US Navy Battlecruisers: Possible? Reasonable? Remotely Likely?
- Thread starter Marshmallow Waffles
- Start date
Driftless
Donor
I like your timing from a natural logic standpoint. My thought with the Kearsarge and Virginia is those experiments stuck with Congressional (and USN) overseers as less than fully successful. The Virginias participated in the diplomatic coup that was the Great White Fleet, but thank goodness they never really had to get involved in a peer-to-peer shootout. To be fair, the USN had some peculiar constructions (the original Indianas, Katahadin, the monitors, Vesuvius, etc) interspersed with some fairly conventional designs in that 1890 -1906 stretch (the original Iowa, ACR Brooklyn, ACR New York, the original Wisconsins, etc.) The one pair of experiments in that era that they got partly right were the South Carolina and Michigan.
Using your Russo-Japanese War PoD, works, especially if the Japanese rattle US Congress into deciding size AND speed are useful things in the Pacific. The Brass mostly worried about the Philippines and Hawaii, but the Mahanians also worried about the connective tissue of the refueling and supply bases on the lesser islands between Hawaii and Subic Bay too.
I think the main problem for the US navy to get battlecruiser was to get Congress to accept to pay for ships larger than battleships but with less firepower (as usually were battlecruisers in the 1910's)
I don't believe that Congress would have understood, mainly because of people like Tillman that couldn't even wrap their mind around the fact that improved ships cost more money and so did everything they could to prevent the Navy to have the budget to pay for better ships.
Case point : USS South Carolina (BB-26) was severely handicaped because Congress did not want the new class of ships to be more expensive than the previous one (Mississippi-class BB-23).
And as a result, BB-26 was less capable than what the navy wanted to build (slower, shorter ranged, less protected,... and took so much time to build that HMS Dreadnaught beat them to the finish line)
So, trying to get them to accept to pay more money for a ship that would appear to them as "lesser" , no chance in hell.
To get the Navy to have battlecruisers, you need a POD that will change Congress enough to allow the Navy to get the budget they needed in the 1900-1910.
The Navy itself knew they needed better ships, more cruiser, serious scouting force,... but Congress did not want to pay for it (or for anything, really)
I don't believe that Congress would have understood, mainly because of people like Tillman that couldn't even wrap their mind around the fact that improved ships cost more money and so did everything they could to prevent the Navy to have the budget to pay for better ships.
Case point : USS South Carolina (BB-26) was severely handicaped because Congress did not want the new class of ships to be more expensive than the previous one (Mississippi-class BB-23).
And as a result, BB-26 was less capable than what the navy wanted to build (slower, shorter ranged, less protected,... and took so much time to build that HMS Dreadnaught beat them to the finish line)
So, trying to get them to accept to pay more money for a ship that would appear to them as "lesser" , no chance in hell.
To get the Navy to have battlecruisers, you need a POD that will change Congress enough to allow the Navy to get the budget they needed in the 1900-1910.
The Navy itself knew they needed better ships, more cruiser, serious scouting force,... but Congress did not want to pay for it (or for anything, really)
A few random thoughts.
For all intents and purposes the Alaska were battle cruisers.
BCs are very much dependent on the arms race more so then other ships in that they are easily outdated by advances in tech and design. So much so that the Fast Battleship made them pretty pointless. As the crews and cost were not enough lower then a Fast BB to justify the limitations a BC comes with.
So you have the problem of why would the US WANT a BC?
Now if you want them (and I sure don’t) you have three options. 1 build the Lex and co as BCs as intended (at the cost of the carriers which would be bad in hind site) Built the Alaskas as tru BCs (arguably they were 95% BCs already) or lose the Iowa’s. Frankly any and all of these options are BAD. For a change the US Navy actually did something right and bought true BBs not the water down but almost as expensive BCs.
Personally i think the BCs were a BAD idea for everyone and any and all counties that bought them would have been better off building BBs with the money/crews instead on whatever ratio that would work out as.
So why do we want to change the ONE thing the US navy actually got right?
As for the unbalanced fleet of the USN. Yes it was unbalanced but as far as protecting the US it was the best option with the budget available. The US does not need (back then) destroyers and cruisers to protect the primary interest of the US they need BBs to fight other fleets. Add in that you can gear up to build Cruisers and destroyers a LOT faster the BBs and the logic works for the US. It would not have worked for England but the US was not in the same position.
Not saying having enough to afford a balanced fleet wouldn’t have been better. Just saying giving up capital ships to get them would have been worse for the US.
For all intents and purposes the Alaska were battle cruisers.
BCs are very much dependent on the arms race more so then other ships in that they are easily outdated by advances in tech and design. So much so that the Fast Battleship made them pretty pointless. As the crews and cost were not enough lower then a Fast BB to justify the limitations a BC comes with.
So you have the problem of why would the US WANT a BC?
Now if you want them (and I sure don’t) you have three options. 1 build the Lex and co as BCs as intended (at the cost of the carriers which would be bad in hind site) Built the Alaskas as tru BCs (arguably they were 95% BCs already) or lose the Iowa’s. Frankly any and all of these options are BAD. For a change the US Navy actually did something right and bought true BBs not the water down but almost as expensive BCs.
Personally i think the BCs were a BAD idea for everyone and any and all counties that bought them would have been better off building BBs with the money/crews instead on whatever ratio that would work out as.
So why do we want to change the ONE thing the US navy actually got right?
As for the unbalanced fleet of the USN. Yes it was unbalanced but as far as protecting the US it was the best option with the budget available. The US does not need (back then) destroyers and cruisers to protect the primary interest of the US they need BBs to fight other fleets. Add in that you can gear up to build Cruisers and destroyers a LOT faster the BBs and the logic works for the US. It would not have worked for England but the US was not in the same position.
Not saying having enough to afford a balanced fleet wouldn’t have been better. Just saying giving up capital ships to get them would have been worse for the US.
Any discussion of battle cruisers needs to get Jutland out of their heads. Put bluntly there is a reason everyone, Japanese, US, UK, Germany, Russia, was still planning and building battle cruisers into the 20s, after Jutland.
Battle cruisers had two main benefits. Firstly they had strategic mobility. They could rush out to the Falklands or Whitby as needed and apply massive firepower. An Invincible tooling around the Pacific was God because none of the majors could afford to send capital ships there. The second benefit is that they can keep up with the cruisers. Battle cruiser beats cruiser. Now your opponent can't scout effectively. They have to concentrate and lose periphery targets, or disperse and be defeated in detail. Both of these roles are continuations for what armored cruisers have been doing for decades.
But why not a fast battleship? Simply until around 1930 your engines weigh too much. Here is a picture of Kongo. See that weird gap between the aft turrets? Engines.
Check out the difference between G3 and N3, as close a comparison as you will get. G3 gets bandied around as the ultimate mid war fast battleship. It helps that the Washington treaty limited all new ships to slightly weaker than it. Well N3 outguns and out armors it by a fair margin. Until 18" ships hit the hard hydrodynamic limits around 30knots there is a benefit to building to building both classes.
Any discussion of battle cruisers needs to get Jutland out of their heads. Put bluntly there is a reason everyone, Japanese, US, UK, Germany, Russia, was still planning and building battle cruisers into the 20s, after Jutland.
Battle cruisers had two main benefits. Firstly they had strategic mobility. They could rush out to the Falklands or Whitby as needed and apply massive firepower. An Invincible tooling around the Pacific was God because none of the majors could afford to send capital ships there. The second benefit is that they can keep up with the cruisers. Battle cruiser beats cruiser. Now your opponent can't scout effectively. They have to concentrate and lose periphery targets, or disperse and be defeated in detail. Both of these roles are continuations for what armored cruisers have been doing for decades.
But why not a fast battleship? Simply until around 1930 your engines weigh too much. Here is a picture of Kongo. See that weird gap between the aft turrets? Engines.
Check out the difference between G3 and N3, as close a comparison as you will get. G3 gets bandied around as the ultimate mid war fast battleship. It helps that the Washington treaty limited all new ships to slightly weaker than it. Well N3 outguns and out armors it by a fair margin. Until 18" ships hit the hard hydrodynamic limits around 30knots there is a benefit to building to building both classes.
The three battlecruisers at Jutland weren't killed by deficiencies in armour, they were killed by deficiencies in ammunition handling. Yes their armour wouldn't stand up to a prolonged hammering, but as a fast wing to fix the enemy while your battleline comes up they work fine.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
They were also killed by other battlecruisers not by battleships
Jutland proves that battlecruiser on battlecruiser fights are nasty, brutish and short, not that battlecruisers are inherently flawed
The correct employment of battlecruisers is to use their speed to cross the enemy's T, lose off a few salvos and get out (hopefully without having anything vital hit). They soften up the opposing battleline so your battline has better odds.
I would have gladly traded the Alaska class for Kentucky and Illinois...
Basically as far as USN Battlecruisers are concerned thanks to congress being cheap as hell in the era of the battlecruiser the only way we are seeing any of them is if a captain of industry and/or public subscription pays for them
Last edited:
The other reason would be if some sort of humiliation resulted from the navy having no fast capital ships. Or some form of foreign crisis that showed a perceived weakness in the American fleet due to not having them.
Not to run down the last generation of ACs (or CLs if they dont run away) and slaughter them with no response like battle of Falkland Islands......?
But think how many LCT/CVE/DEs...... (that all would have actually been ready in time to make a difference...)
For the cost of BCs they are not a good investment. The Royal Navy could afford the cost and was in the unique position (early on). that they had more money then they needed to build the approved number of BBs. And basicly used the BCs to add capital ships that parlement would not have otherwise allowed. Everyone else built BCs that cost them BBs.
For the Royal navy they gained by this for everyone else the lost .
Also most navies built them because the Royal Navy did. But for the most part there was never a situation were the BCs were worth it. The cost in construction, maintenance, operation and crew size were so close the BBs that they were not worth it.
And by the 1930s they were replacable by the fast BB. But even before that most navies couldnt afford them and would have been better off building 2 BBs instead of 3 BCs (or whatever the ratio was.
They were a flawed concept. They were the extreme point of the tech armsrace. And were easily outdated by next years design (much more so then BB or cruisers) as the whole concept was based on using the newest tech to build a fast cruiser with BB guns. but changes in Armor, or engine or hull design or guns would all (individually) make them obsolte. To do the same with BBs you had to improve a couple areas and while cruisers were subject to this arms race they were a LOT less expensive.
BCs cost so much that when they get outdated you lose a LOT and they have no real secondary use, When a cruiser of destroyer gets a bit outdated you can use it in out of the way locations or uses but the cost to operate (not counting orginial build cost) of a BC is so extreem that you wont /cant afford to use them in unimportant locations. So they stay on after they should.
Bassicly they are the wosre of all worlds. They have a build and operation cost in the area of a BB. They have the crew needs of a BB they have limited numbers like a BB (because if the. cost/crew issues) but they have the cruisers downside of not being able to go toe to toe with a BB, Being easier to sink like a cruiser and gaving the tendency to become outdated by newer designs like a cruiser,
So you take the worst aspects of BBs and cruiser and combine them…
For the Royal navy they gained by this for everyone else the lost .
Also most navies built them because the Royal Navy did. But for the most part there was never a situation were the BCs were worth it. The cost in construction, maintenance, operation and crew size were so close the BBs that they were not worth it.
And by the 1930s they were replacable by the fast BB. But even before that most navies couldnt afford them and would have been better off building 2 BBs instead of 3 BCs (or whatever the ratio was.
They were a flawed concept. They were the extreme point of the tech armsrace. And were easily outdated by next years design (much more so then BB or cruisers) as the whole concept was based on using the newest tech to build a fast cruiser with BB guns. but changes in Armor, or engine or hull design or guns would all (individually) make them obsolte. To do the same with BBs you had to improve a couple areas and while cruisers were subject to this arms race they were a LOT less expensive.
BCs cost so much that when they get outdated you lose a LOT and they have no real secondary use, When a cruiser of destroyer gets a bit outdated you can use it in out of the way locations or uses but the cost to operate (not counting orginial build cost) of a BC is so extreem that you wont /cant afford to use them in unimportant locations. So they stay on after they should.
Bassicly they are the wosre of all worlds. They have a build and operation cost in the area of a BB. They have the crew needs of a BB they have limited numbers like a BB (because if the. cost/crew issues) but they have the cruisers downside of not being able to go toe to toe with a BB, Being easier to sink like a cruiser and gaving the tendency to become outdated by newer designs like a cruiser,
So you take the worst aspects of BBs and cruiser and combine them…
They're not competing with capital ships for the same materials (other than just structural steel which, to my understanding, was not in particularly short supply), engine plants, and yard space. But an Alaska is pretty much directly competing with an Iowa (or Essex) for construction. Scrapping that program whole cloth (while probably a good idea) doesn't really get you more CVEs (unless there's a huge Blindspot in my memory of WW2 naval construction) but it could realistically get 1-3 more BB/CVs.
It's funny about the US having BC doctrine but no BC while Great Britain had BC but no doctrine. It goes back to history. The Constitution frigates were effectively battlecruisers. They could outgun frigates and outrun the line.
Battlecruisers were an artifact of time and technology. Engine technology up to the 30s required a capital class hull to get the engines needed for top speed. By the late 30's engines had improved enough so that battleships were hitting the hydrodynamic limits so a BC couldn't outrun them. Planes could do the scouting better then hulls.
Best example of proper use of battlecruisers to me was the Falklands. Strategic mobility to eliminate a cruiser group.
Battlecruisers were an artifact of time and technology. Engine technology up to the 30s required a capital class hull to get the engines needed for top speed. By the late 30's engines had improved enough so that battleships were hitting the hydrodynamic limits so a BC couldn't outrun them. Planes could do the scouting better then hulls.
Best example of proper use of battlecruisers to me was the Falklands. Strategic mobility to eliminate a cruiser group.
I was thinking that instead of building the "standard class" of battleships the USN decides to opt for an all fast battleline, essentially creating the "standard class" battlecruiser(s). Its a very poorly balanced fleet design but its definitely an interesting concept.
On a separate notes, as aforementioned, having a capital ship with big guns and lots of space for AA mounts would be really beneficial for the USN in the early years of the pacific war as fast carrier escorts.
On a separate notes, as aforementioned, having a capital ship with big guns and lots of space for AA mounts would be really beneficial for the USN in the early years of the pacific war as fast carrier escorts.
I'm not sure,
A) what else do you use for scouting, without BCs you simply lose the scouting fight against anybody with them?
B) BB outdated just as fast, but they simply did not fight to the end that much, I would not want to be in an 11" or 12" BB against a 13.5" or even 15" of only a few years later? QE class is only completed 4 years after Colossus class battleships...... nobody is betting on the latter in a fight....?