AHC: A Different USS Alaska

Yep they were and that's why every DD design the USN has ever built since the Fletchers has had twin rudders. Postwar they partially fixed the Fletcher class by fitting them with a bigger rudder
Yeah. I just had one of those lightbulb moments realising there are two notable USN ships with tactical diameter issues in the same period. Problems in the design office?

It is interesting to contrast with the RN moving away from twin rudders 20 years earlier.
 
Not according to the actual research the USN did in the period that led to the Alaska. The USN did the research on effectiveness and concluded that 6 12" guns are better than 9 10" guns that are still better than 12 8" guns in the sort of fights they expected their heavy cruisers to get into. You would have to completely change their assumptions for how their heavy cruisers are going to fight for a 10" to make sense

How did they compare to the 8” autocannons like the ones on the Des Moines?
Or is this too early?
 
How did they compare to the 8” autocannons like the ones on the Des Moines?
Or is this too early?
Too early, that was a mid 30's study, the 8" Auto came out of work on a 6" Auto that began in '37 and combat experience in '42. In practice the 8" Auto would be better, but it was in service in 1949, designed in '43 as opposed to 44 and 39 respectively, and the 12" is easier to move forward
 

Driftless

Donor
Yeah. I just had one of those lightbulb moments realising there are two notable USN ships with tactical diameter issues in the same period. Problems in the design office?

It is interesting to contrast with the RN moving away from twin rudders 20 years earlier.
I honestly don't know, I just know that our beloved denizen of the Bear Flag Republic has more than once criticized that aspect of the ship's design.

I have no technical knowledge here, so this may be a dumb question: apart from being able to conform to the movements of the forces around you, wouldn't the ability to make quick turns be tactically useful when trying to evade torpedos? Or in the case of the longer than 750'/230m, is that just not possible?
 
Two comments if I may. All Japanese CA's were designed with treaty limits in mind. They may have cheated, but still they were limited. The German Hipper Class were big cheats at 14,000 tons, but that was partly from their heavy turret design. The Baltimore's were based on a treaty era design, freed from restrictions, and they came in at over 14,000 tons, and were far more capable then any Japanese, or German CA's. The Des Moines came in at 21,000 tons full load. It would be interesting to imagine what ships would have been built if WWII didn't start till 1944, which is when Hitler told his Military Leaders he planed to start the war.

Yes two rudders are a great idea. I served on a Leahy Class CG, small by WWII standards at around 7,800 tons, and we had a two rudder system. We could make some radicle high speed maneuvers. What I remember most was the steering gear leaked oil like an SOB. I've always found it hard to understand why the Bismarck couldn't maneuver using her screws, to at least make headway towards France. Even at 10 kts she might have gotten away. Rodney, and KGV were very low on fuel, and were sailing at an economical speed, if Bismarck was 110 nmi further away The RN BB's wouldn't have caught up to her till the following night, and might have had to turn back before then. Maybe someone has more information on this subject?
 
The KM Bismarck had three propellers and two rudders in which one rudder was jammed by the last British torpedo strike ..

Not sure if the German admiral or captain thought they could use their other working rudder and the other two propellers to maneuver at reduce speeds So they can head east instead of a circle if that stuck rudder with a three propellers were making the BB circle?
 
Okay. Found the comment p141 Brown, British Battleships.

The QEs went from the IDs twin rudders to singles and reduced resistance by 3%.

So the question becomes was it worth it? That is a deep hole.
 
Last edited:
Not according to the actual research the USN did in the period that led to the Alaska. The USN did the research on effectiveness and concluded that 6 12" guns are better than 9 10" guns that are still better than 12 8" guns in the sort of fights they expected their heavy cruisers to get into. You would have to completely change their assumptions for how their heavy cruisers are going to fight for a 10" to make sense
The RN came to similar conclusions with the very first BC before WW1, 12 inch guns didn't add a lot more weight than 10 inch and were much more effective, both were better than large numbers of 9.2 inch
 
The RN came to similar conclusions with the very first BC before WW1, 12 inch guns didn't add a lot more weight than 10 inch and were much more effective, both were better than large numbers of 9.2 inch
But the logical extrapolation of that is that 9x16" is even better value......
 
But the logical extrapolation of that is that 9x16" is even better value......
True but apparently going to 16 inch guns dramatically increases the weight compared to 10 or 12 inch, plus a minimum number of guns firing at once is needed to get a reasonable chance of hitting. So 12 inch guns make more sense than 10 inch but going to 14-16 inches requires a significantly larger ship (even ignoring the implicit need for greater protection).

I seem to remember some plans for a RN 9.2 inch gun cruiser in WW2 (possibly a Churchill fever dream) that was significantly over 20,000 tons
 
Of course the 16 inch version makes more sense as the Alaska compromise was pointless by the time they arrived
 
How much weight would be saved from adopting a 10 inch gun over OTL's 12s and what improvements could you make from the saved tonnage?
 
True but apparently going to 16 inch guns dramatically increases the weight compared to 10 or 12 inch, plus a minimum number of guns firing at once is needed to get a reasonable chance of hitting. So 12 inch guns make more sense than 10 inch but going to 14-16 inches requires a significantly larger ship (even ignoring the implicit need for greater protection).

I seem to remember some plans for a RN 9.2 inch gun cruiser in WW2 (possibly a Churchill fever dream) that was significantly over 20,000 tons
Yes but since a 12" balanced fast ship is probably 2/3 a 16" one and its worth far less than 2/3, ignoring that you need to build the 16" ships anyway to fight the battleship fight and a few spare 16" ships using the same design and logistics will be still cheaper, easier and faster.....
 
Yes but since a 12" balanced fast ship is probably 2/3 a 16" one and its worth far less than 2/3, ignoring that you need to build the 16" ships anyway to fight the battleship fight and a few spare 16" ships using the same design and logistics will be still cheaper, easier and faster.....
Agreed, I had a follow up post trying to point out that extra BBs and cruisers make much more sense than a supercruiser or BC like Alaska. My original comment was simply to point out that a 12inch gun probably makes more sense than a 10inch, I wasn't saying either were desirable in 1945.
 

Deleted member 94680

Yes but since a 12" balanced fast ship is probably 2/3 a 16" one and its worth far less than 2/3, ignoring that you need to build the 16" ships anyway to fight the battleship fight and a few spare 16" ships using the same design
Agreed, I had a follow up post trying to point out that extra BBs and cruisers make much more sense than a supercruiser or BC like Alaska. My original comment was simply to point out that a 12inch gun probably makes more sense than a 10inch, I wasn't saying either were desirable in 1945.

The Alaska class certainly resembled contemporary US battleships (particularly the North Carolina class, South Dakota class, and Iowa class) in appearance, including the familiar 2-A-1 main battery and massive columnar mast. Their displacement was twice that of the newest heavy cruisers (the Baltimore class), being only 5,000 tons less than the Washington Treaty's battleship standard displacement limit of 35,000 long tons (36,000 t) (unchanged through the final naval treaty, the London Treaty of 1936). They were also longer than several treaty battleships such as the King George V class and 724 ft (221 m) North Carolina class.

The Alaska-class were simply too big for their purpose. For the same tonnage (not a perfect measure of how many replacements you'd get, but a rough estimate) you could build double the number of heavy cruisers or for the tonnage of the 6 proposed six ship class you could build 5 South Dakota or 4 Iowa battleships. If you were generous, just using the tonnage of the three ships constructed, you could have 6 Baltimore cruisers, 2 South Dakota battleships or the best part of 2 Iowa battleships. Maybe even go backwards and build two more North Carolina battleships to have a four ship group?
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
How many 5"/38 guns could you fit on this hull? A mega AA cruiser to escort fast fleets. Not much belt, but serious torpeo bulkheads rising up to seven inches of deck armour over the huge magazines.
 
Last edited:

Driftless

Donor
A photo for a visual comparison of relative mass - USS Missouri & USS Alaska:
5q2xqOrN6dFCXH05OSQEqwWwyzEql462A9ezDblzxF8.jpg
 

Deleted member 94680

How many 5"/38 guns could you fit on this hull? A mega AA cruiser to escort fast fleets. Not much belt, but serious torpeo bulkheads rising up to seven inches of deck armour over the huge magazines.

For the same gun weight (not talking about mounts) you could fit 274 5"/38 guns on the hull.

You could get 16 Mk 32 Mod 4 twin turrets for the same weight as one triple 12" turret on the Alaska.


Owing to the nightmare the weight distribution would be for such a conversion, I'd simply say... as many as you could fit on the hull?
 
Top