I'd look at most ships classes as more of a does it fit the majority of these characteristics than any hard and fast it must meet all of these. Otherwise with all the nations building different ships you'll just end up confused.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Alaska's: Battlecruisers or Large Cruisers?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Dreadnought View PostZ, When one looks at the displacement of other ships of the years that followed Yamato, Musashi, Shinano, Graf Zepplin etc.
The term "battlecruiser", battleship, pocket battleship and heavy cruiser remained as fluid as did others.
As for the pocket battleships, in reality they were simple super gunned heavy cruisers. They had heavy cruiser armor, speed and displacement.
Even the Des Moines class for how big she was could have been considered a "battlecruiser".
The terms were meant to fit the Naval treaties of the day. Like lawyers they manipulated the terms used in the agreements of the day often enough to actually hide what it was they were building or had plans to build at the time. An open loop of "one upmanship" if you would.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostBy virtue of armor thickness, gun size, displacement, crew size and mission the Alaska class are battle cruisers. That the USN chose a different class name for them does not obviate where they would be stacked up against foreign vessels in a comparison of like types..
No less a naval authority than Dr. Norman Friedman solidly identifies then as large cruisers, in design, layout and intended mission.“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by TopHatter View PostTo be true "battlecruisers" their main battery would've been far larger than 12-inch...say, around 16-inch. And their speed would've been around 35 knots or higher.
No less a naval authority than Dr. Norman Friedman solidly identifies then as large cruisers, in design, layout and intended mission.
Comment
-
Then perhaps the term "large cruiser" is the correct term, as they were tasked to kill cruisers. "Battlecruiser" just sounded more ferocious, like "pocket battleship" sounded better than "armored cruiser."
The term "battlecruiser" probably resulted in the destruction of these magnificent ships in the Battle of Jutland when Jelicoe decided to stick them in the battle line rather than use their speed to flank and kill support vessels.
Be they "battlecruisers" or "large cruisers," their job was to kill cruisers and protect shipping lanes. They weren't meant to slug it out on the battlelines. Some went with large guns like the Hood (15") at the expense of deck armor. Some went with better protection like the Scharnhorst at the expense of gun caliber (11"). Alaska went with a very advanced 12" gun design and long range (12k nm)."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by gunnutSome went with large guns like the Hood (15") at the expense of deck armor.I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ArmchairGeneral View PostI'd say the Hood is closer to a plain old fast battleship than a battlecruiser. Her armor scheme was designed (albeit with serious flaws) to protect against 15" shells.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostHMS Indefatigable a classic battle cruiser had 12" guns and was launched in 1913 just before the war. HMS Warspite built at the same time and very much a battleship had 15" guns
First of all, you're comparing the more-or-less standard main battery of big-gun ships during World War I with those 30+ years later?
Because it certainly does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny, close or otherwise.
Your also comparing HMS Indefatigable, laid down in February 1909, to Warspite, laid down October 1912?
That's over 3.5 years, an eternity relatively speaking, considering how fast capital ship designs were leapfrogging ahead of each other. Given either calender dates or the context of the times, they were nowhere near being "built at the same time".
Originally posted by zraver View PostThe criterion that battle cruisers have battleship guns is a myth.
Originally posted by zraver View PostMany had guns .5-4" smaller than battleships of the time. The real gun criteria based on ships actually built and classified as battle cruisers is that they pack an armament heavier than a heavy cruiser. This means 10"+.
A simple perusal of easily obtainable facts gives the answer:
ALL of Indefatigable's battleship contemporaries, the Bellerophons, the St. Vincents and the Colossus', they all carried the 12-inch gun.
It was not until the Orion-class that a somewhat larger gun, the 13.5-inch, appeared. This continued on the next class, the King George V's and also on HMS Erin.
And while the those battleships increased their gun size, the battlecruisers were right there with them. Witness the 13.5-inch guns on the Lion-class and HMS Tiger.
It wasn't until two foreign-contracted battleships (HMS Agincourt and HMS Canada) were seized for RN use that the 14-inch gun appeared in the fleet and only with the final two World War I era class, the Queen Elizabeth-class (including Warspite) and Revenge-class, did the 15-inch gun appear.
And sure enough the battlecruisers kept pace: The Renown and Hood classes were both designed and built with the 15-inch gun (Hood, obviously, as an orphan in her class)
So I submit to you that the assertion that "classic" battlecruisers carried guns 4 or 5 inches smaller than their battleship cousins is simply wrong.
I also disagree with your definition of a battlecruiser, as applied to the Alaska's.
I'll borrow from Wiki for this statement, because it sums things up very well:
unlike most battlecruisers, they were considered a balanced design (according to cruiser standards) as their protection could withstand fire from their own caliber of gun, albeit only in a very narrow range band.
Originally posted by zraver View PostThe same can be said of battle cruisers. The Alaska had much the same mission as a battle cruisers- kill enemy cruisers and lighter vessels, be fast and long ranged, be able to operate independently or part of a fleet.
Besides, that still leaves their cruiser armor scheme, their cruiser aircraft catapults placement, their cruiser aircraft hangers, their cruiser single-rudder system, their cruiser secondary armament layout and probably quite a few other things that I'm missing.“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
Comment
-
Was the Hood's armor scheme really flawed? Or maybe it was a calculated design to save weight? Conventional wisdom suggests that a battle in the North Atlantic usually involves close range firefight due to poor weather and visibility. At that range, battleship guns are nearly flat. If so, then deck armor is unnecessary. As technology advanced, engagement distance increased. Shells came down at a higher angle. The RN wanted to refit Hood to bring her up to battleship standards but ran short on time.
Maybe we should have a discussion on whether the Hood was a battlecruiser or a battleship. :P"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TopHatter View PostFirst of all, you're comparing the more-or-less standard main battery of big-gun ships during World War I with those 30+ years later?
Your also comparing HMS Indefatigable, laid down in February 1909, to Warspite, laid down October 1912?
ALL of Indefatigable's battleship contemporaries, the Bellerophons, the St. Vincents and the Colossus', they all carried the 12-inch gun.
It was not until the Orion-class that a somewhat larger gun, the 13.5-inch, appeared. This continued on the next class, the King George V's and also on HMS Erin.
And while the those battleships increased their gun size, the battlecruisers were right there with them. Witness the 13.5-inch guns on the Lion-class and HMS Tiger.
It wasn't until two foreign-contracted battleships (HMS Agincourt and HMS Canada) were seized for RN use that the 14-inch gun appeared in the fleet and only with the final two World War I era class, the Queen Elizabeth-class (including Warspite) and Revenge-class, did the 15-inch gun appear.
And sure enough the battlecruisers kept pace: The Renown and Hood classes were both designed and built with the 15-inch gun (Hood, obviously, as an orphan in her class)
So I submit to you that the assertion that "classic" battlecruisers carried guns 4 or 5 inches smaller than their battleship cousins is simply wrong.
I also disagree with your definition of a battlecruiser, as applied to the Alaska's.
I'll borrow from Wiki for this statement, because it sums things up very well:
OK, so one of the intended missions of a the Alaska's matches one of the classic battlecruiser. And while they could operate with "a" fleet, Admiral King was quite emphatic that the Alaska's were not to used with the Battle Line.
Besides, that still leaves their cruiser armor scheme,
their cruiser aircraft catapults placement, their cruiser aircraft hangers,
their cruiser single-rudder system,
their cruiser secondary armament layout and probably quite a few other things that I'm missing.
It carried guns much bigger than any other non battle "cruiser" in the world, weighed as much or more than earlier but still serving battleships in the USN. had the high speed of the battle cruiser and the same mission.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostNo I was comapring like generations
Originally posted by zraver View PostCrap I got a date wrong, could have sworn both were 1913.
Originally posted by zraver View PostI said .5- 4" smaller.
Regardless, the comparison (again) doesn't stand up.
The battlecruiser main guns kept pace with those of the battleships, from Dreadnought and Invincible to Royal Sovereign and Hood.
The same held true with the American attempt (the Lexington's) to build battlecruisers. As designs progressed, the main guns went from the then-contemporary 14-inch gun to the newer 16-inch gun.
Bottom Line: "Classic" battlecruisers shared main gun armament and a comparison of like-generations proves the Alaska's were not battlecruisers. Otherwise they'd have far larger guns than 12-inch.
Originally posted by zraver View PostAlaska turret face 9the only place she had a chance of stopping a 12" shell was 12.5" hardly impressive, the bulk of her armor is very close to that of a battle cruiser.
The Alaska's, as stated, were a far more balanced design, as befits a cruiser.
Originally posted by zraver View Postneither were battle cruisers.
Originally posted by zraver View Postexplain
Originally posted by zraver View Postwhat does placement of aircraft have to do with whether or not its a cruiser? The Bismark launched amid ships, the Iowas at the rear.
Originally posted by zraver View PostA design flaw in a ship of the Alaska's wieght.
Originally posted by zraver View Postsame type of secondary armament (guns) in roughly the same locations as the Iowa's, just to a lesser amount.
In other words: The Alaska's secondary armament was a carbon-copy of her heavy cruiser predecessors....again, in other words, enlarged Baltimores.
Originally posted by zraver View PostIt carried guns much bigger than any other non battle "cruiser" in the world
Originally posted by zraver View Postweighed as much or more than earlier but still serving battleships in the USN.
Originally posted by zraver View Posthad the high speed of the battle cruiser and the same mission.
Compared to the modern (even treaty-restricted) battleships of the USN, they were, at best, a 6 knots faster than the North Carolinas, and the case of the Iowa's, absolute equals.
Their speed was definitely not especially noteworthy in the sense of battlecruisers by the time they were laid down and completed and their main guns were far inferior...unlike the classic battlecruisers.“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
The battlecruiser main guns kept pace with those of the battleships, from Dreadnought and Invincible to Royal Sovereign and Hood.
Bottom Line: "Classic" battlecruisers shared main gun armament and a comparison of like-generations proves the Alaska's were not battlecruisers. Otherwise they'd have far larger guns than 12-inch.
Except that battlecruisers carried armor far less than their main guns, i.e. a distinguishing feature of "classic" battlecruisers.
The Alaska's, as stated, were a far more balanced design, as befits a cruiser.
Jackie Fisher disagrees with you. They were very much intended to operate with Battle Line, as it's van, it's flanks and it's wings.
Easier to show a picture, but I'll have to bring my camera in from work to copy a photograph of armor scheme comparisons from Dr Friedman's book.
American cruisers typically, though not always, carried their aircraft and catapults amidships and were equipped with hangers.
A result of being essentially "an enlarged Baltimore", to use Dr. Friedman's term. USN cruisers carried one rudder, battleships carried two.
More accurately, and more tellingly: The exact number of guns in the exact same locations as previous heavy cruiser classes such as the Baltimores and the Des Moines.
In other words: The Alaska's secondary armament was a carbon-copy of her heavy cruiser predecessors....again, in other words, enlarged Baltimores.
How does what the rest of the world built prove that the Alaska's were battlecrusiers due to their 12-inch guns?
By "earlier", you mean treaty-restricted battleships that had been designed and built 20+ years before? That is a valid comparison to you? :))
High speed only in comparison to the battleships and battlecruisers of the previous generation, once again 20+ years in the past
Compared to the modern (even treaty-restricted) battleships of the USN, they were, at best, a 6 knots faster than the North Carolinas, and the case of the Iowa's, absolute equals.
The Iowa's are freaks of naval nature, but against most battleships they had the decided speed advantage battle cruisers enjoyed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TopHatterExcept that battlecruisers carried armor far less than their main guns, i.e. a distinguishing feature of "classic" battlecruisers.I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostBut not always and not in all navies.
Yes, Always. Historical fact.
Originally posted by zraver View PostI dissagree
Once again, as a matter of historical fact, "Classic" battlecruisers shared main gun armament with their contemporary battleship cousins.
If you're going to argue the point then back it up with facts. Otherwise you're just blowing a lot of barely-visible smoke around.
Originally posted by zraver View PostBut not universal ergo HMS Hood
Or to quote Hood survivor Ted Briggs "She was a lovely ship...unfortunately with a glass jaw"
Originally posted by zraver View PostA matter of opinion.
And so far, all I've seen is your opinion and you're no Norman Friedman.
You also have a laughable habit of brushing off historical facts.
Originally posted by zraver View PostI think your splittign hairs, they were not intended to operate in line with battleships but as the van, and wings of the fleet.
Originally posted by zraver View PostNot always, thus not a hard and fast rule.
Originally posted by zraver View PostShip designs are often enlarged versions of an earlier design. The Arliegh Burkes as a contemporary in reverse example.
The Burkes aren't enlargements or reductions of anything.
They were a completely new design, new hull, new superstructure.
Not that tellingly, they are not battleships after all.
They're enlarged heavy cruisers, with their secondary armament being one precise example of being such.
Originally posted by zraver View PostEnlarged Baltimores- twice the eight is a bit more than simply enlarged.
I'm really not going to argue semantics with you, because if that's all you've got to bring to this little debate, then more's the pity.
Originally posted by zraver View Post12" guns are not heavy cruiser armament.
And 12-inch guns ceased being battlecruiser armament to both the Royal Navy and the USN around World War I....20+ years before the Alaska's were built.
Originally posted by zraver View PostNo, I was talking designs built during and immediately following WWI.
Originally posted by zraver View PostThe Iowa's are freaks of naval nature, but against most battleships they had the decided speed advantage battle cruisers enjoyed.“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by ArmchairGeneral View PostExcept for, in addition to the Hood that zraver mentioned, all the German battlecruisers, the Kongo class, and the Dunkerque class. There is significant variation in armor strength among these ships, but they are all comparable to the Alaskas.
The Royal Navy: Originator of the battlecruiser itself and builder of more of them than any other nation.
The US Navy: The navy whose design philosophies and doctrine quite naturally dictated the design of the Alaska's.
Off to bed, tomorrow's work sched calls for lots and lots of fun.“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
Comment
Comment