Thumpalumpacus
Major
Good question. I lean towards battlecruiser -- especially if we see the Deutschlands as cruisers.
Battlecruisers vs Cruisers
- Thread starter Shortround6
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Good question. I lean towards battlecruiser -- especially if we see the Deutschlands as cruisers.
don4331
Senior Airman
The Deutschlands had many roles to fill:
1st and foremost was to prevent a squadron of French cruisers from passing through the Skagerrak and allowing Poland to annex East Prussia which would have to be reached via sea if "Polish Corridor" was blocked.
The squadron of 2 croiseur cuirasse (armoured cruiser), 4 croiseurs legers (light cruiser) & 4 contre-torpilleurs (large destroyers) being France's treaty obligation to Poland. So, the panzerschiff needed enough firepower in conjunction with Emden ('25) and the K class trio to overwhelm that force.
2nd to put paid on Poland's navy plans for a fleet of 2 cruisers, 6 destroyer + torpedo boats being able to overwhelm Germany's navy in Baltic.
Make it so Poland needs a capital ship, which she can't build and none of the WNT signers can build/sell.
3rd show the flag on the merits of German ingenuity and resourcefulness.
Out run anything you can't fight, incredible cruise range.
4th provide jobs in the shipyards when hyperinflation was wracking Germany.
Their deployment as commerce raiders was successful use of the long range provided by their diesel engines.The Scharnhorst class were battleships; they did not trade armour for speed. They had pathetic main armament because the 28cm guns were already in production for the aborted 'D' class panzerschiff. Luckily for us, Raedar didn't build Admiral Graf Spee as panzerschiff with 3 - triple 28cm guns (if you were cheating, go big) and cancelled the 'D' class.
D class panzerschiff could have been launched within days of the historic laying down of Scharnhorst class adding 2 functional capital ships to Kreigsmarine in '39.
- Thread starter
- #23
Shortround6
Major General
A lot of this stuff gets hard to figure out. Sometimes just a few years can make huge differences in propulsion that frees up proportion of weight to use other ways.
Sometimes changing the design specs of a ship and accepting even 2-3 knots less speed can also free up a large percentage of tonnage.
Some of the early treaty cruisers were truly egg shells armed with hammers.
The French Duquesne class of 1924 was 10,000 tons standard, had 120,000hp designed for 33.75kts and had 430 tons of armor.
The French Algerie laid down in 1931 was 10,000 tons standard, had 84,000hp designed for 31kts and had 2657 tons of armor.
Politics, both internal and external, can also play a part.
The Italian Zara class ( a bit over weight at around 11,500 tons) were originally classed as light cruisers by the Italians, then as armored cruisers to differentiate them from the Trento's and later they were called heavy cruisers. The Zara's had about 2700 tons of protection which was about 3 times the weight of protection as the Trento's.
Protection doesn't always mean armor. Sometimes extra compartments or bulkheads are part of the "protection Scheme".
For the Italians the classification of the ships may have meant more than some other navies. The Italians had 4 old armored cruisers still in service as training ships in the early 30s and one survived to see action at Tobruk in 1940-41.
4 x 10in guns and 8 x 7.5in guns. Bog slow but trying to fit in classifications in between the old ships and the new light cruisers with 8 X 6in guns and 40-42mm belt armor for the 8in gun cruisers ?
Sometimes changing the design specs of a ship and accepting even 2-3 knots less speed can also free up a large percentage of tonnage.
Some of the early treaty cruisers were truly egg shells armed with hammers.
The French Duquesne class of 1924 was 10,000 tons standard, had 120,000hp designed for 33.75kts and had 430 tons of armor.
The French Algerie laid down in 1931 was 10,000 tons standard, had 84,000hp designed for 31kts and had 2657 tons of armor.
Politics, both internal and external, can also play a part.
The Italian Zara class ( a bit over weight at around 11,500 tons) were originally classed as light cruisers by the Italians, then as armored cruisers to differentiate them from the Trento's and later they were called heavy cruisers. The Zara's had about 2700 tons of protection which was about 3 times the weight of protection as the Trento's.
Protection doesn't always mean armor. Sometimes extra compartments or bulkheads are part of the "protection Scheme".
For the Italians the classification of the ships may have meant more than some other navies. The Italians had 4 old armored cruisers still in service as training ships in the early 30s and one survived to see action at Tobruk in 1940-41.
4 x 10in guns and 8 x 7.5in guns. Bog slow but trying to fit in classifications in between the old ships and the new light cruisers with 8 X 6in guns and 40-42mm belt armor for the 8in gun cruisers ?
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I stumbled across this video tonight, apparently posted 1 June, addressing this issue. The speaker makes some mistakes, I suspect mostly misspeaking rather than misstating facts, but it gives me food for thought all the same.
I post this not in agreement or disagreement, but simply because it seems pertinent.
Watching Drach's video on the Alaskas will help the viewer to follow this one, as it is a sort of reply.
I post this not in agreement or disagreement, but simply because it seems pertinent.
Watching Drach's video on the Alaskas will help the viewer to follow this one, as it is a sort of reply.
Yup, in terms of tonnage sank by an individual surface warship, the Admiral Scheer takes top tier in the Kriegsmarine, although the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau sank a higher tonnage together. I have the figures somewhere...
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,700
- Dec 6, 2006
Where do the Nelsons fit?
don4331
Senior Airman
Which ones? Nelson (1814), Nelson (1876) or Nelson (1925).
Nelson (1925) has battleship guns, battleship armour and battleship speed - pretty much locks her into battleship.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,700
- Dec 6, 2006
It doesn't fit the fast battleship model nor do the Colorados or Nagatos. After WWI the Battlecruiser was very much alive with the US and the Japanese busy constructing them and the RN planning them.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,700
- Dec 6, 2006
This is a fantastic website for those interested in the evolution of battleships and battlecruisers
Washington Cherry Trees II./ Part 1: The other side of the ‘pond’
Early designs and HOOD preliminaries
warshipprojects.com
The size comparison shown on this page is instructive
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #30
Shortround6
Major General
The Nelsons fit in because the Japanese and Americans had BBs with 16 in guns, so in the Washington treaty of 1922 Britain was "allowed" to catch up.
The Nelsons were good for 23kts so they weren't fast like the 1930's ships.
The big 3 countries were certainly planning big battle cruisers but the Washington treaty stopped them. Some of the proposed designs were actually pretty awful. The original Lexington drawings show seven funnels and boilers on two different levels.
They managed to scale that back a bit before actually laying it down.
All the big battlecruisers were canceled, all the big battleships were canceled. The Americans were allowed to complete three of the four 21kt 8 X 16in BB under construction.
The Japanese were allowed to complete the two Nagotos. Anything newer was canceled.
The Japanese did extensive rebuilding of their ships which changed them from the original speeds.
The British had built the first "fast Battleships" with the QEs but fast is relative. 24-25kts is only fast if your battle line was only good for 21kts. Please note the original BCs were only good for 25kts. The Dreadnought was revolutionary for offering 21kts and and the Pre-Dreadnoughts were good for 18kts (and then not for very long).
By the time people were ready for the new generation of BBs in the 1930s Marine propulsion offered the hope of ships of 27-28knts without having to sacrifice protection. The HP per ton of power plant had gone way up.
Ship.......................................lbs/shp
QE, as built...........................86.1
Hood......................................65.9 (small tube boilers)
QE, modernized.................43.9
KGV.........................................37.3
Exactly were other navies were on that scale changed by the year. If you can more than double the power to propellers in a bit over 20 years using the same weight machinery and roughly the same volume it is much easier to design fast ships.
Some countries, like the US and Britain also saw that the 1917-1919 designs were obsolete while still on the drawing boards and welcomed the opportunity to to get out of building what were becoming white elephants. If their opponents would stop building for a while then they could refine designs and getting much better products for their money.
IIRC Germans were not calling any ships' class as 'Battlecruiser'. The well-known 'Moltke' was listed as 'panzerkreuzer' - armored cruiser, or 'protected cruiser' - per photo, or as 'grossenkreuzer' - a 'big cruiser'. Similar for the 'Derfflinger'.
A 'batlecruiser' should be a capital ship with a reduced armor, and with guns of similar size as the battleships? The 'twins' were the opposite of that - guns were small, armor was thick.
Yup, just like I said in my post, nice wee summary of what I posted, Tomo.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
2 of the Lexingtons CBs were converted into aircraft carriers, USS Lexington and Saratoga each packing 8 x 8" guns.
Does anybody consider the Russian Kirovs as Battlecruisers? I keep reading they some do but don't see the armor being thick enough.
Does anybody consider the Russian Kirovs as Battlecruisers? I keep reading they some do but don't see the armor being thick enough.
The best description of a Kirov that I ever read was from a USN Submarine commander who called them "a Navy Cross in waiting".
GreenKnight121
Staff Sergeant
- 778
- Mar 16, 2014
If you look at the actual design and not just superficial stats the difference is very plain.
The British battlecruisers, Scharnhorst & Gneisenau, and Dunkerque & Strassborg are all internally similar to battleships in the hull structure and detail layout of their armor... even if it is a bit light.
The Alaska were specifically designed according to USN cruiser design principles in hull structure and armor layout... thus their designation as "Large Cruisers".
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Agreed that their internal subdivisions aren't battleship quality. But I'm not arguing that the Alaskas should be regarded as battleships.
The USN never went for the Battle cruiser class.
As I've posted before the three Alaska class ships only came about due to an incorrect report about Japan planning to
build ships similar to the Scharnhorst.
The Alaska type was classed by the USN as a heavy cruiser and found it's niche as a fast carrier escort due to having good
AA armament.
Any other navy would have classed them as a Battle cruiser so they were but they weren't depending on who you ask.
As I've posted before the three Alaska class ships only came about due to an incorrect report about Japan planning to
build ships similar to the Scharnhorst.
The Alaska type was classed by the USN as a heavy cruiser and found it's niche as a fast carrier escort due to having good
AA armament.
Any other navy would have classed them as a Battle cruiser so they were but they weren't depending on who you ask.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Late to the party as usual but looks like you've all beat this one into the dust. But my $.02:
It's been an age old argument since the turn of the last century, I'd say the perfect definition for a Battlecruiser is the Battle of the Falklands, Invincible and Inflexible did EXACTLY what they were designed to do (despite Sturdee's bumbling). Jackie Fisher specified a ship that could hunt down and destroy enemy "cruisers", heavy, light, protected, unprotected, armored, unarmored, just don't go toe to toe with a Battleship, utilize the speed advantage to run in that situation. Obviously Beatty didn't get that memo.
I also believe that the term "Battle Cruiser" or "Battlecruiser" was outdated even by 1920-25, Hood is many times referred to as a "Fast Battleship". Yes the term was flung around for twenty years after WWI and even the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 specifies how much tonnage etc could be allocated for "Battlecruisers". The four Kongo's could certainly be classed as that upon completion as they were based off the Princess Royal design with modifications to IJN specs I think, I can't remember right now and too lazy to look it up.
One could consider the Iowa's battlecruisers, after all, large caliber guns and high speed with arguments about her armor scheme that may point towards more CC than BB. In the end, your guess is as good as mine.
As for the Alaska's... pfft anything goes, 12in guns were no longer battleship caliber weapons by 1944 so, large cruisers.
Battleship size and weapons, cruiser speed and armor, that was Jackie Fishers idea, the Germans fouled up when they heard the RN was building "Large Cruisers" and presented the Blucher, a hefty large cruiser in her own right, except she was only as fast as a armored cruiser with 8in guns. That check that her stern couldn't cover got cashed at Dogger Bank. That she was even included in the German Battlecruiser raid shows a lack of awareness on HSF thinking, although in all fairness, German HSF battlecruisers were slower but more heavily armored than their Grand Fleet counterparts. So she got slipped in to help fill out the battle line which they knew would be outnumbered if RN CC's showed up...
It's been an age old argument since the turn of the last century, I'd say the perfect definition for a Battlecruiser is the Battle of the Falklands, Invincible and Inflexible did EXACTLY what they were designed to do (despite Sturdee's bumbling). Jackie Fisher specified a ship that could hunt down and destroy enemy "cruisers", heavy, light, protected, unprotected, armored, unarmored, just don't go toe to toe with a Battleship, utilize the speed advantage to run in that situation. Obviously Beatty didn't get that memo.
I also believe that the term "Battle Cruiser" or "Battlecruiser" was outdated even by 1920-25, Hood is many times referred to as a "Fast Battleship". Yes the term was flung around for twenty years after WWI and even the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 specifies how much tonnage etc could be allocated for "Battlecruisers". The four Kongo's could certainly be classed as that upon completion as they were based off the Princess Royal design with modifications to IJN specs I think, I can't remember right now and too lazy to look it up.
One could consider the Iowa's battlecruisers, after all, large caliber guns and high speed with arguments about her armor scheme that may point towards more CC than BB. In the end, your guess is as good as mine.
As for the Alaska's... pfft anything goes, 12in guns were no longer battleship caliber weapons by 1944 so, large cruisers.
Battleship size and weapons, cruiser speed and armor, that was Jackie Fishers idea, the Germans fouled up when they heard the RN was building "Large Cruisers" and presented the Blucher, a hefty large cruiser in her own right, except she was only as fast as a armored cruiser with 8in guns. That check that her stern couldn't cover got cashed at Dogger Bank. That she was even included in the German Battlecruiser raid shows a lack of awareness on HSF thinking, although in all fairness, German HSF battlecruisers were slower but more heavily armored than their Grand Fleet counterparts. So she got slipped in to help fill out the battle line which they knew would be outnumbered if RN CC's showed up...
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #39
Shortround6
Major General
This one seems to be kind of variable. I don't know what the US knew and when but the 1942 Janes reports 3 ships under construction with six 12 in guns of 12-15,000 tons. More like enlarged Deutschland's than than Scharnhorst. Janes might be a reputable source compared to internal memos.
The Alaska's were used as carrier escorts because they couldn't figure out what else to do with them. The AA armament was good but it wasn't any better than the Baltimore's or even the Cleveland's.
How much was Beatty and how much was higher up?
He was supposed to be the fast wing and to either the trap the German battlecruisers or lure the German battlefleet into the British battle fleet.
He only had 4 of the 13.5 in battle cruisers and the QE class as a fast battleship unit and they were about 3-5kts slower than the Battle cruisers. Leaving the 12 in battlecruisers home
when trying to face off against the five German Battlecruisers may not have been a good idea either. The North Sea was not noted for long range visibility and Beatty only had one ship (not counting the QEs) that had 6in secondary guns while every German BC had 5.9in secondary's. In poor conditions Beatty would have been out gunned,
There had been enough tip and run raids for each side to get a good feel of the speeds the other side could manage.
Would Jellicoe have agreed to Beatty leaving the 12in BC at home?
The poor Blucher was an in-between ship. Not only was stuck with 8.2 in guns but stuck with reciprocating machinery. However she was about 3-4kts faster than the other German armored cruisers so there wasn't good way to form a tactical unit with them. She was actually faster by 2-3 knots than the last British armored cruisers in theory but could not make full speed in her last action. She was about as fast (or with in 1/2 a knot?) as an Invincible if both were right out of dock yard.
Due to Fisher the British battlecruisers served from one side of the channel to the other. The 12in ships sacrificed armor for speed. They also sacrificed 2ndary armament. Fisher didn't believe in it. The ships should only have two types of guns. the biggest main main guns and the smallest guns that would stop a destroyer/TB. In Fishers world all fighting would be done in daylight with good visibility and the destroyers would attack at night at short range.
After the British slowly sorted though the Lions and reached the Tiger ( and screwed her up with large tube boilers) and had the Hood building so they reached the other side of the channel (road) Fisher came back and came up with the Renown and Repulse and the Courageous class which made the Invincible look like balanced ships and the British BC course veered back across the channel and practically ran aground.
The German BC progression was pretty smooth and was evolving into the fast battleship but the later versions were never completed.
The Japanese were the only other country to actually complete battle cruisers in WW I so the actual number of samples around the world was pretty small.
By the 1930s the revolutions in ship machinery meant that the naval architects didn't have to make same choices, they could get similar power from a much smaller weight-volume of machinery (which needed less armor).
Thumpalumpacus
Major
And given their size and manning, the Alaskas were horribly expensive platforms for such a mission.
