Q&A: If within the coming decade rail gun technology would advance enough to become reliable and sustainable in combat, would their existence justify the creation of a battleship style vessel with rail gun turrets in place of conventional naval artillery? Would such a ship have a place in modern naval warfare? I would imagine an Iowa with the rail guns and the secondary battery replaced with VLS, CIWS, and Aegis. And ofc, thank you so much for putting out this content. The quality and professionalism in your work are superior to any similar channel I've found on RU-vid.
Gerardo Marthans I doubt they’d actually be that useful, given that naval doctrine is no longer about slugging matches but finding and killing the enemy first. At the end of the day, the carrier and DDG are better suited for that. What COULD happen is something closer to a monitor, a relatively cheap ship fitted with railguns to provide fire support, but even then I’m not sure whether it would be worth it.
The Atlanta class antiaircraft escorts really came into their own when the quad 1.1 guns and .50 machine guns were replaced with the more capable 40mm and 20mm guns in late 1942. The introduction of the proximity fused round, or "VT" round, for the 5" guns made the Atlanta class the most useful antiaircraft escort in any navy. What the Atlanta class wasn't was a light cruiser, even though they were classed as such initially. They were really very large destroyers, and the original group of ships with te 5" rear wing turrets were very unstable in rough weather as too much armament was attempted on an enlarged destroyer hull. Their lack of ability to fight in a antisurface role was tragically shown by the loss of the Atlanta and Juneau during the Guadalcanal Campaign. The Oakland subclass removed the wing 5" turrets and replaced them with additional 40mm mounts, which improved stability and added much needed close-in fire. The designers of the class back in 1936 could hardly have foreseen the massive growth in electronics, directors, and radars that, while they increased the effectiveness of the ships, also exacerbated their topweight and stability issues. This was mostly solved with the introduction of the Juneau class, but they commissioned just too late for service in WWII. In belated recognition of their true role, all the surviving Atlanta/Oakland/Juneau class ships were reclassified as CLAA, Anti Aircraft Surface Escorts. Most never saw action again after WWII with only the Juneau in commision during the Korean War. The time of the gun based escort ship had passed, and all the survivors were decommissioned from the reserve fleet in 1965 and scrapped during the following two years. The Falklands War of 1982 caused a renewed interest in guns for antiaircraft protection of the fleet.
@Charles Yuditsky Yes, the RN strapped a bunch of L1A1 LMGs to ship rails and pipe mounts during the war in an attempt to throw up some kind of fire since most RN ships had very little in the way of AA guns at the beginning. Even if some of the ships had the original Block 1 guns in 1982, they wouldn't have been very effective against the low flying Argentine attackers since the Phalanx was only optimized for sea skimming missiles at the time. The introduction of the Block 1A and particularly the Block 1B models have allowed the Phalanx to respond to everything from small fast boats, low flying aircraft not using radar, to supersonic missiles. The Dutch Goalkeeper system has many of the same abilities, and both are installed on RN ships today. Perhaps in recognition of the Falklands problems, even the most modern RN ships, like the Type 45 "destroyers", in reality the size and displacement of a light cruiser, go to sea with a pair of Oerlikon 30 mm guns, a pair of 7.62mm miniguns, and mounts for six of the ubiquitous 7.62mm GPMGs, in addition to a Block 1B Phalanx. If another shooting war develops, you can be sure RN sailors will be on deck throwing up all the lead they can, in addition to the Phalanx.
While the era of gun-based AA escort ships was relatively short lived, during that time they proved important, which you can’t say for, say, battleships. (Yes I know that a lot of battleships were used for AA escort duty. But if you’re going to use a battleship as a gigantic light cruiser you’re better off with two light cruisers)
@@bkjeong4302 I don't know that facts would agree with your premise. Two Cleveland class light cruisers combined had 24 5" barrels compared to 20 on an Iowa. That's a slight win for the Cleveland's but only about the same number of combined barrels could be unmasked for either combination when used for antiaircraft fire. The combined Clevelands don't even come close when it's light fire being counted. Two Cleveland's by the end of the war were carrying 56 40mm barrels while an Iowa had at least 80 and, in a few ships, 96. Conomed 20mm guns on the Cleveland's was between 20 and 30 barrels compared the 49 carried by an Iowa, rising to 62 when twin mounts were added. Combined crews for the pair of Clevelands was 2510 while it was around 2700 for a single Iowa. That relatively small difference was pretty much negated when you look at the extra manpower and shipping needed to replenish two smaller vessels at sea compared to one large one. One Iowa was able to concentrate a truly horrifying stream of fire toward aerial attackers. When escorting a carrier, and there are many stories about a single Iowa breaking up an attack by 20-30 Japanese planes on a carrier. I think it was Admiral Nimitz who said the only ship he wanted ot see next to his carriers was an Iowa.
Sar Jim The idea of building an entire battleship, 16” guns included, just to do something smaller units can do is strategically unsound, regardless of the tactical advantages of more 2” guns. Note that the Iowas only got forced into that role because surface slugging matches became a thing of the past. Yes, it’s easier to refuel one big ship, but that one big ship is also going to need a lot more fuel, supplies and manpower to operate... Also, WWII showed that medium-caliber AA and DP guns were more effective than small-caliber AA, especially when it came to kamikaze attack. An Iowa’s hefty small-caliber AA is thus not as big an advantage as you make it out to be. There are plenty of stories of fast battleships being more effective at AA than other ships, but given than South Dakota’s record at Santa Cruz turned out to be far less exemplary than the ship’s crew or pop-culture history made it out to be, I would regard these claims as suspect unless official documentation (preferably both sides) proves it.
@@bkjeong4302 I just showed you that two light cruisers are barely, if all, equal in antiaircraft firepower to one Iowa with just plain statistics, yet now you seem to have ignored that to go back to your narrative. What does the South Dakota's record at Santa Cruz in October, 1942, when she was still armed with primitive communications and fire control compared to 1945 ships, 1.1" guns, and before VT fuses, have to do with the performance of an Iowa in the antiaircraft role? South Dakota was still an effective escort for Enterprise, shot down at least seven attacking aircraft, and protected the Enterprise from the fate of the Hornet. An Iowa would have required less stores than two Clevelands per man and gun simply because of economies of scale. Rations alone would have required less because there's less wastage on one ship that two. It's one of the reasons cruise ships have become so gigantic. The Iowas were always built as fast carrier escorts, hence their high speeds. The assumption was their main role would be antiaircraft protection and shore bombardment with antisurface being secondary by late 1943. The 40mm gun was a very effective gun, shooting down about 35% of total planes downed in the Pacific. The 20mm gun was even more effective, shooting down about 39% of all planes and 42 of all suicide planes downed when the planes were in range. Rather than continuing to debate with a person who has his own notions about what happened, I'll quote something from a postwar Navy report about the effectiveness of antiaircraft guns and fire from a report you've clearly never read. "Thus, in suicide actions, battleships appear to have shot down twice as many planes as would have been expected on the basis of their opening ranges, the amount of ammunition they fired, and the average success attained by all ships under similar conditions." www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary-1045/index.html#V Read the report and others like it before you come back again.
My great grandfather was made captain of the destroyer Kearny mentioned at the beginning shortly after it was torpedoed off Iceland, thought it would be cool to let people know that
"...existence failure..." Love your turn of phrase from time to time, Drach. Good dry wit is always appreciated in this quarter. Thanks for the hard work, mate.
The Atlanta class was the right ship at the right time. The British Dido class was very similar and both classes were designed to be destroyer leaders first, but later proved useful in the AA role. There is a myth about these ships that has to be answered: many thought they were capable of 40 knots, but they were designed for 32 and most of them were capable of 33 knots. They just looked fast, even when they were anchored.
Right ship at right time indeed. 12 5 inch naval guns is an incredible amount of incredibly useful firepower. Would it lose to a 6” cruiser? Doesn’t matter, that’s not what the Pacific fleet needed.
@@zogzog1063US Navy cruisers were named for cities and towns back then, San Juan Puerto Rico in this case. Western naval tradition refers to ships in the feminine because like women they are expensive to keep in paint and powder though the Russians and others refer to warships in the masculine, 'he' vs 'she.'
@@americanmade6996 -Why would 'busy girl' be a bad thing? You've obviously never been married to a woman who loves to keep herself occupied. On the other hand, if I like a ship's hull lines (like those of my 'old girlfriend' DD-970 Caron) I might call her 'sexy.' Yes, my wife knows.
Joke. Busy girl--a "working girl" with lots of "dates". San Diego has a nice reputation. "Busy girl" better suited to ships named for towns of ill repute.
Thanks Drach for uploading a video about the ship I requested especilly after loosing my mom, keep up the videos man. Edit: It seems San Juan enjoyed being with her sister ship San Diego quite a lot.
Hello, My grandfather was chief navigating officer on USS RANGER CV-4. 1941-1946 I would really appreciate help getting knowledge about the vessel. I have spent the past few months researching the vessel and him. PLEASE I have watched almost all your videos. You do wonderful work!
Speaking of the Fore River Shipyard... last week I visited the museum ship USS SALEM which is berthed at the site of the shipyard - now a busy industrial area. SALEM is the only (in US) museum 1) heavy cruiser (B-MORE class), 2) cruiser in WW2 configuration. (the USS LITTLE ROCK is the only other cruiser museum ship, and its a TALOS missile modified CLEVELAND. As far as I know, the HMS BELFAST is the only other cruiser museum ship in the world, everything else is BB's or DD's!
Very much a destroyer leader for brown water. The Atlanta and its variants are all small run experimental classes. The equivalent British Arethusa and Dido are small blue water cruisers and 20 were built showing they were much more significant.
How about a review of WW-II service of USS Shasta AE-6 and/or USS Aldebaran AF-10; don’t see much on service ships and auxiliaries. Enjoy the reviews you have provided. Thanks.
G'day Drach so you have covered the Atlanta class CLAA now... So what about other nations contemporaries example the Dido Class of the Royal Navy? Also what about a special video about Hospital Ships of all nations lost during both world wars? example AHS Centaur lost off Brisbane to a IJN submarine, crew rescued by a US destroyer (think it was a Clemson class).
@@scottgiles7546 Dido class a set of sixteen (including sub class) 7000ton CLAA armed with ten 5.25" guns in five dual HA mounts two sets of pom poms and several Oerlikons and two triple set of 533mm torpedoes with a speed of 30 odd knts, most used 4.7" guns due to shortages in 5.25" guns. five were lost during WWII.
It's ki da exceptional, considering it is usually naval vessels in this video, but why not? She's a ship with history, and one which should be told in detail.
Kind of surprised to not see USS Washington (BB-56) not on the list of episodes to come. Perhaps I missed it on the channel. If not, I'd like to see an episode on the Washington.
You ought to consider doing a video of USS Birmingham CL 62, that suffered the greatest number of killed and wounded of any Cleveland Class light cruiser, out of a class of over 20 ships.
I believe it quite funny, that if people knew now what they didn’t back then (about history), that more ships may have been saved from the scrapers. I am not saying that this one would be one of those, but the history, blood, spirit and essence that all the scraped ships denotes is sad.
Drach, I dunno where you found those rough watercolor illustrations but they are superb. Would you let me know? Fortunate that the San Juan missed the battle of Savo Island, no? Would you do a video of the Scott/McCallaghan (?) leadership debacle? After S. I. I would think that the US Navy was among the most inept in the World. Still, it all came down to the commanders, so what do you think. Was it not almost impossible to miss springing the trap? Still, a way was found.
Fkn love your work. Your video quality is comparable to Mark Felton's page. Excellent coverage. Etc. Keep truckn. You are on my top 3 of pages among a large list i would join patreon for. If i had the money. Regardless thank you for your service. Lest we forget.
Does the map at 5:48 show Tulagi and Florida Island to be situated west of Savo? No wonder the USN couldn't hit the side of a barn unless it was named USS Atlanta. ..
I know the list is very long at this point but, i would like to add the Brooklyn class light cruiser USS Boise and the New Mexico Class Battleship USS Idaho .
I think it's a real shame none of the Atlanta-class were preserved. They're just so impressive, and what other warship could fire ten guns straight ahead?
The Langley was originally a coal transport that was converted to be the 1st US carrier. By WWII she was obsolete and had been converted to be a seaplane tender.
@@hardcasekara6409 I knew it was a city, but I still believe it translates to Saintt John. The USS Corpus Christi has the same dubious distinction. I believe corpus Christi stands for body of Christ yet it is the name of a city in Texas
It is hard to believe that a five inch shell exploded IN a barrel. The propelling charge CAN ignite from a hot barrel, but this is usually in automatic weapons on sustained fire. The barrel would have been near glowing hot for that to happen. What more likely happened was a failure in the compressed air system that was used to clear the barrel after a shot. Whatever, it was hardly over enthusiasm that caused a premature detonation.
