Best battlecruiser

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
Just spent an idle moment looking at the specification of HMS Renown and HMS Repulse, it seems that both were well armed, fairly well armoured and at 32 knots very fast, could the be classed as the best battlecruisers ever built? (I'm not including HMS Hood as I regard her more as a 'fast battleship)

[marcelo_malara]

Hi Paul. Difficult to say. I would go for Hood, no doubt. Barring her, Renown seems to be rather thin skinned and poorly gunned with 6 tubes, albeit heavy ones. I mean, Renown/Repulse are almost as expensive a BB, and they can easily be knocked out if caught at close distance.

Then comes the usual comparison with the German ones. Here I point again the different philosophies of design, the Germans were built as small BB, while the British were large cruisers, with more space and range.

Regards

[Bill Jurens]

Yes. A good deal of the discussion would first have to be devoted to exactly how one might define a "battle-cruiser" in the first place...

Bill Jurens.

[OpanaPointer]

That's for the Exchequer to decide.

[marcelo_malara]

Yes. A good deal of the discussion would first have to be devoted to exactly how one might define a "battle-cruiser" in the first place...

Bill Jurens.

Hi BIll. I compiled this table some time ago, all British BB and BC built from Dreadnought to the 20s. It is easy to discern that in a BC machinery weight, speed and length go up, armour weight goes down. At least for this period there is not much doubt. The problems come later, when some BB are called BC, Kongo and Scharnhorst class for example.

[paul.mercer]

Yes. A good deal of the discussion would first have to be devoted to exactly how one might define a "battle-cruiser" in the first place...

Bill Jurens.

Hi Bill,
A difficult question I know. My definition would be a fast reasonably well armoured well armed (6x15") ship capable of around 30-32 knots weighing around 30,000 tons which could catch and destroy 8" cruisers and 11" gunned pocket battleships and possibly capable to take on a Scharnhorst type ship with a reasonable degree of achieving success - in other words something like Renown.
I realise Hood was classed as a battlecruiser, but her weight and armament should, I feel put her in what I would call the old fast battleship category so as not to compare her with the later fast battleships like the Iowas
But unlike Hood, they would not be designed or used to stand in the line of battle against a full blown heavy battleship (like Bismarck) - as the RN sensibly decided after the Hood disaster when the chase to catch Bismarck was on

[hans zurbriggen]

Hello all,
excluding Hood and looking also at non-British ships, my vote would go to (planned) rebuilt Gneisenau, with 6x38cm guns, good extended armor, fast speed, reasonable range and modern radar suite: no surprise she was a more modern design. Renown was a too much "lightly armored" battlecruiser, after reconstruction she was even not faster anymore than Gneisenau.

hans

[marcelo_malara]

Hi Hans. I consider Scharnhorst a BB, its protection is far better than a BC. I think that the classification BC must not be applied to ships built in the 30s, because the technology then applied to machinery enabled a designer to achieve powers in excess of about 130 000 hp without compromising the protection. That was not clearly the case in WWI and the 20s, where that power was beyond the tech of the day, and even a modest (for later days) 80 000 hp needed about 6 000 t of machinery.

[hans zurbriggen]

Hello Mr.Malara,
I agree only up to certain point: Scharnhorsts were under-armed to be considered BB (like Dunkerques IMHO). Following your reasoning re. modern machinery, Renown too (as rebuilt in 1936 with new boilers/turbines) cannot be taken into account as a BC anymore.

I agree 100% with your point about different German and British approach to BC, with Germans BC built as small BB, while British BC were large cruisers, making comparisons quite difficult.

hans

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
I would agree that the 'twins' were very fine ships although under gunned, 6 x15" would have made them very formidable opponents for any RN ship including the KGv's. But when under full load, Renown weighs in at around 33,000 tons, whereas Scharnhorst is around 38,000 tons full load which in my opinion at least puts her into the battleship class.
As I said in my first post, I was looking for a ship fast enough and powerful enough to chase down and destroy any 8" cruiser or 11" pocket battleship like AGS in WW2, something on the lines that the RN sent to the Falklands in WW1 to seek and destroy the German raiders.
If you were tasked with designing and building such a ship - say in the 1930's to do that, what would be your specifications?
For instance would 15" guns, although readily available, be necessary or could something smaller like 12" or 13.5" as used in WW1 be just as effective?
Gentlemen, over to you for your thoughts!

[marcelo_malara]

Gentlemen,
I would agree that the 'twins' were very fine ships although under gunned, 6 x15" would have made them very formidable opponents for any RN ship including the KGv's. But when under full load, Renown weighs in at around 33,000 tons, whereas Scharnhorst is around 38,000 tons full load which in my opinion at least puts her into the battleship class.
As I said in my first post, I was looking for a ship fast enough and powerful enough to chase down and destroy any 8" cruiser or 11" pocket battleship like AGS in WW2, something on the lines that the RN sent to the Falklands in WW1 to seek and destroy the German raiders.
If you were tasked with designing and building such a ship - say in the 1930's to do that, what would be your specifications?
For instance would 15" guns, although readily available, be necessary or could something smaller like 12" or 13.5" as used in WW1 be just as effective?
Gentlemen, over to you for your thoughts!

Hi Paul. Basically you are looking for the Alaska class. But the problem with all these ships, BC as well as Alaska, was that the price was almost as high as a BB.

Regards

[marcelo_malara]

Hello Mr.Malara,
I agree only up to certain point: Scharnhorsts were under-armed to be considered BB (like Dunkerques IMHO). Following your reasoning re. modern machinery, Renown too (as rebuilt in 1936 with new boilers/turbines) cannot be taken into account as a BC anymore.

I agree 100% with your point about different German and British approach to BC, with Germans BC built as small BB, while British BC were large cruisers, making comparisons quite difficult.

hans

Hello Hans. That is why some time ago I proposed widening the BB and BC classification to include a third type, those BBs built in the 30s with less than then standard gun caliber, the type would include Dunkerque, Scharnhorst and, may be, KGV classes.

For Renown, yes, it should still be considered a BC, because her machinery at the time of design was heavy and subtracted weight from protection, which despite modifications could not be made BB class.

Regards

[wadinga]

Hi All,

exactly how one might define a "battle-cruiser" in the first place...

I nominate USS Constitution (1797) as the best battlecruiser, being ahead of her time and designed by Joshua Humphreys to be superior to all competing vessels in her class built by any navy in the world.

Like other battlecruisers the increase in size and weight over conventional vessels caused problems and considerable extra expense during construction. Diagonal riders gave her a longer, stronger hull structure allowing for higher speed, and her armament of long 24 pounders outranged her opponents' weapons. Unlike many later battlecruisers, protection was not skimped in favour of speed and firepower, and her 21 inch thick sides caused many enemy projectiles to merely bounce off.

This superior battlecruiser roamed the ocean, attacking enemy trade at will and embarrassed the ships of a vastly larger navy in one-on-one combat. Her superior speed allowed her to escape the more powerful Halifax squadron of British ships in a 57 hour chase, and if the fledgling American Navy had possessed a battlefleet, she could have carried out vital scouting functions for its admiral.

She has also had a lifespan many, many times longer than any other battlecruiser, being still in commission and afloat, and is additionally also the only one to have had a female commanding officer, the current incumbent, Commander Billie J Farrell.

Huzzah!

All the best

wadinga

[Byron Angel]

USS Constitution makes for an interesting (and IMO quite defensible) argument. Bonus points for reference to Constitution’s hull being fitted with diagonal riders; it is not a well-known design feature.

B

[OpanaPointer]

USS Constitution makes for an interesting (and IMO quite defensible) argument. Bonus points for reference to Constitution’s hull being fitted with diagonal riders; it is not a well-known design feature.

B

Wasn't that mentioned in "Master and Commander"?