Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cruisers - how are they different from battleships?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
    The armored cruiser and predreadnought were replaced by the battlecruiser and dreadnought battleship - the cruisers were typically larger, though the battleships had greater displacement, primarily because of their heavier armor.

    [ATTACH]31375[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH]31376[/ATTACH]
    the Minotaur is about 50' longer then the Lord Nelson
    The Lord Nelsons were short because of dry dock concerns IIRC... The battleships were built in different dry docks and most of the British cruisers were longer and thinner than contemporary battleships of the Royal Navy. Ditto for US designs in the predreadnaught era.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by zraver View Post
      The Lord Nelsons were short because of dry dock concerns IIRC... The battleships were built in different dry docks and most of the British cruisers were longer and thinner than contemporary battleships of the Royal Navy. Ditto for US designs in the predreadnaught era.
      Yes, that was a stated reason for not making them longer (they were slightly shorter than the previous class) - but the previous first class battleship classes were also shorter than their contemporary first class cruisers (Majestic and King Edward VII). This contiuned with the dreadnoughts and superdreadnoughts. Invincible was longer than Dreadnought. Lion was over 100' longer than Orion, the difference in beam was not so dramatic (Invinvible was 3.5' narrower than Dreadnought, Lion and Orion were both 88' in beam - the fineness of the hull was different, the battleships were wide over a greater portion of their length). Not until the treaties were the largest cruisers routinely smaller than battleships. The primary reason to have longer hulls in the faster cruisers was for economical top speed (the Frounde effect). The WWII fast battleship combined the attributes of the cruiser and battleship, and with treaty cruisers - battleships routinely became larger than their contemporary first class cruisers.

      The treaties did twice as much to gut the cruiser design process as they did to the battleship. Forcing a 2/3 reduction in large cruiser displacements (and giving them 8" guns), vs a 1/3 reduction in battleships being designed before the treaties.

      Richard Worth has a great book, Thunder In Its Courses (2011), which goes into this in more detail.
      Last edited by USSWisconsin; 30 Dec 12,, 19:13.
      sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
      If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
        Yes, that was a stated reason for not making them longer (they were slightly shorter than the previous class) - but the previous first class battleship classes were also shorter than their contemporary first class cruisers (Majestic and King Edward VII). This contiuned with the dreadnoughts and superdreadnoughts. Invincible was longer than Dreadnought. Lion was over 100' longer than Orion, the difference in beam was not so dramatic (Invinvible was 3.5' narrower than Dreadnought, Lion and Orion were both 88' in beam - the fineness of the hull was different, the battleships were wide over a greater portion of their length).
        For stability I assume since battleships were built for gunnery.

        Not until the treaties were the largest cruisers routinely smaller than battleships. The primary reason to have longer hulls in the faster cruisers was for economical top speed (the Frounde effect). The WWII fast battleship combined the attributes of the cruiser and battleship, and with treaty cruisers - battleships routinely became larger than their contemporary first class cruisers.
        Cruisers have patrol of the sea lanes as an inherent mission requirement.Either to raid or protect commerce or to find enemy units.

        Comment


        • #94
          Carriers as armored ships

          Naval aviation afloat got a big start on cruisers, with modified armored cruisers hosting the first fixed wing take offs and landings. Their high freeboard made them well suited to this work. Of course battleships had need of aircraft too, and the displacement to accommodate them, though the early turret top installations were rather impractical, and their lower freeboard made deck operations more difficult. The aircraft carrier soon evolved to take the place of these clumsy arrangements and allow offensive concentrations of aircraft to be brought to action. The purpose built aircraft carriers also were armored, adding them to the category of armored ships. The armor of a carrier is somewhat similar to that of a cruiser, with a belt protecting the machinery, an armored deck, and magazine protection, the bridge and control areas are also armored in most designs. Carrier armor was originally intended to protect against cruiser fire, since these were the ships most likely to be able to catch a carrier, which with its high freeboard could normally make good speed in heavy seas. The Washington treaties allowed 8” guns on carriers and both the USN and IJN commissioned carriers so armed, intending to have carriers beat off enemy cruisers with gunfire if necessary. As aircraft became a greater threat, the deck armor and AA armament was improved and protection from naval gunfire became less important. Torpedoes had been a threat since the inception of the aircraft carrier, and underwater protection was considered essential in a successful carrier design – this was even more important when aerial torpedoes became effective. Carriers are the largest armored ships afloat today. The details of modern carrier armor protection is classified, but it is well know to include deck, magazine, and bridge protection. The protection is designed to address modern threats and is different than the Krupp and STS armor of WWII, it is not practical to compare the modern and historical systems by armor thickness. While no modern super carrier has been damaged by an enemy in battle, several have survived catastrophic accidents, which demonstrated their effective armor protection.
          sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
          If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

          Comment


          • #95
            For all you ship model builders. Trumpeter is releasing a 1/350 USS Indianapolis CA-35 in 1945 fit sometime in May



            Gotta love the MS 32-7D she sported in 44.
            (a destroyer pattern BTW)

            Attached Files
            Last edited by Gun Grape; 08 Jan 13,, 01:41.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
              Naval aviation afloat got a big start on cruisers, with modified armored cruisers hosting the first fixed wing take offs and landings. Their high freeboard made them well suited to this work. Of course battleships had need of aircraft too, and the displacement to accommodate them, though the early turret top installations were rather impractical, and their lower freeboard made deck operations more difficult. The aircraft carrier soon evolved to take the place of these clumsy arrangements and allow offensive concentrations of aircraft to be brought to action. The purpose built aircraft carriers also were armored, adding them to the category of armored ships. The armor of a carrier is somewhat similar to that of a cruiser, with a belt protecting the machinery, an armored deck, and magazine protection, the bridge and control areas are also armored in most designs. Carrier armor was originally intended to protect against cruiser fire, since these were the ships most likely to be able to catch a carrier, which with its high freeboard could normally make good speed in heavy seas. The Washington treaties allowed 8” guns on carriers and both the USN and IJN commissioned carriers so armed, intending to have carriers beat off enemy cruisers with gunfire if necessary. As aircraft became a greater threat, the deck armor and AA armament was improved and protection from naval gunfire became less important. Torpedoes had been a threat since the inception of the aircraft carrier, and underwater protection was considered essential in a successful carrier design – this was even more important when aerial torpedoes became effective. Carriers are the largest armored ships afloat today. The details of modern carrier armor protection is classified, but it is well know to include deck, magazine, and bridge protection. The protection is designed to address modern threats and is different than the Krupp and STS armor of WWII, it is not practical to compare the modern and historical systems by armor thickness. While no modern super carrier has been damaged by an enemy in battle, several have survived catastrophic accidents, which demonstrated their effective armor protection.
              remember that after the treaties were signed, there were lots of Cruisers and cruiser hulls that either had to be scrapped or converted.

              Cruisers were the fastest ships in the fleet. Speed is something the carriers needed to launch planes.

              It was a perfect match.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                remember that after the treaties were signed, there were lots of Cruisers and cruiser hulls that either had to be scrapped or converted.

                Cruisers were the fastest ships in the fleet. Speed is something the carriers needed to launch planes.

                It was a perfect match.
                Yes, quite a few conversions were based on cruisers. One of the biggest problems was that cruisers were lively ships, and were not ideal for flight operations because of it. After the initial cruiser conversions exhibited these problems, efforts largely shifted to the purpose built fleet carriers (CV), and the easy to produce escort carriers (CVE), often based on tanker hulls - which were a little bigger and stronger than freighter hulls (freighter hulls were used too). The escort carriers had more favorable seakeeping behaviors for flight opps, other than their lower speed - which was a disadvantage. The light carriers (CVL) were based on cruisers, and they were fast - but their characteristic pitching and rolling made them harder to land aboard or take off from than the fleet carriers, or even the escort carriers. However, the escort carriers couldn't carry higher performance aircraft due to their low speed and short decks - while the light carriers could. They did complete a few final cruiser based light carriers near the end of the war, so they weren't completely abandoned - perhaps these later designs had improved stabilizers?

                I'm currently studying armored ships - my battleship studies have already delved into monitors, coast defense ships and armored cruisers - but treaty cruisers, protected cruisers and carriers are also armored ships. I hope to create a companion volume or volumes about these. Some day I'd love to do destroyers too (these are not armored ships) - but for right now I'm not planning that volume. I'm still working through that excellent Japanese cruiser book, and have some other good ones too - I am going to need to pickup a few more references on early carriers (WWI to WWII). I don't suppose I have access to enough information to write much on modern carrier armor - that topic will probably amount to a couple pages.
                Last edited by USSWisconsin; 08 Jan 13,, 03:15.
                sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                  Yes, quite a few conversions were based on cruisers. One of the biggest problems was that cruisers were lively ships, and were not ideal for flight operations because of it. After the initial cruiser conversions exhibited these problems, efforts largely shifted to the purpose built fleet carriers (CV), and the easy to produce escort carriers (CVE), often based on tanker hulls - which were a little bigger and stronger than freighter hulls (freighter hulls were used too). The escort carriers had more favorable seakeeping behaviors for flight opps, other than their lower speed - which was a disadvantage. The light carriers (CVL) were based on cruisers, and they were fast - but their characteristic pitching and rolling made them harder to land aboard or take off from than the fleet carriers, or even the escort carriers. However, the escort carriers couldn't carry higher performance aircraft due to their low speed and short decks - while the light carriers could. They did complete a few final cruiser based light carriers near the end of the war, so they weren't completely abandoned - perhaps these later designs had improved stabilizers?

                  I'm currently studying armored ships - my battleship studies have already delved into monitors, coast defense ships and armored cruisers - but treaty cruisers, protected cruisers and carriers are also armored ships. I hope to create a companion volume or volumes about these. Some day I'd love to do destroyers too (these are not armored ships) - but for right now I'm not planning that volume. I'm still working through that excellent Japanese cruiser book, and have some other good ones too - I am going to need to pickup a few more references on early carriers (WWI to WWII). I don't suppose I have access to enough information to write much on modern carrier armor - that topic will probably amount to a couple pages.
                  *I would strongly recommend an early 1900's Janes Book if you can find one. The one I have covers all of the above with exception of the carriers and subs.
                  Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                    Yes, quite a few conversions were based on cruisers. One of the biggest problems was that cruisers were lively ships, and were not ideal for flight operations because of it. After the initial cruiser conversions exhibited these problems, efforts largely shifted to the purpose built fleet carriers (CV), and the easy to produce escort carriers (CVE), often based on tanker hulls - which were a little bigger and stronger than freighter hulls (freighter hulls were used too). The escort carriers had more favorable seakeeping behaviors for flight opps, other than their lower speed - which was a disadvantage. The light carriers (CVL) were based on cruisers, and they were fast - but their characteristic pitching and rolling made them harder to land aboard or take off from than the fleet carriers, or even the escort carriers. However, the escort carriers couldn't carry higher performance aircraft due to their low speed and short decks - while the light carriers could. They did complete a few final cruiser based light carriers near the end of the war, so they weren't completely abandoned - perhaps these later designs had improved stabilizers?

                    I'm currently studying armored ships - my battleship studies have already delved into monitors, coast defense ships and armored cruisers - but treaty cruisers, protected cruisers and carriers are also armored ships. I hope to create a companion volume or volumes about these. Some day I'd love to do destroyers too (these are not armored ships) - but for right now I'm not planning that volume. I'm still working through that excellent Japanese cruiser book, and have some other good ones too - I am going to need to pickup a few more references on early carriers (WWI to WWII). I don't suppose I have access to enough information to write much on modern carrier armor - that topic will probably amount to a couple pages.
                    It was our first two, real, carriers, Lex and Sara that were built on Battlecruiser hulls. The next was built to a smaller size Ranger, and much slower. It was the lessons learned for those three ships that became the Yorktown class.

                    One has to wonder where our carrier program would have been without the 2 Battlecruiser hulls the the Washington treaty allowed for conversion to aircraft carriers. Would we have had something similar to the Essex class by 1942?

                    Or would we have been stuck with smaller, slower ships like the Ranger?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                      It was our first two, real, carriers, Lex and Sara that were built on Battlecruiser hulls. The next was built to a smaller size Ranger, and much slower. It was the lessons learned for those three ships that became the Yorktown class.

                      One has to wonder where our carrier program would have been without the 2 Battlecruiser hulls the the Washington treaty allowed for conversion to aircraft carriers. Would we have had something similar to the Essex class by 1942?

                      Or would we have been stuck with smaller, slower ships like the Ranger?
                      Yes, the Lexington class were great ships, they turned out better than expected, arguably the best of the treaty conversions. I believe they set a high standard of quality for USN fleet carriers that enabled the Essex class to be built - the USN expectations were forged by these fast big ships. The Ranger was a curious ship, perhaps an effort to see if cheaper carriers would surfice? The Yorktown class and the smaller Hornet were good steps away from the Ranger.

                      The cruiser based carriers I was thinking of were the Cleveland based Independance class.

                      Light aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                      sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                      If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                      Comment


                      • japanese cruisers



                        some interesting cruiser details - WWII Japanese cruisers were formidable torpedo cruisers - equipped wih up to 16 x 24" tubes.

                        scans from Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War, Eric LaCroix and Linton Wells II, 1997
                        Attached Files
                        Last edited by USSWisconsin; 12 Jan 13,, 00:52.
                        sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                        If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                        Comment


                        • Japanese cruisers pt 2



                          The armor protectiion on the Tone was substantial.

                          Note the effort to compensate for lack of fleet carriers with aircraft cruisers.
                          Attached Files
                          sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                          If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                          Comment




                          • Japan used the main guns on many of their heavy ships as AA weapons, even the 18.1" guns of the Yamato class were equipped with special AA projectiles. This is an 8" cruiser version of the WWII IJN "Bee Hive" AA projectile.

                            Their projected use was to break up enemy formations at long range. They were used in many sizes, including 5"/40.

                            American naval aviators, attacking ships using these projectiles, commented that the shells made an impressive fireworks display, but they were not very concerned about their effectiveness.

                            Japanese WWII Naval AA was built around three weapons, the 5"/40 type 89, the 25mm/60 type 96 and 13mm/76 type 96. There were variations, but in general, these three weapons were the most modern types widely used. Japanese fire control and projectile fusing were not at the same level as the USN, who had excellent radar AA fire control and proximity fusing on 5" projectiles. The Japanese were using time fuses up to the end, and their radar was several generations behind the current USN equipment at the end of the war.
                            1. The 5"/40 type 89 gun was similar to the US 5"/38, though it had slightly lower muzzle velocity (2360 fps IJN vs 2500 fps USN), ROF 14 rpm IJN, 20 RPM USN.
                            2. The 25mm was similar to the 20mm Oerlikon, but used more cumbersome mounts and had a lower rate of train and elevation, it used 15 round clips which substantially reduced its rate of fire. MV 2953 fps, ROF 110 rpm.
                            3. The 13mm was similar to the USN 0.50 hmg with lower MV, and was obsolete soon after the war began. MV 2641 fps ROF 250rpm


                            A new 3.9"/65 type 98 DP gun was being introduced at the end of the war, it was a significant improvement over previous weapons. MV 3281 fps, ROF 21 rpm.



                            Japanese Cruisers, an impressive fleet.




                            In interesting Japanese practice in WWII (appearently starting in the 1930's) Canvas spliter armor - canvas bundles used to augment the ship's protection.
                            Attached Files
                            Last edited by USSWisconsin; 13 Jan 13,, 07:23.
                            sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                            If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                            Comment


                            • just ordered: 'U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History' by Norman Friedman
                              I added Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887-1941 too.

                              (my daughter wanted a replacement stylus for her nintendo DS3 - and I ended up getting something for myself too...)

                              I'm planning to study the armor layouts of the early carriers - to compare them with cruiser armor and better understand how it was arranged. The subject of historical armored ships is very interesting to me these days - having looked at battleships and their predecessors the ironclads in detail, I feel that cruisers and carriers warrent some attention too.

                              I've got a great article I' reading now in Warship Vol 6 about Kaga and Akagi - a few scans will be forthcoming.
                              sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                              If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                              Comment


                              • Talos M30 nuclear missile
                                These government films are fantastic, they were very professional and had high production values. Thier subjects were classifed until this century.

                                The internet has now made them accessable at no cost, I used to pay a lot for VHS tapes of this stuff - now a much more complete assortment is available online.







                                Last edited by USSWisconsin; 21 Jan 13,, 23:58.
                                sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                                If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X