Gneisenau vs. Strasbourg

[Glider]

The fact though that two destroyers on their own were able to land such hits on the German vessels implys to me anyway that the Ships were not as well manned as they should have been.
Also their poor performance off Norway when the Renown on her own met both the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau together would also make me question how effecient these ships were.
I don't think there was anything wrong with the ships but early in the war I believe the crews were not as effective and they could or should have been.

[delcyros]

Actually Scharnhorst and Gneisenau evaded a total of 11 torpedos against both Destroyers. They were capable to evade all had they noticed them properly. The torpedo launched to hit Scharnhorst wasn´t detected according to the battle report otherwise evasive actions would handle it.
A single BB or BC has little to stop a DD. And it should be noted that both DD were excellently handled by their crews. They took evasive actions like hell to avoid the 11"ers, 5.9 "ers and 4.1"ers of the twins. Both DD´s were knocked out pretty quickly if we compare these fights with Guadacanal or Leyte.
The thing with Renown is another one. It was decisive battle order to avoid any contacts with enemy BB or BC. Renown was escorted by two DD as well and a Rodney class BB was in close proximity. The weather was extremely bad and both german ships suffered in bad weather from a wet bow which rendered turret A useles. So they had only 4 triple turrets to use against Renown and the 15"ers of Renown had a reputation for a good deck penetrator. As we know, the Scharnhorsts are vulnarable from deck penetrations and even a significant damage was a too high a prize. The DD could use their torpedo´s and once the twins are slow, Nelson can close in and Game over. It was a fully correct decision to disengage. A BC is a raider, not a battleship. In each Battle were BC fought BB (Denmark Street, Guadacanal, North cape, the BC lost. In a one on one comparison the Renown was a very vulnarable ship. The heavy 15" armement led to the wrong decision to use it as BB. The twins however, were fully recognized as BC and always disengaged when the enemy carries heavier guns (the initiative advantage of these fastest capital ships of their time).

[lesofprimus]

Excellent reading gentlemen... Hats off to u delc for jumping into it so wholeheartedly...

[Glider]

Not often I would disagree with you Delc but on this occaision we will have to differ.
Two fast modern Battlecruisers in daylight with good weather each with a broadside of 9 x 11in 6 x 5.9 ad 8 x 4.1 plus I think one of them carried their own torpedos should have been able to handle two destroyers on their own without support without being hit by torpedo's.

As for the meeting with the Renown, remember she was also a BC from WW1 with very thin armour, often half that on the German ships.
The weather was very poor and ranges low. Even with two turrets each your left with 12 x 11 in against 6 x 15in with the 11 in having a much faster rate of fire and able to penetrate the Renown's armour with ease plus the 5.9s capable of doing damage at that range. Bearing that in mind I believe they should have done better. I admit that I thought the Renown was without her escort and no capital ship would want to mess about in bad weather with destroyers about, its asking for trouble. With that in mind the Germans action was more understandable
That said, even with the action that took place, with the German Ships running and the action fleeting, the two German ships did no effective damage to the Renown and the Renown did a decent job working over the Gneisenau causing significant damage to her Turret and Fire Control. As there was nothing wrong with the German ships, I would put the difference down to the crews.

I don't believe that the Rodney Class was an issue, for the simple reason that the Germans didn't know they were there.

[delcyros]

If the BC can concentrate on a DD...yes. The problem is to stop them (disable them) before they reach torpedo launching distance. And moreso becuase both DD were between the twins and their prey. So either they loose contact to the Glorius or they take the risk of a DD in torpedo launching distance. They did the latter, while one BC attacked Glorius and the other the closest DD (the other effictively build a smoke screen to cover Glorius).
In such a gunnery duel the DD´s fate is inevatible. The qustion is what the DD can do in it´s last minutes and how it will be used. The captian of both DD were great and highskilled skippers, they used their ships far beyond the point when others had long given order to abandon the ship because it suffered too much critical damage.
It may be easy to seal the fate of a DD by a single 11"hit but it is hard to sink the DD before it comes into torpedo range under such circumstances. This is what I meant with a single BC has little to stop a DD on their own.
While the point with the Renown is a different one. I totally agree with You that the Renown is inferior in such situations on a paper battle.
However, Gneisenau had, according to the war diary of its operation, short visible contact to Nelson/Rodney the previous night. So they knew about a BB in that region. Plus the weather forced all ships to under 20kts (makes Nelson theoriticly as fast as Gneisenau)- and the problem was they did not knew where Nelson exactly was.
But beside of this I wouldn´t blame the crew for disengaging. It was naval doctrine to disengage heavier guns in order to prevent damage. The KM unlike the RN had no naval doctrine to engage under all circumstances (alike Glowworm against Hipper), they simply had too few ships. Each was worth too much to risk it.
The damage caused by the 15" hits from Renown contributes to her reputation for excellent gunnery training. The uneffective fire from the twins may be explained partly by the use of a single (rear) turret by each ship because they were fleeing. It´s quite hard to hit anything with 3 guns per ship only. But beside of this it´s record stays in contrast to the other recorded actions (Glorius, Rawalpindi, North Cape), when they got a reputation for early hits in the battle. Still the numbers are not that weak for the twins: Renown managed to land one 15" hit and Gneisenau got two 11" hits on Renown in return.
It should be noted that Scharnhorst suffered a boiler breakdown earlier.
The identification of Renown was unclear from german side. According to the battle report they knew about enemy firing 15" rounds, probably Hood or Repulse/Renown.
Ammo spendid:
Scharnhorst&Gneisenau: 182 11"AP; 13 11" HE; 91 5.9"------2 11" AP hits
Renown:54 15"AP; 72 4.47"--------1 15" hit, 2 4.47" hits
The damage caused by Renown was not, I repeat, not significant:
15" hit:
AP penetrated the unarmored upper superstructure under the forward FC rooms, cutting some cables and left through the other side. It detonates outside the superstructure and some of it´s splinters killing four and injuring two more in the forward FC. FC was fully repaired on sea.
4.47" hit:
Shell hits turret A (already not active due to heavy seas) and cuts of one of it´s rangefinders (compare attached picture)
4.47" hit:
Shell hits the rear 4.1" DP without major damage. turret still operational.

[Glider]

Goes to show how much luck can play a part in naval battle. Renown hit by 2 x 11in (I thought that they were 5.9 but no matter, happy to be corrcted) and no real damage. Germans hit by 1 x 15in that knocked out the Fire Control (it might have been repaired, but it must have been a nasty moment and taken time to fix) and a 4.5 that takes out the rangefinder on a main turret. You could probably fire a 4.5 all day at the Gneisenau and in normal circumstances not hit anything important.

[delcyros]

Yep. Luck is the big one unknown moment. I also have no knowledge what was hit on Renown (maybe someone can help out, please?) but I suspect it wasn´t that important.
KM ships have a bad reputation for loosing their FC soon in a prolonged battle:
Bismarck during her last battle (it was the first or second salvo to hit the ship and subsequently knocked out Main FC, forward FC, turret A and B and rear FC...what a hell of luck!)
Scharnhorst during north cape (against Sheffield and Jamaica it lost it´s forward FC, on the other side Duke of Yorck suffered just the same hit which suffered Gneisenau in 1940 by Renown: a 11" hit penetrated the upper superstructure, cutting the radar FC cables and detonating outside. Killing a few FC crew. As for Gneisenau, the damage crews could fix the cables later and resume FC operations sucesfully)
The biggest disadvantage of the twins was their weak deck protection. On the other side no ship to sail the seas ever was that immune to belt penetrations (including Bismarck). It´s 350 mm KC main belt and 105 mm Wh sloped plus 45 mm Ww torpedo bulkhead made penetrations completely impossible for all ever build guns. This is unnecessary overarmor, realized by the designers. The Bismarck had 320mm KC and 100mm+ 45 mm and still was immune to all belt penetrations (except fora tiny cahnce of a brand new 18.1" at 0 distance and direct impact angle), Tirpitz belt was lowered to 315 mm KC+100mm+45mm ad still enjoyed almost impenetrability (except Yamato at 0 yrds). The H-clss even furtherly reduced the belt to 300 mm + 105mm + 45mm and even this thin belt implies immunity against all allied guns.
Had Scharnhorst lowered it´s belt to 300 mm KC the weight saved could be used for beefing up the main deck armor to 80 mm for a significant weight reduction or even 95 mm without significant weight reduction. A BC needs to have good deck protecttion because it will usually dictate the terms of engagement (and disengagement) and doesn´t want to stay in the battleline at closest distance.
From this point of view the Dunkerque (as KGV) were much more belanced designs than were the twins.