Balance: offensive vs. defensive?

[Tiornu]

Sydney wasn't.

[RF]

But if carrying torpedoes and entering ideal conditions at a short distance, imagine four or five torpedoes finding their target in less than a minute. The surprise element! That's what I was thinking of... Sort of a disguised destroyer launching a torpedo attack. Would a cruiser caught unaware be able to respond to that..?

Kormoran's torpedo attack on Sydney was almost a complete failure. Of two fish launched at almost point blank range one missed and the other struck alongside A turret. A third torpedo launched later also missed.
In fact Sydney fired more torpedoes at Kormoran - a full salvo of four - and they all missed!

[RF]

"Michel had forty year old guns taken from Widder, with a maximum range of five miles only."
There was no German 15cm gun with a range of only five miles. Providing increased elevation for mounts or, as the British did, enlarged propellant charges is an expedient that costs little and can easily extend gun range to its practical limit.

According to Muggenthaler Michel's 15 cm guns were effective to only five miles and was what Ruckteschell and Gumprich were stuck with. They were left with having to use the torpedo boat and with attacking victims at almost point blank range.

[RF]

RF,

So, you are ready to put the same resources into a AMC as a cruiser? Because that is what you are asking. Instead of the Hipper class, you want to build 3 more AMC's? To me, that's a completely ridiculous idea but you can imagine what you want here.

This is not what I am asking. Hilfskreuzer are not a replacement navy.

Leaving aside the fact that the Hipper classe were not ideal for raiding - short ranged, heavy fuel consumption and engines not completely reliable over long periods, the Germans would have done far better to have built the three cruisers as panzerschiffe - my idea was to put more resources into hilfskreuzer that would still represent only a fraction of the true cost and resources put into a cruiser.

The ten hilfskreuzer were fitted out at a total cost of less than 1% of Bismarck, and for that sank 830,000 tons of shipping, about one year's worth of British construction.
All that I was suggesting was to update the 1916 design the Germans used for Wolf that was used in 1939/40.

The extra resources involved would not be very great, but would have yielded a return far greater than the cost, and certainly would not be much greater than the effort put into the armed tanker supply ships that were built to more modern designs. These vessels could do 21 knots.
Ships specially built, capable of that speed, with new guns better arranged so that all guns could fire centre line.
What we are talking about here is not starting with a warship and disguising it as a merchantman, but the other way round - start with a merchant ship design and arm it as a Q-ship.
The Germans did start this approach in 1943 with hilfskreuzer Hansa, arming the vessel more heavily, but by then the concept was made redundent by the need to concentrate on U-boats.

As an aside the British and Americans from 1941 constructed wartime merchant ships with a small degree of armoured protection around the bridges and reinforced bulheads - these vessels were not intended to fight as warships but to give a some amount of crew protection and to make them slightly harder to sink, so they could do their job as merchantmen more effectively in wartime conditions.
A similar priciple could have been incorporated into hilfskreuzer design.

The key point was to put a little more effort into these ships to get a better return. They could never replace regular warships and I have not suggested that they should.

True warships look like they do because their armament and speed dictate it. You can't build one that looks like a merchant ship without serious sacrifices and by definition those sacrifices make it unequal to a warship.

Stealth and disguise are the key, Q-ships are designed for the unobtrusive offensive. It is a totally different concept of ship, and above all else are expendable.

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF:

I agree with Tiornu and the other guys here. An Auxiliary Cruiser is just a "pirate ship" that´s designed to destroy merchant shipping. So, in general terms, a hilfkruzer is not a warship because it cannot fight against another warship. If a hilfkreuzer did engage a similar tonnage ship that´s designed for combat then she could only expect to be sunk (and Sydney is not an example because her skipper was carelessness and, if he had survived, to be put in court martial).
The idea of deliberate build a warship disguissed as a merchant just sounds as a James Bond´s plot (The Spy Who Loved Me, as a matter of fact) and doesn´t apply to real life. Such a ship would be identified and would be worthless after that.

[Bgile]

This is what you said originally which caused all the criticism:

Today it would be classified as a stealth weapon. As such it would combine the tactics of German hilfskreuzer and Romulan ''cloaked'' battlecruiser. Yes its a disguised merchant ship concealing battleship sized guns, a sort of ''super Q-Ship''. The differance here is that the target isn't subs or solitary merchantmen, but enemy major fleet units, lured in to point blank range and blown out of the water.

What surprises me is that no navy has ever thought of doing something like this.....

You are suggesting "battleship sized guns" here. Putting 15" guns on a merchant conversion as you are suggesting involves designing the ship around them from the start. There is a huge amount of machinery involved, thousands of tons of structure and armor, and a huge expense. The whole structure of a battleship is what makes the guns possible. If you try to put weapons like that on a merchant ship, firing them will shake the ship apart. It was uncomfortable enough on a real battleship.

In addition, you are suggesting putting these huge turrets on a merchant ship, and that's it's somehow invisible to the rest of the world.

And you are going to do this cheaply? No way.

[RF]

This is what you said originally which caused all the criticism:

Today it would be classified as a stealth weapon. As such it would combine the tactics of German hilfskreuzer and Romulan ''cloaked'' battlecruiser. Yes its a disguised merchant ship concealing battleship sized guns, a sort of ''super Q-Ship''. The differance here is that the target isn't subs or solitary merchantmen, but enemy major fleet units, lured in to point blank range and blown out of the water.

What surprises me is that no navy has ever thought of doing something like this.....

You are suggesting "battleship sized guns" here. Putting 15" guns on a merchant conversion as you are suggesting involves designing the ship around them from the start. There is a huge amount of machinery involved, thousands of tons of structure and armor, and a huge expense. The whole structure of a battleship is what makes the guns possible. If you try to put weapons like that on a merchant ship, firing them will shake the ship apart. It was uncomfortable enough on a real battleship.

In addition, you are suggesting putting these huge turrets on a merchant ship, and that's it's somehow invisible to the rest of the world.

And you are going to do this cheaply? No way.

I don't think we are going to agree.

My reference to ''battleship sized guns'' had in mind 11 inch rather than 15 inch guns as the maximum calibre that could - theoretically - be mounted on a 10,000 tonner, though even here there would be problems in firing such a weapon with regards to the ships stability.

Around 1918 the RN did experiment by putting 15 inch guns on I think three ''O'' class aircraft carriers and it was discovered that the firing of the guns caused problems with the pressures on the hulls arising from the recoil and blast, and limiting the aircraft operations. The experiment was abandoned as impractical.

I was thinking of a smaller scale application. It would obviously present a major marine engineering challenge, and I would have thought at some point the possibilities could have been investigated. The Germans constructed special armed supply ships such as Nordmark, Uckermark and Dithmarschen, each armed I believe with three 15 cm guns. None of these supply ships ever used these weapons and I am not clear how a ship loaded with 10,000 tons of fuel, torpedoes, shells, mines etc. for raiders and U-boats was intended to use them in action with a chance of success. In planning their construction before WW2 started the KM did actually consider using these vessels as raiders themselves, but then rejected the concept on the grounds that their cargoes made the job too hazardous. They instead in 1939 ordered the conversion of light merchant ships for the job, and this is where my postulation has arisen. The ships used for the most part were not suitable, too old, too slow, fuel inefficient etc. Why not instead build new merchant ships and update the 1916 design plan? Why give them six 15 cm guns when only four can be fired on either flank?

With regards to the larger raiders such as Kormoran, being close to 10,000 tonners, they carried the same armament as the smallest raiders, Thor and Komet. If a 3,500 ton merchant ship frame can take a 400 lb. broadside firing would it not be the case that a 8,500 ton ship frame take nearer 1,000 lb? If so it could imply that Kormoran or Hansa for example could accomodate the firing of say four 8 inch guns. The problems here would be concealment and fire control, but they shouldn't be insurmoutable. If 8 inch guns cannot be accomodated then extra 15 cm gun firepower ought to be possible.

I am also aware that the RN also had Q-ships in WW2 but they never saw action. One of them off the Horn of Africa encountered Leander and the Q-ship captain sent a report to the Admiralty saying that Leander allowed her to approach to such close range that if he was an enemy he could have immediately blown her out of the water. As the Q-ships were secret the incident remained ''under wraps'' and what the Q-ship captain had predicted came true just seven months later with the loss of Sydney.

Does anyone know what armament the British Q-ships had?

It also poses one other very interesting question - if a hilfskreuzer did encounter a British Q-ship what would have happened?

[Bgile]

The difference between a 15 cm gun and an 8" gun is: A 15cm gun fires shells weighing about 100 lb. A 15cm gun can be bolted to an area of the deck which has been reinforced for that purpose and the crew can be expected to manhandle 100 lb shells with reasonable efficiency although with some difficulty in moderate seas. An 8" shell weighs 250 lb. The loading operation for this weapon on a naval vessel involves a heavy turret and lots of powered loading equipment. It would be problematic to manhandle one of those shells in anything but absolutely calm seas on a merchant ship.

Obviously with 11" guns the problem is much worse because those shells weigh over twice what an 8" shell weighs and they can't be hand loaded at all, calm seas or not. In addition you have an even more serious problem with destroying the structure of the ship with blast and recoil effects.

I suppose you are right in that we can't agree on this and I will stop posting about it. I've had my say.

[tommy303]

They instead in 1939 ordered the conversion of light merchant ships for the job, and this is where my postulation has arisen. The ships used for the most part were not suitable, too old, too slow, fuel inefficient etc.

Might I ask where you got the information that the merchant ships chosen were too old, too slow and fuel inefficient? The criteria the KM used was a prospective HK had to be relatively modern with sufficient cargo capacity (stores for a prolonged stay at sea, mines, spotting plane in some cases, sundry supplies for disguises, weaponry and ammunition, spare parts, etc), preferably diesel or diesel electric propulsion for range and for rapid changes from cruising to full power, and finally it had to have as few unique features as possible in order to blend in with the various steamers and merchants sailing the trade routes. As a result the majority of the HKs were converted from merchant ships which had been built in the 20s and 30s, and were hardly too old by 1939 standards.

As far as speed went, the ships were usually fast cargo vessels that would normally have carried a few passengers as well,rather than slower, plodding steamers not in a hurry to get anywhere. Penquin, Thor and Atlantis for instance, could do 17 kts, which compares favorably with contemporary German submarines, so they could deploy relatively quickly. Steier seems to have been the slowest at about 15 knots, while Kormoran could do 18. Considering the average tramp steamer could only manage about 12 or so knots, the HK were fast enough.

[Karl Heidenreich]

I don´t have anything against to discuss this idea of a merchant ship modification to perform as a raider, but this topic is about BATTLESHIPS, not any warship... To have an ideal balance of offensive or defensive means in vessels as Bismarck or Yamato or Iowa or KGV, etc. etc.

[RF]

They instead in 1939 ordered the conversion of light merchant ships for the job, and this is where my postulation has arisen. The ships used for the most part were not suitable, too old, too slow, fuel inefficient etc.

Might I ask where you got the information that the merchant ships chosen were too old, too slow and fuel inefficient?

See the discussion on the Bismarck-classe website section on the hilfskreuzer.

The criteria the KM used was a prospective HK had to be relatively modern with sufficient cargo capacity (stores for a prolonged stay at sea, mines, spotting plane in some cases, sundry supplies for disguises, weaponry and ammunition, spare parts, etc), preferably diesel or diesel electric propulsion for range and for rapid changes from cruising to full power, and finally it had to have as few unique features as possible in order to blend in with the various steamers and merchants sailing the trade routes. As a result the majority of the HKs were converted from merchant ships which had been built in the 20s and 30s, and were hardly too old by 1939 standards.

As far as speed went, the ships were usually fast cargo vessels that would normally have carried a few passengers as well,rather than slower, plodding steamers not in a hurry to get anywhere. Penquin, Thor and Atlantis for instance, could do 17 kts, which compares favorably with contemporary German submarines, so they could deploy relatively quickly. Steier seems to have been the slowest at about 15 knots, while Kormoran could do 18. Considering the average tramp steamer could only manage about 12 or so knots, the HK were fast enough.

Widder, Orion and Komet were all slower than Stier, Widder was an engineering nightmare as a raider.

Yes, most tramp steamers do about 12 knots. But the most valuable prizes are the cargo liners and large merchantmen that can do 17 knots or so themselves, the hilfskreuzer had difficulty in catching them.

Overall the hilfskreuzer did a good job with what their commanders were given. However with a little more resource put into them, they could have achieved a lot more.

[RF]

I don´t have anything against to discuss this idea of a merchant ship modification to perform as a raider, but this topic is about BATTLESHIPS, not any warship... To have an ideal balance of offensive or defensive means in vessels as Bismarck or Yamato or Iowa or KGV, etc. etc.

Agreed.

If we are looking at the ideal battleship design, taken as an attacking weapon, then hitting power is the first consideration. Secondly the vessel has to have the ability to get into range with its target, implying a need for superior speed.
Inevitably we are then looking at a fast battleship. If we are constructing this ship to Washington Treaty limitations then there has to be a sacrifice in weight which means only a light armoured protection; in effect a battlecruiser, something like Hood but with the strengthened deck modification.

My preference would probably be something like Vittorio Veneto, utilising triple turrets, or as I have previously suggested, an enlarged Scharnhorst classe with triple 15 inch gun turrets.

Superbattleships like Yamato or H-Classe I think are too large. Yes Yamato has the gun power, but battleship's are operating in an environment where they are not invulnerable to smaller forces and aircraft. A balanced fleet I think is essential, and battleships have to be built around that, as an attacking rather than defensive weapon.

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF:

If we are looking at the ideal battleship design, taken as an attacking weapon, then hitting power is the first consideration. Secondly the vessel has to have the ability to get into range with its target, implying a need for superior speed.
Inevitably we are then looking at a fast battleship. If we are constructing this ship to Washington Treaty limitations then there has to be a sacrifice in weight which means only a light armoured protection; in effect a battlecruiser, something like Hood but with the strengthened deck modification.

My preference would probably be something like Vittorio Veneto, utilising triple turrets, or as I have previously suggested, an enlarged Scharnhorst classe with triple 15 inch gun turrets.

Superbattleships like Yamato or H-Classe I think are too large. Yes Yamato has the gun power, but battleship's are operating in an environment where they are not invulnerable to smaller forces and aircraft. A balanced fleet I think is essential, and battleships have to be built around that, as an attacking rather than defensive weapon.

Now we are talking!
I don´t agree with the idea of a "just-30,000 ton - 770 feet Battleship" as a Schanhorst -like vessel with 15" guns. It´s still inferior to what they need to engage. Even Bismarck would had that problem if she had survived Rheinubung. That´s why I like the idea of a super dreadnought with at least 16" guns and heavy armour. Even the idea of diesel engines must not be considered if they cannot give that ship the 200,000 hp it needs.
How do you regard the particulariry of the Littorio class guns and their low-life barrel?

[Terje Langoy]

When I suggested the modified Twins, I had in mind that they operated in pairs, just like in the airforce where they have a wingman. Don't you think that six or nine 15-inches x 2 would offer a certain edge in battle? One to draw fire and another to engage with maximum effect. Or decrease the effect of the opponent fire by separating her direction of fire? (although that sounds more like madness to me)

I don't think that the ideal BB is a pure matter of size and machinery, but also the ideal use of BB's. After all, the Bismarck-class may not have been ideal but imagine them being deployed in the same manner as the Twins.

Besides, how do you avoid any weak spots on a BB? She could tak a hit in the rudder or in the screws. Maybe get her rangefinders knocked out. Or suffer from poor leadership. (which count for any warship, ideal or not) How can you cover all the critical areas?

[Karl Heidenreich]

Terje:

Or suffer from poor leadership. (which count for any warship, ideal or not)

From all the possible weaknesses that is the worst kind. How can you guarantee the best commander for the best ship? History is full of examples of ill commanders from HMS Glorious, going through Lutjens to Nagumo and such.

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.