Brooklin Class Cruiser and Japanesse slow loading topedoes

[DM]

If you want to know the reason that there are no examples of the Brooklyns, ask the British.

As well as despatching the last example of the Brooklyn class to the bottom of the South Atlantic, the RN's view of the usefulness of the 8" armed cruiser can also be seen in its building plan - 6" cruisers were definitely favoured over their bigger-gunned cousins (especially when available in triple turret form).

Another snippet to remember is ammunition stowage. A cruiser typically carried 150-200 rounds per gun. With a theoretical ROF of up to 10 rounds a minute (or even more for short periods) that would equate to fiting off the ship's full load of ammo in about 20 minutes which is (IIRC) about 5 VAS game turns (don't quote me on that - I've worked out the duration of the turn based on gun range and ship movement but its too early in the morning to remember the answer!)

 

[BuShips]

If you want to know the reason that there are no examples of the Brooklyns, ask the British.

As well as despatching the last example of the Brooklyn class to the bottom of the South Atlantic, the RN's view of the usefulness of the 8" armed cruiser can also be seen in its building plan - 6" cruisers were definitely favoured over their bigger-gunned cousins (especially when available in triple turret form).

Another snippet to remember is ammunition stowage. A cruiser typically carried 150-200 rounds per gun. With a theoretical ROF of up to 10 rounds a minute (or even more for short periods) that would equate to fiting off the ship's full load of ammo in about 20 minutes which is (IIRC) about 5 VAS game turns (don't quote me on that - I've worked out the duration of the turn based on gun range and ship movement but its too early in the morning to remember the answer!)

Doesn't bother me in the least, lol. It's fair to throw that at me the way I was quoting statistics, heh. Now, all I want to know is what is the average game length in turns for VaS? Um, five or less?:lol: I'm a very happy chap, too. I just found out about the 6" AP Mark 35 (135lbs.) round that the ship could toss. This brings it up to nearly 2.5 times as much throw-weight as an 8" cruiser. Yeehaw! :lol: . I'll have to research what the stowage for the class was, too :wink: . I've always known this about those ships, but I'm reaqauinting myself to the stats, lol.

 

[DM]

all I want to know is what is the average game length in turns for VaS? Um, five or less?

Another reason why I prefer games in campaign settings

GQ imposes ammunition limitations on ships - its quite generous and is more than enough for a "pick up" tabletop game (although we've done some monster games that have run for 20-30 turns), so you can shoot away like its Dodge City to your heart's content (especially at long range). In campaign games you suddenly have to think about your ammo expenditure, and that long range sniping suddenly disappears. Or if not, then at least it does after your first experience of it (remembering fondly a Guadalcanal based game where one of the enemy players happily shot off his entire ammo load plus all his torpedoes in the first night action for some gain, but not much and thus emasculated his force for the entire campaign - his grasp of logistics also failed to extend to protecing his supply chain, with disasterous results!)

 

[BuShips]

It looks as if the Brooklyn might have been the last of her class afloat. It was sold by Chile in 1991 for scrap. I'm still shedding a tear for the Washington, Enterprise and the old Oregon. If they ever scrap any of the Iowas, I might take a page out of the Greenpeace tactics book and handcuff myself to the ship, lol.

 

[Chernobyl]

I don't think the Iowas are in any danger any time soon. Of course, I'd much prefer to see them on active duty...

Chern

 

[Joe_Dracos]

If you want to know the reason that there are no examples of the Brooklyns, ask the British.

As well as despatching the last example of the Brooklyn class to the bottom of the South Atlantic, the RN's view of the usefulness of the 8" armed cruiser can also be seen in its building plan - 6" cruisers were definitely favoured over their bigger-gunned cousins (especially when available in triple turret form).

I went and looked this up. You can find it in Captain Roskill's the War at Sea Vol I. Its rather long (very long) so I'll Paraphrase as best I can.

The fact that Britian only had 16 8" cruisers was extremely distressful. Not to mention these few ships were old and mostly obsolete. To add to it, not much ship building had taken place in the prewar years. Also the British Governments dicission to stick to the Washington and London Naval treaties was absurd, especially since every other participant had abbandoned it.

This would mean that the production of 8" cruisers would be prohibated.

The Royal navys projections for needed cruisers to cover all of its convoys was 150 where as they only had 74. There answer was to build more, less capable ships once the Government had taken the leash off. 6" cruiser were lighter and Faster to manufacture then there 8" counterparts.

I may have overparaphrased, but hopefully I got my point across. The British abandoned the 8" cruiser out of necessity. The Americans did not cease building 8" cruisers, they actually built more during the war, such as Baltimore class ships.

 

[Hugbiel]

There's longs arguments in the rapid firing against AP gun debate.

Under the limitation of the washinton treaty the french navy create a 8" gun to build heavy cruiser.
I think that the philosophy of this answer to the fast 6" against 8" gun problem : 6" gun is used a lot by the army too, it's often a well knew and an efficient weapon. It's a good choice to made a cost effective ship. But it lack puch to dominate another ship. In a battle for supremacy a ship need power to treat, range and speed. So to fight cruiser a ship need the heaviest efficient gun ( more range mean being at optimum range faster and longer, heavier shell mean better AP when armor negate the effect of the r o f )

So it's more a problem of target. And I hope it will reflect in Vas ( didn't play it yet ) Brooklyn must be a hard time against lightly armored fast target and weaker against other armored cruiser.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

Well if I'm interpreting you last line correctly, it is good against destroyers, but when it starts to fight cruisers.......

 

[DM]

The British abandoned the 8" cruiser out of necessity.

The RN was also quiet disappointed with its heavy cruisers, especially once the effectiveness of the City class light cruisers was demonstrated. It is notable that, although the opportunity to build 8" armed cruisers arose several times in the 1930s and 1940s the decision was made to develop the 6" designs due to their overall improved capability.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

City class? I'm not familair with that class, but if its rated as a light cruiser, it had 6" guns. In either case a 6" cruiser is esier to build then an 8". There lack was felt though when the Duetschland and Hipper class ships were running through the atlantic and Indian oceans.

 

[DM]

City class = Sheffield etc. IIRC Sheffield caused significant damage to Hipper during the JW51B action.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

I believe you mean Town class. She was a light cruiser (6" guns) and all were launched in 37 during this time the RN had quite a few battleships and carriers on the slips for production. In fact the KGV's were down gunned to the 14" guns that we all know and love to get them off the slips (and avoid there cancelations) in time to make a difference.

 

[DM]

Actually the KGVs were alwayts intended to have 14" guns. They weren't "downgunned".

Towns, Cities, its just aquestion of scale (in my defence I've had a long, hard day talkning mine warfare for real - hard work at the best of times!!)

EDIT - its worth noting that all the "Town" class cruisers were named after cities

 

[Poi]

Wasn't the Towns class ex US Wickes and Clemson class destroyers transferred to the RN?

 

[Joe_Dracos]

Yes, By WWII the class was renamed Southampton class

 

[BuShips]

(in my defence I've had a long, hard day talkning mine warfare for real - hard work at the best of times!!)

The German edition of that is called "Mein Warfare" :lol: :roll: .

 

[Joe_Dracos]

We are a little off topic...

My little gaming circle conducted a few 1 on 1 tests of the Brooklyns viability against other cruisers. (2 battles were fought to make sure there were no "flukes")

It was an even fight between the Brooklyn and Pensacola, but the Atlanta thouroghly trounced the Brooklyn with its torpedos. Though if the Brooklyn had a few more hull points the Atlanta would be helpless after its torpedos were fired off. More to come.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

My little gaming circle conducted a few 1 on 1 tests of the Brooklyns viability against other cruisers.

You're missing the point of the Priority System (as are others...). Most ships were never designed to operate in isolation, they are designed, and given a Priority, to operate as part of a fleet. How they fare alone is frequently utterly irrelevant to their design and purpose.

Wulf

 

[Court Jester]

But it will still be just as underpowered in a fleet engagment as it is in a 1 on 1 game...

 

[Wulf Corbett]

But it will still be just as underpowered in a fleet engagment as it is in a 1 on 1 game...

But it will no longer be unsupported, nor will the others, meaning the fire priorities will change, as will vulnerabilities (since it becomes less of a priority, fewer shots will bne fired at it). If you choose a fleet on the strengths of each individual ship, rather than their place in the whole, you're just missing the point...

Wulf