[ Post a Response | The SteelNavy.Com Message Board ]
Re: USS Atlanta Nov.'42
Yes my comments were based on Friedman's USN Cruisers Design Book. Forgot to add that to my post.
Friedman's US Cruisers book has a good explanation of the changing thought process as the design progressed. As Rick says, they would have had 6 in. dual purpose if the gun design had been available in order to make them more effective in both supporting our DD torpedo attacks and stopping enemy DD attacks on the battle line. Friedman says that the head of design mentioned the drafting work load of the designs of the new BBs as the reason the gun design was delayed. By mid war at least one CO wanted the depth charges and torpedo tubes removed to get more weight allowance for more 40mm.
Something to keep in mind. The ATLANTA class cruisers had a erratic design history, where the USN (collectively) had a wide range views as to their purpose. In one view they were to be "small cruiser" replacements for the OMAHA class cruisers. Partly in that view and more precisely, they were to be oversized "Destroyer Leaders" with more fire power to aid destroyers in their torpedo attacks. A role for which the OMAHA's also filled. The whole idea and eventual practice of installing ASW sensor and weapons was almost an afterthought, not received well by many. They were initially to be 6-in armed cruisers of a small size, as such rather than have a 6-in main gun and 5-in secondary guns, the desire was to have Dual Purpose 6-in guns (precursors of the WORCESTER class), but development of the weapons would take a long time, so installing a large number of DP 5-in/38 guns was decided. Contra to the view they were designed as "AA-Escorts", they weren't designed with that role as a primary function when the design process started. The thought of them being AA-Escorts came as an obvious function once actual combat showed that carriers would be the main weapon of operations. If they were to be primarily AA platforms, there were several areas of their design that should have been different ... more fire control equipment (like four Mk 37 directors) would have suited that function. Also, the view that a cruiser is a cruiser, wouldn't have placed these ships in a battle line against heavier armed cruisers and battleships.
Yes they both carried the depth charge racks and K-guns . Sisterships didn't have their's removed until refits in 1943 and 1944 for more AA guns.
Two books might be in use for this . The Floating Drydocks USS Juneau CL(AA)52 ISBN 0-944055-04-4
$12.00,Lots of photos in a 44 page book that describes the ships developement.Available from the Floating Drydock website.
2. Atlanta class cruisers in WW2.WR Press 1998
$28.00 dont know the ISBN #.Available from Synder and Short website.
Simple answer; Yes. The JUNEAU wreck images clearly show the drop tracks.
Was she still outfitted with the depth charge roller racks, etc., at Guadalcanal? Same question for the Juneau.
SteelNavy.Com Home Page