User blog:Void Samukai/Worst WW1 and Worst WW2 Battlecruisers

A topic I started a while back on another website, here talk about the worst battlecruisers of WW1 and WW2. For this list, tell which of the BCs were terribly desgined or had so bad carreers, that the Yamato had a more active and productive one.

When making the list, plz consider consider the limitations of the BCs in the time they were built and in service. Some vessels were WW1 vintage in a WW2 setting. If they were good by WW1 standards, even if they were bad by WW2 standards they shouldn't be that heavily handicaped. Some had terrible design features but were operationally successful. And then there were treaties that some of the BCs had to cope with. Take all these things into consideration when making your list.

Normal Blog Rules apply here, so no need for me to tell you all of them.

Here is my list. First, I few dishonourable mentions:

Invincible class: Being the first of her kind, you can't really blame her too much if she screws something up. And she did prove her worth at the battle of the Falklands.

Ibuki class: Slow and underarmed for her type, but she was built in a time when the battlecruiser was not a thing. And for what she was, she wasn't that bad. Just outdated by new ships, a fate shared by other armoured cruisers and pre dreadnoughts when Fisher's creations took to sea.

Repulse: A WW1 era ship at the wrong place and wrong time. Even if she was modernised in any fashion, she would still sink. And for WW1 she wasn't a bad ship. Just kept well beyond her useful date without major refits.

Now, onto the list;

5) The Deutschland class: Admittedly, these BCs, if you can called them BCs, only made the list because I was running out of ships to put here. Nevertheless, I thought it would be best to mention them here for a number of reasons, mostly design problems.

The Deutschland class were built to conditions of the Treaty of Versailles as long range commerce raiders. They had to try and keep the weight low while at the same time giving the ships long range and powerful guns. The ships would eventually be armed with 6 11inch guns in 2 triple turrets and had a maximum speed of 28 knots. Protection was on the lighter side, but most other cruisers of the time didn't exactly have better armour so not as big an issue.

Deutschland did however have major problems. First off, her speed was a little lacking as many other BCs could catch up to her and easily sink her. Second of all, the choice of 11inch guns is questionable as it has been agreed on that a commerce raider with 8inch guns and much better speed would've been a better choice. And lastly, the choice of placing all the guns into 2 turrets meant that if one was knock out, then she lost half of her firepower. A design with them in twin turrets would've been more ideal. Of course the Germans realised this and the Scharnhorst class was built with 3 turrets.

Still, she had major limitations due to treaties that had to be placed on building her and for what she was, she wasn't a bad ship. Her range was really good, allowing her to raid well beyond home ports. Graf Spee proved that she could be a match of many cruisers, shown with the damage done to the Exeter. And the service of the class makes them among the most active and more useful of the "battlecruisers" built in WW2. For this reason, this class only makes Number 5 on this list and only because I was running out of ideas.

4) Indefatigable class: Again, this class only makes this list because I felt it should be mentioned. It is an early battlecruiser, which is why she is only number 4. Nevertheless, they are a few things that make it go on this list.

The Indefatigable class were the second class of British Battlecruisers. They were basically improvements on the Invincibles with a better arrangement of the main guns, which allows them possibly fire all 8 of their 12 inch guns in a broadside, verses the Invincibles' 6. Armour was slightly thinner in some placers but was more extensive. It was still bad, but it did allow them to achieve high speeds.

However, they were not that major improvements over their predecessors. They still have terrible armour which didn't cover that much of the ship and only a small speed advantage over their German equivalencies. Their firepower was adequate though and only poor British shells weakened them, which was shared by most other British warships of the time. Except for Jutland, they never did that much like most other WW1 capitwarships though they did do cruises, patrols and raids. Overall, they did their job and were okay for their time, which is why they only made 4th place.

Now, this is where the BCs start to loose their value.

3) Alaska class: The Alaska class battlecruisers suffer from what I consider a fate for many potential warships: Built too late to do anything useful. And while these ships did some use for the US Navy, they were not really that worth their money.

The Alaska class were built as cruiser hunters for the US Navy and after news of potential Japanese cruiser hunters. The result was a ship design to be the ultimate surface cruiser killer. It was basically an enlarged Baltimore cruiser hull armed with similar AA defence, similar protection but heavier guns. She was armed with 9 12inch guns and 12 5 inch guns. They would be quite powerful against other cruisers and many other battlecruisers of the time.

However, by the time both ships made it into service, the Japanese cruiser fleet was practically no more and thus there were no cruisers for the Alaska class to hunt down. She would end up performing shore bombardment in support of troops and escorting the new aircraft carriers. With only slightly better AA than a Baltimore, while being 2/3 the cost of an Iowa, she didn't exactly represent the best value for money.

She also suffered a few other issues as well. Being an oversized cruiser, she had only a single rudder, which limited her manoeuvrability. She also had no torpedo defence which would be bad news if she was hit by a torpedo, least a Long Lance. Unless the Long Lance overpenatrates XD

Still, at least she did something useful for her navy. The same cannot be said for...

2) Dunkerque class: The Dunkerque class is one of those ships that does practically nothing for the country that built it. For a starters, I do know that the Scharnhorst class were very similar in design. But with the career and activity these ships had and the successors they achieved, I couldn't put them in the same ball park as the Dunkerque.

These ships had unusually but understanding design choices. Her guns were all mounted on the bow in 2 quad turrets, for a total of 8 13inch guns. Her armour and speed were acceptable for the era, though a tad lacking. And that is where her good stuff ends. Her career, consisting of failed hunts of the Graf Spee, was underwhelming even by my standards. Heck at least the Yamato carried troops over with it and escorted some troop convoys. And in the end the Dunkerque class were scuttled, failing to give anything meaningful to France.

Design-wise, their choice of gun layout is questionable in practice, but understandable: being so to maximise the armour belt. Speed was lacking but alright. Her AA defence was terrible, but no one at that time really had AA to boast about...honestly, it falls into "bad, but understandable and not that bad".

In the very end, they are not really that great of a battlecruiser service wise and many other ships had the better gun layout and armouring. So what keeps them from making the bottom of my list? Well at least design-wise they weren't too shabby and her choices were understandable. Unlike...

1) Courageous class: This class I can safely say is the worst battlecruiser ever built in history. Her standards are as low as the pocket battleships, and considering the service the pocket battleships gave, the Courageous class couldn't even come close.

The Courageous class weighted around the same as the fore-mentioned Indefatigable class battlecruisers. The caliber of the guns was increased to 15inch. But the number of main guns was halved to only 4 guns in 2 twin turrets. Secondary guns were also troublesome and not that effective.

But the armour of the ship is where things go down hard. For her size, she was woefully under protected, with a 3 inch belt of armour, and that barely covered much of the ship. It is considered terrible even by British battlecruiser standards, and I doubt it would stand up to shells of 6inch and up. The hull also was structurally weak for the 15inch guns and both ships suffer damage when their fired their massive guns. They were fast though, at 32 knots, but this doesn't compensate for the other flaws.

All the weight savings were to reduce the draught of the ship so it could help bombard the shores of enemy lines. But considering their light armour, if would be much better should they reduce the speed in order to gain more armour to protect themselves against shore batteries. In the end, the invasion they were built for never happened.

Their service as battlecruisers was uninspiring at best. That's it. Nothing much to say here.

But I guess one should mention their half sister: the HMS Furious. If she was built the way she was intended to, then she would've been even worse with only 2 main guns. 18inch guns yes but only 2. And with the 15inch guns causing structural damage to her sisters, Furious would probably suffer even more. Luckily for her, she was used instead to test out aircraft, so she doesn't make the Number 1 spot as such, but is up their with her sisters.

In short, the worse battlecruisers period. They were under gunned, under armoured and structurally weak. To the point where their great speed doesn't make up for it. And this is why they make the Number 1 spot of my worst battlecruiser list, being worse compare to BCs that didn't do the best for their country but were better designed, contemporaries that were older but more versatile and smaller BCs that were more successful and was bounded to treaty limitations. And those ships being called BCs is questionable to begin with XD

These of of course my opinions. Your's may differ greatly. So please tell below.