Shipbucket

Wonderful set of drawings. Why are they considered the best treaty cruisers? They certainly look very good.

Wichita is without doubt THE best treaty cruiser, second should be New Orleans. Only two classes of treaty cruisers with armor even remotely adequate agains 8 inch shells.

Disagree with you, friend. And, let's be very clear here: We're talking about two different treaties: the Washington Treaty and London Treaty, and the ichita definitely belongs to the latter category, whereas the New Orleans can be regarding as an overlapping design. As a pure product of the limitations imposed by the WT the Algerie stands heads high above the rest!

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Bezo, a small question, if you don't mind; you make it sound as if the limitations upon heavy cruisers were lesser under the London Treaty than under the Washington treaty. I was under the impression that the Wichita and the Algerie operated under more or less the same limitations in tonnage?

I would add what LNT are we talking 1 or 2 ?

In regards limits on CA/CLs

WNT = simple anything under 10,000t with guns less than 8" is ok.
Article XI
No vessel of war exceeding 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement, other than a capital ship or aircraft-carrier, shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers. Vessels not specifically built as fighting ships nor taken in time of peace under Government control for fighting purposes, which are employed on fleet duties or as troop transports or in some other way for the purpose of assisting in the prosecution of hostilities otherwise than as fighting ships, shall not be within the limitations of this Article.
Article XII
No vessel of war of any of the Contracting Powers hereafter laid down, other than a capital ship, shall carry a gun with a calibre in excess of 8 inches (203 millimetres).
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech ... y_1922.htm

LNT (1) 1930 = This makes the CA and CL distinction (guns above or under 6.1") still under 10,000t as its a add on to WNT not replacing.
cant be bothered copying sections its 15 down http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech ... y_1922.htm

LNT (2) 1936 = still talks about 8 and 6" but adds 8,000t limit
(1) No light surface vessel of sub-category (b) exceeding 8,000 tons (8,128 metric tons) standard displacement, and no light surface vessel of sub-category (a) shall be laid down or acquired prior to 1 January 1943. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech ... y_1936.htm

Note,
- some nations cheated from the start others added to ships later, even later during WWII everybody's ships are over weight but nobody cares about bits of paper.
- that even at the time informal notes suggested that going 'only' 500t over was acceptable.
- that none of the later ships are even close to the limits really.

The technical limits on 10,000ton 8in gun cruisers were the same under the three treaties.
What differed were the limits on how many each navy could have and build, and when.
Washington, no treaty limits on numbers (practical limits because of costs, and comparisons with other navies)
London 1930, limits on numbers, to be reached by Dec 31 1936.
London 1936, 10,000 ton limits still applied to existing ships, and any still building under London 1930. No more to be laid down before 1943.
[Wichita was ordered 1934, laid down with new hull design 1935, completed 1938 with some armament not installed to keep her under 10,000 tons. When that armament was installed ?on commissioning in 1939? she also needed 200 tons of ballast to balance her. 600tons over the limit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wichita_%28CA-45%29 .
Marginal stability is never a good sign in a ship. It limits development. Paper specifications of armament, armour, speed etc are not everything. She was however a sort of 10,000ton prototype for the excellent Baltimore class, built to 13,000tons to carry the armour and armament more effectively. Wichita was laid up in 1947.]

The Washington Treaty limited numbers of ships built, by using total available tonnage, and a limit on the tonnage of a single unit. That effectively limited numbers of ships each signatory could built and have. A specific case in point was the size chosen for the carrier Wasp (CV-7) which was built to use all the tonnage still available to the USN after they had built, and converted, all other carriers.

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"

With all due respect mightn’t we continue this discussion in a separate thread?

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.

"With all due respect mightn’t we continue this discussion in a separate thread? "
If 'the discussion' is how good a cruiser was Algerie compared to others, it seems OK here.
If 'the discussion' is what was in the Washington Treaty, differences of opinion can be resolved by a careful reading of the text of the Treaty.
For example what Novice says is true, but there was no limit on the total tonnage of cruisers, and so no Treaty limit on their numbers.
Initial RN Admiralty plans called for 70 cruisers, with forty Counties to be built at the rate of eight per year during the 1920s - very soon cut down by the enormous cost.

The first wave of CA construction which finished with the French Algerie in 1934. All of the ships built to that stage became heavier as each succeeding class added armour and weight to improve the original designs. The designs may have started being reasonably close to the 10,000 ton limit but by 1934 the ships were closer to 12,000 tons or more (the Japanese were more). The UK went the other way and removed armament to produce the York class to keep the ships within the treaty displacement.

Unknown to the navies of the time the Japanese were far superior to the other nations cruiser for one reason - their torpedo armament. It was not till early 1942 that the Allies learnt about this to their cost.

I have always had a soft spot for the Algerie, as when compared to the Italian, UK, US cruisers of the time it really was just a little bit better. It would have been nice to have been able to see how the Algerie would have faired against the Italian cruisers.