Hey guys, just asking for some advice on what people think a good set up would be. I am soon (to Monk's dismay) going to build a cleveland class cruiser under IRCWCC rules. I have to possible setups in mind. 1) 1 unit pump with 2 1-unit stern guns or 2) .5 unit pump with 2 1-unit stern guns and either a .5 unit cannon or spurt gun on the bow. Tell me what you think. Thank you.
You cant? is it the rule that says something along the lines of " Class 2 ships and under can use 1/2 units for either pumps or cannons. Mike, what do you think about a spurt gun on a Cleveland? Is that a good idea, or should i just go with the 2 stern guns.
"class 2" refers to a ship's total number of units. Ships with 2.5 units, 2 units, 1.5 units, 1 unit, and 0.5 unit are considered "class 2 and under". Cleveland is a 3-unit ship, so it unfortunately doesn't meet the requirements.
Yea, i know kotori, now, i just want to know if a spurt gun is feasible on a light cruiser like that(or heavy cruiser, depends on who you ask).
You could, but your fun factor is too low. Set it up with (2) 50 round guns and have fun. It's your first boat so basic is your best bet. After a battle or two you can change to spurts to see how that works. Get the hull or build your own and start posting pictures. Good luck!
Thanks, im actually going to use the kits from BC to make it, but it will most likely be a month before i even have to the money to buy the kits. Then i will buy it, and make it, and the whole picture thing, im not sure, cuz im not a wiz at that stuff.
"You could, but your fun factor is too low. Set it up with (2) 50 round guns and have fun. It's your first boat so basic is your best bet. After a battle or two you can change to spurts to see how that works." Quoted for Truth. I'd avoid spurts on your first ship. Don't let yourself get confused over the official designation (light cruiser)of the ships. That was entirely political anyway. They are 3.0 unit ships. Heavy or light doesn't matter. The rule states: 3 units Heavy cruisers built after 1922, 8,000 tons to 11,999 tons. Light cruisers built after 1922, >= 9,000 tons. Armored Cruisers built before 1922, 11,500 tons to 14,499 tons. Since Cleveland is a light cruiser of more then 9,000 tons displacement, she is 3.0 units and 3.0 unit ships may not split units. The only reason Monk's Boston can have a .5 unit pump is it's a 3.5 unit ships. Ship with X.5 units are allowed to use the left over .5 unit as a pump. Ships can't divide units to get that .5 unit though.
I was just asking, i wasnt going to put them on any way, but thanks for the advice. the ircwcc call the cleveland a heavy cruiser. And the thing that kills me, is the clevelands had 6 inch guns(officially light cruisers then), but a light cruiser at 10,00 tons gets 1 second faster speed, and the same number of units. And i have authorization to buy the clevelands, so when i get my money in mid-august im going to order it (yay!!!).
It's listed as a heavy cruiser for convenience. It does NOT get 1 extra second of speed. Cleveland is a 24 second ship as are all other 3.0 unit ships. Think of it this way: Class 3 (3.0 and 3.5 unit) ships count as heavy cruisers. Class 2 (2.0 and 2.5 unit) ships count as light cruisers. Forget anything about gun caliber, it doesn't really matter as far as the hobby is concerned.
In the ircwcc, light cruisers are 23 seconds and heavy cruisers are 24 seconds. and i know it doesnt matter to them, but it should count towards classification
Yes, I know the rules It shouldn't count towards the classification though, because it only benefits ships armed with 6 inch guns, and that's not fair. The reason the rules are what they are, is to allow the lighter ships with less firepower and pump capacity to have an edge. The class 2 ships have less firepower or pump capacity, so they make up for that with a little extra speed. The big 6 inch ships are comparable to the 8 inch ships in most regards (better in some regards...for example your 6 inch Cleveland is allowed to weigh more then my 8 inch Salt Lake City, and has a larger rudder, more hull volume, etc) so giving them an extra second speed advantage is not necessary. Now, if you were to want to take the same route as the MWC did and give ALL the cruisers an extra second, that would make a lot of sense. Just giving the 6 inch ships an extra second is scratching out an advantage that they don't deserve.
Maybe ur right( they say that the 6 inch gunswere better in combat too, because the fired faster, the ship could carry more, and a ship protected against 6 inch guns could most likely take a 8 inch shell too). Also, all cruisers should get an extra second, its only fair. i think anyway
It's funny you mention that about the 6 inch guns. The US navy actually had it backwards the whole time. In the beginning of the Solomons campaign where most of the cruiser duels took place, the US Navy sent in the 8 inch heavy cruisers which had a slower firing main battery which also could not track as fast. Something else to remember though, is that early on, the USN had very little experience night fighting and kind of had to learn on the job. That kind of experience comes at a price. With unreliable and untried radar, the CLs had an edge in the close range knife fights of the early battles. By 1943, the USN had moved to mostly CLs in their surface action groups, and no longer attempted line of battle tactics that had failed earlier on. What this meant was that the cruisers maneuvered rather radically to avoid the torpedoes which gutted the US CAs in earlier fights (See the battle of Tassafaronga as a classic example of the USN getting it's butt kicked by torpedoes). This made fire control difficult on the 6" ships and they kind of "sprayed and prayed" and had a pretty low accuracy rate. They couldn't correct their fire because the battles were at night and they didnt know where the shells were landing, so basically each salvo had as much of a chance to hit as the very first. They also opened fire from longer range as they learned to trust their radar more. By this time though, the American radar was proven, and fire control had improved to the point where ranging on 8" shell splashes was possible. So the 8" CA with longer range, better radar, and the ability to observe the fall of their own shot via radar and correct their fire would have had a far higher accuracy rate then the 6 inch cruisers did, so for the later actions (Vella Gulf, Kolombangara) the big CAs might have been a better choice. So in the beginning the CLs were the better ship for the fighting. By the time radar improved in 1943, the CAs might have bad the better success.
i learned something new today, thanks for the history lesson. and yea, radar was a big hing for the americans. Did you see that show on the history channel, Battle 360? That was a great depiction of the WW2 naval combat in the pacific, but only through The USS Enterprise ( i wish they had done a cruiser or battle ship as a spin off)
Battle 360 is full of mistakes when it comes to the surface combat ships. they refer to 8" cruizers as 6" ships all the time. the speeds they quote for cruizers& BB's are mostly wrong and rounded down while teh Enterprize get rounded up all the time. they talk about failed attacks as "great heroic victorys" and further proof of teh battleship invincibility myth (no such thing, BB'S of the day could do quite well against air attack). Its mostly wanking IMO. It must be aimed at kids because it (to me) has no substance. its like that future weapons show, it just tries to show some weapon doing some thing awsome/in your face attitude kind of thing. boring to me, personally.
