She wasn't finished until after WWII and this photo is 1957 or later so the lesson that we learned late in the war that we needed a gun that could follow an airplane crossing the bow were already well know.
Also that is not uniquely American. Many British Destroyers had a 2 pdr added to the bow as an anti-E-boat measure.
Wiki indicates that in 1950 their armament went from 20 to 21 40 mm. I have an early photo where it appears there is no 40 on the bow, so it probably happened in 1950.
I had the exact same thought regarding the resemblance to HMS Warspite.
I wonder why they didn't build them with two twin turrets forward. That single triple turret forward was limiting, tactically. And logistics plus maintenance would have been simplified with all of main armament of identical configuration. Four by twin turrets would have a superior main armament arrangement compared to what was actually built.
there is an advantage to that arrangement. As the aft turrets are a deck lower it saves weight and volume in their barbettes as well as keeping the centre of mass lower.
Those guns have decent performance.
That forward bofors has excellent firing arcs but I would hate to be in it during heavy weather.
In DER's first reference about the guns they talk about an aborted Dutch design, the "Eendracht" that was supposed to have this arrangement. Apparently the Sweds just used the weapons that had been intended for the Eendracht. Probably got them at a discount.
The previous Dutch cruiser was the DeRuyter which also had 7x150mm but arranged in three twin and one single. This arrangement would have saved weight relative to the previous arrangement.
SwedisH light cruiser, very unusual arrangement of guns, triple forward, two twins aft.
ReplyDeleteTre Kronor class, one sold to Chile.
This would have to be Gota Lejon, after she was modernized in 1957-58
ReplyDelete6" guns were automatic and could be used for AAW
Hello Chuck Hill,
ReplyDeleteshe is Gota Lejon.
GrandLogistics.
Surely the guns (AA) right above the bow were added by someone else than the Swedes (an American-style arrangement)?
ReplyDeleteShe wasn't finished until after WWII and this photo is 1957 or later so the lesson that we learned late in the war that we needed a gun that could follow an airplane crossing the bow were already well know.
ReplyDeleteAlso that is not uniquely American. Many British Destroyers had a 2 pdr added to the bow as an anti-E-boat measure.
Wiki indicates that in 1950 their armament went from 20 to 21 40 mm. I have an early photo where it appears there is no 40 on the bow, so it probably happened in 1950.
Here's some information on the 6" / 152 mm DP guns used in these Swedish cruisers and also in Dutch cruisers.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNNeth_59-53_m1942.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_152_mm_gun
Both classes ended up in South America.
ReplyDeleteI think she's pretty; like a pocket Warspite. :)
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteI had the exact same thought regarding the resemblance to HMS Warspite.
I wonder why they didn't build them with two twin turrets forward. That single triple turret forward was limiting, tactically. And logistics plus maintenance would have been simplified with all of main armament of identical configuration. Four by twin turrets would have a superior main armament arrangement compared to what was actually built.
Hello D.E.Reddick,
ReplyDeletethere is an advantage to that arrangement.
As the aft turrets are a deck lower it saves weight and volume in their barbettes as well as keeping the centre of mass lower.
Those guns have decent performance.
That forward bofors has excellent firing arcs but I would hate to be in it during heavy weather.
GrandLogistics.
In DER's first reference about the guns they talk about an aborted Dutch design, the "Eendracht" that was supposed to have this arrangement. Apparently the Sweds just used the weapons that had been intended for the Eendracht. Probably got them at a discount.
ReplyDeleteThe previous Dutch cruiser was the DeRuyter which also had 7x150mm but arranged in three twin and one single. This arrangement would have saved weight relative to the previous arrangement.