The British Battlecruiser Concept.

[Hard Ball]

The battlecruiser was a Briish concept contemporary with the Dreadnought class battleships. The battle cruisers had 8 12 inch guns instead of the battleships 10 and mucl lighter armor. When critics complained that they were vulnerable Admiral Fisher justified the design by saying "Speed is armor!"

 

Can anyone explain why he thpught that 5 or 6 knots more speed made the any harder to hit than the Dreadnaught battleships?

 

HMS Invincible

Built Elswick, laid down April 1906, completed March 1909, cost £1,767,515.

 

Size:

Length 560 feet waterline 567 feet overall, beam 78 feet 9 inches, draught 26 feet 8 inches, displacement 17,420 load 20,135 tons full load.

 

Propulsion:

4 shaft Parsons turbines, 41,000 shp, 25 knots

 

Trials:

Invincible 46,500 shp = 26.64 knots

 

Armour:

6-4in belt, 7in barbettes, 7in turret faces, 2.5-1in decks

 

Armament:

8 x 12in 45cal MK X guns in 4 turetts(4 x 2), 16 x 4in

[BansheeOne]

Those 5-6 kts were not meant to make the battlecruiser a more difficult target for guns of its own caliber, but rather to control the engagement range. I.e. you can stay out of range of the better armored, but slower battleships, but defeat any ship that's as fast as you. The battlecruiser was an evolutionary development of the armoured cruiser, mostly meant to kill other cruisers.

 

They did that against von Spee's squadron at the Falklands, but fared badly once employed in the line of battle where they couldn't make use of their speed advantage.

[Guest pfcem]

Right.

 

It was not the BC was necessarily a bad concept but that they were used incorrectly. OTOH, maybe it was a bad concept because they had too much firepower & people mistakely though that meant they could survive (somehow) against Dreadnaughts.

[Matt L.]

I think, like the tank destroyer concept of the US Army circa WWII, it was a role that existed in theory, but not in practice.

 

Matt

[5150]

They made sense for a nation that needed trade protection. What's the better counter to an armored cruiser? A comparable ship, or something that can quickly and easily dispatch them?

[Guest pfcem]

They made sense for a nation that needed trade protection. What's the better counter to an armored cruiser? A comparable ship, or something that can quickly and easily dispatch them?

296789[/snapback]

I agree but that was only really true when they were armed with 12" guns. When they went up to 15" guns they were no longer "Armored Cruiser destoyers" but weakly armoured "fast Dreadnaughts". If they has stayed with 12" guns & not been used to strenghten the battle line (as if they were "fast Dreadnaughts"), history would have been much kinder on the BC.

[Jeff]

And the cost of a BC was almost as much as a BB.

[5150]

I'm not so sure that I agree. Their speed was intended to control the terms of the engagement. That includes all manner of tactical considerations--place, time, position, and range. Going to the 13.5" armament certainly speaks to the issue of range.

 

The other consideration that the RN would have had to account for was the German response to the BCs, which was to build BCs that weren't as heavily armed but were more heavily armored. These would be the natural counter to the British BCs. It's reasonable to conclude that the 13.5" weapons on the Cats were an attempt to counter the German developments.

 

I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak to the mindset of the Admiralty when they ordered the Cats. Perhaps someone is?

[5150]

And the cost of a BC was almost as much as a BB.

296813[/snapback]

 

More, actually. They were generally larger ships with larger crews, requiring more fuel to operate.

[p620346]

British battlecruisers were very effective against older armoured cruisers but once the Germans had battlecruisers of their own they lost much of their effectiveness.

[Lev]

I agree but that was only really true when they were armed with 12" guns.  When they went up to 15" guns they were no longer "Armored Cruiser destoyers" but weakly armoured "fast Dreadnaughts".  If they has stayed with 12" guns & not been used to strenghten the battle line (as if they were "fast Dreadnaughts"), history would have been much kinder on the BC.

296807[/snapback]

 

With 12" guns they would have been the same ships, only with less powerful armament. I don't see how that helps. And being 'fast dreadnaughts' isn't a complete disqualification, the next step is the fast battleship.

 

Note also that the battlecruiser did not fare as badly in battle as all the gloom in this thread suggests

[Richard Lindquist]

With 12" guns they would have been the same ships, only with less powerful armament. I don't see how that helps. And being 'fast dreadnaughts' isn't a complete disqualification, the next step is the fast battleship.

296824[/snapback]

 

The follow-on battlecruiser development had two branches. One was the fast battleship as typified by the Queen El.izabeth class. The other line was Fisher's Folly, the Repulse and Renown with six 15" guns (called the Repair and Refit by the RN for the time they spent in dock being brought up to some level of combat worthiness), the tinfoil-armored Glorious and Courageous with four 15" guns (called the Spurious and Outrageous by the RN and converted to CV), and the final flowering, the Furious with two 18" guns (only one was mounted as she was quickly converted to CV). Courageous had a brief career as a minelayer before conversion to CV. With the minerails on her after deck, she was known as the "Clapham Junction".

 

Fisher truly typifies the concept that if true genius is left unchecked, it devolves into insanity.

[Scott Cunningham]

The initial concept was that it could destroy anything it chose to fight, but run away from anything that outmatched it. If they had stuck to this concept they would have been excellent high speed combat units (like the way they were used in the Falklands to destroy the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau).

 

Eventually the admiralty decided the battle line could benefit from their additional 12" guns, and their extra turn of speed made then even more useful. It was considered worth the risk. The price was paid in blood.

 

German battle cruisers were just as tough as their battleships. The Lutzow went down after an intense pounding, and the others (especially the Seydlitz) to incredible amounts of damage and stayed afloat.

[muzza]

Fisher truly typifies the concept that if true genious is left unchecked, it devolves into insanity.

296839[/snapback]

 

So that proves it, I am going insane.

 

[FlyingCanOpener]

I'm not so sure that I agree. Their speed was intended to control the terms of the engagement. That includes all manner of tactical considerations--place, time, position, and range. Going to the 13.5" armament certainly speaks to the issue of range.

 

The other consideration that the RN would have had to account for was the German response to the BCs, which was to build BCs that weren't as heavily armed but were more heavily armored. These would be the natural counter to the British BCs. It's reasonable to conclude that the 13.5" weapons on the Cats were an attempt to counter the German developments.

 

I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak to the mindset of the Admiralty when they ordered the Cats. Perhaps someone is?

296815[/snapback]

 

You're pretty much spot on. Something else to point out is that the battlecruisers were alseo used as a fast scouting wing for the fleet. However, I'm not too sure whether the German battlecruisers were specifically designed to counter British BCs in the fact that they were more survivable. Considering Tirpitz's famous axiom "The primary job of a ship is to float." I think improved survivability, with the tradeoff of smaller armament (Compare Invincible's 12" main guns and 6" belt armour with Von der Tann's 11" main guns and 10" belt armour) was more of an across the board philosophy than a counter to British BCs, and was quite the valid philosophy from this POV.

[larrikin]

Where is this "when used in the battleline" garbage coming from. The RN never used their AC/BC types in the battle line, unlike just about every other country. They were used, just as ACs were, with the Battle Fleet, but never in the line.

 

There was one brief moment at Jutland where the BCF was leading the main battleline, but that was as they turned from leading the HSF onto Jellicoes guns. They very promptly drew away into a screening and pursuit postition.

[TheSilentType]

Where is this "when used in the battleline" garbage coming from.  The RN never used their AC/BC types in the battle line, unlike just about every other country.  They were used, just as ACs were, with the Battle Fleet, but never in the line.

 

There was one brief moment at Jutland where the BCF was leading the main battleline, but that was as they turned from leading the HSF onto Jellicoes guns.  They very promptly drew away into a screening and pursuit postition.

296864[/snapback]

 

You beat me to it. All three Royal Navy battle cruisers lost at Jutland were sunk by Hipper's battlecruisers, not by German battleships. The Germans had gotten lucky at the Battle of Dogger Bank when the Seydlitz was nearly blown to bits by a magazine fire. That got them to be a lot more careful with how they handled the propellant for their guns, unlike the Royal Navy which continued to sacrifice safety in order to get a higher rate of fire. It was sloppy ammunition handling that doomed the battlecruisers which were lost at Jutland.

[TheSilentType]

Courageous, Glorious & Furious were meant to support amphibious operations in the Baltic, not duke it out with other ships. They were still stupid designs, but Fisher hadn't completely lost his mind when he had them built.

 

The follow-on battlecruiser development had two branches.  One was the fast battleship as typified by the Queen El.izabeth class.  The other line was Fisher's Folly, the Repulse and Renown with six 15" guns (called the Repair and Refit by the RN for the time they spent in dock being brought up to some level of combat worthiness), the tinfoil-armored Glorious and Courageous with four 15" guns (called the Spurious and Outrageous by the RN and converted to CV), and the final flowering, the Furious with two 18" guns (only one was mounted as she was quickly converted to CV).  Courageous had a brief career as a minelayer before conversion to CV.  With the minerails on her after deck, she was knownb as the "Clapham Junction".

 

Fisher truly typifies the concept that if true genious is left unchecked, it devolves into insanity.

296839[/snapback]

[KingSargent]

More, actually. They were generally larger ships with larger crews, requiring more fuel to operate.

296816[/snapback]

Not to mention very expensive machinery, 2+ times the shp of a BB.

[KingSargent]

Courageous, Glorious & Furious were meant to support amphibious operations in the Baltic, not duke it out with other ships. They were still stupid designs, but Fisher hadn't completely lost his mind when he had them built.

296882[/snapback]

 

That is the legend, but people researching the design histories have been unable to come up with a documented statement that a Baltic op was the reason for the ships.

OTOH, making people with big mouths cognizant that you were interested enough in Baltic ops to build big expensive ships specifically for it might have been frowned upon in wartime, hence the lack of documentation.

 

The USN concept of the CC (USN-speak for Battlecruiser, a BC is a Large Cruiser) was as a long-range scout. It would have speed to escape (or catch) anything, guns big enough to blast enemy screening forces aside to probe behind them, range enough to run foreign ships dry in a chase, and armored against the screening forces. IOW they were to carry out recon missions (or catch raiders), not duke it out. There were six of these ships under construction when they were cancelled bythe Washington Treaty.

 

The British effectively did this at Jutland. Had Hipper been screening properly Beatty wouldn't have seen Scheer until it was too late to escape. Instead Goodenough's 2LCS got through and spotted Scheer, Beatty went to see for himself (as he was supposed to) and then boogied. Beatty should have remained in visual contact and kept reporting to Jellicoe, though. IIRC, Lion's radio was T/U, but there is no record I have seen of Beatty telling anyone else (via visual signal) to relay what was going on to Jellicoe.

[Guest pfcem]

Where is this "when used in the battleline" garbage coming from.  The RN never used their AC/BC types in the battle line, unlike just about every other country.  They were used, just as ACs were, with the Battle Fleet, but never in the line.

 

There was one brief moment at Jutland where the BCF was leading the main battleline, but that was as they turned from leading the HSF onto Jellicoes guns.  They very promptly drew away into a screening and pursuit postition.

296864[/snapback]

BC were originally intended only to engage lesser vessels & use their speed to avoid equal or greater vessels.

 

That is not how they tended to be used however & essentially became an extention of the main battle line (if not integrated into it directly).

 

Can you name any naval engagements where Brithich BCs did not fair poorly?

[KingSargent]

BC were originally intended only to engage lesser vessels & use their speed to avoid equal or greater vessels.

 

That is not how they tended to be used however & essentially became an extention of the main battle line (if not integrated into it directly).

 

Can you name any naval engagements where Brithich BCs did not fair poorly?

296909[/snapback]

Falklands 1914. Dogger Bank. The incident in 1918 where one of the "Outrageouses" actually chased and shot at a German CL. Mers el Kebir.

[5150]

Can you name any naval engagements where Brithich BCs did not fair poorly?

296909[/snapback]

 

What immediately springs to mind is battle of the Falkland Islands, which was exactly how the British BCs were intended to be used.

[Redbeard]

Ah - the good old BC dispute - it never gets too old - it is like a symbol of eternal life itself

 

In fact, now I think about it, perhaps TN is the closest description of the eternal life we deadlys can comprehend

 

But now back to what really matters - BCs !

 

First, elaborating on what has already been said about the experience of Jutland:

The heavily armoured German BC's were not less vulnerable to the heavy British guns than the lightly armoured British BC's were to the lighter German guns. The problem for the British were that their heavy shells were flawed and generally broke up when meeting armour thicker than 9". Next the British propellants were not only extra volatile and with no brass casisng, but also in the BCS handled with extreme uncaution. Beatty was obsessed with high RoF and so a large number of unpacked charges were stored outside the magazines and with interlocks generally open to speed up the passing of ammo. It is like having a man walk the ship with a leaking powder barrel on his back. Quite interestingly, Lion took a great number of hits without blowing up, and her chief gunner had ignored the new sloppy procedures - this could very well have significantly contributed to saving the ship (along with a lot of other heroism). The QE's with the BCS also took many hits and even had propellant fires, but survived, perhaps because they did not follow BCS sloppy safety procedures.

 

In the Invincibles and Indefatigables (and ACs) better safety procedures alone would not have been enough, but brass casings and less volatile propellants would.

 

I know others have already said, but I just have to too: The BC's were not in the line and they were not deployed outside what they were intended for! They did exactly one of their main missions - scouting - along with ACs, CLs and DDs. Imagine a DD captain claiming that he can't go inside the firing range of weapons capable of penetrating his outer plating! He would be shot on the quarterdeck immediately!

 

Concerning succesful BC action I will start with the first - the commissioning of Invincible. This overnight made the entire global fleet of AC's obsolete, and so in a very cost effective way freed GB from a serious threat to her trade lines. That it worked was confirmed at the Falklands.

 

Next try and imagine Dogger Bank or Jutland without British BC's. That would have left the Grand Fleet practically blind and bound for disaster - even against much weaker enemies - with BCs. The deployment indeed was with great cost for the RN, but mainly due to factors outside the shipdesign or concept itself.

 

Going on to WWII I'll claim that modernising Tiger and the surviving Cats would have been much better spend effort than the actual modernisations of the QE's. Imagine the peril the Italians would have been in if opposed by a force actually capable of catching them, or how lousy the life of a Panzerschiff or Scharnhorst would be. Likewise it would have served the RN well if they somehow had swopped the Nelsons with the French Dunkerque and Strasbourg.

 

The slow BB's were only of marginal use as convoy escorts to scare away Scharnhorsts - that a modernised BC could do too, and even with a chance of sinking the raider.

 

Next, fast modernised ships would be excellant as escorts for CVs.

 

The BC remained an asset long after the slow BB had ceased to be. The fast BB of course was ideal, but considering the extra cost in carrying that heavy belt characterizing the BB it is telling that it is difficult to find a capital ship saved by its belt - I know of no incidents.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[KingSargent]

The BC remained an asset long after the slow BB had ceased to be. The fast BB of course was ideal, but considering the extra cost in carrying that heavy belt characterizing the BB it is telling that it is difficult to find a capital ship saved by its belt - I know of no incidents.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

296960[/snapback]

The Lion at Dogger Bank was hit on the 9" belt. This was the hit that actually broke the belt and bent it inward where sharp edges cut into inner bulkheads and caused the flooding that disabled the ship. OTOH had the German shell been able to penetrate (ie, had the belt not been there) the shell would have exploded in the boiler room and possibly involved Q magazine.

 

IIRC Goeben/Yavuz was hit on the belt on a few occasions.

 

The British solved the 'fast BB to escort fast CV' problem by building slow CVs. Besides in their doctrine the CV was escorting the BB, not vice-versa. The CV needed a few knots margin over the battle line to carry out flying operations (turn into the wind to launch or land, then catch the BBs).