HMS Hood

[Capitaine]

Not sure what people are considering BB vs Cruiser armament. Traditionally, anything 11" and above was battleship armament. The entire German High Seas Fleet had guns 11" and 12", before the Bayerns.

Ergo, all these BCs that people are questioning, Alaska, Deutschlands, Scharnhorst/Gneisenau, etc. all had BB armament. So I'm not sure what is being disputed here.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Not sure what people are considering BB vs Cruiser armament. Traditionally, anything 11" and above was battleship armament. The entire German High Seas Fleet had guns 11" and 12", before the Bayerns.

Ergo, all these BCs that people are questioning, Alaska, Deutschlands, Scharnhorst/Gneisenau, etc. all had BB armament. So I'm not sure what is being disputed here.

warspite1

The size of the main armament is not the sole criteria for deciding upon a ship type. HMS Erebus and HMS Terror had 15-inch main armament and the Roberts-class were 13-inchers. They were not battleships - they were monitors....

I must confess I am not sure what you are saying either. Are you stating that the Deutschlands were BB's or BC's???

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Not sure what people are considering BB vs Cruiser armament. Traditionally, anything 11" and above was battleship armament. The entire German High Seas Fleet had guns 11" and 12", before the Bayerns.

Ergo, all these BCs that people are questioning, Alaska, Deutschlands, Scharnhorst/Gneisenau, etc. all had BB armament. So I'm not sure what is being disputed here.

warspite1

The size of the main armament is not the sole criteria for deciding upon a ship type. HMS Erebus and HMS Terror had 15-inch main armament and the Roberts-class were 13-inchers. They were not battleships - they were monitors....

I must confess I am not sure what you are saying either. Are you stating that the Deutschlands were BB's or BC's???

It started with the semantics of the Alaska class. "It's a large cruiser. No it's a ballet cruiser". "No, it's a target." (says a submarine crewman.)

IMHO, battlecruisers became obsolete when the Queen Elizabeth class was launched. (faster than any other BB, better protection and firepower.)

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Not sure what people are considering BB vs Cruiser armament. Traditionally, anything 11" and above was battleship armament. The entire German High Seas Fleet had guns 11" and 12", before the Bayerns.

Ergo, all these BCs that people are questioning, Alaska, Deutschlands, Scharnhorst/Gneisenau, etc. all had BB armament. So I'm not sure what is being disputed here.

warspite1

The size of the main armament is not the sole criteria for deciding upon a ship type. HMS Erebus and HMS Terror had 15-inch main armament and the Roberts-class were 13-inchers. They were not battleships - they were monitors....

I must confess I am not sure what you are saying either. Are you stating that the Deutschlands were BB's or BC's???

I would say that the Deutschlands were aptly called "Pocket Battleships" due to their armament. Monitors clearly aren't in the discussion; don't they all just have one turret? Even pre-dreads with 11"+ armament were technically battleships. A "cruiser" with BB MA is clearly what a BC is all about.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Not sure what people are considering BB vs Cruiser armament. Traditionally, anything 11" and above was battleship armament. The entire German High Seas Fleet had guns 11" and 12", before the Bayerns.

Ergo, all these BCs that people are questioning, Alaska, Deutschlands, Scharnhorst/Gneisenau, etc. all had BB armament. So I'm not sure what is being disputed here.

warspite1

The size of the main armament is not the sole criteria for deciding upon a ship type. HMS Erebus and HMS Terror had 15-inch main armament and the Roberts-class were 13-inchers. They were not battleships - they were monitors....

I must confess I am not sure what you are saying either. Are you stating that the Deutschlands were BB's or BC's???

I would say that the Deutschlands were aptly called "Pocket Battleships" due to their armament. Monitors clearly aren't in the discussion; don't they all just have one turret? Even pre-dreads with 11"+ armament were technically battleships. A "cruiser" with BB MA is clearly what a BC is all about.

warspite1

Why are monitors clearly not in the discussion if main armament size is your sole criteria? What about the Sverige-class coastal defence ships? They had more than one 11-inch turret - but were hardly ocean-going vessels - so BB if your definition of main armament is used - but not by any other measure.

I do not see how the Deutschlands, with 11-inch guns and armour not that much greater in places than a light cruiser, could in any way shape or form be classed as a BB or BC. The Germans themselves re-classified them as heavy cruisers in WWII (although the classification no longer had the same meaning following the failure of the Japanese to ratify the 1936 naval treaty - and subsequent cruisers were built without restriction, leading to the ultimate in large cruiser - the Alaskas).

Nor do I see where the 'traditionally anything 11-inch and above was battleship armament' comment comes from. Can you confirm please? E.g. HMS Triumph and HMS Centurion were battleships - they had 10-inch main armament.

But the latter were built in the 19th century and naval guns generally increased in size as the years went by. An 11-inch gun may have been okay on a battleship pre-WWI but come the 1930's it was not in the battleship ball-park (and was weak compared with much of the BB armament in WWI).

At Washington they tried to limit cruiser size and anything above an 8-inch gun (and 10,000 tons) had to come from battleship allowance. It wouldn't make a ship with 9-inch guns and 11,000 tons a battleship though.

But fair enough, each to their own [:)] As with most things in life, just as not everything fits in nice neat little boxes - so not every ship fits neatly into a particular classification. The Deutschlands genesis was of course outside the Washington naval treaty and instead her layout was determined by Versailles and so these ships do not fit neatly into a particular box. For me personally, the Deutschlands were simply large cruisers that, like others before and since, became obsolete almost from the time they were built.

[sven6345789]

Battlecruisers were Admiral Fishers brainchild. His idea was to design ships with the weapons of a dreadnought but relying on speed instead of armour for defense. The British started to construct this ship type, and the Germans followed suit. The Germans had a different design philosophy though, with more armor, accepting a little less speed and less armament.
Other nations building battle cruisers were Russia, Japan and the United States.

World war 1 proved the battle cruiser design to be a kind of a dead end, although both Japan and the United States laid down Battlecruisers after WW1. The Washington treaty ended this. When the building holiday ended in 1935/36, the distinction between Battlecruisers and Dreadnoughts was no longer necessary since the technical development made it possible to build fast battleships. Still Japan, Germany, the Soviet Union and the Dutch planned ships generally considered as Battlecruisers, although none were completed due to WW2.

The Deutschland or later Lützow-Class doesn't fit into Battlecruisers specifications. It came into existence due to Versailles-treaty restrictions, resembling more a CA than a BC.
The Alaska-class was never supposed to augment the line of battle. It was build as a counter to Japanese large Cruisers that never materialised. The classification as CB or large heavy cruiser describes the ships best, although with 9 12inch guns and 9 inches of armor it came close to the power of WW1-Battlecruisers. Against the modern fast battleships though, she was outclassed.
To sum it up a list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battlecruisers

Regarding looks the Battlecruisers all were beautiful ships. If I would have to pick one I would pick Tiger. If I could pick three I would add Hood and Derfflinger

[Curtis Lemay]

As far as I'm concerned, there were ships that, for their time, were more than cruisers and less than battleships. Battlecruiser is as good a name for them as anything, regardless of what long list of names each country had for them.

[Pvt_Grunt]

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battlecruisers

Wikipedia lists the Scharnhorst class as Battleships, they are not in the list. I will need to take it up with them............[:-]

[ezzler]

For those that like ship building and naval global war . This game from NWS.

http://yhst-12000246778232.stores.yahoo ... waddo.html

I bought this the other day and its very good.
Can be tricky, in fact fatal, if two enemies go to war with you, but that's life.
My French fleet after war with Italy and Britain is now the size of austro-Hungry.

And all my pre dreadnaught battleships and early cruisers were rubbish by 1909.
Live and learn.

[Capt. Harlock]

World war 1 proved the battle cruiser design to be a kind of a dead end . . .

The Alaska-class was never supposed to augment the line of battle. It was build as a counter to Japanese large Cruisers that never materialised. The classification as CB or large heavy cruiser describes the ships best, although with 9 12inch guns and 9 inches of armor it came close to the power of WW1-Battlecruisers. Against the modern fast battleships though, she was outclassed.

I can't fully agree. HMS Renown gave good service during WWII, and Hood acquitted herself well in the action at Mers-el-Kebir. As for the Alaskas, it is quite true that they were never supposed to be in the battle-line, but then that wasn't the main function of battlecruisers from the beginning. And for that matter, the concept of the battle line was itself obsolete by the time they joined the fleet. From all that I can tell, they performed the main functions of a modern fast battleship (carrier escort and shore bombardment) about as well as an Iowa-class for 2/3 the cost.

I point out that against the Yamatos, almost everything was outclassed. I think an Alaska-class would have been a fair match for a Kongo-class, a Scharnhorst-class, or a Dunkerque-class.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

World war 1 proved the battle cruiser design to be a kind of a dead end . . .

The Alaska-class was never supposed to augment the line of battle. It was build as a counter to Japanese large Cruisers that never materialised. The classification as CB or large heavy cruiser describes the ships best, although with 9 12inch guns and 9 inches of armor it came close to the power of WW1-Battlecruisers. Against the modern fast battleships though, she was outclassed.

I can't fully agree. HMS Renown gave good service during WWII, and Hood acquitted herself well in the action at Mers-el-Kebir. As for the Alaskas, it is quite true that they were never supposed to be in the battle-line, but then that wasn't the main function of battlecruisers from the beginning. And for that matter, the concept of the battle line was itself obsolete by the time they joined the fleet. From all that I can tell, they performed the main functions of a modern fast battleship (carrier escort and shore bombardment) about as well as an Iowa-class for 2/3 the cost.

I point out that against the Yamatos, almost everything was outclassed. I think an Alaska-class would have been a fair match for a Kongo-class, a Scharnhorst-class, or a Dunkerque-class.

warspite1

When looking at the usefulness (or otherwise) of battlecruisers (or any type or class), one of the problems is that warships were frequently not used for the purpose for which they were designed. That could be for reasons of: Bad luck, bad leadership or procedural deficiencies.

Fact was Britain would start WWII with three battlecruisers. The drawbacks of this ship type was spelt out at Jutland (where poor cordite handling and deployment exacerbated any inherent design flaw).

What was the performance like of the three? Did they justify the black mark against the battlecruiser-type?

Well two ships (Hood and Repulse) were not modernised to any great extent and only the third (Renown) had a proper modernisation program between the wars. So, in that far from ideal state, how were they deployed?

Poor Repulse was sent to the Far East on a ridiculous suicide mission where she was pretty much guaranteed to be out-numbered and devoid of air cover. If Prince of Wales could not survive then it's hardly surprising poor Repulse didn't. Her loss was nothing to do with being a battlecruiser and everything to do with woeful mis-management.

HMS Hood? (I wouldn't suggest Mers-el-Kebir was representative of anything - it was an entirely one-sided operation). Like Repulse she was desperately overdue for modernisation - and indeed was next in line when war came. Given her unmodernised state, given what was known had happened at Jutland, was her deployment against Bismarck wise? Again it could be argued her loss was due to being sent on the wrong operation. Having said that, she was one huge resource to be seen to be cowering in port while Bismarck had broken out....

HMS Renown, as mentioned above, gave excellent service. But, unlike the other two, she had luck (or at least no bad luck) going for her. She came face to face with the 11-inch armed ugly sisters and came off slightly better in an inconclusive encounter (due to hideous weather). Thereafter the exit of the French meant that she was largely required as part of the troubleshooting Force H in the Western Med. She was aided here by Supermarina's insistence on keeping the RM intact rather than hurting the ridiculously overstretched RN. As a result any inherent weakness was not properly tested by the Littorios.

Ideally these ships would have been deployed in the search for any Atlantic raiders (except Bismarck and Tirpitz) but the RN was too stretched and beggars could not be choosers. Any of the three vs the PB's or the Hipper-class or even the Scharnhorsts would have been unlikely to end well for the Kriegsmarine....

Had the RN had the luxury of that deployment then the way they were viewed in history may have been far different.

[Pvt_Grunt]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

When looking at the usefulness (or otherwise) of battlecruisers (or any type or class), one of the problems is that warships were frequently not used for the purpose for which they were designed. That could be for reasons of: Bad luck, bad leadership or procedural deficiencies.

Poor Repulse was sent to the Far East on a ridiculous suicide mission where she was pretty much guaranteed to be out-numbered and devoid of air cover. If Prince of Wales could not survive then it's hardly surprising poor Repulse didn't. Her loss was nothing to do with being a battlecruiser and everything to do with woeful mis-management.

Fully agree, BC philosophy would be to use speed to avoid (run away) from a BB. Imperial Japanese torpedo bombers rendered this philosophy obsolete....
They would be much more successful had they been used as big gun cruisers.