Talk:Heavy cruiser
 | Ships C‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Military history: Maritime C‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
I think “big guns�? should be elaborated on. -Jeoth 14:53, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
AFAIR the Netherlands and Argentina had no heavy cruisers. Pibwl 22:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Argentina purchased a pair of Brooklyn class CAs after the war. The USS Phoenix was sunk in the Falklands war. 68.206.21.37 17:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- The Brooklyns were light cruisers(CL) according to treaty definitions because of their armament consisting of 6 inch guns. But otherwise they were at least as effetive as the CA's. Nevfennas 18:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Washington Naval Treaty
The text say: "The term was given a definition by the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921." but I cannot find any reference to "cruiser" in the text of the Washington Naval Treaty, here]. --Moroboshi 09:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's actually in the follow-up treaty of London in 1930 [1] Nevfennas 13:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The term nevertheless dates from 1922 (not 1921). Because Washington defined a capital ship as one with guns 8.1-inch or heavier in calibre, there was immediate interest in ships with 8-inch guns... will dig my sources out later on! The Land (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
"Heavy cruiser" : referred to guns, not ship weight ?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the term "heavy cruiser" referred to it being equipped with heavy guns, compared to the 6-inch guns of "light cruisers". Certainly the WWII "light cruiser" like the British Town class were large and designed to the same 10,000 ton limits as heavy cruisers. HMS Belfast ended up over 11,000 tons. The difference between light and heavy cruisers appears to have been in gunnery philosophy : plaster the enemy with salvos of light shells (6 inch 112 lb in British case : 12 x 112 = 1344 lb) or blast him with a few heavy shells (256 lb 8 inch in British case : 8 x 256 = 2048). There was hence no comparison in raw broadside weight; But a light cruiser was far more useful in typical wartime general actions, which no longer consisted of ships sitting next to each other and trading broadsides, but involved a wide range of duties requiring high rates of fire such as shore bombardment, anti-submarine, anti-destroyer, anti-aircraft. British 6-inch guns could attain nearly twice the rate of fire of the 8-inch - loading was largely manual. This greatly evened up the notional "broadside weight" figures. We also need to consider the issue of gun barrel life : 1100 rounds for 6-inch Mk XXIII, 550 rounds for 8-inch Mk VIII. This made the modern 6-inch gun far more useful to the British with their heavy global commitments. Hence a heavy cruiser could be more of a liability than an asset in a war of constant varied and distant action : its guns wore out quickly, they couldn't take on other ships with similar armament and hence posed no more offensive threat than a light cruiser; light cruisers, with more guns firing faster, posed a greater threat to smaller ships.Rcbutcher (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- London Naval Treaty defined "light" cruisers up to 6.1in calibre, heavy up to 8.1in. Both types limted to 10,000 tons. Britain never built any 'heavy' cruisers after 1930, for the reasons you describe above, see DK Brown "Nelson to Vanguard". Other nations did, presumably not because they were stupid. The Land (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of original research
"In the mid 1930s, Britain, France and Italy ceased building heavy cruisers. It was felt that in a likely cruiser engagement, a larger number of 155 mm (6-inch) guns would be preferable to a smaller number of 203 mm (8-inch). The heavier shell of the 203 mm weapon was of little advantage, as most ships that could withstand a 6-inch hit were also well-protected against 8-inch shells. This led to the construction of cruisers up to the 10,000-tons limit, with twelve to fifteen 155 mm guns. While these ships fell into the 'light cruiser' classification by virtue of the calibre of their main armament, they were designed to fight a heavy cruiser on equal terms again making something of a nonsense of the classifications."
This assertion pops up in other articles on heavy cruisers (particularly with the Admiral Hipper class) and has been deleted from some. It's an interesting debate, but without citation/references from another (non-wiki) source, it seems to fail under the no original research prohibition original researchand should be deleted. Seki1949 (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
