BattleCruisers v Battleships which is better?

yes the renown class were good for there day i mean battlecruisers didnt actually last long at all.

 

I don't believe it's so much as a design flaw, as a usage flaw, as far as battlecruisers go.
The "Alaskas" made excellent anti-aircraft platforms and had the speed to stay with fast Carriers. Especially after the VT fuse was supplied. Just saw a show on the history channel about the VT fuses. Before them it took on average 2,400 rounds to bring down a Japanese plane, and after...400. Now that's a 600% improvement !
(12 inch main battery, BTW)
Never meant to go toe-to-toe with battleships. You'll lose every time. The list is long of those who tried and died.
The U.S. designation was CB, (later on for the prevention of lumping them (Alaskas) with the much discredited label BC) for Large Cruiser, perhaps a better description of its capabilities.

 

On the Alaska class large cruisers: The USN didn't want them. President Roosevelt forced them on the Navy. The reasons the C&R Board rejected them were:

1. They brought no more AA firepower per hull than a Baltimore or [/i]Cleveland[/i] cruiser did.
2. The 12" guns were more gun than necessary to fight cruisers and not enough to fight capital ships.
3. The lack of a torpedo defense system (the Alaska's were built to cruiser standards with just a double hull and internal subdivision) was seen as a serious weakness in such a large ship.
4. They were uneconomical steamers.
5. They proved in service to have poor tactical characteristics.

For the British the retention, and even upgrading, of their available late-WW 1 battlecruisers was a wise choice. These ships gave them more fast, if weak, battleships for use with carrier forces and in other arenas where protection and main battery firepower were not critical issues.

 

I heard they also had but one rudder and their turning radius stunk.
Their big guns were irrelevent, possibly never fired in anger, maybe in shore bombardment.
Fast Battleships negated the original reason for them at all, but once the hulls were laid down, may as well.
The Japanese also up-armored/boilered the Kirishima/Hiei/Kongo/Haruna from the original British Battlecruiser design.
I believe the original design was to one-up Heavy Cruisers. As you say academic as time passed.
Unnessary and perhaps even a nuisence (special needs) by the time they arrived on station, and immediately scrapped after the war.
Germany used them (and Pocket Battleships) to raid the convoy system to great effect.
England needed them to protect convoys from them and carrier escort, show the Flag/Presence etc. after upgrades.
Japan needed them for carrier escort/invasion support/convoy protection.
As you say...nobody else built them, and we didn't need them.