Talk:Light cruiser

message: Light Cruisers were never redesignated CA as far as I know. There is no mention of this in hazegray.org's or the USN's online transcriptions of DANFS or in Janes Fighting Ships 1964-65.  Light and Heavy Cruisers that were partly converted to missile ships were redesigndated CAG or CLG.  Light or heavy cruisers that had all main gun armament removed were redesignated CG.  All guided missle ships were given a number in the new CG hull series.
Several ships (CL24-33) were redesignated CA due to  the 1931 Treaty.
A number of Destroyer Leader or Frigate(DL) ships were originally to be designated as CLK Hunter Killer Cruisers
Hunter-Killer Cruisers:
CLK 1 NORFOLK  (became DL-1)
CLK 2 NEW HAVEN (never completed)
Years later several DLG and DLGN's were redesignated CG when the Navy stopped using the DL designation.
66.167.144.84 (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States Navy classification 

message: My understanding is that, from the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty, the only difference between a light cruiser and a heavy cruiser was in the armamemnt.  Both were limited to 10,000 tonnes displacement.  Light cruisers mounted turrets with 3 x 6" guns.  Heavy cruisers mounted turrets with 2 x 8" guns.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that was just Admiral Fisher being duplicitous.  The Glorious class were really "light battlecruisers"...  Getztashida (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  question... 

message: to my knowledge, the term light cruiser appeared to indicate the turbine-powered cruisers: these engines were too high to be housed below a protection deck and this made the vertical protection necessary. I feel that light reflected at first the fact that these engines were tested on small  cruisers. pietro79.22.217.206 (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  origin 

message: This section says almost nothing about light cruisers instead going on about cruisers in general. 
Heavy cruisers usually had a battery of 8-inch (203 mm) guns. In the years leading up to World War II, with the London Naval Treaty making it impossible to build a balanced heavy cruiser design within tonnage limits, this led to the construction of a great number of light cruisers of 10,000 tons with twelve to fifteen 6-inch (152 mm) guns that were otherwise identical to heavy cruisers.
Heavy cruiser construction was phased out in Britain, France and Italy during the mid-1930s. However, the breakout of World War II allowed nations to skirt the London Treaty and exceed the 10,000-ton limit. By the end of the war, the US Navy's ships classed as "large cruisers" had displacements of nearly 30,000 tons (the Alaska-class cruiser), while light cruisers stayed in the region of 10,000 tons (although sometimes reaching 12,000 or 13,000 tons). Most modern guided missile cruisers have a similar displacement (10,000 tons for USS Ticonderoga and 12,000 for Slava).
I propose to remove it please comment.
1. The Cleaveland Class Cruiser was a CL and displaced almost 13,000 tons 27 of them were built during WW2.
2. The various treaties were all mute when Japan refused to follow them anymore.
3. The Battlecruisers of the British were designed to replace the Armored Cruisers which were expensive and obsolete on a two for one basis, not light cruisers.
You might want to go over this article with a fine-toothed comb.
Tirronan (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War 2