Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

[lwd]

I thought that the Alaska class were built to counter similar "large" cruisers the Japanese were planning.

That is correct.

The Alaska's should have been cancelled along with the Montana class battleships. ...

The Alaska was laid down in 1941. The Montana's weren't even ordered until May of 42 and then they were put on hold for Iowa's and CV's. They weren't canceled until July of 43. Alaska was launched in August of 43. By that point finishing her and putting her into service was a pretty reasonable idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Montana_(BB-67)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Alaska_(CB-1)

[19kilo]

From what I'v read, the germ of the idea for the Alaska class cruisers started with the "Panzerschiffs" and a percieved need to counter them and then was fed by the rumors of large Japanese "super cruisers" abuilding. I understand that at one point there was serious pressure to convert them to aircraft carriers during construction which would have been......IMHO at least, a waste.......ships with the same plant as an Essex, with, maybe, half the air group. I havent really seen it stated as such, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the ABDA fiasco and the battle of Savo Island, two actions that showed how very good Japanese cruisers could be, had more than a little to do with the continuation of these ships.

[MVictorP]

There was a clear trend toward bigger cruisers when the Washington Treaty limited them to 10,000 tons. Look at the rapid expansion beyond that weight when the treaty limits went away.

Like I've wrote, 10000t, 32k and 8" gunsfit rather ill in the same package, hence the weight excesses among heavy cruisers - even early ones, if we look at the Italians. However, if there are many 10-15000t heavy cruisers, there is only one type of 27 500t vessel that pretends itself a cruiser.

As I've stated the British were looking seriously at building a 9.2" gunned cruiser when the treaty established an 8" limit. I strongly suspect it would have weighed in at well over 10,000 tons. Perhaps someoen has the spec for it.

As the Brits were busy trying to impose even more restraining treaty limitation, I strongly doubt that such a design (that never went past the drawing table, AFAIK) was a serious study.

You seem to be the only one who considers them such.

Then, with all due respects, you didn't read enough.

It wasn't simply the lack of TDS that's just one example.
What post WW1 or even battleships built during WWI lacked a TDS? Which cruisers had them?

Prinz Eugen had a TDS - as well as Battleship-level rangefinders. On the other hand, the Dorias, in spite of being reconstructed relatively late, had no TDS.

??? They were hardly failures. I don't see how "cheaper/most" effecitve ships could have sufficed for their intende role either.

By doing the same job at a fraction of the cost. Are you trolling me?

The Panzerschiffen on the otherhand were pretty clearly cruisers both in function and form and indeed were later rerated heavy cruisers. Furthermore I see little reason to restrict oneself to the above catagories.

No. The Panzerschiffen were created to replace battleships, per the Versailles treaty, not cruisers. They are also the Scharnhorsts' basis. The big Scharnhorst cruisers.

Theh performance parameters and size of the Panzershiffe are well within the cruiser range.

Yeah. It's eactly like a cruiser. Except heavier. And with bigger guns. And slower by a good measure. But apart from that, exact twins. No doubts about that.

(not sure what the AGNT is by the way)

You don't even have the faintest idea?

No wonder we're not on the same page. I tought you were serious. Good day.

[boredatwork]

On the other hand, the Dorias, in spite of being reconstructed relatively late, had no TDS.

The Dorias (and Cavours for that matter) as reconstructed had a Pugliese TDS installed. Relatively ineffective granted but a TDS none the less.

(not sure what the AGNT is by the way)

You don't even have the faintest idea?

Now you're just being snide - How often do people on this board abbreviate the Anglo German Naval Treaty? Answer: just you.

[boredatwork]

Alaska's categorization seems an excercise in pointless semantics. Both her and Invincible shared a common design genesis - as cruiser killers to overmatch the existing cruisers of their generations. That Invicible needed to be of battleship proportions and armament to accomplish the task while the Alaskas were much smaller (relative to contempory US BBs) is in part due to the fact that the gap between Battleships and armored cruisers in 1906 was much smaller than the gap between treaty battleships and treaty cruisers. Given that invincible was both a cruiser and a battlecruiser either definition would seem to fit the Alaskas.

[MVictorP]

The Dorias (and Cavours for that matter) as reconstructed had a compressed Pugliese TDS installed.

You're right. The Dorias indeed had a TDS of a sort. Still, the Ganguts had no TDS. And I'm pretty sure there had been others.

Now you're just being snide - How often do people on this board abbreviate the Anglo German Naval Treaty? Answer: just you.

Now that's downright ridiculous.

Sorry, boredatwork; When one comes to a specialized naval board focused on WWII era, where hang numerous naval engineers and authors of renown in the circle, and oppose every line I said, I assume that this person is aware of the various, important naval agrements that made WWII ships what they were, abreviated or not.

Please don't turn another poster's ignorance against me. I am pretty sure the AGNT (or AGNA) has been abreviated before. And if not, well he could have at least figured it out, no offenses meant.

And thanks for piping in.

[lwd]

There was a clear trend toward bigger cruisers when the Washington Treaty limited them to 10,000 tons. Look at the rapid expansion beyond that weight when the treaty limits went away.

Like I've wrote, 10000t, 32k and 8" gunsfit rather ill in the same package, hence the weight excesses among heavy cruisers - even early ones, if we look at the Italians. However, if there are many 10-15000t heavy cruisers, there is only one type of 27 500t vessel that pretends itself a cruiser.

Hardly pretends. It was a natural progression if 8" gunned cruisers needed to be 15,000 tons or so then one would expect 12" gunned ones to weigh in around 25,000 tons i.e. in the same range as Alaska.

As I've stated the British were looking seriously at building a 9.2" gunned cruiser when the treaty established an 8" limit. I strongly suspect it would have weighed in at well over 10,000 tons. Perhaps someoen has the spec for it.

As the Brits were busy trying to impose even more restraining treaty limitation, I strongly doubt that such a design (that never went past the drawing table, AFAIK) was a serious study.

For the very reasons you state it was likely a serious study. The cost of a naval arms race that included not just more vessels but larger ones with larger guns was going to be at best a severe financial strain on the Great Britain (and other powers) yet it was something that they couldn't afford to neglect.

You seem to be the only one who considers them such.

Then, with all due respects, you didn't read enough.

If it were all that easy you could have produced a reference. Looks to me like you are running out of facts and resorting to personal attacks to make up for it.

It wasn't simply the lack of TDS that's just one example.
What post WW1 or even battleships built during WWI lacked a TDS? Which cruisers had them?

Prinz Eugen had a TDS - as well as Battleship-level rangefinders. On the other hand, the Dorias, in spite of being reconstructed relatively late, had no TDS.[/quote]
Others have pointed out that the Dorias had a TDS. As for Eugen do you have a reference that describes her TDS and can you name any other cruisers that had one? In any case if all you can point at is one or two exceptions then I think my case stands pretty firm. There were always variations giving the number of powers building such ships but in general Battleships especially post WWI battleships had TDS and cruisers from the same period did not. Taken by itself it doesn't provide a defintive answer but it sure points to it and when you look at the other factors ...

??? They were hardly failures. I don't see how "cheaper/most" effecitve ships could have sufficed for their intende role either.

By doing the same job at a fraction of the cost. Are you trolling me?

What ships could do the same job at a fraction of the cost? If you are talking about confronting other "super" or "large" cruisers for example then the Alaska's are the most efficient that I can see. In carrier escort roles they can replace battleships which makes them more efficient as well.

The Panzerschiffen on the otherhand were pretty clearly cruisers both in function and form and indeed were later rerated heavy cruisers. Furthermore I see little reason to restrict oneself to the above catagories.

No. The Panzerschiffen were created to replace battleships, per the Versailles treaty, not cruisers. They are also the Scharnhorsts' basis. The big Scharnhorst cruisers.[/quote]
Source please. I have seen nothing to indicate that the Germans ever considered using them as battleships. I'm not sure how you can consider them the basis for the Scharnhorst class either. The twins were clearly battleships by the way.

Theh performance parameters and size of the Panzershiffe are well within the cruiser range.

Yeah. It's eactly like a cruiser. Except heavier. And with bigger guns. And slower by a good measure. But apart from that, exact twins. No doubts about that.[/quote]
Not reallly heavier. When they were built thier speeds were comparable to contemporary cruisers ~3 knots slower than say the Pensecola class. Bigger guns sure but pensecola had bigger guns than Atlanta so I don't see that as all that significant and again with the British looking at 9.2" gunned cruisers 11" isn't that far off.

(not sure what the AGNT is by the way)

You don't even have the faintest idea?

I figured it out after a while but creating an acronym without defining it is rather poor form.

No wonder we're not on the same page. I tought you were serious. Good day.

A response that rather indicates that you lack both fact and logic to support your position. I'm not surprised.

[MVictorP]

Hardly pretends. It was a natural progression if 8" gunned cruisers needed to be 15,000 tons or so then one would expect 12" gunned ones to weigh in around 25,000 tons i.e. in the same range as Alaska.

I don't know about the alternate world you are describing, but down here, a "12-inch cruiser' is called a battlecruiser, an armored cruiser or a battleship. same thing for 18-inch "cruisers". All these ship that existed decades before the Alaskas didn<t change classifications because the USN decided so, for a rethorical reason or another,

If it were all that easy you could have produced a reference. Looks to me like you are running out of facts and resorting to personal attacks to make up for it.

Oh, references exist. There's plenty of them. If fact, there are so many I wonder how come you missed them if you pretend yourself anu knowledgeable. Maybe that if you didn't systematically and wrongly opposed everything I wrote and tested me for every comma, I would condescend to explain these to you, but as it is you will have to fetch your own docu, bud.

As for personal attacks, you earn the very same attitude you sowed. And you didn't saw nothing yet. You tried to pass me as a newbie while it's now clear you know little about the random stuff you are writing.

Others have pointed out that the Dorias had a TDS. As for Eugen do you have a reference that describes her TDS and can you name any other cruisers that had one?

First: What's the point? There are cruisers who have TDS and BB that don't (like I answered "others"). that eliminates the TDS for determining if a given ship is a cruiser or not. Your argumentation is lost, no matter how you attempt to weasel it out.

Second: I am not fetching anything for you anymore. You, fetch your own facts. Yes, you.

What ships could do the same job at a fraction of the cost?

Real cruisers.

Source please. I have seen nothing to indicate that the Germans ever considered using them as battleships. I'm not sure how you can consider them the basis for the Scharnhorst class either. The twins were clearly battleships by the way.

You are so wrong I don't know where to begin: I know treaties are not your forte, but did you ever heard of the effects of the Versailles treaty on the German navy? Are you aware that the Scharnhorst are a development of the Panzerschiffen?

A response that rather indicates that you lack both fact and logic to support your position. I'm not surprised.

I'm no more interested in your views, my friend; I fear I may have overestimated your naval knowledge, which is rudimentary.

[lwd]

Hardly pretends. It was a natural progression if 8" gunned cruisers needed to be 15,000 tons or so then one would expect 12" gunned ones to weigh in around 25,000 tons i.e. in the same range as Alaska.

I don't know about the alternate world you are describing, but down here, a "12-inch cruiser' is called a battlecruiser, an armored cruiser or a battleship.

Given that the USN rated the Alaskas cruisers and given that there role was intended to be that of cruisers and that they were armored like cruisers and designed like cruisers it seems to me there's a very strong case for calling them cruisers. In the mean time you haven't been able to source anyone else refering to them as battleships. I hope you don't get to lonely in that world of yours.

All these ship that existed decades before the Alaskas didn<t change classifications because the USN decided so, for a rethorical reason or another,

Not rhetorical at all. 12" gunned battleships predated the Alaskas by a considerable period and were very different ships. Much slower, heavier armor, designed to act as battleships. That sort of thing.

If it were all that easy you could have produced a reference. Looks to me like you are running out of facts and resorting to personal attacks to make up for it.

Oh, references exist. There's plenty of them. If fact, there are so many I wonder how come you missed them if you pretend yourself anu knowledgeable. Maybe that if you didn't systematically and wrongly opposed everything I wrote and tested me for every comma, I would condescend to explain these to you, but as it is you will have to fetch your own docu, bud.

You are the proponent. If you can't support your position then it can be considered to be simply your opinion which frankly isn't worth much based on what you've stated todate.

As for personal attacks, you earn the very same attitude you sowed.

Really? Care to point out where I attacked you and not your post?

... You tried to pass me as a newbie while it's now clear you know little about the random stuff you are writing.

Snipping out the threats we have another unsupported opinion.

Others have pointed out that the Dorias had a TDS. As for Eugen do you have a reference that describes her TDS and can you name any other cruisers that had one?

First: What's the point? There are cruisers who have TDS and BB that don't (like I answered "others"). that eliminates the TDS for determining if a given ship is a cruiser or not. Your argumentation is lost, no matter how you attempt to weasel it out.

I never claimed a TDS was the defintive characteristic. But so far all we have is your claim that Eugen has a TDS and that other battleships don't. Now I'd agree that many pre WWI battleships designs lacked them but again what Post WWI design did? And again where is a reference stating that Eugen had one.

Second: I am not fetching anything for you anymore. You, fetch your own facts. Yes, you.

I'll take that as an admission that you can't then.

What ships could do the same job at a fraction of the cost?

Real cruisers.

A real cruiser is suppose to be able to fight it out with a large cruiser?

Source please. I have seen nothing to indicate that the Germans ever considered using them as battleships. I'm not sure how you can consider them the basis for the Scharnhorst class either. The twins were clearly battleships by the way.

You are so wrong I don't know where to begin: I know treaties are not your forte, but did you ever heard of the effects of the Versailles treaty on the German navy?

Indeed it's just not clear what the relevance is to the issue at hand.

Are you aware that the Scharnhorst are a development of the Panzerschiffen?

Are they? Let's see:
1) Different armor scheme
2) Different propulsion
3) Different main battery
4) TDS for the twins not for the Panzershiffe
5) The twins displace 3 times what the Panzershiffe do
I guess if you have a broad enough defintion of "development of" but that doesn't mean that the Panzershiffe were not cruisers and the twins battleships.

... I'm no more interested in your views, my friend; I fear I may have overestimated your naval knowledge, which is rudimentary.

Rudimentary? Well perhaps compared to some on this board but your failure to support your positions with fact or logic which I have done provide a rather illuminating contrast does it not?

[boredatwork]

Please don't turn another poster's ignorance against me. I am pretty sure the AGNT (or AGNA) has been abreviated before. And if not, well he could have at least figured it out, no offenses meant.

And thanks for piping in.

Please use the forum search tool to search for AGNT - you'll find on this forum anyways you're the only one who has ever abreviated it so.

He could have and probably would have figured it out but given that we've ***always*** spelt it out as the Anglo German Naval Treaty it's not surprising he didn't pick it up right away. It was only after rereading your context several times that it hit me what you were reffering to.

Again I don't think calling out another poster as being 'ignorant' or using the expression 'faintest idea' because he didn't immediately reconize an uncommon abreviation adds anything to the discussion.

You're right. The Dorias indeed had a TDS of a sort. Still, the Ganguts had no TDS. And I'm pretty sure there had been others.

But all American Battleships since at least the Nevada class had TDS. The only ships the Americans rated as "Battlecruisers", the Lexingtons also had TDS. The Alaska class had none. Hence lwd's point is valid - the lack of a TDS in an American context is a cruiser feature.

What ships could do the same job at a fraction of the cost?

...

A real cruiser is suppose to be able to fight it out with a large cruiser?

I would have argued, given that the Alaskas had only marginal immunity against 12" gunfire, another pair of Essexes would have accomplished their intended role as large cruiser killer much more effectively at marginal increase in cost (assuming already existing air resources were diverted to provide an airwing.)

As for all of the all of the roles the Alaskas actually did perform either Baltimores could have performed them nearly as well for much cheaper or Essexes would have performed most of them much better. The only thing Alaska would have them both beat in is day surface action, but IIRC there are only 4 instances in the whole war (Glorious, Hornet, Samar, and IIRC one or two of Ozawa's carriers were finished off by cruisers) where surface ships actually fired on carriers so it seems a moot point.

Source please. I have seen nothing to indicate that the Germans ever considered using them as battleships. I'm not sure how you can consider them the basis for the Scharnhorst class either. The twins were clearly battleships by the way.

Check out Whitley's German Capital ships of WW2. The ability to fight the French Pre-Dreadnaughts of the Danton class which France might risk in the Baltic to support Poland was a driving factor in their design. On the otherhand I would agree with you that the Scharnhorst is only vaguely related to the Panzerschiffe. While originally planned as such, during the convoluted design process they abandoned the upscaled Panzerschiffe designs and instead started with a fresh design for a proper fast battleship to match Dunkerque, albeit making use of the already ordered 11" mountings.

I don't know about the alternate world you are describing, but down here, a "12-inch cruiser' is called a battlecruiser, an armored cruiser or a battleship. same thing for 18-inch "cruisers".

The original Japanese equivalents to the Alaskas were rated as 'super A-type cruisers'... so it's not just lwd's part of the world that calls ambiguous ships by definitions other than your own. Once the treaty ended any standardization in Warship classifcation ended with it.

I would call the Alaska Battlecruisers if only because Battlecruiser sounds more epic than "large cruiser" or "Super Cruiser". But conceptionally it's hard to draw the conclusion that they were anything else but scaled up cruisers designed to fill a cruiser's role instead of scaled down capital ships.

The original WW1 BCs for example were as large as or even larger than contemporary battleships (Orion ~25000, Lion ~29000) and had the illusion of being capital ships able to stand in the line of battle as substitute battleships. The Alaskas on the otherhand were far closer to contemporary cruiser size then contemporary BB size (~20,000+ for the unbuilt post-Baltimore designs vs 70,000 for the Monatanas) and they didn't even have the illusion of being able to take on even the elderly Fusos or Kongos with any degree of confidence. Likewise the Americans produced "true" battlecruiser designs in the lead up to the Iowa class - with 12x16" guns, high speed and light armor.

But again you both seem to be wasting alot of your time arguing over a trivial detail.

[lwd]

... Still, the Ganguts had no TDS.....

Note however that I specified post WWI battleships and the Ganguts were preWWI battleships. Ships designes evolve over time and you persist in using a defintion that not only is treaty provision specific but frozen in time.

[lwd]

... I would have argued, given that the Alaskas had only marginal immunity against 12" gunfire, another pair of Essexes would have accomplished their intended role as large cruiser killer much more effectively at marginal increase in cost (assuming already existing air resources were diverted to provide an airwing.)

Well they would have had problems at night and in regions/times of poor weather. I suspect operating the air wings would also make their operating costs considerably more but you would gain a lot of flexability.

As for all of the all of the roles the Alaskas actually did perform either Baltimores could have performed them nearly as well for much cheaper

On the otherhand the Iowa's also performed that role and the Alaska's were cheaper than the Iowa's both to buy and to operate.

The only thing Alaska would have them both beat in is day surface action, but IIRC there are only 4 instances in the whole war (Glorious, Hornet, Samar, and IIRC one or two of Ozawa's carriers were finished off by cruisers) where surface ships actually fired on carriers so it seems a moot point.

I'm not sure why you restrict this to day actions. I would think an Alaska would be better than a Baltimore at night as well. Particularly if the enemy force was identified as such in conditions that would permit the Alaska to use it's range advantage. Also consider that when the Alaska's were laid down surface engagments were definitly expected.

... I would call the Alaska Battlecruisers purely for their uniqueness in being cruisers that had grown to bridge the gap between the upper end of the spectrum of cruisers and the lower end of battleships but that does not preclude me from considering them to be cruisers, rather than capital ships as clearly they were closer in role to the former than the later.

The original WW1 BCs for example were as large as or even larger than contemporary battleships (Orion ~25000, Lion ~29000) and had the illusion of being capital ships able to stand in the line of battle as substitute battleships. The Alaskas on the otherhand were far closer to contemporary cruiser size then contemporary BB size (~20,000+ for the unbuilt post-Baltimore designs vs 70,000 for the Monatanas) and they didn't even have the illusion of being able to take on even the elderly Fusos or Kongos with any degree of confidence.

If you go by WWI standards then the Iowa's might well be considered Battlecruisers and the SoDak's, and Montana's the true battleships. I think the Alaska's still fit in the cruiser range but they certianly overmatch any heavy cruisers thus the USN term "large cruiser" seems very appropriate to me. Although Battle cruiser is much closer to the mark thand "2nd class battleship".

[lwd]

... I don't know about the alternate world you are describing, but down here, a "12-inch cruiser' is called a battlecruiser, an armored cruiser or a battleship. same thing for 18-inch "cruisers". ...

Should have caught this sooner. Here's an 18 in cruiser for you HMS Furious. Originally planned with two single gun turrets with 18" guns. And of course there were he two semi sister Glorious and Courageous all rated by the British as "large light cruisers". I will admit I've seen them refered to as battlecruisers but their deployment with a light cruiser squadron seems to argue against that.

[MVictorP]

Please use the forum search tool to search for AGNT - you'll find on this forum anyways you're the only one who has ever abreviated it so.

He could have and probably would have figured it out but given that we've ***always*** spelt it out as the Anglo German Naval Treaty it's not surprising he didn't pick it up right away. It was only after rereading your context several times that it hit me what you were reffering to.

Very, very weak. I don't know what to say.

Again I don't think calling out another poster as being 'ignorant' or using the expression 'faintest idea' because he didn't immediately reconize an uncommon abreviation adds anything to the discussion.

"Ignorance" was the right expression - his subsequent post show as much ignorance for either the Versailles Treaty or the Washington one. Being ignorant isn't pejorative; it doesn't mean "idiot": It just means a lack of knowledge in one very defined field. Well, not only lwd is being essentially ignorant about naval treaties, but he also think that they don't matter much, even in the context of WWII where the vast majority of ships were the result of these treaties.

But all American Battleships since at least the Nevada class had TDS. The only ships the Americans rated as "Battlecruisers", the Lexingtons also had TDS. The Alaska class had none. Hence lwd's point is valid - the lack of a TDS in an American context is a cruiser feature.

It isn't a cruiser/battleship feature; It is a necessity for those big ship not manoeuvrable enough to avoid torpedoes. The more you advance in time, the more a TDS is vital for big ships. You want features that separates cruisers and BBs? Try weight and gun bore size (that's how these things are regulated). The Alaska cruisers were second-grade battleships, and bad ones at that. They tried something new, it didn't worked. And as a results the next cruisers got back to a more cruiser-like size. The rest is rethorics.

The original Japanese equivalents to the Alaskas were rated as 'super A-type cruisers'... so it's not just lwd's part of the world that calls ambiguous ships by definitions other than your own. Once the treaty ended any standardization in Warship classifcation ended with it.

I would call the Alaska Battlecruisers if only because Battlecruiser sounds more epic than "large cruiser" or "Super Cruiser". But conceptionally it's hard to draw the conclusion that they were anything else but scaled up cruisers designed to fill a cruiser's role instead of scaled down capital ships.

It was definitely not a cruiser. Now there can be some discussion to know if it was a battlecruiser, like the Renowns, a second-grade battleship like the Dunquerques or an armored cruiser.

And besides, what do you define as a '"cruiser's role"? My take is that there is no role especially for cruisers. One defines the roles for cruisers (and all other ships) depending on a country's given tasks and present units. Germany used its cruiser like battleships, and its battleships like cruisers.

The original WW1 BCs for example were as large as or even larger than contemporary battleships (Orion ~25000, Lion ~29000) and had the illusion of being capital ships able to stand in the line of battle as substitute battleships. The Alaskas on the otherhand were far closer to contemporary cruiser size then contemporary BB size (~20,000+ for the unbuilt post-Baltimore designs vs 70,000 for the Monatanas) and they didn't even have the illusion of being able to take on even the elderly Fusos or Kongos with any degree of confidence. Likewise the Americans produced "true" battlecruiser designs in the lead up to the Iowa class - with 12x16" guns, high speed and light armor.

There was also what were called "armored cruisers" before the WT ("Washington Treaty"), and these were often stronger than older battleships - case in point, the Goergio Averoff. Officialy, the last of these ships was the SMS Blucher, but even after that, the continental battlecruiser was different from the English one, being lighter, slower and more heavily armored, for more balanced designs.

Also, there was a pejorative meaning attached to the word "battlecruiser" in WWII, relative to the Jutland disaster. Naval officers were quick to pick any word close to "battlecruiser" but the word itself.

Finally, at the end of WWII. tech was advanced enough to produce bona fide battleships with battlecruiser-like speed, effectively eliminating the difference between them.

But again you both seem to be wasting alot of your time arguing over a trivial detail.

True.

[MVictorP]

Should have caught this sooner. Here's an 18 in cruiser for you HMS Furious. Originally planned with two single gun turrets with 18" guns. And of course there were he two semi sister Glorious and Courageous all rated by the British as "large light cruisers". I will admit I've seen them refered to as battlecruisers but their deployment with a light cruiser squadron seems to argue against that.

That was pre-WT (Washington Treaty, 1922). "Cruisers" before the WT were another thing altogheter. There were light cruisers, protected cruisers and armored cruisers, that were almost full-sized battleships/battlecruisers.

When the WT came, the Brits decided to get Furious off the "Battleships (& Battlecruisers)" lists (where it was, given its tonnage & guns, and the Brits did not get the right to an exception for them) to put them on the "Carrier" list.

That's why those elusive treaties are so important.