Best pre-1942 CA

[borner]

This has probably been discussed before, but what are the opinions on the best CA class in service prior to 1942. I understand that this will probably be an axis ship due to going over the treaty limits, and by the end of the war there was no CA out here to go one-on-one with a Baltimore class. My personal vote is for the Italian ZARA class CA. (not counting the inability of them to withstand 15" hits)

[cohimbra]

http://www.world-war.co.uk/italy/zara.php3

The link is for RN Zara class, but you can find some nice info & photo
about many WWII Heavy cruisers of various nationality.

[geofflambert]

Actually the best are the US Brooklyn class. They were designated CL, but that only means they were the best CLs as well as the best CAs.

I should say though that P. Eugene was pretty awesome. Some have argued that she actually sank the Hood.

[margeorg]

The Admiral Hipper class (to which the prinz Eugen belongs) actually was not a good design. First of all, it missed the Washington treaty limits significantly. Second, it´s engine design was highly complicated, causing many troubles during missions. it was also plagued by small endurance. The AA armament was too slow to react to modern planes, and their fire guidance systems caused high topweights and were very sensible for vibrations causing them to fail.

Overall, the Hipper class was average at best.

BTW, the Prinz Eugen didn´t sink the Hood. One of their hits caused a fire among Hood´s 10,2cm AA ammo, but this fire was not responsible for the explosion that sunk the Hood. PEs 20,3cm guns had no chance to penetrate the main armor of Hood. It must have been one of the 38,1cm shells from Bismarck.

I would say the Zara´s are worthy candidates, but my no. 1 favorite is the French "Algerie". Well-armored, good endurance and speed, and still within the treaty limits.

[mike scholl 1]

The 8 Japanese CA's built as 10 gun heavy cruisers. Overweight cheats, but fast with good armour and main batteries. Secondaries and AAA were poor, but that could be said of almost all pre-war CA's. But the inclusion of the heavy torpedo armament puts them ahead of the rest in 1941.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: margeorg

The Admiral Hipper class (to which the prinz Eugen belongs) actually was not a good design. First of all, it missed the Washington treaty limits significantly. Second, it´s engine design was highly complicated, causing many troubles during missions. it was also plagued by small endurance. The AA armament was too slow to react to modern planes, and their fire guidance systems caused high topweights and were very sensible for vibrations causing them to fail.

Overall, the Hipper class was average at best.

BTW, the Prinz Eugen didn´t sink the Hood. One of their hits caused a fire among Hood´s 10,2cm AA ammo, but this fire was not responsible for the explosion that sunk the Hood. PEs 20,3cm guns had no chance to penetrate the main armor of Hood. It must have been one of the 38,1cm shells from Bismarck.

I would say the Zara´s are worthy candidates, but my no. 1 favorite is the French "Algerie". Well-armored, good endurance and speed, and still within the treaty limits.

That's interesting because I had heard that they fired short against Swordfishes because they were too damn slow (the Sfs). Also, I had heard that Hood was transporting a load of rockets on the upper deck (I would have heaved them over the side before battle), and that that might possibly have caused the magazine blasts. I've never heard, but I wonder what percentage of magazine blasts set off other magazines. There had to be more than one to blow her to pieces like that.

[frank1970]

Those Deutschland-Class CAs weren´t too bad either. Surely a match for every CA around at that times.

[tocaff]

Didn't the design of the Zara have the fault of placing the guns to close to one another? Didn't this have an adverse effect on accuracy?

I vote for Brooklyn because they were considered CLs only because of the 6" main armament, but the throw weight of a broadside along with the rate of fire was a killer.

[margeorg]

ORIGINAL: Frank

Those Deutschland-Class CAs weren´t too bad either. Surely a match for every CA around at that times.

Well,

they weren´t CAs at all, at least not by the Washington treaty regulations. Frankly spoken they were CA-like ships with oversized main armament, and undersized armour and secondary armament. Their Diesel motors were ideal to act as raiders against shipping lines, but their fragile design and low armour made them highly vulnerable even against treaty CAs. Well suited as raiders, but that was all ...

[crsutton]

My money is on the Brooklyn Class.

[Barny23]

French cruiser Algérie
One of the last of the so-called "Treaty Cruisers," she was considered one of the best designs commissioned by any of the naval powers. Unlike many of her contemporaries, "Algerie" was a well-armored ship.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: margeorg

The Admiral Hipper class (to which the prinz Eugen belongs) actually was not a good design. First of all, it missed the Washington treaty limits significantly. Second, it´s engine design was highly complicated, causing many troubles during missions. it was also plagued by small endurance. The AA armament was too slow to react to modern planes, and their fire guidance systems caused high topweights and were very sensible for vibrations causing them to fail.

Overall, the Hipper class was average at best.

BTW, the Prinz Eugen didn´t sink the Hood. One of their hits caused a fire among Hood´s 10,2cm AA ammo, but this fire was not responsible for the explosion that sunk the Hood. PEs 20,3cm guns had no chance to penetrate the main armor of Hood. It must have been one of the 38,1cm shells from Bismarck.

I would say the Zara´s are worthy candidates, but my no. 1 favorite is the French "Algerie". Well-armored, good endurance and speed, and still within the treaty limits.

That's interesting because I had heard that they fired short against Swordfishes because they were too damn slow (the Sfs). Also, I had heard that Hood was transporting a load of rockets on the upper deck (I would have heaved them over the side before battle), and that that might possibly have caused the magazine blasts. I've never heard, but I wonder what percentage of magazine blasts set off other magazines. There had to be more than one to blow her to pieces like that.

The main theory is one of Bismarks shells penitrated the deck armour exploded in powder magazines. The reason being it hit the area were she had light deck armour, aft I think. Her forward armour had been increased in the late 1930s and she was due a full refit in 1942 ( had to look that bit up). Problem is the underwater survey could not proove this theory one way or the other.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Frank

Those Deutschland-Class CAs weren´t too bad either. Surely a match for every CA around at that times.

ORIGINAL: margeorg
Well,

they weren´t CAs at all, at least not by the Washington treaty regulations. Frankly spoken they were CA-like ships with oversized main armament, and undersized armour and secondary armament. Their Diesel motors were ideal to act as raiders against shipping lines, but their fragile design and low armour made them highly vulnerable even against treaty CAs. Well suited as raiders, but that was all ...

At the Battle of the River Plate it could be argued that exceptional maneuvering by the two British cruisers were a significant factor, but two British treaty cruisers did enough damage to the Graf Spee to force her into a neutral port and ultimately she was scuttled.

Bill

[TSCofield]

Wichita. It became the template for the Baltimore Class. Personally felt it was the best of all the Prewar cruisers.

I always looked at the Lutzow/Deutchland as nothing more than mildly faster Pre-drednought BBs. They were well protected enough to stop CLs but most CAs were faster and could engage or disengage at will. Against a BC they were toast and by the time they came operational the plans were in place for fast BBs that would make them obsolete. They were fine for Germany when they couldn't build anything better but not a good overall design for a blue water navy. they weren't powerful enough to operate in a battle line and on their own they weren't fast enough to evade cruiser forces that found them. Rive Plate showed the vulnerablity of the class early on.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: margeorg

ORIGINAL: Frank

Those Deutschland-Class CAs weren´t too bad either. Surely a match for every CA around at that times.

Well,

they weren´t CAs at all, at least not by the Washington treaty regulations. Frankly spoken they were CA-like ships with oversized main armament, and undersized armour and secondary armament. Their Diesel motors were ideal to act as raiders against shipping lines, but their fragile design and low armour made them highly vulnerable even against treaty CAs. Well suited as raiders, but that was all ...

None of the German ships were built to the Washington Treaty Specs...

[btbw]

ORIGINAL: wdolson
At the Battle of the River Plate it could be argued that exceptional maneuvering by the two British cruisers were a significant factor, but two British treaty cruisers did enough damage to the Graf Spee to force her into a neutral port and ultimately she was scuttled.

Bill

Fate of raider. ANY damage decrease ability of raider to continue battle.
And ship sunk only when crew do that. No critical or vital damage taken.
Cautious guidance also is mistake like many other mistakes did by german admirals.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: btbw

ORIGINAL: wdolson
At the Battle of the River Plate it could be argued that exceptional maneuvering by the two British cruisers were a significant factor, but two British treaty cruisers did enough damage to the Graf Spee to force her into a neutral port and ultimately she was scuttled.

Bill

Fate of raider. ANY damage decrease ability of raider to continue battle.
And ship sunk only when crew do that. No critical or vital damage taken.
Cautious guidance also is mistake like many other mistakes did by german admirals.

warspite1

Like I said on the other thread about Guadalcanal, you really need to read a book or two.

Fact 1

It was Langsdorff's decision to disobey orders and engage the British cruisers.

Fact 2

Had he taken the cautious route - and indeed obeyed orders - he would probably not have lost his ship.

Fact 3

No critical or vital damage taken? So why did she put into port? She had seen off the 8-inch gunned Exeter, and now faced two light cruisers whose main armament was equal to Graf Spee's secondary weaponry.

[btbw]

No facts as always. Dude you definitely get my green button.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: btbw

No facts as always. Dude you definitely get my green button.

warspite1

No facts - priceless.

Which part of my factual response are you referring to?

Fact 1 and 2

Read the Price of Disobedience by the respected naval historian Eric Grove.

Fact 3

You didn't answer the question. Why, with no critical or vital damage, with 11-inch guns that could out-range the RN light cruisers by some distance, did she head for Montevideo?

Or were you questioning the withdrawal of Exeter, or Graf Spee's secondary armament compared to Ajax and Achilles - FACTS by the way.

[btbw]

I see many reading dude still write here?
Well since it battle of facts i toss mine.

Like I said on the other thread about Guadalcanal, you really need to read a book or two.

Dont repeat your magic words always. It work when you know more then others. But you dont.

Fact 1

It was Langsdorff's decision to disobey orders and engage the British cruisers.

Graf Spee dont have a chance to run from brit cruisers. In a DAY TIME. Best solution was engage them and kill (or heavy damaged) them one by one.
But maneuring and ESPECIALLY firing was incompetent (also from changes taken by brave Langsdorff which got wounded when stay on open bridge during battle and forerver lost any wish to fight).
During engagement (best tactic for slow but better armed and armored ship) 1/4 of brit force was lost.
If Langsdorff continue engagement and dont try hide in neutral port (with brit ships inside wich automatically make that port as trap) then brits will lost another ship or two or night time broke contact. But german admirals never had will for fight.

Fact 2

Had he taken the cautious route - and indeed obeyed orders - he would probably not have lost his ship.

Slow ship cannot run from 4 faster cruisers. In day time. Contact established at 6am. So all day ship can only run with danger lost all ammo durig counterattack incoming cruisers attacks with low probability to hit on high distances and in arc which decided by enemies.
Only solution was aggressive action in gap between effective range of 283mm and 150mm. When ship do that Exceter was taken out. When Langsdorff start chaotic evadings (from torpedoes... well commander of torpedo boats see always torpedoes) and redirect fire from one ship to another - battle come to bad part for german ship.

Fact 3

No critical or vital damage taken? So why did she put into port? She had seen off the 8-inch gunned Exeter, and now faced two light cruisers whose main armament was equal to Graf Spee's secondary weaponry.

Solution which taken by Langsdorff based on 2 things which usual for German (and also Italian) fleet.
It danger of lost very needed for country ship and execution after it from nazi leader.
So Langsdorff decide bring ship in neutral port and toss off her fate to political relations between countries and law.
But if we come back to ship we will found FACTS: ship dont take ANY critical damage which can decrease ability for run in nighttime from brits or destroy any of their ships during random night action.
Ship dont lost speed, dont have floation, still had ammo (30% for main and 50% for secondaries), dont have heavy losses in crew. Enemy dont have will for continue fight and start retreat. But incompetent captain choose baddiest port for avoid possible night (torpedoes again) action and hide in Montevideo. Even after taking look on ship and understanding real situation this commander never had will to fight but trust to brits false about BC around La Platte. His set of choices which he sent to KM was surrender or sunk. It describe how low morale had commander. And his suicide only final of that.
But again WHERE IS SHIP DAMAGE which make that ship bad? Bad morale and experience of captain - yes. Ship is fine.
Green button again for many reading dude.