Scharnhorst vs Alaska

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
kevin32422
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:25 pm

Scharnhorst vs Alaska

Post by kevin32422 »

I saw some good arguments on the Tirpitz and Bismarck vs The Yamato so lets try this one what is you plan of attack if your commanding the Scharnhorst and ordered to attack the Alaska. to make things interesting we can include if you were commanding the Alaska and ordered to attack the Scharnhorst. what is your plan of attack in either ship or both if you want.
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Scharnhorst vs Alaska

Post by Steve Crandell »

Same tactics as against most German warships. Stay at long range and get deck hits. Alaska's belt armor is very vulnerable so close range would be bad. Scharnhorst would want to get in close.

I really don't like the Alaskas very much, but that wasn't the question.
User avatar
hans zurbriggen
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: Scharnhorst vs Alaska

Post by hans zurbriggen »

Hello Mr. kevin32422,
I do agree with Mr. Crandell.
I would say that approx. over 20 km distance SH flat decks (machinery only, magazines over 23 km) are vulnerable to Alaska fire.
Under 20 km, Alaska belt becomes vulnerable to SH shells (at normal inclination).
Best range for Scharnhorst to engage would be from point blank to 15 km (belt + slope is immune to 12" shells at any distance). Still risks for SH at upper belt + flat deck (especially at the "step" over boilers). Best range for Alaska would be from 30 to 20 km.
I know nothing about Alaska subdivision and buoyancy reserve and redundancy, SH was very good. No advantage for speed on either side, reliability of SH propulsion is a question mark.

hans
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Scharnhorst vs Alaska

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
I looked up the specification for the Alaska class on Wikipedia, it seems that at around 30,00 tons with 9x12" guns and a speed of between 31-33 knots these should be classed as battlecruisers rather than 'heavy cruisers', also their hull protection was designed to keep out 10" shells.
The twins were both powerful ships, but an Alaska would be a formidable opponent against either one of them and I suspect they would not chose to engage unless forced to.
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Scharnhorst vs Alaska

Post by Steve Crandell »

The USN didn't actually call the Alaskas CAs; i.e. "Heavy Cruisers". I think that by most people's idea of a Battle Cruiser, that's what they were. Of course, so were the Iowas, really. But that's getting off topic of course.
User avatar
hans zurbriggen
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: Scharnhorst vs Alaska

Post by hans zurbriggen »

Hello,
on the other side, the Scharnhorst, initially designed and assembled as a Panzerschiff (armored ship), was categorized by Germans as Schlachtshiff (battleship) since her launch and never called Schlachtkreuzer (battle cruiser), that imho would have been correct.

hans
SteveSmith
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:18 pm

Re: Scharnhorst vs Alaska

Post by SteveSmith »

Every original plan I have found for the Alaska class describe them as "Large Cruiser." The Alaskas did not follow the pattern of battlecruisers, as in the size of a battleship, with guns the size of contemporary battleships, but having a larger power plant, less armor, and higher speed
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Scharnhorst vs Alaska

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
Thanks for your replies, I realise this is a bit 'off topic' but I wonder why the USN went for 12" guns and armoured the Alaskas to protect them against 10" shells? By the time that they were built 10" & 12" shells were a throwback to WW1, unless of course it was because the USN had a stock of 12" barrels that they wanted to use up. It seems that the US mainly used 14" and 16" guns on their big ships, so it is surprising that the did not go the whole hog and arm the Alaskas with 14" as they were already almost three times the size for cruisers laid out by the Washington Treaty.
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Scharnhorst vs Alaska

Post by Thorsten Wahl »

The Alaskas made every "heavy cruiser" obsoelete.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Scharnhorst vs Alaska

Post by Steve Crandell »

paul.mercer wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:41 am Gentlemen,
Thanks for your replies, I realise this is a bit 'off topic' but I wonder why the USN went for 12" guns and armoured the Alaskas to protect them against 10" shells? By the time that they were built 10" & 12" shells were a throwback to WW1, unless of course it was because the USN had a stock of 12" barrels that they wanted to use up. It seems that the US mainly used 14" and 16" guns on their big ships, so it is surprising that the did not go the whole hog and arm the Alaskas with 14" as they were already almost three times the size for cruisers laid out by the Washington Treaty.
The Alaska's 12"/50 guns were an entirely new model using new "super heavy" shells and equaled or exceeded the US 14" guns, as well as being much lighter. Whether it was logical to design a new gun for three ships is another issue.
SteveSmith
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:18 pm

Re: Scharnhorst vs Alaska

Post by SteveSmith »

Thorsten Wahl wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:42 pm The Alaskas made every "heavy cruiser" obsoelete.
As gun cruisers go, that's it.

Cruiser armaments largely peaked at about 8" during WW I for a variety of factors. There were some exceptions but that covered most of the cruiser range. After WWI, the London treaties limited cruisers to 8".

During WWI the general low end for battleships was 11" guns. That left a gap of 3" between the top of a cruiser and the bottom of a battleship.

After the battleship holiday, battleship guns went to 14–18". That created a 6" gap between battleships and cruisers.

Then we started to have ships that had guns that fell into the >8 and < 14" gun range, notably Deutschland, Scharnhorst, and Alaska. These have caused problems of classification when one looks strictly at the armament. For reasons that escape me, there are many published sources that call these battlecruisers, based solely upon armament.

A battlecruiser was a ship as large as a battleship, with guns the size of a battleship that were faster than battleships. The countries that built battlecruisers settle on design features that separated them from battleships. For example, British battlecruisers had one less deck than battleships and German battlecruiser had 4 shafts rather than 3 on battleships.

America planed to follow a similar pattern:
The Lexington Class battlecruisers were to be 44,000 tons, 8x 16" guns, and 33 kts.
The contemporary South Dakota battleships were to be 47,000 12x16" guns, and 23 kts.

If you examine the ships structurally:

Deutschland was simply a heavy cruiser with a smaller number > 8" guns.
Scharnhorst was a battleship with guns smaller than normal for the era.
Alaska was a much bigger than normal cruiser with bigger than normal guns.
Pukovnik7
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Scharnhorst vs Alaska

Post by Pukovnik7 »

SteveSmith wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 6:13 pmA battlecruiser was a ship as large as a battleship, with guns the size of a battleship that were faster than battleships.

Scharnhorst was a battleship with guns smaller than normal for the era.
I would disagree with that.

A battlecruiser is a capital ship that is designed for the express purpose of hunting down and killing cruisers as opposed to standing in a line of battle.

A 35 000 ton ship with 15 inch guns and 10 inch armor is a battlecruiser.
A 35 000 ton ship with 10 inch guns and 15 inch armor is also a battlecruiser.

Scharnhorsts were very definitely battlecruiser since, while they were armored like battleships, they lacked the armament to harm battleships.
Michael L
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun May 28, 2023 11:28 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Scharnhorst vs Alaska

Post by Michael L »

Range.
The longest range at which a direct hit was achieved during WWII was 24,000 metres (m).
“On 8 June 1940 the German battleship Scharnhorst hit the British aircraft carrier HMS Glorious at that range in the North Atlantic, while a month later on 9 July, during the battle of Calabria the British battleship HMS Warspite hit the Italian flagship Guilio Cesare at a similar distance” (Guinness Book of Records).
In the Battle of the River Plate, the Pocket Battleship Graf Spee commenced firing at a range of 17,000m. The battle saw the British Cruisers closed at one stage to within 12,000m.
In the Battle of the Denmark Strait, HMS Hood opened fire at 05:52 at a distance of approximately 24,200m (but never scored a hit during the entire battle). HMS Prince of Wales opened fire soon after. The German ships Bismarck and Prinz Eugen held their fire until 05:55. At 06:00, a salvo from Bismarck, fired from about 14,000m straddle HMS Hood. A shell penetrated below decks causing one of HMS Hood’s magazines to explode, and the ship sank in minutes.
The ranges for ship-to-ship engagements between the British and the Italians in the Mediterranean were commenced at approx. 24,000m with ships then closing.
The point being made here is that although the maximum ranges of the Alaska’s 12inch and Scharnhorst’s 11inch guns were in excess of 30,000m it is not likely that a battle would have occurred at that distance.
On the subject of radar, it should be noted that in the Battle of North Cape, 26 December 1943, in the opening salvos a shell from a British Cruiser destroyed Scharnhorst’s radar controls leaving Scharnhorst virtually blind, in a mounting snowstorm and night engagement, for the remainder of the battle.
Main Guns.
Alaska: 9 × 12-inch (305 mm)/50 caliber Mark 8 guns.
The American 12inch Armour Piercing shell weighted 520kg. Max rate of fire 3 rounds per minute.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.php
Muzzle Velocity:- AP: 2,500 fps (762 m/s).
Working Pressure:- 18.0 tons/in2 (2,835 kg/cm2).
Scharnhorst: 9 × 28 cm/54.5 (11 inch) SK C/34 guns.
The German 11inch Armour Piercing shell weighted 330kg. Max rate of fire 3.5 rounds per minute.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_11-545_skc34.php
Muzzle Velocity:- APC: 2,920 fps (890 m/s).
Working Pressure:- 20.3 tons/in2 (3,200 kg/cm2).
“The ballistic properties of the [German] guns made them effective against the new French Dunkerque class, which had an armored belt 225–283 mm, barbettes of 310–340 mm, at standard fighting distances.” (Wikipedia.)
Secondary Guns.
Alaska: 12 × 5-inch (127 mm)/38 caliber dual-purpose guns (6 × 2).
Weight of Shell: 25kg.
Rate of fire: 15 rpm (designed).
Muzzle velocity: 790 m/s.
Maximum firing range: 16,000 metres at 45°.
Scharnhorst: 12 × 15 cm/55 (5.9") SK C/28 guns (4 x 2 & 4 x 1).
Weight of Shell: 45kg.
Rate of fire: 8 rpm (maximum).
Muzzle velocity: 875 m/s.
Maximum firing range: 23,000 metres at 40°.
Armour. (Wikipedia.)
Alaska.
Main side belt: 230 mm.
Armor deck: 97 to 102 mm.
Turrets: 330 mm face, 130 mm roof, 133–152 mm side and 133 mm rear.
Conning tower: 270 mm.
Scharnhorst.
Belt: 350 mm.
Deck: 50 to 95 mm.
Turrets: 360 mm faces, 150 mm roofs, 200 mm sides.
Conning tower: 350 mm.
Design.
The Alaska class were designed to be very large Cruisers. “This ship combined a main armament of nine 12-inch guns with protection against 10-inch gunfire into a hull that was capable of 33 knots.” That is to say it was designed to ‘withstand’ enemy Cruisers with 8inch and 6inch guns.
The Scharnhorst class were designed to be Battleships, though they were also identified as Battlecruisers. At the time of their construction, they were limited by the Treaty of Versailles to 9 x 11 inch guns. At the time, in comparison to British Battleships, they were considered to be inferior. However, there were plans to re-equip them with 6 x 15 inch guns. It should be noted that, “the ships' hulls were constructed from longitudinal steel frames, over which the outer hull plates were welded. Their hulls contained 21 watertight compartments and had a double bottom for 79% of their length.”
In its final battle against a British Battleship, HMS Duke of York, equipped with 14inch guns, (as well as 4 Cruisers and 8 Destroyers) the Scharnhorst showed it could take a lot of punishment.
Alaska (or Guam) was never put to the test.
Opinion.
Alaska was designed as a large Cruiser, with the primary role of protecting fast carriers and countering the threat of enemy cruisers. The Scharnhorst was designed to potentially engage enemy capital ships, that is enemy Battleships and Battlecruisers. There is no denying that the Alaska’s 12 inch gun was bigger than Scharnhorst’s 11 inch gun. But the German 11 inch gun was capable of penetrating Alaska’s Armour.
In an encounter battle at sea, it is my opinion that the Scharnhorst would have had the edge. While each ship could hit the other at range, history shows that the real action would commence around 24,000m and closing. As the range closed to 23,000, the German 5.9 inch guns would join in, and while they would not deliver a crippling blow, they could do a lot of super-structural damage, well before the American 5inch began engaging, albeit with a greater rate of fire, at 16,000m.
However, the battle would be won when one of the ships managed to get some decisive hits and knocked out their opponent’s main armament, fire control, engines and/or steering. In this respect, as each ship have three 3 barrel turrets, the odds appear to be the same. Here I come to what I consider to be the main difference in the two ships. The Scharnhorst’s armour protection and design are, in my humble opinion, better than the Alaska’s.
Barring a lucky hit, the Scharnhorst should have prevailed if it encountered Alaska. But it would likely have come off very battered and in need of major repairs.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Michael L.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Scharnhorst vs Alaska

Post by dunmunro »

Michael L wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 1:46 pm
In the Battle of the Denmark Strait, HMS Hood opened fire at 05:52 at a distance of approximately 24,200m (but never scored a hit during the entire battle). HMS Prince of Wales opened fire soon after. The German ships Bismarck and Prinz Eugen held their fire until 05:55.
Bismarck opened fire within one minute of so of Hood's opening salvos, according to observers on all three surviving RN ships.Here's what Suffolk's report had to say:
0553 (B). Heavy gun flashes bearing 185°. Half a minute later Bismarck opened fire to port.
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09suff.htm
Michael L
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun May 28, 2023 11:28 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Scharnhorst vs Alaska

Post by Michael L »

There are always two sides to a story.
The Germans held their fire until 05:55, when both German ships fired on Hood. Lütjens did not immediately give the order to begin firing. Bismarck's first gunnery officer, Korvettenkapitän Adalbert Schneider, asked "Frage Feuererlaubnis?" (Permission to open fire?) several times without receiving a response, until the captain of Bismarck, Kapitän zur See Ernst Lindemann, impatiently responded: "Ich lasse mir doch nicht mein Schiff unter dem Arsch wegschießen. Feuererlaubnis!" (I'm not letting my ship get shot out from under my arse. Open fire!) –
Grützner, Jens (2010) (in German). Kapitän zur See Ernst Lindemann: Der Bismarck-Kommandant – Eine Biographie. VDM Heinz Nickel, page 180, as cited in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... ark_Strait

However, whether the Germans returned fire half a minute afterwards, or three minutes afterwards, is missing the point I was trying to make. Which was that, historically the range for the 'effective' commencement of an engagement between ships was 24,000m after which the ships would close on each other.
In my opinion, it would be unlikely that an engagement between the Alaska and Scharnhorst would be carried out at a range exceeding 24,000m. They would invariably close on each other.
Post Reply