Talk:Juneau-class cruiser

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juneau-class cruiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629131922/http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/korea/navalbattles.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/korea/navalbattles.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Juneau class successor

Unfortunately, the Worcester class of 6-inch light cruisers was NOT the successor to the Juneau class of 5-inch cruisers, the CL-154 class was. The guns of the two classes had different ballistics and rates of fire and served (or were to serve) somewhat different purposes. Their hull lines and displacements were significantly different. About the only things they shared was a general machinery arrangement and the word 'light' in their classification, which was the consequence of an arms treaty. This is well documented in Friedman's 1984 U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History; this book should be considered authoritative and should supersede any reference that claims otherwise.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Dubious: Overweight issues

Current text reads:

The ships had the same main armament as Oakland, but the bridge and superstructure were redesigned to remove weight and increase visibility, and the reduction in weight allowed increased antiaircraft guns to be added with increased stability.

The last three words 'with increased stability' implies that the Juneau design was fully successful in this regard. It was not. While it was an improvement over the Atlanta-class and Oakland-subclass, Friedman documents on pages 367-369 of his U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History (1984) that in the spring of 1944 BuShips reported to the General Board that the Juneau-class was already overweight prior to launching despite every effort to reduce it. This goal was not fully achieved, the degree of success in the goal was negated by the increased antiaircraft weaponry weight, and so it would be more accurate to leave out these three words.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

A better revision might be: The ships had the same main armament as Oakland, but the bridge and superstructure were redesigned to remove weight and increase visibility and stability, and the reduction in weight allowed increased antiaircraft guns to be added; however, the weight of this additional armament negated the redesign's weight saving and stability goals.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Change made, since there was no objection in almost 3 years. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)