>>993572
Good firepower, good armor, shit speed. Does that sound about right?

>>993612
>Does that sound about right?
No, in fact your post sounds really fucking wrong.

>>993638
Care to enlighten me?

>>993658
It had shit firepower, meh armor, and was the second fastest battleship in WW2 next to the Iowa.

>>993612
Are you thinking of the SMS Scharnhorst?

"whats a navy"

t. adolf

>>993751
Probably.

>>993895
I doubt it. Anyone who can't figure out from the op's post and pic wouldn't even know what the letters SMS stand for anyway.

Who would win, the HMS Nelson or the Scharnhorst?

>>994042
If we're talking about the WW2 ships by that name, why on earth would the Scharnhorst fight that battle? It wouldn't have a fucking chance.

>>993572

Waste of money. Germany should have stuck to building planes and subs, it's surface fleet was a white elephant.

>>994087
Who wouldn't stand a chance? And why?

>>994149

Not him, but the Scharnhorst wouldn't last long against most other BB, what with the seriously weaker main guns.

Plus, being faster and in a general position of naval inferiority, the order of the day was to avoid other capital ships and try to end run around them to hit convoys. Even if you give as good as you get (you probably won't) Britain can afford to trade two of her battleships to take out the Scharnhorst and Gnisenau and would be in a much better position for doing so.

>>994368
How about the Scarnhorst vs. a London-Class?

>>994410

It would pound the shit out of pretty much any cruiser. 9 11" guns> 8 8" guns. A county class vessel, however, should be able to outrun it.


It would probably take several county class vessels to bring it down, but I'm not sure how many, and it would be risky to try.

>>994423
So, what is the British equivalent of the Scharnhorst?

>>994432

There isn't one. They weren't treaty bound to undergun their battleships, their strategic priorities are primarily focused on defending convoys, not attacking them, so instead of speed they want range and hitting/staying power.

>>994451
Was there an equivalent to the Bismarck?

>>994451
>so instead of speed they want range and hitting/staying power.
Of the 7 new battleships and battlecruisers they built since the end of WW1, 5 were capable of ~30 knot.

>>994474

KGV class was pretty equivalent to Bismarck class, being fast, well armed BB.

>>994476

You had the two Nelsons, which were 23 knots IIRC, you had the Hood (sort of) which was going at 28 knots when they added that extra armor, and everything after that was post war starting, more akin to the Bismarcks than the S+G.