Talk:Armored cruiser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Maritime warfare task force

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Top	rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale

1 First armored cruiser
2 US-Centrism
3 Line of Battle
4 Tsushima and "burst of construction
5 Spelling

[edit] First armored cruiser

"Armored cruiser General-Admiral (1873)"

"The first armored cruiser was the British Shannon (1875)."

I think there is a little contradiction--Moroboshi 20:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] US-Centrism

Is it really neccesary to have a section about US Armoured Cruisers yet only skim over the Royal Navy, who used them far more extensively - not to mention the German Navy and Japanese Navy, whose Armoured Cruisers are of far more historical importance... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getztashida 15:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Getztashida (talk • contribs) 15:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Not at all. Please feel free to enhance the article.

[edit] Line of Battle

I struggle to see the meaning of this sentence.

"The last armored cruisers were built around 1910, technological developments leading to their replacement in the line of battle by larger, faster and better armed battlecruisers."

Someone obviously has "line of battle" on their minds. Most ships larger than flottila craft used linnear tactics in this era, but to me "the line of battle" is the countries main battlefleet, comprised of battleships but sometimes augmented by aroured cruisers in this era. Its not correct to say armoured cruisers were replaced in the line by battlecruisers, they were replaced by them full stop.203.10.93.254 05:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

According to WP's own entry, the Line of battle is a naval tactic or disposition, which is the term that I am familiar with. Armoured cruisers were retained by all major navies into the First World War, and some even persisted as late as the Second World War. It wasn't an instant change; battlecruisers first showed up in 1908 and were still being used as frontline warships at the Battle of Jutland, by both sides. I would say that the most misleading part of that sentence is its grammar, which I will have a go at tweaking. Emoscopes ^Talk 06:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In whatever sense the term is used the sentence is still incorrect as written. Battlecruisers replaced armoured cruisers in some powers* building programmes*. As you point out the Armoured cruisers remained in the order of battle until the 1920’s, and they fought (in a line) in 1914 and 1916 at least. British I class battlecruisers were retired before the US big ten armoured cruisers for example. If the line of battle is defined as any formation of warship using linear tactics then the Armoured cruisers continued in “the line of battle” till they were withdrawn from service. I doubt that the sentence is drawn from any reputable source. ChrisMCau 21:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

perhaps better changing it to "battle squadrons" or "battle fleets" then? Emoscopes ^Talk 22:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

how about now? Emoscopes ^Talk 06:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tsushima and "burst of construction

Tagged this claim for a reference. IMHO Tsushima took place at the end of the battlecruiser era, with many ships ordered before this battle, but with the armoured cruisers already being replaced by battlecruisers or left out of the construction programmes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChrisMCau (talk • contribs).

Yes, I would agree. The RN ordered its last armoured cruisers in the 1904-5 naval programme, so in fact this really preceded the battle. Emoscopes ^Talk 08:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

According to WP:ENGVAR, articles should be internally consistent in their use of British or American spelling. It also says that the variety of spelling used by the first major contributor should be adopted. This article seems about evenly divided between British and American spellings, but the article was originally written in American English. Thus, I have replaced the instances of British spelling (e.g. "armour") with their American counterparts. 72.225.48.13 (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)