Battlecruiser Introduction- General History
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- First in the series on Battlecruiser development and history, this covers the genesis of the concept in very general terms. It shows the background, why they were developed, and how.
Further videos will come covering the details of different nations doctrine and designs.
Further reading:
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...
Admittedly it would not be the first time I messed something up by leaving out words. But when talking about Vanguard, it is quoted in her design studies:
"A ship mounting 15-inch guns on a displacement of about 40,000 tons could probably be given a speed of about 30 knots without making any substantial sacrifice in protection and although not quite so powerful as our 16-inch gun ships when lying in the battleline, she would be of inestimable value as a fully armored battlecruiser:
(a) To detach in pursuit of Japanese 12-inch gun cruisers raiding our Eastern Trade routes.
(b) To counter Japanese 8-inch gun cruisers in battle.
(c) To operate in Indian and Australian waters before the arrival of our Fleet in the Far East, such a ship would be very appropriate for the Royal Australian Navy to take over."
(British Battleships of World War Two, Raven)
Granted, this is *design studies* and where I messed up there, but eh. Mistakes were made. It happens. The important thing is admitting to mistakes and not doubling down.
That said, the British do still have that thing of at least *starting* with calling anything above 25 knots as a battlecruiser. Even if they eventually settle on battleship.
I have NEVER heard of HMS Vanguard ever being called a "Battle-cruiser". As far as we British are concerned she was very much a "Battleship".
Vanguard was the battleshippest battleship the Brits ever had.
As said in the pinned comment, made a mistake, it was *design* studies that called her that. My bad.
Feel free to point out mistakes like this, I need to get better at not 'going off things that are accurate, but read them years ago, and use them in the wrong context' with these things.
@@skyneahistory2306 Don‘t bother, nobody‘s perfect; otherwise everybody had read your pinned comment. ;)
Your channel is great!
Great work, thanks for the detailed information.
This is genuinely the best take I’ve ever seen on battlecruisers and explaining them. Especially in relation to the German designs. Which as you say we’re simply direct counters with more armour, smaller calibre and less speed. While the Royal Navy was concerned about absolutely obliterating cruisers harassing her commerce. The Germans were indeed concerned a duel between them. The Germans also put less focus on range as their fleet would be operating largely just in the North Sea.
To be fair the original concept worked pretty well as many cruisers even going into World War One were still making as little as 23knots. As can be seen at the Falklands battlecruisers were brutally effective and would’ve been very effective in fleet engagements against foes lacking them.
A note on 'battleship-caliber' guns: it really does vary. The German Wittelsbach- and Kaiser Friederich III-class predreadnought battleships had only 9.4" guns, rather than the eleven inches of the preceding Brandenburg-class.
The US heavy cruisers USS Alaska and Guam carried 12" main battery and did the US Battle Ships USS Wyoming and Arkansas.
If you follow the concept design of Battlecruisers. You can fit Alaska and Iowa into this too.
Also I love Bullies these two ships and called them Battlecruisers to piss USN off.
0:02 General Kenobi
Would love to hear more about the giant tin cans that were supposed to be the US battle cruisers (before they decided planes were more important)
Hey!! Can you do a video over the U.S.S. Marathon? Especially around the time it was heading to Japan (before the A Bombs) and when they were kamikazed at Buckner Bay?
Speed was a prime requisite of all battlecruisers. Not weird at all.
*cough* razee *cough* . . . though in truth the concept probably goes back much further than that, possibly to who had the faster/sturdier floating log
As an awe-inspiring sight battlecruisers are more impressive than battleships because when you put the battleship next to its battlecrusier of the time the battlecrusier was far larger by most times at least 50 feet .look at the super dreadnought hms queen Elizabeth and then look at hms hood which is nearly 200 feet longer
Keep at it. You will get better each time.
Rather than being odd calibers I'd say 9.2" and 9.4" were rather standard for Royal Navy and Germany/Austria.
Want some unsolicited advice? Instead of apologizing when you flub a line in your script (you have excellent scripts by the way) just start over and edit out the blooper. Makes for more engaging content!
So basically a battlecruiser is a ship between a heavy cruiser and a battleship. Uses battleship like guns and incorporates speed as part of the armor instead of focusing on just thicker armor. They would be designed to hunt down either cruisers or battleships. Just my guess.
Blucher was a vastly superiour concept than Inturdable. Speed, armour, and armament all considered: who wins? No contest. As reference, USN 'Standards' will emerge victorious from any combat against a contemporaneous vessel so stupid as to remain in an engagement.
00:36 at least on the surface...I hear what you did there
As a Brit, yes, yes we are weird...
Fatal flaw. Acting like a battleship.
Battlecruisers never engaged battleships at Jutland
@@ianwilson515 They never exploded or had casualties either???
@@James-nl6fu so battleships engage battleships, cruisers other cruisers destroyers other destroyers.
Just battlecruisers shouldn't engage other battlecruisers?
History, Sunshine, is for those who (learned to study) understand it. Back to your 24 hour mining operation for nasal and rectal gold, Sunshine 🌞
@@James-nl6fu i have no idea what you mean.
If you want to understand this subject i am happy to explain, with reliable sources.
If not, then no skin off of my nose.