Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Post by lwd »

alecsandros wrote: ... Of course there were reasons to call the Deuthcland's "pocket battleships",
My understanding is that that term was invented by British newspapers. I haven't seen it or it's equivalant used by the Germans. The term "panzershiffe" appears to me to correspond pretty closely to the term "armored ships" used in the Versailles treaty see: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/partv.asp
SECTION II
NAVAL CLAUSES.
...
ARTICLE 190.
...
Armoured ships 10,000 tons
Yes, I think I know this one. But would a Japanese 12" gunship be called "cruiser" by the Japanese ?
See page 3 of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3391&start=30
boredatwork wrote: ...The original Japanese equivalents to the Alaskas were rated as 'super A-type cruisers'...
MVictorP
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Montréal, Québec

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Post by MVictorP »

lwd wrote:Actually you've got things a bit backward. A torpedo bulkhead hardly constitutes a TDS while a torpedo bulge may be viewed as a rathe rudimentary one.
Look at: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm
Huh? This makes no sense. Are ou sure you're not being just overly argumentative here?

At the epoch we talk about (after WWI), added bulges were revealed as non-efficient, not so much against torpedoes but even as such, its was a form of TDS that was retrofitted to existing ships, that couldn't afford a contemporary TDS (that is, bulkheads built into the hull). In the later year they were almost installed out of stability necessities.
And again look at the space the TDS are taking up on German battleships as mentioned in
http://books.google.com/books?id=TAyRtK ... &q&f=false
The narrowest was Scharnhorst's and it was 9m! GS beam was less than 21m!
Oh, not all TDS were equal, no doubts about that. But still, in WWII torpedo bulkheads were still the best defense a ship could afford against fish. Even a little TDS could make a different between the 1 or 2 hits the ship would require to sink.
The twins would have required extensive modification to allow them to carry 15" guns and note that that would mean that they had the same number and caliber guns as the British Battlecruisers Renown and Revenge.
Yeah, well, I always kind of figured that the twins' weight would go up when modified with 15-inchers, but I figured ship's design permitted the switch more easily, a bit like some US BBs could switch from triple 14-inchers to twin 16. On the other hand, that doesn't surprise me: Even with the 11-inchers, the Scharnhorst already had problem firing their Anton turrets in heavy seas. The Scharnhorsts which are more like enlarged Panzerchiffen than miniature Bismarcks, and it shows here.
Last edited by MVictorP on Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"That was all I had to say"
- Me
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Post by lwd »

MVictorP wrote: Even within the USN, "cruiser functions" are quite different between an Atlanta and a New Orleans. The first USN treaty cruisers were diminished because they tried to developp a ship that could do all "cruiser functions". Cruiser hunting and killing is not a cruiser function, but a battlecruiser one.
....
I'd like to see a source stating it wasn't a cruiser function. The fact that it may have been a battlecruiser function doesn't mean that it wasn't a cruiser one. Especially since the US never had any battlecruisers.
MVictorP
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Montréal, Québec

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Post by MVictorP »

lwd wrote:I'd like to see a source stating it wasn't a cruiser function. The fact that it may have been a battlecruiser function doesn't mean that it wasn't a cruiser one. Especially since the US never had any battlecruisers.
You really do recquire somebody else to say it?

Destroyers can act as cruiser-killer. Or a bunch or regular cruisers. Carriers, too. If in a sufficient bunch, all of these could also act as battleship-killers, by the same token.

But if you are talking about a gun-based ship expressedly designed for cruiser-killing, you are talking about a battlecruiser (like the Renowns) or a light battleship (like the Dunkerques and Alaskas), because cruisers tends to be 10000t ships (5000t raiders were a WWI obsolescence): You don't willingly pit a 10000t against another without playing a serious gamble. I don't see Exeter taking on Graf Spee alone.
"That was all I had to say"
- Me
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Post by lwd »

MVictorP wrote:
lwd wrote:Actually you've got things a bit backward. A torpedo bulkhead hardly constitutes a TDS while a torpedo bulge may be viewed as a rathe rudimentary one.
Look at: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm
Huh? This makes no sense. Are ou sure you're not being just overly argumentative here?
It makes a great deal of sense.
At the epoch we talk about (after WWI), added bulges were revealed as non-efficient, not so much against torpedoes but even as such, its was a form of TDS that was retrofitted to existing ships, that couldn't afford a contemporary TDS (that is, bulkheads built into the hull).
Topedo bulges were fitted because in many cases it simply wasn't possible to refit a TDS into a battleship that wasn't designed with one. However you will note that the Ganguts had torpedo bulkheads fitted before the torpedo bulges and on more of the class. By itself a torpdo bulkhead doesn't really prevent torpedo damage it may tend to moderate it. As part of an overall TDS they do indeed play a role but they don't constitute a TDS in and of themselves.
Oh, not all TDS were equal, no doubts about that. But still, in WWII torpedo bulkheads were still the best defense a ship could afford against fish.
That may be but that doesn't mean they were a TDS. Again look at the article and what TDS were designed to do. I'll even quote it for you:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm
Designers also determined a TDS needed to fulfill the following basic requirements:
A) It must absorb the overpressure of the gas bubble generated by the explosion.
B) It must arrest the fragments of the warhead and the ship’s own structure formed by the explosion.
C) It must prevent the protected compartment inboard of the system from flooding.
Note that it goes on to say:
...
C) Armored bulkheads were required to prevent fragments from penetrating the system. Also, a properly elastic armored bulkhead acted as a tough membrane for depleting the gas overpressure bubble.
...E) Inboard flooding was best prevented by placing an unpierced holding bulkhead as far as possible from the side shell.
...
I.e. a torpedo bulkhead doesn't comprise a TDS. It will be part of most TDS's but by itself it simply doesn't cut it. In particular it doesn't meet the defition of the third word abbreviated in the term TDS, it's not a system.
The twins would have required extensive modification to allow them to carry 15" guns and note that that would mean that they had the same number and caliber guns as the British Battlecruisers Renown and Revenge.
Yeah, well, I always kind of figured that the twins' weight would go up when modified with 15-inchers, but I figured ship's design permitted the switch more easily, a bit like some US BBs could switch from triple 14-inchers to twin 16.
Which US ships were those?
The Scharnhorsts which are more like enlarged Panzerchiffen than miniature Bismarcks, and it shows here.
???? How so?
Their armor scheme was closer to Bismarck.
Their propulsion was closer to Bismarck.
They had real TDS's.
Their displacement was closer to Bismarck.
They were rated battleships like Bismarck.

The only thing I can see that they had much in common with the German cruisers was the caliber of the armament and the number of guns in the turret although they didn't even use the same guns or turrets.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Post by lwd »

MVictorP wrote:
lwd wrote:I'd like to see a source stating it wasn't a cruiser function. The fact that it may have been a battlecruiser function doesn't mean that it wasn't a cruiser one. Especially since the US never had any battlecruisers.
You really do recquire somebody else to say it?
What can I say besides YES!!!!
Destroyers can act as cruiser-killer. Or a bunch or regular cruisers. Carriers, too. If in a sufficient bunch, all of these could also act as battleship-killers, by the same token.
Irrelevant.
But if you are talking about a gun-based ship expressedly designed for cruiser-killing, you are talking about a battlecruiser (like the Renowns) or a light battleship (like the Dunkerques and Alaskas),
That would imply that the USN didn't have a class of ships designed to be cruiser killers up until the Alaska's were fielded. Not a very logical position is it?
... because cruisers tends to be 10000t ships (5000t raiders were a WWI obsolescence): You don't willingly pit a 10000t against another without playing a serious gamble. I don't see Exeter taking on Graf Spee alone.
Nice strawman to finish things off. On the otherhand I believe you will find it was US and British doctrine to hunt opposing battleships with battleships and cruisers with cruisers. As such you will note that the British sent paired capital ships after Bismarck and multiple cruisers after Graf Spee.
It's also pretty clear from dreadnoughtproject.org/.../USF%2021%201%20Cruiser%20Doctrine.pdf that US cruisers were expected to engage and defeat opposing cruisers as long as they were not at a disadvantage and they were certainly to do so with gunfire as with a few rare exceptions they didn't carry torpedoes.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Post by dunmunro »

lwd wrote:

And again look at the space the TDS are taking up on German battleships as mentioned in
http://books.google.com/books?id=TAyRtK ... &q&f=false
The narrowest was Scharnhorst's and it was 9m! GS beam was less than 21m!
Those figures are for both sides of the TDS, so divide by 2 to get maximum depth per side.
MVictorP
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Montréal, Québec

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Post by MVictorP »

lwd wrote:Topedo bulges were fitted because in many cases it simply wasn't possible to refit a TDS into a battleship that wasn't designed with one. However you will note that the Ganguts had torpedo bulkheads fitted before the torpedo bulges and on more of the class. By itself a torpdo bulkhead doesn't really prevent torpedo damage it may tend to moderate it. As part of an overall TDS they do indeed play a role but they don't constitute a TDS in and of themselves.

(...)
Is there a point to this confused data mishmash? You make extensive showing of a poorly assimilated knowledge.
Yeah, well, I always kind of figured that the twins' weight would go up when modified with 15-inchers, but I figured ship's design permitted the switch more easily, a bit like some US BBs could switch from triple 14-inchers to twin 16.
Which US ships were those?[/quote]

Did I wrote 3x14-inchers and 2x16? I was mistaken: It's 4x14" / 3x16" barbettes that were developped for the North Carolinas.
???? How so?
Their armor scheme was closer to Bismarck.
Their propulsion was closer to Bismarck.
They had real TDS's.
Their displacement was closer to Bismarck.
They were rated battleships like Bismarck.
The Scharnhorsts were a response to the French Dunkerques, which in turn were a response to the Panzerschiff. But before being quickly enlarged to what they would be, they were a design that ressembled the P-class Panzerschiffen of the Z-plan. But politics played in and the Scharnhorsts ended up obese.
"That was all I had to say"
- Me
Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Post by Paul L »

Firstly the Term "Panzerschiffe" or armored ship originated from the 1870s. Infact the Deutschland was Panzerschiffe # 26 , while Scheer and Graf Spee were Panzerschiffe # 27 & 28. These Armored ships were outgrowths of the armored frigates of the mid 1800s. So the Term Panzerschiffe doesn't really describe these ships so another term may have been needed to distinquish them from past warships.

Source: Groner German Warships 1815-1945, Vol 1 pp 5-15.

Refering to this article, with out sourcing it is of dubious value. From what I read the Scharnhorst was hit by 11 torpedos etc etc.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm

Also the TDS of the Scharnhorst was an outgrowth of the Panzerschiffe D & E plans which underwent over a couple dozen modifications and used the Panzschiffe Graf Spee as the start point. These Panzerschiffe had 40mm RHA Torpedo Bulkheads interior of the ship usually angled plus outer fuel bunkers.The overall depth was ~35-40% of the beam of the ship or about 7 meters in total. Panzerschiffe D & E had 8 meter total depth with 45mm interior RHA torpedo bulkhead, while Hipper had ~ 7m depth with a 20mm RHA Torpedo bulkhead.
"Eine mal is kein mal"
phil gollin
Member
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:33 am

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Post by phil gollin »

.

LWD,

You are using the USN's idea of an "ideal" TDS (only "ideal" up to a certain charge weight) and ignoring different side protection system details and terminology.

NOT everyone thought the same way as the USN and the USN's was NOT the only "right" (or wrong) way of doing things. Just because one navy does something, or defines something, one way does NOT invalidate other navies' ways of doing things.

For the RN, external torpedo bulges were "side protection systems" and they were adjudged successful WHERE OF A SUITABLE THICKNESS (they tended to taper at their ends) but were not an efficient measure either structurally or hydrodynamically and prone to damage. The Nelson and KGV class side protection systems were referred to as "bulges" even though part of the ships' structures and internal/flush with the outer hull.

.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Post by Dave Saxton »

Did I wrote 3x14-inchers and 2x16?
You were correct in this case anyway Victor. The Colorados with 8x16" in four turrets and the Californias with 12 x14" in four turrets were essentially sister ships, and grouped together as such as the "Big Five".
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Post by lwd »

Paul L wrote:Firstly the Term "Panzerschiffe" or armored ship originated from the 1870s. Infact the Deutschland was Panzerschiffe # 26 , while Scheer and Graf Spee were Panzerschiffe # 27 & 28. These Armored ships were outgrowths of the armored frigates of the mid 1800s. So the Term Panzerschiffe doesn't really describe these ships so another term may have been needed to distinquish them from past warships.

Source: Groner German Warships 1815-1945, Vol 1 pp 5-15.

Refering to this article, with out sourcing it is of dubious value. From what I read the Scharnhorst was hit by 11 torpedos etc etc.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm

Also the TDS of the Scharnhorst was an outgrowth of the Panzerschiffe D & E plans which underwent over a couple dozen modifications and used the Panzschiffe Graf Spee as the start point. These Panzerschiffe had 40mm RHA Torpedo Bulkheads interior of the ship usually angled plus outer fuel bunkers.The overall depth was ~35-40% of the beam of the ship or about 7 meters in total. Panzerschiffe D & E had 8 meter total depth with 45mm interior RHA torpedo bulkhead, while Hipper had ~ 7m depth with a 20mm RHA Torpedo bulkhead.
That may be but again if you look at the Treaty of Versailles it states:
SECTION II
NAVAL CLAUSES.
ARTICLE 181.
After the expiration of a period of two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty the German naval forces in commission must not exceed:
6 battleships of the Deutschland or Lothringen type, 6 light cruisers, 12 destroyers, 12 torpedo boats, or an equal number of ships constructed to replace them as provided in Article 190.
...
ARTICLE 190.
Germany is forbidden to construct or acquire any warships other than those intended to replace the units in commission provided for in Article 181 of the present Treaty
The warships intended for replacement purposes as above shall not exceed the following displacement:
Armoured ships 10,000 tons
Light cruisers 6,000 tons
Destroyers 800 tons
Torpedo boats 200 tons
So by the treaty anything larger than a light cruiser was a Panzershiffe or an old battleship. Obviously new construction was not considered the latter.
The TDS of the Scharnhorsts may have been an outgrowth of this but at least my impression of that design is that it was a true TDS. I.e. a system designed to meet specific goals interms of preventing and limiting damage from torpedoes. I have seen nothing yet to indicate this is the case with the Deutchlands. Again it may be but what has been presented so far doesn't demonstrate that.

As for the Scharnhorst being closer to the Deutchlands than the Bismarcks that too still looks very problematic to me.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Post by lwd »

phil gollin wrote:.

LWD,

You are using the USN's idea of an "ideal" TDS (only "ideal" up to a certain charge weight) and ignoring different side protection system details and terminology.
Am I? Seems I've read here that both the RN and the KM designed their TDS to deal with certain weight charges.
NOT everyone thought the same way as the USN and the USN's was NOT the only "right" (or wrong) way of doing things. Just because one navy does something, or defines something, one way does NOT invalidate other navies' ways of doing things.

For the RN, external torpedo bulges were "side protection systems" and they were adjudged successful WHERE OF A SUITABLE THICKNESS (they tended to taper at their ends) but were not an efficient measure either structurally or hydrodynamically and prone to damage. The Nelson and KGV class side protection systems were referred to as "bulges" even though part of the ships' structures and internal/flush with the outer hull.
I think I stated that "bulges" could constitute at least a rudimentary TDS when combined with torpedo bulkheads and other measures it would go beyond rudimentary.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Post by lwd »

MVictorP wrote:
lwd wrote:
Their armor scheme was closer to Bismarck.
Their propulsion was closer to Bismarck.
They had real TDS's.
Their displacement was closer to Bismarck.
They were rated battleships like Bismarck.
The Scharnhorsts were a response to the French Dunkerques, which in turn were a response to the Panzerschiff. But before being quickly enlarged to what they would be, they were a design that ressembled the P-class Panzerschiffen of the Z-plan. But politics played in and the Scharnhorsts ended up obese.
That doesn't logically support your position.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Post by lwd »

Dave Saxton wrote:
Did I wrote 3x14-inchers and 2x16?
You were correct in this case anyway Victor. The Colorados with 8x16" in four turrets and the Californias with 12 x14" in four turrets were essentially sister ships, and grouped together as such as the "Big Five".
Not really the Colorados were designed for twin 16" turrets the previous standards for tripple 14" turrets. I have heard of no plans to retrofit the older standards with twin 16" turrets which your comment would imply.
Post Reply