Alaska class Large cruiser or Battlecruiser

Sailor Steve · 12-31-11, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USS Drum

They where used to bombard islands.

So were the Iowas.

12-31-11, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So were the Iowas.

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 · 12-31-11, 06:41 PM

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 · 02-07-12, 06:37 AM

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

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

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.

The Dark Wolf · 10-06-12, 09:47 AM

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

12-31-11, 06:41 PM	#3
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	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. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

02-07-12, 06:37 AM	#4
TBear Medic Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 160 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 0	This picture realy show how "oversized" it was for its class USS Missouri (BB-63) and USS Alaska (CB-1) at Norfolk, Virginia, 1944 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. __________________ *IJN rules, but peabody makes it float!* *"TAKAO" Status: work in progress* Last edited by TBear; 02-07-12 at 06:48 AM.

10-06-12, 09:47 AM	#5
The Dark Wolf Watch Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: CA-27 Posts: 28 Downloads: 82 Uploads: 13	Alaska Class Great ships, wrong time. Like the XB-70 Valkyrie project. Naval design is often too early or too late.