Alaska class battlecruisers used off Vietnam?

I thought of this on the Most/least divisive weapons thread where the Alaska class were ruled one of the least divisive ship classes by virtue of being almost unanimously seen as bad. DD951 mentioned that they would have been excellent for the shore bombardment role the Iowa battleships and Des Moines were brought out of retirement for in the 1980s. Keeping the Alaska's in the ghost fleet in decent shape from the 1940s to 1980 is hard but Alaska and Guam were only stricken and scrapped between 1960 and 1962. If they were kept in the ghost fleet a little longer what happens if they are brought out of retirement for short bombardment duty off Vietnam like the Iowas and Des Moines' IOTL? Would they have been kept around after Vietnam long enough to be brought back for the Reagan era naval build up?

 
They'd be "the wrong choice". As mentioned in the other thread, they needed nearly as many crew as the Iowa's (1500 vs 1900) while their 12" guns were unique and didn't have anything like the reserves of 16" that the Iowa's could call on. Not to mention that the 12" had less range so they'd either be hitting fewer targets or have to go closer to shore.
 
What about an Alaska class with three two gun turrets mounting 16 inch guns?

Say they are built as fast battle cruisers based not on upgrade cruisers but as replacement for a fast battleship class? :eek::confused:
While all six of the Iowa class is built with four three gun per turret battleships mounting 16 inch guns but with improved engine designs to allow them to keep up with the carriers.:cool::confused:

I suspect both classes would've been kept in at least naval reserve after the war and both would've seen tours along the Vietnamese coast. You can imagine how the North Vietnamese would've reacted say all six of the 12 gun Iowa class and the six 6 gun Alaska class and what they would have done the coast of Vietnam not to mention Korea. Anything within 20 miles of the coast would've been owned by the United States Navy and under caretaker to the Marine Corps or the Army.

Just an idea, I could also see them remain in service to support the Marine expeditionary forces. Especially if the Marine Corps had had any say in the matter or talk to the admirals designing the ship about the need for command ships to support marine landings and detachments.
Maybe that could be a point of departure?:cool:
 
The Iowas could already keep up with the carriers. They were designed for it.

There was poost-war talk of converting the half Completed USS Hawaii into a command ship, but it was complete overkill for what a command ship needed and nothing came of it.
 

Hyperion

Banned
If they needed more super heavy firepower, it would have been easier to reactivate a second Iowa.

That could have interesting ramifications of the Iowas are again all reactivated during the 1980s. In OTL the USS New Jersey was the easiest and cheapest of the four ships to be reactivated and upgraded in the 1980s, at least part due to having been upgraded and a lot of older or obsolete systems having already be stripped for service in Vietnam.
 
The Alaskas' main problems, namely their lack of maneuverability and their weaker armor, aren't solved by a 1980s reactivation. They have bigger guns than the heavy cruisers and smaller crews than the Iowas, but they still have the maneuverability issues, they weren't built to the same quality and they still had big crews.
 
What about an Alaska class with three two gun turrets mounting 16 inch guns?

Say they are built as fast battle cruisers based not on upgrade cruisers but as replacement for a fast battleship class? :eek::confused:
While all six of the Iowa class is built with four three gun per turret battleships mounting 16 inch guns but with improved engine designs to allow them to keep up with the carriers.:cool::confused:

I suspect both classes would've been kept in at least naval reserve after the war and both would've seen tours along the Vietnamese coast. You can imagine how the North Vietnamese would've reacted say all six of the 12 gun Iowa class and the six 6 gun Alaska class and what they would have done the coast of Vietnam not to mention Korea. Anything within 20 miles of the coast would've been owned by the United States Navy and under caretaker to the Marine Corps or the Army.

Just an idea, I could also see them remain in service to support the Marine expeditionary forces. Especially if the Marine Corps had had any say in the matter or talk to the admirals designing the ship about the need for command ships to support marine landings and detachments.
Maybe that could be a point of departure?:cool:

The Iowas are nine-gun designs (six forward three aft), there were four of them finished (Kentucky and Illinois were never finished, and Kentucky's bow went to the Wisconsin) and fitting 16" guns to an Alaska, while perhaps possible (not 100% sure though) would be a pointless and expensive exercise after WWII. If you really need that kind of fire support, just call all four of the Iowas back to the colors and let them shell the s--t out of the Vietnamese.

As far as that being a point of departure, the Galveston-class light cruisers and Albany-class missile cruisers were designed with extensive command center features and saw extensive Vietnam deployments and can do the same things themselves. The only way it might work is if the Marines effectively work with the Navy better and take the big guns partially under their wing, perhaps have the Marines partially crew the gun ships. Even here, the Alaskas would not likely be kept on board. The Baltimore, Oregon City and Des Moines class heavy cruisers and the Iowas would be first on the board. I can only see the Alaskas being taken over here if the Navy wholesale gives them to the Marines, with Marine COs and just enough Navy guys to operate the ship.
 
There were many much cheaper sollutions to provide supportfire near the coastlines in Vietnam. Reactivating expensive ships with large crews was not one of them, although the USS New Jersey did play her role there as well, dispite the huge costs of patching her and her crew up for a tour of duty over there. Airborne firepower was the best way to do the job, being much more efficient and effective, besides more flexible. Since the NVA and VC hardly possessed serious airpower themeselves, the assault from the air was the most logical way to do things in this sort of support.
 
There were many much cheaper sollutions to provide supportfire near the coastlines in Vietnam. Reactivating expensive ships with large crews was not one of them, although the USS New Jersey did play her role there as well, dispite the huge costs of patching her and her crew up for a tour of duty over there. Airborne firepower was the best way to do the job, being much more efficient and effective, besides more flexible. Since the NVA and VC hardly possessed serious airpower themeselves, the assault from the air was the most logical way to do things in this sort of support.


Quite possiable correct but I was playing devils advocate. :eek:

Alaska's built as part of an accelerated Two Ocean Navy Bill build program. Here was what I was proposing.

Alaska purpose built as a Command Battlecruiser but with Three or Four turrets mounting two Sixteen Inch Guns each. Primary mission is naval fire support of marine beach heads. Used in all weather off Vietnam as artillery doesn't care about hours of darknes, a little or lot of rain or cloud cover obsuring the target.

Iowa class built as a what would have been Kentukey class four turret three gun each 16' design. But more poweerful engines so as to allow themto keep up with Carrier groups. Or more rationally not have the battleships and carriers together but replace the battleship esscort of carriers with more Anti-aircraft and heavy cruisers.

Mate the battleships and marine landing forces where the big guns could do dual duty. As for the carriers being attacked by battleships the carrier battlesgroup should be able to spot the slower battleship line long before they enter gun range and either withdrawl slowly and sink them with airstrikes as the carriers back off or fast and leave the battleships far behind.
 

Ming777

Monthly Donor
There were many much cheaper sollutions to provide supportfire near the coastlines in Vietnam. Reactivating expensive ships with large crews was not one of them, although the USS New Jersey did play her role there as well, dispite the huge costs of patching her and her crew up for a tour of duty over there. Airborne firepower was the best way to do the job, being much more efficient and effective, besides more flexible. Since the NVA and VC hardly possessed serious airpower themeselves, the assault from the air was the most logical way to do things in this sort of support.


Except the Americans had difficulties with soviet-provided SAMs, and they weren't initially good at dealing with the more agile MiGs used by the North Vietnamese Air Force.
 
... and fitting 16" guns to an Alaska, while perhaps possible (not 100% sure though) would be a pointless and expensive exercise after WWII. ...

Unlikely to be possible. The shell traverses, magazines, turret ring diameters and so forth would all have been designed and sized for 12" rounds. WHen you have limited tonnage and room to play with, making things bigger for no good reason doesn't happen. Only example I can think of would have been the German G & S, and they were designed with the 15" upgrade in mind.

There were many much cheaper sollutions to provide supportfire near the coastlines in Vietnam. Reactivating expensive ships with large crews was not one of them, although the USS New Jersey did play her role there as well, dispite the huge costs of patching her and her crew up for a tour of duty over there. Airborne firepower was the best way to do the job, being much more efficient and effective, besides more flexible. Since the NVA and VC hardly possessed serious airpower themeselves, the assault from the air was the most logical way to do things in this sort of support.

They did a pretty good job at smashing coastal AA without having to expose aircraft to it. But you are right that airpower would have been the cheaper way of doing things.
 
Top