Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
40902nd

British Battlecruiser Suggestion

38 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3
[FLTF1]
Members
14 posts
1,214 battles

Here I have a proposal for British Battlecruisers. This is more of a conversation starter and what I believe a BC line could look like than what it would look like if WG decided to make one. A 'what-if' thread, if you will.

 

Here is the revised tech tree. There are two option for the start of this. First, it either branches from Bellerophorn or there needs to be a new Tier II Pre-Dreadought (Lord Nelson, Swiftsure, or Duncan). If the latter option is selected, that ship will lead to both the Bellerophon and the Indefatigable. Either way, the rest of the tech tree will continue the same.

 

Tier 3

Indefatigable-Class

Main Armament:

4x Twin BL 12-inch Mark X turrets

Secondary Armament:

16x Single BL 4-inch Mark VII

Belt Armor

4-6 inches.

Speed:

25.8 Knots

Rationale:

The Indefatigable-Class were an incremental progression of the Invincible-Class, designed with lesson learned from the previous class, but nothing revolutionary.

 

Premium Option

Invincible-Class

Main Armament:

4x Twin BL 12-inch Mark X turrets

Secondary Armament:

16x Single BL 4-inch Mark III guns

Belt Armor:

4-6 inches

Speed:

25 knots

Rationale:

The Invincible-Class is very similar, but inferior to the Indefatigable-Class. Slightly slower, slightly weaker secondaries, and slightly worse gun arcs, I think the Invincible would be a way for people to get to know the early Battlecruisers without being overpowered.

 

Tier 4

HMS Queen Mary

Main Armament:

4x Twin BL 13.5-inch Mark V turrets

Secondary Armament:

16x Single BL 4-inch Mark VII guns

Belt Armor:

4-9 inches

Speed:

28 knots

Rationale:

HMS Queen Mary was a Battlecruiser design similar to the Lion-Class in that it had a Super-Dreadnought turret layout, but is slightly faster. She is similar to the Orion-Class in terms of total armament, though she sacrifices one of the fore turrets, as well as armor in order to attain her speed.

 

Tier 5

HMS Tiger

Main Armament:

4x Twin BL 13.5-inch Mark V turrets

Secondary Armament:

12x Single BL 4-inch Mark VII guns

Anti-Aircraft Armament:

2x Single QF 3 inch 20 cwt

Belt Armor:

3-9 inches

Speed:

28 knots

Rationale:

Like her predecessor, HMS Tiger matches her proper Battleship tier mate in secondaries, but carries 1 turret less. This time, it is one of the aft turrets which is taken. However, due to the layout of her superstructure, HMS Tiger can fire her midships turret directly aft, which means she can match the Iron Duke-Class in firepower directly fore and aft, though she losses out in broadside capability. She also has much thinner armor than her tier mate in order to achieve her speed of 28 knots.

 

Tier 6

Renown-Class

Main Armament:

3x Twin BL 15-inch Mark I turrets

Secondary Armament:

5x Triple BL 4-inch Mark IX turrets

2x Single BL 4-inch Mark IX guns

Anti-Aircraft Armament:

2x Single QF 3 inch 20 cwt

Belt Armor:

3-6 inches

Speed:

32 knots

Rationale:

With one turret less than the Queen Elizabeth-Class and considerably less armor, the Renown-Class will find it difficult to win a brawling match with her tier mate, but that is fine. At almost half again the speed of the Queen Elizabeth-Class, the Renown-Class will be able to get her still potent firepower across the battlefield quicker. By this time, Battlecruiser players should have learned how to play this line of ships, anyway. Run away from true Battleships while attacking cruisers. Thankfully, the Renown is only half a knot slower than the Cleveland, who will quickly become your best friend, as this class only has the barest amount of AA defense.

 

Premium Option

Courageous/Furious-Class

Designation: Cruiser

Main Armament:

2x Twin BL 15-inch Mark I turrets

-OR-

2x Single BL 18-inch Mark I turrets

Secondary Armament:

6x Triple BL 4-inch Mark IX turrets

Anti-Aircraft Armament:

2x Single QF 3 inch 20 cwt

Belt Armor:

2-3 inches

Speed:

32 knots

Rationale:

Essentially a cut down Renown-Class, the Courageous-Class fits into a weird spot, much like the Deutschland and Alaska Classes. Officially, the Courageous-Class were classified as Large Light Cruisers, and since this class sits between the Deutschland and Alaska Classes in terms of size, it also allows for ambiguity for the Alaska, should she be implemented later. The novel thing about the Courageous is that she carries really big guns for a cruiser. With the 15-inch guns, she has half the firepower of the Queen Elizabeth. With the 18-inch guns, each salvo carries half the damage of a Graf Spee.

 

Tier 7

Admiral-Class

Main Armament:

4x Twin BL 15-inch Mark I turrets

Secondary Armament:

16x Single VL 5.5-inch Mark I guns

Anti-Aircraft Armament:

4x Single QF 4-inch Mark V

Belt Armor:

5-12 inches

Speed:

32 knots

Rationale:

The Hood as she was when she was first built. Unlike the premium Hood, the Admiral-Class has a good suite of secondaries, but is lacking in the Anti-Air department. As a transition ship between Battlecruisers and Fast Battleships, she is actually well protected, and her armament is closer to that of her tier mate, the King George V-Class Battleship.

 

Tier 8

G3-Class

Main Armament:

3x Triple BL 16-inch Mark I turrets

Secondary Armament:

8x Double BL 6-inch Mark XXII turrets

Anti-Aircraft Armament:

8x Double BL 6-inch Mark XXII turrets

6x Single QF 4.7-inch Mk VIII guns

4x 8-barreled QF 2-pounder Mk VIII guns

Belt Armor:

12-14 inches

Speed:

32 knots

Rationale:

While she carries larger guns than the Monarch, whom is her tier mate, the G3 does suffer from a problem that will be carried through the rest of the line: a lack of rear coverage with her guns. Fast, well armored, and well armed, she would a joy to play, though she would be in trouble should be forced to run. The BL 16-inch Mark 1 should have the same characteristics as the US 16"/45 Caliber, which means her broadside should be roughly equal to the North Carolina.

Image

 

Premium Option

HMSVanguard

Main Armament:

4x Twin BL 15-inch Mark I turrets

Secondary Armament:

8x Twin QF 5.25-inch Mk I* Dual Purpose gun turrets

Anti-Aircraft Armament:

8x Twin QF 5.25-inch Mk I* Dual Purpose gun turrets

10x Sextuple 40mm Bofors AA guns

1x Double 40mm Bofors AA gun

11x Single 40mm Bofors AA guns

Belt Armor:

4.5-14 inches

Speed:

30 knots

Rationale:

You want Bofors? We've got Bofors. With 16 133mm dual purpose guns and 73 40mm Bofors, HMS Vanguard has an AA suite to rival the American Battleships, fitting for the worlds last Battleship. As a proper Fast Battleship, HMS Vanguard would fit comfortably between the Monarch and the G3. While she has 4 turrets, they are only twin turrets, instead of Monarch's triples, which means she'd be the lightest armed British Battleship, though she'd be about equal to Tirpitz in terms of firepower. In terms of design, she was basically a Lion modified to fit 15-inch turrets that the British already had stockpiled, so would have most of the pros and cons of that ship. As a postwar battleship, she'd have access to RADAR, and maybe Defensive Fire.

 

Tier 9

H3-Class

Main Armament:

2x Triple BL 18-inch Mark I turrets

Secondary Armament:

8x Double BL 6-inch Mark XXII turrets

Anti-Aircraft Armament:

8x Double BL 6-inch Mark XXII turrets

5x Single QF 4.7-inch Mk VIII guns

4x 8-barreled QF 2-pounder Mk VIII guns

Belt Armor:

12-14 inches

Speed:

33.25-33.75 knots

Rationale:

Fast and carrying 6 really big guns in 2 turrets, the H3 would be a ship to be feared. She retains the weakness of having no aft turrets, but she does have the interesting feature of having 3 different turret layouts, imaginatively named H3a, H3b, and H3c. The H3a had both turrets up front. Based on the drawing, it does not look like the first turret would be able to clear the bow when firing dead ahead. It's speed was estimated to be 33.5 knots. H3b had the bridge moved up and the second turret moved behind it, while the fore turret was raised to clear the bow. It's speed was projected to be 33.25 knots. Lastly, the H3c design had the same layout as H3b, but everything was lowered by 1 deck. This means H3c had the same issue as H3a with her forward gun, but the overall result lightened her, meaning she should be able to make 3.75. I think H3a, H3b, and H3c should be researchible, with the player making the final decision of which plan to go with.

Image

H3a

H3b

H3c

 

Tier 10

I3-Class

Main Armament:

3x Triple BL 18-inch Mark I turrets

Secondary Armament:

8x Double BL 6-inch Mark XXII turrets

Anti-Aircraft Armament:

8x Double BL 6-inch Mark XXII turrets

6x Single QF 4.7-inch Mk VIII guns

4x 8-barreled QF 2-pounder Mk VIII guns

Belt Armor:

12-14 inches

Speed:

32.5 knots

Rationale:

As long as a Montana and as wide as an Iowa, the I3 would be the biggest ship in the UK tech tree. Armed with 18 inch guns, she would be similar to Conqueror in terms of firepower, though since she carries triple gun turrets, her broadside would actually has 1 gun more. However, this is offset by the fact that she is defenseless from the rear and she has poor gun arms with her midships turret. While she would be he fastest of the Tier 10 battleships, she'd only be 3 knots faster than Conqueror, who is the second slowest Tier 10 Battleship, and only 5.5 knots faster than Yamato.

Image

Edited by 40902nd
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[NNC]
Members
1,136 posts
13,610 battles

I get annoyed at people calling the Hood a battlecruiser. She was but was not. The version in the game has higher armor values than she ever had historically and is a fast battleship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[FLTF1]
Members
14 posts
1,214 battles

Well, there is no clear line between Battlecruiser and Fast battleship, since the the Battlecruisers evolved into Fast Battleships. It further complicated by the fact that some nations, like the US, never really recognized battlecruisers as a distinct class. The Lexington-Class was the only actual battlecruiser designed by the US, but none were finished as such. The Alaska-Class was kinda-sorta maybe a small battlecruiser, but the US designation was a Large Cruiser. But back to the Hood. The Royal Navy itself classified her as a Battlecruiser, so I think it is most appropriate to call her one.

 

Edit: It was say, however, that in game terms, WG already said that that Battlecruisers won't get their own designation, and will be called Battleships.

Edited by 40902nd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles
14 hours ago, Jakajan said:

I get annoyed at people calling the Hood a battlecruiser. She was but was not. The version in the game has higher armor values than she ever had historically and is a fast battleship.

Well she is a battlecruiser, "fast battleship" is the practical definition of a battlecruiser. I think the issue is when people hear battlecruiser, they think cruiser. Battlecruisers are much much much much closer to battleships than cruisers and the name seems to imply as if they're some sort of hybrid when it simply means it's considerably faster than the battleships of the day to warrant, a new(and stupidly conceived) title. I mean battlecruisers are almost always larger than the battleships(Hood was larger than every single UK battleship ever built) of their day and yet using the word cruiser invokes images of actual cruisers.  So there's differences they were just labeled very very misleadingly.

But there are differences, all of which stem from the need to make the ship faster.

1-Larger, which I learned on one of these threads was for more engines to make the ship go faster. 

2-Tended to have one less turret/occasionally weaker guns than the main battleship, which I'm guessing though am not certain was to bring the ships weight down. Hood had the same armament as the QE's but remember the Admirals' weren't the peers of the QE/RS, the Renown's were. Admiral construction started when the QE's were long done. 

3-Less armor which again was to help make the ship faster.

4-Finally, the considerable speed increase. Battleships at the time Hood was built typically only went 20ish knots and the QE's were actually labeled "Fast Battleships" because they could go 24, which while faster than battleships was still slower than battlecruisers. Also as we can see in the game, QE is really well armored, was smaller than the BC's of her day/ did not have weakened armament nor any of the things battlecruisers had to go faster, she was a "fast battleship" because she was a battleship that could go slightly faster. Hood on the other hand could go 32 kn which was considerably faster than the fastest battleships at the time(1920 not 1941) which were in turn considerably faster than most battleships. To put just how fast this was into context, 32 kn was faster than the Blue Riband(record for fastest commercial ocean liners crossing Atlantic) until 1952 and the Blue Riband was contested by non militarily civilian ships which didn't need to have armor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[FLTF1]
Members
14 posts
1,214 battles

As far as I could find, Fast Battleship was an actual term, if not classification/designation. Think of it as a subset of Battleships, and were, ultimately, what the Battlecruiser was evolving into until Big-Gun ships were completely eclipsed by Carriers. Battlecruisers were not meant to face Battleships, Fast Battleships were. Fast Battleships, however, were always seen as the weaker counterpart to Battleships, and were really there as escorts for faster ships, like carriers.

 

The Iowas were seen as heavy escorts for carriers and such, so were designed as Fast Battleships. However, the true sluggers were to be the following Montanas. Pearl Harbor changed American design philosophy, which is why focus shifted to carriers. The Iowas were used because they could keep pace with the carriers, while the Montanas would have slowed the fleets down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,211
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,827 posts
10,383 battles
On 3/9/2018 at 10:50 PM, 40902nd said:

This is more of a conversation starter and what I believe a BC line could look like than what it would look like if WG decided to make one. A 'what-if' thread, if you will.

The wide-spread suggestion (and one I support) is - Indefatigable - Queen Mary - Tiger - Renown - Hood - J3 - G3 - K3.

I would omit Courageous entirely, she fits the game very poorly. If you compare her to say Myogi at T4 she's about as fast, but has only 1/3 the armor (76mm vs 203mm) and 2/3 the guns (4 vs 6). She's not a good fit at any tier, let alone T5. Kongo would just pummel her from pillar to post.

I think there are enough differences between the Lion Class and Tiger to split them over tiers. Tiger is a solidly superior ship, better gun arrangement, better guns (the 13.5in Heavy vs. 13.5in Light), more displacement. She's in every way a 'British Kongo' or Kongo is a 'Japanese Tiger' - well, Kongo was laid down first so... she would need a fantasy late '30's refit as she was scrapped, but that's no different from Konig or Bayern. Orion being the T4 BB solidifies a Lion as the T4 BC in my view.

Renown had a refit which gave her the same 89 DPS @ 5km of the Queen Elizabeth, her AA is very solid. I would agree with her at T6, she may be a little more of a struggle but she's the only decent choice. I also agree with an Admiral at T7.

At higher tiers things are a little more nebulous. J3 would be in many ways a 9-gun Hood, with 3x3 arrangement, a better 15in/50 vs. 15in/42 gun and a 330mm belt inclined at 25', which is a lot. G3 and K3 would probably need a bit of a massage. All 3 of those designs are early 1920's and while that works for Amagi it does have some challenges.

Some bare-bones details on K3 here: http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=5705

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[FLTF1]
Members
14 posts
1,214 battles

I actual was waffling fairly hard on having Tier 4 and have be 'Pick 2' out of Lion, Queen Mary, and Tiger, with the caveat that the later ship be later in the tech tree. Courageous-Class was sort of a compromise, since I didn't have a good place for it, but it was unique enough that I would hate to see it go. It carries the same main armament as Warspite, which would give it the largest guns at its tier. However, those were my reasons for putting it at tier 5, not for not putting Tiger at 5, which I'm in favor of.

 

It'll take me some time to go through the link you posted, looks like has a lot more information than I was able to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles
On 3/10/2018 at 7:11 PM, 40902nd said:

As far as I could find, Fast Battleship was an actual term, if not classification/designation. Think of it as a subset of Battleships, and were, ultimately, what the Battlecruiser was evolving into until Big-Gun ships were completely eclipsed by Carriers. Battlecruisers were not meant to face Battleships, Fast Battleships were. Fast Battleships, however, were always seen as the weaker counterpart to Battleships, and were really there as escorts for faster ships, like carriers.

 

The Iowas were seen as heavy escorts for carriers and such, so were designed as Fast Battleships. However, the true sluggers were to be the following Montanas. Pearl Harbor changed American design philosophy, which is why focus shifted to carriers. The Iowas were used because they could keep pace with the carriers, while the Montanas would have slowed the fleets down.

By this logic most post WWI battleships were "fast battleships", just look at the higher tiers in WOWS, most ships are in that 27-33 spread. Battleships just tended to be faster but they didn't have less armor, less arms and more size to reach this end. Part of this was because gun size and tonnage was restricted by arms treaty's(and now due to other threads on the topic I know 16 inch gun ships were restricted), so the main way to get an advantage was through speed, and WWII BB's were considerably faster than WWI BB's whereas WWII BB's weren't all that more heavily armed than their WWI peers. In WWII the slowest new battleships could go around 27-28 and most could go 30, whereas battlecruisers hadn't been built since the Hood, because the whole point of a battlecruiser was a considerably faster BB, as BB's were sluggish, if BB's aren't sluggish you don't need BC's. If that makes them "fast battleships" in your eyes I guess they are but I view it as simply standards changing. 

Also German battlecruisers did a very very good job fighting battleships. "Fast battleships" regardless of defintition were also never seen as the weaker counterpart to normal BB's. In WWII there was nothing really separating Iowa from her peers in speed and while I guess she could be seen as inferior to Yamato, wouldn't that be because Yamato had 18 inch guns rather than an indictment on the type?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles
On 3/10/2018 at 1:50 AM, 40902nd said:

Here I have a proposal for British Battlecruisers. This is more of a conversation starter and what I believe a BC line could look like than what it would look like if WG decided to make one. A 'what-if' thread, if you will.

Starting off at tier 3, we have 2 options that are equally qualified for the slot: Invincible-Class and Indefatigable-Class.

Both classes are very similar, as the Indefatigable-Class is a modification of the Invincible-Class with better arcs for their wing turrets. Both classes have the same artillery armament, 4 twin BL 12-inch Mark X turrets as their primary and 16 BL 4-inch guns as secondaries (though the Invincible had Mk III and Indefatigable had Mk VII).

They both had same armor of 4-6 inches in the belt, and their speeds were similar, with Invincible at 25 knots, and Indefatigable at 25.8.

 

Tier 4 has 3 options:

Lion-Class Battlecruiser (unfavorable to avoid confusion with Lion-Class Battleship, an unrelated design), HMS Queen Mary, and HMS Tiger. All 3 have  4 twin 13.5-inch guns as primary armament, with 2 fore, 1 midships, and 1 aft (though the mid turret on Tiger didn't have any superstructure to block it's fire aft). Both Lion and Queen Mary had 16 4-inch secondaries, though Tiger only had 12. However, Tiger had 2 3-inch AA guns.

Lion had a speed of 27.5 knots, while both Tiger and Queen Mary could reach 28. Not a big difference, but worth mentioning, I guess. All three had a maximum belt of 9 inches and both Lion and Queen Mary had a minimum of 4, while Tiger's minimum was 3.

While HMS Queen Mary sounds more British and has more secondaries, I think HMS Tiger would be a better choice since it has a better firing arc with it's midships turret.

 

Tier 5

Courageous-Class. These ships are actually derivatives of the ship class for tier 6, but I think they better fit here. Main armament consist of 2 twin 15-inch guns, with secondaries consisting of 6 triple 4 inch turrets. At 32-knots, the Courageous will be able to outrun all other current battleships of her tier, including Congo, and the only BB she will see that would match her is a fully upgraded Gneisenau.

However, all is not golden with the Courageous-Class. Her belt only maxes out at 3 inches. Oh, and she has 2 3-inch guns for AA.

 

Tier 6

Renown-Class. The Courageous is essentially a cut-down Renown. The Renown isn't any faster than the Courageous, but she isn't any slower, either. She also gets an extra main turret and double the belt armor at the cost replacing a secondary turret with 2 single 4-inch guns and she retains the same AA armament. Better stay close to a Cleveland.

 

Tier 7

Admiral-Class. Hood is one of these. Actually, she was the only one completed. The other 3 were scrapped before completion. In keeping with the rest of the line, I think the Admiral-Class would be kept as launched, 4 twin 15 inch primary turrets, 12 single 5.5-inch secondaries, and only 4 single 4-inch AA guns. However, this earlier configuration would allow her to carry a spotter plane (or a fighter if you want to allow her more air defense).

 

Tier 8

G3 Battlecruisers. Armed with 3 triple 16 inch turrets and able to cruise at 32 knots, she'd be a terror. She'd have the weakest belt out of any tier 8 BB, and while she could tie for the fastest tier 8 battleship, her speed advantage over the others in the same tier wouldn't be as great. Still, there is something to be said about cruising around like a cruiser while swinging around the main guns of a North Carolina. Secondaries would be 8 twin dual purpose 6-inch turrets. Those, plus the 6 single 4.7-inch and 4 10-barreled 2-pounder pom-poms means that she's not exactly defenseless from aircraft, even if she isn't the strongest.

 

Tier 9 and 10

Fantasy land. The G3 was the last British Battlecruiser design that I know of. If anyone knows what could go here, be my guest.

 

As a note, HMS Vanguard, a Fast Battleship would go into tier 8 and the G3 could be moved up to Tier 9, which would require only a single fantasy ship to go into that spot, but Vanguard would be a tiny bit slower (30 knots, as opposed to 32), but would have same main armament as the Hood. Her AA, however, would be vastly superior to any of the other ships in this line, and would probably be among the best in tier, with 73 40mm Bofors and 16 5.25-inch dual purpose guns.

Vanguard is not a battlecruiser it is pretty clearly a battleship. Even if it is a "fast battleship" all the ship's that were labeled that are in the BB tech tree, as is the Hood and Kongo which establishes precedent that there will never be a battlecruiser tech tree as the game's existing battlecruisers are considered to be battleships for WOWS purposes. That being said if there was a BC tech tree I agree with your line almost entirely with the exception of the Courageous class. The difference between T4 and T5 is probably the smallest in the game typically. With the UK BB's, you have two different 13.5 inch gunned ships with Iron Duke being slightly and only slightly better than Orion. To replicate that they just need to put 2 13.5 inch BC's in those slots. Tiger is probably T5(most advanced 13.5 incher) and the Princess Royal or Queen Mary is probably T4.

Interesting note is that one of the Courageous class had a significantly different primary armament with 2 18 inch guns. It would be really interesting to see how that would work in the game, as a T5 or T6 premium. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,211
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,827 posts
10,383 battles
18 hours ago, 40902nd said:

I actual was waffling fairly hard on having Tier 4 and have be 'Pick 2' out of Lion, Queen Mary, and Tiger, with the caveat that the later ship be later in the tech tree. Courageous-Class was sort of a compromise, since I didn't have a good place for it, but it was unique enough that I would hate to see it go. It carries the same main armament as Warspite, which would give it the largest guns at its tier. However, those were my reasons for putting it at tier 5, not for not putting Tiger at 5, which I'm in favor of.

It'll take me some time to go through the link you posted, looks like has a lot more information than I was able to find.

Waffling between them works, but Tiger is inherently solid at T5. The Courageous just doesn't work in-game at all readily, if you were desperate to have her I'd look at doing something odd, like making her actually a huge HP cruiser instead of an in-game BB and keeping her at very low tier. She's either the worst armored BB option by about a factor of three(!) or a reasonable cruiser with vast HP pool, but slow-firing guns so bad at cruiser tasks. Awkward.

13 hours ago, Aristotle83 said:

By this logic most post WWI battleships were "fast battleships", just look at the higher tiers in WOWS, most ships are in that 27-33 spread. Battleships just tended to be faster but they didn't have less armor, less arms and more size to reach this end. Part of this was because gun size and tonnage was restricted by arms treaty's(and now due to other threads on the topic I know 16 inch gun ships were restricted), so the main way to get an advantage was through speed, and WWII BB's were considerably faster than WWI BB's whereas WWII BB's weren't all that more heavily armed than their WWI peers. In WWII the slowest new battleships could go around 27-28 and most could go 30, whereas battlecruisers hadn't been built since the Hood, because the whole point of a battlecruiser was a considerably faster BB, as BB's were sluggish, if BB's aren't sluggish you don't need BC's. If that makes them "fast battleships" in your eyes I guess they are but I view it as simply standards changing. 

Also German battlecruisers did a very very good job fighting battleships. "Fast battleships" regardless of defintition were also never seen as the weaker counterpart to normal BB's. In WWII there was nothing really separating Iowa from her peers in speed and while I guess she could be seen as inferior to Yamato, wouldn't that be because Yamato had 18 inch guns rather than an indictment on the type?

The post-WWI battlecruiser candidates are reasonably -

  • Dunkerque - designed to counter Deutschland class cruisers, thin belt, 29kt is very fast for that time
  • Scharnhorst - Lower-caliber main battery sacrifices firepower (in theory) without the ship sacrificing armor - per WWI German BC's
  • Iowa - does 33kt, which is a decent leg up on the 27-30kt BB of the time plus fits the criteria 'not armored against it's own guns'
  • Alaska - small guns, intended cruiser killer, weak capital ship armor but still in excess of typical cruisers
  • Krondstadt/Stalingrad - as Alaska

Technology and the end of some restrictions did mean you could 'have your cake and eat it' for sure, but people still made trade-offs in the armor-guns-protection triangle in a way that looks like a battlecruiser might.

13 hours ago, Aristotle83 said:

Vanguard is not a battlecruiser it is pretty clearly a battleship. Even if it is a "fast battleship" all the ship's that were labeled that are in the BB tech tree, as is the Hood and Kongo which establishes precedent that there will never be a battlecruiser tech tree as the game's existing battlecruisers are considered to be battleships for WOWS purposes. That being said if there was a BC tech tree I agree with your line almost entirely with the exception of the Courageous class. The difference between T4 and T5 is probably the smallest in the game typically. With the UK BB's, you have two different 13.5 inch gunned ships with Iron Duke being slightly and only slightly better than Orion. To replicate that they just need to put 2 13.5 inch BC's in those slots. Tiger is probably T5(most advanced 13.5 incher) and the Princess Royal or Queen Mary is probably T4.

Interesting note is that one of the Courageous class had a significantly different primary armament with 2 18 inch guns. It would be really interesting to see how that would work in the game, as a T5 or T6 premium. 

You're right on Vanguard.

I suspect you could treat a 'battlecruiser branch' as battleships for gameplay and matchmaking purposes, just like cruisers are 'cruisers' be they heavy or light for the upcoming USN branch or destroyers are 'destroyers' be they normal or 'leaders' per the RU destroyer split.

A 2x 18in Courageous would be even more difficult to tier and make work than a 4x 15in. You lose half the already terrible firepower volume and 18in guns have very little advantage over 15in at those tiers, 15in already overmatches all plating in the T5-T7 range, and only if you were T6 seeing T8 would you get any benefit. Combine that with a big and extremely vulnerable hull, terrible damage per minute - the Courageous class have no place in mid-tiers and should be relegated to the T3-T4 space with crazy gimmicks, or kept out of the game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles
3 hours ago, mofton said:

Waffling between them works, but Tiger is inherently solid at T5. The Courageous just doesn't work in-game at all readily, if you were desperate to have her I'd look at doing something odd, like making her actually a huge HP cruiser instead of an in-game BB and keeping her at very low tier. She's either the worst armored BB option by about a factor of three(!) or a reasonable cruiser with vast HP pool, but slow-firing guns so bad at cruiser tasks. Awkward.

The post-WWI battlecruiser candidates are reasonably -

  • Dunkerque - designed to counter Deutschland class cruisers, thin belt, 29kt is very fast for that time
  • Scharnhorst - Lower-caliber main battery sacrifices firepower (in theory) without the ship sacrificing armor - per WWI German BC's
  • Iowa - does 33kt, which is a decent leg up on the 27-30kt BB of the time plus fits the criteria 'not armored against it's own guns'
  • Alaska - small guns, intended cruiser killer, weak capital ship armor but still in excess of typical cruisers
  • Krondstadt/Stalingrad - as Alaska

Technology and the end of some restrictions did mean you could 'have your cake and eat it' for sure, but people still made trade-offs in the armor-guns-protection triangle in a way that looks like a battlecruiser might.

You're right on Vanguard.

I suspect you could treat a 'battlecruiser branch' as battleships for gameplay and matchmaking purposes, just like cruisers are 'cruisers' be they heavy or light for the upcoming USN branch or destroyers are 'destroyers' be they normal or 'leaders' per the RU destroyer split.

A 2x 18in Courageous would be even more difficult to tier and make work than a 4x 15in. You lose half the already terrible firepower volume and 18in guns have very little advantage over 15in at those tiers, 15in already overmatches all plating in the T5-T7 range, and only if you were T6 seeing T8 would you get any benefit. Combine that with a big and extremely vulnerable hull, terrible damage per minute - the Courageous class have no place in mid-tiers and should be relegated to the T3-T4 space with crazy gimmicks, or kept out of the game.

Those are a lot of BB's after 1930 though and aside from the Yamato's I think every BB made after the Washington halt of capital ship building was near 30 knots. IMO even with the whole "you either can have your cake or eat it" concept, BB's were very similar to BC's, if you take that away what is the difference between the two? The Alaska's are the exception they are really tough to classify, they don't really fit into the BB, BC or "heavy cruiser" box(guess that's why they were called "large cruisers"), I'd consider them to be BB's despite there small guns the same way the Scharnhorst's or Dunkerque's were considered BB's because the Alaska's didn't have a speed edge on the Iowa BB's, nor were they larger and the main disadvantage there was the 12 inch guns that were still BB guns. How is this fundamentally different from Scharnhorst's 11 or Dunkerque's 13 inchers? So I think Alaska's are BB's, know that's not a majority view but it seems to make more sense IMO than calling them heavy/large cruisers or BC's. 

I think WG puts a ship wherever they come closest to fitting in. Look at the Graf Spee's, who are cruiser's in every sense except the guns and they are considered cruisers despite the third option "pocket battleships" making the most sense, but you clearly can't just make them their own separate category. BC's are closer to BB's in every sense except the speed/maybe armor. 

Agree about Courageous being a tough fit in the game, think they should be the last priority when introducing BC's into the game, maybe even behind realish and paper Admiral's, Mackensen's and G3's. Think at T3-T4, there are enough viable options where Courageous isn't needed, think if they are in the game, they should be premiums, maybe release the Furious and Courageous separate but I also wouldn't be super dismayed if they weren't in the game. 

Edited by Aristotle83

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,211
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,827 posts
10,383 battles
12 minutes ago, Aristotle83 said:

Those are the lions share of BB's after 1930 though and aside from the Yamato's I think every BB made after the Washington halt of capital ship building was near 30 knots. IMO even with the whole "you either can have your cake or eat it" concept, BB's were very similar to BC's, if you take that away what is the difference between the two?

You can have 'Fast BB' which are largely without compromise, but if you do compromise or have to then you can still end up with a battlecruiser.

Compared to Iowa, there were still plenty of 27-28kt KGV's, Yamato's, North Carolina's and South Dakota's, as well as all of the older ships such as the Nelson at 24kt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[FLTF1]
Members
14 posts
1,214 battles

Just to be clear, this line would be 'Battleships' for game purposes, since there is little need for a new classification for Battlecruisers. The idea, though, is for a tech tree that has a bit of commonality and to open up the available play styles. Since the Fast Battleship is an evolution of the Battlecruiser, it makes sense that it could be included in a Battlecruiser tree to fill out space.

 

I was able to take a look at the link mofton posted, and I really like the information, I'd like to see where Hood got his information, but assuming it is correct, it has enough information to finish out the tree.

 

Tier 8:

G3 Battlecruiser. Good, solid Battlecruiser with 3 triple 16 turrets. The BL 16-inch Mark I guns were 45 caliber guns, which means their performance would probably be similar to the 16"/45 caliber Mark 6 carried by the North Carolina. Her secondaries would be weaker, but her overall speed would be greater.

 

Tier 9:

H3 Battlecruiser. She was to carry 2 triple 18-inch turrets. There are 3 hulls to choose from, which could be put into the game for differing play style. Imaginatively, they are the H3a, H3b, and H3c.

 

Tier 10

I3 Battlecruiser. The H3 was essential a cut down I3. She'd be a long as a Montana, as wide as an Iowa, can carry 3 triple 18s. Special mention should go to the K2 and K3 designs, but I think the I3 would be a better pick because she's faster (by only 3 knots) and because her turret layout is similar to the G3 and H3 designs. She also was designed with what I think was a novel armor feature. Steel pipes were to be run between her belt and hull which were to help retain buoyancy in the event of a torpedo strike and to serve as a de-capping layer for APC shells.

 

There ya go, a theoretical British Battlecruiser tree from tiers 3 to 10, without going to wonderland. I'll try and remember to edit the original post tomorrow with the revisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[FLTF1]
Members
14 posts
1,214 battles

I overhauled the Tech Tree with the results of our discussions here and made the information easier to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[--1--]
Members
196 posts
2,705 battles
On 3/10/2018 at 12:28 AM, Jakajan said:

I get annoyed at people calling the Hood a battlecruiser. She was but was not. The version in the game has higher armor values than she ever had historically and is a fast battleship.

Do your research before you post something on the forum, Hood totally was a battlecruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,551 posts
8,281 battles
On 4/4/2018 at 4:19 PM, Iron_Salvo921 said:

Do your research before you post something on the forum, Hood totally was a battlecruiser.

Hey

Exactly right; There were Battlecruisers and Battleships during the WW1 period but before WW2; then the idea of a fast Battleship was born of the need to escort higher speeds of aircraft carriers at the beginning of WW2.  Many existing older BB's left over from the WW1 and post war days of the 20's and early 30's were too slow, and Battlecruiser were too weakly armoured to be seen as effective, the idea of speed was armour was proven wrong in WW1.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts
12 hours ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

Exactly right; There were Battlecruisers and Battleships during the WW1 period but before WW2; then the idea of a fast Battleship was born of the need to escort higher speeds of aircraft carriers at the beginning of WW2.  Many existing older BB's left over from the WW1 and post war days of the 20's and early 30's were too slow, and Battlecruiser were too weakly armoured to be seen as effective, the idea of speed was armour was proven wrong in WW1.

 

Pete

Actually, the first "fast battleships" were the Queen Elizabeths of WW1 era.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_battleship

Fast Battleship really was nothing more than a moniker to compare them to their peers.  Typically, the early 1900s had a wide separation between BB, CA, and DD speeds:  BBs were in the (very) low 20 knot range, CAs were about 30, and DDs in the mid-40s. Battlecruisers were the attempt to have an about 30 knot ship with BB armament.  The design tradeoffs to do this resulted in a ship that was about the same size as a contemporary BB, with equal or slightly less armament (typically 4 vs 6, or 8 vs 10 main guns to their BB peers), but pathetically thin armor.  The reason was that the BC had to almost double its engine power to achieve that 30 knot speed, compared to what a BB needed to drive itself at 22knots. And engines were not terribly efficient in the early 1900, typically being coal fired boilers.

When the QEs were built, they were the very first BBs to have near Battlecruiser speed, and they did it without sacrificing armor protection. This was done mostly on the grounds of having oil-fired boilers (and some improved boiler tech), given a vastly higher power/weight ratio for the power plant than any prior BB or BC.

All battleships designed and built post-Jutland are Fast Battleships; not because of any design choice, but because of improved engine tech, allowed most BBs to achieve near-cruiser speeds, right where the old BC speed rating used to be. Only the Iowas were designed for CV escort and they're the sole class ever to have that as a design requirement.

[oh, and yes the Hood was designed as a Battlecruiser. That said, there wasn't a whole lot of difference between her and contemporary "fast battleship" designs, and the difference was mostly academic. The one place it was not academic was overhead protection - she had deficient deck armor compared to contemporary "true" battleships. The RN recognized this and she was due for an upgrade to remedy this. However, WW2 came before the upgrade could be put on. The main problem in her engagement with the Bismark is not one of Battlecruiser vs Battleship, it's one of a ship designed in 1920 vs one designed over a decade later equipped with better technology] 

 

And yes, Jutland showed that the BC concept was foolish, particularly because the expense and offensive power of them made Naval leaders (on all sides) consider them usable in major fleet actions, rather than pure scouting or commerce raiding they were originally intended for.  The major reason German BCs faired better in WW1 combat was because they were actually far closer to the "fast battleship" concept than anyone else:  German BCs favored slightly smaller main armament caliber and slightly slower top speed in exchange for significantly more armor than their contemporary BC counterparts.

 

But back to WoWS:  BCs don't fit well in the game; the few historical examples that do exist in the game have been buffer to BB standards.  Think of it this way: compared to it's Tier-equivalent cruiser and battleship opponents, the BC would have about the same armor as the cruisers, speed halfway better the cruiser and battleship, with 60% of the guns of battleships (both main and secondary), but the same battleship maneuverability and visibility. They'd also have the same ROF as the BBs.

So you're stuck with something that can shoot it's 4 or 6 guns once every 30 seconds, is huge, can't dodge, is visible from space, AND has a massive unprotected citadel. 

So, take the typical WoWS BB, delete a third of it's guns, and drop its armor down to no more than 100mm anywhere. Then give it 2 more knots in straight line speed.

Yeah, that's not gonna be fun to play. 

 

Edited by EAnybody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,551 posts
8,281 battles
22 hours ago, EAnybody said:

Actually, the first "fast battleships" were the Queen Elizabeths of WW1 era.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_battleship

Fast Battleship really was nothing more than a moniker to compare them to their peers.  Typically, the early 1900s had a wide separation between BB, CA, and DD speeds:  BBs were in the (very) low 20 knot range, CAs were about 30, and DDs in the mid-40s. Battlecruisers were the attempt to have an about 30 knot ship with BB armament.  The design tradeoffs to do this resulted in a ship that was about the same size as a contemporary BB, with equal or slightly less armament (typically 4 vs 6, or 8 vs 10 main guns to their BB peers), but pathetically thin armor.  The reason was that the BC had to almost double its engine power to achieve that 30 knot speed, compared to what a BB needed to drive itself at 22knots. And engines were not terribly efficient in the early 1900, typically being coal fired boilers.

When the QEs were built, they were the very first BBs to have near Battlecruiser speed, and they did it without sacrificing armor protection. This was done mostly on the grounds of having oil-fired boilers (and some improved boiler tech), given a vastly higher power/weight ratio for the power plant than any prior BB or BC.

All battleships designed and built post-Jutland are Fast Battleships; not because of any design choice, but because of improved engine tech, allowed most BBs to achieve near-cruiser speeds, right where the old BC speed rating used to be. Only the Iowas were designed for CV escort and they're the sole class ever to have that as a design requirement.

[oh, and yes the Hood was designed as a Battlecruiser. That said, there wasn't a whole lot of difference between her and contemporary "fast battleship" designs, and the difference was mostly academic. The one place it was not academic was overhead protection - she had deficient deck armor compared to contemporary "true" battleships. The RN recognized this and she was due for an upgrade to remedy this. However, WW2 came before the upgrade could be put on. The main problem in her engagement with the Bismark is not one of Battlecruiser vs Battleship, it's one of a ship designed in 1920 vs one designed over a decade later equipped with better technology] 

 

And yes, Jutland showed that the BC concept was foolish, particularly because the expense and offensive power of them made Naval leaders (on all sides) consider them usable in major fleet actions, rather than pure scouting or commerce raiding they were originally intended for.  The major reason German BCs faired better in WW1 combat was because they were actually far closer to the "fast battleship" concept than anyone else:  German BCs favored slightly smaller main armament caliber and slightly slower top speed in exchange for significantly more armor than their contemporary BC counterparts.

 

But back to WoWS:  BCs don't fit well in the game; the few historical examples that do exist in the game have been buffer to BB standards.  Think of it this way: compared to it's Tier-equivalent cruiser and battleship opponents, the BC would have about the same armor as the cruisers, speed halfway better the cruiser and battleship, with 60% of the guns of battleships (both main and secondary), but the same battleship maneuverability and visibility. They'd also have the same ROF as the BBs.

So you're stuck with something that can shoot it's 4 or 6 guns once every 30 seconds, is huge, can't dodge, is visible from space, AND has a massive unprotected citadel. 

So, take the typical WoWS BB, delete a third of it's guns, and drop its armor down to no more than 100mm anywhere. Then give it 2 more knots in straight line speed.

Yeah, that's not gonna be fun to play. 

 

Hey

Even by the information you provided, the QE class was NOT a fast battleship:  "The intended successor to the Queen Elizabeths was to be an unnamed fast battleship with high freeboard, with secondary armament mountings clear of spray, a shallow draught and a top speed of at least 30 knots (56 km/h); First Sea Lord Fisher changed it to an even faster but less armoured battlecruiser" since it did not meet the 30 knot top speed, only a successor would be able to fit into that and technically Hood only fit into the Battlecruiser category and was not a fast battleship.  The Queen Elizabeth class was not a "Fast Battleship" design.  

Pete 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts

And I quote (at the end of introductory paragraph):

"As such, the Queen Elizabeths are generally considered the first fast battleships in their day."

Even Jane's Fighting Ships refers to the QE class as the start of the "fast battleship" concept.

But, like I said, it's really just a moniker, without any hard and fast (no pun intended) definition. It tends to be used to denote BBs that are noticeably quicker than their peers (typically at least 2-3 knots faster, or about 10%). But as capital ships have a 20+ year lifespan, and length of a ship generation was very small in the first half of the 20th century due to rapid technology changes, what is "fast" changed every 5-8 years.

 

Battlecruisers existed for one reason, and one reason only:  engine technology was lagging behind other technology used in capital ships. Coal-fired boilers are inefficient to say the least, and diesel engines really didn't scale well at all for naval purposes.  The move from piston engines to turbines after 1905 certainly helped:  the old engines couldn't produce enough power to even get to 20 knots, whereas the turbines could - thus, the HMS Dreadnought.  Unfortunately, the tech was in its infancy.

Thus, prior to about 1920, in order to have a 30+ knot ship, the ship design, whether it was for a large or small displacement, required the engines to take up almost a third of the displacement.  If you wanted to carry the weight of a big armament (and the 13-15 inch guns weighed a dozen thousand tons when you included their turret and barbette), you have to have a BIG ship, and between the guns, engines, and basic hull structure, you didn't have more than 15% of the total displacement left for everything else.  

Thus, if you wanted fast, you got either a cruiser or battlecruiser:  the former was much smaller, and carried much smaller guns, while the latter had BB-class guns, but both were armored almost identically.

After WW1, when it became obvious that lightly armored BCs were a bad idea, naval designers started strapping a LOT more armor onto their "battlecruiser" designs, while they started increasing the speed of their battleship designs.  The Royal Navy's "Admiral Class" (which was what the Hood was the only example of) is a classic case:  they started out in 1917 as a true BC design, but Jutland changed the views of everyone, and subsequent redesigns increased armor significantly. The final design for the Hood was that of a 1920 "fast battleship" - intended to be only slightly less protected than contemporary battleships, and still as fast as all WW1 battlecruisers.  The USS Lexington-class battlecruiser designs are similar; while they were less protected than their contemporary battleship designs, they were better protected than any pre-WW1 battleship design.

Thus, what people really think of as the "battlecruiser" design really only exists between about 1908 and 1919 - very fast compared to BBs (usually a 5-10 knot advantage), with cruiser-level armor, but near-battleship guns and displacement.  Post 1920 (and especially as a result of both the Washington Naval Treaty and the better engine tech), you really only have "fast battleships" - 27+ knot ships with heavy armor and armament in the 30,000+ displacement range.  Even the French and Italian BBs built with smaller  size (in the 27,000-ton range) are still fast battleships:  heavy armor, heavy guns, fast speed. They're inferior to their US/RN/KM compatriots only as a factor of displacement, not of design philosophy.  No real battlecruiser was built post-1920 - the couple I can find that were technically labeled "battlecruiser" weren't: their protection was very good, and their intended role was not the fleet scout or anti-cruiser one that the BC strategy called for, and all were intended to slug it out with fellow capital ships (to varying degrees of intended success). 

Basically, everyone always WANTED the "fast battleship", it's just that prior to 1920 or so, tech wouldn't let you build one, so navies were forced to pick between the BC and BB designs. Post 1920 builds for capital ships (whether labeled BC or BB), are distinguished really only by WHEN they were built, not which design they theoretically were built to, when it comes to matching them up. By 1930, Navies really could have it all in one design, and thus the BC concept dies, and the "fast battleship" concept really is just something to argue about, not that it has too much real world meaning.

 

But, like I said, the BC doesn't fit in WoWS at all.  We're got a bunch of rebuilt, upgraded BCs that really don't look different from BBs, sitting in the BB category at T4, and T5.  The true BCs can't be put in at all, even at T3, as you're talking about something that has 4 or 6 heavy guns and no armor, despite being  BB size.  And if you try to bump them to competitive levels, you end up with a T4 or T5 BB , not a BC.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles
12 hours ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

Even by the information you provided, the QE class was NOT a fast battleship:  "The intended successor to the Queen Elizabeths was to be an unnamed fast battleship with high freeboard, with secondary armament mountings clear of spray, a shallow draught and a top speed of at least 30 knots (56 km/h); First Sea Lord Fisher changed it to an even faster but less armoured battlecruiser" since it did not meet the 30 knot top speed, only a successor would be able to fit into that and technically Hood only fit into the Battlecruiser category and was not a fast battleship.  The Queen Elizabeth class was not a "Fast Battleship" design.  

Pete 

Got to defend EAnybody here, he is spot on with the definition. The QE's were considerably faster than your conventional BB's which at the time could go 20-21 knots but still considerably slower than BC's that could up to 30. QE's weren't BC's because they didn't have any of the traits of a BC, it wasn't considerably longer and larger than BB's and it didn't sacrifice armor and in WOWS this is apparent as QE/Warspite is like a tank and a ship like that going 24-25 knots made it really for the era. This is what separates it from the Royal Sovereign's the next 15 inchers in the RN with conventional BB speed. But before QE, BB's were really slow and while QE might pale in speed to the WWII era BB's, in WWI it was considerably faster than all the BB's , but considerably  slower than all the BC's, thus being a "fast battleship".

After WWI though you were restricted from building heavier ships with bigger guns so speed became a legal way to gain an advantage and when new BB's were built they resembled BC's, large and fast with little to no advancement in main battery power. Every single BB built after the Washington Naval Treaty was faster than the QE, the slowest BB's ever built were the Nelson's but in WWI, every BB was slower and a BB going 24-25 knots was revolutionary and was part of why the QE's were active in WWII while the Royal Soverign's were as obselete in WWI as the pre dreadnoughts were in WWI. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles
1 hour ago, EAnybody said:

And I quote (at the end of introductory paragraph):

"As such, the Queen Elizabeths are generally considered the first fast battleships in their day."

Even Jane's Fighting Ships refers to the QE class as the start of the "fast battleship" concept.

But, like I said, it's really just a moniker, without any hard and fast (no pun intended) definition. It tends to be used to denote BBs that are noticeably quicker than their peers (typically at least 2-3 knots faster, or about 10%). But as capital ships have a 20+ year lifespan, and length of a ship generation was very small in the first half of the 20th century due to rapid technology changes, what is "fast" changed every 5-8 years.

 

Battlecruisers existed for one reason, and one reason only:  engine technology was lagging behind other technology used in capital ships. Coal-fired boilers are inefficient to say the least, and diesel engines really didn't scale well at all for naval purposes.  The move from piston engines to turbines after 1905 certainly helped:  the old engines couldn't produce enough power to even get to 20 knots, whereas the turbines could - thus, the HMS Dreadnought.  Unfortunately, the tech was in its infancy.

Thus, prior to about 1920, in order to have a 30+ knot ship, the ship design, whether it was for a large or small displacement, required the engines to take up almost a third of the displacement.  If you wanted to carry the weight of a big armament (and the 13-15 inch guns weighed a dozen thousand tons when you included their turret and barbette), you have to have a BIG ship, and between the guns, engines, and basic hull structure, you didn't have more than 15% of the total displacement left for everything else.  

Thus, if you wanted fast, you got either a cruiser or battlecruiser:  the former was much smaller, and carried much smaller guns, while the latter had BB-class guns, but both were armored almost identically.

After WW1, when it became obvious that lightly armored BCs were a bad idea, naval designers started strapping a LOT more armor onto their "battlecruiser" designs, while they started increasing the speed of their battleship designs.  The Royal Navy's "Admiral Class" (which was what the Hood was the only example of) is a classic case:  they started out in 1917 as a true BC design, but Jutland changed the views of everyone, and subsequent redesigns increased armor significantly. The final design for the Hood was that of a 1920 "fast battleship" - intended to be only slightly less protected than contemporary battleships, and still as fast as all WW1 battlecruisers.  The USS Lexington-class battlecruiser designs are similar; while they were less protected than their contemporary battleship designs, they were better protected than any pre-WW1 battleship design.

Thus, what people really think of as the "battlecruiser" design really only exists between about 1908 and 1919 - very fast compared to BBs (usually a 5-10 knot advantage), with cruiser-level armor, but near-battleship guns and displacement.  Post 1920 (and especially as a result of both the Washington Naval Treaty and the better engine tech), you really only have "fast battleships" - 27+ knot ships with heavy armor and armament in the 30,000+ displacement range.  Even the French and Italian BBs built with smaller  size (in the 27,000-ton range) are still fast battleships:  heavy armor, heavy guns, fast speed. They're inferior to their US/RN/KM compatriots only as a factor of displacement, not of design philosophy.  No real battlecruiser was built post-1920 - the couple I can find that were technically labeled "battlecruiser" weren't: their protection was very good, and their intended role was not the fleet scout or anti-cruiser one that the BC strategy called for, and all were intended to slug it out with fellow capital ships (to varying degrees of intended success). 

Basically, everyone always WANTED the "fast battleship", it's just that prior to 1920 or so, tech wouldn't let you build one, so navies were forced to pick between the BC and BB designs. Post 1920 builds for capital ships (whether labeled BC or BB), are distinguished really only by WHEN they were built, not which design they theoretically were built to, when it comes to matching them up. By 1930, Navies really could have it all in one design, and thus the BC concept dies, and the "fast battleship" concept really is just something to argue about, not that it has too much real world meaning.

 

But, like I said, the BC doesn't fit in WoWS at all.  We're got a bunch of rebuilt, upgraded BCs that really don't look different from BBs, sitting in the BB category at T4, and T5.  The true BCs can't be put in at all, even at T3, as you're talking about something that has 4 or 6 heavy guns and no armor, despite being  BB size.  And if you try to bump them to competitive levels, you end up with a T4 or T5 BB , not a BC.

 

I think you can formalize the definitions based on the differences from ships at the time. 

Before QE and even for a good time after BB's were about 20 knots. Battlecruisers were 25.5 knots to 32 knots. QE was smack in between those two and was basically just a faster BB as it didn't have BC traits like more size to fit more boilers, less turrets or less armor to make the ship lighter, it was just a faster BB, designed exactly like other BB's, just faster, no other differences, BC's had other differences. Like you said by the 30s navies could have it all and disarmament meant they didn't need to worry about making ships heavier and more powerful either which just made BB's reaching BC speed easier so the need for a distinction really died. The capital ships built in the 30s could mostly go WWI BC speeds. 

Honestly hadn't thought about Jutland and WWI killing BC's before that's new to me, assumed it was the treaty restrictions(if 33k tons is the limit that's basically a ban on WWI era BC's as BC's had long surpassed that tonnage, after all the rest of the Admiral's were canned). Lexington's I thought also would have went forward if not for the treaty. 

Way I see it is that BC's were very similar to BB's as it was and in the interwar period that gap was narrowed to a point where there was no need to make separate classes of the thing. Anyway if you had fleet tonnage limits and general limits I think which were in the 30's you couldn't really continue BC development until the 1930s anyway and I guess the "Pocket Battleships", Dunkerque's and Scharnhorst's were fundamentally different than other BB's of that era but those differences weren't the one's BB's had, BB's had(slightly) less guns not smaller guns, and these ships were considerably smaller than Hood, these differences were because of treaty too though.

You are so right about how special "fast battleships" were until 1920 or so, QE's were loners until the Nagato's came out as far as mid 20 knot speeds for BB's went, even the Bayern's who the RN said was objectively better than the QE's as warships and were the Germans' answer to the QE's could only do 22 to the QE's 24 or so which were just short of the most primitive BC's. The subsequent RS's which were basically QE's with typical speed demonstrate that difference greatest. Even Nelson's built in late 20's were slightly slower than QE's though they were objectively better ships. In 1920s only Nagato's were faster   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
20 posts
1,699 battles

HMS Renown and HMS Repulse would be very nice additions to the British line.  They would probably function similar to the Hood or the Scharnhorst.  Good main battery, medium armor and good speed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,551 posts
8,281 battles
1 hour ago, Rovers_FC said:

HMS Renown and HMS Repulse would be very nice additions to the British line.  They would probably function similar to the Hood or the Scharnhorst.  Good main battery, medium armor and good speed!

Hey

I would agree with your choice and maybe add Vanguard, a well balanced RN Battlecruiser.

 

Pete

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[FLTF1]
Members
14 posts
1,214 battles

EAnybody, I think you are getting too hung up on the term 'Battlecruiser.' Tier 6 would be the last of the overly fragile Battlecruisers, the Hood and up may be on the weaker side of Battleship belt armor, but they are still in the ballpark, and the G, H, and I were designed with their belts angled at 12.5 degrees. The most important things about any Battlecruiser line, however, would be the introduction of new historically interesting ships and new play styles. Sure, if you play these like a standard battleship, you will lose. But Battleships are meant to fight Battleships. Personally, I think Battlecruisers would offer a more dynamic play style, since you can keep up with the Cruisers, and the ability to quickly relocate your big guns would be a great asset to the team. The biggest issue is either I will be in a Battleship and we will win a flank, and then I will be too slow to be of any more use to the team, or when a flank collapses, I'll be stuck doing a delaying action because my ship is too slow to withdraw with the rest of the team. OR there is also the case of Operations. I find Operation Killer Whale to be particularly frustrating, since the American and British BBs are too slow to really do anything in the first part of the mission. Sure, you can clear out the forts, but then everyone else rushes in and wipes everything else out before you get into the harbor. I've been enjoying the French Battleships for their speed, and I am sure I would like others that are similar.

 

sasquatch_research, HMS Vanguard(23) was considered a Fast Battleship, but I agree that she deserves to be represented in the game. As the last Battleship built, she is a historically significant ship, and one I am kind of surprised hasn't made it in yet. Even if nothing of this line, in any form, gets implemented, I would very much love to get the Vanguard.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×