Naval History Forums

Have to agree. VdT was a tough, fast BC & the fact that she took out Indefatigable, then took a beating & stayed in line gives testament to her design. The KLM should have had at least two more of them in my opinion. A very good ship! Nah. Instead of two more Von Der Tanns, they decided to ...

I'd take Von Der Tann. Better armour and more than adaquet firepower to punch through Inflexible. If 2 Von Der Tanns were in the place of the S&G in Falkland, the Brits would be really screwed XD

I still wouldn't place my money on a Scharnhorst against a SD. Even though they "could" penetrate each other, SD has more guns which means more firepower can be brought to bear on the enemy.

I judge whether or not a ship is a BC by; size, caliber of guns (and to a much lesser extent the number of guns), role, speed/armour comparasion. Eg The PBs fit the caliber, trade armour for speed and role, but lack in the size by a large margin. The twins fit the size, caliber and possible role, th...

Really? I thought that the Iowas and SDs were protected against 16inch caliber shells.

Gentlemen, Put 6x15" on Scharnhorst & Gneisnau as was proposed and you would have two very formidable battle cruisers capable of tackling most other ships including full on battleships. Maybe tangle a little, but with only 6 15inch guns I wouldn't put too many bets on the twins. Esspeciall...

WW2: Design-wise: Deustchland class...Small, thinly armoured and speed was not the greatest. On the plus side she had excellent range and her guns were adaquet. At least she has a minimum of 6 guns. FWIW, I don't believe it's really fair to include the Panzerschiffe here. There was only so much Ger...

I think the term we use is Battlecruiser. And I think it fits the Alaska class well. I've already did a link about why I think the Alaskas were BCs, not CAs, and I don't feel the real urge to repost it again. WW1: Design-wise: The Corageous class. ABout the same size as the Invincible class of 1906,...

If you guys get a bit bored, check this thread out

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6849

There is already a thread for the Best Battlecruiser of WW1 and WW2. On this one, discuss about the worst the these ships. Please note the time these ships were built. It is hardly fair to compare a BC built in 1906 to one built in 1920, as the time difference is huge. (Unless the BC in 1906 was so ...

I never knew that the twins were able to resist 16inch guns. Well, the good ones anyway: British 16inch shells weren't the best so maybe they could resist those XD No one knew much about the Yamato, not even the Japanese commanders that commanded her. Not even late war the US didnt know everything a...

I've always thought that the Scharnhorst class was both in responce to the Dunkurque class and a further developement of the Pocket battleship designs, like the D class (not Deustchland class) Can someone help me?

I think what I find interesting when comparing these BCs is the balancing and deciding of which makes a good BC: is it a design success vs it was operationally significant. I think it is important we tackle both categories. Design-wise, the BCs vary quite a bit. Ships like Renown and Kongo were WW1 ...

An interesting choice. Deferring and Renown have strengths and weaknesses. Both had similar range and range of guns, so Renown's speed advantage in a battle will only get her into a much better posistion then the slower Deferring. Firepowerwise, Renown is certainly the better of the two, having 15in...

Man. That is a lot of designs. My head is hurting now.

Wonder what would've happened if these ships were built