Talk:Spring 2015 Event/@comment-24702213-20150403010025/@comment-139.193.100.254-20150403135951

^ Yup, that.

The "cruisers" that became specialized for raiding/scouting duties are what were called "light cruisers" in WW2 and were not considered capital ships during the war thanks to the treaties (nowadays we call these girls destroyers). Heavy cruisers and battlecruisers were considered capital ships.

The reason I said "we NOW call cruisers" when referring to the heavy cruisers that WERE capital ships is because we NOW (as in, 2015) actually call them just cruisers, not heavy cruisers. This is largely due to the postwar naval terminology starting to call 5000-ton-plus displacement ships "destroyers" and "guided missile destroyers" (DDGs) to the point that in navies that still use the "cruiser" terminology, the term now refers to WW2 heavy cruiser-sized ships (such as the 12,000 ton Slava-class or the 10,000 ton Ticonderogas). Well, then again the Zumwalt DDG is heavier than Takao, and Hyuuga and Ise are apparently "destroyers" too, but you get my drift.

Armored cruisers had become heavy cruisers in designation by WW2, but some did remain in the navies of the minor players, and not always redesignated.

"Ships of the line" originally did mean the age-of-sail equivalent of battleships, yes, but in both the Royal Navy and the USN before WW1 the term was also used to designate what we now call "capital ships". The original "cruiser" as it would have been understood by a naval officer of the late-19th century was anything from a frigate and an armored cruiser. As such some cruisers at the upper end were considered "ships of the line" and WERE used as such in WW1 (with disastrous results - see Beaty's actions during the battle of Jutland). In WW2, battle lines (when they formed) were primarily staffed by heavy cruisers because BBs were not always available on the scene.