Battlecruisers
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Tell me /k/ how is a nation around the time of the Great War and on suppose to use these things and are they useful or not?
I seriously have no idea what the hell you're trying to ask.
But I will post battlecruisers
>>27934108
That'll work anon. we need a battlecruiser thread anyway.
But what I mean was how do you deploy them without them ending up like Mary here.
>>27934129
Make use of their speed to avoid being engaged by real battleships.
Unfortunately battlecruisers seemed to occupy an interesting niche where they were too vulnerable to ships of their class. For lack of a better term, they seemed to be a glass cannon. Against anything short of another battlecruiser or battleship, they were excellent.
But as you can see, they're tremendously vulnerable to high-caliber shells, and the costs associated with them means that often it's better to just go all the way and build a battleship.
Of course that's just what I understand from what I've read. For all the criticisms, battlecruisers do seem to have a fairly distinguished combat record.
>>27934061
>bongobongobongo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRnclastqkA
Hood looks nice.
Goeben and Breslau on their way to sit in the Sea of Marmara for the entire war.
Battlecruisers were envisioned as hunting down and killing the previous generation of armored cruisers that were the backbone of the navies of the great colonial powers of the 19th century. They could easily outgun these older cruisers, withstand shellfire from them, and cruise long distances at high speed to reach far-flung enemy colonial naval detachments and destroy them in the event of a war.
At some point though, someone had the bright idea to use them as reconnaissance element for the battleship squadrons, putting them potentially under the guns of the one class of warship they were meant to avoid. Results were predictably bad, which is what usually happens when you use a piece of equipment in a role it is not meant to fulfill.
>>27934312
>Goeben
NATO's only battlecruiser.
>>27934061
Early 20th century naval tactics revolved around the idea of "crossing the T" basically you get all your ships perpendicular to the enemy's battle line so you can pour the maximum amount fire onto their ships while limiting your exposure to the opposing guns. Battlecruisers could more effectively do this, owing to their greater speed (or so the thinking went).
>>27934397
>read up on Goeben
>Decommissioned 1950
Jesus fuck Turkey what the shit
>>27934423
>Holy hell that damage
THAT must not have been very pleasant place to be during battle.
>>27934443
IIRC it took several direct hits from HMS Barham.
>>27934443
A lot safer than being on her British counterparts, though.
>>27934423
Most of the Ganguts were decommissioned in the 1950s as well, which were commissioned around the same time.
A few South American dreadnought lasted as long.
>>27934530
Well I know Peru's still using a WW2 cruiser.
>>27934423
Thats not that bad, the USN still used battleships in the 1990s.
>>27934558
The Iowas were commissioned a full 40 years after the Goeben though.
>>27934571
And decommissioned a full 40 years after.
>>27934130
>>27934153
My two favs of the Great War tbqhwy
<3
>>27934558
Only because congress were the naval equivalent of BRRTfags
>three times reviving expensive crap the Navy didn't want
>>27934597
but the navy has no fking replacement for it
Thats why they kept reviving it
>>27934633
There was the Des Moines class CA. Proved useful in Nam. Not the biggest guns but 9 MK 16 8' guns are some scary shit.
>>27934633
>but the navy has no fking replacement for it
They don't need a replacement. It's a giant expensive piece of junk that offers nothing special aside from muh guns.
>>27934633
Let me put this as clearly as possible.
THE NAVY DID NOT WANT IT.
They were political instruments pure and simple.
>>27934718
They DO need a replacement because the ability to bombard shore targets will always be relevant & needed.
Not to mention it can do it more cost effectively than bombers, fighters, or cruise missiles.
Posting more battlecruisers
>>27934658
what Des Moines did anything in nam?
I thought both ships in the class just dicked around in the Mediterranean for a decade then got scrapped.
>>27934784
IIRC they did some bombardment at some point. Either way Auto Rapid Fire guns sitting at 90 rounds a minute with all guns going is a hell of a boom.
>>27934803
I found it, was the USS Newport News. Nevereven heard of that one ebfoe, only of the des moines and the salem(hometown eye sore)
>>27934541
De Ruyter wasn't actually finished until 1953.
>>27934784
Des Moines wasn't scrapped until 2005. Salem became a museum ship.
>>27934907
I can see the salem from my window right now, just rusting away.
I wish they'd give it to battleship cove so it could get some decent care.
There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today.
>>27934658
They considered reactivating the Des Moines instead of the Iowas in the 1980s but it would have cost almost as much for a lot less ship.
>>27934737
This. The Iowas were amazing and all but ffs they have no place in modern combat. Mainly because they are INSANELY expensive to operate these days and what do they offer? Wow, artillery support.
>>27934907
That photo makes me tear up a bit, sure hasn't been treated well.
>>27935410
They did have a chance to turn one Iowa into a Guided Missile Ship. Didn't though.
>>27934738
>ability to bombard shore targets
>from 20 miles instead of 200
You just outed yourself. Please see yourself to another board, you do not qualify for this one.
Haruna, a Kongō-class battlecruiser on its sea trials, 23rd January 1915.
>>27938665
Artist's rendition of Kongō in its 1944 configuration
>>27938698
Pic failed to upload. (Second try)
>>27938665
>>27938713
[X]Bully.
Best US cruiser ever made.
>>27934528
As much as I'm a fan of the Royal Navy, this.
German ships had superb compartmentalisation, saftey procedures, fire control, armour etc
>>27938767
As much as I love the Alaskas, they were just a waste of resources.
>>27934153
This, basically.
Ideal for hunting down cruisers with their speed and firepower. Vulnerable to battleships and pitched combat. In pitched combat, I could see them being used as effective flankers and feint lures due to their speed, but once contact is made, their best bet is to leave combat after getting some shots off.
This:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands
Exemplifies proper usage of battle cruisers.
This:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland
Exemplifies improper usage of battle cruisers.
>>27934738
>They DO need a replacement because the ability to bombard shore targets will always be relevant & needed.
You are correct. You are so correct that there's an entire fucking wikipedia page about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate
The ability to bombard shore targets is so important that most of our Arleigh-Burke destroyers at sea right now devote 80% of their filled VLS space... to fucking Tomahawk missiles. However traditional cruise missiles are far more vulnerable to anti-missile defenses than they used to be (low-level SAMs have gotten a lot better) and they're hideously fucking expensive. That's why the Navy's been working on the new Advanced Long Range Gun System (how they are fucking this up is beyond me; you could bolt a 155 to the fucking chopper deck and fire Excalibur rounds out of it like, right the fuck now,) and of course that crazy-ass railgun. Why is the Iowa class obsolete? Because a ship built with outdated technology that takes 1,600 men to operate and creates logistical nightmares just to source gunpowder and shells for isn't worth it if it can only strike targets 20 miles inland. But 70? Or 80? Now we're fucking talking. Why do you think the Zumwalt class is slated for TWO of those guns, whichever one they end up fielding first? Yeah.
You'll get your replacement bru. They're already in the works.
>>27939725
Is there some reason that the US doesn't have fuckhueg AShMs like the Russians and Chinese do? Why depend solely on submarines to kill surface ships?
