Edit: Two corrections, C turret at Austrått fortress is closer to Trondheim not Bergen. ALSO A BIG ONE, when discussing the end of the ship I describe the port as Danzig. It is actually the nearby port city of Gdynia. In my sources they use the German name for the city Gotenhafen and my stupid English speaking brain did not think to double check. Apologies for the mistake. Thanks for watching everyone! The story of the Gneisenau comes to an end. I decided to do a summary of her career in this one since it has been around 6 months since the last episode in the series and the end of her career. I hope you all enjoyed.

@JohnRodriguesPhotographer

10 ай бұрын

I would call them fast battleships, though under gunned. The 15" guns intended for them were nowhere near ready. That is why they had the improved 11". It was intended to regun the class to 15" when they were available.

@chriscole4092

10 ай бұрын

Great video and thankfully a commentator that correctly pronounces Gniesenau, and Prinz Eugen. It makes me rage quit videos that mispronounce these two ships, as it makes the research highly suspect.

@marcink1914

10 ай бұрын

Nice job, but I want correct : Gnaisenau was sunk in the entrance to the port of Gdynia, not in Gdańsk. Bell from ship is in Museum od Polish Army im Warsaw. Horn was installed on Dar Pomorza, now museum ship in Gdynia. Projector is in Polish Navy Museum in Gdynia and chain was used on monument in Szczecinek.

@ImportantHistory

10 ай бұрын

@@marcink1914 I misinterpreted the German name for Gdynia (Gotenhafen) and Danzig. My apologies.

As a German speaking person, I call them battleships, as the Germans called them that and because this is what they are in my opinion. While they may have small guns for capital ship standards, battlecruisers tended to be classified as that because they had less armor than their contemporary battleships. This isn't the case for the Scharnhorst class, which had very good armor (at least as far as I'm aware, I'm not an expert on the class.). Battlecruisers weren't called battlecruisers because of their gun size, but for other reasons. It just makes more sense to me.

@kkang2828

10 ай бұрын

My thoughts exactly.

@brgeravna1332

10 ай бұрын

I've heard the term "Pocket Batleships".

@bevpotter9938

10 ай бұрын

Decidedly under-gunned and so unable or unwilling to engage battleships (Ramillies/Malaya) or even battlecruisers (Renown) on even terms. They did have better armour than some of their peers but given their modest guns and high speed best fit the battlecruiser slot as built. If they had been up-gunned as planned you could make an argument for battleship status.

@fabianzimmermann5495

10 ай бұрын

@@brgeravna1332 That term was only used for the Deutschland class cruisers, not the Scharnhorsts.

@fearthehoneybadger

10 ай бұрын

​@@brgeravna1332That term was given to them by the British. When they were built, Germany was under restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles, which limited German capitol ships in size and weight.

As an Englishman, I have to say that I found your pronunication very good indeed! the German names I couldn’t fault and the fact that you pronounced Harwich exactly as an Englishman would really impressed me. I’ve watched some videos by an Englishman, whose mangling of German and French pronunications make me wince! Nice video sir!

One thing you can say about the British and German navies , they were fearless , fighting to the death .

Thank you for this, the Geneisenau is often overlooked. 'Fast battleship' would be the most accurate description for her. ( though I admit my brain says "battlecruiser", lol.)

@martyn6792

10 ай бұрын

HMS Hood is sometimes called a battleship but was a battlecruiser despite having 15 inch guns

Thank you for this one! Always loved the stories of these two! Love the channel!

If the fate of the surviving Kriegsmarine ships is any indication, if Gneisenau's conversion had been allowed to continue, she probably would of been plagued by allied bombing raids and a shortage of workers and fuel as the Soviets advanced along the eastern front and still scuttled or at best moved to Norway to act as a defense against an allied invasion.

@CRAIGKMSBISMARCKTIRPITZ533

10 ай бұрын

Germans Referred Their Ship's Males Not Females

@TCR_710-Cap

10 ай бұрын

@@CRAIGKMSBISMARCKTIRPITZ533 No. I'm only aware of Prinz Eugen being referred to as a "he". And if I'm wrong, I don't see a problem with English-speaking people to refer to all the German ships female. It is such a great misconception that Germans referred their ships male. It may come from that anecdote that I think Lütjens (?) said that the Bismarck was so powerful that it SHOULD be referred male. Some survivors may have done so, but it was not a general rule.

Carry on! Outstanding work, young man.

Very nice Video. I enjoyed watching this, and i learned a lot from it. Keep up the great work, and i cant wait for the next one.

I have a degree in history and I've learned so much more from youtube than I ever did in college.

THANK YOU! I learned something today . Keep 'em coming .

Thank you. Your presentation is very factual. Very substantive. Keep up the good work...we need such sites.

You included some impressive video footage and pictures I had not seen so far, although I am a navy enthusiast since the 80s. Great work! Beautiful ship class. Such a depressing site seeing Gneisenau's burn out hulk in the frozen see.

You always do good work !

It's like deja vu all over again. 😉 Great video, I'm glad it's still around.

It's hard to classify these ships. A battleship is meant to fight in the main line of battle - these two were never intended to do so. A battlecruiser is a cruiser worth battleship sized guns and at their time they weren't anymore. So I think they are crazy overblown cruisers but really a class of their own. Oh and as a German: Your pronunciation is pretty good!

@klade5031

6 ай бұрын

I believe they were pretty much functionally battlecruisers if you go by the WW1 German design philosophy, i.e. fast surface raiders with battleship guns (though less firepower overall compared to a full battleship) but with enough armor to stand in the battle line as secondary battleships. The logic behind this was that the High Seas Fleet needed every capital ship it can to even attempt to match the Royal Navy locally while the RN's vision for the battlecruiser was as a sort of "supercop" in the cops and robbers game of surface raiding.

The harbor which Gneisenau ended up blocking was not Gdańsk (formerly Danzig) but Gdynia. You can see characteristic light tower of Gdynia harbor breakwater on the photo showing port side of scuttled ship. Raising and scrapping the wreck was a major salvage feat.

@ImportantHistory

10 ай бұрын

Yes I have realized my error in translation. My sources use Gotenhafen and for whatever reason my English speaking brain did not connect the dots. I apologize for such a stupid error. I have addressed it in my pinned comment.

@legolubinski

10 ай бұрын

@@ImportantHistory no worries, this is the benefit of community that we have the opportunity to constantly learn and improve

Interestingly, during WW2, the U.S. Navy designated "Lite Cruisers" as having main armament of 6 inches or less; "heavy Cruisers" as having main battery guns (greater) than 6 inches...

Well done description of this interesting ship. If the change to 15 inch guns had been carried out, I wonder how the Germans would have changed the barbettes to handle the larger guns.

Nice job.

IMO they were definitely battleships, due to their armor plan, comparable or even superior, under some respects, to the Bismarck class. True, they were fast and outstandingly graceful and elegant, but that's not enough to consider them as battlecruisers!

Good job with this, I am impressed by your pronounciations of German orthography.

@ImportantHistory

10 ай бұрын

I try my best with pronunciations and I get them right sometimes. Other times not so much. Another thing that might contribute is that I artificially slow down my audio which does have an impact on how certain words come out.

A nice video. A few clarifications. The upgrades to Gneisenau and Scharhorst had be discussed as possible pre-war but that was about all. No engineering work had been done. The damage of 26 Feb sparked the first real engineering work. The preliminary engineering work (which said yes we can do it and be done by the end of 1943) and detailed design was completed in a crazy fast amount of time to start work in under a month. She needed a new longer bow to support the heavier guns forward, structural modifications to the turret ring supports, additional electrical work (cabling and motors), modified turrets of the Bismarck design, and some structural changes to the superstructure so B turret could traverse. When the stop work was issued, all of the ship board work was complete to receive the new turrets. The 3 new turrets were complete. My speculation here is that these were items that had been started for the H class as being ready in under a year from scratch would be nearly impossible. The only thing I don't know the status of is the new bow as I have found nothing on it. The ship had been cut back for the new bow to be grafted on. I have assumed that the new bow structure was assembled some where else and was complete or nearly so when the stop work was issued as work on it could proceed in parallel. Of the three new 15 inch turrets, two of them were being installed as coastal defense in Denmark as the war ended.

@keithdurose7057

2 ай бұрын

I believe that these ships were initially designed to have 15" guns. Due to availability, 11" ones were fitted to get the ships ready for sea trials. The further modifications that you mention would be necessary to accommodate the increased size and weight.

@ashharris7293

2 ай бұрын

@@keithdurose7057 They were designed and build for 11 inch guns from the start. It was thought that uprunning to some larger gun could be possible at some point in the future but that was not factored into the design or construction. The first engineering design work to see if it up gunning to the current 15 inch guns was possible was done just after 26 Feb 1942. The modifications to the ship that I summarized were not insignificant and would not be required for a ship already designed for said guns.

Only to add, and not as any kind of criticism: the story of the need to re-engineer the design of the bow of the 2 ships is very interesting, and very important part of the history of the class. In some of the videos inserted, we can see how much water the boe took, even after the re-enginnering!

Personally, I'd classify Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as Pocket Battleships, my reasoning for this is that Battlecruisers sacrifice their armor for bigger guns, but for Scharnhorst and Gneisenau it was the other way around.

@BloodlineBloxOfficial

Ай бұрын

If the refitting could've been completed, they would certainly make an easy classification as Battleships.

Very good work you doing well done. One of those what ifs but suppose she had not been bombed in dock she would of been able to sail to Norway in 1942 and might have seen more action in Norwegian waters

Austrått fort is in Ørland near Trondheim. NOT Bergen.

I grew up in the 70's thinking of the class as battleships. Now, understanding the guns as only 11" and the US building the Alaska class of very heavy cruisers with 12" guns, I prefer to think of the class as battlecruisers. OK, because of issues in Congress, they refused to refer to the Alaska's as battlecruisers, but that's effectively what they were. If anyone wishes to continue to call the Scharnorst class battleships, then it's up them.

Good stuff, man! I'd be inclined to say they were battlecruisers as they were fast and built for raiding and preying on lesser vessels. Their guns were downright puny compared to battleships their size. In my view, to be a battleship, you have to be primarily designed to tussle with other big capital ships, and these really weren't up to that. They'd have been annihilated by a Nelson or KGV without those larger guns they never got. The fact that Renown took on both Scharnhorsts and it was they who disengaged when it was clear they were outgunned is informative, although the British ship did have a sizeable escort. During the battle, the Scharnhorts behaved like battlecruisers, using their speed rather than firepower. Renown was officially designated a battlecruiser, and assigned to a battlecruiser squadron.

Well done young man, and thanks for doing all of this research .

Battlecruisers were a progression from the old armoured cruisers which had 4 decks while battleships had 5 decks. The Sharnhorst's had 4 decks but inspite of that I think they were a in class of their own between battlecruisers and fast battleships.

@dalek3086

10 ай бұрын

that is why they were called pocket battleships - Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

@kevingrant9557

10 ай бұрын

Sorry mate their 3 predecessors were called pocket battleships by the British press because of their small size and 11 inch guns. Deutschland, Sheer and Graf Spee.@@dalek3086

@dirkmoller5104

10 ай бұрын

@@dalek3086while this could be an appropriate term (I think rather not), the term "pocket battleships" is reserved for the Deutschland class, not for the Scharnhorst class.

One correction: The rear C-turret was mounted at the Austraat Fort at Oerland, on the northside entry of the Trondheimsfjord. I grew up 1 kilometer away and have detailed knowledge of it. ( The position was wrongfully mentioned to be near Bergen - which was the location of the B-turret, to be scrapped after WW2. The C-turret is restored and now a museum )

@ImportantHistory

19 күн бұрын

Apologies, I addressed this in a community post when the video came out. I believe I attached it to the video or vice versa. Thanks for the comment!

Regarding these ships classification, my vote would go for Battle Cruisers. They could out gun heavy cruisers and out run Battleships but did not have the weight of shot to match them. They were very fine ships though with beautiful profiles.

German WW1 battlecruisers tended to have battleship-grade armor, but lower caliber guns. So I think its acceptable to call them battlecruisers, same as it is acceptable to call Hood a fast battleship, despite the first being designated as "schlachtschiff" and the other as "battlecruiser".

I agree, it would be interesting to see how she would have looked with the 15" guns. So equipped, with her speed, she'd definitely have been a serious threat. However, I doubt it would have had much of an impact on events. The German surface fleet was, especially by 1943 virtually useless except as a means To tie up large amounts of Allied seapower. Just look at KMS Tirpitz. Even when she was badly damaged, the Home Fleet had to keep multiple Battleships and heavy Cruisers in theatre "just in case". The same for Scharnhorst.

Flooding surviving magazines in dry dock must have been interesting. The floating dry dock picture was afterwards presumably?

I find the "What is a battlecruiser" discussion very interesting as it's such a vague term that different nations defined differently and the overlapping of Fast Battleship/Battlecruiser/Large Cruiser terms. I have my own thoughts (see below) but I do concede there are so many ways to define it, and the term used by the nation that owned the ship is absolutely legitimate and I won't tell those with different opinions that they are wrong. For me, I go by the role, ie having high speed of 30 knts+, large calibre (ie armoured cruiser or bigger, 10in+) and to be intended to primarily engage cruisers, battle cruisers and commerce raiders, conduct commerce raiding of their own with the ability to engage escorting cruisers with relative impunity, be able to assist battleships in capital engagements but not be able to fight true battleships alone, either due to insufficient armour or gun power, or both. So a few examples: HMS Hood I do not consider to be a battlecruiser, she's a fast battleship, the Kongo's are battlecruisers not fast battleships, USS Alaska is a battlecruiser (Probably very controversial!), the rebuilt Conte di Cavour's are battlecruisers, the Deutschland's are just heavy cruisers, and yes in their 28cm guise I do consider the Scharnhorst sisters to be battlecruisers. The fact the two Scharnhorst's retreated from the engagement with Renown and declined to engage a convoy escorted by HMS Revenge due to her presence as an escort do, in my mind, provide evidence that they do fit the battlecruiser role I define. They also fit the traditional German battlecruiser design philosophy; smaller guns, higher speed and near peer armour to of-the-time battleships, all things that are traits of the Scharnhorst's. If Gneisenau had gotten the 38cm conversion I think she would have absolutely been a fast battleship.

@dalek3086

10 ай бұрын

the RAF and Coastal Command called them pocket battleships .

Very late but I hope you fine it interesting. WW2 Scharnchorst class were the first ships in German (including Imperial fleet) navy officialy classified as battlecruisers (schlachttschiff). All previous constuctions from WW1 were officialy called large cruisers. Hovever Scharnhorst's class design makes them battleships. And fast, fast battleships. They managed to escape HMS Renown and she was credited for 31 knots! Anyway great material.

Though they ( Scharnhorst & Gneisenau ) had the speed of battle cruisers, they had the armour of battleships. What causes the issue is the size of their main guns being "tweeners". One nice feature of the 11" guns were their elevation, able to fire at very extreme ranges. Personally I would classify them as battleships.

I don’t consider them battlecruisers, because battlecruisers would most likely have had heavier guns and thinner armor. I think they were battleships, though unusual for their era in their relatively light main batteries. In the end they proved much more effective than the heavy battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz.

I call the WWII Scharnost class Battlecruisers because an 11" main battery does not a battleship make. However, rearming with 6x15" rifles (if it happened) would push it (in my view) into the battleship category.

@20chocsaday

10 ай бұрын

So, they were built for conversion into battleships?

@dovetonsturdee7033

10 ай бұрын

The WW1 Nassaus were 11 inch gunned battleships. A battlecruiser in RN parlance was defined by speed, not by armour or firepower.

I would say they were battle cruisers as they were supposed to have 15in guns but never got around to it so had smaller guns

@dovetonsturdee7033

10 ай бұрын

The RN defined a battlecruiser in terms of speed, rather than either armour or firepower. Look at the proposals for the G3 'battlecruisers'.

Please teach this breathing preparation... ( I learned it, by happenstance and experimentation, during my last two PFTs, in 1977, while serving in the USMC. It wasn't taught, anywhere.) Even, to begin a day; and, especially, to prep for anything strenuous (as before a test, a speech, exercising, a game, chaos, battle, etc.). Like while dressing for a game... ... First, breath out, completely... ... Then, take a deep deep breath, and hold it as long as you can; while, even, taking in more air, before finally letting it go... ...Then, let your body calm, until you breath normal, again. Do a deep breath, at least 6 times in a row, before a jog, or a race, for instance; or, occasionally, while getting ready for work; and, occasionally, throughout your day. Just, get used to it. Make it's part of your normal day; especially, if you're physically or mentally active... Or, like me... Aging. Such, stretches your chest, and lungs, wide open, so you take in far more air than usual, thereafter, with each following breath. It makes one feel like, when coming out again after a halftime... Ready! I had always struggled with my breathing, during the quarterly Physical Fitness Test, 3 mile runs. I always finished, about middle of the pack, (Run = 18:00 minutes being a perfect score). However, the evening before my second to last PFT, by chance, I had been swimming, and practicing my water treading, to help battle my fear of water, in light of my particular occupation, as a hit-the-beach Marine. Naturally, I noticed a marked difference, in my breathing, during my run, the next morning. First, my lungs weren't burning, or fighting to catch a second breath, as per usual, at the beginning. It made the entire run easier; and - dare I say - more comfortable. And, it really improved my time. Anyway, for my last PFT, I remember, I did - exactly - 5 deep, held breaths, at the line, before beginning the PFT run/race, that next morning. (I probably swam some, the evening before, too.). I even started the run, at a walk, with all other runners taking off in the usual racers sprint, fighting for the lead. I was the last guy off the starting line. I crossed the finish line, with about 100 yards between me and the second man behind me. While, easily passing all the sprinters, at the beginning... one by one... ... And, not having to struggle for breath, like they - all - were. And, at the end, I was able to really turn it on, for about the last 50+ yards. I earned myself a 4 day Pass from it. Thusly, any team leader should teach this; and, to then, shout "breathe", occasionally, to do exactly this; especially, at crucial points before, and in a game, etc. Again, please pass it on. I teach it to anyone who will listen. In fact, it should be empirically tested; and, taught in schools... In sports... In war...!.. (Imagine, running through a jungle, with your wounded buddy hanging over your shoulders.). As I said, it isn't, or wasn't taught, as late as recently. However, I suspect, news of this practice is spreading. I also tell folks in sports, that they must teach it to their competitors, along the way, (after winning their dreams)! I also learned, it helps for calming you, before a speech, presentation, and the like. (I think the calming comes from a slight build up of CO2, in the body. While, it doesn't take long to clear it out, with deeper breathing, thereafter. I suspect, also, it will definitely help those of us, who forget to breath, while entering high stress situations.). Oh, too, it seems to help with falling asleep, if it's done several times, at bedtime. Please test it out, and give me some feedback. Thanks. John Semper Fidelis...!...

I've heard them referred to as "Pocket Battleships"...

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

9 ай бұрын

Only by idiots.

She would have been a better balanced ship with 15 inch guns

@AnchoredPast

10 ай бұрын

This is to be debated. The 11in gun were better suited for what the Sharnhorst-class was. The limited number of guns on the Planned refit would have reduced her capabilitys, and with them being upgraded to 15in guns the Magazines would only be able to carry about half of what they could carry as 11in guns.

@stephenrichards339

10 ай бұрын

By 42 she would have been out classed but with 15 inch guns she's got a punchers chance

@AnchoredPast

10 ай бұрын

@@stephenrichards339 maybe, but we just won't know what could have came from the upgrade. In World of Warships the Gneisenau is fitted with the 15in guns and is pretty powerful compared to some of the ships that she faces in game, but they also come with the weakness of Limited Slavo Weight this would have most likely been seen IRL, but again we can only go off speculation.

@stephenrichards339

10 ай бұрын

@@AnchoredPast in real life if she was upgraded to 15 inch guns she would still run away from Warspite, Rodney and the Duke of York etc, all I'm saying if she trapped she's got a puncher chance to get away

@AnchoredPast

10 ай бұрын

@@stephenrichards339 fair enough.

My grand uncles was in the Waffen ss But Otto said he had two neighbors that served on the Sharnhorst during the dash

There were many ships that defy standard classifications. Just like the Outrageous class were large light cruisers instead of battlecruisers, the British (derisive) nickname of pocket battleship, or light battleship, would be a more accurate classification of the Scharnhorst class.

@20chocsaday

10 ай бұрын

A pocket battleship perhaps but very sturdily built. Not so much as a fast cruiser killer but able to do battle with battleships as shown by the length of time Scharnhorst survived under the bombardment of Duke of York's 14" shells. Radar directed as they were.

@dovetonsturdee7033

10 ай бұрын

@@20chocsaday Being able only to absorb punishment is not the mark of a battleship. It needs to give it out as well.

@20chocsaday

10 ай бұрын

@@dovetonsturdee7033 And if they had got round to installing 15" guns the shells would have the weight. As it was, Scharnhorst hit at the same long range as Warspite. In either of the two ships the first hits would not be expected to sink the ship but to remove the upperworks, but they never met. Oh yes, I forgot to mention the 18" guns on some more lightly built ships. (Don't make me shoot or I'll shower the sea with more rivets.)

@dovetonsturdee7033

10 ай бұрын

@@20chocsaday Indeed. But as the Scharnhorsts were fitted with 11 inch guns, the issue is irrelevant.

@20chocsaday

10 ай бұрын

@@dovetonsturdee7033 There can be advantages from having guns smaller than 15" are there not? That's an admirable name, is it not. Many US Navy ships also had guns smaller than 15" .

02:09 Wow! What a great looking ship! She might have belonged to the Nazis, but she was a very impressive vessel.

I personally say battlecruiser, but her 15" refit wouldve turned her into a battleship

Not related to the video but I do need an answer to this: Is "Pocket Battleship" a classification or is it just a nickname given to the Deutschland class cruisers?

@ImportantHistory

10 ай бұрын

The term “Pocket Battleship” was popularized in the English speaking world in the interwar period to describe the Panzerschiffe or armored ships of the Deutschland class as that was their designation to fit within the treaty limitations placed on the Reichsmarine by the Treaty of Versailles. Now they would be reclassified as heavy cruisers later on in the Second World War. Sorry for rambling, but I hope I answered your question:)

IT still amazes me how many time gneisenau and scharnhorts have been bombed , shot , torpedoed and ran in to mines . over the course of their life spans . and still got by for the most part of the war.

The reality is only Tirpitz/Bismarck where a real threat to the British Royal Navy, the other big German ships were a threat to commerce but could and would be hunted down and destroyed. Tirpitz and Bismarck were more problematical, well built, with big powerful guns, there destruction could not be guaranteed, both together would have been a formidable adversary.

I believe America considered them pocket battleships,that is to say a "light battleship" in tonnage and firepower compared say to Bismark or New Jersey.

If I ever had two German Shepherds I would name them Scharnhorst and Gniesenau. 😂

@Fred_Lougee

10 ай бұрын

Only if they actually did something, IMO. If instead they just sit around looking mildly menacing then you should name them Bismarck and Tirpitz.

I'd call them targets.

Why would the ship have ammo on board while in Dry Dock?

@ImportantHistory

10 ай бұрын

That is the million dollar question in this case. The sources that I have access don't give a satisfactory answer like the book I quoted in the video.

I put the Scharnhorsts in the same league as the Alaska class. Far larger and heavier armored than any cruiser, yet too lightly armed to be a line-of battle battleship. Perhaps light battleship is a good term to use.

@recoil53

10 ай бұрын

The Scharnost's heaviest shells were 741 pounds. The Alaska's 1140 lb. When you account for the smaller cross section, this is actually the equivalent of a WWI battleship's 14" guns. The King George V class main guns were like 1500lb or something. The common point was odd design compromises - little guns for the Germans and no underwater armor for the Americans. However, the Alaskas should have done fine against the Japanese re-designated fast battleships. One of the Kongos was sunk by cruiser fire alone. But dead against a Long Lance.

@kkang2828

10 ай бұрын

Scharnhorst had a LOT more armor than Alaska though. I wouldn’t say they’re in the same league. Alaska is decidedly a battlecruiser. Scharnhorst is not.

@recoil53

10 ай бұрын

@@kkang2828 How do you rate them? Are you calling the Scharnorst a true battleship? The Alaska had more powerful guns, with a cross-sectional density similar to that of the Duke of York. The Scharnhorst was better armored.

@kkang2828

10 ай бұрын

@@recoil53 I rate armor(more precisely, enough armor to provide at least some reasonable protection against other battleship caliber guns) as the definitive distinction between a battleship and a battlecruiser. If a battlecruiser has somewhat small guns, than it could also be called a large cruiser as well. Therefore I rate Scharnhorst as a battleship, and Alaska as a battlecruiser/large cruiser. In addition, I’d rate the Kongos as battlecruisers both pre- and post-reconstruction, and also rate the French Dunkerques as battlecruisers/large cruisers.

@recoil53

10 ай бұрын

@@kkang2828 Okay. I don't really argue with that. But in a stand up battle, a battleship out to be able to pound a battlecruiser to bits unless a lucky shot happens. Given the disparity in shot weight and the known damage taken, the Alaska should be able to beat the Scharnhorst.

they did not have either the armor protection or the guns to be called a battleship, so my thoughts are always towards battlecruiser ..its what they were designed as .... battlecruisers' description has been, more firepower than a cruisers and faster than most cruisers so they can hunt them down and kill cruisers ... never meant for taking on a battleship toe to toe ....not enough armor

They were good looking ships. Better armoured than the Bismark class.

I thought the Gneisenau was sunk in Maximillum Von Spee's last stand in the falklands Sharnchorst and Gneisenau vs Incomparable and Informidable?? Idk the British ships with the "In" starts are hard to memorize but Gneisenau and Scharnhorst was sunk in the battle at Falklands...

@ImportantHistory

7 ай бұрын

You’re thinking of the two ships that these World War Two battleships were named after. The two armored cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were sunk in 1914 at the battle of the Falklands.

@V1N0MI

7 ай бұрын

@@ImportantHistory Ohhh that's actually sad to know that the BC Gneisenau was demolished not in a battle like it's ancestor but instead got spammed with bomb meanwhile it's partner BB Scharnhorst died honorably in it's final battle of North Cape

Nice video....submarines were, I think, the way to go for Germany, given the geography of the North coast Baltic Sea and the subsequent air dominance of Britain. Too, if the naval enigma intelligance experience could have been more favorable and more done in the way of R. and D. in the way of the submarine warfare, things might have been different. I'm a firm believer that invasion of England in 1940 was distinctly possible, particularly if Hitler would have let his generals have their head in the battle of France, i.e. Dunkirk, his close air support and submarine advantage could have secured the channel long enough for the army to cross. Keeping the alliance with Russia in stasis until England was subsumed, and things could have been different. Germany winning in the 40's might have been terrible for the world then, but by now, as the pendulum swings, we might have a nicer world....who knows? Regardless I like your productions, and the non-bionic formate.

You lose the air dominance, you lose, the every other aspect of the battle and war. The minute the skies cleared for the Battle of the Bulge, the great German tanks were done.

I am a furious corrector😊

✌

Schlachtschiff Scharnhorst

If German Admiralty had included the Tirpitz the Gneisnau and the Sharnhorst with the Bismarck and Eugene the entire episode would have been devastating to Britts. Being overcautious was really what sank the Bismarck

As with all Nazi surface ships (the fabulous S boats excepted) they were poor designs and usually undergunned. One could hardly call a ship with little 11" guns a "battleship" in the truest sense. All US Navy fast battleships had 16" guns standard and even the Alaska class cruisers outgunned Scharnhorst/Gneisenau with their 9 12" guns.

By Labor Day, we can use a neutral objective logistics liaison Matrix non-profit NGO, for comprehensive contingencies-management capabilities, to mechanize and empower direct democracy, in a republic.

How ironic that the Japanese had the biggest fleet of the Axis, yet it was the German ships how became more deadly and Historical.

Son. What if I told you, there's a system, you young folks should develop, and use, to mechanize and empower pure direct demos-kratia within a republic, like ours. I ain't joking. I'm betting, you could have us well on our way, within hours! With respect! Semper Fidelis... Standing by...

Just shows like Seydlitz German warships also exploded due to powdered and ammunition storage issues.

One bomb and she blows up, bad armor design I suppose. Weak.

@BenGunn84

9 ай бұрын

Like the Hood

@dave8599

9 ай бұрын

@@BenGunn84 Yes, weak.

I can't believe the amount of heat that creators have to put up with for not having the correct pronounciation. I take it that the people who make those comments speak every single language on earth flawlessly... right?.... jc get a life!

@ImportantHistory

9 ай бұрын

You’d really be amazed to see the amount of comments I get about pronunciations, and it’s usually about German words or British place names. Those two seem to get people the most angry.

Fo’c’sle? No. Fo’c’s u. Haha

@Fred_Lougee

10 ай бұрын

Courtesy laugh, 1MC.

All in all - the German Surface Fleet was a failure. All the world's surface fleets were dominated by Air Power in WWII. So, while the Germans did have some success with their Capital Ships doing commerce raiding - Commerce Raiding is a poor use of Capital Ships. Submarines do a much more effective job. It can be argued that it could have done more than it did but given that the Germans simply didn't have a port that was not vulnerable to British Bombers - it just wasn't viable after a certain point. Since it had built one - their Surface Fleet could serve as a Fleet In Being - requiring he British to spend their resources on containing it - but that's about all it was good for. So - putting any more time/effort/money into it was by then a waste of time. Now - IF - they had worked up their Navy and sent it to sea as a single fleet - with the aircraft carrier to protect it from enemy aircraft - THEN - they might have done something with it. However, by the time the _Gneisenau_ was being repaired - no - by then it was a waste of resources. .

@BenGunn84

9 ай бұрын

The Sailors of the Hood didnt think so.

Traducteur : en français : catastrophique !!! 👎

The Germans considered them battleships because of the near battleship price they cost and would have been shot if they referred to them as less than battleships. But as far as their role they were definitely battlecruisers and easily the best battlecruisers of ww2. Lutzow was also a battlecruiser just less armored as sharnhorst class and 3 less 11" guns.

We here are NOT pro noun NAZI's. We will not be offended by word usage. Free Speech is a wonderful thing. Have a good day.

England. The death of a wonderful piece of machinery in 12 minutes. I think not.

Battlecruiser. Not battleship

@danx4880

10 ай бұрын

No, fast battleship, period.

@Riccardo_Silva

10 ай бұрын

Wrong. Period.😂😂😂

@dalek3086

10 ай бұрын

the British Forces in WW2 called them pocket battleships - they could outrun any ships that could outgun them. Call them what they were called in WW2.

And what about the time when both of them found a convoy that had a Nelson class as escort... lmfao... german simping detected