Archive for Axis & Allies ForuMINI Specialised in the World War II Axis & Allies Miniatures and War At Sea Games          Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index -> WAS Research seisen USS Atlanta and the late war CLAA's... Does anyone have any info on the late war CLAA's?  Particularly the CLAA-119 USS Juneau and her sisters.  Were all commissioned after the Japanese Surrender?  I ask because the ships are distinctly different from the Atlanta Class and Oakland Sub Class Light Cruisers...the Juneau and her sisters have a weapon arrangement similar to the post war Worchesters.  I know the USS Spokane and USS Fresno were commissioned after August 1945.  I just dont have any info on them. Origional USS Juneau (CL-52): New USS Juneau (CL-119) named for the sunk CL-52: Thanks for any info guys. Chris (aka seisen) Tiornu Re: USS Atlanta and the late war CLAA's... Look here: http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/ Mad Ghost/0331 you aren't going to try the CL-52 scheme are you? Diamondback Oaklands, drop the two "wing" turrets. Juneaus (which technically missed the war, but not by much) were basically Oaklands with either the #2 and #5 or #3 and #4 (can't remember which) turrets lowered 1 deck level, IIRC. Next week I'll see what I can find in Conway's, try to snap pics of their drawings and post (no portable scanner, and it's the library's copy). SJG Gamer The newer USS Juneau was the only one of these CLAAs to be fitted with the new twin 3'/50 AA mounts that the newer post war cruisers were fitted with.  This gave this a phenominal AA.  In W@S terms, it would havean AA of 10 to 12, with two shots per turn! Aquarius Mad Ghost/0331 wrote: you aren't going to try the CL-52 scheme are you? Knowing him, he probably is. Durandel CLAA anti aircraft equipment For the best AA look at the Worcester and Roanoke.  They were the ultimate in gunned antiaircraft.  They each carried 12 6" automatic DP in twin turrets and 24 3"/50 antiaircract guns.  They also had 4 radar controlled directors for the 6" guns.  They weighed in at 14,000 tons standard and had 6" belt armor.   The Juneau ii  had 2 directors, 14 3" and 12 5"/38's. seisen Mad Ghost/0331 wrote: you aren't going to try the CL-52 scheme are you? Ha!  Already have...I did it a while back, but its not as accurate as it should be, I was painting by memory. I might re-paint em...it was the cammo that the US and ABDA Com ships wore during the Java Sea Battles. Mad Ghost/0331 your "memory" is impressive as always. Okie I'd call that a good Camo job!! Aquarius Did we ever get card suggestions out of this? I am looking to make one, but would like to have a Forumini official card for it. Diamondback We got a suggested Main stat, but no AA. BTW, I was wrong about Juneau: both pairs were dropped a level. Blackeagle Juneau wasn't fitted with the 3"/50s until 1952, so they don't really matter as far has her WaS stats go.  Honestly, I don't think either the Oakland or Juneau (CL-119) subclasses require any changes to the card.  Loosing two barrels off the broadside isn't really enough to merit reducing either the main battery or the AA. drittal holy crap siesen!!!  Nice Paint!!! Aquarius Blackeagle wrote: Juneau wasn't fitted with the 3"/50s until 1952, so they don't really matter as far has her WaS stats go.  Honestly, I don't think either the Oakland or Juneau (CL-119) subclasses require any changes to the card.  Loosing two barrels off the broadside isn't really enough to merit reducing either the main battery or the AA. So you're basically saying the stats would be the same...? Diamondback I would've dinged Oakland a little on Main but given it a boost on AA for the added 20mms and 40mms, myself. Paired up with "Antiair Specialist"... BTW, at least pre-refit, the Atlantas should have at least a small ASW rating, they did have DC-gear and all of these ships had sonar. Blackeagle Aquarius wrote: So you're basically saying the stats would be the same...? Yep. Blackeagle Diamondback wrote: I would've dinged Oakland a little on Main but given it a boost on AA for the added 20mms and 40mms, myself. Paired up with "Antiair Specialist"... Problem with that is if there's not much room to ding them on the main battery before you end up with a 12 gun cruiser that has the same firepower as a 5 gun destroyer.  I don't think that trading two 5"/38s for some 20 and 40mm really merits an AA increase either (not to mention the fact that they're arguably overpowered as it is). Diamondback wrote: BTW, at least pre-refit, the Atlantas should have at least a small ASW rating, they did have DC-gear and all of these ships had sonar. We talked about that a little in this thread.  The conclusion was that they never actually did any damage to submarines with them, so they probably shouldn't get an ASW rating. Aquarius I'm confused. How did we go from the Juneau to the Oakland. Are the same class? (sorry for being a naval idiot) Blackeagle Aquarius wrote: I'm confused. How did we go from the Juneau to the Oakland. Are the same class? (sorry for being a naval idiot) The Atlanta class was built to three slightly different designs. Atlanta, Juneau (CL-52), San Diego, and San Juan had sixteen 5"/38s (three twin turrets forward, three twin turrets aft, and one wing turret on each side).  They received twin 40mm mounts in the wing positions. Oakland, Reno, Flint, and Tucson dispensed with the wing turrets, leaving them with twelve 5"/38s (just the three turrets fore and aft). Juneau (CL-119), Spokane, and Fresno were further modified to reduce topweight by lowering the Number 2, 3, 4, and 5 turrets by one deck level. So Oakland and Juneau are part of the same class, but they're not identical. Aquarius Gotcha. So the stats would be the same for WaS purposes? Blackeagle Aquarius wrote: So the stats would be the same for WaS purposes? I think so.  YMMV of course. seisen Blackeagle wrote: Diamondback wrote: I would've dinged Oakland a little on Main but given it a boost on AA for the added 20mms and 40mms, myself. Paired up with "Antiair Specialist"... Problem with that is if there's not much room to ding them on the main battery before you end up with a 12 gun cruiser that has the same firepower as a 5 gun destroyer.  I don't think that trading two 5"/38s for some 20 and 40mm really merits an AA increase either (not to mention the fact that they're arguably overpowered as it is). Diamondback wrote: BTW, at least pre-refit, the Atlantas should have at least a small ASW rating, they did have DC-gear and all of these ships had sonar. We talked about that a little in this thread.  The conclusion was that they never actually did any damage to submarines with them, so they probably shouldn't get an ASW rating. Now I know this has been hashed out and what is decided is decided.  But in a fun game, where we throw in all sorts of addendums and extra crap for existing and fantasy units...I really wouldnt think that ASW on the Atlanta's should be dissallowed...I mean the potential is there.  All Im saying is that If I allow hypothetical ships, aircraft, subs, and added stats to existing cards onto my gametable...how can I say "No" to the Atlanta's ASW.  Machi 202's didnt fly from a carriers deck in WW2...but we make room for such a thing and give the Italians the Carrier to boot...but we say an Atlanta cant ping for a sub?  Just a thought   . Blackeagle seisen wrote: All Im saying is that If I allow hypothetical ships, aircraft, subs, and added stats to existing cards onto my gametable...how can I say "No" to the Atlanta's ASW.  Machi 202's didnt fly from a carriers deck in WW2...but we make room for such a thing and give the Italians the Carrier to boot...but we say an Atlanta cant ping for a sub? How about because Atlanta's already one of the best unit's in the game and she doesn't need to be any better?   hgraves if she's chase'n subs she can't attack aircraft versitile, not nessaryly more powerfull. just think'n bump the points up an little... too errm for that matter bump most american ships up 5-10% basicly all too cheap. ok..... no sleep makes HGraves sumptin sumptin....... Blackeagle hgraves wrote: if she's chase'n subs she can't attack aircraft versitile, not nessaryly more powerfull. Given the way the ASW harassment rules work, giving her an ASW rating is actually pretty valuable even if she never makes an ASW attack.  It would basically prevent any sub from using it's full Range-1 attack against Atlanta or any ship in her sector (either through harassment or by forcing the sub to attack from further out). Diamondback As for AA vs. ASW "not at same time", I'm sure rolling a few over the stern as a "keep your distance" to subs wouldn't impact AA much... Aquarius hgraves wrote: if she's chase'n subs she can't attack aircraft Ah, Watson, but she can. AA and ASW are separate phases. Could someone make an unofficial card for the CL-119? seisen You know I find the Atlanta's ASW interresting...I have had a handfull of people ask why a cruiser would have ASW anyway?  One thing I hadnt considered was the Atlanta's intended role.  As built she was essentially an expanded/larger version of the Clark Large DD's in the USN.  She wasnt intended to be an anti-air cruiser/CLAA for Carrier Task Forces...rather, she was built as a Destroyer Leader.  The Atlantas were to lead squadrons of Fletchers and other DD's and thus she had ASW sonar and equipment as a Destroyer Leader and ASW Coordination Ship.  It wasnt until the advent of the Proximity Fuse that her real Anti-Air potential had been realized.  As built, yes, she could throw a lot of lead and Flak...but, when the Proximity Fuse came into use...her AAA was a whole new ballgame.  This is evident by the discontinuance of the ships design early in the war...as built she was large and top-heavy, but was really no match for traditional light cruisers of the day...even with a lot of 5 inch guns, she was still out-gunned by lighter advasaries carrying the larger and harder hitting 5.9inch and 6inch guns...therefore the USN decided to stop building the Atlanta's.  Then when the Proximity Fuse is intorduced...the ship's capabilities change overnight and the USN realizes the Atlanta's value in the Carrier Task Force, as is evident by a late war rush to build several new versions of the Atlanta.  Interesting...   Anyway, Aquarius... everyone is right about the CLAA-119's stats...they would be no different from the Atlanta...aside some different light AAA and a top-weight saving redesign of the main gun layout...the ships are the same. Highball rise ..... Rise ..... RISE! MUHAHAHAHA ...... ITS ALIVE!!!!!! OK ... I doing some looking into the background of the Atlanta Class and I found some more surprising information on this website ... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cl-119.htm It is interesting that the original Atlanta's not only had sonar, but depth charges. It had the same number of depth charge racks and stern rails as the Fletcher Class DD's. This would definitely allow for the ship to have a ASW rating of at least 4 If a reprint is ever done to represent the later ships based on the Atlanta I would think that the original Atlanta should be errata to a slightly lower AA rating (7) due to the lack of early 40 & 20mm guns, and the later classes would have the AA rating back to 8. I would also change the main gun attack of the later classes to 6/5/5/- to reflect the loss of the sponson 5" DP guns. What say you folks? wilt57 I think that ASW on this puppy, or any of the Atlanta hull types, is perfectly fine.  The IJN gets an "official" cruiser with it, why not these? The balance would be in costing the unit accordingly.  Right now, a lot of USN air-heavy builds skimp on DD escorts for the carriers, meaning Infiltrator is worth it.  If these have an ASW rating, the USN players should have to pay for their increased capacity to deal with anti-CV units, like I-26 and U-47, along with the usual DBs and TBs. wilt57        Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index -> WAS Research Page 1 of 1