Talk:Battlecruiser/Archive 1

Old talk

• <cite>Battlecruisers were soon rendered obsolete</cite> -- Soon after what?
• <cite>Battlecruisers were soon rendered obsolete, because advances in propulsion technology made battleships fast enough and they were inferior in battle to a proper battleship.</cite> -- Inconclusive: Why was the better technology not applied to make them still faster than battleships?

--Yooden

Speed of a ship is a function of tonnage, transmissible horsepower and hull form. As the end of World War II approached, the more efficient power plants of the newer battleships made them as fast as battlecruisers, but the battlecruisers were close to the limit of the power that could be transmitted through four prop shafts (about 75,000 horsepower then, now in 2004 it's closer to 85,000 hp), so they didn't benefit as much as the battleships from the more powerful engines. Iceberg3k 05:13, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

---

• Good work on obsolence(sp?).
• <cite>no ship of either type has been built since World War II.</cite> -- Again, what is the Kirov? --Yooden

Kirov is a "large guided missile cruiser." Calling her a battlecruiser is a misnomer because all battlecruisers were built on modified battleship hull (which, BTW, is why the Alaskas were large cruisers and not battlecruisers). Iceberg3k 05:13, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Please note that the current version is an older and less accurate version than the previous one. This was a "revenge revert" by a user who has lost the plot in the face of pretty-much unanimous opposition to him inserting his POV in an entirely unrelated article. Tannin 05:53, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Actually most battlcruisers were designed as such. battlecruisers such as hood were rearmoured and became in effect, fast battleships (lighter armoured than a battleship, but more than a battlecruiser, and faster than a battleship. Iowa class were fast battleships apparently. Shcharnhorst was a light abttleship, alaska was a very heavy cruiser. You have to see where the design came from. they weren't coming out of nowhere. therew as a progression SpookyMulder 11:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm not too keen on this article. I think it's a bit opinionated somehow and tries to be a bit too specific in classifying battlecruisers. Each nation built "battlecruisers" to different designs and the technical details vary. Therefore I think we should classify by role rather than by armour/armament. If we defined them by role we would need to include ships like the Scharnhorst, Dunkerque and Alaska. Any thoughts? Wiki-Ed 20:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph of this article places an unnecessary limitation on the content. I have written a new draft and outlined how I think we should restructure the remainder of the article accordingly. This should be a case of inserting headings, moving paragraphs and photos around or adding in new text. Apart from the first paragraph I don’t think there is a need for much text deletion. The aim is to improve the coverage and provide a more logical structure. I’d be grateful for comments before I make the proposed changes.

• Change 1 is the text of the intro:

Basic Concept
Battlecruisers were large warships of the first half of the 20th century 
that evolved from armored cruisers. In terms of ship classification they occupy a 
grey area between cruisers and battleships. Some of them were smaller than 
heavy cruisers and others were larger than contemporaneous battleships. Different 
nations built to widely different designs, but the role for which they were designed 
was fairly uniform. Their purpose was to hunt down cruisers and destroyers (or merchant 
ships in the case of the Panzerschiff) and destroy them with their heavy armament. They 
were not heavily armoured so they could not trade broadsides with battleships or other 
battlecruisers. Their protection was supposed to be their speed as originally the weight
saving from the reduced armour allowed more powerful engines to be fitted. The idea was 
mainly conceived by British Admiral Jackie Fisher who believed "speed is the 
best protection".  

• Change 2 consists of a series of alterations to the subsections:

1. First Battlecruisers (fine)
2. First World War
   1. Battle of the Falklands (separate and fill in some detail)
   2. Battle of Dogger Bank (mostly fine)
   3. Battle of Jutland (mostly fine)
3. Inter-war years (renamed heading and new sub-headings)
   1. Post-war developments
      1. British designs (Renown, Repulse and Hood – any changes made during the period)
      2. Japanese designs (changes made to Japanese ships)
   2. Rearmament
      1. German designs (new German ships – needs clarification)
      2. French designs (new French ships – needs insert)
4. Second World War (Move all pre-war developments into sections above)
   1. Chronological list of main encounters
   2. Developments (Alaskas and changes to armament through war on other vessels).
5. Cold War designs (new heading)
   1. Kirov (move here)
6. Problems with the idea (needs some work)
7. See also
8. Further reading

Etc

Any comments? Wiki-Ed 13:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Cruiser vs battlecruiser

Please clarify the difference between cruiser and battlecruiser, to help translation from foreign languages. mikka (t) 17:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Battlecruisers were supposed to hunt smaller ships (e.g. cruisers) and run away from anything bigger (e.g. battleships). Cruisers at that time are a bit more difficult to classify. They were the smallest ship which could act independently and were the mainstay of the fleet: patrolling, escorting, scouting etc. . Wiki-Ed 11:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Cruisers also were intended and used as commerce raiders, as well as forming the core of squadrons based in remote places to raid or protect commerce (and show the flag). Battlecruisers were basically intended to work with the main fleet; they could and did raid and protect commerce but were basically too expensive for that use. As their name implies, battlecruisers were to be able to take a part in a big fleet battle (not in the main line of battle, true, but more as scouts for the battleships. But as scouts for the battleships they might be expected to run into enemy battleships, where they would be badly but not hopelessly outclassed and would have a fair chance to get away. Herostratus 06:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Cruisers did lots of things; I didn't list many of their roles. Battlecruisers... hmm I see where you're coming from - good point. It's quite an obvious flaw in the article really - I've described what they were supposed to do, not how they were supposed to do it. I'll try and squeeze that into the introduction. I think the historical sections of the article make it quite clear that they were rarely employed as intended. Wiki-Ed 09:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The designation CC was the original assignment for Cruisers. Battle Cruisers - which later morphed into Large Cruisers, were assigned the designation CB. Aircraft Carriers were assigned the CV designation specifically because they were developed from Cruisers. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No. C was the original designation for protected cruisers, and ACR was the designation for armored cruisers. These were both eventually redesignated CA. CC was the designation for battlecruisers. CB was the USN designation for "large cruisers," not battlecruisers. TomTheHand 14:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of these statements - the designations are only relevant to the US. Wiki-Ed 17:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to take the conversation off-topic; I just noticed that the above user had incorrectly listed the US designations and I wanted to make a correction. TomTheHand 17:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes

Russian appears not to distinguish between rockets and (air-breathing) missiles, using the term 'Raketny' for both. Since this distinction does occur in English, it is unidiomatic not to observe it. John Moore 309 14:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What distinction? Not all missiles are rockets - a spear isn't - but all rockets are missiles unless you mean rocket motors. Some missiles had rocket engines, some didn't - eg Bloodhound whose main thrust was Ram jet. Some use rocket to mean "unguided" missiles. GraemeLeggett 16:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is great, but there exist also other opinion, that battlecruiser development definitely ceased in 1922 (Washington Treaty), and all later battlecruiser-like ships were in fact battleships or heavy or large cruisers, because they were built according to different principles and for different reasons, than "classic" battlecruisers. They were mostly named as battleships. I understand, that we describe all ships here, that could be named battlecruisers, because they are smaller than battleships and larger, than cruisers? Anyway, it's good, that the article mentions about their original "national" classes (like "fast battleship"). Pibwl [[User_talk:Pibwl|talk]] 20:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed dubious statements: Some battlecruisers were smaller than heavy cruisers - which ones?

(as for Scharnhorst and Gneisenau): ...but effectively they carried the firepower of a heavy cruiser. - They were definitely much more powerful, than heavy cruisers, in terms of armament. Pibwl [[User_talk:Pibwl|talk]] 20:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, battlecruisers are a surprisingly controversial topic. I agree with your edits, but overall I think the article strikes a good balance between definitely identifying the "true" battlecruisers and tentatively pointing out ships that could be classified as battlecruisers but were not called such by the navies that constructed them.

I, personally, think the term "battlecruiser" is overused. It is NOT a type of ship intermediate in size between cruisers and battleships. Indeed, many (most?) battlecruisers were larger than contemporary battleships. For example, I don't believe that Dunkerque, Scharnhorst, or Alaska were battlecruisers. They were not called such by the navies that constructed them, nor were they used in the traditional battlecruiser role. Nevertheless, I definitely acknowledge that there's controversy on this subject, and I think the article does a good job of acknowledging both sides as well. TomTheHand 04:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Pocket battleships were smaller than Des Moines class "heavy cruisers", and the Alaskas were almost the same size as the Scharnhorst, but carried heavier guns... so I doubt you could clearly classify the latter as being more powerful. If you bring the original pre-World War I designs into the picture it would get even more confused. Technical comparisons are pointless - especially at a time of such rapid evolution. The point (as per the intro) is that there was a group of ships that were designed to perform a role between that of contemporary cruisers and that of contemporary battleships. Their technical characteristics, given name and actual usage are not relevant to the classification (which is necessarily broad). If you start being exclusive you'd end up with an article on perhaps two ships. I have reverted inaccurate changes. Wiki-Ed 11:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe it should be reverted back, or at least rewritten, because now it may confuse readers and give them wrong impression on battlecruisers. All battlecruisers were bigger, than heavy cruisers - with a single exception of pocket battleships, which sure were not "true" battlecruisers. IMO they weren't battlecruisers at all, because their construction was derived from cruisers (as well, as Alaskas), while battlecruisers were derived of battleship construction and therefore much stronger built. See also a note above by TomTheHand. I agree, that we can mention them, as battlecruiser-like class, with many things in common, but one controversial class should not "spoil" clear definition. If you insist to call pocket battleships "battlecruisers", it should be explained IMO, that all battleships were larger, than armoured/heavy cruisers, with only exception of these three ships. In addition, only the largest of heavy cruisers were bigger, while pocket battleships were still bigger, than a definition of heavy cruiser (according to a treaty).
I don't quite understand your second note on Scharnhorsts. Alaskas were definitely not heavy cruisers (in article they are even called battlecruisers themselves), so a statement, that Scharnhorsts had a firepower of a heavy cruiser, because they were less powerful, than Alaska, is at least misinforming. Heavy cruisers had 8-12 of 8in, Scharnhorst had 9 of 11 in, so how can we write, that it had a firepower of a heavy cruiser? Pibwl [[User_talk:Pibwl|talk]] 20:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, I disagree strongly with your changes. The Scharnhorsts were armed considerably more heavily than any heavy cruiser. In reference to the pocket battleships, you cannot compare ships completed 20 years apart and say "this ship is smaller than a heavy cruiser." You must compare contemporaries. For example, Alaska's contemporary was the Montana-class battleship; she doesn't look so large in that company. I am reverting those two edits. Honestly, I don't agree that the "Pocket Battleships" were battlecruisers at all, given their low speed, small size, and considerably different role. However, I have no problem with the current mention because of the controversy as to their classification. TomTheHand 20:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Guys you can't have your cake and eat it. It's not just one little exception. The Alaskas were "large cruisers" - the ship article says so and Americans generally seem quite adamant that this is so. However, they carried a heavier set of guns than the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau "battlecruisers" . Check the details for each ship. I put them here in this way because they were designed to be used in the same way battlecruisers were in other navies. As for comparing ships... you can compare ships that were completed 20 years apart - they met on the high seas in wartime; the Montanas, however, didn't exist. Maybe I'll do a little table or something so we can compare them all.

Anyway, I agree that these are awkward wordings but I think you're becoming fixated on statistics - this isn't Top Trumps. I'd like to say battlecruisers were ships that displaced between 20k and 40k tonnes and carried >12" guns. However, this excludes several ships that should definitely be in here. Ships have to be defined by roles because technical details change too rapidly for other comparisons to be meaningful. I'll let your change to the Scharnhorst stay - it's more than just primary armament anyway, but the bit in the intro needs to show that they could be relatively small ships as well as very large ones. Wiki-Ed 18:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The Alaskas were called "large cruisers", but never "heavy cruisers", and so it's inaccurate to say that the Scharnhorst carried the armament of a heavy cruiser. Heavy cruisers were defined by treaty to carry 8" guns. On the point of comparing ships that were completed many years apart, the pocket battleships never met a Des Moines heavy cruiser on the high seas in wartime. The Des Moines class were completed after WWII and really should not be compared to a ship of the 1920s. Des Moines was larger than many early battleships. Was she, therefore, a battleship? Would it be a good idea to say that battleships are sometimes smaller than heavy cruisers, or would this be just a tad bit misleading? TomTheHand 20:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I've thought a bit about this and I'd like to run some ideas by you. You've put heavy emphasis on the idea of defining battlecruisers by their roles, and I agree with you there. However, battlecruisers were designed as the fast scouting wing of a battle fleet. Battlecruisers died in the Washington Naval Treaty; none were built since Hood. What battle fleet were the pocket battleships scouting for? Germany had no fleet, and was restricted by treaty from building one. The Alaskas were built as heavy escorts, not part of a scouting line. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were called battleships by Germany and were intended to be used as such, in spite of their light guns.

I think that a distinction should be made between ships built as battlecruisers to fulfill the original battlecruiser role, and ships which are widely considered to be battlecruisers because they were larger and/or more powerful than most cruisers but smaller and less powerful than most battleships. TomTheHand 21:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Re. Des Moines ('48) - apologies, I appear to have got my dates confused between them and the Alaska ('44) - I was under the impression the first one was completed during the war. You're right - it was almost as large as Dreadnought... so if they had been in commission at the same time then yes, I think I would have wanted to point out the discrepency in name/size. "Large" or "heavy"... semantics. The Alaskas were just big-heavy-cruisers (!). Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand they were built to act independently and counter the large numbers of Japanese heavy cruisers (although in practice they were used as escorts because their targets had been sunk by the time they were commissioned). As such I would regard them as being designed more along the line of a battlecruiser than a cruiser. The Scharnhorst and pretty much all German capital ships were designed to act independently and hunt down weaker vessels. Germany has no intention of trying to compete with the Royal Navy's numerical strength in battleships and their vessels were not designed to operate as part of a grand fleet. That role of acting independently and going after weaker prey (be that lone carriers like HMS Glorious or commerce raiding) is something I would characterise as being a part of the role of a battlecruiser. But you're right, it wasn't exactly what was originally envisaged so I think we need to say the role evolved - Fisher's original concept was out-of-date almost before the first battlecruisers left the slips (with aerial recon etc). If you can think of a way of altering the intro to reflect what you said the please do so - I feel I am fighting to preserve what could be interpreted as a POV, so I should step back. :) Wiki-Ed 22:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you agree now, that "large" and "heavy" cruisers were something different, because heavy cruisers were basically ships defined by the Washington treaty. Yes, Alaskas were just big-heavy-cruisers from a construction point of view, but they exceeded all treaty limits, were called "large cruisers" by the Navy, and even here we count them as batlecruisers (or battlecruiser-like ships). Scharnhorst was a real battleship in terms of construction and armor, it only had weaker guns (Bismarck was basically its enlarged, but not heavier armoured copy). I've just took a look at the Russian book on large cruisers, in which the author recognizes three generations of battlecruiser-like ships: "genuine" WW1 battlecruisers, smaller and faster battleships from early 1930s like Dunkerque and Scharnhorst, and finally large cruisers, with relatively weak armour (190-250 mm belt). The only built ships of the last generation were Alaskas, but in the late 1930s also USSR, the Netherlands, Germany (O class) and Japan planned to build such ships. Pibwl [[User_talk:Pibwl|talk]] 20:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The way I rewrote this article was so as to include all battlecruiser-like ships so it's good that you've found a source to corroborate that approach. It would be nice to have a more authoritative reference and a proper structure to the evolution. Can you get that into the article (probably the intro?)and add the book details etc? Wiki-Ed 21:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Klingon D-7

Do we really need a section on the Klingon D-7, or indeed any fictional SF types of battlecruiser? To me that section really detracts from an excellent article. -- Arwel (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that a mention of the use of the term "battlecruiser" in sci-fi is a good idea, since it's certainly a favorite term in that genre. I don't think the Klingon D-7 is given excessive attention. Sci-fi battlecruisers are given just a smallish paragraph in the article, and while I wouldn't want the sci-fi section expanded more, I don't think it should be removed either. TomTheHand 04:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it does detract from the article, but there is not enough here to merit putting it elsewhere (as I have done with "aircraft carriers in fiction"). Wiki-Ed 11:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Alaska class cruiser armor

In the "New US Designs" section, the article says of the Alaska class, "Their protection was not able to withstand fire from their own caliber of gun." However, the Alaska_class_cruiser article says "they were given ... armor protection against 12" shells." Which is correct?

According to Garzke and Dulin's "Battleships," their armor could keep out 12" shells in a narrow range band from 23,500 to 25,000 yards. They had a bit more deck protection over the magazines, which were protected between 23,500 and 26,600 yards. I'll fix both articles.

Note that, by comparison, the Iowa class battleships had protection against a South Dakota class battleship firing the US super-heavy shell between 20,400 and 26,700 yards. They had protection against a standard-weight shell between 17,600 and 31,200 yards. I don't actually have data with me on the Iowas' protection against her own guns, unfortunately. The Iowas' guns fired the same shells as the South Dakotas but at a higher velocity, so you'd expect to see the immune zone shift outward (vulnerable to belt penetration at a greater range, but invulnerable to deck penetration at a greater range as well). While it's technically true to say that the Alaskas had some level of protection against their own shells, you can see that it was very little compared to even a battleship that was optimized for high speed. TomTheHand 01:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

The article has been around for a while... it was never classified as a stub, and the first substantial editing and improvements were done in British English. Moreover, as so many people have been keen to point out, the US did not actually operate this class of ship, so it's not an American topic and I see no reason for it to be shifted into American English just to suit certain editors' preferences. I would have to conclude changes are being made to prove a WP:Point rather than for any valid reason. Wiki-Ed 19:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

1) Please assume good faith. I would never make a change just to prove a point. 2) You misunderstand spelling guidelines. It's that British topics demand British spelling, American, American spelling, Canadian... etc. It's not: all non-American topics demand non-American spelling! This topic is not a British topic. And what you judge as the first "substantial" version is different from I think it is. But this isn't worth fighting about. (Not for me anyway.) Best, Cultural Freedom 2006-06-25 21:12 (UTC)

Science Fiction Section

What on earth are discussions of Star Trek and StarCraft and the like doing in this article. Will someone please put this section somewhere else or perhaps make a new page for it. Leaving it here completely distracts from an otherwise pretty good article.