|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 13, 2021 18:09:13 GMT -7
These 1:2400 scale side profiles of Oregon City class heavy cruiser (top) and Worcester class light cruiser (middle). Both classes share similar dimensions and similar tonnage. The profile drawings show just how large the Worcester was for her type. For a further comparison to show her size, I have added a profile of the Fargo sub class (below Worcester) of the Cleveland class light cruisers. The Cleveland class vessels were the ultimate development of the line of 6 inch gun armed cruisers that started with the USS Brooklyn.
Now compare to the Juneau sub class of the the Atlanta type: the Worcester was way over twice her tonnage and the ship of her type carried tactically twice the fire power.
I have been play testing the Worcester in what would have been her World War II fittings. this class of ship does show its strength in battles against air attacks. If i had been on an Essex class carrier, I would have wanted to have the Worcester or Roanoke running along side me out there in the screen. These beasts can through up one hell of a barrage umbrella. Between those twelve guns in the main battery, they can through up 144 rounds a minute to 60,000ft of 6 inch shells with proximity fuzzes. and the 40mm and 20mm can fill the slack as the enemy planes get closer.
That covers how effective those monsters are in the AA escort role. Lets talk about two other mission profiles, US cruisers had back then. The first one it the Gun Fire Support (GFS) role the ships would do in covering amphibious landings. Here they excel at as well. In the games i have used them in {Harpoon with pen and paper, and Command Modern Operations on the PC}, these vessels due a decent job with proper forward fire direction, and man can they decimate a target area with all those 6 in HE ordinance. The second role their guns might be called into action for, would be a surface engagement, this is where their fire direction falls a bit short. The fire control system is optimized for AA work, so the directors are mostly high angle stuff, but that said these ships can stand in a line just as good and better then the Atlanta and Juneau did at Guadalcanal. The directors can be used to some degree in surface fighting, but with that said, the gun turrets do have a localized radar range finder on each mount. This gives them a way to at least to try to range on the target. Given all that, and keeping in mind the intended use of the class, I really don't see them battling it out in a gun duel over the seas. These ships were meant to run with the fast carrier task forces, and they would have been doing that off of Japan fighting the kamikaze and the the ships of the Imperial Navy.
Now as for their size, well that does have some problems that were common to all US cruisers of that era. Unlike the Atlanta class, which was built to be like a super destroyer, the Worcester class were built truly to cruiser lines. They had a modified cruiser armor plane, and well they had cruiser power plants of 120,000 shaft horsepower on four screws that gave them a speed of 33 knots, but also like the heavy cruisers there hull was similar to, they had just that one rudder common to US cruisers of the age. this gave them a wide turning circle. These ships truly were very large light cruisers. As I said, i tested them out as they would have been armed as designed. Later I am going to test them out with the 40mm and 20mm all replaced with 3in/50s with localized radar control. This should vastly improve the AA mission during the 1950's Korean Conflict period. Though to be honest, I suspect there won't be much difference int the tactical analysis of this class....!
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 14, 2021 19:33:53 GMT -7
The guy who does these videos is suppose to be a creative consultant to the company that makes this game, and he knows dick shit about what he is talking about when it comes to history of the craft. He is suppose to have spent 22 years in the Royal Navy, so this makes me have less respect for his knowledge base!!! He is totally talking about these ships wrong. These ships are not Tillman battleships, they are South Dakota I class, a development in the standard battleships line. South Dakota I classhere is a better history of the South Dakota I class Tillman battleshipsHere is a link to the info on the Tillman series class of studies... |
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Aug 15, 2021 8:54:38 GMT -7
"The Might Jingles" is NOT a creative consultant to Wargaming. Never was - and never claimed he was. He's a "Community Contributor" which basically means that Wargaming allows him (along with a few others) early access to new content. They will sometimes take some advice from contributors but, for the most part, they don't care what anybody says - they'll do it the way they want.
Jingles has also admitted many times that "he's a bit crap" so, anything he says should always be taken with a bit of salt.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 15, 2021 9:22:16 GMT -7
"The Might Jingles" is NOT a creative consultant to Wargaming. Never was - and never claimed he was. He's a "Community Contributor" which basically means that Wargaming allows him (along with a few others) early access to new content. They will sometimes take some advice from contributors but, for the most part, they don't care what anybody says - they'll do it the way they want. Jingles has also admitted many times that "he's a bit crap" so, anything he says should always be taken with a bit of salt. Regardless of title, he should research his subjects better. the one CC to Wargaming, just left that community. They pretty much did her dirty, but she did her research before she posted anything at all. As a historian, I always research, I hope that shows here even when i post about our loved Star Trek game. He lacks in his research and it shows. I know it is just a game, but even a quick search in Wikkie, he would have found out move about his subject ships...there is no excuse for not researching before a post that relates to history. It is in the books you might say! |
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Aug 15, 2021 15:28:52 GMT -7
Well - he's NOT a historian either so...?
Now, Drachinifel - he's a historian and does insane research. Even then, he doesn't always get it completely right.
I believe the "one CC" to leave was probably 'Little White Mouse' and yep - they really pissed her off with the way they led her (and her friend) on for the Canadian/Commonwealth battleship project and then just plain ignored everything either of them put into the project.
Anywho, we're talking about a non-historical game system here that only occasionally pays some attention to the ACTUAL history behind it. There are many ships that were just plain made up. Some that were projects that barely got started and some that were paper projects only. This is pretty much the same with their World of Tanks game as well.
Lots of 'Stalinium' armor and ridiculously overpowered machines - that you have to pay for (in a 'free to play' game).
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 15, 2021 17:31:29 GMT -7
Well - he's NOT a historian either so...? Now, Drachinifel - he's a historian and does insane research. Even then, he doesn't always get it completely right. I believe the "one CC" to leave was probably 'Little White Mouse' and yep - they really pissed her off with the way they led her (and her friend) on for the Canadian/Commonwealth battleship project and then just plain ignored everything either of them put into the project. Anywho, we're talking about a non-historical game system here that only occasionally pays some attention to the ACTUAL history behind it. There are many ships that were just plain made up. Some that were projects that barely got started and some that were paper projects only. This is pretty much the same with their World of Tanks game as well. Lots of 'Stalinium' armor and ridiculously overpowered machines - that you have to pay for (in a 'free to play' game). Well I agree with all the above, and yes it was LWM. I will give Jingles a plus here to...defended LWM and resigned from the program as well. I don't like his history, but I appreciate what he has done by stepping away from this game company. |
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 20, 2021 14:19:15 GMT -7
 Des Moines class heavy cruiser: line drawing 1:2400
All this talk got me to thinking about the ultimate in US gun cruisers. These were the cruisers of the Des Moines class of ships. I tested these beasts in both their planned World War II fit, and the fit that was finally given them. These ships are truly technological terriers of the sea. They can overwhelm any cruiser that they might have faced. These ships can put 90 8 inch shells that weighed over 300 lbs a piece down range a minute. The idea was to smother the target. They truly do that. They also have one hell of an AA fit in both guises. In these paper tests, these ships could even push away an Alaska class cruiser.
These things are the true cruiser killers every navy sought.
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Aug 20, 2021 18:28:35 GMT -7
Yep - they're so large (by Heavy Cruiser standards) that the 3x3 8" turrets make them look somewhat under-armed until you note the insane rate of fire that those automatic guns can manage!
Literally a withering barrage of shells raining on the unfortunate target. Sadly, since only three ships were built, and they saw heavy use in Korea into Vietnam, they were worn out and the Navy had to strip parts from one to keep another running...
If the Navy had followed through the 'Major Caliber Lightweight Gun System' program, there might actually still be some of those crazy things in use now.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 20, 2021 19:57:42 GMT -7
Yep - they're so large (by Heavy Cruiser standards) that the 3x3 8" turrets make them look somewhat under-armed until you note the insane rate of fire that those automatic guns can manage! Literally a withering barrage of shells raining on the unfortunate target. Sadly, since only three ships were built, and they saw heavy use in Korea into Vietnam, they were worn out and the Navy had to strip parts from one to keep another running... If the Navy had followed through the 'Major Caliber Lightweight Gun System' program, there might actually still be some of those crazy things in use now. just one of those programs killed by Carter. The LWMG would have been one hell of a fire support weapon... Now for the Des Moines, yes these ships were monsters that were heavily used. Yes, they look under armed, but those auto guns are wonderful, Another stat that says something about these beasts, Standard displacement was over 17,000 tons with a full load displacement of over 21,000 tons. This was as much as some early Dreadnought era battleships!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Aug 20, 2021 20:56:50 GMT -7
And HMS Dreadnought herself wouldn't stand a chance unless she got in a lucky hit!
Des Moines is ~10+ knots faster and those 8" guns outrange the old 12" guns on the Dreadnought - not to mention the difference in fire control, subdivision, secondary batteries etc...etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 20, 2021 23:20:20 GMT -7
And HMS Dreadnought herself wouldn't stand a chance unless she got in a lucky hit! Des Moines is ~10+ knots faster and those 8" guns outrange the old 12" guns on the Dreadnought - not to mention the difference in fire control, subdivision, secondary batteries etc...etc... That is one of the things US Heavy Cruisers were designed for. That was to stand the line in place of battleships, if needed. The 8 inch gunned heavy cruisers were used as screening ships for the carriers of 'scouting force'. They also were used to lead small formations of destroyers on independent scouting missions. This was the same job the old armored cruisers of the pre-Washington Conference era. These mixed mission profiles and limitations of the treaties in the 1920's and 1930's gave rise to what the USN called the "Tin-clade" or the "Treaty Cruisers". The Pensacola and Northampton classes showed the weakness of trading armor for speed and heavy 8 inch guns. The Portland and New Orleans classes offered more armor over the earlier classes, That said these Treaty Cruisers showed they were still good ships, They stood up well for what they were in the early part of the war. I know people are going to bring up the battle of Savo Island, but that disaster had to do more with the USN not being trained that well in night fighting. The three lost USN CAs fought well and ate a lot of punishment when they fought that action. I have to bring up the Omaha class here, they were from the same program that would have produced the Lexington class battle-cruisers and the South Dakota I class battle wagons. Omaha was designed to work as the lead of destroyer squadrons in the "scouting force", these units being lead by the Omaha class "scout cruisers" would spread out ahead of the "battle force" find the enemy battle line and the destroyers would attack with torpedoes while the Omaha would lay large amounts of smoke and fire its 6'in/53 caliber rifles at the enemy screen to make a hole for the destroyers to attack through. they would then report the enemy. This mission was taken over by the aircraft carriers in the 1930's, but the Omaha class would still remain as destroyer leaders in the screen. Now we come to the US game changer, the ships designed after the first London Conference. this conference allowed the cruisers to gain more weight in armor. This is how we got the heavier Portland and New Orleans classes of heavies. The thoughts that followed the Conference and the rise of the aircraft carrier (CV) gave a change in thought of production of the USN: they switched to the idea of producing more 6 inch gun cruisers. What came out of this was a whole new approach by the Navy. These Brooklyn class light cruisers (CL) introduced all the things that would become standard on American cruisers produced in the late 1930's and into World War II. They introduced the "Unit" layout for engines and boilers, the armor scheme, the general layout of the hulls and so on. The Brooklyn class would be followed by a group of three follow on cruisers. The two St. Louis class light cruisers with refined layouts and the the heavy cruiser Wichita that took Brooklyn's design ideas into the heavy cruisers. This time period shows the USN change thoughts. Nine light cruisers were built under this program to be used as screening ships for the "battle force", while only one heavy was sent to the "Scouting Force". The Brooklyn/St. Louis type ships would be refined into the Cleveland class of CLs. 27 of these ships would be completed with another ten ships being converted to light cruisers. The changing nature of war at sea would give us the final modification of the Cleveland class, that being the Fargo class with a more compact superstructure and better AA armament. Now the Wichita would be taken and improved into the Baltimore class heavies that would then be developed into the similar layout to the Fargo in the Oregon City class. Now we come to the outlier in the design change, that is the Atlanta type of ships, These vessels were designed to to the same the job the Omaha class was doing...that of "flotilla leaders". They were would lead squadrons of destroyers. This why both the Atlanta and Oakland sub-classes were armed with depth charge racks and torpedo tubes and the same 5'in/38 caliber guns as main battery, but again the changing nature of the war lead to them doing AA escort to the carriers. This lead to removal of torpedoes and depth charges and the change of designation (post-war) to anti-aircraft cruisers, or CLAA, type of ships. the Jueanu sub-class was designed with the AA role in mind. As for Worcester class light cruisers, they were designed based on a flawed tactical thought, they were designed to fight high altitude bombers, like the B-17. This tactic proved to be a failure, but the ships were still produced and became the ultimate USN AA cruiser. Now we come to the Alaska and the Des Moines class cruisers, to counter a threat that never happened, That was they were designed to be cruiser killers. The Alaska class of "Large Cruisers" or CB, were designed to hunt down the Japanese heavy cruisers that might be operating independently, then over gun them with the nine 12 inch rifles. These ships became "White Elephants" in the fleet, very expensive ships designed to do a job that just didn't materialize. These things became an expensive escort ship to the Task Forces. These cruisers cost as much as a battleship to build... Now we have already talked about the Des Moines class heavies. These ships were designed to defend the task force from marauding cruisers. They over powered them, by pilling on the fire. Again designed as over kill, but unlike Alaska, they were better suited to a peace time navy... Just some thoughts.... |
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 21, 2021 8:33:39 GMT -7
The conversion I talked about up there were from Cleveland class light cruisers to Independence class light carriers. I didn't catch that mistake up there...sorry...  The conversion went from the Cleveland class....
...to the Independence class while they were still on the slipways....
Talking of light carriers. The Saipan class light carriers were laid down as carriers, but the hull was based on a modified heavy cruiser hull... Evan though the Saipan class were laid down from the start as light carriers... ....you can see the influence of the Baltimore type heavy cruisers in the design of the class
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 21, 2021 9:26:26 GMT -7
I thought just for a vissual aid, I would show the size comparison of the cruiser killers.... The Alaska class large cruisers (CB) had the amidship catapult arrangement of the treaty cruisers, the single rudder of most USN cruiser types, and an armor scheme that protected her from 8 inch gun shellfire.
The De Moines class CA, even with its automatic guns, was a cheaper ship to construct, men, and to maintain.
|
|
