5750:"The Scharnhorst-class ships were equipped with Krupp armor. Their upper armored deck was 50 mm (2.0 in) thick, and backed by the main armor deck. This deck was 20 mm (0.79 in) thick aft, increased to 50 mm in the central portion of the ship that contained the ammunition magazines and machinery spaces, and decreased down to 20 mm in the bow. It was supported by 105 mm (4.1 in) thick slopes on either longitudinal side. The slopes connected to the lower edge of the main belt, an arrangement referred to as the "turtle deck." The slopes significantly increased armor protection in the critical areas of the ship. The ships' vitals were well armored against any caliber shell fired by battleships at the time at ranges where the shell would have to penetrate both the main belt and the sloping deck. At very long ranges, the deck armor could be easily penetrated by heavy-caliber shells. All of these sections were composed of Wotan Hart (Wotan Hard) steel. The armored belt was 350 mm (14 in) thick in the central portion of the ship, where the critical areas of the ship were located. Forward of the "A" turret the belt was reduced to 150 mm (5.9 in), which tapered down to zero at the bow of the ship. Aft of the rear gun turret the belt decreased to 200 mm (7.9 in), and eventually tapered down to nothing at the stern. The central portion of the belt was backed by 170 mm (6.7 in) thick shields. The belt armor was composed of Krupp Cemented steel (KC). The side protection system could not be penetrated by a 2,240 lb (1,020 kg) 16 in (406 mm) shell at any range over 11,000 m (12,000 yd)."
547:
529:
5761:"The forward conning tower had 350 mm-thick sides and a roof that was 200 mm-thick. The rear conning tower was less well armored, with sides and a roof that were only 100 mm (3.9 in) and 50 mm thick, respectively. The gun turrets for the main battery had 360 mm (14 in) thick faces, 200 mm thick sides, and 150 mm thick roofs. The barbettes that held the 28 cm gun turrets were also heavily armored; the sides were 350 mm thick and tapered down to 200 mm on the centerline, where they were shielded by the gun turrets above. The faces of the 15 cm turrets were 140 mm (5.5 in) thick, with 60 mm (2.4 in) thick sides and 50 mm thick roofs. The 10.5 cm gun mounts were equipped with 20 mm (0.79 in) gun shields. All of this armor was KC steel." I suspect that anything horizontal or less than 10cm would have to be Krupp non cemented or Woten Hart not KC n/A.
4862:
likely war scenario where they would be fighting against France, which had a more powerful navy than they had. At the time, the
British and French envisaged squadrons of armoured battleships blockading enemy ports, assisted by other types of vessels. The German and Italian concept was for individual battleships and cruisers to sortie from ports; the breakout would be assisted by torpedo boats attacking the blockading squadron. German battleships were intended for operations in the Baltic and perhaps also the English Channel, and tended to be medium-size and of short range. Italian battleships were intended to roam the Western Mediterranean and were large, fast and by the standards of the day long range. These concepts of operation gradually went out of fashion in the 1890s, in part thanks to Mahan.
4787:& Dulin if that is what happened. That said 'modern' all-or-nothing battleships did not suffer the same fate when subjected to the same type of bombardment. I'm thinking here of the Prince of Wales (in the Battle of Denmark Strait) which was hit repeatedly (without catastrophic damage) by the Bismarck from the same range as the shots which sunk the Hood. Maybe it was a one-in-a-million shot, but there seem to have been quite a few of these during the Second World War depite the relatively limited number of engagements. I think it would be easier to accept that ships had weaknesses and those which were sunk were sunk because the enemy exploited them, either by chance or by concentration of force. To that extent I think the original post is correct to highlight the weaknesses of the German design.
1737:- Constatine does make a good point, but I'm struck by the fact that these ships could out run any other capital ship built by the mid-Thirties which is practically the definition of a battlecruiser. And it appears that they were designed to protect against French attacks on German merchant shipping, another role of a battlecruiser. A battleship is primarily designed to defeat other battleships and that's not what these ships were designed to do. And on another point both the Kongos and the Hood were redefined during the '30s as fast battleships. And how did the French define the Dunkerques? I'm thinking that the very term battlecruiser was regarded as obsolete and a failed concept in the English-speaking world by the time these built.
4101:. There seems to be an urge to place everything in its little box, which often helps us to cope with the world. In the old discussion, one editor writes: "In short, I think that anything would be better than the current title, which is a cop-out and a disservice to readers of the article." - Why would it be a cop-out, if the Scharnhorsts obviously are neither clearly battleships nor clearly battlecruisers? I get that the title back then was awkward, but that feeling again is just a result of our urge for placing thing into labeled boxes. Would the disservice to the reader not much more severe if we place a label on a ship that does not deserve it?
4686:
even a slingshot. Clearly naval artillery is at the top end of the artillery scale, but ranges, calibre and accuracy all increased with the passage of time so asserting that any shot under 15,000 yards must have been on a flat trajectory is generalising excessively. Talking of assertions, could you provide a source for your information on the trajectory of the DoY shell that hit the
Scharnhorst's boiler room? I was under the impression that the wreck was only discovered a few years ago and it wasn't in particularly good shape; I'm not entirely sure how it could have been examined so thoroughly as to establish this detail.
2697:. The first three bullet points at the top of the page effectively point to naming this article "battleship" rather than "battlecruiser". The first two points deals with common names; if one argues that the Google search is fatally flawed, and that stacking up references is a useless exertion, then there is inherently no common name (or at least a name that is more "common" than the other). In that case, point three comes into play, and it states that an article should be titled as the subject would refer to itself. The German navy called them battleships, so here we are.
5294:). And if not by internal links, they will have come across these ships somewhere else and will have already seen them referred to either as battleships or battlecruisers, and they will type in "Scharnhorst class battleship/battlecruiser", "Scharnhorst battleship/battlecruiser", or even "Scharnhorst class" into the search bar and they'll get to the right page. There is essentially no case where a reader will arrive at this page with the intention of reading about von Spee's ships, so a hatnote is unnecessary.
2595:
the articles which mention the actions which the
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are clearly going to use secondary sources based on British primary source, and the majority of those sources state that the they were battlecruiser, if the ship has to be under one designation or the other it would make sense to use battlecruiser. However as it can also be shown that many sources use battleship it makes more sense to keep the title as a descriptive one such as that at which is was until recently:
4281:
it out-ranged that gun by 4000 yards and was very accurate - indeed as the article states, one of the longest hit recorded was by the
Scharnhorst. On paper, a Scharnhorst had a chance against a KGV, by using it's superior speed to set the distance of the engagement (at least in good weather). You make a good point about German tactics, as they could not afford to take a chance and slug it out with a British ship one on one in the real world - the Bismarck encounter illustrated that.
816:
728:
5183:"A number of authors have attributed the loss of Hood to insufficient deck armor, stating in effect that she was lost due to an excessive vulnerability to plunging fire. The results of a recently developed computer program, however, seem to suggest that rather than being too thin to adequately protect her, Hood's deck armor was in fact at or near the thickness that would have granted her maximum protection at normal battleranges."
273:
5754:
magazine roofs and 80mm over machinery spaces. I also haven't seen the ends as tapers but as 70mm fore which ends at the bow and 90mm aft which terminates at the aft of steering compartment with a 150/200mm (different sources) transverse. I don't know what "The central portion of the belt was backed by 170 mm (6.7 in) thick shields" refers to but the lower portion of the main belt (lower 30% i believe) tapers to this thickness.
5661:, and journalists and historians couldn't cope with a non-type ship class, so they went with battleship or battlecruiser, whatever their source told them to use. Knowledge (XXG)'s need for closure, if anything, is even stronger than that of humans, and that's where the problem comes in. The Scharnhorsts literally defy typification, and Knowledge (XXG) can't have that. (Google "Dawkins essentialism" for another view on this.)
593:
230:
744:
712:
2206:"Vice-Admiral LĂźtjens then decided to break off the fight as he believed he was facing two battleships, a mistake probably due to the flashes from the guns of the British destroyers. At 5.28 a.m. he therefore set a north-easterly course, but was able to shake off his enemy only at 7.30 a.m. He took a northerly and then a westerly course to gain time and to put his two battleships back in a fighting condition."
3241:
3218:
3204:
3173:
3149:
3122:
3112:
3086:
3072:
3058:
3026:
3012:
393:
760:
445:
4826:, which was torpedoed by an American submarine - her crew did all manner of silly things like leaving watertight doors open throughout the ship and waiting far too long to attempt counter flooding. I've heard it argued that many of Japan's war losses could have been saved if they had had American crews (who by 1942 or so had organized probably the best damage control teams in the entire world).
424:
3747:
Section
Admiralty, pub 20 November 1961. pages 14-15.) It very much looks as though the initial British misclassification was a misjudgement or an error; one that has been propagated books copying what previous publications said instead of checking the facts. The Naval Staff History was issued in 1961 when more facts were available than when the original misclassification was made.--
455:
2926:, an FA I wrote, that has a comparably long service history section. If articles were written in the manner in which you suggest (i.e, that battle information should be in battle articles and everything else relating to the individual ships should be in the individual articles), then they'd be rather short and uninteresting. If all three articles are written comprehensively (i.e.,
3837:"Vizeadmiral LĂźtjens had orders to avoid battle with superior opponents if possible and, believing this was the case, he steered away. At first the adversary could not be seen properly from the vice admiral's bridge, but only recognised from the muzzle flashes. Hence, LĂźtjens and his staff were not sure what they were up against. When visibility had improved for a while, a
776:
4822:
secondary importance. Take for instance, Japanese aircraft carriers during WWII. They had a series of design flaws (closed hangars, which trapped gas fumes, being the most important), and while these flaws contributed to their loss, it was the total failure in the
Japanese Navy to master damage control that cost them many of these ships. I'm thinking specifically of the
2721:(Edit conflict) - What the British primary sources upon which the secondary sources we use call the ships isn't really relevant; as Toddy pointed out above, even the British referred to them as battleships on occasion. There's also over a 3-1 margin in favor of "battleship" in Google Books. All of the books one might consider to be warship encyclopedias (i.e., Conway's
4230:, carried lighter armament and were far lightly armoured. They were equipped to deal with light and heavy cruisers and fast enough to out-run battleships and battlecruisers. Thus, the classification as battleships do not fit these ships in anyway. They in no way could have stood and engaged the Royal Navy's battleships nor were they intended to do so.
3292:
reconstructed to mount the six 38 cm (15 in) guns that had been originally intended." I have no problem with this information per se, as I had previously read it in Breyer. However, there is no mention earlier in the article that 38cm guns were originally intended for this class. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the section on the ships' development?
650:
610:
1212:
more hits than "battleship
Scharnhorst" in regular Google. And even if it is, the US has a significantly larger population than the UK, why shouldn't it have a correspondingly big piece of the web? As for Janes, as you know, they're generally considered to be pretty solid on ship-related things; the line I quoted was just a portion of the entry.
5368:
transfer to
Stevnsfortet), has been named "Gneisenau". That is probable source of that common mistake. The real Gneisenau "long" turret is preserved at Petsamo coastal battery (whole turret with the armour partially scrapped) and the lower part of the turret is preserved at the Netharlands, inside the bunker M219 of Zanddijk coastal battery.
2906:
operations. Otherwise we have the same stuff in three places - Battle of North Cape, here and the
Scharnhorst article. I think the Battle article is the place for the authoritative detail relating to a specific battle, and the details of the ships' careers apart from battles should appear in one place, the ship's article.
2487:
articles on each ship. The accounts here should be illuminating the description of the design - otherwise it is just repetition. I don't mind a little repetition from the individual ship articles to set the scene, or to make the article make sense, but if it does not illuminate the design, then why is it here?
1371:. Has another year gone by? I can tell by the annual resurrection of this discussion. Well, I always thought that contemporary usage favored battleship - you can add the US Navy to the support list, as ONI-204 clearly lists them at BB-1 and BB-2 (you can view a contents listing from a commercial CD-ROM site
5037:
attack). Yes, deck armor is important, particularly as aircraft and the bombs they carried became more powerful, but belt armor is much more important in a ship-to-ship fight. Oh, and if you look at Bill Juren's analysis I linked above, you'll see on the last page he states that contrary to common thought,
5780:
When checking the page history I noticed a comment tha Groner is a better source. I'm interested why this is so since Groner is a secondary source released in the 60s-70s My normal thought on the subject would be that primary sources closest to the relevant point in time are of highest value followed
5532:
That looks like an interesting book and might be a candidate for a further reading section but perhaps best for the article on the KM itself. We do need to be careful to confine comments and discussions here to proposed edits to the article. In depth analysis of KM machinery probably should go into a
5285:
The vast majority of non-experts who arrive at this article are generally going to be arriving here via internal links (since we are assuming they know nothing about these ships, it is very unlikely that they will type in the name out of the blue), which means a hatnote is useless to them (apart from
5022:
I don't know why you're focusing so much on deck armor and plunging fire. In practice, it was exceedingly rare for engagements to be fought at that range, and before the advent of advanced range-finding computers, hits at that range were even rarer. Moreover, Germany designed her battleships to fight
4786:
The book can be previewed, but the relevant page is not there. However, I'm not sure that it really matters - it was written before the wreck was discovered so their analysis is conjecture. However, I take your point about no amount of armour being protection against the trajectory proposed by Garzke
4567:
are battlecruisers, I mentioned them because they where better equipped to deal with enemy battleships but the
Kriegsmarine never made it their intention to use them to actively seek out and engage the British battle fleets. They were fast for their size and it was a key factor in the design process,
4280:
Rather than been "far lightly armoured" they had a main belt that was thicker than the Bismarck's, and protection in other parts of the ship was also equal, or in some cases thicker (and in some areas, to be fair, thinner). While the 11" shell gun was much lighter than the 14" used on the KGV class,
4108:
do not fall under the categories of treaty battleships or battlecruisers, simply because Germany had no reason to build anything under treaty rules. Just as with the Pockets, they simply tried to build a ship that would (vastly) outgun anything that it couldn't outrun, and lo and behold, they came up
3263:
The first bit suggests the RN "initially" classified them as battlecruisers and then changed its mind. Although I've added references, I don't think they really support the assertion that there was a change (they simply indicate that the British classified them as battlecruisers). It would be helpful
2645:
Perhaps you're new to this page, but we're well aware there are different sources saying different things. Listing the alternatives, such as Garzke (who was mentioned) is pointless because it leads to the Google OR provided by Parsecboy below. The problem is why do they differ? That is what we should
1951:
The chief feature of this running action was a heavy head sea, which forced Renown to slow down in order to fight her fore turrets. The Germans on the other hand could disregard the damaging effects of heavy water coming over their forecastles and continue to fight their after turrets whilst steaming
5472:
Mention of Scharnhorst's boiler difficulties appears on page 143 of Garzle and Dulin, with mention of the repairs on page 144. There is also discussion of the usage of the French Naval Arsenal facilities in Brest to fix this problem in Hellwinkel, Lars. Hitler's Gateway to the Atlantic: German Naval
5044:
s deck armor was at or close to the maximum protection that could be offered. The value of armor thickness is not arithmetic, after a certain point, the increased protection granted drops off significantly (hence the reason S&G had a thicker belt than B&T - the constructors realized they had
4964:
was likely not designed in the same way, but thinner deck armour would indicate she would be in no better position and would indicate weakness. Battleships would not stumble on each other at ranges of 5,000m. They would likely encounter each other at extreme ranges and attempt to maneuver in closer,
4861:
At the time he wrote these theories, Mahan will have been aware that two of the major European powers, Germany and Italy, had built ships that the Royal Navy regarded as battleships but which were intended for a different concept of operations. Germany and Italy in the 1870s and 1880s had to face a
4801:
The textual description reads as follows: " hit the starboard side, passed through the light upper citadel belt and battery deck, ricocheted at the lower armor deck, penetrated into the raised portion of the lower armor deck over the boilers, and exploded in number 1 boiler room." This is presumably
4304:
Well I think this sums it up: a debate between those who think ships should be classified by role (original post) and those who think statistics are important (second post). "On paper..." just doesn't cut it when, in reality, a Scharnhorst was sunk by a KGV. One has to apply some thought to what one
4206:
Now I know this has gone on for ages and I'm not sure if this is of any relevance, but if one takes a look at how the Kriegsmarine utilised her capital ships, it is very difficult to classify them in the Anglo/US/Japanese sense. I mention these nations and their navies as they wer the Kriegsmarine's
3976:
Paresecboy - the point that needs to be made is that the British regarded them as battlecruisers and acted accordingly in battle. Whitworth's actions may be understood through fear of being cast alongside Milne and Troubridge, but Cradock's fatal encounter off Coronel with the previous S&G might
2905:
I think there's far too much redundant detail about individuals ships in this article, such as the Battle of North Cape - this article should concentrate on what was common about the ship class - concepts, specifications, issues, problems. It should only make brief reference to the individual ships'
2594:
Renaming this page to "Scharnhorst class battleship" was not a good idea. Either battleship or battlecruiser is supported in the secondary English language sources, and those that justified the move on other arguments such as "This is what the Germans classed them as." should have been disregard. As
2290:
travelling in a roughly reciprocal riraction, and a running battle ensued. The British force, travelling at 20 knots, hauled round onto a parallel course to the British ships and opened fire at 0405 at 18,600 yards range. A fierce exchange of gunfire then took place over the next ten or so minutes,
2185:
by Klaus A. Maier (Author), Horst Rohde (Author), Bernd Stegemann (Author), Hans Umbreit (Author), the Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt (Contributor), P. S. Falla (Editor), Dean S. McMurray (Translator), Ewald Osers (Translator), pub Clarendon Press, 4 July 1991, ISBN: 0198228856 page 208, which
1482:
The German designation for these ships was clearly Battleship, so this is what their article designation should be - even if I personally consider them to be built along the typical line of WW1 German Battlecruisers. This controversy of designation should be addressed in the article, and probably it
5753:
I read this as the main armor deck is the deck referred to as "this Deck" in sentence 2. the thickness if that is the case seems incorrect. I don't have access to Groner but the scheme's i have seen show the armour deck to be 105mm in the citadel outside of the inner 40mm bulkhead with 95mm for the
5653:
Simply put, some German land lubber went to the designers and asked for a ship with certain features, and didn't care about the class. Then someone else came along and called them "battleship" because that sounded like fun. Finally some British person dyed in the wool in Mahonism who never heard of
5562:
Their upper armored deck was 50 mm (2.0 in) thick, and backed by the main armor deck. This deck was 20 mm (0.79 in) thick aft, increased to 50 mm in the central portion of the ship that contained the ammunition magazines and machinery spaces, and decreased down to 20 mm in the bow. It was supported
5506:
Kind of beat you to it - I think we were both typing at the same time. See edits to article. I infer from the sources that it was simply poor quality materials in Scharnhorst - though this is not a clear enough inference to use in the article. Interestingly, the German navy seemed to think that the
5036:
No, battleships won't stumble on each other at 5,000 yards, but as I said above, visibility in the North Sea is frequently bad. At Jutland, Beatty and Hipper spotted each other at a range of about 15,000 yards, which gives you a very small chance to score any plunging fire hits (provided both sides
5023:
in the North Sea, where visibility is frequently bad. Battle ranges were expected to be in the 10,000 to 15,000 yard range. At 8,600 yards, the 28cm gun can penetrate slightly more than 18 inches of belt armor, and at 16,400, over 13 inches. Recall that I told you these ships were designed to fight
4968:
As Admiral Beatty exclaimed at Jutland, "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today.." And what I found is a common link, thin deck armour. 3 battlecrusiers went down at Jutland and the main area where weight is saved for speed on a battlecruiser is deck armour. Sir John Jellicoe
4821:
I don't recall where I read this, but someone once said something along the lines of "any warship sunk in combat had by definition insufficient armor protection." The underlying causes of a warship's loss are often highly complex, and what might seem to have been the primary problem was actually of
4805:
I don't know; that seems to be a rather simplistic assessment. Yes, these ships had weaknesses, but every single warship ever built has weaknesses. One in a million shots aren't all that uncommon. All three of the British BCs at Jutland were destroyed in a relatively small number of shots fired by
4264:
are not really battleships when one looks at and compares them to contemporary battleships of the Royal Navy, United States Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy, and they were not designed to nor intended to engage heavy ships in battle. Enough punch to drive off cruisers, but not enough punch or armour
3917:
s captain thought or knew. Visibility was terrible, and if he was under the impression that the German ships did not have radar, he might have felt he had an advantage that allowed him to attack in spite of inferior nubmers. Or perhaps the fear of being cast into a group with Milne affected the his
3790:
I very much suspect otherwise. Do you not think it sounds a bit strange to describe two "battleships" running away from a battlecruiser (your edits to the Norwegian Campaign), or to suggest that a "battleship" should not be able to outgun another battleship of similar displacement (your edit to the
3687:
Maybe we should not be using American English sources. I think it might be more appropriate to use sources from countries that had to contend with these ships, rather than the second-hand opinions of authors from countries which did not. Also, since the meaning seems to differ, perhaps we could add
3271:
The third bit (currently hidden) describing why different sources use different classifications seems to be useful. Am I right in thinking, Parsecboy, that you object to it because you believe that a single reference (of two) is not sufficient to support that block of text? Or that it was placed to
2921:
The sections in this article are a fairly short overview of the operations these ships conducted; when I wrote them, I trimmed a lot of detail that would be very relevant in the individual ship articles. That they have not yet been made comprehensive doesn't mean this article is too long or has too
2678:
Having linked that page presumably you read all the caveats (there are a lot) and know why analysing search engines results is unreliable. In any cases neutrality trumps verifiability (in this case being measured by popularity). In fact, to be honest I think that page contradicts NOR (synthesis) as
2486:
The purpose of ship class articles is to look at the class as a whole - this particularly means design, and how well the design performed. I don't see this coming through in the accounts of these ships service lives given here. Actually if I wanted a service life for each ship I would look at the
2299:
was hit in he foretop at 0417 at a range of 14,600 yards, which destroyed her main fire-control equipment and temporarily put her main armament out of action. The high-speed chase contineud fro some ninty minutes but the british destroyers gradually forced by the rough seas to drop back out of the
1230:
The US accounts for only ~5% of the world population and yet the content of the internet is largely American. Search engine surveys can never be neutral until this is counter-balanced. I agree that the specification arguments are largely pointless which is why I believe ship articles should reflect
1191:
Secondary sources are better, but I think simply counting up relevant books lacks precision. Indeed, I think that would be OR as well. What we need to be looking for are instances where authors are considering the usage/construction differences in the ships with other capital ships, not random bits
1187:
Google is no less American-centric than it was a year ago so I do not view word-searches on that medium as any kind of valid indicator of usage. Google-books is a bit better, but I don't really trust it having seen it fail to pick up words in the search box which are plainly visible in the overview
5757:
Calculation for penetration is D&Gs but Scharnhorst gunnery documents suggest the Germans thought threat from Nelson's 2048 lb penetrating the citadel started around 220hm for a 20 degree engagement off broadside, though they overestimated the MV of the weapon and 165hm for the 15"/42 probably
5649:
The entire series of debates is missing the point. Endless lists of numbers are crunched, when the issue is really that Germany was not following any of the established ship-building pattern. Other nations' fleets adhered to Mahon and disarmament treaties, and that forced their ships into very few
5583:
Marine Arsenal 02 claims the main armored deck to be 80-95 mm, not 20 to 50 mm. Scharnhorst book by Koop & Schmolke has it mostly at 80mm with small sections of 95 and 105mm around the turrets. 105mm is in front of forward (A) and rear (C) turret in direction towards the respective ships ends.
4319:
Smartstag, you're quite right to say that the battleship/battlecruiser labels aren't really designed for this particular class - hence the immensely lengthy discussions we've had about what to call them. But can we please keep talk-page discussions confined to the contents of the article and not a
4045:
Yes and no. If the sources disagree then we should understand why, particularly if it gives rise to incongruous statements in a range of articles. American editors might want to consider how they would respond if they read an article saying a cat chased two dogs or a dog climbed up a tree. This is
1607:
You're right, they were indeed faster than the Renowns. But HMS Renown appears to have been doing pretty well against both Scharnhorst & Gneisenau in their 1940 engagement : I would have expected two modern battleships to have blown Renown out of the water, rather than having their own turrets
1290:
would be better than the current title, which is a cop-out and a disservice to readers of the article. While I supported calling the ships 'battlecruisers' based on what's in the (relatively small) number of books I own which discuss these ships, 'battleships' would also be fine; it doesn't really
958:
a "Scharnhorst class warship." There has been a long-running dispute over whether these ships were battleships or battlecruisers, and I am well aware of the can of worms I've opened. I do think, however, that the article would be improved if a more "correct" title was chosen. I of course favor the
4685:
I was being sarcastic. The most famous example is Hood, but I was rather under the impression that the ships at Jutland were hit at the weakest points too. I don't understand why you think plunging fire only occurs at ranges beyond 15,000 yards. Any projectile weapon can attack a target this way,
4627:
I don't understand your point here, Wiki-Ed. I don't believe any battleships were ever lost to plunging fire either. If you're referring to Jutland, every single hit on the three British battlecruisers were under 15 thousand yards and therefore had a relatively flat trajectory. And as for the hit
3746:
The Royal Navy had to contend with these ships and the Naval Staff History written by the Historical Section at the Admiralty calls them battleships. (See: BR 1736(48)(2) Naval Staff History Second World War, Home Waters and the Atlantic, Volume II, 9th April 1940 â 6th December 1941, Historical
1571:
Support : the specifications are way below those of what would be called a battleship in 1939, they are closer to the British Repulse class battlecruisers, but do not even match their speed or armament. The results when it went one-on-one with Duke of York indicate it was not a fast battleship as
1211:
I think that if we can restrain from delving into the "but they had 11-inch guns"/"yeah, but they had heavy armor" junk, this really shouldn't be all that stressful. I also think the claim that Google is "US-centric" is spurious; "battlecruiser Scharnhorst", or the "British version", actually had
5367:
Although it is widely cited, the preserved turrets at Stevnsfortet (Danish Cold War era fortress), are not from Gneisenau. They have a low height - they are so-called "short" turrets, produced fo any planned ships. The German coastal battery at Fanø island, where they had been installed (before
5117:
It's like building a bunker with concrete reinforced walls and floors and a solid steel door but putting a wooden roof on it. All battleships have a better ratio of deck armour to every other aspect of their armour but battlecruisers have a a much more inferior ratio. Post-Jutland battlecruiser
3432:
I do not know why the British originally decided to call them battlecruisers. It was probably just a failure of intelligence (a bit like the failure to realise that German warships had radar before the war). Whatever the reason, the myth that these were battlecruisers has has been propagated
1253:
We're not talking about the entire world, we're talking about the portion of the world that speaks English as a primary language, of which the US makes up a considerable percent. These ships weren't used as battlecruisers. But even if you think commerce warfare is BC work, then we ought to have
5514:
Hellwinkel's book is a useful source - whilst derived from the work for a PhD thesis, the author seems to have read a lot of original KM records and correspondence - so giving a good insight to some decision-making. It also makes clear the value of the collaboration by French dockyard workers
5468:
I find it surprising that this article makes no mention of the repeated problems that Scharnhorst had with her superheater tubes - these caused problems on operations, e.g. the curtailment of operations in the Atlantic in March 1941. A substantial part of the time in Brest naval dockyards was
3991:
This is somewhat off-topic, but I don't think you'd make the same statement about Whitworth's decision to attack if Marschall (the German commander at the time, not LĂźtjens) had pressed the engagement. I don't know how wise it would have been to pit six 15" guns against eighteen 11" guns in a
3291:
In the section titled "Gneisenau's reconstruction", there is the following statement: "It was estimated that it would take two years to make the ship ready for service. Since this was such a long period, it was determined that it would be more efficient if during the repair work, the ship was
4959:
after the improvements indicated that the deck was still vulnerable to high-trajectory, plunging fire and this would remain a cause for concern within the Admiralty until her demise. Planned refits were afoot to further improve the deck's protection, but they were never carried out. Now, the
4740:
Yes, all projectiles follow a parabolic trajectory, but there's a difference between a slingshot projectile traveling at maybe a few score feet per second and a large-caliber artillery round traveling at over 2,000 ft/s. Plunging fire only happens with these guns as the range exceeds 15,000
1350:
but rather weakly. The present label, "warship," is too ambiguous, as it can be applied to everything between submarines and carriers, so it has to be either a battleship or a battlecruiser. The problem with "battlecruiser" is that nobody seems to know just what a battlecruiser is, or was.
3311:
Most of the articles in which these ships are mentioned are ones involving battles with the Royal Navy or RAF. Under British terminology these were and are battlecruiser but because this the articles have links the names of the class and ships good intentioned editors change the names from
2327:
by Klaus A. Maier (Author), Horst Rohde (Author), Bernd Stegemann (Author), Hans Umbreit (Author), the Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt (Contributor), P. S. Falla (Editor), Dean S. McMurray (Translator), Ewald Osers (Translator), pub Clarendon Press, 4 July 1991, ISBN: 0198228856 page
1592:
s, S&G had about a knot on them, so I don't know what you're talking about in regards to speed. Regardless, let's stay out of the realm of our interpretation of the capabilities of these ships. What sources do you have demonstrate a wider usage of "battlecruiser" over "battleship."
895:. There seems to be a strong consensus that this should be moved somewhere, and the proposed title has clearly more support than the alternative. The opposition seems to concentrate on the thought that the term "battleship" is an inaccurate one in this case, but please remember that
4954:
armour layout exposed her relatively thin deck due to the angle of the belt. Immediately after the Battle of Jutland, up to an inch of deck armour in some places was added to decrease the vulnerability of the deck to plunging fire. Tests with 15-inch shells fired at a mockup of the
3599:
That you think there is a correct determination of what they were shows a misunderstanding of how articles are developed on Knowledge (XXG). There is no "correct" view only that which is used by the sources. In a battle and one side in that battle is an English speaking nation then
4639:
s propulsion system, the shell penetrated through the thin upper citadel and then struck a vertical portion of the armored deck; it did not plunge through the horizontal section. You'd probably need at least a 10-inch thick piece of armor where the shell hit to have kept it out.
4030:
This conversation shows exactly why we have a policy of "no original research". There are too many details that most of us aren't aware of. Trying to come up with our own interpretation of historical fact on a Knowledge (XXG) talk page is likely to lead to error and confusion...
3356:
is a bit of a red herring as "battlecruiser" and "battleship" both exist in all versions of the English language. The question is only about which is the "right" one for these particular ships. There is not really a "right answer" and I see no value in re-opening this debate....
1231:
usage. If a battlecruiser is converted into an aircraft carrier we call it an aircraft carrier because that's what it is used for, even if it has some design specifications equivalent to that of another ship class. If a battleship is converted into and used as a battlecruiser...
4594:
That gave me a chuckle. Plunging fire only becomes an issue when the range exceeds (very broadly) 15-20 thousand yards. Engagements are very rarely fought at these ranges, and most hits are well within the limit. Under the threshold, shell trajectories are essentially flat.
4214:
battleships, while large and heavily armoured, were never intended to stand and fight British battleships. They were to use their speed to disengage in the face of heavy surface ships. Their guns and armour however, could see them drive light, heavy and battlecruisers off.
4902:
The citadel of a ship is the converging/overlapping point of the thick belt armour, the deck armour, the barbettes, the turret and the conning tower. The citadel protects the main magazines, the boilers and the 'heart' of the ship (captains' bridge, fire control etc). The
5213:
It seems to me that a hatnote to distinguish the two classes (battleship and WW1 cruiser) would be very much a good thing. It may be that to an expert in this subject the distinction is obvious, but not everyone is (and that's probably why they come to read the article).
4064:
engagement, to which you're referring in the first example), then the articles need to be fixed to explain the situation sufficiently (i.e., as Toddy has done for us here). The faults of one article should not impact another, nor should they be used as a justification.
3688:
the word "battlecruiser" to the list of English word variations like harbour/harbor, colour/color, and aluminium/aluminum. Warships in the US sphere of influence could use American definitions, warships in British spheres of influence could use British definitions. :)
2190:"At 9.00 p.m. the night before the commander-in-chief of the German fleet had reached the entrance to the Vest Fiord, where he sent the destroyers on to Narvik while setting a north-westerly course with the two battleships. On the morning of 9 April he encountered the
4857:
had theories abut the right way to use sea-power, which he wrote in the late 1880s, at time when his nation did not have a single battleship in service. According to Mahan's theories, the right thing to do is to use fleets of battleships to gain command of the sea.
5634:) that is uses. Where sources conflict, the article content is decided by consensus among the contributing editors. If this user wants to initiate a discussion on this talk page, first read the discussions shown above and then start a new section here on the issue.
5625:
The debate over whether these ships were battleships or battlecruisers has been resolved by the article stating both classifications. This follows the sources cited by the article. Garzke and Dulin is, for instance, one respected source that uses "battlecruiser".
4716:
I gathered a much - I didn't understand your point. I've studied Jutland in particular in great detail. All three battlecruisers lost were destroyed by relatively flat-trajectory shell hits on the turrets or barbettes (as far as eyewitnesses, etc. can tell us) -
5509:"Although this work was deliberately carried out at a slow pace, in the opinion of the Scharnhorstâs commander, Kapitän zur See Kurt Caesar Hoffmann, it was âbetter than anything that the yards at Kiel and Wilhelmshaven could have been able to do at this time.â"
1756:
s, which the French designated as fast battleships. Something else to consider: when the Germans designed ships in the 1930s they themselves labeled battlecruisers, they did so generally along the traditional British lines of big guns and little armor (see the
3351:
I don't see that anything has changed from the lengthy discussions in January 2008 and September 2009 which resulted in the current name. There are of course redirects in place from the many possible alternative names so there is no risk of any disruption.
2614:
As far as I can see in the recent discussion not one person listed a published source which referred to the class as "battlecruisers", compared to the number of sources which use "battleship". Another source which refers to them as "battleships": Breyer's
5090:
I understand the areas the German ships were intended to operate in and I understand that ranges would be close, but the fact remains, British and German ships did encounter each other at extreme ranges and when they could, they opened fire, just like the
4654:
Oh, and by the way, thesmartstag, capital ships' turrets generally allow for depression to around 5 to 10 degrees below the horizontal. And another thing; the first H-class battleship design (the one envisioned in Plan Z) was essentially a slightly larger
3259:
As predicted this didn't go away. We seem to have a three way edit war going on over the wording of the classification paragraph. I think there a few contentious bits (currently) at the start and end of the second paragraph (which is currently hidden).
3970:
class cruiser. (Harr, p308) CinC Home Fleet later commented that the action "confirmed the experience of that of the River Plate, namely that the enemy has little liking for close action and his morale deteriorates rapidly if the ship is hit." (Harr
1626:
tells us quite explicitly that the threshold for inclusion is that which is verifiable, not what is necessarily true? To paraphrase, your assertion is that the ships were indeed battlecruisers, but most sources label them battleships. To use the title
5533:
separate article about the machinery itself. However, my sense of it was that the KM used steam pressures and temperatures that were just beyond the capability of then current metallurgy and technology. See the final chapter, "Conclusions", in Koop's
5251:
I would have to disagree with you. The policy (indeed one of the references you point to) states "Disambiguation hatnotes are intended to link to separate topics that could be referred to by the same title". In this case they can be, and in fact are:
4914:
guns shows that at a range of 7,900m, the shell is hitting at an angle of 4.4 degrees. That angle of impact increases as the range increases. At it's maximum range of 27,000m, you are looking at an imapct angle of 30 degrees. And at this range, the
3929:
What we do know is what reliable, specialist sources call these two ships, and as was demonstrated in the last discussion, the clear majority of them use "battleship" rather than "battlecruiser." That's really the only point that needs to be made.
4947:, you're looking at an impact angle of 10-13 degress. Shallow, but not flat and a chance at a glancing blow on the deck. That angle could also see a shell deflecting off of thicker turret or conning tower armour and being redirected to the deck.
4210:-All German capital ships were built with the intended role of operating as commerce raiders. The Kriegsmarine could never have hoped to match the Royal Navy and so adopted the doctrine of focusing their attacks on commerce fleets. Thus, even the
3703:
This isn't a case of spelling variation, or cherry picking sources. Using the RN as the sole naming source for a German ship, disregarding both Kriegsmarine and US Navy classification gives undue weight to that viewpoint. The WP article for the
5602:
puts it between 80-110 mm. Maybe it was slightly thicker at a certain point. Interesting, that both German and English Wikipadia states, that the armor was "20-105 mm" or "50-95". Would it not be better to give it that way: "20-50 plus 50-105
4818:, I seem to think the shell that hit below the waterline failed to explode, but if it had, it would have destroyed her as well, as it had come to rest against one of the magazines (I could be remembering this wrong, so don't quote me on that).
5796:
Groener initially published his book in 1936, and he had access to official German records (i.e., the primary sources you value most). The book has been updated and revised a number of times, including the one cited in the article from 1990.
5817:
2,800 tons of fuel is not the designed capacity, it's the quantity carried at design or construction displacement condition which is is given as 25-50% of bunkage depending on class this is noted in notes and abbreviations prolog groner ix.
1182:
Big sigh. Can we not leave it as it is? We reached a compromise and though both parties might dislike the outcome, it's better than having repeated debates and page moves, which is what will continue to happen if either party gets its way.
1608:
knocked out. So IMHO in terms of combat capabilities they were truly excellent battlecruisers, but Germany called them battleships for its own reasons and most sources appear to have followed the official line of calling them battleships.
953:
Although I agreed to the current compromise name that was established over a year ago, I've come to view it as highly problematic. Our naming conventions instruct us to use titles that are common in English usage; no one would ever call
735:
624:
5338:
No one is blindly following policy - hatnotes and other banners at the top of articles are distracting, and if they are not necessary, there's no reason to clutter an article with them. In any case, have a good day and happy editing.
348:
5781:
by the newest secondary sources. Also if we are to take Groner it should be read correctly it doesn't say the belt forward of A turret is 150mm it says the transverse bulkhead is 150mm likewise the aft transverse bulkhead is 200mm
751:
628:
546:
528:
3371:
I agree with The Land, this has been discussed extensively, and lead through several torturous classifications until finally it was decided to return to the simple designation that was used by both the US and German navies. Using
3267:
The second bit... I don't actually see a problem in citing an entire book if the consistent usage throughout that book is the point of the argument; the assertion itself (i.e. that there is mixed usage) is not contentious surely?
5106:
s deck put it in a dangerous position. They did maneuver to close in, but you are risking yourself when sending a battleship with relatively thin decks up against a full-fledged battleship, especially when closing the distance.
5188:
The Royal Navy referred to the G3s as battlecruisers because at the time they called ships that had a top speed of over 24 knots battlecruisers. Their deck armor was 8 inches in the citadel, the same as the N3 battleships. The
164:
789:
3841:-class' battlecruiser was correctly identified, but as some of the destroyers also opened fire, their muzzleflashes made LĂźtjens believe there ws more than one heavy ship to the south-west. From the first identification of a
5856:
4519:
The main batteries of capital warships fire plunging shot. By design, the guns of capital ships cannot depress far enough to fire flat. This makes thick deck armour neccessary if you are to stand and engage equal ships. The
2854:
The number of google books results is irrelevant. Searching "Invincible class battleship" gives 4,900 results on Google books while searching "Invincible class battlecruiser" gives only 3,950. Are we also going to call the
3576:
The better solution would be to correct those article where the ships are misidentified as battlecruisers to reflect the consensus developed here after years of discussion. We don't want the tail wagging the dog here.
3547:
Germans had them as BB, US Navy ,too; just RN as BC. That's a 2:1 for BB (or 1:1 if you stick to important english sources). No need to change this again just because the RN classified them as such while others didn't.
2508:
Respectively, only members of the wikiprojects are allowed to assess articles, and this article does meet the B-Class requirements. I'm sure your suggestions will be taken into account for future expansion/improvement.
3895:
And what did the Captain of the Renown think? That he was facing two inflatable dinghies? He knew how much support he had and if he thought he was facing two battleships one would think he would decline to chase them.
1751:
While I would prefer to avoid getting into these things too much, I'll try to address some of your points. These ships are generally acknowledged (at least from my readings anyway) to have been designed to counter the
834:
363:
1132:
I also ask, for the purpose of keeping things organized, that editors who wish to post their comments in a separate sub section (as I and Wiki-Ed have done) to keep them above the general discussion section. Thanks.
5469:
occupied with fitting new tubes made of better quality material. This in turn made the ships a target for the RAF for a longer period of time, and the ongoing repairs prevented involvement with Bismarck's breakout.
719:
620:
5727:
It's stated in MJ Whitley's German Capital ships of WW2 pg 38 "Vertical protection consisted of a main belt 4.5m deep extending between frame 10 and 185.7, which was 320mm KV armour (not 350mm as often quoted)."
4248:. Once again, they followed the trend of packing guns to deal with smaller or equal sized ships and the speed to run away from heavier ships and once again, everything points to commerce raiding. The presence of
2304:
reached a speed of some 28 knots the heavy head-on seas meant that above 24 knots the two foremost turrets of the chasing British battle-cruiser became submerged by the high seas and unable to fire. At 0434 the
5172:
All pre-Jutland warship designs had thin deck armor, not just battlecruisers. Even many post-Jutland, many ships lacked adequate deck armor. As I said above, Bill Jurens states that computer models show that
2198:
which knocked out the fire control in her topmast. A further hit caused a leak in turret A which led to the failure of all electrical equipment. A leak without hit also caused the failure of turret A on the
784:
636:
5650:
very narrow lanes. Germany (after WWI) did not follow Mahon, and while the pockets nominally followed a treaty, even they were so far outside normal patterns that a new type name had to be invented for them.
2769:
called these ships "Scharnhorst class warships"; it's always either battleship or battlecruiser. That we couldn't come to an agreement the last time around doesn't mean we should have just made up a title.
767:
632:
4442:
That's what we did with the move request 2 years ago that resulted in the current location. Unless there was a titanic shift in the world of naval history, I don't know why this was even brought back up.
3264:
if someone could reproduce the relevant section of the Staff History source to see if it really supports the assertion (Google books does not provide a full preview). If not then we should remove it.
3451:). Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines emphasise the publishing what is in verifiable reliable sources with a preference for English language sources and not what editors think is the truth. --
5901:
3334:
4536:
impressive belt armour, it's thin deck armour severely compromises the effectiveness of the ships citadel. 14 and 15-inch shells raining down on her would've posed a very dangerous situation. The
3465:
Curiously, more RSes describe the ships as battleships as was proved in the last discussion, and your first statement (lightly armed and fast...) seems to be your opinion as to what the truth is.
2945:
would be seriously remiss if it failed to adequately discuss the ship's participation at Jutland, regardless of the fact that the relevant section duplicates information from the battle article.
2757:
1113:
be discussing the capabilities or characteristics of the ships, how they were employed, how they were designed, or anything that isn't towards establishing primary usage. All the rest of that is
1937:
had been rebuilt just before the war, increasing the effectiveness of her main armament. "It was now blowing a full gale, with mountainous seas and sudden curtains of snow or rain. At 0405 the
5568:
There is no mention of the 95 mm thick horizontal plates, called on the drawing âPanzerdeckâ. It seems to be the âmain armor deckâ. The âslopesâ are attached to this, not to the 50 mm ones. --
4404:
are battlecruisers as well, because they were used as commerce raiders and were ordered to outrun equal opponents if the situation arose. On the other hand, when the Germans actually designed
2751:
5448:
That's my understanding as well - there's a previous diff that introduced both American and British spellings (in the same edit, oddly enough) but that edit standardized on American English.
4923:. I can't imagine this trend being any different for other naval guns, with probability of larger guns actually being able to pierce more armour. During the Battle of the Denmark Strait, the
4252:
in their English title is a misnomer as it is highly doubtful that the Germans would've seen them as battleships if they were reluctant to use their larger ships as conventional battleships.
4802:
based on the accounts of survivors (I'm guessing so because they provide several quotes from crew members during the engagement, so they had to have talked to somebody who was on the ship).
3333:
this is why I don't bother editing Wikipediea any more. It is simply beyond argument that Scharnhorst was a battleship and any doubt as to this exists only in the minds of ignorant people.
3881:
thought that there might have been a third British capital ship (pages 313-4)}. Given his orders to avoid battle with superior opponents if possible, running was the right thing to do.--
5664:
Not sure how all this should map to the article. The interims solution of calling them "capital ships" is certainly pretty clumsy. That is secondary however, the important thing is for
2408:
Some articles have one version in the infobox and another in the text, and knowing where information comes from is a problem. It is therefore better to have citations in both places.--
1295:
which would allow the result of evenly-weighted discussions like this to be decided through random chance, but I'd be happy to do the honours with one of the coins on my computer desk.
4568:
they had to be able to disengage and run. Could they stand and fight? Yes. Could Germany afford to? No. Germany adopted a policy of attacking merchant shipping. Only once the proposed
5157:
I have enjoyed this debate, I really have, it will likely go in circles and I may upset people, I may already have, by once again opening this can, so I'll put it to rest on my side.
4965:
opening fire once their guns were at their maximum range, placing emphasis on deck armour. Either way you look at it, deck armour is a vital component of a ships overall protection.
158:
3977:
be a more appropriate comparison if the admiral had thought he was facing a German battleship. He made the correct assessment of the enemy capabilities, unlike Holland a year later.
3862:
had lost her main director (which hampered her ability for long-range fire and could only be repaired in port) and her A turret was out of action (see pages 310-11 and 313), and the
5931:
5125:
s being a good example, were intended to have significantly heavier deck armour, almost approaching battleship territory, yet it was referred to as a battlecrusier. The proposed US
2765:
All told, you have about a 1,000 references to the ships as BBs, and about half as many as BCs. As for the previous title, it's just another example of a bad compromise. No one has
4462:, it did in fact have equal or superior armour in most departments, but there is one crucial area that may dispell it's credentials as a true battleship; thickness of deck armour.
3433:
through English language sources because one book copies another. Since we know that the Germans classed them as battleships, there seems no point propagating a myth any longer.--
2745:
4868:(I realise that some editors will argue with the classification of 1870s-80s ships. All I will say was that in the late-1880s the British classified such ships as battleships.)--
5054:
nothing to do with their loss and was simply a bullshit story cooked up by Beatty and Jellicoe to cover up their own failure to ensure proper ammunition handling in their ships.
2739:
5941:
5926:
5906:
55:
3626:, if an Alabaman had written the first draft. Also, you're stretching the extent of national ties. They cover the items of a country (in this case, it would be wrong to write
662:
5891:
283:
5936:
4613:
lost to plunging fire. Especially not the Scharnhorst which wasn't struck at 19,000m by the Duke of York and slowed down just as it was about to escape over the horizon.
4244:, or 'armoured ships'. But, because they were considerably smaller than battleships and battlecruisers while carrying relatively heavy guns, the British labelled them as
1701:
Best thing to do would be to use the direct translation of the German designation - They were after all German ships - looking at German wikipedia they are refered to as
5861:
4284:
I sometimes wonder if the ships speed were slower there would have been any question of battleship vs. battlecruiser. In any event, it makes an interesting discussion!
2309:
received two further hits, one of which put of of action her 'A' turret, but gradually the two German battle-cruisers drew out of sight in the snow and rain squals and
3418:
I agree; while I tend to prefer 'battlecruiser', the current article name was the result of extensive discussion over a prolonged period, so we should leave it as is.
5563:
by 105 mm (4.1 in) thick slopes on either longitudinal side. The slopes connected to the lower edge of the main belt, an arrangement referred to as the "turtle deck."
4256:
It seems one will never name German warships in a way that keeps everyone happy. I know their intended roles have little bearing on how they are named here, but the
4150:
prefer battlecruiser, I agree completely. The "Scharnhorst class warship" title really was a cop out and its good that the article was moved to its current title.
2116:
5921:
2140:
Difference in time - explanation, quotation from Barnett uses British time, which was evidently one hour ahead of German time used in the 10 September version.
90:
4729:, the cause of her loss is still unclear, and may not have involved plunging fire at all; I recommend Bill Juren's excellent analysis of her destruction from
2490:
This article has become over-reliant on one source. Yes I know you can look it up on Google books - but that is not a reason for ignoring everything else.
2015:
picked up a contact; both ships went to battle stations. Half an hour later, muzzle flashes were observed, from what turned out to be the old battlecruiser
5916:
5911:
5511:
Hellwinkel, Lars. Hitler's Gateway to the Atlantic: German Naval Bases in France 1940-1945 (Kindle Locations 633-635). Seaforth Publishing. Kindle Edition.
839:
201:
2837:
No. Definitely not. The subject of battlecruiser vs battleship terminology is even discussed, unlike most sources quoted here. It looks quite deliberate.
563:
511:
5896:
5851:
3376:
as a reason to undo this would introduce inaccuracy rather than correcting it. The article is on the path to FA status; lets not take a step backward.
4164:
The sources also fall under the spell of essentialism. It's easier to use a known label than to explain the reader why usual categories do not apply.--
1949:
twice again at 0434 and knocked out a forward turret. However the weather itself was on the side of the German ships as Whitworth was later to recall:
5951:
5320:
I remain unconvinced, and cannot agree with your reading of the policy (nor, actually, with blindly following policy when the alternative is useful -
3853:, only one battleship was sighted, while at the start of the encounter it was believed there might be 'one or two further targets' behind." (page 310)
925:â The German navy referred to these ships as battleships, while the British called them battlecruisers. The current compromise title is an example of
657:
615:
5871:
2248:
off Narvik at 18,000 yards steaming at 24 knots in very bad weather. Spray interfered with shooting, but hits observed. Enemy using after guns hit
501:
1375:). I disagreed with this rather cumbersome compromise back in 2008, and for this, and the other reasons cited above, heartily support the move to
96:
5946:
2394:...aren't necessary when the same information is present in the text of the article and are cited there. It's the same as with the introduction.
1498:
I had forgotten to include a section on this issue when I overhauled the article the other day. If anyone wants to write one up, go right ahead.
1064:
5031:, which had a side belt of 13 inches. My point is, the 28cm gun could defeat the armor of the intended opponent at any range under 16,400 yards.
1079:
3503:"seems to be your opinion" No I was answering the question "I do not know why the British originally decided to call them battlecruisers." --
2064:
might make a torpedo attack prompted the German commander to break off the engagement. By 07:15, the German ships had escaped from the slower
1060:
259:
5876:
4233:-The Kriegsmarine's objective was to always attempt breakouts into the Atlantic shipping lanes and never to draw out and engage enemy ships.
2972:
1117:
and is strictly forbidden. I ask that whatever admin who eventually closes this discussion take this into consideration when the time comes.
666:
333:
2986:
2980:
1075:
477:
5886:
4165:
179:
41:
903:
advise to use the name that is most commonly used in English-language sources, and it looks like the proposed title meets this criterion.
3630:
in American English), but they do not cover items that came into some sort of contact with a country. If it was as you claim, how should
146:
5819:
5782:
5394:
4919:
could penetrate 76mm of deck armour, more than enough to penetrate it's own deck and ample enough to test the deck of the battlecruiser
1680:
There are two problems with that: first, that's a made-up media term. Second, no one ever called them that; it only ever applied to the
1667:
5841:
3338:
3196:
567:
5866:
5762:
5672:
4572:
had been completed, could the Kriegsmarine hope to engage the Royal Navy in pitched battle. All vessels planned for the completion of
3618:
No, it doesn't. ENGVAR is for things like "tire" and "tyre." If it was as you suggest, we might have ended up with an article titled
2527:
2157:
s main gunnery control system was knocked out. Original says yes. 10 September version does not mention it - presumably meaning no.
1457:
The objection is not just the judgement of wikipedia editors; Perhaps you should read more widely. Clearly some naval architects who
1413:; anyway these people are not naval architects who have studied the designs in detail, so their judgement is just inexpert opinion.--
247:
241:
110:
5729:
5698:
4114:
2494:
2366:
2344:
2265:
2233:
1992:
3078:
896:
115:
31:
2823:
on 9 April 1940, when it was the A turret. Perhaps Garzke and Dullin referring to them as battlecruisers is another such error.--
5881:
5492:
The KM's newest HP steam plants had a lot of problems that impacted KM operations and it seems appropriate to make mention of it.
4885:
The "battlecruiser" concept wasn't invented until 20 years after Mahan was writing so that shouldn't come as much of a surprise.
4427:
I think that it would be best if everyone provided sources for their comments here and focused on proposed edits to the article.
3316:
it would cause less disruption/inaccuracies to the project if these articles were under battlecruiser rather than battleship. --
2596:
1168:
1090:
918:
5237:. The titles are not ambiguous (as Knowledge (XXG) uses the term), merely related. Hatnotes are therefore not appropriate here.
2800:
Garzke and Dullin, however, refer to them as battlecruisers, although acknowledging that the German designation was Battleship.
468:
429:
85:
5110:
The Royal Navy added nearly 5,000 tons of weight and proposed a further upgrade and more weight that would essentially rob the
1628:
1565:
1102:
5274:
ambiguous (as Knowledge (XXG) defines the term), since there are two classes of warship named after Gerhard (and which is why
5114:
of one of her strongpoints, speed. The concept of the battlecruiser was to use speed to run, why erode that as a 'cover up'.
4999:
Hitler was grandiose and whether these would have been possible is unknown, but the Japanese built ships with 18-inchers, the
4725:
is an excellent place to start. You can also read the wiki articles on the ships - the editor did a very thorough job. As for
2325:
Germany and the Second World War: Volume 2: Germany's Initial Conquests in Europe: Germany's Initial Conquests in Europe Vol 2
2183:
Germany and the Second World War: Volume 2: Germany's Initial Conquests in Europe: Germany's Initial Conquests in Europe Vol 2
1086:
900:
404:
140:
5846:
5256:". For me as a non-expert these titles are very much ambiguous, and the presence of a dab page suggests that I am not alone.
3609:
3567:
3508:
3456:
3407:
3321:
2604:
1828:
1793:
571:
4576:
would entail the construction of ships larger and more suited to pitched battles than those that were currently in service.
3869:
From LĂźtjens's point of view, the engagement was not going well and he was not sure what he was facing but thought it was a
1952:
at high speed. It is noteworthy that the Germans always jinked when they saw our salves fired, thus throwing us out of line.
1098:
554:
534:
76:
5050:
Yes, Beatty was referring to his ships' tendency to explode after hits on their turrets and barbettes. Thin deck armor had
4969:
himself focused on deck armour being of serious concern on his battlecrusiers after the battle, hence the reworking of the
4865:
The German ideas of the 1920s-40s for the use of battleships are similar to the German and Italian ideas of the 1870s-80s.
4748:, Garzke & Dulin have an excellent diagram showing the trajectory of the shell that damaged the engines on page 172 of
1945:
s main gunnery control system, which persuaded the enemy to run for it. In the stern chase now ensuing, Whitworth hit the
3830:"The sighted ship was less than twenty kilometre away, but in the murk it was first identified as a tanker and then as a '
2931:
2080:
1664:
1038:
959:
battleship designation, though if consensus turns to calling them battlecruisers, I'd take that over the current title.
136:
5515:(though, to defend them, if they were not working in Brest, they would have been conscripted and sent to Wilhelmshaven.)
3631:
2927:
1376:
1327:
1316:
922:
892:
35:
3728:
Moreover, this isn't the British Knowledge (XXG), and national ties to a topic only go so far. Heck, as is pointed out
3018:
2694:
2291:
with the British destroyers joining in with their 4.7-inch guns but to little effect at the extreme ranges of firing.
1872:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
1556:
1360:
1053:
882:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
289:
5627:
1034:
1528:
1581:
1341:
1049:
186:
5639:
5521:
5482:
3619:
1492:
1394:
1255:
196:
3044:
1259:
120:
5654:
any ship not following strict established patterns was told by his boss to put the Scharnhorsts in a type folder.
3705:
3605:
3563:
3504:
3452:
3403:
3317:
2628:
2600:
1548:
1451:
1432:
Naval Staff History Second World War, Home Waters and the Atlantic, Volume II, 9th April 1940 â 6th December 1941
1422:
5069:
I focus on deck armour as it is something in common between British battlecruiser designs prior to the proposed
4806:
shells that hit the turrets or barbettes, which account for a very small percentage of the ship's surface area.
2968:
849:
210:
5691:
The belt armour of the Scharnhorst class battleship was the same 320mm plate as the following Bismarck class.
4169:
4006:"LĂźtjens was acting Commander-in-Chief of the Fleet because Admiral Marschall was on sick leave." (Harr p459)--
2632:
1552:
1334:, and IMO the native/original designation takes precedence, but the Google search further reinforces the case.
5180:
s deck armor was at or close to the maximum thickness for ideal horizontal protection. Specifically, he says:
1292:
410:
293:
272:
5823:
5786:
5398:
2915:
1941:
opened fire with her 15-inch guns at a range of about 15,000 yards. Twelve minutes later she knocked out the
5766:
5373:
3091:
The sources seem to cover the controversial material in section 1, so I removed someone's citation template.
2923:
1908:
1742:
1671:
661:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
5733:
5702:
5694:
5390:
1156:
5676:
5608:
5573:
5166:
5162:
5016:
5012:
4877:
4588:
4584:
4436:
4274:
4270:
2624:
1544:
1356:
152:
5193:
s were not all that heavily armored - their belt was initially only 7 inches and increased to 9 in 1918.
66:
5671:
The world is complicated. In this case, Knowledge (XXG) is trying to make it too easy to understand. --
5635:
5517:
5478:
4405:
4118:
3806:
3627:
2882:
2856:
2498:
1758:
476:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
229:
5369:
4752:. It may be available for viewing on Google Books. If not, I can scan and email it to you if you like.
2805:
1488:
81:
1021:
Names of these battleships commemorate those of two cruisers sunk at the Battle of Falkland Islands...
5658:
5329:
5261:
5219:
2935:
2338:
British Battleships , Warrior 1860 to Vanguard 1950 , A History of Design , Construction and Armament
2227:
British Battleships , Warrior 1860 to Vanguard 1950 , A History of Design , Construction and Armament
1524:
1164:
5291:
5230:
5129:
battlecruisers were also extremely heavily armoured and both were 10,000 tons heavier and upwards.
1409:
of some wiki-editors is that they were below the standards of a 1939 battleship. This objection is
297:
251:
17:
5802:
5718:
5453:
5344:
5299:
5242:
5198:
5059:
4854:
4831:
4810:
had her rear turrets burnt out at Dogger Bank and Jutland with similar hits, and as I noted above,
4757:
4664:
4645:
4448:
4413:
4070:
3997:
3935:
3737:
3639:
3522:
3470:
2950:
2911:
2801:
2775:
2702:
2669:
2579:
2428:
2399:
1766:
1689:
1636:
1613:
1598:
1588:
The only specification I see as being lower than contemporary BBs is the main armament. As for the
1577:
1503:
1484:
1338:
1267:
1217:
1138:
1122:
934:
172:
4907:
citadel is uncomparable to any other contemporary battleship in that it has a glaring weak point.
4132:. We ought to reflect reliable sources, the majority of which prefer battleship to battlecruiser.
3601:
3373:
3353:
3313:
3186:
2796:
Jane's Fighting Ships 1942, again describes them as Battleships. This is a wartime British source.
2661:
2477:
the decision to use 28cm guns instead of 38cm guns, and how these compared with British 38cm ships
5542:
5497:
4325:
4297:
4036:
3721:
3623:
3590:
3389:
3362:
3297:
1822:
1787:
1738:
1714:
1392:
1149:
Janes Fighting Ships, 1940/41/42/43/44/45 Edition p.144: Classifies Scharnorst and Gneisenau as
855:
215:
5630:
needs to realise that Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia that is based on the reliable sources (
1572:
intended or hoped. The article itself describes them as effectively enlarged Deutschland class.
3849:-class battlecruiser, Kapitän zur See Netzbandt also believed there might be two enemies. From
5604:
5589:
5569:
5414:
5275:
5253:
5158:
5008:
4890:
4792:
4691:
4618:
4580:
4310:
4266:
4051:
3982:
3901:
3796:
3693:
3553:
3277:
2842:
2815:
Garzke and Dullin contain a number of errors - for instance claiming that the after turret on
2684:
2651:
2620:
2363:
2341:
2262:
2230:
2016:
1989:
1930:
1924:
1540:
1519:
Current title is quite ridiculous, and "battleship" seems to be most widely used in sources.--
1466:
1410:
1352:
1236:
1201:
908:
62:
5234:
5007:, so Germany could've at the least built ships of comparable size and maybe slightly larger.
3447:
Lightly armed and fast (the were not in the same league as contemporary battleships like the
3135:
2901:
A lot of detail here that should only be in the relevant ship's article or the Battle article
4873:
4432:
4155:
4011:
3886:
3814:
3752:
3671:
3438:
3423:
2939:
2828:
2564:
2516:
2446:
2413:
2380:
1850:
1447:
1418:
1300:
851:
815:
212:
5321:
3210:
2541:
2.a. Factually accurate - maybe, there are differences between sources that need resolving
2218:
was able to reach the two battleships and enter the Jade with them on 13 April at 8 p.m.".
2194:, which opened fire on the German ships are 5.07 a.m. and after 18 minutes scored a hit on
1958:
up to 29 knots, the two German ships had disappeared from view amid the squalls by 0660 ."
5827:
5806:
5790:
5770:
5737:
5722:
5706:
5680:
5643:
5612:
5593:
5577:
5546:
5525:
5501:
5486:
5457:
5442:
5418:
5402:
5377:
5348:
5333:
5325:
5303:
5270:
That's not how Knowledge (XXG) defines the term "ambiguous", however. "Scharnhorst class"
5265:
5257:
5246:
5223:
5215:
5202:
5063:
4894:
4835:
4796:
4761:
4695:
4668:
4649:
4622:
4604:
4600:
4452:
4417:
4408:, they did so along traditional British lines (i.e., large guns, relatively light armor).
4329:
4314:
4299:
4191:
4187:
4173:
4159:
4141:
4137:
4122:
4074:
4055:
4040:
4015:
4001:
3986:
3939:
3905:
3890:
3818:
3800:
3756:
3741:
3723:
3697:
3675:
3643:
3613:
3592:
3571:
3557:
3526:
3512:
3474:
3460:
3442:
3427:
3411:
3391:
3366:
3342:
3325:
3301:
3281:
2954:
2894:
2890:
2875:
2846:
2832:
2809:
2779:
2706:
2688:
2673:
2655:
2636:
2608:
2583:
2574:
Generally, the "Stable" requirement refers to edit-wars, not improvements to the article.
2568:
2520:
2502:
2450:
2432:
2417:
2403:
2384:
1854:
1835:
1800:
1770:
1746:
1718:
1693:
1675:
1640:
1617:
1602:
1520:
1507:
1470:
1304:
1271:
1240:
1221:
1205:
1160:
1142:
1126:
938:
912:
5631:
4179:
3064:
2881:
Your argument is more than a little flawed, if only because you are forgetting about the
2048:
gunnery radar suffered technical problems, which prevented her from effectively engaging
1863:
1330:. I would vote for that either way since it is the translation of the native German term
1114:
873:
5758:
not valid for inclusion in the article but posted as I found it interesting comparison.
3834:-class battleship - very long bow section and bridge structure well astern'." (Page 309)
3805:
Relevant quotes from the Naval Staff History describing this engagement can be found at
2474:
Whilst there is good coverage of what the armament was, there is almost no coverage of:
853:
214:
5798:
5714:
5449:
5438:
5340:
5295:
5238:
5194:
5055:
4827:
4753:
4660:
4641:
4444:
4409:
4066:
3993:
3931:
3733:
3635:
3518:
3466:
3448:
2946:
2907:
2868:
2771:
2698:
2665:
2575:
2424:
2395:
2340:, by Dr Oscar Parkes OBE AINA, pub Seeley, 1957, republished US Naval Institute, 1990,
2229:, by Dr Oscar Parkes OBE AINA, pub Seeley, 1957, republished US Naval Institute, 1990,
1762:
1685:
1632:
1609:
1594:
1573:
1499:
1335:
1263:
1213:
1134:
1118:
930:
727:
460:
1623:
5835:
5538:
5493:
5324:). However, it doesn't matter that much to me so that's my last word on the subject.
4321:
4285:
4032:
3709:
3666:
I have taken your advice and made the correction to most articles with the 'error'.--
3578:
3377:
3358:
3293:
2279:"...the squadron turned at 0230, the 9th, snow squalls make the visibility variable."
2177:
s main gunnery control system, 10 September version says fear of British destroyers.
2077:
1816:
1781:
1710:
1380:
562:-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
2164:
was hit - a forward turret (Original version), after turret (10 September version).
5585:
5410:
4886:
4788:
4687:
4614:
4306:
4098:
4047:
3978:
3897:
3792:
3729:
3689:
3549:
3273:
2838:
2680:
2647:
1462:
1232:
1197:
904:
592:
5045:
surpassed the upper limit on S&G and did not repeat their mistake on B&T).
4943:
in the same battle was at a range of 16,650m, once again using the figures of the
4113:
between a battleship and a battlecruiser, but adding a few details from neither.--
2143:
Sea state - heavily emphasised in Original, not mentioned in 10 September version.
1109:
Let me start this discussion by reminding everyone that comes here that we should
2493:
I have recategorised this as a start article, because coverage needs improving.--
1973:
1020:
1002:
992:
975:
4869:
4428:
4151:
4007:
3882:
3810:
3748:
3667:
3434:
3419:
2824:
2560:
2511:
2442:
2409:
2376:
1920:
1845:
1443:
1414:
1296:
3955:
did not have radar, and the British did not realise that the Germans had radar.
759:
743:
4596:
4183:
4133:
2886:
450:
444:
423:
4374:
did. The conning tower and main battery turrets had the same amount of armor.
5434:
4129:
2938:) there is going to be a great deal of overlap. For example, the article on
2860:
1887:
There has been a complete rewrite of the description of the engagement with
926:
711:
5713:
No it wasn't. And please don't edit the article without providing sources.
5599:
2975:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
1483:
would be a good idea to present Garzke and Dullin's arguements about this.
1372:
5132:
I know if's and but's are worthless in an historical argument, but if the
2214:"left Trondheim on the evening of 10 April" and page 210 states that "the
1291:
matter as long as one redirects to the other. Unfortunately there isn't a
570:. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
292:. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the
4334:
Smartstag is, however, wrong almost across the board on everything else.
1814:- but I agree with Parsec's statement that the article has to be moved. â
2170:
s gunnery radar going unserviceable - not mentioned in Original version.
1405:. This is what the Germans classed them as. The objection is that the
775:
5282:
ambiguous, since there are not two classes of battleship named for him.
4990:
H-42 & H-43 - 19 inch guns and 89,000 and 109,000 tons respectively
4935:
as an example, this would indicate impact angles of 25-26 degrees. The
1901:
473:
5433:
old revision, I think this article was written in American English. --
2056:
for a brief period starting at 05:18, though effective maneuvering by
1539:. The majority of sources indicate this is the right move to make. --
4734:
4569:
3634:
be written? It was built in Britain, but fought and sunk by US Navy.
2060:
allowed her to escape undamaged. Fears that the destroyers escorting
1986:
Engage the Enemy More Closely, the Royal Navy in the Second World War
4046:
how the latest edits to related articles appear to British editors.
5857:
Knowledge (XXG) featured topics Battleships of Germany good content
4976:
And regarding the H-class ships, they would get larger and larger;
3732:, the Admiralty also occasionally referred to them as battleships.
2300:
fray. Meanwhile the battle-cruisers ploughed on, and although the
2034:
twice, but she was hit twice in return. One of these hits disabled
2026:, at a range of 11,800Â m (12,900Â yd). In the span of five minutes,
1919:
and escorting destroyers were steering due north some 50 miles off
649:
609:
5584:
95mm between forward turrets and to the rear of B and C turret. --
3992:
protracted engagement, especially when all you have is a 6" belt.
5473:
Bases in France 1940-1945. Seaforth Publishing. Kindle Edition.
3708:
is not titled Deutschland class pocket battleships, for example.
5507:
French marine engineers did a good job in replacing the repairs.
3944:
Wiki-Ed - you asked why the two German battleships ran from the
3823:
There is a good description of the engagement in a recent book:
2790:
Gerhard Koop & Klaus-Peter Schmolke - Battleship Scharnhorst
1904:
559:
4097:
This discussion is actually an excellent example for misguided
4721:
as well was almost destroyed in a similar fashion. Campbell's
2173:
Reason German ships ran for it - Original version says hit on
1974:
Navweaps.com data page for the British 15"/42 (38.1 cm) Mark I
1196:
I think we should keep it and save ourselves the wiki-stress.
1037:
hits in Google books for "battleship Scharnhorst" compared to
856:
809:
386:
216:
26:
4339:
These ships were designed specifically to counter the French
2793:
Siegfried Breyer - Die Schlachtschiffe der Scharnhorst-klasse
1843:- but I also agree that this article does have to be moved. -
1085:
Google Scholar is a dead heat: "battleship Scharnhorst" gets
3827:, by Geirr H Harr, pages 307-314. Here are some quotations:
2547:
3. Broad in its coverage - not yet, but it is getting there
2530:
in a couple of month's time, but it does not meet them now.
1461:
studied the details disagree with the German naming scheme.
774:
758:
742:
726:
710:
4544:
s have nearly 3 times the thickness. When one looks at the
3031:
you have some prose issues, most of which I fixed (I hope).
2441:
It comes about because articles get edited and re-edited.--
4104:
In this case that urge clearly fails us: The Scharnhorsts
1041:
for "battlecruiser Scharnhorst", a margin of more than 3:1
5146:
s were put to sea, there is no doubt in my mind that the
5099:
at over 24,000m and at that range, tests proved that the
4750:
Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II
2150:
receive - 3 (Original version), 2 (10 September version).
989:
Conway's All the World's Battleships: 1906 to the Present
4511:
heavy cruisers/pocket battleships - 40mm of deck armour
3918:
decision. Perhaps he thought he was engaging one of the
872:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
5430:
4359:
s). The original H-class was designed with the Russian
3399:
2553:
5. Stable - no, it underwent huge changes last weekend
2464:
963:
Sources I have that refer to these ships as battleships
326:
5657:
Sadly, writers went along with it. Human nature needs
4528:
in this area and is basically on par with the smaller
3809:. Alternatively you can buy or borrow a paper copy.--
897:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a publisher of original thought
171:
4524:
does not even compare favourably with the much older
4458:
I concur that I overlooked the armour figures of the
2885:(though that is not the only flaw of your argument).
2471:
The classification of these ships by the German navy.
2225:
received two hits in this engagement is confirmed by
1862:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
5902:
GA-Class Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) articles
1631:
is by your own admission a flagrant breach of WP:V.
472:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
5278:is a dab page), but "Scharnhorst class battleship"
4385:to tie down the escorting British battleship while
3398:Actually the article was originally under the name
693:
185:
4236:-The classification is further complicated by the
2181:To try to resolve these discrepancies I looked at
1923:, when they encountered the British battlecruiser
1063:for "battleship Scharnhorst -Knowledge (XXG)" and
4240:warships. The Germans simply referred to them as
4556:are ill-equipped to stand-off and engage them.
2786:The following sources name them as Battleships:
1962:was hit twice by the Germans in this engagement.
1775:Well, to be fair, Garzke and Dulin describe the
1078:for "battleship Gneisenau -Knowledge (XXG)" and
1067:for "battlecruiser Scharnhorst -Knowledge (XXG)"
44:for general discussion of the article's subject.
5087:s were also less than impressive in this area.
4540:had up to twice the deck armour of her and the
4515:All figures taken from Knowledge (XXG) entries.
3866:A turret was also out of action (see page 313).
2295:was hit twice but without serious damage, The
2022:. The British battlecruiser initially targeted
3562:As I said above "Most of the articles ..." --
2282:"One hour later the British Force met up with
1622:How then can you remain in your position when
1082:for "battlecruiser Gneisenau -Knowledge (XXG)"
257:If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
5932:European military history task force articles
5290:the purpose of hatnotes - that's why we have
5286:as a "see also", which is, as I have stated,
2900:
2360:Destroyer Actions, September 1939 - June 1940
2259:Destroyer Actions, September 1939 - June 1940
1003:That was what the 11-inch gunned battleships
8:
3517:Fine, though that was not abundantly clear.
3195:(images are tagged and non-free images have
2095:
2093:
675:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history
5942:German military history task force articles
5927:GA-Class European military history articles
5907:Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) articles
4128:Frankly, the old title was an example of a
3312:battlecruiser to battleship for reasons of
5892:GA-Class Operation Majestic Titan articles
5692:
5535:Heavy Cruisers of the Admiral Hipper class
5388:
4814:was almost lost to the same cause. As for
4060:If the statements appear incongruous (the
690:
604:
523:
418:
305:
224:
5937:GA-Class German military history articles
4469:battleships - up to 149mm of deck armour
3825:The German Invasion of Norway, April 1940
2617:Battleships and Battlecruisers, 1905-1970
2463:Some aspects of coverage are weaker than
2423:But that isn't the case in this article.
5862:High-importance Featured topics articles
5464:Superheater tubes failure on Scharnhorst
5409:Found them and moved to correct name. --
4490:battleships - 40-150mm of deck armour
4202:Role of the Kriegsmarine's capital ships
2723:All the World's Battleships 1906-Present
2362:, by Harry Plevy, pub Spellmount, 2006,
2261:, by Harry Plevy, pub Spellmount, 2006,
997:David Bercusson's & Holger Herwig's
655:This article is within the scope of the
4343:s (which were in turn a counter to the
3335:2A00:23C4:398A:6100:F1C1:E1BA:A794:22D2
2355:
2353:
2317:
2115:was invoked but never defined (see the
2089:
1966:
1059:Plain Google is a more of a mixed bag:
606:
525:
420:
4733:(which can be found reproduced online
1929:under the command of Vice-Admiral Sir
1724:Keep as is (Scharnhorst class warship)
1582:_Scharnhorst_class_battlecruiser": -->
974:; specifically, on page 31, it states
665:. To use this banner, please see the
5476:Is there any logic to this omission?
4548:s armament and all round armour, the
2973:Talk:Scharnhorst class battleship/GA1
2748:for "Scharnhorst class battlecruiser"
2528:Knowledge (XXG):Good article criteria
1709:therefore this is what we should use
678:Template:WikiProject Military history
7:
5922:Maritime warfare task force articles
4995:H-44 - 20 inch guns and 131,000 tons
2480:refitting these ships with 38cm guns
1192:of trivia like the Jane's quotation.
1044:A similar ratio presents itself for
736:European military history task force
552:This article is within the scope of
466:This article is within the scope of
392:
390:
18:Talk:Scharnhorst class battlecruiser
4985:H-41 - 17 inch guns and 68,800 tons
4980:H-39 - 16 inch guns and 56,400 tons
4939:fifth and final salvo fired at the
4504:- a maximum of 50mm of deck armour
4351:s were designed in response to the
3958:What did Vice Admiral Whitworth in
2760:for "Gneisenau class battlecruiser"
2107:
2085:before proceeding to Wilhelmshaven.
1665:Scharnhorst class pocket battleship
1557:_Scharnhorst_class_battleship": -->
1529:_Scharnhorst_class_battleship": -->
1493:_Scharnhorst_class_battleship": -->
1452:_Scharnhorst_class_battleship": -->
1430:I looked at a copy of the British
1423:_Scharnhorst_class_battleship": -->
1395:_Scharnhorst_class_battleship": -->
1361:_Scharnhorst_class_battleship": -->
1342:_Scharnhorst_class_battleship": -->
887:The result of the move request was
486:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Germany
409:It is of interest to the following
296:. If you can update or improve it,
34:for discussing improvements to the
5917:GA-Class maritime warfare articles
5912:GA-Class military history articles
5553:Main armor deck (95 mm, not 50 mm)
4723:Jutland: An Analysis of the Battle
4265:to exchange fire with battleships.
3858:At the end of the engagement, the
3190:, where possible and appropriate.
2742:for "Scharnhorst class battleship"
1988:, pub Hodder and Stoughton, 1991,
1954:Although at times Whitworth drove
1841:Undecided pending further research
752:German military history task force
25:
5897:Operation Majestic Titan articles
5852:GA-Class Featured topics articles
5363:Preserved Gneisenau 15 cm turrets
4931:at a range of 24,200m. Using the
2736:Some additional Google searches:
2662:accepted means to establish usage
2313:was forced to give up the chase."
2276:, accompanied by nine destroyers"
2257:The following account comes from
1089:hits, while "battlecruiser" gets
580:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Ships
250:. If you can improve it further,
61:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
5952:World War II task force articles
5628:User:Scharnhorst-Is-A-Battleship
5598:Thank you for this information.
4406:ships they called battlecruisers
4366:As Seaphoto rightly points out,
3307:Move back to class battlecruiser
3239:
3216:
3202:
3171:
3147:
3144:Fair representation without bias
3120:
3110:
3084:
3070:
3056:
3024:
3010:
2754:for "Gneisenau class battleship"
2597:Scharnhorst class warship (1936)
2590:Scharnhorst class battlecruiser
2526:This article will probably meet
1779:s as "battlecruisers" as well. â
1434:, and on page 14 that refers to
919:Scharnhorst class warship (1936)
835:Battleship/battlecruiser debates
814:
648:
608:
591:
545:
527:
453:
443:
422:
391:
271:
228:
56:Click here to start a new topic.
5872:Low-importance Germany articles
3951:As for the radar question, the
2922:much information. Compare with
2733:) classify them as battleships.
2695:Knowledge (XXG):Naming conflict
2664:, it is not original research.
2465:the version at 1629 9 September
1629:Scharnhorst class battlecruiser
1566:Scharnhorst class battlecruiser
1052:for "battleship Gneisenau" and
999:The Destruction of the Bismarck
506:This article has been rated as
5947:GA-Class World War II articles
5771:12:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
4659:class ship with 16-inch guns.
4355:s (the French response to the
3845:-class battleship and later a
3400:Gneisenau class battlecruisers
2955:20:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
2916:17:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
2847:19:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
2833:18:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
2810:12:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
2780:12:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
2707:14:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
2689:14:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
2674:13:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
2656:12:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
2637:12:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
2609:11:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
2584:09:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
2569:06:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
2521:18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
2503:17:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
2451:15:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
2433:15:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
2418:14:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
2404:14:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
2385:14:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
2252:twice, and drew out of range."
1855:05:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
1836:01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
1801:01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
1771:20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
1747:20:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
1694:12:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
1676:09:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
1641:15:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
1618:15:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
1603:12:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
1583:08:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
1558:15:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
1530:10:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
1508:15:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
1494:15:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
1471:12:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
1453:06:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
1442:as "two German battleships".--
1424:12:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
1396:02:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
1362:02:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
1343:19:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
1305:11:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
1272:14:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
1241:13:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
1222:20:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
1206:19:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
1143:19:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
1127:19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
939:18:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
929:and should be done away with.
913:19:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
238:has been listed as one of the
1:
5842:Knowledge (XXG) good articles
5613:20:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
5594:19:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
5578:18:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
5458:22:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
5443:13:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
4532:warships. In relation to the
4370:had a thicker main belt than
4320:general discussion please...
4201:
3287:Originally intended armament?
2932:German battleship Scharnhorst
1984:Page 111, Barnett, Correlli,
1256:German battlecruiser Bismarck
1056:for "battlecruiser Gneisenau"
993:Scharnhorst class battleships
480:and see a list of open tasks.
53:Put new text under old text.
5877:WikiProject Germany articles
5828:11:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
5807:18:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
5791:17:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
5681:13:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
3966:class battlecruiser and one
3343:20:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
3272:support that block of text?
3240:
3217:
3203:
3172:
3148:
3121:
3111:
3085:
3071:
3057:
3025:
3011:
2928:Scharnhorst class battleship
2240:"8 April '40 in action with
1377:Scharnhorst class battleship
1328:Scharnhorst class battleship
1317:Scharnhorst class battleship
1260:German battlecruiser Tirpitz
923:Scharnhorst class battleship
893:Scharnhorst class battleship
658:Military history WikiProject
489:Template:WikiProject Germany
279:Scharnhorst-class battleship
236:Scharnhorst-class battleship
36:Scharnhorst-class battleship
5887:All WikiProject Ships pages
5419:00:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
5403:22:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
4497:- 19 - 76mm of deck armour
4483:- 110-120mm of deck armour
4476:- 115-125mm of deck armour
4180:not our job to correct them
3767:The engagement between the
2052:. The British ship engaged
1719:21:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
991:, on page 43 lists them as
720:Maritime warfare task force
558:, a project to improve all
5968:
5349:19:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
5334:19:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
5304:18:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
5266:18:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
5247:12:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
5224:12:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
5203:11:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
5167:08:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
5118:designs, with the British
5064:11:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
5017:08:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
4895:17:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
4878:13:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
4836:11:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
4797:23:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
4762:00:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
4696:23:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
4669:17:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
4650:17:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
4632:that temporarily crippled
4623:17:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
4605:13:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
4589:14:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
4453:11:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
4437:10:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
4418:10:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
4330:10:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
4315:10:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
4300:09:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
4275:09:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
4192:11:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
4174:11:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
4160:08:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
4142:17:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
4123:16:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
4075:17:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
4056:16:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
4041:09:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
3962:think he was facing: one
3620:War of Northern Aggression
3282:21:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
2992:
2544:2.b. and verifiable - yes
2130:Garzke & Dulin, p. 157
2099:Garzke & Dulin, p. 135
1895:Original, based on Barnett
583:Template:WikiProject Ships
512:project's importance scale
5867:GA-Class Germany articles
5644:13:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
5547:22:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
5526:19:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
5502:19:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
5487:23:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
5387:Archives are Redlinked.
5229:Please read the sections
5154:would be battlecruisers.
4016:20:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
4002:18:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
3987:18:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
3940:13:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
3906:12:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
3891:17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
3819:16:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
3801:13:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
3757:09:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3742:01:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3724:00:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3698:00:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3676:21:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3644:11:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
3632:Japanese battleship KongĹ
3614:10:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
3593:23:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
3572:22:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
3558:22:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
3527:11:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
3513:10:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
3475:23:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
3461:22:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
3443:14:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
3428:22:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
3412:22:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
3392:17:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
3367:14:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
3326:11:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
2731:German Warships 1815-1945
2007:At 04:30 on 9 April, the
1812:Undecided for the mmoment
976:Laid down as battleships
972:German Warships 1815-1945
782:
766:
750:
734:
718:
689:
681:military history articles
643:
540:
505:
438:
417:
377:
308:
304:
294:Knowledge (XXG) community
91:Be welcoming to newcomers
5738:13:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
5723:11:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
5668:to be aware of all this.
5621:Battleship/battlecruiser
5378:21:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
4178:Be that as it may, it's
3302:22:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
2994:This is a nice article.
2895:23:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
2876:21:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
1869:Please do not modify it.
879:Please do not modify it.
785:Operation Majestic Titan
637:Operation Majestic Titan
5882:GA-Class Ships articles
5707:10:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
4609:No battlecruisers were
4226:where smaller than the
3791:Battle of North Cape)?
3000:reasonably well written
2924:Kaiser class battleship
2693:In that case, consider
1705:Battleship rather than
1286:In short, I think that
768:World War II task force
694:Associated task forces:
566:, or contribute to the
5383:Archives are Redlinked
4559:No, I don't think the
3926:s. We will never know.
3604:comes into effect. --
3255:Classification section
3209:(appropriate use with
2538:1. Well written - yes
2076:rendezvoused with the
949:Statement by Parsecboy
779:
763:
747:
731:
715:
399:This article is rated
284:Battleships of Germany
86:avoid personal attacks
5847:Warfare good articles
4731:Warship International
4579:I apologise The Land.
4389:destroyed the convoy.
3948:, and I answered you.
3807:User:Toddy1/Sandbox 5
3628:HMS Duke of York (17)
3184:It is illustrated by
3136:neutral point of view
3100:broad in its coverage
2679:well, but nevermind.
2556:6. Illustrated - yes
2459:Review September 2009
2210:Page 211 states that
1759:O class battlecruiser
1101:for "battleship" and
778:
762:
746:
730:
714:
403:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
248:good article criteria
242:Warfare good articles
111:Neutral point of view
4910:A quick look at the
4853:The American author
4744:As for the hit from
4377:The entire plan for
2936:Battle of North Cape
2660:Google searches are
2111:The named reference
2002:10 September Version
1909:Operation WeserĂźbung
1879:The engagement with
1178:Statement by Wiki-Ed
364:Good topic candidate
349:Good topic candidate
334:Good article nominee
116:No original research
4927:opened fire on the
4467:King George V-class
3910:We don't know what
3246:nice job, per usual
3197:fair use rationales
1282:Statement by Nick-D
1105:for "battlecruiser"
1019:states on page 144
1015:1946/47 edition of
840:Feb 2005 - Apr 2008
469:WikiProject Germany
5776:Quality of sources
4246:Pocket battleships
3624:American Civil War
3168:No edit wars, etc.
3040:factually accurate
2883:battleship of 1869
2859:a battleship now?
2758:Slightly under 200
2752:Slightly under 300
2746:Slightly under 350
2146:How many hits did
901:naming conventions
780:
764:
748:
732:
716:
663:list of open tasks
568:project discussion
405:content assessment
327:September 26, 2009
309:Article milestones
97:dispute resolution
58:
5709:
5697:comment added by
5405:
5393:comment added by
5292:see also sections
5276:Scharnhorst class
5254:Scharnhorst class
4530:Deutschland-class
4509:Deutschland-class
4238:Deutschland-class
3706:Deutschland class
3211:suitable captions
2740:Slightly over 700
2550:4. Neutral - yes
2390:Infobox citations
1931:William Whitworth
1891:on 9 April 1940.
1833:
1798:
1661:pocket battleship
1411:original research
1173:
1159:comment added by
1115:original research
862:
861:
808:
807:
804:
803:
800:
799:
796:
795:
667:full instructions
603:
602:
599:
598:
572:full instructions
555:WikiProject Ships
522:
521:
518:
517:
385:
384:
373:
372:
344:February 19, 2011
266:
223:
222:
77:Assume good faith
54:
16:(Redirected from
5959:
5636:ThoughtIdRetired
5518:ThoughtIdRetired
5479:ThoughtIdRetired
5179:
5145:
5138:
5124:
5105:
5086:
5075:
5043:
4638:
4493:- battlecruiser
4295:
4290:
4207:contemporaries.
3916:
3719:
3714:
3588:
3583:
3387:
3382:
3243:
3242:
3220:
3219:
3206:
3205:
3175:
3174:
3151:
3150:
3124:
3123:
3114:
3113:
3088:
3087:
3074:
3073:
3065:reliable sources
3060:
3059:
3028:
3027:
3014:
3013:
2872:
2864:
2370:
2357:
2348:
2335:
2329:
2322:
2272:"battle-cruiser
2160:Which turret on
2136:Key differences
2131:
2128:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2114:
2106:
2100:
2097:
2047:
2041:s after turret.
2040:
1995:
1982:
1976:
1971:
1871:
1834:
1831:
1825:
1821:
1819:
1799:
1796:
1790:
1786:
1784:
1390:
1385:
1172:
1153:
1022:
1012:
994:
985:
881:
857:
818:
810:
701:
691:
683:
682:
679:
676:
673:
672:Military history
652:
645:
644:
639:
616:Military history
612:
605:
595:
588:
587:
584:
581:
578:
564:join the project
549:
542:
541:
531:
524:
494:
493:
492:Germany articles
490:
487:
484:
463:
458:
457:
456:
447:
440:
439:
434:
426:
419:
402:
396:
395:
394:
387:
378:Current status:
329:
306:
275:
255:
232:
225:
217:
190:
189:
175:
106:Article policies
27:
21:
5967:
5966:
5962:
5961:
5960:
5958:
5957:
5956:
5832:
5831:
5815:
5778:
5748:
5689:
5623:
5557:The text says:
5555:
5466:
5427:
5385:
5365:
5211:
5177:
5143:
5136:
5127:Lexington-class
5122:
5103:
5084:
5080:. The Japanese
5073:
5041:
4816:Prince of Wales
4636:
4488:Richelieu-class
4396:By your logic,
4361:Sovietsky Soyuz
4291:
4286:
4204:
4109:with something
4095:
3914:
3781:
3779:on 9 April 1940
3715:
3710:
3584:
3579:
3383:
3378:
3309:
3289:
3257:
3133:It follows the
3107:(major aspects)
2967:This review is
2963:
2903:
2870:
2862:
2646:be discussing.
2592:
2519:
2461:
2392:
2373:
2358:
2351:
2336:
2332:
2323:
2319:
2268:, pages 115-6:
2134:
2129:
2125:
2112:
2110:
2108:
2103:
2098:
2091:
2045:
2038:
1998:
1983:
1979:
1972:
1968:
1885:
1883:on 9 April 1940
1876:
1867:
1853:
1829:
1823:
1817:
1815:
1794:
1788:
1782:
1780:
1731:
1726:
1707:Schlachtkreuzer
1703:Schlachtschiffe
1653:
1569:
1386:
1381:
1320:
1312:
1284:
1180:
1154:
1027:Google searches
970:Erich GrĂśner's
951:
946:
877:
867:
858:
852:
823:
699:
680:
677:
674:
671:
670:
618:
585:
582:
579:
576:
575:
491:
488:
485:
482:
481:
459:
454:
452:
432:
400:
359:August 25, 2011
325:
281:is part of the
219:
218:
213:
132:
127:
126:
125:
102:
72:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
5965:
5963:
5955:
5954:
5949:
5944:
5939:
5934:
5929:
5924:
5919:
5914:
5909:
5904:
5899:
5894:
5889:
5884:
5879:
5874:
5869:
5864:
5859:
5854:
5849:
5844:
5834:
5833:
5814:
5811:
5810:
5809:
5777:
5774:
5747:
5746:Armour section
5744:
5743:
5742:
5741:
5740:
5688:
5685:
5684:
5683:
5669:
5662:
5655:
5651:
5622:
5619:
5618:
5617:
5616:
5615:
5566:
5565:
5554:
5551:
5550:
5549:
5530:
5529:
5528:
5516:
5512:
5510:
5508:
5477:
5465:
5462:
5461:
5460:
5426:
5423:
5422:
5421:
5384:
5381:
5364:
5361:
5360:
5359:
5358:
5357:
5356:
5355:
5354:
5353:
5352:
5351:
5311:
5310:
5309:
5308:
5307:
5306:
5283:
5210:
5207:
5206:
5205:
5186:
5185:
5184:
5067:
5066:
5047:
5046:
5033:
5032:
4997:
4996:
4992:
4991:
4987:
4986:
4982:
4981:
4900:
4899:
4898:
4897:
4851:
4850:
4849:
4848:
4847:
4846:
4845:
4844:
4843:
4842:
4841:
4840:
4839:
4838:
4819:
4803:
4773:
4772:
4771:
4770:
4769:
4768:
4767:
4766:
4765:
4764:
4742:
4738:
4705:
4704:
4703:
4702:
4701:
4700:
4699:
4698:
4676:
4675:
4674:
4673:
4672:
4671:
4652:
4517:
4516:
4456:
4455:
4425:
4424:
4423:
4422:
4421:
4420:
4394:
4393:
4392:
4391:
4390:
4375:
4364:
4317:
4282:
4255:
4212:Bismarck-class
4203:
4200:
4199:
4198:
4197:
4196:
4195:
4194:
4166:192.166.53.202
4162:
4094:
4093:Years later...
4091:
4090:
4089:
4088:
4087:
4086:
4085:
4084:
4083:
4082:
4081:
4080:
4079:
4078:
4077:
4028:
4027:
4026:
4025:
4024:
4023:
4022:
4021:
4020:
4019:
4018:
3973:
3972:
3956:
3949:
3927:
3867:
3856:
3855:
3854:
3835:
3821:
3780:
3765:
3764:
3763:
3762:
3761:
3760:
3759:
3685:
3684:
3683:
3682:
3681:
3680:
3679:
3678:
3657:
3656:
3655:
3654:
3653:
3652:
3651:
3650:
3649:
3648:
3647:
3646:
3544:
3543:
3542:
3541:
3540:
3539:
3538:
3537:
3536:
3535:
3534:
3533:
3532:
3531:
3530:
3529:
3488:
3487:
3486:
3485:
3484:
3483:
3482:
3481:
3480:
3479:
3478:
3477:
3449:Bismarck class
3416:
3415:
3414:
3348:
3347:
3346:
3345:
3308:
3305:
3288:
3285:
3256:
3253:
3252:
3251:
3250:
3249:
3248:
3247:
3227:
3226:
3225:
3224:
3223:
3182:
3181:
3180:
3179:
3178:
3158:
3157:
3156:
3155:
3154:
3131:
3130:
3129:
3128:
3127:
3096:
3095:
3094:
3093:
3092:
3063:(citations to
3036:
3035:
3034:
3033:
3032:
2991:
2990:
2977:
2962:
2959:
2958:
2957:
2902:
2899:
2898:
2897:
2852:
2851:
2850:
2849:
2798:
2797:
2794:
2791:
2785:
2783:
2782:
2763:
2762:
2761:
2755:
2749:
2743:
2734:
2727:Fighting Ships
2718:
2717:
2716:
2715:
2714:
2713:
2712:
2711:
2710:
2709:
2640:
2639:
2591:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2524:
2523:
2515:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2478:
2472:
2460:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2453:
2436:
2435:
2391:
2388:
2372:
2371:
2369:, pages 115-6.
2349:
2330:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2280:
2277:
2256:
2254:
2253:
2246:Admiral Hipper
2208:
2207:
2204:
2179:
2178:
2171:
2165:
2158:
2151:
2144:
2141:
2133:
2132:
2123:
2101:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2082:Admiral Hipper
1997:
1996:
1977:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1884:
1877:
1875:
1874:
1864:requested move
1858:
1857:
1849:
1838:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1730:
1727:
1725:
1722:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1652:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1568:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1533:
1532:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1427:
1426:
1399:
1398:
1365:
1364:
1345:
1332:Schlachtschiff
1319:
1313:
1311:
1308:
1283:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1225:
1224:
1194:
1193:
1189:
1179:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1146:
1145:
1107:
1106:
1083:
1068:
1057:
1042:
1031:
1030:
1028:
1024:
1023:
1013:
995:
986:
967:
966:
964:
950:
947:
945:
942:
916:
885:
884:
874:requested move
868:
866:
865:Requested move
863:
860:
859:
854:
850:
848:
845:
844:
843:
842:
837:
829:
828:
825:
824:
819:
813:
806:
805:
802:
801:
798:
797:
794:
793:
781:
771:
770:
765:
755:
754:
749:
739:
738:
733:
723:
722:
717:
707:
706:
704:
702:
696:
695:
687:
686:
684:
653:
641:
640:
613:
601:
600:
597:
596:
589:
586:Ships articles
550:
538:
537:
532:
520:
519:
516:
515:
508:Low-importance
504:
498:
497:
495:
478:the discussion
465:
464:
461:Germany portal
448:
436:
435:
433:Lowâimportance
427:
415:
414:
408:
397:
383:
382:
375:
374:
371:
370:
367:
360:
356:
355:
352:
345:
341:
340:
337:
330:
322:
321:
318:
315:
311:
310:
302:
301:
290:featured topic
276:
268:
267:
233:
221:
220:
211:
209:
208:
205:
204:
192:
191:
129:
128:
124:
123:
118:
113:
104:
103:
101:
100:
93:
88:
79:
73:
71:
70:
59:
50:
49:
46:
45:
39:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
5964:
5953:
5950:
5948:
5945:
5943:
5940:
5938:
5935:
5933:
5930:
5928:
5925:
5923:
5920:
5918:
5915:
5913:
5910:
5908:
5905:
5903:
5900:
5898:
5895:
5893:
5890:
5888:
5885:
5883:
5880:
5878:
5875:
5873:
5870:
5868:
5865:
5863:
5860:
5858:
5855:
5853:
5850:
5848:
5845:
5843:
5840:
5839:
5837:
5830:
5829:
5825:
5821:
5820:92.10.214.190
5812:
5808:
5804:
5800:
5795:
5794:
5793:
5792:
5788:
5784:
5783:92.10.214.190
5775:
5773:
5772:
5768:
5764:
5759:
5755:
5751:
5745:
5739:
5735:
5731:
5726:
5725:
5724:
5720:
5716:
5712:
5711:
5710:
5708:
5704:
5700:
5696:
5686:
5682:
5678:
5674:
5670:
5667:
5663:
5660:
5656:
5652:
5648:
5647:
5646:
5645:
5641:
5637:
5633:
5629:
5620:
5614:
5610:
5606:
5601:
5600:KBsimarck.com
5597:
5596:
5595:
5591:
5587:
5582:
5581:
5580:
5579:
5575:
5571:
5564:
5560:
5559:
5558:
5552:
5548:
5544:
5540:
5536:
5531:
5527:
5523:
5519:
5513:
5505:
5504:
5503:
5499:
5495:
5491:
5490:
5489:
5488:
5484:
5480:
5474:
5470:
5463:
5459:
5455:
5451:
5447:
5446:
5445:
5444:
5440:
5436:
5432:
5424:
5420:
5416:
5412:
5408:
5407:
5406:
5404:
5400:
5396:
5395:217.248.52.99
5392:
5382:
5380:
5379:
5375:
5371:
5362:
5350:
5346:
5342:
5337:
5336:
5335:
5331:
5327:
5323:
5319:
5318:
5317:
5316:
5315:
5314:
5313:
5312:
5305:
5301:
5297:
5293:
5289:
5284:
5281:
5277:
5273:
5269:
5268:
5267:
5263:
5259:
5255:
5250:
5249:
5248:
5244:
5240:
5236:
5232:
5228:
5227:
5226:
5225:
5221:
5217:
5208:
5204:
5200:
5196:
5192:
5187:
5182:
5181:
5176:
5171:
5170:
5169:
5168:
5164:
5160:
5155:
5153:
5149:
5142:
5135:
5130:
5128:
5121:
5115:
5113:
5108:
5102:
5098:
5095:engaging the
5094:
5088:
5083:
5079:
5072:
5065:
5061:
5057:
5053:
5049:
5048:
5040:
5035:
5034:
5030:
5026:
5021:
5020:
5019:
5018:
5014:
5010:
5006:
5002:
4994:
4993:
4989:
4988:
4984:
4983:
4979:
4978:
4977:
4974:
4972:
4966:
4963:
4958:
4953:
4948:
4946:
4942:
4938:
4934:
4930:
4926:
4922:
4918:
4913:
4912:Scharnhorst's
4908:
4906:
4905:Scharnhorst's
4896:
4892:
4888:
4884:
4883:
4882:
4881:
4880:
4879:
4875:
4871:
4866:
4863:
4859:
4856:
4837:
4833:
4829:
4825:
4820:
4817:
4813:
4809:
4804:
4800:
4799:
4798:
4794:
4790:
4785:
4784:
4783:
4782:
4781:
4780:
4779:
4778:
4777:
4776:
4775:
4774:
4763:
4759:
4755:
4751:
4747:
4743:
4739:
4736:
4732:
4728:
4724:
4720:
4715:
4714:
4713:
4712:
4711:
4710:
4709:
4708:
4707:
4706:
4697:
4693:
4689:
4684:
4683:
4682:
4681:
4680:
4679:
4678:
4677:
4670:
4666:
4662:
4658:
4653:
4651:
4647:
4643:
4635:
4631:
4626:
4625:
4624:
4620:
4616:
4612:
4608:
4607:
4606:
4602:
4598:
4593:
4592:
4591:
4590:
4586:
4582:
4577:
4575:
4571:
4566:
4562:
4557:
4555:
4551:
4547:
4543:
4539:
4535:
4534:Scharnhorst's
4531:
4527:
4523:
4514:
4513:
4512:
4510:
4505:
4503:
4498:
4496:
4491:
4489:
4484:
4482:
4479:- battleship
4477:
4475:
4470:
4468:
4463:
4461:
4454:
4450:
4446:
4441:
4440:
4439:
4438:
4434:
4430:
4419:
4415:
4411:
4407:
4403:
4399:
4395:
4388:
4384:
4380:
4376:
4373:
4369:
4365:
4362:
4358:
4354:
4350:
4346:
4342:
4338:
4337:
4336:
4335:
4333:
4332:
4331:
4327:
4323:
4318:
4316:
4312:
4308:
4303:
4302:
4301:
4298:
4296:
4294:
4289:
4283:
4279:
4278:
4277:
4276:
4272:
4268:
4263:
4259:
4253:
4251:
4247:
4243:
4242:Panzerschiffe
4239:
4234:
4231:
4229:
4225:
4221:
4216:
4213:
4208:
4193:
4189:
4185:
4181:
4177:
4176:
4175:
4171:
4167:
4163:
4161:
4157:
4153:
4149:
4145:
4144:
4143:
4139:
4135:
4131:
4127:
4126:
4125:
4124:
4120:
4116:
4112:
4107:
4102:
4100:
4092:
4076:
4072:
4068:
4063:
4059:
4058:
4057:
4053:
4049:
4044:
4043:
4042:
4038:
4034:
4029:
4017:
4013:
4009:
4005:
4004:
4003:
3999:
3995:
3990:
3989:
3988:
3984:
3980:
3975:
3974:
3969:
3965:
3961:
3957:
3954:
3950:
3947:
3943:
3942:
3941:
3937:
3933:
3928:
3925:
3921:
3913:
3909:
3908:
3907:
3903:
3899:
3894:
3893:
3892:
3888:
3884:
3880:
3876:
3872:
3868:
3865:
3864:Scharnhorst's
3861:
3857:
3852:
3848:
3844:
3840:
3836:
3833:
3829:
3828:
3826:
3822:
3820:
3816:
3812:
3808:
3804:
3803:
3802:
3798:
3794:
3789:
3788:
3787:
3786:
3785:
3784:
3783:
3782:
3778:
3774:
3770:
3766:
3758:
3754:
3750:
3745:
3744:
3743:
3739:
3735:
3731:
3727:
3726:
3725:
3722:
3720:
3718:
3713:
3707:
3702:
3701:
3700:
3699:
3695:
3691:
3677:
3673:
3669:
3665:
3664:
3663:
3662:
3661:
3660:
3659:
3658:
3645:
3641:
3637:
3633:
3629:
3625:
3621:
3617:
3616:
3615:
3611:
3607:
3603:
3598:
3597:
3596:
3595:
3594:
3591:
3589:
3587:
3582:
3575:
3574:
3573:
3569:
3565:
3561:
3560:
3559:
3555:
3551:
3546:
3545:
3528:
3524:
3520:
3516:
3515:
3514:
3510:
3506:
3502:
3501:
3500:
3499:
3498:
3497:
3496:
3495:
3494:
3493:
3492:
3491:
3490:
3489:
3476:
3472:
3468:
3464:
3463:
3462:
3458:
3454:
3450:
3446:
3445:
3444:
3440:
3436:
3431:
3430:
3429:
3425:
3421:
3417:
3413:
3409:
3405:
3401:
3397:
3396:
3395:
3394:
3393:
3390:
3388:
3386:
3381:
3375:
3370:
3369:
3368:
3364:
3360:
3355:
3350:
3349:
3344:
3340:
3336:
3332:
3331:
3330:
3329:
3328:
3327:
3323:
3319:
3315:
3306:
3304:
3303:
3299:
3295:
3286:
3284:
3283:
3279:
3275:
3269:
3265:
3261:
3254:
3245:
3244:
3237:
3234:
3233:
3231:
3228:
3222:
3221:
3214:
3212:
3200:
3198:
3192:
3191:
3189:
3188:
3183:
3177:
3176:
3169:
3166:
3165:
3163:
3159:
3153:
3152:
3145:
3142:
3141:
3139:
3137:
3132:
3126:
3125:
3118:
3108:
3104:
3103:
3101:
3097:
3090:
3089:
3082:
3080:
3068:
3066:
3054:
3050:
3049:
3047:
3046:
3041:
3037:
3030:
3029:
3022:
3020:
3008:
3004:
3003:
3001:
2997:
2996:
2995:
2989:for criteria)
2988:
2984:
2982:
2978:
2976:
2974:
2970:
2965:
2964:
2960:
2956:
2952:
2948:
2944:
2943:
2937:
2933:
2929:
2925:
2920:
2919:
2918:
2917:
2913:
2909:
2896:
2892:
2888:
2884:
2880:
2879:
2878:
2877:
2874:
2873:
2866:
2865:
2858:
2848:
2844:
2840:
2836:
2835:
2834:
2830:
2826:
2822:
2818:
2814:
2813:
2812:
2811:
2807:
2803:
2795:
2792:
2789:
2788:
2787:
2781:
2777:
2773:
2768:
2764:
2759:
2756:
2753:
2750:
2747:
2744:
2741:
2738:
2737:
2735:
2732:
2728:
2724:
2720:
2719:
2708:
2704:
2700:
2696:
2692:
2691:
2690:
2686:
2682:
2677:
2676:
2675:
2671:
2667:
2663:
2659:
2658:
2657:
2653:
2649:
2644:
2643:
2642:
2641:
2638:
2634:
2630:
2626:
2622:
2619:. p. 293. --
2618:
2613:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2606:
2602:
2598:
2589:
2585:
2581:
2577:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2566:
2562:
2557:
2554:
2551:
2548:
2545:
2542:
2539:
2536:
2535:
2531:
2529:
2522:
2518:
2514:
2513:
2507:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2500:
2496:
2491:
2488:
2479:
2476:
2475:
2473:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2466:
2458:
2452:
2448:
2444:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2434:
2430:
2426:
2422:
2421:
2420:
2419:
2415:
2411:
2406:
2405:
2401:
2397:
2389:
2387:
2386:
2382:
2378:
2368:
2367:1-86227-331-6
2365:
2361:
2356:
2354:
2350:
2346:
2345:1-55750-075-4
2343:
2339:
2334:
2331:
2326:
2321:
2318:
2312:
2308:
2303:
2298:
2294:
2289:
2285:
2281:
2278:
2275:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2267:
2266:1-86227-331-6
2264:
2260:
2251:
2247:
2243:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2235:
2234:1-55750-075-4
2232:
2228:
2224:
2219:
2217:
2213:
2205:
2202:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2184:
2176:
2172:
2169:
2166:
2163:
2159:
2156:
2152:
2149:
2145:
2142:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2127:
2124:
2118:
2105:
2102:
2096:
2094:
2090:
2084:
2083:
2079:
2078:heavy cruiser
2075:
2071:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2055:
2051:
2044:
2037:
2033:
2029:
2025:
2021:
2020:
2014:
2010:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
1994:
1993:0-340-33901-2
1991:
1987:
1981:
1978:
1975:
1970:
1967:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1927:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1903:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1892:
1890:
1882:
1878:
1873:
1870:
1865:
1860:
1859:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1847:
1842:
1839:
1837:
1832:
1826:
1820:
1813:
1810:
1809:
1802:
1797:
1791:
1785:
1778:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1761:) for more).
1760:
1755:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1739:Sturmvogel 66
1736:
1733:
1732:
1728:
1723:
1721:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1684:class ships.
1683:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1668:76.66.196.139
1666:
1662:
1658:
1655:
1654:
1650:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1625:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1591:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1579:
1575:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1535:
1534:
1531:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1515:
1514:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1490:
1486:
1481:
1478:
1477:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1428:
1425:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1401:
1400:
1397:
1393:
1391:
1389:
1384:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1367:
1366:
1363:
1358:
1354:
1349:
1346:
1344:
1340:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1322:
1321:
1318:
1314:
1309:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1289:
1281:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1190:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1177:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1033:
1032:
1029:
1026:
1025:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1001:, on page 92
1000:
996:
990:
987:
983:
982:Ersatz Elsass
979:
973:
969:
968:
965:
962:
961:
960:
957:
948:
943:
941:
940:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
915:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
883:
880:
875:
870:
869:
864:
847:
846:
841:
838:
836:
833:
832:
831:
830:
827:
826:
822:
817:
812:
811:
791:
787:
786:
777:
773:
772:
769:
761:
757:
756:
753:
745:
741:
740:
737:
729:
725:
724:
721:
713:
709:
708:
705:
703:
698:
697:
692:
688:
685:
668:
664:
660:
659:
654:
651:
647:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
617:
614:
611:
607:
594:
590:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
556:
551:
548:
544:
543:
539:
536:
533:
530:
526:
513:
509:
503:
500:
499:
496:
479:
475:
471:
470:
462:
451:
449:
446:
442:
441:
437:
431:
428:
425:
421:
416:
412:
406:
398:
389:
388:
381:
376:
368:
366:
365:
361:
358:
357:
353:
351:
350:
346:
343:
342:
338:
336:
335:
331:
328:
324:
323:
319:
316:
313:
312:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
285:
280:
277:
274:
270:
269:
264:
262:
261:
253:
249:
245:
244:
243:
237:
234:
231:
227:
226:
207:
206:
203:
200:
198:
194:
193:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
131:
130:
122:
121:Verifiability
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
108:
107:
98:
94:
92:
89:
87:
83:
80:
78:
75:
74:
68:
64:
63:Learn to edit
60:
57:
52:
51:
48:
47:
43:
37:
33:
29:
28:
19:
5816:
5779:
5763:78.150.86.84
5760:
5756:
5752:
5749:
5693:â Preceding
5690:
5673:84.189.84.17
5665:
5624:
5567:
5561:
5556:
5534:
5475:
5471:
5467:
5428:
5389:â Preceding
5386:
5370:OndĹej Filip
5366:
5287:
5279:
5271:
5212:
5190:
5174:
5159:thesmartstag
5156:
5151:
5147:
5140:
5133:
5131:
5126:
5119:
5116:
5111:
5109:
5100:
5096:
5092:
5089:
5081:
5077:
5070:
5068:
5051:
5038:
5028:
5024:
5009:thesmartstag
5004:
5000:
4998:
4975:
4970:
4967:
4961:
4956:
4951:
4949:
4944:
4940:
4936:
4932:
4928:
4924:
4920:
4916:
4911:
4909:
4904:
4901:
4867:
4864:
4860:
4852:
4823:
4815:
4811:
4807:
4749:
4746:Duke of York
4745:
4730:
4726:
4722:
4718:
4656:
4633:
4630:Duke of York
4629:
4610:
4585:thesmartstag
4581:thesmartstag
4578:
4573:
4564:
4560:
4558:
4553:
4549:
4545:
4541:
4537:
4533:
4529:
4525:
4521:
4518:
4508:
4506:
4501:
4499:
4494:
4492:
4487:
4485:
4480:
4478:
4473:
4471:
4466:
4464:
4459:
4457:
4426:
4401:
4397:
4386:
4382:
4378:
4371:
4367:
4360:
4356:
4352:
4348:
4347:s), and the
4344:
4340:
4305:is reading.
4292:
4287:
4271:thesmartstag
4267:thesmartstag
4261:
4257:
4254:
4249:
4245:
4241:
4237:
4235:
4232:
4227:
4223:
4219:
4217:
4211:
4209:
4205:
4147:
4110:
4106:very clearly
4105:
4103:
4099:essentialism
4096:
4061:
3967:
3963:
3959:
3952:
3945:
3923:
3919:
3911:
3878:
3877:{though the
3874:
3870:
3863:
3859:
3850:
3846:
3842:
3838:
3831:
3824:
3776:
3772:
3768:
3716:
3711:
3686:
3622:rather than
3585:
3580:
3384:
3379:
3310:
3290:
3270:
3266:
3262:
3258:
3235:
3229:
3208:
3194:
3185:
3167:
3161:
3143:
3134:
3116:
3106:
3099:
3076:
3062:
3053:(references)
3052:
3043:
3039:
3016:
3006:
2999:
2993:
2979:
2966:
2942:Von der Tann
2941:
2904:
2869:
2861:
2853:
2820:
2816:
2799:
2784:
2766:
2730:
2726:
2722:
2633:book reviews
2621:Simon Harley
2616:
2593:
2558:
2555:
2552:
2549:
2546:
2543:
2540:
2537:
2533:
2532:
2525:
2510:
2492:
2489:
2485:
2462:
2407:
2393:
2374:
2359:
2337:
2333:
2324:
2320:
2310:
2306:
2301:
2296:
2292:
2287:
2283:
2273:
2258:
2255:
2249:
2245:
2241:
2226:
2222:
2220:
2215:
2211:
2209:
2200:
2195:
2191:
2182:
2180:
2174:
2168:Scharnhorst'
2167:
2161:
2154:
2147:
2135:
2126:
2109:Cite error:
2104:
2081:
2073:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2042:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2018:
2012:
2008:
2001:
1999:
1985:
1980:
1969:
1959:
1955:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1925:
1916:
1912:
1894:
1893:
1888:
1886:
1880:
1868:
1861:
1844:
1840:
1811:
1776:
1753:
1734:
1706:
1702:
1700:
1681:
1660:
1656:
1589:
1570:
1553:book reviews
1541:Simon Harley
1537:Support move
1536:
1516:
1479:
1458:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1406:
1402:
1387:
1382:
1369:Support move
1368:
1347:
1331:
1324:Support move
1323:
1287:
1285:
1195:
1181:
1150:
1110:
1108:
1094:
1071:
1045:
1016:
1008:
1004:
998:
988:
981:
977:
971:
955:
952:
917:
888:
886:
878:
871:
820:
783:
656:
633:World War II
553:
507:
467:
411:WikiProjects
380:Good article
379:
362:
347:
332:
298:please do so
282:
278:
258:
256:
252:please do so
240:
239:
235:
195:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
105:
30:This is the
5730:92.19.12.76
5699:92.19.12.76
5687:Belt armour
5148:Scharnhorst
5078:Scharnhorst
4962:Scharnhorst
4945:Scharnhorst
4933:Scharnhorst
4917:Scharnhorst
4634:Scharnhorst
4550:Scharnhorst
4522:Scharnhorst
4502:Scharnhorst
4460:Scharnhorst
4387:Prinz Eugen
4368:Scharnhorst
4357:Scharnhorst
4345:Deutschland
4258:Scharnhorst
4220:Scharnhorst
4115:194.25.30.9
3964:Scharnhorst
3920:Deutschland
3879:Scharnhorst
3851:Scharnhorst
3773:Scharnhorst
2969:transcluded
2819:was hit by
2729:, Groner's
2495:20.133.0.13
2288:Scharnhorst
2242:Scharnhorst
2201:Scharnhorst
2070:Scharnhorst
2058:Scharnhorst
2054:Scharnhorst
2043:Scharnhorst
1913:Scharnhorst
1907:(D-Day for
1777:Scharnhorst
1682:Deutschland
1440:Scharnhorst
1336:Constantine
1293:WP:COINTOSS
1155:âPreceding
1151:Battleships
1011:had done...
1009:Scharnhorst
159:free images
42:not a forum
5836:Categories
5326:Bagunceiro
5258:Bagunceiro
5231:WP:RELATED
5216:Bagunceiro
5076:s and the
5052:absolutely
5029:Strasbourg
4937:Bismarck's
4379:RheinĂźbung
4363:s in mind.
4250:battleship
4228:Bismarck's
3045:verifiable
2857:Invincible
2534:Checklist:
2236:page 617:
2175:Gneisenau'
2155:Gneisenau'
2113:G&D154
1943:Gneisenau'
1659:how about
1521:Staberinde
1353:PKKloeppel
1161:Farawayman
944:Statements
246:under the
5813:Fuel load
5799:Parsecboy
5715:Parsecboy
5450:Parsecboy
5341:Parsecboy
5296:Parsecboy
5239:Parsecboy
5195:Parsecboy
5191:Lexington
5152:Gneisenau
5134:Lexington
5056:Parsecboy
5025:Dunkerque
4973:armour.
4828:Parsecboy
4754:Parsecboy
4661:Parsecboy
4642:Parsecboy
4597:Parsecboy
4554:Gneisenau
4486:- French
4474:Dunkerque
4472:- French
4445:Parsecboy
4410:Parsecboy
4353:Richelieu
4341:Dunkerque
4262:Gneisenau
4224:Gneisenau
4184:Parsecboy
4134:Parsecboy
4130:wikiality
4067:Parsecboy
3994:Parsecboy
3932:Parsecboy
3860:Gneisenau
3777:Gneisenau
3734:Parsecboy
3636:Parsecboy
3602:WP:ENGVAR
3519:Parsecboy
3467:Parsecboy
3374:WP:ENGVAR
3354:WP:ENGVAR
3314:WP:ENGVAR
3236:Pass/Fail
3117:(focused)
2961:GA Review
2947:Parsecboy
2908:Rcbutcher
2887:Parsecboy
2817:Gneisenau
2772:Parsecboy
2725:, Jane's
2699:Parsecboy
2666:Parsecboy
2576:Parsecboy
2425:Parsecboy
2396:Parsecboy
2307:Gneisenau
2297:Gneisenau
2284:Gneisenau
2221:That the
2196:Gneisenau
2162:Gneisenau
2148:Gneisenau
2117:help page
2074:Gneisenau
2036:Gneisenau
2028:Gneisenau
2024:Gneisenau
2013:Gneisenau
2011:radar on
1947:Gneisenau
1921:Vestfjord
1917:Gneisenau
1830:Contribs)
1795:Contribs)
1763:Parsecboy
1754:Dunkerque
1735:Undecided
1729:undecided
1686:Parsecboy
1633:Parsecboy
1610:Rcbutcher
1595:Parsecboy
1574:Rcbutcher
1500:Parsecboy
1436:Gneisenau
1407:judgement
1264:Parsecboy
1214:Parsecboy
1135:Parsecboy
1119:Parsecboy
1095:Gneisenau
1072:Gneisenau
1046:Gneisenau
1005:Gneisenau
956:Gneisenau
931:Parsecboy
927:wikiality
99:if needed
82:Be polite
32:talk page
5695:unsigned
5539:Damwiki1
5494:Damwiki1
5391:unsigned
5097:Bismarck
4929:Bismarck
4921:HMS Hood
4855:AT Mahan
4808:Seydlitz
4657:Bismarck
4561:Bismarck
4538:Bismarck
4526:HMS Hood
4495:HMS Hood
4481:Bismarck
4398:Bismarck
4383:Bismarck
4381:was for
4372:Bismarck
4349:Bismarck
4322:The Land
4146:While I
4111:somewhat
4033:The Land
3771:and the
3359:The Land
3294:Jonyungk
2802:KurfĂźrst
2347:page 617
2186:states:
2153:Whether
1711:Ala.foum
1485:KurfĂźrst
1348:Support,
1288:anything
1169:contribs
1157:unsigned
821:Archives
625:European
621:Maritime
401:GA-class
369:Promoted
354:Promoted
260:reassess
197:Archives
67:get help
40:This is
38:article.
5666:editors
5659:closure
5605:Andreas
5603:mm"Â ?--
5586:Denniss
5570:Andreas
5411:Denniss
5235:WP:NAMB
5209:Hatnote
5005:Musashi
4887:Wiki-Ed
4824:Shinano
4789:Wiki-Ed
4688:Wiki-Ed
4615:Wiki-Ed
4565:Tirpitz
4402:Tirpitz
4307:Wiki-Ed
4048:Wiki-Ed
3979:Wiki-Ed
3898:Wiki-Ed
3839:'Renown
3793:Wiki-Ed
3690:Wiki-Ed
3550:Denniss
3274:Wiki-Ed
3230:Overall
3007:(prose)
2839:Wiki-Ed
2681:Wiki-Ed
2648:Wiki-Ed
2629:library
2009:Seetakt
1902:9 April
1657:Comment
1549:library
1517:Support
1480:Support
1463:Wiki-Ed
1403:Support
1233:Wiki-Ed
1198:Wiki-Ed
1074:, it's
1048:, with
905:Jafeluv
790:Phase I
510:on the
483:Germany
474:Germany
430:Germany
317:Process
165:WPÂ refs
153:scholar
5425:ENGVAR
5322:WP:IAR
5280:is not
5139:s and
5001:Yamato
4971:Hood's
4952:Hood's
4870:Toddy1
4741:yards.
4574:Plan Z
4570:Plan Z
4429:Nick-D
4152:Nick-D
4062:Renown
4008:Toddy1
3968:Hipper
3960:Renown
3953:Renown
3946:Renown
3924:Hipper
3912:Renown
3883:Toddy1
3875:Renown
3873:and a
3871:Nelson
3847:Renown
3843:Nelson
3832:Nelson
3811:Toddy1
3769:Renown
3749:Toddy1
3668:Toddy1
3435:Toddy1
3420:Nick-D
3187:images
3162:stable
3160:It is
3138:policy
3098:It is
3038:It is
2998:It is
2983:review
2934:, and
2825:Toddy1
2821:Renown
2561:Toddy1
2443:Toddy1
2410:Toddy1
2377:Toddy1
2311:Renown
2302:Renown
2293:Renown
2274:Renown
2250:Renown
2223:Renown
2216:Hipper
2212:Hipper
2192:Renown
2066:Renown
2062:Renown
2050:Renown
2032:Renown
2019:Renown
1960:Renown
1956:Renown
1939:Renown
1935:Renown
1926:Renown
1889:Renown
1881:Renown
1590:Renown
1564:-: -->
1444:Toddy1
1415:Toddy1
1315:-: -->
1310:Survey
1297:Nick-D
1065:11,000
899:. The
629:German
407:scale.
339:Listed
320:Result
286:series
137:Google
5632:WP:RS
5082:Kongo
4812:Tiger
4719:Tiger
4628:from
4293:photo
4218:-The
4148:still
3971:p313)
3922:s or
3717:photo
3586:photo
3385:photo
2985:(see
2971:from
1824:(Talk
1789:(Talk
1651:other
1388:photo
1188:pane.
1076:1,340
1061:7,390
1017:Janes
577:Ships
535:Ships
180:JSTOR
141:books
95:Seek
5824:talk
5803:talk
5787:talk
5767:talk
5734:talk
5719:talk
5703:talk
5677:talk
5640:talk
5609:talk
5590:talk
5574:talk
5543:talk
5522:talk
5498:talk
5483:talk
5454:talk
5439:talk
5435:John
5431:this
5429:Per
5415:talk
5399:talk
5374:talk
5345:talk
5330:talk
5300:talk
5262:talk
5243:talk
5233:and
5220:talk
5199:talk
5175:Hood
5163:talk
5150:and
5112:Hood
5101:Hood
5093:Hood
5060:talk
5039:Hood
5027:and
5013:talk
5003:and
4957:Hood
4950:The
4941:Hood
4925:Hood
4891:talk
4874:talk
4832:talk
4793:talk
4758:talk
4735:here
4727:Hood
4692:talk
4665:talk
4646:talk
4619:talk
4611:ever
4601:talk
4563:and
4552:and
4449:talk
4433:talk
4414:talk
4400:and
4326:talk
4311:talk
4260:and
4222:and
4188:talk
4170:talk
4156:talk
4138:talk
4119:talk
4071:talk
4052:talk
4037:talk
4012:talk
3998:talk
3983:talk
3936:talk
3902:talk
3887:talk
3815:talk
3797:talk
3775:and
3753:talk
3738:talk
3730:here
3694:talk
3672:talk
3640:talk
3610:talk
3568:talk
3554:talk
3523:talk
3509:talk
3471:talk
3457:talk
3439:talk
3424:talk
3408:talk
3363:talk
3339:talk
3322:talk
3298:talk
3278:talk
3042:and
2987:here
2951:talk
2940:SMS
2912:talk
2891:talk
2843:talk
2829:talk
2806:talk
2776:talk
2767:ever
2703:talk
2685:talk
2670:talk
2652:talk
2625:talk
2605:talk
2599:. --
2580:talk
2565:talk
2499:talk
2447:talk
2429:talk
2414:talk
2400:talk
2381:talk
2364:ISBN
2342:ISBN
2328:208.
2286:and
2263:ISBN
2244:and
2231:ISBN
2072:and
2030:hit
2017:HMS
1990:ISBN
1905:1940
1767:talk
1743:talk
1715:talk
1690:talk
1672:talk
1637:talk
1624:WP:V
1614:talk
1599:talk
1578:talk
1545:talk
1525:talk
1504:talk
1489:talk
1467:talk
1459:have
1448:talk
1438:and
1419:talk
1373:here
1357:talk
1301:talk
1268:talk
1258:and
1237:talk
1218:talk
1202:talk
1165:talk
1139:talk
1123:talk
1097:has
1070:For
1007:and
984:)...
935:talk
909:talk
889:move
560:Ship
314:Date
288:, a
173:FENS
147:news
84:and
5288:not
4546:KGV
4542:KGV
4288:Sea
3712:Sea
3606:PBS
3581:Sea
3564:PBS
3505:PBS
3453:PBS
3404:PBS
3402:--
3380:Sea
3318:PBS
3019:MoS
2871:Bog
2601:PBS
2517:004
2512:MBK
1911:),
1900:On
1866:.
1851:004
1846:MBK
1383:Sea
1326:to
1111:not
1080:751
1050:281
1039:185
1035:639
891:to
502:Low
187:TWL
5838::
5826:)
5805:)
5789:)
5769:)
5736:)
5721:)
5705:)
5679:)
5642:)
5611:)
5592:)
5576:)
5545:)
5524:)
5500:)
5485:)
5456:)
5441:)
5417:)
5401:)
5376:)
5347:)
5332:)
5302:)
5272:is
5264:)
5245:)
5222:)
5201:)
5165:)
5141:G3
5120:G3
5071:G3
5062:)
5015:)
4893:)
4876:)
4834:)
4795:)
4760:)
4737:).
4694:)
4667:)
4648:)
4621:)
4603:)
4587:)
4507:-
4500:-
4465:-
4451:)
4435:)
4416:)
4328:)
4313:)
4273:)
4190:)
4182:.
4172:)
4158:)
4140:)
4121:)
4073:)
4054:)
4039:)
4014:)
4000:)
3985:)
3938:)
3904:)
3889:)
3817:)
3799:)
3755:)
3740:)
3696:)
3674:)
3642:)
3612:)
3570:)
3556:)
3548:--
3525:)
3511:)
3473:)
3459:)
3441:)
3426:)
3410:)
3365:)
3341:)
3324:)
3300:)
3280:)
3238::
3232::
3215::
3207:b
3201::
3193:a
3170::
3164:.
3146::
3140:.
3119::
3115:b
3109::
3105:a
3102:.
3083::
3079:OR
3075:c
3069::
3061:b
3055::
3051:a
3048:.
3023::
3015:b
3009::
3005:a
3002:.
2981:GA
2953:)
2930:,
2914:)
2893:)
2845:)
2831:)
2808:)
2778:)
2705:)
2687:)
2672:)
2654:)
2635:)
2631:|
2627:|
2607:)
2582:)
2567:)
2559:--
2501:)
2467:.
2449:)
2431:)
2416:)
2402:)
2383:)
2375:--
2352:^
2203:."
2119:).
2092:^
2068:.
1933:.
1915:,
1827:â˘
1818:Ed
1792:â˘
1783:Ed
1769:)
1745:)
1717:)
1692:)
1674:)
1663:?
1639:)
1616:)
1601:)
1580:)
1555:)
1551:|
1547:|
1527:)
1506:)
1491:)
1469:)
1450:)
1421:)
1359:)
1339:â
1303:)
1270:)
1262:.
1239:)
1220:)
1204:)
1171:)
1167:â˘
1141:)
1125:)
1099:10
1093:.
1091:25
1087:29
1054:95
937:)
921:â
911:)
876:.
700:/
635:/
631:/
627:/
623:/
619::
263:it
254:.
167:)
65:;
5822:(
5801:(
5785:(
5765:(
5732:(
5717:(
5701:(
5675:(
5638:(
5607:(
5588:(
5572:(
5541:(
5537:.
5520:(
5496:(
5481:(
5452:(
5437:(
5413:(
5397:(
5372:(
5343:(
5328:(
5298:(
5260:(
5252:"
5241:(
5218:(
5197:(
5178:'
5161:(
5144:'
5137:'
5123:'
5104:'
5085:'
5074:'
5058:(
5042:'
5011:(
4889:(
4872:(
4830:(
4791:(
4756:(
4690:(
4663:(
4644:(
4637:'
4617:(
4599:(
4583:(
4447:(
4431:(
4412:(
4324:(
4309:(
4269:(
4186:(
4168:(
4154:(
4136:(
4117:(
4069:(
4050:(
4035:(
4010:(
3996:(
3981:(
3934:(
3915:'
3900:(
3885:(
3813:(
3795:(
3751:(
3736:(
3692:(
3670:(
3638:(
3608:(
3566:(
3552:(
3521:(
3507:(
3469:(
3455:(
3437:(
3422:(
3406:(
3361:(
3337:(
3320:(
3296:(
3276:(
3213:)
3199:)
3081:)
3077:(
3067:)
3021:)
3017:(
2949:(
2910:(
2889:(
2867:.
2863:K
2841:(
2827:(
2804:(
2774:(
2701:(
2683:(
2668:(
2650:(
2623:(
2603:(
2578:(
2563:(
2509:-
2497:(
2445:(
2427:(
2412:(
2398:(
2379:(
2046:'
2039:'
2000:'
1765:(
1741:(
1713:(
1688:(
1670:(
1635:(
1612:(
1597:(
1576:(
1543:(
1523:(
1502:(
1487:(
1465:(
1446:(
1417:(
1379:.
1355:(
1299:(
1266:(
1235:(
1216:(
1200:(
1163:(
1137:(
1121:(
1103:9
980:(
978:D
933:(
907:(
792:)
788:(
669:.
574:.
514:.
413::
300:.
265:.
202:1
199::
183:¡
177:¡
169:¡
162:¡
156:¡
150:¡
144:¡
139:(
69:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
