Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

German Light Cruisers

Discussion in 'Surface and Air Forces' started by harolds, Jan 26, 2012.

  1. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    Been reading "Cruisers of World War Two" by M.J. Whitley. The section on German light cruisers is most interesting. The first one built after WWI was the Emden which was pretty much a pre-WWI design. It was probably the best of the lot.

    Next came the "K" class ships: Konigsberg, Karlsruhe, and Koln. These were a disaster in that they weren't even really seaworthy and had to be kept mostly in the Baltic, not even being used much in training cruises. However, they were forced into the Norwegan capaign where Konigsberg and Karlsruhe were sunk. Their layout was different in that there was only one forward turret (3X5.9") but two after-turrets (same armament) and they were off-set from the centerline.

    Next came Leipzig and then after a five (+) years came Nurnberg. These modified "K" class ships that had their rear turrets on centerline and somewhat strengthened, but not enough to make a real difference. Both cruisers ended up being training ships because there was no other role they could play.

    I don't know why these ships turned out so poorly. Perhaps it was because of the new methods of construction they used (electric welding) or perhaps the designers just weren't up to the job. I don't know but if someone has some ideas or knowledge, I would be interested.
     
  2. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    Looking at Wiki it states that they had treaty reg forcing 6,000 ton limit so that could have been the problem.
     
  3. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    846
    It was largely a matter of building to treaty limits (or at least not exceeding them too blatantly) and trying to cram in the maximum firepower; nine 15cm was a heavy battery for a ship that size. There were a few comparable types, the French Emile Bertain was slightly smaller and carried nine 155mm and the early Italian Condottieri class had eight 152mm, but both types were considered too lightly built and protected; in both navies the next class had similar armament but were about 2000 tons larger. The British Leander class, well balanced and generally successful ships, also carried eight 6" on about 7000 tons.

    There's not much effective difference between four twin turrets and three triples; the latter are usually adopted to save size or maximize protection. The two turrets aft arrangement saved both total weight and topweight. Had #2 turret (usually called Bruno in German parlance) been forward, it would have to be a deck higher, with an extra deck worth of barbette under it, and the bridge would have to be higher to see over it.

    p.s. as belasar said, the Versailles treaty allowed Germany six 6000-ton cruisers, which allowed them to retain existing ships and eventually build comparable replacements. A few years later the Washington treaty would set a 10,000-ton "limit" which ironically contributed to the escalation in cruiser size.
     
  4. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    AFAIK one of the K did a world cruise and two took part in the Spannish civil war "neutrality patrols" so they must not have been such bad steamers as that, most of my sources report they were pretty decent seaboats. Their main problem was lack of range that made them unsuitable for commerce raiding despite the mixed diesel/turbine engines that didn't give the hoped for results, as they had no advantage in either speed, armour or armament over contemporary allied cruisers sending them on a long range solitary mission was suicide. They were larger than the first Condottieri and Emile Bertin that carried a similar armament and a much more powerful machinery so the 6.000t limitation was probably not the issue, the last generation of German WW1 cruisers had 8 15cm guns and were less than 5000t so at 6000t they were not overgunned for their size.
     
  5. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    846
    the last generation of German WW1 cruisers had 8 15cm guns and were less than 5000t

    But those were single, deck-mounted, hand-worked mounts with light, open-backed shields, not really a valid comparison to armored turrets, barbettes, etc.
     
  6. Marmat

    Marmat Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    Messages:
    292
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    Huronia, Upper Canada
    ... they were poor seaboats, too heavy forward, too lightly built they worked hard in a seaway. One of them required extensive repairs in San Diego, with stiffening her numbers went up significantly. The Treaty of Versailles allowed the Germans 8 light cruisers of 6,000 tons, with 6 in service at any one time, these cruisers could be replaced when they reached 20 yrs. old - the K's were the replacements. They were designed with the French in mind as probable foes, to act as Scouts with a force to deny a French squadron access to the Baltic, so range wasn't a major concern. That's the reason for the 2 turrets aft, they would turn away when the enemy was found, so 2 of 3 turrets facing aft would be of greater advantage than having 2 forward. They were scouting light cruisers for the Fleet in the purest sense, yet the role of the scouting light cruiser was in the process of being superseded in other navies, by the airplane.
     
  7. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    According to Whitley, the KM did try to use them in the neutrality patrols and long-range training cruises but these had to be curtailed since they were damaged so easily. They just weren't good ships.

    By the way, I forgot to mention that these ships had a dual form of propulsion: steam turbines AND 1-2 diesels for long range cruising.

    The treatly limit of 6,000 tons might be the problem but the older Emden had eight 5.9" guns and did fine at 5,600 tons. However, the guns were in single mounts.
     
  8. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    Many of the early post war constructions, especially the "welded" ships, required strengthening, Japan practically rebuilt most of it's fleet after a training incident, IIRC USS Pittsburg broke her back in a gale and the Iowas fared lot worse than Vanguard in bad weather post war but that doesn't make them bad ships (Italian destroyers are a different story).

    From NavWeaps
    Drh Tr C/25 3 gun turret from K class: 324,410 lbs. (147,150 kg)
    MPL C/14 single mount from Emden: 35,681 lbs. (16,185 kg)
    So the diffence in weight of turret mounts is very significant though I expect the turret calculation includes hoists while the deck mounting doesn't.
     
  9. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    While I'm not an engineer, I do suspect that the electric welding, which was a relatively new technology, was at fault. It needed to be improved some before it was adequate for ship building. It may have even been a factor why the stern of the Bismark buckled when hit by an aerial torpedo.
     
  10. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    846
    The sterns of Lutzow and Prinz Eugen also crumpled when torpedoed; apparently it was a common weak spot.

    Pittsburgh had her bow break off in a typhoon in 1945; the "suburb of Pittsburgh" remained afloat and was recovered, though not reattached. USS Savannah was badly damaged by her own anchor chain around 1938.

    TOS makes a good point about turret weights, to which we could add barbettes. Previous light cruisers like Emden or the WWI types she resembled not only had much lighter weight of armament but had it distributed around the ship. The K was a very different design; although the Germans had plenty of experience with turreted capital ships, this was their first try in such a small hull. It would be interesting to know if structural problems developed around concentrations of weight like the two aft turrets. As noted earlier, the French and Italians didn't get it right the first time either, and the Japanese had problems with ships both larger and smaller.
     
  11. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    Looking at those differences between turret and deck mounts made me look up another possibly more significant one (though it really belongs in a treaty cruisers thread).
    Single 7.5 mount on Hawkins 45.975 tons (46.173 mt)
    Twin turret on early County class Mark I: 155 tons (157 mt) on later ships it grew to 168t
    Not as dramatic a difference but still around 50% heavier than the single deck mounts
    For comparison
    Twin mount on Zara 178.1t (181.0 mt) looks like the single craddle design didn't save that much weight but Zara is a second generation cruiser with comparatively heavy armour Trento would be a fairer comparison but there is no data for her on NavWeaps will have to look up some Italian sources.
    Twin mount on Pensacola 187 tons (190 mt)
    Twin mount on Duquesne 177 tons (180 mt)

    The table below is weight percentages for some ww2 cruisers (work in progress) thanks to Takao and Slipdigit on the HowTo for posting tables....
    The source column is because I mean to update this if I get more data from other sources

    [TABLE="class: grid"]
    [TR]
    [TD]Class
    [/TD]
    [TD]Year
    [/TD]
    [TD]Construction
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    Std.
    displacement
    [/TD]
    [TD]Full load

    [/TD]
    [TD]Hull

    [/TD]
    [TD]Machinery

    [/TD]
    [TD]Armour
    [/TD]
    [TD]Armament


    [/TD]
    [TD]Other
    [/TD]
    [TD]Source
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]KMS Konigsberg
    [/TD]
    [TD]1929
    [/TD]
    [TD]Welded
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    6.650​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    8.130​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    48.7​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    23.3
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    10.1
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    11.3
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    4.6
    [/TD]
    [TD]Giorgerini
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]KMS Prinz Eugen
    [/TD]
    [TD]1940
    [/TD]
    [TD]?
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    14.240​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    18.400​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    41.4
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    12.4
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    27.5
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    12.5
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    6.2
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]USS Marblehad
    [/TD]
    [TD]1923
    [/TD]
    [TD]?
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    7.050​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.100​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    51.2
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    20.6
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    11.3
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.7
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    7.2
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]USS Pensacola
    [/TD]
    [TD]1930
    [/TD]
    [TD]?
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.100​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    12.200​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    46.0​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    24.0
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    10.0​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    12.0​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    7.2​
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]USS Northampton
    [/TD]
    [TD]1930
    [/TD]
    [TD]?
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.200​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    12.250​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    49.1​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    22.7​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    11.2​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.5​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    7.5​
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]USS New Orleans
    [/TD]
    [TD]1934
    [/TD]
    [TD]?
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.950​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    13.100​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    39.0
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    14.0
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    27.0
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    12.0
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    8.0
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]USS Brooklyn
    [/TD]
    [TD]1939
    [/TD]
    [TD]?
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    10.300​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    12.900​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    47.1
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    15.3
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    15.5
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    15.2
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    6.9
    [/TD]
    [TD] [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]RN San Giorgio
    [/TD]
    [TD]1910
    [/TD]
    [TD]Riveted
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.500 ​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    11.300​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    41.3​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    19.4​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    12.1​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    11.7​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    15.4​
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]RN Trento
    [/TD]
    [TD]1929
    [/TD]
    [TD]?
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    10.511​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    13.548 ​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    49.2
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    22.4
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    8.7
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    10.0
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.7
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]RN Zara
    [/TD]
    [TD]1931
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD]
    11.870
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    14.530
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    41.9
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    13.1
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    24.8
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    12.2
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    8.0
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]RN Giussano
    [/TD]
    [TD]1931
    [/TD]
    [TD]?
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    5.191
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    6.954
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    48.9
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    25.3
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    11.4
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.8
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    4.6
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]RN Montecuccoli
    [/TD]
    [TD]1935
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD]
    7.524​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    8.995​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    44.2​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    20.4​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    19.7​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.0​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    6.7​
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]RN Aosta
    [/TD]
    [TD]1935
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD]
    8.450​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    10.450​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    45.4​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    18.6​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    22.2​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.2​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    4.6​
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]RN Abruzzi
    [/TD]
    [TD]1937
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD]
    9.592​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    11.761​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    46.4​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    15.3​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    24.2​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.8​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    4.3​
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]RN Attilio Regolo
    [/TD]
    [TD]1942
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD]
    3.745​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    5.420​
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]IJN Kako
    [/TD]
    [TD]1926
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD]
    8.700​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    11.400​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    45.0​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    20.0​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    13.0​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    15.0​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    7.0​
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]IJN Nachi
    [/TD]
    [TD]1928
    [/TD]
    [TD]?
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    10.940 ​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    15.700 ​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    44.0
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    18.0
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    16.0
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    14.0
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    8.0
    [/TD]
    [TD] [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]HMS London
    [/TD]
    [TD]1929
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD]
    10.820​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    14.578 ​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    51.8
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    17.3​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.4
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    12.6​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    8,9​
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]HMS Kent
    [/TD]
    [TD]1928
    [/TD]
    [TD]?
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    10.570​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    14.200​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    55.0
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    18.0
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.8
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.8
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    7.4
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]HMS York
    [/TD]
    [TD]1930
    [/TD]
    [TD]?
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    8.250​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    10.500​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    50.0​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    21.5​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    11.8​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    10.8​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    5.9​
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]HMS Leander
    [/TD]
    [TD]1933
    [/TD]
    [TD]?
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    7.270​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.200​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    51.5
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    20.2
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    11.7
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.2
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    7.4
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]HMS Perth
    [/TD]
    [TD]1936
    [/TD]
    [TD]?
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    6.980​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.275​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    51.1​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    18.7​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    12.9​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.8​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    7.5​
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]HMS Arethusa
    [/TD]
    [TD]1935
    [/TD]
    [TD]?
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    5.220​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    6.700​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    46.3​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    23.0​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    11.8​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    10.2​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    8.7​
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]HMS Southampton
    [/TD]
    [TD]1937
    [/TD]
    [TD]?
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.100​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    12.200​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    47.0​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    16.4​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    15.7​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    11.9​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    9.0​
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]HMS Belfast
    [/TD]
    [TD]1939
    [/TD]
    [TD]?
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    11.550​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    14.800​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    46.6​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    14.8​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    18.3​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    12.5​
    [/TD]
    [TD]
    7.8​
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]




    Notes:
    - When the source is Giorgerini tonns are likely to be metric
    - Data for HMS London is for her class, so before her major refit but I suspect the displacement data is after the refit her sisters are reported about 1.000t lighter.
    - Apparently HMS Exeter had a slightly heavier hull than her sister
    - Surprisingly the "unit system" HMS Perth had lower engine percentage than the original Leander
    - IJN Nachi displacement grew to 13.400 after her refit

    Would love to get data for IJN Yubari she looks grossly overgunned but was considered a big success.

    From my source all K were strenghtened after damage was discovered in the central part of the hull before the war, but not on the scale of the Japanese ships as displacement didn't grow by much , in the end Karlshrue took four torpedoes to sink not bad for a 6.000t ship.

    So it looks like the most significant difference was due to the K having two sets of engines.




     
    belasar likes this.
  12. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    TOS,

    A couple of questions on your latest post: 1) Did these other cruisers use welded or rivited construction? 2) Were the stats (percentages) on these ships as they were originally built or as modified?

    Most ships gained quite a bit of weight with the additional AA defences put on during the war. The "K"s also had some or all of their torpedoes taken off as did Leipzig and Nurnberg. All this would have had and effect on the weight of their weaponry.

    By the way, Karlshrue was considerably strengthened by the Germans in 1938 which probably led to her resistance to torpedoes.

    Also, good post!
     
  13. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Location:
    God's Country
    I have a question TOS. Doesn't it appear from the percentages that the Brooklyn and Nachi were comparatively heavily armed and armored?
     
  14. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    Wish I could present that data as a table, the data is all from the long out of print Giorgerini book on WW2 cruisers so should be rougly comparable. AFAIK the data is likely to be as built" as it's unlikely that sort of calculation was done again after a major refit.
    Nachi and Brookliyn definetly look "overgunned", but they are second and third generation treaty cruisers were speed was reduced in favour of guns and armour, my guess is the high armament percentage of the five turret ships is partly due to their very long hulls allowing good speed without excessive power requirements.
    Looked up the turret weights for Nachi and Furutaka as built and it seems to confirm the +50% overhead of turret mounts.
    "A" Single Mount: 56.6 tons (57.5 mt)
    "C" and "D" Twin Turrets: 154.5 tons (157 mt)

    As to soldering instead of rivetting I don't really know, the German ships were soldered, the Yubari and later Japanese cruisers implemented some draconic weight saving measures by incorporating the armour in the hull, using light alloys instead of steel for the superstructure and having a continuosly sloped deck to reduce hull height at the stern, but I found no mention of welding.
     
  15. Markus Becker

    Markus Becker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    503
    Likes Received:
    30
    Indeed. 6k tons was small for a CL. The british Arethusa class had roughly the same (full load) displacement but carried only six 6" guns and less armour, particularly deck armour which added much weight.
     
  16. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    [TABLE="class: grid"]
    [TR]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD]Yubari[/TD]
    [TD]%[/TD]
    [TD]Kako[/TD]
    [TD]%[/TD]
    [TD]Nachi[/TD]
    [TD]%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Hull structure[/TD]
    [TD]1,275.1t[/TD]
    [TD]31.2[/TD]
    [TD]3,144t[/TD]
    [TD]33.1[/TD]
    [TD]4,040.8t[/TD]
    [TD]29.8[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Armor[/TD]
    [TD]349.0t[/TD]
    [TD]8.5[/TD]
    [TD]1,147.8t[/TD]
    [TD]12.1[/TD]
    [TD]1,480.9t[/TD]
    [TD]10.9[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Protective Plates[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]543.6t[/TD]
    [TD]4.0[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Fittings[/TD]
    [TD]187.0t[/TD]
    [TD]4.6[/TD]
    [TD]433.0t[/TD]
    [TD]4.6[/TD]
    [TD]405.3t[/TD]
    [TD]3.0[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]equipment - fixed[/TD]
    [TD]78.0t[/TD]
    [TD]1.9[/TD]
    [TD]135.3t[/TD]
    [TD]1.4[/TD]
    [TD]164.6t[/TD]
    [TD]1.7[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]equipment - not fixed[/TD]
    [TD]109.6t[/TD]
    [TD]2.7[/TD]
    [TD]189.3t[/TD]
    [TD]2.0[/TD]
    [TD]312.1[/TD]
    [TD]2.3[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Armament (total)[/TD]
    [TD]329.5t[/TD]
    [TD]8.1[/TD]
    [TD]979.4t[/TD]
    [TD]10.3[/TD]
    [TD]1,625.1t[/TD]
    [TD]12.0[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Guns
    [/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD]575.1t[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]1,163.7t[/TD]
    [TD]8.6[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Torpedoes
    [/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD]225.0t[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]208.2t[/TD]
    [TD]1.5[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Electrical
    [/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD]175.2t[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]246.0t[/TD]
    [TD]1.8[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Aircraft & Navigation
    [/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD]4.1t[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]7.2t[/TD]
    [TD]0.1[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Machinery[/TD]
    [TD]1,056.5t[/TD]
    [TD]25.8[/TD]
    [TD]2,071.2t[/TD]
    [TD]21.8[/TD]
    [TD]2,730.2t[/TD]
    [TD]20.1[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Oil (2/3rds)[/TD]
    [TD]622.1t[/TD]
    [TD]15.2[/TD]
    [TD]1,051.8t[/TD]
    [TD]11.1[/TD]
    [TD]1,848.2t[/TD]
    [TD]13.6[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Coal (2/3rds)[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD]288.6t[/TD]
    [TD]3.0[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Lubrication Oil (2/3rds)[/TD]
    [TD]17.7t[/TD]
    [TD]0.4[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]35.8t[/TD]
    [TD]0.3[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Reserve feed water (2/3rds)[/TD]
    [TD]45.9 t[/TD]
    [TD]1.1[/TD]
    [TD]61.5 t[/TD]
    [TD]0.6[/TD]
    [TD]116.9t[/TD]
    [TD]0.8[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Unknown[/TD]
    [TD]0.9 t[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]34.7t[/TD]
    [TD]0.3[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Protection tubes[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]-[/TD]
    [TD]213.4t[/TD]
    [TD]1.4[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Total (2/3rds Trial)[/TD]
    [TD]4,091.3t[/TD]
    [TD]100[/TD]
    [TD]9,502.1t[/TD]
    [TD]100[/TD]
    [TD]13,551.4t[/TD]
    [TD]100[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]

    Weight distribution for some of the early Japanese cruisers.
    All data is "as completed."
    Note: Tonnage is in metric tons.

    Source: "Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War" by Eric Lacroix and Linton Wells II.
     
    belasar and TiredOldSoldier like this.
  17. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    It's worth noteing that Germany was not bound by the Washington treaty. Furthermore the British German naval treaty of 1935 (see: Anglo-German Naval Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) over turned a number of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailes.
     
  18. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    Don't think the 1935 treaty is relevant for the light cruisers IIRC all were commissioned before it's signature. The 6.000t limitation was reasonable at the time as there were very few modern cruisers larger than that in 1919.
     
  19. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    True although by the same token the Washington treaty was not all that relavant to the light cruisers as well which is why the Germans could build the panzershiffe.
     
  20. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    The German built their panzerschiff in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles, which allowed them to replace their aging battleships with "armored ships" of 10,000 tons(Article 190).
     

Share This Page