Talk:Alaska-class cruiser/Archive 1

Archive 1

Heavy Cruiser or Battlecruiser?

The Alaska class ships are often referred to as large cruisers; in terms of gunnery and displacement they were midway between a heavy cruiser and a battleship, although closer to the former in terms of design and, particularly, armour coverage. Most authorities, including the United States Navy itself, therefore consider the Alaska-class vessels to have been unusually large cruisers rather than fully-fledged battlecruisers.

The US Navy may choose to classify their ships how they wish, but the the Alaskas were Battlecruisers in everything but name and "most" authorities recognise them as such. The US Navy only called them heavy cruisers because HMS Hood had just blown up and asking for permission to build battlecruisers was career suicide. Further, some of the justifications chosen for the "heavy cruiser" appilation are clearly fallacious. For example, the "heavy cruiser type secondary battery" consisted of 5" DP guns - exactly the same as the North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa class battleships. Similarly, the number of rudders is no way to classify a warship, whereas the intended role is. The description quoted above is one of the neatest descriptions of a battlecruiser I have ever read - the Alaskas were designed as fleet scouts and "cruiser-killers," exactly the role Admiral Fisher envisaged for the very first Battlecruisers in 1908. I intend to rewrite the article accordingly. Getztashida 16:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It does seem odd, and "unbalanced" that roughly 2/3 of the article is written in order to prove these ships are not battlecruisers, rather than dealing with the design and construction of these ships. Chris

Given that the Navy classified them as CB, as opposed to CC, as it did for the Lexington class battlecruisers, we should not delve into our own interpretation of their roles, capabilities, etc. to state otherwise. If there are reliable sources stating that the ships were battlecruisers in all but name, go ahead and include their positions. If not, then we can't do so. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I read a book that classifies this class, as battleships.The classification of ships can be dificult.To example, what ton has the difference between a patrol boat and a corvete?What ton has the difference between a corvete and a frigate?A "light frigate" can be a corvete to another person.Books aren't unanimous about this classification.Its obvious that a ship with 5,000 tons can't be a corvete, but a corvete hasn't just one class and size.Agre22 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)agre22

True battlecruisers invariably had contemporary battleship main armament although sometimes mounting fewer barrels. The 12"/50s of the Alaskas were not contemporary battleship guns. Just a thought. Traumatic (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Which flag?

After discussions, the advice is to use naval ensigns, not jacks - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tables. The correct US flag has been selected by a template - see the US entry in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns. Folks at 137 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Add this tommorrow, Ed.

"The last capital ships ordered by the US Navy were the six 27000-ton Alaska class large cruisers. They carried nine 12 in guns in triple turrets, ..." (Pg. 29)

The Eclipse of the Big Gun: The Warship 1906-45 By Robert Gardiner, David K. Brown Published by Conway Maritime, 2004 ISBN 0851779530, 9780851779539 223 pages

—Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 05:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Some unsourced content...

I was forced to remove this lovely paragraph because it lacked a source....:

However, the Alaska class was built to cruiser standards, with a cruiser-like secondary battery and lacked the armored belt and torpedo defense system of capital ships. Their percentage of armor tonnage at 16% was similar to that of contemporary cruisers and far less than that of true battlecruisers and battleships (HMS Hood had 33%, while the German Bismarck and USS North Carolina had 40% weight in armor). As with the never-completed Lexington-class battlecruisers, the Alaska class ships were an outgrowth of contemporary American cruiser design, rather than being a new battlecruiser class to occupy the middle ground between heavy cruisers and fast battleships.

If anyone has a source for all or part of it please add it back in. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 23:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Fitzsimons supports Alaskas having a CC-type armor scheme. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinese math

I deleted

"classes; these new carriers became the Independence-class light aircraft carriers. The first CVL was commissioned on 14 January 1943, about eleven months before the first of the Essex class was commissioned."

because the page is on the Alaskas, & this seems better for Essex or Independence. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mostly  Done —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't shoot, I'm only the editor

"accounting for roughly half of all Japanese aircraft shot down between 1 October 1944 and 1 February 1945" I don't dispute it, but I've read (& can't recall where...) the 40mm was inadequate against kamikaze because shell weight was too low, & the 5"/38's ROF was too low; it took until the 3" auto for USN to have a suitable response. If somebody can source & include? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm try TomStar81....why? 'Cos I stole that section from his Iowa-class battleship article. xD —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

K. Thanx. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Carrying the weight

"a shorter flight deck (so they could have carried only 90% of the aircraft)"? Does Friedman support a causal relationship? I don't see it. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

He says that they could carry 10% fewer aircraft. 10% fewer = 90% of the total, right? Actual question just to be 100% sure... —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No prob with %, just with causation. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Alaska-class conversion would show about 10 percent less aircraft capacity due to a shorter flight deck. That is, the heavily armored Alaska was both shorter and lower in the water, with three full decks rather than four, a difference of 11 feet in freeboard to the main deck" (Friedman, pgs. 190–191). Does this not say that...? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 14:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Last dreadnought

From the intro: "They were the last 'true' dreadnought to fly under the U.S. flag."

This sentence is sourced, but I confess I don't quite get what it means. Would it be possible to have one of those nice verbose footnotes added here explaining it? Shimgray | talk | 12:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do after classes. :) My apologies,

—Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 13:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

They were the last 'true' dreadnoughts to fly under the U.S. flag.?

I'm new around here, but there seem to be two problems here. One is ships don't fly. If the sentiment is true, then the phrasing should be "...to fly the flag". But I don't think the sentiment is true. Weren't the last dreadnoughts to fly the US flag the Iowas. The only "last" dreadnoughty thing that might be true is that they were the last USS dreadnoughts designed or ordered.Busaccsb (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

ROFLOL! No, ships do not normally fly. Thanks for pointing that out. =)))

The distinction that I am trying to make here is that they were the last dreadnoughts—the Iowa-class were super-dreadnoughts. But after I think about it a little more, I may just remove that sentence - your point has been brought up before, and I'm not sure that I really want to confuse people. Thanks! Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 06:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor grammatical question

The original idea for a U.S. class of battlecruiser began in the early 1930s when the U.S. Navy wanted a counter to the German "pocket battleships" (the Deutschland class) that were then being launched and commissioned by Germany.

Is it redundant to mention that the ships were launched and commissioned by Germany after we've already mentioned that they were German? Forgive me if the answer is obvious - I'm only here to copyedit. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 18:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. :) Get rid of the first "German", unless my internet is nice and lets me do it now. :) Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 05:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Piped links

Heavy cruiser development had been held steady between World War I and World War II by the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty and successor treaties and conferences.

Per WP:EGG, that last link (and others like it, later in the article) should be fixed. :\ —La Pianista ^(T•C) 05:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Blarg, will try. I didn't know how in heck to word that. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"Blarg"? Cute. :D —La Pianista ^(T•C) 17:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity...

...What text are we quoting here? "[C]omprehensive study of all types of naval vessels...", "pocket battleships", "torturous", etc. Reminds me of this "blog". :) Is it extracted from the refs? —La Pianista ^(T•C) 05:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Anything in the Design Process section is extracted.

So is the "comprehesive...." quote

"pocket battleships" is a nickname for them, thought that it needed quotes...

Same w/ "treaty cruisers"

I have a feeling that quotes around "large cruisers" aren't needed...am I wrong? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait for Pianista's opinion - but I agree that "large cruisers" doesn't need the quotes. Icy // ♫ 16:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think you should quote "large cruisers." In fact, any effort to chop down these quotation marks would be great. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 17:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Caps

The President at the time, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, might have inspired the idea for the class with his desire to counter the raiding abilities of Japanese cruisers and German "pocket battleships", [...]

What are the standards of capitalizing "President" here? I'm unfamiliar with this - please help. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 07:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixing in my next edit...I think that it should be "U.S. President". —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that was probably a good idea ... good lord, the last history page is just us three o: Icy // ♫ 01:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of un-reliable content

I've undone a few edits (here's one) by User:GoldDragon, seeing as the edits replaced some facts with unreferenced info. This article is currently undergoing an WP:FA review, and we need it to be as well-sourced as possible. No harm or conflict intended, and we'll see about the concerns once the FA has passed. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was sourced to un-reliable sources, which is why, not because it was unreferenced. There is a major distinction there. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two main arguments for referring to the Alaska class as "large cruisers". The first is their armor; while they were able to withstand more fire from guns than any other cruiser afloat, they were virtually defenseless against torpedoes, as they had no sub-divisions within the hull and no anti-torpedo scheme. The lack of underwater protection would also make them vulnerable to shells which fell slightly short of their mark and continued underwater to hit the hull. The second lies entirely in their design.

There are several main arguments for referring to the Alaska class as "large cruisers" rather than battlecruisers. Their percentage of armor tonnage at 16% was similar to that of contemporary cruisers and far less than that of true battlecruisers and battleships (the HMS Hood had 33%, while the German Scharnhorst and American North Carolina each had 40% weight in armor. In addition, unlike battleships and battlecruisers, the Alaskas lacked underwater protection, relying on compartments like cruisers, so they were susceptible to torpedoes, and also vulnerable to shells which hit under the waterline.

The armor percentage is a valid argument and is sourced. Plus, all ships do have compartments, though it is only the battleships and battlecruisers that get the armored belt. GoldDragon (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite these cruiser-like characteristics, and the U.S. Navy's insistence on their status as cruisers, the Alaska class were frequently described as battlecruisers at the time. Some modern historians take the view that this a more accurate designation for two main reasons: firstly

Despite these cruiser-like characteristics, and the U.S. Navy's classification of their status as cruisers, the Alaska class were frequently described as battlecruisers at the time. Some modern historians argued that they should be considered battlecruisers for two main reasons. Firstly, they were, in terms of displacement, about twice as heavy as the newest heavy cruisers (the Baltimore class)

The USN's arguments for classification aren't any more or less "accurate", so I removed this term since it might imply a slight bias in favour of the battlecruiser label. GoldDragon (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

To MBK: Sorry, misspoke there.

To GD: The problem, as I regretfully did not state earlier, is that the sources are not reliable. As I have said, perhaps all this can wait until the article has passed its FA. Then we can continue the discussion, calmly, and without undoing each others' edits so frequently. One important criteria for a featured article is that it must remain stable and cannot be the subject of an edit war. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 00:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, I think that the armor percentages from Hood and the North Carolina-class are covered by Friedman's Battleship Design and Development. Hold on... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I might talk to User:Harlsbottom, as he has the book... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

To butt in. Friedman Battleship Design and Development says the proportions of armour in various ships was as follows:

• • Alaska: 28.4%
  • Washington (North Carolina-class): 34.4%
  • Montana: 39.4%
  • New Jersey: 32.4%
  • Lexington: 28.5%
  • Utah: 28.8%
  • Hood: 32.7%
  • Inflexible: 19.9%
  • King George V: 32.8%
  • Scharnhorst: 40.2%

So, what conclusions to draw?

1. Scharnhorst had by far the most armour, though she is often referred to as a 'battlecruiser!'
2. GoldDragon's source is probably incorrect about North Carolina and Alaska
3. A typical fast battleship (Iowa, King George V) had c. 32% armour. Hood, the 'battlecruiser', also falls into this category, which is why so many people say she was more like a battleship.
4. Alaska's armour proportion, assuming Friedman is correct, is not far below that of a modern fast battleship, is not much lower than that of an old battleship like Utah, and is certainly much higher than the original British battlecruisers.

Regards, The Land (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Just one question of that: is the armor % for Lexington as a CC or a CV? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure as battlecruiser. He specified "Lexington 1919" and the book is about battleships, not carriers. The Land (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I will try to work some of this into the prose tomorrow. Any chance of a page # for Lex? I may be working on another article that could use that info... ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, *if you have time*, could you list all of the page #'s out? If I'm going to compare to, say, Scharnhorst, I need a page # for that % too. :S —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All from the tables on pages on p166–173. The Land (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The text at present is still problematical; currently it reads

The Alaska's percentage of armor tonnage, 28.4%, was slightly less than that of battlecruisers and fast battleships; the British King George V class, the battlecruiser HMS Hood, and the American Iowa class all had armor percentages between 32 and 33%. In fact, older battlecruisers, such as the Invincible (19.9%), had a significantly lower percentage

The problem here is that the list-sentence includes Hood as the sole example of a "battlecruiser;' but of course Hood was very atypical, with battleship-grade protection and arguably a fast battleship, forerunner of the WWII type. Far better to include Lexington and e.g. Tiger and Renown as illustrations of battlecruiser armor percentages-- against which the Alaskas compare pretty well. Solicitr (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

New approach- it's perhaps instructive to compare length/beam ratios. While cruisers were built very fine- the big US jobs were as long as battleships but much narrower- with L/B ratios of 9.49:1 (Baltimore) and 9.42:1 (Des Moines), and BBs naturally much beamier (SoDak 6.3:1, NoCar 6.86:1, KGV 7.23:1, Vanguard 7.54:1), battlecruisers run near or over 8:1 (Tiger 7.82:1, Lion 7.95:1, Hood 8.27:1, Lexington 8.32:1, Repulse 8.82:1). The oddball is Iowa, at a BC-like 8.22:1- but then, the Iowa hullform was distorted by Panamax and a 33-knot design requirement; some would call her a quasi-battlecruiser anyway.

Alaska? 8.78:1- almost identical to Repulse, but nowhere near as fine as a cruiser. Solicitr (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

5-in/38 cal. guns were not turrets; correct?

I served aboard the U.S.S. Eversole, DD-789, which had three dual 5-in/38 cal. twin gun *mounts* This was before FRAM. Afaik, these are not technically turrets. Also afaik, the distinction is that turrets have armor below decks, while gun mounts do not.

Regards, Nikevich (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops; you are most definitely right. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help! Nikevich (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bofors guns

The USA version were not "descendants", they were modified versions of the original gun system. The 40mm Bofors hasnt really got a German ancestry, the only connection being that during its design period, Krupp became a major owner of Bofors stock. Also, modifying a system to conform to a certain standard is not the same as "brought the guns up to U.S. Navy standards", which as written expressively means improving, and wether the "americanised" version was an improvement or not can be argued indefinetly. Following modifications during the war may be considered improvements however, but the text as is mixes all of it up and tells something that isnt true. 217.208.225.55 (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the current phrasing, either; but the design wasd certainly "improved" in the sense that the original called for a tremendous amount of hand-fitting with files and individual screw-hole placement, whereas the revised American design was much better suited for mass production, a crucial factor in wartime. The USN also developed a rather better AA round than the Swedish original. Solicitr (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Large Cruisers vs Battlecruisers

Don't understand the revert. What's the problem? Solicitr (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's uncited OR (original research) - BilCat (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dunkerque Class

In the "Large cruiser/cruiser killer designs" list at the bottom of the page, shouldn't the French Dunkerque class also be listed? They were designed to counter the pocket battleship design - i.e. classic "cruiser killer".

Although the French described them as fast battleships, they have similar sizes and design goals to the Alaska class. Under the terms of the Washington Treaty, in force when they were built, they were capital ships - over 10,000 tons and 13 inch guns. But 10 years later - post Washington Treaty - similar designs were called large cruisers.

The same comment seems to apply to the "Large cruiser classes working group", which lists the same classes. It specifies it only covers post Washington Treaty ships. However, it seems to me a more inclusive definition of Washington Treaty and post Washinton Treaty ships would improve references to WW2 large cruiser lists and pages. There is only one extra class to add to the list - the Dunkerque class. The Dunkerque class have such a similar design goals as the Alaskas ( for example ) they seem very relevant; and a very interesting comparison of the changes in design and implementation 10 years apart of similar design goals.

The Dunkerque class seems to be the original "Large cruiser/cruiser killer design" after the Washington Treaty. Holland jon (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would call the Dunkerques either genuine battlecruisers or small fast battleships like the Scharnhorsts: they were NOT scaled-up heavy cruisers like the Alaskas, but scaled-down battleships with light-ish but substantial armor. Solicitr (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Problems with "Proposed Carrier Conversion"

The opening of this section states that the proposal was made during 1942 as a result of wartime losses- but the final sentence observes that the idea was dropped in Jan 1942, before the US had lost a single carrier. Both can't be correct. W/O a reference book to hand, I'm inclined to believe the latter is correct, and that the Alaska conversion proposal arose out of the concern in the latter part of 1941 that, with war looming, the first of the Essex class wouldn't be ready (as was thought at the time) for another two years- the discussion which resulted in the early '42 - pre-Coral Sea - decision to convert light cruisers to carriers. Solicitr (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Re recent edits- since the Alaska-conversion idea was abandoned in Jan 1942, the idea could hardly have resulted from "late 1942" concerns. Solicitr (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, this is my fault -- I agreed with you all along, but somehow I read the diff backwards and thought you had changed it to 1942 while I was restoring it to 1941. (Hence the nonsensical edit summary.) Of course it was 1941! TiC ^(talk) 16:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No internal division?

 they were virtually defenseless against torpedoes because they had no sub-divisions within the hull and no anti-torpedo scheme.

Really? No hull compartmentalization? Come on- even DEs had subdivided hulls, and the Baltimores on which the Alaskas were based certainly did. Solicitr (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Worth (305) says they had poor subdivision, not none. TiC ^(talk) 02:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That I'll buy. Solicitr (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)