Looking for an alternative to BC.

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


  • Total voters
    37
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.
Thanks for your explanation of the rationale behind the RNs choice of 12" guns for the Invincibles. And noting that while they were a flawed concept it wasn't just inadequate Armour that caused the losses at Jutland but poor practice. Something independent of the design flaws.

The snag with giving battlecruisers the same caliber armament as your battleships is that they become capital ships in everyone's eyes. Not just to be used as a fast wing for the battle line but ships whose loss is a sharp blow to prestige and the navy's strength. Whereas cruisers are essentially expendable. So it might have been better to stick to the 9.2" caliber of the armoured cruiser breed for the single caliber design. The cost savings might not be much (though every little helps when you're dealing with the U.K. Treasury) but maintaining the distinction between the battle line and your cruiser force would be important. You could raise the caliber to 10" guns for the follow on design contemporary with the Orions and KGVS, and even 12" for the Renowns. Or simply build more 15" gun fast battleships like the Queen Elizabeths.

Anyone know how Invincibles with 9.2" guns would have come out on weight and cost?
 
Thanks for your explanation of the rationale behind the RNs choice of 12" guns for the Invincibles. And noting that while they were a flawed concept it wasn't just inadequate Armour that caused the losses at Jutland but poor practice. Something independent of the design flaws.

The snag with giving battlecruisers the same caliber armament as your battleships is that they become capital ships in everyone's eyes. Not just to be used as a fast wing for the battle line but ships whose loss is a sharp blow to prestige and the navy's strength. Whereas cruisers are essentially expendable. So it might have been better to stick to the 9.2" caliber of the armoured cruiser breed for the single caliber design. The cost savings might not be much (though every little helps when you're dealing with the U.K. Treasury) but maintaining the distinction between the battle line and your cruiser force would be important. You could raise the caliber to 10" guns for the follow on design contemporary with the Orions and KGVS, and even 12" for the Renowns. Or simply build more 15" gun fast battleships like the Queen Elizabeths.

Anyone know how Invincibles with 9.2" guns would have come out on weight and cost?
Actually Britain wasted a lot of money building up plant for technology that became obsolete. For example multiple gun pits would have built for the 12 inch guns that were used in 11 battleships and 5 battlecruisers and then never used again. If they built less gun pits then continued to use the gun pits for q2 inch guns when 13.5 inch became battleship guns the cost per unit would probably have been cheaper.

Jellicoe the then director of naval ordinance proposed a successor to the invincibles that was armed with 9.2 inch guns as a large armoured cruiser after the invincibles were coopted from their initially planned trade protection duties to the home fleet, being that they were too large and too powerful to operate other than in the main theater of any war.

This stripped down invincible would have cost £1,000,000 and would have been similar to the large cruiser design described in the book naval necessities (1904).

Instead a question in parliament was asked about how the Royal Navy could justify the building of large armoured cruisers so much weaker then the invincible and instead Indefactibles were ordered to avoid embarrassing the government of the day.

Does anyone have naval necessities (1904) because its referenced often in various sources but I can't find a copy for love nor money.

Interestingly that despite seeking to get rid of the battlecruiser concept when he was in ordinance when he commanded the grand fleet Jellicoe was very possessive over his battlecruisers.

Edit: Found another quote about this that a complete redesign of the 9.2 inch gun was considered for these ships as the 9.2 inch guns on the Lord Nelson predreads and the Minotaur class were not sufficient gunnery vehicles when compared to the 12 inch guns on the dreadnought and on the Invincibles. Instead it was considered easier to use 12 inch guns than redesign 9.2 inch guns which the navy in general was not happy with.
 
Last edited:
Actually Britain wasted a lot of money building up plant for technology that became obsolete. For example multiple gun pits would have built for the 12 inch guns that were used in 11 battleships and 5 battlecruisers and then never used again. If they built less gun pits then continued to use the gun pits for q2 inch guns when 13.5 inch became battleship guns the cost per unit would probably have been cheaper.

Jellicoe the then director of naval ordinance proposed a successor to the invincibles that was armed with 9.2 inch guns as a large armoured cruiser after the invincibles were coopted from their initially planned trade protection duties to the home fleet, being that they were too large and too powerful to operate other than in the main theater of any war.

This stripped down invincible would have cost £1,000,000 and would have been similar to the large cruiser design described in the book naval necessities (1904).

Instead a question in parliament was asked about how the Royal Navy could justify the building of large armoured cruisers so much weaker then the invincible and instead Indefactibles were ordered to avoid embarrassing the government of the day.

Does anyone have naval necessities (1904) because its referenced often in various sources but I can't find a copy for love nor money.

Interestingly that despite seeking to get rid of the battlecruiser concept when he was in ordinance when he commanded the grand fleet Jellicoe was very possessive over his battlecruisers.

Edit: Found another quote about this that a complete redesign of the 9.2 inch gun was considered for these ships as the 9.2 inch guns on the Lord Nelson predreads and the Minotaur class were not sufficient gunnery vehicles when compared to the 12 inch guns on the dreadnought and on the Invincibles. Instead it was considered easier to use 12 inch guns than redesign 9.2 inch guns which the navy in general was not happy with.
Interesting set of facts. Was the original 9.2 inch considered inadequate against German armoured cruisers like the Scharnhorst or a putative response like Blucher? Because unless you're contemplating fighting ships with battleship armament and armour then the potential enemy's armoured cruiser guns and armour are the standards you need to meet.

I can understand the pressure not to build what seem to be smaller and less capable ships than the Invicncibles. Unless you admit they were a mistake you can't easily do that. Unless you bluff by saying that since Germany was only building one battle cruiser at the time, there was no need yet for a successor class but there was a need for additional large armoured cruisers for trade protection. Then design the Splendid Cats with 12 inch guns and more armour.

Was it a mistake to build so many gun pits for 12 inch guns? British shipbuilders took orders for battleships for foreign powers and the gun-makers were largely privately owned. In 1905/6 it wasn't apparent that the 12 inch gun would be superseded in RN service within four years or so.

Would the 10 inch gun have been feasible for a large armored cruiser design or was it outdated and needing redesign by 1905?
 
Would the 10 inch gun have been feasible for a large armored cruiser design or was it outdated and needing redesign by 1905?
Well, the British had used the 13.5" gun in some of their pre dreadnoughts, before reverting to the 12" gun, and then back too the 13.5 during the dreadnought era.
So I don't see why they wouldn't go back to the 10" gun, it was a good gun, used on Centurion and Balfuer, which some consider a type of Battlecruiser.
 
Interesting set of facts. Was the original 9.2 inch considered inadequate against German armoured cruisers like the Scharnhorst or a putative response like Blucher? Because unless you're contemplating fighting ships with battleship armament and armour then the potential enemy's armoured cruiser guns and armour are the standards you need to meet.

Battlecruisers were considered to fulfil the following purposes

1. Scout for the fleet
1a. When scouting be able to punch through a screening force decisively and force their way through to main enemy fleet. An ac vs ac action will last an hour or two in which the fleet can flee. A BC vs ac will last 30 minutes as the ac is quickly overwhelmed and sunk allowing the bcs to find the fleet.

2. Trade protection cruiser

3. Resist enemy battleships for a short period of time
3a. The idea here is not to be a line of battle but to be enough of a threat that the enemy will deploy into a line of battle rather than sailing formation. These maneuvers will delay the enemy fleet and allow your main fleet to catch them. Or perhaps use your speed to get around the enemy fleet and use your battlecruisers as the anvil to the main battle lines hammer. Also present was a requirement to maintain contact with a battle line long enough to determine how many ships were there.

Battlecruisers were about right for 1, overspecced for 2, and underspecced for 3. Mission 3 was conceived, not by the admiralty but by the Committee on design.

I can understand the pressure not to build what seem to be smaller and less capable ships than the Invicncibles. Unless you admit they were a mistake you can't easily do that. Unless you bluff by saying that since Germany was only building one battle cruiser at the time, there was no need yet for a successor class but there was a need for additional large armoured cruisers for trade protection. Then design the Splendid Cats with 12 inch guns and more armour.

Perhaps.
Was it a mistake to build so many gun pits for 12 inch guns? British shipbuilders took orders for battleships for foreign powers and the gun-makers were largely privately owned. In 1905/6 it wasn't apparent that the 12 inch gun would be superseded in RN service within four years or so.

Would the 10 inch gun have been feasible for a large armored cruiser design or was it outdated and needing redesign by 1905?
It turned out be a mistake to build so many 12 inch gun pits in that the owners lost money because they had to decomission gun pits. They built the guns for Espana class and the Agincourt but they would have done much better financially if they had continued building for longer and built less pits. One way this could have been achieved is to put the last calibre of battleship guns on battlecruisers. Just an idea I'm thinking of.

Invincible and Indefactible with 10 inch guns. Cats with 12 inch guns etc.

I had thought the 10 inch gun woukd be outdated by 1905 however now that I look at it the 10 inch gun was redesigned in the early 1900s as an export model capable of firing 3 rounds per minute. 50% higher rate of fire than the 12 inch guns at the same time which fired around 2 rounds per minute. That could be an interesting choice. Could actually be more lethal when facing cruisers than the 12 inch guns.

They were used in the Swiftsure class predreads which were initially intended for export to Chile. Chile cancelled and the government had a choice between buying them for the navy or letting the builders sell them Russia just before the Russia Japan war.
 
Last edited:
While we are on the topic I wonder if a armoured cruiser or light battlecruiser with 8 10 inch guns would have been cheap enough that the fleet unit scheme could have worked.
 
What is needed is to look at the specifics of the situation . In 1906 every ship in every navy became obsolete overnight . The armoured cruiser that was once a part of the battleline was now useless . The lessons of the Russo Japan war had been seen . The Battlecruiser came about because it was needed in order to combat the armoured cruisers of other nations . The entire idea was that they could outgun any cruiser , outrange it and outlast it . The Falklands battle proved the concept and the Jutland debacle disproved it . For the cost they had to be able to stand in the battlefleet . Unfortunately in order to have their 25kt speed (fast for 1908) they had very little armour . The Battlecruiser and Battleship eventually merged into the Fast battleship of which the best two exapmples are the Vanguard and Iowa classes .
 
So, to get back to the ships that we seem to have gotten from this thread,
any thoughts on whether or not to risk putting torpedo launchers on these 3-5,000 ton ships without big guns or armor?

Sorry we seem to have gotten away from your desired ship (destroyer guns, light hull) to something other posters prefer (light battlecruiser/unified gun armoured cruiser).

I would say no to torpedoes. If they have torpedoes they will be used as very fast torpedo boats, and get chewed up by destroyers. Remember you have a destroyers guns on a hull 3-4 times the size of a destroyer.
 
Battlecruisers were considered to fulfil the following purposes

1. Scout for the fleet
1a. When scouting be able to punch through a screening force decisively and force their way through to main enemy fleet. An ac vs ac action will last an hour or two in which the fleet can flee. A BC vs ac will last 30 minutes as the ac is quickly overwhelmed and sunk allowing the bcs to find the fleet.

2. Trade protection cruiser

3. Resist enemy battleships for a short period of time
3a. The idea here is not to be a line of battle but to be enough of a threat that the enemy will deploy into a line of battle rather than sailing formation. These maneuvers will delay the enemy fleet and allow your main fleet to catch them. Or perhaps use your speed to get around the enemy fleet and use your battlecruisers as the anvil to the main battle lines hammer. Also present was a requirement to maintain contact with a battle line long enough to determine how many ships were there.

Battlecruisers were about right for 1, overspecced for 2, and underspecced for 3. Mission 3 was conceived, not by the admiralty but by the Committee on design.



Perhaps.

It turned out be a mistake to build so many 12 inch gun pits in that the owners lost money because they had to decomission gun pits. They built the guns for Espana class and the Agincourt but they would have done much better financially if they had continued building for longer and built less pits. One way this could have been achieved is to put the last calibre of battleship guns on battlecruisers. Just an idea I'm thinking of.

Invincible and Indefactible with 10 inch guns. Cats with 12 inch guns etc.

I had thought the 10 inch gun woukd be outdated by 1905 however now that I look at it the 10 inch gun was redesigned in the early 1900s as an export model capable of firing 3 rounds per minute. 50% higher rate of fire than the 12 inch guns at the same time which fired around 2 rounds per minute. That could be an interesting choice. Could actually be more lethal when facing cruisers than the 12 inch guns.

They were used in the Swiftsure class predreads which were initially intended for export to Chile. Chile cancelled and the government had a choice between buying them for the navy or letting the builders sell them Russia just before the Russia Japan war.


Regarding the 12 inch gun pits, I think the UK also build 24 of them for two Brazilian Dreadnoughts delivered prior to WW1
but that may have added to the capacity problem before the UK switched to 13.5 inch.

The reworked 10"L45 was used in the Japanese semi-dreadnoughts of the Satsuma class. Breyer (Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970) confirms the increase in rate of fire to 3pm. Does seem a better option for a balanced large armoured cruiser of 15-16,000 tonnes.


Though I'm not sure what the German response would be to learning of this armament rather than the 6-8 9.2 inch they expected. IOTL they went ahead with Blucher as it had been approved and there was no funding for a redesign. They later responded with the Von der Tann but would that be considered as necessary if the Invincibles had "only" 10 inch guns? OTOH did Germany have an intermediate calibre of gun between the 8.2 inch and the 11 inch? The difference in shell weight was something like 220kg for the 10 inch, to 172kg for the 9.2 inch and around 100-120kg for the German 8.2 inch (Breyer doesn't include it sadly). Would the German navy have been happy with such a disparity in gunpower or concluded that the 10 inch wasn't a significant increase on the 9.2 inch?
 
Regarding the 12 inch gun pits, I think the UK also build 24 of them for two Brazilian Dreadnoughts delivered prior to WW1
but that may have added to the capacity problem before the UK switched to 13.5 inch.

Yep
The reworked 10"L45 was used in the Japanese semi-dreadnoughts of the Satsuma class. Breyer (Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970) confirms the increase in rate of fire to 3pm. Does seem a better option for a balanced large armoured cruiser of 15-16,000 tonnes.

Only of course if the challengers agree to fight on your terms. If Germany went for Von Der Tann anyway these would be outgunned.

Though I'm not sure what the German response would be to learning of this armament rather than the 6-8 9.2 inch they expected. IOTL they went ahead with Blucher as it had been approved and there was no funding for a redesign. They later responded with the Von der Tann but would that be considered as necessary if the Invincibles had "only" 10 inch guns? OTOH did Germany have an intermediate calibre of gun between the 8.2 inch and the 11 inch? The difference in shell weight was something like 220kg for the 10 inch, to 172kg for the 9.2 inch and around 100-120kg for the German 8.2 inch (Breyer doesn't include it sadly). Would the German navy have been happy with such a disparity in gunpower or concluded that the 10 inch wasn't a significant increase on the 9.2 inch?

The German 9.3 inch gun was not used since the early 1890s. It's best to pretend it doesn't exist for the purpose of this discussion. Saw a claim in a book today while doing research for this thread that Von Der Tann and later German battlecruisers had three main reasons.

1. Until 1911 Germany had figured that in a war with France and England that German battlecruisers would be able to successfully threaten the channel (and any troop convoys) before a major fleet would be able to reinforce from scapa flow. They were planning on 3 battle cruisers vs 6-8 older predreadnoughts. The British on the other hand believed that any German predreads would be dealt with by the battle line.

2. British BC were lightly armoured because there was very few German A.C. it would be rare that they had to face anything above class guns. Britain on the other hand had much a.c.. To punch through the British screen (as mentioned above essential in scouting) the Germans would have to face at least one if not 2-3 British a.c..

3. To counter British BC.

So a Von Der Tann may still be a response if Britain goes for 8 x 10 inch guns.
 

Md139115

Banned
Alright, so far, what I'm seeing here is a bunch of scaled-down BCs as the basis for the purpose-built CL design. What if we went in a completely different direction? Traditionally, the guidelines have been: "Guns, speed, and armor, pick two." The battlecruiser was based on the choice of the first two, as the very dense, heavy weight of battleship turrets needed a large, wider hullform to support them and to hold all the boilers required for the large horsepower needed to propel such a hullform through the water.

What if, instead, the last two were picked? I'm thinking a light cruiser sized vessel capable of around 30 knots, with an all or nothing armor scheme with 12" belt armor, armed with only 4 6" guns in unprotected mounts, and a few torpedo tubes. If designed properly enough to eliminate instabilities at high speeds or rough seas (something that I confess would probably be incredibly difficult within the boundaries of marine architecture theory at that time), then I can see this annoying small, fast ship tormenting an enemy fleet by being strong enough to ward off all destroyers while being invulnerable to all cruisers and early dreadnoughts. It could get in, gain a full understanding of the enemy fleet, and get out with just the paint scratched (okay, maybe the bow and stern shot off, but what are citadels for?), and possibly a few torpedoes launched at the enemy battle fleet.
 
Alright, so far, what I'm seeing here is a bunch of scaled-down BCs as the basis for the purpose-built CL design. What if we went in a completely different direction? Traditionally, the guidelines have been: "Guns, speed, and armor, pick two." The battlecruiser was based on the choice of the first two, as the very dense, heavy weight of battleship turrets needed a large, wider hullform to support them and to hold all the boilers required for the large horsepower needed to propel such a hullform through the water.

What if, instead, the last two were picked? I'm thinking a light cruiser sized vessel capable of around 30 knots, with an all or nothing armor scheme with 12" belt armor, armed with only 4 6" guns in unprotected mounts, and a few torpedo tubes. If designed properly enough to eliminate instabilities at high speeds or rough seas (something that I confess would probably be incredibly difficult within the boundaries of marine architecture theory at that time), then I can see this annoying small, fast ship tormenting an enemy fleet by being strong enough to ward off all destroyers while being invulnerable to all cruisers and early dreadnoughts. It could get in, gain a full understanding of the enemy fleet, and get out with just the paint scratched (okay, maybe the bow and stern shot off, but what are citadels for?), and possibly a few torpedoes launched at the enemy battle fleet.

I think most posters are focusing more on the BC alternatives than BC alternative light cruisers.

If you want 30 knots and 12 inch belt in 1906 I will make a guess that you are looking at 100k horsepower and 25,000 tonnes and a cost around two to two and a half times the dreadnought. IE not small but annoying to the treasury.

That said someone may want to do it in springharp to be sure.
 
Last edited:
How about something like the design below. Not exactly a BC, but outruns them and contemporary cruisers while carrying a decent punch. Not a good seaboat, but OK for the North sea:


Light BC, Germany LBC laid down 1914
Displacement:
10.478 t light; 11.060 t standard; 12.335 t normal; 13.354 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(580,42 ft / 557,74 ft) x 55,77 ft x (24,61 / 26,23 ft)
(176,91 m / 170,00 m) x 17,00 m x (7,50 / 7,99 m)
Armament:
6 - 9,84" / 250 mm 45,0 cal guns - 480,81lbs / 218,09kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1914 Model
3 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
6 - 5,91" / 150 mm 45,0 cal guns - 103,86lbs / 47,11kg shells, 250 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1914 Model
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft evenly spread
1 raised mount
1 x Twin mount on centreline aft
1 double raised mount
8 - 2,95" / 75,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 12,98lbs / 5,89kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1914 Model
8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 3.612 lbs / 1.638 kg
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5,51" / 140 mm 459,32 ft / 140,00 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Ends: 0,79" / 20 mm 65,62 ft / 20,00 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
32,81 ft / 10,00 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 0,79" / 20 mm 65,62 ft / 20,00 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Main Belt covers 127 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3,94" / 100 mm 1,97" / 50 mm 1,97" / 50 mm
2nd: 1,97" / 50 mm 1,97" / 50 mm 1,97" / 50 mm
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 1,77" / 45 mm
Forecastle: 1,18" / 30 mm Quarter deck: 1,18" / 30 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 86.630 shp / 64.626 Kw = 30,78 kts
Range 4.500nm at 15,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2.294 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
584 - 760
Cost:
£1,546 million / $6,183 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 801 tons, 6,5 %
- Guns: 801 tons, 6,5 %
Armour: 2.016 tons, 16,3 %
- Belts: 1.042 tons, 8,5 %
- Armament: 321 tons, 2,6 %
- Armour Deck: 652 tons, 5,3 %
Machinery: 3.671 tons, 29,8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3.990 tons, 32,4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.857 tons, 15,1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0,0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
8.281 lbs / 3.756 Kg = 17,4 x 9,8 " / 250 mm shells or 1,1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,12
Metacentric height 2,6 ft / 0,8 m
Roll period: 14,6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 40 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,99
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0,74
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,564 / 0,573
Length to Beam Ratio: 10,00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23,62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 44
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 30,00 %, 26,25 ft / 8,00 m, 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Forward deck: 30,00 %, 19,69 ft / 6,00 m, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Aft deck: 20,00 %, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Quarter deck: 20,00 %, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m, 18,04 ft / 5,50 m
- Average freeboard: 18,83 ft / 5,74 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 121,9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 124,8 %
Waterplane Area: 21.997 Square feet or 2.044 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 98 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 117 lbs/sq ft or 571 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,95
- Longitudinal: 1,54
- Overall: 1,00
Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather
 
My comments on your lbc.

This isn't necessarily criticism just commentary. Some of the comments could be irrelevant in a world where the circumstances were different. Always remember the British battlecruisers would be considered the best ships ever invented if they had met 2sg before they met 1sg at Jutland.

1 Its a new calibre of gun for Germany. Who is going to design and build the gun and how good is it? Add a chunk to the cost because it's a whole new gun. Development costs and gun pits. Or guarantee that it's going to be used in a few classes of ships.

2. Am I reading wrongly or is that 45mm deck armour. I don't use springsharp so I may be misreading. But 45mm deck armour is significantly thinner than the invincible class. Would not fit German design philosophy.

3. Have you fixed gunnery. A 3 turret ship was considered the minimum for gunnery to work well. Yes you have 3 turrets but a 4th was considered essential in order to allow battledamage of losing one turret from reducing the ships combat power by 50% (33% less guns then less accurate other 2 turrets). Renown and Repulse were wartime emergency orders.

4. I've mentioned before but springsharp's biggest weakness is the cost. 86k hp is going to cost more than half the ships cost quoted. Add another £500k to the springsharp cost imo.

5. It would be politically unacceptable to be commissioning a lbc like you have above in a world where Britain are commissioning Lion Queen Mary and Princess Royale at a similar time.
 
I think most posters are focusing more on the BC alternatives than BC alternative light cruisers.
Unfortunately, that does seem to be the case.

What I need, and indeed got from the discussion, was a light craft, capable of locating the enemy scout/screen, and reporting their location. In OTL, a well armed BC would be expected to fight past the screen, and locate the main body, but that basically requires one or more capitol ship sized vessels to be built with very high speed, at enormous cost, and less protection than a battleship, which is exactly the thing I wish to avoid.

I learned that armoured against light cruiser guns and 36 kts isn't going to happen, and even armed with light cruiser guns and 36 kts is not too likely, but the 3,000 to 5,000 ton alternate B97 class upgrade does all that I want and need, as I get 36 kts, and the ability to make contact with an enemy force and pick the range to maintain contact with against all but the very fastest ships on the time.

Building combat capability greater than these lightly armed and basically unarmoured ships have, will cost more money, tonnage, and either you end up with a BC sized ship again, or you end up with something a BC is going to catch and eat for breakfast, and in no account do you get a ship that can catch a 36 kts scout.

Combat capability isn't the point of a scout, and trying to force the two design requirements to meet leads down the path to OTL BC size and cost ships. Germany cannot match the UK in ship numbers, and must therefore make every battleship sized ship an actual battleship, capable of standing in the line, and taking as much punishment as German engineering can make them capable of surviving at the hands of an enemy's heavy guns.

Given these preconditions, either build a small, fast, expendable ship that is designed for very high speed, in as heavy a seas as possible, for as long as possible, and sacrifice almost all combat capability, or build something with more guns, armor, and combat capability, and give up the high speed. Anyone disagree here?
 
An alternative is to build a BC heavy on armour (say same scale as Dreadnought), at least 25knots, so probably need around 40,000shp but go light on the guns, say four times twin 9.2" If you want more fire power and to be really tricky go for four triple 9.2" turrets that could be swapped for twin 12" if another navy chumped up a calibre.
 
Given these preconditions, either build a small, fast, expendable ship that is designed for very high speed, in as heavy a seas as possible, for as long as possible, and sacrifice almost all combat capability, or build something with more guns, armor, and combat capability, and give up the high speed. Anyone disagree here?
Actually I think the Germans need to accept defeat at Sea or do something crazy.

At the moment I'm thinking that trying to beat the British in BCs might be an option. If your intelligence wins and you can get in before the Dover barrage starts you can conceivably raid the channel. Britain historically attempted to escort troop convoys accross the channel with a fleet of predreadnoughts just out of the reserve. If you can in 1914 get 5-7 BC into the channel when spies tell you there is going to be a troop convoy you can gut the second fleet and force Britain to permanently deploy dreadnoughts to the channel. Now you have the British fleet split into two defeatable squadrons (until the Dover Barrage secures the channel with mines) and the British fleet can reconcentrate in a single fleet.

Or build all battleships and no battlecruisers and go early for naval aviation. Only send the fleet out when carriers planes can scout for you. Otherwise stay in port.

Would either of the above work, i dont know, one of them might have a chance though relying on something other than a 70% defect rate in royal navy shells.

Important also to realise that if Germany doesn't counter British BC, then Britain won't build as many and will build more battleships instead.
 
Last edited:
An alternative is to build a BC heavy on armour (say same scale as Dreadnought), at least 25 knots, so probably need around 40,000shp but go light on the guns, say four times twin 9.2" If you want more fire power and to be really tricky go for four triple 9.2" turrets that could be swapped for twin 12" if another navy chumped up a calibre.
But...

What kind of tonnage is your ship going to eat up?

Post Dreadnought, Germany needs every 10,000+ ton ship to be equal to or greater than HMS Dreadnought herself, at least imo, and building ships that are as big as OTL pre dreadnoughts, and probably cost more than a pre dreadnought, that cannot fight like a dreadnought, weakens Germany's already numerically outnumbered battle line by one more ship. The thread title is what is causing the confusion I think, as folks seem to be reading it as asking for alternative battlecruisers, rather than alternatives to building battlecruisers.

I realise that I cannot have performance and missions in scouting as OTL, by just building a 36 kts, 3-5,000 ton ship without armor or heavy guns, but I can locate their scouts/screens, and then, as the situation warrants, lead them where I want them.

Basically, I want to make sure that anything that outguns my scouts, cannot catch them, and anything that can catch them, cannot outgun them. And if I only manage to match my scouts up against enemy scouts, neither side is going to be looking to have these ships engage each other, in a doubtless fierce, pitched battle, but rather to find the enemy main body.

I could see the newspaper articles now...

"Read all about it, Read all about it, the bitched battle of the north sea!"
Massive crowds press eagerly about the new vender...

"A crushingly decisive battle was fought between our scouting forces and those of the enemy, with honor and glory to be had on both sides, blah blah blah..." "On a side note, the main body was unable to make contact with the core of the enemy fleet, and some speculation is that the battle of the scouts may have had something to do with this sorry lack..."
 
Top