4 ms·
Also - wasn't the battlecruiser concept largely discredited after WW1? I wouldn't be surprised if they were seen as more obsolete/expendable than battleships.
by jbattle 11y ago
Also - wasn't the battlecruiser concept largely discredited after WW1? I wouldn't be surprised if they were seen as more obsolete/expendable than battleships. Better to convert them to an aircraft carrier than have those expensive ships going to waste.
- stcredzero 11y agoThe battlecruiser HMS Hood was the pride and joy of the British Navy, until it was exploded by a lucky shell from the Bismark in WWII.
- gozur88 11y agoOn the other hand, German battlecruisers were the focus of British fire in the Battle of Jutland and only one was sunk. HMS Hood may have simply been a flawed design.
- vlehto 11y agoIowa can be classified as very fast battleship or very large battle-cruiser. So in a way the concept was not discredited, but expanded. The battleships really didn't need more speed for line of battle. But Iowas needed speed to keep up with the carriers.
- stcredzero 11y agoWhat if the Germans entirely consisted of battlecruisers at Jutland? Wouldn't they have been able to dictate the engagement?
- vlehto 10y agoNot really: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_battleship#Combat_Experience_at_the_Battle_of_Jutland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_battleship#Combat_Experie... In skirmish you can do the "dreadnought" thing: outgun anything smaller, outrun anything bigger than you. This was the idea behind cruiser warfare. But jutland happened in relatively narrow area. In "line of battle" you get nothing from speed. The enemy can turn faster than you can run around him, so no "crossing the T". It's better to bet on armor and guns.