@@thatpersoninthecomments8613Would say that about mixing mediums and heavies. Light tanks still existed as a separate thing, especially since they're the only ones that could be easily be air mobile or made amphibious
Medium and Heavy became the MBT as it didn't make sense to have a slightly better armoured and gunned tank when technology allowed for both in the same package. But there remained a place for the light tank.
They built it with 28cm guns in order to stay in the range of the Versailles treaty and the Anglo-German naval agreement. It was planned to switch them for 38cm, but because of the war this never materialized.
translation built with 11" guns But they wanted to upgrade it to 15" And another reason why they don't build it with 15" guns is because they didn't have a mount for them yet
Not exactly. It is proven by numerous historical sources that Scharnhorst/Gneisenau should be armed with a 38cm main Battery by design but Krupp could not deliever the guns in time so the Navy had to choose a triple 28cm battery which were proven by the Deutschland class and most importantly available. Keep in mind that Scharnhorst/Gneisenau were the first Battleships build in Germany for nearly two decades because of the Arms Limitations of the Versailles Treaty which had forbidden any new Capital.Ships but when the Twins were built Hitler already had denied to accecpt any.further.arms.limitations .But still the Kriegsmarine had to make several.difficult c ompromisses which the Royal Navy in opposition never by had to.consider by their shipbuilding like the inavailability of 38cm.guns in time
Insert germans using "wide" twin turrets on Bismark and Tirpitz because they allegedly "planned" them as three gun turrets and german 406mm gun being, also allegedly, designed as 420mm that was meant to be redrilled to 420mm once "war started"(WWII wasn't waiting for germans and their fantasy plans though). Which meant that those guns were unusually heavy and inefficient for 406mm, but could potentially hold higher pressure due to thicker barrel tube walls. Not to mention they weren't obligated to redrill them immediately. They could have just used them and then when after several hundred shots the rifling would be dead, barrel would be redrilled to intended caliber and reused. Cons: you have to produce both 406mm and 420mm ammo. Pros: you don't have to build completely new guns just as often.
On the other hand, Scharnhorst roughly followed the doctrine/design of WW1 German battlecruisers. German battlecruisers, rather than sacrifice extensive amounts of armor, had almost/if not the same armor (ex: Derfflinger-class) as contemporary battleships which they balanced by having smaller guns, which were still almost just as effective.
This: German battlecruisers gave up more firepower than armor for speed relative to German battleships, iirc. Unlike British battlecruisers which gave up more armor than firepower relative to British battleships This video makes the mistake of arguing from the point of view of British naval tradition on an issue that should be more appropriately argued via German naval traditions. That said, these 2 ships were intended at battleships, and were used more or less the way ever other German ww2 battleship was used. But Germany used their battleships more like battlecruisers were intended to be used.
@@spudgamer6049 True if we're referring to how they were called and used by the Germans themselves, then I guess they're just "fast battleships"...with dinkier guns
@@boreasreal5911 Yes they did. Virtually all WW1 German battlecruisers used a 11-12 inch Caliber main battery while their British contemporaries had a 13.5-15 inch main armament.
@@boreasreal5911 Only the Derfflingers had 12 inch guns rather than 11 inch guns, and they had 4 turrets to the Koenig class battleships' 5 turrets, as well as being laid down later, in between the Koenigs and the much more powerfully armed Bayerns (15 inch guns, a major jump)
I think what a lot of people fail to understand is that Battlecruiser was very much a British term and not a universal one (though the Germans threw it around a bit in WW1) and it was never a hardline definition of what the ship would look like so much as how it would be employed. The British idea being a big gun ship that hunts cruisers, the German one being a moderately big gun ship that hunts Battlecruisers. Battlecruiser is a term thats thrown around a lot but has very little actual meaning behind it besides starting arguments over what it actually means.
You've an excellent point. You could even argue that the Iowas were battlecruisers from a certain point of view. Their nearest contemporary battleships were the never completed Montana class, which had more armor and firepower than the Iowas, but less speed. The Iowas were built for two primairly roles, running down enemy fast capitals that they outgunned and/or out armored, and serving as a part of the fleet screen for carriers, both of which are pretty close to the primary roles of battlecruisers. Ot course, this is just a case of "from a certain point of view". The US called them fast battleships, and didn't use them any different than the north Carolina or south Dakota class. Hardly the fault of the Iowas that none of them got to engage enemy capital ships. [Washington vs Kirishima and Massachusetts vs Jean Bart
Battlecruiser was a term started by the british yes, but more countries then just then and Germany used the term. Japan had multiple classes of Battlecruiser, most famous being the Kongos which were rebuilt as fast battleships eventually. The US used the term in their Lexington Class Battlecruisers before conversion, and France used the term with the Dunkerque class initially before they were eventually considered fast battleships.
The idea if the battlecruiser started n Britain but eventually spread to all the major naval powers who had their own designated battlecruisers. I think where people get confused is with the blurring of the lines between battleships and battlecruisers that happened after WW1. Before, it was very distinct that the battlecruiser had similar weaponry to battleships but less armor for a faster speed. With the advances in naval technology and limitations of naval treaties, the distinction became less apparent
Because it's helpful when making comparisons to use a universal categorisation scheme. The various naval treaties somewhat quantified this for us (in order to put limits on the different types of ships) but in reality ships were built for a role and that informs their class more than anything.
That’s because that’s what it was, no room for interpretation if it were a battle cruiser it would be the exact opposite of what it is, bigger guns and less armour, not smaller guns and the same armour
@@62136 No disrespect, but saying you're German doesn't add anything to your argument. Unless you're an extremely old German who had a hand in designing the ship, you have all the same information as anyone else in the world.
They did have an 11 inch battleship that served in WW2, the predreadnought SMS Schleswig-Holstein. If I remember correctly, that ship fired the opening shots that started the invasion of Poland this the official start of WW2
They’re battleships designed for 38cm guns, built with 28cm guns. If they were battlecruisers they’d have battleship calibre guns but be lighter and less armoured. They’re essentially the opposite of a battle cruiser
Not the German battlecruisers though, a ship like Derflinger had over 12 in of main belt armour. The Royal Navy built their first battle cruisers to hunt cruisers, but the battlecruisers of the high seas fleet were built to counter their opposite numbers in the grand fleet and substitute into the battle line. As such, they tended to be slower and less heavily armed than British battlecruisers, but had much thicker armour. This worked well for them at Jutland when admiral Beatty foolishly closed the range with the Germans, forfeiting his advantage, and giving the Germans the initiative.
They're by no means significantly weaker armed than their battleship counterparts though. The German main gun until the Bayern-class was the 30cm L45 and later L50. German battlecruiser kept the 28cm gun for quite some time because Alfred von Tirpitz insisted that he thought having 10 gun broadside even with smaller guns was a bigger advantage in battle. It wasn't until the introduction of more thickly armored super-dreadnought he had to concede the 28cm gun was becoming obsolete and allowed the 30cm L50 on the Derflingers.
@@Arthion they typically had less guns though? Like there were 8 on Seidlitz and 12 on the Helgolands? Granted the battle cruisers had a more efficient layout and a similar broadside weight due to the awkward hexagonal layout of the Helgolands and a few of the earliest German Dreadnoughts. And they were outgunned by their British opponents, which was the main point I was making....
@@josephlongbone4255 I mean the Germans in general were outgunned by the Brittish. They were quite conservative about upgrading their guns. They only upgraded past 12" guns in 1916 when Bayern entered service It's less that German battlecruisers have small guns, more that Germans have small guns in general for the time period Derfflinger has the same armament as her battleship cousin, the König class. And as typical for a battlecruiser has 1 less turret. The real main difference really is that German battlecruisers generally are a knot or two slower in return for more reinforced armour. People always tend to conflate this with Scharnhorst, which has small guns for an entirely different reason, in this case that the new 38cm SK/C 34 turrets were far from ready at the time of construction of the ship so they had to settle for the second best option available of the improved 28cm guns originally intended for the Deutchsland-class' successor that got cancelled in favor of Scharnhorst and Gneissenau
@@Arthion the problem with calling things battlecruisers in the second world war is a lot of the battlecruisers were converging on the fast battleship design. The Renown's and Kongos (I think two of which were British built) had been up armoured, and weren't quite as well protected as the sharn horse but there heavier firepower made them competitive. Renown did manage to see off both the Scharnhorst's. It would be very hard to argue that Scharnhorst would be competitive against Hood, apart from maybe that she could run away as Hoods engines (and several other systems) where in serious need of a refit. All these ships are designated battlecruisers and compare quite well with the Scharnhorst. They also match the paradigm of the German and British battlecruisers in the first world war. It doesn't really matter, but I think Scharnhorst fits in the same category as the Alaskas and the Dunkerques, in that they are very battlecruiserish but I guess you could call them a light battleship?
Adding to what was said here, I think doctrine is the most important aspect of these discussions. Also, worth noting with the Scharnhorst- and Dunkerque-class is that they are considerably smaller than most other WWII capital ships.
I believe it's sort of designed at such size to bully and hunt down cruisers with it's speed and armour, also a superior gun compared to its opponent It does a great job in this situation, just not that good against battleships
Gneisenau and Scharnhorst followed the same pattern as the german WW1 BC’s. Those the brits called BC’s despite being armored enough to be in the battleline. As for the germans, they never used the term BC. It was Grosser Kreuzer in WW1 and Schlachtschiff in Ww2.
Schlachtschiff is Battleship in German which was used since Battleships were ever a thing, Großer Kreuzer being "Big Cruiser" or "Great Cruiser." The German word for Battlecruiser would be Schlachtkreuzer.
No other argument could possibly matter, as the fact is, it is designated a battleship. No "should" or "technically" about it. It was designed and put into service as a battleship, and that is the simple fact of the matter. Case closed.
AND Jackie Fisher came up with the class of Battlecruiser Which is simply , in HIS words, a battleship that replaces displacement from armour with displacement from machinary so that it went faster Scharnhorst did not sacrifice any armour. It was extremely well armoured for its size. It was fast due to technology Main gun calibre has nothing to do with being either a BB or BC as long as its the largest a nation could employ. Which for post war Germany was 11"!
They were supposed to be upgunned to 15 inch guns, but they end up being sunk before that. So they are Battleships more than Battlecruisers. The only reason they had small guns was to please the treaty that forbid Germany of using big guns in their ships.
wrong! the planned up gun was for 13.5' not 15" and not in 3 triple but 3 x 2 like Renown class, which would have enabled just one of them not to run away from BC Renown!
@@donalddemothey wanted the 15 inchers on the Scharny. The one which was meant to have 13,5 was Bismarck but it was changed to 15 inch once the krauts realised the 13,5s were a bit small.
Es handelte sich um Schlachtschiffe, die jedoch als Schlachtkreuzer eingesetzt wurden. Wenn sie jedoch ihre geplanten Bewaffnungspläne in die Tat umsetzten, würden sie aufgrund ihres Kalibers als Schlachtschiffe betrachtet
It’s not the size of the gun but how you use the gun! TBF, I think calling them battlecruisers makes sense. British battlecruisers like the Hood were better armoured than the Scharnhorst by WW2, but are called battlecruisers nonetheless. What also matters is the doctrine, how they’re envisioned as being used. E.g. the Panther was a medium tank, though its weight, armour and firepower trumped several contemporary Allied heavy tanks (and even the Tiger frontally), and no one would dispute them being medium tanks.
That is the upgraded Hood tho, at launch it didn't had armour so it was a traditional design, and the end result after refit would be what you would now call a fast battleship, but was still called battlecruiser because that was the original designation and it didn't change
@@jerryrgzz1571 yeah, so that’s what you’re ignoring: definitions change. An MRAP today has thicker armour than a tank did in WW1. That doesn’t make it a tank, because the definition of what a tank is has changed. Hood was still a battlecruiser, that’s certainly what the Royal Navy, her captain and her crew thought.
Panther had been called heavy tank because it was better armoured from the front compared to tiger and similarly or better to allied heavy tanks like is1-is2, pershing, sherman jumbo, churchill. And gun with penetration better than tiger 88mm, is2 122mm guns. Closest name will be main battle tank since it was faster, better or the same compared to heavy tanks of allies, with only one minus as side armor.
@@katrinapaton5283Unlike Renown and Repulse with their measly 9" armor belt, Scharnhorst and Gneissenau are actually armored to fight enemy capital ships. Which would've been wasted weight were there not plans to upgrade their armament. Scharnhorst and Gneissenau are armored like proper battleships, that's all there is you need to know to define what they are.
@@Arthion By your definition, does that mean HMS Hood wasn't a battlecruiser either? Because with her 12" belt and 15" turrets she was at least as well armoured as the best battleships of her time and yet the British seemed fairly convinced she was a battlecruiser. Meanwhile, the Dunkerques were considered by the French to be battleships, despite only having an 8.9" belt. I dont feel that armour alone defines what a capital ship is.I could be wrong, in fact I probably am, I've been wrong before.
@@katrinapaton5283Some argue Hood is the first fast battleship. Besides the definition is mostly arbitrary anyway by WW2. Hell the Japanese even call the Kongou's "battleships" But either case the Germans themselves defined them as battleships so thus they have probably first say in the matter. But either case the Scharnhorst kinda do the exact opposite of a battlecruiser by having small guns but heavy armor, when it's traditionally the other way around
@@donalddemo I dont get where you're trying to go with this. I occasionaly call Scharnhorst a "light" battleship purely because she has small guns compared to her contempoaries. The same way that "light" cruisers have smaller guns than "heavy" cruisers.
@@jakubkarczynski269 Ah I see what you mean. Although the Lexington-class (before aircraft carrier conversion) was originally classified as battlecruisers, but the Alaska-class was classified differently as “large cruisers” (bit of an understatement if you ask me!). I’m also pretty sure Wasp was classified as a fleet carrier, albeit a small one, rather than an actual light carrier. As for battleships, the USN seemed to have a pretty good understanding of what classified as a battleship, such as having a strong armor belt (a feature that the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau most certainly had) and how ships like the Alaska’s had weak armor for ships of their displacement therefore were classified differently. Also given how the US constructed the North Carolina, South Dakota, and Iowa-classes, I think it’s safe to say they knew what a battleship was. The only factor of the Scharnhorst possibly being a battlecruiser is its meager firepower and even that was only intended as a stopgap measure for the eventual modification of 15inch guns, which because of the war were never able to be installed. Also too, if the Kriegsmarine itself classified its own ships as battleships and not battlecruisers, then I think the argument speaks for itself. That’s just my opinion though.
@@nathansullivan4433 The most important was way in which they were to be used. They weren't intended to fight battleships. But to run away from them. Even if they had superiority aginst them.
Kriegsmarine also classified Bismarck as a treaty adhering battleship... Which it wasn't, so just names don't matter, would be more appropriate to see how it was used and if it fits in the •British• battlecruiser definition.
Fun fact: Germany still has 3 pre-Dreadnought battle ships in service back then, all originating from the same class: the ”Hannover” (launched in 1905) and the “Schlesien” and “Schleswig-Holstein” (both launched in 1906). The were the last remnants of the once mighty Imperial German fleet which was left after the treaty of Versailles. The last of which, the Schleswig-Holstein, technically started WW2 when it bombarded the Westerplatte-ammunition depot at the morning of September 1st 1939, starting at 4:47am.
Pre-dreadnoughts are not talked about enough, perhaps overlooked due to their lack of grandeur compared to dreadnoughts but they are still awesome pieces of history.
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were designed, intended, built and all the time classified as Battleships. If the Calibre was the main-point in determining that, the Hood would also be a Battleship. Which is wasn't.
Term 'battlecruiser' overall was dropped by WW2 with basically only British still using it. For French theirs' Dunkerque-class were battleships, for Japanese Kongos became fast battleships after refits, and here is example with Scharnchorsts which German called battleships also. Even Americans called Alaskas as 'very large cruiser' despite them easily being classified as battlecruisers. Overall it's pure semantics and depends on what kind of naming convention one follows.
@@boreasreal5911 Which is again pure semantics. They just as much could be regarded as such, given they were meeting same criteria as original battlecruisers.
@@ReichLifethe issue here is that that doesn't hold, as various navies held differing definitions for what really constituted a battlecruiser - the American definition expressly describes a BC ad having the same gun size as contemporary Fleet battleships. The Alaskas however if you look at their design are clearly the "Large cruisers" the Americans call them. - the treaty system slowed down the size increases expected in heavy cruisers over the inter war years: Alaskas are post treaty and scaled to follow the expected size of growth if the treaties had never restricted the Americans
@@bengrogan9710 Except Iowas' alone debunks this argument, given Americans had Montanas planned alongside them with former clearly meeting this battlecruiser criteria. Doesn't change whatsoever barely anyone regarded them us battlecruisers. At the end of day, it was pure obsolete semantics and based on reasonable definitions, the closest thing to battlecruiser were Alaskas, regardless of fancy naming they actually got.
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were designed to have 3 turrets with paired 15 inch guns, but they weren't going to be ready anytime soon. So they put in triple 11" turrets that had been made for 3 pocket battleships that had been canceled, with the intension of putting the larger guns in later. The German warship industry had been dismantled at the end of WWI, and had to be rebuilt from the ground up in the 30s, and they had to re-learn how to build larger guns. The battleships guns are actually the most complex and time consuming to build part of the ship.
The only reason why Sharnhorst Type had such small guns was, that German indusrty were not able to deliver bigger ones at mid 30. They planed to change into 380 later.
As you had mentioned, if there was a battleship from pre ww1 still in service it would be called a Battleship. The Germans actually did have a ship from that time called the SMS Schleswig-Holstein which also had 11in guns. By that time it was basically considered a costal defense ship.
The Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau were originally slated for the same twin mount 15 inch guns that the Bismarck and Tirpitz had - however due to availability they were mounted with turrets from the older Deutschland class cruisers. TL;DR - They are Battleships outfitted with weapons smaller than conventional due to lack availability of materials and weapons for the originally slated equipment.
It made sense to call it a battleship as well because weren’t there plans to upgun gneisanau to 15 inch guns before they sunk it as a block ship or something?
iirc it was planned for both, but they were built in the configuration that they were to please the British, similarly to what the Japanese did with the Mogami class heavy cruisers
It was a battleship, Germany built a modern fast battleship but strapped an modernized obsolete gun caliber due to the treaty limitations, they planned to change them to the same 380cm guns on the Bismarck, so Sharnhorst was only a stop gap to what would have been an early Bismarck class
@@KibuFoxnot really, the internal structure doesn't match to that. Alaskas where very much the same as other American heavy cruisers, just upscale by 30-50% as they are designed for a post treaty collapse world
For this very reason, she is called a pocket battleship I believe. Guns to small to be a battleship, and armor to thicc to be a cruiser. Best category for it is pocket battleship
Before and during WW1 the concept of the battlecruiser made sense because these ships were basically Dreadnaughts with less armour and higher speed, but with the same caliber main guns as the real Dreadnaught battleships. Ship engines were not yet powerful enough to make fully armoured battleships really fast. By the 1930s, this had changed and speed, big guns and adequate armour could finally be combined into one design. This was the "fast battleship", and it became the standard for the rest of the battleship era. No classical battlecruisers were ever built after HMS Hood, with the exception of the Alaska class, but that's a special and weird anomaly. There were only different versions and concepts of fast battleships, smaller and more lightly armed like the Scharnhorst class, or Behemoths like the Yamato class, but they all shared the same basic concept. And in case of the Scharnhorst class it was planned to eventually outfit them with bigger guns, similar to the Mogami class cruisers.
The Hood should also be considered a battleship then, considering her protection was similar to the QEs and had the same armament as a full battleship.
The Scharnhorst Class is probably a unique class of it's own. I would say it a Light Battleship cause of it smaller 11" guns but battleship defensive armour thinkness. Like the HMS Hood, classed as a battlecruiser, but had the same armour thinkness as a battleship of the time and the same 15" guns, would be the first fast battleship.
The barbettes of the Scharnhorst were designed to be capable of accepting turrets with two 15" guns, each. And supposedly she would have seen that modification in the future. So yes she was a battleship. But she was designed during the treaty years and the designers had to fudge things.
It was a convoy hunter not a main line ship, That's how they used it. Saying that you can call it a fast battleship if you want, but it fits more into the battle cruiser role. Attacking convoys and picking on armored or protected cruisers that really have no chance against it.
The official designation of the Kriegsmarine was "Schlachtschiff D and Schlachtschiff E." Accordingly, the Bismarck class was the battleships F and G. The designation Schlachtkreuzer" (battlecruiser) never existed in the German navies. The only problem was that the 38cm turrets would not have been ready until 1940. However, the construction of the turrets for the unfinished “Panzerschiff(armorad ship) D and E” had already progressed to such an extent that they were adapted and continued to be used. The Deuschland class were the Panzerschiffe A-C. The peacetime conversion would then have been planned for 1940/41. The barbettes are already prepared for the 38 cm turrets. When the bow of the Gneisenau was destroyed in February 1942, a conversion to 38cm gun turrets was even planned, but this was no longer carried out. Two of the already completed 38 cm turrets were to have been used as coastal batteries on the Danish west coast in 1944. The 28 cm guns from turret A were then used as a coastal battery in the Netherlands and turrets B and C were placed in Norway.
You make some good points. But in the end, Scharnhorst's and Gneisenau's designs were based in whole on the final WWI German Battlecruisers and updated, but questionably so. And Scharnhorst didnt give up any speed whatsoever. She nearly got away at North Cape because of it.
i think intent is also important because they fully intended to upgrade the guns but never got around to it, and if it got those upgrades i doubt most of those people would still consider it a BC
Actually, there was a pre-dreadnought battleship which served during WW2, the SMS Schleswig-Holstein. And yeah, nobody would say she was a battlecruiser
Glad to see someone using logic ^^ Indeed, what defines a BC is a fast, lightly armored ship with BB guns. Scharnhorst class BB had full BB armor and a lower BB caliber gun, which was supposed to be upgraded later. Just as you said.
Settsu also had reduced shells. 22km is ~13 miles, so your number was correct with a different measurement. Conquest events spawn during a war, but conquest missions don't. That's why you couldn't invade Morocco.
There's also the fact that the 28cm SK/C 34 gun was the best gun available at the time of construction with the 38cm SK/C 34 that would later wind up on Bismarck being years from ready for service. That said there are a lot of factors that imply the 28cm guns were only a stop-gap until they could be replaced with the more powerful twin 38cm guns later.
There have always a debate of the difference between cruisers and battleships in the early days. The cruisers sacrificed armor for speed. They say if a ship couldn't handle a hit from it's own heavy guns, it was a cruiser. If it was a slow ship with such thin armor, it was a coral reef.
Except german battlecruiser since ww1 have always had smaller guns while maintaining similar armor protection to their battleship counterpart. The german navy opted for a different way to achieve a higher speed for their battlecruiser than the British
The very term "battlecruiser" was almost as obsolete as any other Jutland-era capital ship by the time WW2 rolled around. The only ships in the world that carried the moniker were Renown, Repulse and Hood (and arguably, the Kongō-class). That's more down to the fact that the UK just really seemed to like to use the term for their capital ships that could achieve a certain speed.
The ship was actually considered a battleship, but it used to guns that were slightly smaller because they weighed us, and they looked better on the vessel since the guns were made to be fitted for whatever ship it was, but it doesn't really matter the guns. It matters the build of the battleship or battle cruiser battle cruisers tend to be a little faster than battleships, and have a distinctive look usually with more than one funnel well not usually sometimes, and usually have less guns than normal battleships. hopes it helps!
Scharnhorst is a classic German Battlecruiser. Small guns and high armor protection with however higher speed (comparatively) than the typical German battle cruiser
Since the Furst Bismarck, there had been a naming convention among German ships. Cruisers named after towns, battleships named after provinces, or royalty, armoured cruisers, including battlecruisers, after military figures. Scharnhorst and Gniesenau were both Generals in the Prussian army. By that metric they are Battlecruisers. But then so were Bismarck and Tirpitz. Point is, I don't think there was a difference at that time.
I believe after the war, when their designs became public, even Royal navy re designated them as battleships, do not remember where I saw this, none the less those were beautiful ships and it is sad what became of them.
I have a shorts suggestion on this same topic. The difference between Dreadnoughts and Battleships. I've never really got a definitive answer on that one.
Battleships are the big units, big guns, fat armor, that fight in the line of battle and are generally the heaviest fighting units. Dreadnoughts are simply battleships with all big guns inspired by HMS Dreadnought. So basically, every Dreadnought is a Battleship, but not every Battleship is a Dreadnought
As other mention, Battleship and Battlecruiser were beginning to merge by that time. Really, the Battlecruiser had only had a very short potential heyday as a quick response vessel for the world spanning empires, but as soon as battleships were able to reach high speeds too... well, just use them!
Well... two old pre-WW1 battleships indeed survived until WW2, even until 1945 - the Pre-Dreadnaughts "Schleswig-Holstein" and "Schlesien". They had 28cm guns, just like the Scharnhorst class.
the official designation for the two ships is schlachtshiffe der scharnhorst-classe aka scharnhorst-class battleships. they were build as battleships and always meant to be battleships. so there was never an argument to begin with.
I'd argue she's a light battleship. Not a real term, but one common used in science fiction. And it's an apt description. She has the durability of a battleship, the seed and range of a fleet ship, and lighter guns. She's like a 4th or 3rd rate ship of the line. Not as big or powerful as a 1st rate, but still a line ship.
The Germans planned to build Scharnhorst und Gneisenau with Guns of the Caliber of the Bismarck and Tirpitz. I think that they could´nt supply the 380mm Guns, so they fittet Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with available 283mm Guns.
I agree that they weren't battlecruisers, but also not battleships, they were more likely cruiser destroyers, or "large cruisers" like the Alaska Class, (those ships were just a bit smaller than an Iowa), but in case of the german ones, they had heavy armor.
Well ww1 German battlecruisers were basically fast battleships with smaller guns (derflinger class for example had just 8 12 inch guns compared to British HMS Tiger with 13.5 and Japanese Kongo with 14inch guns which was first built as battlecruiser later upgraded to a battleship.)
Both her and her sister were designed to have a twin turret similar to the ones fitted to Bismarck wit 38cm guns. Her sister Gneisenau had this refit started but never finished. After being removed Gneisenau’s triple 28cm turrets were placed on land and used for coastal defenses on the south coast of the Baltic Sea
