Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Redwing6

USS Atlanta Class CL's or Destroyer Leaders

48 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

334
[ERN]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,024 posts
1,430 battles

This is a class of warships that are literally mired in nomenclature. As designed they're literally super destroyers. In European navies they'd have been classed as destroyer leaders (DL? as the US didn't have a classification for that) instead of CLs. Essentially, they're a very large DD...with the resultant protection, but since they're classed as CL's they're terribly weak. 

Comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
786
[MIA-A]
Members
2,125 posts
6,810 battles

You really think the Atlanta is a weak ship?

I'm not really sure what you are asking for but it sounds like asking for buffs. Please, buff it, so I can club even harder with it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,230
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,678 posts
9,083 battles

The US used DD's as DL's. Atlanta was a CLAA although if a more traditional large surface action would have happened they were also able to act as a destroyer leader. The reason that CL's were used as DL's was in the early days of wireless communications the DD's of the day did not have space for the radio gear where the CL's did.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
868
[ICE9]
Members
836 posts

They were intended to be both scouts and flotilla leaders, hence the torpedo armament unique to modern (ie post-Washington Treaty) cruisers.

They excelled at neither, but found their groove as AA escorts.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
868
[ICE9]
Members
836 posts
4 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The US used DD's as DL's. Atlanta was a CLAA although if a more traditional large surface action would have happened they were also able to act as a destroyer leader. The reason that CL's were used as DL's was in the early days of wireless communications the DD's of the day did not have space for the radio gear where the CL's did.

True. In fact, the Omahas were used as destroyer leaders much the same as the Kumas were in in IJN.

The Porter and Somers classes were about as close to Euro-style flotilla leaders as the USN got until the Coontz class DL "frigates".

Edited by So_lt_Goes
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,230
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,678 posts
9,083 battles
2 minutes ago, So_lt_Goes said:

They were intended to be both scouts and flotilla leaders, hence the torpedo armament unique to modern (ie post-Washington Treaty) cruisers.

They excelled at neither, but found their groove as AA escorts.

They were AA ships first with scouting and flotilla leader as secondary jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
334
[ERN]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,024 posts
1,430 battles

Ummm...my topic was intended to be thought provoking and elicit your opinions... thanks for responding guys.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,230
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,678 posts
9,083 battles
4 minutes ago, So_lt_Goes said:

Nope. The AA role came by default when they failed miserably in surface combat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta-class_cruiser

Ok but they were definitely designed with AA in mind. The real problem with the Atlanta's and every other cruiser laid down in that time was the 8,000 ton limit so even if the dual purpose 6" had been available they would have been glass cannons.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
334
[ERN]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,024 posts
1,430 battles
6 minutes ago, So_lt_Goes said:

Nope. The AA role came by default when they failed miserably in surface combat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta-class_cruiser

ran out of upvotes sir...so, please consider this response a +1.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,231
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,414 posts
9,604 battles

The Post-WW1 US doctrine of cruisers was that they are long-range scouts.

Like the Omaha class, they were supposed to be the eyes and ears of the fleet in all weather conditions.

Destroyers were too small for prolonged patrols without support.  Cruisers were designed to be self-sufficient.

As the carriers came into prominence, this role was retained, but for Atlanta class was modified to fill a secondary gap of 'super escort'.

It can do AA, smoke, Sonar, depth charging, torpedoes, and about everything else a CV or BB can't do well.

Destroyers can do this, but not for an extended engagement.

...........................

The Atlanta in our game is an extreme exaggeration of twisted capabilities.  It's a machine-gun flame-thrower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
854
[SBS]
Members
2,483 posts
2,253 battles
26 minutes ago, Redwing6 said:

This is a class of warships that are literally mired in nomenclature. As designed they're literally super destroyers. In European navies they'd have been classed as destroyer leaders (DL? as the US didn't have a classification for that) instead of CLs. Essentially, they're a very large DD...with the resultant protection, but since they're classed as CL's they're terribly weak. 

Comments?

Okay I'm sold, now can I take my Atlanta into operation Dynamo...please???

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,231
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,414 posts
9,604 battles
2 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

Okay I'm sold, now can I take my Atlanta into operation Dynamo...please???

You can put your Atlanta Captain on the Sims and go with that.

 

Sep_24_18_Sims_Dynamo_79_A.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,230
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,678 posts
9,083 battles
2 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

Okay I'm sold, now can I take my Atlanta into operation Dynamo...please???

:Smile_veryhappy: I am out of plus one so have a laughing smilie. You would do the plane kills all alone, Manual AA would actually be a hindrance, and the S Boats would be in trouble too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
358
[CUTER]
[CUTER]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,620 posts
8,898 battles

 

the atlantas were meant to replace the Omahas lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,203
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,815 posts
10,360 battles
2 hours ago, Redwing6 said:

This is a class of warships that are literally mired in nomenclature. As designed they're literally super destroyers.

I'd call her a cruiser flotilla leader rather than a destroyer leader. In size, weapons, armor and load she's all cruiser and no destroyer, leader or otherwise.

There's still a huge degree of difference between an Atlanta and even a bigger 'destroyer leader'.

The Atlanta was a 6,600t standard load ship. Even the biggest of 'destroyer leaders' such as the French Mogador class were less than half that, at 2,800t full load. The British pattern with their interwar 'destroyer leaders' in the AB-GHI classes was 'take the normal destroyer, add a 5th gun and a bit of accommodation' - that meant ships like HMS Hardy at 1,450t had a flotilla of 1,350t destroyers to 'lead'. Both Hardy (and the other RN destroyer leaders) and their broods are all clearly destroyers. Going further than that those destroyer leader types are below the 1,850t allowance of the London Naval Treaty.

Atlanta as a Flotilla leader is still very much a cruiser. During WWI it was highly typical to see a cruiser lead a flotilla of destroyers - at Jutland for instance the British used several C-class cruisers as flotilla leaders and the Germans used Regensberg and Rostock the same way. This became a bit less popular interwar but the Japanese still deployed the tactic extensively in WWII. You see Kuma and Tenryu class cruisers leading destroyer flotilla's pretty regularly. The Japanese built the Agano class in WWII for this purpose.

The British also optimized the Dido class to work with destroyers on similar principles to the Atlanta, and the Arethusa class (or at least Aurora) were designed with a similar concept in mind.

 

These flotilla leaders in the line of Atlanta (and Dido) are clearly cruisers to me, they displace more than twice that of the destroyers of their nations, they breach the 'Treaty' destroyer size limits, they have armored belts - even if thin - that destroyers lack, they carry fewer torpedoes than the destroyers.

 

In game being classified as cruisers is a disadvantage, you get fewer HP (as the per-ton formula is less rewarding) and a citadel. On the plus side you get an armor belt which keeps out most HE at least, you get different extremity armor, heavier firepower, some consumable differences etc. However, Atlanta still gets 27,000 HP to Mahan's 14,100 - practically double. Atlanta may only have an 89mm belt, but that's still 70mm more than most destroyer hulls. You get an extra 2% concealment from the CE captain skill too. I wouldn't re-type Atlanta as a destroyer in game, I think part of the problem with Khabarovsk is that by combining 50mm armor which keeps HE from damaging it with a lack of citadel it's a perfect exploitation of game mechanics.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
70
[AAA]
Members
438 posts
5,476 battles

In game yesterday in the Atlanta I lead a z46 just slightly and the full health 46 took a full broadside of Atlanta HE leading the 46 to explode. So does that make Atlanta a destroyer leader or cruiser leader. I’m confused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
247
[TDRB]
Members
1,116 posts
4,244 battles
3 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

Okay I'm sold, now can I take my Atlanta into operation Dynamo...please???

I don't have an Atlanta but I can see why those with Atlanta would want to use their ship in Dynamo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,068
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,186 posts
11,702 battles
5 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

They were AA ships first with scouting and flotilla leader as secondary jobs.

No, they were flotilla leaders that were used as AA ships.  They were designed, from the beginning, as surface combatants.  The AA role was an added bonus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,068
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,186 posts
11,702 battles
5 hours ago, So_lt_Goes said:

Nope. The AA role came by default when they failed miserably in surface combat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta-class_cruiser

I wouldn't say they failed at surface combat.  Each of them took at least one Long Lance, and they remained afloat when it was finished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[SDIWO]
Members
1,032 posts
5,330 battles
5 hours ago, Redwing6 said:

This is a class of warships that are literally mired in nomenclature. As designed they're literally super destroyers. In European navies they'd have been classed as destroyer leaders (DL? as the US didn't have a classification for that) instead of CLs. Essentially, they're a very large DD...with the resultant protection, but since they're classed as CL's they're terribly weak. 

Comments?

Comment?

Destroyer leaders don't have the size. Or the firepower. Or the potential for destruction.

Atlanta is a very special ship. It is special not only that it has been around from nearly day 1 of the game, not only that since it was introduced people complained, but also, and most importantly, that since it was introduced it was an OP ship. Can't figure out its hidden powers? That's on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[SDIWO]
Members
1,032 posts
5,330 battles

FFS....the WG PR staff needs to recognize which ships need permanantecly pinned breakdowns on why ships where made "ships"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
228
[AR15]
Members
450 posts
2,982 battles

While i love the Atlanta for its fun factor, it is not the most effective ship thats for sure.  The Flint gets smoke and much longer range torps making it a better ship all for the price of a single turret.   One thing thats kinda sad, the Sims a DD has more gun range then the Atlanta by a good bit, almost 2Km more.  If the Atlanta was to get any buffs it could use either the Flint range torpedos OR the Sims range for the main guns with say 6km torpedo range.

I personally would just be happy with the extended main gun range, people say the sims cant hit at 15km but i rain on BB at that range no problem.  And before someone goes that would make it OP!!! With extended gun range comes extended gunfire detection range meaning you would get spotted when firing easier.   The Atlanta lives and dies by the map it rolls, if you have no islands for cover you die ASAP and with low dmg guns you need to sustain firing for a long time to make yourself an asset to the team.  The Atlanta has a very low HP pool it could use this lil bump in range.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
919
[LEGIO]
Members
2,995 posts
5,408 battles

Original armament was to be nine 6" guns in triple turrets and a few single 5" guns for AAA. The change to an armament of purely 5"/38 caliber DP guns in twin turrets reflected that somebody involved thought aircraft were going to be a greater threat than ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,068
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,186 posts
11,702 battles
24 minutes ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

Original armament was to be nine 6" guns in triple turrets and a few single 5" guns for AAA. The change to an armament of purely 5"/38 caliber DP guns in twin turrets reflected that somebody involved thought aircraft were going to be a greater threat than ships.

That's not true.  The Atlantas had a long and torturous development.  There were a huge amount of designs created for them, some with as few as six 6-inch guns.  I believe it was Adm Hart who made the final decision on them, and a lot of folks were /not/ happy about the 5-inch main battery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×