Balance: offensive vs. defensive?

[RF]

The idea of ships operating in groups is nice, but the assumption here is the ship design. As a matter of fact I have defended the idea that the Bismarck + Tirpitz at Rheinubung would have been bigger than the sum of the parts, but some nicer 16" German-made guns would have been more than ideal.

Best regards.

Rheinubung was originally conceived as a two pincer operation of Bismarck, Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau which would also be a greater sum than its parts.
Unfortunately for the Germans such a force under an aggressive, enterprising commander never operated in the Atlantic; it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if a large convoy escorted by Malaya or Warspite had been put under determined attack by that squadron.

My concept in battleship design, as I have said, is to concentrate on firepower first. That is why I favour triple turrets (I would also be interested in the quad turrets the French used for their ships, although I note they weren't much of a success with the KGV class) and 15 or 16 inch guns. I don't want a ship too big, and I would envisage having my battleships operating in pairs. That in fact is one reason I felt that an enlarged Scharnhorst classe with triple 15 or 16 inch gun turrets would be best. I would also use triple turrets for the secondary battery as well, say two each to port and starboard, and a fifth triple turret just forward of C turret, in superfiring position to it.

Such a ship, as Karl will quickly point out, won't have the gunpower to take on Yamato. This is of course correct.

If we are on the road to the biggest ever battleship with the biggest ever guns then I would have to settle with an outrageous 300,000 ton monster sporting an updated version of the German Army's WW1 ''Big Bertha'' guns or even a naval equivalent of the WW2 Thor mortar used by the Heer to batter Sebastopol. These naval equivalents would presumably have a shell range of 100 miles or more and probably need a space satellite to do the shell spotting. Even Hitler didn't get as far as suggesting something like that.

No, I will settle for an enlarged Scharnhorst classe and against the likes of Yamato I would use a combination of forces, aircraft etc.

The international treaties of the 1920's limiting warship size were a good idea. For the purpose of this thread it might be an idea to impose a weight limit on the size of battleship, say 45,000 tons. This would of course eliminate Yamato, but would focus the discussion on the best combination of firepower, speed and armoured protection.

[RF]

How do you regard the particulariry of the Littorio class guns and their low-life barrel?

I was thinking here of the basic outline and main armament layout of this class of ship rather than using the Italian guns. I much prefer Krupp or even Schneider.

[RF]

One point in discussing battleship requirements, going back to actual reality, is that when the Dutch, who by international standards had only a small navy, in the late 1930's wanted a capital ship design that would suit their needs, they opted for the Scharnhorst classe as the most appropriate design for them - and not anything that the British or Americans had.

I assume the Dutch wanted such a ship for the East Indies to deter Japanese aggression in collaboration with other countries. The Dutch approached the Kriegsmarine officially to ask for their engineers to look at Scharnhorst, probably with a view to ordering such a vessel from German shipyards; Hitler vetoed the idea when Raeder raised it with him.

[Tiornu]

What the Dutch did was to approach the French, a response to the Dunkerque design. Neither the British nor the Americans were building any small dreadnoughts at the time.
The lack of French cooperation caused the Dutch to approach the Germans. The Germans were cooperative. The resulting design was far superior to Scharnhorst, at least on a ton-for-ton basis. It addressed most of the many, many flaws which made Scharnhorst one of the worst possible choices for any navy.

[RF]

Has the modified Scharnhorst design ever been published?

What improvements were made?

[ontheslipway]

There's a good description in Garzke & Dulins Battleships of WWII (allies version). Mainly lower pressure boilers, less armour, basically more suited against cruisers. Plus the best anti aircraft system available at the time.

It was termed design 1047.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNNeth_11-545.htm

An interpretation by Alt Naval

[Tiornu]

Design 1047 had modern armor and torpedo protection. DP secondaries. Good habitability. Less overloading. Reliable machinery, all of which was below the armor deck. Displacement was reduced by 10%.

[RF]

This is an interesting design, which brings to my mind a host of other possibilities, which I am opening in another thread.

[yellowtail3]

So, what´s better? What are you most keen to sacrifice: armament or armour?

I'd choose speed to dispense with. But make me choose? I'll keep firepower.

As I said before, I´m keen to offensive doctrine so I rather had bigger guns and accurate fire direction than to have heavy armour.

Sounds like one of the USN's treaty battleships! Or Standards, sans a few knots...

[RF]

Or the Hood..... her speed didn't save her.

[Legend]

By the point she returned to combat, Hood's speed was merely equivelant, not superior, therefore defeating the whole point of "Battlecruiser."