Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cluid

heavy cruisers?

7 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[AX2OM]
Players
34 posts
257 battles

what is classed as a Heavy Cruiser please, in Japanese and American lines, thanks in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
3,864 posts
6,936 battles

There is no general definition when a ship is a heavy cruiser or not, as some past navys try to "cheat" the treaties. But as a rule of thumb: Ships with 203mm guns (or higher) were considered as heavy cruisers. The "heavy" is more connected to the armament and not the armory for cruisers.

 

And also the game do not distinguish between light and heavy cruisers, when it comes to game mechanics.

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,767 posts
12,107 battles
5 hours ago, principat121 said:

There is no general definition when a ship is a heavy cruiser or not, as some past navys try to "cheat" the treaties. But as a rule of thumb: Ships with 203mm guns (or higher) were considered as heavy cruisers. The "heavy" is more connected to the armament and not the armory for cruisers.

This.

For the IJN you can have these guns already with Furutaka at tier V all the way to tier X ( but at tier VIII you have a choice with Mogami ). So you could say this is more a CA line.

 

The US cruisers lines are about to be split in a CA and CL line from tier VI. The CA line is already in game, the CL will come soon ( the Cleveland at tier VIII is already in game ).

 

5 hours ago, principat121 said:

And also the game do not distinguish between light and heavy cruisers, when it comes to game mechanics.

Yes and no, the US CL are far more squishy armor wise than the US CA, so you'll have to play a bit more cautious. Also, because of the shells and caliber you lose a lot of AP power with the US CL line. But in general, neither one of the US cruiser lines are a kiting type of cruisers like the IJN ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AX2OM]
Players
34 posts
257 battles

thank you very much guys, I'm learning so much on here

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRKEN]
Beta Tester
3,552 posts
8,863 battles
23 hours ago, principat121 said:

There is no general definition when a ship is a heavy cruiser or not, as some past navys try to "cheat" the treaties. But as a rule of thumb: Ships with 203mm guns (or higher) were considered as heavy cruisers. The "heavy" is more connected to the armament and not the armory for cruisers.

 

And also the game do not distinguish between light and heavy cruisers, when it comes to game mechanics.

Limit defined by naval treaties (not participated by Soviet Union) of inter war period is at 155mm.

It had nothing to do with armoring.

Which is really thin in for example in Pensacola to comply with weight limit set for cruisers by Washington Naval Treaty.

Causing it originally to be classified as light cruiser until London Naval Treaty finalized gun caliber limits.

Light cruisers like USS Helena actually had thicker armor belt.

 

 

Game mechanics wise usually lot faster reload/rate of fire of light cruisers was supposed to be balanced by weaker HE penetration.

(only Mogami's 155mm penetrating 25mm plating)

But IFHE gives light cruisers same HE penetration as heavy cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AS13]
Players
1,849 posts
2,021 battles

First I imagined the 'heavy cruiisers' being like Graf Spee, but it is different.

They are more in between the Spee and a light cruiser. 

 

No matter, a BB will be able to delete them in one salvo, if a bit of luck is with the BB.

I have already deleted a few with the Arizona. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,843 posts
2,580 battles

It's quite simple really. Anything armed with a gun above 155mm is either a heavy cruiser (156-200ish mm), or a battleship (anything above that)

 

Dates back to those silly disarmament treaties of the 20's and 30's.

 

NB I call those treaties silly because they utterly failed in to do anything but to start a whole new arms race, not that disarmament treaties themselves are on their own silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×