Talk:Battlecruiser/Archive 1

message: * Battlecruisers were soon rendered obsolete -- Soon after what?
* Battlecruisers were soon rendered obsolete, because advances in propulsion technology made battleships fast enough and they were inferior in battle to a proper battleship. -- Inconclusive: Why was the better technology not applied to make them still faster than battleships?
--Yooden
:Speed of a ship is a function of tonnage, transmissible horsepower and hull form.  As the end of World War II approached, the more efficient power plants of the newer battleships made them as fast as battlecruisers, but the battlecruisers were close to the limit of the power that could be transmitted through four prop shafts (about 75,000 horsepower then, now in 2004 it's closer to 85,000 hp), so they didn't benefit as much as the battleships from the more powerful engines. Iceberg3k 05:13, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
----
* Good work on obsolence(sp?).
* no ship of either type has been built since World War II. -- Again, what is the Kirov? --Yooden
:Kirov is a "large guided missile cruiser."  Calling her a battlecruiser is a misnomer because all battlecruisers were built on modified battleship hull (which, BTW, is why the Alaskas were large cruisers and not battlecruisers). Iceberg3k 05:13, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
Please note that the current version is an older and less accurate version than the previous one. This was a "revenge revert" by a user who has lost the plot in the face of pretty-much unanimous opposition to him inserting his POV in an entirely unrelated article. Tannin 05:53, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: Please clarify the difference between cruiser and battlecruiser, to help translation from foreign languages. mikka (t) 17:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Battlecruisers were supposed to hunt smaller ships (e.g. cruisers) and run away from anything bigger (e.g. battleships). Cruisers at that time are a bit more difficult to classify. They were the smallest ship which could act independently and were the mainstay of the fleet: patrolling, escorting, scouting etc. . Wiki-Ed 11:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cruisers also were intended and used as commerce raiders, as well as forming the core of squadrons based in remote places to raid or protect commerce (and show the flag).  Battlecruisers were basically intended to work with the main fleet; they could and did raid and protect commerce but were basically too expensive for that use.  As their name implies, battlecruisers were to be able to take a part in a big fleet battle (not in the main line of battle, true, but more as scouts for the battleships.  But as scouts for the battleships they might be expected to run into enemy battleships, where they would be badly but not hopelessly outclassed and would have a fair chance to get away. Herostratus 06:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cruisers did lots of things; I didn't list many of their roles. Battlecruisers... hmm I see where you're coming from - good point. It's quite an obvious flaw in the article really - I've described what they were supposed to do, not how they were supposed to do it. I'll try and squeeze that into the introduction. I think the historical sections of the article make it quite clear that they were rarely employed as intended. Wiki-Ed 09:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The designation CC was the original assignment for Cruisers. Battle Cruisers - which later morphed into Large Cruisers, were assigned the designation CB. Aircraft Carriers were assigned the CV designation specifically because they were developed from Cruisers. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  C was the original designation for protected cruisers, and ACR was the designation for armored cruisers.  These were both eventually redesignated CA.  CC was the designation for battlecruisers.  CB was the USN designation for "large cruisers," not battlecruisers. TomTheHand 14:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to take the conversation off-topic; I just noticed that the above user had incorrectly listed the US designations and I wanted to make a correction. TomTheHand 17:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cruiser vs battlecruiser

message: Do we really need a section on the Klingon D-7, or indeed any fictional SF types of battlecruiser? To me that section really detracts from an excellent article. -- Arwel (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a mention of the use of the term "battlecruiser" in sci-fi is a good idea, since it's certainly a favorite term in that genre.  I don't think the Klingon D-7 is given excessive attention.  Sci-fi battlecruisers are given just a smallish paragraph in the article, and while I wouldn't want the sci-fi section expanded more, I don't think it should be removed either. TomTheHand 04:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it does detract from the article, but there is not enough here to merit putting it elsewhere (as I have done with "aircraft carriers in fiction"). Wiki-Ed 11:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Klingon D-7

message: In the "New US Designs" section, the article says of the Alaska class, "Their protection was not able to withstand fire from their own caliber of gun."  However, the Alaska_class_cruiser article says "they were given ... armor protection against 12" shells."  Which is correct?
:According to Garzke and Dulin's "Battleships," their armor could keep out 12" shells in a narrow range band from 23,500 to 25,000 yards.  They had a bit more deck protection over the magazines, which were protected between 23,500 and 26,600 yards.  I'll fix both articles.
:Note that, by comparison, the Iowa class battleships had protection against a South Dakota class battleship firing the US super-heavy shell between 20,400 and 26,700 yards.  They had protection against a standard-weight shell between 17,600 and 31,200 yards.  I don't actually have data with me on the Iowas' protection against her own guns, unfortunately.  The Iowas' guns fired the same shells as the South Dakotas but at a higher velocity, so you'd expect to see the immune zone shift outward (vulnerable to belt penetration at a greater range, but invulnerable to deck penetration at a greater range as well).  While it's technically true to say that the Alaskas had some level of protection against their own shells, you can see that it was very little compared to even a battleship that was optimized for high speed. TomTheHand 01:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alaska class cruiser armor