Range of Main Guns

Royal Navy · Post by **Royal Navy** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:50 pm

Hallo everybody, I have been looking for the effective/maximum range of the main guns of the two BB/BC KMS Scharnhorst and KMS Gneisenau. The statistics for the guns of the Bismarck and the Tirpitz are fairly easy to find, as well as the Crusiers and Pocket-Battleships, but not the BB/BC's. However, despite being the same guns as on the PB's, as I understand it, the Scharnhorst and the Gnesienau had a longer range due to better optics as well as better radar. Now I hope that anyone knows the answer to this question.

Yours Truly
Royal Navy

U-404 · Post by **U-404** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:04 pm

Scharnhorst:
---------------

length - 229,8 meters
width - 30 meters
tonnage - 38.900 t

Guns:

9x280 mm
12x150mm
14x105mm
38x20mm
6 torpedo-tube/caliber - 533mm

The ship had a catapult for lifting planes and carried 4 Arado 196 planes on board.

Crew: app 1840 men

Gneisenau:
--------------

Named after general-fieldmarshall Graf August Naithardt von Gneisenau.

Building cost - 146.174 reichsmark
Bulding started on 1.2.1934/suspended on 5.7.1934/building contunied on 6.5.1935/started sailing on 8.12.1936

Sizes - the same as Scharnhorst

Guns:
9x280 mm
12x150mm
14x105mm
16x37mm
38x20mm
6 torpedo-tube/caliber - 533mm

The ship had a catapult for lifting planes and carried 4 Arado 196 planes in board.

Crew: 1669 men + 10 officers and extra 61 sailors (what for? I dont' know)

Hope it could help...

wiltaz · Post by **wiltaz** » Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:22 am

German 28 cm/54.5 (11") SK C/34

This weapon was used for the small battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau and was an improved version of the 28 cm SK C/28 gun used for the Deutchsland class Panzerschiffes. The high muzzle velocity of this weapon gave its relatively light-weight projectiles long range and good penetration power.

Scharnhorst made one of the longest hits ever scored by a naval gun on an enemy ship when she struck the British carrier HMS Glorious at approximately 26,465 yards (24,200 m).

Range Data
Elevation With 727.5 lbs. (330 kg) AP
2.0 degrees 5,470 yards (5,000 m)
4.3 degrees 10,940 yards (10,000 m)
7.4 degrees 16,400 yards (15,000 m)
11.3 degrees 21,870 yards (20,000 m)
16.2 degrees 27,340 yards (25,000 m)
22.0 degrees 32,810 yards (30,000 m)
29.2 degrees 38,280 yards (35,000 m)
38.2 degrees 43,740 yards (40,000 m)
40.0 degrees 44,760 yards (40,930m)

Sam H. · Post by **Sam H.** » Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:12 am

I think the range of these guns were greater than any ship board weapon of WWII, thought Japan's Long Lance was close (43,700 yards).

Royal Navy · Post by **Royal Navy** » Sun Jan 01, 2006 5:44 pm

Thank You wiltaz

Although I find it hard to belive that the Scharnhorts/Gneisenau were able to fire as far as 40000+ meters. Even now adays thats quite a feat. This would also mean that the were able to "outshoot" the Iowas of the USN. But as for now....Your figures stand
Again, Thank You

Jan-Hendrik · Post by **Jan-Hendrik** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 1:55 am

Miroslaw Skwiot gives in his "German Naval Artillery Vol.1"

a range of 40,000m at an elevation of 38,2! an a maximum range of 40,930m at 40 °

What is so strange with that ? That the 28er guns of this Ship class was a master piece of long range artillery was stated by many authors before during the last 50 years ( Siegfried Breyer for examples states a max. range of 42,500 m !!! ) .

That german heavy artillery was state of the art in that particular period is well known , so I don't understand your comparisn with the Iowa-Class ...

Jan-Hendrik

Royal Navy · Post by **Royal Navy** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:26 am

Well, the range of artillery is largely dependent on the caliber of the gun, and how long the barrel is (rule of thumb is 1000 meters range per centimeter in caliber). Since the main batteries on the Iowa-class of BB's were 5" greater (as well as the barrel being some 5 meters longer) than the BC/BB Scharnhorst/Gneisenau, it is pretty safe to assume that they should outrange them. There are of course other things to consider, like the weight of the projectile, the efficiency of the propellant and so on. HOWEVER in some cases there are other factors that have to be considered, and obviously this was such a case.
And mind You, Jan-Hendrik, I did not challenge the fact that the main guns of the BC/BB Scharnhorst/Gneisenau hade a range of more than 40', I just wrote that I had a hard time to belive it. But belive it I do, at least until I can get any information that contradicts it.
And for the argument that the Germans were constructors of heavy artillery without peers of the period. That is just not true. The other large industrial countries (and some smaller ones) of the period were quite good also. For example the famous German 88 (even though it not classifies as heavy artillery), was basically a Swedish design. German artillerydesigners worked at the Boforsplant in Karlskoga just before the war.

Jan-Hendrik · Post by **Jan-Hendrik** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:33 am

I know

But where did the constrcuting engineers came from ?

And , dear friend , I did not meant that the others were unable to build good large guns , for sure , but they did not reach the peak of this period in my opinion .

Jan-Hendrik

Royal Navy · Post by **Royal Navy** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:15 am

Hello again Jan-Hendrik
As for the 88, the designers were from Germay, but the design in the begining, was in all essentials Swedish, the German engineers improved it to the "88-efficiency". Later Bofors copied it and built a simliar Swedish gun.
And as for the other countries peak. In my opinion, the 16" gun of the Iowas and the 12" of the Alaskas, were really state of the art heavy artillery as well as horrendously expensive, at least when it came to the Alaskas. But then again, one have to remeber, the German gun was at least 10 years older and the Americans could use the experience from the early war in their design efforts.

wiltaz · Post by **wiltaz** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:26 am

Just remember lobbing a shell that far and hitting a target at that range is two different discussions. Maximum and effective aren't the same thing. I just have the figures for max.

wiltaz · Post by **wiltaz** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:30 am

Hit submit too soon and didn't see an edit feature. Thought there use to be. But anyway. Effective range is no where near max range. That's why I posted the bit about the longest recorded hit by a naval gun being 26,000 yards. That gives you an idea of the max effective within that max range given.

U-404 · Post by **U-404** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:43 am

Royal Navy wrote:Thank You wiltaz

Although I find it hard to belive that the Scharnhorts/Gneisenau were able to fire as far as 40000+ meters. Even now adays thats quite a feat. This would also mean that the were able to "outshoot" the Iowas of the USN. But as for now....Your figures stand
Again, Thank You

It is indeed hard to believe that they could shoot that far. However once I had an arguement with an acquaintance of mine. He stated that Bismark could shoot even farther than Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Although I didn't believe him because he had no proofs (hehe)...

Anyone has comments on Bismark????
Thank you beforehand,

Jan-Hendrik · Post by **Jan-Hendrik** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:09 am

No , he was not right ...

According to Breyers "Schlachtschiffe und Schlachtkreuzer 1905-1970" the mximum ran´ge of the 15" were 36200 m at an elevation of 35°

Jan-Hendrik

Jan-Hendrik · Post by **Jan-Hendrik** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:12 am

And Skwiot gives 35,500 m at 30°

You are interested in the "Osttürkische Waffenverband der SS" ? Do you know this article :

http://forum.panzer-archiv.de/viewtopic.php?t=4009

??

Jan-Hendrik

U-404 · Post by **U-404** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:42 am

Jan-Hendrik wrote:And Skwiot gives 35,500 m at 30°

You are interested in the "Osttürkische Waffenverband der SS" ? Do you know this article :

http://forum.panzer-archiv.de/viewtopic.php?t=4009

??

Jan-Hendrik

Well thanks for proving that my acquaintance was wrong.

And thank's for the link. But unfortunately my Deutsch is very weak so I could not understand it.

I read quite a lot of articles in local papers about our legion, also a few memoirs and a nice book.

Our country's legion (Azerbaijan) consisted of about 70.000 volunteers (during whole war). Some Azeri Turks (Azerbaijani's are Turks, like Ottoman turks, Turkmens, Uzbeks, some Tatars etc) fought in Turkestan and Caucasian legion. Unfortunately most of them after the war lived a hard life. Some were given to Soviets by the Allies and they were of course shot as "motherland USSR traytors", a little group managed to run from imprisonment and live in Austria, Italy, Germany, the US etc. Many of the survived continued their lives in Turkey. But they all had one thing in common: They were never allowed to come back to their motherland until we (Azerbaijan) became independent in 1991.
Well, as you can imagine, most of those people who survived the war were dead already to that date either from getting old, or ilnessess or smth else.
Still today, they are not remembered as much as they should be. There are too much of WWII veterans who fought for the Soviets (ap 550.000 people) from my country. Most of them were forced to fight. But those who fought in legions were volunteers, people who were deprived of everthing when the soviet regime came here...

Sorry for the big offtop, emotions...... ;(((