Super Dreadnoughts

[Jacknola]

Information on IJN torpedos:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTJAP_WWII.htm

Excellent discussion of the role of the torpedo in IJN doctrinal naval plans.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm

By the way, in case you haven’t explored it, this site (go to “home”) has the some of the best academic naval articles on the net.

[James]

I never said it did come close. I simply stated it "nearly came close" to highlight how luck has played a huge role in naval warfare which Jacknola proved with his "facts" about the battle.

Here's an exact quote of what you said:

Kirishima nearly destroyed the USS South Dakota at Gaudancanal in a 2v1 fight and the USS South Dakota was a modern ship with all the bells and whistles.

Yep and no matter how good a ship is. If the crew doesn't have the training, experience, discipline and leadership it will be easier to sink.

Also, it will be harder to sink if it has modern technology and armament. By your argument, the HMS Victory or USS Constitution with a better trained, discipline, and led crew would be a match for a modern warship, when in fact either could probably be quickly dispatched by a WWII PT boat with a crew of draftees.

I raise you KMS Scharnhorst.
Scharnhorst was hit 13 times by heavy-caliber shells, multiple times by secondary battery shells, and some 14 times by a torpedo. Till the end C-turret fired and the propellers were turning.
If that is not a serious punch, I don't know what is.

It sounds like a very serious punch! Maybe you can tell us all what happened to the Scharnhorst after it took that damage.

[KB]

Interesting analysis of damage done to IJN Kirishima by USS Washington.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgr...e_Analysis.pdf

[Jacknola]

I am an admirer of the construction of the German battleships and battle cruisers. However, the escape of the German “Cruisers” at Jutland had more to do with the poor performance of British shells which often failed to even explode, than to their fine constructions.

Since the toughness of the Scharnhorst in its last battle might cause some to conclude that the WWI German “Super Dreadnaughts” were superior to the US “Standards”, I feel we should examine the performance of the KMS Scharnhorst and KMS Gneisenau ...though they were not true "battleships," nor were they "super dreadnaughts."

The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were roughly the same tonnage as the US Standards, but were constructed with a completely different objective. Still, they proved a little fragile in battle. I would also like to point out that the amount of over-kill damage a ship such as the Scharnhorst, took in its last battle is not equivalent to “what it took to sink her.” The same holds for Yamato, Mishashi, Bismark, etc. From Wikipedia:

Feb. 1940 - With Gneisenau, against HMS Renown (BC)… “Gneisenau hit twice, lost rear turret, turned away and out distanced pursuit…

“… Almost simultaneously, two of Renown's 15 in (38.1 cm) shells struck Gneisenau. One shell hit the director tower and passed through it without exploding; regardless, it cut several cables and killed one officer and five enlisted men. The second shell disabled the rear turret. This prompted Gneisenau to cease firing and increase speed in order to break away from Renown. ... During the high-speed escape, both Gneisenau and Scharnhorst were flooded by significant quantities of water over their bows, which caused problems [jammed] in both of their forward gun turrets.”

April 1940 - “Gneisenau detonated a magnetic mine about 21 m (69 ft) off the port rear quarter and 24 m(79 ft) below the hull. The explosion caused significant damage to the hull and flooded several compartments, which caused the ship to take on a half-degree list to port. The concussive shock from the blast damaged many internal and topside components, including the starboard low-pressure turbine and the rear rangefinders …”

20 June - “… the submarine Clyde torpedoed Gneisenau. The torpedo hit the ship in the bow, just forward of the splinter belt, and caused serious damage. The ship took on a significant amount of water in the two forward watertight compartments, and she was forced to return to Trondheim at reduced speed … Gneisenau went into drydock at the Howaldtswerke dockyard for five months of repair work…”

4 June 1940 – Scharnhorst sunk the Glorious and two DDs, but took a torpedo: “… The torpedo hit caused serious damage; it tore a hole 14 by 6 m (15 by 6.6 yd) and allowed 2,500 t (2,500 long tons; 2,800 short tons) of water into the ship. The rear turret was disabled and 48men were killed. The flooding caused a 5 degree list, increased the stern draft by almost a meter, and forced Scharnhorst to reduce speed to 20 kn (37 km/h; 23mph). The ship's machinery was also significantly damaged by the flooding, and the starboard propeller shaft was destroyed.”

July 1941 – Scharnhorst bombed: “…five hits in an almost straight line on the starboard side, parallel to the centerline. Three of the bombs were 454 kg (1,000 lb) armor-piercing bombs, and the other two were 227 kg (500 lb) high-explosive bombs.[29] One of the 227 kg bombs hit the deck just forward of the starboard 15 cm twin turret next to the conning tower. It passed through the upper and middle decks before exploding onthe main armored deck, which contained the blast. The joints with the torpedo bulkhead were weakened enough to cause leaking. The second 227 kg bomb fell forward of the rear main battery turret and penetrated the first two decks. It also exploded on the armored deck, though it tore a small hole in it. The explosion caused splinter damage and disabled the ammunition hoists for the 37mm anti-aircraft guns.

"Two of the 454 kg bombs hit amidships between the 15 cm and10.5 cm gun turrets; both failed to explode and penetrated the ship completely. The first went through each deck and exited the ship through the double bottom ,while the other was deflected by the torpedo bulkhead and penetrated the hull beneath the side belt armor. The third 454 kg bomb hit abaft of the rear 28 cm turret, about 3 m (9.8 ft) from the side of the ship. It too failed to detonate, and passed through the side of the hull, which was not protected by the main armor belt. These three hits caused significant flooding and caused an 8 degree list to starboard. The forward and rear gun turrets were temporarily disabled, along with half of her anti-aircraft battery. Two men were killed and fifteen were injured in the attack. Damage control teams managed to correct the list with counter-flooding, and although draft increased by 1 m (3.3 ft),”

Jan 1942 –Scharnhorst dash up the Channel – “… she struck an air-dropped magnetic mine in the mouth of the Scheldt, abreast of the forward superfiring turret. The blast damaged the ship's circuit breakers and knocked out her electrical system for 20 minutes. The explosive shock caused serious damage; turret Bruno was jammed, as were the twin and single 15 cm mounts on the port side. The blast also damaged the fuel oil pumps and the bearings inthe turbo-generators, which brought the ship to a halt. The power outage disabled the emergency shut-off switches to the boilers and turbines, which could not be turned off until power was restored. The explosion tore a large gash in the side of the hull and allowed 1,220 t (1,200 long tons; 1,340 shorttons) of water into the ship, flooding 30 watertight spaces within five mainwatertight compartments. Scharnhorst took on a list of one degree and was down by the bows by a meter..."

"The ship struck another mine off Terschelling on the starboard side at 22:34. The mine briefly knocked out the power system and temporarily disabled the rudders. Two of the three turbines were jammed, and the third had to be turned off. Another 300 t (300 long tons; 330 short tons) tons of water flooded ten watertight spaces in four main compartments. Only the centerline shaft was operational, which permitted a speed of only 10 kn (19km/h; 12 mph). Partial power was eventually restored to the starboard turbine,which allowed speed to be increased to 14 kn (26 km/h; 16 mph).[38] The shock damaged the rotating parts of all of the ship's gun turrets, and three of the 15 cm turrets were seriously jammed…”

Feb. 1942 – Gneisenau: “… On the night of 26–27 February … the ship was hit by a single bomb in her forecastle that penetrated the armored deck and exploded.[43] Red-hot bomb fragments ignited propellant charges in the forward turret and caused atremendous explosion. The turret was thrown off its mount and the entire bowsection was burned out.[33] The crew partially flooded the magazine to prevent a more catastrophic explosion. The blast killed 112 men and wounded 21 others.”

In summary, both the Gneisenau and the Scharnhorst took very heavy, disabling damage from single bomb hits, single torpedoes, single shell hits, single mines. They were excellent ships, but lightly armored. Their speed was the only thing that would save them in a one-on-one fight with a US Standard.

In the final analysis, the US Standards were significantly ahead of the curve when built, which allowed the progressive improvements to be concentrated on fire control and other software that kept them ahead. And the robustness of their design allowed upgrading far beyond the imagination of those who originally designed the ships. I believe the conclusion would have to be that the US Standards were the ultimate “super dreadnaught."