Navy Proposing High-Tech Destroyer

[SparrowHawk62]

Navy Proposing High-Tech Destroyer
Associated Press | August 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - The Navy, seeking a greater role as the United States wages wars far inland, is pushing an expensive, experimental destroyer it says will be able to bomb targets well away from shore.

The Navy is trying to improve its ability to conduct fire support - using heavy guns to assist Marines or soldiers ashore, much like land-based artillery does. The frequency of such naval fire support missions have declined during conflicts of the last half-century, and the Navy has turned to expensive cruise missiles instead of guns to hit targets farther inland.

The proposed destroyer, called the DD(X), would fill a gap opened with the removal from service of the last battleships more than a decade ago, Navy officials contend. But the DD(X) has its critics, who say the Navy is betting on technologies that aren't fully developed and argue the ship is too expensive.

The first DD(X) is projected to cost $3.3 billion, but sister ships would be cheaper, the Navy says. Since 2004, however, the Navy's estimated costs per ship have gone up almost 50 percent for ships built after the first of their class, the Congressional Research Service says.

One proposal before Congress would cap the price per ship at $1.7 billion, forcing the Navy to redesign the DD(X) to something smaller and probably less capable.

The Navy also has reduced the number it wants to buy, from between 16 to 24 down to between eight and 12, prompting fears that the military won't give shipyards enough work and force one to close, the congressional researchers reported recently.

One group wants to see the World War II-era battleships USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin make a comeback, arguing their ability to bombard targets inland with their massive 16-inch guns is unmatched in the fleet. The vessels are inactive but could be returned to service with sufficient investment.

But Navy officials say they don't want the battleships returned to active duty, and there are proposals in Congress to turn them into museums.

Current cruisers and destroyers mount only 5-inch guns with a range of about 15 miles. The guns of the Iowa and Wisconsin can hit targets 30 miles distant with unguided shells carrying 1,900 pounds of high explosives.

The Navy says the guns of the DD(X) will far exceed the capabilities of those on the battleships and the current fleet.

The ship would carry two 155-millimeter guns that fire rocket-propelled rounds. Current test versions of the gun have hit targets 68 miles away. The Navy hopes to reach 96 miles. Navy officials also talk about an electromagnetic rail gun, possibly available by 2020, that can hit targets 350 miles away.

Where the battleships fire unguided shells and destroy targets though massed firepower, rounds from the guns of the DD(X) will be guided by satellite positioning data, like many modern aircraft bombs and missiles, and be far more precise.

The first DD(X) isn't expected to join the fleet until 2013 or so, presuming it continues to receive funding. The Navy also is working on a rocket-propelled shell for its current warships, but that is unlikely to be ready until 2010.

The Navy makes other big promises regarding the DD(X): It will be stealthy and as difficult to detect as an attack submarine; it will have a radar able to pick out targets from along crowded coastlines; it will be heavily automated and need only a small crew.

The ship will also carry at least one helicopter, unpiloted drones, small guns to fight off attacks by small boats, and surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles.

Many of those who are pushing the return of the battleships as an alternative to DD(X) are members of the United States Naval Fire Support Association, a group of retired military and security officials, who say the absence of battleships exposes ground troops to significant risks.

"The highly effective and versatile battleships are an incredible bargain and should be readied for rapid reactivation, instead of being turned into museums," William L. Stearman, a Navy veteran and the group's executive director, wrote in an e-mail. "Our constantly dwindling fleet could use their massive infusion of firepower and their commanding presence, so effective as an awesome, massive visible show of force where we want to get people's attention and respect."

But Rear Adm. Mark J. Edwards, the Navy's surface warfare chief, says the Navy doesn't want the battleships back for several reasons, most notably the 1,300 to 1,500 crew who are required to operate each one. Plans for the DD(X) call for a crew of 150 or fewer, making the ship far less expensive to operate.

Navy officials also prefer the precision and range of the new destroyer's guns over the raw destructive power of the battleship's.

[locksly]

Why not put these two guns on some of the new Destroyers we are building , they would give the ships the fire power of 8 in guns and that is a lot of power. These 8 in guns were tried on two destroyes in the early 1980s and are at the ABordeen proving grounds testing facility waiting for a ship to call home.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk71.htm

Boats locksly heard of 8 inchers on crusiers, never heard of them on destroyers. Maybe my Naval History is off. Would a Destroyer much smaller then a cruiser be able to handle a 8 incher. I wasn't a gunners mate, I was a master at arms, so I wouldn't know.

[Boats]

100 Years of Destroyer Excellence
FROM TORPEDO DESTROYERS TO AEGIS
By Lieutenant Junior Grade Ron Flanders, Surface Force Pacific, Public Affairs
You don?t see too many destroyers in recruiting commercials or billboards. They are not as sexy as the bigger, more powerful capital ships in naval history. Aircraft carriers, battleships, even cruisers have received more acclaim and public admiration than the destroyer. But 100 years after the birth of the first destroyer, the men and women who?ve manned everything from torpedo boat destroyers, to "tin cans," to today?s Aegis guided-missile destroyers have earned their place in the glorious history of the United States Navy.

On destroyers, Annapolis graduates have fought bravely in every war since World War I. Originally created to combat speedy "torpedo boats," the first destroyers were barely larger than PT boats. Today, as we fight global terrorism in Operation Enduring Freedom, destroyers are powerful warships with crews of 300-plus that can fight the entire warfare spectrum (surface, undersea, anti-air), and have enough sophisticated weaponry to act as a stand-alone weapon away from the battle group. The Destroyer Centennial of 2002 is something we should all celebrate, because some of our Navy?s greatest heroes made their mark on these "Greyhounds of the Sea."

The First Destroyer?The Torpedo Boat Destroyer

While the U.S. Navy?s dominance over the Spanish Fleet in the Philippines and Cuba marked America?s emergence as a world power, America and Congress had no idea before the Spanish-American War that our Navy would win so easily. In fact, Spanish Admiral Pascual Cervera?s speedy torpedo boats in the Canary Islands were perceived by Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt as a "real menace to us." The fear was that these ships, which had proved successful in the late 19th century at rushing in, taking out ironclad warships, then leaving, could take out American ships trying to stop Spanish cruisers from bombarding the American coast. Congress quickly authorized the construction of a new class of ship?the torpedo boat destroyer. After wiping out Cervera and the Spanish fleet in Santiago

Harbor in July of 1898, the Navy moved ahead with construction of 16 of the new vessels.

With a couple of exceptions, all destroyers, including those in service today, are named after U.S. Navy heroes. What is widely perceived to be the first destroyer was Bainbridge (DD-1), named after Commodore William Bainbridge, who, as CO of Constitution, captured Java in the War of 1812. But in fact, because of differing delivery schedules, the first destroyer to be placed in service was Decatur (DD-5), named after Stephen Decatur. Decatur was commissioned in May of 1902. Both Bainbridge and Decatur were tiny by today?s standards, displacing on average just 420 tons, with a length of 250 feet and a draft shorter than the NBA?s Michael Jordan (6?6"). These speedy ships could make up to, and sometimes over 30 knots, and were primarily stationed in overseas flotillas in a "show the flag" role. However, because they were so light, sustained operations in high seas were difficult. Congress continued to authorize the construction of bigger and better destroyers in the years leading up to World War I.

Destroyers in World War I

By 1917, the destroyer was fast becoming a major component of the fleet. Approving President Woodrow Wilson?s desire to build a Navy equal to any in the world, Congress authorized the building of 50 new destroyers in 1916. By this time, a new enemy weapon was threatening to wreak havoc on allied fleets?the German U-boat. When the U.S. entered World War I in 1917, the Navy dispatched Destroyer Squadron 8 to the coasts of Ireland to assist the Royal Navy in battling the deadly undersea menace. Figuring that after negotiating torrential North Atlantic storms and high seas, the American ships would need some time to train and regroup, Vice Admiral Sir Lewis Bayly asked the American commodore when his six destroyers would be ready to go back to sea. Commodore Joseph K. Taussig 1899 immediately responded, "We are ready now, sir." Midshipmen still learn that famous phrase at the Academy today. Taussig would earn the Distinguished Service Medal as Destroyer Squadron 8 served well and accomplished every mission.

World War I destroyers used oil as fuel instead of coal; it allowed them to refuel at sea. They also sported recently-developed depth charges and hydrophones to help them seek and destroy the U-boats. But there was only one confirmed U-boat kill; Fanning (DD-37) and Nicholson (DD-52) nailed U-58 with depth-charges on 17 November 1917. Though American destroyers didn?t record any other U-boat kills, they were successful in deterring U-boat attacks enough to help the allies win the war. America?s convoy escorts cut down allied shipping losses by two thirds, and not one American soldier was lost to the Germans en route to the battlefield in France.

Destroyers in World War II

With America in the throes of the Great Depression, and the American Navy far below the post-World War I treaty authorized levels for warships, President Franklin D. Roosevelt figured one way to get Americans back to work was to employ them building ships. Between 1935 and 1939, America built 49 new destroyers. The technology on these new DD?s was impressive; new weapons systems and a costly propulsion system earned them the moniker "Goldplaters."

The first Goldplaters were the Porter-class destroyers. These eight destroyers were the first small surface combatants to pack a real punch for surface action. They had a main battery of eight, five-inch, 38 caliber guns, and could fire those rounds at surface targets or enemy aircraft. The new technologies of radar and sonar helped them detect and target the enemy, and the new engines enabled them to approach 40 knots. Subsequent classes of destroyers added even more new features, and destroyers were even tailored to individual missions. There were destroyer leaders (DL?s), which had more firepower, and destroyer escorts (DE?s) which were quicker, with greater anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability.

The reason for the construction of so many destroyers, of course, was that destroyers were much cheaper to build than battle cruisers, battleships, and aircraft carriers. While their speed and maneuverability were an asset, the destroyers were very expendable. Because the supply convoys were so critical, and Axis submarines were effective, America sustained losses in the hundreds of men and thousands of tons of grey steel. For this reason, commanders would prefer to lose a destroyer before an aircraft carrier, battleship, heavy cruiser, light cruiser, oiler, cargo ship, or troop transport. The destroyer captain was charged with protecting, even at the risk of his own ship and crew, these valuable ships before his own.

Because of the lack of heavy armor plating that the bigger ships had, destroyer sailors called their ships "Tin Cans." Constantly in harms way, Tin Can sailors fought some of the bloodiest, spectacular battles in the war, battling German U-boats and Japanese kamikaze bombers.

In the Atlantic, destroyers were a vital part of the success of Operation Overlord on D-Day; Tin Cans shelled German gun emplacements at Utah Beach, and were commended by G.I.?s for their accuracy with the 5-inch guns. At Omaha Beach, Destroyer Squadron 18 (Baldwin (DD 624), Carmick (DD-493), Doyle (DD-494), Emmons (DD-457), Frankford (DD-497), McCook (DD-496), and Thompson (DD-627)) stared down the German guns, coming in so close to the beach to protect American soldiers that their hulls actually rested on the bottom as their guns took out the enemy emplacements!

Against the Japanese, the gallant leadership of one fearless Tin Can sailor helped turn the tide in the Pacific. Today, think of destroyers and one name should pop into your mind: Arleigh Burke ?23. A visionary, a warrior, an American hero, Arleigh A. Burke was admitted to the U.S. Naval Academy despite not having completed his high school education. He finished sixth in his graduating class in 1923. When the war in the Pacific heated up during the critical island campaigns of 1943, Captain Burke was the Commander of Destroyer Squadron 23, the "Little Beavers." His leadership, intelligence, and sheer guts spurred the U.S. Navy to key victories in the South Pacific, and his valor saved countless American lives.

In the Pacific in 1943, the Japanese Navy ruled the night, conducting attacks under the cover of darkness with great efficiency. The U.S. Navy simply didn?t fight as well in the dark, and Captain Burke worked to fix this glaring problem. Captain Burke trained the Little Beavers to operate at night, traveling and engaging the enemy, and returning to refuel during the day. Because his ships always steamed at high speeds, he earned the moniker "31-Knot Burke." Fleet Admiral "Bull" Halsey 1904 routinely addressed Captain Burke as 31-Knot Burke in messages and correspondence. On the night of 1 November 1943 Captain Burke and his ships sped in the direction of a Japanese task force off the island of Bougainville. On the radio with American troop transports (whose lights were out), Burke ordered, "Stand aside! Stand aside! I?m coming through at 31 knots." Burke?s Little Beavers engaged the enemy and wiped them out, sinking a cruiser and four destroyers, while severely damaging four other ships. Later that month, Burke and his squadron met up with more Japanese ships off Cape St. George, New Ireland. Burke?s men sank three more Japanese ships and critically damaged a fourth. DesRon 23 did not take one single hit in the battle. Today, the Naval War College classifies it as "an almost perfect surface action." The Little Beavers record under Captain Burke was impressive to say the least. Sustaining minimum casualties, the Little Beavers sank one cruiser, nine destroyers, one submarine, and nine smaller ships, as well as downing approximately 30 aircraft from November 1943 to February 1944.

After leaving DesRon 23, Captain Burke went on to staff duty as the Chief of Staff for Commander, First Carrier Task Force. When the flagship was hit by kamikaze bombers, Commodore Burke showed his mettle once again, racing into a burning compartment to save sailors trapped in by flames and smoke. Commodore Burke received the Silver Star for his bravery. Later in his career, Admiral Burke served three tours as CNO?retiring, even though President Kennedy offered him a fourth. When the Navy rolled out its newest class of destroyer?with technology that made it the deadliest small surface combatant ever to sail the seas?it was only fitting the first Aegis guided missile destroyer bore the name Arleigh Burke (DDG-51). In 1991, Admiral Burke made history as the first living namesake to attend the commissioning of his own ship. Addressing the crew, 31-Knot Burke challenged the Navy?s newest destroyer sailors just as he had his Little Beavers nearly 50 years before. "This ship is built to fight," Burke said. "You?d better know how."

America?s victory in the Pacific was a great one, but it was not without a high cost. Numerous destroyers were sunk by the Japanese, many more sustained high casualties from kamikaze attacks. Still, Tin Cans were an integral part of the U.S. Navy?s push in the South Pacific, and so it was only fitting that while the document was signed on the decks of a battleship, 39 U.S. destroyers were present in Tokyo Bay, 2 September 1945 for the Japanese surrender.

Destroyers in Korea, Vietnam, and The Cold War

Destroyers that served so admirably in the war proved their mettle and dependability, so much so, in fact, that the navies of many of our allies purchased them after their decommissioning, and are still in use today?more than five decades after their keels were laid! Yet America no longer needed such a large number of destroyers, or so we thought. After the world set down their guns, America scrapped and mothballed much of its destroyer fleet?only to recall many of them after 25 June 1950 when North Korean soldiers stormed across the 38th parallel.

In Korea, destroyers provided fire support to U.N. ground troops, and also performed plane guard and search and rescue missions. After the war, America undeniably locked in a strategic stalemate with the Soviet Union, postured its military to deal with the Soviet threat. Since the Soviets were building a fleet of naval bombers, many destroyers were mounted with large air search radars and designated as radar picket destroyers (DDR?s). Subsequent upgrades in destroyer capability brought anti-submarine rockets (ASROC), a flight deck on the aft section of the ship for helicopters, modern hull-mounted sonar, and a towed variable depth sonar. This technology served the Navy well as destroyers Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. (DD-850), Gearing (DD-710), and John R. Pierce (DD-753) quarantined Cuba in 1962. Their ability to locate and track Soviet submarines in the area was an important aspect of America?s resolve. This textbook example of seapower resulted in the Soviet removal of all missiles from Cuba, and took the two superpowers down from the brink of war. Destroyers also performed admirably in Vietnam, destroyers provided valuable fire support to soldiers and Marines from the coast of Indochina.

Just like every other Naval platform, destroyers constantly changed to mirror the Soviet threat. With the Soviet submarine force expanding and the threat of enemy ballistic missile submarines, the Navy rolled out the Spruance-class destroyer in 1975. Admiral Raymond A. Spruance 1906, whose leadership was key to the decisive American victory in the Battle of Midway, commanded three destroyers early in his career, the first being Bainbridge (DD-1). The ships of the Spruance Class bore little resemblance to the old Bainbridge. Displacing 7,600 tons, Spruance was powered by gas turbines, a propulsion system which allows for easy maintenance and quick responsiveness. Quieter and faster, these ships were designed to track and kill enemy submarines. In the 1980?s these sub-killers became more versatile with the addition of Tomahawk cruise missile capability. While John Young (DD-973) was recently decommissioned, and more Spruances are slated to leave the fleet soon, more than two dozen Spruances remain in service, and many performed well in Operation Enduring Freedom.


Winston Churchill (DDG-81) leaves the Kennebec River for the open sea
Photos courtesy of Bath Iron Works

Operation Desert Storm and the Arleigh Burke Class

The addition of the cruise missile was the final piece of the puzzle for the destroyer. Previously a component of the air-defense shield for the battle group, a sub hunter and a ground support asset with the five-inch gun, the destroyer could now project power ashore and act as a stand alone weapon. This is exactly what happened in Operation Desert Storm, when Fifth Fleet destroyers rocked enemy targets inside Iraq with their Tomahawks. The world watched on television as missiles left the Vertical Launching System (VLS) of destroyers, and descended into enemy targets on CNN.

The "cadillac" of destroyers entered the fleet in 1991 when Arleigh Burke was commissioned. Armed with the Aegis air defense system, increased stealth features, and a variety of hi-tech weaponry (including the Tomahawk), the Burke Class ships are the envy of world navies. And not only are the Burke Class ships worthy of the name of the ultimate destroyer hero (Admiral Burke), but so are the highly-trained crews that man them. On 12 October 2000, Cole (DDG-66) was hit by terrorists while refueling in Yemen. The bomb blew a 40?x40? hole into the side of the ship, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 more. But instead of allowing the $250 million dollar warship to succumb to her wounds, the crew instantly reacted and saved the ship. Now back in service in the Atlantic Fleet, Cole is a symbol not just of the need for vigilance against terrorism but also of the superior training and mettle of today?s destroyer sailors.

The Tin Can fraternity changed significantly in 1993 when President Bill Clinton authorized the inclusion of women into surface combatant crews. Since then, women have served with distinction on destroyers. Another huge milestone was reached this year when two female Academy graduates, CDR Holly Graf ?85 and CDR Cindy Thebaud ?85, assumed command of two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers: Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81), and Decatur (DDG-73).

"There truly is nothing like life at sea on a Navy destroyer," said Graf. "The challenge?the dynamics?the team work. You have to live it to know it. One who does not can only guess at its true nature."

Destroyers?Today and Tomorrow

Like other branches of the armed forces, the Navy is transforming to meet the challenges of the 21st century. While Spruance-class destroyers are being decommissioned, new Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with the Flight IIA upgrade are entering the fleet. The Navy currently has 36 Aegis destroyers with several more under construction. And as the world changes and new threats evolve, so does the destroyer. Planning is already underway for the next-generation destroyer, the DD(x).

"DD(x) will be the centerpiece of a new family of ships for the Surface Navy," said VADM Tim LaFleur ?70, Commander of Naval Surface Forces and leader of the Surface Warfare Community. It will be fitted with such innovative equipment as electric drive propulsion and integrated power systems. It will possess such capabilities as automated damage control and precision long-range gunfire. And it will feature optimal manning, and unmanned vehicles that will operate above and below the sea.

"It will have the latest technology to meet today?s threats, and will proudly carry forward the tradition and heritage of Navy Destroyermen into the 21st century," said LaFleur.

This year as we celebrate the 100 year anniversary of the destroyer, we realize that the world is a much more dangerous place than it was in 1902. After terrorists brought down the World Trade Center and hit the Pentagon, the destroyer had a major part in America?s response. Destroyers took up station off the coast of every major U.S. city as part of Operation Noble Eagle. And the first weapons to hit terrorists inside Afghanistan were Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from the decks of John Paul Jones (DDG-53), commanded by CDR Dave Steindl ?84. The fact that it was John Paul Jones that delivered the first attack is apropos. For its motto is derived from the famous quote made by Commodore Jones during the Revolutionary War: "I intend to go in harm?s way." For the past 100 years, U.S. Navy destroyers and their crews have served in harm?s way?and done so with distinction.

[Boats]

Heavy Cruisers of World War II (Part 1)

By Chuck Hawks







HMS Exeter. Photo Courtesy of Naval Warship Image Archives.



In this essay I intend to examine the heavy cruisers of the major naval powers of World War II. This will include the class of ships I regard as the pinnacle of design from each nation, as well as the rational for their design, their mission as it were, and a few words about their wartime record. It will not be a direct "comparison test", but some conclusions will be drawn.

One might assume that the focus of every new design would be to surpass the likely enemy's recent ships in fighting power, and that is a common thread, but not the only one, in the fabric of warship design. Often international, or national, political concerns played the dominant role in the philosophy behind the design of warships. And, of course, there was the London Naval Treaty of 1930, which limited all cruisers to a maximum weight of 10,000 tons standard displacement.

Some nations took these treaty limits seriously, particularly the British and the Americans, others simply cheated by as much as they thought they could get away with. This resulted in ships nominally rated at 10,000t standard displacement which actually displaced upward of 13,300t, a 33% overrun. A ship 1/3 larger than her potential adversary is bound to have some advantages!

Of course, once the war had started, all treaty limits were off, and cruisers could grow to any size. Evidence of this is the American Alaska class of "large cruisers" (CB rather than CA) which, at almost 30,000t and mounting 12in guns, were battlecruisers in all but name. An interesting point is that many authorities, and the U.S. Navy itself, really thought of these as cruisers rather than as capital ships. Of course, Jackie Fisher, appointed First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy in 1904, and prime moving force behind both the revolutionary battleship Dreadnought and the first battlecruiser Invincible, also drew a clear distinction between the two types. Fisher conceived the battlecruiser as a type with cruiser speed, and armored to defeat cruiser shell fire, but with battleship size and guns. Unfortunately, commanders at sea found it nearly impossible to resist including such large ships, armed with battleship guns, in the battle line (this led to disaster in both World Wars, as we shall see).

Fisher saw the battlecruiser as making the armored cruiser obsolete, a ship fast enough to scout enemy forces, brush enemy cruisers aside, and run down enemy commerce raiders on the high seas (all of which battlecruisers actually did in W.W. I). My point is merely that these are also among the purposes for which the Alaskas were built. Also, the Alaskas perfectly fit the above definition of a battlecruiser, which makes them battlecruisers to me. Which means that the Alaskas, and other "large cruisers", "super cruisers", and "pocket battleships" will have to be dealt with in another article. This essay is for real, traditional 8in gun, heavy cruisers (CA) only.

Among the major powers which completed heavy cruisers prior to or during the Second World War are Great Britain, Italy, France, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Let's take a look at the ships, starting with Great Britain.

United Kingdom
As the dominant sea power for 200 years prior to the Second World War, and with the world's largest and most far flung empire in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Great Britain had more need for large numbers of cruisers than any other nation. It was the cruiser that enforced her national will in far off places, and patrolled the sea lanes of the world. Because the British needed a lot of cruisers more than they needed the most powerful cruisers, they generally favored the smaller (6in gun) light cruiser to the larger (8in gun) heavy cruiser. With either type of cruiser, they tended to build within or below treaty limits.

The last British heavy cruiser to be built was the famous Exeter, which battled the German "pocket battleship" Graf Spee in the South Atlantic, and was later sunk by Japanese cruisers and destroyers in the Java Sea. Exeter was completed in 1931. She is a good illustration of the British cruiser design philosophy in practice. The particulars of Exeter in 1941 follow (from Conway's All The Worlds Fighting Ships, 1922-1946 and The Encyclopedia of the Worlds Warships, by Hugh Lyon):

Displacement:
8,390t standard; 10,490 deep load

Dimensions:
540ft pp, 575ft oa x 58ft x 20ft 3in mean deep load

Machinery:
4-shaft Parsons geared turbines, 8 Admiralty 3-drum
boilers, 80,000shp = 32kts. Oil 1,900t

Armor:
Box protection to ammunition spaces 4in-1in, side 2in-3in,
turrets and ring bulkheads 1in, deck 2in

Armament:
6-8in/50 (3x2), 8-4in/45 DP (4x1), 16-40mm AA (2x1),
2-.5in MG, 6-21in TT (2x3), 2 aircraft

Complement:
630

Range:
8,400nm at 14kts



Exeter was smaller than most of her contemporaries at 8,390t standard displacement, and carried only 6-8in guns. She was a compact and workmanlike design, maybe a little cluttered looking. She had a stepped hull, with her forecastle extending back to mid-ship. Her two vertical funnels were of different size, the larger one in front.

The British 8in/50 Mk. VIII gun fired a 256lb projectile at 2805fps MV to 30,650yds at 45 degrees of elevation. British surface fire control was good, but AA fire control was inferior to that of the United States and Germany (which were the best in the world). Exeter was sunk before she could benefit from the advanced radar fire control technology of the later war years. The Mk IX 21in torpedo (carried by British cruisers) was excellent. Only the Japanese 24in oxygen fueled torpedo had better performance. The Mk IX carried 810lb of explosive, and could travel 5,000yds at 44.5kts, or 7,000yds at 40kts.

Exeter played a major part in the Battle of the River Plate, the chase of the "pocket battleship" Admiral Graf Spee. Against the Graf Spee, she was the only British cruiser with 8in guns in Commodore Harwood's squadron of three cruisers (the other two were the small 6in gun cruisers Ajax and Achilles). Together, they were sufficient to defeat the larger German ship and send her running to the neutral port of Montevideo, Uruguay, where she was scuttled. In this battle, Exeter was hit by 7-11in shells, and sprayed by splinters from several near misses. Sixty one of her crew were killed, and twenty three more wounded. Her entire main battery was put out of action and her speed was reduced to 18 knots, but she was able, after temporary repairs, to steam all the way home without assistance. It took 14 months in a shipyard to put right all the damage.

This engagement is a clear vindication of British cruiser policy. The answer to the German "pocket battleships" was not a few large battlecruisers, but many smaller cruisers which could effectively patrol great areas of ocean and bring them to bay.

February of 1942 found Exeter, along with four other Allied cruisers (total: two heavy, three light) and nine destroyers of the ABDA (American, British, Dutch, Australian) striking force, in the Java Sea. They were attempting to interdict the Eastern Japanese amphibious landing force heading for Java, and were engaged by the covering force of four Japanese cruisers (two heavy and two light) and thirteen destroyers.

The battle on February 27th was a long and complicated series of gun and torpedo duels that lasted from 4:16 PM in the afternoon to almost midnight. At 5:08 PM Exeter was hit in the boiler room by an 8in shell, which caused her to sheer out of line in a 90 degree turn to port. Her speed was reduced to 16 knots. Admiral Doorman (ABDA force commander) ordered Exeter to Surabaya, escorted by one destroyer. She took no further part in the battle, which ended hours later with the loss of two Allied light cruisers, and three destroyers (plus Exeter heavily damaged). The Japanese suffered no losses. They were greatly aided by their float planes, which were able to spot their fall of shot for them, and keep track of the position of the Allied force. The ABDA force had no float planes, having landed them in anticipation of a night battle.

On March 1st, Exeter and destroyers HMS Encounter and USS Pope were caught off Surabaya by Japanese planes and the four heavy cruisers of the Nachi class (13,000t, 10-8in guns), and sunk by shellfire and torpedoes. Almost the entire ABDA force ultimately suffered a similar fate. Individually, the smaller Allied cruisers were no match for the large Japanese cruisers.

After the outbreak of World War II, when the London Treaty no longer applied and the warring nations could build any size cruisers they could afford, the British remained true to their small cruiser policy. They launched 31 cruisers, none over 8,900t, and none carrying guns larger than 6in.

Italy
Italy had a different philosophy of cruiser design. Due to the number of competing powers in the Mediterranean (which included Britain, France, Spain, Greece, and Turkey), and the length of the Italian coastline, their cruisers emphasized speed. High speed was deemed necessary to allow the ships to transit from one coast to the other and face multiple threats in rapid succession.

Unfortunately, in practice, this emphasis on very high speed resulted in high powered but temperamental machinery, lowered hull strength due to imprudent attempts to save weight by lightening structures and fittings, reduced armor protection, poor habitability, and decreased range. Eventually these deficiencies became apparent, and the finest of the Italian heavy cruisers, the four ships of the Zara class, were a slower but better balanced design.

The Zaras came about mostly as a result of the naval rivalry with France, whom the Italians viewed as their most likely opponent in the next war. France and Italy had conflicting goals in regards to their African colonies. With the Zara class, Italy attempted to build 32 knot ships with 8-8in guns and heavy armor. Unfortunately, this could not be accomplished on the treaty limit of 10,000t. The result was ships considerably over the limit, even though they reduced protection, reduced the size of the superstructure, adopted lighter weight machinery, and omitted torpedo tubes from the final design. Zara exceeded the limit by almost 17% when she was completed in 1931. The following specifications are for Zara in 1940 (from Encyclopedia of the Worlds Warships):

Displacement:
11,870t standard; 14,530 full load

Dimensions:
589ft 2in pp, 599ft 4in oa x 66ft 6in x 23ft 6in max

Machinery:
2-shaft Parsons geared turbines, 8 Thornycroft 3-drum
boilers, 95,000shp = 32kts. Oil 2,116t

Armor:
Belt 3.9in-5.9in, deck 2.75in, turrets 4.7in-5.5in,
barbettes 5.5in-5.9in

Armament:
8-8in/53 (4x2), 12-3.9in/47 DP (6x2), 8-37mm AA (4x2),
8-13.2mm AA (8x1), 2 aircraft

Complement:
830

Range:
4,500nm



This class was more heavily armored than her rivals at the time, and even later classes of heavy cruisers were hard pressed to match these ships. The French Algerie was built in response to the Zaras, and the total weight of her armor came to 2,567t, as compared to 2,700t for Zara. The Zaras also carried heavier armor than the very large German Hipper or Japanese Mogami classes. It was not until the American Wichita of 1939 that a marginally better protected heavy cruiser appeared.

The Italian 8in/53 Mod 29 gun had a very high muzzle velocity, which made for high projectile energy, but short barrel life. It fired a 125kg (275lb) shell at 3080fps MV to 34,400yds. The Italians claimed an unusually high rate of fire for this gun: 3.5 rounds per minute. 2 to 3 rounds per minute would be typical for most similar guns.

In appearance, they were typical of Italian cruisers, with a heavy superstructure, heavy tripod main and fore masts, and a stepped hull design with a short forecastle. They carried their seaplane and its catapult on the forecastle, directly in front of "A" turret's guns. Altogether, despite being long and lean, they were not particularly handsome ships.

The Zaras war records are not inspiring. Their most famous engagement came in March of 1941 in the battle of Cape Matapan, when Zara and Fiume, on their way to assist Pola (who had caught a British carrier plane's torpedo in her engine room and was stopped), were caught by surprise at night at point blank range by British battleships and torn apart by shellfire. Pola sank after being torpedoed by British destroyers. The last of the class, Gorizia, was taken over by the Germans after the collapse of Italy, and eventually sunk in port by Italian "chariots" (manned torpedoes used by frogmen).

The losses at Cape Matapan were due to the lack of radar on the Italian ships, and poor training for night engagements, rather than a design deficiency in the ships themselves.

The good points of the Zara class were their heavy armor and their main battery. They were well suited for daylight operations in home waters.

During World War II, torpedo tubes proved to be advantageous on cruisers, especially in conditions of darkness or poor visibility. Their omission on the Zaras reduced their fighting capability. Their relatively short range would have become a tactical limitation had the need for offensive operations arisen. One on one in a daylight gunnery battle, the Zaras would likely have proven superior to the heavy cruisers of their Mediterranean adversaries.

France
Now let's take a look at the ship that was designed in response to the Zara, the French cruiser Algerie. The French Navy had followed the Italian Navy in the quest for ever higher speed for its warships, with the result that French cruisers had very light protection ("tin clads" they were called). The Zara class must have come as a nasty shock to the French. Suddenly their rival was building cruisers that were totally superior to anything in the French fleet. The French had to respond, and in 1931 they laid down Algerie. She was launched in 1932, and completed in 1934.

In 1935 Britain agreed to allow the new German Navy to build up to 35% of the British warship tonnage in all classes of surface ships (45% in submarines), and the Germans at this time regarded France as the likely enemy. Once again, France needed to secure her Atlantic, as well as her Mediterranean, interests. The first of the 35,000t battleships (Richelieu) was ordered that year. By 1937-38, the French Navy had a major building program in hand. Most of those ships were not completed in time. The war started in September of 1939, and France signed an Armistice with Germany in June, 1940.

Algerie was a treaty cruiser, built to the 10,000t standard, although her normal displacement was about 10% over the limit. She was well armored, and especially well protected against aerial bombs and torpedoes. Her main battery guns fired a new, more effective AP shell (the older model weighed 271lbs and had a MV of 2763fps; whatever improvement was made was unspecified). Let's take a look at her basic specifications (courtesy of Conway's):

Displacement:
10,000t standard; 11,100t normal; 13,900t full load

Dimensions:
590ft 6in pp, 610ft 11in oa x 65ft 7in x 20ft 2in

Machinery:
4-shaft Rateau-Bretagne geared turbines, 6 Indret
boilers, 84,000shp = 31kts. Oil 3,186t

Armor:
Main belt 4.75in, traverse bulkheads 2.75in, longitudinal
bulkheads 1.5in, main deck 3in-1in, turrets 3.75in (faces)
2.75in (sides and roofs), CT 3.75in-2.75in

Armament:
8-8in/50 (4x2), 12-3.9in/50 DP (6x2), 8-37mm AA (4x2),
16-13.2mm MG, 6-21.7in TT (2x3), 3 aircraft

Complement:
748



Algerie had a torpedo bulkhead which ran from the bottom of the ship to the armored deck, separated from the main belt by coal and oil bunkers. On trials she made 31.7kts at 12,000t. In 1940-41, while under Vichy control, her 37mm AA battery was doubled, and 20 more 13.2mm machine guns were installed. At the same time her aircraft and tripod mast were removed. In 1942 she received radar, but it was all for nought. Later in 1942 she was scuttled at Toulon. Her short career was similar to that of many French warships in W.W.II. In appearance, unlike most French cruisers, Algerie had a flush deck and a low profile, except for her tower superstructure. Her boat and aircraft cranes stuck up around her pole mainmast, giving her a somewhat cobby appearance.

It is interesting to speculate on what might have been. In the Mediterranean, her most worthy adversary would have been the Italian Zara class. She was slightly smaller than the Zara, yet she was her approximate equal in speed, protection and fire power. Her fire control was probably on a par with the Italian ship. Her modest torpedo battery would give her an edge in certain situations. On paper, their capabilities are otherwise very similar.

In the Atlantic, her most dangerous adversary would have been one of the Hipper class. Compared to the German ship, her one advantage was her somewhat heavier armor. In speed, and main and secondary batteries, they were virtually equal. Her light AA battery was inferior to the German cruiser, not only in numbers but also in quality: the French 37mm gun was inferior in performance to the German equivalent (the improved Mod 33 was still being tested when France fell). Her fire control was also inferior. Her torpedo battery was certainly inferior, and she was considerably smaller. Algerie was certainly close enough to make it interesting, but in most circumstances, the German ship would have the advantage.

Germany
On the Atlantic front, the German Navy (Kriegsmarine) was the prime opposition for the Western Alliance in W.W.II. Rebuilt from the devastation of W.W.I and the Versailles Treaty, the new German Navy was small, but modern. The heavy cruisers were designed to be individually superior to those of Britain and France, in an attempt to at least partially offset their numerical inferiority.

Admiral Erich Raeder, Commander in Chief of the navy for its formative years, and into W.W.II, believed in a policy of commerce raiding by surface ships. Atlantic warfare, not coastal defence in the Baltic Sea, was to become the strategy and operational goal of the Kriegsmarine. The long range "pocket battleships" (Deutschlands) were an ideal weapon to implement this policy.

After 1933, when Adolph Hitler became chancellor, a powerful fleet became necessary to help implement his aggressive foreign policy. The "Z" plan was the result. This called for the construction of 4 aircraft carriers, 8 battleships, 5 battlecruisers, 8 heavy cruisers, 13 light cruisers, 22 scout cruisers (small fast cruisers), 68 destroyers, 249 submarines, and various light craft. This ambitious plan was to be completed by 1948. It was beyond the capability of the Reich to produce, without severe dislocations throughout the economy, and beyond Hitler's patience to wait for its fruition.

[Boats]

I was sent this email from Tin Can Alley about ships built with 8" Guns.


Boats,

Yes there was one. It was USS Hull (DD-945) equipped with a prototype lightweight 8"/55-cal. that was not adopted by the Navy.

There are several photos available on the Naval Historical Center website at http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/s...sh-h/dd945.htm which you can legally download including this one:



Photo #: NH 98306

USS Hull (DD-945)

Underway in the Pacific Ocean, during initial shipboard trials of the Mark
71 8"/55 Major Caliber Lightweight Gun, 17 April 1975.

Official U.S. Navy Photograph, from the collections of the Naval Historical Center.

Online Image: 129KB; 740 x 515 pixels

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Terry Miller
Executive Director & Editor
Tin Can Sailors, Inc.
The National Association of Destroyer Veterans www.destroyers.org terrymiller@destroyers.org