Jutland rematch 1918

hipper

Banned
But Lexington or SoDak can still have big chance against things like Iron Duke or even Renown, Revenge or QE provided that they open fire first. I expect their 16 inch guns could sink Iron Duke or Renown with just few accurate shots, since these older ships could not withstand 16 inch guns. Lexington had weak armour, but SoDaks, they were very heavily armoured and its guns overpowered British 15 inch guns, while not too slow.

suspect you are over egging the 16" gun here accounts vary but a Japanese battle cruiser took between 8 and 20 hits from a 16" gun and did not sink on the spot. besides American fuses did not reach German levels of efficiency (ability to burst after penetrating armour) till the late 20's I believe.

Cheers Hipper
 
If the G3 and N3 series were actually launched, the American might simply be like: well, lets just spend more and build new BB classes. Only the US Congress could prevent this.

well i think we can safely ignore the N3, i dont see them being built in any ATL

but if the G3's are built then the US still have the problem of what do we spend our money on - remember that the RN had thoroughly fooled everyone with the release of info that said 'yep, we've ordered this thickness of armour plate' - with everyone assuming it was for the belt

if this info stays secure the US could very well end up building ships to counter what they think is a G3 (ie, a BC in the classical sense), rather than what it is (an Iowa built 20 years earlier)
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Actually the RN itself recognized the underlying weakness of their BC classes in the case of combat with peers, the answer was the Queen Elizabeth class BB, the first true "fast BB" and in the design of the never built G3 class.

Fischer's concept was fatally flawed, however, as was/is commonly the case with great innovators, they are given the rope necessary to hang themselves. In Fischer's case the slack he gained with Dreadnought allowed him to create an extremely costly class of ships that was absolutely unbeatable until someone else got wind of the idea and built a much better all around version, although undergunned, as was the case with ALL HSF ships up to Jutland (one shudders to think what the result would have been had the Lutzow been gunned with the 35cm/45 and not the 30.5cm guns she carried. The RN really had no choice but to deploy the ships, they were, as noted extremely expensive, and, prior to Jutland, their fatal flaws had not been revealed.
You don't seem to have addressed any of the three points I brought up in my bottom line...

ED:
I'm also interested with the idea that you think of the German BCs as being "much better all round" and "undergunned" - when, of course, if they were built with guns of the same size as the British BCs then (all else being equal) they'd have been considerably larger, heavier and more expensive. (And when the Lutzow was actually rendered unable to make it back to Germany at Jutland despite her - apparently - better armour, mainly due to damage from Invincible's 12" guns.)
 
Last edited:
In Fischer's case the slack he gained with Dreadnought allowed him to create an extremely costly class of ships that was absolutely unbeatable until someone else got wind of the idea and built a much better all around version, although undergunned, as was the case with ALL HSF ships up to Jutland (one shudders to think what the result would have been had the Lutzow been gunned with the 35cm/45 and not the 30.5cm guns she carried. The RN really had no choice but to deploy the ships, they were, as noted extremely expensive, and, prior to Jutland, their fatal flaws had not been revealed.

But what are their fatal flaws? You're implying armour by comparing belt thickness, but I'm not aware of belt penetrations on the British battlecruisers, so belt armour seems to have been sufficient, although I don't know whether it was actually hit. Lion tells us that the magazine doors weren't flashproof, which certainly is a flaw, but it's not a fatal one, and it had already been revealed before Jutland anyway.

Also, you compared belts on the Moltkes and Derfflingers with Invincible and Indefatigable, but the former are 1908 & 23,000 t and 1912 & 26,600 t, while the latter are 1906 & 17,250 t and 1909 and 18,500 t. You'd have a better case invoking the 9" belts of the Cats - but again we hit the problem that their belts don't actually seem to have been penetrated. At Jutland, Tiger took 18 hits (?) but remained in good order, typical of the other survivors - the theme there seems to be that they either blew up or remained in fighting order, which is really telling us that German battlecruisers were undergunned.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
But what are their fatal flaws? You're implying armour by comparing belt thickness, but I'm not aware of belt penetrations on the British battlecruisers, so belt armour seems to have been sufficient, although I don't know whether it was actually hit. Lion tells us that the magazine doors weren't flashproof, which certainly is a flaw, but it's not a fatal one, and it had already been revealed before Jutland anyway.

Also, you compared belts on the Moltkes and Derfflingers with Invincible and Indefatigable, but the former are 1908 & 23,000 t and 1912 & 26,600 t, while the latter are 1906 & 17,250 t and 1909 and 18,500 t. You'd have a better case invoking the 9" belts of the Cats - but again we hit the problem that their belts don't actually seem to have been penetrated. At Jutland, Tiger took 18 hits (?) but remained in good order, typical of the other survivors - the theme there seems to be that they either blew up or remained in fighting order, which is really telling us that German battlecruisers were undergunned.
What were there fatal flaws? Protection. I did discuss belts, lets discuss decks.

HMS Indefatigable (1.5-2.5") was reduced to sinking condition after 2-3 hits by Von der Tann's 28cm (11") guns on her aft deck. She sank after 2 more 28cm hit, although evidence is that she explosion was caused by a detonation in her aft X magazine, where the first 28cm shells struck.

HMS Queen Mary (2.5") exploded after a total of five hits from 30.5cm shells. The fatal hit struck forward (not on the turret) penetrated to the magazines and blew her to flinders.

HMS Invincible was struck on the Turret face, and was lost inside of 2 minutes of being engaged, in yet another catastrophic detonation.

HMS Lion came within an eyelash of joining them, however she survived thanks to her crew maintaining proper discipline while under fire. A warship should NOT have to rely on a a couple hundred 20 year old able seamen remembering to follow a convoluted series of steps that slow down operations while under fire.

Three warships of different classes, but the same type and built to the same basic concept, all lost in catastrophic detonations after being struck by a TOTAL of 8-11 shells. The ONLY HSF BC lost took 24 heavy caliber hits and still had to be scuttled, after losing only 121 men KIA.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
You don't seem to have addressed any of the three points I brought up in my bottom line...

ED:
I'm also interested with the idea that you think of the German BCs as being "much better all round" and "undergunned" - when, of course, if they were built with guns of the same size as the British BCs then (all else being equal) they'd have been considerably larger, heavier and more expensive. (And when the Lutzow was actually rendered unable to make it back to Germany at Jutland despite her - apparently - better armour, mainly due to damage from Invincible's 12" guns.)
Okay.

Luzow. 24 heavy caliber hits. total KIA 121. Indefatigable, Invincible, Queen Mary 8-11 heavy caliber hits (at least four being 28cm) combined. ~3,000 KIA.

Your three points

1) Did the belt armour matter?
Was any British BC lost or seriously damaged due to belt armour penetration? If they were all lost to turret armour penetration then their belt armour appears functionally adequate.
2) Is turret flash inevitable for the British BCs and only the British BCs?
Was turret penetration the inevitable fate of a British BC that got shelled by German battleships? If so, whither Lion's survival?
Why did Seyditz nearly explode at Dogger Bank if it was only a British problem? If anti-flash procedures do not work, why did Seyditz successfully prevent flash at Jutland?
3) What else could have taken their role?
In an alternate Jutland with no British battlecruisers present, what should Beatty have used instead? Did it exist from the same time the German battlecruisers joined their fleet?

1. See my post above related to deck armor failure directly leading to the loss of two ships due to insufficent protection of magazine spaces.

2. Of course not. What was inevitable was that the lack of sufficient mechanical interlocks would be exploited by sailors in the heat of action. That is why mechanical safety interlocks needed to be introduced AFTER Jutland. They were not.

3. This question has no OTL answer because the RN, Admiral Fischer in particular, became overly enamored of the BC concept. This being the case not serious effort was put into a heavily armored, fast vessel (call it an evolution of the armored cruiser, or an overbuilt light cruiser, or, as it eventually became known IOTL, a heavy cruiser) that could deal with destroyers or pure scout cruiser and outrun an enemy BC. 1/3 the cost, 1/2 or less the crew, 30+ knots with either 3x2 eight inch or 2x2 9". Not going to be able to trade with a BC (of course the RN BC were less than ideal for this task).

The BC concept, as executed IRL was a disaster. It relied on the enemy not reacting with ships of equal if not better quality allowing the BC happily reap armored cruisers while chasing light cruisers and destroyers out of range of their heavy guns. The real error was pursuing the concept once the expected OPFOR matched them, this was compounded by believing they were suitable to engage with ships with equal and superior protection in a task that was far better suited for a less expensive faster and more survivable ship type. The tragedy is that, if any nation was capable of creating a high speed heavily armored ship class it was Great Britain. What stopped them was an over fixation on big guns and a rather surprising failure of imagination on the part of someone who pushed through the Dreadnought.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Luzow. 24 heavy caliber hits. total KIA 121. Indefatigable, Invincible, Queen Mary 8-11 heavy caliber hits (at least four being 28cm) combined. ~3,000 KIA.
In all three cases of the British ship being lost it's due to turret penetration and flash.

1. See my post above related to deck armor failure directly leading to the loss of two ships due to insufficent protection of magazine spaces.
But that wasn't because of insufficient protection of magazine spaces, it was because of turret flash as far as any of our accounts of the battle can tell. In any case, deck armour failure is not belt armour failure, and the British and German BCs had comparable deck armour. (Queen Mary had 2.5 inches, Invincible had 1.5-2.5 inches, Tiger had up to 3 inches, and Derfflinger had 3.1 inches.)

Which aspect of the protection of the battlecruisers do you consider inadequate? All of it, the belt, the deck, what? (Because you've repeatedly referenced the belt armour, but so far as I can tell it's Lutzow not any British BC which was rendered hors d'combat due to belt armour penetrations.)


2. Of course not. What was inevitable was that the lack of sufficient mechanical interlocks would be exploited by sailors in the heat of action. That is why mechanical safety interlocks needed to be introduced AFTER Jutland. They were not.
But there were mechanical safety interlocks before Jutland, they were just wired open - and after Jutland they weren't, so the ships were protected against flash. It's a shame it took the loss of multiple ships to get the point home, but if you consider sailors disabling the anti-flash protection a fault it's worth remembering that any anti-flash protection can be disabled.

3. This question has no OTL answer because the RN, Admiral Fischer in particular, became overly enamored of the BC concept. This being the case not serious effort was put into a heavily armored, fast vessel (call it an evolution of the armored cruiser, or an overbuilt light cruiser, or, as it eventually became known IOTL, a heavy cruiser) that could deal with destroyers or pure scout cruiser and outrun an enemy BC. 1/3 the cost, 1/2 or less the crew, 30+ knots with either 3x2 eight inch or 2x2 9". Not going to be able to trade with a BC (of course the RN BC were less than ideal for this task).
But that's going to be easily fended off or destroyed by the German BCs, unless it's got far heavier armour than the actual RN BCs did - and I'm not at all sure that such a heavy cruiser is really possible at the time. (The time being the decade before Jutland.)

Comparing Hawkins (the prototypical CA) she was LD 1916 - a decade after the first BC - and cost £1.5 million. The Tiger cost £2.5 million and had only three fewer knots, and the Repulse and Renown cost £3 million while actually being faster. Your mileage may vary, of course, but the BCs of equal speed to the prototypical CA were built earlier, had far more firepower and were also much more heavily armoured.
A scout screen of Hawkins against one of Renowns would be, I think, a clear decision for the faster, better armed, more heavily armoured ships of twice the cost and 30% more crew. (Hawkins crew 712 normal, Repulse crew 919 normal.)




The BC concept, as executed IRL was a disaster. It relied on the enemy not reacting with ships of equal if not better quality allowing the BC happily reap armored cruisers while chasing light cruisers and destroyers out of range of their heavy guns.

From all accounts Fisher considered it sufficient to force the enemy to react with ships of equal quality, out of less total resources. (For the price of a given BC the German navy could have had two DNs, comparing the Derfflinger and Konig classes - if the Germans hadn't reacted to the BC class they'd have had a battle-line something like eight to ten ships stronger.)

The real error was pursuing the concept once the expected OPFOR matched them, this was compounded by believing they were suitable to engage with ships with equal and superior protection in a task that was far better suited for a less expensive faster and more survivable ship type.

At any given time the OPFOR's battlecruisers did not necessarily match the British BCs - the Renown and Repulse missed Jutland by bare months and are significantly superior to the Derfflinger class.
 
1. See my post above related to deck armor failure directly leading to the loss of two ships due to insufficent protection of magazine spaces.
Was the decks actually penetrated rather than flash from hits above? If decks where penetrated on the lost ships we would see engine room penetrations on the survivors would we not?

2. Of course not. What was inevitable was that the lack of sufficient mechanical interlocks would be exploited by sailors in the heat of action. That is why mechanical safety interlocks needed to be introduced AFTER Jutland. They were not.
Could you really fit them without huge time consuming rebuilds? Would simply not acting suicidally like the BC at Jutland not effectively get you most of the way.

3. This question has no OTL answer because the RN, Admiral Fischer in particular, became overly enamored of the BC concept. This being the case not serious effort was put into a heavily armored, fast vessel (call it an evolution of the armored cruiser, or an overbuilt light cruiser, or, as it eventually became known IOTL, a heavy cruiser) that could deal with destroyers or pure scout cruiser and outrun an enemy BC. 1/3 the cost, 1/2 or less the crew, 30+ knots with either 3x2 eight inch or 2x2 9". Not going to be able to trade with a BC (of course the RN BC were less than ideal for this task).
Not sure I agree, I think 8" ACs are a very treaty creation without it why not go with CLs to fight DDs and patrol the empire and BCs to fight anybody who builds AC/BCs.
HMS Invincible (20,750 t) full load (without later weight saving) and Complement: 784
HMS Berwick, County class 8" CA (13,670 t) full load, 685 crew
This makes the early BC look like very good deals as they are probably only 25% larger (if you consider the later weight saving on treaty ships) and as cost will be very linked to weight only 25% more cost for much more fighting power. The crew is even less of a difference.
On the other hand a real 6" CL will be much less, as they can be 5,000t to 9,000t so much more economical for dealing with DDs or scouting.

The BC concept, as executed IRL was a disaster. It relied on the enemy not reacting with ships of equal if not better quality allowing the BC happily reap armored cruisers while chasing light cruisers and destroyers out of range of their heavy guns. The real error was pursuing the concept once the expected OPFOR matched them, this was compounded by believing they were suitable to engage with ships with equal and superior protection in a task that was far better suited for a less expensive faster and more survivable ship type. The tragedy is that, if any nation was capable of creating a high speed heavily armored ship class it was Great Britain. What stopped them was an over fixation on big guns and a rather surprising failure of imagination on the part of someone who pushed through the Dreadnought.
Do you really have to do more than save the 3 at Jutland due to flash to make the BC concept well though of? Ideally you could have gone to fast BBs earlier (say at the 13.5" point) but they would have cost more and apart from the 3 RN at Jutland BCs did reasonably well.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
In all three cases of the British ship being lost it's due to turret penetration and flash.


But that wasn't because of insufficient protection of magazine spaces, it was because of turret flash as far as any of our accounts of the battle can tell. In any case, deck armour failure is not belt armour failure, and the British and German BCs had comparable deck armour. (Queen Mary had 2.5 inches, Invincible had 1.5-2.5 inches, Tiger had up to 3 inches, and Derfflinger had 3.1 inches.)

Which aspect of the protection of the battlecruisers do you consider inadequate? All of it, the belt, the deck, what? (Because you've repeatedly referenced the belt armour, but so far as I can tell it's Lutzow not any British BC which was rendered hors d'combat due to belt armour penetrations.)



But there were mechanical safety interlocks before Jutland, they were just wired open - and after Jutland they weren't, so the ships were protected against flash. It's a shame it took the loss of multiple ships to get the point home, but if you consider sailors disabling the anti-flash protection a fault it's worth remembering that any anti-flash protection can be disabled.


But that's going to be easily fended off or destroyed by the German BCs, unless it's got far heavier armour than the actual RN BCs did - and I'm not at all sure that such a heavy cruiser is really possible at the time. (The time being the decade before Jutland.)

Comparing Hawkins (the prototypical CA) she was LD 1916 - a decade after the first BC - and cost £1.5 million. The Tiger cost £2.5 million and had only three fewer knots, and the Repulse and Renown cost £3 million while actually being faster. Your mileage may vary, of course, but the BCs of equal speed to the prototypical CA were built earlier, had far more firepower and were also much more heavily armoured.






From all accounts Fisher considered it sufficient to force the enemy to react with ships of equal quality, out of less total resources. (For the price of a given BC the German navy could have had two DNs, comparing the Derfflinger and Konig classes - if the Germans hadn't reacted to the BC class they'd have had a battle-line something like eight to ten ships stronger.)



At any given time the OPFOR's battlecruisers did not necessarily match the British BCs - the Renown and Repulse missed Jutland by bare months and are significantly superior to the Derfflinger class.
Actually only ONE of the three ships can be put down to a turret hit. Indefatigable and Queen Mary were magazine explosions but also clearly NOT from flashover from a turret hit. Most likely reason is deck penetration (in the case of Indefatigable since she was lost due to a detonation in an AFT magazine) or upper belt (in the case of Queen Mary, lost after two hull hits forward, where the best thinned to 4-5" abaft the "A" magazine). Only Invincible is a clear case of a turret strike.

Actually plenty of anti-flash interlocks can NOT be disabled. e.g. A rotating cylinder that can only have one open face can not be disabled while still allowing the system to operate at all.

The CA doesn't FIGHT the BC, that is the point. If find the BC, it beats feet (or if it a slightly later IJN design fires off a stack of torpedoes and beats feet), maintains distant contact, and whistles up the big boys. The alternative is to build the BC to a balanced design. The concept of balanced design was not new to the RN, it was ignored in the construction of the BC. It was even excusable in the first class, there was no threat that required it. Follow on classes did have a threat, making the decision to send out radically unbalanced designs incredibly questionable, edging up on negligent.

I agree that the German decision to simply ape the RN was an error. The decision of the RN to lay down even one additional BC after the Von der Tann was commissioned is utterly unsupportable. They had enough poorly protected ships available to complete the scouting task, adding to there number was a flat out error.
 
Do you really have to do more than save the 3 at Jutland due to flash to make the BC concept well though of? Ideally you could have gone to fast BBs earlier (say at the 13.5" point) but they would have cost more and apart from the 3 RN at Jutland BCs did reasonably well.

Would they though? As far as I am aware the QEs came in at £2.5 million to £3 million cf your battlecruiser costs above.

I am drawn to wonder if a combination of fast battleships and heavy light armoured cruisers (sorry can't resist) or Treaty type cruisers (which is the more common but boring term) brought in earlier might not have been the better overall bargain. In a fleet engagement the Hawkins like cruisers do not need to go toe to toe with the enemy battlecruisers but can serve to cue fast battleships to position themselves for intercept in a screening role and in a sea space such as the North Sea use numbers to work around a battlecruiser force in the scouting role.

Also it worth noting that Jutland saw the loss of four battlecruisers and in fact the entire I Scouting Group seems to have been damaged enough to put them in dockyard hands for several months. Even German battlecruisers it would seem are not immortal.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Was the decks actually penetrated rather than flash from hits above? If decks where penetrated on the lost ships we would see engine room penetrations on the survivors would we not?
More to the point, Lion and Tiger between them took twenty-eight 12" and 11" hits and survived.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Was the decks actually penetrated rather than flash from hits above? If decks where penetrated on the lost ships we would see engine room penetrations on the survivors would we not?


Could you really fit them without huge time consuming rebuilds? Would simply not acting suicidally like the BC at Jutland not effectively get you most of the way.


Not sure I agree, I think 8" ACs are a very treaty creation without it why not go with CLs to fight DDs and patrol the empire and BCs to fight anybody who builds AC/BCs.
HMS Invincible (20,750 t) full load (without later weight saving) and Complement: 784
HMS Berwick, County class 8" CA (13,670 t) full load, 685 crew
This makes the early BC look like very good deals as they are probably only 25% larger (if you consider the later weight saving on treaty ships) and as cost will be very linked to weight only 25% more cost for much more fighting power. The crew is even less of a difference.
On the other hand a real 6" CL will be much less, as they can be 5,000t to 9,000t so much more economical for dealing with DDs or scouting.


Do you really have to do more than save the 3 at Jutland due to flash to make the BC concept well though of? Ideally you could have gone to fast BBs earlier (say at the 13.5" point) but they would have cost more and apart from the 3 RN at Jutland BCs did reasonably well.
The deck or upper belt penetrations on Indefatigable and Queen Mary resulted in magazine explosions. It is not necessary to penetrate a turret to reach a magazine.

It is likely that the rebuilds would be time consuming. The RN had a massive numerical advantage, it would have been very low risk to take two or three ships out of service for a few additional months during routine refit to improve the mechanical interlocks, based on another poster's statement it could be as simple as making the existing systems tamper-proof.

The suggest regarding an early CA was related to the question of well, if not BC then what? A better solution would be a true fast battleship, with a balanced BC (something that would halve the main battery and dedicate the space/weight to additional armor or a new ship type following.

I am actually rather surprised to find the spirited defense for the battle cruiser here. The type was clearly an operational failure, some thing that is a generally, albeit not universally, accepted position among naval historians.
 
The CA doesn't FIGHT the BC, that is the point. If find the BC, it beats feet (or if it a slightly later IJN design fires off a stack of torpedoes and beats feet), maintains distant contact, and whistles up the big boys.
AKA the hunt for the Bismarck in WW2
 
Another thing that isn't really being discussed much, is that at OTL Jutland, the RN ships were facing just 11" and 12" guns, but how would things have gone if the Germans had gone the path of sooner 15" guns, or just rush Bayern into commision sooner, thus the RN ships have to face 15" shells? Also, how many of the hits the German BC's took were 15" hits? Not really a good comparison to just note number of hits, but ignore the shell size.

What kind of conditions would the Lion and Tiger be in if they had had to deal with some 15" shell hits? Obviously worse, of course, but bad enough that they would be in as bad or worse shape than their German counter-parts, or would they have been out right losses?
 
The deck or upper belt penetrations on Indefatigable and Queen Mary resulted in magazine explosions.

Sorry, but you need to provide a source here because your entire argument hinges on them being insufficiently armoured.

I know my understanding is quite limited, but the popular history of battlecruisers at Jutland is one of badly-trained, badly-led men ignoring safety protocols, and Beatty then trying to cover it up by demanding extra armour. I don't know how you can prove that the battlecruisers suffered belt/armour penetrations because of their rather disorganised conditions immediately afterwards, but some diagrams of shell paths and penetration capabilities would be useful.
 
Sorry, but you need to provide a source here because your entire argument hinges on them being insufficiently armoured.

I know my understanding is quite limited, but the popular history of battlecruisers at Jutland is one of badly-trained, badly-led men ignoring safety protocols, and Beatty then trying to cover it up by demanding extra armour. I don't know how you can prove that the battlecruisers suffered belt/armour penetrations because of their rather disorganised conditions immediately afterwards, but some diagrams of shell paths and penetration capabilities would be useful.

I think that arguing over exactly the cause of the explodey Beatty ship problem is sort of missing the point. There is another way to analyse whether battlecruiser protection was sufficient to the job at hand.

It is worth noting in in the immediate aftermath of Jutland only 4/9 British battlecruisers and 0/5 German battlecruisers were actually fit for operations. This compares with 24/28 British battleships and 10/16 of the German dreadnoughts. I have avoided trying to slog through all the light units to find which of those were damaged below an operational requirement but am fairly confident that their availability was significantly higher than the battlecruisers.

The point is that fleets need to be capable of sustained operations fighting repeated actions and if those actions were to be major fleet ones then based on the evidence of Jutland even the winning side might expect 50% loss in available battlecruiser hulls. Now Jutland is one battle and one battle is not a great sample size but it is the only battle we have and it strongly suggests that battlecruisers were too fragile to handle their task in a sustained manner.
 
I'm not sure it is missing the point. The question is whether the designs were fatally flawed; we already know that the training, leadership and cordite chemistry compromised the armour and caused some loss, apparently Invincible at least, but it's less clear what happened to Queen Mary and Indefatigable, and my trawl through old Warships1 posts isn't helping much.

I think that's a bit harsh on the German battlecruisers, they took a pounding from the QEs and GF also. A ship can be disabled simply by knocking out turrets, and shock and those holes for the guns means that even just thickening the armour will not give you total security.

Oh, here's a thought. Seydlitz had 9" barbettes penetrated at Dogger Bank and Jutland, both causing propellant fires. Is this indicative of insufficient armour?
 
I think that arguing over exactly the cause of the explodey Beatty ship problem is sort of missing the point. There is another way to analyse whether battlecruiser protection was sufficient to the job at hand.
I think it does matter, if the 3 ships where lost due to operator error then you cant say whether the designs were fatally flawed. They can be suboptimal compared to fast BBs but still they would have won most of their engagements so overall be remembered far better.

It is worth noting in in the immediate aftermath of Jutland only 4/9 British battlecruisers and 0/5 German battlecruisers were actually fit for operations. This compares with 24/28 British battleships and 10/16 of the German dreadnoughts. I have avoided trying to slog through all the light units to find which of those were damaged below an operational requirement but am fairly confident that their availability was significantly higher than the battlecruisers.
Isn't this very biased by the amount of time the ships in question spent in action?
At Jutland the BC fought from the start and only the 4 QEs got involved in the fight for more than the 2 T crossings, short if brutal for HSF
I think you need to divide it by time firing or something to remove the fact that most of the BBs spent most of the battle out of range.

The point is that fleets need to be capable of sustained operations fighting repeated actions and if those actions were to be major fleet ones then based on the evidence of Jutland even the winning side might expect 50% loss in available battlecruiser hulls. Now Jutland is one battle and one battle is not a great sample size but it is the only battle we have and it strongly suggests that battlecruisers were too fragile to handle their task in a sustained manner.
Warships are designed to kill each other, compare it to any other major fleet action? Why not midway to condemn CVs 1 out of 3 is still bad, or 1 out of 2 at Coral Sea.... (all sunk not just damaged)
 
Top