Scharnhorst: Best German WW2 Battleship Class

Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/45moji3
Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video.
During registration use the code WARSHIPS to get for free: 500 doubloons, 2 million credits, 7 Days of Premium Account time, and a tier IV ship! Applicable to new users only.
Today we look at a German battleship class that was considered by the British as Battle Cruisers during the Second World War, since they were under gunned, yet the two battle ships of the Scharnhorst class were the most successful German World War 2 battleships and inflicted more damage than the famous Bismarck class. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were able to sink not only 1 carrier and 2 destroyers, but also several merchant ships as well.
»» GET BOOKS & VIDEOS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Tank Assault - Combat Manual of the Soviet Tank Forces 1944 - stm44.com
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
» Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» KZbin Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
»» SOURCES ««
Hildebrand, Hans H./Röhr, Albert/Steinmetz, Hans-Otto: Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe. Biographien - ein Spiegel der Marinegeschichte von 1815 bis zur Gegenwart. Band 7: Geschichtlicher Überblick Schiffsbiographien von Preußischer Adler bis Ulan, Koehlers Verlagsgesellschaft mbH: Hamburg, Germany, o.J.
Wagner, Gerhard/Arbeitskreis für Wehrforschung (Hgg.): Lagevorträge der Oberbefehlshabers der Kriegsmarine vor Hitler 1939 - 1945, Lehmann: München, 1972.
Garzke, William H.; Dulin Jr, Robert O.; Jurens, William: Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History. Seaforth Publishing: Barnsley, UK, 2019.
Mawdsley, Evan: The War for the Seas: A Maritime History of World War II. Yale University Press: New Haven, Connecticut, USA, 2019.
Symonds, Craig L.: World War II at Sea. A Global History. Oxford University Press: New York, 2018.
O’Hara, Vincent P.: The German Fleet at War, 1939-1945, 1st Naval Institute Press pbk. ed, Naval Institute Press: Annapolis, Maryland, USA, 2011.
German Extended Translation (used for this video)
Potter, E.B.; Nimitz, Ch. W.; Rohwer, Jürgen: Seemacht - Von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart.
Drachinifel: Scharnhorst: • KMS Scharnhorst - Guid...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
00:00 Intro
00:48 World of Warships
02:03 Under Gunned
02:34 28 cm vs 38 cm Setup
04:26 Why Under Gunned?
06:08 Why Successful
07:24 Merchant Ships
08:07 Diverting & Binding Enemy Resources
10:17 Summary
11:01 World of Warships
11:22 Outro
#sponsored #worldofwarship #scharnhorst #gneisenau #ww2 #battleship #kriegsmarine

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/45moji3 Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video. During registration use the code WARSHIPS to get for free: 500 doubloons, 2 million credits, 7 Days of Premium Account time, and a tier IV ship! Applicable to new users only.

[@barrythatcher9349]

Hi Bernhard, thanks for this. I know that there is wealth of information on the Internet about U-Boats. However, would like to have crack at it and maybe give balanced view of impact of U-Boat impact on the overall war effort for both the Germans and the Allies.

[@gae_wead_dad_6914]

How's your "Tanks are not obsolete" going. huh? "Every infantryman runs away from tanks, because as soon as they're on the battlefield - they're dead within 10 minutes" CivDiv. "The only way to survive is to be insconpicous as possible".

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@@gae_wead_dad_6914 > How's your "Tanks are not obsolete" going. huh? Not really sure what you mean, because I stated several times that the tank is not obsolete, particularly in this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h4HXmZKupqeLfbs

[@gae_wead_dad_6914]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized That's my point. Tanks ARE obsolete. Literally couldn't achieve ANY metric they were designed for. At least IFV's bring in troops, supplies, extract them etc. and are MUCH cheaper But i guess you should watch CivDiv's new video, specifically how "Armor is the #1 target"

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@@gae_wead_dad_6914 Ah, I misread that. I am not particularly surprised by such statements, since I have seen German reports from WW2 that particularly told infantry to stay away from tanks since they attract all the fire. So, again nothing new.

[@windsaw151]

A bit surprised that you didn't include Convoy PQ 17 in that video. The Tirpitz wasn't involved in that action, but its very existence heavily contributed to that allied desaster that had some pretty long term effects. I'm not saying that that made the Scharnhorst class better than the Tirpitz was, but I don't think it should be ignored.

[@xeiv1]

Tirpitz was supposedly torpedoed by a Soviet submarine K-21 while in search of PQ-17, thus forced to return to Norway and why she remained there, constantly being repaired until capsizing later in the war due to air raid.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@xeiv1 The torpedoing claim was proven totally false long ago.

[@leninvasco]

Fleet in being

[@AugmentedGravity]

@@xeiv1absolutely not lol

[@martinsportfoto2423]

As usual, a well reasoned analysis. One minor detail one could add is that Tirpitz, somewhat indirectly, at least helped in causing some merchant shipping losses with PQ17. But overall, the Germans would probably have gotten more bang for the buck by skipping the big shiny objects (the Bismarck class) and just buidling more Scharnhorst-class ships instead. Maybe they could have gotten three or even four of those with the same committment of resources. Also those could potentially have been available earlier in the war when they could have had more of an impact. There was a window of oppurtuninty in the early years when the British were severly streched before the americans got involved and before the germans ran out of oil.

[@Wick9876]

The Bismarck's were 189 M and 2062 crew while the Scharnhorst's were 145 M and 1669. Those ratios of 1.30 and 1.24 mean getting even one extra is unlikely. The Panzerschiffs were 82 M and 619 crew, so those could have replaced the Bismarcks two-for-one.

[@rodshoaf]

The issue is Germany can't get past the UK without the UK knowing.. Germany had very few accesses to the Atlantic Ocean and they had to go past numerous unfriendly nations to get there. Germany wasted it's efforts completely on all capital ships and should have waited until after they forced the UK to surrender before putting them out to sea. Instead it should have focused more on subs and landing craft.. But Hitler for all his grand schemes was crap at strategic thinking. I mean for christ sakes he started a war in the east before finishing the war in the west. If Hitler had waited 6 more years he would of had the navy he wanted to rule all of Europe and most of Asia. But so goes the thinking of the psychotic leader.

[@strixaluco7423]

If germany wouldnt have built Graph Zeppelin and Seydlitz even 6 Scharnhorsts could have been on the table, with 4 completed before and 2 during the war.

[@rodshoaf]

@@rahvan1432 No I don't think like a gamer... The Hood was expected to stand up and win a fight against the Bismarck.. by most of the world. It was quite a shock to their nation when it was sunk. Go back and reread my statements. There is literally nothing in them that most naval historians disagree with... Including Drachinifel who had done hours of video on Hood/Bismarck.

[@naamadossantossilva4736]

​@@rodshoafHitler couldn't afford to wait 6 months,Germany's economy was a wreck due to his idiotic "war economy in peacetime" policy. Also,you're ignoring France.The 1930s were a really dumb time for them,giving them time in the 40s would have allowed them to fix their MIC and become a vastly more powerful fighting force.

[@_sarcasticat_2126]

There's a reason that the 38cm was slotted to replace the 28cm later on down the line, and why the use of the 28cm in general petered out. The 38cm was superior to the 28cm in almost every way except volume of fire; the rates of fire cited give Scharnhorst her full-out ROF, whereas the 38cm could, at low elevation, be capable of a reload of 18 seconds (3.33 RPMPB). At longer ranges the ROF lowers to 26-30s, but the same can be said for Scharnhorst. The 38cm's base and nose-fuse high explosive were designed to punish cruisers and destroyers to a greater extent than the 28cm AP, which while somewhat effective (Battle of River Plate, for example) is still nothing compared to the 38cm. The AP is also much more effective against heavier targets and allows for a much greater engagement range; no ship in a running fight will not be firing back, and it would be preferable to fire back with something more than an 11" gun. A more successful career =/= a better design. Bismarck is still much more capable than the Scharnies, and by a long shot. Where the Scharnhorst would struggle to engage the Dunkerque (which was armored to defeat 28cm handily), Bismarck would be more than a match for the fast battleship. Concerns about ammunition, weight, and the role of "raider" are all strange arguments to me, considering the Scharnhorst nor the Bismarck were designed for raiding (and neither were the Panzerschiffe). The geo-social aspects and legacy construction ideology did make for better oceanic raiders on paper, but the concept of Trade Warfare as a doctrine did not emerge until 1938. Merchant vessels weren't sunk with precious main gun ammunition from battleships anyway, and that's why they carried torpedoes in a majority of circumstances (or were designed with them in some shape or form). Scharnhorst-class with 38cm guns would have been more effective - period - and the Bismarck is the overall better design. Scharnies are pretty cool pieces of their time though. Very unique.

[@frankvc5899]

I also think that people compare to Bismarck way too often…why not to Tirpitz with all her improvements, specially at the end of her career? Why compare Bismarck 41 to Yamato or Iowa at 45? Why not to North Cal or KGV at 41? Or if late war beasts are taken, pick either H class (while not built) or at least, Tirpitz in 1944 fit

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

And thermonuclear bombs more powerful then nuclear. Me-262 overall better design then Me-109 And $100 more then $10 😄

[@_sarcasticat_2126]

Should be obvious, shouldn't it?​@@vladimirpecherskiy1910

[@doorhanger9317]

You can talk about the capabilities of the bismark all you want, doesn't stop her being an enormous waste of steel driven by the machismo desire for a 1914 battle fleet that would never and could never materialise. One or two serious battleships, no matter how big and fancy, could only ever be fodder for the home fleet, even if they actually got a chance a being the world's heaviest convoy raiders lmao It's questionable even whether the Scharnhost class were truly worth their weight in U-boats - certainly the smaller panzerschiffe were practically just overlarge cruisers with limited ability to resupply - but you can't argue that the Scharnhosts weren't at least effective.

[@_sarcasticat_2126]

@@doorhanger9317 How to tell someone doesn't know what they're taking about 101. I suppose you'd like me to explain, but I'm not sure I'm ready to waste more of my time.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

The lack of firepower didn't matter much because a lone German raider (or pair of raiders) a long way from any friendly port could not afford to get into a fight with other warships. With both Admiral Graf Spee and Bismarck, significant but not catastrophic damage in fights led to the end of their missions and ultimately the doom of both ships. Even though Bismarck won the battle of the Denmark Strait it was a pyrrhic victory. Running away from British warships (if possible) was by far the best option. Also, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau together were arguably a more effective fighting force than Bismarck and Prinz Eugen.

[@Edi_J]

Lack of firepower mattered when a raider couldn't escape, like Scharnhorst at North Cape. Bismarck or Tirpitz probably would've survived the fight versus a single KGV battleship (and Brits would've to send at least two ships anyway). Still, you're of course right that riders could not operate without multiple bases having full repair options, with docking capability. This was only possible for much smaller and stealthier submarines, which could sneak into base and enter underground facilities. Anyway, when designing ships like Scharnhorsts or Bismarcks, nobody could foresee that a cruiser can reliably track a raider using radar under any weather, also at night. Nobody knew that a modern battleship can be successfully attacked by planes (even primitive canvas-covered biplanes...) while maneuvering at sea. This was all new experience, shown first at Denmark Strait and then at Kuantan.

[@Fiddling_while_Rome_burns]

@philiphumphrey Also thee three light turrets gave them more speed, which helps with the raiding.

[@Fiddling_while_Rome_burns]

@@Edi_J Four 15" turrets would not have helped Scharnhorst, for a couple of reasons. 1st Scharnhorst was incrementally armoured, which is designed for raiding, not for a battleship battle. Secondly British gunnery radar was so advanced by that time, the Tirpitz, let alone Scharnhorst wouldn't have had a hope in hell. Duke of York was hitting with multiple shells per salvo, while German gunnery was still back in the early war days of 1 hit per half dozen salvoes.

[@josephkugel5099]

I would have to disagree, I think the Germans failed to learn the hard fought lesson of Jutland in WW1 and started to make the same stupid mistakes the High Seas Fleet architects did by once again arming their ships with smaller guns while EVERYONE else was going with bigger and better guns. if you are going to build a Battleship then build a damn Battleship OR DON'T!!!! Keep in mind that the Scharnhorst class could do little more than run away after the British started protecting the convoys with proper Battleships because the 11" gun was useless against them. You mention the loss of Graf Spee and Bismarck but i would argue those were losses caused directly by the German High Command and the absolute atrocity that WW2 German intelligence was, Graf Spee was tricked into self destruction and the loss of Bismarck was equally their fault. had they not been FORCED to go convoy hunting after dispatching the Hood. Prinz Eugen and Bismarck could have finished off the damaged Prince of Wales and any cruisers that got in the way and headed home with a big win but they had to go convoy hunting. so instead of having the Prinz Eugen escort the most important German naval asset home it was driving around the Atlantic doing absolutely nothing while Bismarck was fighting for its life against half the British navy. i am of the opinion that had Prinz Eugen been with Bismarck the odds of the lucky torpedo hit would have been drastically reduced because you would have to factor in the AA fire from Prinz Eugen helping against the Swordfish and the fact that the Swordfish would have most likely split their attack up and sent some planes at the cruiser. Finally just imagine if the Germans didn't send out the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau until the 15" guns were ready for them and then they hit the Atlantic with Bismarck AND ESCORTS!!!!

[@philiphumphrey1548]

@@josephkugel5099 Admiral Lutjens' decision not to finish Prince of Wales was perfectly rational. He didn't have the fuel for a long chase at high speed, Prinz Eugen's fuel situation in particular was getting critical and she needed to refuel urgently. After the battle and the damage sustained, Bismarck had barely enough fuel to get to France at a reasonable speed. Also bear in mind that after the damage, Bismarck was barely faster than Prince of Wales. Also Lutjens had no reliable intelligence on where the British were, or what might be waiting for him in the Denmark Strait. Another factor was HMS Norfolk and Suffolk, still undamaged and while no match for Bismarck, had torpedoes and 8" guns and would be extremely dangerous in the confines and poor visibility of the Denmark Strait. Ultimately his decision to head for the open ocean, detach Prinz Eugen for refuelling, and head for France was rational. The battle damage to Bismarck, the loss of a generator room, loss of a boiler and the loss of fuel meant that the mission to raid convoys was over. As for Graf Spee, Captain Langsdorff disobeyed his orders by attacking three British warships with no merchant convoy in sight. He should have turned and scarpered as soon as he saw them. Even if they gave chase, the longer range of his guns could have picked one or more of them them off before they could get close enough to fire back.

[@bobsjepanzerkampfwagen4150]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="400">6:40</a> well the Tirpitz his presence alone in Norway was enough for the allies to allocate alot of resources in the area and even stopped the convoys for a time, “fleet in being”

[@jorlivanodiong1220]

Her

[@michaelsnyder3871]

The problem was sea-keeping. The ships were 6,000 metric tons overweight, which increased their draft but decreased their hull above the waterline. Even with "Atlantic" bows, these ships were wet, taking seas over the bow even in mild weather. Heading into the waves in Sea State 3/4 while running from HMS Renown, both KMS Scharnhorst and Gneisenau suffered electrical failures in the "Adolph" turrets as the water washed over the low barbette and into the turret and barbette. It also meant that until the ship was in light condition, the belt was only a few feet above the waterline. The armor protection was simply an updated "Baden" scheme, which meant the ship was vulnerable to long-range (

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Every ship ever built was/is vulnerable to short range fire from battleship shells. If anything, Scharnhorst and Bismarck was better protected than any other battleship, due the combined protection of both the belt and backup turtle deck armor, which gave them thicker effective side armor than even Yamato. But every battleship had plenty of non-protected or less protected areas outside the armored citadel, and it doesn't take that many hits to disable even the best protected.

[@patrickcloutier6801]

Similarly to the German capital ships tying down British resources, the Italian Fleet in the Mediterranean occupied a lot of Soviet naval thinking, prior to Operation Barbarossa. The Soviet admiralty was expecting the Italians to send a flotilla through the Dardanelles and Bosporus Straits to attack the Soviet Black Sea Fleet. It never happened (though the Italians sent mini-submarines and torpedo boats to assist the Germans in 1942), but the scenario did give the Soviet Admiralty some angst in 1941.

[@Warmaker01]

Yes. Turkey straddles some historically strategic territory.

[@Wolfeson28]

I think the "battlecruiser" designation is the most appropriate one for the Scharnhorsts. They entirely fit the "kill cruisers, run from battleships" profile that defines the type from HMS Invincible onward, a profile that dovetails perfectly with the convoy/commerce raiding they spent most of their at-sea time doing. For me, the critical dividing line between battlecruisers and battleships is that a battleship (including fast battleships) can fight another battleship 1v1, whereas a battlecruiser cannot. The Scharnhorsts definitely fall on the battlecruiser side of that line - there is no true battleship remotely contemporary with them that they could fight 1v1, not even the 20+-year old QEs and Rs (I consider the Dunkerques as BCs for the same reason). The Scharnhorsts only differ from the stereotypical image of the battlecruiser in that their deficiency is in firepower rather than armor, but that's entirely consistent with previous German BCs, and I don't think it changes anything.

[@davidfreiboth1360]

Good point but the Germans referred to them as battleships (Schlachtschiff). So, whose nomenclature does one defer to? For me I'm kind of tired of the British's tendency to decide on references that are out of sync with the originating country (Turin/Torino for example).

[@Wolfeson28]

Honestly, I don't consider the originating country's nomenclature (or any other country's for that matter) to be authoritative. It's one thing to consider, but countries can call their ships all kinds of things for all kinds of political reasons that have nothing to do with the ships' actual capabilities or role. The Soviet Kiev-class "heavy aviation cruisers" (aircraft carriers to anyone else) are a prime example - they avoided calling them aircraft carriers specifically so they'd be allowed to pass through the Dardanelles, but everyone knew that's what they actually were. There's also the case of the US Navy changing a bunch of ship designations in the 1980s purely so it wouldn't look like the US had fewer cruisers than the Soviets - a bunch of ships just changed designations one day even though nothing about the ships themselves had changed.

[@scipioafricanus4328]

What led to their success was pragmatism of smaller guns allowed earlier delivery (which allowed them to participate in 1939-1941 WW2 missions) and appeased the British into thinking they were not a threat, while still having an upgrade option later. Two of the most beautiful battleships ever built.

[@justmymage]

The Shiny Horse is a wonderful ship in World of Warships

[@thelvadam2884]

she looks amazing but really suffers due to the armor changes ofc cruisers and the meta.

[@Edi_J]

Yeah, but this game is all about Soviet fiction and generally has not much to do with WW1-WW2 anymore.

[@Tuning3434]

@@thelvadam2884 Fast flank striking close range battleship do suffer in the World of Towerdefense meta of 2024 where in a Random team you get yourself overextended by leaving spawn forward.

[@thelvadam2884]

@@Edi_J there are just as many stupid broken ships from other nations

[@thelvadam2884]

@@Tuning3434 you still can play aggressive and aggressive ships but have to be much more careful than in the past

[@PeterOConnell-pq6io]

Given their 11"/~275mm cannon's 16,000m near over the horizon range, their ability to ourange 8"/~205mm heavy cruisers, and ability to outrun older RN battleships relegated to convoy escort duty, their cannon size may not have mattered so much given the German battlecruisers' commerce raiding mission.

[@jevinliu4658]

283 mm and 203.2 mm btw

[@Edi_J]

@@jevinliu4658 and range was much better than 16000m, as Glorious was hit from 24km. Yes, Scharnhorst class made excellent battlecruisers, i.e. "cruiser hunters" - even if they were counted rather as first fast battleships due to good armor. It would be really interesting to see how Dunkerque/Strasbourg would've done against Scharnhorsts, as they were specifically designed to counter German raiders (and also as cruiser hunters), while German ships were designed to counter the French hunters ;) The French used 330mm guns and despite less heavy armor the armor scheme was more efficient. Regarding commerce raiding, a 12x or 15x 15cm guns would be much better than 28cm with lower fire rate and limited ammo. Even 5-inch guns would be effective against civilian ships.

[@jevinliu4658]

@@Edi_J You're right about the max range, my bad. I was just correcting the gun calibers, don't know where they got the numbers from As for the secondary battery, well the Scharnhorsts did have 12x14.9 cm and 14x10.5 cm guns, so that's a lot

[@PeterOConnell-pq6io]

@@jevinliu4658estimates, metric isn't the standard here in the good 'Ole USA.

[@f0rth3l0v30fchr15t]

@@PeterOConnell-pq6io Yes it is. The USCU are have been defined using metric units since 1893.

[@ycplum7062]

Besides tonnage (on merchant ships) sunk, the key benefit of the Scharnhorst class is the impact on the rate of tonnage delivered.

[@level98bearhuntingarmor]

I genuinely like those two, I consider them close sisters that could punch above their weight

[@cold_raptor]

Rather below. Weight of a KGV class with less Overall Armor, one less gun and much smaller of those. Quite Speedy for it's time tho.

[@matthiaslenzen9462]

@@cold_raptor kgv had 40000 tons standard displacement vs 32000 on scharnhorst

[@altf4tocringe105]

@@matthiaslenzen9462 Not an expert on this subject but WIkipedia claims the Scharnhorst displaced 38000 at full load; still less than the KGV's 42000 though.

[@HMSConqueror]

they where wonderful overrated commercial raiders. Put them against a KGV class and the super uber duper german bb = FAIL....

[@kevinbarry71]

Speculative at best. Because they never had to. They never confronted anything on the level with them and they would've not done well at all against a more modern heavier ship like an Iowa class

[@pot8552]

In battleship naval combat it was usually the one who landed the first shot who would win the engagement. Therefore the germans thought that they would rather have smaller caliber, faster firing guns so they could more likely land that first vital hit. Also if your ship is not designed to engage enemy battleships (i am not saying they were or were not intended for that role), and designed as surface raiders instead, it does not really matter as much how big your guns are.

[@bofoenss8393]

Just a heads up. The British Admiralty post WW1 defined a battlecruiser as a capital ship capable of speed of 25 knots or above. It had nothing to do with armour thickness or size of guns anymore. Hood was designated battlecruiser simply for her speed. She had roughly the same armour belt thickness as Bismarck and was a fast battleship - like the twins - in anything but name. The initial design specifications and plans for what became the KGV class (the second thickest armour belt on a ship ever, second only to Yamato) called them battlecruisers because of their speed. This was quickly rectified to the term battleship. So the British calling the Twins battlecruisers was down to their great speed. Even though they were undergunned, it had nothing to do with their classification. But it was a great video as always. I love your analytical and objective approach, always looking from as many perspectives as possible.

[@Paciat]

Its funny when people think battlecruisers were not battleships. Cruisers were not ships?

[@philiphumphrey1548]

HMS Hood was arguably the first fast battleship. Her armour was equivalent to a battleship of the time e.g. Queen Elizabeth class, and she had equivalent firepower. The extra speed came from the large displacement (41000 tons) which allowed a greater weight of boilers and engines. By the time Bismarck was built, engines and boilers could be made lighter for the same amount of power, so she was able to have thicker deck armour (mostly to deal with the relatively new threat of armour piercing bombs from carrier based aircraft).

[@bofoenss8393]

@@philiphumphrey1548 When Bismarck was designed, no one was anticipating 500 or 1.000 lb bombs. 100 or 250 lb were the absolute max expected to be used against her in her life time. Ark Royal had an armoured deck to withstand bombs smaller than 50 lb and she was only two years earlier than Bismarck. The deck armour was for plunging fire. It was also situated so low that any aerial bombs that hit the belt, failed to penetrate and then exploded would cause severe damage on the upper decks and superstructure, so even though it could stop air dropped bombs, it would not protect large parts of the ship. Yes, the aerial threat turned out to be much bigger than realised at her design phase and her armour was effective against it, but the deck armour was originally intended against plunging fire from long range. Much of the extra armour was actually put into armouring parts of the superstructure against cruiser fire. Which, in her final battle, turned out to be pointless and the British cruisers riddled her bridge structure with penetrations. Ironically, everyone talks about how Hood was weaker because of her thinner deck armour and the design difference compared to Bismarck's, when it had no relevance to her loss. It's wasn't plunging fire that did her in, even though it is a persistent myth. But I completely agree on Hood's status as a fast battleship, being the first ship to merge the battlecruiser and battleship philosophies and designs into one.

[@88porpoise]

​@@philiphumphrey1548The Hood is definitely a step towards fast battleships, but it is a bit of a stretch to call it that. She was less protected than the four years older (and in that time period, four years made a big difference) Queen Elizabeth even with the post-Jutland updates to the armour. Yes the maximum thickness of her belt was almost that of the Queen Elizabeths, but most of the belt was significantly thinner. A contemporary battleship, the Colorados, had far more armour while being significantly less displacement. The Hood was effectively the forerunner of the next generation of capitalships, which were otherwise cancelled due to treaties. See the British plans for post-war capital ships with the G3s and N3s.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

​@@bofoenss8393Tirpitz's deck armour did prove effective against British dive bombers (Fairey Barracudas) in that she did not suffer the fate of the USS Arizona. But the armoured deck was relatively low in the ship and pretty much everything above it was smashed, rendering her no longer an effective fighting unit. The following two raids by Lancasters of 617 squadron arguably finished the job that the Barracudas had started.

[@neniAAinen]

Yes, firepower was a problem. Yes, it mattered in their career - at very least, in action against HMS Renown(which the British battlecruiser de facto won), but also at their inability to suppress even old, unapgraded R-class during Berlin - which technically wasn't even hard - just couldn't be done with 28cm fire. Ships could achieve a lot regardless (same as the previous pair sharing the same names) - well, they probably could've done the same even with 8" guns, for the matter. Laying down both with "restrained" 28cm guns instead of logical 33cm(same as Dunkerque, and as per second "semi-final" project until Hitler interfered) was an act of excessive self-mutilation, which clearly harmed KM in WW2. Because ultimately, during the window of opportunity in 1940-41, KM didn't have proper capital ships until Bismarck. Add in magnificent stories of Graf Zepellin and Seydlitz/Lutzow - and basically KM almost ensured with its actions that it just couldn't do as much harm as it should've been able to, at the moment when it mattered.

[@yesyesyesyes1600]

A chronological video about all major german surface ship activities would be great. "While Bismarck was doing this Gneisenau did that ..." 🤩

[@niclasjohansson4333]

The most important difference between the Scharnhorst and the Bismarck class, and the reason why the former was highly successfull, (by battleship standards) is that S&G was ready for action, and had a fairly well trained crew, from the start of the war ! In 39 a battleship was still quite useful, but became less so for every year that passed. The Bismarcks was vastly superiour to the Scharnhorsts when regarding the main guns, seakeeping, the quality of the welding, and there machinery was more reliable.

[@VRichardsn]

Ultimately, it is not the size, it is how you use it :) Just like the Kongo-class vs Yamato-class. The Kongos ended up achieving quite a bit just by virtue of actually putting in the work, even though they were technically a pre-WWI design.

[@pRahvi0]

Although just keeping the fleet in being, passively threatening the enemy, is a form of usage. One might argue that the problem with Yamato class was that neither of the ships participated in significant battles which might have demonstrated their power. On the other hand, outmatching every warship in existance at least on paper probably was enough, and actual demonstrations might have actually brought their threat down if they couldn't live up to the hype.

[@VRichardsn]

@@pRahvi0 Certainly! I personally think that Tirpitz was actually quite good at what it did, tying a lot of resources.

[@robertdickson9319]

To be fair to the Bismarck/Tirpitz, a big reason for the discrepancy in the results was availability - the Scharnhorsts were available in 1940/early 1941 when British naval strength was stretched and at its weakest relative to the German navy. After the Hood was sunk neither class sank anything else. By the time of the Bismarck's sortie the King George V class was coming on-line and those reinforcements, the addition of the US Navy in the Atlantic and air attacks against France essentially closed the door on German surface raiding. Availability of oil also hurt both Tirpitz & Scharnhorst. Finally the sinking of the Glorious was a roll of 20 on the 20 sided die - if the Glorious was properly captained I doubt the same result occurs. That being said, I am a firm believer that the Bismarck class should never have been built and Germany would have been better off stopping heavy surface ship construction with the 2 Scharnhorsts.

[@itsmebatman]

I always assumed the Scharnhorst was designed to do basically the same as the Admiral Graf Spee and those other "pocket battleships". Outrun British battleships and outgun British cruisers. It's essentially the same strategy that lead to the Uboot fleet. Being able to choose your target and disengage when it looks bad.

[@VRichardsn]

_I always assumed the Scharnhorst was designed to do basically the same as the Admiral Graf Spee and those other "pocket battleships"_ They were a reply to the Dunkerques first and foremost, but they could do most of the outrunning. Do note that Hood, Repulse and Renown could catch it!

[@sergeipohkerova7211]

Battle cruiser sinking an aircraft carrier is honestly like a medieval knight sublty sneaking close with his plate armor clinking and clanking, ultimately using his mailed fist to bludgeon to death a guy who has a sniper rifle.

[@mrcat5508]

No it’s not. Aircraft carriers were pretty vulnerable in WW2.

[@elmafias6141]

Is more a late medieval knight killing a musketeer

[@sergeipohkerova7211]

​@@mrcat5508Yes, to airplanes and to a lesser extent submarines.

[@sergeipohkerova7211]

​@@elmafias6141I think maybe like a group of musketeers, each of whom can kill the knight at distance but are helpless if the knight can make it a hand to hand battle. Sort of like how it's not the carrier itself that threatens the battleship but it's air group.

[@glenchapman3899]

**Cough** HMS Glorious **Cough**

[@TheHistoricalReview]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="620">10:20</a> lol true. Although it wasnt just a “weather station”, and there were AA guns and coastal batteries with up to 4.5” guns if memory serves me right that she knocked out.

[@davidfreiboth1360]

Their success had much more to do with timing rather than design. If Raeder had waited for the Tirpitz to finish working up and had grouped Bismarck, with her sister and the two Scharns they might have annihilated the British surface fleet sent to challenge them. Then the success of the surface raiders likely would have continued. But despite Bizmarck's incredible luck sinking Hood (and incredible bad luck getting caught) by the time she was battered to a hulk and scuttled the effectiveness of the surface units as a proactive element was over. All that was left was a surface fleet in being and while useful in tying down Allied units did nothing offensively for the rest of the war. And what may be viewed as a final comment on the design, Scharnhorst’s last desperate offensive foray ended in disaster. Not sure Tirpitz would have been taken down as quickly as Scharn.

[@manilajohn0182]

It's unknown exactly how Hood was sunk and by no means certain that Bismarck sunk her. The deck armor penetration theory was eliminated a few decades back, with exploding UP ammunition, exploding 4" ammunition, and a 15" shell landing short as the only remaining theories. There's no eyewitness account of any shell landing within 20 feet or so of Hood just prior to the deflagration.

[@Lasstpak]

Doesn't dates that ships were introduced have an impact? What is Tirpitz and Bismark took part in Norwegian campaign? Or both sailed out to Atlantic? Just in general, used differently.

[@alexvisser5913]

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are the most beautiful battleships of the second world war

[@mikhailiagacesa3406]

No way! Renown and the Littorios.

[@greenflagracing7067]

and how'd that work out?

[@Wolfpack345]

Great video!

[@ianwang5242]

Comparing the Scharnhorst and Bismarck classes of battleships is a complex thing, primarily due to the strategic differences in the German Navy's deployment of these ships during the war. For instance, if the Scharnhorst were to replace the Bismarck in the Battle of the Denmark Strait, it would likely face a terrible outcome against HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales. Similarly, if the Bismarck class had undertaken the Scharnhorst-class mission, its performance could have been even more impressive. The Scharnhorst class's low freeboard, a design feature that caused numerous issues for the crew in actual combat, is a notable aspect. When they fully loaded, the Scharnhorst's freeboard was only slightly over 4 meters, significantly affecting its combat effectiveness. Her torpedo protection was also not ideal; Scharnhorst was hit by a torpedo from the British destroyer HMS Acasta while the aircraft carrier HMS Glorious sank. The damage caused by torpedos was severe: Scharnhorst's hull was blown open by a 6x14m opening hole, the bulkhead was severely deformed, and the right and middle propulsion shafts were disabled, with 2,500 tons of water injected. Her success in battle was more due to the crew's efforts and the advantages of the high speed.

[@PalleRasmussen]

Dr. Alexander Clarke (Ph.D. WW2 Naval History) has two videos analysing in detail why Bernard's claim here is actually true, and what would have happened if Germany had used the resources used for the Bismarcks for Scharnhorsts instead, and what would happened had they used the Scharnhorst for everything, including carriers..

[@Easy-Eight]

Scharnhorst for everything? No kidding. I'll look him up. I've done a lot of reading on the "elusive sisters" and could not figure out why Germany didn't standardize the hull for carriers and battleships. I came to that conclusion on my own (never have an original idea :( ). Everything on the Scharnhorst class seemed to work just fine and not like the pain-in-the-ass Hipper cruiser class. Go with what works and perhaps it's best the Kreigsmarine didn't think like that. I've known that for the resources of 2 Bismarck then DKM could had 3 improved Scharnhorst. My only real "beef" with the German aircraft carriers is that goofy trolly launch system that was copied from a Capital Ship catapult. A Scharnhorst hull would have been a much better idea. I speculate the Japanese felt the same way about the German high seas fleet that the Germans felt about the Japanese Army's tanks.

[@PalleRasmussen]

@@Easy-Eight go check him out. And Drachinifel also

[@Easy-Eight]

@@PalleRasmussen I've been subscribed to Drachinifel for years. His humor is great with a gin and tonic.

[@Edi_J]

much more reasonable was what Germans in fact did - submarine wolf packs. "What would've happened if Germany used all the resources for submarines from the beginning"? Before USA joined the war? Before escort carriers, sonar and planes with radar?

[@Easy-Eight]

@@Edi_J Germany's Navy was not ready for WWII, plain and simple. The Italian Navy's submarines were sinking more ships for a while than the Germans. The Treaty of Versailles wrecked the Germany Navy and it would have taken to 1950 for the German Navy to be rebuilt to *half* the tonnage of WWI.

[@1986Agrippa]

Not sure what to make of this video tbh! Are the Scharnhorsts the best German Capital ships? - No, the Bismarck's are absolutely more powerful. Are the Scharnhorsts battleships? - No, 'battleship' is a role, the point of which is to dominate the sea by defeating enemy battleships. This is not something a Scharnhorst could do, in fact whenever they encountered an RN capital ship (including old R-class) they usually ran away. Were they the most successful German capital ships? Yes, they were quite successful as commerce raiders/battlecruisers, but it could be argued that is more down to circumstance of being around early in the war and having better opportunities rather than inherent design superiority. For example take two of the cases in this video and flip the participents, would the two Bismarck's have sunk HMS Glorious - almost certainly, glorious was in a very bad spot and could not have got away. Now put a Scharnhorst in the battle of the denmark straight, could Scharnhorst have sunk hood - honestly i am not sure because we don't know exactly how Hood was sunk but on balance of probability less scharnhorst firepower is going to improve hoods chances before we even talk about Prince of Wales which would decimate a Scharnhorst. In conclusion: they had a brief period early in the war where they could shine as battlecruisers, but as the war progressed and more powerful Allied capital ships entered service they were increasingly overshadowed.

[@manilajohn0182]

The Scharnhorsts were battleships. The Germans constructed them and designated them as such. Other nations and individuals may call them what they please, but they who construct the ship designate it. It's as simple as that.

[@davidfreiboth1360]

Great content with one nit to pick. The outlines used to depict the two ships are of the Scharnhorst. Gneisenau had her main mast attached to the rear of the funnel unlike Scharnhorst's which was mounted further back on the after superstructure.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thanks for the info!

[@livincincy4498]

Thanks again

[@13thravenpurple94]

Excellent video 👍 Thank you 💜

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

First look in the comments before watching the video😀 is just to see how many _‘They were battlecruisers ! (because they had light armour (WRONG) and were designed to hunt down distant ocean cruisers (WRONG))’_ confused commentators have popped up to spread their wisdom.

[@Macharius117]

Yeah, it's always hilarious to see people who think that their own silly, made up rules, can somehow change historical reality.

[@Tuning3434]

Well to be fair, the British nomenclature is a bit more tied with role than specifications. And the fact that you had to send out a Battlecruiser to take them out, muddles the water a bit. Fact is that the Kreigsmarine realized that speed was the allies weakness, only intended to fight the French Navy and accepted the fact they would never ever wanted want to fight out a fleet engagement, there is merit to sacrifice gunpower and devote that displacement to speed and (obsolete) protection.. It is the German BC way. In the end, they where fast battleships through and through.... but there is something to say that fast battleships are closer to the heavier battlecruisers than true battleships (e.g. Iowa vs Montana), especially considering their role with their older contemporaries. Makes me realize how well thought out the KGV's where, because in the North Atlantic, with proper bad weather performance and actual ability to handle and operate with sustained battledamage, they really are an intimidating counter in the critical operations area of the Royal Navy.

[@ibalrog]

My, that's an oddly shaped Panzer.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

lol

[@mikhailiagacesa3406]

Amphib tank for Sea Lion. ;-)

[@granitehewer]

Disclosure: I love these videos

[@karldubhe8619]

Well argued.

[@captainhurricane5705]

All the design considerations were overtaken by events. The dominance of airpower put paid to the battleship.

[@Easy-Eight]

I consider the UK lucky in WWII. Had the Kreigsmarine made a repeat of the Scharnhorst class with 6 15" guns and made 3 of them instead of just two Bismarck class then the Royal Navy would have a real problem. The elusive sisters of the Scharnhorst class were a semi nightmare for the Royal Navy. Three improved Scharnhorst would have been a deranged nightmare. Always having two ships working as a team would have been more than a match for the Royal Navy battlecruisers and they could sprint away from the KGV class. Good Video.

[@brucesim2003]

And yet the twins weren't a match for Renown, and Scharnhorst failed to 'sprint away' from the Duke of York.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

They were not great sea boats in bad weather, far too little freeboard forward. The D.O.Y. was wet too but probably lost less speed in the really big seas. @Easy-Eight They could have made the Bismarcks 10,000 tons lighter without the Nazi overkill tendency, they might have got 9 x 15" with improvements in the triple turrets. The 20,000 tons could have given them three sensible size light cruisers which they were desperately short of. Four shafts for them all!

[@Tuning3434]

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Well, that is Germany that didn't had to suffer the development hit of Versailles (or swallowed enough of their pride to actually learn a lot from the Italian navy and developed on those concepts, taking in mind that the Italians had completely different operational requirements as a Med. only force). All the design works done by the other navies in order to comply with Washington and London treaties did mean they spend a lot of resources in optimizing, which gave them a huge advantage when fleshing out the designs when restrictions dropped.

[@Easy-Eight]

@@brucesim2003 I've read books on the Battle of North Cape and the DKM was weird. Scharnhorst walked into an ambush then kept walking back into the ambush until she was wounded and could not run. The strangest thing is the DKM leadership knew something was up with the British and they ignored all the warnings. In combat they tell you if it feels wrong then it is wrong: Leave. The twins were to be upgraded to 15" guns, that didn't work out and it's felt they would have been a match for Repulse with the upgrade. Life gets easier if you standardize and the Germans did anything but standardize.

[@brucesim2003]

@@Easy-Eight Even with 11" guns, the twins should have had the Renown for breakfast. Renown didn't have the belt improvement the repulse had, so Renown only had a 6" belt, with armour on similar scale elsewhere. North Cape was a battle that should have ended as soon as Bey realised he couldn't get to the convoy. Unfortunately, group north didn't pass on the sigint in a timely manner. What both of these battles prove is, contrary to your original comment, it is the men that matter much more than the ships. Having 15" guns wouldn't have made any difference vs either Renown or Duke of York. In the 1st instance, the will was not there, and in the 2nd, Scharnhorst's hit rate would not have improved.

[@FrankBarnwell-xi8my]

I go: Graf Spee was a cruiser with big guns; Scharnhorst a battleship with big cruiser guns; Alaska a big cruiser with small battleship guns. Clear as mud?

[@bgclo]

Love your dry humour!

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Saying Gneisenau made it to 1945 was special exBismarck humour😂

[@erichammond9308]

Why the Kriegsmarine didn't arm her with 9 of the outstanding 12/50 caliber guns used in WWI era German BB's, and which had proven itself highly lethal at Jutland, is beyond me. The 11.1/54 and 12/50 weighed nearly the same, had similar rates of fire and the 12" gun hit harder than the 11.1" gun. If they had upgraded and lightened the 12/50, and perhaps used the weight saved to increase the caliber to 54 or 55, they would have essentially produced a more heavily armored version of the US Alaska class cruisers

[@crownprincesebastianjohano7069]

The D-Class was indicated. Raeder had the better idea to begin with only for Hitler to begin his escalator clause with ships. Large Cruisers are the answer for commerce raiding. The final version of the D-Class would have given the British nightmares. Indeed, they were pleased the Germans built Fast Battleships instead of four D-Class ships.

[@Italian_Military_Archives]

Great video (as usual). The more "silent" action and impact usually receive less attention compared to more "rumorous" one (i.e. Bismarck). Talking about design choicea, I have not found a definitive explanation on why the Germans opted for the twin turrets design on the Bismarck class, do you have any clues?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

In the document that compared the gun firepower/weight they clearly noted several drawbacks of the triple and quadruple turrets, if I remember correctly they noted the only benefit would be saving weight.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Big twin turrets with rather large distance between the two guns = less interference between the guns = better accuracy/less dispersion. The 4x2 layout also suited the German preference for firing half salvos - Anton+Bruno, then Cesar+Dora turrets. US Navy fully expected the triple turrets in their new classes to have larger dispersion than the twin turrets of the Colorado class. The quads were troublesome in both the Richelieu and KGV classes.

[@pRahvi0]

I'm inclined to think that the Tirpiz owed its success in binding enemy resources by merely existing much to the Bismark's success of causing actual havock before. And vice versa: Bismark's famous yet short career would've been mostly in vain (RN could sustain losing capital ships way better than Kriegsmarine) had it not also demonstrated the potential of Tirpiz that remained. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are interesting in that they caused both active and passive damage to the enemy. I wonder if up-gunning them would've made them more frightening since on one hand, it would've meant fewer allied ships had adequate armor to be "safe" against them, but on the other hand, I don't know if 1) the allied would've been aware let alone 2) sure of the increase in capability or if 3) it would've made any difference in their strategy or tactics anyway.

[@ikke12345]

The barbette of the sharnhorst class was large enough to allow a tree gun turred to be fielded, ik they would have used brittish/us style breach blocks

[@steffenb.jrgensen2014]

Even a RoF of 2 rpm could rarely be utilised as you had to await the fall of the previously salvo to adjust firing data. In theory you could ofcourse just fire away at the last data, but that would within a few salvos mean inaccurate fire and waste of ammo. After all only around 100 main caliber rounds pr gun were carried, of which some were HE.

[@davidfreiboth1360]

In terms of gaming (WOW), I find the Scharn more useful than the in game version of Gneisenau with her 38 cm SK C/34 gun conversion. The 28 cm SK C/34 guns have decent AP usefulness and the reload rate allow the player to pepper an opponent with damage. Like any unit broadsides are to be avoided but the head on armor is also decent. I have no problem playing Scharnhorst as I would any German “Schlachtschiff”.

[@TheHistoricalReview]

Just finished it. Great video as always bernhard! I will personally disagree with <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="660">11:00</a>…its subjective of course since its a counter-factual, but so much of that engagement is effected by firepower and armor and radar capability. Its been awhile since ive been interested and done thorough reading on the Arctic convoys and Atlantic war (other than some WWI/Jutland stuff on invenio), but Ill make my own video about the topic soon. At the very least with a 38cm armed Scharnhorst at North Cape, HMS Norfolk doesnt survive the engagement.

[@Beavis-et8ox]

At least they where the most beautiful heavy ships of WW2.

[@duncandl910]

Thx bernhard

[@AugmentedGravity]

Tirpitz was a fleet in being. That in itself was worth alot.

[@jollyjohnthepirate3168]

It's believed that the German navy could have built two Scharnhorst class for each Bismark class battleships.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Tirpitz/Bismarck cost around 190 million RM, Scharnhorst/Gneisenau 145 million.

[@edi9892]

I wonder was there any doctrine with regards to having enemy contact during adverse weather conditions? Just imagine being on a fleet and it has to stop due to poor visibility and then the wind picks up and clears the fog and suddenly you realise that there's a hostile force well within range... However, the weather is deteriorating and it might become a full-blown storm...

[@bengtgronlund9447]

One should have in mind that scharnhorst was sunk while Bismarck was scuttled

[@manilajohn0182]

The Germans did scuttle Bismarck. That said, they scuttled a ship which was going to sink very soon and would never make port. Thus, both statements are true- that the British sunk Bismarck and the Germans scuttled their warship.

[@karlhans6678]

Can you do a video on the ISU-152 SPG?

[@looinrims]

Guess the Germans didn’t have anything wrong with their bloody ships…

[@rodshoaf]

designing a BB with 3 propellors was wrong. 🙂

[@strixaluco7423]

desiging them with a split secondary battery and giving them manuel loading medium AA, with a rate of fire that planes could fly slalom between the shots was wrong.

[@highlanderknight]

More should have been mentioned about the ship's armor,

[@ydk1k253]

Please cover the Deutschland class next

[@bobsjepanzerkampfwagen4150]

Sadly the upgrade to the 38cm guns was never completed on the Gneisenau

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

‘Sadly’? Are you a supporter of the Nazi regime and all its actions?

[@phil_nebula676]

My only gripe with the Bismarck-class is they should have been Armed with 9 × 381mm 38.1cm/L50 main guns in three triple turrets instead of twin barrel in 4 turrets. Also equip with duel-purpose 128cm secondary guns and better armour scheme.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Germans didn’t like triple or quadruple turrets.

[@Tuning3434]

Germans didn't have a breech design that allowed a 381 mm tripple turret without going to H-class monsters. With turrets that wide, it is dubious if a 3x3 setup would really provide a mass reduction with a german style armour protection. Hence, even the H-class has double turrets with increased gun sizes. Missing out on the design development in the '10s, '20s and '30s due to Versailles was a way larger hit than could be offset by organizing a few foreign secret design bureau's. They needed to build and test large hardware instead, and had no choice to iterate on WW1 designs instead.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@@Tuning3434 There were various arguments in the document, some are confirmed by the problems the British had with their turrets.

[@Salmon_Rush_Die]

I love the way he pronounces "Drachinifel".

[@pavelslama5543]

"Do we need anti battleship guns? Well, the better question is: do we want to fight enemy battleships? And the answer is no, enemy battleships do not carry enough cargo to justify a duel, and they have far too many of them to justify such a risky operation. So no, there is no need for anti-battleship guns."

[@ToddSauve]

Until you unhappily run into a battleship, as the Scharnhorst did in December 1943. That was a catastrophic year for Nazi Germany.

[@pavelslama5543]

@@ToddSauve At that point the gun calibre and armor piercing capabilities were the least of their concern. The first issue was to score a hit at all...

[@ToddSauve]

@@pavelslama5543 As they say, "It was a dark and stormy night ..." Almost no daylight at all and then that night the Scharnhorst went down. IIRC, it was the HMS Duke of York that finally delivered the _coup de grace._

[@FireDragon16180]

When we talk about 11 inch or 15 inch guns, we are talking about 9x11 inch versus 9x15 inch? or 9x11 inch versus 6x15 inch guns? the 15 inch guns were double or triple turrets?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

9x11 vs 9x15, as stated and shown on screen.

[@FireDragon16180]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Thank you, I wasn't paying attention, very good video

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you!

[@okanolin70]

es gab noch eine 3. Schlachtschiff Klasse Veraltete aber Schlachtschiffe auch genannt die Bügeleisen der Ostsee die schiffe der Deutschland-Klasse Schleswig Holstein und Schlesien es sei den du ziehst die Kaiserliche Bezeichnung Linienschiffe vor.

[@svenschafer9537]

Not to forget they hold the world record for the farthest hit of a navy gun on a moving target.

[@bigsarge2085]

⚓

[@101jir]

CVs are overrated in public perception due to hindsight and a lack of context. Don't get me wrong, in recon and planned operations, they were unbeatable. But people are quick to forget the many caveats. First, for most of the war they were useless at night, while a BB could still hit targets (including heavy targets) illuminated by star shells. They used up a lot of resources for escort, while BCs could generally operate outside of a fleet. So a nation wasn't just paying for the CV, but all the escorts it would need (CVEs came with somewhat different tradeoffs) Finally, not a tradeoff so much as people tend to forget they were often used to ferry aircraft. While in this configuration, they were very expensive, high value merchant ships. Useful to be sure, but far from invulnerable on its own merit. Carriers were the primary means of planned attacks, recon, CAP, and more. But at this time BBs, BCs, and CAs still had great value as the meat of the fleet, carriers the force multiplier.

[@copter2000]

Is that why carriers were phased out after the war. And we have a Battleship strike group nowadays? 😂

[@101jir]

@copter2000 It's called the march of technology, and why carriers were virtually useless for anything except recon in WW1. Jets and airborne radar make a massive difference in the independence of carriers. The launching mechanisms and elevators also had to develop for faster launches. Comparing WW2 and cold war carriers (or more specifically naval aviation) is like Comparing WW1 and WW2. Furthermore, the role of the modern cruiser is effectively a merge of the cruisers and battleships of WW2: Combining exceptional defenses with strong direct firepower and mobility. The BB didn't die, it evolved. There's always a role for ships that hit hard and absorb blows.

[@josephkugel5099]

@@copter2000 That's funny, i seem to recall Battleships being used in Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War but then again my history may be a little fuzzy.

[@copter2000]

@@josephkugel5099 key word is nowaday.

[@josephkugel5099]

@@copter2000 The Key words are: "But at this time BBs, BCs, and CAs still had great value"

[@bilku7017]

I find the adoption of 28 cm gun really odd. It just perfecty in the middle of too big for cruisers and too small for battleships. Its made to counter the Dunkerque class. That is a French ship, war between Germany and France will be decided on land, not in naval battle (as it was in every war). And against everything else it overkill (to everything except maybe heavy cruisers, but still) or useless because it just cant penetrate any battleship and battlecruisers are not really around after WW1. I will say that the general design was more influenced by what shipbuilding industry could realistically build at that time and also the fact, that Germans kinda lost touch with shipbuilding after Versailles banned their navy.

[@StacheMan26]

The 28 cm caliber was inherited from the Deutschland class, as the largest caliber naval gun Krupp was then capable of producing (although the guns were of a newer, more powerful design than those of the Deutschlands), which was in turn designed to replace the 11" armed pre-dreadnought battleships allowed to Germany under the Treaty of Versailles and limited by said treaty to a maximum of 10,000 tons displacement and the same gun caliber. Basically, they adopted 28 cm guns back in the 19th century when they made perfect sense, but were saddled into keeping it far longer than most anyone else via a combination of treaty restrictions, loss of institutional knowledge in naval construction caused by the former, and industrial inertia.

[@Tuning3434]

@@StacheMan26 Dr. Clarke did an interesting analysis to this a few years back. The fact the Imperial German Navy was planning to widdle out the Royal Navy by devoting more to protection vs firepower, really gave operational room to the Royal Navy. Less protection was needed against 11" and 12" guns, and that weight could be allocated for extra offensive power, range and eventually speed in the QE's. The Germans set themselves up to be contained in the North Sea, against a Navy that was able and had already outbuilt the Imperial capabilities. The Imperial navy was set up to endure Royal Navy during WW1, while adopting a more raiding style fleet would have given more actual initiative to the Germans instead of trying to 'trap' the Royal Navy in a piece-meal battle line with coastal raids. Kudo's for Scheer for being on point, training his force to handle the inevitable 'shit hits the fan' situation his fleet was set up to face if the Royal Navy had things their way, meanwhile hitting Beatty hard when the Battlecruiser force gave him that opening.

[@UncleJoeLITE]

Mange tak Bernhard.

[@mikhailiagacesa3406]

I got lectured by a German naval historian on the difference between Allied designated enemy Battlecruisers and a KM Gross Kreuzer. I'll not make that mistake again.

[@dermax1254]

Dont forget the fact that the design of the Ships is very beautiful in comparison to many other ships of this size from other countries.

[@ZRudi]

no

[@dermax1254]

@@ZRudi why?

[@mikhailiagacesa3406]

@@dermax1254 Italians.

[@joshuayang0331]

well, i disagree in some parts though, the bismark class was finished mush later, and after the sinking of the bismark, the germans lost interest in surface ships thus the tirpits could only sit in port and couldn't do much effort except diverting allied resources to sink it, it is not as good on the total impact on the allies than the scharnhorsts, i agree, but i don't think that makes it better, just the bismarks had bad luck, i'd say, and the scharnhorst had relatively very good luck, being built earlier and all, and seeing how much effort the british did to hunt the bismark, well, i don't think it's really inferior but had to say the kms battleships actually had very good luck, like at denmark strait the british mistaken eugen for bismark, and the scharnhorsts really had good luck on sinking the glorious, with the british making lot of mistakes then, but even with this, they still couldn't avoid the inevitable, that the german navy just couldn't win against the combined might of the allied navy.

[@urazoe8240]

This seam like a unfair comparison right of the bat. The Bismarck was sunk only 1 week in on its maiden Voage abd Tirps was then just sitting in the Nordic Sea looking scary but never accually fighting. Also, if what your fighting arent other Warships but Cargo Vessels, then you dont need 457mm main guns like Yamato. Thats also why Bismarck and Tirpitz only had 380mm instead of 406mm. They just didnt need it.

[@Warmaker01]

I pretty much always like and agree with what you put out, but I'm going to have to take a hard disagree the Scharnhorst-class were better than the Bismarck-class. The Bismarcks displaced significantly more and were more powerful, even if the Scharnhorsts got the 380mm gun upgrade they were intended to get, but never received. The Scharnhorsts were operationally more successful however than the Bismarcks. But they did it in a time of some chaos for the British. You saw this in the farce of the Germans actually succeeding in the Channel Dash with the Scharnhorsts when the British should have sunk them to wrap up Operation Berlin. The success of Operation Berlin and the Channel Dash was a huge slap in the face for the British and they were determined to not let that circus show happen again. Raeder wanted a repeat but Lütjens wanted to delay it because only Bismarck was ready. The two Scharnhorsts were in no condition to sortie yet and Tirptiz was brand new and needed to be trained up. He wanted all 4 Battleships to go but Raeder would have none of it and the mission had to go, so it was only Bismarck with 1 Heavy Cruiser, Prinz Eugen for the mission. When Bismarck and Prinz Eugen sortie for Operation Rheinübung, the Royal Navy was a lot better prepared and determined to not get embarrassed like they did with Operation Berlin. All this happened before Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and Germany and Italy declaring war on the United States when they had no obligation to do so. Tripartite Pact was a *defensive* alliance, Japan started the war against the USA. Regardless, now the US Navy was officially "in" for the Atlantic war, too. American Battleships and Carriers, as well as other ships would be part of the combined US & UK naval effort. The seas were far too dangerous now for German capital ships, regardless of class. The next time Scharnorst would try to hit a convoy in December 1943, she'd face a similar fate as Bismarck: Overwhelming naval might and sink as a result.

[@egyeneskifli7808]

Merchant raiding of the Scharnhorsts were solved easily. RN decided not te really actively try to find them. You know where they want to go: near the convoys. And even an old WWI vintage battleship was enough to dispatch a Scharnhorst from the vicinity. So they added WWI battleships to the convoy escorts. Only 21 kn speed? Who cares, that was still almost double the speed of a convoy.

[@MrHws5mp]

The entire discussion shows how rigid ship categories and their definitions can muddy thinking. The Scharnhorsts shouldn't be compared unfavorably to battleships any more than the Deutchlands should be. They weren't battleships or cruisers, they were "commerce raiders"; a distinctly different concept from either. They were never intended to go toe-to-toe with battleships since even if they won the encounter, a lone raider taking ANY damage a long way from home and resupply/repair would be in trouble. The design principle was to "out-shoot anything you can't out-run". They had more than enough firepower to out-shoot a pre-war heavy cruiser (treaty-limited to 8" guns), enough speed to out-run a battleship, and enough range to conduct long cruises that justified the risks inherent in German ships getting to and from the open ocean. For Germany this was an entirely sensible and pragmatic approach. They didn't have a snowball in hell's chance of ever outnumbering even the Royal Navy, let alone the RN plus other potential allies, so "lone wolf" commerce raiding, with it's strategically useful effects on convoys and allied naval operations, was the only way to go. Frankly, they would have been better off building the Bismark and Tirpitz as repeat Scharnhorsts and having them in the water earlier when they might have had the freedom of action to do something useful. IMHO the biggest mistake the Germans made was in not completing the aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin, and/or several light carriers, not as strike units, but as escorts for the commerce raiders. Can you imagine how much more effective the surface raider sorties would have been with fighter cover to chase off recce aircraft and multiple recce aircraft of their own, able to search in all direction to find targets and threats?

[@cmdrflake]

Scharnhorst was intended for commerce raiding and dealing with French battleships.

[@strixaluco7423]

There is no battleship designed for commerce raiding, it would make the design just awfull. Germany didnt even plan to fight britain and blocking france with their 2 cost lines is quite impossible. Italy only wanted to join the war if germany is winning(which they did later) so the mediterranean was always free to go.

[@ReichLife]

Kinda moot video since only real reason Scharnhorst were more effective was plain and simply due to fact they were built earlier. Even if instead of Bismarcks there were two more Scharnhorsts build few months faster, newer ones would have same problem as Bismarcks, and that being British being far more effective at locating German raiders by 1941.

[@F1lmtwit]

Battleship? ummm Battle Cruiser.... hell it wasn't even up to the USS Alaska....

[@gings4ever]

Funny that I have both iterations of Scharnhorst, pre-Cerberus and her North Cape fit, as well as her upgunned sister in Ships. Their Azur Lane personifications are pretty popular too. I'm actually curious how fast Scharnhorst did reach during her shakedown because that bit about her reaching 34 knots during that abuse cruise that aint an Iowa is pretty much sus

[@jasonmccaslin821]

Bismarck vs. Schanhorst. Bismarck is the winner. Everything else is conditioned to the wartime situations.

[@gudmundursteinar]

No problem? lol both of the class ran like little babies from Repulse, a single ship that was smaller than either but had 15" guns. Useful against unarmored ships, yes However, they had definite problems.

[@stcredzero]

As a commerce raider, getting into a situation where being "under-gunned" is significant basically means you've already failed! Failed at sneaking around avoiding the enemy forces, that is. A relatively "weak" 8 in gun is going to quickly do away with any merchantman and most escorts.

[@callumgordon1668]

As an admirer of your content I have to say your interpretation of ‘successful’ is very subjective.

[@leftcoaster67]

Fortunately Germany didn't have ports in Spain, or in ports in West Africa. Because imagine the resources that would be tied up if Scharnhorst/Gniesenau, Tirpitz, Admrial Scheer all working together in a group? Worse if they actually finished the Graf Zeppelin, and could provide air cover at sea? Realistic? Probably not. But even Churchill said the only thing that really scared him was "The Battle of the Atlantic".

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Actually he didn't. He referred to the U-Boat menace.

[@Wairaotoledo]

You have to consider the factor of being in the Northen Sea... German Naval architecture doesnt allow to aim futher away than 30° angle ( reaching barelly 17kms) but with the normal weather conditions fleets meet theirselves at 10-12km so... Thats why the firepower over the Caliber really matters

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Both Bismarck and Scharnhorst's gun had a max range of more than 35 km. The latter's guns could elevate to 40 degrees.

[@charlieperaltaf]

I like to call them heavy or armored large cruisers, since they have more in common with the Alaska class than any other ww2 battleship.

[@ChaplainDMK]

I dont get the argument about German battleships tying down so much more allied resources than submarines - the allies basically built a grand total of 0 ships in direct response to German battleships, but they were forced to build hundreds of destroyers and destroyer escorts, dozens of escort carriers, thousands of coastal patrol aircraft and medium and heavy bombers and finally massive numbers of merchant ships to replace lost ones. Practically all the ships that were used to deal with them were already built before the war, and their job was precisely dealing with them, while a lot of the ships, airplanes and other technology needed to deal with submarines had to be both developed from scratch and also built during the war.

[@rodshoaf]

The British were close to bankrupt after The Great War.. they could not afford to build capital ships, AND they had quite a few battleships that were reasonably modern.. they just needed modernized to keep up with the technology of the 30s. The British were building Battleships but WW2 stopped the construction because it was thought they would not be completed before they could be completed and the crews trained. Meaning they would not be available until 1944/45 at the earliest. Also don't forget that they had the Hood which until 1939 was considered the most powerful capital ship ever built. Also battleships were the most expensive ship type you could build... If the US built a true battleship today, they would easily top 20 billion dollars each. Their thinking was probably more of the line of "I can build an entire class of DDs and a few cruisers, and maybe a sub or 2 for the cost of 1 battleship." As for a few German ships tying down an entire nation's fleet to counter them. Long range radar didn't exist yet... there were no satellites keeping an eye on ship movements... and search planes didn't have the range to cover vast amounts of the ocean. So one or two ships slipping out in the middle of the night was possible. Bismarck was only spotted by shore based spotters while in the Baltic.. if it had made it to open ocean without being spotted it could have caused massive losses to Allied shipping. (that was the plan of course) The British fleet had to cover the entire world... meaning they were spread thin. They were also actually outnumbered by the Axis locally. Should they have built more capital ships... probably. However the British economy was damaged greatly by the Great War, and their actions of regulation and rules that came after 1918 greatly slowed down it's recovery efforts.

[@xeiv1]

You answered your own question, RN had plenty of heavy surface ships to counter the KM surface fleet, but the u-boat warfare was just getting developed and was rapidly getting better, thus the development of new anti submarine ships and convoy escorts. Bismark is a great example, it was chased by at least 20 surface ships (not that all of them got to shoot at it), and then there were convoys that in early stages were escorted by 3-4 warships with no sonar or radar, thus being easily hunted. So, while the heavy surface fleet is keeping the capital ships in check they lacked the ships to counter the submarines, thus the numbers you made up.

[@glenchapman3899]

@@rodshoaf Hood was a bit of a glass cannon. Only really in the British public mind was she ever considered the most powerful. If she had any of the postponed refits, she might have been able to lay some type of claim in the battle cruiser class. As too the German ships tying down allied forces this the old fleet in keeping concept. Been around as long as navies existed. And as for the British being thinly spread, their whole philosophy was based around dealing with any two enemies at the same time. What messed them up in WW2 was eventually having to deal with 3

[@ChaplainDMK]

@@xeiv1 Yes but that's the point - Germany built 4 battleships, the Royal Navy didn't have to do anything extra to deal with these ships, it was already more than able to deal with them. For the submarines it had to expand huge resources, and in fact it stopped all battleship construction and even really development to focus on building ships to deal with submarines. Germany simply wasted resources on 4 ships that the Royal Navy was more than capable dealing with as it was in 1939. And this isn't about quality, the Royal Navy simply had the numbers for 4 battleships to not really matter all that much in the grand scheme of things.

[@rodshoaf]

@@glenchapman3899 The Hood was not known to be a glass cannon.. It was widely regarded to be the greatest warship ever built to that point. It was up-armored earlier in her career but that was before plunging fire from more modern battleships such as the Bismarck. That was why the Hood rode so low in the water. Even the captain of the Bismarck was shocked at the loss of the Hood in the manner in which it went down. When the greatest naval power that had ever existed up to that point builds it's best battle cruiser (then later converts it to a BB by up-armoring it) to the point where they can claim it's the most powerful BB in the world then it gets to keep that claim until proven otherwise. Don't forget the Hood was the most modern and capable capital ship the British had ever built up to the late 30s. Was it a bit of a glass cannon.. well time tells us now it was... but it was not thought in that way back in 1941.

[@andrewd666]

Best, or less of a waste of resources? A topic you may wish to consider is that rather than building battleships, what if the effort and resources put into the Scharnhorst and Bismarck class battleships had instead been used to build more U-Boats, could that have taken the British out of the war?

[@ReichLife]

Not remotely close, making argument completely moot. Those 4 warships wouldn't magically produce countless Uboots. Dockyard alone take space, and those which were making said 4 German battleships wouldn't alternatively be able to build hundreds of Uboots.

[@williamashbless7904]

You forgot to include the ‘Terrible Twins’ match with HMS Renown. Two German Battleships against one, aging, Battlecruiser. The Twins had an advantage in speed, armor, and weight of broadside- yet, Renown sent them packing. Sorry, a battleship without battleship guns is a battlecruiser.

[@manilajohn0182]

You forgot the nine destroyers accompanying Renown. The Germans misidentified some of them as larger vessels and Lutjens concluded that he was facing superior forces- and he was wary of a British destroyer torpedo attack.

[@williamashbless7904]

@@manilajohn0182 Correct, but severe weather hampered those Destroyers and their contribution was virtually nil.

[@manilajohn0182]

@@williamashbless7904 Read what I typed. The Germans disengaged for the reasons that I stated. That's also why the destroyers played no part.

[@williamashbless7904]

@@manilajohn0182 Okay- the fact that Scharnhorst’s radar was disabled(likely by the weather), and Gneisenau forward range finders and aft turret were disabled by Renown had nothing to do with the German decision to disengage? The Germans were afraid of a torpedo attack from destroyers they thought were capital ships? Seems odd. Did capital ships have torpedos? It seems to me the official version of why Germans broke off is a little suspect. Renown was outfighting them. By herself.

[@manilajohn0182]

@@williamashbless7904 Did I say that Gneisenau's damage had nothing to do with Lutjen's decision to disengage? Did I say that the Germans misidentified 'all' of the British vessels? You need to learn critical reading, son. That you haven't learned it yet is why things "seem" that way to you. But you do you.

[@berserker4940]

baZed

[@paulsteaven]

Kriegsmarine 🤝 Imperial Japanese Navy It's weakest capital ships being its most successful during WWII.

[@gnosticbrian3980]

And how many ships did Scharnhorst / Gneisenau sink after 22 March 1941?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/45moji3 Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video. During registration use the code WARSHIPS to get for free: 500 doubloons, 2 million credits, 7 Days of Premium Account time, and a tier IV ship! Applicable to new users only.