WI all six Alaska class large cruisers were built?

Blair152

Banned
Inspired by THE SHIPS AND PLANES OF THE U.S. FLEET. There were to be
six Alaska class large cruisers in all during World War II: Alaska, (CB-1),
Guam, (CB-2), Hawaii, (CB-3), Puerto Rico, (CB-4), Philippines, (CB-5), and
Samoa, (CB-6). OTL, only two of the six, Alaska, (CB-1), and Guam, (CB-2),
were built. The other four were eventually scrapped. The fates of Alaska and
Guam aren't that great either. They, too, were scrapped in the 1960s. What if all six Alaska class large cruisers were built as originally planned?
 
Considering that the Japanese heavy cruisers that they were designed to hunt down had already been destroyed, the Alaska and Guam were already considered "white elephants" of the US Fleet. Maybe they could have been used for shore bombardment or escort for carriers, but overall I think they would have been a waste of materials.
 
In Cal-Bears Pacific War TL *- He goes into Detail on why they are cancelled before the first keel is laid.
Lets just accept that there were problems with the Design and build NONE.


*:(:(:mad:Its Dead Jim -- it just Died on us:(:(:mad:
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
In Cal-Bears Pacific War TL *- He goes into Detail on why they are cancelled before the first keel is laid.
Lets just accept that there were problems with the Design and build NONE.


*:(:(:mad:Its Dead Jim -- it just Died on us:(:(:mad:

Hibernating. :D
 
Considering that the Japanese heavy cruisers that they were designed to hunt down had already been destroyed, the Alaska and Guam were already considered "white elephants" of the US Fleet. Maybe they could have been used for shore bombardment or escort for carriers, but overall I think they would have been a waste of materials.

And After the War the US had enough CA not to need these ships
 
Could you please quit flooding the forum with poorly inspired Military Channel ideas? Its approaching spamming, especially as three of them are closely related.
 

Blair152

Banned
Could you please quit flooding the forum with poorly inspired Military Channel ideas? Its approaching spamming, especially as three of them are closely related.
This isn't from the Military Channel. It's from a World War II-era booklet called THE SHIPS AND PLANES OF THE U.S. FLEET. You can find it at www.amazon.com .
 
This isn't from the Military Channel. It's from a World War II-era booklet called THE SHIPS AND PLANES OF THE U.S. FLEET. You can find it at www.amazon.com .
That doesn't change the fact that at the moment I'm writing this, 8 threads on the front page of the post-1900 board are yours. And they're poorly thought out ones at that.
 

Bearcat

Banned
The Alaskas had the turning radius of a SR-71. About the diameter of Texas or so. Not tough enough to hang with the BBs, not able to shoot as fast and effectively as the soon-to-come Des Moines CAs, and too damned expensive. Total White Elephants. I'd rather have six more Iowas or six more Des Moines.
And far better: six more Essex CVs.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Alaskas had the turning radius of a SR-71. About the diameter of Texas or so. Not tough enough to hang with the BBs, not able to shoot as fast and effectively as the soon-to-come Des Moines CAs, and too damned expensive. Total White Elephants. I'd rather have six more Iowas or six more Des Moines.
And far better: six more Essex CVs.

I'd settle for three more Midways.
 
BuShips and predecessors got a whole lot right, but the Alaskas weren't one of those things.

I'd rather have one Essex than all six of those. They weren't just a waste of steel, they were a waste of manpower. Needing a crew almost as large as an Iowa and costing in the same ballpark, they were totally pointless.

What's the point? All of them combined would lose a battle with a single Iowa.
 
Can't argue with the above posts. The Alaskas were poorly designed, crews way too large and it was designed to destroy ships that had already been put on the bottom of the ocean, if they ever existed at all. The Navy would have been better served, if they needed these sort of ships at all, to stretch the Des Moines class hull a tad, mount a fourth 8" turret and go from there.
 
I read that they were originally inspired by the German pocket battleships and a class planned of Japanese battlecruisers that turned out to be fictitious! All this and a class of ships that did not fit any class of US Navy ships, hence the spurious term "Large Cruiser". In any other navy in the world, they are Battlecruisers. Given the US Navy's prejudice (well-founded) against BC's, how did they ever get built in the first place?:confused:
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I read that they were originally inspired by the German pocket battleships and a class planned of Japanese battlecruisers that turned out to be fictitious! All this and a class of ships that did not fit any class of US Navy ships, hence the spurious term "Large Cruiser". In any other navy in the world, they are Battlecruisers. Given the US Navy's prejudice (well-founded) against BC's, how did they ever get built in the first place?:confused:


Easy.

1. You give a bunch of military planners a a bottomless pile of money.

2. Wait for them to do something stupid.

The really amazing thing is that so FEW White Elephants came out of the system.

The Alaskas, which I have savaged so often here that folks are sick of it (and that AHP covered quite nicely) were a vestige of influence the "Gun Club" in the Department of the Navy had wielded for so long. If it hadn't been for the steel crisis we would have been stuck with at least four of the damned things (and probably one, maybe two Montanas, which, while extremely cool, would have been just as useless).
 
The Alaskas had the turning radius of a SR-71. About the diameter of Texas or so. Not tough enough to hang with the BBs, not able to shoot as fast and effectively as the soon-to-come Des Moines CAs, and too damned expensive. Total White Elephants. I'd rather have six more Iowas or six more Des Moines.
And far better: six more Essex CVs.

IIRC the Fletcher class DDs had a turning radius problem too. Larger than the BBs and CVs they were escorting. Made for more than a few near collisons, and affected the Fleets ability to maneuver.
 
The Alaska Class battlecruiser was a mistake to start with, since it waisted taxpayersmoney better spent on more usefull military hardware (such as LST's and Aircraft Carriers, not to speak of ASW specialized escorts, preferably more better suited for rough sea work, compared to the somewhat unstable DE's.) In a way, all big gunned USN construction bigger than a cruiser was a waist of money, as there were more better options for that in the form of cheap aircraft, with more range and a more deadly payload.

Money waisted on the Alaska's, South Dakota's and Iowa's could have been used to construct more carriers sooner and possibly bigger ones as well (earlier start of Midway Class perhaps, so these would be in time for participation in WW2 against Japan.) Money could also be used to enhence pilot and aircrew training, so the new carriers got fully trained airgroups after commissioning from the start, without the need to wait for them to graduate. Some new OTL carriers lacked airgroups and were often used to ferry Army of Marine aircraft in the meantime, untill their airgroups became available.

Without the capital ships building, money saved could also be used to built purposely designed (British model) ASW Frigates for ASW jobs in the Atlantic, rather than waiting until German U-Boote struck first. These Frigates were relatively easy to construct and operate, and could be ordered instead of the 1939 program capital ships, thus becomming available propably arounf 1941. Simply using a British designs also saves time to design something from scratch. (in this case the River and Loch class Frigate, which was already in an advanced state of designing in the UK.)
 
Top