Best weapon, in its class, in WW2

And the USN classed the Alaskas as large cruisers. If hou really want to get into differing classifications for the various fast battleships don't forget the stillborn G2s, 9x16 inch guns with armour to match but only classed as battlecruisers.
Best never built ships G2 class.

Surely the best never built class were the Lions
 
And the USN classed the Alaskas as large cruisers. If hou really want to get into differing classifications for the various fast battleships don't forget the stillborn G2s, 9x16 inch guns with armour to match but only classed as battlecruisers.
Best never built ships G2 class.

The Alaskas are large cruisers. They are enlarged Des Moines more than they are downsized Iowas. They are what would have happened to heavy cruisers if there hadn't been a WNT, much in the way light cruisers went from 3000t ships with five 6'' guns to 12000t ships with twelve 6''

And the USN didn't invent the large cruiser concept. Fisher did, with the Courageous class large cruisers. Replace the two twin 15'' in the Follies with three 12'' triples and you have a WW1 Alaska.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Montanas. All the good things on the Iowas, plus an extra turret, more protection, and a slight reduction in speed.
Lion was basically the same protection as the proposed US Montana, slightly faster, and 9 vs 12 16" guns on 65% of the displacement. So you could probably build 3 Lions for 2 Montanas, a distinct advantage.

(as per Astrodragon.)

So... basically, Lions individually weaker but also cheaper.
(If you're wondering how they did that, there's two reasons I can see. First, the Montanas were beamier, so had a lower natural speed... and second, the Lion accepted a much lower cruising speed so had to make space for less bunkerage.)
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
battleships/cruisers, the most overrated weapon of ww2
Battleships are kind of essential in the first half of WW2. Carriers didn't get to the stage of "can destroy surface fleets" until mid-WW2, and even then carriers can't fight so well in heavy weather and only RN carriers can night strike.
 
Battleships are kind of essential in the first half of WW2. Carriers didn't get to the stage of "can destroy surface fleets" until mid-WW2, and even then carriers can't fight so well in heavy weather and only RN carriers can night strike.

Except you know the sucked at it and the USN was doing that as well near wars end(see raid on Truk)
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
And not to be a bit of a wonk, but Lusty and her sisters were actually used - quite heavily. In fact, Lusty was arguably more use than an Iowa, since Illustrious sank about half the Italian battlefleet...




...anyway, here's a best-if-not-very-practical. The Shimikaze.

I think any other DD skipper in the world would have loved to have her, if there were no consequences...
41 knots, 6 5" DP guns, and 15 Long Lance tubes!

As noted the train rate on the 12.7cm/50 was simply dreadful (4-6 degrees a second, as a comparison USN twin mounts ran at 25 degree/sec on single mounts as high as 34 degree/sec). Probably the best indicator on the usefulness of the 12.7/50 as an AAA mount is that that the IJN removed one of the twin mounts in order to add more of the entirely inadequate 25mm Type 96 light AAA.
 
Lion was basically the same protection as the proposed US Montana, slightly faster, and 9 vs 12 16" guns on 65% of the displacement. So you could probably build 3 Lions for 2 Montanas, a distinct advantage.

(as per Astrodragon.)

So... basically, Lions individually weaker but also cheaper.
(If you're wondering how they did that, there's two reasons I can see. First, the Montanas were beamier, so had a lower natural speed... and second, the Lion accepted a much lower cruising speed so had to make space for less bunkerage.)

Individually weaker but cheaper is not a very god standard for best in class....
The USN could afford bigger, more expensive ships, and build them in larger numbers than any other navy could build cheaper ones.
You you have it, flaunt it.
 
Individually weaker but cheaper is not a very god standard for best in class....
The USN could afford bigger, more expensive ships, and build them in larger numbers than any other navy could build cheaper ones.
You you have it, flaunt it.
But unless you add cost and date in service to rank 'Best' you might as well ask what's the best for WW2 a Nimitz class or a trident boat ? (both ships are just as irrelevant to the OTL WW2 as Lions and Montana's)

As noted the train rate on the 12.7cm/50 was simply dreadful (4-6 degrees a second, as a comparison USN twin mounts ran at 25 degree/sec on single mounts as high as 34 degree/sec). Probably the best indicator on the usefulness of the 12.7/50 as an AAA mount is that that the IJN removed one of the twin mounts in order to add more of the entirely inadequate 25mm Type 96 light AAA.
But are any heavy AA gun really that good without VT fuzes ?
Isn't most of the evidence from WW2 that you want a 57mm automatic or a 3" with VT ? only you cant so you are stuck with 40mm or 5" VT, the IJN didn't have many 40mm autos and no VTs so it has to settle or 25mm as the least worst option?
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Alaskas are large cruisers. They are enlarged Des Moines more than they are downsized Iowas. They are what would have happened to heavy cruisers if there hadn't been a WNT, much in the way light cruisers went from 3000t ships with five 6'' guns to 12000t ships with twelve 6''

And the USN didn't invent the large cruiser concept. Fisher did, with the Courageous class large cruisers. Replace the two twin 15'' in the Follies with three 12'' triples and you have a WW1 Alaska.

This has always been my issue with the Alaskas, they weren't really useful for anything by the time they were laid down, and even when conceptualized were less useful than the Iowas (which, while rightly considered to be the best BB even built in many respects, was more of battle cruiser in the G3 mode) in any practical measure. The Alaskas cost 3/4 of what a BB-61 class ship did and they had a operation life span less than 1/10 as long. Choosing between two more Iowas or the three Alaskas is so easy as to be a given. The less often mentioned option, of building either six Baltimore class CA or NINE Atlanta/San Diego class CLAA also makes vastly more sense.

The "large cruiser" concept was a bad one, something the RN figured out two decades before the U.S. even started drawing up plans for the Alaskas. The were terrific for the value of what they were, true pocket battleships, especially with the superb 12" gun they mounted, but what they were was of so little value being the best at it doesn't really matter.

Regarding the never built, at least for warships, I would agree with it being the G3. Magnificent design.
 
This has always been my issue with the Alaskas, they weren't really useful for anything by the time they were laid down, and even when conceptualized were less useful than the Iowas (which, while rightly considered to be the best BB even built in many respects, was more of battle cruiser in the G3 mode) in any practical measure. The Alaskas cost 3/4 of what a BB-61 class ship did and they had a operation life span less than 1/10 as long. Choosing between two more Iowas or the three Alaskas is so easy as to be a given. The less often mentioned option, of building either six Baltimore class CA or NINE Atlanta/San Diego class CLAA also makes vastly more sense.

The "large cruiser" concept was a bad one, something the RN figured out two decades before the U.S. even started drawing up plans for the Alaskas. The were terrific for the value of what they were, true pocket battleships, especially with the superb 12" gun they mounted, but what they were was of so little value being the best at it doesn't really matter.

Regarding the never built, at least for warships, I would agree with it being the G3. Magnificent design.

The Alaskas are a demonstration of what happens when you have an unlimited budget. The USN already had enough Baltimores and Iowas, and they could afford to try out whatever they wanted.
 
The Alaskas are a demonstration of what happens when you have an unlimited budget. The USN already had enough Baltimores and Iowas, and they could afford to try out whatever they wanted.
But even the USA didn't have an unlimited budget so they must have had an opportunity cost ?

I would suggest there are much better uses of a slip, materiel and men in December 41 than laying down Alaska and a month later her sister. I would suggest landing craft would be a better or 2 more Essex class earlier (they would have been CV12/13.........
 

Redbeard

Banned
The Alaskas were ordered and designed in response to rumors about similar IJN ships.

It wasn't the first time a rumor about some gadget at the enemy was met by building similar gadets, and probably more reflect how funding is created in the political system than what was really needed. Hawing an abundance of resources of course didn't help either.

The Alaskas probably could candiadte for "Worst weapon in its class in WW2". Not because they were technically bad, they were excellent, but because they for most of WW2 weren't present and when they were present the purpose didn't exists any alonger, and if it had existed, it could have been met at least as well by existing types - like Baltimore, Iowas or Essex'es.
 
Top