3 replies to this topic

[Dave Franklin]

I was looking at the ships and SDSs for the Wake Island Sweep scenario. I notice in the Amendment 1.pdf, there is a page dedicated to the USN Wake Island forces.On the very first page of the Amendment 1.pdf, titled USN 1942 Surface, New Orleans class CAs are listed has having "Bridge" (vs. "CT").On the USN Wake Island page, they're listed as having "CT" (vs. "Bridge").Which one?

[Cpt M]

On the very first page of the Amendment 1.pdf, _title_d USN 1942 Surface, New Orleans class CAs are listed has having "Bridge" (vs. "CT").On the USN Wake Island page, they're listed as having "CT" (vs. "Bridge").Which one?

Actually, both are correct. Most of the pre-war US CAs were built with a armored conning tower which was quickly removed during the war to free up weight for various additions, such as increased AA fits. By the war's end, many of these ships were considered seriously overweight.In this case, the Wake Island page represents the New Orleans with her conning tower intact, the first page shows her post refit.

[Lonnie Gill]

Co_diver,Your question regarding CT vs. Bridge listings on the Amendment 1 Ship Logs raises an interesting point. Coastal is quite right that US cruisers all had their CT (armored conning towers) removed to accommodate the vast increase in topside weight for the numerous AA guns and sensors added as the war went on and room needed for the new CIC requirement. Like many issues, however, it gets more complex at the detail level with more data needed. All prewar cruisers were built with CTs, even the Omahas had a 1.2” CT. Big wow! The treaty “heavy” cruisers up through USS Portland and Indianapolis had 1.5” CTs (equivalent to CL armor in GQ III). Starting with the New Orleans class and Brooklyn class, these became significant structures, armored to 5” or more. Most of the US cruisers were top heavy to begin with and US authorities knew by the start of the war that adding AA and the new radar sensors would require changes to maintain stability. Simplifying bridge superstructures and removing CTs was quickly adopted as an early solution. Further, CTs were also soon out of favor with most USN officers as there was a realization that CTs were a hindrance in the new air age and not useful in the close range night melees that became common in the Pacific. CTs are appropriately shown on the Wake Island Ship Logs at the beginning of the war, and "Bridge" listed for most cruisers on the 43 – 44 Ship Logs as most had had them removed by then. The problem comes in identifying exactly when the CTs were removed for each ship. Generally, it would be during a major refit or extended damage repair; but, like AA and sensors, the details of each ship have to be researched. In re-looking at the ‘42 Surface and ‘43-44 Surface Ship Logs, some changes may be in order. Here is my current assessment, subject more data becoming available:• Helena was the first to have her bridge rebuilt as part of her Pearl Harbor repairs. Her captain played a major part in developing the new reduced bridge structure more useable in dealing with the air threat. It is likely, perhaps probable that her CT was removed as well. Thus she should probably be shown with “Bridge” on her Log.• Boise had her bridge rebuilt before going to the Solomons in the fall of ’42. Her CT was probably removed and she should also be shown with “Bridge” on her Log.• Honolulu, Phoenix and St Louis all spent most of their time at sea early in the war and didn’t get a major refit until late ’43 after being damaged. It seems they should stay with “CT”, as currently shown on the Ship Logs.• It’s not clear how early the pre-war heavy cruisers had their CTs removed. Accounts of San Francisco indicate she still had hers in Nov ’42. All had them removed when being refitted after damage in the Solomons in 1942. So, it would seem that they should have “CT” on the ’42 Ship Logs and “Bridge” on their ’43 – 44 Ship Logs.• The five Clevelands shown on the Ship Logs are the early “round bridge” type commissioned with CTs. Evidence suggests they didn’t get their CTs removed until refits in mid to late ’44. So, I have listed “CT” on their Ship Logs. Later Clevelands are likely to have had theirs removed before they saw operations.• The early Baltimores were built without CTs for CA 68 – 73 due to early war top weight concerns. [See, for example Friedman’s U. S. Cruisers, pg. 481.] Once they were commissioned, it was evident they had sufficient reserve and later Baltimores were built with CTs. So, Baltimore and Boston are shown with “Bridge” on their Ship Logs.I will plan to update the download Ship Logs to reflect this assessment once we’ve had a chance to get FAI properly launched. In the meantime, I hope anyone who has specific data on when these ships had CTs removed will advise the Forum so we can make the update as accurate as possible. Here’s a chance for us all to help each other.Finally, you can also take an alternative functional approach to this question. US captains and crews realized very early in the war that CTs were an obstacle in night melees. Captains and their staffs controlled their ships from open bridges and unarmored wheelhouses. Thus, you can treat all US cruisers as having unarmored “Bridge” vulnerability to critical hits in night actions to reflect historical practice. Those who would rather simulate each ship’s distinctive potential capacity should use the above assessment, instead.LONNIE

[Malcolm Wright]

Its also somewhat significant that neither captains nor admirals wanted to use the CT. View too restricted. And if they had to have a restricted view, then the ships CIC showed better detail of what was going on. My take on CT's is that they fell out of popularity and became redundant because they were so seldom being used.Therefore if the captains, admirals and staff are not 'in' them, from choice, a normal bridge hit will apply in the majority of cases. This makes the CT rather redundant anyway.