WAK USS Salt Lake City 1:200
 

I had last week off from work so I finally started on SLC.

Interesting to see the difference between IJN Suzuya and Salt Lake City. In spite of them both being "Treaty" cruisers Suzuya is significantly longer (661 ft vs. 585 ft) and draws more water (18 ft vs 17 ft). Kind of makes one think that maybe the Japanese were fudging the numbers!

More to follow...

russ

Yes........ both Germany and Japan were untruthful when reporting length and weight of treaty ships. As usual we expect others to play fair and always find out later that it really ain't so.:eek:

Item: I'm no fan of Hitler, but Germany was never a signatory to the Washington Naval Treaty and so cannot be accused of violating it. They were also not part of the 1930 London Naval Conference, and Japan and Italy were also not part of the 1936 2nd London Naval Conference. By 1936, only the US, UK and France participated and there wasn't much point by then, and everybody knew it.

The reality is that everybody cheated on the Washington Naval Treaty. Every "Treaty" cruiser of every nation as initially built was over the limit, except for the first four Japanese ones and the first two US ones, and those two were extremely close. (USS Pensacola & USS Salt Lake City). True, pre-war they were claimed to 9,100, but 9,750 is much closer to reality and before the war they had already passed 10,000 tons. The next US class was claimed to be 9,200 tons.... Yeah, without any crew, stores, fuel, aircraft, or ammunition aboard they were inclined at 9,700 tons. Right.... Don't get me going about the subsequent classes.

The British County Class Heavy Cruisers had their masts and funnels shortened and their fantails cut down to remove 250 tons, so that they could then be claimed to be 9,750 tons. Yeah, right..... Less than 10,000 tons.

The French and Italians just plain made claims that nobody checked out. They said, "10,000 tons" and nobody argued.

The Japanese claimed that they were careful. Their initial classes of Heavy Cruiser had actually conformed to the treaty, as built... but they didn't stay that way by the time the war began. As built, Suzuya was built as a "Light Cruiser" with 15 6.1" guns and the entire class was claimed to be 9,100 tons. Oddly, the world didn't protest because a large ship that size with the smaller guns could be at that limit.... although it wasn't. But, because they had tried to stay within the treaty, the light-weight construction caused the entire class to suffer from stability issues, weather damage, and damage caused by just firing their own weapons. They had to be rebuilt, just plain to serve.

Permit me a small rabbit trail....

By later replacing the 15 6.1" guns with 10 8" guns the Japanese actually reduced the actual combat effectiveness of the ship. The decision was made because the Japanese wanted to strike their targets at the possible longest range. However, night surface actions near Guadalcanal showed that the most effective warships present (other than battleships), were the USS Helena and the USS Boise, each of which was a Light Cruiser and carried 15 6"guns, like the Suzuya used to do before she was rebuilt. Battle showed that long range didn't matter, rate-of-fire did.

Japanese WW2 level 8" guns could typically fire 2 or 3 aimed shots per barrel per minute, each shell weighing about 275 lbs. WW2 US 6" 47 caliber guns could typically fire 8-10 aimed shots per barrel per minute, each of which weighed in at 130lbs. Use the max rate times the number of barrels, and do the math. More than double the amount of steel on target in the same period. In fact, modern light cruisers of the US and British navies were frequently compared to machine guns for their rate of fire. The British could even fire up to 12 rounds per minute per barrel for short periods.

Sorry for this long answer.... I get carried away at times.

Apology not accepted! Because that was a very interesting read. :)

I also refuse to accept an apology for such excellent information :)

I never realized the Mogami class actually suffered from becoming a heavy cruisers, but it makes perfect sense with your explanation.

The Japanese didn't think it was a problem. Neither did anyone else. The combat effectiveness of the high rate of fire from modern light cruisers was a total surprise to nearly everyone. The US didn't conduct their first "Rapid Continuous" firing test until 1939, when the USS Savannah fired 138 rounds in 1 minute. That was under peacetime conditions. During the war, she and her sisters did much better.

Further, nobody really noticed that the treaty-limited heavy cruisers all lacked effective armor against 6" shells, except for over their magazines and sometimes their turrets and lower deck. The cloud of 6" shells probably wouldn't sink a treaty heavy cruiser, but they would certainly achieve a "Mission Kill" by destroying the bridge, fire control directors and weapons. Historically, that's almost exactly what the USS Helena did to HMIJMS Aoba at the Battle of Cape Esperance.

Never had any problems with such interesting and pertinent information being offered on the subject.

Looking forward to this build as I have the kit in the stash, nothing like watching a preview of what is there to work with. ;)

As threatened...
 

I've started on plating the hull. I work from the center to the ends gluing the preformed plates to each other, but not the frames. Once I have the plates together, except for the last couple of plates on each end, I glue the plates onto the keel. Then I go back and apply glue to individual frames and glue the plates in place. I use a wooden wallpaper roller to smooth the glue joints.

It seems to work for me!

russ...

Looks good! Very smooth!

Adding to the problem of upgunning the Mogami class, after the conversion many of the upgunned cruisers were prohibited from firing a simultaneous broadside as the recoil was enough to make the ship turn turtle.