Cruiser Hate Thread

>>33848615
>Why is it that WW2 battleships constantly get shit on but cruisers get let off the hook for some reason?
Because we don't have autists crying for them to be reactivated or claiming they're still relevant.

Cruisers are long but also thin, they're also much more maneuverable than a Battleship, therefore less of a liability.

Also Guided Missile Cruisers.

Returning to the concept wouldn't be a bad thing.

>203mm guns are already the biggest land based artillery, so anything longer-range would be tasked to a missile.

>computerized targeting and motorized turrets would make crews small

>armor would actually be effective if its facing normal coastal defenses.

For 15000 tons displacement its a lot to get.

>>33848675
>Because we don't have autists crying for them to be reactivated
You spoke too soon.

File: 800px-US_Navy_100304-N-6006S-046_The_Ticonderoga-class_guided-missile_cruiser_USS_Bunker_Hill_(CG_52)_transits_in_the_Atlantic_Ocean.jpg (65KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 800x531px

>>33848999
What's the point of the guns? Unless they introduce railguns, heavy artillery is pretty much pointless. Besides, they still operate cruisers these days, just armed with missiles. The tonnages are about 1/3 lower, but their role is quite comparable.

>>33848864

This, the battleships get love because their gone, and most likely we will never see their like again.
Cruisers just evolved. Its why people sperg out about velociraptors but no one gives a shit about chickens.

>>33848615

I don't like cruisers because their main battery wasn't heavy enough to tackle battleships but they weren't equipped with sonar or ASW weaponry. Also they tended to have fewer torpedo tubes and reloads than destroyers.

I would make an exemption for the brilliant British Leander Class light cruisers. German pocket battleships as well due to their 11 inch armament.

File: J5R6tai.jpg (298KB, 1800x947px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1800x947px

>>33848615
>thinking cruisers are bad

This is the most plebeian thread I have seen on the entire 4chan.

>>33848999

....and if they ever make the LRLAP cost effective, the Zumwalt-class is basically what you describe. Except instead of belts of steel armor it uses stealth and its own VLS as protection.

>>33848615
Because there are no mentally deformed cruiserfags on this board that get horny about artillery barges in the current year and keep forcing their shit despite the entire board keeps telling them to fuck off to /v?

File: 1164 varyag in san-francisco.jpg (4MB, 4032x1821px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x1821px

>>33849087
Cruisers aren't really that common though. Destroyer has become essentially a naval analogue of the MBT concept for all intents and purposes.

File: 1dxet4.jpg (51KB, 670x377px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 670x377px

>>33848999
>203mm guns are already the biggest land based artillery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-eHB9I9C9g

>>33849508

what is a cruiser for vs a destroyer?

>>33849533
That was a much easier question to answer in WW2. Now the answer is "there is no distinction other than one is bigger"

File: 382844.jpg (420KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1600x900px

>>33849119

An Iowa-class displaces (average) 52825 tons. This costs $100 million. So you get about 528 tons per $ million. In comparison, a Baltimore-class cruiser displaces 16003 tons at the cost of $40 million. So about 400 tons per $ million. The Iowa-class is mathematically more efficient. Now imagine 3 Baltimores going up against 1 Iowa. Who wins that engagement? The battleship, easily. The cruisers can't inflict any meaningful damage. So with all that in mind, what's the purpose in even having cruisers? They can't do anything that a battleship can't do better, and if they ever actually have to fight a battleship, they're utterly screwed.

>>33850283
Those 3 Baltimores also carry 3 sets of air search radars to triple the amount of sky you can search for enemy aircraft.

3 Baltimores carry 36 barrels of 5"/38 and 144 barrels of 40mm Bofors, while an Iowa carries 20 barrels of 5"/38 and 80 barrels of Bofors.

3 Baltimores comes with 3 bridge and staff facilities. Which means you can put them in charge of a destroyer squadron each and form an effective outer barrier for the Carriers.

What else do you need to justify their existence?

>>33850402
3 Baltimores cost $120 to build compared to $100 for 1 Iowa, not to mention the operating costs.

>>33848615
Modern day Destroyers are basically cruisers anyway.

File: Obsolete_Junk.jpg (150KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1280x850px

>>33848675

No, instead we get government tards' who keep these irrelevant vessels as part of our navy even though they have zero objectives that cannot be performed by a submarine.

>>33848615
bump

File: USS_Boston_firing_Terrier_guided_missile_1956.jpg (250KB, 740x589px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 740x589px

>>33848615

>Why is it that WW2 battleships constantly get shit on but cruisers get let off the hook for some reason?

Because smaller hulls were less expensive to operate into the Cold War and retrofit into a guided missile role- at the time a nascent technology. The development of the guided missile warship traces its lineage directly to early conversions of WW2-era cruisers. Destroyers immediately produced postwar were too light to mount the necessary radar systems, and the first DDG, USS Farragut, would enter service almost half a decade after the first CAGs were converted from Baltimores.

In actuality, modern destroyers are an amalgamation of WW2-era destroyers and cruisers, being tasked with anti-submarine, anti-aircraft duties, and offering sea-to-shore bombardment via cruise missiles. Neither cruisers nor destroyers as we knew them in WW2 truly exist anymore. Missiles have replaced guns as the primary armament, but it remains that modern day destroyers have proportionately far better AA than those in WW2, while WW2-era cruisers obviously had little in the way of ASW.

We don't shit on cruisers because they were able to evolve into a post-BB environment.

>>33849533
Originally, cruisers were meant to be ships capable of sailing long distances and operating far away from home naval bases with little support, while a destroyer is short for "torpedo boat destroyer" and were meant to act as escorts for larger ships that would be vulnerable to torpedo boat attacks.

The distinction is meaningless these days with each nation making up their own definition for what a cruiser, frigate, and destroyer is.

File: 1280px-USS_Chicago_(CG-11)_underway_in_early_1970s.jpg (178KB, 1280x1016px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1280x1016px

>>33854701
>...being tasked with anti-submarine, anti-aircraft duties, and offering sea-to-shore bombardment via cruise missiles.

As well as their ability to operate aircraft and vastly heavier tonnage.

>>33848615
What. CLs are cheap, fast, maneuverable and work as AA platforms. Add the ASW capabilities and missiles and you got yourself modern DDs. What's not to love?

>>33850283
>>33850559
Are you dense? Ever heard of escort and screens?

>>33852017

Ticonderogas are eventually gonna be phased out, the Navy operates 3x as many Arleigh-Burkes. They tried to start decommissioning Ticonderogas back in 2011, but they determined they needed to keep them on as AEIGIS platforms (which Arleigh-Burkes can do too), so I think they recognize that it's an outdated technology and are only continuing to operate them because it's cheaper to keep the Ticonderogas we already have operational than it is to build 22 new Arleigh-Burkes to replace them.

>>33849102
Cruisers typically had a larger cruising range than destroyers until late ww2 when dd tonnage for new builds trended heavily upwards, creating a bunch of mini cruisers in practice. The cruiser was the original utility class used to patrol colonial possessions, trade routes, and raid enemy trade if things went fucky. They were also armored to an extent and could intercept armed merchant cruisers or even cargo ships that happened to be armed with impunity, which might have been a risky proposition for an unarmored dd.

As dd tonnage, capability, and cruising range became larger at the end of ww2 and beyond, they have supplanted the cruiser as the utility class and the lines of distinction have become blurred.

>>33848615
I dont hate battleships. I hate battleship-fag. If someone was shitting up treads with memes about bringing back Baltimore cruisers for some reason, I'd hate them as well, but never the ship.

>>33850283
An Iowa class can only be at one place at one time. 3 Baltimores can be dispersed on independent raids against shipping. 3 Baltimores acting independently require more resources to find and track. They also require less infrastructure for repairs, upgrades, and supply, meaning they can operate and resupply from many different ports. Once the Iowa is found or sighted by other naval assets, the admiral with the Baltimores can simply patrol in areas where the Iowa is not. From an operational standpoint, the Baltimores seem like a better investment because they will actually get used. They are more flexible and can be seen as a more diversified investment. A battleships primary purpose is to destroy the enemy in a decisive engagement. In ww2, aircraft carriers were more capable for this purpose.

>>33855021

This

Iowas are fucking sick, they just don't belong in modern naval combat. I love talking about battleships in the context of WW2 and earlier, but they had no business being pressed into service after that

>>33855033
Hell, i'd love sailing a Iowa up the Suez in 1973, blasting guns left and right. I just dont see it as practical, cost effective or anything other than my own idea of fun.

>>33855174
You obviously have never been to port said. You should pick a place where you could tell that you just bombarded it with 16" guns. Say a sand dune or something.

>>33848615
>because cruisers are more expensive than battleships, relative to tonnage

Said nobody ever.

>>33850283
>Now imagine 3 Baltimores going up against 1 Iowa. Who wins that engagement? The battleship, easily.

You must be 18 to post here.

>>33850283
this is what battleshipboos actually believe

>>33854925

Eventually because of their old hulls, but mine has been drydocking for a while now with fuck loads of cash being poured in everyday. I could see at least 10 more years of operation.

The VLS capabilities of a CG are also greater. Several cruisers have primary roles as anti ICBM with special hardware/software built into their AEGIS suite and a different payload.

>>33850559
You lose one baltimore and you only spend $40 replacing it, but you lose an iowa and you spend $120.

>>33855032
This is nice in theory but that's not how heavy cruisers were used.

>>33855517
And the risk of losing one Baltimore is far higher. risk x cost is what you need to look at, not just cost.

>>33855021
This. Extreme opinions aren't good.

>>33856056
Your enemies are probably going to put more resources into sinking a battleship than 3 cruisers. And while you might only have ~7 other battleships after losing 1,

>>33856119
cruisers are easier to replace with your ~20 others

File: battleship-tirpitz.jpg (36KB, 600x378px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x378px

>>33856119

>Your enemies are probably going to put more resources into sinking a battleship than 3 cruisers.

And that's because they know that the battleship is the bigger threat. More resources are REQUIRED to defeat it. Hell, just look at the enormity of resources that were devoted to containing Tirpitz, a battleship that never actually did anything.

>>33856053
Japs and Germans used heavy cruisers for raiding enemy commerce.

File: Scharnhorst_guns.jpg (130KB, 505x413px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 505x413px

>>33856505
>>33856505

Well, they tried to. I admit, I find the idea of commerce raiding with cruisers really fascinating for some reason. There is just something dramatic about the idea of a lone cruiser (or battlecruiser) out in enemy territory, raiding convoys, slipping past patrols. Basically a suicide mission.

>>33849508
This
Guided missile frigates and destroyers are pretty much the backbone ships of modern navies.

>>33856134
A huge amount of resources also went into building the Tirpitz, and as you said, she never actually did anything.

>>33857729

>What is a fleet-in-being?

>>33848615
what a shitty thread

File: surrender_of_japan_in_tokyo_bay.jpg (320KB, 1247x959px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1247x959px

>>33857747
Losers always whine about their "fleet-in-being".

Winners sail home and fuck the prom queen.

>>33856505
To be honest, i've never read about japanese cruisers doing anything other than fight other warships and planes.

>>33857747
Does it even count when the RN did jack shit throughout the war in the North Sea?

They couldn't even stop Operation Weserübung, and those were unescorted troop transports.

File: blucher_burns_in_oslo_fjord.jpg (777KB, 1457x1019px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 1457x1019px

>>33857832
>unescorted troop transports.

>>33857845

>>german "surface navy"

>>33849071
Maybe cost efficacy?... it seems like a cheap method to bombard enemy positions from offshore you know? In my mind it makes a bit more sense than throwing an expensive missile towards a bunker or something. What do you think?

>>33848615
Because cruisers were turned into something useful, the battleship was not.

>>33848615
Cruisers are more expendable so they actually saw action.

>>33850283
>The Iowa-class is mathematically more efficient. Now imagine 3 Baltimores going up against 1 Iowa. Who wins that engagement? The battleship, easily. The cruisers can't inflict any meaningful damage.
My Ticonderoga class can fling a dozen missiles up your Iowa's ass hours before the Iowa can even get off a shot. Cruiser wins.

Again, there is a reason for modern cruisers to exist. There is no reason at all for modern battleships to exist.

>>33850283
>The cruisers can't inflict any meaningful damage
tell that to South Dakota
not being able to penetrate the armor doesn't mean you can't fuck a ship up

>>33860091
Or the Roberts or the Johnston. They were rekting heavy cruisers and battleships in The Battle off Samar with five inch guns because of excellently placed shots up in the bridge and turrets.

Granted they got a little help from their torpedos but still, as I recall the two ships took out the bridges of like three Jap heavy cruisers and battleships before their torpedos hit home.

>>33848615
Laypeople are not aware of cruisers.