Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Terminus

More ragging on the Atlantas...[:D] This comparative data is based on the stock DB and a snapshot taken on 3/3/44. Both classes have their 4/44 upgrades to go, but still:



The Clevelands obviously had their flaws too (no design can ever be "perfect") but at least they were proper cruisers. The only thing the Atlantas had that the Clevelands didn't were torpedo tubes.

The Clevelands were designed to work with the battlefleet, providing security against massed torpedo attacks by Japanese DD squadrons. They lacked the gun penetration needed for independent operations. They also had a problem with their metacentric height.

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Interesting that you consider the CLAA Atlanta class to be the worst in the USN. Dunnigan and Nofi in "Victory at Sea" do speak of it as "A highly successfull design, ..." It was not designed to be a surface combat ship, but its 16 fast firing 5"/38 guns did prove to be very usefull.

If it was a bad class, why did the USN continue to build it?

That's not a logically sound argument. The Mk 14 was a bad torpedo, but the USN continued to build it too...

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I forget the details or which battle, but I recall reading that in one of the Solomons battles an Atlanta kicked butt.

The Atlanta and the Juneau sank a Jap destroyer between them (that's about all the 5-inchers were good for)...

That was what they were designed to do.

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Terminus

More ragging on the Atlantas...[:D] This comparative data is based on the stock DB and a snapshot taken on 3/3/44. Both classes have their 4/44 upgrades to go, but still:



The Clevelands obviously had their flaws too (no design can ever be "perfect") but at least they were proper cruisers. The only thing the Atlantas had that the Clevelands didn't were torpedo tubes.

The Clevelands were designed to work with the battlefleet, providing security against massed torpedo attacks by Japanese DD squadrons. They lacked the gun penetration needed for independent operations. They also had a problem with their metacentric height.

As did basically all USN surface combatants...

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Interesting that you consider the CLAA Atlanta class to be the worst in the USN. Dunnigan and Nofi in "Victory at Sea" do speak of it as "A highly successfull design, ..." It was not designed to be a surface combat ship, but its 16 fast firing 5"/38 guns did prove to be very usefull.

If it was a bad class, why did the USN continue to build it?

That's not a logically sound argument. The Mk 14 was a bad torpedo, but the USN continued to build it too...

They had alternatives to building more Atlantas. Instead, they rebalanced the design and built more.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Terminus

More ragging on the Atlantas...[:D] This comparative data is based on the stock DB and a snapshot taken on 3/3/44. Both classes have their 4/44 upgrades to go, but still:



The Clevelands obviously had their flaws too (no design can ever be "perfect") but at least they were proper cruisers. The only thing the Atlantas had that the Clevelands didn't were torpedo tubes.

The Clevelands were designed to work with the battlefleet, providing security against massed torpedo attacks by Japanese DD squadrons. They lacked the gun penetration needed for independent operations. They also had a problem with their metacentric height.

As did basically all USN surface combatants...

The Clevelands were particularly bad. The Brits downarmed their corresponding classes to address the issue.

And the Flight II Atlantas/Oaklands were still too top-heavy, undergunned and under-armoured. I would make the claim that had you put the Oaklands in the same situation as the Atlantas around the Solomons, they would have fared just as poorly.

The IJN surface threat had largely evaporated by the time the Oaklands came along, and of course they could contribute to AA defence. I'm just saying that Clevelands could have done just as well, AND retained a good CL main battery.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And the Flight II Atlantas/Oaklands were still too top-heavy, undergunned and under-armoured. I would make the claim that had you put the Oaklands in the same situation as the Atlantas around the Solomons, they would have fared just as poorly.

The IJN surface threat had largely evaporated by the time the Oaklands came along, and of course they could contribute to AA defence. I'm just saying that Clevelands could have done just as well, AND retained a good CL main battery.

The Clevelands cost at least twice as much to build, and were still limited to DD targets. You have to look at the specific missions the two classes were built for (and later adapted to). The Clevelands originally had a defensive mission (protect the battlefleet), while the Atlantas had an offensive mission (help our DDs defeat the large IJN DDs). The combat power of two Atlantas was greater than the combat power of one Cleveland against the same targets.

I don't agree...

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I forget the details or which battle, but I recall reading that in one of the Solomons battles an Atlanta kicked butt.

The Atlanta and the Juneau sank a Jap destroyer between them (that's about all the 5-inchers were good for)...

That's not what I'm thinking of. If I can find anything I'll post it. It was something about (most likely) a heavy cruiser.

No IJN heavy cruisers were sunk by any Atlantas...

Didn't say sunk.

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And the Flight II Atlantas/Oaklands were still too top-heavy, undergunned and under-armoured. I would make the claim that had you put the Oaklands in the same situation as the Atlantas around the Solomons, they would have fared just as poorly.

The IJN surface threat had largely evaporated by the time the Oaklands came along, and of course they could contribute to AA defence. I'm just saying that Clevelands could have done just as well, AND retained a good CL main battery.

The Clevelands cost at least twice as much to build, and were still limited to DD targets. You have to look at the specific missions the two classes were built for (and later adapted to). The Clevelands originally had a defensive mission (protect the battlefleet), while the Atlantas had an offensive mission (help our DDs defeat the large IJN DDs). The combat power of two Atlantas was greater than the combat power of one Cleveland against the same targets.

The Clevelands were true cruisers, designed to fight in battle vs enemy cruisers with a proper immune zone vs similar main caliber weapons - and indeed were derivitives of the Brooklyns. These ships were considered to have a technical advantage at closer ranges even vs heavy cruisers - due to number of tubes and higher rate of fire. They are properly comparable with Japanese heavy cruisers - and indeed are better protected than the Japanese ships. Note that some Japanese CAs were designed with triple six inch turrets - later substituting the twin eight inch - and Mogami's were actually delivered in that form. Clevelands would stand up well to a Japanese cruiser in a gunnery dual - and you can see this on the rare occasions it occurred.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Terminus

To change the subject, have you considered eliminating the worst light cruiser class in USN history, the Atlantas?

I didn't realize the Atlantas were the worst. I thought they were simply misused in surface engagements when they were far superior as AA cruisers in support of carriers. If the Atlantas were the worst, then what will that make the Yoshinos of Alt_Naval? They appear to be little more than IJN "Atlantas". [&:]

The IJN (my chief said "they had the best ships" and often it was so) made a better choice: they started with a sort of Atlanta concept and scaled down until they got a super destroyer. Fitted with a uniform battery of their very best AA guns - 100 mm - it was a far more economical and balanced design. Equally unarmored, it did not pretend to be a cruiser.

IJN also designed a number of other AA cruisers. Some WWI series vessels were converted to this type. So was one Mogami - somewhat as a consequence of battle damage - but the design was based on proposals to build ships with similar configurations. Here they adopted five inch
guns in numbers - and they designed (and barely developed) a superior five inch weapon for them that never went to sea (but might have).
Imagine a Mogami with long 5 inch DP guns - arranged both on the centerline and on the sides of the ship - with three levels (two of them superfiring over the main deck weapons). In the end they concluded such ships were too expensive - and that it was far more important to balance fire control with weapons than just mass tubes. They got it right.

It looks to me that, although the Clevelands may rate higher in AA firepower, the Atlantas basically would give more AA "bang for the buck." I think the whole point of the Yoshinos on Alt_Naval is to do just that. Concentrate a lot of AA power on a relatviely inexpensive hull.

Just a quick quote from Wikipedia...

The Atlanta class cruisers were United States Navy light cruisers designed originally as flotilla leaders but which ended up gaining recognition as effective anti-aircraft cruisers during World War II. With eight dual 5" gun mounts (six centerline), the first run of Atlanta class cruisers had by far the heaviest anti-aircraft broadside of any warship of World War II, at over 17,600 pounds (10,560 kg) per minute of highly-accurate, radar-fuzed VT ordnance. The later ships omitted the two wing mounts, reducing the overall broadside but improving firing arcs.

Part of the Clevelands' AA firepower lay in the 40mm and 20mm armament where late in the war, it is my understanding that it was found that the best way to truly stop Kamikazes was with 5inch armament. A single Atlanta had the 5inch firepower of 2 2/3 Sumner class DDs.

And in real life, they couldn't make proper use of it. They didn't have enough directors for all their weapons, and their two wing turrets were not placed well, to say the least. There was a reason they were deleted in the Oakland class.

You should obviously make the mod that YOU want, Gary... I'm just not a big CLAA fan...[;)]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And in real life, they couldn't make proper use of it. They didn't have enough directors for all their weapons, and their two wing turrets were not placed well, to say the least. There was a reason they were deleted in the Oakland class.

You should obviously make the mod that YOU want, Gary... I'm just not a big CLAA fan...[;)]

I guess we'll have to see which version of Alt_Naval works best in the game, yours with the modified older CLs or mine with the Yoshinos.

I take it since the Yoshinos are new hulls that you will have fewer ships in your IJN? Or did you send the displacement somewhere else?

I've mixed it up quite a bit, adopting a sort of "rock soup" approach (a bit of this, a bit of that, and it works). These are the comparative numbers (note that I've reduced the number of Allied ships somewhat, mainly by deleting the armed landing craft, which won't work until the AE comes along):



Note that I've almost removed all of Alt_Naval's build program from my mod. It was the original basis, but no more...

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I've mixed it up quite a bit, adopting a sort of "rock soup" approach (a bit of this, a bit of that, and it works). These are the comparative numbers (note that I've reduced the number of Allied ships somewhat, mainly by deleting the armed landing craft, which won't work until the AE comes along):



Note that I've almost removed all of Alt_Naval's build program from my mod. It was the original basis, but no more...

I notice you only have 7 CVLs. When AE comes out do you plan on making "shadow" carriers possible by converting AVs, ASs, and APDs to CVLs. That is my tentative plan so far, to have an entire series of ships inter-convertible. The Japanese will be able to convert up to 20 ships into CVLs.

The problem, as you know, is making the air groups appear properly. That won't be possible in AE either. So no.

I might make it possible to convert to CVE's...