Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Fombo

Light Cruisers will now have depth charges... Do we have a list of the lines that are "Light"?

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

79
[CAG-1]
Members
169 posts
9,384 battles

I know the British cruisers and Wooster side of the American cruisers are considered light...  Are the Russian cruisers light as well?  The Chappy description says "a series of light cruisers laid down in the 1930s..."  I think the Perth is also light?  The Duca also looks like it is supposed to be a Light Cruiser?  Which of the cruiser lines will be getting depth charges?

Edited by Bearen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,332 posts
4,615 battles

Anything around 152mm and under pretty much. 203s and up are considered heavy cruisers. Huang He is gonna be interesting for sure. 

Edited by Yoshiblue
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[CAG-1]
Members
169 posts
9,384 battles

Hmm, I wonder what they will class the Dimitri Donskoi?  It has 180mm but is based on the Chappy hull.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,922
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,624 posts
14,196 battles
3 minutes ago, Yoshiblue said:

Anything around 152mm and under pretty much. 203s and up are considered heavy cruisers. Huang He is gonna be interesting for sure. 

This, 6" and smaller armed ships that are not DD's are CL's and anything over 6" and I think no more than 9" are CA's. It should be interesting as some of the RU cruisers have 7" guns.

2 minutes ago, Bearen said:

Hmm, I wonder what they will class the Dimitri Donskoi?  It has 180mm but is based on the Chappy hull.

 

Ninja'd!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,332 posts
4,615 battles

I'd say yes, but Donskoi is a big ship with near CA reload speeds. So it's really up to WG on that one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,673
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,694 posts
14,905 battles

The Treaty definition of Light/Heavy cruisers was set specifically by the London Treaty of 1930.

That considered anything >155mm (6.1in) to be a heavy cruiser. By that metric, Donskoi is a heavy cruiser - though the USSR were not signatories to the Naval Treaties at that point.

 

Irrespective of what is a light or heavy cruiser, using that as a cutoff is still dumb and arbitrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,579
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,304 posts
6,266 battles
31 minutes ago, Yoshiblue said:

I'd say yes, but Donskoi is a big ship with near CA reload speeds. So it's really up to WG on that one. 

It all depends on how WeeGee decided to interpret "Light Cruiser", but officially the treaty definition is cruisers "with guns of no more than 155mm". So Donskoi would be out, and weirdly enough Kirov would be as well.

Going strictly by gun caliber the affected ships would be:
US cruisers Omaha, Dallas, Helena, Cleveland, Seattle, Worcester, Marblehead, Boise, Flint, Atlanta, and Montpelier
German cruisers Konigsberg, Nurnberg, and Mainz
French cruisers Emile Bertin, La Galissionere, DeGrasse, Bayard, and Colbert
Japanese cruiser Yahagi (not Mogami because she can be configured and was meant as a CA)
Italian cruisers Montecuccoli, Duca d'Aosta, and Duca delgi Abruzzi
Russian cruisers Shchors, Chapayev, Krasny Krym, Admiral Makarov, Lazo, and Kutuzov
British cruisers Emerald, Leander, Fiji, Edinburgh, Neptune, Minotaur, and Belfast
Commonwealth cruiser Perth
Pan Asian cruisers Huang He and Irian
Pan American cruiser Nueve de Julio

Note: I'm only counting tier 5+ ships because they are the only ones that can see subs.

I'll also agree with @mofton that simply applying the mechanic blanket to "light cruisers" is a bit uncalled for and quite a stretch overall. SOME light cruisers were indeed set up with ASW equipment and expected to perform sub-hunting duties, but these were almost universally ships that were designed to fill the role of "destroyer leader" such as Yahagi and Atlanta, ships that were light even for light cruisers.  I can understand Wargaming not wanting to confuse new players of simply doing this for testing purposes (if I recall the last tests were restricted to tier 6, and pretty much ever tier 6 CL is a good candidate for getting depth charges), but regardless when submarines get the full implementation I would feel better if the standard was simply "ships that performed this role in real life" and not by arbitrary treaty definitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,505
[RKLES]
Members
12,554 posts
14,283 battles

An easy way to find out what cruisers are mostly likely to get depth charges would be to flip through records of cruisers and see which ones carried depth charges. It’s often crazy little historical details such as those that Wargaming likes to follow.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,922
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,624 posts
14,196 battles
33 minutes ago, mofton said:

The Treaty definition of Light/Heavy cruisers was set specifically by the London Treaty of 1930.

That considered anything >155mm (6.1in) to be a heavy cruiser. By that metric, Donskoi is a heavy cruiser - though the USSR were not signatories to the Naval Treaties at that point.

 

Irrespective of what is a light or heavy cruiser, using that as a cutoff is still dumb and arbitrary.

Correct but for discussions like this the treaty limits are the best metric to use. Germany wasn't a signatory to the treaties either which is why WG calling the Deutschland class a cruiser is not wrong because even though the 11" guns would have made her a battleship under the Washington and London treaties she was very much a cruiser in the armored cruiser style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,076
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,350 posts
19,535 battles
56 minutes ago, Bearen said:

I wonder what they will class the Dimitri Donskoi? 

It's a Russian ship, OF COURSE it will get depth charges. (And really it plays more like a light than a heavy.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,673
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,694 posts
14,905 battles
20 minutes ago, Landsraad said:

I'll also agree with @mofton that simply applying the mechanic blanket to "light cruisers" is a bit uncalled for and quite a stretch overall. SOME light cruisers were indeed set up with ASW equipment and expected to perform sub-hunting duties, but these were almost universally ships that were designed to fill the role of "destroyer leader" such as Yahagi and Atlanta, ships that were light even for light cruisers

It's not quite as unusual as commonly thought, most all British light and heavy cruisers of WWII carried depth charges, even the big 10,000t Town and County classes. The RN fitted almost all of their light cruisers with ASDIC (excepting a few of the oldest C- and D-Class ships). Practice differed in other navies, but the RN were not insignificant operators of light cruisers.

From Raven & Roberts' British Cruisers of WWII:

s9hpxpng.jpg

t8Hf1Hog.jpg

 

3 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Correct but for discussions like this the treaty limits are the best metric to use. Germany wasn't a signatory to the treaties either which is why WG calling the Deutschland class a cruiser is not wrong because even though the 11" guns would have made her a battleship under the Washington and London treaties she was very much a cruiser in the armored cruiser style.

True, and I concur on the Deutschland's, the statement on the USSR not being a signatory was simply for completeness.

I take a fairly broad view of the Treaty terms too. Certainly 'legally' all the cheating >10,000 tonners, be they 10,001t or 12,500t were 'Capital Ships' but using that distinction would be silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,579
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,304 posts
6,266 battles
17 minutes ago, mofton said:

It's not quite as unusual as commonly thought, most all British light and heavy cruisers of WWII carried depth charges, even the big 10,000t Town and County classes. The RN fitted almost all of their light cruisers with ASDIC (excepting a few of the oldest C- and D-Class ships). Practice differed in other navies, but the RN were not insignificant operators of light cruisers.

From Raven & Roberts' British Cruisers of WWII:

Fair enough, most of what I've read has been on the US side of things where you'd hardly expect ships like the Brooklyns and Clevelands to be kitted out for hunting subs. Giving ships depth charges and sub-hunting capability in the game still feels like something that would be better done on a case-by-case basis depending on what the ships could do and were equipped for IRL once you get outside the realm of destroyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,922
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,624 posts
14,196 battles
26 minutes ago, mofton said:

It's not quite as unusual as commonly thought, most all British light and heavy cruisers of WWII carried depth charges, even the big 10,000t Town and County classes. The RN fitted almost all of their light cruisers with ASDIC (excepting a few of the oldest C- and D-Class ships). Practice differed in other navies, but the RN were not insignificant operators of light cruisers.

From Raven & Roberts' British Cruisers of WWII:

s9hpxpng.jpg

t8Hf1Hog.jpg

 

True, and I concur on the Deutschland's, the statement on the USSR not being a signatory was simply for completeness.

I take a fairly broad view of the Treaty terms too. Certainly 'legally' all the cheating >10,000 tonners, be they 10,001t or 12,500t were 'Capital Ships' but using that distinction would be silly.

You make a good argument to give all RN cruisers ASW abilities but the US and IJN apparently didn't give their cruisers even the CL's much if any ASW capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
42 posts
3,047 battles

They (Wargaming) are considering a cruiser armour change/ normalization that defines what subclass a cruiser is, whether it be light or heavy. If this does get implemented I assume all cruisers that fall under the "light" cruiser classification will receive depth charges.

Take a read here (IFHE is also one of the changes)

But who knows, that's just one of Wargaming's proposals

EDIT: Link to notser video that better explains it

I know this sort of deviates from the original topic question but if wargaming does implement changes like this then I assume cruisers of light armour under the new system will be impacted and receive depth charges.

Edited by ExecutiveToasterOven
Added extra link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,579
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,304 posts
6,266 battles
2 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

You make a good argument to give all RN cruisers ASW abilities but the US and IJN apparently didn't give their cruisers even the CL's much if any ASW capabilities.

Oh no the IJN totally gave their light cruisers ASW capability. Because they didn't really like the idea of light cruisers as "cruisers" so much as "fat destroyers" or "loopholes we can abuse to make more heavy cruisers than we're allowed to". That's part of the reason why we're unlikely to see a Japanese CL line any time soon, all their CLs were meant as destroyer flotilla leaders rather than as ships that would fight in on par with other cruisers. It's why Yahagi is the ONLY Japanese ship that I currently see getting depth charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
560
[-N-]
Members
2,222 posts
14,769 battles

IFHE rework will speak more to this I think.  As they are going to classify cruisers as Super Light, Light and Heavy.  My understanding is anything above 180 (including the Donkey) will be considered Heavy, under 180 but above say 139 will be a Light Cruiser, under that 139 mark will be a Super Light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,106
[IRNBN]
Members
3,475 posts
10,344 battles
4 hours ago, ExecutiveToasterOven said:

They (Wargaming) are considering a cruiser armour change/ normalization that defines what subclass a cruiser is, whether it be light or heavy.

Read it again. The distinction remains gun calibre. They're just mulling changes to the armor layouts between the them.

Quote from TFA:

The change in plating affects three different groups of cruisers:

  1. with a gun caliber of 190 mm or more;
  2. with a gun caliber from 139 to 189 mm;
  3. with a gun caliber of up to 139 mm and British cruisers with a caliber of 152 mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
414
[KAPPA]
Members
1,340 posts
7,571 battles
4 hours ago, Landsraad said:

 It's why Yahagi is the ONLY Japanese ship that I currently see getting depth charges.

What about Yubari? As I recall she was given a pair of charge throwers in one of her later refits. Also Kuma I believe already had them present on the in-game model (though only being as functional as Ashitaka's torpedo tubes are). Of course, what I'm really waiting to hear is if we get the rumored depth charge rails added to ships like Musashi, which is said to have had them added later on. :Smile_trollface:

Spoiler

Yes, I'm aware that was in a later refit than she has in-game. Note the troll-face, it was clearly a joke.

Actually come to think of it, one good way of predicting what cruisers will be getting them is to simply look at the in-game model. I suspect most of the candidates already have rails and throwers modeled, but non-functional, just like the torp tubes on Hood and Ashitaka (and many others).

Edited by CaptHarlock_222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,092
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
11,541 posts
16,272 battles
4 hours ago, Idaho_Spud said:

The only RN CA in the game ATM is HMS Exeter.

True I am just using WG terms. WG only has 4 ship types. So Yes RN CL line would have been better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,922
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,624 posts
14,196 battles
10 hours ago, Landsraad said:

Oh no the IJN totally gave their light cruisers ASW capability. Because they didn't really like the idea of light cruisers as "cruisers" so much as "fat destroyers" or "loopholes we can abuse to make more heavy cruisers than we're allowed to". That's part of the reason why we're unlikely to see a Japanese CL line any time soon, all their CLs were meant as destroyer flotilla leaders rather than as ships that would fight in on par with other cruisers. It's why Yahagi is the ONLY Japanese ship that I currently see getting depth charges.

They did think of them as destroyer leaders but from what I have seen they didn't have ASW capabilities, just anti ship weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
668
[NUWES]
Members
3,184 posts
10,948 battles
53 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

They did think of them as destroyer leaders but from what I have seen they didn't have ASW capabilities, just anti ship weapons.

The Aganos did. I believe they had hydrophones/sonar and depth charge racks as-built. I think they could also lay mines. Most prewar IJN CLs (Tenryu, Kumas, Nagaras and Sendais for example) didn't start their lives with ASW gear that I recall though although some did received depth charges at least later in their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,922
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,624 posts
14,196 battles
1 hour ago, Tzarevitch said:

The Aganos did. I believe they had hydrophones/sonar and depth charge racks as-built. I think they could also lay mines. Most prewar IJN CLs (Tenryu, Kumas, Nagaras and Sendais for example) didn't start their lives with ASW gear that I recall though although some did received depth charges at least later in their lives.

You are correct that the Agano class had depth charges and I found that the Sendai class got them in 1943. The Kama and Nagara class both had mines but no depth charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×