Scharnhorst Found!
Discussion
Amazing! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-506...
105 years later and in amazing condition.
105 years later and in amazing condition.
Thought I recognised the maritime archaeologist's name, he's been looking for them since 2014 and has been involved in many wreck searches - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensun_Bound
Yertis said:
Baron Bomburst is my personal favourite. Or is it Auric Goldfinger? I get so muddled nowadays. Either way, the film featured a cool car with gadgets.
I think the name you're looking for is Gert Fröbe 
Ian Fleming had a tendency to name his characters after real people although Ernő Goldfinger was less than impressed when Fleming borrowed his surname.
El stovey said:
“ Vice-Admiral Maximilian Graf von Spee”
That’s a Great name.
Graf is Count, who used to control a Grafschaft, or CountyThat’s a Great name.
Nobility in the Holy Roman Empire era Germany, the Spee's had a few castles and palaces around Düsseldorf
Graf Spee and both his sons were killed in that Falklands battle, the later WW2 battleship was named after him
(pronounced like 'spay')
Eric Mc said:
I was only joking.
I think the loss of the World War 2 Scharnhorst is a more well known story. I remember old Ludovic Kennedy presenting a documentary on BBC back in the 1970s called "The Life and Death of the Scharnhorst".
I believe he took part in the hunt for Bismarck.I think the loss of the World War 2 Scharnhorst is a more well known story. I remember old Ludovic Kennedy presenting a documentary on BBC back in the 1970s called "The Life and Death of the Scharnhorst".
A bit of background for anyone not so familiar with the WW1-era Scharnhorst
The short career of SMS Scharnhorst (and Gneisenau) at the start of WW1 highlighted the rapid development of naval warfare at that time.
They were arguably the peak of the 'armoured cruiser' concept that had developed during the later 19th Century, and their success at the Battle of Coronel showed their superiority over the older Royal Navy armoured cruisers (Good Hope & Monmouth). The two Scharnhorst-class ships having 8 x 8.3inch guns and six 5.9inch each, compared with 2 x 9.2inch and 16 x 6inch guns of the Good Hope (Monmouth was smaller and even more outclassed). The similarity in speeds between the ships prevented the British from closing in and using their larger number of smaller guns, meaning the Germans were able to effectively keep them at arms length and hit them with their longer range guns, leading to both British ships being sunk with no survivors.
Then just a few weeks later they themselves befell a similar fate at the Battle of the Falkland Islands when the RN dispatched the Battlecruisers (a new design) Invincible and Inflexible- both armed with 8 x 12inch guns and capable of even faster speeds than the Scharnhorst-class ships. The RN battlecruisers were faster, and could hit the German ships from much longer range, allowing them to engage 'at arms length'. Both German ships were sunk- Scharnhorst with all hands, and just a handful of survivors picked up from Gneisenau.
The battlecruiser was a controversial design at the time, essentially taking the 'Dreadnought' design of all-big-gun armament and turbine propulsion, but sacrificing armour for greater speed. The Battle of the Falklands was exactly the type of engagement they had been designed for- i.e. chasing down slower, more lightly armed cruisers. As it happened, the success in this battle was seen back home as full vindication of the battlecruiser concept, and helped First Sea Lord Admiral Fisher to pursue ever greater development of these designs- all with woefully insufficient armour in the interests of achieving ever greater speed.
The deficiencies of this design (and poor ammunition handling practices) caught up with the RN at the Battle of Jutland where the Battlecruisers ended up fighting as part of the fleet- facing off against enemy battlecruisers and dreadnoughts, rather than smaller cruisers. This led to the loss of Invincible, Indefatigable, and Queen Mary from catastrophic magazine explosions with huge loss of life. The German battlecruiser designs tended to trade slightly smaller gun caliber for higher armour.
Verging off topic, but the well known loss of HMS Hood in the second world war can also trace its routes back to this, as Hood herself was the final RN ship to be completed to the traditional battlecruiser design, and despite modifications both during design and in service, she was helplessly outdated by 1941 in terms of armour protection compared to contemporary battleships like Prince of Wales and Bismark.
After WW1, navies moved away from the battlecruiser concept and by WW2 the focus was moving towards battleships with both good armour and high speed- the 'fast-battleship' concept, which had arguably started with the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth class in 1914 and culminated with ships like HMS Vanguard and the US Iowa-class.
Also arguably off topic, but one of SMS Scharnhorst's first postings was with the German East Asia Squadron based at Tsingtao- which happens to be my favourite beer
The short career of SMS Scharnhorst (and Gneisenau) at the start of WW1 highlighted the rapid development of naval warfare at that time.
They were arguably the peak of the 'armoured cruiser' concept that had developed during the later 19th Century, and their success at the Battle of Coronel showed their superiority over the older Royal Navy armoured cruisers (Good Hope & Monmouth). The two Scharnhorst-class ships having 8 x 8.3inch guns and six 5.9inch each, compared with 2 x 9.2inch and 16 x 6inch guns of the Good Hope (Monmouth was smaller and even more outclassed). The similarity in speeds between the ships prevented the British from closing in and using their larger number of smaller guns, meaning the Germans were able to effectively keep them at arms length and hit them with their longer range guns, leading to both British ships being sunk with no survivors.
Then just a few weeks later they themselves befell a similar fate at the Battle of the Falkland Islands when the RN dispatched the Battlecruisers (a new design) Invincible and Inflexible- both armed with 8 x 12inch guns and capable of even faster speeds than the Scharnhorst-class ships. The RN battlecruisers were faster, and could hit the German ships from much longer range, allowing them to engage 'at arms length'. Both German ships were sunk- Scharnhorst with all hands, and just a handful of survivors picked up from Gneisenau.
The battlecruiser was a controversial design at the time, essentially taking the 'Dreadnought' design of all-big-gun armament and turbine propulsion, but sacrificing armour for greater speed. The Battle of the Falklands was exactly the type of engagement they had been designed for- i.e. chasing down slower, more lightly armed cruisers. As it happened, the success in this battle was seen back home as full vindication of the battlecruiser concept, and helped First Sea Lord Admiral Fisher to pursue ever greater development of these designs- all with woefully insufficient armour in the interests of achieving ever greater speed.
The deficiencies of this design (and poor ammunition handling practices) caught up with the RN at the Battle of Jutland where the Battlecruisers ended up fighting as part of the fleet- facing off against enemy battlecruisers and dreadnoughts, rather than smaller cruisers. This led to the loss of Invincible, Indefatigable, and Queen Mary from catastrophic magazine explosions with huge loss of life. The German battlecruiser designs tended to trade slightly smaller gun caliber for higher armour.
Verging off topic, but the well known loss of HMS Hood in the second world war can also trace its routes back to this, as Hood herself was the final RN ship to be completed to the traditional battlecruiser design, and despite modifications both during design and in service, she was helplessly outdated by 1941 in terms of armour protection compared to contemporary battleships like Prince of Wales and Bismark.
After WW1, navies moved away from the battlecruiser concept and by WW2 the focus was moving towards battleships with both good armour and high speed- the 'fast-battleship' concept, which had arguably started with the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth class in 1914 and culminated with ships like HMS Vanguard and the US Iowa-class.
Also arguably off topic, but one of SMS Scharnhorst's first postings was with the German East Asia Squadron based at Tsingtao- which happens to be my favourite beer
Stupid question, but does any practicalble armour exist (using early 1900's tech) that could actually stop a 15 or 16 inch caliber shell from penetrating below the upper deck line? IE had the raw fire power of the big guns simply overwhelmed the armour of the time? ie the only way to avoid being sunk/blown up was to avoid actually being hit??
Max_Torque said:
Stupid question, but does any practicalble armour exist (using early 1900's tech) that could actually stop a 15 or 16 inch caliber shell from penetrating below the upper deck line? IE had the raw fire power of the big guns simply overwhelmed the armour of the time? ie the only way to avoid being sunk/blown up was to avoid actually being hit??
There were a lot of variables. The standard gun calibre leading up to WW1 was 11 or 12 inch, but not all were created equally. Add to that the ever increasing range of the guns (the Battle of Tsushima of 1905 was fought at ranges deemed inconceivable just a few years prior- leading to the development of the 'all-big-gun ship'), which of course then changed the trajectory of shells- from short range side impact, to plunging shells at the longer distances that became more typical at the start of WW1.This caused enormous headaches for designers of warships and the armour itself. Tests were certainly carried out by the major powers that tested their own armour against their own big guns, and ships were typically armoured to defeat a certain calibre of shell- so technically, yes a given thickness of armour of the day could indeed defeat a certain size shell hit.
But the variables (range, angle of fire, gun calibre, armour & shell technology etc) was constantly changing, so a battleship's armour was often obsolete by the time the ship was commissioned. Britain and Germany for example improved each class of 'dreadnought' based on what the other country was building, leading to a leap-frogging process where neither country really knew whether they were technologically ahead or not. Not to mention the massive increases in size and displacement of warships with each class (17,000ish tons for Dreadnought, up to 33,000 tons for the Queen Elizabeth class)...
The only real test was in battle- which, at Jutland for example, showed up the deficiencies of both the Royal Navy's armour-piercing shells, and the weakness of their battlecruiser's armour- both of which were inferior to the German's. The combination of superior German armour and poor British shells saved a couple of the big German ships at Jutland There are pictures of the damage they sustained and it's quite remarkable that they made it back to port. Likewise the British Warspite took a huge pounding from German guns, but being a much later and better armoured design (Queen Elizabeth class) she managed to make it back.
Eventually, the size of guns (and weight of shells) did reach a point where it was impractical to properly armour a ship (due to weight & thus displacement) against the latest 16"+ guns that were in development towards the end of WW1. Bigger ships needed more weight of armour, which, with speed being a function of beam-to-length necessitated increased length to maintain speed, which increased the size further meaning even more armour was needed, which increased weight etc etc. And the spiral continued.
The Americans pioneered the 'all or nothing' system of armouring a warship, starting with the Nevada class of 1912. Whereby the strongest possible armour was fitted to the important parts of the ship (magazines, turrets, engine/boiler rooms), and the rest was left completely un-armoured.
This created an armoured citadel that could in theory remain afloat as long as water-tight doors etc were kept closed. It was found that putting thinner amour on a ship only served to detonate incoming shells, rather than actually stop them. It was decided it was better to let the shells simply pass through the less important parts of the ship, and save the displacement for putting heavier armour over the important parts.
Edited by Squirrelofwoe on Friday 6th December 18:28
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff