Archive for Axis & Allies ForuMINI Specialised in the World War II Axis & Allies Miniatures and War At Sea Games
 


       Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index -> WAS General Discussion
danaussie

What was the best Battlecruiser????

Time to start a new debate, and since Holybobs "Best Cruiser" thread had a few votes for some Battlecruisers, I thought I'd give everybody the chance to discuss some of them. So to get the ball rolling, I will have to say HMS Hood was the best battlecruiser of WW2 and certainly the most famed of the period.

Now before everybody tears my choice to threads, my choice is not taken from any historical standpoint...its purely a cosmetic one, she just looked the best. From what I understand she was also the best Battlecruiser ever built at one point, and that was most likely way before the opening shots of WW2.

My second choice would be ummmm probably USS Alaska I think as miniature Iowas. well they certainly looked like they meant business, even if they actually did'nt see much action.

Third "The Kirishima" I just like the Kongos.

What do you guys think??? Wink
Asbestos

What have you done, man?!

Graf Spee: "Pocket Battleship"
Alaska: "Large Cruiser"
Kongos: "Fast battleships" by WW2
Dunkerque: "Fast battleship"


Battlecruiser is one of the most poorly defined classes of ships ever (along with ALL of the above)
admiral_tee

Yeah, this isnt clear cut.
The traditional 'battlecruiser' definition began to lose 'steam' (HA, pun unintended!) with the development of better boilers/turbines allowing battleships to be as fast as preceeding 'early' BC's.

These were loosely termed as fast battleships, with battleship scale armour and guns, with traditional battlecruiser speeds.

You could avoid a lot of inane debate by restricting it to WW1.

Tee
Asbestos

Oh, SMS Seydlitz then. She took a licking and kept on ticking.
admiral_tee

Asbestos wrote:
What have you done, man?!

Graf Spee: "Pocket Battleship"
Alaska: "Large Cruiser"
Kongos: "Fast battleships" by WW2
Dunkerque: "Fast battleship"


Battlecruiser is one of the most poorly defined classes of ships ever (along with ALL of the above)


The Graf Spee and Alaska are easier to defend as Cruisers, than it would be to argue that the Kongo/Dunkerque were BC's or fast BB's.

But agree. This is a can of worms that i dont think i want to step into again...

Tee
Rengokuy

Doesn't matter
being the "best" battlecrusier is like being the strongest ant.   Sure you can lift 10 times your body weight, but so what, that's like a twig.
Nisk

Scharny for me.
danaussie

Asbestos wrote:
What have you done, man?!

Graf Spee: "Pocket Battleship"
Alaska: "Large Cruiser"
Kongos: "Fast battleships" by WW2
Dunkerque: "Fast battleship"


Battlecruiser is one of the most poorly defined classes of ships ever (along with ALL of the above)


Ok so I was gettin bored with the same old SAs and what not. We will exclude any pocket battleship, because even I know that they were nothing more than a large cruiser. So no Pocket Battleships.

The Alaskas from every source I've read (which is'nt much) has a gigantic CB next to the name, so this is a Battle Cruiser right?

And as far a I know the Kongos and Dunkerques were and are still known today as Battlecruisers. I'm not sure but I also believe the Queen Elizabeths also fall into this category as well.

I think we all know what we believe are Battleships.

If we want a hard and fast rule how about keeping it within the restraints of the game. How about any ship that is classified as a Battlecruiser by WotC.

Does that sound fair enough? Very Happy
swarbs

danaussie wrote:

If we want a hard and fast rule how about keeping it within the restraints of the game. How about any ship that is classified as a Battlecruiser by WotC.

Does that sound fair enough? Very Happy


WotC doesn't classify any ship as a battlecruiser, does that mean I can just lock this thread?  Wink  Or do you want to come up with a different scheme?
danaussie

swarbs wrote:
danaussie wrote:

If we want a hard and fast rule how about keeping it within the restraints of the game. How about any ship that is classified as a Battlecruiser by WotC.

Does that sound fair enough? Very Happy


WotC doesn't classify any ship as a battlecruiser, does that mean I can just lock this thread?  Wink  Or do you want to come up with a different scheme?


Wow how boring are you guys Shocked  Shocked  Shocked
weedsrock2

danaussie wrote:
swarbs wrote:
danaussie wrote:

If we want a hard and fast rule how about keeping it within the restraints of the game. How about any ship that is classified as a Battlecruiser by WotC.

Does that sound fair enough? Very Happy


WotC doesn't classify any ship as a battlecruiser, does that mean I can just lock this thread?  Wink  Or do you want to come up with a different scheme?


Wow how boring are you guys Shocked  Shocked  Shocked


rolling  Danaussie, if you only knew how hot this topic is! You are using a hammer to test the fuse of an atomic bomb. Everyone on this board is currently digging a foxhole to the center of earth.  learn to love the bomb

Go to the WaS Custom Card section and do as search on 'B64'. It was an attempt to make a card for the 'planned' IJN B64 'battlecruiser/super-A-type cruiser.' You will get the idea very quickly.

PS. In the game I like the Dunkerque a lot. Good value for money. Guilio Cesare is a nice game piece too. Repulse is pretty good. Hopefully Gneisenau will correct the out-of-whack Scharnhorst. Alas, poor Hood!  Wink
danaussie

weedsrock2 wrote:
danaussie wrote:
swarbs wrote:
danaussie wrote:

If we want a hard and fast rule how about keeping it within the restraints of the game. How about any ship that is classified as a Battlecruiser by WotC.

Does that sound fair enough? Very Happy


WotC doesn't classify any ship as a battlecruiser, does that mean I can just lock this thread?  Wink  Or do you want to come up with a different scheme?


Wow how boring are you guys Shocked  Shocked  Shocked


rolling  Danaussie, if you only knew how hot this topic is! You are using a hammer to test the fuse of an atomic bomb. Everyone on this board is currently digging a foxhole to the center of earth.  learn to love the bomb

Go to the WaS Custom Card section and do as search on 'B64'. It was an attempt to make a card for the 'planned' IJN B64 'battlecruiser/super-A-type cruiser.' You will get the idea very quickly.

PS. In the game I like the Dunkerque a lot. Good value for money. Guilio Cesare is a nice game piece too. Repulse is pretty good. Hopefully Gneisenau will correct the out-of-whack Scharnhorst. Alas, poor Hood!  Wink


Ah well guys I guess we wont worry about it then, did'nt know it was gunna be such a touchy subject. Since I just wanted to talk about some ships. I find it hard to believe that no-one seems to know how to define what a Battlecruiser is though.

Stop diggin guys and we'll get the Mods to nuke this one then ay? We'll go back to talkin SAs and such, movin on.  Laughing  Very Happy
Johnny_Thunders

None of them were particularly effective. The reality is that you could fill their same function just by making a good heavy cruiser.
Supermini

Kongo imo, love the hood but 4 6's  Confused
admiral_tee

danaussie wrote:
Asbestos wrote:
What have you done, man?!

Graf Spee: "Pocket Battleship"
Alaska: "Large Cruiser"
Kongos: "Fast battleships" by WW2
Dunkerque: "Fast battleship"


Battlecruiser is one of the most poorly defined classes of ships ever (along with ALL of the above)


Ok so I was gettin bored with the same old SAs and what not. We will exclude any pocket battleship, because even I know that they were nothing more than a large cruiser. So no Pocket Battleships.

The Alaskas from every source I've read (which is'nt much) has a gigantic CB next to the name, so this is a Battle Cruiser right?

And as far a I know the Kongos and Dunkerques were and are still known today as Battlecruisers. I'm not sure but I also believe the Queen Elizabeths also fall into this category as well.

I think we all know what we believe are Battleships.

If we want a hard and fast rule how about keeping it within the restraints of the game. How about any ship that is classified as a Battlecruiser by WotC.

Does that sound fair enough? Very Happy


CB is not a designation for battlecruiser. BC is.
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/cru/cb1cl.htm

Wirh Kongo, after her upgrades she was classed as a fast battleship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Kong%C5%8D

Pocket Battleship was a misnomer 'publicity' term developed by the British press.

The Scharnhorst was not classed as a battleship by the Kreigsmarine. She was classed as a BC by the some western press due to her lighter main guns, however traditionally BC's were defined as having armour less than a battlship and not main gunnery. Scharnhorst was armoured on a BB scale, and was simply a light battleship. Her role wasnt to fight cruisers and run from anything else - a role traditionally envisioned for BC's.

Tee
admiral_tee

Oh i didnt read your bold text Danaussie.
In WaS terms - i think Dunkerque and Scharnhorst are good 'game' battlecruisers.

Tee
danaussie

admiral_tee wrote:
danaussie wrote:
Asbestos wrote:
What have you done, man?!

Graf Spee: "Pocket Battleship"
Alaska: "Large Cruiser"
Kongos: "Fast battleships" by WW2
Dunkerque: "Fast battleship"


Battlecruiser is one of the most poorly defined classes of ships ever (along with ALL of the above)


Ok so I was gettin bored with the same old SAs and what not. We will exclude any pocket battleship, because even I know that they were nothing more than a large cruiser. So no Pocket Battleships.

The Alaskas from every source I've read (which is'nt much) has a gigantic CB next to the name, so this is a Battle Cruiser right?

And as far a I know the Kongos and Dunkerques were and are still known today as Battlecruisers. I'm not sure but I also believe the Queen Elizabeths also fall into this category as well.

I think we all know what we believe are Battleships.

If we want a hard and fast rule how about keeping it within the restraints of the game. How about any ship that is classified as a Battlecruiser by WotC.

Does that sound fair enough? Very Happy


CB is not a designation for battlecruiser. BC is.
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/cru/cb1cl.htm

Wirh Kongo, after her upgrades she was classed as a fast battleship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Kong%C5%8D

Pocket Battleship was a misnomer 'publicity' term developed by the British press.

The Scharnhorst was not classed as a battleship by the Kreigsmarine. She was classed as a BC by the some western press due to her lighter main guns, however traditionally BC's were defined as having armour less than a battlship and not main gunnery. Scharnhorst was armoured on a BB scale, and was simply a light battleship. Her role wasnt to fight cruisers and run from anything else - a role traditionally envisioned for BC's.

Tee


Figure 15.  USS Alaska (CB-1) photographed from USS Missouri (BB-63).  Ms 32 1d.

CB – Battle cruiser or large cruiser.  USS Alaska (CB-1), USS Guam (CB-2), and USS Hawaii (CB-3) were built as CB battle cruisers, then renamed as large cruisers.

Wanna explain this then Tee. Wink
danaussie

Did'nt think so! Moving right along. Helps if you just answer the original post. What was the best Battlecruiser of WW2? Wink
SJG Gamer

I would nominate the Dunkerque.  Good guns, good AA and TD1. Cool
Greyh Seer

Scharnhorst for me.  AA is a beast and Hull points are awesome.
DaJudge

Battlecruiser might be the worst term in naval history.

Is it a large cruiser?

Is it a small battleship?

Is it an armored cruiser?

Is it a thin armored battleship?

Is it a fast battleship? Is it a smaller gunned battleship like Dunkerque or Scharnhorst?

Brutal, brutal topic and there is absolutely no right answer for this one.

Dunkerque, Hood, Scharnhorst, Gulio Cesare, and Kongo were ALL battleships in one form or another, some faster, some with smaller guns, some with thinner armor. None of them even remotely resemble a cruiser.

That stupid term needs to be stricken from all future conversation.

It's either a big cruiser or it's a battleship, nothing else.
PrideoftheRoyalNavy

I nominate the Pride of the Royal Navy


Yeah, you see what I did there? Clever, eh?
admiral_tee

DaJudge wrote:
Battlecruiser might be the worst term in naval history.

Is it a large cruiser?

Is it a small battleship?

Is it an armored cruiser?

Is it a thin armored battleship?

Is it a fast battleship? Is it a smaller gunned battleship like Dunkerque or Scharnhorst?

Brutal, brutal topic and there is absolutely no right answer for this one.

Dunkerque, Hood, Scharnhorst, Gulio Cesare, and Kongo were ALL battleships in one form or another, some faster, some with smaller guns, some with thinner armor. None of them even remotely resemble a cruiser.

That stupid term needs to be stricken from all future conversation.

It's either a big cruiser or it's a battleship, nothing else.


Now, you and i have crossed swords before (but never streams, thanks god) - however ne'er a truer word has been spoken  Smile

And Danaussie.
The link http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/cru/cb1cl.htm
Reads the following:
*U.S. NAVY SHIP TYPES -- LARGE CRUISERS
*The six Alaska class "large cruisers" were ordered...
*As built, the Alaskas were much closer to cruisers in design than to battleships or battlecruisers...
*This page features a small selection of photographs of Alaska class large cruisers...

The US clearly thought she was a large cruiser, her armour layout was more cruiser than battleship/cruiser, she was classed as a CB not a BC (BC is the designation of battlecruiser).
Whatever text you've highlighted is in error, as throughout this US Navy site, with those exceptions, she's called a large cruiser.
Wiki - which isnt reliable except when there's references, also states she was a large cruiser.

I think the question isn't "why do you think she isnt a battlecruiser", but "why do you think she IS a battlecruiser".
And thats going to be one hell of a job, something which the likes of John Roberts, Bill Jurens and other notable naval historians dont wade into easily.

Tee

Tee
DaJudge

Hey, it's ok to disagree with me, I'm not always right.  lol

The term has bothered me and many others for many years.

Before WWI, the term was used to describe battleships that were purpose built to be FAST. They had thinner armor but the same gunnery as a battleship.

After Fisher's Follies, the British made advancements on their machinery to the point that they could build the Queen Elizabeth class battleships, 15 inch guns, heavier armor but they were 22-24 knot ships, at the time, very fast. They would essentially replace the Invincible, Indefatigable, Queen Mary and other, older ships but Jutland made that happen a lot sooner than desired as all 3 were sunk as a result of being too thinly armored and poor cordite handling and volatility.

The QE's were much better ships and set the standard.

HMS Hood went a step further in this failed idea. Hood was essentially a bigger, better QE with thinner armor and faster engines and again, it was the finest ship in the world until it became obsolete some years later but that was bound to happen anyway. Hood was a thinly armored battleship and was fast. It never was a battle cruiser.

It's a catch phrase that caught on and never should have.

If you want a little irony, IJN Kongo was actually built in the UK, the last ship Japan ever had built outside their country and ironically, it was called(at the time) a battlecruiser. A 14 inch gun, fast battleship.

That's the best terms to use, fast battleships- Hood, Kongo, Scharnhorst, Iowa, etc, anything above 25 knots would be fast, in my opinion and then you have slow BB's.
nrnstraswa

Alaska for me. Cruiser or Battlecruiser.
Gross Admiral Raeder

Greyh Seer wrote:
Scharnhorst for me.  AA is a beast and Hull points are awesome.


I agree, although Kongo runs a close second
DaJudge

Gross Admiral Raeder wrote:
Greyh Seer wrote:
Scharnhorst for me.  AA is a beast and Hull points are awesome.


I agree, although Kongo runs a close second


You guys still think a ship with 14 inches of armor was a battlecruiser and not a battleship?

Scharnhorst was an undergunned battleship. It was never even close to a cruiser.

That's why the term is so goofy.
danaussie

admiral_tee wrote:
DaJudge wrote:
Battlecruiser might be the worst term in naval history.

Is it a large cruiser?

Is it a small battleship?

Is it an armored cruiser?

Is it a thin armored battleship?

Is it a fast battleship? Is it a smaller gunned battleship like Dunkerque or Scharnhorst?

Brutal, brutal topic and there is absolutely no right answer for this one.

Dunkerque, Hood, Scharnhorst, Gulio Cesare, and Kongo were ALL battleships in one form or another, some faster, some with smaller guns, some with thinner armor. None of them even remotely resemble a cruiser.

That stupid term needs to be stricken from all future conversation.

It's either a big cruiser or it's a battleship, nothing else.


Now, you and i have crossed swords before (but never streams, thanks god) - however ne'er a truer word has been spoken  Smile

And Danaussie.
The link http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/cru/cb1cl.htm
Reads the following:
*U.S. NAVY SHIP TYPES -- LARGE CRUISERS
*The six Alaska class "large cruisers" were ordered...
*As built, the Alaskas were much closer to cruisers in design than to battleships or battlecruisers...
*This page features a small selection of photographs of Alaska class large cruisers...

The US clearly thought she was a large cruiser, her armour layout was more cruiser than battleship/cruiser, she was classed as a CB not a BC (BC is the designation of battlecruiser).
Whatever text you've highlighted is in error, as throughout this US Navy site, with those exceptions, she's called a large cruiser.
Wiki - which isnt reliable except when there's references, also states she was a large cruiser.

I think the question isn't "why do you think she isnt a battlecruiser", but "why do you think she IS a battlecruiser".
And thats going to be one hell of a job, something which the likes of John Roberts, Bill Jurens and other notable naval historians dont wade into easily.

Tee

Tee


Size thats all Tee, just size Alaska is to large to be defined as a CA and too small to be defined as a BB, "BC" I believe is the middle ground. Some sources I have read define a Battlecruiser as any ship capable of carrying Battleship sized guns without being able to withstand Battleship sized guns. So my understanding of a "BC" is a ship that has been built for speed and in doing so trades off her armour, while sustaining the guns of a battleship.

I believe that the Battlecruiser is designed to engage and destroy smaller ships, while avoiding (using its superior speed) any ship with similar or larger guns to its own.

How's that sound guys? Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy
SJG Gamer

That is a good definition. Although the Japanese called the Kongos "fast battleships because they upgraded the armor on the BCs some, they still only had thin side armor (8 inchers?) And were definitely battlecruisers.  The Scharnhorst is called a BC, because although it has good side armor, but weak deck armor, and good speed, it is not heavily armed.  This is why some call it a BC.  If it had heavier guns, it would easily be a BB.  I think that BC is a class between BB & CA.  Although the US Navy called the Alaska class "Large Cruisers"  I think that with their 9" of side armor and heavy 12"/50 guns, they were battlecruisers.  I also consider the Dunkerque, and the 3 British WW2 BCs to be battlecruisers.  I am a bit uncertain if I consider the four modernized WW1 Italian BBs to actually be BCs.  Their armor was no stronger than HMS Renown...
Cheers
Crazy Cat

I saw the topic for the thread and thought one thing:   surrender

Certainly fun to debate endlessly though.  

Once you are beyond 8 inch guns its a big warship, no matter how it is classified.  I'll take a pass and refer to the past "best battleship" thread.
HMS_Artemis

danaussie wrote:
Some sources I have read define a Battlecruiser as any ship capable of carrying Battleship sized guns without being able to withstand Battleship sized guns. So my understanding of a "BC" is a ship that has been built for speed and in doing so trades off her armour, while sustaining the guns of a battleship.


That's what I've heard too, I read that they were suppose to be used to counter enemy surface raiders by being fast enough to catch them and strong enough to destroy them , during The Great War, but by WW2, they were outdated and no longer needed.  

I think Renown would be one of the best, she actually survived.
Piper

A battlecruiser was a ship ment to kill cruisers.  Get it, Battle-cruiser?  Ba Dom, Pah!
weedsrock2

danaussie wrote:
Some sources I have read define a Battlecruiser as any ship capable of carrying Battleship sized guns without being able to withstand Battleship sized guns.


That is the best definition I have read for a battlecruiser. As someone posted earlier, the reason the term 'battlecruiser' is so contentious is because by WWII there was no longer a need for such a class. Modern 'Battleships' could have guns, armor, and speed.

I personally think the 'intermediate modern battleships' like Dunkerque and Scharnhorst were really just evolutionary and 'practice' designs. The people designing them had not created a 'modern' battleship in over a decade and they had to work under treaty and budget limits. So these were 'incremental' steps to the final 'big boys.'
Hawker Hurricane

I wrote a paper for a history class titled "What, if anything, is a Battlecruiser?"  If I can find it, I'll post it here.

I got a good grade on it, mainly because the proffessor was a expert on The War of the Roses and couldn't spot my mistakes (if any).
Stormhawk4107

danaussie wrote:
Some sources I have read define a Battlecruiser as any ship capable of carrying Battleship sized guns without being able to withstand Battleship sized guns.


I agree with Weeds, this seems to me to be the best KISS rule for defining a BC.
admiral_tee

weedsrock2 wrote:
danaussie wrote:
Some sources I have read define a Battlecruiser as any ship capable of carrying Battleship sized guns without being able to withstand Battleship sized guns.


That is the best definition I have read for a battlecruiser. As someone posted earlier, the reason the term 'battlecruiser' is so contentious is because by WWII there was no longer a need for such a class. Modern 'Battleships' could have guns, armor, and speed.

I personally think the 'intermediate modern battleships' like Dunkerque and Scharnhorst were really just evolutionary and 'practice' designs. The people designing them had not created a 'modern' battleship in over a decade and they had to work under treaty and budget limits. So these were 'incremental' steps to the final 'big boys.'


@ SJGamer and Danaussue

Hence why Scharnhorst is NOT a battlecruiser.

Being undergunned does NOT make a 'traditional' battlecruiser. I say 'traditionally' as by the time she was finished, ie 30's onwards, the term had little meaning - there was fast battleship and battleship, and the old BC's from WW1 era's.

Alaska is NOT a battlecruiser. The US Navy does not class her a battlecruiser. There's more to defining a cruiser a battlecruiser than simply measuring width of her belt armour and tonnage... Again, its described quite well in the US Navy links i posted earlier.
As Tiornu as said many times on this forum and others, she is an evolution of the cruiser class with no treaty restrictions.

Tee
weedsrock2

Although I agree that the term 'battlecruiser' was obsolete by the mid 1930's it really doesn't bother me that much. Each ship or class is what it is. Fortunately, WaS only has a 'battleship' classification and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if RB was quite intentional with that. It nicely eliminates the debate for most ships.

Alaska was the 'touchy' one. That is really a debate about 'battleship vs cruiser' when you get down to it. It is obviously a borderline case. It was certainly a borderline design with borderline usefulness. I have no answer for it either. RB chose to use the Conway's and Fleets 'classification' according to the section where the class was placed in the books. That is a smart solution for him from my perspective. Pick a reference or two and just stick with them for consistency and to address any debate. That moves the argument away from him and onto the authors of the books. And since we won't likely find them (sadly Tiornu left the board) we can just shout at the gods over the injustice of it all!  :grrr
Asbestos

Wait, Tiornu wrote one of our gospels? Wink
PrideoftheRoyalNavy

Why'd Tiornu leave? I always enjoyed his posts and was wondering what had happened to him.
weedsrock2

PrideoftheRoyalNavy wrote:
Why'd Tiornu leave? I always enjoyed his posts and was wondering what had happened to him.


Personally, I think because a few board members were quite harsh with him in some debates when they didn't like his answers. I don't know that for sure. But he quit posting very soon after a some rather nasty responses to his posts.
PrideoftheRoyalNavy

weedsrock2 wrote:
PrideoftheRoyalNavy wrote:
Why'd Tiornu leave? I always enjoyed his posts and was wondering what had happened to him.


Personally, I think because a few board members were quite harsh with him in some debates when they didn't like his answers. I don't know that for sure. But he quit posting very soon after a some rather nasty responses to his posts.


We should petition for his return then! Gather the knights around the table and Jenkins, get me my coat.
danaussie

weedsrock2 wrote:
PrideoftheRoyalNavy wrote:
Why'd Tiornu leave? I always enjoyed his posts and was wondering what had happened to him.


Personally, I think because a few board members were quite harsh with him in some debates when they didn't like his answers. I don't know that for sure. But he quit posting very soon after a some rather nasty responses to his posts.


Know the feeling!  Shocked  Shocked  Shocked  Wink
admiral_tee

PrideoftheRoyalNavy wrote:
weedsrock2 wrote:
PrideoftheRoyalNavy wrote:
Why'd Tiornu leave? I always enjoyed his posts and was wondering what had happened to him.


Personally, I think because a few board members were quite harsh with him in some debates when they didn't like his answers. I don't know that for sure. But he quit posting very soon after a some rather nasty responses to his posts.


We should petition for his return then! Gather the knights around the table and Jenkins, get me my coat.


I agree.
I have been fortunate enough to converse with him and read his posts for many years, mainly on the kbismarck.org forums where he is still active.

He's a published well known author - anyone care to guess who? You get 3 tries Smile

Tee
Gross Admiral Raeder

DaJudge wrote:

You guys still think a ship with 14 inches of armor was a battlecruiser and not a battleship?


No I think Armour rating of 6-7 is a Battle Cruiser 8+ a BB with the exception being Hood. If Hood did not have Fatal Flaw, then it's a battleship IMO, based purely off of the stat card, not historically.
Tincancaptain

admiral_tee wrote:

He's a published well known author - anyone care to guess who? You get 3 tries Smile

Tee


I've argued with drittal enough to know RW is my clue.
admiral_tee

Tincancaptain wrote:
admiral_tee wrote:

He's a published well known author - anyone care to guess who? You get 3 tries Smile

Tee


I've argued with drittal enough to know RW is my clue.

Yeah I know who he is, just seeing if it was common knowledge.

His replies are (were?) always a pleasure to read and did a lot to dispense with some of our untruths and naïveté about manu things regarding WW1/2 naval history.

So, who pissed him off? Grab your pitchforks and torches!

Tee
Asbestos

admiral_tee wrote:
The US Navy does not class her a battlecruiser.

This is one of the arguments for "Alaska isn't a battlecruiser" that I hate the most. If the Glorious class had been made as they were originally designed instead of as aircraft carriers I don't believe for a second that anyone on these boards would have the balls to say that they were indeed "large light cruisers" (and therefor cruisers) and not some form of battlecruiser. Nor would I think that anyone would seriously consider this ship to be a destroyer:



I consider gun size/overall design (Alaska being an enlarged Baltimore design really speaks more for idiotic planning than her being a cruiser IMO. B-65, being a scaled down battleship hull makes more sense for a ship of that size) and the intended mission of the ship to matter more than whatever label some bureaucrat decides to stick on a ship.
admiral_tee

Asbestos wrote:
admiral_tee wrote:
The US Navy does not class her a battlecruiser.

This is one of the arguments for "Alaska isn't a battlecruiser" that I hate the most. If the Glorious class had been made as they were originally designed instead of as aircraft carriers I don't believe for a second that anyone on these boards would have the balls to say that they were indeed "large light cruisers" (and therefor cruisers) and not some form of battlecruiser. Nor would I think that anyone would seriously consider this ship to be a destroyer:



I consider gun size/overall design (Alaska being an enlarged Baltimore design really speaks more for idiotic planning than her being a cruiser IMO. B-65, being a scaled down battleship hull makes more sense for a ship of that size) and the intended mission of the ship to matter more than whatever label some bureaucrat decides to stick on a ship.


Here you've encountered the problem with the battlecruiser definition.
How is Alaska a BC?
*size/tonnage?
*large gun size?

This is the issue. There's more to a capital ship design than the above. Her amour layout is not 'typical' of a BB/BC. This is described on the pages i've linked before and others.
She is simply an evolution of the large cruisers without limitations imposed by treatys, ie 6-8" guns, 10k ton limits etc etc.

Debating whether Alaska is/isnt a BC is mssing the point. The point should be to define what a BC is during the time of the late 20's to mid 40's. Thats a task people with greater knowledge and understanding than you or I struggle with and realise the futility or reaching an answer.

Tee
Tincancaptain

Asbestos wrote:
admiral_tee wrote:
The US Navy does not class her a battlecruiser.

This is one of the arguments for "Alaska isn't a battlecruiser" that I hate the most.


I agree that the "official" designation is a poor argument especially in a period where all nations would misrepresent various capabilities and specifications in an attempt to undermine enemy espionage efforts. However, one argument that is reasonable to me is that the Alaskas were an attempt to build a "cruiser" with no regard to treaty limits. Their ultimate failure is that they were ships that were designed and built to fill a support role but at a cost of a capital ship. In the end it was more effective to build three Baltimore class heavy cruisers then one Alaska class large cruiser.
danaussie

Debating whether Alaska is/isnt a BC is mssing the point. The point should be to define what a BC is during the time of the late 20's to mid 40's. Thats a task people with greater knowledge and understanding than you or I struggle with and realise the futility or reaching an answer.

Seems to me guys and you know I'm no expert, but there seems to me no hard or fast definition of a Battlecruiser. This was all news to me fellas. I had no clue about that, I thought it was the type of ship that was to big to be a cruiser and to small to be classed as a Battleship.
admiral_tee

danaussie wrote:
Debating whether Alaska is/isnt a BC is mssing the point. The point should be to define what a BC is during the time of the late 20's to mid 40's. Thats a task people with greater knowledge and understanding than you or I struggle with and realise the futility or reaching an answer.

Seems to me guys and you know I'm no expert, but there seems to me no hard or fast definition of a Battlecruiser. This was all news to me fellas. I had no clue about that, I thought it was the type of ship that was to big to be a cruiser and to small to be classed as a Battleship.


Yeah, youre right there mate. This is one of 'those' topics  Rolling Eyes  Smile

Tee
danaussie

Good Points!!!

They were good points made by everyone, and I sure learned alot from it, especially (dont go there!!!) on the non-definition of a particular class of ship. Sounds like a great subject for maybe students of a naval academy somewhere.

Mental note to self: Dont bring up the subject of Battlecruisers again!!! ha ha ha.

I'll have to try and think of something else to talk about now. Wink
babs

I think any definition about battlecruisers should include the following:

-Big Guns
-High Speed
-Poor Armour

I think Alaska qualifies on all three.

Babs out!
chesty

In theory, a Battlecruiser could outrun a Battleship and outgun a Cruiser.  Key features were a good turn of speed, big guns with long range, and enough armor to slug it out with any Cruiser that could keep up.  It wasn't a bad idea at the time, but Battlecruisers quickly lost favor when fast Battleships were developed.
babs

chesty wrote:
In theory, a Battlecruiser could outrun a Battleship and outgun a Cruiser.  Key features were a good turn of speed, big guns with long range, and enough armor to slug it out with any Cruiser that could keep up.  It wasn't a bad idea at the time, but Battlecruisers quickly lost favor when fast Battleships were developed.


Didn't they loose favor already when the german's decided to built battlecruisers in response to the british battlecruisers? (i.e. the concept didn't work very well at all!).
Asbestos

chesty wrote:
In theory, a Battlecruiser could outrun a Battleship and outgun a Cruiser.  Key features were a good turn of speed, big guns with long range, and enough armor to slug it out with any Cruiser that could keep up.  It wasn't a bad idea at the time, but Battlecruisers quickly lost favor when fast Battleships were developed.


There is however an issue with being able to 'slug it out with cruisers'. The IJN cruisers, for example, could technically 'slug it out' with anything thanks to the Long Lance. While they themselves weren't going to fare well if they were hit with a shell over 8", they were able to threaten anything on the seas if they could get close enough. By some definitions they could be considered a 'battlecruiser' if you consider their vulnerability and their dangerousness.

Also, when I brought up the Courageous class 'Large Light Cruiser' I mentioned that they were most assuredly Battlecruisers (they carried 18" guns!) so they met the criteria for being able to outgun a cruiser and most battleships of the day, but their armor was so non-existent (2-3" belt) that they were incapable of taking hits from anything much bigger than a Destroyer. On the opposite end of the scale we have the Zara class cruisers which had an excellent armor scheme and easily outarmored any Cruiser of the day. However, due to treaty limits, they only carried the standard 8" gun. So the Zaras meet the 'able to absorb cruiser fire' criteria but fail at being threatening enough. A ship like the Alaska (I only mention it because it is the most contended ship) was able to both absorb cruiser fire and obliterate said cruisers while being incapable of absorbing BB fire or pose a significant threat to BBs built before she was even designed. That is why she meets my criteria for BC.

Its contended that she was built in response to post-treaty Axis cruisers and that, therefore, she is a cruiser (a "super-cruiser") and the same argument was made for B-65 being a cruiser (she was designed to counter the Alaskas a 'cruiser' class rather than current BBs, its all neatly cyclical) but what people fail to notice is that that sort of upscaling and oneupmanship is exactly the sort of thing that resulted in Battleships and Battlecruisers.

I've also seen it argued that the whole definition of BB/BC is entirely dependent on what other ships were being designed at the time rather than what definition was used in the past or what other ships were on the waves. So, according to this Alaska and B-65 are 'clearly' not BBs/BCs as the 'real' BBs/BCs of the day were hugely armored beasts like Iowa, Yamato, Montana, and the 'Super Yamato' in comparison which they are drastically outclassed. However, this implies that all ship designs would naturally scale up and, to continue the argument, that a ship such as Atlanta designed in the days of Montanas and Alaskas (to which it was nearly concurrent in terms of when it was on the drawing board) would actually be more akin to a destroyer and destroyers (all of them) would be more like DEs or Fleet Torpedo Boats.

Personally, I think that the Dunkerque class of Fast Battleships is the biggest hole in the argument that Alaska is a Cruiser (however large). Both classes of ships were designed with the same goal in mind, to provide a counter to large, post-treaty/treaty violating cruisers and both ships are comparable in armor, weaponry, and speed. The fact that one is a Battleship and one is a Cruiser is completely mind-boggling.
babs

[quote="Asbestos"]
chesty wrote:
snip

Personally, I think that the Dunkerque class of Fast Battleships is the biggest hole in the argument that Alaska is a Cruiser (however large). Both classes of ships were designed with the same goal in mind, to provide a counter to large, post-treaty/treaty violating cruisers and both ships are comparable in armor, weaponry, and speed. The fact that one is a Battleship and one is a Cruiser is completely mind-boggling.


I think the Dunkerque is not a good counter-argument. Dunkerque has a good amount of armour protection and is therefore considered a battleship (albeit a light one). The key feature of battlecruisers is that they carried big guns but where not armoured to stand up against their own guns (i.e. their design was unbalanced). Most cruisers and battleships carried armour which could protect them while they engaged a target with equal guns.

Babs out!
DaJudge

chesty wrote:
In theory, a Battlecruiser could outrun a Battleship and outgun a Cruiser.  Key features were a good turn of speed, big guns with long range, and enough armor to slug it out with any Cruiser that could keep up.  It wasn't a bad idea at the time, but Battlecruisers quickly lost favor when fast Battleships were developed.


The idea of the battlecruiser quickly lost favor at The Battle of Jutland when the British lost 3 of them in quick succession to the Germans.

The problem is in the NAME of the ships themselves. Calling them battle cruisers sounded nice, it was a cool sounding name and as they were FASTER than dreadnaughts at the time, they ended up with that name.

Fast forward to late 1944, early 1945 and the Alaska class ships. They were specifically designed as carrier escort ships with nifty radars and massive AA wepaonry. They gave them 11 inch guns because the tonnage allowed for it and they were a powerful new type of gun, very accurate, and were simply something NEW that the USN was trying out. They were a massive failure in cost. They were big enough that they required too many crewmen, they were expensive to run and maintain, and they quickly fell out of favor in the USN. They were, quite simply, LARGE cruisers.

They couldn't fight a modern battleship on a bet. They would lose and lose huge. 12 inch guns against 16+ inch armor belt? While themselves having like 7 inch armor? The smallest battleships would have eaten them for lunch.

Like I said previously, I always hated the term battle cruiser because it doesn't signify anything to me. I automatically think of HMS Invincible and the giant pall of smoke as it exploded and broke in two and even then, those were, at the time, FAST BATTLESHIPS with thin armour.

The game stats don't define anything as they are all still (correctly imho) labeled as Battleships or Cruisers. A Kongo, Hood, or Scharnhorst is still a battleship no matter what their guns or armor are and Alaska is a cruiser. Some are bigger or smaller than others, that's all.

It's an interesting debate and please don't take anything I say too seriously or personally, I'm not trying to ridicule anyone or minimize what is said, it's really more a personal opinion than anything. I like how Richard has done it for the game, keeping it simple and I agree that's how it should be. BB's with thinner armor have lower stats in most cases, some rather unfairly(Scharnhorst).
wilt57

Battlecruisers are big cruisers, not small battleships.  The heavy cruiser is the result of battlecruisers being limited in gun size and tonnage by treaty.  If it weren't for the treaty, we may never have had ships with 8" guns and 10k ton displacement, they would all have been Alaskas, Deutchlands, and B-65s and such.
The light cruisers served a different purpose, being scouts and flotilla leaders and such.  Again, Boise and Cleveland are children of treaty, not unrestricted shipbuilding.
So, my argument is that all CAs are really treaty-restricted mini battlecruisers.

wilt57
DaJudge

From Asbestos-

"Personally, I think that the Dunkerque class of Fast Battleships is the biggest hole in the argument that Alaska is a Cruiser (however large). Both classes of ships were designed with the same goal in mind, to provide a counter to large, post-treaty/treaty violating cruisers and both ships are comparable in armor, weaponry, and speed. The fact that one is a Battleship and one is a Cruiser is completely mind-boggling."

I don't think it's too mind-boggling really but I understand the quandry and therein lies the problem again of language. The Dunkerque and Strasbourg were built to counter the 11 inch gunned Deutchland Class "ships" that the Germans were building, supposedly to treaty limitations. They lied, of course and they were bigger than their stated tonnage and so were the Dunks but they had 13.5 inch guns and were beautiful ships, fast, and sea worthy but they weren't very well armored with a 225 mm belt or about 8.8 inches so they were ok against 8 inch gunned cruisers but very poor against a battleship!

At the time, they were armed as a battleship and armored as a heavy cruiser. Sad

I will always call them fast battleships that had thin armor and were undergunned, same as some of the others.

Deutchland class ships were very heavy cruisers at 12,100 tons and almost 17K full load and had very large guns for a cruiser but paper thin armor and is why Graf Spee was defeated at River Plate by 1 heavy and 2 light cruisers. Even the 6 inch guns were doing damage! Those ships will always be known to me as heavy cruisers while the Dunks were thinly armored fast battleships and the Alaskas had less armor on average than the Dunk and smaller guns and will always be known to me as a very large cruiser.

That is why the Iowa was the ultimate design. Steaming at 33 knots+ while having 16 inch armor and the fire power to defeat anything it encountered. All the other ships above had their niche, good at one thing or another but not a balanced design no matter what their designation.
Rangefinder

Battlecruiser -type ships were a lot easier to discern when they were more specifically designed as such during the World War I period. The ships Beatty was commanding in the battlecruiser squadron (Invincibles, Queen Mary, Lion etc.) were obviously of a different type than the standard dreadnoughts of the day. They were designed with speed and big hitting power. The Falkland Islands battle was one of the few examples of the battlecruiser doing what it was actually designed to do — run down smaller commerce raiders and blow them out of the water.

Problem was, admirals saw those big guns and wanted to put the ships into the line of battle, where they were unable to stand up to heavy pounding. Even then, better ammunition handling practices might have saved one or two of the ships.

You can call Hood whatever you like, but it was originally designed as a new class of large battlecruiser. Repulse and Renown are R-class battleship designs minus a turret and some armor. They're about as clearly battlecruisers as it gets.

As has been posted elsewhere, the term had become largely meaningless by WW II as stronger engines enabled well-armored battleships to attain speeds of 25-plus knots. Also, the scouting role envisioned for battlecruisers had been taken over by aircraft.
Asbestos

babs wrote:
I think the Dunkerque is not a good counter-argument. Dunkerque has a good amount of armour protection and is therefore considered a battleship (albeit a light one). The key feature of battlecruisers is that they carried big guns but where not armoured to stand up against their own guns (i.e. their design was unbalanced). Most cruisers and battleships carried armour which could protect them while they engaged a target with equal guns.

Babs out!


I'm specifically addressing Babs but this is a general counter-argument to those saying that Dunkeruqe isn't a good example.

Dunkerque's mains: 8 330mm guns
Alaska's mains: 9 305mm guns

Dunkerque's maximal belt armor: 225mm
Alaska's maximal belt armor: 228.6mm

Penetration of Dunkerque's mains at 25,000 yrds: 342mm
Penetration of Alaska's mains at 25,000 yrds: 267mm

Scharnhorst's armor for comparison: 355mm
Scharnhorst's penetration at 25,000 yrds: Somewhere between 291mm and 205mm.

So, at 25,000 yards both Alaska and Dunkerque are destroyed by each others guns (and all the guns of true battleships) but neither is capable of cracking battleship armor. Scharnie is weird in that it is barely, if able, capable of penetrating either Alaska or Dunkerque's main belt at 25,000 yrds. Though at closer ranges they can all hole each other.

Make of that what you will, but it really does not make the Alaska seem like a cruiser.

@Wilt57: The B-65 design, for those that bother to look at it, is NOT a scaled up cruiser design. In fact it is a scaled down battleship design. For all rights and reasons it is a 'small battleship' rather than a 'large cruiser'. I'm heading off any argument about it having torpedoes as, since the LL was emerging as the most powerful weapon in the IJN arsenal (and would have given the B-65 the abiltiy to threaten the biggest ships in the enemy battleline) and since the ship was intended to replace the Kongo class (undeniably not a cruiser) the argument that just because it has 'classic' cruiser weaponry automatically making it a cruiser fails to convince me.
wilt57

Cruiser is a general term.  So is battleship.  If a ship is designed to scout for the fleet and chase down smaller, under-gunned ships, it doesn't matter if her hull resembles a battleship or a cruiser or a destroyer for that matter, it is a cruiser.  It provides the role of a cruiser.
My point still being that the battlecruiser is the epitome of unrestricted cruiser development.  So Alaska is very clearly, as a big cruiser, a battlecruiser as well.  B-65 would have been one as well, even with her "battleship" hull.
It is just a term anyway.  It really cannot be quantified, as the ships we are comparing to each other were built during different periods with different design philosophies and technologies.

wilt57
Asbestos

Indeed, though what I'm mainly trying to say is that since Dunkerque and Alaska were designed with the same purpose in mind and because they are both comparable in armor, armament, size [Alaska was actually the heavier ship] and speed and they were contemporaries (commissioned within a decade of each other) then it would stand to reason that they are both, in fact, the same classification of vessel. Whatever type that is (battlecruiser/battleship/fast battleship) is up for debate.

But, from the perspective of the game... they should certainly both be Battleships.

Edit: And I am done! I've made all my arguments and they're all fairly clear I think, so I'm not going to slam my head into the wall like I did in that *other* thread. beerchug Cheers to everyone for keeping this one relatively civil.
Rangefinder

wilt57 wrote:
Cruiser is a general term.  So is battleship.  If a ship is designed to scout for the fleet and chase down smaller, under-gunned ships, it doesn't matter if her hull resembles a battleship or a cruiser or a destroyer for that matter, it is a cruiser.  It provides the role of a cruiser.
My point still being that the battlecruiser is the epitome of unrestricted cruiser development.  So Alaska is very clearly, as a big cruiser, a battlecruiser as well.  B-65 would have been one as well, even with her "battleship" hull.
It is just a term anyway.  It really cannot be quantified, as the ships we are comparing to each other were built during different periods with different design philosophies and technologies.

wilt57


Well, you can call the ships whatever you'd like. The English called them battlecruisers during the first war, which is why Beatty commanded the "battlecruiser," not cruiser, squadron. They were certainly not a cruiser in the sense of the armored cruiser, and I think an argument can be made that they were a distinct class of ship as opposed to traditional cruisers and the ship-of-the-line dreadnoughts. With the passage of time and the development of true fast battleships and aircraft, the need for this type of ship evaporated. The Queen Elizabeths can be considered the first "fast battleships," although they were not quite as fast as the later-model BCs of the time.
dracos42

The first battle cruisers weren't even called battle cruisers at first.  The Invincibles were just the next class of armored cruisers for the Royal Navy.  At one time they were planned with a uniform 9.2" battery (same as the biggest guns carried by newer British ACs), or even a uniform 10" battery.  IIRC, the Invincibles weren't even that much bigger than the last class of armored cruisers.

I don't know if the German BCs descended from the armored cruisers or the battleships.  Though with Blucher, I suspect the German BCs were AC descendents.

The USN had thought about the next class of armored cruisers being armed with a uniform 10" gun battery.  That idea didn't go anywhere, sadly.  The USN never officially built battle cruisers.  Lexington and Saratoga were battle scouts, the Alaskas were large cruisers.  Sometimes I like to think of the Des Moines as the final development of the big gun BC.  

Some have advanced the theory that the aircraft carrier is the descendent of the battlecruiser.
dracos42

Check out www.bobhenneman.info for a lot more information on battle cruisers.
danaussie

Common Denominator!!!

The key feature of battlecruisers is that they carried big guns but where not armoured to stand up against their own guns (i.e. their design was unbalanced). Most cruisers and battleships carried armour which could protect them while they engaged a target with equal guns.

I think Babs has reiterrated what we have been trying to prove all along. I agree with him totaly on this, I believe that both the Dunkerques and Alaskas fall into this category. The Alaskas more so than the Dunkerques granted. Ultimately we need to test the common denominator on the subject of Battlecruisers, and that is what Babs said.

Asbestos made some realy good points as well, and a very interesting read. Whatever the outcome of the debate, I have enjoyed the discussion.  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy  Wink
'Warspite'

dracos42 wrote:
The first battle cruisers weren't even called battle cruisers at first.  The Invincibles were just the next class of armored cruisers for the Royal Navy.  At one time they were planned with a uniform 9.2" battery (same as the biggest guns carried by newer British ACs), or even a uniform 10" battery.  IIRC, the Invincibles weren't even that much bigger than the last class of armored cruisers.


While 9.2-inch guns were among discussed options they were never 'planned' for the Invincibles. However the Royal Navy did leak that the Invincibles would be HMS Dreadnought plan with 9.2-inch guns which led the Germans to build SMS Blucher to the Westfalen plan but with an improved 8.2-inch gun. It was a deception and one which worked rather well. Blucher was a wasted ship and found itself at the rear of the line at Dogger Bank and was rapidly sunk.
'Warspite'

WHile HMS Hood is my favourite I also have a place in my heart for HMS Tiger, the half-sister of the Lion Class. Her three funnels were clustered together while the 'Q' turret was moved much further aft and was almost in X turret position but was not quite superfiring Y turret.

Tiger was hard hit at Jutland and yet was ready for action again within four weeks. She survived into the 1920s and could have been given a modernisation like the Kongos but was scrapped in the early 1930s instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tiger_(1913)

for more details.
SJG Gamer

If someone wanted to make a HMS Tiger hypothetical refit, they could use a Kongo.  It could be done as HMNS Tiger, pride of the Dutch navy or even HMCS Tiger, flagship of the Canadian Navy... Exclamation
The possibilities are very intriguing... Cool
'Warspite'

SJG Gamer wrote:
If someone wanted to make a HMS Tiger hypothetical refit, they could use a Kongo.  It could be done as HMNS Tiger, pride of the Dutch navy or even HMCS Tiger, flagship of the Canadian Navy... Exclamation
The possibilities are very intriguing... Cool


In fact the Kongo and the Tiger were - sort of - related. They were both being built in Britain at the same time as Kongo was the last large Japanese warship to be built abroad. Britain had built much of the navy used at Tsushima.

The Tiger's design differs from her sisters in having a more logical placing of number 3 (Q) turret and it has been said in several sources that Tiger was altered because of the obvious advantages of the Kongo design. However other sources have poo-poohed this and claim that they are simply two parallel designs and Tiger was actually planned before Kongo. You pays your money and you makes your choice with this particular story.

Twins separated at birth? Maybe.

Had Tiger survived to get a refit and a place in WW2 she would have been a handy fast vessel on trans-Atlantic conveys - she'd have been big enough to take on the Graf Spees and the Hippers and could have given the Scharnhorst a run for her money. And before someone says that the latter is unlikely just remember that off Norway in 1940 Scharnhorst AND Gneisenau both ran away from HMS Renown and she only had three gun turrets.

Assuming Tiger had been refitted with the same sort of smaller engines that the Queen Elizabeths received then a Tiger with her six-inch guns mostly removed and replaced by twin 4-inch AA or - even better - 4.5-inch AA would have been a worthy convoy escort and supplement to the similarly armed HMS Renown.
weedsrock2

'Warspite' wrote:
WHile HMS Hood is my favourite I also have a place in my heart for HMS Tiger, the half-sister of the Lion Class. Her three funnels were clustered together while the 'Q' turret was moved much further aft and was almost in X turret position but was not quite superfiring Y turret.

Tiger was hard hit at Jutland and yet was ready for action again within four weeks. She survived into the 1920s and could have been given a modernisation like the Kongos but was scrapped in the early 1930s instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tiger_(1913)

for more details.


Interesting ship. But what I really love is the opportunity to add the second most controversial debate of the Forumini into this already contentious thread. Or maybe it is the most contentious debate? Let's find out!  Twisted Evil

Commenting on the influence of the superior Kongo design on the decision to change the Lion design for Tiger:

"The key feature of the Kongō-class was that it had its main gun turrets all either aft or fore, eliminating the amidship turret which had a poor firing arc. " (Emphasis mine.)

INCOMING!   blow up

Keep it polite. And make it pithy.  Wink
'Warspite'

weedsrock2 wrote:
'Warspite' wrote:
WHile HMS Hood is my favourite I also have a place in my heart for HMS Tiger, the half-sister of the Lion Class. Her three funnels were clustered together while the 'Q' turret was moved much further aft and was almost in X turret position but was not quite superfiring Y turret.

Tiger was hard hit at Jutland and yet was ready for action again within four weeks. She survived into the 1920s and could have been given a modernisation like the Kongos but was scrapped in the early 1930s instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tiger_(1913)

for more details.


Interesting ship. But what I really love is the opportunity to add the second most controversial debate of the Forumini into this already contentious thread. Or maybe it is the most contentious debate? Let's find out!  Twisted Evil

Commenting on the influence of the superior Kongo design on the decision to change the Lion design for Tiger:

"The key feature of the Kongō-class was that it had its main gun turrets all either aft or fore, eliminating the amidship turret which had a poor firing arc. " (Emphasis mine.)

INCOMING!   blow up

Keep it polite. And make it pithy.  Wink


What's the point? They were both British designs (the Japanese were still buying 'off the peg' at this time) so we get the credit for the idea either way!   smiles
weedsrock2

'Warspite' wrote:
weedsrock2 wrote:
'Warspite' wrote:
WHile HMS Hood is my favourite I also have a place in my heart for HMS Tiger, the half-sister of the Lion Class. Her three funnels were clustered together while the 'Q' turret was moved much further aft and was almost in X turret position but was not quite superfiring Y turret.

Tiger was hard hit at Jutland and yet was ready for action again within four weeks. She survived into the 1920s and could have been given a modernisation like the Kongos but was scrapped in the early 1930s instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tiger_(1913)

for more details.


Interesting ship. But what I really love is the opportunity to add the second most controversial debate of the Forumini into this already contentious thread. Or maybe it is the most contentious debate? Let's find out!  Twisted Evil

Commenting on the influence of the superior Kongo design on the decision to change the Lion design for Tiger:

"The key feature of the Kongō-class was that it had its main gun turrets all either aft or fore, eliminating the amidship turret which had a poor firing arc. " (Emphasis mine.)

INCOMING!   blow up

Keep it polite. And make it pithy.  Wink


What's the point? They were both British designs (the Japanese were still buying 'off the peg' at this time) so we get the credit for the idea either way!   smiles


Wait for it.
Asbestos

Asbestos wrote:
beerchug Cheers to everyone for keeping this one relatively civil.


You just need to go and ruin it, don't you, Weeds?
admiral_tee

Tiornu shed some light earlier with the BC discussions:

Tiornu wrote:
Quote:
The practical life of this battlecruiser concept was pretty short - Invicible was the first, completed in 1908. Hood was effectively the last (built) and completed in 1918.

I'll niggle here and caution against assuming a single battlecruiser concept. Arguably the battlecruiser concept lasted as long as the battleship concept.

Quote:
I too have heard of the Scharnhorst class refered to as battlecruisers, which I must admit I do not understand.

The British turned Scharnhorst and Dunkerque into battlecruisers around 1936. I have the exact date somewhere. It was a quirk of nomenclature that now accomplishes nothing but confusion.

Quote:
I believe the Germans refered to them as battleships, though they were undergunned relative to their contemporaries. I had read that their tripple 11inch gun turrets were designed to be replaced at some future time with twin 15inch turrets.

Yes, the Germans called them battleships, just as the French called the Dunkerques battleships. It was the British who started the game of musical labels. Scharnhorst was not designed with the intent to switch from 28cm to 38cm guns. It was simply a coincidence that the two mounts had similar roller path diameters.

Quote:
Aircraft Carrier Armored (CVA)

Is that what it stands for? I don't know diddly-doo about postwar stuff, but I thought A meant attack or something like that.

Quote:
I had never heard of the Scharnhorsts refered to as "panzershiffe"

They were never known by that label, which referred only to the "pocket battleships," and only for a time. The Scharnhorsts were always battleships, and while they fit the description of second-class battleships, they were not known as such or as light battleships. Just plain battleships.


and

Tiornu wrote:
Quote:
Ah, okay - interesting. I'm thinking British point of view for a moment

I believe there's a consensus among historians that Fisher's idea was to replace battleships with fast ships carrying powerful weaponry. It's not heard to look back at history and see it taking precisely this course. The last slow battleship was completed in 1927.

Quote:
Dreadnought and her like were ships of the line where Invincible and her like were (originally) conceived to operate more independently.

That's not a bad way of putting it. Battlecruisers were always planned to take part in battle-line combat, but they were expected to be much more versatile, taking on wide-ranging roles such as commerce protection.

Quote:
Jutland did not help.

Battlecruisers performed remarkably well at Jutland. They sank four enemy capital ships.

Quote:
In cases like the Scharnhorsts and Dunkerques, they really weren't traditional "battleships", but they weren't really traditional cruisers either, so what else do you call them?

This is getting like an onion with a never-ending succession of layers. First you have to decide what a traditional cruiser role is, and then you can try to match that up with these ships. Was the armored cruiser a traditional cruiser? If so, then the Dunkerques might be seen as directly in line with the tradition. The Scharnhorsts are a tougher topic, since no one can tell you what exactly their intended role was.

Quote:
I think I am seeing that you are saying that Scharnhorst and sister really were not 'called' battlecruisers by anyone but the British

The problem is that it's easy to misunderstand what the British meant by "battle cruiser." If I point out that they were also calling the KGV class by that title around that time, does that cast the decision in a different light? I personally don't mind calling the Scharnhorsts battleships or battlecruisers. Is either term wrong?


Tiornu wrote:
Quote:
They were built to outgun any existing cruiser and run away from any existing battleship.

That's a commonly held idea, but Fisher not only intended his battlecruisers to face battleships, but he expected them to win.

Quote:
I always thought is was the pre-WW I british press that caused the term battlecruiser to come about.

Actually, ther term "battle cruiser" predates the ships by ten years.

Quote:
Have you previously published in Warship?

Yes, I did the Warship Gallery in 2007, I have an article on the Pr 7/7U destroyers in 2008, and I'll also have an article on the Kirov/Gorkiy class cruisers in 2009.

Quote:
The first sketches resemble the HMS Courageous

The Germans wouldn't have too look that far away to find ships like that. The Kaiser's designers sketched a series of ships I can only call high-speed pre-dreadnoughts. One turret forward, one aft, displacements in the 30-45,000 range, speeds 27-33.5 knots.


Tiornu wrote:
Quote:
Then again, I'm no Tiornu, either.

Many of you seem to share my view that it's futile to be dogmatic on these labels. The dividing lines are not as clear as some would like, and they had a tendency to move around over time; so trying to fix a single definition on these terms is not so easy.


From:
http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/ab...amp;highlight=alaska&start=20
Diamondback

With how technology evolved, I've seen it argued (and am inclined to agree) that the ne plus ultra of battlecruisers would actually be the Iowas, combining BC speed and BB armor together onto one hull.

"Yes, you can Have It All, but... It'll Cost Ya!"
danaussie

Well we're at page 4 here gentlemen, and I think that might be a wrap on the Battlecruisers. dead
PrideoftheRoyalNavy

We'll, now that Tiornu has spoken from the grave thru Mr. Tee there's hardly any room to debate anymore.
Rangefinder

'Warspite' wrote:
WHile HMS Hood is my favourite I also have a place in my heart for HMS Tiger, the half-sister of the Lion Class. Her three funnels were clustered together while the 'Q' turret was moved much further aft and was almost in X turret position but was not quite superfiring Y turret.

Tiger was hard hit at Jutland and yet was ready for action again within four weeks. She survived into the 1920s and could have been given a modernisation like the Kongos but was scrapped in the early 1930s instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tiger_(1913)

for more details.


I've always liked Tiger and the Lion class (have a small GHQ model of Lion and have one of Tiger to build). The Brits were designing good-looking ships in those days. Two good reasons for WOTC to produce a WWI set someday, I think.
'Warspite'

Rangefinder wrote:
'Warspite' wrote:
WHile HMS Hood is my favourite I also have a place in my heart for HMS Tiger, the half-sister of the Lion Class. Her three funnels were clustered together while the 'Q' turret was moved much further aft and was almost in X turret position but was not quite superfiring Y turret.

Tiger was hard hit at Jutland and yet was ready for action again within four weeks. She survived into the 1920s and could have been given a modernisation like the Kongos but was scrapped in the early 1930s instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tiger_(1913)

for more details.


I've always liked Tiger and the Lion class (have a small GHQ model of Lion and have one of Tiger to build). The Brits were designing good-looking ships in those days. Two good reasons for WOTC to produce a WWI set someday, I think.


Thank you. As a class they were called 'the Splendid Cats' but I'm not quite sure what Her Majesty Queen Mary or HRH Princess Royal thought about that nickname given that two ships in the class were named after them!  smile

However I have commented before that a WW1 adaption would have to see the concept of the game changed. Tactics in WW1 were very linear and, of course, there were hardly any aircraft until the last two years and the few that were used were for scouting and recon. There would be a much greater reliance on gunnery.
Rangefinder

'Warspite' wrote:
Rangefinder wrote:
'Warspite' wrote:
WHile HMS Hood is my favourite I also have a place in my heart for HMS Tiger, the half-sister of the Lion Class. Her three funnels were clustered together while the 'Q' turret was moved much further aft and was almost in X turret position but was not quite superfiring Y turret.

Tiger was hard hit at Jutland and yet was ready for action again within four weeks. She survived into the 1920s and could have been given a modernisation like the Kongos but was scrapped in the early 1930s instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tiger_(1913)

for more details.


I've always liked Tiger and the Lion class (have a small GHQ model of Lion and have one of Tiger to build). The Brits were designing good-looking ships in those days. Two good reasons for WOTC to produce a WWI set someday, I think.


Thank you. As a class they were called 'the Splendid Cats' but I'm not quite sure what Her Majesty Queen Mary or HRH Princess Royal thought about that nickname given that two ships in the class were named after them!  smile

However I have commented before that a WW1 adaption would have to see the concept of the game changed. Tactics in WW1 were very linear and, of course, there were hardly any aircraft until the last two years and the few that were used were for scouting and recon. There would be a much greater reliance on gunnery.


I was thinking more in terms of affordable models. With Italy, France, Austria and the U.S. fielding large fleets as well as the British and Germans, there are a lot of possibilities for capital units. I wholeheartedly agree there would have to be some conceptual differences for a WW1 version. It would be more of a gunnery duel, although there could be a few subs and mines tossed in for fun. Maybe a zeppelin and an early plane or two for scouting, etc. (A zeppelin model would be fun.) Perhaps some rules on battle formations, ship movement and rolls to determine if the smoke from your coal-burners is obscuring your spotting, etc. You'd probably also want a map larger than the current WAS standard to play all this on. Doubt WOTC would go for something like that, but one can dream.

GHQ and others do make some nice models, but most of the ones at a decent-size scale put quite a dent in the wallet.
       Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index -> WAS General Discussion
Page 1 of 1