Jiji has IMO grown significantly since they've started drawing almost fifteen years ago. It's great to see how far they've come, and the latest shipgirl they've drawn is incredibly cute.
Looks more like a heavy cruiser than a light, then again the same goes for Gotland.
Well, is not like breast are related to displacement. Tneryuu and Tatsuta would enter that category too...
But in the case of Garibaldi is at least justified, that ship had the same displacement as some heavy cruisers (like Furutaka or Aoba). This is the second foreign light cruiser in the game, after Gotland.
Nah she's got Alfa (Italian designed built missile with conventional warhead). She was designed for Polaris but never issued it as well issues came up with "Well we're gonna give them The Bomb when they can't make it?" At least with the missiles given to the RN the warheads were made by the Brits.
Her voicelines have been uploaded if you're curious. Suffice to say, this is just her "game face" and doesn't reflect the entirety of her character.
So she's a bokuko sukeban/delinquent that refers to her sister ship as "aneki". I guess that still lends itself well to not doing work, but rather than just demanding extra vacation days, she's just skipping out on that honest work shit.
Looks more like a heavy cruiser than a light, then again the same goes for Gotland.
Standard Displacement of Giuseppe Garibaldi: 11,350 Tons
IJN Light Cruisers were just weedy by foreign standards.
hanesco said: But in the case of Garibaldi is at least justified, that ship had the same displacement as some heavy cruisers (like Furutaka or Aoba). This is the second foreign light cruiser in the game, after Gotland.
She's much larger then Aoba she's essentially in the same displacement class as Myoko or Takao.
Standard Displacement of Giuseppe Garibaldi: 11,350 Tons
IJN Light Cruisers were just weedy by foreign standards.
She's much larger then Aoba she's essentially in the same displacement class as Myoko or Takao.
Remember that Mogami was built as a Light Cruiser, as are the Brooklyn-class from America. "Light" is a designation of the weapon they have armed (155mm or less) as oppose to displacement of the hull. Though these cruisers were not suppose to be over the treaty limit of 10,000 tons....most countries cheated and the post-treaty cruisers went larger anyway, but would keep the treaty definitions of "heavy" and "light" based on weapons until the 1950s and people started building missile cruisers.
Standard Displacement of Giuseppe Garibaldi: 11,350 Tons
IJN Light Cruisers were just weedy by foreign standards.
She's much larger then Aoba she's essentially in the same displacement class as Myoko or Takao.
In truth, any modern light cruiser had more displacement than any light cruiser of the japanese. The Kuma, Nagara and Sendai classes were simply WWI ships. Their closest equivalent were the Omaha class from the USA and the Emerald class from the UK. Yubari was an experimental ship, fitting the firepower of the Sendai-class in half the displacement.
And the Agano class were closer to the displacement of other navies' light cruisers, but even those were lighter to facilitate construction. Ooyodo was the heaviest light cruiser, and she was not a standard light cruiser either. Oyodo had the same displacement as Furutaka or Aoba.
Standard Displacement of Giuseppe Garibaldi: 11,350 Tons
IJN Light Cruisers were just weedy by foreign standards.
hanesco said:
In truth, any modern light cruiser had more displacement than any light cruiser of the japanese.
While wikipedia claims that it was 11350 tons it also says the full load tonnage was 11750. Or in other words Wikipedia is almost certainly wrong. The values for standard displacement for the Abruzzi cruisers I've seen put them at 9000-9500 ton standard displacement, fairly close to Aoba and Kinugasa after they were modernized.
As for IJN light cruisers being light, well, true to a degree. There were a lot of heavy (in terms of tonnage) light cruisers around, especially due to how many the US built. At the same time a whole lot of light cruisers were about the same or lighter than IJN light cruisers. As we are talking about an Italian ship we can for example use the six ships of the Alberto di Giussano-class and two of the Luigi Cadorna-class which were 5100-5200 ton standard displacement. There were only three IJN cruisers which were lighter: Tenryū, Tatsua and Yūbari.
Even if you restrict it to ships laid down 1930s or later you have e.g. the UK Dido and Arethusa. A step lighter you get the Dutch Tromp or Italian Capitani Romani.
Standard Displacement of Giuseppe Garibaldi: 11,350 Tons
IJN Light Cruisers were just weedy by foreign standards.
She's much larger then Aoba she's essentially in the same displacement class as Myoko or Takao.
ithekro said:
Remember that Mogami was built as a Light Cruiser, as are the Brooklyn-class from America. "Light" is a designation of the weapon they have armed (155mm or less) as oppose to displacement of the hull. Though these cruisers were not suppose to be over the treaty limit of 10,000 tons....most countries cheated and the post-treaty cruisers went larger anyway, but would keep the treaty definitions of "heavy" and "light" based on weapons until the 1950s and people started building missile cruisers.
hanesco said:
In truth, any modern light cruiser had more displacement than any light cruiser of the japanese. The Kuma, Nagara and Sendai classes were simply WWI ships. Their closest equivalent were the Omaha class from the USA and the Emerald class from the UK. Yubari was an experimental ship, fitting the firepower of the Sendai-class in half the displacement.
And the Agano class were closer to the displacement of other navies' light cruisers, but even those were lighter to facilitate construction. Ooyodo was the heaviest light cruiser, and she was not a standard light cruiser either. Oyodo had the same displacement as Furutaka or Aoba.
Isn't the, well, size, connected to armor as well as displacement?
In that case, it is again justified, as the RM went all in for these cruisers, and fitted them with a decapping plate concept that in their calculations would've given them an equivalent degree of vertical protection to the Zara-class.
Isn't the, well, size, connected to armor as well as displacement?
In that case, it is again justified, as the RM went all in for these cruisers, and fitted them with a decapping plate concept that in their calculations would've given them an equivalent degree of vertical protection to the Zara-class.
It's interesting to see that, stripping the Abruzzi class of their turrets and armor, and putting the Zara turrets and armor on them, the cruisers would have complied with the Washington treaty thus having 5000hp more than the Zara (not that this was necessary, since the treaty already expired). Few years had passed and the new machinery, both smaller an lighter, made that possible.
Armor meant nothing in terms of the treaty. At all.
Displacement was for limiting the size of the cruisers to 10,000 tons, and each navy that signed it had a limit of how much tonnage they had available for cruisers. Guns were limited to 8 inches on cruisers. If a country wanted armor within the 10,000 ton limit, they needed to become creative about it, or forget about it (the French and Italians had a bunch of tin-clad cruisers with armor that wouldn't stop World War One destroyer fire, much less 5 inch guns on modern destroyers.)
Later, The London Treaty revised the concept so that countries would have limits on the number of "heavy cruisers" they could have...those armed with guns larger than 155mm. So what did the countries that were still part of the treaty do? build huge "light cruisers" that were 10,000(+) tons and armed with a lot of 150-155mm guns. They were still limited to their total tonnage limits, but other than total tonnage allowed for cruisers and a limited number of heavy cruisers, counties could build as many light cruisers as they wanted. Thus the Americans and Japanese stopped building heavy cruisers and started building huge light cruisers in the 30s (Brooklyn and Mogami classes). The British just switched to arming their cruisers with 6 inch guns....they needed numbers of hulls, not large ships.
Mogami was designed to be refit as heavy cruisers, while the Brooklyns had rapid fire 6 inch guns and could murder other cruisers in a broadside fight.
While wikipedia claims that it was 11350 tons it also says the full load tonnage was 11750. Or in other words Wikipedia is almost certainly wrong. The values for standard displacement for the Abruzzi cruisers I've seen put them at 9000-9500 ton standard displacement, fairly close to Aoba and Kinugasa after they were modernized.
It probably is wrong, the loaded displacement is too low.
All you really need to do is compare to other CLs that are honest about there displacement to see the 11,000 ton number is totally logical.
Edinbrugh Class: OA Length: 187 Meters Beam: 19-20 meters (Belfast was slightly widen vs her sister) Speed: 32.5 knots Battery: 12x152/50mm guns, 12x102mm guns, 6x Torpedo tubes Aviation: Up to three seaplanes Main Armor: 114mm Belt, ~38mm-76mm over deck (former much larger surface area), 102mm turret faces and 50mm barbettes
Cleveland Class: OA Length:186 Meters Beam: 20 meters Speed: 32.5 knots Battery: 12x152mm/47 guns, 12x127mm guns Aviation: up to four seaplanes Main Armor: 127mm Belt, 51mm Deck, 165mm turret taces and 152mm barbettes
Giuseppe Garibaldi: OA Length: 187 Meters Beam 19 Meters Speed: 34 Knots Battery:10x152mm/55 guns 8x100mm guns, 6x Torpedo Tubes Aviation: up to four seaplanes Main Armor: 30mm decapping plate over 100mm main belt, 40mm Main Deck, 135mm turret faces and 100mm barbettes
There are only marginal differences in focus between these ships, the biggest of note is that the Italian ship has given up two barrels for slightly higher speed and notably longer and higher velocity guns. There is no readily apparent reason this ship wouldn't be in the same weight class as the others two at standard displacement, but a smaller increase to 'full load' displacement is probable since Italian ships tended to have significantly lower fuel fractions since they did not expect to operate much beyond the Med. The idea that with four more guns in much heavier turrets, plus an extra armored turret, significantly heavier armor everywhere generally, and a three meter wider beam on a slightly longer length that they're in the same weight range as the Aoba class is ludicrous. There is no way in hell this thing is 9,000 tons standard without some Enron tier creative accounting.
As for IJN light cruisers being light, well, true to a degree. There were a lot of heavy (in terms of tonnage) light cruisers around, especially due to how many the US built.
They were light by ANY standard. Anyway that's not an excuse it's rather the point, without treaty limits pretty much everyone that could produced bigger not smaller ships. The entire concept of these dinky flotilla leaders was never a very good one, that tonnage would have been better spent on higher capability cruisers of at least 7500 to 8000 ton standard displacement.
At the same time a whole lot of light cruisers were about the same or lighter than IJN light cruisers.
No there weren't, not of comparable vintage anyway. The 5,500 tonners were being built through the mid 20s. The only way you can get "allot" of cruiser smaller then them is to include the almost entirely British WWI era ships that lingered in service. If you compare them to ships of their own vintage and later you can see the disparity plainly.
Show
Cruisers about the same or lighter displacement intended for surface actions and built from the 20s to WWII Arethusa (4) Luigi Cadorna (2) Tromp (2) Émile Bertin (1) Blas de Lezo (2) Navarra Capitani Romani... debatably (4). (lacking effectively ANY armor, being barely larger then something like Tashkent and with only 135mm guns it is more of a huge DD then a cruiser to me.)
16 total in 25 years.
Dido I'd discard because it was designed as an AA ship and not intended to fight surface actions so it has significantly differing criteria.
Meanwhile for significantly (1,000+ tons standard) heavier ships in the same period you have: Emerald (2) Leander(8) The Towns (10) Crown Colony Class (11) Omaha Class (10) Brooklyn and St Louis (9) Cleveland (27) Duguay-Trouin (3) La Galissonnière (6) Kirov (6) Mogami (4) Agano (4) Königsberg (3) Leipzig (2) Alberto da Giussano (4) Raimondo Montecuccoli (2) Duca degli Abruzzi (2) Duca d'Aosta (2) Giussano (2) Almirante Cervera (3) Java (2) De Ruyter
123 in 25 years.
Atlanta is discarded for the same reason as Dido. There are also like another ten ships that were under construction, but stopped by the war.
Beyond this though is the fact that almost every single one of these ships is a superior fighting vessel. The 5,500 tonners were honestly pretty sketchy by the early 30s and badly outmoded by the star of the war.
There protection was bad, it had been deisnged against 4 inch DD guns and furthermore it was also constructed using high strength steel rather then true 'armor grade' material, so even the meager thickness provided is actually an overstatement. Furthermore it protected only the machinery the magazines and hoists had only splinter protection. These ships would have been vulranble to penetration by the semi-armor piercing rounds available to US 5 inch destroyer guns at up to almost 10km. Furthermore with all the guns mounted in open backed pedestal mounts one could quite possibly disable the entire main battery by just sweeping the deck with pretty much any caliber of HE shell or even strafing from aircraft.
The guns themselves were deeply unimpressive as well they had a low maximum elevation only 25 degrees on Kuma and Nagara and 30 on Sendai. That gave only about 17.5km on the former and about 19 on the later, penetration and HE load were in line with the rather low caliber. Being manual mounts they were also slow to work and fire control was quite basic not really being better then a destroyer. Torpedo armament was only marginally better only three of them (barring the torpedo cruiser conversions) ever got oxygen torpedoes, the rest used Type 8 for there whole careers those weapons were only marginally superior to foreign models mostly by dint of larger size. The salvo was also weak, only half the tubes could fire to a side meaning a single DD could put out twice as many usually better torpedoes.
They were slow by the time of the war too as the hulls provide rather overloaded despite their modest equipment and protection, they ended up ballasted to greater of lesser degrees and lost several knots of speed. There wasn't any real weight margin for anything either, mounting more AA meant dumping guns and torpedoes. They just never got any form of surface search radar, probably due to top weight constraints.
They were frankly too small and lightly armed when they were built and by the time they actually were called on to fight they were hopelessly behind pretty much any potential opponent.
ithekro said:
The British just switched to arming their cruisers with 6 inch guns....they needed numbers of hulls, not large ships.
The British started building tons of large light cruisers too. They had tried to get a lower per ship tonnage limits placed on light cruisers for this reason, but it failed. The four Arethusa where the only ships of that type built, but once it became clear that everyone was just going to build much larger light cruisers they then went over to the Town and Crown Royal class which were basically in the same size range as the Brooklyns and built just over 20 of them between the mid 30s and the end of the war.
The only small cruisers built by Britain after the early 30s were the AA focused Didos.
Armor meant nothing in terms of the treaty. At all.
Armor means weight, and weight is displacement. Zara class' armor weighted 2800t. 28% of the allowed displacement was in the armor.
ithekro said:
Displacement was for limiting the size of the cruisers to 10,000 tons, and each navy that signed it had a limit of how much tonnage they had available for cruisers. Guns were limited to 8 inches on cruisers. If a country wanted armor within the 10,000 ton limit, they needed to become creative about it, or forget about it (the French and Italians had a bunch of tin-clad cruisers with armor that wouldn't stop World War One destroyer fire, much less 5 inch guns on modern destroyers.)
Talking of Italian heavy cruisers, that's Bullshit. The Trento class cruisers, often deemed to have paper armor, had a 70mm armored belt, 50mm deck, 100mm turrets and conning tower. It was just short of the Admiral Hipper and York class in terms of hull's protection (superior in turrets' protection to the York. All the British cruisers had turrets practically unprotected against guns of any caliber). It had light armor compared to the later Zara class, but in general it was pretty good for the late '20s. The contemporary British County class cruisers had practically no armor. It was partially added in the mid '30s.
It probably is wrong, the loaded displacement is too low.
Giuseppe Garibaldi: OA Length: 187 Meters Beam 19 Meters Speed: 34 Knots Battery:10x152mm/55 guns 8x100mm guns, 6x Torpedo Tubes Aviation: up to four seaplanes Main Armor: 30mm decapping plate over 100mm main belt, 40mm Main Deck, 135mm turret faces and 100mm barbettes
Let's add another ship to you comparison, the Brooklyns:
Brooklyn class OA length: 185,4 meters Beam: 18,8 meters Speed: 32,5 knots Battery: 15x152/47 guns, 8x127 mm guns Aviation: up to four seaplanes Main armor: 127 mm belt, 51 mm deck, 165 mm turret faces and 152 mm barbettes
So somewhat shorter and not quite as wide but with 5 more main guns requiring an entire extra barbette worth of weight. The turrets and barbettes are also more heavily armored than on Garibaldi. The belt comparison is a bit harder to make as the one on Brooklyn is thicker but only protected the machinery spaces with a separate "box" for the magazines that didn't have as thick armor. Speed is also one of the more questionable stats of a ship as different navies had different trial methods. Both Brooklyn and Garibaldi had a nominal 100000 shp power plant. Garibaldi at 9500 ton standard doesn't seem at all impossible if you accept that a Brooklyn is 9800 as built.
Italian ships doesn't seem to have carried that much less fuel than other navies ships either. Figures I've seen for Garibaldi is 1600-1700 tons. What does seem to be true is that e.g. the Italian and French ships were less fuel efficient and/or optimized for fuel efficiency at high speed compared to a US or UK ship. The fuel consumption curves for the French Le Fantasque as an example and they are pretty horrendous compared to the US destroyers until you get to 30+ knots at which point the French ship actually starts to become more fuel efficient.
As for the Aoba comparison I specified their modernized form. At that point new bulges had been added to help with stability issues which added quite a lot to their weight.
No there weren't, not of comparable vintage anyway. The 5,500 tonners were being built through the mid 20s. The only way you can get "allot" of cruiser smaller then them is to include the almost entirely British WWI era ships that lingered in service.
Why wouldn't you include the British WW1 era ships though? They were still active by the time of WW2 and closer contemporaries than a Cleveland. The last of the British 'D'-class cruisers were laid down in 1918, the same year as the first two Japanese 5500 tonners were laid down. I also see not reason to skip the Didos or Atlantas, they weren't built as dedicated AA platforms to my knowledge.
Show
Now let me preface it with the issue of displacement: it's a mess! Sources disagree with each other, sources may be obviously incorrect (as with Garibaldi earlier where the full tonnage and the standard displacement are doubtlessly too close), ships generally grew in displacement as time went by and so a source may list the displacement a ship had later in its service, and so on and so forth. I'll put a guess at what the standard displacement of the ships as built were, with a ~ infront to emphasize the uncertain nature of these values.
Included are (hopefully) all light cruisers that were still around or finished in 1939 - 1945. I've excluded seaplane cruisers/carriers, minelaying cruisers, and target/training/gutted cruisers.
There may be some errors in the list but this is a good faith effort at it. Year listing is by completion date.
1942 1x Capitani Romani, Italy ~3700 1x Agano, Japan ~6700 3x Dido, UK/Commonwealth ~5600 3x Fiji, UK/Commonwealth ~8500 3x Atlanta, USA ~6600 5x Cleveland, USA ~11800
1943 2x Capitani Romani, Italy ~3700 2x Agano, Japan ~6700 4x Bellona, UK/Commonwealth ~6000 3x Ceylon, UK/Commonwealth ~8500 2x Atlanta, USA ~6600 5x Cleveland, USA ~11800
1944 1x Agano, Japan ~6700 1x Bellona, UK/Commonwealth ~6000 1x Swiftsure, UK/Commonwealth ~8800 1x Atlanta, USA ~6600 10x Cleveland, USA ~11800
1945 1x Swiftsure, UK/Commonwealth ~8800 1x Superb, UK/Commonwealth ~8900 1x Atlanta, USA ~6600 6x Cleveland, USA ~11800
In my opinion that makes plenty of cruisers within the displacement range of the Japanese light cruisers.
Also I'm not claiming that the Japanese light cruisers were hefty pieces or some kind of wonderweapons. With the conversion of the Mogamis the ones they had left were mostly old and lopsided to the light end of the scale. But crucially the were still mostly on the same scale as foreign cruisers.
