|
Post by Tabac Iberez on May 26, 2019 13:30:56 GMT -6
By doctrine, and specially after Jutland, no battlecruiser was expected to do so either . The problem then being that the only person who had both battlecruisers and a battle line imidiately post-Jutland were the British- and then Hood was built, with the sort of armoring that implied it was going to, at some point in it's life, fight and win against an enemy capitol ship in a line of battle engagment. Considering the British ignored their own doctrine for Jutland, though, this sort of thing shouldn't be surprising.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 27, 2019 16:33:54 GMT -6
Scharnhorst was a battleship in everything. It's name should not even in a discussion like this; the only ones who called them "battlecruisers" were the british when the ships were declared by the germans as 26000 tonners capable of 32 knots and 9x11''. Basic engineering math says that if you pack 9x11'' in a 32 knot hull displacing 26000 tons, that ship can't have too much armor. Fast ship with capital ship weapons yet not a lot of armor....Hence - the british thought it was a battlecruiser. In truth the Scharnhorsts actually displaced almost 32000 tons standard and had 40% of that displacement alloted to armor (that's actually a slightly larger % of armor displacement than many battleships and light years ahead of any battlecruiser ever designed). Her external belt was actually thicker than Bismarck's... Hence, her main guns might have been tiny for one, but she was a battleship. Something the germans were only too aware of, their design traces back to WW1 Bayern and König, not to the Derrflingers or Mackensens. They also were classed as such as Schlatchschiffen (not Grosse Kreuzer nor Schlatchkreuzer). Not that navies classifications really matter here, but it goes on to prove what the germans built those shils like, and what they wanted them to be. Alaska was a battlecruiser whatever the americans wanted to call them. Their classification was kind of a semantic pirouette to avoid calling them Battlecruisers, a classification the US Navy wanted to avoid at all costs, but semantics aside one can hardly debate that a ship with those characteristics was just that. B-65s had they happened would've also been battlecruisers. Fast ships with capital ship sized weapons but without enough armor to play a role in the battleline. They just fit the definition like a glove. And no, in game there's no way a 30.000 ton ship with 9x12'' weapons is going to be acceptable as a heavy cruiser. For very good reasons . As for the Deutchland goes, I think it's nice that the devs went out of their way to allow ships with 6x11'' to be classified as CAs, but I think the 10k ton limit is too low. Not even Deutchland (the namesake of the class) displaced that, and both Scheer and particularily so Graf Spee displaced a couple extra thousand tons. Placing that limit at 12k and 6x11'' guns would make more sense, as a result; as it is it's a bit too strict and really doesn't allow for a ship like those: it allows for the weapons and the speed, but not for the actual armor those ships carried. Not that I, personally, would build any ship like that. I don't think they're optimal at all and I'm the kind of guy who goes for efficiency. But for flavor and maybe to go for something different, not just for the sake of efficiency, maybe the game should have a bit more generous stats allowing for such a ship to be classed as CA. b65 and alaska are NOT battlecruisers they operated as heavy cruisers and unlike battlescruisers which are in effect just large cruisers with battleship grade guns these are large cruiser hulls with large cruiser guns the guns mounted on them are by ww2 standards not battlecruiser or battleship grade weapons by several inches sure 305 mm is large but its only 12 inchers the last time 12 inchers were used on battleships was long ago back before world war 1 a battlecruiser is in effect a cruiser scaled up and mounted with battleship grade guns a supercruiser is a ship weighting in between a battlecruiser and a heavy cruiser with guns in between them and usually faster than both with worse armor than both the b65 and alaska fit these categories battlecruisers usually have atleast 10 inches + belt armor 14 inch + guns (ww2) and had 30 knot speed heavy cruisers usually had a belt a maximum of around 6 inches thick with 8 inch guns and around 30 knot speed or more supercruisers or large heavy cruisers have belts from 5-9 inches of belt armor with guns of 10-12 inches in size while being very fast and having quite a heavy aa armament and secondary armament (for escorting carriers) supercruisers sit perfectly in between and while they can clap any heavy cruiser they will get clapped in return by any battlecruiser basically a supercruiser trades multiple inches of armor (both deck and belt) and multiple inches in gun size for being lighter and much much faster now the german scharnhorst falls into a wierd spot of what the hell is this it has the guns of a supercruiser yet it has the belt armor of an actual battleship mostly supperior to most battlecruisers at almost 14 inches thick compared to hoods belt of 12 inches i would throw this into the battleship or battlecruiser category personally because of its belt and lower speed also for perspective ships like baltimore and des moines approached 17000 tons + very quickly and they were heavy cruisers
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 27, 2019 17:24:20 GMT -6
In operative terms, Alaskas were battlecruisers. Their whole reason to exist was to be a cruiser hunter-killer. As built they obviously also were used for AAA escort roles. I don't know where you get your listings about battecruiser armor, but they're exceedingly optimistic. The best armored battlecruisers of WW1 never had more than 305mm (12in) of face turret armor, belts went from 6'' in the original invincibles to 12in (305mm) in the german battlecruisers but certainly never came close to the 14 inches you list. The numbers you give were never seen in any battlecruiser ever built. Yet they seem weirdly similar to the armor protection intended for the cancelled Amagi class in their original form; a ship that, like HMS Hood, was a fast battleship at a time when the concept was still not widely recognized and built with an expected role that wasn't that of a battlecruiser. Amagi wasn't expected to hunt cruisers, nor to flee from capital ships. She was expected to fight it out in a battleline, something battlecruisers were not supposed to do. They were called Battlecruisers, but in the same way Alaska was a battlecruiser even while their own operators didn't want to call it one, Amagi was a battleship (even while she might have been called one while being built). 12'' guns weren't issued for battleships (exception made of the Scharnhorsts) since before WW1. But nowhere in the description list of a battlecruiser it's stated that it's weapons have to be the same size than those aboard a battleship. The battlecruiser role entails a ship with the speed of a cruiser, armor enough to fend off cruiser firepower, and capital ship guns. 12'' guns might have been of small caliber for a capital ship - but they were capital ship sized guns indeed. At this point we're in the same point I mentioned in one of my prior posts: your own standard of classificating things is OK. It does not, however, coincide with the way most ships are perceived, specially not when reading books from authors and historians who talk about these ships and their history. Let me tell you why, according to that standard (Which I share), Alaskas and B-65s were, indeed, battlecruisers: -Both ships were intended to be specialized cruiser killers and to be so, to be of a size and power no cruiser could come close to match. -Neither ship was intended to engage in combat with battleships, and so, they didn't need the armor or guns to fight against them. -Both ships needed to be fast enough to deny cruisers the chance to run from them, while being fast enough to be able to run themselves from battleships. -Alaska's AAA escort role was listed in between the others at the time of her being ordered. B-65 was not . B-65 was intended to substitute the aging Kongos in the pre-"Big engagement" night cruiser battle the japanese doctrine described. That B-65 was built to substitute the Kongo class is already big enough of a hint of WHAT B-65 was (and a a sidenote, what Alaska, a comparable ship with similar roles, was). Your problem with their "Limited armor" does not represent any issue for the battlecruiser role. WW-1 era battlecruisers were expected to engage and fight it out against slower smaller Armored Cruisers. Pre-WW1 Armored Cruisers commonly had guns between 6 and 9.5'' of caliber, and engagement ranges against them were expected to be at quite close ranges (WW1 battles were all fought at ranges that, pre WW1, would've been qualified as "extraordinary"). Battlecruiser armor needed to be immune to those guns. Meanwhile Armored Cruisers were clad in armored shells of around 6'' of thickness. WW1 AP shell technology wasn't specially advanced and to beat that class of armor reliably you needed guns of 12'' or bigger...which happened to be the standard battleship caliber when the BC was introduced, so battleship guns were used. Armored Cruisers had a top speed of 20-23 knots. In order to be fast enough to guarantee their ability to hunt them down battlecruisers needed to be noticeably faster. As a result they were good for speeds that ranged from 26 to 29 knots. Back then too, technology wasn't particularily advanced. Boilers were coal burning. Machinery wasn't particularily efficient. Speed demanded huge space, huge space meant a lot of armor was needed. Having 12'' or bigger guns didn't help with size. In 1914 the only way to get a ship with enough armor to stop 9.5'' caliber guns at medium or short ranges, armed with guns big enough to reliably penetrate AC armor at those ranges, and fast enough to catch them, was to build a ship that actually was bigger than dreadnoughts of the time while having guns of the same caliber (or almost). And that's why those BCs were so massive and inordinately expensive. In 1940 however things had changed. Ships like Alaska were designed to hunt down japanese or german cruisers. Ships that (in the best case) had 5.5'' of armor covering the magazines, and the rest far less protected. 12'' was used as main guns but one can argue that it was even overkill for the role. Certainly there was no need whatsoever for anything bigger, much less battleship caliber (at the time 16'' guns) to get the job done. Cruisers in 1940 had at best 8'' caliber guns. Not the 9.5'' seen pre-1914. Even more, spectacular advances in Fire Control Systems , mecanical plotters, etc, meant that there was no need to engage them at short range. A a result you didn't need any kind of inordinate ammount of armor to keep the ship vitals immune to 203mm gunfire, and the resulting ships (alaska and B-65) didn't carry any more than what they needed for, exactly, that role. They didn't any more than that for the role they were expected to do (Cruiser killers, and cruisers had 8'' guns maximum) which, obviously, was far less than what a battleship of the time carried. So they didn't: they carried enough for their role, killing cruisers, and not anymore. Finally, WW2 heavy cruisers were much faster than WW1 ones. Most of them were good for 30-31 knots. Alaskas needed to be faster and so they were: 32 knots was their official speed. However by 1940 you didn't need a huge machinery plant to produce the needed power to reach those speeds. Boilers were no longer burning coal. They operated at much higher pressures (hence allowing much higher powers for far smaller volumes). Small tube technology was used to make them smaller. Turbine design was a lot more efficient than in WW2, so you could have both smaller and more powerful turbines in much more smaller spaces. As a result, and in contrast with 1914, in 1940 to get a cruiser hunter (main role of a battlecruiser, and the most differentiating one for the class) you didn't need a ship bigger than a battleship anymore, nor with guns as big as battleship ones when 12'' guns would do the job perfectly. That's why, even while a a 1944 battlecruiser as USS Alaska wasn't bigger than USS Iowa (when in 1914 HMS Lion was quite bigger than HMS King George V), she was a battlecruiser nonetheless: her role established her class, for her role was that of a battlecruiser. As for absolute size goes, however, SMS Derfflinger, one of the most famous battlecruisers of all time, displaced 27000 tons. Alaska displaced 30.000. That should also be food for thought. Now, again, that's according to a standard of classification which can be summed up as "a warship was of whatever class that was intended to do her same role". In the case of USS Alaska that means that Alaska class is defined by her role - cruiser hunter-killer. That role was privative of Battlecruisers, hence, she was a battlecruiser. That standard is the most widely used one, but doesn't mean is more or less correct than another based on a good rationale. Your rationale might differ, for you Alaska might not be a battlecruiser because of your own perception of things. That is fine. But don't try to explain it in historical terms that are taken completely out of context and as a result incorrect. There's no need for it .
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 28, 2019 1:43:44 GMT -6
In operative terms, Alaskas were battlecruisers. Their whole reason to exist was to be a cruiser hunter-killer. As built they obviously also were used for AAA escort roles. I don't know where you get your listings about battecruiser armor, but they're exceedingly optimistic. The best armored battlecruisers of WW1 never had more than 305mm (12in) of face turret armor, belts went from 6'' in the original invincibles to 12in (305mm) in the german battlecruisers but certainly never came close to the 14 inches you list. The numbers you give were never seen in any battlecruiser ever built. Yet they seem weirdly similar to the armor protection intended for the cancelled Amagi class in their original form; a ship that, like HMS Hood, was a fast battleship at a time when the concept was still not widely recognized and built with an expected role that wasn't that of a battlecruiser. Amagi wasn't expected to hunt cruisers, nor to flee from capital ships. She was expected to fight it out in a battleline, something battlecruisers were not supposed to do. They were called Battlecruisers, but in the same way Alaska was a battlecruiser even while their own operators didn't want to call it one, Amagi was a battleship (even while she might have been called one while being built). 12'' guns weren't issued for battleships (exception made of the Scharnhorsts) since before WW1. But nowhere in the description list of a battlecruiser it's stated that it's weapons have to be the same size than those aboard a battleship. The battlecruiser role entails a ship with the speed of a cruiser, armor enough to fend off cruiser firepower, and capital ship guns. 12'' guns might have been of small caliber for a capital ship - but they were capital ship sized guns indeed. At this point we're in the same point I mentioned in one of my prior posts: your own standard of classificating things is OK. It does not, however, coincide with the way most ships are perceived, specially not when reading books from authors and historians who talk about these ships and their history. Let me tell you why, according to that standard (Which I share), Alaskas and B-65s were, indeed, battlecruisers: -Both ships were intended to be specialized cruiser killers and to be so, to be of a size and power no cruiser could come close to match. -Neither ship was intended to engage in combat with battleships, and so, they didn't need the armor or guns to fight against them. -Both ships needed to be fast enough to deny cruisers the chance to run from them, while being fast enough to be able to run themselves from battleships. -Alaska's AAA escort role was listed in between the others at the time of her being ordered. B-65 was not . B-65 was intended to substitute the aging Kongos in the pre-"Big engagement" night cruiser battle the japanese doctrine described. That B-65 was built to substitute the Kongo class is already big enough of a hint of WHAT B-65 was (and a a sidenote, what Alaska, a comparable ship with similar roles, was). Your problem with their "Limited armor" does not represent any issue for the battlecruiser role. WW-1 era battlecruisers were expected to engage and fight it out against slower smaller Armored Cruisers. Pre-WW1 Armored Cruisers commonly had guns between 6 and 9.5'' of caliber, and engagement ranges against them were expected to be at quite close ranges (WW1 battles were all fought at ranges that, pre WW1, would've been qualified as "extraordinary"). Battlecruiser armor needed to be immune to those guns. Meanwhile Armored Cruisers were clad in armored shells of around 6'' of thickness. WW1 AP shell technology wasn't specially advanced and to beat that class of armor reliably you needed guns of 12'' or bigger...which happened to be the standard battleship caliber when the BC was introduced, so battleship guns were used. Armored Cruisers had a top speed of 20-23 knots. In order to be fast enough to guarantee their ability to hunt them down battlecruisers needed to be noticeably faster. As a result they were good for speeds that ranged from 26 to 29 knots. Back then too, technology wasn't particularily advanced. Boilers were coal burning. Machinery wasn't particularily efficient. Speed demanded huge space, huge space meant a lot of armor was needed. Having 12'' or bigger guns didn't help with size. In 1914 the only way to get a ship with enough armor to stop 9.5'' caliber guns at medium or short ranges, armed with guns big enough to reliably penetrate AC armor at those ranges, and fast enough to catch them, was to build a ship that actually was bigger than dreadnoughts of the time while having guns of the same caliber (or almost). And that's why those BCs were so massive and inordinately expensive. In 1940 however things had changed. Ships like Alaska were designed to hunt down japanese or german cruisers. Ships that (in the best case) had 5.5'' of armor covering the magazines, and the rest far less protected. 12'' was used as main guns but one can argue that it was even overkill for the role. Certainly there was no need whatsoever for anything bigger, much less battleship caliber (at the time 16'' guns) to get the job done. Cruisers in 1940 had at best 8'' caliber guns. Not the 9.5'' seen pre-1914. Even more, spectacular advances in Fire Control Systems , mecanical plotters, etc, meant that there was no need to engage them at short range. A a result you didn't need any kind of inordinate ammount of armor to keep the ship vitals immune to 203mm gunfire, and the resulting ships (alaska and B-65) didn't carry any more than what they needed for, exactly, that role. They didn't any more than that for the role they were expected to do (Cruiser killers, and cruisers had 8'' guns maximum) which, obviously, was far less than what a battleship of the time carried. So they didn't: they carried enough for their role, killing cruisers, and not anymore. Finally, WW2 heavy cruisers were much faster than WW1 ones. Most of them were good for 30-31 knots. Alaskas needed to be faster and so they were: 32 knots was their official speed. However by 1940 you didn't need a huge machinery plant to produce the needed power to reach those speeds. Boilers were no longer burning coal. They operated at much higher pressures (hence allowing much higher powers for far smaller volumes). Small tube technology was used to make them smaller. Turbine design was a lot more efficient than in WW2, so you could have both smaller and more powerful turbines in much more smaller spaces. As a result, and in contrast with 1914, in 1940 to get a cruiser hunter (main role of a battlecruiser, and the most differentiating one for the class) you didn't need a ship bigger than a battleship anymore, nor with guns as big as battleship ones when 12'' guns would do the job perfectly. That's why, even while a a 1944 battlecruiser as USS Alaska wasn't bigger than USS Iowa (when in 1914 HMS Lion was quite bigger than HMS King George V), she was a battlecruiser nonetheless: her role established her class, for her role was that of a battlecruiser. As for absolute size goes, however, SMS Derfflinger, one of the most famous battlecruisers of all time, displaced 27000 tons. Alaska displaced 30.000. That should also be food for thought. Now, again, that's according to a standard of classification which can be summed up as "a warship was of whatever class that was intended to do her same role". In the case of USS Alaska that means that Alaska class is defined by her role - cruiser hunter-killer. That role was privative of Battlecruisers, hence, she was a battlecruiser. That standard is the most widely used one, but doesn't mean is more or less correct than another based on a good rationale. Your rationale might differ, for you Alaska might not be a battlecruiser because of your own perception of things. That is fine. But don't try to explain it in historical terms that are taken completely out of context and as a result incorrect. There's no need for it . supercruisers or whatever you want to call them exist purely for escort and hunting of heavy cruisers while being unable to fight battlecruiser or battleship they cannot fight in line battles at all due to their weak protection and weak guns a battlecruiser is reasonably expected to be able to fight another battlecruiser while supercruisers are not designed to be capable of so (or intended to) the supercruiser will very likely loose the battle if it fights a battlecruiser simply because its outgunned by alot and likely also outtonned supercruisers did not exist before ww2 and thus it is only fair comparing them to other ww2 ships its also worth noting that basically no battlecruiser in world war 2 had below 14 inch guns (that was reasonably modern ahem ahem russians) if we compare a supercruiser to for example kongo we see they have pretty much comparable armor but the kongo has way bigger guns while being around the same speed in the difinition itself it says a large warship of a type built in the early 20th century, carrying similar armament to a battleship but faster and more lightly armoured. while at first it seems similair to a supercruiser except the main armament which is straight up weaker than that of the weakest armed battleships by several inches (battleships with 14 inchers were as far as i know not built by anyone except the british with the KGV class and comparing 12 inchers to 15 inchers the diffrence becomes huge by 1940s 12 inchers were no longer used on any but old russian battleships thus id refrain from calling them battleship grade guns especially since guns 1 inch smaller were used on heavy cruisers also comparing 1910s battleships to 1940s cruisers starts to muddy things a bit the first south carolina battleship was 16000 tons by which definition the baltimore heavy cruiser is heavier at 17000 tons also to be mentioned while the role of battlecruisers and supercruisers were the same its that battlecruiser can hold off against other battlecruisers and battleships and the alaska certainly could not hold its own against a battlecruiser which was not extremely old or with no refit (mainly due to firecontrol) also the alaska would be a horrible cruiser hunter against japan so would basically all battlecruisers since the japanese managed to punch 34-35 knots out of basically all their heavy cruisers and some 37 knots (pre retrofit mogami) its also to be mentioned ships of this class (b65 stalingrad and alaska) were all reffered to as supercruisers although the stalingrad is basically a battleship due to its tonnage while at first usa called alaska battlecruisers they later insisted on calling it a cruiser and wiped all records of battlecruiser and replaced it with cruiser b65 was reffered to as Super A-class cruiser
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 28, 2019 4:35:35 GMT -6
There's no such thing as a "supercruiser" classification in real navies, nor there has been one in the past.
a battlecruiser is reasonably expected to be able to fight another battlecruiser while supercruisers are not designed to be capable of so (or intended to)
Nowhere in the list of tasks of a battlecruiser the idea of fighting other battlecruisers is present. Which in many ways was the downfall of the role from it's conception. Those were big ships, able to beat Armored Cruisers without question, only meant an advantage when the enemy had Armored Cruisers only, not Battlecruisers on their own.
Similarly the "supercruiser" you describe, mean an advantage when the enemy throws Heavy Cruisers at you, not..."supercruisers"
The parallels are evident, both ships are the same, both same the same traits (overpowering vs cruisers, reduced to fleeing against battleships, and at mortal danger against each other), a trait that has been described by a lot of historians through the years; I'll quote Richard Hough on this one:
The battle cruiser was like a heavyweight boxer with an eggshell skull; alone in the ring the master of any challenger until the arrival of another heavyweight with equal agility and punch. While her speed was greater than that of any equally powerful foe, it was not an adequate substitute for protection. In short, the battle cruiser was fine so long as the enemy did not have any.
Hough, Richard. Dreadnought: A History of the Modern Battleship .
This happened in pre WW1. The Invincibles and later developments were absolute masters of the sea against Armored Cruisers, as it was shown in the Falklands in 1914, but weren't properly designed to deal with ships of their own kind. Alaskas were also the master of any cruiser challenger until the arrival of another ship like her, as fast as her, with same guns as her, something she wasn't designed to go against.
You might call Alaska "supercruiser"...but she carried the same damning birthmark of a WW-1 battlecruiser.
the supercruiser will very likely loose the battle if it fights a battlecruiser simply because its outgunned by alot and likely also outtonned
Incorrect. The american 12''/50 Mk.8 were regarded as the most powerful weapons of their caliber of all time, equal in damaging power as the american 14'' gun (the one in the Standards), with more penetration and reach.
The only surviving battlecruisers by the time Alaska entered service were the british Renown and Repulse, and the japanese last surviving Kongos. Alaska outgunned them all.
as for being "outtonned" - another incorrection:
British Renowns: 28000 tons standard as built, 31000 tons as rebuilt in the 30s. Japanese Kongo: 27500 tons standard as built, 32000 tons as rebuilt in the 30s.
Alaska class: 30000 tons
Alaska might have displaced a bit less, but she was squarely in the same ballpark. B-65 was expected to displace 32500 so it actually displaced more.
Doesn't mean Alaska would've won a fight against them all all the time. She was qualitatively superior in firepower to either of them (6x15'', 8x14''), and was as vulnerable to their guns as they were against her owns - again, all of them shared the birthmark of the battecruiser.
also to be mentioned while the role of battlecruisers and supercruisers were the same...
Then their class was, in essence, the same. That's the whole point I'm making. I get that you see the Alaskas differently because it didn't compare like the, let's call them, "legacy" battlecruisers did against battleships (as big or bigger and with guns as big as their contemporary battleships). All I'm telling you is that the "legacy" battecruisers comparing like that to their own time battleships is explained by technology.
Had in 1914 existed small tube oil fired boilers, advanced turbines, and 1944 gun technology, 1914 battlecruisers would've also been smaller than their contemporary battleships, for they allowed faster speeds and heavier punches in far smaller packages. But 1914 technology was what it was, to make ships very fast and armed you needed them to make them inordinately big.
Technology advances meant that while battleships tasked with the role of fighting each other kept growing in size and faster in speed with the years, battlecruisers tasked with the role of just beating up enemy cruisers didn't need to grow almost at all. Hence, WW2 battlecruisers like Alaska and B-65 were smaller than battleships - but they still were battlecruisers.
also the alaska would be a horrible cruiser hunter against japan so would basically all battlecruisers since the japanese managed to punch 34-35 knots out of basically all their heavy cruisers
and some 37 knots (pre retrofit mogami)
On paper and in pre-rebuild trials only - Mogamis were never good for anything above the same 34.5 knots the other japanese battecruisers were.
Alaska could top 33 knots. FAR more than enough to hunt japanese cruisers. 1-2 knots of speed difference was not enough of a safety layer for cruisers against a ship with the qualities of Alaska.
Bartolomeo Colleoni was sunk by HMAS Sydney, check out her story to understand how ships "rated" for 37 knots could be hunted down and utterly massacred by another that were good for 32 at most. And 37 vs 32 knots is much, much, much better looking (on paper) than 35 vs 33.
its also to be mentioned ships of this class (b65 stalingrad and alaska) were all reffered to as supercruisers
Where?. The americans called Alaska "large Cruiser" (mostly as a political expedient move from the US Navy to try to hide up to which point the development of a ship that called for a reasonably sized and priced cruiser hunter, yet ended up being a capital ship longer than North Carolina, almost as expensive as one, with almost the same AAA as a cleveland and the turning circle of a Saratoga, had been a muddy mess of confusion and political in-fighting at several levels of the Navy, the BuOrd, and even maybe the White House itself that had costed the taxpayer a fortune for two massive white elephants that lasted no more than 3 years in active service).
The Soviets never called Stalingrad (or, for that effect, the Kronshtadt) anything other than "battlecruiser".
And B-65 never received any kind of official designation by the japanese, as the design was actually shelved before fully complete and cancelled well before any had been laid down. However, her design tasked her to be the substitute of Kongo, which at the time was classified by the japanese as a battleship, and her design tag began with a B (B-65), something that was traditionally reserved for japanese battlecruiser proposals - which obviously means the japanese knew that ship was nothing other than one.
So unless you come with some very credible sources that say otherwise, none of those ships was referred to as "supercruiser".
|
|
|
Post by kongoudess on May 28, 2019 18:52:02 GMT -6
b65 was reffered to as Super A-class cruiser I've looked at Japanese wikipedia and it claims that it is both a super armored cruiser, a 1st Class (Heavy) cruiser, and a Battle cruiser all on the same page. It also says that it's predecessor is the Amagi class Battle cruiser. I looked on JP Google and they're all putting 超甲巡洋艦 after it, which roughly translate to super armored cruiser
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 28, 2019 20:51:27 GMT -6
The designation was B-65. In the japanese navy B-XX codes were alloted to battlecruiser projects. And they were projected as direct replacement to Japan's battlecruisers (The Kongo class). They could've gone on and classed them as "Micky mouse's seaboats" after building them...but it's clear what they were developing them to be .
|
|
|
Post by kongoudess on May 28, 2019 23:00:58 GMT -6
After all, aren't Super armored cruisers battle cruisers? Armored Cruisers evolved into battlecruisers, so it stands to reason that a "super" armored cruiser is a fancy sounding word for battlecruisers
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 28, 2019 23:56:14 GMT -6
After all, aren't Super armored cruisers battle cruisers? Armored Cruisers evolved into battlecruisers, so it stands to reason that a "super" armored cruiser is a fancy sounding word for battlecruisers Almost as much as "Large Cruiser" is
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on May 29, 2019 1:12:00 GMT -6
Just a little bit battle-experiance (I have 4 pocketbattleships in my fleet):
TDS 2 and box-protection. My thoughts were to armour them against 6" (like in RL) and fast enough to run from stronger oponents, or stay at range.
They had different encounters with cruisers during some fleet battles and larger convoy attacks (I forgot to send them to raid):
CL + 6" CA are absolutely no match against them. Although they took a few hits, the only damage was some superstructure without any serious things. In return after 2-3 hits the CL is dead in the water or does about 10 knots. Even near misses do enough damage to perforate BE sections and inflict incoming water and slow this tin cans down.
8" CA the same as with CL. The only thing you have to keep in mind is to keep range and try to use wind advantage to increase your hit percentage. Than it is nearly the same as with CL (AI tends to build their CA with CL-like armour).
9"/10" CA are a hard nut to crack. I had one AI-oponent with about 14000ts and 4x3 10" + 6x2 6" with 4" belt- you have a 1000-2000yd advantage. I tried to half the enemy turrets (crossing the T in the back or front) and in addition angled my ship (I don´t know if this gives some advantage, but I did it this way) and than it was relatively easy. In one night encounter with radar supported fire, I took a few hits and substantial damage was inflicted to one of my own ships. In return the enemy was crippled within 3 salvoes (contact, fast turn, break off).
My intention is to use them for raiding duties- there they are strong enough to handle any cruiser on trade protection. If the AI is smart enough to send such a 10" CA-monster or even BC, I have a nice diversion effect.
There is only one thing I am thinking about and that´s the AA. I think about giving them 6x2 3"Qu1 unprotected DPs (perhaps autoloading if that´s manageable) and try to put a bit more light and medium AA on top. I am in the last third of the game and planes become more and more harassing! 4" are a bit better in terms of force protection, but I usually won´t use them in a force. So self defence is much more important.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 29, 2019 5:22:18 GMT -6
After all, aren't Super armored cruisers battle cruisers? Armored Cruisers evolved into battlecruisers, so it stands to reason that a "super" armored cruiser is a fancy sounding word for battlecruisers the diffrence between a super armored cruiser and a battlecruiser is once again the guns 12 and 14 inch guns is quite a large diffrence battlecruisers are designed to hunt everything below battleships while super cruisers are designed to hunt everything below battlecruisers they can in no way engage a battlecruiser on favorable terms also just because something replaces something else doesnt mean that its the thing its replacing for example if you replace your old battlecruiser of 30 knots with a battleship of 32 knots that dosent mean the modern 32 knot battleship is now a battlecruiser in fact in 1940 the line between battlecruiser and battleship basically stops existing because battleships start hitting 30 knots standard while having alot of armor
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 29, 2019 8:05:54 GMT -6
the diffrence between a super armored cruiser and a battlecruiser is once again the guns 12 and 14 inch guns is quite a large diffrence You were already told, It is not.- Repeating it like a mantra won't turn it into reality somehow. American Mk.8 12''/50 gun: The Mark 8's significant improvement in firing weight and range over the Mark 7 gave it the honor of "by far the most powerful weapon of its caliber ever placed in service."[5] In fact, as a result of the decision to fire "super heavy" armor-piercing projectiles, the Mark 8's deck plate penetration was better and the side belt armor penetration equal to the older (but larger) 14"/50 caliber gun.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14%22/50_caliber_gunThis gun was a major improvement over the 12"/50 (30.5 cm) Mark 7 guns used on the USS Wyoming (BB-33) class and was of a simpler, lighter construction. Designed to fire the new "super-heavy" AP projectiles, their side belt armor penetration at 20,000 to 30,000 yards (18,290 to 27,430 m) was almost identical to and the deck plate penetration better than the larger 14"/50 (35.6 cm) guns used on U.S. pre-treaty battleships.www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.phpThe best american 14'' gun ever mounted on a warship were the Marks 7 and 11. 14''/50 guns mounted on the battleships of the New Mexico and Tennessee classes. Alaska's Mk8 gun fired a 468kg shell each 20 seconds (rate of fire of 3 rpg). The Mk.11 14''/50 american gun fired a 680kg shell each 35 seconds (rate of fire 1.7 rpg). Total throw weight per gun per minute was 1404kg per minute for the 12'' gun, 1159kg for the 14'' one. A massive advantage for the 12'' that, as seen avobe, also had equal, if not better, penetration. To top it all, the Mk8 gun was 30% lighter (55 tons vs 85 tons per gun) than the 14'' one. The Japanese 330mm gun had a very similar comparison to their own 14'' guns. TL:DR: There is no such "large difference" between Alaska's guns and 14'' guns - and the one there is is hugely in favor of Alaska's guns. Battlecruisers are designed to hunt everything below battleships ,while super cruisers are designed to hunt everything below battlecruisers they can in no way engage a battlecruiser on favorable termsThat's not correct. Battlecruisers were not designed to "hunt everything below battleships" - their own list of roles didn't include going after enemy battlecruisers. also just because something replaces something else doesnt mean that its the thing its replacing for example if you replace your old battlecruiser of 30 knots with a battleship of 32 knots that dosent mean the modern 32 knot battleship is now a battlecruiser Correct. Something that replaces something else doesn't mean it's by force the same. However when something that replaces something else is just a modernized ship with the same traits, characteristics and role, then **THAT** means is the same: Kongo class BC (As rebuilt): Lenght: 219m Beam: 33m (28m without bulges) Displacement: 32.000 tons standard 8x14''/50 guns Armor: Belt: 203mm Deck: 120mm Turrets: 254mm B-65 project BC (As planned) Lenght: 240m Beam: 27.2m Displacement: 32.500 tons standard 9x12.2''/50 guns Armor: Belt: 210mm (magazines)-190mm (elsewhere) Deck: 125mm Turrets: 260mm Spot the 7 differences. Levels of protection were startingly similar, as was the displacement, and given that B-65 was never built and the japanese tendence to estimate displacements too low in their designs, had B-65 been built probably she'd displaced even more. B-65 was 3 knots faster, in a ship 30m longer and with almost the same beam (if we don't count the bulges). And no, the guns are not an argument: the japanese 31cm gun was as superior to Kongo's 356mm gun as the american 12'' gun was to the New Mexico's 14'' gun.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 30, 2019 6:36:24 GMT -6
the diffrence between a super armored cruiser and a battlecruiser is once again the guns 12 and 14 inch guns is quite a large diffrence You were already told, It is not.- Repeating it like a mantra won't turn it into reality somehow. American Mk.8 12''/50 gun: The Mark 8's significant improvement in firing weight and range over the Mark 7 gave it the honor of "by far the most powerful weapon of its caliber ever placed in service."[5] In fact, as a result of the decision to fire "super heavy" armor-piercing projectiles, the Mark 8's deck plate penetration was better and the side belt armor penetration equal to the older (but larger) 14"/50 caliber gun.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14%22/50_caliber_gunThis gun was a major improvement over the 12"/50 (30.5 cm) Mark 7 guns used on the USS Wyoming (BB-33) class and was of a simpler, lighter construction. Designed to fire the new "super-heavy" AP projectiles, their side belt armor penetration at 20,000 to 30,000 yards (18,290 to 27,430 m) was almost identical to and the deck plate penetration better than the larger 14"/50 (35.6 cm) guns used on U.S. pre-treaty battleships.www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.phpThe best american 14'' gun ever mounted on a warship were the Marks 7 and 11. 14''/50 guns mounted on the battleships of the New Mexico and Tennessee classes. Alaska's Mk8 gun fired a 468kg shell each 20 seconds (rate of fire of 3 rpg). The Mk.11 14''/50 american gun fired a 680kg shell each 35 seconds (rate of fire 1.7 rpg). Total throw weight per gun per minute was 1404kg per minute for the 12'' gun, 1159kg for the 14'' one. A massive advantage for the 12'' that, as seen avobe, also had equal, if not better, penetration. To top it all, the Mk8 gun was 30% lighter (55 tons vs 85 tons per gun) than the 14'' one. The Japanese 330mm gun had a very similar comparison to their own 14'' guns. TL:DR: There is no such "large difference" between Alaska's guns and 14'' guns - and the one there is is hugely in favor of Alaska's guns. Battlecruisers are designed to hunt everything below battleships ,while super cruisers are designed to hunt everything below battlecruisers they can in no way engage a battlecruiser on favorable termsThat's not correct. Battlecruisers were not designed to "hunt everything below battleships" - their own list of roles didn't include going after enemy battlecruisers. also just because something replaces something else doesnt mean that its the thing its replacing for example if you replace your old battlecruiser of 30 knots with a battleship of 32 knots that dosent mean the modern 32 knot battleship is now a battlecruiser Correct. Something that replaces something else doesn't mean it's by force the same. However when something that replaces something else is just a modernized ship with the same traits, characteristics and role, then **THAT** means is the same: Kongo class BC (As rebuilt): Lenght: 219m Beam: 33m (28m without bulges) Displacement: 32.000 tons standard 8x14''/50 guns Armor: Belt: 203mm Deck: 120mm Turrets: 254mm B-65 project BC (As planned) Lenght: 240m Beam: 27.2m Displacement: 32.500 tons standard 9x12.2''/50 guns Armor: Belt: 210mm (magazines)-190mm (elsewhere) Deck: 125mm Turrets: 260mm Spot the 7 differences. Levels of protection were startingly similar, as was the displacement, and given that B-65 was never built and the japanese tendence to estimate displacements too low in their designs, had B-65 been built probably she'd displaced even more. B-65 was 3 knots faster, in a ship 30m longer and with almost the same beam (if we don't count the bulges). And no, the guns are not an argument: the japanese 31cm gun was as superior to Kongo's 356mm gun as the american 12'' gun was to the New Mexico's 14'' gun. a 14 inch gun will perform much better than a 12 inch gun if both are using superheavy shells and both have the same muzzle velocity simple as comparing a 12 inch much more modern gun firing super heavy shells at the same velocity the other ship fires normal shells is not a fair comparison "Kongo class BC (As rebuilt): Lenght: 219m Beam: 33m (28m without bulges) Displacement: 32.000 tons standard 8x14''/50 guns " first of all the japanese 14 inch gun is 14"/45 not /50 which is why its performance is not that good its also interesting to note that almost no battlecruisers were made after 1930 and i cannot think of a single one at this moment in regards to classifying them as large cruisers it is to be noted that all battlecruisers had commonality in their guns with their contemporary battleships for example the fusos had 14 inch guns they were battleships and the kongos had the same 14 inch guns (these ships were ordered shortly after eachother) in addition to this the british hood had 15 inch guns same guns as on their battleships of the time (revenge and so on) this has been the case all the way back to when battlecruisers first came in these new ships b65 alaska and so on DO NOT have gun commonality with battleships of their time and comparing the alaskas guns to any gun in 1940 which was reasonably modern except the kgvs guns we quickly find the alaskas guns to be SIGNIFICANTLY worse performing if the alaska was to be a battlecruiser it would simply need to have commonality of guns with the battleships of its time aka it would need to have 16 inch guns the exact same goes for the b65 which was planned at a time where the yamatos were the only battleships the japanese had made in the last 10 years which means it would need to have those same 18 inch guns (which the ship is whoefully inadequate to carry) for germany in order to have a battlecruiser they would need to have rearmed the gneisenhau and scharnhorst with 15 inch guns once this was completed they would become battlecruisers because they now had gun commonality with their battleships for the british for example the planned g3 battlecruisers were to be a battlecruiser version of the nelson class and these 2 ship classes both had the exact same guns although the g3 was never completed due to the treaty for example the renown being a battlecruiser version of the revenge and so on technically speaking the furious large cruiser with 18 inch guns is not a battlecruiser but out of the fact it had 18 inch guns on a light cruiser i would be compelled to call it so for example the south dakota battleship and lexington battlecruiser class were both laid down at around the same time (but only 2 out of the 10 or so combined ships were completed being lexington and saratoga as carriers due to wnt) these 2 classes had the exact same guns
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on May 30, 2019 7:21:53 GMT -6
Yet still, for all these divergences from the contemporary Battleship designs, in tonnage and gun caliber they were more similar to battleships than to any cruisers in existence at the time. Moreover, the "gun commonality" thing is pretty much meaningless anyways, as Scharnhorst didn't have "gun commonality" with other capital ships either, yet noone sensible would call it a "large cruiser"/"supercruiser". Another thing is that the role that Alaskas had to play in the navy was suspiciously similar to the one played by battlecruisers, which is no coincidence, I believe. All in all, I see no reason to see Alaskas as anything else than budget battlecruisers. Edit.: That said, I do not exactly know why a thread dedicated to panzerschiffe turned into one about whether or not Alaskas were battlecruisers
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 30, 2019 7:44:28 GMT -6
a 14 inch gun will perform much better than a 12 inch gun if both are using superheavy shells and both have the same muzzle velocity
Undebatable. Then again a 14'' gun with superheavy shells and high muzzle velocity is absurdly overkill to destroy targets wich strongest armor is 5.5 over small sections of their belt. It also would be a lot heavier.
Those ships didn't need a modern 14'' gun to do the job - their modern 12'' and 12.2'' guns were more than enough for doing what they were supposed to do: kill cruisers and run away from battleships (again - the role of a battecruiser). Adding extra tonnage to only be MORE overkill was meaningless.
its also interesting to note that almost no battlecruisers were made after 1930 and i cannot think of a single one at this moment
There's nothing magical about it, the 1923 weapons disarmement treaty in Washington forbade the biggest navies from building capital ships for the following 15 years, with notable case by case exceptions made to accomodate to individual signataries justified particular needs (UK with the Nelsons, France with the Dunkerkes).
So obviously when the naval building restriction was lifted everyone threw their resources in getting new battleships they couldn't build for the prior 15 years. Japan threw itself into building four yamatos (an inordinately challenging task). The US went head first into the North Carolina and South Dakota class. Only after those projects were well underway and enough resources could be spared for them, plans began to emerge about other far more specialized capital ships, such as battlecruisers.
it is to be noted that all battlecruisers had commonality in their guns with their contemporary battleships for example the fusos had 14 inch guns they were battleships and the kongos had the same 14 inch guns (these ships were ordered shortly after eachother) in addition to this the british hood had 15 inch guns same guns as on their battleships of the time (revenge and so on) this has been the case all the way back to when battlecruisers first came in
these new ships b65 alaska and so on DO NOT have gun commonality with battleships of their time and comparing the alaskas guns to any gun in 1940 which was reasonably modern except the kgvs guns we quickly find the alaskas guns to be SIGNIFICANTLY worse performing
This has been adressed and explained and mentioned several times in previous posts, some of them adressed at you. It'd help if after reading something you didn't proceed to ignore it.
Kongo was built pre-1914 as a half sister to HMS Lion. In 1912 the battlecruiser's prey (Cruisers of any kind) had armor thicknesses that commonly reached or even surpassed 6'' in the vital areas you'd like to hit hard during a battle - yet shell technology and AP projectile performance was limited. In order to reliably penetrate plates of that thickness or more you wanted the biggest gun possible at the time.
Then there's the matter of prestige in the arms race. Kongo's main battery was a matter of high debate in the Japanese high command up to the day her design was frozen and building began. Initially the order was for ships with 12'' guns, as that was the standard for the battecruisers at the time she was ordered. Soon thereafter the ordering news reached japan of the new british battlecruisers carrying 13.5'' guns; the japanese didn't want to be left behind (because guns=prestige) and one-upped them, ordering the Kongos with 14''. Which were the largest guns of any ship of the time of her ordering, until shorty thereafter news about the american Nevadas came around (which prompted the Japanese to one up their 10x14'' main battery in turn, ordering the Fusos with 12x14'' guns).
By the time the Alaska and B-65s time to be built came (even if one of those wasn't even laid down), the battlecruiser's prey (Cruisers of any kind) had armor thicknesses that ranged from tinclad armor to 5.5'' over magazines only. The new 12'' guns were as powerful as the old 14'' guns, and they were more than enough to completely massacre cruisers. They didn't need any bigger guns, for they'd only make them even more overkill against their prey, yet be dead weight against the rest of ships that justified guns that big: battleships (which neither the battlecruisers, nor Alaska nor B-65 being instances of them, were intended to fight at all to begin with). And in wartime nobody cared about "prestige" anymore - what was needed were ships as efficient as possible while as economical as possible.
Meanwhile, battleship size was growing in scale and main battery steadily, because their main objective (fighting and winning against enemy battleships) demanded them to be bigger and ever-more-heavily armored as time went by. Battleships needed every bit of firepower they could muster; for battlecruisers like Alaska or B-65 anything more than what was already enough to reduce a cruiser to a heap of scrap metal was overkill and wasted displacement.
Hence battleships moved up to 16'' guns while Alaskas and B-65s downscaled to 12'' and 12.2'' and used the saved displacement to be even faster. Perfectly reasonable.
for germany in order to have a battlecruiser they would need to have rearmed the gneisenhau and scharnhorst with 15 inch guns once this was completed they would become battlecruisers because they now had gun commonality with their battleships
Schranrhost and Gneisenau were battleships when they had 280mm guns. Had they swapped for 380mm guns they'd still been battlecruisers.
The Kriegsmarine did have a battlecruiser design they intended to build, the "O-projekt" SchlatchKreuzer: 35000 ton warships (size of battleship) with 38cm (completely overkill for their projected role as cruiser killer and commerce raiders), and protection levels startingly similar to those of Alaska's. The ships were woefully unbalanced, the target of jokes even when on paper, the three ships to be built to the design initially ordered as "O" ,"P" and "Q", officers of the Kriegsmarine referred to them as "Ohne Panzer Quatsch"
Had their main battery been downscaled to a much more reasonable battery of 11.1'' guns the displacement needs would've been drastically reduced and the ship would've been startingly similar to the Alaskas and B-65s. Unsurprising - with 38cm they were woefully unbalanced battlecruisers that wasted displacement in guns too big for the job.
for the british for example the planned g3 battlecruisers were to be a battlecruiser version of the nelson class and these 2 ship classes both had the exact same guns although the g3 was never completed due to the treaty
First, you're getting it completely upside down: the G3s were not a "Battlecruiser version of the nelson class". The Nelson was an offshoot of the G3 class with drastically cut down machinery and a re-designed armor layout and main battery placement in order to bring the design down to 35.000 tons at the cost of speed and protection.
That set aside the G3 project, as planned, were fast battleships through and through, even more so than the Admiral or Amagi classes (both fast battleships on their own). The british post-jutland battlecruiser was, quite literally: "A battleship that can hit 30 knots". The UK had a problem with the original battlecruiser role: They considered that ships that expensive should be available for fleet actions. What happened to the battlecruiser in a fleet action was out there for everyone to see at Jutland, so they proceeded to uparmor their fast capital ships to battleship levels.
The result was no longer a battlecruiser, not in shape (Hood had battleship protection, something battlecruisers weren't supposed to have), nor in role (Hood was fully intended to engage enemy capital ships, something no battlecruiser was supposed to do). The concept of "Fast battleship" still didn't exist (was coined by american Admiral Sims the second he saw HMS Hood), so the british called them "battlecruisers" because they just went with bureocratic inertia. But Hood was no battlecruiser.
G3's design was completed with similar ideas and expectations as Hood. If Hood was no battlecruiser (and she wasn't in anything but name), G3 was even less.
In a similar vein, Japan, as part of the post-WWI 8-8 program, demanded their "battecruisers" to be fully capable to work alongside the battleline in fleet battles (an offshoot of how they used their armored cruisers on Tsushima). As a result the "battlecruiser" half of the 8-8 program was a 30 knot capital ship with 16'' guns, protection that completely outclassed that of Japan's previous battleships (Ises and Nagatos), and that was fully intended to be thrown in battlefleet actions (Again, something no battlecruiser was ever supposed to do). They weren't battlecruisers - they were full fledged fast battleships.
Both Hood, G3, and Amagi had armor layouts that left many a contemporary battleship at shame, expended more than 30% of their displacement in armor (when battecruisers pre-jutland rarely exceeded 25%, most times being under that, Invincibles having 18% only). All those were very "non-battlecruiser-like" traits, and responded to the intention of the navies that designed them to purposefully use them in battlefleet actions (something battlecruisers were not intended to do at all). Neither of those three classes were battecruisers in anything but name (the same the Alaskas weren't "large cruisers" in anything but name).
technically speaking the furious large cruiser with 18 inch guns is not a battlecruiser but out of the fact it had 18 inch guns on a light cruiser i would be compelled to call it so
Furious was completed with a 18'' gun aft and a flight-deck forwards. The 18'' gun didn't last long in place. She was a carrier the second level heads took command of the Admiralty replacing Fisher's last term.
Courageous and Glorious (not to mention Furious had she even been completed as designed) were unclassifiable because they simply had no role. They had been built just for one reason: Lord Fisher wanted big guns on very fast ships, and after WW1 had started the Royal Navy had been restricted to begin new construction of light cruisers and destroyers, both of which the Navy was desperately in need off instead of more capital ships.
So he ordered three light cruiser hulls with 15'' guns and 18'' guns. The Royal Navy simply didn't know what to do with them because they had no role in which they didn't suck. So they called them "Large Light Cruiser" as an expediency measure (now that was an oxymoron if there ever was one), were very careful not to use them in anything that resembled a fleet action, and finally converted them to carriers, which other than downright scrapping them was the only sensible thing to do. But no, those weren't battlecruisers at all - battecruisers were supposed to at least have enough armor to fend off gunfire from their cruiser prey, something those monstrosities didn't have.
the south dakota battleship and lexington battlecruiser class were both laid down at around the same time
The Lexington class is widely aknowledged as probably the worst US naval design that ever reached the point of actually being laid down, and even the own US Navy was relieved the second they were cancelled, for those ships shared too many traits with the aforementioned british nonsense ships for confort.
Armed with absolutely overkill weapons, safe from 6'' gunfire only, they just had no viable role to fullfit, for not even the battlecruiser role fit them well (BCs were supposed to have armor able to hold off enemy cruiser fire. It's true that by 1920 there weren't many armored cruisers around but by that time the first generation of what latter was called "heavy cruisers" designs was being completed. Japanese Furutaka, British Hawkins, american Pensacola.
Had any of the Lexingtons been completed as designed and laid down the US Navy would've found itself in a very similar position as the british did with Corageous or Glorious: "What the hell do we do with this nonsense of a monster". And then probably they'd been converted to carriers anyway. A 44000 ton cruiser killer that's vulnerable to 8'' gunfire is not a battlecruiser: it's nonsense.
|
|