best in class question

[borner]

I know this has probably been discussed before, but would be interested in opinions on the best Battlecruiser design post refits

Renown/Repulse
Sharnhorst
Kongo
Alaska
Dunkerque

[Iridium]

Well, the best refit was arguably done to the Kongo class, however the best design overall would probably be a Dunkerque, it was a very good ship for it's size.

Kongo; small AA suite, good speed and range, decent but not overwhelming main battery, thinnest belt armor among all WWII BBs, improved dramatically from it's WWI design during it's prewar rebuild but still left some things wanting (belt, AA, posessing low angle secondary guns still, etc.

Sharnhorst; poor seakeeping, relatively low broadside, armor layout oldfashioned and contained rather ill advised gaps. Lastly, they had a sad AA suite.

Alaska; Good speed, poor armor and torpedo defense, probably one of the best AA suites, cramped in general (affecting crew performance on long cruises etc), iirc machinery was iffy.

Renown/Repulse; aka Refit and Repair, originally designed for speeds in excess of 30kts Repulse was down to 28kts by WWII, I recall seeing Renown rated at 30kts still however. Lack of aux power (sadly most British ships of this period lacked this), decent AA battery, good main gun battery, poor turning?, extremely weak torpedo defense.

This is all offhand of what I remember reading through the years. If anyone has anything to add or revise feel free. [:)]

[Japan]

Sharnhorst did however have exellent Guns,  very very suppirior for its class  [:D]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: borner

I know this has probably been discussed before, but would be interested in opinions on the best Battlecruiser design post refits

Renown/Repulse
Sharnhorst
Kongo
Alaska
Dunkerque

Renown had been rebuilt as a fast carrier escort and was well enough liked in that role that the RN considered keeping her commissioned after WWII. The weakness of carriers was their vulnerability to surface action in conditions of low visibility, particularly early in the war. That meant they needed to remain at least 200 nm from enemy SAGs or have a strong surface escort able to handle the threat. That led to a series of rebuilds (Renown, Kongo) and new designs (Alaska, many heavy cruisers) for the CVTF escort role. Note that the Hood and Repulse were not rebuilt to this standard.

[John 3rd]

While I have to admit that Scharnhorst was a lovely ship to look at, I cannot agree about her guns. Those 11" rifles were way too small for her size. I always wanted to see what those two ships would have been like if they had been up-gunned to 6 15" rifles as planned. THAT would have been fun!

My vote goes for the Kongo-Class. I still call them BCs in my games but they were fast, decently armored, carried a solid punch, and could absorb a good deal of punnishment.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Japan

Sharnhorst did however have exellent Guns,  very very suppirior for its class  [:D]

excellent guns for 11" perhaps, total failure for the ship class... superior? never...

[DivePac88]

I would have liked to say the Kongo class, but their modernization was mainly about new machinery for speed, with some extra deck armor worked in. The pagoda mast was mainly cosmetic, and almost certainly a liability. They had some light and medium 3inch AA added, but kept their old 6inch side batteries
The prize for the complete package would have to go to Renown. With new machinery, new Deck armor, and new superstructure she was generally regarded as the best British reconstruction. But her redeeming features were her new secondary armament of 4.5inch DP turrets, with large magazines, and adequate HA/LA Directors. With all these improvements she would have to be considered to be the best CV escort of the war.[8D]
DP.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

But her redeeming features were her new secondary armament of 4.5inch DP turrets, with large magazines, and adequate HA/LA Directors. With all these improvements she would have to be considered to be the best CV escort of the war.[8D]
DP.

As compared to the ALASKA's? I don't think so...

[borner]

I put them in this order
 
As a carrier escort, I think the two best are Alaska (clearly having the advantage of being built last, and GB's ships)   Ship to ship, I have to give the edge to the Germans. They were the closest to being built on battlehip hulls. While the 11" guns are a drawback, thier targets in this class generally have less armor, evening out the gunnery duel.
 
 

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Japan

Sharnhorst did however have exellent Guns,  very very suppirior for its class  [:D]

excellent guns for 11" perhaps, total failure for the ship class... superior? never...

She was sunk because her guns were not a credible threat to her opponent.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

But her redeeming features were her new secondary armament of 4.5inch DP turrets, with large magazines, and adequate HA/LA Directors. With all these improvements she would have to be considered to be the best CV escort of the war.[8D]
DP.

As compared to the ALASKA's? I don't think so...

The Alaskas were comparable to the Baltimore class in that regard. The Renown had almost twice the AA firepower as the Alaskas.

[Tiornu]

Iowa.

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Iowa.

Have we moved on from Battelcruisers? If so, then I agree...

[jwilkerson]

Well I guess the only argument against IOWA being the best battle cruiser class, is not sure that was exactly the design target!
[:D]
But as fast BB they would certainly be high on the list!

Another question related to the original question is "Was there a valid purpose to building Battlecruisers?" And I would restrict the scope of this question to pre-World War II (if not end of World War I). There have many a number of "howls" about "Fisher's Toys".

I would argue that they did have a valid purpose as evidenced by their use at Jutland. As "fast heavy scouts". Fast enough to outrun the battle line and heavy enough to drive off the enemy (surface) scouts - unless the enemy also has "fast heavy scouts". But once the aero-plane shows up, this mission is obsolete. Then "convoy raiding" (and protection against same) becomes the alternate purpose.

[borner]

but then she was fighting a modern BB, here we are talking BC vs BC. The Kongo or Renown may have scored some damage against Duke of York, but the lighter protection would have caused them to sink much faster.

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well I guess the only argument against IOWA being the best battle cruiser class, is not sure that was exactly the design target!
[:D]
But as fast BB they would certainly be high on the list!

Another question related to the original question is "Was there a valid purpose to building Battlecruisers?" And I would restrict the scope of this question to pre-World War II (if not end of World War I). There have many a number of "howls" about "Fisher's Toys".

I would argue that they did have a valid purpose as evidenced by their use at Jutland. As "fast heavy scouts". Fast enough to outrun the battle line and heavy enough to drive off the enemy (surface) scouts - unless the enemy also has "fast heavy scouts". But once the aero-plane shows up, this mission is obsolete. Then "convoy raiding" (and protection against same) becomes the alternate purpose.

In their original role as the hunters of Armoured Cruisers they were a great idea, but, as predicted, they were misused by being placed in the battle line and expected to survive. Having said that, the German WW1 ships did survive encounters with proper battlewagons...

[Dili]

I never understood why Cavour and Duilio were considered Battleships in WW2 they were much more like BC's. Well maybe because Fascist propaganda and their origins as battleships...

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Iowa.

Fast battleship. Not designed as a CVTF escort.

[borner]

very good point, and as BC's they would not rate ll that badly in protection and firepower, although somewhat weak in AA firepower

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: castor troy


excellent guns for 11" perhaps, total failure for the ship class... superior? never...

The German 11" Guns mounted on the Scharnhorst was equal
(and better from June 1940) then the Brittish 14" Inch Guns mounted on the King George V Battleship.
REFERENCE NAVWEAPS: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm


Before WW2 Germany used the RPC32 Propellent, In Early WW2 Germany changed to the RPC38 more powerfull propellent something who increased
the German 11" Gun Preformance evan more, while the British Propellent remined the same as pre war.


Note here, that the German 11" Gun is equal to or Outpreformed the British 14" Gun on 8000, 16000 and 20000 Yard Ranges for side armor penetrations.
The below is the stats with the RPC32, however when using the RPC38 Propellent Scharnhorst serverely outpreformed the Brittish 14" on 25'000 as well as 30'000 years. Then in addition to this comes the fact that the Scharnhorst had twise as fast reload time then the King George V. Additionaly each round from the Scharnhorst made a "bigger boom" due to the way Krupp (German Gun Manufactor) had done the Ridget Compossition of the 11" Rounds used by the Scharnhorst.

The "Inch" is not everything...
So I think you statement with "the 11" Gun being a Total Failure for this ship" is incorrect...
as a matter of fact, Germany considered using this gun on the Bismark and the Tirptiz, but decided to not do so in favure of the 38CM 52/SK-C34 Design.



Take a Look at the Penetration Values below, or check the link: NAVWEAPS: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm















[8D][8D][8D][8D][8D]