What was the best Treaty Heavy Cruiser in service in 1939? in Battleship Vs Battleship Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

What was the best Treaty Heavy Cruiser in service in 1939?

Author	Comment
Getz	What was the best Treaty Heavy Cruiser in service in 1939?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 1160 May 14 11 6:36 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I've been thinking a lot about Heavy cruisers recently and have begun to wonder which nation achieved the best balance of speed, firepower and protection. A couple of rules... 1) The class must have at least one example in service as of September 1st, 1939. The only nation who carried on designing new heavy cruisers after this point were the US, so naturally classes like the Des Moines would be better on the basis that they were the last of their kind. 2) The ships should be compared in their condition as of 1st September 1939 - considering late war radar and AA modifications obviously penalize the ships of nations like the French. 3) By all means discuss ships that weren't compliant with the Washington Treaty, but they're disqualified from "winning" on the basis that if you cheat and allow yourself an extra 1000 tons or so you will probably get a better ship... Traditionally the French Algerie is often considered the best treaty compliant Heavy cruiser of the pre war period, and it's hard to argue with that, but I have to say I'm rather liking the RN's York and Exeter on the basis that by trading away some guns they actually managed to keep good speed and get decent protection - and all in a lower cost, 8500 ton design...
	Remove this ad
bgile		#1	[-]
Posts: 3569 May 14 11 7:23 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Richard Worth wrote a book about this. IIRC his conclusion was USS Wichita was the best one which actually conformed to the treaty. I think the Algerie was significantly over the treaty displacement of 10,000 tons, as were a few of the others.
Sachmle		#2	[-]
Posts: 221 May 14 11 8:18 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	bgile wrote: I think the Algerie was significantly over the treaty displacement of 10,000 tons... http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?language=E&period=&idtrida=151 says 10,000t std http://www.navypedia.org/ships/france/fr_cr_algerie.htm says 10,109t std
Vincenzo		#3	[-]
Posts: 439 May 14 11 9:01 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	i'm a fan of italian Zara class as best heavy of 30s but they are overweight. for the radars i think they are not a trouble for that time. the best maybe Algerie or Wichita, Algerie has (afaik) best deck protection but Wichita (afaik) best belt protection, Wichita has advantage to be the newest cruiser on the limit ot the thread
Theodore		#4	[-]
Posts: 8990 May 14 11 9:30 PM Wheat Boss Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wichita and Algérie are the front-runners, with the overweight Zaras a close third. I generally prefer Wichita on the basis of an extra gun and greater endurance. Armor schemes come down to what you think is more important but I like Wichita's heavy belt. I also prefer her aviation arrangement (aft) to that of Algérie (amidships.) York and Exeter appear to have been a very successful British attempt to argue that you couldn't build a satisfactory 8-inch cruiser on much less than 10,000 tons.
bennett0		#5	[-]
Posts: 1618 May 14 11 9:40 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I have to go with Wichita. Except for the Japanese (which were grossly over treaty limits) and Pensacola class, she (along with the other US 8" gun cruisers) had the heaviest main battery of any 8" cruiser. Her secondary/AA battery arrangement allowed five guns to fire on either beam, three ahead and three astern. Her protection was also good, and her endurance was greater than any European cruiser. When she was built the US was still scrupulous about treaty limits, to the point of completing her without one pair of waist 5"/38 singles to make she she was under 10,000 tons. The only other Navy that careful was the RN. Her aircraft arrangements copied the Brooklyn class with the hangar and catapults right aft, a much safer place than amidships. She was less modified during WW2 than other US 8" cruisers, but Friedman says this was because the USN decided to wait until she suffered enough battle damage to need a major refit, and that never happened. Bennett
Tiornu		#6	[-]
Posts: 7809 May 14 11 11:37 PM Corn Boss Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Zaras have to be on the top-cruiser list, but yes, they were well over the tonnage limit. The Japanese ships have to be there if your navy is looking to roll the dice on a way to counter the enemy's superior battle line. But for general cruiser duties, Wichita and Algerie seem to be the pack leaders. I don't believe Algerie cheated on tonnage by way of coal protection as some predecessors did.
Ed		#7	[-]
Posts: 3797 May 15 11 12:16 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	My first choice is also the USS Wichita, CA45. But I think the SMS Admiral Hipper falls into a "none defined treaty heavy cruiser". Germany was not a signatory of either the WT or the LT. But Germany did have a naval treaty with Britian called the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935. This treaty essentially set the total tonnage of the Kriegsmarine at 35% of the total tonnage of the RN. Hipper came in with a (advertised) standard displacement of 12,500 tons, which was allowed under the AGNA. She had a full load displacement of some 18,500 tons. Her more famous sister of her class, SMS Prinz Eugen, was much bigger with a standard displacement of some 14,000 tons. But PE was not in commission on 1 September 1939, either. I also always liked the HMS Dorsetshire. I don't care at all about any of the French or Italian CAs. The CAs of the IJN were all cheaters. Ed
Tiornu		#8	[-]
Posts: 7809 May 15 11 1:32 AM Corn Boss Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Hipper was advertised as being 10,000 tons but actually displaced more than 14,000 tons. The Germans were bound to the same cruiser limits in tonnage and gun caliber as the other major fleets.
bgile		#9	[-]
Posts: 3569 May 15 11 3:42 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Ed wrote: My first choice is also the USS Wichita, CA45. But I think the SMS Admiral Hipper falls into a "none defined treaty heavy cruiser". Germany was not a signatory of either the WT or the LT. But Germany did have a naval treaty with Britian called the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935. This treaty essentially set the total tonnage of the Kriegsmarine at 35% of the total tonnage of the RN. Hipper came in with a (advertised) standard displacement of 12,500 tons, which was allowed under the AGNA. She had a full load displacement of some 18,500 tons. Her more famous sister of her class, SMS Prinz Eugen, was much bigger with a standard displacement of some 14,000 tons. But PE was not in commission on 1 September 1939, either. I also always liked the HMS Dorsetshire. I don't care at all about any of the French or Italian CAs. The CAs of the IJN were all cheaters. Ed It's funny you should say that, because there is a post war photo with Dorsetshire steaming alongside Prinz Eugen, and the latter makes Dorsetshire look tiny. The German CAs were way over the treaty limit, and all three were the same size.
Admiral Beez		#10	[-]
Posts: 8057 May 15 11 4:44 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I've always liked HMS London. Modern looking bridge structure, 8x8" guns, good turn of speed. None of the British cruisers are going to win the "best" award, but Britain definitely wins points for greatest quantity of competitive cruisers, second only to USN by 1945..
	Remove this ad
Joshua Kintner		#11	[-]
Posts: 2682 May 15 11 6:13 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It's funny you should say that, because there is a post war photo with Dorsetshire steaming alongside Prinz Eugen, and the latter makes Dorsetshire look tiny. The German CAs were way over the treaty limit, and all three were the same size. I'd like to see that, since HMS Dorsetshire was sunk in the Indian Ocean Raids alongside Cornwall in '42.
Theodore		#12	[-]
Posts: 8990 May 15 11 7:09 AM Wheat Boss Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Hippers are good candidates for worst 8in cruiser. I do have a soft spot for HMS London and the County class in general.
ickysdad		#13	[-]
Posts: 5411 May 15 11 7:33 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think bgile was talking about a picture in J. C. Taylor's German Warships of World War Two" on page 24. It shows Prinz Eugen being escorted by HMS Devonshire on May 26,1945 after her surrender in Copenhagen. Yes the RN ship is completely over shadowed in size by the German ship.
bgile		#14	[-]
Posts: 3569 May 15 11 8:11 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joshua Kintner wrote: It's funny you should say that, because there is a post war photo with Dorsetshire steaming alongside Prinz Eugen, and the latter makes Dorsetshire look tiny. The German CAs were way over the treaty limit, and all three were the same size. I'd like to see that, since HMS Dorsetshire was sunk in the Indian Ocean Raids alongside Cornwall in '42. Yep my bad I apparently confused the name Dorsetshire with Devonshire. Old person's memory.
ViribusUnitis		#15	[-]
Posts: 848 May 15 11 8:17 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'd go for USS Wichita too - good guns and armour, and very good range. Truly a cruiser for Pacific operations. I've always wondered what the extra displacement of the german heavy cruisers was used for - they don't outgun or outrange the US or UK cuisers. Nitpicker on: HMS London as shown in the picture came out of this refit in 1941, so she wouldn't count in that version. German Ships after 1918 have no SMS, as there was no Empire navy anymore. SMS Prinz Eugen was an Austro-Hungarian dreadnought battleship.
Getz		#16	[-]
Posts: 1160 May 15 11 11:37 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I believe that a fair amount of the excess tonnage of the Hippers was devoted to a proper torpedo bulkhead and sufficient beam to take advantage of it (and ten sufficient length to keep the hull fineness). IIRC, most treaty cruisers were forced to rely on subdivision alone against underwater attacks.
bgile		#17	[-]
Posts: 3569 May 15 11 4:12 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	In fact even the Alaska's TDS/torpedo bulkhead was considered by the USN to be pretty much worthless because the ship lacked sufficient beam. Even battleship TDS often failed to prevent a 21" torpedo from defeating it. I suspect the German TDS on their CAs was likewise wasted space for the most part.
Getz		#18	[-]
Posts: 1160 May 15 11 5:58 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Perhaps. I certainly think that the Hippers demonstrated that you needed to go significantly over 10,000 tons to get a balanced 8" heavy cruiser. I don't think they were very good ships in themselves, however. Okay, there seems to be a string consensus that USS Wichita is the winner, so who comes second? Last Edited By: Getz May 15 11 8:08 PM. Edited 1 times.
Joshua Kintner		#19	[-]
Posts: 2682 May 15 11 6:56 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	As for second place, the London subclass of the RN County class Heavy Cruiser meets the tonnage requirements. Then there is the modified Northamtpon class Heavy Cruiser, the USS Portland. Then there is also the French Suffren class Heavy Cruisers. I've always preferred the Argentina Venticino De Mayo class Heavy Cruisers over the RN Exeter class and IJN Aoba class Heavy Cruisers in the realm of reduced displacement 6-gunned heavy cruisers.
StuartB		#20	[-]
Posts: 127 May 15 11 7:37 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Not sure you could compare the Venticino De Mayo with Exeter. The Argentinian vessels were overgunned, under armoured and had stability problems. Not surprising when you consider they were trying to cram an almost heavy cruiser armament onto a condotierri light cruiser hull. The Exeters are approx 1500 tons heavier with heavier main armament, heavier armour, greater range and a good reputation for seakeeping.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

What was the best Treaty Heavy Cruiser in service in 1939?

What was the best Treaty Heavy Cruiser in service in 1939?