Page 1 of 5
Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 12:28 pm
by Revthought
So I notice that the game does a pretty good job of assigning the correct abbreviations for all the ship classes; but, I was under the impression that, at least in the US navy, the designation for a Battlecruiser was CC and not BC. Am I hallucinating that fact?
I figure someone here will no far better than I.
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 12:30 pm
by Lokasenna
Well, Guam and Alaska were designated CB. But I don't know if that answers your question.
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 12:39 pm
by dr.hal
You are correct, the original World War One order for "battlecruisers" was designated "CC" for "large cruiser" as the USN didn't like the name "battlecruiser". Thus originally the Lexington and Saratoga had the designation of "CC" (but as we all know, became CVs instead). However when the Alaska class was built the letters were changed to "CB" NOT BC as is popularly suggested. Again they were termed "large cruisers" and the word "battle" was avoided.
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 2:19 pm
by geofflambert
Solved![&o] Now we just need the Germans to stop using officer ranks like "obersturmbannführer". [:-][:D]
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 2:21 pm
by KenchiSulla
That is a paramilitary rank, not a military one...
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 3:33 pm
by Rising-Sun
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Well, Guam and Alaska were designated CB. But I don't know if that answers your question.
Yup, the USN use that designated CB for Alaska. Guess it all different for each nations how they recognize the naval vessels.
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 3:50 pm
by geofflambert
In my view the BCs were always a bad idea. If you build a battleship armour it properly. Alaska and Guam would have been nice at the beginning of the war as CA killers, but I would have been satisfied with 11" guns. Again, a warship should be armoured to receive the same ammunition it is throwing. The Queen Elizabeths were the way to go.
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 4:30 pm
by Revthought
ORIGINAL: geofflambert
In my view the BCs were always a bad idea. If you build a battleship armour it properly. Alaska and Guam would have been nice at the beginning of the war as CA killers, but I would have been satisfied with 11" guns. Again, a warship should be armoured to receive the same ammunition it is throwing. The Queen Elizabeths were the way to go.
On paper the concept seems rational enough. Outgun anything you cannot outrun and outrun anything you cannot outgun. The problem of course was always in the details, and those were that Battlecruisers were almost never put into situations where their design paradigm applied.
Instead they were used almost universally as fast battleships, and ended up trying to slug it out with ships they didn't outgun and for whom their armor was insufficient.
By the time you get to the second World War they were, with the exception of maybe Hood, hopelessly antiquated because of their lack of proper compartmentalization as much as their lack of proper armor.
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 4:50 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: geofflambert
In my view the BCs were always a bad idea. If you build a battleship armour it properly.
warspite1
But this ignores why they were designed in the first place - and, more importantly, what they were designed for. They were not designed to be poorly armoured battleships that slugged it out in a battlefleet role.
If you do not use something as intended - and it all goes wrong - don't blame the manufacturer [:D]
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 6:28 pm
by Rising-Sun
Well the speed and firepower is the key of warfare, those heavy armored warships wont be around for long if she doesn't have her screen of escorts. Now when the airpowers have taken it steps, it started to get even into more serious business. Most of us already seen what happen to powerful yamato. Same thing happen to Prince of Wales and Repluse.
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 7:05 pm
by HansBolter
ORIGINAL: geofflambert
Solved![&o] Now we just need the Germans to stop using officer ranks like "obersturmbannführer". [:-][:D]
Noooooo!!!!
Those are the coolest rank titles in the history of warfare.
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 8:10 pm
by jmalter
I don't blame the mfr, I blame David Beatty.
Fisher's 'battle-cruiser' concept was vindicated at the Falkland Islands, but sunk (several times) at Jutland. For my money, the later 'pocket-battleship' design was a better ship design, tho' it's not strictly comparable to the battle-cruiser idea.
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 8:12 pm
by Reg
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: geofflambert
In my view the BCs were always a bad idea. If you build a battleship armour it properly.
warspite1
But this ignores why they were designed in the first place - and, more importantly, what they were designed for. They were not designed to be poorly armoured battleships that slugged it out in a battlefleet role.
If you do not use something as intended - and it all goes wrong - don't blame the manufacturer [:D]
Practically speaking I suppose the swan song of the Battle Cruiser was Battle of the Falkland Islands. After this capital ships were used in the line of battle role.
The German cruiser squadron under Admiral Graf Maximilian von Spee was exercising their true role all over the South Pacific and Atlantic oceans until they were finally cornered and destroyed - always an occupational hazard for an inferior force if your options have been exhausted.
Australia annexed New Guinea and Rabaul in 1914 to deny bases of operation to this squadron.
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 10:10 pm
by BBfanboy
ORIGINAL: jmalter
I don't blame the mfr, I blame David Beatty.
Fisher's 'battle-cruiser' concept was vindicated at the Falkland Islands, but sunk (several times) at Jutland. For my money, the later 'pocket-battleship' design was a better ship design, tho' it's not strictly comparable to the battle-cruiser idea.
The pocket-battleships did not measure up as well as the German navy thought they would either. The Graf Spee took penetrating 6" hits from British/NZ cruisers even though the design was supposed to stop 8" shells. The British had learned a lot about making AP shells after Jutland!
As for The Falklands being the last appropriate use of the BC, I would suggest that Dogger Bank was also a good matchup, although it should have been a bigger British victory if fire distribution was followed instead of everyone shooting at the slowest ship (Blucher).
The Alaska Class were built because the Japanese were reported to be building similar ships of 27,000 tons. It turned out the Japanese CBs were a ruse to hide the volume of steel going into Yamato, Musashi and Shinano (which were officially supposed to be 35,000 ton ships). Add 27,000 and 35,000 and you get a Yamato.
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Sat May 07, 2016 10:01 am
by casmithasl
All three BCs destroyed at Jutland were destroyed by turret hits. They had insane suicidal ammunition handling practices. Beatties ship also had a turret hit that penetrated and destroyed the turret, but because sane ammo practices, the ship was saved.
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Sat May 07, 2016 11:26 am
by Rising-Sun
Once the magazine stores been hit and catch on fire, that ship is zoomed! That the hardest parts, by protecting the vessels with all that ammo, powder kegs and fuels. All vessels have it weakness, regardless.
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Sat May 07, 2016 3:41 pm
by Revthought
ORIGINAL: casmithasl
All three BCs destroyed at Jutland were destroyed by turret hits. They had insane suicidal ammunition handling practices. Beatties ship also had a turret hit that penetrated and destroyed the turret, but because sane ammo practices, the ship was saved.
This is true, but one could argue that Battlecruiser's weren't even reall designed to engage each other. Thus, there is some blame, in addition to your powder handling practices and your terrible AP shells (which are preventing your hits for doing like damage to enemy), for using these ships to slug it out with any ship whose armament can so easily score penetrations in areas which could reasonably lead to catastrophic magazine detonation if your crews are practicing anything less than perfect powder and ammunition handling regimens.
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Sat May 07, 2016 9:58 pm
by AW1Steve
The case of the Battle cruiser is once again marketing run amuck. Jackie Fisher wanted the Battle cruiser to be the ultimate scout. It was big (so could operate in bad weather and carry a LOOOOOTTT of fuel, so it run at high speeds a long time). But no one wanted to spend that kind of money on a big scout. So other duties were assigned , like anti-commerce , long range patrol, and showing the flag. And of course the word "battle" sounds so damned sexy. Irresistible. Thers your problem. A Battle cruiser was never intended to go to to toe with a battleship. If it spotted one , it was to turn and run from it. Remaining just in sight , but just out of range.
Historically it was a "large frigate". In Nelson's day a 44 gun frigate , or a fast Razee (cut down ship of the line) would have done the same duty. The problem was , aircraft were just arriving on the scene for the same mission. Now the USN hated the word Battle Cruiser. A cruiser was a scout vessel, a commerce protection or raider, a general purpose vessel. Consequently it felt that "Large cruiser" was must more appropriate a word , and description.
The "Territory class" of CB's were a strange breed. By the time they were laid down the scouting mission was gone, but there's some debate over their intent. Maybe it's a case of "The Jone's have it"...(the Japanese are building them so we need them...) but the USN had never feared NOT playing the game. Since they were designed before the war , I suspect it would be easier to sell congress on 6 more "Large cruisers" than 6 Battle cruisers, or battleships. And they could be used for convoy and carrier escorts to protect against the surface threat (a role they eventually did any way) freeing the big new battleships to go out and kill other battleships. War changes things, theories change, doctrine changes , but hardware takes a long time to change. So you build two, cancel four. [:)]
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Sat May 07, 2016 11:10 pm
by Revthought
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
The case of the Battle cruiser is once again marketing run amuck. Jackie Fisher wanted the Battle cruiser to be the ultimate scout. It was big (so could operate in bad weather and carry a LOOOOOTTT of fuel, so it run at high speeds a long time). But no one wanted to spend that kind of money on a big scout. So other duties were assigned , like anti-commerce , long range patrol, and showing the flag. And of course the word "battle" sounds so damned sexy. Irresistible. Thers your problem. A Battle cruiser was never intended to go to to toe with a battleship. If it spotted one , it was to turn and run from it. Remaining just in sight , but just out of range.
Historically it was a "large frigate". In Nelson's day a 44 gun frigate , or a fast Razee (cut down ship of the line) would have done the same duty. The problem was , aircraft were just arriving on the scene for the same mission. Now the USN hated the word Battle Cruiser. A cruiser was a scout vessel, a commerce protection or raider, a general purpose vessel. Consequently it felt that "Large cruiser" was must more appropriate a word , and description.
The "Territory class" of CB's were a strange breed. By the time they were laid down the scouting mission was gone, but there's some debate over their intent. Maybe it's a case of "The Jone's have it"...(the Japanese are building them so we need them...) but the USN had never feared NOT playing the game. Since they were designed before the war , I suspect it would be easier to sell congress on 6 more "Large cruisers" than 6 Battle cruisers, or battleships. And they could be used for convoy and carrier escorts to protect against the surface threat (a role they eventually did any way) freeing the big new battleships to go out and kill other battleships. War changes things, theories change, doctrine changes , but hardware takes a long time to change. So you build two, cancel four. [:)]
Frankly, I'm a strong defender of Battleships and their continued usefulness as capital ships during and just after the second world war. Yes, Yamato was sunk after being attacked by 300 airplanes for an hours. News flash everyone, less planes did more to the IJN at Midway. Similarly force Z was sunk, after being attacked all day, with the PoW High Angle radar out, and she still nearly survived, while Repulse was sunk by
literally the last two torpedoes dropped before night set in--all while the TF was being commanded by a man who insisted it didn't air cover until over an hour after the air attack had started.
These things weighed against the shore bombardment role, the battleships continued successful use as an anti-ship platform at Guadalcanal and Leyte Gulf (and the near success of the Japanese with them on multiple occasions)--not to mention that it was the only capital ship worth it salt at night during the period--does not equal the antiquated reputation Battleships seem to have been assigned to the "history" of the Second World War.
Now having said that, those territory cruisers always made me scratch my head. They canceled the Montanas--rightly so I think, the Iowas were more than enough--but kept right on building these...
They finished them a few months before the war ended, immediately put them in reserve/moved them to the scrap yard when the war was over.
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers
Posted: Sun May 08, 2016 12:56 am
by Capt. Harlock
Now having said that, those territory cruisers always made me scratch my head. They canceled the Montanas--rightly so I think, the Iowas were more than enough--but kept right on building these...
They finished them a few months before the war ended, immediately put them in reserve/moved them to the scrap yard when the war was over.
I confess I'm something of a fanboy about the
Alaska class. The ships cost only two-thirds of what an Iowa-class cost, and they were highly useful for both carrier escort and bombardment runs. Which they did -- they were
not immediately put in reserve, and both
Alaska and
Guam did in fact fire their main guns in anger. They even made an anti-shipping sweep into the Sea of Japan (which admittedly came to nothing because of a lack of targets).