Fire Control

[Laurence Batchelor]

I disagree entirely sorry!
Take for example the County class cruisers, they were hugely expensive for cruisers.
Infact they came out so expensive that all following cruiser classes were made smaller, with smaller hulls, lower freeboard etc.
Treaty tonnage limits was the constraining factor not the lack of money.
They were built upto 10,000tons immediately apart from the catapult and aircraft capabilities being left out as that needed further RnD.
As soon as that was completed they had hangars, catapults installed and aircraft arrangements rectified.

Furthermore take Nelson and Rodney, built to be 35,000 ton battleships immediately on first build.
Ok when commisionned they came in slightly under, but that was only because of the water in their armour protection wasn't filled until wartime approached.
They were however full treaty tonnage battleships and there was no cost cutting to my knowledge.

Infact much extra expenditure was spent on material testing to find new lighter weight high tensile strength alloys which could be used in their construction in non-essential areas to save overall weight which then could be better used in other areas.

With Japan I think everyone must take into consideration the infancy of her shipbuilding industry.
As demonstrated well that she more than anyone else usually got weight and stabilty calculations wrong.
We all know that large proportion of her new warships built in the inter-war period had to rebuilt because of that storm where a few destroyers capsized in the early 1930s was it?

[Guest]

Well, that was my hypothesis.

The weakness of design in Japanese cruisers and destroyers were largely attributable to one man - Fujimoto - who was excessively fond of going right to the edge of the envelope and has an almost child like lust for any new concept and technology, whether mature or not. He was far ahead of his time in many structural concepts which did not become popular and well developed in the rest of the world until 1960s. But he was not a master of details and he did not work out all the minor issues that needed to be addressed before these concepts can become practical. Fujimoto seems to have operated on the principle that safety limits always be transgressed whenever you apply new technology because in practice new technology always turn out better than their designers had calculated.

But he was a special case. Japanese constructors both before and after him were level headed and produced intelligent, well balanced and well calculated designs.

[Guest]

Also, I would dispute the contention that the County class were designed as close to the edge as any of the big Japanese cruisers. All of the big Japanese cruisers managed a heavier gun armament, massively superior torpedo armament, stronger protection, full aviation equipment, and higher speed than the country, and all of them underwent contortions to fit all that into a hull as nearly 10,000 tons as possible. None of them came anywhere near 10,000 tons. The Japanese cruisers were probably the most extreme examples of attempts to maximize combat power on a given tonnage. They must have been hugely expensive.

[Laurence Batchelor]

Did I ever say the Counties were as close to the edge?
I said they were built using the full 10,000tons.
Whereas Japanese and German heavy's were over the limit from the design outset, naughty naughty!

[Werner]

US cruisers did not hit the limit until down the line of New Orleans class ships. All the others were 1,000 tons light.

French cruisers were very light, too. only Algerie came to 10,000 tons and was probably the best ship of it's type in the world.

The Italian Zara class were built over the limit, but this seems because of poor building tolerances.

Japanese cruisers (after the first four, which were 9,xxx tons) were all designed to be 13,000 and by war's start were closer to 14,500.

British cruisers were somewhat below the limit which added thickened magazine crowns with no outward appearance of change (except cut-down quarterdecks, in most cases).

[Vlad]

Laurence, surely the fact that the Counties proved expensive and subsequent designs were made smaller proves that the RN didn't have the money to spend on bigger ships and believed their needs would be better served by smaller ones...

as for the Japanese, even though they were slightly over the limit, they were disproportionately more powerful than the Counties compared to how much heavier they were. And the Japanese still had to try very hard to squeeze every bit they could onto the hulls even though they were overweight. Mogami is the classic example, the "light" cruiser that ended up with hull damage whenever they fired.

[Werner]

If you read their own words, the Admiralty believed it did not have enough cruising ships to satisfy the political needs. Sufficient firepower could be achieved by concentration after scouting was complete.

[Laurence Batchelor]

No Vlad a report came out in the RN whereby for their global responsibilities they realised they needed something like 75 modern cruisers.

Only then did they look at the Counties already built and realise hey at that price there's no way were going to afford 70 odd of those, so they toyed with the cut down 8,000 Yorks, and then went down the Leander router and so forth. Only then did they look for cheaper and smaller crusier designs.
My point above was there was no cost cutting in the Counnties, they were very expensive when comapred to a WWI BB!

When Washington Cruiser Treaty was first inplace, most countries simply built straight upto the 10,000 limit as they knew most other countries would do the same. Also at the begining they had several 100,000tons limits to use up, well for the big powers anyhow and old cruisers to replace.

The penny pinching only really came into force during the 1930s in the RN.
Note: Hood was completed 1918-1920.
Rodney and Nelson were built in the 1920s
The Counties were from 1926onwards.
The financial restrictions in the 1930s of course limited in service battleships reconstruction or it was constantly defferred until the late 30s.

Finally quantify this statement please:

as for the Japanese, even though they were slightly over the limit, they were disproportionately more powerful than the Counties compared to how much heavier they were.

[Guest]

Finally quantify this statement please:

as for the Japanese, even though they were slightly over the limit, they were disproportionately more powerful than the Counties compared to how much heavier they were.

It does appear that, using County type construction practices, the British would not have been able to match the Takao gun for gun, knot for knot, and mm of armor for mm of armor even if they matched Takao in displacement.

Conversely, British sailors did have to stand over scuppers on decks in order to shower, nor would they have been able to get around without stooping in the low deck height accepted by the Japanese. Most importantly, British cruisers, although slower in a sprint, could probably maintain higher speed for longer in heavier seas.

[Guest]

Mogami is the classic example, the "light" cruiser that ended up with hull damage whenever they fired.

The Mogami of the infamous no-salvo-fire restriction was in fact not a 10,000 ton cruiser, but a 8,500 ton light cruiser. It was only later, when bulged and large reconstructed to 14,000 tons did she become a heavy cruiser. She may have been shaky in her first guise, rebuilt she was a very good heavy cruiser.

[Werner]

She may have been shaky in her first guise, rebuilt she was a very good heavy cruiser.

Very true, but a dishonest and extraordinarily expensive way to [re]construct a ship. I can forgive Akagi for being the world's most expensive ship of her era, but for Mogami there is no excuse that could possibly offered to the Diet for the costs to produce the 1941 heavy cruiser.

In the US Congress there would have been an investigation of the Navy padding the bill and yard payoffs to keep workers from being idle.

[Terry Pottle]

who is our well-versed and knowledgeable "Guest" ??

[Filipe Ramires]

Chuck I believe.

[chuck]

Chuck I believe.

Indeed.

I was hoping to give Jorit a leg up in his quest to overtake my total post count.

[Laurence Batchelor]

It does appear that, using County type construction practices, the British would not have been able to match the Takao gun for gun, knot for knot, and mm of armor for mm of armor even if they matched Takao in displacement.

Conversely, British sailors did have to stand over scuppers on decks in order to shower, nor would they have been able to get around without stooping in the low deck height accepted by the Japanese. Most importantly, British cruisers, although slower in a sprint, could probably maintain higher speed for longer in heavier seas.

I would say by going with actual performace in battle that a County by 1941 being such a stable gun platform would probably also be hitting at longer ranges than a Mogami.
Off-setting in part her 2-barrel advantage in gun armament.

If we go back for an out for out data comparison:
After 1935 Kent's had 4.5" belt which I believe is superior to Mogami's of 3.9"? Or was this increased at her rebuild?
Mogami though has a better deck armour of something like 1.4" over the British 1.25" over machinery and steering spaces.
She also has better protected magazines with around 5" armour compared to 2.5"- 4" for the British.
Finally could Mogami really do 35knts under battle conditions?
I would think this unlikely, though I'm open to opinions!

Bring em on I say!

[Werner]

Mogami would have even more trouble under situations of less than ideal weather. Make the battle in late February off Scotland.

[Guest]

It does appear that, using County type construction practices, the British would not have been able to match the Takao gun for gun, knot for knot, and mm of armor for mm of armor even if they matched Takao in displacement.

Conversely, British sailors did have to stand over scuppers on decks in order to shower, nor would they have been able to get around without stooping in the low deck height accepted by the Japanese. Most importantly, British cruisers, although slower in a sprint, could probably maintain higher speed for longer in heavier seas.

I would say by going with actual performace in battle that a County by 1941 being such a stable gun platform would probably also be hitting at longer ranges than a Mogami.
Off-setting in part her 2-barrel advantage in gun armament.

If we go back for an out for out data comparison:
After 1935 Kent's had 4.5" belt which I believe is superior to Mogami's of 3.9"? Or was this increased at her rebuild?
Mogami though has a better deck armour of something like 1.4" over the British 1.25" over machinery and steering spaces.
She also has better protected magazines with around 5" armour compared to 2.5"- 4" for the British.
Finally could Mogami really do 35knts under battle conditions?
I would think this unlikely, though I'm open to opinions!

Bring em on I say!

No, she couldn't make 35 knots at any time. After rebulging her top speed was something like 34 knots. The Japanese cruiser hull form were not very efficient as far as wave generation is concerned, and 30 knot bow wave is typically higher than the freeboard even in flat calm. Nevertheless it appears that Japanese routinely run their cruisers at very high speed even in severe weather. There are numerous photos pf various Japanese cruisers plowing throw very heavy seas at appearently very high speed judging from their massive wake and enormous bow spray.

Mogami's belt wasn't the thickest of IJN cruisers either. Takaos had thicker protection (4.5 inch belt), same armament, and achieved equal speed on a slightly larger hull using somewhat less horse power. When compared to the modified Counties, one needs to also account for the fact that Magomi's and Takao's belt are inclined. The Japanese ships disposed 2 more main caliber guns and substantially heavier dual purpose secondary guns. Japanese cruisers off course has torpedo armament capable of effectively engaging at gunnery range. Japanese engagement doctrine apparently dictate that torpedos are lunched before closing even if there is no good engagement opportunity to prevent torpedo warheads from being detonated by an shell hit. So if the negagement takes place in sea too heavy for torpedos to run true at long range, the Japanese would not have saved their torpedoes for closer in.


The flip side is Japanese for some reason didn't believe cruiser turrets deserved protection, and both had only splinter proof plating on their turrets.

[chuck]

BTW, the comment about County's stability as gun platform compared to Mogamis may suggest a misconception. A ship's stability as a gun platform is not the same as the ship's stability as sea boat. A stable gun platform requires that a ship has a long roll period. Preferrably the roll would also be shallow in amplitude, but more importantly it should be long and steady in duration and not short and clipped. This is a different type of stability than hydrodynamic stability, which refers to how much net righting moment the ship has when it lists, and which is adversely effected by excessive top weight and too narrow beam. A ship that has too much hydrodynamic stability in fact would be a highly unstable gun platform because its rolling motion would be shallow in amplitude, but short and clipped in duration. An hydrodynamically unstable ship would tend to have long and deep roll, which does not have nearly as serious a consequence as do sharp and clipped rolls.

So the net result is, in its most unstable configuration, Mogami might have been an unsafe ship to sail in, but by no means does that imply she was an unstable gun platform.

[Laurence Batchelor]

So that isn't a contributory weakness to why their long range shooting was poor in WW2?

Surely high freeboard helps to keep decks and thus turrets and barbettes dry?
It also stops sea spray getting at the sighting ports on the turrets.
In turn it also keeps it away from the directors mounted on superstructure.

Or am I forever the wishful thinker?

[Werner]

We overlook the obvious error that Mogami couldn't put a dent in a pat of butter much past 13Km. The Battle of the River Plate was underway for almost an hour with much damage to both sides before the range fell this low.

If I were to be in a gunnery engagement, I would prefer not to be aboard a Japanese ship. If it was before 1944, I would absolutely prefer to be on a British ship.

Except for the Harunas, no Japanese capital ship scored a surface hit after 1905. Period.

Several British warships were fit with US fire control systems, some out of necessity like Delhi, but others like Vanguard simply because it was the best by a full magnitude in the late 1940s.