10 Biggest Battlecruisers ever Built in History

The largest battlecruisers in history represent formidable maritime giants, blending unprecedented firepower with impressive speed and versatility. With massive displacements, formidable armaments, and cutting-edge technologies, these behemoths stand as enduring symbols of naval power and innovation on an unparalleled scale. Today we’ll present the top 10 Biggest Battlecruisers in history. In this list, we will not include battlecruisers which have not entered commissioned such as Ersatz Yorck class, Borodino-class battlecruisers, Mackensen class and so on. Also we will not include Lexington-class battlecruisers as two of the class were converted to aircraft carriers while the rest were not completed.
----------------------------------------------
Credits:
------------------------------------
FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
* Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.

[Anglo_Saxon]

The thumbnail on this video was a bit naughty, showing the titanic looking smaller than the smallest vessel, when it was actually a few feet longer than the largest warship on the picture tut tut.

[Custerd]

Why don't you list speeds? You know, since that was pretty much the whole advantage of the things.

[dublodave]

My late grandfather worked for Vickers in their naval armaments division and worked on the heavy guns used in most of these ships (including the Kongo), he always used to say that it was 'his guns' that won the battle of Jutland. When he retired he was presented with an inkwell in the form of a 13.5" gun turret made with steel taken from HMS Tiger which is now sat on the bookcase behind me.

[nboceanlinerhistory]

The thumbnail is just clickbait. Titanic had a large displacement than any other battle cruiser coming in at over 52, 000 tons. The thumbnail makes her look smaller than she actually was.

[Quaritch]

I think you forgot USS Alaska and Guam. At 808ft, they would be joint second.

[Chartdoc]

A major omission: Seydlitz was left out.

[palious]

Scharnhorst Class? I know some call them battleships, but they were very clearly designed as battlecruisers.

[simonmerryfield]

Surely Hood was a Battle Cruiser and the largest built?

[brianspendelow]

Putting the displacement without mentioning the year is deceptive. For example the Renown and Repulse spent so much time in dock getting extra armor tacked on, that they were nicknamed Repair and Refit. By WW2 Renown had bee more heavily modified and survived the war. Repulse was sunk by Japanese aircraft off the coast of Malaya in 1941.

[jamiejones]

You omit first reason for battle-cruiser class, range.
The British and French especially, having truly global empires, needed battleship firepower able to patrol all the way to and from, literally around the world.
The lesser armour allowed for more fuel.

Some WW1 ‘battlecrusirrs’ seemed slow in ww2 because of engine advancements, not design purpose.

[Chaiserzose]

if you put thumbnails of the ships, at least be they in scale!!

[MCLegend]

Let it sink in for a sec the sheer size of Hood’s Length was nearly as long as Yamato herself.

[stefphoenix]

French Dunkerque/Strasbourg and their German counter part Scharnhost/Gneisenau are BC too
the BC concept "speed is armor" by admiral Fisher was a big failure, the destruction of the HMS Invicible, Indefaticable and the Queen mary during the battle of Jutland and the destruction of the HMS Hood versus the Bismarck are the edvidence of the lack of protection, with the evolution the BS have the speed of the BC but they have more firepower and much better armor
after the WW1 UK works on a new concept the fast battle ship like the G3

[matthewhuszarik]

The Alaska Class in the US was probable the epitome of the Battle-class design. Even if the US called them Large Cruisers.

[fredmaxwell]

The US was building 2 Battle Cruisers but cause of the Washington Navy Treaty they were converted to the Carriers the Lexington and Saratoga.

[daniellapus]

A big mistake na HMS hood was matched versus Bismarck.

[frednone]

I would argue that even though the Germans considered her a battleship, the Scharnhorst, largely because of her 11" guns should have been considered for a spot on this list, and where is the Alaska? Though again officially a 'large cruiser' even her hull number CB-1 is a nod to what she was.

[ronaldgray]

Reading the comments, you needed to define what was considered a battlecruiser and why. Battlecruisers were defined (by the British) as armored cruisers with battleship guns (just not as many of them) Armored cruisers were five to six knots faster than battleships. British envisioned the mission of the battlecruisers as interceptors of enemy commerce raiders. The other nation that built battlecruisers were the Germans. German battlecruisers were more battleships with guns one step lower than battleships and one turret less. They had more shaft HP and were designed to be scout group for the main battle fleet. Because of this use, it forced the British to use their BC's like the Germans with detrimental results at Jutland. Kongo's were designed by the British and replicated the Tiger class with small changes. Battlecruiser designation and mission disappeared in the early 30's. Hood and the Kongo's were designated fast battleships there after. The Scharnhorst was a battleship. It was made to withstand 15 inch hits and was expected to be up gunned by the Germans to twin 15 in turrets but had to be built with triple 11 in because of treaty limitations. They never got around to upgrading them because of a war. The Alaska's had 12 inch guns, standard battleship guns at the time was 15/16/18 inch, ergo large cruiser. Overall battlecruisers were pretty ships, but their cost and effectiveness made them a poor concept. But Jackie Fisher....

[Demun]

Where does the commentary come from? It sounds artificial, although I know it is fake AI, but who/what chose the accent? And the over-the-top nasal twang that is just so irritating.

[Edi_J]

The whole "battlecruiser" concept was extremely short-living. They were thought as anti-cruisers, the view especially popular after the Falkland battle where old armored cruisers were ambushed. But the progress in technology for both cruisers and battleships was so quick that most of the "battlecruisers" became obsolete either before even commissioned or at most a decade after. Famous Jutland fireworks proved that battlecruisers couldn't fight battleships, and they were too expensive (price comparable to a battleship), too large ... and too slow to be used against modern cruisers. So the battlecruiser subclass converged into "fast battleships", as the armor was increased at the cost of speed. Before mid-1930's practically all the battlecruisers were either completely rebuilt as fast battleships, or intended to be rebuilt or decommissioned. The exception was Alaska class, which were from the start intended as "aircraft carrier guardians", not cruiser hunters.