is much deeper than Scharnhorst's and KGV's armoured deck runs across the ship from the top of the belt, so that the total protected volume is much larger than on Scharnhorst. Unlike Bismarck Scharhorst has only 45mm of side armour above the belt, so that her MAD is much more vulnerable to plunging fire than Bismarck; Scharnhorst would be at a severe disadvantage to KGV in any long range engagement.

... KGV's main belt covered ~ 56% of waterline, while Scharnhorst's covered 70%. And underwater hits were not that common at all.
Regardless, the protected volume is larger for Scharnhorst, because of her longer main belt (about 150m vs about 125m for KGV)

... Scharnhorst's upper belt was indeed 45mm, but KGV's was 0mm :) The 100mm MAD of Scharhnhorst was imune to 14" gunfire out to 25km.

Like Bismarck, Scharnhorst's turret faces have a thinly armoured frontal facet (150mm), which again is easily penetrated, so that her turrets have much less protection than KGV's and are very vulnerable to KGV's 14in guns.

Source for the underlined statement ?

The overall assement shows Scharnhorst to be highly vulnerable to KGV's 14in at almost any range, where Scharnhorst is only a threat to KGV at very close ranges, with low inclinations.

... Scharnhorst's turret face was 360mm thick KC n/A, slightly curved outward, 350mm thick barbettes (curved), con tower 350mm (curved), main belt 350mm+slopes +TDS.
So, please explain the above underlined statement, considering the ballistic qualities of the 14" shell.

Also, please explain how would "Scharnhorst is only a threat to KGV at very close ranges", given that the con tower of KGV was vulnerable out to 30km, and turret faces and barbettes out to 17km (considering perforation in a fit state to burst. Partial penetration was probable at 20km)

[dunmunro]

KGV's belt is much deeper than Scharnhorst's and KGV's armoured deck runs across the ship from the top of the belt, so that the total protected volume is much larger than on Scharnhorst. Unlike Bismarck Scharhorst has only 45mm of side armour above the belt, so that her MAD is much more vulnerable to plunging fire than Bismarck; Scharnhorst would be at a severe disadvantage to KGV in any long range engagement.

... KGV's main belt covered ~ 56% of waterline, while Scharnhorst's covered 70%. And underwater hits were not that common at all.
Regardless, the protected volume is larger for Scharnhorst, because of her longer main belt (about 150m vs about 125m for KGV)

... Scharnhorst's upper belt was indeed 45mm, but KGV's was 0mm :) The 100mm MAD of Scharhnhorst was imune to 14" gunfire out to 25km.

Like Bismarck, Scharnhorst's turret faces have a thinly armoured frontal facet (150mm), which again is easily penetrated, so that her turrets have much less protection than KGV's and are very vulnerable to KGV's 14in guns.

Source for the underlined statement ?

The overall assement shows Scharnhorst to be highly vulnerable to KGV's 14in at almost any range, where Scharnhorst is only a threat to KGV at very close ranges, with low inclinations.

... Scharnhorst's turret face was 360mm thick KC n/A, slightly curved outward, 350mm thick barbettes (curved), con tower 350mm (curved), main belt 350mm+slopes +TDS.
So, please explain the above underlined statement, considering the ballistic qualities of the 14" shell.

Also, please explain how would "Scharnhorst is only a threat to KGV at very close ranges", given that the con tower of KGV was vulnerable out to 30km, and turret faces and barbettes out to 17km (considering perforation in a fit state to burst. Partial penetration was probable at 20km)

Here's a cross section of KGV and Scharnhorst (not completely accurate as it is a modified drawing of Tirpitz and KGV):

we can see that only one deck of KGV is vulnerable to plunging fire versus 2 decks on Scharnhorst, plus Scharnhorst's shallower belt is more likely to suffer diving hits, like the one that crippled her at North Cape. Scharnhorst's magazines are extremely vulnerable to 14in plunging hits, but KGV's magazines are immune from Scharnhorst at any range. KGV also has belt and deck extensions forward and aft of the main belt - there is simply no comparison between the two in terms of armoured volume and armoured protection; KGV is far superior.
Here's an armour diagram for Scharnhorst:

note the very vulnerable 150mm turret face.

[alecsandros]

Scharnhorst's magazines are extremely vulnerable to 14in plunging hits,

Source or exlplanation pls.

but KGV's magazines are immune from Scharnhorst at any range.

... Scharnhorst's guns had a range in excess of 40km, and perforation of horizontal armor at that range was > 300mm Whotan. How are KGV's magazines imune to that ?

KGV also has belt and deck extensions forward and aft of the main belt - there is simply no comparison between the two in terms of armoured volume and armoured protection;

Scharnhorst had a 4.8m high and 150m long belt, on a 30m beam
KGV had a 7.2m high and 125m long belt, on a 31m beam. Notice that 50% of the main belt is submerged, tapering significantly to the bottom.
Thus 50% of the protected volume is actualy submerged, giving very good protection against diving shells, but their likelihood was not significant.

Very roughly: 4.8x150x30 = 21600 cubic meters for Schar (40% of it below the waterline), completely impregnable to 14" gunfire at ranges below 25km.
7.2x125x31 = 27900 cubic meters for KGV, (50% of it below the waterline), invulnerable to 11" gunfire at ranges of 7-30km.

Scharnhorst also had armored extensions over the stearing gear and forecastle.

So could you please explain further on the above underlined+bolded statement ?

Here's an armour diagram for Scharnhorst:
note the very vulnerable 150mm turret face.

... The sketch is wrong - the turret face was not 340mm, but 360mm KC n/A; turret top 150mm Whotan, not 100mm; turret front slope 180mm Whotan, not 150mm.

==
Any thoughts on the armor of the coning towers, and comparative protection of turrets and barbettes versus the enemy's guns ?

[dunmunro]

Scharnhorst's magazines are extremely vulnerable to 14in plunging hits,
Source or exlplanation pls.

The magazines are directly under the 105mm MAD, which is only protected by 45mm side and 50mm weather deck. A 14in shell can strike the MAD at almost any range.

but KGV's magazines are immune from Scharnhorst at any range.
... Scharnhorst's guns had a range in excess of 40km, and perforation of horizontal armor at that range was > 300mm Whotan. How are KGV's magazines imune to that ?

So Scharnhorst can hit targets that she cannot see? In any event GKDOS predicts penetration of ~180mm horizontal armour at ~45km. I don't see any curves that predict more than 200mm penetration. At very close ranges where Scharnhorst can "theoretically" penetrate KGV's belt, the 28cm shell cannot dive steeply enough to strike KGV's magazines

So could you please explain further on the above underlined+bolded statement ?

Scharnhorst's belt armour contributes little to her protected volume because her MAD doesn't cover the top of the belt. Protected Volume = volume of the hull under the MAD and between the main armoured bulkheads that enclose the side belt.

Here's an armour diagram for Scharnhorst:
note the very vulnerable 150mm turret face.

... The sketch is wrong - the turret face was not 340mm, but 360mm KC n/A; turret top 150mm Whotan, not 100mm; turret front slope 180mm Whotan, not 150mm.

==
Any thoughts on the armor of the coning towers, and comparative protection of turrets and barbettes versus the enemy's guns ?

Sources differ on the turret facet, but even 180mm means that the turret is vulnerable at ~25km, but how can you even begin to compare KGV's amour against 28cm guns versus Scharnhorst against 14in guns? RN 14in guns can penetrate 305mm of RN KC armour at ~450m/s at 30degs inclination versus ~700m/s for Scharnhorst. At reasonable target inclinations KGV is immune from Scharnhorst at all but the very closest ranges. Conning towers were a useless anachronism in WW2 and a waste of weight. All of KGV's actual conn functions are carried out below the MAD.

[alecsandros]

The magazines are directly under the 105mm MAD, which is only protected by 45mm side and 50mm weather deck. A 14in shell can strike the MAD at almost any range.

Yes, but it can not perforate it any range.
Perforation of homogenous armor is about 4.2 inches at 28.000yards, for British 14" shell, and that considering the cap still attached. Without the cap, perforation would be impossible at any range.

but KGV's magazines are immune from Scharnhorst at any range.
... Scharnhorst's guns had a range in excess of 40km, and perforation of horizontal armor at that range was > 300mm Whotan. How are KGV's magazines imune to that ?

So Scharnhorst can hit targets that she cannot see? In any event GKDOS predicts penetration of ~180mm horizontal armour at ~45km. I don't see any curves that predict more than 200mm penetration. At very close ranges where Scharnhorst can "theoretically" penetrate KGV's belt, the 28cm shell cannot dive steeply enough to strike KGV's magazines

According to GKDOS 100,
SK C34 28cm gun could perforate 300mm of Whotan if the shell would attack at a minimum of 463m/s and the impact would occur at near right angle (3* from the normal of the plate). At 480m/s, the angle can be up to 15* from the normal.

In real life, this would be unlikely, as the angle of fall at 40km was only 52*

However, the 150mm armor deck above KGV's magazines would be vulnerable at all ranges above 30km.

but how can you even begin to compare KGV's amour against 28cm guns versus Scharnhorst against 14in guns? RN 14in guns can penetrate 305mm of RN KC armour at ~450m/s at 30degs inclination versus ~700m/s for Scharnhorst. At reasonable target inclinations KGV is immune from Scharnhorst at all but the very closest ranges.

Well , it's a hypothetical scenario... :)

Conning towers were a useless anachronism in WW2 and a waste of weight. All of KGV's actual conn functions are carried out below the MAD.

All other major navies except the ROyal Navy opted for heavy armor in the con. [South Dakota, Iowa classes - 400mm thick walls; Veneto - 300mm thick walls, Bismarck -350mm thick walls, Yamato - 500mm thick, Richelieu - 330mm thick, IIRC, and so on]

Losing the command positions from a few lucky shots is very dangerous. And if those shots can come from light cruisers, or even destroyers... it's not good, in my opinion.

Of course, it's not good either to have a large APC shell perforate the walls of the con and explode inside... The damage is much larger than if it would pass through. So the con should either be extremely well armored to protect against heavy gunfire at likely battle ranges, OR lightly armored or not armored at all...

In this particular battle (Schar vs KGV), the high rate of fire of Scharnhrost is rather dangerous for KGV's topside, practically everything above the armored citadel...

Scharnhorst can put up 27-30 x 11" shells/minute, which can be pretty nasty for the command personnel sitting in KGV's lightly armored con towers.
KGV can respond with 15 x 14" shells/minute.

===
The area of destruction woudl be:
- 11" guns versus KGV's topside (including con): 30km
- 11" guns versus KGV's turrets/barbettes: 17km
- 11" guns versus KGV's armored belt: 7km

- 14" guns versus Scharnhorst's topside (without con): 33km (maximum gun range)
- 14" guns versus Schar con tower: 18km
- 14" guns versus Schar turrets/barbettes: about 18km for turret face; maybe 25km and above for turret front slope
- 14" guns versus Schar main armor system: 0km

===