Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
EvyL

battlecruisers and battleships: my thoughts

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Super Tester
1,677 posts

This thought came to mind when I was checking out the plans for the Alsace, Lexington battlecruiser, Jean Bart and the Admiral when suddenly a friend asked me if battleships, battlecruisers and the typical cruiser are of the same.

 

As usual, feel free to correct.

 

A battleship and battlecruiser have two things in common and that is the fact both ship types are capital ships or cap ships for short and their guns can effectively harm other capital ships. if we speak subjectively of lulz, there are actually two types of vessels in the navy: the aircraft carrier, battleship and battlecruiser belong to the capital ship types since they are regarded at their golden age as the principal ships in naval combat, the cruisers, both heavy and light and specialized ones such as an AA cruiser or torpedo cruiser, destroyers, destroyer escorts and destroyer leaders are the workhorses of the navy but that don't mean that they're expendable as hell. this thought will actually be a bit useful in Domination battles due to this: why do you think that when a battleship and carrier sinks the team score takes a gigantic blow of a 90 point deduction whilst the cruisers sinking deduct 60 points and destroyers take 40 points? the destroyer is the backbone of the navy and in Domination, DD players are very crucial although some do not know of it. cruisers are also part of this backbone since aside from providing flak in the sky, it can also act as destroyer killers and enemy cruiser killers as well as provide additional fire support when whacking cap ships.

 

if we talk about the difference between a battleship and a battlecruiser IMHO, there should be this:

 

- a battleship has more armor than a battlecruiser. yes, even the fast battleships are a bit more armored than the battlecruiser

- a battlecruiser has speed and guns as its priority but that don't mean its 'naked' or unarmored, a battleship has speed a secondary whilst its priority is smashing other capital ships and surviving to reach port

- a battleship has a really thick torpedo bulge/blister (to those that don't know what it is, check the Nagato's hull when looking at her from the front. if you think the sides of the hull look fat, that's the torpedo bulge and obviously, its there so that a ship won't easily sink from a torpedo hit) whilst some battlecruisers don't have that much in torpedo bulges or in lulz cases, none at all

2u8uomq.jpg

 

- the battlecruisers are literally allowed to be "bottlesheeps" aka "please-don't-severely-harm-my-battleship-while-I-pummel-you-without-mercy" and "I-run-away-when-I'm-being-straddled" battleships because even if you got guns that can harm capital ships, usually 12-16 inch guns, and the maneuverability to bring those guns to bear, a battleship can and WILL whack your shit totally despite not having the ERMAGHERD SPEED of a battlecruiser (but to be fair, fast battleships can catch up to a battlecruiser) but there might be lulz cases where a battlecruiser fires FASTER than a typical battleship.

 

 

from what I know though, there are some ships that can get away being battleships and battlecruisers at the same time. one is of the entire Kongo class where the lead ship, Kongo, was the first to get battleship upgrade shit so at the eve of WWII, she's technically a fast battleship along with her sisters that can keep up with carriers which made her perfect for CV escort duty (and why I call the Kongo a battlecruiser sans battleship). the other is two of Britain's battlecruiser types, the Admiral class with the Hood as her representative and lulzy enough, the Pride of the Royal Navy, and the Renown class with the Repulse as her noted representative. I know you might wonder why the Brits loved their bottlekrooza and Japan has had paper bottlekrooza sheeps as well since due to the Naval Treaties that in TL;DR is "one does not simply build a hueg ass battleship without consulting the limits imposed" that in derp context, SHOULD nerf the US and UK so hard since it limited how their bottlesheeps would be. building a huge ass battleship costs a LOT of monies and a battlecruiser was a 'slightly' cheaper alternative for cap ships for a navy and its kinda perfectly acceptable since "it ain't a battleship we're building but a battlecruiser so its valid!" and if given enough shit to be modernized, a battlecruiser on hax could technically behave and be like a fast battleship. there's also the lulzy potential of the Lexington battlecruiser before the planners went all "bro, why the hell would we make a bottlekrooza? let's convert the shit out of it into a carrier" and the Alaska class "Large Cruisers" or "Cruiser Killers" that are 'technically' big cruisers that have battleship grade guns.

 

there's also that lulzy debate that the Bismarck is a battlecruiser sans battleship as well and I'm asking those that can book raid to see if this debate that the Bismarck is a battlecruiser sans battleship really happened or stated since it kinda went overboard the Naval treaty although I forgot what articles were there that it violated. never mind the Yamato breaking the naval treaties because Japan at the time went all "screw this shit, we build what we flippin' want!".

 

to TL;DR this all: a battlecruiser is, for a sentence, a heavy cruiser on mass hax and a nerfed fast battleship all in one surface ship whilst the battleship is busy being itself: the pride of a nation's navy.

 

derp.exe has reached a critical error. cue Starcraft's "battlecruiser operational" quote.

 

Edited by EvyL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

Battleships and battlecruisers are designations based on their role, not necessarily physical features.

 

The word "Battleship" comes from the much longer "Ship of the line of battle" (from which we also get the archaic Ship of the Line). These are ships that marry firepower and survivability, made to dish out and receive tremendous punishment from other similar ships. Speed and maneuverability is generally a function of the design of the ship, and because in latter designs, battleships are required to be fast in order to outspeed and outmaneuver other battleships (not to mention having the space to put in larger boilers or engines). 

 

Battlecruisers, however, are a novel design that are designed to do to heavy cruisers what heavy cruisers do to light cruisers (and what light cruisers do to destroyers). They evolved as part of an arms race with different countries attempting to counter each other's navies. As such, battlecruisers are designed, first and foremost, to be fast enough to chase down and kill enemy heavy cruisers and destroy them with superior weaponry. Though, given the requirements of war and advancements of design, by WWII fast battleships and battlecruisers were basically just terms appended to fast, heavily armed and well-armoured warships, since battlecruisers were increasingly pressed to stand in the Line of Battle. Still, there's a formal division between the two ship classes based on their roles.

 

You're right in saying that there are two separate "classes" of surface combatants in conventional navies. However, in traditional doctrine, it's divided as such: the first group is the formal Line of Battle, the capital ships. If these are destroyed, the navy is impotent. However, if the rest of the navy is destroyed, the navy can still pose a significant threat as long as its capital ships remain intact. The second half is all the other assorted ships that fulfils the roles of the navy: patrolling, picketing, establishing and holding lines of communication and trade networks, or disrupting them. Some of these ships will be pressed into supporting the line of battle, sure, but by and large, they're expendable in comparison to the capital ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,677 posts

thanks for the follow-up syanda. I actually forgot where "battleship" came from too and I was focusing on the build of both ship types rather than their use since in here, CC's get shacked up with BB's.

 

did remember WWI battlecruiser actually behaving as battle line ships and one of the particular battlecruiser slugfest had a certain guy named Maas die from that although I actually forgot that battle's name.

 

even so though, that didn't stop a battlecruiser from getting into the battle line as a second tier shooter since its guns could harm a typical battleship, harm, but never severely damage. as I said that they focused on more speed and gun due to their role as cruiser killers since a typical battleship focused on gun and survivability (its going to be a strange thing to know that a typical battleship, dread or a new design, reach 30+ knots without messing with the boilers). speaking of which, the only full-on battlecruisers left after WWI were Britain's three in WWII, right? the Gneisau and Scharnorst don't fully count since they are technically battlecruiser sans battleship types, right?

 

I'm starting to think its a good thing for the battlecruiser to be in the battleship classification in-game but they actually need to split the battleship class to slow and fast battleship with the battlecruiser branching with the latter else if the cruiser line is going to get battlecruisers (technically, its the 'bridge of sorts for cruisers and battleships, right?), its gonna be a pain.

 

a rather strange thing to know though: one paper bottlekrooza, the G3, should have been an early fast battleship but 12 inch of guns and thinner(?) armor made it stay as a battlecruiser. dafuq.

Edited by EvyL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ST Coordinator
2,325 posts
2,196 battles

As far as I can read/find/remember Bismarck has always been a Battleship not a Battlecruiser though I think she has more speed than a typical battleship as her role was mainly to hunt convoys . Admiral Graf Spee on the other hand was more a battlecruiser (Pocket Battleship).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

Yup! Leberecht Maass, who got killed when his light cruiser ran into British battlecruisers at Heligoland Blight. The Nazis later named a destroyer after him. At Jutland, both the Brits and the Germans used their battlecruiser forces as second-line ships, and both sides suffered incredible damage and battlecruiser losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,677 posts

As far as I can read/find/remember Bismarck has always been a Battleship not a Battlecruiser though I think she has more speed than a typical battleship as her role was mainly to hunt convoys . Admiral Graf Spee on the other hand was more a battlecruiser (Pocket Battleship).

 

 

 

even here. Bismarck was a battleship through and through just like her little sister Tirpitz but strangely enough there are those that say she was a heavy battlecruiser, not a full-on battleship. check the arpeggio discussion at mangafox. it was there where someone mentioned that of all things. but if we talk of Germans preferring souped up battlecruisers that behave like fast battleships, wouldn't that make the Gneisau and Scharnhorst battlecruiser sans battleship types?

 

and sadly Wind, as much as Graf Spee behaves like a battlecruiser, it was still very much a heavy cruiser.

 

Yup! Leberecht Maass, who got killed when his light cruiser ran into British battlecruisers at Heligoland Blight. The Nazis later named a destroyer after him. At Jutland, both the Brits and the Germans used their battlecruiser forces as second-line ships, and both sides suffered incredible damage and battlecruiser losses.

 

so Leberecht Maass was his name. thanks again Syanda.

 

weren't the more noticeable slugfests of battleships at Jutland that kinda ended in a wonky stalemate? and its not really that surprising that both sides had their battlecruisers whacked although if I can say anything, the Brits had a rather nice build for battlecruisers since they tend to be very maneuverable and fast with battleship grade guns at 12-15 inches at the cost of sacrificing a bit of armor whilst the Germans had a rather solid build for their battlecruisers and were reasonably armored with guns that were dedicated to gunning down heavy cruisers rather than think of the thought that they would actually go on a slugfest with battleships which I think had guns at 11-14 inches at most.

 

... wait, going by the Jutland brawl, both sides should most likely have the sort of bit with their vessels:

 

- RN battlecruisers favor speed and guns, RN standard battleships favor armor, guns and survivability

- KM battlecruisers favor solid defense in armor and original purpose which was to overwhelm anything short of a battleship, KM battleships favor solid armor, maneuverability and survivability

 

did the Brits actually anticipated that the battlecruiser concept of speed, reasonable armor and good firepower would sooner or later be the new standard type of ship of the lines? 14 to 15 inches of gun is reasonable enough for a second line ship to deal a LOT of harm to enemy cap ships and European battleships at the eve of WWII were usually packing 15 inch guns and to put a gun of that caliber in a cheaper cap ship such as the battlecruiser...

 

... welp I'm overthinking.

Edited by EvyL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ST Coordinator
2,325 posts
2,196 battles

I find RN favored speed over armor for a reasons of getting to places faster, remember RN had outpost in India and Asia so they probably put speed over armor for their Battlecruisers to get to their colonies faster.

 

KM on the other hand only had to defend Europe and Germany always preferred armor first. I mean look at Bismarck it took hours for the British combined fleet to pound her to a burning wreck and she was still afloat (She was scuttled later by her crew).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,677 posts

I find RN favored speed over armor for a reasons of getting to places faster, remember RN had outpost in India and Asia so they probably put speed over armor for their Battlecruisers to get to their colonies faster.

 

KM on the other hand only had to defend Europe and Germany always preferred armor first. I mean look at Bismarck it took hours for the British combined fleet to pound her to a burning wreck and she was still afloat (She was scuttled later by her crew).

 

you got a point since after she had her hax installed, Repulse was one fast ship, hell she was the fastest cap ship at the time. but UK's standard battleships however are needed there at home. thats probably why they actually had to make their battlecruisers faster since it has good guns but thin armor and in all sense it would be the first to react to the APAC theater although it can NEVER be a battle line ship for long since its there to respond and hold them off while the outpost gets its bearings together.

 

strangely though, the only countries that took a fancy to the battlecruiser concept are Britain, Germany, Japan and the US. I don't know if the Dutch actually did want that concept since they had some unique cruisers and some destroyers for defense in the East Indies or for both Italy and France for that matter since iirc they usually set sail normal battleships and heavy cruisers but never battlecruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[REACH]
Beta Tester
107 posts
2,227 battles

I find RN favored speed over armor for a reasons of getting to places faster, remember RN had outpost in India and Asia so they probably put speed over armor for their Battlecruisers to get to their colonies faster.

 

KM on the other hand only had to defend Europe and Germany always preferred armor first. I mean look at Bismarck it took hours for the British combined fleet to pound her to a burning wreck and she was still afloat (She was scuttled later by her crew).

 

and the Tirpitz took 30+ Lancaster armed with 12,000 lb to sink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CLAY]
Alpha Tester
943 posts
5,633 battles

Just a note on what you said about cost.  "building a huge ass battleship costs a LOT of monies and a battlecruiser was a 'slightly' cheaper alternative for cap ships for a navy and its kinda perfectly acceptable since "it ain't a battleship we're building but a battlecruiser so its valid!" 

Jane's fighting ships has HMS Renown at a cost of 3,117,204 pounds where as the Queen Elizabeth class cost around 3,000,000 pounds. (Renown Battlecruiser 1916, Queen Elizabeth battleship 1913)

There was no money to be saved by building Battlecruiser as they tendered to be larger and with much more powerful turbines

Also not everyone had the same idea on how to make them....the British went with speed and firepower over protection (armour) while the Germans went with speed and armour over firepower in WWI (as they wanted their ships to be able to fight 'inline battle').

Edited by BigWaveSurfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,677 posts

@BigWave

 

wasn't the Renown converted from the Revenge when it was still during hull construction that's why she cost more monies though? and be fair for Queen Liz, iirc dreads weren't that much expensive.

 

I'm not really sure if the battlecruisers of the RN outsized their own standard battleships back then but if they were listed as such, why not? even for the Kongo that was retro'd into a fast battleship iirc did not outsize both Fuso and Nagato. not remotely sure for Germany as well since from what I see, their WWI battlecruisers are kinda equal to their battleships though I suspect that it might be the reason why they can get away with calling their battleships the 'battlecruiser sans battleship' types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,677 posts

I thought they termed the Deutschland cruisers as pocket battleships because they can, to a certain degree greater than any EU battlecruisers at the time, serve alongside their battleships and are typically very tough for battlecruisers, even against the RN counterparts that have battleship grade guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ST Coordinator
2,325 posts
2,196 battles

From what I can find, even though Pocket Battleship was given to Deutschland class BBs, the term itself was to denote any ship with BB caliber guns but Heavy Cruiser armor (Overall Tonnage makes them not a "real BB). So would that sound the same as a Battlecruiser san Battleship. All I can dig up from Google XD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CLAY]
Alpha Tester
943 posts
5,633 battles

@BigWave

 

wasn't the Renown converted from the Revenge when it was still during hull construction that's why she cost more monies though? and be fair for Queen Liz, iirc dreads weren't that much expensive.

 

I'm not really sure if the battlecruisers of the RN outsized their own standard battleships back then but if they were listed as such, why not? even for the Kongo that was retro'd into a fast battleship iirc did not outsize both Fuso and Nagato. not remotely sure for Germany as well since from what I see, their WWI battlecruisers are kinda equal to their battleships though I suspect that it might be the reason why they can get away with calling their battleships the 'battlecruiser sans battleship' types.

 

To give you an idea of the size difference of these 2 classes the Royal Sovereign class (Revenge) (BB) had an over all length of 624ft, while over all length of the Renown class (BC) was 794ft (taken from Jane's fighting ships of WWI), and yes the hulls were converted from the Royal Sovereign. (Revenge)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CLAY]
Alpha Tester
943 posts
5,633 battles

Just on a side note, the earlier Queen Elizabeth class BB was a better class then the later Royal Sovereign as they had better turbines (75,000 H.P. over the R class 40,000 H.P.). Which is why you find they got modernized much more between the wars then the R class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

Prior to the Washington Naval Treaty, capital ship design was basically each country looking at each other's ships and going "Right, how do we build ships better than that?"

 

End result, tonnage and size inflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CLAY]
Alpha Tester
943 posts
5,633 battles

As for the 'pocket battleship' they were a product of naval limitation put on German after WWI (no ship over 10,000ton and no guns over 11") They were not much more then very powerfully gunned 'armoured cruiser' (a type of ship not seen much after WWI as the battlecruiser was designed to kill them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
14 posts
5,643 battles

As for the 'pocket battleship' they were a product of naval limitation put on German after WWI (no ship over 10,000ton and no guns over 11") They were not much more then very powerfully gunned 'armoured cruiser' (a type of ship not seen much after WWI as the battlecruiser was designed to kill them).

 

but pocket battleship has torpedos right?

 

but if i'm not mistaken late bismarck also has torpedo right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,677 posts

 

but pocket battleship has torpedos right?

 

but if i'm not mistaken late bismarck also has torpedo right?

 

she has but iirc its only for when enemy ships get into the torpedo's maximum effective range, even the RN battlecruisers have it although I doubt the pocket battleships did have torpedoes since they focused on armor and defense with reasonable 11 inch guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

Pretty much every pre-WWII battleship design incorporated torpedo tubes/launchers. They were taken out because people realized it was a horrible idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,677 posts

Pretty much every pre-WWII battleship design incorporated torpedo tubes/launchers. They were taken out because people realized it was a horrible idea.

 

speaking of tubes wasn't part of the Hood's going boom involved it punching through its torpedo tubes before reaching somewhere where a shell isn't supposed to be that made her go boom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ST Coordinator
2,325 posts
2,196 battles

Pretty much every pre-WWII battleship design incorporated torpedo tubes/launchers. They were taken out because people realized it was a horrible idea.

 

I can just imagine a Yamato Class Torpedo Battleship.  200 Torpedo tubes in Quintuple mounts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×