Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Commander_Dusty

Monday Blues - British Cruiser Speculation

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
760 posts
6,921 battles

So with the Monday Blues, I thought I'd share my ideas of what candidate ships the upcoming British cruiser line may have:

 

Tier 1: No idea, any random gunboat will do

Tier 2: Active class / Town Class (includes HMAS Sydney)(either a 4" shell spammer like the Dresden or a typical 6" light cruiser like Chikuma/Albany)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active-class_cruiser

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town-class_cruiser_(1910)

Tier 3:Monmouth Class (typical armoured cruiser, another St Louis type)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monmouth-class_cruiser

Tier 4: Emerald Class (Like a better Karlsruhe)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald-class_cruiser

Tier 5: Leander Class (Australians and New Zealanders rejoice!) - Graf Spee better run

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leander-class_cruiser_(1931)

Tier 6: York Class (Rival to the Aoba and a smaller version of the County class with 6x8" guns)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York-class_cruiser

Tier 7:County Class Heavy Cruisers (the only Heavy 8" gun cruisers of the RN in WW2, armor too light for tier 8, kinda like Pepsicola but with torps) or  Dido Class AA cruisers (kinda like Atlanta, maybe a premium?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dido-class_cruiser

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County-class_cruiser

 

Tier 8: Crown Colony Class?  A suitable rival to the Soviet Mikail Kutuzov with 12x6"  guns - HMS Belfast as a tier 8 Premium :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Colony-class_cruiser

 

Tier 9: A Paper Cruiser design? - Apparently there was a design in the old British naval history books (from a book called "From Nelson to Vanguard") that had 9x8" guns and displaced 15,000  - 18,000 tons, the later design having 6" belt armor

Tier 10: Another Paper Cruiser? - I also heard there were some paper 9.2" gun Cruisers for the RN (from the same book) that never took off the drawing board...A worthy rival to the Moskva?

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/22572#.Vu8DXvl97IU

 

Given the lack of heavy cruiser designs for the RN, I assume the Royal Navy will kind be like the Russians in having a 6" gunned "light cruisers" going up to tier 8 as well, while the ships of the lower tiers would be rivals with the German cruisers.

 

Edited by Blitzkreig95

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,106 posts
7,837 battles

British Cruiser Design Philosophy were Light Cruiser,

 

The HMS exeter  (york class cruiser) persuit of German pocket battleship Admiral Graffspee were considered by RN as clear vindication of British cruiser policy. The answer to the German "pocket battleships" was not a few large battlecruisers, but many smaller cruisers which could effectively patrol great areas of ocean and bring them to bay.

 

After the outbreak of World War II, when the London Treaty no longer applied and the warring nations could build any size cruisers they could afford, the British remained true to their small cruiser policy. They launched 31 cruisers, none over 8,900t, and none carrying guns larger than 6in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senior Moderator
1,129 posts

Tier 2: Active class / Town Class (includes HMS Sydney)

 

 

*HMAS Sydney

 

I like your tier structure, I reckon it'll be something like this. It's a pity that the RN ran mostly light cruisers but it will definitely be interesting to see WG's tier 9 & 10

Edited by ADM_dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
760 posts
6,921 battles

British Cruiser Design Philosophy were Light Cruiser,

 

The HMS exeter  (york class cruiser) persuit of German pocket battleship Admiral Graffspee were considered by RN as clear vindication of British cruiser policy. The answer to the German "pocket battleships" was not a few large battlecruisers, but many smaller cruisers which could effectively patrol great areas of ocean and bring them to bay.

 

After the outbreak of World War II, when the London Treaty no longer applied and the warring nations could build any size cruisers they could afford, the British remained true to their small cruiser policy. They launched 31 cruisers, none over 8,900t, and none carrying guns larger than 6in.

 

While that was true for the case of Graf Spee (Exeter didn't exactly have a shining record in this battle either) and patrolling the seas, poor old Exeter stood little chance, having neither the armour nor firepower of beating the Myoko Class cruiser squadron during the 1st and 2nd Battle of Java Sea. While she was ultimately scuttled/hit by enemy Destroyer torpedoes, she took only a few hits from cruiser fire to wreck her boilers/engines and had little to say in terms of her response and hitting the enemy.

 

The Pacific war was the ultimate cruiser brawling grounds and even the US cruisers, both light and heavy, had better survivability against the devastating IJN onslaught from 1942-1943

 

I'd say like the German Konigsberg and Nurnberg, British Cruisers really are fragile, at least the early WW2 designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,106 posts
7,837 battles

 

While that was true for the case of Graf Spee (Exeter didn't exactly have a shining record in this battle either) and patrolling the seas, poor old Exeter stood little chance, having neither the armour nor firepower of beating the Myoko Class cruiser squadron during the 1st and 2nd Battle of Java Sea. While she was ultimately scuttled/hit by enemy Destroyer torpedoes, she took only a few hits from cruiser fire to wreck her boilers/engines and had little to say in terms of her response and hitting the enemy.

 

The Pacific war was the ultimate cruiser brawling grounds and even the US cruisers, both light and heavy, had better survivability against the devastating IJN onslaught from 1942-1943

 

I'd say like the German Konigsberg and Nurnberg, British Cruisers really are fragile, at least the early WW2 designs.

 

The British never intended to barwl toe to toe. 

British Prefer Light Cruiser that work in Small patrol group searching safety in numbers.

Its easy why they have such a policy, british dominion were large. the policing force were cruiser. Having more Cruiser rather than few Heavy can make them cover more ground, its the solution on the budget

why Graff spee case is the  clear vindication of British cruiser policy, is because the German naval planer were always emphasis on the idea of Pocket battleship. They were a classic battlecruiser attempt to out shoot all lighter ships, and out run all heavier ships. and a group of smaller British cruiser were managed to isolate and bring down one.

Proving the idea of smaller cruiser allow more ground, react fast, economical and can bring down larger opponent when operating on group

 

Not every nation want their Cruiser were supperior, Best of the best. Its not a battleship where everyone want outdo eachother after all

Cruiser were the workhorse of the navy,  there always economical factor, Politic, or geographical factor in their philosophy

 

lets look at some Naval power Cruiser philosophy

 

Germans Cruiser like Soviet Union Philosophy planed Cruiser as part of Balanced Naval fleet (the "Z" plan), As they are part of Fleet, Cruiser were to be expected to do everything, so they are well armored, with good weapons, secondaries and torpedoes. but they were unsuited for task like commerce raiding which required both the range and reliability to operate independently for extended periods of time

 

Italian Navy, were Fans of High speed Cruiser. Due to the number of competing powers in the Mediterranean  and the length of the Italian coastline, their cruisers emphasized speed. High speed was deemed necessary to allow the ships to transit from one coast to the other and face multiple threats in rapid succession.

Unfortunately, in practice, this emphasis on very high speed resulted in high powered but temperamental machinery, lowered hull strength due to imprudent attempts to save weight by lightening structures and fittings, reduced armor protection, poor habitability, and decreased range. 

 

The French Navy had followed the Italian Navy in the quest for ever higher speed for its warships, with the result that French cruisers had very light protection ("tin clads" they were called)

 

The Netherlands has a centuries-long tradition as a seafaring nation, and unlike most small nations, they have traditionally built their own warships, including some of the most advanced ships anywhere. Dutch ships were unusually sophisticated, particularly in the areas of gunnery and fire control, where three axis, stabilized, remotely controlled equipment had been developed

Lacking the economic base to build a fleet big enough to defeat the Imperial Japanese Navy, the Dutch realized that, in all likelihood, war with Japan would include the U.S. or UK or both as their allies. The Dutch naval effort was therefore directed toward a small high quality fleet, capable of holding the line in the Western Pacific until augmented by the naval might of their allies.

 

in IJN, each Cruiser was designed to be individually superior to their U.S. counterparts - (since Japan always Consider US to be thorn in their pasific grand plan). 

Of course, all ships are a series of compromises, so to increase the offensive or defensive qualities of a ship without increasing the displacement (which was held to 10,000t by treaty), something must be sacrificed somewhere else. Usually this winds up being habitability, seaworthiness, stability, range, speed, or structural integrity. Of course, another option is to simply ignore the treaty limitations, and build a ship as big as it needs to be to have the qualities you want.

For The Japanese their choice were "all the above" are true

They cheated heavily on their stated tonnage, they sacrificed habitability compared to the western powers, and they tried to build the hulls as light as possible. and they emphasis on Long range gunnery above everything else

the IJN Also worked hard to develop and hone superior torpedo attack techniques (this at a time when the USN was determining that cruisers should not carry torpedoes!). Needless to say, their cruiser were trated as Offensive tool and comanded with agresive tactic in mind

However Because all of that their ship have multitude of hull and stability problem that require a lot of time and upgrade to fix.

 

IJN aggresive tendencies were reflected in their "unique" turret layout in both their cruiser and battleship. While traditional 2 superfiring in front and back offer balanced offense and defense. According to Japanese, their unusual turret placement (as encountered in myoko, atago or fuso) offer more agresive tactic, with more turret means more additional target can be engaged simultaniusly.

 

 

The US have swayed Cruiser philosophy during the course of the war. 1930 Navy Planner decision to remove torpedo tubes from US cruiser.

the Argument battleships should not have torpedo tubes. because flag officers had a tendency to look at heavy cruisers as a substitute for battleships, and confuse their roles.

the decision make USN paid a terrible price in ships and men for this decision (and angry wow player).

USN always planned Cruiser as escorts for Capital ship or in the fast carrier task forces. 

however facing the superiority of IJN heavy Cruiser, the USN revisit his philosophy. Backed by Unlimited budget and Industrial superiority The Baltimore class and subsuquent Des Mois were designed to put an end to that.

designed to be seaworthy, and operate for long time, with weapon comparable to IJN heavy cruiser and overall balance from all sides. from offensive to Crew management - the Baltimore is perfectly suited for Pasific war

 

 

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,065 posts
2,628 battles

So with the Monday Blues, I thought I'd share my ideas of what candidate ships the upcoming British cruiser line may have:

 

Tier 5: Leander Class (Australians and New Zealanders rejoice!) - Graf Spee better run

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leander-class_cruiser_(1931)

 

 

 

This is definitely one of the ships I'll keep in my port forever if it's ever released in-game. :medal:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
147
[BLUMR]
Member
1,134 posts
1,377 battles

Totally fictional I believe, but something the RN could've done in real life.

Virtue Class CA

  • 12,500 ton displacement.
  • 10x 8" guns in 2x quad turrets and 1x twin turret. Pretty much a CA version of a KGV class BB.
  • 33kts

Would make an interesting tier 9.

Edited by Chawp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
682 posts
4,757 battles

I vote for HMS Invincible !!! (just for her name :trollface: )
I don't sure is it this ship or not, I have read that there one HMS Cruiser that totally focus on Gun only ignore all armor to make more speed and then it get in the fight with German fleet and got sunk in few shot and british scarp this kind of idea anymore lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
760 posts
6,921 battles

I vote for HMS Invincible !!! (just for her name :trollface: )
I don't sure is it this ship or not, I have read that there one HMS Cruiser that totally focus on Gun only ignore all armor to make more speed and then it get in the fight with German fleet and got sunk in few shot and british scarp this kind of idea anymore lol

 

HMS Invincible was a fleet carrier in WW2, However the idea sounds like it belongs to a ship of the WW1 era, as that sounds to me like a Battlecruiser in all essence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
682 posts
4,757 battles

HMS Invincible was the world's first battlecruiser before the carrier carried the name.

 

yeap .. I think that the one ... think she maybe in for low tier ship ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,106 posts
7,837 battles

I vote for HMS Invincible !!! (just for her name :trollface: )
I don't sure is it this ship or not, I have read that there one HMS Cruiser that totally focus on Gun only ignore all armor to make more speed and then it get in the fight with German fleet and got sunk in few shot and british scarp this kind of idea anymore lol

 

you right

3 of British battlecruiser sunk in jutland were one of it were HMS Invincible. German also lost Battlecruiser Lutzow in the same battle.

Battlecruisers were the big losers at Jutland, no Dreadnought battleships were sunk while Battlecruiser suffer heavy losses. after that the British were more relucant about the idea of batlecruiser.

 

in British Naval Comunity they were reffered as "White elephant".  a  term which better described as a possession which its owner cannot dispose of and whose cost, particularly that of maintenance, is out of proportion to its usefulness.

 

it was also interesting that British learned so much about making proper battlecruiser when they building Kongo Class for Japanese. so much they outclass contemporary British battlecruisers that they caused the last of the Lion class (HMS Tiger) to be completed to a totally altered design, a design very similar to Kongo. 

The impact of Kongo were so great that second generation battlecruiser Repulse were so similiar that when Japanese Navy aviators were attacking that ship in 1941, they hesitated momentarily, thinking that she might be Kongo or Haruna (which were at sea searching for the British ship).

 

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×