Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

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

Post by alecsandros »

As for Alaska, my opinion is that they came out much closer to battlecruisers, regardless of the initial dispositions.
They were to large and to heavily armed to be cruisers...
Their development was anyways influenced by the IJN Kongo class (and Deutchland class to), IIRC, which was a battlecruiser class.

The outline of the ship and the distribution of the armored array shows exactly like that of an American battleship, only, naturaly, somewhat thinner. You don't get 9" main belt and 6" (1.4 + 4 + 0.6") space-arrayed decks on any cruiser of any age.
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 »

alecsandros wrote:I had some good laughs with this thread.

I don't know if there can be any clear-cut conclusion regarding heavy ship clasiffication. After all, Scharnhorst was designated "battleship" by the KGM, while many people, including myself, have an obsession about them being battlecruisers...
Classification is important in a few ways: First, it is a way to establish much-needed limits. Then, the new classifications being defined, and an allocation of these new types given, one has to design naval forces that will likely oppose other naval forces that beased themselves on the same classifications.

Of course, that leaves a lot of outsiders; ships made before the definitions (armored cruisers, coastal battleships) as well as ships built to elude them (Panzerschiffen, Alaskas) have to be boxed in the "nearest" new category, for comparison's sake. In the end, what matters about a ship is 1) the era it was done 2) its weight 3) its designed role and 4) its armement and fittings.

Oh, and Scharnhorst definitely is a battleship; Just picture it with six 15-inchers instead - after all, that what the built expressedly allowed for. And there you have it, almost 35000t, 15-inch WT (fast) battleship. :D
The Deutchlands were occasionaly called "pocket battleships" during their days, allthough they were smaller both in length and displacement, than the "heavy cruisers" of the Hipper class, just to confuse things as much as possible. Thankfully, Raeder never wrote about Prinz Eugen being an armored destroyer, or about Tirpitz being an fast heavy trauler. We should thank him for that!

I guess it's about the same thing as trying to classify a heavy metal album. There are so many genres and sub=genres and opinions about them, that is inavoidable that you won't get plastered when ever you say Sepultura's Chaos AD is "thrash", because the "real fans" KNOW it's samba-death-thrash...

Just my opinions,
Much true.
"That was all I had to say"
- Me
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

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

Post by alecsandros »

MVictorP wrote:
Of course, that leaves a lot of outsiders; ships made before the definitions (armored cruisers, coastal battleships) as well as ships built to elude them (Panzerschiffen, Alaskas) have to be boxed in the "nearest" new category, for comparison's sake. In the end, what matters about a ship is 1) the era it was done 2) its weight 3) its designed role and 4) its armement and fittings.
Deuthcland = small, dubious, battleship :D
Alaska = allmost battlecruiser
Scharnhorst = allmost battleship
:dance:
======

As for the initial scope of this thread, my 2 cents would go to Hipper class as "best" cruisers in terms of "who cuts who's throat in a balanced engagement". Main arguments: size, stability as gun platform, impossible accuracy (at Barents Sea it hit Achates at 18km in heavy seas, bad visibility, with the first salvo) and redundancy (thus smaller chance of 1 shot taking out some vital non-replaceable element of the ship).

On the other hand, in terms of "best" cruiser for long-range operations, CV/BB escort, etc, I'd go with some late USN build, like the Cleveland's.

Cheers,
Alex
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 »

alecsandros wrote:As for the initial scope of this thread, my 2 cents would go to Hipper class as "best" cruisers in terms of "who cuts who's throat in a balanced engagement". Main arguments: size, stability as gun platform, impossible accuracy (at Barents Sea it hit Achates at 18km in heavy seas, bad visibility, with the first salvo) and redundancy (thus smaller chance of 1 shot taking out some vital non-replaceable element of the ship).
Yes, toughness and gunnery efficiency were IMO the Hippers' most noticeable qualities. On the other hand, they were under-performing (if we take in account their tonnage) and had irascible machinery - as well as short range. But their biggest flaw was: They were not what the DKM needed.

Besides, I'm pretty sure they could have been taken on by the entirely legit Algerie - which is, IMO, the best overall 8" treaty cruiser
"That was all I had to say"
- Me
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

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

Post by boredatwork »

alecsandros wrote:I don't know if there can be any clear-cut conclusion regarding heavy ship clasiffication. After all, Scharnhorst was designated "battleship" by the KGM, while many people, including myself, have an obsession about them being battlecruisers...

The Deutchlands were occasionaly called "pocket battleships" during their days, allthough they were smaller both in length and displacement, than the "heavy cruisers" of the Hipper class, just to confuse things as much as possible. Thankfully, Raeder never wrote about Prinz Eugen being an armored destroyer, or about Tirpitz being an fast heavy trauler. We should thank him for that!
I agree fully that ship classification, like music, is at best full of gray areas and a matter of opinion.

While I also call the Alaskas battlecruisers, I do so despite the bulk of the evidence supports a cruiser designation.

The only thing that really supports a battlecruiser designation is their size was so much bigger than previous cruisers. But ship classes grow. Yamato was ~5x the displacement of HMS Majestic built 50 years earlier but both are battleships, not because of their armament or armor or speed or size met certain fixed arbitrary limits, but rather both both were built to perform the same function - engage and destroy other enemy battleships.

Your examples aren't exactly analogous. Prinz Eugen was never intended to serve in a flotilla, launch mass torpedo attacks against the enemy battleline, or hunt submarines and thus does not merit classification as a destroyer. Nor was Tirpitz ever intended to haul nets to catch fish or sweep for mines.

Deutschland was however built to fight other battleships (the french pre-dreadnoughts) and thus could merit the title of "battleship."

Likewise the Alaskas, regardless of their size, were designed and built to fulfill cruiser functions (as spelled out by the US Navy). Given that there was no political motivation in calling the Alaskas cruisers, unlike for example calling the Invincible class carriers "through deck cruisers," it's pretty hard to argue against the fact that the people who labelled them "cruisers" weren't a bunch of amateur historians debating on a forum but rather the officer corps of the largest navy in history. Presumably they knew what they were doing when they labelled her a "large cruiser." =)


alecsandros wrote:Their development was anyways influenced by the IJN Kongo class (and Deutchland class to), IIRC, which was a battlecruiser class.
Your source for your statement that the Alaskas were influenced by the Kongo class?

The Alaskas were only armored against 12" gunfire (barely) which (at least as envisioned pre-war) wouldn't have allowed them to face the 14" armed Kongos with any great degree of confidence. Nor was such a counter necessary as the Iowas had been given a 33 knot speed explicitely to deal with the Kongos.(Friedman, US BBs; Muir; Sumrall; etc).

The driving influence of the Alaskas was, due to abysmal intelligence about Japanese building intentions, the fear of the possibility she might build large 11 or 12" cruisers similar to large Deutschlands which, it was assumed, could not be countered by existing American 8" cruisers. From a War Plans memo, via Friedman US Cruisers p292 (my own italics): "if an enemy 11 or 12 inch cruiser gets in behind our battleforce, and we have only 8" cruisers, this puts us on the defensive. We would have to escort important convoys with battleships and weaken the battle force, as the RN is doing now. A 12" cruiser saves us this trouble, ..."
The outline of the ship and the distribution of the armored array shows exactly like that of an American battleship, only, naturaly, somewhat thinner. You don't get 9" main belt and 6" (1.4 + 4 + 0.6") space-arrayed decks on any cruiser of any age.
The FC tower is like an American Battleship because the larger weapons required a greater spotting height, but the mid ship aircraft arrangements mirrored pre Brooklyn and post treaty American cruiser practice. The provision of a hangar which no US battleship had was also American cruiser practice as being a requirement for their role. The secondary armament was laid out in contemporary cruiser fashion. A single rudder is also indicative of their scaled up cruiser origins.

The armor array isn't "exactly" like US Battleships - for one thing there was no protection against shells following underwater trajectories as there was in battleships. The sides of the turrets were proportionately more heavily armored than American BB practice - based upon the experience of the Graf Spee where a super cruiser might be engaged from multiple directions at a time. (Friedman p299). While extending the armor up to the second deck was more in line with battleship practice, such a change was also being mooted for the contemporary (and unbuilt) 8" gun cruisers.

As for thickness if you expect to fight cruisers armed with 11-12" guns then yes it is going to need heavier armour than cruisers intended to fight 8" cruisers.

MVictorP wrote:Oh, and Scharnhorst definitely is a battleship; Just picture it with six 15-inchers instead - after all, that what the built expressedly allowed for. And there you have it, almost 35000t, 15-inch WT (fast) battleship. :D
The build did NOT "expressedly allow" for upgrading to 15".

What the build DID expressely allow for was upgrading to 350mm (13.8") guns. (Whitley German Capital Ships of WW2 p.36)

Allowing for a future Upgrade to 380mm (15") guns was considered and rejected during planning because they would have required a larger ship, as well as the desirability with maintaining commonality with the armament of the follow on Bismarck class which, at that time, were also planned to be armed with the 350mm (13.8") weapons.

When the decision to re-arm the twins with the larger weapon was made it required a much more extensive rebuilding - ie Gneisenau's bow wasn't merely to be rebuilt, but rather replaced with a much larger structure to provide the buoyancy the heavier weapons and ammunition would have required.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

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

Post by alecsandros »

boredatwork wrote:
Your examples aren't exactly analogous. Prinz Eugen was never intended to serve in a flotilla, launch mass torpedo attacks against the enemy battleline, or hunt submarines and thus does not merit classification as a destroyer. Nor was Tirpitz ever intended to haul nets to catch fish or sweep for mines.
I didn't thought about these examples to much. Just wanted to point out that classification in a certain time and place, done by certain men with some distinct scopes may well lead to uncertainties and conflicting interpretation, especialy for certain amateurs posting on a naval board 80 years after. :whistle:

Of course there were reasons to call the Deuthcland's "pocket battleships", but in the larger picture of the war, the title was only tentative (mainly because theoretically smaller vessels - battlecruisers, large cruisers, some heavy cruisers, had in reality more chance of sinking a Deuthsland than the other way around).
Thus they were stuck "somehwere" between heavy cruiser and battlecruiser, as far as contemporary combat possibilities went.
Your source for your statement that the Alaskas were influenced by the Kongo class?
I seem to remember reading it on the web, in a page concerning US navy doctrine and build necessities in the 30s. I'll try to find it.
I would argue that the Alaskas were built for long-range combat, exactly like the US battleships. IIRC, US navy rules of engagement required battleships to engage enemy counterparts at 20-27km range. We see in the Alaskas high-mv guns with retained good perforating capabilities at 20km+. What is even more interesting is that the Alaska's were protected more against plunging fire than against horizontal fire. The 1.4" + 4" + 0.625" armor arrangement was heavy enough to stop some heavy shells, and I would argue the light Japanese 14" (680kg) was among them.
The distance between the 3 armored decks was about the same as in US BBs, thus indicating some sort of space-array design behind the concept. The space array, with this thickness, would only be necessary to counter heavy (BB/BC) shells and medium-sized AP and SAP bombs.

It is interesting to enquire what kind of "counterpart" the Alaskas would have at long range...
The driving influence of the Alaskas was, due to abysmal intelligence about Japanese building intentions, the fear of the possibility she might build large 11 or 12" cruisers similar to large Deutschlands which, it was assumed, could not be countered by existing American 8" cruisers. From a War Plans memo, via Friedman US Cruisers p292 (my own italics): "if an enemy 11 or 12 inch cruiser gets in behind our battleforce, and we have only 8" cruisers, this puts us on the defensive. We would have to escort important convoys with battleships and weaken the battle force, as the RN is doing now. A 12" cruiser saves us this trouble, ..."
Yes, I think I know this one. But would a Japanese 12" gunship be called "cruiser" by the Japanese ?
When the decision to re-arm the twins with the larger weapon was made it required a much more extensive rebuilding - ie Gneisenau's bow wasn't merely to be rebuilt, but rather replaced with a much larger structure to provide the buoyancy the heavier weapons and ammunition would have required.
That is probably because they wanted to have large magazines, to provide 150-180 shells/gun AND to protect the barbettes and turret faces against 15" shell fire. Without this excessive emphasis on weapons and protection, the conversion may have been much simpler to make.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

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

Post by alecsandros »

MVictorP wrote:
Yes, toughness and gunnery efficiency were IMO the Hippers' most noticeable qualities. On the other hand, they were under-performing (if we take in account their tonnage) and had irascible machinery - as well as short range. But their biggest flaw was: They were not what the DKM needed.

Besides, I'm pretty sure they could have been taken on by the entirely legit Algerie - which is, IMO, the best overall 8" treaty cruiser
Pretty much agreed :wink:
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 »

boredatwork wrote:While I also call the Alaskas battlecruisers, I do so despite the bulk of the evidence supports a cruiser designation.

The only thing that really supports a battlecruiser designation is their size was so much bigger than previous cruisers. But ship classes grow. Yamato was ~5x the displacement of HMS Majestic built 50 years earlier but both are battleships, not because of their armament or armor or speed or size met certain fixed arbitrary limits, but rather both both were built to perform the same function - engage and destroy other enemy battleships.

Your examples aren't exactly analogous. Prinz Eugen was never intended to serve in a flotilla, launch mass torpedo attacks against the enemy battleline, or hunt submarines and thus does not merit classification as a destroyer. Nor was Tirpitz ever intended to haul nets to catch fish or sweep for mines.

Deutschland was however built to fight other battleships (the french pre-dreadnoughts) and thus could merit the title of "battleship."
Not only the Alaska's size and gun bore brings then out of the cruiser designation, but its intended role, that of a cruiser-killer, is typical of the battlecruiser's job description. As for cruiser functions, would you say that a Tromp and a Mogami serve the same functions? Some cruisers are designed like enlarged flotilla leaders and others like small battleships - case in point, the Hippers.

Yamato being five time bigger than another battleship does not make it pass over the battleship classification - owing to the fact that there isn't a class over "battleship".
Likewise the Alaskas, regardless of their size, were designed and built to fulfill cruiser functions (as spelled out by the US Navy). Given that there was no political motivation in calling the Alaskas cruisers, unlike for example calling the Invincible class carriers "through deck cruisers," it's pretty hard to argue against the fact that the people who labelled them "cruisers" weren't a bunch of amateur historians debating on a forum but rather the officer corps of the largest navy in history. Presumably they knew what they were doing when they labelled her a "large cruiser." =)
Their reason can be all but naval ones. International classification supercede those of the USN.

Your source for your statement that the Alaskas were influenced by the Kongo class?
Wikipedia, the Alaska's entry IIRC.
The [Scharnhorst's] build did NOT "expressedly allow" for upgrading to 15".

What the build DID expressely allow for was upgrading to 350mm (13.8") guns. (Whitley German Capital Ships of WW2 p.36)

Allowing for a future Upgrade to 380mm (15") guns was considered and rejected during planning because they would have required a larger ship, as well as the desirability with maintaining commonality with the armament of the follow on Bismarck class which, at that time, were also planned to be armed with the 350mm (13.8") weapons.

When the decision to re-arm the twins with the larger weapon was made it required a much more extensive rebuilding - ie Gneisenau's bow wasn't merely to be rebuilt, but rather replaced with a much larger structure to provide the buoyancy the heavier weapons and ammunition would have required.
That's interesting, I didn't knew that (even thought I pretend having some knowledge about the DKM). I never heard about the development of such a weapon, and I tought the barbettes were big enough to accomodate 15-inchers. Anyway, I'm guessing upgrading to 15-inchers would have made the ship ballooned by what, 3000 tons? That makes them 35000t battleship, faster not because of a lack of armor, like a battlecruiser, but by a diminution of the armement. Still WT battleships.
"That was all I had to say"
- Me
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

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

Post by boredatwork »

alecsandros wrote: What is even more interesting is that the Alaska's were protected more against plunging fire than against horizontal fire.
Again because of their cruiser role. A battleship tied to a battleline would potentially be broadside to it's target much of the time. A cruiser on the other hand had freedom to maneuver and thus Alaska's vertical protection was based around a cruiser's standard of 60 degree target angle as opposed to a 90 degree angle that governed US battleship protection. (Friedmann US Cruisers, p. 297)
Yes, I think I know this one. But would a Japanese 12" gunship be called "cruiser" by the Japanese ?
As mentioned in an earlier post the Japanese did indeed call the orignal 12.2" design a "super type-A cruiser".
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

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

Post by alecsandros »

boredatwork wrote: As mentioned in an earlier post the Japanese did indeed call the orignal 12.2" design a "super type-A cruiser".
And how would we call it today ? :D
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

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

Post by boredatwork »

MVictorP wrote:As for cruiser functions, would you say that a Tromp and a Mogami serve the same functions? Some cruisers are designed like enlarged flotilla leaders and others like small battleships - case in point, the Hippers.
What matters in the context of US cruisers is what the role of US cruisers as was spelt out in a previous post.
Your source for your statement that the Alaskas were influenced by the Kongo class?
Wikipedia, the Alaska's entry IIRC.
I'm tired so it's entirely possible I'm missing the refference to the Kongos:

posting.php?mode=quote&f=9&p=46040
BackgroundHeavy cruiser development was steadied between World War I and World War II by the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty and successor treaties and conferences. In this treaty, the United States, Britain, Japan, France, and Italy had agreed to limit heavy cruisers to 10,000 tons displacement with 8-inch main armament. Up until the Alaska class, U.S. cruisers designed between the wars followed this pattern.[12]

The initial impetus for the design of the Alaska class came from the deployments of the so-called pocket battleships in the early 1930s. Though no actions were taken immediately, plans were revived in the late 1930s when intelligence reports indicated Japan was planning or building "super cruisers" which were much more powerful than U.S. heavy cruisers.[3][6][11][13][A 8] The navy responded in 1938, when a request from the General Board was sent to the Bureau of Construction and Repair for a "comprehensive study of all types of naval vessels for consideration for a new and expanded building program".[14] The U.S. President at the time, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, may have taken a lead role in the development of the class with his desire to have a counter to raiding abilities of Japanese cruisers and German pocket battleships,[15] which had led to them being called "politically motivated",[16] but these claims are difficult to verify.[6][17]

...

The new class was officially funded in September 1940 along with a plethora of other ships as a part of the Two-Ocean Navy Act.[11][21][A 9] The new ships' role had been altered slightly; in addition to their surface-to-surface role, they were planned to protect carrier groups. Because of their bigger guns, greater size and increased speed, they would be more valuable in this role than heavy cruisers, and they would also provide insurance against reports that Japan was building super cruisers more powerful than U.S. heavy cruisers.[11]
The [Scharnhorst's] build did NOT "expressedly allow" for upgrading to 15".
That's interesting, I didn't knew that (even thought I pretend having some knowledge about the DKM). I never heard about the development of such a weapon, and I tought the barbettes were big enough to accomodate 15-inchers. Anyway, I'm guessing upgrading to 15-inchers would have made the ship ballooned by what, 3000 tons? That makes them 35000t battleship, faster not because of a lack of armor, like a battlecruiser, but by a diminution of the armement. Still WT battleships.
It's a common misconception that because the ships were built with the intention to rearm, and because Gneisenau was eventually to be rebuilt with 15" guns, that they were built to take 15" guns - MJ Whitley German Capital Ships WW2 p34-36 (copied and pasted from another thread [] brakets are my own additions for context):
Despite Raeder's decision in July 1934, the question of the ship's main armament was again the subject of discussion in March 1935. Five alternatives were tabulated:
a) Nine, 30.5cm [12"]
b) Nine, 33cm [13"]
c) Six, 38cm [15"]
d) Six, 33cm [13"]
e) Six, 35cm [13.8"]
The first three would necessitate a new ship of 34,000-37,000 tons as opposed to the planned 31,500 tons. A redesign could be done but at considerable cost in terms of time, something like 1.5 years, which would result in a gap of 3.75 years in capital ship construction. It was also likely to have a delaying effect on Schlachtshiff F [Bismarck]. As far as d) and e) were concerned, these were possible either by an immediate change to the new calibre, or by designing them to allow later upgunning. The first option would entail a delay of [Scharnhorst] of 17 months and 23 months in that of [Gneisenau][due to the time to produce the new armament]. Also 11 million Marks would have been lost on 28cm guns and turrets then under construction. This option was therefore judged unnacceptable on grounds of cost both financial and fiscal. The option of allowing a later increased in calibre [...] was the preffered one. [...]

[...]Eventually it was agreed that a 28cm armament would be sufficient against Dunkerque and that construction would proceed with 3 triple 28cm turrets but allow for future rearmament with 35cm [13.8"]guns. [...] This calibre was chosen on the grounds that it was more effective than 33cm, it was more suited to the existing 28cm barbettes and would also reduce the variation in battleship main armament calibres ([Bismarck] was at that time planned with 35cm guns)
That is probably because they wanted to have large magazines, to provide 150-180 shells/gun AND to protect the barbettes and turret faces against 15" shell fire. Without this excessive emphasis on weapons and protection, the conversion may have been much simpler to make.
Given that the upgrade to the lighter 13.8" would entail +680 tons, a 15cm increase in draught, an increase in trim by the bow (in already wet ships) and a reduction to 130 rpg, it seems clear that something would have to be done to compensate for the even heavier 380cm turrets, regardless of the fact they would fit within existing barbettes. As quoted above the Germans felt it would take a ship at least 3,000 tons heavier to achieve.
That makes them 35000t battleship, faster not because of a lack of armor, like a battlecruiser, but by a diminution of the armement. Still WT battleships.
They lacked armor - they were only protected against the French 13.5" weapon on the Dunkerques, not against the 14", 15" or 16" guns of contemporary battleships which would still keep them in the battlecruiser class. Of course if the Germans want to call them "battleships" let them... I don't throw a hissy fit about it. :wink:
Last edited by boredatwork on Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

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

Post by boredatwork »

alecsandros wrote:
boredatwork wrote: As mentioned in an earlier post the Japanese did indeed call the orignal 12.2" design a "super type-A cruiser".
And how would we call it today ? :D
Yamato being five time bigger than another battleship does not make it pass over the battleship classification - owing to the fact that there isn't a class over "battleship".

Their reason can be all but naval ones. International classification supercede those of the USN.
It doesn't matter what a half dozen arm chair historians arguing over an internet forum call it.

Nor does it matter what the treaties would have called it because they had passed by the time the Alaskas were designed.

The only thing that really matter is what the real experts called and the thousands of US Navy officers who designed/built/and fought them called them large cruisers which trumps any of our opinions.



But given that we're arguing in circles I shall bow out and do something more productive.
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 »

boredatwork wrote:What matters in the context of US cruisers is what the role of US cruisers as was spelt out in a previous post.
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.

The function of a cruiser is to do everything a warship can do, at a fraction of what it would cost for a battleship; Patrol, escort, scouting, bombardement, AA screening, DD screening and even battle line combat.
They [Scharnhorst] lacked armor - they were only protected against the French 13.5" weapon on the Dunkerques, not against the 14", 15" or 16" guns of contemporary battleships which would still keep them in the battlecruiser class.
The Scharnhorst were armored on a level that compares to Bismarck. They had a 350mm belt, for crying out loud. Very few battleships are protected against 14, 15 and 16-inchers. There were simply no battlecruiser that were build since the WT. Some second-class BBs, like the Kongos, the Dorias, the Dunkerque and the Alaska, but no bona fide battlecruiser per the English tradition. In fact, in both role and hulls, the battlecruiser mutated into the carrier.
Last edited by MVictorP on Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:35 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:A "torpedo bulkhead" and "torpedo bulges" are two different thing. The latter are add-on bulges on the outside of the hull, while the former is genuine TDS (one may wonder how you define TDS if not with a torpedo bulkhead) incorporated into the hull's design.

The Panzerschiff, Algerie, Tromp etc have a genuine TDS in the form of torpedo bulkheads.
One of the Ganguts have added bulges, that can be used as a TDS, but whose primarly function is to help stability.
The Dorias, for their part, had a novelty system as TDS (the Pugliese), but it didn't work as intended.
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

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!
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: ... Scharnhorst definitely is a battleship;
I agree with that but.
Just picture it with six 15-inchers instead - after all, that what the built expressedly allowed for.....
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.
Post Reply