Alaska class Large cruiser or Battlecruiser

[USS Drum]

I was just wondering what people thought about the Alaska class I essentially think that it is just a Heavy Cruiser on steroids.

[CCIP]

Well, it is. All you really need there is to look at the hull form for comparison - the superstructure is deceptively battleship-like, especially when you look at it from the side, but if you look at it from above or front, it's kind of obvious where its roots are.

It is an odd little design of course, but it's more a case of convergent evolution than lineage. Alaska was basically the answer to the big Japanese CAs.

[USS Drum]

A response to Japanese CAs you should look at the caliber of it's guns there over the size of the Pocket BB:
9 x 12"/50 caliber Mark 8 guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12%22/50_caliber_Mark_8_gun)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_class_cruiser#cite_note-Dulin184-5) (3×3)
twelve 5-inch (127 mm)/38 caliber dual-purpose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/38_caliber_gun)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_class_cruiser#cite_note-Fitzsimons_1_59-6) guns[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_class_cruiser#cite_note-Dulin184-5) (6×2)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_class_cruiser#cite_note-Fitzsimons_1_59-6)
56 ×40 mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm_gun) (1.57 in)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_class_cruiser#cite_note-Dulin184-5) Bofors (14x4)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_class_cruiser#cite_note-Fitzsimons_1_59-6)

34 × 20mm Oerlikon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oerlikon_20_mm_cannon) (34×1)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_class_cruiser#cite_note-Dulin184-5)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_class_cruiser#cite_note-Fitzsimons_1_59-6)

[CCIP]

Response in the sense that it was built to decisively kill them :O:

[Sailor Steve]

Yep. The Alaskas were created for the same reason as Fisher's original First Class Armoured Cruisers two generations earlier, to deal with the best heavy cruisers of their day. The US didn't make the same mistake as the RN did back then, trying to use them as something they were never meant to be.

[Randomizer]

Never should have been built.

Total waste of money, effort and manpower. Built against a non-existent threat based on a ineffective strategy they represented the USN's "Gun Club's" last orgasmic effort at relevance.

Awesome looking warships though.

[Torplexed]

Both Alaska and Guam were decommissioned in in February 1947 after a mere three years of service. Both were broken up for scrap in the 1960s. Pretty ships but a waste of resources as they were never used as much more than an anti-aircraft gun platforms.

[USS Drum]

They where used to bombard islands.

[Randomizer]

They where used to bombard islands.
They were good looking gash boats. A half-dozen LCI(Rocket) could have better filled that role at a fraction of the cost in manpower and treasure. Useless warships shoehorned into a task that they were ill suited for in a vain attempt to get some utility out of them.

[Sailor Steve]

They where used to bombard islands.
So were the Iowas. :sunny:

[Randomizer]

So were the Iowas. :sunny:
One could legitimately argue that the Iowa's were also a waste of money, manpower and resources but at least they were authorized before the war as part of the comprehensive Two-Ocean Navy program. By comparison, the Alaska's were just freaks, tacked onto the wartime acquisition process as afterthoughts without a realistic tactical purpose.

[Sailor Steve]

I agree. I'm pretty sure the Iowas were authorized to counter the Yamatos, as at the time no one imagined that they might all be prey for aircraft.

[TBear]

This picture realy show how "oversized" it was for its class

USS Missouri (BB-63) and USS Alaska (CB-1) at Norfolk, Virginia, 1944

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/USS_Missouri_%28BB-63%29_and_USS_Alaska_%28CB-1%29_at_Norfolk%2C_Virginia%2C_1944.jpg


Actualy it was originaly the Brooklyn light cruiser that was intended to counter enemy ships of its own class. (it is basicly the foundation of the later US Cruiser designs)

Note.
The last ship of the Brooklyn class was also that last cruiser to be sunk by a submarine. (dont want to heat current political debates about some Islands, but google it and you can find out)

The Alaska class was a direct attempt to counter "pocket battleships" like the Deutschland class. Against them its deffently an asset, but the later German Admiral Hipper class would deffently have been able to put up a fight. Some would mention Scharnhorst class, realy not sure how i would chatogorise them. That is in essence a Battleship class...but will that is my opinion :)

The closest the Japanese had was the Mogami class, but even as a IJN surface buff i have to admit it would have been a "walk in the park" for the Alaska.

If you look for a ship that could be called mini battleship you have to think of the Alaska class.

:salute:

[The Dark Wolf]

Great ships, wrong time. Like the XB-70 Valkyrie project.
Naval design is often too early or too late.