RHSEBO: Updated - and expanded to ALL scenarios

[el cid again]

If we accept your statement - it was to outfight CAs
then it as a technical failure as designed - since it coult not even fight light cruisers on equal terms

neverming outfight them


The flaws are too many

too slow
too little poitection
too little distribution of offensive firepower
too weak an offensive battery to achieve decisive results

Scharnhorst is a far better design -

fast enough

distributed main battery

enough guns to have a high chance of hitting per salvo (if high applies to naval guns- which get 2 in 100 at point blank range)

Fletcher Pratt was a naval historian. He said "the reason the ship was scuttled was, above all, so it would not have to fight again" It ran - took worse than it dished out - and was unable to find a tactical solution that promised a reasonable chance of survival - never mind continuing operations. When a raider refuses to raid - and scuttles - it is because its captain thinks the mission has failed - and the ship will fall into enemy hands if he does not do that.

What is wrong with it is that it is a failed concept. A Prinz Eugen would have fared better - at least if it had a diesel plant on the centrline shaft for long range cruising.

It could outrun what it could not outfight.

[el cid again]

There is no modern CA in the world I would not prefer to a Panzerschiffe. Even the worst of the treaty "tinclads" are a better bargain. In a fight - and I speak as an experienced and deadly naval tactical gamer.

I also probably witnessed the last line of battle in history - a battle you cannot read about because we do not brag when line warships are defeated by armed junks using army guns - defeat in a strategic sense - they achieved their mission - we failed to stop them - which was our mission - and we never dared try again - for years.

Naval gunnery battles depend on basics - and exotics do not count half so much if there is spine on both sides. Basics win. Basics include ROF, number of tubes, and so on. A CA with 8 inch guns in greater numbers is always superior to a Panzerschiffe - and interestingly Exeter had only six 8 inch - but Graf was not even superior to her. ROF matters.

Not that the 11 inch is a bad gun - if you spread it out so one lucky hit does not take you down to 3 tubes (4 is the minimum for effective naval gunnery).

[herwin]

The Prinz Eugen was built for an imaginary mission: to raid the French troop convoys in the med. It was really built for prestige. The balance was wrong--too big for the armament, and lightly built (relative to American heavy cruisers) despite the extra tonnage.

[Historiker]

too slow
too little poitection
too little distribution of offensive firepower
too weak an offensive battery to achieve decisive results
Scharnhorst is a far better design -

fast enough

Sorry, but I can't agree. You mustn't compare the ship with totally different ships. What you can compare it with is ships of the same size - and that are heavy cruisers, not the Scharnhorst (which is of course "better", as it was a BB, and every BB should be "better" than a CA, no?)...

You must compare the ship with a single CA, not with a BB or a number of ships.
Why should a usual CA be better than the Deutschland-class? Their armour is the same or the Deutschland is armoured even better. 15cm hits did damage, so what? The 20,3cm hit of the Prinz Eugen on the Hood did damage as well. It was never said that "armoured against" means "doesn't even make a scratch". It just means "ship stays fully operational (without a lucky hit which is always possible) after a usual (usual number of hits) battle against guns of that size.

Battery: The 28cm was a fine gun! Its range was extraordinary and its shells were fine as well. Its ROF was higher than (nearly) all other big guns. 6 of them isn't that much, but that's the compromise that one has to make to keep the citadel short. As its turrets were armoured heavier than the turrets of most or all CAs, the tripple turrets weren't perfect, but they were protected enough to survive an 8in hit.
Its broadside had a weight of 1800kg, the broadside of 8 20cm/50 3rd Year Type No 2 just 1006kg - so its firepower was nearly the double.
Moreover, the higher chance of hitting with more guns makes sense, but one 28cm hit is definitly more devastating than two 20,3cm hits.

The speed...
Yes, 28kt might be to few for the second world war, as there were a number of faster BBs in service then, but you must consider the circumstances of its design. When it was designed, there were nearly no stronger ships that were faster. You can't compare that with later ships. Moreover, in the late 20th and early 30th, that was the compromise one has to make if it was intended to achieve a huge range throug diesels. It was designed against France so there were no Repulse, Renown and Hood to outrun it and no Kongos as well...
Nevertheless, there are several CAs with compareable dimensions that were equipped with usual turbines and so faster. So if you like it to be faster, equip it with turbines...


You musn't make the failure to compare the ship with more than one ship of the same size.

Fletcher Pratt was a naval historian. He said "the reason the ship was scuttled was, above all, so it would not have to fight again" It ran - took worse than it dished out - and was unable to find a tactical solution that promised a reasonable chance of survival - never mind continuing operations. When a raider refuses to raid - and scuttles - it is because its captain thinks the mission has failed - and the ship will fall into enemy hands if he does not do that.

The reason why the ship was scuttled was, that its captain Hans Langsdorff was a fool! He considered commerce raiding to have no honor, as they aren't armed. He never had the order to attack other warships, instead, he should avoid contact.
When he spotted the three cruisers, he took his chance to fight an enemy that was more honorable than unarmed merchants...
What was the result of the battle? He crippled the Exceter and the two light cruisers had to suffer several hits as well. The Graf Spee itself had to take several hits, but its guns were operational and its speed wasn't reduced as well (at least afaik).
What do you guess would have happend to the Exceter allone?
While the other CA was taken out of action, the Graf Spee itself was still in fighting condition despite the fact that it had not only to fight against one single CA - which would be "fair" - but instead against one CA and two CLs!
Is it a false assumption then, to consider the Admiral Graf Spee to be better than the CA Exceter?

Why it was scuttled afterwards? Because the Graf Spee was low on ammo after the battle and Hans Langsdorff thought that he had to face superior forces. The rumors talked about a CV and at least one BB. To avoid a battle without any chance of survival, he decided to save the lives of his crew by avoiding the battle and scutteling the ship. This was the reason and not because it was outfighted by the three cruisers...

[el cid again]

Deutchland appears not as well armored as a CL - CA and CL were armorred vs 6 inch - but Deutchland was not able to take 6 inch fire and ignore it.

Deutchland was also too slow - not 28 knots - but only 26. This is such that every cruiser in the world had the initiative if its engines were operational.

A ship may in theory be supposed to fight one opponent - but a raider needs to be able to deal with two or three CL - particularly if the raider faces the RN or USN. It should be able to stand up o the shells of a CL - or it is in principle not much better than an armed merchant ship.
Why have armor at all if you cannot take the lightest cruiser fire?

It was a failed concept and it did not work out well. The mercahnts with ancient guns - but able to disguise themselves as other merchants - were much better - and more cost effective. My second ship was named in honor of an enemy raider - and I am a fan of several raiders in history.

[DuckofTindalos]

Er, no... The Deutschlands COULD make 28 knots, and their armour was nearly on par with the Hipper class. That being said, the class was probably not a good use of resources.

[Historiker]

Deutschland and Admiral Graf Spee ran 28kn.
I don't know what data you have or what kind of CL you are talking about, but they had the same armour as CAs.

A ship may in theory be supposed to fight one opponent - but a raider needs to be able to deal with two or three CL

Well, almoust any ship is inferior if it faces one of its own class and two lighter ones, so this isn't an argument at all.

Moreover, it was able to take CL fire - or did the CLs do any serious damage?

[Historiker]

Didn't you say the number of aircraft will increase in this scenario? I've looked into it and it seems that this hasen't changed from EEO...

The F4F-3S Wild Catfish is a fighter, not a float fighter

uhm... is it intended that the Allied player recieves dozends of P-26 squads even util 44 armed mit up to 10x1000lbs bombs???

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It was a failed concept and it did not work out well. The mercahnts with ancient guns - but able to disguise themselves as other merchants - were much better - and more cost effective. My second ship was named in honor of an enemy raider - and I am a fan of several raiders in history.

What you must keep in mind is that the Panzerschiffe were designed inside the straitjacket of the Versailles Treaty. These ships were replacements for the pre-dreadnoughts of the Hannover and Deutschland classes - which were falling apart at the time - and their displacement was fixed at a maximum of 10.000 tons while the caliber of their main guns was fixed at 11 in/280 mm. The ships were by definition of the Versailles Treaty battleships, and the Treaty authorized 280 mm for battleships, 150 mm for cruisers and 105 mm for destroyers.

The Treaty was carefully crafted to prevent the German Navy from building ships that could have been regarded as competitive, so Germany ended up with 10,000 ton "battleships", 6000 ton cruisers - when everybody else was busily building "Washington" cruisers - and 800 ton destroyers. Germany several times attempted to use different gun calibers, but each time experienced such hostile reactions from the Allies that those plans were scrapped.

Now try to produce a ship conforming to these restraints that actually makes sense, and remember, Germany had genuine need for heavy units, for protection against sea-borne invasion attempts, and protection of sea lanes of communication, especially between East Prussia and the rest of the Reich. Enemies would have been primarily Poland (and France promised the Poles support by a squadron of their fleet in case of war against Germany) and Russia (which still had four dreadnoughts, every single one of which would have outgunned any two German "battleships").

In short, something revolutionary was needed, and the concept the designers came up with was of course compromised by contradicting constraints, but when you remember that the most probable enemy were the French (who had demonstrated their readiness to come across the border at the slightest pretext, in pursuit of a centuries-old habit), at the time the ships were built, the concept would have worked: French cruisers were faster but essentially unprotected, and the French BB's at the time might have passed 20 kts if you had fuelled them with nitroglycerine. The Royal Navy was unthinkable as adversary at the time.

Sure, the ships would have benefited from more displacement and a different armament, but that went for all Reichsmarine designs, especially for the CL's which actually had a very advanced but sound concept and with a few thousand tons more displacement might have actually ended up with hulls that wouldn't crumple when hit by waves and would have been able to operate outside the Baltic.

The Kriegsmarine planned to rebuild the Panzerschiffe in the late thirties which would have eliminated some of the flaws, and would have entailed lengthening and widening the hull (which was expected to raise maximum speed by two knots; apparently the original hull shape was anything but hydrodynamically optimized, I'd guess too high a block coefficient). The Z Plan contained twelve additional Panzerschiffe of an advanced type - mainly speed increased to 34 kts, but, as with all partly or wholly diesel-powered ships in the Z Plan, the unsatisfactory power/weight ratio of contemporary diesels unbalanced the proposed design.

You are right about the risks of using triple turrets. The German Navy traditionally regarded them as a device from hell; they were determined champions of the twin turret - mainly for reasons of ROF and minimized deck openings. So triple turrets were used for one reason only - weight saving. You couldn't have put more than two 280 mm turrets on a 10,000 ton hull and still have some armour protection. The later Z plan Panzerschiffe might have been closer to the WWI BC Von der Tann: 8 x 280 mm in twin turrets and a displacement of 18000-19000 tons.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Didn't you say the number of aircraft will increase in this scenario? I've looked into it and it seems that this hasen't changed from EEO...

The F4F-3S Wild Catfish is a fighter, not a float fighter

uhm... is it intended that the Allied player recieves dozends of P-26 squads even util 44 armed mit up to 10x1000lbs bombs???

A misunderstanding here I think: I did say the number of aircraft is increased - but not RE EEO.

This scenario essentially IS EEO - and EEO is running full max the number of planes possible - possibly more than is reasonable.
It is typically 50 per cent higher than in CVO or BBO or IRL - same same. The Allied response to the Evil Empire - in any variation (and there are three different ones) is always the same - max aircraft. EEO IS, however, bigger than EOS -
EOS runs 25 per cent more planes (where possible - obviously not for planes not in production) and that is likely more reasonable

Also - the impact of losiing all those planes is probably not properly figured out - there likely should be less late war reinforcements for the Allies - but I have not figured it out better - at least yet.

Anyway - EEO/EBO are twice as much more planes than EOS/AIO are - and these in turn are bigger than CVO/BBO are.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: mikemike

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It was a failed concept and it did not work out well. The mercahnts with ancient guns - but able to disguise themselves as other merchants - were much better - and more cost effective. My second ship was named in honor of an enemy raider - and I am a fan of several raiders in history.

What you must keep in mind is that the Panzerschiffe were designed inside the straitjacket of the Versailles Treaty. These ships were replacements for the pre-dreadnoughts of the Hannover and Deutschland classes - which were falling apart at the time - and their displacement was fixed at a maximum of 10.000 tons while the caliber of their main guns was fixed at 11 in/280 mm. The ships were by definition of the Versailles Treaty battleships, and the Treaty authorized 280 mm for battleships, 150 mm for cruisers and 105 mm for destroyers.

The Treaty was carefully crafted to prevent the German Navy from building ships that could have been regarded as competitive, so Germany ended up with 10,000 ton "battleships", 6000 ton cruisers - when everybody else was busily building "Washington" cruisers - and 800 ton destroyers. Germany several times attempted to use different gun calibers, but each time experienced such hostile reactions from the Allies that those plans were scrapped.

Now try to produce a ship conforming to these restraints that actually makes sense, and remember, Germany had genuine need for heavy units, for protection against sea-borne invasion attempts, and protection of sea lanes of communication, especially between East Prussia and the rest of the Reich. Enemies would have been primarily Poland (and France promised the Poles support by a squadron of their fleet in case of war against Germany) and Russia (which still had four dreadnoughts, every single one of which would have outgunned any two German "battleships").

In short, something revolutionary was needed, and the concept the designers came up with was of course compromised by contradicting constraints, but when you remember that the most probable enemy were the French (who had demonstrated their readiness to come across the border at the slightest pretext, in pursuit of a centuries-old habit), at the time the ships were built, the concept would have worked: French cruisers were faster but essentially unprotected, and the French BB's at the time might have passed 20 kts if you had fuelled them with nitroglycerine. The Royal Navy was unthinkable as adversary at the time.

Sure, the ships would have benefited from more displacement and a different armament, but that went for all Reichsmarine designs, especially for the CL's which actually had a very advanced but sound concept and with a few thousand tons more displacement might have actually ended up with hulls that wouldn't crumple when hit by waves and would have been able to operate outside the Baltic.

The Kriegsmarine planned to rebuild the Panzerschiffe in the late thirties which would have eliminated some of the flaws, and would have entailed lengthening and widening the hull (which was expected to raise maximum speed by two knots; apparently the original hull shape was anything but hydrodynamically optimized, I'd guess too high a block coefficient). The Z Plan contained twelve additional Panzerschiffe of an advanced type - mainly speed increased to 34 kts, but, as with all partly or wholly diesel-powered ships in the Z Plan, the unsatisfactory power/weight ratio of contemporary diesels unbalanced the proposed design.

You are right about the risks of using triple turrets. The German Navy traditionally regarded them as a device from hell; they were determined champions of the twin turret - mainly for reasons of ROF and minimized deck openings. So triple turrets were used for one reason only - weight saving. You couldn't have put more than two 280 mm turrets on a 10,000 ton hull and still have some armour protection. The later Z plan Panzerschiffe might have been closer to the WWI BC Von der Tann: 8 x 280 mm in twin turrets and a displacement of 18000-19000 tons.

There is much merit in this discussion - and while it does not change the ships were failures - I never said WHY they were failures. The major omission is that they were not in fact conforming to the treaty - they were not 10,000 ton ships. But it appears NO NATION honored the treaty - - everyone built ships too large (except USN cruisers - which were too small - but that was a mistake and not understood at the time of their design).

The idea that a panzershiffe could stand up to six inch fire is a misunderstanding - and Graf Spee is a case in point. Both in the real battle - and in countless simulations of it - which can be done very well today - you find the panzerschiffe usually loses - no matter the skill of her player. When it wins - it is because of lucky hits with admittedly big shells. But she fires so few of these the chance of such a hit are low - and it happens no more than one battle in six.

I repeat - ANY 1930s vintage cruiser with 8 or more 8 inch guns - or with 9 or more six inch guns - is clearly preferable to a panzerschiffe - and the six gun ships are probably marginally preferable - because not one of these had only two turrets. I favor balance in most things, and in warship design. If you cannot give me at least three turrets - I won't build it and ride it into battle. I hate the new navy "one of everything" design philosophy - but the designers have not been in any naval battles. I have.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Didn't you say the number of aircraft will increase in this scenario? I've looked into it and it seems that this hasen't changed from EEO...

The F4F-3S Wild Catfish is a fighter, not a float fighter

uhm... is it intended that the Allied player recieves dozends of P-26 squads even util 44 armed mit up to 10x1000lbs bombs???

A misunderstanding here I think: I did say the number of aircraft is increased - but not RE EEO.

This scenario essentially IS EEO - and EEO is running full max the number of planes possible - possibly more than is reasonable.
It is typically 50 per cent higher than in CVO or BBO or IRL - same same. The Allied response to the Evil Empire - in any variation (and there are three different ones) is always the same - max aircraft. EEO IS, however, bigger than EOS -
EOS runs 25 per cent more planes (where possible - obviously not for planes not in production) and that is likely more reasonable

Also - the impact of losiing all those planes is probably not properly figured out - there likely should be less late war reinforcements for the Allies - but I have not figured it out better - at least yet.

Anyway - EEO/EBO are twice as much more planes than EOS/AIO are - and these in turn are bigger than CVO/BBO are.

What about the F4F-3S and the P-26?

[el cid again]

The P-26 is replaced in EEO (and therefore EBO) by the PBB Sea Ranger - in the sense the slot is taken by that plane - so in a sense y0ou get vastly more aircraft because of it. And far more combat significant aircraft.

The P-26 in units is replaced by giving them P-35s from the pool. ONLY ONE unit of Philippine Air Force used the P-26 - so it was a handful of planes - while PBB is built in vast numbers.

This was done to give the Allies more air power - and it is only one of several such cases. In this sense - there are significantly more than twice as great a number change between EEO and EOS family scenarios.

The F4F-3S Wildcatfish is only found in BBO family scenarios - those NOT carrier oriented - in whch a seaplane fighter might find a role.
This is a dismal performing aircraft coming too late to work for its performance - it does not begin the war but is a midwar plane. In all EOS family scenarios (including EEO and EBO) it is replaced by the PV-1 Ventura/B-34 bomber - a vastly more important aircraft.

Aircraft were carefully studies and therre are two - and only two - sets in RHS- and we cannot change this without making a technical mess. But I don't think anyone wants the Catfish - or will after they look at its date and specs. Japanese seaplane fighters are barely worth having - and they are better than this - and sooner.

[el cid again]

Reviewing US cruisers, I was reminded that the USN built the Brooklyns to "over power an 8 inch cruiser" - CA were not completely safe if enough six inch was incoming. The higher ROF combined with higher neumber of tubes to make a six inch choice very wise - and during the war RN and USN mainly build CLs - as indeed did IJN.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The P-26 is replaced in EEO (and therefore EBO) by the PBB Sea Ranger - in the sense the slot is taken by that plane - so in a sense y0ou get vastly more aircraft because of it. And far more combat significant aircraft.

The P-26 in units is replaced by giving them P-35s from the pool. ONLY ONE unit of Philippine Air Force used the P-26 - so it was a handful of planes - while PBB is built in vast numbers.

This was done to give the Allies more air power - and it is only one of several such cases. In this sense - there are significantly more than twice as great a number change between EEO and EOS family scenarios.

The F4F-3S Wildcatfish is only found in BBO family scenarios - those NOT carrier oriented - in whch a seaplane fighter might find a role.
This is a dismal performing aircraft coming too late to work for its performance - it does not begin the war but is a midwar plane. In all EOS family scenarios (including EEO and EBO) it is replaced by the PV-1 Ventura/B-34 bomber - a vastly more important aircraft.

Aircraft were carefully studies and therre are two - and only two - sets in RHS- and we cannot change this without making a technical mess. But I don't think anyone wants the Catfish - or will after they look at its date and specs. Japanese seaplane fighters are barely worth having - and they are better than this - and sooner.

Maybe you should look into the DB again - because I ask this question not without reasons... At least in the file you sent per email, both F4F-3S and P-26 are in the game - armed with torpedoes or up to 10.000 pounds of bombs (I would like to see this on a P-26 [:D])

[mikemike]

I can't disagree with your assessment of the military utility of the Panzerschiffe. I've just reread the relevant chapter of Mike Whitley's "German Capital Ships of WWII", and it seems that the German Navy examined a large number of design variations in order to come up with something usable for this very urgently needed new unit, and that in the end they decided to build the least unsatisfactory design. Possibly, they dreamed up the "guerre-de-course" mission for the ship afterwards to make it palatable for the Naval Budget Committee. This mission, while just plausible initially, was of course overtaken by BB development trends from 1934 onwards. The initial cruises of the Panzerschiffe, while ineffective in a military sense, were one of the very rare examples of a weapons system being employed in the role it was said to be designed for. That was, of course, Graf Spee's bad luck. And the Navy hypnotised itself into a guerre-de-course dream called the Z Plan where insistence on Diesel power for maximized range badly unbalanced nearly every design.

The CA's (and "Graf Zeppelin", too) were, however, blatant examples of "me-too-ism", they were built because the big boys had them, too, although nobody seems to have had a clear idea what to use them for. The official mission of cutting off French North Africa from mainland France was completely bogus and may have been inspired by events in WWI where "Goeben" and "Breslau" bombarded Phillippeville and Bone in Algeria, thus delaying transfer of Algerian troops to France by as much as a week! At least, the programme yielded a very nice 8-inch gun, and the "Prinz Eugen" seems to have been devastatingly effective in giving NGFS towards the end of the war. BTW, has anybody seen a comparison of the 20,3 L60 SKC/34 to other 8-in guns? I only know that the USN tested guns from "Prinz Eugen" postwar.

I personally think that the German Navy might have been far better served by making a proper job of their CL concept which wasn't at all bad - the K class ships had literally unlimited firing arcs on their after turrets as soon as the barrel elevation was high enough to let the shells clear the forward superstructure, 20 or 25 degrees I think. The French had a very nice design with their "La Galissonniere" class. I've always liked those ships - a nice combination of speed, protection and fire power for their displacement. (Any chance of one of them appearing as Free French in WitP?) Something like that would have been fine for the German Navy. And of course rather more utility destroyers.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The P-26 is replaced in EEO (and therefore EBO) by the PBB Sea Ranger - in the sense the slot is taken by that plane - so in a sense y0ou get vastly more aircraft because of it. And far more combat significant aircraft.

The P-26 in units is replaced by giving them P-35s from the pool. ONLY ONE unit of Philippine Air Force used the P-26 - so it was a handful of planes - while PBB is built in vast numbers.

This was done to give the Allies more air power - and it is only one of several such cases. In this sense - there are significantly more than twice as great a number change between EEO and EOS family scenarios.

The F4F-3S Wildcatfish is only found in BBO family scenarios - those NOT carrier oriented - in whch a seaplane fighter might find a role.
This is a dismal performing aircraft coming too late to work for its performance - it does not begin the war but is a midwar plane. In all EOS family scenarios (including EEO and EBO) it is replaced by the PV-1 Ventura/B-34 bomber - a vastly more important aircraft.

Aircraft were carefully studies and therre are two - and only two - sets in RHS- and we cannot change this without making a technical mess. But I don't think anyone wants the Catfish - or will after they look at its date and specs. Japanese seaplane fighters are barely worth having - and they are better than this - and sooner.

Maybe you should look into the DB again - because I ask this question not without reasons... At least in the file you sent per email, both F4F-3S and P-26 are in the game - armed with torpedoes or up to 10.000 pounds of bombs (I would like to see this on a P-26 [:D])

Something is not right - neither plane is in RHSEBO - or in RHSEEO either. And I did check. You have mixed up files.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: mikemike

I can't disagree with your assessment of the military utility of the Panzerschiffe. I've just reread the relevant chapter of Mike Whitley's "German Capital Ships of WWII", and it seems that the German Navy examined a large number of design variations in order to come up with something usable for this very urgently needed new unit, and that in the end they decided to build the least unsatisfactory design. Possibly, they dreamed up the "guerre-de-course" mission for the ship afterwards to make it palatable for the Naval Budget Committee. This mission, while just plausible initially, was of course overtaken by BB development trends from 1934 onwards. The initial cruises of the Panzerschiffe, while ineffective in a military sense, were one of the very rare examples of a weapons system being employed in the role it was said to be designed for. That was, of course, Graf Spee's bad luck. And the Navy hypnotised itself into a guerre-de-course dream called the Z Plan where insistence on Diesel power for maximized range badly unbalanced nearly every design.

The CA's (and "Graf Zeppelin", too) were, however, blatant examples of "me-too-ism", they were built because the big boys had them, too, although nobody seems to have had a clear idea what to use them for. The official mission of cutting off French North Africa from mainland France was completely bogus and may have been inspired by events in WWI where "Goeben" and "Breslau" bombarded Phillippeville and Bone in Algeria, thus delaying transfer of Algerian troops to France by as much as a week! At least, the programme yielded a very nice 8-inch gun, and the "Prinz Eugen" seems to have been devastatingly effective in giving NGFS towards the end of the war. BTW, has anybody seen a comparison of the 20,3 L60 SKC/34 to other 8-in guns? I only know that the USN tested guns from "Prinz Eugen" postwar.

I personally think that the German Navy might have been far better served by making a proper job of their CL concept which wasn't at all bad - the K class ships had literally unlimited firing arcs on their after turrets as soon as the barrel elevation was high enough to let the shells clear the forward superstructure, 20 or 25 degrees I think. The French had a very nice design with their "La Galissonniere" class. I've always liked those ships - a nice combination of speed, protection and fire power for their displacement. (Any chance of one of them appearing as Free French in WitP?) Something like that would have been fine for the German Navy. And of course rather more utility destroyers.

Kriegsmarine did suffer badly from political and strategic lack of vision. But the guerre de course was a very German idea - based in the main on submarine warfare - and its great moment of near success was in WWI - in April 1918. They wanted to do that sort of thing again - and keep it up for 6 to 12 months - and never came close. The basic idea was not too bad - but without long range air it was not going to be very effective.

The need for carriers was more sound - see War Without Carriers - and the failure to field any was a big problem. Carriers are not really just for fleet battle - but for defensive missions - and without them German ships suffered badly moving from place to place. The idea of a carrier cum cruiser is seen in the USN too - look at Lex and Sara - and in IJN - see Kaga and Akagi - so it was not purely a German idea - and USN and IJN were assumed to know what they were doing. Germany would be better served by cheaper converted carriers - and easier to build fleet carriers without lots of SP guns and armor - but more planes. The big problem for German carriers is - what do they fly? and who will fly them? Luftwaffe is not the ideal naval aviaition institution of all time.

Prinz Eugen had fabulous guns - and if the ship had hybred steam diesel propulsion - it would have had long range. She beat up Prince of Wales - not bad for a CA - and had not only radar but superior sonar. It worked at high speed - something unheard of in that era - and could detect out in convergence zones- and became the basis of USN submarine sonar. [See Submarines Since WWII - UNSI - with a photograph of her sonar around the sail of a US fleet boat - it surrounds the sail]

[DuckofTindalos]

Short comparison:

USN 8in/55 Mk 12: Max range with 335lb AP shell 30Kyds, muzzle velocity 2,500 fps, penetration at 10,8Kyds about 10in

RN 8in/50 Mk VIII: Max range with 256lb SAPC shell 30,6Kyds, muzzle velocity 2,725 fps, penetration n/a

KM 20.3cm/60 SK C/34: Max range with 269lb APC shell 36,6Kyds, muzzle velocity 3,035 fps, penetration at 10,4Kyds about 9,5in of face-hardened armour

IJN 20cm/50 3YT No.2: Max range with 277lb AP shell 32,1Kyds, muzzle velocity 2,756 fps, penetration at 10,5Kyds about 7,5in.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: el cid again


The need for carriers was more sound - see War Without Carriers - and the failure to field any was a big problem. Carriers are not really just for fleet battle - but for defensive missions - and without them German ships suffered badly moving from place to place. The idea of a carrier cum cruiser is seen in the USN too - look at Lex and Sara - and in IJN - see Kaga and Akagi - so it was not purely a German idea - and USN and IJN were assumed to know what they were doing. Germany would be better served by cheaper converted carriers - and easier to build fleet carriers without lots of SP guns and armor - but more planes. The big problem for German carriers is - what do they fly? and who will fly them? Luftwaffe is not the ideal naval aviaition institution of all time.

I agree that having CV's would have been good - you just have to imagine Operation Rheinübung with a German CV accompanying Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. It's just that I think nobody in the Kriegsmarine had a clear idea of how to employ a CV, so Graf Zeppelin was stuffed with sixteen 150 mm guns for defence against destroyers. The best way to proceed would have been to slap a flightdeck on some suitable hull - maybe one of those fast supply tankers a la Suwannee - and just try operating aircraft from it. That would have weeded out the worst ideas - like launching all aircraft by compressed-air catapult. (I can just imagine it: "What do you mean- reinforce the CAP? We just launched a full strike of eighteen aircraft - it will take half an hour to recharge the compressed-air reservoirs!"). The problem was that the Kriegsmarine had to be expanded right now, and there was no time to do anything like proof-of-concept. So they generally went with the first design that looked plausible, and were often bitten by it. Prime example is the way they went wholesale for those super-high-pressure steam plants without any prototype tests, and all the first-generation plants proved to be uneconomic, unreliable, and wasteful of space. All the good stuff came too late for the war. The Kriegsmarine dearly needed all the years of peace Hitler promised them ("I won't need the Kriegsmarine before 1947") to shake out the flaws.