From: "David H. Thornley" <thornley@kilo.cs.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: WWII Battleships
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:27:25 GMT


From "David H. Thornley" <thornley@kilo.cs.umn.edu>

In article <By0tEI.8My@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Richard H. Miller" <rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
>
>From "Richard H. Miller" <rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu>
>
>In article <Bxx2Kn.Jr@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> writes:
>> 
>> From "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
>> 
>> 
>> Richard H. Miller writes:
>> #> Alaska (2), 34K/10K, 33kt, 9x12" guns arranged as above.
>> #
>> #These were never considered to be battleships (or even a battlecruser). The
>> #Alaska class has always been considered to be large cruisers. Their type
>> #designation was CB rather than BB or BC.
>> 
>> Actually "CB" for battle cruiser is consistent with USN cruiser nomenclature:
>> "CL" for light cruisers and "CA" for heavy [formerly armored] cruisers.
>> 
The USN designation for battlecruiser was CC; presumably it was considered
the basic cruiser type rather than a variation of the battleship type.
The Alaska class were not considered battle units; I included them in the
list because they really don't fit well anywhere else.  They were larger,
probably effectively better armored, and with better guns than the oldest
US battleship of the war.

>> The ALASKAs are most comparable to SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU: well-balanced
>> ships with meaningful armor, but with gun size from earlier generations.
>> To bring back a pre-dreadnought nomenclature convention: Second Class
>> Battle Cruisers?
>
>That may be the best characterization. My argument is (and I will confirm it
>by checking the Design series on both cruisers and battleships) that the
>CB class of ships were upgunned cruisers and had the characteristics of 
>a very large cruiser. The guns (12") were a new series rather than a
>re-outfitting of some existing guns. As I remember also, they had some armor
>but it was in the same design as the heavy cruisers rather than a battleship.
>AS I remember, the armor was not designed to withstand fire from a comparable
>ship (which was one of the primary characteristics of battleships). 
>
The class could be considered as what the USN really wanted in a heavy cruiser
if they didn't have treaty or cost considerations.  Think of it as a
larger version of the Baltimore class and you won't be too far wrong.
BTW, I thought US cruisers were expected to withstand fire from comparable
ships, and were designed with immune zones against their own guns, just
that the angle of fire was considered to be not directly off the broadside.
Were the Alaska class designed with 90- or 60-degree immune zones?

>Most of my references place them firmly in the cruiser family rather than the
>battleship family and this was the point of my original post; they should not
>be classed as a type of battleship. 
>
Again, how do we classify them?  I essentially listed the battleships of
the USN of WWII and the Alaskas.  I could have omitted them, but they
were bigger and nastier than some of the battleships I mentioned,
and would have been useful against some of the Japanese battleships.
Certainly they were better suited for surface battles than the poor
anti-aircraft cruisers that died against the Japanese battleships.

DHT



Newsgroups: sci.military