Historical documents clearly state it to be a battleship. Its just Gajin getting it wrong. Scharnhorst is too protected for a BC. Battlecruisers are these ships who usually light up after few hits, even one hit.
4 Likes
I believe they’ve classified it this way according to the British naming convention which Gaijin tends to (inconsistently) favour. Scharnhorst fits the original definition by the UK (who also invented the battlecruiser so I guess the true original definition) perfectly as a surface raider type concept fitted to resist cruiser (minimum I guess) calibre guns.
German convention being a bit different and essentially what we would now call a fast battleship. Hence Schlachtschiff.
Ironically they haven’t classified Vanguard this way as her RN title would be a “fully armoured battlecruiser”. Kongou much the same.
I imagine Gneisenaus refit and Vanguard were the reason they reclassified Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as BB’s. As well they were both armoured and armed to fight battleships not cruisers.
2 Likes
In case anyone says that before I noticed the autocorrect, that was meant to read original not official, I am not nationalistic enough to start a debate over who correctly coined the term battlecruiser
Brits can classify their stuff as they want. But this was a German ship. Btw. as far as I know, British were the only ones who classfied it that way.
Yes but when different countries are using different designations and requirements to name things which directly translate, it makes sense to use one uniform scheme no?
As for the British being the only ones to designate it that way, I don’t know for sure but it wouldn’t surprise me if you were right. That said the UK was still the biggest naval power at this point and as I mentioned invented the terms for both.
1 Like
Scharnhorst vs Bismarck:
3 Likes
Just like the German and US tank tree? 60% paper?
1 Like
Thats quite an ambitious claim with 0 evidence to back it up
Hmhm.
its pretty easy to one tap i find american cruisers like Helana or Roanoke a little stronger
like 4 or 5 in each tree compared to russia with like 17 to 18
1 Like
Anything with “T” in the USA tree is fake. (For tanks), don’t even get me started on Germany…
Not a single T tank in the US tree is fake.
You can go and take a picture with any of them right now.
1 Like
All of them made in metal so they are not paper.
I-29, Kronshtadt and Yak-141 if you mean prototype vehicles then US tech tree has 33.
Luwut?
Oh I think I see what you are trying to say, however, many/most of the “T” tanks in the US were actually made, even if only prototypes. Thus, not “paper” tanks.
Only need one example to disprove “Anything with “T” in the USA tree is fake. (For tanks)”: T28 super-heavy tank - Wikipedia
It is in fact, “real” lol:
Probably T1E1 (90) one in game has a wrong turret or it never made a shot.
yak 141 never had a radar kronshdaht was barely built russia never got 15 inch guns for sevastapool etc russia has far more paper in there vehicles than america or any other country execpt like japan but thats a exception
It doesn’t sound like 17 to 18.
I can see 5 paper ships for Germany, Ostwind 2, Tiger 2 Sla.16, Ho-229, E-100, Zerstorer 45 i think i counted 9 paper vehicles and didn’t include Tiger 105, Panther 2 and Coelian and how much Soviet tech tree has like 6 including ships on the dev ?
ho229 is real same with e100
Nope both of them didn’t had any weapon system installed