Battlecruiser: Difference between revisions
→Battlecruisers in action: wording tweak Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
|||
(697 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Large capital warship, typically faster than battleships}} |
|||
[[Image:HMS Hood by Edward Tufnell.jpg|300px|thumb|right|[[HMS Hood (51)|HMS ''Hood'']], the largest battlecruiser ever built.]] |
|||
{{Good article}} |
|||
[[File:HMS Hood (51) - March 17, 1924.jpg|upright=1.5|thumb|right|{{HMS|Hood}}, the largest battlecruiser ever built,<ref name="Breyer, p. 168">Breyer, p. 168</ref> in Australia on 17 March 1924]] |
|||
The '''battlecruiser''' (also written as '''battle cruiser''' or '''battle-cruiser''') was a type of [[capital ship]] of the first half of the 20th century. These were similar in displacement, armament and cost to [[battleship]]s, but differed in form and balance of attributes. Battlecruisers typically had thinner armour (to a varying degree) and a somewhat lighter main gun battery than contemporary battleships, installed on a longer hull with much higher engine power in order to attain greater speeds. The first battlecruisers were designed in the [[United Kingdom]], as a development of the [[armoured cruiser]], at the same time as the [[dreadnought]] succeeded the [[pre-dreadnought battleship]]. The goal of the design was to outrun any ship with similar armament, and chase down any ship with lesser armament; they were intended to hunt down slower, older armoured cruisers and destroy them with heavy gunfire while avoiding combat with the more powerful but slower battleships. However, as more and more battlecruisers were built, they were increasingly used alongside the better-protected battleships. |
|||
'''Battlecruisers''' (sometimes two words as '''battle cruiser''') were large [[warships]] in the first half of the 20th century, similar in size and cost to a [[battleship]]. |
|||
Battlecruisers served in the navies of the [[Royal Navy|United Kingdom]], [[German Imperial Navy|Germany]], the [[Ottoman Navy|Ottoman Empire]], [[Royal Australian Navy|Australia]] and [[Imperial Japanese Navy|Japan]] during World War I, most notably at the [[Battle of the Falkland Islands]] and in the several raids and skirmishes in the [[North Sea]] which culminated in a [[pitched battle|pitched]] fleet battle, the [[Battle of Jutland]]. British battlecruisers in particular suffered heavy losses at Jutland, where poor fire safety and ammunition handling practices left them vulnerable to catastrophic magazine explosions following hits to their main turrets from large-calibre shells. This dismal showing led to a persistent general belief that battlecruisers were too thinly armoured to function successfully. By the end of the war, capital ship design had developed, with battleships becoming faster and battlecruisers becoming more heavily armoured, blurring the distinction between a battlecruiser and a [[fast battleship]]. The [[Washington Naval Treaty]], which limited capital ship construction from 1922 onwards, treated battleships and battlecruisers identically, and the new generation of battlecruisers planned by the United States, Great Britain and Japan were scrapped or converted into aircraft carriers under the terms of the treaty. |
|||
The battlecruiser was developed in the first decade of the century as the successor to the [[armoured cruiser]], but their evolution was more closely linked to that of the [[dreadnought]] [[battleship]]. Battlecruisers typically used the same large-calibre main armament as a battleship, but sacrificed armour protection in exchange for speed. Thus ships of this type could inflict much more punishment than they could absorb. |
|||
Improvements in armour design and propulsion created the 1930s "fast battleship" with the speed of a battlecruiser and armour of a battleship, making the battlecruiser in the traditional sense effectively an obsolete concept. Thus from the 1930s on, only the [[Royal Navy]] continued to use "battlecruiser" as a classification for the World War I–era capital ships that remained in the fleet; while Japan's battlecruisers remained in service, they had been significantly reconstructed and were re-rated as full-fledged fast battleships.{{refn|The German {{sclass|Scharnhorst|battleship|1}}s and {{sclass|Deutschland|cruiser|1}}s and the French {{sclass|Dunkerque|battleship|1}}s are all sometimes referred to as battlecruisers, although the owning navies referred to them as "battleships" ({{langx|de|Schlachtschiffe}}), "armoured ships" ({{langx|de|Panzerschiffe}}) and "battleships" ({{langx|fr|Bâtiments de ligne}}) respectively. Since neither their operators nor a significant number of naval historians classify them as such, they are not discussed in this article.<ref>Gröner, pp. 31, 60; Gille, p. 139; Koop & Schmolke, p. 4</ref><ref name="Gardiner & Chesneau, p. 259">Chesneau, p. 259</ref><ref>Bidlingmaier, pp. 73–74</ref>|group=Note}} |
|||
Throughout the [[World War I|First World War]], the battlecruiser was principally used to provide a fast and hard-hitting addition to a battleship fleet. Battlecruisers formed part of the navies of Britain, [[German Imperial Navy|Germany]] and [[Imperial Japanese Navy|Japan]] in World War I and took part in several raids and skirmishes as well as the [[Battle of Jutland]].<ref>Kennedy, ''Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery'', p.250–1</ref> |
|||
Battlecruisers were put into action again during [[World War II]], and only one survived to the end. There was also renewed interest in large "cruiser-killer" type warships, but few were ever begun, as construction of battleships and battlecruisers was curtailed in favor of more-needed convoy escorts, aircraft carriers, and cargo ships. During (and after) the [[Cold War]], the Soviet {{sclass|Kirov|battlecruiser|4}} of large guided [[Cruiser|missile cruisers]] have been the only ships termed "battlecruisers"; the class is also the only example of a [[Nuclear marine propulsion|nuclear-powered]] battlecruiser. As of 2024, Russia operates two units: the ''[[Russian battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy|Pyotr Velikiy]]'' has remained in active service since its 1998 commissioning, while the ''[[Russian battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov|Admiral Nakhimov]]'' has been inactive (in storage or refitting) since 1999. |
|||
By the end of the First World War, there were very few differences between the design of a battlecruiser and that of a [[fast battleship]]. Britain, Japan and the [[United States]] all designed battlecruisers after the end of World War I which were as heavily armed as a battleship, though faster and not so heavily armored. The [[Washington Naval Treaty]], which limited [[capital ship]] construction from 1922 onwards, treated battleships and battlecruisers identically. The new generation of battlecruisers planned was scrapped under the terms of the treaty. |
|||
==Background== |
|||
From the 1930s, only the Royal Navy continued to use 'battlecruiser' as a classification for warships, for the WWI-era capital ships that remained in the fleet.<ref>While Japan's battlecruisers continued in service, they were significantly reconstructed and re-rated as battleships</ref> Nevertheless, the fast, light capital ships developed by Germany and France of the [[Scharnhorst class warship (1936)|''Scharnhorst'']] and [[Dunkerque class battleship|''Dunkerque'']] classes are often referred to as battlecruisers,<ref>Miller, ''Illustrated Directory of Warships'', p.179–187</ref><ref>Osborne, 'Cruisers and Battle Cruisers: An illustrated history of their impact'', p.115–116</ref> as they were as well armoured but smaller and carried a lighter calibre of armament compared to follow-up designs which were considered fast battleships. |
|||
The battlecruiser was developed by the [[Royal Navy]] in the first years of the 20th century as an evolution of the [[armoured cruiser]].<ref>Sondhaus, p. 199; Roberts, p. 13</ref> The first armoured cruisers had been built in the 1870s, as an attempt to give armour protection to ships fulfilling the typical [[cruiser]] roles of patrol, trade protection and power projection. However, the results were rarely satisfactory, as the weight of armour required for any meaningful protection usually meant that the ship became almost as slow as a battleship. As a result, navies preferred to build [[protected cruiser]]s with an armoured deck protecting their engines, or simply no armour at all. |
|||
In the 1890s, new [[Krupp armour|Krupp steel]] armour meant that it was now possible to give a cruiser side armour which would protect it against the [[Quick firing guns|quick-firing guns]] of enemy battleships and cruisers alike.<ref>Sumida, p. 19</ref> In 1896–97 France and Russia, who were regarded as likely allies in the event of war, started to build large, fast armoured cruisers taking advantage of this. In the event of a war between Britain and France or Russia, or both, these cruisers threatened to cause serious difficulties for the [[British Empire]]'s worldwide trade.<ref>Breyer, p. 47</ref> |
|||
World War II saw battlecruisers in action again, these mostly consisting of modernized WWI ships as well as the ships built in the 1930s. There was also renewed interest in large "cruiser killer" type warships, but few were completed, as construction of capital ships was curtailed in favor of the more needed convoy escorts, aircraft carriers, and cargo ships. In the post-World War II era, a small number of ships have been described as battlecruisers, such as the {{Sclass|Kirov|battlecruiser|4}}. |
|||
Britain, which had concluded in 1892 that it needed twice as many cruisers as any potential enemy to adequately protect its empire's sea lanes, responded to the perceived threat by laying down its own large armoured cruisers. Between 1899 and 1905, it completed or laid down seven [[ship class|classes]] of this type, a total of 35 ships.<ref>Lambert 2002, pp. 20–22; Osborne, pp. 61–62</ref> This building program, in turn, prompted the French and Russians to increase their own construction. The [[Imperial German Navy]] began to build large armoured cruisers for use on their overseas stations, laying down eight between 1897 and 1906.<ref>Gardiner & Gray, p. 142; Osborne, pp. 62, 74</ref> In the period 1889–1896, the Royal Navy spent £7.3 million on new large cruisers. From 1897 to 1904, it spent £26.9 million.<ref>Sumida, p. 351, Table 9. Figures are for First-Class Cruisers and exclude armament.</ref> Many armoured cruisers of the new kind were just as large and expensive as the equivalent battleship. |
|||
==First battlecruisers== |
|||
[[Image:HMS Invincible (1907) British Battleship.jpg|thumb|[[HMS Invincible (1908)|HMS ''Invincible'']], Britain's first Battlecruiser]] |
|||
[[File:HMS Shannon (1906).jpg|thumb|{{HMS|Shannon|1906|6}}, a ''Minotaur''-class armoured cruiser]] |
|||
The battlecruiser was a Piece of crap dramatic evolution of the [[armoured cruiser]] and 'second-class [[battleship]]' designs of the 1890s, principally due to the British [[John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher|Admiral Jackie Fisher]].<ref>Sondhaus, 199. Roberts, 13</ref> At the turn of the century, the modern armoured cruiser was a fast and powerful vessel which was capable of threatening trade routes worldwide, or of working closely with a battleship fleet.<ref>Breyer, p.47</ref> The Royal Navy, and Fisher in particular, was concerned with the damage armoured cruisers (particularly those of the French Navy) might inflict on British trade worldwide in the event of war.<ref>Breyer, p.47; Mackay, p. 270. Mackay quotes Fisher: "The fact has been overlooked that no number of unprotected or unarmoured or smaller type of Cruiser can cope successfully with even one thoroughly powerful first-class armoured cruiser. An infinite number of ants would not be equal to one armadillo! The armadillo would eat them up one after another wholesale!"</ref> Fisher envisaged British armoured cruisers becoming faster and more heavily armed to deal with this threat. He was also very fond of the "second-class battleship" [[HMS Renown (1895)|HMS ''Renown'']], a lighter, faster battleship.<ref>Roberts, p.15. Macaky, p.212-3</ref> As early as 1901, there is confusion in Fisher's writing about whether he saw the battleship or the cruiser as the model for future developments. |
|||
The increasing size and power of the armoured cruiser led to suggestions in British naval circles that cruisers should displace battleships entirely. The battleship's main advantage was its 12-inch heavy guns, and heavier armour designed to protect from shells of similar size. However, for a few years after 1900 it seemed that those advantages were of little practical value. The [[torpedo]] now had a range of 2,000 yards, and it seemed unlikely that a battleship would engage within torpedo range. However, at ranges of more than 2,000 yards it became increasingly unlikely that the heavy guns of a battleship would score any hits, as the heavy guns relied on primitive aiming techniques. The secondary batteries of 6-inch quick-firing guns, firing more plentiful shells, were more likely to hit the enemy.<ref>Sumida, pp. 42–44</ref> As naval expert [[Fred T. Jane]] wrote in June 1902,<blockquote>Is there anything outside of 2,000 yards that the big gun in its hundreds of tons of medieval castle can affect, that its weight in 6-inch guns without the castle could not affect equally well? And inside 2,000, what, in these days of gyros, is there that the torpedo cannot effect with far more certainty?<ref>Quoted in Sumida, p. 44</ref></blockquote> |
|||
In the period 1902–1904 the mainstream of British naval thinking was clearly in favour of heavily armoured battleships, rather than the fast ships which Fisher favoured. A shift away from the mixed-calibre armament of the 1890s [[pre-dreadnought]] to an "all-big-gun" design was already being considered, and preliminary designs circulated for battleships with all 12-inch or all 10-inch guns and armoured cruisers with all 9.2-inch guns.<ref>Roberts, 16-17</ref> |
|||
In 1904, Admiral [[John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher|John "Jacky" Fisher]] became [[First Sea Lord]], the senior officer of the Royal Navy. He had for some time thought about the development of a new fast armoured ship. He was very fond of the "second-class battleship" {{HMS|Renown|1895|2}}, a faster, more lightly armoured battleship.<ref>Roberts, p. 15; Mackay, pp. 212–13</ref> As early as 1901, there is confusion in Fisher's writing about whether he saw the battleship or the cruiser as the model for future developments. This did not stop him from commissioning designs from [[naval architect]] W. H. Gard for an armoured cruiser with the heaviest possible armament for use with the fleet. The design Gard submitted was for a ship between {{convert|14000|-|15000|LT|t}}, capable of {{convert|25|kn|lk=in}}, armed with four 9.2-inch and twelve {{convert|7.5|in|mm|adj=on}} guns in twin [[gun turret]]s and protected with six inches of armour along her [[belt armour|belt]] and 9.2-inch turrets, {{convert|4|in|mm|0}} on her 7.5-inch turrets, 10 inches on her [[conning tower]] and up to {{convert|2.5|in|mm|0}} on her decks. However, mainstream British naval thinking between 1902 and 1904 was clearly in favour of heavily armoured battleships, rather than the fast ships that Fisher favoured.<ref>Breyer, p. 48</ref> |
|||
In mid-1904, after Fisher's appointment as [[First Sea Lord]], the decision was taken to use 12-inch guns for the next generation of battleships, because of their superior performance at long range. The armament of the next armoured cruiser was much more controversial. The size and cost of the next generation of armoured cruisers meant that it was very desirable that they should be able to play a role in a battleship action, and this meant 12-inch guns.<ref>Roberts, 17-18; Mackay, 324-5</ref> This was the same logic which had led the Japanese to arm their latest cruisers with four 12-inch guns as their main armament.,<ref>Breyer, p.48</ref> It is also quite possible that Fisher pushed for the cruiser to have the same armament as the battleship because he held out hope that the cruiser design would be the replacement for the battleship. The decision to give the next generation of armoured cruisers an 'all-big-gun' armament was the crucial moment in the development of the battlecruiser. If the ships had been armed with only 10-inch or 9.2-inch guns, they would merely have been better armoured cruisers.<ref name = "oyaprk">Roberts, p.18</ref> |
|||
The Battle of Tsushima proved the effectiveness of heavy guns over intermediate ones and the need for a uniform main caliber on a ship for fire control. Even before this, the Royal Navy had begun to consider a shift away from the mixed-calibre armament of the 1890s [[pre-dreadnought]] to an "all-big-gun" design, and preliminary designs circulated for battleships with all 12-inch or all 10-inch guns and armoured cruisers with all 9.2-inch guns.<ref>Roberts, pp. 16–17</ref> In late 1904, not long after the Royal Navy had decided to use 12-inch guns for its next generation of battleships because of their superior performance at long range, Fisher began to argue that big-gun cruisers could replace battleships altogether. The continuing improvement of the torpedo meant that [[submarine]]s and [[destroyer]]s would be able to destroy battleships; this in Fisher's view heralded the end of the battleship or at least compromised the validity of heavy armour protection. Nevertheless, armoured cruisers would remain vital for commerce protection.<ref>Mackay, pp. 324–25; Roberts, pp. 17–18; Sumida, p. 52</ref> |
|||
The radical changes to shipbuilding policy which Fisher was making across the board meant that he appointed a Committee on Designs in December 1904. While the stated purpose of the Committee was to investigate and report on the requirements of future ships, the key decisions had already been taken by Fisher and his associates.<ref name = "jssyvc">Roberts, p.19</ref> The terms of reference for the Committee were for a battleship capable of 21 knots with 12-inch guns and no intermediate calibres, capable of operating from existing docks;<ref>Breyer, p.115</ref> and a cruiser capable of 25.5 knots, also with 12-inch guns and no intermediate armament, armoured like [[HMS Minotaur (1906)|HMS ''Minotaur'']], the most recent armoured cruiser, and also capable of working from the existing docks.<ref name = "jssyvc"/> The battleship became the revolutionary battleship [[HMS Dreadnought|HMS ''Dreadnought'']], and the cruiser became the three ships of the [[Invincible class battlecruiser|''Invincible'']] class. |
|||
{{Blockquote|Of what use is a battle fleet to a country called (A) at war with a country called (B) possessing no battleships, but having fast armoured cruisers and clouds of fast torpedo craft? What damage would (A's) battleships do to (B)? Would (B) wish for a few battleships or for more armoured cruisers? Would not (A) willingly exchange a few battleships for more fast armoured cruisers? In such a case, neither side wanting battleships is presumptive evidence that they are not of much value.|Fisher to [[William Palmer, 2nd Earl of Selborne|Lord Selborne]] ([[First Lord of the Admiralty]]), 20 October 1904<ref>quoted in Sumida, p. 52</ref>}} |
|||
The construction of the new class was began in 1906 and completed in 1908, delayed perhaps to allow their designs to learn from any problems with ''Dreadnought''.<ref>Breyer, 115; Roberts, 24-5</ref> The ships fulfilled the design requirement quite closely. The ''Invincibles'' had a displacement similar to that of the ''Dreadnought'' but twice the power to give a speed of {{convert|25|kn|km/h|0}}. They had eight [[BL 12 inch Mk X naval gun|{{convert|12|in|mm|0|sing=on}} Mk X guns]], compared to ten on ''Dreadnought''. There was armour 6 or 7 inches (150 to 180 mm) thick along the side of the hull and over the gunhouses, whereas ''Dreadnought'''s armour was 11 inches (280 to 300 mm) at its thickest.<ref>Breyer, 114-7</ref> The class had a very marked increase in speed, displacement and firepower compared to the most recent armoured cruisers, but no more armour. |
|||
Fisher's views were very controversial within the Royal Navy, and even given his position as First Sea Lord, he was not in a position to insist on his own approach. Thus he assembled a "Committee on Designs", consisting of a mixture of civilian and naval experts, to determine the approach to both battleship and armoured cruiser construction in the future. While the stated purpose of the committee was to investigate and report on future requirements of ships, Fisher and his associates had already made key decisions.<ref name=R19>Roberts, p. 19</ref> The terms of reference for the committee were for a battleship capable of {{convert|21|kn}} with 12-inch guns and no intermediate calibres, capable of docking in existing [[drydock]]s;<ref name="Breyer">Breyer, p. 115</ref> and a cruiser capable of {{convert|25.5|kn}}, also with 12-inch guns and no intermediate armament, armoured like {{HMS|Minotaur|1906|2}}, the most recent armoured cruiser, and also capable of using existing docks.<ref name=R19/> |
|||
The ''Invincibles'' were to have the same role as the armoured cruisers they succeeded, but the new ships were expected to be more effective all-round. Specifically their roles were: |
|||
*Heavy Reconnaissance. Because of their power, the ''Invincibles'' could sweep away the screen of enemy cruisers to close with and observe an enemy battlefleet, before using their superior speed to retire. |
|||
*Close support for the battlefleet. They could be stationed at the ends of the battle line to stop enemy cruisers harassing the battleships, and to harass the enemy's battleships if they were busy fighting battleships. Also, the ''Invincible''s could operate as the fast wing of the battlefleet and try to outmanouevre the enemy. |
|||
*Pursuit. If an enemy fleet ran, then the ''Invincible''s would use their speed to pursue, and their guns to damage or slow enemy ships. |
|||
*Commerce protection. The new ships would hunt down enemy cruisers and commerce raiders.<ref name = "oyaprk"/> |
|||
==First battlecruisers== |
|||
Confusion about how to refer to these new battleship-size armoured cruisers set in almost immediately. Even in late 1905, before work was begun on the ''Invincibles'', a Royal Navy memorandum refers to "large armoured ships" meaning both battleships and large cruisers. In October 1906, the Admiralty began to classify all post-Dreadnought battleships and armoured cruisers as "[[capital ships]]", while Fisher used the term "dreadnought" to refer either to his new battleships or the battleships and armoured cruisers together.<ref>Mackay, p.325-6</ref> At the same time, the ''Invincible'' class themselves were referred to as "cruiser-battleship", "dreadnought cruiser"; the term "battlecruiser" was first used by Fisher in 1908. Finally, on 24 November 1911, Admiralty Weekly Order No. 351 laid down the decision that "All cruisers of the ''Invincible'' and later type are, for the future, to be described and classified as battlecruisers in order to distinguish them from armoured cruisers of the older type."<ref>Admiralty Weekly Order No.351, ([http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=3452787 ADM 182/2]). Quoted in Roberts, p.24-5</ref> |
|||
Under the Selborne plan of 1902, the Royal Navy intended to start three new battleships and four armoured cruisers each year. However, in late 1904 it became clear that the 1905–1906 programme would have to be considerably smaller, because of lower than expected tax revenue and the need to buy out two Chilean battleships under construction in British yards, lest they be purchased by the Russians for use against the Japanese, Britain's ally. These economic realities meant that the 1905–1906 programme consisted only of one battleship, but three armoured cruisers. The battleship became the revolutionary battleship {{HMS|Dreadnought|1906|2}}, and the cruisers became the three ships of the {{sclass|Invincible|battlecruiser|4}}. Fisher later claimed, however, that he had argued during the committee for the cancellation of the remaining battleship.<ref>Sumida, p. 55</ref> |
|||
The construction of the new class was begun in 1906 and completed in 1908, delayed perhaps to allow their designers to learn from any problems with ''Dreadnought''.<ref name="Breyer" /><ref>Roberts, pp. 24–25</ref> The ships fulfilled the design requirement quite closely. On a displacement similar to ''Dreadnought'', the ''Invincible''s were {{convert|40|ft|m|1}} longer to accommodate additional [[boiler (steam generator)|boilers]] and more powerful [[steam turbine|turbines]] to propel them at {{convert|25|kn}}. Moreover, the new ships could maintain this speed for days, whereas pre-dreadnought battleships could not generally do so for more than an hour.<ref>Burr, pp. 7–8</ref> Armed with eight [[BL 12 inch Mk X naval gun|12-inch Mk X guns]], compared to ten on ''Dreadnought'', they had {{convert|6|-|7|in|0}} of armour protecting the hull and the gun turrets. (''Dreadnought''{{'}}s armour, by comparison, was {{convert|11|-|12|in|0}} at its thickest.)<ref>Breyer, pp. 114–17</ref> The class had a very marked increase in speed, displacement and firepower compared to the most recent armoured cruisers but no more armour.<ref name="GG24" /> |
|||
==Battlecruisers in the Dreadnought arms race== |
|||
[[Image:HMS Queen Mary.jpg|left|thumb|''[[HMS Queen Mary]]'', the third ''Lion'' Class Battlecruiser]] |
|||
While the ''Invincible''s were to fill the same role as the armoured cruisers they succeeded, they were expected to do so more effectively. Specifically their roles were: |
|||
In the period from the launching of the ''Invincibles'' to just after the outbreak of the First World War, the battlecruiser played a junior role in the developing dreadnought arms race. The battlecruiser was never wholeheartedly adopted as the key weapon in British imperial defence, as Fisher had presumably desired. |
|||
* '''Heavy reconnaissance.''' Because of their power, the ''Invincible''s could sweep away the screen of enemy cruisers to close with and observe an enemy battlefleet before using their superior speed to retire. |
|||
* '''Close support for the battle fleet.''' They could be stationed at the ends of the battle line to stop enemy cruisers harassing the battleships, and to harass the enemy's battleships if they were busy fighting battleships. Also, the ''Invincible''s could operate as the fast wing of the battlefleet and try to outmanoeuvre the enemy. |
|||
* '''Pursuit.''' If an enemy fleet ran, then the ''Invincible''s would use their speed to pursue, and their guns to damage or slow enemy ships. |
|||
* '''Commerce protection.''' The new ships would hunt down enemy cruisers and commerce raiders.<ref>Roberts, p. 18</ref> |
|||
[[File:HMS Invincible (1907) British Battleship.jpg|thumb|left|{{HMS|Invincible|1907|2}}, Britain's first battlecruiser]] |
|||
Britain's strategic circumstances had changed markedly between the conception of the battlecruiser and the commissioning of the first ships. While the prospective enemy for Britain had previously been a Franco-Russian alliance with many armoured cruisers, it was now clearly Germany. Diplomatically, Britain had entered the [[Entente cordiale]] in 1904 and the [[Anglo-Russian Entente]]. Furthermore neither France nor Russia posed a particular naval threat; the Russian navy had largely been sunk or captured in the [[Russo-Japanese War]] of 1904-5, while the French were in no hurry to adopt the new [[dreadnought|dreadnought battleship]] technology.<ref>Sondhaus, p.200-1</ref> Britain also boasted very cordial relations with two of the significant new naval powers; Japan (bolstered by the [[Anglo-Japanese Alliance]], signed in 1902 and renewed in 1905), and the USA. |
|||
Confusion about how to refer to these new battleship-size armoured cruisers set in almost immediately. Even in late 1905, before work was begun on the ''Invincible''s, a Royal Navy memorandum refers to "large armoured ships" meaning both battleships and large cruisers. In October 1906, the Admiralty began to classify all post-Dreadnought battleships and armoured cruisers as "[[capital ships]]", while Fisher used the term "dreadnought" to refer either to his new battleships or the battleships and armoured cruisers together.<ref>Mackay, pp. 325–26</ref> At the same time, the ''Invincible'' class themselves were referred to as "cruiser-battleships", "dreadnought cruisers"; the term "battlecruiser" was first used by Fisher in 1908. Finally, on 24 November 1911, Admiralty Weekly Order No. 351 laid down that "All cruisers of the "Invincible" and later types are for the future to be described and classified as "battle cruisers" to distinguish them from the armoured cruisers of earlier date."<ref>Admiralty Weekly Orders. 351. – Description and Classification of Cruisers of the "Invincible" and Later Types. ADM 182/2, quoted at [http://dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/The_Battle_Cruiser_in_the_Royal_Navy#Tactics The Dreadnought Project: The Battle Cruiser in the Royal Navy.]</ref> |
|||
Along with questions over the new ships' nomenclature came uncertainty about their actual role due to their lack of protection. If they were primarily to act as scouts for the battle fleet and hunter-killers of enemy cruisers and commerce raiders, then the seven inches of belt armour with which they had been equipped would be adequate. If, on the other hand, they were expected to reinforce a battle line of dreadnoughts with their own heavy guns, they were too thin-skinned to be safe from an enemy's heavy guns. The ''Invincible''s were essentially extremely large, heavily armed, fast armoured cruisers. However, the viability of the armoured cruiser was already in doubt. A cruiser that could have worked with the Fleet might have been a more viable option for taking over that role.<ref name=GG24>Gardiner & Gray, p. 24</ref><ref name=M494>Massie, p. 494</ref> |
|||
These changed strategic circumstances, and the great success of the ''Dreadnought'', ensured that she rather than the ''Invincible'' became the new model capital ship. Nevertheless, battlecruiser construction played a major part in the renewed naval arms-race sparked by the ''Dreadnought''. |
|||
Because of the ''Invincible''s{{'}} size and armament, naval authorities considered them capital ships almost from their inception—an assumption that might have been inevitable. Complicating matters further was that many naval authorities, including Lord Fisher, had made overoptimistic assessments from the Battle of Tsushima in 1905 about the armoured cruiser's ability to survive in a battle line against enemy capital ships due to their superior speed. These assumptions had been made without taking into account the Russian [[Baltic Fleet]]'s inefficiency and tactical ineptitude. By the time the term "battlecruiser" had been given to the ''Invincible''s, the idea of their parity with battleships had been fixed in many people's minds.<ref name="GG24"/><ref name=M494/> |
|||
For the first few years after their completion, the ''Invincible''s entirely fulfilled Fisher's vision of being able to sink any ship fast enough to catch them, and run from any ship capable of sinking them. An ''Invincible'' would also in many circumstances, be able to take on an enemy [[pre-dreadnought battleship]]. The ''Invincibles'' were so far ahead of any enemy armoured cruiser that it was difficult to justify building more or bigger cruisers.<ref>Roberts, p.25; Mackay p.324-5</ref> This lead was extended by the surprise both ''Dreadnought'' and ''Invincible'' produced, which prompted most other navies to delay their building programmes while radically revising their designs. This was particularly true for cruisers, because the details of the ''Invincible'' class were kept secret for longer; this meant that the next German armoured cruiser, [[SMS Blücher|''Blücher'']] was armed with only 8.2-inch guns, and was obsolete before she was even launched. |
|||
Not everyone was so convinced. ''Brassey{{'}}s Naval Annual'', for instance, stated that with vessels as large and expensive as the ''Invincible''s, an admiral "will be certain to put them in the line of battle where their comparatively light protection will be a disadvantage and their high speed of no value."<ref>As quoted in Massie, pp. 494–95</ref> Those in favor of the battlecruiser countered with two points—first, since all capital ships were vulnerable to new weapons such as the [[torpedo]], armour had lost some of its validity; and second, because of its greater speed, the battlecruiser could control the range at which it engaged an enemy.<ref>Friedman, p. 10</ref> |
|||
The Royal Navy's early superiority in capital ships led to the rejection of a design of 1905-6 which would essentially have fused the battlecruiser and battleship concepts. The 'X4' design combined the full armour and armament of ''Dreadnought'' with the 25-knot speed of ''Invincible''. The additional cost could not be justified given the existing British lead and the new Liberal government's need for economy; the slower and cheaper [[HMS Bellerophon (1907)|''Bellerophon'']], a relatively close copy of ''Dreadnought'', was adopted instead.<ref>Roberts, 26</ref> |
|||
==Battlecruisers in the dreadnought arms race== |
|||
By 1911 Germany had built battlecruisers of her own, and the superiority of the British ships could no longer be assured. [[SMS Von der Tann|''Von der Tann'']], begun in 1908 and completed in 1910, carried eight 11.1-inch guns but with 11.1-inch (280 mm) armour was far better protected than the ''Invincibles''. The two [[Moltke class battlecruiser|''Moltke''s]] were quite similar but carried ten 11.1-inch guns of an improved design.<ref>Breyer, p.269-272</ref> The German Navy did not share Fisher's view of what a battlecruiser should be; it was entitled to build armoured cruisers under the terms of the Navy Laws, and used this authority to match or better the British battlecruisers.<ref>Sondhaus, p.202-3</ref> |
|||
Between the launching of the ''Invincible''s to just after the outbreak of the First World War, the battlecruiser played a junior role in the developing dreadnought arms race, as it was never wholeheartedly adopted as the key weapon in British imperial defence, as Fisher had presumably desired. The biggest factor for this lack of acceptance was the marked change in Britain's strategic circumstances between their conception and the commissioning of the first ships. The prospective enemy for Britain had shifted from a Franco-Russian alliance with many armoured cruisers to a resurgent and increasingly belligerent Germany. Diplomatically, Britain had entered the [[Entente cordiale]] in 1904 and the [[Anglo-Russian Entente]]. Neither France nor Russia posed a particular naval threat; the Russian navy had largely been sunk or captured in the [[Russo-Japanese War]] of 1904–1905, while the French were in no hurry to adopt the new [[dreadnought]]-type design. Britain also boasted very cordial relations with two of the significant new naval powers: Japan (bolstered by the [[Anglo-Japanese Alliance]], signed in 1902 and renewed in 1905), and the US. These changed strategic circumstances, and the great success of the ''Dreadnought'' ensured that she rather than the ''Invincible'' became the new model capital ship. Nevertheless, battlecruiser construction played a part in the renewed naval arms race sparked by the ''Dreadnought''.<ref>Sondhaus, pp. 199–202</ref> |
|||
[[File:HMS Queen Mary.jpg|thumb|{{HMS|Queen Mary}}, the last battlecruiser built before World War I]] |
|||
The next British battlecruisers were three of the [[Indefatigable class battlecruiser|''Indefatigable'']] class. These ships were slightly improved ''Invincible''s, which corrected some flaws in the earlier ships but were built to fundamentally the same specification. The British were hampered on this occasion by the secrecy surrounding German battlecruiser construction and particularly about the heavy armour of ''Von der Tann''. Political pressure to reduce costs also played a role in the selection of the ''Indefatigable'' design,<ref>Roberts, p.28-9</ref> and this class is widely seen as a mistake.<ref>Brown, p.57</ref> |
|||
For their first few years of service, the ''Invincible''s entirely fulfilled Fisher's vision of being able to sink any ship fast enough to catch them, and run from any ship capable of sinking them. An ''Invincible'' would also, in many circumstances, be able to take on an enemy [[pre-dreadnought battleship]]. Naval circles concurred that the armoured cruiser in its current form had come to the logical end of its development and the ''Invincible''s were so far ahead of any enemy armoured cruiser in firepower and speed that it proved difficult to justify building more or bigger cruisers.<ref>Roberts, p. 25; Mackay, pp. 324–25</ref> This lead was extended by the surprise both ''Dreadnought'' and ''Invincible'' produced by having been built in secret; this prompted most other navies to delay their building programmes and radically revise their designs.<ref>Sondhaus, pp. 201–02</ref> This was particularly true for cruisers, because the details of the ''Invincible'' class were kept secret for longer; this meant that the last German armoured cruiser, {{SMS|Blücher||2}}, was armed with only {{convert|21|cm|adj=on}} guns, and was no match for the new battlecruisers.<ref>Staff, pp. 3–4</ref> |
|||
The Royal Navy's early superiority in capital ships led to the rejection of a 1905–1906 design that would, essentially, have fused the battlecruiser and battleship concepts into what would eventually become the fast battleship. The 'X4' design combined the full armour and armament of ''Dreadnought'' with the 25-knot speed of ''Invincible''. The additional cost could not be justified given the existing British lead and the new Liberal government's need for economy; the slower and cheaper {{HMS|Bellerophon|1907|2}}, a relatively close copy of ''Dreadnought'', was adopted instead.<ref>Roberts, p. 26</ref> The X4 concept would eventually be fulfilled in the {{sclass|Queen Elizabeth|battleship|4}} and later by other navies.<ref>Breyer, pp. 61–62</ref> |
|||
The next generation of British battlecruisers were markedly more powerful. By 1909-10 the political climate had changed; the desire for cost-cutting was now outweighed by a sense of national crisis about rivalry with Germany. A brief political crisis and a naval panic resulted in the approval of a total of eight capital ships in 1909-10.<ref>Sondhaus, p.203</ref> Fisher pressed for all of them to be battlecruisers,<ref>Roberts, p.32; Brown, p.58</ref> but was unable to force his way, and had to settle for six battleships as well as two battlecruisers of the [[Lion class battlecruiser|''Lion'' class]]. These carried eight [[BL 13.5 inch Mk V naval gun|13.5-inch guns]]; the standard armament of the British "super-dreadnought" battleships of the same period was ten 13.5-inch. Speed increased, to 27 knots. ''Lion'' also carried better armour than previous British battlecruisers, with 9 inches on the armour belt and barbettes; nevertheless, protection was not as good as in German designs. The two ''Lion''s were followed by the very similar [[HMS Queen Mary|''Queen Mary'']] <ref>Roberts, p. 31-33</ref> |
|||
The next British battlecruisers were the three {{sclass|Indefatigable|battlecruiser|4}}, slightly improved ''Invincible''s built to fundamentally the same specification, partly due to political pressure to limit costs and partly due to the secrecy surrounding German battlecruiser construction, particularly about the heavy armour of {{SMS|Von der Tann}}.<ref>Roberts, pp. 28–29</ref> This class came to be widely seen as a mistake<ref>Brown 1999, p. 57</ref> and the next generation of British battlecruisers were markedly more powerful. By 1909–1910 a sense of national crisis about rivalry with Germany outweighed cost-cutting, and a naval panic resulted in the approval of a total of eight capital ships in 1909–1910.<ref>Sondhaus, p. 203</ref> Fisher pressed for all eight to be battlecruisers,<ref>Roberts, p. 32</ref> but was unable to have his way; he had to settle for six battleships and two battlecruisers of the {{sclass|Lion|battlecruiser|4}}. The ''Lion''s carried eight [[BL 13.5 inch Mk V naval gun|13.5-inch guns]], the now-standard caliber of the British "super-dreadnought" battleships. Speed increased to {{convert|27|kn}} and armour protection, while not as good as in German designs, was better than in previous British battlecruisers, with {{convert|9|in|adj=on|spell=in}} armour belt and [[barbette]]s. The two ''Lion''s were followed by the very similar {{HMS|Queen Mary||2}}.<ref>Roberts, pp. 31–33</ref> |
|||
In contrast to the British focus on increasing speed and firepower, Germany further improved the armour and staying power of their next battlecruiser. [[SMS Seydlitz|''Seydlitz'']], designed in 1909 and finished in 1913, was a modified ''Moltke''; speed increased by one knot to 26.5 knots, while armour was up to 12 inches thick, equivalent for the [[Helgoland class battleship|''Helgoland'']] class battleships of just one or two years earlier. ''Seydlitz'' was Germany's last battlecruiser to be completed before World War I.<ref>Breyer, p. 267, 272</ref> |
|||
[[File:German battlecruiser SMS Seydlitz in port, prior to World War I (retouched).jpg|thumb|left|SMS ''Seydlitz''|alt=A large gray ship in port. The two funnels in the center of the ship emit clouds of smoke.]] |
|||
The next step in the battlecruiser design came from Japan. The [[Imperial Japanese Navy]] had been planning the [[Kongō class battlecruiser|''Kongō'' class]] ships from 1909. The Japanese navy was determined that, since the Japanese economy could support relatively few ships, each ship would be more powerful than its likely competitors. Initially the class was planned with the ''Invincible''s as the benchmark. On learning of the British plans for ''Lion'', and the likelihood that new [[U.S. Navy]] battleships would be armed with 14-inch guns, the Japanese decided to radically revise their plans and go one better. A new plan was drawn up, carrying eight 14-inch guns, and capable of 27.5 knots, thus marginally having the edge over the British ''Lion''s in speed and firepower. The heavy guns were also better-positioned, being [[superfire|superfiring]] both fore and aft with no turret amidships. The armour scheme was also marginally improved over the ''Lion''s with 9 inches of armour on the turrets and 8 inches on the barbettes. The first ship in the class was built in Britain, and a further three constructed in Japan.<ref>Evans and Peattie, p.161-3</ref> The Japanese also re-classified their strong armoured cruisers of [[Tsukuba class cruiser|''Tsukuba'']] and [[Ibuki class battlecruiser|''Ibuki'']] classes, carrying four 12-inch guns, as battlecruisers, nonetheless they had weaker armament and were slower.<ref>Robert Gardiner (editor): ''Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1906-1921''. Annapolis: US Naval Institute Press, 1985, p. 233. ISBN 0-87021-907-3</ref> |
|||
By 1911 Germany had built battlecruisers of her own, and the superiority of the British ships could no longer be assured. Moreover, the German Navy did not share Fisher's view of the battlecruiser. In contrast to the British focus on increasing speed and firepower, Germany progressively improved the armour and staying power of their ships to better the British battlecruisers.<ref>Sondhaus, pp. 202–03</ref> ''Von der Tann'', begun in 1908 and completed in 1910, carried eight 11.1-inch guns, but with 11.1-inch (283 mm) armour she was far better protected than the ''Invincible''s. The two {{sclass|Moltke|battlecruiser|5}}s were quite similar but carried ten 11.1-inch guns of an improved design.<ref>Breyer, pp. 269–72</ref> {{SMS|Seydlitz||2}}, designed in 1909 and finished in 1913, was a modified ''Moltke''; speed increased by one knot to {{convert|26.5|kn}}, while her armour had a maximum thickness of 12 inches, equivalent to the {{sclass|Helgoland|battleship|2}}s of a few years earlier. ''Seydlitz'' was Germany's last battlecruiser completed before World War I.<ref>Breyer, pp. 267, 272</ref> |
|||
The next step in battlecruiser design came from Japan. The [[Imperial Japanese Navy]] had been planning the {{sclass|Kongō|battlecruiser|0}} ships from 1909, and was determined that, since the Japanese economy could support relatively few ships, each would be more powerful than its likely competitors. Initially the class was planned with the ''Invincible''s as the benchmark. On learning of the British plans for ''Lion'', and the likelihood that new [[U.S. Navy]] battleships would be armed with {{convert|14|in|mm|adj=on}} guns, the Japanese decided to radically revise their plans and go one better. A new plan was drawn up, carrying eight 14-inch guns, and capable of {{convert|27.5|kn}}, thus marginally having the edge over the ''Lion''s in speed and firepower. The heavy guns were also better-positioned, being [[superfire|superfiring]] both fore and aft with no turret amidships. The armour scheme was also marginally improved over the ''Lion''s, with nine inches of armour on the turrets and {{convert|8|in|mm|0}} on the barbettes. The first ship in the class was built in Britain, and a further three constructed in Japan.<ref>Evans & Peattie, pp. 161–63</ref> The Japanese also re-classified their powerful armoured cruisers of the ''[[Tsukuba-class cruiser|Tsukuba]]'' and ''[[Ibuki-class armored cruiser|Ibuki]]'' classes, carrying four 12-inch guns, as battlecruisers; nonetheless, their armament was weaker and they were slower than any battlecruiser.<ref>Gardiner & Gray, p. 233</ref> |
|||
The next British battlecruiser, [[HMS Tiger (1913)|''Tiger'']], was broadly on the model of ''Lion'' but also influenced by the design of the Japanese ships.<ref>Breyer, p.135</ref> She retained the eight 13.5-inch guns of her predecessors, though these were positioned for better fields of fire. She was faster (making 29 knots on trials), and carried a heavier secondary armament. ''Tiger'' was also more heavily armoured on the whole; while the maximum thickness of armour was the same at 9 inches, the height of the main armour belt was increased.<ref>Roberts, p. 37-8</ref> |
|||
[[File:Japanese battleship Kongo.jpg|thumb|''Kongō'']] |
|||
1912 saw work begin on three more German battlecruisers of the [[Derfflinger class battlecruiser|''Derfflinger'' class]], the first German battlecruisers to mount 12-inch guns. These excellent ships, like the ''Tiger'' and the ''Kongō'', had their guns arranged in superfiring turrets for greater efficiency. Their armour and speed was similar to the previous ''Seydlitz'' class.<ref>Breyer, p.277-8</ref> |
|||
The next British battlecruiser, {{HMS|Tiger|1913|2}}, was intended initially as the fourth ship in the ''Lion'' class, but was substantially redesigned. She retained the eight 13.5-inch guns of her predecessors, but they were positioned like those of ''Kongō'' for better fields of fire. She was faster (making {{convert|29|kn}} on [[sea trial]]s), and carried a heavier secondary armament. ''Tiger'' was also more heavily armoured on the whole; while the maximum thickness of armour was the same at nine inches, the height of the main armour belt was increased.<ref>Roberts, pp. 37–38</ref> Not all the desired improvements for this ship were approved, however. Her designer, [[Sir Eustace Tennyson d'Eyncourt, 1st Baronet|Sir Eustace Tennyson d'Eyncourt]], had wanted small-bore [[water-tube boiler]]s and geared turbines to give her a speed of {{convert|32|kn}}, but he received no support from the authorities and the engine makers refused his request.<ref>Breyer, p. 136</ref> |
|||
In 1913, the Russian Empire also began the construction of the four-ship |
1912 saw work begin on three more German battlecruisers of the {{sclass|Derfflinger|battlecruiser|4}}, the first German battlecruisers to mount 12-inch guns. These ships, like ''Tiger'' and the ''Kongō''s, had their guns arranged in superfiring turrets for greater efficiency. Their armour and speed was similar to the previous ''Seydlitz'' class.<ref>Breyer, pp. 277–78</ref> In 1913, the [[Russian Empire]] also began the construction of the four-ship {{sclass|Borodino|battlecruiser|4}}, which were designed for service in the [[Baltic Sea]]. These ships were designed to carry twelve 14-inch guns, with armour up to 12 inches thick, and a speed of {{convert|26.6|kn}}. The heavy armour and relatively slow speed of these ships made them more similar to German designs than to British ships; construction of the ''Borodino''s was halted by the First World War and all were scrapped after the end of the [[Russian Civil War]].<ref>Breyer, p. 399</ref> |
||
By 1914, only Britain, Germany and Japan had battlecruisers, with Russia building some. On several occasions, it had already been possible to point to moments where the concepts of battlecruiser and battleship might be seen in the same vessel. This was true of the 1906 'X4' design,<ref>Roberts, p.26</ref> and the Russian ''Borodino''s<ref name = "jndjmt"/> and arguably the entire German Battlecruiser program. It was even more true of the most recent British battleship design. The [[Queen Elizabeth class battleship|''Queen Elizabeth'']] class was designed to make 25 knots, as much as the first battlecruisers had achieved, while carrying eight 15-inch guns and armour up to 15 inches thick.<ref>Breyer, p.140-1</ref> The ''Queen Elizabeths'' were the first true [[fast battleship]]s, and could have brought the end of the development of the battlecruiser as an independent line. It was principally due to the influence of Jacky Fisher that the battlecruiser continued.<ref>Roberts, p.38-9</ref> |
|||
==World War I== |
==World War I== |
||
The First World War saw British and German battlecruisers used in several theatres. Battlecruisers formed part of the dreadnought fleets which faced each other down in the North Sea, taking part in several raids and skirmishes as well as the Battle of Jutland. Battlecruisers also played an important role at the start of the War as the British fleet hunted down German commerce raiders, for instance at the [[Battle of the Falkland Islands]], and also took part in the Mediterranean campaign. |
|||
===Construction=== |
===Construction=== |
||
For most of the combatants, capital ship construction was very limited during the |
For most of the combatants, capital ship construction was very limited during the war. Germany finished the ''Derfflinger'' class and began work on the {{sclass|Mackensen|battlecruiser|4}}. The ''Mackensen''s were a development of the ''Derfflinger'' class, with 13.8-inch guns and a broadly similar armour scheme, designed for {{convert|28|kn}}.<ref>Breyer, pp. 283–84</ref> |
||
In Britain, |
In Britain, Jackie Fisher returned to the office of First Sea Lord in October 1914. His enthusiasm for big, fast ships was unabated, and he set designers to producing a design for a battlecruiser with 15-inch guns. Because Fisher expected the next German battlecruiser to steam at 28 knots, he required the new British design to be capable of 32 knots. He planned to reorder two {{sclass|Revenge|battleship}}s, which had been approved but not yet laid down, to a new design. Fisher finally received approval for this project on 28 December 1914 and they became the {{sclass|Renown|battlecruiser|4}}. With six [[BL 15 inch Mk I naval gun|15-inch guns]] but only 6-inch armour they were a further step forward from ''Tiger'' in firepower and speed, but returned to the level of protection of the first British battlecruisers.<ref>Roberts, pp. 46–47</ref> |
||
At the same time, Fisher resorted to subterfuge to obtain another three fast, lightly armoured ships |
At the same time, Fisher resorted to subterfuge to obtain another three fast, lightly armoured ships that could use several spare {{convert|15|in|adj=on|0}} gun turrets left over from battleship construction. These ships were essentially light battlecruisers, and Fisher occasionally referred to them as such, but officially they were classified as ''large light cruisers''. This unusual designation was required because construction of new capital ships had been placed on hold, while there were no limits on [[light cruiser]] construction. They became {{HMS|Courageous|50|2}} and her sisters {{HMS|Glorious||2}} and {{HMS|Furious|47|2}}, and there was a bizarre imbalance between their main guns of 15 inches (or {{convert|18|in|0}} in ''Furious'') and their armour, which at {{convert|3|in|spell=in}} thickness was on the scale of a light cruiser. The design was generally regarded as a failure (nicknamed in the Fleet ''Outrageous'', ''Uproarious'' and ''Spurious''), though the later conversion of the ships to [[aircraft carrier]]s was very successful.<ref>Roberts, pp. 50–52</ref> Fisher also speculated about a new mammoth, but lightly built battlecruiser, that would carry {{convert|20|in|adj=on|0}} guns, which he termed {{HMS|Incomparable}}; this never got beyond the concept stage.<ref>Breyer, p. 172</ref> |
||
It is often held that the ''Renown'' and ''Courageous'' classes were designed for Fisher's plan to land troops (possibly Russian) on the German Baltic coast. Specifically, they were designed with a |
It is often held that the ''Renown'' and ''Courageous'' classes were designed for Fisher's plan to land troops (possibly Russian) on the German Baltic coast. Specifically, they were designed with a reduced [[draft (hull)|draught]], which might be important in the shallow Baltic. This is not clear-cut evidence that the ships were designed for the Baltic: it was considered that earlier ships had too much draught and not enough [[Freeboard (nautical)|freeboard]] under operational conditions. Roberts argues that the focus on the Baltic was probably unimportant at the time the ships were designed, but was inflated later, after the disastrous [[Dardanelles Campaign]].<ref>Roberts, p. 51</ref> |
||
The final British battlecruiser design of the war was the |
The final British battlecruiser design of the war was the {{sclass2|Admiral|battlecruiser|4}}, which was born from a requirement for an improved version of the ''Queen Elizabeth'' battleship. The project began at the end of 1915, after Fisher's final departure from the Admiralty. While initially envisaged as a battleship, senior sea officers felt that Britain had enough battleships, but that new battlecruisers might be required to combat German ships being built (the British overestimated German progress on the ''Mackensen'' class as well as their likely capabilities). A battlecruiser design with eight 15-inch guns, 8 inches of armour and capable of 32 knots was decided on. The experience of battlecruisers at the [[Battle of Jutland]] meant that the design was radically revised and transformed again into a fast battleship with armour up to 12 inches thick, but still capable of {{convert|31.5|kn}}. The first ship in the class, {{HMS|Hood|51|2}}, was built according to this design to counter the possible completion of any of the Mackensen-class ship. The plans for her three sisters, on which little work had been done, were revised once more later in 1916 and in 1917 to improve protection.<ref>Roberts, pp. 55–61</ref> |
||
The |
The Admiral class would have been the only British ships capable of taking on the German ''Mackensen'' class; nevertheless, German shipbuilding was drastically slowed by the war, and while two ''Mackensen''s were launched, none were ever completed.<ref name=R601>Roberts, pp. 60–61</ref> The Germans also worked briefly on a further three ships, of the {{sclass|Ersatz Yorck|battlecruiser|4}}, which were modified versions of the ''Mackensen''s with 15-inch guns.<ref>Gröner, pp. 58–59</ref> Work on the three additional Admirals was suspended in March 1917 to enable more escorts and merchant ships to be built to deal with the new threat from U-boats to trade. They were finally cancelled in February 1919.<ref name=R601/> |
||
===Battlecruisers in action=== |
|||
===Operations=== |
|||
The first combat involving battlecruisers during World War I was the [[Battle of Heligoland Bight (1914)|Battle of Heligoland Bight]] in August 1914. A force of British light cruisers and destroyers entered the [[Heligoland Bight]] (the part of the North Sea closest to [[Hamburg]]) to attack German destroyer patrols. When they met opposition from light cruisers, [[Vice Admiral]] [[David Beatty, 1st Earl Beatty|David Beatty]] took his squadron of five battlecruisers into the Bight and turned the tide of the battle, ultimately sinking three German light cruisers and killing their commander, [[Rear Admiral]] [[Leberecht Maass]].<ref>Burr, pp. 21–22</ref> |
|||
The German battlecruiser [[SMS Goeben|''Goeben'']] was perhaps the ship which made the most impact early in the War. Stationed in the Mediterranean, she and her escorting cruiser [[Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau|evaded British and French ships on the outbreak of war]], and steamed to [[Constantinople]] with two British battlecruisers in hot pursuit. ''Goeben'' was handed over to the Turkish Navy, and this was instrumental in bringing Turkey into the war on the German side. ''Goeben'' herself, renamed ''Yavuz Sultan Selim'', saw engagements against the Russian Navy in the Black Sea and against the British in the Aegean. |
|||
[[File:SMS Seydlitz2.jpg|thumb|{{SMS|Seydlitz||2}} was heavily damaged in the Battle of Dogger Bank]] |
|||
The German battlecruiser {{SMS|Goeben||2}} perhaps made the most impact early in the war. Stationed in the Mediterranean, she and the escorting light cruiser {{SMS|Breslau}} [[Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau|evaded British and French ships on the outbreak of war]], and steamed to Constantinople ([[Istanbul]]) with two British battlecruisers in hot pursuit. The two German ships were handed over to the [[Ottoman Navy]], and this was instrumental in bringing the [[Ottoman Empire]] into the war as one of the [[Central Powers]]. ''Goeben'' herself, renamed ''Yavuz Sultan Selim'', fought engagements against the [[Imperial Russian Navy]] in the [[Black Sea]] before being knocked out of the action for the remainder of the war after the [[Battle of Imbros]] against British forces in the [[Aegean Sea]] in January 1918.<ref>Halpern, pp. 53–58; Staff, pp. 18–20</ref> |
|||
The original battlecruiser concept proved successful in December 1914 at the Battle of the Falkland Islands. The British battlecruisers [[HMS Inflexible (1907)|''Inflexible'']] and [[HMS Invincible (1907)|''Invincible'']] did precisely the job they were intended for when they chased down and annihilated a [[Germany|German]] cruiser squadron, centered on the armoured cruisers ''[[SMS Scharnhorst|Scharnhorst]]'' and ''[[SMS Gneisenau|Gneisenau]]'', along with three light cruisers, commanded by Admiral [[Maximilian von Spee|Maximilian Graf Von Spee]] in the South Atlantic Ocean. Prior to the battle the Australian battlecruiser ''[[HMAS Australia (1911)|HMAS Australia]]'' had unsuccessfully searched for the German ships in the Pacific. |
|||
The original battlecruiser concept proved successful in December 1914 at the [[Battle of the Falkland Islands]]. The British battlecruisers {{HMS|Inflexible|1907|2}} and {{HMS|Invincible|1907|2}} did precisely the job for which they were intended when they chased down and annihilated the German [[East Asia Squadron]], centered on the armoured cruisers {{SMS|Scharnhorst||2}} and {{SMS|Gneisenau||2}}, along with three light cruisers, commanded by Admiral [[Maximilian von Spee|Maximilian Graf Von Spee]], in the South Atlantic Ocean. Prior to the battle, the Australian battlecruiser {{HMAS|Australia|1911|2}} had unsuccessfully searched for the German ships in the Pacific.<ref>Burr, pp. 22–23</ref> |
|||
====Battle of Heligoland Bight==== |
|||
[[File:HMS Indefatigable sinking.jpg|thumb|left|''Indefatigable'' sinking during the Battle of Jutland]] |
|||
{{Main|Battle of Heligoland Bight}} |
|||
A force of British light cruisers and destroyers entered the Heligoland Bight to attack German shipping in August 1914, the first month of [[World War I]]. When they met opposition from German cruisers, [[David Beatty, 1st Earl Beatty|Admiral Beatty]] took his squadron of four battlecruisers into the Bight and turned the battle, ultimately sinking three German light cruisers and killing a German commander, Rear Admiral [[Leberecht Maass]]. |
|||
During the [[Battle of Dogger Bank (1915)|Battle of Dogger Bank]] in 1915, the aftermost barbette of the German flagship ''Seydlitz'' was struck by a British 13.5-inch shell from HMS ''Lion''. The shell did not penetrate the barbette, but it dislodged a piece of the barbette armour that allowed the flame from the shell's detonation to enter the barbette. The propellant charges being hoisted upwards were ignited, and the fireball flashed up into the turret and down into the [[magazine (artillery)|magazine]], setting fire to charges removed from their brass cartridge cases. The gun crew tried to escape into the next turret, which allowed the flash to spread into that turret as well, killing the crews of both turrets. ''Seydlitz'' was saved from near-certain destruction only by emergency flooding of her after magazines, which had been effected by [[Wilhelm Heidkamp]]. This near-disaster was due to the way that ammunition handling was arranged and was common to both German and British battleships and battlecruisers, but the lighter protection on the latter made them more vulnerable to the turret or barbette being penetrated. The Germans learned from investigating the damaged ''Seydlitz'' and instituted measures to ensure that ammunition handling minimised any possible exposure to flash.<ref>Staff, pp. 23–24, 43</ref> |
|||
====Battle of the Falklands==== |
|||
{{Main|Battle of the Falkland Islands}} |
|||
Apart from the [[cordite]] handling, the battle was mostly inconclusive, though both the British flagship ''Lion'' and ''Seydlitz'' were severely damaged. ''Lion'' lost speed, causing her to fall behind the rest of the battleline, and Beatty was unable to effectively command his ships for the remainder of the engagement. A British signalling error allowed the German battlecruisers to withdraw, as most of Beatty's squadron mistakenly concentrated on the crippled armoured cruiser ''Blücher'', sinking her with great loss of life. The British blamed their failure to win a decisive victory on their poor gunnery and attempted to increase their rate of fire by stockpiling unprotected cordite charges in their ammunition hoists and barbettes.<ref>Staff, pp. 43–44; Burr, pp. 24, 33</ref> |
|||
====Battle of Dogger Bank==== |
|||
{{Main|Battle of Dogger Bank (1915)}} |
|||
[[Image:SMS Seydlitz2.jpg|thumb|[[SMS Seydlitz|SMS ''Seydlitz'']] was heavily damaged in the [[Battle of Dogger Bank (1915)|Battle of Dogger Bank]]]] |
|||
At the [[Battle of Jutland]] on 31 May 1916, both British and German battlecruisers were employed as fleet units. The British battlecruisers became engaged with both their German counterparts, the battlecruisers, and then German battleships before the arrival of the battleships of the [[British Grand Fleet]]. The result was a disaster for the Royal Navy's battlecruiser squadrons: ''Invincible'', ''Queen Mary'', and {{HMS|Indefatigable|1909|2}} exploded with the loss of all but a handful of their crews.<ref>Halpern, pp. 318–21</ref> The exact reason why the ships' magazines detonated is not known, but the abundance of exposed cordite charges stored in their turrets, ammunition hoists and working chambers in the quest to increase their rate of fire undoubtedly contributed to their loss.<ref>Lambert 1998, pp. 54–55</ref> Beatty's flagship ''Lion'' herself was almost lost in a similar manner, save for the heroic actions of [[Major (rank)|Major]] [[Francis John William Harvey|Francis Harvey]].<ref>Roberts, p. 116</ref> |
|||
During the Battle of Dogger Bank, the after turret of the German flagship ''Seydlitz'' was pierced by a British 13.5 inch shell from HMS ''Lion'' which detonated in the working chamber. The charges being hoisted upwards were detonated, and the explosion flashed up into the turret and down into the magazine, setting fire to charges in the process of being handled. The gun crew tried to escape into the next turret, allowing the flash to spread, destroying both turrets internally. ''Seydlitz'' was saved from near-certain destruction only by emergency flooding of her after magazines. This near-disaster was due to the way that ammunition handling was arranged and was common to both German and British battleships and battlecruisers, but the lighter protection on the latter made them more vulnerable to the turret or barbette being pierced. The "working chamber" had been introduced in [[HMS Formidable (1898)|HMS ''Formidable'']] (1898) and was intended to prevent such a dangerous flash, but instead made such an event more likely. The Germans learned from investigating the damaged ''Seydlitz'' and instituted improved measures to ensure ammunition handling was flash tight. The British remained unaware of the weakness, to their great misfortune at the Battle of Jutland.<ref>''Naval Battles of the First World War'', Geoffrey Bennett, Penguin Books Classic Military History, 2001, ISBN 0-14-139087-5</ref> |
|||
The better-armoured German battlecruisers fared better, in part due to the poor performance of British fuzes (the British shells tended to explode or break up on impact with the German armour).<ref>Halpern, p. 328</ref> {{SMS|Lützow||2}}—the only German battlecruiser lost at Jutland—had only 128 killed,<ref>Staff, pp. 41–42</ref> for instance, despite receiving more than thirty hits. The other German battlecruisers, {{SMS|Moltke||2}}, ''Von der Tann'', ''Seydlitz'', and {{SMS|Derfflinger||2}}, were all heavily damaged and required extensive repairs after the battle, ''Seydlitz'' barely making it home, for they had been the focus of British fire for much of the battle.<ref>Halpern, pp. 319–25</ref> |
|||
Apart from the [[cordite]] handling, the battle was mostly inconclusive, though both ''Lion'' and ''Seydlitz'' were severely damaged. The British flagship ''Lion's'' lost speed causing her to fall behind the rest of the battleline and Admiral Beatty was unable to effectively command for the remainder of the engagement. A British signalling error allowed the German battlecruisers to withdraw, as most of Beatty's squadron mistakenly concentrated on the crippled armoured cruiser ''Blücher'', sinking her with great loss of life. ''Blücher'' herself was obsolete, out of all the ships in the battle, and so she had proved to be a liability to the rest of the German squadron, which was otherwise an all battlecruiser squadron. |
|||
====Battle of Jutland==== |
|||
{{Main|Battle of Jutland}} |
|||
[[Image:Destruction of HMS Queen Mary.jpg|thumb|left|''Queen Mary'' blows up during the Battle of Jutland]] |
|||
At the Battle of Jutland 18 months later, both British and German battlecruisers were employed as fleet units. The British battlecruisers became engaged with both their German counterparts, the battlecruisers, and then German battleships before the arrival of the battleships of the [[British Grand Fleet]]. The result was a disaster for the Royal Navy's battlecruiser squadrons: [[HMS Invincible (1907)|''Invincible'']], [[HMS Queen Mary|''Queen Mary'']] and [[HMS Indefatigable (1909)|''Indefatigable'']] exploded with the loss of all but a handful of their crews. This was due to the vulnerability of the working chamber which the Germans had discovered after the near-loss of ''Seydlitz'' at Dogger Bank and had taken preventative measures against. The British ships not only had lighter armour but also lacked flash tight ammunition handling arrangements, due in part to lack of awareness and experience, and also as it would improve their rate of fire to compensate for poor accuracy. Each was lost to a single salvo penetrating the turret and detonating in the working chamber. Beatty's flagship ''Lion'' herself was almost lost in a similar manner, save for the heroic actions of [[Francis John William Harvey|Major Harvey]]. |
|||
The better armoured and flash-tight German battlecruisers fared better, in part due to poor performance of British fuzes (their shells exploded on impact with the ships armour instead of penetrating the armour before exploding thus causing more damage). [[SMS Lützow|''Lützow'']] for instance only had 117 killed despite receiving more than thirty hits, though she had sufficient flooding that she was scuttled. The other German battlecruisers, [[SMS Moltke (1910)|''Moltke'']], [[SMS Von der Tann|''Von der Tann'']], ''Seydlitz'', [[SMS Derfflinger|''Derfflinger'']] were all heavily damaged and required extensive repairs after the battle, ''Seydlitz'' barely making it home, for they had been in the very centre of enemy fire for much of the battle. No British or German battleship was sunk during the battle with the exception of the old German [[pre-dreadnought]] [[SMS Pommern|''Pommern'']], the victim of torpedoes from British destroyers. |
|||
==Interwar period== |
==Interwar period== |
||
In the years immediately after World War I, Britain, Japan and the |
In the years immediately after World War I, Britain, Japan and the US all began design work on a new generation of ever more powerful battleships and battlecruisers. The new burst of shipbuilding that each nation's navy desired was politically controversial and potentially economically crippling. This nascent arms race was prevented by the [[Washington Naval Treaty]] of 1922, where the major naval powers agreed to limits on capital ship numbers.<ref>Breyer, pp. 62–64, 70–72</ref> The German navy was not represented at the talks; under the terms of the [[Treaty of Versailles]], Germany was not allowed any modern capital ships at all.<ref>Chesneau, p. 218</ref> |
||
Through the 1920s and |
Through the 1920s and 1930s only Britain and Japan retained battlecruisers, often modified and rebuilt from their original designs. The line between the battlecruiser and the modern fast battleship became blurred; indeed, the Japanese ''Kongō''s were formally redesignated as battleships after their very comprehensive reconstruction in the 1930s.<ref name=j5>Jentschura, Jung & Mickel, p. 35</ref> |
||
===Plans in the aftermath of World War I=== |
===Plans in the aftermath of World War I=== |
||
[[HMS Hood (51)|HMS ''Hood'']], launched in 1918, was the last First World War battlecruiser to be completed. Owing to lessons from Jutland, ''Hood'' was modified during construction to feature belt armour that was thought to be capable of resisting her own weapons - the classic measure of a "balanced" battleship. ''Hood'' was the largest ship in the Royal Navy when completed; thanks to her great displacement, she in theory combined the firepower and armour of a battleship with the speed of a battlecruiser, causing some to refer to her as a fast battleship. However her protection was markedly less than that of the British battleships built immediately after World War I, the [[Nelson class battleship|Nelson class]]. |
|||
''Hood'', launched in 1918, was the last World War I battlecruiser to be completed. Owing to lessons from Jutland, the ship was modified during construction; the thickness of her belt armour was increased by an average of 50 percent and extended substantially, she was given heavier deck armour, and the protection of her magazines was improved to guard against the ignition of ammunition. This was hoped to be capable of resisting her own weapons—the classic measure of a "balanced" battleship. ''Hood'' was the largest ship in the Royal Navy when completed; because of her great displacement, in theory she combined the firepower and armour of a battleship with the speed of a battlecruiser, causing some to refer to her as a fast battleship. However, her protection was markedly less than that of the British battleships built immediately after World War I, the {{sclass|Nelson|battleship|4}}.<ref name="Breyer, p. 168"/> |
|||
[[File:Lexington class battlecruiser2.jpg|thumb|''Lexington'' class battlecruiser (painting, c. 1919)]] |
|||
The navies of Japan and the USA, seeing a threat from ''Hood'', laid down battlecruisers to rival her. The Imperial Japanese Navy began four ''Amagi'' class battlecruisers. These vessels would have been of unprecedented size and power, being as fast and well armoured as ''HMS Hood'' whilst carrying a main battery of ten 16" guns - the most powerful armament ever proposed for a battlecruiser. The United States Navy responded with the [[Lexington class battle cruiser|''Lexington'']] class battlecruisers, which if completed as planned would have been exceptionally fast and well armed with eight 16" guns, but would have carried armour little better than that of the very first battlecruisers. The final stage in the post-war battlecruiser race came with the British response to the ''Amagi'' and ''Lexington'' types: four 48,000 ton [[G3 battlecruiser]]s. Royal Navy documents of the period often described any [[battleship]] with a speed of over about 24 [[knot (speed)|knot]]s (44 km/h) as a battlecruiser, regardless of the amount of protective armour, although the G3 was considered by most to be a well-balanced fast battleship.<ref name="GWPDA">{{cite web | title=Origins and Development of the Battlecruiser | url=http://www.gwpda.org/naval/bcs001.htm | publisher=Great War Primary Documents Archive | accessdate=2006-06-25}}</ref><ref name="NHistory">{{cite web | title=Battleships, Battlecruisers & Monitors | url=http://www.naval-history.net/WW2RN24-BritishShipsBattleships.htm | publisher=Naval-History.net | accessdate=2006-06-25 |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20060613224926/http://www.naval-history.net/WW2RN24-BritishShipsBattleships.htm <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2006-06-13}}</ref> |
|||
[[File:Lexington class battlecruiser2.jpg|thumb|left|''Lexington''-class battlecruiser (painting, c. 1919)]] |
|||
The Washington Naval Treaty meant that none of these designs came to fruition. Those ships which had been started were either broken up on the slipway or converted into aircraft carriers. |
|||
The navies of Japan and the United States, not being affected immediately by the war, had time to develop new heavy {{convert|16|in|mm|adj=on}} guns for their latest designs and to refine their battlecruiser designs in light of combat experience in Europe. The Imperial Japanese Navy began four {{sclass|Amagi|battlecruiser|2}}s. These vessels would have been of unprecedented size and power, as fast and well armoured as ''Hood'' whilst carrying a main battery of ten 16-inch guns, the most powerful armament ever proposed for a battlecruiser. They were, for all intents and purposes, fast battleships—the only differences between them and the {{sclass|Tosa|battleship|2}}s which were to precede them were {{convert|1|in|mm|adj=off}} less side armour and a {{convert|.25|kn}} increase in speed.<ref>Breyer, p. 353</ref> The United States Navy, which had worked on its battlecruiser designs since 1913 and watched the latest developments in this class with great care, responded with the {{sclass|Lexington|battlecruiser|4}}. If completed as planned, they would have been exceptionally fast and well armed with eight 16-inch guns, but carried armour little better than the ''Invincible''s—this after an {{convert|8000|LT|t|adj=on}} increase in protection following Jutland.<ref>Breyer, p. 234</ref> The final stage in the post-war battlecruiser race came with the British response to the ''Amagi'' and ''Lexington'' types: four {{convert|48000|LT|t|adj=on}} [[G3 battlecruiser]]s. Royal Navy documents of the period often described any battleship with a speed of over about {{convert|24|kn}} as a battlecruiser, regardless of the amount of protective armour, although the G3 was considered by most to be a well-balanced fast battleship.<ref>Gardiner & Gray, pp. 41–42</ref> |
|||
In Japan, ''Amagi'' and |
The Washington Naval Treaty meant that none of these designs came to fruition. Ships that had been started were either broken up on the [[slipway]] or converted to aircraft carriers. In Japan, ''Amagi'' and {{ship|Japanese aircraft carrier|Akagi||2}} were selected for conversion. ''Amagi'' was damaged beyond repair by the [[1923 Great Kantō earthquake]] and was broken up for [[ship breaking|scrap]]; the hull of one of the proposed ''Tosa''-class battleships, {{ship|Japanese aircraft carrier|Kaga||2}}, was converted in her stead.<ref>Gardiner & Gray, p. 235</ref> The United States Navy also converted two battlecruiser hulls into aircraft carriers in the wake of the Washington Treaty: {{USS|Lexington|CV-2|6}} and {{USS|Saratoga|CV-3|6}}, although this was only considered marginally preferable to scrapping the hulls outright (the remaining four: ''Constellation'', ''Ranger'', ''Constitution'' and ''United States'' were scrapped).<ref>Gardiner & Gray, p. 119</ref> In Britain, Fisher's "large light cruisers," were converted to carriers. ''Furious'' had already been partially converted during the war and ''Glorious'' and ''Courageous'' were similarly converted.<ref>Gardiner & Gray, p. 40</ref> |
||
In Britain, Fisher's "large light cruisers" were converted to carriers. [[HMS Furious (1916)|''Furious'']] had already been converted to an aircraft carrier during the war and [[HMS Glorious (77)|''Glorious'']] and [[HMS Courageous (50)|''Courageous'']], which had no place in the post-Treaty navy, were similarly converted. |
|||
The [[United States Navy]] also re-tasked two battlecruiser hulls as aircraft carriers in the wake of the Washington Treaty: [[USS Lexington (CV-2)|USS ''Lexington'']] and [[USS Saratoga (CV-3)|''Saratoga'']] were both designed as battlecruisers (the hull designations were originally CC-1 and CC-3) but converted part-way through construction, although this was only considered marginally preferable to scrapping the hulls outright (the remaining four: ''Constellation'', ''Ranger'', ''Constitution'' and ''United States'' were indeed scrapped). |
|||
===Rebuilding programmes=== |
===Rebuilding programmes=== |
||
[[ |
[[File:HMS Repulse (1919) profile drawing.png|thumb|left|350px|''Repulse'' as she was in 1919]] |
||
[[File:HMS Renown (1939) profile drawing.png|thumb|left|350px|''Renown'', as reconstructed, in 1939]] |
|||
[[Image:HMS Renown (1939) profile drawing.png|thumb|left|350px|''Renown'', as reconstructed, in 1939]] |
|||
In total, nine battlecruisers survived the Washington Naval Treaty. Their high speed made them valuable surface units in spite of their weaknesses so most of these ships were significantly updated before World War II, although the Royal Navy sold ''HMS Tiger'' for scrap in 1932 on the grounds that she was worn out, and in addition, the Turks did not have the means to upgrade the ''Sultan Yavuz Selim'' (ex ''Goeben'' of the Imperial German Navy). |
|||
In total, nine battlecruisers survived the Washington Naval Treaty, although HMS ''Tiger'' later became a victim of the [[London Naval Conference 1930]] and was scrapped.<ref>Burt, p. 48</ref> Because their high speed made them valuable surface units in spite of their weaknesses, most of these ships were significantly updated before World War II. {{HMS|Renown|1916|2}} and {{HMS|Repulse|1916|2}} were modernized significantly in the 1920s and 1930s. Between 1934 and 1936, ''Repulse'' was partially modernized and had her [[bridge (nautical)|bridge]] modified, an aircraft [[hangar]], [[aircraft catapult|catapult]] and new gunnery equipment added and her anti-aircraft armament increased. ''Renown'' underwent a more thorough reconstruction between 1937 and 1939. Her deck armour was increased, new turbines and boilers were fitted, an aircraft hangar and catapult added and she was completely rearmed aside from the main guns which had their elevation increased to +30 degrees. The bridge structure was also removed and a large bridge similar to that used in the {{sclass|King George V|battleship (1939)|0}} battleships installed in its place. While conversions of this kind generally added weight to the vessel, ''Renown''{{'}}s tonnage actually decreased due to a substantially lighter power plant. Similar thorough rebuildings planned for ''Repulse'' and ''Hood'' were cancelled due to the advent of [[World War II]].<ref>Breyer, pp. 157–58, 172</ref> |
|||
[[HMS Renown (1916)|HMS ''Renown'']] and [[HMS Repulse (1916)|''Repulse'']] were modernized significantly in a series of refits between 1920 and 1939. Like several elderly British capital ships, the ''Renown'' underwent a total reconstruction between 1937 and 1939 to make her suitable for acting as a fast heavy escort warship for aircraft carriers. Similar rebuildings planned for the ''Repulse'' and the ''Hood'' were cancelled by the events of World War II. |
|||
Unable to build new ships, the Imperial Japanese Navy also chose to improve its existing battlecruisers of the ''Kongō'' class (initially the {{ship|Japanese battleship|Haruna||2}}, {{ship|Japanese battleship|Kirishima||2}}, and {{ship|Japanese battleship|Kongō||2}}—the {{ship|Japanese battleship|Hiei||2}} only later as it had been disarmed under the terms of the Washington treaty) in two substantial reconstructions (one for ''Hiei''). During the first of these, elevation of their main guns was increased to +40 degrees, [[anti-torpedo bulges]] and {{convert|3800|LT|t}} of horizontal armour added, and a "pagoda" mast with additional command positions built up. This reduced the ships' speed to {{convert|25.9|kn}}. The second reconstruction focused on speed as they had been selected as fast escorts for aircraft carrier task forces. Completely new main engines, a reduced number of boilers and an increase in hull length by {{convert|26|ft|m|1}} allowed them to reach up to 30 knots once again. They were reclassified as "fast battleships," although their armour and guns still fell short compared to surviving World War I–era battleships in the American or the British navies, with dire consequences during the [[Pacific War]], when ''Hiei'' and ''Kirishima'' were easily crippled by US gunfire during actions off Guadalcanal, forcing their scuttling shortly afterwards.<ref>Breyer, pp. 339–40</ref> Perhaps most tellingly, ''Hiei'' was crippled by medium-caliber gunfire from heavy and light cruisers in a close-range night engagement.<ref>Stille, pp. 19–20</ref> |
|||
[[Image:Kongo 1925-28.jpg|thumb|The [[Japanese battleship Kongo|''Kongo'']] as she appeared during the 20s, after conversion to a [[fast battleship]]]] |
|||
There were two exceptions: Turkey's ''Yavuz Sultan Selim'' and the Royal Navy's ''Hood''. The Turkish Navy made only minor improvements to the ship in the interwar period, which primarily focused on repairing wartime damage and the installation of new fire control systems and anti-aircraft batteries.<ref>Chesneau, p. 406</ref> ''Hood'' was in constant service with the fleet and could not be withdrawn for an extended reconstruction. She received minor improvements over the course of the 1930s, including modern fire control systems, increased numbers of anti-aircraft guns, and in March 1941, radar.<ref>Konstam, pp. 33–34</ref> |
|||
Unable to pursue new construction, the Imperial Japanese Navy also chose to improve its existing battlecruisers of the [[Japanese battleship Kongō|''Kongō'' class]] (the [[Japanese battleship Hiei|''Hiei'']], the [[Japanese battleship Haruna|''Haruna'']], the [[Japanese battleship Kirishima|''Kirishima'']], and the [[Japanese battleship Kongō|''Kongō'']]) by increasing the elevation of their guns to 40 degrees, adding anti-torpedo bulges and additional armour, and building on a "pagoda" mast. The 3,800 tons of additional armour slowed their speeds, but between 1933 and 1940, replacement of heavy equipment and an increase in the length of the hull by 26 ft (8.0 m) allowed them to reach up to {{convert|30|kn|km/h|-1}} once again. They were reclassified as "fast battleships" and their high speed made them suitable as aircraft carrier escorts, although their armour and guns still fell short compared to surviving World War I–era battleships in the American or the British navies. |
|||
===Naval rearmament=== |
===Naval rearmament=== |
||
In the late 1930s navies began to build capital ships again, and during this period number of large commerce raiders and small, fast battleships were built. |
In the late 1930s navies began to build capital ships again, and during this period a number of large commerce raiders and small, fast battleships were built that are sometimes referred to as battlecruisers. Germany and Russia designed new battlecruisers during this period, though only the latter laid down two of the 35,000-ton {{sclass|Kronshtadt|battlecruiser|4}}. They were still on the slipways when the Germans invaded in 1941 and construction was suspended. Both ships were scrapped after the war.<ref>McLaughlin 2004, pp. 112, 114</ref> |
||
Germany, Italy, France and Russia all designed new vessels in this category, though only Germany and France completed them.Ultimately the Italians chose to upgrade their old battleships rather than build new battlecruisers, whereas the Russians laid down the 35,000 ton ''[[Kronshtadt class battlecruiser|Kronshtadt]] ''Class, but were unable to launch them before the Germans invaded in 1941 and captured one of the hulls. The other Soviet ship was launched and scrapped after the war. |
|||
The German [[pocket battleships]] (German:''Panzerschiffe'' - ''armoured ship''), were ships built to meet the limitations of the [[Treaty of Versailles]] which forbad Germany from exceeding 10,000 tons or six 28.0 cm (11-inch) guns. While their 10,000-ton displacement was similar to that of a [[heavy cruiser]], their armament was more powerful; heavy cruisers were restricted to 8-inch guns by the [[Treaty of London]]. This intermediate status and their superficial appearance to battleships resulted in the term "pocket battleship". However, their mission was long-range commerce raiding and their capabilities were inferior to those of any battleship or battlecruiser. |
|||
The first German capital ships of the 1930s were [[German battlecruiser Scharnhorst|''Scharnhorst'']] and the [[German battlecruiser Gneisenau|''Gneisenau'']]. The Royal Navy categorized them as battlecruisers, while the German Navy referred to them as ''schlachtschiffe'' or battleship. At 31,500 tons standard displacement, they were intermediate in size between ''Repulse'' or ''Renown'' and the 35,000-ton limit for battleships. Their top speed of 33 knots exceeded that of existing battlecruisers and battleships and their armoured protection was modelled on that of a battleship. Their armament was light, for a capital ship; ''Scharnhorst'' and ''Gneisenau'' carried nine 280 mm (11-inch) gun turrets (though with provision to change to replace these with six 380 mm (15 inch)). Their design thus compromised on armament for high speed and strong protection. |
|||
[[Image:Dunkerque-206a4020.jpg|left|thumb|Plans of the French battlecruiser [[French battleship Dunkerque|''Dunkerque'']]]] |
|||
The French response to the "pocket battleships" was the [[French battleship Dunkerque|''Dunkerque'' class]] in the 1930s. Displacing 26,500 tons and armed with eight 330 mm (13 inch) guns arranged in two quadruple turrets located forward, they were significantly larger and more powerful than the pocket battleships. Their speed (30 knots) was in line with other fast battleships, and they were armoured as heavily as possible as their light displacement allowed. |
|||
The Germans planned three battlecruisers of the {{sclass2|O|battlecruiser|4}} as part of the expansion of the [[Kriegsmarine]] ([[Plan Z]]). With six 15-inch guns, high speed, excellent range, but very thin armour, they were intended as commerce raiders. Only one was ordered shortly before World War II; no work was ever done on it. No names were assigned, and they were known by their contract names: 'O', 'P', and 'Q'. The new class was not universally welcomed in the Kriegsmarine. Their abnormally-light protection gained it the derogatory nickname ''Ohne Panzer Quatsch'' (without armour nonsense) within certain circles of the Navy.<ref>Garzke & Dulin, pp. 353–54, 363; Gröner, p. 68</ref> |
|||
==World War II== |
==World War II== |
||
{{See also| List of battlecruisers of the Second World War}} |
|||
===Commerce raiding=== |
|||
The Royal Navy deployed some of its battlecruisers during the [[Norwegian Campaign]] in April 1940. The {{ship|German battleship|Gneisenau||2}} and the {{ship|German battleship|Scharnhorst||2}} were engaged during the [[action off Lofoten]] by ''Renown'' in very bad weather and disengaged after ''Gneisenau'' was damaged. One of ''Renown''{{'}}s 15-inch shells passed through ''Gneisenau''{{'}}s [[List of British ordnance terms#DCT|director-control tower]] without exploding, severing electrical and communication cables as it went and destroyed the [[rangefinders]] for the forward 150 mm (5.9 in) turrets. Main-battery fire control had to be shifted aft due to the loss of electrical power. Another shell from ''Renown'' knocked out ''Gneisenau''{{'}}s aft turret.<ref>Garzke & Dulin, pp. 135–36</ref> The British ship was struck twice by German shells that failed to inflict any significant damage.<ref>Burt, p. 243</ref> She was the only pre-war battlecruiser to survive the war.<ref>Chesneau, pp. 9, 173</ref> |
|||
In the early years of the war the German ships each had a measure of success hunting merchant ships in the [[Atlantic]]. The [[pocket battleships]] were deployed alone and sank a number of vessels, causing disruption to the trade routes which supplied the [[United Kingdom|UK]]. They were pursued by the [[Royal Navy]] and on one occasion, at the [[Battle of the River Plate]] in 1939, the hunter became the hunted. |
|||
In the early years of the war various German ships had a measure of success hunting merchant ships in the [[Atlantic Ocean|Atlantic]]. Allied battlecruisers such as ''Renown'', ''Repulse'', and the fast battleships ''Dunkerque'' and {{ship|French battleship|Strasbourg||2}} were employed on operations to hunt down the commerce-raiding German ships. The one stand-up fight occurred when the battleship {{ship|German battleship|Bismarck||2}} and the [[heavy cruiser]] {{ship|German cruiser|Prinz Eugen||2}} [[sortie]]d into the North Atlantic to attack British shipping and were intercepted by ''Hood'' and the battleship {{HMS|Prince of Wales|53|2}} in May 1941 in the [[Battle of the Denmark Strait]]. ''Hood'' was destroyed when the ''Bismarck''{{'}}s 15-inch shells caused a magazine explosion. Only three men survived.<ref>Whitley 1998, p. 127</ref> |
|||
''Admiral Graf Spee'' had been at sea at the start of World War II and engaged in a successful commerce raiding spree. Off the coast of South America, ''Admiral Graf Spee'' encountered the British heavy cruiser [[HMS Exeter (68)|''Exeter'']] and light cruisers [[HMNZS Achilles (70)|''Achilles'']] and [[HMS Ajax (22)|''Ajax'']]. ''Admiral Graf Spee'' inflicted heavy damage on ''Exeter'' but in turn suffered considerable topside damage from the light cruisers. The pocket battleship's armour mostly held, but she sustained several critical hits which would have made the ship unseaworthy for returning to Germany, and she was forced to retire to neutral [[Uruguay]]. Unable to stay in port any longer without internment, and led to believe by the nature of British radio transmissions that aircraft carriers and {{convert|15|in|mm|0|sing=on}} gunned battlecruisers were too close to evade, her captain elected to scuttle his ship, and then accepted responsibility for its destruction by committing suicide. |
|||
The first battlecruiser to see action in the Pacific War was ''Repulse'' when [[Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse|she was sunk]] by Japanese [[torpedo bomber]]s north of [[Singapore]] on 10 December 1941 whilst in company with ''Prince of Wales''. She was lightly damaged by a single {{convert|250|kg|adj=on}} bomb and near-missed by two others in the first Japanese attack. Her speed and agility enabled her to avoid the other attacks by level bombers and dodge 33 torpedoes. The last group of torpedo bombers attacked from multiple directions and ''Repulse'' was struck by five torpedoes. She quickly [[capsized]] with the loss of 27 officers and 486 crewmen; 42 officers and 754 enlisted men were rescued by the escorting destroyers.<ref>Shores, Cull & Izawa, pp. 116–21, 123</ref> The loss of ''Repulse'' and ''Prince of Wales'' conclusively proved the vulnerability of capital ships to aircraft without air cover of their own.<ref>Osborne, pp. 127–28</ref> |
|||
Allied battlecruisers such as {{HMS|Renown|1916|2}}, {{HMS|Repulse|1916|2}}, ''Dunkerque'' and [[French battleship Strasbourg|''Strasbourg'']] were employed on operations to hunt down the commerce raiding German battlecruisers, but they rarely got close to their targets, ''Renown'' enjoying a brief clash against the German 11-inch battlecruisers, scoring three non-critical hits on ''Gneisenau'' but being unable to keep up in bad weather. The one stand-up fight was when the battleship [[German battleship Bismarck|''Bismarck'']] was sent out as a raider and was intercepted by {{HMS|Hood|51|6}} and the battleship {{HMS|Prince of Wales|1939|2}} in May 1941. The elderly British battlecruiser was no match for the modern German battleship and the ''Bismarck''{{'}}s 15 inch shells caused a magazine explosion in ''Hood'' reminiscent of the Battle of Jutland. Only three men survived. |
|||
The Japanese ''Kongō''-class battlecruisers were extensively used as carrier escorts for most of their wartime career due to their high speed. Their World War I–era armament was weaker and their upgraded armour was still thin compared to contemporary battleships. On 13 November 1942, during the [[First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal]], ''Hiei'' stumbled across American cruisers and destroyers at [[point-blank range]]. The ship was badly damaged in the encounter and had to be towed by her [[sister ship]] ''Kirishima''. Both were spotted by American aircraft the following morning and ''Kirishima'' was forced to cast off her tow because of repeated aerial attacks. ''Hiei''{{'}}s captain ordered her crew to abandon ship after further damage and [[scuttled]] ''Hiei'' in the early evening of 14 November.<ref name=hiei>{{Cite web |url= http://www.combinedfleet.com/hiei2.htm |title=IJN Hiei: Tabular Record of Movement |last1=Hackett |first1=Bob |last2=Kingsepp |first2=Sander |last3=Ahlberg |first3=Lars |year=2010 |publisher=Combinedfleet.com |access-date=6 June 2013}}</ref> On the night of 14/15 November during the [[Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal]], ''Kirishima'' returned to [[Ironbottom Sound]], but encountered the American battleships {{USS|South Dakota|BB-57|2}} and {{USS|Washington|BB-56|2}}. While failing to detect ''Washington'', ''Kirishima'' engaged ''South Dakota'' with some effect. ''Washington'' opened fire a few minutes later at short range and badly damaged ''Kirishima'', knocking out her aft turrets, jamming her rudder, and hitting the ship below the waterline. The flooding proved to be uncontrollable and ''Kirishima'' capsized three and a half hours later.<ref name=kiri>{{Cite web |url=http://www.combinedfleet.com/Kirishima.htm |title=IJN Kirishima: Tabular Record of Movement |last1=Hackett |first1=Bob |last2=Kingsepp |first2=Sander |last3=Ahlberg|first3=Lars|year=2010|publisher=Combinedfleet.com|access-date=6 June 2013}}</ref> |
|||
[[German battleship Gneisenau|''Gneisenau'']] and [[German battleship Scharnhorst|''Scharnhorst'']] hunted together and were initially successful at commerce raiding, sinking the British [[armed merchant cruiser]] {{HMS|Rawalpindi||2}} in 1939. Following repairs from damage during the [[Norwegian campaign]], the two battlecruisers set out commerce raiding once again in 1941 and sank 22 merchant ships. They returned to [[Brest, France|Brest]] in northern France but found this port was vulnerable to [[Royal Air Force]] attacks and were obliged to return to Germany. They did so in the [[Channel Dash]], a daring and successful run up the [[English Channel]]. They were both damaged by mines and although ''Scharnhorst'' was repaired, ''Gneisenau'' was damaged again in [[Royal Air Force|RAF]] bombing raids and was eventually disarmed and sunk as a blockship. ''Scharnhorst'' was employed once more to attack commerce and attempted to raid the [[Arctic convoys of World War II|Arctic convoys]] in December 1943. She was surprised by the battleship {{HMS|Duke of York|17|2}} with the cruisers {{HMS|Jamaica|C44|2}}, {{HMS|Norfolk|78|2}} and {{HMS|Belfast||2}} at the [[Battle of North Cape]] and sunk on 26 December 1943. The {{convert|14|in|mm|0|sing=on}} gunfire from ''Duke of York'' crippled her turrets and engine room, then the attendant British cruisers and destroyers closed in and finished her off with torpedoes. |
|||
Returning to Japan after the [[Battle of Leyte Gulf]], ''Kongō'' was torpedoed and sunk by the American submarine {{USS|Sealion II|SS-315|2}} on 21 November 1944.<ref name=j5/> ''Haruna'' was moored at [[Kure, Hiroshima|Kure]], Japan when the [[Bombing of Kure (July 1945)|naval base was attacked]] by American carrier aircraft on 24 and 28 July 1945. The ship was only lightly damaged by a single bomb hit on 24 July, but was hit a dozen more times on 28 July and sank at her [[pier]]. She was refloated after the war and scrapped in early 1946.<ref name=har>{{Cite web |url= http://www.combinedfleet.com/haruna.htm|title=IJN Haruna: Tabular Record of Movement|last1=Hackett|first1=Bob|last2=Kingsepp|first2=Sander|last3=Ahlberg|first3=Lars|year=2012|publisher=Combinedfleet.com|access-date=6 June 2013}}</ref> |
|||
The use of battlecruisers as commerce raiders was curtailed following an attack by the [[German pocket battleship Admiral Scheer|''Admiral Scheer'']] on a convoy guarded by the [[HMS Jervis Bay (F40)|HMS ''Jervis Bay'']], an [[armed merchant cruiser]]. It persuaded the British [[Admiralty]] that convoys had to be guarded by battleships or battlecruisers. The older R-class battleships and the un-upgraded ''Queen Elizabeth''s ([[HMS Malaya|''Malaya'']] and [[HMS Barham (04)|''Barham'']]) were used for this task, for which they were quite adequate despite their age, and subsequently the smaller German ships were forced away from their quarry. Additionally, the air gap over the North Atlantic closed, [[Huff-Duff]] (radio triangulation equipment) improved, airborne [[History of radar#World War II Radar|centimetric radar]] was introduced and convoys received [[escort aircraft carrier|escort carrier]] protection. The results of some of these developments were illustrated by the successful defence of convoys at the [[Battle of the Barents Sea]] and the [[Battle of the North Cape]]. |
|||
===Large cruisers or "cruiser killers"=== |
|||
By comparison with the critical role of submarines during the [[Battle of the North Atlantic]] the commerce-raiding role of battlecruisers was marginal in its impact on the outcome of the war. |
|||
{{Further|Design 1047 battlecruiser|Alaska-class cruiser|Design B-65 cruiser}} |
|||
{{See also|List of cruisers of the United States Navy#Large cruisers (CB)}} |
|||
[[File:USS Alaska (CB-1) off the Philadelphia Navy Yard on 30 July 1944.jpg|thumb|{{USS|Alaska|CB-1|6}}, one of the [[United States Navy]]'s two "large cruisers"]] |
|||
A late renaissance in popularity of ships between battleships and cruisers in size occurred on the eve of World War II. Described by some as battlecruisers, but never classified as capital ships, they were variously described as "super cruisers", "large cruisers" or even "unrestricted cruisers". The Dutch, American, and Japanese navies all planned these new classes specifically to counter the heavy cruisers, or their counterparts, being built by their naval rivals.<ref>Chesneau, p. 388; Garzke & Dulin, p. 86; Friedman 1984, p. 288; McLaughlin 2006, p. 104</ref> |
|||
===Norwegian campaign=== |
|||
The Royal Navy and the [[Kriegsmarine]] both deployed battlecruisers during the Norwegian campaign in April 1940. The [[German battlecruiser Gneisenau|''Gneisenau'']] and the [[German battlecruiser Scharnhorst|''Scharnhorst'']] were engaged by [[HMS Renown (1916)|HMS ''Renown'']]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bobhenneman.info/bhrsg.htm|title=Renown Vs Scharnhorst and Gneisenau|accessdate=2008-07-18 |last= Henneman |first= Bob |authorlink= |year= |publisher= }}</ref> in appalling weather and although they had stronger armour than their counterpart, the British ship could hit them harder and at a longer range due to the German ships having difficulty with their radars. They disengaged after ''Gneisenau'' sustained damage. One of ''Renown'''s 15-inch shells passed through Gneisenau's director tower without exploding, severing electrical and communication cables as it went. The debris caused by the passing shell killed one officer and five enlisted men, and destroyed the optical rangefinder for the forward 150 mm turrets. Main battery fire control had to be shifted aft due to the loss of electrical power to the director tower. The second shell from ''Renown'' struck the aft turret of ''Gneisenau'', knocking it out of action. |
|||
The first such battlecruisers were the Dutch [[Design 1047 battlecruiser|Design 1047]], designed to protect their colonies in the [[Dutch East Indies|East Indies]] in the face of Japanese aggression. Never officially assigned names, these ships were designed with German and Italian assistance. While they broadly resembled the German ''Scharnhorst'' class and had the same main battery, they would have been more lightly armoured and only protected against eight-inch gunfire. Although the design was mostly completed, work on the vessels never commenced as the Germans overran the Netherlands in May 1940. The first ship would have been laid down in June of that year.<ref>Noot, pp. 243, 249, 268</ref> |
|||
Later in the campaign they returned and sank the light aircraft carrier [[HMS Glorious|HMS ''Glorious'']] (a converted battlecruiser herself) and her destroyer escort. One of the destroyers ([[HMS Acasta (H09)|HMS ''Acasta'']]) succeeded in damaging the ''Scharnhorst'' with a torpedo, and later a submarine did the same to ''Gneisenau'', forcing both ships to spend several months in repair. The [[pocket battleship]] [[German pocket battleship Deutschland|''Lützow'']] was similarly damaged by [[HMS Spearfish (69S)|HMS ''Spearfish'']] during the campaign. |
|||
The only class of these late battlecruisers actually built were the United States Navy's {{sclass|Alaska|cruiser|0}} "large cruisers". Two of them were completed, {{USS|Alaska|CB-1|2}} and {{USS|Guam|CB-2|2}}; a third, {{USS|Hawaii|CB-3|2}}, was cancelled while under construction and three others, to be named ''Philippines'', ''Puerto Rico'' and ''Samoa'', were cancelled before they were laid down. They were classified as "large cruisers" instead of battlecruisers. These ships were named after territories or protectorates. (Battleships, were named after states and cruisers after cities.) With a main armament of nine 12-inch guns in three triple turrets and a displacement of {{convert|27000|LT|t}}, the ''Alaska''s were twice the size of {{sclass|Baltimore|cruiser|2}}s and had guns some 50% larger in diameter. They lacked the thick armoured belt and intricate torpedo defence system of true capital ships. However, unlike most battlecruisers, they were considered a balanced design according to cruiser standards as their protection could withstand fire from their own caliber of gun, albeit only in a very narrow range band. They were designed to hunt down Japanese heavy cruisers, though by the time they entered service most Japanese cruisers had been sunk by American aircraft or submarines.<ref>Friedman 1984, pp. 288–89, 296, 301–02</ref> Like the contemporary {{sclass|Iowa|battleship|0}} fast battleships, their speed ultimately made them more useful as carrier escorts and bombardment ships than as the surface combatants they were developed to be.<ref>Whitley 1995, pp. 278–79</ref> |
|||
===Mediterranean=== |
|||
The French battlecruisers had fled to North Africa following the [[Battle of France|fall of France]]. In July 1940 [[Force H]] under Admiral [[James Somerville (admiral)|James Somerville]] was ordered to force their surrender or destroy them. The ''Dunkerque'' was damaged by shells from HMS ''Hood'' at [[Mers-el-Kebir]] but escaped to join the ''Strasbourg'' at [[Toulon]]. Both ships were scuttled on 27 November 1942, although ''Strasbourg'' was raised and used by the Italian navy before being sunk again in an air attack on 18 August 1944. |
|||
The Japanese started designing the B64 class, which was similar to the ''Alaska'' but with {{convert|310|mm|1|adj=on}} guns. News of the ''Alaska''s led them to upgrade the design, creating [[Design B-65 cruiser|Design B-65]]. Armed with 356 mm guns, the B65s would have been the best armed of the new breed of battlecruisers, but they still would have had only sufficient protection to keep out eight-inch shells. Much like the Dutch, the Japanese got as far as completing the design for the B65s, but never laid them down. By the time the designs were ready the Japanese Navy recognized that they had little use for the vessels and that their priority for construction should lie with aircraft carriers. Like the ''Alaska''s, the Japanese did not call these ships battlecruisers, referring to them instead as super-heavy cruisers.<ref>Jentschura, Jung & Mickel, p. 40; Garzke & Dulin, pp. 86–87</ref> |
|||
===Pacific War=== |
|||
The first battlecruiser to see action in the Pacific War was [[HMS Repulse (1916)|''Repulse'']] when she was sunk near [[Singapore]] on December 10, 1941 whilst in company with [[HMS Prince of Wales (1939)|HMS ''Prince of Wales'']]. She had received a refit to give extra anti-aircraft protection and extra armour between the wars. Unlike her sister ''Renown'', ''Repulse'' did not receive a full rebuild as planned, which would have added [[Anti-torpedo bulge|anti-torpedo blisters]]. During the [[Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse|Sea Battle off Malaya]], her speed and agility enabled her to hold her own and dodge nineteen torpedoes. Without aerial cover she eventually succumbed to the continuous waves of Japanese bombers, and without enhanced underwater protection she went down quickly after a few torpedo hits. |
|||
==Cold War–era designs== |
|||
The Japanese ''Kongō'' class battlecruisers were significantly upgraded and re-rated as "fast battleships", and they were used extensively as carrier escorts for most of their wartime career due to their high speed. Their World War I-era armament was weaker and their upgraded armour was still thin compared to contemporary battleships.<ref name="navweaps.com">[http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf]</ref> During the [[Naval Battle of Guadalcanal]] on 12 November the [[Japanese battleship Hiei|''Hiei'']] was sent out to bombard US positions. She suffered extensive topside damage from gunfire of US cruisers and destroyers, but, more critically, her steering gear was incapacitated by an 8-inch shell. The next day, ''Hiei'' was attacked by waves of aircraft from Guadalcanal’s American held airfield ([[Henderson Field (Guadalcanal)|Henderson Field]]), which eventually made salvage impossible, and so she was left to sink north of [[Savo Island]]. A few days later on 15 November 1942, [[Japanese battleship Kirishima|''Kirishima'']] engaged the U.S. battleships [[USS South Dakota (BB-57)|''South Dakota'']] and [[USS Washington (BB-56)|''Washington'']], and was sunk following mortal damage from at least nine 16-inch hits inflicted by the ''Washington'', which disabled her forward main turrets, jammed her steering, and holed her below the waterline.<ref name="navweaps.com"/> In contrast ''South Dakota'' survived 42 hits (including only one 14-inch hit, but many 8-in. heavy cruiser shells), all to her superstructure, and was back in operation four months later. The [[Japanese battleship Kongō|''Kongō'']] survived the [[Battle of Leyte Gulf]], but she was sunk on 21 November 1944 in the [[Formosa Strait]] by three [[torpedo]]es from the [[U.S. Navy]] [[submarine]] ''[[USS Sealion (SS-315)]]''. The [[Japanese battleship Haruna|''Haruna'']] was involved in bombardment operations at [[Guadalcanal]], the [[Battle of the Philippine Sea]], and the [[Battle of Leyte Gulf]]. She was attacked by American carrier aircraft of [[Task Force 38]] and [[USAAF]] [[B-24 Liberator]] bombers while at [[Kure, Hiroshima|Kure]] IJN naval base on 28 July 1945 and sank at her moorings. |
|||
[[File:Kirov-class battlecruiser.jpg|thumb|right|250px|''Admiral Lazarev'', formerly ''Frunze'', the second ship of her class]] |
|||
In spite of the fact that most navies abandoned the battleship and battlecruiser concepts after World War II, [[Joseph Stalin]]'s fondness for big-gun-armed warships caused the Soviet Union to plan a large cruiser class in the late 1940s. In the [[Soviet Navy]], they were termed "heavy cruisers" (''tjazholyj krejser'').<ref>McLaughlin 2006, p. 104</ref> The fruits of this program were the [[Stalingrad-class battlecruiser|Project 82 (''Stalingrad'')]] cruisers, of {{convert|36500|t|LT}} standard load, nine {{convert|305|mm|in|0|abbr=on}} guns and a speed of {{convert|35|kn}}. Three ships were laid down in 1951–1952, but they were cancelled in April 1953 after Stalin's death. Only the central armoured hull section of the first ship, ''Stalingrad'', was launched in 1954 and then used as a target.<ref>McLaughlin 2006, pp. 116, 121–22</ref> |
|||
The Soviet {{sclass|Kirov|battlecruiser|4}} is sometimes referred to as a battlecruiser.<ref>Gardiner, Chumbley & Budzbon, p. 328</ref> This description arises from their over {{convert|24000|t|LT|adj=on}} displacement, which is roughly equal to that of a First World War battleship and more than twice the displacement of contemporary cruisers; upon entry into service, ''Kirov'' was the largest [[surface combatant]] to be built since World War II.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russia-to-relaunch-soviet-era-nuclear-battle-cruiser-in-2018-40473 |title=Russia to Relaunch Soviet-era Nuclear Battle Cruiser in 2018 |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=16 October 2014 |website=Moscow Times |access-date=13 September 2016 }}</ref> The ''Kirov'' class lacks the armour that distinguishes battlecruisers from ordinary cruisers and they are classified as heavy nuclear-powered missile cruisers (''Тяжелый Атомный Ракетный Крейсер'' (ТАРКР)) by Russia, with their primary surface armament consisting of twenty [[P-700 Granit]] surface to surface missiles. Four members of the class were completed during the 1980s and 1990s, but due to budget constraints only the {{ship|Russian battlecruiser|Pyotr Velikiy||2}} is operational with the [[Russian Navy]], though plans were announced in 2010 to return the other three ships to service. As of 2021, {{ship|Russian battlecruiser|Admiral Nakhimov||2}} was being refitted, but the other two ships are reportedly beyond economical repair.<ref>Saunders, p. 674</ref><ref name="Naval News 1">{{Cite web|url=https://zen.yandex.ru/media/navynews/rossiia-poluchit-vtoroi-atomnyi-kreisergigant-5e85942a4dc6b06f644dc5d2|title=Россия получит второй атомный крейсер-гигант|website=Яндекс Дзен {{!}} Платформа для авторов, издателей и брендов|language=ru|access-date=2 April 2020}}</ref> |
|||
==Large cruisers or "cruiser killers"== |
|||
[[Image:Uss alaska cb.jpg|thumb|left|[[USS Alaska (CB-1)|USS ''Alaska'']], one of the [[United States Navy]]'s two "large cruisers"]] |
|||
==Operators== |
|||
{{See also|Alaska class cruiser|Design 1047 battlecruiser}} |
|||
* {{navy|Russia}} operates one {{sclass|Kirov|battlecruiser|2}} with one more being overhauled. |
|||
On the eve of World War II, there was a late renaissance in popularity of ships between battleships and cruisers. While some considered them battlecruisers, they were never classified as capital ships, and they were variously described as "super-cruisers", "large cruisers" or even "unrestricted cruisers". They were optimised as cruiser-killers, fleet scouts and commerce raiders. The Dutch, Japanese, Soviets and Americans all planned new classes specifically to counter the large heavy cruisers being built by their naval rivals - especially the Japanese ''[[Mogami class cruiser|Mogami]]'' class cruisers. The Germans also designed a class of lightly protected battlecruisers. |
|||
===Former operators=== |
|||
The first such battlecruisers were the Dutch [[Design 1047 battlecruiser|Design 1047]]. Never officially assigned names, the Dutch wanted them to protect their colonies in the [[Dutch East Indies|East Indies]] in the face of Japanese aggression. Designed with the assistance of the Germans and Italians, they broadly resembled the German ''Scharnhorst'' class and had the same main battery, but would have been considerably lighter and only protected against {{convert|8|in|mm|0|sing=on}} gunfire. Although the design was completed, work on the vessels never commenced as the Germans overran the Netherlands in May 1940, while the first ship would have been laid down in June of that year. |
|||
* {{navy|German Empire}} five surviving battlecruisers were all scuttled at Scapa Flow in 1919. |
|||
[[File:CB-1 Alaska Outboard Profile.png|thumb|right|Drawing of the ''Alaska class'']] |
|||
* {{naval|Australia|1913}} decommissioned its only battlecruiser [[HMAS Australia (1911)|HMAS ''Australia'']] in 1921. |
|||
* {{navy|Empire of Japan}} upgraded its {{sclass|Kongo|battlecruiser|2}}s into fast-battleships in the 1930s, ending their operation of battlecruisers. |
|||
* {{navy|United Kingdom}} last battlecruiser, [[HMS Renown (1916)|HMS ''Renown'']] was decommissioned in 1945, following World War II. |
|||
* {{naval|United States|1912}} two [[Alaska-class cruiser|''Alaska''-class battlecruiser]]s were both decommissioned in 1947. |
|||
* {{naval|Turkey}} decommissioned its only battlecruiser [[SMS Goeben|TCG ''Yavuz'']] in 1950. |
|||
==See also== |
|||
The Germans planned to build three battlecruisers of the [[O Class battlecruiser|O Class]] as part of the expansion of the [[Kriegsmarine]] ([[Plan Z]]). With six 15 inch (38 cm) guns, high speed, excellent range but very thin armour, they were intended as commerce raiders. Only one of these was ordered shortly before World War II broke out and no work was ever done on it. No names were assigned, and they were known as ''O'', ''P'', and ''Q''. The new class was not universally welcomed in the Kriegsmarine, their abnormally light protection gaining the class the derogatory nickname ''Ohne Panzer Quatsch'' (without armour nonsense) within certain circles of the Navy. |
|||
* [[List of battlecruisers]] |
|||
* [[List of battlecruisers of World War I]] |
|||
* [[List of battlecruisers of World War II]] |
|||
* [[List of ships of the Second World War]] |
|||
* [[List of sunken battlecruisers]] |
|||
==Footnotes== |
|||
The only class of these late battlecruisers to be laid down were the United States Navy's three [[Alaska class cruiser|''Alaska'' class]] "large cruisers", [[USS Alaska (CB-1)|''Alaska'']], [[USS Guam (CB-2)|''Guam'']] and [[USS Hawaii (CB-3)|''Hawaii'']] - of which only ''Alaska'' and ''Guam'' were completed. The ''Alaskas'' were classified as "large cruisers" instead of battlecruisers, and their status as non-capital ships is evidenced by the fact that they were named for territories or protectorates (as opposed to battleships, which were named after states, or cruisers, which were commonly named after cities). But with a main armament of nine twelve-inch (305 mm) guns in three triple turrets and a displacement of 27,000 tons, the ''Alaskas'' were twice the size of the preceding [[Baltimore class cruiser|''Baltimore'' class]] cruisers and had guns some 50% larger in diameter. They lacked the thick armoured belt and torpedo defense system of true capital ships and, unlike most battlecruisers, they were considered a balanced design (according to cruiser standards) as their protection could withstand fire from their own caliber of gun, albeit only in a very narrow range band. They were designed to hunt down Japanese heavy cruisers, though by the time they entered service most Japanese cruisers had been sunk by American aircraft or submarines. Like the contemporary [[Iowa class battleship|''Iowa''-class]] fast battleships, their speed ultimately made them more useful as carrier escorts and bombardment ships than as the sea combatants they were developed to be. ''Hawaii'' was 84% complete when hostilities ceased, and was laid up for years while various plans were debated to convert her large hull into a missile ship or a command vessel; she would eventually be scrapped incomplete.<ref name="Hawaii DANFS">{{cite DANFS | title = Hawaii | url = http://hazegray.org/danfs/cruisers/cb3.txt | accessdate=14 October 2008}}</ref> Three additional hulls, to be named ''Philippines'', ''Puerto Rico'' and ''Samoa'', were cancelled outright. |
|||
===Notes=== |
|||
The Japanese started designing the B64 class, which were similar to the ''Alaska'' but with {{convert|12.2|in|mm|0|sing=on}} guns. News of the ''Alaskas'' led them to upgrade the design, creating the B65. Armed with {{convert|14|in|mm|0|sing=on}} guns, the B65's would have been the best armed of the new breed of battlecruisers, but they still would have had only sufficient protection to keep out 8-inch shells. Much like the Dutch battlecruisers, the Japanese got as far as completing the design for the B65s, but never laid them down. By the time the designs were ready the Japanese Navy recognised that they had little use for the vessels and that their priority for construction should lie with aircraft carriers. Like the ''Alaska''s, the Japanese did not call these ships battlecruisers, referring to them instead as supersized heavy cruisers. |
|||
{{Reflist|group=Note}} |
|||
== |
=== Citations === |
||
{{Reflist|20em}} |
|||
In spite of the fact that World War II had demonstrated battleships and battlecruisers to be generally obsolete, [[Joseph Stalin]]'s fondness for big gun armed warships caused the [[Soviet Union]] to plan several large cruiser classes in the late 1940s and early 1950s that would be a response for the ''Alaska'' class vessels. In the [[Soviet Union]], as in many other languages, they were called "heavy cruisers" (''thyazholyi kreyser''). |
|||
The fruits of this program were the [[Stalingrad Class Battlecruiser|project 82 (''Stalingrad'')]] cruisers, with 36,500 tons standard load (42,300 tons full load), 9 guns 305 mm and a speed of {{convert|35|kn|km/h|0}}. Three ships were laid in 1951–52, but after Stalin's death they were canceled in April 1953. Apart from high costs, the main reason was that gun-armed ships became obsolete with an advent of guided missiles. Only a central armoured hull section of the first cruiser ''Stalingrad'' was launched in 1954 and then used as a target for rockets. |
|||
[[Image:Kirov-class battlecruiser.jpg|thumb|right|250px|''Admiral Lazarev'', formerly the ''Frunze'', the second ship of her class of battlecruiser]] |
|||
The Soviet [[Kirov class battlecruiser|''Kirov'' class]] of ''Tyazholyy Atomnyy Raketny Kreyser'' (Heavy Nuclear-powered Missile Cruiser), displacing approximately 26,000 tons, is classified as a battlecruiser in the 1996–7 edition of ''[[Jane's Fighting Ships]]'', even though in actuality they are very large missile cruisers. Their classification as battlecruisers arises from their displacement, which is roughly equal to that of a World War I [[battleship]], and the fact that they possess more firepower than nearly every other surface ship. The ''Kirov''-class lacks the heavy armour that distinguishes battlecruisers from regular cruisers and they are classified as "heavy missile cruisers" in [[Russia]]. There were four members of the class completed, [[Soviet battlecruiser Kirov|''Kirov'']], [[Soviet battlecruiser Frunze|''Frunze'']], [[Soviet battlecruiser Kalinin|''Kalinin'']], and [[RFS Pyotr Velikiy|''Yuri Andropov'']]. As the ships were named after Communist personalities, after the fall of the USSR they were given traditional names of the Imperial Russian Navy, respectively ''Admiral Ushakov'', ''Admiral Lazarev'', ''Admiral Nakhimov'', and ''Pyotr Velikiy''. Due to budget constraints two members of this class have been decommissioned, although ''Pyotr Velikiy'' and ''Admiral Nakhimov'' are in active service and funds are being gathered for possible repair of ''Admiral Lazarev''. ''Nakhimov'' was returned to service early, at the beginning of 2006, possibly due to increasing tensions in the [[Middle East]] and potential Russian naval involvement therein. |
|||
==See also== |
|||
{{Commons category|Battlecruisers}} |
|||
* [[List of sunken battlecruisers]] |
|||
* [[Protected cruiser]] |
|||
* [[Armoured cruiser]] |
|||
* [[Light cruiser]] |
|||
* [[Cruiser]] |
|||
* [[List of cruisers]] |
|||
* [[Crossing the T]] |
|||
==Notes== |
|||
{{Reflist|2}} |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
* {{cite book | last = Bidlingmaier | first = Gerhard | title = Warship Profile 4 | year = 1971 | location = Windsor, UK | publisher = Profile Publications | oclc = 20229321 | chapter = KM Admiral Graf Spee | pages = 73–96 }} |
|||
*Bonney, George ''The Battle of Jutland 1916'' Sutton Publishing, 2006. ISBN 978-0750941785 |
|||
*Breyer |
* {{cite book |last1=Breyer|first1=Siegfried|title=Battleships and Battle Cruisers 1905–1970|year=1973|location=Garden City, New York|publisher=Doubleday|isbn=978-0-385-07247-2}} |
||
* |
* {{cite book|title=Dreadnought Gunnery at the Battle of Jutland: The Question of Fire Control |last=Brooks|first=John|year=2005|publisher=Routledge, Frank Cass Publishers|location=London|isbn=0-7146-5702-6}} |
||
* {{cite book|last=Brown|first=David K.|title=The Grand Fleet: Warship Design and Development 1906–1922|publisher=Caxton Editions|location=London|year=2003|edition=reprint of the 1999|isbn=1-84067-531-4}} |
|||
*Burr, Lawrence ''British Battlecruisers 1914–1918 (New Vanguard)'' Osprey Publishing, 2006. ISBN 978-1846030086 |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Brown|first=David K.|title=Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Development 1860–1905|edition=reprint of the 1997|year=2003|publisher=Caxton Editions|location=London|isbn=1-84067-529-2}} |
|||
*Hough, Richard ''Dreadnought: A History of the Modern Battleship'' MacMillan Publishing Company, 1975. ISBN 978-0025544208 |
|||
* {{cite book |last=Burr|first=Lawrence|title=British Battlecruisers 1914–1918|year=2006|location=Oxford, UK|publisher=Osprey Publishing|isbn= 978-1-84603-008-6}} |
|||
*Ireland, Bernard, and Tony Gibbons ''Jane's Battleships of the 20th Century'' New York: HarperCollins, 1996. ISBN 0-00-470997-7 Also covers battlecruisers |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Burt|first=R. A.|title=British Battleships, 1919–1939|year=2012|edition=2nd|publisher=Naval Institute Press|location=Annapolis, Maryland|isbn=978-1-59114-052-8}} |
|||
*Lambert, Nicholas. "Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution" (Studies in Maritime History). New Edition. (University of South Carolina Press, 2002). ISBN 978-1570034923. An important account; use with Sumida, below. |
|||
* {{cite book|title=Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922–1946|editor1-last=Chesneau|editor1-first=Roger|publisher=Conway Maritime Press|location=Greenwich, UK|year=1980|isbn=0-85177-146-7}} |
|||
*Massie, Robert K, ''Dreadnought,'' Jonathan Cape, London, 1992. |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Churchill|first=Winston|author-link=Winston Churchill|title=The Second World War: The Gathering Storm|year=1986|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Company|location=Boston, Massachusetts|isbn=0-395-41055-X|url=https://archive.org/details/gatheringstorm00chur_0}} |
|||
*Mackay, Ruddock F. ''Fisher of Kilverstone''. Oxford University Press, London, 1973. |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Evans|first1=David C.|first2=Mark R.|last2=Peattie|year=1997|title=Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887–1941|publisher=Naval Institute Press|location=Annapolis, Maryland|isbn=0-87021-192-7|name-list-style=amp}} |
|||
*Miller, David. ''The Illustrated Directory of Warships: from 1860 to the Present Day''. London: Salamander, 2001 ISBN 0-86288-677-5 |
|||
* {{cite book |last=Friedman|first=Norman|author-link=Norman Friedman| title=Naval Firepower: Battleship Guns and Gunnery in the Dreadnought Era|publisher= Naval Institute Press|location=Annapolis, Maryland |year=2008| isbn=978-1-59114-555-4}} |
|||
*Osborne, Eric. ''Cruisers and Battle Cruisers: An illustrated history of their impact''. ABC CLIO, 2004. ISBN 1851093699 |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Friedman|first=Norman|title=U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History|publisher=Naval Institute Press|location=Annapolis, Maryland|year=1984|isbn=0-87021-718-6}} |
|||
*Roberts, John ''Battlecruisers'', Chatham Publishing, London, 1997. |
|||
* {{cite book|editor=Gardiner, Robert|title=The Eclipse of the Big Gun: The Warship 1906–45|orig-year=1992|series=Conway's History of the Ship|year=2001|publisher=Chartwell Books|location=Edison, New Jersey|isbn=0-7858-1414-0|oclc=51940554}} |
|||
*Staff, Gary ''German Battlecruisers 1914-18 (New Vanguard)'' Osprey Publishing, 2006. ISBN 978-1846030093 |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Gardiner|first1=Robert|last2=Chumbley|first2=Stephen|last3=Budzbon|first3=Przemysław|title=Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1947–1995|year=1995|publisher=Naval Institute Press|location=Annapolis, Maryland|isbn=1-55750-132-7|name-list-style=amp}} |
|||
*Sondhaus, Lawrence ''Naval Warfare 1815–1914''. Routledge, London, 2001. ISBN 0-415-21478-5 |
|||
* {{cite book|editor1-last=Gardiner|editor1-first=Robert|editor2-last=Gray|editor2-first=Randal|title=Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906–1921|year=1985|location=Annapolis, Maryland|publisher=Naval Institute Press|isbn=0-87021-907-3|name-list-style=amp}} |
|||
*Sumida, Jon T. "In Defense of Naval Supremacy: Financial Limitation, Technological Innovation and British Naval Policy, 1889–1914". (Routledge, 1993). |
|||
* {{cite book |last1=Garzke|first1=William H.|last2=Dulin|first2=Robert O.|title=Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II|year=1985|location=Annapolis, Maryland|publisher=Naval Institute Press|isbn=978-0-87021-101-0|name-list-style=amp}} |
|||
*Van Der Vat, Dan ''The ship that changed the world: The Escape of the Goeben to the Dardanelles in 1914'' Adler & Adler, 1986. {{ASIN|B000JN9QC6}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Gille|first=Eric|title=Cent ans de cuirassés français|publisher=Marines|location=Nantes|year=1999|isbn=2-909675-50-5}} |
|||
* {{cite book |last=Gröner|first=Erich|title=German Warships: 1815–1945|year=1990|publisher=Naval Institute Press|isbn=0-87021-790-9|location=Annapolis, Maryland}} |
|||
* {{cite book| last = Halpern| first = Paul G.| year = 1995| title = A Naval History of World War I| publisher = Naval Institute Press| location = Annapolis, Maryland| isbn = 978-1-55750-352-7}} |
|||
* {{cite book |last=Hough |first= Richard|author-link=Richard Hough| title=Dreadnought: A History of the Modern Battleship|url=https://archive.org/details/dreadnoughthisto00houg |url-access=registration |publisher= MacMillan|location=New York |year=1964| isbn=978-0-02-554420-8}} |
|||
* {{cite book| last1 = Jentschura| first1 = Hansgeorg| first2 = Dieter |last2=Jung|first3=Peter |last3=Mickel| year = 1977| title = Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869–1945| publisher = United States Naval Institute| location = Annapolis, Maryland| isbn = 0-87021-893-X|name-list-style=amp}} |
|||
* {{cite book |last=Konstam|first=Angus|title=British Battlecruisers 1939–45|year=2003|location=Oxford, UK|publisher=Osprey Books|isbn=978-1-84176-633-1}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Koop|first1=Gerhard|last2=Schmolke|first2=Klaus-Peter|title=Battleship Scharnhorst|publisher=Conway Maritime Press|location=London|year=1998|isbn=0-85177-772-4|name-list-style=amp}} |
|||
* {{cite journal|last=Lambert|first=Nicholas A.|date=January 1998|title='Our Bloody Ships' or 'Our Bloody System'? Jutland and the Loss of the Battle Cruisers, 1916|journal=Journal of Military History|publisher=Society for Military History|volume=62|issue=1|pages=29–55|doi=10.2307/120394|jstor=120394|issn=0899-3718}} |
|||
* {{cite book |last=Lambert|first=Nicholas|title=Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution|year=2002|publisher=University of South Carolina Press|isbn=978-1-57003-492-3|location=Columbia, South Carolina}} |
|||
* {{cite book |last=Massie |first=Robert K. |author-link=Robert Massie |title=[[Dreadnought (book)|Dreadnought: Britain, Germany and the Coming of the Great War]] |year=1991 |publisher=Random House|location=New York |isbn=0-394-52833-6}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Mackay|first=Ruddock F.|title=Fisher of Kilverstone|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=London|year=1973|isbn=0198224095}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last=McLaughlin|first=Stephen|chapter=Project 69: The Kronshtadt Class Battlecruisers|editor=Preston, Antony|publisher=Conway's Maritime Press|location=London|year=2004|title=Warship 2004|pages=99–117|isbn=0-85177-948-4}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last=McLaughlin|first=Stephen|chapter=Project 82: The Stalingrad Class|editor=Jordan, John|publisher=Conway|location=London|year=2006|title=Warship 2006|pages=102–123|isbn=978-1-84486-030-2}} |
|||
* {{cite journal |last=Noot |first=Lt. Jurrien S. |issue=3 | date= 1980 |title=Battlecruiser: Design Studies for the Royal Netherlands Navy 1939–40 |journal=Warship International |volume=XVII |pages=242–273 |publisher=[[International Naval Research Organization]] |location=Toledo, Ohio|issn=0043-0374}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Osborne|first=Eric F.|title=Cruisers and Battle Cruisers: An Illustrated History of Their Impact|publisher=ABC CLIO|location=Santa Barbara, California|year=2004|isbn=1-85109-369-9}} |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Preston | first = Antony | title = The World's Worst Warships | year = 2002 | publisher = Conway Maritime Press | isbn = 0-85177-754-6 | location = London }} |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Roberts|first=John|title=Battlecruisers|publisher=Naval Institute Press|location=Annapolis, Maryland|year=1997|isbn=1-55750-068-1}} |
|||
* {{cite book|editor=Saunders, Stephen|title=Jane's Fighting Ships 2013–2014|year=2013|publisher=IHS Jane's|location=n.p.|isbn= 978-0-7106-3048-3}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Shores|first1=Christopher|last2=Cull|first2=Brian|last3=Izawa|first3=Yasuho|title=Bloody Shambles|volume=I: The Drift to War to the Fall of Singapore|year=1992|publisher=Grub Street|location=London|isbn=0-948817-50-X|name-list-style=amp}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Staff|first=Gary|year=2006|title=German Battlecruisers: 1914–1918|publisher=Osprey Books|location=Oxford, UK|isbn=978-1-84603-009-3|oclc=64555761}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Stille|first=Mark|year=2008|title=Imperial Japanese Navy Battleship 1941–1945|publisher=Osprey Books|location=Oxford, UK|isbn=978-1-84603-280-6}} |
|||
* {{cite book |last=Sondhaus|first=Lawrence|title=Naval Warfare, 1815–1914|year=2001|publisher=Routledge|location=London|isbn=978-0-415-21478-0}} |
|||
* {{cite book |last=Sumida|first=Jon T.|title=In Defense of Naval Supremacy: Financial Limitation, Technological Innovation and British Naval Policy, 1889–1914|year=1993|publisher=Routledge|location=London|isbn=0-04445-104-0}} |
|||
* {{cite book| last = Vandervat| first = Dan| year = 1988| title = The Atlantic Campaign| publisher = Harper & Row| location = New York| isbn = 978-0-06-015967-2| url = https://archive.org/details/atlanticcampaign00vand}} |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Whitley | first = M. J. | title = Battleships of World War Two | year = 1998 |location=Annapolis, Maryland| publisher = Naval Institute Press | isbn = 1-55750-184-X }} |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Whitley|first=M. J.|title=Cruisers of World War Two: An International Encyclopedia|publisher=Cassell|location=London|year=1995|isbn=1-86019-874-0}} |
|||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
{{Commons category|Battlecruisers}} |
|||
*[http://www.bobhenneman.info/Homepage.htm All the worlds battlecruisers] |
|||
*[http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/20th_century_battleship_overview.htm Maritimequest Battleships & Battlecruisers of the 20th century] |
* [http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/20th_century_battleship_overview.htm Maritimequest Battleships & Battlecruisers of the 20th century] |
||
*[http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/battlecr.htm British and German Battlecruisers of the First World War] |
* [http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/battlecr.htm British and German Battlecruisers of the First World War] |
||
*[http://www.navsource.org/archives/04idx.htm Navsource Online] |
* [http://www.navsource.org/archives/04idx.htm Navsource Online] |
||
{{Warship types of the 19th & 20th centuries}} |
{{Warship types of the 19th & 20th centuries}} |
||
{{Large cruisers}} |
|||
{{Authority control}} |
|||
[[Category:Ship types]] |
[[Category:Ship types]] |
||
[[Category: |
[[Category:Battlecruisers]] |
||
{{Link FA|ru}} |
|||
[[cs:Bitevní křižník]] |
|||
[[da:Slagkrydser]] |
|||
[[de:Schlachtkreuzer]] |
|||
[[es:Crucero de batalla]] |
|||
[[fa:رزمناو]] |
|||
[[fr:Croiseur de bataille]] |
|||
[[ko:순양전함]] |
|||
[[id:Kapal jelajah tempur]] |
|||
[[it:Incrociatore da battaglia]] |
|||
[[he:סיירת מערכה]] |
|||
[[hu:Csatacirkáló]] |
|||
[[nl:Slagkruiser]] |
|||
[[ja:巡洋戦艦]] |
|||
[[no:Slagkrysser]] |
|||
[[nn:Slagkryssar]] |
|||
[[pl:Krążownik liniowy]] |
|||
[[pt:Cruzador de batalha]] |
|||
[[ro:Crucișător de linie]] |
|||
[[ru:Линейный крейсер]] |
|||
[[sl:Bojna križarka]] |
|||
[[sr:Бојни крсташ]] |
|||
[[fi:Taisteluristeilijä]] |
|||
[[sv:Slagkryssare]] |
|||
[[vi:Tàu chiến-tuần dương]] |
|||
[[zh:战列巡洋舰]] |
Latest revision as of 06:30, 3 November 2024
The battlecruiser (also written as battle cruiser or battle-cruiser) was a type of capital ship of the first half of the 20th century. These were similar in displacement, armament and cost to battleships, but differed in form and balance of attributes. Battlecruisers typically had thinner armour (to a varying degree) and a somewhat lighter main gun battery than contemporary battleships, installed on a longer hull with much higher engine power in order to attain greater speeds. The first battlecruisers were designed in the United Kingdom, as a development of the armoured cruiser, at the same time as the dreadnought succeeded the pre-dreadnought battleship. The goal of the design was to outrun any ship with similar armament, and chase down any ship with lesser armament; they were intended to hunt down slower, older armoured cruisers and destroy them with heavy gunfire while avoiding combat with the more powerful but slower battleships. However, as more and more battlecruisers were built, they were increasingly used alongside the better-protected battleships.
Battlecruisers served in the navies of the United Kingdom, Germany, the Ottoman Empire, Australia and Japan during World War I, most notably at the Battle of the Falkland Islands and in the several raids and skirmishes in the North Sea which culminated in a pitched fleet battle, the Battle of Jutland. British battlecruisers in particular suffered heavy losses at Jutland, where poor fire safety and ammunition handling practices left them vulnerable to catastrophic magazine explosions following hits to their main turrets from large-calibre shells. This dismal showing led to a persistent general belief that battlecruisers were too thinly armoured to function successfully. By the end of the war, capital ship design had developed, with battleships becoming faster and battlecruisers becoming more heavily armoured, blurring the distinction between a battlecruiser and a fast battleship. The Washington Naval Treaty, which limited capital ship construction from 1922 onwards, treated battleships and battlecruisers identically, and the new generation of battlecruisers planned by the United States, Great Britain and Japan were scrapped or converted into aircraft carriers under the terms of the treaty.
Improvements in armour design and propulsion created the 1930s "fast battleship" with the speed of a battlecruiser and armour of a battleship, making the battlecruiser in the traditional sense effectively an obsolete concept. Thus from the 1930s on, only the Royal Navy continued to use "battlecruiser" as a classification for the World War I–era capital ships that remained in the fleet; while Japan's battlecruisers remained in service, they had been significantly reconstructed and were re-rated as full-fledged fast battleships.[Note 1]
Battlecruisers were put into action again during World War II, and only one survived to the end. There was also renewed interest in large "cruiser-killer" type warships, but few were ever begun, as construction of battleships and battlecruisers was curtailed in favor of more-needed convoy escorts, aircraft carriers, and cargo ships. During (and after) the Cold War, the Soviet Kirov class of large guided missile cruisers have been the only ships termed "battlecruisers"; the class is also the only example of a nuclear-powered battlecruiser. As of 2024, Russia operates two units: the Pyotr Velikiy has remained in active service since its 1998 commissioning, while the Admiral Nakhimov has been inactive (in storage or refitting) since 1999.
Background
[edit]The battlecruiser was developed by the Royal Navy in the first years of the 20th century as an evolution of the armoured cruiser.[5] The first armoured cruisers had been built in the 1870s, as an attempt to give armour protection to ships fulfilling the typical cruiser roles of patrol, trade protection and power projection. However, the results were rarely satisfactory, as the weight of armour required for any meaningful protection usually meant that the ship became almost as slow as a battleship. As a result, navies preferred to build protected cruisers with an armoured deck protecting their engines, or simply no armour at all.
In the 1890s, new Krupp steel armour meant that it was now possible to give a cruiser side armour which would protect it against the quick-firing guns of enemy battleships and cruisers alike.[6] In 1896–97 France and Russia, who were regarded as likely allies in the event of war, started to build large, fast armoured cruisers taking advantage of this. In the event of a war between Britain and France or Russia, or both, these cruisers threatened to cause serious difficulties for the British Empire's worldwide trade.[7]
Britain, which had concluded in 1892 that it needed twice as many cruisers as any potential enemy to adequately protect its empire's sea lanes, responded to the perceived threat by laying down its own large armoured cruisers. Between 1899 and 1905, it completed or laid down seven classes of this type, a total of 35 ships.[8] This building program, in turn, prompted the French and Russians to increase their own construction. The Imperial German Navy began to build large armoured cruisers for use on their overseas stations, laying down eight between 1897 and 1906.[9] In the period 1889–1896, the Royal Navy spent £7.3 million on new large cruisers. From 1897 to 1904, it spent £26.9 million.[10] Many armoured cruisers of the new kind were just as large and expensive as the equivalent battleship.
The increasing size and power of the armoured cruiser led to suggestions in British naval circles that cruisers should displace battleships entirely. The battleship's main advantage was its 12-inch heavy guns, and heavier armour designed to protect from shells of similar size. However, for a few years after 1900 it seemed that those advantages were of little practical value. The torpedo now had a range of 2,000 yards, and it seemed unlikely that a battleship would engage within torpedo range. However, at ranges of more than 2,000 yards it became increasingly unlikely that the heavy guns of a battleship would score any hits, as the heavy guns relied on primitive aiming techniques. The secondary batteries of 6-inch quick-firing guns, firing more plentiful shells, were more likely to hit the enemy.[11] As naval expert Fred T. Jane wrote in June 1902,
Is there anything outside of 2,000 yards that the big gun in its hundreds of tons of medieval castle can affect, that its weight in 6-inch guns without the castle could not affect equally well? And inside 2,000, what, in these days of gyros, is there that the torpedo cannot effect with far more certainty?[12]
In 1904, Admiral John "Jacky" Fisher became First Sea Lord, the senior officer of the Royal Navy. He had for some time thought about the development of a new fast armoured ship. He was very fond of the "second-class battleship" Renown, a faster, more lightly armoured battleship.[13] As early as 1901, there is confusion in Fisher's writing about whether he saw the battleship or the cruiser as the model for future developments. This did not stop him from commissioning designs from naval architect W. H. Gard for an armoured cruiser with the heaviest possible armament for use with the fleet. The design Gard submitted was for a ship between 14,000–15,000 long tons (14,000–15,000 t), capable of 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph), armed with four 9.2-inch and twelve 7.5-inch (190 mm) guns in twin gun turrets and protected with six inches of armour along her belt and 9.2-inch turrets, 4 inches (102 mm) on her 7.5-inch turrets, 10 inches on her conning tower and up to 2.5 inches (64 mm) on her decks. However, mainstream British naval thinking between 1902 and 1904 was clearly in favour of heavily armoured battleships, rather than the fast ships that Fisher favoured.[14]
The Battle of Tsushima proved the effectiveness of heavy guns over intermediate ones and the need for a uniform main caliber on a ship for fire control. Even before this, the Royal Navy had begun to consider a shift away from the mixed-calibre armament of the 1890s pre-dreadnought to an "all-big-gun" design, and preliminary designs circulated for battleships with all 12-inch or all 10-inch guns and armoured cruisers with all 9.2-inch guns.[15] In late 1904, not long after the Royal Navy had decided to use 12-inch guns for its next generation of battleships because of their superior performance at long range, Fisher began to argue that big-gun cruisers could replace battleships altogether. The continuing improvement of the torpedo meant that submarines and destroyers would be able to destroy battleships; this in Fisher's view heralded the end of the battleship or at least compromised the validity of heavy armour protection. Nevertheless, armoured cruisers would remain vital for commerce protection.[16]
Of what use is a battle fleet to a country called (A) at war with a country called (B) possessing no battleships, but having fast armoured cruisers and clouds of fast torpedo craft? What damage would (A's) battleships do to (B)? Would (B) wish for a few battleships or for more armoured cruisers? Would not (A) willingly exchange a few battleships for more fast armoured cruisers? In such a case, neither side wanting battleships is presumptive evidence that they are not of much value.
Fisher's views were very controversial within the Royal Navy, and even given his position as First Sea Lord, he was not in a position to insist on his own approach. Thus he assembled a "Committee on Designs", consisting of a mixture of civilian and naval experts, to determine the approach to both battleship and armoured cruiser construction in the future. While the stated purpose of the committee was to investigate and report on future requirements of ships, Fisher and his associates had already made key decisions.[18] The terms of reference for the committee were for a battleship capable of 21 knots (39 km/h; 24 mph) with 12-inch guns and no intermediate calibres, capable of docking in existing drydocks;[19] and a cruiser capable of 25.5 knots (47.2 km/h; 29.3 mph), also with 12-inch guns and no intermediate armament, armoured like Minotaur, the most recent armoured cruiser, and also capable of using existing docks.[18]
First battlecruisers
[edit]Under the Selborne plan of 1902, the Royal Navy intended to start three new battleships and four armoured cruisers each year. However, in late 1904 it became clear that the 1905–1906 programme would have to be considerably smaller, because of lower than expected tax revenue and the need to buy out two Chilean battleships under construction in British yards, lest they be purchased by the Russians for use against the Japanese, Britain's ally. These economic realities meant that the 1905–1906 programme consisted only of one battleship, but three armoured cruisers. The battleship became the revolutionary battleship Dreadnought, and the cruisers became the three ships of the Invincible class. Fisher later claimed, however, that he had argued during the committee for the cancellation of the remaining battleship.[20]
The construction of the new class was begun in 1906 and completed in 1908, delayed perhaps to allow their designers to learn from any problems with Dreadnought.[19][21] The ships fulfilled the design requirement quite closely. On a displacement similar to Dreadnought, the Invincibles were 40 feet (12.2 m) longer to accommodate additional boilers and more powerful turbines to propel them at 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph). Moreover, the new ships could maintain this speed for days, whereas pre-dreadnought battleships could not generally do so for more than an hour.[22] Armed with eight 12-inch Mk X guns, compared to ten on Dreadnought, they had 6–7 inches (152–178 mm) of armour protecting the hull and the gun turrets. (Dreadnought's armour, by comparison, was 11–12 inches (279–305 mm) at its thickest.)[23] The class had a very marked increase in speed, displacement and firepower compared to the most recent armoured cruisers but no more armour.[24]
While the Invincibles were to fill the same role as the armoured cruisers they succeeded, they were expected to do so more effectively. Specifically their roles were:
- Heavy reconnaissance. Because of their power, the Invincibles could sweep away the screen of enemy cruisers to close with and observe an enemy battlefleet before using their superior speed to retire.
- Close support for the battle fleet. They could be stationed at the ends of the battle line to stop enemy cruisers harassing the battleships, and to harass the enemy's battleships if they were busy fighting battleships. Also, the Invincibles could operate as the fast wing of the battlefleet and try to outmanoeuvre the enemy.
- Pursuit. If an enemy fleet ran, then the Invincibles would use their speed to pursue, and their guns to damage or slow enemy ships.
- Commerce protection. The new ships would hunt down enemy cruisers and commerce raiders.[25]
Confusion about how to refer to these new battleship-size armoured cruisers set in almost immediately. Even in late 1905, before work was begun on the Invincibles, a Royal Navy memorandum refers to "large armoured ships" meaning both battleships and large cruisers. In October 1906, the Admiralty began to classify all post-Dreadnought battleships and armoured cruisers as "capital ships", while Fisher used the term "dreadnought" to refer either to his new battleships or the battleships and armoured cruisers together.[26] At the same time, the Invincible class themselves were referred to as "cruiser-battleships", "dreadnought cruisers"; the term "battlecruiser" was first used by Fisher in 1908. Finally, on 24 November 1911, Admiralty Weekly Order No. 351 laid down that "All cruisers of the "Invincible" and later types are for the future to be described and classified as "battle cruisers" to distinguish them from the armoured cruisers of earlier date."[27]
Along with questions over the new ships' nomenclature came uncertainty about their actual role due to their lack of protection. If they were primarily to act as scouts for the battle fleet and hunter-killers of enemy cruisers and commerce raiders, then the seven inches of belt armour with which they had been equipped would be adequate. If, on the other hand, they were expected to reinforce a battle line of dreadnoughts with their own heavy guns, they were too thin-skinned to be safe from an enemy's heavy guns. The Invincibles were essentially extremely large, heavily armed, fast armoured cruisers. However, the viability of the armoured cruiser was already in doubt. A cruiser that could have worked with the Fleet might have been a more viable option for taking over that role.[24][28]
Because of the Invincibles' size and armament, naval authorities considered them capital ships almost from their inception—an assumption that might have been inevitable. Complicating matters further was that many naval authorities, including Lord Fisher, had made overoptimistic assessments from the Battle of Tsushima in 1905 about the armoured cruiser's ability to survive in a battle line against enemy capital ships due to their superior speed. These assumptions had been made without taking into account the Russian Baltic Fleet's inefficiency and tactical ineptitude. By the time the term "battlecruiser" had been given to the Invincibles, the idea of their parity with battleships had been fixed in many people's minds.[24][28]
Not everyone was so convinced. Brassey's Naval Annual, for instance, stated that with vessels as large and expensive as the Invincibles, an admiral "will be certain to put them in the line of battle where their comparatively light protection will be a disadvantage and their high speed of no value."[29] Those in favor of the battlecruiser countered with two points—first, since all capital ships were vulnerable to new weapons such as the torpedo, armour had lost some of its validity; and second, because of its greater speed, the battlecruiser could control the range at which it engaged an enemy.[30]
Battlecruisers in the dreadnought arms race
[edit]Between the launching of the Invincibles to just after the outbreak of the First World War, the battlecruiser played a junior role in the developing dreadnought arms race, as it was never wholeheartedly adopted as the key weapon in British imperial defence, as Fisher had presumably desired. The biggest factor for this lack of acceptance was the marked change in Britain's strategic circumstances between their conception and the commissioning of the first ships. The prospective enemy for Britain had shifted from a Franco-Russian alliance with many armoured cruisers to a resurgent and increasingly belligerent Germany. Diplomatically, Britain had entered the Entente cordiale in 1904 and the Anglo-Russian Entente. Neither France nor Russia posed a particular naval threat; the Russian navy had largely been sunk or captured in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, while the French were in no hurry to adopt the new dreadnought-type design. Britain also boasted very cordial relations with two of the significant new naval powers: Japan (bolstered by the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, signed in 1902 and renewed in 1905), and the US. These changed strategic circumstances, and the great success of the Dreadnought ensured that she rather than the Invincible became the new model capital ship. Nevertheless, battlecruiser construction played a part in the renewed naval arms race sparked by the Dreadnought.[31]
For their first few years of service, the Invincibles entirely fulfilled Fisher's vision of being able to sink any ship fast enough to catch them, and run from any ship capable of sinking them. An Invincible would also, in many circumstances, be able to take on an enemy pre-dreadnought battleship. Naval circles concurred that the armoured cruiser in its current form had come to the logical end of its development and the Invincibles were so far ahead of any enemy armoured cruiser in firepower and speed that it proved difficult to justify building more or bigger cruisers.[32] This lead was extended by the surprise both Dreadnought and Invincible produced by having been built in secret; this prompted most other navies to delay their building programmes and radically revise their designs.[33] This was particularly true for cruisers, because the details of the Invincible class were kept secret for longer; this meant that the last German armoured cruiser, Blücher, was armed with only 21-centimetre (8.3 in) guns, and was no match for the new battlecruisers.[34]
The Royal Navy's early superiority in capital ships led to the rejection of a 1905–1906 design that would, essentially, have fused the battlecruiser and battleship concepts into what would eventually become the fast battleship. The 'X4' design combined the full armour and armament of Dreadnought with the 25-knot speed of Invincible. The additional cost could not be justified given the existing British lead and the new Liberal government's need for economy; the slower and cheaper Bellerophon, a relatively close copy of Dreadnought, was adopted instead.[35] The X4 concept would eventually be fulfilled in the Queen Elizabeth class and later by other navies.[36]
The next British battlecruisers were the three Indefatigable class, slightly improved Invincibles built to fundamentally the same specification, partly due to political pressure to limit costs and partly due to the secrecy surrounding German battlecruiser construction, particularly about the heavy armour of SMS Von der Tann.[37] This class came to be widely seen as a mistake[38] and the next generation of British battlecruisers were markedly more powerful. By 1909–1910 a sense of national crisis about rivalry with Germany outweighed cost-cutting, and a naval panic resulted in the approval of a total of eight capital ships in 1909–1910.[39] Fisher pressed for all eight to be battlecruisers,[40] but was unable to have his way; he had to settle for six battleships and two battlecruisers of the Lion class. The Lions carried eight 13.5-inch guns, the now-standard caliber of the British "super-dreadnought" battleships. Speed increased to 27 knots (50 km/h; 31 mph) and armour protection, while not as good as in German designs, was better than in previous British battlecruisers, with nine-inch (230 mm) armour belt and barbettes. The two Lions were followed by the very similar Queen Mary.[41]
By 1911 Germany had built battlecruisers of her own, and the superiority of the British ships could no longer be assured. Moreover, the German Navy did not share Fisher's view of the battlecruiser. In contrast to the British focus on increasing speed and firepower, Germany progressively improved the armour and staying power of their ships to better the British battlecruisers.[42] Von der Tann, begun in 1908 and completed in 1910, carried eight 11.1-inch guns, but with 11.1-inch (283 mm) armour she was far better protected than the Invincibles. The two Moltkes were quite similar but carried ten 11.1-inch guns of an improved design.[43] Seydlitz, designed in 1909 and finished in 1913, was a modified Moltke; speed increased by one knot to 26.5 knots (49.1 km/h; 30.5 mph), while her armour had a maximum thickness of 12 inches, equivalent to the Helgoland-class battleships of a few years earlier. Seydlitz was Germany's last battlecruiser completed before World War I.[44]
The next step in battlecruiser design came from Japan. The Imperial Japanese Navy had been planning the Kongō-class ships from 1909, and was determined that, since the Japanese economy could support relatively few ships, each would be more powerful than its likely competitors. Initially the class was planned with the Invincibles as the benchmark. On learning of the British plans for Lion, and the likelihood that new U.S. Navy battleships would be armed with 14-inch (360 mm) guns, the Japanese decided to radically revise their plans and go one better. A new plan was drawn up, carrying eight 14-inch guns, and capable of 27.5 knots (50.9 km/h; 31.6 mph), thus marginally having the edge over the Lions in speed and firepower. The heavy guns were also better-positioned, being superfiring both fore and aft with no turret amidships. The armour scheme was also marginally improved over the Lions, with nine inches of armour on the turrets and 8 inches (203 mm) on the barbettes. The first ship in the class was built in Britain, and a further three constructed in Japan.[45] The Japanese also re-classified their powerful armoured cruisers of the Tsukuba and Ibuki classes, carrying four 12-inch guns, as battlecruisers; nonetheless, their armament was weaker and they were slower than any battlecruiser.[46]
The next British battlecruiser, Tiger, was intended initially as the fourth ship in the Lion class, but was substantially redesigned. She retained the eight 13.5-inch guns of her predecessors, but they were positioned like those of Kongō for better fields of fire. She was faster (making 29 knots (54 km/h; 33 mph) on sea trials), and carried a heavier secondary armament. Tiger was also more heavily armoured on the whole; while the maximum thickness of armour was the same at nine inches, the height of the main armour belt was increased.[47] Not all the desired improvements for this ship were approved, however. Her designer, Sir Eustace Tennyson d'Eyncourt, had wanted small-bore water-tube boilers and geared turbines to give her a speed of 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph), but he received no support from the authorities and the engine makers refused his request.[48]
1912 saw work begin on three more German battlecruisers of the Derfflinger class, the first German battlecruisers to mount 12-inch guns. These ships, like Tiger and the Kongōs, had their guns arranged in superfiring turrets for greater efficiency. Their armour and speed was similar to the previous Seydlitz class.[49] In 1913, the Russian Empire also began the construction of the four-ship Borodino class, which were designed for service in the Baltic Sea. These ships were designed to carry twelve 14-inch guns, with armour up to 12 inches thick, and a speed of 26.6 knots (49.3 km/h; 30.6 mph). The heavy armour and relatively slow speed of these ships made them more similar to German designs than to British ships; construction of the Borodinos was halted by the First World War and all were scrapped after the end of the Russian Civil War.[50]
World War I
[edit]Construction
[edit]For most of the combatants, capital ship construction was very limited during the war. Germany finished the Derfflinger class and began work on the Mackensen class. The Mackensens were a development of the Derfflinger class, with 13.8-inch guns and a broadly similar armour scheme, designed for 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph).[51]
In Britain, Jackie Fisher returned to the office of First Sea Lord in October 1914. His enthusiasm for big, fast ships was unabated, and he set designers to producing a design for a battlecruiser with 15-inch guns. Because Fisher expected the next German battlecruiser to steam at 28 knots, he required the new British design to be capable of 32 knots. He planned to reorder two Revenge-class battleships, which had been approved but not yet laid down, to a new design. Fisher finally received approval for this project on 28 December 1914 and they became the Renown class. With six 15-inch guns but only 6-inch armour they were a further step forward from Tiger in firepower and speed, but returned to the level of protection of the first British battlecruisers.[52]
At the same time, Fisher resorted to subterfuge to obtain another three fast, lightly armoured ships that could use several spare 15-inch (381 mm) gun turrets left over from battleship construction. These ships were essentially light battlecruisers, and Fisher occasionally referred to them as such, but officially they were classified as large light cruisers. This unusual designation was required because construction of new capital ships had been placed on hold, while there were no limits on light cruiser construction. They became Courageous and her sisters Glorious and Furious, and there was a bizarre imbalance between their main guns of 15 inches (or 18 inches (457 mm) in Furious) and their armour, which at three inches (76 mm) thickness was on the scale of a light cruiser. The design was generally regarded as a failure (nicknamed in the Fleet Outrageous, Uproarious and Spurious), though the later conversion of the ships to aircraft carriers was very successful.[53] Fisher also speculated about a new mammoth, but lightly built battlecruiser, that would carry 20-inch (508 mm) guns, which he termed HMS Incomparable; this never got beyond the concept stage.[54]
It is often held that the Renown and Courageous classes were designed for Fisher's plan to land troops (possibly Russian) on the German Baltic coast. Specifically, they were designed with a reduced draught, which might be important in the shallow Baltic. This is not clear-cut evidence that the ships were designed for the Baltic: it was considered that earlier ships had too much draught and not enough freeboard under operational conditions. Roberts argues that the focus on the Baltic was probably unimportant at the time the ships were designed, but was inflated later, after the disastrous Dardanelles Campaign.[55]
The final British battlecruiser design of the war was the Admiral class, which was born from a requirement for an improved version of the Queen Elizabeth battleship. The project began at the end of 1915, after Fisher's final departure from the Admiralty. While initially envisaged as a battleship, senior sea officers felt that Britain had enough battleships, but that new battlecruisers might be required to combat German ships being built (the British overestimated German progress on the Mackensen class as well as their likely capabilities). A battlecruiser design with eight 15-inch guns, 8 inches of armour and capable of 32 knots was decided on. The experience of battlecruisers at the Battle of Jutland meant that the design was radically revised and transformed again into a fast battleship with armour up to 12 inches thick, but still capable of 31.5 knots (58.3 km/h; 36.2 mph). The first ship in the class, Hood, was built according to this design to counter the possible completion of any of the Mackensen-class ship. The plans for her three sisters, on which little work had been done, were revised once more later in 1916 and in 1917 to improve protection.[56]
The Admiral class would have been the only British ships capable of taking on the German Mackensen class; nevertheless, German shipbuilding was drastically slowed by the war, and while two Mackensens were launched, none were ever completed.[57] The Germans also worked briefly on a further three ships, of the Ersatz Yorck class, which were modified versions of the Mackensens with 15-inch guns.[58] Work on the three additional Admirals was suspended in March 1917 to enable more escorts and merchant ships to be built to deal with the new threat from U-boats to trade. They were finally cancelled in February 1919.[57]
Battlecruisers in action
[edit]The first combat involving battlecruisers during World War I was the Battle of Heligoland Bight in August 1914. A force of British light cruisers and destroyers entered the Heligoland Bight (the part of the North Sea closest to Hamburg) to attack German destroyer patrols. When they met opposition from light cruisers, Vice Admiral David Beatty took his squadron of five battlecruisers into the Bight and turned the tide of the battle, ultimately sinking three German light cruisers and killing their commander, Rear Admiral Leberecht Maass.[59]
The German battlecruiser Goeben perhaps made the most impact early in the war. Stationed in the Mediterranean, she and the escorting light cruiser SMS Breslau evaded British and French ships on the outbreak of war, and steamed to Constantinople (Istanbul) with two British battlecruisers in hot pursuit. The two German ships were handed over to the Ottoman Navy, and this was instrumental in bringing the Ottoman Empire into the war as one of the Central Powers. Goeben herself, renamed Yavuz Sultan Selim, fought engagements against the Imperial Russian Navy in the Black Sea before being knocked out of the action for the remainder of the war after the Battle of Imbros against British forces in the Aegean Sea in January 1918.[60]
The original battlecruiser concept proved successful in December 1914 at the Battle of the Falkland Islands. The British battlecruisers Inflexible and Invincible did precisely the job for which they were intended when they chased down and annihilated the German East Asia Squadron, centered on the armoured cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, along with three light cruisers, commanded by Admiral Maximilian Graf Von Spee, in the South Atlantic Ocean. Prior to the battle, the Australian battlecruiser Australia had unsuccessfully searched for the German ships in the Pacific.[61]
During the Battle of Dogger Bank in 1915, the aftermost barbette of the German flagship Seydlitz was struck by a British 13.5-inch shell from HMS Lion. The shell did not penetrate the barbette, but it dislodged a piece of the barbette armour that allowed the flame from the shell's detonation to enter the barbette. The propellant charges being hoisted upwards were ignited, and the fireball flashed up into the turret and down into the magazine, setting fire to charges removed from their brass cartridge cases. The gun crew tried to escape into the next turret, which allowed the flash to spread into that turret as well, killing the crews of both turrets. Seydlitz was saved from near-certain destruction only by emergency flooding of her after magazines, which had been effected by Wilhelm Heidkamp. This near-disaster was due to the way that ammunition handling was arranged and was common to both German and British battleships and battlecruisers, but the lighter protection on the latter made them more vulnerable to the turret or barbette being penetrated. The Germans learned from investigating the damaged Seydlitz and instituted measures to ensure that ammunition handling minimised any possible exposure to flash.[62]
Apart from the cordite handling, the battle was mostly inconclusive, though both the British flagship Lion and Seydlitz were severely damaged. Lion lost speed, causing her to fall behind the rest of the battleline, and Beatty was unable to effectively command his ships for the remainder of the engagement. A British signalling error allowed the German battlecruisers to withdraw, as most of Beatty's squadron mistakenly concentrated on the crippled armoured cruiser Blücher, sinking her with great loss of life. The British blamed their failure to win a decisive victory on their poor gunnery and attempted to increase their rate of fire by stockpiling unprotected cordite charges in their ammunition hoists and barbettes.[63]
At the Battle of Jutland on 31 May 1916, both British and German battlecruisers were employed as fleet units. The British battlecruisers became engaged with both their German counterparts, the battlecruisers, and then German battleships before the arrival of the battleships of the British Grand Fleet. The result was a disaster for the Royal Navy's battlecruiser squadrons: Invincible, Queen Mary, and Indefatigable exploded with the loss of all but a handful of their crews.[64] The exact reason why the ships' magazines detonated is not known, but the abundance of exposed cordite charges stored in their turrets, ammunition hoists and working chambers in the quest to increase their rate of fire undoubtedly contributed to their loss.[65] Beatty's flagship Lion herself was almost lost in a similar manner, save for the heroic actions of Major Francis Harvey.[66]
The better-armoured German battlecruisers fared better, in part due to the poor performance of British fuzes (the British shells tended to explode or break up on impact with the German armour).[67] Lützow—the only German battlecruiser lost at Jutland—had only 128 killed,[68] for instance, despite receiving more than thirty hits. The other German battlecruisers, Moltke, Von der Tann, Seydlitz, and Derfflinger, were all heavily damaged and required extensive repairs after the battle, Seydlitz barely making it home, for they had been the focus of British fire for much of the battle.[69]
Interwar period
[edit]In the years immediately after World War I, Britain, Japan and the US all began design work on a new generation of ever more powerful battleships and battlecruisers. The new burst of shipbuilding that each nation's navy desired was politically controversial and potentially economically crippling. This nascent arms race was prevented by the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, where the major naval powers agreed to limits on capital ship numbers.[70] The German navy was not represented at the talks; under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was not allowed any modern capital ships at all.[71]
Through the 1920s and 1930s only Britain and Japan retained battlecruisers, often modified and rebuilt from their original designs. The line between the battlecruiser and the modern fast battleship became blurred; indeed, the Japanese Kongōs were formally redesignated as battleships after their very comprehensive reconstruction in the 1930s.[72]
Plans in the aftermath of World War I
[edit]Hood, launched in 1918, was the last World War I battlecruiser to be completed. Owing to lessons from Jutland, the ship was modified during construction; the thickness of her belt armour was increased by an average of 50 percent and extended substantially, she was given heavier deck armour, and the protection of her magazines was improved to guard against the ignition of ammunition. This was hoped to be capable of resisting her own weapons—the classic measure of a "balanced" battleship. Hood was the largest ship in the Royal Navy when completed; because of her great displacement, in theory she combined the firepower and armour of a battleship with the speed of a battlecruiser, causing some to refer to her as a fast battleship. However, her protection was markedly less than that of the British battleships built immediately after World War I, the Nelson class.[1]
The navies of Japan and the United States, not being affected immediately by the war, had time to develop new heavy 16-inch (410 mm) guns for their latest designs and to refine their battlecruiser designs in light of combat experience in Europe. The Imperial Japanese Navy began four Amagi-class battlecruisers. These vessels would have been of unprecedented size and power, as fast and well armoured as Hood whilst carrying a main battery of ten 16-inch guns, the most powerful armament ever proposed for a battlecruiser. They were, for all intents and purposes, fast battleships—the only differences between them and the Tosa-class battleships which were to precede them were 1 inch (25 mm) less side armour and a .25 knots (0.46 km/h; 0.29 mph) increase in speed.[73] The United States Navy, which had worked on its battlecruiser designs since 1913 and watched the latest developments in this class with great care, responded with the Lexington class. If completed as planned, they would have been exceptionally fast and well armed with eight 16-inch guns, but carried armour little better than the Invincibles—this after an 8,000-long-ton (8,100 t) increase in protection following Jutland.[74] The final stage in the post-war battlecruiser race came with the British response to the Amagi and Lexington types: four 48,000-long-ton (49,000 t) G3 battlecruisers. Royal Navy documents of the period often described any battleship with a speed of over about 24 knots (44 km/h; 28 mph) as a battlecruiser, regardless of the amount of protective armour, although the G3 was considered by most to be a well-balanced fast battleship.[75]
The Washington Naval Treaty meant that none of these designs came to fruition. Ships that had been started were either broken up on the slipway or converted to aircraft carriers. In Japan, Amagi and Akagi were selected for conversion. Amagi was damaged beyond repair by the 1923 Great Kantō earthquake and was broken up for scrap; the hull of one of the proposed Tosa-class battleships, Kaga, was converted in her stead.[76] The United States Navy also converted two battlecruiser hulls into aircraft carriers in the wake of the Washington Treaty: USS Lexington and USS Saratoga, although this was only considered marginally preferable to scrapping the hulls outright (the remaining four: Constellation, Ranger, Constitution and United States were scrapped).[77] In Britain, Fisher's "large light cruisers," were converted to carriers. Furious had already been partially converted during the war and Glorious and Courageous were similarly converted.[78]
Rebuilding programmes
[edit]In total, nine battlecruisers survived the Washington Naval Treaty, although HMS Tiger later became a victim of the London Naval Conference 1930 and was scrapped.[79] Because their high speed made them valuable surface units in spite of their weaknesses, most of these ships were significantly updated before World War II. Renown and Repulse were modernized significantly in the 1920s and 1930s. Between 1934 and 1936, Repulse was partially modernized and had her bridge modified, an aircraft hangar, catapult and new gunnery equipment added and her anti-aircraft armament increased. Renown underwent a more thorough reconstruction between 1937 and 1939. Her deck armour was increased, new turbines and boilers were fitted, an aircraft hangar and catapult added and she was completely rearmed aside from the main guns which had their elevation increased to +30 degrees. The bridge structure was also removed and a large bridge similar to that used in the King George V-class battleships installed in its place. While conversions of this kind generally added weight to the vessel, Renown's tonnage actually decreased due to a substantially lighter power plant. Similar thorough rebuildings planned for Repulse and Hood were cancelled due to the advent of World War II.[80]
Unable to build new ships, the Imperial Japanese Navy also chose to improve its existing battlecruisers of the Kongō class (initially the Haruna, Kirishima, and Kongō—the Hiei only later as it had been disarmed under the terms of the Washington treaty) in two substantial reconstructions (one for Hiei). During the first of these, elevation of their main guns was increased to +40 degrees, anti-torpedo bulges and 3,800 long tons (3,900 t) of horizontal armour added, and a "pagoda" mast with additional command positions built up. This reduced the ships' speed to 25.9 knots (48.0 km/h; 29.8 mph). The second reconstruction focused on speed as they had been selected as fast escorts for aircraft carrier task forces. Completely new main engines, a reduced number of boilers and an increase in hull length by 26 feet (7.9 m) allowed them to reach up to 30 knots once again. They were reclassified as "fast battleships," although their armour and guns still fell short compared to surviving World War I–era battleships in the American or the British navies, with dire consequences during the Pacific War, when Hiei and Kirishima were easily crippled by US gunfire during actions off Guadalcanal, forcing their scuttling shortly afterwards.[81] Perhaps most tellingly, Hiei was crippled by medium-caliber gunfire from heavy and light cruisers in a close-range night engagement.[82]
There were two exceptions: Turkey's Yavuz Sultan Selim and the Royal Navy's Hood. The Turkish Navy made only minor improvements to the ship in the interwar period, which primarily focused on repairing wartime damage and the installation of new fire control systems and anti-aircraft batteries.[83] Hood was in constant service with the fleet and could not be withdrawn for an extended reconstruction. She received minor improvements over the course of the 1930s, including modern fire control systems, increased numbers of anti-aircraft guns, and in March 1941, radar.[84]
Naval rearmament
[edit]In the late 1930s navies began to build capital ships again, and during this period a number of large commerce raiders and small, fast battleships were built that are sometimes referred to as battlecruisers. Germany and Russia designed new battlecruisers during this period, though only the latter laid down two of the 35,000-ton Kronshtadt class. They were still on the slipways when the Germans invaded in 1941 and construction was suspended. Both ships were scrapped after the war.[85]
The Germans planned three battlecruisers of the O class as part of the expansion of the Kriegsmarine (Plan Z). With six 15-inch guns, high speed, excellent range, but very thin armour, they were intended as commerce raiders. Only one was ordered shortly before World War II; no work was ever done on it. No names were assigned, and they were known by their contract names: 'O', 'P', and 'Q'. The new class was not universally welcomed in the Kriegsmarine. Their abnormally-light protection gained it the derogatory nickname Ohne Panzer Quatsch (without armour nonsense) within certain circles of the Navy.[86]
World War II
[edit]The Royal Navy deployed some of its battlecruisers during the Norwegian Campaign in April 1940. The Gneisenau and the Scharnhorst were engaged during the action off Lofoten by Renown in very bad weather and disengaged after Gneisenau was damaged. One of Renown's 15-inch shells passed through Gneisenau's director-control tower without exploding, severing electrical and communication cables as it went and destroyed the rangefinders for the forward 150 mm (5.9 in) turrets. Main-battery fire control had to be shifted aft due to the loss of electrical power. Another shell from Renown knocked out Gneisenau's aft turret.[87] The British ship was struck twice by German shells that failed to inflict any significant damage.[88] She was the only pre-war battlecruiser to survive the war.[89]
In the early years of the war various German ships had a measure of success hunting merchant ships in the Atlantic. Allied battlecruisers such as Renown, Repulse, and the fast battleships Dunkerque and Strasbourg were employed on operations to hunt down the commerce-raiding German ships. The one stand-up fight occurred when the battleship Bismarck and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen sortied into the North Atlantic to attack British shipping and were intercepted by Hood and the battleship Prince of Wales in May 1941 in the Battle of the Denmark Strait. Hood was destroyed when the Bismarck's 15-inch shells caused a magazine explosion. Only three men survived.[90]
The first battlecruiser to see action in the Pacific War was Repulse when she was sunk by Japanese torpedo bombers north of Singapore on 10 December 1941 whilst in company with Prince of Wales. She was lightly damaged by a single 250-kilogram (550 lb) bomb and near-missed by two others in the first Japanese attack. Her speed and agility enabled her to avoid the other attacks by level bombers and dodge 33 torpedoes. The last group of torpedo bombers attacked from multiple directions and Repulse was struck by five torpedoes. She quickly capsized with the loss of 27 officers and 486 crewmen; 42 officers and 754 enlisted men were rescued by the escorting destroyers.[91] The loss of Repulse and Prince of Wales conclusively proved the vulnerability of capital ships to aircraft without air cover of their own.[92]
The Japanese Kongō-class battlecruisers were extensively used as carrier escorts for most of their wartime career due to their high speed. Their World War I–era armament was weaker and their upgraded armour was still thin compared to contemporary battleships. On 13 November 1942, during the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, Hiei stumbled across American cruisers and destroyers at point-blank range. The ship was badly damaged in the encounter and had to be towed by her sister ship Kirishima. Both were spotted by American aircraft the following morning and Kirishima was forced to cast off her tow because of repeated aerial attacks. Hiei's captain ordered her crew to abandon ship after further damage and scuttled Hiei in the early evening of 14 November.[93] On the night of 14/15 November during the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, Kirishima returned to Ironbottom Sound, but encountered the American battleships South Dakota and Washington. While failing to detect Washington, Kirishima engaged South Dakota with some effect. Washington opened fire a few minutes later at short range and badly damaged Kirishima, knocking out her aft turrets, jamming her rudder, and hitting the ship below the waterline. The flooding proved to be uncontrollable and Kirishima capsized three and a half hours later.[94]
Returning to Japan after the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Kongō was torpedoed and sunk by the American submarine Sealion II on 21 November 1944.[72] Haruna was moored at Kure, Japan when the naval base was attacked by American carrier aircraft on 24 and 28 July 1945. The ship was only lightly damaged by a single bomb hit on 24 July, but was hit a dozen more times on 28 July and sank at her pier. She was refloated after the war and scrapped in early 1946.[95]
Large cruisers or "cruiser killers"
[edit]A late renaissance in popularity of ships between battleships and cruisers in size occurred on the eve of World War II. Described by some as battlecruisers, but never classified as capital ships, they were variously described as "super cruisers", "large cruisers" or even "unrestricted cruisers". The Dutch, American, and Japanese navies all planned these new classes specifically to counter the heavy cruisers, or their counterparts, being built by their naval rivals.[96]
The first such battlecruisers were the Dutch Design 1047, designed to protect their colonies in the East Indies in the face of Japanese aggression. Never officially assigned names, these ships were designed with German and Italian assistance. While they broadly resembled the German Scharnhorst class and had the same main battery, they would have been more lightly armoured and only protected against eight-inch gunfire. Although the design was mostly completed, work on the vessels never commenced as the Germans overran the Netherlands in May 1940. The first ship would have been laid down in June of that year.[97]
The only class of these late battlecruisers actually built were the United States Navy's Alaska-class "large cruisers". Two of them were completed, Alaska and Guam; a third, Hawaii, was cancelled while under construction and three others, to be named Philippines, Puerto Rico and Samoa, were cancelled before they were laid down. They were classified as "large cruisers" instead of battlecruisers. These ships were named after territories or protectorates. (Battleships, were named after states and cruisers after cities.) With a main armament of nine 12-inch guns in three triple turrets and a displacement of 27,000 long tons (27,000 t), the Alaskas were twice the size of Baltimore-class cruisers and had guns some 50% larger in diameter. They lacked the thick armoured belt and intricate torpedo defence system of true capital ships. However, unlike most battlecruisers, they were considered a balanced design according to cruiser standards as their protection could withstand fire from their own caliber of gun, albeit only in a very narrow range band. They were designed to hunt down Japanese heavy cruisers, though by the time they entered service most Japanese cruisers had been sunk by American aircraft or submarines.[98] Like the contemporary Iowa-class fast battleships, their speed ultimately made them more useful as carrier escorts and bombardment ships than as the surface combatants they were developed to be.[99]
The Japanese started designing the B64 class, which was similar to the Alaska but with 310-millimetre (12.2 in) guns. News of the Alaskas led them to upgrade the design, creating Design B-65. Armed with 356 mm guns, the B65s would have been the best armed of the new breed of battlecruisers, but they still would have had only sufficient protection to keep out eight-inch shells. Much like the Dutch, the Japanese got as far as completing the design for the B65s, but never laid them down. By the time the designs were ready the Japanese Navy recognized that they had little use for the vessels and that their priority for construction should lie with aircraft carriers. Like the Alaskas, the Japanese did not call these ships battlecruisers, referring to them instead as super-heavy cruisers.[100]
Cold War–era designs
[edit]In spite of the fact that most navies abandoned the battleship and battlecruiser concepts after World War II, Joseph Stalin's fondness for big-gun-armed warships caused the Soviet Union to plan a large cruiser class in the late 1940s. In the Soviet Navy, they were termed "heavy cruisers" (tjazholyj krejser).[101] The fruits of this program were the Project 82 (Stalingrad) cruisers, of 36,500 tonnes (35,900 long tons) standard load, nine 305 mm (12 in) guns and a speed of 35 knots (65 km/h; 40 mph). Three ships were laid down in 1951–1952, but they were cancelled in April 1953 after Stalin's death. Only the central armoured hull section of the first ship, Stalingrad, was launched in 1954 and then used as a target.[102]
The Soviet Kirov class is sometimes referred to as a battlecruiser.[103] This description arises from their over 24,000-tonne (24,000-long-ton) displacement, which is roughly equal to that of a First World War battleship and more than twice the displacement of contemporary cruisers; upon entry into service, Kirov was the largest surface combatant to be built since World War II.[104] The Kirov class lacks the armour that distinguishes battlecruisers from ordinary cruisers and they are classified as heavy nuclear-powered missile cruisers (Тяжелый Атомный Ракетный Крейсер (ТАРКР)) by Russia, with their primary surface armament consisting of twenty P-700 Granit surface to surface missiles. Four members of the class were completed during the 1980s and 1990s, but due to budget constraints only the Pyotr Velikiy is operational with the Russian Navy, though plans were announced in 2010 to return the other three ships to service. As of 2021, Admiral Nakhimov was being refitted, but the other two ships are reportedly beyond economical repair.[105][106]
Operators
[edit]- Russian Navy operates one Kirov-class battlecruiser with one more being overhauled.
Former operators
[edit]- Imperial German Navy five surviving battlecruisers were all scuttled at Scapa Flow in 1919.
- Royal Australian Navy decommissioned its only battlecruiser HMAS Australia in 1921.
- Imperial Japanese Navy upgraded its Kongo-class battlecruisers into fast-battleships in the 1930s, ending their operation of battlecruisers.
- Royal Navy last battlecruiser, HMS Renown was decommissioned in 1945, following World War II.
- United States Navy two Alaska-class battlecruisers were both decommissioned in 1947.
- Turkish Naval Forces decommissioned its only battlecruiser TCG Yavuz in 1950.
See also
[edit]- List of battlecruisers
- List of battlecruisers of World War I
- List of battlecruisers of World War II
- List of ships of the Second World War
- List of sunken battlecruisers
Footnotes
[edit]Notes
[edit]- ^ The German Scharnhorst-class battleships and Deutschland-class cruisers and the French Dunkerque-class battleships are all sometimes referred to as battlecruisers, although the owning navies referred to them as "battleships" (German: Schlachtschiffe), "armoured ships" (German: Panzerschiffe) and "battleships" (French: Bâtiments de ligne) respectively. Since neither their operators nor a significant number of naval historians classify them as such, they are not discussed in this article.[2][3][4]
Citations
[edit]- ^ a b Breyer, p. 168
- ^ Gröner, pp. 31, 60; Gille, p. 139; Koop & Schmolke, p. 4
- ^ Chesneau, p. 259
- ^ Bidlingmaier, pp. 73–74
- ^ Sondhaus, p. 199; Roberts, p. 13
- ^ Sumida, p. 19
- ^ Breyer, p. 47
- ^ Lambert 2002, pp. 20–22; Osborne, pp. 61–62
- ^ Gardiner & Gray, p. 142; Osborne, pp. 62, 74
- ^ Sumida, p. 351, Table 9. Figures are for First-Class Cruisers and exclude armament.
- ^ Sumida, pp. 42–44
- ^ Quoted in Sumida, p. 44
- ^ Roberts, p. 15; Mackay, pp. 212–13
- ^ Breyer, p. 48
- ^ Roberts, pp. 16–17
- ^ Mackay, pp. 324–25; Roberts, pp. 17–18; Sumida, p. 52
- ^ quoted in Sumida, p. 52
- ^ a b Roberts, p. 19
- ^ a b Breyer, p. 115
- ^ Sumida, p. 55
- ^ Roberts, pp. 24–25
- ^ Burr, pp. 7–8
- ^ Breyer, pp. 114–17
- ^ a b c Gardiner & Gray, p. 24
- ^ Roberts, p. 18
- ^ Mackay, pp. 325–26
- ^ Admiralty Weekly Orders. 351. – Description and Classification of Cruisers of the "Invincible" and Later Types. ADM 182/2, quoted at The Dreadnought Project: The Battle Cruiser in the Royal Navy.
- ^ a b Massie, p. 494
- ^ As quoted in Massie, pp. 494–95
- ^ Friedman, p. 10
- ^ Sondhaus, pp. 199–202
- ^ Roberts, p. 25; Mackay, pp. 324–25
- ^ Sondhaus, pp. 201–02
- ^ Staff, pp. 3–4
- ^ Roberts, p. 26
- ^ Breyer, pp. 61–62
- ^ Roberts, pp. 28–29
- ^ Brown 1999, p. 57
- ^ Sondhaus, p. 203
- ^ Roberts, p. 32
- ^ Roberts, pp. 31–33
- ^ Sondhaus, pp. 202–03
- ^ Breyer, pp. 269–72
- ^ Breyer, pp. 267, 272
- ^ Evans & Peattie, pp. 161–63
- ^ Gardiner & Gray, p. 233
- ^ Roberts, pp. 37–38
- ^ Breyer, p. 136
- ^ Breyer, pp. 277–78
- ^ Breyer, p. 399
- ^ Breyer, pp. 283–84
- ^ Roberts, pp. 46–47
- ^ Roberts, pp. 50–52
- ^ Breyer, p. 172
- ^ Roberts, p. 51
- ^ Roberts, pp. 55–61
- ^ a b Roberts, pp. 60–61
- ^ Gröner, pp. 58–59
- ^ Burr, pp. 21–22
- ^ Halpern, pp. 53–58; Staff, pp. 18–20
- ^ Burr, pp. 22–23
- ^ Staff, pp. 23–24, 43
- ^ Staff, pp. 43–44; Burr, pp. 24, 33
- ^ Halpern, pp. 318–21
- ^ Lambert 1998, pp. 54–55
- ^ Roberts, p. 116
- ^ Halpern, p. 328
- ^ Staff, pp. 41–42
- ^ Halpern, pp. 319–25
- ^ Breyer, pp. 62–64, 70–72
- ^ Chesneau, p. 218
- ^ a b Jentschura, Jung & Mickel, p. 35
- ^ Breyer, p. 353
- ^ Breyer, p. 234
- ^ Gardiner & Gray, pp. 41–42
- ^ Gardiner & Gray, p. 235
- ^ Gardiner & Gray, p. 119
- ^ Gardiner & Gray, p. 40
- ^ Burt, p. 48
- ^ Breyer, pp. 157–58, 172
- ^ Breyer, pp. 339–40
- ^ Stille, pp. 19–20
- ^ Chesneau, p. 406
- ^ Konstam, pp. 33–34
- ^ McLaughlin 2004, pp. 112, 114
- ^ Garzke & Dulin, pp. 353–54, 363; Gröner, p. 68
- ^ Garzke & Dulin, pp. 135–36
- ^ Burt, p. 243
- ^ Chesneau, pp. 9, 173
- ^ Whitley 1998, p. 127
- ^ Shores, Cull & Izawa, pp. 116–21, 123
- ^ Osborne, pp. 127–28
- ^ Hackett, Bob; Kingsepp, Sander; Ahlberg, Lars (2010). "IJN Hiei: Tabular Record of Movement". Combinedfleet.com. Retrieved 6 June 2013.
- ^ Hackett, Bob; Kingsepp, Sander; Ahlberg, Lars (2010). "IJN Kirishima: Tabular Record of Movement". Combinedfleet.com. Retrieved 6 June 2013.
- ^ Hackett, Bob; Kingsepp, Sander; Ahlberg, Lars (2012). "IJN Haruna: Tabular Record of Movement". Combinedfleet.com. Retrieved 6 June 2013.
- ^ Chesneau, p. 388; Garzke & Dulin, p. 86; Friedman 1984, p. 288; McLaughlin 2006, p. 104
- ^ Noot, pp. 243, 249, 268
- ^ Friedman 1984, pp. 288–89, 296, 301–02
- ^ Whitley 1995, pp. 278–79
- ^ Jentschura, Jung & Mickel, p. 40; Garzke & Dulin, pp. 86–87
- ^ McLaughlin 2006, p. 104
- ^ McLaughlin 2006, pp. 116, 121–22
- ^ Gardiner, Chumbley & Budzbon, p. 328
- ^ "Russia to Relaunch Soviet-era Nuclear Battle Cruiser in 2018". Moscow Times. 16 October 2014. Retrieved 13 September 2016.
- ^ Saunders, p. 674
References
[edit]- Bidlingmaier, Gerhard (1971). "KM Admiral Graf Spee". Warship Profile 4. Windsor, UK: Profile Publications. pp. 73–96. OCLC 20229321.
- Breyer, Siegfried (1973). Battleships and Battle Cruisers 1905–1970. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-07247-2.
- Brooks, John (2005). Dreadnought Gunnery at the Battle of Jutland: The Question of Fire Control. London: Routledge, Frank Cass Publishers. ISBN 0-7146-5702-6.
- Brown, David K. (2003). The Grand Fleet: Warship Design and Development 1906–1922 (reprint of the 1999 ed.). London: Caxton Editions. ISBN 1-84067-531-4.
- Brown, David K. (2003). Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Development 1860–1905 (reprint of the 1997 ed.). London: Caxton Editions. ISBN 1-84067-529-2.
- Burr, Lawrence (2006). British Battlecruisers 1914–1918. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84603-008-6.
- Burt, R. A. (2012). British Battleships, 1919–1939 (2nd ed.). Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-59114-052-8.
- Chesneau, Roger, ed. (1980). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922–1946. Greenwich, UK: Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 0-85177-146-7.
- Churchill, Winston (1986). The Second World War: The Gathering Storm. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-395-41055-X.
- Evans, David C. & Peattie, Mark R. (1997). Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887–1941. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-192-7.
- Friedman, Norman (2008). Naval Firepower: Battleship Guns and Gunnery in the Dreadnought Era. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-59114-555-4.
- Friedman, Norman (1984). U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-718-6.
- Gardiner, Robert, ed. (2001) [1992]. The Eclipse of the Big Gun: The Warship 1906–45. Conway's History of the Ship. Edison, New Jersey: Chartwell Books. ISBN 0-7858-1414-0. OCLC 51940554.
- Gardiner, Robert; Chumbley, Stephen & Budzbon, Przemysław (1995). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1947–1995. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-132-7.
- Gardiner, Robert & Gray, Randal, eds. (1985). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906–1921. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-907-3.
- Garzke, William H. & Dulin, Robert O. (1985). Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-101-0.
- Gille, Eric (1999). Cent ans de cuirassés français. Nantes: Marines. ISBN 2-909675-50-5.
- Gröner, Erich (1990). German Warships: 1815–1945. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-790-9.
- Halpern, Paul G. (1995). A Naval History of World War I. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-352-7.
- Hough, Richard (1964). Dreadnought: A History of the Modern Battleship. New York: MacMillan. ISBN 978-0-02-554420-8.
- Jentschura, Hansgeorg; Jung, Dieter & Mickel, Peter (1977). Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869–1945. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute. ISBN 0-87021-893-X.
- Konstam, Angus (2003). British Battlecruisers 1939–45. Oxford, UK: Osprey Books. ISBN 978-1-84176-633-1.
- Koop, Gerhard & Schmolke, Klaus-Peter (1998). Battleship Scharnhorst. London: Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 0-85177-772-4.
- Lambert, Nicholas A. (January 1998). "'Our Bloody Ships' or 'Our Bloody System'? Jutland and the Loss of the Battle Cruisers, 1916". Journal of Military History. 62 (1). Society for Military History: 29–55. doi:10.2307/120394. ISSN 0899-3718. JSTOR 120394.
- Lambert, Nicholas (2002). Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press. ISBN 978-1-57003-492-3.
- Massie, Robert K. (1991). Dreadnought: Britain, Germany and the Coming of the Great War. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-394-52833-6.
- Mackay, Ruddock F. (1973). Fisher of Kilverstone. London: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198224095.
- McLaughlin, Stephen (2004). "Project 69: The Kronshtadt Class Battlecruisers". In Preston, Antony (ed.). Warship 2004. London: Conway's Maritime Press. pp. 99–117. ISBN 0-85177-948-4.
- McLaughlin, Stephen (2006). "Project 82: The Stalingrad Class". In Jordan, John (ed.). Warship 2006. London: Conway. pp. 102–123. ISBN 978-1-84486-030-2.
- Noot, Lt. Jurrien S. (1980). "Battlecruiser: Design Studies for the Royal Netherlands Navy 1939–40". Warship International. XVII (3). Toledo, Ohio: International Naval Research Organization: 242–273. ISSN 0043-0374.
- Osborne, Eric F. (2004). Cruisers and Battle Cruisers: An Illustrated History of Their Impact. Santa Barbara, California: ABC CLIO. ISBN 1-85109-369-9.
- Preston, Antony (2002). The World's Worst Warships. London: Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 0-85177-754-6.
- Roberts, John (1997). Battlecruisers. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-068-1.
- Saunders, Stephen, ed. (2013). Jane's Fighting Ships 2013–2014. n.p.: IHS Jane's. ISBN 978-0-7106-3048-3.
- Shores, Christopher; Cull, Brian & Izawa, Yasuho (1992). Bloody Shambles. Vol. I: The Drift to War to the Fall of Singapore. London: Grub Street. ISBN 0-948817-50-X.
- Staff, Gary (2006). German Battlecruisers: 1914–1918. Oxford, UK: Osprey Books. ISBN 978-1-84603-009-3. OCLC 64555761.
- Stille, Mark (2008). Imperial Japanese Navy Battleship 1941–1945. Oxford, UK: Osprey Books. ISBN 978-1-84603-280-6.
- Sondhaus, Lawrence (2001). Naval Warfare, 1815–1914. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-21478-0.
- Sumida, Jon T. (1993). In Defense of Naval Supremacy: Financial Limitation, Technological Innovation and British Naval Policy, 1889–1914. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-04445-104-0.
- Vandervat, Dan (1988). The Atlantic Campaign. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 978-0-06-015967-2.
- Whitley, M. J. (1998). Battleships of World War Two. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-184-X.
- Whitley, M. J. (1995). Cruisers of World War Two: An International Encyclopedia. London: Cassell. ISBN 1-86019-874-0.