Prince Eugane v AGS

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby Paul L » Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:05 pm

alecsandros wrote:
jabeque wrote:The mistake is to think that Hitler and Raeder knew (or should know) what would be the (naval) war.

Raeder made long-term plans. If they had guessed what the (naval) war would be, they would not have started it.

Lack of experience aside,
it was painfully clear that the Kriegsmarine could only wage a hit-and-run type of war, with commerce raiding (with surface ships) and Uboat war at it's core.

In that regard, the employment of long range heavily armed pocket battleships, equipped with reconnaissance planes and surface-search radars, was ideal , and could cause considerable disruption among enemy sea routes. The exploits of Admiral Scheer show quite explicitly how usefull such a ship was in the war.
The existence of Dunkerque didn't change much, as Dunkerque was a short range ship, and there were only 2 built. 2 units was hopelessly insufficient to cope with Atlantic warfare.


Agreed!
In the wake of NAZI power grab in the early 1930s, existing programs remained in effect, but were re-examined. The only thing all the factions could agree on was the war would be on the backs of the U-Boat fleet/ campaign. All efforts production efforts should be to maximise U-BOAT production. I recall Rossler reported plans to build 90 U-Boats plus another 90 once the war began, but Kaptain Doenitz demanded 300 U-Boat fleet!

Kaptain Heye suggested building a dozen big Panzerschiffe to run interference on enemy convoy escorts, to make it easier for U-Boats wolf pack to attack. Admiral Carls took it one step further arguing the U-BOAT fleet with Heye Panzerschiffe should be part of battle groups centered on an aircraft carriers and flotillas of Zerstroers to orchestrate these U-Boat wolf packs.

No where is there any mention of battle ships until Admiral Raeder steps in insisting on balanced "Tirpitz" fleet. It would appear Hitler stepped in at that point putting an end by demanding the KM be nothing more than a coastal defence fleet able to control the Baltic and sortie into the North Sea. In a desperate attempt to salvage "Reichsmarine Umbauplan 1932", he persuaded Hitler a small anti French fleet could be useful at that time.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby paul.mercer » Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:43 pm

The Panzerchiffes offered substantial advantages over the Hipper class (long range, devastating armament that could destroy any contemporary 8" heavy cruiser before the heavy cruiser entered effective own gun range, far more reliable machinery, etc). This was the reason why Graf SPee, Scheer, Lutzow produced so many difficulties for the Admiralty: at any given time, there were a large number of convoys in the Atlantic , and only some of them coudl be given battleships for protection, and only a few hunter-killer groups could be given fast battleships at any given time .[/quote]

Gentlemen,
I can see why the RN would have been worried, especially if more had been built. The only ships that would be capable of catching and outgunning them would have been the KGV's, Hood, Repulse, Renown or failing that two 8x8" cruisers working together, although I suppose it might have been possible to hunt down their supply ships to stop them refueling.

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

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby alecsandros » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:37 am

paul.mercer wrote:Gentlemen,
I can see why the RN would have been worried, especially if more had been built. The only ships that would be capable of catching and outgunning them would have been the KGV's, Hood, Repulse, Renown or failing that two 8x8" cruisers working together, although I suppose it might have been possible to hunt down their supply ships to stop them refueling.


Yes, with the essential mention that the Royal Navy had multiple tasks to perform at the same time, and adding another task (hunting a Panzerchiffe or it's supply network) in the Atlantic would only strain an already heavily strained system.

The Royal Navy was expected to defend the home waters, cover convoys to and from Gibraltar, USA, South Africa, Suez, Malta, etc. Provide covering for possible landings , or evacuations (Norway, Dunkirq, Crete). Do battle with enemy fleet(s) in the Atlantic, Mediteranean, Indian and Pacific Oceans (implying battle with Kriegsmarine, Regia Maria, Imperial Japanese Navy).

If the KGM could bring 4 operational Panzerchiffs simultaneously in the Atlantic, that would be very very bad for the RN, especialy in the 1940 (when there were no KGVs operational).

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

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby Dave Saxton » Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:20 pm

The undoing of the lone warship raider concept was the rise of naval air power during the war. This occurred post 1940. However, in the 1930's naval air power (as well as submarines) remained unproven.
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.

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby Paul L » Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:29 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:The undoing of the lone warship raider concept was the rise of naval air power during the war. This occurred post 1940. However, in the 1930's naval air power (as well as submarines) remained unproven.



And the fact that aircraft carriers were such a political football for all the powers in the interwar years.I guess ergo the British treaty attempts to minimise the threat, and why the KM should not acquiesce.

I'm always reminded of

https://archive.org/stream/ReviewOfGerm ... 1/mode/2up
"Eine mal is kein mal"

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

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby alecsandros » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:04 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:The undoing of the lone warship raider concept was the rise of naval air power during the war. This occurred post 1940. However, in the 1930's naval air power (as well as submarines) remained unproven.

True, but that required a large number of long-range aircraft or a significant number of aircraft-carrying ships, neither of which were in sufficient numbers before mid-1942 (B-24s, A/S PBYs and Short Sunderlands, a few serious carriers and a few escort carriers), and none of which were realy in abundance (and able to cover the larger part of the Atlantic ocean) before mid-1943 (good numbers of long range-patrol aircraft, mid-Atlantic gap largely closed, a larger number of actualy available carriers of multiple types in the Atlantic).

Therefore, powerfull actions by Panzerchiffes between Sept1939-June1942 (at least) were probable, and up until June1943 conceivable. But with 12 Panzerchiffes at the start of the war, it is possible that the Atlantic war would have been very different, and possible have another outcome, before end-1942...

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby Paul L » Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:41 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Dave Saxton wrote:The undoing of the lone warship raider concept was the rise of naval air power during the war. This occurred post 1940. However, in the 1930's naval air power (as well as submarines) remained unproven.

True, but that required a large number of long-range aircraft or a significant number of aircraft-carrying ships, neither of which were in sufficient numbers before mid-1942 (B-24s, A/S PBYs and Short Sunderlands, a few serious carriers and a few escort carriers), and none of which were realy in abundance (and able to cover the larger part of the Atlantic ocean) before mid-1943 (good numbers of long range-patrol aircraft, mid-Atlantic gap largely closed, a larger number of actualy available carriers of multiple types in the Atlantic).

Therefore, powerfull actions by Panzerchiffes between Sept1939-June1942 (at least) were probable, and up until June1943 conceivable. But with 12 Panzerchiffes at the start of the war, it is possible that the Atlantic war would have been very different, and possible have another outcome, before end-1942...


This is especially important since German Intel were reading merchant codes through 1943. The convoy pattern had been deduced by mid 1941 with signals intercepts through early 1944 , about 1/2 of all N. Atlantic convoys were detected . Only 1/4 of these convoys were attacked due to lack of assets [wolf packs] in the vicinity. A couple DOZEN PBC could rotate 1/2 dozen raiders during each of the best seasons [ heavy weather in the fall-spring].
"Eine mal is kein mal"

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

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby alecsandros » Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:59 am

Paul L wrote:

This is especially important since German Intel were reading merchant codes through 1943. The convoy pattern had been deduced by mid 1941 with signals intercepts through early 1944 , about 1/2 of all N. Atlantic convoys were detected . Only 1/4 of these convoys were attacked due to lack of assets [wolf packs] in the vicinity. A couple DOZEN PBC could rotate 1/2 dozen raiders during each of the best seasons [ heavy weather in the fall-spring].

Exactly !
Also, adding the newest surface-search radars and several floatplanes on each PBB , plus having sufficient secondary assets to create the necessary confusion at each sortie from the northern ports into the mid and south-Atlantic, would make life for the Royal Navy all the more difficult.

A 4-ship sortie through Denmark Strait (in a single route, followed by separation when reaching a mid-Atlantic point) in Oct-1940 would be potentialy catastrophic for the British supply lines. France was out of the war, thus only British fast heavy ships and torpedo-carrying aircraft carriers could be relied on to counter the raiders. Those were:
in Scapa Flow: HMS KGV, freshly commissioned for trials in Oct 1st 1940 (incomplete), HMS Hood, HMS Repulse, HMS Furious.
at Gibraltar: HMS Renown, HMS Ark Royal.
in the Mediteranean HMS Illustrious, HMS Eagle.
in the South Atlantic - HMS Hermes.

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

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby RF » Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:15 am

The one point with this is that the Norwegian campaign had depleted the KM's available ships for the fall of 1940. Only Scheer was available.

Running this as a hypothetical scenario - the Norwegian campaign would still have caused substantial losses and delays.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby paul.mercer » Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:54 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Paul L wrote:

This is especially important since German Intel were reading merchant codes through 1943. The convoy pattern had been deduced by mid 1941 with signals intercepts through early 1944 , about 1/2 of all N. Atlantic convoys were detected . Only 1/4 of these convoys were attacked due to lack of assets [wolf packs] in the vicinity. A couple DOZEN PBC could rotate 1/2 dozen raiders during each of the best seasons [ heavy weather in the fall-spring].

Exactly !
Also, adding the newest surface-search radars and several floatplanes on each PBB , plus having sufficient secondary assets to create the necessary confusion at each sortie from the northern ports into the mid and south-Atlantic, would make life for the Royal Navy all the more difficult.

A 4-ship sortie through Denmark Strait (in a single route, followed by separation when reaching a mid-Atlantic point) in Oct-1940 would be potentialy catastrophic for the British supply lines. France was out of the war, thus only British fast heavy ships and torpedo-carrying aircraft carriers could be relied on to counter the raiders. Those were:
in Scapa Flow: HMS KGV, freshly commissioned for trials in Oct 1st 1940 (incomplete), HMS Hood, HMS Repulse, HMS Furious.
at Gibraltar: HMS Renown, HMS Ark Royal.
in the Mediteranean HMS Illustrious, HMS Eagle.
in the South Atlantic - HMS Hermes.


How about 2 8x8" cruisers like Norfolk and Suffolk working together, would they be enough to subdue one of them?

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

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby RF » Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:07 pm

paul.mercer wrote:
How about 2 8x8" cruisers like Norfolk and Suffolk working together, would they be enough to subdue one of them?


Essentially a Battle of the River Plate scenario. Are the two county class cruisers sufficiently able to attack their target on opposite flanks to either divide German fire or to leave one of the counties with free target practice.

Vice-Admiral Holland on Hood had intended Wake-Walkers' two cruisers to take on Prinz Eugen while his ships dealt with Bismarck, on the assumption that the Eugen was the trailing German ship. However as it was the leading ship it never came to fruition.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby Paul L » Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:08 pm

RF wrote:
paul.mercer wrote:
How about 2 8x8" cruisers like Norfolk and Suffolk working together, would they be enough to subdue one of them?


Essentially a Battle of the River Plate scenario. Are the two county class cruisers sufficiently able to attack their target on opposite flanks to either divide German fire or to leave one of the counties with free target practice.

Vice-Admiral Holland on Hood had intended Wake-Walkers' two cruisers to take on Prinz Eugen while his ships dealt with Bismarck, on the assumption that the Eugen was the trailing German ship. However as it was the leading ship it never came to fruition.



If 4 pass through the GIUK , They should operate in pairs, so no splitting fire.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

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

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby alecsandros » Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:40 pm

paul.mercer wrote:
How about 2 8x8" cruisers like Norfolk and Suffolk working together, would they be enough to subdue one of them?

In many situations, yes,
but I wouldn't risk saying in the majority of happenings.

The weather would play the key role, and AGS would have the upper hand in good weather and visibility (as it would be able to spot Norfolk/Suffolk and concentrate main battery fire on them before the British 8" guns would come into range).

AGS guns had 36km range , versus British guns at 28km range. The effective gun range would be 23 vs 18km, so a 5km "gap" in favor of AGS. How fast would Norfolk/Suffolk be able to close the gap ?

That would depend on the geometry of the battle. If AGS would be running away, and firing only with her stern turret, the delta speed would be around 4kts (30kts vs 26kts), or 7km/h. Therefore, it would take about 43 minutes for the cruisers to enter effective gun range - 43 minutes of eternity... Enough for AGS to fire ~ 40 x 3 gun salvos, possibly hitting with 1 or perhaps 2 x 280mm APC shells, and possibly causing heavy damage to 1 of the cruisers.

If AGS wouldn't be running away, and adopt a "waiting " course , crossing the T of the cruisers, the delta speed would be around 25kts, and only 7 minutes would be needed to enter effective 8" gunrange. In 7 minutes, AGS could expend about 14 x 3 gun salvos , possibly hitting with 1 shell.

If the British cruisers would manage to cross AGS "T", they would have the upper hand and potentialy cripple the raider with concentrated 8" gunfire.

Also, in poorer visibility, where long gun range is out of the question, the advantage goes to the 16 x 203mm gun batteries.

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby Paul L » Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:53 am

alecsandros wrote:
paul.mercer wrote:
How about 2 8x8" cruisers like Norfolk and Suffolk working together, would they be enough to subdue one of them?

In many situations, yes,
but I wouldn't risk saying in the majority of happenings.

The weather would play the key role, and AGS would have the upper hand in good weather and visibility (as it would be able to spot Norfolk/Suffolk and concentrate main battery fire on them before the British 8" guns would come into range).

AGS guns had 36km range , versus British guns at 28km range. The effective gun range would be 23 vs 18km, so a 5km "gap" in favor of AGS. How fast would Norfolk/Suffolk be able to close the gap ?

That would depend on the geometry of the battle. If AGS would be running away, and firing only with her stern turret, the delta speed would be around 4kts (30kts vs 26kts), or 7km/h. Therefore, it would take about 43 minutes for the cruisers to enter effective gun range - 43 minutes of eternity... Enough for AGS to fire ~ 40 x 3 gun salvos, possibly hitting with 1 or perhaps 2 x 280mm APC shells, and possibly causing heavy damage to 1 of the cruisers.

If AGS wouldn't be running away, and adopt a "waiting " course , crossing the T of the cruisers, the delta speed would be around 25kts, and only 7 minutes would be needed to enter effective 8" gunrange. In 7 minutes, AGS could expend about 14 x 3 gun salvos , possibly hitting with 1 shell.

If the British cruisers would manage to cross AGS "T", they would have the upper hand and potentialy cripple the raider with concentrated 8" gunfire.

Also, in poorer visibility, where long gun range is out of the question, the advantage goes to the 16 x 203mm gun batteries.


not sure that advantage would be enough. using plate as reference 8" guns got hit every 67 shells , while 11"C28 got a hit every 45 shells.

Every minute the British could fire 16 x 4 =64 /67 or 95.5% hit, while the AGS could fire only 6 x 3 = 18/45 or 40% chance of hit. Now weight of fire is closer with 12000lb per minute for the AGS compared to over 16,000lb for the county cruisers. Not as much of an advantage as it first appears. What's more , while the AGS hits on Exeter were crippling, the only result of the Exeter was a potential mission kill after the fact.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby paul.mercer » Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:14 am

Paul L wrote:
alecsandros wrote:
paul.mercer wrote:
How about 2 8x8" cruisers like Norfolk and Suffolk working together, would they be enough to subdue one of them?

In many situations, yes,
but I wouldn't risk saying in the majority of happenings.

The weather would play the key role, and AGS would have the upper hand in good weather and visibility (as it would be able to spot Norfolk/Suffolk and concentrate main battery fire on them before the British 8" guns would come into range).

AGS guns had 36km range , versus British guns at 28km range. The effective gun range would be 23 vs 18km, so a 5km "gap" in favor of AGS. How fast would Norfolk/Suffolk be able to close the gap ?

That would depend on the geometry of the battle. If AGS would be running away, and firing only with her stern turret, the delta speed would be around 4kts (30kts vs 26kts), or 7km/h. Therefore, it would take about 43 minutes for the cruisers to enter effective gun range - 43 minutes of eternity... Enough for AGS to fire ~ 40 x 3 gun salvos, possibly hitting with 1 or perhaps 2 x 280mm APC shells, and possibly causing heavy damage to 1 of the cruisers.

If AGS wouldn't be running away, and adopt a "waiting " course , crossing the T of the cruisers, the delta speed would be around 25kts, and only 7 minutes would be needed to enter effective 8" gunrange. In 7 minutes, AGS could expend about 14 x 3 gun salvos , possibly hitting with 1 shell.

If the British cruisers would manage to cross AGS "T", they would have the upper hand and potentialy cripple the raider with concentrated 8" gunfire.

Also, in poorer visibility, where long gun range is out of the question, the advantage goes to the 16 x 203mm gun batteries.


not sure that advantage would be enough. using plate as reference 8" guns got hit every 67 shells , while 11"C28 got a hit every 45 shells.

Every minute the British could fire 16 x 4 =64 /67 or 95.5% hit, while the AGS could fire only 6 x 3 = 18/45 or 40% chance of hit. Now weight of fire is closer with 12000lb per minute for the AGS compared to over 16,000lb for the county cruisers. Not as much of an advantage as it first appears. What's more , while the AGS hits on Exeter were crippling, the only result of the Exeter was a potential mission kill after the fact.


Thanks for that,
One other point, in a 'stern chase' AGS whilst having the initial capability to outrange the cruisers, surely the cruisers would not be steering a straight course but instead would be weaving about to avoid being hit making the AGS rangefinding more difficult, especially as she would only have three guns to fire against two ships unless she constantly turned to bring her forward turret into action which in turn would help to reduce the range for the pursuing cruisers? Also, while acknowledging the impact of 11" shells on a relatively lightly armoured cruisers, was the armour on AGS that heavy as to enable her to absorb multiple hits from 8"?


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests