Page 1 of 3

Scharnhorst w/ 38cm's and other improvements

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2018 7:01 pm
by Steve-M
Suppose for a moment Scharnhorst had been completed with 3x2 of the vaunted 38cm/52 guns. Let's also suppose armor was distributed a little more like Bismarck, shaving a bit of thickness off the main belt to thicken the upper belt, and figure out a way to get rid of that boiler hump (even if it means sacrificing a half knot of speed).

What's the toughest warship you'd give this creation even odds of taking on? KGV? Nagato? Nor Cal?

Side note: seems like it'd be a great ship for Freedonia as well :lol:

Re: Scharnhorst w/ 38cm's and other improvements

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:48 pm
by Thorsten Wahl
Scharnhorst had 320 mm belt.

Re: Scharnhorst w/ 38cm's and other improvements

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:11 pm
by Steve-M
Thorsten Wahl wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:48 pmScharnhorst had 320 mm belt.
I've got a couple sources that indicate 350mm, including this site very:
http://www.kbismarck.com/scharnhorst.html
Wikipedia (not that I trust them greatly)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scharnhor ... battleship
etc...

Re: Scharnhorst w/ 38cm's and other improvements

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:21 pm
by Thorsten Wahl

Re: Scharnhorst w/ 38cm's and other improvements

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 11:03 pm
by Steve-M
Interesting. Even Gerhard Koop gets it wrong in Battleships of the Scharnhorst Class: Warships of the Kriegsmarine if that's the case. One wonders where the 350mm number comes from if not original docs (alternate version?).

In any case, doesn't really matter much for the purposes of my hypothetical. What I'm after is a general feel of how much armor can offset reduced firepower, i.e. how grave a threat would a slightly smaller version of Bismarck mounting only six guns but retaining that ships armor be? I wouldn't want to put up Hood or the old QEs against such a ship, but I'm not sure facing a warship armed with 8 or 9 - 16" guns is a winning proposition, regardless of how resistant the lower citadel is to damage. Thoughts?

Re: Scharnhorst w/ 38cm's and other improvements

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 9:27 am
by Thorsten Wahl
One wonders where the 350mm number comes from if not original docs (alternate version?).
From Erich Gröner "Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945". During WW2 he was responsible for type recognition foreign marines.

In a early stadium of construction 350 mm was primarily choosen. But weight restrictions and ballistic tests additionally shows that 320 mm + 105 mm slope offers sufficient protection against ordnance attacking the side protection.

Re: Scharnhorst w/ 38cm's and other improvements

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:20 pm
by Dave Saxton
The belt thickness was further reduced in the H class to 300mm but with a deeper belt and increased thickness of the slopes. It increased the overall protection because the slope thickness is more important than belt thickness in this type of protection scheme. This was an improvement of the design concept and should have been done on the Scharnhorst and Bismarck class ships as well.

One way to improve the upper belt, which was a flaw in the Scharnhorst class, would be to reduce the weight of the middle artillery and light artillery by using a dual purpose battery. Another possible solution could be to increase the upper belt thickness just enough to insure de-capping. It would need to be at least 70mm. The use of WHnA heat treated to higher hardness instead of KCnA could be used this way.

Another option is to use the 35cm gun in place of the 28cm gun instead of only 6x 38cm. If two triple 35cm turrets forward is too much weight, then It could go with two twin turrets forward and a triple aft, or make the super firing B turret a twin with the other two triples.

Re: Scharnhorst w/ 38cm's and other improvements

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:51 pm
by Steve-M
Dave Saxton wrote: Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:20 pmAnother possible solution could be to increase the upper belt thickness just enough to insure de-capping. It would need to be at least 70mm. The use of WHnA heat treated to higher hardness instead of KCnA could be used this way.
That's largely what I had in mind. I figured that shaving off 30mm off the assumed 350mm main belt wouldn't badly compromise protection there, but having an upper belt that can at least decap and further slow an incoming projectile would be advantageous.

Re: Scharnhorst w/ 38cm's and other improvements

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:32 pm
by Thorsten Wahl
its my opinion that decapping was a new feature to the Kriegsmarine in 1935/36 but well established in about 1938/39.

I could find a armor schemes for H-Class and also for P class cruisers using a decapping plate + main FH armor plate for vertical protection.

Re: Scharnhorst w/ 38cm's and other improvements

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 8:28 pm
by Steve-M
Thorsten Wahl wrote: Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:32 pmits my opinion that decapping was a new feature to the Kriegsmarine in 1935/36 but well established in about 1938/39.
I don't know that they needed to understand it as a decapping plate per se. Even discounting the decapping effect, a heavier upper belt would still provide clear advantages for the space arrayed system the KM employed, and improve resistance against smaller caliber shells.

Re: Scharnhorst w/ 38cm's and other improvements

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:34 pm
by November_SSN
Yeah, it CAN be seen as a decapping plate, but that's definitely an "all purpose" armor plate aimed at protecting what's behind it against most threats, smaller calibres, bombs from airplanes...

Re: Scharnhorst w/ 38cm's and other improvements

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2018 10:04 am
by paul.mercer
Steve-M wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 11:03 pm
Thorsten Wahl wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:21 pmSimply wrong sorry
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8257
http://forum-marinearchiv.de/coppermine ... %20Sch.PDF

I believe in originals
Interesting. Even Gerhard Koop gets it wrong in Battleships of the Scharnhorst Class: Warships of the Kriegsmarine if that's the case. One wonders where the 350mm number comes from if not original docs (alternate version?).

In any case, doesn't really matter much for the purposes of my hypothetical. What I'm after is a general feel of how much armor can offset reduced firepower, i.e. how grave a threat would a slightly smaller version of Bismarck mounting only six guns but retaining that ships armor be? I wouldn't want to put up Hood or the old QEs against such a ship, but I'm not sure facing a warship armed with 8 or 9 - 16" guns is a winning proposition, regardless of how resistant the lower citadel is to damage. Thoughts?
Gentlemen,
We have had this conversation before in other threads. Undoubtedly the twins with 6x15" would be formidable ships, but matched against a KGV that had all its guns working would be a tough proposition as would it be against a 'Nelson' (provided the German ship decided to fight one to one and not use her speed to avoid a confrontation).Even a tough old but modernised QE (Warspite/Valiant) both who had an excellent gunnery record) would make either of the twins think hard before engaging - they shied away from both Rodney and unmodernised Malaya when out raiding and given the German High Command instructions on engaging equal or superior forces, it is unlikely they would ever come to battle unless cornered like Scharnhorst at North Cape so it probably would not make much difference how they were armed.

Re: Scharnhorst w/ 38cm's and other improvements

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:51 am
by RF
Paul,

Would your arguments alter if the Scharnhorst's operated as a pair as they did before the North Cape foray, with the 38 cm installed for Operation Berlin?

Re: Scharnhorst w/ 38cm's and other improvements

Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:34 am
by paul.mercer
RF wrote: Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:51 am Paul,

Would your arguments alter if the Scharnhorst's operated as a pair as they did before the North Cape foray, with the 38 cm installed for Operation Berlin?
Hi RF,
Absolutely, the two twins together armed with 6x15" would have been more than a match for any RN ship and possibly any other ships except perhaps a Yamato or maybe an Iowa. As I said in my last post, either of them armed with 6x15" would pose a problem for any RN ship, but arguably so would the two of them armed as they were with 9x11", certainly when confronted by only an old 'R' or an unmodified QE, the only point is whether they would have been allowed to fight or would they have instructions to turn away because of the fear of serious damage if engaged by a single KGV or a Nelson?

Re: Scharnhorst w/ 38cm's and other improvements

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:58 pm
by dale3242
I don't think that a change in armament would have benefited Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in any of the battles that they fought. The 28 cm gun had fine ballistics and had a nearly 50% higher max ROF than the 38 cm gun. Also, each ship had nine 28 cm guns.

In the engagement with the Renown, Gneisenau hit the Renown twice. One shell failed to explode and the second exploded on the Renown's upper deck. At the ranges of the engagement, the 28 cm AP shells were perfectly capable of penetrating the Renown's weak side armor. Had the German ships had 38 cm guns they would have fired 1/2 as many shells and had even less chance of a crippling hit.

In the engagement with Glorious, the 28 cm guns proved to be deadly accurate and lethal. It is hard to believe that having fewer 38 cm guns would have changed the battle for the benefit of the German ships.

The only benefit might have come during operation Berlin in which the German ships encountered convoys escorted by first the Ramillies and then by the Malaya. Neither the Ramillies or Malaya had been extensively modified from their WWI construction. The 38 cm gun would have benefited the German ships, but they would have been vulnerable to the plunging fire of the old British battleships. I don't think the situation would have been changed because the risk of battle damage would have been to risky for the German ships.

During Scharnhorst's last mission, the battle of North Cape, she hit the Norfolk twice, but failed to hit the Duke of York even once. 38 cm guns would have decreased her chances of hitting the Duke of York. Not getting hits with bigger guns doesn't help. Better radar and radar use was needed instead.

The German Twins were the most successful German battleships. They were the only capital ships to ever sink a fleet aircraft carrier. They were the only German capital ships to successfully attack British Atlantic shipping.