Scharnhorst vs a KGV

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

Re: Scharnhorst Vs a KGV

Post by paulcadogan »

OK....I'll post here what I posted in another thread.

All the penetration curves and calculations in the world can't beat an actual event, described by those who were there, on whose testimony knowledge of what happened aboard a ship that was sunk has to be based. No "impossible" dismissals made 70 years later carry anywhere near as much weight IMHO..

German survivor testimony, German author: (Fritz Otto Busch - The Sinking of the Scharnhorst) (my emphasis - bold, italic, underline)
When the Captain’s exhortation “Scharnhorst immer voran” reached them, they looked at each other and smiled. The knew that every section of the crew was doing its utmost to honour their ship’s motto. But the smiles left their faces when within a few seconds the ship was struck with unprecedented force and began to tremble violently along her entire length. The emergency lamps fell from their mountings; the men set to and replaced them as further heavy explosions occurred. They looked at the Signals-Transmitter questioningly. He shook his head:

“Nothing’s come through so far.”

“That was a torpedo hit,” said Chief Petty Officer Moritz, the Chief Gunner. “It couldn’t have been anything else.”

They fell silent. At length the Signals-Transmitter had another bulletin:

“B-turret to damage control party: Order to flood! Magazine chamber B-turret to be flooded.”

The men listened aghast: was B-turret also out of action now? A-turret had remained jammed since the first encounter with the British battleship. Must B go too…? But then they heard B-turret firing again, distant and subdued, but clearly recognizable. Enveloped in smoke and fumes it was to keep firing to the last. The men relaxed again.

It was not until he was in captivity that Strater learned from Able Seaman Birkle, another survivor, what had actually happened. Birkle was a member of the gun crew of B-turret. A-turret had received a severe hit – the second of the day – in its magazine chamber. Violent explosions had followed, the smoke of which completely enveloped B and red hot splinters had penetrated the bulkheads protecting the magazines. The Chief Gunner took the immediate and reasonable precautions of having the magazines flooded. It had, however, proved possible to pump them out again a quarter of an hour later.
In other words, like it or not, according to someone who was there, Scharnhorst's A- magazine chamber was penetrated by a 14-inch shell, apparently late in the battle. Not sure what range DoY was firing from at the time. Never say never.... :think:
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Scharnhorst Vs a KGV

Post by northcape »

Paul, don't confuse some people here with common sense and real-world facts ;-)
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Scharnhorst Vs a KGV

Post by paul.mercer »

We are talking about penetration of heavy armour here, what about the damage a KGv's 14" shells are going to do to the topside, radar, rangefinders, communications, etc.?
Not for the first time we are hearing about Scharnhorst's fabulous 11" guns which can shoot holes in any British battleship.
A good heavyweight will almost always beat a good light heavyweight by sheer punching power and the ability to absorb blows from a lighter opponant!
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Scharnhorst Vs a KGV

Post by dunmunro »

alecsandros wrote:
Yes, but it can not perforate it any range.
Perforation of homogenous armor is about 4.2 inches at 28.000yards, for British 14" shell, and that considering the cap still attached. Without the cap, perforation would be impossible at any range.
And if the 45mm side armour doesn't decap the 14in shell? GKDOS predicts penetration of Scharnhorst's 105mm deck from 23.3km by Hood or R-class BBs -seems like GKDOS doesn't predict decapping. GKDOS states that Scharnhorst's belt is 320mm, and it predicts penetration of the belt and scarf at 16.7km


*
However, the 150mm armor deck above KGV's magazines would be vulnerable at all ranges above 30km.

KGV's deck armour over the magazines consists of the 30mm weather deck/side hull plus 5.88in (149mm) over 20mm D steel plate and the magazines are three decks further down (see the armour diagram http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/images/KGV_Scharnhorst.jpg ) and protected by another 38mm of D steel.
At 30km GKDOS predicts SV = 420m/s and AoF = 35degrees (55 from normal) and it predicts penetration of ~130mm of H. armour.





Conning towers were a useless anachronism in WW2 and a waste of weight. All of KGV's actual conn functions are carried out below the MAD.
All other major navies except the ROyal Navy opted for heavy armor in the con. [South Dakota, Iowa classes - 400mm thick walls; Veneto - 300mm thick walls, Bismarck -350mm thick walls, Yamato - 500mm thick, Richelieu - 330mm thick, IIRC, and so on]

USN experience was that the Conn was useless in battle because of it's very poor visibility. The vision slits had to be large enough that small calibre shells could actually enter them anyways, while direct hits on a vision slit, by a heavy shell, would undoubtedly kill everyone inside.


Scharnhorst can put up 27-30 x 11" shells/minute, which can be pretty nasty for the command personnel sitting in KGV's lightly armored con towers.
KGV can respond with 15 x 14" shells/minute.


KGV's theoretical RoF is 20 14in shells/minute.
Last edited by dunmunro on Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Scharnhorst Vs a KGV

Post by dunmunro »

paulcadogan wrote:OK....I'll post here what I posted in another thread.


In other words, like it or not, according to someone who was there, Scharnhorst's A- magazine chamber was penetrated by a 14-inch shell, apparently late in the battle. Not sure what range DoY was firing from at the time. Never say never.... :think:
Yes, and if we give Scharnhorst a roll of 15 degs towards DoY, and a 14in shell through the 2in hull sides, it can easily enter the magazines by penetrating the 105mm deck and it can also theoretically penetrate the 350mm belt and the 105mm scarf to enter the magazines and/or detonate on the scarf to send splinters into the magazines. This is actually predicted by GKDOS for the RN 15in gun, once angles of roll are added to their analysis. Theoretically, a similar scenario could allow Scharnhorst to penetrate KGV's deck armour, at very long ranges, however, KGV's magazines are located so far from the MAD that actual penetration of the magazine is still highly unlikely.
Matrose71
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Scharnhorst Vs a KGV

Post by Matrose71 »

I don't know, but the niveau of this forum is sinking rapid.
It was not until he was in captivity that Strater learned from Able Seaman Birkle, another survivor, what had actually happened. Birkle was a member of the gun crew of B-turret. A-turret had received a severe hit – the second of the day – in its magazine chamber. Violent explosions had followed, the smoke of which completely enveloped B and red hot splinters had penetrated the bulkheads protecting the magazines. The Chief Gunner took the immediate and reasonable precautions of having the magazines flooded. It had, however, proved possible to pump them out again a quarter of an hour later.
This is realy suspicious, because not any explosion late in the battle was reported from the Royal Navy after action report.
Also this claim (to me more of a lie) could not happened from the report of other survivors, because turret A or the barbette of turret A was hit and disabled with the first salvo of DoY at 11000yards and caused the flowding of the magazin of turret A and turret B and only the magazin of turret B was pumped out again and turret B was again in action at roundabout 18 o'clock(german time). From german after action report the magazin of turret A stayed flowded since the first hit and was never pumped out!
So to me this report does not make any sense, because other survivors or the after actiom report from the RN or the KM didn't confirm any second hit to turret A or an explosion. Also how can a magazin explode at the time it was full of water?
Yes, and if we give Scharnhorst a roll of 15 degs towards DoY, and a 14in shell through the 2in hull sides, it can easily enter the magazines by penetrating the 105mm deck and it can also theoretically penetrate the 350mm belt and the 105mm scarf to enter the magazines and/or detonate on the scarf to send splinters into the magazines. This is actually predicted by GKDOS for the RN 15in gun, once angles of roll are added to their analysis. Theoretically, a similar scenario could allow Scharnhorst to penetrate KGV's deck armour, at very long ranges, however, KGV's magazines are located so far from the MAD that actual penetration of the magazine is still highly unlikely.
In which world do you live? SH had an inclined belt of 15 degree at the magazines covered from 110mm slopes layed back 22 degree from the horizontal and you want to tell us a 14 or 15 inch shell can punch through this at a roll of 15 degree?

The niveau of this forum is realy sinking, I wanted to write a lot in this thread, but after the last posts here, thiis the same german bashing on unsubstained claims and lies as at the Navyweapons forum. But you can believe your dreams that SH's magazins are easy to penetrate at normal battle ranges from a 14 or 15 inch shell. Also you could dream that SH's main belt with 4,50m height (compare to BS 4,80m) was realy shallow.
Also the claim of the 150mm turret front. SH's turrets were exactly protected as BS turrets and with KC/nA not Wh and the turretplate at the front was 180mm KC/nA layed back 68 degrees, the same as the slopes.

But in this forum facts are obviously not counting anymore only unsubstained claims.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Scharnhorst Vs a KGV

Post by dunmunro »

Matrose71 wrote:
Yes, and if we give Scharnhorst a roll of 15 degs towards DoY, and a 14in shell through the 2in hull sides, it can easily enter the magazines by penetrating the 105mm deck and it can also theoretically penetrate the 350mm belt and the 105mm scarf to enter the magazines and/or detonate on the scarf to send splinters into the magazines. This is actually predicted by GKDOS for the RN 15in gun, once angles of roll are added to their analysis. Theoretically, a similar scenario could allow Scharnhorst to penetrate KGV's deck armour, at very long ranges, however, KGV's magazines are located so far from the MAD that actual penetration of the magazine is still highly unlikely.
In which world do you live? SH had an inclined belt of 15 degree at the magazines covered from 110mm slopes layed back 22 degree from the horizontal and you want to tell us a 14 or 15 inch shell can punch through this at a roll of 15 degree?

The niveau of this forum is realy sinking, I wanted to write a lot in this thread, but after the last posts here, thiis the same german bashing on unsubstained claims and lies as at the Navyweapons forum. But you can believe your dreams that SH's magazins are easy to penetrate at normal battle ranges from a 14 or 15 inch shell. Also you could dream that SH's main belt with 4,50m height (compare to BS 4,80m) was realy shallow.
Also the claim of the 150mm turret front. SH's turrets were exactly protected as BS turrets and with KC/nA not Wh and the turretplate at the front was 180mm KC/nA layed back 68 degrees, the same as the slopes.

But in this forum facts are obviously not counting anymore only unsubstained claims.
Scharnhorst's belt inclination abreast the magazines varies from a minimum 0 degree to a maximum of ~15 degrees at the forward edge of the belt according to G&D. GKDOS (1940) states that the belt is 320mm not 350mm and the scarfs are 105mm. KGV was engaging Scharnhorst from 10,000 to 22000 yds, and at the closer ranges the RN 14in could easily penetrate the 320mm belt, even at at 35 or 40 degrees total inclination, based upon RN trials against RN and KM armour and this leaves sufficient velocity remaining to penetrate the scarf (according to NAaB) if the ship rolls towards DoY. However, even according to GKDOS the RN 15in could penetrate the belt and scarf under 16.7km and the 105mm deck over 23.3km (17.2km for the 80mm machinery AD), but ship roll could reduce these figures substantially, which would explain the penetrations of Scharnhorst's magazines by DoY.

NAaB predicts penetration of 180mm turret face facets @ 68deg by the RN 14in at ~16km and beyond but this is complicated by roll could could easily reduce or increase thise ranges substantially.
Last edited by dunmunro on Tue Jul 09, 2013 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Scharnhorst Vs a KGV

Post by northcape »

Matrose71 wrote: But in this forum facts are obviously not counting anymore only unsubstained claims.
Facts like that DOY reduced Scharnhorst to a defenceless wreck, while the latter could barely scratch the british ship? And is it only a rumour or a biased claim, that as a consequence of this battle, Scharnhorst now rests in 300 m depth below the waves?
Also, we don't know for sure if DOY really scored that last hit in the boiler room. But if she didn't, a machinery breakdown on Scharnhorst is the most plausible explanation - and this is not a great testimony to the machinery of Scharnhorst either.

I know it is a hypothetical scenario - but somehow it makes not a lot of sense to me to discuss a hypothetical scenario when a similar battle was actually fought in reality.
Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: Scharnhorst Vs a KGV

Post by Vic Dale »

A great number of interesting points have been raised in this rather heated discussion, but what seems to be becoming clear is that a seemingly solid edifice such as a battleship's armour, is in a state of constant flux during battle and a small disadvantage can make the difference between victory and defeat for one or other of two very well matched opponents.

The shell which jammed Scharnhorsts' "A" turret probably struck when the ship was on the roll, so there was no saying in advance what would or would not be the outcome. If the angle of descend combined with the angle of roll produced an angle of strike of 90 degrees to the normal, the shell would go through whatever was in the way. The shell which struck the boiler room may not have needed to find the small flaw or gap in the ship's armour scheme to strike home, if it struck below water when the ship was on the roll. If the roll laid the ship's main belt at 90 degrees to the angle of strike, the main belt would be perforated. In the end it all comes down to who can get the greatest number of hits.

The scenario I originally painted placed KGV at a tactical disadvantage whereby she could not observe her fall of shot properly. Scharnhorst facing no such disadvantage was able to correct her shot and gain an early straddle. Each straddle produces the possibility of a strike and those near misses could cause the list which makes it possible for strikes from 11 inch shells to penetrate a deck or turret roof which the text books say is impossible.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Scharnhorst Vs a KGV

Post by dunmunro »

Vic Dale wrote: . Each straddle produces the possibility of a strike and those near misses could cause the list which makes it possible for strikes from 11 inch shells to penetrate a deck or turret roof which the text books say is impossible.
Scharnhorst's ability to penetrate with advantage from roll, is much less than for KGV, simply because her guns have considerably less inherent ability to penetrate armour.
Matrose71
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Scharnhorst Vs a KGV

Post by Matrose71 »

You are aware that NAAB is written from Nathan Okun, who is the most biased man I know, when it comes to german armour quality.
His data's to german Wh armour are simply wrong, you can read this at the Neavyweaps forum and through the countless primary sources, which have Thorsten Wahl and delcyros povided. Nathan Okun data's about Wh, with an elongation of 18% gives Wh a major disadvantage, compare to other homogenus armour from other countrys, Thortsen and delcyros have provided the ADM papers, which tested original Tirpitz plates, which were cutted from Tirpitz different horizontal armour and all tested plates have an elongation from 25-28%.

This are GB tests and primary sources and not some shit like NAAB from the biased Mr. Okun.
NaaB provides nothing, it is only a biased software nothing more.

And the slopes of SH at the magazins are 110mm not 105mm, which were the slopes at the machinery.
And also the main belt is inclined at the after turret and both front turrets!
However, even according to GKDOS the RN 15in could penetrate the belt and scarf under 16.7km and the 105mm deck over 23.3km (17.2km for the 80mm machinery AD), but ship roll could reduce these figures substantially, which would explain the penetrations of Scharnhorst's magazines by DoY.
Do you have any clue about decapping and the effect of the penetartion ability of a shell after decapping?.
Your claim is realy absurd, because the curves of the GKDOS shows first, only the performance of german shells and not shells of other countrys and second the GKDOS shows only penetration through KC/nA or Wh but not through both in combination and especially after decapping. The combination of 320mm main belt and 105mm slopes layed back to 22 degree from the horizontal and the inclined 45mm torpedo bulkhead can't be penetrated from any range from any GB or US shell, even not at point blanck.

The weak points of the german ships are there upper belts and their turrets! SH's upper belt is a realy weak point and to me a design flaw with 45mm, but it is safe till 20000 yards, against a 14inch shell of DoY.
You should do some calculation, even after Mr. Okun's NaaB, the 14 inch shell is only able to penetrate 78mm at effective limit on german Wh deck armour (20000 yards), and at this range the shell would impact at 72 degree, at 15000yards of 79 degree, according to US tests an impact over 76-78 degree is impossible and the shell will ricochet. You should do some research before you are doing such unsubstained claims.

And you should explain why not a single shell of Rodney or KGV had penetrated the IZ of BS (320mm manin belt and 110mm slopes., which is near identic with the IZ of SH (320mm main belt and 105mm slopes).
But perhaps Mr. Cameron and his expedition team are liars?
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Scharnhorst Vs a KGV

Post by dunmunro »

Matrose71 wrote:
However, even according to GKDOS the RN 15in could penetrate the belt and scarf under 16.7km and the 105mm deck over 23.3km (17.2km for the 80mm machinery AD), but ship roll could reduce these figures substantially, which would explain the penetrations of Scharnhorst's magazines by DoY.
Do you have any clue about decapping and the effect of the penetartion ability of a shell after decapping?.
Your claim is realy absurd, because the curves of the GKDOS shows first, only the performance of german shells and not shells of other countrys and second the GKDOS shows only penetration through KC/nA or Wh but not through both in combination and especially after decapping. The combination of 320mm main belt and 105mm slopes layed back to 22 degree from the horizontal and the inclined 45mm torpedo bulkhead can't be penetrated from any range from any GB or US shell, even not at point blanck.
GKDOS has penetration data for engagements against foreign vessels and shows a small diagram that traces the path of shell, and this diagram clearly shows the 320mm belt and 105mm scarf @ 25 degs and it gives a penetration range of 16.7km and under, for Scharnhorst against an RN 15in. GKDOS shows a similar diagram for Bismarck's 320mm belt but with a 110mm scarf at 22degs and this gives a penetration range of 10km and under against the RN 15in, so clearly the GKDOS penetration calculation is including the Scarf.

Your claim: "can't be penetrated from any range from any GB or US shell, even not at point blanck." is based upon Nathan Okuns work... :negative:
Matrose71
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Scharnhorst Vs a KGV

Post by Matrose71 »

You want to tell me, that the germans had the exact datas of the british guns?

Muzzle velocity, kg of the shells, nose shape, angle of fall? When did Germany tests the british 15 inch guns against their KC/nA?
This was an estimation!
We know the exact datas today, but the german writers of the GKDOS did an obvious over estimation.

If you claim this, after many post war tests even from GB against KC/nA and Wh, I have no words, it is realy absurd!
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Scharnhorst Vs a KGV

Post by dunmunro »

Matrose71 wrote:You want to tell me, that the german had the exact datas of the british guns?

Muzzle velocity, kg of the shells, nose shape, angle of fall? When did Germany tests the british 15 inch guns against their KC/nA?
This was an estimation!
We know the exact datas today, but the german writers of the GKDOS did an obvious over estimation.

If you claim this, I have no words, it is realy absurd!
That's not the point. The KM via GKDOS thought that the belt/scarf could be penetrated, and KM estimates of RN performance are probably fairly close to reality as they had the almost exact MV and weight of the RN 15in.

The RN did test RN 14in and 15in guns against Tirpitz 320mm KC plate and the tested 14in perforation (intact penetration) limit was only 1370 fps at 30 deg inclination; the GKDOS estimate for 320mm @ 30degs for the KM 38cm was 1558 fps (475 m/s)! The RN tested limit against 320mm KM KC for the RN 15in Mk 17B was 1485fps.
Matrose71
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Scharnhorst Vs a KGV

Post by Matrose71 »

That's not the point. The KM via GKDOS thought that the belt/scarf could be penetrated, and KM estimates of RN performance are probably fairly close to reality as they had the almost exact MV and weight of the RN 15in.
Source for this claim? When and where get the germans the exact datas. To my sources they estimated a muzzle velocity of 820-830ms, much more then reality and a much more flat trajectory with a higher vertical penetration.
The RN did test RN 14in and 15in guns against Tirpitz 320mm KC plate and the tested 14in perforation (intact penetration) limit was only 1370 fps at 30 deg inclination; the GKDOS estimate for 320mm @ 30degs for the KM 38cm was 1558 fps (475 m/s)! The RN tested limit against 320mm KM KC for the RN 15in Mk 17B was 1485fps.
Are you kidding me?

There were several 320mm KC/nA plates at this tests and you picked here by far the worst plate , at other plates at this test, the limit was at 1500fps.
Believe your biased dreams, but perhaps you should talk to Mr. Jurens, Thorsten or delcyros, they are can explain this better to you and they are far away from your "dreams".

Also you have till now not explained, how a decapped shell after 320mm main belt, will be able to punch through round about (22 degree + 14 degree =36 degree) sinus 36 degree ; 105/sinus of 36 degree= 180mm steell at 16500 yards?
Post Reply