Naval History Forums

The Germans did have references to ''Schlacht Kreuzer'' at some stage just before the start of WW1, but I cannot recall the context in which it was used.

It seems to me the German battlecruisers were closer to "fast battleships" than anything else. They were certainly better protected than their RN equivilants. And ,more importantly, much better ammunition handleing procedures.

And better weapons too.
The 12 inch of Derfflinger was a much better weapon than the 12 inch of HMS Infexible

hammy wrote:Their role in full battle situations was also clear ; - to scout forward of the battleship line , and to try to prevent enemy British battlecruisers from scouting the German battle line .
There does not appear to have been any thinking on the German side that they had any role to play in lying in the line of battle themselves , and trading blows with battleship opponents , nor can we see by the final German WW1 battlecruiser designs that merging of the battleship's strength and protection with the battlecruiser's speed which the Royal Navy had realised was the way forward for the capital ship , ie Churchills " fastest , strongest ship " of which Hood can be regarded as the ( flawed and ill-fated ) prototype , and ships like Bismark , Iowa and Vanguard as fully worked up types.

I am certain that this is not really the case. There are plenty of RMA primary sources published by Axel Grießmer in his outstanding book about the design background history of the ww1 german battlecruisers to proof that Tirpitz really thought of the Große Kreuzer beeing not only scouting forces but that
"in case of a battleline engagement, our Große Kreuzer need to be sufficiently armoured in order to augment our battleline against a numerically superior enemy like the Grand Fleet" (translation by myselve)

And You will be easily able to trace this philosophy, starting in VON DER TANN when studying their respective armour scheme. It mirrors the contemporary expectation of the RMA with regards to battlerange and projectile´s ability to penetrate armour. That´s also the prime reason why early german Dreadnoughts & Große Kreuzer (up to KÖNIG & SEYDLITZ) had such an enforced armoured slope behind the belt -to stop close range, penetrating belt hits. Later on, when longer range gunnery became feasable, the slope was reduced in strength to mere splinter protection niveau (BAYERN & DERFFLINGER class) because long range penetrating hits were not expected to have enough residual excess velocity to penetrate coal bunkers, 50mm slope, coal bunker and 50mm torpedo bulkhead.

There are differences too, the GK´s use more spread out armour to cover more area, while the Dreadnoughts tend to concentrate armour in belt, barbette and turret with only limited armour provided to the upper belt. But generally, the GK´s represent a fast battleship in design philosophy and intended mission parameter.

delcyros wrote: I am certain that this is not really the case. There are plenty of RMA primary sources published by Axel Grießmer in his outstanding book about the design background history of the ww1 german battlecruisers to proof that Tirpitz really thought of the Große Kreuzer beeing not only scouting forces but that
"in case of a battleline engagement, our Große Kreuzer need to be sufficiently armoured in order to augment our battleline against a numerically superior enemy like the Grand Fleet" (translation by myselve)

...generally, the GK´s represent a fast battleship in design philosophy and intended mission parameter.

Thanks, you saved me the trouble of posting pretty much the same reply.

Even if you magically increased the speed of the British BBs to that of a battlecruiser, they would still have fallen short of the German concept of the fast battleship, which they named Große Kruezer for whatever reason--that doesn't really matter so much. In deed if not in name. I daresay the Derfflinger was at least as well protected as the Iron Duke (same thickness in belt and turret armor), with a lot better internal subdivision. Certainly a tougher ship to hurt than the Agincourt with a 9 inch belt. Even if the latter carried a lot heavier punch it was nothing more than a heavily armed, slow battlecruiser.

The you have the Mackensens and the Ersatz Yorks. Had the war been delayed a bit these would have seen completion. Possibly closer to true 'fast battleships' than the magnificent Queen Elizabeths, and had construction not ceased due to the war they would have been available not long after the QEs.

In deed if not in name.

Wow some nasty typos and grammatical glitches in that last post, sorry. Couldn't sleep again after a busy night at work (I work in a nightclub), but I was starting to get tired by the time I posted that lol!

I did realize that a "heavily armed, slow battlecruiser" was a contradiction in terms, of course. But I was trying to point out the flaw in this nonetheless remarkable ship, by comparison with the supposedly inferior battlecruiser Derfflinger, which supposedly couldn't be considered a 'fast battleship' prototype. Obviously I think it was a great prototype.

Can you really call the Agincourt a battleship, with a 4-9 inch belt?? What do you guys think?

Agincourt was a battleship............just not one of Jellicoe's better ones.
She packed 14 main guns in 7 turrets (a dreadnought record) but the British 12 inch wasnt the equal of the German 12 inch
She would have been more susceptible to turret hits and we know what chaos that caused with the British sloppy ammo handling procedures at Jutland
It should of course be remembered that Agincourt was designed for a foriegn navy and was NOT built to RN speciifications.
The RN would never have accepted her into service had it not been wartime.

And yes, Derfflinger wasnt nicknamed "Iron Dog" for nothing - she was a tough old girl