A 15" gunned Scharnhorst at North Cape

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: A 15" gunned Scharnhorst at North Cape

Post by dunmunro »

RF wrote:
dunmunro wrote:
If we replace all of Scharnhorst's historical 11in hits with 15in hits, then nothing changes. Additionally the proposed mods to fit 38cm guns to S&G would have increased their displacement, making them slower and probably worsening their already poor seakeeping qualities.
There were heavy hits on Norfolk I believe - if they had been 15 inch rather than 11 inch that ship could have been sunk?
No, because the hits were well above the WL.

You have to also consider that Scharnhorst would be replacing 9 guns with a higher rate of fire with 6 guns with a lower rate of fire and the net effect would be to reduce RoF to about half of historical and so the actual number of hits would probably be less than historical.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: A 15" gunned Scharnhorst at North Cape

Post by dunmunro »

RF wrote:There is a further issue here - what if as well Bey had kept his five destroyers in close company and available to give torpedo attack support in any duel with DOY?
Bey's destroyers were already struggling in the prevailing weather and they would have slowed Scharnhorst to a crawl if they had remained in company with Bey.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: A 15" gunned Scharnhorst at North Cape

Post by Dave Saxton »

Johannesson's destroyers were able keep company with the Scharnhorst steaming at 25 knots through the night of the 25th in the same weather. However, if Scharnhorst goes directly into the wind and seas the German destroyers won't be able to keep up.

Bey allowing the loss of cohesion with his force early on, was another factor in Scharnhorst's loss. Had there been destroyers with Scharnhorst then their radars could see ahead in compensation for Scharnhorst's lost radar and it would not have been operating half blind.
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: 317
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: A 15" gunned Scharnhorst at North Cape

Post by Paul L »

Dave Saxton wrote:Johannesson's destroyers were able keep company with the Scharnhorst steaming at 25 knots through the night of the 25th in the same weather. However, if Scharnhorst goes directly into the wind and seas the German destroyers won't be able to keep up.

Bey allowing the loss of cohesion with his force early on, was another factor in Scharnhorst's loss. Had there been destroyers with Scharnhorst then their radars could see ahead in compensation for Scharnhorst's lost radar and it would not have been operating half blind.
This is probably why the best ships to escort a Panzerschiffe -is another Panzerschiffe.

To me that's the basic problem with the whole rearmament program. Heye had it right. Build at least a dozen Panzerschiffe, instead of all the destroyers cruisers and battleships.
"Eine mal is kein mal"
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: A 15" gunned Scharnhorst at North Cape

Post by Dave Saxton »

But they better be 30+ knot panzerschiffs.
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: 317
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: A 15" gunned Scharnhorst at North Cape

Post by Paul L »

Yes that should come from improved hull plus developing diesels instead of high temp/pressure turbines.
"Eine mal is kein mal"
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7759
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: A 15" gunned Scharnhorst at North Cape

Post by RF »

dunmunro wrote:
RF wrote:
dunmunro wrote:
If we replace all of Scharnhorst's historical 11in hits with 15in hits, then nothing changes. Additionally the proposed mods to fit 38cm guns to S&G would have increased their displacement, making them slower and probably worsening their already poor seakeeping qualities.
There were heavy hits on Norfolk I believe - if they had been 15 inch rather than 11 inch that ship could have been sunk?
No, because the hits were well above the WL.
Hits don't have to be below the WL to sink a ship - internal explosions can take the ship apart or at least blow holes in the ships bottom and n the case of Norfolk my thinking was that a forward magazine detonation would have blown the ships bows off.
You have to also consider that Scharnhorst would be replacing 9 guns with a higher rate of fire with 6 guns with a lower rate of fire and the net effect would be to reduce RoF to about half of historical and so the actual number of hits would probably be less than historical.
Comment noted, however I would have considered by that time the rate of fire for the German 15 inch would have been improved from the time of Bismarck.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Terje Langoy
Supporter
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Bergen, Norway

15" gunned Scharnhorst at North Cape

Post by Terje Langoy »

G'day, all

More Deutschland class vessels translates to no A.G.N.A. and a more likely intervention into German rearmament plans. Was it not so that a key paragraph of the Anglo-German treaty was precisely the abandonment of the Deutschland class?

15" guns or not, like the Bismarck was the Scharnhorst not mission killed once British forces showed up? Whether she can inflict damage would surely be a subset to the overall objective and this at a time when patience towards the larger surface ships are growing thin. She survives and comes back empty handed ... then what?

Tirpitz is out, Regenbogen an absolute disaster and now Ostfront fails too ... Are we sure the Scharnhorst did not embark on a make-it or break-it hell pass mission to justify her very existence? Surviving the frying pan only to be tossed into the fire?

Just a few thoughts
Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: 15" gunned Scharnhorst at North Cape

Post by Paul L »

Terje Langoy wrote:G'day, all

More Deutschland class vessels translates to no A.G.N.A. and a more likely intervention into German rearmament plans. Was it not so that a key paragraph of the Anglo-German treaty was precisely the abandonment of the Deutschland class?

15" guns or not, like the Bismarck was the Scharnhorst not mission killed once British forces showed up? Whether she can inflict damage would surely be a subset to the overall objective and this at a time when patience towards the larger surface ships are growing thin. She survives and comes back empty handed ... then what?

Tirpitz is out, Regenbogen an absolute disaster and now Ostfront fails too ... Are we sure the Scharnhorst did not embark on a make-it or break-it hell pass mission to justify her very existence? Surviving the frying pan only to be tossed into the fire?

Just a few thoughts
One thought

AGNA was Hitler's political problem, not the KM's problem. AGNA & Hitler's FOUR YEAR PLAN, was Hitler's gamble that he could ignore #1 rule in TASKS FOR THE WEHRMACHT. That any German military action would lead to war with the rest of Europe and Germany had to have a 'reasonable chance' of winning such a war -or don't try in the first place!

Hitler gambled that Europeans would rather " hang separately than hang together".
"Eine mal is kein mal"
User avatar
Terje Langoy
Supporter
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Bergen, Norway

15" gunned Scharnhorst at North Cape

Post by Terje Langoy »

G'day all

I'm not so sure the A.G.N.A. ought to hold the description "problem" rather than solution to the Versailles restrictions - be it of a political nature or an armaments issue. The catalyst to war was the recapture of stripped territory, the polish corridor. If anything the Second World War definitely fits the unoffical title "the great backlash" more than anything. And I would consider it a tough demand to expect the Seekriegsleitung to plan for a Kriegsmarine vs the world. Perhaps a bit unresonable too, don't you agree?

Why not rephrase the question into this: was the Second World War inevitable?

As the Graf Spee incident clearly demonstrated the Deutchland class were not at all super weapons. Well armed and good range in the cruiser role, aye, but few in numbers and lacking of a logistic structure to really make good on their use. Indeed, the Dunkerque class had the Germans veering back towards traditional designs, succumbing to what Richard Worth would refer to as a Mahanian sort of mindset. Me thinks rather than looking at what the Deutchland class may accomplish in the war years, let's keep in mind what will be risked by continue building them. They were after all the reason A.G.N.A.came into being in the first place

I hold the belief that rather than changing the appearance of the Kriegsmarine, which seems to me evolving on a very natural and adequate, robust path, that one may achieve more by changing strategies and dispositions. Call me fanboy of Raeders thoughts. Cruiser warfare on the high seas until utterly defeated. Cerberus was a big mistake

Anyhooo ... This thread was about larger guns on a ship overrun in the dark night off North Cape in late 1943. And my input on that particular matter was a simple question: what would happen if Scharnhorst comes back empty handed?

Last nail in the coffin that is large surface ships operations or will she be given even more leash?
Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: A 15" gunned Scharnhorst at North Cape

Post by Paul L »

Well following up on TASKS FOR THE WEHRMACHT , Groner in 1928 was warning the entire German military/government that unless they were ready to fight a two year campaign of "continuous war" WITH ALL OF EUROPE- they had better be ready to back down from ANY ADVENTURE. Something Hitler clearly ignored and Germany/Europe paid the price.

After 15 years of rearmament , such a war might be possible UNDER THE RIGHT CONDITIONS.

His 1928 expansion of the Wehrmacht to 21 divisions and Naval plan 1932 plus the adoption of "Lufthansa" as the de-facto air-force, were just implemented to counter any possible -French supported- Polish invasion of German ;as they had attempted on Russia in 1920.

Even in view of that, Raeder order naval plan 1932 to build...
1 aircraft carrier
6 improved PBS
6 cruisers
plus flotillas of U-Boats & GTB.

The first step in building a fleet clearly directed towards the RN. Even though Groner threatened to cancel funding for the original PBS , unless Raeder could show how they could counter any French squadron raids into the Baltic.

When the Nazi took power -Kaptain Donitz demanded a fleet of 300 U-Boats and all KM agreed. However a colleague -Furbringer - warned that unless such a force was supported by the LW , the U-Boat fleet would be eventually driven underwater by growing allied ASW threat.

The surface fleet advocates proposed a dozen more larger Panzerschiffe to support Donitz fleet and counter this ASW threat, while Admiral Carls suggested the best way to support such a U-Boat war would be to organise battle groups with aircraft carriers & Battle cruisers + Panzerschiffe & flotilla's of Zerstroers [including fleet supply trains].

It was into this back drop that the grand admiral ordered the Panzerschiffe D.E.F.G.H.J changed into his "Tirpitz" style battleship programme to top it all off. Hitler kyboshed this in 1934 because this would upset his plans for a neutral UK. Raeder salvaged as much of this by convincing Hitler they would be an "ANTI FRENCH FLEET"....thus the legend began.
"Eine mal is kein mal"
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: 15" gunned Scharnhorst at North Cape

Post by Dave Saxton »

Terje Langoy wrote:G

Indeed, the Dunkerque class had the Germans veering back towards traditional designs, succumbing to what Richard Worth would refer to as a Mahanian sort of mindset. Me thinks rather than looking at what the Deutchland class may accomplish in the war years, let's keep in mind what will be risked by continue building them. They were after all the reason A.G.N.A.came into being in the first place

I hold the belief that rather than changing the appearance of the Kriegsmarine, which seems to me evolving on a very natural and adequate, robust path, that one may achieve more by changing strategies and dispositions. Call me fanboy of Raeders thoughts. Cruiser warfare on the high seas until utterly defeated. Cerberus was a big mistake
If we look critically at the alternatives often proposed, a more traditional navy built around battleships looks like the only viable option.

Many of the alternatives we find today benefit from hindsight, but hindsight also reveals flaws to those proposals.

It is often proposed that the Germans should have built hundreds more U-boats instead of surface ships, particularly the four battleships. However, submarine technology wasn't really there yet. They really needed the Type XXI in 1940.

What about several more panzerschiffs? Again with the benefit of hindsight, we see that greater numbers of lesser ships effectively countered the pocket battleship concept. The panzerschiffs were too slow and too vulnerable to damage, and their AA assets were pitiful. Once air power at sea became established during 1941, they were hopelessly obsolete.

Should the Germans have built aircraft carrier task forces? This is problematic as well. Aircraft carrier task forces require massive investments in naval aviation technology and a marshalling of resources beyond the scope of a re-arming Germany of the late 1930s. They require a large balanced fleet of ocean going destroyers and cruisers, and possibly including battleships, anyway. Not to mention the logistical requirements. The German Navy did need its own air force, independent or semi-independent of the Luftwaffe, though, even if it was mostly shore based.

Getting back to Paul's comment that the best escort for a panzerschiff/battleship was another panzerschiff/battleship, maybe the Germans should just have built several 9x35cm gun Scharnhorsts, or maybe H39s (or diesel powered 15" or 16" gun BBs)?
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: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: 15" gunned Scharnhorst at North Cape

Post by Dave Saxton »

Terje Langoy wrote:
Anyhooo ... This thread was about larger guns on a ship overrun in the dark night off North Cape in late 1943. And my input on that particular matter was a simple question: what would happen if Scharnhorst comes back empty handed?

Last nail in the coffin that is large surface ships operations or will she be given even more leash?
The mission really should have been scrubbed, once both the Intel on enemy dispositions and the weather turned unfavorable. Doenitz made it clear that cancelling the mission was not an option. I suspect that Doenitz was being greatly pressured by Hitler to validate the continued existence of the Battle Group. It was a do or die mission.
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
Terje Langoy
Supporter
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Bergen, Norway

15" gunned Scharnhorst at North Cape

Post by Terje Langoy »

G'day, all



Oh yes, Dave. It would appear we really see eye-to-eye on a range of issues once more :clap:

The shape and development of the Kriegsmarine in the 1930s would and could not build upon wartime needs and experiences of the early 40s. One would hopefully concur this being a logically flawed position. And so I return to the two-sided coin; that of internal making and that of external making. There are considerations outside the internal scope of the Seekriegsleitung to have a profound impact on their rearmament plans. We simply cannot operate from a pre-A.G.N.A. setting in this regard seeing the Versailles Treaty not only forbade Germany from building submarines but also restricted them to six Deutschland-class vessels in total. Do we really want to substitute the Scharnhorst-class, the Bismarck-class and the Hipper-class for three more Deutschland class vessels? You have just tossed out seven stronger vessels for three weaker and slower ones. Seems like a very bad bargain to me


Germany builds a fleet of submarines and/or Deutchlanders in the 30s. How does she negotiate the terms to permit this? And what signal does this give? Nothin' to see here, carry on? Of course not. If one were to consult Captain Edward King of the Royal Navy Plans Division when he outlined his thoughts on the reconstruction of the German Navy prior to the making of the Anglo-German Naval Treaty one might discover the Royal Navy was well aware of the cruiser potential within the German Navy and this at a time when it was still being hampered by The Versailles Treaty. Oddly enough, common hindsight philosophy seems to ignore this preliminary basic and advocates a massive fleet built for the exact purpose of which the Royal Navy was acutely aware of early on. It is, as you would have guessed, an unreasonable position


No, Paul, this is certainly not meant as a critique of your posts as I am sure you have a sound set of logic and curiosity behind your reasoning and being, like most of us, suceptible to dissenting views if they are of merit. This is most of all a torpedo aimed at your average youtube besserwisser which seems to think actions obviously are without consequences. History is a chain of intertwined events, not isolated episodes of random origin. Just do this, ignore that, you be fine Not particularly good science, if I may say so


I made a thread about the North Cape battle a few years back proposing the very thing you talked about, Paul. Scharnhorst being accompanied by a rebuilt Gneisenau. A rather homogenous pair and as we know, a highly successful one at that. The consensus then was, yes, they evade their attackers but at no point did we arrive onto a German victory; just a successful withdrawal. As I pointed out, and which Dave seems to agree with, the German units are still providing very little results. Just two more block ships for scuttling at some port when the Russians arrive in Poland. As with many hypothetical scenarios the hammer gets larger and larger until tactical victory is assured but strategically speaking they are even worse off. Bismarck revealed the cost of cruiser warfare and Hitler chickened out, re Cerberus, and thus gave up the German initiative. That's where they lost. Raeder said so, not word for word, but alluding to that very intent. He opposed Cerberus, as did most of his staff. I made a lengthy, rather troublesome attempt at highlighting this in another thread long ago. It was a numbers game and Germany was inevitably gonna loose, Raeders position was to go down fighting. An honorable standing point no doubt hailing back to the surrender of the Hochseeflotte. His motives are quite clear to me


Anyhoo, that is just me opinions. Dissenting views may very well be of merit and I certainly would welcome them. And I do apologize for the lack of eloquence in my posting. The text programme on this Microsoft computah is mighty shieet. I miss my Mac


Cheerio
“Gneisenau has given way, and we are to march at once to your chief.”
Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: A 15" gunned Scharnhorst at North Cape

Post by Paul L »

Obviously we have to agree to disagree.

I gave up measuring improved KM performance based on a singular battle, especially a surface battle. Any improvement has to start and end with the U-boat war. To that end two works particularly influenced my thinking. Norman Freedman Network Centric Warfare & The post war group 51 ASW study....plus numerous tidbits from "Oxford companion to the Second World War" & internet in general.

HyperWar: Antisubmarine Warfare in World War II (OEG Report No. 51)
http://navgunschl2.sakura.ne.jp/tenji/o ... No51_E.pdf
"Eine mal is kein mal"
Post Reply