Alternate warships of nations

Arizona. British cordite volatility in ww1 was unacceptable IMO but the hit on Hood was either a skim above the 12' belt that managed not to ricochet or Drachs proposal. The former is a golden BB and the other is something nobody expected and Hood was never designed to defend against. Run the same luck on Lexington not exploding.
Reading up on Arizona, both hypotheses rely on a black powder explosion setting off her propellant, which is pretty Golden BB itself. Further, Arizona is the only American ship of that era to explode in such a fashion - notably Boise took a direct magazine hit and her propellant failed to explode long enough for flooding to put out the resulting fire, whereas I expect with a British ship such a hit would’ve blown it apart.

So no, I don’t think Lexington would have the same odds of exploding. The shell hit placement may have been a Golden BB, but Hood exploding was a known flaw of British ships - see Barham, too. Arizona exploding was, based on other experience, a fluke.
See 1. Its probably a game of who hits first.
Which is probably Lexington, given her newer FCS.
Deck was 2.25 in two layers + STS over magazines. I wouldn't want to bet on it any more than any other ship pre Nelsons. The TDS, influenced by the British, seemed to be acceptable as a void liquid system though American construction there tended to be dodgy.
Most cruisers had even less deck armor, required multiple 500 lb bombs to take out, and even then were mostly just disabled instead of actually sunk.

Lexington would handle 500-lb bombs just fine.
 
You kinda can because the reload time is long. Like yeah, you can't see a shell being fired and dodge it. But you can see the shell splash and sail to it so that the enemy's next shot will miss you (since they will have corrected their aim).
True you can do that, but as CV12Hornet points out going evasive like that degrades your own shooting. U.S destroyers off Samar did that, but 5"38s with radar fire control are a lot faster than 15" turrets, with an all-optical FC system.
Sample size: one (seriously, a one in a million shot + the needed maintenance/refit not being done. Hood is being treated extremely unfairly. Shinano was sunk by a single submarine torpedo salvo but nobody talks about Yamato class having a bad torpedo defence because her sisters survived a lot. Unfortunately we don't have sister ships to compare Hood with)
(Thought since Shinano was converted into a carrier unlike her sisters so I"ll admit that the comparison is not perfect.)
The hit that killed Hood wasn't a one in a million shot. Granted there's a lot of things that can burn on any ship but having volatile propellent increases the risk. Even today they keep trying to make explosives less sensitive, for obvious safety reasons. In the modern day look what happened to the Muscovy, she was destroyed by her own missiles. Back in 2000 the Kursk was destroyed by her own torpedo. Hood was just a little more vulnerable to ammo explosions, than the Lexington would've been.

The Yamato's were in a class all their own, but even they were vulnerable to torpedoes. Their designers underestimated the power of American torpedoes, and they had problems with their armor joints. In the cases of both Yamato Class battleships, they were already fatally damaged before the final blows were delivered. At the very least they were mission killed. Shinano was simply not seaworthy, lacking watertight integrity, and have an inadequately trained crew. I've always thought it would've made more sense to complete her as a battleship, than a half assed carrier, or just scrap her, and build more carriers. For all the materials, and effort put into her they could have built two more Shokaku's. Not that would've done them much good anyway. By 1944 the problem wasn't so much the number of flight decks but properly trained air groups.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
The RN pre-war plan for battlecruisers was that around 1915 the existing BCS would be broken up, and new cruiser squadrons would be formed consisting of a pair of battlecruisers and four of the new light cruiser designs. There was no intention they would form part of the line of battle. Even early in the war the battlecruisers were sent out to finish off Germany's armoured & light cruisers in colonial waters, or to man-mark (not very successfully) one of their own kind in the Med. But when the HSF formed the 1st Scouting Group the RN had to respond with the BCF or their own eyes of the Fleet would have been swept from the seas. Beatty also saw his own role as vanguard for the GF in battle, something we all agree the first-generation RN battlecruisers were patently unsuited for.

On Japan, their desire for battlecruisers was not to ape the RN, but from their own recent experiences at Tsushima. Forced by the lose of two pre-deadnoughts off Port Arthur, the Japanese topped up their battle line with several of the most modern armoured cruisers, which stood up well against Russian battleships. In addition, Togo's tactical use of his faster fleet drove home to the IJN how important a speed advantage was.
 
Beatty also saw his own role as vanguard for the GF in battle, something we all agree the first-generation RN battlecruisers were patently unsuited for.
There was a certain idea that the British battleships could line up with the German battleships while Beatty was at the van of the grand fleet sailing ahead and that Beatty could then swing his Battlecruisers across the German T and cut the High Seas Fleet off from getting away. The front ships of the High Seas fleet would be brought under the guns of the entire battlecruiser force while the rest of the HSF faced one or two battleships each.

Not really a viable idea but Beatty's dream scenario.
 
If your a minor power than yeah battleships likely make more sense, unless you are expecting to fight back via commerce warfare like the French were planning with their armored cruisers. But the idea that if you can only afford a few big ships then making them faster than your enemies battleships and thus able to run away does have some attraction.
Wouldn't it be a better use of a minor power's limited naval budget for the reasons you said? If I'm, say, Country A (we'll say Argentina) and Country B (we'll say Brazil) has two battleships, instead of buying two matching BBs I could get two BCs and with the savings I could get a few torpedo boats, coastal submarines, etc. (to reduce the risk to my BC in the unlikely event they have to fight an enemy BB), get closer toward buying another cruiser, do much-needed ship maintenance and gunnery drills, etc. The BCs will run away from the BBs but demolish everything else and are just as effective at doing hit and run raids to shell coastal establishments.

In contrast, what would my rival have to gain by purchasing two BBs over my BCs?
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Beatty always did do his thinking with his ego, or let his wife do it for him.
I don't disagree regarding Beatty's ego (thoroughly dislike his historical personna) but Tsushima did show how important having a speed advantage over the enemy's battle fleet was, and every admiral alive would regard crossing the enemy's T as the holy grail. Should also note (God, I hate being fair to the man) that one of the few things Beatty got right at Jutland was using his speed to force the remnants of SG1 away from the deploying Grand Fleet by threatening to cross Hipper's T. The Big Cats may have managed it, with less German main armament to bear on them while they can fire full broadsides, so not as silly as it appears with hindsight. Of course, the Invincibles & Indefatigables should not be allowed anywhere near a German BC, and perhaps not even the Blucher.

As an aside the RN dreadnoughts all outpaced the first German class of dreadnoughts, let alone Mauve's pre-dreadnoughts along for the ride. Jellicoe too understood the importance of speed, and for a while pestered the Admiralty for more fast ships, before deciding upon more heavily-armed (in calibre terms) battleships.
 
instead of buying two matching BBs I could get two BCs and with the savings

Let me stop you right there.

Battlecruisers are more expensive than contemporary battleships. (For an example, see the Lion class BC and the Orion class BB)

You won't have savings, your rival would.

(Unless you are in the 30s or something and the BBs you are looking for are fast BBs, while the ships you call BCs are simply light fast battleships or super cruisers)
 
Last edited:
Reading up on Arizona, both hypotheses rely on a black powder explosion setting off her propellant, which is pretty Golden BB itself. Further, Arizona is the only American ship of that era to explode in such a fashion - notably Boise took a direct magazine hit and her propellant failed to explode long enough for flooding to put out the resulting fire, whereas I expect with a British ship such a hit would’ve blown it apart.

So no, I don’t think Lexington would have the same odds of exploding. The shell hit placement may have been a Golden BB, but Hood exploding was a known flaw of British ships - see Barham, too. Arizona exploding was, based on other experience, a fluke.
Don't disagree on it being a fluke since thats generally what a golden BB is, the 20 role. Note I agree on the volatility of british cordite, especially in WW1. I wouldn't want to be on any battlecruisers running at an enemy line of battlecruisers in a theoretical 'interwar war' of the 20s or 30s unless I was in a G3, which is a fast BB by most metrics but the 'BC' parallel of the N3 line. And by the time they are built aircraft carriers should be doing the scouting.

Barham was a gonner, she was on her side before she exploded and that was within five minutes. She was sinking rapidly explosion or not. If it was a fire as Admiralty suggested and started because of or immediately after that was burning for 3-5 minutes. Survivors account of sinking

The ship had been hit amidships by torpedoes on the port side. It was steaming at about twenty knots at the time, and immediately began to list to port at an alarming rate. All electric motors had stopped, all power had gone ‘off the Board’, there was an ominous creaking of Bridge work and Rigging, the ship was ‘dead’ and it was clear to all of us that it was every man for himself while the going was good. The torpedoes seemed to hit the ship amidships just abaft the funnel, judging by the waterspout in that general area, of which I had a ringside view from the Admiral’s Bridge
Ship immediately judged as good as dead and efforts made to abandon ship as a priority.

I scrambled over the barbette and onto the heavily barnacle encrusted ship’s bottom and over the bilge keel, it was probably only about four minutes since the ship had been hit. I estimate she then had a list of about sixty degrees.

I'm looking for more on Barham but at any rate my point is she was going down rapidly, having taken 3 torpedoes in the same place, and has begun a roll over. Nothing was done to flood the magazines or similar because she was a write off and everyone was getting the hell out of there. If there had been a fire in and of itself (without the ship also rapidly capsizing) and DC was in effect magazines may have been flooded in time. All hypothetical because I am assuming the fire started shortly after torpedo hit.
Wouldn't it be a better use of a minor power's limited naval budget for the reasons you said? If I'm, say, Country A (we'll say Argentina) and Country B (we'll say Brazil) has two battleships, instead of buying two matching BBs I could get two BCs and with the savings I could get a few torpedo boats, coastal submarines, etc. (to reduce the risk to my BC in the unlikely event they have to fight an enemy BB), get closer toward buying another cruiser, do much-needed ship maintenance and gunnery drills, etc. The BCs will run away from the BBs but demolish everything else and are just as effective at doing hit and run raids to shell coastal establishments.

In contrast, what would my rival have to gain by purchasing two BBs over my BCs?
Battlecruisers (unless they are like a gen behind) are more expensive. Ninjaed.
The RN pre-war plan for battlecruisers was that around 1915 the existing BCS would be broken up, and new cruiser squadrons would be formed consisting of a pair of battlecruisers and four of the new light cruiser designs. There was no intention they would form part of the line of battle. Even early in the war the battlecruisers were sent out to finish off Germany's armoured & light cruisers in colonial waters, or to man-mark (not very successfully) one of their own kind in the Med. But when the HSF formed the 1st Scouting Group the RN had to respond with the BCF or their own eyes of the Fleet would have been swept from the seas. Beatty also saw his own role as vanguard for the GF in battle, something we all agree the first-generation RN battlecruisers were patently unsuited for.

On Japan, their desire for battlecruisers was not to ape the RN, but from their own recent experiences at Tsushima. Forced by the lose of two pre-deadnoughts off Port Arthur, the Japanese topped up their battle line with several of the most modern armoured cruisers, which stood up well against Russian battleships. In addition, Togo's tactical use of his faster fleet drove home to the IJN how important a speed advantage was.
A lot of effort placing front line (close to brand new, Princess Royal) capital ships out hunting raiders. Use convoys and escort them instead with cruisers, if necessary pre dreadnoughts/older dreadnoughts (more for ww2 or late ww1) and use your capital ships where they are supposed to be used.
I don't disagree regarding Beatty's ego (thoroughly dislike his historical personna) but Tsushima did show how important having a speed advantage over the enemy's battle fleet was, and every admiral alive would regard crossing the enemy's T as the holy grail. Should also note (God, I hate being fair to the man) that one of the few things Beatty got right at Jutland was using his speed to force the remnants of SG1 away from the deploying Grand Fleet by threatening to cross Hipper's T. The Big Cats may have managed it, with less German main armament to bear on them while they can fire full broadsides, so not as silly as it appears with hindsight. Of course, the Invincibles & Indefatigables should not be allowed anywhere near a German BC, and perhaps not even the Blucher.

As an aside the RN dreadnoughts all outpaced the first German class of dreadnoughts, let alone Mauve's pre-dreadnoughts along for the ride. Jellicoe too understood the importance of speed, and for a while pestered the Admiralty for more fast ships, before deciding upon more heavily-armed (in calibre terms) battleships.
Jellicoe did cross the German T and with some of the finest command and coordination seen effectively zigzagging the fleet into encircling the Germans in an arc of fire. I'll return to what I said a while ago (and quote myself like an dickhead) Tsushima showed the importance of coordination, communication and discipline in utilising your fleet as a unit. Beatty hadn't a clue, he was the kind of officer you wanted lobbying for more funding and off on some station where he couldn't lose 25% of British capital ships.


Speed is pretty relative, you need a fast enough battle line to get where you want, do battle and be fast and agile enough (as a battle line or later divisions) so the enemy doesn't get away.
The important part here is as a whole or as a fleet. You have a 'van' of battlecruisers you just end up separating a squadron of capital ships from your battleline. Jellicoe (and Togo) has shown if you utilise your fleet speed advantage as a unit, not that of scouting forces ahead or a van of your fleet, and can utilise that speed (communication and coordination) and win. Scheer handicapped himself with pre dreadnoughts, meaning he could either utilise his dreadnoughts speed advantage and split his forces or hand the fleet speed advantage to the British.
 
I Should also note (God, I hate being fair to the man) that one of the few things Beatty got right at Jutland was using his speed to force the remnants of SG1 away from the deploying Grand Fleet by threatening to cross Hipper's T.

If it makes you feel better, he probably didn't - that manoeuvre is more likely to have been Hipper turning east to go and rescue 2SG from Hood and Beatty turning to follow, rather than Beatty deliberating trying to force Hipper away from Jellicoe's deployment

Of course, the Invincibles & Indefatigables should not be allowed anywhere near a German BC, and perhaps not even the Blucher.

Blucher is exactly what the Is were designed to deal with, so she shouldn't be a problem (except perhaps for Indefatigable). German BCs are another matter, but it's worth noting both the lack of relevence of Invincible's relatively poor armour to her loss, and what she did to Lutzow.
 
Let me stop you right there.

Battlecruisers are more expensive than contemporary battleships. (For an example, see the Lion class BC and the Orion class BB)

You won't have savings, your rival would.

(Unless you are in the 30s or something and the BBs you are looking for are fast BBs, while the ships you call BCs are simply light fast battleships or super cruisers)
Looks like it depends what you purchase, judging by the costs of Royal Navy BCs vs BBs. A BC with lighter armor looks to be a slightly cheaper than a contemporary BB while something like Tiger or Hood would not be.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Jellicoe did cross the German T and with some of the finest command and coordination seen effectively zigzagging the fleet into encircling the Germans in an arc of fire. I'll return to what I said a while ago (and quote myself like an dickhead) Tsushima showed the importance of coordination, communication and discipline in utilising your fleet as a unit. Beatty hadn't a clue, he was the kind of officer you wanted lobbying for more funding and off on some station where he couldn't lose 25% of British capital ships.

The important part here is as a whole or as a fleet. You have a 'van' of battlecruisers you just end up separating a squadron of capital ships from your battleline. Jellicoe (and Togo) has shown if you utilise your fleet speed advantage as a unit, not that of scouting forces ahead or a van of your fleet, and can utilise that speed (communication and coordination) and win. Scheer handicapped himself with pre dreadnoughts, meaning he could either utilise his dreadnoughts speed advantage and split his forces or hand the fleet speed advantage to the British.

If it makes you feel better, he probably didn't - that manoeuvre is more likely to have been Hipper turning east to go and rescue 2SG from Hood and Beatty turning to follow, rather than Beatty deliberating trying to force Hipper away from Jellicoe's deployment
.
Jellicoe crossing Scheer's T was not down to speed but, as you say, down to Jellicoe's ice-cool deployment of the GF. However it was unlikely to have been achieved without the BCF, by accident or design, forcing Hipper to the east so there wasn't a German Goodenough to report to Scheer that his afternoon was about to be ruined. The smoke from 4 battlecruisers also helped in closing down the visibility level - although after the initial battleship engagement that would turn out to be in Scheer's favour.

IMHO Jellicoe got nearly everything right at Jutland, while Beatty got almost everything wrong, but the latter did manage to deliver the HSF to Jellicoe by hook or by crook.

As an aside, why did Hipper or Scheer never question why Beatty was "fleeing" NNW, then N, then NNE & increasingly eastwards? Surely he should move NW... unless Jellicoe was out there, waiting...
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Invincible certainly gave the death-blow to Lutzow, but the latter had been badly battered by that point. Blucher also took a long time to be smashed to bits. Blucher's guns were excellent weapons and - in a closer range involvement - I would fancy him against an Invincible or Indefatigable. Unfortunately Invincible paid for that hit on Lutzow by immolating her crew.
 
IMHO Jellicoe got nearly everything right at Jutland, while Beatty got almost everything wrong, but the latter did manage to deliver the HSF to Jellicoe by hook or by crook.
True.

There are decisions Jellicoe made before the battle that I don't agree with (keeping any armored cruisers with the Grand Fleet) but in general his command of the battle was excellent.

As an aside, why did Hipper or Scheer never question why Beatty was "fleeing" NNW, then N, then NNE & increasingly eastwards? Surely he should move NW... unless Jellicoe was out there, waiting...
Did Hipper or Scheer consider that a opportunity of the Scarborough raid was possible where the Royal Navy sortied a single battlesquadron of battleships to support the battlecruisers.
 
Say that a minor navy is looking to rebuild their early battlecruiser they have for whatever reason (Invincible, Indefatigable, Von der Tann, Moltke, Seydlitz) in the early 1930s and that money is no real issue, they have the cash to get the ship to the greatest level of modernization possible but not enough money or connections to afford to build or buy a more modern capital ship. And that this navy decides they still want the prestige of having a capital unit floating around and so dont just buy some cruisers with the money instead, maybe some cruisers are bought anyway.

Aside from the obvious things, converting to oil firing, boosting their speed, upping their armor and torpedo defenses, what other things could be done with such a hull. You could remove the casemated secondaries, but with a ship using en echelon turrets you wont have the room to add turreted secondaries, increasing the elevation of the main guns would be welcome, as would fitting out of new rangefinding equippment.

Really the biggest issue with these early battlecruisers, and some battleships, is their odd turret arrangement as it limits what could be fitted on the upper deck. But could you add say a meaningful AA battery to the ships by building up the superstructure and funnels with plenty of places to squeeze in guns and rangefinders in the 20-40mm range?
 
Top