Ajax vs. Leipzig

[RF]

Would the triple turrets of Leipzig prove superior to Ajax?

[Tiornu]

The German guns were quite good, apparently very practical. The British shells are not as good at penetrating face-hardened armor, but neither of these ships has any face-hardened armor, or any armor of impressive thickness. The contest, based on design alone, would be very hard to gauge. Just off the top of my head, I'd guess Leipzig might have the advantage in calm seas, while Ajax would gain the edge in heavier seas.

[RF]

Tiornu, would the fact that the Germans have nine guns against Ajaxs' eight be a significant factor?

[Tiornu]

Because the triple mounts were efficient, I think there is an advantage. It's the primary factor nudging me in that direction. I do not see any significance in having fewer eggs per basket in the four-turret British layout. Losing one turret costs you only two guns, but you also have a greater chance of suffering a turret hit. Neither ship has turret protection against direct hits.

[Bgile]

Because the triple mounts were efficient, I think there is an advantage. It's the primary factor nudging me in that direction. I do not see any significance in having fewer eggs per basket in the four-turret British layout. Losing one turret costs you only two guns, but you also have a greater chance of suffering a turret hit. Neither ship has turret protection against direct hits.

Didn't the German guns use semifixed ammunition as opposed to the British use of manually loaded bag propellant? If so, the Germans had at least a theoretical rate of fire superiority similar to that of the US 6"/47, although in practice the US gun fired faster than the German 5.9".

[Tiornu]

Yes, the British gun used a single bag of powder, and RoF topped out around 8rpm while the German gun could hit 10rpm. Given the weights involved, I would not expect the light cruiser to have the same rough-weather gunnery problems that reduced the Scharnhorsts' output to a trickle in heavy seas. Still, I'd expect the British ship to be a better platform.

[RF]

Yes, the British gun used a single bag of powder, and RoF topped out around 8rpm while the German gun could hit 10rpm. Given the weights involved, I would not expect the light cruiser to have the same rough-weather gunnery problems that reduced the Scharnhorsts' output to a trickle in heavy seas. Still, I'd expect the British ship to be a better platform.

I did read somewhere (rather a long time ago, can't remember where) that the 15 cm gun could be fired as fast as every four seconds. However both Thor and Kormoran fired salvoes six seconds apart in their engagements with AMCs/Sydney respectively.

I have also read that the Narvik class destroyers had real problems with the firing rate of their 15 cm guns due to problems with shell handling.

To the best of my knowledge none of the German light cruisers ever engaged Allied ships. If anyone knows differently, let me know.

[Bgile]

The thing about the British guns were they were hand loaded, similar to field guns. The US 6" guns were loaded with power operated equipment, and I suspect the German guns were similar. With had loading you could maintain a high rate of fire for a short time, but the crew would quickly become exhausted.

[RF]

The thing about the British guns were they were hand loaded, similar to field guns. The US 6" guns were loaded with power operated equipment, and I suspect the German guns were similar. With had loading you could maintain a high rate of fire for a short time, but the crew would quickly become exhausted.

According to Hans-Dietrich Lau the Narviks' 15 cm guns were hand loaded (I assume this is correct as he served on one of the destroyers escorting Scharnhorst on her final mission, although he was not a member of the gun crew). Apparently this made the rate of fire very slow in rough seas such as in the Artic theatre.
I believe the hilfskreuzer 15 cm guns were also hand loaded, but in most cases these were WW1 weapons.

[RF]

I forgot to ask in my last post, were Leipzigs' 15 cm guns power loaded?

[RF]

Forum members might like to come back to this thread in looking at the new thread on K classe cruiser vs Leander.

[Gary]

Hi RF

I dont see any real difference between Ajax and Leander.

HMAS Sydney was actually better than Ajax/Leander as she was "modified" Leander (as were Perth and Hobart)

THe "Modified" Leanders had machinery and propulsion equipment organised in two self-contained units (separated fore and aft), allowing the ship to continue operating if one set was damaged. The two exhaust funnels, one for each machinery space, gave the modified ships a different profile from the early Leanders, which had a single funnel. To cover the separate machinery spaces, the side armour was extended from 84 to 141 feet (26 to 43 m)

[RF]

But still not invulnerable to sustained assualt by those 15 cm guns, as Kormoran demonstrated. And the K's have nine of them rather than the four in that case.