WesWorld

Another little gem I got for christmas is "Thunder In Its Courses" by Richard "Tiournu" Worth, puplished at Nimble Books.

What can you expect?
"Thunder In Its Courses" is a thin book that contains seven essays on the battlecruiser. Driven by well known statements like "Battlecruiser were never meant to fight against Battleships" or "Their large caliber guns lured admirals into using battlecruisers like battleships with inevitably desastrous results" Worth provides a summary of the true history,origin and rational behind battlecruisers and continues with musings about questions like "The first battlecruiser?", "Couragous - What the heck?", "Who killed the battlecruiser?" etc.

As you can expect, Worth offers his thoughts with some kind of humor at times. To quote from his chapter on Couragous:

Quoted

[...] The search for a rationale within the Couragous design itself assumes the existing of such rationale. Matching a 7-inch barbet with a 3-inch belt, putting battleship guns on a ship armored against light cruiser shells, providing high speed to a ship with no place to go - the possibility exists that the decision was irrational, a monster slipping through the disconnect between an admiral's fantasy and the realities of naval combat. [...] The design had what he wanted, even if he had no valid reason to want it, and no one in the Admiralty showed the inclination to stop him. For Fisher, the ships of the Couragous class were their own justification, sparing him an unpleasant question: Is 19,000 tons of useless ship so far superior to 0 tons of useful ship as to justify the expenditure?"

Another example is his titel to a well-known photo, showing gallant SMS Seydlitz in the docks after Jutland, with bow down and listing and her forward armament removed to lighten the ship: "Most of Seydlitz made it home after Jutland."

What should you not expect?
The book is no reference book that provides information on all classes, their design history and technical detail. Therefor you would still need Breyer, Gröner, Raven/Roberts, Whitley etc. You should expect no combat records or maps, nor are there any color shemes that may help modelers.

Worth the money?
Yes, I really recommend this book to anybody interested in Dreadnough-era capital ships, especially for battlecruiser nuts it is a must have. Many details on the battlecruiser became obscured long ago by multiple layers of hindsight, "common knowledge", anachronismn, and dueling definitions - and Worth precious little book cleans up the mess.

Hm. Nearly purchased by me, once... but it got deferred to something else.

Still on my list, though.

Well if it helps Courageous provided a very nice hull for conversion to CV, not the best but good enough.

To quote the author:

"Ultimately, all three ships found their route into usefullness as dedicated aviation platforms. Conversion gave them a form well suited to the coherent function, as well as a straightforward new rating - "aircraft carrier". They helped assure Britain's early lead in fast carrier capability, and they remaind the Royal Navy's premier flattops until Ark Royal commissioned in 1938. Thus the misbegotten threesome proved that all's well that ends well - in design terms, anyway."

Hey there!
I thought I'd pipe up, in case anyone has questions about the book. I think it's fantastic, but perhaps I'm biased.

Welcome stranger! I still thumb through "Fleets of world war two" from time to time!

Quoted

I think it's fantastic, but perhaps I'm biased.

Nah, that's just you imagination.

Welcome back, Tiornu.

Richard-
I wondered lately why you did not rate the IOWA-class units as true battlecruisers. If I got you right on definitions, the origin of the BC is a ship almost as big or bigger than same generation BBs, with similar or slightly weaker armament than same generation BBs but several knots faster and a bit thinner armored. As a result the BC is a multi-purpose/multi-role unit that could stick with the battle line, but could also act as fast wing or independant unit superior to raiding cruisers and the like.

Now, compared to the Montanas, which I rate the BB of the same generation than the IOWA, the latter seem to fit this original definition of battle cruiser quite well. The concept may be obsolete given aircraft development and radar/FC improvements, but the definition fits nevertheless. However, you rate the HINDENBURG the last true BC, with HOOD being more like a high-speed BB (to avoid the term "fast battleship"), arguably the best armored British unit at the time of her entry into service.

What's your take on the IOWAs as battlecruisers?

Thanks,
Stephan

Hello, everyone!
If we want to try and stick a specific label on Iowa, we have to specify a set of definitions, since the definitions varied from navy to navy and from decade to decade. This choice will inevitably be arbitrary, which rather limits the value of our label. But let's say we look at the capital ships from the "golden age" of battlecruisers--if such a thing existed--say, around 1914. At that time, in both the German and British fleets, capital ships had some notable distinctions. Battleships had more protection and firepower than their battlecruiser fleetmates, while the battlecruisers had more speed and size. Iowa appears to be right in the middle, a true hybrid; she's got size, speed, protection, and firepower. Nothing in her design history or her intended role makes her look especially cruiser-ish. This is a good illustration of the main message of that essay--laboring over precise labels is more trouble than its worth.
In theory, a new edition of Fleets of World War II is due out this year. We were aiming for last year, but the publisher has been having issues.

Me wonders how "cruiser-ish" HINDENBURG actually was. Her existance as "Ersatz Hertha" provides a cruiser heritage,if you want to put it that way, but was her design still "cruiser-ish" being a forth generation BC? And did the Germans really have doctrine to use her in a cruiser role?

In your book you state that the separation of the battleship from the battlecruiser started to vanish with the MACKENSEN/ERSATZ YORK (looking at German designs). So there must be a distinctive reason why the HINDEBURG rates different. IIRC, your essay on the last true BC does not mention such reason while you muse on small battleships and the advances of technology that made the BB and BC merge. Have I missed something?

A new edition of Fleets... What will be different?

At the time of her keel-laying, Hindenburg was larger and faster than any existing German battleship, but not as well armed or armored. Her design was a direct descendent from previous cruisers. I see nothing remarkable about her in that regard. Why would she not be a battlecruiser? The fact that she was a very good battlecruiser wouldn't mean that she is not a battlecruiser at all.
The new Fleets edition is larger, and I've made some corrections. The selection of photos is different. I've even added a country (Switzerland--no kidding!).

What makes me wonder if the DERFFLINGERs really were BC is the fact that they have so few things in common with the previous classes - and that would oppose your statement that she was a direct descendet from previous cruisers. Don´t get me wrong, I am aware of the evolutionary design tree of German capital ships. However, the DERFFLINGER is closer to the MACKENSEN than the SYDLITZ, methinks, and the MACKENSEN is where you drew the line in your essay. But isn´t the MACKENSEN "just" an enlarge DERFFLINGER with 35cm guns? While the DERFFLINGER compared to the SYDLITZ shows several design features such as flush deck, all super-firing turrets, tripod, bow form etc. that are clearly different and cut the lines that probably linked the SYDLITZ to the last German AC BLÜCHER.....

Anyways, I will not dispute the Germans thought she was a BC. So probably that's the best basis to judge her designation. :o)

Switzerland, eh? IIRC, they had some armed motor boats on the lakes for border patrols. No idea what else could there have been...

I read a 2010er interview with you somewhere in the internet lately. You gave some info how you became addicted to warships by reading your first carrier book in 8th grade. Funny story. Do you remember which book that was?

You also mentioned your interest in writing a source book on the Dutch, French and Italian navies. Especially the Dutch book would interest me a lot. Any progress on these? Have you even started?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
You also mentioned your interest in writing a source book on the Dutch, French and Italian navies. Especially the Dutch book would interest me a lot. Any progress on these? Have you even started?

French, please! I'd read that one!

...the fact that I play France here is completely incidental, I assure you...

I'd like to see a credible volume on each navy that had any sort of sea-going capability. Maybe one for the Scandinavian/Baltic navies that have been neglected, one for the Balkans, etc. I have begun preliminaries on Dutch, French, and Italian books, but don't hold your breath. They've been on the backburner so long that I think they're stuck there.
Yeah, Switzerland had some motor boats with machine guns. No heavy cruisers that I could find....
As far as I can tell, the first convincing step that the Germans made toward the einheitschiff was Ersatz Yorck. Her armor remained rather BC-ish, but otherwise she appears to combine BB and BC qualities.
I would really enjoy seeing an article-length treatment on the subject of German battlecruiser doctrine. Most of what I've read does little to get beyond the idea that the Germans were just following the British example. As far as I can tell, Tirpitz was slow to grasp what an armored cruiser was good for, but obviously his ideas evolved over time.
I do not remember exactly which book it was that got me started in 8th grade. It was a cheap paperback, perhaps with the simple title of Aircraft Carriers, that was part of a large series of similarly cheap and simple paperbacks. I might recognize it if I saw it again. Was it from Bantam Books, or something with a "B"...?

I'd expect you still have good relations to Peter Linau who might be a source for information on German BC doctrine....? I'd also be surprised if the Germans just followed the British. Probably with the first or second design, but later they surely had their own ideas.

Unfortunately, I haven't heard from Peter in years. I have some good published sources, including Greissmer, and I've asked the Groner group, but still I haven't found a very satisfying answer. We can try to infer from the way the ships were actually used in WWI, but I'd say the relative inactivity of the battle fleet makes it clear that ships were not necessarily operating as intended.

Bad news, but same here, though our contact was never close.

Have you tried his page ?

The "English" page doesn't work but on the German site you can find his contact data .

I do not know how old all this is, however.

I remember he was/is a fire fighter and got burned heavily some years ago. He told the story over on warships1, IIRC. So on the photo down the page you can see him, I think.