Re: Cruisers III




"Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.287836aa93db0f311508@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <iulfm8$i9g$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, - Ray O'Hara raymond-
ohara@xxxxxxxxxxx spouted !

<william.hamblen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:TdCdndguXqw_y5DTnZ2dnUVZ_tcAAAAA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2011-07-01, Gernot Hassenpflug <gernot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Richard Casady <richardcasady@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:16:57 -0700, Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You mean the standard dual purpose Mk 37 director used with the 5/38
guns ?
That standard director ?
Why mount DP guns if you don't plan to aim them? Wouldn't the simpler
and lighter LA mount allow a bigger bore, 5 1/2 in perhaps? Maybe not
as many, but isn't a bigger bore desirable against surface targets? I
always heard them called AA cruisers. Wonder why if they were only
for
surface targets.

From what I've read, and this is only secondary and lesser sources, is
that the problem was lack of HA directors, not complete lack of: only
2
were insufficient fo the CLAA to defend anything but herself with her
main AA. Thus she was not fit as an escort.

There wasn't room for more than two. None of the cruisers had more
than
two Mk 37 directors. That includes the Alaskas. A battleship could
have four Mk 37, but ton for ton you got more 5" AA from an Atlanta
than
you did from a battleship.

Bud

the BB had two directors for every 5 turrets. the Atlanta had two for 8
turrets. the BB could cover each qtr of the ship with a director. the
Atlanta couldn't.

Since the guns were mounted for and aft and the directors sited likewise
what do you think they should have done different ?


Directors amidships would have been nice.


.