|
|  |
 |
Members: 4,358
Threads: 15,335
Posts: 192,059
Online: 216
Newest Member:
cruse |
|
|
| Weapons in WWII Discussion about the weapons and war machines created during World War Two |

July 31st, 2007, 12:41 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 21
|
|
Comparison heavy cruisers
I've realised a little comparison of some heavy cruisers of WWII.
I personnally think that the Kirov is NOT an heavy cruiser.
We can see that teh best results are IJN, USN and DKM

__________________
De Pearl Harbor à Hiroshima
|

August 1st, 2007, 02:51 AM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: U. S.
Posts: 3,031
|
|
Re: Comparison heavy cruisers
I would contend that the tables given are far too simplistic in their analysis.
(in the following K= Kirov, A=Algerie, PE= Prinz Eugene, NO= New Orleans, C+ County class, and M= Mogami)
Full load displacements: I use this value as it is usually more accurately indicitave of a ship's true displacement than a standard displacement is. Each navy has its own version of what constitutes "standard" displacement and often during this period these were deceptive numbers.
K = 11,500
A = 11,500
PE = 12,500
C = 11,700
NO = 11,500
M = 15,200
(note all values rounded)
Year laid down and completed: This indicates about when the class was built. This compares where each was in regard to the state of the art. Later classes will have advantages from better design and lighter machinery etc.
K = 35, 38
A = 31, 32
PE = 35, 40
C = 24, 30
NO = 35, 38
M = 34, 37
Armor: Why this was left out of the original table is very unusual. This gives an indication of the amount of weight devoted to armor protection on the ship as a whole. The values given are for belt, turrets, deck in that order
K = 3", 4", 2"
A = 4.5", 3", 3"
PE = 5", 4", 3"
C = 4", 1", 1.5"
NO = 5", 8", 2.25"
M = 4", 2", 1.5"
Torpedo defenses: Of these classes all except PE and NO are about equal. Any one of the others could conceivably be sunk by a single torpedo hit and several were. NO and PE were a bit better requiring at least two or possibly three hits to sink minimum.
Range: This gives some indication of the fuel load and machinery effeciency. It is a better indicator of how good the plant on the ship was than top speed.
K = 3,000 / 18
A = 5,000 / 15
PE =
C = 13,000 / 12
NO = 10,000 / 15
M = 8,200 / 14
As one can see from this list combined with the previous one, the Kirov is definitely a heavy cruiser even if her main battery is a bit smaller than her contemporaries.
Of the group, the PE and NO classes are the best protected with the NO having an advantage in steaming range and firepower over the PE.
The Japanese Mogami class really comes off badly. At over 15,000 tons she ships just one more main gun than a New Orleans and two more than a Prinz Eugene, has less armor and less steaming range than the American ship.
The French Algerie is not too bad given her age. But, the ship has a very short range, a defect shared by the Kirov. But, the Russians apparently were not building true "blue water" cruisers so this defect is not as important in the Russian design. For the French, the short range is only acceptable for Mediterrainian operations.
The British County is an early commer to the race. Some exception has to be made for their age. On the other hand, they are hands down the best cruising ships, a very important design concern for the Royal Navy. They have the longest range and are very good sea boats. Their glaring deficency is poor armor protection, a trait shared with the Mogami's and less excusable in the later given their massive displacement.
On the whole, the line up now appears:
New Orleans
Prinz Eugene
County Class
Algerie
Kirov
Mogami
|

August 4th, 2007, 03:42 AM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 3rd Rock
Posts: 1,767
|
|
Re: Comparison heavy cruisers
Agree with the "N-O" boats being top dog.
Off Guadalcanal...
San Fransisco (a CA) took 45 hits, 12 of those being either 8", or 14" bursting charges and 33 hits, either 6", 5.5", or 5".
Back in San Fransisco 25th Dec for repairs. Returned to duty 26th Feb of following year.
in comparison...
South Dakota (a BB) took 42 hits, in "roughly" the same sea, from "roughly" the same type of ships, and needed repair before it could sail to New York.
There on the 18th Dec. Returned to duty 25th Feb of the following year.
The "N-O" boats were truely... "Bruiser Cruisers" !
__________________
"Danger Will Robinson!"
|

August 14th, 2007, 06:54 PM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: U. S.
Posts: 3,031
|
|
Re: Comparison heavy cruisers
Let me revise my earlier:
Found some better data on the Prinz Eugen / Hipper class:
Full load displacement was 18,500 tons range was 5050 nm at 15 kts
This now makes the list:
New Orleans
County
Algiere
Kirov
Mogami
Prinz Eugen
8 8" , the armor given, and the relatively short range on a displacement almost double that of any of the others is just terrible. This is a badly overweight ship for what it offers. The Mogami is bad but at least it sports a decent armament and range on its weight.
|

August 16th, 2007, 12:02 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 236
|
|
Re: Comparison heavy cruisers
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk works
...
South Dakota (a BB) took 42 hits, in "roughly" the same sea, from "roughly" the same type of ships, and needed repair before it could sail to New York.
...
|
Are you sure about that? I thought once they turned the power back on it was pretty much fully operaional although the 14" AP hit did tear up her deck a bit.
As for Kirov try comparing her to Aoba which is rated as a heavy cruiser.
|

August 16th, 2007, 01:17 AM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 3rd Rock
Posts: 1,767
|
|
Re: Comparison heavy cruisers
Check Wikipeda (and other sources) for South Dakota (BB 57) first tour history.
I have a book that shows the exact locations of the hits to San Fransisco, 12 on the Port, and 33 Starboard side.
__________________
"Danger Will Robinson!"
|

August 16th, 2007, 01:23 AM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: U. S.
Posts: 3,031
|
|
Re: Comparison heavy cruisers
Here's the pertinent stuff on the South Dakota from an article I wrote:
Savo Island, 13 Nov 1942. This battle along with North Cape below represents the only two actions that occur at night. As such, they highlight the sensory revolution that occurred during World War 2. This particular action had several parts to it. For purposes of this paper, only the battleship action need be discussed. Starting at 2300 the two US battleships, Washington and South Dakota obtained radar contact on the various Japanese ships operating just south of Savo Island. First fires were directed from both battleships against the Japanese cruiser Sendai and destroyer Shikinami without success between 2316 and 2319. Range was 18,500 yards decreasing to 12 to 13,000 yards. Washington fired 42 16" rounds and 100 rounds of 5". Interference from Savo Island and other clutter made getting good radar resolution on these targets difficult resulting in the poor results.
At 2333 the South Dakota suffered an electrical failure in #3 secondary fire control director. Either the crew of this director (likely) or one of the ship's electricians locked in the tripped circuit breaker to restore power. This action caused a cascade failure of the main bus tie breaker from which this system was powered. As a result, the South Dakota lost electrical power to most of her superstructure including all radar systems. The ship's gyro and central fire control system were also lost in this failure.
The ship's electricians traced the fault and corrected the problem almost immediately but, the fault reoccurred when this same director switched to their alternate power supply reinserting the fault into the electrical system. Electrical outages and problems continued to plague the South Dakota as part of this fault. While the fault was finally corrected by 2336, the result of this was that South Dakota was partially blinded and distracted by these electrical problems.
Both battleships continued to close with the Japanese forces. At 2335 the South Dakota made a turn to port to avoid the wreckage of the destroyer Preston and in doing so began to close more rapidly than the Washington with the Japanese. With power restored, the South Dakota reopened fire on the Sendai at 2342. The initial salvos set the aircraft on her fantail on fire (these were subsequently blown overboard by additional salvos). South Dakota was now silhouetted from behind by the wreck of the Preston and had a fire burning aboard that allowed the Japanese main body to see her. Washington meantime was still maintaining her original track, closing with the same Japanese ships.
At 2355 the Japanese launched a 34 torpedo attack on South Dakota at a range of about 6,000 yards. No hits were scored but, had some been made this might have significantly changed the outcome of this battle.
Three minutes later the Kirishima, Takao and Atago all opened fire on South Dakota as well. Either the Kirishima or one of the cruisers illuminated the South Dakota with a searchlight. The range was now down to 5,000 yards.
At 0001 the Washington opened fire based on her radar plot with optical verification on Kirishima. In 6 minutes Washington fired 75 16" and 107 5" rounds hitting the Kirishima with 9 16" and about 40 5" rounds. Her radar plot was able to track individual 16" shell splashes and hits. These hits wrecked the Kirishima, setting her afire and destroying her steering gear. Few, if any, of these hits were on the hull or below the waterline. Kirishima 's engines were intact even as the ship had major fires burning in the superstructure.
Washington also took the two Japanese cruisers under fire with her 5" guns firing 133 rounds at one or the other at ranges from 10,000 to 12,000 yards.
South Dakota suffered 42 hits on her superstructure. Of these only one was a 14" shell. Kirishima took at least 9 16" and 40 5" hits as previously noted also all on her superstructure. The difference between the two outcomes is stark. In both cases the large number of small shells had little effect on either ship's ability to fight. It was the nine 16" hits on Kirishima that wrecked her. These apparently knocked out her main battery, her secondary battery, wrecked the steering gear, and started serious fires that eventually caused her abandonment. Of note is that both ships suffered virtually no hull damage due to the short range.
Some additional information: These shells did knock out all but one radar on the ship. The main and secondary batteries were uneffected and operational. Most of the damage was very superficial. The command staff was uneffected in the conning tower and the ship was never out of control.
|

August 16th, 2007, 01:38 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 236
|
|
Re: Comparison heavy cruisers
I've seen a case for it being significantly more than 9 16" hits on Kirishima. I think it was Tiornu making the case but not sure on what board. Apparently the 9 hit number traces back to a single source who may not have had the best info.
|

August 16th, 2007, 01:42 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 236
|
|
Re: Comparison heavy cruisers
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk works
Check Wikipeda (and other sources) for South Dakota (BB 57) first tour history...
|
It does indeed imply that the repairs were necessary. From what I've read though it didn't seam like the damage was that severe. Perhaps it was because she was in a war zone....
|

August 16th, 2007, 02:48 PM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: U. S.
Posts: 3,031
|
|
Re: Comparison heavy cruisers
If I recall correctly, the reason the S. Dakota had a longer repair time was due to her receiving one of the first refits with the 40mm Bofors quads and alot more 20mm. The Bofors as opposed to the 1.1" required more on-mount power and a seperate director station along with adding clipping rooms and magazines as well as splinter armor. This gave her alot more firepower at Santa Cruz a couple of months later.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
| Thread |
Thread Starter |
Forum |
Replies |
Last Post |
|
Military Game Comparison
|
Otto |
Simulations & Gaming |
1 |
October 31st, 2006 11:41 AM |
|
Heavy Water
|
Celestial |
What If? |
4 |
February 13th, 2006 09:37 AM |
|
A comparison
|
T. A. Gardner |
WWII Books and Publications |
1 |
June 28th, 2005 04:44 PM |
|
Cruisers supporting Epsom?
|
Major Destruction |
Atlantic Naval Conflict |
0 |
January 8th, 2005 03:26 PM |
|
land cruisers
|
JoCon |
WWII General |
5 |
April 4th, 2001 02:31 AM |
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5
Copyright © 2000 - 2007, the World War II Network, all rights reserved.Ad Management by RedTyger
|
 |