Talk:German warship Scharnhorst (1936)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the German warship Scharnhorst (1936) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[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)

For the record, the German 15-inch gun later used on Bismarck and Tirpitz actually had 50% greater rate of fire than the 11-inch gun. And this is the first time I've ever heard the damage inflicted by the British cruisers termed "critical". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.211.36.225 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2008 (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)
I have to add the caveat that Navweaps.com isn't a well known, published, peer-reviewed source, and that all opinions therein are simply that - opinion. No matter how enthusiastic the author may be. As a whole, the site is particularly partisan and as such is heavily cited on Wikipedia whenever someone needs to grab a cite for their own (matching) opinion (there's that word again).84.64.197.103 07:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Cohaagen

[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)


[edit] ship´s design

I just chanced the sentence "The choice of armament was a leftover from their original design as "enlarged pocket battleships"." That´s incorrect. The Scharnhorsts were based on the design of the never built battlecruiser "Ersatz-York". The guns were choosen, because the ships were needed to counter the Dunkerque class battleships as soon as possible. Upps, the information is from "Jane´s battleships of the 20th century".Markus Becker02 00:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I think the first paragraph does not read well and that the "fame" element is overdone in it. Would people be happy with a rewrite along the foll. lines:

"Scharnhorst was a World War II Gneisenau class battlecruiser[1] of the German Kriegsmarine. One of only two ships in that class, the other being Gneisenau, this 31,500 tonne ship was named after the the World War I armoured cruiser SMS Scharnhorst that was sunk in the Battle at the Falkland Islands in December 1914. Scharnhorst had an active war career prior to being sunk at the Battle of North Cape on December 26, 1943".

The first Scharhorst was named after the 19th century hero, so does this need to be repeated here?

If people are generally ok with this, I'd suggest a similar toning down to the Gneisenau article bigpad 12:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Repetition is not always a bad thing - maybe something like:

"...this 31,500 tonne ship was named after the the World War I armoured cruiser SMS Scharnhorst, which in turn was named after..." etc.? DanMatthewsUK 10:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should mention who Gerhard von Scharnhorst was. These things are not obvious to people.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Home Fleet in the infobox

This slow edit war between Dapi89 and Kurt needs to stop. Discussions should not be taking place via edit summaries. We have a talk page here for a reason, please use it. Parsecboy (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Because of previous experience, I don't bother with talk pages where Kurt is concerned. It doesn't work. The Home Fleet did the damage, a Home Fleet ship struck the blow that sunk the Scharnhorst. It isn't even certain the Norwegian destroyer hit the ship at all. The Battle article should list the Norwegian ship, this page should make it clear the sinking was a result of the Royal Navy. This is about accreditation, not who was involved. Dapi89 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

See? I have rev'd again. Dapi89 (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The Royal Norwegian Navy did indeed come under the operational command of the Royal Navy but as it's clear that Stord participated in the battle, I've amended the term to "Allied forces" in the article and infobox. There is no evidence, however, that Stord hit Scharnhorst with torpodoes or gunfire, and a citation needs to be found for that claim; but she fired starshells to illuminate the enemy to the heavier British units therefore her minor role was not unimportant. Still, the main credit for the sinking is unquestionably heavy British gunfire that damaged Scharnhorst's radar and her engines. Perhaps that can be brought out more in the text? Regards, bigpad (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Then we agree the Home Fleet should get the credit in the info box? The R.N.N was part of the Home fleet, so I don't believe this is out of place in the info box. Dapi89 (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)