The end of the battlecruiser [after WW1]

ghappy1000

Okay, if blowing up [or total destruction of] both British and German fleets seem impossible, how about the end of the battlecruiser?
Well, battlecruisers [especially weakly armoured ones] were discredited after Jutland because of the 3 battlecruiser sinkings from explosions, so, what if [probably after more explosions at Jutland or another battle] after Jutland, any considerations for battlecruisers were cancelled [which means no Admiral, Lexington and Amagi classes]? Renown and Courageous classes were too late for cancellation, but they could be sunk in WW1 or more likely redesigned or cancelled [redesigned for the former and cancelled for the latter]. Any other reasons for battlecruiser concept to vanish after 1922 and the naval treaties? [Maybe the treaties demand that the signatories stop building battleships with speed faster than 24 to 27 knots and/or demand smaller size for battleships so that some engines and boilers had to be removed or less power is installed on the ships, reducing their speed below the 27 knots or so.] And, how to do so?
[Royal Navy definition of battlecruiser is any battleship faster than 24-25 knots. Maybe, an increase in 2-3 knots might be accepted, but anything faster won't. And, it's both ahc and what if. Finally, if possible, have the panzerschiffs not be permitted to make the task more possible.]
 
Last edited:

ghappy1000

Any takers? And, this is both an ahc to get it and what if this [no battlecruiser or above 27 knot ships with larger than cruiser sized guns] occurred.
 

Zheng He

ghappy1000 said:
Any takers? And, this is both an ahc to get it and what if this [no battlecruiser or above 27 knot ships with larger than cruiser sized guns] occurred.
Click to expand...

There seem to be two different questions. No battlecruisers or no fast battleships? Does the lack of credibility of the battlecruiser design mean that nations will not pursue fast battleships in the future as well or is it no ships that are both fast and lightly armored.

I do realize there is the potential here for a really lengthy back and forth over what really constitutes a battlecruiser vs. a battleship but I will use the US example - does this mean no NORTH CAROLINA and IOWA classes or just no ALASKA class or are those too far in the future.
 

sharlin

Banned
Thing is battlecruisers were not built after WW1 save the Alaska class (I just heard Calbear hiss in his sleep at their mention...)

The way ahead was fast battleships, with a faster ship you have a greater tactical and strategic mobility. This started with the BCs and then evolved into the R class ships which were the first battleships to be able to exceed the standard max fleet speed of 21kts without any issues.

The only way that you don't get fast ships built is a case of retardation amongst every battleship designer and in every admiralty who then have to universally go "21 - 23 knots is the max!"
 

HMS Warspite

The classical battlecruiser already was a thing of the past, as only the USA were still planning to built such a design, where more experienced nations, with the bad experiences of the war at sea themselves, were already moving up to the true fast battleship varriant.

True battlecruisers old style (= weak protection) had been:
UK: Invincible, Indifatigable, Lion, Renown and the odd looking Courageous classes.
USA: Lexington Class
Japan: Kongo Class

The next classes of officially rated as battlecruisers, were more like fast battleships (= adequate or good protection):
UK: Admiral and G-3, classes
Germany: All battlecruisers, starting with SMS Von der Tann, Moltke, Seydlitz, Derfflinger, Mackensen, Ersatz York and so on.
Japan: Amagi and Owari classes
USA: none
Imperial Russia: Borodino class.

Point is that the two nations fighting most of the sea battles in WW1 already had been moving toward the true fast capital ship, with strong prtotection, while the nations not having this experience mainly stuck to the classical design (USA), or copied the newly developped ideas of the two leading nations.

Actually designed and constructed after the Great War had ended were no battlecruisers, although a few designs were called as such, but not completed, apart form the USA building the Alaska class, which any nation otherwise would have rated as battlecruisers.

Ships build after the Great War, sometimes refered to as battlecruisers, but actually classified as fast battleships:
Germany: Scharnhorst Class.
France: Dunkerque Class.

Ships that could have been classified as battlecruisers, but officially rated as battleships were also developped:
USA: Iowa class (same protection as preceding South Dakota class, but increase of speed with 5 knots. Classical role when started as a design was simmilar to that of HMS Invincible in 1906.)

So: the battlecruiser was already being evolved into a more capable capital ship type, even without the Jutland experiences. Only the mass destruction of both types of capital ships of the WW1 period, both Dreadnoughts and Battlecruisers, could have altered the evolution of the big gun ship. Aircraft and submarines already had been evolved into capable weapons and weaponplatforms to take on the obsolete big gunned dinosaurs.
 

Scotty

ghappy1000 said:
Okay, if blowing up [or total destruction of] both British and German fleets seem impossible, how about the end of the battlecruiser?
Well, battlecruisers [especially weakly armoured ones] were discredited after Jutland because of the 3 battlecruiser sinkings from explosions, so, what if [probably after more explosions at Jutland or another battle] after Jutland, any considerations for battlecruisers were cancelled [which means no Admiral, Lexington and Amagi classes]? Renown and Courageous classes were too late for cancellation, but they could be sunk in WW1 or more likely redesigned or cancelled [redesigned for the former and cancelled for the latter]. Any other reasons for battlecruiser concept to vanish after 1922 and the naval treaties? [Maybe the treaties demand that the signatories stop building battleships with speed faster than 24 to 27 knots and/or demand smaller size for battleships so that some engines and boilers had to be removed or less power is installed on the ships, reducing their speed below the 27 knots or so.] And, how to do so?
[Royal Navy definition of battlecruiser is any battleship faster than 24-25 knots. Maybe, an increase in 2-3 knots might be accepted, but anything faster won't. And, it's both ahc and what if. Finally, if possible, have the panzerschiffs not be permitted to make the task more possible.]
Click to expand...

I have to ask, do you own any books on naval matters??

RN definition - so the QE's are BC's in your world now?

The G3's would have been fast battleships had they not been chopped by the WNT

Hood after its Jutland redesign was arguably the first of the fast battleships

And the BC's lost at Jutland did'nt all go bang just because they were BC's - Beatty's lax ammo handling procedures made them much more vulnerable than they should have been
 

Scotty

Admiral Halsey said:
Can anyone explain why you guys are calling the Alaska's Battlecruisers even though the USN didn't call them that?
Click to expand...

Probably because if it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck??

It had capital ship guns, with cruiser speed and protection which was the historical defintion of a BC. If it was'nt used a a fast carrier escort it would have been perfectly suited to chasing down Jap cruisers, which is a historical BC mission]]Not saying it is a BC, but lets be honest if they USN had classed it as a one no-one would have disagreed
 

Admiral Halsey

Banned
Scotty said:
Probably because if it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck??

It had capital ship guns, with cruiser speed and protection which was the historical defintion of a BC. If it was'nt used a a fast carrier escort it would have been perfectly suited to chasing down Jap cruisers, which is a historical BC mission]]Not saying it is a BC, but lets be honest if they USN had classed it as a one no-one would have disagreed
Click to expand...

Things is though by the time they were made no ship was using 12 inch guns. IMO if Gun Cruisers had continued the Alaska's would've just been the next evolution in them. They were just really large Cruisers that had a heavier armament then usual.
 

Scotty

Admiral Halsey said:
Things is though by the time they were made no ship was using 12 inch guns. IMO if Gun Cruisers had continued the Alaska's would've just been the next evolution in them. They were just really large Cruisers that had a heavier armament then usual.
Click to expand...

ok then, ppl call them BC's because 'heavier than heavy cruisers but not as battley as battlecruisers' is too much of a mouthful

:)
 

sharlin

Banned
Urf..knew this would happen the discussion on whats a BC or not.

The evolution of the USN's cruisers was the Des Moines class, they were HUGE ships by themselves, the Alaska's were not cruisers, they were battlecruisers in everyones eyes apart from the USN who for some reason called them heavy cruisers.
 

HMS Warspite

For the matter, the Alaska's were quite expensive to both design and construct, making them legally Capital Ships, which defines them into the classification of either battleship (which they were absolutely not), or battlecruiser, which they technically were in all but name. For the same budget as building the two Alaska's actually completed the USN could have constructed two more Iowa's as well.

Also typical is that the German Heavy Cruisers, of Panzerschiffe as they called them, of the Deutschland class were classified as capital ships, since they replaced older, worn off capital ships in the Interbellum period of time, limmited in size due to treaty obligations. As such they too were capital ships, but were just heavy cruisers with a bigger gun and somewhat lesser speed. The role they were designed for was a typical cruiser role, namely commerce raiding, not standing in the battleline to fight other capital ships.
 

sharlin

Banned
Indeed, save for their guns they were a big heavy cruiser, they had cruiser scale protection (3 inch belt etc) the only thing that made them stand out was their heavy guns which were unusually large on a ship of that size.

But in a battle against a real capital ship, IE a battleship or BC, then they would suffer as any cruiser would as their guns would not be able to hurt their opponent and their armour would not slow down heavy caliber gunfire.
 

Zheng He

Admiral Halsey said:
Or just call them Large Cruisers like the US did.
Click to expand...

Yeah, except larger and more heavily armed than a heavy cruiser is essentially a battlecruiser. Regardless of what the USN called them, battlecruiser is a more universally understood and descriptive term than large cruiser.
 

ghappy1000

Scotty said:
I have to ask, do you own any books on naval matters??

RN definition - so the QE's are BC's in your world now?

The G3's would have been fast battleships had they not been chopped by the WNT

Hood after its Jutland redesign was arguably the first of the fast battleships

And the BC's lost at Jutland did'nt all go bang just because they were BC's - Beatty's lax ammo handling procedures made them much more vulnerable than they should have been
Click to expand...
Queen Elizabeths are still considered battleships. And, I mean that Royal Navy, if I get things right, still consider 24 - 25 knots to be within battleship range [speed wise]. So, they won't be considered battlecruisers, but battleships. However, the real impact on battlecruiser and fast battleship construction would be after the end of World War 1. Correct about battlecruisers at Jutland.
 
Last edited:

ghappy1000

sharlin said:
Thing is battlecruisers were not built after WW1 save the Alaska class (I just heard Calbear hiss in his sleep at their mention...)

The way ahead was fast battleships, with a faster ship you have a greater tactical and strategic mobility. This started with the BCs and then evolved into the R class ships which were the first battleships to be able to exceed the standard max fleet speed of 21kts without any issues.

The only way that you don't get fast ships built is a case of retardation amongst every battleship designer and in every admiralty who then have to universally go "21 - 23 knots is the max!"
Click to expand...
Does Washington Treaty going stricter [not just on gun and ship size, but also on speed] combined with stricter limits on cruiser building for Germany [no guns larger than 8 inch for cruisers or anything smaller than the battleships they retained] lead to the solution?
 

sharlin

Banned
ghappy1000 said:
Does Washington Treaty going stricter [not just on gun and ship size, but also on speed] combined with stricter limits on cruiser building for Germany [no guns larger than 8 inch for cruisers or anything smaller than the battleships they retained] lead to the solution?
Click to expand...

I'd say the Washington Treaty was bloody lucky to get signed as it was, the Japanese nearly walked out and if they did then the RN certinally would and the treaty would fall apart. Without tweaking it too much you're not gonna change it.
 

deathscompanion1

Banned
sharlin said:
I'd say the Washington Treaty was bloody lucky to get signed as it was, the Japanese nearly walked out and if they did then the RN certinally would and the treaty would fall apart. Without tweaking it too much you're not gonna change it.
Click to expand...

If the RN walked out what the hell would they do? HMG had placed all its eggs on not joining another naval race so a failure would really kick it in the balls. Would it do more wishful thinking filled idiotic decisions like intentionally building weaker ships in the hope everyone else would play nice as well?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top