Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military From: wbt@cbema.att.com (William B Thacker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau Message-ID: <1991Mar25.064942.29515@amd.com> Date: 25 Mar 91 06:49:42 GMT References: <1991Mar23.061805.5362@amd.com> Sender: military@amd.com Organization: AT&T Network Systems - Columbus, Ohio Lines: 60 Approved: military@amd.com From: wbt@cbema.att.com (William B Thacker) I generally discourage followups on 50YA to sci.military, but this is a technological question, so I guess it fits. In article <1991Mar23.061805.5362@amd.com> cew@ISI.EDU (Craig E. Ward) writes: >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." A few people have enquired as to my referring the the German ships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as battleships, rather than battlecruisers. There are certainly many references using the latter term for them, but others, which I consider more authoritative, term them battleships. From what I gather, "the battleship" camp seems to predominate, especially in recent publications. Battlecruisers were conceived just prior to WWI by Lord Fisher of the British Admiralty. He envisioned a ship armed as a battleship, but faster (near 30 knots, at a time when BB's made only 18-21 knots), so as to be able to outrun enemy BB's and catch and destroy the enemy cruiser (scout) force. The extra speed meant sacrificing the weight of armor, so battlecruisers were fragile. This pattern was followed by Britain and the US (and Japan, in the Kongo class), but not by Germany, which chose instead to accept a somewhat smaller caliber of gun to maintain better protection, but armor was still much weaker than that of contemporary German BB's. WWI showed that the German scheme worked better; several British battlecruisers exploded after being hit. Britain abandoned battlecruisers after HMS Hood, and the US cancelled plans for the Lexington class (though this was also helped by the Washington Treaty). Which brings us to Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. At 31 kts, they, too, were faster than contemporary battleships. Their armament was light, but this owes much to political requirements (Hitler wished to avoid angering Britain by mounting 15" guns, and 11" guns from the panzerschiffe construction were available without delay) as to limited displacement available). While the ships were weak on deck armor, they were not excessively so; and their vertical protection (side armor, turrets, barbettes, etc) were in the same class as any battleship of the period, including the Bismarcks. Hence, I don't feel these ships should be considered battlecruisers; instead, they should be seen as an attempt at a capital ship by a nation under strong political pressure to avoid entering a naval arms race. Germany never officially termed them anything but battleships; likewise, the French classed their Dunkerque class (which similarly adopted smaller-caliber guns for speed) as "batiments de ligne", i.e. battleships. On this basis alone, I side with the camp which continues use this term. - - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt@cbnews.att.com "C" combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of assembly language.