USN CL-154 anti-aircraft light cruiser

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/x80zhw

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/x80zhw/3500_x_2100the_proposed_but_never_built_cl154/

Incidentally the basis of the computer game World of Warships' Austin-class cruiser.

If they had been built, they would have likely received the CLAA hull Hull classification symbol from 1949 onwards.

Of interest, from another thread:

Off the direct topic, but there's some interesting stuff in that meeting between King and Forrestal, such as King* saying he doesn't really like the 6" DP cruisers (Worcester class) and would prefer the 5"/54 ones (CL-154 class), despite this meeting happening in the same month the CL-154s were cancelled.

* And Horne, who was VCNO.

 

[TinWing]

It looks like that same hull as the singleton anti-submarine cruiser CLK-1
USS Norfolk.

 

[TomS]

Similar shape but much larger. This was 610 feet long, a good 50 feet longer than Norfolk. Also about twice the displacement.

 

[drwells42]

There were at least 3 different proposals for CL-154. The smallest of them was an Atlanta hull.

DRW

 

[drwells42]

Design A, the smallest of the bunch.

DRW

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Design A, the smallest of the bunch.

DRW

This predates CL-154 by about 2 years. It's a June 1942 proposal to place 5"/54 mountings on an Atalanta hull.

Planning for proper new build 5"/54 cruisers, the process which led to the CL-154s, started in 1944.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Design C with sixteen 5"/54 guns:



Design C3 with Quadruple 40mm Bofors replacing the amidships 5"/54 mountings:

 

[Nik]

How did timing for these tie in with prox-fused AA ? Which, as you'd expect, remarkably reduced the shots-for-kills required...

 

[EwenS]

The first proximity fuses used operationally were on the 5”/38 on the cruiser Helena in Jan 1943.

 

[Firefinder]

The first proximity fuses used operationally were on the 5”/38 on the cruiser Helena in Jan 1943.

With the first successful test being late june of the Year before on the USS Cleveland irc.

The two week test lasted 3 days cause they shot down all the target drones.

Was naturally consider a success anf the next six months was the factory and stockpiling of them.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

As far as I can determine the automatic 5"/54 caliber gun mounts these cruisers were something of a prototype of the later Mark 42. However I don't think any working hardware was built to this early configuration. Development of an automatic loading 5"/54 gun mount started in 1944 since the Mark 41 wasn't entirely satisfactory due to its large size and the fact that the loaders couldn't sustain a high rate of fire for very long. The target rate of fire for the new mount was a sustained 18 rounds per minute per gun.

At some point they must have figured they could have both halves of the loading system feed just one breech and barrel while achieving the same total rate of fire. The end result was the Mark 42 as we know it that served into the 1980s.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

As far as I can determine the automatic 5"/54 caliber gun mounts these cruisers were something of a prototype of the later Mark 42. However I don't think any working hardware was built to this early configuration. Development of an automatic loading 5"/54 gun mount started in 1944 since the Mark 41 wasn't entirely satisfactory due to its large size and the fact that the loaders couldn't sustain a high rate of fire for very long. The target rate of fire for the new mount was a sustained 18 rounds per minute per gun.

At some point they must have figured they could have both halves of the loading system feed just one breech and barrel while achieving the same total rate of fire. The end result was the Mark 42 as we know it that served into the 1980s.

The mountings on the CL-154 are the Mk 41, and was explicitly designed to be smaller than a twin 5"/38.

 

[Tzoli]

As far as I can determine the automatic 5"/54 caliber gun mounts these cruisers were something of a prototype of the later Mark 42. However I don't think any working hardware was built to this early configuration. Development of an automatic loading 5"/54 gun mount started in 1944 since the Mark 41 wasn't entirely satisfactory due to its large size and the fact that the loaders couldn't sustain a high rate of fire for very long. The target rate of fire for the new mount was a sustained 18 rounds per minute per gun.

At some point they must have figured they could have both halves of the loading system feed just one breech and barrel while achieving the same total rate of fire. The end result was the Mark 42 as we know it that served into the 1980s.

The mountings on the CL-154 are the Mk 41, and was explicitly designed to be smaller than a twin 5"/38.

View attachment 684929

Where did you find this info and drawing???

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Where did you find this info and drawing???

The drawing and caption is from Norman Friedman's Naval Anti-Aircraft Guns and Gunnery.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

As far as I can determine the automatic 5"/54 caliber gun mounts these cruisers were something of a prototype of the later Mark 42. However I don't think any working hardware was built to this early configuration. Development of an automatic loading 5"/54 gun mount started in 1944 since the Mark 41 wasn't entirely satisfactory due to its large size and the fact that the loaders couldn't sustain a high rate of fire for very long. The target rate of fire for the new mount was a sustained 18 rounds per minute per gun.

At some point they must have figured they could have both halves of the loading system feed just one breech and barrel while achieving the same total rate of fire. The end result was the Mark 42 as we know it that served into the 1980s.

The mountings on the CL-154 are the Mk 41, and was explicitly designed to be smaller than a twin 5"/38.

Thank you very much for the information. I can't read the text on the diagram but was the movement and loading of the shell from the hoist to the breech automatic or did a loader have to do that?

What confuses me is that the Mark 41 designation also seems to have been given to the more conventional twin gun mount planned for the Montana class battleships. The guns on that were more widely spaced and everything generally functioned like the twin 5"/38 mounting. It had a larger footprint than the twin 5"/38 however and that along with sustained rate of fire issues were seen as limitations.