World Naval Ships Forums  
CURRENT SPECIAL OFFERS ON OUR HUGE SELECTION OF ART PRINTS!

Go Back   World Naval Ships Forums > Naval History > Battles and Events
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Battles and Events Topics covering naval battles, actions, fleet reviews and any other naval events.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 05-04-2012, 22:30
Werlin Werlin is offline
Petty Officer
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 41
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

As others and I have said, I still stand by what I have read that Renowns speed made her too important to risk in Narvik.

My last question was mostly hypothetical, but I stand corrected, you are right about that.
__________________
It’s like Shakespeare; it sounds well enough, but it don’t actually mean anything.
~ Bertie Wooster
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-04-2012, 01:46
Paul C.'s Avatar
Paul C. Paul C. is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 275
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Quote:
Werlin wrote: As others and I have said, I still stand by what I have read that Renowns speed made her too important to risk in Narvik.
Please don't misunderstand...I agree with that too - as I said in my last post - as a factor, but others must be her hull damage and her HUGE expenditure of 4.5-inch ammo during the engagement with the Twins. I've found a detailed document that puts it at over 1000 rounds! (not 800). C-In-C Admiral Forbes was not amused (see below). The 4.5's would have been very valuable in a close range engagemnt with destroyers.

Whatever the reasons or combination of reasons, I think we all agree that the right choice was made.

But back to the topic at hand. I've found a detailed document on the action that is too long to post here. It's the War Diary of the Battle Cruiser Squadron for March to April 1940:

http://www.naval-history.net/xDKWD-HF1940BCS1.htm

It's chock full of info on Renown's performance - gunnery, spotting, range-finding etc., Admiral Whitworth's report (already posted here) and Admiral Forbes comments which I quote below.

I find his comments very interesting indeed!


Quote:
H.M.S. RENOWN – REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS AND ACTION



(1). Vice Admiral Commanding, Battle Cruiser Squadron’s No 41/4A of 29th April 1940 (with enclosures)



(2). RENOWN’s No. 2022/061 of 22nd April 1940



(3). RENOWN’s No. 2056/65 of 23rd April 1940



The Secretary of the Admiralty

(Copy to: The Vice Admiral Commanding, Battle Cruiser Squadron)

Forwarded for information



2. It was satisfactory that the RENOWN opened fire 3 minutes before the enemy and was able to obtain hits on each of the enemy ships in very difficult conditions.



3. The large expenditure of 4.5 inch ammunition was not justified and in the circumstances was a waste of valuable ammunition.



4. The action confirms the experience of that off the River Plate, namely, that the enemy has little liking for close action and his morale deteriorates rapidly if the ship is hit.



5. Other points of general interest that arise from the action are:



(a). The great difficulty in distinguishing between the different classes of German ships is once more shown. This must always be borne in mind when the enemy reports are received.



(b). The ships appear to be capable of high speed in bad weather, though there is no evidence of course to show that they did not in fact damaged themselves thereby.



(c). The shell that hit the RENOWN aft did not detonate or even explode.



6.

(a). It is apparent that we have no ships that can catch the SCHARNHORST or GNEISENAU, which is not to wondered at as our battlecruisers are 20 to 24 years old and 3,000 to 5,000 tons above the displacement for which they were designed.



(b). This action also shows clearly that the freeboard of our battlecruisers is too small to fight efficiently in a head sea.



(c). For both the above reasons drastic steps should be taken to get rid of every ton of unnecessary weight in all three ships, starting with the sheet anchor and cable, catapult, hanger and aircraft, stern anchor were fitted, etc, etc.



7. The dispositions that led to this action will be dealt with in my despatch covering the operations on which the fleet was engaged at the time.



(sgd) C. M. Forbes

H.M.S. RODNEY, Admiral of the Fleet




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________

Paul
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-04-2012, 11:29
NASAAN101's Avatar
NASAAN101 NASAAN101 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posts: 531
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Guys,
Don't hate me, But the Twins got Lucky Against Renown !
Nikki
__________________
The mighty beast is wounded, a Swordfish torpedoed the steering gear, with rudder's jammed..is his Achilles Heel with... K.G.5 and Rodney closing in for the kill". From "You Must Sink The Bismarck" on youtube..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-04-2012, 20:12
Paul C.'s Avatar
Paul C. Paul C. is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 275
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Quote:
Originally Posted by NASAAN101 View Post
Guys,
Don't hate me, But the Twins got Lucky Against Renown !
Nikki
Why should be hate you Nikki?? I agree with you - they were very lucky to escape crippling damage, and also were helped by the conditions that made spotting virtually impossible for Renown.

Renown's main armament output was excellent despite the conditions and, according to the report I posted the link to, she suffered only one failure in one gun during the entire chase! Compare that to the Twins' problems.

The 15-inch twin mount has to have marked the pinnacle of British turret and gun development. Their later 16-inch and 14-inch paled in comparison.
__________________

Paul
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-04-2012, 11:52
TCC TCC is offline
Commodore
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 822
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. View Post
To TCC:
Gneisenau would have opened fire with AP because they give a better splash for spotting in order to find the target. She hit Renown with her first ranging series - incredible gunnery under those conditions, although it was radar-assisted.
.
I was thinking about this and while AP may 'give a better splash' on water, RN experience in WW1 was that hits from these shells were hidden from view.

Take the hit on Renowns stern, I'll bet that wasn't visible to the Germans!

Not saying it is wrong, just noting the difference.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-04-2012, 03:11
Paul C.'s Avatar
Paul C. Paul C. is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 275
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Quote:
TCC wrote: I was thinking about this and while AP may 'give a better splash' on water, RN experience in WW1 was that hits from these shells were hidden from view.

Take the hit on Renowns stern, I'll bet that wasn't visible to the Germans!
It certainly was not seen, neither was the one on the mast, though Scharnhorst did claim to see a puff of smoke from aft of Renown's bridge.

Actually in another discussion it was initially suggested that since the shells passed through without exploding - suggestive of AP - it was more likely they were from Scharnhorst which fired AP the whole time while Gneisenau fired HE. However the timing was such that this was impossible since they occured before Scharnhorst opened fire. That's when it came out that Gneisenau's ranging salvoes - three shells each from A, B and C turret in succession were AP.

Renown was very lucky, as a base fused HE shell would have exploded and may have affected her steering....
__________________

Paul
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-04-2012, 13:02
jainso31's Avatar
jainso31 jainso31 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DONCASTER S.YORKS UK
Posts: 8,515
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

At 0620, firing began again, with Renown once again targeting Gneisenau. Scharnhorst's radar malfunctioned, so her fire was completely ineffective, but within 5 minutes Gneisenau had scored two hits on Renown. One 11.1-inch shell passed through the main leg of Renown's foremast without exploding, while the second struck aft of 'Y' turret. This shell hit the starboard side hull plating between the upper and main decks, and passed through the ship above the steering gear and out the other side, also without exploding-this would suggest that Gneisenau was firing AP not HE (Ref,bobhenneman,info.)

jainso31
__________________

HMS ANEMONE (K48)

Always on the Lookout!

Jim

Last edited by jainso31 : 12-04-2012 at 13:16.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-04-2012, 14:24
Paul C.'s Avatar
Paul C. Paul C. is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 275
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Jim,

Bob Henneman's article has the timing all wrong. All the hits were scored in the first phase of the action - Renown was hit within a minute of Gneisenau opening fire and Gneisenau took all hers before she turned away and was shielded by Scharnhorst.

In the second phase, conditions made accurate shooting all but impossible, plus both sides took evasive action (Renown reported that Scharnhorst would change course every time Renown fired a salvo).

According to German sources, Gneisenau fired 10 AP and 44 nose-fused HE shells. She switched to HE after her first ranging salvoes because she thought she was facing the heavily armoured Nelson whose vitals would be invulnerable to her 11-inch AP. HE would be expected to cause topside damage, maybe knock out gunnery control installations etc.

Scharnhorst, recognizing Renown, used all AP which could conceivably penetrate Renown's armour.

Also, the recording of the times may cause confusion - German reports record the times as 1 hour later than the British. The times I used in my first post are British.
__________________

Paul
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-04-2012, 14:55
jainso31's Avatar
jainso31 jainso31 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DONCASTER S.YORKS UK
Posts: 8,515
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Previously Paul you wrote this:-
"There was a discussion as to whether it was Gneisenau or Scharnhorst that hit Renown given that the shells that hit were AP and Gneisenau is recorded as firing HE. But the hits occured before Scharnhorst opened fire and it turns out the Gneisenau would have opened fire with AP because they give a better splash for spotting in order to find the target. She hit Renown with her first ranging series - incredible gunnery under those conditions, although it was radar-assisted".

I agree that Henneman's report gives times that are about two hours adrift; but his report of Gneisenau's hits on Renown "seem to square"with your own assessment-shown above.To that end I am convinced that Gneisenau's two hits on Renown were with 11"AP shells.

jainso31
__________________

HMS ANEMONE (K48)

Always on the Lookout!

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-04-2012, 16:40
BCRenown's Avatar
BCRenown BCRenown is offline
Vice Commodore
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Posts: 710
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

IIRC, the Henneman report also credits Renown with gunnery radar.

This topic has been discussed on numerous occasions and on various boards over the years. Somehow most paricipants seem to have formulated the opinion that Renown was lucky to survive the encounter. Perhaps Henneman's dubious report is responsible for this popular misconception.

Of course we all know that Renown was not fitted with any sort of radar until her Autumn, 1941 refit. Try as I may to point this out, I have gotten no where.

While I dare not speculate on the actual outcome otherwise, I'd have to think that the German warships were merely beneficaries of Renown's lack of radar.

As it was, Renown did win the day and I find it rather appalling that Admiral Forbes would even question the expenditure of 4.5" ammo. One against two - you use everything you have - what did he expect? That could only have left a sour taste in the mouths of the Renowns.

Funny thing too, how Renown received criticism for going it alone against two German battlecruisers (expenditure of secondary ammo) and later and even more severely when taking on two Italian BBs off Spartivento (premature disengament of the enemy - lack of aggression), yet she was ordered out of the Bismarck kill. ????

The very thing Somerville was court-martialled for at Spartivento, he was ordered not to do against Bismarck. The only conclusion I can come to is, after the loss of Hood, the Admiralty totally lost trust in it's most ardent seaborne commanders. Did they think that professionals like Tovey and Somerville were to become so "heavily engaged" with Bismarck and so incompetent and inept as to lose Renown in that comparatively highly favourable 3 on 1 scenario?

Monty
__________________
Keep well and keep posting,
Monty

<a href=http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/image.php?u=4345&type=sigpic&dateline=1228940259 target=_blank>http://www.worldnavalships.com/forum...ine=1228940259</a>

Battlecruiser Renown in 1936 - looking as splendid as ever.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-04-2012, 17:09
Paul C.'s Avatar
Paul C. Paul C. is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 275
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Quote:
Originally Posted by jainso31 View Post
Previously Paul you wrote this:-

I agree that Henneman's report gives times that are about two hours adrift; but his report of Gneisenau's hits on Renown "seem to square"with your own assessment-shown above.To that end I am convinced that Gneisenau's two hits on Renown were with 11"AP shells.

jainso31
That means we agree Jim! That's what I was saying from the start. Here's what I said in post 1:

Quote:
As Renown’s opening salvo ploughed into the sea 300+ m short, the Gneisenau’s 11-inch guns thundered out her response. Three ranging salvoes were fired in quick succession from turrets Anton, Bruno and Caesar respectively, each consisting of three armour piercing shells. The salvoes were frighteningly accurate with two shells from the third striking home on the British battlecruiser.
It was after this that Gneisenau switched to HE and never got near Renown again until she was shut down by Renown's 15-inch hit.

And Monty:

I agree with you all the way. I wonder what Adm. Forbes would have said had he known that a 4.5-inch knocked out Gneisenau's A-turret!

As for Bismarck, I like to think that Renown was kept close to the Ark Royal as a necessity given the unknown whereabouts of Prinz Eugen. Not sure if Sheffield had rejoined at that point, but still - better 6 x 15-inch than 12 x 6-inch to keep an enemy heavy cruiser at bay and with luck, sink her!
__________________

Paul
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-04-2012, 17:59
jainso31's Avatar
jainso31 jainso31 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DONCASTER S.YORKS UK
Posts: 8,515
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Re.Renown's Radar

While the exact dates are not known, the ship received a variety of radars in 1941, possibly during the June refit. These included Type 284 radar for surface gunnery control, Type 285 anti-aircraft gunnery radar, Type 281 air warning radar and a Type 271 surface search radar.

jainso31
__________________

HMS ANEMONE (K48)

Always on the Lookout!

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-04-2012, 22:00
patroclus's Avatar
patroclus patroclus is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,267
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCRenown View Post
Funny thing too, how Renown received criticism for going it alone against two German battlecruisers (expenditure of secondary ammo) and later and even more severely when taking on two Italian BBs off Spartivento (premature disengament of the enemy - lack of aggression), yet she was ordered out of the Bismarck kill. ????

The very thing Somerville was court-martialled for at Spartivento, he was ordered not to do against Bismarck. The only conclusion I can come to is, after the loss of Hood, the Admiralty totally lost trust in it's most ardent seaborne commanders. Did they think that professionals like Tovey and Somerville were to become so "heavily engaged" with Bismarck and so incompetent and inept as to lose Renown in that comparatively highly favourable 3 on 1 scenario?

Monty


I don't know about the Admiralty but both Tovey and Somerville were of the opinion that RENOWN should remain with ARK ROYAL rather than leave the carrier without adequate escort. I imagine that both the weather conditions and the expectation of German air attack played a part in this.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 13-04-2012, 08:36
jainso31's Avatar
jainso31 jainso31 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DONCASTER S.YORKS UK
Posts: 8,515
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Member Vince O'Hara in his book "The German Fleet at War 1939-1945"said and I quote-"the top heavy Renown laboured harder in the heavier weather than modern battleships.The Germans mounted eighteen heavy guns to Renown's six and enjoyed vastly superior armour.Whitworth was lucky that Lutjens chose to run rather than fight. It is questionable Renown would have otherwise survived"
I would go along with that had the Germans chose to fight tactically.

jainso31
__________________

HMS ANEMONE (K48)

Always on the Lookout!

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 13-04-2012, 10:44
Werlin Werlin is offline
Petty Officer
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 41
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Sorry if I misunderstood you Paul. I'll blame the fact that I'm not a native speaker of English, and hope you forgive me.

After reading the battle reports I get an impression that Renown stood up to the fight quite well.
And claiming 18 heavy guns to 6 doesn't take into account the difference in Gun size and capacity.

In this thread I have previously argued that Renowns protection was much poorer than Warspite. Am I correct in thinking that the twins guns would under normal circumstances manage to penetrate Warspites citadel and vitals?
Then, what about Renown? Would her belt, almost half the thikness of Warspites, had any chance of protecting her?

As for Bismarck, she was in another league than Renown, and I think Hood convinced the admiralty (rightly) that she should not try her luck against Bismarck one on one. Remember, while they ordered Renown to keep station on RA - its a good point that that might have been because of PE, one of the revenge class - Ramillies I think - to leave her convoy and seek out Bismarck on her own.

Paul: I agree, and purely from memory I don't think Sheffield had rejoined, but I'm not sure.
__________________
It’s like Shakespeare; it sounds well enough, but it don’t actually mean anything.
~ Bertie Wooster
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 13-04-2012, 11:32
BCRenown's Avatar
BCRenown BCRenown is offline
Vice Commodore
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Posts: 710
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Quote:
Member Vince O'Hara in his book "The German Fleet at War 1939-1945"said and I quote-"the top heavy Renown laboured harder in the heavier weather than modern battleships.
I wonder what led him to come to that conclusion? Renown gained weight later in the war but in 1940 her displacement was nearly 2,000 tons less than it had been in 1936. Jim, I have not read Mr. O'Hara's book and, after reading that statement, I don't think I am ever going to.

Werlin, Admiral Somerville and Captain McGrigor did develop a plan to engage Bismarck if ordered but, I don't think anyone expected Renown to stand up to Bismarck on her own. They were to position Renown to the north and west of Bismarck and open fire at lang range, hoping to draw the German ship toward the approaching battleships of the Home Fleet. It was with considerable relief to all that this plan was not required.

Yet, I wonder, with the dwindling fuel supply aboard KG5 and Rodney becoming critical, why Renown wasn't used in the final battle to hasten Bismarck's demise? Protecting Ark Royal should not have been anymore of a problem than it had been off Spartivento. As much as I doubt it, perhaps the cartoonist of Force H were correct after all - in thinking the Home Fleet wanted the glory of the kill for themselves.

Monty
__________________
Keep well and keep posting,
Monty

<a href=http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/image.php?u=4345&type=sigpic&dateline=1228940259 target=_blank>http://www.worldnavalships.com/forum...ine=1228940259</a>

Battlecruiser Renown in 1936 - looking as splendid as ever.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 13-04-2012, 12:19
jainso31's Avatar
jainso31 jainso31 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DONCASTER S.YORKS UK
Posts: 8,515
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Monty
After looking at the side elevations of both Renown and The Sisters-I would say that Renown's top hamper was somewhat more pronounced than either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau.
As to his description of the encounter-I found his standard of research to be impecable-it is a book that bI have recommended to other members; and it makes perfect sense that if S and G had fought a tactical battle with Renown-the eighteen 11" guns should have been too much for Renown's six 15" guns.
The foregoing does not,in any way,mean to detract from the splendid performance put up by Renown on the day.

jainso31
__________________

HMS ANEMONE (K48)

Always on the Lookout!

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 13-04-2012, 12:46
patroclus's Avatar
patroclus patroclus is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,267
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCRenown View Post
Protecting Ark Royal should not have been anymore of a problem than it had been off Spartivento. As much as I doubt it, perhaps the cartoonist of Force H were correct after all - in thinking the Home Fleet wanted the glory of the kill for themselves.

Monty


The battle off Cape Spartivento was conducted in excellent Mediterranean weather conditions. These did not pertain on that day in the North Atlantic. The weather was bad with, importantly, poor visibility.

"After sighting MAORI (0810) I considered detaching ARK ROYAL to the southward to range the striking force, keeping RENOWN in the vicinity of MAORI ready to support KING GEORGE V and RODNEY if required. I decided however that the appearance of RENOWN on the scene before KING GEORGE V established contact was undesirable in view of the low visibility and furthermore it was imperative to afford ARK ROYAL the maximum degree of protection should KING GEORGE V fail to establish contact and thus leave the third striking force as the only means of dealing with BISMARCK."

RENOWN remained with ARK ROYAL until SHEFFIELD rejoined (0940?). Somerville then turned RENOWN towards the battle scene, ordering the carrier to fly off a spotter aircraft, but then intercepted Tovey's signal that he was returning to harbour, CS1's order to DORSETSHIRE to torpedo the BISMARCK at close range and a signal from the Admiralty that heavy air attacks were to be expected. He therefore returned to cover the ARK ROYAL and afford her A/A protection.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 13-04-2012, 12:49
Paul C.'s Avatar
Paul C. Paul C. is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 275
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Quote:
Jainso31 wrote: Member Vince O'Hara in his book "The German Fleet at War 1939-1945"said and I quote-"the top heavy Renown laboured harder in the heavier weather than modern battleships.The Germans mounted eighteen heavy guns to Renown's six and enjoyed vastly superior armour.Whitworth was lucky that Lutjens chose to run rather than fight. It is questionable Renown would have otherwise survived"
I would go along with that had the Germans chose to fight tactically.
I wonder how a "top heavy" ship gained the nickname "the largest destroyer in the fleet"?

From the testinomy of both sides it is clear that any ship would have had a hard time under those conditions, but it is also clear that Renown out-performed the two German ships throughout.

The Scharnhorsts were terribly wet ships and lost the function of their forward turrets. Renown had problems firing her forward guns at speeds over 24 knots, but they did not go out of action. With her six guns she fired about as many rounds as the two German ships combined with their 18.

At no time during the chase did the Germans achieve a speed that Renown could not match - but matching it would result in mounting damage which made no sense. The Germans on the other hand accepted this as their priotity was extricating themselves at all costs.

Yes, they had much better armour and many more guns, but under those conditions and with their main armament failures as a result of their poor seakeeping characteristics, the Twins lost their advantage. Had it been a clear day with smooth sailing, it might have been much more dangerous for Renown. But the reality is that the Twins would have retreated anyway.

Quote:
Werlin wrote: In this thread I have previously argued that Renowns protection was much poorer than Warspite. Am I correct in thinking that the twins guns would under normal circumstances manage to penetrate Warspites citadel and vitals?
Then, what about Renown? Would her belt, almost half the thikness of Warspites, had any chance of protecting her?
Oh there's no question that Warspite had significantly better armour protection and would have been much less vulnerable to 11-inch shells than Renown. But for the Narvik operation, I don't think their underwater protection was that significantly different (though I stand to be corrected!).

And BTW - no worries about any misunderstanding...happens to us all!
__________________

Paul
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 13-04-2012, 13:17
Paul C.'s Avatar
Paul C. Paul C. is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 275
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Quote:
After looking at the side elevations of both Renown and The Sisters-I would say that Renown's top hamper was somewhat more pronounced than either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau.
As to his description of the encounter-I found his standard of research to be impecable-it is a book that bI have recommended to other members; and it makes perfect sense that if S and G had fought a tactical battle with Renown-the eighteen 11" guns should have been too much for Renown's six 15" guns.
The foregoing does not,in any way,mean to detract from the splendid performance put up by Renown on the day.
Jim, seems you posted this while I was writing my reply. I appreciate your comment.

And Patroclus - Thanks for that information!
__________________

Paul
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 13-04-2012, 13:51
jainso31's Avatar
jainso31 jainso31 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DONCASTER S.YORKS UK
Posts: 8,515
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Hi Paul
Renown was known as "the largest destroyer in the fleet" because she was as fast as a destroyer in normal conditions.

As to her never being outmatched for speed by the Twins,again I quote O'Hara"At 0541 Renown ceased fire and briefly came to twenty nine knots at 0544,with her forward guns away from the sea,but the range continued to open and additional squalls of rain and sleet periodically hiding the Germans from view.Her last sighting came at 0615;the German battleships were far ahead and out of range.Renown plunged ahead for another hour and forty five minutes and finally broke off the pursuit"

Coming to the business of assessing the effectiveness of the gunnery :-
Renown fired 230 15" rounds,mostly from A and B turrets,and 1065 4.5" rounds.Severe blast blast damage allowed sea water to flood her A and Y shell rooms.
Scharnhorst fired 195 11" rounds (145 from Caesar and 91 5.9" shells.
Gneisenau fired only 54 main battery rounds and nothing from her secondary batteries.
German 11" shells struck Renown twice for a hit rate of 0.8%.Renown landed one 15" shell,a hit rate of 0.4%

"But the reality is that the Twins would have retreated anyway".That is quite an assumption Paul.
However a British force had asserted the moral supremacy born of centuries, in attacking without hesitation a more powerful enemy force.


jainso31
__________________

HMS ANEMONE (K48)

Always on the Lookout!

Jim

Last edited by jainso31 : 13-04-2012 at 15:04.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 13-04-2012, 22:54
patroclus's Avatar
patroclus patroclus is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,267
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Quote:
Originally Posted by jainso31 View Post
Coming to the business of assessing the effectiveness of the gunnery :-
Renown fired 230 15" rounds,mostly from A and B turrets,and 1065 4.5" rounds.Severe blast blast damage allowed sea water to flood her A and Y shell rooms.
Scharnhorst fired 195 11" rounds (145 from Caesar and 91 5.9" shells.
Gneisenau fired only 54 main battery rounds and nothing from her secondary batteries.
German 11" shells struck Renown twice for a hit rate of 0.8%.Renown landed one 15" shell,a hit rate of 0.4%

jainso31



RENOWN probably obtained three 15" hits on GNEISENAU. You seem to be accepting the suggestion that two of these were from the 4.5" secondary armament but this is very doubtful given the ranges at which this action was fought.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 13-04-2012, 23:11
patroclus's Avatar
patroclus patroclus is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,267
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Quote:
Originally Posted by jainso31 View Post
Member Vince O'Hara in his book "The German Fleet at War 1939-1945"said and I quote-"the top heavy Renown laboured harder in the heavier weather than modern battleships.The Germans mounted eighteen heavy guns to Renown's six and enjoyed vastly superior armour.Whitworth was lucky that Lutjens chose to run rather than fight. It is questionable Renown would have otherwise survived"
I would go along with that had the Germans chose to fight tactically.

jainso31


I think the description of RENOWN as top-heavy is inaccurate - it might more correctly have been applied to her after her 1943 refit!

However, I have no quarrel with the view that in a stand-up fight with S & G, the RENOWN could be in difficulties. Among other things, the German ships could outrange her and her armour scheme had a few soft spots.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 14-04-2012, 02:33
Paul C.'s Avatar
Paul C. Paul C. is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 275
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Quote:
Jainso31 wrote: Renown was known as "the largest destroyer in the fleet" because she was as fast as a destroyer in normal conditions.
It was a bit more than that Jim...it was her handling characteristics as well. In the words of Vice-Admiral B.C.B. Brooke "In my experience this great ship never failed to answer the slightest touch of wheel or engines, nor did her armament ever fail when needed."

She shared with Hood and Repulse that "dash and sweetness of handling" that one might expect of smaller cruisers or destroyers. That responsiveness and seaworthiness is what made Repulse (even in her overweight state) a vexing target for the Japanese bombers - avoiding 19 torpedoes until she was simply overwhelmed by sheer numbers.

Quote:
Patroclus wrote: RENOWN probably obtained three 15" hits on GNEISENAU. You seem to be accepting the suggestion that two of these were from the 4.5" secondary armament but this is very doubtful given the ranges at which this action was fought.
This information comes from Wolfgang Kahler who was 2nd Gunnery Officer aboard Gneisenau at the time (and I believe, but I'm not sure, from the ship's war diary). The hit on turret Anton was very minor - on the "ear", but the resulting damage admitted a flood of seawater which put the turret out of action. The hit near the port #3 4.1-inch twin mount was also minor - a 15-inch shell should have done considerable damage - penetrating the deck into the compartments below before exploding and wreaking havoc. I had always wondered how come the damage was so slight. The 4.5-inch explanation makes sense of it.

The 4.5-inch DP gun had a maximun surface range of 20,750 yards so it was quite capable of reaching Gneisenau at 18,000 or less.
__________________

Paul
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 14-04-2012, 04:28
patroclus's Avatar
patroclus patroclus is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,267
Default Re: "Duel off Stromvaer" - Renown vs. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. View Post


This information comes from Wolfgang Kahler who was 2nd Gunnery Officer aboard Gneisenau at the time (and I believe, but I'm not sure, from the ship's war diary). The hit on turret Anton was very minor - on the "ear", but the resulting damage admitted a flood of seawater which put the turret out of action. The hit near the port #3 4.1-inch twin mount was also minor - a 15-inch shell should have done considerable damage - penetrating the deck into the compartments below before exploding and wreaking havoc. I had always wondered how come the damage was so slight. The 4.5-inch explanation makes sense of it.

The 4.5-inch DP gun had a maximun surface range of 20,750 yards so it was quite capable of reaching Gneisenau at 18,000 or less.



I cannot share your certainty about what a shell should or should not do. It was often very difficult to determine the size of a shell responsible for a hit, particularly if it did not explode or completely explode or if the contact was a glancing one.

The 4.5" were firing at ranges approaching their effective maximum in poor weather conditions "with a heavy swell and a great sea". I am not saying that hits were impossible but they were certainly improbable! On this occasion, most of the 4.5" firing was at SCHARNHORST, which they failed to hit.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Ship Search by Name : Advanced Search
Random Timeline Entry : 20th January 1896 : HMS Cordelia : Sailed Bermuda for Barbados

NAVAL PRINTS

Click above to see our naval art portal - Eight random half price items are displayed to the right.

Some Current Half Price Offers

VAR346B.  H.M.A.S. Manoora 1940 by Brian Wood.
H.M.A.S. Manoora 1940 by Brian Wood (B)
Half Price! - £20.00
B114.  HMS Carmania sinking the German armed liner SS Cap Trafalgar off Ilha da Trindade, South Atlantic. 14th September 1914.  By Ivan Berryman.
HMS Carmania sinking the German armed liner SS Cap Trafalgar off Ilha da Trindade, South Atlantic. 14th September 1914. By Ivan Berryman.
Half Price! - £15.00
 A pair of F18 Hornets overfly the Nimitz-class carrier USS Dwight Eisenhower (CV-69) with the surface combatant USS Arleigh Burke (DDF-51) off her port bow.

USS Dwight Eisenhower by Ivan Berryman (P)
Half Price! - £2900.00
DHM1307.  Queen Elizabeth at Southampton by Ivan Berryman.

Queen Elizabeth at Southampton by Ivan Berryman.
Half Price! - £50.00

B216AP.  HMS Colossus by Ivan Berryman.  Together with her sister ship, Hercules, HMS Colossus acquitted herself well at the Battle of Jutland where she fired 93 12in rounds, but received only two hits from enemy fire which caused minor damage and left nine crew injured.  She was sold for scrap in 1928.

HMS Colossus by Ivan Berryman (AP)
Half Price! - £45.00
 The lead ship of the Royal Navy's Vanguard Class SSBNs, HMS Vanguard (S28) was commissioned on 14th August 1993 and is based at HMNB Clyde at Faslane.

HMS Vanguard in the Gareloch by Ivan Berryman. (P)
Half Price! - £700.00
B151.  HMS Durban Escorts the Troopship RMS Queen Mary by Ivan Berryman.

HMS Durban Escorts the Troopship RMS Queen Mary by Ivan Berryman.
Half Price! - £15.00
 Fully dressed and resplendent, HMS Hood is pictured preparing for King George Vs review of the Fleet in July 1935 as other capital ships take up their positions around her. Ramillies can be seen off Hoods port bow, Resolution astern, whilst just beyond her boat deck, the mighty Nelson gently nudges into position.

HMS Hood by Ivan Berryman. (Y)
Half Price! - £50.00

SPORT PRINTS

Click above to see our sport art portal - Four random half price items are displayed to the right.

Some Current Half Price Offers

 Richard Burns and Robert Reid.  Subaru Impreza WRC 99
Rain or Shine by Michael Thompson
Half Price! - £30.00
A montage of moments from the outstanding Welsh 6 Nation Championship Grand Slam Victory of 2005.
The Perfect Year - Wales Grand Slam Champions 2005 by Darren Baker. (Y)
Half Price! - £50.00
 Schumacher and Ferrari, the winning team.

Sea of Red by David Evans
Half Price! - £25.00


Jason Leonard by Robert Highton. (Y)
Half Price! - £80.00

AVIATION PRINTS

Click above to see our aviation art portal - Four random half price items are displayed to the right.

Some Current Half Price Offers

Douglas C47 Dakotas fly into the landing and drop zone at Renkum Heath, September 17th 1944.

Arnhem by Simon Smith (D)
Half Price! - £20.00
In this lovely picture from Graham Bosworth, the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight (BBMF) is seen flying past the very famous Boston Stump in Lincolnshire (properly known as St Botolph*#39;s Church).  Called the Boston 'Stump' because the tower was completed over a period of 100 years, appearing as a stump on the horizon (alternative theory is that the tower should have had a spire on top of it and the 'stump' is therefore the base.  St Botolph's is one of the largest parish churches in England.  Founded in 1390, St Botolph's is aiming to raise £3,000,000 by 2009 in time for its 700th birthday and for much-needed restoration.  The BBMF is much beloved by many people of all ages and the sounds of the engines from these World War II aircraft still draws the crowds.  Based at Conningsby in Lincolnshire the formation displays throughout Europe.

Salute to the Stump by Graham Bosworth. (Y)
Half Price! - £30.00
 RAF Mosquitos attack a German supply train.

Mosquito Bite by Geoff Lea. (P)
Half Price! - £1400.00
  Eight minutes after the gliders had touched down at LZ-Z the first of the paratroops started to arrive at 1353.  Thirty six C47s over DZ-X dropped the 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment at 1403.  On the ground are the discarded chutes of the 2nd Battalion dropped ten minutes earlier.  In the middle distance can be seen the blue smoke used to identify DZ-X, left by the 21st Independent Para Company.  Dropped by the 14 and 59 Sqn/ 61 Troop Carrier Group which had taken off from Barkston Heath, Lincolnshire, the 2nd and 3rd Para Battalions, which dropped slightly earlier had enplaned at Saltby airfield.  Between 1353 and 1408 2276 paratroops jumped at an altitude of between 700 to 900ft..

Arnhem - September 17th 1944 by Graeme Lothian (P)
Half Price! - £1800.00

MILITARY PRINTS

Click above to see our military art portal - Four random half price items are displayed to the right.

Some Current Half Price Offers

 Men of the US 381st Infantry Regiment, 96th Division supported by the tanks of 763rd and 713th Flamethrower Tank Battalions, during the assault on Yaeju Dake. This escarpment, known as Big Apple was the last in a series of tough Japanese defence lines on the south of the Island.

Taking of Big Apple, Okinawa, 10th - 14th June 1945 by David Pentland.
Half Price! - £90.00
 Pioneers were among the first British troops to land on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day, by 1st August 1944 there were over 35,500 pioneers in Normandy. The painting shows the various activities of the pioneers during the D-Day landings.

Sword Beach by Terence Cuneo.
Half Price! - £50.00
 Bastogne, Ardennes, Belgium, 24th December 1944. Surviving U.S. tank crew from Task Force Cherry and Paratroopers of 101st Airborne Division take a break while awaiting orders for their next battle.

The Battered Band by David Pentland. (Y)
Half Price! - £40.00
A Tiger I and PAK 40 anti tank gun of the Müncheberg Division, field a final defence of the capital in front of the Brandenburg Gate under the shattered remains of the famous Linden trees. The under-strength division had just been formed the previous month from a mixture of ad hoc units and various marks of tank. Despite this it put up a spirited fight until its final destruction in early May.

Tiger at the Gate, Berlin, 30th April 1945 by David Pentland. (GL)
Half Price! - £300.00
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (1 members and 1 guests)
trewed
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DD 110, a "Fourstacker" "Flush Decker" John Odom US Navy Ships and Crews 4 28-03-2013 10:12
Aircraft Carriers "Joffre" and "Painleve" Grosser Kreuzer French Ships and Crews 7 02-12-2010 13:11
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau NASAAN101 German Ships and Crews 52 20-05-2010 10:39
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau Vs. HMS Rawalpindi NASAAN101 German Ships and Crews 12 04-03-2009 18:12


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.