At 10,000 according to navweapons the German 11 and 15 inch guns have almost identical velocities. So given the significant difference in mass I don't think that holds. Although now that I look it up the Alaska's rounds are moving at 1948 fps at 10,000 yards vs 2,139 for the German 11" gun. Not sure that's all that significant.Bgile wrote: ...You could use the same argument to say the German 11" guns were better than their own 15" at close range, and indeed better than Yamato's 18" guns.
Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam
Re: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam
-
alecsandros
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam
I'm not sure if either 12' or 11' guns where capable of doing enough damage for sinking a heavily armoured ship. The German combat record using 283mm is disapointing - to say the least - when fighting against units such as BC Renown or BB Duke of York.
Beyond that, even if I'm a KGM fan, American damage control teams AND radar FC where much, much better than the German ones.
Bottom line, the twins get their ass kicked. No ship is sunk however.
Cheers
Beyond that, even if I'm a KGM fan, American damage control teams AND radar FC where much, much better than the German ones.
Bottom line, the twins get their ass kicked. No ship is sunk however.
Cheers
Re: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam
With regards to the Alaska's 12" guns lets compare them to a few other BB rounds. All data from:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm
Ship - shell mass - bursting charge - muzzlevlocity
Alaska's -1,140 lbs. (517.093 kg) - 17.4 lbs. (7.9 kg) Explosive D - 2,500 fps (762 mps)
Scharnhorst - 727.5 lbs. (330 kg) - 14.55 lbs. (7.84 kg) - 2,920 fps (890 mps)
Bismack - 1,764 lbs. (800 kg) - 41.4 lbs. (18.8 kg) -2,690 fps (820 mps)
KG IV - 1,590 lbs. (721 kg) - 48.5 lbs. (22.0 kg)- 2,400 fps (732 mps)
Renown - 1,938 lbs. (879 kg) - 48.5 lbs. (22.0 kg) Shellite - 2,458 fps (749 mps)
Tennessee - 1,500 lbs. (680.4 kg) - 22.90 lbs. (10.4 kg) Explosive D - 2,700 fps (823 mps)
Looking at these and the some of the WWII combats I certainly wouldn't rule out a sinking. Might well depend on where the battle took place. But I suspect any of these ships could render their oppositon in sinking condition.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm
Ship - shell mass - bursting charge - muzzlevlocity
Alaska's -1,140 lbs. (517.093 kg) - 17.4 lbs. (7.9 kg) Explosive D - 2,500 fps (762 mps)
Scharnhorst - 727.5 lbs. (330 kg) - 14.55 lbs. (7.84 kg) - 2,920 fps (890 mps)
Bismack - 1,764 lbs. (800 kg) - 41.4 lbs. (18.8 kg) -2,690 fps (820 mps)
KG IV - 1,590 lbs. (721 kg) - 48.5 lbs. (22.0 kg)- 2,400 fps (732 mps)
Renown - 1,938 lbs. (879 kg) - 48.5 lbs. (22.0 kg) Shellite - 2,458 fps (749 mps)
Tennessee - 1,500 lbs. (680.4 kg) - 22.90 lbs. (10.4 kg) Explosive D - 2,700 fps (823 mps)
Looking at these and the some of the WWII combats I certainly wouldn't rule out a sinking. Might well depend on where the battle took place. But I suspect any of these ships could render their oppositon in sinking condition.
-
alecsandros
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam
Yes, in terms of kinetic impulse, both the 11" and the 12" guns looked ok. But in practice, the 330kg german shells proved to lack the punch necessary for destroying armoured opponents. It's not that they can't pierce armour - they sure can - but once they got inside, their explosion was far smaller than that of the real BB guns.
The american 12" guns aboard Alaska/Guam where in fact much powerfull due to the bigger weight (>60% more than the german 11" round).
Nevertheless, Scharnhorst class armour proved very tough (it would have been realy pathetic not to, due to all the weight of the armour carried, that made them heavier than some true BB's around) especially under heavy gun fire. Duke of York fired over 200 rounds at it, hitting it 7-10 times, cruiser and DD fire wrecked the upper works, and still, if it weren't for the massive torpedo attacks, it might have "lived". British 14" shell weight was around 730kg IIRC, huge difference from the 510kg of the Alaska's.
Sure, we could take "luck" into account.. But that could mean anything, from Alaska and Guam both exploding at the first salvoes (ala Hood) to a gun battle fought at >20.000m, with no scores on any ship.
So, I think that, statistically, the twin german ships would be severely mauled, but not sunk. The american ships would have severe damage only in the upper works.
Cheers
The american 12" guns aboard Alaska/Guam where in fact much powerfull due to the bigger weight (>60% more than the german 11" round).
Nevertheless, Scharnhorst class armour proved very tough (it would have been realy pathetic not to, due to all the weight of the armour carried, that made them heavier than some true BB's around) especially under heavy gun fire. Duke of York fired over 200 rounds at it, hitting it 7-10 times, cruiser and DD fire wrecked the upper works, and still, if it weren't for the massive torpedo attacks, it might have "lived". British 14" shell weight was around 730kg IIRC, huge difference from the 510kg of the Alaska's.
Sure, we could take "luck" into account.. But that could mean anything, from Alaska and Guam both exploding at the first salvoes (ala Hood) to a gun battle fought at >20.000m, with no scores on any ship.
So, I think that, statistically, the twin german ships would be severely mauled, but not sunk. The american ships would have severe damage only in the upper works.
Cheers