Talk:German battlecruiser Scharnhorst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: Contents 1 To Do 2 Done 3 Class 4 1793 5 quote 6 Air Attack 7 Guns 8 Photos [edit] To Do Shipwrecks Clean up typos Improve Grammer Add any additions if needed Discuss disired additions Cattewater Wreck Needs expansion [edit] Done Shipwrecks Re-wrote the first paragraph Cleaned up Types of Shipwrecks it felt a bit jumbled Cattewater Wreck Started the article

[edit] Class

Battleship or battlecruiser. Discussion copied and centralised on Talk:Gneisenau class battlecruiser -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1793

The text currently reads:

Oddly, as a young lieutenant, Scharnhorst had served in 1793 under the Duke of York.)

Probably 1893 but what does "under the Duke of York" mean? What was the DofY doing at the time that he could employ a German officer, or does it mean a ship? If a man which DofY? The text is not clear. Philip Baird Shearer 08:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

obviously it means that General Scharnhorst (who lived in the napoleonic era) served under the then Duke of York. For further details simply look up Gerhard von Scharnhorst. Nevfennas 08:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] quote

"Gentlemen, the battle against Scharnhorst has ended in victory for us. I hope that if any of you are ever called upon to lead a ship into action against an opponent many times superior, you will command your ship as gallantly as Scharnhorst was commanded today".

The quote needs a citation Philip Baird Shearer 08:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Air Attack

Given a VC was earned, I'd say it merits mention: Irishman L/Cdr Eugene Esmonde, RN, led 6 TSRs against 250 German fighters in an attempt to stop Scharnhorst & Gneisenau, without success. (I just wish I could recall where I saw it...) Trekphiler 01:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

For the links there is a wiki-article on Esmonde with links Nevfennas 07:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Operation Cerberus is the Channel dash.GraemeLeggett 09:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Allied destroyers during the battle of north cape: The destroyers involved were of the S-Class HnMS Stord HMS Saumarez etc

[edit] Guns

Fitting them with 15-inch guns seems unrealistic, like so many things the NAZIs did or tried to do. They were too fast to have to fight a battleship and too valuable to engage one intentionally. The 11-inch guns had plenty of range and punch to fight cruisers and other targets. The rate of fire would have been reduced considerably and perhaps the greater weight would have slowed them down. As it turned out, critical damage was done to Scharnhorst by cruisers before it encountered a battleship, so 15-inch guns would not have helped. David R. Ingham 17:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

While adding my “Photo” paragraph I noticed your gun theory and comment “. . . like so many [unrealistic] things the NAZIs did or tried to do.” Do you really think that German naval designers were that incompetent? As we know, the victorious Allies eagerly ‘captured’ and employed these wicked Nazi engineers and scientists - was it for their cutting edge innovations or the so many unrealistic things they did or tried to do?--Gamahler 21:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is an article comparing the quality of German ship-design during WWI and WWII. They weren't incompetent, the problem was the system. Concerning the 11-inch vs. the 15-inch: the navy simply wanted true battleship-guns installed, the 11 inch was considered too small by WWII standards. As the triple 11-inch turret would have been replaced with a double 15-inch with equal protection there would not have been an increase in weight. Nevfennas 08:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks.--Gamahler 03:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

The top image of Scharnhorst is pre-1939, i.e., prior to installation of the “Atlantic Bow” and relocation (20 meters aft) of the main mast. The photo of Scharnhorst firing at HMS Glorious shows the mast in its new aft position. My wikipedia skills are insufficient to find and place an image of 1939 or later - could an editor assist with a better photo?--Gamahler 18:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks, Kurt. I think the sub is Prien's U-47.--Gamahler 03:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)