WW1 Invincible/ Inflexible vs. WW2 Scharnhorst/Gneisenau

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

WW1 Invincible/ Inflexible vs. WW2 Scharnhorst/Gneisenau

Post by RF »

How about this for a naval battle? Would Von Spee have had better luck with the successors to his two armoured cruisers?
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: WW1 Invincible/ Inflexible vs. WW2 Scharnhorst/Gneisenau

Post by Tiornu »

The battleships are twice the size of the battlecruisers and light years ahead in technology.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: WW1 Invincible/ Inflexible vs. WW2 Scharnhorst/Gneisenau

Post by RF »

Tiornu wrote:The battleships are twice the size of the battlecruisers and light years ahead in technology.
But the German ships would still have to come within range of the 12 inch to engage?
mike1880
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:00 pm
Location: UK

Post by mike1880 »

But the German ships would still have to come within range of the 12 inch to engage?
Why?
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

mike1880 wrote:
But the German ships would still have to come within range of the 12 inch to engage?
Why?
I am not an expert in WW1 naval gunnery so not fully aware of the shooting reach of Invincible/Inflexible so I infer from your query that Scharnhorst/Gneisenau would substantially outrange them. Yes?
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu »

Forgetting for the moment the relative practicalities of their fire control and looking just at the guns, the new ships can fire about twice as far as the old ships.
mike1880
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:00 pm
Location: UK

Post by mike1880 »

Chucking fire control into the mix anyway - the I's system had a top limit of about 16,000 yards and would really work best at perhaps 12,000 or less (see for example the ranges on the day) while S&G would expect to function effectively at more than 20,000.

The I's were fairly comfortably protected against the 21-cm at any range the first S&G could fight, but I doubt they'd have any immune zone against the 28-cm.

Mike
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu »

The British main belt is penetrable from as far out as, oh, 38,000 yards or so.
User avatar
Gary
Senior Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Northumberland

Post by Gary »

Prinz Eugen would be almost capable of penetrating Invincible's belt at the ranges that Invincible would need to close to fight this battle
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu »

PE is about the same size as Invincible.
Captain Morgan
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:27 am
Location: The Great Lakes, USA

Post by Captain Morgan »

mike1880 wrote:Chucking fire control into the mix anyway - the I's system had a top limit of about 16,000 yards and would really work best at perhaps 12,000 or less (see for example the ranges on the day) while S&G would expect to function effectively at more than 20,000.

The I's were fairly comfortably protected against the 21-cm at any range the first S&G could fight, but I doubt they'd have any immune zone against the 28-cm.

Mike
Actually the only chance Spee had was to close range and attack the I's as they were anchored and coaling in Port Stanley. At close range the 21 cm guns could penetrate the I's 6" belt armor.
There are 2 types of vessels out there. One type is called a target. If it isn't capable of silently doing 30+ knots at 2000 ft depth its always considered a target. The vessel that can silently go fast and deep is the one the targets are afraid of.
mike1880
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:00 pm
Location: UK

Post by mike1880 »

If you get hold of a map of Port Stanley and environs you'll see that wasn't an option.

Mike
Captain Morgan
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:27 am
Location: The Great Lakes, USA

Post by Captain Morgan »

I've been through the waters near Port Stanley and several other places that remain un-mentioned. I'm only pointing out that if Spee had closed range with S & G so they could use thier 21 cm main armament while the rest of his forces scattered he could have at least damaged the British squadron before he was sunk. As it was he noblely gave his life for no real reason because his whole squadron was destroyed. He suffered heavy loss of life with no results by first fleeing and then turning to fight after he realized what was chasing him. sometime the bold move is the better move. I have fough this battle in war games and as Spee you have almost no chance of winning unless you attack early and close the ships in port. At that point you hope for luck to come your way with a critical hit or two on the BC's if you do that you can then flee.
There are 2 types of vessels out there. One type is called a target. If it isn't capable of silently doing 30+ knots at 2000 ft depth its always considered a target. The vessel that can silently go fast and deep is the one the targets are afraid of.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

Captain Morgan wrote:I've been through the waters near Port Stanley and several other places that remain un-mentioned. I'm only pointing out that if Spee had closed range with S & G so they could use thier 21 cm main armament while the rest of his forces scattered he could have at least damaged the British squadron before he was sunk. As it was he noblely gave his life for no real reason because his whole squadron was destroyed. He suffered heavy loss of life with no results by first fleeing and then turning to fight after he realized what was chasing him. sometime the bold move is the better move. I have fough this battle in war games and as Spee you have almost no chance of winning unless you attack early and close the ships in port. At that point you hope for luck to come your way with a critical hit or two on the BC's if you do that you can then flee.
Did Spee have a map of Stanley harbour so he could see this possibility of a quick ambush attack?
If I recall correctly, Scharnhorst was flagship. Spee sent Gneisenau and Nurnburg(?) to recanoitre Stanley at close range while the rest of his ships stood off at long range, so he only had Maerker in Gneisenau to launch the assault proposed.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

Captain Morgan wrote: I have fought this battle in war games and as Spee you have almost no chance of winning unless you attack early and close the ships in port. At that point you hope for luck to come your way with a critical hit or two on the BC's if you do that you can then flee.
Another point here is that in 1939 Langsdorf in the panzerschiffe Graf Spee did at one point consider an attack on the Falkland Islands (I hope the Spanish and Argentine members are not offended by my using that name rather than the Malvinas) using his 11 inch guns at long range with his seaplane spotting the fall of shot in Stanley harbour. The 8 December 1939 was the 25th anniversary of the 1914 battle and Harwood had anticipated that an attack could be made on that date by stationing Cumberland at Stanley.
In fact nothing came out of what was only a discussion between Langsdorf and his XO, Kay, who pointed out that no orders to attack land targets had been given and that such an attack date was too obvious.
Instead Langsdorf headed to the River Plate....
Post Reply