Is the battlecruiser concept really dead???

[reve893]

I am interested in some professional and more informed opinions.

[Tiornu]

The problem is, you'll get a hundred definitions for the battlecruiser concept, most of them equally valid even as they fundamentally disagree. Strictly speaking, the battlecruiser concept was to give an all-big-gun armament to an armored cruiser. Both the all-big-gun armament and the armored cruiser are as dead as a dead can be, so I'd say the concept is dead.
The armored cruiser was a ship as large as a battleship with the design skewed in favor of mobility. The anticipated mission was in fact a whole laundry list of duties--commerce raiding, commerce protection, fleet scouting, and battle-line action. The ships were relatively fast, and their arament (initially) was founded on the destructiveness of rapid-fire guns. The ever-increasing range of practical gunnery dictated the switch to big guns.
We might be able to mold some metaphor of this into something resembling a modern ship, but I think the translation would be loose enough to be pointless. The battlecruiser steamed across seas free of submarines and aircraft. The naval world was a different one.

[gunnut]

Battlecruisers may be dead, but I really like that name. It just invokes the imagery of colonial times when empires struggled to dominate the ocean trade routes and to project power beyond the shores.

The original idea for the battlecruiser was a ship that could outfight anything that she could not outrun. It's pretty hard to outfight dedicated anti-ship missiles these days. And it's pretty hard to outrun fast attack boats. Fast attack boats armed with large anti-ship missiles? That could get expensive to outrun or outfight.

[maximusslade]

Well anyone who's seen me in here before knows my idea of a modern battlecruiser.

[Dayton3]

Basically, a number of Soviet warships such as the Kirov's and Slava's could be considered "battlecruisers".

That is, massive weapons (big SSMs), lightly armored.

But in the aftermath of the Cold War, most naval observers who have had a chance evaluate the vessels seem to think that they would be pretty much "one hit wonders".

Surviving long enough to launch their missiles the first day of the war, then be destroyed when the USN launched a counterattack.

The battlecruiser concept was built around the idea that

"Speed is armor".

But "Speed is armor" could not get past the other idea of "Ships get hit!"

As was proven at Jutland and later in WWII by the Hood (which was actually a WWI era design) a ship that cannot withstand a hit is a deathtrap to its crew.

[maximusslade]

Got a weed in my rear this evening. I've been bouncing some ideas around my head and finally decided to put them down on paper. Here is how I might imagine a modern "battlecruiser."

[dundonrl]

from what I was told as a youngser, a Battleship had immunity to her own guns, while a Battle Cruiser didn't.. therefor making the last Battle Cruiser in active duty the USS Missouri BB 63, since with the addition of the 16" 50 caliber guns vice the 16" 45 caliber guns on the earlier Treaty Battleships, she didn't have immunity to her own guns..

[USSWisconsin]

from what I was told as a youngser, a Battleship had immunity to her own guns, while a Battle Cruiser didn't.. therefor making the last Battle Cruiser in active duty the USS Missouri BB 63, since with the addition of the 16" 50 caliber guns vice the 16" 45 caliber guns on the earlier Treaty Battleships, she didn't have immunity to her own guns.

Interesting point, Still the Iowa's were designed with immunity to their own guns and the later super heavy shells were what changed this. That brings up another question: were the German battlecruisers of WWI realy battlecruisers? Since they had enough armor to resist their own guns, and even the 12" guns which armed many of the battleships of the time, and were considered battlecruisers because they carried lighter main guns (11") to allow greater speed. Their resilience at the Battle of Jutland was remarkable.

In responce to the question asked in this thread, I don't think the battlecruiser concept is dead, I beleive the concept of the battlecruiser lives on as what we now consider a destroyer in our navy. The Burke class, with all her missiles, certainly has far more hitting power than she could endure herself, and more than even WWII battleship could dish out, at least in the openning salvo.

[Guest]

I had always assumed that Fisher's intention for the battle cruiser (known to him as armoured cruisers) was as an eventual replacement for the battleship and as an instrument of imperial retribution. His initial concern was not for war in Europe but threats to the Empire - this could come from France, Russia or even Japan and the USA. His battle cruisers could be dispatched to, for example a threatened Australia, their range (in any event there were British coaling stations and 'friendly' nations all over the place) and relatively high speed would mean a surprise appearance for the 'enemy'. What I believe Fisher meant by 'speed is armour' is that you can not damage a ship you cannot hit. The battle cruiser could dictate the range to a point where she could hit the enemy but not be hit herself. Having finished off the enemy ships the battle cruiser(s) would return to their central base, the UK. The nearest battle cruisers came fulfilling this role was at the Falklands.

This is rather similar to the Roman solution for the defence of their empire. Instead of stationing legions all around the empire they developed mobile armies which could be dispatched to anywhere the empire was threatened. Undoubtedly Fisher was a brilliant strategist, unfortunately he was not so good at the detail.

It is not gun range that matters nor the rate of fire but rather what is the greatest range at which a ship could consistently hit her opponent. In that sort of engagement armour is not important if you are not going to be hit. It was a revolutionary concept, the problem was that the most important element was missing;a method of hitting the enemy at a greater range than you can be hit. Fisher just seems to have assumed that the RN would be able to do this. The experience of Jutland demonstrated how wrong he was.

That system MAY have been there with Pollen's instruments, but that is another debate.

[Rumrunner]

I think the BattleCruiser concept is dead. The advent and rise to prominence of carrier warfare and naval aviation rendered even the heavily armored Battleship all but obsolete, doubly so for the Battlecruiser. Combine that with the lessons learned during WWI and the early stages of WWII and it all but spelled the end of the large, lightly armored and heavily armed Battlecruiser running ahead and engaging in a running fight with the enemy.

Even the last US attempt at Battlecruisers with the no-expense-spared Alaska Class proved to be little more than capable AA screens for fast carrier groups. I forget now where I read it, but somebody wrote that the by the time the Alaska's put to sea, the ships they were built to fight had already been sunk or rendered useless by aircraft...or something to that effect.

I think if any gun/missile Cruiser design is ever to resurface, it will be something along the lines of a heavy cruiser, with enough armor and armament to take a solid beating while dishing out it's own. The typically all-or-nothing armor schemes of Battlecruisers proved to be a great idea if all was going your way, but pure death if things took a turn for the worse in battle.

"Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today." ~ Admiral of the Fleet David Beatty

[Tiornu]

I had always assumed that Fisher's intention for the battle cruiser (known to him as armoured cruisers) was as an eventual replacement for the battleship and as an instrument of imperial retribution. His initial concern was not for war in Europe but threats to the Empire

Yes, that's accurate. Norman Friedman gave a talk on this subject in 2004, and presumably his new book on net-centric warfare covers it in more detail.

by the time the Alaska's put to sea, the ships they were built to fight had already been sunk or rendered useless by aircraft...or something to that effect.

The Alaskas were intended to counter pocket battleships (the Japanese variety of which were non-existent) and heavy cruisers (the Japanese variety of which were largely irrelevant at the end of 1944).

The typically all-or-nothing armor schemes of Battlecruisers proved to be a great idea if all was going your way, but pure death if things took a turn for the worse in battle.

No pure battlecruiser was built with All-or-Nothing armor. It was in American battleships and in most capital ships after the battlecruiser and battleship merged into the fast battleship.

[Dreadnought]

The battleship and battlecruiser were already merging before the advent of the fast battleships. There are certain characteristics that are unmistakable in many features of the ships (some few, some many) that were built since USS North Carolina and USS Washington. The very first ships to don the battlecruiser sterns in the USN however unlike the Iowas making maximum beam directly amidships. The South Dakota's were very much the same in design meaning the battlecruiser stern and maximum beam amidships, The Iowas, battlecruiser stern, maximum beam 3/4's aft instead of amidships and a very sleek battlecruiser style tumblehome/clipper bow.