New Build to suplement the curent 10" cruisers

[Korpen]

Fleet scouting force

You need some excess speed to be able to scout for the battleline, about 5kts (look at the speed difference between BBs and BCs). So you either slow down your battleline by 2kts or accept worse situation awareness. Big gun is needed to engage the opponent scouting force to deny him the information of one's position. After the enemy fleet is located, the own battleline could maneuver into advantageous position, bringing the full force against the end of the opposing battlelines.

A 23kts cruiser would have the additional disadvantage of not being able to engage 27kts light cruisers.

I seem to recall that the scouts should have around 20% more speed then the battle line being used as a rule of thumb. So about 25kts for the scouting elements of a 21kts battleline.

And to quote fisher "one or two knots, a dirty bottom does that!"
A ships speed might be either higher or lower then the "official" on depending on circumstances after all.

[Ithekro]

Well one good thing about arming these ships or other large scout types with 10" type guns is that it discourages the ship's captain and the admiralty from using them in a line action against ships with 12" or greater guns.  Thus helps keep the vessel tied to its original purposes rather than being assigned duties of tougher ships it was not designed to handle.

[Carthaginian]

However recorded history has BCs in a bad light, not because of what they are, but because of how they were used.  Most that were lost were lost because they were not being used for their job.  (Hood and Repulse are probably not good indicators at this point since they were decidedly old tech by the time of the war).

She was no more 'old tech' than the BB's that were resurrected form Pearl and sent into the same war, a war they were all at least one generation too old to fight. In fact, Hood was doing EXACTLY what she was designed for- scouting on the high seas, using her firepower as a threat to keep potential smaller enemies at bay and her speed to escape threats powerful enough to sink her. She had become slower with the addition of extra armor... but that wasn't a flaw developed because of her AGE, it was a flaw in her DESIGN.

The entire principle of battle cruiser operation was to NEVER ENGAGE A BATTLESHIP.
You could watch them, taunt them, tease them... but you were NEVER to get into a dedicated gun duel with them.

What did Hood do?

When there was the choice to allow her more highly armored cousin PoW to lead in, when there was the choice to allow the Hood to engage the Bismark at range while PoW cam in and occupied her close... what happened?

She turned to close range, and did so in the lead.

Hood broke the first rule of battle cruiser operations... while traveling with a battleship, and while escape was possible (or the engagement could have at east been controlled by the British), her bore size was taken into greater account than her intended purpose. This is a flaw that ultimately eats a battle cruiser alive- they have a battleship's guns, and thus they are inevitably thought to be able to engage other ships with the same size guns... and they always fail.

First it might be noted that according to wikipedia, Lützow got critically damaged by a total of 24 hits, HMS Tiger got hit by 15 heavy shells, and hardly lost any combat capability at all, luck have a major impact in naval war.

Tiger took 15 hits- the rest took far less... especially the 3 that basically vaporized.
Lutzow took 24 hits from LARGER shells than Tiger... thus the damage disparity.
She was getting hit by 2x as much steel every time. Conversely, the British ships were destroyed by SMALLER shells... most fired at them were 11.1" or 12", IIRC, whereas they were firing 12" and 13.5".

That said, I am of the opinion that the problem with the British battlecruisers at Jutland had more to do with how the crew handled them then the vices and virtues of the ships themselves.

Funny, then, how the thin-skinned British battle cruisers litter the bottom off Jutland and the German battle cruisers litter the bottom of Scapa Flow... well, it speaks volumes.

Skagerack shows that ships who are in the line of fire for longer periods of time and take lots of hits gets damaged and sunk.

Doesn't apply to the British battle cruisers- they were sunk early on... the German ones were the ones that lived through the initial clash to take more damage.

Unless noone comes back, and you still have no idea if there is the entire enemy fleet, or just a pair of BCs out there...

You at least know where the enemy is, and you haven't lost the price of a battleship in the process.

If noone comes back you have no idea of were the enemy are, apart from knowing were his recon are, which would be "close by"...

Still, if you must risk loosing a 4000 ton scaot cruiser to discover this, or an 18,000 ton battle cruiser... which is wiser?

[Tanthalas]

Well one good thing about arming these ships or other large scout types with 10" type guns is that it discourages the ship's captain and the admiralty from using them in a line action against ships with 12" or greater guns.  Thus helps keep the vessel tied to its original purposes rather than being assigned duties of tougher ships it was not designed to handle.

Now your thinking like an Italian LOL

[Korpen]

She was no more 'old tech' than the BB's that were resurrected form Pearl and sent into the same war, a war they were all at least one generation too old to fight. In fact, Hood was doing EXACTLY what she was designed for- scouting on the high seas, using her firepower as a threat to keep potential smaller enemies at bay and her speed to escape threats powerful enough to sink her. She had become slower with the addition of extra armor... but that wasn't a flaw developed because of her AGE, it was a flaw in her DESIGN.

Well, then we can conclude that the battlehip Arizona had the same flaw, as she blew up as well.
And considering that Hood had the same armour as the the QE-class BBs, she is a really bad example if one wants to point to poor armour on BCs.

Btw, apart from the German BC charge, was there any cases of BCs engaging battleships in ww1, I know the English ones never did?
Apart from the few skirmishes in the black sea that is.

Tiger took 15 hits- the rest took far less... especially the 3 that basically vaporized.
Lutzow took 24 hits from LARGER shells than Tiger... thus the damage disparity.
She was getting hit by 2x as much steel every time. Conversely, the British ships were destroyed by SMALLER shells... most fired at them were 11.1" or 12", IIRC, whereas they were firing 12" and 13.5".

And still the most critical damage was done by 30,5cm shells, and remember that the brittish shells were quite bad.
Lion also suffered 15 hits, but she took more damage then Tiger, luck and internal factor were the important ones. The ships that exploded all did so from turret or barbarette hits, and the German ships suffered just as many of those (were turrets burnt or exploded), so it is more a case of how the internal protection worked then the amount of armour.

[Carthaginian]

She was no more 'old tech' than the BB's that were resurrected form Pearl and sent into the same war, a war they were all at least one generation too old to fight. In fact, Hood was doing EXACTLY what she was designed for- scouting on the high seas, using her firepower as a threat to keep potential smaller enemies at bay and her speed to escape threats powerful enough to sink her. She had become slower with the addition of extra armor... but that wasn't a flaw developed because of her AGE, it was a flaw in her DESIGN.

Well, then we can conclude that the battlehip Arizona had the same flaw, as she blew up as well.
And considering that Hood had the same armour as the the QE-class BBs, she is a really bad example if one wants to point to poor armour on BCs.

Btw, apart from the German BC charge, was there any cases of BCs engaging battleships in ww1, I know the English ones never did?
Apart from the few skirmishes in the black sea that is.

See my explanation below.
Every time two BC's dueled, a battle cruiser was, in effect, going up against a 'battleship', because it was facing a battleship's guns. THAT is the fundamental flaw of the design! To kill another battle cruiser, a battle cruiser must engage guns of the caliber she was EXPLICITLY DESIGNED TO AVOID!

Tiger took 15 hits- the rest took far less... especially the 3 that basically vaporized.
Lutzow took 24 hits from LARGER shells than Tiger... thus the damage disparity.
She was getting hit by 2x as much steel every time. Conversely, the British ships were destroyed by SMALLER shells... most fired at them were 11.1" or 12", IIRC, whereas they were firing 12" and 13.5".

And still the most critical damage was done by 30,5cm shells, and remember that the british shells were quite bad.
Lion also suffered 15 hits, but she took more damage then Tiger, luck and internal factor were the important ones. The ships that exploded all did so from turret or barbarette hits, and the German ships suffered just as many of those (were turrets burnt or exploded), so it is more a case of how the internal protection worked then the amount of armour.

Yet, how many German ships EXPLODED, Korpen?
How many catastrophic explosions did the German High Seas Fleet suffer from among their battle cruisers? How many among the British?

Sorry, THAT is a loosing battle.
Something about the German ships was inherently better... and the only thing that can explain this is that their thicker armor attenuated damage enough that they were not destroyed, or contained that damage when it was bad enough to possibly sink the ship. After all, the British ships hit in a barbette caused exploding ships... the same damage in a German ship resulted in a knocked-out turret.



The fundamental flaws of a battle cruiser, explained in 'Redneck.'

I'm gonna build a new ship.
It's gonna be fast enough to outrun what can kill it, and powerful to kill what can catch it.
So, I'll build a ship with cruiser engines, cruiser armor and battleship guns.
Since I'm not very creative, and it's half a battleship and half a cruiser- and since 'cruiser' don't divide neatly into two words- I'll call her a 'battle cruiser.'

*looks across the way*

Wow, look... my neighbor just build one, too.
Now, that means I gotta build some more; I can't let Earl have more of these newfangled 'battle cruiser' ships than I have.

*10 battle cruisers later*

Dammit... Earl's buildin' just as many as I have.
So, I gotta figure out a way to kill his battle cruisers.
HEY, I know... I'll kill 'em with MY battle cruisers!

*wife walks in*

Jim Bob, what are you talking about! You made those battle cruisers to stand up to CRUISER guns, right?

Yes, Dear.

So, now you're going to send these ships against other ships with battleship guns?

But they aren't 'battleships', baby, they're batt...

So WHAT? They got the same guns as battleships; and those guns that can kill your ships... right?

Er... yes, Dear.

Then, if the guns on a battleship can kill your battle cruisers, why can't the same gun on a battle cruiser kill it?

Hush up woman... this is MY idea!

*several sunk battle cruisers later*

Told you so, Jim Bob... now, go clean up your mess.

[Ithekro]

To use an in game example:

November 23, 1908(Wargames)

The action begins with the Blue Scouting Force finding the Green Scouting Force several hundered miles west of the Canal Zone.  Kusa, Umpqua, and Karok each take off in separate directions and warn the Blue Forces of the Green intrusion, however the superior speed and firepower of Snowmane and Valandil dispatch all three vessels, with Kusa sinking from flooding after two heavy hits from Valandil early on at extreme range.  Umpqua and Karok were neutralized with minimal damage to Valandil and no damage to Snowmane.

Blue Patrol Force turned from Port Sirion south to the Canal Zone, expecting the Green Fleet to hit there.  Three hours later, Green Main Fleet attacked Vinyamar.

The two larger scouting vessels, both 24-25 knots ships were able to completely dominate the 21 knot protected cruisers with their superior speed, firepower, and rang that firepower can be brought to bare.  Valandil is armed with 9" guns, so she is roughly at the level of the Italian ship presented here.  Snowmane, is a 12" gun armed Battlecruiser (though more heavily armored than the early British designs)  So something like this action could be expected from the Italian design in practice.  The 10" cruiser will take damage against the lighter ships if it allows them to come close enough to engage it.  The problem will be that at long range, hits are infrequent, and therefore you will run through a lot more shells and powder than if you close.  If you intend for extented scouting operations and think you will encounter more enemy scouts or raiders, you'll want to preserve your ammunition supplies.  If you are on a simply scout mission for the battle line, a long range duel is fine as the next thing you'll find is the enemy battle fleet (or more patrols if you are tasked with eleminating the enemies eyes prior to an invasion).  Standard doctrines vary from country to country, but normally one would engage the enemy battle line long enough to be able to identify all the ships in it, so that one can have an accurate report, and then escape with all due haste.  This engagement would be at extreme range to keep the enemy from being able to land many (if any) hits on your scout.  You might also fire on them to throw off there aim and possibly cause some damage to slow them down before they encounter your battleships.

Rohan's test of these type of ships against a battleline was not all that effective due to the battleline being a very old and slow line of predreadnoughts:

November 24, 1908
(Wargame)

The next day the Blue Patrol Fleet is sent to engage in scouting duties since the Scout Fleet was destroyed.  No Green Fleet forces are found until late when the Green Fleet's Scouting Force attacks the Canal Zone Fleet at high speed.  The high speed run of the area prevents the Torpedo boat flotilla from engaging the two warships while they engage the Blue Battleline at extreme and long range.  After a while of being ineffective the Green Fleet ships swing around towards the Canal.  This brings them into long range fire from the four Blue battleships and later on the (still under construction) 14 inch coastal defense guns from the fortress.  Brego scores the first hit on Valandil causing some damage.  Valandil returns the favor in double as she lands several 9 inch shells into Brego.  Gram lands hits on Snowmane. Gram and Brego each hit Snowmane and Valandil for minor hits (knocking out Valandil's helmsman).  At this time Snowmane hits Thengel hard to which Thengel returns the favor.  Snowmane hits Thengel gain starting a fire.  The shore battery hits Snowmane for minor damage.  Valandil hits Brego, killing her captain.  Gram hits Snowmane in a ready use magazine that causes some damage.  Snowmane puts Thengel out of action.  Aldor hits Valandil, destroying some of her machine guns.  Valandil hits Brego starting another fire.  Snowmane engages Gram, knocking her foreward turret out of action and forcing her rudder to jam to starboard.  She then jams the other turret.  Valandil puts another group of shells into Brego which forces her from the field. Aldor hits Snowmane for a little damage.  Valandil takes one of Aldor's turrets out of action.  Snowmane then hits Gram, killing her captain.  She hits Gram again killing her XO and follows this with a massive hit that wrecks the ships.  Aldor surrenders after she is hit once more by Valandil.  The shore battery hits Snowmane again for little damage.  The two ships duel the shore battery for a while, causing heavy damage to Snonmane before they can silence the gun.  With the Patrol Fleet approaching they fire on the Canal lock doing some damage ruled to be enough to put it out of action for a month or so.

The damage to the Battlecruiser and Combat Cruiser would likely have been greater if they were fighting Dreadnought type ships rather than these much older ships as Snowmane had each ship outgunned by two to one and Valandil's firepower had the battleship's secondary guns outgunned by two to one.  The larger newer ships could take more damage that then older ships, however the older Rohirrim ships had a problem with being over gunned and under armored, so they have about the same armor as the Battlecruiser here, while the Battlecruiser has newer guns and shells.  Both of the scouting ships took heavy damage in this raid (well by the account of the judges as no live shells were used) so while they effectively completed their mission, they were only suited to the task because their speed allowed them the ability to avoid the torpedo boats and dictate range.  If the Mark had faster DDs and TBs present, that factor would be void and thus this raid would not have been possible.  It that case it would have been the Arcadias that would have engaged the Battleline with the scouting force providing long range fire support or ensuring that the Patrol Fleet was intercepted and destroyed.

[Tanthalas]

Im LOLing at carths post

[Korpen]

Yet, how many German ships EXPLODED, Korpen?
How many catastrophic explosions did the German High Seas Fleet suffer from among their battle cruisers? How many among the British?

Well, i take it this question is recorical. But see below.

Sorry, THAT is a loosing battle.

Never claimed anything else, it is the causes we are discussing.

Something about the German ships was inherently better... and the only thing that can explain this is that their thicker armor attenuated damage enough that they were not destroyed, or contained that damage when it was bad enough to possibly sink the ship. After all, the British ships hit in a barbette caused exploding ships... the same damage in a German ship resulted in a knocked-out turret.

That (bolded by me) is incorrect, the moment a shell penetrates and reach effect behind the armour, it is irrelevant if it penetrated 5 or 500cm or steel, the armour failed.
The thicker German armour was NOT "only thing that can explain this", the fact that the Germans had suffered almost explosions before /at Dogger Bank) and learnt the lesson about flash tightness is significant in this context. As is the fact that the German propellant was much less volatile then the British, and packed in copper casings giving it protection against flash.
All this meant that the German ships were far less likely to suffer catastrophic damage for reasons that have nothing to do with their armour.


And battle cruisers were in fact (at least by Fisher) intended to engage enemy battleships and battlecruisers, as well as being economy of force weapons, by reducing the need of having expensive battleships spread around the globe.

[Carthaginian]

And battle cruisers were in fact (at least by Fisher) intended to engage enemy battleships and battlecruisers, as well as being economy of force weapons, by reducing the need of having expensive battleships spread around the globe.

Cost effective, huh?

Dreadnought: £1,850,000
--------------------------------------
Invincible:       £1,720,739
=====================
Vanguard       £1,606,030
St. Vincint      £1,721,970
--------------------------------------
Indefatigable  £1,520,591
New Zeeland  £1,783,190
=====================
Orion              £1,855,917
Lion:               £2,076,222

Seems to me that they were LESS cost effective overall than their battleship cousins, especially when you factor in losses and service life.


Also, by engaging battleship guns mounted on battle cruisers, as I have pointed out, battle cruisers were foolishly ensured of facing a 'superior' opponent, no matter what you called it... because they were not protected against their opponent's weapons.

[Korpen]

And battle cruisers were in fact (at least by Fisher) intended to engage enemy battleships and battlecruisers, as well as being economy of force weapons, by reducing the need of having expensive battleships spread around the globe.

Cost effective, huh?

Dreadnought: £1,850,000
--------------------------------------
Invincible:       £1,720,739
=====================
Vanguard       £1,606,030
St. Vincint      £1,721,970
--------------------------------------
Indefatigable  £1,520,591
New Zeeland  £1,783,190
=====================
Orion              £1,855,917
Lion:               £2,076,222

Seems to me that they were LESS cost effective overall than their battleship cousins.

Cost effective is not the same thing as cheaper...
It was far more effective to have two BCs that could rapidly deploy were needed then having five BBs that had to be spread out in order to be able to cover as much ground.

That said it should be noted that Dreadnought herself was a budget project intended to increas the capabillity of a single vessel, so that the UK cold spend less money as not as many ships were needed.

[Carthaginian]

Dreadnought: £1,850,000
--------------------------------------
Invincible:       £1,720,739
=====================
Vanguard       £1,606,030
St. Vincint      £1,721,970
--------------------------------------
Indefatigable  £1,520,591
New Zeeland  £1,783,190
=====================
Orion              £1,855,917
Lion:               £2,076,222

Cost effective is not the same thing as cheaper...
It was far more effective to have two BCs that could rapidly deploy were needed then having five BBs that had to be spread out in order to be able to cover as much ground.

That said it should be noted that Dreadnought herself was a budget project intended to increas the capabillity of a single vessel, so that the UK cold spend less money as not as many ships were needed.

Cost effective means getting more service out of a ship per pound (or dollar, or kroner, or mark).
British battle cruisers cost as much and eventually more than a battleship, ate up more fuel, required more maintenance, needed refits to deal with their too-thin armor... oh, and roughly 1/3 of them BLEW UP within 5 years of their commissioning.

Comparing this to a battleship, I can tell which was more 'cost effective'... anyone with a calculator can.

[Ithekro]

Actually the cost effectiveness (by design, not results) was fairly sound.  Indefatigable being the cheapest dreadnought ever it seems.  Australia and New Zeeland were paid for by the colonies, so that reduces cost as well for the home country.  The goal is to have something battleship like that can be in many places at once rather than having a huge fleet of battleships (the now obsolete predreadnoughts) scattered in every port to be sure the colonies were safe.  Ten Battlecruisers could be used during peace time and leave the majority of the battleships in reserve, thus costing less than if you had built (or not built) ten battleships to go with the existing dreadnoughts and have twice or three times that number active to keep the same number of ports safe from potental enemies.  The threat of having a battlecruiser show up was enough in most cases rather than having a battleship always present.

Most cases in WWII of BCs engaging BBs were between ships that had been upgraded to effectively being battleships....if this was still the First World War.  Hood was about equal to a Queen Elizabeth even in armor by 1941 and the Kongos were likley equal to Dreadnought herself in armor.  In all cases the Battlecruiser that got killed was killed by a brand new Battleship.  Even an old Battleship would have died against the likes of Bismarck or South Dakota and Washington in the situations they were in.  (Hoods example it not all that good in relation to Prince of Wales...since PW was not technically finished yet.  At least one main turret was out if I recall...though people credit PW with putting the fatal hole in Bismarck..the mission kill hole that lead to the other engagements)  Hood I would call unlucky more than being killed because she was a BC.  Of course she was also the pride of the Royal Navy...being the biggest ship in the world at that time.  Almost a fast battleship without being one.  But then the task of the BC was effectively the same...have fewer ships active that can cover more territory faster so the slower and more numerous battleships can be held in reserve at lower expense.  Hood, Repulse, and Renown it seemed where always busy between the wars.  More so that the QEs and Rs.  Had they kept Tiger she would also be heavily used in this manner.

[Carthaginian]

Actually the cost effectiveness (by design, not results) was fairly sound. 

RESULTS count... not theory.
In theory, a cordless extension cord is wonderful... in practice, well, it's not so successful.

Also, Ithekro, Hood, Renown and Repulse were the NEWEST ships in the RN at the time... weren't they? As such, it stands to reason that they would be used the most; you use the new and let the old languish.

Practically, all three basically cost enough in refits to build another of themselves.
HMS Refit and Repair, anyone?

[Ithekro]

Perhaps, but cost effectiveness can be seen in practice outside of combat.  Their effectiveness in combat by design was seen against armored cruisers in 1914.  That is what they were designed to do.  Their use at Jutland was not their designed purpose...that was the job of the QE backing them up.  Incompetent use of a design does not invalidate the design.

The statement that Korpen is pointing out is the use of less ships over a wider area rather than more ships of equal expense covering the same area.  The British Empire being the largest area to cover on the planet, it makes sense.  The building of the same type by the Germans is unclear, perhaps just part of the naval arms race.  Japan's use of the Kongo's provides a superior BC model but also made sense with the large amount of sea that needed to be covered.  (It was also what the British were selling at the time I suppose).  American construction of the Lexingtons was likely due to the distances of the Pacific and to keep pace with Britain.  Later BCs seem to be stepping stones to fast battleships or built to counter something specific (starting with a counter to the Pocket Battleships) and ending with the Alaska-class Large Cruisers.

Building one expensive ship that can cover a large area of sea is likely a better investment than building three ships of roughly the same cost each to cover the same area of sea.  In effect the British did both.  Built the one ship to cover the seas and the three to be held in reserve in case things went badly for the one.  But then the British could afford it, and could not afford to become second to anyone at sea.  They still had the mindset that they must be able to take on both the second and third largest naval powers with just the Royal Navy. 

Intimidation being one of the Battlecruiser's assets when it comes to flag waving and gunboat diplomacy, one can see why it was used.  At 25+ knots the BCs could get to places the 20 knot BBs could not reach for several days.  The even slower predreadnoughts that had been holding these postings could be effectively retired sooner without needing to be replaced one for one due to the BCs speed and firepower.  The Dreadnoughts could only make the predreadnoughts obsolete, but they would only be able to replace them on a one to one or maybe one to two basis depending on the port they were to defend.  The BCs can cover more than one port, especially in the far off island regions that use to have single battleships to cover each port.  This instead of four or five old BBs covering five islands, you have one BC covering those islands.  After the First World War this might have continued without the Washington Treaty (though it might have puttered out due to the expenses of the arms race), but the Fast Battleships would overtake the BCs in the late 1920s and early 1930s.  The problem would only return again when the old BC and Dreadnoughts would need to be replaced, assuming the Empire was still as large and powerful as it was when the design problem started in 1905.  The replacements would be even faster, allowing even more area to be covered by an even larger warship, but also reduce the number of warships there are in total by a small number.  At this point the BCs goes away, followed a generation later by the BBs going way to be replaced by aircraft carriers that can cover even more area with fewer ships.