Pinned post for Q&A 😀

Drachinifel needs to make a video on the basics of what, at least officially and on paper, defines each class of vessel in the first half of the 20th Century in general. Things like “Landing Craft”, “Submarine” or “Aircraft Carrier” (at least, pre-helicopter) are easily defined even by a layman, but what makes a cutter a cutter, a cruiser a cruiser, a destroyer a destroyer, a battleship a battleship, and a super heavy battleship a hotel?

Enemy Officer #2: Sir, There’s a line of battleships approaching at high speed off the port bow ! Enemy Officer #1 looking through his binoculars: No, those are battlecruisers. Enemy Officer #2: Oh good, for a second there I thought we were in real trouble.

I agree with your conclusion in the final section. A fast battleship is essentially designers looking at their previous/contemporary generation of battleship and saying "we want all of that, but faster". A fast battleship is a battleship that gains a distinct speed advantage, but without compromising the firepower or armor that allows it to match up against other contemporary battleships (either "fast" or "slow"). Invariably this means a substantial increase in displacement compared to the slower battleships, which we see with both Hood and Iowa. To me, the clear dividing line between a fast battleship and a battlecruiser is that the former is still clearly intended to be able to fight another battleship 1v1, whereas the latter is not (just giving the ship some marginal capabilities to not be instantly obliterated by a battleship, a la the German WWI battlecruisers, doesn't count). As I mentioned on the Alaska-class video, my personal definition of a battlecruiser is similar to yours, but a bit more expansive in that I don't consider having the exact same gun caliber as the battleships to be a requirement. I consider just having substantially larger guns than cruiser size to be sufficient, which is why I include the Alaskas in my definition of BCs. In my opinion, any ship that is designed for the mission of "kill cruisers, run from battleships" qualifies as a battlecruiser. So my criteria for judging whether a ship counts 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. If a ship meets #1 but doesn't have any of the deficiencies listed under #2, it's a fast battleship.

British Royal Navy: "So what should I call you? Should I call you a battlecruiser... fast battleship...?" Hood: "You can call me Susan if it makes you happy."

I get the distinct impression that the term battlecruiser became obsolete around the time HMS Hood was built, as battle-ships/cruisers seemed to have functionally blended together into the Fast Battleship concept, the same way medium/heavy tanks blended together into the Main Battle Tank.

This is an entertaining demonstration of what happens when you form various kinds of inadequate definitions. “A warship with battleship-grade guns which can exceed 25 knots” is laughably too broad, and “A warship with battleship grade guns which is not armored to resist its own guns” manages to be too broad and too narrow at the same time. “A warship with one fewer turret and less armor than the contemporary battleship but more speed” appears tempting because it may be that those things are true of battlecruisers and only of battlecruisers (so it’s not too narrow or too broad), but it still breaks the rule of fundamentality because it makes no attempt to explain what a battlecruiser actually *is* such that those things would *need* to be true of it. Only “A warship with battleship-grade guns designed to destroy enemy cruisers and, secondarily, support a battle line” actually explains *why* battlecruisers had the characteristics they did. In this context, I think Montana and Iowa are *both* battleship designs, they just reflect two different directions a battleship design can take. Iowa looks at South Dakota and says, “More speed!” while Montana looks at South Dakota and says, “More firepower!” Both valid choices, but one of those choices gives you a ship that can keep pace with an Essex.

Now you've truly poked the hornets' nest Drach

Me: B5 Them: You sunk my battleship!!! Me: Ahem....if you look closely at the little plastic ship you will notice its actually a Battlecruiser. Them: This is why I never play games with you

I am in love with the idea that (if Iowa or Hood are battlecruisers then) the Yamatos are also battlecruisers. At that scale, I think their corresponding battleship would have to be the entire island of Iwo Jima

It’s a fine line. The Battleship New Jersey’s KZfaq page has an interesting video on this topic as well.

I’ve long said “had Hood been build by the US, she would’ve been called a battleship and carried a BB hull number. Had Iowa been built by the British, she would’ve been considered a battlecruiser”

Great video. The Iowa reminds me of post WWII Main Battle Tanks. No need sacrifice firepower, armor, or mission flexibility when new tech will let you have it all!

Drachinigel: "I consider the Hood a fast battleship" Some of us: *H E R E S Y*

It's like how there were light, medium, and heavy tanks, but then they went to the MBT plan, one tank to do everything with enough armour, enough speed, and all the gun. Hood was transitional, Iowa was the equivalent of the M1 Abrams.

As far as I can tell the class of “battlecruiser” is entirely reliant upon there being an equivalent class of capital ship with a slower top speed. Getting any more specific than this really just leads to heartache.

Drach and Ryan, great duo. There is no doubt that Iowa class are battleships. I will acquiesce to your judgement on Hood being a battleship even thou I have always considered her a battlecruiser, perhaps wrongly, by tradition. Given that Hood's belt armour and armament is battleship class and that only her deck armour was under scantling I can see your argument. Similarly, the Iowas' belt armour would/could be considered under scantling, yet the angle/slope gave it effectively proper armour while saving hundreds of tons of weight. All ships sacrifice somewhere in order to achieve the most effective result. Of course at the time, was there any class of battleship in the world that could stand toe to toe with the Iowas and win expect to win a gun battle? The answer is mostly no. Yes the Yamatos likely could have. However, given the US use of radar ranging vs optics it is likely(as you have previously pointed out) that the Iowas would have gotten in several early blows before the Yamatos could gauge the range. The minimum 5 knot speed advantage certainly helps the Iowas. Simply, the Iowas would likely win any gun battle vs any surface ship in the world at the time, except for perhaps the Yamatos. IMHO, of course.

Hood is Hood?? "Le Gasp" Absolutely shocking 😳 Fantastic video as always Drach.

The battle cruiser concept was rendered obsolete by the advances in technology. Fast battleships and large cruisers are their own thing. The desire to name them after a obsolescent concept is strange. No one insists that the heavy cruisers of World War II were protected cruisers or armored cruisers. Technological advancements had rendered those designations obsolete.

I stumbled upon your content recently, this is the second video I've watched, and it's so wonderful. It's like dusting off old books in the library, but with my ears. I look forward to your back catalog!

Seeing how the Hood was nearly the same size as the Bismarck, and had the same guns, while the Iowa class were the second largest battleships in the world, behind the Yamato class... ya, they were Battleships.

I see it as more of a gradual move towards BC's becoming BB's until there is just (fast)BB's. Hear me out.. Early BC's Invincible/Indomitable/Von Der Tann (Moltke?). British could throw a punch as much as the German's could take it. Mid BC's, Seydlitz/Splendid Cats/Kongo(Pre Refit)/Derfflinger. Splendid cats with Seydlitz? Yes, I cant imagine any of the cats surviving the beating Seydlitz did and making it back to port but they did have a much more fearsome primary battery. Derfflinger, while still being a BC, was the first to bring the force into balance with protection and firepower equally slightly reduced from a BB in exchange for a 26+ knot speed. With WW1 tech she was as close as you could get to a fast BB and IMO the progenitor to a true fast BB. Courageous and Glorious are excluded as outliers, similar to the Deutschland Class of WW2. They were naval experiments that were quickly dropped. Late true BC Renown/Repulse. Battlecruisers with massive guns and speed but minimal armor. The final BC's that had to be kept out of any battle line. First fast BB Hood. A BC in name only, if she were built later she would have been classed as a fast BB. By the time of her construction it was finally possible to have your cake and eat it in terms of the firepower triangle of Armour-Firepower-Speed. The first true fast battleship in terms of build and doctrine and BC really only on paper. Drach's video showed us that her sinking was the result of terrible luck and coincidences rather than a lack of deck armour. Here is where BC development and BB development meet. Fast BB- King George V/North Carolina/South Dakota/Iowa/Nagato/Yamato. By now technology was here to propel a full BB to BC speeds. All true BB's with battlecruisers now an obsolete doctrine. Unless your idea of a true battleship in this period is a 16 inch gunned HMS Agincourt with an 20' belt travelling at 20kt. I have left out proposed designs because without having a hull in the water you really can only speculate on what the finished product would have had.

Yes.... but basically it comes down to how history played out. Hood was designed as a battlecruiser but the washington Naval treaties stopped battleship development (for a bit) so she effectively became a fast battleship. Similarly Iowa sacraficed armour for speed, was not armoured against her own guns however battleship development did not continue either - so she remained a fast battleship in both cases had the development of classes continued they may well have both ended up having been consdiered battlecruisers (esentitally). To be honest though the terms essentially became redundant in terms of capital ships. Hood is underrated simply because of her demise, yet if you'd asked someone in the 1920s-early30s she would likely have figured as one (if not the) most powerful capital ship in the world.

I think the HMS Hood, became a Battle Ship due to modifications in the design. The Iowas we're Battleships by design.

For tourists heading to the US, it's incredible to think we have 3 battleships on the east clast within a days drive (New Jersey, Wisconsin, North Carolina). Plus the other museums in the NE makes for a great trip.

The Iowas were fast heavily armored anti-aircraft platforms.

Me, I believe Hood is a Battlecruiser, and Iowa is a fast battleship. There are the differences that you can tell between them. Hood was built for speed and to kill cruisers (the purpose of BC’s), whilst Iowa was built to be able to hold the line in a gunfight like the North Carolina’s and South Dakota, but was still able to be extremely fast for a ship of her size.

The waters get even muddier as soon as we undertake to examine the Kirov -class and where they fit into things, as they are typically called battlecruisers and Iowa Vs. Kirov was an expected match-up. I maintain that "Battlecruiser" is such a nebulous term that almost anything can be a battlecruiser if you want it to be one.

Well Drach didn't just poke the hornets nest, he kicked it over and sprayed water on it just to be thorough. there will be as many opinions and definitions as there are people willing to argue them. Personally I do NOT regard the British I classes as BC's. They were conceived, designed and built as Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers but used in roles outside their concept. The German "BC's" of WW1 apart from Von Der Tann should be more properly be referred to by the phrase Drach coined 'Light Battleships" as they were designed to supplement the main battle line as therefore were armoured for this role. But of course people will have their own opinions and that's perfectly acceptable.

I had always considered Hood to be a battlecruiser, but looking at the evidence you have presented, I believe you are right in saying that Hood and Iowa are fast battleships. Many thanks for such an interesting and thought provoking video. 😊😊😊🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

This (and the Alaska class video) has been the most detailed and coherent explanation I've yet read, seen or heard, about the differences between battleships and battle cruisers. They - Hood and the Iowas - are battleships. Just faster than their contemporaries.

Superb analysis, Drach. I've been arguing for years the same as you for Hood being a fast battleship and not a battlecruiser, just not in quite the same level of detail you seem to have at your fingertips. Well done.

I haven't watched the video yet but I wanted to get a word in edgeways before the comments are overflowing with loud "sceptics" banging on. Hood ways laid down as a BC but ended up a Fast BB due to all the modification made to her due to lessons learned at Jutland. It must be remembered that Hood was built decades earlier than the Yank Fast BBs so what constitued the type had evolved. Hood gave around two decades of service to the Crown, too many people only think of her death. Now I will go and watch the video and see how right or wrong I am compared to Drach.

The Hood and Iowa were both really attractive ships. The lines on both are beautiful and deadly looking. Really enjoy your content and presentation.

I have no idea what makes one ship a sloop and another a corvette (for instance), so a video like this is great for me. I now have one man's well researched opinion to help in distinguishing between a BB and a BC. More like this, please.

There is something simply splendid at being able to define the Yamato as a battlecruiser.

Heard the intro music and thought "oh nice...its Interlude...with the sea lion doing his pirouette." Early Drach episodes, those were the days.

Excellent briefing! Thank you. The quintessential challenge: the difference between a "Fast Battleship" and a "Battlecruiser". Also like, and appreciated, the difference between the classes of ships. Always wondered how (theoretically) good the Scharnhorst-class would have been armed with 6x15in guns. And the commentary about the Montanas is critical.

Given that people seriously question whether Yamato class battleships could survive encounters with the Iowas, I think it's safe to say that the Iowas were battleships.

I was GOING to make a crack about the USS Alaska (CB-1) being a battle cruiser, since in "Battleship at War",(the story off USS Washington) she is referred to as such when Washington's Gun Boss, Harvey Walsh was transferred to her. However in the words of Emily Lutilla (Saturday Night Live), "NEVER MIND"! You see, the US Navy itself called her a "Large Cruiser". It occurs to me in the end, that potato/potahto, Battleship/Battlecruiser they are/were what their owners decided to call them. Anyway Drach, magnificent job as always, making sense out of a most confusing subject. SPLICE THE MAIN BRACE!!

I think after refit, Hood would definitely be more of a fast battleship. As discussed in previous videos and this one, Hood's armour was actually quite good by the time it squared off with Bismarck (but history still happened the way it did). Iowa was definitely built for more distant engagements in the Pacific, so for a ship her size the requirements were quite different to that of Hood. Both fast battleships IMO

I have been waiting for this video and now its finally here, thanks!

Generally, I look at intended mission first, followed by physical characteristics. However, one has to recognize that naval architects are more focused on the ship's capabilities, rather than some arbitrary definition or categorization.

Nice to see Drachinifel and Ryan Szymanski having such a good relationship when it comes these historic ships. Plus both their names are hard AF to spell

New Drac!!! Friday lunchtime complete!

Finally, someone else who accepts the reality that Hood was ordered as a battlecruiser, but what came off the slipway was a fast battleship, cousin to the QE class.

God Hood was a beautiful ship. However…it hurts to know that even if Hood had not sunk during the war, there’s a pretty good chance that it would’ve been scrapped in the post-war breakup due to the sheer cost of trying to turn her into a museum ship. Same thing with Bismarck and Yamato…the later probably being used in the nuclear tests and the former probably being torn-down by the British post war as well. It’s a painful fact that some of the most unique and impressive ships of the war would inevitably cease to exist not from combat (Alaska class as example)….but from the scrappers yard which in my opinion…it painful to think about.

Battle Cruiser - make space for more boilers by deleting a turret (if that is not enough, reduce weight) Fast Battleship - make space for more boilers by enlarging midships, mainly more length (also for Hood, use cutting edge hydrodynamics model testing) QE miss - put small tube boilers in and get 5 x 27kt fast battleships

I'm somewhat confused by the labeling of the Iowa/class as a light battleship. Not that I know differently, but all the tables/comparisons/stats I've seen analyzed and commented on left me with the impression that the Iowas were only exceeded in primary arms by the Yamato/Musashi, and that they had no peers in armor or their AA systems, as well as a horde of 5" guns anywhere there was space. The video is great, and in light of the info here some of the distinctions made elsewhere seem trivial or don't tell us anything useful about these titans during their active service. I think I found myself a new iceberg here! Thanks for putting this together, I found it by watching your amazing trilogy of the battle of Jutland.

Oh, what a joy to see this pop up this early in the morning. I've argued about this so long and so frequently. My take after all this time is that I'm not quite sure what a battlecruiser is, so I'm not quite sure if Hood and Iowa are battlecruisers. However, I'm certain that whatever the one is the other is as well. I like to think that the world would be a simpler and happier place if they had just built the Montanas and we got to call Iowa the USN's first complete battlecruiser.

On the 4th generation ships, I think that's when battlecruisers divorce from their original design roles and go "alright, what do we _actually_ need from these ships to achieve the goals of our navy in fighting other navies who will also have these ships". Which if you think about it, Iowa fits neatly into that role, because the US navy _needed_ a ship that could keep up with escorting their carriers(and deter the kongos), but they also needed them to be able to withstand gunfire in a battleline engagement in case Japan had built its own contemporary to the US's emerging and planned battleline(and had, in the form of the Yamato's), so in that form they would be a 4th generation "battlecruiser"(it really loses its meaning when the US was never really on-board with battlecruisers as they were in europe) in the context of the US navy, whereas hood is an evolution of the 2nd generation where they needed a bigger ship contemporary to the enemy battlecruisers and battleships to beat up other battlecruisers which ended up... Well, not existing. Edit: This was before the end of the video, and the judgement for hood is... Well, not accurate. But I do stand by the statement I made with the 4th generation ships. They are a class of battlecruisers where they go "what roles do we need fulfilled that a mainline battleship _can't_ do, but still need the characteristics of a battleship to challenge whatever they find while doing these tasks?" rather than earlier generations of battlecruisers where they go "We need a specific type of target killed, here's the design specs, have at it. And if it's killed everything already, I guess they can help break through the screen of the enemy battle line(whatever the screen happens to be)". For the americans, that was scouting because they didn't have the regular cruisers to do scouting, for the british, it was to insure that no battlecruiser of the era could harm them and preserve the numbers of the fleet against her growing list of contemporaries(hence treading the line of a fast battleship), and the japanese decided they needed something in between those and in some cases fulfilling both for scouting in force and acting as part of the battleline so they ended up being in the middle(and is probably a large reason why the Kiis tried to combine the battleship and battlecruisers into a single ship).

My comprehensive guide to identifying things with big guns: 1) if it has battleship caliber guns in the same number as a typical battleship and it has battleship level armour and battleship speed then it is probably a battleship. 2) if it has battleship caliber guns but fewer in number and its smaller and slower than a battleship then its probably a monitor 3) if it has battleship caliber guns and is much larger and much much slower than a battleship then it's probably coastal artillery 4) if it has battleship caliber guns but fewer and/or less armour, is faster than a typical battleship and it has a large unobstructed flat deck then it is probably some kind of aircraft carrier 5) if it has battleship caliber guns but fewer of them and/or less armour and is faster than a battleship then it's likely a battlecruiser 6) of it has battleship calibre guns in the same number as a battleship with battleship grade armour but is significantly faster than a typical battleship then its probably a fast battleship

Everyone tries to fit Battlecruisers into a one-size-fits-all box. This, I think, is in error, since different navies arrived at their idea of a 'Battlecruiser' based on their own needs, capabilities, and design philosophies. If you are to talk about Battlecruisers, you should first discuss which navy said Battlecruiser belongs to and then look into what they wanted it for and how they went about getting there.

For me where the fine line comes in, was that were the post-Jutland modifications to Hood **designed to make her into a battleship** or simply a much-improved battlecruiser. I myself don't think I have a simple answer. I believe Hood's modifications just made her a tougher, overweight battlecruiser, but she was **perceived** and utilized as a battleship.

Hood is a reef and Iowa is a museum?

I love it ❤️this is the classical “gift that keeps giving”. Drach has just added enough fuel to keep the boilers building a nice head of steam and then flick passed the explosive mix it to Ryan!! Of course this hilarity does not detract from the fact that this was a brilliantly researched and presented argument from the man with impeccable credentials!! 🎖

I'm going to nitpick on HMS Hood. Yes, her primary armament and main belt were roughly equal to that of the Queen Elizabeth 'Fast Battleships'. Her *secondary* armament on the other hand was noticably weaker (5.5" vs 6", and fewer as designed) with only splinter shields for protection compared to the Queen Elizabeth's that were in well armoured casemates. There are multiple other locations where HMS Hood had weaker armour - at least compared to the 'heavy' Royal Sovereigns - such as lower belt and Conning Tower. With HMS Hood it looks like every ton of weight that could be shaved was, to put into the propulsion systems.

Battle cruiser: A) Firepower and armor enough to deal with anything that could outrun it, B) Speed enough to outrun anything that could out-gun it.

I love Hood. My favourite ship of all time, such elegance. If only I could step on board.

Good video as usual, Drach. I would say that Hood is a battlecruiser, but also a prototype fast battleship. Hood's design was a good design, for the time. We see it in Bismarck and Vanguard. But given the time frame, I say that Hood influenced the fast battleships of World war 2. So, in short, Hood, a battlecruiser, gave us the fast battleship.

I grew up with the colloquial understanding that Hood was a battlecruiser and Iowa(s) was a battleship. I'm not gonna argue with that decades removed. I will, however, put forward that both ships are likely so hard to quantify because they were effectively among the first ships in a new understanding of the classes, and also darn near the last. The Lexington's seem to have been the inheritor of the new BC understanding from Hood(with a bit more weight on firepower than defense), but because of Naval treaties.... yeah. And as much as the IJN tried to make up for lost time/numbers, etc, their capital ships never seemed to quite have the same edge until Yamato and Musashi. As for the G3s, well, they're as relevant as the Montanas. A nice pipe dream out there somewhere.... never to get any closer than that.

Regardless of classification, Battlecruiser or Fast Battleship this is a very informative video done by Drachinifel. Different eras and different missions so Battlecruiser are great for up to 1925 after that time Fast Battleship is essentially a redefinition of Battlecruiser. Nicely done Drach

If I may, I have never really been interested in the distinction, much like with the beautiful and quite capable Alaska class, in my opinion. Two things , I’m sure you are aware of both and most of the viewers on your channel should’ve seen the photographs assigned to the ballistic reports showing that the AP shell had the same penetrative power as the Japanese 18.1 inch. What most viewers may not be aware of is that the postwar and even more subsequent analyses, show that the angled and layered armor of the Iowas was much superior to what many people, including yourself, give them credit for. Finally, there are fast battleships and there are fast battleships. All of the Iowa’s made 35 on speed trials, and on two occasions, having served on board or four, we reached almost 36, fully loaded. Now that’s a first battle ship, and when you can bind that with the penetrative ability and the range of the 16 inch 50 and it’s armor protection. Well I don’t really care what class people assign them to, they were magnificent ships.

I love the throw back to New Jersey and Ryan. Great video, excellent comparison, Awesome research! Thank you!

The one thing I'm not hearing mentioned in the last rule of thumb for battlecruisers is the question of displacement. The Invincibles and their contemporary battleship classes displace around 20,000 tons, while the Renowns and Revenges displace a bit over 30,000 tons. With Hood and the Iowas, there is a large step change in displacement compared with the "contemporary" battleship classes, which is why they don't follow the rules of thumb: they have a lot more displacement so they don't have to trade off armor and weapons for speed compared to the "contemporary" battleship. If the Montanas had been built, they would have been the proper contemporary to the Iowa's, and would (edit: might) have provided a suitable basis for comparison that follows the rule (i.e., the Iowas would have been the battlecruiser version of the Montanas). Edit: except that the Montanas represent another big jump in displacement, from 60,000 tons full load to 70,000 tons, so less apt q comparison than I was thinking.

Very interesting indeed. But honestly this is the first time I have heard that some people refer to the Iowas as battlecruisers.

OK, I got into the "armored against your own fire" discussion down-thread somewhere and now I'm wishing I'd gotten further into the video before responding to someone's comment. Anyhow... The video makes the point that Hood was, in fact, designed to be proof against her own fire, but the Royal Navy's own tests with 15" APC shells against a mock up of Hood's armor showed that outside the relatively narrow 12" waterline section of the main armor belt, she was NOT protected against her own fire. In addition, her horizontal protection had never been up to that level of protection, and the outbreak of the war put the kibosh on the refit that would have tried to remedy that particular weakness.

I have to agree with Drach that they are both Fast Battleships. Even considering the RN constantly referred to the Hood as a BC. If the Montanas had been built then the Iowas might have become BC by accident following the "Rule of Thumb" Said Rule that Drach mentions does seem to be the best way of describing what a BC is IMO

I think you nailed the crux of the matter here. Whatever definition you choose, it pretty much has to be applied to both. I have an unfortunate suspicion that many people, especially from over the pond, whether consciously or subconsciously, very directly associate the term and category of "battlecruiser" as being something inherently negative. So when someone argues that Hood and Iowa should receive the same category, it may come as an affront to some people to even entertain the thought that Iowa (symbolizing everything that is good and the ultimate form of the battleship in many people's eyes) was the same thing as Hood (classically, a battlecruiser and therefore inherently a negative connotation). This is obviously just a personal bias, but I feel it is surprisingly common.

How do you feel about Dr. Clarke’s argument that the Admirals were battlecruisers due to their internal subdivision, which was not like equivalent battleships, but was like the Renowns or cruisers?

non-propulsion/naval architects tend to jump to the big 3 mission parameters: gun size, armor and speed. But we should look at it from propulsion. Dreadnought was already fast for a battleship at 21 kt, vs 18 kt for preceding British pre-dreadnoughts, in part due to the new turbine vs triple expansion. A battlecruiser is not simply a battleship with less armor for more speed. Dreadnought had 18 boilers capable of 23,000 shp by design, at 250 psi. The British seemed to then stick with 18 boilers at 235 psi for BB's having incremental improvements capable of supporting larger ships, while maintaining the 21 kt design speed. QE2 was first to deviate with 24 boilers + gain from oil fire for 75000 shp and 24 kt. The first battle cruiser was 31 boilers for 41000 shp 25kt and 40 ft longer hull. But following BC's settled on ~42 boilers requiring an extra 150 ft of hull for 28-32kt. Post QE2, Revenge was 18 boiler, 40000shp. Nelson got 45000 from 8 boilers with superheated steam at 250 psi. KG V was 8 boiler, 400 psi superheated for 110,000 shp, 27 kt.

Let's just call them all "big warships", agree they are awesome and go have a pint while talking about how awesome they are, shall we ? Great video as always !

The hornets nest has been poked. Sitting in my safety bunker ready to watch the next interesting video

You know, to add my two pence, the fast Battleship seems to be the final point of battlecruiser and battleship development, so it's no wonder that they overlap...

Well done as usual. Battle cruiser seems to be a class that existed for a relatively short time, displaced by fast battleship/aircraft. The big ship to chase down commerce raiders up to armored cruiser was no longer needed once naval aircraft gained long ranges. The aircraft would find the commerce raiders, then vector lots of standard cruisers/battleships to them (as happened with Bismarck) - no battlecruiser needed.

When I first saw the title I thought Drach had decided to troll us for 46 minutes, but it turns out he has actually got a really good point.

Oh the joys of arguments relying on points of comparison. It's reminding of the singular most useless legal definition I've ever seen. Different subject, but I know Drach dabbles in HEMA/re-enactment. So he might appreciate this. 'A bastard sword is longer than a single handed sword and shorter than a longsword.' Word for word. I mean it. Word for word. I'll try to remember which book I found it in. Actual English legal definition in the Middle Ages.

I don't really understand the argument if Bismarck was sunk or scuttled. I mean if I'm dying because someone shot me in the stomach 20 times, does it really matter if I die from that or if I kill myself in the last moment by slitting my wrist veins before I die from the other wounds anyway?

So this is settled now.After 46 Minuites of conculsive argument by an expert nobody could have any doubts left. On to the comment section then for the real experts :)

Very well-reasoned discussion Drach, as always. I would tend to agree with your conclusions here. Further, I would argue that with the advent of the fast battleship with introduction of Hood (even if she wasn't called a fast battleship in service), the battlecruiser had become an obsolescent ship type as you could now have fleet units that could perform the roles of both equally well with the possible exception of the cost to build & operate.

If you're going to compare them to the different generations of battlecruisers along with nation specific definitions then you could also apply the same tests to the other ships which weren't called battlecruisers as finally built but definitely could qualify under some of the definitions used in this video (Alaska class, deutchland class, the courageous trio). For that matter, the Sverige-class coastal defence ships were faster (albeit only by a couple knots) than many Battleships built the same time, carried battleship level guns of the period, but not battleship armor on a smaller displacement hull, and were used as centerpieces for battle groups by the swedish navy in concert with other cruisers, destroyers, torpedo boats, etc.

3:30 When I see that picture I can't help but think that the A turret of the lead-ship is turning away in embarressment due to being camera shy. ^^

An excellent description of the issues of classification, and with a reasonable conclusion.

I just like the ring of the word "battlecruiser" so while I know that Hood was a fast battleship (maybe the one to promote the concept) I'll just think of her as a battlecruiser.

For the Iowas it depends on what you consider a contemporary battleship. If you compare them to a South Dakota then Iowa is not a BC. If you compare them to a Montana they fit the definition perfectly having one less turret, slightly less armor and being five knots faster.

OMG! The more videos I watch of yours the smaller and smaller my perceived knowledge of naval ships and warfare becomes! Just when I think I’m starting to get a grip on things and understand them a bit more, you go and upload a video like this🤯‼️

I tend to think of Hood as a fast battleship, largely because the term "battlecruiser" to me seem very superfluous, there's so many arguments as to what a battlecruiser IS post WWI. So to me the battlecruisers of post-WWI and through WWII make more sense as fast battleships. I mean the definition even varied by country, some countries would definitely have considered Hood a battleship, while the British, a battlecruiser. I will say "battlecruiser" to me sounds cooler especially in a scifi context than "battleship" but for the classification of ships in WWII I think the term was obsolete and thus prefer to call them fast battleships.

I would say neither counts as a battlecruiser. Battlecruisers are intended to evade battleships, while battleships are intended to fight them.

There seems to be one element missing from the classification question: point in time. Classifying HMS Hood and USS Iowa both as fast battleships ignores the stark differences that the march of time brought between the commissioning of the capital ships in 1920 and 1943, respectively. The march of time was evident just in looking at Hood's demise, where the fact that 20 years separated Hood's from Bismarck's entry into service played a significant factor in the former's demise by the latter. This reality is somewhat obscured by the fact that another battleship commissioned in the 1920s functionally destroyed Bismarck, but just as a certain event in 1906 defined the naval era afterwards, every capital ship built after 1922 with one exception likewise fell in a new era. HMS Rodney and USS Iowa were built to a limitation, specifically that put upon them by naval treaties and thus packed the maximum firepower possible under those treaty circumstances. Every capital ship built after 1922 with the exception of the Yamatos were built with these much more severe limitations in mind, and it showed. This had profound effects, as even ships like Bismarck and Littorio that flouted the treaty limits nevertheless were not significantly more powerful than other treaty-era battleships (and were significantly less powerful than treaty warships that mounted 16 inch guns). Hood, however, was not built to any treaty limitations. In this way, she functionally was more similar to the Yamatos, Montanas and their successors that would have defined the postwar era had shot Baker in Operation Crossroads demonstrated that more armor and larger guns were little defense against radiation, neutron activation and fallout. But of course Hood could not have stood up to Yamato or Musashi, nor would she have had much chance against Montana had BB-67 been built. Hood belonged to another era, 20 years in the past. She was the culmination of the dreadnought era, which lasted only 16 years (1906-22). Yet when Hood was under construction such threats were foreseen, as Hood's chances against a Tosa's or Kii's 10 16.1 inch guns, USS South Dakota's (BB-49) 12 16 inch guns, a Number 13's 8 18 inch guns or a N3's 9 18 inch guns were slim. The era of treaty limitation was defined just as much by the absence of these planned or laid down vessels. One limitation always was the march of time, which inevitably left older capital ships obsolete. In this way naval history books that divide twentieth century capital ships into two eras, dreadnought and pre-dreadnought, obviously have a point; but perhaps there were actually four eras: pre-dreadnought, dreadnought, treaty, and pre-nuclear. Comparing the functions of ships that were termed battleships from different eras in this way is a bit pointless, as the march of time and technology inevitably made latter-era vessels superior to the capital ships they replaced, at least on a single ship vs single ship basis. In this way, the term battlecruiser was really more of an artifact of the dreadnought era by the time the fast battleships were being built. Fast battleship is a treaty-era term, a term that would have been made archaic had capital ship construction continued past HMS Vanguard.

Drachinifel is the master of 20th century warship knowledge. Equally important is his great talent in identifying and exhibiting beautiful and seldom seen photographs of the ships.

A wonderful coverage about Differences between Battleships & Battlecruisers thanks ,,,two types are going on in upgrade processes through arming with Guided missiles , Laser weapons & Several Kinds of Functional electronic systems .

Considering the concept of the battlecruiser was, in everything but deliberate intention, a predecessor to the fast battleship, Hood was essentially a fast battleship

When will Admiral Nelson get his long deserved 3rd episode

Not intended as a slight; as I know many enjoy these discussions.... Myself ? Not so much- I see this as semantics. What drives me crazy are the total conjectures that people dream up.... USS ALASKA vs. CONTE DI CAVOUR. Or even worse ? Star Ship Enterprise vs. 14 X-Wing Fighters....ugh !! 😬 Rant over, and Drach ? Keep on Draching !!.... This is the 1st & only "complaint" I've aired, as this man clearly benefits all of us !! Did I somewhat recover at the end here ?.... 🚬😎

Before even starting to watch: oooohhh this'll be a spicy one :D

If people compare Iowa to Montana, I say compare them to the Tillman. Now everything is a battlecruiser.

I feel like a lot of this battlecruiser/Battleship discussion is somewhat ruined by the weird stigma so many people have around a ship being called a “battlecruiser” it’s almost like an insult to some people!

First, I want to say I think you did a lovely job of answering the title question clearly and I'm entirely comfortable referring to both Hood and Iowa as battleships of the faster sort. On the other hand, would I be fair in saying that you regard the term "battlecruiser" as poorly defined, and maybe a definitional bridge you'd prefer not to cross? You hinted that the US tendency to refer to the Kongos as fast battleships irks you somewhat, which I think is pretty reasonable. (Though that is indeed what I tend to call them.) That said, I can easily imagine that quite a lot of people over here would be entirely comfortable referring to Revenge, Repulse, and even the splendid cats as fast battleships for the simple reason that the US Navy really never fielded a unit it called a battlecruiser, maybe creating an institutional tendency to think of ships by their role. "Does it belong in the battle line? Okay, it's a battleship of some stripe. Is it really incapable of safely operating in that capacity, but still useful as an independent deterrent in secondary markets? Then let's call it a cruiser." (Note: I am a composer and not a sailor of any sort, so take all that with a grain of salt. I play wargames, build models, and order fancy books from your sponsor once in a while, but that is all.) The term of art, battlecruiser, may well be something that only makes sense in the context of the incredible supremacy of the Royal Navy on a global scale at the dawn of WWI, since virtually any other navy in the world would have been mightily tempted to think of such a large and capable ship as a primary combatant, particularly if it had any chance at all of successfully surviving an encounter with another such. (Which most any well built, designed, and commanded "battlecruiser" almost certainly did, even if no battlecruiser, or battleship for that matter, would ever be able to hope to stand toe to toe with all possible opponents for very long. But hey, nobody gets to be biggest and baddest forever unless you artificially restrict it to built by Brown or some such. Them's the breaks, as they say.) Anyway . . . I wonder if the combination of the rarity and extreme expense of the originally conceived role, perhaps coupled with some lingering distaste for the term after the misfortunes of Jutland, led to some navies avoiding the term for a time. Add to that a perhaps natural desire for multirole combatants, particularly in navies a little less able to afford the expense of such extreme specialization as a dedicated cruiser killer, and it makes sense to me that you would see the two types converging towards one another at least to an extent, which I think is pretty evident even in RN design. (Apart from the cancelled Lexingtons, which were probably a bad idea anyway, and the late war Alaskas I’m genuinely having a difficult time thinking of a non-UK example of a ship that truly had the clear role “cruiser killer.” “Battlecruiser killers” were a bit more common, but if the only thing that can kill a “battlecruiser” is a battleship . . . well . . . there’s not really much need for a special term, is there? You just need to make your otherwise perfectly ordinary battleship fast, which is useful anyway.) This is all a bit long and rambling for a speculation on why people prefer different words in different corners of the English speaking world for ships which were clearly designed with the same role in mind. And sure, I sometimes call Hood a battlecruiser, but in my defense I’m just quoting British accounts. I more or less always say “though she was really basically just a fast battleship.” (Bismark got unspeakably lucky. She really had no right to escape that battle, let alone win it.) That said, are you trying to start a fight by implying Iowa might properly be called a battlecruiser? I dare you to say that in an Annapolis bar on a Saturday night. And please do invite me to watch. ;-)

I can't emphasize this enough. You CANNOT judge the battlecruiser as a class of ship based on the loss of three British battlecruisers at Jutland and Hood. When the HMS Queen Mary was explored by divers they found dozens of powder bags removed from their Clarkson cases from the turret down to the magazines. She was lost as was HMS Invincible and HMS Indefatigable due to poor ammunition handling practices. Beatty came out of Dogger Bank believing that he would have sunk the German battlecruisers if he could have gotten more hits. To do that required increasing the rate of fire. That meant accepting unofficial changes to ammunition handling procedures that Freidman has labeled "suicidal". Powder bags were removed from their Clarkson metal storage cases and stacked in the turret, the handling room under the turret, on every level within the turret and barbette structure down to the magazines. Crews even removed flashtight doors and flaps. The result was a powder train from turret to magazine which could be ignited by incendiary splinters from shells or spall from the armor plate. Note that NO British battlecruisers exploded at Dogger Bank despite similar hits on turrets and barbettes. D'Eyncourt, the DNC pointed out that not a single German shell penetrated a battlecruiser's machinery spaces despite lighter deck armor and greater target area. He also pointed out that battlecruisers sustained and survived quite heavy levels of damage at both Dogger Bank and Jutland without blowing up. Immediately after the battle, Jellicoe circulated an order, reminding ships of the need to comply with ammunition handling and magazine procedures. Both he and Beatty were supposed to receive reprimands but with Jellicoe and Beatty stepping up, the whole thing was covered up, even to the point of rewriting the official history. It took until 1967, when the fifty year rule expired on the Jutland AARs, for this situation to become clear. What becomes even more clear is that proper magazine and ammunition handling procedures along with compartmentation and flooding arrangements would have not only prevented the battlecruisers from blowing up, it brings into question if the six "Lexington" large scout cruisers were such "white elephants" as people belive they were. The US Navy got a complete post-Jutland package from the RN after it joined the war and US designers and senior leadership were well aware of the real reason for the loss of the British battlecruisers. Keep in mind that the USN expected that the IJN's counter-force at the time the "Lexington" class would have been completed was the "Kongo" class battlecruisers, NOT the IJN battle line. As far as Hood is concerned, NO ONE has been able to discover what happened to any degree of certainty. Her level and scheme of protection was similar to that of the "Queen Elizabeth" and "R" class battleships. The "Queen Elizabeth" BBs were hit repeatedly at "Windy Corner" and throughout the Battle of Jutland without replicating the situation of the Hood. The best that we can determine is that she bought the "golden BB", like when a AK round brings down a low flying B-52. It may have been that she was exposed to a situation her level and scheme of protection were not designed to handle. Towards the end of WW1 and through the 1920s and early 1930s, the RN was interested in long range gunfire and aerial spotting, even designing specific carrier type aircraft for the mission. Then in the early 1930s, the RN adopted a new doctrine in which the zone between 12,000-15,000 yards became the "decisive" engagement range. The KGV class was designed around this doctrine, especially the need to survive in good condition running the guantlet of Japanese long range fire (Japan was the main enemy from 1919 tom 1935) from 30,000 yards in. Armor and speed were more important than gunpower, which is why a ten 14" gun design was acceptable to the Admiralty. Hood was not. Yet Holland pushed the Hood into the danger zone given her armor scheme and thicknesses versus the 38cm SKC/34 in obedience to that doctrine, one the Prince of Wales was designed for and which then begs the question "Why wasn't Prince of Wales leading the charge?" In any case, please stop using the now debunked idea that the British battlecruisers were sunk at Jutland due to some failure in their armor scheme.

I always felt like the difference between a battlecruiser and a fast battleship is similar to the difference between a velicoraptor and a cassowary. One is just a more basal/primitive version of the other. The concept of the battlecruiser simply evolved into the fast battleship when the technologies advanced enough.