Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

[lwd]

There's two part in such a treaty, generally speaking. The first one is a definition, and the second one, allocation. In the WT treaty, new ship classification was adopted (and further specified in subsequent treaties), a "battleship holiday" was enforced, and ship tonnage allocations per type were attributed to the signataries.

By the time of war, allocation takes the back seat. but the definitions are still there, as in fact, it was those definnitions that shaped the existing fleets, and in turn these definitions were shaped by the economic necessities of the time. Even nations that didn't sign the WT were forced to deal with a maritiume environment that was shaped by it.

Are you sure about that? AFAIK the allocations were dispensed with in 1936 (37?) when the 3 remaining signatories (France, US, Great Britain) began to rearm in earnest. Qualitative definitions (with escalator clauses to allow for increases to match non-signatories (Lion/Iowa)) remained in force until Sept 1939 when the last vestiges of the treaty were abrogatted by France and Britain as being no longer relavent. (arms control is counter productive once war begins) At this point the US, not being at war, put two sets of designs into production - the immediate post treaty generation (Baltimores, Clevelands, Essexes) - ships no longer limited by treaty rules but directly based upon treaty ships (Wichita, Brooklyn, Yorktown) to speed production while begining designs for a new series of much larger "unlimited ships" to retify the perceived faults inherent in the treaty restricted ships (Final Montana Design, New CA, New CL, New CLAA, Alaska Class, Midway Class, Fletcher Class).

I agree pretty much. I don't get the question, thought. But I would risk saying; yes, the definitions were still there, if simply because all that flaoted at the time came from them.
...

It seemed to me that there was a bit of confusion over just what the treaty does and doesn't do so I decided to take a close look at it. Here's the source I'm using:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pre-war/1922/nav_lim.html
For one thing it doesn't define "battleship" it defines "capital ship". The latter has to meet certain criteria but it certainly doesn't suggest that a ship that is bigger than 35,000 tons and/or carries bigger guns isn't a battleship.
As for cruisers here are the relevant clauses:

Article XI: No vessel of war exceeding 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement, other than a capital ship or aircraft carrier, shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers. Vessels not specifically built as fighting ships nor taken in time of peace under government control for fighting purposes, which are employed on fleet duties or as troop transports or in some other way for the purpose of assisting in the prosecution of hostilities otherwise than as fighting ships, shall not be within the limitations of this Article.

Article XII: No vessel of war of any of the Contracting Powers, hereafter laid down, other than a capital ship, shall carry a gun with a calibre in excess of 8 inches (203 millimetres).

Note that it does in no way define cruisers. What it does do is for the purposes of the treaty define what is a capital ship and what is not.

It's actually the London treaty of 1930 where the split in cruisers comes into being. See:
http://www.microworks.net/pacific/road_ ... treaty.htm

For the purpose of this Part III the definition of the cruiser and destroyer categories shall be as follows:
Cruisers: Surface vessels of war, other than capital ships or aircraft carriers, the standard displacement of which exceeds 1,850 tons (1,880 metric tons), or with a gun above 5.1 inch (130 mm) calibre. The cruiser category is divided into two sub-categories, as follows:
(a) Cruisers carrying a gun above 6.1 inch (155 mm) calibre;
(b) Cruisers carrying a gun not above 6.1 inch (155 mm) calibre.

Destroyers: Surface vessels of war the standard displacement of which does not exceed 1,850 tons (1,880 metric tons), and with a gun not above 5.1 inch (130 mm) calibre.

Note that the defintions are "For the prupose of this Part III". The implicaiton is that they are not general defintions but defintions specific to the terms and conditions of said treaty.
Furthermore if we look at the 2nd London naval treaty (see: http://www.alternatewars.com/Interwar/S ... Treaty.htm ) we see that the large US light cruisers except for the specific exclusion would no longer meet the treat limits as the maximum tonnage of their classification drops to 8,000 tons.

The implications to me are clear the treaty doesn't define in general what a battleship, cruiser, heavy cruiser, aicraft carrier, etc are it simply defines what characteristics are acceptable for warships in several very broad catagories that have names such as: "Capital ships", "light surface forces", "aircraft carriers", "submarines", etc.

[MVictorP]

That is your interpretation/opinion. I've seen nothing to indicate that the Germans had any intention of using them in the role of battleships and indeed doing so would have been rediculous as they would have stood no chance against anything but a coastal defence battleship and even that would be risky.

Less risky than using the Schlessiens. Indeed, Germany did use the Deutschlands as battleships (whatever that may means), notably during Spain's civil war. Yes, they were weak as far as BB went, but even the Scharnhorsts had standing orders not to engage anything with 15-inchers.

And that's relevant how?

Nevermind.

And allowed them a couple of coastal defence battleships which they indeed possessed.

Six obsolescent pre-dreads, not coastal BBs, to be precise.

And you accuse me of not knowing what's in the treaties. There was no minimum limit for battleships. Furthermore Germany did build heavy cruisers i.e. the Panzershiffe. Which can be seen by how they were used as well as how they were lableled.

Wow. First, I must insist that you have no idea what you're talking about, not just treaties. Second, althought there was no WT at the time of Versailles limiting battleships, there was, for Germany, this clause limiting all new battleship construction to 10000t.

Long range coastal battleships? With cruiser level armor? You have a realy wierd ship classification scheme.

It's no surprise the Deutschlands astonished every Europeean navies, since they were, indeed, revolutionnary ships at the time.

It's one of the characteristics that help differentiate the ship classes. Again give me a source on any cruiser with a TDS.

I already told you. Check the Tromps, "Palooka Joe".

But it clearly was a continuation of the existing trend.

Second-grade battleship trend, yes.

Considering that the only all gun heavy cruisers built after the Alaskas were the Des Moines indead they were the last heavy cruisers built by the US, and they were simply an improved Baltimore and that the Alaska's were rated as large cruisers rather than heavy cruisers that's of very limited import.

What was your point? Do you know many ship classes that diminish in size by themselves, without a treaty? When Destroyers reached 2000t, did they ever looked back? What does that mean, but a failed design?

Cruisers can't do everything a "ship-of-the-line" or battleship can do. They can't expect to win a gun battle with an opposing battleship. A heavy cruiser can't expect to win a battle with a large cruiser either.

The Alaskas could not take on a bona fide battleship neither.

You continue to make this sort of comment but seam unable to support it. The implication is you can't and that it's simply your opinion.

Well, it is my opinion indeed that you don't get out much.

Not really. Look at the armor schemes. The twins and the Dunkerques were battleships and intended to operate as such. Indeed when built the twins were capable of taking on the majority of battleships then in existance (the Nelsons, Nagatos, and standards would have had an advantage over them but they would have had a decent chance vs the rest)

The Dunkerque did not just have a better armor scheme... They also were better ships, able to do anything an Alaska could do (except for the range), and more.

Haveing reading comprehension problems today?

The Irony is irresistible !!!

That was a bit of extremis though wasn't it? It certainly wasn't German doctrine to have heavy cruisers engage battleships in gun battles any more than it was US doctrine for them to do so by themselves. On the other hand cruisers often engaged battleships when acompanied by or perhaps better said when acompanying battleships of their own.

The US and German navies had different naval doctrines, according to their needs and goals. Far out huh?

That's not quite right either. The Lexingtons were not terrible warships. As battlecruisers they probably would have been but they made pretty good CV's and they weren't reclassified as carriers they were rebuilt as carriers and classified as such.

The Lexingtons were fine starting carriers, but execrables battlecruisers.

That's hardly a surprise though is it? Given that the treaty limited the number of battleships and battle cruisers combined.

That's odd; you're making sense here.

And you accuse me of ignorance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangut_class_battleship

... Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya was the next ship to rebuilt and profited from the experiences of her sister's modernization between 1931 and 1934. .... The space saved was used to add another inboard longitudinal watertight bulkhead that greatly improved her underwater protection.
...
Parizhskaya Kommuna ... was returned to the dockyard from December 1939 through July 1940 to receive a new armored deck and anti-torpedo bulges which cured her stability problems and greatly increased her underwater protection at a modest cost in speed

And I rest my case. One of them had added bulges, like I wrote (more to correct stability problems than protect against torpedoes) while the other consisted of some extended belt protection against below waterline shelling - neither are TDS.

From your link:

But the biggest weakness was the lack of an anti-torpedo bulkhead, which made them highly vulnerable to mines or torpedoes.

Again with the threats. You should realize that it does more damage to your credibility than it does any good. If you can't site specifics then it's not clear whether you misinterpreted something or I did indeed step over the line or perhaps you just have too thin a skin.

Yeah, well, let me worry about my credibility.

EDIT P.S.
That being said, I must command you for your following studies about inter-was naval treaties. Now we're going somewhere.

[lwd]

Are you questioning whether or not the twins had a TDS?
Or are you questioning whether or not the Panzershiffe had a TDS?
In either case hardly a strawman. If I'm wrong and the Panzershiffe did have a TDS then that's a simple error of fact. As for the twins their TDS has been discussed on this board a number of times.

if you knew the panzerschiffe had a TDS it is a strawman.

Thus demonstrating that you clearly don't know what a strawman is. If I knew that the panzershiffe had a TDS this would not only be a false statement (i.e. lying) but it would be easy for my opposition to disprove. A strawman is where you erroneously ascribe to your opponent a position that is easy to disprove.

if you didnt know then if shows a lack of knowledge.

In all my reading I have never seen anything to indicate that they had a TDS. I haven't however actually looked at the drawings to determine if they have one but given the discussions on this board and their size (I have never heard of a vessel under 20,000 tons with a TDS) it is logical to assume that they don't. Note the following write up for instance that only discusses them on battleships and battlecruisers: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm
Looking at it a bit deeper if you look at http://books.google.com/books?id=TAyRtK ... &q&f=false
you will note that it makes the point that a TDS requires a significant amount of space to work. The TDS on the twins for instance took up 9m which would represent almost half the beam of one of the panzershiffe.

either way you used a wrong fact to refute others arguments and it is not the only one.

There is no such thing as a "wrong fact". You have failed so far to produce a single case so claiming multiple ones is rather excessive.

[lwd]

.. Indeed, Germany did use the Deutschlands as battleships (whatever that may means), notably during Spain's civil war.

Details PLS.

Yes, they were weak as far as BB went,

Given that they were heavy cruisers and about on a par with other high end heavy cruisers weak is something of an understatment.

... Wow. First, I must insist that you have no idea what you're talking about, not just treaties.

Insist all you want but you seem to be proving the opposite of this assertion.

Second, althought there was no WT at the time of Versailles limiting battleships, there was, for Germany, this clause limiting all new battleship construction to 10000t.

The 35,000 ton limit that you mentioned came from the WT treaty where the 10,000 ton minimum you mentioned came from I have no idea. As for the treaty of versailles that's not at all what it says. Since you seem to be off the mark so often I looked it up. From: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/partv.asp

SECTION II
NAVAL CLAUSES.
ARTICLE 181.
After the expiration of a period of two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty the German naval forces in commission must not exceed:
6 battleships of the Deutschland or Lothringen type, 6 light cruisers, 12 destroyers, 12 torpedo boats, or an equal number of ships constructed to replace them as provided in Article 190.
...
ARTICLE 190.
Germany is forbidden to construct or acquire any warships other than those intended to replace the units in commission provided for in Article 181 of the present Treaty
The warships intended for replacement purposes as above shall not exceed the following displacement:
Armoured ships 10,000 tons
Light cruisers 6,000 tons
Destroyers 800 tons
Torpedo boats 200 tons
Except where a ship has been lost, units of the different classes shall only be replaced at the end of a period of twenty years in the case of battleships and cruisers, and fifteen years in the case of destroyers and torpedo boats, counting from the launching of the ship.

Now when one looks at the battleships they were allowed to keep it's worth noteing that they dated from the first decade of the 20th century, were predreadnaught types, and still exceeded the tonage of their allowed replacements by over 30%. The implication is clear the Armored ships that replaced them were not going to be battleships.

Long range coastal battleships? With cruiser level armor? You have a realy wierd ship classification scheme.

It's no surprise the Deutschlands astonished every Europeean navies, since they were, indeed, revolutionnary ships at the time.

In some ways but but they certainly weren't battleships.

It's one of the characteristics that help differentiate the ship classes. Again give me a source on any cruiser with a TDS.

I already told you. Check the Tromps,

I take it from that you are referring to the

longitudinal anti-torpedo bulkhead

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/netherla ... _tromp.htm
as a TDS? Seems a bit of a stretch and hardly enough to invalidate my position but duly noted.

"Palooka Joe".

???

But it clearly was a continuation of the existing trend.

Second-grade battleship trend, yes.

Hardly. If the US had "second grade battleships" in world war two then the only ships that would qualify as such were the slow battleships i.e New York, Texas, and the standards. Even that was never an official defintion but they were used differently.

Considering that the only all gun heavy cruisers built after the Alaskas were the Des Moines indead they were the last heavy cruisers built by the US, and they were simply an improved Baltimore and that the Alaska's were rated as large cruisers rather than heavy cruisers that's of very limited import.

What was your point? Do you know many ship classes that diminish in size by themselves, without a treaty? [/quote]
Well destroyers have done so recently but in the case under discussion that's not what happened. The Alaskas were the only ships of their class the USN built. If you are talking about curisers in general well the Atlantas were lighter than the Brooklyns and post dated them so there's an example for light cruisers.

Cruisers can't do everything a "ship-of-the-line" or battleship can do. They can't expect to win a gun battle with an opposing battleship. A heavy cruiser can't expect to win a battle with a large cruiser either.

The Alaskas could not take on a bona fide battleship neither.

Exactly. One of the primary reasons they were rated as cruisers.

Well, it is my opinion indeed that you don't get out much.

Which is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Not really. Look at the armor schemes. The twins and the Dunkerques were battleships and intended to operate as such. Indeed when built the twins were capable of taking on the majority of battleships then in existance (the Nelsons, Nagatos, and standards would have had an advantage over them but they would have had a decent chance vs the rest)

The Dunkerque did not just have a better armor scheme... They also were better ships, able to do anything an Alaska could do (except for the range), and more.[/quoe]
Well one would sort of expect that of a battleship but it's not particularly accurate either. For instance the Alaska had a much better AA suite. She would also likely have had much more success at long in long range engagements.

That was a bit of extremis though wasn't it? It certainly wasn't German doctrine to have heavy cruisers engage battleships in gun battles any more than it was US doctrine for them to do so by themselves. On the other hand cruisers often engaged battleships when acompanied by or perhaps better said when acompanying battleships of their own.

The US and German navies had different naval doctrines, according to their needs and goals. Far out huh?

I never claimed otherwise but neither invisioned cruisers slugging it out with battleships.

And I rest my case. One of them had added bulges, like I wrote (more to correct stability problems than protect against torpedoes) while the other consisted of some extended belt protection against below waterline shelling - neither are TDS.

So by that logic the Tromp's didn't have a TDS either. Although I'd suggest torpedo bulges do represent at least a rudimentary TDS. Furthermore as I pointed out early on you are talking about a pre WWI battleship. Even with extensive reworking adding a TDS is a non trivial matter. In a previos post I linked to a sight whch mentioned how much beam the German battleship TDS took up.

... Yeah, well, let me worry about my credibility.

Relax you have nothing to worry about.

[Pandora]

If I knew that the panzershiffe had a TDS this would not only be a false statement (i.e. lying) but it would be easy for my opposition to disprove.

ok, I will give you the benefit of teh doubt and think you... just didnt know, but lying or not it is really very easy to disprove.

In all my reading I have never seen anything to indicate that they had a TDS.

you need to read more.

I haven't however actually looked at the drawings to determine if they have one

you should have

but given the discussions on this board and their size (I have never heard of a vessel under 20,000 tons with a TDS) it is logical to assume that they don't.

wrong assumption

There is no such thing as a "wrong fact". You have failed so far to produce a single case so claiming multiple ones is rather excessive.

step by step. you said the panzerschiffe didnt hava a TDS and that is wrong. fact is the panzershiffe had a TDS.

[boredatwork]

It seemed to me that there was a bit of confusion over just what the treaty does and doesn't do so I decided to take a close look at it. Here's the source I'm using:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pre-war/1922/nav_lim.html
For one thing it doesn't define "battleship" it defines "capital ship". The latter has to meet certain criteria but it certainly doesn't suggest that a ship that is bigger than 35,000 tons and/or carries bigger guns isn't a battleship.

As for cruisers here are the relevant clauses: ...

It doesn't define "battleship" because, given it appears dozens of times, "capital ships" (12 chr) was shorter and was universally understood in that era to be synonymous with "battleships and battlecruisers" (30 chr) (the destinctions between the two were blurry anyways.)

By intent it did not include large cruisers because the RN in particular wished to avoid the construction of such large ships that fell within the grey area between types. Cruisers had already exceeded both parameters so it was not a case of "This is the maximum a cruiser can ever be." Rather it was a desire to impose a clear destinction between battleships and cruisers to prevent the construction of the kinds of hybrids that would have made ideal raiders, given the economic impossibility of building sufficient numbers of similar ships to defend friendly trade against them.

There was nothing in the treaty specifically preventing their construction, rather it was felt (correctly as it turns out) that no navy would sacrifice limited battleship tonnage by allocating it to anything less than a battleship. The assumption was thrown in turmoil by Germany, who not facing such a decision, and with advances in naval construction, went ahead and built exactly the kind of ship the treaty had hoped to avoid.

Are you sure about that? AFAIK the allocations were dispensed with in 1936 (37?) when the 3 remaining signatories (France, US, Great Britain) began to rearm in earnest. Qualitative definitions (with escalator clauses to allow for increases to match non-signatories (Lion/Iowa)) remained in force until Sept 1939 when the last vestiges of the treaty were abrogatted by France and Britain as being no longer relavent. (arms control is counter productive once war begins)

As for my statement quoted above the relavent clauses are articles 24 & 25 of the 1936 London Agreement:

Article 25

(1) In the event of any vessel not in conformity with the limitations and restrictions as to standard displacement and armament prescribed by Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the present Treaty being authorised, constructed or acquired by a Power not a party to the present Treaty, each High Contracting Party reserves the right to depart if, and to the extent to which, he considers such departures necessary in order to meet the requirements of his national security;

...

"If Japan is building a cruiser larger than the current 8000 ton/6" limit set for cruisers the US may build a cruiser as big as it feels necessary to counter it."

Article 24

(1) If any High Contracting Party should become engaged in war, such High Contracting Party may, if he considers the naval requirements of his defence are materially affected, suspend, in so far as he is concerned, any or all of the obligations of the present Treaty, provided that he shall promptly notify the other High Contracting Parties that the circumstances require such suspension, and shall specify the obligations it is considered necessary to suspend.

...

"If war breaks out realistically anything written on this paper becomes meaningless anyways."

[lwd]

If I knew that the panzershiffe had a TDS this would not only be a false statement (i.e. lying) but it would be easy for my opposition to disprove.

ok, I will give you the benefit of teh doubt and think you... just didnt know, but lying or not it is really very easy to disprove.

Easy to disprove if incorrect. So far no one has done so however.

In all my reading I have never seen anything to indicate that they had a TDS.

you need to read more.

That is a real throw away statement. If you've got a source that indicates so bring if forth.

I haven't however actually looked at the drawings to determine if they have one

you should have

Why?

but given the discussions on this board and their size (I have never heard of a vessel under 20,000 tons with a TDS) it is logical to assume that they don't.

wrong assumption

Then support your position.

step by step. you said the panzerschiffe didnt hava a TDS and that is wrong. fact is the panzershiffe had a TDS.

Let's see your sources then.

[Pandora]

If I knew that the panzershiffe had a TDS this would not only be a false statement (i.e. lying) but it would be easy for my opposition to disprove.

ok, I will give you the benefit of teh doubt and think you... just didnt know, but lying or not it is really very easy to disprove.

Easy to disprove if incorrect. So far no one has done so however.

it is incorrect 100% sure, but no one wants to waste time with you.

In all my reading I have never seen anything to indicate that they had a TDS.

you need to read more.

That is a real throw away statement. If you've got a source that indicates so bring if forth.

I won't do the homework for you, there are so many of sources that indicate the Panzerschiffe had a TDS that it is common knowledge.

I haven't however actually looked at the drawings to determine if they have one

you should have

Why?

because you would be better informed about the panzerschiffe.

but given the discussions on this board and their size (I have never heard of a vessel under 20,000 tons with a TDS) it is logical to assume that they don't.

wrong assumption

Then support your position.

my position is already well supported by the best naval experts worldwide.

step by step. you said the panzerschiffe didnt hava a TDS and that is wrong. fact is the panzershiffe had a TDS.

Let's see your sources then.

Whitley, Breyer, Koop, just to name a few.

[Paul L]

Panzerschiffe definately had a TDS. It may not have been great, but then anything is an improvement over nothing.

[lwd]

Panzerschiffe definately had a TDS. It may not have been great, but then anything is an improvement over nothing.

What was it then and where does one find out what it was?
PLS also note that at least one previos poster doesn't consider damage limiting bulkheads and torpedo bulges as a TDS.

[lwd]

it is incorrect 100% sure, but no one wants to waste time with you.

If it were that "sure" you wouldn't have any problem producing the proof now would you?

you need to read more.

That is a real throw away statement. If you've got a source that indicates so bring if forth.

I won't do the homework for you, there are so many of sources that indicate the Panzerschiffe had a TDS that it is common knowledge.

I've never hesitated to bring forth the evidence I base my opinions on. Most of the others on this board are the same way. Indeed you are the first I've seen refuse to. Or perhaps you've painted yourself in a corner so you can't.

step by step. you said the panzerschiffe didnt hava a TDS and that is wrong. fact is the panzershiffe had a TDS.

Let's see your sources then.

Whitley, Breyer, Koop, just to name a few.[/quote]
The convention is to site the actual name of the source and give a page number if a link can't be provided. A quote is nice as well.

[MVictorP]

Here is, lwd, quite a knowledgeable and trustworthy site (that I strongly suggest you store in your favorites) that states the Panzerschiffen indeed had a (45mm) TDS. The Algerie also had a TDS I think, to put the last nail into that dead horse's coffin about TDS being BB/Cruiser stuff or not.

And yes, sure; added bulges do protect against torpedo damage, but its main goal is to correct stability. And contrarly to a real TDS, it wasn't factored in while the ship was built, adding considerable weight, and as a consequence it can conflict with the ship's general handling. As for belt armor covering underwater shells, it doesn't go deep enough to be effective against most torpedo hits.

[lwd]

What they say is that the panzershiffe had a torpedo bulkhead. Now you've already denied that such count as a TDS and with some justification. A TDS is designed to defeat a torpedo of a given size. I.e. the ship with it will sustain little or no significant damage if impacted by a torpedo of that size or smaller. A torpedo bulkhead on the other hand doesn't attempt to defeat the torpedo simply to limit the damage (such as preventing the sinking due to a single hit). The Algerie is a similar case a torpedo bulkhead. I'm still waiting for a post WWI battleship with out a TDS or a cruiser with one.

[MVictorP]

A "torpedo bulkhead" and "torpedo bulges" are two different thing. The latter are add-on bulges on the outside of the hull, while the former is genuine TDS (one may wonder how you define TDS if not with a torpedo bulkhead) incorporated into the hull's design.

The Panzerschiff, Algerie, Tromp etc have a genuine TDS in the form of torpedo bulkheads.
One of the Ganguts have added bulges, that can be used as a TDS, but whose primarly function is to help stability.
The Dorias, for their part, had a novelty system as TDS (the Pugliese), but it didn't work as intended.

[alecsandros]

I had some good laughs with this thread.

I don't know if there can be any clear-cut conclusion regarding heavy ship clasiffication. After all, Scharnhorst was designated "battleship" by the KGM, while many people, including myself, have an obsession about them being battlecruisers...

The Deutchlands were occasionaly called "pocket battleships" during their days, allthough they were smaller both in length and displacement, than the "heavy cruisers" of the Hipper class, just to confuse things as much as possible. Thankfully, Raeder never wrote about Prinz Eugen being an armored destroyer, or about Tirpitz being an fast heavy trauler. We should thank him for that!

I guess it's about the same thing as trying to classify a heavy metal album. There are so many genres and sub=genres and opinions about them, that is inavoidable that you won't get plastered when ever you say Sepultura's Chaos AD is "thrash", because the "real fans" KNOW it's samba-death-thrash...

Just my opinions,