Ok, what was the best Armored Cruiser of them all? Usually the best one of each navy would be the last one each navy built. The major contendors, as I would
call them, would be the USN Tennessee class (Memphis class), the British Minotaur class, the German Blucher class, and the Italian San Girogio class, plus a
few others. I had difficulty looking up stats for the French Edgar Quinet class. Tennessee class stats: Displacement: 15,870 tons full load
Armament: 4x10" (2x2) 16x6" 22x3" 4x21"TT Armor: 3-5" belt 1-3.5" deck 2.5-9" turrets 4-7" barbettes 2-9" CT
Speed: 22 knots Minotaur class: Displacement: 14,600 tons full load Armament: 4x9.2" (2x2) 10x7.5" (10x1) 5x18" TT Armor:
3-6" Belt 3-7" Barbettes 8" Turret 0.5-1.5" Deck Speed: 23 knots Blucher class: Displacement: 15,590 tons full load
Armament: 12x8.2" (6x2) 8x5.9" (8x1) 16x3.45" (16x1) 4x17.7" TT Armor: 2.5-7" Belt 7" Turret 2-3" Deck Speed: 24.5 knots
San Giorgio class: Displacement: 11,300 tons full load Armament: 4x10" (2x2) 8x7.5" (4x2) 3x17.7" TT Armor: 7.9" Belt
2" Deck 6.2"-7.9" Turret 9.7" CT Speed: 23.2 knots Rurik class: Displacement: 15,170 tons full load Armament: 4x10"
(2x2) 8x8" (4x2) 2x18" TT Armor: 6" belt 7-8" turret 6-8" barbettes 1.5" deck 3" casemates 8" CT Speed: 21 knots
Edgar Quinet class: Displacement: 13,900 tons full load Armament: 14x7.64" Armor: ??? Speed: 23 knots From these stats, for overall
blend, I would put San Giorgio, Rurik, and Blucher in the top three.
Best Armored Cruiser? 1900-1914
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Joshua Kintner |
Best Armored Cruiser? 1900-1914 |
Lead | |
|
Registered Member
Posts: 303 (19-Jan-2008 06:53:52) |
Last Edited By: Joshua Kintner 20-Jan-2008 22:25:34.
Edited 1 time.
|
||
|
Tiornu |
|||
|
Posts: 6898 (19-Jan-2008 07:10:33) Corn Boss |
Assuming you exclude dreadnoughts, then the winner has to be Ibuki, doesn't it?
|
||
|
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2755 (19-Jan-2008 07:58:51) |
Ibuki:
Displacement: 14,636 tons (standard); 15,595 tons (max) Length: 147.8 meters waterline Beam: 23.0 meters Draught: 8 meters Propulsion: Two Shaft Geared Turbine Engines; 24,000 shp Speed: 21. 5 knots Range: 5,000 nautical miles at 14 knots (26 km/h) Complement: 844 Armament: * 4 × 305 mm guns; * 8 × 203 mm guns; * 14 ×120 mm guns; * 4 × 80 mm guns; * 3 × 450 mm torpedo tubes Armor: * belt: 100-180 mm; * barbette & turret: 125-180 mm; * conning tower: 200 mm; * deck: 75 mm Of course, Japan re-classified them as BC 28 August 1912, so it may not count either. I must point out, however, that the Invincible class BCs were also originally designated "Armoured Cruiser". |
||
|
Plamen1974 |
|||
|
Posts: 1996 (19-Jan-2008 11:35:53) |
If you don't count Ibuli and Tsukuba classes, which is typical preadreadnought ships, you must not count Blucher whcih no matter of her smaller calliber
guns is all-big gun conception. If we want to have vorrect comprsion - include Tsukuba and Ikoma and exclude Blucher.
|
||
|
Tiornu |
|||
|
Posts: 6899 (19-Jan-2008 12:53:12) Corn Boss |
Joshua can correct me, but I think the spirit of the question deals with ships before the all-big-gun switch, which would include Blucher. Blucher gets a lot
of attention, but I don't know why. Is she such a leap from Quinet?
|
||
|
borys68 |
|||
|
Posts: 2340 (19-Jan-2008 13:21:13) |
Ahoj!
What about the italian ships, like Regina Ellena? Do they qualify? Or maybe all these "doubtfulls" - with 12" inch guns and/or uniform armament - are but a stepping stone to a - for want of better name - light battleship? The "I's" are - in my eyes - ACs, and very different from the 13,5" ships. In my eyes the "I's" and Bluecher and the 2 or 4x12" gunned ships are all the logical - even though diferent - outcome of previous evolution. For comparatibility's sake, maybe limit the evalaution to ships with "armament of 10" or less guns, with strong secondary battery". Boirys |
||
|
Tiornu |
|||
|
Posts: 6900 (19-Jan-2008 13:41:02) Corn Boss |
Good point. Even the battleship Regina Margherita has stats very similar to those of the Japanese foursome. The RM did not label ships with any distinction
between battleships and large cruisers. I think Regina Margherita and Pisa were both rated as "1st class warships."
|
||
|
Dave Bender |
All big gun conception | ||
|
Posts: 5952 (19-Jan-2008 16:41:50) |
Plamen1974 wrote: That was standard German design practise. From the 1900 AC Prinz Adalbert through the 1907 AC Blucher they all used 21cm main guns and 15cm secondary guns.
German pre-dreadnoughts followed a similiar design philosophy from 1890 onward with a single main gun size and a single secondary gun size. HMS Dreadnought
essentially just copied the German lay out, except it was much larger allowing it to mount many more main guns then the relatively small German
pre-dreadnoughts.
|
||
|
Red Admiral |
|||
|
Posts: 1801 (19-Jan-2008 17:41:29) |
Brin and Regina Margherita are both a bit slow compared to the other ships but they are a fair bit earlier as well. However their high freeboard should allow a
reasonable sea speed. Armour is around the armoured cruiser standard but the 12" + 8" guns means that she packs more of a punch than most ACs. The
later Regina Elana class are even more in the armoured cruiser style with a uniform armament of 12x8" guns and 2x12" for very armoured targets. Speed
is increased to around the same mark of 22knts as her contemporaries but armour is far heavier.
HMS Dreadnought essentially just copied the German lay outThat statement is at best bizzarre. The all-big-gun layout arose from improvements in FC which made it possible to hit at longer ranges, and at longer ranges a larger gun is able to put more weight of shell on target. |
||
|
Getz |
|||
|
Posts: 345 (19-Jan-2008 22:15:18) |
Regarding Ibuki and Blucher, despite the Ibuki's bigger guns I would have to say I think the Blucher was superior. She was certainly faster and was better
protected too. It is my opinion that the Ibuki represented a rather uncomfortable attempt to build an armoured cruiser that could stand in the line of battle
without the advantage of Turbine propulsion. The Blucher was a much more balanced and therefore successful design.
|
||
|
Psilander |
|||
|
Posts: 720 (19-Jan-2008 22:31:39) |
Whoat about HMS Fylgia. I know she is probably the smallest, but she has the weaponry and protection to beat the ligth/protected cruisers which she is intended
to do. But her small size does not fool a captain or admiral to use her i a line of battle. She is probably the most balanced armoured cruiser by her time,
powerfull, but small
 She is the most beautiful anyway.
|
||
 NewGolconda |
|||
|
Posts: 3053 (20-Jan-2008 00:03:28) Commonwealth Moderator |
Lots of silly answers. Indomitable was the best of the armoured cruisers. And completed before many of these other contendors too...
|
||
|
Tiornu |
|||
|
Posts: 6901 (20-Jan-2008 00:43:15) Corn Boss |
Not silly at all. Do you really prefer Indomitable to Hindenburg?
|
||
|
Tiornu |
|||
|
Posts: 6902 (20-Jan-2008 00:47:19) Corn Boss |
"The IJN Ibuki, laid down in 1907, doesn't look like a a cruiser."
You need to familiarize yourself with the speed standards of the day. Ibuki was designed as an armored cruiser to be used as an armored cruiser. |
||
|
NewGolconda |
|||
|
Posts: 3054 (20-Jan-2008 00:51:15) Commonwealth Moderator |
Silly in that rating the best of the armoured cruisers while excluding ships built at the same time, or even earlier is ridiculous. That would only make sence
if there was a naval treaty preventing dreadnought ships firing upon pre dreadnoughts.
Hindenberg was an excellent battle-cruiser, or a fair fast battleship that over emphasised speed at the expense of fire power. |
||
|
Tiornu |
|||
|
Posts: 6903 (20-Jan-2008 01:17:34) Corn Boss |
I think it can be gainfully discussed if limited to by a suitable criterion. That's why I suggested the pre-dreadnought design. It's not a
chronological unity, but I think it works to set a common design theory.
|
||
|
Lionage |
|||
|
Posts: 2 (20-Jan-2008 02:08:05) |
IMHO, of the pre-dreadnought armoured cruisers, the Rurik was probably the best. The other late cruisers (Defence, Tennesse) were also much superior to any of
as little as three years earlier. The Edgar Quinet and Blucher lacked the havy guns (9.2", 10") of others, so would have been at a disadvantage.
However, the Blucher's speed advantage would have got her close to any of the others, if the heavy guns didn't do enough damage to stop her first.
The San Marco and Pisa classes are massively over rated. They have the same armament as the Rurik, are faster but at only two thirds of the displacement. Something had to give, which means protection. I expect they'd be cannon fodder to another late 10"/9.2" gunned armoured cruiser. The Italians seemed to be obsessed with fast, heavily gunned, light ships. The Rurik was almost certainly faster than 21 knots. She was designed to be able to maintain 21 knots easy steaming, which suggests she was probably good for a couple of knots more if push came to shove. |
||
|
Dave Bender |
Indomitable was the best of the armoured cruisers. | ||
|
Posts: 5958 (20-Jan-2008 02:40:25) |
I suppose so, if cost is no object. But for that much money it ought to be better then any AC.
HMS Indomitable cost £1,752,337. The German counterpart would be SMS VdT, which cost about £1.74 million. These 2 ships are a good comparison, as the prices are so close. SMS Blucher cost about £1.36 million. HMS Minotaur cost £1,410,356. |
||
|
Joshua Kintner |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 304 (20-Jan-2008 02:59:49) |
I generally tried to exclude "Reclassifieds" from the contest, or in other words, Armored cruisers that were later re-rated to battleship or
battlecruiser standards, like Ibuki and Tsukuba classes. I don't recall Blucher or any of the other ones I listed in the contest as being re-classified,
other than to heavy cruisers after WW1.
Blucher did have a design flaw where the forward side turrets had to recieve their ammunition from the rear side turrets, as they did not have magazines below those turrets. I always did like how the French armored cruisers looked like the two front halves of different ships joined together in the after sections with the funnel arrangements. |
||
|
Tiornu |
|||
|
Posts: 6904 (20-Jan-2008 03:30:50) Corn Boss |
Hindenburg had the same rating as Roon: large cruiser.
|
||
|
Creeping Death1929 |
|||
|
Posts: 951 (20-Jan-2008 05:00:47) |
Getz wrote:I think that if you look, Ibuki had turbines as well, a pair of Curtis direct drive turbines. Ibuki had a 4 - 7" belt and 7" turret faces, just like Blucher, so she was equally well protected. |
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
