Talk:Battlecruiser/Archive 2

message: It says "Germany's navy by contrast sacrificed gun calibre instead of armour in order to raise speed." and goes on saying "Von der Tann and most later German battlecruisers had 280 mm (11 in) guns, which were reckoned to be the equivalent to the British 12-inchers." That´s a contradiction, isn´t it?
And as far as the "ugly sisters" are concerned, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau(WW2) were a bit bigger than a Nelson-class BB, a bit smaller than a South Dacota Class BB and carried just as much armour. The small 28cm guns were used because of undue haste in the construction. At the time the 38cm gun was not ready, but it was planed to install them in later. Better call them fast battleships. Markus Becker02 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a few alterations regarding German Battlecruiser design philosophy - especially the Kreuzer-Schlactshiff concept which some historians equate to a sort of Proto-fast battleship idea and it's vindication at Jutland.  I've also linked the WWII Deutschland class to the Kreuzer-Schlactshiff concept.  Most of this is based of the Osprey New Vanguard publication, "German Battlecruisers, 1914-1918."  84.92.80.169 17:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German BC designs 

message: I restored an older version, because IMO the lasted edit was wrong. 
When the Kongo-class CBs were made just before WW2 they did not carry enough armour to be protected against their own level of armament. Their main armour belt was just 200mm strong. German CBs had 250 to 270mm of armor, British ones 230mm which was clearly not sufficient to protect them from the German 11inch guns as the Battle of Jutland demonstrated. So the weaker Japanese armor would have offered even less protection form 12inch guns. 
As far as actual BBs are concerned, they had at least 300mm of armour and did stand up well against 14 to 16 inch guns. Usually just the superstructure was destroyed, while the main armor belt held. Bismarck was scuttled, Scharnhorst was sunk by torpedos.Markus Becker02 17:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've expanded the information about the Amagi class battlecruisers a little, just to give us an idea how they sized up to the Lexingtons and G3's.  I've also removed the comment regarding the sinking of the Kongo.  I don't see that sniffy comments about US Navy sinking 30 year old converted battlecruisers with brand new battleships really adds anything to the article.  Obviously the Japanese did not expect the Kogos to be able to stand up to a modern battleship any more than the Royal Navy did with the Renowns.  This doesn't mean they weren't wise to make the best of what they already had...  Getztashida 02:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese designs 

message: The interwar "US Designs" section describes the Lexington and Saratoga as being "closer in concept to the later Fast battleships, being both swift and well-armored without sacrificing firepower."  However, this statement is simply untrue.  The Lexingtons were designed with a 7 inch belt, 3.5 inch deck and 11 inch turret faces - little better than the Renown Class and woefully inadequate by even 1918 standards when they were designed - making them classic Fisher-esque "Eggshells with Hammers."  There is no way in which any Lexington battlecruiser design could be described as well armoured, so unless I get any qualified objections I'm going to adjust this section slightly.  Getztashida 23:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No arguments here; while they were well-armored against cruiser armament, their protection against their own armament was terrifyingly weak, and they compared poorly against, for example, the near-contemporary G3 class. TomTheHand 03:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bluntly, they compared poorly against HMS Hood.  The Hood had a 12" belt and 3" deck, and look what happened to her...  Getztashida 13:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US Designs

message: I have done a little work on the Interwar British designs section, re organising it so that it flows more or less chronolgically, removing duplicated information and adding a little extra information about the G3 battlecruisers and context under which they were designed.  I hope you all like it.  Getztashida 00:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a few additional changes to the information about the G3's.  I'm trying to emphasise just how revolutionary the ships would have been had they been built - unlike the Lexingtons and Amagis, which were basically comparable to the HMS Hood, only bigger.  Getztashida 02:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: British designs

message: I'm considering writing a new section to be inserted just before the section on WWI where I shall compare and contrast the differences between British and German battlecruiser design philosophy.  Personally I consider this relevent and interesting enough to justify a couple of paragraphs, especially seeing how the the two theories were put to the test against one another during WWI, and the influence they had on other nation's capital ship designs (The Kongo's being based on british practice, for example, and the idea of the German Battlecruiser being the fore runner of the fast battleship).  Most of the ideas are scattered around the article already so all I'll have to do is draw them together into a single, coherent section.  Thoughts and opinions?  I'll go ahead and write it in about a weeks time if I get no objections  Getztashida 00:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one of the dangers of this is that you risk moving away from fact and into comment and analysis. I think this is one of the key differences between an encyclopedia and a history book. It could be done, but it would have to be done carefully. Wiki-Ed 13:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Were the German and Britsh concepts that much different in the first place? OK, the German guns were a bit lighter, the armour a bit stronger, but that´s it. The british ships performed poorly at Jutland, but the reason for that was the Battle of the Doggerbank fought a year before. In the battle SMS Seydlitz received exactly the same kind of hit that finish off the three BCs at Jutland, but just like in the case of HMS Lion a disaster was avoided in the last second by quick and heroic action of a few men. The Germans analysed the crippled BC and had all of them modified by the time of Jutland. The British had not yet suffered such a near disaster and were unaware of the flaws. Markus Becker02 17:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with that. Ammo handling was better on german ships- even before Doggerbank- and SMS Sydlitz had an armour belt up to 12 inches strong, the armour on the bulkheads and gun turrets was round about one inch thicker as on british ships, but only luck saved her from the same fate as Queen Mary, Invincible and Indefatigable. So, initially the overall protection of german CBs was not better, inspite of thicker armour.Markus Becker02 04:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So you conceed that German Battlecruisers had thicker armour that their British counterparts, but deny that they were better protected?  That doesn't make much sense.  Are you also going to claim that the superior underwater protection had no impart either?  Getztashida 09:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Check the relevant entries on the Battle of the Doggerbank, SMS Sydlitz, Jutland ect. and it becomes obvious that the mere thickness of the armour is not everything.Markus Becker02 13:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, I'm quite familiar with the History of the German and British Battlecruisers, considering I am one of the major contributors to the Seydlitz article....  However, no-one is claiming that the German Battlecruisers were as well protected as a Battleship, only that their protection was uniformly superior to that of the rival British designs.  I would ask you to consider the following.  At Dogger bank, the Seydlitz escaped at full speed despite the damage she suffered at the hands of the British 13.5" guns.  HMS Lion, however, was hit by a single salvo of 11" shells and was so seriously damaged she immediately lost speed and was forced to drop out of line.  Furthermore, at Jutland the British lost three Battlecruisers - all to hits on the armoured part of the superstructure which resulted in flash fires in the magazines and catastrophic explosions.  The Germans lost one battlecruiser - scuttled because she was unable to make headway and escape the battlezone after shipping thousands of tons of water.  Furthermore, the damage which she took below the waterline was sufficient to have sunk any of the warships that took part in the Battle, German or British, Battlecruiser or Battleship as she was struck below the armoured belt - a weakness common to all contemporary designs.  Finally, I would point out that I can provide dozens of citable references stating that German Battlecruisers were better protected than their British equivalents, including the Royal Navy's own ater action reports following Jutland (they are now a matter of public record).  I wonder if you can provide any evidence that will back up your claim - you are, after all, arguing against 90 years worth of recieved opinion...  Getztashida 17:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I´m not disputing the fact that german CBs had better protection, but favouring armour to armament is IMO not a fundemental difference in design philosophy; a difference in the design, a different preference, but fundemental difference in design philosophy sounds a bit exaggerated to me. And Jutland is IMO poor evidence to support the inferiority of the british designs, because the Brits were as unaware of that design flaw as the Germans had been a year before. Speaking about design philosophy, it was very different in the case of BBs. German BBs were designed for short ranges and brief missions, so crew quarters were spartanic and fuel supply was limited. Britain with its global empire had to built ships for global operations, so more space had to be dedicated to quarters and coal bunkers insead of armour. If the same can be said about the german CBs that would be a fundamental difference indeed. Markus Becker02 18:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, so perhabs we should refer to the totally different mission both Navies had in general and the CBs in particular and explain how these strategic differences lead to technical ones. Let´s go to some details. Did the mission(and the design) of the british CBs change after Germany launched some of its CBs? It´s a bit strange, the Lions had 230mm, but the Renowns were back at the low Invincible levels(152mm). And as far as plunging fire is concerned, that kiled the three british CBs, didn´t it?Markus Becker02 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what I was planning was roughly the smae as what I've just said, only written with reference to NPOV and not duplicating information stated elsewhere in the article.  At the same time I'm planning on going over the article and making sure that all the relavant facts are gathered into one place.  I'll get to work and should have the finished piece ready after lunch...  Incidentally, as I recall the British vessels lost at Jutland were all engaged at relatively short ranges.  Certainly the Invincible was struck by the Derfflinger and Lutzow from about 13,000 yards - which was definately at the shorter ranged end of the spectrum by the standards of the day.  I'm not so sure about the ranges at which Indefatigable and the Queen Mary were sunk, but seeing as a common criticism of Beatty was that he raced in to engage the German Battlecruisers when he could have stood off and exploited the shorter range of the German guns, then I suspect that they were destroyed at relatively short ranges too.  Getztashida 12:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh yes - as for protection, The Royal Navy did request improved armour as the Germans began to launch battlecruisers (hence the 9" belt on the Splendid Cats) but the increase in armour lagged behind the Armament of the German ships.  As Seydlitz proved when she sank the Queen Mary, a 9" belt couldn't stand up to 11" guns and, of course, the Germans were planning bigger and bigger guns for their Battlecruisers.  The Renowns were abnormal as they were Laid down when Fisher returned to the Admiralty, and it seems that Fisher had rather lost touch with what the Navy needed.  The Renowns were a return to Fisher's original "super-cruiser" idea even though it was clear that the Royal Navy intended to use their Battlecruisers in fleet engagements.  It is just as well that they were not ready in time for Jutland - Can you imagine what may have transpired if the Renown and Repulse had been at the lead of Beatty's battlecruiser squadron? Getztashida 13:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Section on British and German Designs?

message: I've written a short introduction and added the pursuit of the Goeben to the First World War section.  Although not a battle in the traditional sense, it was a very significant action and clearly involved Battlecruisers in a highly non-trivial way.  Getztashida 14:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First World War

message: "Although fitted with radio, neither Director controlled firing nor the Argo gunnery control system had been accepted into Royal Navy service at the time, leaving the final piece of Fisher's plan unrealised. The Battlecruisers were instead equipped with the generally inferior Dreyer system and would prove unable to fight at ranges where the enemy guns could not reach them."
This sentence is also appalingly inaccurate - refer to John Brooks recent book on Dreadnought Fire Control.
Scott and Vickers did not produce a practicable bearing and elevation director till about 1912, and did not begin producing them in numbers till 1914. The Polen systems superiority is largely a matter of hyperbole  - and the Dreyer Table Mk IV as fitted to the Tiger and QE's was superior in most respects. The most valuable piece of Pollen equipment at Jutland was the gyroscopic mounting for the 9ft raangefinder, even though its main value was its centralised, elevated position, rather than the gyroscope itself.
As built the Dreadnought and Invincible incorperated a sophisticated fire control system for the time, incorperating spotting tops, long base length rangefinders, range telgraphs, navy phones, Dumaresq instroments, Vickers Clock and manual plotting.
Without going into to much detail, a more accurate sentance might be;
These ships completed with the most modern fire control equipment available at the time, and in this respect represented a great advance over ships completed only a few years earlier. The full advantages of centralised fire control would not be realised for some years, and the Invincible class ships were eventually fitted with director firing in the months before Jutland.
On another paragraph Charged with modernising the Navy and reducing its cost, Fisher sought to dispose of all the Royal Navy's second-rate battleships stationed across the globe - these vessels were essential for the defence of the far flung corners of the Empire, but individually rarely saw combat and were hugely cost-inefficient as a result.
The sentence is accurate in terms of generalisms but terrible in terms of detail. "Second rate battleships"? Fisher paid off old battleships, and the RN acquired five "second class battleships" between 1889-1905, two of them by accident - and which incidentally, survived right into WWI. Fishers cost saving reforms actually spanned through all classes of ships, and he was particularly scathing of the small, slow second and third class cruisers that he characterized as "too small to fight and too slow to run away".
The whole RN saw very little action in the late Victorian and Edwardian period - but of what little action there was, more was parceled out to gunboats and small cruisers on distant stations than ever came the way of the battle fleet.
How about this revision;
Driven to improve and reform the Navy, and compelled to reduce its cost, Fisher paid off the veritable host of small or old warships the Royal Navy stationed around the world for the purpose of Imperial defense, and importantly closed many of the expensive network of bases where these ships had been based. Further savings were realized by a scheme of reserve manning, where older ships with some fighting value were retained in reserve, with nucleus crews aboard, and intended to be brought to their full complement by means of reserves in any emergency."
The most convenient, up to date and easily read reference for this statement would be Massie's Dreadnought - although it is at best just a popular history. 
On the subject of references or further reading - the list at the bottom of the article is small and not particularly relevant. Some general reference on the period like Massie would be an improvement, and its hard to imagine an article that deals with British Battlecruisers without mentioning Roberts "Battlecruisers". The article presumes to make some statements on the topic of fire control, without citing either Sumida or Brooks. Perhaps the poor quality of the references explains the poor quality of the article?  (Chris - the annoying person above - also ChrisMCau Feb7
:The comments on fire control in the Invincibles were lifted from Osprey's New Vanguard "British Battlecruisers 1914-1918" and rewritten for brevity.  I accept that "not yet ready for service" is probably a better turn of phrase than "not yet accepted" - accept of course that the Argo system was ultimately never selected.  Most of my reference books state that the Argo system was better than the Dreyer system and the only ship fitted with it, the Queen Mary, was considered a "crack gunnery ship" implying that it was a genuine improvement.  As for Dreyer system's ability to fight at extreme range, it is usually cited as the reason the Sturdee took so long to Sink the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau at the Falkland islands.  Feel free to revise the entry as appropriate.
:On Fisher's reforms, I like your revision very much and will use it to replace my entry.  However, I have left out the comments on the reform of the reserve fleet.  Whilst undoubtedly true - and probably Fisher's greatest acheivement - it is not really relevant to the topic at hand.
:On sources, personally I am not prepared to cite references I have not actually read, and I assume the same applies the other contributors to the article.  Personally, I'm surpised that Richard Hough's "Dreadnought, A History of the Modern battleship" is not cited, as it is an excellent reference work, if a little old.
:As for being annoying, constructive criticism can only improve the article and personally I welcome it - although I will defend my position when I feel it neccessary ;-)  The one thing I would say is that this article is prety long already and only getting longer.  When I write expansions I'm having to keep half an eye on trying to cover the relevant points as swiftly as possible, which means leaving some of the extraneous detail.  I guess that's the drawback of working on such relatively limited field...  It would be preposterous to try and cover the entire history of the Battleship in the level of detail we have already achieved in this article, but because there's only 40 years or so of Battlecruiser history, the expectation seems to be that we cover every single ship in detail...  Getztashida 10:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall, and excellent rewrite Chris, but just one point.  There were Three Lions, not two and the Tiger was the fouth "splendid cat."  I haven't gone ahead and edited the section myself as I'm you allude to a few facts that I am not clear on and don't want to damage the context.  Getztashida 11:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am confused by what you mean. As the parapgraph is currently written, it states that two ships of the Lion class were ordered in 1909-10 programme, a third ship in the 1910-11 programme and the new design Tiger in the 1911-12 programme.  Tiger was a new design with a revised configuration, much improved machinery etc. She was a splendid cat but she wasnt a Lion class ship. Chris Feb 9 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.160.200.30 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First Battle Cruiser Section

message: This is in drastic need of beeing cut down to a sentance, and a link. Chris Feb 8
:Do we even need this section at all?  Getztashida 11:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I'll go a step further.  Unless there is significant opposition over the next couple of weeks I shall ruthlessly edit this section down to size.  Getztashida 16:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not just create a new page called "Battlecruiser(fiction)" and remove this stuff from here altogether?Markus Becker02 18:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Science Fiction 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
While I apreciate that the last edit has made the piece more neutral, and contributed to making the article more consist with wiki guidlines, there is still work to do. According to this guideline – these sorts of statements have to be definitively attributed to a known authority, “most historians” is not good enough to maintain a neutral POV. Chris Feb 8
:Richard Hough stats that the Derfflingers were the best in "Dreadnought, The History of the Modern Battleship" (Macmillan Press, 1975).  The assertation is also made in the Osprey New Vanguard "German Battlecruisers, 1914-1918" and George Bonney's "The Battle of Jutland, 1916" (Royal Naval Publications, 2002) finally Dan Van Der Vat repeats the statement in "The Ship that Changed the World."  These are just the reference works that I possess that make specific claims that the Derfflingers were the best.  I have a number of books which make allusions to that effect without stating it in bald terms, and I have also read the comment in numerous books which I do not possess and therefore cannot cite authoritatively.  If I have enough time over lunch, I can probabaly find you some properly referenced essays online which make similar claims.  Getztashida 09:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about an inline citation?  Surely that would cover it.  Incidentally, I changed the line "most Historians" to "many Historians."  Getztashida 13:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to say "many" historians, then you would need to provide "many" inline references. If not, go with something more along the lines of what Chris suggests. Emoscopes Talk 15:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the NPOV edit to cite Gary Staff in preference to Richard Hough, primarily as the source is more recent (2006 vs 1975) and less ambiguous - in "German Battlecruisers 1914-18" Gary Staff states the Defflingers are "quite correctly thought of" as the best battlecruisers of WWI, rather than the more cautious language used by Hough.  If we're going to cite a historian, it may as well be one who's 100% behind the cause...  ;-) Getztashida 14:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Derfflinger best

message: I'm considering a very short additional section after "The German Repsonse" which will briefly introduce the other pre-war battlecruisers.  This will amount to no more than the Kongo's and the unbuilt Russian Borodino's, but will indicate that nations other than Britain and Germany were building or planning Battlecruisers prior to WWI.  Do you think this is worth the effort?  Getztashida 11:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have written the section and also taken the advantage to add a few extra images from Wiki commons.  Getztashida 12:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see you have started that section. The influence of the Kongo's on the TIgers has been the subject of many thousands of words from hefty authaurities - which did you use for this section? Chris Feb 9 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.160.211.145 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Primarily Richard Hough "Dreadnought, the History of the Modern Battleship."  It is, of course, written in my own words however.  Getztashida 09:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahh, DK Brown has them specifically as "parallel" designs, rather than one influencing the other or vice versa. The official reason given by brown for dropping Q in favour of X was a change in the internal torpedo arrangements. Hough is perhaps not the most reliable or up to date reference on the British BC's. Chris Feb 13. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChrisMCau (talk • contribs) 22:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Nations

message: I'm thinking that the section on WWII is too long and detailed.  I suggest that it gets trimmed back in the manner of the WWI section.  There is no need to recite battles, merely note the ones where Battlecruisers were present write a brief description and link to the main article.  Getztashida 16:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, for the aleph1-th time: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were NOT battlecruisers, but battleships. In their protection details, they were fully armoured like every other battleship of their time, only the fitting with 11" guns wich happened for various reasons (turret designs already complete, new design with heavier guns would have delayed completition, treaty violations) has created the unkillable myth of them being classified as battlecruisers. --Derfflinger 19:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That point has already been mentioned earlier in the article.  Whilst you are in fact largely correct, the Scharnhorsts are generally considered Battlecruisers and it would be seriously remiss of us to ignore them on the basis of a technicality.  Getztashida 14:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Generally considered by whom? Only you US and Brit boys, right? In Germany, no one ever saw them as battlecruisers, and I guess they ought to know better. Besides, the performance of Scharnhorst in the last battle indicates that her armour and general protection were battleship-class, nothing other, as does the construction values themselves. Just making my point. --Derfflinger 14:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, by us US and Brit boys - however, this is the English language version...  Seriously, I'm on yopur side on this one but when the vast majority of English language reference works include the S & G in with the battlecruisers we have to acknowledge that fact.  The point the the Scharnhorsts were really underarmed battleships has been alluded to - what more do you want?  Getztashida 17:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right... I guess you can't have everything ;). --Derfflinger 23:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second World War

message: I am confused by the way the article switches between referring to "battlecruisers" and "Battlecruisers", and even, at one point, refers to "Fast Battleships".  What does capitalization signify, please? Philip Trueman 18:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it signifies anything more than different authors having different ideas on what should be capitalised... Getztashida 12:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think capital letters for proper nouns only is logical. Fred's name has a capital F. Fred's Ferrari gets one too. Fred's car does not. Wiki-Ed 13:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, though perhaps in this context a better example would be Britain's Dreadnought and Britain's dreadnoughts.  I'll sort it out in a day or two if no-one beats me to it.  Philip Trueman 13:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: I propose that this section be moved to its own page.  The contrast with the rest of the material is too stark. Philip Trueman 12:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Getztashida 15:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if it could form the nucleus for a new and actually useful page - science fiction potrayals of naval warfare or the like? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shimgray (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that most science fiction rarely discuss naval warfare per se, but mostly go about its spacefaring counterpart. Which might not correlate to the established meaning of a battlecruiser at all. So I believe that something like Battlecruisers in fiction will do well -- like it did in similar cases with spacesuits and aircraft carriers. --Khathi 13:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I vote for something like Battlecruisers in fiction Emoscopes Talk 12:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure.  I can think of a couple of fictional books (which I won't name here until I can check my references) that refer to battlecruisers in the sense meant by the bulk of the article.  What has happened is that science fiction writers have taken the term and redefined it, in a way that writers of historical fiction have not. Philip Trueman 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, my thinking was that "in fiction" would be a catch-all for all genres of fiction, not just sci-fi. Emoscopes Talk 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "XYZ in fiction" is a good "ancillary page" - somewhere to stuff material you don't want in the main article. It's quite hard to develop it into an actual article, though; you really need to take the specific forms of fiction from a number of related articles and mush them up a bit to get an actual interesting topic, and I feel there is one lurking here somewhere, with "battlecruiser" as a specific example not the focus. Shimgray | talk | 00:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true, however anything that moves the fancruft out of this article is a step forward in my opinion, and I'm sure the editors who contribute it here would take on the task of turning it from a collection of random information into an article were it to be moved elsewhere. As it is, it just dilutes an already complex but succinct article. Emoscopes Talk 03:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just stumbled across Space navy, which might be a decent nucleus for this kind of cruft. Shimgray | talk | 23:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Fiction Section (again) 

message: I'm not too sure of the veracity of the following statement found in this section: For instance in the case of HMS Hood, the addition of armour was difficult due to structural considerations, and the completed Renown and Repulse did not or were unable to have an upgrade to their main protection scheme. I've don't recall any impediments to upgrading the protection on these ships besides time and money.  Hood was slated to have her deck armor improved but the outbreak of the war prevented that.  I also recall that Repulse was given a strake of 9" belt armor sometime in the 20s, I'll have to look it up. --Dukefan73 00:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Post War developments