15in Up Gunned Gneisenau v 1939 Modernized Renown

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

15in Up Gunned Gneisenau v 1939 Modernized Renown

Post by Kyler » Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:39 pm

If Gneisenau had refitted and been up gunned with 3 15in turrets fought a duel with the modernized 1939 HMS Renown, who would win?

I am going with the Gneisenau

Now I will let the real fighting start
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: 15in Up Gunned Gneisenau v 1939 Modernized Renown

Post by Bgile » Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:09 am

If the sea state permits Gneisenau to empoy her armament effectively, I think either ship could win. I also believe that is true if Gneisenau has her original armament.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: 15in Up Gunned Gneisenau v 1939 Modernized Renown

Post by Dave Saxton » Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:42 pm

What do you mean by: " if the sea state permits Gneisenau to employ her armament effectively" ?
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: 15in Up Gunned Gneisenau v 1939 Modernized Renown

Post by Bgile » Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:44 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:What do you mean by: " if the sea state permits Gneisenau to employ her armament effectively" ?
I thought the flooding problems were well known. Haven't you read the Scharnhorst gunnery officer's summary of the action with Renown?

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: 15in Up Gunned Gneisenau v 1939 Modernized Renown

Post by Dave Saxton » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:01 pm

Yes, but to what degree could this potentially retard the effectiveness of the armament? Why wasn't Gneisenau effected to a similar degree? How much of this was simply the effect of the course taken in disengagement among this particular set of circumstances? Would it consistently happen this way in rough seas? The Scharnhorst didn't seem to be similarly effected in rough seas during North Cape.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: 15in Up Gunned Gneisenau v 1939 Modernized Renown

Post by Bgile » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:37 pm

Since both ships were of the same class, I think we can assume that Gneisenau was affected the same way and that Scharnhorst had the same problems at North Cape. Why would it be any different? These ships were notoriously wet, and the Scharnhorst report identifies the sort of problems one might expect. The whole tone of the report is one of great frustration and specifically mentions that their main armament always has problems in any significant sea state.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: 15in Up Gunned Gneisenau v 1939 Modernized Renown

Post by lwd » Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:59 pm

Weren't similar problems reported during the engagement with Renown? The 15" turrets would have been heavier wouldn't they?

User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: 15in Up Gunned Gneisenau v 1939 Modernized Renown

Post by tommy303 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:28 pm

I believe part of the reconstruction planned for Gneisenau, when converting from 28cm to 38cm guns, was to lengthen the forecastle by 10m so as to improve seakeeping and prevent the forward turrets from being inundated in rough seas.

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.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: 15in Up Gunned Gneisenau v 1939 Modernized Renown

Post by Bgile » Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:49 pm

lwd wrote:Weren't similar problems reported during the engagement with Renown? The 15" turrets would have been heavier wouldn't they?
Please see my post of 6:44am today, followed by subsequent posts.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: 15in Up Gunned Gneisenau v 1939 Modernized Renown

Post by Dave Saxton » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:24 pm

Bgile wrote:Since both ships were of the same class, I think we can assume that Gneisenau was affected the same way and that Scharnhorst had the same problems at North Cape. Why would it be any different? These ships were notoriously wet, and the Scharnhorst report identifies the sort of problems one might expect. The whole tone of the report is one of great frustration and specifically mentions that their main armament always has problems in any significant sea state.
I can't find any evidence that SH suffered similar problems at North Cape. Nobody mentions it. Nor that Gneisenau suffered similar problems to such a degree as Scharnhorst on April 9th 1940. It could be that the conditions Scharnhorst faced were unusually severe in this case. They may have made improvements following this incident too.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: 15in Up Gunned Gneisenau v 1939 Modernized Renown

Post by Kyler » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:49 pm

tommy303 wrote:I believe part of the reconstruction planned for Gneisenau, when converting from 28cm to 38cm guns, was to lengthen the forecastle by 10m so as to improve seakeeping and prevent the forward turrets from being inundated in rough seas.
tommy,

You are correct, she was to lenghted to better sailing coniditons in rough seas
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: 15in Up Gunned Gneisenau v 1939 Modernized Renown

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:55 pm

tommy and kyler:

Not only for sailing in rough conditions but it was required also for buoyancy reasons according to G&D. The addtional weight cannot be dealth with using additional beam so lenght was required. Anyway the Twins were quite "wet" ships and have presented cruising sailing conditions. If I can recall correctly they had a hard time with the Renown`s action.

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

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: 15in Up Gunned Gneisenau v 1939 Modernized Renown

Post by Bgile » Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:54 pm

Dave Saxton wrote: I can't find any evidence that SH suffered similar problems at North Cape. Nobody mentions it. Nor that Gneisenau suffered similar problems to such a degree as Scharnhorst on April 9th 1940. It could be that the conditions Scharnhorst faced were unusually severe in this case. They may have made improvements following this incident too.
Well, neither German ship shot very well against Renown, and Scharnhorst didn't shoot very well against DoY.

I don't think anyone in a position to critique gunnery problems at North Cape survived the sinking of Scharnhorst, did they?

I'd be interested in any information you might have that these problems were corrected, but their shooting in bad weather doesn't seem to have been as good as that of their opponents.

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: 15in Up Gunned Gneisenau v 1939 Modernized Renown

Post by yellowtail3 » Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:47 am

even if the Germans had earlier put the effort and expense in to Gneisenau getting bigger guns... she wouldn't have been a much better ship. 15" guns weren't going to make her substantially better, or more likely to survive fights with likely opponents. She'd still have been outclassed by a KGV, not to mention any new battleships the USN might have sent thataways... and in shootouts with more likely opponents - RN or USN cruisers? - 15" wouldn't have been substantially better than 11" for the job, IMHO.

scrapping was the best choice.
Shift Colors... underway.

Matrose71
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: 15in Up Gunned Gneisenau v 1939 Modernized Renown

Post by Matrose71 » Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:44 am

@ @ yellowtail3

What a statement!
You even know that SH/GS had the best vertical protection up to 18000-19000m from all BB's ever built?
Tell me one BB shell that can go through 350mm straight belt 105mm slopes and 45mm torpedoshot at a range from 10000m up to 18000m?
The german 15inch can go through the main belt of KGV till 20000m, so i don`t know exactly the armour sheme of the refitted Renown but I don't think that it's main belt had this strengths.
The major flaw of SH/GS was their weak upper belt, so the ships are vulnerable up from 18000-19000m. So Renown must fight at long range to have any chance to put GS out of action and to have any IZ against the german 15inch shells. If GS can reduce the range under 18000m Renown will be wrack.
I don't say that SH/GS were a balanced design, for my opinion the vertical protection was to good and horizontal protection to weak but KGV was for me the unbalanced design from all BB's because of it's super weak vertical protection against 15 inch guns or heavier.
She'd still have been outclassed by a KGV
What do you mean with outclassed?
SH's radar was put out of action from Norfolk and DoY had the major luck to put the two forward turrents out of action with the first two salvos at a range of 11000m!
1,5 h there was no hit that could reduce the speed of SH, so it's armor works. Only the hit from DoY at a range up from 18000m that exploded on the main deck and the shock impact took Boiler Room1 out of action and reduce SH's speed for 20 min to 12kn after 20min she was back to 26kn.
The major strikes were the following 4 Torpedos but no hit from DoY.

Post Reply