Scharnhorst to 6.7? kinda needs it imo

[K]

I play naval time to time as tbh it's a great SL grind plus it's not half bad these days.... though the BR compression there is nutty lol. Scharnhorst for sure shouldn't be 7.0 when it is outgunned by everything at equal rank on all nations hell even some ships at 6.3 outgun it hard... the only thing it has is speed to some extent though it's not nearly enough to justify 7.0 as if that is the match it's not about trivial speed differences it's all about aim and what level of firepower you have.... Scharnhorst struggles to kill any battleships

Though either way naval does need a BR increase to 7,7 that'll certainly help with some obvious ships being substantially better than equal BR in other nations (US is by far the worst offender of this)

[LtCOL.Ghost]

you do realise that the sharnhorst is actually a battleship that gaijin mislabled as a battlecruiser? as for it getting slapped around i would be interested to see this as any time i have fought one it holds up relatively well against most ships it comes across due to the armor configuration that gaijin had tried to replicate from the actual ship.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by LtCOL.GhostSAS-R:

you do realise that the sharnhorst is actually a battleship that gaijin mislabled as a battlecruiser? as for it getting slapped around i would be interested to see this as any time i have fought one it holds up relatively well against most ships it comes across due to the armor configuration that gaijin had tried to replicate from the actual ship.

not really. the "battlecruiser (bc)" is a category that doesn't extist post WW1, but by the the definition of the class it fits best, and a lot of experts categorize the SCHARNHORST and her sister GNEISENAU as BC as well.
the point is, the us navy invented the term "great cruiser" for the ALASKA class which is also just another word for BC, the british called the HOOD a "fast battleship" which is also a BC and the germans just called it "battleship" because they more or less had to.

a lot of the labels are only as fitting as the country that deploys the ships decides. look at the ruzzian aircraft carrier that is by definition only a "aircraft carrying cruiser" otherwise it wouldn't be allowed to enter the black sea. or at the actual mix up of frigates, destroyers and light cruisers that follows no rules anymore in nearly all navies

[RogueSoldier]

Originally posted by GODZW33D:

I play naval time to time as tbh it's a great SL grind plus it's not half bad these days.... though the BR compression there is nutty lol. Scharnhorst for sure shouldn't be 7.0 when it is outgunned by everything at equal rank on all nations hell even some ships at 6.3 outgun it hard... the only thing it has is speed to some extent though it's not nearly enough to justify 7.0 as if that is the match it's not about trivial speed differences it's all about aim and what level of firepower you have.... Scharnhorst struggles to kill any battleships

Though either way naval does need a BR increase to 7,7 that'll certainly help with some obvious ships being substantially better than equal BR in other nations (US is by far the worst offender of this)

Another germany suffers clown. If anything the Scharnhorst, as well as Alaska and Kronshtadt needs to be up'd in BR. The game wasn't ready for those 3. It always boils down to who has more of those three for the team that dominates in kills and usually the match (excluding the ones that cap early game and go uncontested ofc).

[Hotschi48]

All these labels, be it BB/Battleship, BC/Battlecruiser or BC/Large Cruiser for the Alaska - mean nothing, these ships could just as well have been labelled "battlewagon" (my favourite term) for all intents and purposes and it would change nothing of the capabilities of the ships in question.

"Battlecruisers" were an idea of the WW I era, where machinery and propulsion wasn't advanced enough that a ship could have armor and big guns together with high speed at the same time, the designs had to trade in between these three for a compromise, that's why some ships traded armor for speed - the "battlecruiser" concept.

After WW I, between the world wars, innovations in machinery and propulsion made higher speeds possible, so in essence the "battlecruiser" concept became obsolete.

Back to the Scharnhorst (and Gneisenau), these two ships were planned as battleships from the beginning, with the plan in mind to exchange its 28cm caliber guns with 38cm ones, but this, same as a full list of other megalomaniac plans of the Nazis, came to nothing.

The Scharnhorst is not unsinkable.

It's the same as in ground mode, you need to know the weak spots. It's not enough to aim at center mass in arcade and bang away at that green circle and hoping this ship will go down - it doesn't work that way! The Scharnhorst's weak point is its..... single water pump located in the bow section. It is extremely tanky when it comes to hits above waterline, but flooding is its main weakness. Bang away below waterline to open breeches, and ideally, do it in the bow section of the Scharnhorst. Once a certain threshold of flooding is exceeded, it will go down no matter what.

Checking my records - yes I keep tabs on sinkings - the Scharnhorst is a rather rare ship, and so far I sank one with either the BB Wyoming, the strike plane AM-1, the heavy cruiser Myoko and the French heavy cruiser Dupleix - all of them no super uber-ships (or planes).

[DIRTYBOMB]

naval sucks as a whole, soon as the game starts it's just spawn sniping.

[Til_Dovre_Faller]

Yet, all it takes is a prehistoric vessel with a lot of torpedoes to sink it

[WeebLord69]

Originally posted by Eftwyrd:

Originally posted by Weeblord69:

good luck sinking a scharnhorst that does not repair, it is the tankiest ship in the entire game, almost impossible to kill

i have multiple kills against scharnhorst's (and any other 7.0 you care to name too) using shimakaze, a destroyer 2.0 BR lower and one tenth the displacement, nothing is safe from type 93s

killed a few with haruna too because its far from impossible but never saw the point of getting into anything resembling an even fight

But not every nation gets spammable god tier TYPE-93s , best soviet DDs get like 5 torpedoes. That's nothing compared to 16 Japan gets

[WeebLord69]

Originally posted by Mephisto:

Originally posted by LtCOL.GhostSAS-R:

you do realise that the sharnhorst is actually a battleship that gaijin mislabled as a battlecruiser? as for it getting slapped around i would be interested to see this as any time i have fought one it holds up relatively well against most ships it comes across due to the armor configuration that gaijin had tried to replicate from the actual ship.

not really. the "battlecruiser (bc)" is a category that doesn't extist post WW1, but by the the definition of the class it fits best, and a lot of experts categorize the SCHARNHORST and her sister GNEISENAU as BC as well.
the point is, the us navy invented the term "great cruiser" for the ALASKA class which is also just another word for BC, the british called the HOOD a "fast battleship" which is also a BC and the germans just called it "battleship" because they more or less had to.

a lot of the labels are only as fitting as the country that deploys the ships decides. look at the ruzzian aircraft carrier that is by definition only a "aircraft carrying cruiser" otherwise it wouldn't be allowed to enter the black sea. or at the actual mix up of frigates, destroyers and light cruisers that follows no rules anymore in nearly all navies

What is "ruzzian? Can you speak normally please

[WeebLord69]

Originally posted by RogueSoldier:

Originally posted by GODZW33D:

I play naval time to time as tbh it's a great SL grind plus it's not half bad these days.... though the BR compression there is nutty lol. Scharnhorst for sure shouldn't be 7.0 when it is outgunned by everything at equal rank on all nations hell even some ships at 6.3 outgun it hard... the only thing it has is speed to some extent though it's not nearly enough to justify 7.0 as if that is the match it's not about trivial speed differences it's all about aim and what level of firepower you have.... Scharnhorst struggles to kill any battleships

Though either way naval does need a BR increase to 7,7 that'll certainly help with some obvious ships being substantially better than equal BR in other nations (US is by far the worst offender of this)

Another germany suffers clown. If anything the Scharnhorst, as well as Alaska and Kronshtadt needs to be up'd in BR. The game wasn't ready for those 3. It always boils down to who has more of those three for the team that dominates in kills and usually the match (excluding the ones that cap early game and go uncontested ofc).

At least KROHSHTADT AND ALASKA CAN BE KİLLED EASİLY. Scharnhorst just has it all , great torpedoes , god tier best armor in the game.

[mogami_99]

Scharnhorst by no means has the best armor in the game. Bayern has larger guns and better armor. Nevada and Arizona both have larger guns and better armor.
Scharnhorst has speed and those darn torpedoes.

[WeebLord69]

Originally posted by mogami_99:

Scharnhorst by no means has the best armor in the game. Bayern has larger guns and better armor. Nevada and Arizona both have larger guns and better armor.
Scharnhorst has speed and those darn torpedoes.

i kill bayern with ease , not the scharnhorst

[WeebLord69]

Originally posted by mogami_99:

Scharnhorst by no means has the best armor in the game. Bayern has larger guns and better armor. Nevada and Arizona both have larger guns and better armor.
Scharnhorst has speed and those darn torpedoes.

LITERALLY the only times i have died in my Scharnhorst is when i get hit with multiple torpedoes, never died 1 single time to guns.

[LtCOL.Ghost]

Originally posted by Mephisto:

Originally posted by LtCOL.GhostSAS-R:

you do realise that the sharnhorst is actually a battleship that gaijin mislabled as a battlecruiser? as for it getting slapped around i would be interested to see this as any time i have fought one it holds up relatively well against most ships it comes across due to the armor configuration that gaijin had tried to replicate from the actual ship.

not really. the "battlecruiser (bc)" is a category that doesn't extist post WW1, but by the the definition of the class it fits best, and a lot of experts categorize the SCHARNHORST and her sister GNEISENAU as BC as well.
the point is, the us navy invented the term "great cruiser" for the ALASKA class which is also just another word for BC, the british called the HOOD a "fast battleship" which is also a BC and the germans just called it "battleship" because they more or less had to.

a lot of the labels are only as fitting as the country that deploys the ships decides. look at the ruzzian aircraft carrier that is by definition only a "aircraft carrying cruiser" otherwise it wouldn't be allowed to enter the black sea. or at the actual mix up of frigates, destroyers and light cruisers that follows no rules anymore in nearly all navies

i would really like to agree however until the german government or navy confirms it was a Bc and not a BB class ship its is still to this day listed as a battleship, dont get me wrong based on tonnage and displacement among other factors you and the experts might be right, but at the time it was built the intention behind it is the defining term i am going by.

[mogami_99]

well since the Germans who built them called them Battleships I would have to call them battleships. Today every source I can find refers to them as Battleships. It was the RN who classified them as Battle Cruisers but then they change to calling them Battleships
I have a feeling future battleship additions to War Thunder will over shadow them.

[mogami_99]

On another thought slightly off topic but a case where I think WT classified a ship incorrectly the Italian Etna CL. Tier III br 4.7. Ship was never actually completed.
Order by Thailand before the war from Italian shipyard it was intended to be a light cruiser with 6 inch guns and torpedoes. That would have made it a CL.
However Italy took them over and changed the intended guns to 5 inch. And removed the torpedoes. Basically she was to be a fast transport for North Africa.
Now to me 4x5inch and no torpedoes does not make her a CL rather a really bad destroyer.
At 4.7 this thing has to face enemy ships she is in no condition to fight.
It belongs at tier II BR 4.0 (where it would still be junk) And should not be called a CL it only confuses people.
Didn't want to start a whole new thread.