Navygaming / Translation Service: Wargaming Article

"Pensacola": a Developer's Overview
Everyone has its own opinion on a ship. Someone would imagine a "sea hunter" like a swallow or a shark. Of course, for many people the warship's architecture, its bypasses and outlook play a great role. The main thing is to look cool. But for others a warship is not only an ocean-space predator, it's not only a beautiful vessel with great architecture, but also it's an amount of technical information. And I, as a Game Designer, can be related to this group. Working on any warship, I'm intersted in "numbers" first of all. Overall size, armament, armouring, power-plant capacity - all of these give me a conception of a warship, though it's not complete.

Zamuchryshkin 15.06.14 в 08:06

"Pensacola" is one of those atypical warships which are interesting for non-standard solutions in their construction. Taking into consideration the fact the cruiser was designed in strict frames of different agreements, the designers really outdid themselves. The cruiser's architecture became typical for the next cruiser classes. Thus it appeared a silhouette of the "Sea Hunter" armed with 8" guns. The designers were working on such an armed cruiser for fighting with enemy's destroyers for a long time, and there was a lot of sketch projects before the final design was accepted. The main demands which were given to designers were to create a cruiser which would be well-armed and could "feel free" during enemy DDs' shooting.

Zamuchryshkin 15.06.14 в 08:20

Let's get to know this marvel of the designers' intention better, and state the value of the solutions made to reach the demands needed. The final sketch considered to have ten 8" guns, 31,2 knot speed, till 10 000 t of displacement, and a good armouring.

Zamuchryshkin 15.06.14 в 08:25

The general acquaintance with the cruiser's outlook, after reading and learning some of her characteristics, made an excellent departing point because of which this class of cruisers simply couldn't been muddled up. The concordance of contradictory demands led to atypical solutions. For example, from four main calibre turrets two (bow and stern ones) were twin, and others were triple and were placed upper than the twin turrets. This was made because a triple turret's barbette didn't fit in bow bypasses. So the designers had to develop the twin-turret construction separately.

Zamuchryshkin 15.06.14 в 08:42

As the warship turned out to be "underused", the 900t reserve was used to increase the armouring. The increased armouring was considered to be used for safety of propulsion machinery and magazines. So the 76mm belt armour covered the propulsion machinery along boards and the 102 mm belt - the bow magazine. For some reason, many authors forget to show the bow belt armour on their schemes or pictures, even if a photograph which distinctly indicates it is available in this work.

Zamuchryshkin 15.06.14 в 08:54

On the contrary, many point at the magazines' armouring, though there are only few confirmations of if the belt armour covered them or not. One of the documents says about changes in the structure where this belt armour for the magazines was considered to be. It also may be that boxing armouring for this class of warships was foreseen for the saving of the stern magazines. To be sure about inside boxing armouring we can not. To regret, there is no any copy of sketches. In my opinion, the inside armouring was there. I think so because the bypasses in this place were wider: that would let to cover the vulnerable place with armouring. From the other side, some Fleet officials did think there shouldn't be any armouring of the stern magazines because a cruiser should go to their enemy from bow, and not show their, sorry, "ass".

Zamuchryshkin 15.06.14 в 12:02

The desk above the engine- and boiler-rooms was 25 mm thickness (37 mm in the places where magazines were), and some sources point at 45 mm armouring. The steering engines were covered with 65 mm of armouring from sides and 25 mm from above. The main calibre turrets were armoured with 65 mm front slab, 37 mm from above, 25 mm from sides and 19 mm for the back wall. For better understanding, I'd like to adduce a scheme with the main armouring (from Friedman "US Cruiesrs").

Zamuchryshkin 15.06.14 в 12:15

The propulsion machinery consisted of steam turbines "Parsons", 8 boilers "White-Foster", the total power of which was about 107 000 shp.

Zamuchryshkin 15.06.14 в 12:23

By the moment of launching into water, the armament consisted of ten 8"/55 Mk 14 guns in twin or triple turrets, four 5"/25 AA guns, some machine-guns, torpedo tubes. The cruiser had two catapultes and four hydroplanes (Vought 0S2U «Kingfisher», Curtiss SC-1 «Seahawk»).

Zamuchryshkin 15.06.14 в 12:26

The gun-direction systems consisted of main calibre director Mk 18, 4,5 m range-finders, 6 m range-finders for the main calibre turrets. The AAD director Mk 19 was later changed on Mk 35 and Mk 51. In 1940, an experimental CXAM model radar was installed. Later, it was replaced by new models: SK and SC - for searching, and FC as an artillery radar.

Zamuchryshkin 15.06.14 в 12:35

In 1930-s, the torpedo tubes were dismantled (look at the photo) due to their vainness. Before the war, four additional 5"/25 AA guns were installed. In 1941, two quadraple 28-mm machine guns were installed on the cruisers. The superstructures were also refreshed, and a fire-control tower was installed on the mainmast. By 1942, eight single 20-mm MGs and two quadraple 28-mm MGS were added. To the end of 1942, new quadraple 40-mm "Bofors" were installed instead of 28-mm "Chicago pianos". The number of 20-mm MG increased. By 1945, the AAD weaponry consisted of four quadraple 40-mm "Bofors" and twenty single 20-mm machine guns. The number of "Chicago pianos" decreased till two machine guns only.

Zamuchryshkin 15.06.14 в 12:45

I wrote such a "dull" (I hope not) article as my role in the Game Design Department of Wargaming St. Petersburg is to be occupied with construction, armament and schemes of main warship modules' allocation. I'm also occupied with working up the information we have to get exact historical parameters, but it doesn't always happen.
I wish you liked the article despite all my conciseness and prolixity (as usual, I hope not).

Zamuchryshkin 15.06.14 в 12:50