Agree.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
afaik no battlecruiser there are after WWI, also the old BC, as Hood and Kongo, are no more considered BC but BB.
the concept of BC, a ship with around same weapon of a BB and around the speed of cruiser was passed when the new BB get high speed.
The crews of 4 RN battlecruisers that experienced wholesale explosions hull breaks would bitterly argue against rating Scharnhorst as a worst Battlecruiser.
afaik no battlecruiser there are after WWI, also the old BC, as Hood and Kongo, are no more considered BC but BB.
the concept of BC, a ship with around same weapon of a BB and around the speed of cruiser was passed when the new BB get high speed.
Well according to both Janes and Conways, Hood was rated as a Battlecreuiser for her entire career.
The Kongo Class were rated as BCs when built, but after reconstruction in the thirties were re-rated as fast Battleships. That much is true, but their design, protection, displacement all put them in the class of Battlecruiser. Their displacement is perhaps the best indication of what they were....they displaced a maximum of 31000 tons deep displacement, to the Scharnhorsts 38900. . It seems ilogical to rate the Scharnhorst as a Battlecruiser at nearly 40000 tons, when the Japanese ships are lighter but still rated as a Battleship
What the Battlecruiser description suggests to me for the Scharnhorst was that despite their relatively massive size they were still weak and unsatisfactory ships. What the label "fast battleships" for the Kongos suggests to me is that despite their obvious weaknesses as Battlecruisers, they could be half considered as Battleships because of their firepower, and overall design excellence. Thats notwithstanding their lossess to the US BBs in November 1942....
I don't know why the Japanese re rated the Kongo's as fast battleships as the changes they had were similar to those made to the Renown. Modern engines, weight saving that was allocated to better protection to air attack and AA defence. However the Renown remained a Battle cruiser, one that I would prefer to the Kongo.
The Schornhorst has as far as I know never been called weak or unsatisfactory. True 6 x 15in would be better than 9 x 11in and that was being changed but that was the only problem.
I also agree that the Schornhorst was 20 years later and a better comparison would be the USS Alaska, a ship of similar size, simlar protection and with 12in guns.
.
Just remember that the Alaskas managed to put 9x 12 in guns to sea on a displacement just over 30000 tons. I have to draw attention to the fact that the Scharnhorsts only managed to put 9x11 in guns to sea on 38000 tons. The armouring scheme of the Scharnhorsts was more extensive, but not greatly so, ....the turrets on the Alaskas for example had armour plate 11-13 inches thick, whilst the turerets in the Scharnhorsts were 14 inches on the front facings and only 6 inches elsewhere. . The main belt was 6-13 in the Scharnhorsts compared to 5-9 inches in the Alaskas
The Alaskas are some of the most misunderstood ships in History. They are often referred to as Battlecruisers in popular literature, but the USN never rated them as such. Conways describes them as the logical development of Heavy Cruisers, free of all treaty restrictions. They were never intended to fight in the US gunline, like Battlecuisewrs were designed to do
No doubt....the BC concept was flawed in that it usually sacrificed too much firepower for speed and gunpower. Scharnhorsts sacrificed less protection but a lot of gunpower and retained a lot of speed
Was the marked part a typo?
BCs were the drednoughts that sacrificed armor to gain speed; their armament was in 90% cases same as BBs had.
Since Scharnhorst had a tick armour, it's not Battlecruiser.
As for the flawed concept: it was Royan Navy BC designs that were flawed. German ships were much better.
BC's were capital ships that made a sacrifice for speed. Generally British ones sacrificed armour, German one sacrificed firpower. Even in WW1 German BC's tended to have 12 in guns instead of British 13.5in or 11 in against British 12 in.
Most of the German WW1 battleships had either 11 or 12 inch guns. Since that was also a calibre of their battlecruisers, I'd say the firepower wasn't reduced.
It is well known that German WW1 BC's had thicker protection than RN BC's it was a trend that continued into WW2. There was nothing new about this trend.
What RN and KM battlecruisers after 1930 could back up that statement?
People was lyrical about the Kongo, it should be remembered that she was a British design based on a British WW1 BC with the same flaws as late RN BC's namely thinner armour.
People have likes dislikes. My fav designs for WW1 are QE and Seydlitz.