The question remains: who built the best cruisers?

[C4PT41N_0BV10US]

Hello there!
As some of you might know, I'm a big fan of cruiser class, both in game as in real life. I always admired the unique features of those combat vessels, their durability, flexibility and some kind of romantic feel about their taks - sailing far away, protecting and ambushing, often the "lone wolf". Recently I tried to get an answer - which cruiser was the best one and which nation built the best cruisers? I only had limited access to sources, namely Friedman books about US Navy and Royal Navy cruisers, as well as few monographies about Japanese, Italian and German vessels. But, although I read all of them recently, I couldn't really get straight answer. Sure, I could learn a lot about their flaws and their advantages, but there is no easy conclusion or summary (my beef with Friedman books is that he omits showing and analising how the designs worked when tested in battle. I assume it would double the volume of his books, but without that they're just numbers).

 

Now, to narrow my question a bit, and to give it a proper context - I'd like to know, which cruiser in your opinion was the best. The period that particularly interest me is post WW I up to the end of WW II (so Des Moines class is out). I would also like to point a few "guidelines" in your evaluation, such as:
1. Ship to ship combat ability.
2. Designed task and ability to fullfill it.

3. Survivability

4. Question of modernisation and added equipment.

5. Hospitability.

6. Seekeaping.

 

So, let me hear it. Which cruiser was the best one in your opinion, which one was able to tackle it's tasks to the fullest, which one embodied the most important features of a cruiser in it's design. You can try to divide the time period (1919 - 1945) into three parts: post WW I, post Washington treaty and wartime designs. 

I'd just like to ask to leave your national bias out of this discussion. I know we're all proud of our ships, but for the sake of the argument, just drop it (it's easy to say for me, Polish Navy didn't built a single cruiser ).

[LastButterfly]

Hm. This is harsh.
Even if I don't have the tecnical knowledge, I think first and foremost that you can't really compare all cruisers together, as one should at least separate light from heavies. Besides that the notion of "best" is a bit harsh to define. It's like you're asking which destroyer was the best between Kagero and Fletcher : there's just no answer because they were made for completely different tasks. So, yeah, "designed task" is a criteria you raised, but how do you compare the designed tasks ? Cruiser for combat vs cruiser for escort... Who gets the most points ?

 

Aside from that, although I may not be of much use, let me at least proceed by elimination :

Amongst the 7 naval powers at the outbreak of WWII (USA, Japan, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy and Russia)...

I think we can rule out Russia and the UK, for they didn't have many modern cruisers at all. It's not that the few cruisers they had were bad, they just weren't recent enough (unless you wanna count paperships and battlecruisers as cruisers, in which case just don't read any further because I decided that battlecruisers and paper ships were off the charts)
The French didn't have much occasion to build or modernize cruisers during the actual war so I think we can rule them out too.

Since we're going to the end of WWII, I think Italians had been outclassed by then. Then again, if you count heavy leaders like the Späkreuzer and Capitani Romani as cruisers it may not be as definite as it sounds.
The battle would happen between Japan, the USA, and Germany. I'm keeping germany in cause I don't actually know much about the war-time evolution of the Prinz Eugen class.

 

From there on, the battle would be between Takao, Prinz Eugen and Oregon City for heavy cruisers, and Agano, Cleveland, maybe Juneau for the light cruisers. I'm ruling ou Nurnberg simply because I think it's obvious but if you can defend her I'm all ears, I'm not very knowledgeable in german ships.

You'd also have to make a point about Mogami, since she's a special case, and maybe Ooyodo although this one would be quicker. Studying Takao would be interesting as we'd also have to assess the efficiency of Maya's refit.

As for light cruisers, I think Agano wouldn't be up to the task against the americans, but then again, they just were made for SO different tasks.

[C4PT41N_0BV10US]

I understand the difficulties here, but that was the point in generalisation. Cruisers are a class that were known for their flexibility. They perform multitude of tasks, from commerce raiding to carrier escort, and they are expected to be able to perform each task equally good. For example, theoretically, I would like to choose Baltimore class as the best cruiser. Therefore I need to ask a number of questions whether this particular class can perform each of it's roles as a cruiser better then anyone else. If not, then does it's supremacy in certain fields outweight it's deficiency in other ones. For example, Baltimore was armed with 8" guns, which were lackluster when it came to fighting escorts and other cruisers - raw volume of fire was much more desirable here, hence the Cleveland class was a bit better suited to fight destroyers and other cruisers. However, Baltimores were better protected etc. It's the weight of the pros and cons that interests me. I understand that it is hard to choose one class and say - that's the bestest of them all, but it might be an interesting excersise to try

 I think we can rule out Russia and the UK, for they didn't have many modern cruisers at all.

Woah, Royal Navy didn't have modern cruisers? 

 

[LastButterfly]

Woah, Royal Navy didn't have modern cruisers? 

 

Weren't you the one who told us to try and avoid national bias ? =3

 

Royal navy didn't have any modern heavy cruisers. Did they even build any heavies after Exter ? And it was back in about 1930.

I dunno about their lights, but for heavies, Royal Navy's out.

And honestly, for the lights, even though they indeed had moderns, I'm not sure how far in the ranking they'd got...

 

I'm no good with raw comparison but I answer more precise questions better if that's what you want. If not I guess someone else will have to be useful.

[C4PT41N_0BV10US]

Remember that the time stamp here is from 1919 to 1945, so the Counties and Exeter are a viable choice. And while yes, they stopped building the heavy cruisers after Exeter, their "light" cruisers were "light" only by designation of their artillery. There is nothing light about Town class. 

Also, please remember, that heavy cruiser and light cruiser are very different from the protected and armoured cruiser designation. Heavy and light cruiser is strictly referring to their guns, not to their capabilities, which is misleading. Clevelands are light cruisers despite displacing more then 11 000 tons, and Pensacolas are heavy cruiser while displacing 9000 tons. Both of those cruiser classess had to perform similar roles (Clevelands were focused on AA though). So, while yes, RN didn't have "modern" (ie. 1944 modern) heavy cruisers, their light ones were modern, numerous and, exactly, how good were they?  

[Verdius]

Hello there!

As some of you might know, I'm a big fan of cruiser class, both in game as in real life. I always admired the unique features of those combat vessels, their durability, flexibility and some kind of romantic feel about their taks - sailing far away, protecting and ambushing, often the "lone wolf". Recently I tried to get an answer - which cruiser was the best one and which nation built the best cruisers? I only had limited access to sources, namely Friedman books about US Navy and Royal Navy cruisers, as well as few monographies about Japanese, Italian and German vessels. But, although I read all of them recently, I couldn't really get straight answer. Sure, I could learn a lot about their flaws and their advantages, but there is no easy conclusion or summary (my beef with Friedman books is that he omits showing and analising how the designs worked when tested in battle. I assume it would double the volume of his books, but without that they're just numbers).

 

Now, to narrow my question a bit, and to give it a proper context - I'd like to know, which cruiser in your opinion was the best. The period that particularly interest me is post WW I up to the end of WW II (so Des Moines class is out). I would also like to point a few "guidelines" in your evaluation, such as:

1. Ship to ship combat ability.

2. Designed task and ability to fullfill it.

3. Survivability

4. Question of modernisation and added equipment.

5. Hospitability.

6. Seekeaping.

 

When it comes to hospitability IJN ships are notoriously cramped.

Myoko and Mogami also sufered quite a bit of damage during a typhoon in 1935 which revealed that the electric welding employed in their construction was not entirely up to snuf, although later ships would not have this problem.

 

If we take radar and fire control into account than it would probably default to the USN.

If we take hypothetical upgrades for certain ships Italy, France and Japan might become a bit more even, although USN and RN had a big lead in radar tech.

 

Tone class can also be considered quite decent at their intended role as a scout cruiser for carrier groups. They also received radar and upgraded anti air as the war progressed.

 

You'd also have to make a point about Mogami, since she's a special case, and maybe Ooyodo although this one would be quicker. 

 

Wasn't there a issue with the aircraft Ooyodo was supposed to carry?

[LastButterfly]

Wasn't there a issue with the aircraft Ooyodo was supposed to carry?

 

Yes, the concept was very clever but it turned out totally failed. However, the ship as a concept was pretty interesting.

The floatplane was a failure, it was supposed to be able to ditch its float but the system failed, only 6 were produced and used, and all were shot down.

 

Ooyodo was remodelled into a command ship latter on. I pointed her out because she got the best AA capabilities of a japanese light cruiser probably.

 

Remember that the time stamp here is from 1919 to 1945, so the Counties and Exeter are a viable choice. And while yes, they stopped building the heavy cruisers after Exeter, their "light" cruisers were "light" only by designation of their artillery. There is nothing light about Town class. 

Also, please remember, that heavy cruiser and light cruiser are very different from the protected and armoured cruiser designation. Heavy and light cruiser is strictly referring to their guns, not to their capabilities, which is misleading. Clevelands are light cruisers despite displacing more then 11 000 tons, and Pensacolas are heavy cruiser while displacing 9000 tons. Both of those cruiser classess had to perform similar roles (Clevelands were focused on AA though). So, while yes, RN didn't have "modern" (ie. 1944 modern) heavy cruisers, their light ones were modern, numerous and, exactly, how good were they?  

 

 

No matter if you take the Town's last batch or the Swiftsure class, they're equally one bit lower then several foreign CL and CA designs. If you wanna nitpick on the difference between light and heavy I'll have to throw back at you the Mogami class.

Mogami had a higher number of better guns than the Town class. The 155mm far outclassed the British 152mm in terms of penetration and range. Rate of fire was nearly the same - an few half seconds faster for the british one. In AA capabilities both were equally useless although Mogami's guns could actually fire on aircrafts while Edimburgh's ones just lost that ability.

I won't even mention the torpedoes.

Armor was pretty much similar in some points, with Edimburg's belt being more homogenous than Mogami's, but Mogami's deck being more homogenous than Edimburgh's. Speed, on the other hand, was a definite victory for the Japanese one as she could reach some crazy 37kn, 4 knots faster than the Town's class 33kn.

 

The picture isn't all that dark for Town as she had greater endurance and, with subsequent modernizations, greater anti-air capabilities than Mogami (although that wasn't very hard). But overall I think if you wanna compare cruisers to find the "best" in terms of WWII standards British cruisers don't stand a chance. I only compared her to Mogami as an exemple but I'm pretty confident I could do the same with other cruisers aswell.

 

Aside from that, do you count the Chapayev class, of which four units were laid down and launched in 39/41, among the candidates ? I'm just curious. After all, none were actually completed as project 68 and were only finished after the war as project 68k, so that's dubious.

[fallenkezef]

Forgetting the Dido class?

[LastButterfly]

Forgetting the Dido class?

 

Well he was talking about heavy-cruiser size light cruisers. The dido class is more of a small AA ship, nothiung like a cruiser made for combat. If anything, she should be compared to Atlanta. Now I haven't checked the stats and AA capabilities of thne British 134 and 114mm but allow me to doubt. In terms of AA cruiser, beating Atlanta's gonna be harsh, especially with only 8 to 10 guns.

 

Just checked, the 134mm had a better AA ceiling (14km compared to American 127mm's 12km). Appart from that, they get BLASTED by the US train rate, rate of fire, ammunition storage, lifespan, pretty much everything else, not to mention Atlanta carried more.

Once again I'm not saying Dido was bad. She just can't compete if we're trying to narrow the "best" cruiser, because in her field of expertise, other cruisers far outclass her.

[fallenkezef]

 

Well he was talking about heavy-cruiser size light cruisers. The dido class is more of a small AA ship, nothiung like a cruiser made for combat. If anything, she should be compared to Atlanta. Now I haven't checked the stats and AA capabilities of thne British 134 and 114mm but allow me to doubt. In terms of AA cruiser, beating Atlanta's gonna be harsh, especially with only 8 to 10 guns.

 

Just checked, the 134mm had a better AA ceiling (14km compared to American 127mm's 12km). Appart from that, they get BLASTED by the US train rate, rate of fire, ammunition storage, lifespan, pretty much everything else, not to mention Atlanta carried more.

Once again I'm not saying Dido was bad. She just can't compete if we're trying to narrow the "best" cruiser, because in her field of expertise, other cruisers far outclass her.

 

Fair enough, but you can't beat the British for seakeeping and handling.

[LastButterfly]

 

Fair enough, but you can't beat the British for seakeeping and handling.

 

The British cruisers weren't bad at all, they had their strong points and were fine ships. I actually like them a lot, far more than I like British destroyers.

I just don't think we can consider them if we're looking for the best of the best cruisers. No matter  how you take it, you'll always find a foreign cruiser that was more modern and outclasses them in a critical way.

 

We're looking for the best cruisers. I've never said British cruisers were mild or bad. They're just not the best.

[fallenkezef]

 

The British cruisers weren't bad at all, they had their strong points and were fine ships. I actually like them a lot, far more than I like British destroyers.

I just don't think we can consider them if we're looking for the best of the best cruisers. No matter  how you take it, you'll always find a foreign cruiser that was more modern and outclasses them in a critical way.

 

We're looking for the best cruisers. I've never said British cruisers were mild or bad. They're just not the best.

 

The thing is, there is no such thing as "best". You can create a pack of top trump cards and cherry pick individual features but there is always something on ship A that beats it on ship B.

 

Every nation built their ships to their own needs. Britain built "work horses" that could fulfill multiple roles to protect the largest empire in history while Nazi Germany built commerce raiders aimed at hitting British merchant ships.

 

Direct comparison is not always the best idea.

[LastButterfly]

 

The thing is, there is no such thing as "best". You can create a pack of top trump cards and cherry pick individual features but there is always something on ship A that beats it on ship B.

 

Every nation built their ships to their own needs. Britain built "work horses" that could fulfill multiple roles to protect the largest empire in history while Nazi Germany built commerce raiders aimed at hitting British merchant ships.

 

Direct comparison is not always the best idea.

 

Exactly the point I raised in my first post in this topic, yeah.

[fallenkezef]

 

Exactly the point I raised in my first post in this topic, yeah.

 

Aye, I agree with you.

 

Despite being a teaboy, I've never lied the whole "x is best" thing. I posted a tongue in cheek "British is best" thread a while back to make that point. What made the RN good was it's crew not the ships alone.

 

I wouldn't care much for an American cruiser lasting long doing patrols of the Atlantic followed by a short notice assignment to Hong Kong and then another extended Atlantic patrol before any major refit but a Town or County class could do that without breaking a sweat.

 

In a battlegroup, in calm pacific waters facing a Japanese fleet? I'll take the Atlanta please.

[LastButterfly]

 

Aye, I agree with you.

 

Despite being a teaboy, I've never lied the whole "x is best" thing. I posted a tongue in cheek "British is best" thread a while back to make that point. What made the RN good was it's crew not the ships alone.

 

I wouldn't care much for an American cruiser lasting long doing patrols of the Atlantic followed by a short notice assignment to Hong Kong and then another extended Atlantic patrol before any major refit but a Town or County class could do that without breaking a sweat.

 

In a battlegroup, in calm pacific waters facing a Japanese fleet? I'll take the Atlanta please.

 

Yeah, I saw your thread. Didn't think too much about it. I'm personnaly judging ships only on their technical characteristics so that's a different viewpoint.

Being a french boy it's hard to have some national bias (we had some cute Leaders but that's about it, I think).

But I really like the italians for they show how there's no such thing as best. Some of their ships had some elements that were revolutionary and critically above all others, combined with flaws so huge and drastic it made them pitiful. You just can't compare that to anything, when half of your ship is extremely good, but the other half is extremely bad. Thats about where I gave up on trying to find a "best" and just decided to enjoy every nation's most efficient ship of each type without trying hard to find a best.

 

It can lad to some weird outcomes such as suddenly starting to like Argentinian ships but overall it's better that way.

[fallenkezef]

 

Yeah, I saw your thread. Didn't think too much about it. I'm personnaly judging ships only on their technical characteristics so that's a different viewpoint.

Being a french boy it's hard to have some national bias (we had some cute Leaders but that's about it, I think).

But I really like the italians for they show how there's no such thing as best. Some of their ships had some elements that were revolutionary and critically above all others, combined with flaws so huge and drastic it made them pitiful. You just can't compare that to anything, when half of your ship is extremely good, but the other half is extremely bad. Thats about where I gave up on trying to find a "best" and just decided to enjoy every nation's most efficient ship of each type without trying hard to find a best.

 

It can lad to some weird outcomes such as suddenly starting to like Argentinian ships but overall it's better that way.

 

Don't sell yourself short. France had some great ships in WW1 and had an amazing fleet at the outbreak of WW2.

[LastButterfly]

 

Don't sell yourself short. France had some great ships in WW1 and had an amazing fleet at the outbreak of WW2.

 

I really like our later destroyer leaders, indeed (the first, Chacal, Guépard, l'Adroit were pretty mild with really low rate of fire). They may outclass their Russian counterpart along with the Capitani Romani, even if the latter was made specificaly to counter Le Fantasque.

Cruisers... were decent, but I don't think it'd go any further. Sure, for Washington cruisers, they were good. But we didn't have anything better than Algérie. De Grasse and Colbert would have been impressive had they been completed in the 40s.

As for Battleships... We had Richeulieu as out best. But once again that's a Washington BBs. Sure, they were great... But better stuff came after. And I personnaly like comparing them to Littorio, because it's actually not that easy to know which one would have defeated the other in term of raw performances or in a duel.

 

And carriers... yeah. At least we had one.

 

Sure, France had some "good" ships. Just... Not great, awesome, or revolutionnary designs. Some interesting stuff like the quadruple turrets arrangement here and there... But overall nothing breath-taking.

Well, at least that's my viewpoint. Doesn't help that I don't really like their design, but that's down to personnal taste ^^.

[Ferry_25]

OP. Not to criticize you but I think you mean in your title question "who built the second best cruisers?" Your question is rhetorical.... OK, I'll dignify that question with an answer: Netherlands. Duh!!! The whole word is derived from "Kruiser."

[Elenortirion]

Cruisers are a class that were known for their flexibility. They perform multitude of tasks, from commerce raiding to carrier escort, and they are expected to be able to perform each task equally good.

 

I'd like to drop on in there, and say - no.

 

you see problem is that the very broad term "cruisers" is used for every ship within medium scale of warships, and were defined mostly by displacement and main claiber artillery.

But no one expected them to be "flexible all doers".

 

each navy of the period had different doctrine about usage of medium sized vessels which was heavilly dependent on realities of those navies

 

no one in kriegsmarine expected their cruisers to escort carriers - because kriegsmarine didn't have one in the first place.

I am unsure about royal navy cruisers, must admitt this side is not my strongest one....

 

and even then USN and IJN had major differences in their concepts too - for IJN the first and primary task of a cruiser was to to perform recoinassance for the fleet, and secondary to be able to to combat and defeat enemy cruisers - for grand most ofthem they didn't expected them to escort carriers [when designed and built, further changes and remodels could provide some exceptions to this on few vessels] - they have build armada of destroyers specifically for that purpose - [and if you wondered why japanese are considering akizuki class their most usefull ww2 destroyer design this is why]

 

and then you have USN whith a broad array from treaty cruisers, designed anti-air cruisers, and late war doctrine of "everything in fleet is there to escort and protect the carrier"

 

and hence considering how widely different roles meant for cruisers actually were it is really difficult to judge which cruiser did it's job best when compared to the others because you do not have that direct tranlsation between the roles to compare :/

[C4PT41N_0BV10US]

@Elenortirion

I disagree. While the focus on the most important task at hand was indeed changing the characteristics of various cruiser designs, they were not "specialised" ships, apart from few like Alaska or Atlanta class. If they would be so specialised as to unable to perform other roles, why did Baltimore class retain it's 8" guns? Cause it was expected from them to be able to hold their own if they would be faced with surface opponents. And what defines the cruiser is not their displacement and their artillery, but the roles they performed. They were reconeissance vessels (or fleet scouts to use better term), raiders, commerce protection vessels, escort vessels, skirmisher, destroyer flotillas leaders. They role was defined by their endurance and range, by the very task they had to perform. For example, if you take machinery into account, there were destroyer type boilers and engines that had almost the same power as cruiser ones, while being much more compact and lightweight. However, they had limited endurance and needed a lot more maintenance then bigger cruiser like machinery. Hence, limited ship independence and their effective range. And this is a no go for a cruiser which is expected to patrol, scout and sail long distances. 

 

Now, I don't really expect anybody to drop here and say this and this ship or navy had the best cruisers. What I expect is someone to take this as a thinking experiment and say: considering all pros and cons of vessel X, in my opinion it performed it's roles with the best effect and thus, for me is the best cruiser.

 

Before I dug a bit deeper into some literature, I thought that Fiji's were superb vessels. 12 6" guns packed on moderate size hull, great seakeeping ability, decent protection for it's weight, torpedoes, good range and endurance. But then, I read about how cramped they were, how hard was for RN to modernise them due to limited topweight, and how their compartamentalisation wasn't the best there was. Same was with Clevelands. So, then I thought, all right, Baltimores look promising. Enough displacement for modernisation, good protection, plenty of space, great AA, good range and speed. But then I read about 8" guns and how ineffective they were at their designed tasks due to limited rate of fire. Engaging anything of cruiser and smaller size was much better done with 6" guns, since the limited propability to hit demanded more shells in air then more punch in each shell. The answer would be Des Moines class, but it didn't take any part in any action during WW II. So the question still bothers me, which cruiser was the closest one to ideal cruiser? Cleveland? Agano? Improved Towns? Baltimore? 

 

 

[LastButterfly]

Cleveland? Agano? Improved Towns? Baltimore? 

 

If you find Batimore's guns slow-firing, you're gonna be disappointed in mostly any other heavies from the same period.

 

I really would easily rule out Agano. She still used the Vickers built 15cm as only Ooyodo got the japanese built version. She had very few guns too, and they weren't that great. Her real advantage was only the Long Lance and if you wanna go for torpedoes, I'd say pick a destroyer rather than her.

Agano was a decent light cruiser but by far not the best.

 

If you wanna compare lights, I'd say you add Luigi di Savoia Duca Degli Abruzzi. All in all they were very fine ships, despite the lower rate of fire of their main guns than others from the same era, they proved to be extremely reliable in fighting and had the italian's usual great muzzle velocity and range without having to elevate the gun too much, resulting in good armor penetration for guns of their size (at the cost of the barrel's lifespan). Their torpedoes were efficient aswell. The ships were still relatively fast, and had as a major improvement over the past batch of the condottieri superclass her armor which was by all means very respectable for a ship of her type.

They received a radar during the war, and at the expense of the catapult and torpedo armament, a more correct AA.

[sparviero142]

 

Don't sell yourself short. France had some great ships in WW1 and had an amazing fleet at the outbreak of WW2.

How to be insulted ? I will show you

Don't sell yourself short. France had some great ships in WW1 and had an amazing floating target for allied aircraft at outbreak of WW2.

[LastButterfly]

How to get insulted by anyone ? i show you

Don't sell yourself short. France had some great ships in WW1 and had an amazing floating target for allied aircraft at outbreak of WW2.

 

He. French AA was bad indeed.

Italian's shipborn AA wasn't much better tho. Aaah if only those pesky 90mm could stop breaking on their own without even being used, just cause the ship was rocking a lil... =3

[C4PT41N_0BV10US]

 

If you find Batimore's guns slow-firing, you're gonna be disappointed in mostly any other heavies from the same period.

 

I really would easily rule out Agano. She still used the Vickers built 15cm as only Ooyodo got the japanese built version. She had very few guns too, and they weren't that great. Her real advantage was only the Long Lance and if you wanna go for torpedoes, I'd say pick a destroyer rather than her.
Agano was a decent light cruiser but by far not the best.

 

If you wanna compare lights, I'd say you add Luigi di Savoia Duca Degli Abruzzi. All in all they were very fine ships, despite the lower rate of fire of their main guns than others from the same era, they proved to be extremely reliable in fighting and had the italian's usual great muzzle velocity and range without having to elevate the gun too much, resulting in good armor penetration for guns of their size (at the cost of the barrel's lifespan). Their torpedoes were efficient aswell. The ships were still relatively fast, and had as a major improvement over the past batch of the condottieri superclass her armor which was by all means very respectable for a ship of her type.

They received a radar during the war, and at the expense of the catapult and torpedo armament, a more correct AA.

That's the lesson the navies learned during WW II. For cruiser artillery you need RoF to reliably hit fast moving, evading, middle to small profile target. Hence the Des Moines. However, with Des Moines, the US Navy realised that building 20 000 ton cruiser is not the best way to provide fleet with what it need. However, I'm not ruling out 203mm guns cruisers. I just try to show that it's not a clear advantage, in fact it's not desirable at all. I'm trying to balance out what makes a cruiser a good cruiser.

 

Threfore, second part of your post is splendid. How would you compare it to let's say Leander/Amphion class or De Ruyter class? How good in terms of structural contruction and compartamentalisation was it, and how reliable it's machinery was?   

 

[sparviero142]

 

He. French AA was bad indeed.

Italian's shipborn AA wasn't much better tho. Aaah if only those pesky 90mm could stop breaking on their own without even being used, just cause the ship was rocking a lil... =3

 

Italian AA was one of the majior weakness of the Italian ship (with the absence of the radar) so i think that even the Zara class (most powerfull italian heavy cruiser) cannot be compared with american ones. the weak AA was a problem also of the japanese one (the performance of the 25mm was bad)

so maybe but maybe one of the best cruiser was the Baltimore? have good firepower and nice AA, Radar and good armor, but she has "low"speed (not the 36 or 37 knots) and he dose not have any torpedo.

It's difficult in my opinion to pick one and say "this will win against all of them" there are a lot of factor that can change the end of the battle.