The battlecruiser issue.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 бер 2023
- Battlecruisers are one of the most known types of warship for their relatively small numbers. There is a significant issue regarding them in modern context that I believe is necessary to address, and I do so today. Enjoy the video.
- Розваги
Just a few important notes regarding the video:
This is one of the more complex topics I've decided to cover as it involves multiple navies approaching one topic separately over 2 decades. Covering that in under 20 minutes was my goal when recording and I achieved a 15 minute run. This means the organization was complicated to piece together without confusing the topic at hand. This is my 7th attempt at recording this video and I believe it hits the major points hard enough.
The short time means I had to generalize a lot of events. This is NOT an indepth look into battlecruisers. I graze events and points that matter to the given topic.
That also means I do not provide every possible example of battlecruiser/battleship companion pair ups. I simply lay a foundation using a few examples that do apply to classes not mentioned.
I absolutely expect disagreements and counter arguments to occur as this is a controversial topic, please keep them friendly and positive!
Thanks for watching/reading, have a nice day.
Take care man
" ..... a man whose name was Kaiser Wilhelm 2" lol like " a man whose name was Prime Minister Winston Churchill"
His name was Wilhelm. Kaiser was his office.
@@hazchemel yeah I thought about changing it after I noticed that while previewing the video. I ultimately decided it was a minor error that most people would catch and correct independently
@@centralcrossing4732 thought you left that in as funny tho lol
@@Aelxi It can definitely be looked at as that too. It does sound funny
This is the best single video summary of the battlecruiser concept that I’ve yet seen. Well done.
It’s amusing how controversial this topic is among armchair admirals. It’s funny how adamant some can get when the very nations building them couldn’t agree on what they were. 😅
When Britain used battlecruisers in the role the Royal Navy had originally assigned they worked quite well. The performance of the _HMS Invincible_ and _HMS Inflexible_ at the Battle of the Falklands perfectly demonstrated this, they handily overcame their intended prey.
It was only when they were pitted in a battleship-heavy environment that the class failed as was demonstrated at Jutland.
It took decades before the Japanese intent was handily overcome at the First and Second Battles of Guadalcanal. Their refitted battlecruisers were forced to fight outside (inside?) of their intended role and they suffered harshly (close range night engagements).
@@mbryson2899Speed most definitely is NOT armor.
The engineers DID know what they were designing, the admirals on the other hand... Looking at you Beatty
Have always thought that HMS Renown & HMS Repulse were the classic Battlecruiser. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst also fill the role very well. Just an observation, Cheers.
MN Dunkerque and Strasbourg should be at or near top of any Battle Cruiser list. Built to counter Germany's pocket battle ships which were really light Battle Cruisers or Super Heavy Cruisers at 20,000 tons. If in action with Renown & Repulse or Gneisenau & Scharnhorst, 1 v 1 or 2 v 2 I'd go with the MN ships. At 25,000 - 35,000 tons just over 700' and with 30 knot speed and 8 x 13" guns they would be a problem for any BC including Alaska - which really was a unique ship and appropriate classed as a Large Cruiser (CB) not a BC - except Hood which even as oldest of them would wreck any Battle Cruiser 1 v 1. nine of ten times.
Fisher's concept of the Battlecruiser, being his idea, was a ship that was purpose built to hunt down Armored Cruisers engaged in Cruiser Warfare, what we would call Commerce Raiding. To that end they needed speed in order to outrun more powerful vessels, and large guns in order to be able to quickly overwhelm Armored Cruisers.
As to the German Great Cruisers, they were armored that way because Tirpitz believed that the first duty of a warship was to stay afloat.
Developments in German Naval Theory led to the understanding that Great Cruisers, and Battleships were merging into a common type, which was essentially the Fast Battleship.
It's a great, light overview of the whole battlecruiser quagmire. Quagmire created by those who need to have their version be the right one and everyone knowing. What you said on the video pretty much mirrors something said in "Master & Commander": subject to the requirements of the service. Those are not equal for each navy, something people fail to acknowledge.
Keep 'em comin'.
Cheers, mate.
Pretty interesting video regarding battlecruisers in general. Most people honestly don't really know what roll, or rolls, the battlecruiser was supposed to take. I think they were perfect for hunting enemy cruisers, while keeping effective distance from enemy battleships, thanks to their emphasis on speed. With the Washington Naval Treaty taken effect, the battlecruiser project ceased right then and there, with HMS Hood being the last battlecruiser to be commissioned. Others were either scrapped or were converted into aircraft carriers. Also, with the growing idea of building battleships with increased speed, but no real compromise on armor protection, gave way to the fast battleship concept, the term battlecruiser became obsolete. Many believed HMS Hood was the first true fast battleship instead of a battlecruiser. Either way, the fast battleship blurred the distinctive line between themselves and the battlecruiser.
In British service they were the flagship for colonial fleets that is why Australia and new Zealand bought one each .
Pity Canada and South Africa did not buy some it would have come in really handy in ww2
Four roles. Commerce raiding, counter raiding, colonial flagships, and fleet scouting.
In all of these roles they relied on their ability to totally overmatch older armoured cruisers, while keeping their speed. All of these roles wer traditionally filled by either protected or armoured cruisers, and they were just the next step up, or the dreadnought to the armoured cruisers predreadnought.
In a time when radio was still very new, High Frequency Radio direction finding was in its infancy, and the airplane was still very much a toy, it is difficult to look back in time and appreciate the scouting/hunting/communication roles intended for the battle cruisers and their need for greater speed to cover the seas quickly. Developments in carriers and carrier aviation and later RADAR and HFDF (and to a lesser extent submarine "picket lines") "took over" those functions. At the same time the Hood began the metamorphosis of the "battle cruiser" into the fast battleship, which was carried on by the Japanese rebuilds of the Kongo class and reached its zenith with Vanguard and the Iowa class ships..
Concerning Lion and the Orion-class: the reason often cited for removing one of the turrets was not so much saving the weight but needing the space of its magazine for the additional boilers and turbines required to get to the desired speed. That is also the reason why Lion had the suboptimal turret AB-Q-Y instead of the better suited AB-XY: the engines needed to be at position of X turret and for some reason the british weren't willing to make a redesign to allow Q-turret to become an X-turret like in Tiger, Derfflinger or Kongo.
And while I agree that comparing the battlecruisers to their contemporary battleship-partners is the right choice, comparing Nassau and Von der Tann is difficult because the Nassaus still use the voluminous triple-expansion engines, requiring the hexagonal layout of the turrets, while Von der Tann already has the lighter and more efficient turbines.
SMS von der Tann had with 27 knots a 8 knots real speed advantage over the SMS Nassau at 19 knots. The advantage in later ships diminished only slightly as the battleships got faster reaching above 21 knots. Both Moltke and Goeben reached 28 knots and Seydlitz as well. Only the Derfflinger class was slower with around 26 knots, but still 5 knots faster than the battle ships. I talked about real measured speeds at trials.
The German battlecruiser were from the beginning meant to be able to fight beside the battleships. But there main purpose were still scouting. One could call the German Battle cruisers the first fast battleships.
Great video, Crosser, many thanks as usual!
In truth the battle cruiser as the English saw it was a hunter to chase down commerce raiders as the Uk focus was to protect its trade routes. The germans with a smaller navy wanted a duel purpose unit that could commerce raid, to outrun battleships and outgun cruisers……the Japanese philosophy, limited to a smaller navy by treaty, was to build high quality vessels that outmatched those units in opposing navies. The hood was actually well,armoured and gain most her speed from hydro dynamic efficiency as she was long. When you look at the weight displaced by battle cruisers, it gradually crept up and ships like the hood at over 40k tons were arguable the forerunner to ships like the Iowa…..the fast battleship, where, as the main striking force moved from battleships to carriers, the slow battleship was only really useful for shore bombardment and convoy protection from commerce raiders, and the modern fast battleships were those used to escort and protect carriers…and grew into floating anti aircraft batteries…..
Each ship built is "subject to the requirements of its navy", hence that's the problem classification of ships, just look at sloops v frigates. The whole arena is a minefield
I toured the Japanese Battleship Mikasa in 1986 while deployed on USS Cape Cod AD 43.
Great video.
Ultimately the Battlecruiser made itself and the standard, slow 21kt battleships obsolete since eventually the battlecruisers culminated in the Fast Battleship concept (Hood).
Most likely the main difference between the German and most other nations battlecruisers is that they usually seemed to lag behind in the size of their main battery weapons however this was somewhat compensated by their weapons quality such as generally having equal or superior range with guns 1 or 1 1/2" smaller size.
@@trauko1388 Not really. The reason why Germany armored it's ships the way it did, and has smaller than average gun sizes when compared to other capital ships, was because they expected combat ranges to be far shorter. And, with the combat ranges they were expecting to be fighting at, more armor for being able to take more horizontally moving shells, and smaller guns for lighter shells that can be reloaded somewhat faster were considered a priority. Meanwhile, the British were expecting fights to take place at much further ranges, so they wanted to focus on gun size, and speed, since having more range between themselves and their opponent meant that there would be enough time to change beating after seeing a muzzle flash. That, and the ships wouldn't need to have as thick of hull armor since they'd be more armored to deal with plunging fire. Once you are looking at guns of any battleship size, it's essentially impossible to armor your ships in a way that makes them impervious to damage, so, they are instead armored for an optimal fighting range, where any gun that is comparable to the guns the ship is using, at a specific range, cannot harm the ship. However, everyone knew that they'd eventually take damage in combat.
@@trauko1388 Have to disagree here. The germans expected shorter combat ranges because they reasonably expected to fight in the North Sea or Baltic were unlike e.g. the mediterranean visibility often is not that good as to allow for longer ranges. Yes, the germans favored smaller guns and increased firing speed, also they made the design choice to favor more amour vs. more firepower. But their guns weren't that much better than the british. And that they needed bigger guns and their entire approach to the issue of gun caliber might be a bit flawed was something that the High Seas Fleet acknowledged with construction of the Bayern-class. With these they increased the caliber by a whole three inches and that at a time when it was not yet known that the british were also introducing that caliber on the QEs to counter the 10 14-inch guns on the Texas-class (friendly or not, it can't be someone has a bigger ship than the Royal Navy).
@@horationelson2440 The RN Intention:
§1 we are the best!
§2 our ships are the best
§3 the german fleet should be copenhagend!
§4. in case 1-2-3-4 will not work mainly because unfair germans we immediately go to
§5 Call in big cousin from overseas !!
@@michaelpielorz9283 The Royal Navy at the onset of WW1, was far and away, larger than the US Navy. Now, in total number of capital ships, the US would become more equal due to the US having to not deal with wartime shortages anywhere near as badly as the European countries due to them joining the war in 1917. But, even then, the US lacked cruisers, and while the Royal Navy even began to convert and construct carriers, the US had none to speak of during WW1. Yes, the US did send a squadron of dreadnoughts to the UK to aid during WW1, but it was compromised of the older dreadnoughts the US had, and not the newer standard classes. Not only that, but the Germans never ended up clashing with the combined fleet anyway, meaning that... Other than the deterrent value of having a few extra dreadnoughts in operation, the US Navy in terms of capital ships and fleet actions during WW1, didn't do much. Now, the US did construct an absolutely ludicrous amount of destroyers, and these would be able to aid a great deal in terms of convey escort duties, and scouting duties, along with general anti-submarine warfare. However, the Royal Navy was definitely the main presence of naval power for the allied forces in WW1.
@@michaelpielorz9283 Non of the American Battleships could hit a barn door at six feet. Their gunnery was terrible, think Beaties Battlecruiser fleet then multiply by ten. iF not for the gunnery training given by the Grand fleet, they wouldn't have stood a chance against two fishermen in a rowing boat, with a catapult. Big cousin was really a little boy wet behind the ears in 1917
I enjoyed the video very much. I am glad the "Alaska" class was not mention because in my mind they are super heavy cruisers.
If they were built in 1910 then sure, but by the 40s you couldn’t really call 12 inch guns battleship-level armament 😂
@@shaun1293the funny thing is, 12 is right in-between 8 and 16, so you can make the case for both. I'd say that, given it's cruiser-hunter design and high speed, the title of battlecruiser would serve.
W video man, great job!
There are 3 things used in referring to ships through WWII.
The ships name.
The Ships Class.
The Ships Category.
Categories are generally Destroyer, Cruiser, Battle Cruiser and Battleship.
The ships found in each of these categories were all vastly different in size, armament and speed. So - trying to come up with yet more categories - some for single ships classes - is absurd. Specialists love to do that - to no purpose. No one knows what they are talking about - but themselves when they use these refined categories - and they don't agree with each other. A Giant Waste of Time.
If you want to be detailed in your classification of a ship - use it's Class.
A Battle Cruiser is simply anything between a Cruiser and a Battleship.
.
No. A Battlecruiser is a ship with cruiser like top speed and battleahip caliber guns.
If it also has vattleship armour, its a fast battleship.
Protectedcruiser -> Lightcruiser + Heavycruiser
Armouredcruiser -> Battlecruiser
Good job. Keep it going.
Good overview.
The top brass at the USN shunned the whole idea up to 1914. But it became evident to them that the battlecruiser squadrons of both Britain and Germany were getting all the action, while the main battle fleets remained in port.
There´s another aspect for the German battlecruiser design. As the German admiralty knew that Germany had a smaller industrial capacity than Great Britain they wanted their battlecruisers to operate together with the battleships. So they were in fact fill-ins for the battle line - or reconnaisance ships, just as needed.
"Britain produced about twice as much steel as Germany during the early 1870s, Germany's steel production exceeded Britain's in 1893, and by 1914 Germany was producing more than twice as much steel as Britain."
@@danielebrparish4271 I was talking about industrial capacity and that means shipyards above all. GB had far more of them than Germany.
@@danielebrparish4271hmmm it's almost like Germany had OTHER things to build using that steel rather than ships and their navy wasn't nearly as important to them as for England, who would've known.
@@danielebrparish4271 Germany couldn't produce heavy guns in the same quantities or large calibers as Britain. Big guns, their turrets, barbettes and associated equipment are the most complicated items on a Dreadnaught. The production of the armament dictates how fast and how many Battleships and Battlecruisers can be ordered and constructed in a given time frame. There is no point laying down four Dreadnaughts a year if you can only arm two of them.
Nassau class had one advantage: firing under local control the 2 off side turrets could defend the ship if surrounded.
I'm no nexpert on gunboats but it seems Cruisers were handy in the tight confines of the Salomon Islands and Guadalcanal Sound aka Iron Bottom sound in a way that Battleships found maneuvering constrained. Correct me if I'm wrong but Halsey seemed to go to destroyers Island hopping up the "Slot" primarily if not entirely because our Cruisers had either been sunk or put into dry-dock for damage repair.
I think that manuverability was not an issue in the Solomon Islands campaign. The main problems were the ineffectiveness of U.S. torpedoes and the unbelieveable range and effectiveness of the Japanese Long Lance torpedoes. Another factor was the tactics the Japanese developed for night fighting. Their lookouts were required to use eye shields when their navy was shooting so they could have superior night vision. They selected only those seamen who had extraordinary vision for lookout duty. They used massive binoculars but the best tactic was to send scout planes in advance of the navy to drop illuminating flares by parachute to light up the seas near the isand. This blinded their opponets and gave their navy a clear unobstructed view of the enemy fleet. They also used flashless powder to prevent the enemy from being able to see what direction the shots were coming from. Another great tactic was the use of dyes that identified an individual ships shells. This prevented one ship from adjusting their aim based on another ship's shells. There was so much confusion that some of the U.S. ships fired on each other. What saved us was the coast watchers who allerted us when ememy ships or planes were enroute to Guadalcanal. This prevented the Japanese from supplying their troops with food, ammo and medical supplies which resulted in large numbers of Japanese soldiers dying from starvation and tropical diseases.
@@danielebrparish4271 All that and Type 93s were what either sank or dry-docked the cruisers we did have in the Pacific at Savo Island, Tassaferonga and operations in the slot thereafter. Nevertheless I believe cruisers still enjoyed a maneuverability advantage over battleships in confined waters such as Guadalcanal Sound. Mikawa took a force of Cruisers, not battleships, into the sound to sink five Allied Cruisers.
@@danielebrparish4271this campaign is the peak of ijn and i think its one of the best than what happened later where the ijn is basically useless due to the unfair industrial might of the US.
Kirov class was a great come back.
I quite enjoy the "What is a Battle cruiser" discussion because there are so many different valid interpretations, and then what ships fit.
For me it's always been role. Broadly, it's a ship that can either conduct merchant raiding with impunity to the escorts (armoured/heavy cruisers) in firepower and protection, or hunt merchant raiders using superior speed and then later be able counter other battlecruisers. The ability to assist in the line of battle to increase relative numbers is a secondary role, probably a requirement in smaller navies.
This means armour immune to 'standard' cruiser guns, high speed and gun calibres over 10 inch (ie larger than any cruiser-grade gun).
So I do not consider HMS Hood to be a true battle cruiser, because there's no way the most powerful capital ship in the world is going to be used to hunt merchant raiding cruisers! For me she is the first Fast Battleship.
However (probably controversially) I do think USS Alaska is a battlecruiser, along with the Japanese B65 design. As are the Renown sisters, the Kongo's and (probably also controversially, but their careers are mostly merchant raiding) the Scharnhorst's. All these ships do fit the definition I give in terms of role, use and speed/protection/firepower.
SMS Blucher would not be a battlecruiser, she is an armoured cruiser (and her loss confirms that to me).
I'm happy to be disagreed with, like I say, that's the fun part of the debate; it's one of those subjects that is down to personal choice (within justifiable reasoning).
A cruiser is a ship that si designed to cruise. That is conduct long range solo operations of a vide variety, from sealane control, disaster relief, long range reconnaisance, colonial protection, or power projection, convoy defence or commerce raiding, or even fleet scouting. Its a swiss army knife ship.
I thought battlecruisers were heavy cruisers with battleship armement, mostly dual mounted, and for something like the USS Alaska, has their main batteries inbetween A heavy cruiser and battleship.
I also thought they were a bit smaller then battleships, but they are almost the complete same.
And the purpose, i would think they would act as a assistant ship to the battleship, or work in a seperate fleet.
You are on target. Cruisers were advanced scouts for the Battleships and were classified by the size of their batteries. 6 inch or smaller batteries were in the Light Class Cruisers (CL). Those with 8 inch or larger batteries were Heavy Cruisers (CA). They had much bigger guns and more armor then enemy Destroyers and could out run Battleships. They also made excellent escorts for the faster Light Carriers (CVL). Speed was a major factor in protecting ships from enemy submarines. Speed was so effective that troops were sent to Europe via the Ocean Liners HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Queen Mary without the use of convoy or aircraft protection.
The USN began building two battlecruisers in the 1920's. Luckily they decidedc to make them into aircraft carriers instead. I refer to the USS Lexington (CV-2)and the USS Saratoga (CV3). Thankfully in WW2 in the Pacific the USN made the correct choice
USN brass were very impressed with Derfflinger. But the design of Lexington (originally a slightly improved Derfflinger) was altered by too many committee suggestions and over-rulings.
Battlecruisers had glass jaws in the face of dreadnoughts and fast battleships. So they need to run away
Needs better mic, but good video :)
The mic is fine lol. Yeah its not one of the bests out there but it is still good, no reason to buy a new one in my opinion.
I think the best definition for battlecruiser is “A ship that’s capabilities are in between a heavy cruiser and a battleship”
Do you have any criticisms of this definition ?
I would say it would have to have a main armament caliber of contemporary battleships.
The Alaska class of the 1940s have been argued between heavy cruiser and Battlecruiser because of its 12 inch guns, but by 1940, 12 inch guns couldn’t really be called battleship armament when pretty much every major navy had 14-18 inch guns.
Similar can be said for the Deutschland class pocket battleships (actually heavy cruisers) which only had 11 inch main guns in the 1930s. By comparison, the Orion class had 13.5 inch guns by around 1910, and the New York class had 14 inch by 1914. Battlecruisers of the time had similar calibers, minus a turret or two for engine space.
@@shaun1293 12 inch is a battleship gun diameter
If there was a cut off point between non-battleship & battleship gun diameter it would be 12 inch i’m pretty sure that a foot long in American
@@avus-kw2f213 12 inch was pretty much the battleship standard caliber from 1895 to 1910, when ships with 13.5 and 14 inch guns began to appear, with armour to match. Due to this, 12 inch guns for battleships quickly became obsolete; if I remember correctly, all british 12-inch BBs and BCs were scrapped by the early 1920s because of it. The American 12-inch dreadnoughts ended up being heavily modified or converted, and the only one that saw extensive WW2 service was Arkansas, and even then it was mostly coastal bombardments and patrols.
The exception to this were the two Scharnhorst-class battleships built during the 30s. Hitler reluctantly ordered them to have 11-inch guns to keep tensions at bay with the U.K. They were supposed to be upgraded to 15 inch guns like the Bismarck-class battleships, but never came to be. They fired heavier, faster shells than previous 11-inch guns but were still completely outmatched by other BBs and BCs at the time. Their speed of 31 knots was their saving grace on more than one occasion, for example when both faced BC HMS Renown, got pounded and had to escape.
So that concludes my point. 12-inch was a good battleship caliber before WW1. After, they were outmatched and became obsolete. Therefore, the caliber required to class something as a battleship or battlecruiser changes over time. The Alaska class 12 inch guns stood no chance of penetrating the belt armor of contemporary battleships, was outmatched by the last battlecruisers, but could pulverise anything else.
@@shaun1293 how much ships did battleships sink in ww2 in the Pacific ? & how much required guns bigger then 12 inch ?
@@avus-kw2f213 well by that time, the aircraft carrier was king, and most battleships in the pacific were sunk by aircraft. Fuso was heavily damaged by aircraft but remained afloat until she was torpedoed the next day and sunk. Yamashiro was in the same battle, hit by two torpedoes, flooded but remained afloat. She was then attacked by 6 American battleships, 3 heavy cruisers, 4 light cruisers. She was hit multiple times by 16-inch salvos but remained afloat for some time. Only after she was crippled and hit with a few more torpedos did she finally sink.
Kirishima and Hiei, heavy cruiser Atago and destroyers were also intercepted by Heavy Cruiser San Francisco, light cruiser Helena and destroyers. The Americans focused fire on Hiei, giving Kirishima the chance to damage both cruisers. Hiei was crippled by the repeated shellfire, but continued to fight. She remained afloat and was scuttled 3 days later.
It was only then that Kirishima was intercepted by the new battleships USS South Dakota and Washington. In the ensuing engagement, Kirishima knocked out 4 destroyers, sinking 3. She hit South Dakota with multiple 14 inch salvos, none of with penetrated. Her secondary guns knocked out various systems. Safe to say 12 inch guns would have had more of a secondary affect at this point if 14 inch shells can’t even pen. For reference, 14 inch shells were almost double the weight of 12 inch shells.
Washington started firing her 16 inch guns at a short range of about 5km, Kirishima was hit at least 20 times, penetrated her armour and blew her magazine. Survivors were later rescued before she sank 3 hours later.
I'm early at the video to comment, I think the Japanese made the best out of what they had on their Cruisers as everything is imported. Or taken away from conquered territories.
Anyways I'm curious why they made the Musashi and Yamato battleships having no significant effect on WW2.
No battleships had any significant effect on WWII because The Battle of The Coral Sea demonstrated their obsolescence as a weapon. Their susceptibility to air and submarine attack relegated them to the role of escourt duty and attacking island defenses. WWII ushered in The Aircraft Carrier as the leading weapon in all navies and was the last time that any navy laid down a keel for a battleship.
I think the Dunkerque is probably the best example of a battlecruiser,no?
I would say no on one ground. I do not believe it is up to modern day historians/enthusiast to reclassify ships. Operating navies were well aware of what they were doing and classified the ships as they had seen justified. France classed Dunkerque as a battleship, and that is how it should stay. I don't think their classifications should be tampered with decades after the fact.
@@centralcrossing4732 i know,that the point of the video,no?
@@JokeFranic Reclassifying ships is not the point of the video. The video is simply bringing an understanding as to what each operating nation (of battlecruisers) interpreted the battlecruiser as and why a uniform definition doesn't work for them.
While good the Tsukuba class doesn't quite fit a lot of the definitions of Battle Cruiser as they are significantly slower than contemporary cruisers and therefore couldn't chase them down like what happened at the Battle of Falklands. While at 20.5 Knots they were faster than contemporary Predreadnaugts which were 17-18knots most cruisers of that period were over 21knots usually 23 knots. When the Invincibles came on the scene 5 years later they were faster than any other cruiser in the world thus allowing them to catch an kill every cruiser in the word
I understand your points. The Tsukuba class was mainly mentioned for it's combination of a cruiser hull and battleship guns which separated it from contemporary armoured cruisers and standard battleships. It's just an intermediate design that falls in-between which is technically what battlecruisers were made of, intermediate designs. I also put it in because the Japanese did reclassify them as battlecruisers when the term entered use in 1912. As I've told other commenters, I don't mess around with classifications used by navies and thus I'll use it as it was officially registered. Thanks for the input.
Great subject as usual, I know that there is also belief that the Scharnhorst is a battleship, however I know that it is in fact a battlecruiser.
If you have the time, may I ask to clarify the Alaska class, I know that it is designated as CB, and I do like the design, which is it actually.
Take care, and all the best.
For the US "battle cruisers" built later in the war, they were called CA, neaning large cruiser. The USN also mounted 12" guns as to the German 11" main guns . If you look at photos of the US Alaska and Gaum, they look like a smaller version of the US Iowa class battleships. They were build to counter what became a nonexistint German battle cruiser fleet, I refer to the Schorenhorst and Gneisanau and the "pocket battleships.
Oh no heroic brits sunk a dreaded germanBATTLESHIP not a flimsy Battlecruiser !!
@@briankorbelik2873 If you look at Alaska class from above rather than the side, it looks like a Cruiser not a Battle ship or Battlecruiser. I wouldn't want to go up against a Sharnhorst in one, the latter had Battleship level armour!
@@michaelpielorz9283 The British refered to the ships as Battlecruisers, the Germans called them Schlachtschiff (battleship).
Why didn't they position the amidships turret so that it could fire to both port and starboard? The hull would be too long?
I remember reading something that it had to do with the internal engine layout. Remember that the turrets are not simply put on top of the deck, the entire reload and magazine structure extends all the way to the bottom of the ship below the waterline. So anywhere the turrets are placed, you cant place any propulsion machinery. And I remember reading that this was one of the issues with early dreadnoughts and battlecruisers, they still needed the entire midships section for propulsion machinery and had to place the magazines around that machinery, which then dictated the turret placement.
It was to do with evolution/technology.
Dreadnought had three guns on the centre line, two "wing" turrets. This meant that they could only use 4 of the 5 guns (well, 8 out of ten guns, 4 out of five mounts) at any one time.
So the staggered ( "En Echelon") midships idea meant that the midships turrets could fire to either side, so in theory, could use all guns in broadside fire. It didn't work, as limited arc of fire by the far side gun, and blast damage to superstructure around it. Typically, boats/davits/aircraft all stowed midships, and all very fragile (and flammable) , so firing across deck was a really impractical idea.
It wasn't used for long. In the RN, there were less than a dozen battleships and battlecruisers that used it in the early 1910's or so.
What changed it? "Superfiring" turrets, that is the general term for turrets stacked above each other, which started with the Lion class battlecruisers (fwd) and the Colossus class battleships (aft).
It wasn't that they hadn't thought of that, it was evolution of fire control.
With earlier ships, mounts (turrets) were individually controlled, and they had "sighting hoods", so a gun in close proximity meant that there was significant danger of blast damage/injury from the gun above.
Once ships had directors, and central fire control, the mounts were better protected/could eliminate sighting hoods, and the blast from the gun above was no longer a factor. Hence every ship from Lion/Colossus incorporated them in some layout or other.
@trauko1388
And the U.S. built it's battleships with super imposed turrets and superfiring capability from the start!
I never have figured out why Great Britain failed to do so until the Hood!
I whish someone could give a rational reason.
@xXNightDriverXx
I would buy that argument except for the fact that the USN was able to place all of its turrets on the center line and make them superfiring as well!
It appears to me that the British designers were not very competent.
@@mahbriggs - At the start of WWI HMS Dreadnought was virtually obsolete.
Good Video, however, leaving out the American Battle Cruisers and the French designs is a little sus...As if you had included them, they would have destroyed your own argument...As American and French Battle Cruisers had minimal Armor and stressed speed and guns....
I don't see how that destroys the argument. I'd say it reinforced the diverse approach to battlecruiser design. My argument is not that sacrifices were not made for battlecruisers, rather that each nation approached them differently to fulfill their philosophies. So having a uniform definition for them is complicated and wrong. I didn't include paper designs as why should I? There's nothing suspicious about that decision, it's just that they don't add to the topic and realistically don't matter as they weren't constructed (as designed).
Thanks for commenting.
Ohhh and...While the Saratoga and Lady Lex weren't completed as Battle Cruisers, Alaska and Guam were
Semper Fi
@@randymarine Alaska and Guam are controversial. Personally, I use classifications assigned by the operating navy, I don't change them because of modern opinions. So for them it would be large cruisers.
Adding them in still doesn't explain how that destroys my argument as their existence doesn't delete the German and later Japanese and British designs.
Battlecruisers were intended to beat up on cruisers and do a pretty good job of doing the job of a battleship until a real battleship showed up.
aka Shoot and Scoot LOL. Aircraft, submarines and now missiles made big gun ships obsolete. Advances in radar and the development of satellites sealed their fate. The Battle of Coral Sea was the first time that a navy battle was fought outside of the effective range of any of the world's gunships i.e. Battleships and Cruisers. After Coral Sea opposing navies very rarely came within firing range of one another. Currently navies have missle cruisers but it's my opinion that they are a seperate class of warship.
Battlecruisers have tended to fair poorly, and often not just due to the poor armor. The Jutland losses would've happened regardless due to unsafe operation, and Force Z was a suicide run for all involved. Seems like their speed + firepower had them put in the most dangerous situations by their countries, see Kirishima too. In almost every case, a full Fast Battleship would've done just as poorly.
@@trauko1388
The problem wasn’t limited to this-the fact British cordite had a tendency to be more volatile arguably played an even bigger role (as seen with Invincible, which wasn’t part of Beatty’s squadron and thus didn’t have the ammunition handling issues).
Battlecruisers fared wonderfully in their intended role - look at the Battle of Falkland Isles and what HMS Invincible and HMS Inflexible were able to achieve. What that scumbag Beatty did with his beautiful ships at Jutland should have been prosecuted by court-martial.
@@bkjeong4302 Invincible had exactly the same ammunition handling issues as the other Battlecruisers at Jutland. A shell penetrated the front of 'Q' turret, blew off the roof and ignited cordite in the turret and the working chamber. The fire flashed down to the magazine and the resulting amidship explosion broke the ship in two.
No Battlecruiser was lost at Jutland due to a direct magazine penetration. The wrecks show that the ships were overloaded with additional cordite charges and shells, the former being stored outside the magazines. In addition, the safety interlocks were removed between the magazine and gunhouse to promote a more rapid rate of fire.The volatility of the cordite is kind of a red herring, if the correct amunition handeling prodedures were in place and the interlocks had not been removed, no British Battlecruisers would have been lost at Jutland.