German battlecruisers and the Scharnhorst class

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Kriegsmarine except those dealing with the U-Boat forces.
User avatar
KnightMove
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 24 Oct 2003, 00:31
Location: Austria

German battlecruisers and the Scharnhorst class

#1

Post by KnightMove » 23 Feb 2017, 08:30

This is a cross-over question related to both World Wars, and more WW1 than WW2, but overall I think here is still the best section to ask the question, as there is no specific WW1 Marine subforum.

A battlecruiser in its original British, and strictest, definition is a capital ship with the same armament as a battleship, less armour, and higher speed. However, the German counterparts of those ships had on the contrary strong armour, but lighter guns (28 cm). They were classified as Große Kreuzer ("big cruisers"), along many smaller German cruisers with >5500 tons. Nonetheless, as those were the antagonists of the British battlecruisers, they are - rather undoubtedly - in retrospect classified as battlecruisers.

In 1936, the Scharnhorst class became the first battleship class of Nazi Germany, but they got only 28 cm guns. It was planned to replace them with maximum caliber during the war, but this was never put into action. But the two battleships of this class are often regarded as battlecruisers.

Two questions:

1. It seems reasonable that the Scharnhorst class is classified as battlecruisers because they corresponded to the WW1 German concept of battlecruisers - capitalship with strong armour, but lighter guns! However, as of now I don't know a source explicitly stating this. Does anybody know a source confirming - or refuting - this?

2. In general: Would it be accurate to say that the German WW1 battlecruisers had equivalent armament to the battleships? Or is it still lighter, overall?

User avatar
Polar bear
Member
Posts: 2543
Joined: 25 Sep 2010, 16:49
Location: Hanover, Lower Saxony

Re: German battlecruisers and the Scharnhorst class

#2

Post by Polar bear » 23 Feb 2017, 17:18

hi,

1) In WW II the whole concept of battleship tactics had changed, there was no more fighting in a battleship line like at Jutland (possible exception Surigao Strait, October 24/25, 1944).
Battleships were employed as distant cover for convoys and AAW cover for carrier groups, and there were fast battleships (V > 30) like the IOWA-class.
Thus, the whole idea of a difference between battleship and battlecruiser wasn't very convincing, any more.

2) IMO, the German Large Cruisers' armament was comparable to that of the battleships (1st DN generation with 11" guns, the second with 12" guns) although the Large cruisers had, mostly less guns. The VON DER TANN's broadside, was, however, the same as the NASSAU's which had 4 more heavy guns.

If this answer is not quite satisfying, it may be, at least, helpful.

greetings, the pb
Peace hath her victories no less renowned than War
(John Milton, the poet, in a letter to the Lord General Cromwell, May 1652)


antfreire
Member
Posts: 193
Joined: 25 Apr 2010, 23:29

Re: German battlecruisers and the Scharnhorst class

#3

Post by antfreire » 23 Feb 2017, 17:32

The Kriesmarine was never conceived to confront the British capital ships. They were thought rather as raiders, so they could use lighter caliber guns, and perhaps in a future, if it was feasible to arm them with 14 inches gun. Everything happened so fast and so contrary to what it was planned that they never got the big guns.

Nautilus
Member
Posts: 261
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 23:13
Location: Romania

Re: German battlecruisers and the Scharnhorst class

#4

Post by Nautilus » 23 Feb 2017, 23:08

Strategically, battlecruisers made sense at a specific moment in time. That is when Admiral Fisher devised them and only then, because they relied on a technological limitation specific for the pre WWI years: the low-pressure steam machinery. To achieve the needed speed and horsepower on low-pressure steam, the ship engines had to be gigantic and burn appropriate amounts of coal or oil, after a certain threshold most of the ship displacement was to be taken by engine and fuel. Then came armor weight, turret weight, the weight of the machinery needed to move them.

In the Edwardian Era, one could build on a given weight a vessel with thick armor, relatively smaller hull, 4 to 6 massive gun turrets, reasonable speed. Or a vessel with a massive and very long hull to house larger engines and boilers, thin cruiser armor to compensate for the weight, quick speed. But not both. All battlecruisers traded both armor and larger hulls than battleships (therefore larger targets) for speed. Once the technological evolution allowed more efficient oil-fired machinery, there was no reason to make compromises, vessels with battleship armor and cruiser speed like Hood, Queen Elizabeth or Nagato were easily within reach.

Therefore, the light armored Invincible was rather hopeless compared to Queen Elizabeth, only 2 knots faster (3 knots if machinery was seriously pushed). Despite being separated only by 6 years.

Kaiserliche Marine battlecruisers did not fell into this trap, because strategic limitations worked in their favour. They were not supposed to operate terribly far from home ports, and therefore they did not need large spaces for crews and stores. Saved weight could be used for much armor, to alleviate German admirals' worst fear, the numerical inferiority to the Royal Navy: each German vessel could hope to withstand 2 or more equal enemies.

By the inter-war years, as the lessons of Jutland were pondered upon, glass cannons like the Invincibles were out of question when dealing to dreadnoughts. A capital ship had to withstand shells like a true battleship, or go to the bottom ignominiously, as it had already happened. Both Scharnhorst class vessels had been designed as true battleships, thicker armor in some places than mighty Bismarck itself. Panzerschiffe did not count, since they were supposed to raid enemy commerce and fight against cruisers, as the original battlecruiser idea of 1906 said.

For this reason, a more rational strategy would have been to have by 1940 a fleet of 5 Panzerschiffe, 4 Bismarcks and 5 Hippers, which was technically and financially attainable, instead of spending money, steel and trained crews on stop-gap designs like Scharnhorst or pipe dreams like the H-projects.

User avatar
Polar bear
Member
Posts: 2543
Joined: 25 Sep 2010, 16:49
Location: Hanover, Lower Saxony

Re: German battlecruisers and the Scharnhorst class

#5

Post by Polar bear » 23 Feb 2017, 23:20

hi,

well said :idea:

I have, nevertheless, some disagreement with your
Nautilus wrote:For this reason, a more rational strategy would have been to have by 1940 a fleet of 5 Panzerschiffe, 4 Bismarcks and 5 Hippers, which was technically and financially attainable, instead of spending money, steel and trained crews on stop-gap designs like Scharnhorst or pipe dreams like the H-projects.
- There were not enough shipyard resources in the Reich to have 4 Bismarcks ready in 1940, and
- The Hippers - as they turned out to be ! - were rather unsuitable for raider warfare.

greetings, the pb
Peace hath her victories no less renowned than War
(John Milton, the poet, in a letter to the Lord General Cromwell, May 1652)

User avatar
KnightMove
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 24 Oct 2003, 00:31
Location: Austria

Re: German battlecruisers and the Scharnhorst class

#6

Post by KnightMove » 24 Feb 2017, 04:14

Thanks for the interesting information. But to give question 1 more precisely:

Why do many British and other sources classify the German Scharnhorst class from 1936 as battlecruisers, while they were designed and classified as battleships by the Germans, and pretty much obviously are battleships, not battlecruisers?

From my point of view, the natural answer to the question is: Because these battleships parallel the concepts of German battlecruisers in WW1 (or ships classified as such for much better reasons).

Am I right in this explanation?

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: German battlecruisers and the Scharnhorst class

#7

Post by Paul Lakowski » 24 Feb 2017, 04:47

From Friedman "Network centric Warfare" Fishers Battle cruiser were a prewar concept to help the RN cover the Empire trade routs around the world from Enemy merchant raiders and surface raiders- like the ever increasing "Große Kreuzer".

The fact these Große Kreuzer didn't have the legs & ports to even reach other oceans- seems to have been missed or glossed over . Clearly this is why the PBS were such a concern to the RN /interwar.

Perhaps the British saw that these could be a threat if they replaced the coal fired boilers with oil fire boilers.

All the rest is the military phenomena of a weapon system looking for as many roles as possible -so they don't get scrapped.

Nautilus
Member
Posts: 261
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 23:13
Location: Romania

Re: German battlecruisers and the Scharnhorst class

#8

Post by Nautilus » 24 Feb 2017, 13:29

Actually most Großen Kreuzern had superior range to their RN counterpart. Von der Tann had almost double the range of HMS Invincible, despite being heavier and burning inferior coal.

User avatar
Polar bear
Member
Posts: 2543
Joined: 25 Sep 2010, 16:49
Location: Hanover, Lower Saxony

Re: German battlecruisers and the Scharnhorst class

#9

Post by Polar bear » 24 Feb 2017, 14:02

hi,

"von der Tann" is my favourite German ship of WW I.

She was more than 3 kn faster than construction speed, suffered no machinery problems during the long South America cruise and fought well in the war.

greetings, the pb
Peace hath her victories no less renowned than War
(John Milton, the poet, in a letter to the Lord General Cromwell, May 1652)

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: German battlecruisers and the Scharnhorst class

#10

Post by Paul Lakowski » 24 Feb 2017, 20:36

Nautilus wrote:Actually most Großen Kreuzern had superior range to their RN counterpart. Von der Tann had almost double the range of HMS Invincible, despite being heavier and burning inferior coal.
yeah but RN had plenty of ports to refuel at....what about Kaiser fleet?

Nautilus
Member
Posts: 261
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 23:13
Location: Romania

Re: German battlecruisers and the Scharnhorst class

#11

Post by Nautilus » 25 Feb 2017, 02:53

Polar bear wrote: - There were not enough shipyard resources in the Reich to have 4 Bismarcks ready in 1940, and
- The Hippers - as they turned out to be ! - were rather unsuitable for raider warfare.
Unless they dropped the Scharnhorst and Panzerschiff D projects altogether in 1932. Keep the redesigned 28cm SK/C 34 guns to rearm the Panzerschiffe and build all 5 of them planned to the same basic design. With standardized MAN engines and other machinery. This was not even new, as the US Navy had already built the standard-type-battleships as early as 1911.

The Panzerschiff, as conceived, was less of a pocket battleship and actually a pocket battlecruiser. A vessel with cruiser armor, capital ship main battery, and able to match speed witch cruisers with some effort. Britons called them pocket battleships for two reasons: first, they were replacement for old battleships in a much smaller hull and second, the Fisher battlecruiser was a large vessel by design. Each of them larger than a battleship counterpart.

Großen Kreuzern needed superior range just because the Germans lacked friendly ports to refuel outside the North Sea. The lessons of the disastrous Russian cruise of 1904 had been well digested by European admirals. Everyone, British Admiralty included, was fully convinced driving a battle fleet halfway around the planet, even worse one never designed to do long oceanic cruises, was impossible, yet it happened.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: German battlecruisers and the Scharnhorst class

#12

Post by Paul Lakowski » 25 Feb 2017, 07:06

Strictly speaking "the Twins" are an abortion that only Hitler/Raeder could dream up.

The Panzerschiffe D E F G H & J were originally planned as stretched PBS raiders with a third turret and 8" armor base plus 27-28 knots. When Hitler took power the admiralty morphed them into either; six 26kt each with 12" armor base 29-30 knots and 3 turrets or eight 22kt Panzerschiffe -as above - but with two turrets. By 1934 the main battery was planned as 13" triples . But HITLER squashed this insisting on 11" gun turrets so as not to threaten the British.

The original plans were for more surface raiders to attack and break up convoys so U-Boat had an easier time of it. However Hitler wanted army growth at the expense of navy growth, which slowed the build rates. Raeder complains in 1937 that steel shortages were putting all construction behind schedule. The navy had to make the best of the few ships they could build, which is why they all got a lot bigger.

Raeder tried to salvage the situation by re-planning construction around just two larger warships in the 30kt region and three Kreuzers [hipper]. These enlarged warships had 350mm belt/turret/barbette/conning tower armor with increased secondary's but still featured the 3 triple 11" guns. The plan was to later refit them with twin 14" turrets, and the propulsion increased from 105,000hp to 125,000hp bringing the top speed to over 30 knots. But it was not enough - faster battleships were on the way and over 31 knots was demanded -forcing the propulsion to an unreliable 150,000hp .

User avatar
genstab
Member
Posts: 2116
Joined: 15 Jul 2003, 23:50
Location: The Big City on Lake Erie

Re: German battlecruisers and the Scharnhorst class

#13

Post by genstab » 02 Apr 2017, 14:36

The Germans could call the Scharnhorst class anything they liked, but if one couldn't stand up against a British battleship, as Scharnhorst couldn't against HMS Duke of York, then it wasn't a battleship. Her armor wasn't comparable.

THE US Navy had two very interesting ships it chose to classify as Large Cruisers (CB)- USS Alaska and Guam. They were 30,000 tons (34,000 full load), 808 feet long, 91 foot beam and 31 foot draft with nine 12 inch guns, a new caliber for the modern US Navy, with 12 5-inch secondary in twin turrets. Her steam turbines were rated at 153,000 horsepower and she was good for 33 knots. Her belt armor was 9 inches, turrets 12.8 inches and deck 4 inches. It would have been an interesting battle between an Alaska and a Scharnhorst.

Best regards,
Bill in Cleveland

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: German battlecruisers and the Scharnhorst class

#14

Post by Paul Lakowski » 02 Apr 2017, 20:09

The TWINS armor was more than KGV class- it was there guns that were inferior in caliber & number.

User avatar
genstab
Member
Posts: 2116
Joined: 15 Jul 2003, 23:50
Location: The Big City on Lake Erie

Re: German battlecruisers and the Scharnhorst class

#15

Post by genstab » 02 Apr 2017, 23:50

No sir- not at all. Here are the comparative specs.
Scharnhorst: Duke of York:
belt armor- 13.8 in 14.7 in
deck armor- 2 in 5-6 in
turrets- 7.9-14.2 in 12.75 in
barbettes- not given 12.75 in
bulkheads- not given 10-12 in
conning tower- 13.75 in 3-4 in

(I have tried to move the two ships' comparative stats farther apart several times with the Edit feature but they still come out together-must be a glitch in the program. Sorry)

My source was the Wikipedia articles on the two ships. As you can see, the KGV class is superior in every category except the conning tower (which makes me wonder why the Admiralty didn't feel they should protect their captains and admirals better) and possibly bulkheads if Scharnhorst had no armor in them. Of course the Scharnhorsts were a little faster which is why they are really battle cruisers. We had to wait for the US Iowa class to see really fast as well as powerful and well armored battleships. (Historical note- USS New Jersey was once clocked at 35 knots!- 212,000 horsepower is quite a lot but those ships needed it to keep up with the fast carrier task force in the Pacific.
We will never see the likes of fleets like the Third/Fifth Fleet again (same fleet depending on whether Halsey or Spruance was in command).

Best,
Bill in Cleveland

Post Reply

Return to “Kriegsmarine surface ships and Kriegsmarine in general”