Talk:Armored cruiser

message: :"Armored cruiser General-Admiral (1873)"
:"The first armored cruiser was the British Shannon (1875)."
I think there is a little contradiction--Moroboshi 20:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First armored cruiser 

message: Is it really neccesary to have a section about US Armoured Cruisers yet only skim over the Royal Navy, who used them far more extensively - not to mention the German Navy and Japanese Navy, whose Armoured Cruisers are of far more historical importance... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Getztashida 15:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US-Centrism

message: I struggle to see the meaning of this sentence.
"The last armored cruisers were built around 1910, technological developments leading to their replacement in the line of battle by larger, faster and better armed battlecruisers."
Someone obviously has "line of battle" on their minds. Most ships larger than flottila craft used linnear tactics in this era, but to me "the line of battle" is the countries main battlefleet, comprised of battleships but sometimes augmented by aroured cruisers in this era. Its not correct to say armoured cruisers were replaced in the line by battlecruisers, they were replaced by them full stop.203.10.93.254 05:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP's own entry, the Line of battle is a naval tactic or disposition, which is the term that I am familiar with. Armoured cruisers were retained by all major navies into the First World War, and some even persisted as late as the Second World War. It wasn't an instant change; battlecruisers first showed up in 1908 and were still being used as frontline warships at the Battle of Jutland, by both sides. I would say that the most misleading part of that sentence is its grammar, which I will have a go at tweaking. Emoscopes Talk 06:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In whatever sense the term is used the sentence is still incorrect as written. Battlecruisers replaced armoured cruisers in some powers* building programmes*. As you point out the Armoured cruisers remained in the order of battle until the 1920’s, and they fought (in a line) in 1914 and 1916 at least. British I class battlecruisers were retired before the US big ten armoured cruisers for example. If the line of battle is defined as any formation of warship using linear tactics then the Armoured cruisers continued in “the line of battle” till they were withdrawn from service. I doubt that the sentence is drawn from any reputable source. ChrisMCau 21:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps better changing it to "battle squadrons" or "battle fleets" then? Emoscopes Talk 22:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: how about now? Emoscopes Talk 06:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Line of Battle

message: Tagged this claim for a reference. IMHO Tsushima took place at the end of the battlecruiser era, with many ships ordered before this battle, but with the armoured cruisers already being replaced by battlecruisers or left out of the construction programmes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChrisMCau (talk • contribs).
:Yes, I would agree. The RN ordered its last armoured cruisers in the 1904-5 naval programme, so in fact this really preceded the battle. Emoscopes Talk 08:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tsushima and "burst of construction

message: According to WP:ENGVAR, articles should be internally consistent in their use of British or American spelling. It also says that the variety of spelling used by the first major contributor should be adopted.  This article seems about evenly divided between British and American spellings, but the article was originally written in American English.  Thus, I have replaced the instances of British spelling (e.g. "armour") with their American counterparts.  72.225.48.13 (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Far from equal division: currently 71 uses of armour, and 31 of armor.  Article was started with the US spelling, but was very heavily biased towards the history of the boat class in the US.  If most of the boats, and origins of the class, were European, suggest move of article and consistent spelling in UK English style. Kevin McE (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So now an admin has gone through the entire article replacing armoured with armored, on the basis of WP:RETAIN, although the first edition of the article was extreme case of wp:bias.  Kevin McE (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything can be called bias - wp:engvar and wp:retain rules conveniently allow to avoid wars over such issues. Materialscientist (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the first version?  Do you consider it to be a balanced history of this class of ship? Kevin McE (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No first version (of a WP article) is ever good in terms of content. Materialscientist (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about whether it was good in terms of content: I'm saying that as it took an entirely US viewpoint, and that this was at variance with the historical facts, it should not be determinant of ENGVAR.  WP:RETAIN is usually a sound principle, but it is based on the assumption that the first version made a reasonable call in this regard. Kevin McE (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, some articles changed their spelling upon editors consensus (say during FAC), denying wp:engvar and wp:retain, and this is fine with me. I just dislike the situation when an article mixes up spelling - this does stimulate spelling wars, especially between IPs. Thus unified. Materialscientist (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm not particularly worried which spelling we use. When I'm writing new material, it's much easier for me to do so using British spelling, but if someone wants to change it then fine. We should probably consider whether the fact that Britain built the first armoured cruiser and ended up with nearly 4x as many of them as did the US counts as a "strong national tie" under WP:TIES, but I'm not sure it does. Fundamentally I'm more concerned with improving the quality of the article than standardising the spelling... The Land (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: This new section seems to start out repetitively but makes a couple of distinctions. However, it needs work and has no citations whatsoever (for which I'm personally pissed at MonkeyKingBar, who has apparently blown me off about adding them). What do you think—is the section worth keeping and fixing up or should it simply be deleted at least until appropriate sources can be found? Jonyungk (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the operating word here is "contemporary," as in operating in 2012. If so, this point should be rephrased more clearly. Jonyungk (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since only 1 light cruiser is currently in operation I'm sure that isn't the case. I think this is simply wrong information, since the high speeds achieved by light and heavy cruisers were largely a result of better propulsion technology (steam turbines vs VTEs), combined to a lesser extent with the weight savings made possible by metallurgical advances allowing thinner armor plate to give roughly the same protection as older, thicker types. Still, I'd rather have some reliable input before making a change to it myself. Russ3Z (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed that it may actually be wrong info but feel the same as you that more input would be good before making changes. Jonyungk (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I think we have two choices with this section - we can either remove it, or we can put in a brief history of the heavy cruiser - development of the Hawkins class from the light cruisers of WWI, the Washington Treaty limit, and the subsequent development of 8in-gunned 10,000 ton cruisers, and then the definition of "heavy cruiser" in the London Treaty. That should help clarify the differences. I've not seen any sources that compare the armoured cruiser and the heavy cruiser explicitly (at least not in more than trivial length) - in part I suspect because from a naval historian's point of view the differences are so obvious as to not need stating. The Land (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Armored cruiser#Differences between Armored Cruisers and Heavy Cruisers|Differences between Armored Cruisers and Heavy Cruisers]] 

message: Just a comment on this edit: the German 21 cm SK L/40 had a range of over 17,000 yards at 30 degrees elevation, while the British BL Mark X 12-inch gun had a range of just under 18,000 yards. So while the 12-inch gun technically had a further range, both were greater than gunnery control of the period would allow effective fire, and so the point is essentially irrelevant. The tired old myth that the BCs out-ranged Scharnhorst and Gneisenau is but one of many surrounding naval warfare in WWI that need to be put to bed. Parsecboy (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoary old myths 

message: Like their protected cruiser predecessors and contemporary light cruisers, heavy cruisers lacked a side armored belt, saving weight to achieve high speeds. Gee this is news to me since to the best of my knowledge most heavy cruisers did in fact have an armored belt. Sticking with the US Heavy Cruisers as an example the Pensacola Class Cruiser had a belt that went from 2.4" to 4". The armor belt just got thicker later on. Modern warships for the most part do not carry armor anymore. I'm giving 24 hours notice before I remove the sentence.Tirronan (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Light cruisers usually had armored belts as well - nuke the whole sentence, I say. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The Land (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last section has a sentence which is just flat wrong 

message: I have some thoughts on this article if I might. I'm an American so take this for what it is worth. Reading John Campbell's book on Jutland, he made the point that the armored cruiser had a role in the rise of the British Battlecruiser. According to John, the armored cruiser of the day was both very large and required huge crews. They had been used in the maintenance of blockade as per the policy of Britain at that time in case of war. The battle cruiser was seen as a money saver whereas one BC could take the place of two armored cruisers. If so then this should be in the article. I wanted some buy in before adding this.  Secondly I remember that three of the armored cruisers were sunk by a single U Boat in WW1 which very much called out their worth as a class at all. And finally I remember reading that some 40% of the losses at Jutland where from losses of armored cruisers each having a crew of 1000. That after the battle that the Admiralty had decided that as a class they had seen their day. If I am remembering correcting (and please correct me if I am wrong),  That as a class they were too slow and too vulnerable to battle cruisers and dreadnoughts, not to mention submarines.
Lastly, I believe there isn't a single reference in the last section which makes that section more of point of pontification than encyclopedic.
Thoughts? Tirronan (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Article Improvements