The Ship Model Forum

by **Captain Morgan** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:06 am

chuck wrote:As a commerce raider the Blucher would be checkmated by British battlecruisers just like S/G pair. Powered as she was by reciprocating engines, she could not possibly maintain peak performance for long without overhaul. Soon her maximum speed would drop to 24, then 23, then 22. Similar speed reduction will not afflict turbine powered Invincibles sent out to hunt her. The reciprocating engines may be slightly more economic on coal than early turbines, but the British have coaling bases almost whereever they might need them, the Germans very few and each of them watched over like hawks by either the British or her allies.

The Germans thought the battlecruisers were to be an evolutionary improvement over existing armored cruisers, so they built an evolutionary improvement over existing armored cruiser to counter it. But they were wrong, and Blucher was hardly worth her steel form day one.

Actually speed starts dropping in month out of DRYDOCK. Hull fouling effects speed more than anything else. Especially in warmer water.

by **Dave Wooley** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:52 am

bengtsson wrote:So then Emden and Karlsruhe were failed raiders then? I think they had fairly successful raiding careers. No reason to expect Blucher to do any less well, especially if she is modified for the role as a raider. I wouldn't send her out as built. Sitting by a dockside for months on end added little to the German war effort, and going out and slowing down the German BCs at a critical battle would hardly qualify as aiding the war effort. If you won't use her, then scrap her and use the men and steel in a more useful manner.
Given the unconvoyed merchant shipping filling the Atlantic, Germany's raiding efforts were very timid. They knew better by WWII and had a range of raiders and plans and organization up and running. Germany knew they missed a good chance in WWI by not running a large raiding program.

Bob B.

Basically the German surface raiders were good press in Germany for their daring exploits But the truth is their impact on British trade was very little {For Karlsruhe an internal explosion was the result of her demise} Germany missed the chance of inflicting real strategic damage on British merchant marine by allowing the US to force Germany to enforce the �Prize Law� ruling on all German U-boat activities following the 1915 U-boat offensive. This rule came into force on the 25th of April 1916 .
The German high command was fully aware of the critical situation that the British blockade was having on Germany .To quote Scheer's own words " before the U-boat campaign overseas traffic to and from England has hardly been seriously reduced. Although the cruiser campaign carried on by the Emden and Karlsruhe and the Kronprinz Friedrich Wilhelm and the Princz Eitel- Friedrich had had a disturbing effect yet no decisive results could be achieved owing to lack overseas bases. {This is the interesting statement] The rise in freights was still moderate and on the whole the Englishman hardly suffered at all�. It was calculated that German U-boats in 1915 alone sunk 480000tons of shipping around the UK. Add to that the 300000tons sunk in the Mediterranean. If the same level of unrestricted sinking had been maintained throughout 1916 then the Strategic position of the UK may well have been very different.
Dave Wooley

by **bengtsson** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:45 am

So then Emden and Karlsruhe were failed raiders then? I think they had fairly successful raiding careers. No reason to expect Blucher to do any less well, especially if she is modified for the role as a raider. I wouldn't send her out as built. Sitting by a dockside for months on end added little to the German war effort, and going out and slowing down the German BCs at a critical battle would hardly qualify as aiding the war effort. If you won't use her, then scrap her and use the men and steel in a more useful manner.

Given the unconvoyed merchant shipping filling the Atlantic, Germany's raiding efforts were very timid. They knew better by WWII and had a range of raiders and plans and organization up and running. Germany knew they missed a good chance in WWI by not running a large raiding program.

Bob B.

by **Dave Wooley** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:38 am

bengtsson wrote:Commerce raiders sink merchant ships. How many German commerce raiders were sunk by British Battle Cruisers? The merchant cruisers that Germany put to sea, including an old sailing ship did just fine on the sea lanes. You gotta find 'em to sink them. How long is the RN going to keep BCs at sea chasing around after a big German commerce raider. One needs to read the history of German World War I commerce raiding to judge the Blucher. If she goes down to 22 knots, who cares? Nobody. You don't need 22 knots to catch merchant ships. When and if a British Battle Cruiser finds you, you are sunk, whether raiding in the North Atlantic or chasing the tail of your own BC on the Dogger Bank.
I'de assume Blucher at sea would sink 40 merchant ships before anyone laid a glove on her. In fact, the more British BCs that sail around in circles searching for a needle in a haystack, the better. Gives the German High Seas Fleet BC force a clearer shot at bombarding the UK coast and drawing an inferior RN BC force to certain distruction. The war at sea had to be fought in many places at once. RN BCs out in the Atlantic for months on end? That would make the High Seas Fleet all the happier. Mission accomplished Blucher. Use your ships where they can pay off, Blucher in the North Sea was a zero, a waste of men and guns. I doubt any merchant ship she found in the Atlantic would feel she was a zero.

Bob B.

That's assuming that two of the RNs fast and modern light cruisers haven't tracked such a ship down and sent it to the bottom or at least inflicted so much damage that such a warship { Blucher] would have been so much scrap metal.
Dave Wooley

by **chuck** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:00 am

Lesforan wrote:
Where to find coal? I'd bet there would be plentiful coal supplies inside some of those merchant ships Blucher would be knocking off.

It would be a neat trick to shift a large amount of coal from one ship to another in open sea in anything but flat calm.

by **Lesforan** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:52 pm

It may be a fool's errand to build a class of ships to counter a particular class of ships from another country, but such was often the case.

A stripped-down Blucher in the form of a WWI version of the Panzerschiffe sounds like a great idea. Look at the times individual German ships have tied up RN assets out of all proportion to the threat.

Where to find coal? I'd bet there would be plentiful coal supplies inside some of those merchant ships Blucher would be knocking off.

by **Werner** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:13 pm

As a rule it's a fool's errand to design one ship specifically to engage another specific ship or class.

As a commerce raider, the single ship Blucher if deployed, would require the RN to commit ships out of all proportion to Blucher's cost to the Kaiser. Even the pitiful Far East Fleet required the deployment of battlecruisers, armored cruisers, light cruisers and at least one predreadnought. How many sailors who could be on destroyers and other ships?

An armored cruiser like Blucher completely outclasses auxiliary cruisers made from fast merchantmen and passenger ships, and require the deployment of first class warships in an organized fashion to hunt it down.

by **chuck** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:10 pm

bengtsson wrote:Commerce raiders sink merchant ships. How many German commerce raiders were sunk by British Battle Cruisers? The merchant cruisers that Germany put to sea, including an old sailing ship did just fine on the sea lanes. You gotta find 'em to sink them. How long is the RN going to keep BCs at sea chasing around after a big German commerce raider. One needs to read the history of German World War I commerce raiding to judge the Blucher. If she goes down to 22 knots, who cares? Nobody. You don't need 22 knots to catch merchant ships. When and if a British Battle Cruiser finds you, you are sunk, whether raiding in the North Atlantic or chasing the tail of your own BC on the Dogger Bank.
I'de assume Blucher at sea would sink 40 merchant ships before anyone laid a glove on her. In fact, the more British BCs that sail around in circles searching for a needle in a haystack, the better. Gives the German High Seas Fleet BC force a clearer shot at bombarding the UK coast and drawing an inferior RN BC force to certain distruction. The war at sea had to be fought in many places at once. RN BCs out in the Atlantic for months on end? That would make the High Seas Fleet all the happier. Mission accomplished Blucher. Use your ships where they can pay off, Blucher in the North Sea was a zero, a waste of men and guns. I doubt any merchant ship she found in the Atlantic would feel she was a zero.

Bob B.

Successful commerce raiders have inconspicuous shapes that can escape notice when otherwise superior fire power might await it. Is Blucher inconspicuous? How many conspicuously warship looking German commerce raiders escaped for long the attention of the British navy? How many German warships were still about commerce raiding in 1915? For a total of how many month was there a German warship commerce raiding during WWII? Warships are coal hogs that requires huge amount of coal compare to steamers that can only do 8 knots. Where would Blucher find the coal? S/G paid for attempts to find coal with their lives. Would Blucher's life be more immune to the taking? Blucher in Northsea was not doomed to be a zero. She could at least be used to savage British light cruiser screen, or strike quickly against British armor cruiser patrol in the North Sea. But for much of early war, British patrol in the North Sea was sustained by old armored cruisers, ships that Blucher could actually take on, unlike her intended targets such as the Invincible. That she turned out to be zero was the fault of the commander of German Highsea fleet, not her position in the North Sea.

by **bengtsson** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:11 pm

Commerce raiders sink merchant ships. How many German commerce raiders were sunk by British Battle Cruisers? The merchant cruisers that Germany put to sea, including an old sailing ship did just fine on the sea lanes. You gotta find 'em to sink them. How long is the RN going to keep BCs at sea chasing around after a big German commerce raider. One needs to read the history of German World War I commerce raiding to judge the Blucher. If she goes down to 22 knots, who cares? Nobody. You don't need 22 knots to catch merchant ships. When and if a British Battle Cruiser finds you, you are sunk, whether raiding in the North Atlantic or chasing the tail of your own BC on the Dogger Bank.
I'de assume Blucher at sea would sink 40 merchant ships before anyone laid a glove on her. In fact, the more British BCs that sail around in circles searching for a needle in a haystack, the better. Gives the German High Seas Fleet BC force a clearer shot at bombarding the UK coast and drawing an inferior RN BC force to certain distruction. The war at sea had to be fought in many places at once. RN BCs out in the Atlantic for months on end? That would make the High Seas Fleet all the happier. Mission accomplished Blucher. Use your ships where they can pay off, Blucher in the North Sea was a zero, a waste of men and guns. I doubt any merchant ship she found in the Atlantic would feel she was a zero.

Bob B.

by **chuck** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:27 pm

As a commerce raider the Blucher would be checkmated by British battlecruisers just like S/G pair. Powered as she was by reciprocating engines, she could not possibly maintain peak performance for long without overhaul. Soon her maximum speed would drop to 24, then 23, then 22. Similar speed reduction will not afflict turbine powered Invincibles sent out to hunt her. The reciprocating engines may be slightly more economic on coal than early turbines, but the British have coaling bases almost whereever they might need them, the Germans very few and each of them watched over like hawks by either the British or her allies.

The Germans thought the battlecruisers were to be an evolutionary improvement over existing armored cruisers, so they built an evolutionary improvement over existing armored cruiser to counter it. But they were wrong, and Blucher was hardly worth her steel form day one.

by **bengtsson** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:58 pm

Indeed, Blucher was a waste as an element of the German High Seas Fleet. Being not fit for the Battle Line, her place was on foreign station or refitted as a sort of WWI pocket BB raider. Without the armour and turrets on her wings, she had massive space for coal and stores. Although fine as she was, she was built to an outdated design with the BCs taking over her role. Foreign service and or raiding would have made the most of the mistake of building her at a time that the Royal Navy was building BCs.
The Falklands Battle proved a couple of things. In their role as Armoured Cruiser killers, Fishers BCs were superb. As ship builders and gunnery artists, the German front line sailors were superb. I would expect the same from Blucher and her crew in an similar open seas operations.

Bob B.

by **Werner** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:14 pm

I believe the 12-inch shells had a well-known chill defect which caused them to break up on impact. See Campbell.

by **IroncladNut** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:51 pm

In addition to Blucher taking so much punishment at Dogger Bank,

Think about how long Von Spee's ships survived at the Falklands. The Germans knew how to build a tough armored cruiser.

I don't have any of my sources handy here at work, but was Blucher's range similar to the Scharnhorst class ships?

IMO, Blucher would have really shined if she had been Von Spee's flagship at the Falklands. The battle might have turned out very differently if Blucher and S&G were facing Sturdee's battlecruisers.

The battlecruisers still more powerful, but... how effectively could they have engaged 3 targets? It seems shifting fire back and forth to cover the third ship would make accurate shooting more difficult, and you wouldn't want to leave any of the German armored cruisers unfired upon. The battlecruiser's have one strake of 6" armor at the waterline, all 3 of the German ships are completely armored amidships to the upper deck. Bluchers belt was nearly 7" thick admidships. It all comes down to timing, can the BC's turn the armored cruisers into burning wrecks before an 8.2" shell finds a weak spot...

Also, Rurik II has been brought up as well. Another fine ship, but I still give Blucher the edge because she is much faster. I have never found Rurik's all out top speed, but Blucher did nearly 26 knots on trial. I have read Rurik could do 21 knots "easy steaming" but never found a reference to her "forced draft" speed.

by **bengtsson** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:01 am

Considering how long Blucher survived under the shelling of Royal Navy Battle Cruisers equipped with 12in and 13.5in Battleship size guns, you'de have to say she was the best built conventional Armoured Cruiser. Nothing wrong with her guns either. I vote for her. But Now, I am talking conventional recognized Armoured Cruisers. Not the ships given 12in BB guns. I call them Battle Cruisers.
Blucher is and has always been my candidate for conversion to a commerce raider early on. She had no purpose in a Battle Fleet or BC force, so unship her wing turrets, go to sea as a commerce raider with fore and aft turrets. Your only goal is to sink Merchant ships, not fight unless you have to and you are more or less proof against alot of RN LCs. Your extra space in the wings go for coal and supplies. She was sunk at Dogger Bank to no gain, out at sea in a converted role, she would do some real damage. And before anyone says she couldn't do it, simply read up on what a few slow merchant ships with old guns did. Make use of your assets, send her out to raid. The assumption is she will most likely not come back. But, she might survive and she will for sure kill alot of British shipping.

Bob B.

by **Werner** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:02 pm

The fact that the Germans began zig-zagging was a surprise to the British, who expected the ships of both sides to maintain steady formation fire in order to maximize hits. Zig-zagging threw away the chance for scoring at long range. Perhaps von Spee was counting on the British having a limited magazine capacity.

Blucher may have not been the best armored cruiser. She is burdened by short range, small guns and a reciprocating engine. A better Armored Cruiser might be the last of the US "Big Ten", like ACR-13, USS Missoula, (ex USS Montana). Armor and machinery were roughly comparable, but she has 4 x 10-inch/45, making her a semi-dreadnought, in addition to her 16x6 inch.

After the Washington Treaty there was serious consideration given to refitting them with engines similar to the ones projected for Ranger and lengthening them fore and aft, which would have given them lines similar to Omaha. They would have been the most powerful cruisers in the 1940s and 1950s. However, it was considered to be a disingenuous act after rallying Congress to build so many new heavy cruisers, and they were scrapped instead, or converted into auxiliaries.

Of course Russia, Japan, Austria and several other countries had armored cruisers which I have not condidered in detail which were probably superior in every detail.

by **Dave Wooley** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 9:57 am

Tiornu wrote:I don't believe their equipment offered any correction for trunnion tilt at that time. How many hits did the Germans score during that same initial period?

There doesn't seem to be any real consensus to answer your question with any certainty. HW Wilson makes the point that Gneisenau discharged 1000 rounds during the entire engagement, Which is some what contradictory as much of the magazine was depleted at Coronel but what is known there were a number of shells fired from both German armoured cruisers that failed to explode on impact. What is interesting is that the 8.2inch and the 5.9inch were hitting the British battle cruisers, particularly Invincible with a consistency that seemed to be lacking from both British ships.
Dave Wooley

by **Dave Wooley** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 9:16 am

The big problem facing Sturdee in the first 30mintes that made the shooting so problematic was dence clouds of smoke from the German ships constantly obscuing the targets.
Dave Wooley

by **Tiornu** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:41 am

I don't believe their equipment offered any correction for trunnion tilt at that time. How many hits did the Germans score during that same initial period?

by **Dave Wooley** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:35 am

Werner wrote:
chuck wrote: The Kaiser's ships of 1914 were in fact originally designed to fight primarily at 6000 - 8000 yards, distance at which torpedoes and 5.9 inch guns are considered to be able to exert a decisive effect. The elevation of the guns on many German capital ships can scarcely allow them to reach out to 15,000 yards. Actual performance of German long range fire often seem to be inferior even to those of the Russians, whose dreadnoughts and even pre-dreadnoughts often held their own against the Goeben. German fire control was designed with consideration towards being able to find the range quickly while the range is changing rapidly, as they would be when the German fleet close in quickly on the opposing line while striving to attain the ideal 6-8000 meter range. Hence German ability to score sooner than the British at moderate ranges, and unusual German tactics such as keeping destroyers on the disengaged side the battleline, to burst through gaps between battleships to launch torpedoes at the decisive moment.

German fire control during WWI was not without its strengths. But on the whole I think it's been overestimated.
You have to distinguish the period about which you're talking when discussing naval gunfire. Before 1850, gunfire was at most a few hundred yards. by 1890, Camperdown's 13.5 inch guns would penetrate 27 inches of iron at 1,000 yards. By 1905, Tsushima was fought at 4,000 to 8,000 yards.

At the Falklands, the British were shocked to be straddled by von Spee at 15,000 yards with his 8.2 inch guns, which they credited with an absolute maximum of 16,000 yard range. As for sturdiness, Gneisnenau took 50 12-inch hits before sinking. One British ship fired 109 rounds per gun, even though the allowance was 80. Perhaps their bad shooting is due to the very long range and the absence of any operating range computer gear.

WW.I was a period of rapid development. in 1914 the German Fleet thought the maximum possible range for hits was 15Km. After Dogger Bank, Germans (like the British) worked to improve ranges through the spotting controls and computers. By Jutland, the shortest maximum range for German capital ships was at least 16.2Km[1] with a few ships able to shoot a little further[2]. A key development was a three phase AC motor which would keep the rangekeeping information in absolute synchrony between the plot and the turrets. These motors were removed before the ships sailed to Scapa Flow.

[1] Friedman, Naval Firepower, Gunnery report of SMS von der Tann, p. 161

[2] Gunnery report of ibid, p. 160

I am laboring without my primary source on Jutland, which is at the office.

The German reply was initiated at 1.30pm and the range was below 12000yards Sturdee wanted to maintain his range at 16000yards. During the first thirty minutes of the engagement both Inflexible and Invincible had expended no less than 210 rounds on 12inch ammunition scoring three hits on Gneisenau and one on Scharnhorst. A good rate of fire but poor marksmanship.
Dave Wooley

by **Tiornu** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:27 am

I thought that there was a consensus that the 1908 British-built Russian Riurik II was the best armoured cruiser ever built.

Assuming we exclude the all-big-gun armored cruisers...doesn't Ibuki beat the snot out of any opponent?

The Ship Model Forum

Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?

Re: Weekend Topic 7: What's your favorite Heavy/Armored Cruiser?

Re: Weekend Topic 7: What's your favorite Heavy/Armored Cruiser?

Re: Was Blucher (WW1 ship) the best Armored Cruiser ever built?