Looking for an alternative to BC.

Can a purpose built CL perform scouting functions that historically were done by BC?


  • Total voters
    37
What would a good scout cruiser look like, in the post 1906 Dreadnought building program in Imperial Germany? I know speed would be the most important aspect, and this would need to be achievable in all weather conditions, so what kind of tonnage would the Germans toss into such a craft if keeping size down, & speed and seaworthiness up?

I specifically am looking to avoid Germany building battlecruisers, so these craft would need to avoid the large guns that the OTL German BC mounted, and instead be as small & cheap enough as possible, so that they could be built in some numbers, and loosing a few wouldn't be a huge loss to the fleet, but they must keep sea worthiness and speed in all weather. Is this possible on less than 10,000 tons, or can only larger ships plough into a heavy sea at speed?

I am thinking armored against light cruisers guns of the day, and a minimum top speed of 30 kts in all but the roughest seas, and higher if possible on calm seas.


Any thought?
 
I don't think 30 knots is doable in 1906.

Someone good with springsharp miht have a better idea but I reckon you could build a BC sized ship able to do 30 knots ,with light cruiser armour and armaments if you want to go crazy.

The problem with light cruiser scouting is that armoured cruisers are already sufficient in development that the jump to a battlecruiser (or super armoured cruiser) to kill these makes sense and is going to happen sooner or later.
 
I think a sort of Battlecruiser, like the ones the Germans built, with gun size from 9 to 12 inch guns would be ideal.
Decent armour, decent speed and still capable of killing any cruiser.
With the smaller Gun size, Admirals would be less inclined to put them in the Battleline.
 
I think a sort of Battlecruiser, like the ones the Germans built, with gun size from 9 to 12 inch guns would be ideal.
Decent armour, decent speed and still capable of killing any cruiser.
With the smaller Gun size, Admirals would be less inclined to put them in the Battleline.
The last British Armoured cruisers had 2×2 9.2 inch and 10x1 7.5 inch guns.

The logical next move once a single main gun is chosen on dradnoughts is 6x2 9.2 inch guns on a ship capable of 25-26 knots as a super armoured cruiser or a light battle cruiser. Someone is going to make the jump sooner or later.
 
I think a sort of Battlecruiser, like the ones the Germans built, with gun size from 9 to 12 inch guns would be ideal.
Decent armour, decent speed and still capable of killing any cruiser.
With the smaller Gun size, Admirals would be less inclined to put them in the Battleline.

Wasn't the whole reason that the German ships were better armoured because they expected them to possibly have to take their place in the battle line due mainly to the disparity of Battleship numbers between the GF and the HSF
 
I wasn't thinking earlier but a light cruiser scout is likely to run into the opposing fleets screen and be forced off, therefore unable to report if the opposition is an armoured cruiser and two light cruisers or the entire enemy fleet. A battlecruiser was expected to push through a screen and confirm the composition of the enemy forces.
 
Wasn't the whole reason that the German ships were better armoured because they expected them to possibly have to take their place in the battle line due mainly to the disparity of Battleship numbers between the GF and the HSF
Yup.
We have the bliss of hindsight.
 
What if the speed were 36 kts by mid war?
I would imagine that you would need the engines used historically on a battlecruiser to propel a light cruiser at that speed. Too expensive to mass. Too vulnerable to scout as they would be destroyed by opposing screens.
 
The last British Armoured cruisers had 2×2 9.2 inch and 10x1 7.5 inch guns.

The logical next move once a single main gun is chosen on dradnoughts is 6x2 9.2 inch guns on a ship capable of 25-26 knots as a super armoured cruiser or a light battle cruiser. Someone is going to make the jump sooner or later.

In other words, Blucher. Dogger Bank showed what happens when that sort of intermediate "light battlecruiser" goes up against the genuine article.

So from the poll results, it looks like folks don't like the CL/Scout idea at all?

They have their place, but not as a battlecruiser alternative/replacement.
 
In other words, Blucher. Dogger Bank showed what happens when that sort of intermediate "light battlecruiser" goes up against the genuine article.



They have their place, but not as a battlecruiser alternative/replacement.
Yes but WI the RN built the Invincibles as all 9.2" or 10" armed large armored cruisers? Somewhat smaller than OTL BCs but with similar armour. The smaller caliber guns would mean no one would want to put them in the Battleship line and they'd be focused on the scouting role too. A more even contest for Blucher. The genuine article (OTL Invicibles) were a very mixed success, as indeed were the later 'Splendid Cats'. Perhaps the UK BC concept was a design dead end. Or simply a bad idea.
 
In other words, Blucher. Dogger Bank showed what happens when that sort of intermediate "light battlecruiser" goes up against the genuine article.

True. However in a world where battlecruisers were not built by either party something like Blucher would have done almost as well as a battlecruiser did in our time line as a cruiser killer and scout. Blucher had it's flaws (a lot of tonnage wasted by guns in casements, only able to bring an 8 gun salvo of the main guns against a target) a better designed light battlecruiser would be significantly better performer.
 
I tried springsharping a 36 knot light cruiser laid down in 1914. 15 000 tons for a Köningsberg class ship that makes 36 knots does not seem worth it to be honest. With more horsepower than the HMS Hood it's just a really unbalanced design.

SMS Blitzen, German Light cruiser laid down 1914

Displacement:
13 534 t light; 13 931 t standard; 15 000 t normal; 15 855 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(764,81 ft / 754,59 ft) x 62,34 ft x (29,53 / 30,58 ft)
(233,11 m / 230,00 m) x 19,00 m x (9,00 / 9,32 m)

Armament:
8 - 5,91" / 150 mm 45,0 cal guns - 99,87lbs / 45,30kg shells, 200 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1914 Model
6 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
2 x Single mounts on centreline, aft deck aft
1 raised mount aft - superfiring
3 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 20,97lbs / 9,51kg shells, 250 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1914 Model
3 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
3 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 862 lbs / 391 kg
Main Torpedoes
4 - 20,0" / 508 mm, 19,69 ft / 6,00 m torpedoes - 1,152 t each, 4,608 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
Mines
2 - 1 102,31 lbs / 500,00 kg mines + 100 reloads - 50,195 t total
in Above water - Stern racks/rails

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 2,36" / 60 mm 680,05 ft / 207,28 m 9,48 ft / 2,89 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 0,98" / 25 mm 680,05 ft / 207,28 m 8,01 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 139 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0,98" / 25 mm 0,59" / 15 mm -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 2,36" / 60 mm
Forecastle: 0,39" / 10 mm Quarter deck: 0,39" / 10 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 1,57" / 40 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 148 098 shp / 110 481 Kw = 36,00 kts
Range 4 850nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1 923 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
677 - 881

Cost:
£1,775 million / $7,100 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 204 tons, 1,4 %
- Guns: 136 tons, 0,9 %
- Weapons: 69 tons, 0,5 %
Armour: 2 077 tons, 13,8 %
- Belts: 790 tons, 5,3 %
- Armament: 39 tons, 0,3 %
- Armour Deck: 1 228 tons, 8,2 %
- Conning Tower: 21 tons, 0,1 %
Machinery: 6 275 tons, 41,8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4 977 tons, 33,2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1 466 tons, 9,8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0,0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
8 450 lbs / 3 833 Kg = 82,1 x 5,9 " / 150 mm shells or 1,2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,48
Metacentric height 4,8 ft / 1,5 m
Roll period: 11,9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,05
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,02

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,378 / 0,386
Length to Beam Ratio: 12,11 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27,47 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 9,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6,56 ft / 2,00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 4,94 %, 23,06 ft / 7,03 m, 21,56 ft / 6,57 m
- Forward deck: 30,00 %, 21,56 ft / 6,57 m, 21,56 ft / 6,57 m
- Aft deck: 60,12 %, 10,79 ft / 3,29 m, 10,79 ft / 3,29 m
- Quarter deck: 4,94 %, 10,79 ft / 3,29 m, 10,79 ft / 3,29 m
- Average freeboard: 14,58 ft / 4,45 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 138,6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 114,9 %
Waterplane Area: 28 535 Square feet or 2 651 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 100 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 107 lbs/sq ft or 521 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1,08
- Longitudinal: 0,98
- Overall: 1,00
Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Adequate accommodation and workspace room
 
If you can cancel the two Lord Nelson Class Pre-dreadnoughts then the RN has four 12 inch turrets to build an all 12inch, reciprocating semi-dreadnought and eight 9.2 inch twin turrets plus four single 9.2 inch turrets to arm a pair of fast heavy cruisers. Might be worth spring sharping such a cruiser and seeing how much armour you can get and still make at least 25 knots. Without geared turbines any greater speed would probably cost too much armour or mean losing a turret.
 
I tried springsharping a 36 knot light cruiser laid down in 1914. 15 000 tons for a Köningsberg class ship that makes 36 knots does not seem worth it to be honest. With more horsepower than the HMS Hood it's just a really unbalanced design.
Imo the biggest weakness of springsharp is cost. I'd cost that at close to £2.7M rather than the £1.7M given by springsharp. This is based on a half remembered engine cost for hms hood and assuming the builders of SMS Blitzen would have to spend at least the same.
 
In 1905 the US was building armoured cruisers with 4x10 inch guns, the Japanese were building them with 4x12 inch guns, both classes about the same size as pre-dreadnought battleships. Given this a fast all heavy gun ship with 10-12inch guns about the size of the dreadnought was a natural step, and after comparing 10inch and 12inch guns the British determined 12inch was the better choice (similar rates of fire, dramatically greater range & hitting power). It's possible that battlecruisers were nearly as inevitable as the dreadnought and it's just that the British got there first (before the Japanese?). In addition there was an operational reason for the British to build them, they (or some of them) believed that wireless telegraphy (still very new) and their ability to tap international communications cables in wartime meant that they could protect their commerce with small numbers of very fast and powerful ships that could move to wherever needed. At the same time the new fire control procedures being developed were thought to be going to enable the British to hit the enemy at ranges at which they wouldn't be able to respond effectively, making armour unnecessary as long as the British held a speed advantage. Smaller scout cruisers would also be needed to scout for the battle line, but would in turn need protection from larger cruisers if they were to maintain contact with the enemy while the main fleet closed.

While the idea of such large and expensive ships that were so vulnerable against their equivalents can be seen as fundamentally flawed, it's worth noting that in practice the British losses were mostly due to bad shell handling procedures and cordite rather than the design of the ships themselves, and that even so they carried out the role assigned to them pretty well.

Whether the Germans needed battlecruisers is an interesting question, they were too large to be effective open ocean commerce raiders (coal supplies and geography) and I think the Germans had less need to track the British fleet if all they intend is to evade. On the other hand, a squadron of fast heavy ships was very useful in the North Sea as their speed cut down the time available for the British to react, and might also have been useful if the British had imposed a close blockade.
 
Ok, so we have a good idea what a large ship would look like @ 36 kts, but 15,000 tons is bigger (and I have to assume, more expensive than) a Deutschland class battleship. Here is a 1914 design from OTl that achieves the looked for 36 kts, on under 1,500 tons. So my next questions are, can we achieve 36 kts, on an ocean going ship, that can handle high seas at speed, on a displacement of 4,000 to 6,000 tons?

Because I am not well read, I don't have any clue about the tonnage needed to plow into high seas at high speeds, and thus don't know if there is a minimum tonnage limit to achieve that level of performance in bad weather. I want to avoid building big, expensive ships (and thus, few in number) so that the can be built in numbers, and quickly replace losses.

From my time in the infantry, I remember the good (and not so good) tactical use of smoke screens, and have to ask under what circumstances the naval smoke screens could allow a light scouting vessel to turn tail and run away, under the cover of it's smoke generators?

If I were to build a CL class of specialized scouting cruisers, I would think that the ability to manufacture large amounts of smoke, from multiple, well separated smoke generators to ensure survival of at least one despite damage, in an age of gunnery that mostly relies on direct line of sight, would be second only to maximum speed in ship survivability.

Along these lines, I also wanted to ask if any pre-WWI navy had developed "smoke-mines" for use from their minelayers? Or would such a stationary device prove useless? And would such be useless if they were deployed in numbers? Or just not enough smoke to be worth the bother?

So, a specialized CL, built for high speed, and massive smoke screen capabilities, on under 6,000 tons?
 
Top