The Battle of the North Cape: Death of Scharnhorst

[red devil]

NORTH CAPE (http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/scharnhorst.html)

I included this, from my site, in a chapter in a book I had published. Sadly, it was only available from the publishers online site, thus severely resitrcting sales.

[MMM]

Maybe it is not connected too close with your post but this is the picture of the highest rank of 36 survivors from Scharnhorst.
That was Oberbootsmansmaat (Chief Boatswain) Willy Goede. He served on Scharnhorst from ship's commisionning to her bitter end. Very, very lucky man. Don't you think?

[Tiornu]

There are some details that may warrant a revisit.
"HMS Hood which, although planned, did not have an armoured deck." Hood had arguably the best deck protection of any RN ship when she entered service. It was a maximum of 75mm laminated HT steel.
"The Duke of York hit Scharnhorst with 14 x 14 inch shells, not one of which penetrated the deck." It's possible that several shells penetrated the armor deck. One of the first hits caused a fire in the forward magazines, which would obviously be below the armor deck. Later there was a fire in a 15cm magazine. Scharnhorst suffered damage to her centerline boiler room, often attributed to a 14in shell penetrating the "hump" in the armor deck.
"Scharnhorst, a 31,100-ton Gneisenau class battle-cruiser" Scharnhorst was Ship D and Gneisenau was Ship E in the German construction program. It is traditional to name the class by the first vessel. Then there's the discussion over Scharnhorst's rating as a battleship or battlecruiser, which rarely produces anything useful....

[red devil]

The operative word is "when she entered service" but it was soon relaised that it was completely insufficient.

Hoods deck was insufficiently armoured, which is why the shell that killed her was able to penetrate the magazine. It had been planned to have her deck armour upgraded. But, this is about the North Cape.

Trial 3. Not yet done. Same as trial 2 but with 3" (120 lb.) mild steel plate instead of the 100 lb. armour plate. It is probable therefore that the weight available cannot protect "HOOD'S" magazines from plunging fire at ?(illegible handwriting)?Ranges unless the ship were rebuilt with a deck of thick homogeneous armour plate. but see trial 3 note 3 in the below link.

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/official/adm1/adm1-9226.htm

[Tiornu]

Yes, Hood was the last British ship completed with the old-style incremental deck protection. The G3 and N3 designs that would have followed both had concentrated deck protection made of NC armor rather than HT laminations.
The Germans were the only ones to persist with the old-style armor in its modern ships. That's why Scharnhorst's armor deck was just 80mm over her boilers--only 5mm thicker than the Hood deck. To make matters worse for the Germans, the deck actually had a small vertical portion--yes, a vertical deck plate--in order to rise over the top of the tall boilers, and this "hump" was the same 80mm thickness as the horizontal plating. This had no chance of defeating an intact 14in shell.

[NASAAN101]

guys,
i have that article.. here what gets me is she was knock on her ass four times, i was thing after the secound time, she would have wised up and ran like hell.. but that just me.. what would have happened if her twin sister was damage in the channel dash would she still have been sank. this made me cry: Remembering the incident, Rex Chard, Navigating Officer on one of the destroyers, remarked, 'in sea-warfare one is always very sorry for the sailors. It's the ships you're after - not the men. It could have been you.' and he's right.. i have a photo of her. REST IN PEACE OLD GIRL!!
Nikki

[Norsky]

I often wonder about the degree of accuracy in the supposed shell hit that did in the Scharnhorst.

If memory serves me correctly, this story came from survivor Willy Goede.

I do not have access to, or recall with any certainty at this moment, what exactly Willy Goede said about the shell hit. I do think it was something to the effect that there was a hit aft, forward of the mainmast.

But, putting my fallible memory aside, has the shell hit story, actually no more than speculation, been accepted as fact?????

Willy Goede's position on the bridge would not have placed him in a position where he could know with certainty. He could most likely have passed along what he had heard from other officers nearby.

So, were these other officers most likely passing along solid information, or were they speculating as well?????

I bring this up for discussion. For one, pride in one's own ship would flaw your view of actual circumstances, especially in the midst of battle, as was the Scharnhorst. One such as Willy Goede, who had served Scharnhorst during her entire career, through pride would state that it was a shell hit, instead of saying that simply put, the engines broke down at a critical moment.

And Scharnhorst herself proved time and again that her engines were not the most reliable.

A). During the battle sinking HMS Glorious, Scharnhorst, the lead ship, was overtaken by Gneisenau because her engines were not working nearly as good as were the engines on Gneisenau;

B). after Operation Berlin, the Atlantic sortie in 1941, Scharnhorst became a dockyard case, requiring new boiler tubes and other repairs to her engines. Gneisenau, on the other hand, would have been able to join the Bismarck sortie, had she not been torpedoed in Brest harbor.

One must also consider that during the North Cape battle, Scharnhorst was flogging her engines to an extent not used throughout much of her career, pushing them to a point where mechanical breakdown would not have been out of the question.

Finally, I note the entry in the narrative supplied by the original poster here, that speed dropped from 29 knots to 22 knots. Scharnhorst was capable of 32 knots.

Were her engines already failing, or were sea conditions limiting her speed?

Or was it the supposed shell hit???:D:D

[Tiornu]

Assuming we're talking about the event in the boiler room that caused the sudden loss of speed as the ship was starting to get away, it certainly wasn't a torpedo. I don't believe there were any torpedoes in the water at the time, and the boiler room in question was a centerline space anyway. That leaves a shell hit and a boiler casualty as the only suspects. There was a shell hit confirmed for around this time, but it is usually placed farther aft. However, That may indicate only the point of entry, as Scharnhorst had DoY on her quarter at the time. This may have been like the Hood hit, with the shell traveling down the length of the ship before exploding. Scharnhorst had sufferd propulsion casualties on two occasions previously in the midst of engagements, but her crew did not recognize this event as resembling those previous events.
I don't know what the source is for blaming the boiler problem on a specific shell, whose trajectory is actually sketched out in the Garzke & Dulin book. I would like to know, and I'd like to know how G&D could be so specific.

[Norsky]

Yes indeed. How could they sketch out the path of a shell hit, when so very little information is actually available??

It all leads back to speculation being accepted as fact, when the only true fact is that the facts will never be known.

And I also agree. Not a torpedo hit responsible at that time for drop in speed.

Later on, yes torpedoes, but not at that point in time.

[NASAAN101]

Guys,
it was a shell from DOY that hit Schrny before she pulled away, if it hadnt be for that shell hitting her in the boiler room, she could have pull away and gotten home..
NIKKI

[Norsky]

The shell hit is speculation, no more.

In terms of probabilities, it was probably at best a 50/50 chance of either a shell hit or the engines just broke down.

Willy Goede's statements must also be tempered with the fact that he was a prisoner of war at the time they were made.

Admitting that the engines just broke down would be in effect giving aid to the enemy, information I am sure the Germans would not want to share willingly.

Much easier to claim the ambiguous shell hit. This answer would, given the times it was made, probably be more accepted by the British than any claim of engine trouble.

Besides, the British themselves have never admitted any hits on the Duke of York, save for the shells that went through the radar aerials. There was one statement made by a British sailor. When asked by the German POW's if DOY had been hit, he supposedly replied that there was not a dry spot on the ship.

This indicated to me at the very least Scharnhorst could have hit DOY or was straddling her on a regular basis with salvos.

As an aside to this whole story, it is also reported the German POW's gave loud cheers for the Duke of York and the Royal Navy upon arrival in Murmansk.

Of course, this is because they found out they would be returning to British soil as POW's and not turned over to the Russians at Murmansk.

There is a lot of history where speculation rules the day. Often, as in the case of the Scharnhorst here, it has been accepted as fact, absent any other proof positive.

There are alternatives, if one only opens the mind enough to accept that they also are possible.

[Tiornu]

Without knowing the source for the G&D account with its trajectory drawing, it may be speculation to say the shell hit is merely speculative. The shell hit is not terribly "ambiguous." It was reported at the time of the battle. The claim of the a propulsion casualty, however, is entirely speculative and without evidence. The ship's own crew did not regard the damage as coming from a propulsion casualty. What do we know that they don't?

[Blaydon]

That seems to be the problem here.

There is no PROOF of either theory

There is anecdotal evidence from both sides at the time for a shell hit.

There is no anecdotal evidence at the time for an engine casualty.

Therefore the weight of what evidence their is lies on the shell hit theory.

[Norsky]

Sure the propulsion problem is speculative.

It is not entirely groundless, based upon Scharnhorst's documented engine troubles throughout her career.

But, it sure is fun to speculate. And I firmly believe that one must discuss historical events with the old "what if" in mind.

It gets the blood pumping and does good exercise for the old gray matter between our ears that is often left alone.

Proof here is anecdotal, as rightly mentioned by Blaydon. Unfortunately for all of us naval enthusiasts, we will never know for sure.

Again, to me, it is fun to propose alternative ideas just for the sake of discussion, and to watch the discussion progress.

It's what these forums are for, is it not??? (OK, among other things-I stand corrected :D:D )

[NASAAN101]

guys,
were taklking a theory here is there: Any what would have happened if her twin sister wasnt damage in the channel dash would she still have been sank. this made me cry: Remembering the incident, Rex Chard, Navigating Officer on one of the destroyers, remarked, 'in sea-warfare one is always very sorry for the sailors. It's the ships you're after - not the men. It could have been you.' and he's right.. i have a photo of her. REST IN PEACE OLD GIRL!!
Nikki

[Tiornu]

It gets the blood pumping and does good exercise for the old gray matter between our ears that is often left alone.
That's fine for you folks who still have some of that grey stuff left. What about the rest of us?

[NASAAN101]

Richard,
wiseass!! Any what would have happened if her twin sister wasnt damage in the channel dash would she still have been sank. this made me cry: Remembering the incident, Rex Chard, Navigating Officer on one of the destroyers, remarked, 'in sea-warfare one is always very sorry for the sailors. It's the ships you're after - not the men. It could have been you.' and he's right.. REST IN PEACE OLD GIRL!!
Nikki

[Blaydon]

I have no problems whatsoever with speculation and what if scenarios. That was in fact one of my first posts on this forum asking about German warships of Plan Z as I wanted to do a what if the war hadn't started until 1945 scenario.

I was simply pointing out that the weight of evidence points one way but that does not mean that technical failure is not a valid alternative.

It only means that it can only be a theory, certainly there is plenty of reason for both sides to believe the shell hit theory at the time and if you say something often enough you may come to believe it so could it have been a fabrication, yes.


I too would like to see the data the G&D account was based on.

[red devil]

Guys,
it was a shell from DOY that hit Schrny before she pulled away, if it hadnt be for that shell hitting her in the boiler room, she could have pull away and gotten home..
NIKKI

Correct. But we must also consider the orders from the bridge. The RN were detected but for some reason the guns were not ordered to train in that particular direction, so, when the RN caught her, for the fourth time, she was not able to immediately return fire before being hit herself again and again. I do not believe that the Bridge were 'in control' of the situation.

A fight against an aircraft carrier and a couple of destroyers is one thing, but her crew were not used to taking on capital ships and as such were literally out of their depth.

With secondary armament, Scharhort fired upon closing destroyers, but her 105mm guns were 'stood down'!!! weird!

[Commodore Armiger]

Red Devil:

I am confused. Scharnhorst's 14 x 105mm/4.1" guns were pop-guns. Did you mean her main armament (9 x 280mm/11")? Her secondary armament was the 12 x 150mm/5.9".

[Blaydon]

The 4.1 inch are hardly lightweight guns they pack quite a punch and against a destroyer they would have quite an impact and their range was about 19000yds max less than that in operational conditions but still considerable.

When the enemy closes you use everything you have.

[Commodore Armiger]

Blaydon/Red Devil: I am still confused, because of course you fire with everything available at all targets in range - unless incapable/prevented from doing so by reason of e.g. lack of ammo, or ordered not to (why?).

The 105mm/4.1" guns were behind shields, ranged around the superstructure. How long would it take for lightweight guns behind shields to train on a target? Seconds rather than minutes. Is it that the crews were not closed up, in an attempt to protect them from blast or shrapnel? It seems hard to credit that the Captain of a modern capital ship would feel it imperative to deprive himself of a vital element of his ship's defences by cancelling action stations for these guns. Or was the fire-control damaged and an order for local control not given?

I do realise that many answers to questions that arise about this action will never be answered because those concerned are long dead.

[Blaydon]

The standard response at action stations is for the crews of all guns are closed up and all positions manned for the positions to be unmanned then there would have to be an order to that effect.

It may be that the short range weapons were stood down whilst the British were out of range and that no one ordered the positions closed up again when they were re discovered.

[Tiornu]

The seas were very rough. Was the ship's motion too violent for the 4.1in directors to cope with?

[CGRET]

Richard,

That would depend on the course taken at the time. If the seas were heavy and depending on the direction of the swells, and "if" the captains quarters the seas. That may allow for the use of those directors.

Regards
Charles

[designeraccd]

One should remember that the gun crews on German 4.1" twins were essentially TOTALLY EXPOSED to the elements. They served those guns by being completely EXTERNAL to the mount; totally different from USN 5"38s, for example, where the gun crew was INSIDE a gunhouse.

Given the weather conditions the Battle was fought under, trying to man those OPEN 4.1" would have been difficult indeed! DFO :eek:

[Blaydon]

I will bet however that the crews on the destroyers guns with rather more motion, just as little protection and less capable fire control were fully closed up to their guns. Lets face it the motion and difficulties of manning these guns on a battle cruiser are far less than those on a destroyer.

[designeraccd]

Either way-Scharnhorst or RN DDs...think I'll PASS! Not good for one's HEALTH! DFO :eek:

[red devil]

Lets not forget the angle of the gunfire from Scharnhorst. The destroyers were far too close in for anything large to even be trained upon them. As stated, they had to back pedal because they were illuminated in the glare that lit up Scharnhorst.

The 104mm guns would have been manned and ready and could fire 'down' on the destroyers. They may not actually be strong enough to sink a destroyer but they would certainly spoil any aiming of torpedoes and would also effectively 'clear the decks'.

[Commodore Armiger]

Red Devil:

I think the unresolved question was whether the unprotected 105mm/4.1" guns were indeed "manned and ready". In an earlier post you commented that it was weird that the crews were stood down.

I don't think there is any argument that a hit on one of the attacking destroyers by a 105mm shell could have caused major damage. I referred to them as "pop guns" in an earlier post, which they were compared with the main armament and if aimed at a capital ship. But, as Blaydon says, they were clearly potent weapons against unarmoured targets, and with director control out to 10+ miles.

[red devil]

Main armanent crews were stood down, no mention of side armament. I bow to your superior knowledge on the results of a 105mm shell.

[Blaydon]

The fact is that even a ship of her size should be able to go from a cruising watch to action stations in a matter of minutes so by the time the destroyers come anywhere within range the crew should all have been at action stations.

If they were not then this would seem to be a major failing in the command of the vessel indicating that the Commanding officer did not have a firm grip on the situation and that no one else felt they had authority to do what they should have known to be the correct course of action.

[NASAAN101]

OK Guys,
Question, If Gneisenau had been with her what were the odds of both of them making it home. And how much damage would both twin girls take?
Nikki

[red devil]

I think the problem we have here is counter command. We have a so called battle group commanded by a Rear Admiral, he is on board a ship commanded by a ships Captain.

As we saw with the Bismarck, Lindemann wanted one thing whilst the Captain 'advised' another.

This was undoubtedly happening here. IF Scharnhorst's Captain had been able to make his own decisions on the spot, same with Gniesnau, then things may have been different and they would have successfully fled the British guns.

We have two captains, on two ships, waiting for orders from an Admiral.

[Blaydon]

Certainly there seemed to be a lack of "grip" exerted here in the command structure and there must be questions about the amount of autonomy that the captains felt they had, or if they felt in effect they were Commanders in their own ship and the admiral had in effect assumed the position of captain.

[red devil]

In the film, Sunk The Bismarck, the Captain advises caution and advises a run for home, to re-emerge another day. The Admiral says to the Captain that he is underestimating their own capabilities and being too pessimistic!

I can see exactly the same scenario here with these two vessels.

Its all very well to have an 'unsinkable' view of your own ships, but faith never won battles.

[NASAAN101]

Guts,
Ernst Lindermann was Bismarck CO and Guther was the commer for both ships: PE amd Bismarck! BUt you all are going to thing im crazy! But He was a butthead and he shouldnt have spilt-up bismarck and PE! But that just me!
NIKKI

[red devil]

Guts,
Ernst Lindermann was Bismarck CO and Guther was the commer for both ships: PE amd Bismarck! BUt you all are going to thing im crazy! But He was a butthead and he shouldnt have spilt-up bismarck and PE! But that just me!
NIKKII would agree with that, two ships are better than one. Admirals do not necessarily know what to do. Usually an Admiral has achieved his rank by operating in a different world of ships (eg: WW1) and modern warfare & tactics (WW2) would have left them behind. German Admirals in WW2 operated under WW1 tactics. If they had left the Command of the ships and tactics to the respective captains, Bismarck, Scharnhorst etc just may have survived.

[CGRET]

Red Devil,

I would agree with what you said!

Again the reason for the PE to leave her place with the Bismark was a diversion away from the Bismark to lure the british fleet towards the Prinz Eugen thu sparing the Bismark the brutal pounding from the British Battle Fleet.

Regards
Charles

[NASAAN101]

guys,
my thing is, let KGV and Rodney can take on Bismarck and the to haevy cruiser could talke on PE, and once she has her main guns out, get the towline on her! but what do you guys think?
Nikki

[Tiornu]

The reason for splitting Bismarck and PE was a simple and reasonable one--in fact, it was the right decision. The ships had a mission to accomplish. Bismarck could not complete that mission, but PE could. Sometimes you make the right decisions, and it doesn't work out. Bismarck got sunk, and PE had no success on the hunt.

[NASAAN101]

Guys,
all I am saying is dont sell PE short ok, she is a good cruiser. IF gunther hadnt go with them and gneisenau stay in the Atlantic shipping lanes, can she do damage til PE and Bismarck came out or is she sunk?
NIKKI

[NASAAN101]

Guys,
How Deep is the Scharnhorst Wreck? And is there a memoral to her in Norway.. RIP.
NIKKI