Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7488
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby RF » Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:58 am

Dave Saxton wrote:
Why would Scharnhorst be easy to defeat compared to Bismarck and Tirpitz, or KGV and POW?


Lack of hitting power. Had Scharnhorst been given 15 inch guns then that ship would be a totally different proposition in this type of battle.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Steve Crandell » Wed Aug 19, 2015 9:29 am

Dave Saxton wrote:
Steve Crandell wrote:
I think that on paper any one of the three British ships would defeat Scharnhorst pretty easily, so wouldn't the advantage go to the British?


Why would Scharnhorst be easy to defeat compared to Bismarck and Tirpitz, or KGV and POW?


You probably aren't kidding, so I have nothing more to say about that.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2874
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Dave Saxton » Wed Aug 19, 2015 2:08 pm

RF wrote:
Dave Saxton wrote:
Why would Scharnhorst be easy to defeat compared to Bismarck and Tirpitz, or KGV and POW?


Lack of hitting power. Had Scharnhorst been given 15 inch guns then that ship would be a totally different proposition in this type of battle.

But that weakness is on the offensive side of the ledger.
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
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7488
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby RF » Wed Aug 19, 2015 2:15 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:
But that weakness is on the offensive side of the ledger.


Precisely.

Scharnhorst cannot deliver a quick knock out blow.

Whilst being heavily armoured, it is not as well protected as Bismarck/Tirpitz. Once the 11 inch guns are degraded Scharnhorst is essentially defeated, it wouldn't be necessary to sink the ship.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Matrose71
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Matrose71 » Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:22 pm

Hello,

it is very decisive where in the battleline SH is driving. The germans are not stupid and SH could fight most effectiv against Hood and her "old" armour. Against Hoods armouur SH had a penetration power up to 300mm at 20000yards.
The shorter the range, the better for SHs upper belt, for the german fleet a battle range of 16000-17000yards would be optimal and at this range the guns of SH could do a lot to the armour sheme and old armour of Hood and her own citadel is mostly save, because the angle of fall is not enough to reach the main armour deck through the thin upper belt at this range.

To me it is suprising to think SH is easy meat and couldn't do any harm to the british ships.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2874
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Dave Saxton » Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:53 pm

RF wrote:
Dave Saxton wrote:
But that weakness is on the offensive side of the ledger.


Precisely.

Scharnhorst cannot deliver a quick knock out blow.

Whilst being heavily armoured, it is not as well protected as Bismarck/Tirpitz. Once the 11 inch guns are degraded Scharnhorst is essentially defeated, it wouldn't be necessary to sink the ship.

But could 14", 15", and 16" armaments deliver quick knock out blows against equally modern opponents barring short battle ranges? SH could do just as much outside the citadel damage with its 11"ers as could the larger guns.
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: 2874
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Dave Saxton » Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:12 pm

Matrose71 wrote:
To me it is suprising to think SH is easy meat and couldn't do any harm to the british ships.


I agree. The same applies to longer battle ranges as well. As I recall, the deck penetration figures for the 11" guns from Gkdos100 are rather surprising plus 25km. Gkdos100 also recommends to use HE if it is unlikely that AP can defeat the citadel protection of the opponent at the given battle range. HE could quickly degrade an enemy's offensive capabilities.
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.

Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Garyt » Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:08 pm

I though the Bismarck class and Scharnhorst class were pretty similar in armor protection? A little more deck armor for the Bismarck from what I gather, but otherwise pretty similar?

Also seems the 11.1" gun was worse, but not terribly so in penetration to the British 14"/45 On the Prince of Wales Class?

All that being said, I never quite understood why the Germans did not go with a 15" gun on the Sharnhorst class initially.

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Steve Crandell » Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:14 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:
Matrose71 wrote:
To me it is suprising to think SH is easy meat and couldn't do any harm to the british ships.


I agree. The same applies to longer battle ranges as well. As I recall, the deck penetration figures for the 11" guns from Gkdos100 are rather surprising plus 25km. Gkdos100 also recommends to use HE if it is unlikely that AP can defeat the citadel protection of the opponent at the given battle range. HE could quickly degrade an enemy's offensive capabilities.


Interesting point of view. Apparently the battle between Scharnhorst and Duke of York was a fluke, and Scharhorst should have pulverized the British ship with here superior rate of fire. I can't imagine why she ran away from an equal engagement like that.

Matrose71
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Matrose71 » Thu Aug 20, 2015 1:11 am

?????,

Are you a little crazy?

we have talked about Hood and her armour layout and she was built from WWI armour, with about 30% less residence compare to WWII armour.
Have you read, that SH could easily sank a modern KGV?
Your bias is a little crazy!

SH could stand it's man in a battleline with BS and TP and she is not easy meat and if the battle range is at 17000yards or beyond, she could do damage with her APC shells.
Last edited by Matrose71 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Matrose71
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Matrose71 » Thu Aug 20, 2015 1:18 am

Garyt wrote:I though the Bismarck class and Scharnhorst class were pretty similar in armor protection? A little more deck armor for the Bismarck from what I gather, but otherwise pretty similar?

Also seems the 11.1" gun was worse, but not terribly so in penetration to the British 14"/45 On the Prince of Wales Class?

All that being said, I never quite understood why the Germans did not go with a 15" gun on the Sharnhorst class initially.


No,

the deck armour and spaced array armour layout was equal from SH to BS. (50mm weather deck and 80mm main armour deck), equal to 6 inch single plate, rated from british post war ADM papers.

The main difference was the upper belt (2,30m high) SH had 45mm and BS 145mm and the slopes (turtle deck) of SH was 105mm and BS had 110mm.
The thin upper belt of SH was a realy major design flaw!
Last edited by Matrose71 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 1:23 am, edited 2 times in total.

Matrose71
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Matrose71 » Thu Aug 20, 2015 1:20 am

double post

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby alecsandros » Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:10 am

... Gentlemen,

IMHO, Scharnhorst was no match for either British ship presented here. While she was somewhat better protected than Hood, her 300kg AP projectiles were insufficient to cause significant damage to a large enemy capital ship.

For some reason or another, her combat shooting vs comparable opponents , throughout the war , wasn't particularly impressive, and she was mostly an unlucky ship.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7488
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby RF » Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:20 am

Garyt wrote:
All that being said, I never quite understood why the Germans did not go with a 15" gun on the Sharnhorst class initially.


The Scharnhorsts were developed initially as upgrades on the panzerschiffe with a third turret. As such the triple 11 inch turrets used for the panzerschiffe were available for immediate construction, whereas the 15 inch had not been properly upgraded since WW1. Also Hitler chimed in with warnings to Raeder not to provoke the British so shortly after the Anglo-German naval agreement of 1934 had been signed. So 11 inch were used instead of 15 inch, with the option to later replace the 11 inch with 15 inch.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Garyt » Thu Aug 20, 2015 10:41 pm

The thin upper belt of SH was a realy major design flaw!


It would seem against battleships that it really would not make a big difference - 6" even though more than 2" is still not much of an obstacle for a BB shell.

Cruisers and destroyers would be different though, you would get some immune zone vs. 8" guns with 6" armor, virtually no immune zone with 2" armor. A 5" or so destroyer gun could penetrate the 2" armor at closer ranges, while a 6" belt would be pretty well immune at all ranges.


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron