Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

BattleCruisers v Battleships which is better?

Discussion in 'Weapons & Technology in WWII' started by Repulse, Jun 12, 2007.

  1. Repulse

    Repulse Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    5
    I reckon Battlecruisers are better because they are a lot faster
     
  2. JTF-2

    JTF-2 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    490
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Ottawa Valley
    haha....I knew your vote just by looking at your name!! :)
     
  3. Repulse

    Repulse Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    5
    i know repulse was a battlecruiser still they were alot faster than battleships..but didnt carry the same guns and armor
     
  4. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    890
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    Now is the same as pocket battleship vs battleship?
     
  5. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    18,054
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Location:
    Alabama
    When talking within the time frame of this forum, that is not true. If we are talking about ships' speeds during the years 1939-1945, we see the numbers below

    Comparative speeds
    Battle Cruisers
    HMS Renown 31 knots
    USS Alaska 31
    HMS Hood 29
    IJN Kongo 27.5

    Battleships
    Iowa Class 33 knots
    South Dakota Class 27
    DKM Bismarck 30
    HMS King George V 28
    IJN Yamato 27
    IJN Nagato 27

    The battlecruiser concept was found to flawed before the war began. Yes, BCs were faster than most BBs in the twenties, but not enough to make a difference in gunnery effectiveness for the attacking ships. Lacking adequate armor, they simply could not stand up against an equally heavily armed but better armored opponent. There ample examples of this in both wars.
     
  6. Repulse

    Repulse Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    5
    yes but what about the bcs guns?
     
  7. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    372
    Location:
    Portugal
    Which one are you, Repair or Refit? :D
     
  8. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,215
    Likes Received:
    941
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    I really don't think there is any great advantage by WW 2 one way or the other and that the WW 1 distinction between a battleship and a battlecruiser was no longer relevant.
    The speed advantage of the battlecruiser that existed in WW 1 really had diminished to virtually nothing by WW 2. Battleships were now doing 25 to 30 knots just as the remaining battlecruisers were. Tactically, speed is of virtually no advantage in a surface action with regard to battleships / battlecruisers in WW 2. So, any slight advantage in speed a battlecruiser possessed in WW 2 was tactically irrelevant. Cruising range and cruising speeds on the other hand were very significant.
    As for armor and or gun power this too was becomming more and more blended to a point where there was little to choose between the two. Yes, there were older battlecruisers that had weak armor and or armament relative to newer ships but, they were still quite capable in many roles as capital ships.
    As an example the two weak capital ships Repulse and Reknown proved very useful as carrier escorts and in operations in general. The Reknown at the Lofoten Islands in 1940 fought both Scharnhorst and Gneisenau successfully even though out matched in guns and armor. So, it is possible for a ship with limited capacity on paper to do quite well in actions where other factors give the advantage.
     
  9. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    18,054
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Location:
    Alabama
    I was addressing your comments on speed.

    I


    Guns size.

    HMS Renown 15 in
    USS Alaska 14
    HMS Hood 15
    IJN Kongo 14

    USS Iowa 16
    USS South Dakota 16
    DKM Bismarck 15
    IJN Yamato 18.1
    IJN Nagato 16

    As TA said, there more to it than gun, size armor or speed. Intangibles such as crew ability and leadership from top to bottom play important parts. A big, long ranged gun is of little use if you can't hit a target. The Iraqis learned that in Desert Storm in 1991. They had this great, long ranged South African arty that supposed to beat the anything the US fielded. At least that is what the press tried to make us believe. However, since they were essentially blinded to anything beyond the horizon, the guns were of little to no benefit.

    The Yamato and Musashi had large, long range guns, but fire control systems and radar were inferior to the Iowa class and so the Yamato and Musashi would have probably suffered for it in an engagement with an Iowa Class because they would less of a chance to actually hit their target first and the most.
     
  10. Repulse

    Repulse Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    5
    But what about the hood that was good even though one blow it was gone:D
     
  11. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    18,054
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Location:
    Alabama
    Correct and it was a battlecruiser (Hood) squaring off against a battleship (Bismarck). Both sides were *roughly* evenly match in the Battle of the Denmark Strait. The Hood did land a shot or two on the Bismarck before it suffered a telling hit, igniting the 4" magazine and leading to a an even larger explosion of the 15" magazines. Sounds a lot like what happened to some of Beatty's battlecruisers at Jutland in 1916.
     
  12. wilconqr

    wilconqr Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Pass Christian, Mississippi
    Pardon my ignorance but I was just curious what kind of gun this might be. The biggest FA pieces that the Iraqi's had, to my knowledge, were the S-23 (Towed 180mm). We brought a few back to Bragg along with the D-30's to place in front of our Brigade HQ as trophys. The U.S. 8 inch (203mm) SP is bigger than "that" and the U.S. Multiple Launch Rocket System (M.L.R.S.) outclassed and outranged everything, as far as Field Artillery pieces, by ALL forces in-country. O.K., no more off topic questions.....;)
     
  13. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    18,054
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Location:
    Alabama
    I don't remember what it was, I just remember the press harping about it. I was just using it as an example, apparently not the best choice.
     
  14. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,215
    Likes Received:
    941
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
  15. Balderdasher

    Balderdasher Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    3
    Their speed wasn't so much to outrun battleships, but instead to out-range them more.

    Try to remember they were designed for different roles.

    The Battlecruiser was to deploy battle-ship size guns and fire-power to the other side of the world literally. They gave up internal armour and sectioning for more space for victuals, supplies to be able to patrol further longer without having to make pit stops all the time. Respond to hot spot faster, so to speak.

    So in the same vein, they were better sea-lane raiders as well.
     
  16. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,215
    Likes Received:
    941
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    Looking at the design history of the original battlecruisers, the Invincible class, in 1902 Admiral Fisher and Chief Naval Constructor W.H. Gard were formulating a new armored cruiser design to be more powerful than any previous. This resulted in the Minotaur class (2 x 9.2" 10 x 7.5" 23 kts, 6" armor).
    Following Tsu Shima and looking at foreign developments that occured with armored cruisers in the following years the step up to the "battlecruiser" was an inevidablity. Thus, the Invincibles were really just replacements for previous armored cruisers and intended to fill the same role; that of a scouting force for the battle fleet. In fact, official documents refer to them as armored cruisers as late as 1912 when the first mention of the term "battlecruiser" appears.
    If anything, the original concept of an all-big-gun armored cruiser was a mistake in retrospect. It was too much ship for too little mission. A fast battleship or a better protected less well armed cruiser would have been better paths to follow as other nations did and Jutland proved.
     
    Sloniksp likes this.
  17. Repulse

    Repulse Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    5
    Both were good in there own terms
     
  18. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    18,054
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Location:
    Alabama
    Were any transport-types sunk by gunfire after 1941 or 42, other than when directly supporting naval operations?

    It's kinda like the thinking of putting a low-velocity 75mm gun in an M4, citing the belief that 'tanks don't fight tanks'. Well, they had to. As you alluded to TA, BCs were not necessarily supposed to stand in the line against battleships, but they had to, with deleterious outcomes.

    Repulse, it is good that you provided input into the discussion but you need to include something to back up your pronouncements. I'm not trying to be a butthole, just offering advice to you. :)

     
  19. John Dudek

    John Dudek Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2001
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    37
  20. Hawkerace

    Hawkerace Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    28
    My very ship I must say is probably the Renown :D
     

Share This Page