Talk:Scharnhorst-class battleship

message: ====Statement by Parsecboy====
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 Gneisenau 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 battleship designation, though if consensus turns to calling them battlecruisers, I'd take that over the current title. 
;Sources I have that refer to these ships as battleships:
*Erich Gröner's German Warships 1815-1945; specifically, on page 31, it states 
*Conway's All the World's Battleships: 1906 to the Present, on page 43 lists them as 
*David Bercusson's & Holger Herwig's The Destruction of the Bismarck, on page 92 
*1946/47 edition of Janes states on page 144 
;Google searches:
*639 hits in Google books for "battleship Scharnhorst" compared to 185 for "battlecruiser Scharnhorst", a margin of more than 3:1
*A similar ratio presents itself for Gneisenau, with 281 for "battleship Gneisenau" and 95 for "battlecruiser Gneisenau"
*Plain Google is a more of a mixed bag: 7,390 for "battleship Scharnhorst -Wikipedia" and 11,000 for "battlecruiser Scharnhorst -Wikipedia"
*For Gneisenau, it's 1,340 for "battleship Gneisenau -Wikipedia" and 751 for "battlecruiser Gneisenau -Wikipedia"
*Google Scholar is a dead heat: "battleship Scharnhorst" gets 29 hits, while "battlecruiser" gets 25. Gneisenau has 10 for "battleship" and 9 for "battlecruiser"
Let me start this discussion by reminding everyone that comes here that we should not 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 original research and is strictly forbidden. I ask that whatever admin who eventually closes this discussion take this into consideration when the time comes. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

text: 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 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. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 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... Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 German battlecruiser Bismarck and German battlecruiser Tirpitz. Parsecboy (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements

message: 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 Gneisenau 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 battleship designation, though if consensus turns to calling them battlecruisers, I'd take that over the current title. 
;Sources I have that refer to these ships as battleships:
*Erich Gröner's German Warships 1815-1945; specifically, on page 31, it states 
*Conway's All the World's Battleships: 1906 to the Present, on page 43 lists them as 
*David Bercusson's & Holger Herwig's The Destruction of the Bismarck, on page 92 
*1946/47 edition of Janes states on page 144 
;Google searches:
*639 hits in Google books for "battleship Scharnhorst" compared to 185 for "battlecruiser Scharnhorst", a margin of more than 3:1
*A similar ratio presents itself for Gneisenau, with 281 for "battleship Gneisenau" and 95 for "battlecruiser Gneisenau"
*Plain Google is a more of a mixed bag: 7,390 for "battleship Scharnhorst -Wikipedia" and 11,000 for "battlecruiser Scharnhorst -Wikipedia"
*For Gneisenau, it's 1,340 for "battleship Gneisenau -Wikipedia" and 751 for "battlecruiser Gneisenau -Wikipedia"
*Google Scholar is a dead heat: "battleship Scharnhorst" gets 29 hits, while "battlecruiser" gets 25. Gneisenau has 10 for "battleship" and 9 for "battlecruiser"
Let me start this discussion by reminding everyone that comes here that we should not 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 original research and is strictly forbidden. I ask that whatever admin who eventually closes this discussion take this into consideration when the time comes. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Parsecboy

message: 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. 
*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 pane. 
*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 of trivia like the Jane's quotation. 
I think we should keep it and save ourselves the wiki-stress. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 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. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 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... Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 German battlecruiser Bismarck and German battlecruiser Tirpitz. Parsecboy (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Wiki-Ed

message: 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. 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 matter as long as one redirects to the other. Unfortunately there isn't a WP:COINTOSS 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. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Nick-D

message: *Support move to Scharnhorst class battleship. I would vote for that either way since it is the translation of the native German term Schlachtschiff, and IMO the native/original designation takes precedence, but the Google search further reinforces the case. Constantine   ✍  19:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at a copy of the British  Naval Staff History Second World War, Home Waters and the Atlantic, Volume II, 9th April 1940 – 6th December 1941, and on page 14 that refers to Gneisenau and Scharnhorst as "two German battleships".--Toddy1 (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The objection is not just the judgement of wikipedia editors; Perhaps you should read more widely. Clearly some naval architects who have studied the details disagree with the German naming scheme. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  -> [[Scharnhorst class battleship]] 

message: 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 intended or hoped. The article itself describes them as effectively enlarged Deutschland class. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The only specification I see as being lower than contemporary BBs is the main armament. As for the Renowns, 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." Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 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. Rcbutcher (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How then can you remain in your position when WP:V 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 Scharnhorst class battlecruiser is by your own admission a flagrant breach of WP:V. Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  -> [[Scharnhorst class battlecruiser]] 

message: *Comment how about pocket battleship? Scharnhorst class pocket battleship 76.66.196.139 (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  other 

message: There has been a complete rewrite of the description of the engagement with Renownon 9 April 1940.
Original, based on Barnett
:On 9 April 1940 (D-Day for Operation Weserübung), Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and escorting destroyers were steering due north some 50 miles off Vestfjord, when they encountered the British battlecruiser Renown under the command of Vice-Admiral Sir William Whitworth. Renown had been rebuilt just before the war, increasing the effectiveness of her main armament.Navweaps.com data page for the British 15"/42 (38.1 cm) Mark I "It was now blowing a full gale, with mountainous seas and sudden curtains of snow or rain. At 0405 the Renown opened fire with her 15-inch guns at a range of about 15,000 yards. Twelve minutes later she knocked out the Gneisenau's main gunnery control system, which persuaded the enemy [the Germans] to run for it. In the stern chase now ensuing, Whitworth hit the Gneisenau 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: 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 at high speed. It is noteworthy that the Germans always jinked when they saw our salves fired, thus throwing us out of line. Although at times Whitworth drove Renown up to 29 knots, the two German ships had disappeared from view amid the squalls by 0660 [sic]." Page 111, Barnett, Correlli, Engage the Enemy More Closely, the Royal Navy in the Second World War, pub Hodder and Stoughton, 1991,  Renown was hit twice by the Germans in this engagement.  
'10 September Version
:At 04:30 on 9 April, the Seetakt radar on Gneisenau 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 . The British battlecruiser initially targeted Gneisenau, at a range of . In the span of five minutes, Gneisenau hit Renown twice, but she was hit twice in return. One of these hits disabled Gneisenaus after turret.Garzke & Dulin, p. 135 Scharnhorst gunnery radar suffered technical problems, which prevented her from effectively engaging Renown. The British ship engaged Scharnhorst for a brief period starting at 05:18, though effective maneuvering by Scharnhorst allowed her to escape undamaged. Fears that the destroyers escorting Renown 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 Renown. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau rendezvoused with the heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper before proceeding to Wilhelmshaven.Garzke & Dulin, p. 157 
Key differences
*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.
*Sea state - heavily emphasised in Original, not mentioned in 10 September version.
*How many hits did Gneisenau receive - 3 (Original version), 2 (10 September version).
*Whether Gneisenau's main gunnery control system was knocked out.  Original says yes.  10 September version does not mention it - presumably meaning no.
*Which turret on Gneisenau was hit - a forward turret [not stated whether A or B] (Original version), after turret (10 September version).
*Scharnhorst's gunnery radar going unserviceable - not mentioned in Original version.
*Reason German ships ran for it - Original version says hit on Gneisenau's main gunnery control system,  10 September version says fear of British destroyers.
To try to resolve these discrepancies I looked at Germany and the Second World War: Volume 2: Germany's Initial Conquests in Europe: Germany's Initial Conquests in Europe Vol 2 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 states:
:"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 Renown, which opened fire on the German ships are 5.07 a.m. and after 18 minutes scored a hit on Gneisenau 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 Scharnhorst."
:"Vice-Admiral Lütjens 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."Germany and the Second World War: Volume 2: Germany's Initial Conquests in Europe: Germany's Initial Conquests in Europe Vol 2 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.
Page 211 states that Hipper "left Trondheim on the evening of 10 April" and page 210 states that "the Hipper was able to reach the two battleships and enter the Jade with them on 13 April at 8 p.m.".
That the Renown received two hits in this engagement is confirmed by British Battleships , Warrior 1860 to Vanguard 1950 , A History of Design , Construction and Armament, by Dr Oscar Parkes OBE AINA, pub Seeley, 1957, republished US Naval Institute, 1990,  page 617:
:"8 April '40 in action with Scharnhorst and Admiral Hipper 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 Renown twice, and drew out of range."British Battleships , Warrior 1860 to Vanguard 1950 , A History of Design , Construction and Armament, by Dr Oscar Parkes OBE AINA, pub Seeley, 1957, republished US Naval Institute, 1990,  page 617
The following account comes from Destroyer Actions, September 1939 - June 1940, by Harry Plevy, pub Spellmount, 2006, , pages 115-6:
:"battle-cruiser Renown, accompanied by nine destroyers"
:"...the squadron turned at 0230, the 9th, snow squalls make the visibility variable."
:"One hour later the British Force met up with Gneisenau and Scharnhorst 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, with the British destroyers joining in with their 4.7-inch guns but to little effect at the extreme ranges of firing.  Renown was hit twice but without serious damage,  The Gneisenau 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 fray.  Meanwhile the battle-cruisers ploughed on, and although the Renown 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 Gneisenau 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 Renown was forced to give up the chase."Destroyer Actions, September 1939 - June 1940, by Harry Plevy, pub Spellmount, 2006, , pages 115-6.
--Toddy1 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The engagement with ''Renown'' on 9 April 1940

message: ...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. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But that isn't the case in this article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It comes about because articles get edited and re-edited.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox citations 

message: Some aspects of coverage are weaker than the version at 1629 9 September.
*The classification of these ships by the German navy.
*Whilst there is good coverage of what the armament was, there is almost no coverage of:
**the decision to use 28cm guns instead of 38cm guns, and how these compared with British 38cm ships
**refitting these ships with 38cm guns
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 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?
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.
I have recategorised this as a start article, because coverage needs improving.--20.133.0.13 (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. -MBK004 18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Generally, the "Stable" requirement refers to edit-wars, not improvements to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Review September 2009

message: 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' 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. Rcbutcher (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 much information. Compare with Kaiser class battleship, 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., Scharnhorst class battleship, German battleship Scharnhorst, and Battle of North Cape) there is going to be a great deal of overlap. For example, the article on  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. Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A lot of detail here that should only be in the relevant ship's article or the Battle article

message: This discussion is actually an excellent example for misguided essentialism. 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?
In this case that urge clearly fails us: The Scharnhorsts very clearly 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 with something somewhat between a battleship and a battlecruiser, but adding a few details from neither.--194.25.30.9 (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, the old title was an example of a wikiality. We ought to reflect reliable sources, the majority of which prefer battleship to battlecruiser. Parsecboy (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: While I still 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. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

text:  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.--192.166.53.202 (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, it's not our job to correct them. Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years later...

message: 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 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. Ondřej Filip (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preserved Gneisenau 15 cm turrets 

message: Archives are Redlinked.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.52.99 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Found them and moved to correct name. --Denniss (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives are Redlinked 

message: Per this old revision, I think this article was written in American English. --John (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Parsecboy (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ENGVAR 

message: The text says:
: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.[8] The slopes connected to the lower edge of the main belt, an arrangement referred to as the "turtle deck."[24]
There is no mention of the 95 mm thick horizontal plates, called on the drawing „Panzerdeck”. It seems to be the „main armor deck”. The „slopes” are attached to this, not to the 50 mm ones. --Andreas (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. 95mm between forward turrets and to the rear of B and C turret. --Denniss (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this information. KBsimarck.com 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 mm" ?--Andreas (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main armor deck (95 mm, not 50 mm) 

message: The belt armour of the Scharnhorst class battleship was the same 320mm plate as the following Bismarck class.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.12.76 (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No it wasn't. And please don't edit the article without providing sources. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)." 92.19.12.76 (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belt armour 

message: "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)."
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 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.
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 not valid for inclusion in the article but posted as I found it interesting comparison.
"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. 78.150.86.84 (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armour section 

message: 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 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 92.10.214.190 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of sources 

message: 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. 92.10.214.190 (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel load