Battlecruiser Comparison Chart

[LancerMc]

The below chart is a comparison of every class of battlecruiser commissioned from 1906 to the end of end of World War 2.  It is easy to see that most of the ships are of British & German design.  Even though WoWs already includes ships that were never commissioned, I kept this list to ships that were actually completed and saw service, because statistics are actually known.   Some ships have been left off the list.  These include Deutschland and Scharnhorst classes.  Often ships were classified as BC's even though they were not designed as such ships.  Deutschland's were heavy cruisers in every respect except their armament and the Scharnhorst were battleships in every way though often called BC's because of their 11in guns.   The USS Alaska class in included on the list.  While not considered a BC by the US, in every respect it was a BC.  

 

The list arranged based on when the first ship of each class was completed.  In the future, I will try to add additional information, but these below sections cover most of the important areas of a ship's design.  All figures are listed in Millimeters (1in = 25.4mm).  Most of the statistics come from Conway's Revised Battleships but also included more detailed information from Ospery books on respective classes, R.A. Burts; British Battleships of WW1, and Gary Staff's;German Battlecruisers of World War 1..  

 

One of the glaring wholes in the information is British's ship torpedo protection.  Germany used extensive torpedo bulkheads in their ships.  Britain initially used torpedo screens to protect the main guns and magazines, but there is not really detailed information about such protection systems in R.A. Burts extensive book on British BB's & BC's. None of my sources explain these protections systems four ships outside of German origin. 

 

Battlecruisers	Invincible	Indefatigable	Von Der Tann	Moltke	Lion	Queen Mary	Kongo	Seydlitz	Tiger	Derfflinger	Renown	Hindenburg	Hood	Alaska
	U.K.	U.K.	Germany	Germany	U.K.	U.K.	Japan	Germany	U.K.	Germany	U.K.	Germany	U.K.	U.S.A.
Max Main Belt	152	152	250	270	229	229	203	300	229	300	152	300	305	229
Min Main Belt	105	105	80	100	105	105	76	100	76	100	38	100	127	127
Max Conning Tower	254	254	250	350	254	254	254	300	254	270	254	270	279	269
Min Conning Tower	50	76	80	80	76	76		80	254	80	254	80	229	127
Max Turret Armor	178	178	230	230	229	229	229	250	229	350	229	350	381	325
Min Turret Armor	64	76	60	60	64	64		70	64	150	114	150		127
Max Deck Armor	64	64	50	50	64	64	57	55	76	50	63	50	76	97
Min Deck Armor	19	25	25	20	25	25	41	25	25	25	25	25	38	16
Torpedo Bulkhead			25	50				30		45		45
Main Gun Size	305	305	280	280	343	343	356	280	343	305	381	305	381	305
Number of Main Guns	8	8	8	10	8	8	8	10	8	8	6	8	8	9
Secondary Gun Size	102	102	150	150	102	102	152	150	102	150	102	150	140	127
Number of Secondary Guns	16	16	10	12	16	16	16	12	16	14	17	14	12	12
Maximum Speed	25.3	26.89	27.75	28.4	28	28.1	27.54	28.1	29.07	26.5	31.5	26.66	31	33
Cruise Speed	10	10	14	14	10	10	14	14	10	14	10	14	10	15
Designed SHP * Thousands	41	44	42	52	70	75	64	63	85	63	112.5	72	144	150
Max SHP *Thousands	43.7	65	79.802	85.661	96.24	83	78.275	89.738	104.635	80.988	119.25	95.777

[BLDoom]

Excellent! Thank you for this informative chart.

 

Battlecruisers are my favorite class. And best looking in my opinion (besides Invincible/Indefatigable).  

[31KnotBurke]

Well done indeed!

[MashuKyrielight]

Great to see battlecruisers getting some love :3

[Guest]

A excellent chart! I thank you for showing us this : ) +1. 

[Fog_Cruiser_Tone]

Would have put the Scharnhorsts in simply because there is still debate about their status, and comparing is fun.

 

Great work, though. Would LOVE to see a chart like this for heavy cruisers, since they varied a lot less from nation to nation (though still enough), and it might actually help people pick a tech tree to follow come launch.

[sym430]

 

 I looks excellent, if not hassle you would like to review my proposal for the branch of German battleships? also included a sub branch to heavy cruisers and / or battlecruisers

 

Is in the Spanish forum so I hope that does not represent no inconvenience  http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/16560-propuesta-para-linea-de-acorazados-alemanes/page__fromsearch__1

 

[Guest]

Would have put the Scharnhorsts in simply because there is still debate about their status, and comparing is fun.

 

Great work, though. Would LOVE to see a chart like this for heavy cruisers, since they varied a lot less from nation to nation (though still enough), and it might actually help people pick a tech tree to follow come launch.

 

Probably, It would be been reasonable...as they do seem to be battle-cruisers in some sense of the word. 

[Shigure]

A very nice chart. Extremely useful. 

 

Thank you very much.

[fisk]

Wasn't the Kongo class designed and built by the British as a commission for Japan?

[LancerMc]

Wasn't the Kongo class designed and built by the British as a commission for Japan?

 

The Kongo's were designed by Vicker's and the Kongo itself was the only one built in England.  The rest of the ships were built in Japan but a significant amount of the materials were supplied by Vickers.  

[LancerMc]

Would have put the Scharnhorsts in simply because there is still debate about their status, and comparing is fun.

 

Great work, though. Would LOVE to see a chart like this for heavy cruisers, since they varied a lot less from nation to nation (though still enough), and it might actually help people pick a tech tree to follow come launch.

 

I didn't include them because the German's built them as battleships.  It was the British who considered them battlecruisers.  In victory, you become the writer of history.  Scharnhorst's were fast battleships.  Their main belt of 13.6 inches was greater than Queen Elizabeth, Royal Sovereign, Nagato, and even Nevada class battleships.  

[Shigure]

 

I didn't include them because the German's built them as battleships.  It was the British who considered them battlecruisers.  In victory, you become the writer of history.  Scharnhorst's were fast battleships.  Their main belt of 13.6 inches was greater than Queen Elizabeth, Royal Sovereign, Nagato, and even Nevada class battleships.  

 

And on top of their belts being thicker they were also of a more modern design. Granted they were designed as raiders and so only really expected to have to deal with Cruisers but both ships gave good accounts of themselves. I've always been a fan of Scharnhorst.

[RedBear87]

I didn't include them because the German's built them as battleships.

Ahem, by this logic the US Navy officially considered the Alaska class "large cruisers", not battlecruisers. I know about the navy magazine and whatnot calling them battlecruisers, but still...

[LancerMc]

Ahem, by this logic the US Navy officially considered the Alaska class "large cruisers", not battlecruisers. I know about the navy magazine and whatnot calling them battlecruisers, but still...

It is being choosy but the Alaska is by definition a battlecruiser.  The U.S. gave up on them after 1922 and the idea of the class was to take on Japan's numerous heavy cruisers.  If it quacks like a duck, walks like ducks, looks like duck, it is a duck. 

It is never easy to pick and choose through history about what matches certain categories.  The Kongo class could be reclassified as fast battleships after thier refits in the 30's.  The Queen Elizabeth's were BB's but at Jutland were under the command of Beatty with the BC's.  

The Scharnhorst were all fast BBs except for their smaller 11in guns.  Though Jutland showed the British how effective smaller main guns can have under good marksmanship. 

 

[RedBear87]

It is being choosy but the Alaska is by definition a battlecruiser.  The U.S. gave up on them after 1922 and the idea of the class was to take on Japan's numerous heavy cruisers.  If it quacks like a duck, walks like ducks, looks like duck, it is a duck. 

It is never easy to pick and choose through history about what matches certain categories.  The Kongo class could be reclassified as fast battleships after thier refits in the 30's.  The Queen Elizabeth's were BB's but at Jutland were under the command of Beatty with the BC's.  

The Scharnhorst were all fast BBs except for their smaller 11in guns.  Though Jutland showed the British how effective smaller main guns can have under good marksmanship. 

Giving the definition of battlecruiser is already quite difficult in the first place...

For instance, what does make Kongo a fast battleship while it makes Alaska a battlecruiser? Alaska is arguably much more capable of facing old battleships than Kongo, protection-wise. Derfflinger and her predecessors were really battlecruisers? Or did the Germans actually build the world's first fast battleships instead of falling in the Fisherian trap of thinking that "speed is armour"?

[NGTM_1R]

It is being choosy but the Alaska is by definition a battlecruiser.  The U.S. gave up on them after 1922 and the idea of the class was to take on Japan's numerous heavy cruisers.

 

Nope. They were meant to take on the Super-A class ultraheavy cruisers, which the US actually believed existed, and which owe more to Scharnhorst than they do to, well, a battlecruiser.

 

Also "by definition"? Whose definition? What definition?

[FCA_Wichita]

Wish they could have snuck the proposed Lexington Class in there for good comparison as well.  They made decent carriers at least.

[LancerMc]

 

Nope. They were meant to take on the Super-A class ultraheavy cruisers, which the US actually believed existed, and which owe more to Scharnhorst than they do to, well, a battlecruiser.

 

Also "by definition"? Whose definition? What definition?

 

What definition? Then the RN's when the Invincible was built.  Jackie Fisher said a battlecruiser needed to have at least the same if not greater firepower, the same or superior speed, and and armor that was comparable to any cruiser.   The Alaska Class was built to go after other cruisers with its superior speed, weapons, and at least comparable armor.  It is as much flawed as the Invincibles were in 1906.  It is crazy how its design & theory of these cruisers came came full circle from 1906 to the 1940s.  Read the reasoning behind the very first battlecruisers and the Alaska class.  That is why Conway's and other books publish the class as a battlecruiser.  It wasn't actually called a BC's by USN but served exactly the same purpose.  

 

Kaiser Wilhelm II actually proposed in 1904 a fast battleship which Tirpitz shot down because of it wasn't believed to be feasible with the time technology and the cost would be too high.  The Von Der Tann and subsequent German battlecruisers are as much the design for future battleships.  Wilhelm wanted his BC's to have only have a reduction of about 10% armor compared to BB's so they could still be effective fighting within the High Seas Fleet.  Jutland proved the Kaiser correct as 5 German BC's bested a group of 6 UK BC's & 5 BB's.  In some ways they could also be called fast BB's since they had comparable armor more to that of a BB's than that of their British BC counterparts.  

[Thoddy]

Granted they were designed as raiders and so only really expected to have to deal with Cruisers but both ships gave good accounts of themselves. I've always been a fan of Scharnhorst.

No the Scharnhorst-class was only intended as counter of the french Dunkerque class ships.

 

These ships became the role as raider, when it became clear that a future war includes Great Britain as a enemy and Germany did not achieve a parity in the naval arms race. Accordingly Germany passes then to the general strategy of the "Kreuzerkrieg" i.e war against maritime trade lanes.

[Panzerlin]

I wonder if WoWs will ever consider putting in Battlecruisers...  Maybe that line in a tech tree would muddy the waters too much?

[FCA_Wichita]

The Scharnhorst were odd, as they were supposed to get six 15 inch guns at some point.

 

As far as the Alaska class..

Now, a battlecruiser is supposed to be fast enough to hunt cruisers and merchants, have battleship size guns to destroy them (edit: USS Arkansas was a BB with 12 inch guns and fought in WW2, and Alaska's guns were better than hers), and enough armor to take hits from them.  They are not supposed to be in the front line against other battlecruisers or battleships.  They are also supposed to be capital ships.  While the Alaska's meet the first requirements, they do not have capital ship subdivision nor torpedo protection.  Also, instead of being down sized battleships, they are up sized cruisers.  So both sides of the argument have very valid points, but in the end, as sad as it is to say for these cool ships, they were pointless when they were built...

[RedBear87]

What definition? Then the RN's when the Invincible was built.  Jackie Fisher said a battlecruiser needed to have at least the same if not greater firepower, the same or superior speed, and and armor that was comparable to any cruiser.   The Alaska Class was built to go after other cruisers with its superior speed, weapons, and at least comparable armor.  It is as much flawed as the Invincibles were in 1906.  It is crazy how its design & theory of these cruisers came came full circle from 1906 to the 1940s.  Read the reasoning behind the very first battlecruisers and the Alaska class.  That is why Conway's and other books publish the class as a battlecruiser.  It wasn't actually called a BC's by USN but served exactly the same purpose. 

Going strictly by the logic of greater firepower, same or superior speed and protection comparable to existing cruisers, Des Moines should be considered a battlecruiser too. Deutschland sacrificed speed for range, but they were still faster than any "battleship" (i.e:: any capital ship but the British battlecruisers), mounted heavier armament than any cruiser and were protected as most cruisers of that era.

Anyway, there's a significant enough difference between Alaska and Invincible: size, both in terms of displacement and calibre of main armament. Invincible was less than 2,000 tons lighter than contemporary Bellerophon, Alaska was 10,000 tons lighter than preceding South Dakota and some 23,000 tons lighter than Iowa (I refer to full load here). Armament was also lighter, while British battlecruisers mounted the same calibre of contemporary battleships (in fewer numbers to allow for the extra machinery space).

Other designs from the study that led to Alaska were larger and better protected, they were not picked exactly because Admiral King didn't want to follow the footsteps of his beloved British friends. At least in this sense they were not a repetition of the same flawed idea.

[LancerMc]

 

Neither did the Invincibles.  The only had anti torpedo screens on magazines & guns. So the lack of torpedo protection isn't a valid argument.  The Dreadnought didn't have much protection either.  

Germans called their BC's as heavy cruisers till end of the war.  So by the German definition they weren't battlecruisers.  

 

[Thoddy]

G

ermans called their BC's as heavy cruisers till end of the war.

 

to be exact "Große Kreuzer" i.e large cruiser