MVictorP wrote:If you knew about the restrictions the Versailles treaty imposed on Germany, you wouldn't have that question about the Deutschlands being cruisers. They were Germany's battleships, pure and simple,
That is your interpretation/opinion. I've seen nothing to indicate that the Germans had any intention of using them in the role of battleships and indeed doing so would have been rediculous as they would have stood no chance against anything but a coastal defence battleship and even that would be risky.
just like the Sveriges (laid down in 1912 IIRC) were Sweden's battleships.
And that's relevant how?
In fact, that's what the Versailles treaty had in mind for Germany - a coastal defense force.
And allowed them a couple of coastal defence battleships which they indeed possessed.
That was before the WT (which Germany didn't sign), that limited battleships between 10 000 and 35 000t. But Germany, to the international surprise, didn't built neither what was just defined as a heavy cruiser, nor a coastal battleship.
And you accuse me of not knowing what's in the treaties. There was no minimum limit for battleships. Furthermore Germany did build heavy cruisers i.e. the Panzershiffe. Which can be seen by how they were used as well as how they were lableled.
More than being cruisers, or battleships, the Deutschland are (relatively) fast and long-range (at the expoense of armor) "coastal" battleships
Long range coastal battleships? With cruiser level armor? You have a realy wierd ship classification scheme.
When the WT was imposed in some sort on Germany by the 1935 AGNT (grr..), Germany should have classed them as "Battleships" (over 10000t and 8-inchers) and that's what they did until Tirpitz was launched. Then, with some cheating and who-cares-now, as heavy cruisers.
They never classified them as battleships and never should have as they were incapable of fullfilling that role.
...I believe some Dutch cruisers had them too. Once again, if we both agree that TDS does not make the ship (heck, carriers have TDS), what's the point? That this systematic confrontative attitude that bothered me more than anything else.
It's one of the characteristics that help differentiate the ship classes. Again give me a source on any cruiser with a TDS.
Indeed and the Alaska's were half to a third the weight of their contemporary battleship designs. Essentially the same ration of the Pensecola's to their contemporary battleship designs. Furthermore there was a considerable if somewhat smaller seperation in gun bore size.
(...) The Alaska design was a pretty good one for the role invisioned. That role never came to pass and by 44 it was pretty clear it wouldn't. Not the same thing as not working at all.
Once again, as "cruisers" the Alaska didn't set no trend in cruiser design, nor was it the continuation of an existing cruiser trend.[/quote]
But it clearly was a continuation of the existing trend.
Later US heavy cruiser had a more cruiser-like weight.
Considering that the only all gun heavy cruisers built after the Alaskas were the Des Moines indead they were the last heavy cruisers built by the US, and they were simply an improved Baltimore and that the Alaska's were rated as large cruisers rather than heavy cruisers that's of very limited import.
Indeed After all, the point of buiding cruisers, when you have the means to have BBs, is to have numerous, cheap, expendable vessels that are economic to operate all year round, and do everything a ship-of-the-line can do, to a lesser scale.
If the point is to have cheap, expendable, economic vessels the US would have built a lot more Atlantas. Cruisers can't do everything a "ship-of-the-line" or battleship can do. They can't expect to win a gun battle with an opposing battleship. A heavy cruiser can't expect to win a battle with a large cruiser either.
You seem to be the only one who considers them such in regards to both opinions stated.
You don't get out much do you?
You continue to make this sort of comment but seam unable to support it. The implication is you can't and that it's simply your opinion.
... The Alaska's tonnage, speed, weight and guns made them direct competitors with the Scharnhorsts or even more spot-on yet, the Dunkerques.
Not really. Look at the armor schemes. The twins and the Dunkerques were battleships and intended to operate as such. Indeed when built the twins were capable of taking on the majority of battleships then in existance (the Nelsons, Nagatos, and standards would have had an advantage over them but they would have had a decent chance vs the rest)
Besides, if those Nippon ships existed, I (as well as any naval expert) would have called them either battlecruisers or light battleships myself (depending on their builts), but not cruisers - or destroyers, BTW.
Haveing reading comprehension problems today? Or don't you think the Japanese and US admiralties were naval experts. They both rated such ships as cruisers. Which again points to the weakness of your position.
The roles of various ships are stated in the doctrine of their respective navies. I'd very much like to see an example if Germany using a cruiser like a battleship by the way.
Prinz Eugen, in the battle line with Bismarck against Hood and PoW (that's "Prince of Wales"). I thought you would knew
that, on this site, of all things. Why can't you relate to anything I wrote by yourself?
That was a bit of extremis though wasn't it? It certainly wasn't German doctrine to have heavy cruisers engage battleships in gun battles any more than it was US doctrine for them to do so by themselves. On the other hand cruisers often engaged battleships when acompanied by or perhaps better said when acompanying battleships of their own.
I would think that would have started soon after Jutland but in the early 20's there were numerous battlecruiser designs from several nations.
Well, that didn't help the "battlecruiser brand" neither, as the Lexington were terrible warships, that got re-classified as CV as soon as the WT was in effect.
That's not quite right either. The Lexingtons were not terrible warships. As battlecruisers they probably would have been but they made pretty good CV's and they weren't reclassified as carriers they were rebuilt as carriers and classified as such.
I know of no real battlecruiser (althought many light battleships were built or refited) that was built between the WT and WWII.
That's hardly a surprise though is it? Given that the treaty limited the number of battleships and battle cruisers combined.
I wasn't all that familiar with them and didn't consider it all that important but reading up on it I noted that by the time the war started they did have at least a rudimentary TDS. Not that that would be all that expected or required in a refit or relevant to my position although it does tend to weaken yours a bit more if that's possible.
"Rudimentary", like a torpedo net?
Maybe one of these ships had added bulges, but I am pretty positive no TDS were standard on these ships. They were easy torpedo meat.[/quote]
And you accuse me of ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangut_class_battleship
... Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya was the next ship to rebuilt and profited from the experiences of her sister's modernization between 1931 and 1934. .... The space saved was used to add another inboard longitudinal watertight bulkhead that greatly improved her underwater protection.
...
Parizhskaya Kommuna ... was returned to the dockyard from December 1939 through July 1940 to receive a new armored deck and anti-torpedo bulges which cured her stability problems and greatly increased her underwater protection at a modest cost in speed
I told you what irritated me in your posts. I am ready to give you the benefit of the doubt for now, but once again if you mess with the bull...
... the horns!
Again with the threats. You should realize that it does more damage to your credibility than it does any good. If you can't site specifics then it's not clear whether you misinterpreted something or I did indeed step over the line or perhaps you just have too thin a skin.