Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Musket22

How about HMCS Uganda as a Commonwealth Cruiser?

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,480
[SR-_-]
Members
5,018 posts
46,903 battles

Sure. But keep her in 43 configuration and have her with a unique Ugandan themed camo to represent the African Culture she represents. 

The flag and coat of arms are quite nice. Both could be added to the ship. 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377
[NBNG]
Beta Testers
1,589 posts
4,730 battles

I want more County Class cruisers. Lets go with HMAS Canberra, sunk at Salvo Island and whose namesake will live on in the US Navy as tribute. 

Edited by JSFWRX85
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
177
[-AGW-]
Members
118 posts
30,448 battles
55 minutes ago, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

Sure. But keep her in 43 configuration and have her with a unique Ugandan themed camo to represent the African Culture she represents. 

The flag and coat of arms are quite nice. Both could be added to the ship. 

Nope, the was renamed HMCS Quebec after having been HMCS Uganda

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,053 posts
15,733 battles
38 minutes ago, JSFWRX85 said:

I want more County Class cruisers. Lets go with HMAS Canberra, sunk at Salvo Island and whose namesake will live on in the US Navy as tribute. 

Yes please, more County Class cruisers as we now have them in the RN line so the models exist.

I always found it amusing the US named one their cruisers USS Canberra in honour of HMAS Canberra, after all they did sink the Canberra....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
434
[V_V_V]
Members
1,179 posts
18,561 battles
2 minutes ago, hexeris said:

I always found it amusing the US named one their cruisers USS Canberra in honour of HMAS Canberra, after all they did sink the Canberra....

To be accurate, after she was rendered unable to propel herself by the opening Japanese shots of the Battle of Savo Island.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
434
[V_V_V]
Members
1,179 posts
18,561 battles
1 hour ago, Musket22 said:

A Crown Colony cruiser like the Fiji,  she was transferred to the Canadian Navy in 1944. 

Served as convoy escort, served in the Med and was one of few Canadian ships to serve in the Pacific.

Nice photo and good suggestion; Canberra or Australia (the latter earned eight battle honours) as well.

Edited by Charon2018
add text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
780
[WOLF7]
Members
1,057 posts
Just now, hexeris said:

Yes please, more County Class cruisers as we now have them in the RN line so the models exist.

I always found it amusing the US named one their cruisers USS Canberra in honour of HMAS Canberra, after all they did sink the Canberra....

Scuttled would be a more accurate term than "sink" in this case. USN DDs scuttled her to prevent her capture. Similarly, Lexington, Hiryu, Soryu, Akagi, and Kaga were all scuttled, not sank in battle proper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
79 posts

HMCS Uganda/Quebec would be nice, but since we already have Perth in the CL slot, I'd go with Canberra/Australia first.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,040
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
9,111 posts
16,890 battles

Given HMAS Canberra was quite probably struck by 'friendly' torpedoes fired by the USS Bagely during the night action long before being scuttled the next day it was certainly doubly ironic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,053 posts
15,733 battles
4 hours ago, Charon2018 said:

To be accurate, after she was rendered unable to propel herself by the opening Japanese shots of the Battle of Savo Island.

 

3 hours ago, HamAndCheez said:

Scuttled would be a more accurate term than "sink" in this case. USN DDs scuttled her to prevent her capture. Similarly, Lexington, Hiryu, Soryu, Akagi, and Kaga were all scuttled, not sank in battle proper.

But they did torp her first apparently from the USS Bagley, scuttled her later

From http://www.ww2pacific.com/savoupdt.html


By our early maneuvers, I believe we evaded the Japanese torpedoes, all their attack came from our port side, I vividly recall being at my action station in the fore control above the bridge which I had recently left, looking out to port at the looming Japanese cruisers, no more than a few thousand yards away, with them firing at us, and remarking out loud. "My God this is bloody awful." We had listed quite heavily to starboard, consistent with water rushing in a hole on our starboard side as a result of a torpedo hit on that side of the ship. In "The Shame of Savo", Bruce Loxton, with track charts, using both Bagley's and Canberra's turning circles, the position of Bagley, on our starboard side, the timing of her firing her torpedoes etc, mounts a compelling argument for one of Bagley's torpedoes finding us.

I have not seen any response from the USA, or any other source that refutes his claim since his book came out in 1994.

I sincerely believe at this distance from the night in question, that from Loxton's work, Canberra was torpedoed on her starboard side amidships, at about 0147 on August 9 1942, and that Bagley had fired that torpedo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18,673
[ARGSY]
Members
25,633 posts
19,737 battles
4 hours ago, hexeris said:

I always found it amusing the US named one their cruisers USS Canberra in honour of HMAS Canberra, after all they did sink the Canberra....

That one might bring a bit of salt...

image.png.3c12dd72bffa5ddf74ae58b021158cbb.png

The missile range at this early stage is about 10,000 yards, with an explosion like an 8-inch flak burst and a rate of fire from each twin launcher of one salvo every 30 seconds. The missile magazines are almost deep enough to let her fire continuously for the full 20 minutes (there are 36 per rail). Fortunately, the missiles are beam riders so their dispersion gets worse with distance, their minimum range is about 2000 yards, their accuracy and reliability at that point in time were awful, and the fire-control radar had to stay with the target until it was destroyed or the salvo missed. These are not fire-and-forget weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
434
[V_V_V]
Members
1,179 posts
18,561 battles
41 minutes ago, hexeris said:

But they did torp her first apparently from the USS Bagley, scuttled her later

Acknowledged.

From the HMAS Canberra (D33) Wiki:

At 01:45, Patterson detected Mikawa's ships and alerted the Allied force.[24] The Japanese scout planes dropped flares to silhouette Canberra and Chicago.[23] The Australian cruiser was able to avoid the Japanese torpedoes fired at the start of the engagement, but was on the receiving end of the Japanese cruisers' gunfire.[24] The first two salvos killed or wounded several senior officers, disabled both engine rooms, damaged the bridge and 4-inch gun platform and forced the flooding of her 8-inch magazines.[12][24] Within two minutes, the cruiser had been hit 24 times; she was immobilised, without power, and listing to starboard, with multiple internal fires and at least a fifth of her personnel dead or wounded.[25] At least one torpedo strike was reported during the Japanese attack, although none of the 19 torpedoes fired at Canberra by the Japanese cruisers were recorded as hitting their target.[24] Several personnel from Canberra believe that USS Bagley inadvertently torpedoed the cruiser.[24][26] From the 819-strong ship's company, 84 were killed (74 during the battle, 10 dying later from wounds), and another 109 were wounded.[12][27]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×