What was the purpose of the bars on the side of American cruisers during World War 2?

Posted 24Sep2017.

Oy. I hate disputing things here on Quora – especially when the author of what I challenge has put effort, knowledge, and experience into their answer. However, I must politely disagree with Eric’s answer that they were there to shield the props from unfortunate interaction with depth charges.

Ok, so… I haven’t the patience to go in and illustrate/highlight the parts in question, but these parenthesis-shaped protrusions on the side of the hull and aft of the #5 turret are exactly what Will and Kevin mentioned – prop guards.

Brooklyn-class light cruisers were not armed with depth charges, and except for the later St. Louis-class, these ships were primarily designed for surface warfare with the additional duties of anti-aircraft protection and shore bombardment, depending on situational necessity.

In the image above, the prop guards are not included, but you can see where they would be located in relation to the props and the #5 turret…

Coincidentally, the features in question are strikingly similar to those found on submarines of the Second World War:

Again, no depth charge racks…

Losing a prop would be a pain in the stern, both literally and figuratively… therefore, a simple solution was needed to prevent fouling and damage when in port. Would Iplace a lot of faith in these structures fending off the efforts of inattentive tug skippers or the capricious whims of the wind? No, but the comfort in knowing that they would provide some sort of protection or buffer would make me feel a bit better.

As far as the need for speed during ASW operations, I cannot comfortably argue the first-hand accounts from those who had “been there and done that.” The effects of depth charges, even on surface ships, cannot be discounted. Even from the data gathered from wartime tests on the USS Dragonet, it is clear that even from 75 feet, a 600 pound depth charge is capable of inflicting severe shock damage. It would seem that the possibility of losing the target within the last 200 yards of the depth charge run would necessitate the higher speeds during the attack, but again – I would have been hard-pressed (and promptly relieved of command) if I were the skipper of an ASW platform that decided that slower and possibly stationary attacks was an appropriate attempt to “think outside the box” of doctrine.

When I started, I said I “hated” disputing questions. At the moment, however, I have entirely too many tabs open due to my research and have learned a lot more about surface ASW capabilities and techniques during the Second World War, so it seems that it was actually kind of fun and educational on my end. Hopefully, Eric will see my response as yet another form of protection from those “human blenders.” 🙂

[Edit: my chronological order of cruiser classes has been fixed… not salty about the suggestions at all — actually, I’m appreciative of the corrections. :)]