"Alaska" class large cruisers

[Slater]

What was the theory behind this design? More capable than a heavy cruiser but not quite a battleship - "battleship lite" I guess

[Guest pfcem]

What was the theory behind this design? More capable than a heavy cruiser but not quite a battleship - "battleship lite" I guess

Similar to the original BC concept. Specifically designed to defeat enemy cruisers & fast enough to evade combat with enemy battleships.

[Paul in Qatar]

I heard tell the Alaskas were to be a counterpart of some sort of Japanese ship class (that may or may not have been built).

[Guest aevans]

Similar to original BC, but not quite. The Alaskas were intended to be the apotheosis of the post-Treaty cruiser -- and certain killers of competitor post-Treaty cruisers -- not a light, fast battleship.

[Guest aevans]

I heard tell the Alaskas were to be a counterpart of some sort of Japanese ship class (that may or may not have been built).

 

More like trumps of anything the Japanese could hope to build on a cruiser hull.

[Scott Cunningham]

They were built to fight the large Jap cruisers USN Intel said were being built. Those ships never materialized so they were used for standard escort duties.

 

Would have been nice to have them in the 42 battles around Guadalcanal if they had been ready, but I highly doubt the USN would have risked them (they cost as much as an Essex carrier to build) when there were so many regular cruisers to use.

[BJE]

Would have been nice to have them in the 42 battles around Guadalcanal if they had been ready, but I highly doubt the USN would have risked them (they cost as much as an Essex carrier to build) when there were so many regular cruisers to use.

As the USN risked it's battleships at Guadalcanal, why would they not have risked the Alaskas if they had been available?

[KingSargent]

The Alaskas were cruisers with all the Treaty restrictions removed. When the CBs were designed carriers were still an unproven weapon, and there were legal restrictions on how many CVs the USN could build - these restrictions vanished, but they were in force when the CBs were designed and ordered.

 

At the time of their conception, commerce raiding was supposed to be done by surface ships; it was illegal to sink merchantmen with a submarine and SURELY nobody would ignore a Treaty!

 

The IJN had eighteen big cruisers, fourteen of them well over the 10,000 ton limit. The Germans (not as certain an enemy as the Japanese, but #2 on the list) had their 'pocket battleships' - Panzerschiffe, and if the US ignored the Bronx vote and went to war with Italy there were the four big Zara class CAs. All of these would be easy meat for an Alaska.

 

The Alaskas were not built because the IJN were building similar vessels, the IJN ordered (but cancelled) ships to match the Alaskas.

 

The aircraft carrier proved as potent a weapon as its supporters had claimed (AFAIK, the first time in naval history that that happened!) and usurped the CBs' rationale. The CB ended up escorting its replacement.

 

The Alaskas were a good idea when they were designed and ordered but were made obsolete by events.

[John_Ford]

Google is your friend. Always thought they were pretty ships.

 

 

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/cru/cb1cl.htm

[Tiornu]

The USN had concerns about the German pocket battleships, which also prompted a proposed rearming of Northamptons with six 10in guns. Studies that led to the Alaskas included designs with 8in, 10in, and 12in guns.

There were also concerns about Japan's powerful heavy cruisers, and then rumors arose about a Japanese pocket battleship class. I believe Jane's listed them as Takamatsu, Chichibu, and Niitaka, and credited them with 15,000 tons and six 12in guns. Meanwhile American intelligence was listing similar ships.

Alaska differs markedly from the original battlecruiser concept. Alaska was never intended to fight battleships.

[Scott Cunningham]

The Alaskas were decent cruisers. They were not battlescruisers. Compare them to the closest BC design (the Scharnhorsts) and they come off poorly. Against other cruisers they look pretty good. The only ones that would be superior in design would have been the Des Moines class. Everything else would have been a target for an Alaska class ship.

 

Their 12" Guns were supposed to be superb. During the guadalcanal fights the USN decided it was better to have quick firing 6" ships rather than slow firing 8" ships, but I think 12" shells would have made a big difference. The only exception would have been a Des Moines with their automatic 8" turrets that would have been able to overwhelm an Alaska.

[TheSilentType]

Is it true that the Alaskas cost 2/3rds as much as an Iowa-class BB? If that's the case then it seems like they weren't worth the resources that were used to build them.

[Guest aevans]

Is it true that the Alaskas cost 2/3rds as much as an Iowa-class BB? If that's the case then it seems like they weren't worth the resources that were used to build them.

 

Assuming that carriers weren't the scouting assets that they turned out to be and you needed a surface scouting force -- which was the context under which the Alaskas were planned -- what value should you put on a truly dominant scouting platform? You can't just pick an arbitrary threshold like "1/2 of a BB".

[DesertFox]

You can scout very aggressively with an Iowa

[Yama]

The Alaskas were cruisers with all the Treaty restrictions removed. When the CBs were designed carriers were still an unproven weapon, and there were legal restrictions on how many CVs the USN could build - these restrictions vanished, but they were in force when the CBs were designed and ordered.

 

At the time of their conception, commerce raiding was supposed to be done by surface ships; it was illegal to sink merchantmen with a submarine and SURELY nobody would ignore a Treaty!

 

Well to nitpick, it was not illegal, just that sinking without warning was prohibited...U-boats in fact complied with the treaty - for a while.

 

I have to say that I don't quite understand rationale behind Alaskas. I've heard a rumour that they were FDR's pet project. They were nearly as expensive as a real battleship but much less capable (except speed, and fast battleships matched even that) and they took up Treaty capital ship slots. Building small number of expensive niche ships does not seem cost-effective.

Edited July 19, 2007 by Yama

[irregularmedic]

The Alaskas were decent cruisers. They were not battlescruisers. Compare them to the closest BC design (the Scharnhorsts) and they come off poorly. Against other cruisers they look pretty good. The only ones that would be superior in design would have been the Des Moines class. Everything else would have been a target for an Alaska class ship.

 

Their 12" Guns were supposed to be superb. During the guadalcanal fights the USN decided it was better to have quick firing 6" ships rather than slow firing 8" ships, but I think 12" shells would have made a big difference. The only exception would have been a Des Moines with their automatic 8" turrets that would have been able to overwhelm an Alaska.

 

 

Don't the 12" guns outrange the 8" ones?

 

Are there scenarios where Des Moines class cruisers could be completed before wars end?

[Tiornu]

Various responses:

 

Compare them to the closest BC design (the Scharnhorsts) and they come off poorly.

In what way do they come off poorly? Belt armor. Alaska has the firepower advantage, the speed advantage, the range advantage, the reliability advantage. Scharnhorst should have less tangible assets like pumping capacity, emergency power, compartmentation--but I don't have details. Mostly Scharnhorst has a size advantage, and that has nothing to say about classifying the ships. In fact, laboring for an appropriate label is a waste of time. After all, the Scharnhorsts were battleships.

 

Don't the 12" guns outrange the 8" ones?

Yes, by about 18,000 yards. And 8in gunnery cannot radar-spot out the gun's maximum range.

 

Assuming that carriers weren't the scouting assets that they turned out to be and you needed a surface scouting force -- which was the context under which the Alaskas were planned -- what value should you put on a truly dominant scouting platform?

The scouting role was not a consideration in the Alaska design, as far as I can recall, and battle plans did not cast them in the role of scouts but as escorts.

 

If that's the case then it seems like they weren't worth the resources that were used to build them.

Part of the excessive cost per Alaska unit was the fact that it was a new line and it got cut short with only two completions. But it's hard to find a valid perspective by which they weren't over-priced.

[Guest pfcem]

Similar to original BC, but not quite. The Alaskas were intended to be the apotheosis of the post-Treaty cruiser -- and certain killers of competitor post-Treaty cruisers -- not a light, fast battleship.

Alaska differs markedly from the original battlecruiser concept. Alaska was never intended to fight battleships.

You two either don't know or are forgetting what the original concept of the BC was. They were intended to dominate enemy cruisers & use their speed to avoid enemy battleships. It was only later that BC's evolved into "light battleships" as apposed to "super cruisers".

 

 

 

The Alaskas were decent cruisers. They were not battlescruisers. Compare them to the closest BC design (the Scharnhorsts) and they come off poorly. Against other cruisers they look pretty good. The only ones that would be superior in design would have been the Des Moines class. Everything else would have been a target for an Alaska class ship.

The Alaskas were "Large Cruisers", not battlecruisers. They were designed as part of US cruiser doctrine, not as part of any "battlecruiser" or "light battleship" doctrine.

 

The Scharnhorsts were classified as Schlachtschiffe (battleships) by the German navy, not Schlachtkreuzer (battlecruisers). It was always intended to rearm them with three twin 15" guns (work had begun on Gneisenau in July, 1942 but the guns never arrived) but since the intended 15" guns would not have been ready in time for their completion, they were completed with three triple 11" guns (construction of which had already begun for an "improved Deutschland" class) instead.

 

 

 

Their 12" Guns were supposed to be superb. During the guadalcanal fights the USN decided it was better to have quick firing 6" ships rather than slow firing 8" ships, but I think 12" shells would have made a big difference. The only exception would have been a Des Moines with their automatic 8" turrets that would have been able to overwhelm an Alaska.

Deck armor penetration of the 1,140 lb 12" "super heavy" AP Mark 18 shells was on par with the 1,500 lb 14" AP Mark 16 of the Old BBs & belt armor penentration was 90% @ 0 yard increasing to 94% @ 35,000 yards.

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_14-50_mk11.htm

[Yama]

Don't the 12" guns outrange the 8" ones?

 

Yes, however, it's probably somewhat questionable to which extent there was practical advantage. 8" cruisers were capable - and did - engaging the enemy at ranges of 20 to 26 kilometres, ie. around same maximum ranges as battleships did. Though, battleship guns might have had less dispersion at those ranges, I don't know.

[Tiornu]

Various responses:

You two either don't know or are forgetting what the original concept of the BC was. They were intended to dominate enemy cruisers & use their speed to avoid enemy battleships. It was only later that BC's evolved into "light battleships" as apposed to "super cruisers".

You have fallen prey to a common misconception. Invincible had the same roles as the previous large armored cruisers, which Fisher called "fast battleships in disguise." They were certainly not supposed to use their speed to avoid battleships. They were specifically intended to use their speed to ENGAGE battleships. This is well covered by authors researching Fisher-era developments but butchered by more general histories.

 

Yes, however, it's probably somewhat questionable to which extent there was practical advantage.

There were several occasions in which battleships engaged targets at ranges beyond 30,000 yards, and accurately. But even at ranges where 8in shells can reach, the larger gun strikes from a lower trajectory. I don't know about dispersion. It actually decreases near a gun's maximum range.

[Yama]

There were several occasions in which battleships engaged targets at ranges beyond 30,000 yards, and accurately. But even at ranges where 8in shells can reach, the larger gun strikes from a lower trajectory. I don't know about dispersion. It actually decreases near a gun's maximum range.

 

Hmm, can you mention few examples? I'm not aware of any actual hits beyond well-known examples by Scharnhorst and Warspite, where hits were achieved at around 26 kyds.

 

In Battle of the Java Sea, Nachi opened fire at 26 kilometres, though admittably she was not hitting much, if anything. Of course, battleships had advantage of larger rangefinders.

[Mote]

At Truk, Iowa straddled a Japanese destroyer at 40,000 yards, right?

[Tiornu]

At Samar, the Japanese opened fire on Taffy 3 from beyond 30,000 yards. In that case, the fire was not very accurate.

After Denmark Strait, PoW dogged Bismarck and straddled her from just past 30,000 yards.

At First (Second?) Sirte, a Littorio fired on British cruisers from beyond 30,000 yards and caused splinter damage.

And as Mote mentioned, Iowa and NJ fired on Nowaki from ranges up to 39,000 yards and achieved a few straddles.

One uncertain incident, at Casablanca, Massachusetts hit a French destroyer, but I'm not sure what the range was. From memory, the shooting ranged from 24,000 to 31,000 yards.

[DesertFox]

Destroyers are pretty small targets.....

 

Creating a rectangle the size of Nowaki, you get 14,004 square feet (Rounding up)

Creating a rectangle the size of Nagatoi, you get 82,650 square feet (Rounding up)

 

The surface area is something like 5.9 times the size.

 

Would the 39,000 Yard straddle on a destroyer have hit a battleship?

[Tiornu]

You're absolutely right about the relative target size, but I don't believe we have sufficient information to say whether or not a BB-sized target would have been hit.

Edited July 20, 2007 by Tiornu