Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Postby Paul L » Mon Feb 29, 2016 1:14 am

Looking through the protracted development that went from the Panzerschiffe D to Scharnhorst there were 19 steps each featuring design changes. One such change envisaged 9 x 13" guns [ Pzsch 1934 D3c] , which obviously never happened because no such gun was produced. However at the time of these designs neither did any of the 15" or 16"guns or the improved 11" gun . All was decided in 1934 when they were all started. In other words the Twins could have been 13" gun battleships.

Is it possible for Nathans formulation to approximate what a 13" gun could do?

The warship would have been 26,000 t max with 22cm belt armor plus slopes & 45mm torpedo belt; while the deck armor was 70mm MAD & 20mm weather deck..so I assume 70mm slopes. The options for propulsion was 110,000 hp diesel producing 30knots or 106,000hp turbines producing 29.6 knots. ...looks promising.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

Steve-M
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:38 pm

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Postby Steve-M » Mon Feb 29, 2016 1:40 am

Paul L wrote:Is it possible for Nathans formulation to approximate what a 13" gun could do?

You can model custom sizes in NAab, using any given shell as a starting point. You do have to input data for shell weight, body weight, muzzle velocity, and ballistic coefficient.

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

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Postby RF » Mon Feb 29, 2016 9:38 am

Paul L wrote:The warship would have been 26,000 t max with 22cm belt armor plus slopes & 45mm torpedo belt; while the deck armor was 70mm MAD & 20mm weather deck..so I assume 70mm slopes. The options for propulsion was 110,000 hp diesel producing 30knots or 106,000hp turbines producing 29.6 knots. ...looks promising.


A more enterprising and far sighted naval leadership would have gone for this vessel and have constructed it faster. It is typical of Nazi Germany that it wasn't, that a limited compromise was chosen instead, exemplifying the lack of forward thinking and strategy/grand strategy that permeated their thinking.
''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: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Postby Paul L » Mon Feb 29, 2016 2:21 pm

RF wrote:
Paul L wrote:The warship would have been 26,000 t max with 22cm belt armor plus slopes & 45mm torpedo belt; while the deck armor was 70mm MAD & 20mm weather deck..so I assume 70mm slopes. The options for propulsion was 110,000 hp diesel producing 30knots or 106,000hp turbines producing 29.6 knots. ...looks promising.


A more enterprising and far sighted naval leadership would have gone for this vessel and have constructed it faster. It is typical of Nazi Germany that it wasn't, that a limited compromise was chosen instead, exemplifying the lack of forward thinking and strategy/grand strategy that permeated their thinking.



True but they also thought they had 15 more years to build a fleet.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

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

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Postby Dave Saxton » Mon Feb 29, 2016 2:41 pm

Paul L wrote:Looking through the protracted development that went from the Panzerschiffe D to Scharnhorst there were 19 steps each featuring design changes. One such change envisaged 9 x 13" guns [ Pzsch 1934 D3c] , which obviously never happened because no such gun was produced. However at the time of these designs neither did any of the 15" or 16"guns or the improved 11" gun . All was decided in 1934 when they were all started. In other words the Twins could have been 13" gun battleships.

Is it possible for Nathans formulation to approximate what a 13" gun could do?

The warship would have been 26,000 t max with 22cm belt armor plus slopes & 45mm torpedo belt; while the deck armor was 70mm MAD & 20mm weather deck..so I assume 70mm slopes. The options for propulsion was 110,000 hp diesel producing 30knots or 106,000hp turbines producing 29.6 knots. ...looks promising.


Krupp did produce and test a 35cm (13.8") gun that was briefly considered for Bismarck. I have the test results somewhere. It was commented that it could defeat the Dunkerque at all ranges. They should have designed Scharnhorst around this gun using two triples and one twin turret, and retaining the heavy armour as built, in my opinion. Eventually up gunning to 6x38cm with twin turrets may have been decided an even better option.

The proposed 33cm design above would not of had sufficient deck protection. The 20mm ober deck would not de-cap large AP bombs and shells and could not insure induced yaw. According to British comments in ADM 213/951, the Germans through Krupp, had secretly continued much research and development pertaining to guns, shells, and armour throughout the interwar years, and were well ahead of everybody else, who had essentially shut down their similar R&D programs in compliance to the Washington Treaty. The British commented that by the mid 30s the Germans could apply what they had learned. Their findings would have invalidated the above proposed 1934 design.

They would have known that a min 50mm ober deck was required. According to Bericht 166 (If I recall correctly) they had recognized the need for heavy overall deck protection. Robbing from the belt protection to pay for additional deck protection was not considered an acceptable solution.
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.

Steve-M
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:38 pm

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Postby Steve-M » Mon Feb 29, 2016 4:49 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:Krupp did produce and test a 35cm (13.8") gun that was briefly considered for Bismarck. I have the test results somewhere. It was commented that it could defeat the Dunkerque at all ranges. They should have designed Scharnhorst around this gun using two triples and one twin turret, and retaining the heavy armour as built, in my opinion.


I agree, though if they were designing on the basis of a 350mm weapon, I don't see any specific reason not to stick with the more traditional 4x2 arrangement, making them a Bismarck Lite. Weight should still be inside of 35,000 tons without sacrificing in other areas.

Either way, the Twins equipped with that level of firepower would be a huge problem for the British. As it was, the 11" wasn't worth much even against the old QE's and R's. OTOH, a 350mm gun would have likely been able to penetrate the belt and turret armor of either class at any reasonable battle range, which opens up a lot of possibilities.

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

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Postby Paul L » Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:19 pm

We do know that Hitler forced the Twins to be altered from the original planned 6x14” guns back to the 9 x 11”C34 guns..... needless to say I have a different POV :angel:

The original choice for the Panzerschiffe D & E before they became “the Twins”, was the “neuf” design based on the previous model I mentioned. It ballooned from 26-30,000t region up to 30-35,000t , sporting heavier armor and increasingly higher hp propulsion systems [125-135,000hp] based on higher and higher pressure and temp until it peaked out at 151-163,000 pushing a 36-39,000 ton warship.

With each step it became more unreliable and in need of more fuel to make up for poorer and poorer fuel efficiency. These were the basis of most post war criticism of the Twins.

The original Panzerschiffe 1934D2c was about the best raider they planned, but when it pushed on to become a battleship it was too far behind what was needed. As a 9 x 13” raider with over 30knots speed and potentially 9-10,000nm @ 19 knots on 3000-4000 tons diesel, they could operate oceans away without much fear of interception from allied battle cruisers or heavy cruisers.

It was just small enough to be built in ½ dozen slipways before the war instead of the Twins and Hipper cruisers.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

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

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Postby paul.mercer » Fri Mar 04, 2016 9:22 pm

Gentlemen,
The original question was about the best battlecruiser of WWI/2, I suggested that the twins each fitted with 6x15" would have been very a formidable opposition for other ships and I hold by that, particularly if it were against other battle cruisers with similar armament but not so well armoured like Renown and Repulse. I don't think for one moment that they would stand up against more modern battleship like an Iowa or even most of the heavy RN and US battleships, or that they would even try if there was a chance to get away, but if they were forced into a battle they would certainly give a good account of themselves.

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

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Postby RF » Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:20 pm

On a ship for ship basis, yes.

However you do have to consider the whole picture, as individual ships, even when alone, are not operating in complete isolation.
So there are circumstances in which a battlecruiser could engage an opposing battleship, in conjunction with other forces, which may for example comprise another battlecruiser. In the same way, on a smaller scale, a light cruiser wouldn't be a vessel chosen to engage a pocket battleship.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.


Return to “Naval History (1922-1945)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests