StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I just looked the size and scaling of some world war II/World war I ships and noticed that many world war II heavy cruisers were fairly similar in size to world war I battleships, how do they compare, I got the overall impression that older battleships were often downrated to cruisers anyways, yet in most cases Heavy cruisers/battlecruisers always lose to battleships of even a decade older then them.

If you look at predreadnought battleships and armored cruisers from before WW1, you’ll notice they tended to be about the same size as each other too. The US even went so far as to give its big armored cruiser state names as it did battleships.

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. Even crippling damage would not be easy to accomplish before running out of ammunition; some Russian ships at Tsushima remained afloat and mobile after 100-200 hits apiece mostly from cruiser caliber weapons.

Exact matchups also would matter. The big Japanese CAs, and the German Hippers class for example had torpedoes, giving them a paper ability to sink battleships. The US Des Monies class did not, but it had a far superior gun armament and is much more likely to be able to exploit superior gun range. Meanwhile… for the battleship you have an awful lot of choices.

I'm under the impression that most pre-dreadnoughts had pretty piss fire control and fighting. A number of them were lost to fires that simply got out of control in combination with lacking watertight integrity. Perhaps the CA could hope to start a fire on the Pre-D at long range and just dance outside of the effective range of its own fire control. This is more harassing it than anything.

Still, it wouldn't be an easy. Sea Skimmer and other have said it before, but it's a testament to the political and engineering importance of the battleship as a concept that even an obsolete, poorly designed capital ship is still a Capital Ship and still warrants a lot of respect from this opponent.

If you look at predreadnought battleships and armored cruisers from before WW1, you’ll notice they tended to be about the same size as each other too. The US even went so far as to give its big armored cruiser state names as it did battleships.

Well I considered that a given since Battlecruisers were supposed to be their descendents, which can easily be as big or bigger then full battleships, I was however greatly surprised at how both how close the size of far more modern heavy cruiser of the World war II era and that of much older Battleships of the World war I and earlier and that it lacked the overwhelming Superiority over the old battleships and pre-dreadnoughts which it can at least match in size, World war II battleships tend to be clearly superior to their older counterparts, but the gap is still big enough that a World war II Heavy Cruiser can't easily overpower a old World War I dreadnought battleship of comparable size.

By this you mean the heavy cruiser classes designed during the war, or the ones designed immediately before, not the interwar ones that were Washington Treaty-compliant, right?

By this you mean the heavy cruiser classes designed during the war, or the ones designed immediately before, not the interwar ones that were Washington Treaty-compliant, right?

Yeah, Like the Japanese Tone/Mogami Cruiser or the US Baltimore Heavy cruiser vs a old World War I battleship like the Iron Duke class or Kaiser class battleship of the Jutland Battle of 1916, The Deutschland class cruiser(Pocket Battleship) can also count if stretching it for the cruisers since it was still of similar size.

starfury wrote: Yeah, Like the Japanese Tone/Mogami Cruiser or the US Baltimore Heavy cruiser vs a old World War I battleship like the Iron Duke class or Kaiser class battleship of the Jutland Battle of 1916

Umm you might want to go look that up again. An Iron Duke or Kasier is approaching twice the size of even a large (well over treaty) heavy cruiser. Such ships are far too well armed and armored to be seriously threatened by any ship with 8 inch guns. A pocket battleship would do somewhat better, because it can pierce some of the dreadnoughts armor with 11in guns, but only if it comes within return fire range.

Only the very first dreadnoughts are anything like the size of a big heavy cruiser, and even then they are usually significantly larger. HMS Dreadnought herself was 21,800 tons full load, while the best heavy cruiser ever Des Monies was about 17,000 tons. An Admiral Hipper class could go over 18,000 tons as I recall, but those ships are externally inefficient designs. It boggles the mind how they could be so heavy and heavily manned for such light armament, modest speed, range and armor. The largest Japanese unit Tone was about 15,000 tons. Its much easier to get close displacement matches with predreadnoughts.

Umm you might want to go look that up again. An Iron Duke or Kasier is approaching twice the size of even a large (well over treaty) heavy cruiser. Such ships are far too well armed and armored to be seriously threatened by any ship with 8 inch guns. A pocket battleship would do somewhat better, because it can pierce some of the dreadnoughts armor with 11in guns, but only if it comes within return fire range.

Only the very first dreadnoughts are anything like the size of a big heavy cruiser, and even then they are usually significantly larger. HMS Dreadnought herself was 21,800 tons full load, while the best heavy cruiser ever Des Monies was about 17,000 tons. An Admiral Hipper class could go over 18,000 tons as I recall, but those ships are externally inefficient designs. It boggles the mind how they could be so heavy and heavily manned for such light armament, modest speed, range and armor. The largest Japanese unit Tone was about 15,000 tons. Its much easier to get close displacement matches with predreadnoughts.

So Heavy Cruisers never seriously challenge dreadnoughts for size even in comparsion to the very first ones, with heavy Cruisers only managing to match much older Pre-dreadnought battleships for displacements, I was thinking of the growth of ships and how by a World war II, Heavy Cruisers would be match for older battleships in displacements, But the gap now does even so large that even the very best Cruisers are still dwarfed by even battleships laid nearly 2 decades eariler.

Its much easier to get close displacement matches with predreadnoughts.

Thanks for clearing up that mix-up of cruiser vs dreadnought battleships displacements, so Heavy cruisers of world war II can find a pre-dreadnought made in the late 1800's to be still a decent opponent, despite the vast number of technical advancements in the cruiser's favor.

The fact that as you stated the Heavy cruisers of World war II, more then nearly 50 years, were finally able to match the displacement of ancient pre-dreadnoughts, that was really surprising, as I was thinking of the growth of ship sizes would lead to cruisers matching old battleships much faster, like how modern destroyers grew to same size of modern cruisers.

starfury wrote: So Heavy Cruisers never seriously challenge dreadnoughts for size even in comparsion to the very first ones, with heavy Cruisers only managing to match much older Pre-dreadnought battleships for displacements, I was thinking of the growth of ships and how by a World war II, Heavy Cruisers would be match for older battleships in displacements, But the gap now does even so large that even the very best Cruisers are still dwarfed by even battleships laid nearly 2 decades eariler.

Yup. Also keep in mind a cruiser will just put higher proportions of its weight into speed, seakeeping and other features which are not guns and armor compared to a battleship design. The cruiser had other missions besides sinking enemy ships to conduct, a battleship really did not. So the designs never should really match up. Speed should allow the cruiser to escape an engagement with a battleshjp, and that was the whole idea.

The fact that as you stated the Heavy cruisers of World war II, more then nearly 50 years, were finally able to match the displacement of ancient pre-dreadnoughts, that was really surprising, as I was thinking of the growth of ship sizes would lead to cruisers matching old battleships much faster, like how modern destroyers grew to same size of modern cruisers.

Like I was pointing out, before dreadnoughts battleships and armored cruisers were about the same size. This did not change, its just the armored cruiser became a battlecruiser, the battleship a dreadnought battleship. People kept building battlecruiser like ships into WW2 such as the Alaska class. Then all big gun warship construction halted. Size for both types steadily escalated, but battlecruisers became ever less common because they no longer made sense. Scout and bombing aircraft took over the missions they were intended for. Then they took over the battleships job too.

Heavy cruisers however were originally called light cruisers (before the London Naval treaty specified separate tonnage limits for ships with 6in and 8in guns) and they fulfilled a lesser roles such as screening and trade protection. Likewise predreadnought fleets had light cruisers (often several different sizes of them) besides the big armored cruiser for these kinds of missions. This is why heavy cruisers never got as big as battleships. They needed numbers to do the jobs required of them more then they needed individual firepower and strength.

So while absolute displacement sizes changed a lot, the proportional sizes of different kinds of cruiser vs. the battleship did not change nearly as much.

What drove the size of heavy cruisers up? Armor? Speed? I remember the Pensacola class was a mere 9100tonnes and it had 10 8"/55 guns!

Armor mainly. Pensacola barely had protection against 5 inch high explosive shells. The early French, British and Italian units had little armor thicker then 1inch, purely splinter protection. Also the desire was not just for thicker armor, but more extensive armor. One of the ways the US managed to get decently thick armor on its later treaty cruisers (mainly, New Orleans class) was to restrict the width of the armor deck to less then the width of the hull, and place the belt deep inside the ship. This was less then ideal but the armor could at least prevent the ship from blowing up from a magazine hit. It should also be noted that hull strength on the US treaty cruisers, and the Baltimore class is also suspect at best. They had way too many bows crack off, and a number of ships required significant stiffening in service.

Demands for a ship with a wide band of immunity against 8in gunfire, and with that protection being relatively extensive will give you a heavy cruiser with nine main guns and 15,000 tons very easily. British studies went as high as 16,000 tons with that armament and only 32 knot speed. Japanese heavy cruisers were so big from such an early point in large part because Japan would not sacrifice armor thickness or its extent, though they did incorporate the belts as structure to save some weight. They also had very high speeds, which makes things all the worse. They didn't end up so fast once rebuilt to not have hull strength trouble.

Auxiliary weapons and equipment also steadily pushed up size. AA batteries got bigger, torpedo batteries got bigger (at least for Japan, most people reduced them or eliminated them) and superstructures grew to accommodate more fire control gear even before radar became a factor. Many treaty cruisers also had no real weight or stability margin for additional equipment, and had to start removing stuff during the war to take on additions like new radar. The British went so far as to remove X turret from certain ships, losing 25% of the main battery in the process. Just a few tons up high can require removing much more weight lower down to balance stability.

One of the reasons Des Monies was so huge even compared to a Baltimore was that she had her belt armor on the outside of the hull, as extensive as it could be, and she had been designed with proper electrical power and weight margins for all that new wartime equipment. Her automatic loading guns also weighed about 50% more, but this alone would not have made her so big.

Only the very first dreadnoughts are anything like the size of a big heavy cruiser, and even then they are usually significantly larger. HMS Dreadnought herself was 21,800 tons full load, while the best heavy cruiser ever Des Monies was about 17,000 tons. An Admiral Hipper class could go over 18,000 tons as I recall, but those ships are externally inefficient designs. It boggles the mind how they could be so heavy and heavily manned for such light armament, modest speed, range and armor. The largest Japanese unit Tone was about 15,000 tons. Its much easier to get close displacement matches with predreadnoughts.

So going back to my original post, I thought it was surprising how well the older battleships, especially the ancient Pre-dreadnoughts like the Mikasa or the US Connecticut class battleship, the last US pre-dreadnought and that still manages to hold their own against far modern Heavy cruisers at least in both Displacement and in a duel , they had no chance against full Dreadnoughts of the later era, but against powerful heavy cruisers, they can put up a decent showing though, that was interesting.

It really goes to show the cost of speed in a ship. Mikasa only needed 15,000shp to make 18 knots. Pensacola needed 100,000shp to make less then twice the speed, despite displacing less and being longer which inherently reduces power requirements for speed. All that weight difference dumps right into armor and guns.

For a closer comparison, the highest powered Japanese heavy cruisers had as much as 150,000shp to make about 35 knots on trial (some went faster as built, but this was before they added weight to improve hull strength). The huge Yamato meanwhile had the same 150,000shp, and over four times the displacement, and could still make 28 knots on trial. Japanese trial displacement was defined BTW as the ship having full crew and equipment, but stores-ammo-fuel would all be 2/3rds full.

It really goes to show the cost of speed in a ship. Mikasa only needed 15,000shp to make 18 knots. Pensacola needed 100,000shp to make less then twice the speed, despite displacing less and being longer which inherently reduces power requirements for speed. All that weight difference dumps right into armor and guns.

Indeed, it made even more obvious with the Sverige-class coastal defence ships of Sweden, which seems to take these results to their logical conclusion and fielded small warships that looked like mini-battleships and yet managed to greatly outgun various cruisers of relatively similar size, as they had less displacement then even a smaller heavy cruiser, and were as still a deadly opponent to most comparable sized cruisers.

starfury wrote:

It really goes to show the cost of speed in a ship. Mikasa only needed 15,000shp to make 18 knots. Pensacola needed 100,000shp to make less then twice the speed, despite displacing less and being longer which inherently reduces power requirements for speed. All that weight difference dumps right into armor and guns.

Indeed, it made even more obvious with the Sverige-class coastal defence ships of Sweden, which seems to take these results to their logical conclusion and fielded small warships that looked like mini-battleships and yet managed to greatly outgun various cruisers of relatively similar size, as they had less displacement then even a smaller heavy cruiser, and were as still a deadly opponent to most comparable sized cruisers.

Exactly. Without the need for speed or endurance, much weight and volume can go into armour and firepower - the classic speed/protection/firepower equation that only changed with the advent of the true fast battleship. That progression is a whole different issue and worth its own thread.

You could also maybe go out on a limb and refer to RN monitors. A twin 15" turret in a small, low free board vessel that is hard to hit though easy to swamp!

The main reason, quite simply, that we didn't see a fair number of old battleship/heavy cruiser actions in WW2 is due to the Washington and London treaties going so far as to force the scrapping of the old ships. An interesting matchup might be to imagine Lemnos or Kilkis surviving the fall of Greece and being pressed into convoy escort service and facing the Prinz Eugen. They would have seen a fair bit of useage, but strictly for shore bombardment and convoy escort.

That would be kinda hard, since both had already been decommissioned in the early '30s and used for target practice. The Averof did survive and was used as a convoy escort in the Indian Ocean, though I think it saw no action there. And it wasn't a true battleship.

Narkis wrote:That would be kinda hard, since both had already been decommissioned in the early '30s and used for target practice. The Averof did survive and was used as a convoy escort in the Indian Ocean, though I think it saw no action there. And it wasn't a true battleship.

I'd meant it in strictly hypothetical terms, and I'd thought that one of them was being used as a training ship, but I suppose not. Anyway, the Averoff was an armoured cruiser and so basically would be on a lot more even terms with a treaty cruiser, and not in a good way. (though her main battery would still chop one up like butter if it could range).

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The main reason, quite simply, that we didn't see a fair number of old battleship/heavy cruiser actions in WW2 is due to the Washington and London treaties going so far as to force the scrapping of the old ships. An interesting matchup might be to imagine Lemnos or Kilkis surviving the fall of Greece and being pressed into convoy escort service and facing the Prinz Eugen. They would have seen a fair bit of useage, but strictly for shore bombardment and convoy escort.

Oh god yes that would be an interesting match up

Without those treaties so many interesting ships would have been around.

Then again, I'd like to see some Tillman's too

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Narkis wrote:That would be kinda hard, since both had already been decommissioned in the early '30s and used for target practice. The Averof did survive and was used as a convoy escort in the Indian Ocean, though I think it saw no action there. And it wasn't a true battleship.

I'd meant it in strictly hypothetical terms, and I'd thought that one of them was being used as a training ship, but I suppose not. Anyway, the Averoff was an armoured cruiser and so basically would be on a lot more even terms with a treaty cruiser, and not in a good way. (though her main battery would still chop one up like butter if it could range).

Yeah, Kilkis was used as a training ship, but its main guns had been removed and put into Aegina's coastal defenses along with Lemnos'. I agree it would've been an impressive match-up if they'd been kept into service, though.
And I said the Averoff wasn't a true battleship, didn't I? I only mentioned it because around here it's known as a "θωρηκτό", or battleship, and it tends to outshine the others.

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.

Night_stalker wrote: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.

The Battle of Jutland does not count in your books? Admittedly large parts of it were fought by battlecruisers rather than battleships, but still...

Yo, just because the Kaiserliche Marine was unwilling to sortie for 98% of the war doesn't mean dreadnoughts were considered too risky to lose. The Royal Navy was perfectly willing to attack the KM at a moment's notice during the war. Just because Jellicoe had a reputation for being cautious did not mean he had a reputation for being cowardly. He was just doing what any good Admiral would do and was waiting for a golden opportunity. One he basically had at Jutland, but lost due to a combination of poor communication, poor procedure, and downright bad luck.

Simultaneously, the Japanese and Russians during the Russo-Japanese War had no fears at all in pulling out their huge fleets for battle. I've always been wary of just how prevelent the thought of "Fleet in Being" supposedly was at the time. A lot of the examples usually don't support it too well. I'm not saying it didn't exist, I just don't think that many nations considered the loss of a fleet so terrifying they weren't even willing to use their multi-billion dollar investment. The lackluster, disorganized naval operations of WW1 can probably be more attributed to the limits of the technology and doctrine at the time.

Yes, but it wasn't on the scale of Trafalager which was both the German and British navies had hoped to use their battleships in.