Developing Invincible

[@stuartaaron613]

When used as originally designed, as cruiser and armored cruiser hunters, they worked fine, as seen at the Battle of the Falklands. When used as part of the main battle line, as seen at Jutland, their lighter armor proved detrimental. The later classes of battle cruisers, such as the Lion class, which had thicker armor, proved superior to the first and second classes of British battle cruisers. The German battle cruisers were designed from the start to be part of the battle line.

[@less2641]

Maybe the Germans were right. Certainly it's hard to see a Lion as a mere cruiser-killer, with its 13.5" guns. But the 12" ships were briefly perfect for the role and saved a lot of shipping from Spee and his squadron. Twice, in fact. Australia scared them away and Invincible & Inflexible caught them.

[@georgemartin408]

Their armour certainly posed a risk if exposed to equal calibre gunfire, but was not the direct reason for the losses at Jutland. British policy was to hit hard and fast and this led to very dangerous practices of keeping turret doors open to the magazines and stacking propellant charges (Cordite) in turrets for ready use. Hits on turrets therefore resulted in cordite fires flashing down to the magazines. Things were tightened up after Jutland, but the hits sustained by Lion and Tiger showed that British battle cruisers were actually tougher than has been commonly reported.

[@Aelxi]

Tiger says try me

[@less2641]

Thanks for this. The insight into this design development was fascinating. I hadnt realised the turret layouts considered were so innovative.

[@johnfisher9692]

Great video Personally I refer to all six of the I class ships as Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers as this is what they were conceived, designed and built as. When used in the role they were designed for they were outstanding ships. The loss of two at Jutland was more due to their misuse as they were never designed to face BB level fire in a prolonged fight. I consider the Lion class as the first true British Battlecruiser and they proved tough ships in battle, the loss of Queen Mary more due to defective and dangerous cordite than a weakness of the design. Note the despite the large number of hits taken at Jutland Lion, Princess Royal and Tiger were all still at sea and looking to renew the fight the next day while the German ships had run screaming for home.

[@tomlindsay4629]

The photo at 4:56 is just fantastic. Great video, abundant new info as always. Thanks for posting!

[@MERCENARYREVY]

Loved the pictures and information was very good

[@lawrencemarocco8197]

Some naval officer called the first battle cruisers "Heavyweight punchers with glass jaws."

[@frasermitchell9183]

The other description I heard was "Eggshells armed with sledgehammers".

[@HistoryNut-1701]

Cruiser killers.

[@janwitts2688]

2 triple 12 inch turrets.. turbines for 28 knots.. 6x 4inch guns per side in 3 dual turrets.. rest on armour.. sorted..

[@less2641]

@@janwitts2688 To get a ship to 28 knots would have involved another 20+ boilers and made her the size of the Lions, when she only needed to be faster than an armored cruiser's speed of 23 or 24. Are you sure it's worth it? No such thing as a British triple turret, sadly. Would have been a much better layout in the abstract though, like a German panzerschiff cruiser.

[@janwitts2688]

@less2641 Nope.. they were actually considering high pressure for the queen elisabeths .. failure to implement this was considered a mistake and regretted.. if you can get 8 x 15 inch on a qe displacement in 4 turrets plus secondaries and armour etc.. then 6 x 12s in 2 turrets and not a lot else would be manageable on invincibles displacement..

[@less2641]

@janwitts2688 In 1915, maybe. In 1922, sure. But in 1905? It's just too early for that, AFAIK. I know other countries tried triple turrets a couple of years later, but it's just too advanced for ships laid down in, what, 1903?

[@janwitts2688]

@less2641 Nope.. it's doable.. maybe 27.9 knots lol.. even at that time.. as long as the machinery is in good order and the best fuel is available .. he does have turbine propulsion..

[@CSSVirginia]

Turrets all forward?

[@exharkhun5605]

How did they get over "blast effect" being such a problem when their tests were still saying that it's indeed such a problem at this stage?

[@less2641]

@@exharkhun5605 I don't believe they did. That's why the turrets are so widely spaced. The answer was to delete the openings (ranging hoods?) on turrets and rely on big stereoscopic rangefinders and central control instead. Once the turrets were fully sealed, blast wasn't so much of an issue and superfiring turrets became common.

[@exharkhun5605]

@@less2641 Thank you. A logical, but still a little bit unsatisfying answer given the prevalence of superfiring turrets with even much larger guns in the years after this. And turrets were never fully sealed I think. (given the rubber hoods even the Iowa's were using) Everyone must have decided it was either worth it concussing your sailors, or it wasn't such a big problem. Maybe the fact that you rarely fire straight over the lower turret was a factor? And the high elevations?

[@davidtong565]

The fault with the concept, was the battleship guns, had these ships carried 9,2 inch weapons a lot of lives might have been saved in 1916

[@damiandorhoff719]

Or just tell everybody that safety measures are more important than rate of fire. Even if you are in a duel with another battlecruiser and you try to sink the enemy before he can sink you.

[@NashmanNash]

Yeah..Because Blücher did so well against Battleship caliber guns..or the british armored cruisers

[@NashmanNash]

@@damiandorhoff719 Well..The Indefatigables were just flawed...To the point that they were actually at risk of being taken down against something like Scharnhorst or Blücher