I have finally settled on a ship I'd like to battle with. 5.5 units and a dual rudder, along with the helpful prod in the right direction by Herr Tugboat, has me set on getting one ready for the upcoming season. Before I went ahead and bought a new kit, I decided I'd ask around and see if anybody had one they'd be willing to part with, can't hurt to ask.
At 5.5 units, you must be thinking of Treaty rules where the Scharnhorst is a nice ship indeed. With 5.5 units and the ability to split one cannon to add 25 rounds to two other cannons, the ship has a lot of cannon placement options available plus it's quick speed and half decent turning. In MWC, the ship is only 5 units and more limited on cannon layouts. Traditionally, it is usually given a triple stern with a single bow sidemount or a dual stern with 2 bow sidemounts. There is another layout option I am trying out but haven't had much testing with yet. At 24 seconds speed, it is as fast as other fast battleships and battle cruisers. Not sure how many units the ship gets in IRCWCC. Cannon layout options and speed would be similier to MWC. Overall though, the Scharnhorst is a gerat looking ship. That could be reason enough to build one.
If MWCI classified it as a BC I would assume they had some proof. What historical proof is there about it being a Battleship.. assuming the 'proof' is a reputable source. I am not sure what the committee thinks is a reputable source overall but I am just curious.
The Germans themselves classified it as Schlachtschiff (battleship), I don't think it gets much more reputable than that. I am aware the English classified it as a BC during the war, but appearantly changed their minds afterwards.
The line between BB and BC has always been guns, speed and armor. BBs have big guns, slow speed and thick armor. BCs typically have pretty big guns, thin armor and high speed. The whole idea of the BC was to fight fast ships (Cruisers) with smaller guns and run from slower ships with the same size guns. In WWI at Jutland the BCs ended up fighting with and against the BBs. Didn't turn out well for the BCs. As the tech got better, even durring WWI, the BBs got faster. Take the QE class, almost as fast as the BCs but with lots more armor and big guns. The lines started to blur at the end of WWI. Hood was a BC, big guns, high speed, but had more armor than past BBs, not as much as current BBs. Then come along the NCs, So Daks, Iowas, Bismark. All BBs with high speed like a BC. Where to draw the line? The early BC/BB split is easy to see with the armor and speed. As years pass it starts to blur. Scharny had the speed of a BC, then guns of an early BC, but the armor of a BB. It's the 11" guns that were on all of the German BCs that make it a BC. From VDT to Moltke to Sydlitz to Derflinger to Scharny all of them had 11" guns. A BB gets the biggest guns avalible at the time, in Scharny's case a 15" or 16". The Germans planned to put 15" guns on them. I think one even started the change, but they never finished it. i'm pretty sure the guns were removed and installed as coast defence. The 15" might have found themselves in the same spot. Had they just put the 15" guns in the ship right away it an easy call to make as a BB. Stupid people messing up our hobby! On another weird note. Alaska, in the US Navy's view is a cruiser. Just the next step from Witchia to Baltimore to Des Moines to Alaska. We rate is as a BC because is has 11" guns, high speed and light armor.
The 15" guns were not available at the time of construction of the Sc harnhorst class, otherwise they would have been put on. None of your arguments change the fact that they were considered battleships by the Germans and most of the rest of the world.
Either way, it is what it is for each of the formats, no matter if one group thinks that the other group is wrong. Build it for the format it will be battled in and be happy.
Scharnhorst had a thicker armor belt (14") than the Iowa class BBs (12.5") although the deck was only 2" thick (compared to Iowa's 7.5"). So saying that Scharnhorst had light armor seems a bit... silly? I disagree (respectfully) with MWC's classification of Scharnhorst and Dunkerque as battlecruisers, as the nations that built them labelled them battleships. I'm not proposing rule changes nor formal reclassification in the shiplist, just saying
According to the MWCI rules I see no reason that it wouldn't be classed as a battleship and since the rules override the ship list (CBS.2.H.1) then Scharnhorst meets the requirements for a 5.5 unit Class 5 Battleship and should be treated as such. (unless there is an official classification document in the MWCI that I'm not aware of) According to the most reliable of all sources (wiki) Germany and the US both classed it as a BB and UK even changed their classification to BB after the war so it appears that pretty much everyone agrees. I don't think there is enough of a case to consider it a BC just to deprive it of a half a unit.
Not that any of this is helping this guy find a used ship to buy... Last year, or maybe two years ago there was a proposal to give Scharny 5.5 units. It failed, I voted for it, maybe that rule was tied in with upgrading some other BCs and that helped kill it.. A few years before that there was another rule to make it a class 6 ship, failed also. I think 3 times in the last 12 years a rule like that has come up. To make the unit change you'd have to get a rule passed. I don't think 25 extra bbs make a big change to the ship. I think I'd still vote for it to move up a 1/2 unit. Then someone will think it's a good idea to put 3 sidemounts in it with two pumps. Good luck.
Too late Bob. Mine is set up like that already. Heh. Well ... almost like that. Last fall I batled it as a 4 unit ship with three sidemounts and a single pump. For Treaty, I dump the extra pump for a cannon and split a cannon unit to add 25 bbs to each front sidemount, giving the ship three 75 round cannons (2 bow sidemounts and a stern side). Man I love that rule!
True it isnt helping find one to buy but it is still an interesting discussion. Per the rules it is a 5.5 unit BB as that is what is logically falls under and there is no exception to make it something else, per the ship list it is a 5 unit BC. However the rules state that they override the ship list. Therefore no rule change is required, it is simply a 5.5 unit BB. Any rookie looking up the Scharnhorst would find it as a BB and reading through the rules (ignoring the ship list since the rules state that the shiplist is overruled but the actual rules) gives a 5.5 unit BB. There is no exception classing it as a BC. Germany, the US , and JANES all class it as a BB (Britian does to with the apperent exception of the war years). A CD simply wouldn't have anyhting to stand on in saying that it is only 5 units.
It is an interesting conversation, one that I have enjoyed reading. I bet anyone who's running one of these as a BC will be interested to know they can get an extra .5 out of it.
The extra half unit really doesn't mean much, Scharnhorst is good for fire support with the triple sterns. Its not a hug & slug style ship at all. Chase
