Re: [FT] Battlecruisers vs. battleships

----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 10:51 PM
Subject: [FT] Battlecruisers vs. battleships

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan Gill" <rmgill@mindspring.com>
> To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 6:57 AM
> Subject: Re: FB designs & fighters (& strawmen)
>
>
> > Eric said:
> > >I've been aware of two different instances where British
battlecruisers
> > >basically had to stop dancing around and engage in serious action
with
> true
> > >battleships -- the Battle of Jutland in the First World War and the
> > >Hood/Bismarck action in the Second.  Both instances were quite
> catastrophic
> > >for the battlecruisers in question.
>
> > In my eyes, if the ships had been used as designed then they'd not
> > have met such a dreadful end. They weren't supposed to engage big
> > heavy ships. They were supposed to run from them. They were meant to
> > act as anti-cruiser vessels.
>
> Well, ultimately, this begs the question:  why invest the material in
> constructing ships that can't stand up to anything their own size?
>
> Hood was, at the time of her destruction, the second largest warship
in
the
> world (the Bismarck herself being the largest at that time).	Indeed,
> throughout World War II, there would still be less than a dozen
vessels
> constructed in the entire world that were heavier -- the German
Bismarcks,
> the Japanese Yamatos, and the American Iowas.  Yet Hood had no serious
> prayer of standing in battle against any of them.  Aside from the
Yamatos,
> she couldn't even cleanly outrun them.  Nor could she even hope to
stay in
SNIP>
> > I think the task is warranted. Especially in the vastness of space.
> > Having something big that can run down something smaller can be a
> > good thing can it not?
>
> I would only do this at such cost if I had a massive resource
advantage
that
> would permit me to throw away the materials on such vessels.	If the
> resources were tight enough that I'd rather have them put into ships
that
> could stand in there with things their own size, I would never even
consider
> it.  My cruiser-hunters would, until that point, follow the model of
the
> German "pocket battleships" more closely than the British
battlecruisers.
>
> E
> (aka Stilt Man)

The Hood really _wasn't_ like the Jutland BCs.	Remember that her design
was
recast into a fast battleship rather than a "dreadnought armoured
cruiser",
which I'd say still describes Renown and Repulse in WW2.  Also, remember
that Hood had a couple of _decades_ as the world's biggest warship
before
Bismarck arrived.  Cruiser-killing was of huge importance to a global
empire. Even less obviously imperial powers wanted cruiser-killers e.g.
the
Japanese B64 project, the Dutch BC and the Dunkerques (as good a pocket
battleship-smacker as you'll see).  Remember also the treaties limiting
building between the wars- if you scrapped a ship you wouldn't be
allowed to
build an equal replacement.  Hood was also intended as something of an
interim design, pending the G3 and N3 monsters that we'd have built had
flying pigs brought us the money.

Rob Paul