What is the most interesting US Warship class in WW2?

The Baltimores were the only Allied wartime cruisers that escaped the treaty limitations, and they illustrate that a really good 8" cruiser needed to be substantially larger than 10,000 tons. For one example, the armor of the New Orleans class had been bought by abandoning the alternating boiler and engine rooms of our earlier CAs; Baltimore was able to have both. The additional displacement allowed them to accommodate additional weapons and electronics, both in wartime and poswar, while the Clevelands, whose design at least attempted to comply with the 10,000 ton limit, quickly became overloaded.

Hate to keep nitpicking, but the gunfire control system associated with the 5"/38 was the Mark 37. New Orleans, Brooklyn, etc. had single open mount 5"/25s with either Mark 33 GFCS or on older ships Mark 19. By midwar there was felt to be a significant difference between the two setups; for example, Savannah was upgraded to 5"38/Mark 37 when reconstructed after her guided-bomb hit at Salerno, and this was planned (but not implemented) for any more of the Brooklyn class which came in for major repairs.

 

First I hate to question you because I consider you one of my Guru's, but I thought the Baltimore's were improved Wichita's. I thought there were significant differences between them and the New Orleans class.

Carronade, how would you say the Baltimore's compared with other cruisers that saw action in WWII?

 

Hopefully the question is open to all, but I would say the Baltimores matched or surpassed all other cruisers - except the jokers in the pack, the Alaskas - in every catergory except speed and torpedos. Their 335lb shells outclassed other 8" guns. For all the fuss made about speed, a couple of knots are rarely significant. The USN was unique in leaving torpedos off most of its cruisers. War games in the 1930s suggested that cruisers would have few opportunities to use them, and most navies' war experience bore this out. They were also considered to be a safety hazard, although that rarely manifested itself (one British destroyer, Khartoum, succumbed to a torpedo air flask explosion from a shell hit from, of all things, a surfaced Italian submarine). If I were designing the perfect cruiser, I would probably put a few torpedos in place of say one 40mm mount each side amidships.

The big exception on torpedos of course was the Japanese - in both ways. Their cruisers used torpedos effectively at Java Sea and Savo Island, but the oxygen-powered Long Lances contributed to the destruction of several of their own ships like Mikuma and Furutaka. Japanese cruiser torpedos may have killed nearly as many of themselves as they did enemy cruisers, most notably the 12,000+ ton Suzuya which succumbed to fragments from a near miss which ignited her Long Lances.

The Baltimores were among the largest and last of WWII cruiser designs, so it's not surprising that they were the best.

 

The Wichita was a one-off design. It was essentially an 8" gunned, improved Brooklyn. The Baltimore class incorporates some of the design features of the Wichita as would be expected but, they are in terms of armor, firepower and, expected use more closely related to the New Orleans class.
That class was a radical departure from the previous "tinclad" designs that had relatively light armor. The New Orleans was intended for a gunfight and had designed in immunity zones that meant something.

US Cruisers, An Illustrated Design History N. Friedman

 

Carronade, thank you for your reply on the Baltimore's. I knew the opinion I held but you appear to be very knowledgeable on naval matters, and an informed opinion on the matter let me know whether I was correct in my thinking or off base. More importantly, you listed factors that made them such good ships.

T.A. Gardner, thank you for your reply. Once again you have proven that I was correct in considering you one of my Guru's. I took your reply and used it as an outline to do some further reading and now I better understand the evolution of the American Cruisers.

 

On a side note, the ARA General Belgrano (AKA USS Phoenix) of the Argentine Navy (that cruiser that was sunk by a British submarine during the Falklands War) was of the Brooklyn Class. It took two torpedo hits before sinking. One hit near the bow and the other was just aft of the armored belt. That knocked out the electrical system which prevented damage control in pumping out water she was taking on, and unfortunately also prevented in getting out a distress signal to escorts.

 

For me, it is the British 'Flower' Class Corvette/Minesweepers.

This design found its way to Australia and Canada and they were churned out in their 100s.

They were a 'Jack of all Trades' ship with an open 4" gun and a couple of 20mm and .50s to defend themselves. The Canadians used them a lot in the North Atlantic where the RCN took such a major role.

Only about 650 tons, and they say "they rolled on wet grass".


John.

 

On the other hand, the US used just 18 of them and built just 15 themselves. A major reason for this was the Flower was a rather marginal design. Yes, it was better than nothing but a long way from being a really good ASW escort.

The first and biggest problem they had was speed. They were incapable of running down a surfaced U-boat. It also made it difficult for them to remain on station with a faster convoy. That is, if they maneuvered to check on a contact or, began an ASW attack while the convoy moved on a Flower would require many hours of hard steaming to catch back up with the convoy.

Their size limited them to two tracks and four throwers for a 10 depth charge pattern (9 in US service due to differences in how the charges were released).

Their deficiency in AA armament was never much of an issue as the Luftwaffe never made a major attempt to attack convoys on a sustained basis.

 

The Aussie version was the Bathurst class, officially a minesweeper but mainly used as an escort vessel. As noted the basic characteristics of the two types were very similar. In particular the low open quarterdeck could accommodate either mine gear or an extensive depth charge outfit, or some of both.

Sonar/asdic sets at the time were very small, so most escorts from destroyers to the smallest patrol craft had the same basic sensor, and any of them could carry at least a few depth charges. Most nominal minesweepers were de facto antisubmarine escorts; many did not even carry sweep gear.

 

We have one beautifully restored one, the HMAS 'Castlemaine', at Williamstown just across the Bay from Melbourne.

Australia built 55, including 5 for the Indian Navy.

John.

 

Re General Belgrano, one of the few reality TV shows I watch is The Amazing Race in which teams travel around the world. One episode ended at the southern tip of Argentina, next to a plaque memorializing ARA Belgrano. Unfortunately they made no reference to it, although the show often describes bits of local history or culture. Guess none of the producers knew what it was.

Belgrano was unfortunate in succumbing, essentially, to one WWII vintage torpedo. Apparently it hit in just the right place, and of course there may have been material or other deficiencies in such an old ship.

 

The Flowers are intriguing ships. Supposedly they were intended to operate in coastal waters, but the design was based on a commerical whale hunter (Southern Pride), a type which operates as far as Antarctic waters, with support from a mother ship of course. Wonder if someone was thinking ahead, or was it just serendipitous that the available design proved capable of Atlantic operations?

Flowers and several other classes were built to merchantile standards in non-specialist yards so as not to compete with production of regular warships. Essentially they were merchant ships that looked like warships. The most notable example was their triple-expansion steam engines.

Corvettes were an economic way to provide numbers of escorts. An escort group would usually comprise several corvettes and a couple of destroyers, sloops, or later frigates, one of which would be the escort commander - what we would later call a high-low mix. Corvettes were slightly faster than the ships they escorted, so they could maneuver around the convoy or regain station. Their gun battery, oddly enough, was almost the same as a U-boat's.

The British "ideal" antisubmarine ship was the frigate - originally called a Twin Screw Corvette - roughly comparable to our destroyer escort. The US could build enough DEs that we didn't feel the need for an economy escort.

The followon corvette was the Castle class, lovely ships, built mainly to make use of smaller shipyards that could not build frigates. I saw one in Portsmouth in 1980 or 1983, painted black and white, probably used as something like a survey ship. Other than lacking armament she looked like the WWII article.

 

i saw a picture of it only once: a US light/heavy cruiser modified by removing most of the main guns, and filling almost all available topside with AA nests. it was simply captioned "a kamikaze nightmare." anyone with a picture of that ship?

 

I take it this was a sketch plan or artist's conception? Nothing like that actually existed, although I've had the same thought myself. My idea was for some of the later Cleveland class ships, which it could be foreseen were going to do most of their shooting against aircraft. Just put twin 5" in place of the 6" turrets, on the existing barbettes, and replace the main battery directors with Mark 37s for a total of four. They'd look like "toothless tigers" but would have an outstanding AA capability and an large ammunition supply. It would relieve the weight problems that plagued the class and allow some additional 40mm mounts as well. If they were willing to lose their aircraft capability - catapults and crane - they could fit 2-4 more quad 40s aft with outstanding fields of fire. This would not seriously delay completion of the ships, and they could even refit with standard armament if that was desired later.

If you saw an actual photograph it was probably an Atlanta class light cruiser. These lovely ships featured twelve 5" guns in three twin mounts forward and aft. The first group also had a twin 5" each side of the after superstructure, and there were from 10-32 40mm guns in twin and quad mounts.

 

i swear it was a picture, from one of those expensive WW2 picture books one likes to thumb through in the bookstore (possibly janes.)

it couldn't have been an atlanta because those ships have a rather high profile and those 5-inch turrets look very prominent since they stack back upwards (three forward-mounted turrets.) this ship i'm talking about is nothing but AA nests where the main barbettes should have been.

[addendum] i googled the cleveland class and it might be. but i swear that ship i saw was a genuine AA-overload. thanks.

 

Interesting - stop me if you've heard this one but are you familiar with the Juneau class, sometimes listed as a third subgroup of the Atlanta class? These were three ships completed postwar, and their key feature was that # 2, 3, 4, and 5 5" mounts were one deck lower. That is to say, the second mount at each end was on the same level as the first, with only the third mount elevated one deck, a much less attractive arrangement than the original Atlantas, but it saved topweight and allowed them to have more 40mm mounts also, total of 32 barrels, including quad 40s fore and aft firing over the 5" mounts. Here's a photo, is this it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Juneau_(CL-119)

Cl-119 commemorated the first Juneau, CL-52, one of the original Atlantas, lost at Guadalcanal (along with Atlanta). If we consider them all one class, having two ships of the same name is as far as I know unique in the USN.

 

I think that the underway replenishment ships deserve greater credit for the work they did in keeping the combat vessels on the line. Their work was unglamorous and dangerous but crucial- look at those pictures of the explosion of the USS Mount Hood (AE-11).

 

The Fletcher class, without doubt. Only the submarines extended beyond it, and only by going into an area the submarine couldn't touch before.

 

I have to agree with you there. Look at the place in history the England, Samuel B. Roberts, Tabberrer, and the Pillsbury have. Little boys doing the big boys jobs.