Sverige vs. Prinz Eugen

[Saffron]

I'm curious to know what you all think about the results of the Kreigsmarine going after the Swedish coastal battleships ... especially a mano e mano slugfest between Sverige and Prinz Eugen. Who do you think would've come out on top more times than not?

[old_pop2000]

I'm curious to know what you all think about the results of the Kreigsmarine going after the Swedish coastal battleships ... especially a mano e mano slugfest between Sverige and Prinz Eugen. Who do you think would've come out on top more times than not?
IMO, the German's would have sunk them with torpedoes from Uboats or bombed them into wrecks with the Stuka's. Why risk a capital ship when a dive bomber can do the job. Sorry, I like to reduce things to simple form.

[Kyle Holgate]

I'm curious to know what you all think about the results of the Kreigsmarine going after the Swedish coastal battleships ... especially a mano e mano slugfest between Sverige and Prinz Eugen. Who do you think would've come out on top more times than not?

It depends on the situation quite a bit. I would expect the PE to have much better fire control and as such if the range were 15-20k yards or more that the German ship would come out ahead. That being said though, even one 283mm round would hurt let alone several IF Sverige could hit her. Closer in the heavy guns of the coastal ship are more likley to hit, and the secondary guns (152mm IIRC) start to get in range, and PE can't really take that many 6" hits either
The other situation is at night, PE gets a radar contact and is ready for the Sverige and opens fire and/or launches torpedoes. I'd expect a shower of 8" guns at short range to make short work of the coastal battleship. Still, you never know! Mid range - fairly good visibility - I wouldn't want to be on either ship.

[Warship NWS]

As to the Stukas.. that would depend on their location and weather conditions.. remember the Renown engaged the S&G at sea and helped destroy a DD flotilla in a fjord without threat of air attacks as an example. The Atlantic was nothing like the Med where the Stukas saw more anti-warship action due to typically better weather conditions on average. Granted however, if the Luftwaffe could operate them without threat of enemy aircraft response they could wreck havoc on a poorly AA armed warship such as a coastal defense ship.

Thanks.

[Saffron]

I was also wondering how the terrain would affect such a battle. Would a coastal BB have the edge fighting in fjords? Would a ship such as the PE have difficulty maneuvering in the shallow water?

Speaking of Stukas, how good was the Swedish AF? Did they have the numbers or technology to achieve air superiority against the Luftwaffe early in the war?

[old_pop2000]

As to the Stukas.. that would depend on their location and weather conditions.. remember the Renown engaged the S&G at sea and helped destroy a DD flotilla in a fjord without threat of air attacks as an example. The Atlantic was nothing like the Med where the Stukas saw more anti-warship action due to typically better weather conditions on average. Granted however, if the Luftwaffe could operate them without threat of enemy aircraft response they could wreck havoc on a poorly AA armed warship such as a coastal defense ship.

Thanks.
I don't believe the German's would have attacked Sweden in the winter, so weather might play a minor role in this. Remember also, this is not the North Sea, or the Atlantic this is the Baltic and the Kattegat. If they attacked during this time of the year, winds would be from the SE, S or SW at about 3-5 knots, light seas, mostly sunny with partial cloudiness, wave heights less than 1 ft. Excellent flying weather, I might add.

[Warship NWS]

I'm curious to know what you all think about the results of the Kreigsmarine going after the Swedish coastal battleships ... especially a mano e mano slugfest between Sverige and Prinz Eugen. Who do you think would've come out on top more times than not?

A lot would depend on the conditions and location.. the PE would have a definitive speed advantage which would allow her to close and engage at decisive cruiser battle ranges, around 10 kyd, and the 8" KM guns were pretty accurate weapons and if on target they had a reasonable ROF. This would almost be required as the Sverige has BC type armor protection on her turrets and hull. The PE would possibly be a more stable gun platform due to being nearly 2X the size of the Sverige and firing lighter calibre guns in comparison to size of ship. Flip side, the hitting power of the Sverige 11" weapons could prove critical as they would be around ~3X the shell weight per hit and they would penetrate any part of the PE at all effective engagement ranges. The SB 6" could also prove harmfull if they started scoring hits. Considering the typical weather conditions of the Baltic region chances are the PE would either (a) open fire at moderate to low visibility range thus taking into effect her 8 guns with their higher rate of fire or (b) in good visibility conditions she would likely close fast using evasion and firing only forward guns until reaching a decisive battle range then then use (a) above to try and achieve reasonable results as quickly as possible.

In the end.. I would give the edge to the PE if using proper tactics due to likely better training discipline, fire controls, ROF, more MB barrels per broadside, and speed. All of these factors could counter the better armor protection on the Sverige IMHO.

Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

I was also wondering how the terrain would affect such a battle. Would a coastal BB have the edge fighting in fjords? Would a ship such as the PE have difficulty maneuvering in the shallow water?

Speaking of Stukas, how good was the Swedish AF? Did they have the numbers or technology to achieve air superiority against the Luftwaffe early in the war?
40 Medium bombers - Junkers 86

30 light bombers - Hawker Hart biplanes

50 fighters - Gloster Gladiators

50 recce aircraft - Fokkers

This is as of September 3, 1939.

[Warship NWS]

I don't believe the German's would have attacked Sweden in the winter, so weather might play a minor role in this. Remember also, this is not the North Sea, or the Atlantic this is the Baltic and the Kattegat. If they attacked during this time of the year, winds would be from the SE, S or SW at about 3-5 knots, light seas, mostly sunny with partial cloudiness, wave heights less than 1 ft. Excellent flying weather, I might add.

Granted this would likely be the case if they kept the coastal defense ships closer to German Luftwaffe bases by operating in the southern Baltic- which IMHO, would be suicidal. If they move them to the north then that could be a more difficult problem for the Stukas, however, the Luftwaffe did have torpedo armed medium bombers and He-115s that could attack a slow moving ship like the Sverige at nearly any location in the Baltic, if spotted and attacked in good weather conditions, due to their combat radius. In this end, the Swedish would have been hard pressed to protect her at sea from air attack. One of the critical drawbacks to the Sverige would be her slow speed and likely poor maneuverability.

Thanks.

[Kyle Holgate]

As to the Stukas.. that would depend on their location and weather conditions.. remember the Renown engaged the S&G at sea and helped destroy a DD flotilla in a fjord without threat of air attacks as an example. The Atlantic was nothing like the Med where the Stukas saw more anti-warship action due to typically better weather conditions on average. Granted however, if the Luftwaffe could operate them without threat of enemy aircraft response they could wreck havoc on a poorly AA armed warship such as a coastal defense ship.

Thanks.

It was Warspite that helped nail the German DD's in the fjords - but the point remains, as long as you're out of range of the Stukas & Ju-88's and/or the weather is bad enough that they can't find you.

I can't see the Germans sending a CA against a coastal defense BB unless they had no other way to take it down. Even though I think the CA could manage the job it would be at great risk.

[Campy]

Didn't the Germans sink two Norwegian Coast Defense Ships at Narvik, using only destroyers? I think they were sunk by torpedoes.

Frank

[Ed Rotondaro]

I was also wondering how the terrain would affect such a battle. Would a coastal BB have the edge fighting in fjords? Would a ship such as the PE have difficulty maneuvering in the shallow water?

Speaking of Stukas, how good was the Swedish AF? Did they have the numbers or technology to achieve air superiority against the Luftwaffe early in the war?

Saffron:

Since the coastal battleships were designed to operate in the fjords and in shallow water, the PE would have to come to her. Also the Swedish ship would be better armored. Fire control is a question. Let's not forget that the Swedes were no slouches at weapons design, remember Bofors? They're still cutting edge today. They also designed naval guns for many nations. The PE's sister ship the Blucher got caught in a Norwegian fjord during the invasion of Narvik. Between torpedoes and coastal batteries she sunk easily.

[old_pop2000]

It was Warspite that helped nail the German DD's in the fjords - but the point remains, as long as you're out of range of the Stukas & Ju-88's and/or the weather is bad enough that they can't find you.

I can't see the Germans sending a CA against a coastal defense BB unless they had no other way to take it down. Even though I think the CA could manage the job it would be at great risk.
What about using the pre-dreadnought Schleswig-Holstein? She had four 11 inch guns, speed of around 17 knots(although probably much less), with a 9 inch belt armor, around 10 inches on the turrets. In the Kattegat or the Baltic, her lack of speed and maneuverability would not be a hinderance and she has enough firepower to accomplish the purpose. Her fire control might be a problem, but if the Germans accompanied her with a Cruiser and maybe a spotter aircraft, she might get on target quicker.

What about using two of the pocket battleships? They have good speed, 11 inch guns, maneuverability and good to excellent fire control.

Something else to consider, what if the Swede's mine the entrance to the Baltic and the Kattegat extensively?

[Ed Rotondaro]

What about using the pre-dreadnought Schleswig-Holstein? She had four 11 inch guns, speed of around 17 knots(although probably much less), with a 9 inch belt armor, around 10 inches on the turrets. In the Kattegat or the Baltic, her lack of speed and maneuverability would not be a hinderance and she has enough firepower to accomplish the purpose. Her fire control might be a problem, but if the Germans accompanied her with a Cruiser and maybe a spotter aircraft, she might get on target quicker.

What about using two of the pocket battleships? They have good speed, 11 inch guns, maneuverability and good to excellent fire control.

Something else to consider, what if the Swede's mine the entrance to the Baltic and the Kattegat extensively?

Dennis:

Actually the most cost effective method might have been to use a U-boat, especially one of the smaller ones meant for coastal waters. I think it comes down to the mission of the coastal defense ship. Was it meant only to stay close to its ports? If so the Germans have to come to it and fight it on its terms.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Actually the most cost effective method might have been to use a U-boat, especially one of the smaller ones meant for coastal waters. I think it comes down to the mission of the coastal defense ship. Was it meant only to stay close to its ports? If so the Germans have to come to it and fight it on its terms.
I mentioned that before about using U-boats like U-1. The Sverige is not a battleship per se, it is a coastal defense ship designed to stay within the coastal strip close to the range of coastal batteries. I believe that there were three of these. I, as a German admiral, would not risk a heavy cruiser in those narrow waters due to mines and possibly any Swedish torpedo boats and submarines. The German's were pragmatic, they would use the smallest common denominator to neutralize those ships. Note the word "neutralize" not sink.

[john964]

I mentioned that before about using U-boats like U-1. The Sverige is not a battleship per se, it is a coastal defense ship designed to stay within the coastal strip close to the range of coastal batteries. I believe that there were three of these. I, as a German admiral, would not risk a heavy cruiser in those narrow waters due to mines and possibly any Swedish torpedo boats and submarines. The German's were pragmatic, they would use the smallest common denominator to neutralize those ships. Note the word "neutralize" not sink.
Operating a submarine in the Baltic and Kattigatt would be problematic at best there are areas so shollow that a sub would be unable to operate at any deapth greater than periscope deapth and even less. If I were to attack the Sverige I would use a combination of air attack and a whole mess of E and S boats.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I mentioned that before about using U-boats like U-1. The Sverige is not a battleship per se, it is a coastal defense ship designed to stay within the coastal strip close to the range of coastal batteries. I believe that there were three of these. I, as a German admiral, would not risk a heavy cruiser in those narrow waters due to mines and possibly any Swedish torpedo boats and submarines. The German's were pragmatic, they would use the smallest common denominator to neutralize those ships. Note the word "neutralize" not sink.

Dennis:

I did some checking and the three ships were Sverige (which means Sweden I think), Drottning Victoria (Queen Victoria) and Gustav the V. The last two were slightly larger than the Sverige. They like all coastal defense ships were meant to operate in shallow constricted waters. Apparently the part of the Baltic where Sweden is has many small islands as well as fjords. The three ships were converted to oil burning and had new fire control and AA installed between the wars.

Coastal defense ships were quite popular with smaller navies who weren't looking for a blue water force. Finland and Norway used them as did Belgium, Greece and the Netherlands to name a few. And after doing some reading, sending in a cruiser would be the worst thing a navy could do. These ships were purpose designed to kill cruisers. Now the Prinz Eugen was modern heavy cruiser with a good blend of speed, firepower and protection, but she would essentially be going up against a slow battlecruiser as Chris pointed out regarding protection on this class of warship. Interestingly enough the Swedish term for these ships was Pansarkepp (armored ship) not to be confused with the German Panzerschiffe which means the same thing, but was really a cruiser. Norway and Denmark used the term Panserskip which also means armored ship. Note the linguistic similarities.

[old_pop2000]

Operating a submarine in the Baltic and Kattigatt would be problematic at best there are areas so shollow that a sub would be unable to operate at any deapth greater than periscope deapth and even less. If I were to attack the Sverige I would use a combination of air attack and a whole mess of E and S boats.
The dugouts would serve well in the Baltic or the Kattegat, for which they were designed. They were coastal boats of around 250 tons armed with mines and 5 torpedoes.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I did some checking and the three ships were Sverige (which means Sweden I think), Drottning Victoria (Queen Victoria) and Gustav the V. The last two were slightly larger than the Sverige. They like all coastal defense ships were meant to operate in shallow constricted waters. Apparently the part of the Baltic where Sweden is has many small islands as well as fjords. The three ships were converted to oil burning and had new fire control and AA installed between the wars.

Coastal defense ships were quite popular with smaller navies who weren't looking for a blue water force. Finland and Norway used them as did Belgium, Greece and the Netherlands to name a few. And after doing some reading, sending in a cruiser would be the worst thing a navy could do. These ships were purpose designed to kill cruisers. Now the Prinz Eugen was modern heavy cruiser with a good blend of speed, firepower and protection, but she would essentially be going up against a slow battlecruiser as Chris pointed out regarding protection on this class of warship. Interestingly enough the Swedish term for these ships was Pansarkepp (armored ship) not to be confused with the German Panzerschiffe which means the same thing, but was really a cruiser. Norway and Denmark used the term Panserskip which also means armored ship. Note the linguistic similarities.
Your research seems to indicate that using U boats, E boats and/or the Luftwaffe is the best combination of weapons to deal with these ships. I not want to rist a heavy cruiser in those waters.

[Citadelvette]

I know this gets away from the original premise but the Swedish tactic for their armoured coastal defense "battleships" was to use them in concentrated squadrons, of which the Sverige class was one, for concetrated fire which would sortie should aircraft, subs, or cruisers like the Gotland patroling the territorial waters detect an approaching force. In fact in 1944 such a force was detected near the island of Aland which turned back in the face of the Sverige class and their smaller escorts.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Your research seems to indicate that using U boats, E boats and/or the Luftwaffe is the best combination of weapons to deal with these ships. I not want to rist a heavy cruiser in those waters.

Dennis:

I wondering too if you could use small combatants to lay a minefield that could effectively trap the ship. Of course if it's in their waters, they could easily sweep them. The Sverige had a pretty good AA (by the way, all of her guns were from Bofors, big surprise eh?) outfit. It would come down to how experienced the crew was in defending against an air attack. Stukas and JU-88s could be real nasty to a slow moving ship.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I know this gets away from the original premise but the Swedish tactic for their armoured coastal defense "battleships" was to use them in concentrated squadrons, of which the Sverige class was one, for concetrated fire which would sortie should aircraft, subs, or cruisers like the Gotland patroling the territorial waters detect an approaching force. In fact in 1944 such a force was detected near the island of Aland which turned back in the face of the Sverige class and their smaller escorts.

Hi:

I wonder if they would also use their cruiser/carrier to provide some air support? As Dennis has mentioned, these coastal defense ships were stationed where they could coordinate with coastal artillery batteries. In fact one article states that the ships were considered more a form of mobile artillery than naval units.

[old_pop2000]

Hi:

I wonder if they would also use their cruiser/carrier to provide some air support? As Dennis has mentioned, these coastal defense ships were stationed where they could coordinate with coastal artillery batteries. In fact one article states that the ships were considered more a form of mobile artillery than naval units.
These coastal defense ships were designed to coordinate with coastal batteries against an invading force. It would be like a pincer movement with the coastal ships coming in from another angle to hit the invading fleet, while the shore batteries kept them at bay.

Now, this sounds good in theory, but not if the opponent has air superiority. This whole plan is unmanagable without air superiority over the battlefield, which the Swedes would not have.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I wondering too if you could use small combatants to lay a minefield that could effectively trap the ship. Of course if it's in their waters, they could easily sweep them. The Sverige had a pretty good AA (by the way, all of her guns were from Bofors, big surprise eh?) outfit. It would come down to how experienced the crew was in defending against an air attack. Stukas and JU-88s could be real nasty to a slow moving ship.
The naval squadrons including these coastal ships were based at Goteburg, Malmo, Karlskrona on the Southeastern coast, Stockholm and the island of Gotland which is a large island half way between Sweden and the Gulf of Riga. The three squadrons at Goteburg on the northern Kattegat, Malmo on the entrance to the Baltic and Karlskrona are probably lost almost immediately to German naval and air forces. The best land and resources are in the south, so that would be the main point of the invasion. The unit at Stockholm would not be able to intervene and the same goes for Gotland island units. The coastal batteries and bunkers backed up by the Swedish army units in the south, would be on their own.

[Kyle Holgate]

Look no further than the loss of Prinz Eugens sister ship the Blucher to see that the Germans could mis-judge/underestemate defenses and make questionable mistakes. Personally I think it's just stupid to take a big ship meant for open ocean and put it into a fjord. Let the little DD's go up there maybe, but don't send a cruiser!

[asnrobert]

Didn't the Germans sink two Norwegian Coast Defense Ships at Narvik, using only destroyers? I think they were sunk by torpedoes.

Frank

Yes. The Eidsvold andNorge were sunk by German destroyers. Of course, they did so by doing what my father would term 'dirty pool.' When the three German destroyers entered Narvik, the Eidsvold signalled them to stop. The Germans sent a delegation to parley with the Norwegians, and in the interim Commodore Heidkamp maneuvered his flagship to bring his torpedo tubes to bear. When the German delegation left the Norwegian ship, the officer fired a flare, signalling that negotiations had been unsuccessful. Heidkamp iimmediately fired two fish, blowing the Eidsvold to kingdom come. The Norge tried to respond, but she too was sunk.
It should also be pointed out that these ships were small (only 4,000 tons) carried two 8" and six 6" guns, and were about 40 years old.

[Citadelvette]

Hi:

I wonder if they would also use their cruiser/carrier to provide some air support? As Dennis has mentioned, these coastal defense ships were stationed where they could coordinate with coastal artillery batteries. In fact one article states that the ships were considered more a form of mobile artillery than naval units.

The Aircraft Cruiser Gotland was converted to and AA Cruiser mid-way through WWII because of the lack of modern seaplanes and the need for increased airdefense of naval units. However by that time Sweden's airpower capability had incrased signifiicantly. Their air force had recognised the need in the late 30's to independent of foregin manufacturers and had set out to produce modern Swedeish designe and built warplanes from makers like Saab, also they aquired P-51s at some point from the US, I'm hazy on the details as I loaned out some of my books.

[JohnT]

What about using the pre-dreadnought Schleswig-Holstein? She had four 11 inch guns, speed of around 17 knots(although probably much less), with a 9 inch belt armor, around 10 inches on the turrets. In the Kattegat or the Baltic, her lack of speed and maneuverability would not be a hinderance and she has enough firepower to accomplish the purpose. Her fire control might be a problem, but if the Germans accompanied her with a Cruiser and maybe a spotter aircraft, she might get on target quicker.

What about using two of the pocket battleships? They have good speed, 11 inch guns, maneuverability and good to excellent fire control.

Something else to consider, what if the Swede's mine the entrance to the Baltic and the Kattegat extensively?

I've been working on the scenario for some time now, attached.
Using Schleswig-Holstein as the Sverige (As I do not have the Correct ships available yet)
and fighting two Deutschlands.

I do agree that the best way to sink them would have been with torpedoes or if possible, with mines. The scenarios I have done in WCDB with Schlesvig gives a squandron of three ships a suprising resilance and the most common result is both sides damaged and out of ammo, seldom a clear win.
Except the time Drottning Victoria did "a Hood" on Lützow,
20k range, HE penetrated deck and magazine explosion on second salvo!

Cheers
/John T

[asnrobert]

I downloaded the scenarios, and will check them out later. You ought to post them in the WCDB scenario thread so everyone can see them (along with a little background on the Swedish Navy ;) ).

[JohnT]

Dennis:

I wondering too if you could use small combatants to lay a minefield that could effectively trap the ship. Of course if it's in their waters, they could easily sweep them. The Sverige had a pretty good AA (by the way, all of her guns were from Bofors, big surprise eh?) outfit. It would come down to how experienced the crew was in defending against an air attack. Stukas and JU-88s could be real nasty to a slow moving ship.


Sending in smaller boats into the archipilago would just give the Swedish coastal artillery some target practice and if the attacker is restricted to civilian charts and without knowledge of the military lanes (sounded but never shown on civilian charts) they would be at a definite disadvantage even against the arcane local forces defending

Regarding the AA, Germany and Sweden tried out Dive bombing before the Nazi's came to power and German air force where able to train in Germany.
Thus the Swedes where very well aware of divebombing and even equipped
with a special anti Dive bomber ammo.
The 75mm M/38 Granatkartesch where the old m/1900 shrapnel warhead from a field gun mated to the case of M/27 AA gun. M/40 Granatkartesch used a purpose built warhead with steel balls rather than the earliers lead balls.
Firing Shrapnel rounds into the path of divebombers where seen as good self defence for a
ship. Never proved in combat but it can't been less effective than ordinary time fuzed rounds.

And I'm not shure of how agile Sverige where,
20 knots speed but I think she was rather easy to turn.

Cheers
/John T.

[JohnT]

These coastal defense ships were designed to coordinate with coastal batteries against an invading force. It would be like a pincer movement with the coastal ships coming in from another angle to hit the invading fleet, while the shore batteries kept them at bay.

Now, this sounds good in theory, but not if the opponent has air superiority. This whole plan is unmanagable without air superiority over the battlefield, which the Swedes would not have.

Well it is also a matter of the distance between the air bases and the "Entry point".
How many JU-88's would be needed to keep four at station over Stockholm if based in Kaliningrad?
and the ability to share target data wasn't that big between KM and LW.
I'll bet KM would prefer to keep LW out of area. ;)

But Swedish south and West coast's another matter.
And as a sidenote USSR did not manage to find and fix the Finnish coastal defence ship during 1941-44. It isn't easy to find ships in archipelagos.

Cheers
/John T