What's the difference between a destroyer and a Cruiser

What's the difference between a destroyer and a Cruiser.

Other urls found in this thread:

navy.com/about/equipment/vessels/cruisers.html
quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-a-cruiser-a-destroyer-a-frigate-and-a-littoral-combat-ship
navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=90296
youtube.com/watch?v=vej_aLJpFYo
cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/us-navy-frigates/
nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-new-super-frigate-will-be-armed-some-the-most-17596
youtube.com/watch?v=Gc0Eb9SE9kM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Cruisers are faster.

Historically or currently?

No, Cruisers are bigger than Destroyers.

I'm asking how they are used.

Currently

One cruises, the other destroys.

there are no destroyers currently, it is all cruisers

Destroyers are female cruisers.

They float on water and have guns that blow shit up.

Destroyers are fast and can scout, find subs and do serious damage to battle ships

and cruisers?

WRONG!

Your mom never got sailor cock on a destroyer.

One hunts you down while you run away
The other pounds the clay your men are on with its guns and then rapes your fleet

Differs with each nation.

But typically cruisers are more AA oriented, and carry more ordinance. Destroyers are typically the ASW arm of a task force, but still have significant AA capabilities.

Chuckled

Cruisers are bigger than destroyers.
pretty sure ship class is designated by tonnage.

Am I the only one that sees both of these boats as useless?.

After seeing battleships looking at these pathetic puny piece of shit tugboat looking fucking things I'm surprised they getz any respect at all by anyone.

kek

Underrated post

No, I mean how are they used?

Tonnage and gun length+number is pretty standard for most nations

I don't think there is a real difference between the destroyers and cruisers in the US beyond tonnage and armament. Looking at the Ticonderoga and the new Zumwalt it seems that destroyers have stepped away from sub hunting

People ride on them because they can't float on water.

go ask k, pol is drunk rn

shooting at other ships...
what the fuck do you want, an instruction manual?

Given that cruisers are being slowly phased off with no replacement classes being laid down for them I would say that they'ren't being used much at all.

battleships are better

navy.com/about/equipment/vessels/cruisers.html

>Cruisers are seaborne platforms of sophisticated modern guided-missile systems. They can take out virtually any target in the air, the sea, beneath the waves or on the shore. Primarily deployed in battle groups, cruisers are near- and far-striking ships with multiple and mission-specific roles.

>Destroyers have a proud tradition of anti-submarine warfare, but the Navy's modern versions are multi-mission nightmares for an opposing threat. Capable of operating in battle groups or on their own, they have similar guided-missile capabilities to cruisers and take part in a wide range of missions, including supporting carrier and expeditionary strike groups and surface strike groups.


quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-a-cruiser-a-destroyer-a-frigate-and-a-littoral-combat-ship

>There is no real hard and fast rule about ship classes. Navies make up new rules or just name them what ever they want. Australia’s Air Warefare Destroyers (Hobart-class destroyer - Wikipedia) are based off Spains Frigates (7,000t Aegis frigates are awefully big and capable frigates - Álvaro de Bazán-class frigate - Wikipedia). South Koreas Deathstars (Sejong the Great-class destroyer - Wikipedia) are at 11,000t destroyers with banks of land attack missiles arguably pushes what a destroyers and what is not.

>SNIP

>After seeing battleships

one destroys the other cruises

Destroyers defend other boats. Cruisers have land batteries.

I did fuck that up, I'll admit. But you know what I meant. Aircraft carriers dwarf them other boats.

Hy there fellow sailor

How are they used DIFFERENTLY!?

This.

Why would a country build 2 destroyers/cruisers when they could build 1 battleship with the same materials? And the battleship can have thicker armor and be completely impervious to the tiny cannons they have.

one peg on a typical game of Battleship®

Sometimes I wonder why we even have wikipedia

Modern day Cruisers have nothing in common with historical cruisers, which were designated cruisers because of their employment outside the main battle line: frigates, protected cruisers, light cruisers, armored cruisers and heavy/treaty cruisers: endurance, speed, firepower at the cost of durability.

Destroyer is short for torpedo boat destroyer, developed when expendable, light craft were very dangerous to slow, armoured ships with large caliber armament unsuitable for tackling small evasive targets. So nothing in common with modern destroyers, which eclipse even WW2 era heavy cruisers in dimensions and tonnage.

Lol a 400 lbs hacker with a UAV could sink a battleship in a second.

In modern times they are essentially the same as far as their roles go. Cruisers are just bigger and heavier.

Going into the future cruisers will probably be phased out entirely. Anti-ship missile systems have gotten sufficiently advanced that it's better to have a lot of small maneuverable ships than a handful of big lumbering giants.

Hi I'm a Destroyer

Not funny but smart

You seem to be lost
You want /k/
This is /kkk/

It depends on how big the other ships are/how dangerous their route is

It's like asking why people use a lambo as opposed to a honda civic. Both do the same but they do it differently.

>battleship
>armor
>cannons
Looks like anglos still live in XIX century.

Because a battleship is a very unexpendable and unwieldy asset?
Obsolete by WW2, and hopelessly obsolete today in era of air and land launched anti-ship missiles.

So that main gun up front...what happens when it can't shoot because it needs to aim backwards and the rest of the ship is blocking it's view?.

Destroyers started out as cheap escorts meant to shield a battleline against torpedo boats (they were originally called Torpedo Boat Destroyers), quickly started to mount torpedoes of their own to also serve as quasi long-endurance torpedo boats and then evolved into doing general screening duty against torpedo boats, submarines, planes.

Cruisers started out as being the smallest ship possible to carry out long-distance deployments by themselves, with an emphasis on raiding or gunboat diplomacy. They evolved into a kind of flexible jack of all trades role in terms of naval warfare.

Now in the last couple decades, systems needed for destroers to do their job have grown in complexity and bulk to a degree where they've become big enough that giving them long-range endurance has become practical and the line between destroyers and cruisers has become pretty much blurred to the point where there is little difference and a cruiser is basically just a slightly bigger destroyer.

thank you for the assessment. It was a factual statement and not intentional humor.

One identify as a cruiser, the other as destroyer. Wow, can white men not be a transphobic sexist pig for one second?

The battle is already lost if you have to shoot backwards. In addition, that gun is a plinker, tertiary armament at best.

There's probably a rear gun

One cruises the the other destroys.

I figure but that now that I'm thinking about it I've never seen an ass view of a battleship or destroyer. Just front poses.

There is no clear definition to define the classes.

Although gun to my head, I would say currently Destroyers are a little bigger and heaver than Cruisers/Frigates

Cruiser is now just an Americanism for Frigates

Corvettes are smaller, Than Frigates

No one makes Battleships/dreadnoughts anymore

In the pic you have

Type 45 Destroyer
Type 26 Frigate
Type 23 Frigate
River Class Corvette/OPV

There'd never be a battle where they're close enough to use the gun, it's all done with missiles now. The main gun is basically so they can go through the Panama Canal for free at this point

how do they do it differently?

You sink each other with anti-ship missiles now whether the platform is a plane, helicopter, or small missile boats.

I know shit about boats. Those four look pretty much the FUCKING same exact thing to me.

There must be some kind of key differences between them though?.

Why don't they just quit bullshitting and pick the best of those four and just keep making more of it?.

The gun is for blapping speedboats and similar small fry and being a tertiary AA/anti-missile asset. And I guess you could pound a shoreline with it under some circumstances.

That's another thing, so I mean I know that they have missiles that can easily knock a boat to smitherines, so in reality there would be no long drawn out battle between these things right?.

The battle will begin, missiles are released, Every one is blown the fuck up with a single missile? or is it likely that a boat can actually take a couple missile strikes and still be able to fight back?.

Destroyers are escort ships meant to defend larger vessels against attacks by faster, lighter vessels. Their role was extended over time to be sub-hunters, anti-air and whatever hogwash the brass would think of next. Today they are pretty much the norm for direct battle role, as missiles and torpedoes have replaced large bore cannons.

Cruisers were an older concept of large direct combat vessel that would carry long range firepower with little armor, relying on speed to keep themselves alive. Most of the british capital ship fleet was cruisers during WW2. They got utterly destroyed by the few battleships the germans managed to ship out, since those had the same range, but better target tracking and could survive the counter-fire. The cruiser role was abandoned due to this, until the range could be extended with modern missile technology and the lack of battleships in the water. However, destroyers and and even submarines now get to carry enough missiles themselves so that dedicated missile-cruisers are rendered obsolete again.

>Although gun to my head, I would say currently Destroyers are a little bigger and heaver than Cruisers/Frigates

You would get shot, then. In terms of size, then generally it's as follows: cruiser > destroyer > frigate > corvette. The larger types generally are more versatile and capable of performing high endurance missions of various types, while the smaller ones are used for specific less intensive roles (since they have less carrying capacity).

Horses for courses m8,

The Type 45 destroyer is designed to be an anti air vessel that why it has that massive mast in the middle housing the Sampson radar, that can tract 1000 objects 400 miles away

The Type 23 and 26 or for anti submarine warfare, with sophisticated sonar equipment on board for tracking submarines.

You cant put all the tech on one vessel and make loads of them

>One gun
>"Destroyer"
Lol you got jewed

You take down incoming enemy ASMs with your own and escorts' on-board CIWS and pray to Allah they hit all of them.

I don't want to think about when an ASM gets through tens of CIWS whether if it can take a hit or not. Pic related.

Alright, that is starting to make sense now. I think this is what OP was trying to get. So obviously this is the bottom line difference.

Goddamn. Is that a weak missile strike? or a strong one?. If that's a weak one then that really sucks.

Depends if you looking historically or currently, Cruisers used to be massive but now they are a comparable size as destroyers.

Looking at the US navy alone their Flight III Burke Destroyers have a larger displacement than their Ticonderoga cruisers

>Ask difference between Cruiser and Destroyer
>Posts picture of a Frigate

You're making us look bad.

>implying frigates are still used

navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=90296

torp?

Good post.

It's Russian P-270 Moskit. Travels @ supersonic speeds. Pretty old missile. You can tell by the footage. Imagine what newer and hypersonic (travels 5-10x faster than supersonic) missiles can do.

I think there are 5 frigates still in use in the US navy, and I think they are actively looking to build some more because the Littoral combat ships are not up to scratch.

That's just the US navy though, many other nations still use and continue to build frigates.

>this thread

>a fucking yacht with a canon

Hey have you heard of hte LRASM?. I saw this video and I am guessing it's relatively new. What's your take on this?. I'm guessing it's really secret but the video from Lockheed Martin seems interesting. Not even sure if it's real but I guess it is.

youtube.com/watch?v=vej_aLJpFYo

cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/us-navy-frigates/

Size, cost, crew requirements, endurance and exact laodouts are all different. There is no "best" choice amongst them, they're all built for different requirements. They look similar because they roughly follow the fundamentals of how to build warships nowadays.

That's how it tends to go, you have long stretches of time with very similar-looking ships until someone really fnds a way to revolutionise things (like, say, HMS Dreadnought or IJN Fubuki) and everyone scambles to pull even again.

That's two P-1000 Vulkan, pretty big as far as anti-ship missiles go. However, that's a test shot during whih they had replaced the warheads with concrete filler - what you're seeing there is just hte kinetic impact and the remaining fuel in the missiles going up.

Go ask /k/ or wiki it you fucking faggot. Quit shitting up the board.

Isn't that a model boat being hit with a chinese made lithium ion cell?

My Bad, It seems you got rid of your Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigates last year.

Yeah enlarged, upgunned LCS will be their new frigates.

Hope we go with the Type 26 desu.

Cruisers have cruz missles on them

no we got rid of ALL the frigates.
The LPS's are replacing them.

the one destroys, the other one cruises.
Duh!

I'm assuming you mean LCS'

nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-new-super-frigate-will-be-armed-some-the-most-17596

Looks like they will be making more frigates after all.

Size and displacement

Accurate (like most US missiles), cheaper than Tomahawk, long range, and STEALTHY! What's not to like?

My only question is why they made it @ subsonic speeds? Chinks, Indians, and Russkies are already developing hypersonic ones. Having hypersonic speed will double it's evasion to enemy hard and softkill countermeasures.

Warhead is also a bit small but I'm guessing they're going to have 1000kg warheads in the future. They're probably going to use this initially as a stealth standoff weapon needed to subdue nations with real airpower, anti-air capabilities, and green/bluewater navy.


youtube.com/watch?v=Gc0Eb9SE9kM

This is where the gif came from. Turns out it wasn't that old. Just 2 years ago.