WesWorld

There is the US Colombia class cruisers. 10x6"in 8,000 tons.

So far I got the impression that the board favours 8,000ts cruisers of a balanced design, most likely 8 or 9 guns in twins or triples respectively.

However, in WesWorld 12-gun CLs already exist (i.e. Atlantian CERASUS which gave away speed for guns and decent armor, Russian ADMIRAL NAKHIMOV or GEN.-ADMIRAL APRAKSIN which traded a little more armor for speed or Chosen´s TANGE-class vessels build to similar specs compared to the Russian units) and I wonder if South Africa needs to answer this trend? I don´t even dare to mention Italy´s 7 (!) PISA-class cruisers here, each armed with 16x15,2cm guns.

DLs or mini-cruisers are rated critical.

I have to admit I´m not entirely agreeing to this point of view as the number of cruisers of the 8,000ts-type availabel will be limited and they´ll be too valuable to be "expendable". Hence I still think a small cruiser in the range of 3,000ts-4,000ts would be useful. However, my originally planned 2,500ts DL-design just died away...

(Any foreign country interested to by the blue prints? Ask your local RSAN weapon dealer if you need more information.)

I wonder what the board thinks about purpose build cruisers for the anti-aircraft role, as heavy torpedo carrier or training cruiser? For example the RSAN plans to lay down two cruisers of 6,000ts each just for training (think LA ARGENTINA) which will replace the Academy Squadron (old AC etc.) in the next years.

Quoted

However, in WesWorld 12-gun CLs already exist (i.e. Atlantian CERASUS which gave away speed for guns and decent armor, Russian ADMIRAL NAKHIMOV or GEN.-ADMIRAL APRAKSIN which traded a little more armor for speed or Chosen´s TANGE-class vessels build to similar specs compared to the Russian units) and I wonder if South Africa needs to answer this trend? I don´t even dare to mention Italy´s 7 (!) PISA-class cruisers here, each armed with 16x15,2cm guns.

Just wait untill I build that mini Brooklyn! (15x6", 33 kts. 4" armor)

Quoted

Hence I still think a small cruiser in the range of 3,000ts-4,000ts would be useful. However, my originally planned 2,500ts DL-design just died away...

(Any foreign country interested to by the blue prints? Ask your local RSAN weapon dealer if you need more information.)

I wonder what the board thinks about purpose build cruisers for the anti-aircraft role, as heavy torpedo carrier or training cruiser?

Take a look at my CLAA, its a combination DL, CLAA in 3,000 tons. Might be what RSAN is looking for.

Quoted

wonder what the board thinks about purpose build cruisers for the anti-aircraft role, as heavy torpedo carrier or training cruiser? For example the RSAN plans to lay down two cruisers of 6,000ts each just for training (think LA ARGENTINA) which will replace the Academy Squadron (old AC etc.) in the next years.

I dont think a specialized training cruiser is a good idea. It eats into your tonnage. Better to use unlimited tonnage now that 6" guns are allowed.

I have to agree with you there Hooman... and I think that in 'real WW life' the SAE admiralty will probably have similar thoughts. I think that a variety of cruisers of different weight classes might work better, and that is probably why I ended up with the 4,000 ton Waissu class and will be building a 5,000 to 6,000 ton class cruiser.
Hmmm. completely forgot about the Tange's 4x3 layout. The one flaw that class has are actually the turrets and the 4x3 layout. Since the Rashomon class also used triple 150mm guns, I made the turrets for both classes the same which would make it easier when it comes to production of the ships. I think it is easier to build 26 identical turrets instead of 16 of type 'T' and 10 of type 'R'. Since I could not cut on turret armor (resulting in two different turrets), I ended cutting armor on a few other places.
Maybe it would have been better to go for a 3x3 layout on that one...

Quoted

Just wait untill I build that mini Brooklyn! (15x6", 33 kts. 4" armor)

Trying to match the Rashomon class?? :-)
(Hmmm... still need to get rid of the barbetted secondaries I see...)

Quoted

I dont think a specialized training cruiser is a good idea. It eats into your tonnage. Better to use unlimited tonnage now that 6" guns are allowed.

... as well as limited to 2,000 tons. I think cruiser crews will be better prepared for duty aboard large cruisers when being trained aboard 6,000 ton ships rather than 2,000 ton ships.

Well you could always design a 9 x 6" style cruiser as a training ship (since the SAE tends for twins and four turrets normally) but have the vessel ready to convert into a 6 x 8" fast heavy cruiser for wartime use, should you have a sudden reduction in heavy cruiser forces during the war, or need a small hard hitting force for hunting slightly larger raiders.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Just wait untill I build that mini Brooklyn! (15x6", 33 kts. 4" armor)

I´d love to see that one as I think such a cruiser cannot be build except using unrealistic long an slender hulls with deep draught....

Quoted

Take a look at my CLAA, its a combination DL, CLAA in 3,000 tons. Might be what RSAN is looking for.

Looks more like an overgrown DD to me, much like a German Z-class 1934.

I also wonder about the limited arcs of the midship turret and if such a small and slender hull will be a useful platform for AA. I´d expect her to be to lively.

I´ll build this on instead (old players already know her).

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
Well you could always design a 9 x 6" style cruiser as a training ship (since the SAE tends for twins and four turrets normally) but have the vessel ready to convert into a 6 x 8" fast heavy cruiser for wartime use, should you have a sudden reduction in heavy cruiser forces during the war, or need a small hard hitting force for hunting slightly larger raiders.

Interesting idea. What does the board think about this idea or replacement of 15cm triples by 210mm twins in general?

I don't know if it should be standard practise to which out turrets from 6 to 8 inch weapons, but in times of war, it would be nice to have the option open to one's navy. The question is, would a training cruiser that generally only does training duties in peacetime, be suited for conversion into a heavy cruiser during wartime, or would they need it as a training ship even more during war to train new crews?

Size-wise, the RSAN is one of the largest navies in Wesworld. You have more tonnage available to you in this category than some of us have in our combined BB/CV/cruiser cateogries. To hear you say you don't consider an 8,000 t cruiser to be expendable suggests to me that you're being overly conservative.

The fact that a few other navies are fielding cruisers with twelve or more guns shouldn't influence the RSAN unless it specifically expects to have to deal with these ships. This might be the case with Italy, but seems rather less likely with the Atlantean, Russian or Chosenian ships. And the best way to deal with a PISA isn't necessarily with an RSAN version of the same thing. Maybe this is an occasion where four large destroyers with superior speed and a heap of torpedos are the better option. Maybe a small, well armored CA is the better option. Maybe the best option is to consider the PISA to be an anomaly and focus on the more common threats out there.

My own recommendation would be to start at the most strategic level. How many cruisers do you need to escort capital ships? How many do you need for independent operations? How many do you need for specialized roles like DD leaders or training cruisers. How many existing ships fit a given role? Your construction should be addressing your worst shortfall, and your deployments should shift your least-suitable or oldest vessels into areas or roles where their weaknesses hurt you the least.

For example, I've put my older, slower, but rebuilt CLs in BB escort missions - they're still fast enough to pace the BBs, and are adequately armed and armored to take on the expected threat, enemy light cruisers and destroyers executing torpedo attacks. Another is parked at Asir, where I mainly need something capable of handling the flag staff and intimidating the locals - I have no illusions about being able to hold the place against a determined Italian/French/British attack, and so will not deploy anything more than I need there.

In your case, I'd shift the older CL to distant flag stations, BB escort functions, and perhaps independent surface groups in places like Argentina. Four older light cruisers, backed by a couple of CAs, may seem insignificant to you, but it'll take most of the Argentine navy to defeat it and should deter Argentina from anything short of all-out war.

On carrier escorts - India's limited experience suggests that escort cruisers ought to have the range to pace the carrier as it moves around at high speeds for long durations. The carrier may have to curtail operations while its destroyers refuel, but it shouldn't also have to wait for its cruisers. Similarly, the cruisers should have a plane or two for scouting duties in case one needs to be launched while the carrier is pre-occupied with recovery or launch of a strike. And it should have a good AA suite, since the enemy will probably seek to deal with an aircraft carrier with his own aircraft carrier. Expect this to be addressed with India's next cruiser class, which will be designed specifically to work with its aircraft carriers. Talk to your Indian naval attache about what Urumi and Trincomalee have been doing for the past half-year.

I think it's premature to have anti-aircraft cruisers. There is no practical battle experience or even exercise experience to suggest that you face the kind of intense air attacks a CLAA is intended for. Nor are you planning to field a CA with the carrier group to provide a strong anti-surface punch you might need (and the CLAA certainly will lack). Stick with a good multi-purpose CL with four to six medium caliber AA or DP mounts that you can use elsewhere if need be.

Sorry - random post-Christmas-pork roast ramblings, but I thought I'd better chip in again eventually.

Expendable is a trait that all cruisers should share. Its been a bit of a problem when designing ACRs as there is a need to keep them as small as possible. They should be expendable and able to inflict as much damage to an enemy as possible before sinking.

There are significant problems with PISA; a bit slow, lack of secondary armament, problems with the main armament that are only just being solved with 5 years in service, lack of room....I wouldn't concentrate on 7 ships too much. The chances of encountering them aren't that high.

Quoted

I think it's premature to have anti-aircraft cruisers. There is no practical battle experience or even exercise experience to suggest that you face the kind of intense air attacks a CLAA is intended for. Nor are you planning to field a CA with the carrier group to provide a strong anti-surface punch you might need (and the CLAA certainly will lack).

Historical Italian project from 1921 of 11.000tons, 30knts speed, 16x102mm guns and fighter planes. I'll keep my thoughts about anti-aircraft guns to myself for the moment... I'd agree that multipurpose ships are what are needed.

Quoted

Historical Italian project from 1921 of 11.000tons, 30knts speed, 16x102mm guns and fighter planes.

Did this amount to anything more than a design exercise? I won't dispute that some nations may be thinking about CLAAs - but at the moment, I expect them to go with more traditional types that are known to be needed.

I have to admit, as Atlantis I've given thought to designing a CLAA but ultimately I don't see an urgent need for them just yet, so its likely they won't get past the design stage for a few sim years.

Germany has no plans for a CLAA at this time.

On the issue of cruiser sizes, I suppose the question is what the RSAN expects to fight with it's cruisers. Smaller, lighter cruisers are not likely to prevail against larger, heavier cruisers (all things being equal), while they might be just the thing against armed merchant raiders or older cruisers.

Yes, the size and nature of your cruisers depends heavily on who you expect to fight. If you think you are going to be fighting older cruisers around Argentina, or in the Indian Ocean, then lighter, more advanced cruisers would be the way to go. Now if you expect to be engaging Italian or Atlantean cruisers, you'd best be bringing heavier vessels along, or else larger numbers of smaller advanced cruisers. While the turret farm style has its problems, the larger hulls with more usable guns do have some merit in this day and age if you plan to engage targets at range.

Now if you intend to get right up close and personal, then what you need in a torpedo cruiser type. Heavy armored shields for the torpedo bays to avoid some of the unpleasantness of secondary explosions from lighter weapons hits, but with banks of multiple torpedo launchers for engaging heavy targets at close range might suit the more daring captains in your fleet.