Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by Steve Crandell »

aurora wrote:Steve I was only referring to a "temporary arrangement" in 1942/43-to redeploy the CA's
who were (at that time) making a poor show at night fighting-I certainly never meant to
imply that they were removed from the OOB period-my apologies if that is how you picked that point up.
I don't dispute that USN CAs were not at their best during close range night fighting during the period in question. I'm only wondering where you learned of a temporary arrangement to redeploy them. I don't recall seeing that anywhere and was wondering where you learned it.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by Dave Saxton »

Steve Crandell wrote: In any case, I believe Dave is claiming ALL US cruisers had terrible gunnery, not just CAs. .
Indeed I am. It's not just my opinion, it is factual. Our cruiser shooting didn't improve very much late war either.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by aurora »

---And that I am certainly not disputing that-what I have attempted to do- is show why in the years 1942 into 43- that all cruiser gunnery was not up to scratch-thought it might be of interest. I clearly stated where I got the information from vis a vis heavy cruisers-do you know just how many were still "operational" at the end of 1942???
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by alecsandros »

Dave Saxton wrote:
Steve Crandell wrote: In any case, I believe Dave is claiming ALL US cruisers had terrible gunnery, not just CAs. .
Indeed I am. It's not just my opinion, it is factual. Our cruiser shooting didn't improve very much late war either.
"Poor" compared to what ?
AFAIK, British, Italian and Japanese cruiser shooting was just as "poor" , if judging the same circumstances. German (heavy) cruiser shooting was apparently good, but there are so few instances of german heavy cruiser battles compared to the other navies that I don't think it's fair to include them in the analysis.
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by aurora »

Alex-I do not agree about British cruiser shooting-I thought that the raiding cruisers of 1941 and 42 in the Mediterannean was very effective against convoys and their escorts=although I have to admit that steamers in convoy were sitting ducks but they shot well at both cruiser and destroyer escorts
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by alecsandros »

aurora wrote:Alex-I do not agree about British cruiser shooting-I thought that the raiding cruisers of 1941 and 42 in the Mediterannean was very effective against convoys and their escorts=although I have to admit that steamers in convoy were sitting ducks but they shot well at both cruiser and destroyer escorts
Well I wanted to say they were firing more or less the same as the American cruisers. If the USN cruisers are to be mentioned as having poor gunnery, so do the other major navies...
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by aurora »

alecsandros wrote:
aurora wrote:Alex-I do not agree about British cruiser shooting-I thought that the raiding cruisers of 1941 and 42 in the Mediterannean was very effective against convoys and their escorts=although I have to admit that steamers in convoy were sitting ducks but they shot well at both cruiser and destroyer escorts
Well I wanted to say they were firing more or less the same as the American cruisers. If the USN cruisers are to be mentioned as having poor gunnery, so do the other major navies...
So what about Exeter,Ajax and Achilles against AGS-this had to be long range gunnery battle; because AGS out;ranged the cruisers
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by alecsandros »

aurora wrote:
alecsandros wrote:
aurora wrote:Alex-I do not agree about British cruiser shooting-I thought that the raiding cruisers of 1941 and 42 in the Mediterannean was very effective against convoys and their escorts=although I have to admit that steamers in convoy were sitting ducks but they shot well at both cruiser and destroyer escorts
Well I wanted to say they were firing more or less the same as the American cruisers. If the USN cruisers are to be mentioned as having poor gunnery, so do the other major navies...
So what about Exeter,Ajax and Achilles against AGS-this had to be long range gunnery battle; because AGS out;ranged the cruisers
... Well, the average battle range was 14-15km (started at 20km and went down to 7-8km)... and the hit rates were not impressive to say the least...
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by aurora »

Yes Alex- I agree that was a poor example-as I have already said the raiding light cruisers in the Mediterannean were much better against Italian light cruisers and destroyers; but we are straying from the original thread subject.
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by aurora »

HEAVY CRUISERS SUNK

ASTORIA Off Savo I., Solomons 9 August 1942
CHICAGO 11 25 S, 160 56 E 30 January 1943
HOUSTON Off Java, N.E.I. 1 March 1942
INDIANAPOLIS NE of Leyte I., P.I. 29 July 1945
NORTHAMPTON Off Savo I., Solomons 30 November 1942
QUINCY Off Savo I., Solomons 9 August 1942
VINCENNES Off Savo I., Solomons 9 August 1942

LIGHT CRUISERS SUNK

ATLANTA Off Lunga Point, Guadalcanal 13 November 1942
HELENA Kula Gulf, Solomons 6 July 1943
JUNEAU 10 34 S, 161 04 E 13 November 1942

NB. Most of the sinkings were during the Guadalcanal Campaign-I do not have accurate figures for damaged cruisers
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by alecsandros »

aurora wrote:Yes Alex- I agree that was a poor example-as I have already said the raiding light cruisers in the Mediterannean were much better against Italian light cruisers and destroyers; but we are straying from the original thread subject.
..... I don't know of any Mediteranean British cruiser hits above 15km, but I do know of thousands of rounds of 6" and sometimes 8" shells expended for 0 hits...
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by aurora »

alecsandros wrote:
aurora wrote:Yes Alex- I agree that was a poor example-as I have already said the raiding light cruisers in the Mediterannean were much better against Italian light cruisers and destroyers; but we are straying from the original thread subject.
..... I don't know of any Mediteranean British cruiser hits above 15km, but I do know of thousands of rounds of 6" and sometimes 8" shells expended for 0 hits...
No Alex-having gone through my Mediterranean Naval Campaign books I too did not find any cruiser hits above 15km.

POSTSCRIPT
U.S. cruisers were not only the prime carrier escorts, but also the largest surface warships that fought frequently in surface engagements. The pre-war Heavy Cruisers formed the core of the U.S. forces that fought in the Guadalcanal campaign, and they took heavy losses during the war. It was soon found out however that Light Cruisers were the more effective means of destroying destroyers, and thus, U.S. forces relied on them for surface battles. They, as well, took serious losses.
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by Dave Saxton »

Admiral Graf Spee opened fire at 20,600 meters or 22,500 yards at 0617 hours. The Exeter replied at 0620 hours after completing a 180* turn and coming to course 275* T. The range had to be either 22km or 18km depending on if Exeter turned port or turned starboard to start its 180* turn. (The Germans recorded Exeter turned to its starboard and secondary sources assume it turned to port) Exeter straddled with its number 3 and 4 salvoes. Graf Spee was hit by two plunging fire hits during those two straddles. Pretty good long range cruiser caliber shooting indeed. That's 2 hits in 24 rounds fired. No US cruiser demonstrated such performance in combat, especially at such long range.


Then Exeter began to take more hits. By 0626 its firecontrol had been destroyed, its B turret knocked out, its bridge showered with splinters, it was on fire belching smoke, and it was careening out of control turning in a great circle. The "ship out of control" penants were hoisted but then cut down right away by more hits. Exeter continued to fire with four shot salvos, and then two shot savos after Turret A was knocked out, but couldn't hope to score more hits given the circumstances of its damages. This greatly skewes the statistics for Exeter.

The British light cruisers scored 16 6" hits on Admiral Graf Spee during the entire battle. Prior to 0640 hours the two cruisers were firing together using a common firecontrol solution (linked by radio) or firing 16 shot salvos, from a range of 18km dropping to 16km. Most of this shooting was using aircraft spotting. Langsdorf changed course to prevent the two light cruisers from crossing his T. At about 0634 the British light cruisers scored the crucial 6" hit to AGS's foretop knocking out the main firecontrol station and its radar. From that point in time Langsdorf sought disengagement and turned away and made smoke screens to mask it from the Ajax and Achilles (not from Exeter).

The range was greater than 16km as Graf Spee turned away, and the Ajax and Achilles gave chase still using aircraft spotting. However, the radio link was now knocked out and they could not fire salvos on a common firing solution. Moreover, the aircraft spotter mixed up the splashes from Ajax with those from Achilles causing one to fire consistently short and the other consistantly over for the next 30 minutes. This of course skewes the shooting statistics for Ajax and Achilles.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by aurora »

Many thanks Dave for "fleshing out" this epic engagement-which suggests,certainly to me-that the cruisers did not do so badly- as you have pointed out.I am truly glad that you have done so -to enable your statement to be read, by all those who wish to see. Bravo for a great job done!!!! :clap: :clap: :clap:
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by Dave Saxton »

From a previous post on page one:
The difference of the data allows for some variances. If I take the mean, which approximates the performance of HIPPER at Barent Sea (~2.5%), this is within the 2% to 3% range suggested for 1939 to 1942 (valid). The performance of 1.98% as of late 1944 at Suribao Strait comes from US cruisers at this engagement (one template). Roughly 26.26% worse hitting rate than HIPPER at Barent Sea and 60.6% worse than PE at DS 1941.
However, the Hipper's hit rate was between 8% and 11% at Barents Sea, not the 2.5% listed.

An extensive USN study of cruiser hit rates (both 6" and 8") from live fire shoots against towed targets at 16,000-20,000 yards (1941) predicted the USN cruiser to hit at a rate from 22%-33% at those ranges! A far cry indeed from 1% or less actually achieved. We should expect the USN combat shooting to be comparable to the German and British shooting, considering comparable technological advantages, but it was in reality many times worse.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
Post Reply