Talk:Cruiser

message: There is an interesting difference in the comparison between U.S. and U.K. versions of English.
In this section, the writer refers to Farragut-class vessels as "frigates". The designator for the class "DL" or "DLG" labels these as Destroyer Leaders, the purpose of which was to act as squadron flagship for a deployed destroyer squadron. In that they were built slightly larger, they had staff accommodations. Even the Royal Navy in WWII had vessels in a class designed specifically to act in this capacity. Smaller vessels (in particular DE and DEG) were Destroyer Escorts, designed with convoy escort duty in mind (and were only slightly larger than most WWII "frigates" (PF)). The larger DLG's were better equipped for Anti-aircraft Warfare (AAW), so were naturals for re-designation to CG/CGN (especially the nuclear vessels, who could keep up with the CV). The smaller DL/DLG vessels had lesser AAW weaponry and were really just destroyers. The MISSION determines the classification, not size. The Ticonderogas were designed, from the keel up, as cruisers. Their size was determined by the limitations of the Aegis radar deployment, and designation by the retirement of other older vessels. The Kidd-class destroyers (destined for Iran before the coup) were the only odd ducks hard to really classify - they were Spruance-class hulls with double launchers like the DLG's (that were re-designated as CG's). Which brings us to the Spruance-class Destroyers (DD). They were as large as many WWII cruisers, but were DD because of the better Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) equipment installed.
I, also, find it interesting that the only two references quoted for this page are written by Brits. The portion of this section dealing with U.S. motives and reasons have not been attributed to any U.S. source. --CDR Tom Mischke USN(Ret.) 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section about the US Navy reclassification ist IMO completly irrelevant here, the article is explaining Cruisers in general, not US Navy naming system. How about removing the section and just add a link to the relevant article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersymetrie (talk • contribs) 11:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The US Navy's "cruiser gap" 

message: Please clarify the difference between cruiser and battlecruiser, to help translation from foreign languages. mikka (t) 17:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is unclear about the battlecruiser section already in this article? Stan 03:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK let me give you an example. An online Russian-English dictionary I have translates "линейный корабль" and "бронено�?ец" as battleship. I'd rather want to have different words for them. The back conversion gives only the first version. Fortunately, "battlecruiser" and "линейный крей�?ер" match. What I want is a set of simple rules how to tell which ship is which, similar to Wikipedia:language recognition chart. I have already met cases of inconsistency on 'net as to types of Imperial Russian ships when I was double-checking wikipedia updates on the topic. mikka (t) 04:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose you could say that their knack of exploding helped distinguish battlecruisers from other types of warship :-D. But seriously, compare two Royal Navy classes: Town class cruiser (1910) and HMS Indefatigable (1909). Battlecruisers were much, much larger than cruisers; they had bigger guns, almost comparable speed (i'm not sure how their armour compared). Battlecruisers dispensed with much of their armour to give them an advantage in speed compared to early dreadnought battleships, but they were pretty much similar in every other aspect. I'm not sure if that was the answer you were looking for, so sorry if it isn't! Take care. If I got anything wrong with the analogy, I'm sure Stan will correct me :-) SoLando (Talk) 04:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I pondered this some more since last writing, and oversimplified down to "armed like battleships, armored like cruisers". :-) We have a lot of verbiage on the subject in WP because battlecruisers have always been hard to classify. But the question of translation is rather different, and I can imagine random dictionaries not getting it right. What I would suggest is to find a Russian-language work on naval matters by a respectable authority, and see what word(s) are used to describe the vessels that are here called "battlecruisers", for instance anything in :Category:Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy . I'm sure that Russian naval experts have a term they've agreed upon, as well as which ships they categorize that way - better to rely on them than on us amateurs. :-) Stan 12:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  Try this explaination. Cruiser were limited to ships with largest guns of 8 inch size. This applies to the United States Navy, for the World War II era ships. Unsure how the other Navies were with this distinct.  See Heavy_cruiser and Washington_Treaty_for_the_Limitation_of_Naval_Armaments. Note per the Washington Naval Treaty alos limited to a 10,000 tons standard displacement. 74.214.49.112 (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The cruiser was designed for long distance cruising, i.e., steaming for long periods so that it could reach trouble spots over the worldwide empires of the countries that originated them. The battleship cruiser (battlecruiser) was intended to provide a cruiser with the longer-range gun capability of the battleship, so that it could stand-off against it's likely opponents - which would be unlikely to be battleships - and hit them before the battlecruiser entered the range of the opponent's guns. The increase in gun size was not so much for raw firepower, just that if you increase the size of the gun calibre, then range is also increased - otherwise you would need a new design of gun in the usual smaller calibre with perhaps an increased charge to get the additional range. It was quicker and cheaper to just up-gun to the next size gun. The battlecruiser was intended for long range steaming and so the armour was sacrificed for additional bunker capacity and for overall ship speed so that it could reach trouble spots more quickly. Unfortunately due to the battlecruiser having the same size guns as the contemporary battleship, they tended to get used in situations for which they were inappropriate, i.e., the Hood.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The 8-inch gun limitation was per the Washington Naval Treaty, and all signatories (US, UK, Japan, others) abided by that until the Japanese (and Italy) withdrew from the Second London Naval Treaty conference in early 1937 (see also Friedman's battleship book). In March 1938 the remaining treaty powers triggered an "escalator clause" in battleship design, which resulted in the s. With the outbreak of WW2 in September 1939 all parties basically threw out the treaties. Based on rumors Japan was planning new 12-inch-gunned cruisers (and possibly also in response to the German ), the s were designed and built to match them, and also act as "cruiser killers". These were designated CB for Cruiser, Big and were sometimes called "battlecruisers", but were more accurately called "large cruisers". They did not resemble the WWI-era battlecruisers, which were about the size and gun caliber of battleships but sacrificed armor and number of guns for speed. The Russian s are usually called that due to their large size and heavy anti-ship cruise missile armament. RobDuch (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  difference between cruiser and battlecruiser 

message: Forgive me if I'm being dense, but it seems to me that in the last paragraph of the 'Later 20th Century' section, it's not entirely clear what name is being misapplied.
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 11:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly unclear? 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
* Support - the article was moved without first gathering a group consensus, and while 500 articles link to Cruiser only 50 link to Cruiser (warship). --Kralizec! | talk 18:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: We have two explainations as to the origin of the name Cruiser - one in the intro, and one at the start of the following History section.  Can we either put both in the same area and list them as both possible origins, or examine which is actually correct?
:I don't see a problem. The intro gives the etymology of the word, while the history section gives the reason for its application. Perhaps a full definition of the word would be better... Therealhazel 17:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of name 

message: I'd like to propose a layout for the article, broadly similar to that used at battleship, which presents the material roughly in a chronological order, with shipbuilding, strategic considerations, and operations all considered for each type in roughly the same place. There is no reason at all why this cannot be an FA.
What I suggest is:
#Early history (to about 1850)
#Roughly 1850 - 1880: the age of unarmoured steam cruisers
#Development of Armored and Protected Cruisers - inc outline of the type of armor and tradeoffs required
#:Elswick types
#:Armored cruiser
#:Protected cruisers
#:Development of the PC into the 1910-ish Light Cruiser
#:The cruiser as destroyer or TB flotilla leader
#:Battlecruisers: Early 20th C view on obsolescent of the cruiser and results
#World War I: Very brief overview of operations placing the existing cruisers in their context; the Bacchantes, Coronel, Falklands, Jutland, convoy duty
#Cruisers 1919-39
#:Cruiser design and production, 'light' and 'heavy', under the Treaties
#:Breaching of the Treaties, including Japanese heavy cruisers and the Pocket Battleships
#World War II
#Cold War
#:introduction of guided missiles, retirement of gun models (mention the Belgrano)
#:cruiser's new role as fleet air defence unit 
#:AEGIS
#Cruisers in current navies
... what d'you reckon? The Land 17:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see where you are going, I will slowly start working on this one too, as all my current projects are coming to an end now. --MoRsE 15:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The evolution of the cruiser into the primary fleet AAW escort came about during WWII, and would be more appropriate under that section. --Dukefan73 23:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very fair point - sadly my sources only go up to about 1920 ;) The Land 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested layout 

message: The articles for Cruiser and Destroyer both claim that "At the beginning of the 21st century, [destroyers/cruisers] are the heaviest surface combatant ships in general use, with only four nations (the United States, Russia, France and Peru) operating [these/cruisers ]..."
-Greg (forgot my wikipedia username), 10:20am PST, June 18, 2007
:Note that Cruiser says "in use" while Destroyer says "in general use". However, the intro to Cruiser currently claims that Italy also operates a cruiser, but the text under "Late 20th Century" doesn't include Italy, nor does the intro to Destroyer. 76.91.203.252 (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: I would like to suggest that you guys place a section or paragraph of more recent cruiser history  with the Belgrano sinking during the Falklands war. Numerous Falklands and Argentine and UK links exist, and the Cruiser page should likely reflect that.
--enm, 19:00 1 Nov 2007 (UTC)
:That is a good idea - we do need to be careful though not to duplicate the articles on Belgrano and the Falklands War - and Belgrano was an obsolete (and unrepresentative) cruiser... The Land 20:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  General Belgrano was the ex-USS Phoenix, a USN Brooklyn class light cruiser. Had she closed to the necessary range to use her 6 inch guns against the Royal Navy vessels she could have done serious dammage to the amphibious operation.Two way time (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Recent history 

message: The history of cruisers is best described in the different "epochs" (for a lack of a better term) rather than a continual definition.
Epoch one: Cruisers in the age of sail (>1880)
Epoch two: Steam and steel (1880-1922)
Epoch three: The age of the Washington treaty and World war two. (1922-1945)
Epoch four: Airpower and missiles (1945-Present)
Each one of these epochs have cruisers acting in different rolls and with different design conventions. Comparing cruisers across these divisions is difficult because the technology and rolls have changed so much.137.144.147.201 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cruiser Epochs

message: The article makes no mention of the "Dupuy de l'Homme", even though that was the first protected cruiser with its 23 knots speed. A ship of just 18 knots cannot be called a cruiser, that would be ridiculous! 91.83.3.127 (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you mean the "Dupuy de Lôme" (not "Dupuy de l'Homme"). JT Swe (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose he/she does as well. However, to answer the anonymous editor's point, there is no lower limit on cruiser speed - cruisers have been around for a very long time and seen all sorts of technology come and go.... The Land (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viva la France! 

message: In the image text concerning HMS Caroline, I added "light" to "cruiser" in the following sentence: "the only World War One era Cruiser in exsistence[sic]", to emphasize that it is the only LIGHT WWI cruiser still out there. There are other preserved cruisers from that era, i.e. the Greek "Georgios Averof" and Russian "Aurora". (Minor changes can matter too...). JT Swe (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aurora could also be referred to as a 'light cruiser'; while 'protected' is more accurate, cruiser terminology is far from precise... I have also rewritten the caption; the fact that Caroline is still in active service is more relevant than the fact she's still in commission. The Land (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS Caroline image text 

message: From the opening section: "only five nations (the United States, Russia, France, Italy and Peru) operating these at the time". That's fine. However the article on destroyer says "only four nations (the United States, Russia, France and Peru) operating cruisers". They can't both be right. Maproom (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Italy have cruisers?

message: :Category:Cruiser classes is itself a category within :Category:Cruisers — Robert Greer (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Cruisers]] ''vs.'' [[:Category:Cruiser classes]]  

message: "At the beginning of the 21st century, cruisers were the heaviest surface combatant ships in use..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser).
"At the dawn of the 21st Century, destroyers are the heaviest surface combatant ships in general use..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.153.16 (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heaviest - Cruiser or Destroyer? 

message: The article (and articles on various cruisers) is heavy on offensive capabilities and short on passive defensive attributes like armor plate belt armor. The people maintaining the pages on battleships don't have this weakness. This is particularly important as cruisers evolved into ships which no longer have armor plate (like USS Long Beach) in the old traditional sense. Likely weak on other similar things. 143.232.210.150 (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced article 

message: There is a page on Scout_cruiser that is neither mentioned nor discussed from this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.50.36 (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scout Cruisers? 

message: I'm going to remove the mention about Kara-class, because whilst it was traditionally classed as 'cruiser' in the Western sources, it was called 'large anti-submarine ship' (ie. destroyer) in Soviet navy, and I've not found any Russian source which has implied that the designation has been changed. Also the ship is clearly equivalent to modern destroyers in role, armament and size. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kara-class 

message: I went ahead and removed all references to the South Korean and Japanese "cruisers" from the article. I don't know the answer to whether or not these ships (Sejong the Great-class destroyer and Atago-class destroyer) should be classified as cruisers or destroyers. However, what I do know is that Wikipedia prohibits original research and requires citations. Every major source I have come across refers to these ships as destroyers. Furthermore, when carrying out the standard Google search results test, "Sejong the Great-class cruiser" returns no results, while "Sejong the Great-class destroyer" returns 3,010 results. Again, "Atago-class cruiser" returns 3,260 results, while "Atago-class destroyer" returns 7,530 results. (Please note, many of the results for "Atago-class cruiser" are due to overlap with the Japanese cruiser Atago from World War II.)
In addition, it seems to me that any sources that are used to support the "cruiser" classification must directly refer to the ships as cruisers. In other words, merely stating that they are comparable to cruisers is not sufficient. However, it also seems that if such claims of comparison are found in reliable sources, then obviously statements to that effect may be included in the article - if they do not imply that they actually are cruisers.
Therefore, it seems to me that until a reliable source that directly refers to either of these classes as "cruisers" is found, they should not be included in the article. —Noha307 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. - BilCat (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

text: The same IP user is making the same sorts of edits on Destroyer, adding frigates he/she considers to be destroyers, and removing the destroyers he/she considers to be cruisers. - BilCat (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

text: All that is being asked is that you provide a citation to a reliable source that makes the claim that you stated above. Right now it just looks like it's your opinion. You can't use another wikipedia article as a source, see WP:RS for more information. Uncited additions may be removed. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The user is still edit warring at Destroyer. While he/she is attempting to add sources, some are blogs, while others still call the ships frigates that he/she is claiming are destroyers. In one case the source did state that the ships were the size and capability of destroyers, but that isn't saying the are destroyers, nor that they are commonly called destroyers in reliable sources. One newspaper source called the frigates "battleships"! - BilCat (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Given the users statements above, it's probably time for ANI or 3RR. The user clearly isn't interested in building a consensus.
None of the references were blogs, all were legitimate defense articles. If you've noticed, the French Navy doesn't use the term "destroyer" but rather "first-rate frigate" and marks those ships with a "D" for destroyer and not "F" for frigate. (This includes the FREMM.) 
All I'm trying to do is show what these ships REALLY are. And yes, the term "frigate" will appear first because these countries have classified them as such. Many European countries prefer not to use the term "destroyer" because they feel it is too "war-like." I know we're not allowed personal experiences, but I've studied naval history for 13 years and am an officer in the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps, so I know I'm right. Stop trying to deceive the public. These edits were up for MONTHS before you had a problem with it. 
Also, you're deleted more than you think. You're undoing other edits that ARE unarguably accurate. 
If you have a problem, I would say to do you're homework and see that I'm right. I'm not backing down.
-Battleship Sailor (talk) 2:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

text: It doesn't really matter who you are, what matters it what source you are citing. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." What you need is a reliable source that supports the assertions you are making. That's all that is asked of any editor. "Right" is what you can prove with a citation from a reliable source. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

text: This site which you added here is clearly a blog, not a defense site. - BilCat (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Korean and Japanese "Cruisers" 

message: I am working on a World War II section and plan to post it in a few days. I'm primarily highlighting surface actions in which cruisers and battlecruisers played a part. I'm also considering doing a World War I section in the next few weeks. I welcome comments. RobDuch (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: World War II section entered. RobDuch (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War II section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cruiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605223708/http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/active/fleet.htm to http://www.nvr.navy.mil/NVRSHIPS/ACTIVE/FLEET.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010522092000/http://www.warship.org/no11994.htm to http://www.warship.org/no11994.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified