question for historians here

[Summon3r]

anyone know what the German thought process and logic was behind putting 1 turret up front and 2 in the rear were on some of their cruisers?

[Sloth_Like_Reflexes]

I'm not sure, but the bow in strategy you see in world of warships (tanks on water) really didn't occur in real life.  Not sure it would huge difference on where the turret is placed.

[Moksie]

anyone know what the German thought process and logic was behind putting 1 turret up front and 2 in the rear were on some of their cruisers?

 

I had an old Englishman explain it when I was younger.

England ruled the oceans the sun never set on the Empire.  Trade and shipping were how the colonies were stripped blah blah.

England obviously is an Island needing resources for the war effort.  Shipping must be curtailed.

Germany is a land locked nation for the most part not needing a navy.  The navy is for the purpose not of defense of the Empire or shipping but to engage and disrupt enemy shipping and disengage and survive with contact with superior forces.  All their ships are designed for this purpose. 

[crzyhawk]

Moksie is correct, it so they could disengage and cover their retreat with maximum firepower.  Honestly, it makes a lot of sense.  It's one thing to talk big about how "we always attack" but sometimes, you absolutely, positively need to run, and when that happens, having your guns in the back is a good thing.

[Komrade_Rylo]

It doesn't really matter if the majority of your firepower is focused in the front or the back as long as the enemy didn't manage to cross you T, aka end up with you bow on to your broadside. This is because the bows and sterns of the ships are poorly armored, and the same auto bounce mechanic we have in game stretches reality, by a lot, not to mention naval guns have more vertical than horizontal dispersion(what we have in game), meaning bow in makes you a larger target. Placing the majority of your firepower in the rear or the front doesn't really seem to matter all that much since the ships are always sailing broadside, trying to bring all of their guns to bear on target, I think it was just general practice mounting the majority of the firepower in the front.

[Moksie]

They were outnumbered 3 to one just by England and the expertise of a dominant maritime nation's shipbuilding technology.  It just wasn't practical to expect to compete.  They knew this when they built a navy from scratch with the formation of the Kaiser's Germany.   I love those 2 ships the T5 and T6 so much fun to play.  Those guns aren't a problem.  Someone posted a curious thread about it being designed for lowering the aft conning tower on hinges so that the ship could shoot all 3 forward over the bow.  But it ended up causing flash damage and not being practical.  Something like that.

[Summon3r]

cool thx, thats what someone said and i was like hmm the germans ran? we arent talking about france here lol

[ckupf]

A ship can move faster if it is more hydrodynamic, narrow bow, widening in the back is therefore a more energy efficient design. Thus you see it on some cruisers and DDs. BBs it makes less sense because either way its pushing a giant [edited]brick through the water. For the Konigsberg the awesome en echelon turrets only have enough space in back.

[crzyhawk]

The reason the general practice was to put 2 turrets forward and only 1 aft, is the assumption that you're always going to attempt to close the range with the enemy, then when ideal battle range is reached, open your artillery arcs to exchange broadsides.  For Germany, fighting a commerce war, that makes no sense.  When fighting a cruiser war, you want to avoid combat with superior or equal forces; ie you withdraw if a superior enemy is sighted.  For example, take the Nurnburg.  Say she's assigned to attack a convoy in the Atlantic (a classic cruiser mission, contrary to popular belief, they were not developed to be escort ships), and the convoy is protected by a County class heavy cruiser.  In this case, Nurnburg is outmatched, and is not going to want to stick around and fight.  She turns away and makes maximum speed, with six guns to shoot at the County and try to spoil her aim and that's important.  Accuracy is significantly impacted when a ship is being fired at.  You see much is made of the Tiger shooting at the wrong target at the battle of Jutland for just this reason; Derfflinger was left un-fired at, and with Seydlitz ripped the Queen Mary apart.

 

A more conventional design would only have three guns, unless she withdraws at an angle so she can keep her forward battery on target as well, which reduces her effective withdrawl speed.

[crzyhawk]

cool thx, thats what someone said and i was like hmm the germans ran? we arent talking about france here lol

 

Most of the battle history of the German navy was running, if you think about it.  At Jutland, Scheer did 2 180-degree turns trying to get away from Jellicoe.  At Dogger Bank, Hipper ran from Beatty.  Scharnhorst was running from the DoY when she was sunk.  The twins ran from the Renown.  Marschall was actually fired for being aggressive and attacking the Glorious!

 

When you have a very small navy, you have to be careful when you risk your resources...which means avoiding fair fights.  The Germans came out of harbor looking for fights, they just rarely found any that were advantageous to them, so they did the smart thing and ran.

[Summon3r]

interesting stuff

[Moksie]

If you're in the habit of tapping Q or E every 20 seconds back and forth on reloads for gentle half rudder arcs, you can avoid torps and fire.  You can evade and still bring 3x3 to bear on the target effectively.  You're opponent isn't so fortunate, he will lose speed also doing evasives  or lose turrets and catch fire very soon, and simply can't catch up.

I don't know about you guys but it's way easier to shoot a chaser than someone running away for me.

[hoom]

There is also a Center of Gravity advantage since the super firing pair is a deck lower.

[goldeagle1123]

What Moskie said. Germany knew that it could never numerically match the forces of the Royal Navy, so in theory, if Germany engaged in combat with RN ships, it would be fleeing and trying to inflict as many casualties as possible while avoiding the superior force that would most likely wipe them out if engaged in a traditional naval confrontation (i.e. fighting retreat doctrine). This is the same reason many of the large German surface warships (Bismarck-class, Scharnhorst-class, and Deutschland-class) were capable of such high speed, they needed to be able to evade the numerically superior Royal Navy, and this payed of for them. Deutschland-class heavy cruisers sailed the oceans disrupting commerce while being unable to caught by the large surface warships needed to destroy them. The Operation Cerberus channel dash undertaken by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau wouldn't have been possible if it weren't for their high speeds.

[Eisennagel]

 

The Raider theory doesn't explain the one turret and two back configuration well, because:

 

1.  Koenigsberg and Nurnberg were not meant as raiders, but used mostly as training ships.  

2.  The USN had proposal or proto Pensacola designs with a similar layout.  They also have proto-Alaska designs with a similar layout.  And these were meant as raider hunters or scout ships.

3.  The Germans used two in front and one rear configuration on their raiding battleships anyway.
 

I think its for the same reason why destroyers have more turrets on the back than on the front.  Its mainly for ship balance.

 

[Taichunger]

http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3236

 

"'What was unique for these cruisers was the asymmetrical arrangement of the two aft guns. The Königsberg-class had been planned to fill the role of a commerce raider as well as that of a fleet and scout cruiser. Serving as a scout cruiser, the Königsberg-class would have to come relatively close to enemy forces, as airplanes were forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles and radar had not been developed yet. To keep pursuers at bay – and for the role as commerce raider – two turrets were placed aft. However, to gain additional firepower in forward direction, the aft turrets were placed asymmetrical, off the centerline. Tower ‘B’ was placed 2.25m to port from the centerline, Tower ‘C’ 1.95 to starboard. This allowed for greater turning circles and – with a high barrel angle and the mast folded down – the turrets could fire directly ahead, if necessary."""

[Eisennagel]

 

 

Someone posting on a forum makes it authoritative?  The question whether the K class is meant as a raider at all comes from few things.  The first is that the ships have poor range to be raiders.  The second is that they only have average speeds,  not exactly fast enough to get away from other cruisers.  The third is that this and the Leipzig class were Reichsmarine and not Kriegsmarine designs. The Reichsmarine were limited by Treaty to six light cruisers --- which also explains why there is exactly six light cruisers --- Emden, Koenigsberg, Karlsruhe, Koln, Leipzig and Nurnberg.   If they had any real design potential as raiders in the Second World War, they would have been used as such, but never mind, they were never considered or used as such.  There is one purpose why you have a ship with both turbine and diesel, and in Japan, there is a similar ship that also had both turbine and diesel as powerplant.  That was the Katori, and she was meant as a training cruiser.  To train what?  To train the crews that would someday, be in real raiders and in submarines.

 

The Reichsmarine was allowed to be powerful enough to help counter the rise of the Soviet Union, but not enough to threaten British or Allied shipping.  The Allies also had a hand what is allowed and what is not allowed in their specs and designs.

 

Do you really like to see what a purposed built as a raider German light cruiser would look like?

 

 

[VTAdmiral]

I always thought that the arrangement changed the allocation of weight and had something to do with seakeeping in the rougher north Atlantic ocean and seas, as opposed to the relatively calm Pacific or Indian oceans.

[Eisennagel]

I always thought that the arrangement changed the allocation of weight and had something to do with seakeeping in the rougher north Atlantic ocean and seas, as opposed to the relatively calm Pacific or Indian oceans.

 

Not sure.  I tend to think its more about ship balance than anything else.  And its not about the rough Atlantic or Pacific oceans.

 

Japanese destroyer design in the Pacific.

 

 

Soviet destroyer design in the North Atlantic and Artic oceans.  These are Skoryy's based on the Ognevoi.

 

 

The Soviets continued to design two and two symmetrical layouts in their destroyers even after this class with Neustrashimy and Kotlin classes.

 

[crzyhawk]

The reason they were not used as raiders is because they were overly compromised designs due to the terms of Versailles.

[VTAdmiral]

 

Not sure.  I tend to think its more about ship balance than anything else.  And its not about the rough Atlantic or Pacific oceans.

 

Japanese destroyer design in the Pacific.

 

 

Soviet destroyer design in the North Atlantic and Artic oceans.  These are Skoryy's based on the Ognevoi.

 

 

The Soviets continued to design two and two symmetrical layouts in their destroyers even after this class with Neustrashimy and Kotlin classes.

 

 

I also figured destroyers are small, they have to put armaments on it around the internal components like the power plant, and thus guns and launchers kinda have to go where-ever they can fit, and thus my atlantic seakeeping theory didn't really apply to them. Then again, 1 fore-2 aft turret setups are only found on destroyers and cruisers, so maybe this arrangement is only advantageous for lighter ships anyway.

 

(Myogi was never built, so I'm disregarding it)

[MrDeaf]

Might be influenced on combat tactics, particularly head-on engagements.

 

For the IJN, head-on with lighter ships was supposed to carry out like so

[Eisennagel]

 

I also figured destroyers are small, they have to put armaments on it around the internal components like the power plant, and thus guns and launchers kinda have to go where-ever they can fit, and thus my atlantic seakeeping theory didn't really apply to them. Then again, 1 fore-2 aft turret setups are only found on destroyers and cruisers, so maybe this arrangement is only advantageous for lighter ships anyway.

 

(Myogi was never built, so I'm disregarding it)

 

Myogi was actually designed by a real ship architect. so there is a good reason to regard it.

 

Official USN proposals for an 11 ton heavy cruiser, this one had 6 x 8" guns.

 

[Eisennagel]

 

Here is another design proposal of a USN heavy cruiser, this one had 9 x 8" guns.

 

[MrDeaf]

 

Myogi was actually designed by a real ship architect. so there is a good reason to regard it.

 

Official USN proposals for an 11 ton heavy cruiser, this one had 6 x 8" guns.

 

 

You can see from the image that the forward turret is at the same height as the superfiring rear turret, which means lower CoG and better seaworthiness.

 

which, as is evident from Pensacola, they totally threw out the window, and instead went with a design that was very top heavy, but had better moment of inertia