USS Alaska - why?

[Jack Ray]

I would go further and add that, had the Soviet Union possessed better and more heavy cruisers in 1945, Alaska class could actually not have been seen as so useless. Instead it would have been seen as the economic solution to Soviet cruiser threat compared to the wild extravagance of using the Iowa class. It was only the fact that Soviet Navy had nothing that couldn't have been dealt with by a Baltimore class CA that put the Alaska class so swiftly out of favor. The designers of Alaska, of course, could not have been faulted for having failed to predict this exact chain of events back in 1940.

Now that is a most interesting line of argument - and one I find (most shockingly! ) very convincing. I always thought that the Alaskas were all that the Baltimores were not - big cruisers able to take on every other cruiser and big enough to have lots of upgrade capability built into them.

Of course, the only really important thing is looks - and in that they are really hard to beat; normally I'm not a big fan of US warship architecture, but the Alaskas are beauties, plain and simple.

Jorit

Very interesting in light of the RN's official trade protection requirement for the Blackburn Buccaneer carrier borne strike aircraft--one of it's roles was to counter large Soviet commerce raiding cruisers like the Sverdlovs.

Jack

[daveseas]

This what I have read in the US Cruisers, Illustrate Design History by Norman Friedman....The original intent of these cruisers was to be a Class of "Cruiser-killers" concept according to Admiral King on the General Board meetings of 1938. Both were true cruisers, design for independent operations. And they did have there draw backs...


Regards
Dave

[bengtsson]

This what I have read in the US Cruisers, Illustrate Design History by Norman Friedman....The original intent of these cruisers was to be a Class of "Cruiser-killers"

Regards
Dave

Sounds like Jacky Fisher ordered the design work for the Alaskas! Cruiser killers. Big enough guns to kill any cruiser, fast enough to escape the enemy Battleships.
Sounds like the USN was considering the big IJN 8in gun Cruisers to be akin to the big armoured cruisers of Jacky's day. As they say "Everything old is new again". Still to kill an 8in Gun IJN Cruiser, an Essex class Carrier launching a full deckload strike will do the job as well.

Bob B.

[Sean Hert]

Sounds like Jacky Fisher ordered the design work for the Alaskas! Cruiser killers. Big enough guns to kill any cruiser, fast enough to escape the enemy Battleships.
Sounds like the USN was considering the big IJN 8in gun Cruisers to be akin to the big armoured cruisers of Jacky's day. As they say "Everything old is new again". Still to kill an 8in Gun IJN Cruiser, an Essex class Carrier launching a full deckload strike will do the job as well.

Don't be hater! I love the Alaskas!

[chuck]

Sounds like Jacky Fisher ordered the design work for the Alaskas! Cruiser killers. Big enough guns to kill any cruiser, fast enough to escape the enemy Battleships.
Sounds like the USN was considering the big IJN 8in gun Cruisers to be akin to the big armoured cruisers of Jacky's day. As they say "Everything old is new again". Still to kill an 8in Gun IJN Cruiser, an Essex class Carrier launching a full deckload strike will do the job as well.

Bob B.

To kill an Essex class carrier, even a single 6" cruiser will do.

[daveseas]

As I have said these cruisers were designed and built the original intent of the class as to the reasoning behind the 12'-50 main Battery, Moreover they were designed before the Essex Class. The reason for there late arrival into the Pacific was the steel shortage of 1942, the steel designated for these ships were diverted to other resources, i.e., Battle repair of capital ships.

Also these ships were under consideration for conversion to Missle Class Cuisers,i.e, Uncompleted Hawaii, therefore a study of said ship was completed. The results were given the relative size of the class of ship(i.e., Length and displacement compared to the Iowa Class) was too costly considering the Baltimore Class of cruiser was of lighter construction and thus would save money in there conversions......

Regards
Dave

[bengtsson]

Sounds like Jacky Fisher ordered the design work for the Alaskas! Cruiser killers. Big enough guns to kill any cruiser, fast enough to escape the enemy Battleships.
Sounds like the USN was considering the big IJN 8in gun Cruisers to be akin to the big armoured cruisers of Jacky's day. As they say "Everything old is new again". Still to kill an 8in Gun IJN Cruiser, an Essex class Carrier launching a full deckload strike will do the job as well.

Bob B.

To kill an Essex class carrier, even a single 6" cruiser will do.

This is true. It's just that getting into 6in gun range could pose a little problem

Bob B.

[Filipe Ramires]

This is true. It's just that getting into 6in gun range could pose a little problem

Rare occasions indeed to see a carrier being sunk only by naval guns. Glorious and Gambier Bay being the only cases I can think of for the moment.

[MartinJQuinn]

This is true. It's just that getting into 6in gun range could pose a little problem

Rare occasions indeed to see a carrier being sunk only by naval guns. Glorious and Gambier Bay being the only cases I can think of for the moment.

Wasn't one of the Japanese 'bait carriers' at Leyte sunk by cruiser gunfire? I want to say Chiyoda....

[Tiornu]

What was the intended role for the Alaska Class ships?

They were intended to defeat cruiser-killers the USN anticipated countering in the German and Japanese navies. The Japanese also had a large fleet of powerful heavy cruisers that might pop up to attack carriers and other vulnerable targets. In a fleet engagement, the Alaskas were cast as escorts to counter Japanese torpedo forces.

I believe they were designated cruisers by US Navy but were really battlecruisers?

There's a futility in trying to label capital ships. If you want to call them battlecruisers, go ahead. There's no single definition of a battlecruiser that would make the issue cut-and-dried. The idea that a battlecruiser is not a cruiser is historically dubious. Calling a ship a "large cruiser" does not mean it isn't a battlecruiser. Just ask the Germans. You can go ahead and call the Alaskas battleships, and it wouldn't bother me. They do bear a resemblance to the historical model of the second class battlesip.

[bengtsson]

Too much is often made of labels. A ship is a ship is a ship. It has a certain speed, range, armour, set of guns, displacement and dimensions. At times, the building of ships falls into well understood categories. It's only natural that Navies looking for certain characteristics to carry out defined roles will stray into ships that have some characteristics that don't fit the well defined classes. Alaskas are what they are. Any label chosen won't change that.
Look at the endless battle over what a Battle Cruiser is. Heck, it was just a label. All kinds of big gun ships were built, some fast, some slow, some armoured to the hilt, some trading that armour for other characteristics. The real question with these ships is "What were they built to accomplish? Could they accomplish it? How well could the enemy counter them? What you call them has nothing to do with the answers to those questions. Different navies also favoured different names to describe their ship classes, this changed nothing about the ships.
Doesn't matter what you call the Hood or Bismarck. It only matters how they stood up to each other. To me an Alaska is a big ship with big guns and pretty fast. If it comes up against Yamato as part of a surface gunnery duel, it is toast But them it wasn't built to do that.

Bob B.

[Tiornu]

I have to agree. You need to know the ship itself rather than its label. Atlanta and Brooklyn were both light cruisers--does that mean they're just like each other? If the labels are so malleable, why try to split hairs to assign the labels in the first place?

[daveseas]

No,
They are not just like each other. The Atlanta Class was a anti-aircraft cruisers and the Brooklyn class were a result of the London Treaty resulting in the term Light Cruiser.

Yes, the're classified as cruisers is the U.S.Navy. N o one is spliting hairs over this. It has more to with the Class/Type of Cruiser and what the operation mission for each was.

Regards
Dave

[Tiornu]

The term "light cruiser," which applied to both Brooklyn and Atlanta, did not result from the London Treaty. It preceded the London Treaty by thirty years or so.
Since it's clear that labels do not denote fine distinctions, what is the point of insisting on labels to make fine distinctions?

[daveseas]

I would agree they both are light cruisers.

The point about the London Treaty of 1930 is this, When the Brooklyn's were in the design stages, the net effect of this treaty was the building of the 7 Brooklyn Class Cruisers. Ref: US Cruisers, Illustrated History, Page 183, Chapter 7. Maybe the following will help:

Until 1921 there were seperate series of Protected Cruisers(including the "Peace Cruisers"), Armored Cruisers, BattleCruisers, and Scouts. In 1921 the later Armored (CA) and Light(CL) type designators were established, and all cruisers then in service placed into these two series. The Peace Cruisers were renumbered as Gunboats (PG's 27-24, 36), and the Salem- and the Omaha-class scouts became CLs 1-13. Later the older surviving Protected and Peace Cruisers became CLs 14-23, and the Treaty Cruisers began with CL 24, the Pensacola. From that ship on, through 1941, all U.S. Cruisers (CLs and CAs) were numbered in a single sequence. That is, when the 8-in gun-Light Cruisers were redesignated as Heavy Cruisers (CAs) in accordance with the London Treaty of the 1930, their hull numbers were not changed, From that date on, all 5 and 6-in-gun ships were designated CLs(light). In 1949 the 5-in-gun Cruisers were redesignated CLAAs. The major exceptions, numbered in separate sequences, were the Large Cruisers (CB), of the Alaska Class.

Hope this help's you.

Regards
Dave

[daveseas]

Hey Guys,

Someone has stated the term Battle Cruiser is Historically Dubious......

Well, you might want to rethink that idea....i.e., The Saratoga and the Lexington from the design stage to the slip ways were "BattleCruisers" and then converted to carriers on the builders slip ways.

Ref: US Carriers, Illustrated History, Chapter 2, Page 43.

Regards
Dave

04030101.jpg

[Tiornu]

Someone has stated the term Battle Cruiser is Historically Dubious

I don't think anyone stated that. How could the term be historically dubious?

[daveseas]

Tironu,

If I'm not mistaken you made that statement on page 2, last post. The term would not be Historically dubious because of this fact, the navy did have a class cruisers with that classification.

Note: As per my last post with the insert of the line drawing, that is the USS Saratoga CC-1 before conversion to a carrier on the builder's slipways.

So there for that term used is not accurate.

Regards
Dave

[Tiornu]

No, it wasn't I, and I don't recall anyone saying that. The term "battle cruiser" dates to the 19th Century and has been in official use since 1911.

[daveseas]

OK,

Maybe so....I stand corrected.

Regards
Dave