"Well, yes. Sorry, as a non-expert, non-German speaker (like most English-speaking Wiki readers), these two powerful ships - as equipped - were less than battleships (for whatever reason), and were not intended to be used as such by the Kriegsmarine. They were, I suggest, intended to see off cruiser escorts and destroy convoys. To me, to call them ""battleships"" is confusing - they were not the equal of the ""Bismarcks"" nor even of the ""KG5s"". They certainly had the capability to be upgraded to ""proper"" battleships, it was a design feature and, I think, work did start on the Gneisenau. 

I accept that the German term ""Schlachtkreuzer"" translates directly into ""battleship"", so what? This is the English language Wiki and should convey meaning to English speakers. ""Battlecruisers"" were at a disadvantage to ""battleships"": see Hood and Scharnhorst - and to me, that's the point. Perhaps English/ German understandings of the term have diverged, and it's a language issue. After all the Graf Spee, Scheer and Lutzow/ Deutschland have had differing descriptions in English (""pocket battleship"" or ""heavy cruiser"") and German (""panzerschiff"").

I had thought that the accepted way forward was to explain the differing views, when appropriate.

Lastly, I object to the insinuation (perhaps not a serious one) that, because expert(?) comments on one side of the debate are not right here, the debates that have been carried on elsewhere (above, below and elsewhere) can be ignored.  

"