What's This One? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


wdolson -> What's This One? (11/16/2012 1:08:31 AM)

This should take about 30 seconds to solve, but it was a new one to me when I came across it the other day...



[image]local://upfiles/21277/1415CB65CBD34F73A0A321D040793D65.jpg[/image]




msieving1 -> RE: What's This One? (11/16/2012 1:32:03 AM)

USS Wyoming




John 3rd -> RE: What's This One? (11/16/2012 1:57:16 AM)

That is one heck of an interesting picture. First glance was Atlanta CL, then Dido, and then I actually LOOKED at the picture. So sad to see a BB with nothing but 5" Guns...




Admiral Mitscher -> RE: What's This One? (11/16/2012 2:47:14 AM)

Yes USS Wyoming, after she was refitted at Norfolk from January to April 1944, her 12 in (300 mm) turrets were removed, and replaced with two single and four twin-mount 5 in (130 mm)/38 cal guns;[2] and in addition, newer models of fire control radars were installed.




SuluSea -> RE: What's This One? (11/16/2012 2:56:06 AM)

The stories that ship could tell considering how many sailors trained on her.

Another shot.

[image]http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/n30000/n30947.jpg[/image]




Knavey -> RE: What's This One? (11/16/2012 3:16:06 AM)

Found the origin of the picture:

In November 1941, with formal U.S. participation in the Second World War clearly in the offing, Wyoming took on the mission of training thousands of sailors in the art and science of gunnery. Throughout the war, she operated in the Chesapeake Bay area, reportedly firing off more ammunition than any other U.S. Navy ship. Wyoming's remaining big guns were replaced with more five-inch and smaller weapons in early 1944, reflecting an increasing emphasis on anti-aircraft requirements. In July 1945 she became an experimental gunnery ship with what soon became the Operational Development Force, serving in that capacity until August 1947, when she decommissioned and handed the function over to USS Mississippi (AG-128). USS Wyoming was sold for scrapping in October 1947.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-w/bb32.htm





wdolson -> RE: What's This One? (11/16/2012 4:10:57 AM)

I came across the info about the Wyoming in the Squadron in Action book. She looks very weird with 5 inch guns in place of her main turrets, but considering how the fast BBs were used for AA and only once were the big guns needed, it would have been better bang for the buck to replace the 16 inch guns on the fast BBs with extra 5 inch mounts. They may have brought down more kamikazes before reaching their targets.

Bill




castor troy -> RE: What's This One? (11/16/2012 8:40:02 AM)

wonder why there weren't any tripple 5 inch turrets when they built CLAA. Has there never been thinking about that? There are the modern CL with tripple 6 inch turrets, so why wouldn't a CLAA be equipped with tripple 5 inch for more AA? Imagine an Atlanta CLAA with an additional 6 x 5 inch guns, worth another destroyer's heavy flak in DP guns. Mounts too big, too heavy? The Atlantas even had a double 5 inch mount on their sides, so wouldn't a tripple mount in the six center positions be possible? Well knowing that a CLAA was far lighter than a modern CL.




fodder -> RE: What's This One? (11/16/2012 9:14:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

This should take about 30 seconds to solve, but it was a new one to me when I came across it the other day...



[image]local://upfiles/21277/1415CB65CBD34F73A0A321D040793D65.jpg[/image]


At first look WTF!! After reading the explainations, hey that's pretty cool. Nice find. [:)]




Panther Bait -> RE: What's This One? (11/16/2012 2:48:46 PM)

It seems like triple turrets for AA would allow you to throw more firepower at a single target, but not allow you to engage more targets, since all the guns in the turret face in the same direction. Half-again as many rounds at the same number of targets might not be worth the extra weight that the larger turret and shell conveyance equipment would require.

If I was trying to defend against swarms of kamikaze, I think I'd rather have 10x2 5-inch guns rather than 7x3 5-inch guns, even if the second configuration gives me an extra 5-inch.

Against surface ships, that's probably a whole different story.

Mike




crsutton -> RE: What's This One? (11/16/2012 4:11:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

wonder why there weren't any tripple 5 inch turrets when they built CLAA. Has there never been thinking about that? There are the modern CL with tripple 6 inch turrets, so why wouldn't a CLAA be equipped with tripple 5 inch for more AA? Imagine an Atlanta CLAA with an additional 6 x 5 inch guns, worth another destroyer's heavy flak in DP guns. Mounts too big, too heavy? The Atlantas even had a double 5 inch mount on their sides, so wouldn't a tripple mount in the six center positions be possible? Well knowing that a CLAA was far lighter than a modern CL.

quote:

wonder why there weren't any tripple 5 inch turrets when they built CLAA. Has there never been thinking about that? There are the modern CL with tripple 6 inch turrets, so why wouldn't a CLAA be equipped with tripple 5 inch for more AA? Imagine an Atlanta CLAA with an additional 6 x 5 inch guns, worth another destroyer's heavy flak in DP guns. Mounts too big, too heavy? The Atlantas even had a double 5 inch mount on their sides, so wouldn't a tripple mount in the six center positions be possible? Well knowing that a CLAA was far lighter than a modern CL.


I am guessing weight, size and distribution of firepower. Not to mention the economy of manufacturing one platform for all types of ships. The dual turrets probably offered the best balance for these purposes.




castor troy -> RE: What's This One? (11/16/2012 5:34:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

It seems like triple turrets for AA would allow you to throw more firepower at a single target, but not allow you to engage more targets, since all the guns in the turret face in the same direction. Half-again as many rounds at the same number of targets might not be worth the extra weight that the larger turret and shell conveyance equipment would require.

If I was trying to defend against swarms of kamikaze, I think I'd rather have 10x2 5-inch guns rather than 7x3 5-inch guns, even if the second configuration gives me an extra 5-inch.

Against surface ships, that's probably a whole different story.

Mike




good thoughts about not being able to target more aircraft with a tripple mount compared to a dual mount. I was more like thinking about replacing the center dual mounts on the Atlantas with tripples, while keeping the two dual mounts on the sides, giving an Atlanta 18 x 5inch (6 tripple turrets) plus 4x5 (2 dual turrets) on the side for a total of 22 x 5inch. That would of course be a little too much for the size of an Atlanta class CL so the ship would have to be slightly bigger I guess.




castor troy -> RE: What's This One? (11/16/2012 5:36:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

wonder why there weren't any tripple 5 inch turrets when they built CLAA. Has there never been thinking about that? There are the modern CL with tripple 6 inch turrets, so why wouldn't a CLAA be equipped with tripple 5 inch for more AA? Imagine an Atlanta CLAA with an additional 6 x 5 inch guns, worth another destroyer's heavy flak in DP guns. Mounts too big, too heavy? The Atlantas even had a double 5 inch mount on their sides, so wouldn't a tripple mount in the six center positions be possible? Well knowing that a CLAA was far lighter than a modern CL.

quote:

wonder why there weren't any tripple 5 inch turrets when they built CLAA. Has there never been thinking about that? There are the modern CL with tripple 6 inch turrets, so why wouldn't a CLAA be equipped with tripple 5 inch for more AA? Imagine an Atlanta CLAA with an additional 6 x 5 inch guns, worth another destroyer's heavy flak in DP guns. Mounts too big, too heavy? The Atlantas even had a double 5 inch mount on their sides, so wouldn't a tripple mount in the six center positions be possible? Well knowing that a CLAA was far lighter than a modern CL.


I am guessing weight, size and distribution of firepower. Not to mention the economy of manufacturing one platform for all types of ships. The dual turrets probably offered the best balance for these purposes.


Also good thoughts, especially manufacturing only one turret for a whole range of ships is surely something they were highly preferring when you think about streamlining as much as possible in the US military.




Nikademus -> RE: What's This One? (11/16/2012 5:52:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I came across the info about the Wyoming in the Squadron in Action book. She looks very weird with 5 inch guns in place of her main turrets, but considering how the fast BBs were used for AA and only once were the big guns needed, it would have been better bang for the buck to replace the 16 inch guns on the fast BBs with extra 5 inch mounts. They may have brought down more kamikazes before reaching their targets.

Bill


The reason for the modern 5in mounts was because late-war the ship's final role was to be an Anti-kamikaze/AA research ship. As such her 3 remaining heavy gun turrets were superfluous, meant to aid in her former role as a generalized gunnery training ship.

Stefan Terzibaschitsch's old book on US Battleships in WWII had very good line drawings in it and it showed the heterogeneous arrangement of her AA suite by 1945. Everything from the heavy AA guns replacing the last of her heavy gun turrets all the way down to 20mm pop guns. One side's "Broadside" didn't match the other.







RevRick -> RE: What's This One? (11/16/2012 6:32:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

This should take about 30 seconds to solve, but it was a new one to me when I came across it the other day...



[image]local://upfiles/21277/1415CB65CBD34F73A0A321D040793D65.jpg[/image]


The world's heaviest, slowest, and most armored destroyer!




Natali -> RE: What's This One? (11/16/2012 7:15:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
The reason for the modern 5in mounts was because late-war the ship's final role was to be an Anti-kamikaze/AA research ship. As such her 3 remaining heavy gun turrets were superfluous, meant to aid in her former role as a generalized gunnery training ship.

Stefan Terzibaschitsch's old book on US Battleships in WWII had very good line drawings in it and it showed the heterogeneous arrangement of her AA suite by 1945. Everything from the heavy AA guns replacing the last of her heavy gun turrets all the way down to 20mm pop guns. One side's "Broadside" didn't match the other.

I also read that it was an AA gunnery training ship. Probably more stable than your average DD but a good platform to get the basics down on. Probably had better food than your average DD too.




casmithasl -> RE: What's This One? (11/17/2012 5:56:19 PM)

Actually DD food was pretty good, at least during Vietnam, DD 699 USS Waldron sailor. Many WWII sailors felt that the Fletcher class was better than the Allen Sumners, because the single mounts were handier than the twin mounts. I believe triple mounts would have been counter productive.




Knavey -> RE: What's This One? (11/18/2012 1:00:14 AM)

Also, those mounts were probably "off the shelf". Easier to find a few extras lying around and install them than invent something else.




geofflambert -> RE: What's This One? (11/18/2012 8:50:26 PM)

If this ship hadn't been a training vessel, it might have been used as kamikaze/shore battery bait to save CVEs and APAs, as well as an AA platform. Might have made a good amphibious HQ ship as well.




wdolson -> RE: What's This One? (11/18/2012 11:41:01 PM)

I think the most likely reason there were no triple 5 inch turrets was due to mass production and the least common denominator was DDs which didn't have the beam for a wider turret.

However, another possibility might have been the logistics of space. 5 inch guns were, I believe loaded by hand and you had to have a loading crew standing around the gun. In a twin turret the crews could be somewhat to the side of the gun and not interfere with each other. In a triple turret, the middle gun crew would end up in the way of the other two guns.

Larger caliber guns were loaded with ammunition lifts since the shells were too heavy for a human being to manhandle. Though there did have to be people there to run the mechanism and such. The actual distance between the gun breaches on a triple turret of larger caliber would also be larger just because of the gun size, which would give the crew for the center gun more room to maneuver.

Just a thought. I'm far from an expert on naval gunnery.

Bill




geofflambert -> RE: What's This One? (11/19/2012 3:40:02 AM)

I'm certain you're right with the DP guns, and with the higher caliber guns on the other hand, I think 3x3 is better than 4x2, but it's debatable.

More than that, if you've got proximity fuse shells coming out every so often, I'm not sure single gun turrets aren't best, for flak purposes.




Sardaukar -> RE: What's This One? (11/19/2012 3:41:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I think the most likely reason there were no triple 5 inch turrets was due to mass production and the least common denominator was DDs which didn't have the beam for a wider turret.

However, another possibility might have been the logistics of space. 5 inch guns were, I believe loaded by hand and you had to have a loading crew standing around the gun. In a twin turret the crews could be somewhat to the side of the gun and not interfere with each other. In a triple turret, the middle gun crew would end up in the way of the other two guns.

Larger caliber guns were loaded with ammunition lifts since the shells were too heavy for a human being to manhandle. Though there did have to be people there to run the mechanism and such. The actual distance between the gun breaches on a triple turret of larger caliber would also be larger just because of the gun size, which would give the crew for the center gun more room to maneuver.

Just a thought. I'm far from an expert on naval gunnery.

Bill


I think you are spot on with that. Plus extra crew, turret can only accommodate so many.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125