A Quiz for You! - Became Battleships vs Battlecruisers

[fbastos]

I was a project with:

(a) 3 dual turrets with 20-inch guns
(b) 53,000 tons displacement
(c) 35 knots speed
(d) 10 inches belt armor

Who am I?

A hint: I would have been built, shouldn't a very serious battle take place.

F.

[Tankerace]

Hmm.... the "Super Yamato" (Yamato Kai I believe) called for 6 20 inch guns, but on more of a 70,000 ton displacement, and certainly much more armor than 10 inches. That's not it.

The 1934 Fujimoto design was closer in the displacement range, but would have carried 12 20 inch guns... So that's not it.

But, the winner is,

The 1914 Fisher design.

Based on lessons learned from Courageous, Furious, and Renown, the so called "Incomparable" design mounted 6 20 inch guns, had a speed of 35 knots, and weighed in at 53,000 tons. In effect, they looked like Renowns, but with a large, single stack reminiscent of the Outrageous classes (Courageous and Furious).

[fbastos]

Yay! A cookie for Tankerace!! Well done! :^)

F.

[freeboy]

sorry, but isn't six turrets at two guns each twelve?

[Tiornu]

Yes, it should have said "six 20in guns with dual turrets."
Fisher's specs actually called for belt 16in armor, though he was willing to reduce this and the 6in secondary battery to secure a 30-knot speed. But then, he also started out with 16in guns.
Perhaps strangest of all was his proposal for secondary guns in disappearing mounts. You can't say this guy never thought outside the box.

[fbastos]

Ops... who said 6 dual turrets?? Hang him!!

Sorry for that..

F.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Yes, it should have said "six 20in guns with dual turrets."
Fisher's specs actually called for belt 16in armor, though he was willing to reduce this and the 6in secondary battery to secure a 30-knot speed. But then, he also started out with 16in guns.
Perhaps strangest of all was his proposal for secondary guns in disappearing mounts. You can't say this guy never thought outside the box.

Fisher thought outside the box alright.... but how many men had to die to prove the impossibility of "speed equals armor".

On another note, why the heck would you need disappearing guns on a warship? If the thing is about 800ft long, and looks like a warship, you know it has big guns on it.

[Tiornu]

I've often see the "speed is armor" quote ascribed to Fisher, but I've never seen any documentation on its context. If he was referring to the use of large cruisers against the enemy's battle line, then I'd have to say the historical precedents tend to support his idea. I don't know of any disproportionate losses we can pin on him for it.
As far as I can tell, the only reason for proposing the disappearing mounts would be to indulge the appetite for newfangled whatevers.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

I've often see the "speed is armor" quote ascribed to Fisher, but I've never seen any documentation on its context. If he was referring to the use of large cruisers against the enemy's battle line, then I'd have to say the historical precedents tend to support his idea. I don't know of any disproportionate losses we can pin on him for it.
As far as I can tell, the only reason for proposing the disappearing mounts would be to indulge the appetite for newfangled whatevers.

The losses in BCs can't be pinned on Fischer (stupid freak designs like Furious, Courageous and Glorious which wasted resources could be), but on the Admirals commanding and deploying them. As cruisers got bigger and faster, so too did BCs, as the need for speed increased size and cost passed that of BBs. Because of this, many felt them a waste unless used in the battleline. Kaboom!

[Tankerace]

True. Even Fisher himself said the role of the Battlecruiser was to hunt down and destroy cruisers. But, they were rarely used that way. The Admirals saw them as the "New playtoys that had to be tried out". The Outrageous class on the other hand, those are a different story....

[Tiornu]

Une moment, messieurs! No battlecruisers were destroyed while operating as part of a battle line. Unless you want to consider Hood a BC and Denmark Strait a battle-line action.
It's also interesting to keep in mind that the number of BC destroyed by BB is about the same as the number of BB destroyed by BC.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Une moment, messieurs! No battlecruisers were destroyed while operating as part of a battle line. Unless you want to consider Hood a BC and Denmark Strait a battle-line action.
It's also interesting to keep in mind that the number of BC destroyed by BB is about the same as the number of BB destroyed by BC.

Depends what you call a BC, and what you call a battle line. At Jutland, the BC were arranged in lines, and employed against enemy battleships that were arranged in lines. I would call this a battleline action. BCs got sunk from this. Even if you exclude the British BCs, Lutzow certainly got hammered (and sank) as a result of trying to stand up to the British battle line.

Some ships are referred to as BCs in some places, while other sources call them fast battleships. Heck, the same navy calls them one thing at one time in their career, and another thing later (i.e. Kongo class BC mutating into fast BBs).

I am drawing a blank as to what battleships got sunk by battle cruisers. Which ones did what sinkings?

[Tankerace]

I'm drawing a blank too. I can think of several armored cruisers sunk by battlecruisers, maybe even other battlecruisers sunk by battle cruisers, but no battleship sunk by a battlecruiser.

Still, the role of the battlecuiser, as described by Fisher, was to hunt down armored cruisers, and withdraw from larger or like ships. Not too unlike the theory of the panzerschiffe.

[Tiornu]

"Depends what you call a BC, and what you call a battle line."
That's an important point. A lot of this hangs on points of nomenclature, and a lot of misconceptions have evolved from their into ossified hindsight.
It bears repeating that battlecruisers were simply outgrowth of the armored cruiser, whose role included engaging enemy battleships from postions of tactical superiority. I'm guessing this is what is meant by "speed is armor," and in this very limited sense, it is a valid statement.
Not one BC sunk at Jutland owes its loss to a BB; the fatal blows were all struck by other BC.
If we adhere strictly to official nomenclature, only one battlecruiser was ever sunk by a battleship, and that was Hood sunk by Bismarck. Also, only one battleship was sunk by a battlecruiser, and that was Bretagne sunk by Hood. Deviating from official nomenclature, we can also say the BC Kirishima was sunk by Washington (and SoDak). BUt with each of these examples, we can see that the precise labels did not matter. Hood was sunk, not because she was a battlecruiser, but because she was an unmodernized ship fighting a newer, larger opponent. Bretagne was hardly in a fair fight, just a fish in a barrel. And poor Kirishima was up against two ships that were newer, larger, and more powerful.
In fact, Fisher's vision for the battlecruiser was that it would eclipse the battleship or, perhaps more precisely, not "beat" the BB but "join" it. The modern dreadnoughts of post-1930 can all be seen as "fast battleships" or "armored battlecruisers," a BB-BC hybrid.
You know, it's hard to focus on Fisher's intentions and edicts; he made so many disparate statements at various times, I wouldn't be surprised if he once predicted the trawler would make the submarine obsolete. Dinghies are armor!

[Tankerace]

YOu mean Fisher acknowledged the submarine as a weapon? I thought that was back when the submarine "was not a gentleman's weapon, as it did not fight in plain view." Gotta love the British.

[Tiornu]

I recently picked up a copy of Damned Un-English Machines. Haven't read it yet, but I can't help liking the title.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

"Depends what you call a BC, and what you call a battle line."
That's an important point. A lot of this hangs on points of nomenclature, and a lot of misconceptions have evolved from their into ossified hindsight.
It bears repeating that battlecruisers were simply outgrowth of the armored cruiser, whose role included engaging enemy battleships from postions of tactical superiority. I'm guessing this is what is meant by "speed is armor," and in this very limited sense, it is a valid statement.
Not one BC sunk at Jutland owes its loss to a BB; the fatal blows were all struck by other BC.
If we adhere strictly to official nomenclature, only one battlecruiser was ever sunk by a battleship, and that was Hood sunk by Bismarck. Also, only one battleship was sunk by a battlecruiser, and that was Bretagne sunk by Hood.

Um - again, this is certainly arguable. According to the accounts I have read of Mers-el-Kebir, Hood was shooting at (and hitting) the Dunkerque at the beginning of the battle, which is when the Bretagne was sunk. Afterwards the Hood was shooting at the Strasbourg but the French BC escaped. I might have to find a book about this though to find out who hit what, or even if it is determinable.

Still arguable is the death ride of the battlecruisers at Jutland. Since no single ship sank the Lutzow, we can't say who did the fatal damage, but I had been under the impression that it was the BB line that did her in.

So by carefully choosing our definitions, we can make some interesting and provocative statements. I don't know think we can ever settle the subject on this forum, but it is sure fun trying![:)]

[Nikademus]

The most damaging hits were caused by HMS Invincible (along with Inflexible) So much so that Lutzow was out of action by 1837. The Death ride of the Battlecruisers was ordered by Scheer at 1913. Lutzow did not participate in this action as she was mortally wounded and disabled.

[Tiornu]

One achievement credited to Hood is striking two different battleships with a single shell. The 15in shell that scored the famous hit on Dunkerque's turret broke apart and sent a big chunk into one of the oldies--don't remember which one.

[Arsaces]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

"Depends what you call a BC, and what you call a battle line."
That's an important point. A lot of this hangs on points of nomenclature, and a lot of misconceptions have evolved from their into ossified hindsight.
It bears repeating that battlecruisers were simply outgrowth of the armored cruiser, whose role included engaging enemy battleships from postions of tactical superiority. I'm guessing this is what is meant by "speed is armor," and in this very limited sense, it is a valid statement.
Not one BC sunk at Jutland owes its loss to a BB; the fatal blows were all struck by other BC.
If we adhere strictly to official nomenclature, only one battlecruiser was ever sunk by a battleship, and that was Hood sunk by Bismarck. Also, only one battleship was sunk by a battlecruiser, and that was Bretagne sunk by Hood. Deviating from official nomenclature, we can also say the BC Kirishima was sunk by Washington (and SoDak). BUt with each of these examples, we can see that the precise labels did not matter. Hood was sunk, not because she was a battlecruiser, but because she was an unmodernized ship fighting a newer, larger opponent. Bretagne was hardly in a fair fight, just a fish in a barrel. And poor Kirishima was up against two ships that were newer, larger, and more powerful.
In fact, Fisher's vision for the battlecruiser was that it would eclipse the battleship or, perhaps more precisely, not "beat" the BB but "join" it. The modern dreadnoughts of post-1930 can all be seen as "fast battleships" or "armored battlecruisers," a BB-BC hybrid.
You know, it's hard to focus on Fisher's intentions and edicts; he made so many disparate statements at various times, I wouldn't be surprised if he once predicted the trawler would make the submarine obsolete. Dinghies are armor!

But I thought the Hood was sunk by a lucky shot from the Prinz Eugen ? In that case, if we consider the Kongo class to be "fast battleships", no battlecruiser ever was sunk by a battleship...

At Mers El Kébir, the French battleships managed to straddle the Hood twice before being knocked out of action. A hit on this highly vulnerable ship might have had momentous consequences. This daring and desperate action was a triumph for Churchill - it could easily have turned into a disaster. The destiny of nations sometimes hangs by a thread...