Mirrior, Mirrior on the Wall

[john964]

Mirrior, Mirrior Whose the best Heavy and Light Cruiser of them all?

I just completed a round robin fight with all the CA's and CL's of the principle navies of WWII. They are IJN RN USN KM RNN Soviet and RM.

I had 6 catagories of ships.

Treaty Heavy Cruisers
Post-Treaty Heavy Cruisers
All around

Treaty Light Cruisers
Post-Treaty Light Cruisers
All around

I did not incluide the French because I don't have any stats for thier ships.
I used Command at Sea rules 3rd ed for all combat.
I did not use Alaska Class CB becuse she out classes everyone else.
All ship classes were built between 1920 and 1945 and fought in WWII.

Now who do you think best in each of the catagories and who do you think was the worst.

[old_pop2000]

The term "cruiser" was originally a role for warship, not a warship per se. Its original purpose was separate from the main fleet. It's role was raiding enemy shipping. It later took on the role as a reconnaissance platform for the battle fleet. At the turn of the century, they took up new roles in the battle fleet, protecting the battleships from the destroyer and its primary weapon-the torpedo. As with any ship, its role has changed and is continuing to change. In fact, the definition of each sub type within the main cruiser type, came as a result of the 1930 London Treaty which defined the heavy and light cruiser classes based on displacement.

What are the characteristics most important to each type? How well did each class of each type, execute or perform the mission that it was assigned or was forced to accept due to circumstances? How well did each class adapt to the changing patterns of warfare in World War II? Should a class of heavy cruisers built for the North Atlantic operations be assessed in its performance along with a cruiser designed for the Pacific area of operations? Is it fair to judge a treaty cruiser with a cruiser in a nation that did not abide by the treaty?

Just some questions that might need to be answered.

[old_pop2000]

Question: Do we consider the Mogami's, a light cruiser as originally built, or very heavy cruisers as rebuilt in the period 1939 to 1940?

[john964]

The term "cruiser" was originally a role for warship, not a warship per se. Its original purpose was separate from the main fleet. It's role was raiding enemy shipping. It later took on the role as a reconnaissance platform for the battle fleet. At the turn of the century, they took up new roles in the battle fleet, protecting the battleships from the destroyer and its primary weapon-the torpedo. As with any ship, its role has changed and is continuing to change. In fact, the definition of each sub type within the main cruiser type, came as a result of the 1930 London Treaty which defined the heavy and light cruiser classes based on displacement.

What are the characteristics most important to each type? How well did each class of each type, execute or perform the mission that it was assigned or was forced to accept due to circumstances? How well did each class adapt to the changing patterns of warfare in World War II? Should a class of heavy cruisers built for the North Atlantic operations be assessed in its performance along with a cruiser designed for the Pacific area of operations? Is it fair to judge a treaty cruiser with a cruiser in a nation that did not abide by the treaty?

Just some questions that might need to be answered.
Dennis, I know that the IJN and KM only paid lip service to the WA treaty but I fought them as they fought in WWII. It is why the Mogami class was in my CA battles instead of CL as the first 3 were built as CL's but were rearmed to become CA's, By in large the other countries fallowed the treaty limits. As to the difference between Atlantic and Pacific operation as most of the allied ships fought at one time or another in both theaters where as the axis nations fought in only there particular theater ie KM North Atlantic RM Med. These battles were to see which cruisers had the best fire power and staying power in one on one match ups. Also I did not use torpedos in any of the fights as the IJN's Type 93 are to overwelming.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis, I know that the IJN and KM only paid lip service to the WA treaty but I fought them as they fought in WWII. It is why the Mogami class was in my CA battles instead of CL as the first 3 were built as CL's but were rearmed to become CA's, By in large the other countries fallowed the treaty limits. As to the difference between Atlantic and Pacific operation as most of the allied ships fought at one time or another in both theaters where as the axis nations fought in only there particular theater ie KM North Atlantic RM Med. These battles were to see which cruisers had the best fire power and staying power in one on one match ups. Also I did not use torpedos in any of the fights as the IJN's Type 93 are to overwelming.
My issue is that when comparing the classes of each type; Mogami versus Hipper, Zara versus Baltimore, that these types were not designed for the same theatre of operation possibly even a different doctrine. Do we compare a Mogami designed for the Pacific Ocean against an Italian cruiser designed for an enclosed sea?

We have certain criteria. Handling; firepower; protection; range; systems. The list can be endless. But, what criteria is important to an Italian naval architect? His ships might face more British light cruisers and battleships, than heavy cruisers. How about the Mogami? As a Japanese naval designer, what is your major criteria? The final ship will reflect how the designer made his decisions.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Mirrior, Mirrior Whose the best Heavy and Light Cruiser of them all?

I just completed a round robin fight with all the CA's and CL's of the principle navies of WWII. They are IJN RN USN KM RNN Soviet and RM.

I had 6 catagories of ships.

Treaty Heavy Cruisers
Post-Treaty Heavy Cruisers
All around

Treaty Light Cruisers
Post-Treaty Light Cruisers
All around

I did not incluide the French because I don't have any stats for thier ships.
I used Command at Sea rules 3rd ed for all combat.
I did not use Alaska Class CB becuse she out classes everyone else.
All ship classes were built between 1920 and 1945 and fought in WWII.

Now who do you think best in each of the catagories and who do you think was the worst.

John:

If the Baltimore class doesn't come out as best CA, I will gladly fight you in Command at Sea and look out LOL! I would give the Mogami class some honorable mention and of course the Prinz Eugen. About the only British cruiser would be their 12 gunned 6" ships of various classes. Still I'll be surprised if the Cleveland class CLs which took on and defeated treaty CAs didn't make the grade. OK I'm a shameless USN freak, but seriously I hate to say it, but the USN had the best cruisers except for the navies that "cheated a bit" on their Treaty cruisers. OK, how did I do?;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

The term "cruiser" was originally a role for warship, not a warship per se. Its original purpose was separate from the main fleet. It's role was raiding enemy shipping. It later took on the role as a reconnaissance platform for the battle fleet. At the turn of the century, they took up new roles in the battle fleet, protecting the battleships from the destroyer and its primary weapon-the torpedo. As with any ship, its role has changed and is continuing to change. In fact, the definition of each sub type within the main cruiser type, came as a result of the 1930 London Treaty which defined the heavy and light cruiser classes based on displacement.

What are the characteristics most important to each type? How well did each class of each type, execute or perform the mission that it was assigned or was forced to accept due to circumstances? How well did each class adapt to the changing patterns of warfare in World War II? Should a class of heavy cruisers built for the North Atlantic operations be assessed in its performance along with a cruiser designed for the Pacific area of operations? Is it fair to judge a treaty cruiser with a cruiser in a nation that did not abide by the treaty?

Just some questions that might need to be answered.

Dennis:

Your points as always are valid, but we're asking one question here. Which cruiser was top dog? Sure a certain weapon might be maximixed for a certain mission, but as US tank destroyers found out, that don't cut it. Atlanta class CLAAs were great AA escorts. What happens if they get into a battle with a CA or real CL? Can slow firing New Orleans class CAs mix it up with DDs and CLs? What was the historical result? You can analyze to death, but the battles were fought with what you had.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Your points as always are valid, but we're asking one question here. Which cruiser was top dog? Sure a certain weapon might be maximixed for a certain mission, but as US tank destroyers found out, that don't cut it. Atlanta class CLAAs were great AA escorts. What happens if they get into a battle with a CA or real CL? Can slow firing New Orleans class CAs mix it up with DDs and CLs? What was the historical result? You can analyze to death, but the battles were fought with what you had.
If that is true, then I vote for the Italian Zara class heavy cruisers. They had over 2700 tons of armor, were as fast as any heavy cruiser of the time, had guns with very high muzzle velocities and coupled with the italian doctrine of wide dispersion patterns to obtain at least one hit, they seem to be the best heavy cruiser for daylight operations in the Mediterranean, which was their playground. Lack of torpedoes and a better fire control would have improved their performance but they gave a good account of themselves at the Battle of Sirte. The turrets had a train rate of 6 degrees per second which was 2 degrees higher than all the Japanese cruisers which were around 4 degrees per second.

IMO, for speed, range, protection and gun power, the Zara would rank as high as any heavy cruiser in any navy.

[Ed Rotondaro]

If that is true, then I vote for the Italian Zara class heavy cruisers. They had over 2700 tons of armor, were as fast as any heavy cruiser of the time, had guns with very high muzzle velocities and coupled with the italian doctrine of wide dispersion patterns to obtain at least one hit, they seem to be the best heavy cruiser for daylight operations in the Mediterranean, which was their playground. Lack of torpedoes and a better fire control would have improved their performance but they gave a good account of themselves at the Battle of Sirte. The turrets had a train rate of 6 degrees per second which was 2 degrees higher than all the Japanese cruisers which were around 4 degrees per second.

IMO, for speed, range, protection and gun power, the Zara would rank as high as any heavy cruiser in any navy.

Dennis:

I will agree that the Zara class was a very good design (admittedly it cheated on the Treaty, but that's by the by). I'm not sold on the wide dispersion pattern of Italian guns, most naval historians feel that was a design flaw and the combat record for most Italian warships suffered as a result. Also the high muzzle velocities accelerated barrel wear. They may have been the best Treaty CAs ever, although they lacked a true dual purpose secondary gun and of course radar. The British were certainly afraid of them and respected their capabilities.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I will agree that the Zara class was a very good design (admittedly it cheated on the Treaty, but that's by the by). I'm not sold on the wide dispersion pattern of Italian guns, most naval historians feel that was a design flaw and the combat record for most Italian warships suffered as a result. Also the high muzzle velocities accelerated barrel wear. They may have been the best Treaty CAs ever, although they lacked a true dual purpose secondary gun and of course radar. The British were certainly afraid of them and respected their capabilities.
The guns were too close together and did cause dispersion problems. However, in discussing the matter with Vince O'Hara, he stated that this was actually Italian gunnery doctrine. In the Battle of Sirte, this allowed the Italians to get hits on British ships, whereas the British doctrine of tight dispersion, while effective if hits were obtained, failed to hit any Italian ships. So, I suspect that it was a combination of doctrine and gun placement in the turret. The high muzzle velocity did cause excessive wear, but since the fleet was close to most of its primary bases, this probably was never viewed as a difficulty. As for the lack of adequate dual purpose secondary and radar, I believe we can make that same observation of the Tone's, Mogami's and other heavy cruisers. They did install the 4.7 inch but those were on free mounts and did not train well against low or fast moving targets. They upgraded these to the 5 inch type 88 which was a good secondary dual purpose gun. The problem with the Italians is that they really were not in the war long enough to make the changes required. On the whole, based on protection, handling, speed and primary firepower, the Italian Zara class heavy cruisers were excellent boats. Had they had torpedoes, they would have been more effective.

[JMS]

The guns were too close together and did cause dispersion problems. However, in discussing the matter with Vince O'Hara, he stated that this was actually Italian gunnery doctrine. In the Battle of Sirte, this allowed the Italians to get hits on British ships, whereas the British doctrine of tight dispersion, while effective if hits were obtained, failed to hit any Italian ships. So, I suspect that it was a combination of doctrine and gun placement in the turret. The high muzzle velocity did cause excessive wear, but since the fleet was close to most of its primary bases, this probably was never viewed as a difficulty. As for the lack of adequate dual purpose secondary and radar, I believe we can make that same observation of the Tone's, Mogami's and other heavy cruisers. They did install the 4.7 inch but those were on free mounts and did not train well against low or fast moving targets. They upgraded these to the 5 inch type 88 which was a good secondary dual purpose gun. The problem with the Italians is that they really were not in the war long enough to make the changes required. On the whole, based on protection, handling, speed and primary firepower, the Italian Zara class heavy cruisers were excellent boats. Had they had torpedoes, they would have been more effective.


I don't know about that, cruiser torpedoes failed miserably in sinking enemy fighting (as opposed to crippled) ships, while on the other hand they added to the vulnerability of a design if they cooked off. Not as powerful, but affordable and effective in their missions, I would nominate the Counties, and for my home team, the Canarias.

[old_pop2000]

I don't know about that, cruiser torpedoes failed miserably in sinking enemy fighting (as opposed to crippled) ships, while on the other hand they added to the vulnerability of a design if they cooked off. Not as powerful, but affordable and effective in their missions, I would nominate the Counties, and for my home team, the Canarias.
I would certainly agree, but many naval analyst state that the Zara's having torpedoes might have given them an added bit of firepower. I have serious doubts based on the number of hits per number of torpedoes fired. I also agree that having those torpedoes and the firing mechanisms did present weight issues above the waterline and serious hazards in the case of enemy surface action.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The guns were too close together and did cause dispersion problems. However, in discussing the matter with Vince O'Hara, he stated that this was actually Italian gunnery doctrine. In the Battle of Sirte, this allowed the Italians to get hits on British ships, whereas the British doctrine of tight dispersion, while effective if hits were obtained, failed to hit any Italian ships. So, I suspect that it was a combination of doctrine and gun placement in the turret. The high muzzle velocity did cause excessive wear, but since the fleet was close to most of its primary bases, this probably was never viewed as a difficulty. As for the lack of adequate dual purpose secondary and radar, I believe we can make that same observation of the Tone's, Mogami's and other heavy cruisers. They did install the 4.7 inch but those were on free mounts and did not train well against low or fast moving targets. They upgraded these to the 5 inch type 88 which was a good secondary dual purpose gun. The problem with the Italians is that they really were not in the war long enough to make the changes required. On the whole, based on protection, handling, speed and primary firepower, the Italian Zara class heavy cruisers were excellent boats. Had they had torpedoes, they would have been more effective.

Dennis:

I remember Vince mentioning that certain Italian naval historians feel that Italian naval gunnery has gotten a bad rap due to misinformation. I look forward to his next book which is on the Italian navy at war. And I'll read it with a fine Chianti and some fava beans!:D

[Ed Rotondaro]

As for the lack of adequate dual purpose secondary and radar, I believe we can make that same observation of the Tone's, Mogami's and other heavy cruisers. They did install the 4.7 inch but those were on free mounts and did not train well against low or fast moving targets. They upgraded these to the 5 inch type 88 which was a good secondary dual purpose gun. The problem with the Italians is that they really were not in the war long enough to make the changes required. On the whole, based on protection, handling, speed and primary firepower, the Italian Zara class heavy cruisers were excellent boats. Had they had torpedoes, they would have been more effective.

Dennis:

With the possible exception of the US 5"/38 DP, I don't think any navy really had a good DP gun on its cruisers, although the 5"/25 was better than most. The Japanese 100mm 3.9" was a very good AA weapon and had adequate performance against most DDs. It would probably have been a better choice than the 4.7" gun for cruisers.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

With the possible exception of the US 5"/38 DP, I don't think any navy really had a good DP gun on its cruisers, although the 5"/25 was better than most. The Japanese 100mm 3.9" was a very good AA weapon and had adequate performance against most DDs. It would probably have been a better choice than the 4.7" gun for cruisers.
You will like it, trust me. Good chapter on the two Battles of Sirte.

[old_pop2000]

It seems that at the beginning of the war, most navies had not realized the problems associated antiaircraft artillery in the form of secondary weapons. Dive bombers, fighters, twin and multiengined bombers had increased in speed, effectiveness and many of the secondaries either were based on the old biplane speeds or were not even built or configure as dual purpose weapons. Some of the problems that I have seen as I perused the different guns available were:

1. Low muzzle velocities

2. Slow elevation and training speeds

3. Slow rate of fire, coupled with manual loading

4. Poor central fire control of all AA weapons

The US probably had the best weapon in the 5 inch 38. The British 4.5 inch/ 45 probably was close, I guess. But it is interesting that designers did not realized how important good dual purpose, secondary weapons along with numerous tertiary weapons like the 40 mm bofors would become until the middle of the war.

[Ed Rotondaro]

You will like it, trust me. Good chapter on the two Battles of Sirte.

Dennis:

It's out already? And Vince didn't tell us? Why I'll....:D

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

It's out already? And Vince didn't tell us? Why I'll....:D
It's not out yet. Just relax. He hasn't finished it yet. Ok. nough said.

[Citadelvette]

Does anyone have any good info on the British 5.25" DP?

[old_pop2000]

Does anyone have any good info on the British 5.25" DP?
Here is a good reference that most use:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_525-50_mk1.htm

[Ed Rotondaro]

It's not out yet. Just relax. He hasn't finished it yet. Ok. nough said.

Dennis:

Thanks for the info. I just spent 20 minutes trolling for the book LOL! But I did find out that two very good books that have long been out of print are being re-issued by the Naval Institute Press. They are "Empires in the Balance" and "The Barrier and the Javelin" by H.P. Wilmott. They are concerned with the events leading up the war in the Pacific and the war from Feb 1942 to Midway. There is a third volume that covers the rest of the story but I am not sure what it is titled. Wilmott's main focus is on the strategic choices and causes rather than the actual battles themselves, so these books might not appeal to everyone. Also his writing style is dense and requires careful reading to follow his logic. Still both books while out of print were highly sought after and commanded good prices on the used book market. Both books will be available in September 2008.

[Citadelvette]

Here is a good reference that most use:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_525-50_mk1.htm

You know, I'm there alot and it just slipped my mind. Brain fart. LOL:p Thanks Dennis

[john964]

Mirrior, Mirrior Whose the best Heavy and Light Cruiser of them all?

I just completed a round robin fight with all the CA's and CL's of the principle navies of WWII. They are IJN RN USN KM RNN Soviet and RM.

I had 6 catagories of ships.

Treaty Heavy Cruisers
Post-Treaty Heavy Cruisers
All around

Treaty Light Cruisers
Post-Treaty Light Cruisers
All around



And the envalope please?
In the catagorie of best Treaty Heavy Cruiser
New Orleans class

In the catagorie of best Post-Treaty Heavy Cruiser
Baltimore class

In the catagorie of Best All-Around heavy Cruiser
Baltimore class

In the catagorie of worst Treaty Heavy Cruiser
tie Aoba and York class

In the catagorie of worst Post-Treaty Heavy Cruiser
Hipper class

In the catagorie of best Treaty Light Cruiser
Brooklyn/St. Louis

In the catagorie of best Post-Treaty Light Cruiser
tie Cleveland and Fiji class

In the catagorie of best All-Around Light Cruiser
Brooklyn/St Louis

In the catagorie of worst Treaty Light Cruiser
Just about everything Japanese

In the catagorie of worst Post-Treaty Light Cruiser
Capitani Romani class

In the catagorie of worst All-Around Light Cruiser
Anything Japanese

[Ed Rotondaro]

Does anyone have any good info on the British 5.25" DP?

Citadel:

I think the biggest rap against the 5.25" was that it wasn't really a good AA weapon, but was more of a surface weapon. It's rate of fire wasn't as high as you would like mainly due to the weight of the shell. The British 4.5" gun was generally considered a better AA weapon and it had acceptable surface capability.

[Ed Rotondaro]

And the envalope please?
In the catagorie of best Treaty Heavy Cruiser
New Orleans class

In the catagorie of best Post-Treaty Heavy Cruiser
Baltimore class

In the catagorie of Best All-Around heavy Cruiser
Baltimore class

In the catagorie of worst Treaty Heavy Cruiser
tie Aoba and York class

In the catagorie of worst Post-Treaty Heavy Cruiser
Hipper class

In the catagorie of best Treaty Light Cruiser
Brooklyn/St. Louis

In the catagorie of best Post-Treaty Light Cruiser
tie Cleveland and Fiji class

In the catagorie of best All-Around Light Cruiser
Brooklyn/St Louis

In the catagorie of worst Treaty Light Cruiser
Just about everything Japanese

In the catagorie of worst Post-Treaty Light Cruiser
Capitani Romani class

In the catagorie of worst All-Around Light Cruiser
Anything Japanese

John:

Well that certainly validates the game system used. I assume it was COA Command at Sea? I am a bit surprised that the New Orleans class which is a damn good Treaty cruiser was able to beat out some of the IJN CAs that cheated on displacement such as the Mogami class. Must have been the fire control.

[john964]

John:

Well that certainly validates the game system used. I assume it was COA Command at Sea? I am a bit surprised that the New Orleans class which is a damn good Treaty cruiser was able to beat out some of the IJN CAs that cheated on displacement such as the Mogami class. Must have been the fire control.
Ed, The New Orleans class has some of the best armore of any of the Treaty CA's. The IJN CA's were very good ships. They took second in the treaty catagorie and fourth in the all-around.

Yes I used COA's Command at Sea.

You want to know the most suprising ship class?

[Citadelvette]

Ed, The New Orleans class has some of the best armore of any of the Treaty CA's. The IJN CA's were very good ships. They took second in the treaty catagorie and fourth in the all-around.

Yes I used COA's Command at Sea.

You want to know the most suprising ship class?

Yes, tell us.

[john964]

Yes, tell us.
Atlanta class, They managed to sink several 6x6in CL's and more than once pounded the hell out of larger CL's. During one battle she managed to cripple Fiji before a fire touched off a magazine. She also bagged every class of japanese CL's. FYI according to the rules damage greater than 50% is considered crippling.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed, The New Orleans class has some of the best armore of any of the Treaty CA's. The IJN CA's were very good ships. They took second in the treaty catagorie and fourth in the all-around.

Yes I used COA's Command at Sea.

You want to know the most suprising ship class?

John:

Probably one of the French CAs like the Suffren or else the Italian Zara class that Dennis mentioned. And yes, you are correct that the New Orleans class was well armored. I've tested them using WCDB and found they generally held their own against ships of their generation, even post treaty cruisers like the Prinz Eugen.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Atlanta class, They managed to sink several 6x6in CL's and more than once pounded the hell out of larger CL's. During one battle she managed to cripple Fiji before a fire touched off a magazine. She also bagged every class of japanese CL's. FYI according to the rules damage greater than 50% is considered crippling.

John:

Interesting, I do agree that the Atlanta class was more capable than their actual battle record demonstrated. Japanese CLs are basically abysmal, but we have to remember that the IJN saw light cruisers as Destroyer leaders primarily, not as cruiser versus cruiser ships. In that role, they were quite effective at killing US DDs.

[john964]

John:

Interesting, I do agree that the Atlanta class was more capable than their actual battle record demonstrated. Japanese CLs are basically abysmal, but we have to remember that the IJN saw light cruisers as Destroyer leaders primarily, not as cruiser versus cruiser ships. In that role, they were quite effective at killing US DDs.Some US DD's have as much fire power as some of the Japanese CL's just not the staying power. Also I dont consider a knife fight with a couple of BB's a true test in combat. Atlanta's vs like types or weak 6in eg Dido and Agano more than hold there own but against true CL's they will get there heads handed to them.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Some US DD's have as much fire power as some of the Japanese CL's just not the staying power. Also I dont consider a knife fight with a couple of BB's a true test in combat. Atlanta's vs like types or weak 6in eg Dido and Agano more than hold there own but against true CL's they will get there heads handed to them.

John:

I will agree that the two Atlanta class lost in action had the misfortune to tangle with a very powerful IJN force with two BCs/BBs (whoever you want to class them). Atlanta got smashed by heavy gunfire and had to be scuttled. Juneau took a long lance and was trying to make harbor when she caught a sub torp in just about the same spot and sank quickly. I can't think of any CLs that could take that kind of damage, although the USS Houston (Cleveland class CL not the old CA) took two long lances and still managed to limp home.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Some US DD's have as much fire power as some of the Japanese CL's just not the staying power. Also I dont consider a knife fight with a couple of BB's a true test in combat. Atlanta's vs like types or weak 6in eg Dido and Agano more than hold there own but against true CL's they will get there heads handed to them.

John:

I will agree that the two Atlanta class lost in action had the misfortune to tangle with a very powerful IJN force with two BCs/BBs (whoever you want to class them). Atlanta got smashed by heavy gunfire and had to be scuttled. Juneau took a long lance and was trying to make harbor when she caught a sub torp in just about the same spot and sank quickly. I can't think of any CLs that could take that kind of damage, although the USS Houston (Cleveland class CL not the old CA) took two long lances and still managed to limp home.

[john964]

John:

I will agree that the two Atlanta class lost in action had the misfortune to tangle with a very powerful IJN force with two BCs/BBs (whoever you want to class them). Atlanta got smashed by heavy gunfire and had to be scuttled. Juneau took a long lance and was trying to make harbor when she caught a sub torp in just about the same spot and sank quickly. I can't think of any CLs that could take that kind of damage, although the USS Houston (Cleveland class CL not the old CA) took two long lances and still managed to limp home.Ed, By all accounts Atlanta was more than likely hit by San Francisco IIRC Atlanta was hit by 5-10 5inch 3-5 5.5inch and 10-15 8inch. As the US was the only force with 8inch guns you can see why.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed, By all accounts Atlanta was more than likely hit by San Francisco IIRC Atlanta was hit by 5-10 5inch 3-5 5.5inch and 10-15 8inch. As the US was the only force with 8inch guns you can see why.

John:

I had read somewhere that it is assumed that the USS Portland hit Atlanta by mistake. Were either of the two Atlantas targeted by the IJN BBs?

[john964]

John:

I had read somewhere that it is assumed that the USS Portland hit Atlanta by mistake. Were either of the two Atlantas targeted by the IJN BBs? That would be fairly dificult as Portland was behind San Francisco. According to Atlanta's AAR the 8inch rounds that hit her had a dye color that was assigned to San Francisco. It is possable that some of the hits may have come from the BB's secondaries as 5.5 and 6 inch are so close in size, but more than likely they came from Nagara.

[Ed Rotondaro]

That would be fairly dificult as Portland was behind San Francisco. According to Atlanta's AAR the 8inch rounds that hit her had a dye color that was assigned to San Francisco. It is possable that some of the hits may have come from the BB's secondaries as 5.5 and 6 inch are so close in size, but more than likely they came from Nagara.


John:

Talk about a bad omen, San Fran hits Atlanta and kills Admiral Scott, then she gets clobbered by one of the IJN BBs and Admiral Callaghan gets killed. You have obviously studied this action more than I have and I need to get up to speed on it. I'll so some digging and try to keep up.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Ed, The New Orleans class has some of the best armore of any of the Treaty CA's. The IJN CA's were very good ships. They took second in the treaty catagorie and fourth in the all-around.

Yes I used COA's Command at Sea.

You want to know the most suprising ship class?

Hi Guys,

The treaty limit of 10,000 tons standard displacement make the treaty ships interesting examples of design philosophies of teh various navies. The New Orleans class featured excellent protection by consolidating her armament in three well protected gunhouses armored against 6" shell fire with the weight saved by losing a turret. All of the Japanese CAs had gunhouses featuring only 1" in protection, barely splinter protection. Considering their cordite based propellant and numerous turrets, risky indeed against gun fire.

[Mike Malanaphy]

John:

Probably one of the French CAs like the Suffren or else the Italian Zara class that Dennis mentioned. And yes, you are correct that the New Orleans class was well armored. I've tested them using WCDB and found they generally held their own against ships of their generation, even post treaty cruisers like the Prinz Eugen.

Hi Guys,

The one of Algerie was an excellent treaty cruiser that was well protected. Over 20% of her displacement went to protection and she had an unequalled 3.1" deck. Unlike her French or Italian contemporaries, she had Pacific numbers for endurance, 8,000 miles at 15 knots. Her major flaw was a modest torpdo defense system and a lack of machinery dispersal, but ir would have been nice to see her fight against Graf Spee.

[old_pop2000]

The downside of the decision on the New Orleans was top heaviness. When you try to added radar and extra AAA, you now have too much weight above the waterline which can cause seakeeping problems. While her internal design was good against shellfire, it was poor against torpedoes, the primary weapon of the IJN.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Dennis:

I remember Vince mentioning that certain Italian naval historians feel that Italian naval gunnery has gotten a bad rap due to misinformation. I look forward to his next book which is on the Italian navy at war. And I'll read it with a fine Chianti and some fava beans!:D

Hi Guys,

I'm looking for ward to it as well. The Italian Navy suffered from a number of issues in this area. Light weight, high velocity shells, gun barrels too close together, and quality control problems with consistency in shell weight and filling. The unknown factor is the quality of fire control devices and battle training.

At long range, their gunnery was poor and in most of the close in battles they were outnumbered or caught by surprise by their opponents. It will be interesting to read Vince's analysis of Admiral DaZara's action against the Harpoon convoy on June 15, 1942, the only successful squadron action of the war where two British destroyers were disabled by gunfire, Bedouin hit by 12 6" shells alone. He had two Italian light cruisers and four destroyers against Cairo and five Britsh DDs.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The downside of the decision on the New Orleans was top heaviness. When you try to added radar and extra AAA, you now have too much weight above the waterline which can cause seakeeping problems. While her internal design was good against shellfire, it was poor against torpedoes, the primary weapon of the IJN.

Dennis:

Borne out by the loss of three New Orleans class CAs at Savo Island to a combination of torpedo attacks and shell fire.

[john964]

John:

Talk about a bad omen, San Fran hits Atlanta and kills Admiral Scott, then she gets clobbered by one of the IJN BBs and Admiral Callaghan gets killed. You have obviously studied this action more than I have and I need to get up to speed on it. I'll so some digging and try to keep up.Ed, One of the things I have are copies of the ONI AAR for several of the Solomen Is battles from Savo Is to Cape St George, but only surface battles no carrier battles. I got these from a friend who was a NROTC instructor in the early 70's, he made copies of the originals. These AAR's were published after they were declasified in the early 50's. These AAR's have everything ie movement orders of individual ships and damaged assesments

[old_pop2000]

Ed, One of the things I have are copies of the ONI AAR for several of the Solomen Is battles from Savo Is to Cape St George, but only surface battles no carrier battles. I got these from a friend who was a NROTC instructor in the early 70's, he made copies of the originals. These AAR's were published after they were declasified in the early 50's. These AAR's have everything ie movement orders of individual ships and damaged assesments
Here is a link to ONI narratives on the Solomon Island battles, including Savo Island, Eastern Solomons, Esperance, Santa Cruz, Guadalcanal and Tassafaronga. Maybe these can help.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/Hell/index.html

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed, One of the things I have are copies of the ONI AAR for several of the Solomen Is battles from Savo Is to Cape St George, but only surface battles no carrier battles. I got these from a friend who was a NROTC instructor in the early 70's, he made copies of the originals. These AAR's were published after they were declasified in the early 50's. These AAR's have everything ie movement orders of individual ships and damaged assesments

John:

I wonder if any of the AARs are available on-line?

[Ed Rotondaro]

Here is a link to ONI narratives on the Solomon Island battles, including Savo Island, Eastern Solomons, Esperance, Santa Cruz, Guadalcanal and Tassafaronga. Maybe these can help.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/Hell/index.html

Thanks Dennis, I look forward to examining them. Especially since the AC isn't working at my office and I sweating to death:(