Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
Gopher
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:06 am

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Gopher » Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:03 am

The Scharnhorst blew up before she sank and I see no reason to suppose the Dunkerque could keep 15 inch shells away from her magazine. All sorts of highly regarded experts say the Hood could not have endured a magazine penetration and have a lot of complex equations to prove it. But have a magazine penetration she did. In a rough sea and at high speed like Denmarck strait the angle the ocean presents you can defeat any armour scheme.

Gopher
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:06 am

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Gopher » Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:08 am

Towns don't move, and as a long range raider the Courageous was unsurpassed. Like I said the Germans would have broke youtr arm off to have her and would have heralded the convoy system and the dimunation of the Grand Fleet a lot earlier. Light cruisers the Germans had even quick ones like Bremse but they were just flies the British would to have taken Courageous seriously.

User avatar
VoidSamukai
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:42 pm

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by VoidSamukai » Sat Feb 06, 2016 11:15 am

Gopher wrote:Towns don't move, and as a long range raider the Courageous was unsurpassed. Like I said the Germans would have broke youtr arm off to have her and would have heralded the convoy system and the dimunation of the Grand Fleet a lot earlier. Light cruisers the Germans had even quick ones like Bremse but they were just flies the British would to have taken Courageous seriously.
A long range raider would've been way better off with a bunch of 6inch guns then 4 15inch guns. You dont need heavy caliber guns to be an effective radar. Courageous as a raider in pratice sounds not too bad, but she was expensive to build and to maintain, compare to a light cruiser.

Honestly, the Courageous class BCs were just bad in my books. For a ship their size, she was thinly protected (even for BCs) and her guns left something to be desired. I will quote from a book; "[Courageous] exhibited all the weaknesses and few of the strengths of the type"

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3100
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Dave Saxton » Sat Feb 06, 2016 2:14 pm

Gopher wrote:The Scharnhorst blew up before she sank and I see no reason to suppose the Dunkerque could keep 15 inch shells away from her magazine. All sorts of highly regarded experts say the Hood could not have endured a magazine penetration and have a lot of complex equations to prove it. But have a magazine penetration she did. In a rough sea and at high speed like Denmarck strait the angle the ocean presents you can defeat any armour scheme.
Describe the Dunkerque's and the Scharnhorst's magazine protection and immunity zones vs 15" shell fire please.
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.

Gopher
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:06 am

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Gopher » Sat Feb 06, 2016 5:57 pm

I'm sure the data is online or you have it to hand but to my knowledge the Dunkerques armour was desined to keep out 11 inch shells to 18,000 yards and was easily knocked out by British gunfire at Mer el Kebir. No reason to for me to believe the Bismarcks guns would be any less effective whatever range the theory suggests it was immune at. As for the Scharnhorst lovely ship but is hard to get unemotional data and has taken on preternatural properties. In 60 years the immune zone has risen by each retelling of its exploits to between 2 yards to 60,0000 yards. The Renown chased the pair of them in 1940 and 14 Inch shells took her down in 43. Whether a shell, torpedo or progressive damage reached her magazines, she blew up. Again I have no reason to believe the Bismarck's 15 inch guns would have performed worse than Renown or DoY.
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Feb 06, 2016 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Gopher
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:06 am

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Gopher » Sat Feb 06, 2016 6:15 pm

VoidSamukai wrote:"
A long range raider would've been way better off with a bunch of 6inch guns then 4 15inch guns. You dont need heavy caliber guns to be an effective radar. Courageous as a raider in pratice sounds not too bad, but she was expensive to build and to maintain, compare to a light cruiser.

Honestly, the Courageous class BCs were just bad in my books. For a ship their size, she was thinly protected (even for BCs) and her guns left something to be desired. I will quote from a book; "[Courageous] exhibited all the weaknesses and few of the strengths of the type"
You need range, seakeeping and speed to have been a successful warship raider in WW1. It is also worth noting both were laid down and completed in not much more than a year (Just like the Renown's).

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3100
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Dave Saxton » Sat Feb 06, 2016 7:39 pm

Gopher wrote:I'm sure the data is online or you have it to hand but to my knowledge the Dunkerques armour was desined to keep out 11 inch shells to 18,000 yards and was easily knocked out by British gunfire at Mer el Kebir. No reason to for me to believe the Bismarcks guns would be any less effective whatever range the theory suggests it was immune at. As for the Scharnhorst lovely ship but is hard to get unemotional data and has taken on preternatural properties. In 60 years the immune zone has risen by each retelling of its exploits to between 2 yards to 60,0000 yards. The Renown chased the pair of them in 1940 and 14 Inch shells took her down in 43. Whether a shell, torpedo or progressive damage reached her magazines, she blew up. Again I have no reason to believe the Bismarck's 15 inch guns would have performed worse than Renown or DoY.

I'm not trying to be difficult, really. I'm only pointing a few things out so that other readers are not confused now or in the future. And I promise not to engage in any hyperbole.

Dunkerque's deck protection was 135mm effective, so it could provide protection against deck hits out to about 30.5km against 15" shells.

The 245mm effective belt is inadequate vs the German 15" all the way out to 35km despite being sloped. So your right about Dunkerque being vulnerable to a magazine penetration by 15" gunfire, provided it strikes the belt and not decks.

The same can not be said of Scharnhorst. The Scharnhorst's design included a 95mm armoured deck over the magazines with slopes or scarps outboard. These slopes worked in combination with a 320mm main belt and could provide protection to the magazines at all practical battle ranges, because the impact velocity required to defeat both armour plates in their geometric relationship would exceed the velocity where all BB caliber AP shells would break up in the attempt.

One of the members here, Thorsten Wahl, has found evidence that the British found, in aggreement to German claims, that the German two deck protection system provided an effective thickness as least equal to the sum thickness of the two armoured decks. Therefore, Scharnhorst was safe from deck penetrations to the magazines out to 32km (~35,000 yards) battle range. The Scharnhorst's IZ would have been Approx. point blank to 35,000 yards.
14 Inch shells took her down in 43. Whether a shell, torpedo or progressive damage reached her magazines, she blew up.
The explosion was while it sank in very similar fashion to the magazine explosion of the Yamato while it turned over and sank-not via a penetration by ordnance. SH was actually sunk by 11 torpedo hits, also very similar to cause of the sinking of the Yamato.
The Renown chased the pair of them in 1940 and 14 Inch shells took her down in 43.
Did you read my recent description of this encounter here?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=713&start=45
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.

Gopher
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:06 am

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Gopher » Sat Feb 06, 2016 9:29 pm

The Dunkerque was immobilized by 15 inch shells her armour proved inadequate. The Scharnhorst was fought to a standstill by DoY with British destroyers and Cruisers effectively saving the Germans the bother of scuttling her by putting torpedoes into her. Interestingly a very high percentage of RN vessels were scuttled remaining afloat after heavy or critical damage. I don't give the RN credit for sinking them either the Italians, Germans and Japan keep that honour . Yes I read your synopsis of the twins flight I have also read the German Battle report and basically the twins took flight from Renown, confidence in armour versus 15 inch shells notwithstanding. If you can find a case were the Scharnhorst stood and fought believing in its invunrability I would appreciate it Renown is not the only 15 inch ship she refused action with, the Ramillies also deterred the twins. As for the explosion could you provide the source that states it was not a magazine hit, torpedo or progressive damage that caused the magazine explosion, not that I doubt the possibility of the Scharnhorst blowing up like Barham when she rolled over but I have certainly heard no definitive explanation like in the Barhams case.

User avatar
VoidSamukai
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:42 pm

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by VoidSamukai » Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:01 pm

Against the Glorious of course XD

But in seriousness, the reason why they didn't engage BBs was that Hitler and the navy didn't want them to engage in battle they will take massive damage. Plus, her 11inch shells are inadequet to pierce the armour of a BB at realisitc ranges. Her advantage compare to her comtempory Brit rivals was speed, and she made good use of it.

Gopher
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:06 am

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Gopher » Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:20 pm

Exactly in the real world 14 inch and 15 inch shells could cripple the Scharnhorst that's why they did not fight. You our absolutely correct the Scharnhorst was a greyhound and a fine ship but she was no match for a battleships guns. Like I said against the Bismarck she could blow up just like Hood

User avatar
VoidSamukai
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:42 pm

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by VoidSamukai » Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:31 pm

Gopher wrote:Exactly in the real world 14 inch and 15 inch shells could cripple the Scharnhorst that's why they did not fight. You our absolutely correct the Scharnhorst was a greyhound and a fine ship but she was no match for a battleships guns. Like I said against the Bismarck she could blow up just like Hood
She could, but she would've stood a better chance of not taking such a hit. The hit on the Hood was rather lucky. Her deck armour was better, though dtill vunuerable to heavy shells fired at a long distance.

Any ship can explode like the Hood, All it takes is one really lucky hit. She showed she could take a beating against enermy fire in a last stand situation, but in a pratical situation anything that would hinder its raiding capabilites like damage to the secondaries and FCSs were avoided as best as they could.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3100
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Dave Saxton » Sun Feb 07, 2016 5:02 am

I can see that actual technical facts are not being rationally considered here. I can see a conflation of the technical with tactical and strategic considerations as well.
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.

Gopher
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:06 am

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Gopher » Sun Feb 07, 2016 10:26 pm

Facts are being rationally considered. The Scharnhorst had no confidence in engaging ships armed with 15 inch guns. Ships in General were hard to sink especially by gunfire unless they exploded. Scharnhorst according to the reports I have read blew up and then sank the explosion hastening the end which leads me to believe she received a magazine hit, suffered a torpedo hit or progressive damage namely fire reached he magazine. Scharnhorst a fine ship proved no harder to sink , infact somewhat easier to sink than HMAS Canberra, No one rationally gives the County Class Cruisers mystical properties. No one credits USS Ellet with her destruction likewise the nemesis of the Scharnhorst was DoY and her 14 inch guns. Purported technical data meant little at North Cape only facts. So as I said under the fire from Bismarck every Battlecruiser had the possibility of blowing up Scharnhorst and Dunkerque included as we know the Scharnhorst did infact blow up *before* she sank.

User avatar
VoidSamukai
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:42 pm

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by VoidSamukai » Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:23 am

Gopher wrote:Facts are being rationally considered. The Scharnhorst had no confidence in engaging ships armed with 15 inch guns. Ships in General were hard to sink especially by gunfire unless they exploded. Scharnhorst according to the reports I have read blew up and then sank the explosion hastening the end which leads me to believe she received a magazine hit, suffered a torpedo hit or progressive damage namely fire reached he magazine. Scharnhorst a fine ship proved no harder to sink , infact somewhat easier to sink than HMAS Canberra, No one rationally gives the County Class Cruisers mystical properties. No one credits USS Ellet with her destruction likewise the nemesis of the Scharnhorst was DoY and her 14 inch guns. Purported technical data meant little at North Cape only facts. So as I said under the fire from Bismarck every Battlecruiser had the possibility of blowing up Scharnhorst and Dunkerque included as we know the Scharnhorst did infact blow up *before* she sank.
Well, if the Courageous class were still BCs, then they could battle them. But by that time, they were carriers, so they had to make with that.

Though Scharnhorst could in theory still blow up to Bismarck's guns, one must remember that that hit was extremely lucky. So I never use it as an example of Bismarck being best BB, and I wouldnt use it to justify Hood as a weak BC.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3100
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Dave Saxton » Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:23 pm

Gopher wrote: as we know the Scharnhorst did infact blow up *before* she sank.
Helmut Backhaus wrote: 'I could see the keel and the propellers. She had turned over and was going down by the bow. Shortly afterwards there were two or three violent underwater explosions. It was like an earthquake! The shockwaves left me gasping for air.'
Rolf Zenger wrote: I paddled away from the ship ..it was an awful moment when I felt shockwaves through the water and realized the boilers had exploded.
1856 hours-Sharnhorst is struck by a torpedo aft. Speed drops to 7 knots.
1901 hours- DOY, Jamaica, and Belfast re-open fire, closing to 4,000 yards. DoY fires 400 rounds in the next 27 minutes.
1919 hours- Fraser orders Belfast and Jamaica to sink the enemy with torpedoes.
1925 hours-Jamaica fires 3 torpedoes.
1925 hours Scharnorst has built speed back to 20 knots and reports it is steering for Tana Fjord
1928 hours- Belfast fires three torpedoes
1930 hours- Duke of York ceases fire and withdraws from the area.
1933 hours- Destroyers fire no less than 19 torpedoes. 7 are observed to hit.
1937 hours- Jamaica fires three torpedoes with observed hits.
1947 hours- Belfast fires three more torpedoes. Scharnhorst can not be seen through a pall of smoke and is assumed sunk.

Assuming that Scharnhorst did not fight because it feared 15" fire is to conflate tactical considerations with technical data such as the IZ. Scharnhorst had magazine protection on par with Bismarck, and magazine deck protection on par with South Dakota, Iowa, and KGV.
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.

Post Reply