| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
BobDarby |
|||
|
Posts: 20 ( 1-Jul-2008 22:52:38) |
How does HMS Roberts or HMS Erebus do in this scenario?
|
||
E F Draaijers |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 245 ( 2-Jul-2008 10:22:54) |
Good question. I also have considered it before, but not worked it out. Bassically a monitor is not a very good seagoing vessel, as it is very slow and shallow
drafted, but it is a stable gunplatform. It is however armored and can take a beating, especially against non armor piercing shells, while the large bulge
gives good torpedoprotection. Disadvantage is the armament placed in a single heavy turret, that does not give good arc of fire and the unshielded secondary
armament. The very bit 15 inch guns are likely to be very slow fireing and therefore not so good in a very short range battle. Most likely the heavy shell will
go right through an unarmored target at point blanc ranges, without exploding. (even the HE shell will have such an effect.) Best is the 4 inch secondary
armament, which is very fast fireing, but not protected at all, sdo very vulnerable to enemy fire.
HMS Roberts or a simmilar monitor is likely to survive HSK-8, as the German ship cannot sink it with gunfire alone and has to score multiple torpeodhits to defeat it completely. Otherwise the Monitor may not be able to seriously engage the raider, as long as range is too close and her secondary guns are out of action, due to enemy fire. (When disengaging a single lucky hit at longer range from the 15 inch guns can however change things completely.) |
||
chrisRoach |
|||
|
Posts: 118 ( 2-Jul-2008 16:40:17) |
BobDarby wrote: First impulse would be "poorly". But having looked over the wikipedia page (for what little it's worth) I'm actually rather more
optimistic about the moniter's chances... effectively no chance of disabling the main turret with gunfire; a heavier secondary armourment than Sydney (8x
4" instead of 4) and thicker belt. Thus it comes down to her ability to withstand the torp hit... given both ships of the class survived running over
mines there's actually quite a fair chance of that.
Your Text Signature ...
|
||
Gunnersmate04 |
If same size is determinin factor.... | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 233 ( 2-Jul-2008 20:18:57) |
and obviously in service at time of battle...could not a second rate BB like say TEXAS fit the bill? Same general size and displacement, so I am not cheating.
Referee? Can we get a ruling? GUNNER |
||
flyingdutchman1980 |
|||
|
Posts: 101 ( 2-Jul-2008 20:29:44) |
Gunnersmate04 wrote: Good idea! But perhaps an earlier battleship would be better. Arkansas for example, she's also probably still fast enough as she started with 21 knots, don't know how much of that is left in WWII. An even older BB could be for example the Spanish battleships, Espana and Jaime I. Unfortunately both sunk in '37 and slow. |
||
BobDarby |
|||
|
Posts: 21 ( 2-Jul-2008 22:25:56) |
How fast was Kormoran at the time of the engagement? She was making smoke from a damaged engine when sighted by Sydney so I assume she had suffered some loss
of speed; did any of the survivor accounts suggest her condition and speed?
"the smoke which was coming from Kormoran's damaged engine (see para 4.11) would automatically be seen as a sign of distress." http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/sydney/sydch4.pdf para4.101 Another question; the Australian inquiry noted above suggests that Sydney had her turrets trained on the Kormoran with elevation above her. Is this correct or has this version of events changed since that time?
Last Edited By: BobDarby
3-Jul-2008 03:21:25.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
Capn Carl |
|||
|
Posts: 286 ( 3-Jul-2008 16:36:15) |
I think the monitors would do well--there's no reason a 15" wouldn't explode when hitting Kormoran; they'd only punch all the way thru if they
hit thinner portions of the ship.
How about a Swedish coastal BB? Lots of shielded gun mounts, big guns, too. Will the torp still disable Sverige' fwd turret? Someone with more time than me could measure the distance from Sydney's midpoint to her fwd turrets, then place that line from Sverige' midpoint, going fwd. I'll bet the torp would hit Sverige' bow, leaving her with a fully functioning main armament. Even without the fwd turret, she'll make a mess of Kormoran. I think there's little doubt that Sverige can survive the Kormoran scenario. Since she's smaller in tons than a Brooklyn or Town, it's looking like I'm winning my own contest. I may have to make the prize more valuable--as of now, the winner will recieve TWO boxes of toothpicks. |
||
E F Draaijers |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 246 ( 3-Jul-2008 22:22:52) |
What about an old pre-Dreadnought era armored first class cruiser, like a Drake or Scharnhorst class vessel? These vessels were not actually anymore in teh
time of WW2, although some Chilean vessels were still around. Armored they were and they had only two electrically driven turrets and many manually operated
armored gunmountings, which could not be pierced by HE shells of 5.9 inch and certainly packed a lot of punch to hose back. The single torpedohit foreward
would be a problem, but as this was likely foreward of the bridge, it would likely not sink the vessel outright. It could remain afloat and minus her foreward
turret, it still had quite a lot of guns left to engage the enemy. Likewise, it also mounted old stile underwater torpedotubes, which at the given range could
also be deployed.
|
||
therritn |
|||
|
Posts: 34 (14-Jul-2008 03:13:17) |
I would actually use either a New Orleans class CA or Brooklyn/St.Louis Class CL. The New Orleans class is proven to take a great deal of punishment
from torpedoes and gunfire and still be able to dish it out (eg. New Orleans at Tassafaronga, San Francisco at Third Savo). The only reason that 3 New Orleans
class ships were lost at first Savo which multiple hits from CA gunfire and Long Lance torpedoes.
The Brooklyn/St.Louis class can also take a lot of punishment before sinking. And don't forget how good damage control was on US ships. |
||
jhack |
Armored Cruiser v. Kormoran | ||
|
Posts: 112 (14-Jul-2008 19:55:14) |
To expand on E F Draaijers comment, the old Greek armored cruiser Georgios Averoff was escorting convoys in the Indian Ocean at this time. Might be interesting
to see how she would stack up. The torpedo hit would likely cause serious damage, but what kind of damage would two 9.2 inch guns and two or four 7.5 inchers
do to Kormoran? I'm thinking that the torpedo that took out Sydney's forward turrets would likely take out Averoff's forward twin 9.2s, but I
wonder if it would take down the forward pair of 7.5 on that side as well? Also the 9.2s and 7.5s wouldn't fire as fast as the four 6 inchers on the stern
of Sydney. Averoff has almost 8 inches of armor on her 9.2 turrets and nearly 7 inches on the 7.5 inchers in addition to an 8-inch belt. Plus, at 20 kts,
Kormoran is not running away from Averoff.
|
||
MSR |
|||
|
Posts: 2712 (18-Jul-2008 21:25:53) |
chrisRoach wrote:
Kormoran's captain reported in his very detailed analysis of the event that his speed was limited to around 14 knots at the time of the encounter with
Sydney. This was due to mechanical problems. So, even if he chose to run from a Roberts class monitor, he would only have had a marginal speed advantage on
the day and so would remain within range of the monitor's faster firing secondaries for longer. Ironically, his decision to run would only make it easier
for the monitor to utilise her 15" against him as the range opened, so perhaps his best bet is to close, endure the enemies 4" and try to knock out
the unprotected gun crews whilst manoeuvring for a torpedo attack.
The aim of diplomacy is to achieve results, not win arguments
Last Edited By: MSR
18-Jul-2008 21:28:16.
Edited 1 times.
|
||