The best of the best and Worst of the worst

Additionally, the B-29, and its capabilities were important enough that the US developed a parallel Very Heavy Bomber, the Consolidated B-32 Dominator. The B-32 was a very large aircraft with similar range, bombload capacity and speed to the B-29. The B-29 had many new and cutting-edge features that weren't proven, the B-32 was designed with some of these new technologies, but reverted to older proven technologies when problems arose ,so that a failure in one program wouldn't prevent us from having the capability. For instance, when problems arose with the B-32's pressurization system, the Air Corps just ordered Consolidated to revert to older proven technology. It was deleted, and the B-32 had sufficient additional range to approach the target at lower levels and ascend to 30,000 feet for their bomb runs. The remotely controlled, low profile defensive guns, similar to those of the B-29 were originally to be installed. When problems with the remote-control system were encountered and questions about accuracy of the new turrets raised, the B-32 reverted to older proven manned turrets. The B-29 remote control gun technology turned out to be workable and more accurate than manned guns.
118 B-32's were produced and Consolidated used many of the lessons they learned with the B-32 when developing the post-war B-36. The US would not have committed the materials, development and manufacturing capacity to producing a backup, if the capability was not critical to the US war effort, or the role could be filled with B-17 and B-24 bombers.



B-32 production.

 

A B-32 was the last American aircraft shot down in the war. It was on a photo-recon mission over Japan and intercepted by fighters.

 

Also, it'd be interesting to see opinions on the best and worst cruisers of the war.

 

I’ll be interested to see what sort of responses we get to this. I think the Baltimore is the obvious choice for best; it was the last and almost largest (leaving out the Alaska); it would be surprising if it wasn’t better than its predecessors.

<Prinz Eugen was the largest 8” gun cruiser, but I don’t know why; nothing about her appears superior to her contemporaries>

For worst, the early Italian Condottieri class are strong?? contenders, weak in protection and structural strength in order to achieve high trial speeds which couldn’t be kept up in practice. The Italians themselves recognized this, making the third and fourth groups 2000 tons heavier with the same armament but more realistic protection.

 

I've got a soft spot in my heart for the Brooklyns, with their amazing rate of fire. I think of the Konigsbergs as the worst, given their structural weaknesses.

 

This was n

This was normal US military practice. They would contract with several companies to build something wanting usually two or more prototypes. With aircraft, it was normally two prototypes. The companies would deliver those then they would be tested and a winner selected for production.

With the B-32, Convair had endless difficulties with the pressurization system whereas Boeing already had more than a decade of success behind them in pressurizing an aircraft. The remote control guns and fire controls proved too much for Convair to work in so they reverted to manually operated turrets and gun positions. This left the B-32, that also demonstrated poorer flying performance, and that cinched it for Boeing.

Because of the cost of the production line and what not, Convair was contracted to build like 200 of their plane as a "just in case."

 

Me too. I remember as a kid, the first time I saw a model of one in a museum, I thought the third turret aimed at its own bridge seemed kinda strange but they certainly had some firepower.

 

Also, and this is a different topic, I think of the Alaskas as battle-cruisers rather than heavy cruisers.

 

I must admit I misinterpreted this as Cruiser tanks, I was going to say 'A9 and Comet as worst and best'

 

Early in the design process, there was thought of giving them four quadruple turrets, one of them amidships for some reason. If that had been done, and the quads worked out all right, the Clevelands might have had three of them, which would help their weight and topweight problems a bit.

 

There's a plan in Norman Friedman's U.S. Cruisers Illustrated Design History, superstructure, funnels, etc. similar to the final Brooklyn, with two turrets forward, one aft, and one just forward of the after superstructure, guns oriented forward. Sort of like a New Orleans with a turret in place of the catapults. If I can electronicize it I'll post it.

Early plans for the Brooklyns showed the same Mark 31 fire control system as New Orleans, with armored control positions in the forward and aft superstructures and little cupolas poking up, but they ended up being built with the Mark 34.

 

I found this schematic online. It's the lower image:

 

That's the one I was referring to, thanks.

 

Best heavy cruisers are generally considered to be the Baltimore's. Best light cruisers the Cleveland's. That should not be surprising to anyone, the US had the industrial might to produce new and plentiful ships throughout the war. They were well designed and had the excellent US propulsion systems. They had the 5"/38, the best dual-purpose mount of the war, they had the 40mm bofors the best medium AA gun of the war. US fire control, remote powered mounts, capability of mounts to be aimed by director or radar, and their sensor suites were outstanding. Both classes had been built after the Washington Naval Treaty had expired and were freed from its restrictions, but they didn't fully realize the advantage because their designs had been developed while the treaty was still enforce. The Des Moines class heavy cruisers being built during the war but not finished and commisioned until postwar, they are the class that reflects what a cruiser would be without restrictions.

 

The Baltimores are easily the best gunnery-cruisers -- to be expected given their later entry into wartime service. It's a shame they were too late for the Solomons.

The Clevelands are a good call as well, with the British Towns being damned good as well. Not as much rapid-fire, but still very quick in gunnery.

5"/38 is hands-down the best DP gun of the war imo, especially once the proximity-fuse was deployed.

 

I do wonder how the quad-mounts might have affected rate of fire, assuming the turrets may be more cramped. I don't know enough to have an informed opinion.