Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (Full Version)

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



Message


ny59giants -> Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (12/5/2012 8:09:45 PM)

What is the major differences between these two classes of American CLs?? Their stats look similar.




MateDow -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (12/5/2012 8:16:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

What is the major differences between these two classes of American CLs?? Their stats look similar.


The Cleveland-class CLs traded a triple 6"/47 turret for two centerline 5"/38 mounts (compared to the St. Louis sub-class).




dr.hal -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (12/5/2012 9:03:54 PM)

I believe this was a result of two factors, top side weight and the fact that the 6" gun was no good in an AA role. Is that right? Or did I get it wrong.




MateDow -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (12/5/2012 9:17:15 PM)

They were designed for more AA capability and additional range. The US 6"/47 did not have any AA capability.




John Lansford -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (12/5/2012 11:00:59 PM)

Plus, the triple 6" turret that was eliminated was the one forward on the Brooklyns that could only fire to port and starboard, so it's not like the overall firepower was reduced by a lot.

Although when Boise fought off of Guadalcanal, the Gunnery Officer likened directing the 15 6" guns as aiming a fire hose. The hail of 6" shells landing on a target was overwhelming to anything smaller than a heavy cruiser.




pws1225 -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (12/5/2012 11:07:30 PM)

And didn't Boise have a new auto-loading system that increased its rate of fire? I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly.




crsutton -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (12/5/2012 11:59:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

I believe this was a result of two factors, top side weight and the fact that the 6" gun was no good in an AA role. Is that right? Or did I get it wrong.



It is my understanding that as the war progressed and the Clevelands were upgraded with more sophisticated electronics that they got a little top heavy as well. But that was probably the case with a lot of ships.




wdolson -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (12/6/2012 12:31:53 AM)

The two DDs lost in Halsey's typhoon were in part due to the top heaviness of the Hull class DDs late in the war. Their sea keeping ability in a storm was greatly reduced.

The Dale was supposed to be with the fast carriers in that storm, but just before the TF set out, problems were discovered with the sonar system that forced her into dry dock. While in dry dock the captain decided to repaint the hull too and the sonar tech who put them there was the least popular guy on the ship (everyone was on paint chipping detail). Though a few days later one of the Dale's sisters limped into Ulithi with severe damage and they heard what had happened. Suddenly the sonar tech was the guy who saved all their lives.

Bill




MateDow -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (12/6/2012 6:00:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

And didn't Boise have a new auto-loading system that increased its rate of fire? I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly.


The 6" turrets on the Brooklyn, Cleveland and Fargo classes were all identical in terms of loading arrangement. They fired ammunition that had separate shell and cartridge. With this arrangement they were able to fire 8-10 rounds per minute (120-150 rounds per minute for a Brooklyn). They did have a sliding breech that made them faster than the 6"/53 guns mounted on the Omaha-class cruisers.

A high-angle loader was introduced in the dual-purpose turrets of the Worcester-class. This only increased the rate of fire to around 12 rounds per minute, but there were plans for a more automated loader that could raise the rate of fire to 20-22 rounds per minute. No turrets with these loaders were ever built.




BBfanboy -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (1/3/2013 7:56:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow


quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

And didn't Boise have a new auto-loading system that increased its rate of fire? I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly.


The 6" turrets on the Brooklyn, Cleveland and Fargo classes were all identical in terms of loading arrangement. They fired ammunition that had separate shell and cartridge. With this arrangement they were able to fire 8-10 rounds per minute (120-150 rounds per minute for a Brooklyn). They did have a sliding breech that made them faster than the 6"/53 guns mounted on the Omaha-class cruisers.

A high-angle loader was introduced in the dual-purpose turrets of the Worcester-class. This only increased the rate of fire to around 12 rounds per minute, but there were plans for a more automated loader that could raise the rate of fire to 20-22 rounds per minute. No turrets with these loaders were ever built.

First time I have seen anyone mention the Worcester class. Fine looking vessels but although they had 12 X 6" guns like the Clevelands, putting them in six twin turrets necessitated raising the displacement from 10,000 to 14,000 tons - a whopping 40% more! To be fair there were some 3" AA guns in place of the 40mms of the Clevelands. They were so expensive to operate that the USN did not even use them for conversion to guided missile cruisers, even though they were very new (no wear and tear).

BTW, after the Battle of Cape Esperance the Japanese dubbed the Brooklyn cruiser guns as "6 inch machine guns". [:D]




Mundy -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (1/3/2013 2:02:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
Although when Boise fought off of Guadalcanal, the Gunnery Officer likened directing the 15 6" guns as aiming a fire hose. The hail of 6" shells landing on a target was overwhelming to anything smaller than a heavy cruiser.


If I remember correctly, in Neptune's Inferno, the Japanese referred to them as "machine gun cruisers".

Ed-




crsutton -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (1/3/2013 6:30:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
Although when Boise fought off of Guadalcanal, the Gunnery Officer likened directing the 15 6" guns as aiming a fire hose. The hail of 6" shells landing on a target was overwhelming to anything smaller than a heavy cruiser.


If I remember correctly, in Neptune's Inferno, the Japanese referred to them as "machine gun cruisers".

Ed-


Well their rate of fire compared to a treaty class cruiser's 8 inch guns was pretty good. I believe that they also had much faster turrets. This was just as critical in a close night action and may have had just as much to do with the volume of fire put out as their rate. The Navy determined that treaty class CAs just had too much trouble adjusting fire amid the frequent course changes in a night action.

In game terms, I don't see the six inch round penetrating the hull of any Japanese CA even at 2,000 yards, so they are not as deadly in a CA battle as they should be. They tear up DDs and Japanese CLs though.




Reg -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (1/3/2013 7:53:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
They tear up DDs and Japanese CLs though.


Which is actually the role of a CL - to screen the enemy torpedo armed light forces from your main line of battle (BB and CA) and allow them to maneuver freely.....

CL's were never intended to take on the enemy main line of battle. The swirling engagements of Ironbottom Sound were not envisioned by the planners of either side.





Reg -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (1/3/2013 8:08:41 PM)


The role of fleet destroyers was not originally ASW or AA but to influence and deny options to the enemy Main Line of Battle by creating no-go areas of torpedo water (areas of ocean where there was likely to be torpedoes running..... Destroyer leaders and CLs were added to stiffen the light forces to allow them to fight their way through the enemy screening forces into closer torpedo launch positions.

The Brooklyn & Cleveland CLs were big but very effective for what they were designed for.





Mundy -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (1/3/2013 8:30:26 PM)

Even if they don't get through a CA's belt, wouldn't superstructure hits galore do the job?  I figure it it's own way the 6" would leave its mark.  Probably get enough fires going.

Ed-




BBfanboy -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (1/3/2013 8:39:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
Although when Boise fought off of Guadalcanal, the Gunnery Officer likened directing the 15 6" guns as aiming a fire hose. The hail of 6" shells landing on a target was overwhelming to anything smaller than a heavy cruiser.


If I remember correctly, in Neptune's Inferno, the Japanese referred to them as "machine gun cruisers".

Ed-


Well their rate of fire compared to a treaty class cruiser's 8 inch guns was pretty good. I believe that they also had much faster turrets. This was just as critical in a close night action and may have had just as much to do with the volume of fire put out as their rate. The Navy determined that treaty class CAs just had too much trouble adjusting fire amid the frequent course changes in a night action.

In game terms, I don't see the six inch round penetrating the hull of any Japanese CA even at 2,000 yards, so they are not as deadly in a CA battle as they should be. They tear up DDs and Japanese CLs though.


Not sure I agree with you there CRS. At the River Plate the Germans were astounded and dismayed to find that the British 6" shells sometimes penetrated their 5" side armour. Exeter had already been knocked out of the battle after landing ony two or three 8" hits on Graf Spee, but the light cruisers fought on and scored many more hits. The British prisoners on Graf Spee (later released in Montevideo or freed in the raid on tanker Altmark) confirmed the damage.

At Cape Esperance, it was the CLs more than the CAs that ravaged Furutaka (sunk) and Aoba (nearly sunk). San Francisco was busy blowing up DD Fubuki when the battle started.
At Empress Augusta Bay the Japanese CAs retreated when they began being hit by the American CLs with radar-controlled gunfire whilst they could only guess at the range of the American ships. (The collision of the Japanese CAs occured on retirement, and was not the reason for it).The obviously feared those guns.

At longer ranges the 6" gun would not penetrate the side armor of a CA, but under 8-10,000 yards with a good striking angle I think they could.




Symon -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (1/3/2013 9:52:24 PM)

Of course smaller naval guns can penetrate large vessel armor. In fact, DDs can penetrate CAs. It depends on how close you get. Just what do you think the the IMMUNITY ZONE refers to anyway?

Mogami Belt – 140mm, 5.5”
Takao Belt – 102mm, 4.0”
Maya Belt – 102mm, 4.0”
Myoko Belt – 102mm, 4.0”
Tone Belt – 100mm, 3.94”
Aoba Belt – 76mm, 3”
Furutaka Belt – 76mm, 3”

[image]local://upfiles/43462/7C827A13916F4E5D91D2EE8715C76E7E.jpg[/image]
Thank you Nathan Okun.
JP Eff is a guaranteed penetration of JP armor with an intact warhead. Obviously, other warhear impacts will cause proportionally less damage, but at significantly higher penetration values.

Using 6” guns,
IJN Mogami belt armor is penetrated at 10-12000 yds.
Other J CAs belt armor is penetrated at 14-16000 yds.

Using Nimitz’s definition of calculated risk, I would play 3 US 6” cruisers against 2 J CAs any day of the week. If I felt lucky, I would play 2 on 2. The math works out to 47% US vs 53% Jp and I can live with those odds. Obviously, US 8” CAs are 900lb gorillas, but don’t sell the 6” cruisers short.

Ciao. JWE




DivePac88 -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (1/3/2013 10:11:26 PM)

I think the advantage for the USN CLs armed with the 6-Inch/47-Caliber Mark 16 Triple Gun Turret over the Japanese CAs was in AP ammunition technology (along with superior fire control). The 3x 6-Inch/47-Caliber gun was capable of hurling the USN “super-heavy” 130lb AP shell over 26,000 yards, at speeds of up to 2,665 feet per second. Which clearly out-performed the Japanese 20 cm/50 3rd Year Type/ 2 GÔ (Mark 2) ,8-inch (203.2 mm) naval gun at 29,000 yards and up to 2,540 feet per second in penetrating power.




Symon -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (1/3/2013 10:25:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88
I think the advantage for the USN CLs armed with the 6-Inch/47-Caliber Mark 16 Triple Gun Turret over the Japanese CAs was in AP ammunition technology (along with superior fire control). The 3x 6-Inch/47-Caliber gun was capable of hurling the USN “super-heavy” 130lb AP shell over 26,000 yards, at speeds of up to 2,665 feet per second. Which clearly out-performed the Japanese 20 cm/50 3rd Year Type/ 2 GÔ (Mark 2) ,8-inch (203.2 mm) naval gun at 29,000 yards and up to 2,540 feet per second in penetrating power.

EGG-ZAKLY.




PaxMondo -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (1/4/2013 3:32:02 AM)

In game, all I know is, I treat all USN cruisers as CA's ... essentially I know from experience I have to send Kongo class or bigger up against any of them.  Anything smaller and I have a good chance of losing irreplacable ships.  I have to use my CA's against the USN Fletchers.  Just experience talking here.  I am not a "Naval Nutjob".  [;)]




crsutton -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (1/4/2013 3:04:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

Even if they don't get through a CA's belt, wouldn't superstructure hits galore do the job?  I figure it it's own way the 6" would leave its mark.  Probably get enough fires going.

Ed-


Yes, they do but about 2/3 rds of the hits are against the armor belt in any action. They will damage superstructure on CAs and such. I have to admit, I do not know how effective the six inch gun was vs CA armor so it may be right.




Mundy -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (1/4/2013 3:40:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Yes, they do but about 2/3 rds of the hits are against the armor belt in any action. They will damage superstructure on CAs and such. I have to admit, I do not know how effective the six inch gun was vs CA armor so it may be right.


I'm always surprised that's the case. It's not like the belt has the most surface area facing the enemy.

South Dakota took plenty, though not fatally so. But then, they weren't US 6" guns. [:D]

Ed-




Disco Duck -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (1/4/2013 4:38:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Yes, they do but about 2/3 rds of the hits are against the armor belt in any action. They will damage superstructure on CAs and such. I have to admit, I do not know how effective the six inch gun was vs CA armor so it may be right.


I'm always surprised that's the case. It's not like the belt has the most surface area facing the enemy.

South Dakota took plenty, though not fatally so. But then, they weren't US 6" guns. [:D]

Ed-


No they were IJN 8" and one 14".

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/BB57/1942DamageReport/GuadalcanalDamageRpt.html




Mundy -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (1/4/2013 6:14:59 PM)

Yeah, I know.

Just Being cutsey.

Ed-




MateDow -> RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs (1/9/2013 8:58:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

In game, all I know is, I treat all USN cruisers as CA's ... essentially I know from experience I have to send Kongo class or bigger up against any of them.  Anything smaller and I have a good chance of losing irreplacable ships.  I have to use my CA's against the USN Fletchers.  Just experience talking here.  I am not a "Naval Nutjob".  [;)]


Hey, not everyone can be a Naval Nutjob... it takes hours of reading and way too much money invested in reference books.

[;)]




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0234375