Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Not at all. In the 1930s surface raiders were held to be the #1 threat to merchant traffic. Submarine warfare against merchant shipping had been effectively "outlawed" by international treaties. There were repeated efforts to ban submarines altogether - according to Brown the RN attitude to developing ASW weapons and tactics BTW was "Why bother? Submarines are about to be banned."

 

After all it was the period that ended with "Peace for our time"... :)

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
They were Large Cruisers, not battleships!
The more this is said, the more it says nothing.

 

You don't need (or want) battleship protection & firepower in a Large Cruiser intended to defeat enemy heavy cruisers & Deutschland-type raiders.
Want? I sure do!

 

Would YOU care to be the one explaining to the surviving family of those sunk by surface raiders why you had neglected a counter to the threat because it was "too expensive?"
I was unaware there was a job for someone to go about explaining all the deaths caused by negligence. He must have been very busy. How many people died because the USN wasted its time, efforts, and money on the Alaskas?

How does the pricetag of an Alaska compared to that of a Cleveland or Baltimore?

Posted
I have to ask about this. This assumes all the Montana class gets built. The other battle line ships, the North Carolinas, the South Dakota II class, and the Montana class have a top speed of 27 or 28 knots.

 

We have these six Iowa class with a top speed of 32 or so knots. Their simple speed puts them into a different class. Some people have liked to call them battlecruisers for that reason. Just their speed seems to mean that they will be deployed differently or you are not using them to their greatest advantage.

 

They had to know that when they were designed

The Iowas were intended to be a fast wing of the Battle Line, the main part of which would be the 27-28kt ships. Conceptually this was akin to the purported role of the Queen Elizabeths in the Grand Fleet during WW1.

 

If you consider the Battle Line superceded by the Fast CVTFs, the the new BBs were still in the Battle Line albeit in escort roles rather than as the primary means of destruction. Even when the traditional gunnery Battle Line passed away, the most effective (read fast) BBs were not detached on other duties. Well, they did some bombardment work in 1945, but the IJN was not much of a threat by then - and they did bombardments primarily for the morale of their crews, they were not as effective as the older BBs that had more practice at bombardment.

Guest aevans
Posted
The more this is said, the more it says nothing.

 

One would think that you of all people would recognize that devolving the battleship in protection and firepower, while evolving the cruiser in those categories, would not necessarily get you the same result.

 

Want? I sure do!
You can want in one hand...

 

Seriously, there is something to be said for hyper-specializing types when you have the money to do it.

 

I was unaware there was a job for someone to go about explaining all the deaths caused by negligence. He must have been very busy. How many people died because the USN wasted its time, efforts, and money on the Alaskas?

How does the pricetag of an Alaska compared to that of a Cleveland or Baltimore?

 

The US probably should have abandoned the CBs after it became apparent that their mission had largely passed on to aircraft of various types, but up until that point (whcih was pretty far down the road to the completion of the first couple of units) they met a validated requirement.

Posted
The Iowas were intended to be a fast wing of the Battle Line, the main part of which would be the 27-28kt ships. Conceptually this was akin to the purported role of the Queen Elizabeths in the Grand Fleet during WW1.

 

That is interesting because I know that in the battle of Jutland, the Queen Elizabeth class operated with the battlecruisers in the initial engagement.

Posted

The more this is said, the more it says nothing.

And your answer says nothing to advance the argument.

 

Want? I sure do!

I'm sure you do. I'm sure that Harwood at the River Plate would have liked to have Hood, but he had a snowball's chance of getting her assigned.

 

I was unaware there was a job for someone to go about explaining all the deaths caused by negligence. He must have been very busy. How many people died because the USN wasted its time, efforts, and money on the Alaskas?

Probably none. The CBs were an expensive luxury (as things turned out) but the US could afford it. I doubt their construction delayed anything else if that's what you are driving at. If the slips had been used for CVs (for example), there still would have been the bottlenecks of airgroup equipment and training and the special needs of the CVs like elevators, arresting gear, and catapults to keep Essexes from commissioning any faster.

 

How does the pricetag of an Alaska compared to that of a Cleveland or Baltimore?

Who knows? They were undoubtedly more expensive. But could a Cleveland or Baltimore fill the role intended for the CBs? The Baltimores might have a chance to fill the CB slot if nobody built anything better than what their navies actually fought with, but we could not be sure what we would face when the CBs (or the Baltimores FTM) commissioned.

Posted
Who knows? They were undoubtedly more expensive. But could a Cleveland or Baltimore fill the role intended for the CBs? The Baltimores might have a chance to fill the CB slot if nobody built anything better than what their navies actually fought with, but we could not be sure what we would face when the CBs (or the Baltimores FTM) commissioned.[/b]

 

I believe I may have some sources which may give some price tags on the ships.....

Posted
That is interesting because I know that in the battle of Jutland, the Queen Elizabeth class operated with the battlecruisers in the initial engagement.

Yes, because the 3rd BCS was with the Grand Fleet doing gunnery practice (something the BCF needed badly and lacked nearby facilities for). 5th BS was temporarily assigned to the BCF while 3rd BCS was away.

 

Jellicoe's plans as distributed to the Grand Fleet clearly had the 5th BS as a fast maneuver wing.

 

Note that as soon as the GF and BCF joined, Evan-Thomas took his squadron to one of the stations envisaged in Jellicoe's plan, while 3rd BCS joined Beatty.

Posted
I believe I may have some sources which may give some price tags on the ships.....

If you do, I hope they include comparative pricing on the various CV types....

Guest pfcem
Posted
I have to ask about this. This assumes all the Montana class gets built. The other battle line ships, the North Carolinas, the South Dakota II class, and the Montana class have a top speed of 27 or 28 knots.

 

We have these six Iowa class with a top speed of 32 or so knots. Their simple speed puts them into a different class. Some people have liked to call them battlecruisers for that reason. Just their speed seems to mean that they will be deployed differently or you are not using them to their greatest advantage.

 

They had to know that when they were designed

By 1943/44 (when the Iowas were commissioned) the role of the battleship had changed from being the primary combatant of the traditional battle line to being escorts for the carriers & shore bombardment platforms. The "fast battleships" were almost always attached to the carriers rather than as separate battlelines.

 

The primary purpose of the Iowas was to counter the Kongos. Just as the Alaskas were designed/built significantly larger & more powerful than the heavy cruisers & Deutschland-type raiders they were intended to counter, the Iowas were designed/built significantly larger & more powerful than the Kongos they were intended to counter.

Posted
By 1943/44 (when the Iowas were commissioned) the role of the battleship had changed from being the primary combatant of the traditional battle line to being escorts for the carriers & shore bombardment platforms. The "fast battleships" were almost always attached to the carriers rather than as separate battlelines.

 

The primary purpose of the Iowas was to counter the Kongos. Just as the Alaskas were designed/built significantly larger & more powerful than the heavy cruisers & Deutschland-type raiders they were intended to counter, the Iowas were designed/built significantly larger & more powerful than the Kongos they were intended to counter.

Not just the Kongos, the US Battle Line was (on paper at least) the slowest of the modern generation of BBs. The Iowas could run down Bismarcks, Scahrnhorsts, Littorios, and Richelieus.

 

But you are correct, the "Fast Wing" of the Kongos had given the IJN an advantage in the Naval War College wargames, and the USN wanted its own Fast Wing.

Guest pfcem
Posted
The more this is said, the more it says nothing.

Quite the opposite. If the US wanted another class of battleship, that is what they would have designed. Instead what they wanted was "Large Cruisers" to defeat enemy heavy cruisers & Deutschland-type raiders so that is what the Alaskas were.

 

 

 

Want? I sure do!

I see...so your entire fleet would be made up of battleships...

 

 

 

How does the pricetag of an Alaska compared to that of a Cleveland or Baltimore?

Accoding to Janes Fighting Ships of World War II

 

Iowa: exceeded $100,000,000

Alaska: $74,066,000

Baltimore: $39,342,000 (early ships average)

Cleveland: $31,000,000 (early ships) - $42,000,000 (Houston)

Posted
And your answer says nothing to advance the argument.
You think there's an argument? Maybe that's the problem.

 

I'm sure you do.
Yeah, Who wouldn't?

 

I doubt their construction delayed anything else if that's what you are driving at.
Those slipways would have been left empty?

 

But could a Cleveland or Baltimore fill the role intended for the CBs?
They would have been much better at it than an Alaska in December 1943.

 

If the US wanted another class of battleship, that is what they would have designed.
You are correct. The critical mistake took place very early in the design process.

 

I see...so your entire fleet would be made up of battleships...
Woops. I think you forgot that you had detailed one specific mission. I don't think anyone wants to take on a Japanese cruiser with a yard minesweeper.

 

The primary purpose of the Iowas was to counter the Kongos.
If I can quibble a moment, I'd say that the primary purpose of Iowa's SPEED was to counter the Kongos.

 

One would think that you of all people would recognize that devolving the battleship in protection and firepower, while evolving the cruiser in those categories, would not necessarily get you the same result.
I'm in complete agreement. It's unfortunate that the USN didn't realize where their design work was leading and find a better solution. The French Dunkerques and the Japanese B-65 show what could have been accomplished. The reduced North Carolina sounds like a fine idea to me.

 

Seriously, there is something to be said for hyper-specializing types when you have the money to do it.
You're right. I have no fundamental objection to building a 28,000-ton ship for this role, even though it turned out to be null. I just wish a better design had been made.
Posted
Not at all. In the 1930s surface raiders were held to be the #1 threat to merchant traffic. Submarine warfare against merchant shipping had been effectively "outlawed" by international treaties. There were repeated efforts to ban submarines altogether - according to Brown the RN attitude to developing ASW weapons and tactics BTW was "Why bother? Submarines are about to be banned."

 

The effectiveness of the CV was unproven, and their weren't enough of them in any navy to waste their attack and fleet protection abilities chasing merchantmen. Battleships were not going to be detached from the Battle Line (unless they were obsolete and used for escort purposes).

 

However, I must question the idea of building few specialized niche ships to counter commerce raiders. Odds of a commerce-raider killer occupying a same space of ocean as the commerce raider must be viewed as small when you have handful of ships to cover huge areas. British & French battlecruisers had bigger power & speed advantage over Panzerschiffe than Alaskas would have had against IJN cruisers; yet none of them were ever caught by BC's, and only one was caught by cruisers. It would seem to me that it would have made more sense to build existing designs, or bigger versions of existing designs, especially with potential war pressing on and whatnot (unless they were really worried about other nations starting to build 'super-cruisers' too).

Posted
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.

 

Well, if you're not too picky about meaning of "gun"fight:

 

:P

Posted
However, I must question the idea of building few specialized niche ships to counter commerce raiders. Odds of a commerce-raider killer occupying a same space of ocean as the commerce raider must be viewed as small when you have handful of ships to cover huge areas. British & French battlecruisers had bigger power & speed advantage over Panzerschiffe than Alaskas would have had against IJN cruisers; yet none of them were ever caught by BC's, and only one was caught by cruisers. It would seem to me that it would have made more sense to build existing designs, or bigger versions of existing designs, especially with potential war pressing on and whatnot (unless they were really worried about other nations starting to build 'super-cruisers' too).

You are right, that was part of the "Raider Equation." However, they didn't just wander around oceans at random, there were general sea lanes where traffic would concentrate, as well as "choke points" like Gibraltar.

 

Even before radar aided searching, the CBs were fitted with probably the best non-CV plane handling system in the USN. Flying search planes, they could cover a large area. Their speed and range meant they could respond rapidly to reports of raiders. They would then have a defined area to search, ie, how far the raider could have gotten since the reported contact.

 

There is also the use of smaller cruisers; if a CL ran into anything too heavy for it, it could run and stay out of range of the raider and the CB would respond faster than anything except airplanes.

 

As for Panzerschiffe not being caught, the Deutschland/Lutzow was never caught, but it stayed out of the sea lanes and didn't accomplish much. Scheer made a long cruise, but again 'hid out' and did not have the captures per month of cruise that the Graf Spee did. The Spee was caught because it ventured into sea lanes that Harwood decided to patrol.

 

But generally, ships built as "answers" never encountered the ships they were designed to defeat. However that argument carried to the ultimate would be to not build anything because the chance of one ship finding another ship is remote unless there is something to define the search area.

 

Also, the Alaskas would have made good raiders. Had the Pacific War not been dominated by air and subs, the Alaskas could have wreaked havoc on the Japanese Merchant Marine.

And had war come with UK (as many in the USN expected BTW) the Alaskas could have made things very sticky for the RN. Just because Japan turned out to be the enemy doesn't mean it was the only possible one.

Posted
Also, the Alaskas would have made good raiders.
That's an interesting point. Historically we can point to mid-1941 as the time when the Germans could no longer profitably send warships out for high-seas raiding, but things would be very different for an American ship; and in the Pacific, the Japanese were probably less advanced in the electronics that worked against the Germans on the oterh side of the world.

Lots of what-if's. Probably can't speculate too far without the limb getting too thin.

Guest pfcem
Posted
Yeah, Who wouldn't?

Anyone with even basic knowledge about what different types of ships are for.

 

 

 

They would have been much better at it than an Alaska in December 1943.

Thats just pathetic.

 

 

 

You are correct. The critical mistake took place very early in the design process.

What mistake would that be?

 

 

 

Woops. I think you forgot that you had detailed one specific mission. I don't think anyone wants to take on a Japanese cruiser with a yard minesweeper.

Yeah & your all battleship navy would do really well against mines too. :lol:

 

And anti-raider missions were cosidered VERY important.

 

 

 

If I can quibble a moment, I'd say that the primary purpose of Iowa's SPEED was to counter the Kongos.

Given that that was THE defining characteristic of the Iowas...

 

 

 

I'm in complete agreement. It's unfortunate that the USN didn't realize where their design work was leading and find a better solution. The French Dunkerques and the Japanese B-65 show what could have been accomplished. The reduced North Carolina sounds like a fine idea to me.

 

You're right. I have no fundamental objection to building a 28,000-ton ship for this role, even though it turned out to be null. I just wish a better design had been made.

What could have possibly been better? Not the French Dunkerques or the Japanese B-65, & CERTAINLY not a "reduced North Carolina".

Guest pfcem
Posted (edited)
However, I must question the idea of building few specialized niche ships to counter commerce raiders.

Well, nearly every major navy during the the late 30's & early 30's were working on just that type of ship.

 

 

 

Odds of a commerce-raider killer occupying a same space of ocean as the commerce raider must be viewed as small when you have handful of ships to cover huge areas.

Oh really? I guess it is better not to build any ships at all then since it is so unlikely that they will ever meet. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

British & French battlecruisers had bigger power & speed advantage over Panzerschiffe than Alaskas would have had against IJN cruisers; yet none of them were ever caught by BC's, and only one was caught by cruisers. It would seem to me that it would have made more sense to build existing designs, or bigger versions of existing designs, especially with potential war pressing on and whatnot (unless they were really worried about other nations starting to build 'super-cruisers' too).

You must have very poor reguard for the Panzerschiffe, either that or a VERY high reguard for IJN heavy cruisers. The Alaskas were faster, more powerful & better protected then the British & French battlecruisers & were intended not only to counter IJN heavy cruisers but possible IJN Panzerschiffe.

Edited by pfcem
Posted (edited)
unless they were really worried about other nations starting to build 'super-cruisers' too
I believe the Americans viewed the pocket battleships as super-cruisers. Comments in intelligence reports specify that the Japanese pocket battleships were cruisers despite their 12in guns.

 

Anyone with even basic knowledge about what different types of ships are for.
Do you realize that what you have just said is that someone with an understanding of various ship types would prefer to have Exeter rather than Hood when going into battle against Graf Spee?

 

Thats just pathetic.
It's interesting that you can find pathos in simple chronology.

 

What mistake would that be?
Choosing to build an inferior design.

 

Yeah & your all battleship navy would do really well against mines too.
I encourage you to go back and read the scenario that you yourself laid out.

 

What could have possibly been better? Not the French Dunkerques or the Japanese B-65, & CERTAINLY not a "reduced North Carolina".
If we're using your definition, whereby "better" means "less valuable," then you're correct. Alaska is less valuable than a well designed ship. An even better option would be no ship at all since it would be even less valuable than Alaska. Edited by Tiornu
Posted
Quite the opposite. If the US wanted another class of battleship, that is what they would have designed. Instead what they wanted was "Large Cruisers" to defeat enemy heavy cruisers & Deutschland-type raiders so that is what the Alaskas were.

I see...so your entire fleet would be made up of battleships...

Accoding to Janes Fighting Ships of World War II

 

Iowa: exceeded $100,000,000

Alaska: $74,066,000

Baltimore: $39,342,000 (early ships average)

Cleveland: $31,000,000 (early ships) - $42,000,000 (Houston)

 

the Alaskas also required twice as many men as the Baltimores. the RN doctrine of sending multiple weaker cruisers against the Deutschland raiders to have worked just fine. and would've worked even better against the Japanese CA. the Baltimore been more powerful than RN CA, I think I'll take two Baltimores over one Alaska.

Posted
the Alaskas also required twice as many men as the Baltimores. the RN doctrine of sending multiple weaker cruisers against the Deutschland raiders to have worked just fine. and would've worked even better against the Japanese CA. the Baltimore been more powerful than RN CA, I think I'll take two Baltimores over one Alaska.

 

That's really the word. The proof resides in postwar USN actions, whereby the Baltimores [also most newer Oregon Cities and Salems]served out a full service life, even had several rebuilds, whereas the Alaskas stayed in mothballs, awaiting the final trip to the shipbreakers. Even with the mania for conversions to CG class, nobody touched the Alaskas (although concept studies were done].

 

Given the lust for nice flagships in the USN [hence the postwar CA service], one can only conclude they remained far too expensive to operate. I also wonder about their single rudders and notoriety for maneuver. Were tehy considered too dangerous for postwar TF ops?

Posted
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.

 

You are being tripped up by the fact that the Iowa class were "fast battleships", and as such, the end of the design line for BOTH battle ships AND battlecruisers. You are right, however, about the nature of the Alaska class....

Posted
Anyone know why the Worcester's had such short post war service lives?

 

An unreliable main battery may have had something to do with it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...