Scharnhorst
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лип 2020
- In another episode of our series looking at different capital ships, we're examining the German battleship (?) Scharnhorst. Starting off with the important question, was Scharnhost actually a battleship.
Please consider supporting the museum with a donation:
www.BattleshipNewJersey.org/GIVE
Apparently Admiral Fraser on the HMS Duke of York later stated to the crew: "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"
Informative video that stated some information that I previously didn't know, so I learned something new.
The C turret of the Gneisenau is still intact today. It was converted to a coastal deffence battery in Norway and is now a part of a museum. Look up Austrått Fort.
3 gun turret, 280mm, 11 inch guns at the Fort on the hill. Still open for tours. They had separate loaded ammo but interestingly enough, utilized huge brass propellant charge cases.
@Uncle Joe I live in Sweden, so fairly close by. But with the borders shut with soldiers guarding them it could as well have been on the moon :(
4 of Gneisenaus 150 mm guns was used in a coastal defence position on Fanø Denmark. After the war they were used in 2 * turrets on Stevnsfortet.
The 150 mm guns used at Langelandsfortet was new pieces produced at the end of the war.
Both installations are now museums.
Ryan said some of Gniesenau's guns are still operational in Norway.
Turret Ceaser.
"The Scharnhorst is like a G Wagon with semi-auto rifle, which is great for gunning down peasants while running away from the authorities"
Ok Yuro
And you will run away from the authorities.
cries in carriers
Wasnt that quote Tirpitz in WoWs? 😀
But yet she was so attractive
On of my Mothers Uncles died on Bord the Scharnhorst in the North Cape. It must have been a very hard time to serve on this Ship , at Chrismastime 1943, cold and very stormy. To fight under this conditions it was truly a very heroic business.
sorry to here that love and peace from the UK
That would be terrible to have to abandon ship at that time. Little chance of survival.
First off, the German philosophy on battlecruiser design in the 1930's was a carryover from World War 1. Speed, heavy armor, and reduced gun caliber. It is worth nothing that the SMS Seydlitz was also armed with 11 inch guns. She had a 12" armor belt and a speed of 26 knots, which was very fast for WW1. The first German battlecruisers were the first true fast battleships. The Seydlitz took 22 heavy caliber shell hits and a torpedo hit and still made it back to port. The only battlecruiser the Germans lost in the Battle of Jutland was the Lutzow, which took 20 heavy shell hits and had to be scuttled because she was drawing too much water to get over the bar at the mouth of the Jade river. Otherwise she would have survived too.
The sister of the Lutzow, the Derflinger took 15 heavy shell hits fired by the dreadnought Colossus and many others. She was in no danger of sinking, and could still make flank speed. Many of the dreadnoughts in the main battle line fired at her. Tremendous explosions were observed ( some of her main turrets blew up ) and the British were astounded that they could not sink her. They nicknamed the Derflinger "Iron Dog". Many critics cite that German capital ship design was a carryover from World War 1, but with such impressive results, the Germans were rightfully satisfied that they could build a properly protected capital ship. They weren't wrong. Many historical texts reference "The lessons of Jutland" when discussing World War 2 capital ship design. The Germans learned their their way worked. The ranges at which Rodney and King George V fired at Bismarck were not unlike those that would have happened in the North Sea. Bismarck performed as designed. Scharnhorst also performed as designed. She was able to get her speed back up to 22 knots in heavy seas after taking the hit in the engine room, she took a total of 13 hits from the Duke of York and it was only torpedoes that stopped her from escaping. She may have escaped even if one hit her, like the Seydlitz did, but unfortunately a lot more than one hit her.
Well... no. It was the shells from Duke of York that kept her from escaping. It slowed her down which allowed the Royal Navy to catch up and finish her off.
Seydlitz only survived those 22 hits because the British AP were known to be rubbish …the swedes had evaluated them and infirm the kriegmarine …after Jutland the German navy evaluated the damage inflicted on them and deduced that if the Royal Navy had German quality shells they would of lost 6-7 capital ships in the battle….
Enjoyable video. A few comments
1. The "Atlantic bow" was added after construction, launching and a couple of years of service.
2. An eleven inch shell weighs about 700 lbs, a 15-16 inch shell weighs + - 2000 lbs. a tremendous difference that you wouldn't expect from 4-5 inches in diameter.
3. The Sharnhorst absorbed eleven torpedo hits before sinking (apart from the shell hits).
-a very tough ship.
@@Kias1dad Thank you for taking the time to explain this. I kinda had a sense previously of what you are saying, but now I know exactly why.
He also said the Bismarck and Tirpitz were launched in 41, which is incorrect. Bismarck was already sunk (or scuttled depending on your source) by 41.
@@robertandrews6915 That was in the middle of the year.
@@adamtruong1759 well April but what does that have to do with anything? Still sunk before 41
@@robertandrews6915 I know that, you said that Bismarck and Tirpiz weren't launched in '41, which is half true.
You have become the American version of Drachinifel. Bravo Zulu from an old CG sailor.
He even got mentioned by the migjty Drac! I wanna see a cross over now lol
Drach is trying to line up his trip across the pond again. Maybe when he gets here he can do a collaboration video with Ryan.
They also look alike
And even more biased!
@@admiralfloofz658 seeing as you are making a claim contrary to the general perception; you might want to support it with evidence (as all historians should), or have Hitchen's Razor apply.
Edit, after a week of silence; I guess it applies then...
The fellow standing in line behind my Grandfather when he signed up for the RN, ended up moving into the same close or crescent decades later. He Roger Walker watched the Sharnhorst go under gutted by torpedoes from Samerez and others and shells from Duke of York. He said "l,ll never forget thinking. Those poor buggers, the've had it". He said he had bit of a tear for those doomed men. I have a picture of them accepting their Ushakov Medals from a Russian Ambassador for their service on the Northern Convoys.
some corrections:
1) Gneisenau did have radar from day 1 in the war, which was called Seekat Radar i can't recall if it was search radar or radar Rangefinder which could be used if needed as search radar by rotating it, and it had a max detection range of about 20km
2) The sinking of HMS Glorious was in a 2nd stage of the Norway campaign, not in the atlantic... was in fact German response to British operation Alphabet, while Royal Navy was evacuating their troops from Narvik.
3) Operation Berlin was the only Scharnhorsts raid on the Atlantic. It was a parcial sucess despite avoiding confrontation with Royal Navy capital ships, they managed to sink about 40.000tn but another big hit of the operation was the stress that these 2 ships put on the Royal Navy who was forced to deploy Battleships across the entire Atlantic, something UK couldn't afford too much prior to USA entering the war
Seetakt?
That was quite an excellent lecture sir. Quite impressed with your knowledge
Check out Drachininfel, be is very very good.
I like these 2 ships. For what they were used for and for the simple fact that they were totally out numbered and couldn't be effectively used because of blockade and were still very successful is a testament to how good they were. Had they gotten the 15in from the beginning they would've been truly awesome
I love these lectures. Its not often I bother listening to a guy just talking on such topics, but this curator is simply very good at his job!
At the time of building, the Germans did not have a "battleship" caliber -14,15 inch or bigger. As noted below, the intent was to ultimately replace the original 11" guns with heavier 15" guns when available. Scharnhorst was an undergunned battleship
The german project about the Scharnhorst and the sister ship Gneisenau was to be later "upgraded" to Bismark-alike bigger guns, so that could be the consideration that could put them as "battleships" (basically, they could became a 3 turrets, shorter version of a Bismark-class 4 turrets ship).
Gneisenau's 15 inches turrets were actually built, but used as coastline fortification...
I really like the depth you go to (no pun intended) when covering these ships. I have to have a decent amount of free time to watch them, but it’s enjoyable.
“France is pissed by this” 😂
lol his lectures in his videos always feel more like just shooting the shit with a fellow history nerd than anything formal.
Great video! One note: I just watched this back-to-back with your video about the King George V class battleships, which you also argue is THE ONLY ship ever armored against a larger caliber gun than it carried itself. Two one-of-a-kind designs! :)
Except the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were intended to be upgunned to 15" in due course...so not really.
Both designs were unique.
29:20 So you're telling me that Admiral Bey is basically every Scharnhorst player in World of Warships.
_Hehe, look at my 35,000 ton destroyer as I close in to launch torpedos_
Ha ha.. on the spot! :)
As a Sharnhorst player I agree
ShinyHorse bestest DD.
Actually not as much, not really sure where this channel got their info for the battle of NC bu it is at odds with every other account I have ever heard. Bey did his job well but the Brits were reading his codes and set a trap.
When he realized it was a trap he disengaged to draw off the escorts and sent his destroyers after the convoy.
This was a good plan, as the british ships were having a hard time keeping pace with Scahrn due to the Rough Seas, the british destroyers especially. It was going fairly well till part two of the trap POW snuck up and used radar to blind fire him and maul the Scharnhorst.
ua-cam.com/video/KbRMEPPbSyg/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Drachinifel
Frazier's after action report stated the Duke Of York fired 450 mb rounds at Scharnhorst. The rough seas likely had a part in the relative inaccuracy of the rounds. It was estimated that 80 rounds hit Scharnhorst. It was the Duke of York, and not Prince of Wales at the battle.
Love your commentary!!! Great videos!!!!
You are looking at a way to "classify" the 2 German vessels....you have to look back at the way
Germany built it's BCs in WWI, they were heavily armoured (compare to British BC) but with smaller guns than their british counterparts, with very well trained damage control systems. So they are designed for survival armour and speed over firepower which is not the priority that the USN and RN doctrine. As you said they can "choose" their ability to engage or not, so thinking of them them as "Light Battleships" designed to fight in the short ranged arena of the North Sea caperble of getting home before they are sunk.
Backpack Battleships, as opposed to pocket battleships.
Thank you for insightful analysis on the German battle ships design and the limitations. I have not come across the issues that you covered previously.
This guy lives the life, I was always dreaming of.
As things are, my friends and co workers have to suffer through my stand up speeches about the developement of turtle back armour....
They can flee, most of the time.
Good thig I'm a nurse.
Ventilated patients have a severly reduced likelyhood to flee.
So I got that going for me.
Between them, "the ugly twins" sunk or captured more ships than all battleships and battlecruisers in both WW1 and WW2 - combined! 25-27 ships, including one aircraft carrier, two destroyers, one armed merchant cruiser, as well as three oil tankers captured. In addition they directed U-Boats onto the convoy escorted by Malaya, resulting in 12 merchant ships sunk and Malaya taking a torpedo hit.
In the end, they were not lucky ships. After Gneisenau had been permanently disabled, almost all of her crew were transferred to the U-Boats, which basically meant near certain death.
My dad was in the Royal Navy in the war and he always called them pocket battleships, I know that's not a popular term anymore but that's how I always think of them.
When this was laid down, British battlecruisers had 15 inch guns, hence the armouring.
Note to self, comment AFTER finishing the video.
Britihs used the term Battlecruiser and the definition was the sacrifice of Armour for speed, Battlecruisers were basically the forerunners of Fast Battleships from a time when Battleships were terribly slow
My understanding was that they were armored to defeat their French counterparts, the Dunkerques, which had enormously powerful 13-inch guns. Since Germany didn't have more powerful guns ready to install, the Scharnhorsts were armored to let them close the gap with Dunkerques, essentially being a stone wall to Dunkerque's glass cannon and likely having similar zones of immunity against each other.
@@Balmung60 The choice to retain 11 inch guns (but improved over the Deutschland class) had more to do with political than availability.
In that they were designed seemingly purely to counter the French Dunkerques (as you said), but only to match (which the French themselves had the response of just ordering a few more of them to counter the Scharnhorst class) as opposed to improve over, compared to trying to create to superior design.
The German's hoped to not provoke the British, which is why it wasn't until the French laid down the Richelieu class (to counter the Italian Littorio class) did the German's start planning the Bismarck Class (15 inch gun battleship)
I would define both the Scharnhorst and Dunkerques as light battleships, as there was no deliberate sacrifice of armor to increase speed.
@@notsureyou well, on the other hand it could be said to have drawn from the Kaiserliche Marine in that they sacrifice gun caliber to gain speed instead of armor.
Undoubtedly the most beautiful warships ever built.
I would say that they were among the most beautiful. I am personally more a fan of the Bismarck class, but the one to outshine them is the Admiral Hipper class heavy cruisers. The Prinz Eugen just looks so sleek.
@@willemthijssen1082 Yes, I share your opinion. Great looking cruisers.
@@willemthijssen1082 All the German ships looked good. Though Gneisenau is my favorite.
@@willemthijssen1082 I know - I just wanted to write it in American style. You know, everything is the best ever, the best in the world etc.
My husband and his father built a model of this ship when he was 10 in 1970.
He is looking forward to your video.
such a beautiful ship
They where planned to be upgraded to Bismarck twin 15" turrets before the war but they didn't get around to doing it.
With 6 15s instead of 9 11s I think it would more clearly be a fast battleship.
Tbf that's basically a renown class battlecruiser guns with a tiny bit more belt armour than hood and more vulnerable to being mission killed than hood with the whole exposed fire control thing that Bismarck had . Hood to me was a fast battleship optimised for a battlecruiser role when it could have been optimised for a fast battleship role- knock it down to 30 knots with better protection in a refit and it's better at practically everything than QE, Revenge and Bismarck. Honestly think 1941 hood would have beaten Bismarck 6/10 times on her own. Scharnorst couldnt hold up to Renown- which is a battlecruiser because of its armour but with battleship grade guns. Its probably the easiest to rank out of all of them. And Sharnhorst couldn't hold up to it- so it's either an undergunned battleship even with the 6 15 inch guns or an over armoured battlecruiser that is trying to replicate Jutland german German battlecruisers, without realising that those ships would be undergunned in the 30s
Fun fact: the Russian term for battlecruiser is "line cruiser", ie line-of-battle cruiser, similar to the older German battleship designation mentioned in the video.
Edit: Also, the King George V class was armoured against the 15- and 16-inch guns then in service with/under construction for the European and Japanese navies, meaning they too had armour superior to their armament. Prince of Wales' protection held up quite well under 15-inch fire during the fight with Bismarck (and certainly better than Bismarck's armour held up against King George V's 14-inch fire), so I'd say they were quite successful in that goal.
That is not correct. The Battlecruiser of the Imperial German Navy like the Derfflinger or Seydlitz or Von der Tann were officialy designated as "Grosser Kreuzer" (Grand Cruiser). The Battleships were called "Gross Linienschiff ( Grand Ship of the Line). The German Navy after WWI also never used the Term Battlecruiser
His lecture has been the first one that might make me rethink insisting that scharnhorst was a battle cruiser. Very thoughtful.
Ryan your channel ID essential viewing for all enthusiasts. Brilliant.
U do an amazing job. watching u climb around and show the countless corridors AND roos, medical ROOM, SICK BAY EXCETRA its a lot more then the average person who assume in a a ship like that. KEEP UP THE GREET WORK ITS A PLESSURE WATCHIN THINNK YOU
Great video Ryan!! It's one of my favourite of yours😊
All true - but man, they looked pretty sharp !!!
Very impressive, I was a little bit sceptical first but you are very very good and your ability to explain shows great depth. Thanks for uploading this!!
I really enjoyed listening to all your lectures, this one in particular. So much knowledge!
The Kriegsmarine channel dash was glorious. Thanks for the video
Ryan, I have been following your extremely well-narrated discourses on ships of the line/battleships and must compliment you on not having to have an obviously pre-prepared script, instead talking quite naturally and relying on your excellent memory! One point - I´ve been very interested in naval matters since I was a young boy and still have originals of Fred T. Jane´s "Fighting Ships" of varying vintages - I have noticed that different countries had varying definitions of the terms "battleship" and "battlecruiser". The British defined a "battkecruiser" as being more lightly armoured but faster than a "battleship", with the same calibre guns, the Germans on the other hand preferred to term "battlecruisers" to be equally as well-armoured as "battleships" with higher speed but with lesser ordnance. Defining Scharnhorst as a "battlecruiser" is in accordance with the Royal Navy´s definition - at the time of her commissioning, the Kriegsmarine did not have any "battleships". You do, of course, concentrat on WWII vessels - it would be interesting to see more of your analyses on WWI vessels - particularly as regards the very swift advances made in capital ship design and technology in that era. All in all I congratulate you on your objective and very knowledgeable descriptions of the advantages and disadvantages of the various classes of warships! Many thanks for your fine work, it is genuinely appreciated! Regards, Les
A great set of talks - would love you to do the greatest of them all: HMS Warspite.
Thank you for the very candid and clear analysis of German commerce raiding. Graf Spee was the only real German capital surface ship successful in ACTUAL commerce raiding. The rest were phantom threats. Even Bismarck (with her lucky shot again Hood) was a failure as an actual commerce raider.
Didnt the Admiral Scheer accomplish more?
I admire your efforts.
you have a very unique presentation style... like it.. great show
Man, I'm forever lost when it comes to the designation of Scharnhorst and Dunkerque. I personally refer to them as battleships but damn, that debate is never going to find a concrete answer.
So glad I finally happened across this channel. I absolutely love ships and listening to you talk about this stuff is absolutely magic. Thanks a lot for taking time to do these videos!
Heavy battlecruiser might be the best name, but that is probably up for debate.
Battlecruiser after WW1 is a obsolete designation. You had Battleships and fast Battleships.
@@535phobos that's not true at all. Developments like the G3, the Amagis and Lexingtons were huge aspects in the naval treaties which influenced naval development. Fast battleships were still quite a way off.
@@MrNigzy23 Yeah, there were designs, but none were build. The differences became blurry. Hood, as the last Battlecruiser, is not armored worse than the Queen Elizabeths. Engines became good enough to have a Battleship going almost Battlecruiser speed.
You could then of course crank that to 11 the "true" Battlecruiser way, ditch the armor and get the Lexingtons, but I dont think those would have been succesful. I think Jutland showed that speed isnt armor, and thats much more true for the 30s.
OK, not the best thought out concept, but with her Atlantik bow she was gorgeous, and Scharnhorst has to be about the coolest name ever. Good analysis as always , Ryan.
I have visited the Alabama and I am going to visit the New Jersey some day. It will probably be a trip dedicated just to see the New Jersey as I can stop by Mobile or Wilmington, but Camden is way out of the way for me. Still, it is on the list.
Great Video. I wish we'd be able to get aboard of the old German battleships. We visited Iowa and Midway when we were in the US last time - awesome to be able to walk the decks of living history.
Thanks again for sharing this with us, Ryan!
Again a very profound analysis and - what I like in particular - you draw some very interesting conclusions here.
Looking at some of the questions here that others seem to have, I would like to once more emphasize the origin of the design.
When Hitler came to power early 1933 he was still much more occupied in securing his power and getting rid of any opposition. That included the Reichspräsident (president of the empire) Hindenburg himself, as well as the SA (Ernst Röhm) etc.. He was very much unsure, how France and Great Britain would react to all his steps. Bare in mind, the French had occupied parts of western Germany just some 10 years ago! So, in the beginning he favoured continuing with ships D and E based on the design of ship A (Lützow = Deutschland). After getting to know some details about France's Dunkerque-class he seemed to have drastically changed his mind and thought of the Panzerschiff-design to be totally inferior.
In order to quickly counter the French threat the Kriegsmarine suggested to build larger ships with a third turret using the already available and proven 28cm/11inch guns. Those ones could then be refitted later on with the new 38cm/15inch guns being under development. The barbets were known to be identical. Hitler agreed to that proposal. However, he did not want to see the limit of 35000 tons violated drastically. All this was to avoid testing the barely existing anglo-german relationships (apparrently he had a completely unrealistic view of that relationship and its potential! It never worked out the way he envisioned.).
All that taken into account the resulting design suffered from some severe limitations that are brought to the table in this video. The portholes are a clear indicator of the lack of armour for the A-deck, for example. I would assume that the classification as battleships was more sort of a political statement from both Hitler and the german navy. Nonetheless, at least the latter seem to have understood the overall weakness to a certain extent.
Bismarck class must be considered the only true battleship class becoming available to the Kriegsmarine. And two ships - no matter how well or bad designed - cannot make much difference. Hence the statement from Erich Raeder that this navy cannot win a war - it could only find respect in bravely accepting defeat.
There is one more thing. Of course our point of view here is primarily from a technical perspective which is fully fine. However, we should bare in mind that this and many other vessels had uttermost tragic personal consequences for many sailors. We are discussing not only ships, but also what these are: war machines.
I really enjoyed listening to this video a lot! Keep up the great work.
Nice explanation of the pertinent elements of armament and history. Big fan of your channel, well done Sir.
I've been really enjoying this channel, I've learned a bit about the New Jersey, the Iowas, and battleships in general. Though I think I'm gonna see if USS North Carolina has a channel, she's my state's ship, I figure I should pay the ol' showboat a visit.
You should also visit USS Massachusetts. She’s the only remaining US battleship that did her Job and sank an enemy battleship, alongside a light cruiser, four destroyers, three troop ships, and a cargo ship.
Ryan, I have an idea for a video: How about talking about the seaworthiness or "wetness" of the Iowas?
There persists, among the Battleship nerd community, the myth that the Iowa performed poorly in the 50's in a NATO exercise compared to HMS Vanguard...in terms of her ability to fight in heavier weather.
As best I can tell, the only observation came from some random RN officer aboard Vanguard.
Would be nice to see some official documentation, if you have access to any, about these ships' ability to fight in heavy seas....which I think would be just fine, but others like to claim US ships couldn't handle the weather.
Thank you for this impressive work
Just found your channel, excellent videos , keep them coming 👍
Welcome aboard!
The Gneisenau C-turret is intact today as a decommissioned coastal fort, now tour guided museum.
Location: Austraat, Oerland, Norway.
This turret was removed from the heavily damaged ship in 1942 in Kiel, after RAF bomb raids had made the ship unrepairable. The post war fort was last fired in 1953, decommissioned in 1968 and became a museum in 1991. I grew up 1 km away from the fort and my grandparents lived under the grenade trajectory towards the targets at Tarva island north of Oerland.
Another great video 👍
The 283 mm guns (not 280 mm, Krupp had some odd-ball gun diameters, most left-overs from the 19th Century) on SCHARNHORST Class ships were given new 283 mm Psgr.m.K. (APHE Shell with AP Cap -- and windscreen, "u.Hb.", implied, but not used as part of the ID in AP shells) L/4,4 (Length 4.4 calibers), the same new ammo used in the 203mm guns of new HIPPER Class cruisers, 380 mm guns on BISMARCK Class, and 406 mm guns used in Coast Defense guns and never-built H-4X Class battleships. The shells were MUCH better than the 283mm Psgr.m.K. L/3,7 shells used in the "Pocket Battleships" (same AP shell design as the first post-WWI 150 mm guns made by Krupp and used through the end of WWII) that were "warmed-over" late-WWI L/3,2, 3,4, and 3,5 AP shells used in the latest guns in service or in design during that war, with the following improvements: A blunter pointed nose, an improved base fuze (no longer the WWI Krupp "Rube Goldberg kluge" -- my term -- used when they literally "shoehorned" a delay action into their older non-delay base fuzes, with very poor reliability), and a new hardened AP cap -- smaller than the one used in the later L/4,4 shells -- with a short pointed windscreen (these late-model WWI Krupp shells all had "tough" caps -- somewhat better than soft caps in tests, but not as good as the hard caps used in French WWI shells and late-WWI post-Battle of Jutland British WWI shells). Other than the AP cap and the better fuze, the L/3,7 shells seem to have been identical in penetrating power to the WWI designs they replaced. Note also that the much stronger, more-streamlined L/4,4 AP shells all had unique aluminum windscreens that shattered on impact and, like all of the prior Krupp shells mentioned above, used a super-strong high-temperature solder that made knocking off of their AP caps much more difficult than all other shells that I know of -- Krupp must have had defective cap design problems early-on just prior to WWI and over-designed the shell noses to make sure it never happened again. The L/4,4 AP shell design was pretty good with its major flaw the sudden drop in hardness at the surface just below where the pointed nose joined the cylindrical side, forming a hardness step that was the spot where most shell damage radiated from on impacts that just barely penetrated the plate hit. Such steps in hardness are not good in projectiles where impact shock resistance is a design factor.
Similar to the Scharnhorst, the British KGV class had armor that could defeat a bigger gun than the ship carried. i think the British saw the writing on the wall in the early-mid thirties that they might be stuck with a battleship with only 14' guns (while treaty quitters went bigger)and planned for that possibility....unfortunately there was not enough design flexibility to upgun the main armament like the NC class to 16".
These were beautiful ships.
For me Scharnhorst class were Battleships that just never got their intended guns, would be interesting to see what they would have been like with the intended 15 in guns
I would be curious about their speed, considering the lengthened hull.
Nice video Ryan... Thanks
This man could design-build the perfect Battle Ship. He is quoting all this from memory and unscripted!
needs to be added to the ship comparison playlist
Interesting. Looking forward to the review of the KGV's. If you intend to carry on with this I'd like your thoughts of some less well known ships, the Swedish 'Sverige'-class, perhaps more deserving of the term pocket-battleship, than the 'Deutchlands'.
This entire video was hilarious!
Excellent video! I believe the KGV class also was armored against bigger guns than their own 14 inch.
I would classify Scharnhorst as designed (with the 15-inch guns) as battleship as used ( with the 11-inch guns) I would go with battlecruiser as it could not really fight other battleship with this set up.
Yes, the Scharnhorsts were battleships. They were intended to be smaller versions of the Bismarck. They were supposed to have three two-gun, 15 inch turrets, but since those guns were not available, they used the 11 inch guns that were at hand. They possessed the same armor layout as the Bismarck.
Very, well, done...
great talk!
One only needs to recall the fate of Hood, to be reminded of the flaws in the concept. Ryan's mastery of the topic is awesome.
It's hard to upgun ships that are at the bottom of the sea.
Gneisenau survived till 45
Oh look! At 8:48 one can see the clock on Gneisnau/Scharnhorst, which most 20-30’s American battleships utilized! Of which you have also made a great video on.
Thanks for sharing.🙂
I love how Ryan always looks like he just pulled off his touk. Also the Scharnhorst-class were called battleships by the Germans, therefore they were battleships.
Great video!
A great "what if" scenario would be HMS Duke of York versus KMS Scharnhorst one-on-one. If Scharnhorst had better radar technology on parody with the Brits in Duke of York, this would have been an interesting battle. The Germans had a real nasty habit of being well drilled in heavy gun target practice, the British were not bad either in this vital area, but the German Navy was tops in big gun accuracy. This dated back Ito WW 1, most especially with the armored cruisers SMS Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, the namesakes of the WW 2 German battlecruisers, Scharnhorst & Gneisenau. Other classes of German warships carried accuracy trophies from extreme big gun practice. The 11-inch shells of the German battlecruisers had ballistics that surpassed larger battleship rounds in "speed" of the round and a "faster" reload/fire time, a very important asset. Scharnhorst could put out an abundance of 11-inch fire in a 60-second time period. With a radar equal to the Duke of York and its anybodies battle. My money on the Scharnhorst!
HMS Belfast in London was involved in the Battle of North Cape, there is a display in the Ops room of the battle,
War ship classifications are a mess.
One could argue that all the German battleships of WW2 were actually Frigates, when you apply the old, original definition of a Frigate.
Back in the sailing ship era, especially during the Caribbean War between Britain and France, Frigates were basically solo warrior battleships, favoring speed and endurance over firepower, so they could go on long patrols on their own, while the actual battleships were those hulking monstrosities that were way too slow, unwieldy and expensive to maintain, to do anything but sitting in a harbor and waiting for a big battle to sail into.
Frigates were the cheap and fast alternative to use for the every day war ship jobs.
So even a battleship that is meant to operate alone and do long range missions, ought to be classified as a Frigate, if we would still use that old, original definition.
Even the big German WW2 Battleships like the Tirpitz and the Bismarck were not supposed to do big, head-on clashes between battle fleets, but were supposed to operate alone or with minimum support very far away from the fleet, just like a old Frigate.
How and why we arrived at the modern definition, where a Frigate is something in between a Corvette and a Destroyer in size, I am not sure, but I assume it is because modern Frigates, like their sailing age ancestor, are supposed to at least be able to operate alone, outside of a fleet or battle group.
Actually, applying that definition, modern US Destroyers ought to be called Frigates too, because they are the ones you send out alone, to do jobs a Cruiser or anything bigger would be overkill for.
The only people calling them battlecruisers are certain British authors. The German Navy didn’t have that classification. Part of the problem is that the “allies” having developed all or nothing armour and have a poor concept of how turtle back armour improved. There were two armored decks. The upper would decap, defuse and tumble the shell before it got to the lower deck.
Good stuff. Thx
She put up one hell of a fight against impossible odds.
The Scharnhorsts were battlecruisers of the German pattern. One thing people forget is that Germany and Great Britain designed battlecruisers very differently, even as far back as World War I. Great Britain built them with the guns of a battleship but intermediate armor protection. Germany built them with battleship armor but an intermediate gun caliber. If upgraded to battleship guns, however, a German battlecruiser could actually become a battleship, and the Scharnhorst and Gneissenau were built with larger turret rings with this future upgrade in mind. The British battlecruisers could never truly become battleships, however, as their internal structure was not strong enough to accommodate the needed armor enhancements and adding the extra armor would cause hull hogging and a generally strained structure.
Great Britain's battlecruiser concept proved fatally flawed on many occasions, first at Jutland and, later, with the loss of HMS Hood. By giving them the guns of a battleship but weaker armor, they made them just as dangerous as a battleship on offense but able to be more easily destroyed; thus, they became priority targets even over actual battleships since the goal of an opponent is to take guns out of the fight. It is hard to find a single design flaw that cost more lives than the entirety of the British battlecruiser design concept; 4809 sailors killed in the loss of the 3 battlecruisers at Jutland and HMS Hood.
BATTLE SHIP
They were only 3,000 tons light of the treaty limit.
They were seemingly over-armoured because the were to have 15 inch turrets like the Bismark (perhaps!)
True .They planned on going to the 15 inch guns right from the start, they would of been slightly at an advantage to the KG V class.
@@bluestingray67 How, really ?
@@bluestingray67 Unlike the USS North Carolina where the USN made sure that triple 16" guns could be dropped in for the planned 14" quad turrets, the Scharnhorst class were designed to carry the triple 11" guns. As was mentioned in the video, this would take months and months in dockyard to do. According to Dulin & Garzke's Axis Battleships of WW2, the Germans estimated that modifications would take 45,000 man days plus another 25,000 man days to repair the damage to Gneisenau. This is about a year of dockyard time. Also while the Scharnorst had heavy side armor there were a number of deficiencies in the way it was laid out. This allowed heavy guns, such as the British 14" guns, to penetrate her armor and ultimately cripple her.
@@bluestingray67 The German Navy wanted 12 or 13 inch guns. In order to get the London Naval treaty through Hitler preferred 11 inches which wouldn’t threaten the British. It’s was also practical in that 11 inches could be developed from the existing 11 inch guns. The London Navy treaty allowed Germany to build 35% of the equal to the British fleet. The 12 inch guns were developed but remained in a development stage as a shore battery.
@@timothyschmidt9566 The Scharnhorst was likely penetrated at a shot trap where the armored deck was raised about a meter to accommodate the boilers. A little more armour there might have helped or a better design.
A rather Interesting view of the Battle of North Cape. Could you elaborate on exactly what mistakes Bey made given the situation I feel that most of his calls (as a naval officer) were correct.
At 2:08 you were talking about the British classification of the Scharnhorsts as Battle cruisers. Under the terms of the treaty, these ships were meant to displace 26,000 tonnes which was the same as the Renowns. the British were unaware that the actual standard displacement was 32,000 tonnes and that the Germans violated the treaty limits. If the British had known the actual displacement, they would have realized that the scale of armouring was much heavier. Hence the term "battlecruiser" as opposed to fast battleship.
What is to be commended is Germany's fire control systems or training rationale of fire controllers, as it seems in most engagements they were stradling the target and making hits in less than 10 salvos. Something the Royal navy didnt seem to get a much of a handle on in the European theatre (although they acquited themselves much better in the Pacific theatre)
For further confusion, remember that Germany’s WWI battlecruiser design paradigm focused on heavier armor and smaller guns.
Hi Ryan. Another factor in the Glorious encounter was that Glorious was evacuating a lot of Gloster Gladiators from Norway after Britain gave up trying to stop Jerry there. Consequently she couldn't det torpedo bombers up to the flight deck to fight back.
At the North Cape, Duke of York had the new centimetric radar fire control which made firing in the dark easy.
Good video.
there was also disarray in her air group. Glorious' Captain had received permission to proceed back to Scapa independently because he was pursuing out martial against her CAG for refusing a mission his aircraft weren't designed for, or his crews trained for. Engaging Glorious did keep the Germans from finding the RN destroyers carrying the Norwegian royal family (and the nation's gold reserves) to the UK.
... engaging Glorious and her escorts ...
@@gerardmdelaney I didn't know that, but if she could have attacked the battleships with swordfish then the outcome might have been different, eg one of the gerries badly damaged or sunk, certainly distracted enough to perhaps let glorious get away. Damage to S or G might have turned them back? "What if" is the fun of history.
It is a Battleship Cruiser! If they had added those 15 inch guns then a Battleship! She still tied with the British Warspite for the longest range of hitting another ship with her guns at 15 miles. I have always liked her class warship and wonder what the effect would have been if she had her 3 turrets with two15 inch guns each! Warspite had 15 inch guns so you do not need 16 or 18 inch guns. Plus her sister ship also struck the Glorious at the same distance with her 11 inch guns! Both at 31 knots
The 11" gun was designed to off set bigger diameter bore sizes! It relies on the stiletto FX employed by latter armour piercing rounds, of tanks etc! It also gave a flatter trajectory than same weight wider caliber over longer ranges to an extent! But mostly to subvert treaty restrictions! When they were abandoned the German war industry was poised to swing into action!
Well WWI German battlecruisers took speed and armor over firepower... so they were closest, in my opinion, to WWI battlecruisers. Also, the KGV class were not under armed. People tend to forget how rare it was to have guns larger than 14 inches in the navies of the world outside the Royal Navy. The US standards were 14s, the French had 13s and only on the Richelieu do they have larger guns. The Italians had one class with 15 inch, the USN had the Colorados and the treaty battleships with 16 inch, the Japanese had just the Yamtos and the Nagatos with larger than 14 inch. Other than the Royal Navy did they become pretty uniform with 15 inch guns while the Nelsons had 16s. The USN used the escalator clause with the treaty fast battleships but they were originally designed with 14s. The British 14"/45 guns on the KGVs had larger bursting charges to 15 inch shells, their deck penetration at 16,000yds was actually slightly better than the USN's 16"/45s! They compared favorably to all the other values of 15 and 16 inch guns of the time.
You are so lucky to be on this great ship . I envy you so much.
bro you had my subscription when u recalled the number of secondary guns from your head XD
The original plan was to upgrade the main guns to 38cm or 15 inch, same as the Bismark before they went to war. It was a 35000 ton ship that was able to cruise around 32 knots. Faster than most allied battleships. Were they were weak was at the water line. Didn't take torpedo hits well. Was almost sunk twice by British subs. But a good looking ship.
My dad was a naval electrical during WWII and worked on Alaska's electrical plot table. He really liked them. The Guam was not finished before the war was over. I asked why they were scrapped because to me two or three such vessels ( newer than Iowa class ) would be more economical for a post war nation. It was naval doctrine; Alaska and Hawaii became states and only Battleships were named after states and they were cruisers. They were surly not under armored ( displaced 28,000 tons ) almost as heavy as some battleships ( South Dakota class 35,000 tons ). Our government often commented about the battle cruisers of other nations ; not well armored, not enough travel range, etc. WE called our's LARGE CRUISERS to save political face. Sham; fast, newer AAA, 9 - 12 inchers ( 850+ lb. shell ), good electronics package. But, not politically or correct according to naval leadership.
They were fast battleships that missed out on getting upgunned. The thing is that these and Bismarck class were both used as battle cruisers in terms of role. Just them and a couple escorts to raid shipping. More than the actual battle cruisers (Kongo etc) ever were.
One can see Drachs' influnce on Ryan after their meeting. Well done, Ryan, keep up the good work, maybe have a look at the Kongo-class, as they were fast (30.5kts) battleships with 15" guns
*14 inch guns
Also Ryan has done a video about the Kongo's. I recommend it.
The Scharnhorst class BATTLESHIPS , were designed to carry 6X15 inch guns , but those guns were not ready , so they mounted 11 inch guns , they were supposed to be refitted with 15 inch guns , but WWII started so they were not refitted
Also had political reasons. It was hard enough to get the British to allow new german Battleships, the didnt want to go all in.
@Chris G very true mate , had they been built with 15 inch guns , they would have been a match for the royal navies Renown class ships (slightly faster and heavier armoured)
Please do the Latorre chilean battleship.
The Scharnhorst class were fast battleships they had 11 inch guns cause they were the biggest gun Germany had available. They wanted them in service as soon as possible so put the 11 inch guns with the plan to put 15 inch guns later when they were ready but being at war didn't bother in the end. They had one of the thickest belts with a lot of coverage of any battleships even a thicker belt than Bismark by nearly 2 inches and covered just as much if not more.
Well the WW1 German battlecruisers had lighter guns and heavier armor than the British formula of lighter armor and full BB sized guns to achieve speed. Still battle cruisers, the class is mainly defined by speed: A fast unit that could also stand in the battle line. They were also trying to fit them into a displacement of 26,000 tons not the 35,000 ton limit, and hit about 32,000, still reported her at 26 though.
I think the German Commanders were under orders not to engage with enemy ships that were equal. In the engagement with the Renown they were covering the invasion force on Norway the Gneisenau was hit early so the German Admiral decided to disengage with the Scharnhorst laying some covering fire