American Cruiser 6-inch subclass proposal (in progress)

[kriegerfaust]

Name----------------------------Usage--------Shell Weight--------Range-------------ROF
5-inch/25-caliber gun-------20'S/80'-------52 to 54.5 lb---------13,300M------------15-RPM
5-inch/38-caliber gun------31-82-----------53 to 55---------------16,000M------------15-22RPM
5-inch/50-caliber gun------04-45----------50 to  60--------------17,000M-------------6-8RPM
5-inch/51-caliber gun------11-47----------50 to  55-------------16,000M-------------8-9RPM
5-inch/54-caliber gun------45-93---------70xxxxxx-------------17,000M-------------15-18RPM
6-inch/47-caliber gun------36-92---------105 to 130-----------18,000M-------------5-12RPM
6-inch/53-caliber gun------20-45---------105xxxxx-------------23,000M------------6-7RPM

Why a six-inch sub class because a six-inch shell can hold a lot more punch then a five inch, the 51/54 being a gun that was only seen after the war.  If we keep this up we will have a hundred lines, but a grinding a new line is always fun and while i hate light cruisers i love American cruisers, sexy all gun cruisers for the most part.

Existing 6inch
Dallas — American Tier VI cruiser-152 mm/47 Mk.16 in a turret2 х 2 / 2 х 3 pcs
Boise — American special premium Tier VII cruiser-152 mm/47 Mk.16 in a turret5 х 3 pcs.
Helena — American Tier VII cruiser-152 mm/47 Mk.16 in a turret5 х 3 pcs.
AL Montpelier — American special premium Tier VIII cruiser-152 mm/47 Mk.16 in a turret4х 3 pcs.
Cleveland — American Tier VIII cruiser-152 mm/47 Mk.16 in a turret4х 3 pcs.
Seattle — American Tier IX cruiser-152 mm/47 DP Mk.17 in a turret4 х 3 pcs.
Worcester — American Tier X cruiser-152 mm/47 DP Mk.16 in a turret6 х 2 pcs
=============================================================================================================
S-511-19: "6-Inch Cruiser Study ... Scheme 1". Plan dated 28 July 1940 for a 13,200 ton cruiser with a main battery of 12 6"/47 guns. Similar to S-511-18, but with aircraft 
S-511-36: "6" A.A. Cruiser Scheme "C" - 4 Twin Turrets". Plan dated 31 July 1941. This scheme emphasizes somewhat smaller size and enhanced protection, at the expense of speed and number of main battery guns. It also carries no aircraft.
S-511-46: "6" A.A. Cruiser - 5 Twin Turrets - Scheme D". Plan dated 18 October 1941. This scheme emphasizes deck armor over speed and number of main battery guns.
S-511-47: "6" A.A. Cruiser - 6 Twin Turrets - Scheme ... not submitted". Plan dated 20 October 1941, and originally labeled "Scheme E". This letter was later assigned to the 
=============================================================================================================

RedBear87

The design process of the Brooklyn class is a highly convoluted affair, the Congress repeatedly delayed construction of the light cruisers which became necessary after the London Treaty, until eventually the plans elaborated for a balanced twelve guns cruiser were scrapped in early 1933, because of the combined blow inflicted by the new 6-in and 8-in shells, which reduced the value of armour in the eyes of the Americans, and the crazy fifteen guns cruiser on 8,500 tons std steaming at 33 knots announced by Japan.

 

The first two designs in your drawing are scheme D (triple turrets) and G (quadruple turrets) elaborated in March 1933, they were the only ones worked out in some details; scheme C had four quadruple turrets on an unbroken deck; scheme E had five triple turrets with three turrets superimposed forward; F was an abortive scheme with four quadruple turrets, two superimposed aft. Scheme A and B were carried over from the previous twelve gun studies, scheme A was the former scheme 1, she was basically a New Orleans with three quadruple and one triple 6-in turrets. I'm not totally sure about scheme B because there's probably an omission or mistake of some kind (Friedman literally says "Scheme B was the alternative with aircraft", but scheme A did have aircrafts and catapults, of course), it probably was the same design with aviation facilities moved aft instead of amidships (there was considerable debate about this point at the time).

 

The last drawing in your picture was not part of the designs elaborated by Preliminary Design, instead it was presented on 23/24 March 1933 by Admiral Watson during informal hearings of the General Board. It's not completely sure how seriously it was considered, but Watson apparently desired to concentrate fire under the forward fire control station, while keeping the turret nearest to the bridge low enough to reduce blast effects. In his design you can notice there's no fire control station aft.

Watson's design was modified to scheme I of a second batch elaborated by Preliminary Design, one turret was moved aft but the idea still didn't look appealing enough. Scheme J had four quadruple turrets, three forward and one aft, while J1 was a variation with turret no.3 superimposing the first two, a la Mogami (details of Mogami were still unknown, it appears to be a simple coincidence). Scheme H became the basis of the final Brooklyn design, three triple turrets forward, two aft, at this stage the deck dipped down the stern, presumably to reduce the blast effect on the catapult situated after the last turret. This last feature, present in scheme D too, was presumably copied from the Japanese (a 30 March memorandum says that scheme H was inspired by "some Japanese ships").

 

This was not quite the end of the tragedy, however. The new cruiser was not quite well liked by some like Captain Van Kareun because it lacked direct (90° angle) protection against 8-in cruisers, which was the argument which convinced many to adopt large light cruisers in the first place. His proposal to drop one turret to gain some protection (immunity zone wide 12,700 yards as opposite to 9,000 yards against 6-in gunfire, 1,600 yards as opposite to 0 yards against 8-in gunfire) were rejected, the argument being that most of the additional immunity zone was gained at extreme range, beyond the expected 18,000 yards, where it would be of little value.

 

In April the hangar was enlarged to carry six planes, while protection was somehow improved, but without providing any direct immunity zone from heavy cruisers. Various weight reduction measures were searched, but eventually they settled on reducing water allowance and accepting higher structural stress, this allowed to bring the immunity zone from 6-in gunfire to 8,000-23,000 yards at 60° angle. Deck height was finally increased in July, the shallower deck aft was also eliminated at this time; weight compensation called for a shorter hull (600 feet instead of 612 feet) and power increased to 100,000 shp, speed being the standard 32.5 knots, at various stages suggestions were made to reduce speed to improve protection, but they were always rejected, in part because otherwise the cruisers couldn't work with the previous 8-in ones. This was the final Brooklyn design.

other turret layout designs

https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/s-file/S-511-19.html

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/6923-brooklyn-class-preliminary-design-studies/

 

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by kriegerfaust

[invicta2012]

Is this a quote from an article or the old Wows Forums? Please attribute or mark it for salvage if so.

 

That Brooklyn prelim with five turrets all forward is hilarious. I would love a CA version of that - Wichita on steroids! - and the quad turret ships have plenty of appeal, too: twelve 6 inch guns available just off the bow is a fierce armament for a CL. 

Edited October 25, 2023 by invicta2012

[HogHammer]

Good info.  At the bottom, please list your sources - for forum members' benefit and to comply with copyright laws.