Talk:Gneisenau class battlecruiser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gneisenau class battlecruiser article.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 German military history task force
Maritime warfare task force
World War II task force

Contents

[edit] Centralising Class debate

[edit] battlecruiser copied from Talk:German battlecruiser Scharnhorst

Most of the references I have seen is that Scharnhorst was a battlecruiser

not a battleship. This includes the Royal Navy site [The Second World War 1939-1945] Philip Baird Shearer 13:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Kriegsmarine called them "Schlachtschiffe", not "Panzerschiffe". Gdr 13:44, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
Germans classified Scharnhorst and her sister ship Gneisenau as battleships, not battlecruisers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.243.188.19 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UCT).

[edit] battlecruiser copied from Talk:German battlecruiser Gneisenau

They are often referred to as "battlecruisers" or "light battleships", which is incorrect. In fact, as completed, they were straightforward battleships that traded extra guns for their 32 to 33 knot (60km/h) speed and extended range to allow for commerce raiding.

Who says that calling them "battlecruisers" is incorrect the Royal Navy does: http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/3542.html

As their designed main armament wasn't ready in time, they initially carried 9-11in (280mm) guns in three triple turrets, two forward and one aft, inferior to any British capital ship of the time. If they had carried their designed main armament of 6-15in (380mm) guns in three twin turrets, they would have been formidable opponents, faster than any British capital ship and nearly as well armored.

But they did not "carr[y] their designed main armament" and so they were battlecruisers not battleships. Philip Baird Shearer 13:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Traditionally, battlecruisers traded armor for speed, i.e. the carried battleship guns, but (relatively) little armor. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau carried smaller guns (and nearly battleship armor). The thing is not clear-cut, but traditionally they were indeed called battlecruisers. They certainly were not up to contemporary battleships, so this classification makes sense. I think this is a case where Wikipedia should follow established terms, maybe with a small disclaimer. --Stephan Schulz 18:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Kriegsmarine called them "Schlachtschiffe", not "Panzerschiffe". Gdr 13:47, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Bismark and Terpitz were battleships Schlachtschiffe but what is the best translation of Panzerschiffe? For clarity what was designation of the battlecruiser HMS Hood in the Kriegsmarine? Was it schlachtkreuzer and if so why are the was the Gneisenau not a schlachtkreuzer?
As most English articles use the Royal Navy designations should Wikipedia follow the German naming convention of the Royal Navy's/Janes? Philip Baird Shearer 15:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about the Germany Navy, but in the German Wikipedia Hood is a "Schlachtkreuzer" [1] and Scharnhorst is a "Schlachtschiff" [2], but the "Schlachtkreuzer" page notes that Scharnhorst and Gneisenau can be called battlecruisers [3].

I think this article is wrong to say that it's incorrect to call Gneisenau a battlecruiser. Clearly it's a matter of making very fine distinctions. (Personally I wouldn't use "battlecruiser" for any ship built after the Washington Naval Treaty, just "fast battleship" or "heavy battleship" or whatever. But (informed) common usage should be our guide.) Gdr 19:43, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

[edit] Class copied from Talk:German battlecruiser Gneisenau

I have just changed the List of ships of the German navies to reflect the Scharnhorst page that these sister ships were in the "Gneisenau class". An anonymous user had changed "Gneisenau class" to "Scharnhorst class". Which is correct? Philip Baird Shearer 13:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned in Class discussion, I favor Scharnhorst as a more correct class name, a quick search on google also supports this. Scharnhorst 113000 hits, mostly military history sites and book stores. Gneisenau 44800 hits, mostly Wikipedia.--Sneaking Viper 05:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Class

Scharnhorst and Gneinsenau are battleships.

I dont care what Royal Navy or other navies think. Germans officially classified them as battleships. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kurt Leyman (talk • contribs) 03:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UCT).

Will you accept how they were cassifed in Jane's Fighting Ships? Their volume "Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II" should cover it -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jane's Fighting Ships, 1939 edition, classifies them as battleships. Seaphoto 22:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia? "Battlecruisers were of comparable size to a battleship and had the guns of a battleship but substantially thinner armor, the weight saving allowing more powerful engines to be fitted to give it greater speed." and "Battlecruisers are defined as distinct due to their mounting armament equivalent to that of the battleship and having insufficient protection against such armament.", both from Battlecruiser. --Yooden

Technology and the Washington Naval Treaty make classifying the Gneisenau class difficult. Because they were never built to fight a conventional fleet engagement. But if these two ships are compared to the modern battleships built after the Washington Naval Treaty and before the end of World War II, they are out gunned and out armoured. Claiming that they were battleships does not bring any clarity to the Wikipedia articles because they were not in the same league as the Bismark class, the King George V class battleship, Iowa class battleship (or a fairer comparison Second South Dakota class. Give their design limitations and gunnery sizes, they were not first class battle ships, some other designation is needed and battlecruiser is the one used by the Royal Navy. If there is a serious dispute about this then I suggest we use Jane's as the definitive source and use their designation. Philip Baird Shearer 12:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Battlecruiser seems to be pretty sure about its definition, you should at least bring the discussion there. Also, the two ships might not match any of the regular categories. Why press them into one they might not match? Why not call them light battleships as suggested elsewhere? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yooden (talk • contribs) 13:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UCT).

It is not usual to divide battleships into heavy and light categories, particularly as there will be ships which would move from one to the other as new classes arrived. I do not think that brings clarity. The Royal Navy categorised them as battlecuisers which seems to me to be a definitive source[4]. BTW if someone lists a German source, it will have to be translated and as such I think a native English source trumps a translated source (we list E-Boats under the English language name not the German one; Common usage and all that). If there is a clash of Naval sources, I suggest we use Jane's, as that is the definitive source, used by all the worlds navys worthy of the name.Philip Baird Shearer 14:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Maybe the Royal Navy was not willing to change their categories because of a German battleship? Also, I would love to see a Navy article on ship classification or anything more than a passing mention in some overview.
  • The translation of Schlachtschiff is of course battleship, no matter what you think of the Gneisenau. So the Gneisenau is a battleship in Germany, Austria and parts of Switzerland, Belgium, Italy and Denmark, but a battlecruiser everywhere else?
  • That language point is still weak. Germans from the time are not called Krauts in Wikipedia, even that was their name then.
    FYI Americans used Krauts the British tended to use "[G/J]erry" eg Jerrycan: "The British used cans captured from the "jerrys" (Germans) -- hence "jerrycans" -- in preference to their own containers as much as possible and soon began to produce their own cans that were exact copies of the original." They are still in use with that name in English. Philip Baird Shearer
  • I still see no point in adding a tag which according to Wikipedia does not match. Call them Heavy Cruisers if you want to, but not Battlecruiser. --Yooden

Do you have anything against Jane's as a definative source? Philip Baird Shearer 15:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know their classification system. What clases are in there? Where can I have a look? --Yooden

The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. The Wikipedia definition for battlecruiser is: Warship with a battleship's armament but significantly less armor. Your definition is, what, warship which is somehow almost but not quite a battleship? --Yooden

It is not my definition but that of the Royal Navy. As for source that you can look at, I suggest Janes' publication "Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II". I have not looked (yet) myself but I would be surprised if the Royal Navy was not using their definition.

Or vice versa. --Yooden


As you do not seem to know who "Jane" is here is a link which explains:

First published in 1897, Jane's All the Worlds Fighting Ships (later shortened to Fighting Ships) established Jane's as the premier military publisher in the world. For 100 years, it has stood as the definitive guide to ship recognition and naval intelligence, and today this $300.00 publication is indispensable to more than 180,000 military and government readers.

--Philip Baird Shearer 18:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know Jane's. I just don't want to follow a line of thought just because some authority says so.

So, please give me your definition of the term 'Battlecruiser'. --Yooden

Like so many terms it changed over time. The HMS Victory is a commissioned ship of the line (or battleship), and the only one the Royal Navy still has. The classic period for battlecruisers was during World War I and their use during the Battle of Jutland. I realise that the definitions become less meaningful for ships built after the Washington Naval Treaty, but the two Gneisenau Class ships were not first class battle ships and battlecruiser seems to me a less ambiguous definition for them than battleship. As the Royal Navy uses that definition it seems reasonable to use it here. If you realy do not like it, then I suggest we use the definition used by Jane's. Philip Baird Shearer 15:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, the RN didn't use any definition (I know of), they just used a label which might or might not apply. So, please tell me your definition of the term 'Battlecruiser'.
Another thought: Why prefer the Royal Navy term over the Kriegsmarine term? These thingst were called Schlachtschiff, ie. battleship. --Yooden

So I guess it's settled then? I will start the renaming, but don't hold your breath. I will also point out the problem of categorization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yooden (talk • contribs) 16 July 2005, 21:09 (UTC)

No it is not settled. If you do not think that the Royal Navy is a better source for an English language encyclopaedia than a German source, then as I have said before will you accept Jane's as a definitive source? If not why not? BTW I saw no point in answering your last posting but one because it is not relevant to the source which is used for the description and you will be well aware that the battlecruiser page has for many months included the sentence "The German ships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were labelled battlecruisers, but they traded lighter armament, 11 in (279 mm) main guns, rather than thinner armor for speed, and could have been classified as light fast battleships."

-- Philip Baird Shearer 23:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Why should we use the RN "classification" here ? Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were both built as battleships and classified as battleships from their original owner, the Kriegsmarine, so we should use their classification. Even the US Navy seems to use battleship for them. It's very strange to see the Panzerschiffe (Armored ships), later Heavy cruisers, Graf Spee,Admiral Scheer and Lützow as Battleships but the bigger, faster and better armored Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as Battlecruisers .... The one and only classification used should be from the original owner of the ship and not what others think it may be.Denniss 07:55, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

We are using RN classifications because this is an English language encyclopaedia. If an American ship engaged a Japanese ship and used a different classification to that used by the RN them I would suggest that the American classification was used. But in this case all the ships were engaged by the RN and/or the RAF.

The US Recognition manual ONI-204, dated August 13, 1942, identifies Gneisenau and Scharnhorst as BB-1, and BB-2 for the German Navy, with Tirpitz being BB-4 (Bismarck having been sunk at this time). BB is the US designator for Battleship, CC for Battlecruiser. Seaphoto 22:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have suggested that if the RN classification is not suitable then we use Jane's which for more than a century has set the international standard for all the navys of the world. Size has little to do with it, HMS Hood was a battlecruiser and she was larger than most (all?) battleships in the RN. She was 48,360 tons with 8 x 15 main guns and 381 mm main armour. For comparison HMS Duke of York was 41,343 tons, 10 x 14 main guns and 374 mm main armour (taken from the sister ship page POW).

As I have pointed out above to call them battleships does not help because compared to modern battleships of the time they were grossly under armed and their armour was lighter. Secondly because of treaty limitations the Kriegsmarine used deception when it came to the description of their ships. The other ships you mention were described by the Janes as pocket battleships, not battleships. To describe pocket battleships is disingenuous and does not bring clarity to the situation.

If all the ships you want to describe as battleships were battleships then the Kriegsmarine would have had a formidable navy capable of taking on the Home Fleet. The Pocked Battleships and the Gneisenau class were designed as commerce raiders not as battleships designed to fight other battleships in fleet actions. None of these ships were in the league of the Bismarck class battleship and to describe them as battleships does not help the lay reader. Philip Baird Shearer 10:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

  • First of all, this is not about language, I am not suggesting to use 'Schlachtkreuzer' over 'battlecruiser'. The relation of the source's langauge to the encyclopaedia is unimportant. (As long as the terms can be translated cleanly, which is the case here.) Following your line of thought that "a native [...] source trumps a translated source" would mean that the two ships would be battlecruisers in en.wikipedia.org but Schlachtschiffe in de.wikipedia.org. Does this makes sense?
Most common usage if they are usually called Battlecruisers in English then that is what should be used here. What they are called in German is not strictly relevent. Philip Baird Shearer
If Wikipedia were a dictionary you were right. We don't try to find the best word for the German word Schlachtkreuzer here though, we want to find a technical category. This of course is language-independant, or do you suggest that the German Schlachtschiff means both 'battleship' and 'battlecruiser'? Again, does it make sense that according to your reasoning the two ships would be battlecruisers in en.wikipedia.org but Schlachtschiffe in de.wikipedia.org?
  • As mentioned above, Battlecruiser's definition simply does not match the ships. They did not have inferior armor, nor battleship-class weaponry. Note also the difference between Hood's and Scharnhorst's last battle: While the Hood, largest warship in the world at her time, was dispatched five minutes after a battleship opened fire on her, the Scharnhorst battled 10 hours against superior forces (including a battleship), fighting back the whole time. This was only possible because she did not have the battlecruisers' weekness. (In fact, www.kbismarck.com claims that the Scharnhorst had a thicker belt than the Bismarck. So much for "out armoured".)
  • You still have to come up with a definition of battlecruiser that matches both Hood and Scharnhorst, and maybe more important, not every other fighting ship down to a patrol boat.
I do not neeed to as this is a debate about classifying using a definative source not defining our own. Philip Baird Shearer
You want to attach a label that simply does not match. At. All. Also, classification is not about finding a name in common usage, as you can see in biology. Third, if there is a definitive source, it should be the owner an operator of the ships, the German Kriegsmarine. The RN is not, so kindly stop claiming so unless you have shown us why it should be.
  • Your name the RN as the "definitive source". Well, the owner and operator called them battleships; why would that not be the definitive source (or at least carry more weight)?
See my comment above. This encyclopedia often uses the English name over a translation take for example E boats. Philip Baird Shearer
I know that, and I somewhat disagree, but this is a different case. A categorisation is not merely a label, as "E-Boat" is.
  • I know Jane's and their reputation, but I'm not willing to accept it in this case unless backed up by a reasonable categorization scheme. Wikipedia is not about copying information from other sources.
Wikipedia is about copying information from other sources See Wikipedia:No original research Philip Baird Shearer
That page does not talk about copying information from other sources. I don't want to start a research project here, but neither should Wikipedia be blindly filled with information justified only by being from a authoritative source.
  • It should't matter whether the two ships are strong or weak battleships. Bismarck was probably much weaker than an Iowa class battleship, but her label is not contested.
  • "Secondly because of treaty limitations the Kriegsmarine used deception when it came to the description of their ships." Indeed, but they tried to make their ships look smaller, not bigger.
Well as the Bismark and the Gneisenau were theoretically the same weight they would class the two the same wouldn't they.
Why is this relevant? The deception you alleged to would have to commence at the Gneisenau's launch, not the Bismarck's.
  • That the two ship were not designed to fight other battleships does nor make them battlecruisers.
But it also makes their designation of battleship questionable.
So either start using the wonderful invention of attributes (as in 'light') or invent your own category, but don't just put the two ships where they don't belong.
  • Last, on your point that the two ships are indeed mentioned on Battlecruiser: Yes, they are labelled 'battlecruiser' The RN did so, and you did so. This is not contested. However, the label is wrong. OTOH, you quote that they "could have been classified as light fast battleships", which is what I'm saying.

--Yooden

Again if you think that the RN and Janes use the wrong lable pleas read Wikipedia:No original research Philip Baird Shearer 15:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I could find nothing on this page about RN or Jane's being beyond doubt. Also, neither the RN nor Jane's is a primary source, and neither could you point out the reasoning behind their use of the label.
Well, I'm German, and reasonably well-read in German naval history. Nearly all German sources call the ships indeed Schlachtkreuzer. If the Kriegsmarine did not, it was probably for propaganda reasons. Note that at that time, Germany did not have a lot of heavy surface units - essentially the 3 Panzerschiffe, Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, and later Bismarck and Tirpitz. They did not need to worry too much about classification, as they could refer to each individual unit easily. --Stephan Schulz 23:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm German too, and never heard them referred to as Schlachtkreuzer before this discussion. But let's see what the books say: The first page on Scharnhorst on Amazon.de finds nine books, eight of them referring to Schlachtschiff, only one referring to Schlachtkreuzer. I would hardly call one out of nine "nearly all". --Yooden
The original linen plans of the ship are titled "Schlachtschiff Scharnhorst". They are available from the German Archives. Seaphoto 22:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, fair is fair. Just typing Scharnhorst into the Amazon.d search box yields a mix of both, but more "Schlachtschiff" entries. Google also has about a 10-1 preference for "Scharnhorst Schlachtschiff" over "Scharnhorst Schlachtkreuzer" (and the same ratio for Gneisenau). Funny, my reading must have been selective. Of course I claim that this is because I read better books ;-). Seriously, I still prefer Schlachtkreuzer, but I can see your point. I certainly still prefer "battlecruiser" for the English version. Part of the reason for the confusion might be that even in WW-1 German battlecruisers were much less unbalanced designs than British ones. They were, in fact, slightly underarmoured and underarmed fast battleships (while British ones were more like vastly underarmoured but overgunned giant cruisers).--Stephan Schulz 11:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Made worse by the fact that for speed of file "there appears to be something wrong with our bloody ships today" Beatty had the fire doors removed between gun and magazines! Philip Baird Shearer 12:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

So I think my points stand. Unless there is made some reasonable case against it, I will start to rename the whole bunch. --Yooden 18:38, 4 September 2005 (UCT)

What point do you think stands? Please do not do anything until you get a consensus. Philip Baird Shearer 18:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok then, once again (sigh). And please, this time don't just drop out of the discussion if you can't find any reasonable objection anymore. --Yooden

  • First of all, this is not about language, I am not suggesting to use 'Schlachtkreuzer' over 'battlecruiser'. The relation of the source's langauge to the encyclopaedia is unimportant (as long as the terms can be translated cleanly, which is the case here).
  • Following your line of thought that "a native [...] source trumps a translated source" would mean that the two ships would be battlecruisers in en.wikipedia.org but Schlachtschiffe in de.wikipedia.org. Does this makes sense?
Yep, no problem. Obviously, these ships are borderline, otherwise we would not be discussiong them this passionately. While battle cruisers and Schlachtkreuzer translate to each other, usage patterns in both languages may be different. --Stephan Schulz 22:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
First, they would be borderline if such borders existed in the first place. Ships just cannot be cleanly categorized, as evidenced by the Deutschland class, which were called Battleships by the RN. (Yes, with an attribute. I wouldn't mind one on the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.)
Second, if they are borderline, why not follow the arguments given elsewhere and call them Battleships?
Third, both USN and RAF call them battleships, so no different usage patterns in different languages. --Yooden
  • As mentioned above, Battlecruiser's definition simply does not match the ships. They did not have inferior armor, nor battleship-class weaponry. Note also the difference between Hood's and Scharnhorst's last battle: While the Hood, largest warship in the world at her time, was dispatched five minutes after a battleship opened fire on her, the Scharnhorst battled 10 hours against superior forces (including a battleship), fighting back the whole time. This was only possible because she did not have the battlecruisers' weekness. (In fact, www.kbismarck.com claims that the Scharnhorst had a thicker belt than the Bismarck. So much for "out armoured".)
If they don't have "battleship-class weaponry", how does that make them battleships? As for the last battles of Hood and Scharnhorst: First, nearly everybody agrees Hoods sinking was a freak accident. Moreover, while Hood may have been the largest warship of its time, it also was more than 20 years old, long overdue for a refit, and inadequadely armoured against the plunging fire that became the norm for WW2 battles. Secondly, the first 7 hours of the "10 hour battle", Scharnhorst fought against 1 heavy and 2 light cruisers - that is superiority in numbers only. By tonnage, it was fairly evenly matched - and indeed, sinking cruisers was exactly one of the original aims for the battle cruiser design. Once HMS Duke of York closed in, Scharnhorst tried to run (as a battle cruiser is supposed to ;-) but failed. Total time from the first battle ship salvo to sinking was only 3 hours. --Stephan Schulz 22:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
If they don't have battlecruiser-class armor, how does that make them battlecruiser?
Freak accident or not, it did exactly the thing a battlecruiser is supposed to do in the face of a battleship: Sink, and quickly.
The Battle of North Cape is interesting because it shows that the Scharnhorst, unlike battlecruisers, could take heavy fire for a long time and still operate. And three hours is still more than thirty times than the Hood. --Yooden
  • As you continue to ignore Battlecruiser's definition, please name an alternate definition that matches both Hood and Scharnhorst, and maybe more important, not every other fighting ship down to a patrol boat. As it stands, you want to attach a label to the class without any argument but Appeal to authority. Please rectify this.
"A battle cruiser is a dreadnought style big-gun warship ship that sacrifices some fighting power for increased speed. It is generally considered to be the second most powerful class of primarily gun-armed surface warships." --Stephan Schulz 22:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I like the definition now given on the battlecruiser page "Different nations built to widely different designs. Some battlecruisers were smaller than heavy cruisers while others were larger than contemporaneous battleships. The chief similarity was the role specification. They were supposed to hunt down and outgun smaller warships (or merchant ships in the case of the Panzerschiff), and outrun larger warships that they could not outgun.Originally, to achieve this, they deviated from the standard practice of providing a ship with sufficient armour to protect against its own guns." This gives leeway for different designs which the RN designated battlecurisers in the 1930s and 1940s --Philip Baird Shearer 01:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I like another sentence which sheds some light on your "cruiser hunting" argument (my emphasis): "However, as technology developed design philosophy changed and led to the (upgrade or) creation of a more heavily armoured class with less powerful guns. They were given different labels, but essentially performed the same task." So again, no battlecruiser for the Scharnhorst. --Yooden
  • If there is indeed a definitive source, it should be the owner an operator of the ships, the German Kriegsmarine. The RN is not, so kindly stop claiming so unless you have shown us why it should be.
  • Note that this is not merely a translation issue, as with "E-Boat". The question is what category the ships belong to, not what label (as in translation) you want to attach. We don't argue whether to use German or English criteria for classification (which would still not make it clear-cut), because there are no such things.
  • I know Jane's and their reputation, but I'm not willing to accept it in this case unless backed up by a reasonable categorization scheme. Wikipedia is not about blindly copying information from other sources only because they have a good reputation.
  • It shouldn't matter whether the two ships are strong or weak battleships. Bismarck was probably much weaker than an Iowa class battleship, but her label is not contested.
  • "Secondly because of treaty limitations the Kriegsmarine used deception when it came to the description of their ships." Indeed, but they tried to make their ships look smaller, not bigger. The Kriegsmarine had every reason to understate the size of their capital ships.
  • That the two ship were not designed to fight other battleships does not make them battlecruisers. Submarines were also not designed to fight other battleships.
There are only two types of ships - submarines and targets.... Seriously, of course submarines were designed to (also) fight battle ships, and so they did. Ask Royal Oak. Neither class was designed to fight battle ships in a dish-it-out last-man-standing surface battle.... --Stephan Schulz 22:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I suspect that was a typo and Yooden meant "subs were also not desighed to fight other subs" Philip Baird Shearer
The RN website states that during WWI British submarines sank 19 enemy submarines and in WWII another thirty five. [5] --Philip Baird Shearer 20:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever, would you mind deleting these comments? My point was that "not build to fight battleships" is a lousy definition for a battlecruiser. --Yooden
  • Two of the four external links call them battleships, only one calls it battlecruiser. Even the article the Scharnhorst entry is in "large part derived from" calls it battleship. --Yooden

I think that is more than one point and we have been around them already! If you want to move it you need to come up with a better one than "Wikipedia definition". If the Wikipedia definition of a battlecruiser does not fit Jane's and the Royal Navy terms, then the Wikipedia definition needs changing to accommodate them. Besides have you read the article battlecruisers recently because it now starts "Battlecruisers were large warships of the first half of the 20th century. They evolved from armored cruisers and in terms of ship classification they occupy a grey area between cruisers and battleships" Which I think covers this class accuratly. Also this class is mentioned in the article.Philip Baird Shearer 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Just answer the points I made. You tried before, but were rebutted. Try again or go play elsewhere. --Yooden

Ok, I took a break from this discussion to get an opportunity to reflect on my stance on the issue at hand. Often after a break like this and with a fresh perspective I'm better able to see the other guy's point of view. Not this time though, the more I think about it, break or no break, the more I think that the idea to call the ships battlecruisers is just wrong, nothing more. So back into the fray... --Yooden

[edit] Arguments for calling them 'battlecruisers'

Let 'er rip.

Anything?

Well, yes. Sorry, as a non-expert, non-German speaker (like most English-speaking Wiki readers), these two powerful ships - as equipped - were less than battleships (for whatever reason), and were not intended to be used as such by the Kriegsmarine. They were, I suggest, intended to see off cruiser escorts and destroy convoys. To me, to call them "battleships" is confusing - they were not the equal of the "Bismarcks" nor even of the "KG5s". They certainly had the capability to be upgraded to "proper" battleships, it was a design feature and, I think, work did start on the Gneisenau.

I accept that the German term "Schlachtkreuzer" translates directly into "battleship", so what? This is the English language Wiki and should convey meaning to English speakers. "Battlecruisers" were at a disadvantage to "battleships": see Hood and Scharnhorst - and to me, that's the point. Perhaps English/ German understandings of the term have diverged, and it's a language issue. After all the Graf Spee, Scheer and Lutzow/ Deutschland have had differing descriptions in English ("pocket battleship" or "heavy cruiser") and German ("panzerschiff").

I had thought that the accepted way forward was to explain the differing views, when appropriate.

Lastly, I object to the insinuation (perhaps not a serious one) that, because expert(?) comments on one side of the debate are not right here, the debates that have been carried on elsewhere (above, below and elsewhere) can be ignored. Folks at 137 18:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that the significance of armour and armament varies with technology and time, it makes more sense to define "battleship" and "battlecruiser" primarily by role. On that basis, a battlecruiser could be defined as a ship designed for commerce raiding - or the interception of commerce raiders - with the speed to run from more powerful ships.

[edit] Arguments for calling them 'battleships'

  • Overwhelming use of the term: Google has 901 hits on the phrase 'Schlachtkreuzer Scharnhorst' vs. 120,000 on 'Schlachtschiff Scharnhorst' (ratio 1:133), 588 hits on 'Battlecruiser Scharnhorst' vs. 10,100 on 'Battleship Scharnhorst' ('only' 1:17, but distorted by this very article). It's not Wikipedia's role to push a fringe phrase into mainstream.
    about 516 for "Battleship Scharnhorst" -wikipedia.
    about 435 for "Battlecruiser Scharnhorst" -wikipedi
    Searching on the individule words not a string in quotes, does not mean much as the Scharnhorst also engaged battleships. EG about "62,500 for RAF Scharnhorst -wikipedia" and "about 15,700 for RAF bomber Scharnhorst -wikipedia" would imply by that argument that the Sharhorst was an RAF bomber--Philip Baird Shearer 15:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Then that is probably the reason why I didn't. You can assume basic internet skills. Anyway:
Results 1 - 10 of about 106,000 for "Schlachtschiff Scharnhorst" -wikipedia. (0.13 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 878 for "Schlachtkreuzer Scharnhorst" -wikipedia. (0.63 seconds)
I just had another look at the results of '"Battlecruiser Scharnhorst" -wikipedia': Two of the first ten hits are from Wikipedia's clones. --Yooden
  • The owner of operator of the two ships, the German Kriegsmarine called them 'Schlachtschiff'. --Yooden
  • They don't match the common definition of battlecruisers: Battleship-sized guns, but less armor to increase speed. The Scharnhorst's main belt was thicker than that of the Bismarck, other values were close to Bismarcks. --Yooden
    They do fit the definition in the current Wikipedia article on battlecruisers:
    Two more ships were built later in the 1930s, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, which were considerably more powerful. At 38,900 tons full load they were somewhat larger than the French Dunkerque class and very well armoured. They were designed to carry six 15 inch (380mm) guns in three twin turrets, but for various reasons they were stuck with nine 11 inch (280mm) guns in three triple turrets instead (it was planned to rearm them during the war, but this plan was abandoned). The Royal Navy categorised them as battlecruisers since they followed the Imperial German Navy design lineage of trading off gun size for protection and speed. The German Navy nonetheless categorised them as battleships. -Philip Baird Shearer 15:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Wikipedia calls them battlecruiser, that's the very thing I want to change. What's your point? --Yooden
What is you motive for changing it, is it because you think they count as battleships or because the Germans called them battleships. The latter did is not enough. You are assuming a one-to-one corelation between the English and German words and their defintions - and the absolute definition of battleship moves with the era. The German definition could have been in part as a result of "national pride" - doing so doubled their battleship count.

From my reading of the German language article on wikipedia - it identifies the G and S as less than battleships but more than (classical) battlecruisers. I think there is alsways going to be a problem with these two. If they had got their bigger guns then they would have been re-termed as battleships. The important thing is that their particular situation is adequately described, is it not? GraemeLeggett 10:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss my motivation on my talk page, if you want to, and keep this section clean. If you want to make an argument for or against either name, make it at the appropriate place. This discussion is messy enough already. --Yooden
  • I just found a very interesting article: Battlecruisers, Large Cruisers, & Pocket Battleships of World War II by Chuck Hawks [6] As you can get from the title, it's about battlecruisers and the like, about 60k. He writes about the Scharnhorst class (my emphasis): "These ships were re-designed several times, and when they finally emerged they were not battlecruisers at all, but small (and not even that small, they were actually about the size of the average foreign battleship of the time), fast battleships. The German Kriegsmarine always rated them as battleships. So did Jane's Fighting Ships." He also writes about the French battleship Dunkerque (my emphasis): [T]he French navy [...] responded [to the Deutschlands] with the much larger Dunkerque class battlecruisers." He finally writes about the USS Alaska (CB-1) (called large cruiser in her article): "[T]he U.S. Navy went to great lengths to avoid using the word 'battlecruiser' in connection with these vessels, despite the fact these ships are virtually perfect examples of the type." The moral ist of course (except to add a voice to the discussion) that these designations are arbitrary. At the time the Scharnhorsts were build, the strict classification of WWI and the treaty period was over.
  • Some more arguments for battleship: The US Navy classified them as Battleships in their official booklet for classification of ships. They called the Scharnhorst BB2, probably Gneisenau as BB1. See Commons:Image:Scharnhorst-1-A503-FM30-50.jpg. --Denniss 21:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Do they? They give it a BB-number, but the legend with the image classifies the ship as a cruiser in both English and French.--Stephan Schulz 22:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Caption by the uploader --Denniss 22:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origination of classification

What was the German term for their battlecruisers of the First World War? GraemeLeggett 09:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Schlachtkreuzer --Yooden
I don't see why you wanted to bring in the German term. The two pairs (battleship/Schlachtschiff and battlecruiser/Schlachtkreuzer match exactly. No need to cross-translate and confuse people. --Yooden
If I've written it correctly I haven't confused anyone. What I have established is that the WW1 German battlecruisers had their own term, "Schlachtkrueser" (or "Grosse kreuzer" thnaks to Tirpitz), and so what we are attaching is the concept not necessarily the name it carried in German documents. GraemeLeggett 12:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's incorrect, just unnecessary. If you think this somehow sheds light on the current discussion I'm afraid you did confuse someone. Nobody wants to replace battelcruiser with Schlachtkreuzer (or Schlachtschiff for that matter) in the English Wikipedia. Why do you think the German term matters? --Yooden
The German term matters because it illustrates that the S+G were a different concept to ships like SMS Von der Tann. By comparison , although in English the term battlecruiser remained, the idea had moved within Admiralty thinking from Invincible to first Repulse and then Hood within the space of WW1 and after then onto the G3 battlecruisers. GraemeLeggett 14:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary useage - Jane's Fighting Ships (1939), Kriegsmarine Classification, and the US Navy (ONI-204 manual) all agree that they were battleships. I feel that the article should be changed to reflect that. Seaphoto 22:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Class Name

Any source on whether and why this is named after the ship launched last? --Yooden

The article says: "It was known as the Gneisenau class since the Gneisenau was the first to be completed, but others believe that it should have been named the Scharnhorst class since that ship was laid down first." -- and a quick Google shows that opinion is split on the issue.

  • about 377 for "Gneisenau class" -wikipedia
  • about 855 for "Scharnhorst class" -wikipedia

The balance seems to favour "Scharnhorst class" but it is a small sample. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that. Problem is, the Gneisenau was laid down first. From what I read, the class should be named after the ship launched first, which would be the Scharnhorst. So, is there a source? --Yooden

From the articles:

  • Gneisenau
    • Ordered: January 25, 1934
    • Laid down: February 14, 1934
    • Construction Halted: July 5, 1934
    • Construction Resumed: May 6, 1935
    • Launched: December 8, 1936
    • Commissioned: May 21, 1938
  • Scharnhorst
    • Ordered: 25 January 1934
    • Laid down: 15 May 1935
    • Launched: 3 October 1936
    • Commissioned: 7 January 1939

The problem is that ordered, laid down, launched, and commissioned are usually first in first out. In this case they are not, and I doubt if anyone has bothered to make up a rule about this if the ships are completed in a FIFO queue. Launch is one possiblity but a good case can be made for commissioning. Are the dates correct? If so what was the Scharnhorst doing for over 2 years between launch and commissioning? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The naming of ships is a convention not an absolute rule - see ship class. If a convention is used it should be stated. Some further questions to be answered. What was the Kiegsmarine's methodology for naming ship classes? When did they first come to international attention and how were they described at the time (eg newspaper reports)? Why do people use google searches as a technique for discovering the validity of some phrase or spelling rather than consulting reference books? GraemeLeggett 11:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree - just name the convention used an be done with it. Grouping them makes sense even if it would be unhistoric in the sense that Germans or even Brits of the time never lumped them together (no reason to open up another can of worms too).
I can't remember that I ever heard of a Gneisenau- or Scharnhorst-class in German. They weren't that much, so it's not hard to learn the individual ships' names. They are usually just called Schwesterschiffe (sister ships).
As for the other questions, please bring that up in the appropriate place in the discussion. --Yooden
If you accept that ships need a class name at all (even if there's just two of them), you have to get a certain thing to fix it on. Now I know that launching a ship is a big thing, I never heard of a commissioning ceremony of similar significance. So launching makes most sense to me.
I don't know about the dates, but people were probably busy building tanks and whatnot. Ships were never that important for Hitler.
Anyway, I could have juggled around the words myself, the question ist: How to decide which is which? Again, I never read in German media that the two ships are collectively a class, they are just two ships anyway. So I don't care either way, I just wouldn't like it to be the wrong or even an arbitrary label. So is there an authoritive source or a definitive way to determine the class' name? --Yooden
I note that on navweapons.com "Scharnhorst class" is used in some of the articles, and at least one which came from "Warship".GraemeLeggett 11:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I note that they are called battleships almost everywhere. Your point being? --Yooden
I think that Scharnhorst is a more correct class name, a quick search on google also supports that Scharnhorst 113000 hits, mostly military history sites and book stores. Gneisenau 44800 hits, mostly Wikipedia.--Sneaking Viper 05:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ,,,,

I still see no reason to prefer British ship classification over German classification. The Germans build the ships and used them, not the British and the German classification was schlachtschiffe, battleship, not schlachtkreuzer, battlecruiser. No German ship build after World War One was classified as battlecruiser. --Kurt Leyman

As a non-expert English-speaker I more concerned with a concept than a correct literal translation. Surely, the S&G were equipped for a role: destruction of lightly protected merchant vessels. Bismarck & Tirpitz were hugely different, they could hold their own against battleships (British meaning). To use the same description for both types is misleading to the average English language reader. The description in German Wiki is not my concern. Mind you, there's a similar issue with the later T-boats, that were more like destroyers. Folks at 137 16:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My rewrite today

I've done a bit of a rewrite of the opening paragraphs with the following intention

  1. the disputed phrase "battlecruiser" is moved out of the opening paragraph
  2. an attempt to explain why the RN put the battlecruiser tag on it

I removed the bit about WW1 battlecruisers, because it didn't run well with the structure - I welcome any attempt to fit it in. My interpretation is that they were ostensibly 25,000 ton vessels with 11-inch guns. At the time 15 inches and 30,000 + tons was about the mark for a battleship. So they fell in the gap 'twixt cruiser and battleship - hence battlecruiser (which has been a flexible term itself) They were built as battleships by the Germans and if the RN had been aware of the true nature including the plan for big guns they might well have categorised them as battleships. That the Germans called them battleships would not have been enough - that could have been a propaganda message. GraemeLeggett 15:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest that if you don't care for the changes you at least try to improve upon the attempt rather than a blanket RV. Thanks GraemeLeggett 15:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"25,000 ton"

The ships max displacement was nearly 40000 tons and standart displacement some 32000 tons. The "official" displacement was 25000 tons but the Germans had lied about the tonnage of the ships..

"At the time 15 inches and 30,000 + tons was about the mark for a battleship."

Hardly so. Italian Conte di Cavour class ships are not battleships because their max displacement was less than 30000 tons and they were armed with ten 12.50 inch guns?

I don't follow on the 25,000 ton bit. I'm suggesting that the classification was based on the mistaken 25,000. The Conte di Cavour was Great War era, about the same size as the Iron Duke class. Washington Treaty builds were around 35,000 - the treaty limit, Post washington (eg KGV) more like 45,000. GraemeLeggett 16:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does size matter?

Another thread! I've favoured the battlecruiser tag because the 11" weaponry made S&G less than a battleship - or so it seemed. However, the following point has been made elsewhere: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau carried a new type of weapon; a high velocity gun with an eleven inch calibre. It possessed superb penetration qualities and very great range. In theory at least the smaller dimensions of the shell should have made for less structural failures on impact. The fast recycling rate meant that once the range had been found an enemy ship could be put under intense smothering fire and with a more reliable chance of effective penetrations made them a match for any contemporary battleships, except perhaps the heavily armed and armoured Nelson class which they could certainly out-run with their great speed - well in excess of 30 knots. It might be as well though, to consider how many high velocity 11 inch shells a Nelson could take before succumbing. The point is that maybe the smaller gun diameter was compensated for by other attributes. So it's impact that counts - maybe S&G are "real" battleships. Any more info or comments about the weaponry? Folks at 137 23:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How high-velocity is it compared to previous "eleven inch" guns? Is this not the same gun as on the pocket battleships of the Deutschland which the British cruisers at the Battle of the River Plate survived. Gun velocity gives distance but shell weight gives accuracy and punch.GraemeLeggett 08:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
this list gives them a 3 tonne broadside compared to the Nelsons 8-and-a-bit. Adjusting for rate of fire makes it 6 tonne, but the maximum range listed for both is in excess of distances experienced in practice. GraemeLeggett 10:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Is this not the same gun as on the pocket battleships of the Deutschland"

No.

"maybe S&G are "real" battleships"

They are.

"which the British cruisers at the Battle of the River Plate survived"

Hitler was quite right when he said that Admiral Graf Spee should have won the battle. She lost because of errors made by captain Langsdorff. Graf Spee outgunned all her opponents, having 11 inch main guns, to Exeters 8 inch and Ajax and Achilles 6 inch guns.

Langsdorff should have concentrated the fire on Exeter first before Admiral Graf Spee came into the range of the light cruisers.

Instead, Langsdorff split his fire between the three targets, with the result that although Exeter was severely damaged and forced to withdraw, the other ships got into range and scored 20 hits on Admiral Graf Spee, including on the food stores and bakeries.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kurt Leyman (talk • contribs) 06:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

An expert of naval warfare has spoken .... have you ever counted the numbers of heavy guns available on the allied cruisers? The Gaf Spee was not that heavily armored to ignore the 6 inch cruisers with 10 or more guns per ship to finish Exeter first. --Denniss 07:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


"An expert of naval warfare has spoken .... "

Thank you for those kind words. I love you too.

"have you ever counted the numbers of heavy guns available on the allied cruisers?"

As a matter of fact I have. With the word "outgunned" I meant the fact that Admiral Graf Spee's guns were far more powerful than those of the Allied warships and could deal heavier damage from distance.

And if you did not notice, we are not here to argue about the Battle of River Plate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kurt Leyman (talk • contribs) 08:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite, please drop the subject or continue it on Talk:Battle of the River Plate --Philip Baird Shearer 09:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Back to the conjecture of stating that the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau's new 11-inch guns. Its likely that they could have wrecked the superstructure of battleship. However, its not certain that could have penetrated the battleship's armoured belt and decks, since penetration depends upon the weight of the shell and an 11-incher falls short compared to a 15-incher. During the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, the USS South Dakota was hammered by 8-inch shells but was never threatened with sinking from such ordinance. Second, I don't think that 11-inch guns versus 15-inch guns is a fair fight even if the 11-inchers fire faster; the ship with the 15-inch guns might have less shots but shots with a far better chance of penetrating armour and doing critical damage. GoldDragon 03:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

The new Image of Gneisenau has no source oder Author. I guess it's a CR violation.--WerWil 19:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/n/e/Talk%7EGneisenau_class_battlecruiser_9d6d.html"