What is a Cruiser? | A Portholes Special | w/ Ryan Szimanski  

The almost adversarial energy that permeates cruiser episodes is hilarious. I really wasn't sure what to expect when the episode opened and Ryan was just kind of grumpily slouched there and Jack was nowhere to be found: had he been imprisoned in one of the dummy barrels of the main battery? Hidden away in a triple expansion engine? Who knows?

Love the sweatshirt Ryan is wearing, enjoyed the video. Thank you!

One thing I have noted and recounted over the last year that worked against the Alaska classes retention where the stockpiles of Munitions their 12-in guns simply didn't have enough surplus of ammo and it would have been costly to reactivate production post World War II and there were just more 16 inch shells lying around then there were 12 in shells for the Alaska's which worked against their retention I've seen various conflicting sources to production of Munitions and newer generation 16 inch shells over the years. But all sources and information that I have encountered would conclude that it would have been, if not entirely prohibitive, certainly worked against them as they're just wasn't the ammunition reserved for the 12-inch guns for the Alaska and given the war in Korea add conflicts on the horizon they were just deemed as disposable and expendable and on that not worth the investiture for reactivation.

All editions of the Naval Legends: Cruisers is sold out. 😢

To me it seems in the modern day the Ticonderoga is the modern battleship, going through retirement again. Arkwright burkes definitely seen like a cruiser, or stowaway the Zumwalts were

The WW II US cruisers were very impressive in operation when in a surface engagement, some being able to fire a truly frightening amount of projectiles at a target, and performing AA protection in the Pacific operations, but unfortunately too many of them took on the role of being torpedo magnets due to the IJN's terribly effective long lance torpedo's and a good strategy of deploying them. I always thought that the way the IJN had the strategy of launching torpedo's upon first contact as an excellent strategy, because it's one of the few times in engagements where you are fairly certain where the friendly and opposing forces ships are before the confusion of battle and maneuvering rearranges everything. It seems the USN finally caught onto and started using that tactic as time went on.

Side note: I'm still mad that Olympia isn't available in World of WarShips

Dad’s ship USS Shangri La went on shakedown with Battlecruiser/Cruiser Battle/Big cheese/Super duper Cruiser USS Guam , I’m glad he was safe ! I think it’s a cool ship

Robert Lundgren just released a new study on the Nov 13 Battle of Guadalcanal that helps connect the cruiser fights to the PAC 10 orders that vastly improve USN surface doctrine. The Naval Battle for Henderson Airfield is where the USN makes a last stand against IJN Battlecruisers using only Cruiser/Destroyers forces and beats the Kentai Kessen by getting under their belts and put 6 Torpedoes into the Hiei and several 8" slavos too.

A cruiser is like a balk in baseball. Not a single person in the stadium could explain what a balk is, but when you see it happen we all start yelling 'That's a balk!". Same thing for a cruiser... without the yelling hopefully.

So I watched this yesterday, but didn't get to crunching #s on "throw weight" of different main battery guns till tonight. So it was brought up mid-way thru the video that the 6"/47DP had a really high "throw-weight" of shells, as did the 8"/55RF due to their automatic firing systems and claimed to be more than Alaska's 12" guns. Well I decided to do a comparison, and to keep things fair and even, five minutes of continuous salvos from all the main battery barrels, and not just for the cruisers but also the battleships still in fleet service for more than just shore bombardment duties, from however respective #s of 16" or 14" barrels they had, as Alaska is often called a battlecruiser. So from 9 barrels for the 16"/50s and 16"/45s, 8 barrels for 16"/45s (such as on the three ships of the Colorado class BBs), 12 barrels for 14"/50s, 12 for 14"/45s, and 10 for 14"/45s, 9 for the 12"/50s, 9 for the 8"/55s and 12 for the 6"/47s. I did find one notation on the 16" gun loading cycle being 31 seconds to lower the barrel from 15 degrees to match the +5 degree loading tray angle, to reload it and the rate of elevation is 12 degrees per second, so presumably that's where the 2 per minute claim for the Iowa and South Dakota guns came from, but what happens if you need to raise the gun back and forth from say 41 degrees for long range shooting ? Then you're 36 seconds per cycle and the ROF drops to 1.66 per minute. Alaska's guns list 2.4 to 3.0 per second, and presumably that was based on different angles of elevation also with a similar 11.97 degrees per second elevation rate, but the loading tray angle is +7 degrees. Everyone else just had a single ROF # in the main archived data sheets of 1.5 or 1.75 per barrel for the other 14" and 16" guns, 10 for the 8" and 12 for the 6". Also I did calculations for the AP shells, HC shells and the filler weight of bursting charges values of those HC shells, and all these numbers are in pounds. 16"' guns of the Iowa, South Dakota and North Carolina class all were designed to handle the same 2700 pound AP and 1900 pound HC shells and 153.6 pounds of filler per HC, with the same 2.0 ROF per minute, so 243,000 AP / 171,000 HC / 13,824 filler. The older marks of 16"/45s of the Colorado class were 8 guns with smaller 2240 pound AP (but same HC) shells and a reduced ROF of 1.5 per minute. So the numbers drop to 134,000 AP / 114,000 HC / 9,216 filler. 14"/50s and /45s used the same shells, being 1500 pound AP, 1275 pound HC and 104.21 pounds of filler. With the Pennsylvanias forwards the ROF is 1.75 and they're all 12 gun ships so we get values of 157,000 AP / 133, 875 HC / 10,942 filler. With the Nevada and New York class the ROF drops to 1.5 and they're 10 gun ships so we get values of 112,500 AP / 95,625 HC / 7,816 filler. Alaska's 12"/50s used 1140 pound AP, 940 pound HC and 79.44 pounds of filler. So at the higher given 3.0 ROF its 153,900 AP / 126,900 HC / 10,724 filler and the lower given 2.4 ROF its 123,120 AP / 101,520 HC / 8,380 filler. If we were just going for the battlecruiser or not argument... the Alaska's at their higher given ROF out throw the Colorado, Nevada and New York classes in both types of shell and they're REALLY close to the 12 x 14" gun ships. Even at the lower given values they still beat the 10 x 14" ships. If you use the argument the unbuiilt Lexington class battlecruiser was to have 2/3 the main battery of the unbuilt 1920 South Dakota class battleships (8 instead of 12 16"/50s) and thus Alaskas would need to have 2/3 the gun capability of the Iowas to count, well... the Alaska's AP throw weight is about 63% that of the Iowas , the HC weight is 74% as much and the filler is 77% as much (and they're only giving up about 2,000 yards in maximum gun range for HC shells). And the secondary battery is about 60% as much. And in terms of armor the Alaskas carried a greater percentage of weight than the Lexingtons, and for that matter about 3/4 as much as the final three as built classes of BBs. Compared to the North Carolina which were only a couple years older in design/construction, Alaska weather and splinter deck thicknesses were the same, the main armored deck was 80% as thick (4 vs 5"), and the belt armor, conning tower, barbettes and turret faces were about 3/4 as thick or better. Anyway back to the throw weight math, the 8"/55RFs of the Des Moines are 9 guns of 10 ROF each firing 335 pound AP and 260 pound HC shells with 21.37 pounds of filler. So over the same five minute barrage we get 150, 750 AP / 117,000 HC / 9,616 filler. The 6"/47DPs of the Worcester class are 12 guns of 12 ROF each firing 130 pound AP and 105 pound HC shells with 14.09 pounds of filler. So the math totals up to 93,600 AP / 75,600 HC / 10,144 filler. So the 8"/55 guns come close to bettering the 12"/50s but the 6"/47s did not except in explosive filler weight. The thing is though, in the role of shore bombardment which is how many of these gun cruisers and battleships ended up hanging around for, the 6" gun maxed out at about 26,000 yards and the 8" went a bit past 30,000 yards. The 12"/50s went out to about 38,000 yards and the 16"/50s and 45s of the last three BB classes went out to 40,000. Given that the Alaskas, Iowas and Des Moines (and South Dakota and North Carolinas for that matter) all had nearly identical crew compliments, in hindsight it made more sense to keep the Alaskas around than the Des Moines.

Haha that's hilarious I said that before you guys said what you were pretty awesome I just clicked on this because I just went there 5 days ago I didn't think I would like to ship but I love it

Ticonderoga's are built on the hull of the Spruance/Kidd class Destroyers. Rather larger than the Arleigh Burkes...

26:25 THERE! You are about to destroy the nobody Michio Kaku with his "fragmenting a meteor in 1000 pieces makes it worse against the planet" FACEPALM! I prefer to fight 12 eight year olds in a box ring than to fight Mike Tyson (his prime year)... even if 12 eight year olds have quite a lot more mass 😂 A single Iowa Class or Yamato or ... shell impact has more energy than probably 12 eight inches shells, and that depends on what you are hitting. Heavy armor? 8" shells are a joke.... 16" 50 cal shells, that Myke Tyson angry lol 1000 pieces of meteor, not sure half would pass thru our armor (atmosphere)

Prinz Eugen is my favorite too. Stood toe to toe with ships twice her size and scored hits on both. (And yes haters, the British were firing back)

I like big boats and I cannot lie

I think caliber is the reason for the quick discarding if the Alaskas and Worchesters. The main battery of a unique size, the 11” guns with their whole seperate unique logistical tail becomes prohibitive especially when you have a left over war stockpile of common ammo(16”) and the drift away from 6” light cruisers for the USN.

The British Empire built 68 Armoured Cruisers and 105 Protected Cruisers before the end of 1900s and the last Topaze Class 3rd Class Protected Cruiser, HMS Amethyst is tested turbines before they go on HMS Dreadnought

16:30 and there is America's problem, congress not allowing the USN to build cruisers which put them in the situation that they faced the end of the 19th Century and into the early 20th century the world of cruisers was undergoing a transition from Armoured and Protected Cruisers that made up every navy’s cruiser fleet to the new type of cruiser, the Light and Heavy Cruisers, this revolution was being led by the Royal Navy of the British Empire and Kaiserliche Marine of Imperial Germany. This revolution would be started by the 105mm armed Gazelle Class in the Kaiserliche Marine but the 152mm armed 1910 Town Class and the 179mm armed Hawkins Class in the Royal Navy would set the example of the way cruisers were going with the 152mm armed Light Cruisers replacing the Protected Cruisers and 179mm or greater armed Heavy Cruisers replacing the Armored Cruisers. To make a bad situation worse, the Royal Navy thanks to HMS Invincible, had made the pre-WW1 era Protected Cruiser and the slower and bigger Armored Cruisers completely obsolete and WW1 was showing that the older, small, more fragile and obsolete pre-WW1 era Protected Cruiser and the slower and bigger Armored Cruisers simply were not good enough anymore. Due to having only completely obsolete Protected Cruiser and Armored Cruisers, the US Navy would have no idea what the enemy was doing until they got the range on the USN fleet while the enemy could scout the position of the USN fleet with the USN Cruiser screen being not able to stop them. And to make a bad situation even worse, in the event of a conflict with either Imperial Japan or the British Empire, the completely obsolete American Protected Cruiser and Armored Cruisers would be run down and slaughtered by the 356mm armed Kongos of the IJN or the 343mm armed Lions, Queen Mary or Tiger or 381mm armed Renown and Repulse of the Royal Navy or the under construction Hood and the Admirals.

Considering by the 1920s, the British Empire was looking at cruisers equal in size to early Pre-Dreadnought

Yeah Jack the American Des Moins is the near enough the same size as the Invincible Class Battlecruiser where as the Alaska Class Large Cruiser is getting to the same size as a refit Renown Class Battlecruiser

Oh happy day!! This showed up, I saw Ryan, read the vide title, and then when it posted. Wasnt until I got irritated thinking "WTF!! I watched yesterdays post from Battleship New Jersey yesterday. So whats this?!?!" Did I realize this is a different channel.. so more education from Ryan? Yes please.

I think if not for the treaties then heavy cruisers would have had 12 inch guns. The Alaska class are what heavy cruisers should have been. The Deutschland class again a heavy cruiser was able to save weight with diesel engines they probably saved around 4,000 tons without having to have boilers and they also had the longest range of any ship built through out the war and obviously having 6 guns in triples instead of twin best cruisers at that time without a doubt if not for graf spee engines getting hit then I think it would have took 1 heavy and 2 light cruisers it faced but Germany were a bit silly operating them were they did and so far away without extra support and without friendly docks near by. The Royal navy wanted to move from 15 inch guns straight to 18 inch guns post ww1 there was 2 designs with HMS hood having 18 inch guns but decided against it as 18 inch guns weren't researched enough and also the lack of overseas docks that could take the larger capital ships as the navy had to skip the next round of dock expenditure due to ww1.

Drachinifel did an episode on this very subject. In it, he pointed out that the definition is based largely on the general role the ship fulfills. For a time "battleships" were the primary surface combatant, with numerous small boats used primarily for coastal defense, eventually including torpedo boat killers/destroyers, which happened to be amenable to fast torpedo runs against battleships. Enter the submarine, to which the destroyer solidified as the go--to antisubmarine surface ship. Cruisers arose as anything and everything in between destroyers and battleships, able to stand up to any destroyer's guns and kill the destroyer, but not as large and costly as a battleship. Drach further pointed out that the first London Naval Treaty essentially set forth the basics of the definitions of the terms destroyer, cruiser, battlecruiser, battleship, and aircraft carrier, definitions which were further cemented and refined in the Washington Naval Treaty. While battlecruiser was defined as a cruiser killer protected against all cruisers' guns, it was the British Navy that pushed the battlecruiser's guns to essentially battleship size guns, as well as pushing speed and armor, essentially pushing the battlecruiser to become a fast battleship, blurring the distinction between battlecruisers and battleships, a transition that the German, US, and Japanese navies began to do as well. Drach also pointed out how frigates and corvettes fit into the scheme, such as the US adopting frigates as the most scaled down, smallest, and cheapest version of a destroyer attainable, and corvettes being the result of essentially the same endeavor but stopping at just larger than destroyers, making corvettes essentially destroyer flotilla leaders. And just as y'all remarked, Drach did as well, the naming conventions did change over time and from navy to navy, leaving little consistency aside from the definitions set forth in the naval treaties.

That the USS Olympia?

Don't forget Lexington and Saratoga had their four 8-inch mounts initially after conversion.

25:22 i would say that the British Empire was already at the point that Ryan is talking about before Washington Treaty as HMS Hood was over 6 million pounds, so the British Empire Royal Navy is facing that very problem before the Americans do

3:40 "The Love Boat...." 🤣🤣🤣 That's what normal people think... I would ask you guys: is USS Texas considered today "a cruiser"?? The specs and norms move every decade since the start of the XX century

Frankly without the treaty we know that the British Empire is going to a Baltimore Class sized cruisers in the early 1920s and I would argue that if cruiser construction had been allowed to procced unimpeded by treaty with the British Empire leading the way, we would have been hitting Des Moines Class sized cruisers by the 1930s as a replacement for the elderly Hawkins Class Cruiser which would be up for replacement by the 1930s and I have a feeling that the British Empire would stop at Des Moines sized cruisers for the job that we know as heavy cruisers

25:35 yeah Jack the British Royal Navy was already been In the position that the US Navy was in WW2 when it came to cruisers Heck you can legitimately argue that the British Empire never stopped building cruisers until 1961 and their cruiser was continuous with arguably no gaps in construction like the ones that the United States suffered

Arg - near 40minutes in, Hull form - Equating the Ticonderoga class cruisers with the Burke class destroyer as the SAME. NO. The Ticonderoga class cruisers are the same Hull form as the Spruance Class Destroyers- - just swap out - some newer much better weapons or sensors. OK - the Burke class destroyer - is the same propulsion plant - slightly smaller hull, some less equipment with smaller hull - some hull changes help the newer sensors electronics more easily fitted in. Modern World - weapons - I'd argue the Burke class should be called cruisers - Some Asian Ships with the Aegis system should be called cruisers (not all "foreign" Aegis ships re-labelled as that.) . Go look at the European nations - some of those nations call some ships Frigates, whereas by capability they should be called Destroyers. Great start to 2024- although lengthy, a Good Video discussion.

Really the Omaha Class would have been better ships had the Americans done what the British Empire had been doing by building cruisers for years In fact the British Empire because it built so many cruisers between 1870s and the 1900s gave itself the room it needed to step back and figure out what exactly they want for their next generation of cruisers as the Emerald Class Light Cruiser HMS Enterprise was and her sister HMS Euphrates would have been testbed ships for the next generation of Royal Navy Light Cruiser and Heavy Cruisers

A cruiser has to be fast and it’s role is to scout and is stationed between the highest threat and the carrier of the battle group. Also a cruiser is what ever the navy says it is. All ships roles change based on technology. This is a ridiculous debate.

So - If Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are commonly referred to as battleships…the Alaskas…were battleships 😅

Man binging this Playlist has forced me to start a new game of Rule the Waves III.

16:47 yeah but the British Empire could absolutely outbuild the Americans on cruisers pre-WW1 which they did

8:50 really the British Empire Royal Navy is a better candidate for looking at Cruisers as the British Empire had the idea of what cruisers were and what their job was and were for a good while ahead of everyone else in cruiser technology

On the book by Wargaming, can anybody give me a reconmendation?

*More* Ryan? Well - don’t mind if I do!

Through-deck-cruiser ? Stephen

Ticonderogas were built on Spruance Destroyer hulls (Jack said Arleigh Burke) I think he misspoke.

This was thought-provoking. The major reason that Coast Guard patrol boats are not designated battleships is political. A WW2 cruiser may have had bigger guns and more armor than a pre-dreadnought battleship--as well as being faster. Modern Japan refuses to call its aircraft carriers "aircraft carriers" and the United States Navy has "amphibious assault ships" with more carrier capabilities than most of the World War Two USN aircraft carriers--but those modern ships are not "aircraft carriers." Modern destroyers have more firepower than WW2 cruisers--as well as having equal or greater displacement. This was brought out in the video. In the old days, cruisers would sail on independent operations worldwide. Today, even destroyers travel in groups--usually--seldom on solo missions. Sending out a "cruiser" on independent operations is unusual. The cruiser advantage is being able to employ boarding parties and landing parties--and retrieve those away teams at the end of their missions. Submarines are more limited. Aircraft can't do that unless they are able to land on the objective and then take off again. I guess you can use unoccupied balloons for force projection such as the Chinese balloons President Biden ordered shot down a while ago--or like Nina's "99 Red Balloons." A cruiser making port calls in foreign nations is force projection.

The modern warship designations actually make a little sense to me. The frigate is very capable, but not fast enough to be a proper destroyer and keep up with a CVN group. The current DDGs have grown to their current size because that’s what it takes to be useful and also defend yourself. The littoral ships are good examples of a too small to defend themselves ships. The current Burke DDGs are big and expensive, but that is what the USN needs right now. When your navy is spread out all over the world, the ships you have in any specific area must be relied on to hunt subs, defend the air, and attack land and surface targets. I just wish we could build 4 per year.

Friedmans cruiser book basically stated that a cruiser can ply open water anywhere independant of a fleet. Defeat any ship same or smaller than itself but have the speed to out run a more powerful ship to avoid a fight. Commerce raiding would be included I guess....

Sailing Frigates went Cruzing. Was more function then name. Stephen

that was my guess the Olympia, I was stationed on USS Dale CG 19 "The Mayport Cruiser" . We were dry docked in Phili Shipyard and many sailors wanted reenlistment ceremonies were attened on board the Olympia . thanks guys love the Channel👍

The Scharnhorst class were fast battleships 15 inch guns were still under development and 11 inch guns were the biggest guns Germany had at the time and they wanted the Scharnhorst class in service as soon as possible so they put 11 inch guns in with the plan to put 15 inch guns in when they were ready.

I think the U.S. navy decommissioning ships is a bad idea myself they should be upgraded especially now as it has to compete with numbers against the Chinese cause make no mistake about we are in a arms race with China I just hope the U.S. military doesn't make the same mistake as the British Empire by getting to relaxed and also start worrying about the cost you wanna stay number 1 you need to eat the cost regardless. If China had the advantage there's no doubt they would attack us in one way or the other

I believe Friedman mentions that one of the design studies which led to North Carolina was a 30-knot ship armed with 9 14-inch guns. If North Carolina and Washington has been built to this battle-cruisery sort of design, would they have been potentially more useful to the USN in the war compared to the ships actually built?

Fantastic vid! Keep up the good work. Appreciate you guys!

Thats a backdrop there!

If the British Empire cruisers were fighting at the night battles of Guadalcanal the IJN will have a harder time as the British Empire cruisers are going to be zigzagging thanks to paranoia over IJN submarines and the British cruisers can counter fire the IJN torpedo attacks with their own and the British are trained to fight at night whereas the Americans in 42 weren't I think