SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Heavy Cruiser Discussion

16204 views
84 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Heavy Cruiser Discussion
Posted by searat12 on Friday, October 24, 2008 5:29 AM

Just as a subject for discussion, what is your favorite heavy cruiser (or class of heavy cruiser), and why?

These are probably my favorite ships of the 20th century, and (arguably!) bore the brunt of most of the fighting, certainly this was the case in WW2..... There is such diversion in design styles (even wthin nationalities), and such different emphasis on different features that there is a lot to choose from!

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Friday, October 24, 2008 7:27 AM

Well, if the Alaska and her sister Guam count (they were CBs, not CAs) then these are mine.

Image:USS Alaska (CB-1)-1.jpg

Image:Uss alaska cb.jpg

If you mean straight up heavy cruisers then the USN's Des Moines class. I like their lines and rapid fire 8" guns.

Here is the USS Des Moines:

Image:USS Des Moines CA-134.jpg

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: istanbul/Turkey
Posted by kapudan_emir_effendi on Friday, October 24, 2008 8:37 AM
 searat12 wrote:

Just as a subject for discussion, what is your favorite heavy cruiser (or class of heavy cruiser), and why?

These are probably my favorite ships of the 20th century, and (arguably!) bore the brunt of most of the fighting, certainly this was the case in WW2..... There is such diversion in design styles (even wthin nationalities), and such different emphasis on different features that there is a lot to choose from!

I think you pointed to a very good subject. My knowledge about 20th century naval history (in an analytical way) is limited compared to earlier eras. However what I did understand from my limited sources is that; after the Washington Treaty, battleships get very scarce to risk in anything except major sorties so the heavy cruiser de facto replaced battleship as the main gun armed capital combatant. My all time favourites among heavy cruisers are those of Italians, for their sheer beauty and excellent design. I recently received the 1/350 kit of Pola from Banner/Minihoby models and it's one of the loveliest plastic ship kits I ever seen. Heartily recommend to grab one if you can find !

Don't surrender the ship !
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, October 24, 2008 2:16 PM
Scharnhorst
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Connecticut, USA
Posted by Aurora-7 on Friday, October 24, 2008 4:27 PM

 searat12 wrote:
These are probably my favorite ships of the 20th century, and (arguably!) bore the brunt of most of the fighting, certainly this was the case in WW2.....

I guess that's true. I think the only Battleship to Battle ship encounter in the Pacific what the Washington and Kirishima. Most battleships were firing and shore positions or enemy aircraft.

For favorite cruiser, mine is the USS San Francisco.

 

 

 

 

  • Member since
    April 2004
  • From: S.C. Beach
Posted by roowalker on Friday, October 24, 2008 4:45 PM
    S.M.S. Scharnhorst,1914
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Friday, October 24, 2008 5:09 PM
I like the lines of the Japanese Cruisers, in particular the Mogami Class. Very sleek. The Japanese designs were a very good blend of speed, firepower, and protection. Their surface combat record in the opening year of the Pacific War is hard to beat.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: San Francisco, CA
Posted by telsono on Friday, October 24, 2008 5:37 PM

Uss Houston (CA-30)

Mike T.

Beware the hobby that eats.  - Ben Franklin

Do not fear mistakes. You will know failure. Continue to reach out. - Ben Franklin

The U.S. Constitution  doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. - Ben Franklin

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Friday, October 24, 2008 9:33 PM

I see several battlecruisers being mentioned, so let's stick to heavy cruisers!  Basically, everyone was 'supposed' to stick the same basic statistics under the various treaties after WW1, but the variety of design approaches is quite remarkable! 

For my own part, I am very fond of the US 'Northampton' class, partly because of their quite heavy firepower for their size, but also the hull lines, with that wonderful swooping swan bow, the tripod masts and general balance of the design (too bad the armor was so thin, but you could only pack so much into the 'treaty' requirements)!  That said, I also have a lot of admiration for the Japanese 'Takao' class, but in this case it has to do with the massive bridge structures and bristling gun-turrets.  The whole thing just seems so massive and hulking, until you look at the underwater lines and realise what a 'slippery' hull these cruisers had in order to attain the speeds these ships were capable of....

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Palm Bay, FL
Posted by Rick Martin on Saturday, October 25, 2008 3:23 AM
I have more than one heavy cruiser in mind. The US Northhampton class, IJN Haguro, RN Pola each of these bring different things to the table in my mind. Sleek lines, heavy fire power etc. There are also lite cruisers I like such as USS Cleveland and her sisters. These ships all served their respective countries far beyond their original design parameters. The cruisers were to the modern navy what the frigate was in the days of fighting sail. Of course my favorite ship type was the destroyer, go an;ywhere, do it all ships but not a part of this thread. Hey, not a bad idea here, a thread about everyone's fav destroyer (I'm partial toward one class since I served on one)  Rick Martin
"Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons" General Douglas Macarthur
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Saturday, October 25, 2008 9:09 AM

We can start a destroyer thread too, and other ship-types as well!  My favorite light cruisers are either the Brooklyn class, or the Omaha class....

As for heavy cruisers, the more I think about it, the more I like the Takaos.... An enormous amount of firepower, heavy torpedo armament (the 'Long Lance' was the best in the world, good armor (except on the turrets), long range, and very fast... Hard to beat!  In fact, the US 'Alaska' class battlecruisers were designed specifically to deal with cruisers like this....

Someone earlier (Effendi?) mentioned that the heavy cruiser in many ways replaced the battleship during WW2, but I'm not so sure the analogy is quite right.  Instead, I would say the heavy cruiser replaced the battlecruiser, as the concept of high speed, heavy armament and relatively light armor is more in line with that initially proposed for the battlecruiser.  By the time of WW2, battlecruisers (either old and refurbished, like the Kongo's and Renown's, or new, like the Scharnhorsts and Dunkerque's) had really morphed into the 'fast battleship' role, and thus were not really available for the role of scouting, commerce-destroying, and point defence.  I think this was partially a result of combat experience in WW1, but also because of the severe reductions in the sizes of fleets after the Versailles treaty, London and Washington conferences.  There simply weren't enough battleships around to form fleets and squadrons that might require really powerful scouting/screening forces, and this role was taken over by the heavy and light cruisers, while the battleships were carefully preserved for individual carrier TF protection and shore bombardment duties.....

This raises a couple interesting questions......

First, if the various treaties and conferences hadn't taken place, or had failed to limit battleship construction, and/or allowed existing battleships and battlecruisers of WW1 to be preserved instead of scrapped, how would that have altered the makeup and employment of WW2 naval forces?

Second, if a sufficient number of battleships/battlecruisers had been available in WW2 to make up squadrons and fleets like in WW1, how would that have affected the notion of overwhelming 'carrier superiority?'

In answer to the first (and conveniently ignoring the economic hard facts of the Great Depression), I suspect that many of the naval forces centered around heavy cruisers in WW2 would have been composed of battleships, and in fact, the concept and development of the heavy cruiser might not have arisen at all!  Engagements between heavy (armored) cruisers and dreadnoughts in WW1 proved conclusively that heavy cruisers were pretty much worthless when confronted by dreadnoughts (SMS Scharnhorst squadron vs HMS Invincible squadron), and no further cruisers of this type were built by anyone until the post-war conferences severely limited the production of battleships/battlecruisers (and much more to be said on this topic!).....

In answer to the second, I suspect the impact of the aircraft carrier might have been much less, and certainly not enough to warrant the abandonment of the battleship concept.  With enough battleships in a squadron, their AA capabilities could well have staved off wholesale destruction by carriers, and certainly, carriers without battleships were incredibly vulnerable to aircraft attacks themselves (carrier AA defense was the primary activity for the US fast battleships in WW2, and they performed magnificently in this role).  In virtually every case of battleships caught at sea by aircraft, they were either alone, already crippled, or completely without any supporting aircraft.  The Japanese tried 'battleship mutual support' at Leyte, but of course by this time there were just so MANY US aircraft in the air and so few Japanese, that the mission was bound to fail in any case.  That said, Admiral Kurita's 'Northern Force' of five battleships managed to make it to Samar and engage the US 'Jeep' carriers, losing only one battleship (Musashi) along the way due to US airpower (and several heavy cruisers from US submarines), despite having virtually NO air support at all!  My guess is that if Kurita had had the kind of friendly airsupport available only a year prior, his mission might well have been far more successful, and perhaps might have generated the kind of 'what if' battle with Kincaids' squadron of old US battleships so beloved and and argued over by strategists for the last 60 years!

 

  • Member since
    May 2008
  • From: UK
Posted by Billyboy on Saturday, October 25, 2008 1:01 PM

Well pre-Washington Treaty days, the Hawkins class (1915) of Cruisers were pretty much the protoype of the 'proper' Heavy Cruiser, assuming we ignore the earlier and lighter Birmingham Class (of which the famous HMS Sydney was built in the image thereof). Not a very lucky class though!

I must admit a special affection for Battle Cruisers though, especially the Renown/Repulse class.

Will 

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Ozarks of Arkansas
Posted by diggeraone on Sunday, October 26, 2008 8:41 AM

Well as for me,I guess it would have to be...........

Opps sorry the last pic is not a ship.................lol....,Digger

Put all your trust in the Lord,do not put confidence in man.PSALM 118:8 We are in the buisness to do the impossible..G.S.Patton
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:38 AM
Yes.... But WHY is USS San Francisco your favorite?
  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Western North Carolina
Posted by Tojo72 on Sunday, October 26, 2008 2:12 PM

The IJN Takeo Class     just mean looking,diffrent,fast,and very effective

 

 

ps     light cruiser SMS Emden........love the whole saga she went thru

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Ozarks of Arkansas
Posted by diggeraone on Sunday, October 26, 2008 7:08 PM
Why is the Frisco my favorite?Well that is and easy one.My dad served on her during WWII...Digger
Put all your trust in the Lord,do not put confidence in man.PSALM 118:8 We are in the buisness to do the impossible..G.S.Patton
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Monday, October 27, 2008 8:50 AM
 anthony2779 wrote:

The IJN Takeo Class     just mean looking,diffrent,fast,and very effective

 

 

ps     light cruiser SMS Emden........love the whole saga she went thru

Last week there was a 'Star Wars' spectacular on TV (all the movies in sequence), and as I was watching, I noticed the Imperial 'Star Destroyers' really reminded me of Japanese WW2 warships, with the big 'pagoda' superstructures, etc.  I wonder if that is where the prop designers got their ideas?
  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Monday, October 27, 2008 11:16 AM

well I'm gonna be the odd ball here as usual. I'm casting my vote towards the cruiser Olympia if for no other reason than looks alone!

gary

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Monday, October 27, 2008 11:51 AM
Nothing wrong with USS Olympia (though it was an armored cruiser), though I like USS Brooklyn better (love that ram bow and sponsoned main guns).....
  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:14 AM

 searat12 wrote:
Nothing wrong with USS Olympia (though it was an armored cruiser), though I like USS Brooklyn better (love that ram bow and sponsoned main guns).....

I don't think I've ever seen a photo of the USS Brooklyn.

gary

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 7:51 AM

CA 3 USS Brooklyn:

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:41 PM
 searat12 wrote:

CA 3 USS Brooklyn:

yes it's a neat ship, but still like the looks of the Olympia better

gary

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:43 PM
I like the Brooklyn because it is better armed (6 x 8" guns per broadside), has better armor, is more maneuverable, is better able to use its guns in a seaway, and is faster than Olympia, even though it dates from the same era (Olympia is a 'protected' cruiser, while Brooklyn is an armored cruiser).  What do you think of USS New York?
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Lyons Colorado, USA
Posted by Ray Marotta on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:41 PM

My absolute favorite heavy cruiser is CA-148  The USS Newport News.  Her call sign was

"Thunder" and with good reason.  On August 27, 1972 Thunder pulled off a good old fashioned

cruiser raid on Haiphong Harbor in North Viet Nam.  The raid lasted 33 minutes and the ship

expended 433 rounds of 8 inch, 532 rounds of 5 inch, and, 33 rounds of 3 inch.

She was also the last of the big gun cruisers to be taken out of service.

Ray

 ]

 

 

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 6:33 PM
The Newport News' ship's wheel is mounted on the bulkhead on the current Newport News SSN-750 and is polished everyday. I would say that none of the crew realizes where that wheel steered her namesake. Thanks for reminding me about that raid, one of the guys in my old navigation division was on the bridge of the older Newport News during that action. The next time SSN-750 pulls into port I'm going to mention it to the CO.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Thursday, October 30, 2008 11:10 AM
 Ray Marotta wrote:

My absolute favorite heavy cruiser is CA-148  The USS Newport News.  Her call sign was

"Thunder" and with good reason.  On August 27, 1972 Thunder pulled off a good old fashioned

cruiser raid on Haiphong Harbor in North Viet Nam.  The raid lasted 33 minutes and the ship

expended 433 rounds of 8 inch, 532 rounds of 5 inch, and, 33 rounds of 3 inch.

She was also the last of the big gun cruisers to be taken out of service.

Ray

It was either the Boston or the Newport News that used to run a route from way up towards the Chinese border south to maybe the Nha Trang area. Shot for us several times, but for the life of me I can't remember their call signs. New Jersey was "Big Boy." They used to virtually park and setup shop right off the coast line of North Vietnam and just hammer them all night long. Rumor had it that there were S.F. inserted to do the down range fire direction

gary

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: Mansfield, TX
Posted by EdGrune on Thursday, October 30, 2008 11:40 AM
 squeakie wrote:

 searat12 wrote:
Nothing wrong with USS Olympia (though it was an armored cruiser), though I like USS Brooklyn better (love that ram bow and sponsoned main guns).....

I don't think I've ever seen a photo of the USS Brooklyn.

gary

Look here!

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/acr3/acr3.htm

Plenty of pictures of the Brooklyn armored cruiser

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Monday, November 3, 2008 2:04 AM

I kinda wanted to add this to the heavy cruiser thread even though it is almost off topic.

On October second the Submarine USS Ohio surfaced in about the same place the Indianapolis was sank. Then Machinest mate 1st Class Jason Witty emerged with a silver pitcher containing the ashes of Boatswain Mate 2nd Class Eugene Morgan. Mr. Morgan was a crew member onboard the Indianapolis when it was torpedoed on that fatefull day. The ashes were cast into a calm sea. Mr Morgan passed away last june at the age of 87 years.

gary

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Monday, November 3, 2008 5:39 AM
Thanks for letting us know about this, I haven't heard of a sub performing this ceremony before.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Monday, November 3, 2008 11:55 AM

 subfixer wrote:
Thanks for letting us know about this, I haven't heard of a sub performing this ceremony before.

There was a picture of the ceremony in the Indianapolis Star with a nice write up. Might just toss in here that if your every in Indy; a trip to the U.S.S. Indianapolis Memorial is a must see. I'll try to get a link to the story.

gary

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.