Scharnhorst aided from Luetzow & Scheer at the North Cap

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
miro777
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Scharnhorst aided from Luetzow & Scheer at the North Cap

Post by miro777 » Wed May 31, 2006 6:04 pm

hey...
simple szenario...
if we put two pocketbattleships with the Scharnhorst...
wat would happen?
would they all escape?
could they sink the HMS DoY?
would they meet at all?

thanx
adios
miro
Die See ruft....

User avatar
Gary
Senior Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Northumberland

Post by Gary » Wed May 31, 2006 6:14 pm

If the RN suspected that Panzershciffs were with Scharnhorst than expect Renown and some more cruisers to join the British force.
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst

User avatar
miro777
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by miro777 » Wed May 31, 2006 6:17 pm

ok
assume that the RN did not know anything about the Panzerschiffe...
adios
miro
Die See ruft....

User avatar
Gary
Senior Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Northumberland

Post by Gary » Wed May 31, 2006 6:42 pm

Scharnhorst has some protection, to a degree, from 14" shells.
Panzerschiffs have none.
They would want no part of the DOY (come to think of it neither would Scharnhorst if she could help it).
I believe that the British was concentarte their main efforts on killing Scharnhorst as a battleship is a much juicer target than a pair of over gunned heavy cruisers.
HMS Belfast with her rapid and radar assisted fire could really mess up a panzerschiff
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst

User avatar
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Post by RNfanDan » Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:40 am

I think the presence of these added lesser ships, would have been academic. As amply demonstrated at the Battle of the Barents Sea, December 1942, Panzerschiffe were ineffective, despite enjoying considerable superiority of force over the British.

At that battle, Lützow and the cruiser Hipper, in company with a number of destroyers, were tactically embarrassed by Burnett's single cruiser and a handful of British destroyers under Sherbrooke, while attempting to attack a vulnerable convoy to Russia.

A year later and in similar weather and operating conditions, but with Burnett's available strength now being superior by several orders of magnitude (and with Fraser in powerful support with DoY), the Panzerschiffe would have either turned-tail in a similar fashion, or stood firm and been sunk, although their presence might have prolonged the action, and possibly even have allowed the Scharnhorst to escape.

All told, the British simply had too much available force and too many ways to apply it, to have been defeated.
Image

Captain Morgan
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:27 am
Location: The Great Lakes, USA

Post by Captain Morgan » Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:44 pm

RNfanDan wrote:I think the presence of these added lesser ships, would have been academic. As amply demonstrated at the Battle of the Barents Sea, December 1942, Panzerschiffe were ineffective, despite enjoying considerable superiority of force over the British.

At that battle, Lützow and the cruiser Hipper, in company with a number of destroyers, were tactically embarrassed by Burnett's single cruiser and a handful of British destroyers under Sherbrooke, while attempting to attack a vulnerable convoy to Russia.
Which one was the single RN cruiser at Barents Sea, Sheffield OR Jamaica? I always thought they both fired on and hit Hipper. Sherbrooke was excellent in the battle and the Lutzow was as timid as could be. Hipper at least attacked even though she ended up getting attacked at short range when she did not detect the approach of the cruisers.
There are 2 types of vessels out there. One type is called a target. If it isn't capable of silently doing 30+ knots at 2000 ft depth its always considered a target. The vessel that can silently go fast and deep is the one the targets are afraid of.

User avatar
Gary
Senior Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Northumberland

Post by Gary » Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:40 pm

I'll 2nd that Captain Morgan.

I always thought it was the combined effort of Sheffield AND Jamaica that saw off the Hipper :?
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:09 pm

How about Scharnhorst and Gneisenau together to take on Duke of York and the cruisers, plus the five Narvik class destroyers?

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:39 pm

RF wrote:How about Scharnhorst and Gneisenau together to take on Duke of York and the cruisers, plus the five Narvik class destroyers?
If the weather and sea state were very good, they might have a chance against DoY by herself.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:17 pm

I believe that a more assertive scenario is to put Tirpitz instead of Schanhorst or... with Schanhorst. Having the 8 x 15" main guns of Tirpitz the British would disengage, even with DoY. Why? They have orders to do so. Only with overwhelming superiority or with the escort of a 16" gun-US battleship the allies would attempt the engagement with a Bismarck Class battleship: Admiralty Orders.
And this is quite curious. In more than one scenario on this forum the Bismarck Class is depicted as "a flaw designed, shallow belt armoured, with faulty AP shells and undertrained crew that would be beaten easily by any allied BB that had an operational radar." But after the undeniable historical facts and the evidence that points that Renown didn´t engage Bismarck after what happened with Hood because there were orders not to engage the German BB on a ship vs. ship basis, we can conclude that the Bismarck Class was a serious threat to the British, even being just two BBs (well, after 27th May, 1941 only one).
And about the radar, that´s relative. The British had tactical superiority with radar at DS. Still Bismarck shoot her way out of the trap. And in Guadalcanal the USN had radar superiority over IJN and there were ocassions in which the Japanese, also, shoot their way without the radar.
Where is all this going to? Well, DoY, even with a 10 Force gale, and the radar could had a very bad day if, suddenly, instead of finding herself being shot by 11" of Schanhorst (which didn´t find their target) is being shot by 8 x 15" salvoes. If the DoY´s skipper want the bridge after the combat he would disengage.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:49 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:I believe that a more assertive scenario is to put Tirpitz instead of Schanhorst or... with Schanhorst. Having the 8 x 15" main guns of Tirpitz the British would disengage, even with DoY. Why? They have orders to do so. Only with overwhelming superiority or with the escort of a 16" gun-US battleship the allies would attempt the engagement with a Bismarck Class battleship: Admiralty Orders.
And this is quite curious. In more than one scenario on this forum the Bismarck Class is depicted as "a flaw designed, shallow belt armoured, with faulty AP shells and undertrained crew that would be beaten easily by any allied BB that had an operational radar." But after the undeniable historical facts and the evidence that points that Renown didn´t engage Bismarck after what happened with Hood because there were orders not to engage the German BB on a ship vs. ship basis, we can conclude that the Bismarck Class was a serious threat to the British, even being just two BBs (well, after 27th May, 1941 only one).
And about the radar, that´s relative. The British had tactical superiority with radar at DS. Still Bismarck shoot her way out of the trap. And in Guadalcanal the USN had radar superiority over IJN and there were ocassions in which the Japanese, also, shoot their way without the radar.
Where is all this going to? Well, DoY, even with a 10 Force gale, and the radar could had a very bad day if, suddenly, instead of finding herself being shot by 11" of Schanhorst (which didn´t find their target) is being shot by 8 x 15" salvoes. If the DoY´s skipper want the bridge after the combat he would disengage.
Good grief, Karl; you've really gotten upset about negative comments about Bismarck, haven't you? It's like every post now you bring that up. I don't know anyone who would describe Bismarck like you just did, but you are really on some kind of campaign about it.

Comparing US radar problems in the Solomons battle isn't fair. It suffered from it's use near islands, which isn't comparable to a battle far out at sea. Even then, it did give the US an advantage and just because the Japanese did ok sometimes without it doesn't mean it didn't affect the outcome.

Radar wasn't all that important at DS. There was good visibility and Bismarck had excellent optical rangefinders, as you well know. Furthermore, as several people have pointed out, until late war it didn't have bearing resolution good enough for truly effective "blind" fire.

I didn't know the British were ordered not to engage Tirpitz without overwhelming force. I learned something new then. It doesn't surprise me though. Why should they, when overwhelming force was usually possible? Why take unnecessary risks?

I don't think very many of us feel Bismarck was a piece of junk. She was a modern battleship and probably the best in the world at the time of her commissioning. It's just that some of us have gotten tired of people describing her as some kind of unsinkable supership instead of a product of human engineering with flaws and compromises like everything else. I'm really sorry if that upsets you, but you aren't going to convince anyone otherwise with sarcasm.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:03 am

Hi Bgile: :cool:

First things first:

Quoting Antonio Bonomi´s post of April 21st, 2006:
Ciao all,

after Bismarck chase, W. Churchill ordered that to manage Tirpitz it was mandatorely required that a 16 inch armed American fast battleship must have been with any Royal Navy modern battleship of KG V class in order to engage the Tirpitz.

No battlecruisers like Renown or Repulse allowed to be in the fight, after what happened to Hood, this was executed on May 27th immediately for Renown kept out of the Bismarck last battle.

More, they must have to had air coverage and superiority ( aircraft carrier task force in the area ).

This is not only proven but a request from Churchill to Roosevelt was issued requesting such a ship to be detached to Scapa Flow.

I think USS Washington was there for some time.

Just an input for your evaluations,....

Ciao Antonio
About other issues here I quote:

Bgile:
Radar wasn't all that important at DS. There was good visibility and Bismarck had excellent optical rangefinders, as you well know. Furthermore, as several people have pointed out, until late war it didn't have bearing resolution good enough for truly effective "blind" fire.
I believe that there have been many posts, specially in the Hypothetical Scenarios Forum in which the Radar Directed Fire have been regarded as the ultimate WWII firing solution in naval engagements, even crucial.
I don't think very many of us feel Bismarck was a piece of junk. She was a modern battleship and probably the best in the world at the time of her commissioning. It's just that some of us have gotten tired of people describing her as some kind of unsinkable supership instead of a product of human engineering with flaws and compromises like everything else. I'm really sorry if that upsets you, but you aren't going to convince anyone otherwise with sarcasm.
I know what do you mean. Bismarck have been a mythological monster for more than 60 years. When I was told about her story for the first time, being a six year old kid I imagined Bismarck fighting against 40 or 50 "English" warships singlehanded. James Cameron, in his dubious documentary, calls the Bismarck "the Death Star of her era"... "the ultimate destructive machine"... In the movie "Sink the Bismarck" the impression of her ultimate design is synthethized in Lutjens speech: "this is the most powerfull Battleship ever built.." and so on.
So, for me to find the REAL Battleship Bismarck was an adventure and, finding that she was no Super Mega Giga Undestructible Battleship only reinforced her story and her image.... happily.
I accepted the fact that when Bismarck was sinking the Japanese already had the Giga Battleship called Yamato (and Musashi); that also the USN was working in the Iowa Class that was the Giga (-.001) Battleship.
But in this forum I have found people that are fond to point out how a flawed design and lousy construction Bismarck was; it´s like trying to MINIMIZE her achievement at DS and her ordeal after that. And this has taken force lately, so I just want to counterbalance that. Your point is exactly what I think:
She was a modern battleship and probably the best in the world at the time of her commissioning.
And the most beautifull too.

Best regards!
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Post Reply