Answer of Strange Cruiser

In the manner of a young boy, I still like fighting ships. And, like many a kid, I have had various favorite ships: Victory, Bismarck, or Yamato. However, my current favorite is the cruiser Tone (WWII Japan):









What captured my interest was the unusual layout of all gun turrets forward of the bridge:










I kept wonder why did they do this? At first I thought it was to allow a full on broadside by eight of her guns, as the theory (at that time) was that cruisers while having smaller guns than battleships could still have great effect by 'smothering' a target in shells.

However, while reading a book on the battle of Midway Island (WWII), I found my answer. The Tone was built with the primary mission of escorting aircraft carriers. To allow the carrier to have the maximize the number of attack aircraft the Tone was designed to have four to five scout planes operate off its stern.












An interesting and ingenious design to carry out a support mission.

Tip of the hat to the Steel Navy web site for their great closeups of the Tone model: http://www.steelnavy.com/

1.1-inch Cannon--The 3rd Worst?

When discussing the worst United States weapons of WWII you'll usually get presented with two outstanding candidates (or maybe suspects would be a better term): the M4 Sherman tank and the Navy's Mark XIV torpedo.

Note: I'll grant that at a second-tier level we have 'stinkers' like the M3 37mm antitank gun or the M50 Reising submachine gun, which were bad, but more of the 'close but no cigar' type, and don't qualify as 'worst.'

Thus, ranking slightly below the M4 tank and the Mark XIV torpedo (but much worse than the stinkers), for your consideration, I present the water-cooled Mk 2 1.1-inch (75 Caliber) Quad-barrel machine cannon.

At one time the 1.1-inch seemed to be just what the Navy needed to provide enhanced antiaircraft protection to its ships. But, once WWII started it was found that a twin barrel Bofors 40-mm gun could do the job better. In addition, the Mk2 1.1-inch was hard to maintain and unreliable.

The 1.1-inch ammunition suffered from being smaller than the 40-mm round and bigger than the 20-mm round. The 40-mm round was large enough to have a fuse that could be set for time and/or altitude and could detonate spewing fragments increasing it lethality area. The 20-mm round was smaller, easier to handle, and could be fired at a higher rate of fire than the 1.1 inch.

In addition, the 1.1-inch round had a fuse that was built only for contact detonation. The 1.1-in. round would only detonate if it actually struck an airplane greatly reducing it's effectiveness and lethality. The fuse was equipped with a simple set back system that could be armed if dropped while loading, which could result in a burst barrel.

So hobbled by its:

1. Poor ammunition,
   
2. High maintenance requirements,
   
3. And, threat of injury to its operator

I feel justified in putting forward the Mk 2 1.1-inch for a dubious lack of achievement while in combat award.

Tip of the hat to the web site Destroyer Escort Central (located at: http://www.de220.com ) a treasure trove of information on WWII Navy technology.