WesWorld

The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 46
(4/23/03 4:17:18 pm)
Reply Armored versus heavy cruisers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Treaty, it seems that most navies operated a combination of armored cruisers and light cruisers. Armored cruisers supposedly operated with the battleline, while their faster, more lightly armed and armored brethren pulled recce and raiding work.

What caused the armored cruiser to fall out of favor? Their poor showing against capital ships at Dogger Bank and Jutland? The Treaty limit of 10,000 t on cruisers?

Does a limit of 13,000 t on Type A cruisers in our treaty make the AC technically feasible, and if so, is there any value in the type? Or are we inevitably going to repeat history by building high-speed cruisers with virtually no protection from cruiser-type weapons?

J

thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 36
(4/23/03 7:45:16 pm)
Reply in my opinion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was the washington treaty IMO. The fact that the WT seriously curtailed new ship construction new roles for ship types had to be defined. For example using the RN, existing heavy cruisers were used as a capital asset in low threat area's aside from the usual battleline support. Light cruisers were used in turn as a capital asset in small ship engagements not only by the RN but by the USN as well, like the Atlanta. New armored cruisers were just about imposible because of the treaty restrictions, and it was not so easy to get an 8" gunned ship protected from 8" gunfire.
So what you get is the various ship types filling the roles of other smaller or larger types due to lack of numbers and different areas where the risk of meeting an equal foe was greater or lesser. This is one reason the RN built so many light cruisers like the Arethusa, and Fiji class, they were cheap, small and could be built in numbers so they could be used to fill the gap in numbers. If they did meet a superiour ship they had the numbers to swing the battle in their favour.
Now the neat thing about our SIM is that we have an extra 2000 tons to use on a cruiser, so in the alternate world the AC will not nessasarilly die, as we can build Hipper style cruisers or a Kent with improved armor. In our alternate world cruisers will be armored against 8" gunfire and will be able to play the role of armored cruiser helping the battleline out.

The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 52
(4/25/03 4:36:43 pm)
Reply Re: in my opinion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I'd still be leery of putting an armored cruiser into my line of battle (if and when I get one) if I didn't have to. But I'd have a lot more confidence in the ability for the unit to survive an encounter with one of its brethren.

It'll be interesting to see where everybody fits along the "speed versus protection" spectrum. 17inc seems inclined towards protection, others more to speed.

aowwt
Administrator
Posts: 57
(4/25/03 4:47:21 pm)
Reply
Re: in my opinion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well italy has the need for speed. i probally wait until january 1st, 1922 to post my italy designs.
Lessons for modern warfare:
"human intel is necessary, always be on the look out, and expect the unexpected"

Come to the Wargamer Forum at JPs Panzers Board

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 70
(4/26/03 9:33:18 am)
Reply Re: Armored versus heavy cruisers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I´ll continue to build "ACs" (cruisers category a). It will be more like an evolution than revolution when looking at my latest real AC. Therefor I go for a well armored cruiser with less speed than the cruisers of category b but comparable if not slightly superior speed compared to BB/BCs.

Later on the SAE designers will surely start playing around with what can be done using the rules for category a....

LordArpad
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 28
(5/4/03 2:38:57 pm)
Reply Re: Armored versus heavy cruisers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, IMHO we are still a bit close to the Washington Treaty, but at least 8" cruisers are feasible. me, in an ideal world I would have 20 kton 10" CAs and 12 kton 6" CLs. So far I don't really see a weakness in my cruisers, but they may be a bit slower than others. certainly I am not skimping on my protection and I just upped my torpedo calibre to 600 mm ...

cheers

Bernhard