With the first true battlecruiser design, typed as Grosen Kreuzer, German designers turned the table on the British. One could see the size of a ship and count her guns but could not see or measure armor protection. British writers did not know that the Blucher had a stronger armor scheme than the British battlecruisers and assumed a six-inch belt as in previous armored cruiser designs. “Of the successors of the Blucher, being German Indomitables or Dreadnought-cruisers, little is known. The Von der Tann, launched in March, 1909, is to be completed in the spring of 1910.” (The Naval Annual 1910, page 32) This first mention of Von der Tann attributed her with twelve 11-inch gun, presumably arranged as the 11-inch guns of Nassau or the 8.2-inch guns of Blucher. Nothing was mentioned about armor, except in a table at the back of the volume, which mentioned an eight-inch belt for Von der Tann, but put in the caveat “particulars doubtful”. With the Von der Tann German designers set the pattern for the entire line of battlecruiser construction for the High Seas Fleet. The ship had minimalist superstructure, presenting a low target, inferior main armament to British contemporary construction (11-inch vs 12-inch) but most importantly, far superior protection. Although always classified as battlecruisers, the German designs were more akin to fast battleships. Gone was the mistake of the wing turrets of Blucher, instead the Von der Tann improved upon the British practice of spacing amidship turrets far enough apart to allow cross deck fire. The Von der Tann was a direct reply to the Invincible class but was far superior in every category but main armament.
To make up for the lost time in the design and construction of the Blucher, even as Von der Tann was completing design work and being laid down, another improved Von der Tann was finishing its design process. Less than eight months after the start of Von der Tann, the first of this class was laid down on December 7, 1908, also at the Blohm and Voss yard in Hamburg. This was to be SMS Moltke. Similar in appearance to the Von der Tann, the Moltke class was larger and heavier than Von der Tann. Displacement jumped from 19,400 tons in Von der Tann to 22,616 tons in Moltke. Part of the displacement increase was taken up in the increase in size from 562-feet, 9-inches length and 87-feet beam in Von der Tann to 610-feet length and 96-feet, 9-inches in beam. With an increase of almost ten feet in beam, the Moltke could be given even greater number of compartments, further increasing survivability of the design. Although turret and barbette armor stayed on par with 9-inches, the Moltke class increased the width of the main belt from 9.84-inches in Von der Tann to 10.75-inches in Moltke. One need only compare the armor belt of Moltke with the contemporary British battleship HMS Neptune, laid down six weeks after Moltke with an 11-inch armor belt, to see that the German battlecruisers were fast battleships. In contrast with Moltke, the second class of British battlecruisers, the Indefatigable class, simply carried over the same six-inch armor belt from the Invincible class, with Indefatigable being laid down February 23, 1909, two and a half months after Moltke. The increased size of Moltke not only allow greater armor and survivability to be worked into the design, but also allowed greater offense capability. The same 11-inch gun was retained but the increased length allowed a fifth turret to be added. This was added in a superfiring position aft. This made Moltke the first German warship with superfiring main armament. Although Moltke beat the British Neptune in being laid down with superfiring main armament, both powers were late in incorporating this subsequent standard practice, as the United States Navy had used superfiring turrets from the start of the Dreadnought era. The sister ship to Moltke was SMS Goeben and since she was in the 1909 construction program instead of the 1908 program with the Moltke, Goeben was laid down exactly one year after Moltke, on December 7, 1909, also at Blohm and Voss. One other increase to offensive abilities was the placement of the secondary 5.9-inch casemate guns. The deck break from forecastle to main deck in Von der Tann came at the forward superstructure but the deck break in Moltke came at the aft superstructure. As a consequence the secondary guns of Moltke were located one deck higher than those of the preceding design.
Only Goeben was included in the 1909 program, as the rest of the capital ships were battleships. The 1910 program saw a redesign of the Moltke. Laid down February 4, 1911 the Seydlitz was a one-off design, which sought to address weaknesses of the previous class. To provide a drier forecastle, it was raised one level. The Seydlitz had two deck breaks, one at the end of the forward superstructure and the second at X turret, compared to the single deck breaks for the Von der Tann and Moltke classes. Length again increased to 656-feet but in an odd retrogression for German designs, beam was reduced by three-feet to 93-feet, 6-inches. This was done to provide a better under-water hull form for higher speed. During trials Seydlitz attained 28.1-knots, developing 90,000shp. In partial compensation to the narrower beam, the armor belt was increased to 11-inches maximum thickness and the maximum armor on turrets and barbettes to 10-inches. Seydlitz retained the same main gun turret arrangement as the Moltke class but caliber was increased from 45 to 50 caliber, with the longer barrel offering increased range and muzzle velocity. Completed May 22, 1913, Seydlitz was the last battlecruiser to join the High Seas Fleet before World War One and was flagship of the scouting squadron when the war began. Although Seydlitz was a superb ship, it was clear to the German Admiralty that their battlecruiser designs were falling intolerably behind British battlecruisers in terms of offensive abilities. The HMS Lion laid down in November 1909 upped the ante by increasing the main armament of British battlecruisers from 12-inch main guns to 13.5-inches with a far greater shell weight, improved accuracy and longer range. It was one thing to accept a tradeoff of 11-inch main guns vs 12-inch guns in British battlecruisers, given the advantages achieved in German designs, but German designers could no longer accept a main armament of 11-inch guns. A complete redesign would have to be done of the type to break from the initial Von der Tann/ Moltke/ Seydlitz series.
|
|