Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It had me thinging about the two battlecruisers the Alaska and Guam the USS built during WWII. I believe they came into service in late 44 or early 45 and they were about as long as a battleship but has less armor and smaller guns. They both had 9-12" main guns and I think it was 12-5" secondary dual purpose guns. They are in a book I have about the fast US battleships that came on line from 1940 to 1945 at wars end. Most in the book feel they were a waste and the US should have built two more Iowa class battleships or Carriers instead.
These Alaska class battlecruisers were said to do 33 knots and had a good 12" gun but nowhere near the side and deck armor of a battleship. Its said the President ordered them early in the war to combat Germany's 11" gun battlecruisers but most or all of the German battlecruisers were sunk when these came on line. I am sure they could do alot of damage with their 12" guns and defeat any cruisers on the seas but one good deck hit from a 14 to 18" battleship gun and they most likely would have been in the same trouble like the Hood had when facing battleships. I wish I had a pic as they were very good looking ships as they looked like a North Carolina battleship to me. Just wondering what are some of your opinions about them. Thanks , Ron
I think a design is validated once it sees considerable active service and is subjected to situations (and damage) to critique the design and determine if it was worth the investment.
While I don't personally see the similarity you describe to the North-Carolina-class battlewagons (they have two stacks and the Alaskas only one), the Alaska-class "battlecruisers" were beautiful creatures to behold. They were designed to counter the German "pocket battleships" and their two battlecruisers -- Scharnhorst and Gneisenau*, plus the additional battlecruisers of Germany's Plan Z.
The overall specifications of the Alaska-class, if not their specific dimensions and profile, were reminiscent of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. The layout of their armament (main, secondary, AAA) was similar to that of the Baltimore-class heavy cruisers, and their secondary and AAA layout was also seen in the Cleveland-class light cruisers.
Now to your question. Like their British and German predecessors, they were perfectly designed as raiders. Their main battery could out-range and overpower anything short of a battleship or another battlecruiser, and they could outrun (most) battleships.
The problem with them was actually pretty simple. By the time they were ready for duty, there was nothing left to raid. While their 12-inch guns were actually more powerful than the 14-inchers on the older US battleships, there were already plenty of big-bore guns for shore bombardment.
That left carrier-escort duties, for which they were more expensive, less maneuverable, and no more effective than the much cheaper Baltimore- and Cleveland-class cruisers.
Thanks for starting what may prove to be yet another most-interesting thread.
Regards,
-- Nighteyes
* NOTE: People often classify the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as battleships, a role for which they were ill-suited. Neither their armament (nine 11-inch guns) nor the extent/thickness of their armor would permit them to go toe-to-toe with a full-fledged battleship. Their 31-knot speed, however, gave them the ability to easily outrun any battleship short of an Iowa-class.
Last edited by Nighteyes; 09-08-2014 at 08:53 AM..
With Germany's 2 real battleships packing 15" guns and Japan's going up to 18" (not to mention their massively increased armor) it would have been suicide for an Alaska Class cruiser to engage one.
A lot of people forget the Italian navy too; the 2 Littorio class ships were the equal of the Bismarck Class.
The HMS Hood was lacking in deck armor but she was far bigger than the Alaskas and was packing the big guns so she (theoretically) stood a chance against the best the Axis could put into the Atlantic. The Hood wasn't alone either; the HMS Prince of Wales there and was England's newest top-of-the-line King George V class battleship. I'm sure the Royal Navy went into that engagement superbly confident of winning.
The Alaska and Guam were beautiful, graceful looking ships though. What would have been an even bigger waste but extremely cool is the USS Montana. Now THAT would have been a real man's warship!
With Germany's 2 real battleships packing 15" guns and Japan's going up to 18" (not to mention their massively increased armor) it would have been suicide for an Alaska Class cruiser to engage one.
With all due respect, Chango, 'duh...' It would have been suicide for anything short of a battleship to go up against Bismarck, Tirpitz, Nelson, Rodney, etc., not to mention any of the US battlewagons. The mission of any battlecruiser, when confronted with a full-bore battleship, was to take off h*ll-for-leather toward the horizon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango
A lot of people forget the Italian navy too; the 2 Littorio class ships were the equal of the Bismarck Class.
The British didn't forget. That was the entire reason for the Battle of Taranto in 1940. (Oh, yes, and Littorio was a bit faster than Bismarck!)
Let's also not forget the French battleships Richeleau and Jean Bart. Both were as modern as they came.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango
The HMS Hood was lacking in deck armor but she was far bigger than the Alaskas and was packing the big guns so she (theoretically) stood a chance against the best the Axis could put into the Atlantic.
I have come to think that Hood fell victim to her own press. She was the darling of the Home Fleet, and the emotional favorite of most of England. None of this changed the simple fact that she was a battlecruiser of a World War I design. In 1941, Hood suffered the same fate as did Her Majesty's battlecruisers Indefatigable and Queen Mary in 1916 during the Battle of Jutland. Having seen them dramatically explode and sink, Admiral Sir David Beatty remarked, "Something seems to be the matter with our damned battlecruisers today..."
Indefatigable was an older battlecruiser, but Queen Mary was one of the newer ones. Her specifications and overall profile were rather similar to HMS Hood. They thought they had corrected the problem, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango
The Alaska and Guam were beautiful, graceful looking ships though. What would have been an even bigger waste but extremely cool is the USS Montana. Now THAT would have been a real man's warship!
Yes, and yes!
Last edited by Nighteyes; 09-09-2014 at 04:31 PM..
Just wondering what are some of your opinions about them.
Nice looking ships, no doubt. But they didn't have a clear cut mission by the time they were put into action. More of a relic from the pre-war notion of battlecruisers; an idea that just plain didn't pan out in the era of carrier based air power. They weren't as good at shore bombardment as the battleships and couldn't engage surface opponents as effectively as attack aircraft. Lots more expensive to build and operate than cruisers or destroyers for escort duty.
They truly were a solution in search of a problem.
The mission of any battlecruiser, when confronted with a full-bore battleship,
was to take off h*ll-for-leather toward the horizon
.
Just asking..was that specifically in the Allies' naval manuals in WWII? Was that standard procedure under those circumstances? I know discretion is the better part of valor but some commanders don't like to show their back to an enemy. Usually they are the guys who win VC's....;-)...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
