The Duelists

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

The Duelists

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Some good scenarios:

1. Nagato vs. Rodney (1941)

2. Hood vs. Kirishima (1941)

3. Schanhorst vs. Alaska (1945)... well, assuming not North Cape.

Quite good ships, balanced fights
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: The Duelists

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

... or assuming with a lot of freedom North Cape with an operational Alaska...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: The Duelists

Post by José M. Rico »

Karl, what is the purpuse of this thread?
Do you want people to discuss three different "what ifs" in one single thread?
:think:
David89
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:53 pm

Re: The Duelists

Post by David89 »

Can we change the Hood for a Renown class? This Kongo vs Renown scenario comes up all the time in a game I play online and I would like to know which ship would really win. In-game the Kongo usually wins.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: The Duelists

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

José,

Well, the idea was more or less that. Many times a single thread is often abandoned after only one or two replies, I believe this was more economical in terms of space. But if there is a problem then we can make three different threads.

David89,

This sounds interesting. The idea was to have contemporary BCs to have a good more or less balanced fight.

Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
WestPhilly
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 1:15 am
Location: philadelphia, usa

Re: The Duelists

Post by WestPhilly »

1. Very tough call, maybe Rodney. No, Nagato. Hell, I don't know.
2. Hood. No qestion about it.
3. Scharnhorst. The 12" gun was magnificent, but that's all Alaska has going for it. Scharnhorst was well-protected against 12" shells and her own 11" were too much for the thin-skinned Alaska.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: The Duelists

Post by Bgile »

WestPhilly wrote:1. Very tough call, maybe Rodney. No, Nagato. Hell, I don't know.
2. Hood. No qestion about it.
3. Scharnhorst. The 12" gun was magnificent, but that's all Alaska has going for it. Scharnhorst was well-protected against 12" shells and her own 11" were too much for the thin-skinned Alaska.
I pretty much agree.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: The Duelists

Post by lwd »

1 Is indeed a very close match up.
2. My inclination is to go with Hood 4% more muzzle velocity doesn't begin to make up for 50% more shell weight. Hoods also bigger and has more armor. Substitute the Renown or Repulse as was mentioned above and on paper anyway it shifts to the Japanese ship. However at least one of these battle cruisers had a reputation as a very good shooter.
3. The Alaska has more than just a very good 12" gun. At long ranges or in low visibility conditions her radar fire control is going to give her a huge advantage. In a knife fight you have a cruiser with a very good gun against a battleship. I think I'd just as soon not be on either of these ships in that fight as both can really hurt each other. The German ship has the edge but 1 or two good hits and it could go away.
David89
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:53 pm

Re: The Duelists

Post by David89 »

Compared to the Kongo class, the Renown class has slightly better armour and almost as heavy a broadside. Both the Renowns have a reputation for good gunnery as shown by the Renown against the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. The Repulse was extremely well handled when Force Z was attacked but sank very quickly when hit. I think the modernised Renown would have been a match for a Kongo but the Repulse would have been weaker. The Renown's have better deck armour than the Hood and if they had been completed to their original design spec with 8 15in guns they would almost a match for the Hood.
WestPhilly
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 1:15 am
Location: philadelphia, usa

Re: The Duelists

Post by WestPhilly »

For any decisive gunnery duel to occur, a range of inside 20,000 yards - closer to 15,000 yds - is necessary. We tend to sometimes get carried away with ships' long-range shooting ability but we must remember that hits at long range were few and far between. (Warspite and Scharnhorst each scoring a hit on there respective targets at about 26,000 yards being the record) For this reason I don't see Alaska's radar fire-control being a huge advantage, only a slight one. The ships would have to be at relatively close range or else the contest would be indecisive, much like Renown vs. Gneisenau or Scharnhorst - I forget which - off Norway. At the end of the day, I believe Scharnhorst's near-battleship scale armor would offer much better protectection against 12" shells than Alaska's Heavy Cruiser scale armor against 11" shells.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: The Duelists

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Hey, good posts!

My bids go:

1. Nagato. I don´t trust the Rodney´s main turret dispositions. Too close a call for an early hit. There are accounts that state that when firing the concusion was felt in the bridge and in the Fire Director. Also Rodney´s has some sort of shallow main belt armour that could be victim of a lucky hit from Nagato. And speed, taken as a factor, also goes in favour of Nagato.

2. Both Hood and Kirishima were taken out quite fast the first time they were in a life or death fight. But, one vs. the other, we have Hood 15" against Kirishima 14". I would go for Hood (anyway it´s one of my favorite ships... and so beautifull!)

3. I favour Schanhorst. It seems the stronger ship, more armoured anyway. The 11", in this case, are so powerfull against Alaska´s sides and deck that it seems to me that the edge goes in favour of the German fast and small BB. I don´t agree with the criterio of any advantage given to the USN RDFC could bring because the American ship would try to close range in any combat due to figthting doctrine, which would go in favour of the German opticals. Anyway almost all naval combats were fought at ranges in which both, radar and opticals, could be used (night encounters not included).

Is it possible to see the IZ of Schanhorst vs. Alaska? That would say a lot.

Best regards...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
David89
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:53 pm

Re: The Duelists

Post by David89 »

1. Nagato (post 1936 rebuild)
39,120 tons standard load
8x16.1in
25kts
11.8in belt
5in deck
14in turrets

Nelson (as built)
9x16in
33,950 tons standard load
23kts
14in belt
6.25in deck
16-9in turrets

The British 16"/45 mk1 is inferior to the Japanese 16.1"/45 but the extra barrel largely compensates for this in broadside weight. The Nelson has heavier armour but suffers from a shallow main belt and the grouping of the main armament forwards resulting in a blind arc at the rear, but with the Nelsons lower speed it won't be running anyway. The turrets are widely spaced so a single hit or hits are unlikely to knock out more than one turret and the Nelson has a good forward field of fire, as all the turrets can fire forwards at angles of 45 degrees from the centreline. I would favour the Nelson in this engagement, although at medium to long range the shallow belt is a disadvantage. Overall a close fight.

2. Hood is heavier and has more firepower, and has far better belt armour. Deck armour is weak but barring a Denmark Straight style hit on her magazines Hood is the probable winner here.

3.Scharnhorst by a considerable margin here. The only reasons that the Scharnhorst is called a battlecruiser is because of her 11in guns. Scharnhorst is armoured like a battleship and should be able to shrug off the Alaska 12in shells, while the Alaska is extremely vulnerable to return hits. The Alaska does have better radar, but at long ranges (over 30,000m) the chances of a hit are minimal (a WWII Naval college study estimated the Iowa had less than 3% chance of hitting a Bismarck sized ship at 30,000m, assuming the target is broadside on and on a steady course), and with US naval policy favouring close range engagements the Scharhorst is going to have her own radar anyway.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: The Duelists

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

David89:
(a WWII Naval college study estimated the Iowa had less than 3% chance of hitting a Bismarck sized ship at 30,000m, assuming the target is broadside on and on a steady course), and with US naval policy favouring close range engagements the Scharhorst is going to have her own radar anyway.
Woa, woa, woa, how´s that? It´s quite important because a lot has been said here about how an Iowa RDFC would be the only edge this ship has vs other contemporary capital ships, specially the Yamato. As a matter of fact that range, 30,000m, has been brought as the extreme range in which optical dependent FC could not hit Iowa but Iowa would very likely hit anything.

About the close range engagements I agree completely: only in very rare cases combats took place at extreme effective ranges. Let´s see DS as an example. The combats were likely to occur for tactical reasons that were not necessary to happen at so extreme ranges. Let´s remember Guadalcanal also.
2. Hood is heavier and has more firepower, and has far better belt armour. Deck armour is weak but barring a Denmark Straight style hit on her magazines Hood is the probable winner here.
I agree, moreover thinking that a hit like the one that blew Hood at DS could also be extrapolated to Kirishima. Her deck wasn´t as strong as Bismarck´s.

Best regards...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
David89
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:53 pm

Re: The Duelists

Post by David89 »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:David89:
(a WWII Naval college study estimated the Iowa had less than 3% chance of hitting a Bismarck sized ship at 30,000m, assuming the target is broadside on and on a steady course), and with US naval policy favouring close range engagements the Scharhorst is going to have her own radar anyway.
Woa, woa, woa, how´s that? It´s quite important because a lot has been said here about how an Iowa RDFC would be the only edge this ship has vs other contemporary capital ships, specially the Yamato. As a matter of fact that range, 30,000m, has been brought as the extreme range in which optical dependent FC could not hit Iowa but Iowa would very likely hit anything.
I'm quoting from the Navweaps site on this but looking at spread patterns at these ranges this figure doesn't seem unlikely. Agreed that an opponent lacking RDFC isn't going to be able to get hits beyond 25,000-30,000m but with this kind of hit ratio the Iowa could expend its entire amunition supply without doing serious damage, especially if the opponent was the Yamato, since the Yamato has an immune zone from roughly 18,000m to 36,000m against the Iowa's 16"/50. The Iowa's RDFC is indeed superb but here it is more accurate than the guns it controls. Incidentaly the sheer height of the Yamato's FC position would grant it a range advantage over any of its non-RDFC contemporaries.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: The Duelists

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

David 89:
I'm quoting from the Navweaps site on this but looking at spread patterns at these ranges this figure doesn't seem unlikely. Agreed that an opponent lacking RDFC isn't going to be able to get hits beyond 25,000-30,000m but with this kind of hit ratio the Iowa could expend its entire amunition supply without doing serious damage, especially if the opponent was the Yamato, since the Yamato has an immune zone from roughly 18,000m to 36,000m against the Iowa's 16"/50.
Agreed. Some usefull info about it. Yamato´s AP shell penetration from 20 and 30 Km in the first place

At 20,000 meters
Gun elevation: 12 degrees 34´
Striking angle: 16 degrees 31´
Striking velocity (m/sec): 522
Penetration vertical plate (mm): 566
Penetration horizontal plate (mm): 167

At 30,000 meters

Gun elevation: 23 degrees 12´
Striking angle: 31 degrees 21´
Striking velocity (m/sec): 475
Penetration vertical plate (mm): 416
Penetration horizontal plate (mm): 230

And Iowa´s armour was distributed as follows:

Belt: 12.1 in (307 mm),
Bulkheads: 11.3 in (287 mm),
Barbettes: 11.6 to 17.3 in (295 to 439 mm),
Turrets: 19.7 in (500 mm),
Decks: 7.5 in (191 mm)

Iowa´s was quite vulnerable, as you can see, at both ranges, against Yamato´s hits against her main belt and deck armour. At greater distances Yamato´s plunging fire would be to Iowa what Bismarck´s fire was to Hood...
But Yamato was not vulnerable to Iowa´s shells because she was designed to withstand not 40,6 cm but 46 cm AP shells.

The Iowa's RDFC is indeed superb but here it is more accurate than the guns it controls. Incidentaly the sheer height of the Yamato's FC position would grant it a range advantage over any of its non-RDFC contemporaries.
Also agreed.

Which, of course, is extensive to the thread we are discussing about Schanhorst vs. Alaska. The main physical strenght of Schanhorst and the punch of her 11" guns would be enough to have a quite fair fight against Alaska and, eventually, defeat it. I believe that here is more a tactical than a technical matter.

Best regards...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Post Reply