Alaskas

Just a little nitpick but couldn't the rudder be enlarged like Yamato's massive rudder.
That wouldn't really help. A ship that size really needs two rudders; one of the problems (I know, we keep adding to the list, don't we?) is that having only one rudder increases the turning radius of the ship.

So, in summary, with the Alaskas we have a ship that is almost as big as an Iowa-class, costs about 70% of an Iowa, has inadequate underwater protection, insufficient armor to protect against shellfire from its likely opponents, has transverse instability, requires 80% of the crew of an Iowa, is no faster than an Iowa, and has a larger turning radius as an Iowa. For the cost of the 2 Alaskas and the incomplete Hawaii the US could have had two additional Iowas. Ask yourself - would you rather have two Iowas or two of these things?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
That wouldn't really help. A ship that size really needs two rudders; one of the problems (I know, we keep adding to the list, don't we?) is that having only one rudder increases the turning radius of the ship.

A bit off topic, at what tonnage level does a ship have to have two rudders? It sounds like 8,000 tons one rudder works great, but 30,000 tons you have to have two. Where is the breaking point?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Yamato and Mushasi only had one and they topped 70,000 tons

There are worse ships to use as fine example of naval architecture than the Yamatos (the Alaskas being among them) but not many.

Overweight pigs with poor overall weapon layout design (two DIFFERENT secondary batteries rather than one DP caliber meaning the ship had too few of either, no medium caliber AAA, even in 1945, etc.), a huge main gun that was in most ways INFERIOR to the U.S. 16"/45 which required the design to be bloated, and the ability to maneuver like a garbage scow are hardly the defense the Alaska class needs.

This is especially true when there exists the absolutely glorious example of the Iowa class to show what designers could create in the WW II era (or if you want to go IJN, the very nice Mogami class, although they also show the rather unfortunate Japanese fascination with armament first, second, and only as illustrated by the issues they had with seams breaking when the main battery was fired in full broadside).
 
This is especially true when there exists the absolutely glorious example of the Iowa class to show what designers could create in the WW II era (or if you want to go IJN, the very nice Mogami class, although they also show the rather unfortunate Japanese fascination with armament first, second, and only as illustrated by the issues they had with seams breaking when the main battery was fired in full broadside).

I wouldn't go that far fawning over the Iowas. I think David Hughes interesting and informative articles in Avalanche Press' Daily Content provide a balanced look at these overrated ships.

http://www.avalanchepress.com/overrated3.php

http://www.avalanchepress.com/Overrated.php
 
There are worse ships to use as fine example of naval architecture than the Yamatos (the Alaskas being among them) but not many.

Overweight pigs with poor overall weapon layout design (two DIFFERENT secondary batteries rather than one DP caliber meaning the ship had too few of either, no medium caliber AAA, even in 1945, etc.), a huge main gun that was in most ways INFERIOR to the U.S. 16"/45 which required the design to be bloated, and the ability to maneuver like a garbage scow are hardly the defense the Alaska class needs.

This is especially true when there exists the absolutely glorious example of the Iowa class to show what designers could create in the WW II era (or if you want to go IJN, the very nice Mogami class, although they also show the rather unfortunate Japanese fascination with armament first, second, and only as illustrated by the issues they had with seams breaking when the main battery was fired in full broadside).

Didn't the Yamato's actually have a better turning radius than the Iowa's?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Ok so it turns out Yamato and her sister were actually more maneuverable than the Iowa's so having a single rudder doesn't necessarily mean poor maneuverability.

http://www.battleshipyamato.info/history.html


Well, things are not quite that clear cut. That is why I didn't answer your earlier question.

The Iowas were longer than the Yamatos by around 25', they were around six knots faster , and tended to operate at higher speeds than the Japanese ships (mainly a fuel usage issue). It is worth noting that the source doesn't say what speed the circle, or Tactical Diameter was measured at, and I am unable to even find a reasonable description of the criteria beyond "combat speed without heeling over" something that clearly leaves plenty of room for interpretation.

I will not say that the source you show, or the data presented, is wrong, but it also leaves much unsaid, probably because the data is not available from any of the sources the site shows as reference.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I wouldn't go that far fawning over the Iowas. I think David Hughes interesting and informative articles in Avalanche Press' Daily Content provide a balanced look at these overrated ships.

http://www.avalanchepress.com/overrated3.php

http://www.avalanchepress.com/Overrated.php

When it comes to armor quality I tend to lean more to Nathan Okun as a reliable source simply because his work is based on data.



I will say that the source (who I am unfamiliar with, a Net search turned up only a video game blogger and a comedian) you provide is the ONLY one I have ever encountered that finds the slightest fault with the USN "B" armor. His comments seem to equate face hardening with strength while, in fact, the situation is considerably more complex. He also seems to be unaware of the "de-capping" aspect related to warship armor (where things work quite differently from, say, tank plate).

A few of Okun's posts on armor (numerous others, including a rather fun calculation worksheet can be found at Navweaps).

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-033.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-045.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-085.htm
 
Top