What Is a Battlecruiser and Is New Jersey One?

[@Drachinifel]

Enjoyable as always :)

[@jeebus6263]

So would an iowa class "fast-battle-cruiser" have three 2-barrel turrets or only two 3-barrel turrets... both options seem about equally sacrilegious.

[@cirian75]

@@jeebus6263 I would bet 2 triples as it means they could have used the exact same turrets. saving time, weight and costs.

[@davismcmichael6995]

Love your channel Drach....awesome you watch this channel too.

[@TheEDFLegacy]

@@davismcmichael6995 He actually met up with Ryan during his recent trip to the US! Keep an eye on his channel for the footage. He also did a live stream with Ryan when the news from the USS The Sullivans came out; he just happened to be at the USS New Jersey when it happened.

[@wills2140]

Hopefully Ryan will find time to reply to your latest video discussing the Hood and Iowa's. (:

[@bullreeves1109]

Considering Iowa still had armor to the same standard as the previous class. I’d say it’s more the Iowa’s like Hood were fast Battleships. Hood was only really called a Battlecruiser by the British because she had a top speed above 25 knots. But her Armor was comparable to the Queen Elizabeth class.

[@BestAnswer12549]

But the Queen Elizabeth be called battle cruisers. The QE have one less turret than their Iron Dukes class and they extended their machinery. And I know they never made their top speed, but it was 25 knots.

[@waverleyjournalise5757]

@@BestAnswer12549 QE class had 15" guns vs 13.5" which alone is a huge difference. They were also far bigger and better armoured than the Iron Dukes. It's all in the guns and armour, and the QEs maximiser the possibilities of both.

[@BestAnswer12549]

@@waverleyjournalise5757 there were some design studies that called for a slower QE. Basically a 23 knots and 10 15-in guns.

[@NOrlando952]

Came here to comment a similar thing, but you saved me the time.

[@bullreeves1109]

@@BestAnswer12549 True, but that still doesn’t make the QE’s Battlecruisers. There may have been better armed/armored designs, but that doesn’t change they were designed from the start as Battleships. And would end up being the largest by that point. Armor was noticeably improved over the Iron Dukes, and the 15” (381mm) guns actually gave the QEs a higher broadside weight than the Dukes. The top speed of 25knots was impressive. Especially for 1915, but it was also expensive. Thus the following Revenge class dropped the speed back to 21Knots while slightly improving deck armor to save cost. Ironically the British actually called the QEs Fast battleships in WW1, with their speed of 25 being deemed the cap. Hood was originally designed to be a Battlecruiser like the Renowns, but after The Battle of Jutland, the British modified the design to a frankly absurd degree. By the time she was finished her speed dropped by 2 knots, and Sat upwards of 5ft lower in the water. but in return she had received significant armor improvements. But since her speed was still 31-32knots, they stuck with the designation of Battlecruiser.

[@billbrockman779]

Some of the USN pre-dreads even had 8” and 7” secondaries. Apparently, spotting the shots was difficult due to similar splashes. My grandfather served on a 10” armored cruiser in WW1.

[@donmears4090]

The Iowa class ships are fast battleships due to their speed and amount of armor. The Alaska class was designed to counter a class of large cruisers that the Imperial Japanese Navy never build. US Navy battleships of the Second World War could be divided into three categories 1. Standard with speeds of around 20 knots 2. Treaty with speeds around 28 knots 3. Fast Battleships with speeds around 33 knots.

[@cgi2002]

Fair assessment. As he mentioned battlecruisers had essentially stopped been developed by the age of fast battleships. So I too would say the Iowa's are fast battleships, which is a role that had entirely replaced the battlecruiser by this point, and was frankly also gradually replacing traditional battleships too. A fast battleship is to me, the half way point between what would have been a traditional battle cruiser and a line battleship, which were falling out of favour due to the obvious weakness caused by the threat of faster torpedo armed ships and torpedo armed aircraft with their slower speeds meaning difficulty in evading a threat you can't effectively armor against. A fast battleship however can better defend against this threat due to its greater speed, and it has the strengths of a line battleship with the speed of a battle cruiser, fills both roles well, and costs the same. Basically its a better all round ship design.

[@gildor8866]

If we define a battlecruiser as a battleship that drops a turret and armor for extra speed, then what would the corresponding battleship to an Iowa-class battlecruiser look like? It would be a 45.000 ts BB with four 16-inch triple turrets and a top speed no greater than the South Dakotas. I'd say you can make a pretty good case that the Iowas are battlecruisers, the main arguments against it is the strength of their armor being on par with that contemporary battleship, assuming it would be armored against 16-inch fire only.

[@manilajohn0182]

People can refer to them as they please, but the Iowa class were classified as Battleships by the U.S. Navy.

[@TheDogGeneral]

At the end of the day what makes a fast Battleship or a battle cruiser is truly what their Nations and operators intended the HMS Hood was the last battle cruiser completed Ryan and everybody else that considers her a fast Battleship are entitled to their opinions but the battle cruiser HMS Hood was not a fast Battleship the Royal Navy never once referred to her as a battleship so I think they got their classifications correct on the one occasion the battle cruiser Hood was used as such she exploded in a spectacular fashion during the battle of the Denmark Strait ultimately. The Alaska class ships were large Cruisers the United States Navy did not call them battle Cruisers or fast battleships so I think they designation is correct battleship in scope and scale and while Alaska and her siblings very well were heavier than the preceding South Carolina series of battleships they're still not not battleships The the Iowa class are fast battleships because the United States Navy made them to be battleships it's that simple whether the Montana's were completed or not is irrelevant to the designation that the United States Navy gave the Iowa class and as far as the Admiral class series of battle Cruisers Go Hood was the only one completed and she wasn't meant to be but she ended up being the last capital ship completed and the people wish she would have been a fast Battleship and she wasn't

[@tsuaririndoku]

@@gildor8866But Hood also have armor design to stand against other capital ships. Which means Hood in theory should also be a Fast Battleships. But they use Battlecruiser as a terms, which making Hood and Iowa are technically fitting middle child on both. Iowa Armor able to stabd Mk6 16inch guns but not Mk7 50caliber. Which means Iowa has lacking armor than her own gun. Hood does somewhat have less of this issue. Yes, Hood armor were thinner but they design specifically to be on an angled so that become as effective as flat armor. Which means, Iowa can be Battlecruiser if Montana Class were built.

[@inyobill]

The observation that cruisers are armored only against the armament of their designed targets, (not battleships size weapons) is the crucial point.

[@barrydysert2974]

Dear Ryan, Your characterization of the WWII German navy is priceless! You and Drach both delight me. God bless you all !:-) 💜🙏⚡️

[@shawnarner469]

I my own mind I always had the idea that there were "Fast" battleships & "heavy" battleships depending on their particular build style. So for me the Iowa's will still be "Fast" battleships even if the Montana's had been built, the latter would just be "heavy" battleships.

[@CharliMorganMusic]

The Montana is what I'd call a SBB

[@TheDogGeneral]

@@shawnarner469 the Montana would have been a more traditional Battleship had they been constructed in sequence however the United States Navy never said explicitly oh if we build the Montana's then the Iowa's get redesignated to battle Cruisers they just didn't say that plus with the Montana's they would have returned to the traditional two turrets for two turrets aft and the external armor belt was something the Navy had preferred

[@DerekKnop]

One thing that makes it hard when comparing British battle cruisers to others is that in the RN, the only defining feature they cared about was whether it was faster or slower than 25 knots. All the other things that we eventually used to sort battleships from battle cruisers were just side effects of them trying to get the ships faster than 25 knots. Hood was a bit of a freak and that is why she required an exemption in the Washington Naval Treaty.

[@TheDogGeneral]

The battlecruiser HMS Hood though is still a battle cruiser she might have Battleship characteristics for the Jutland era but the Royal Navy always called her a battle cruiser because that was the most appropriate designation she inhabited that characteristic they always wanted to improve her Armour distribution in system the Royal Navy felt it was certainly anemic by 1938 and it was always their intention to have her overhauled from stem to stern but they never carried those plans out owing to her status as Flagship but she was always used in conjunction with other battle Cruisers and squadrons and the one occasion where she was used as a traditional capital ship the battle of the Denmark Strait she exploded

[@toddr737]

I see New Jersey as a “fast battleship”, as she was made to engage enemy battleships. Battle cruisers were not intended to engage enemy battleships (per Adm. Jackie Fisher), it should outrun a battleship and call for support from friendly battleships.

[@vbscript2]

Or, better yet, outrun a battleship and call for support from friendly aircraft carriers. :)

[@anthonyburnam3415]

Fisher was big on fast battleships, battle cruisers and submarines. He was a bit early to foresee tiny flying machines destroying his beloved ships. I get a warm feeling just seeing his name in discussions. I have learned a lot from a bunch of you guys just discussing what you know. I appreciate it.

[@danielc2701]

To be really fair though, technology was so much in flux at that time that some "battlecruisers" were actually battleships in all but speed and name. It's just a strange quirk of terminology that caused people to think "cruiser = weaker" when some of them were armoured up to similar levels to some battleships and that their extra speed came from tech improvements and an increase in displacement. The "Fast Battleship" term was used to address this oddity later.

[@tsuaririndoku]

Well that’s an issue. Hood were design to fight other capital ships as well. But Hood designated as Battlecruiser. There were quite generations of Battlecruisers. During its beginning the first Generation Battlecruiser were not well armored as they are cruiser killers and have armor enough to fight at most Armored Cruisers. Invincible Class is the one a great example of this first Gen Battlecruisers. However, you can also say Alaska fits into First Generation Battlecruiser as well. Hence it design to kill Cruisers and take hits from Japanese Heavy Cruisers. Which in theory, Alaska are considered Battlecruisers for The First Generation, if Battlecruisers. Second Generation of Battlecruisers are technically identical to the first, but having less guns of their own conventional Battleships. Kongo is one of the perfect example, she is a Battlecruiser with 8 14inch guns compare to Fuso Class Battleship with 12 14 inch guns. Or compare to Renown and Queen Elizabeth. Next, you got the third Generation of Battlecruisers which is basically making ships faster but still sustain the armor just enough to fight the ship of its own size or other same type of Battlecruisers. HMS Hood is the only example of this. 4th Generation of Battlecruisers are Lexington Class, Amagi Class and G3 Class designs. They are more on pair to be called Fast Battleships but still falls into Battlecruiser category.

[@fredcarlson5775]

I believe the Iowas are fast battleships which describes them perfectly

[@Deevo037]

Its a really interesting discussion, one that's difficult to have here. What would be considered a battleship, a fast battleship, a battlecruiser or a large cruiser really depends on where you are from and which nation's conventions.

[@TheDogGeneral]

Correct and on those conventions that's what makes a ship whatever it's supposed to be ultimately in the case of the Japanese Imperial Navy they converted The Congos from battlecruisers to battleships via retrofits and modifications the Admiral class battle Cruisers of the royal Navy of which the battle cruiser HMS Hood was a member were constructed to be battle Cruisers not battleships and in the case of the Iowa's they were convened as fast battleships with an emphasis on keeping up with the carriers at flank speed Particular the battle Cruise rates you must Hood I believe she was as close to a battleship as a battle cruiser could be pushed to be but what makes her a battle cruiser and not a fast Battleship as Ryan would like her to be is the fact that the British royal Navy did not call her a battleship faster otherwise they always called her a battle cruiser Admiral Cunningham always called her a battle cruiser so there's not room for debate on that whether she should or shouldn't have been that's a different story

[@bairdrew]

I very much agree with you, asides one minor quibble. From Hood on no ship was designed (that was called either a battlecruiser or battleship) that didn't have the speed, protection, and nominal firepower of both, until USS Alaska the "supercruiser" that had battleship guns and speed but not protection. I'd say Alaska was the only battlecruiser after the completion of Renown and Repulse, if we are actually trying to nail down a definition for what constitutes a battlecruiser. And if ships like Hood of Scharnhorst must be included in such a definition (because hoho the British at one point considered any capital ship capable of over 25kts a battlecruiser) then so much the Bismarks, the Iowas, the SoDaks, and even (lol) the Yamatos.

[@OmegaReaver]

To me, the _Iowa_ 's are fast battleships, a distinct class separate from regular or standard battleships. With the fast battleships, we see a shift in doctrine away from the need for the battleship to have that 21 knot speed to stick with the armoured cruisers towards a concept of what is more of a rapid response force. Their armour scheme, when being developed, is with the heaviest guns in mind (barring _Yamato_ 's guns). Whether or not their armour would actually hold up against such force is, in a way, moot, as that was clearly what the designers were aiming for. Personally, I think that the development of fast battleships, had they remained viable long enough, would pretty much mirror how the distinct light, medium and heavy tanks evolved into the main battle tank (MBT) concept that we have today. EDIT: As for what _Iowa_ 's would be if the _Montana_ 's had been built, they'd still have been fast battleships, just considered an older generation, similar to how a Leopard 1 is a first generation MBT while a Leopard 2 is a second (or more) MBT. The Leo 2's status as an MBT doesn't relegate the Leo 1 to being a medium tank just because it's bigger and better. So too would be the relationship between _Iowa_ and _Montana_ .

[@PhantomP63]

Great response!

[@OmegaReaver]

@@PhantomP63 Thanks.

[@almartiniii1541]

Outstanding response and I agree wholeheartedly with your analogy. The Iowas were not as monumental of a change as HMS Dreadnought was, more as you have said, the next steady evolution of a proven design. The Montana would have done the same. Bigger, badder, and a little better. I suppose the real differences in thier evolution would be thier intended use. Where the Iowas were certainly capable of line duty, they, in my opinion, were more intended to be a fast response battleship. A fast, jack of all trades if you will. So in conclusion, fast battleship makes for the strongest and most logical designation. Absolutely able to go toe to toe with other contemporary battleships, steam with all speed to any theater, and hunt lighter fast prey like cruisers.

[@boreasreal5911]

it's actually fairly simple. The Iowas have a remarkable similarity to Hood if you compare them to their nearest contemporary battleships namely the South Dakota-class for the Iowas and the Queen Elizabeth and R-classes for Hood. Now depending on wether you make the number of guns a consideration in determining wether a ship is a battlecruiser or a fast battleship, you get that both the Iowas and Hood are battlecruisers or both are fast battleships. I for one quite like the concept of Hood being a new kind of battlecruiser that, while in capability is a fast battleship, is still primarly build for the cruiser role, ie comerce protection. but If you consider Hood a battlecruiser, which I do, you also have to consider the Iowas battlecruisers, simply by fitting the new "Hood type battlecruiser" description perfectly. Also it winds up people, which is always funny to see. On another note, the you could make your video about wether you think the Iowas are battlecruisers a collab with Drach, which is something I, and I assume many others, would like to see.

[@nooneatall8072]

A collaboration with Drach I would definitely like to see

[@exharkhun5605]

It's good to hear you're making friends, it must get lonely crawling through the guts of ships alone. 🙂

[@wacojones8062]

Iowa's are fast battleships. Fair armor, good gunnery setup able to strike at flank speed and blistering speed compared to pre-WW II ships with comparable armor and gun sizes. Also, the US idea of AA guns near 1/3 the size of the main guns allowed a better distribution of armor and AA ammo stowage. They could and did a very good job running with fast carrier task forces. Some gaffs due to miscommunications and misinterpretation of intelligence received. The Montana class as design studies were worked up would have been heavy battleships with slower speeds unable to keep up with and protect the carrier strike groups as they were being designed for a line of battle usage.

[@americanmade4791]

The most important consideration is which did the builder intend it to be? A ship's particular physical features are far less relevant. If the ship was built to be part of the line of battle, or fight and withstand others that are, then it's a battleship. If it's design--including speed--was meant to defeat less and/or equally powerful warships while escaping battleships, it's a battlecruiser-type. Emphasis on "type" because while we might compare and categorize it with other battlecruisers, if the operating navy doesn't call it one and didn't intend it to be one, how is it a battecruiser?

[@lawrencehudson9939]

I am impressed. this was a much more learned discussion on ship design than I had expected from you. I think one has to separate battleship and battlecruiser design into two periods. First the era from the introduction of HMS Dreadnought to the first world war and then the period from 1918 to world war two because clearly navies took lessons learned from British vs. German engagements and applied those along with new technologies to succeeding designs as interpreted by various countries goals. This gives us a variety of ships classed as battlecruisers that vary and can be hard to pin down.

[@RayyMusik]

8:58 Battlecruisers were usually larger/longer than contemporary battleships due to engine space/speed requirements.

[@waverleyjournalise5757]

The Iowas were always designed to fight the enemy's battleships, whatever they might have been. The armour belt may have been thinner than the gun calibre, but the angle and internal spaced layer made up for it as well as the torpedo protection, and other aspects of the armour scheme (such as the main deck) made no such compromises. The design is clearly intended to take hits and remain functional for as long as possible, to outlast the enemy if it came to a slugfest. Just as slow speed was what priced the Colorados and other standard class battleships out of carrier escort duty, the Iowas' speed was a necessity for their role and could not have been traded for armour.

[@legiran9564]

You can make the argument that the WW1 German battlecruisers were actually fast battleships.

[@kumaflamewar6524]

I think there are some good arguments to call iowas battlecruisers, keep in mind they're lengthened south Dakotas that aren't armored against their heavier shells. They're designed along side a slower, better armored battleship with an extra turret. They're the same speed and displacement as the only US battlecruisers ever designed. They were designed to counter the Kongo class battlecruisers. And I think most compellingly they're very similar in performance to hood which is usually considered a battlecruiser.

[@waverleyjournalise5757]

@@kumaflamewar6524 neither Ryan not Drachinifel consider Hood a battlecruiser. Hood was better armoured than the Queen Elizabeth class, and no-one can say that those aren't battleships. The only reason the Royal Navy called Hood a battlecruiser was her speed; her armour and armament place her firmly in battleship territory.

[@davidmcintyre8145]

There are several points to consider here. First,the Queen Elizabeth class ships were designed for 25 kts because that was the estimated seagoing speed of German battlecruisers using the lower quality German coal. They also had large tube boilers and had the Queen Elizabeth class been fitted with small tube boilers as was proposed but rejected they would have made 28 kts thus matching British battlecruisers speed. German battlecruisers in turn because they were designed from the outset to fight in the battle line were armoured on the scale of a battleship. Finally Fisher had envisioned ships of the type Embodied by ships like Hood and the Iowas even before Dreadnought was built with the speed of cruiser and the armour and guns of a battleship which he called a"fusion"design thus both Hood and the Iowas along with to a lesser extent the Queen Elizabeths are fusion ships. The reason for not building ships like this earlier was primarily cost leading to the separate battleship and battlecruiser designs

[@paulhudson8321]

I always thought battlecruisers were as large as battleships but with thinner amour and slightly faster speed. Iowa class was a fast battleship designed to keep up to aircraft carriers for screening support. I’m just happy they were preserved for us to visit and learn about.

[@danielc2701]

Nah, some battlecruisers were armoured to the same standards as battleships, it was their speed that got them called "cruisers" rather than weaker armour. It's mostly a British tendency since they love to class everything by roles and even "Fast Battleships" got called "battlecruisers" by them initially. In fact, the Renown and the Repulse were supposed to be upgraded Revenge class battleships. There was a lot of technology development during that time period so it was all one huge mess that made it hard to classify everything properly.

[@TheDogGeneral]

​@@danielc2701 Supposed to be but never carried out in a significant way repulsion renowned were battle Cruisers still they were never in enhanced into true battleships same case with their sibling the battlecruiser HMS Hood I mean she was similar scale to a World War II era fast Battleship but her armor was anemic and all the intended upgrades in retrofits were never carried out she was suffering from high mileage by the time of the battle of the Denmark Strait and her Machinery was in dire need of maintenance

[@ponchoremerize5508]

The words "Glass Cannon" come to my mind when thinking about BC's.

[@TheDogGeneral]

Glass cannons Crystal Jaws yeah battle Cruisers were obsolete concept by the time they actually got rolling out from 1906 to 1920 the world's nature of combat had changed the battlecruiser HMS hoods own destruction I would argue was the last gasp of failure for incorrect utilization

[@vincentlavallee2779]

As I pretty much said ion Drach's KZbin video about the term 'Battlecruiser', this is really just a British term. The only time the US Navy used that term was back in 1916, and I suspect the US Navy used that term then was just from the British influence. After that, the used terms that were much easier to understand, with very clear meaning, and 'battlecruise' was never one of them. So, in the US world, there are only destroyers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, large cruisers (Alaska class), standard battleships, and fast battleships. There were 3 classes of US Fast Battleships, ending with the Iowa class.

[@stevequerin2504]

I am an American; and, I studied Military History & Technology as a Personal Hobby during my High School Years & 20s during the 1980s & 1990s. I am not an Expert, or Specialist, of Naval Military History & Technology like Drachinifel; but, I am familiar with the Evolution Of Earth Human Warfare & Technology from The Stone Age to The Present Day. I also grew up reading LIFE SCIENCE LIBRARY Books from before I was a Pre-Schooler thru my High School Years. Even during my 40s and 50s, I do occasionally crack open those LIFE SCIENCE LIBRARY Books. Starting in my Elementary School Years, I was constantly thinking about Naval Warship Designs, and Naval Warfare Tactics & Strategies, and Naval Warship Operations. During my High School Years and 20s, every Military History Book, and every Military Technology Book, that I read had a British Author; even though, those Military History & Technology Books, were Published by American Book Publishers. Your perspective, and Drachinifel's perspective (Drachinifel is British), is from the British Military Perspective; which, is different from the American Military Perspective and from the French Military Perspective and the German Military Perspective and the Italian Military Perspective. If your understanding of Naval Warfare Technology was based on The German Military Perspective, it would be very different. The reason being, the German Vocabulary has terminologies that British & American don't have; and, vice-versa. This is also true with French Vocabulary and Italian Vocabulary. ¿Does this mean that your British View is wrong? -- No. It isn't an American View. I suspect that British Honor & Prestige is in play when it comes to Military History & Technology. During The Age Of Sail (1400s thru 1800s), Great Britain become a Global Empire by establishing, and maintaining, a very strong Naval Power. However, Germany sparked The Industrial Revolution; and, Germany was were the Best Scientists & Engineers got their Collegiate Degrees from the 1800s to the 1930s; and, USSR was The First Nation to put a Satellite, and an Animal, and a Human, into Earth Orbit; and, the USA was The First Nation to put a Human on Luna; and, Japan was The First Nation to create a fully autonomous Industrial Robot, and The First Nation to create societal interactive Social Robots & Androids, and The First Full-Size Fully Functional Mecha (albeit a Million Dollar Water Gun/Water Bottle/Nerf Toy). I am the creator of the FLOWER CHILD PROJECT Manned Spacecraft Design Concept; however, I am not an Aerospace Engineer like Werner Von Braun; and, I don't live & breath & eat & sleep & shit Manned Spaceflight like Buzz Aldrin did during his Young Adult Years. As with Military History & Technology, for me, Manned Spaceflight was more of a Hobby that I thought about ever since Buzz Aldrin walked on Luna before I was in Pre-School. For me, Understanding Human Racism was my Life-Long Goal; and, Military History & Technology was a major factor in The Development Of Earth Human History. If you were to look at all of The American Outerspace Science-Fiction Storylines, you will see that 90% of them involve Outerspace Warfare, or Non-Military Outerspace Combat; and, Extra-Terrestrial Versus Earth Human Hostilities ... -- E-T wants to Eat Humans -- E-T wants to Exterminate Earth Humans -- E-T wants to Replace Earth Humans -- E-T wants to Have Dominion Over Earth Humans -- E-T wants to Enslave Earth Humans In comparison, look at all of the Military Warmachines (Warships & Warplanes & Armored Tanks & other War Vehicles) that have been created, and the Manpower needed to Design & Construct & Operate & Maintain; compared to, the Non-Weaponized & Non-Military Manned & Unmanned Spacecraft that have been created, and the Manpower to Design& Construct & Operate & Maintain Non-Weaponized Non-Military Spacecraft. Battleship New Jersey and all of the other Museum Warships, and The Ghost Squadron Aircraft, and other Museum Warmachines, are important to preserve not just because for "remembering those who have passed away during Military Battles"; but, for understanding that these Single-Purpose Vehicles have no use outside of Combat Death & Destruction Activities, and how much Material & Financial & Human Resources they take up; instead of, those Material & Financial & Human Resources being used for Non-Violent Purposes; such as, Peaceful Research & Exploration of The Universe; and, preserving Human Life and The Natural Environment.

[@coolconfuzer]

16:07 my favorite to. I read that it was FDR's wish to have them built and wouldve been his "flagship". It was his dream.

[@lutherpolaris8230]

Iowa was definitely a Fast Battleship and likely the best of its class. On the extra 10k tons displacement the Iowa class was otherwise almost identical in armor and weapons to the prior 16 inch battleship class. The extra weight, like Hood's went to speed while retaining weapons and production making it a Fast Battleship. If the Alaska class were fitted with 3 twin 16 inch turrets it might have been rightly considered a Battlecruiser. However, the U.S. Navy preferred balanced designs over extreme Jackie Fisher prototype experimental classes. It should also be noted that the Iowa class was armed with the improved 50 caliber 16 inch gun versus the 45 in the North Carolina and South Dakota classes, and had significantly more 40 MM and 20 MM by wars end than any other Battleships.

[@harrymuir835]

The Iowas have a BB designation therefore the navy considered them battleships. And the navy would never give a ship an incorrect designation.....

[@stuartaaron613]

Excellent discussion. I agree with you that the HMS Hood and the USN Iowas are "fast battleships" not battlecruisers. New classifications for new concepts, just the terms "dreadnought" and "dreadnought cruiser" were added as those types of ships entered service. One thing to remember about the WWII Scharnhorsts was that while built with 11" guns, they were designed to be able to mount the later 15" guns.

[@TheDogGeneral]

You are incorrect sir HMS Hood was not a fast battleship she was never referred to as such she was always called a battle cruiser by the Royal Navy during her lifetime and the lifetime of her operators a battle cruiser she was regardless of characteristics

[@smilingnid4276]

I am so happy to see this seed I planted spread and blossom to even more channels

[@kirkmorrison6131]

Generals and Admirals always as a group tend to plan to fight the last war.

[@simonhamilton810]

rule of thumb I use is a battle cruiser is powerful enough to sink anything smaller than itself and fast enough to run away from anything that can sink themselves. Generally I would apply this rule to the interwar period only.

[@TheNinjaDC]

I think Jutland sorta killed the battlecruiser, *at least what it had evolved into.* Battlecruisers had evolved from fast scouting and cruiser killing ships, into ships that do that & are secondary ships of the line. However, Jutland showed the danger of taking Battlecruisers into fleet actions with Battleships. *This caused a shift in design.* It pushed for the creation of faster battleships to fill the battlecruiser role, but still have good (enough) armor. It also eventually lead to Cruiser-Killers. Ships made to kill enemy cruisers and scout, but not given guns comparable with contemporary battleships as they were absolutely not meant to be part of the battle line of a battleship engagement.

[@stephanbrunker]

Not exactly. The British battlecruisers which were sunk at Jutland were sunk by ... the German battlecruisers, they of course armed with battleship-caliber guns. In the later part of the battle, the German battlecruisers were the point of the battleline and were able to withstand the fire of the home fleet, at least for a time. But you are correct, that it showed that the better amour of the German battlecruisers was essential and you really don't want to engage battleship-caliber guns with armor against cruiser-caliber guns. So, a more versatile design was needed.

[@ZGryphon]

The parallel isn't exact, but there's an appealing symmetry in the way medium and heavy tanks converged into the modern concept of the main battle tank and the way battlecruisers and battleships converged into the fast battleship. As with the MBT blending the mobility of a medium tank with the armor and gun of a heavy, ship propulsion technology advanced to the point where a vessel with the armor and firepower of a battleship no longer needed to sacrifice one or the other to achieve cruiser speeds. Interesting to consider where the latter evolutionary path might have led if aviation hadn't come along and ruined everyone's fun.

[@NGC-gu6dz]

Drach is my favorite KZbin channel. This channel has the coolest toy on KZbin.

[@The_Hissing_Fool]

While the term "battlecruiser" was largely anachronistic by WW2, I would argue one could make an edge case for the Iowas being battlecruisers if, and only if, the Montanas had been built. They would have largely fit the classical definition of "battlecruiser" in comparison to the Montanas. But, given that the Montanas were never built, the Iowas are fast battleships. It's a bit of a moot point calling the Iowas battlecruisers without having the "matching" battleship class alongside them. Same goes for Hood, in my opinion. There was no slower battleship class analogous to the Admirals. On a side note, I would say the Duetschlands were the fullest extension of the predreadnought concept, albeit with six rather than four main battery guns.

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

Nelson class sir. Technically N3 battleships class that was never built.

[@The_Hissing_Fool]

@@patrickradcliffe3837 yes, and much like the Montanas, a technicality. I think that's what the question really boils down to, technicalities.

[@suspiciousminds1750]

Great, interesting video, as usual. As a kid I read a simple definition of Battlecruisers in an encyclopedia which has stuck with me 50 years later: "A fast battleship with light armor." So by that definition i consider the Hood a BC, not the Iowas.

[@johngregory4801]

Good didn't have light armor - she was armored to the same standard as every other 15" armed capital ship in the Royal Navy.

[@suspiciousminds1750]

@@johngregory4801 Yes, but by the 20s & 30s that armor scheme quickly became inadequate and the Admiralty did not treat her as a front line BB capable of slugging it out with the new generation of dreadnoughts.

[@lukeueda-sarson6732]

@@suspiciousminds1750 But the Iowas DID have light armor. Lighter than the South Dakotas, for example. Since, as far as the Iowas designers knew, no Japanese battleships had armor even that "good", that wasn't considered to be a particular problem, it was believed - but unknownst to the designers the Yamatos were a thing, and an Iowa would have been chewed up very quickly by a Yamato that got a firing solution on her; while the converse would not have been the case.

[@suspiciousminds1750]

@@lukeueda-sarson6732 Fair point but was it really "light"? Yes, it was lighter than the SD class, but by that standard, every battleship is a BC compared to the yamato. Was the armor adequate? In most circumstances I believe it was. And while the Yamato outgunned the Iowas, she had a flaw in her armor design, and the iowas had superior radar, fire control and shell design,.

[@lukeueda-sarson6732]

@@suspiciousminds1750 Sure, but we are only talking about armour, not fire control, etc.. Iowas were lightly armoured not only compared to South Dakota, an older design: they were light compared to the KGVs, an even older design. Was it "adequate"? Well, no, not for a line-of-battle-ship; that is *precisely* why the Montana's were designed, after all. It just turned out that the US Navy realized they didn't actually need a line-of-battle-ship by the time the Iowas were built, they needed fast non-line-of-battle ships. The Iowas can only be called battleships if you change the meaning of "battle" ship to something away from "line of battle ship". I'm not saying you can't do that, but you have to acknowledge, IMO, the Iowas were qualitatively different from the preceding genuinely "line of battle" ships. They were did not even have lip service to the idea of being immune to their own gunfire, for example, which was *the* guiding principle of battleship design for the century preceding.

[@josephstevens9888]

The Iowa-class are fast Battleship. Yes, I agree, the Alaska-Class are the most beautiful ships ever in service with the U.S. Navy.

[@billbrockman779]

Yes. I (in my imagination) would gladly trade one of the four preserved Iowas for an Alaska museum ship.

[@jeffp3415]

In the FB Battleships and Battlecruiser group, the rule is however the navy that built the ship defines it that is what we call it. So even though common sense may tell us Hood was a fast battleship she is officially a battlecruiser because that's what the RN designated her. The Alaska's are designated Large Cruisers by the USN, so that is what we call them even though they could be considered battlecruisers by some.

[@ross.venner]

I believe HMS Vanguard was classified as "Fully Armoured Battlecruiser." Given that the British considered capital ships with speeds in excess of a certain arbitrary speed, battlecruisers, that classification would capture the Iowas.

[@SoloRenegade]

but USN has no compulsion to adhere to Royal Navy conventions. speed alone doesn't define a battlecruiser. Iowas are just battleships with hulls that make them fast.

[@ross.venner]

@@SoloRenegade- Please understand, I was making an observation, not attempting to impose the British form on the USN. Vanguard was almost always spoken of as a battleship. The form used early in her design process gave way to the universal form, battleship.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@ross.venner I know, just pointing out that USN would follow USN conventions. Fact is that Iowas didn't shed armor compared to previous battleships, it just got a faster hull. Battlecruisers are BB that sacrifice armor for speed. Firepower of BB on Cruiser hull (in terms of armor) essentially. Iowa is a BB hull with BB firepower. She just happens to be faster than other BB is all.

[@AdamSmith-kq6ys]

Future content idea: Drach \ Ryan "What is a battlecruiser" stream, where the two of them trade actual and proposed designs back and forth and discuss...

[@andrewreynolds4949]

Whereas the Alaskas are not battlecruisers at all (not being meant for the line of battle), the Iowa class could be both fast battleships or battlecruisers depending on what perspective you approach it from. Compared to the contemporary Montana class, which were actually prepared for construction but then cancelled, they traded protection and firepower for speed. However, the Montana class were never built, so since the Iowa class battlecruisers had equivalent protection to the previous generation of battleships, they were used as fast battleships and are generally designated as such.

[@Andy-ql9wh]

Hi, Interesting question. In my humble opinion, the Battle Cruiser vs Battleship question would depend on if the Montana class were built or not. As it is today, the Iowa's are definitely a Battleship. If the Montana's were built, and at this point, who knows in what form they would have actually been built, but most likely, they would have been a 27 to 30 knot ship with either 12 16similar

[@charlescdt6509]

the prefix for the Alaska Class was CB-Battle Crusier before they reclassed them as Large Crusier. Samething they did with the Essex Class CVB-Battel Carrier because of the armored flight deck.

[@atfyoutubedivision955]

The US hull designation for Battle cruisers was CC. CVB was large carrier, and never applied to the Essex class.

[@mikeholton3914]

the "Fast Battleship" was the next step in the evolutional change, just as the Battle Cruiser displaced the Armored Cruiser in the evolutionary chain. Hood was an early example, possibly the very first (call her the "dreadnought" of fast Battleships). one could even lump the Bismarck into this category as she was definitely fast enough at 30 Knots (and evil as the Nazi's were i still think she was one of the most beautiful battleships ever built) i think looking at the Atlantic versus the Pacific battlefields is important as well, the North Carolina's, South Dakotas, and Iowa's seemed almost tailor made for the Pacific, the Atlantic not really being the same battlefield per say, the need for fast battleships wasn't present so the older ships like Texas for instance augmented the already powerful British Navy in what was after the sinking of Bismarck, and Tirpitz as well as the under-gunned but still dangerous Scharnhorst class (which i still do not consider an actual battleship due to their smaller guns even though they were extremely well armored) what the Pacific war taught us was the age of the Battleship as a power projection vessel was over, and the era of the aircraft carrier had begun, Taranto, Pearl Harbor, along with the British loses of POW and Repulse to the Japanese proved this out. the Iowa BB's proved they weren't completely useless however in providing shore bombardment through WW2 to as recently as the Gulf War of 91.

[@aw34565]

Interested to hear why Ryan does not class Dunkerque and Strasbourg as Battlecruisers.

[@Atlasworkinprogress]

I think it's important to note that German Dreadnought era Battlecruisers had smaller guns than their contemporary Battleships. Moltke had 11 inch guns from the first generation of German Battleships while the contemporary Konig Class, as well as the previous Kaiser and Helgoland classes had 12 inch guns.

[@kilianortmann9979]

New Jersey is, whatever Hood was. Hood might be the first Fast Battleship, same Armour and Armament as the Queen Elizabeths and faster speed, bought with much more displacement. That makes the Iowas the Fast Battleship equivalent to the South Dakotas. If Hood is the next evolution of the Battlecruiser, with QE as the fast Battleships to the R-Class, then Iowa is the Battlecruiser to the Montanas. I'd go with Battlecruiser, contemporary Fast Battleships are noticeably (3-5 knots) slower and New Jersey sacrifices one of Montanas Turrets for speed, like the late WW1 Battlecruisers used to.

[@djolley61]

Iowa class BBs are definitely battleships, I guess a new class--fast battleships--which could do say 27+ knots. The Yamato class BBs would be in that category. I would actually classify the Hood as a battle cruiser. They sacrificed armor for speed in her design. The Captain of the Hood was trying to close on the Bismark so as not to receive plunging fire which would penetrate her thin deck armor. This, of course, was exactly what happened with disastrous results.

[@Echowhiskeyone]

Battleship + Battlecruiser = Fast Battleship? Battleship - armored, big guns, triple turrets Battlecruiser - fast Fast Battleship - fast, armored, big guns, triple turrets Fast Battleships are an evolution and merging of battleships and battlecruisers.

[@guessmyhandle]

Cruiser implies less armor. Battle cruisers have the guns of a battleship and the speed and efficiency of a cruiser.

[@gliderdan3153]

Battleships don’t always have triple turrets

[@johngregory4801]

One definition of a battlecruiser is a capital ship whose armor isn't proofed against its own guns. Under this definition, USS New Jersey is a battlecruiser, for her armor is proofed against the 16"/45s of the North Carolina and South Dakota classes... But not against the 16"/50s that they carried into battle.

[@johnshepherd8687]

One of the traditional definitions of a battlecruiser is a capital ship that is faster than a battleship and not armored against its own guns. By this definition the only two battleships built after Rodney and Nelson are the KGVs and the Vanguard. The Bismarcks, North Carolinas, South Dakotas, Iowas, Yamatos, Littorios and Richeleaus were not armored against their own guns and under this definition were Battlecruisers. The Scharnhorsts get an asterisk because they were built with modern 11" guns because the new 15" guns were not available but the plan was to rearm them with twin 15s when available making them true battlecruisers. The Gneisenau was undergoing this conversion when the RAF permanently crippled the ship in a Gdinya drydock. The problem with this defintion is that with high velocity 15" and 16" guns it becomes impractical to armor your ship against main guns. The Iowas and Yamatos could penetrate 15" of armor out to almost 30kyds. Even the Montanas were not armored against their own guns. Battlecruisers were no longer a thing after WWI Here is why the Alaskas ard not battlecruisers. With the introduction of the QEs and the Standards 12" guns were obsolete as capital ship armament as they could not penetrate the armor of a superdreadnought even at practical WWI battle ranges. Yes, there were several second generation battleships that served in to WWII in the French, Italian and US Navies (USS Arkansas) but they were not first line ships anymore.

[@davidduma7615]

I have always wondered, what are those diagonal elements on the side of the hull in old photos of dreadnoughts like at 1:58 to 2:12. They can't all be boat booms???? not accomodation ladders since there is an actual accomodation ladder also shown at 2:12.

[@aw34565]

They are booms from which to hang anti-torpedo netting.

[@michaelsommers2356]

They're booms for the torpedo netting.

[@patrickperry3007]

Ryan adding to the lexicon of Battleship and Battle-cruiser design.

[@deaks25]

I'm agree, Hood and the Iowa's are Fast Battleships, which for me is what replaced the Battlecruiser as a capital ship, the Fast Battleship can do everything a BC can do, while also having Battleship grade armour. I'd love to see Ryan's classification, because what is or isn't a BC is a very subjective debate and it's hard to declare categorically what is right or wrong, it tends to come down to individual interpretation of what is a BC, and Drach lists the many ways you could define a BC. I have my own thoughts, but I do enjoy hearing other opinions on the subject.

[@TheDogGeneral]

Well that's an opinion you and Ryan both share but it's not substantiated the Royal Navy the admiralty her operators never called the battle cruiser HMS Hood a fast battleship and just because her armor belts were comparable to a previous series of Battleship is notwithstanding I mean they didn't alter any other element of her during her construction her deck armor is practically non-existent. I think the Royal Navy got it right the first time they classified her as a battle cruiser because that's what she was made to be all the plans throughout her career to augment her armor and revise her superstructure and other accoutrements was never carried out so a battle cruiser she was

[@DeeEight]

There were though, because battleship classes and battlecruiser classes changed so often in the early 1910s... that the same building year you'd get ships laid down that didn't match on gun caliber. And you get cases where its really strange like HMS Furious, which was technically a half-sister to Glorious and Courageous except instead of 2 twin 15 inch turrets it was designed with a pair of single 18 inch gun turrets. And the post treaty British battleships were designed around 14 inch guns when the previous battleships and battlecruisers from immediate post WW1 were 15 or 16 inch guns.... but then Vanguard gets 15 inch guns, but is only authorized for building because the guns and turrets from Glorious and Courageous had been kept in storage after they were converted into aircraft carriers.

[@BestAnswer12549]

It's a fully armored battlecruiser

[@31dknight]

Another great video from the battleship.

[@jesperlykkeberg7438]

In the Royal Navy the term "battlecruiser" always meant "fast dreadnought", "cruising battleship" and "fast big gun capital ship" and thus battlecruiser was simply the British term for "fast heavily armed battleship". Battlecruisers evolved when traditional battleships (dreadnoughts) was deemed to slow for a variety of tasks. There was never a British battlecruiser that wasn´t considered a dreadnought big gun capital ship. Some interesting facts: In 1913 the battlecruiser Kongō was Japan´s largest warship, armed with the HEAVIEST NAVAL GUNS (14 inch) IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. The Renown-class battlecruisers surpassed the Kongōs with 15 inch guns in 1916. In 1917 the battlecruiser Furious was armed with the LARGEST GUNS (18-inch) ever fitted on a Royal Navy ship. The battlecruiser HMS Hood (46,680 long tons) was the WORLD¨S LARGEST WARSHIP for twenty years.

[@danhaas9730]

Out of curiosity, do you consider the Dunkerque class to be battlecruisers, small fast battleships, or cruiser-killers? Her armor was similar to Alaska’s, and she was designed to hunt and kill the Deutschland cruisers, but her armament was the same caliber as the previous French battleships.

[@danhryniszak6612]

What adds to the difficulty in classifying large warships is that some warships built in 1917 were Still in service in in WW2, 25 Years latter. Pick any 25 year period in the design of the Chevy Corvette and you see drastic changes. Naval Engineers design ships to counter the ships that are available in their perceived enemy fleets. As advancements in Technology occurred, ship escalation also occurred in gun size and powder charges, new armor alloys, lighter and more powerful engines, and gun directors. Add to this that each country has their own needs. The UK and France had to protect a World Empire. The USA might have to fight a 2 Ocean War. Italy was only concerned about mastering the Mediterranean Sea. Germany knew that commerce raiding would be a priority until it’s fleet was superior to the British. Each Country’s Naval Engineers designed ships to fill the roles that it saw were needed to counter it’s rivals. With all these factors in mind, there is not set definition of what is or is not a Battleship. A Yamato would easily sink the entire Class of Queen Elizabeth BBs in the same battle. Likewise, any German BB, Bismarck or Scharnhorst Class, would be a much better Commerce Raiders than a Yamato Class. Why did the French put the entire main battery on the bow of their Battleships? Because at the time the French built their last Battleships they knew their fleet was superior in numbers and would be chasing their perceived rivals. There are so many people offering their Monday Morning opinions, about Battleship designs, what was good, what was bad. For example, I read a lot saying the Bismarck was a bad design. But why do people say this? Didn’t the Bismarck sink the Hood and drive off a damaged Prince of Wales? Didn’t it take more hits of all types of ordinance fired at it than any 3 other Battleships put together? What was the Bismarck designed to do? She was designed to handle and sink any convoy escorted by any single British Battleship or outrun if more superior numbers of battleships escorted the convoy. The Germans had no Atlantic ports and any Raider fighting any British Battleship would take damage. The Bismarck was designed to get home even if all it’s weapons were damaged. The Achilles heal of course was the rudder. But every Ship has this issue. The British showed the same issue with the Warspite at the Battle of Jutland and Italians at Cape Matapan, rudders are vulnerable. If you classify a Battleship as having armor against the biggest guns then only the Yamato’s come close to being true battleships. The Scharnhorst Class was armored against 15 inch guns but was only equipped with 11 inch guns, so as not to make the British object too much. So some say they were Battlecruisers. Today we have the same convention issues. What makes a Frigate a Frigate and a Destroyer a Destroyer? To really appreciate Naval Development and each ship, study History of the Time, the budgets available, and did her Engineers achieve what was intended, what was needed, and how well did she perform. Every ship ever constructed was a compromise. It opens the mind to really appreciate what is capable by the Human Brain. Take for example again the 1963 Chevy Corvette with the rear split window. Hehe.

[@TheDogGeneral]

Still nevertheless the Royal Navy never called HMS Hood a battleship or a fast Battleship they always called her a battle cruiser that is what they made her to be and lacking any modification or change in her designation I just we can't consider her a fast Battleship no matter what the similarities

[@manilajohn0182]

The Iowa class were battleships. That said, they could be regarded as the penultimate version of the battlecruiser and the fast battleship, because they're all the same thing- a fast version of a capital ship. Limitations in propulsion systems and hull design and size resulted in the first versions sacrificing armor for the necessary speed.

[@TheDogGeneral]

I wouldn't say a fast battleship and a battle cruiser are the same thing, they might have similar objectives but ultimately traditional battle Cruisers always sacrificed armor for Speed the Iowa class series of battleships retained relatively adequate good protection for critical areas and yet in the case of the battlecruiser HMS Hood her deck armor was anemic and her Armour distribution was inferior owing to the Jutland era she should have been modernized to make her a full capital ship but the Royal Navy never carried them out

[@inyobill]

I have read sources that made the statement that battle cruisers were not actually intended operationally to stand in the battle line. The author (unfortunately, I have lost my library and don't have access to the source) went on to observe that when push come to shove, the temptation to include the battle cruisers in the line was too great, leading to the loss of several ships at Jutland.

[@PsydenIII]

People tend to give a single definition for a Battlecruiser, and usually use the British example as what a Battlecruiser should be. However, I think it should be looked at on a navy-to-navy basis. As an example, I will take the US, UK, and WWI German Navies as examples: UK Battlecruisers, to me, are an outgrowth of Dreadnoughts. They have the same guns as their counterpart Battleships, but one less turret and less armor. German Battlecruiser, on the other hand, grew out of the Kaiserliche Marine's Armored Cruisers (called Grosse Kreuzer). The designs are labelled GK and follow after the 'Big Cruisers' that came before, and while they are armored akin to battleships and have the same turret/barrel count, they smaller guns, usually by an inch. Later war designs began to have the same guns, but none where completed. US Battlecruisers could be divided into two camps, the Battlecruiser, which was meant for scouting, which had the same number of guns as their Battleship counterparts, but fewer barrels per turret and almost no armor, and the Battleship Cruiser, which had the armor and firepower of a Battleship, while the speed of a Cruiser. One example I found clocked in at almost 50,000 tons, at normal load, which is about 15% more displacement than the 1920 South Dakota. An honorable mention goes to the Reciprocal Cruiser, an idea that was in competition for the USN Battlecruiser, which was a Tennessee, armed and armored against 12-inch guns, with cruiser speed. As a bonus, the Japanese Battlecruisers became Fast Battleships, with only a little bit of armor sacrificed for more speed, but keeping the same gun size, count, and turret layout(see Amagi and Tosa).

[@Predator42ID]

Honestly, I agree, the Iowas are fast battleships. Just like how current MBTs embody speed, armor, and firepower, so did Iowa's. The Armor scheme used in Iowa is still used only with better materials in today's tanks and armored vehicles. This scheme was also used in German sub pens which survived direct hits from grand slams and tallboys. By contrast, the Yamato had significant damage when its non-spaced deck armor did little to stop the damage done by a few five hundred pound bombs dropped by avengers. Besides the only other ship that I know of that had thicker armor than the Iowas was the Yamato class. Bismarck's scheme, similar in size, still had thinner armor and she took a pounding before being mission killed and then scuttled. Thank you.

[@WardenWolf]

Short answer, no, New Jersey is not a battlecruiser. She was originally armored against her own guns, but during her construction the superheavy 16" shell was developed which overmatched her armor. She is still armored against 16" projectiles, just not _those_ 16" projectiles. Also, New Jersey's secondary gun turrets are nearly identical to the main turrets of Atlanta-class light cruisers. In other words, her SECONDARY armament on a given side was very close to a light cruiser's total armament.

[@inyobill]

don't often hear the point raised that WW II German capital ship desighns were largely lightly updated WW I concepts. Classifying Iowa as "Fast Battleship" seems to best fit the criteria.

[@michael14195]

At @5:40 you're wrong about Blucher. The Invincibles (completed 1908) weren't designed to counter the Blucher (completed 1909). They were designed to hunt down last generation pre-dreadnought armoured cruisers like Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. According to Wiki, the Invincibles were designated as armoured cruisers while under construction and for the first 3 years of their service lives, and didn't get formally designated as battlecruisers until 1911. The Germans heard that the British were building the Invincible-class "armoured cruisers" and built the Blucher to counter them. Blucher was the German Navy's idea of what a dreadnought armoured cruiser would be like. Look at her design: dreadnought principles with a uniform calibre main battery, laid out exactly like the contemporary Nassau battleships, but with 8" guns instead of 11" guns. Seems like a pretty reasonable interpretation of "dreadnought armoured cruiser" to me. Since battlecruisers were Jackie Fisher's idea, I'd use the Invincible as my model for what a "battlecruiser" is. So a battlecruiser is, first, a large warship, one that would later be classified as a capital ship under the Washington Naval Treaty, which is significantly faster than most contemporary capital ships. I'd then, second, strongly consider the strategic and tactical roles that that nation's naval doctrine called for the ship to play. So if the ship was designed to be a cruiser-killer, like Invincible, that's a strong argument that it's a battlecruiser. If one of the ship's design goals was that it would be able to steam in the line of battle with the nation's battleships and slug it out with the enemy's battleships, that's a strong argument that it's a fast battleship. I mean, such a ship would, by definition, literally BE a fast battleship. When you get a ship that is designed to do both missions, this becomes an argument over semantics. This definition correctly defines Invincible as a battlecruiser. On the other hand, starting with Von der Tann the German World War I battlecruisers were designed, from their original design committees, to stand in the line of battle and fight battleships. You can say, "but they traded guns and armour for speed", and that's true, but there's a strong matter of degree here. Invincible had 12" guns and 6" of belt armour. Von der Tann had 11" guns, expected to fight enemies with 12" guns, and had 9.8" of belt armour. Not as good as the Nassau class battleships' 11.8", but much more than cruiser-level armour. And these design decisions showed results at the Battle of Jutland, where four of the German battlecruisers were hit hard but only one sank. However, the German battlecruisers weren't intended as cruiser killers. They were intended to act, in the North Sea, as heavy elements of the High Seas Fleet's scouting forces (they were organized as the "First Scouting Group", with the other Scouting Groups being formed from light cruisers, not into "Battle Cruiser Squadrons" like the British ships). They would then participate in the battle line when the battleships met each other. So I would argue that the German WWI battlecruisers were functionally fast battleships. By this methodology, the Kongos can be seen as fast battleships despite being mechanically very similar to the British Lion and Tiger class battlecruisers because this definition is about doctrine. The Iowas are clearly fast battleships; clearly able to slug it out with enemy battleships while being able to destroying enemy cruisers is a side effect of their other design goals. The Alaskas were cruiser-killers that cost nearly as much as a battleship and were every bit as capable of surviving in the line of battle as Invincible or Indefatigable. Functionally, they're clearly battle cruisers. Classifying Hood is more difficult, because destroying cruisers and participating in the line of battle against enemy battleships were both design goals, and the ship was capable of doing both. And this is where we get to my third criterion for distinguishing battlecruisers from fast battleships. I also take into account what the men who served, and all too often died, in these ships, considered them to be. So I wouldn't call New Jersey a battlecruiser (except as friendly teasing), and while it's so, so tempting to call Alaska a battlecruiser, because from a British point of view she was, I should try to restrain myself and call her a large cruiser. As far as I can tell from German Wikipedia, the Germans had a category "Großer Kreuzer" that included the subcategories "Panzerkreuzer", such as Blucher, and "Schlachtkreuzer", such as Von der Tann. So Derfflinger was, like Alaska, a "large cruiser" :P. But Hood was always called a battlecruiser by her crew and by the British public.

[@joechang8696]

Instead of speed, look at shp. Prior to QE, the bb had about 30,000shp, while the bc were 85,000shp. That’s what it took to get an extra 6 kt at 30,000 tons. BC were different between navies and purpose. My view, what the British needed was if the high seas fleet tried to disengage, the BCs could get ahead and cross the T forcing them to turn to face the bc, and this would allow the Grand fleet BBs to catch up. The German BCs were better cruiser killers. Later improvements in steam plant allowed 27kt with heavy amour and firepower, and it took an extra 10,000 tons to get the iowas to 33 kt

[@michaelfoulis7438]

Are there any videos of battleships / battlecruisers doing top speed? 30 knots for example would be a spectacular sight

[@drscopeify]

Since Japan had embarked on it's program to build large battleships and certainly did so, the Iowa's true class, in my mind, is counter-Japanese-Battleship class, so no real standard just anything that fits the bill of countering Japanese Battleships and Navy and could be built in time to do so. It somewhat reminds me of what we are facing today with China, building large aircraft carriers and what would be needed to counter that threat will be a wide array of different tools.

[@Cmtvful]

Those Japanese battle cruisers were the Kongos that were designed by the British engineer that previously built the 1913 Tiger class. The Kongo made as an evolved and advanced Tiger was built in Britain and their brothers Haruna, Hiei and Kirishima in Japan

[@joshdornak7008]

I’d really love to see how you classify different types of battleships

[@rahimjoseph211]

Pre-dreadnoughts Dreadnoughts Super-dreadnoughts Treaty battleships Fast battleships

[@yeoldesaltydog7415]

Once again another good video. Thank you BZ!!

[@mengxiangxuan6552]

What are your favorite books about the pacific war, specifically about submarine and battleship tactics? Perhaps there's some on the museum store I can buy to support New Jersey?

[@ADRIAAN1007]

I reckon a battlecruiser would be the middle ground between a cruiser and a battleship in terms of specifications taking the best of both worlds. It would have more armour than a cruiser and less armour than a battleship. It would be faster and more mobile than a BB but slower than a CC/CB. The guns would be larger but not as big as a BB.

[@somethingelse516]

If Montana was built then the Iowas would have less armor, one less main turret and be faster than it and therefore are approaching a battlecruiser. However, the Iowas had similar armor and more firepower (50 cal 16” guns) than other American post treaty battleships but could steam five plus knots faster. Also, the battlecruiser was originally conceived to counter cruisers while the Iowas were designed to take on capital ships. Basically New Jersey falls on a spectrum like other things in life

[@happyhighway106]

Alaska Class is Battle Cruiser! Kirov Class is Heavy Missile Cruiser! Battleships had their Day! The British Admiral Class were designed as Battle Cruisers. Incomparable was Lord Fisher's dream design of a ultimate Battle Cruiser, extreme!

[@philb5593]

With the Iowa class’s relationship to the Montana class when both were being designed as 45,000 ton ships, I’d lean towards them technically fitting in a battle cruiser. Fast battleship also fits, but they do have 6 knots more speed than contemporary fast battleships. Edit: It's nine months later and I'm coming back to this video to inform other debates. I think my opinion has drifted further towards calling the Iowas battlecruisers because they just give up way too much fighting potential compared to other battleships. They were 12,000+ tons heavier than the South Dakotas and have the same battle capabilities. What really sprung these thoughts is comparison to Bismarck and is actually a relatively even fight despite how horrible the Bismarck is said to be and how great the Iowa is said to be. It would be the exact same fight with a South Dakota. The same era Montana battleship design would wipe the floor with Bismarck. To me the Iowas just don't hold up in a line of battle as well as a battleship should at that displacement and that's because they sacrifice so much for all that extra speed.

[@danfruzzetti7604]

call it "new dreadnought:" when this thing came out it could choose the engagement, choose the range, and hit any enemy unit from its own maximum-damage zone while shuffling all about the enemy unit's own low-damage zone. all other capital ships are expected to lose 1v1 against these things, right? had the airplane not taken over as the primary weapon (simplified), the iowas could have triggered another dreadnought era. future historians might one day have talked about the "iowa era" or when the first "super-iowa" came out, and what nation first developed it. the moment all capital ships got a mandatory upgrade to "hot rods." instead, we got an era of self-driving ammunition, launched from aircraft sortied from a carrier, at extreme range. which is now to be eclipsed by intelligent swarms.

[@wills2140]

The Iowa class were just the class that got built in time to serve in WWII. The Montana class would have been the true "new" Dreadnought, as they were already on the drawing board when the Iowa's went into service.

[@Wolfeson28]

In my opinion, any ship that is designed for the mission of "kill cruisers, run from battleships" qualifies as a battlecruiser. I've always thought the criteria of "same size gun as BB" or "same size as BB" are pretty much irrelevant. For me, it's all about the core mission - the exact caliber of gun and size of the ship are simply tools the ship designers pick for how to handle that mission. So my criteria for judging whether a ship counts as a BC are based on the two parts of that mission. In my own personal definition, a battlecruiser must: 1. Be easily capable of killing contemporary "standard" cruisers. This means it needs all of the following: a. Much greater firepower than a standard cruiser through larger guns. b. Armor to protect against standard cruiser guns of the time. c. Speed comparable to contemporary cruisers. 2. It also needs to be *incapable* of matching up against a contemporary battleship 1v1, by being deficient in at least one of the following: a. Number of guns. b. Caliber of guns. c. Armor protection. If a ship fails #1, it's not powerful enough to be a battlecruiser (i.e. the Deutschlands). If a ship meets #1 but doesn't have any of the deficiencies listed under #2, it's a fast battleship (i.e. Iowa or Hood). For the Alaskas, they meet all the requirements under #1, and meet #2 by having smaller guns and less armor than contemporary battleships, so I'd say they count as BCs. I would consider the Dunkerques and (1930s) Scharnhorsts to also fall into the BC category. The main reason I disagree with Drach's distinction that essentially the Alaskas would be battlecruisers if they simply had dual 16-inch turrets instead of their triple 12-inch turrets is that wouldn't really change their capabilities or mission at all. They would still be designed for hunting down and killing cruisers (the switch to fewer guns might even make them *less* effective at that), while still definitely not being a match for a contemporary battleship like a South Dakota, KGV, or Littorio.

[@Bird_Dog00]

I agree with your definition of a battlecruiser and the destinction between a BC and a fast battleship ( and said so in my own post). I also agree with your take on the 16" battlecruiser. I think it would indeed be detrimental to its core role - and its survivability, as having the firepower to threaten a battleship would tempt people to throw it against a proper battleship. And unless it also has the armour to stand up to battleship caliber guns - and thus qualify as a fast battleship - a battlecruiser has no busines being anywhere near an enemy battleship's or battlecruiser's guns.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Scharnhorst armour makes them anaemic battleships, Alaskas had similar guns, weak protection and similar high speed so yes, call them battlecruisers. Scharnhorsts had to run from battleships because they could not hit them hard enough in a straight fight.

[@ulrichwolfgang9136]

As always an interesting video and agree broadly with your conclusion, but sometimes I think you show a bit of a bias (though that sounds too harsh, maybe an Anglocentric POV): I take a bit of an issue with your (very common in English language sources) definition of Battlecruisers as ships with battleship guns but light armour. This is true for the (early) British BCs and the Kongo class (in original configuration) as British designs, but not so much for the German designs: While they did have less armour than contemporary dreadnoughts, German BCa from the beginning were designed to have sufficient armour for the line of battle and often matched older, but still viable classes (e.g. von der Tann is somewhat better protected than a Deutschland class predreadnought, a Derfflinger compares to a Helgoland). The Germans instead opted to save further weight by also staying one step behind on gun size: The first four BCs kept the 28cm guns abandoned for BBs after Nassau, the Derfflinger matched the König BBs 30,5cm, but the next BBs, the Bayern class switched to 38cm. The Mackensen class BC was designed with only 35cm. And of course the Germans during the war turned towards a unified Großkampfschiff to abandon the distinction between BB and BC. So basically a German BC might be described as a ship with last generation armour and guns, but modern machinery and layout. Now using your definition, one might argue that the Germans simply never built real BCs and started directly with fast BBs, but that seems lazy to me and also gives too much credit to the German navy. Then again maybe one could see the German large cruiser as separate class from the British BC and describe both together with the prewar (Super-)Dreadnoughts as evolutionary predecessors to the capital ships of the WW2 era.

[@davidatkinson47]

I think that battlecruiser, battleship, and "fast battleship" all sort of merged, technologically, right around the time HMS Hood was designed. At that point everyone knew what was required. Hood is the proof. I'll look for what Drach has to say about it. Whatever they were called, Hood or Iowa were close enough to the same thing, (A few thousand horsepower here, an inch of plating there, the best guns available at launch even though they were 20 years different, whatever. Definitely the same tactical idea. One was a battleship and one a battlecruiser, which proves my point.) Was Hood a "fast battleship?" Is Iowa a battlecruiser? Well. I would normally say something like "time will tell" but that's not true here. I have no reason to think that we'll ever have a better idea about 1940's naval gunnery and armor than we do right now. Yes, I know what happened to Hood. Hood was facing another battle-something with roughly equivalent guns that were more than 20 years newer, with newer fire control and doing so with a 20 year newer armor scheme. If Hood could get in close, as she was trying to do, things might have been very different. She might even have had the advantage with thicker vertical armor. It was as it was. In boxing they call that "rope a dope." That's what happened to Hood.

[@davidhite6828]

Why does the armored barbet go all the way to the keel if the lower turret is already in the ships armored box?

[@scytheseven9173]

I do agree that the Iowas are fast battleships-but I also think they *would* have been battlecruisers in comparison to the Montanas, if they were built (say, in a timeline were everyone builds what they were planning)-it isn't really armored against its own guns or the biggest guns its opponents have, and is faster and less armored than the Montanas with the same caliber of guns but one less turret

[@noname117spore]

You got the Tennessee class in the image wrong.

[@rodneymccoy8108]

So the original cruiser-killer versions of the Iowa’s were designed with 12-16 inch guns and 8 inches of belt armor. While the armor says battlecruiser, it would actually have had 3 more guns, a whole additional turret. Yet I would still have seen them as battlecruisers.

[@jeffreyallen3461]

So for Post WWI battle cruisers: why is that the Gneisenau is listed as a Battle ship, while the USS Alaska is a Large Cruiser? THey have nearly the same mid range guns, speed only varies by about 2-3 knots, tonnage is pretty close at about 4000 difference, while the Gneisenau has slightly more armor. They literally are pretty close to being the same ship (OK, not exactly the same, but pretty darn similar), and yet their classifications literally make them 2 classifications off of each other. Please advise.

[@satannstuff]

A few inches can make a lot of difference, Alaska's 12 inch guns fire shells nearly twice as heavy as Gneisenau's 11 inch guns do, but her 9 inch armor belt is basically useless against battleships whereas Gneisenau's 13.8 inch armor belt offers reasonable protection against most guns up to 15 inch caliber and is effectively immune to most of the outdated battleships still in service at the start of WW2. Gneisenau could expect to at least survive an encounter with most battleships and historically she did do just that, Alaska most likely wouldn't have. As a cruiser killer however, Alaska is far superior to Gneisenau.

[@tornadojames]

The term Battlecruiser is intended to signify its role. Its role was to battle cruisers. That's it. Battleships are meant to battle ships of all types, stay and play in a dogfight, and survive long enough to win that fight. The Iowa class battleships were designed to defend the fleet they were with against any and all enemies, and stay in the fight. A battlecruiser would not be able to go defend a fleet, or protect an aircraft carrier like an Iowa does.

[@triandfit1]

Based on what happened at Jutland, I would say that the amount of armor would be the defining factor in the end. They couldn't take the hits from equal or bigger ships.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

The German ‘battlecruisers’ had no bother taking battleship size gun hits. SMS Lützow only sank because of all the holes it took. The German ships could have been first class cruiser killers despite being armoured against bigger than cruiser guns. The Brits were just dumb for putting their battlecruisers in a line fight when they knew exactly how vulnerable they were against big guns.

[@Captain_Seafort]

Of the British battlecruisers that survived Jutland, Lion and Tiger both took substantial punishment (and Princess Royal not much less) and remained combat effective. The problem was ammunition handling - Seydlitz and Derfflinger (and Lion) suffered burnt out turrets from penetrating hits just as QM and Invincible did, but without flash penetrating to the magazines, because none of them tolerated the sort of shortcuts that cased the explsions.

[@WayneHarris]

Might be a bit off-topic, but I've always wondered what those pipes on the sides of the ships are. They run at about 30 degrees off horizontal. @2:00

[@fburger9953]

Anti torpedo nets (retracted)

[@DavidBrown-yd9le]

If the Montanas were ever built I could see the Iowas classified as battlecruiser

[@guessmyhandle]

That’s not how it works. Iowas didn’t change any other battleship designation.

[@Riceball01]

All I knoiw is that battlecruiser is perhaps the most mis and overused term in all scci-fi. Anytime some sci-f show/movie/or book wants a a ship to sound like it's powerful and/or scary they call it a battlecruiser with absolutely no idea of what a battlecruiser is.

[@willallen7757]

3:05 very good recording of a knuckle crack .

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

technically the Alaska's were battlecruisers they carried capital class armament 12" guns. there broadside weight firing the superheavy AP round was equivalent to older battleships. It was armored like a cruiser along with compartmentation scheme, and a single rudder similar to a Baltimore class. it was longer then a So Dak and displaced nearly as much.

[@jesperlykkeberg7438]

Lol, no way! Battlecruisers were a type of large and very heavily armed battleships. The Alaskas were never more than large post treaty heavy cruisers. They were way too small and way too lightly armed to be considered battlecruisers by any standard. For comparison: In 1913 the battlecruiser Kongō was Japan´s largest warship and armed with the HEAVIEST NAVAL GUNS (14 inch) IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. The Renown-class battlecruisers surpassed the Kongōs with 15 inch guns in 1916. In 1917 the battlecruiser Furious was armed with the LARGEST GUNS (18-inch) ever fitted on a Royal Navy ship. The battlecruiser HMS Hood (46,680 long tons) was the WORLD¨S LARGEST WARSHIP for twenty years. The Alaska-class are sloops in comparison.

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

@@jesperlykkeberg7438 why did you comment? You did not dispute my claims. I think you should read my comment and then comment. Distilled down to essence a battlecruiser is a ship armed with capital class armament which at the time 12" was considered capital class. Armored scheme of a cruiser along with speed faster than battleships that could hurt it, or rundown cruisers slower than it. By definition Alaska's fall into this class. The Navy not wanting congress thinking that we have battlecruisers we don't need so many battleships then, called them large cruisers. Please don't mention the Courageous class the RN folks get a little peevish about them.

[@jesperlykkeberg7438]

@@patrickradcliffe3837 "why did you comment?" To refute your claims. "You did not dispute my claims." Yes I did, but let´s break it down bit fot bit: Armament: "Distilled down to essence a battlecruiser is a ship armed with capital class armament which at the time 12" was considered capital class." 100% wrong. The North Carolina-class (1941) and the South Dakota-class battleships (1942) were already armed with 16 inch guns years before the Alaska-class (1944) entered service. A late war cruiser armed with 12" guns doesn´t make a battlecruiser. Speed: "Armored scheme of a cruiser along with speed faster than battleships that could hurt it, or rundown cruisers slower than it. By definition Alaska's fall into this class". Ha ha, and so does the much older Deutschland class "Schwere Kreuzer" (armed with 11 inch guns like the Scharnhorst battleships), which means your definitions are 100% false. The Alaska-class (1944) were not any faster than the Iowa battleship already in service (1943). You are defeated again, even on the speed criteria. The Deutchlands and the Alaskas are simply cruisers. Cruisers are not battlecruisers. Battlecruisers are not cruisers. Classification: "The Navy not wanting congress thinking that we have battlecruisers". Now you are just inventing your own false pseudo-historical fish stories right out of the blue, right? evidence? documentation? references? The Iowa-class was the only US WWII ship class that would narrowly have qualified to be classified as battlecruisers but apparently the US didn´t thought they deserved the classification "battlecruiser", even though they apparently meet your definitions. The essence of a battlecruiser is a ship classified as such by the nation it belonged to. It´s really that simple. The US Navy never had a battlecruiser which is why Americans have no say in this matter. They seem to be obsessed with battlecruisers, however

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

@@jesperlykkeberg7438 absolutely it does considering 12" armed battleships were still in service during WWII. So yes they are capital class guns. That's one of your criteria debunked. Next the Iowa class had a balanced armor scheme proof against her own armament minus the superheavy rounds which no one else had. This classifies the Iowa's as battleships. The Alaska's armor was only proof against 8" much the same as the Kongō's class before refits. The Duetschland's were not battlecruisers as their speed was not enough to outrun some classes of battleship let alone rundown cruisers. They were more commerce raider. Germany built ships that never fit into some classes. Yes I interjected my opinion about the Navy not wanting to call them battlecruisers. It was made with the knowledge of the interactions of congress penny pinching and the Navy's trying to get the most they can. I agree with them being large cruisers, but in reality they are battlecruisers.

[@lloydknighten5071]

Ryan, I have read in a couple of reference books that the Japanese fast battleship KIRISHIMA was a battlecruiser. What was she? Did the rebuild during the 1930's change KIRISHIMA from a battlecruiser to a fast battleship?

[@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh]

When Kirishima was rebuilt, they save weight on engine while maintaining the same power output, so they might have increased armor.

[@michael14195]

The lead ship of the Kirishima's class, Kongo, was built in a British shipyard as a modified "Lion" class battlecruiser (and in turn influenced the British battlecruiser Tiger's design). So it's really easy to consider the class to be battlecruisers.

[@Weesel71]

Had Fisher's INVINCIBLEs been armed with 9.2" guns, I think all confusion would have been eliminated. They would clearly have been as originally described: Large Armoured Cruisers.

[@kumaflamewar6524]

Iowa are battlecruisers. Hood is a lengthened QE for speed. Iowa is a lengthened south Dakota for speed. Iowas are not armored against their own shells well at all compared to contemporary British or American designs. The Iowas were selected to combat the Kongo class battlecruisers, and later used as fast escorts for the aircraft carriers, much like a battlecruiser would be used. To my mind the iowas are the greatest battlecruisers ever built, the pinnacle of a type of hyper fast dreadnought design

[@kumaflamewar6524]

I totally disagree with this comment now. But it's fun to see lol

[@bsktblmasta31]

Love the Drach mention :D :D :D

[@nathanielanderson74]

I tend to see it as more of what the ships role is for. to hunt down cruisers you need speed and firepower with armor to beat a cruisers. The problem is by WW 2 is that tech has got to a point where you can have fast battle ships so the role of the battle cruiser is basically dead. I much like the term cruiser killer as is is more descriptive of the role what ship is to have