Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
mofton

Turret Arrangement - 2-3-3-2 - Worthwhile?

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,085
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,699 posts
10,043 battles

Hello,

With the recent reveal of USS Dallas as a 10-gun ship with the triple turrets overshooting the twins -

I got to thinking. The only other in-game ship with this specific unusual arrangement is the Pensacola:

image.png.16e2a0fca037a4333db3b4bb7e3b9094.png

According to wikipedia the reason for this arrangement was that a twin turret barbette is narrower than the triple, allowing you to keep finer lines and therefore speed while maximizing firepower. The downsides are that the triple turret is heavier and higher up in the ship, counting more against your stability.

All other post-dreadnought ships which had different numbers of guns per turret in a superfiring layout (US Nevada class , Italian Abruzzi, Cavour and Duilio Classes and British KGV Class) had the turret with more guns below the turret with fewer guns. For battleships with immensely heavy turrets and generally wider hulls this may have been more sensible.

Given the Pensacola class had some issues, I'm wondering if anyone has an opinion on whether or not it would be considered a 'failed experiment' and how logical the design is for the Dallas? I'm not 100% clear what she's supposed to be, but given she has twin 5in/38's she's a fairly late design compared to the 1930 commissioned Pensacola. The first ship with the 5in/38 twin on the Mk. 29 (DP) turret as built - which the Dallas seems to have as the guns provide AA DPS - were the St Louis class cruisers lain down in 1936 so there was clearly a big gap between Pensacola and whenever the Dallas was designed. 

Is this a sensible design? Does the hull shape balance out with the topweight and if it were sensible why didn't more countries do similarly?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,027 posts
5,102 battles

Armor-wise, it's nonsense to stick your heaviest gun on the highest point, but then again some WWI-WWII cruisers had hull armor so thin, machine gun bullets could penetrate, so in that sense cruisers could get with backwards armor design, cause they hardly had any.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[JFSOC]
Members
915 posts
2,644 battles

In the case of the Pensacola class, the US was really experimenting with building large cruisers as they really had limited experience at this.  The Pesacola's were supposed to come in a about 10,000 tons but ended up initially at about 8,500 and ended up right at 9,000 tons.  This caused them to have a very high GM and made them heavy rollers in a seaway.  But, it did give them reserve weight for upgrades and added armament when that came to be needed.

On the battleships, they had the beam to allow for the super-firing turrets to be the twins unlike the Pensacola's where there was limited space.  The US on the follow on Northampton class went to 3 triple turrets and simply moved them away from the bow and stern some, losing just one gun which was acceptable.

The Pensacola's should be considered an experiment in that no following classes used that arrangement, while the three triple turret arrangement was adopted for 8" cruisers afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,341 posts
9,433 battles

Mostly 0.75" with 2.5" on the face.  Looking at the WG armor model -- I think they buffed it a bit for 'balance'.

Pensacola and Salt Lake City survived both test atomic bomb blasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,783 posts
14,864 battles

Treaty cruisers had to give up a lot to make their weight allowances; now you know what part of it was!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,819
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
9,268 posts

Wonder how much additional range was gained for the upper turrets since they are in a "sniping position" as compared to those at the deck level. Your rounds wouldn't go further but you ability to target ships at maximum range would be slightly improved. 

 

:cap_haloween:<- WWII designer's response to my thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[JFSOC]
Members
915 posts
2,644 battles

I will add, that the "Dallas" design doesn't look very American at all.  There is a lot of stuff in it that doesn't fit US cruiser designs.  No US cruiser design uses a stepped hull like that.  The catapults are too far forward and there is no hanger provided.  Both were important design considerations in the 30's.  The widely placed funnels are more reminiscent of French designs than US.  The clipper bow is unusual past the late 20's early 30's, when the US went to a straighter design.

The secondary armament is completely atypical of US Cruisers after the "Tin Clads."  That is from Wichita on the pattern is six mounts arrange in two triangles, one forward, one aft with first 5/38 singles then 5"/38 twin turrets.  This design has one twin 5"/38 turret forward and two singles aft.  No US cruiser had that light a heavy AA battery.  The norm was minimally 8 5"/25 or 38 singles four per side.

I suspect it is an imagined design based on a paper design study, of which there are dozens done before a final design is selected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82
[SOUTH]
Members
233 posts
2,368 battles
12 hours ago, Herr_Reitz said:

Wonder how much additional range was gained for the upper turrets since they are in a "sniping position" as compared to those at the deck level. Your rounds wouldn't go further but you ability to target ships at maximum range would be slightly improved. 

 

:cap_haloween:<- WWII designer's response to my thought.

You'd gain about another 5-6 feet of range, given that the fire directors were centralized and placed higher in the super structure and local turret fire control was a last resort..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
22 hours ago, Murotsu said:

I will add, that the "Dallas" design doesn't look very American at all.  There is a lot of stuff in it that doesn't fit US cruiser designs.  No US cruiser design uses a stepped hull like that.  The catapults are too far forward and there is no hanger provided.  Both were important design considerations in the 30's.  The widely placed funnels are more reminiscent of French designs than US.  The clipper bow is unusual past the late 20's early 30's, when the US went to a straighter design.

The secondary armament is completely atypical of US Cruisers after the "Tin Clads."  That is from Wichita on the pattern is six mounts arrange in two triangles, one forward, one aft with first 5/38 singles then 5"/38 twin turrets.  This design has one twin 5"/38 turret forward and two singles aft.  No US cruiser had that light a heavy AA battery.  The norm was minimally 8 5"/25 or 38 singles four per side.

I suspect it is an imagined design based on a paper design study, of which there are dozens done before a final design is selected.

To add my take on it, the widely space funnels would make sense if the propulsion spaces had alternating boiler and engine rooms longitudinally. I believe this was employed starting with the 1938 St. Louis class cruisers, as the Brooklyns still had engine room and boiler rooms grouped together, so having such widely spaced funnels for a predecessor of the Brooklyns is also questionable.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[JFSOC]
Members
915 posts
2,644 battles
29 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

To add my take on it, the widely space funnels would make sense if the propulsion spaces had alternating boiler and engine rooms longitudinally. I believe this was employed starting with the 1938 St. Louis class cruisers, as the Brooklyns still had engine room and boiler rooms grouped together, so having such widely spaced funnels for a predecessor of the Brooklyns is also questionable.

Even on later classes with split plants, the US grouped the funnels together by bending the trunks from the boilers to give better sky arcs to the AA battery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
28 minutes ago, Murotsu said:

Even on later classes with split plants, the US grouped the funnels together by bending the trunks from the boilers to give better sky arcs to the AA battery. 

Yup, I believe funnel spacing became further in the Cleveland and Baltimore classes, but they were trunked together in the Fargo and Oregon City sub-classes in order to improve AA battery firing arcs.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,504
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,988 posts
5,715 battles

As terrible as it would have been, I still think we missed out on not getting the Super Omaha instead of this thing.

 

Now we just need to start working on the mid tier CLAA split that cuts back to Worcester. Super-Omaha with the full proposed AA refit at tier VI, Juneau subclass at tier VII, Super-Atlanta at tier VIII with twelve 5”/54s (Photo S-511-2 design from the Spring Styles booklet) and Benson torpedoes, and then Super-Duper Atlanta with sixteen 5”/54s  (Photo S-511-23) still keeping the upgraded Benson torpedoes at tier IX.

And if you REALLY want to go nuts, there’s the Extra-Super-Duper Atlanta with twelve of the new autoloading 5”/54 mounts firing at somewhere in the 30 RPM range (Photo S-511-66) and then toss some Fletcher torpedoes in there. Put it at tier X. Watch the Yamato’s cry as literally hundreds of shells with an 8% fire chance fall on them every minute. Hear the lamentations of the destroyers as they melt in ten seconds.

 

An entire line with unlimited AADF, British CL tier concealment, decent torpedoes, low HP, crap armor, and a horrifying number of guns. I don’t care how terrible it would be in practice, I want them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×