Models of Naval Combat

[hawker]

Yes but Hood was not a true battlecruiser in comparison to the WWI types. She was in fact the world's first fast battleship. At the time of her commissioning she was (ironically) the UK's best protected capital warship. Her design however was too advanced to fully incorporate all of the wartime lessons and she remained an incremental-armor design (vs. the more modern "all or nothing" type) with the weight of her protection focused on the vertical (flatter trajectory shellfire). While not a crippling aspect in 1920, by 1941 her horizontal protection was woefully lacking. The preposed refit would have added several inches of deck armor to her primary armor deck, making her more survivable. The British termed Hood a "Battlecruiser" but post-WWI, this term's meaning had changed within the Royal Navy. "Battlecruisers" encompassed fast capital ships with the speed to operate detached from the main battlefleet. "Battleships" encompassed the more traditional type, slower,t more heavily armed and armored and meant only to operate on the line. The G3 'Battlecruisers' which succeeeded the older Hood class, were certainly not "battlecruisers" in the traditional sense in comparison to the first types such as Invincible.

As for the losses, had the Admiralty listened to a knowledgable few in regards to the stability of their cordite, its conceivable that none of the three lost at Jutland would have been lost. I agree though that the entire BC concept was flawed in that once other nations built similar classes you in effect would inevitably have a scaled down version of the main event with the BC fleets facing off just as the BB fleets were meant to face off. Once technology allowed the merging of the battleship with the speed of the battlecruiser, the issue became moot anyway.

One more thing to add,
Battlecrisers is invention of admiral Fisher,he name these ships as "cruiser killers",his forte is "speed for armor".
Germans battlecruisers proves better in WW1 then Brittish counterparts.
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are also battlecruisers but germans sacrifice guns for speed,these ships are proved good raiders at convoys,i think that Scharnhorst could make almost 34 knots.
I read book,some years ago,about war in atlantic and author say,
"Hood and other BCs are designed to catch and destroy any cruiser they encounter. They cannot sustain heavy damage in hard fights,Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are designed to sustain heavy damage in hard fights."
I hope i translate this right.

[Nikademus]

Lord Fisher was looking for a means to economize Britian's resources in a changing world in which he saw the RN having a harder and harder time financing the huge fleet she was maintaining. The two power rule was already going by the wayside, yet Britian needed numbers. Always an advocate for speed, Fisher's idea vessel could be gleaned from his chosen flagship from an earlier time, HMS Renown (1897), a 2nd class battleship armed with lighter guns and armor but fast. As originally completed, HMS Invincible was termed a "Dreadnought armored cruiser" and was in effect, an armored cruiser armed with battleship sized guns. He envisioned this as a ship that could outfight anything that it couldn't outrun. He also saw these vessels as convenient psuedo BB's that could fill their role in more distant stations. Invincible was a complete success as a design in all but one area.....cost. (you could build two Warrior type AC's for what it took to build Invincible) As previously mentioned, the idea worked great until other nations started building similar types...then you got caught in a catch-22.

Germans battlecruisers proves better in WW1 then Brittish counterparts

Thats probably a matter of opinion. Certainly the 2nd generation of German battlecruisers far outclassed the Invincible and Indefatigable classes in a straight up fight though the Lion and Tiger class were capable if expensive vessels. Had the British cordite been as stable as German propellant, and had Beatty been more like Jellicoe at Jutland....well this could be debated till kingdom come. I am not a fan of Beatty, he acted rashly at Jutland and was soundly defeated by Hipper.

"Better" can also be interpreted in mission success. The German BC's scored more successes against their opposites in the war (Jutland) but other than that acomplished little. Ironically, the most successful use of the BC's was by two of the most obsolete types .....Invincible and her sister Inflexible fullfilled Fisher's role by their crushing of Von Spee's Far Eastern squadron with the two crack gunnery vessels, armored cruiser's Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. In the battle of the Dogger Bank, British BC's chased off Hipper's BC squadron and sank the Blucher and very nearly sinking the battlecruiser Seydlitz. (my favorite BC by the way.....[:D] )

Hood and other BCs are designed to catch and destroy any cruiser they encounter. They cannot sustain heavy damage in hard fights,Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are designed to sustain heavy damage in hard fights.

Well as i mentioned, Hood was redesigned and was not a true-battlecruiser as the type were defined before, and during the first world war. She was a fast-battleship and was her navy's most advanced and best protected ship in 1920. Had Britian the finances after the war, Hood would have been succeeeded by even more powerful fast battleships of the G3 class, which could incorporate all the lessons of WWI that they'd learned. Scharnhorst, the WWII class were, like Bismarck designed primarily for a short range type contest, their weight of armor was focused mainly on the vertical with the low slung armor deck reinforcing it. Scharnhorst contained a critical weakness though which directly attributed to her loss at the hands of Duke of York....because of a snafu with her design, her boilers ended up being too tall resulting in her armor deck containing a "shelf" that raised it near the middle portion of the deck. This created a weak spot of around 3inch of vertical armor that a heavy shell could easily penetrate if it's trajectory carried it over the heavy armor belt. This in fact happened when Duke of York suprised her, the shell struck the armor shelf and penetrated into the engineering spaces causing great damage and hobbling her maximum speed. Without this shelf the 14inch shell would have glanced off the 3.15in armor deck.

[el cid again]

Many naval theorists are scathing towards the battlecruiser type, and I can understand why. They really were to expensive to be so fragile.

Note, however, that in the nuclear age we have given up on armored ships - almost. And we certainly build expensive ships which are even more fragile! And the Russians seem to have built something that can only be described as a battlecruiser - although it had no heavy guns.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: herwin

The Brits like to saunter (walk slowly) and show poor lane discipline (both as pedestrians and drivers). Most of their infantry was slow-moving, and very few (elite) troops marched quickly. (I had American straight-leg infantry training, and the pace I learned seems to be faster than the standard UK pace. 8) I think they carried over their preferences into capital ship design...

Actually you are dead wrong. The Brits were the first to build Battlecruisers, and the first to build a "fast" battleship (the QE's were 4 knots faster than any other BB's of WWI). Yes, the Nelson and Rodney were rather slow for WWII, but they were built in the 20's under the Washington Treaty restrictions and to cut the design down from 48,000 to 35,000 tons they sacrificed machinery and boilers to keep guns and armor. To a certain extent this is what kept the KGV's from being 30+ knot ships as well. The Germans used the extra "cheat" tonnage of the Bismarcks to gain a couple of extra knots. The KGV's were equal to the US Washington's and South Dakota's in speed.

The British come off poorly in "paper" speed comparisons with the Italians, French and the Japanese because they designed and reported more realistic figures. Their ships were in general much better sea boats than most others because they were designed for the conditions of the North Atlantic. IRL they often found thmeselves overhauling ships which had reportedly much higher maximum speeds.

[el cid again]

The German BC's scored more successes against their opposites in the war (Jutland) but other than that acomplished little.

What about "the flight of the Goben?"" Brought in Turkey on the German side. This ship remained in commission into my lifetime - and everyone thought it was the last capital ship until USS New Jersey recommissioned (after Siegfried Breyer wrote none would ever be brought back in Schlachtshiffe und Schlachtkreuzer).

[herwin]

Actually, my cynicism was showing. The real issue with the RN in WWI (and the UK for most of the 20th century) was that the UK industrial revolution took place early and without a solid foundation in science and engineering education--most engineers were either self-taught or the products of an apprenticeship system. That meant that scientific and technical management as found in German and America was much weaker in the UK. The statistical testing of ammunition in WWI was typical--they chose one shell from each lot to test. If that was acceptable, they accepted the lot. If that failed, they chose another. If that didn't fail, they accepted the lot. Otherwise the lot was rejected.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

What about "the flight of the Goben?"" Brought in Turkey on the German side.

I don't consider a political act to be a good qualifyer of a warship design. Goeben was also the instrument used by Souchon to start the shooting war in the Black Sea but such an act again, is not a reflection on the warship herself. After these notable events, Goeben ended up doing little more than her sisters for the rest of the war. Her survival into the 1970's was a reflection of Turkey's inability to aquire newer more powerful warships. A trajedy that she was left to the breakers though given Germany's recent history i could understand the lack of enthusiasm to preserve a symbol of prior militarism.

[mdiehl]

Am I right-were there not fluttering bits of birdsong in the intro to that song (loving you)?

The Force is Strong with You. [;)] Yes, birdsong and lyrics that they did not print. A long interlude in the middle comprised entirely of "lalalalala-lalala" and "aaaaaaah." Rather like one of Hawker's posts in this thread actually.

I hope there's meds or therapy for

Take one dose each of Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, and Ted Nugent. Repeat every six hours until you can imagine the bluebird of happiness trapped in an ore crusher.

[MkXIV]

If we are going to go by looks then I would give Bismarck credit there, she was a good looking ship.

My Favorites on looks. (For what that is worth)

1. Alaska
2. Iowa
3. Bismarck

[hawker]

If we are going to go by looks then I would give Bismarck credit there, she was a good looking ship.

My Favorites on looks. (For what that is worth)

1. Alaska
2. Iowa
3. Bismarck

I will add Scharnhorst on your list along with Hood.