Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Big_Spud

The Cleveland's main guns are dual-purpose.

89 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,884
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,302 posts
9,235 battles

Way back, well before the beta test for World of Warships, I remember having noticed that during the war years the elevation for the 6-in/47 Mark 16 mount was increased from its original 40-degrees, to 60-degrees. Back then, and for the past five years or so, I had merely assumed that the sole purpose of this modification was to increase the range at which the ships utilizing these turrets could engage shore targets, a target which they had increasingly been found engaging as Japan's surface fleet continued to shrink from 1943-1945. While it is indeed true that this increase in elevation did serve to extend the reach of the main batteries shells, that gain was extremely minimal in relation to the relatively massive addition of 20-degrees, and would have seemed to not be worth the effort spent modifying every 6-in Mark 16 mounting currently in service at that time.

It’s also worth noting that, although the VT fuse was made widely available to shells of practically every caliber (larger calibers usually intended for effecting reliably airbursts over enemy positions), no mention of it being used to engage aircraft was made in most popular histories. This same fact holds true for one of the largest collections of Naval Gun data in existence: http://www.navweaps.com/.

However, it seems that most of us have been in the dark about a special feature made possible by this increase in elevation, myself included.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, the 6-in/47 Mark 16 triple is a verified dual-purpose weapon.

 

Yep.


8-dTsy26MUGZxsIhklIU43V2nlJZeWZURUwNV9tNG9d6funSLFS4yRuR7qeSlkRM3Q1q91fyOQ-UdvB2L78iVQTrhJbxbDShvb3gSRM8uo1UK6AELX99nFRlImgNYmncr2EWc-76

All of these guns are capable of effectively taking aircraft under fire.

 

Just be certain, this is not confusing the capabilities of the 6-in/47 Mark 16 mounted aboard the Brooklyn’s, Helena’s, Cleveland’s, or Fargo’s with that of the 6-in/47DP Mark 16 mounted aboard the much later Worcester’s. Oh no, far from it.

The history of attempting to make the 6-in Mark 16 into a dual-purpose weapon goes back well into the mid 1930’s, direct mention of such a mount being made in 1936 during the early design phase of what would eventually become the Atlanta class. A twin turret, not unlike that which eventually made it onto Worcester was proposed to replace the 5-in/38 secondary battery in its entirety, saving not only space, but weight for the heavy twin mounting (which weighed slightly more than a single purpose 6-in triple). However the design process for this mounting proved extremely difficult, and ultimately disappointing. In spite of much work being put forth towards it, and initially being planned for what would become the Cleveland class, it would be well after the war ended before such a mount finally materialized.

In the meantime, the problems of heavy anti-aircraft guns did much to stunt enthusiasm for such capabilities in the late 1930’s. Even in 1937, a heavy anti-aircraft gun was capable of only effectively engaging horizontal bombers which had to fly at relatively level altitude and a straight course. Firing at extreme range was considered dubious at best, and by the time the aircraft lined up for an attack, it would be well within the effective range of the 5-in gun, which could fire nearly twice as quickly as the originally planned 8 rounds per minute for the dual-purpose 6-in. In a way, the 6-in dual-purpose guns range would be exceeding the effective range of anti-aircraft fire control at the time.

Even then, interest in the possibility of utilizing the 6-in as a long range barrage weapon persisted among various elements of the fleet. In 1940, the office of Fleet Training proposed a study in regards to the potential effectiveness of modifying current 6-in triple mountings to be capable of long range barrage fire. Although the gun ports cut in the turret faces of the 6-in/47 mounts would only allow for elevation to 41-degrees, the mechanisms for the mount itself were designed with the capability to elevate to 60-degrees. Thus, the only required modification would be enlarging the upper portion of the gun ports on all existing 6-in/47 turrets.

Reception to the idea was mixed, particularly among those at BuOrd. Some individual officers were more optimistic, such as Captain Willis A. Lee who, at the August 16th General Board Hearing, explained: “All he wanted was the chance to get off a few shots at high-level horizontal bombers, using the Mk 37 director with an extra cam and preset fuses to eliminate fuse setters on the guns”.* Indeed, BuOrds own studies into that subject had resulted in the general appraisal that “since the guns could not be loaded at elevations above 20 degrees, their rate of fire fell from ten to twelve rounds per minute, to five: each turret would have to depress to 20 degrees to reload between salvos. Even so, the triple 6-in/47 gun was roughly equivalent in weight of metal, though not in handiness, to the twin 5-in/38 gun”.**

In spite of this, BuOrd’s skepticism prevailed, explaining that it would take too long to modify the current mountings to fit a fuse setter or high angle loading mechanism necessary for practical usage at the time, and the loading angle of 20-degrees seemed too problematic for it to be worthwhile. On July 31, seeking to avoid construction delays on the new Cleveland class, the idea was axed for the time being. The next class of light cruisers then under design would be the first to receive this new capability, being based entirely around the presumptive dual-purpose mounting.

Yet this abandonment was not to last for long. Wartime development saw the creation of the VT fuse, which first saw service in 1943. Those familiar with the subject will know that the VT fuse solves the second largest problem of anti-aircraft fire control: generating a proper fuse time which will explode the shell in the vicinity of the target aircraft. Like most weapons ranging from 3-in to 16-in inhabiting the U.S. inventory, the 6-in/47 received its very own VT fuse for the standard 105 lb HC shell. This was designated the Mark 47, and it possessed a 100-foot detection radius with an 800-yard arming safety range.***

The creation of the Mark 47 allowed for the deletion of the special high-angle fuse setting tray, and meant that the only action necessary to allow the 6-in turrets to target aircraft, was a simple cam and component integrator which linked the 6-in director circuit to the Mark 37 GFCS. In one easy step, the issue of fire control had been solved. All 6-in/47 triple turrets with the 60-degree cut out gun-ports (which seemed to have been performed largely at random whenever a ship was brought in for an overhaul or modernization post-1943) were now perfectly capable of engaging enemy aircraft.

plPbDnA46vKBlE7w9D4wLurfQ5lHwIRCPFF8SO2dIJXurxdeVbRaPUV_wn5KgjmmLUPwXcY8YhAhG1-qR9YcuxiSFnATDvLl2QsPAgeTJ1ZxTgcSPFQgqzYB9CqeMD0inPJLkoBY

WNUS_6-47_mk16_cl55_sketch_pic.thumb.jpg.6df200e0292417c0bef0e08af2d5bdd9.jpg

 

(Thank you to @Phoenix_jz for the image, I had a similar diagram but the quality was extremely poor.)

Naturally, the problem of the lowered rate of fire at high angles remained. The intention was that special high angle loading trays would be made available once the war ended, however interest in this was lost by 1946.****

Nevertheless, the 6-in/47 Mark 16 mounting does not compare poorly to other high-angle dual-purpose 6-in guns of the time. The rate of fire with a 20-degree loading angle either matched or exceeded the practical rate of fire achieved on the French 6-in/55 Mle 1936, the British 6-in/50 Mark XXI, and the Japanese 6.1-in/55 3rd Year Type guns. All of the aforementioned batteries had been designed with the express purpose to fulfill that requirement, yet in reality none of them would appear to have approached the actual practical utility of the 6-in/47 in that role. The Japanese and British turrets were hampered by a low rate of fire at most angles, and later the lack of VT fuses. The French mounting, while the most advanced among them, was also the most complex and failure prone of the bunch. It also lacked the ability to utilize the later VT fuse, further degrading its already questionable lethality (as illustrated by the fact that late in design the two wing mounts were deleted and replaced with six of the more reliable 4-in/45 Mle. 1930 on Richelieu).


What does this mean in the end?

Simple, these three ships are missing a few flak puffs at long range:

Helena

mpZwJnN3pHuUll3KkqCCkhmiLGwZ0WEjDT9ZHfd6FYxb8breppyfUo_k1BtmgAu6dL0HTKBAgoRJM6XmTJLvggudMsvZtriB7tQVR9ujxCQOaOQpaoKOqrTtmZSwzel9nRqm0G3G

Boise

VZ3ZpfKTF2q2w37e9-oPpQdociiVpC1QYh0YV35klbPLCVoPyP1CvqPnZvSOTpb4B0W3pE4f0cR3hppi00VKmjw8eXXn4FLfUB9r_FxfRgRRBtVQ0wMjABTFjbXgy_CzcTQYsXkV

Cleveland

tWAUFRpkqqxrkMWVlajY6LxFOKOHItctb6BaAifd0GCW1Wk4Oc_uiPqb8QrkMRoSgAtlnG-0tagEDZz6LsGXjJdxjaLnBWaqPvE-q47nyqxcjs6sx0ZaFm__8fFQWQplZ8zZ_L5b

 

WG, pls fix.

 

Notes:

*Friedman, Norman, U.S.Cruisers, an Illustrated Design History, page 261

**Ibid.

***United States Navy, Information Bulletin No.- 29, Antiaircraft Action Summary

****Friedman, Norman, U.S.Cruisers, an Illustrated Design History, page 268


 

  • Cool 13
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,258
[XBRTC]
Members
3,154 posts
10,065 battles

If I remember correctly, 6"/47 shot down 2 aircraft during the war, and I'm pretty sure it was less aimed fire than it was "what the hell, might as well."

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,605
[PQUOD]
[PQUOD]
Members
4,586 posts
15,728 battles

And, they have silencers attached to the muzzles. Super quiet, no report at all!

Edited by Capt_Ahab1776
  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,054
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
2,956 posts
7,724 battles

Congrats on the research.

Now if you are advocating for Cleveland to get an AA buff, don't. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,884
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,302 posts
9,235 battles
Just now, Phil_Swift_With_Flextape said:

Congrats on the research.

Now if you are advocating for Cleveland to get an AA buff, don't. 

UNLIMITED POWER

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,884
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,302 posts
9,235 battles

 

5 minutes ago, Brhinosaurus said:

You're just begging for somebody to bring up the beehive shells on the Yamato...

I'm being bugged to do that exact thing as I type this, but I can't speak/read Japanese.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,846
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,431 posts
14,165 battles

Only the 6"/47 Mark 16DP  was the dual purpose mount, the Cleveland had 6"/47 Mark 16.

  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,884
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,302 posts
9,235 battles
Just now, BrushWolf said:

Only the 6"/47 Mark 16DP  was dual purpose, the Cleveland had 6"/47 Mark 16.

Did you actually read any of what I wrote.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,549
[TARK]
Members
6,646 posts
2,527 battles
6 minutes ago, daegrima said:

Good work!

Wargaming, please hire this man.

But...wargaming have abandoned the historical ww2 arcade.

This is a 1920s fantasy naval combat game...where the battleship is, and shall always be, King!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31
[NSF]
Members
42 posts
2,188 battles
2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

But...wargaming have abandoned the historical ww2 arcade.

This is a 1920s fantasy naval combat game...where the battleship is, and shall always be, King!

I know. It was a desperate attempt, but I probably shouldn't have hoped ;)

But I appreciate  finding gems like this one on the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,846
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,431 posts
14,165 battles
1 minute ago, Big_Spud said:

Did you actually read any of what I wrote.

I didn't have to, a quick wiki search showed that the 6"/47 mark 16 which the Cleveland had was not a dual purpose mount. Only the 6"/47 mark 16DP was dual purpose.

  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,962
[GWG]
Members
6,962 posts
13,503 battles

The IJN also had Proximity Fuses and Homing Torpedoes... 

Unfortunately, the IJN Proximity Fuses were for surface targets, and not sensitive enough for AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,884
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,302 posts
9,235 battles
Just now, BrushWolf said:

I didn't have to, a quick wiki search showed that the 6"/47 mark 16 which the Cleveland had was not a dual purpose mount. Only the 6"/47 mark 16DP was dual purpose.

For the love of god, please read. I took the time to answer that exact question.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,054
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
2,956 posts
7,724 battles
Just now, BrushWolf said:

I didn't have to, a quick wiki search showed that the 6"/47 mark 16 which the Cleveland had was not a dual purpose mount. Only the 6"/47 mark 16DP was dual purpose.

That's rather rude. What the hell was the point of him even posting then? Maybe you should be nicer and put in just a smidge more effort and read it?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,549
[TARK]
Members
6,646 posts
2,527 battles
Just now, BrushWolf said:

I didn't have to, a quick wiki search showed that the 6"/47 mark 16 which the Cleveland had was not a dual purpose mount. Only the 6"/47 mark 16DP was dual purpose.

And you would be wrong.

I wouldn't trust wikipedia on ordinance details...especially post 1942.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,011
[RLGN]
Members
14,313 posts
25,257 battles
16 minutes ago, Phil_Swift_With_Flextape said:

Congrats on the research.

Now if you are advocating for Cleveland to get an AA buff, don't. 

Des Moines and Salem need an AA buff; their 203s were designed for long ranged AA, and could use VT fused shells when doing so.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,884
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,302 posts
9,235 battles
Just now, Estimated_Prophet said:

Des Moines and Salem need an AA buff; their 203s were designed for long ranged AA, and could use VT fused shells when doing so.

As much as I love it, their elevation angles would not allow for particularly effective usage in an anti-aircraft role. Also as far as I know, only Salem and Newport News had the proper linkages in the fire control computer made to allow for targeting aircraft at extreme range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,884
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,302 posts
9,235 battles
12 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

But...wargaming have abandoned the historical ww2 arcade.

This is a 1920s fantasy naval combat game...where the battleship is, and shall always be, King!

Hey, I can hope. They took the time to make the French 6-in DP secondaries and DP main turrets (De Grasse) actually count, so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,846
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,431 posts
14,165 battles
5 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

And you would be wrong.

I wouldn't trust wikipedia on ordinance details...especially post 1942.

In theory the gun was capable but do you have any reference to the Cleveland using their 6" in the AA role. I never heard of it and the Cleveland is already a no fly zone for equal tier CV's.

  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,258
[XBRTC]
Members
3,154 posts
10,065 battles
2 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

In theory the gun was capable but do you have any reference to the Cleveland using their 6" in the AA role. I never heard of it and the Cleveland is already a no fly zone for equal tier CV's.

 

Yeah, actually, I do. But it's gonna take me a hot minute to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,884
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,302 posts
9,235 battles
8 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

In theory the gun was capable but do you have any reference to the Cleveland using their 6" in the AA role. I never heard of it and the Cleveland is already a no fly zone for equal tier CV's.

At least two confirmed kills were recorded prior to the modification and development of the VT fuse and computer linkage for the 6-in/47 Mark 16. Most records only cover dedicated anti-aircraft weapons, so it's mostly an issue of actually tracking down individual ships claims. Nevertheless, the capability physically existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,258
[XBRTC]
Members
3,154 posts
10,065 battles
5 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

In theory the gun was capable but do you have any reference to the Cleveland using their 6" in the AA role. I never heard of it and the Cleveland is already a no fly zone for equal tier CV's.

 

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/antiaircraft-action-summary.html

"Antiaircraft Action Summary - World War II" issued 10/1945 by COMINCH.

Quote

The 6"/47, lacking an AA. computer and VT fuzes, was used but rarely against aircraft. It was responsible for two "kills." Both a computer and VT fuzes have been developed for this weapon.

This is found on page 7.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[ALWC]
Members
1,180 posts
14,100 battles
16 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Des Moines and Salem need an AA buff; their 203s were designed for long ranged AA, and could use VT fused shells when doing so.

Yes please!

16 minutes ago, Harathan said:

Nobody should be trusting Wikipedia as a sole source on anything, full stop. 

Abraham Lincoln said everything on the Internet is true and he never told a lie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×