That 2nd one looks much closer to it. 4x2 10cm fore and aft. right? I would have gone with 3 (deleting the back-to-back turrets). I made a lite upgrade of the Tatsuta. I replaced her 14cm deck mounts with 4x1 type C 12.7cm/50 DD turrets (presumably removed from Hatsuharu/Shiratsuyu class Destroyers) It occurred to me to use Type B or D twin turrets but I went with the singles for weight concerns. Probably a 6 gun combination would be more likely (twin fore and aft & single amidships positions).
MatthewB wrote:
I have been recently reading about the Japanese during WWII, and how they completely screwed up after their initial successes in underestimating the effect of Air Power
The IJN needed to build AA Cruisers, and they needed to stop dreaming of repeating Tsushima.
They did recognize a need for more AA-defense. The problem came in their culture. The IJN was working (and designing) off a perverted form of Bushido. They felt that a "True Warrior" was one who "attacked and conquered". Defense was "less-than-honorable". Cruisers (and Carriers) are "attack" ships. they go out and hunt the enemy. Where Destroyers (and by definition AA-ships) are "defensive". therefore Destroyers and AA-ships are by definition "less honorable". why would you take and "honorable" cruiser and 'downgrade' it to a less honorable defense ship (probably why it was only done once)? They built new purpose-built AA-defense ships, but put that role on an already "defensive" hull, the planned Shimakaze class Destroyers. They used the same hulls and engineering being prepared for the new planned Shimakaze class but converted them to AA-Destroyers to provide AA- escorts.