On Battlecruisers ...

[RF]

The experience of the Scheer seems to contrast sharply with the AGS, whose secondary guns at the River Plate battle were completely ineffective. Maybe this is down to the efficiences of the ship commanders, such as Krancke, perhaps also due to wartime experience as the war went on as the AGS was in a 1939 situation.

In AGS the problem turned out to be a technical one which was not discovered until after the AGS had reached Montevideo. The director controlling most of the fire of the 15cm against the enemy had been slightly damaged by a shell splinter which penetrated the housing above the fire control position roof and jammed part of the internal mechanism. This led to a misalignment, resulting in salvos falling wide of the target.

There is an interesting implication here - without that damage the secondary guns might have played a significant role in the River Plate battle, possibly altering the outcome....

[irving1941]

On the thread, very long thread for an obvious conclusion. Battlecruisers are not worth what was expended in them. Expensive coffins, that´s what they are. Beautiful sleek, long, handsome, powerfull armed coffins!
Take a look to Jutland: three of them blown away! And the worst part is that they were blown while their side, the english, were winning! Can you imagine the scenario is they were losing! And then Bismarck came and blew HMS Hood in a matter of minutes. And we have Repulse, which wasn´t much a difficluty to the Japs. It is that or the addmision that the english warship construction was defective in some way... or that german ships were stronger...

[irving1941]

Well, I believe it was both: germans were better builders and the battlecruisers were a bad idea. How´s that famous Beatty saying???? " I believe something´s wrong with our bloody ships today'" Well, something like that.

[lwd]

The Japanese got more use from their BC than they did from their BBs. Didn't some of the British BC come in pretty useful in WW1. They certainly did in WWII.

[irving1941]

The Japanese got more use from their BC than they did from their BBs. Didn't some of the British BC come in pretty useful in WW1. They certainly did in WWII.

Of course they were useful! PT Boats are also usefull as fishing vessels as spy ships. The fact is, and what I´m referring about is, that BCs presented serious problems at the historical engagements such as Jutland and May 24, 1941. There is no object in denying the fact that they blew up in those ocassions. That´s why I quoted Beatty.

[Legend]

BC's were good against other BC's, but were getting lucky to survive against a BB, especially in a one on one.

[dougieo]

BC's were good against other BC's, but were getting lucky to survive against a BB, especially in a one on one.

Initially I dont think they were ever intended to take on BB`s, more to be used as scouts for the fleet.

[Tiornu]

Battlecruisers were always intended to fight against battleships. Historically, it's worked out pretty evenly. One battlecruiser was sunk by a battleship, and one battleship was sunk by a battlecruiser.

[dougieo]

Battlecruisers were always intended to fight against battleships. Historically, it's worked out pretty evenly. One battlecruiser was sunk by a battleship, and one battleship was sunk by a battlecruiser.

No they werent.

otherwise they would have been armoured enough to do so.

[lwd]

DDs and MTBs were expected to fight BBs but didn't have as much armor as a BC. They may not have been intended to fight them one on one but that's another matter.

[Tiornu]

No they werent.

You can consult Battlecruisers by Roberts, British Battleships by Parkes, Gli incrociatori italiani by Giorgerini & Nani, and Birth of the Battleship by Beeler. Common knowledge has fallen prey to anachronistic thinking. Battlecrusers were intended from the outset to fight against battleships.

[RF]

Battlecruisers were always intended to fight against battleships. Historically, it's worked out pretty evenly. One battlecruiser was sunk by a battleship, and one battleship was sunk by a battlecruiser.

I can't recall the latter case. Can you recap which BB was sunk by a BC?

[Tiornu]

Bretagne. Ironically, Hood figured in both incidents.

[dougieo]

DDs and MTBs were expected to fight BBs but didn't have as much armor as a BC. They may not have been intended to fight them one on one but that's another matter.

Thats the point, Battlecruisers were not designed to take on Battleships one-on-one.

[RF]

Bretagne. Ironically, Hood figured in both incidents.

This was why i couldn't recall this instance - it wasn't in what I would call a proper battle.

Give it a one on one situation, with Bretagne properly prepared at sea, do you think the situation would end with Hood sinking Bretagne?