Naval Historywith Dr. Alex

Q&A · 1:32:19-1:33:46

Invincible-class battlecruisers versus 9.2-inch armored cruisers

Replacing some Invincibles with smaller 9.2-inch armored cruisers looks attractive in hindsight but did not match the information and priorities available when the ships were ordered.

Armoured CruisersInvincible Class BattlecruisersNaval ProcurementRoyal NavyWarship Design
Watch at this timeFull video guide
Question

Would the Royal Navy have been better off with fewer Invincibles and several cheaper 9.2-inch armored cruisers?

Short answer

Possibly in hindsight, but the Invincibles fit contemporary priorities and the benefits of the mixed force were not yet visible.

Notes

Building fewer Invincible-class battlecruisers and adding cheaper 9.2-inch armored cruisers has advantages in hindsight. Dreadnought-style armored cruisers could have served usefully in the First World War and created an evolutionary line with value into the Second. The case depends heavily on knowing how the Invincibles would fight and what later missions would emerge. At the time, the battlecruiser program made sense within the Royal Navy's design choices and expectations. The alternative is a plausible force mix but an unlikely historical procurement decision.