Talk:Atlanta-class cruiser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

Does anyone have a cite for the increased firing arcs on the ships without the wing turrets? -- Rogerborg 10:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have found this: http://www.allwoodwings.com/Ships/Military/Cruisers/a,LIST-Light,Heavy+AA_Cruisers.htm; the info is listed under the Juneau AA cruiser, but a more solid source might be preferred, and info on the Oakland class as well. And hi Rogerborg :O. --Havocrazy 07:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, if anyone wants to work on this article, here is another good source: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/4072/desig.html; I'd work on it myself, but I'm really busy with school work right now >_< --Havocrazy 07:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Removing the wing turrets does not increase the arcs. Source or not, you just have to look at the ships. The turrets were removed to make the ships more stable in conjunction with the increased topweight due to additional light AA and electronics. For the same reason, CL 199-CL 121 hat the superimposed turrets on deck lower (see Whitley: Cruisers of WW II). --172.178.132.234 17:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (i. e. de:Benutzer:Marinebanker)

The present article describes the 5" throw weight per minute as 17600 pounds and 10560 kg per minute. Those two numbers don't equate...at least one of them must be wrong. I don't know the qualified RPM for the 5"/38 in the cruiser turrets, to correct the page. JWilly48519 09:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

According to www.navweaps.com page about 5"/38 (12.7 cm) http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm Mark 12 gun, maximum rate of fire was 25 RPM, with ready-use ammunition. With 25kg AA shell and 7*2=14 guns, broadside would have been 25kg*14*25rpm=8750kg. If we count light AA (16*28mm and 8*20mm) 10560kg/min would just have been achived. But these are in ideal conditions. (17.46, 18th November 2007 UTC)

I'd sort of like to revise the figure, make it more realistic. I propose using the US Navy's own "NAVAL ORDNANCE AND GUNNERY VOLUME 1, NAVAL ORDNANCE 1957 EDITION" as a source, which would give us the following:
  • 7 * 2 = 14 gun broadside, 54 lb ammunition, 22 rounds per minute possible for brief periods
  • 7 * 2 * 54 * 22 = 16,632 pounds (7,544 kg) per minute from the main battery.
I don't think we should count the light AA, as the sentence says "highly-accurate, radar-fuzed VT ordnance", which would only be the 5" guns. Sound ok? TomTheHand (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

3 - SC-1 seaplanes[edit]

The SC Seahawk first flight was on 16 February 1944, Atalnta sunk a the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal on 13 November 1942 I guess Global Security is wrong. I would like to thank Oscar Himpflewitz for his help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pure Havoc (talkcontribs) 04:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Need for cites[edit]

Kirk, the changes you made are good and the new information looks correct and is valuable. However, the article already has a problem with a lack of specific citations. If you could add these for your new material (for that matter, for any o the old material!) that would be great. Yaush (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Looks to me like this is almost at B-Class, but be better to see more than one source, and if the class continued in service after the war then it really should have a few lines on that to make it complete as far as coverage is concerned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the recent updates -- that'll do me for B-Class. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Reno's torpedo tubes[edit]

"Photo evidence show that USS Reno's torpedo tubes had been removed by the time she was torpedoed on 3 November 1944." How was that possible? Reno used her torpedoes to scuttle USS Princeton just over a week earlier. There would've been no time to take her back to the States to remove them.184.1.69.135 (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I deleted this text. Reno's starboard torpedo tubes were jettisoned to lighten her for repairs; it is possible the person who edited to state the TT were removed may have made a bad assumption on basis of the photo instead of knowing that they were jettisoned to reduce top weight due to the damage. Brooksindy (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)