Thats what usually happens lol.This seemed to be turning into a free for all "vs." thread, for a bit. I know who I would bet on in an Alaska vs. Admiral Graf Spee duel. But who would win in Alaska vs. Exeter, Ajax and Achilles?
Thats what usually happens lol.This seemed to be turning into a free for all "vs." thread, for a bit. I know who I would bet on in an Alaska vs. Admiral Graf Spee duel. But who would win in Alaska vs. Exeter, Ajax and Achilles?
The Alaska wins assuming no torpedoes(or at the very most 1 or 2) hit her and bo golden BBs occur due to her armor being designed to protect her from 8" gunfire at battle ranges unlike Admiral Graf Spee not to mention the fact the Alaska has a slight speed advantage or outright superiority depending on the sea state.But who would win in Alaska vs. Exeter, Ajax and Achilles?
This seemed to be turning into a free for all "vs." thread, for a bit. I know who I would bet on in an Alaska vs. Admiral Graf Spee duel. But who would win in Alaska vs. Exeter, Ajax and Achilles?
How does Alaska lose to AGS or E,A&A......?The Alaska is toast. Wrong ship + wrong use = defeat.
With the Alaska's exceptional gun laying radar, 12"/50 Mark 8 main battery (which out performed most 14" main guns) in three triple turrets meaning all three smaller ships can be engaged at once, 8,000-13,000 yard greater main battery range, and equal speed?This seemed to be turning into a free for all "vs." thread, for a bit. I know who I would bet on in an Alaska vs. Admiral Graf Spee duel. But who would win in Alaska vs. Exeter, Ajax and Achilles?
But raising her might make us ask what cost more Howe or Alaska........Might as well ask how they would have done against HMS Howe.
I the KGV were cheaper than the Alaska class, much cheaper. U.S. captial ships and even cruiser made lavish use of STS steel in their construction which was great as far as protection, but costly as hell, and there was far more expense undetaken in improving habitability than was the case in Royal Navy designs. The KGVs came in around $40-45M 1939 USD, or about half the Alaska class and around 40% of the Iowa class.But raising her might make us ask what cost more Howe or Alaska........
(and who would win after all everybody says the 12"/50 Mk8 are as good as 14" are they not.....)
How does Alaska lose to AGS or E,A&A......?
Ummmmm, you do realize that the Alaska class design was finalized in mid 1941, right? With the first ship laid down that year. Also, your link doesn't give any information to back you up. It's a book cover image...Alaska is a late war lessons learned new build construction.
What would she look like on 13 December 1939?
Ummmmm, you do realize that the Alaska class design was finalized in mid 1941, right? With the first ship laid down that year. Also, your link doesn't give any information to back you up. It's a book cover image...
During the period of the East China Sea operations the radio brought us the news of the Potsdam Declaration, the Atomic Bomb and of Russia’s entry into the war. We were back in Buckner Bay when the word came that the Japs had offered to surrender. Apparently some of the Japs didn’t get the word on the offer to surrender because practically every night we were in Buckner Bay one or two Jap planes paid us a visit. One of these dropped the torpedo that hit the battleship Pennsylvania while she was anchored only a few thousand yards from us.
I don't think it matters its still 9x12" + at least 8x 5"/38 v 6x8" and 16 x 6" its not even close Alaska will unless she is incredibly stupid or completely unready for war simply kill Exeter and then its over unless a torp hits and in daylight that's very unlikely.I love the USN, but I am a realist. The leadership, tech edge and the training on 13 December 1939 is all Royal Navy. Without radar or a battle-trained captain who knows how to use his ship in an optical gunfight, against 3 independent targets, the Alaska (1939 version) is in very serious trouble. I predict a loss.
What on Earth does Pennsylvania's torpedoing have to do with what were talking about?As for the "Book cover image" it is the first page of a series of a sailor's scrap book. Scroll through "next page" to see the series and get a feel for the ship. Pay close attention to the comment about the attack on the USS Pennsylvania...
That is not a tight ship. Fischler (I misspelled his name.) might not be the guy, who I want in command of her at the Plate.
I don't think it matters its still 9x12" + at least 8x 5"/38 v 6x8" and 16 x 6" its not even close Alaska will unless she is incredibly stupid or completely unready for war simply kill Exeter and then its over unless a torp hits and in daylight that's very unlikely.
Its 8500t + 2x 7,270 = 23,040t v 30,000t and Alaska should survive any 8" or 6" hits and at range that's far from likley v 12" accuracy and has more speed.....
Its almost exactly what Alaska was made for killing CA squadrons its just a very weak CA/CL force to fight that makes it even easier......
What on Earth does Pennsylvania's torpedoing have to do with what were talking about?
No it isn't,Alaska's gun-houses are not resistant to 8"inch shellfire or even 6" shellfire or had you not noticed? If I'm Harwood, I aim for those and snipe Alaska's long vulnerable forecastle. And... with the Leanders; I'm thinking torpedoes. If there is one thing I might question about Harwood's tactics, it is about laying screening smoke with two of his ships and ringing in the third to make such a torpedo attack. This is doable.
Again, how does that, in any way, apply to this discussion? The men in that anchorage had just been told that the war was over. I'm fairly certain that they would have been far more alert had they thought the war was still goingLax anchorage discipline within reach of enemy raiders.
Again, how does that, in any way, apply to this discussion? The men in that anchorage had just been told that the war was over. I'm fairly certain that they would have been far more alert had they thought the war was still going
Alaska's gun-houses are not resistant to 8"inch shellfire or even 6" shellfire or had you not noticed? If I'm Harwood, I aim for those and snipe Alaska's long vulnerable forecastle.
I can't believe what CalBear is saying... I must be dreamingWith the Alaska's exceptional gun laying radar, 12"/50 Mark 8 main battery (which out performed most 14" main guns) in three triple turrets meaning all three smaller ships can be engaged at once, 8,000-13,000 yard greater main battery range, and equal speed?
Might as well ask how they would have done against HMS Howe.
Please don't make me support the Alaska class. It makes me throw up in my mouth a little.
Cruiser killer killing cruisers... big surprise...I can't believe what CalBear is saying... I must be dreaming