Apparently they were very happy with the modification. A little strange in that it meant that it was armed like an American destroyer. Anyway it was a one-off.
Well, with two Mk 37 gun directors then it was an improvement over a destroyer. She could engage two targets with the main battery rather than just one (as with USN DDs). And Delhi had longer legs of 6,700 NM compared to the 5,500 NM range of the Fletcher class DDs.
H.M.S. Delhi she is indeed. Armed with one of the classic weapons of the war,the 5" 38.
This class provided a good return on investment. They appear to have provided good service during the war despite their age.
Compared to a destroyer they must have been better weapon and sensor platforms with greater range and endurance at the expense of speed which was more than adequate for most purposes.
The Omaha class of CLs were considered for conversion to AA cruisers. They would have gone from twelve 6" guns to only four 6-inchers and seven DP 5"/38s. If such conversions had been done, then they would have made good, fast carrier escorts.
When it was considered, they didn't have adequate numbers of the more advanced fire control systems. That was part of the reason they decided against it.
Instead they ended up using the Omahas to stop blockade runners in the area between Brazil and Africa.
Ultimately some of them did some shore bombardment during the invasions. All of them ended up loosing the lower aft casement guns, giving them 10 6" guns total and a 7 gun broadside.
One or two of the Omahas had the main 6" armament reduced to just eight guns. Extra 40 mm Bofors mounts were shipped in place of the upper, forward casemate 6" mounts. Of course, the class generally had six 3" AA guns. But I suspect that 40 mm quads and twins were superior AA weaponry to the old 3" mounts.
40s were better until proximity fuses made it into the fleet, then the 3"/50 came back on top. I saw some figures at one time that showed rounds/aircraft shot down and the 3'/50 did surprisingly well.
There was only one that went down to eight 6", the Detroit. She also had eight 3"/50s.
The 3-inchers mounted aboard the Omahas weren't quite the same as the twin 3" / 50s with on-mount radar and hydraulically powered elevation & traverse which were introduced to the fleet starting in the late '40s. Two different animals, so to speak.
The 3"/50 automatic was developed because the 40s were not stopping the Kamikazes, but it was not available until after the war was over. Ballistically they were the same as the old 3"/50.
The figures I saw was for the familiar, older 3"/50 mounts.
The proximity fuse improved the probability of kill 1000%. They were 10 times as likely to get a kill as a timed fuse. The 40 was too small for the proximity fuses of the period so suddenly the 3'/50 became a lot more competitive.
HMS Delhi. Had a unique modification replacing the 6" with American 5"/38s. Unfortunately sunk shortly after modification.
ReplyDeleteI was mistaken about her being sunk. Apparently she survived the war.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Delhi_%28D47%29
Yeah, how many RN warships ever had a Mk 37 director? She was really blasted in the stern, but didn't sink.
ReplyDeleteAnd once in the bow too.
ReplyDeleteApparently they were very happy with the modification. A little strange in that it meant that it was armed like an American destroyer. Anyway it was a one-off.
Well, with two Mk 37 gun directors then it was an improvement over a destroyer. She could engage two targets with the main battery rather than just one (as with USN DDs). And Delhi had longer legs of 6,700 NM compared to the 5,500 NM range of the Fletcher class DDs.
ReplyDeleteHello Chuck Hill,
ReplyDeleteH.M.S. Delhi she is indeed.
Armed with one of the classic weapons of the war,the 5" 38.
This class provided a good return on investment.
They appear to have provided good service during the war despite their age.
Compared to a destroyer they must have been better weapon and sensor platforms with greater range and endurance at the expense of speed which was more than adequate for most purposes.
GrandLogistics.
They were nice sized ships. Could fire all guns in the broadside.
ReplyDeleteIt was because the US had the destroyers with dual purpose mounts that we didn't do a similar conversion on the Omahas, although it was considered.
Yeah,
ReplyDeleteThe Omaha class of CLs were considered for conversion to AA cruisers. They would have gone from twelve 6" guns to only four 6-inchers and seven DP 5"/38s. If such conversions had been done, then they would have made good, fast carrier escorts.
When it was considered, they didn't have adequate numbers of the more advanced fire control systems. That was part of the reason they decided against it.
ReplyDeleteInstead they ended up using the Omahas to stop blockade runners in the area between Brazil and Africa.
Ultimately some of them did some shore bombardment during the invasions. All of them ended up loosing the lower aft casement guns, giving them 10 6" guns total and a 7 gun broadside.
There was of course the Marblehead as part of the ABDA forces and Richmond at the Battle of Kormandorski Island.
ReplyDeleteThe Japanese made very good use of their corresponding old light cruisers.
One or two of the Omahas had the main 6" armament reduced to just eight guns. Extra 40 mm Bofors mounts were shipped in place of the upper, forward casemate 6" mounts. Of course, the class generally had six 3" AA guns. But I suspect that 40 mm quads and twins were superior AA weaponry to the old 3" mounts.
ReplyDelete40s were better until proximity fuses made it into the fleet, then the 3"/50 came back on top. I saw some figures at one time that showed rounds/aircraft shot down and the 3'/50 did surprisingly well.
ReplyDeleteThere was only one that went down to eight 6", the Detroit. She also had eight 3"/50s.
Well,
ReplyDeleteThe 3-inchers mounted aboard the Omahas weren't quite the same as the twin 3" / 50s with on-mount radar and hydraulically powered elevation & traverse which were introduced to the fleet starting in the late '40s. Two different animals, so to speak.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI think I may have seen the same numbers Chuck Hill is talking about.
They were in reference to an older,larger calibre gun,I just can't remember which one!
GrandLogistics.
The 3"/50 automatic was developed because the 40s were not stopping the Kamikazes, but it was not available until after the war was over. Ballistically they were the same as the old 3"/50.
ReplyDeleteThe figures I saw was for the familiar, older 3"/50 mounts.
The proximity fuse improved the probability of kill 1000%. They were 10 times as likely to get a kill as a timed fuse. The 40 was too small for the proximity fuses of the period so suddenly the 3'/50 became a lot more competitive.