Brooklyn class cruisers

_________________
[ img ]

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

May 7th, 2018, 11:13 pm

May 4th, 2018, 10:29 am

Do you know why no. 3 turret was facing aft? I suppose it doesn't matter as it can't fire forward. Was there a specific name for this type of position as in "super-firing" for No. 2 turret?

I spent some time re-reading the chapter on these ships in Friedman's Cruisers but couldn't find the answer. I imagine it was probably just the optimal arrangement to have it facing aft (like you say, not like it could fire forward anyway). There is a mention in the text about the turret closest to the bridge being low for less interference with fire control equipment on the superstructure, but no specific naming convention for this type of arrangement.

The Japanese cruiser of the Myoko and Takao class had a similar arrangement to that of the Brooklyns with the second turret superfiring and the third facing aft. Interestingly, the Mogami class (of which the Brooklyns were a response) switched on having the first two turrets at deck level with the third superfiring. I neither happened to find out why the IJN did it.
I might speculate that the Myoko/Takao and Brooklyn layout of the forward turrets allowed for an equal spacing of the three barbettes benefitting structural issues, but one could argue about why later the Japanese moved to the aforementioned different layout for the Mogami (and the USN did the same with the Worcester class later on). Maybe as time went by the structural issues became less relevant (given the issues of the Mogami one might question it, altough their trial issues were basically all around ones, not just the guns jamming inside the barbettes) and the arc of fire advantage could be more easily exploited.
It could be interesting to know more about if someone happens to stumble upon more informations on the matter.

Great work as usual anyway

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-47_mk16.php

After readind this, I might have an explanation fot the thrd aft facing turret. Train of Mk16 mount was +/- 150 degrees, leaving a small 30 degrees arc uncovered. All mounts have more or less the same train arc. The solution American designers did was to fit a third turret facing aft to cover this gap. Moreover, it is always useful to have as much firepower as possible.

Regarding the arrangement of mount 63, it may be something as prosaic as the gunhouse being more waterproof from the rear than from the front. If you can't cover the forward arc anyway (and though Worcester was long enough to do so, these couldn't), why not point it backwards?

I suspect the definitive reason is lost to the mists of time.

Great stuff.

Where did you get the paint information on the late war Measure 21? I've been looking for this for sometime for the Essex class. I always thought that the photos had a dark greenish tint.

Brilliant, just brilliant!!! Hope you will do 1-2 more

, like Brooklyn in ms 12 mod early war.

On the 3rd turret facing aft: IMHO it could be trained fully forward, the reason why it was stored facing aft is for ease of maintenance and also less spray and water corrosion on the sensitive gun barrels and range finding equipment.

I think Ian have still enough source-refs for :
- Brooklyn : 1939, may 1942, march-june 1943, 1945 versions
- Philadephia : 1945 (Ms 21) version
- Savannah : 1938 version
- Nashville : april 1942 ?, july-august 1943 versions
- Phoenix : august 1943 ?
- Honolulu : september 1945
to come......& maybe much more if needed

it would just have to speed-up the drawing-pace, that's all (for exemple, moving from 1 drawing per month to...one per week)

Thanks all!

Charybdis wrote: *

May 8th, 2018, 2:34 pm

Where did you get the paint information on the late war Measure 21? I've been looking for this for sometime for the Essex class. I always thought that the photos had a dark greenish tint.

This page has it, though very easy to miss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War ... e_measures

Quote:

In January 1945 BuShips revised its paint formulations due to a shortage of blue pigment, and the realization that tone was far more important than hue in camouflage effect, eliminating the blue-purple shades which had characterized nearly all Navy ship colors whether called "blue" or "gray." The new paints were neutral grays, Navy Gray replacing Navy Blue (but confusingly receiving the designation "5-N" while Navy Blue became "5-NB"), and Deck Gray replacing Deck Blue. Ocean Gray and Haze Gray retained their names but lost their bluish cast. However, the new paints (which were shipped pre-mixed, not as tinting paste) were generally only available in stateside yards, while ships repainted at forward bases continued to use the older bluish colors. Moreover, for Measure 22 (but not 12 or 21), Navy Blue was still prescribed until existing stocks were exhausted.[25]

There's a lot of ambiguity around the exact colors most of the ships were painted in by 1945; the availability of the new paint seems to have been limited (in the Pacific) to the west coast yards, with ships refitting at the forward bases using up existing stocks of the blue-grey paint. Since most of the photos are in B&W, very difficult to tell what ship had what type of paint (unfortunately) - textual evidence/inferment are usually required. Since NASHVILLE refitted at Puget Sound in March 1945, it's safe to assume the ship was repainted from its earlier dazzle pattern into flat grey Measure 21 using the new Navy Grey (5-N #7).

Naturally these are "best guesses" but unless color photos surface we will likely never know for sure.

csatahajos wrote:

Brilliant, just brilliant!!! Hope you will do 1-2 more

, like Brooklyn in ms 12 mod early war.

I really like the look of the early wartime ships but finding configuration references has been difficult. For BROOKLYN, NASHVILLE, and PHILADELPHIA, I only have portside photos (not enough to correctly draw the Ms12mod pattern, which was different on either side of the ship). If anyone can help me find starboard side photos of any of those (and plans showing the unique bridge configurations) I'd give them a shot.

Colombamike wrote: *

May 9th, 2018, 2:38 pm

it would just have to speed-up the drawing-pace, that's all (for exemple, moving from 1 drawing per month to...one per week)

If only.

Traditionally excellent.

Colombamike wrote: *

May 9th, 2018, 2:38 pm

it would just have to speed-up the drawing-pace, that's all (for exemple, moving from 1 drawing per month to...one per week)

Still waiting for you to draw something yourself.

_________________
[ img ]

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

Shipbucket

Who is online