Talk:C-class cruiser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ships (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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 articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

I am awfully sorry to put this here,I just cannot work out how to contact d newton by e mail. the photo of cambrian on the right is the victorian navy astute class cruiser cambrian,it should be a caroline/cambrian class. my grandfather served on cambrian,his photos do not at all match that on this page. Dave Clark , The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

Hi, thank you for highlighting this mistake. I have now removed the image. SoLando (Talk) 23:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Classes problem[edit]

Please can anyone tell me where this information of classes came from, because WW1 and WW2 C Class crusiers are completely different. The preceding unsigned comment was added by MiniEntente (talk • contribs) .

Yes, they were substantially refitted in the 1930s/40s, but they were the same ships at heart ;-). Are you perhaps mistaking the C class cruisers for the C class destroyer (1943)? Please see [1] and [2]. for further clarification. SoLando (Talk) 21:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying but i am not confusing myself with the c class destroyer as i know from 4 different sources that their were only three sub classes of the the C Class. They were the Caledon, Ceres and Cairo class. Not the ones stated in the article. I will be researching on this in the very near future. The preceding unsigned comment was added by MiniEntente (talk • contribs) .

I want to finally complete the C classes, but i want to separate them to their individual classes to make it easier, less confusing and simpler to complete them. I will keep the C class cruiser as a main class page that will redirect you to the different classes. Is that okay with you guys.



Yes, looking further into this, it appears you are correct. I believe I got the impression that all of these classes were encompassed under one C class by glancing only briefly at the Warships1 site (i.e. I overlooked some obvious differences in the specifications :-() Thank you for raising this, MiniEntente! I have no objection to splitting this article up. By the way, please sign your name using four tides . It creates a signature like this > SoLando (Talk) 22:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that this never happened, but I'm not sure where you're getting the above from. I think the problem has arisen where the early subclasses did not serve in the second world war and the later classes did. They are usually listed as discrete classes, i.e. Caledon, Centaur, Carlisle, Caroline, etc, but all were built to very similar, but evolving designs in the period 1914-18. The early classes were retired in the mid 1930s, the later classes were refitted, and were around to be pressed into service in the Second World War. These were indeed very different ships to their earlier incarnations, but their original overall design was to what for simplicity's sake we term the C-class. But sources that look at a particular era, i.e. the Second World War, will quite likely only list the ships around to serve then, and class them as the C-class, including the Caledon, Ceres and Carlisle subgroups and ignoring the earlier subgroups, which is where you seem to have got this idea from. It's an easy mistake, Jane's World War I edition for example does not include HMS Cassandra, because she had been sunk by the time it came out, so from a casual glance you would think that the Caledon group only included Caledon, Calypso and Caradoc. Benea 08:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Carlisle class guns[edit]

I don't know this class but "Their main armament consisted of eight 4 inch guns in four triple turrets with.." appears to be wrong, four triples gives a total of 12 guns not 8. If the standard twin 4" mounting was used, should this line read "four twin turrets" or if it really was four triples,the total number of guns should be amended to 12. As I said, I don't know this class and do not have a handy reference to make the correction, so can someone who does or has, please do so.Koonan the almost civilised 08:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, seems to be a mistake. They carried eight 4 inch guns in double turrets. I'll correct this in the article. Benea 08:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben, having completed entering the dates for all the WWI (and earlier) destroyer classes, I am now starting on the cruisers as and when time allows, beginning with the Carlisles. There is something seriously wrong with the armament you quote in this Talk page. The Ceres and Carlisle class cruisers as built each carried five 6-inch guns (45 calibre Mk XII guns), plus two 3-inch A/A, and a number of smaller weapons. It was only at the 1938-39 conversions that they received the twin 4-inch mountings. Please remember that these histories should cover the entire histories of these vessels, not simply their last few years in WW2; of course, I recognise that the original ordnance is listed in the main article. Rif Winfield 20:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ceres class as AA cruiser[edit]

Text states they carried 16 3 inch guns as AA cruiser, the box on the right states 16 2-pounders. I suspect 16 2-pounders is correct, as 16 3-inch 20 cwt guns would not have fitted on board. Rcbutcher (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Is C class a strong enough family?[edit]

I'm curious why such a variety of designs (which evolved considerably over time) are grouped under a superclass. Documents contemporary to their construction (e.g.: Handbooks of fire control instruments 1901 and 1914, Annual Reports of the Torpedo School, etc) do not identify a "C" class of any form. The page is cumbersome and lengthy and filled with information that seems out of place. For instance, the top-right-most table of general characteristics... to which "subclass: is it meant to refer, at at what point in their career? The armament it describes (5 6-in) is quite different from those given the first two subclasses it is most proximate to on the page originally (8 4-in and 2 6-in).[1] The effort to group these similar classes seems to add to the confusion and complicate the cleanup options. DulcetTone (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


the first table refers to the whole C class but reports the features of the first two subgroups only (in particular for the guns). It should be split in a general section and in a first-subgroup only one.

the 12/4 in guns of Caledon seems to me excessive; lenton-colledge states 8 and giorgerini 6

also the 16 3-inchers of Coventry/Curlew sound excessive; lenton-colledge says 16 2-pounders

LC is warships of WW II, Ian allen 1964

pietro151.29.131.193 (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Conways 1906-1921