Scharnhorst vs. USS Alaska

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
Monitor
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:46 am
Location: US

Scharnhorst vs. USS Alaska

Post by Monitor »

Scharnhorst
Displacement 38,400 tons
Main guns 9 x 11"
Secondary guns 12 x 5.9"
Armor 13.7" belt, 13.4" turrets, 13.7" CT
Speed 32 knots

USS Alaska CB1
Displacement 32,700 tons
Main guns 9 x 12"
Secondary guns 12 x 5"
Armor 9" belt, 12.8" turrets, 10.6" CT
Speed 33 knots

Who would win the day? It's pretty even to me.
User avatar
Javier L.
Member
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Madrid (España)

Post by Javier L. »

I take the Scharnhorst. Less powerful guns but much more armor.
George G.
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:28 am
Location: Barrington, Il USA

I take the Alaska

Post by George G. »

I think Alaska would win: her radar-directed gunfire would have hit Scharnhorst quicker than vice versa, especially if the weather was bad or the action fought at night- Scharnhorst would have certainly avoided action at night because of inferior FC, but she would not be able to avoid action if Alaska pressed her.
George G.
DesertFox 1943
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 2:35 am
Location: Singapore

Post by DesertFox 1943 »

got anymore info about Scharnhorst and USS Alaska..... their gunnery ctrl and accuracy.....

in this case... lets assume all other external conditions, weather, windspeed, visibility and time of engagement is at "constant" the only variance is the persormance of both ships..... guess in this case, accuracy, firepower, armour and speed comes into play and its anybody's game.... Of course accuracy will be the determinig factor
Generalfeldmarschall Desert Fox 1943
turlock
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:35 am
Location: virginia, USA

Post by turlock »

Scharnhorst for me. To even things up let's use a daylight scenario with good visibility. Neither Alaska or Guam was capable of 33 knots as a seagoing speed. 31 was their normal maximum under good conditions. Furthermore, the Alaska's had NO underwater protection...no torpedo bulkhead or blisters, and a narrow belt.
Working from a situation where Scharnhorst would actually be able to see her opponent...thus allowing optical control, it would come down to gunnery. Sure, Alaska carried the most powerful naval rifles ever placed in service, and the most expensive naval guns/mounts ever produced for the USN...but her protection system was highly vulnerable to the German SKC34 11 inch. The German 5.9 also way outranged the 5"/38 American, and fired a much heavier round, so get inside the roughly 12 nautical mile range of the 5.9 and it would only add to the carnage.
Gunnery and protection would carry the day and Scharnhorst's gunnery department was as good as any the Germans ever produced. I've never seen any data on Alask'a gunnery performance so cannot comment on it.
Michael L
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun May 28, 2023 11:28 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Scharnhorst vs. USS Alaska

Post by Michael L »

I know this is a 20-year-old post subject, but it is one I have pondered on.
Range.
The longest range at which a direct hit was achieved during WWII was 24,000 metres (m).
“On 8 June 1940 the German battleship Scharnhorst hit the British aircraft carrier HMS Glorious at that range in the North Atlantic, while a month later on 9 July, during the battle of Calabria the British battleship HMS Warspite hit the Italian flagship Guilio Cesare at a similar distance” (Guinness Book of Records).
In the Battle of the River Plate, the Pocket Battleship Graf Spee commenced firing at a range of 17,000m. The battle saw the British Cruisers closed at one stage to within 12,000m.
In the Battle of the Denmark Strait, HMS Hood opened fire at 05:52 at a distance of approximately 24,200m (but never scored a hit during the entire battle). HMS Prince of Wales opened fire soon after. The German ships Bismarck and Prinz Eugen held their fire until 05:55. At 06:00, a salvo from Bismarck, fired from about 14,000m straddle HMS Hood. A shell penetrated below decks causing one of HMS Hood’s magazines to explode, and the ship sank in minutes.
The ranges for ship-to-ship engagements between the British and the Italians in the Mediterranean were commenced at approx. 24,000m with ships then closing.
The point being made here is that although the maximum ranges of the Alaska’s 12inch and Scharnhorst’s 11inch guns were in excess of 30,000m it is not likely that a battle would have occurred at that distance.
On the subject of radar, it should be noted that in the Battle of North Cape, 26 December 1943, in the opening salvos a shell from a British Cruiser destroyed Scharnhorst’s radar controls leaving Scharnhorst virtually blind, in a mounting snowstorm and night engagement, for the remainder of the battle.
Main Guns.
Alaska: 9 × 12-inch (305 mm)/50 caliber Mark 8 guns.
The American 12inch Armour Piercing shell weighted 520kg. Max rate of fire 3 rounds per minute.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.php
Muzzle Velocity:- AP: 2,500 fps (762 m/s).
Working Pressure:- 18.0 tons/in2 (2,835 kg/cm2).
Scharnhorst: 9 × 28 cm/54.5 (11 inch) SK C/34 guns.
The German 11inch Armour Piercing shell weighted 330kg. Max rate of fire 3.5 rounds per minute.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_11-545_skc34.php
Muzzle Velocity:- APC: 2,920 fps (890 m/s).
Working Pressure:- 20.3 tons/in2 (3,200 kg/cm2).
“The ballistic properties of the [German] guns made them effective against the new French Dunkerque class, which had an armored belt 225–283 mm, barbettes of 310–340 mm, at standard fighting distances.” (Wikipedia.)
Secondary Guns.
Alaska: 12 × 5-inch (127 mm)/38 caliber dual-purpose guns (6 × 2).
Weight of Shell: 25kg.
Rate of fire: 15 rpm (designed).
Muzzle velocity: 790 m/s.
Maximum firing range: 16,000 metres at 45°.
Scharnhorst: 12 × 15 cm/55 (5.9") SK C/28 guns (4 x 2 & 4 x 1).
Weight of Shell: 45kg.
Rate of fire: 8 rpm (maximum).
Muzzle velocity: 875 m/s.
Maximum firing range: 23,000 metres at 40°.
Armour. (Wikipedia.)
Alaska.
Main side belt: 230 mm.
Armor deck: 97 to 102 mm.
Turrets: 330 mm face, 130 mm roof, 133–152 mm side and 133 mm rear.
Conning tower: 270 mm.
Scharnhorst.
Belt: 350 mm.
Deck: 50 to 95 mm.
Turrets: 360 mm faces, 150 mm roofs, 200 mm sides.
Conning tower: 350 mm.
Design.
The Alaska class were designed to be very large Cruisers. “This ship combined a main armament of nine 12-inch guns with protection against 10-inch gunfire into a hull that was capable of 33 knots.” That is to say it was designed to ‘withstand’ enemy Cruisers with 8inch and 6inch guns.
The Scharnhorst class were designed to be Battleships, though they were also identified as Battlecruisers. At the time of their construction they were limited by the Treaty of Versailles to 9 x 11 inch guns. At the time, in comparison to British Battleships, they were considered to be inferior. However, there were plans to re-equip them with 6 x 15 inch guns. It should be noted that, “the ships' hulls were constructed from longitudinal steel frames, over which the outer hull plates were welded. Their hulls contained 21 watertight compartments and had a double bottom for 79% of their length.”
In its final battle against a British Battleship, HMS Duke of York, equipped with 14inch guns, (as well as 4 Cruisers and 8 Destroyers) the Scharnhorst showed it could take a lot of punishment.
Alaska (or Guam) was never put to the test.
Opinion.
Alaska was designed as a large Cruiser, with the primary role of protecting fast carriers and countering the threat of enemy cruisers. The Scharnhorst was designed to potentially engage enemy capital ships, that is enemy Battleships and Battlecruisers. There is no denying that the Alaska’s 12 inch gun was bigger than Scharnhorst’s 11 inch gun. But the German 11 inch gun was capable of penetrating Alaska’s Armour.
In an encounter battle at sea, it is my opinion that the Scharnhorst would have had the edge. While each ship could hit the other at range, history shows that the real action would commence around 24,000m and closing. As the range closed to 23,000, the German 5.9 inch guns would join in, and while they would not deliver a crippling blow, they could do a lot of super-structural damage, well before the American 5inch began engaging, albeit with a greater rate of fire, at 16,000m.
However, the battle would be won when one of the ships managed to get some decisive hits and knocked out their opponent’s main armament, fire control, engines and/or steering. In this respect, as each ship have three 3 barrel turrets, the odds appear to be the same. Here I come to what I consider to be the main difference in the two ships. The Scharnhorst’s armour protection and design are, in my opinion, better than the Alaska’s.
Barring a lucky hit, the Scharnhorst should have prevailed if it encountered the Alaska. But Scharnhorst would likely have come off very battered and in need of major repairs.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Michael L.
User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: Scharnhorst vs. USS Alaska

Post by paulcadogan »

Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Scharnhorst vs. USS Alaska

Post by lwd »

There is at least some evidence that the longest range hit was actually fired by Yamato off Samar. Late war the USN was willing in at least some cases to enegage in radar directed fire control beyond visible range and shot quite well at those ranges. Radar on both sides tended to be a bit fragile the US battleships made up for this to some extent with multiple radars. Not sure how the Alaska's compared to the twins in this regard.
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Scharnhorst vs. USS Alaska

Post by Thorsten Wahl »

SECTION VII (E)

WHITE PLAINS (CVE 66)

GUNFIRE AND KAMIKAZE DAMAGE

7E-1. On 25 October 1944, WHITE PLAINS was another of the six CVE's in Seventh Fleet Task Unit 77.4.3 which came under gunfire attack from the central Japanese force during the Battle for Leyte Gulf.

7E-2. At 0700, one of the first salvos, 14-inch AP or greater caliber shells, straddled the ship. Two projectiles fell close aboard off the starboard bow and two close aboard off the port quarter. One of the latter two detonated beneath the surface close under the port quarter, at the turn of the bilge, at about frame 142. The vessel was shaken and twisted violently by the underwater mining effect of the detonation. Personnel in some parts of the ship were thrown from their feet and much gear was thrown to the deck from horizontal stowages. ...
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Scharnhorst vs. USS Alaska

Post by lwd »

I remember seeing somewhere that once she got back to port White Plains had a dent in her hull consistent with a glancing hit from an 18" projectile.
See:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warship ... -s120.html
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Scharnhorst vs. USS Alaska

Post by lwd »

Michael L wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 9:12 am ...
In the Battle of the Denmark Strait, HMS Hood opened fire at 05:52 at a distance of approximately 24,200m (but never scored a hit during the entire battle).
Hood's first salvo resulted in a close stradle of Eugen with shells apparently landing close enough that the spray from them was impressive.
The ranges for ship-to-ship engagements between the British and the Italians in the Mediterranean were commenced at approx. 24,000m with ships then closing.
The point being made here is that although the maximum ranges of the Alaska’s 12inch and Scharnhorst’s 11inch guns were in excess of 30,000m it is not likely that a battle would have occurred at that distance.
But that was pretty much British doctrine. I'm not sure about German. It should also be noted that Scharnhorst did have fire control radar and by the time it could have fought Alaska it would likely have been decent. Us Doctrine on the other hand was to initiate fire at around 25,000 yards and then open the range if I remember correctly. That was based on prewar fire control without radar.
On the subject of radar, it should be noted that in the Battle of North Cape, 26 December 1943, in the opening salvos a shell from a British Cruiser destroyed Scharnhorst’s radar controls leaving Scharnhorst virtually blind, in a mounting snowstorm and night engagement, for the remainder of the battle.
US ships tended to have multiple fire control radars to prevent this sort of problem at least late war.
...
In an encounter battle at sea, it is my opinion that the Scharnhorst would have had the edge. While each ship could hit the other at range, history shows that the real action would commence around 24,000m and closing.
If it's just the two of them in open water especially with US experience in the Pacific especially considering what the USN would know about Scharhorst and the results of Iowa and New Jersey firing on Nowaki that is a very questionable assumption. Alaska's best tactic is to keep the engagement at as long a range as possible for as long as possible where she has an advantage. If Alaska can do so and especially if she can get a few hits in at range she'll probably win. If the Germans can close to under 20,000 yards before taking much damage they will have the edge IMO.
Post Reply