Shuffling around the numbers

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: R8J


So I was just curious if you had stats and line drawings. If you find any data please share.

Will do. I usually post my stuff to get people's opinions and feedback.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: R8J

I remeber reading about a modified Gleaves with a dual 5" forward and I'm guessing two dual 5" aft. This would have required a wider beam. I alse recall "ten tube" Fletcher. The article was about improving the AA capability of DDs and made no reference about torpedoes. So I'm guessing there was talk about an improved, wider Fletcher with 5x2 5"/38?

So I was just curious if you had stats and line drawings. If you find any data please share.

War experience demonstrated that improved AA required REDUCING the main armament of destroyers - and in all nations including USA.
Instead - more smaller AA mounts were fitted - often also at the expense of torpedo mountings - and to a lesser degree - AAA control stations (called directors) and even AAA plotting facilities were found to more than justify reducing the main batteries. Another problem is - WHICH 5 inch gun to mount? Some are SP guns, some are short barroled guns far better for AAA (see for example the 5 inch 25), some are DP guns which are really a compromise (see the 5 inch 35 in particular in its DP versions). There was a concept for a high performance 5 inch 51 type - this didn't quite make the war - and it had problems - problems which were inherited by its successor and led eventually to the disue in USN altogether (when went to pure SP versions) - although Italy and Sweden did make high performance guns of this type - and Japan did too (and during the war - but not in quantity - see the Type 1 5 inch). But in principle a high performance 5 inch 51 in single mountings should have been possible late in the war (planned for Midways) and it might be a better weapon than a twin 5 inch 38 - in part due to greater range - in part higher ROF - and in part a heavier shell. On my ship the successor 5 inch 51s were able to throw a shell heavier than a WWII six inch to a greater range - and each gun could do so 42 times a minute - with proper AAA fire control.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: R8J

I remeber reading about a modified Gleaves with a dual 5" forward and I'm guessing two dual 5" aft. This would have required a wider beam. I alse recall "ten tube" Fletcher. The article was about improving the AA capability of DDs and made no reference about torpedoes. So I'm guessing there was talk about an improved, wider Fletcher with 5x2 5"/38?

So I was just curious if you had stats and line drawings. If you find any data please share.

War experience demonstrated that improved AA required REDUCING the main armament of destroyers - and in all nations including USA.
Instead - more smaller AA mounts were fitted - often also at the expense of torpedo mountings - and to a lesser degree - AAA control stations (called directors) and even AAA plotting facilities were found to more than justify reducing the main batteries. Another problem is - WHICH 5 inch gun to mount? Some are SP guns, some are short barroled guns far better for AAA (see for example the 5 inch 25), some are DP guns which are really a compromise (see the 5 inch 35 in particular in its DP versions). There was a concept for a high performance 5 inch 51 type - this didn't quite make the war - and it had problems - problems which were inherited by its successor and led eventually to the disue in USN altogether (when went to pure SP versions) - although Italy and Sweden did make high performance guns of this type - and Japan did too (and during the war - but not in quantity - see the Type 1 5 inch). But in principle a high performance 5 inch 51 in single mountings should have been possible late in the war (planned for Midways) and it might be a better weapon than a twin 5 inch 38 - in part due to greater range - in part higher ROF - and in part a heavier shell. On my ship the successor 5 inch 51s were able to throw a shell heavier than a WWII six inch to a greater range - and each gun could do so 42 times a minute - with proper AAA fire control.

So maybe the twin 5" showing up on DDs earlier than the Sumners is out of the question then. I certainly don't want to handicap the AA capability of US DDs. It sounds like the Fletchers would have been better AA platforms.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: R8J

I'm doing a similiar project.

The US built the Langley. Based upon this experince they went straight to the Ranger (which I named Kitty Hawk). This, like in real life, was not the best design. The Kitty Hawk was followed by two carriers of the Ranger class, the Ranger and an un-named, maybe Wasp. I used the stats for the real Wasp for this class. Although this was an improvemnet on the Ranger the design was still lacking. Then came the the four ships of the Yorktown class, with at least two being completed before war starts...I have not decided when to complete the other two.

This gives you a total of 5 to 7 carries in the beginning.

This comment makes sense in the vacuum of the game but in the actual time period no one knew what they were doing. Lex/Sar and Amagi/Akagi were chosen not because they were big but because they were close to completion and the Treaty negotiations wanted to leave the door open for the future by allowing ships to be converted to CVs.

These 4 CV were allowed and took forever in building. Simply building them was an experiment. Look at how the Japanese opted for the useless triple flight decks! How about the 8" guns kept on all of them? Luckily we didn't do the triple flight deck option and the Lex's proved to be adequate to very good CVs.

If you were take out a CV then delete Ranger and replace it with a Yorktown. This would simply show that the designers decided that they were over-reaching with too small of CV design and simply expanded the Ranger 'up' some. This is in effect what happened to lead to the magnificent Yorktowns.

[wdolson]

The Yorktowns had their limits too.  They were too small to put 5 inch AA guns around the island for one thing.  They also lacked a deck edge elevator, which dramatically improved aircraft handling on the Wasp and Essex classes.

The Lexington and Saratoga had electric engines, which were sort of a fad around 1920.  When the Saratoga was hit by torpedoes, the propulsion proved to be a liability (salt water and electricity don't mix).  Until the late 30s they also had a narrowing of the flight deck about 3/4 of the way down.  I don't know if it caused any accidents, but it did make deck handling a little more difficult.

The Lexingtons were not the ideal aircraft carrier, but as origially converted, they were probably closer to what the carrier evolved into than any of the other early carriers built/converted in the 1920s.

The Ranger was a mistake, but the USN learned a lot of lessons from her.  I believe the Independence class was a success because the USN learned a lot about how to make a CVL from the mistakes done with the Ranger.

Bill

[el cid again]

The CVLs were a success in part because the USN didn't use them as CVs. They were combined with CVs into groups in which the smaller deck need not be used for heavy ordnance handling. In many cases they ended up as night fighter carriers for example. They could not operate the truly heavy fighters and bombers of the late war period - but they didn't try to do that. The idea was to get more flight decks out there - and being "extra" they didn't have to carry the load of being the heavy strike carriers - but were more like "insurance" contributing to the defense of the group.