Talk:Scharnhorst-class battleship

Centralising Class debate

battlecruiser copied from Talk:German battlecruiser Scharnhorst

Most of the references I have seen is that Scharnhorst was a battlecruiser

not a battleship. This includes the Royal Navy site [The Second World War 1939-1945] Philip Baird Shearer 13:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Kriegsmarine called them "Schlachtschiffe", not "Panzerschiffe". Gdr 13:44, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Germans classified Scharnhorst and her sister ship Gneisenau as battleships, not battlecruisers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.243.188.19 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UCT).

battlecruiser copied from Talk:German battlecruiser Gneisenau

They are often referred to as "battlecruisers" or "light battleships", which is incorrect. In fact, as completed, they were straightforward battleships that traded extra guns for their 32 to 33 knot (60km/h) speed and extended range to allow for commerce raiding.

Who says that calling them "battlecruisers" is incorrect the Royal Navy does: http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/enwiki/static/pages/3542.html

As their designed main armament wasn't ready in time, they initially carried 9-11in (280mm) guns in three triple turrets, two forward and one aft, inferior to any British capital ship of the time. If they had carried their designed main armament of 6-15in (380mm) guns in three twin turrets, they would have been formidable opponents, faster than any British capital ship and nearly as well armored.

But they did not "carr[y] their designed main armament" and so they were battlecruisers not battleships. Philip Baird Shearer 13:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Traditionally, battlecruisers traded armor for speed, i.e. the carried battleship guns, but (relatively) little armor. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau carried smaller guns (and nearly battleship armor). The thing is not clear-cut, but traditionally they were indeed called battlecruisers. They certainly were not up to contemporary battleships, so this classification makes sense. I think this is a case where Wikipedia should follow established terms, maybe with a small disclaimer. --Stephan Schulz 18:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Kriegsmarine called them "Schlachtschiffe", not "Panzerschiffe". Gdr 13:47, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Bismark and Terpitz were battleships Schlachtschiffe but what is the best translation of Panzerschiffe? For clarity what was designation of the battlecruiser HMS Hood in the Kriegsmarine? Was it schlachtkreuzer and if so why are the was the Gneisenau not a schlachtkreuzer?

As most English articles use the Royal Navy designations should Wikipedia follow the German naming convention of the Royal Navy's/Janes? Philip Baird Shearer 15:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about the Germany Navy, but in the German Wikipedia Hood is a "Schlachtkreuzer" [1] and Scharnhorst is a "Schlachtschiff" [2], but the "Schlachtkreuzer" page notes that Scharnhorst and Gneisenau can be called battlecruisers [3].

I think this article is wrong to say that it's incorrect to call Gneisenau a battlecruiser. Clearly it's a matter of making very fine distinctions. (Personally I wouldn't use "battlecruiser" for any ship built after the Washington Naval Treaty, just "fast battleship" or "heavy battleship" or whatever. But (informed) common usage should be our guide.) Gdr 19:43, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Class copied from Talk:German battlecruiser Gneisenau

I have just changed the List of ships of the German navies to reflect the Scharnhorst page that these sister ships were in the "Gneisenau class". An anonymous user had changed "Gneisenau class" to "Scharnhorst class". Which is correct? Philip Baird Shearer 13:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned in Class discussion, I favor Scharnhorst as a more correct class name, a quick search on google also supports this. Scharnhorst 113000 hits, mostly military history sites and book stores. Gneisenau 44800 hits, mostly Wikipedia.--Sneaking Viper 05:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Class

Scharnhorst and Gneinsenau are battleships.

I dont care what Royal Navy or other navies think. Germans officially classified them as battleships. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kurt Leyman (talk • contribs) 03:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UCT).

Will you accept how they were cassifed in Jane's Fighting Ships? Their volume "Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II" should cover it -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jane's Fighting Ships, 1939 edition, classifies them as battleships. Seaphoto 22:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia? "Battlecruisers were of comparable size to a battleship and had the guns of a battleship but substantially thinner armor, the weight saving allowing more powerful engines to be fitted to give it greater speed." and "Battlecruisers are defined as distinct due to their mounting armament equivalent to that of the battleship and having insufficient protection against such armament.", both from Battlecruiser. --Yooden

Technology and the Washington Naval Treaty make classifying the Gneisenau class difficult. Because they were never built to fight a conventional fleet engagement. But if these two ships are compared to the modern battleships built after the Washington Naval Treaty and before the end of World War II, they are out gunned and out armoured. Claiming that they were battleships does not bring any clarity to the Wikipedia articles because they were not in the same league as the Bismark class, the King George V class battleship, Iowa class battleship (or a fairer comparison Second South Dakota class. Give their design limitations and gunnery sizes, they were not first class battle ships, some other designation is needed and battlecruiser is the one used by the Royal Navy. If there is a serious dispute about this then I suggest we use Jane's as the definitive source and use their designation. Philip Baird Shearer 12:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Battlecruiser seems to be pretty sure about its definition, you should at least bring the discussion there. Also, the two ships might not match any of the regular categories. Why press them into one they might not match? Why not call them light battleships as suggested elsewhere? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yooden (talk • contribs) 13:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UCT).

It is not usual to divide battleships into heavy and light categories, particularly as there will be ships which would move from one to the other as new classes arrived. I do not think that brings clarity. The Royal Navy categorised them as battlecuisers which seems to me to be a definitive source[4]. BTW if someone lists a German source, it will have to be translated and as such I think a native English source trumps a translated source (we list E-Boats under the English language name not the German one; Common usage and all that). If there is a clash of Naval sources, I suggest we use Jane's, as that is the definitive source, used by all the worlds navys worthy of the name.Philip Baird Shearer 14:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe the Royal Navy was not willing to change their categories because of a German battleship? Also, I would love to see a Navy article on ship classification or anything more than a passing mention in some overview.
• The translation of Schlachtschiff is of course battleship, no matter what you think of the Gneisenau. So the Gneisenau is a battleship in Germany, Austria and parts of Switzerland, Belgium, Italy and Denmark, but a battlecruiser everywhere else?
• That language point is still weak. Germans from the time are not called Krauts in Wikipedia, even that was their name then.

  FYI Americans used Krauts the British tended to use "[G/J]erry" eg Jerrycan: "The British used cans captured from the "jerrys" (Germans) -- hence "jerrycans" -- in preference to their own containers as much as possible and soon began to produce their own cans that were exact copies of the original." They are still in use with that name in English. Philip Baird Shearer

• I still see no point in adding a tag which according to Wikipedia does not match. Call them Heavy Cruisers if you want to, but not Battlecruiser. --Yooden

Do you have anything against Jane's as a definative source? Philip Baird Shearer 15:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know their classification system. What clases are in there? Where can I have a look? --Yooden

The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. The Wikipedia definition for battlecruiser is: Warship with a battleship's armament but significantly less armor. Your definition is, what, warship which is somehow almost but not quite a battleship? --Yooden

It is not my definition but that of the Royal Navy. As for source that you can look at, I suggest Janes' publication "Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II". I have not looked (yet) myself but I would be surprised if the Royal Navy was not using their definition.

Or vice versa. --Yooden

As you do not seem to know who "Jane" is here is a link which explains:

First published in 1897, Jane's All the Worlds Fighting Ships (later shortened to Fighting Ships) established Jane's as the premier military publisher in the world. For 100 years, it has stood as the definitive guide to ship recognition and naval intelligence, and today this $300.00 publication is indispensable to more than 180,000 military and government readers.

--Philip Baird Shearer 18:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know Jane's. I just don't want to follow a line of thought just because some authority says so.

So, please give me your definition of the term 'Battlecruiser'. --Yooden

Like so many terms it changed over time. The HMS Victory is a commissioned ship of the line (or battleship), and the only one the Royal Navy still has. The classic period for battlecruisers was during World War I and their use during the Battle of Jutland. I realise that the definitions become less meaningful for ships built after the Washington Naval Treaty, but the two Gneisenau Class ships were not first class battle ships and battlecruiser seems to me a less ambiguous definition for them than battleship. As the Royal Navy uses that definition it seems reasonable to use it here. If you realy do not like it, then I suggest we use the definition used by Jane's. Philip Baird Shearer 15:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, the RN didn't use any definition (I know of), they just used a label which might or might not apply. So, please tell me your definition of the term 'Battlecruiser'.

Another thought: Why prefer the Royal Navy term over the Kriegsmarine term? These thingst were called Schlachtschiff, ie. battleship. --Yooden

So I guess it's settled then? I will start the renaming, but don't hold your breath. I will also point out the problem of categorization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yooden (talk • contribs) 16 July 2005, 21:09 (UTC)

No it is not settled. If you do not think that the Royal Navy is a better source for an English language encyclopaedia than a German source, then as I have said before will you accept Jane's as a definitive source? If not why not? BTW I saw no point in answering your last posting but one because it is not relevant to the source which is used for the description and you will be well aware that the battlecruiser page has for many months included the sentence "The German ships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were labelled battlecruisers, but they traded lighter armament, 11 in (279 mm) main guns, rather than thinner armor for speed, and could have been classified as light fast battleships."

-- Philip Baird Shearer 23:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Why should we use the RN "classification" here ? Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were both built as battleships and classified as battleships from their original owner, the Kriegsmarine, so we should use their classification. Even the US Navy seems to use battleship for them. It's very strange to see the Panzerschiffe (Armored ships), later Heavy cruisers, Graf Spee,Admiral Scheer and Lützow as Battleships but the bigger, faster and better armored Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as Battlecruisers .... The one and only classification used should be from the original owner of the ship and not what others think it may be.Denniss 07:55, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

We are using RN classifications because this is an English language encyclopaedia. If an American ship engaged a Japanese ship and used a different classification to that used by the RN them I would suggest that the American classification was used. But in this case all the ships were engaged by the RN and/or the RAF.

The US Recognition manual ONI-204, dated August 13, 1942, identifies Gneisenau and Scharnhorst as BB-1, and BB-2 for the German Navy, with Tirpitz being BB-4 (Bismarck having been sunk at this time). BB is the US designator for Battleship, CC for Battlecruiser. Seaphoto 22:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have suggested that if the RN classification is not suitable then we use Jane's which for more than a century has set the international standard for all the navys of the world. Size has little to do with it, HMS Hood was a battlecruiser and she was larger than most (all?) battleships in the RN. She was 48,360 tons with 8 x 15 main guns and 381 mm main armour. For comparison HMS Duke of York was 41,343 tons, 10 x 14 main guns and 374 mm main armour (taken from the sister ship page POW).

As I have pointed out above to call them battleships does not help because compared to modern battleships of the time they were grossly under armed and their armour was lighter. Secondly because of treaty limitations the Kriegsmarine used deception when it came to the description of their ships. The other ships you mention were described by the Janes as pocket battleships, not battleships. To describe pocket battleships is disingenuous and does not bring clarity to the situation.

They werent underarmoured, they simply had badly distributed armor... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.3.168.63 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If all the ships you want to describe as battleships were battleships then the Kriegsmarine would have had a formidable navy capable of taking on the Home Fleet. The Pocked Battleships and the Gneisenau class were designed as commerce raiders not as battleships designed to fight other battleships in fleet actions. None of these ships were in the league of the Bismarck class battleship and to describe them as battleships does not help the lay reader. Philip Baird Shearer 10:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• First of all, this is not about language, I am not suggesting to use 'Schlachtkreuzer' over 'battlecruiser'. The relation of the source's langauge to the encyclopaedia is unimportant. (As long as the terms can be translated cleanly, which is the case here.) Following your line of thought that "a native [...] source trumps a translated source" would mean that the two ships would be battlecruisers in en.wikipedia.org but Schlachtschiffe in de.wikipedia.org. Does this makes sense?

Most common usage if they are usually called Battlecruisers in English then that is what should be used here. What they are called in German is not strictly relevent. Philip Baird Shearer

If Wikipedia were a dictionary you were right. We don't try to find the best word for the German word Schlachtkreuzer here though, we want to find a technical category. This of course is language-independant, or do you suggest that the German Schlachtschiff means both 'battleship' and 'battlecruiser'? Again, does it make sense that according to your reasoning the two ships would be battlecruisers in en.wikipedia.org but Schlachtschiffe in de.wikipedia.org?

• As mentioned above, Battlecruiser's definition simply does not match the ships. They did not have inferior armor, nor battleship-class weaponry. Note also the difference between Hood's and Scharnhorst's last battle: While the Hood, largest warship in the world at her time, was dispatched five minutes after a battleship opened fire on her, the Scharnhorst battled 10 hours against superior forces (including a battleship), fighting back the whole time. This was only possible because she did not have the battlecruisers' weekness. (In fact, www.kbismarck.com claims that the Scharnhorst had a thicker belt than the Bismarck. So much for "out armoured".)

• You still have to come up with a definition of battlecruiser that matches both Hood and Scharnhorst, and maybe more important, not every other fighting ship down to a patrol boat.

I do not neeed to as this is a debate about classifying using a definative source not defining our own. Philip Baird Shearer

You want to attach a label that simply does not match. At. All. Also, classification is not about finding a name in common usage, as you can see in biology. Third, if there is a definitive source, it should be the owner an operator of the ships, the German Kriegsmarine. The RN is not, so kindly stop claiming so unless you have shown us why it should be.

• Your name the RN as the "definitive source". Well, the owner and operator called them battleships; why would that not be the definitive source (or at least carry more weight)?

See my comment above. This encyclopedia often uses the English name over a translation take for example E boats. Philip Baird Shearer

I know that, and I somewhat disagree, but this is a different case. A categorisation is not merely a label, as "E-Boat" is.

• I know Jane's and their reputation, but I'm not willing to accept it in this case unless backed up by a reasonable categorization scheme. Wikipedia is not about copying information from other sources.

Wikipedia is about copying information from other sources See Wikipedia:No original research Philip Baird Shearer

That page does not talk about copying information from other sources. I don't want to start a research project here, but neither should Wikipedia be blindly filled with information justified only by being from a authoritative source.

• It should't matter whether the two ships are strong or weak battleships. Bismarck was probably much weaker than an Iowa class battleship, but her label is not contested.

• "Secondly because of treaty limitations the Kriegsmarine used deception when it came to the description of their ships." Indeed, but they tried to make their ships look smaller, not bigger.

Well as the Bismark and the Gneisenau were theoretically the same weight they would class the two the same wouldn't they.

Why is this relevant? The deception you alleged to would have to commence at the Gneisenau's launch, not the Bismarck's.

• That the two ship were not designed to fight other battleships does nor make them battlecruisers.

But it also makes their designation of battleship questionable.

So either start using the wonderful invention of attributes (as in 'light') or invent your own category, but don't just put the two ships where they don't belong.

• Last, on your point that the two ships are indeed mentioned on Battlecruiser: Yes, they are labelled 'battlecruiser' The RN did so, and you did so. This is not contested. However, the label is wrong. OTOH, you quote that they "could have been classified as light fast battleships", which is what I'm saying.

--Yooden

Again if you think that the RN and Janes use the wrong lable pleas read Wikipedia:No original research Philip Baird Shearer 15:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I could find nothing on this page about RN or Jane's being beyond doubt. Also, neither the RN nor Jane's is a primary source, and neither could you point out the reasoning behind their use of the label.

Well, I'm German, and reasonably well-read in German naval history. Nearly all German sources call the ships indeed Schlachtkreuzer. If the Kriegsmarine did not, it was probably for propaganda reasons. Note that at that time, Germany did not have a lot of heavy surface units - essentially the 3 Panzerschiffe, Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, and later Bismarck and Tirpitz. They did not need to worry too much about classification, as they could refer to each individual unit easily. --Stephan Schulz 23:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm German too, and never heard them referred to as Schlachtkreuzer before this discussion. But let's see what the books say: The first page on Scharnhorst on Amazon.de finds nine books, eight of them referring to Schlachtschiff, only one referring to Schlachtkreuzer. I would hardly call one out of nine "nearly all". --Yooden

The original linen plans of the ship are titled "Schlachtschiff Scharnhorst". They are available from the German Archives. Seaphoto 22:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fair is fair. Just typing Scharnhorst into the Amazon.d search box yields a mix of both, but more "Schlachtschiff" entries. Google also has about a 10-1 preference for "Scharnhorst Schlachtschiff" over "Scharnhorst Schlachtkreuzer" (and the same ratio for Gneisenau). Funny, my reading must have been selective. Of course I claim that this is because I read better books ;-). Seriously, I still prefer Schlachtkreuzer, but I can see your point. I certainly still prefer "battlecruiser" for the English version. Part of the reason for the confusion might be that even in WW-1 German battlecruisers were much less unbalanced designs than British ones. They were, in fact, slightly underarmoured and underarmed fast battleships (while British ones were more like vastly underarmoured but overgunned giant cruisers).--Stephan Schulz 11:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Made worse by the fact that for speed of file "there appears to be something wrong with our bloody ships today" Beatty had the fire doors removed between gun and magazines! Philip Baird Shearer 12:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Not to add fuel to a fire; but Janes listed the WWI German battlecruisers as "Battlecruisers (LINIEN-KREUZERS)". Not "Schlachtkreuzer". I don't think any German warship has had this classification.

So I think my points stand. Unless there is made some reasonable case against it, I will start to rename the whole bunch. --Yooden 18:38, 4 September 2005 (UCT)

What point do you think stands? Please do not do anything until you get a consensus. Philip Baird Shearer 18:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok then, once again (sigh). And please, this time don't just drop out of the discussion if you can't find any reasonable objection anymore. --Yooden

• First of all, this is not about language, I am not suggesting to use 'Schlachtkreuzer' over 'battlecruiser'. The relation of the source's langauge to the encyclopaedia is unimportant (as long as the terms can be translated cleanly, which is the case here).

• Following your line of thought that "a native [...] source trumps a translated source" would mean that the two ships would be battlecruisers in en.wikipedia.org but Schlachtschiffe in de.wikipedia.org. Does this makes sense?

Yep, no problem. Obviously, these ships are borderline, otherwise we would not be discussiong them this passionately. While battle cruisers and Schlachtkreuzer translate to each other, usage patterns in both languages may be different. --Stephan Schulz 22:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

First, they would be borderline if such borders existed in the first place. Ships just cannot be cleanly categorized, as evidenced by the Deutschland class, which were called Battleships by the RN. (Yes, with an attribute. I wouldn't mind one on the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.)

Second, if they are borderline, why not follow the arguments given elsewhere and call them Battleships?

Third, both USN and RAF call them battleships, so no different usage patterns in different languages. --Yooden

• As mentioned above, Battlecruiser's definition simply does not match the ships. They did not have inferior armor, nor battleship-class weaponry. Note also the difference between Hood's and Scharnhorst's last battle: While the Hood, largest warship in the world at her time, was dispatched five minutes after a battleship opened fire on her, the Scharnhorst battled 10 hours against superior forces (including a battleship), fighting back the whole time. This was only possible because she did not have the battlecruisers' weekness. (In fact, www.kbismarck.com claims that the Scharnhorst had a thicker belt than the Bismarck. So much for "out armoured".)

If they don't have "battleship-class weaponry", how does that make them battleships? As for the last battles of Hood and Scharnhorst: First, nearly everybody agrees Hoods sinking was a freak accident. Moreover, while Hood may have been the largest warship of its time, it also was more than 20 years old, long overdue for a refit, and inadequadely armoured against the plunging fire that became the norm for WW2 battles. Secondly, the first 7 hours of the "10 hour battle", Scharnhorst fought against 1 heavy and 2 light cruisers - that is superiority in numbers only. By tonnage, it was fairly evenly matched - and indeed, sinking cruisers was exactly one of the original aims for the battle cruiser design. Once HMS Duke of York closed in, Scharnhorst tried to run (as a battle cruiser is supposed to ;-) but failed. Total time from the first battle ship salvo to sinking was only 3 hours. --Stephan Schulz 22:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

If they don't have battlecruiser-class armor, how does that make them battlecruiser?

Freak accident or not, it did exactly the thing a battlecruiser is supposed to do in the face of a battleship: Sink, and quickly.

The Battle of North Cape is interesting because it shows that the Scharnhorst, unlike battlecruisers, could take heavy fire for a long time and still operate. And three hours is still more than thirty times than the Hood. --Yooden

• As you continue to ignore Battlecruiser's definition, please name an alternate definition that matches both Hood and Scharnhorst, and maybe more important, not every other fighting ship down to a patrol boat. As it stands, you want to attach a label to the class without any argument but Appeal to authority. Please rectify this.

"A battle cruiser is a dreadnought style big-gun warship ship that sacrifices some fighting power for increased speed. It is generally considered to be the second most powerful class of primarily gun-armed surface warships." --Stephan Schulz 22:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the definition now given on the battlecruiser page "Different nations built to widely different designs. Some battlecruisers were smaller than heavy cruisers while others were larger than contemporaneous battleships. The chief similarity was the role specification. They were supposed to hunt down and outgun smaller warships (or merchant ships in the case of the Panzerschiff), and outrun larger warships that they could not outgun.Originally, to achieve this, they deviated from the standard practice of providing a ship with sufficient armour to protect against its own guns." This gives leeway for different designs which the RN designated battlecurisers in the 1930s and 1940s --Philip Baird Shearer 01:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I like another sentence which sheds some light on your "cruiser hunting" argument (my emphasis): "However, as technology developed design philosophy changed and led to the (upgrade or) creation of a more heavily armoured class with less powerful guns. They were given different labels, but essentially performed the same task." So again, no battlecruiser for the Scharnhorst. --Yooden

• If there is indeed a definitive source, it should be the owner an operator of the ships, the German Kriegsmarine. The RN is not, so kindly stop claiming so unless you have shown us why it should be.

• Note that this is not merely a translation issue, as with "E-Boat". The question is what category the ships belong to, not what label (as in translation) you want to attach. We don't argue whether to use German or English criteria for classification (which would still not make it clear-cut), because there are no such things.

• I know Jane's and their reputation, but I'm not willing to accept it in this case unless backed up by a reasonable categorization scheme. Wikipedia is not about blindly copying information from other sources only because they have a good reputation.

• It shouldn't matter whether the two ships are strong or weak battleships. Bismarck was probably much weaker than an Iowa class battleship, but her label is not contested.

• "Secondly because of treaty limitations the Kriegsmarine used deception when it came to the description of their ships." Indeed, but they tried to make their ships look smaller, not bigger. The Kriegsmarine had every reason to understate the size of their capital ships.

• That the two ship were not designed to fight other battleships does not make them battlecruisers. Submarines were also not designed to fight other battleships.

There are only two types of ships - submarines and targets.... Seriously, of course submarines were designed to (also) fight battle ships, and so they did. Ask Royal Oak. Neither class was designed to fight battle ships in a dish-it-out last-man-standing surface battle.... --Stephan Schulz 22:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that was a typo and Yooden meant "subs were also not desighed to fight other subs" Philip Baird Shearer

The RN website states that during WWI British submarines sank 19 enemy submarines and in WWII another thirty five. [5] --Philip Baird Shearer 20:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever, would you mind deleting these comments? My point was that "not build to fight battleships" is a lousy definition for a battlecruiser. --Yooden

• Two of the four external links call them battleships, only one calls it battlecruiser. Even the article the Scharnhorst entry is in "large part derived from" calls it battleship. --Yooden

I think that is more than one point and we have been around them already! If you want to move it you need to come up with a better one than "Wikipedia definition". If the Wikipedia definition of a battlecruiser does not fit Jane's and the Royal Navy terms, then the Wikipedia definition needs changing to accommodate them. Besides have you read the article battlecruisers recently because it now starts "Battlecruisers were large warships of the first half of the 20th century. They evolved from armored cruisers and in terms of ship classification they occupy a grey area between cruisers and battleships" Which I think covers this class accuratly. Also this class is mentioned in the article.Philip Baird Shearer 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Just answer the points I made. You tried before, but were rebutted. Try again or go play elsewhere. --Yooden

Ok, I took a break from this discussion to get an opportunity to reflect on my stance on the issue at hand. Often after a break like this and with a fresh perspective I'm better able to see the other guy's point of view. Not this time though, the more I think about it, break or no break, the more I think that the idea to call the ships battlecruisers is just wrong, nothing more. So back into the fray... --Yooden

Arguments for calling them 'battlecruisers'

Let 'er rip.

Anything?

Well, yes. Sorry, as a non-expert, non-German speaker (like most English-speaking Wiki readers), these two powerful ships - as equipped - were less than battleships (for whatever reason), and were not intended to be used as such by the Kriegsmarine. They were, I suggest, intended to see off cruiser escorts and destroy convoys. To me, to call them "battleships" is confusing - they were not the equal of the "Bismarcks" nor even of the "KG5s". They certainly had the capability to be upgraded to "proper" battleships, it was a design feature and, I think, work did start on the Gneisenau.

I accept that the German term "Schlachtkreuzer" translates directly into "battleship", so what? This is the English language Wiki and should convey meaning to English speakers. "Battlecruisers" were at a disadvantage to "battleships": see Hood and Scharnhorst - and to me, that's the point. Perhaps English/ German understandings of the term have diverged, and it's a language issue. After all the Graf Spee, Scheer and Lutzow/ Deutschland have had differing descriptions in English ("pocket battleship" or "heavy cruiser") and German ("panzerschiff").

I had thought that the accepted way forward was to explain the differing views, when appropriate.

Lastly, I object to the insinuation (perhaps not a serious one) that, because expert(?) comments on one side of the debate are not right here, the debates that have been carried on elsewhere (above, below and elsewhere) can be ignored. Folks at 137 18:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that the significance of armour and armament varies with technology and time, it makes more sense to define "battleship" and "battlecruiser" primarily by role. On that basis, a battlecruiser could be defined as a ship designed for commerce raiding - or the interception of commerce raiders - with the speed to run from more powerful ships.

• A definition based purely on purpose is, in practice, unworkable. If one battlecruiser has a very high top speed, than any other battlecruiser is unable to run from it. Would other battlecruisers then not be considered battlecruisers? Moreover, battlecruisers and battleships regularly were designed for (and in any case, in practice assigned) similar tasks, due to the simple fact that they both carried big guns. Which resulted in spectacular failures, such as HMS Hood being sunk by KM Bismarck. Finally, fast battleships can accomplish any task a battlecruiser can, while being better armed and better armoured. If you think that the difference between battleships and battlecruisers is muddy, the difference between their tasks is even more so.--82.92.235.28 20:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think a workable rule of thumb to discern battleships from battlecruisers is to ask the question whether a ship is at least protected against the shells it fires itself. If the answer is no, then you're probably dealing with a battlecruiser, since armour has then been sacrificed. Another question to ask is if the the ship is noticably faster than other capital ships. If the answer is yes, then you're probably dealing with a battlecruiser. The final question is what how many and what size of guns does the ship carry. If they are noticably less or smaller than those of contemporary all big gun capital ships, then again they are battlecruisers. Since the Scharnhorst class carried only 283 mm (11 inch) guns, significantly smaller than the 356mm (14 inch) guns used in the KGV class or even the 330mm (13 inch) guns of the Dunkerque class, and were relatively fast when compared to other ships, imho you're dealing with battlecruisers here. The difference in size is simply too big. These ships would not have been able to engage any contemporary battleships on an equal footing and could only have tried to flee, as illustrated by the sinking of Scharnhorst by HMS Duke of York. Official terminology means nothing. If you call a cat a tiger, it doesn't grow in size and sometimes designations were deliberately confusing. The Germans also used the term Schlachtschiffe (battleships) to indicate these ships, but in my view that was done more in terms of propaganda. The proper term would have been Schlachtkreuzer (battlecruisers). Even in contemporary German literature the term Schlachtschiffe is being used. Unfortunately there are no fixed rules, but the abovementioned rules of thumb seem to work for me in most cases. I must admit however that this class is caught somewhere in between. Various sources do refer to these ships as battleships but don't fully explain on what grounds. Clearly they were undergunned although overarmoured, while posessing a serious advantage in speed on most contemporary vessels. If armed with 380 mm (15 inch) guns, these ships could arguably have been called battleships but would still have sacrificed armament (six guns as compared to eight in the Bismarck class) for speed (and in this case, protection). I accept the view of Dulin and Garzke that "Even though the German Navy regarded the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as battleships, they were, in a sense, battlecruisers with heavy protection, high speed, and medium-calibre guns, a development of the Deutschland-class armored ships and a transitional type with a design constrained by technical limitations and political considerations."-Battleships - Axis and neutral battleships of World War II, by William H. Garzke, Jr. and Robert O. Dulin, Jr. --82.92.235.28 14:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for calling them 'battleships'

• Overwhelming use of the term: Google has 901 hits on the phrase 'Schlachtkreuzer Scharnhorst' vs. 120,000 on 'Schlachtschiff Scharnhorst' (ratio 1:133), 588 hits on 'Battlecruiser Scharnhorst' vs. 10,100 on 'Battleship Scharnhorst' ('only' 1:17, but distorted by this very article). It's not Wikipedia's role to push a fringe phrase into mainstream.

  about 516 for "Battleship Scharnhorst" -wikipedia.

  about 435 for "Battlecruiser Scharnhorst" -wikipedi

  Searching on the individule words not a string in quotes, does not mean much as the Scharnhorst also engaged battleships. EG about "62,500 for RAF Scharnhorst -wikipedia" and "about 15,700 for RAF bomber Scharnhorst -wikipedia" would imply by that argument that the Sharhorst was an RAF bomber--Philip Baird Shearer 15:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Then that is probably the reason why I didn't. You can assume basic internet skills. Anyway:

Results 1 - 10 of about 106,000 for "Schlachtschiff Scharnhorst" -wikipedia. (0.13 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 878 for "Schlachtkreuzer Scharnhorst" -wikipedia. (0.63 seconds)

I just had another look at the results of '"Battlecruiser Scharnhorst" -wikipedia': Two of the first ten hits are from Wikipedia's clones. --Yooden

• The owner of operator of the two ships, the German Kriegsmarine called them 'Schlachtschiff'. --Yooden
• They don't match the common definition of battlecruisers: Battleship-sized guns, but less armor to increase speed. The Scharnhorst's main belt was thicker than that of the Bismarck, other values were close to Bismarcks. --Yooden

  They do fit the definition in the current Wikipedia article on battlecruisers:

  Two more ships were built later in the 1930s, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, which were considerably more powerful. At 38,900 tons full load they were somewhat larger than the French Dunkerque class and very well armoured. They were designed to carry six 15 inch (380mm) guns in three twin turrets, but for various reasons they were stuck with nine 11 inch (280mm) guns in three triple turrets instead (it was planned to rearm them during the war, but this plan was abandoned). The Royal Navy categorised them as battlecruisers since they followed the Imperial German Navy design lineage of trading off gun size for protection and speed. The German Navy nonetheless categorised them as battleships. -Philip Baird Shearer 15:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia calls them battlecruiser, that's the very thing I want to change. What's your point? --Yooden

What is you motive for changing it, is it because you think they count as battleships or because the Germans called them battleships. The latter did is not enough. You are assuming a one-to-one corelation between the English and German words and their defintions - and the absolute definition of battleship moves with the era. The German definition could have been in part as a result of "national pride" - doing so doubled their battleship count.

From my reading of the German language article on wikipedia - it identifies the G and S as less than battleships but more than (classical) battlecruisers. I think there is alsways going to be a problem with these two. If they had got their bigger guns then they would have been re-termed as battleships. The important thing is that their particular situation is adequately described, is it not? GraemeLeggett 10:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss my motivation on my talk page, if you want to, and keep this section clean. If you want to make an argument for or against either name, make it at the appropriate place. This discussion is messy enough already. --Yooden

• I just found a very interesting article: Battlecruisers, Large Cruisers, & Pocket Battleships of World War II by Chuck Hawks [6] As you can get from the title, it's about battlecruisers and the like, about 60k. He writes about the Scharnhorst class (my emphasis): "These ships were re-designed several times, and when they finally emerged they were not battlecruisers at all, but small (and not even that small, they were actually about the size of the average foreign battleship of the time), fast battleships. The German Kriegsmarine always rated them as battleships. So did Jane's Fighting Ships." He also writes about the French battleship Dunkerque (my emphasis): [T]he French navy [...] responded [to the Deutschlands] with the much larger Dunkerque class battlecruisers." He finally writes about the USS Alaska (CB-1) (called large cruiser in her article): "[T]he U.S. Navy went to great lengths to avoid using the word 'battlecruiser' in connection with these vessels, despite the fact these ships are virtually perfect examples of the type." The moral ist of course (except to add a voice to the discussion) that these designations are arbitrary. At the time the Scharnhorsts were build, the strict classification of WWI and the treaty period was over.

• Some more arguments for battleship: The US Navy classified them as Battleships in their official booklet for classification of ships. They called the Scharnhorst BB2, probably Gneisenau as BB1. See Commons:Image:Scharnhorst-1-A503-FM30-50.jpg. --Denniss 21:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Do they? They give it a BB-number, but the legend with the image classifies the ship as a cruiser in both English and French.--Stephan Schulz 22:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Caption by the uploader --Denniss 22:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Since the US classification system has no separate designation for battlecruisers, this is not very significant anyway. The only ships the US Navy ever had, Alaska class, were designated CB or Cruiser Big, but those ships were much less well armoured than this class.--82.92.235.28 14:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Origination of classification

What was the German term for their battlecruisers of the First World War? GraemeLeggett 09:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Schlachtkreuzer --Yooden

I don't see why you wanted to bring in the German term. The two pairs (battleship/Schlachtschiff and battlecruiser/Schlachtkreuzer match exactly. No need to cross-translate and confuse people. --Yooden

If I've written it correctly I haven't confused anyone. What I have established is that the WW1 German battlecruisers had their own term, "Schlachtkrueser" (or "Grosse kreuzer" thnaks to Tirpitz), and so what we are attaching is the concept not necessarily the name it carried in German documents. GraemeLeggett 12:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's incorrect, just unnecessary. If you think this somehow sheds light on the current discussion I'm afraid you did confuse someone. Nobody wants to replace battelcruiser with Schlachtkreuzer (or Schlachtschiff for that matter) in the English Wikipedia. Why do you think the German term matters? --Yooden

The German term matters because it illustrates that the S+G were a different concept to ships like SMS Von der Tann. By comparison , although in English the term battlecruiser remained, the idea had moved within Admiralty thinking from Invincible to first Repulse and then Hood within the space of WW1 and after then onto the G3 battlecruisers. GraemeLeggett 14:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary useage - Jane's Fighting Ships (1939), Kriegsmarine Classification, and the US Navy (ONI-204 manual) all agree that they were battleships. I feel that the article should be changed to reflect that. Seaphoto 22:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Afaik the main charakteristic of BCs is poor armour for beeing faster than BBs, but heavy armament. This does not fit whith Scharnhorst-Class. They are specialized Battelships, but not the best ones. (one could say: a bad design)--WerWil 15:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Class Name

Any source on whether and why this is named after the ship launched last? --Yooden

The article says: "It was known as the Gneisenau class since the Gneisenau was the first to be completed, but others believe that it should have been named the Scharnhorst class since that ship was laid down first." -- and a quick Google shows that opinion is split on the issue.

• about 377 for "Gneisenau class" -wikipedia
• about 855 for "Scharnhorst class" -wikipedia

The balance seems to favour "Scharnhorst class" but it is a small sample. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that. Problem is, the Gneisenau was laid down first. From what I read, the class should be named after the ship launched first, which would be the Scharnhorst. So, is there a source? --Yooden

From the articles:

• Gneisenau
  • Ordered: January 25, 1934
  • Laid down: February 14, 1934
  • Construction Halted: July 5, 1934
  • Construction Resumed: May 6, 1935
  • Launched: December 8, 1936
  • Commissioned: May 21, 1938

• Scharnhorst
  • Ordered: 25 January 1934
  • Laid down: 15 May 1935
  • Launched: 3 October 1936
  • Commissioned: 7 January 1939

The problem is that ordered, laid down, launched, and commissioned are usually first in first out. In this case they are not, and I doubt if anyone has bothered to make up a rule about this if the ships are completed in a FIFO queue. Launch is one possiblity but a good case can be made for commissioning. Are the dates correct? If so what was the Scharnhorst doing for over 2 years between launch and commissioning? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The naming of ships is a convention not an absolute rule - see ship class. If a convention is used it should be stated. Some further questions to be answered. What was the Kiegsmarine's methodology for naming ship classes? When did they first come to international attention and how were they described at the time (eg newspaper reports)? Why do people use google searches as a technique for discovering the validity of some phrase or spelling rather than consulting reference books? GraemeLeggett 11:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - just name the convention used an be done with it. Grouping them makes sense even if it would be unhistoric in the sense that Germans or even Brits of the time never lumped them together (no reason to open up another can of worms too).

I can't remember that I ever heard of a Gneisenau- or Scharnhorst-class in German. They weren't that much, so it's not hard to learn the individual ships' names. They are usually just called Schwesterschiffe (sister ships).

As for the other questions, please bring that up in the appropriate place in the discussion. --Yooden

If you accept that ships need a class name at all (even if there's just two of them), you have to get a certain thing to fix it on. Now I know that launching a ship is a big thing, I never heard of a commissioning ceremony of similar significance. So launching makes most sense to me.

I don't know about the dates, but people were probably busy building tanks and whatnot. Ships were never that important for Hitler.

Anyway, I could have juggled around the words myself, the question ist: How to decide which is which? Again, I never read in German media that the two ships are collectively a class, they are just two ships anyway. So I don't care either way, I just wouldn't like it to be the wrong or even an arbitrary label. So is there an authoritive source or a definitive way to determine the class' name? --Yooden

I note that on navweapons.com "Scharnhorst class" is used in some of the articles, and at least one which came from "Warship".GraemeLeggett 11:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I note that they are called battleships almost everywhere. Your point being? --Yooden

I think that Scharnhorst is a more correct class name, a quick search on google also supports that Scharnhorst 113000 hits, mostly military history sites and book stores. Gneisenau 44800 hits, mostly Wikipedia.--Sneaking Viper 05:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Scharnhorst class would be the correct designation and was a bit surprised to see it not being used here. I have a number of books on battleships and battlecruisers and in almost all of them these ships are described as Scharnhorst class, including German publications (although these sometimes also refer to this class as battleships, which is incorrect) and reference books. I don't think I can come up with any book about the Gneisenau class. Gneisenau class imho only made sense in 1944-1945, when Scharnhorst had been sunk and Gneisenau was (be it in stripped-down condition) the only ship of this class remaining. This is in agreement with the convention that the first ship to be launched (hence, the first to be named officially as this is done at the christening ceremony when a ship is launched) becomes the ship to name the class. Sources (to name a few) Conway's all the world's battleships by Ian Sturton, Die Schlachtschiffe der Scharnhorst-Klasse by Gerhard Koop and Klaus-Peter Schmolke, Battleships - Axis and neutral battleships of World War II by William H. Garzke, Jr. and Robert O. Dulin, Jr., The complete encyclopedia of battleships and battlecruisers, by Tony Gibbons.--82.92.235.28 13:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

,,,,

I still see no reason to prefer British ship classification over German classification. The Germans build the ships and used them, not the British and the German classification was schlachtschiffe, battleship, not schlachtkreuzer, battlecruiser. No German ship build after World War One was classified as battlecruiser. --Kurt Leyman

As a non-expert English-speaker I more concerned with a concept than a correct literal translation. Surely, the S&G were equipped for a role: destruction of lightly protected merchant vessels. Bismarck & Tirpitz were hugely different, they could hold their own against battleships (British meaning). To use the same description for both types is misleading to the average English language reader. The description in German Wiki is not my concern. Mind you, there's a similar issue with the later T-boats, that were more like destroyers. Folks at 137 16:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My rewrite today

I've done a bit of a rewrite of the opening paragraphs with the following intention

1. the disputed phrase "battlecruiser" is moved out of the opening paragraph
2. an attempt to explain why the RN put the battlecruiser tag on it

I removed the bit about WW1 battlecruisers, because it didn't run well with the structure - I welcome any attempt to fit it in. My interpretation is that they were ostensibly 25,000 ton vessels with 11-inch guns. At the time 15 inches and 30,000 + tons was about the mark for a battleship. So they fell in the gap 'twixt cruiser and battleship - hence battlecruiser (which has been a flexible term itself) They were built as battleships by the Germans and if the RN had been aware of the true nature including the plan for big guns they might well have categorised them as battleships. That the Germans called them battleships would not have been enough - that could have been a propaganda message. GraemeLeggett 15:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest that if you don't care for the changes you at least try to improve upon the attempt rather than a blanket RV. Thanks GraemeLeggett 15:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"25,000 ton"

The ships max displacement was nearly 40000 tons and standart displacement some 32000 tons. The "official" displacement was 25000 tons but the Germans had lied about the tonnage of the ships..

"At the time 15 inches and 30,000 + tons was about the mark for a battleship."

Hardly so. Italian Conte di Cavour class ships are not battleships because their max displacement was less than 30000 tons and they were armed with ten 12.50 inch guns?

I don't follow on the 25,000 ton bit. I'm suggesting that the classification was based on the mistaken 25,000. The Conte di Cavour was Great War era, about the same size as the Iron Duke class. Washington Treaty builds were around 35,000 - the treaty limit, Post washington (eg KGV) more like 45,000. GraemeLeggett 16:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Does size matter?

Another thread! I've favoured the battlecruiser tag because the 11" weaponry made S&G less than a battleship - or so it seemed. However, the following point has been made elsewhere: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau carried a new type of weapon; a high velocity gun with an eleven inch calibre. It possessed superb penetration qualities and very great range. In theory at least the smaller dimensions of the shell should have made for less structural failures on impact. The fast recycling rate meant that once the range had been found an enemy ship could be put under intense smothering fire and with a more reliable chance of effective penetrations made them a match for any contemporary battleships, except perhaps the heavily armed and armoured Nelson class which they could certainly out-run with their great speed - well in excess of 30 knots. It might be as well though, to consider how many high velocity 11 inch shells a Nelson could take before succumbing. The point is that maybe the smaller gun diameter was compensated for by other attributes. So it's impact that counts - maybe S&G are "real" battleships. Any more info or comments about the weaponry? Folks at 137 23:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How high-velocity is it compared to previous "eleven inch" guns? Is this not the same gun as on the pocket battleships of the Deutschland which the British cruisers at the Battle of the River Plate survived. Gun velocity gives distance but shell weight gives accuracy and punch.GraemeLeggett 08:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

this list gives them a 3 tonne broadside compared to the Nelsons 8-and-a-bit. Adjusting for rate of fire makes it 6 tonne, but the maximum range listed for both is in excess of distances experienced in practice. GraemeLeggett 10:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Is this not the same gun as on the pocket battleships of the Deutschland"

No.

"maybe S&G are "real" battleships"

They are.

"which the British cruisers at the Battle of the River Plate survived"

Hitler was quite right when he said that Admiral Graf Spee should have won the battle. She lost because of errors made by captain Langsdorff. Graf Spee outgunned all her opponents, having 11 inch main guns, to Exeters 8 inch and Ajax and Achilles 6 inch guns.

Langsdorff should have concentrated the fire on Exeter first before Admiral Graf Spee came into the range of the light cruisers.

Instead, Langsdorff split his fire between the three targets, with the result that although Exeter was severely damaged and forced to withdraw, the other ships got into range and scored 20 hits on Admiral Graf Spee, including on the food stores and bakeries.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kurt Leyman (talk • contribs) 06:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

An expert of naval warfare has spoken .... have you ever counted the numbers of heavy guns available on the allied cruisers? The Gaf Spee was not that heavily armored to ignore the 6 inch cruisers with 10 or more guns per ship to finish Exeter first. --Denniss 07:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"An expert of naval warfare has spoken .... "

Thank you for those kind words. I love you too.

"have you ever counted the numbers of heavy guns available on the allied cruisers?"

As a matter of fact I have. With the word "outgunned" I meant the fact that Admiral Graf Spee's guns were far more powerful than those of the Allied warships and could deal heavier damage from distance.

And if you did not notice, we are not here to argue about the Battle of River Plate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kurt Leyman (talk • contribs) 08:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite, please drop the subject or continue it on Talk:Battle of the River Plate --Philip Baird Shearer 09:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Back to the conjecture of stating that the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau's new 11-inch guns. Its likely that they could have wrecked the superstructure of battleship. However, its not certain that could have penetrated the battleship's armoured belt and decks, since penetration depends upon the weight of the shell and an 11-incher falls short compared to a 15-incher. During the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, the USS South Dakota was hammered by 8-inch shells but was never threatened with sinking from such ordinance. Second, I don't think that 11-inch guns versus 15-inch guns is a fair fight even if the 11-inchers fire faster; the ship with the 15-inch guns might have less shots but shots with a far better chance of penetrating armour and doing critical damage. GoldDragon 03:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Size does indeed matter. These ships had 283 mm guns vs 356 of the KGV class. That is a significant difference. The Duke of York could penetrate Scharnhorst's armour, while the latter could not reciprocate, making her noticably deficient in firepower as compared to this contemporary battleship. Obviously firepower had been sacrificed in order to produce these ships as fast as possible, thereby reducing them to battlecruisers. Arguably, if rebuilt with 380 mm guns, these ships could have been called battleships. But that conversion was never carried out.--82.92.235.28 14:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• If the Dunkerque-class ships are classified as fast battleships, then these ships should be, too. As for their armor, they had a turtle-type deck armor, just like the later Bismarck-class. This type of deck armor is weak against shells plunging from long-range. On the other hand, their 28cm C/34 gun couldnt penetrate the deck armor of any battleship of the era from any range. So, for these ships to have any chance against other battleships, they would have had to charge within 10 kms, in order to penetrate the belt armor of their opponent. Btw, i used navweaps.com as a reference for the guns.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.3.168.63 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Having weaker weapons is not the main kriteria of battlecruisers. Battlecruiser-design means: reducing armour to gain speed.--WerWil 07:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture

The new Image of Gneisenau has no source oder Author. I guess it's a CR violation.--WerWil 19:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

New class discussion

I haven't been able to read through all the discussion here (lacking internet at home at the moment, and having to use library based, time-limited connection), but what I want to say is that I am starting to lean towards the Schlachtschiff categorization, i.e. battleship. I just finished reading "Arctic Convoys, 1941-45" by Richard Woodman, where he continuously use the term "battleship" for the ugly sisters. He defends his use by saying (in a footnote) that the only reason why they weren't classified as battleships by the Royal Navy at the time, was because they had so much higher speed. The armor was similar to a battleship, and they had only somewhat inferior armament compared to the two 'super battleships' of the Bismarck class. The battlecruiser classification has since then stuck in English literature, although somewhat misleading. --MoRsE 09:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Nota Bene: Please be careful when searching Google links for panzerkreutzer Gneisenau or Gneisenau Scharnhorst, the results might refer to the older SMS Scharnhorst and SMS Gneisenau, which were Großer Kreuzers or Panzerkreuzers from WWI. --MoRsE 09:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read through the arguments up to this point. Some of the points made in favor of using battlecruiser instead of battleship are out dated, or not really valid. For example, the example that English usage determined the name for the article for Schnellboots would be labeled E-boats. Clearly, the article is now named with its German name. Also, the argument that Janes classifies them as BCs and not BBs is up in the air. My 1946/47 edition of Janes classifies them as battleships, not battlecruisers. On page 144, it states "Names of these battleships commemorate those of two cruisers sunk at the Battle of Falkland Islands...". Parsecboy 14:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the most egregious example of Wikiality (not to mention WP:OR) I've seen yet. USN, RAF, Jane's and, most important, the Kriegsmarine calls them battleships, yet they end up as battlecruisers because some people are fixated at WWI terms for large ships. No matter that the Dunkerque is described as "not as well-armed and considerably less armoured than contemporary battleships", a text-book definition of a battlecruiser; no matter that battlecruisers were a British idea and no German navy ever really built any (nor tried). There was never an easier way to rewrite history than Wikipedia. --87.189.88.136

While I agree that the Gneisenaus were battleships; you're incorrect to say that the Germans never built BCs. They had several during WWI; Von der Tann, Moltke, Goeben, Seydlitz, Derfflinger, Hindenburg, and Lutzow, not to mention the unfinished Mackensen and Ersatz Yorck classes. Parsecboy 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know all of these classes, but German navies never wanted to make the trade between armor and speed which is the definition of battlecruiser, that was a British idea. German Große Kreuzer were built to be ships of the line, something which is called fast battleship everywhere else. --87.189.88.136

It was a different approach to the same concept; heavy scout units that could destroy the opponents cruiser squadrons with ease. The Germans just added the stipulation (against Tirpitz's arguments, in fact) that they be able to fight in the battle line. The Germans labeled it "German kreuzer-battleships versus British battle-cruisers". No one has ever referred to these ships as battleships. Parsecboy 22:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to start a discussion about Derfflinger's class, I know that they are called battlecruiser by everyone. Still, as an example: HMS Queen Elizabeth's main belt 279 mm, SMS Derfflinger's main belt 300 mm. Also, the Germans labelled them Kreuzer for budget reasons - building new battleships would have required consent by the quarrelsome Reichstag. --87.189.88.136

Your last claim is dubious. The Konigs were heavier, had thicker armor, more main guns, etc. than any of the BCs, and the Bayerns after them had 15" guns. Keep in mind that von Tirpitz wanted ships of the same type as the British. Parsecboy 22:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What is dubious about which claim? Whatever, I really don't want to dicuss the class of the Große Kreuzer. --87.189.88.136

That's perfectly fine by me. This isn't really the place for it anyways. Parsecboy 22:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that it's been a few days, and the only three opinions expressed here have been in general agreement, I propose that after, say, 4 more days (a weeks time) the articles be renamed, given the apparent consensus. If that change spurs debate, all the better. Thoughts? Parsecboy 12:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There's been a lot of high temperature discussion of this in the past, I would recommend going through the full rename procedure to avoid any fallout/backlash. As you say only three opinions on the matter so far.GraemeLeggett 14:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of "battleship" for the reasons listed above. As far as I know, "the full rename procedure" is to establish consensus on the talk page and then move the articles. TomTheHand 15:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that even the picture illustrating this very article calls them battleship ("BB2"). What more is needed? --The IP from above

Comparing the armour, guns and names in various languages is irrelevant. Warships are defined by role. Battleships could fight one another (in line of battle). G&S could not fight battleships. They could not fight other battlecruisers. Therefore they were not battleships. They were employed in a role reserved for battlecruisers - i.e. destroying cruiser-class (and below) warships and other shipping whilst avoiding more powerful battleship-class warships. What did this make them? Wiki-Ed 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

See my reply on the Talk:Battlecruiser. Parsecboy 19:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My 2p: They should very clearly be referred to as battleships on Wikipedia. The German navy used the term schlachtschiff for them, which refers exclusively to dreadnought-type battleships. This view was evidently shared by a number of English-language sources. To add to the list already cited, the English translation of Breyer's Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World calls them battleships. Breyer is at least as canonical as Jane's. I think the bulk of evidence is clearly in favour of the contemporary description being battleships. To argue from capabilities to definition and thus to define them retrospectively as battlecruisers is the wrong way around - for several reasons. Firstly, there are no battlecruisers started after 1922. Why try so hard to put these ships into an extinct category? Secondly, a battlecruiser was generally equipped with the same calibre guns as the battleships of her generation; the Scharnhorsts were not so evidently they are not the same concept. Thirdly, there were several small-gunned battleship proposals in the 1930s which were unrealised, for instance various proposals for 18,000 ton battleships with 11-inch or 12-inch guns for the Royal Navy, they were not called battlecruisers. How about that move, then? The Land (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be all for that, but as Graemelegget suggested earlier, a proper move request should probably be used as opposed to one of us just doing it ourselves. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The proper procedure for a move is to establish consensus on the talk page, then move. There is no need to post at Wikipedia:Requested moves, which is primarily intended for moves that require admin help for technical reasons. TomTheHand (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've filled in the stuff for a requested move. Attracting more attention to the discussion, and having an uninvolved admin make the decision, is probably a good thing. The Land (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I hereby move that this article move to Scharnhorst class battleship, which is a more reliable name. There are two issues here.

1. The class name should be Scharnhorst. This is the most common use in reliable sources (e.g. Breyer, Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World). Scharnhorst was launched first, though laid down and completed second: however this is of secondary importance compared to accepted usage.
2. The ships should be classified as battleships, not battlecruisers. This should be clear from the fact that their classification in German is Schlachtschiffe, an unambiguous word meaning battleship (specifically, dreadnought). Many English-language sources (including the U.S. Navy and contemporary issues of Jane's Fighting Ships) concur with their being battleships. Some do not, apparently including the Royal Navy at the time and the Jane's Fighting Ships of today. I contend that the original native usage is the accurate one to use. One point of view is that, on account of their high speed and weak armament, we should describe them as battlecruisers even if they were predominantly referred to as battleships. This suggestion, as has been pointed out, is wikiality and WP:OR. It is not our purpose as an encyclopedia to tell the German Navy they mis-classified their ships.

Obviously, each ship article would also move if this move gains consensus. Please discuss here. Best regards, The Land (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Did the Kriegsmarine refer to them as the Scharnhorst class? TomTheHand (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Pass. Obviously, if they didn't, I will change my mind. But do any reliable sources refer to them as the Gneisenau class? The Land (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got a copy of Conway's at home; I'll see what it says. I doubt I have anything else that covers it. I used Amazon.com to look at the table of contents of Garzke and Dulin's Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War II, and it seems to use Scharnhorst. TomTheHand (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The authors (or at least publishers!!) of [7] seem fairly convinced as well. The Land (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

""Battleship D, later called Scharnhorst , was laid down in May 1935 at the Kriegsmarine Shipyard in Wilhelmshaven and commissioned in January 1939. The sister ship Gneisenau (Battleship E) was laid down in March 1935 at the Deutsche Werke in Kiel and commissioned in May 1938..." [8] --MoRsE (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I had said I'd check my copy of Conway's, and I did: it uses Scharnhorst. I support both elements of the move. TomTheHand (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The standard reference on the German Navy is Erich Gröner's German Warships 1815-1945. Volume I refers to them as Scharnhorst class battleships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddy1 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I've only seen it referred to as Gneisenau or Scharnhorst class Battlecruisers but that is because I am British. While I agree with the Royal Navy that they were Battlecruisers like the Hood, titles go with the common name, even sites I find that mention them as Battlecruisers call them battleships again later in the text, and more often as Scharnhorst over Gneisenau. So, while it is against my personal preference I have to agree with the move to the common name. Narson (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Having got out my books, they seem to prefer Scharnhorst class Battlecruiser. I would suggest we go halfway with this move and put it there. Striking my previous conclusion as I've checked print as well as net now. Narson (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated here and elsewhere, I too agree that Scharnhorst and Gneisenau should be properly labelled "battleships", based on the official German classification, as well as the plethora of sources provided that back up the classification. Also, in case anyone has forgotten, the individual ship articles will have to be moved from German battlecruiser Scharnhorst to German battleship Scharnhorst. Parsecboy (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. We should not mis-classify something because (some) sources recite contemporary propaganda or because the planned product was different from what rolled down the slipway. An apple is an apple, even if lots of people call it an orange and paint it accordingly. These ships may have been designed as battleships, but they were not completed that way and were clearly operated as battlecruisers. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Breyer's account of their development suggests that they were completed and operated as designed. Do you have any reliable sources which say they were not? The Land (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can dredge up sources if you like, but I think we all know that they were supposed to carry larger guns. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Read Breyer's description of the development of the class, which I have just added to the article. According to him, it is untrue to say the conversion was always intended: the relevant technical work was not done until 1942. The Land (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of that book, but from what you're saying it doesn't agree with any other source I've recall. The article says the calibre of the guns was reduced for diplomatic reasons - i.e. prior to the war. If the Germans had not been considering battleship guns originally... then what were they making a concession from? That they did not reconsider the issue until 1942 (presumably because they wanted de facto battleships after Bismarck was sunk) is irrelevant. In fact I think the point that they were trying to change their apples into oranges supports my argument. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Which sources and what do they say? Breyer's account is that in 1934-5 the German navy debated whether to have 11-in guns or larger guns on their military merits. Other factors taken into account were logistical (11-in guns already designed) and political (British in favour of small guns). In the end the political factors were decisive. If only military factors were taken into account, Breyer thinks, the KM might still have decided to go for 11-inch. It would not be the first or last time that a smaller gun than feasible was mounted on a battleship: a higher number of shells with adequate range and penetration is often preferable to a smaller number of bigger shells.

During the 1930s the British seriously suggested a limit on battleships of 25,000 tons and 12-inch armament: i.e. to the same specification as S&G. If that proposal had been adopted internationally, would all ships built subsequently become battlecruisers? I think not.The Land (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So long as there were more powerful ships in service which these hypothetical ships could not outfight, but could out-run... yes.

I popped out at lunchtime to a bookshop to see what sources I could find. Thanks to recent films with a Caribbean nautical theme the selection was limited, but I did find one. Aside from classifying them as battlecruisers, it suggested Hitler was angling for 15" guns until the 1935/36 (London Treaty?) negotiations; he made a concession on the S&G and put the 15" on the Bismarck and Tirpitz which appeared after it was quite clear the Nazis had abandoned the pretence of complying with the post-WW1 naval treaty rounds. This is broadly similar to various other sources I've read over the years. However, I suspect you won't be happy until I put some names and titles down, so I'll make an effort to produce a list. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose on the "battleship" element of the suggested reanme. I note that the Imperial War Museum, BBC History and Encyclopedia Britannica Online all use "battle cruiser". I also note that the article works well as is, redirects cover anyone who types in battleship rather than battlecruiser if searching for info, and the battlecruiser/battleship issue is covered in the article in the introductory paragraph.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing to take note of is that the German Wikipedia has them at [9] Scharnhorst, not Gneisenau. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We can't take another Wikipedia as being a reliable source, even if I do happen to agree they've got it right, The Land (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The point about the redirects is a fair one, but it will make no sense to have an article titled 'German battlecruiser...' because the text of the page will say 'battleship' if that is what the consensus is for. I am not sure that any of the sources you cite are important - they are all tertiary sources which deal with general matters, not the secondary sources which WP:OR suggests we should use. The Land (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BBC History is not a reliable source.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, you guys are fast. Don't know much about the issue, but just added the link to de-Wiki as noticed by Parsecboy above, filling a red link there de:Scharnhorst-Klasse (1938). It might not be well sourced there, BTW, as Germans do not care much about these things nowadays for some reason...-- Matthead  DisOuß   13:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And my stub over at de-Wiki was speedily deleted already! The most fearsome weapon ever: German wikilawyering users and admins. -- Matthead  DisOuß   13:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to write something in the German request for deletion at de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/4. Januar 2008#Scharnhorst-Klasse (1938). I suggest something like "Behalten" (Keep), or maybe "Be hold on" instead. Maybe that will teach them a lesson. ;-) -- Matthead  DisOuß   13:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAME says that the name used for articles should be "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". Whatever their original German classification was, these ships are normally labeled battlecruisers by english-language publications. The British official history of the Royal Navy in WW2 labels the ships battlecruisers (though Samuel Eliot Morison calls them 'fast battleships') and the term used in the most recent Janes' publication should probably be considered authoritative. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't buy this line of reasoning. Germany built these vessels as battleships and referred to them as such; U.S. Navy sources support that description. Allowing another navy, especially the Kriegsmarine's great rival, to say "No, sorry, you can't call those battleships" strikes me as being a highly biased POV. TomTheHand (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the move, they were designed as battleships and were battleships as far as armour, speed and armament goes. The Germans called them battleships, so let us get this thing correct. --MoRsE (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That reasoning is fine for the German-language wikipedia, but this is the English-language wikipedia and the most common English language name needs to be used. If these ships are generally called battlecruisers in English-language publications (which I believe is the case) then that overrides whatever the German designation is. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of English-language sources which refer to them as battleships. You've indicated one yourself. You can see them if you read this page. Conway's, Jane's, and the U.S. Navy. There is no reason to believe the term 'battlecruiser' is more common. We do not have a policy of following the most recent edition of Jane's Fighting Ships when contradicted by other reliable sources. The Land (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a word about Jane's: In my own research I have found older editions of Jane's to be notoriously inaccurate, names are wrong, numbers are wrong, etc etc (I am referring to editions up until the 1970's, which are the ones I have used). They can be used for a somewhat accurate general overview, but I stay away from their details. --MoRsE (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This debate is unintentionally comical, since the Scharnhorst class were the first class of German ships to be officially rated by the German navy as schlachtschiff (battleship).--Toddy1 (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So, what's going on here? It's been a few days since anyone has commented on the remainder of the issue, the dispute between battleship and battlecruiser. Sources have been provided supporting both positions, how now to proceed? I don't foresee either side changing their minds based on any argument that could be made by the other, and there isn't a decisive majority in support of one position over the other. Should we perhaps put this to a wider audience? I do know that this requested move was publicized at WP:Ships, but I don't know where (if at all) else. Do we want to try an RfC? Parsecboy (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Google test

I have performed a Google test to establish common use, as suggested by WP:NCON. On 6 out of 6 comparisons, battleship is preferred; on 5 out of 6, Scharnhorst is preferred to Gneisenau. Evidently, most people refer to the ships as battleships. The Land (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

1. scharnhorst battleship -wikipedia [10]: 28,400
2. sharnhorst battlecruiser -wikipedia [11]: 23,200. Note, however, that of the first 20 hits, 6 of these results describe Scharnhorst as being a battleship, not a battlecruiser and pick up on 'battlecruiser' elsewhere in the article.
3. gneisenau battleship -wikipedia [12]: 22,800
4. gneisenau battlecruiser -wikipedia [13]: 14,000. Again, a number of these actually describe Gneisenau as a battleship.
5. "scharnhorst battleship" - wikipedia: [14] 559
6. "scharnhorst battlecruiser" -wikipedia: [15]: 118
7. ""gneisenau battleship" -wikipedia [16]: 301
8. ""gneisenau battlecruiser" -wikipedia [17]: 269
9. "battleship scharnhorst" -wikipedia [18]: 4980
10. "battlecruiser scharnhorst" -wikipedia [19]: 2420
11. "battleship gneisenau" -wikipedia [20]: 1,240
12. ""battlecruiser gneisenau" -wikipedia [21]: 747 —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Land (talk • contribs) 11:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What purpose does a a search for "Gneisenau battlecruiser" etc serve - I can't think of a proper grammatical form that would give such a (part)phrase? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Gneisenau battlecruiser" might appear as "Gneisenau, battlecruiser"; "Gneisenau (battlecruiser)"; or in ungrammatical fragments like product names. Click the two links to see where it is appearing. The alternative formulation "battleship Scharnhorst" gives the same results. The Land (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Partial Move

In response to the request to rename the article Scharnhorst class battleship, I have moved the article to Scharnhorst class battlecruiser. That it should be Scharnhorst instead of Gneisenau is agreed. Whether it should be battleship is still under debate.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm working on the backlog at WP:RM, and I read the above discussion. It appears that we're not yet resolved on the name, as far as "battleship" versus "battlecruiser". Above someone suggested an RfC on the question; I think that would probably be helpful, or at least not any harm. Meanwhile, would it be appropriate for me to relist the discussion at WP:RM and check back in another five days? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually an RfC doesn't sound like such a bad idea. There is clearly no consensus about battleships vs. battlecruiser. There isn't particularly much agreement on principles, either. I'm not sure that another days at RM will attract any more views. The Land (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The only purpose of relisting would be to help clear the backlog and provide some time to set up an RfC with the knowledge that someone from RM will check back in another week. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to relisting at RM. It can't hurt, can it? Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Battleships or Battlecruisers?

There is continued disagreement and a lack of consensus over whether Wikipedia should refer to these ships as battleships or battlecruisers. Which term should we use? (users who posted on this talk page a while back have been notified of this RfC, as have the three WikiProjects which own the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Land (talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by The Land

This is clearly a thorny issue of naming policy.

1. The general policy, laid out in WP:NAME, is "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."
2. There is clearly a difference of opinion about what the most recognisable name is. The Google test conducted above (as suggested by WP:NCON shows that both ships are referred to online as battleships, rather than battlecruisers. No-one in favour of 'battlecruiser' has yet explained why, if 'battlecruiser' is in fact more common, the Google test gives these results.
3. We might also want to take into account the reliability of different sources which use different names. Again, sources differ. In the 'battleships' camp are Groner's German warships 1815-1945, Breyer's Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World, the contemporaneous editions of Jane's Fighting Ships, and U.S. Navy publications. The only reliable sources cited so far which uses 'battlecruiser' are modern editions of Jane's Fighting Ships and Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships. Jane's is normally a reliable source, but other reliable sources contradict it. Non-reliable sources which have been asserted to use 'battlecruiser' include BBC History and the Imperial War Museum.
4. The fact that the German navy referred to the ships as Schlachtschiffe' (=battleship) would not be relevant if there was a clear consensus amongst English-language sources to use the term battlecruiser. Since there is such clear consensus, the German term adds to the evidence on the side of 'battlecruiser'.
5. This discussion must not turn on the merits or characteristics of the ships themselves. Speculating about what 'battleship' and 'battlecruiser' meant in the 1930s and how far the ships met those definitions tends towards WP:OR and gets away from the key issue, which is to work out which name is more recognisable.
6. In my view, the Google test results and the number of reliable sources referenced is enough to justify a move to 'battleship'. The Land (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment: I looked more thoroughly at Conway's, a British source, and it uses "battlecruiser." Sorry, I think I may have been the cause of this confusion. I had previously taken a very brief look at it to resolve the Scharnhorst vs. Gniesenau debate and didn't read in detail to figure out if it said "battleship" or "battlecruiser." TomTheHand (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ta. I've amended what I wrote above. The Land (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like British newspapers tend to prefer battleship. Compare the archive searches offered at [22]; [23]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Land (talk • contribs) 10:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Harlsbottom

• Having Googled on their own Scharnhorst and Gniesenau, for Scharnhorst "battlecruiser" came top (no mention of Wikipedia at all) and for Gniesenau "battleship" came up top - but both appeared to be mixed with a similar number of the contrary term - hardly cause to declare one the winner.
• Of course it would be nice if whoever says that the RN classified the class as battlecruisers could come up with a source (I notice that the Dutch wikipedia article has the same claim on it!).
• Considering I'm assuming that this is going to be based on popularity, using Conway's "All the World's Fighting Ships" would be a pain considering how hard to get and expensive that book is. Breyer is possibly tainted by inaccurate translation for the reason given by The Land above, I wouldn't know about the Groner.
• There is also the technicality of the issue. The Scharnhorsts had the possibly unique distinction of having battleship armament coupled with a battlecruiser (or large cruiser for the USN) armament. Methinks someone needs to create a new classification (I;ve seen mention of small battleship, which might be ideal). Armour, however, is by far the most important factor (her guns were good, but they're no use underwater).

Until then though, and after all that, until someone comes out with some decent, voluminous sourced materiel mentioning "battlecruiser", the articles should be moved to "battleship". --Harlsbottom (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Folks at 137

Deja vu, again. I had thought that the S&G naming issue had been settled a while back: name the articles as ".. Battlecruiser ...", give prominence to the alternative "battleship" classification with its German usage and ensure that there are suitable redirects. It's a solution I remain happy with. But then I'm a Brit and these ships have always, in my experience, been BCs - it's how I would expect to refer to them.

Most British refs are to "battlecruiser" for the reason that, although their design allowed for up-gunning, with an 11" main battery they were not considered the equivalent of even the under-gunned KGVs. Another source might be Churchill. Although not as much of a naval expert as he thought himself to be, he would have reflected RN usage (for whom the distinction was important), despite the possible propaganda plus of having German "battleships" avoiding a fight with British ones. The fact that US sources use "battleship" is important but, then the USN didn't have to worry about the S&G and were reluctant to use the term anyway - see the differences over what to call the Alaska class, despite 12" weaponry. I would call them battlecruisers, but the USN didn't.

My basic argument, however, is common usage, not pure technical correctness (although I don't concede the point): this has been referred to above. I suspect that these two effective ships are much more in the British mind than other Anglophile nations. I also feel uneasy by a US steamroller when the USN were removed from the practicalities of the S&G threat. The German usage should not be quoted, unless the argument is to use "schlachtshiffe", IMO. Folks at 137 (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why British usage should take priority over U.S. usage while German should be ignored. (And, as it happens, I'm British). The Land (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter what usage is. it matters what they were.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, usage matters, or at least exposes differences in what they were. If the Kriegsmarine were uncomfortable about commiting S&G in the same way as the Bismarck, then they saw a distinction. The British were content in using a single KGV against Scharnhorst - similarly, they saw a distinction. One book I have refers to Bismarck as the first "fully-fledged" battleship of the Kriegsmarine - again a distinction. The potential of S&G is the up-gunning of Gneisenau, it was needed to turn potential into actuality. (BTW, the use of 11" was originally ordered by Hitler to comply with current treaties; when these changed, he authorised 15" but these weren't available in time.)

I don't ignore German language usage, I just think it's not relevant if the title here is based on English language usage. Take a parallel case: Norwegian wiki calls Eidsvold a "panserskip", or armoured ship, but no way would I equate her with the German panzerschiff Graf Spee, etc. Different countries, different terminology, not wrong, but different. The US/British priority is a fair point, but the reverse is also true; why should US usage take priority. I will concede a rather awkward classification of the Alaskas as it's their "theatre"; I stick to my view that an accurate description of S&G was more important to the RN and it was an RN theatre.

The whole question is subjective, IMO, except that simply to class the twins as "battleships" is misleading. BTW, has anyone circulated previous contributors to this great debate to canvass their current views? Folks at 137 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no point going round and round in circles about 'what they should have been called'. WP:NAME does not say we should sit in judgement about the capabilities of the subject of the article. In fact, lots of Wikipedia policies (e.g. WP:V, WP:OR) demand exactly the opposite. The reason I am pressing this point is that previous debates on this matter have showed a singular lack of basis in policy or evidence. Your interpretation of their construction and combat history is of absolutely no value in determining what our article should be called. This is a core matter of Wikipedia policy.

I am suggesting the use of 'battleship' should have priority - not because it happened to be the USN usage at the time, but because as far as we can see it is the more common use as evidenced by the Google test and by the stack of reliable sources which use it. If you want to disagree with this then you must produce evidence that 'battlecruiser' is a more common use. The Land (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why I'm here, as my "interpretations" are of "no value". Maybe I, and others who share my opinion of the issue, should just P... off and die. Perhaps that would be more convenient. It's a sleight of hand to dismiss opposing views and arguments as valueless and the phrasing of the comment above seems to be deliberately dismissive and gratuitously insulting. I reiterate my view: "battleship" is a misleading description, IMO (which of course has no value). So sorry to disagree. Folks at 137 (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sounded aggressive. You are welcome to have whatever view you want about the ships. However, this is an encyclopedia. The name for this article has to be decided on the basis of Wikipedia policies on the one hand and evidence on the other. "I think they are X" with no basis in policy and no sources to back it up doesn't help. The Land (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not aggressive, dismissive. Evidence has been produced by other editors. However, PBS' compromise, below, seems to me to be a good way forward. Two further points. Firstly, there are 3 naming approaches: one that reflects the design (battleship - I do think this was the designers' intent, and it should be expanded in the article), then one that reflects capability (battlecruiser - IMO) and one that reflects common naming usage. I think you favour the last - and I do too - and I agree that's where the debate should have centred. The problem for me, is that I'm exposed to British usage - leave tha just now. Second point: you say "I am not sure the frequently repeated story of how the class sacrificed armament for speed is accurate" and make a case. Since this story is "oft-repeated" in both English-language and translated German ones, what are the competing sources on both sides? After all, you've dismissed me for "interpretation". (This might be a separate, interesting thread.) Folks at 137 (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an impression here that "battlecruiser" means "a ship bigger than a cruiser, but not quite as powerful as a battleship." That's not what it means. It's a statement of purpose. Germany designated them as battleships. We've got the Dunkerque-class at Dunkerque class battleship, in spite of their light guns; these ships were part of the evolution of the fast battleship. TomTheHand (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite what I meant. Reading back, it seems that others suggested a "battlecruiser" was intended to achieve high speed by sacrificing some fighting effectiveness. The British chose to reduce armour, the Germans reduced weaponry. Displacement was not a determining feature. Two different solutions; same objective. In practice, it would seem that the German answer was better and, with S&G, more flexible. Therefore, I agree that "battlecruiser" is a statement of purpose, although the response above (from The Land) indicates that this is an incorrect criteria (and who am I to disagree?). As an aside, the Bismarcks seem to represent a change of objective, intended to fight it out against other battleships, particularly if convoy escorts, whereas other German capital ships (whatever they're labelled as) emphasised long legs to permit raiding cruises - the Hippers an exception. Does that make sense? IF S&G are to be considered "battleships" are there other examples of warships with similar emphasis on speed, weaponry, armour? The Dunkerques had 13" guns, which further blurs the line, being nearer a KG5 than S&G. And so to bed. Folks at 137 (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure the frequently repeated story of how the class sacrificed armament for speed is accurate. According to Friedman's Battleship Design and Development, S&G devoted a greater proportion of displacement to weaponry than any previous German design and more than any U.S. battleship ever. Friedman also lists the armour penetration of their weapons as being 17.1in; ample to penetrate any battleship armour. Breyer suggests in Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World that even had there been no politics involved, the KM might have settled on the 11-inch guns anyway because they offered greater rate of fire and adequate armour penetration (the same tradeoff was made by the British in the King George Vs). The Land (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Stephan Schulz

I don't care too much, but for me, they have always been battlecruisers, not battleships. One of my earliest and still favorite overviews of naval development is Landstrom's "The Ship". He calls them Schlachtkreuzer in the German edition. And from a classification point of view, I'd say a battleship is designed to stand up to and dish it out with other battleships. I don't see that as a main design goal for the S&G. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the large German warships were designed with commerce raiding in mind, not to fight the enemy unless the odds were in their favor or unless they were caught in some scenario where it was impossible to run. The German ship designers always wanted to create ships that were able to outrun potential hostile forces - if that was the fact in practice is another question. --MoRsE (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that every warship ever build probably would prefer not to fight the enemy unless the odds are in its favor? And while Bismarck and Tirpiz had the range for raiding, they were certainly also designed to battle other battleships. S&G not so... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by SeaPhoto

Ever since the first time I saw a copy of the original plans for Scharnhorst, I have considered them Battleships; indeed, that is how it was named on those sheets, Schlachtschiff Scharnhorst. As others have stated, our opinion of their capabilities is irrelevant and would constitute OR. Instead, I would suggest looking at published sources. Jane's is not consistent - the contemporary editions call them battleshps, while more recent compilations refer to them as battlecruisers. The US Navy called them battleships in their recognition manual (ONI-204). Contemporary terminology is less clear, with a majority of British and American authors calling them battlecruisers, and most German writers favoring Battleships. With all this confusion, I would defer to the Kriegsmarine, who built and operated the ships – and designated them battleships, but of course put a redirect from Scharnhorst Class Battlecruiser.Seaphoto^Talk 22:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Wiki-Ed

1. I regard "Google tests" as utterly meaningless and was going to ignore their inclusion altogether, but it would seem it has evolved into core evidence for some parties. Google is very American-centric and simply reflects that the bulk of English language websites are written in American English. For example, Google says "Aluminium" is actually "aluminum". Only the US, Canada and a few US-sphere islands in the Pacific use this spelling, but if we believe Google then the other 5.5bn people on Earth are wrong. I am not in the least bit surprised to see S&G called "battleship" by Google if that's what the Americans classified them as originally. That WP:NCON places such a heavy emphasis on Google tests conflicts with the WP:MoS (Note that this article is written in British English).

2. Wikipedia's "no original research" policy is at odds with its requirement for neutrality and its ban on copying. To produce each article editors have had to summarise other sources. This is, by nature, subjective, and therefore original research in its own way (insofar as every article has to be original and not a copy of its component sources). The naming policy on Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. However, if we describe these ships one way we favour the propaganda of Nazi Germany, and if we describe them another way we favour the naming conventions of the British. Therefore we have to look at this logically - since relying on apparent usage is prescriptive - if an apple is an apple we don't call it an orange because 50% of sources (or 95% if you use Google) say so. Wiki-Ed (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Another search, this time through the Library of Congress also seems to favor 'battleship'. I searched for the relatively neutral keywords "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau". As for the record, the search in amazon.com (S, G), amazon.co.uk (S, G) and amazon.de (S, G) gave similar results. --MoRsE (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

When Nazi Germany names something, it's "propaganda", but when the British name something, it's a "naming convention" ;-) TomTheHand (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case I think the Royal Navy would classify something accurately so its Admirals knew what ships they could reasonably take on (result: Renown taking on both S&G). The Germans, however, would be blowing their own trumpet and inflating the capabilities of their ships. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

On the Google test point. Searching only pages in the UK, battleship still gets more hits than battlecruiser. This suggests that battlecruiser is less popular, even in Britain. The Land (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone did some very thorough "testing" - which is original research - with Google on Aluminium/aluminum (it's all documented here on Wikipedia talk pages). Even pages filtered from supposedly UK-based sites produced "aluminum" more often than "aluminium", but no-one in the UK calls the metal aluminum. The only thing it told us was that the content of the internet is not reflective of common usage. We shouldn't really be trying to count up sources to play a numbers game anyway, but using invalid sources to weight in favour of one option is certainly wrong. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Nick Dowling

A few of the comments above appear to cast some doubt over the claim I made a few days ago that the Royal Navy classified these ships as battlecruisers. My source is Volume III Part I of the Official History of the Royal Navy in WWII The War at Sea by Stephen Roskill which covers the period including the sinking of Scharnhorst. See, for instance, the index on page 409 which refers to the ship as " Scharnhorst, German battle cruiser". Some other British sources call the ships 'battleships', however (for instance, Corelli Barnett in his excellent Engage the Enemy More Closely). Incidently, I'm somewhat suprised to see the Imperial War Museum labeled an unreliable source!

As a general comment, I'm suprised at how heated this discussion has become. As long as one name redirects to the other it really shouldn't matter. As for my two cents on the name: I've changed my mind after reading the debate, and it seems that battleship is the more common classification at present (my understanding of WP:NAME is that whatever they were called in WW2 is of less importance than the current common name). I'm going to keep calling them battlecruisers, however. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Re the Imperial War Museum; I'd describe them as a generalist tertiary source with a good reputation. That makes them not a very good source for matters of detail. A secondary source which has conducted its own research based on primary documentation, or a tertiary source which deals with a specialist audience, is preferable. If I was working on (or commenting on) an FA I would insist on the removal of anything which was solely sourced to the IWM's displays or website (obviously this doesn't apply to their archives!). The Land (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GraemeLeggett

• The google test is only one of 6 items for clarifying popular usage - Other encyclopedias is one. Britannica uses battlecruiser.
• Anthony Preston in his (Affordable and therfore possibly "more popular") book Battleships uses "battlecruiser"
• we are hampered by a lack of a neutral term that could be used. "German warship Scharnhorst" could equally be (referring to) the SMS S. Using the german "schlactshiff" in the article title might have been acceptable for a more obscure ship but would only be a political solution here.

GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OR: haha, just noted that EB has "Tony Hawk" as a "featured article", that was exactly one of the articles that EB was criticized for, for not having an entry on, when it was compared to enwiki some time ago! Go wiki!--MoRsE (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a question of neutrality, but accuracy. If the Germans considered their own ship a battleship, then would it not be the ultimate POV to call it something else? The main argument against this comes from Anglo-centric sources. It would not be accurate to call the ships SMS (Seine Majestäts Schiff), as they were not units of the Imperial German Navy.Seaphoto^Talk 18:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by PBS

I am defiantly unhappy for them to be categorised in the title as battleships because battleship implies ship of the line that can go head to head with other battleships in a fleet engagement and they were never designed to be such ships. Post World War I the category battlecruiser was becoming redundant or at least changing in function as battleships thank became faster. It was intended that S&G be used as powerfully armed commerce raiders and I think if they have to have any meaningful category which the least confusing then battlecruiser is the most suitable.

I have no firm thoughts on whether the name should be Gneisenau class or Scharnhorst class. I'd say go with Janes on that. I think that categorising them as either battlecruiser or battleship in the title is unnecessary. If we keep the name to Scharnhorst class or Gneisenau class and then discuss the categorisation in the article then issue in the name of the article can be sidestepped. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's unconventional, but a solution - I wonder if some readers search on that format anyway (I do). Or "Scharnhorst class warship", if preferred. It would be good to paraphrase this debate in the article as a number of innteresting points have been made about the class. Today, the sermon at our church touched on distinguishing the important from the less so: the title and its format is less important than the content and the time we're spending on this. Let's move on. PBS rules! Folks at 137 (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If the goal is to be clear, then that would muddy the waters a bit. Scharnhorst Class or Scharnhorst Class Warship would be confusing the earlier Armored Cruiser class with the later Battleship class. I agree it is an interesting debate though, and particularly since everyone concerned is being so civil, I see no reason not to hash it through until a consensus can be reached.Seaphoto^Talk 22:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Seaphoto; it could be easily confused with Scharnhorst class armored cruiser. Had this article remained at Gneisenau, instead of Scharnhorst, there wouldn't really be a problem with Philip's suggestion, but of course, there has been shown a marked difference in usage between the two as the name of the class of ships. I don't really see any alternatives to choosing one or the other. "Scharnhorst class capital ship" seems a little clunky to me. "Scharnhorst class battleship (battlecruiser)" (in either order) is superfluous, and more confusing to the average reader. Basically, I think the best option is to pick one of the two, and stick to clearly explaining the disagreement in the article.

One point to consider comes from Wikipedia:Naming conflict:

"If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves."

Since we cannot clearly decide which is more prevalent, it would seem we should defer to the translated German classification, whether any of us believe it's a propagandistic overstatement of the ship's type and capabilities or not. Parsecboy (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We should NOT use the German name, as per (WP:UE) and as the objects are primarily a British concern it seems to me that British English should be used :-) (WP:MOS# National varieties of Englishl) -- Back to the issue of the name of the article. The need to put warship at the end is redundant because there is no other class of ship that the article could refer to. The problem of confusion with Scharnhorst class armored cruiser is easily solved with an italic line at the top of the article:

This is article covers the World War II class of ships. For the World War I class, see Scharnhorst class armored cruiser

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not arguing in favor of using "Schlachtschiffe", I was just pointing out that Wiki policy states that when the issue of prevalence cannot be clearly decided, we should defer to a translation of what the subject would use for itself, in this case, the Kriegsmarine's official classification of the ships. Hence, it should reside at Scharnhorst class battleship. PS. I have no argument that the article should use AE, per WP:ENGVAR the article was originally in BE, and so the point is moot. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not averse to compromising on Scharnhorst class; or possibly Scharnhorst class capital ship or Scharnhorst class (1936) (the last gonig off the launching date). If we went down this line we would also have to find a solution for the individual ships. I would find German warship Scharnhorst (1936) acceptable, ditto Gneisenau.

We would also need to take care in the articles not to jump one way or another but I'm sure that's possible. The Land (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Scharnhorst class (1936) is IMO the best compromise we could have. That way, in the very title, it would be in no way confused with the WWI armored cruisers. I'd be fine with that as a compromise. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that too, and then in the article should explain this battlecruiser/battleship situation. --MoRsE (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think this is a good compromise. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested compromise: Scharnhorst class (1936)

Reading the debate above I don't think we will reach a consensus on battleship or battlecruiser. Obviously, I know I'm right and so do a lot of other people on both sides of the debate, but that isn't getting us anywhere ;-) So what I propose is

• Scharnhorst class battlecruiser to Scharnhorst class (1936)
• German battlecruiser Scharnhorst to German warship Scharnhorst (1936)
• German battlecruiser Gneisenau to German warship Gneisenau (1936)
• Appropriate redirects
• All 3 articles to mention and describe the naming dispute but to avoid fixing on one term.

So far I think I can see myself, Parsecboy, Phillip Baird Shearer, MoRsE, and probably Folks at 137 supporting this (plus Wiki-Ed after edit conflict). Since there has been plenty of discussion already I suggest we have a poll. The Land (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There were another pair of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau's delivered in 1935 - two passenger ships for Asian service. So, we have two different "Scharnhorst Class" operating at the same time if we don't differentiate the warships and steamers.Seaphoto^Talk 16:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorsing compromise

1. The Land (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (otherwise favouring battleship)
2. --MoRsE (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC) same as The Land
3. --Folks at 137 (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC) full support.
4. --Harlsbottom (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Full support
5. I am happy with Scharnhorst class (1936) but not the other two I suggest they are simply named Scharnhorst (1936) and Gneisenau (1936) as no other navy had such ships there is no need for further disambiguation unless it is Scharnhorst (ship, 1936) or some other in parentheses (so the pipe trick works). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
6. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Very happy with the name for the class, somewhat less so for the ships (but I can live with it)
7. -- As per PBS. Slightly neater imho. In a way this better represents their unusual nature. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   @Wiki-Ed and PBS: Seaphoto points out that there were cruise liners with the same names, launched 1935. Do you think this means we should be specific about the fact that the two ships were warships? The Land (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Comment: The Land's suggested names are of the form defined by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). I'm opposed to this proposal in general because it deviates from naming conventions for classes, but let's at least keep it as close to the naming conventions for ships as possible. TomTheHand (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   I wasn't aware of this until now, but amusingly it would seem the Japanese purchased the Scharnhorst (liner) and converted it into an escort carrier design. I'm not sure this matters too much, but we do need to be clear: I guess the use of "warship" does make it more specific. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   --Narson (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Comment I can't say it overly pleases me but....that is the nature of compromises. Everyone is displeased but can live with it.

   Comment I agree with Narso. Just keeping it as it is or moving it to battleship will not put this dispute to bed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Unhappy with compromise: Battleship only

1. --Seaphoto^Talk 16:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC) I hate to be the wet towel, but don't feel the compromise is accurate for the reason I gave above.

Unhappy with compromise: Battlecruiser only

Unhappy with compromise: Anything but that!

1. I'm sorry, guys. It looks like there's clear consensus in favor of the compromise, so I don't think I'm messing anything up, but while I prefer battleship I'd take battlecruiser over a totally nonstandard name for this one class. TomTheHand (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree with Tom - picking one or the other would be better than this, as at least people will search for it and will link to it and a redirect will take them to the article. Why not just leave the name unchanged as there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus to adopt either option? Alternetely, does someone want to flip a coin? ;-) --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved

I have moved the articles and tidied up the redirects. Taking into account Seaphoto's point about the other S&G, I took the liberty of using 'Scharnhorst class warship (1936)' rather than 'Scharnhorst class (1936)', assuming that other people who had supported the move to the compromise name would not mind. Now back to writing articles! Do we have one about the liner/aircraft carrier Scharnhorst yet? The Land (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wording

Although a bit presumptuous, I've drafted a form of words here as a basis for inclusion in the Scharnhorst class article. It's not polished, so feel free to amend/ comment. Hope it helps. Folks at 137 (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actions against other battleships or battlecruisers - Less clumsy

14:17, 13 January 2008 User:Stephan Schulz changed the heading Actions against other battleships or battlecruisers to Actions against other capital ships, giving the reason Less clumsy....

But aircraft carriers are capital ships, which was why I used the wording I did. What do other people think?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to my version, but I think it reads more smoothly. Aircraft carriers were just coming into their own, and were relatively little used in the European theatre. I don't think it's a likely source of confusion. And even with aircraft carriers included in the term, the shorter version is still correct. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft carriers were widely used in the East Atlantic and the Med. Battle of Taranto, Malta Convoys, the HMS Ark Royal and escort carriers and of course specifically HMS Glorious. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is we could just add in the sinking of Glorious to the section, then there would be no confusion or misleading terms. Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Scharnhorst design

There's some interesting comments about the twins' design here. If the experts consider them to be sound, perhaps they should be incorporated. Views? Folks at 137 (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actions against capital ships...duke of york

Why doesnt this section mention the sinking during the battle of north cape? surely that was action against a captial ship (duke of york)

Sams37 (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)