"Alaska" class large cruisers

[Getz]

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.

 

Not surprising, even the biggest Heavy Cruisers were only half the size of the Alaskas.

 

Of course, in practice, the Alaskas were not likely to end up sqaring off against cruisers, but instead against comparably sized fast ships as the enemy used their own heavy scout assests to tackle them - by which I mean Battlecruisers of course.

 

Bluntly, I doubt the Alaskas ability to stand up to a Kongo or Renown (vessels fully 30 years their seniors) as their armour was completely inadequate in the face of capitol ship guns - just like a battlecruiser...

[Tiornu]

Of course, in practice, the Alaskas were not likely to end up sqaring off against cruisers, but instead against comparably sized fast ships as the enemy used their own heavy scout assests to tackle them - by which I mean Battlecruisers of course.

The Japanese B-65 srikes me as a more balanced design, including a TDS, that otherwise approximates Alaska's capabilities. Armor thicknesses are comparable, though B-65 had better coverage. I'm guessing Alaska would have superior shells.

 

Bluntly, I doubt the Alaskas ability to stand up to a Kongo or Renown (vessels fully 30 years their seniors) as their armour was completely inadequate in the face of capitol ship guns - just like a battlecruiser...

Alaska appears to have better armor than either of the oldies. Some enterprising individual may want to calculate the comparative immune zones.

[Slater]

Some data on Alaska's main armament:

 

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

[Tiornu]

Frustrating, isn't it? The Navweaps info confirms that there were problems but can't spell out what they were. I don't know any source that gets into specifics.

[gewing]

Various responses:

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

So they suffered from the same problem as the B-2, Huh, the more things change...

 

OTOH, these ships, while beautiful and powerful, were probably not a great enough addition to the US Fleet to be worth their cost. They don't seem to have offered quite the level of improvement over existing systems as the B2, JMFO.

 

Although, being able to eat cruisers for snacks... Not a BAD capability.

[Tony Williams]

Although, being able to eat cruisers for snacks... Not a BAD capability.

 

There are some computer simulations which model the likely outcome of fights between different ships, I understand, including different combinations of ships. It would be interesting to know the outcome of pitting an Alaska against various other ships. For instance (with the Battle of the River Plate in mind), how many Hipper class cruisers would be required to beat it? Two or three?

[KingSargent]

There are some computer simulations which model the likely outcome of fights between different ships, I understand, including different combinations of ships. It would be interesting to know the outcome of pitting an Alaska against various other ships. For instance (with the Battle of the River Plate in mind), how many Hipper class cruisers would be required to beat it? Two or three?

I've done some simple (commercial game) simulations pitting Alaskas against IJN CAs and the IJN comes to grief no matter how many there are. Of course I change course frequently to avoid long-range torpedo attacks.

[Marek Tucan]

I've done some simple (commercial game) simulations pitting Alaskas against IJN CAs and the IJN comes to grief no matter how many there are. Of course I change course frequently to avoid long-range torpedo attacks.

 

@the issue of LR torpedo attacks, Navweaps website has a nice analysis on them that basically says that no matter how good the torpedoes were, their design and deployment was a failure vis-a-vis the requirements (based on opposing the War Plan Orange)... Too few hits to work the way IJN envisioned...

[Tony Williams]

I've done some simple (commercial game) simulations pitting Alaskas against IJN CAs and the IJN comes to grief no matter how many there are. Of course I change course frequently to avoid long-range torpedo attacks.

That surprises me, unless the Alaska had the legs to keep them at long range and pound them from a distance.

 

In the Plate battle, the British cruisers were faster than Graf Spee which gave them the advantage of determining the tactical course of the battle, and by splitting up they divided the Panzerschiff's fire. So one (sort of) heavy and two light cruisers were able to wear down a much more powerful ship. Graf Spee may not have received much damage, but was running low on ammo.

[KingSargent]

That surprises me, unless the Alaska had the legs to keep them at long range and pound them from a distance.

Apparently the game designers agree with me that the IJN CAs would be shot up as they tried to close. Since IJN CAs had only one inch of armor on the turrets it would be a lot easier to render them impotent that for them to cripple an Alaska - barring of course fluke hits that destroy the CBs' fire controls.

[Getz]

Alaska appears to have better armor than either of the oldies. Some enterprising individual may want to calculate the comparative immune zones.

 

At face value the vertical protection of the older ships is about the same - the Alaskas probably have better protection from plunging fire but I doubt that any of the ships I listed enjoyed an IZ against another.

 

This would tend to suggest to me that the Alaskas were something of a failure, design wise. The US navy ploughed a great deal of money and resources into vessels what did not seem to offer any significant advantage over likely enemy ships of comparable displacement that were over 30 years older.

 

As to simulations, I would be interested to hear how an Alsaka stacks up against a couple of Zaras or Hippers - both much better protected than the IJN heavy criusers, IIRC.

[KingSargent]

This would tend to suggest to me that the Alaskas were something of a failure, design wise. The US navy ploughed a great deal of money and resources into vessels what did not seem to offer any significant advantage over likely enemy ships of comparable displacement that were over 30 years older.

Let's see... anything 30 years older is a Kongo, right? The IJN ploughed a great deal of money and resources into reconstructing Kongos. Somehow I think the US could afford CBs easier than the IJN could afford rebuilding antique BCs.

 

As for being a design failure, the USN CBs were never used in the role for which they were designed. By the time they commissioned the anticipated need for hunter-killers of surface raiders had vanished.

 

As to simulations, I would be interested to hear how an Alsaka stacks up against a couple of Zaras or Hippers - both much better protected than the IJN heavy criusers, IIRC.

I would too. Unfortunately the game with Alaskas on it has only Japanese opposition, and the Atlantic/Med theater game doesn't include Alaskas.

 

Except for the turrets, the Hippers and Zaras were not much (if any) better armored than the IJN CAs. In any case none of the CAs was immune to 12" fire.

[Guest pfcem]

At face value the vertical protection of the older ships is about the same - the Alaskas probably have better protection from plunging fire but I doubt that any of the ships I listed enjoyed an IZ against another.

The Alaskas had MUCH better armor protection than the Renowns or Kongos, both horizontally & vertically. But you are right, the Alaskas did not have much of an immunity zone against 14" & 15" guns - they weren't intended to.

 

 

 

This would tend to suggest to me that the Alaskas were something of a failure, design wise. The US navy ploughed a great deal of money and resources into vessels what did not seem to offer any significant advantage over likely enemy ships of comparable displacement that were over 30 years older.

It suggests no such thing. The Alaskas were designed to defeat heavy cruisers & Deutschland-type vessels, not battlecruisers. Against their intended targets, the Alaskas were MUCH better than any 30 year old battlecruiser.

 

Do you have any idea how much a Renown or Kongo equivalent vessel would have cost to design & build (in the US) at the time?

 

 

 

As to simulations, I would be interested to hear how an Alsaka stacks up against a couple of Zaras or Hippers - both much better protected than the IJN heavy criusers, IIRC.

The Zaras were better protected but still stood no chance against the Alaskas' 12" guns. The Hippers WERE NOT better protected than the IJN heavy criusers.

[Tiornu]

Various responses:

The Hippers WERE NOT better protected than the IJN heavy criusers.

I tend to agree, except as regards the turret protection already noted. The Hippers were poorly armored ships.

 

The US navy ploughed a great deal of money and resources into vessels what did not seem to offer any significant advantage over likely enemy ships of comparable displacement that were over 30 years older.

I agree with the general idea that the Alaskas were an unsuccessful design, but for the sake of discussion, I'll point out that Alaska was smaller than Kongo or Renown. She was fastest of the three, and definitely had more range than Renown. Vulnerable to torpedoes as she was, she was probably no worse off than the older hulls. Off the top of my head, I'd say it looks like the only important inferiority might be in a surface fight against a heavily armored opponent.

[DesertFox]

Don't forget that like all US Battleships from North Carolina onwards, the belt was angled. 9.5 inches at 10 degrees.

[gewing]

Apparently the game designers agree with me that the IJN CAs would be shot up as they tried to close. Since IJN CAs had only one inch of armor on the turrets it would be a lot easier to render them impotent that for them to cripple an Alaska - barring of course fluke hits that destroy the CBs' fire controls.

 

 

 

???? One inch of armor on the Turrets????

[Tiornu]

The British and Japanese never gave their heavy cruisers more than an inch of armor--splinter protection only.

Renown's belt was slightly inclined.

[Guest pfcem]

The British and Japanese never gave their heavy cruisers more than an inch of armor--splinter protection only.

Don't confuse the Japanese cruisers have in 1" face plates with them only having splinter protection. With the exception of the lightly armored turrets they were actually quite well protected (against 6" gunfire) - as good or better than most foreign heavy cruisers at the time.

[hojutsuka]

Let's see... anything 30 years older is a Kongo, right? The IJN ploughed a great deal of money and resources into reconstructing Kongos. Somehow I think the US could afford CBs easier than the IJN could afford rebuilding antique BCs.

First, just because you can afford it, does not mean that something is not a waste.

 

Second, the Japanese rebuilt the Kongos because they had to.

 

Under the articles of Washington Treaty, battleships could not be replaced until 20 years after their completion, and the London Treaty of 1930 changed this to prohibiting all battleship replacements until 1936 (exceptions were made for France and Italy to build new battleships since they were below their total battleship tonnage limits). In the absence of the naval treaties it would probably have made more sense for the naval powers to embark on phased programs of battleship construction to replace their older battleships. As the treaties made this impossible, all the major naval powers with the exception of France embarked on major reconstructions of their battleships to keep their battlefleets up-to-date. Not just Japan, but also Britain, US, and Italy put a great deal of money and resources into reconstructing their battleships in the years between World War I and World War II.

 

Thus, the IJN situation when the Kongos were reconstructed was fundamentally different from the situation when the Alaskas were designed and built, because the failure of Japan to renew the naval treaties and the outbreak of World War II had removed all treaty restrictions on the US by the time the Alaska design was finalized.

 

Hojutsuka

[whyhow]

the closest comparable foreign design to the Alaska was the French Dunkerque right? How do they compare? I can read the specs, and it seems the French traded some speed for a TDS.

[Jim Martin]

Having been fascinated with these beautiful ships for years, I was just surfing around looking at some pics. Here are some great shipboard photos, in color no less: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-a/cb1-o.htm

 

Question regarding the photo of the two Marines on their 5" mount: What kind of goggles is the Corporal wearing? The caption says he's a "lookout", are they some kind of binoculars? Also, the "cover" he's wearing looks suspiciously like a civilian ballcap, possibly from a favorite ballteam, and not a USMC issue cover. Were shipboard regs back then that loose, esp for the Marine Detachment???

[KingSargent]

First, just because you can afford it, does not mean that something is not a waste.

It wasn't a waste until conditions changed:

 

1. The CV proved to be as effective as their fan club prophesied.

 

2. Never before had any of numerous 'wonderweapons' that had been hailed as "the end of the battleship" actually worked, so supplanting of the gunnery ship by the carrier was unproven.

 

3. The IJN had 18 CAs, the USN had 18 CAs. USN doctrine called for the CAs to escort CVs; IJN doctrine left heavy CV escort to Kongos, theoretically freeing their CAs to act as surface raiders.

 

4. The USN had no counter to large (and we knew the IJN ships were over Treaty limits) fast CAs acting as raiders; our CAs were committed to CV escort and most were outclassed by IJN CAs anyway.

 

5. Given the unproven ability of the CV to counter the raider threat, a gunnery-ship solution was needed. We could use Iowas as raider-chasers, or we could build something else so our battle line was not weakened.

 

The CB was a real answer to a real problem. It turned out to be unnecessary. BUT had the war scenario worked as it was expected to work, not having the CBs could have put the USN in a world of hurt.

 

I am reminded that when Winston Churchill was 1st Lord of the Admiralty during the run-up to WW1, he was trying to get a Naval Appropriation for more BBs passed. I forget who was blocking it, but the individual said the BBs WSC wanted were not needed. Churchill said, "If we build them and do not need them, money will be lost. If we do NOT build them and DO need them, the Empire may be lost."

[Tiornu]

The Dunkerques, roughly seven years older than the Alaskas and 2000 tons lighter, were a couple knots slower than Alaska. Their flaws include excessive shell dispersion and insufficient strength in the bow structure. They had a TDS that was 23 feet deep, which is remarkable. Their nominal endurance actually exceeded Alaska's, though I believe it was standard to retain some oil in the TDS, so I can't make a precise comparison. Armor generally favors the French design, and while broadside weight favors Alaska (10,260 lbs vs 9880 bs), I'd say the 13in battery was more potentially destructive. When you throw in radar etc, it's pretty clear that Alaska was the better shooter. The French did not address their dispersion problem until postwar.

A Dunkerque with American weaponry would have been a great ship.

[Scott Cunningham]

The US pre-war cruisers (CA's at least) compare poorly with the IJN heavies. In light cruisers it was a bit more even.

 

The japanese superiority in torpedoes and night tactics made early war cruiser actions pretty unpleasant for the US.

 

I'm betting an Alaska or two (with radar) would have made a hell of a difference, in 42, but by 1943 us CA's were getting pretty decent across the board. By 1945 all advantages were with the US. IIRC none of the "modern" CA's were ever lost, only the pre-war types.

[whyhow]

a couple of more questions. why was the super heavy shell developed only by the USN? with super heavy shells, the US 12" was almost as powerful as the French 13" guns. I read about the bad experiments that led to the high velocity 16" on the Nelson, but that mistake was already realized by the time KGV class was planned, but still no SHS, why?

 

another question. what surface raiders were the Alaska suppose to hunt? The Dunkerques were designed to counter the pocket battleships, and they had the firepower and speed advantage. But the Alaska doesn't enjoy a speed advantage over the Japanese CA. and I thought the prewar plans tasked the Japanese CAs with nighttime torpedo attacks against the US battle fleet.