mlees
Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
|
Sir.. I hope that you DO realise, just in case you do not, that when I say my opinion is humble, I really and truly mean just that: It's only opinion, and I am fully aware of my limitations. I was not using a sarcastic "tone".
I have had a lifelong interest in this subject matter, and I wish to thank you for making me check my facts, 'cause I don't like the taste of my foot in my mouth.
I got home and rechecked the book you and I mentioned, and your right; Campbell says, on pg 385, that he judges the German shells to have performed "adequately". I don't know where I seem to remember reading it, but SOME author I have read SOMEWHEN said different. For our purposes here though, I concede the point: the German shells performed better. However, (Opinion time) the Germans built tough ships. The Seydlitz may still have survived German shells. This is speculation, because getting the same number of hits in the same exact way is impossible. (Shrugs.)
Now, as far as the DESIGNED purpose of Battlecruisers (as opposed to how they were ultimately used), I do have a couple of reference books that I trust are accurate, but I don't own "Parkes, Beeler, and Roberts's Battlecruisers". (Is that one, single, book?) Allow me to quote from some of them (please be patient, but I believe you asked for something other than my own musings...) :
"Battlecruiser" by John Roberts: pg 18
"The functions for the big-gun armored cruisers were essentially the same as those of existing armored cruisers, the additional speed and gun power being seen as enhancing their effectiveness in these roles. In summary: A) To provide a heavy scouting force. B) Close support for the battlefleet in action (defined as defending the battleships against enemy cruisers and hitting the enemy line as opportunity allows, when the enemy battleships were otherwise occupied in fighting their opposite numbers. (emphasis mine) C) In pursuit of fleeing enemy D) Trade protection
"British Battleships" by Oscar Parkes: first pg 489
"The fast armored cruiser (meaning BC in this context) was to render all other cruisers useless. With 25 knots, and 12 inch guns, she should be able to overtake and annihilate everything afloat, except the proposed battleship (refering to the HMS Dreadnought)."
Further down, same page:
"Fisher saw in speed the best form of protection. His new ships were to be able to command range and sink the enemy armored cruisers without entering the target zone. Should they have to close the range on account of visibilty, then the standard of armor protection" (I take it to mean cruiser fire, in this context) "would suffice." (emphasis mine) Note no mention of BB fire...
From pg 492: a quote in itself from "Brassey" (a navy league type publication?), when details of the then building Invincible class were made public:
"Vessels of this enormous size and cost are unsuitable for many of the duties of cruisers; but an even stronger objection to the repetition of the type is that an Admiral having Invicibles in his fleet will be certain to put them in the line of battle, where their comparatively light protection would be a disadvantage and their high speed of no value."
(This tells me that, even while building, folks realized that these ships were NO Match for BB's, and, by implication, should not be used in line of battle.)
"The Grand Fleet: Warship design and Development 1906-1922" by D K Brown, pg 55:
"The battlecruiser was very much the brainchild of Admiral Fisher, and, as with many of his dreams, the concept, both of the role and of the technical solution, changed radically as time progressed." Further down: "Fishers first thoughts in 1902 were not very different from traditional ideas. He envisaged a ship with 9.2 inch guns... " "Shortly afterwards (Oct 1904), he was persuaded that the arguments which led to all big gun armament (He's refering to the advantages of long range salvo spotting and control of gunfire, which require more than the traditonal four main guns on battleships of the time..) in the Dreadnought also applied to the armored cruiser, and the design of the Invincible was changed to eight 12inch guns. Admiral Bacon (who was on the design commitee as Naval Assistant to the First Sea Lord (Fisher) in 1904 while still a Captain) wrote: ...that ships of the size and tonnage necessary... should have an additional use in being able to form a fast light squadron to supplement the battleships in action, and to worry (harass) the (enemy) ships in van or rear of the enemy's line. They were never intended to engage battleships single handed; but they were designed to assist in a general action by engaging some of the enemy's ships which were already fighting our battleships..." (This is from a man who was present at the initial conception design and of the BC and it's role.)
"Jane's Battleships of the 20th Century" by Bernard Ireland, pg 104:
"Their bold concept rendered armored cruisers obsolete. They were, like armored cruisers, supposed to decline action when circumstances were unfavorable. That theur Captains did not was, ultimately, to prove their downfall. Used within their design limitations they have to be judged successful."
(I assume "unfavorable circumstances" would include coming into range of battleship guns, since a BC does not have the armor to keep out capital ship guns.)
In "The Grand Fleet..." as above, also on pg 55, I found this reference to Tsushima:
"Like contemporary battleships, the big armored cruisers of the turn of the century had a mixed armament, which included 9.2inch, 7.5inch, and 6inch guns. Such ships were thought capable of playing a supporting role in the line of battle, and, after losing one third of their battleships to mines, the Japanese did use their cruisers in this way during their war with Russia."
**Warning: opinion ahead:**
I take this to mean that the armored cruiser were a supplement to the battle line due to a wartime need, not because that's what they were designed to do from the get-go.
**End Opinion.**
To be fair, I own no other reference material covering Tsushima in any greater detail, so my opinion above should be taken with that in mind...
These source books leave me to conclude that the initial purpose of the BC (like the AC's they were to supplant) did NOT include engaging ships with capital ship guns in a standup fight.
When I say that they fell for their own PR, I mean to say something along the lines of the Brassey quote, above.
I mention the dialog between the Admiralty and Parliament, because that is where some of the misunderstanding of the purpose of the BC (as DESIGNED) gets its roots. The Admiralty formulated the war plans, yes, but Parliament held the purse strings. The Admiralty was misleading Parliament about their (the BC's) designed role to justify the huge expense of the BC's (which was equal to a BB), in order to get them funded and built. (This was not unique to Britain by any means!) The popular press fell in love with the ships (they had a dashing flair to them), and the aggressive British Admirals began to think that their big gunned armored cruisers REALLY COULD stand up to battleships.
For the motivations of the commanders, they can be found in:
"The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command" by Andrew Gordon
"Jutland: The German Perspective" by V. E. Tarrant
Thanks for your patience.
|
Printable Version
Re plan Orange..Good read regarding the Battlecruiser H... - 
) focused on the hitting power, their sheer size (which was actually physically larger than the HMS Dreadnought, herself), and high speed of these ships as they dash down the English Channel. Only natural, that's what is most easily noticible. The armor scheme is not something anyone is gonna get a grasp of without looking through the (then classified) blueprints. This media focus led to the term "Battle Cruiser", which was a newspaper created label, at first. The ships began to quickly assume an aura that can be likened to todays aura around stealth aircraft, or the Abrahms MBT. 
) hold up better than an armoured cruiser. It is cheaper to lose an Armoured cruiser than a battlecruiser, both in £ and in manpower.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread