Both the IJN and USN choose three turrets forward and two aft with the Mogamis and Brooklyns. My question is why? Turret #3 has a terrible arc of fire.
Wouldn't an arrangement similar to a Fletcher's layout be more advantageous as to arcs of fire?
Re-arrange the Turrets on a Brooklyn
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 SMS12 |
Re-arrange the Turrets on a Brooklyn |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 713 ( 9-Jun-2008 02:52:58) |
|
||
|
boblaurabyu |
|||
|
Posts: 6 ( 9-Jun-2008 03:05:20) |
instead of turret #3 only able to fire on the broadside, I would copy the Japanese and make turret #3 the raised mount, this should increase the
arcs of fire, now you might need to add more armour to the bridge structure to compensate for blast effects, but we like armour on american ships, still the brooklyns looked nice and one lasted to the 1980's |
||
|
pauldh73 |
|||
|
Posts: 332 ( 9-Jun-2008 03:40:54) |
Better off deleting that turret, using the weight savings for protection and fuel. The Clevelands with 4 turrets were much better ships.
|
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3834 ( 9-Jun-2008 04:20:28) |
From reading Friedman's US Cruisers, the logic was to reduce interference with control from the bridge, which would be worse were the turrets to be
lo-lo-hi, vs the selected lo-hi-lo
The arcs for one of the three would be lousy. Me? I would have eliminated the 3d turret, too, using the weight savings for protection and increased structural redundancy or for simpler, albeit heavier, structures (which would probably have the same effect). |
||
|
Dave Bender |
Clevelands with 4 turrets were much better ships | ||
|
Posts: 6571 ( 9-Jun-2008 19:13:35) |
The proper approach.
Better yet the U.S. Navy could withdraw from the naval treaties and build what they wanted, which was Baltimore class 14,500 ton cruisers. Japan gave notice of withdrawal from the naval treaties in December 1934. So there was little point in the U.S. Navy laying down cruisers from 1935 onward that made any attempt to follow the treaty limits. |
||
|
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4742 (10-Jun-2008 01:00:03) |
I say take out the third turret during the war, build a deck house over the barbette and fit quad 40mm or twin 3inch on top with the widest field of fire
avalible.
|
||
|
NewGolconda |
|||
|
Posts: 3442 (10-Jun-2008 01:03:05) Commonwealth Moderator |
"Better yet the U.S. Navy could withdraw from the naval treaties and build what they wanted, which was Baltimore class 14,500 ton cruisers. "
Here we run into the difference between what the US Navy wanted, and what the United States of America wanted. They were not exactly the same, at least until the fall of France. |
||
|
Throd |
Baltimores | ||
|
Posts: 573 (10-Jun-2008 01:46:59) |
The navy may have wanted the Baltimores but didn't war experience show that the 6" cruiser was more suitable. As I understand it the 8" cruisers
were diverted to carrier group escorts, leaving the 6" cruisers to the night fighting roles.
|
||
|
NewGolconda |
|||
|
Posts: 3445 (10-Jun-2008 01:56:50) Commonwealth Moderator |
You then get into another gun cruiser paradox.
The roles they were built for between the wars largely didnt happen, or at least didnt happen to any great extent. Post war, hardly any new gun cruisers were built for the roles they did fill. For the long range cruising, long range gunfire daylight surface battle roles imagined before the war, the big 8in ships probably were the best choice. |
||
|
drunknsubmrnr |
|||
|
Posts: 1382 (10-Jun-2008 01:58:23) |
There were very few 8" cruisers available for night fighting roles after the Solomons battles in 1942/43. They'd been sunk or crippled earlier.
|
||
|
Dave Bender |
War experience | ||
|
Posts: 6573 (10-Jun-2008 02:10:34) |
This has no effect on cruiser designs in 1935.
|
||
|
Throd |
Heavy cruisers | ||
|
Posts: 575 (10-Jun-2008 02:14:56) |
I count 12 US 8" cruisers that weren't sunk by 1943, but without looking up individual service histories I don't know if all were serviceable. How
many CA's did Japan have in 1943, I thought things went a little pear shaped for them by then? As I have seen written the 8" cruisers main guns were
found to be too slow training and too low a rof for close range actions - hence the automatic 8".
|
||
|
jlyons97 |
"I understand it the 8" cruisers were diverted to carrier | ||
|
Posts: 1519 (10-Jun-2008 03:16:50) |
group escorts, leaving the 6" cruisers to the night fighting roles. "
You don't understand it, from the easily verifiable task groups of the time. Look up the CA and CL counts in these organizations. |
||
|
Creeping Death1929 |
|||
|
Posts: 1022 (10-Jun-2008 03:33:31) |
Japan had only lost three of the Furutakas by 1943, making 15 Heavy cruisers.
|
||
|
jhack |
Only 14 left in 1943 | ||
|
Posts: 99 (10-Jun-2008 04:03:49) |
They also lost Mikuma at Midway, plus the three Furutakas, meaning they had one Furutaka, four Myokos, four Takaos, three Mogamis and two Tones = 14 heavies.
The thing is the Japanese didn't have a light cruiser that could stay in the water with a Brooklyn or a Cleveland did they? The Japanese light cruisers
were tiny ships with 5.5-inch guns, they wouldn't have stood up to the British Arethusas or even the American Omahas, meaning the only ships the Japanese
had to counter both the American light cruisers and heavy cruisers were these 14 ships.
|
||
|
Dave Bender |
Light cruiser that could stay in the water with a Brooklyn | ||
|
Posts: 6575 (10-Jun-2008 16:25:46) |
The Brooklyn and Cleveland class cruisers were as large and heavily armored as a CA. They were heavy cruisers in all but name.
The Japanese CLs were DD flotilla leaders. They should be compared to the American Omaha and Atlanta class CLs which were also DD flotilla leaders. |
||
|
bill sanderson |
|||
|
Posts: 2291 (10-Jun-2008 21:20:42) |
<The Brooklyn and Cleveland class cruisers were as large and heavily armored as a CA. They were heavy cruisers in all but name.>
Although cruisers were differentiated by the gun calibre rather than the displacement, early CAs and CLs tended to be in different weight divisions anyway. However, from the beginning it was questionable whether you could build a balanced design with 8 or 9x8" on 10,000 tons, and the more so as AA needs increased. You then had a situation where CLs edged up towards 10,000 and CAs all broke the limit sooner or later. And eventually, it's true, the two could not really be separated on displacement. In the late RN 6" classes, starting with Belfast through Crown Colony to Superb and eventually the Tigers (though completed in a different config), the hull and armour dimensions could be considered CA size. AFAIK, however, the formal classification based on gun calibre never changed. |
||
|
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2983 (11-Jun-2008 04:25:07) |
The first 16 of the USN "treaty 8"-gunned Cruisers" were authorized with the designation of "Light Cruiser" (CL).
The first 8 of these were authorized as "Scout Cruisers", but with CL hull numbers. Only Vincennes CA-44 and Wichita CA-45 were always designated as "Heavy Cruisers". So, until the signing of the 1930 LNT, the USN apparently did still classify them by their armor scheme or purpose, not by gun size. |
||
|
bill sanderson |
|||
|
Posts: 2294 (11-Jun-2008 10:35:05) |
OK, bager, I didn't know that. The British County Class 8x8" constructed 1925-1930 were always considered CAs, AFAIK, though unlike the US there
weren't separate pennant letters to differentiate the two types.
What you say makes me wonder a little about Mogami and Mikuma, that IIRC were built with 5x3x6.1" then modified to 5x2x8". Clearly they had (by Japanese standards) a CA sized hull, but I'd always thought of them as formally CLs before conversion. |
||
|
ChogiBoy |
|||
|
Posts: 25 (14-Jun-2008 03:45:38) |
The Japanese considered them to be Light Cruisers (class B cruisers). The telling is in the name: The Class B ships were named after rivers, while the Class A
ships (heavy cruisers) were named after mountains.
|
||
 StevoJH |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 32 (14-Jun-2008 15:56:44) |
IIRC, the British stopped building Heavy Cruisers after the county class because they could fit more 6inch guns on the same hull, giving a heavier broadside
and a faster rate of fire.
Roughly the same size ships (i believe one of the early 1930's CL classes was based on the County class hull) but with the guns in triple turrets 8-->12 guns. |
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
