Germans in WWII having Iowa class battleships

[Dave Saxton]

My source must be incorrect.

[Tom17]

Some questions and thoughts.
I'm curious to know when the four Iowa's would commission into the KM? Historically, Iowa didn't reach the US Navy until Feb '43. If one had been available (to the US) in 1940-41 I doubt there would have been any Bofors (and equivalent radars) to mount on it more likely the quad 1.1" would have been used which was deemed very unpopular by the USN.
However Kevin32422's opening post states they get 'the latest upgrades during the time frame of the war'. Would that be the historical USN upgrades or historical KM upgrades as made to other BB's?

The 20mm Oerlikon had a greater rate of fire (60 round drum feed) than the German 20mm (20 round magazine feed)

So would Germany have to design (etc.) the US armament outfit in the 1930's or use what was historical?
16" (406mm) gun was being considered for 'H' class
5" (127mm) in service as DD main and capital ship secondary armament however not an AA gun.
4.1" (105mm) historic KM AA gun
3.5" (88mm) historic KM AA gun
40mm not introduced by KM until late war
37mm historic KM AA gun (low rate of fire until late war modifications)
20mm historic KM AA gun (Flak 38)

Another thought just jumped on me:
Did Germany develop a radar systems for use with light AA?

Tom

[Dave Saxton]

Another thought just jumped on me:
Did Germany develop a radar systems for use with light AA?

Tom

Yes they did. It was by AEG and it was code named Rettin. It could have come into service had the war in Eurpoe lasted a bit longer. Germany was the only one that developed such system for light Flak during WWII. The British tried but failed and the USN never did.

Giving the "German Iowas" late war German equipment actually increases the fighting ability of an Iowa (or a Tirpitz) compared to using late war USN equipment in many cases. Case in point would be Euklid heavy Flak radar with M42 directors as oppossed to the Mk4 radar systems (including Mk12 and Mk24 upgrades) with the obsolete Mk38 directors.

Your quite right about the light AA armament of Iowa being rather weak in early 1943. However, by Nov 1943 when it took FDR to Africa the light AA had been built up to near late war standards.

[Tom17]

Dave,
Could you expand a little on your first paragraph I'm a little confused.

Yes they did. It was by AEG and it was code named Rettin. It could have come into service had the war in Eurpoe lasted a bit longer. Germany was the only one that developed such system for light Flak during WWII. The British tried but failed and the USN never did.

Am I correct in interpreting that the Germans developed a system but never fielded it and the British fielded a system that didn't work?
so the Germans were not the only one to try it

Tom

[Dave Saxton]

The British fielded a system known as Type 282. It didn't work very well but is was used and in combat. It was 50cm and ranging only. The follow on system was the 3cm Type 262 which never became operational both during the war nor afterward and was finally scrapped in about 1958.

The AEG system- a 3cm, conical scan, system-was not fielded before the end of the war on board ship to my knowlege, but a sister land system was fielded and worked.

The USN never had such a system during the WWII era.

[Tom17]

Thanks Dave.
Was type 282 a 'little brother' of type 285?

I'm wondering how the aircraft arrangements on an Iowa would suit KM practices?

Tom

[alecsandros]

However Kevin32422's opening post states they get 'the latest upgrades during the time frame of the war'. Would that be the historical USN upgrades or historical KM upgrades as made to other BB's?

The 20mm Oerlikon had a greater rate of fire (60 round drum feed) than the German 20mm (20 round magazine feed)

So would Germany have to design (etc.) the US armament outfit in the 1930's or use what was historical?

Tom

...

Interestingly enough, German ships were equipped with.. Bofors 40mm from 1943 onwards. Prinz Eugen carried 15 of them in 1944 for instance.

The spirit of the thread, as I understand it, is to have 4 Iowas with their full armament (9x16", 20x5", 80x40mm, 49x20mm) somewhere back in time, in 1939/1940...

[RF]

The spirit of the thread, as I understand it, is to have 4 Iowas with their full armament (9x16", 20x5", 80x40mm, 49x20mm) somewhere back in time, in 1939/1940...

In that case Operation Sea Lion would be an easy operation for the Germans. Not only could they seal off the English Channel and destroy the entire Home Fleet piecemeal they could also use their AA firepower to do what the Luftwaffe couldn't do - destroy the RAF.

[alecsandros]

You woke up with a good sense of humor today RF

[Dave Saxton]

Thanks Dave.
Was type 282 a 'little brother' of type 285?

Tom

Yes it was.

[alecsandros]

My source must be incorrect.

... not necesarrily,
it makes a huge difference how we define "effective fire". The 20mm C38 had a range of about 4km, and firing at 50% of that range would not seem excessive. However, it's likely that the needed "curtain of fire" would require a somewhat lesser range to deter incoming enemies, especialy late-war high speed bombers and torpedo bombers.

A similar problem was on the hands of the Japanese, with their type91 25mm AA mounts: allthough credited with a maximum range of 4.5km, the effective range was reduced by 1944 to no more than 0.9km (20% of maximum range !)

It was probably a combination of the slow rate of fire (due to the need to change the clips freqeuntly), high speed enemies, and the requirement to put up an effective wall of explosions...

[Thorsten Wahl]

technical data of german Naval Anti Air Artillery

MDV 700 Seekriegsanleitung, Teil 3 Waffentaktik, Heft c Luftverterteidigung3.jpg (170.52 KiB) Viewed 4388 times

[alecsandros]

a, nice...
but was is "Grobte Reidymeitte" ? [2000m in teh document for Flak 2cm]

[Iranon]

"Größte Reichweite" = maximum range. Annotation mentions that this may be limited by details of the ammunition, e.g. fuses, rather than ballistics.

*

On less sexy matters, will the Germans be able to keep the bratwurst down? They often fought actions in filthier weather than the Iowa class seemed designed for.
Germany also operated at higher cruising speed and state of readiness... if they keep doing so, how would this affect fuel consumption and endurance? Although perhaps they could operate their ships more economically if they had so many and didn't feel the need to avoid confrontations with equal opponents.
In short, are thre obvious problems that would arise from using ships built for a nation with different needs?

[alecsandros]

"Größte Reichweite" = maximum range. Annotation mentions that this may be limited by details of the ammunition, e.g. fuses, rather than ballistics.

ok.. but what is the 4600m figure than ? (leftmost column)