@Wolfshanze:
It wouldn’t even be a draw… even taamvan who flat-out admitted the Baltimore is the better ship in every category basically pulled out the “Austin Powers Defense” for the Scheer… the belief that because the Scheer is crewed by Germans they will win because of their mojo-baby!
This was hilarious, and I do appreciate being called out when I’m arguing from the hip rather than from all the facts in hand. I did try to be straightforward in my assessment, but also a somewhat equivocal for the sake of a jaunty discussion.
Like most good discussions I did do more research after it began, and there are some flaws in my most cogent point; a “lucky” hit by gunfire has sent many a stout iron ship to the bottom, but there is an astonishing record of seemingly “stout” ships like battlecruisers, esp. HMS Hood, that seemed to have sunk after taking more than their fair share of “lucky” hits.
I’m going to surmise that the reason why there is “something wrong with our ships” has to do with emphazising speed+firepower against armor. Armor is probably the least sexy point of the triad, but there are plenty of examples where ships that had an adequate armor profile survived in situations that would sink “better, newer” but less thoughtfully clad ones.
So, if the Baltimore is the Sherman Tank of cruisers, solid but average, I do admit that it probably would have beaten the panzerschiffs. Assuming (and its an assumption, for sure) that the Scheer has some small advantages in terms of range, crew, design, well its wishful thinking that would have a high chance of turning into a Baltimore-crippling hit…as long as the Americans have that solid armor… and WWI and WW2 were kind of different in terms of the high chances of a ammo explosion from a lucky hit.
I do admit to playing a bit of devils advocate, but I was also focused on the surprisingly ambivalent performance of American gunships during WW2. Though America had an overwhelming advantage in general, destroyer vs destroyer and cruiser vs cruiser type actions traded ship for ship against the Japanese and though the Allies went on to win the war, the crews of those US ships still often fought at a sacrificial disadvantage when not supported by air, carriers, or the overwhelming numbers of a fleet action.
This question was asked in the absence of those extras, which gives us a good opportunity to play around with the what ifs.
The Germans had a grand total of 2+2+3+3 capital surface ships, most of which were sunk early or stuck in port, which is about how many the US produced in one season! My comment about the Germans performing better than expected has to be seen in light of the fact that they only deployed about 10 legit ships and 30 destroyers…add a zero or so to those numbers to represent the US/UK fleet strengths. Per ocean!
In addition to the armor question (to wit; HMS Hood and others seems to have had a much-revised and much less safe armor layout and in older condition than I recalled), the ranges involved wouldn’t give a superior or longer range gun much of an advantage. Firing at targets on the horizon would be difficult, the ship with the laying radar would have a big advantage. The ship with speed could close; more likely the Baltimore would retire and call for air support (though that’s not permitted by the hypo)! Without the benefits of a fleeing towards one’s base or buddies in a tail chase, the better (+faster) overall ship would probably win.
So perhaps, no, the “Germans wouldn’t always win, baby”, but it still an interesting though experiment. Enjoying the opportunity.