Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Steve Crandell » Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:57 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:
Such a case is very likely a similar case with South Dakota at Guadalcanal. The incoming IJN 14" round was de-capped when first striking the upper deck armour at a very acute angle and then shattered against the barbet, denting it. The turret operations were knocked out with a resulting power outage nonetheless.
this is quoted from the South Dakota's damage report:

"36. An estimated 14-inch projectile passed through both sides of the coaming of hatch 1-128 and detonated upon hitting the barbette of Turret III at frame 123-1/2 about 17 inches from the top. The 17.3-inch armor was gouged to a depth of about 1-1/2 inches over an area 15 inches in diameter. Surface cracks covered this area and vertical cracks developed in the armor to a distance of 8 feet aft of the point of impact. The blast blew a hole in the main deck 3 feet wide extending around the barbette for a distance of 10 feet. Around this hole the main deck was dished down out to 8 feet from the barbette between frames 121 and 130. Some fragments were deflected down and aft riddling the starboard side of bulkhead 129 in numerous places between the main and second decks including one hole 26 inches by 35 inches. Some of the fragments continued on through C-204-L piercing the equipment in the crew's messing space and penetrating watertight door 2-136-1 in two places and bulkhead 136 in one place. In C-201-L on the starboard side of the barbette considerable damage was done to equipment, mess tables, and ventilation ducts. The armored second deck defeated all fragments. Fragments and blast deflected upward from the point of impact demolished the gas seal and water shed for 30 feet around the circumference of the barbette, gouged the gun sleeves of the right and center guns of Turret III and ignited the gun bloomers. Some difficulty was experienced in training the turret after the hit but it was believed that the turret was still able to fire. Fragments ranging aft on the main deck damaged 20mm guns, ready service boxes, gun shields, starboard catapult, and fire plug 1-133-2. Other fragments spreading forward pierced the superstructure on the main and first superstructure deck levels."

Where does it say that the turret operations were knocked out by this hit?

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Dave Saxton » Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:34 pm

Steve Crandell wrote:
Where does it say that the turret operations were knocked out by this hit?
It comes from the testimony of American sailors. I don't think their testimony should be dismissed just because it is not included in some report.
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 Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Steve Crandell » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:23 am

Dave Saxton wrote:
Steve Crandell wrote:
Where does it say that the turret operations were knocked out by this hit?
It comes from the testimony of American sailors. I don't think their testimony should be dismissed just because it is not included in some report.
You don't think the official document from the ship had any input from American sailors? How did they get all that detail about fragment damage and so on?

I have personal experience of American sailors (I was one) saying all kinds of outlandish things after an engagement which were not true but was what they thought had happened. American sailors described shooting down large numbers of Japanese aircraft which were not shot down. They described Japanese ships blowing up when they didn't.

I don't see how a primary document can be simply disregarded because some American sailors said something different. Maybe the turret was out of action. I just don't think that can be considered an established fact.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Dave Saxton » Tue Feb 23, 2016 2:27 am

Steve Crandell wrote: I don't see how a primary document can be simply disregarded because some American sailors said something different. Maybe the turret was out of action. I just don't think that can be considered an established fact.
Who said I was disregarding it. I'm also not entirely disregarding the testimony of the sailors.
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.

slaterat
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:01 pm

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by slaterat » Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:51 am

Alecsandros wrote
... there is no evidence for either of those "penetrations" that you mention
I suppose the hard evidence is the Scharnhorst wreck on the ocean floor, but the penetrating hits I described are from Angus Kostram's "The battle of North Cape" page 116 to 132 and in Fritz-Otto Busch's "The Drama of the Scharnhorst" pages133-156. Almost all of the evidence is from German eye witnesse's to the destruction.

Dave Saxton
That is a lot more detail than can be found in any of the primary documents or survivor accounts.........
No it is directly from the sources you mention,primarily survivor accounts

Dave again
Somebody else commented in this thread that ideas that the loss of speed was not caused by a boiler room penetration was a Oliver Stone JFK like conspiracy theory. It is actually the other way around. Boiler room penetration theories require real "magic bullet" theories. A British 14" shell passing through the upper belt at 22,000 yards would only travel about 13 meters before it exploded. It could not reach the panzer deck unless it was a dud. If it was a dud, or not, its deck penetration was only 75mm striking with full velocity and no yaw. Not likely. That leaves the boiler hump penetration theory, or the far more plausible, and with historical precedent, mechanical breakdown option.
I respect your opinion and intelligence very much Dave, but even a partial penetration or aftershock could crack or damage the steam lines that failed, and in any case the Scharnhorst had been hit by 5 or maybe 6 14" shells before the loss of speed and putting this event down to an unrelated mechanical break down just doesn't add up to me .

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by alecsandros » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:32 am

slaterat wrote: I suppose the hard evidence is the Scharnhorst wreck on the ocean floor, but the penetrating hits I described are from Angus Kostram's "The battle of North Cape" page 116 to 132 and in Fritz-Otto Busch's "The Drama of the Scharnhorst" pages133-156. Almost all of the evidence is from German eye witnesse's to the destruction.
Can you post a more exact quote ?
I doubt any of them refers to penetrations of the heavy armor (not that it couldn't happen, just that I don;t think that's what the survivors said).


I respect your opinion and intelligence very much Dave, but even a partial penetration or aftershock could crack or damage the steam lines that failed, and in any case the Scharnhorst had been hit by 5 or maybe 6 14" shells before the loss of speed and putting this event down to an unrelated mechanical break down just doesn't add up to me .
... Try to draw a trajectory for a 14" shell going from Duke of York into Scharnhrost. Geometry end-on, sea state 10.

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 306
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Paul L » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:17 am

Twins were only built with 11" rifles because that's what Hitler demanded . The original plan was to build turrets that could handle triple 11" C34 guns but be upgraded to twin 14" guns. However the 14" gun was never developed and a 15" gun was pushed instead [to counter the Richelieu?]. So I guess the up grading plans had to be redrafted to meet the new heavier gun/turret arrangement, which intern demanded re bowing and stern; especially in view of the poor sea keeping of this warship. This was planned for 1940 & 1941 but the war got in the way.

Many of the peculiarities of the KM ships can be best understood against the back drop of a fleet being built for a war expected in the mid to late 1940s. Raeder reportedly insisted Hitler had no intention of going to war right up until the war actually started. He must have felt betrayed when he found him self in a real shooting war without a real navy to fight with.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

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

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by VoidSamukai » Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:09 am

If you guys get a bit bored, check this thread out

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6849

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Dave Saxton » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:05 am

slaterat wrote: No it is directly from the sources you mention,primarily survivor accounts
I have read most of the available primary documents including the Abwer's interviews of repatriated survivors and they are not that detailed.
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.

slaterat
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:01 pm

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by slaterat » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:15 pm

I will post the quotes when I have some time hopefully later today.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by paul.mercer » Thu Feb 25, 2016 10:55 pm

Gentlemen,
Put 6x15" on Scharnhorst & Gneisnau as was proposed and you would have two very formidable battle cruisers capable of tackling most other ships including full on battleships.

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

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by VoidSamukai » Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:00 am

paul.mercer wrote:Gentlemen,
Put 6x15" on Scharnhorst & Gneisnau as was proposed and you would have two very formidable battle cruisers capable of tackling most other ships including full on battleships.
Maybe tangle a little, but with only 6 15inch guns I wouldn't put too many bets on the twins. Esspecially against BBs like the Iowa or SD, which can rip through either twin. Though if they work together, they might cause some damage.

Still not betting them against the Yamato though XD

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by Dave Saxton » Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:14 am

VoidSamukai wrote: against BBs like the Iowa or SD, which can rip through either twin..
Are you sure about that??? The German 15" gun can rip through an Iowa or South Dakota, though.
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
VoidSamukai
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:42 pm

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by VoidSamukai » Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:26 am

Really? I thought that the Iowas and SDs were protected against 16inch caliber shells.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7520
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Best Battlecruiser WW1 and WW2

Post by RF » Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:42 am

paul.mercer wrote:Gentlemen,
Put 6x15" on Scharnhorst & Gneisnau as was proposed and you would have two very formidable battle cruisers capable of tackling most other ships including full on battleships.
Yes, indeed.

I often wonder what would have happened at North Cape had Scharnhorst been given those 15 inch guns after the Channel Dash.
More significantly, what would have happened if Gneisenau had been properly looked after and given 15 inch guns as well, instead of its actual fate.
How would DOY and cruisers have fared against both the twins at North Cape with 15 inchers?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Post Reply