"Alaska" class large cruisers

[DesertFox]

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.

 

If you can find where you tracked down the information on straddles, books or website, I would like to read more on the subject.

 

edit: The Splinter damage on the British cruiser represents a really close straddle I would think. It likely would have hit a battleship, I have to wonder

Edited July 20, 2007 by DesertFox

[FITZ]

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.

 

The longest ranged hit ever achieved in ship-to-ship gun combat was around 26,000 yards (I can look up the exact figure if you really need it). That is still well within the limits of 8-inch gunfire.

 

As for the Alaska's there are many common myths and misconceptions regarding their role and genesis. What seems quite clear from the documentation is that the design for these ships was very much driven by Roosevelt's personal intervention, not navy requirements. Roosevelt saw them as a counter to potential IJN and German commerce raiders. The alternative, rejected design carried twelve 8-inch guns. Someone I think mentioned that they thought the Alaska's would have done well in the naval battles off Guadalcanal. I disagree. Those engagements showed clearly the advantages (at the time) of the kind of rapid fire that could only be provided by 6-inch gunned cruisers. The heavy cruisers of both sides were relatively ineffective.

 

One thing is clear - the Alaska's were not battlecruisers in any meaningful sense. They lacked the speed advantage that battlecruisers had traditionally enjoyed over contemporary battleships, and firepower was clearly inadequate as battleships of the same era were using 16 and 18-inch guns. Previous battlecruisers had used either the same caliber as current battleships or (particularly in the German navy of WWI) the caliber of the previous class of battleships. The U.S. Navy certainly regarded them as cruisers, not battlecruisers.

[TheSilentType]

Someone I think mentioned that they thought the Alaska's would have done well in the naval battles off Guadalcanal. I disagree. Those engagements showed clearly the advantages (at the time) of the kind of rapid fire that could only be provided by 6-inch gunned cruisers. The heavy cruisers of both sides were relatively ineffective.

 

They would've probably done well against the Hiei and Kirishima. US CAs manage to wreck Hiei, so I the 12-inch guns on the Alaskas should've been ever more effective.

[FITZ]

They would've probably done well against the Hiei and Kirishima. US CAs manage to wreck Hiei, so I the 12-inch guns on the Alaskas should've been ever more effective.

 

That is one very small part of a much larger battle. A lot of assumptions have to be met for this to even happen. For EVERYTHING ELSE that happened in those engagements, the Alaska's would have been at a distinct disadvantage.

[Redbeard]

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.

 

I'm sure you are aware of the almost total absence of torpedoprotection in the Alaskas. Judging from how major warships ended their carrers in WWII that certainly was a major flaw in a ship of Alaska's size and cost. I would say the only serious advantage an Alaska would have over a Scharnhorst would be the electronics and AAA suite of an Alaska of 1944-45 compared to an Scharnhorst of 1939-43 (and of of course the fact that both Scharnhorsts were sunk when Alaska entered service - quite an advantage in battle), but that really doesn't say very much about ship design.

 

All in all I mainly see the Alaska as an expression of abundance of resources of the 1940s USN. Most major navies had played with similar designs, but had more serious things to spend their money on.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[KingSargent]

I'm sure you are aware of the almost total absence of torpedoprotection in the Alaskas. Judging from how major warships ended their carrers in WWII that certainly was a major flaw in a ship of Alaska's size and cost. I would say the only serious advantage an Alaska would have over a Scharnhorst would be the electronics and AAA suite of an Alaska of 1944-45 compared to an Scharnhorst of 1939-43 (and of of course the fact that both Scharnhorsts were sunk when Alaska entered service - quite an advantage in battle), but that really doesn't say very much about ship design.

I keep hearing about "No TPS in Alaska!!" Name me any other cruiser that DID have a TPS. The Alaskas were cruisers, with cruiser design standards. They were expected to rely on subdivision for underwater protection. No USN cruiser (not even the top-heavy tinclads in their WW2 incarnation) succumbed to a single torpedo hit in WW2, several survived two. Given the size, subdivision, pumping capacity, and emergency power systems built into the Alaskas, I would expect them to be even more surviveable.

 

I also question the need for torpedo protection in a CB, given their design role which was hunter-killer of surface raiders. The chance of hitting a single fast ship with a torpedo is slim, compared to the chance of getting hits in mass attacks on a battleline. In the battleline doctrine, the BBs were vulnerable to mass DD torpedo attacks, cruisers were not - except when acting as surrogate BBs in the (eg) Solomons. Even if a surface raider carried torpedo tubes (as the IJN CAs did) the chance of them getting a torpedo hit during a long-range gunnery duel were slim.

All in all I mainly see the Alaska as an expression of abundance of resources of the 1940s USN. Most major navies had played with similar designs, but had more serious things to spend their money on.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

I'll give you that part! That's what we get for having a rich man used to expensive toys for dictator.... er.... President.

[Tiornu]

I'm sure you are aware of the almost total absence of torpedoprotection in the Alaskas....

I would say the only serious advantage an Alaska would have over a Scharnhorst would be the electronics and AAA suite of an Alaska of 1944-45 compared to an Scharnhorst of 1939-43....

I aimed my original comments at the idea of a direct confrontation between the two ships, where torpedo protection and AA would not matter. I think Alaska's firepower advantage extends significantly beyond the radar issue, as the 12in gun is more destructive and more reliable. I believe Alaska had RPC for her main battery, but I've never found exactly what mount problems she experienced.

[Tony Williams]

As far as I'm aware, all torpedo protection, in all classes of ship, consisted of trying to limit the damage by subdividing the hull to restrict the inevitable flooding. Not even the heaviest battleship could carry a sufficient thickness of armour over the full depth of the hull to be able to resist the explosion of a large torpedo warhead. Of course, the bigger the ship the smaller the proportion of the displacement would be flooded by each strike, and the easier it was to keep the flooding away from critical areas - but flood they did.

[Tiornu]

I keep hearing about "No TPS in Alaska!!" Name me any other cruiser that DID have a TPS.

I don't think anyone will find that a persuasive point. Name me another 28,000-ton cruiser. How about this instead?--name me another fleet unit of similar size that had a TDS? We can rattle off a dozen or two. Name me another USN fleet unit from this period that had a displacement of 19,000 tons or more withOUT a TDS.

 

The Alaskas were cruisers, with cruiser design standards.

That's partly true, but it's not justification for bad design. Plenty of studies that led to Alaska had real live torpedo protection. If someone built a 20,000-ton destroyer, the fact that it was labeled a destroyer would not cancel its flaws or refute accusations of extravagance.

 

They were expected to rely on subdivision for underwater protection.... I would expect them to be even more surviveable.

One would certainly hope so. Of course, the fact that the Alaska subdivision was badly botched puts a crimp on things.

 

I also question the need for torpedo protection in a CB, given their design role which was hunter-killer of surface raiders.

The raiders they were designed to counter all carried torpedoes, and that accounts for only part of the Alaska mission. They were also escorts specifically charged to ward off torpedo-toting enemies. CVs had torpedo defenses, so surely the escorting ships were subject to torpedo attack. And in the event of a fleet engagement, Alaska was responsible for fending off the charge of enemy torpedo attacks.

[FITZ]

That's partly true, but it's not justification for bad design. Plenty of studies that led to Alaska had real live torpedo protection. If someone built a 20,000-ton destroyer, the fact that it was labeled a destroyer would not cancel its flaws or refute accusations of extravagance.

 

Sure there were studies that incorporated torpedo protection. There were also studies with as few as 6 and as many as 12 guns, with protection from 8-inch or 12-inch gunfire, etc.

 

What the design studies showed was that if you wanted an underwater protective system against the torpedo, something had to give or you would end up with a small but hopelessly inadequate battleship. One study saw a reduction in machinery power and speed down to just 30 knots. Another saw the reduction from 9 to 7 guns but got some speed back - 31.5 kts. A "balanced design" would have been effectively a 38,000 ton battleship. The goal was to build a 25,000 ton cruiser. Since cruisers lacked underwater protective scheme's as well this was no great loss. The Alaska's were after all, cruisers.

 

One would certainly hope so. Of course, the fact that the Alaska subdivision was badly botched puts a crimp on things.

"Badly botched." How? The only weakness of the subdivision scheme was by way of the aft turret where under certain circumstances the ships could be prone to flooded instability. It's a weakness to be sure (all ships have them) but badly botched seems an excessive description. Garzke/Dulin in fact describe the subdivision scheme as "...distinctly superior to that of cruisers, and the detail design of damage-control closures and fittings was excellent."

 

The raiders they were designed to counter all carried torpedoes, and that accounts for only part of the Alaska mission. They were also escorts specifically charged to ward off torpedo-toting enemies. CVs had torpedo defenses, so surely the escorting ships were subject to torpedo attack. And in the event of a fleet engagement, Alaska was responsible for fending off the charge of enemy torpedo attacks.

 

The torpedo was a short-ranged weapon (until the Long Lance, unknown at the time of Alaska's conception). Alaska was designed for long-range gun duels. There is nothing I have found in regards to the design requirements for the Alaska's that forsaw them as carrier escorts. Again, these were cruisers, not battleships. Because they had relatively large guns there is a tendency to criticize them for not having battleship features like torpedo protection. If they had such protection the Alaska's would have been even bigger white elephants than they were.

[Guest aevans]

One thing is clear - the Alaska's were not battlecruisers in any meaningful sense. They lacked the speed advantage that battlecruisers had traditionally enjoyed over contemporary battleships, and firepower was clearly inadequate as battleships of the same era were using 16 and 18-inch guns. Previous battlecruisers had used either the same caliber as current battleships or (particularly in the German navy of WWI) the caliber of the previous class of battleships. The U.S. Navy certainly regarded them as cruisers, not battlecruisers.

 

The Alaskas didn't have to be faster than "contemporary battleships", because it was a well understood reality that any force an Alaska went up against would almost certainly not be composed of the latest BBs. The figure of merit for determining speed advantage in combat is force speed of advance, not individual ship top end. A division or group of Alaskas would face, at worst, four Kongos that were at least a knot slower (when newly rebuilt, their actual top end could have degraded over time). All of the British ships were slower than that, and even the Bismarck was rated about a half a knot slower. Unless cornered against a shore or shoals (in which case one couldn't run anyway, no matter how fast you were), the Alaskas had speed to evade.

 

As for operating with friendlies, no battlegroup advances at anywhere near any individual vessel's top speed. Top speeds are purely a tactical consideration, and only really make a difference compared to enemies, as groups are constrained to maneuver at the top speed of the slowest vessel. Even if you supposed a battlegroup of Iowas, Baltimores, and Sumners, adding a divison or two of Alaskas would still leave the entire force faster -- not by much, but still faster -- than a force containing any battleship from any other nation.

[FITZ]

The Alaskas didn't have to be faster than "contemporary battleships", because it was a well understood reality that any force an Alaska went up against would almost certainly not be composed of the latest BBs. The figure of merit for determining speed advantage in combat is force speed of advance, not individual ship top end. A division or group of Alaskas would face, at worst, four Kongos that were at least a knot slower (when newly rebuilt, their actual top end could have degraded over time). All of the British ships were slower than that, and even the Bismarck was rated about a half a knot slower. Unless cornered against a shore or shoals (in which case one couldn't run anyway, no matter how fast you were), the Alaskas had speed to evade.

 

As for operating with friendlies, no battlegroup advances at anywhere near any individual vessel's top speed. Top speeds are purely a tactical consideration, and only really make a difference compared to enemies, as groups are constrained to maneuver at the top speed of the slowest vessel. Even if you supposed a battlegroup of Iowas, Baltimores, and Sumners, adding a divison or two of Alaskas would still leave the entire force faster -- not by much, but still faster -- than a force containing any battleship from any other nation.

 

I think you missed my point.

 

One of the traditional defining criteria for a "battlecruiser" was that it packed battleship-like firepower with speed well in excess of contempary battleships. The Alaska's possessed neither quality. The Iowa's would be the "contemporary" against which comparisons would be made because one always tended to compare with own types (due to the greater knowledge of their characteristics.

 

Thus my contention that the Alaska's were not battlecruisers but rather grossly oversized heavy cruisers, which is consistent with their development history.

[Guest aevans]

I think you missed my point.

 

One of the traditional defining criteria for a "battlecruiser" was that it packed battleship-like firepower with speed well in excess of contempary battleships. The Alaska's possessed neither quality. The Iowa's would be the "contemporary" against which comparisons would be made because one always tended to compare with own types (due to the greater knowledge of their characteristics.

 

Thus my contention that the Alaska's were not battlecruisers but rather grossly oversized heavy cruisers, which is consistent with their development history.

 

Fair enough, but I wasn't looking at the traditional ship vs. ship performance criteria, which was, after all, a construction for the purpose of justifiying a specific design, not an actual military requirement. I was looking at the actual tactical criteria for a mission believed to be common to both BCs and CBs, which was scouting. In the scouting mission, the CB doesn't look any worse or different than the BC -- big enough to fight cruisers and fast enough to get away from everything else, even if only marginally so.

[Detonable]

Various responses:

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.

 

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.

 

 

Why would you want to catch up to a battleship with the "I" class and their 6" belt armor? The only ship you can (somewhat) safely fight is the Blucher. I'm not disputing the accuracy of your account, I'm wondering what the thinking was behind it.

 

Invincible vs. Blucher sounds similar to Alaska vs. 8" cruiser, at least superficially.

 

On the other issue of 12" vs. 8" guns - on the battleship forum their was a gun accuracy formula. Basically accuracy declined logarithmically. Their was very little decline for a long distance, and then near maximum range accuracy declined steeply. So, the longer ranged gun would decline at a larger distance, and in theory a fast 12" ship could stay far enough away to hit accurately without being targeted accurately in return. In practice, ranges were shorter, for example Hipper vs. Hood.

[Guest pfcem]

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.

A previous discussion for those interrested.

 

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=2060

[Scott Cunningham]

Part of the huge cost of the Alaska class was designing the 12" guns from scratch.

 

Anyone have any data on the 12" turrets and their rate of fire. My impression was that the FCS was as accurate as anything else out there.

 

Given that I say that in a gunbattle an Alaska would beat any 8" cruiser with the exception of a Des Moines, and that is because of the exceptional rate of fire a Des Moines could generate. In a cruiser fight ROF beats weight of fire when range no longer is an issue (withing effective range of bothe types of guns).

 

BTW, I was in Philly last month and the Des Moines is no longer there. Has it been finally hauled off for scrapping?? Sure was an impressive ship.

[TonyE]

BTW, I was in Philly last month and the Des Moines is no longer there. Has it been finally hauled off for scrapping?? Sure was an impressive ship.

 

It was towed to the breakers earlier this year.

 

http://i.pbase.com/g3/31/321431/2/66464233.ixBhsIg5.jpg

http://www.shipspotting.com/modules/myalbu....php?lid=340227

[Guest pfcem]

Part of the huge cost of the Alaska class was designing the 12" guns from scratch.

 

Anyone have any data on the 12" turrets and their rate of fire. My impression was that the FCS was as accurate as anything else out there.

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

 

 

 

Given that I say that in a gunbattle an Alaska would beat any 8" cruiser with the exception of a Des Moines, and that is because of the exceptional rate of fire a Des Moines could generate. In a cruiser fight ROF beats weight of fire when range no longer is an issue (withing effective range of bothe types of guns).

 

BTW, I was in Philly last month and the Des Moines is no longer there. Has it been finally hauled off for scrapping?? Sure was an impressive ship.

USS Des Moines left Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility (NISMF) in Philadelphia 21 August 2006.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa44...12/ai_n17196980

 

http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/37/09375111.jpg

Grasp (T-ARS-51) tows Ex-Des Moines (CA-134) up the Brownsville ship channel enroute to the ESCO scrapping yard, at Brownsville, TX

 

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/134/0413429.jpg

Photo taken on Jan 9, 2007 of the Des Moines alongside Esco Marine in Brownsville, TX. Quite a bit of the upper deck has been removed.

 

{note you must copy & past image links to view}

Edited July 20, 2007 by pfcem

[Tiornu]

The only weakness of the subdivision scheme was by way of the aft turret where under certain circumstances the ships could be prone to flooded instability.

The "certain circumstances," I suppose, would refer to a torpedo hit. The source you quote calls the subdivision flub a "grave weakness."

 

What the design studies showed was that if you wanted an underwater protective system against the torpedo, something had to give or you would end up with a small but hopelessly inadequate battleship.

Isn't that exactly what they got? The French used less tonnage than Alaska and actually did get a "balanced design."

 

The Alaska's were after all, cruisers.

So what? At best, this can justify the Alaska design as a good execution of a bad idea.

 

Alaska was designed for long-range gun duels.

What source supports this? Friedman shows the deck protection developing around the bomb threat because long-range gunnery wasn't seen as a probable event.

 

There is nothing I have found in regards to the design requirements for the Alaska's that forsaw them as carrier escorts.

See Friedman's cruiser book.

[Tiornu]

Why would you want to catch up to a battleship with the "I" class and their 6" belt armor? The only ship you can (somewhat) safely fight is the Blucher.

I wouldn't want to, I can assure you. If you can find a copy of Battlecruisers by John Roberts, he spells out the tactical conditions by which RN routine called for cruisers to fight battleships. Of course, Fisher went beyond the routine. He tried to phase out the battleship entirely in favor of a cruiser fleet. Perhaps most importantly, we should remember that Jutland took place ten years after the battlecruiser concept. Much had changed. From memory, there was not a single confirmed example of a Japanese 12in shell effectively penetrating a 6in armor plate during the Russo-Japanese War.

[Tiornu]

My impression was that the FCS was as accurate as anything else out there.

I have the same impression. The 12in gun seems to have been held up as a benchmark for accuracy. However, it is said that the 12in turrets suffered for hasty design work and entered service with some bugs. I haven't been able to find details.

[Scott Cunningham]

So what we have is the Alaskas being the "Yamatos" of heavy cruisers: Bigger bigger and bigger, but not necessarily better.

[Tiornu]

Ton for ton, or dollar for dollar, they may not have stacked up well. But except for Des Moines, I can't think of any cruiser that could compare to Alaska in a gunfight. No one's even close.

[Guest pfcem]

I wouldn't want to, I can assure you. If you can find a copy of Battlecruisers by John Roberts, he spells out the tactical conditions by which RN routine called for cruisers to fight battleships. Of course, Fisher went beyond the routine. He tried to phase out the battleship entirely in favor of a cruiser fleet.

The Royal Navy believed that vastly superior British fire control would allow them to engage enemy warships outside the enemy's accurate fire range. Unfortuanately for Britain it chose to go with the less costly & less capable fire control AND the rest of the world improved their fire control...

 

 

 

Perhaps most importantly, we should remember that Jutland took place ten years after the battlecruiser concept. Much had changed.

Indeed, battlecruisers had "evolded" from "super cruisers" to "fast light battleships".

 

 

 

From memory, there was not a single confirmed example of a Japanese 12in shell effectively penetrating a 6in armor plate during the Russo-Japanese War.

German 28 cm/40 (11") SK L/40

Braunschweig Class pre-dreadnoughts (laid down 1901-1902, completed 1904-1906)

Deutschland Class pre-dreadnoughts (laid down 1903-1904, completed 1906-1908)

160mm (6.3") @ 12,000m (13,120 yards)

 

German 28 cm/45 (11") SK L/45

Nassau Class dreadnoughts (laid down 1907, completed 1910)

Von der Tann battlecruiser (laid down 1908, completed 1911)

200mm (7.9") @ 12,000m (13,120 yards)

[Tiornu]

The Royal Navy believed that vastly superior British fire control would allow them to engage enemy warships outside the enemy's accurate fire range. Unfortuanately for Britain it chose to go with the less costly & less capable fire control AND the rest of the world improved their fire control...

That would be a reasonable decoctation of Sumida-type views, though I'm not sure it holds up any longer. Brooks's book Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland has taken the legs out from under this view, and a little bird has told me that Friedman's new book trumps both Sumida and Brooks. We'll see....

 

Indeed, battlecruisers had "evolded" from "super cruisers" to "fast light battleships".

That's not what I had in mind. I was thinking in terms of improved ammunition--the replacement of picric acid by TNT and the introduction of useful delay fuzes. Before those developments, it was difficult for even the largest shells to get through any appreciable thickness of armor.