Matrix Games Forums

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41War in the East: Lost Battles is here!Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play videoLost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!A sneak peek from Allied Corps!Harpoon 3 ANWs Free Ultimate Update!All good Deals always come in threesDistant Worlds: Shadows Approaches!Lost Battles AAR: Moscow 41		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs

 
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 >> The War Room >> Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 12/5/2012 8:09:45 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6044
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online 		What is the major differences between these two classes of American CLs?? Their stats look similar.

_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 12/5/2012 8:16:20 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 175
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
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).

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 2
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 12/5/2012 9:03:54 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 1358
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: online 		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.

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 3
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 12/5/2012 9:17:15 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 175
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline 		They were designed for more AA capability and additional range. The US 6"/47 did not have any AA capability.

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 4
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 12/5/2012 11:00:59 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2638
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 5
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 12/5/2012 11:07:30 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 562
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by pws1225 -- 12/5/2012 11:08:10 PM >

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 6
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 12/5/2012 11:59:48 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 6184
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 12/6/2012 12:00:02 AM >

_____________________________

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Godwin's Law

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 7
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 12/6/2012 12:31:53 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 7029
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: online 		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

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 8
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 12/6/2012 6:00:33 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 175
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 9
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 1/3/2013 7:56:50 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 1663
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
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".

_____________________________

I have not yet begun to fight! OTOH I have not yet begun to flee. Hmmmmm - choices, choices -always with the choices.

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 10
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 1/3/2013 2:02:50 PM   
Mundy


Posts: 456
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline
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-

_____________________________


(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 11
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 1/3/2013 6:30:11 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 6184
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Godwin's Law

(in reply to Mundy)
Post #: 12
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 1/3/2013 7:53:02 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2097
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: Victoria, Australia
Status: online
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.



< Message edited by Reg -- 1/3/2013 7:57:26 PM >

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has introduced a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 13
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 1/3/2013 8:08:41 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2097
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: Victoria, Australia
Status: online
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.



< Message edited by Reg -- 1/3/2013 8:17:58 PM >

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has introduced a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 14
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 1/3/2013 8:30:26 PM   
Mundy


Posts: 456
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline 		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-

_____________________________


(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 15
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 1/3/2013 8:39:20 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 1663
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

I have not yet begun to fight! OTOH I have not yet begun to flee. Hmmmmm - choices, choices -always with the choices.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 16
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 1/3/2013 9:52:24 PM   
Symon


Posts: 270
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		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”



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

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Symon -- 1/3/2013 10:20:34 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 17
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 1/3/2013 10:11:26 PM   
DivePac88


Posts: 3108
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________


When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 18
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 1/3/2013 10:25:45 PM   
Symon


Posts: 270
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 19
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 1/4/2013 3:32:02 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 4418
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		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". 

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 20
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 1/4/2013 3:04:56 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 6184
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Godwin's Law

(in reply to Mundy)
Post #: 21
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 1/4/2013 3:40:27 PM   
Mundy


Posts: 456
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline
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.

Ed-

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 22
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 1/4/2013 4:38:03 PM   
Disco Duck

 

Posts: 194
Joined: 11/16/2004
Status: offline
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.

Ed-


No they were IJN 8" and one 14".

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

(in reply to Mundy)
Post #: 23
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 1/4/2013 6:14:59 PM   
Mundy


Posts: 456
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline 		Yeah, I know.

Just Being cutsey.

Ed-

_____________________________


(in reply to Disco Duck)
Post #: 24
RE: Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs - 1/9/2013 8:58:59 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 175
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 25
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Brooklyn vs Cleveland Class CLs 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

0.180