Talk:Heavy cruiser

message: I think “big guns�? should be elaborated on. -Jeoth 14:53, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The Brooklyns were light cruisers(CL) according to treaty definitions because of their armament consisting of 6 inch guns. But otherwise they were at least as effetive as the CA's. Nevfennas 18:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The text say: "The term was given a definition by the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921." but I cannot find any reference to "cruiser" in the text of the Washington Naval Treaty, here]. --Moroboshi 09:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually in the follow-up treaty of London in 1930  Nevfennas 13:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington Naval Treaty 

message: I seem to remember reading somewhere that the term "heavy cruiser" referred to it being equipped with heavy guns, compared to the 6-inch guns of "light cruisers". Certainly the WWII "light cruiser" like the British Town class were large and designed to the same 10,000 ton limits as heavy cruisers. HMS Belfast ended up over 11,000 tons. The difference between light and heavy cruisers appears to have been in gunnery philosophy : plaster the enemy with salvos of light shells (6 inch 112 lb in British case : 12 x 112 = 1344 lb) or blast him with a few heavy shells (256 lb 8 inch in British case : 8 x 256 = 2048). There was hence no comparison in raw broadside weight; But a light cruiser was far more useful in typical wartime general actions, which no longer consisted of ships sitting next to each other and trading broadsides, but involved a wide range of duties requiring high rates of fire such as shore bombardment, anti-submarine, anti-destroyer, anti-aircraft. British 6-inch guns could attain nearly twice the rate of fire of the 8-inch - loading was largely manual. This greatly evened up the notional "broadside weight" figures. We also need to consider the issue of gun barrel life : 1100 rounds for 6-inch Mk XXIII, 550 rounds for 8-inch Mk VIII. This made the modern 6-inch gun far more useful to the British with their heavy global commitments. Hence a heavy cruiser could be more of a liability than an asset in a war of constant varied and distant action : its guns wore out quickly, they couldn't take on other ships with similar armament and hence posed no more offensive threat than a light cruiser; light cruisers, with more guns firing faster, posed a greater threat to smaller ships.Rcbutcher (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: London Naval Treaty defined "light" cruisers up to 6.1in calibre, heavy up to 8.1in. Both types limted to 10,000 tons. Britain never built any 'heavy' cruisers after 1930, for the reasons you describe above, see DK Brown "Nelson to Vanguard". Other nations did, presumably not because they were stupid. The Land (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Heavy cruiser" : referred to guns, not ship weight ? 

message: The article uses the past tense for heavy cruisers, whereas classes such as light cruiser's and battleships's, which are also not in active service but also have modern-day museum ships, use present tense. Tickery (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense 

message: I was just trying to edit the erroneous conversion of 8 inch to 200mm calibre. But this seems to be an auto convert code which I cannot seem to tweak to get the correct result. Or it doesn't show in preview. So could someone please do this and look whether other measurements are correctly converted. No one calls 8in guns 200mm, it's always 203. A conversion tool that garbles results like this is of no use whatsoever. -Caranorn (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  gives -  (Hohum @) 20:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  auto conversion inch to mm