Twins v Warspite & Valiant

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
Had a look back through some of the old posts and don't think this has come up
We have two old but heavily modernised battleships Warspite and Valiant (16 x 15") againsts two modern but lighter armed and probably better armoured battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisnau (18 x 11"), both sides are renowned for their good shooting and all are approximately the same tonnage but the German ships have at least six knots speed advantage. If the twins decide to fight rather than make a run for it (which would probably be the sensible thing to do) who would win?

[Matrose71]

There are no real advantages for SH and GS except speed because Warspite and Valiant had all modernisations, especially they couldn't realy outrange Warspite and Valiant .

To me it would make no sense for SH and GS to fight, because of their 11 inch guns, they must force the fight to a very short distance (something about 18000 yards and below), to have the chance to do real damage.
But at this range they will also in havy danger to receive massive danger from the 15 inch guns.

As a commanding officer I would not force such a fight, because most advantages are at the enemy.

There would be a real chance to get in such a fight and perhaps win it without too much damage, if both SH and GS were upgunned with 15 inch guns, but the thin upper belt would be still a major element to receive heavy damage and it would be quite dangerous and a gamble, who would hit first and hard.

To go with SH and GS in real BB to BB fight, I think they must be upgunned to 15 inch guns and better they would have the same 145mm upper belt then Bismarck.
With such requirements they would be very dangerous BB's, but with the original 11 inch guns and the thin upper belt, it's more gambeling and the edge would be at the enemy.

[Dave Saxton]

probably better armoured battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

There's no probably about it. S&G were much better protected. The protection of all the British (and American and Japanese) old but modernized battleships does not compare to S&G.

Of course S&G would be better off with an upper belt like BS and TP, but I think that the probability of this resulting in a vitals penetrating hit are not that great.

[paul.mercer]

probably better armoured battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

There's no probably about it. S&G were much better protected. The protection of all the British (and American and Japanese) old but modernized battleships does not compare to S&G.

Of course S&G would be better off with an upper belt like BS and TP, but I think that the probability of this resulting in a vitals penetrating hit are not that great.

Hi Dave,
Would they be protected enough against a 15" shell and would their 11" be much of a danger to Warspite and Valiant at normal battle ranges?

[Dave Saxton]

Hi paul,

S&G could stand up to 15" firepower in most normal battle situations and battle ranges. Usually a battleship is designed to have vitals immunity vs its own gun from around 20k to 30k battle range. That was not the case with S&G. Don't correlate the defesive protection of S&G based on the caliber of the offensive guns. It was not a balanced design in that regard. S&G had armour protection close to the scale of Bismarck and Tirpitz with a simlar IZ vs 15" gunfire.

The QE's and R's were classified as battleships but they were still pre-Jutland designs and actually had weaker protection than Hood originally. The protection of Warspite and Valiant, even as modernized, was not real strong. This is especially true of the deck protection. It was improved but it could not be brought to true modern standard.

Although the German 11" shell seems so light weight it was not useless; it was high velocity at short and medium ranges which gives it some belt penetration power. That light weight also means that it doesn't retain as much velocity farther down range and it will begin to have surprizingly steep angle of fall by 22-25km battle range. I have the data- somewhere- of the deck penetration of the 28cm/54. I recall being rather surprized by the deck penetration when I plugged the numbers in.

[RNfanDan]

Hull and machinery protection are over-rated. Bismarck, Graf Spee, Scharnhorst, and Prince of Wales are ample proof that defensive armor superiority is simply inadequate to ensure victory. There are just too many sensitive areas on even the best battleships that can be defeated during an engagement, that can immediately put paid to the advantage of superior hull armor.

Damage to control positions, radars and unarmored portions of the hull, in all the above ships, either knocked them out of action or sufficiently reduced their fighting effectiveness, to the point where armor protection was rendered moot. Eight-inch shell hits (oddly enough, fired from the same ship--HMS Norfolk) dealt severe blows to two of the mighty Kriegsmarine giants in their final battles; Prince of Wales was quickly knocked-out of battle by a hit on her bridge; Bismarck was lamed by a hole through its bow, reducing its speed and forcing it to abandon its original mission; Graf Spee was well-armored against the largest British shells at River Plate, but it was peppered by so many other hits---none having anything to do with her protected zones---that Langsdorff was forced out of the fight.

A ship's defensive attributes alone, are not sufficient to guarantee its victory against even "lesser" opponents. Similarly, even lightly-armored vessels survived German 11" hits without sinking. One can cite statistics endessly, but in the end, it is the opponent scoring critical hits upon areas not well-armored, that usually win the fight.

[ede144]

IMHO Hood is the counter proof of your statement. .
And secondly you should that sinking a merchant nan is a total different business compared to a man of war. Depending on the freight loaded it could be nearly impossibleto sink a ship

[Rick Rather]

Apologies, ede, but I do not understand the expression "counter proof". Could you rephrase or elaborate?

Thanks in advance.

[paulcadogan]

IMHO Hood is the counter proof of your statement. .

Actually I believe Hood's case supports Dan's argument: Sure she took a fatal penetrating hit to the magazines, but what happened before that?

The boat deck hit afts created carnage in the general vicinity and made the use of her secondary (4-inch) armament (once in range) pretty much impossible until the fire was brought under control - fighting capability degraded.

The spotting top hit took out her spotters and gunnery radar - maybe even took out her chief gunnery officer. After scoring 2 close calls on Prinz Eugen, she never got near again and failed to switch target to Bismarck - fighting capability degraded.

The hit at the base of the bridge may have interfered with her flag signalling capability (Ted Briggs thought he heard his "oppo" signalman in that location crying for help through the voicepipes amid the chorus of other agonized cries) - maybe that's why she turned without the second 2blue pennant coming down - communication capability degraded.

So these hits outside the armoured areas degraded her ability to conduct the battle leaving her ripe for the coup de grace from Bismarck...

So hypothetical battles allow comparison of ships and their offensive and defensive capabilities - but as to who wins...it's who is lucky enough to land hits that degrade and/or eliminate the opponent's ability to fight first.... Sometimes the comparison will tell you, sometimes not.

All the best for 2013!

[ede144]

Apologies, ede, but I do not understand the expression "counter proof". Could you rephrase or elaborate?

Thanks in advance.

Actually the armor of Hood was outdated. KGV would not suffered the same damage. So Hood and it's sinking is the proof that armor and damage control capabilities are a basic need aand could not be overrated

[RF]

Would it not be a more practical proposition to have one of these ships engaging the twins rather than both?

[paul.mercer]

Would it not be a more practical proposition to have one of these ships engaging the twins rather than both?

I'm not so sure, after all the RN counted the twins as battleships and eighteen 11" against eight 15" hardly seems a fair fight, bearing in mind that although modernised the two QE's were essentially still WW1 ships, whilst the twins had the advantage of speed and presumably more modern armour. Judging from the various replies and other posts regarding the penetrating qualities of the 11" shell it would seem that both sides had the capability of inflicting severe damage to each other.
I have to say though that I would still put my money on the two QE's!

[RF]

Paul, the British Admiralty classed the twins as battlecruisers and not as battleships as the Germans did, on account of the 11 inch calibre not being regarded by the RN as true battleship calibre.

Eighteen against eight may not seem a fair fight, but the 15 inch calibre shells can do real damage if they direct hit.

The one engagement between 15 inch and 11 inch in WW2 was the twins brush with Renown in 1940 in which the Renown came off best. An opportunity missed came during Operation Berlin, where the twins were poised to attack a convoy escorted by HMS Malaya.

If it is the case that the 11 inch can overcome these older battleships then your your contention would be fair, but I can't see this happening without the twins getting hit by the 15 inch. I would see this as a long term action, not a quick battle like Denmark Strait. For it to be a long term action the Germans have to press home their attack, so questions of relative speed are not that important.

[Dave Saxton]

I disagree. The twins were well protected vs 15" direct hits. It's unlikely in a normal battle scenario that 15" will be able to penetrate the vitals of the twins. They may still do significant superficial damage out side the citadel, but that is also the case of the 28cm vs the old battlewagons. Actually, with many more 28cm rounds likely hitting the Warspite or Valiant, the older battleship(s) could be rapidly mission killed. S&G have a more modern and more advanced firecontrol system, better fire control radar, and the ability to dictate the range.

And I think the 28cm could have overcome these older not so well armoured battleships. It was less of a sure thing to overcome the old battlewagons with the 28cm than by 38cm or 16" though.

The one engagement between 15 inch and 11 inch in WW2 was the twins brush with Renown in 1940 in which the Renown came off best.

I also disagree in this case. I don't think Renown came off best. Luetjens thought it was Nelson and other units of the Home Fleet (The British thought it was Scharnhorst and Hipper). Luetjens didn't even know it was Renown at the time he made his decision to disengage, and thought there were at least two British battleships. Gneisenau and Renown both inflicted superficial damage on each other, before the action evolved into an extended stern chase between SH and Renown lasting for two hours.

At the time of the initial clash, Whitworth had a significant tactical advantage by the lighting: being hidden in the gloom to the west , while the Germans were high lighted by the eastern glow to the east. The Germans needed radar to range the enemy at the time. It was the tactical situation and how it evolved. It had nothing to do with the caliber of armament.

[paul.mercer]

I disagree. The twins were well protected vs 15" direct hits. It's unlikely in a normal battle scenario that 15" will be able to penetrate the vitals of the twins. They may still do significant superficial damage out side the citadel, but that is also the case of the 28cm vs the old battlewagons. Actually, with many more 28cm rounds likely hitting the Warspite or Valiant, the older battleship(s) could be rapidly mission killed. S&G have a more modern and more advanced firecontrol system, better fire control radar, and the ability to dictate the range.

And I think the 28cm could have overcome these older not so well armoured battleships. It was less of a sure thing to overcome the old battlewagons with the 28cm than by 38cm or 16" though.

The one engagement between 15 inch and 11 inch in WW2 was the twins brush with Renown in 1940 in which the Renown came off best.

I also disagree in this case. I don't think Renown came off best. Luetjens thought it was Nelson and other units of the Home Fleet (The British thought it was Scharnhorst and Hipper). Luetjens didn't even know it was Renown at the time he made his decision to disengage, and thought there were at least two British battleships. Gneisenau and Renown both inflicted superficial damage on each other, before the action evolved into an extended stern chase between SH and Renown lasting for two hours.

At the time of the initial clash, Whitworth had a significant tactical advantage by the lighting: being hidden in the gloom to the west , while the Germans were high lighted by the eastern glow to the east. The Germans needed radar to range the enemy at the time. It was the tactical situation and how it evolved. It had nothing to do with the caliber of armament.

Thats interesting, because at Matapan Admiral Cunningham stated that he was amazed by the rapidity of fire, particularly from Valiant and if both QE's were engaged it would then be 16 x 15" against 18 x 11" which would almost even up the amount of shells flying through the air at each other with the weight of shell being on the RN's side, I agreee that the twins may have had more modern fire control, but I wonder if the fire control was updated on the QE's when they were modernised as they were both supposed to be excellent gunnery ships? As for dictating the range, surely if the twins wanted to fight they would have stay within a practical range and not rely on lucky very long range hits especially as both QE's apparently had the ability to do the same to them at the same sort of ranges?