Whats Jow Forumss favorite class of battlecruisers?
Whats Jow Forumss favorite class of battlecruisers?
Thomas White
Other urls found in this thread:
Justin Evans
Renhai
Alexander Lee
Kirov
Nicholas Perez
>Nice try, OP, you'll probably catch some people with that.
Also, the Derfflinger class.
Hunter Bennett
Alaska, even though it's technically a "large cruiser"
Lincoln Moore
Alaska didn't deserve the fate she got.
Jaxson Bell
Agreed, but cost and manpower-wise, it wasn't worth it compared to lighter vessels. But damn, if it didn't look sexy as fuck.
Josiah Gomez
I don't know why everyone shits on battlecruisers so much, especially in WW1, considering they were the only capital ship to really see any action in that war while the dreadnoughts/battleships rusted away in port. Even with the Battle of Jutland the battlecruisers saw the majority of action while dreadnoughts took potshots at each other before running away.
The Germans were such gunlets in WW1:
>everyone is going from 12" guns to 13-15" guns
>still decide to arm capital ships with 12" guns until the eve of WW1
Kayden Miller
Kind of like HMS Vanguard being the last battleship build, something that was made well after she was useful and everyone knew it. Wish all three of those (the Alaska's and Vanguard) were kept as museum ships.
Juan Williams
It is kind of odd how battlecruisers get forgotten aside from their propensity to explode (The British ones). Jutland, "The Clash of the Dreadnoughts" didn't even have the main lines of battleships engage each other. It was the screening forces of battlecruisers and cruiser, and then the destroyers.
For the German approach, I think it kind of makes sense. Smaller guns can be loaded quicker and if they're firing at lightly armored targets then it won't be too much of a disadvantage with good shot placement. The Germans after Jutland knew full well they were not going to be able to engage the full surface power of the Royal Navy. So they didn't try to. German capital ships built up until the Bismarck had smaller guns. Guns which were more than capable of engaging cruisers and the ships also retained enough speed to run away if they encountered a superior British force. Those things eventually played into the commerce raider idea but then other flaws were exposed with that.
Eli Bell
>i dont know shit
woah! well done mutt!
Christian Cox
The KM Scharnhorsts only got the 11" guns due to politics. It was fully intended to rearm them with 15" dual mounts when they had the opportunity to.
Hunter Cox
Fuck it, going to dump the photos of the Alaskas that I've got
Connor Murphy
Definitely the Arquillian
Nolan Long
Jackson Young
Jonathan Nelson
Mason Gutierrez
Cooper King
And that's everything
Nicholas Brooks
>German capital ships built up until the Bismarck had smaller guns.
bayern-class disagrees, mackensen-class also disagrees but wasnt finished
Gavin Wright
Alaska. Because 'Murrica.
Nicholas Myers
the Iowa class were technically battle cruisers.
Robert Howard
No they weren't. The Navy never considered them such, even the Alaska class was a large cruiser. The only battlecruisers the US had were the Lexington class and they were converted into the carriers Lexington and Saratoga.
Carson Hernandez
>designed from the keel up to be battleships
>armored as such
>hurr durr izza battlekroozer because the belt izzent thic enuf
(You)
Luke Thompson
The Alaskas being designated as "large cruiser" was a political move to get more capital ships without cutting into tonnage for them. They were battlecruisers in all but name.
Ethan Ortiz
Only the best from Lord Fisher
Gavin Lewis
>rtw
greetings fellow autist
Luis Wright
carriers and radar soon fellow admiral
Connor Davis
What game(s)?
Jayden Taylor
See the title bar in the screenshot here
James Moore
>battleship armament
>battleship armor
>fast
they were battle cruisers,
Luke Sanders
cant fucking wait.
Mason Rivera
Mahanian Simulator 1997
Elijah Rodriguez
that thing could take out halifax all by itself.
stop being stupid please. thx
Hunter Davis
Then why were they not designated that? They were battleships that happened to be faster than their predecessors. That was done without compromise to armor or armament. Hydrodynamic and powerplant upgrades don't change what they were. The Iowas are battleships.
Asher Brown
Battlecruisers, by definition, don't have battleship armor.
Jason King
whoops i could stick on three more tubes
i can't wait to do stupid shit like BBVs
Carson Fisher
Not enough torpedo.
Ryan Harris
yeah, i cant wait to turn old BBs into totally useless Ise-style carriers. any ETA on the release?
also
wingturrets are love
wingturret are life
Jayden Howard
Some time this month. Have you been keeping up with the dev journals? They're hype as fuck.
Jeremiah Lopez
i try to stay as far away from that furryinfested forum as possible. also, your ships need professional help
Lincoln Fisher
Furries?
no no my ships are fine
Cameron Clark
that would be a fast battleship
battlecruisers would only have armor rated against 8in guns, maybe 10in guns if they are paranoid
the iowa was rated against 16in guns
Anthony Cruz
Does my wife Hood count?
Kayden Gray
>maybe 10in guns if they are paranoid
Like Germans with their 300mm belt on Derfflinger?
Kevin Wood
>friendly fire class
Ryder Sanders
They didn't have contemporary battleship guns or battleship size, thus not battlecrusiers. Not withstanding the class being based on a enlarged Baltimore.
10/10 got me to respond. Please read wiki before posting.
Jack Stewart
>not realizing that battlecruisers were originally armored cruisers that had larger guns of a unified caliber
>not realizing that they were part of the scouting wing of a fleet
>not realizing the Alaskas had a battleship armor layout
>not realizing that the Alaskas are less than 100 feet shorter than an Iowa
>not realizing that the concept of a supercruiser would fit right into what Jackie Fischer wanted as a battlecruiser
Sure, you're right. The US hadn't used 12" guns for dreadnoughts since the early 1900s. However, other battlecruiser designs of the era shared the same 12" main battery caliber (A-65, Kronshtadt/Project 69, Stalingrad/Project 82, CA-2D)
Aaron Ross
Kirov.
Austin Cruz
>Jutland, "The Clash of the Dreadnoughts" didn't even have the main lines of battleships engage each other.
now this is just false
Christian Howard
Looks like a floating Favela.
Noah Brown
With curves
Jeremiah Diaz
>>not realizing the Alaskas had a battleship armor layout
No they didn't.
Xavier Sullivan
i'd add some frontal curvature to her
Grayson Cox
I’m now imaging Bismark suplexing Hood through the floor
Aiden Thomas
Iowa, although it's actually a Fast Battleship.
Chase Jackson
i like my BBs to have DDs
Tyler Price
Nice targets mate. :)
Cameron Cox
Dunkerque class. They are cute!
Okay those were technically battleships, but smaller size compared to battleships of the day and design focusing on countering Deutschland class and Italian cruisers puts her more in line with traditional battlecruisers
Adrian Garcia
Death Shadow Class
Leo Green
What?
Andrew Cook
Oh but they did. Top is Alaska, bottom is Iowa. Note how both have the second deck as the main armor deck. Heavy and light cruisers in the USN had the third deck as the main armor deck.
Henry Harris
>all those guns
>maximum of 2 inches (50.8mm) of armour
Ha.
How many did it get before sinking?
Colton Hill
It's widely known that the Alaska-class was based on the Baltimore-class, including the armor scheme.
David Thomas
Iowas aren't battlecruisers, mate.
>Dunkerque
>battleship
Debatable. Dunkerque herself was more of a battlecruiser in protection and armament, although Strasbourg fixed most of the issues present in Dunkerque, mainly protection and fuel oil bunkerage.
Jack Smith
No, her hull form was based on the Baltimore. Armor protection is more battleship-like, including the addition of a conning tower for protection of the bridge crew.
Ian Rogers
The conning tower is the only real "battleship" feature of her protection. The belt layout is different than the standard for US Fast Battleships of the time (it's shallower, angled less, and has no below water continuation), and her Side Protection System does not at all resemble anything seen on a contemporary american battleship, it's a cruiser system with one extra bulkhead.
The real killer for your position is how the steering gear is protected. There is no continuous belt which protects it, instead it utilizes an armored box with tube protection for the shafts.
Bentley Ward
Colton Lopez
The belt was designed to have a limited immunity zone against 12" fire while also being fully immune to 8" fire. In addition, it does continue below the waterline. Yes, the TDS is shallow and only has a 500lb charge resistance. Adding a full battleship style TDS would increase the beam and weight to far above the planned limits. See CA-2D.
You seem to be confused as to what a battlecruiser is. It's not a "battleship with thinner armor". Battlecruisers were originally armored cruisers with a larger caliber main battery. They also sacrificed firepower (usually in the form of losing a turret compared to dreadnoughts) and some belt thickness in exchange for higher speed.
The Alaskas were designed for 33kts, when the only other ships capable of reaching that speed were the Iowas.
Dominic Morgan
Of course it continues below the waterline, but what does it resemble more? The Iowa and South Dakota's belt both run from the top of the main armor deck, down to the bottom of the ship. The cruiser style side protection system was envisaged early on because of exactly what you stated: speed is more important that torpedo protection on a ship of this type, just as it is on a normal cruiser.
I harbor no confusion, and I am entirely aware of the original battlecruiser origins being the armored cruisers of old. The Alaska does not exist in the world of 1914, it exists in the world of 1944. The armored cruisers and battlecruisers are all (except for a few nearly 30 year old stragglers) gone, and a new ship of that type hasn't been built since roughly 1920 (arguably the Dunkerque, although there is just as much consternation over whether she is a light battleship, or a battlecruiser given her period of construction).
Alaska does not match the pattern set by the final generation of battlecruisers which were being constructed by the major naval powers prior to the WNT chopping them all off. These ships *were* for all intents and purposes, simply contemporary battleships with scaled back protection in order to gain speed. This holds true for the Japanese designs, the American designs, the British designs, and even the Russians and what little information we have on the Italians. Almost universally they were also armed with the same caliber weaponry of the battleships being built in parallel.
The supercruisers represent something new, as by the mid 1930's the very concept of a battlecruiser had become redundant with the advancements in propulsion and constructional technology. The dawn of the fast battleship ended the entire purpose for a battlecruiser to exist, as they combined both roles into a single more effective unit.
1/2
Aiden Cooper
found the chink
Hudson Ward
To further expand on what I said here , the Alaskas did indeed have a battleship armor layout in that they devoted 3 decks to armored protection (bomb deck, main armor deck, splinter deck) while cruisers only had a single deck between the machinery spaces and the air. The main belt was also raised (like a battleship) and was at a unified height (like a battleship) Cruiser belts stepped down from the machinery spaces to protect the magazines. Friedman considers the Alaskas to be semi-capital ships that took elements from both cruisers (hull form) and battleships (armor layout). She's far closer to a battlecruiser than as a cruiser.
Michael Cooper
The new supercruisers were almost universally not armed with weaponry considered even remotely comparable to period battleships, or even those several generations back.
Instead they were designed under the specific circumstances brought about by the interwar treaty limitations, which meant that for the most part, an enemy fleets cruiser force was a known factor. You could build a ship specifically meant to shit on any ~10,000 ton cruiser built in the past fifteen years.
Constructional differences also apply. The Japanese designs *do* largely resemble a scaled down version of their current battleships, although the prodigious loss in caliber also denotes what these ships are designed to do: outgun 10,000 ton American and British heavy cruisers, and deal with any potential supercruisers of their own.
The term battlecruiser isn't some holy designation. They died off just as the original monitors and 2nd class coastal battleships had in the 1880-90's, and were to be replaced by a new generation of cruisers more capable of filling the specific roles created by the naval arms limitation treaties.
The fact the the Americans were the only ones who built two of the damn things doesn't change that fact.
Ethan Collins
The stepped armor belt was entirely a product of the treaty and immediate post-treaty weight-saving attempts. The "unlimited" designs of the Des Moines and Worcester did away with that step, instead opting for a full length, full coverage belt.
Carson Green
USS Iowa
>32 knts
>16in guns
>12in belt
>6in deck
HMS Hood
>31knts
>15in gun
>12in belt
>6in deck
Just a reminder USS Iowa was a battle cruiser
Christopher Parker
There is no part of Hood's deck that is 6 inches thick.
Austin Hill
Wrong, she was designed from the keel up as a battleship.
Des Moines had a unified belt height, but that was due to size and weight. Otherwise she had a cruiser style of armor layout.
Robert Robinson
>that armor
The thing is a floating powder keg
Tyler Diaz
You're ignoring the fact that Friedman goes on to refer to them exclusively as super cruisers himself, and comes to the same conclusion that they are more cruiser than battlecruiser.
Ryder Rivera
based and space pirate pilled
John Sullivan
Garzke refers to them exclusively as battlecruisers.
Henry Johnson
And the Navy called them Large Cruisers instead of utilizing the already established Cruiser Capital.
Looks like we're going to keep going in circles her forever.
Elijah Powell
Again, the Alaskas were called "large cruisers" for political reasons. Congress considered them to be capital ships, and would have cut down tonnage necessary for battleships (such as the remaining 2 Iowas and the Montanas) to build the Alaskas.
Easton Kelly
USS Iowa
>Belt 12in
>Deck 6in
>16in Guns
>32 knots
HMS Vanguard
>Belt 4.5-14in
>Deck 2.5-6in
>16in Guns
>30 Knots
Guess Vanguard is also a battle cruiser then
Jordan Bell
It wasn't purely for political reasons, but also because the design fundamentally did not match what the Navy considered to be a CC. It doesn't matter what Congress considers them to be.
Jace Russell
The Hood is the only battlecruiser, the rest are just fake news.
Nicholas Jackson
Wyatt Cruz
So then here's a question for you, and anyone else who claims "The Iowa was a battlecruiser", what do you believe the last class of battleship the US built was and why?
Jaxon Gutierrez
>dude let's make a battleship but make it totally die in one hit to actual battleships
Cameron Garcia
You do know that the Lexingtons had far thinner thinner belt armor, right? Most designs were at or around 5" thick. In addition, BuShips recognized the lack of TDS depth and designed the CA-2D, -2H, and -2I, all of which had far deeper TDS systems at the cost of weight or sacrifices in firepower. CA-2D was approaching 40,000 tons at standard load while -2H and -2I were over 30,000 tons standard. -2I also sacrificed 2 guns for the addition of a deeper TDS. -2H sacrificed power (was planned to have 100k SHP compared to 170k SHP).
The facts of the matter are:
1) The Alaskas outgunned all other cruisers except for potential designs that would have been built past 1945.
2) The Alaskas were faster than the vast majority of capital ships afloat, exceptions being the Iowas and certain carriers.
3) The Alaskas shared their armor layout design with heavy capital ships, due to the 3 decks being used for bomb protection/falling shellfire, the raised main belt of a unified height, and a conning tower.
In all but name, the Alaskas were battlecruisers.
Jace Ross
>14in belt
nah m8 that's a battleship, cunt
Brandon Carter
colorado
Nolan Cruz
South Dakota says "hello"
Kevin Taylor
Colorado was the last of the standard type battleships. What about the North Carolina and South Dakota classes? I've never seen anyone argue those were battlecruisers.
Carter Rodriguez
>less armor than battle cruiser ioway
>smaller guns
garbo treaty breakers disguised as battlebabbies
Jackson Robinson
>doesn't realize the belt thickness on the SoDak was the same as the Iowas
>doesn't realize the guns were the same caliber and fired the same shells
Man if you're going to post bait, at least try harder next time.
Matthew Cox
scharnhorst
Kevin Ross
Pre Washington Naval Treaty, Seydlitz
Post, Alaska
Luke Johnson
>to retarded to know sodak and norcal were lesser armored than iowa
sorry I only allow educated people to argue me. fuck off back to wikipedia
Jayden Mitchell
All four classes involved in this discussion had 16in guns. With only a few feet in barrel length determining the difference due to the improvements in shell velocity. The United States has never built and completed a battlecruiser.
To claim that everything post-Colorado is a battlecruiser is to try to warp the reality because you see such a label as if it's detrimental in someway.