Talk:Scharnhorst-class battleship/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

I agree that Scharnhorst class would be the correct designation and was a bit surprised to see it not being used here. I have a number of books on battleships and battlecruisers and in almost all of them these ships are described as Scharnhorst class, including German publications (although these sometimes also refer to this class as battleships, which is incorrect) and reference books. I don't think I can come up with any book about the Gneisenau class. Gneisenau class imho only made sense in 1944-1945, when Scharnhorst had been sunk and Gneisenau was (be it in stripped-down condition) the only ship of this class remaining. This is in agreement with the convention that the first ship to be launched (hence, the first to be named officially as this is done at the christening ceremony when a ship is launched) becomes the ship to name the class. Sources (to name a few) Conway's all the world's battleships by Ian Sturton, Die Schlachtschiffe der Scharnhorst-Klasse by Gerhard Koop and Klaus-Peter Schmolke, Battleships - Axis and neutral battleships of World War II by William H. Garzke, Jr. and Robert O. Dulin, Jr., The complete encyclopedia of battleships and battlecruisers, by Tony Gibbons.--82.92.235.28 13:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

,,,,

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)

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)

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)

Wording

Although a bit presumptuous, I've drafted a form of words here as a basis for inclusion in the Scharnhorst class article. It's not polished, so feel free to amend/ comment. Hope it helps. Folks at 137 (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actions against other battleships or battlecruisers - Less clumsy

14:17, 13 January 2008 User:Stephan Schulz changed the heading Actions against other battleships or battlecruisers to Actions against other capital ships, giving the reason Less clumsy....

But aircraft carriers are capital ships, which was why I used the wording I did. What do other people think?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to my version, but I think it reads more smoothly. Aircraft carriers were just coming into their own, and were relatively little used in the European theatre. I don't think it's a likely source of confusion. And even with aircraft carriers included in the term, the shorter version is still correct. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft carriers were widely used in the East Atlantic and the Med. Battle of Taranto, Malta Convoys, the HMS Ark Royal and escort carriers and of course specifically HMS Glorious. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is we could just add in the sinking of Glorious to the section, then there would be no confusion or misleading terms. Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Scharnhorst design

There's some interesting comments about the twins' design here. If the experts consider them to be sound, perhaps they should be incorporated. Views? Folks at 137 (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

According to G&D, the designers learnt a lot from designing the twins, that is, they recognised that mistakes were made. Oddly they continued several of those mistakes into Bis and the H designs. Nice to see PL quoted, he is a sensible chap (I worked with him and George Elder on some of the German archive material). Greglocock (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when 'Peter Lienau' an expert of the subject? Did he publish in any serious publication, in any magazine etc.? The article he wrote certainly does not strike me as such, it has no references, and seems to be little more than some general bashing of the design teams. It looks like somone copy pasted a discussion board post, and hosted it on the internet. Kurfürst (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Slightly O/T is Bill Jurens on your list of acceptable experts?Greglocock (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I go, I consider him a fine expert of the subject, but I don't think he or his (or anybody else's) posts on a forum page is acceptable for wikipedia. Kurfürst (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't make the policywp:sps "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[nb 4]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." So his posts would be acceptable but not preferred to a book making the same point.Greglocock (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither you make the policy, however aggressive tone you use. That doesn't read as acceptable, unless Mr. Jurens 'work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' Besides, Jurens theory - actually based on a drawing of Bismarck's cross section - is at odds with opinion of many published experts, ie. Garzke and Dullin. Kurfürst (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst, you are creating battlegrounds on every talk page you go. This has to stop.--Jacurek (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Really, G&D address this /exact/ problem? I gotta say cite? Actually G&D have significant faults as a source, I am rounding up plenty of alternative opinions to theirs. Greglocock (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actions against capital ships...duke of york

Why doesnt this section mention the sinking during the battle of north cape? surely that was action against a captial ship (duke of york)

Sams37 (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Excised content

The class's military service started soon after the start of World War II, with Gneisenau and Scharnhorst hunting Allied convoys in North Sea. On 23 November 1939, while attempting to break through the Iceland Gap to attack Allied ships in the North Atlantic, the two ships were sighted by British armed merchant cruiser HMS Rawalpindi. Although Rawalpindi was sunk after a short engagement, she had managed to signal the German ships' location back to base, forcing them to return to Germany. The first major operations of the two ships against enemy warships were in the Norwegian Campaign in 1940. Thereafter they acted as a constant threat to shipping: during Operation Berlin in 1941 they sank a substantial tonnage of merchant vessels. They had the effect, even when in port, of tying down Royal Navy battleships in the convoy support role. They spent a while at Brest on the French Atlantic coast where they were in position to sortie against convoys bringing supplies and materiel from the US to Britain. Here they were exposed to attacks by air, and in the Channel Dash they sped through the English Channel to more protected anchorages in Northern Europe. Once there they were no longer a threat to the Atlantic convoys but they instead posed a deadly challenge to Arctic convoys carrying supplies from Britain to the Soviets through Murmansk.

Gneisenau was badly damaged during a British air raid in Kiel eleven days after the Channel Dash and required extensive repairs. Scharnhorst moved further North to partner the Tirpitz, but was sunk after encountering a heavy RN force during an attack on a convoy in the "Battle of North Cape" 26 December 1943. During Gneisenau's repairs, moves were made to rearm the ship with 38-cm (15 inch) guns (see above), but after the sinking of Scharnhorst all work was stopped and Gneisenau was sunk as a blockade ship in Gotenhafen (Gdynia) in 1945, at the end of the war.

On 9 April 1940 (D-Day for Operation Weserübung), Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and escorting destroyers were steering due north some 50 miles off Vestfjord, when they encountered the British battlecruiser Renown under the command of Vice-Admiral Sir William Whitworth. Renown had been rebuilt just before the war, increasing the effectiveness of her main armament. "It was now blowing a full gale, with mountainous seas and sudden curtains of snow or rain. At 0405 the Renown opened fire with her 15-inch guns at a range of about 15,000 yards. Twelve minutes later she knocked out the Gneisenau's main gunnery control system, which persuaded the enemy [the Germans] to run for it. In the stern chase now ensuing, Whitworth hit the Gneisenau twice again at 0434 and knocked out a forward turret. However the weather itself was on the side of the German ships as Whitworth was later to recall: The chief feature of this running action was a heavy head sea, which forced Renown to slow down in order to fight her fore turrets. The Germans on the other hand could disregard the damaging effects of heavy water coming over their forecastles and continue to fight their after turrets whilst steaming at high speed. It is noteworthy that the Germans always jinked when they saw our salves fired, thus throwing us out of line. Although at times Whitworth drove Renown up to 29 knots, the two German ships had disappeared from view amid the squalls by 0660 [sic]." Renown was hit twice by the Germans in this engagement.