Story of Scharnhorst

[Tanmay]

Had Germany built and fielded aircraft carriers , i wonder how the war would have progressed.

 

[Tactical Frog]

Just imagine a battleship engagement in the Pacific between the Japanese Yamato Class and American Iowa Class battleships without aircraft carriers. That would have been epic.

A very interesting battle however that happens in WW2 was the Battle of Surigao Straight or the Battle off Samar. I will post a separate thread.

Scary thought ... we can add extra players. Like Graf Von Spee ( just imagine it escaped to the Pacific) and french battleship Richelieu.

European nations didn't realize this at the start of WW2 but the era of battleships had already ended by the late 1930s. Japan with its 10 aircraft carriers and United States with 3 carriers at the beginning of the war showed the world how obsolete the battleships had become. British Navy was giving tough time to the Nazis but in a brief encounter in the battle of Malaya with Japanese, both HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse - the capital ships that sunk Bismarck were easily destroyed by Japanese aircraft. This, according to many historians was a pivotal moment in the naval history where balance of power decisively shifted to the air power. Never again could battleships play any major role in deciding the outcomes of a war.
In fact, sinking of Bismarck also had important role played by Swordfish light torpedo bombers from HMS Ark Royal - that damaged the rudder of Bismarck, thus preventing her from reaching the French port of Brest.

You are right but Japanese and Americans, though less conservative regarding the value of aircraft carriers, still built large battleships.

Had Germany built and fielded aircraft carriers , i wonder how the war would have progressed.

If Germany had aircraft carriers in 1940, Operation Sealöwe might have been feasible.

 

[Tanmay]

Scary thought ... we can add extra players. Like Graf Von Spee ( just imagine it escaped to the Pacific) and french battleship Richelieu.



You are right but Japanese and Americans, though less conservative regarding the value of aircraft carriers, still built large battleships.



If Germany had aircraft carriers in 1940, Operation Sealöwe might have been feasible.

V2 missiles and aircraft carriers would have been a good combination.
They could have wiped out the harbour defences and berthed ships. Or atleast heavily damaged them. Something that Normandy landings didn't achieve

 

[Flame Thrower]

I guess Admiral Gorshkov had a different opinion than yours..

To Quote Soviet Fleet Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov,1985- Quote after watching the Iowa in a NATO exercise; "You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of little effect. Then we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us.

I'd love to see modern battleships take rebirth....And if they do, then only Nukes or AShBMs will have the capability to sink these modern behemoths.

If I remember correctly, then Russia is trying to bring its battle cruiser (Peter the Great) back to life.

In youtube, there is a channel called Blacktaledefense, that guy had made videos on Battleships and Cruisers. I'd suggest the forum members to go through that series.

 

[Tanmay]

I guess Admiral Gorshkov had a different opinion than yours..

To Quote Soviet Fleet Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov,1985- Quote after watching the Iowa in a NATO exercise; "You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of little effect. Then we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us.

I'd love to see modern battleships take rebirth....And if they do, then only Nukes or AShBMs will have the capability to sink these modern behemoths.

If I remember correctly, then Russia is trying to bring its battle cruiser (Peter the Great) back to life.

In youtube, there is a channel called Blacktaledefense, that guy had made videos on Battleships and Cruisers. I'd suggest the forum members to go through that series.

With hypersonic and supersonic missiles any armor is penetrable. The era of those battle ships and tactics is long gone.
As for AShBM air defence solutions will come out too.
Nukes remain a viable option to take out fleets. But then is total nuke war.

 

[Flame Thrower]

With hypersonic and supersonic missiles any armor is penetrable. The era of those battle ships and tactics is long gone.
As for AShBM air defence solutions will come out too.
Nukes remain a viable option to take out fleets. But then is total nuke war.

Do you know the armor thickness of Iowa class Battleships....

12 inches of thick steel belt armour, with special water tight compartments.....

No existing weapons can penetrate such a strong armour. Not even brahmos can. You understand that Brahmos hits its target under water level right. Do you think Brahmos can penetrate 12 inches of thick steel under water!?

I'd rather go with the words of Admiral of the Soviet Navy and one of the greatest Russian Admirals than a fanboy.

@Tanmay I have a question for you....How would you sink an IOWA/Yamato Battleship?

Here is a bit info comparing how they would fare against each other(IOWA vs Yamato) so that you can understand how tough these behemoths are.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...leship-battle-japans-yamato-vs-americas-13737

I'd also recommend you to go through Sink of Bismarck, Tirpitz and Yamato documentaries. If you have time go through Scharnhorst documentary as well. Scharnhorst is a battle Cruiser(less armoured than a Battleship)

 

[binayak95]

Do you know the armor thickness of Iowa class Battleships....

12 inches of thick steel belt armour, with special water tight compartments.....

No existing weapons can penetrate such a strong armour. Not even brahmos can. You understand that Brahmos hits its target under water level right. Do you think Brahmos can penetrate 12 inches of thick steel under water!?

I'd rather go with the words of Admiral of the Soviet Navy and one of the greatest Russian Admirals than a fanboy.

@Tanmay I have a question for you....How would you sink an IOWA/Yamato Battleship?

Here is a bit info comparing how they would fare against each other(IOWA vs Yamato) so that you can understand how tough these behemoths are.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...leship-battle-japans-yamato-vs-americas-13737

I'd also recommend you to go through Sink of Bismarck, Tirpitz and Yamato documentaries. If you have time go through Scharnhorst documentary as well. Scharnhorst is a battle Cruiser(less armoured than a Battleship)

The Iowa did have superb armour. But the Yamato had thicker main belt armour. Still, the USN sunk her from long range. They destroyed the Yamato's gun turrets with dive bombing techniques and then flooded enough compartments with air-dropped torpedoes. The Yamato was simply no match for the swarm of strike aircraft that she was assaulted with.

A modern-day battleship would face a swarm of air-launched cruise missiles. Even if the ship doesn't sink, she'll be of little to no combat value once those missiles have done their job. A modern-day battleship has only one feasible role - naval gunfire support and arsenal ship.

 

[Tanmay]

Do you know the armor thickness of Iowa class Battleships....

12 inches of thick steel belt armour, with special water tight compartments.....

No existing weapons can penetrate such a strong armour. Not even brahmos can. You understand that Brahmos hits its target under water level right. Do you think Brahmos can penetrate 12 inches of thick steel under water!?

I'd rather go with the words of Admiral of the Soviet Navy and one of the greatest Russian Admirals than a fanboy.

@Tanmay I have a question for you....How would you sink an IOWA/Yamato Battleship?

Here is a bit info comparing how they would fare against each other(IOWA vs Yamato) so that you can understand how tough these behemoths are.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...leship-battle-japans-yamato-vs-americas-13737

I'd also recommend you to go through Sink of Bismarck, Tirpitz and Yamato documentaries. If you have time go through Scharnhorst documentary as well. Scharnhorst is a battle Cruiser(less armoured than a Battleship)

I agree those behemoths took nearly a dozen torpedoes plus bombs to sink.

And current ships have just around 2 to 3 inches of armor. So most anti-ship missiles would fail for 12 inches. However those ships still sunk. The deck Armor remains a viable option to penetrate. Plus once you take out the vitals like radar in case of scharnhorst or rudder in case of Bismarck, things do fall in your favour .

 

[Tanmay]

Do you know the armor thickness of Iowa class Battleships....

12 inches of thick steel belt armour, with special water tight compartments.....

No existing weapons can penetrate such a strong armour. Not even brahmos can. You understand that Brahmos hits its target under water level right. Do you think Brahmos can penetrate 12 inches of thick steel under water!?

I'd rather go with the words of Admiral of the Soviet Navy and one of the greatest Russian Admirals than a fanboy.

@Tanmay I have a question for you....How would you sink an IOWA/Yamato Battleship?

Here is a bit info comparing how they would fare against each other(IOWA vs Yamato) so that you can understand how tough these behemoths are.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...leship-battle-japans-yamato-vs-americas-13737

I'd also recommend you to go through Sink of Bismarck, Tirpitz and Yamato documentaries. If you have time go through Scharnhorst documentary as well. Scharnhorst is a battle Cruiser(less armoured than a Battleship)

Can I bring zumwalt with railguns

 

[Flame Thrower]

Can I bring zumwalt with railguns

Good point, do you like to have railguns on any naval platform which can be sunk by existing missiles or something like Battleship where other railguns only work.

By the way how many shots would Zumwault class fire before its capacitors run out of charge.

I hope you know that missiles were modified to hit under the sea level because if they hit above sea level, the damage done by missiles is very minimum and ship may not sink in a single hit.

Kinetic kills effectively work in killing tanks because of there is possibility of hitting ammo in tank and very few crew in tanks. If driver in tank dies, then there is no on spot replacement. This won't be the case with Ship.

If modern Battleships built with modern armour technology, with railguns and secondary protection for Nuke reactor, coolant systems and capacitor banks. Then Zumwault will empty its steel shells before it can cause any serious damage(to abandon mission), assuming the Battleships doesn't return fire with its electromagnetic guns.

I agree those behemoths took nearly a dozen torpedoes plus bombs to sink.

And current ships have just around 2 to 3 inches of armor. So most anti-ship missiles would fail for 12 inches. However those ships still sunk. The deck Armor remains a viable option to penetrate. Plus once you take out the vitals like radar in case of scharnhorst or rudder in case of Bismarck, things do fall in your favour .

That's the case only if you have another Battleships hitting with similar big guns. So as long as enemy doesn't have a Battleship, then we can rule the sea.

For any ship radar is the eyes and ears, take out radar and it is easy to destroy.

 

[Tactical Frog]

Of cours we french froggies had a better idea than battlships and aircraft carriers combined. But our engineering skills not always match our superior vision
Maybe Americans can make this thing work.

 

[Wisemarko]

What a silly discussion! If a 49-kg Hellfire with 9 kg warhead can penetrate 800mm (31 inches) of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA), then supersonic ASM with a shaped charge can easily penetrate armor of any known ship. Will a battleship sink with one hit? Probably not. That is because of internal design to withstand such damage but it would be gravely disabled due to flooding and fires.

 

[Flame Thrower]

What a silly discussion! If a 49-kg Hellfire with 9 kg warhead can penetrate 800mm (31 inches) of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA), then supersonic ASM with a shaped charge can easily penetrate armor of any known ship. Will a battleship sink with one hit? Probably not. That is because of internal design to withstand such damage but it would be gravely disabled due to flooding and fires.

Did you consider the water tight comprtments behind the armour belt.

Do you even know how the warhead of the helfire works! High explosives are used to create a hot copper jet which will penetrate a single block of steel like a hot butter. If there is spaced armour then the effectiveness of copper jet decreases. Speed of the missile has nothing to do with effectiveness of the warhead.


The sole purposes of this belt is contain any leakage into the ship.

Now before you come up with the plans to hit the ship above water level then forget your plans of sinking any ship.

If modern protective measures like SAMs and CIWS are added then it will be even harder to hit and sink.

 

[Peter]

Did you consider the water tight comprtments behind the armour belt.

Do you even know how the warhead of the helfire works! High explosives are used to create a hot copper jet which will penetrate a single block of steel like a hot butter. If there is spaced armour then the effectiveness of copper jet decreases. Speed of the missile has nothing to do with effectiveness of the warhead.


The sole purposes of this belt is contain any leakage into the ship.

Now before you come up with the plans to hit the ship above water level then forget your plans of sinking any ship.

If modern protective measures like SAMs and CIWS are added then it will be even harder to hit and sink.

@Flame Thrower

I am not an expert on naval warfare. However Battleships will always fall behind ACs anyday. ACs can outrange the Battleships without getting hit. No nation has yet developed any weapon that can completely eliminate the risk of naval aircraft bombing. Fighter aircrafts can hit battleships easily.

There is a reason why the strength of modern day navies is judged by the number of aircraft carriers and submarines a country possesses.

 

[Peter]

https://history.stackexchange.com/q...s-eclipse-battleships-as-the-king-of-the-seas


http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=653044

 

[Wisemarko]

Did you consider the water tight comprtments behind the armour belt.

Do you even know how the warhead of the helfire works! High explosives are used to create a hot copper jet which will penetrate a single block of steel like a hot butter. If there is spaced armour then the effectiveness of copper jet decreases. Speed of the missile has nothing to do with effectiveness of the warhead.


The sole purposes of this belt is contain any leakage into the ship.

Now before you come up with the plans to hit the ship above water level then forget your plans of sinking any ship.

If modern protective measures like SAMs and CIWS are added then it will be even harder to hit and sink.

1. Did I consider watertight compartments? Yes hence the statement: single hit probably will not sink the ship. But depending on the location can gravely disable.

2. Do I know how the Hellifire works? Lol Yes, very well. I can say I lived in Tucson AZ. Nothing more. If you read my post: I said shaped charge, that means what you are trying to say. Spaced armor will not do much when shaped charge is a 250kg warhead. Just accept it and move on.

3. Speed of the missile is the most important part of effectiveness. Especially when comes to sinking a ship vs just damaging it. A supersonic ASCM can rip through, destroying every internal safety mechanisms (watertight compartments, fire extinguishers, spacing etc.) before detonation. Location of detonation of the main warhead is very important and ALCM with high kinetic energy works better in thickly armored ships. A small and thinly armored vessel may actually be safer because such fast missile can sometimes come out of other end of ship before detonation.

4. Almost impossible to intercept supersonic ASM with current available CIWS. Even subsonic Harpoon has penetrated CIWS in tests.

I won't answer more on the subject but wanted to let you that there's nothing to argue here.

 

[Suryavanshi]

LOL I think flame thrower is being emotional here the Battle ship of those days were legendary but that's all they are now. We have come a long way and a ship of that kind will just be a floating duck for our weapon.

Tho I would suggest building a sumabine+destroyer type of ship that Carry shit like rail gun and hypersonic missile with stealth.

 

[Wisemarko]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...missile-testing-exercise-just-won-t-sink.html

It takes a lot to even sink a lightly armored ship. That is mainly due to inherent design that requires multiple hits before "Titanic moment" arrives. It doesn't mean that a single hit is not incapacitating since one hit will put that ship out of action.

 

[asianobserve]

Did you consider the water tight comprtments behind the armour belt.

Do you even know how the warhead of the helfire works! High explosives are used to create a hot copper jet which will penetrate a single block of steel like a hot butter. If there is spaced armour then the effectiveness of copper jet decreases. Speed of the missile has nothing to do with effectiveness of the warhead.


The sole purposes of this belt is contain any leakage into the ship.

Now before you come up with the plans to hit the ship above water level then forget your plans of sinking any ship.

If modern protective measures like SAMs and CIWS are added then it will be even harder to hit and sink.

Belt armor will be hardly of any use in today's wars. Today's advanced weapons can easily bypass the armor belt and attack the more vulnerable portions of ships. Thus ASMs, glide bombs and cruise missiles will be as devastating to battleships as to most modern day destroyers.

Just look at some of the attack profiles of these modern weapons:




Modern heavyweight torpedoes that explodes under the ship could be even more devastating against battleships:


But yes, during their time, before aircraft carriers, battleships were the king of the high seas.