The Ship Model Forum

[quote="chuck"][quote="Werner"]Italian [i]Capitani Romani[/i] class.
[img]http://www.regiamarina.net/arsenals/ships_it/cruisers_light/drawings/capitani_romani_class.jpg[/img][/quote]

Nothing too usual about it.[/quote]

you dont see the lazer cannons? j/k

well then you admit, its an unusual ship for that nature... even if the british had them, they didn't have the rest of the design of japanese ships such as the sweptback funnel...

admit defeat.

The slanting platform is a blast shield. Notice turret A is open in the back. If the balst shield is not there, then when turret B fires straight ahead, the blast would concuss the crew of the turret A.

Few Japanese ships have this sort of blast shield because Japanese cruisers with open turrets usually don't have superfiring turrets on top of them. But this kind of blast shield is common on British ships.

[quote="Anonymous"][quote="kennylibben"]i'm talking about the gun platform there in front of the bridge...

[img]http://www.combinedfleet.com/yubari01.jpg[/img][/quote]

Which platform? The little catwalk directly in front of the bridge windows, or the platform jutting out in front of the B-turret, over the back of A turret?[/quote]

The one that B turret is on, with the end of it slanting up over A turret.

[quote="Anonymous"]Okay, I grant you that Oyoda was intended to be headquarter to submarine flotillas. But as far as light cruisers go, that is the only exception. All other Japanese light cruisers were destroyer leaders. (There were only 2 distinct groups - The 20 or so more or less similar 5500 tonners of WWI era, and the 4 new ships completed in 1942-43) There were no light cruisers-sea plane tenders. The 29 knot 10,000 ton sea plane tenders of IJN were not cruisers. They were strictly sea plane tenders.[/quote]
Chuck (I do wish you'd log in) the internal fittings and the tactical employment of the ships are what we are referring to. One only needs to look at the administrative organization of the fleet in 12/41 to see what we're talking about.

The most important job of 2/3 of the cruisers were to concentrate, coordinate and report scouting data from submarines and seaplanes (based on islands). Remember, in the 1930s secure frequencies had ranges of 100-500 miles. The destroyer leaders were the ones which were scheduled to get a massive torpedo armament on the outbreak of war.

Okay, I grant you that Oyoda was intended to be headquarter to submarine flotillas. But as far as light cruisers go, that is the only exception. All other Japanese light cruisers were destroyer leaders. (There were only 2 distinct groups - The 20 or so more or less similar 5500 tonners of WWI era, and the 4 new ships completed in 1942-43) There were no light cruisers-sea plane tenders. The 29 knot 10,000 ton sea plane tenders of IJN were not cruisers. They were strictly sea plane tenders.

[quote="Werner"]Quite incorrect. There are three distinct types. Those which lead destroyers, headquarters for seaplanes, and relay ships for picket submarines.[/quote]

Agreed indeed. Even some of the so called destroyer leaders performed submarine HQ functions during the war. [i]Aganos[/i] were made to replace the old 5500 tonners and [i]Oyodo[/i] plus her never-finished sister were ment to be seaplane tenders.

[quote="Anonymous"]To the Japanese the role of all light cruisers are to lead destoryers. Even the last 10,000 ton light cruiser was intended to be operational hubs of destroyers squadrons. The main conceptual trend of Japanese light cruisers from 1915 to 1945 was to go from destroyer leader to bigger destoryer leader to combined destroyer tender and destroyer leader.[/quote]
Quite incorrect. There are three distinct types. Those which lead destroyers, headquarters for seaplanes, and relay ships for picket submarines.

You need to read LaCroix.

[quote="Anonymous"]Had there been no Washington treaty I wonder if the Japanese would have bothered with real cruisers at all.[/quote]

Perhaps, the 1922 Treaty doesn't limit the number of cruisers a Navy should have...only their own tonnage and weapons. Not being able to cope with the RN and USN BB and CV numbers they would have to bet in "cruisers" = "auxiliary/ other combatant ships category". Not having the Treaty they would go on mostly with the construction of battleships, battlecruisers and the already scheduled light cruisers.

Had there been no Washington treaty I wonder if the Japanese would have bothered with real cruisers at all.

To the Japanese the role of all light cruisers are to lead destoryers. Even the last 10,000 ton light cruiser was intended to be operational hubs of destroyers squadrons. The main conceptual trend of Japanese light cruisers from 1915 to 1945 was to go from destroyer leader to bigger destoryer leader to combined destroyer tender and destroyer leader.

[quote="Werner"]On cold reflection, is [i]Yubari[/i] really more than a destroyer leader? I don't recall her glorious WW.II career....

I know she fell victim to a submarine, like most of her type.[/quote]

She was intended to be the prototype of the "super-destroyer" or destroyer-leader. She was present at First Battle of Wake and First Battle of Savo. I guess those are her "highest" honours in WWII.

Regarding her fate yes she was sunk by [i]USS Bluegill[/i] like a few more CL's (5500 tons etc) of her time but most went sunk by planes and some even by surface ships ([i]Sendai[/i] and [i]Jintsu[/i] for starters in the Solomons).

On cold reflection, is [i]Yubari[/i] really more than a destroyer leader? I don't recall her glorious WW.II career....

I know she fell victim to a submarine, like most of her type.

[quote="Anonymous"]The open A and Y turrets of Yubari are identical to the 5.5 inch turrets on the earlier Japanese 5500 ton light cruisers.[/quote]

That was a common turret the single 5.5'' one, used from the [i]Tenryu's[/i] ownwards I think. [i]Yubari[/i] had those turrets but I don't know exactly why but she was topweight anyway for some 500 tons if I recall correctly. Putting 4 double 5.5'' turrets would only get the case worst and having them as simple would make the ships as weak as a [i]Tenryu[/i].

[quote="Anonymous"]Yubari's double enclosed 5.5" turrets were shared with katori class training cruisers.[/quote]

[i]Katoris[/i] are late 30's training cruisers and [i]Yubari[/i] is an early-mid 20's ship. Other then those ships only [i]Mizuho[/i] and the submarine tenders [i]Chogei[/i] and [i]Jingei[/i] had the double 5.5'' turrets.

[quote="kennylibben"]i'm talking about the gun platform there in front of the bridge...

[img]http://www.combinedfleet.com/yubari01.jpg[/img][/quote]

Which platform? The little catwalk directly in front of the bridge windows, or the platform jutting out in front of the B-turret, over the back of A turret?

i'm talking about the gun platform there in front of the bridge...

http://www.combinedfleet.com/yubari01.jpg

Incidentally, Fujimoto should have taken a page from Hiraga's book and built his own Yubari before implementing his structural concepts for real in the Magomi class light cruisers. Werner would be eager to fill you in on what actually happened to the Mogami class.

The enclosed superfiring B and X turrets of Yubari are identical to the A and Y turrets of training cruiser Katori:

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Katori-2.jpg[/img]

The open A and Y turrets of Yubari are identical to the 5.5 inch turrets on the earlier Japanese 5500 ton light cruisers:

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5e/Nagara.JPG[/img]


The blast shield protruding over the top of the open A and Y turrets to protect their crews from the blast of the superfiring B and X turrets is somewhat usual in Japanese navy, but is a common feature on British light cruiser and destroyers of the era the featured a large caliber gun super firing over a lower level open turret.

Yubari was Hiraga's pet project to build a test ship to actually validate the new structural and layout design concepts he was formulating in his head. Whether the new ship would turn out to be actually a good investment from combat efficiency point of view was not important. It was suppose to be small and cheap as possible so it would be no great loss if the concepts turned out to be unworkable in practice. In fact Yubari was hopeless as a cruiser, being too small, too weak, and more like a large destroyer than any bona fide cruiser.

But although a dubious cruiser herself, Yubari was a huge success as a testbed. All the things she was designed to test worked so well that they were repeated in all subsequent Japanese cruisers.

show me pictures of the platform i was talking about on other ships then.