Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: boulder!boulder!scottm@ncar.UCAR.EDU (SCOTT MICHAEL C)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: QUESTION ABOUT VIRGINIA-CLASS CRUISERS
Keywords: Modifications to Japanese destroyers during world war two
Message-ID: <14501@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 6 Mar 90 04:22:20 GMT
References: <14314@cbnews.ATT.COM> <14336@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 44
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: boulder!boulder!scottm@ncar.UCAR.EDU (SCOTT MICHAEL C)


   The Japanese DID have some weight problems with the modifications they
made to their destroyers during WW-II.  They added many 25mm guns (in twin
and triple mounts) and generally always removed one of the three twin five-inch
mounts.  The mount removed in each case was the 'X' turret; the aft raised 
mount.
  Even our larger destroyers ran up against some weight problems.  The Gearing
class DD's had a lot more clear deck space than the Fletchers did, due to the
introduction of twin mounts for the 5" L38's.  This deck space was used to 
expand the 40mm antiaircraft battery (including, for the first time in a 
destroyer, a quadruple mount.)
  Additional equipment was also added (a tripod mast for the radar picket 
conversions, an additional 40mm quad mount for the AA upgrade version, etc.)
These conversions resulted in the removal of the quintuple torpedo tubes.

  Nor were destroyers alone in the battle against topweight.  The mass-
produced Cleveland-class light cruisers wound up so topheavy as a result of
the continued addition of antiaircraft guns and other equipment, that by 1945
severe restrictions had to be imposed on the amounts of ready-use AA ammunition
that could be kept in the respective gun mounts.
  This problem was acute enough that the last two ships of the class (starting
with USS Fargo) were redesigned topside; this included trunking of the two
funnels into one, and lowering of the 5" twin L38 mounts by one deck level.
  The Atlanta-class light cruisers had this problem also (alleviated somewhat
by omission of four five-inch guns and all of the torpedo tubes in the later
ships.)
  The Baltimore-class heavy cruisers were the only smaller combatants the US
built during the war to escape the problems of excessive topweight.  They were,
of course, much larger (at 13,600 tons) than the Clevelands (10,000 tons),
and several of them were converted into fine missile cruisers after the war
(including Albany, Chicago, and Columbus.)

  --Mike

 



  
  --don't like snow, miss Deirdre, and wish I was still in Santa Cruz.