Jump to content


German "Battleship" Scharnhorst


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
54 replies to this topic

Submersible_Fox #1 Posted 12 November 2013 - 12:56 AM

    Seaman

  • Members
  • 13
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
TL;DR and personal thoughts at the bottom if you just want to skip to those.
WALL OF FACTS AHEAD
        
.
The Scharnhorst class were the first capital ships, alternatively referred to as battlecruisers or battleships, built for the German Navy (Kriegsmarine) after World War I. The class comprised two vessels: the lead ship Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Scharnhorst was launched first, and so she is considered to be the lead ship by some sources; however, they are also referred to as the Gneisenau class in some other sources, as Gneisenau was the first to be laid down and commissioned. They marked the beginning of German naval rearmament after the Treaty of Versailles. The ships were armed with nine 28 cm (11 in) SK C/34 guns in three triple turrets, though there were plans to replace these weapons with six 38 cm (15 in) SK C/34 guns in twin turrets.
.
The two ships were laid down in 1935, launched in late 1936, and commissioned into the German fleet by early 1939. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau operated together for much of the early portion of World War II, including sorties into the Atlantic to raid British merchant shipping. The two ships participated in Operation Weserübung, the German invasion of Norway. During operations off Norway, the two ships engaged the battlecruiser HMS Renown and sank the aircraft carrier HMS Glorious on 8 June 1940. In the engagement with Glorious, Scharnhorst achieved one of the longest-range naval gunfire hits in history. In early 1942, the two ships made a daylight dash up the English Channel from occupied France to Germany.
.
In late 1942, Gneisenau was heavily damaged in an Allied air raid against Kiel. In early 1943, Scharnhorst joined the Bismarck-class Tirpitz in Norway to interdict Allied convoys to the Soviet Union. Scharnhorst and several destroyers sortied from Norway to attack a convoy; the Germans were instead intercepted by British naval patrols. During the battle of North Cape, the Royal Navy battleship HMS Duke of York sank Scharnhorst. In the meantime, repair work on Gneisenau had begun, and the ship was in the process of being rearmed. However, when Scharnhorst was sunk, work on her sister was abandoned. Instead, she was sunk as a blockship in Gotenhafen in 1945; the wreck was broken up for scrap in the 1950s.
.
Classification (Which is a rather long running argument)
.
They were the first class of German ships to be officially classified by the Kriegsmarine as Schlachtschiff (battleship). Previous German battleships were classified as Linienschiffe (ships of the line), and Panzerschiffe (armoured ship). Their adversary, the Royal Navy, rated them as battlecruisers though after the war classified them as battleships. Jane's Fighting Ships 1940 lists both the Scharnhorst and Bismarck classes as "Battleships (Schlachtschiffe)" Another adversary, the United States Navy, rated them as battleships. In English language reference works they are sometimes referred to as battleships and sometimes as battlecruisers.
.
Development
.
The Treaty of Versailles, which established the terms concluding World War I, restricted German naval shipbuilding to warships displacing no more than 10,000 long tons (11,000 short tons). Debates in Germany over the role and size of its navy continued through the 1920s, when increased naval shipbuilding in France and the Soviet Union prompted the Germans to begin drawing up designs for large capital ships. The first design, completed in 1928, called for a 17,500 long tons (19,600 short tons) battlecruiser armed with eight 30.5 cm (12 in) guns in four twin gun turrets. In 1933, Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany; he made clear to the naval command that he had no intention of building a large fleet to challenge British supremacy at sea. He was primarily concerned with the possibility of a limited war with France, which would require the protection of German sea lanes. To this end, he authorized two more ships—the D class—to augment the three Deutschland-class Panzerschiffe (armoured ships). These ships would displace 19,000 tons and have the same armament and speed as the Panzerschiffe; the extra tonnage would be taken up by increased protection. Hitler wanted to follow this course so he would not be seen as overtly flaunting the Treaty of Versailles. However, he did not realize that such "unsinkable" commerce raiders would provoke Great Britain more severely than 26,000-ton battlecruisers armed with 28.3 cm (11.1 inch) guns, which would be perceived as inferior to all the Royal Navy battleships and battlecruisers then in commission.
.
To combat the German Panzerschiffe, the French built two small Dunkerque-class battleships in the early 1930s. This in turn prompted the German Navy to begin plans for a more powerful battlecruiser design. Since 1933, Erich Raeder, the head of the German Navy, had argued to increase the defensive qualities of the Panzerschiffe, and to increase the offensive power of the main battery with the addition of a third triple turret. This was also the view of the Kriegsmarine, which saw the 19,000-ton design as being unbalanced. Hitler agreed to increased armour protection and internal subdivision, but refused to permit an increase in armament. Finally, by February 1934, Hitler acquiesced over the addition of the third turret. The new ship would displace 26,000 long tons (29,000 short tons) and be armed with nine 28.3 cm guns in three triple turrets. To secure political freedom to build the new ships, Hitler concluded the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement, which guaranteed Great Britain a 3 to 1 superiority in capital ships, and, more importantly, removed the limitations of the Treaty of Versailles for the German navy.
.
The construction of new D-class cruisers were canceled to make way for Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. The provisional names of the planned D-class cruisers, Ersatz Elsass and Ersatz Hessen, were reallocated to the new ships, the contracts for which were awarded to the Kriegsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven and the Deutsche Werke in Kiel. Construction was held up by 14 months, partly because Hitler wanted to secure the treaty with Britain before work began, and partly due to numerous design changes after the ships had been ordered.
.
Because the maximum calibre of naval gun allowed under the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was 40.6 cm (16 inch), Hitler soon had second thoughts about the guns to be used for the new ships and ordered that they be armed with 38 cm (15 inch) weapons. However, the 28.3 cm turrets were readily available; 38 cm turrets would take years to develop, and Hitler wanted capital ships as soon as possible to fulfill his political ideals. He was also reminded that, despite the allowances of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, the British had historically been sensitive about increases in main gun calibers aboard German capital ships. He therefore acquiesced to the ships' being armed with 28.3 cm guns, with the provision that they be upgunned to 38 cm at the earliest opportunity. The 38 cm turret was eventually used in the Bismarck-class battleships.
.
Gneisenau and Scharnhorst for comparison to show their design differences
        
        
.
General characteristics
.
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were 226 m (741 ft) long at the waterline; Scharnhorst was 234.9 m (771 ft) long overall, while Gneisenau had a slightly shorter overall length, at 229.8 m (754 ft). The ships both had a beam of 30 m (98 ft). They were designed to displace 35,540 t (34,980 long tons; 39,180 short tons), which would have given the ships a draft of 9.1 m (30 ft). At standard displacement of 32,100 long tons (32,600 t), which reduced draft to 8.3 m (27 ft), while at a full combat load of 38,100 long tons (38,700 t), draft increased to 9.9 m (32 ft). The ships' hulls were constructed from longitudinal steel frames, over which the outer hull plates were welded. Their hulls contained 21 watertight compartments and had a double bottom for 79% of their length.
.
The German navy considered the ships to be poor sea boats; they were bow-heavy when fully equipped and very "wet" as high as the bridge. This problem was mitigated to some extent by the installation of an "Atlantic bow" in January and August 1939 to Gneisenau and Scharnhorst respectively, though use of the "A" turret remained restricted in heavy seas. The ships had rear problems as well; their stern was also frequently "wet" and the ships were very slow entering a turn. They always required assistance from tugboats in shallow waters. With the rudder hard over, the ships lost over 50% speed and heeled over more than 10°. During trials, the ships heeled as much as 13° at hard rudder.
.
Propulsion
.
Initially, diesel propulsion was planned for these ships, as had been used for the three Panzerschiffe. However, it was decided to use superheated steam propulsion. The main reason was that the required total output for the desired speed was three times that of the Panzerschiffe. In the case of triple-screw ships, this would have meant more than twice the shaft horsepower per shaft of the Panzerschiffe, and in the case of a quadruple-screw ship, this would have amounted to more than 40,000 horsepower per shaft. This requirement was beyond the diesel technology then available, and devising engines that could meet this demand would take an unforeseeable amount of time. Since high-pressure superheated steam had already proved successful, it was considered the most suitable choice for high power machinery.
.
Armament
.
The Scharnhorst-class ships were built with nine 28.3 cm (11.1 inch) SK C/34 54.5 caliber quick-firing guns in three triple turrets, two forward and one aft. These guns were an improvement over the earlier 28.3 cm SK C/28 guns mounted on the Deutschland-class cruisers. While the 28.3 cm guns were of a smaller caliber than main guns of other navies, they were still preferred by a number of gunnery officers in the Kriegsmarine due to their higher rate of fire. The guns were equipped with three different types of shells, an armour-piercing (AP) L/4,4 shell that weighed 330 kg (727.5 lb) and two high explosive (HE) shells that both weighed 315 kg (694.4 lb)— an L/4,4 type with a base fuse and an L/4,5 version with a nose fuse. All three types of shells used the same propellant charges: an RPC/38 42.5 kg (93.7 lb) fore charge and an RPC/38 76.5 kg (168.6 lb) main charge. They fired these shells at a rate of fire of 3.5 rounds per minute. Muzzle velocity for the AP shells was 890 meters per second (2,920 feet per second); the guns were expected to fire 300 rounds before enough wear had been incurred to warrant replacement. Scharnhorst's and Gneisenau's guns were mounted in three Drh LC/34 turrets. The turrets were named, in alphabetical order from the bow of the ship: "Anton", "Bruno" and "Cäsar". Similarly to most other German installations, those turrets had an electric system of rotation, but all other operations were hydraulic systems. Although rotating mass of the turret was 750 tonnes (internal barbette diameter 10.2 m), traversing speed was quite good – 7.2 deg/sec. The turrets allowed depression of the guns to −8° and elevation to 40° for "A" and "C" turrets, while "B" turret was capable of depressing to −9°. At maximum elevation, the guns could hit targets out to 40,930 m (44,760 yards).
.
The ships carried a secondary battery of twelve 15 cm SK C/28 L/55 quick-firing guns. The guns were mounted in four Drh L. C/34 twin turrets and four MPL/35 pedestal mounts. Both the turrets and pedestal mounts enabled barrel depression to −10°; the turrets allowed elevation to 40° while the pedestals limited it to 35°. These guns fired 45.3 kg (99.87 lb) shells at a rate of 6–8 per minute. They were expected to fire 1,100 rounds before barrel wear made repair or replacement necessary. The guns in pedestals had a range of 22,000 m (24,060 yd), while those in the turrets, capable of 5 more degrees of elevation, had a slightly longer range, at 23,000 m (25,153 yd). They were supplied with between 1,600–1,800 shells, or 133–150 shells per gun.
.
Their anti-aircraft battery consisted of fourteen 10.5 cm C/33 L/65 guns, sixteen 3.7 cm L/83 guns, and between ten and twenty 2 cm guns. The 10.5 cm guns fired at a rate of 15–18 rounds per minute, and had an effective ceiling of 12,500 m (41,010 feet). They were mounted in six Dop. L. C/31 twin mounts amidships, which allowed depression to −8° and elevation to 80°. When used to engage surface targets, the guns had a maximum range of 17,700 m (19,357 yd) at an elevation of 45°. The 3.7 cm guns were placed in eight manually operated Dopp LC/30 twin mounts. At 85°, they had an effective ceiling of 6,800 m (22,310 ft), though tracers were limited to 4,800 m (15,750 ft). They had a rate of fire of 30 rounds per minute.
.
After 1942, six 53.3 cm deck-mounted torpedo tubes were taken from the light cruisers Leipzig and Nürnberg and installed on the ships. The tubes were supplied with 18 torpedoes. The torpedoes were 7.186 m (23 ft 7 in) long and carried a 300 kg (661 lb) Hexanite warhead. They could be set for three speeds: 30 kn (56 km/h; 35 mph), 40 kn (74 km/h; 46 mph), and 44 kn (81 km/h; 51 mph). At 30 knots, the torpedoes had a range of 14,000 m (15,300 yd); at 40 knots, the range fell considerably, to 8,000 m (8,750 m). At 44 knots, the range was reduced even further, to 6,000 m (6,560 yd). It was later found that the 44 kn speed caused the engine to overheat, and after this discovery, its use was discontinued.
.
Both Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were equipped with two sets of Seetakt radar. One was mounted on the forward gun director, which was located on top of the bridge. The second radar set was emplaced on the rear main battery gun director. The Seetakt sets operated at 368 megacycles, initially at 14 kW, though the sets were upgraded to operate at 100 kW, on the 80 cm wavelength.
.
Armor
.
The Scharnhorst-class ships were equipped with Krupp armor. Their upper armored deck was 50 mm (2.0 in) thick, and backed by the main armor deck. This deck was 20 mm (0.79 in) thick aft, increased to 50 mm in the central portion of the ship that contained the ammunition magazines and machinery spaces, and decreased down to 20 mm in the bow. It was supported by 105 mm (4.1 in) thick slopes on either longitudinal side. The slopes connected to the lower edge of the main belt, an arrangement referred to as the "turtle deck." The slopes significantly increased armor protection in the critical areas of the ship. The ships' vitals were well armoured against any caliber shell fired by battleships at the time at ranges where the shell would have to penetrate both the main belt and the sloping deck. At very long ranges, however, the deck armour could be easily penetrated by heavy-caliber shells. All of these sections were composed of Wotan Hart (Wotan Hard) steel. The armored belt was 350 mm (14 in) thick in the central portion of the ship, where the critical areas of the ship were located. Forward of the "A" turret the belt was reduced to 150 mm (5.9 in), which tapered down to zero at the bow of the ship. Aft of the rear gun turret the belt decreased to 200 mm (7.9 in), and eventually tapered down to nothing at the stern. The central portion of the belt was backed by 170 mm (6.7 in) thick shields. The belt armour was composed of Krupp Cemented steel (KC). The side protection system could not be penetrated by a 2,240 lb (1,020 kg) 16 in (406 mm) shell at any range over 11,000 m (12,000 yd).
.
The forward conning tower had 350 mm-thick sides and a roof that was 200 mm-thick. The rear conning tower was less well armored, with sides and a roof that were only 100 mm (3.9 in) and 50 mm thick, respectively. The gun turrets for the main battery had 360 mm (14 in) thick faces, 200 mm thick sides, and 150 mm thick roofs. The barbettes that held the 28 cm gun turrets were also heavily armored; the sides were 350 mm thick and tapered down to 200 mm on the centerline, where they were shielded by the gun turrets above. The faces of the 15 cm turrets were 140 mm (5.5 in) thick, with 60 mm (2.4 in) thick sides and 50 mm thick roofs. The 10.5 cm gun mounts were equipped with 20 mm (0.79 in) gun shields. All of this armor was KC steel.
.
The underwater protection system was designed to withstand a direct hit from a 250 kg (550 lb) explosive warhead; British aerial torpedoes had smaller warheads than this, though their ship-launched weapons were more powerful. The navy conducted several full-scale underwater explosion tests with sections of armor cut from the old pre-dreadnought Preussen. The tests revealed that welded steel construction better withstood the impact of the 250 kg warhead than did riveted steel plates. However, the torpedo bulkhead, composed of Wotan Weich (Wotan, soft) steel, placed behind the armoured belt was riveted; this was done because plate joints that had been incorrectly welded would not sufficiently withstand explosive shocks.[26] The underwater protection system was constructed out of several layers: the outer layer that was between 12–66 mm (.47–2.6 in) thick, directly underneath the main armoured belt, was designed to detonate the torpedo warhead. Behind the outer plate was a large void which would allow gases from the explosion to expand and dissipate. Beyond this was a fuel bunker with an 8 mm (0.31 in) thick outer wall; this would absorb any remaining explosive force. The bunker was supported by longitudinal stiffeners and transverse bulkheads.
.
The underwater side protection had numerous faults, however. It was extremely strong amidships, but weakened on either end of the citadel. The underwater protection could only stop a 200 kg (440 lb) warhead in these areas. Another significant weakness in the design was the arrangement of the torpedo bulkhead. It was connected to the lower portion of the sloped deck, at an angle of 10°; two riveted angled bars held it in place. The bars were constantly under a great deal of stress, due to normal bending forces in the hull. When combined with the explosive force of a torpedo warhead, the bars could not sustain the increased pressure and could fail. Also, the beam of 30 m meant that the protection system had to be weaker around the main battery turrets, as a significant amount of the hull space was taken up by the magazines and barbettes.
.
Abbreviated operational history, cause this post is getting too bloody long:
.
21 November, 1939, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, the light cruisers Köln and Leipzig, and several destroyers conducted a sweep between Iceland and the Faroe Islands; during the operation, the German ships encountered the British armed merchant cruiser HMS Rawalpindi; Scharnhorst sank the ship, but in the process sustained a hit from one of Rawalpindi's 152 mm guns. Scharnhorst stopped to pick up survivors, but the arrival of the cruiser HMS Newcastle prompted the German ships to withdraw.
.
7 April, 1940, both ships sortied with the bulk of the Kriegsmarine for the invasion of Norway, during their mission they encountered HMS Renown and her accompanying destroyers, both German ships turned away and a long stern chase began, Gneisenau taking one heavy and two light hits, which disabled her main fire control, radar, and Anton turret, Scharnhorst's evasive maneuvers prevented any hits being sustained, and, despite a brief failure in Scharnhorst's power plant (a high pressure steam line broke) the Germans disengaged at nightfall with little further incident.
.
4 June, 1940, the two ships, with several destroyers and the Admiral Hipper set out into the north atlantic, sinking several British transports before the cruiser and destroyers were sent to refuel, four days after deployment, 8 June, at aproximately 1645 hours, the two battleships sighted the carrier HMS Glorious, and her escorts, the destroyers Ardent and Acasta at aproximatly 55,000 yards range, and, after closing range to aprx. 27,000 yards both battleships opened fire, with Scharnhost registing a hit from the miraculous range of 26,500 yards, and following two additional hits the Glorious was wreithed in too much smoke to be visible, at which point both battleships shifted fire to the destroyers, both of which, along with the carrier, were sunk, however Acasta was able to hit Gneisenau with a single torpedo in the bow, doing significant damage, and forcing the ships to return to base.
.
Late January, 1941, both ships, under Admiral Lutjens broke into the atlantic on a raiding cruise, ultimately encountering convoys guarded by the battleships HMS Malaya and HMS Ramillies, and due to their orders to not engage enemy battleships they fled from both. However they also encountered two unguarded convoys and captured or destroyed eleven cargo ships and tankers.
In April and July of 1941, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst respectively were hit and damaged by RAF bomber attacks, the former with a heavy loss of life.
.
11 February, 1942, both battleships and he heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen left Breast in one of the bravest actions undertaken by the Kreigsmarine, all three ships sailing up the english channel in broad daylight, and, despite the battleships collectively hitting three mines, several bomber attacks, as well as an attack from five British destroyers, all three ships had reached Helgoland by the 13th, with Gneisenau being the last to arrive.
.
Shortly after their arrival at Helgoland the RAF launched a series of bombing raids, and on the night of the 26-27th of February they payed off, a 1000lb bomb detonating Gneisenau's forward magazine and heavily damaging the bow and fore section of the ship. With repairs estimated to take two years, the ship was sent back to Kiel to be rebuilt with, among other upgrades, six 15" guns in place of her nine 11" guns. The refit would never be completed, intense RAF attacks would see her too heavily damaged to be repaired, and instead sunk as a blockship in 1945, in an attempt to prevent the harbor's use by the advancing soviet army.
.
In January through February the Scharnhorst made three attempts to sail to Norway, the first two were aborted by strong RAF activity, and the third by damage from the ship grounding while making an emergency maneuver to avoid hitting a U-boat. Her fourth attempt, on March 8th, was successful and on the 14th she arrived, with four escorting destroyers, at Narvik. She would remain there for six months while fuel shortages prevented deployment.
.
On December 20th, Scharnhorst made what would be her final sortie, being sent to intercept convoy JW 55b, thanks to British inteligence breaking German naval codes, the royal navy was able to move the convoy's distant cover, three cruisers and the King George V class battleship Duke of York, which was over two hundred miles away initially and steaming at full speed to intercept Scharnhorst's escape route, in to protect the convoy. The German battleship initially fired to little effect, while she herself was hit twice with 8" shells, the latter of which disabled her radar. In a second engagement with the cruisers Scharnhorst landed several shots on the heavy cruiser Norfolk before disengaging again and deciding to return to base. Just before 1700 hours, Duke of York opened fire with radar aimed salvos at long range. Despite landing a hit that disabled the German ship's Anton turret, the faster speed of Scharnhorst seemed to win out as she was pulling away from the British, however, the final long range salvo from Duke of York struck Scharnhorst's engine room and severed a main steam line, reducing her top speed to 9knts, and allowed the British to rapidly close range, and, under the pounding fire of three cruisers, a battleship, and several destroyers, and with only C turret still functional, the ship went down fighting until, after dozens of torpedos and countless shells were launched at it, it capsized and sank at 19:45 hours, 21 December, 1943, and with it, all but 36 of her 1,968 crew.
------
STATS
Type:  Battleship
Displacement:
32,100 long tons (standard)
38,100 LT (full load)
Length:
235 m (772 ft) overall
226 m (741.5 ft) waterline
Beam:  30 m (98.4 ft)
Draught:  9.69 m (31 ft 9 in.) at 37,303 tons
Propulsion:
3 Germania/Brown, Boveri & Co geared turbines
3 three-bladed propellers, 4.8 m (15 ft 9 inch) diameter
151,893 shp
Speed:  31 kt
Range:
Scharnhorst: 7,100 nmi at 19 kn
Gneisenau: 6,200 nmi at 19 kn
Complement:  1,669 (56 officers, 1613 enlisted)
Armament:
9 × 28 cm/54.5 (11 inch) SK C/34
12 × 15 cm/55 (5.9") SK C/28
14 × 10.5 cm/65 (4.1 inch) SK C/33
16 × 3.7 cm/L83 (1.5") SK C/30
10 (later 16) × 2 cm/65 (0.79") C/30 or C/38
6 × 533 mm torpedo tubes
Armor:
Main belt: 350 mm (13.78 inch)
Deck: 95 mm max.
Aircraft carried:  3 Arado Ar 196A-3
Aviation facilities:  1 catapult
------
TLDR: These ships were fast, well armored if, somewhat undergunned and proved to be an utter headache to the British their entire service lives, and, in the end, much like Bismark, took an immense amount of ordinance to disable and sink.
------
Personally these have always been my favorite ships of all time, elegant lines, effective in their intended roles, masterfully crafted as one would expect from German craftsmanship, fast, and tough as nails.
My greatest wish however, is that they had not been restricted by Kreigsmarine policy to not engage enemy battleships, even with their lighter guns, their higher rate of fire would likely have compensated, and most likely they would have been able to force the royal navy to deploy their battleships in pairs specifically to counter them, thereby reducing the area that could be protected with them, and making the German raiding ships even more effective.
.
.
Alas, what could have been...
I also wanted to address my thoughts on the classification debate, compared to most other ships built in the early war, and late interwar, the Scharnhorsts were fast and fairly well armored, being almost as well armored on the belt as the King Georg V class, however their armament was much weaker, and their displacement lighter, this is what often has them referred to as battleCRUISERS and not battleSHIPS, however, the Germans themselves referred to them as battleships, as did the US navy, it is for these two reasons, combined with their survivability that I personally consider them battleships.
.
Multiple sources, including Wikipedia (referenced against multiple 3rd party sources) and "The German Fleet At War 1939-1945" by Vincent P. O'Hara, a book I've read dozens of times, and even now sits at my side.
.
Any questions, thoughts, corrections, ect. are welcomed.

Attached Files

  • Attached File   Scharnhorst-1-A503-FM30-50.jpg   140.81K
  • Attached File   Gneisenau1942.png   142.39K
  • Attached File   Scharnhorst1943.png   114.09K

Edited by Submersible_Fox, 14 November 2013 - 06:04 AM.


Azumazi #2 Posted 12 November 2013 - 01:22 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Alpha Tester
  • 2,801
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
A few things, you directly copy and pasted stuff from the Wikipedia. That is a huge thing we don't enjoy here and we frown upon. You did reference the material but we try to have people actually rewrite it, add in their own opinions and even add in parts that were not talked about in the Wikipedia.

You even left the footnote's with [number] in the text.

So I would completely edit it and rewrite sections to reflect the book you say you have and change it up including add in photos.

Japanese Ship Expert and Ship Design Architect schooled at the US Naval War College.

.......................


NIN3 #3 Posted 12 November 2013 - 01:32 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members
  • 341
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
While its great information, its more gratifying for us, the end readers, if there's something new and different, not just a copy/paste.

WoWP vet so old he he does not even have any battles anymore.

Ariecho #4 Posted 12 November 2013 - 02:12 AM

    Captain

  • Alpha Tester
  • 5,381
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
I didn't want to be the bearer of bad news, but each of the paragraph that I googled was almost verbatim coming from Wikipedia.  That's why I didn't include it yet in the forum writers' contribution.


Discussing with a British officer: "You French fight for money, while we British fight for honour." "Sir, a man fights for what he lacks the most."
Robert Surcouf (French Corsair)


t42592 #5 Posted 12 November 2013 - 02:16 AM

    Captain

  • Alpha Tester
  • 4,428
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
-1
.
Has this forum become so critical as to how new users show up that we expect them to be perfect, that we have to be so demanding of their efforts that reflect our prowess, that we become less receptive to their efforts?  Can we show some compromise, than pull out our writing, formatting, bibliography requirements that we slap new people with 'do it our way and not your way' mindsets.  I'm less and less inclined to post in this forum because many feel they expect--, no they demand perfection from new users.  I don't want any party to this kind of exclusiveness.
.
Instead of bashing the poster for the source, there is more value in the material, the effort, and more importantly, the participation at which new people are coming to the forum to do exactly what the rest of us have done in the past.  Just because some feel Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed, or less substantial than offline sources, does not minimize the reading value, and its congruency with this forum.  Maybe these folks do not have the technological, nor the technical abilities that some have, that others do not, and we should not be taking issue with where they gleaned the data, unless that information is faulty.
.
Why?  Numerous posters have used the Wikipedia as their sole reference.  Many of us started that way in this forum, slowly gravitating to offline material.  Why?  Because it is a chore to pull your books off the shelf, find a scanner, copy the pictures and text, and transfer it to this forum.  Since the same relative material is already online, it is not only more convenient, it is expedient, and easily referenced.
.
New people have the same latitude that we began with, and they should not feel less than because they don't know how to.  I am just glad we have new people willing to try, put themselves out there, and thankful for their contributions.
.
.

View PostAzumazi, on 12 November 2013 - 01:22 AM, said:

A few things, you directly copy and pasted stuff from the Wikipedia. That is a huge thing we don't enjoy here and we frown upon. You did reference the material but we try to have people actually rewrite it, add in their own opinions and even add in parts that were not talked about in the Wikipedia.
You even left the footnote's with [number] in the text.
So I would completely edit it and rewrite sections to reflect the book you say you have and change it up including add in photos.

Edited by t42592, 12 November 2013 - 02:28 AM.


tankwarhammer9000 #6 Posted 12 November 2013 - 02:19 AM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Alpha Tester
  • 24,374
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostAzumazi, on 12 November 2013 - 01:22 AM, said:

A few things, you directly copy and pasted stuff from the Wikipedia. That is a huge thing we don't enjoy here and we frown upon. You did reference the material but we try to have people actually rewrite it, add in their own opinions and even add in parts that were not talked about in the Wikipedia.
You even left the footnote's with [number] in the text.
So I would completely edit it and rewrite sections to reflect the book you say you have and change it up including add in photos.
I wonder who -1ed you..this is perfectly normal Advice for his next thread...fixed it i guess :)
Edit-T4? you did this? O.o
Edit 2-the reason is because The Op copied and pasted the entire article without changing a single word
other threads use Wikipedia for reference and write the information in their own unique way instead of just copying it word for word

Edited by tankwarhammer9000, 12 November 2013 - 02:22 AM.

tankwarhammer9000sigv4_zpsc1aa0619.gif?t

Admiral of the Navy And Grand Empress


t42592 #7 Posted 12 November 2013 - 02:30 AM

    Captain

  • Alpha Tester
  • 4,428
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
+1  I learned a great deal from reading your post, as is.
.
Thank you for putting yourself out there, making the effort, and adding value to this forum.   :great:  :great:
.
MORE IMPORTANTLY ~ This being your very first post, I am impressed you chose to add something to this category.  I apologize that my award for positive reputation is the only given, seeing that you didn't start your tenure on this forum as so many others have, instead, gravitating to a 'value oriented' initial post.
.
Thank you, again.
.

View PostSubmersible_Fox, on 12 November 2013 - 12:56 AM, said:

TL;DR and personal thoughts at the bottom if you just want to skip to those.
WALL OF FACTS AHEAD
AttachmentScharnhorst-1-A503-FM30-50.jpg
.
Spoiler                     

Edited by t42592, 12 November 2013 - 02:38 AM.


waffles1945 #8 Posted 12 November 2013 - 02:38 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Alpha Tester
  • 1,725
  • Member since:
    01-01-2013
I thought it was nice that he found this information and showed it to us. and also I can't reverse +1's or -1s .-.


"Don't argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience"
-Waffles1945

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country, He won by making the other poor bastard die for his own"
-General George S. Patton


t42592 #9 Posted 12 November 2013 - 02:44 AM

    Captain

  • Alpha Tester
  • 4,428
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
I just wish people were not so cynical of new people.  Here's a poster that took the initiative, invested time and effort, and put something of value into the forum IN THEIR FIRST POST.  And instead of recognizing that, people are quick to accent the negative, than the positive.  What does that say about the forum as a whole?
.
+1

View Postwaffles1945, on 12 November 2013 - 02:38 AM, said:

I thought it was nice that he found this information and showed it to us. and also I can't reverse +1's or -1s .-.

Edited by t42592, 12 November 2013 - 02:44 AM.


tankwarhammer9000 #10 Posted 12 November 2013 - 02:47 AM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Alpha Tester
  • 24,374
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postt42592, on 12 November 2013 - 02:44 AM, said:

I just wish people were not so cynical of new people.  Here's a poster that took the initiative, invested time and effort, and put something of value into the forum IN THEIR FIRST POST.  And instead of recognizing that, people are quick to accent the negative, than the positive.  What does that say about the forum as a whole?
.
+1
Well i was defeated...you win T4  :hiding:
Gotta put more thought into what i say before clicking post

tankwarhammer9000sigv4_zpsc1aa0619.gif?t

Admiral of the Navy And Grand Empress


Coldt #11 Posted 12 November 2013 - 03:41 AM

    Ensign

  • Alpha Tester
  • 870
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Thanks for showing my mate some love on his first post, t4.  I kept telling him that no one's done anything on the Scharnhorsts and he finally got off his lazy bum and did something about it.  He's a pretty big German navy buff.

Azumazi #12 Posted 12 November 2013 - 04:10 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Alpha Tester
  • 2,801
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postt42592, on 12 November 2013 - 02:44 AM, said:

I just wish people were not so cynical of new people.  Here's a poster that took the initiative, invested time and effort, and put something of value into the forum IN THEIR FIRST POST.  And instead of recognizing that, people are quick to accent the negative, than the positive.  What does that say about the forum as a whole?
.
+1

For the record, my post was hardly that critical. More or less, I treated him like I would a student to a teacher, told him to go rewrite his rough draft to reflect the tempo of the forum better. To be honest some of those parts in Wikipedia are direct copy's from books as well. Hence why I try to tell people to change it up a bit as technically speaking that's plagiarism.

Japanese Ship Expert and Ship Design Architect schooled at the US Naval War College.

.......................


Wolcott #13 Posted 12 November 2013 - 04:43 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members
  • 372
  • Member since:
    12-30-2012
Can anyone clarify as to why they keep changing between calling the Scharnhorst a battleship and battlecruiser and to which class is it more suited with?

HMS Prince of Wales - "Ich Dien"


Coldt #14 Posted 12 November 2013 - 04:51 AM

    Ensign

  • Alpha Tester
  • 870
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostWolcott, on 12 November 2013 - 04:43 AM, said:

Can anyone clarify as to why they keep changing between calling the Scharnhorst a battleship and battlecruiser and to which class is it more suited with?

Frankly, it's because it's difficult to agree.  It's armored like a battleship but gunned like a strong heavy cruiser.  The German's called it a battleship but just about all the Allied nations called them battlecruisers since, with their weak armament, they'd have difficulty engaging battleships of the day.

MM2ss #15 Posted 12 November 2013 - 05:09 AM

    Captain

  • Alpha Tester
  • 5,072
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
I think you have to look at the role they would fill to make a "fair" determination of classification.

With the 11" guns I am inclined to consider them at battle cruisers.  The 15" armed version I would call a poorly armored battleship.

Here is my reasoning.

With the 11" guns the Scharnhorst could outgun nearly anything, but it would be hard pressed to take on a battleship from the same period.  At 31 knots she could outrun most battleships that were in service at the time she was launched.  So, what could catch her?  The Hood comes to mind obviously, also Renown and Repulse.  Not many other capital ships had 31+ knot speed in the mid to late 1930's.  That means the ships that could catch her were smaller ships that she could outgun or else battlecruisers that outgunned her but that she could effectively retaliate against.

Now, upgun the Scharnhorst by replacing the 11" guns with 15" guns.  If memory serves she would have had 6 barrels under that scenario.  So here is where it gets interesting.  In terms of belt armor, she could be considered a battleship, 14" as I recall.  Her deck armor was somewhat lacking however...  In a close ranged fight she would act like an undergunned battleship.  In a long range fight she would behave like a battle cruiser.  However, if memory serves the proposed conversion to 15" guns would result in a slower ship, so she would not be able to outrun some of the capital ships that she could escape from when she mounted the 11" guns.

So is it a battle cruiser, a fast and underarmored battleship, or something else entirely?  The one thing that is certain is that it can not be considered to be a "traditional" battleship in the sense of heavy armor, big guns, and giving up a bit of speed to allow the armor and guns.

Check out Triptyx WoWS wiki here: http://wiredstar.com/WoWsWiki/

Wolcott #16 Posted 12 November 2013 - 05:23 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members
  • 372
  • Member since:
    12-30-2012

View Postt42592, on 12 November 2013 - 02:16 AM, said:

-1
.
Has this forum become so critical as to how new users show up that we expect them to be perfect, that we have to be so demanding of their efforts that reflect our prowess, that we become less receptive to their efforts?  Can we show some compromise, than pull out our writing, formatting, bibliography requirements that we slap new people with 'do it our way and not your way' mindsets.  I'm less and less inclined to post in this forum because many feel they expect--, no they demand perfection from new users.  I don't want any party to this kind of exclusiveness.
.
Instead of bashing the poster for the source, there is more value in the material, the effort, and more importantly, the participation at which new people are coming to the forum to do exactly what the rest of us have done in the past.  Just because some feel Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed, or less substantial than offline sources, does not minimize the reading value, and its congruency with this forum.  Maybe these folks do not have the technological, nor the technical abilities that some have, that others do not, and we should not be taking issue with where they gleaned the data, unless that information is faulty.
.
Why?  Numerous posters have used the Wikipedia as their sole reference.  Many of us started that way in this forum, slowly gravitating to offline material.  Why?  Because it is a chore to pull your books off the shelf, find a scanner, copy the pictures and text, and transfer it to this forum.  Since the same relative material is already online, it is not only more convenient, it is expedient, and easily referenced.
.
New people have the same latitude that we began with, and they should not feel less than because they don't know how to.  I am just glad we have new people willing to try, put themselves out there, and thankful for their contributions.
.
.
As a contributor to Wikipedia myself, I'd be flattered if I discovered one of my articles was copied and pasted here. Many of us spent countless hours researching online websites and books, which is very similar to how other users are doing it on this forum. I contibuted to a few WW2 battles, one of which I mostly did myself and plan to post here on its anniversary. An administrator took the time to verify any text I was entering, just to make sure it came from a reliable source. Anything unsourced or is probably untrusted is usually tagged with [citation needed], after which it is eventually removed if none is given.
I'd like to think of the copy & pasting here as acknowledging the contribution the Wikipedia users did in making and improving the article, in this case the Scharnhorst. When you look at the article's top right corner, you'll see an icon which indicates that it's been recognized as a "good article" by the admins. Again, it's the same way we acknowledge forum users who post ships and battles here by giving +1s. Pardon me for going off topic. =)

Edited by Wolcott, 12 November 2013 - 07:40 AM.

HMS Prince of Wales - "Ich Dien"


Azumazi #17 Posted 12 November 2013 - 05:54 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Alpha Tester
  • 2,801
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostMM2ss, on 12 November 2013 - 05:09 AM, said:

I think you have to look at the role they would fill to make a "fair" determination of classification.

With the 11" guns I am inclined to consider them at battle cruisers.  The 15" armed version I would call a poorly armored battleship.

Here is my reasoning.

With the 11" guns the Scharnhorst could outgun nearly anything, but it would be hard pressed to take on a battleship from the same period.  At 31 knots she could outrun most battleships that were in service at the time she was launched.  So, what could catch her?  The Hood comes to mind obviously, also Renown and Repulse.  Not many other capital ships had 31+ knot speed in the mid to late 1930's.  That means the ships that could catch her were smaller ships that she could outgun or else battlecruisers that outgunned her but that she could effectively retaliate against.

Now, upgun the Scharnhorst by replacing the 11" guns with 15" guns.  If memory serves she would have had 6 barrels under that scenario.  So here is where it gets interesting.  In terms of belt armor, she could be considered a battleship, 14" as I recall.  Her deck armor was somewhat lacking however...  In a close ranged fight she would act like an undergunned battleship.  In a long range fight she would behave like a battle cruiser.  However, if memory serves the proposed conversion to 15" guns would result in a slower ship, so she would not be able to outrun some of the capital ships that she could escape from when she mounted the 11" guns.

So is it a battle cruiser, a fast and underarmored battleship, or something else entirely?  The one thing that is certain is that it can not be considered to be a "traditional" battleship in the sense of heavy armor, big guns, and giving up a bit of speed to allow the armor and guns.

The weight increase wouldn't be as much as most think. Roughly around 1100 metric tons increase; however, due to the already increased weight from other design changes made to the vessels they had also planned on giving it a minor increase in bulging on the beam to increase the freeboard or to raise the deck slightly, the bulging idea was liked due to their weak torpedo and mine protection but it was turned down due to a speed loss requirement of length to width ratio. Instead the planning was after the bombing on Gneisenau to cut off the bow from frame 185.7 and extend the hull by 10m at the waterline and by 11.2m oa. So the length of the vessel would be 246.1m overall and 236m at waterline. This would offset the weight increase and strengthening the vessel needed for the turrets. They actually expected the speed of the vessel to increase by roughly 1 knot due to the changes, but it wouldn't help much with the issues with the loss of freeboard if only by a little.

Japanese Ship Expert and Ship Design Architect schooled at the US Naval War College.

.......................


duval80 #18 Posted 12 November 2013 - 12:23 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members
  • 54
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Love it,thank you so much for the info.
duval80sig_zpsc2e85212.png

Ariecho #19 Posted 12 November 2013 - 01:33 PM

    Captain

  • Alpha Tester
  • 5,381
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostWolcott, on 12 November 2013 - 05:23 AM, said:

As a contributor to Wikipedia myself, I'd be flattered if I discovered one of my articles was copied and pasted here. Many of us spent countless hours researching online websites and books, which is very similar to how other users are doing it on this forum. I contibuted to a few WW2 battles, one of which I mostly did myself and plan to post here on its anniversary. An administrator took the time to verify any text I was entering, just to make sure it came from a reliable source. Anything unsourced or is probably untrusted is usually tagged with [citation needed], after which it is eventually removed if none is given.
I'd like to think of the copy & pasting here as acknowledging the contribution the Wikipedia users did in making and improving the article, in this case the Scharnhorst. When you look at the article's top right corner, you'll see an icon which indicates that it's been recognized as a "good article" by the admins. Again, it's the same way we acknowledge forum users who post ships and battles here by giving +1s. Pardon me for going off topic. =)
Wikipedia, just like any other publication, has its good and its bad.  It's not the point.  
.
Although there is no written rule about it, people here want to hear about somebody's point of view about a ship or a battle.  As it was pointed many times in this forum, in more abrasive ways than what Azumazi did, if we wanted to read Wikipedia, we'd go there directly.  At least, to the OP's defense, he mentioned from the start that it was one of his sources.
.
Also, T is right, there has been way worse first articles than that.  So, to the OP, welcome!

By the way, I don't think you can consider Scharnhorst as a battleship...


Discussing with a British officer: "You French fight for money, while we British fight for honour." "Sir, a man fights for what he lacks the most."
Robert Surcouf (French Corsair)


Scootaloo23 #20 Posted 12 November 2013 - 02:10 PM

    Commander

  • Alpha Tester
  • 3,474
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Heh. I learned all about ships from Wikipedia by just link surfing on WW2 Naval articles whenever we used the computers in Junior High.

By the time I was out I knew the names of almost every ship that fought in the Pacific by heart, and most of the Atlantic one as well.

So Wikipedia isn't bad, and it does feel a bit copypasted by he reformatted it nicely and seems to have a comprehensive grasp of what he is posting. Azumazi set the right example with his advice, and we must remember every loyal friendly user we cultivate now is one more that won't fight for the trolls later on.
Future Captain of the Alaska class battlecruiser USS Samoa CB-6.
"I will not abandon ship as long as a single gun can fire."-Julian F. Bectan