They built it with 28cm guns in order to stay in the range of the Versailles treaty and the Anglo-German naval agreement. It was planned to switch them for 38cm, but because of the war this never materialized.
translation built with 11" guns But they wanted to upgrade it to 15" And another reason why they don't build it with 15" guns is because they didn't have a mount for them yet
Not exactly. It is proven by numerous historical sources that Scharnhorst/Gneisenau should be armed with a 38cm main Battery by design but Krupp could not deliever the guns in time so the Navy had to choose a triple 28cm battery which were proven by the Deutschland class and most importantly available. Keep in mind that Scharnhorst/Gneisenau were the first Battleships build in Germany for nearly two decades because of the Arms Limitations of the Versailles Treaty which had forbidden any new Capital.Ships but when the Twins were built Hitler already had denied to accecpt any.further.arms.limitations .But still the Kriegsmarine had to make several.difficult c ompromisses which the Royal Navy in opposition never by had to.consider by their shipbuilding like the inavailability of 38cm.guns in time
Insert germans using "wide" twin turrets on Bismark and Tirpitz because they allegedly "planned" them as three gun turrets and german 406mm gun being, also allegedly, designed as 420mm that was meant to be redrilled to 420mm once "war started"(WWII wasn't waiting for germans and their fantasy plans though). Which meant that those guns were unusually heavy and inefficient for 406mm, but could potentially hold higher pressure due to thicker barrel tube walls. Not to mention they weren't obligated to redrill them immediately. They could have just used them and then when after several hundred shots the rifling would be dead, barrel would be redrilled to intended caliber and reused. Cons: you have to produce both 406mm and 420mm ammo. Pros: you don't have to build completely new guns just as often.
@@thatpersoninthecomments8613Would say that about mixing mediums and heavies. Light tanks still existed as a separate thing, especially since they're the only ones that could be easily be air mobile or made amphibious
Medium and Heavy became the MBT as it didn't make sense to have a slightly better armoured and gunned tank when technology allowed for both in the same package. But there remained a place for the light tank.
I think what a lot of people fail to understand is that Battlecruiser was very much a British term and not a universal one (though the Germans threw it around a bit in WW1) and it was never a hardline definition of what the ship would look like so much as how it would be employed. The British idea being a big gun ship that hunts cruisers, the German one being a moderately big gun ship that hunts Battlecruisers. Battlecruiser is a term thats thrown around a lot but has very little actual meaning behind it besides starting arguments over what it actually means.
You've an excellent point. You could even argue that the Iowas were battlecruisers from a certain point of view. Their nearest contemporary battleships were the never completed Montana class, which had more armor and firepower than the Iowas, but less speed. The Iowas were built for two primairly roles, running down enemy fast capitals that they outgunned and/or out armored, and serving as a part of the fleet screen for carriers, both of which are pretty close to the primary roles of battlecruisers. Ot course, this is just a case of "from a certain point of view". The US called them fast battleships, and didn't use them any different than the north Carolina or south Dakota class. Hardly the fault of the Iowas that none of them got to engage enemy capital ships. [Washington vs Kirishima and Massachusetts vs Jean Bart
Battlecruiser was a term started by the british yes, but more countries then just then and Germany used the term. Japan had multiple classes of Battlecruiser, most famous being the Kongos which were rebuilt as fast battleships eventually. The US used the term in their Lexington Class Battlecruisers before conversion, and France used the term with the Dunkerque class initially before they were eventually considered fast battleships.
The idea if the battlecruiser started n Britain but eventually spread to all the major naval powers who had their own designated battlecruisers. I think where people get confused is with the blurring of the lines between battleships and battlecruisers that happened after WW1. Before, it was very distinct that the battlecruiser had similar weaponry to battleships but less armor for a faster speed. With the advances in naval technology and limitations of naval treaties, the distinction became less apparent
Because it's helpful when making comparisons to use a universal categorisation scheme. The various naval treaties somewhat quantified this for us (in order to put limits on the different types of ships) but in reality ships were built for a role and that informs their class more than anything.
On the other hand, Scharnhorst roughly followed the doctrine/design of WW1 German battlecruisers. German battlecruisers, rather than sacrifice extensive amounts of armor, had almost/if not the same armor (ex: Derfflinger-class) as contemporary battleships which they balanced by having smaller guns, which were still almost just as effective.
This: German battlecruisers gave up more firepower than armor for speed relative to German battleships, iirc. Unlike British battlecruisers which gave up more armor than firepower relative to British battleships This video makes the mistake of arguing from the point of view of British naval tradition on an issue that should be more appropriately argued via German naval traditions. That said, these 2 ships were intended at battleships, and were used more or less the way ever other German ww2 battleship was used. But Germany used their battleships more like battlecruisers were intended to be used.
@@spudgamer6049 True if we're referring to how they were called and used by the Germans themselves, then I guess they're just "fast battleships"...with dinkier guns
@@boreasreal5911 Yes they did. Virtually all WW1 German battlecruisers used a 11-12 inch Caliber main battery while their British contemporaries had a 13.5-15 inch main armament.
@@boreasreal5911 Only the Derfflingers had 12 inch guns rather than 11 inch guns, and they had 4 turrets to the Koenig class battleships' 5 turrets, as well as being laid down later, in between the Koenigs and the much more powerfully armed Bayerns (15 inch guns, a major jump)
That’s because that’s what it was, no room for interpretation if it were a battle cruiser it would be the exact opposite of what it is, bigger guns and less armour, not smaller guns and the same armour
@@62136 No disrespect, but saying you're German doesn't add anything to your argument. Unless you're an extremely old German who had a hand in designing the ship, you have all the same information as anyone else in the world.
Not the German battlecruisers though, a ship like Derflinger had over 12 in of main belt armour. The Royal Navy built their first battle cruisers to hunt cruisers, but the battlecruisers of the high seas fleet were built to counter their opposite numbers in the grand fleet and substitute into the battle line. As such, they tended to be slower and less heavily armed than British battlecruisers, but had much thicker armour. This worked well for them at Jutland when admiral Beatty foolishly closed the range with the Germans, forfeiting his advantage, and giving the Germans the initiative.
They're by no means significantly weaker armed than their battleship counterparts though. The German main gun until the Bayern-class was the 30cm L45 and later L50. German battlecruiser kept the 28cm gun for quite some time because Alfred von Tirpitz insisted that he thought having 10 gun broadside even with smaller guns was a bigger advantage in battle. It wasn't until the introduction of more thickly armored super-dreadnought he had to concede the 28cm gun was becoming obsolete and allowed the 30cm L50 on the Derflingers.
@@Arthion they typically had less guns though? Like there were 8 on Seidlitz and 12 on the Helgolands? Granted the battle cruisers had a more efficient layout and a similar broadside weight due to the awkward hexagonal layout of the Helgolands and a few of the earliest German Dreadnoughts. And they were outgunned by their British opponents, which was the main point I was making....
@@josephlongbone4255 I mean the Germans in general were outgunned by the Brittish. They were quite conservative about upgrading their guns. They only upgraded past 12" guns in 1916 when Bayern entered service It's less that German battlecruisers have small guns, more that Germans have small guns in general for the time period Derfflinger has the same armament as her battleship cousin, the König class. And as typical for a battlecruiser has 1 less turret. The real main difference really is that German battlecruisers generally are a knot or two slower in return for more reinforced armour. People always tend to conflate this with Scharnhorst, which has small guns for an entirely different reason, in this case that the new 38cm SK/C 34 turrets were far from ready at the time of construction of the ship so they had to settle for the second best option available of the improved 28cm guns originally intended for the Deutchsland-class' successor that got cancelled in favor of Scharnhorst and Gneissenau
@@Arthion the problem with calling things battlecruisers in the second world war is a lot of the battlecruisers were converging on the fast battleship design. The Renown's and Kongos (I think two of which were British built) had been up armoured, and weren't quite as well protected as the sharn horse but there heavier firepower made them competitive. Renown did manage to see off both the Scharnhorst's. It would be very hard to argue that Scharnhorst would be competitive against Hood, apart from maybe that she could run away as Hoods engines (and several other systems) where in serious need of a refit. All these ships are designated battlecruisers and compare quite well with the Scharnhorst. They also match the paradigm of the German and British battlecruisers in the first world war. It doesn't really matter, but I think Scharnhorst fits in the same category as the Alaskas and the Dunkerques, in that they are very battlecruiserish but I guess you could call them a light battleship?
I believe it's sort of designed at such size to bully and hunt down cruisers with it's speed and armour, also a superior gun compared to its opponent It does a great job in this situation, just not that good against battleships
Gneisenau and Scharnhorst followed the same pattern as the german WW1 BC’s. Those the brits called BC’s despite being armored enough to be in the battleline. As for the germans, they never used the term BC. It was Grosser Kreuzer in WW1 and Schlachtschiff in Ww2.
Schlachtschiff is Battleship in German which was used since Battleships were ever a thing, Großer Kreuzer being "Big Cruiser" or "Great Cruiser." The German word for Battlecruiser would be Schlachtkreuzer.
It’s not the size of the gun but how you use the gun! TBF, I think calling them battlecruisers makes sense. British battlecruisers like the Hood were better armoured than the Scharnhorst by WW2, but are called battlecruisers nonetheless. What also matters is the doctrine, how they’re envisioned as being used. E.g. the Panther was a medium tank, though its weight, armour and firepower trumped several contemporary Allied heavy tanks (and even the Tiger frontally), and no one would dispute them being medium tanks.
That is the upgraded Hood tho, at launch it didn't had armour so it was a traditional design, and the end result after refit would be what you would now call a fast battleship, but was still called battlecruiser because that was the original designation and it didn't change
@@jerryrgzz1571 yeah, so that’s what you’re ignoring: definitions change. An MRAP today has thicker armour than a tank did in WW1. That doesn’t make it a tank, because the definition of what a tank is has changed. Hood was still a battlecruiser, that’s certainly what the Royal Navy, her captain and her crew thought.
Panther had been called heavy tank because it was better armoured from the front compared to tiger and similarly or better to allied heavy tanks like is1-is2, pershing, sherman jumbo, churchill. And gun with penetration better than tiger 88mm, is2 122mm guns. Closest name will be main battle tank since it was faster, better or the same compared to heavy tanks of allies, with only one minus as side armor.
They were supposed to be upgunned to 15 inch guns, but they end up being sunk before that. So they are Battleships more than Battlecruisers. The only reason they had small guns was to please the treaty that forbid Germany of using big guns in their ships.
wrong! the planned up gun was for 13.5' not 15" and not in 3 triple but 3 x 2 like Renown class, which would have enabled just one of them not to run away from BC Renown!
@@donalddemothey wanted the 15 inchers on the Scharny. The one which was meant to have 13,5 was Bismarck but it was changed to 15 inch once the krauts realised the 13,5s were a bit small.
Adding to what was said here, I think doctrine is the most important aspect of these discussions. Also, worth noting with the Scharnhorst- and Dunkerque-class is that they are considerably smaller than most other WWII capital ships.
They did have an 11 inch battleship that served in WW2, the predreadnought SMS Schleswig-Holstein. If I remember correctly, that ship fired the opening shots that started the invasion of Poland this the official start of WW2
@@katrinapaton5283Unlike Renown and Repulse with their measly 9" armor belt, Scharnhorst and Gneissenau are actually armored to fight enemy capital ships. Which would've been wasted weight were there not plans to upgrade their armament. Scharnhorst and Gneissenau are armored like proper battleships, that's all there is you need to know to define what they are.
@@Arthion By your definition, does that mean HMS Hood wasn't a battlecruiser either? Because with her 12" belt and 15" turrets she was at least as well armoured as the best battleships of her time and yet the British seemed fairly convinced she was a battlecruiser. Meanwhile, the Dunkerques were considered by the French to be battleships, despite only having an 8.9" belt. I dont feel that armour alone defines what a capital ship is.I could be wrong, in fact I probably am, I've been wrong before.
@@katrinapaton5283Some argue Hood is the first fast battleship. Besides the definition is mostly arbitrary anyway by WW2. Hell the Japanese even call the Kongou's "battleships" But either case the Germans themselves defined them as battleships so thus they have probably first say in the matter. But either case the Scharnhorst kinda do the exact opposite of a battlecruiser by having small guns but heavy armor, when it's traditionally the other way around
@@jakubkarczynski269 Ah I see what you mean. Although the Lexington-class (before aircraft carrier conversion) was originally classified as battlecruisers, but the Alaska-class was classified differently as “large cruisers” (bit of an understatement if you ask me!). I’m also pretty sure Wasp was classified as a fleet carrier, albeit a small one, rather than an actual light carrier. As for battleships, the USN seemed to have a pretty good understanding of what classified as a battleship, such as having a strong armor belt (a feature that the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau most certainly had) and how ships like the Alaska’s had weak armor for ships of their displacement therefore were classified differently. Also given how the US constructed the North Carolina, South Dakota, and Iowa-classes, I think it’s safe to say they knew what a battleship was. The only factor of the Scharnhorst possibly being a battlecruiser is its meager firepower and even that was only intended as a stopgap measure for the eventual modification of 15inch guns, which because of the war were never able to be installed. Also too, if the Kriegsmarine itself classified its own ships as battleships and not battlecruisers, then I think the argument speaks for itself. That’s just my opinion though.
@@nathansullivan4433 The most important was way in which they were to be used. They weren't intended to fight battleships. But to run away from them. Even if they had superiority aginst them.
@@donalddemo I dont get where you're trying to go with this. I occasionaly call Scharnhorst a "light" battleship purely because she has small guns compared to her contempoaries. The same way that "light" cruisers have smaller guns than "heavy" cruisers.
No other argument could possibly matter, as the fact is, it is designated a battleship. No "should" or "technically" about it. It was designed and put into service as a battleship, and that is the simple fact of the matter. Case closed.
AND Jackie Fisher came up with the class of Battlecruiser Which is simply , in HIS words, a battleship that replaces displacement from armour with displacement from machinary so that it went faster Scharnhorst did not sacrifice any armour. It was extremely well armoured for its size. It was fast due to technology Main gun calibre has nothing to do with being either a BB or BC as long as its the largest a nation could employ. Which for post war Germany was 11"!
Term 'battlecruiser' overall was dropped by WW2 with basically only British still using it. For French theirs' Dunkerque-class were battleships, for Japanese Kongos became fast battleships after refits, and here is example with Scharnchorsts which German called battleships also. Even Americans called Alaskas as 'very large cruiser' despite them easily being classified as battlecruisers. Overall it's pure semantics and depends on what kind of naming convention one follows.
@@boreasreal5911 Which is again pure semantics. They just as much could be regarded as such, given they were meeting same criteria as original battlecruisers.
@@ReichLifethe issue here is that that doesn't hold, as various navies held differing definitions for what really constituted a battlecruiser - the American definition expressly describes a BC ad having the same gun size as contemporary Fleet battleships. The Alaskas however if you look at their design are clearly the "Large cruisers" the Americans call them. - the treaty system slowed down the size increases expected in heavy cruisers over the inter war years: Alaskas are post treaty and scaled to follow the expected size of growth if the treaties had never restricted the Americans
@@bengrogan9710 Except Iowas' alone debunks this argument, given Americans had Montanas planned alongside them with former clearly meeting this battlecruiser criteria. Doesn't change whatsoever barely anyone regarded them us battlecruisers. At the end of day, it was pure obsolete semantics and based on reasonable definitions, the closest thing to battlecruiser were Alaskas, regardless of fancy naming they actually got.
Kriegsmarine also classified Bismarck as a treaty adhering battleship... Which it wasn't, so just names don't matter, would be more appropriate to see how it was used and if it fits in the •British• battlecruiser definition.
The Scharnhorst Class is probably a unique class of it's own. I would say it a Light Battleship cause of it smaller 11" guns but battleship defensive armour thinkness. Like the HMS Hood, classed as a battlecruiser, but had the same armour thinkness as a battleship of the time and the same 15" guns, would be the first fast battleship.
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were pocket battleships in my opinion. I know navies from playing Azur Lane, not a real Navy, but they fit the criteria for pocket battleships.
Except german battlecruiser since ww1 have always had smaller guns while maintaining similar armor protection to their battleship counterpart. The german navy opted for a different way to achieve a higher speed for their battlecruiser than the British
Glad to see someone using logic ^^ Indeed, what defines a BC is a fast, lightly armored ship with BB guns. Scharnhorst class BB had full BB armor and a lower BB caliber gun, which was supposed to be upgraded later. Just as you said.
Ah, Scarnhorst and Gneisnau had much better story and other in my *opinion* among all 15-16 inches battleship, also they destroy more ship than popular battleship like yamato missouri and other.
I agree that they weren't battlecruisers, but also not battleships, they were more likely cruiser destroyers, or "large cruisers" like the Alaska Class, (those ships were just a bit smaller than an Iowa), but in case of the german ones, they had heavy armor.
The Germans had a completely different view on naval battles and tactics than the allies. While British vessels carried bigger calibers, their fire control units were severely obsolete compared to those the Kriegsmarine used. This became painfully clear when the Bismarck engaged HMS Hood and its convoy.
Since the Furst Bismarck, there had been a naming convention among German ships. Cruisers named after towns, battleships named after provinces, or royalty, armoured cruisers, including battlecruisers, after military figures. Scharnhorst and Gniesenau were both Generals in the Prussian army. By that metric they are Battlecruisers. But then so were Bismarck and Tirpitz. Point is, I don't think there was a difference at that time.
Actually, there was a pre-dreadnought battleship which served during WW2, the SMS Schleswig-Holstein. And yeah, nobody would say she was a battlecruiser
Germany classified the ship as battleships, we could say it's a light battleship. But calling it a battlecruiser is like saying that the Bismarck and H-39 were battlecruisers, as the armor didn't really changed, just a slightly thicker turtleback armor, 5-10 mm thicker
except that's exactly what german battlecruisers were they preferred the smaller guns to less armour that the British battlecruiser designers preferred as you said. different nations do things differently
You forgot that it was a pocket battleship between a battle cruiser and battleship A pocket battleship is between both of them as a cruiser and battleship instead
I usually say that Scharnhorst is a "Battlecruiser in the German style". It is important to note that GERMAN battlecruisers tended to have smaller guns and more armor than their British counterparts. Remember, the requirement to be a battlecruiser isn't that it has battleship caliber guns, merely that is it capable of hunting down and killing cruisers with little risk to itself.
It is clearly a battleship. A battlecruiser has cruiser armor and battleship guns, and Scharnhorst has battleship guns (albeilt smaller than average) and battleship armor
If light and heavy cruisers were categorized according to their main gun calibers (6in vs 8in, respectively) regardless of tonnage, speed and armor, then why should the issue of battleships vs battlecruisers be treated differently? So, there is no other conclusion other than to see that the Scharnhorst Class is within the battlecruiser family.
If you compare it with WWI German battlecruisers and dreadnoughts, it definitely has the characteristics of a battlecruiser. Its armoured belt tapered considerably towards the ends, like WWI German battlecruiser, but unlike their dreadnoughts or KMS Bismarck. As for battlecruisers dropping armour in favour of speed, you're thinking of British WWI battlecruisers, not German. The German Derfflinger-class battlecruisers had 12" guns and a 12" belt. The British Renown-class had 15" guns and (as built) a 6" belt.
Better term for them would be Super Cruiser, like the USS Alaska class ships. Too large to be cruisers, too small, undergunned, and fast to be proper battleships.
I'd agree with the official designation of '(fast) Battleship'. But it certainly 'blurs the lines' between the designations. Another factor in favour of the 'Battlecruiser' designation would be the "intended Purpose" (Commerce raiding) and expected opponents (the ones it was expected to TRY to fight rather than run from) - The latter point being that it was certainly not designed to go up against the 'true' battleships of Britain or any other major power 1-on-1. It was designed that it could 'take a hit or two' and still get away.
It's all very confusing. When we compare this to the Japanese Mogami Class cruisers, the Japanese ships are much easier to define. Before their guns were upgraded from the 6.1" to the 8", they were simply classified as light cruisers. After the upgrade, they were redesignated heavy cruisers, simple and accurate. Unfortunately, there's no way the same, simple catagorising of the German ships is allowed. Those who believe all things Kriegsmarine were "wunderschiff" simply can't accept the fact that without a proper battleship armament, suitable for its day, these ships are nothing more than super heavy cruisers. Even the narrator tries to justify this nonsense by saying pre-WW1 battleships were fitted with 12" guns. Maybe so, but their day had passed; I don't think anyone would give much of a chance for one of those ships going up against a KGV class BB.
Honestly I would say graf spee is a battle cruiser cause since when have people mounted battleship size guns on a cruiser especially since the graf spee was able to reach nearly 30 knots and the British even nicknamed it a pocket battleship but scharnhorst I would say is more of a battleship
I would say Scharnhorst could be classified as either: - A 'German style' battlecruiser (as opposed to a 'British-style' or 'Fisher-style' battlecruiser). - A Pocket Battleship (if anything she was an evolution of the Deutschland class and had a similar operational purpose). - Surface Raider (normally describes a ship's role as opposed to a ship type but sod it if the other designations aren't to your liking this all that's left).
As you had mentioned, if there was a battleship from pre ww1 still in service it would be called a Battleship. The Germans actually did have a ship from that time called the SMS Schleswig-Holstein which also had 11in guns. By that time it was basically considered a costal defense ship.
They built it with 28cm guns in order to stay in the range of the Versailles treaty and the Anglo-German naval agreement. It was planned to switch them for 38cm, but because of the war this never materialized.
That's not really relevant. It's a battleship even if no one planned to up gun it because the armor is good enough
That’s what I thought
translation built with 11" guns
But they wanted to upgrade it to 15"
And another reason why they don't build it with 15" guns is because they didn't have a mount for them yet
Not exactly. It is proven by numerous historical sources that Scharnhorst/Gneisenau should be armed with a 38cm main Battery by design but Krupp could not deliever the guns in time so the Navy had to choose a triple 28cm battery which were proven by the Deutschland class and most importantly available. Keep in mind that Scharnhorst/Gneisenau were the first Battleships build in Germany for nearly two decades because of the Arms Limitations of the Versailles Treaty which had forbidden any new Capital.Ships but when the Twins were built Hitler already had denied to accecpt any.further.arms.limitations
.But still the Kriegsmarine had to make several.difficult c ompromisses which the Royal Navy in opposition never by had to.consider by their shipbuilding like the inavailability of 38cm.guns in time
Insert germans using "wide" twin turrets on Bismark and Tirpitz because they allegedly "planned" them as three gun turrets and german 406mm gun being, also allegedly, designed as 420mm that was meant to be redrilled to 420mm once "war started"(WWII wasn't waiting for germans and their fantasy plans though). Which meant that those guns were unusually heavy and inefficient for 406mm, but could potentially hold higher pressure due to thicker barrel tube walls. Not to mention they weren't obligated to redrill them immediately. They could have just used them and then when after several hundred shots the rifling would be dead, barrel would be redrilled to intended caliber and reused. Cons: you have to produce both 406mm and 420mm ammo. Pros: you don't have to build completely new guns just as often.
The term battle cruiser and battleships started to merge into fast battleships with the advancement in technology. Confusing many people to this day.
Interesting how in a similar time period you can also see a technological merging of tank types (light, medium, heavy) into "Main Battle Tanks"
@@thatpersoninthecomments8613Would say that about mixing mediums and heavies. Light tanks still existed as a separate thing, especially since they're the only ones that could be easily be air mobile or made amphibious
Medium and Heavy became the MBT as it didn't make sense to have a slightly better armoured and gunned tank when technology allowed for both in the same package. But there remained a place for the light tank.
In one way the battlecruiser merged into the aircraft carrier (like the USS Lexington). See the discussion on the Portholes Podcast.
I agree here, let’s just call a day with ‘fast battleship’
I think what a lot of people fail to understand is that Battlecruiser was very much a British term and not a universal one (though the Germans threw it around a bit in WW1) and it was never a hardline definition of what the ship would look like so much as how it would be employed. The British idea being a big gun ship that hunts cruisers, the German one being a moderately big gun ship that hunts Battlecruisers.
Battlecruiser is a term thats thrown around a lot but has very little actual meaning behind it besides starting arguments over what it actually means.
You've an excellent point. You could even argue that the Iowas were battlecruisers from a certain point of view. Their nearest contemporary battleships were the never completed Montana class, which had more armor and firepower than the Iowas, but less speed. The Iowas were built for two primairly roles, running down enemy fast capitals that they outgunned and/or out armored, and serving as a part of the fleet screen for carriers, both of which are pretty close to the primary roles of battlecruisers. Ot course, this is just a case of "from a certain point of view". The US called them fast battleships, and didn't use them any different than the north Carolina or south Dakota class. Hardly the fault of the Iowas that none of them got to engage enemy capital ships. [Washington vs Kirishima and Massachusetts vs Jean Bart
Battlecruiser was a term started by the british yes, but more countries then just then and Germany used the term. Japan had multiple classes of Battlecruiser, most famous being the Kongos which were rebuilt as fast battleships eventually. The US used the term in their Lexington Class Battlecruisers before conversion, and France used the term with the Dunkerque class initially before they were eventually considered fast battleships.
The idea if the battlecruiser started n Britain but eventually spread to all the major naval powers who had their own designated battlecruisers. I think where people get confused is with the blurring of the lines between battleships and battlecruisers that happened after WW1. Before, it was very distinct that the battlecruiser had similar weaponry to battleships but less armor for a faster speed. With the advances in naval technology and limitations of naval treaties, the distinction became less apparent
by British Definition, Iowa is a Battlecruiser
Because it's helpful when making comparisons to use a universal categorisation scheme.
The various naval treaties somewhat quantified this for us (in order to put limits on the different types of ships) but in reality ships were built for a role and that informs their class more than anything.
On the other hand, Scharnhorst roughly followed the doctrine/design of WW1 German battlecruisers. German battlecruisers, rather than sacrifice extensive amounts of armor, had almost/if not the same armor (ex: Derfflinger-class) as contemporary battleships which they balanced by having smaller guns, which were still almost just as effective.
This:
German battlecruisers gave up more firepower than armor for speed relative to German battleships, iirc.
Unlike British battlecruisers which gave up more armor than firepower relative to British battleships
This video makes the mistake of arguing from the point of view of British naval tradition on an issue that should be more appropriately argued via German naval traditions.
That said, these 2 ships were intended at battleships, and were used more or less the way ever other German ww2 battleship was used. But Germany used their battleships more like battlecruisers were intended to be used.
@@spudgamer6049 True if we're referring to how they were called and used by the Germans themselves, then I guess they're just "fast battleships"...with dinkier guns
only that the german battlecruisers didn't have smaller guns than thier contemporary german battleships.
@@boreasreal5911 Yes they did. Virtually all WW1 German battlecruisers used a 11-12 inch Caliber main battery while their British contemporaries had a 13.5-15 inch main armament.
@@boreasreal5911 Only the Derfflingers had 12 inch guns rather than 11 inch guns, and they had 4 turrets to the Koenig class battleships' 5 turrets, as well as being laid down later, in between the Koenigs and the much more powerfully armed Bayerns (15 inch guns, a major jump)
The German Designation of the Scharnhorst was Battleship
That’s because that’s what it was, no room for interpretation if it were a battle cruiser it would be the exact opposite of what it is, bigger guns and less armour, not smaller guns and the same armour
Exactly. I don't know why this is even a debate. Ask the people who made it - they have the ultimate say in what it is.
@@MGSLurmeypeople just kind of like to blanket class fast battleships as battlecruisers
Both the German and english Wikipedia say the Scharnhorst was a Battlecruiser/ heavy Cruiser and i as a german also think its a battlecruiser
@@62136 No disrespect, but saying you're German doesn't add anything to your argument. Unless you're an extremely old German who had a hand in designing the ship, you have all the same information as anyone else in the world.
Not the German battlecruisers though, a ship like Derflinger had over 12 in of main belt armour.
The Royal Navy built their first battle cruisers to hunt cruisers, but the battlecruisers of the high seas fleet were built to counter their opposite numbers in the grand fleet and substitute into the battle line. As such, they tended to be slower and less heavily armed than British battlecruisers, but had much thicker armour. This worked well for them at Jutland when admiral Beatty foolishly closed the range with the Germans, forfeiting his advantage, and giving the Germans the initiative.
Finally I read a knowledgeable comment!!!!! 100% correct Captain!
They're by no means significantly weaker armed than their battleship counterparts though. The German main gun until the Bayern-class was the 30cm L45 and later L50.
German battlecruiser kept the 28cm gun for quite some time because Alfred von Tirpitz insisted that he thought having 10 gun broadside even with smaller guns was a bigger advantage in battle.
It wasn't until the introduction of more thickly armored super-dreadnought he had to concede the 28cm gun was becoming obsolete and allowed the 30cm L50 on the Derflingers.
@@Arthion they typically had less guns though? Like there were 8 on Seidlitz and 12 on the Helgolands?
Granted the battle cruisers had a more efficient layout and a similar broadside weight due to the awkward hexagonal layout of the Helgolands and a few of the earliest German Dreadnoughts.
And they were outgunned by their British opponents, which was the main point I was making....
@@josephlongbone4255 I mean the Germans in general were outgunned by the Brittish. They were quite conservative about upgrading their guns. They only upgraded past 12" guns in 1916 when Bayern entered service
It's less that German battlecruisers have small guns, more that Germans have small guns in general for the time period
Derfflinger has the same armament as her battleship cousin, the König class. And as typical for a battlecruiser has 1 less turret. The real main difference really is that German battlecruisers generally are a knot or two slower in return for more reinforced armour.
People always tend to conflate this with Scharnhorst, which has small guns for an entirely different reason, in this case that the new 38cm SK/C 34 turrets were far from ready at the time of construction of the ship so they had to settle for the second best option available of the improved 28cm guns originally intended for the Deutchsland-class' successor that got cancelled in favor of Scharnhorst and Gneissenau
@@Arthion the problem with calling things battlecruisers in the second world war is a lot of the battlecruisers were converging on the fast battleship design.
The Renown's and Kongos (I think two of which were British built) had been up armoured, and weren't quite as well protected as the sharn horse but there heavier firepower made them competitive. Renown did manage to see off both the Scharnhorst's.
It would be very hard to argue that Scharnhorst would be competitive against Hood, apart from maybe that she could run away as Hoods engines (and several other systems) where in serious need of a refit. All these ships are designated battlecruisers and compare quite well with the Scharnhorst. They also match the paradigm of the German and British battlecruisers in the first world war.
It doesn't really matter, but I think Scharnhorst fits in the same category as the Alaskas and the Dunkerques, in that they are very battlecruiserish but I guess you could call them a light battleship?
The size of the guns were optimal for the job it was built to do
I believe it's sort of designed at such size to bully and hunt down cruisers with it's speed and armour, also a superior gun compared to its opponent
It does a great job in this situation, just not that good against battleships
Being on the receiving end of one of the most sinister jumpings in history?
which was as a commerce raider, Cruiser Killer and fleet scout - not a "Ship of the Line" BB!!!!!
@@donalddemoSame with Bismarck
@@jesperlykkeberg7438 what is same?
Gneisenau and Scharnhorst followed the same pattern as the german WW1 BC’s. Those the brits called BC’s despite being armored enough to be in the battleline. As for the germans, they never used the term BC. It was Grosser Kreuzer in WW1 and Schlachtschiff in Ww2.
Schlachtschiff is Battleship in German which was used since Battleships were ever a thing, Großer Kreuzer being "Big Cruiser" or "Great Cruiser." The German word for Battlecruiser would be Schlachtkreuzer.
@@battleship6177 gg
It’s not the size of the gun but how you use the gun!
TBF, I think calling them battlecruisers makes sense. British battlecruisers like the Hood were better armoured than the Scharnhorst by WW2, but are called battlecruisers nonetheless.
What also matters is the doctrine, how they’re envisioned as being used. E.g. the Panther was a medium tank, though its weight, armour and firepower trumped several contemporary Allied heavy tanks (and even the Tiger frontally), and no one would dispute them being medium tanks.
I agree.
Better armoured😂😂
That is the upgraded Hood tho, at launch it didn't had armour so it was a traditional design, and the end result after refit would be what you would now call a fast battleship, but was still called battlecruiser because that was the original designation and it didn't change
@@jerryrgzz1571 yeah, so that’s what you’re ignoring: definitions change.
An MRAP today has thicker armour than a tank did in WW1. That doesn’t make it a tank, because the definition of what a tank is has changed. Hood was still a battlecruiser, that’s certainly what the Royal Navy, her captain and her crew thought.
Panther had been called heavy tank because it was better armoured from the front compared to tiger and similarly or better to allied heavy tanks like is1-is2, pershing, sherman jumbo, churchill. And gun with penetration better than tiger 88mm, is2 122mm guns.
Closest name will be main battle tank since it was faster, better or the same compared to heavy tanks of allies, with only one minus as side armor.
As I play it in world of warships I consider it an Armored Destroyer
Yea WoWs is know to be accurate. Bruh
As I play warthunder naval I can confirm I’m shunned from society
@@62136it’s a joke
@@notmjmjcj6815 Oh man you dont know how dumb people can be. Your right but be carefull with that stuff
They were supposed to be upgunned to 15 inch guns, but they end up being sunk before that. So they are Battleships more than Battlecruisers. The only reason they had small guns was to please the treaty that forbid Germany of using big guns in their ships.
wrong! the planned up gun was for 13.5' not 15" and not in 3 triple but 3 x 2 like Renown class, which would have enabled just one of them not to run away from BC Renown!
@donalddemo recheck you're sources because the kreigsmarine planned on the upgrade to the 15
@@donalddemothey wanted the 15 inchers on the Scharny. The one which was meant to have 13,5 was Bismarck but it was changed to 15 inch once the krauts realised the 13,5s were a bit small.
Adding to what was said here, I think doctrine is the most important aspect of these discussions. Also, worth noting with the Scharnhorst- and Dunkerque-class is that they are considerably smaller than most other WWII capital ships.
BCs and BBs are both "Capital Ships"
@@donalddemo Yes but doctrine matters more than design criteria.
There really not. the Scharnhorsts are 32k tons standard, that is smaller than the treat max but considerably so
I absolutely agree. Plus: the reference towards the WWI BBs strikes. Well done, Sir!
They did have an 11 inch battleship that served in WW2, the predreadnought SMS Schleswig-Holstein. If I remember correctly, that ship fired the opening shots that started the invasion of Poland this the official start of WW2
They had two pre dreadnoughts, ironically the last German battleship in service was a one such pre dreadnought which was used as a flak platform.
Many German Dreadnought use 11"
11" was pretty much like 12" in any other country😊
She was a lightly armed battle ship, they did plan on 15" guns but never got to it.
Six 15" guns like Renown and Repulse, which no one ever pretended were battleships.
@@katrinapaton5283Unlike Renown and Repulse with their measly 9" armor belt, Scharnhorst and Gneissenau are actually armored to fight enemy capital ships. Which would've been wasted weight were there not plans to upgrade their armament.
Scharnhorst and Gneissenau are armored like proper battleships, that's all there is you need to know to define what they are.
@@Arthion By your definition, does that mean HMS Hood wasn't a battlecruiser either? Because with her 12" belt and 15" turrets she was at least as well armoured as the best battleships of her time and yet the British seemed fairly convinced she was a battlecruiser. Meanwhile, the Dunkerques were considered by the French to be battleships, despite only having an 8.9" belt. I dont feel that armour alone defines what a capital ship is.I could be wrong, in fact I probably am, I've been wrong before.
@@katrinapaton5283Some argue Hood is the first fast battleship. Besides the definition is mostly arbitrary anyway by WW2. Hell the Japanese even call the Kongou's "battleships"
But either case the Germans themselves defined them as battleships so thus they have probably first say in the matter.
But either case the Scharnhorst kinda do the exact opposite of a battlecruiser by having small guns but heavy armor, when it's traditionally the other way around
@@Arthion Renown and Repulse had originally 240lb belt armour (5.88") they were upgraded to 360lb (8.81")
IIRC, the Germans and even the US classified the Scharnhorst-class as a battleship.
Like the USA was relevant here.
@@jakubkarczynski269Your point?
@@nathansullivan4433 USN many times clasified ships of the same category as diferent. Like Lexincton and Alaska class. Or Wasp and Independence class.
@@jakubkarczynski269 Ah I see what you mean. Although the Lexington-class (before aircraft carrier conversion) was originally classified as battlecruisers, but the Alaska-class was classified differently as “large cruisers” (bit of an understatement if you ask me!). I’m also pretty sure Wasp was classified as a fleet carrier, albeit a small one, rather than an actual light carrier. As for battleships, the USN seemed to have a pretty good understanding of what classified as a battleship, such as having a strong armor belt (a feature that the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau most certainly had) and how ships like the Alaska’s had weak armor for ships of their displacement therefore were classified differently. Also given how the US constructed the North Carolina, South Dakota, and Iowa-classes, I think it’s safe to say they knew what a battleship was. The only factor of the Scharnhorst possibly being a battlecruiser is its meager firepower and even that was only intended as a stopgap measure for the eventual modification of 15inch guns, which because of the war were never able to be installed. Also too, if the Kriegsmarine itself classified its own ships as battleships and not battlecruisers, then I think the argument speaks for itself. That’s just my opinion though.
@@nathansullivan4433 The most important was way in which they were to be used. They weren't intended to fight battleships. But to run away from them. Even if they had superiority aginst them.
I sometimes call her a Light Battleship, for the same reasons that separate Light and Heavy Cruisers
Would you call the South Dakota class a light battleship?
@@cliffbowls No, just battleship
@@cliffbowls ???? South Dakota would kill Bismark 6-7 of 10 times!
@@donalddemo I dont get where you're trying to go with this. I occasionaly call Scharnhorst a "light" battleship purely because she has small guns compared to her contempoaries. The same way that "light" cruisers have smaller guns than "heavy" cruisers.
No other argument could possibly matter, as the fact is, it is designated a battleship. No "should" or "technically" about it. It was designed and put into service as a battleship, and that is the simple fact of the matter. Case closed.
AND Jackie Fisher came up with the class of Battlecruiser
Which is simply , in HIS words, a battleship that replaces displacement from armour with displacement from machinary so that it went faster
Scharnhorst did not sacrifice any armour. It was extremely well armoured for its size.
It was fast due to technology
Main gun calibre has nothing to do with being either a BB or BC as long as its the largest a nation could employ. Which for post war Germany was 11"!
Term 'battlecruiser' overall was dropped by WW2 with basically only British still using it. For French theirs' Dunkerque-class were battleships, for Japanese Kongos became fast battleships after refits, and here is example with Scharnchorsts which German called battleships also. Even Americans called Alaskas as 'very large cruiser' despite them easily being classified as battlecruisers.
Overall it's pure semantics and depends on what kind of naming convention one follows.
only that the Alaskas were not easily classified battlecruisers bc they weren't battlecruisers.
@@boreasreal5911 Which is again pure semantics. They just as much could be regarded as such, given they were meeting same criteria as original battlecruisers.
@@boreasreal5911they could easily be called battlecruisers, they had battleship sized guns with maintaining cruiser level armour and speed.
@@ReichLifethe issue here is that that doesn't hold, as various navies held differing definitions for what really constituted a battlecruiser - the American definition expressly describes a BC ad having the same gun size as contemporary Fleet battleships.
The Alaskas however if you look at their design are clearly the "Large cruisers" the Americans call them. - the treaty system slowed down the size increases expected in heavy cruisers over the inter war years: Alaskas are post treaty and scaled to follow the expected size of growth if the treaties had never restricted the Americans
@@bengrogan9710 Except Iowas' alone debunks this argument, given Americans had Montanas planned alongside them with former clearly meeting this battlecruiser criteria. Doesn't change whatsoever barely anyone regarded them us battlecruisers.
At the end of day, it was pure obsolete semantics and based on reasonable definitions, the closest thing to battlecruiser were Alaskas, regardless of fancy naming they actually got.
Also the Kriegsmarine itself classified Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as battleships. So alone from that point of view "battlecruiser" is wrong
Kriegsmarine also classified Bismarck as a treaty adhering battleship... Which it wasn't, so just names don't matter, would be more appropriate to see how it was used and if it fits in the •British• battlecruiser definition.
What was its Muzzle velocity compared to the Brits 15 inch guns?
It depends on the Muzzle velocity and the weight of the projectile! It was used as a Battleship right to the end!
11" was not a battleship gun after DREADNOUGHT.
Pocket battleship?
The Scharnhorst Class is probably a unique class of it's own. I would say it a Light Battleship cause of it smaller 11" guns but battleship defensive armour thinkness.
Like the HMS Hood, classed as a battlecruiser, but had the same armour thinkness as a battleship of the time and the same 15" guns, would be the first fast battleship.
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were pocket battleships in my opinion. I know navies from playing Azur Lane, not a real Navy, but they fit the criteria for pocket battleships.
That ship is litterly how i build ships in from the deepths just BIG FUCK OFF SHIPS THAT MAKE BISMARK AND YAMATO SEEM LIKE CHEAP AND PRACTICAL SHIPS
*Laughs in Deutschland class Pocket Battleships*
Except german battlecruiser since ww1 have always had smaller guns while maintaining similar armor protection to their battleship counterpart. The german navy opted for a different way to achieve a higher speed for their battlecruiser than the British
Just like Bismarck
RULE THE WAVES 3???
Big guns + Big Armor = Battleship
Big guns + Big Speed = Battlecruiser
Big Armor + Big Speed = Cruisership
Glad to see someone using logic ^^
Indeed, what defines a BC is a fast, lightly armored ship with BB guns. Scharnhorst class BB had full BB armor and a lower BB caliber gun, which was supposed to be upgraded later. Just as you said.
Pocket battleship
She was supposed to be up gunned before the war broke out, she and her sister would’ve had the same 15 inch guns as Bismarck and Tirpitz
Ah, Scarnhorst and Gneisnau had much better story and other in my *opinion* among all 15-16 inches battleship, also they destroy more ship than popular battleship like yamato missouri and other.
"And if one of those ships had somehow still been in service in 1940..."
You mean like the pre-dreadnought battleship Schleswig-Holstein?
Can’t we all agree that it WASNT a suspension bridge???
She's a reef now
Battle cruiser.
I agree that they weren't battlecruisers, but also not battleships, they were more likely cruiser destroyers, or "large cruisers" like the Alaska Class, (those ships were just a bit smaller than an Iowa), but in case of the german ones, they had heavy armor.
The Germans had a completely different view on naval battles and tactics than the allies. While British vessels carried bigger calibers, their fire control units were severely obsolete compared to those the Kriegsmarine used.
This became painfully clear when the Bismarck engaged HMS Hood and its convoy.
Im gonna get made fun or bullied but it's maybe a pocket battleship
I would call her a pocket Battleship!
Those 11 inch rifles still packed a serious punch!
Its a battle boat
Neither. Armored Raider.
Size matters. Just a battle cruiser.
Not a laughably small BB, but a pocket battleship. A battleship nonetheless.
Would have called those old battleships "sunken."
It’s not small guns it’s very very average size guns people come on don’t body shame the boats
Since the Furst Bismarck, there had been a naming convention among German ships. Cruisers named after towns, battleships named after provinces, or royalty, armoured cruisers, including battlecruisers, after military figures.
Scharnhorst and Gniesenau were both Generals in the Prussian army.
By that metric they are Battlecruisers. But then so were Bismarck and Tirpitz.
Point is, I don't think there was a difference at that time.
Sharnhorst has good protection but jist had smaller guns. But those 11 inch guns had good power and range
Is worth remembering German battle cruiser were more heavily armoured
Fast battleship.
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were supposed to be up gunned to 15" naval rifles, but never had the time to do so.
Actually, there was a pre-dreadnought battleship which served during WW2, the SMS Schleswig-Holstein. And yeah, nobody would say she was a battlecruiser
Germany classified the ship as battleships, we could say it's a light battleship. But calling it a battlecruiser is like saying that the Bismarck and H-39 were battlecruisers, as the armor didn't really changed, just a slightly thicker turtleback armor, 5-10 mm thicker
Fast battle cruiser
TLDR: I asked a question, and I didn’t like the answer… here’s why
It's pretty much on par with the USS Alaska from tonnage, gunage and even armour. Ergo a Battlecruiser
It’s gonna be so weird when we have space cruisers and space destroyers. Space carriers.
Big boy with small gun... 🤔 German!? 🤨 Better genetics? 🤣
except that's exactly what german battlecruisers were they preferred the smaller guns to less armour that the British battlecruiser designers preferred as you said. different nations do things differently
Maybe it was a pocket battleship?
Wrong, its a Fast Battleship
You forgot that it was a pocket battleship between a battle cruiser and battleship
A pocket battleship is between both of them as a cruiser and battleship instead
I usually say that Scharnhorst is a "Battlecruiser in the German style". It is important to note that GERMAN battlecruisers tended to have smaller guns and more armor than their British counterparts.
Remember, the requirement to be a battlecruiser isn't that it has battleship caliber guns, merely that is it capable of hunting down and killing cruisers with little risk to itself.
Armored heavy cruiser. 11inch guns are way to small to take on a real battleship
Someone said that the German Navy bet on lightweight, high initial velocity bullets.
It is clearly a battleship. A battlecruiser has cruiser armor and battleship guns, and Scharnhorst has battleship guns (albeilt smaller than average) and battleship armor
The German Navy called them battleships, which is really all you need to know.
Yes I concur
Took a poll, didn't get the answer he wanted, now pushes own opinion, which he holds over contemporary official sources. classic... lol
Agee
If light and heavy cruisers were categorized according to their main gun calibers (6in vs 8in, respectively) regardless of tonnage, speed and armor, then why should the issue of battleships vs battlecruisers be treated differently? So, there is no other conclusion other than to see that the Scharnhorst Class is within the battlecruiser family.
If you compare it with WWI German battlecruisers and dreadnoughts, it definitely has the characteristics of a battlecruiser. Its armoured belt tapered considerably towards the ends, like WWI German battlecruiser, but unlike their dreadnoughts or KMS Bismarck. As for battlecruisers dropping armour in favour of speed, you're thinking of British WWI battlecruisers, not German. The German Derfflinger-class battlecruisers had 12" guns and a 12" belt. The British Renown-class had 15" guns and (as built) a 6" belt.
Interesting that people like to call Graf Spee a pocket battleship and Scharnhorst a battle cruiser. Both have 11" guns.
The Germans themselve designated it as a Battleship so why not just say that?
Mega Cruiser.
Better term for them would be Super Cruiser, like the USS Alaska class ships. Too large to be cruisers, too small, undergunned, and fast to be proper battleships.
I'd agree with the official designation of '(fast) Battleship'. But it certainly 'blurs the lines' between the designations. Another factor in favour of the 'Battlecruiser' designation would be the "intended Purpose" (Commerce raiding) and expected opponents (the ones it was expected to TRY to fight rather than run from) - The latter point being that it was certainly not designed to go up against the 'true' battleships of Britain or any other major power 1-on-1. It was designed that it could 'take a hit or two' and still get away.
It's all very confusing. When we compare this to the Japanese Mogami Class cruisers, the Japanese ships are much easier to define. Before their guns were upgraded from the 6.1" to the 8", they were simply classified as light cruisers. After the upgrade, they were redesignated heavy cruisers, simple and accurate.
Unfortunately, there's no way the same, simple catagorising of the German ships is allowed. Those who believe all things Kriegsmarine were "wunderschiff" simply can't accept the fact that without a proper battleship armament, suitable for its day, these ships are nothing more than super heavy cruisers. Even the narrator tries to justify this nonsense by saying pre-WW1 battleships were fitted with 12" guns. Maybe so, but their day had passed; I don't think anyone would give much of a chance for one of those ships going up against a KGV class BB.
It’s a battleship
It's okay Scharnhorst, size doesn't matter.
Just because your guns are smaller than other battleships guns, it doesn't make you any less of a ship 😂
Wasn’t Scharnhorst intended to be upgunned in refit and they just never were able to do so? Another point for battleship over battlecruiser
Hoi4 gets it right by calling it Battleship
Honestly I would say graf spee is a battle cruiser cause since when have people mounted battleship size guns on a cruiser especially since the graf spee was able to reach nearly 30 knots and the British even nicknamed it a pocket battleship but scharnhorst I would say is more of a battleship
Or a Battlecruiser with thick armor
So it's in obsolete modern battleship
Is the KMS Admiral Hipper a Cruiser or Battleship?
Some people need to stop playing wows
It actually was the lack of new guns for ships. Later the more modern types had received bigger calibers.
battleship. Plain and simple
I would say Scharnhorst could be classified as either:
- A 'German style' battlecruiser (as opposed to a 'British-style' or 'Fisher-style' battlecruiser).
- A Pocket Battleship (if anything she was an evolution of the Deutschland class and had a similar operational purpose).
- Surface Raider (normally describes a ship's role as opposed to a ship type but sod it if the other designations aren't to your liking this all that's left).
As you had mentioned, if there was a battleship from pre ww1 still in service it would be called a Battleship. The Germans actually did have a ship from that time called the SMS Schleswig-Holstein which also had 11in guns. By that time it was basically considered a costal defense ship.
Heavy cruiser id say.
I need this game on a phone
The Scharnhorsts were battleships - they were due to be up gunned to a larger calibre but the War got in the way so they kept their 11” guns
I call it a man made reef…