best in class question

[herwin]

The 11" rifles of the Scharnhorst had better short-range performance against belt armour at the cost of much poorer long-range performance against deck armour. YMMV.

[Japan]

That is correct, but unlike for the Brittish this was not a problem.

The Far Suppirrior  German Fire Controll  made the German ships very accurate, as far as i remember the German Navy holds the Record for the Longest Range Shot who hit a enamy ship. 

The German BC's and BB's could with other words fairly safely dissengage if the Very Long Range Duel would be in the enamys favur.
And if the Ranges would be from 35'000 and down, the Germans had a far larger chanse of hitting the enamy due to its supirrior Fire Controll.

Normal Doctrine at the time for Germany was to not engage, nor be engaged on ranges above 20'000 yards.
However, if thay had to - The German Firecontroll and Gun Preformance would been an advantage to them.

The German Navy had during WW2 never the intention of Securing Sea Suprimecy, but instead intention of Killing Enamy at Long or Short Range, before the Enamy had time to react... then to slip away before the "British Navel Mass Assult Doctrine" kicked in. Ie. HMS Hood fell secrafise to that doctrine.

Anyway, point is, I dont think it is fair to claim the 11" Gun to be a Poor Gun, when you see its preformance of twise the reload speed, its range and that it has better Armor Penetration Values then the 14" Guns of King George V

(Reference in Post Above).


[:)]

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: Japan

The Far Suppirrior  German Fire Controll  made the German ships very accurate, as far as i remember the German Navy holds the Record for the Longest Range Shot who hit a enamy ship. 

I thought HMS Warspite held that record?

[String]

ORIGINAL: Japan



The Far Suppirrior  German Fire Controll  made the German ships very accurate, as far as i remember the German Navy holds the Record for the Longest Range Shot who hit a enamy ship. 

Shared with HMS Warspite. [;)]

[Dixie]

Surely you have to pass through 'long range' to get into the mid-ranges?  And at long range penetration against deck armour is more important.

[goodboyladdie]

Theoretical performance counts for nothing. Every WW2 German vessel armed with the 11 inch gun ran away when faced with British Capital Ships and on one famous occasion a ship so armed ran from British cruisers...

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Theoretical performance counts for nothing. Every WW2 German vessel armed with the 11 inch gun ran away when faced with British Capital Ships and on one famous occasion a ship so armed ran from British cruisers...

Light cruisers at that...

[borner]

when under orders not t rish your ships, what else can you do.... it is not a reflection of the ships themselves

[goodboyladdie]

Against a British Battlecruiser off Norway it was two to one and they still ran. Graf Spee was instructed to run from "superior" forces - I would argue that the vessels involved were not superior. Later in the war your argument holds true, but they were not building ships with this supposedly superior 11 inch gun at that time. Why did they go for 15 inch if the 11 inch was sufficient to overwhelm the Royal Navy's newest battleships?

I have just realised I took some Japan bait and got involved in another recurring thread argument - Doh!

[Tiornu]

Have we moved on from Battelcruisers?

Well, if Dunkerque and Scharnhorst can fit in the battlecruiser category, all the modern battleships can.

In their original role as the hunters of Armoured Cruisers they were a great idea, but, as predicted, they were misused by being placed in the battle line and expected to survive.

I don't see them as hunters of armored cruisers; they WERE armored cruisers. Would we call dreadnoughts "hunters of pre-dreadnoughts"?
The battle-line role of armored/battlecruisers preceded Jutland by more than a decade, and we could profitably consider the subject from a pre-1910 perspective.
No battlecruisers were in a Jutland battle line.

I never understood why Cavour and Duilio were considered Battleships in WW2 they were much more like BC's.

I've been guilty of such a characterization. Their original armor scheme was rather skimpy.

Take a Look at the Penetration Values below

Noting that a gun penetrates such-and-such inches of armor is not instructive unless you define the armor. British figures refer to British armor, German figures refer to German armor. I suggest using FACEHARD calculations for an apples-to-apples comparison.
It has already been noted that the cited figures neglect deck penetration.

The Far Suppirrior German Fire Controll made the German ships very accurate, as far as i remember the German Navy holds the Record for the Longest Range Shot who hit a enamy ship.

German fire control forced the skippers of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau to rip 20km of cables out of each ship just to get the systems to work properly. Apart from the early use of radar, there's nothing especially superior about German fire control. The Germans never did get a practical, full-RPC system into service for their big guns.
The record for longest hit may actually belong to USS Massachusetts.

I dont think it is fair to claim the 11" Gun to be a Poor Gun

Correct--on its own terms, the guns was perfectly all right. However, it was weak by battleship standards.

on one famous occasion a ship so armed ran from British cruisers

A single cruiser ran from a trio of cruisers. Why?

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Why did they go for 15 inch if the 11 inch was sufficient

IOWA !!!


(a great answer to almost any question! [:D])

[Tiornu]

Against a British Battlecruiser off Norway it was two to one and they still ran.

Actually there were other British ships at hand, and the Germans thought Nelson was among them.

Graf Spee was instructed to run from "superior" forces - I would argue that the vessels involved were not superior.

I don't see how the 22,000 tons of cruiser is not superior to the 12,000 tons of cruiser.

[DuckofTindalos]

The Twins faced Renown in horrible sea conditions, and one or two lucky hits may have broken the German force commander's morale.

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Why did they go for 15 inch if the 11 inch was sufficient

IOWA !!!


(a great answer to almost any question! [:D])

-or-
She was scuttled! [:D]

[thegreatwent]

For the love of all that is Holy lock this thread before it gets ugly!

[borner]

Battlecruisers in WWI were designed for two roles: track down fast raiders on the commerce routes, and more importantly, as the new "eyes" of the fleet. Look at how both the German High Seas fleet and the English Grand fleet both had then sail rather far in front of the main force.

In WWII, with the reduced battle fleets on all sides, the naval treaties preventing new construction and the rise of airpower, all nations seemed to preform refits to make them the best "fast battlships" that they could.

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Why did they go for 15 inch if the 11 inch was sufficient to overwhelm the Royal Navy's newest battleships?

Scharnhorst - Perfect for what she was designed to do.


You need to look at what the Scharnhorst was designed to do, it were not designed to go and hunt British Surface Warships, but to Raid Convoys and Singel Merchant Ships. 
The Tirptiz and Bismark however was buildt to "pose a potential threat", aka pinning down Allied Fleet assets.

Scharnhorst however was a Raider, buildt to raid Convoys, she had a 11" Gun so she could outgunn enamy Hevy Cruisers if needed. It works perfect vs enamy Heavy Cruisers (who is the only enamy ship who can match the speed of the Scharnhorst) and its very fast reload time works perfect aiganst enamy Convoys.

She had strict orders not to engage enamy capital ships unless she "was forced" to do so.

Also, during opperation Weserübung (Invation of Norway) she Provided Escort and Fast Transport, still under strict orders not to engage enamy capital ships unless forced to do so.


The whole Doctrine here is not about attacking the Brittish 15 Battleships, 8 Aircraft Carriers and 20 Hevy Cruisers,  but to pinn them down, like Tirptiz did just by being based in Norway..  (Ie. Allies needed huge escort for the PQ Convoys) ...  



So, for what she was designed to do, it would be poor with a Hevyer Gun,  to long reload time, and waste of resourses,  afterall she only need to be able to Kill Brittish Hevy Cruisers  (as thay are only who match her speed), and she could do that as she had far supirrior Fire range, and supirrior Gun. (11" vs 8")






[:)][:)][:)]

[stldiver]

She obviously failed in this role.

On Christmas Day 1943, Scharnhorst and several destroyers, under the command of Konteradmiral (Rear Admiral) Erich Bey, put to sea with the purpose of attacking the Russia-bound Arctic convoys JW 55B and RA 55A north of Norway. Unfortunately for the Germans, their orders had been decoded by the British codebreakers and the Admiralty were able to direct their forces to intercept. The next day, in heavy weather and unable to locate the convoy, Bey detached the destroyers and sent them south, leaving Scharnhorst alone. Less than two hours later, the ship encountered the convoy's escort force of the cruisers HMS Belfast, Norfolk, and Sheffield. Belfast had picked up Scharnhorst at 08:40 and 35,000 yards (32,000 m) using her Type 273 radar and by 09:41, Sheffield had made visual contact. Under cover of snow, the British cruisers opened fire. Belfast attempted to illuminate Scharnhorst with starshell, but was unsuccessful. Norfolk, however, opened fire using her radar to spot the fall of shot and scored two hits. One of these demolished Scharnhorst's main radar aerial, disabling the set and leaving her unable to return accurate fire in low visibility. Norfolk suffered minor damage.

In order to try to get around the cruisers to the convoy, Bey ordered Scharnhorst to take a southeast course away from the cruisers. In the late afternoon, the convoy's covering force, including the British battleship HMS Duke of York, made contact and opened fire. Despite suffering the loss of its hangar and a turret, Scharnhorst temporarily increased its distance from its pursuers. The Duke of York caught up again and fired again - the second salvo wrecked the "A" turret, detonating the charges in "A" magazine which led to the same in "B" magazine. Partial flooding of the magazines quenched the explosions. No Royal Navy ship received any serious damage, though the flagship was frequently straddled, and one of her masts was smashed by an 11-inch (280 mm) shell. At 18:00 Scharnhorst's main battery went silent; at 18:20 another round from Duke of York destroyed a boiler room, reducing Scharnhorst's speed to about 22 knots (41 km/h) and leaving her open to attacks from the destroyers. Duke of York fired her 77th salvo at 19:28.[18]

Battered and crippled as she was, her secondary armament was still firing wildly as the cruiser HMS Jamaica and the destroyers Musketeer, Matchless, Opportune, and Virago closed and launched torpedoes at 19:32.[19] The last three torpedoes, fired by Jamaica at 19:37 from under two miles (3 km) range, were the final crippling blow.

A total of 55 torpedoes and 2,195 shells had been fired at Scharnhorst.[20]

Oberbootsmannsmaat (Petty Officer) Wilhelm Gödde described the scene:

On the deck, all was calm and orderly. There was hardly any shouting. I saw the way the First Petty Officer helped hundreds of men over the rails. The Captain (Fritz Hintze) checked our life-jackets. Once again before he and the Admiral (Erich Bey) took leave of each other with a handshake. They said to us, "If any of you get out of this alive, say hello to the folks back home, and tell them we did our duty to the last."[21]

Matrosenobergefreiter (Sailor) Helmut Backhaus describes the moment of sinking:

[borner]

except it's a Battlecruiser thread [:-]

[Hornblower]

The answer to this thread is the Alaska’s.
Scharnhorst?  Please.  11inch guns too light.  Extra tonnage and space used for 5.9” and 4.1” guns.  Lack OF DP’s are serious marks against her.  Her lightweight high pressure machinery was notoriously unreliable.  She wasn’t a good sea boat due to her low freeboard.   All this on almost 40,000 tons fully loaded.  10” belt armor
 
Kongos ???  The Baltimore’s had a better AA armament then these guys.  And the Hiei’s stearing compartment was pieced by  8” shell on 11/12/42.  Hardly a good mark for a ship 26,000 tons bigger then the San Fran.  Only good mark for them was that they carried 8 14” rifles and could keep up with the CV’s.  8” belt armor
 
Winner is that Alaska.  She’s flawed  like all BC’s but she fast, good sea boat and long ranged with reliable machinery.  I don’t know who said there engines were iffy, but it’s the same set that went into the Essex, and I don’t recall anyone pointing fingers at there GE turbines.   They had excellent AA armament,  (12 5inch, 56 40mm’s and 34 20mm’s) and could keep up and contribute to TF38/58.   Really, could any of the other candidates do the same?