Remove ads

Changing Destiny (Kancolle)

Reader mode
CV12Hornet said:
Honestly, my biggest problem with the Atlantas is that as built they couldn't decide whether they were destroyer leaders or carrier AA escorts, and so were compromised in both roles. As it turned out, they were less compromised as AA ships and so that's what the future flights ended up as.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Turns out, the whole concept of "destroyer leaders" gets a bit silly when you optimize your boat around destroyer-weight guns instead of the cruiser-grade guns the other light cruiser is bringing. Ironically, it's more fitting to the concept of the Fubuki: A long-range escorts for destroyers as part of a carrier group.
 
Always Late said:
Turns out, the whole concept of "destroyer leaders" gets a bit silly when you optimize your boat around destroyer-weight guns instead of the cruiser-grade guns the other light cruiser is bringing. Ironically, it's more fitting to the concept of the Fubuki: A long-range escorts for destroyers as part of a carrier group.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


And all this time, I thought the Atlanta-class were an American answer to the Royal Navy's Dido-class, with a bigger hull for more range (think Pacific deployments) as well as more and better DP guns. Experience had shown they could have done with fewer guns and more directors, like the Reno-class.
 
Jrandom said:
And all this time, I thought the Atlanta-class were an American answer to the Royal Navy's Dido-class, with a bigger hull for more range (think Pacific deployments) as well as more and better DP guns. Experience had shown they could have done with fewer guns and more directors, like the Reno-class.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Both the Atlanta and Dido classes were originally intended as destroyer flotilla leaders, before being retasked to air defense. The Atlantas proved rather a bit better at it than their RN counterparts due to the British 5.25" guns being primarily anti-surface weapons with AA capability tacked on.
 
Darth Herobrine said:
Both the Atlanta and Dido classes were originally intended as destroyer flotilla leaders, before being retasked to air defense. The Atlantas proved rather a bit better at it than their RN counterparts due to the British 5.25" guns being primarily anti-surface weapons with AA capability tacked on.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Didn't the British choose the smaller 4.5" guns as their premier DP gun?
 
What really hurt the Atlanta were the wing guns, supposed to be used to throw an neverending amount of starshells during night battles and to add additional firepower to daylight operations. In the practice they had poorish arcs of fire, they made the ship top heavy, and their position of the turrets at the side of the ship make turning something far more difficult that it should have for a ship of its displacement.
 
Jrandom said:
And all this time, I thought the Atlanta-class were an American answer to the Royal Navy's Dido-class, with a bigger hull for more range (think Pacific deployments) as well as more and better DP guns. Experience had shown they could have done with fewer guns and more directors, like the Reno-class.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Part of the logic for 'destroyer leader' is to pack enough firepower to out-gun any destroyer showed up, a logic as old and reliable as the Age Of Sail. Both the Dido and Atlanta did that, but everything comes with a trade-off. In those cases, it was not worth what they got out of those few extra turrets.
 
Darth Herobrine said:
They did. The Didos had the 5.25"s because the anti-air ability was very much a secondary concern when the class was designed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I remember HMS Scylla was called the "Toothless Terror", because she was completed with the 4.5 inch guns, looking like they were vastly undersized for her size. I know Victorious and her sisters also were equipped with 4.5 inch DP guns. The 5.25 inch shells were just slightly too heavy to be easily handled for AA work, as opposed to the 4.5 inch shells.
 
Always Late said:
Part of the logic for 'destroyer leader' is to pack enough firepower to out-gun any destroyer showed up, a logic as old and reliable as the Age Of Sail. Both the Dido and Atlanta did that, but everything comes with a trade-off. In those cases, it was not worth what they got out of those few extra turrets.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
At least, in the sense of destroyer leaders. The Atlantas were pretty effective anti-air, as it turns out. San Diego did win a lot of battle stars because of that.
 
Always Late said:
Part of the logic for 'destroyer leader' is to pack enough firepower to out-gun any destroyer showed up, a logic as old and reliable as the Age Of Sail. Both the Dido and Atlanta did that, but everything comes with a trade-off. In those cases, it was not worth what they got out of those few extra turrets.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As far as the Royal Navy was concerned, normally a destroyer leader was the name-ship of a class of destroyers, and destroyers of the same class were grouped together as a flotilla. The destroyer leader had additional room and accomodations for the Captain (D), normally the flotilla commander, and his staff. Some were more heavily armed than other members of their class, some weren't.
 
Last edited:
Darth Herobrine said:
Both the Atlanta and Dido classes were originally intended as destroyer flotilla leaders, before being retasked to air defense. The Atlantas proved rather a bit better at it than their RN counterparts due to the British 5.25" guns being primarily anti-surface weapons with AA capability tacked on.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Didos aren't destroyer leaders and were never intended to be. They're economy cruisers for fleet and trade defense tasks developed from the Arethusa class. The Brits built destroyer-size leaders.
 
CV12Hornet said:
The Didos aren't destroyer leaders and were never intended to be. They're economy cruisers for fleet and trade defense tasks developed from the Arethusa class. The Brits built destroyer-size leaders.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Royal Navy looked at the Arethusa class, with their 6 6-inch main battery and their 4 4-inch secondary battery, and figured they'd get a better useage if they split the difference in shell size and just built on the same hull. Thus, the Dido class originally got 10 5.25 inch guns as their main battery
 
And the Royal Navy's organizational needs called for a plethora of light cruisers to be the backbone of their global fleet. Which was part of the reasoning of the Second London Treaty, they were not amused by the USA putting out the Brooklyn class (a heavy cruiser hull with all the 6 inch light cruiser guns) and so had to ask for a hard total cruiser tonnage limit to force the Yanks to not build more Brooklyns.
 
MagisterAurelius said:
And the Royal Navy's organizational needs called for a plethora of light cruisers to be the backbone of their global fleet. Which was part of the reasoning of the Second London Treaty, they were not amused by the USA putting out the Brooklyn class (a heavy cruiser hull with all the 6 inch light cruiser guns) and so had to ask for a hard total cruiser tonnage limit to force the Yanks to not build more Brooklyns.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
is it wrong all I picture at the conference is the USN putting a model of Brooklyn on the table, calling it a light cruiser, and this being the rest of the worlds response:
 
Spectre said:
is it wrong all I picture at the conference is the USN putting a model of Brooklyn on the table, calling it a light cruiser, and this being the rest of the worlds response:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, there are also the Mogamis, with turrets that could be switched out, and the Deutschlands, which were totally not overweight. Basically, everyone looked at the treaties and went, "how do I exploit this?"
 
Hey the Mk 8 worked just fine, it was just old and needed replacement with something with more payload. The Mk 13 family was clearly a case of putting too many goodies in without thorough testing. Once the bugs finally got worked out it was fine. And then post war, only subs really needed anti-ship torps once everyone got bit by the missile bug.
 
WrandmWaffles said:
True, the OxyTorps were better torps. Though they also screwed over the Japanese fairly often. Chokai, a heavy cruiser, lost a gun fight with a light carrier (I think that only had a 5 in gun), because the OxyTorps went boom.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Regrettably for the tale, the wreck of Chokai shows a distinct lack of exploding oxygen torpedo damage. Also all her survivors were lost when the rescue destroyer was sunk, so crew reports on what really happened to her aren't happening.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top