USS Alaska VS the Graf Spee

[Guy Off the Wall]

As near as I can tell the USS Alaska (the US battle crusier) was closest to the Graf Spee (12in v 11in main guns). Both were bigger than the standard heavy crusier but smaller than a battleship.

 

Is this a fair assessment?

 

How would they have faired if they had squared off against each other?

[Tiornu]

Alaska was more than twice the size of Graf Spee. GS has a broadside of 3968 lbs, while Alaska's broadside is 10,260 lbs. Barring a strange occurance, Alaska would beat the snot out of the littler ship.

A closer battle would pit a ship like Algerie or Wichita against GS. That would be a close contest.

[Guest Sargent]

Alaska, no contest. Graf Spee was designed as a raider,*

Alaska was designed to catch raiders. Her intended enemy was the IJN CAs, but Graf Spee would have been a cinch.

 

*Well actually she was built because she was the biggest thing possible in treaty limits (and they cheated). She really did not have much rationale at the time of design.

[DesertFox]

IConsidering how the British Cruisers did, most US regular 8 inch cruisers could probably have fought and won because they had much better armor than British cruisers did.

[Tiornu]

You'd have to wait until you got to the New Orleans class before you get an American cruiser with satisfactory armor. Even the later, larger designs achieved their respectable armor thicknesses at the cost of protecting a limited hull volume.

[Dan Robertson]

Originally posted by DesertFox:

IConsidering how the British Cruisers did, most US regular 8 inch cruisers could probably have fought and won because they had much better armor than British cruisers did.

 

I'm not sure how much of a difference this would make when facing the 11inch guns of the pocket battleship. Even the Des Moines doesn't have enough armour to stop it.

 

I have the 11inch gun down as penetrating the turret faces at 19,000yards and the belt at 22,000yards.

 

However the Graf Spee's relativelty thin armour will only stop cruisers fire at a similar range. The advantage comes with the 11inch rounds much larger HE charge.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

I'm not sure how much of a difference this would make when facing the 11inch guns of the pocket battleship. Even the Des Moines doesn't have enough armour to stop it.

 

I have the 11inch gun down as penetrating the turret faces at 19,000yards and the belt at 22,000yards.

 

However the Graf Spee's relativelty thin armour will only stop cruisers fire at a similar range. The advantage comes with the 11inch rounds much larger HE charge.

 

 

Depends on when. Graf Spee could probably handle the US CAs in existence when she was built, Wichita might be a match, Baltimores certainly would be, and the later CAs an overmatch, especially with late-war US fire controls.

 

It should be noted that all US CAs after the Indianapolis class were bigger and more heavily armored than HMS Exeter, and the 11" shells proved less than lethal on her.

[Guest ecoterror36]

I would say the FC radar and the significant speed advantage would let the Alaska choose the most opportune battleground.

[DesertFox]

Originally posted by Sargent:

Depends on when. Graf Spee could probably handle the US CAs in existence when she was built, Wichita might be a match, Baltimores certainly would be, and the later CAs an overmatch, especially with late-war US fire controls.

 

Well, the Des Moines was my original argument in this subject. I talked to a person who claimed that the Graf Spee could beat the Des Moines but with radar fire control, I would probably bet the Des Moines against the Bismark.

 

It should be noted that all US CAs after the Indianapolis class were bigger and more heavily armored than HMS Exeter, and the 11" shells proved less than lethal on her.

 

That is pretty much my Argument with the battle.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

Even the Des Moines doesn't have enough armour to stop it.

 

Relevant to not much the Des Moines' sister Salem played the GS in the movie "Pursuit of the Graf Spee" ("Battle of the River Plate" in UK) in '57. Sorta looked alike... well one funnel anyway. That's one thing about war movies now, not realistic maybe but they'd probably try harder than that, you could see the hull number in some scenes (Panzerschiffe 139?). Was actually a decent movie though generally.

 

Joe

[Scott Cunningham]

Des Moines had a superb 8" gun system that would have turned any ship it ranged on into a shambles in short order (as long as the ammo held out). I think it would have beaten the GS.

 

The Alaska vs GS was no contest. Both had similar cruiser level armor, but the Alaska had more and better guns, a lot bigger size, and was quite a bit faster.

[Tiornu]

"I talked to a person who claimed that the Graf Spee could beat the Des Moines...." I would favor the newer 17,000-ton ship over the older 12,000-ton ship.

[FITZ]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

"I talked to a person who claimed that the Graf Spee could beat the Des Moines...." I would favor the newer 17,000-ton ship over the older 12,000-ton ship.

 

Graf Spee was clearly vulnerable to 8" gunfire and Des Moines fired a 335lb APC shell that was quite a bit more effective than the British 256lb SAPC at a dramatically faster rate than HMS Exeter could muster - 90 rounds per minute! Des Moines also has the advantage of an advanced (for its day) radar fire control system that would allow her to keep contact with Graf Spee when the British could not. Rather better protected and subdivided than the British cruisers, she could have hung in a fight longer as well.

 

As for Alaska vs. Des Moines, I don't think that one is so clear-cut. The Des Moines have almost a 1kt speed advantage and are much more maneuverable. The Alaska's have individually more powerful guns, better armor and subdivision, but the huge volume of fire eminating from Des Moines could well prove decisive.

[Yama]

Originally posted by Guy Off the Wall:

As near as I can tell the USS Alaska (the US battle crusier) was closest to the Graf Spee (12in v 11in main guns). Both were bigger than the standard heavy crusier but smaller than a battleship.

?

 

As others have said, ALASKA is way superior to GS. However, ALASKA's armour did not give very good protection against 11" guns, so there might have been small but existing chance that ALASKA is destroyed or seriously damaged. Of course, ALASKA has 9 guns vs GS 6, so odds are heavily in ALASKA's favour.

 

As for ALASKA vs SCHARNHORST, barring the US radar superiority, nod goes to German ship here. Though ALASKA is bit faster and could probably disengage.

[DesertFox]

As for ALASKA vs SCHARNHORST, barring the US radar superiority, nod goes to German ship here. Though ALASKA is bit faster and could probably disengage.

 

I was thinking that the 11 inch round was underpowered but with looking up, the 12 inch/50 is only a little bit more powerful although I have to say that it is a much heavier shell

[Yama]

Originally posted by DesertFox:

I was thinking that the 11 inch round was underpowered but with looking up, the 12 inch/50 is only a little bit more powerful although I have to say that it is a much heavier shell

 

 

ALASKA's 12 inch guns were a new design which was considerably powerful than previous US 12", and much more powerful than SCHARNHORST's 11" (which in turn was somewhat better than GS 11"). However, SCHARNHORST is much better armored than ALASKA.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Yama:

As for ALASKA vs SCHARNHORST, barring the US radar superiority, nod goes to German ship here. Though ALASKA is bit faster and could probably disengage.

 

Not surprising, as Scharnhorst was a capital ship and Alaska a cruiser.

 

Other things aside, IIRC (I'm sure Tiornu will correct me if I err ) Scharnhorst shared the German weakness of having her internal communications and wiring outside the armor citadel. This prevents weakening citadel bulkheads with cable runs, but leaves the wiring exposed to damage by hits which do not penetrate armor. Bismarck was silenced long before she sunk in her final action by loss of power and communication to the turrets.

 

So Scharnhorst would be much more vulnerable to the infamous "critical hit" which would put the ship out of action without damaging watertight integrity. Recall that South Dakota was put out of action at 2nd Guadalcanal by mishaps and shell damage that deprived her of radar and fire control.

 

Just one more intangible in Alaska's favor...

[DesertFox]

Originally posted by Yama:

ALASKA's 12 inch guns were a new design which was considerably powerful than previous US 12", and much more powerful than SCHARNHORST's 11" (which in turn was somewhat better than GS 11"). However, SCHARNHORST is much better armored than ALASKA.

 

This is what I have for listing:

Gun:..................12/50

Nation:...............USA

Class Used:..........Alaska

AP Shell Wt:........1140 lbs.

Muzzle Vel:.........2500 ft/sec

Max Range:.........38,573 yds.

Firing Cycle:........20-25 sec.

Vertical Armor Penetration at:

Muzzle:..............24.5 Inches

20,000 yds:..........12.7 Inches

30,000 yds:..........9.1 Inches

 

Gun:..................11/54

Nation:...............Germany

Class Used:..........Deutschland, Scharnhorst

AP Shell Wt:........727.5 lbs.

Muzzle Vel:.........2920 ft/sec

Max Range:.........44,760 yds.

Firing Cycle:........17 sec.

Vertical Armor Penetration at:

Muzzle:..............23.8 Inches

20,000 yds:..........11.5 Inches

30,000 yds:..........8.1 Inches

[Tiornu]

"However, ALASKA's armour did not give very good protection against 11" guns...."

Actually, Alaska has quite a hefty IZ against GS's guns, somewhere along the lines of 13,000-29,000 yards.

[Tiornu]

As far as I have been able to determine, the German reputation for exposed wiring is incorrect. I believe it is a holdover from WWI when at least one German ship had a turret disabled by shells that never hit its armor.

However, Scharnhorst has all sorts of other problems, not the least of which was the armor deck which is both thin and poorly angled. (Decks aren't supposed to be angled--but that's just my opinion.) Yet you'd expect a battleship to have more extensive facilities than a cruiser for pumping and auxiliary power and other things we rarely take into consideration. Apart from considerations of radar, I would tend to favor Scharnhorst slightly over Alaska; but throw the electronics into the mix, and I think the odds shift over to Alaska's side.

When you see penetration data in books, it's usually taken from old sources based on relatively primitive formulae and calculated against a certain type of armor which will not be standard from one navy to another. Here are some more modern numbers figured at 20,000 yards for new-gun velocity and a 90deg target angle against WWII British armor: GS gun, belt 6.6in and deck 1.7in; Alaska gun, belt 11.6in and deck 2.5in. Clearly the 12in gun is vastly more powerful, and I should note that even these modern figures shortchange the 12in gun in deck penetration; the exaggerated US shell form does better in oblique deck hits than the latest formulae can account for.

[FITZ]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

"However, ALASKA's armour did not give very good protection against 11" guns...."

Actually, Alaska has quite a hefty IZ against GS's guns, somewhere along the lines of 13,000-29,000 yards.

 

The Alaska's had a "limited immunity" zone against it's own guns from 23,500 to 25,000 yards in her armored citidel, to 26,600 yards over magazines and from 15,000 to approximately 28,000 yards on the main battery turrets (frontal arc) .

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by FITZ:

The Alaska's had a "limited immunity" zone against it's own guns from 23,500 to 25,000 yards in her armored citidel, to 26,600 yards over magazines and from 15,000 to approximately 28,000 yards on the main battery turrets (frontal arc) .

 

As we have seen, the Alaska's 12/50s were considerably more potent than the German 11"/54.

 

Alaska, being a cruiser, was designed to cruiser rules, which specified protection against fire from a 60* angle. BB rules assumed the ships would lie in a line of battle (unable to maneuver freely as a cruiser could) and specified protection againbst shells approaching from 90*.

[FITZ]

Originally posted by Sargent:

As we have seen, the Alaska's 12/50s were considerably more potent than the German 11"/54.

 

I wouldn't say "considerably". The numbers below certainly don't indicate anything like orders of magnitude differences in effectiveness. An Alaska's immunity zone against the German gun wouldn't be that much larger than against her own guns.

[Guy Off the Wall]

Originally posted by FITZ:

I wouldn't say "considerably".  The numbers below certainly don't indicate anything like orders of magnitude differences in effectiveness.  An Alaska's immunity zone against the German gun wouldn't be that much larger than against her own guns.  

 

 

The Graf Spee's 11inch guns had a higher muzzle velocity which would have implied (at least under certain situations) a flatter firing trajectory compared to the Alasks 12 in guns. This means that there would be relatively less of a threat of plunging fire from the Graf Spee than the Alaska.

[Guy Off the Wall]

Originally posted by FITZ:

As for Alaska vs. Des Moines, I don't think that one is so clear-cut.  The Des Moines have almost a 1kt speed advantage and are much more maneuverable. The Alaska's have individually more powerful guns, better armor and subdivision, but the huge volume of fire eminating from Des Moines could well prove decisive.    

 

 

The 1kt advantage of the Des Moines may not be all that decisive. A Des Moines would first have to survive the ride through the Alaska's imunity zone before she could swamp the Alaska with her 8 inchers. The Alaska could just maintain distance until it damaged the Des Moine enough then swoop in for the kill. A Des Moines is not designed to withstand that caliber of shell.