Comments by "Vikki McDonough" (@vikkimcdonough6153) on "MN Edgar Quinet - Guide 349" video.

  1. 1:52 - I'd argue that there were technically three such classes, what with the Scharnhorsts and their 6×8.3" broadside.
    2
  2. ...that's not an armored cruiser. It's a pre-WWI heavy cruiser.
    1
  3.  @Drachinifel  Fair, to each their own.
    1
  4. Given the impossibility of squaring the circle of giving a treaty-era cruiser high speed and a powerful main armament and enough armor to actually be useful (and, in the 30s and 40s, enough AA firepower to survive enemy air attack) without sending displacement way over the 10,000-ton limit, why didn't any navies settle for a smaller number of main guns in exchange for good speed and armor capable of tanking fire from enemy cruisers? Say, a 10,000-ton CA with six 8" guns (so something like a York, except up-armored enough to bring it up to the treaty limit, or possibly something with two triple 8s in a superfiring stack forwards and even more armor, like an Astoria or Wichita with the aft turret replaced by more armor), or a 10,000-ton CL with eight or nine 6" guns (like a version of one of the previously-mentioned six-gun CAs, except with triple or quad 6s replacing the twin or triple 8s, or maybe something like a Leander up-armored to 10,000 tons, or a Brooklyn with just the three forward turrets and with the weight that would otherwise go into the two aft turrets instead being used for thicker armor). After all, if you can no-sell the enemy's fire at a range where they can't do the same to you (and you've got the speed to keep the range in this band), it doesn't matter that it'll take you longer to knock them out with your fewer main guns.
    1
  5. Pity the French were too broke to refit the two with state-of-the-art machinery as 28-29-knot heavy cruisers in the treaty era...
    1