Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military From: cew@ISI.EDU (Craig E. Ward) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Saturday, 22 March, 1941 Message-ID: <1991Mar23.061805.5362@amd.com> Date: 23 Mar 91 06:18:05 GMT Sender: cdr@amd.com (Carl Rigney) Organization: Information Sciences Institute, Univ. of So. California Lines: 22 Approved: military@amd.com From: cew@ISI.EDU (Craig E. Ward) In article <1991Mar22.045134.24861@cbnews.att.com> you write: > >The German battleships Gneisenau and Scharnhorst... ^^^^^^^^^^^ I've noticed this a couple of times. Everything I've read previous to your postings has classed these ships as "cruisers" or "battlecruisers." The explanation given was that these ships lacked sufficient top armor (or displacement) to realistically compete with RN ships like the King George V or USN ships like the Iowa. Only the Bismark are Tripitz have been referred to as "battleships." Have naval historians changed their minds? One of the reasons given for why the German navy never gave the RN a good fight for the seas was that Germany lost too many cruisers in the Norway campaign. -- Craig E. Ward Slogan: "nemo me impune lacessit" USPS: USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1200 Marina del Rey, CA 90292