Germany goes with 6x15in Scharnhorst/Gneisenau development instead of B&T?

[Shortround6]

Also the 11 inch guns were not battle ship grade guns.

again, compared to what?

Russians had nothing bigger than 12 inch.
French had 3 old battleships of the Courbet class with 12 in guns and 3 ships of the Bretagne class with 13.4 in guns.
Plus the two Dunkerque's with 13 in guns.
The Italian Cavour/Duilio class had 12.6 in guns

The US still had a few old battleships with 12 in guns.
And a couple with 14 in guns that don't belong within 1000 miles of the German ships.

 

[The Basket]

The word battle ship comes from line of battle ship.

So you line your ship up against the enemy and have at it and first one who dies loses.

The 11 inch guns were no threat to any British battleship in terms of getting through the armour belt. So the concept of battleship is to meet the enemies battleship in 1v1 combat. Something Scharnhorst couldn't do.

So the only role Scharnhorst could do was the classic battlecruiser role of commerce raiding and cruiser killing.

Germany had experience with the 11 inch guns due to the pre dreads and the Panzerschiff so as it was the only off the shelf gun they had then use it they did. But it was only as a compromise forced upon them by King Neptune.

So the true deciding factor in whether the 11 inch guns were battleship is the armour of Duke of York. And that's a no.

 

[Shortround6]

And the Duke of York didn't exist when the German twins were designed and Built.

 

[swampyankee]

And the Duke of York didn't exist when the German twins were designed and Built.

...but the Nelson, Rodney, Queen Elizabeths, Colorados, and Rs did. Capital ships are as much political expressions as weapons. Not building Bismarck & Tirpitz was admitting that one is not a great power. Hitler couldn't do that.

 

[The Basket]

But KGV was only a year or two behind.

Nelson and Hood and Warspite was and if these are your baseline minimum threat Scharnhorst isn't matching them.

I assume the Germans got the ships out to get ships out and they will be fixed before the big war started. Naval strategy is based on decades and not years so the Kreigmarine were having to build Rome in one day. Even the French and Italians were ahead of them.

The Italians had a good idea to stick to the Mediterranean and so no need for logistics or off shore bases. Vittorio Veneto was badly damaged but she was damaged in the Med and not off the River Plate or in the middle of the Atlantic. So she was to make port.

As a commerce raider or cruiser killer then the Scharnhorst was a bit too much. Of course, I would argue the loss of Glorious was worth the construction cost alone.

 

[The Basket]

Scharnhorst with 15 inch guns may have made a better warship than Bismarck.

Naval construction can be more like a 7 year olds art project...I want big with big guns and lots of armour and very fast and big guns and it must look like a space ship.

Bismarck was the most expensive propoganda exercise ever!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

View attachment 619195
British S class submarine.

The Germans were not the only navy that could use submarines as the Germans learned in the Norwegian campaign.

However, we have discussed this before. If the Germans don't build at least a few large ships the British don't have to build all of their large ships either.
The Large German ships tied up a disproportionate amount of British effort and caused a number of older battleships to stay at sea as distant escorts tying up man power, maintenance and tens of thousands of tons of fuel oil.

Sure. I wasn't arguing that Germany should not build large ships. I was asking how Germany's going to get a carrier into the Atlantic without it being noticed and destroyed. Carriers are expensive to build and crew. A fleet-in-being need not have them to be effective, as Tirpitz showed in Norwegian waters.

 

[Shortround6]

Put a short history of the German navy between WW I and WW II in another thread.
Short history of the German navy between the wars.