Glorified Battlecruisers

>>2410452

are you trying to present historical consensus as an unorthodox opinion?

>>2410459
yes

the Kreigsmarine was a joke

File: 1460788853374.png (477KB, 548x696px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 548x696px

>>2410692
>Kreigsmarine

>>2410452
To get more replies you should had posted an Iowa.

>>2410452
What's so overrated about the Scharnhorst? I've only read about it by looking up the Norwegian campaign. Stuff like the Yamato are way more overrated.

>>2410747
If you want to see actually overrated battlecruisers look for HMS Hood or Kongos, the ugly twins are just one of those kraut boats that get forgotten while people wank over muh Bismarck and/or muh pocket battleships.

>>2410725
would have been correct though

File: c0eedfcd165dd652e18369273643072a.jpg (763KB, 3000x1318px) Image search: [Google]

763KB, 3000x1318px

glorified hotels

File: cvs10-1.jpg (67KB, 693x377px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 693x377px

>>2410452

Glorified airfields.

File: HMS_Nelson_(1931)_profile_drawing.png (143KB, 1965x1026px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1965x1026px

Best girl

>>2410845

>Down Syndrome: The Battleship

File: maxresdefault.jpg (94KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1280x720px

>when you captain kills himself in a hotel room in Buenos Aires after scuttling his ship and his grave becomes a holy site for brown nazis

File: 19.jpg (282KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1000x500px

>>2410870
>>2410870

>when every room on the ship is a hotel room and the entire crew is ordered to commit suicide

File: Bundesarchiv_DVM_10_Bild-23-63-21,_Schlachtschiff_-Gneisenau-.jpg (58KB, 784x464px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 784x464px

>when the ship is dry docked fuel with ammunitions loaded against regulations and an air raid happens

>>2411109
full*

>>2410870
What?

File: tv.jpg (29KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1280x720px

>>2411122
Did you ever hear the tragedy of the Graff Spee "the Panzerschiff"?

>>2411233
No.

>>2411262
I thought not. It's not a story the Wehrboos would tell you.

>>2411109
What does that mean? That its an easy target and will explode from all the ammo it carries?

>>2410747
the germans thought they were battleships, a notion rapidly dismissed the night scharnhorst met a actual battleship.

they were fairly pointless ships, too small and weakly armed to fight a battleship and win, indeed the pair of them were once chased off by a single old british battlecruiser, but too slow to really function as battlecruisers as they had heavy armor, though not heavy enough to actually keep battleship grade shells out.

simply put, they were worthless as battleships, and less effective as commerce raiders than the same weight of metal in 6 or 8 inch gunned cruisers.

>>2411448
The twins were faster than British BCs.

>>2411448
>less effective as commerce raiders than the same weight of metal in 6 or 8 inch gunned cruisers.
Uh no, 8 inch gunned cruisers would be BTFO by 2 cruisers and be at substantial risk against 1 cruiser.

>>2411458
germans werent going to beat a convoy escort with firepower anyway. they tried and lost every time

more platforms means more flexibility and the chance to stretch the enemy, also the possibility of hunting solo ships as the graf spee was sent to do.

of course a even better choice is not to try to use surface raiders at all and instead stick to using subs

Reminder that the Scharnhorst sunk a carrier, the first time ever a battleship sunk one.

>>2410747
>Yamato
>overrated

please. It could have 1v1'd any battleship in existence and won.

>>2411538

Its unlikely it could have taken an Iowa class, what with inferior rate of fire and no radar linkage to the FCS.

File: 800px-Shinano_photo.jpg (53KB, 800x362px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 800x362px

>>2411538
I will draw my trap card

Torpedoes

>>2411303
you would think they would

>>2411565
Are you serious, it could have hit Iowa because its guns could get in range of her. Best armor in the game, getting hit wouldn't even matter.

Was the Iowa the pinnacle of battleships?

>>2411578
Think again. The Yamato's underwater armour was just as thick as its over armour. It wouldn't leave a dent.

File: Yamato.jpg (116KB, 507x197px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 507x197px

>>2411596
Yamato.

>>2411598
didn't one btfo the bow tho? like literally the bow was lost?

>>2411596
Iowa was literally a meme ship.

File: Kriegsmarine_battleship_KMS_Gneisenau_Sea_trials.jpg (103KB, 1031x824px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1031x824px

Sorry Anon I can't go on a date to the high seas with you, water enters inside of me and I get so wet!

>>2411607
No. There was deliberate flooding to control the equilibrium.

>>2411593

You can't hit what you can't see, and even the Yamato's armor can't take 16" shells indefinitely. The Iowa is faster, has better damage control, and better effective long range firepower due to far better accuracy with the whole radar guided FCS.

I am quite serious.

>>2411514
Because convoys were escorted by battleships.

>>2410777
Weren't the Kongos competent, though?

>>2411598

You realize the Yamato was killed by torpedo bombers right? I think it is safe to say that the ship wasn't immune to torpedoes.

>>2411976
Proof? didnt' think so

>>2411723
>You can't hit what you can't see, and even the Yamato's armor can't take 16" shells indefinitely.
Nice meme
Type 22 radar can detect a battleship within 30km, which is beyond the effective range of naval guns at the time.

>>2410692
I mean Reader himself said it would die and wasn't ready for the war so I'd say they did ok taking Norway despite the huge operational loss.

Why the Kriegsmarine's surface fleet performed so badly?

File: battleship_bismarck_by_rainerkalwitz-d5ejpqd.jpg (81KB, 900x702px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 900x702px

>>2412465

Because they were vastly outnumbered and boxed in by the British fleet. They couldn't really do anything except occasionally sneak out into the Atlantic which was a super-high risk venture every time it was done. The u-boats were more effective, at least until the British developed proper counter-measures.

It was simply a matter of numbers. Two battleships is just not enough to fight a war with. Germany’s ambition far exceeded their actual capabilities. The Z-plan called for 10 battleships, but when in 1939 there were only 2 ready. Bismark didn’t arrive until 1940 and Tirpitz wasn’t commissioned until 1941! By then, it was already far too late.

There were also plans to build aircraft carriers and even larger battleships with 16-inch guns after Bismark and Tirpitz were complete. These ships never materialized, and even if they had, it would have already been too late in the war for them to make any difference. An aircraft carrier was produced, but it was never commissioned.

>>2412403

>I don't understand what radar controlled FCS means.

>>2412538
>Moving goalposts
>You can't hit what you can't see
>Type 22 surface radar shows that the Iowa couldn't fire without being detected
>abloobloo what is radar FCS
fuck off burgerboo

>>2412558

>First post mentions it>>2411565
>Moving goalposts.

Do you have a reading problem, or a thinking problem? Or do you not get how a little ping on a radar screen is actually not enough to aim and hit a target, and that Japanese radar wasn't nearly precise enough to engage in a long range gunnery duel.

>>2412558

The Yamato might be able to detect the Iowa, but that's a different thing than RFS. The Iowa had its guns synced to its radar so it could fire shells with consistent accuracy at long-range (or at least with far greater accuracy than would previously possible). The Yamato simply could not do this. It might be able to fire first, but that advantage would disappear very quickly unless it scored a lucky shot at maximum range. As soon as the Iowa closes the distance, it will be able to fire with fire greater accuracy and consistency. The super-heavy AP shells used by the Iowa would be able to penetrate the Yamato's armor.

>>2412588
oops didn't read the first part
>>2412593
>super heavy AP
Super heavy AP might not have been able to penetrate the Yamato's 9" deck armor. Let's not forget that the Iowa and its successor Montana were designed to protect against 16" fire while the Yamato was designed to protect against its own 18" guns.

Iowa would likely fire first due to its radar guided FCS but there is a good chance that it won't fire until ~25km because hit rates above that was abysmal for any battleship at the time. However, when you get to horizon range, the Yamato would dominate with its superior optical fire controls unless the weather was bad or it was at night.

>>2412628
How much of that fire control do you think would still be operational after running through a gauntlet of plunging fire from an Iowa using radar FC? The main armour is a valid argument, but that wont stop a ship from raping the superstructure, jamming turrets, knocking out FCS and so on. The same applies for both sides ofc, but here the "fire first-hit first" comes into play.

>>2411448
The Germans called them heavy cruisers. British called them battleships.

>>2413692
>The Germans called them heavy cruisers.
No they didn't.

>>2413692
no they didnt they were in fact the first ships classed as battleships by the kriegsmarine

>>2411538
Too bad it can't handle airplanes.

>>2413692

No, you're thinking of the "pocket Battleship" Deutchsland class, which was not called a battleship by the British.

A Panzerschiff is a glorified heavy cruiser too