heavy Cruiser vs Old battleship

[Zinegata]

I was under the impression that Jellicoe won Jutland decisively. He crossed the German T using the entire dreadnought strength of the Grand Fleet, and suffered something in the region of a handful of hits while sending half a dozen German dreadnoughts to the yards. His only real failure was how his scouting forces failed to inform him of the path of the High Seas Fleet's retreat at night, preventing him from annihilating the German navy. Had a few of his scouting forces been more alert (or at least had the sense to use their wireless - apparently only one ship was diligent enough to keep reporting its contacts), Jutland could very well have become a Trafalgar.

But then again, it has been argued that both sides were short on scouting forces due to the focus on building battlecruisers as opposed to scout cruisers..

It was Beatty who really made a mess of things for the British at Jutland, when he got two Battlecruisers sunk in spite of numerical superiority (partly squandered due to the fact he left his battleships behind). He then nearly lost four Queen Elizabeth class battleships due to bad signalling when he had to run from the main German fleet.

The story that he lured the German fleet into Jellicoe's waiting guns today seems more like self-promotion on his part. His messages to Jellicoe about the German fleet were confused and it may be fairer to say Jellicoe crossed the German T in spite of Beatty's "help". (Not to mention it was Beatty's subordinate, Goodenough, who actually spotted the main German fleet and was the only one doing his job as part of the scouting element)

[Lonestar]

Yeah, the battleships never really got into the clash of the titans that the builders had hoped for. Let's face it, who wants to risk a multimillion dollar warship trying to take on anything less than another battleship? Add in the fact that the other side also followed the same idea, and the battleships never really were used in WW1. After the war, once air power began becoming more of a threat, naval leaders began looking at carriers as the new symbol of a naval power. Battleships were still powerful, but not as awe-inspiring as a carrier can be.

Seriously?

Besides Jutland Battleships were used in the Dardanelles Campaign, The Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and the very presence of the KM battleline meant that capital ships had to be used to escort convoys around the North Sea. Battleships played a huge part in WW1.

[Thanas]

I was under the impression that Jellicoe won Jutland decisively. He crossed the German T using the entire dreadnought strength of the Grand Fleet, and suffered something in the region of a handful of hits while sending half a dozen German dreadnoughts to the yards. His only real failure was how his scouting forces failed to inform him of the path of the High Seas Fleet's retreat at night, preventing him from annihilating the German navy. Had a few of his scouting forces been more alert (or at least had the sense to use their wireless - apparently only one ship was diligent enough to keep reporting its contacts), Jutland could very well have become a Trafalgar.

If the scouting forces on both sides had been better, there would not have been a Jutland. That said, Jellicoe got outmaneuvered by the first Gefechtskehrtwendung and he managed to cross the German T only because Scheer turned back, not because Jellicoe did something.

I however have a huge respect of the man because he seemed to be the most professional and strategic of the Grand Fleet.

It was Beatty who really made a mess of things for the British at Jutland, when he got two Battlecruisers sunk in spite of numerical superiority (partly squandered due to the fact he left his battleships behind). He then nearly lost four Queen Elizabeth class battleships due to bad signalling when he had to run from the main German fleet.

The story that he lured the German fleet into Jellicoe's waiting guns today seems more like self-promotion on his part. His messages to Jellicoe about the German fleet were confused and it may be fairer to say Jellicoe crossed the German T in spite of Beatty's "help". (Not to mention it was Beatty's subordinate, Goodenough, who actually spotted the main German fleet and was the only one doing his job as part of the scouting element)

Indeed. Beatty was not only not the naval hero he thought he was, he was a real jackass as well.

[CaptHawkeye]

Beatty nearly got himself and his entire squadron killed more than once during that battle.

Beatty believed German gun crews were shooting faster than his. So he ordered important procedures ignored, like not storing extra powder in the gun houses. He also ordered the removal of flash protection in the gun houses because it slowed down the gun crews. Never mind that he had no way of proving German gun crews were faster than his. He certainly DID prove what happens when ignore even the most basic safety procedures. At the end of the day he was *still* so god damn stupid as to think "well their must something wrong with our ships!" And people believe him too! Their are still idiots all over the internet going "zomg silly battlecruisers" because of that one idiotic quote.

You know how the saying goes. A poor craftsman always blames his tools.

EDIT: He also liked to shit-talk a lot. Beatty was known for trashing Churchill, Jellicoe, Goodenough, the Admiralty, Fischer, etc. Anyone he could shift the blame onto he would. Especially if they did a way better job than him.

[erik_t]

A heavy cruiser would out range and generally have superior fire control to an early dreadnought or predreadnought that had never been modernized. However at long ranges 8in hit rates will not be high, and the extensive intermediate armor found on predreadnughts and early dreadnoughts was specifically meant to protect the hull from hits of 6-8in. Combined that with the generally small size of 8in shells and its very unlikely that a heavy cruiser could inflict fatal damage on its opponent.

I know you know this, but it must be kept in the fore of one's mind that this was horizontal protection against intermediate calibers. I would not wish to be aboard an early ship coming under high-angle fire from even regular-weight 6" shells.

It seems challenging to accomplish sinking by anything other than sympathetic fire from secondary magazines. Belt penetration sure won't happen. On the other hand, the ultimate US predreadnoughts had only 3"-max armored decks, thinned to 1.5" over much of the ship. At best, this doesn't compare favorably with what Des Moines was packing against those same 8" shells.

[Sea Skimmer]

I know you know this, but it must be kept in the fore of one's mind that this was horizontal protection against intermediate calibers. I would not wish to be aboard an early ship coming under high-angle fire from even regular-weight 6" shells.

Most people didn't have more then SAP for 6in in the first place, some navies didn't issue more then common shells, so I'm not seeing a very serious risk. The shells may easily burst under the upper armor deck.... but on a latter ship that deck would be lower anyway and the spaces totally unprotected so does it really matter? Indeed many navies never had a proper capped AP round for 8in either, though the USN always did as a long term side effect of having used 8in on predreadnoughts.

[Marko Dash]

what if you put one of the old dreadnoughts up against something like an Alaska, which was almost a battleship in it's own right?

[Sea Skimmer]

what if you put one of the old dreadnoughts up against something like an Alaska, which was almost a battleship in it's own right?

12in dreadnoughts would all be in deep shit against Alaska. Alaska is a full 10 knots faster, close to twice the gun range and it had quite enough armor, including some real deck armor, to hold off most 12in hits. This being because Alaska was designed to resist her own 12in weapons, which were very powerful thanks to superheavy rounds. Only the Russian 12/52 1907 Pattern gun really compares, it was a very large 12in weapon, but even after post WW1 modifications the elevation in the turrets could not be made all that high. So even a modernized 1930s Gangut would be at a big disadvantage as it would be outranged at a distance (around 25,000 yards IIRC) which is well within the limits of visual spotting. So that isn't even considering the vast advantage of radar and modern spotting planes on the Alaska. Never mind that as built, few 12in dreadnoughts had so much as a range clock, let alone a proper plotting room or director of any form.

Course, Alaska was also perhaps the most pointless ship ever built for the US Navy. Not even because its entire design concept was obsolete on arrival, but because the damn things ended up costing as much as an Iowa while doing so.