Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!olivea!oliveb!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military From: Andrew.Stevens@prg.oxford.ac.uk (Andrew Stevens) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau Message-ID: <1991Mar29.032151.17385@amd.com> Date: 28 Mar 91 11:26:05 GMT References: <1991Mar25.064930.29465@amd.com> <1991Mar27.051532.23159@amd.com> Sender: military@amd.com Organization: Oxford University Computing Laboratory, UK Lines: 52 Approved: military@amd.com From: Andrew Stevens plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) writes: >The Alaska class was not comparable in intention to the Scharnhorst >class, but rather to the "pocket battleships" (which the Germans >simply called "armored ships"). Consider the Alaska as the Graf >Spee done right, and think what it would have done off Montevideo! I would have to disagree with this on two points. Firstly, it is not at all clear that the Graf Spee performed badly at the river Plate. Fighting performance was seriously hampered by the lousy Germand shells of the time, and speed was badly impaired by a fouled bottom. Even then, the decisive factor in the Captain's decision to scuttle was mis-information from British intelligence that persuaded him the original force of three light cruisers had been reinforced by the heavy cruiser ``Cumberland''. Secondly, all the stuff I've read about Scharnhorst and Gneisenau suggests that the original design intent was precisely PanzerSchiffe ``done right''. I.e. designed without even the pretence of remaining within the 10,000 ton displacement ceiling imposed by treaty. The ships were however (even in Germany) considered something of a mis-design. Their size meant meant that it was not possible to use the Diesel power-plant that gave the Panzerschiffe the endurance necessary for the commerce-raider role. Simultaneously, their effectiveness as battleships was very limited due to the non-availability (at design time) of any main battery heavier than that used in the Panzershiff design. Indeed, it is interesting to note that WW.II German heavy warships were in general rather poorly designed in comparison with British or American ships of similar vintage. As well as lacking a really large calibre gun (until the end of the 30's) German designs lacked a lot of refinements introduced in the inter-war years: o Multi-purpose secondary batteries obviating the need for a separate battery of heavy A.A. armament. o Selective ``all or nothing'' armouring The Bismarck was thus barely (if at all) more capable than the (significantly smaller) British King George V class, and U.S. ships like the Alabama. The (abandoned) ``Graf Zeppelin'' aircraft carrier designs were, by all accounts, a complete disaster. -- Andrew Stevens Programmming Research Group JANET: Andrew.Stevens@uk.ac.oxford.prg