Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser TrailerDeal of the Week Alea Jacta Est
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

What's This One?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> What's This One? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
What's This One? - 11/16/2012 1:08:31 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 7582
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
This should take about 30 seconds to solve, but it was a new one to me when I came across it the other day...






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by wdolson -- 11/16/2012 1:11:14 AM >


_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Post #: 1
RE: What's This One? - 11/16/2012 1:32:03 AM   
msieving1


Posts: 382
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: online
USS Wyoming

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 2
RE: What's This One? - 11/16/2012 1:57:16 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10496
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
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...


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to msieving1)
Post #: 3
RE: What's This One? - 11/16/2012 2:47:14 AM   
Admiral Mitscher


Posts: 122
Joined: 12/10/2011
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 4
RE: What's This One? - 11/16/2012 2:56:06 AM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2033
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
The stories that ship could tell considering how many sailors trained on her.

Another shot.



_____________________________

”How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” ~ Samuel Adams

(in reply to Admiral Mitscher)
Post #: 5
RE: What's This One? - 11/16/2012 3:16:06 AM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 2968
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline
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



_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 6
RE: What's This One? - 11/16/2012 4:10:57 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 7582
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Knavey)
Post #: 7
RE: What's This One? - 11/16/2012 8:40:02 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12179
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 8
RE: What's This One? - 11/16/2012 9:14:43 AM   
fodder


Posts: 1720
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Daytona Beach
Status: offline

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...







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


_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 9
RE: What's This One? - 11/16/2012 2:48:46 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 506
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline
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


_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 10
RE: What's This One? - 11/16/2012 4:11:59 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 6836
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 11
RE: What's This One? - 11/16/2012 5:34:31 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12179
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 12
RE: What's This One? - 11/16/2012 5:36:23 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12179
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 13
RE: What's This One? - 11/16/2012 5:52:18 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25219
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

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.




(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 14
RE: What's This One? - 11/16/2012 6:32:38 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2539
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Dontblinkyoullmissit, GA
Status: offline

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...







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

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 15
RE: What's This One? - 11/16/2012 7:15:48 PM   
Natali

 

Posts: 96
Joined: 9/18/2012
From: Ocatillo Land
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 16
RE: What's This One? - 11/17/2012 5:56:19 PM   
casmithasl

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/28/2011
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Natali)
Post #: 17
RE: What's This One? - 11/18/2012 1:00:14 AM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 2968
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline
Also, those mounts were probably "off the shelf". Easier to find a few extras lying around and install them than invent something else.

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to casmithasl)
Post #: 18
RE: What's This One? - 11/18/2012 8:50:26 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 3931
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Knavey)
Post #: 19
RE: What's This One? - 11/18/2012 11:41:01 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 7582
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 20
RE: What's This One? - 11/19/2012 3:40:02 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 3931
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by geofflambert -- 11/19/2012 3:46:34 AM >

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 21
RE: What's This One? - 11/19/2012 3:41:17 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 5785
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> What's This One? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.111