Prev: Re: Fleet Composition - What more should I get? Next: Re: The GZG Digest V2 #1856

RE: Fleet Composition - What more should I get?

From: Jared Hilal <jlhilal@y...>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:34:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: RE: Fleet Composition - What more should I get?

--- CS Renegade <njg@csrenegade.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > From: ~ On Behalf Of Ryan Gill
> > BCs should be faster that the BBs and as fast as the
> > lighter stuff.
> 
> I think the traditional niche was "faster than a BB
> and sufficiently nasty to see off anything else".

Historically, a battlecruiser (BC) was armed about the same as a
battleship (caliber & number of guns), sacrificing armor for addional
powerplant.

A Fast Battleship, like the US Iowa class, had similar armor to a
battleship, but a reduce main battery to allow displacement for
additional engineering.

A Large Cruiser (CB), like the US Alaska class, had a main battery much
more powerful than contemporary heavy cruisers, but smaller than
contemporary BBs, and defenses equal to CAs.

Pre-WW2 german panzerschiffen (lit. "armored ships"), dubbed "pocket
battleships" in the British press, fall into this last category.

J

Prev: Re: Fleet Composition - What more should I get? Next: Re: The GZG Digest V2 #1856