The Enduring Myth of the Fragile Battlecruiser

Information Dissemination ^ | December 16, 2014 | Staff

[C19fan]

The repetition of the myth of the fragile battlecruiser continues even as the greatest victory of the class is now just over 100 years in the past. This particular capital ship has been on the receiving end of the naval world’s harshest criticism since three of their British number met untimely ends at the May 31-June 1, 1916 Battle of Jutland. In fact, the battlecruiser was a hybrid, cost saving platform designed specifically to support a mature British strategic concept of seapower. Its heavy losses at Jutland were more to do with early 20th century capital ship design and poor British tactical doctrine than the thickness (or lack thereof) of its armor belt. That particular myth was constructed in the wake of Jutland for good reasons of operational security, but there is no reason to continue to repeat it in the present day. The experience of the battlecruiser still has important lessons for contemporary warship designers. Every warship is a compromise of weapons, protective features, speed, and operational range. Operational employment is as important as physical design and construction in determining a warship’s vulnerability. Time marches forever forward and today’s invincible front line combatant can become tomorrow’s proverbial fighter with a glass jaw if not modernized to reflect technological change. Warship designers seeking lethal, high speed and survivable platforms on a limited hull would do well to consider the battlecruiser’s performance in their deliberations on how much of these qualities can be achieved in a single class. Sometimes operational employment and tactical doctrine can be just as deadly to a ship in battle as its lack of speed, armament and robust construction.

[Billthedrill]

These platforms are still perfectly effective. The nut cases claiming that aeroplanes can sink them should be locked up. They’re even trying to land the things on ships, f’Petessake!

[Charles Martel]

Beyond the usual commerce-raiding role, these ships were intended as scouts (an odd thing to contemplate, in this era of satellite surveillance and long-range drone aircraft) and "cruiser killers", seeking the enemy battle fleet and keeping enemy scouts away. In those roles, they would typically face enemy cruisers and so were armored accordingly.

Such ships were never intended to join the battle line itself and shoot it out with enemy battleships. Of course, the Admirals were unable to resist the temptation of adding their big guns to the line and, frankly, gambled that the added firepower outweighed the risk.

Sometimes the gamble was understood by all, as in the case of the Royal Navy's maximum effort against the Bismarck. In other cases, the battlecruiser captains had to be silently cursing their commanders.

[doorgunner69]

"ironsides with wooden decks just wasn’t a good enough design. nowadays steel aluminum all over isn’t either with advanced weapons."

Fixed it for you. At least for US ships.

[Secret Agent Man]

i know today some ships have aluminum. i wasnt certain all of them do for their skins. i guess i was thinking more of the wwii large’ships’that were pretty much all steel, no’wood decks.

[doorgunner69]

Our destroyers and cruisers are all aluminum hulls and superstructure, apparently with kevlar or other armor around electronic spaces.

Needless to say, they cannot take hits at all. Why I always skoff at the idea of taking out Mach 2+ missiles with CIWS: the fragments would be like a shotgun at close range.

[nonsporting]

The battlecruiser’s thinner deck armour was succeptible to plunging fire (long range parabolic tranjectory) which is typical for vessels equipped with larger caliber guns.

Hood was most likely struck in the rear magazine when long range fire from Bismark penetrated its thinner deck armour.

[Oztrich Boy]

Most hit ships at Jutland/Skagerrak

• 14: British Battlecruiser Tiger Survived
• 13: British Battleship Warspite Survived
• 10: German Battlecruiser Lutzow Sunk
• 9: British Battlecruiser Lion Survived.

[abb]

This thread needs reference to the individual responsible for much of what happened in that era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fisher,_1st_Baron_Fisher

Admiral of the Fleet John Arbuthnot “Jacky” Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher,[3] GCB, OM, GCVO (25 January 1841–10 July 1920) was a British admiral known for his efforts at naval reform. He had a huge influence on the Royal Navy in a career spanning more than 60 years, starting in a navy of wooden sailing ships armed with muzzle-loading cannon and ending in one of steel-hulled battlecruisers, submarines and the first aircraft carriers. The argumentative, energetic, reform-minded Fisher is often considered the second most important figure in British naval history, after Lord Nelson.

[mrsmith]

Drones can provide every ship with a cheap counter to those missiles.
Drones can provide every ship with it’s own ‘air cover’ and ‘underwater cover’.
Drones are today’s revolution in naval warfare.

The battleship would make a great drone warfare platform.