Battlecruiser.

This is coolbert:

As seen at Freeper and copied in entirety:

"The Enduring Myth of the Fragile Battlecruiser"

"The repetition of the myth of the fragile battlecruiser continues even as the greatest victory of the class is now just over 100 years in the past. This particular capital ship has been on the receiving end of the naval world’s harshest criticism since three of their British number met untimely ends at the May 31-June 1, 1916 Battle of Jutland. In fact, the battlecruiser was a hybrid, cost saving platform designed specifically to support a mature British strategic concept of seapower. Its heavy losses at Jutland were more to do with early 20th century capital ship design and poor British tactical doctrine than the thickness (or lack thereof) of its armor belt. That particular myth was constructed in the wake of Jutland for good reasons of operational security, but there is no reason to continue to repeat it in the present day. The experience of the battlecruiser still has important lessons for contemporary warship designers. Every warship is a compromise of weapons, protective features, speed, and operational range. Operational employment is as important as physical design and construction in determining a warship’s vulnerability. Time marches forever forward and today’s invincible front line combatant can become tomorrow’s proverbial fighter with a glass jaw if not modernized to reflect technological change. Warship designers seeking lethal, high speed and survivable platforms on a limited hull would do well to consider the battlecruiser’s performance in their deliberations on how much of these qualities can be achieved in a single class. Sometimes operational employment and tactical doctrine can be just as deadly to a ship in battle as its lack of speed, armament and robust construction."

That battlecruiser from the era of the Great War a warship having the armament of a battleship but only having the armor plate of a cruiser. Designed for fast movement, speed equated to protection.

This was not to be!!

"The three British ships—Invincible, Indefatigable, and Queen Mary—were all sunk by magazine explosions, with heavy loss of life". HMS Lion also mortally wounded BUT saved by a flooding of the magazine when the forward turret hit, a Royal Marine officer giving the command, both his legs blown off!!

NOT SO much operational deployment or compromised design to blame for the disastrous sinking of all three British battlecruisers.SAFETY FEATURES BUILT INTO THE SYSTEM IN A DELIBERATE FASHION DISABLED. THOSE INTERLOCKING DOORS CONNECTING THE MAGAZINE TO THE TURRET THROUGH THE BARBETTE "TIED OFF" IN SUCH A FASHION TO ALLOW FOR FASTER RELOADING, HEEDLESS OF DANGER!!

DISASTER IN ALL CASES THE RESULT! FLASH FROM A HIT ON THE TURRET TRAVELING DOWN THE BARBETTE AND CAUSING A SPONTANEOUS AND CATASTROPHIC EXPLOSION IN THE MAGAZINE!!

See this amazing animated image of the process by which a shell and powder charge were transferred from the magazine to the turret through the barbette.

Beatty in the aftermath of the running surface battle at Jutland and having made his famous comment “There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!”, promptly then laying down and falling asleep!!

coolbert.