Talk:German battleship Scharnhorst/Archive 1



Class
Battleship or battlecruiser. Discussion copied and centralised on Talk:Gneisenau class battlecruiser -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"His" class as well, German tradition refers to warships as male. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.48.5 (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

1793
The text currently reads:
 * ''Oddly, as a young lieutenant, Scharnhorst had served in 1793 under the Duke of York.)

Probably 1893 but what does "under the Duke of York" mean? What was the DofY doing at the time that he could employ a German officer, or does it mean a ship? If a man which DofY? The text is not clear. Philip Baird Shearer 08:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * obviously it means that General Scharnhorst (who lived in the napoleonic era) served under the then Duke of York. For further details simply look up Gerhard von Scharnhorst. Nevfennas 08:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually it WAS 1793 and the servise under DofY was as an artillery officer fighting against Napoleon. Admiral Kutusov (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

quote

 * "Gentlemen, the battle against Scharnhorst has ended in victory for us. I hope that if any of you are ever called upon to lead a ship into action against an opponent many times superior, you will command your ship as gallantly as Scharnhorst was commanded today".

The quote needs a citation Philip Baird Shearer 08:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Air Attack
Given a VC was earned, I'd say it merits mention: Irishman L/Cdr Eugene Esmonde, RN, led 6 TSRs against 250 German fighters in an attempt to stop Scharnhorst & Gneisenau, without success. (I just wish I could recall where I saw it...) Trekphiler 01:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For the links there is a wiki-article on Esmonde with links Nevfennas 07:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Operation Cerberus is the Channel dash.GraemeLeggett 09:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Allied destroyers during the battle of north cape: The destroyers involved were of the S-Class HnMS Stord HMS Saumarez etc

Guns
Fitting them with 15-inch guns seems unrealistic, like so many things the NAZIs did or tried to do. They were too fast to have to fight a battleship and too valuable to engage one intentionally. The 11-inch guns had plenty of range and punch to fight cruisers and other targets. The rate of fire would have been reduced considerably and perhaps the greater weight would have slowed them down. As it turned out, critical damage was done to Scharnhorst by cruisers before it encountered a battleship, so 15-inch guns would not have helped. David R. Ingham 17:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, the German 15-inch gun later used on Bismarck and Tirpitz actually had 50% greater rate of fire than the 11-inch gun. And this is the first time I've ever heard the damage inflicted by the British cruisers termed "critical". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.211.36.225 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * While adding my “Photo” paragraph I noticed your gun theory and comment “. . . like so many [unrealistic] things the NAZIs did or tried to do.” Do you really think that German naval designers were that incompetent?  As we know, the victorious Allies eagerly ‘captured’ and employed these wicked Nazi engineers and scientists - was it for their cutting edge innovations or the so many unrealistic things they did or tried to do?--Gamahler 21:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is an article comparing the quality of German ship-design during WWI and WWII. They weren't incompetent, the problem was the system. Concerning the 11-inch vs. the 15-inch: the navy simply wanted true battleship-guns installed, the 11 inch was considered too small by WWII standards. As the triple 11-inch turret would have been replaced with a double 15-inch with equal protection there would not have been an increase in weight. Nevfennas 08:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Many thanks.--Gamahler 03:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to add the caveat that Navweaps.com isn't a well known, published, peer-reviewed source, and that all opinions therein are simply that - opinion. No matter how enthusiastic the author may be. As a whole, the site is particularly partisan and as such is heavily cited on Wikipedia whenever someone needs to grab a cite for their own (matching) opinion (there's that word again).84.64.197.103 07:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Cohaagen
 * Can we just say that since these ships were larger than "repulse" and "renown", which we know carried 6x15", equipping them with matching armament would not have been an obvious problem? Under peacetime conditions at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.125.84.170 (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The 9x11" to 6x15" modification often comes up regarding these vessels. While given consideration it was to be a much more involved process than lifting one 3-gun turret and dropping another (larger) 2-gun turret back into its barbette. Such a change required a host of additional & quite substantial alterations, most noteably the lengthening of the forward section of the ships to accomodate the additional weight implied by the 380mm turret & magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.48.5 (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Photos
The top image of Scharnhorst is pre-1939, i.e., prior to installation of the “Atlantic Bow” and relocation (20 meters aft) of the main mast. The photo of Scharnhorst firing at HMS Glorious shows the mast in its new aft position. My wikipedia skills are insufficient to find and place an image of 1939 or later - could an editor assist with a better photo?--Gamahler 18:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Kurt. I think the sub is Prien's U-47.--Gamahler 03:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

ship´s design
I just chanced the sentence "The choice of armament was a leftover from their original design as "enlarged pocket battleships"." That´s incorrect. The Scharnhorsts were based on the design of the never built battlecruiser "Ersatz-York". The guns were choosen, because the ships were needed to counter the Dunkerque class battleships as soon as possible. Upps, the information is from "Jane´s battleships of the 20th century".Markus Becker02 00:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
I think the first paragraph does not read well and that the "fame" element is overdone in it. Would people be happy with a rewrite along the foll. lines:

"Scharnhorst was a World War II Gneisenau class battlecruiser[1] of the German Kriegsmarine. One of only two ships in that class, the other being Gneisenau, this 31,500 tonne ship was named after the the World War I armoured cruiser SMS Scharnhorst that was sunk in the Battle at the Falkland Islands in December 1914. Scharnhorst had an active war career prior to being sunk at the Battle of North Cape on December 26, 1943".

The first Scharhorst was named after the 19th century hero, so does this need to be repeated here?

If people are generally ok with this, I'd suggest a similar toning down to the Gneisenau article bigpad 12:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Repetition is not always a bad thing - maybe something like:

"...this 31,500 tonne ship was named after the the World War I armoured cruiser SMS Scharnhorst, which in turn was named after..." etc.? DanMatthewsUK 10:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should mention who Gerhard von Scharnhorst was. These things are not obvious to people.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Home Fleet in the infobox
This slow edit war between Dapi89 and Kurt needs to stop. Discussions should not be taking place via edit summaries. We have a talk page here for a reason, please use it. Parsecboy (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Because of previous experience, I don't bother with talk pages where Kurt is concerned. It doesn't work. The Home Fleet did the damage, a Home Fleet ship struck the blow that sunk the Scharnhorst. It isn't even certain the Norwegian destroyer hit the ship at all. The Battle article should list the Norwegian ship, this page should make it clear the sinking was a result of the Royal Navy. This is about accreditation, not who was involved. Dapi89 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

See? I have rev'd again. Dapi89 (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Royal Norwegian Navy did indeed come under the operational command of the Royal Navy but as it's clear that Stord participated in the battle, I've amended the term to "Allied forces" in the article and infobox. There is no evidence, however, that Stord hit Scharnhorst with torpodoes or gunfire, and a citation needs to be found for that claim; but she fired starshells to illuminate the enemy to the heavier British units therefore her minor role was not unimportant. Still, the main credit for the sinking is unquestionably heavy British gunfire that damaged Scharnhorst's radar and her engines. Perhaps that can be brought out more in the text? Regards, bigpad (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Then we agree the Home Fleet should get the credit in the info box? The R.N.N was part of the Home fleet, so I don't believe this is out of place in the info box. Dapi89 (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference 9
Reference 9 is cited as evidence that the Scharnhorst's crew thought the crew of the HMS Rawalpindi was brave. However, reference 9 makes no mention of this? Are we citing the wrong reference here? SkipSmith (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Brest vs. Kiel
The RAF reconnaissance photograph does not show the harbour and shipyards of Brest but those of Kiel in Germany (see also photograph details). Maybe someone can correct that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.53.241.67 (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Scharnhorst a hoodooed ship?
Occult writer Frank Edwards included a chapter on one of his books about how the Scharnhorst was a jinked ship--that she rolled over during construction; that gunners suffocated during the attack on Danzig; that word spread throughout the German Navy that the ship was hoodooed, etc. I commented on this to an actual German World War II veteran who didn't reply much about it--but didn't refute it either.Dougie monty (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Fritz-Otto Busch's "Drama of the Scharnhorst" specifically mentions Scharnhorst as being regarded as a lucky ship well-loved by those who served in her. The main factors behind this seem to be her physical beauty (POV, but Scharnhorst and her sister are consistently described as "Handsome" and "beautiful" in various reference texts, much more so than any other battleships), the long service of her popular first captain, and her survival in the face of massive odds during the early years of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.125.84.170 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also read the book by Frank Edwards, called Stranger than Science, that claimed the Scharnhorst was a jinxed ship. In addition to rolling over while under construction and suffocating crew members in their turrets, it was supposed to have rammed and sunk the liner Bremen, suffered another explosion in one of its turrets, and sunk with no survivors (the last three crew members dying in an inflatable when their heater exploded). Back when it was written it may have been harder to verify all these happenings, but these days it's easy to see that Edwards was a damned liar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.97.10 (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you can document that the mishaps you've just listed did not happen? Dougie monty (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be asking to prove a negative. It would've been more correct to ask Edwards to provide his proof, but he's rather dead right now. Anyway, we can get started by looking at this very article. In Edwards' story, none of the crew survived: there were actually 36 survivors (depending on who is telling the story, some survivors were picked up - possibly an indication of the story being changed as the actual facts came to light). The Scharnhorst was not mortally wounded by a lucky shot after inexplicably turning, but did have her radar knocked out by accurate radar-guided fire. As you can read from this article, it was no "easy slaughter" that followed, nor did she sink in a matter of minutes. The "mighty liner" Bremen was gutted by fire in 1941 while in Bremerhaven (some tens of km from the Elbe) and scrapped in 1946, not sunk by a collision. The battering Scarnhorst received off Norway is greatly exaggerated, again something that can be read by following links from the article. There's no mention anywhere, outside of the various versions of this story, of the incomplete hull rolling over, or of slipping from its dock the night before. By all real accounts, the Scharnhorst served proudly, right until the end. The final offering I have is to reiterate that the stories compiled by Frank Edwards were very often lifted from a sci-fi magazine he contributed to (Fate, I think?), with these stories containing outright fabrications, misinformation, and exaggerations to enthral the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.2.94 (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This would seem to brand Edwards as an out-and-out fraud... Dougie monty (talk) 06:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames?
I've always heard these two referred to as "Salmon and Gluckstein". I've never heard "the ugly sisters" before I read this article, and if so it's really ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.125.84.170 (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction?
"Matrosenobergefreiter (Sailor) Helmut Backhaus describes the moment of sinking:

"I stopped and turned in the water to get my bearings. It was then that I saw the keel and propellers. She had capsized and was going down stern first.[21]"

Scharnhorst sank at 19:45 hours on 26 December 1943 with her propellers still turning."

So how do we know that her propellers were still turning if she sank stern-first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.98.252 (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Phoney War
The section on the Phoney War does not seem very encyclopaedic, but rather like a eulogy for the HMS Rawalpindi. Phrases such as "her victim fought a tough defensive battle" and "Unfortunately the ship sighted was Gneisenau" are subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.246.132.177 (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)