USS San Fransisco v Deutschland v Zara v Takao v Norfolk? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

As far as Heavy Cruisers go, the Alaska would come out on top.
 
Hello Glider
you are right IIRC corectly 5 high level bombers were damaged of which 2 turned immediately to home. But the bombers made one hit on Repulse and IIRC also one on PoW.

Hello Freebird
Phillips could have asked a sqn of fighters, they were available, for protection but never called them, after PoW was hit Tennant, CO of Repulse, send the message for fighters but they arrived too late. If Phillips had been clever he would have call help at least when the level bombers were noticed if the snoopers around didn't bother him. Brewsters would have had some effects on Bettys and Nells.

On Counties, IMHO no cruisers at the time without fighter cover would have had much chance against mass attack of IJN Vals.

Juha

There was alot of stupidity in that regard due to the RN policy of radio silence. Phillips couldn't call the RAF after the first attack because the radio was knocked out. Tennant wasn't told right away that no call had gone out, only when it was too late did he realize. And the Brewsters wouldn't have "some effect", they would have completely prevented the destruction IMO. The "Repulse" dodged 3 torpedo runs, it was only by launching from 3 directions simultaneously that the Japanese got a hit. {Tennant's crew had much more training than the PoW, they were very skilled at "combing". Even a dozen Buffaloes would be enough to prevent the bombers from making a coordinated attack.
 
Actually the Alaskas are described in Conways as "Heavy Cruisers free from all treaty restrictions"

They make an intersting comparison to the japanese B-65s and the German "P" Classes, possibly also the Soviet Kronstadt Class

But not relevant to this discussion.

For my money its the Takaos. These were very tough and capable ships in my opinion. The French Algerie gets an honourable mention....
 
Actually the Alaskas are described in Conways as "Heavy Cruisers free from all treaty restrictions"

Thats a very funny description for a battle cruiser or little battleship with 34250ts.

They make an intersting comparison to the japanese B-65s and the German "P" Classes, possibly also the Soviet Kronstadt Class

No, the real comparison is the Dunkerque class with 36360ts.
And there is nothing to win for the Alaska accept speed and perhaps AAA.

Sorry for the off topic
 
Last edited:
Hello Freebird
the first attack was by level bombers, the disabilating torpedo attack happened after it. IMHO at least when they got the visual sighting of level bombers it was time to Phillips to ask fighter support. Less indoctranated officer would have asked air cover, 4 fighters in time, after the snoopers were seen.

I was not blaming Tennant at all, he did very good job.

"some effect" was an understatement. And we don't know how it would have gone if Brewsters would have arrived in time, I'm pretty sure that they could have prevented at least some torpedo hits.

Juha
 
Hello Freebird
the first attack was by level bombers, the disabilating torpedo attack happened after it. IMHO at least when they got the visual sighting of level bombers it was time to Phillips to ask fighter support. Less indoctranated officer would have asked air cover, 4 fighters in time, after the snoopers were seen.

I was not blaming Tennant at all, he did very good job.

"some effect" was an understatement. And we don't know how it would have gone if Brewsters would have arrived in time, I'm pretty sure that they could have prevented at least some torpedo hits.

Juha

Yes correct, I have a book with the timeline, IIRC the first torpedo hit was about 60 min after the first sighting, the fighters could have been there fast enough to save Repulse certainly, and maybe PoW too. The ships were hit by bombs first, which had no serious effect, then the torpedos afterwards.

My point was that the the Counties were lass well AAA protected,IMO, but even the better protected ships would be vulnerable to an attack like the one on "Cornwall"
 
Unfortunately for the ALASKA´s, they were classified as large cruisers by the USN. This terminology was used back in ww1 for the german battlecruisers: They were officially termed "Große Kreuzer", which literally translates into "large cruiser". This classification becomes the battlecruiser, so the USN unintendedly used an older classification, perhaps unaware that this very one was already used for battlecruisers before.
Whatever they called them, they were bc´s.
 
Think the Takao's torpedoes are not getting enough credit. It was a mistake for the US that they did not put torpedoes on their HC. One they paid for in the Solomons. If you consider Salvo Island and other actions (Salvo being the one that is a definite that Cruiser torpedoes did the job), you have a weapon system that was far more effective because of their inclusion in the ship's design.

The Japanese Long Lance was a ship killer.
 
.....If you consider Salvo Island and other actions (Salvo being the one that is a definite that Cruiser torpedoes did the job), ....

Its "Savo Island", not "salvo".

LOL .... although you could say that since so many salvo's were fired near by during the campaign, it should get that name.

(sorry I am being te spelling police)


But when you consider the torpedo's and their systems took up space that would have been put to better use with AAA, I think the IJN lost more in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Whoops, my bad. That's what you get for not proof reading!

Considering your POV, it's a fair point. In the early part of the war, up to about 1943, before US Airpower got it's act together, the torpedoes on Japanese Cruisers paid for themselves. Thereafter, not so. Replacing them with AAA would've been a good idea.

By the time you get around to Leyte Gulf, the Long Lance was over as a weapon's system that made a difference.

However, one point about AAA vs Torps, the AAA is a defensive weapon and the Torp is an offensive weapon. With the AAA, it's a matter of time (as the kamikazes showed) before you get hit. Even the best of them gets it sooner or later.
 
The problem with the US 20mm and 40mm BOFORS was the shell. It contained to little high explosive to guarantee a kill (only 65gramms in case of the 40mm). In comparison to this even the poor 37mm FLAK AAT rounds used on german ships were as deadly as a US 3"/50 AAA round (both at ca. 250 to 350 gramms of high explosive depending on fuze mechanism).

Hi Delycros the figure of 250 to 350 gramms of explosive for a 37mm shell sounds like and awful lot for a shell weighing approximately 640 grams was this for a Minengeschosse (not sure of correct spelling) shell similar to the shells fired by the 30mm aircraft guns used by the Luftwaffe
 
Whoops, my bad. That's what you get for not proof reading!

Considering your POV, it's a fair point. In the early part of the war, up to about 1943, before US Airpower got it's act together, the torpedoes on Japanese Cruisers paid for themselves. Thereafter, not so. Replacing them with AAA would've been a good idea.

By the time you get around to Leyte Gulf, the Long Lance was over as a weapon's system that made a difference.

However, one point about AAA vs Torps, the AAA is a defensive weapon and the Torp is an offensive weapon. With the AAA, it's a matter of time (as the kamikazes showed) before you get hit. Even the best of them gets it sooner or later.

I would consider the increasing effectiveness of the allied radar as starting to neutralize the torpedo effectiveness.

But the USN were slow learners regarding the IJN torpedo effectiveness (and night fighting doctrine) thus the Japanese get credit for their cruiser capabilities.
 
high explosive content of AAA-rounds:

Germany:
3.7cm FLAK C/30: 365 Gramm, including tracer (HE-T auto-destructive impact AAA ammo)
8.8cm FLAK C/31 33: 900 Gramm, (HE-T auto destructive impact AAA ammo, the segmentary HE-T had about 840 Gramms, the very effective late war HEI-T about 1000 Gramm)
10.5cm FLAK C/33: 3250 Gramm (HE-T auto-desturctive impact AAA ammo)

USN:
20mm Oerlikon/70: 8 Gramm (HE-T auto destructive impact AAA ammo)
40mm BOFORS:/56:68 Gramm (HE-mark2 impact fuse)
3"/50RF: 340 Gramm (HC-impact fuse or 240 Gramm for AA-VT proximity fuze)
5"/38: 3300 Gramm (AA-VT proximity fuze)

RN:
40mm/39 (2pdr): 71 Gramm (HE impact fuse)
4"/45: unknown
4.5"/45: unknown
5.25"/50: 2950 Gramm (HE impact fuze. An VT prosimity fuze was introduced in 1944)

IJN:

25mm/60: 10 Gramm (common impact fuze)
80mm/60: 310 Gramm (common HE impact fuze)
100mm/65: 950 Gramm (HE impact fuze)
127mm/50: 4000 Gramm (ASW auto destructive fuze)


The shift to thin walled but high capacity rounds gave the KM AAA some good damage infliction potential.
 
Last edited:
I would consider the increasing effectiveness of the allied radar as starting to neutralize the torpedo effectiveness.

But the USN were slow learners regarding the IJN torpedo effectiveness (and night fighting doctrine) thus the Japanese get credit for their cruiser capabilities.

Good point. After the US got it together with it's use of Radar, the advantage of the long lance was largely muted. By 1943, they had learned to lay back behind smoke screens and fire from a distance of 15,000 yards, utilizing the gun/radar combo to produce results.

Good point.
 
The shift to thin walled but high capacity rounds gave the KM AAA some good damage infliction potential.

365 gm of explosive in a 640gm shell must mean the shell had wafer thin walls. Even the 88 c31/33 with 1000 gm of explosive that is only about 10% of shell weight. I dont know much about shells but I imagine the shell would have been fused to explode on impact would Semi Armour piercing rounds with a lower explosive content have been fired at the same time.
 
AAA shells are not armour piercing or semi armour piercing. The decision whether to use mine type of rounds or thicker side walls depends on the task profile. A mine round will be very deadly under any direct hit condition owing to superior blast effects but may have almost no effect if time based auto-destruction appears without physically hitting the enemy aircraft. It relies entirely on blast effects. A thicker walled (well, a normal walled to be true) AAA projectile does produce more and heavier splinters which do retain their energy better and allow for a more extended damage zone by splinter damage IN ADDITION to blast damage of close by hits.
The 37mm to 57mm size is still to small to be used as an efficient splinter AAA-round and needed direct hits, so making the shell a blast relying mine round with high capacity was a clever thing to do. The larger 88mm projectile was large enough in order to make for a regular AAA-shell. Blast and splinter damage was caused by these hits. Large bombers had quite some surviving probability when splinter damage was inflicted by the 88mm but likely no or a very reduced survivability when blast damage occurred (a direct 8,8cm hit is a really nasty event to deal with).
The 40mm and 20mm projectiles on other navies light AA tried to be a normal Flak round with low high explosive content but they were to small for effective splinter display and had to low an explosive capacity to ensure a kill under direct hit conditions. That´s pretty close to the worst of both worlds. Don´t take me wrong, it´s not the 40mm BOFORS, the gun is excellent, it´s the ammunition which was defective by design and didn´t maxed out the potentioal of the gun.
 
The German Navy also used the 40mm Bofors as a replacement for the 37mm towards the end of the war, can I ask if you know what kind of shell they used, the 'standard' 40mm or a 37mm type design with extra explosive.
 
There were many projectile types in service for the 40mm BOFORS. It appears that this gun was first introduced by the Wehrmacht in the early 30´s provided with normal AAA-rounds. When it appeared on warships from 1943 again, the 40mm was provided with a mine round type shell, containing almost 400 Gramm of high explosive. The cruiser PRINZ EUGEN had very good experience with a mixed 37mm / 40mm FLAK and radar assisted predictors in 1945 against numerous soviet low level bomber attacks.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back