"Pocket Battleship" a misnomer?

[Nikademus]

The germans themselves however never classified them as battleships and it would have been ridiculous for them to do so given the small displacement and light cruiser armor scheme. First the somewhat generic "Panzerscheiff" (armored ship), then after the war started, a more specific title of Heavy Cruiser ("Schwere Kreuzer")

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

heh...not according to Clay Blair. [:'(]

Ok, this then....[;)]

[Nikademus]

lol [:)]

Blair tore the Luftwaffe a new one for it's inefficiency at coordinating it's actions with the Kriegsmarine. It did get better as the war dragged on and a few notable successes were achieved. The problem was that there still were never enough of them and by the time their skill in navigation and tracking improved enough at sea....the Allies were deploying massive numbers of aircraft of their own, including the first CVE's which spelled doom for any FW-200's lurking around.

Mind you.....Blair is not god, but his comments did make for interesting reading. I'm still hoping someday to get some opposing viewpoints....i saw Gannon's Black May book in the store the other day....almost picked it up....but i am traveling light these days.

[Tiornu]

I don't know the origins of the "pocket battleship" term. I wouldn't assume it didn't start in the RN.

[Nikademus]

I'd always heard the Press (British?) coined it.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I'd always heard the Press (British?) coined it.

Wikipedia agrees with you.

BTW, i've always been confused about the claim that "these ships could outgun anything that could catch them" claim... the British had the Hoood, Repulse, and Renown that could catch and kill them. So what was the basis of the claim?

[Nikademus]

more complete accounts would list the three surviving British battlecruisers as "exceptions" i.e. "the ships could outrun anything they couldn't outfight....with the exception of the three surviving British battlecruisers."

[Tiornu]

The Kongos deserve a mention.
Can Deutschland outgun a carrier air group?

[Nikademus]

if there's an Atlantic storm brewin....... [:D]

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

if there's an Atlantic storm brewin....... [:D]

You suppose this would have happened had Duetchland ran into Glorious instead of Scharnhost?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QrW8H1pyoQ

[Wirraway_Ace]

Very interesting footage. Did you notice the micro-changes in the B turret just before each of the salvos shown (looks like at least one salvo was shown multiple times). Either the B turret was slow to get the final adjustments, or this is part of creating the salvo spread.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
I'm still hoping someday to get some opposing viewpoints....

Not really an opposing viewpoint perhaps a different perspective?

It takes a while to make a weapon system, especially a naval one, so the ones you get are the ones you thought up a few years previously. The prospect of death (i.e, actual warfare) does tend to concentrate the mind, so what “is” becomes hostage to “what ought to be”. Unfortunately, the objective organizations, tactics, equipment of “what ought to be” runs into the subjective obstructions of those most concerned with “what is”. Since “is” has way more rank, influence, and access than “ought” (generally by being part of the system longer), then “is” tends to remain on the playing field a bit longer than it should.

Thus, perhaps, the coordination thing (basically, “Dude, I don’t give a crap what you want, I’m gonna use “MY” planes the way “I” want; and I got 2 more stars than you do, so bite me.”).

Thus, also, the cruiser thing. Pre-war, the Brits thought of cruisers as performing functions that supported their national (imperial) imperatives. So, lots more smaller ones that could do some duty in lots more places. Could they have built a gnarly, nasty, witch? Sure. But why, and to what purpose? They did what they did to support what they had. Germany, having nothing, could do whatever, since they had nothing to do whatever with.

It’s an interesting sociological proposition to think about since the US had the national/technical means to do anything, but had such a small military establishment that there weren’t enough “this is how it is” idiots to overcome the tidal wave of practical application. Similarly with the Russians; they were sundered from contemporary Western military thought and did what they did for their own purposes.

Shoot, howdy, this discussion could be fun.

[John 3rd]

As a part of my Master's research I read and copied every issue of the Navy's magazine Proceedings from 1921-1936 (the Treaty Years) and it was fascinating to the read the arguments within the Fleet as to early cruiser decisions (imagine 8" vs. 6", Torps vs. No Torps, Range, etc...), aircraft, and CV creation. Could have done some serious psychological work there JWE!