my take on the scharnhorst is that she is a battle cruiser with 11 inch guns she does not fit in the battle ship role very easily. however the study of history is the finding of evidence where you can. and just because i call the scharnhorst a BC does not make her a BC. if many people call her a BC and have reasons to then there is evidence to call her that.
Originally posted by bigd@Aug 22 2005, 10:37 PM my take on the scharnhorst is that she is a battle cruiser with 11 inch guns she does not fit in the battle ship role very easily. however the study of history is the finding of evidence where you can. and just because i call the scharnhorst a BC does not make her a BC. if many people call her a BC and have reasons to then there is evidence to call her that. [post=37919]Quoted post[/post] Scharnhorst Scharnhorst-class "battlecruiser" (1f/2m). L/B/D: 770.5 × 98.4 × 32.5 (234.8m × 30m × 9.9m). Tons: 38,100 disp. Comp.: 1,800. Hull: steel. Arm.: 9 × 11.2 (3 × 3), 12 × 6, 14 × 10.5cm, 16 × 3.7cm, 34 × 2cm; 6 × 21TT; 4 seaplanes. Armor: 14 belt, 2 deck. Mach.: geared turbines, 165,930 shp, 3 screws; 31.5 kts. Built: Kriegsmarinewerft, Wilhelmshaven, Germany; 1939.
Originally posted by spidge+Aug 22 2005, 09:12 AM-->(spidge @ Aug 22 2005, 09:12 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-bigd@Aug 22 2005, 10:37 PM my take on the scharnhorst is that she is a battle cruiser with 11 inch guns she does not fit in the battle ship role very easily. however the study of history is the finding of evidence where you can. and just because i call the scharnhorst a BC does not make her a BC. if many people call her a BC and have reasons to then there is evidence to call her that. [post=37919]Quoted post[/post] Scharnhorst Scharnhorst-class "battlecruiser" (1f/2m). L/B/D: 770.5 × 98.4 × 32.5 (234.8m × 30m × 9.9m). Tons: 38,100 disp. Comp.: 1,800. Hull: steel. Arm.: 9 × 11.2 (3 × 3), 12 × 6, 14 × 10.5cm, 16 × 3.7cm, 34 × 2cm; 6 × 21TT; 4 seaplanes. Armor: 14 belt, 2 deck. Mach.: geared turbines, 165,930 shp, 3 screws; 31.5 kts. Built: Kriegsmarinewerft, Wilhelmshaven, Germany; 1939. [post=37939]Quoted post[/post] [/b]many people at onwar argue that it is a Battle Ship look under 1JMA in onwar for the forum.
Bigd, They might argue that she was a battleship my friend, but in reality she was definatley classed as a battle-cruiser. Regards Arthur
Do not be deceived by the 11" guns. She had the capability to be upgunned and probably would have been at her next refit had that been possible. Although she was a lighter ship overall, I disagree with the armour figures already stated. I think it was roughly comparable to most British battelships in service in WWII excluding the KGV class and much thicker than the Hood. She was called a battlecruiser, but I think this had ceased to be a relevant term in WWII. She was a light battleship, designed not for service in the scouting squadron of a major fleet, but for surface raiding.
Under the Z Plan, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were to get 15-inch guns later, and act as scouts for a fleet of Bismarcks. One of Gneisenau's 11-inch turrets still exists as a museum in Norway, where it was planted for coast defense.
I think Angie is closest. They were what they were. It's pointless to try to put ships into this or that class if they don't fit, and the Scharnhorsts don't. They'd undoubtedly be battleships if they'd ever had the 3 twin 38cms. shipped, though still rather lightly armed. The standard definition of the BC includes the trade off for speed against protection, not armament, so they only fit that class very uncomfortably. OTOH, with a broadside less than half the weight of an 8 x 15", they were certainly not fit to engage any British battleship in conditions where they wouldn't be able to make a quick escape. BC will do for normal talk, but anyone who knows the difference would know these two were a bit of a special case. Regards, MikB
Hi Angie, Although I can see the point that you are making. Where do you get the definition of Light Battleship from? Because as far as I am aware it goes from Battle-Cruiser to Battleship! I stand to be corrected, if wrong. Regards Arthur
i agree with mikB it usually is more speed less armour not less gun to make it a BC however i was under the impression that germany as they went more commerce raiding that more speed less gun was their form of the BC if not then she would be a whole new type of ship.
Didn't they create the designation "Pocket Battleship" to describe the German Battleships built before WW II?
Originally posted by Dac@Aug 24 2005, 04:51 PM Didn't they create the designation "Pocket Battleship" to describe the German Battleships built before WW II? [post=38072]Quoted post[/post] "Pocket Battleship" was not the German designation. They were armoured ships ("Panzerschiff"). They were specifially designed as surface raiders which could outgun an 8" cruiser with their six 11" guns. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were pre-war ships, although they underwent extensive modification later, for instance to their bows. They were, of course, much bigger and better armoured than the armoured ships, which did not fit into any existing naval classification system
Interestingly enough, after the Bismarck cruise, the two pocket battleships were re-designated heavy cruisers. But the Allies continued to call them "pocket battleships." Electro-welded cruiser hulls, battleship speed, battleship armament. Interesting hybrids. They could outgun British heavy cruisers, but not outrun them. However, they were expected to run, not fight, in those situations, which is how Graf Spee got in trouble.
Originally posted by angie999@Aug 24 2005, 09:59 AM "Pocket Battleship" was not the German designation. They were armoured ships ("Panzerschiff"). They were specifially designed as surface raiders which could outgun an 8" cruiser with their six 11" guns. [post=38075]Quoted post[/post] I always thought that the Scharnhorst and her sister ship were in the same class as the Graf Spee and Lutzow because of the 11 inch armament. Why did the Germans put relatively small guns on such a large warship?
Originally posted by Dac+Aug 25 2005, 01:37 PM-->(Dac @ Aug 25 2005, 01:37 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-angie999@Aug 24 2005, 09:59 AM "Pocket Battleship" was not the German designation. They were armoured ships ("Panzerschiff"). They were specifially designed as surface raiders which could outgun an 8" cruiser with their six 11" guns. [post=38075]Quoted post[/post] I always thought that the Scharnhorst and her sister ship were in the same class as the Graf Spee and Lutzow because of the 11 inch armament. Why did the Germans put relatively small guns on such a large warship? [post=38127]Quoted post[/post] [/b] To answer the first point, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had nine 11-inch guns, while the Graf Spee and her sisters had six. The Scharnhorst outweighed the Graf Spee, as well, and was faster. The Germans intended to replace the 11-inch guns on the two battlecruisers with 15-inch guns. Why they didn't do that in the first place baffles me.
Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Aug 26 2005, 07:40 PM The Germans intended to replace the 11-inch guns on the two battlecruisers with 15-inch guns. Why they didn't do that in the first place baffles me. [post=38172]Quoted post[/post] Not a trivial decision as it commits loads of heavy industrial capacity. The 15" barrels they had in progress during '39 and '40 were already committed to Bismarck and Tirpitz. By the time the Tirpitz was ready, Bismarck was on the bottom and priorities were switching away from surface heavies. Regards, MikB
Originally posted by MikB+Aug 27 2005, 02:23 PM-->(MikB @ Aug 27 2005, 02:23 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Kiwiwriter@Aug 26 2005, 07:40 PM The Germans intended to replace the 11-inch guns on the two battlecruisers with 15-inch guns. Why they didn't do that in the first place baffles me. [post=38172]Quoted post[/post] Not a trivial decision as it commits loads of heavy industrial capacity. The 15" barrels they had in progress during '39 and '40 were already committed to Bismarck and Tirpitz. By the time the Tirpitz was ready, Bismarck was on the bottom and priorities were switching away from surface heavies. Regards, MikB [post=38229]Quoted post[/post] [/b] That would explain it. Yes, 15-inch guns are a heavy industrial load.
I guess the German Navy didn't have the option of using the guns from an older WW I ship as they were all either scuttled or sunk by the British.
The British suffered from similar problems. The reason the Renown class BCs had 6 instead of 8x15" was that no more barrels could be spared for them although they were quite big enough to carry 4 turrets. These particular BCs lost out on both armament and protection. Although there were plenty of old 15-inchers in the British Navy in WW2, certain commanders, especially in the Mediterranean, shot them so enthusiastically, effectively and often, that UK heavy barrel boring and rifling capacity was permanently committed providing new liners . By the end of the war cannibalisation of old guns into new battleships was the only option left that didn't involve huge new machining investment. Regards, MikB
Siegfried Breyer in his classic and authoritative Battleships and Battlecruisers, 1905 - 1970 refers to them as Battleships in the heading to his discussion of these ships. Later, in the discussion, he uses the term battle cruiser in reference to design studies considered as early as 1928. He also points out that when construction began they were still refered to as'armour-clad ships'. Best wishes, David
