Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby lwd » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:05 pm

phil gollin wrote: Rubbish. Your first answer is merely ignoring what you wrote

I don't see it that way. Perhaps you could quote exactly what you are refering to.
and the second is your weird interpretation of where a side protection system/torpedo defence scheme starts or finishes -

Actually it appears that you are misunderstanding me now I'm not sure just where the problem lies. My point is that the S part of TDS is very important. It is a system and it is designed in a systematic manor to defeat tropedos. Now it's not unreasonable at all that the side protection be considered part of the TDS and/or the TDS be considered part of the side protection system.
you have no idea of how a ship is designed. ...

To anyone who has read my postings this is an obvious fallacy. I will admit that field of knowledge is not reallly one of my strong poionts but that's a long way from having "no idea".

MVictorP
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Montréal, Québec

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby MVictorP » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:39 pm

lwd wrote:Well the Balitmores can be considered antecedants in many ways.


The Baltimores being the base for the Alaskas is actually your best argument when claiming the Alaskas are cruisers - much better than official USN classification. However, some second-class battleships are indeed a further development of a previous cruiserlike design, such as the Scharnhorts. Weight and gun bore size still are the two primarly measures used to determine contemporary definitions.

Why? They [the USN] were the only ones who built them.


The USN didn't invent nothing new with the Alaskas; They even were the last of their kind, and as such, it wasn't enough to make them the best design of that type. And what I meant, is that the US can't be considered successful in its battlecruiser/light battleship design.

Wikipedia wrote:The General Board, in an attempt to keep the displacement under 25,000 tons, allowed the designs to offer only limited underwater protection. As a result, the Alaska class, when built, were vulnerable to torpedoes and shells that fell short of the ship.[20] The final design chosen was a scaled-up Baltimore class ...


IMO, the argument that there isn't enough tonnage on a 30000t ship for a TDS is a ridiculous one. The Dutch managed to put a TDS on a 4500t vessel.

alecsandros wrote:So we have 2 very similar ships, in terms of protection and firepower. If we start looking deeper in detail, we would find that:
- The US 12"/L50 had a higher rate of fire, and much better accuracy than the French 330mm/L45
- The vertical protection of the 2 ships was comparable
- The deck system of Alaska was a space-array comprised of 3 decks - 35,6mm + 101,6mm + 15.9mm. The steel was US-built STS.
The deck system of Dunkerque was a dubious 115mm + 40mm arrangement, similar to that of Richelieu class (150+40mm).

[The weather deck on Alaska could decap at least some shells and induce yaw. The impact with the main deck would thus be nicely reduced, and the possible splinters after this second impact would be held by the 3rd deck. On the other side, the 115mm main deck of Dunkerque would decap any shell, but it would not stop it. The proximity of the 40mm splinter deck meant yaw effects couldn't have time to mainfest, so a perforation of this secondary, thin surface, would be probable]

- Alaska was faster than Dunkerque, despite the fact that it was 4000t heavier.
- US fire control for main battery guns was exceptional, whereas the French counterpart was not that evolved.


For their weight advantage and more recent construction, the Alaskas compare badly to the Dunkerques (althought I agree that they belong in the same exact class), and especially to the Strassbourg. The French gun was excellent, with a heavy shell, and its all-forward arrangement provides chase-firing broadsides the Alaska can't match unless it present a bigger target. I agree that US fire control is better at long range, but as soon as optics are utilised, the French battery has proved its lethality. The armor scheme was also better, and Strassbourg has a better chance against Alaska's shells than vice-versa. The only real advantage I see for the Alaska is a strategical one - its long range.

mike1880 wrote:You are all obviously fervent Christians, Buddhists, etc. who believe in either a second life or an afterlife or you wouldn't be wasting so much of this one on such a pointless argument. Every time I see this thread, a little part of me dies.

Mike


Isn't that a bit harsh? For my part I learned a thing or two, such as the 306mm german rifle. I am pretty sure other posters also learned a lot of stuff.
"That was all I had to say"
- Me

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby lwd » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:42 pm

alecsandros wrote:
lwd wrote:
Yes. Look when they were designed. The Alaska for instance was ordered in 1940 so for the US the design was prewar. The Iowa was ordered even earlier June of 39 and the Montana design was approved in April of 42 and ordered in May of 42. At that time the battle line was still doctrine and the US faced a serious torpedo threat as the campaigns in 1942 showed rather graphically.

No. The Alaskas were to fast to be bogged down in a battle line.

??? I'm not quite sure what your point is. The text you quoted of mine was in reference to this:
alecsandros wrote:But were USN modern capital ships supposed to fight in a battleline and under torpedo threat ? ...

The speed of the Alaskas thus has little to do with my reply. It also does not appear to be correct as the Alaskas had about the same speed as the Iowas.
Indeed I have seen the text in wiki and note that the paragraph above it gives a very good case for them being cruisers while neglecting some of the relevant points for not considering them battleships or battlecruisers.

There may be arguments to name them cruisers, but most factors point towards a battlecruiser configuration.

Not really especially if you compare them to contemporary battleships.
ALso, please READ AGAIN my comparison with contemporary battlecruisers. I think you missed most similarities !

There weren't any contemporary battlecruisers. There were some small battleships designed a decade earlier (the French and German ones) and then there were the battlecruisers designed during or just post WWI (Japanese and British).
The only modern and "pure" BC of that list is DUNKERQUE class. I don't think you actualy thought about this, but simply wrote various things just to keep yourself busy.

The Dunkerques were rated as battleships and at the time they were constructed were reasonably decent ones. However the Alaskas were designed almost a decade later. Given the evolution of ship design in that period and inparticular the fact that the Washington and London treaties were no longer a factor their designs can hardly be considered contemporaneous.
Now, if you can say with a strait face that Alaska wasn't at least on par with Dunkerque

Simply comparing your numbers does make them look close but then lets look a little deaper. How much of the Alaska's belt was 228mm? Just looking at wiki we see that it taperd down to ~125mm I'm not seeing the same thing for Dunkerqure. Then if we actually look at the guns in more detail the French ships shells are heavier and have a higher muzzle velocity. This will give the French ship an edge at any range under ~30,000 yards. Then there's the quesiton of just how relevant these features are to a ships class especially given the disparity in their design dates. If you compare a Brooklyn class light cruiser to just about any WWII heavy cruiser and look at tonnage, broadside weight, and armor one will wonder why the Brooklyns are considered light cruisers. Certainly they would both have been a threat to the other but a ship designed 10 years and at least a generation later should have an edge on a ship of the same class without those advantages. If the Alaskas had been designed as small battleships or battlecruisers they would have had different features. They likey would have had more armor and certainly underwater protection both from torpedoes and from shells. They also would have been more likely to have been armed with dual 16" guns or possilby more 12" guns.
- Alaska was faster than Dunkerque, despite the fact that it was 4000t heavier.

Which points to her role as a cruiser rather than a battleship doesn't it?
- US fire control for main battery guns was exceptional, whereas the French counterpart was not that evolved.

Irrelevant to the class. Much the same could be said about Des Moines class could it not? I certainly wouldn't want to be on one of the French ships if they got in range.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby lwd » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:03 pm

MVictorP wrote:
lwd wrote:Well the Balitmores can be considered antecedants in many ways.

The Baltimores being the base for the Alaskas is actually your best argument when claiming the Alaskas are cruisers - much better than official USN classification.

Didn't you say several times that role was a primary factor in how ships were rated. The USN rated the Alaskas as cruisers from what I've read specifically because of the roles they invisioned them playing. Dismissing the view point of experts and professionals out of hand because they disagree with you is never a good policiy.
However, some second-class battleships are indeed a further development of a previous cruiserlike design, such as the Scharnhorts.

But they were the evollutionary product of a whole series of designs were they not? Nor were they "second class" battleships when designed.
Weight and gun bore size still are the two primarly measures used to determine contemporary definitions.

And by those criteria the Alaskas were not battleships. Contemporary US battleshps were armed with 16" guns and were considerably more. If it had been the US intention to design a battlecruiser or a second class battleship then I would exect they would have had significantly different features given other US designs of the time. Indeed look at the parameters of the Lexington class battlecruisers.
Why? They [the USN] were the only ones who built them.

The USN didn't invent nothing new with the Alaskas; They even were the last of their kind, and as such, it wasn't enough to make them the best design of that type. And what I meant, is that the US can't be considered successful in its battlecruiser/light battleship design.

The fact that they were the last of their kind doesn't mean that they weren't also the first. The US wasn't successful at desiging battlecruisers/light battleships because they never built any although they started on the Lexingtons which many think would have been among the worst of their type.

Wikipedia wrote:The General Board, in an attempt to keep the displacement under 25,000 tons, allowed the designs to offer only limited underwater protection. As a result, the Alaska class, when built, were vulnerable to torpedoes and shells that fell short of the ship.[20] The final design chosen was a scaled-up Baltimore class ...

IMO, the argument that there isn't enough tonnage on a 30000t ship for a TDS is a ridiculous one. The Dutch managed to put a TDS on a 4500t vessel.

As for the first part of your statment that's not what they said. What was said that was given the requirements already called for adding a TDS would push the desgin over the 25,000 ton limit of the time. Now since the design eventually came in at 30,000 tons that was a valid observation. A more reasonable one may have been to have given up a knot or two in speed and allowed the displacement to increase a bit more and add a TDS. Note that it wasn't just a TDS that was left of the Alaskas had no protection vs diveing shells. As for the last part the Dutch did not put a system on a 4,500 ton vessel that could defeat even a WWI torpedo. I.e. it wasn't a TDS. They added features that would limit the damage to some extent of a torpedo hit but that's not the same thing.

For their weight advantage and more recent construction, the Alaskas compare badly to the Dunkerques

That argues pretty strongly to them being a different class though doesn't it.
The only real advantage I see for the Alaska is a strategical one - its long range.

Well the Alaska's may also have an advantage if they can fight the type of battle that US doctrine (ammended for radar fire control) envisioned. I.e. long range in this case over 30,000 yards.
mike1880 wrote:You are all obviously fervent Christians, Buddhists, etc. who believe in either a second life or an afterlife or you wouldn't be wasting so much of this one on such a pointless argument. Every time I see this thread, a little part of me dies.

Isn't that a bit harsh? For my part I learned a thing or two, such as the 306mm german rifle. I am pretty sure other posters also learned a lot of stuff.
[/quote]
I'll second that. I've learned a fair amount in several areas that I hadn't looked at in much depth before and gained some insight into others that I had.

Pandora
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby Pandora » Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:27 pm

lwd wrote:
mike1880 wrote:You are all obviously fervent Christians, Buddhists, etc. who believe in either a second life or an afterlife or you wouldn't be wasting so much of this one on such a pointless argument. Every time I see this thread, a little part of me dies.

Isn't that a bit harsh? For my part I learned a thing or two, such as the 306mm german rifle. I am pretty sure other posters also learned a lot of stuff.

I'll second that. I've learned a fair amount in several areas that I hadn't looked at in much depth before and gained some insight into others that I had.

that's true lwd. a few days back you had no idea about the torpedo protection of the Panzerschiff.

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby Paul L » Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:57 am

I think the problem is this article it self, it has no sources for the information and we should all entertain doubts to its relevance and accuracy. While it does explore the various TDS designs employed through last century, it doesn't make any real connection between improving TDS and actual results.
This is important since its only implied that improving TDS equals fewer ships sunk.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm

If you compare the reported torpedo hits etc, the information on the article looks out dated.

http://navypedia.org/ships_index.htm

For example most sources claim Scharnhorst was hit with 11 ship launched torpedoes plus 13 * 14" shell hits and maybe as many as 20 other cruiser shell hits.

Ofcourse the Bismarck was hit by 7 torps [2-3 air and the rest ship] but she was also battered by ~ 44 heavy shells 14-16" as well.

Yamato was hit by "11-13 (air-launched) torpedo and 8* 227-454kg bomb hits", while Musashi was sunk by "10-12 (air-launched) torpedo and 17*227-454kg bomb hits"

KGV was sunk by 5 air-launched torps while the POW was reportedly sunk by 6 air-launched torps. However new research examining the shipwreck , suggests that the actual number of torpedo hits on PoW was omly 4.

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/hms/ ... laysis.pdf

If the data base is off, perhaps its conclusions are aswell?
"Eine mal is kein mal"

phil gollin
Member
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:33 am

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby phil gollin » Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:35 am

.

lwd -

Quote :

".......... Now it's not unreasonable at all that the side protection be considered part of the TDS and/or the TDS be considered part of the side protection system. ........"
unquote


You have demonstrated your ignorance, yet again.

"Side protection system" was, roughly, the RN's term for what you call "TDS"/"Torpedo Defence System" - your insistence on NOT looking at how others did things means that you are incapable of actually reading what is written.

PLEASE try reading around the subject and appreciate that different navies did things differently and that no particular navy was, in general, "right" or "wrong". Some systems were better or worse, but many were not particularly tested and so any comparison is essentially theoretical.

As a point of fact, in the 60s the RN and USN compared, in detail, their latest carrier side protection system/TDS which were differently designed (different numbers of compartments, thicknesses of plating, length of compartments, etc.....). They, basically agreed that each was suitable for defence against the same designed level of attack, but each navy prefferred their own system. (This closely mirrorred the similar comparison between the Midway and Malta designs held during WW2). The navies were happy to admit that different systems were equivalent (each with their own good and bad points) - to somehow put yourself in a position to say that one was "right" or "wrong" is rather silly.

Oh, and of course, depending on enemy and date, all WW2 ships were vulnerable as reliable under-keel magnetic pistols/exploders were introduced.

.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby lwd » Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:02 pm

Paul L wrote:I think the problem is this article it self, it has no sources for the information and we should all entertain doubts to its relevance and accuracy. While it does explore the various TDS designs employed through last century, it doesn't make any real connection between improving TDS and actual results.
This is important since its only implied that improving TDS equals fewer ships sunk.

One of the problems with TDS design is that the threat they typically were designed against didn't really keep pace with the threats they faced. How important actual results are depends on the issue at hand. In this issue at hand we were discussing whether or not certain ships had TDS and by implication exactly what qualifies as a TDS. Certainly it would be useful if someone could point us to official period definitions of what constituted a TDS.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby lwd » Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:13 pm

phil gollin wrote:.
Quote :
".......... Now it's not unreasonable at all that the side protection be considered part of the TDS and/or the TDS be considered part of the side protection system. ........"
unquote

You have demonstrated your ignorance, yet again.

"Side protection system" was, roughly, the RN's term for what you call "TDS"/"Torpedo Defence System" - your insistence on NOT looking at how others did things means that you are incapable of actually reading what is written.

Actually what's demonstrated is that you are reading things the way you want to. Because I use the term TDS doesn't mean that I'm necessarily seeing it only from a USN perspective. I'll admit I thought the thought side protection system included protection vs underwater shell hits as well.
PLEASE try reading around the subject and appreciate that different navies did things differently and that no particular navy was, in general, "right" or "wrong". Some systems were better or worse, but many were not particularly tested and so any comparison is essentially theoretical.

Indeed I don't think I've ever stated other wise. However there's a difference between designing a system as a whole to accomplish something and just adding an armored bulkhead.
As a point of fact, in the 60s the RN and USN compared, in detail, their latest carrier side protection system/TDS which were differently designed (different numbers of compartments, thicknesses of plating, length of compartments, etc.....). They, basically agreed that each was suitable for defence against the same designed level of attack, but each navy prefferred their own system. (This closely mirrorred the similar comparison between the Midway and Malta designs held during WW2). The navies were happy to admit that different systems were equivalent (each with their own good and bad points) - to somehow put yourself in a position to say that one was "right" or "wrong" is rather silly.

Oh, and of course, depending on enemy and date, all WW2 ships were vulnerable as reliable under-keel magnetic pistols/exploders were introduced.

Indeed but none of this was particularly relevant to the points being discussed.

phil gollin
Member
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:33 am

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby phil gollin » Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:54 am

.

lwd ;

Stop digging you are just exposing yourself to ridicule.

.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby alecsandros » Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:57 pm

MVictorP wrote:For their weight advantage and more recent construction, the Alaskas compare badly to the Dunkerques (althought I agree that they belong in the same exact class), and especially to the Strassbourg. The French gun was excellent, with a heavy shell, and its all-forward arrangement provides chase-firing broadsides the Alaska can't match unless it present a bigger target...


I do not agree:
The US Mark 8 12"/L50 gun:
"This gun was a major improvement over the 12"/50 (30.5 cm) Mark 7 guns used on the USS Wyoming (BB-33) class and was of a simpler, lighter construction. Designed to fire the new "super-heavy" AP projectiles, their side belt armor penetration at 20,000 to 30,000 yards (18,290 to 27,430 m) was almost identical to and the deck plate penetration better than the larger 14"/50 (35.6 cm) guns used on U.S. pre-treaty battleships."

"1) Although similar to the triple 16 inch (40.6 cm) turrets built for battleships, this mount had several features not found on other USN large-caliber guns of the 1930s and 1940s. It had a two-stage powder hoist vs. a single stage in the 16" (40.6 cm) mounts of the battleships. This change increased the rate of fire and provided a greater degree of safety. A unique feature was the provision of a projectile rammer to transfer projectiles from the projectile storage room onto the rotating ring. However, this feature was not entirely satisfactory and it was omitted from the Hawaii and removed from the upper projectile flats on the Alaska and Guam.

2) These mounts had numerous problems, mainly because they had been rushed into design and construction without being properly tested. BuOrd noted that "this turret is an outstanding example of a case where prior testing of a new design by the manufacture of a pilot model was required." It appears that these problems were satisfactorily resolved in service, as former crewmembers have informed me that there were no major problems during their war-cruises.

3) Turrets were electrically powered through hydraulic gear. Training motor was 150 hp and each gun had a 35 hp motor for elevation and a 40 hp ramming motor. The shells were stowed vertically on two decks and transferred to shell rings similar to the ones used on the 16" (40.6 cm) battleships. These rings were driven by 40 hp motors. Shells were carried by pusher hoists powered by 50 hp motors. Charges were transferred by ram type hoists, 35 hp lower hoist and 25 hp upper hoist. Turret II had a third 40 hp shell ring at the base of the turret which supplied axial lower hoists driven from two 50 hp motors
."
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.htm

While the French 13.5"/L45:

"These guns were used to arm the first French capital ships built since World War I, the Dunkerque class. These weapons had a high muzzle velocity, which gave them long range and good vertical armor penetration at the cost of having poor deck penetration. They were mounted in quad turrets, which were really more of a dual-twin arrangement. The design of the quad turret was based upon one designed but never built for the Normandie class.

Although equipped with RPC, the Sautter-Harlé-Blondel gear for these turrets was apparently far from satisfactory. As the guns were closely spaced together, these ships also suffered from problems with excessive dispersion.

" [i]These guns were sleeved in pairs. There was apparently some adjustment between the guns in a pair, possibly for alignment purposes. Dunkerque was the first French battleship to have RPC for training and elevation. The turrets were powered by Léonard electric servo-motors with hydraulic drive with Sautter-Harlé-Blondel (SHB) RPC gear. However, the SHB equipment was found to be unreliable, synchronization between the directors and turrets was poor and manual intervention was needed for fine adjustment. In addition, the servo motors were underpowered which resulted in slow tracking speeds and frequent breakdowns. Major problems were found on trials and even after modifications the system never worked properly. Two 100 HP training motors were provided for each turret, with only one needed at a time. One 75 HP elevation motor was provided for each pair of guns.
"

The dual quad-gun turret arrangement was calculated to be 27.6% lighter than a quad twin-gun arrangement, but it did mean that a single hit could eliminate half of the main battery."[/i]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_13-50_m1931.htm
=====

As for the armor scheme comparison, I don't have the time to dig all the posts in which we debated about poor French armor quality (both FH and homogenous). Also, the triple deck system of the Alaskas was head and shoulders above the deck system on board Dunkerque class. [mainly because USN actualy did yaw tests in teh 30's, while the French did not]

MVictorP
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Montréal, Québec

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby MVictorP » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:34 pm

alecsandros wrote:I do not agree:


Bah. You posted me a generic opinion. French problems were exaggerated (in typical WASP fashion), like dispersion which wasn't so bad to begin with, and is almost irrelevant when a battleship is targeted, while the US entry features an lengthy text about a weapon that's never been fired at anything bigger than a jonk. The article also completely obfuscate the quality of opticals used in fire control, radar being the end of it all. Ever wondered why German (among others) gunfire was so accurate even without US radar, while the pre-war US battleship had problems even hitting Pacific?

As for the armor scheme comparison, I don't have the time to dig all the posts in which we debated about poor French armor quality (both FH and homogenous). Also, the triple deck system of the Alaskas was head and shoulders above the deck system on board Dunkerque class. [mainly because USN actualy did yaw tests in teh 30's, while the French did not]


I don't deny that the materials in themselves can be inferior, but the design is better: the Dunquerkes indeed have a TDS, and I doubts that a three-deck protection system equals a two-deck one: I thought it was now accepted that a single thicker protection beats numerous thin ones.

At the end of the day, the Dunkerque's armor (and especially Stasbourg's) is better suited to resist Alaska's shells than vice-versa. I would bet on Strasbourg over an Alaska 7/10.
"That was all I had to say"

- Me

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby alecsandros » Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:18 pm

My friend,
I also had pretty much the same opinions as you do regarding German radar and dividing the armor thickness between decks.
However, new material has surfaced, and, thanks to several keen members of this forum, it has been presented to us.

In an overly brief summary,
- German navy radar was, throughout the war, at least similar to USN radar
- French quad turrets had huge dispersion at normal battle distances
- Dividing the armor between decks could be usefull or not, depending of a host of factors, such as: the actual distance between the decks, metallurgical properties of the decks [tensile strenght, EL%, etc], the ratio between the upper-deck and incoming shell diameter [which, if it was at least 0.2, or 20%, the projectile would always have been decaped, thus losing the AP cap and 15-20% of its mass along with it], the geometry of the second and third deck, etc.

The specific way in which the decks were separated lead to 2 category of designs: space-array (Bismarck, Littorio, South Dakota, Iowa, Alaska) or normal distribution (KGV, North Carolina, Richelieu, Yamato, etc).
German, US and Italian, and later British tests showed that the space-arrayed armored decks could work better than single-sheet armors, if the quality of the build was good. For "normal" distributed decks, the formula of the total effective thickness was sqrt (x^2 + y^2). So, for Richelieu's 150+40mm decks, the effective thickness was sqrt (150*150 + 40*40) = sqrt (24100) = 155,24mm

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:50 pm

How on Earth, Heaven and Hell I missed this??

phill gollin:
lwd ;

Stop digging you are just exposing yourself to ridicule.



Damn right!!!!!!!!!!!!!
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

guesser

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby guesser » Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:27 pm

The best can allways lose to luck, better seamanship and many other factors so these opinions mean little; interesting though they may be. I disagree that the best for each countries needs should be considered, since this is a strickly theoreticle excersize I'll state that they should be considered as if in a bubble, one against another in both defensive and offensive situations. Lets say the two meet at extreme range; the faster can dictate the battle or choose to retire unless the mission is to defend a static position or slower shipping, in which case the faster ship had better be tough and well armed enough to defeat the intruder or the odds are against him. The reverse is also true, if you must locate and defeat an enemy your heavy powerfull ship must be able to close the range to utilize it's strengths.
I think when you consider Armor, speed, range, weapons, fire control, damage control and seakeeping the Baltimore class is an obviouse winner in the heavy cruiser department, the Prince Eugen, Panzer Ships, Wichita, Mogami, Algerie would come in something like that order; although I think Whichita may be higher on the list other than possible seakeeping because of it's heavy armor, guns and fire control. The british heavy cruisers suffered from weak protection and fewrer heavy guns. The itallians had a horrible record during the war and had lighter armor than the ships near the top of my list so I can't give them much love.
The London treaty gave light cruiser a designation that had nothing to do with tonnage except that it had the same limitation as heavy cruisers.
I think the British and US light cruisers with 12 6" guns are the best, giving the brits a nodd for having torpedos but the US had heavier projectiles and armor with better range and secondaries. Ive never understood the way people discount the Brookland class as it had 3 additional 6" guns, although I don't care for the #3 position unable to fire forward it gave it heavier fire and heavier armor than both of the above with similar range and speed. I thought the Brooklands should have lost the #3 turret in favor of torpedos and heavier AA fire, that would have made it the best light cruiser IMO.


Return to “Naval History (1922-1945)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest