Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam

Post by paulcadogan »

Now to stretch it a little bit...

Another parallel universe.....Great Britain has fallen to the Germans in September 1940. Though a few British ships escape to the US, most of the big ships stay put fearing reprisals at home and are scuttled in Scapa Flow in a great reversal of history.

It is late 1944. War still rages in the Pacific, but in the Atlantic the Germans and Americans are mixing it up in the Caribbean. Scharnhorst & Gneisenau are despatched to bombard the Panama Canal Zone, but American intelligence gets wind of the plan.

As the German battleships enter the Caribbean Sea the masts of 2 ships appear on the horizon. They have been intercepted by the "large cruisers" Alaska and Guam. Alarm bells ring and both sides prepare for a fierce shooting match.....
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam

Post by Bgile »

I really don't have a good feel for this. The Alaskas have a much more powerful gun than S&G, but they aren't as well protected, either.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Let´s see how is this:

Alaska Class Battlecruisers (or heavy cruisers)

Class and type: Alaska-class large cruiser
Type: "Large cruiser" (officially), battlecruiser in actuality.
Displacement: 29,779 tons (standard)
34,253 tons (full load)
Length: 808 ft 6 in (246.4 m)
Beam: 91 ft 1 in (27.8 m)
Draft: 27 ft 1 in (8.3 m)
32ft (9.75 m) (full load)
Propulsion: 4-shaft General Electric steam turbines, 8 Babcock & Wilcox boilers, 150,000 shp (112 MW)
Speed: 31.4 knots (58 km/h)
Endurance: 12,000 nautical miles (22,000 km) at 15 knots (28 km/h)
Complement: 1,517–1,799–2,251
Armament: Nine 12"/50 caliber (305 mm), twelve 5 inch (127 mm), 56 x 40 mm, 34 x 20 mm guns
Armor: Belt: 5 – 12 in (127–229 mm)
Deck: 3.8 – 4 in (97–102 mm)
Barbettes: 11 – 13 in (279–330 mm)
Turrets: 5 – 12.8 in (127–325 mm)
Aircraft carried: 4× OS2U Kingfisher or SC Seahawk[
Aviation facilities: Enclosed hangar located amidships

For the moment no comments on this.
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: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Schanhorst Class Battleship (or Battlecruiser?)

Type: Battleship/battlecruiser
Displacement: 32,100 long tons (standard)
38,100 LT (full load)
Length: 235 m (772 ft) overall
226 m (741.5 ft) waterline
Beam: 30 m (98.4 ft)
Draught: 9.69 m (31 ft 9 in.) at 37,303 tons
Propulsion: 3 Germania/Brown, Boveri & Co geared turbines
3 three-bladed propellers, 4.8 m (15 ft 9 inch) diameter
151,893 shp
Speed: 33 kt
Range: Scharnhorst: 7,100 nmi at 19 kn
Gneisenau: 6,200 nmi at 19 kn
Complement: 1,669 (56 officers, 1613 enlisted)
Armament: 9 × 28 cm/54.5 (11 inch) SK C/34
12 × 15 cm/55 (5.9") SK C/28
14 × 10.5 cm/65 (4.1 inch) SK C/33
16 × 3.7 cm/L83 (1.5") SK C/30
10 (later 16) × 2 cm/65 (0.79") C/30 or C/38


6 × 533 mm torpedo tubes
Armour: Main belt: 350 mm (13.78 inch)
Deck: 95 mm max.
Aircraft carried: 3 Arado Ar 196A-3
Aviation facilities: 1 catapult
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: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

I do believe, sincerelly, that the German ships will have the edge here, despite the 12" guns of the Alaskas. Schanhorst better protection will serve enough to receive punishment that her foe could not stand.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam

Post by lwd »

Again I think this one comes down to fire control. If the Alaska's can use there's at long range they have a distinct advantage. At closer both can punch pretty holes in each other fairly easily. At close range the flatter shooting 11 inch guns may give the Germans an advantage. If it's a fleet action with escorts and such involved the Alaska's won't take torpedoes nearly as well as the German vessels will. On the other hand they have a better AA defense and are likely to have a lot more friends around both on the surface and in the sky.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam

Post by Bgile »

lwd wrote:Again I think this one comes down to fire control. If the Alaska's can use there's at long range they have a distinct advantage. At closer both can punch pretty holes in each other fairly easily. At close range the flatter shooting 11 inch guns may give the Germans an advantage. If it's a fleet action with escorts and such involved the Alaska's won't take torpedoes nearly as well as the German vessels will. On the other hand they have a better AA defense and are likely to have a lot more friends around both on the surface and in the sky.
It's interesting that you consider the 11 guns better than those of Alaska when navweaps considers Alaska's 12"/50 to be more powerful than the US 14"/50, which was more powerful than those of KGV. Ergo, you think Scharnhorst's guns were better than Duke of York's. Interesting.
User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam

Post by Legend »

If I may interject, I do believe lwd on this one. At CLOSE RANGE the Twin's guns would have done serious damage to Alaska and Guam, though it is without a doubt that out of flat trajectory the Alaska's 10,260lb broadside would blow through most any armor that the Twins have.

Another set of facts I have, it the amount of punch per minute either set of ships have. The Alaskas have a broadside weight of 10,260 and a RoF of 3, making the BPM (Broadside Per Minute) 30,780.

Verses the Twin's BMP of 19,656... from a broadside of 6,552 and a RoF of 3.

From this I see a long range battle definitely going to the Alaskas, a difference of some 10,000 pounds of force per minute. That's a ratio of 1:2/3. The Twins are an entire third behind the Alaskas in firepower. Now, that's not including accuracy. I don't know much about rangefinding technique, I will not lie about that. But I do know of the Twin's reputation. The question is now how accurate the Alaska's guns were?
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.
User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam

Post by José M. Rico »

Another similar thread here:

Scharnhorst vs. USS Alaska:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=202
User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam

Post by tommy303 »

Armor: Belt: 5 – 12 in (127–229 mm)
That should read 5 - 9 in.

While I generally like the Alaska class, there are several disturbing points about the design. Among other things, in common with many cruisers of the time, they lack an effective underwater protection scheme. What they have lacks depth and can be described as vulnerable to 28cm shells which might penetrate the lower part of the tapered armour plate. The plate itself is fairly thin considering the size of the main battery guns and could be penetrated by the 28cm at ranges over 25,000 and holed at greater ranges out to 30,000. A shell which penetrates the main armour has nothing much in its way to prevent it from reaching a vital spot, while a shell which holes the plate will still pose a danger from delta plug and shell fragments to spaces beyond the armour.

The other point which I find disturbing is the placement of a five inch DP mount and its ready use magazine directly in front of the main navigation and combat bridge structures. A hit which ignites the contents of the ready-use magazine would have a seriously disrupting effect on the ability of the bridge personnel to direct the ship until such a time as the fire has subsided.

That said, the ship has good main battery and horizontal armour protection against the 28cm. Best choice of ranges to fight at would have been in the extreme range zone greater than 30,000 yards where her decks provide adequate protection to the vitals out to about 40,000 and where her own guns stand a good chance of inflicting damage through the decks of her opponent if she has the AP budget for such long range shoots.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.
User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam

Post by paulcadogan »

Re: Alaska
Karl Heidenreich wrote:Armor: Belt: 5 – 12 in (127–229 mm)
My information (from 2 books) agrees with Tommy. And the information regarding penetration and the arrangement of the secondary guns is interesting. But how accurate would the gunfire be at ranges over 30,000 yards?

As usual, it all dependson who hits in the right place first, but due to their weight of fire and FC, I think the advantage lies with the American Twins. I'm sure the rate of fire of the US 5-inch secondaries would outstrip that of the German 15cm's and create a serious nuisance (remember a 4.5-inch shell hit from Renown resulted in the flooding of Gneisenau's A-turret off Stromvaer).

However, though they may be able to put the S&G out of action, they might find them difficult to sink without torpedoes. But if Scharnhorst could get in a good position to use hers and score multiple hits, an American Twin might find herself going under.

Interesting that there was a short thread on this 4 years ago!
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: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam

Post by lwd »

Bgile wrote:
lwd wrote:Again I think this one comes down to fire control. If the Alaska's can use there's at long range they have a distinct advantage. At closer both can punch pretty holes in each other fairly easily. At close range the flatter shooting 11 inch guns may give the Germans an advantage. If it's a fleet action with escorts and such involved the Alaska's won't take torpedoes nearly as well as the German vessels will. On the other hand they have a better AA defense and are likely to have a lot more friends around both on the surface and in the sky.
It's interesting that you consider the 11 guns better than those of Alaska ....
I don't really. I just think the increased P(h) of the flatter shooting 11" rounds may give the Germans an advantage at close range. The 12" is going to do more damage at long range and US RFC will likely give the US ships a decisive advantage at longer ranges. From previous discussions the armor of none of these ships will hold up well to either round. I've also seen it suggested that the German rounds were less reliable but I'm not sure this is based on a significant amount of data.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam

Post by Bgile »

tommy303 wrote: The other point which I find disturbing is the placement of a five inch DP mount and its ready use magazine directly in front of the main navigation and combat bridge structures. A hit which ignites the contents of the ready-use magazine would have a seriously disrupting effect on the ability of the bridge personnel to direct the ship until such a time as the fire has subsided.
It has this in common with every wartime cruiser built for the US navy right through the Newport News class. It must not have been considered a serious weakness, at least not compared with the utility of having the guns in that location. Actually, US destroyers had the same situation, and I don't recall such an explosion occurring any time during the war. Maybe it did, but I don't recall reading of one. I think 5" ammunition was pretty stable and I believe I recall reading of some powder cans burning in a magazine after a shell hit, but not all of them and it wasn't catastrophic.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam

Post by Bgile »

lwd wrote:
Bgile wrote:
lwd wrote:Again I think this one comes down to fire control. If the Alaska's can use there's at long range they have a distinct advantage. At closer both can punch pretty holes in each other fairly easily. At close range the flatter shooting 11 inch guns may give the Germans an advantage. If it's a fleet action with escorts and such involved the Alaska's won't take torpedoes nearly as well as the German vessels will. On the other hand they have a better AA defense and are likely to have a lot more friends around both on the surface and in the sky.
It's interesting that you consider the 11 guns better than those of Alaska ....
I don't really. I just think the increased P(h) of the flatter shooting 11" rounds may give the Germans an advantage at close range. The 12" is going to do more damage at long range and US RFC will likely give the US ships a decisive advantage at longer ranges. From previous discussions the armor of none of these ships will hold up well to either round. I've also seen it suggested that the German rounds were less reliable but I'm not sure this is based on a significant amount of data.
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.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Gneisenau & Scharnhorst vs. Alaska & Guam

Post by RF »

By late 1944 I would expect the twins to have been converted to 15 inch main armament.

If the war against Britain had finished in 1940, I would also think that the twins would have substantial surface and air support, as with Britain no longer an enemy the Z Plan would have been resumed...... with new KM ships ready for service by summer 1944.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply