Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Semi OT - Naval Observations

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Semi OT - Naval Observations Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/17/2013 1:32:33 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
About two months ago I scored a 100+ kit collection of ship kits on Ebay for a killer deal. All except one were Japanese waterline 1/700 scale kits from Fujimi, Aoshima, Hasegawa, and Tamiya. I already had most of the carriers and battleships, so there were some duplicates. I've been doing a bit of research to fill in my knowledge blanks.

In my internet searches I came across a table that showed what the two navies have on Dec 6, 1941, what they built during the war, and what they had in August 1945. I have since lost track of the page (should have bookmarked it!), but I recreated it in a spreadsheet, or at least most of it. It really shows how dramatically the US out-built the Japanese.

At the start of the war the two navies were pretty much at parity in cruisers. The US had 18 CAs and 19 CLs, and the IJN had 18 CAs and 20 CLs. Because they fudged on the treaty limits, IJN CAs were heavier built than US CAs at war's start, which was an advantage in early surface conflict. Plus the US didn't really learn to respect IJN torpedo tactics until they had a few scraps.

In CLs the US had an advantage toe to toe with IJN CLs. IJN CLs were built for a different mission than US CLs and were much lighter. Most US CLs were essentially CAs with 6 inch or 5 inch armament. The smallest US CLs, the Atlantas were still bigger than the largest IJN CLs.

Of most ship types, the US more than doubled their pre-war strength. CVs went from 6 to 20, CVLs went from 0 to 8, CVEs went from 1 to 75. At war's end 7 more Essexes, 3 Midways, 2 CVLs, and 10 more CVEs were all finishing construction or were in pre-commission shake down cruises. BB strength wasn't doubled though 2 Iowas were not completed. While CL strength went from 19 to 48, the US only commissioned 11 CAs during the war. That is a bit of a mystery to me considering the CA losses in 1942.

I discussed this with a friend who knows more about naval stuff than I do, and he thought it was just due to a shift in doctrine, but the US had 10 CAs under construction or doing shake down cruises when the war ended. If the doctrine had changed, why complete 10 CAs so late?

Japanese war time construction was rather paltry by comparison. A lot of ships that qualified as war built were laid down before the war like the Yamatos. The IJN did a lot of conversions to carriers, 15 in all, but the only capital ship construction was the Taiho and the 6 Unryu class, of which 3 were never completed and I don't believe two ever left home waters. In DDs, CLs, and CAs, the IJN didn't even complete as many ships as the US did CLs. Only 18 DDs and 5 CLs with no CAs. One of the CLs was completed so late she never really saw service.

On VJ Day the IJN had fewer DDs than the US had CLs. And most surviving Japanese ships were in bad shape. The Nagato was used for the Bikini tests and the repair crews were only able to get 10 knots out of her on the way to the test site and the ship broke down part way there and had to be towed. The two surviving CAs were wrecks that were largely scrapped in place after the war. Only a few of the surviving IJN warships were mobile under their own power. A sad end to a navy that had once challenged the USN on equal terms.

From a modeler's perspective, I think the IJN is a more interesting subject. There is more variety among ships of even the same class. US ships, especially war built tended to be mass constructed and ended up being very similar in layout from one to another. Though US camo patterns are far more interesting and varied. The IJN mostly stuck to a fairly drab paint scheme.

Now I'm trying to understand why nobody has ever made a 1/700 scale Yura, Noshiro, or Sakawa. OK, the Sakawa didn't do much, but the Noshiro and Yura were in the thick of things until their loss. With this collection, I now have every CL, CA, BB, CV, CVL, and almost all CVEs from the IJN except those three CLs. I have a scattering of DDs now too, but I think only a wealthy masochist would want to acquire and build 182 DDs.

Oh and another tid bit. Both sides were looking for the perfect naval tactic in a surface fight for many years. The US realized naval gunnery was inaccurate during the Spanish American War and worked to improve it. The Japanese similarly realized naval gunnery could be better during the war with Russia in 1904. The Japanese built a doctrine around torpedoes and first rate optics in their rangefinders. They did make probably the best torpedoes of the era. However, this analysis shows the Long Lance did not really live up to its reputation. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm

Ultimately the "killer app" that trumped everything else was radar guided gunfire. When the US surface ships started using it, the IJN couldn't compete. Surgio Strait was sort of a "set up" battle in which the Japanese sailed into a very well laid trap, but the radar guided gunfire didn't even give the IJN a chance. Olendorf pounded the IJN from max range with the old BBs.

One wonders what would have happened if Halsey had read the tea leave correctly and had his fast BBs at the exit of the San Bernardino strait instead of chasing carriers to the north. It may have been a repeat of the Surgio Strait battle from the night before. Ultimately air power was the big trump card by 1944. Leyte Gulf was the last gasp of the dreadnaughts. It's telling that the US fast BBs only had two opportunities to do the job they were designed for and in one of those circumstances the BBs were out of position when the big battle came. Ultimately the Iowa class never fired their guns in anger against another ship.

Not really any point, just spitting out some thoughts bouncing around in my head lately.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Post #: 1
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/17/2013 2:26:12 AM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1673
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline
hi Bill, I enjoyed reading your thought-collection & wish you joy of your newly-acquired model kits!

my reply (in the spirit of random thoughts):

USN CAs: I don't know their keel dates, but perhaps the armor steel they needed was prioritized to BB/BC construction?

Long Lance: Nice to have, but dangerous to own. They were a truly fearsome weapon, but if an IJ ship took a hit on a loaded torpedo mount, or in the reload store, sympathetic detonation of the LL warheads & oxy flasks could cause massive damage.

IJN/USN ship/sailor quality: by all accounts, the IJN was an elite offensive-minded force w/ some beautiful ship-designs & an 8-days-a-week work ethic. but the avg. IJN CL was closer to a British 'destroyer-sqn leader', not anything that the USN would consider to be a 'true' CL. Meanwhile the USN kept churning out high-quality ships of their own, staffed w/ 90-day-wonder reservist officers & recently-trained newb ratings. Max Hastings' book 'Retribution' pays frequent tribute to these USN sailors.

Surigao Strait: I always get a smile here - 5 of the 6 oldBBs in Oldendorf's battle-line were refloated/repaired/upgraded veterans of the 12/7/41 attack on Pearl Harbor.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 2
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/17/2013 2:46:16 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Bill: Thought you would like to know that we (the whole family) are getting ready to start our third ship and we've decided on your CS Chitose kit. Thanks again for the chance to buy a few of the extras/duplicates!

Like your thinking above. That number of 18 Japanese DDs built during the war seems REALLY low.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to jmalter)
Post #: 3
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/17/2013 3:07:43 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
I may be off on my numbers. The USN numbers were easy to find. They were in the appendix in a book I have, but the IJN data was cobbled together from various sources. In any case, the IJN didn't manage to get many warships in the water after the war started.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 4
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/17/2013 3:19:15 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Dull's book puts Japanese construction during the war as:

2 BB
The CVs listed above
0 CA
6 CL
32 DD (defined as 1st Class DDs not the smaller ones)


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 5
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/17/2013 3:19:52 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Ittty bittty numbers compared to America's!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 6
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/17/2013 3:31:30 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Bill: Thought you would like to know that we (the whole family) are getting ready to start our third ship and we've decided on your CS Chitose kit. Thanks again for the chance to buy a few of the extras/duplicates!

Like your thinking above. That number of 18 Japanese DDs built during the war seems REALLY low.



Bill -

If you're selling any ships (IJN or otherwise) that were at the naval battles of Guadalcanal, I would definitely be interested. I may be interested in any others you would be selling, if any.


Also, thanks for that post. Lots of little tidbits I didn't know, and thanks for counting up the numbers and putting them in one place to compare. It's always been a bit of a mystery to me why the Japanese didn't build any ships during the war. IJA dominance over affairs (they wanted the war to begin with while the IJN didn't), or simply poor planning?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 7
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/17/2013 3:40:46 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Dull's book puts Japanese construction during the war as:

2 BB
The CVs listed above
0 CA
6 CL
32 DD (defined as 1st Class DDs not the smaller ones)



I wonder how they came up with 6 CLs? The only ones I know of are the 4 Aganos and the Oyodo. The 5th Agano was converted to a CVL, but never finished. It would have been a tiny CVL. The Aganos were bigger than the 5500 ton CLs, but they were still much smaller than the Clevelands the Independence class were built on.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 8
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/17/2013 6:39:55 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
Ultimately the Iowa class never fired their guns in anger against another ship.


Iowa sank training cruiser Katori during Operation Hailstone (carrier strike on Truk). New Jersey sank a trawler and helped to sink DD Maikaze in the same action.

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 4/17/2013 6:46:48 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 9
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/17/2013 6:51:20 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
Ultimately the Iowa class never fired their guns in anger against another ship.


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
Iowa sank training cruiser Katori during Operation Hailstone (carrier strike on Truk). New Jersey sank a trawler and helped to sink DD Maikaze in the same action.


Didn't know that. Not that it was much of a fight. sort of like using a sledge hammer to break eggs.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 10
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/17/2013 2:23:28 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
The other problem for Japan, which the book KAIGUN goes into detail, was that Japan often wasted what limited ship building resources she had, compounding an already bad situation.

Among other items, going from memory:

OYODO: Flawed concept
CS UNITS: Ditto; more useful in WITP than IRL
SUBS: Criminal; the IJN sub doctrine and mission list was a mish-mash that produced a different type for seemingly every mission, instead of settling on one type. The result was inefficient building program that expended alot of resources for minimal results
DDs: IJN DDs were excellent, but were contracted out to several different yards for political reasons, diluting any benefit from a standard type. Meanwhile, in the US, 2 yards cranked out most of the Fletchers, one after another, in assembly-line fashion, from modular designs
MINELAYING CRUISERS: Need I say more?

Not to menion the Yamatos, but they were at least uber-cool

I can go on, but in addition to being completely outproduced, Japan was often wasting what little resources she had

Can you name a single USN shipbuilding program that was as wasteful as these here? Maybe the Alaskas, but that's all I can think of, and they were very useful AA platforms anyway



< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 4/17/2013 2:25:08 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 11
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/17/2013 2:34:34 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Bill if you do have an extra BB kit, I am always on the look out for them.

You do make good points, where I always looked at the disparity between axis and allies, the number of planes built by the US. It is staggering.

< Message edited by oldman45 -- 4/17/2013 2:35:29 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 12
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/17/2013 3:50:29 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
I read somewhere that the US stopped building CA because their 6' CLs were ballistically equivalent with better rate of fire

I might be wrong, but the USN certainly did not miss CAs for finishing the war

_____________________________


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 13
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/17/2013 11:21:38 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The other problem for Japan, which the book KAIGUN goes into detail, was that Japan often wasted what limited ship building resources she had, compounding an already bad situation.

Among other items, going from memory:

OYODO: Flawed concept
CS UNITS: Ditto; more useful in WITP than IRL
SUBS: Criminal; the IJN sub doctrine and mission list was a mish-mash that produced a different type for seemingly every mission, instead of settling on one type. The result was inefficient building program that expended alot of resources for minimal results
DDs: IJN DDs were excellent, but were contracted out to several different yards for political reasons, diluting any benefit from a standard type. Meanwhile, in the US, 2 yards cranked out most of the Fletchers, one after another, in assembly-line fashion, from modular designs
MINELAYING CRUISERS: Need I say more?

Not to menion the Yamatos, but they were at least uber-cool

I can go on, but in addition to being completely outproduced, Japan was often wasting what little resources she had

Can you name a single USN shipbuilding program that was as wasteful as these here? Maybe the Alaskas, but that's all I can think of, and they were very useful AA platforms anyway




The concept of using CLs as Destroyer leaders was kind of wasteful too. The US solution was to build a class of larger DDs, though by the time the Fletchers came along all were bigger than the specifically built DD squadron leaders and the concept of a separate class was dropped.

US DDs never quite reached the tonnage of Japanese CLs, but the Gearings came close to the smaller Japanese CLs and they probably packed a better punch than the IJN CLs.

The Japanese also wasted a lot of resources converting surface ships into sips that could carry float planes. The Ise and Hyuga were rebuilt to handle a plane that never reached production.

Japanese production planning was pulled in too many different directions by too many different players. The US was generally more focused, though there were some oddities like the Ranger and the short ranged subs built in the 30.

I thought the US had a multitude of yards building Fletchers, but I may be misremembering what I read. I do recall reading that when the government spread out construction for political reasons, many of the new yards didn't have the staff to draw up their own plans, so all of the smaller yards used the same design house which resulted in a standard design built across many shipyards. The US was also innovative in modular ship design. That was a new concept in the 1940s.

The level of standardization among US aircraft was also revolutionary. I recall reading a passage of a British mechanic who was introduced to an American built plane for the first time. He was used to using files and other tools to make spare part fit. The American factory rep pointed out that none of that was necessary, the American spare parts were exactly the same size as the originals, which made replacing parts about three times faster.

I've also read about the difference between Rolls Royce and Packard built Merlins. The RR built Merlins were hand made and everything was hand fitted, so the engines ran very smooth. The Packard Merlins were mass produced and didn't fit as well, so they ran rougher. But Packard Merlins were easier to repair.

Back to ships, the rate at which the US could produce ships was staggering. Henry Kaiser got contracts to build merchant ships and CVEs in the Bay Area and later in Vancouver, WA. He cranked out the ships faster than the war planning board thought they could be built. The shipyard in Vancouver, WA was built from the ground up and was cranking out ships in an amazingly short amount of time.

The Vancouver shipyard is completely gone now. On the site are condos and some restaurants. Hard to believe that more deck capacity was built on that site than the entire IJN built in its entire history. CVEs 55-104 were built here.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 14
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/18/2013 12:30:02 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Kaigun argues that standardization was POSSIBLE for Japan but even that would only have added a small amount of increased production compared to what the US did. RA tries to take what Kaigun argues and APPLY it.

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 15
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/18/2013 3:09:36 AM   
capthook

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline
A very interesting post wdolson.

I only have two models under my belt: My father's ship, a little DE, and my father-in-law's plane, a PB4Y. I envy your collection.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 16
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/18/2013 10:58:10 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
Actually Fletchers were built in 11 diferent shipyards:
Fletchers

_____________________________


(in reply to capthook)
Post #: 17
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/18/2013 4:20:10 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
Unless you're the egg, then it was one H#*l of a fight!

< Message edited by dr.hal -- 4/18/2013 9:01:31 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 18
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/18/2013 4:21:59 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
The BCs. Alaska and Guam.

_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 19
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/18/2013 8:32:11 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
Ultimately the "killer app" that trumped everything else was radar guided gunfire. When the US surface ships started using it, the IJN couldn't compete. Surgio Strait was sort of a "set up" battle in which the Japanese sailed into a very well laid trap, but the radar guided gunfire didn't even give the IJN a chance. Olendorf pounded the IJN from max range with the old BBs.


I know the big guns of Oldendorf's TF got a lot of praise for avenging Pearl Harbor and all, but I don't believe this was the big killer in Surigao. True, the battlelines brutalized a damaged Yamashiro with their accurate naval gunnery. But the real killers were functioning American torpedoes deployed by well-trained destroyer crews.

Desron 56's (and 24) accounted for Fuso blowing up and sinking immediately, Yamashiro lurching out of line with torpedo damage and 2 (or 3?) Japanese DDs sunk. It was probably the greatest torpedo sortie since Savo.

In terms of outsized impact on the battle, there is no comparison. 6 BBs hammering an already crippled Yamashiro with varying success (3 of the BBs fared poorly with their older radar gun control) versus a handful of DDs getting out their long knives.

So, the killer app for the USN? Functional torpedoes! Guns schmuns!

_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 20
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/18/2013 8:59:53 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
SUBS: Criminal; the IJN sub doctrine and mission list was a mish-mash that produced a different type for seemingly every mission, instead of settling on one type. The result was inefficient building program that expended alot of resources for minimal results


But did Hitler suggest they make a fighter-bomber version?

_____________________________



(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 21
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/19/2013 5:01:46 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 218
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I discussed this with a friend who knows more about naval stuff than I do, and he thought it was just due to a shift in doctrine, but the US had 10 CAs under construction or doing shake down cruises when the war ended. If the doctrine had changed, why complete 10 CAs so late?

Bill


IMHO, the US slowed construction of the CAs based on the experience of the US Navy early in the war. The slow rate of fire from the 8" gun was a liability in the close ranged fights that made up the early fighting. Later in the war, the US had developed the semi-auto 8" gun that gave those guns a rate-of-fire equal to the 6" guns. With that as the case, the heavier punch of the 8" gun becomes an asset.

Also leading to the late-war, and post-war, interest in the CAs was the fact that their design wasn't as overloaded as the Cleveland-class allowing them to better bear the increased electronics loads.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 22
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/19/2013 5:38:36 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
A 'semi-auto 8" gun?' YIKES. Bet it was something to see...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 23
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/19/2013 5:50:25 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
8" 55 Cal Mk 16, it used semi-fixed ammo...

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 24
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/19/2013 6:07:34 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 218
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

A 'semi-auto 8" gun?' YIKES. Bet it was something to see...



10 rounds/min vs the 3-4 for the previous design.


For more information...
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk16.htm

The scary thought is that there were plans for a 6" version that would have had a rate-of-fire of 20-25 rounds/min. Imagine a US cruiser bringing 10 of those guns to a naval fight.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 25
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/19/2013 10:10:59 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Gun fire support would take on a whole new meaning.

_____________________________


(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 26
RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations - 4/19/2013 11:56:01 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
I recall reading that the older 8 inch guns used separate shell and powder bag like the larger caliber guns on BBs and the 6 inch used all in one shells like an artillery piece. A 6 inch gun is the same caliber as a 150mm artillery piece, though I expect naval shells are longer.

I believe it was the late Baltimores that introduced an all in one cartridge for the 8 inch.

That must have been the reason so few CAs were built during the war, but they were building a bunch at the end. The Baltimores did become the base on which a lot of new cruiser ideas were tested in the 1950s.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 27
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Semi OT - Naval Observations Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.859