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.
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 10:43 pm

Makes sense on the 11" gun, RF. Treaty issues

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 10:44 pm

It is very important to cap the shell and 145mm are capping BB shells surely but not 45mm.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2865
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 » Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:34 pm

Garyt wrote:
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.


Matrose 71 wrote:It is very important to cap the shell and 145mm are capping BB shells surely but not 45mm.


Gary,

What Matrose is describing is de-capping. The weak upper belt may have played a role in Scharnhorst losing Anton early in the fight with Duke of York, which of course had a domino effect on the course of the remaining battle. The hit may (likely) have passed through the upper (non )belt and penetrated the barbet below the weather deck. The range was barely 12,000 yards so we should not expect any practical barbet armour thickness to provide protection. But de-capping can. If it had been Tirpitz, for example, the shell would have been de-capped and it would most likely shatter against the barbet.

This is likely what happened in the case of the Kirishima 14" shell shattering against the South Dakota's Number 3 barbet. In this case it struck the 38mm weather deck first and was de-capped before striking the barbet. Had it been a little lower, by-passing the upper deck, it would have struck the barbet fully capped.

At longer ranges and/or more acute target angles the thin upper belt of Scharnhorst would likely de-cap large caliber shells. It would certainly initiate the fuse of an AP shell at any range. But in the case of the barbets there was not enough distance for the fuse to go off before it could reach a near by barbet. At ranges of less than about 25,000 yards a British AP shell passing through the upper belt area on Scharnhorst would explode before reaching the main armoured deck.
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 » Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:50 am

Gotcha. The decapping formula is a bit vague to me, mostly because I don't know which shells would be type 1 and which ones type 2.

What I have been able to gather is if you have a decapping layer at .2 of the diameter of the shell you pretty well insure a decap, this being at lower levels of obliquity. At higher levels of obliquity less is needed, which would probably explain the ability of rather thin deck armor to act as a decapping layer against shells.

I juat was not thinking along the lines of the upper belt actually being a decapping layer for the barbette! :D

Christian VII.
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:49 am

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

Postby Christian VII. » Mon Aug 24, 2015 1:53 am

With fully functioning radar and top director, I'd expect Scharnhorst to outshoot the KGV class as well due to her higher rate of fire and more accurate guns. (Esp. considering what she managed to do with just 3 guns vs DoY)

Now whilst the 11" AP shells lacked the power to penetrate the belt, the use of HE shells could've quickly reduced the fighting capability of KGV class BB with some well placed hits.

I mean we know what effect PE's 8" guns had on PoW, at these calibers the damage wrought is rather extensive with a well placed hit.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
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 » Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:12 am

Christian VII. wrote:
I mean we know what effect PE's 8" guns had on PoW, at these calibers the damage wrought is rather extensive with a well placed hit.


Well the damage wasn't that great in terms of impairing existing fighting efficiency - two hits below the waterline which did cause flooding while a third shell failed to explode.

On paper Scharnhorst did have advantages but the reality suggests that it wasn't that good against true battlewagons...
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
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 » Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:04 am

RF wrote:
Christian VII. wrote:
I mean we know what effect PE's 8" guns had on PoW, at these calibers the damage wrought is rather extensive with a well placed hit.


Well the damage wasn't that great in terms of impairing existing fighting efficiency - two hits below the waterline which did cause flooding while a third shell failed to explode.

On paper Scharnhorst did have advantages but the reality suggests that it wasn't that good against true battlewagons...

One 8" hit came to rest inside one of the 133mm shell handling rooms..

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
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 » Mon Aug 24, 2015 1:53 pm

But it didn't explode - it was later thrown overboard.

The shell handling room was as you say for the 5.25 inch rounds, not the 14 inch. The room was protected against flash over into the main magazines so it is likely that damage from the shell detonating would have been limited. There was no danger of POW suffering the same fate as Hood.
Last edited by RF on Mon Aug 24, 2015 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
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 » Mon Aug 24, 2015 1:54 pm

Duplicate posting cancelled.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Christian VII.
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:49 am

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

Postby Christian VII. » Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:53 pm

The 280mm C/34's packed a lot more punch than PE's 203mm guns though, which would've allowed them to reach the 14" magazine at distances around 16 km, whilst the 203's couldn't. 280mm HE shells would've also been more damaging. That coupled with the high RoF and accuracy and I think that a Scharnhorst class BB would've made things a lot worse for the British in comparison to having a cruiser like PE in its stead.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

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

Postby dunmunro » Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:46 am

Christian VII. wrote:The 280mm C/34's packed a lot more punch than PE's 203mm guns though, which would've allowed them to reach the 14" magazine at distances around 16 km, whilst the 203's couldn't. 280mm HE shells would've also been more damaging. That coupled with the high RoF and accuracy and I think that a Scharnhorst class BB would've made things a lot worse for the British in comparison to having a cruiser like PE in its stead.


KM penetration tables show that the 28cm C/34 cannot effectively penetrate 390mm of armour even at a 0d target angle over ~11000m. KGV main belt thickness = 375mm plus 22mm backing plate = effectiveness of ~390mm and behind that there is a 43mm splinter bulkhead and then a 38mm splinter deck above and around the magazines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_be ... ection.png

Theoretically, KGV's magazines are practically immune from KM 28cm guns due to armour considerations alone,when we add in typical target angles, but additionally KGV's magazines are located so low in the hull that any round that does penetrate the belt will not descend at a steep enough angle to encounter the magazines.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
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 » Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:31 am

dunmunro wrote:
Christian VII. wrote:The 280mm C/34's packed a lot more punch than PE's 203mm guns though, which would've allowed them to reach the 14" magazine at distances around 16 km, whilst the 203's couldn't. 280mm HE shells would've also been more damaging. That coupled with the high RoF and accuracy and I think that a Scharnhorst class BB would've made things a lot worse for the British in comparison to having a cruiser like PE in its stead.


KM penetration tables show that the 28cm C/34 cannot effectively penetrate 390mm of armour even at a 0d target angle over ~11000m. KGV main belt thickness = 375mm plus 22mm backing plate = effectiveness of ~390mm and behind that there is a 43mm splinter bulkhead and then a 38mm splinter deck above and around the magazines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_be ... ection.png

Theoretically, KGV's magazines are practically immune from KM 28cm guns due to armour considerations alone,when we add in typical target angles, but additionally KGV's magazines are located so low in the hull that any round that does penetrate the belt will not descend at a steep enough angle to encounter the magazines.


Additionaly, the main belt in KGV was not perfectly vertical, but declined at 7 to 10*, decreasing chances of penetration.

However, it must be noted that the entire volume of the ship situated outside the main citadel was vulnerable to 11" gunfire at any likely battle range (con tower, main and secondary turrets and barbettes, steering gear compartments, forecastle, funnels and upper uptakes, etc. )

So allthough sinking by 11" gunfire would be extremely unlikely, bad damage and incapacitation could occur.

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 26, 2015 6:23 pm

Fire control and radar would both be vulnerable and not require a penetrating hit. Shells could easily start fires as well which could create big problems, if not handled properly even magazine explosions of course. And a turret need not be penetrated to take out - a well placed shell could jam a turret.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
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 27, 2015 8:07 am

That would apply to all six ships here.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
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 27, 2015 8:56 am

Garyt wrote: And a turret need not be penetrated to take out - a well placed shell could jam a turret.

... That happened many times in the war. Bismarck suffered from this also.

However, it should be noted that not any shot can produce such an event.

A 700 - 800kg projectile traveling at 500m/s has considerable energy, that can knock out an enemy turret, if the impact occurs in such a way that sufficient energy is delivered to the turret's structure.

A 300kg projectile traveling at 500m/s however has far fewer chances of knocking out the same turret in the same circumstances, because it carries 2.5 times less kinetical energy.


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests