British Battlecruisers

[Habari]

Just a suggestion - British battlecruisers had very significant armour weaknesses (witness their losses at Jutland, and the sinking of the 'Hood' (launched 1918) in 10 mins against the Bismarck). Is there a case for weaker naval defence stats for GB battlecruisers vis a vis other nations?

[kirk23]

The fault with British Battlecruiser's design was not the armour protection,but was human error,the ammunition hoist's were open so as to speed up rate of supply to the guns,with shells & cordite,which in turn led to a flash fire when a turret was hit,and unless the magazine was flooded then the ship blewup!The German Seydlitz Battlecruiser saved herself by doing this earlier in the war,when she managed to successfully flood the stern magazines,the Germans learned from this mistake and changed the handling system so as to avoid this happening in the future,but of course they were at war with Britain and did not pass on the vital piece off information.

[Habari]

I bow to your greater knowledge - but the point still stands. If it took us Brits more than 20 years and yet still not learn the lesson, that has an effect on how 'killable' our battlecruisers were, compared to other nations.

[kirk23]

I bow to your greater knowledge - but the point still stands. If it took us Brits more than 20 years and yet still not learn the lesson, that has an effect on how 'killable' our battlecruisers were, compared to other nations.

It did not take Britain more than 20 years to learn the lesson,its a little known secret that HMS Hood when hit by the salvo from Bismarck,had stowed on the deck amidships ammunution,and it was this that blew her in two,and not the lack of protective armour,Hood was one of the best protected ships Britain had!

[Streety]

Hi Guys,

There was indeed a significant deck fire on the Hood, probably caused by a hit to a cordite locker that supplied the smaller 4-inch guns. Although it's not a 100% definite cause, a very detailed, 4-part (and updated) review here: http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm concludes that the eventual spread of this fire caused the loss of the Hood after it spread inboard to other propellant stocks.

And no, it didn't take long for the Admiralty to learn from Jutland because the causes were obvious - the fact is that unlike armoured cruisers, WW1 battlecruisers were built with the concept of being faster as a means of protection rather than being heavily armoured. Thus these cruisers were meant to hunt down merchant shipping, raiding, skirmishing and seeing off smaller warships. But instead, what happened at Jutland was they acted more like ship-of-the-line battleships, and they lacked the armour for such stand-to slug-fests. Yes, poor practice of ammo and cordite handling may have played a part, but essentially the lack of armour caused the problem of penetrative hits in the first place. Just two years later, in 1917, even while Hood was still under construction (the largest battlecruiser ever built), her armour plating design was increased by 5,000 tons as a result of the lessons of Jutland.

In 1920, a further Admiralty analysis estimated that the Hood could need another few inches belt protection, just be on the safe side - but this remedial work was never undertaken. This lead to the sense that Hood was under-armoured in WW2, however, a lot of analysis of the likely dynamics of Bismark's and Prinz Eugen's shells at the range engaged suggests that in the event, Hood's armour was probably just about sufficient to stop their shells reaching critical internal locations before exploding. However, nothing is 100% certain, even if they could recover her to a dry dock.

But to return to the WW1 game, you'd need to compare like with like - how do other nation's true (faster but less armoured) battlecruiser designs compare? I'd suggest that the game values may have been tweaked for play-balance or to allow for other factors such as the (generally overall) better experience and other intangibles of the Royal Navy. After all, despite the losses and some poor decisions at Jutland, and despite good gunnery from the German navy, it was a strategic defeat for Germany.

[Bossy57322]

And no, it didn't take long for the Admiralty to learn from Jutland because the causes were obvious - the fact is that unlike armoured cruisers, WW1 battlecruisers were built with the concept of being faster as a means of protection rather than being heavily armoured. Thus these cruisers were meant to hunt down merchant shipping, raiding, skirmishing and seeing off smaller warships.

Jackie Fisher proposed the battlecruiser primarily to hunt down and destroy armored cruisers - The Battle of the Falkland Islands vindicated the idea and the design completely. The armor withstood dozens of direct hits from the smaller German guns while the big guns and speed of the battlecruisers decimated the German ships at a range of Sturdee's choosing.

I suspect the slight weakness of the British battlecruisers vis-a-vis the German in the game is based on historical data. Whatever the reason, the British ships simply fared worse in all big-gun actions. That appears to be represented in the game.

[Streety]

Oh, there was nothing wrong with the concept when used in the right conditions. Fisher wasn't entirely original, he just ran counter to the prevailing wisdom of the day. As a former naval architect I can confirm that the issue of speed versus armour is an age-old design question. And not just in ships but in all other military circles too. The problem with the battlecruiser was not in having too little armour per se, but in the way they were sometimes used as replacement battleships in more static slug-fests.

And that's what happened to our Battlecruiser heroes of the Falklands (HMS Invincible and HMS Inflexible), when they were instead used in a big battle: Invincible blew up and after the war Inflexible was deemed obsolete, despite the class being only 11yrs old. They were deemed just too vulnerable to plunging shell-fire. Scrappped.

Even in the earlier Falklands they were lucky - Inflexible had been obscured by the smoke from Invincible, while Invincible herself was hit and holed by the German ships 22 times despite the German ships only having 6-inch & 8-inch guns to the British 12-inch. Invincible was listing and half-flooded, holed in the coal-bunker which could alone have lead to the loss of the ship but luckily just some flooding. Fortunately, the damaged British ships from the battle were literally just outside the safe harbour of the Falklands and could make some repairs, else they'd have perished in any storm trying to make it to anywhere else. And so providence and the fact that the German crews were exhausted before the battle started played a big part in the British success that day.

[Bossy57322]

As a former naval architect I can confirm that the issue of speed versus armour is an age-old design question.

Sounds like a pretty interesting line of work. I'm guessing you can't say too much about this.....

It just so happens I am (re) reading Robert Massie's Castles of Steel (having just finished Dreadnought), so this conversation caught me at exactly the right time!

The naval aspect of the Great War is often overlooked, but it is fascinating. Touch-and-go for the entente for sure........

[Streety]

I suppose there's not too much I could say about any military ships and subs I worked on, but most are no longer in service, or about to retire. And whilst I had some great experiences, it was a poor career choice because from there onwards our British navy (and hence design work) slowly shrank to a shadow of its former self. See this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RN_warships.png

I joined at the start of the 1980s and left as part of the huge shrinkages in the early 1990s.

But anyway, the general, relative concepts and info for this sort of forum would all be available in Jane's or in other books etc.

Yes, just to clarify: I wasn't disagreeing with you - the Battlecruiser design/role could hunt armoured cruisers too, if they were smaller, which is what I meant when I previously said "smaller warships" (i.e. meaning anything smaller than the Battlecruiser). But they were also intended to be scouts and commerce raiders.

The big problem with Fisher's battlecruiser concept was that they were still given "the big guns" like a battleship and so admirals tended to want to use them more like battleships (or at least battleship supports) in the big battles. But this put them in less mobile situations and within range of the enemy battleships. Having big guns like a battleship, a battlecruiser was dangerous to enemy battleships and thus an enemy battleship commander would sensibly wish to identify battlecruisers and pick them off first as soft targets to help improve the odds.

That's why HMS Hood was up-armoured by another 5,000 tons while still being built (to the extent you could argue she was no longer a true "cruiser"), and why Fisher's other battlecruiser lovelies (HMS Renown and class) were also up-armoured (not once, but twice), because the admiralty decided that the battlecruiser concept had this Achilles-heel in large battles. In particular they were all far too susceptible to plunging shell fire. After the war, some of the bigger ones were up-armoured (to make them a bit more like true battleships) and the rest scrapped. So by WW2 you see light cruisers (with somewhat smaller guns) fulfilling more of the original battlecruiser role.

[kirk23]

Hey if you guys are interested in the naval war just like me,your dream is about to come true,I'm working on a huge mod for the grand campaign,that incorporates gun range for Battleships and cruisers just like the Jutland scenario,also using the editor I have managed to add a great many more ships for all nations,that the ones that had capital ships that is,Britain,Germany,Austria Hungary,Turkey,France,Italy and the USA,every Pre-Dreadnought,Battlecruiser and Dreadnought is included,the whole map is used,so look for ships everywhere.Oh yes while I mind no more glass battleships,these guys are a lot harder to sink,so if you want to win,you are going to have to work for it,scenario is at least 80% complete just play testing and tweaking things as I go,so if you like the naval game more than the land campaign this is for you!

[Bossy57322]

Hey if you guys are interested in the naval war just like me,your dream is about to come true,I'm working on a huge mod for the grand campaign,that incorporates gun range for Battleships and cruisers just like the Jutland scenario,also using the editor I have managed to add a great many more ships for all nations,that the ones that had capital ships that is,Britain,Germany,Austria Hungary,Turkey,France,Italy and the USA,every Pre-Dreadnought,Battlecruiser and Dreadnought is included,the whole map is used,so look for ships everywhere.Oh yes while I mind no more glass battleships,these guys are a lot harder to sink,so if you want to win,you are going to have to work for it,scenario is at least 80% complete just play testing and tweaking things as I go,so if you like the naval game more than the land campaign this is for you!

I'm digging this. Cannot wait!

[kirk23]

I forgot to mention Russia also has her fleet in game,the scenario is progressing very well,and playing great,should be available very soon watch this space.