- Apr 10, 2009
I just think the one of the final designs of the Lexington Class battle cruisers were beautiful
This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So we need to classify the Scharnhorst type as cruisers.As for the Alaska's... pfft anything goes, 12in guns were no longer battleship caliber weapons by 1944 so, large cruisers.
Baltimore - 12 x 5in DP 48 x 40AA 24 x 20AAThe 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.
Send the bill to Janes ?And given their size and manning, the Alaskas were horribly expensive platforms for such a mission.
In 1944 the Scharnhorst was classified as sunk. And her sister wasn't far from it.So we need to classify the Scharnhorst type as cruisers.
Which was the premise of this thread. Were the different types really needed ?In 1944 the Scharnhorst was classified as sunk. And her sister wasn't far from it.
The BC lasted less than 30 years. Engagement ranges went from under 20,000yds to over 40,000yds. control went from short range finders in local control to radar and mechanical computers. . Propulsion went from men shoveling coal into 31 small boilers to eight large oil fired boilers making over 3 1/2 times the power.
AA guns went from a few bolt action rifles (or an officers pistol) to multiple power operated 5in guns in turrets firing proximity fuses.
Trying to come up with definitions or rules to cover the different ships looking back from 80 years seems rather pointless when the definitions themselves were changing every few years during the period the ships were in services.
Preaching to the choir bud.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).
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.
Colorado class were the best looking BBs. The Lexingtons were the the most beautiful carriers.
That’s the image that comes to my mind.For a long time my avatar at another forum was this iconic photo of Colorado entering New York's Harbor, in front of Manhattan.
View attachment 674578
That’s the image that comes to my mind.
I think it's the one I chose in the Yamato v. Iowa thread. I'll even give the other guy Musashi as well.I have a preference for a different ship but I can't remember it's name at the moment.
I used to have a shot of these three in Tokyo bay but can't seem to locate it at the moment, this is two years earlier, not Colorado's but I also think the New Mexico's were good looking as well.Clipper bows. I love clipper bows.
You forgot the frog legs.Nothing tops the Richelieu
View attachment 674700
Escargot on the quarterdeck followed by chateaubriand. A bottle of Courvoisier XO and cigars after.