klagldsf wrote:Correction: the only battlecruiser the USN ordered was the Lexington class. We never actually got around to commissioning any proper battlecruisers ever.
Alaska class is also battlecruisers right?
Nope, Alaska, Guam and the unfinished Hawaii were large cruisers, hence the CB designation, not a BC designation.
That really is a question of semantics. It all depends on how you define a battlecruiser, which is rather tricky, since Fisher never bothered to do it.
On one hand, Alaska isn't a BC, since its armament is too small, but on the other hand, it was build to do what battlecruisers where originally built to do, that is hunt down and kill enemy cruisers, but run like hell if a BB comes along.
Yes, I know they were rarely employed by that, but it's the closest you'll ever come to a true definition of a BC.
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error
I guess the best way to describe them would be "hunter-killer cruisers" since they were explicitly designed to pwn any cruiser in the Japanese navy (remember they rebuilt their "battlecruisers" into battleships, though the reality is that they just plain old abandoned the distinction as they thought the designation silly after a while) while being fast enough to escort aircraft carriers. Essentially, they were envisioned for the role the fast battleships eventually took up because it was envisioned that the battle line would actively hunt for the Japanese battle line.
The term "battlecruiser" is very muddled anyway, as Adm. Jackie Fisher described it as a large scout cruiser fast enough for traditional scouting duties but armed well enough to take on other enemy scouts (i.e., more traditional cruisers) but they were in fact evolved from armored cruisers (which, in many navies, including our own for a while, made up the battle line moreso than actual battleships) and had better armor than said ships (in fact it didn't take long for them to suddenly get armor nearly as good if not equal to battleships, especially Hood - the main failing in battlecruiser design, particularly the ones that got sunk, was bad armor design rather than not enough of it, but that was common to a lot of ships of the WWI era). And the 1st gen battlecruisers soon found them outgunned by super-dreadnaughts very soon after construction. So, there you go.
Perhaps the best way to describe a "battlecruiser" would be "fast vessel with very heavy-caliber weapons." Or tack on the "very heavy-caliber weapons" description to the old, traditional definition of a cruiser - "a vessel operating primarily under detached sorties as opposed to a battle line" (according to this definition, we've been under a big misnomer with out cruiser force since WWII at least).
Novice wrote:In fact a good way to describe a battlecruiser would be something like this
"Faster than anything stronger, stronger than anything faster"
The one I heard was:
A major combatant capable of outshooting anything it can't outrun, and capable of outrunning anything it can't outshoot.
Ah, the good old Battlecruiser discussion - one of perenial interest to old salts. I really think the word Battlecruiser is an oxymoron, hence its inherent contradiction. But I can see how these ships germinated, and their fatal attraction to us romantics. As far as I know the only really proper application to these expensive and vulnerable ships was against Von Spee's force at the Falklands, and the worst was at Jutland; where already 'fast' Battleships were in evidence. And of course the real fast Battleships became the norm anyway. But yes, the USN was correct to class the Alaska's as cruisers, and attractive as these ships were they were also a great waste of resources. And are (were?) the Kirov's 'Battlecruisers'? Superb as they appear I've wondered if they were partly a vanity project from the Soviets - a lot tied up in one hull.
Minor alterations. Not so much alterations as completions, I suppose. Flag bags and such minor detailing. I'm at the point where I need informed opinions to tell me what I've missed.
Well I posted in another thread what the name of my flagship would be now I've found the ship for that name.
I do have one comment. I noticed no seperate Harpoon launchers. I believe the USN didn't put Harpoon in the VLS so it would free up more space for Standard to deal with the massed missle attacks that they believed the Soviets would throw at them.
Thank you Kim for the crest
