German firecontrol was generally very good, using the stereoscopic rangefinders as opposed to the co-incidence rangefinders of just about everyone else. The stereo rangefinders would get you on target faster, but required more training. They also tired out the eyes of the operators much quicker then the co-incidence range finders. Something that often gets forgotten when people tend to worship at the altar of German warships is that they were cramped and short ranged. Most of the German ships were designed to have the crews live ashore rather then on board the ships. Given the short range, the ships would sortie, tool around for a few days and then come home again. The ships also had low freeboard which restricted their usefulness in bad weather. They were for the most part, not very deploy-able. The RN ships on the other hand, tended to have better open sea characteristics and living accommodations for their men as well as superior range. The fact that the RN ships were generally more /useful/ is often ignored when people look only at the protection schemes and guns and say wow, the German ships were way better. That's a pretty simplistic view imho.
Certainly the Dreadnoughts and Battlecruisers were designed for short sorties, but the Armored Cruisers, certainly the S&G spent a great deal of their lives at foreign stations. S&G certainly had the legs for crossing the pacific.
crkhawk, you have a valid point. But as pointed out, the cruisers were designed for just that.. cruising long distances. The Imperial German Armored and light cruisers were probably the nicest ships in the fleet for the sailors to live and sail in.
And they got hunted down by BCs. What the Germans really needed were to be able to use their BCs as raiders and force the RN to spread out their fleet, so the High Seas fleet could have a chance against something less then the whole grand fleet. The ACRs weren't fast enough to be effective commerce raiders. The CLs could do it well, but not enough of them were used in that role.
That was one of the roles that Fisher intended for the BC's. The S&G were also pretty much at the ends of their logistical tethers.
Yep. Admirals can't help put put the big guns in the battle line though. Ships like the Lion would have been much better with better armor, and retaining the 12 inch guns to compensate for the increased weight of the armor. 13.5" guns were not necessary for running down raiders.
Ok, since our AC discussion kept referring to 'em, let's look at battlecruisers: For clarity... A battlecruiser mounts large-calibre (>8") guns on a dreadnought-sized hull, but sacrifices armor to achieve high speed. I've seen some books refer to the WW2 Scharnhorst as a BC, which is idiotic, as she's got heavier armor than the Bismarck. She sacrificed gun size for speed. Further, by the 1930's propulsion and hull hydronamics had advanced to the point that all-up battleships could run at "battlecruiser speeds". So I'm limiting the selections to WW1-era (I will mention the Hood, but she is not in contention-completed 1920) and with at least 6 main guns (No Courageous) A note on guns: Britain's emphasis on larger calibre guns meant they had heavier throw weights, but their propellant was dangerously unstable and the greater shell weight lowered their maximum rate of fire (RoF). The German's stereoscopic range finders and more accurate-firing, higher RoF guns effectively cancelled the British weight advantage. Germany: Derfflinger (1914) - 26,300 tons, 26kts. 8x 12" guns. 11.8" belt armor is only 2 inches less than Bayern class. In fact, the armor thicknesses in all aspects (deck, conn, turrets, etc) shows the same 2" difference from the dreadnought. Her much longer hull form gives Derff 4 kts speed advantage over Bayern. Unlike earlier BC's, all 4 turrets being on the centerline means a useful 8-gun broadside. Britain: Tiger (1914) - 28,400 tons, 28kts. 8x 13.5" guns, 9" belt. Greater size, higher speed than Derff. Renown (1916) - 28,000 tons, 30kts. 6x 15" guns. 6" belt. 6 of the same guns QE mounted. But 6" belt armor? Yikes! Japan: Kongo (1913) - 26,200 tons, 28kts. 8x 14" guns. 8" belt. Interestingly, "Kongo" in Japanese means "Indestructible".. fits right in with the early British BC names. While I think the Derff is a beautiful ship, and I like her armor, this comes down to speed and hitting power. After all, that's what BC's were all about. Kongo is clearly superior here. HMS Hood: (1920) - 42,670 tons. 30kts. 8x15" guns. 12" belt. Clearly the most powerful BC built, she's 50% bigger than any other BC, mounts decent armor, and had the same armament as the QE class. If she had been as extensively upgraded as the Japanese did the Kongo's, Bismarck & PE would have had a much tougher fight in 1940.
Hood has always struck me as the prototype of the Fast BB. A 12" Belt is nothing to sneeze at but it was the weak decks that did her in. The RN though well enough of the Derfflingers that they did a fairly extensive study of Hindenburg after she was raised in the 1930's. One thing to note is that HSF speeds are a bit on the conservative side as they never pushed the engines to their maximum outputs on trials. Aesthetically Derfflingers and Tiger are the champs, I have always liked the look of the Von der Tann too, not sure why. The main problem with the RN ships was not the guns or the fire control. It was the garbage that they had for shells. What's worse is that they knew the problem existed and did little if anything about it.
Back to the question of the German ACR's vs. their BC's. The S+G had a range of over 5000 miles and the Blucher around 6500. Their BC's top out around 4100 or so. Moltke when it visited the US in 1912 had to carry extra coal in bags on the deck to ensure it could make the trip over.
This, Hood is in all actuality a fast battleship. Her protection is on par with the Queen Elizabeths. The British called her a battlecrusier because she was fast; they actually classified Vanguard as a fully armored battlecruiser. G3's were to be classified as battlecruisers as well, and if you look at their protection scheme theyd have given Iowas a run for their money. Since IMHO, Hood is actually a fast battleship, she does not win this category. I'll go with the Derfflingers, as they were the best balanced design, although you can make a solid argument for them being fast battleships as well.
I think they just liked the flair of calling them Battlecruisers. Much better sounding than Fast Battleship. Trying to draw the line between the Fast BB's and the BC's, especially the later designs, is much down to personal preference. I still think of the Derfflingers as BC's though with the follow up designs the distinction gets very fuzzy.
Actually I'm going to change my vote to Kongo. They didn't have the same protection as the Derfflinger, but great firepower, good protection, and I'm pretty sure they had better combat radius and crew habitation then the Derfflingers. Also, (blasphemy inc) the WW1 Kongos were hands down better looking then the Derfflinger and Tiger put together. The only think that ranks with them on the badass looking scale is the Repulse.
The Kongo's are the exception to my rule that the WW1 versions are better looking than the refits. I love the look of the refitted WW2 vintage Kongos but the as built version does not do a thing for me. I would agree that in combat radius they beat the Derfflingers hands down, but crew comfort was not a major focus in the IJN so that may be a draw.
Possibly, but I think the Kongos were designed to operate farther afoot then the Derfflingers, and they were British designed. I'd imagine on those grounds they were less cramped and more habitable.
It's certainly possible. Crew habitability of the Kongos is not something that I recall seeing commented on one way or the other.
How about submarines? There were some pretty good boats back then and many diesel boats built after the war used alot of the tech developed for WW2. J
I don't know much about the submarines, save that the U-139 class was much admired and copied by the USN and IJN in particular. The RN did not seem to think as well of the U-Boats from what little I remember.
Comparing submarines is a tough challenge, given the drastically different requirements that submarines in different oceans had to face. The submarines in the Atlantic, while requiring long range, did not require anywhere near the long range that Pacific operations mandated. Thus German U-boats appear weak and pitiful next to American fleet subs and Japanese carrier subs. OK, here's the contenders that I know of: I-400 class, largest submarine of the war, designed specifically to attack panama and carried three aircraft. Also, very powerful. Its underwater cruising speed was much higher than that of most other submarines. Type 21, the final evolution of the German U-boat, was introduced too late in the war, but was extensively studied by the victorious nations due to its stealth and hydrodynamic qualities. Surcouf, the ultimate big-gun submarine, carried a pair of 8-inch guns capable of firing submerged. USS Argonaut, the largest non-nuclear submarine ever built by the USN, set several records and also performed some bada** commando missions. What other boats should be in the running?
