Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau
Message-ID: <1991Mar26.031710.2797@amd.com>
Date: 26 Mar 91 03:17:10 GMT
References: <1991Mar23.061805.5362@amd.com> <1991Mar25.064942.29515@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 24
Approved: military@amd.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From: wbt@cbema.att.com (William B Thacker)
>    WWI showed that the German scheme worked better; several British
>battlecruisers exploded after being hit...

However, the statistical sample here is very small, and it is difficult
to decide how much of this was the result of battlecruisers being used
improperly, notably Beatty at Jutland leading his battlecruiser force
into a pitched battle with comparable or superior vessels (something
they were definitely not designed for).  When used for their intended
purposes -- scouting, and beating up on cruisers and such -- they were
fairly successful, as in the Battle of the Falklands.  The crucial rule
was to remain out of range of heavy guns.

One can argue, mind you, that battlecruisers were still basically an
aberration:  once the opposition too started using battlecruisers
rather than cruisers for scouting, it became very difficult to do the
assigned missions without risking heavy-gun engagements.
-- 
"[Some people] positively *wish* to     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
believe ill of the modern world."-R.Peto|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry