unusual axis ships

[kennylibben]

good point.... hmmmm....

[chuck]

.... but actually what she had that the others didn't that i like is that gun mount on the bow, how its like an enclosed platform while others werent enclosed.

That's not unique either. That outmoded feature she shared with members of an earlier group of 5500 ton IJN light cruisers.

[Filipe Ramires]

That's not unique either. That outmoded feature she shared with members of an earlier group of 5500 ton IJN light cruisers.

I believe Kenny is refering to the double 5.5'' enclosed superfiring mounts which were by the time experimental and made for Yubari. From the designs of that turret they were able to move forward to the 5'' turrets of the Fubukis. Other experimental features make Yubari a unique experimental ship.

[kennylibben]

why thank you Filipe!

[Guest]

That's not unique either. That outmoded feature she shared with members of an earlier group of 5500 ton IJN light cruisers.

I believe Kenny is refering to the double 5.5'' enclosed superfiring mounts which were by the time experimental and made for Yubari. From the designs of that turret they were able to move forward to the 5'' turrets of the Fubukis. Other experimental features make Yubari a unique experimental ship.

Yubari's double enclosed 5.5" turrets were shared with katori class training cruisers.

.

[kennylibben]

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

[Guest]

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



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




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.

[Guest]

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.

[kennylibben]

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

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

[Guest]

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

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?

[Filipe Ramires]

Yubari's double enclosed 5.5" turrets were shared with katori class training cruisers.

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

[Filipe Ramires]

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

That was a common turret the single 5.5'' one, used from the Tenryu's ownwards I think. Yubari 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 Tenryu.

[Werner]

On cold reflection, is Yubari 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.

[Filipe Ramires]

On cold reflection, is Yubari 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.

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

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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

[Filipe Ramires]

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

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.

[Werner]

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.

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.

[Filipe Ramires]

Quite incorrect. There are three distinct types. Those which lead destroyers, headquarters for seaplanes, and relay ships for picket submarines.

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

[Guest]

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.