Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
CaptChico

List of Battlecruisers

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
433 posts
9,212 battles

Hey folks, 

Just trying to get a list of all the Battlecruisers in the game. I have always enjoyed the idea of the BCs so i am trying to get all the BCs in the game.

This is the list i have so far, please add any BCs i am missing or let me know if one of these ships is not a BC.

IJN Myogi

IJN Kongo

HMS Hood

KM P.E. Friedrich

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,899
[WAIFU]
[WAIFU]
Members
3,614 posts
15,419 battles

Ashitaka, Kii perhaps? Some of the super cruisers are also borderline battlecruisers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[CSW]
Members
22 posts

While  the Kongo-class was a battlecruiser when built, I would argue that they appear in-game closer to their 'fast battleship' rebuilds. 

The Amagi-class (including Ashitaka) were battlecruisers, and the Ishizuki is based on a paper draft that was a precursor to the Kongos. 

The Lexington was originally part of the USA's first battlecruiser class (though both ships were later finished as carriers).

Pyotr Velikiy and Izmail are both battlecruisers.

And Dunkerque is also a battlecruiser.

Oh, and the Furious! The good ship Furious (also known as HMS Spurious, HMS Curious, etc) was a 'light' battlecruiser armed with 18-inch main battery guns in single mounts fore and aft. Like its sisters, it was rebuilt as an aircraft carrier.

Edited by Kael_17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,267
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,217 posts
14,759 battles

The Kongo's were reclassed as fast battleships after their up armoring and those are the ones we have in the game.

The German battlecruisers were much better armored than the RN battlecruisers

and could almost be considered to be proto fast battleships.

5 minutes ago, pikohan said:

Ashitaka, Kii perhaps? Some of the super cruisers are also borderline battlecruisers. 

No those two are definitely BB's.

Borderline but still definitely cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
433 posts
9,212 battles

Thanks for the reply's.

Wish we had more "True" Battle Cruisers, in the since of a ship whose main job was to hunt Cruisers.

The Hood was soooooo good at doing that before they "buffed" her. She was fine.

Doh! How could i forget the Dunkerque!! Thanks Kael_17.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
585
[GRAVE]
Members
1,370 posts
19,541 battles

the WIP Siegfried is based off the German O-Class Battlecruisers.

for all intents and purposes, Scharnhorst can be considered a Battlecruiser, although she has guns that are closer to cruisers with an armor layout much closer to actual battleships.

the Peter the Great is a battlecruiser design, as is Izmail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,267
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,217 posts
14,759 battles
12 minutes ago, CaptChico said:

Thanks for the reply's.

Wish we had more "True" Battle Cruisers, in the since of a ship whose main job was to hunt Cruisers.

The Hood was soooooo good at doing that before they "buffed" her. She was fine.

Doh! How could i forget the Dunkerque!! Thanks Kael_17.

The Dunkerque was a fast BB although her design mission was the classic battlecruiser mission of hunting cruisers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[CSW]
Members
22 posts

Define 'true' battlecruiser!

Jackie Fisher came up with the idea of a battleship-sized warship that traded some of the displacement that could have gone for weapons and armor for an additional 4-5 knots over same-generation battleships, but it's worth noting that the Royal Navy needed a ship that could handle the Atlantic, and had the range for world-wide cruises. These ships could be used to hunt down fast surface raiders, serve as power projection (essentially Hood's full-time mission from comissioning to late thirties), as well as back up the battleline.

The Germans and Russians didn't have those kind of oversea commitments, didn't need the range, didn't require a north-atlantic-in-winter seakeeping, so they opted for designs that had armor and weapons packages nearly as good as their battleships, but gained the extra speed from a lower displacement. They didn't need or want a power-projection ship, they only needed an escort for their battleline.

America didn't build the type at all (aside from the aborted Lexington-class).

Japan, with similar commitments as the British, built RN-style battlecruisers initially, but because they couldn't match the ship-building capacity of its competitors opted for a policy of qualitative superiority  abandoned the battlecruiser as a type before anyone else did.

 

And then there's this little piece of historical irony.

The armoring scheme for the Iowas is the same as that of the preceding South Dakota class, allowing for the hull differences. The weapons fit is almost the same (the Iowas' main guns were 80 inches longer). Almost the entirety of the Iowas' 10 k-ton displacement differential with the S.Dakotas was put into giving it a power plant that would let them keep up with the fast Carriers. In doing so, the USN was using something like the RN's building philosophy for a ship that was going to be employed in a manner closer to how the kaiserliche marine employed its battlecruisers.

Edited by Kael_17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,267
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,217 posts
14,759 battles
8 minutes ago, Kael_17 said:

And then there's this little piece of historical irony.

The armoring scheme for the Iowas is the same as that of the preceding South Dakota class, allowing for the hull differences. The weapons fit is almost the same (the Iowas' main guns were 80 inches longer). Almost the entirety of the Iowas' 10 k-ton displacement differential with the S.Dakotas was put into giving it a power plant that would let them keep up with the fast Carriers. In doing so, the USN was using something like the RN's building philosophy for a ship that was going to be employed in a manner closer to how the kaiserliche marine employed its battlecruisers.

The Iowa's were the ultimate fast battleship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
126
[4-FUN]
[4-FUN]
Members
180 posts
9,768 battles

Going to add my list of what I CONSIDER Battlecruisers in the context of WOW.

Firstly, when it comes to WOW, forget historical accuracy when it comes to defining a Battlecruiser vs Supercruiser vs Fast BB vs Heavy Cruiser. WG have stated in most of their platforms over the years (including WOT) that the game comes first, historical accuracy second.

That said, here is my entire list (in no particular order) of what I consider a Battlecruiser, which is mostly dependant on gameplay/style and what history says almost not at all.

  • Alaska, Azuma, Yoshino, Puerto Rico, Stalingrad, Kronshtadt, Georgia (yup, Georgia), Normandie and the soon to be introduced Siegfried.

Here is a list of those I do not consider a Battlecruiser (yet others, history etc may). Again, remember, I am defining these on gameplay first, historical accuracy second, as this is a game first and not a documentary or simulator. On a side note with the exception of the IJN ships, I consider these fast battleships.

  • Prinz Eitel Friedrich, Scharnhorst, Hood, Myogi and Kongo.

When you start to diversify your research into this area, you quickly learn that what is, or is not, a Battlecuiser, is more of a quick evolution of BB design and innovation which spawned a nomenclature issue, or to be more precise, a naming problem. These types of BBs appeared in quick succession after the battle of jutland (major WW1 Sea Battle) which in turn generated different Naval Capability requirements and a new generation of Naval BB building, the key criterion being a dramatic increase in speed (up to 33% faster in some instances). The first iteration of these was the Hood, PEF predecessors and arguably the last, was the IOWA and Alaska class ships.

And on a side note, the original term for "Cruiser" simply meant a "man o war" that could run for long periods of time without resupply and carry out its mission. This term dated back to the age of sail. And if you haven’t seen it, go and watch all four seasons of Black Sails, the only show I think that is as good as the first 6 seasons of GOT.

When you check sources other than Wiki, the Hood is classified in official British documents (between wars and during WW2) as a Fast BB....... AND a BattleCruiser.......... AND a Heavy Cruiser. So they didn’t even know what to call it.

Hence, I encourage people to view these types of ships in the context of a game first and historical accuracy second, then make up your own mind as to what to call them.

Cheers
CC123

Edited by CC123
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,934
[PVE]
Members
6,957 posts
22,742 battles

A couple people have mentioned Scharnhorst but nobody gave a shout out to the Gniesenau...the best example of a battle cruiser in the tech tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
975
[PISD]
Members
1,539 posts
5,738 battles
1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

The Kongo's were reclassed as fast battleships after their up armoring and those are the ones we have in the game.

Even so, their armor scheme was far from a real fast bb. In reality they were still pretty much Battlecruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,267
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,217 posts
14,759 battles
1 hour ago, Y_Nagato said:

Even so, their armor scheme was far from a real fast bb. In reality they were still pretty much Battlecruiser.

True, the Washington turned the Kirishima into a sinking hulk in a few minutes of firing where the South Dakota got hammered, from a similar range  to what the Washington smashed the Kirishima from, but the critical areas (the citadel) were never penetrated and she sailed out of the battle zone under her own power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,733
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,754 posts
15,308 battles

If you look at all the various reasons people will propose as to why certain ships were NOT battlecruisers, then it becomes fairly evident that there were no battlecruisers ever built...

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
4 minutes ago, mofton said:

If you look at all the various reasons people will propose as to why certain ships were NOT battlecruisers, then it becomes fairly evident that there were no battlecruisers ever built...

the subject of battlecruisers is a fantastic black hole, I'm sure Einstein would have theorized them as E = bc2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,733
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,754 posts
15,308 battles
18 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

the subject of battlecruisers is a fantastic black hole, I'm sure Einstein would have theorized them as E = bc2

* 'cc' apparently!

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
843 posts
4,679 battles

i consider the Scharnhorst a battlecruiser simply because of it's gun battery and the relative lateness of it's design & build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
68 posts
6,960 battles

Myogi, Ishizuchi, Kongo, Izmail, Graf Spee (yes, this is effectively a battlecruiser), Prinz Eitel Friedrich, Ashitaka, Kii, Amagi, Hood, Schanhorst, Gneisenau, Dunkerque, Alaska, Azuma, Puerto Rico, Yoshino, Kronshtadt, Stalingrad.

And then borderline stuff like Georgia, Richelieu, Jean Bart, Moskva and high tier French cruisers.

 

As for not in-game yet, Repulse, Renown, Courageous and the Lexington as she was laid down.

Edited by Ravnican

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,097
[KNMSU]
Members
7,086 posts
7,766 battles
4 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

A couple people have mentioned Scharnhorst but nobody gave a shout out to the Gniesenau...the best example of a battle cruiser in the tech tree.

Neither were battlecruisers. Scharnhorst and Gniesenau were 100% battleships. The British just messed up their designation. 

4 minutes ago, Ravnican said:

Graf Spee (yes, this is effectively a battlecruiser), ...Kii

No. Absolutely not. Graf Spee was a heavy cruiser - a small, slow heavy cruiser, with oddball guns. She was in no way, shape, or form a battlecruiser.

Kii was a battleship. 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
68 posts
6,960 battles
4 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_Repulse said:

No. Absolutely not. Graf Spee was a heavy cruiser - a small, slow heavy cruiser, with oddball guns. She was in no way, shape, or form a battlecruiser.

The term term battlecruiser is pretty fast and loose. You can't really neatly categorize Graf Spee anyway. You have battleship guns on a heavily armored cruiser that is considerably faster that most battleships of it's day. Size shouldn't be a determining factor.

Edited by Ravnican

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,597
[WOLF8]
Members
7,593 posts
6,366 battles
5 hours ago, Kael_17 said:

Define 'true' battlecruiser!

I think this quote pretty much sums up the caveat and the problem of what this thread is trying to achieve. Just what really is a battlecruiser anyway? Is it a battleship-lite that sacrificed armor for speed? Or something else? And where do we draw the line bewteen battlecruisers and non-battlecruisers?

Add in the fact that, as someone else already mentioned, this game largely do away with historical accuracy, so I'm not sure if the ships that were battlecruisers in real life can still be considered as one in-game, and vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,934
[PVE]
Members
6,957 posts
22,742 battles
1 minute ago, Battlecruiser_Repulse said:

Neither were battlecruisers. Scharnhorst and Gniesenau were 100% battleships. The British just messed up their designation.

They fit the definition when compared to the slower Brit BBs that they were designed to be able to outrun.

As far as the Brits were concerned they were fully armed & armored BBs but w/cruiser speed in comparison to the BBs the Brits had.

Didn't the Brits create the term specifically for those 2 ships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
68 posts
6,960 battles

Trying to split hairs is just a waste of time. We all know a battlecruiser when we see one or close enough to a battlecruiser to not die on a hill arguing it isn't one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,097
[KNMSU]
Members
7,086 posts
7,766 battles
1 hour ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

They fit the definition when compared to the slower Brit BBs that they were designed to be able to outrun.

As far as the Brits were concerned they were fully armed & armored BBs but w/cruiser speed in comparison to the BBs the Brits had.

Didn't the Brits create the term specifically for those 2 ships?

No. The British started calling their own BCs battlecruisers a few years after Invincible's launch, "cruiser-battleships" not rolling off the tongue as well as Fisher hoped.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×