I understand the politics of /why/ it happened, I just think that it's interesting how the other branches of the armed forces were filled with innovators, but the navy was living in the past. As far as equipment and doctrines, I disagree to a certain extent. In WW2, the German Naval Strategy was based on performing what they called kreuzerkrieg or cruiser war. This was a strategy much like the USN used in the War of 1812: using fast, powerful ships to disrupt shipping that the UK depended on. That's what led to the orders for the RN frigates to /not/ engage American 44's 1v1. The German situation was similar. They found themselves in the need to cut the supply lines with the UK, and they didn't have the fleet to impose a blockade. Therefore, they needed ships that could intercept and destroy merchant shipping in the Atlantic. They knew they needed fast ships so they could run from ships with superior weapons. They knew they needed to not fight capital ships because they couldn't afford to be damaged. Here's where their innovation failed them. They failed to realize that convoys are hard to find in the open ocean and they failed to realize that the RN wasn't going to sit around with their slow battleships in Scapa Flow waiting around like they did in WW1 to chase ships that they couldn't catch anyway. So, they build very fast battleships, then were dumbfounded when the British resorted to convoys like they did in WW1 (not sure how they didn't see that coming...were they betting on King being in charge of the RN somehow?) which are harder to locate then single ships. When the RN put an otherwise useless R class battleship in the convoy, where it's slow speed was not a detriment, it essentially made such convoys no-go zones. Thus, the whole german surface strategy was completely negated from the beginning. What the Germans /should/ have done is kept an open mind. Nearly anything would have been a better idea then building ships like the Hippers, Scharnhorsts and Bismarcks. I'll give them the panzershiffe, as they were build under the Versailles treaty, and designed when Aviation was still in its infancy. They were good designs for what the Germans needed at the time. Had the Germans thought about how a marine war /might/ go, they would have easily forseen the RN defense against their cruiser tactics. More submarines was an obvious answer, but carriers also would cancel out the RN advantages. First, when the Scharnhorst was laid down, radar was not an option...but Aerial Recon was. That would solve the problems of finding elusive convoys in the Atlantic. The ability to strike from hundreds of miles away cancels out the worry from taking damage from escorting ships, unless the RN chooses to escort every convoy with a carrier of their own. By the way, the RN also has far fewer carriers with which to do this then they do battleship escorts. Even if you think the airplane can't be used to kill ships (which I think could be a fair conclusion) the carrier could be provided with a powerful enough surface armament to take care of business OR to direct other surface ships or do that work on it's own. Operation Berlin is a prime example of the failure of the DKM to identify how commerce war would happen. Replace Sharnhorst with Graf Zeppelin, even with crappy ME-109s and Stukas as an airgroup and the outlook is much different as she can find convoys for Gneisenau and even perhaps knock out the RN BB escort and allow the DKM ship to kill the convoy, while aircraft from Graf Zeppelin keep the merchants located. These are not hard conclusions to come to. Build your doctrine based on your mission. Be flexible. Heck, USN carrier doctrine was flawed to heck and back at the beginning of the war. The RN's was even worse. The IJN kinda had it together, and they were allies with the Germans. Were I the Germans I'd have had an exchange officer of some kind sitting on Akagi's bridge learning from 1936 on when I laid down my first carrier with orders to expidite it's construction. Now I know all about the racial superiority thing, but at the least I'd get an idea for what they do with the thought that I can improve their procedure and learn how /not/ to do it. Lacking a doctrine is not a horrible thing, especially when you are trying to think outside the box and not use them to support a fleet of battleships. Innovation. As for equipment, once again, you're pals with the IJN. They know how to reinforce airframes to land. They know how to build arresting gear. We know the Germans sent Japan information and technology. Japan even sent stuff the other direction including oxygen driven long-lance torpedoes. Too bad for the Germans they didn't copy those... One of the best fighters of the war was the P-51 Mustang; an American design with a British engine. I have to wonder, how dangerous a Zero could have been with armor, self sealing tanks and a German BMW 801 engine to drive it. German carriers would have also countered the eventual defense against U-boats of using escort carriers, as a German fleet carrier would have been able to blow them out of the water. Finally, had the DKM really pressed for aircraft and carriers I imagine they'd have gotten them over Goering's objections. They didn't, because they were mired in the battleship being queen of the seas mentality. They lacked the innovation to realize, there's a better way. Given the other innovation the Germans did during the war, it's just shocking.
Especially since the RN was very congnizant of the UK's vulnerability to a cruiser war on their trade routes and had been planning on what to do about one since the late 19th century.
So no contest on the Treaty and post treaty cruisers? What about their predecessors the Armored Cruisers? Blucher vs Tennessee's vs. Minotaurs vs. Pisa's vs. Tuskubas? Throw in the Scharnhorst/Gneisenau, Warriors and Pennsylvanias too.
WW1 AC will be next. Then BC. The poor Deutchland / Graf Spee class will not get reviewed, as they were such odd ducks they don't really fit any catagory
I dont think you can pick anything over Blucher for ACR, unless you count the original Invincibles since they were originally classified as ACRs. I don't really think that's fair as they were pretty revolutionary.
Minotaurs had 4x 9.2 and 10x7.5 but were very badly received as being overgunned for their size. On a purely aesthetic basis I like the Blucher with the Italian San Giorgio a close second.
I think the German 8.9's were better then the British 9.2, and a unified main battery provides better firecontrol. Also, Blucher was faster.
Blucher had 8.2's. Not the same gun as Scharnhorst/Gneisenau an improved version. I am definitely in the Blucher camp, but like to play Devil's Advocate.
You're right on the 8.2's thats what I get for not checking my facts before I post. Blucher had a longer range with her 8.2s then the British with their 9.2s. Edge to the 9.2 in armor penetration and bursting charge, but given superior German firecontrol, range, speed, and a uniform main battery I think the Minotaurs just don't stack up. I think as far as ACRs go, Blucher is top notch. I'd be tempted to take the USN Tennesee class ACRs with 4 X 10" and 16 X 6" over the Minotaurs also. you certainly won't be confusing a 10" and a 6" shell splash as is possible with 9.2 and 7.5 mixes. It's tight though.
The Averoff would have the same problem as the Minotaurs 9.2 in the main turrets and 7.5's in the wings. I wonder how difficult it would be to differentiate the San Giorgio's 10" and 7.5" fire. I suppose it would depend on the range. I know the Lord Nelson's had problems with the 12" vs. 9.2" splashes. Edgar Quinet also had 12 guns in the main battery but they were smaller and more poorly laid out than Blucher.
The IJN's Kawatchis were the /worst/. a mixed battery of 12" 45 and 50 caliber? ewwww. The splashes would be the same, but the ballistics would be different.
I know that the IJN could not afford the 12"/50's for the wing turrets, but why they did not "downgrade" the bow and stern turrets to 12"/45's for later upgrading escapes me.
Ok, Armoured Cruisers (AC)... Criteria: Completed prior to 1916, Not a BC or light cruiser. This class of ship was made obsolete by the Battlecruiser. The contenders: France: Edgar Quinet Class (1910). 14x 7.6" guns (twin turret fore and aft, 4 single turrets at "quarters", and 6 casemented), 24 kts, 14ktons. Odd 6-funnel layout makes them very unique looking ships. Germany: Blucher (1909). 12x 8.2" guns in twin turrets fore, aft and on the quarters. 8x 5.9" casements 26 kts. 15,500 tons A bigger, nastier follow-on to Scharnhorst. More guns, more speed, same armor. Britain: Warrior. (1907) 6x 9.2", 4x 7.5" guns, 22kts. 13,550 tons. Half the deck armor of contemporaries. Minotaur (1908). 4x 9.2", 10x 7.5" guns, 24kts, 14,600 tons. Approximately the same armor as Warrior US: Pennsylvania (1905): 4x 8", 14x 6" 22 kts, 13700 tons. Heavy firepower, decent armor. A contender Tennessee (1907) 4x 10", 16x 6" 22 kts, 14,500 tons. Improved Pennsylvania with bigger main guns at expense of some armor. Together, the two classes were known as the "big ten" (ten ships total being built). These ships were very handsome, but dated in appearance. Built on the eve of WW1, they would fit right in with Dewey's 1890's fleet at Manila. Fortunately, the obsolescence was only skin deep, and these ships were very effective. Overall, I think this boils down to a contest between the US and Germany. The British entries thin armor and low-velocity main guns (their 9.2" had comparable range to the US 8" and were horribly outranged by Blucher's 8.2's.) eliminate them, while France's 7.6" was even more anemic. Blucher has a slight range advantage over even the Tennessee's 10" guns, and about the same amount of armor protection. I think she wins (barely) just on the fact of her speed advantage.
To add: Averoff (Greece) - 4x9.2; 8x7.5" (same type guns as Minotaur) 23.5 knots, 7.9" armor (max) San Giorgio(Italy) - 4x10"; 8x7.5" - 23 Knots - 7.9" Belt Rurik II (Russia) - 4x10"; 8x8" - 21 knots - 6" Belt Of these the Averoff gets some points by still being around, Rurik II despite being a looker has the weakest armor and is slowest. Though she was considered to be the best armored cruiser design at the time it was built.
One key thing often overlooked is damage control. There have been many discussions about this on the Distant Guns II Jutland forum. German ships around the WWI timeframe were more survivable than those of almost any other navy. German propellant was much more stable than that of the Entente powers, so it would burn rather than exploding if a magazine was hit. Given the number of British, French, and even American ships that exploded due to unstable propellant, that's a big plus right there. They also tended to carry more crew on their ships, resulting in more hands available for damage control. Lastly, the Germans were generally stricter about following proper procedure, closing watertight doors and hatches, using flash protection, reducing flammable materials in danger areas, etc. than other nations. Overlooking her historical fate when faced with battlecruisers, I'd much rather be aboard Blucher or S&G than any of the French or British ships. Also, does anyone know about the fire control for these ships? Were they still using individual gun-layers in each turret? How good were their rangefinders? Did they have fire-control computers? I don't know, but all my reference books are back in California. I would expect the Rurik II to have the best fire control, given her date of launch, but then again she's Russian...
The Russian navy got very serious about fire control after Tsushima, new shell designs, faster firing guns, the lot. The only ammunition explosion I can think of in the USN is Maine, and that was due to a fire in the coal bunkers, not unstable propellent. I left my copy of Naval Weapons of World War One in New Orleans but can check. I know US propellant burned cooler than RN Cordite and used a different chemical formulation. Now France and England, Poudre - B and MK I Cordite....very nasty stuff. Blucher had a very bad fire in the ammunition passages for the wing turrets before she was lost...then again most of the RN battlecruisers were firing on her by that point so that may have been the least of her worries.
Though my memory (could be faulty) tells me that before the war Blucher served as a gunnery training ship so her fire control was probably pretty up to date when she sank. I don't recall ever reading any accounts of how good or bad her shooting was.
