Swap Sydney with Zara or New Orleans

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
Gary
Senior Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Northumberland

Re: Swap Sydney with Zara or New Orleans

Post by Gary » Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:55 pm

Yes, Belfast was probably a good 4000 tons heavier than any Leander
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Swap Sydney with Zara or New Orleans

Post by dunmunro » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:09 pm

Gary wrote:Yes, Belfast was probably a good 4000 tons heavier than any Leander
Manchester was about 500 tons lighter than Belfast, but both these classes were lighter than Zara and comparable to New Orleans, FWIW.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Swap Sydney with Zara or New Orleans

Post by dunmunro » Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:29 am

Nearchus wrote:
tnemelckram wrote:4. Other British Empire light cruisers - We have very detailed relevant information from the Sydney Report. I think that in all these important respects they were all the same and all would have fared the same as Sydney.

Apart, that is, from the LIVERPOOL, MANCHESTER, BELFAST and EDINBURGH with their better armour and redundancies in fire control and greater size.
Gloucester also had 4" turret face armour.

Nearchus
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Swap Sydney with Zara or New Orleans

Post by Nearchus » Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:24 am

dunmunro wrote:
Nearchus wrote:
tnemelckram wrote:4. Other British Empire light cruisers - We have very detailed relevant information from the Sydney Report. I think that in all these important respects they were all the same and all would have fared the same as Sydney.

Apart, that is, from the LIVERPOOL, MANCHESTER, BELFAST and EDINBURGH with their better armour and redundancies in fire control and greater size.
Gloucester also had 4" turret face armour.

GLOUCESTER had been lost in the Mediterranean prior to the SYDNEY?KORMORAN engagement.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Swap Sydney with Zara or New Orleans

Post by dunmunro » Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:58 am

Nearchus wrote:


GLOUCESTER had been lost in the Mediterranean prior to the SYDNEY?KORMORAN engagement.
True, but if we swap GLOUCESTER for Sydney, in Jan 1941, when Sydney returned to the IO, then she'd still be afloat.

User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: Swap Sydney with Zara or New Orleans

Post by hammy » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:11 pm

The British "Town" class introduced the triple 6inch turret instead of the previous twins (Appollos/Leanders/Arethusas) in beamier hulls , in response to bigger foreign cruiser designs outclassing our own .
At the same time the spotting aircraft stowage was increased and the planes far better protected from the weather in double box hangers below and aft of the bridge structure , which increased the size of that feature to impressive dimensions .

The stricter London Treaty restrictions then made a reduction in tonnage imperative and so the "Town" class was cut down to make the follow-on "Colony" class ( Kenya ,Gambia,Fiji and so on ) .

Then the Japanese Mogami class came on the scene with five triple 6inch turrets , ( to which the US response was the Brooklyns ) and Britain took the Town design , beefed it up in size and protection , and having intended to fit it with a quad 6inch mount on the four positions , failed to produce that , and so fitted four of the tried+trusted triples instead , so producing the two "ugly ducklings" Edinburgh and Belfast .

The old Twin 6inch cruiser design was dusted off and shrunk a bit for the 5.25 Dual purpose mount armed AA cruisers , the "Dido" class .
Shortages in supply of these mountings meant that several went into commission with only four mounts aboard instead of five , a pompom on C instead , and that was the layout for their succeeding "Black Prince class" .
Two got no 5.25 mountings at all , and were each fitted instead with four twin 4.5inch AA in open shields as used on Ark Royal , becoming the two "toothless terrors" "Scylla" and "Charybdis" .

In the Emergency conditions of 1940 , ships building that could not be completed soon were stopped , and so it was only in the latter stages of the war that three further modifications of the "colony" class were produced , Superb , Minotaur and Swiftsure .
M was sent straight to the Canadians as "Ontario" .
Of five more being built at the war's end , two were cancelled , while three more were mothballed during building to emerge in radically new Guises as Lion , Tiger and Blake , in the 1960s .
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Swap Sydney with Zara or New Orleans

Post by RF » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:20 am

Bgile wrote:
RF wrote:Another consideration here would be the Cornwall/Pinguin battle. If Kruder had had the guile of Detmers and lured the Cornwall in close before opening fire.....
Isn't it possible he tried, and the CO of Cornwall just wasn't buying that? And didn't the latter get criticized for wasting ammunition? Good grief.
This is a rather contentious point with some of the German writers on this subject, such as Brennecke. The implication is that Kruder dropped disguise and opened fire too early - either through impatience or impetuosity - instead of stringing out the signalling charade which both Detmers and Rogge managed to do for over an hour. The key point is that Pinguin opened fire at too great a range and thus didn't give the two torpedoes fired the greatest possible chance of finding their mark. If Cornwall was closing in, which it was, let it come closer.....
However I still think the outcome would be the same.

Incidently Detmers was given an account of that battle - an inaccurate one - by Leutnant Hemmer from the prize whaler Adjutant - who reported to Detmers that Cornwall had sunk Pinguin at long range with its 8 inch guns. The detail was wrong, but Detmers drew the right conclusion - get your enemy in close and choose the right moment to fire.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Swap Sydney with Zara or New Orleans

Post by RF » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:30 am

hammy wrote:The deck plan I have for Kormoran
( From "German Raiders of WW2" by Karl August Muggenthaler ISBN 0 330 26204 1 - Pan Books paperback edtn of 1980 )
shows the deck features and armament layout as follows ;
I have read this book - like David Woodwards' earlier book of 1955 it gives very detailed but unfortunately in places inaccurate detail, and on some of the later raiders, such as Michel, there are major errors and omissions, such as for example the Reynolds saga..
I have used the info in these two books on the basis of agreeing things that can be corroborated to other sources.

Detmers book was translated into English, and I think the 6cm quote is a misprint. Note that the translation into English was not verbatim from the German, as I have noticed a number of English slang references that I am sure would never be spoken in German.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Swap Sydney with Zara or New Orleans

Post by RF » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:43 am

Gary wrote:I really like HMS Belfast but was her hull as vulnerable just forward of A turret as Sydneys was?
From what I've heard, the torpedo that struck Sydney couldnt have hit in much of a worse place :(
This depends on the context - the hit took hours to sink the ship, and wihout the battle, if say it was a U-boat torpedo hit it presumably would have been sealed to prevent sinking. A hit midships would probably have sunk Sydney more quickly - as the ship apparently was not a full action stations we don't know whether the watertight doors had been shut. Had the torpedoes been aimed more slightly to starboard they could have both hit, listing the ship and exposing more of the port side vitals to German fire - sinking Sydney quickly, but allowing survivors to escape alive on the starboard side.

I think however you are absolutely right in your observation that the torpedo hit was in the worst possible place in respect of the prospect of there being any Sydney survivors. It prolonged the action and left Sydney as a floating shooting gallery target.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: Swap Sydney with Zara or New Orleans

Post by hammy » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:54 am

In comparing "Sydney" with "Belfast" you are really looking at two different types of ships .

The "Apollos" ("Sydney") were the jump to a much improved type of Light cruiser , following the completion of the WW1 programmes .

As the Light cruiser in British service is the Linear descendant of the sailing 36 Gun Frigates of Nelsons time , it is a question of how far back you go , but if we start about 1914 or so , we see the evolution of the "C" class , in five successively improved sub-classes , from "Caroline" (still afloat in Belfast as an Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve Drillship) and her sisters ,
through to "Coventry"/"Cairo"/"Carlisle" , etc , (which should be familiar to you as the (re-armed) WW2 AA cruisers .)

The last of the "C"s was followed by the "D" class ( stretched a bit to mount another , sixth , 6 inch gun ) .

In WW1 the British Admiralty got worried about rumours of some new ultra-fast German Light cruisers being developed , and so the "D" class was stretched yet again to fit more power in , producing the two ugly ducklings "Emerald" and "Enterprise" , where again extra guns were put on the extra length .

Meanwhile a seperate rumour was circulating about another German type that would have superior guns to the British opponents , and so the hull of the "E"s was made longer and plumper and higher (and drier ! ) and the seven 6 inch guns were replaced with the same number of 7.5 inch , to produce the five "Hawkins" class .

Having spent a considerable sum on these "Ghost-busters" ( for there were neither a German "Speed-King" nor a "Gun-King" cruiser class for them to fight ) , Come the Washington treaty , the British Admiralty insisted on retaining these new ships
( knowing full well that no Government money would be forthcoming for any smaller replacements ) , and so the "Washington cruiser" type came to be born , world wide , the limit of 8 inch Guns and 10,000 tons being specified to allow the retention of these existing types by Britain .

One was terminally pranged in 1922 in the West Indies ( Raleigh) , and another (Vindictive) completed as an (unsuccessful) early Aircraft carrier but was de-militarised in the mid 1930s following the London Treaty's new limitations , as were the other three .
Effingham was rearmed before WW2 with 6 inch guns ( taken out of the "Cairo"s ) instead of the 7.5s and a modern AA battery of 4 x twin 4 inch , pom-poms and 0.5 inch multiple mgs was fitted , but in the Norway campaign of 1940 she got herself spiked on a rock in a fijord ( The subsequent inquiry showed the navigator's pencilled course line ran exactly over the black dot of the submerged isolated rock on their chart so nobody noticed it -- you just cant believe it , can you ? )
which left just Frobisher and Hawkins ( reduced to disarmed cadet training ships before WW2 , before being re-armed as before , plus a few 20mm oerlikons and some multiple pom-poms for the new conflict ), in which they were used in traditional distant waters patrol tasks , until coming home for the D day landings .

The British Admiralty thought that foreign competitors would build few of the ( expensive to build and very expensive to run ) heavy cruisers as defined and limited by the Washington treaty , and certainly the smaller 6 inch armed types started by France ( "Primaguet") , Italy ( "Da Barbiano") , Japan ( "Kuma"/"Nagara") , and the US ( "Omaha" ) indicated that an equivalent type would do very well as a general purpose cruiser type for the world wide role of the British Navy .

There is the Genesis of the three "Apollos" ("Sydney"/"Perth"/"Hobart"), the modification of those which produced the five "Leanders" , and the cut down version (from four twin 6 inch to three mountings ) which formed the four ship "Arethusa" class .

"Belfast" on the other hand , although classed ( under Washington Treaty ) as a "light" cruiser ( because of her 6 inch guns ) was intended as a counter to the big Japanese "Mogami" class , and so in terms of Armour layout , Torpedo protection and general construction is really akin to the earlier , Washington heavy cruisers , being a melding together of the "County" type with the (1930s) "Town" design .

I've posted elsewhere previously some comment on the great naval cruiser debate that was current at that time , the late 1930s , the question of whether the 8 x 8 inch guns each firing four 260 pound shots per minute at a bit better effective range , was preferable to the 12 x 6 inch guns each firing six 100 pound shots per minute to a bit shorter effective range .

Japan eventually went the 8 inch route while Britain went down the 6 inch .
In Germany Admiral Raeder was considering a Hipper development armed with four triple 5.9s ( and on a 14000 ton displacement that should have been a formidable opponent ) at one stage .
The Soviets started with a heavy design ( three triple 7.1s ) in the six Kirovs , before opting for the 12 x 6 inch in four triples of the Chapayevs .
And the Yanks had all the money , so did both ! !
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."

User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: Swap Sydney with Zara or New Orleans

Post by hammy » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:12 am

In regard to books R F , there is a new one of those "Osprey" military series on German Hilfskreuzers of WW2 , but I think that series is a bit dear ( at £12 odd ) for a 70 page summary .
I skimmed it in our local Waterstones , but found quite a few of the photos were ones I'd seen or have in other books already , while the art centrefolds I thought a bit vague and lacking detail .
What I would like to see is some detailed specs of the conversion , and plans/drawings of the interiors of the modified ships .
Have a look yourself when you are next in the bookshop and see what you think .
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."

Nearchus
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Swap Sydney with Zara or New Orleans

Post by Nearchus » Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:24 am

hammy wrote:Belfast" on the other hand , although classed ( under Washington Treaty ) as a "light" cruiser ( because of her 6 inch guns ) was intended as a counter to the big Japanese "Mogami" class , and so in terms of Armour layout , Torpedo protection and general construction is really akin to the earlier , Washington heavy cruisers , being a melding together of the "County" type with the (1930s) "Town" design.
I'm not sure what is meant by "a melding of the County type with thr 1930s Town design". The EDINBURGH and BELFAST were simply stretched Towns designed to carry 4 quadruple 6" turrets in order to meet foreign competition from Japan and USA. In the event, the design of a satisfactory quadruple turret proved elusive and they were completed with 4 triples.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Swap Sydney with Zara or New Orleans

Post by dunmunro » Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:10 am

Nearchus wrote:
I'm not sure what is meant by "a melding of the County type with thr 1930s Town design". The EDINBURGH and BELFAST were simply stretched Towns designed to carry 4 quadruple 6" turrets in order to meet foreign competition from Japan and USA. In the event, the design of a satisfactory quadruple turret proved elusive and they were completed with 4 triples.
The Quad 6" never appeared, but by way of compensation the triple turret was improved for a higher RoF. Brooke, in Alarm Starboard, claims it could reach 12 RPM/gun, which coincidently is the max RoF allowed by the ammo hoists.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Swap Sydney with Zara or New Orleans

Post by RF » Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:01 pm

hammy wrote: In Germany Admiral Raeder was considering a Hipper development armed with four triple 5.9s ( and on a 14000 ton displacement that should have been a formidable opponent ) at one stage .
A Hipper with triple 5.9's instead of 8 inch? I'm not really convinced that it would be that formidable, its like Bismarck being armed with four triple 11 inch turrets - and then what would have happened at the DS battle?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Swap Sydney with Zara or New Orleans

Post by RF » Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:23 pm

hammy wrote: there is a new one of those "Osprey" military series on German Hilfskreuzers of WW2 , but I think that series is a bit dear ( at £12 odd ) for a 70 page summary .
I skimmed it in our local Waterstones , but found quite a few of the photos were ones I'd seen or have in other books already , while the art centrefolds I thought a bit vague and lacking detail .
What I would like to see is some detailed specs of the conversion , and plans/drawings of the interiors of the modified ships .
Have a look yourself when you are next in the bookshop and see what you think .
Real detail is very sketchy indeed . Ernst Theiemann was apparently landed with the job of converting the hilfskreuzer ships, as well as being the commander of the tenth raider, the Korenel, that failed to clear the English Channel in 1943. He was later made commander of Lutzow.

The hilfskreuzer of WW2 were ''designed'' to the 1915/1916 plans for SMS Wolf. In other words they were already a quarter century out of date. The whole programme was typical of the Third Reich - handpicked crews but obsolete ships with some having totally unreliable power plant, obsolete weapons (some guns over 40 years old) with no modern firecontrol etc. In reality the raider captains supervised their ships conversion, and for the most part they were pretty efficient. But their superiors were only really going through the motions, they never expected the HK's to be successful; the captains themselves were all plagued with shortages of materials, labour and the equipment they wanted, the raiders were real Heath Robinson contraptions.
Essentially the oppoortunity to develop and use a really potent weapon was wasted. Had the Z Plan involved the proper planning and design of light cruiser hulls for vessels with merchant ship outline topside, with concealed weapons both below and at deck level, using modern guns woth proper fire control and diesel erngine technology, they could have created raiders that would have wrought havoc in 1940. Such vessels would have been a major problem for the cruisers sent to hunt them down, and the Allies would have taken possibly substantial warship losses to them, as well as a much greater loss of merchant ships.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Post Reply