Alaska Class: Battlecruise or Large Cruiser Semi-debate

Warship design and construction, terminology, navigation, hydrodynamics, stability, armor schemes, damage control, etc.
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Alaska Class: Battlecruise or Large Cruiser Semi-debate

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:19 am

Paul L wrote:
VoidSamukai wrote:The PBS hull was rated for 30 knots but could only reach 29.4 knots in ultra light trails. It seems adding bulges cost them a knot off the top speed. The rest was increased displacement from enlarging the superstructure/armaments, to meet the numerous roles demanded. Reportedly mid life plans included transom sterns and papered over hull form [AKA the Karlsruhe mod of the late 1930s].


The Panzerschiffe had only 56000 hp and a comparatively large hull. I suspect a Panzerschiff possessing 100 k hp could hit 30+ kn.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Alaska Class: Battlecruise or Large Cruiser Semi-debate

Postby Paul L » Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:42 am

Thorsten Wahl wrote:
Paul L wrote:
VoidSamukai wrote:The PBS hull was rated for 30 knots but could only reach 29.4 knots in ultra light trails. It seems adding bulges cost them a knot off the top speed. The rest was increased displacement from enlarging the superstructure/armaments, to meet the numerous roles demanded. Reportedly mid life plans included transom sterns and papered over hull form [AKA the Karlsruhe mod of the late 1930s].


The Panzerschiffe had only 56000 hp and a comparatively large hull. I suspect a Panzerschiff possessing 100 k hp could hit 30+ kn.



Sure but a Panzerschiffe with 100,000hp installed power plus two triple 11" gun turrets , suggests a bigger hull & heavier ship with similar armor thickness and armament. It should be PE size but could top 21,000t and should manage 30 knots.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Alaska Class: Battlecruise or Large Cruiser Semi-debate

Postby paul.mercer » Sun Dec 10, 2017 4:06 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:
paul.mercer wrote:Gentlemen,
........., one has to only recall the number of times the twins retreated rather than take on even an elderly RN battleship. Perhaps they might be called battlecruisers, but maybe they should be just classed as 'Light battleships' due to the size of their guns and armour.
.........


This would be the case no matter how powerful the German warship. The Germans have little to gain by sinking one or two of many enemy warships, but quite a bit to lose through running the risk.

...but if a fully worked up Battleship with a good crew (Warspite for instance) achieving a firing rate of about one round a minute(or just over), with her 15" I don't think an Alaska would stay around long enough to fight it out and like the twins use her speed to get away.



The Alaska class protection was only good against up to 8" fire. Anything larger and the protection was more or less useless. This is also why the Scharnhorst was a vastly superior design ton for ton compared to the Alaska. The Scharnhorst's armour protection was capable of standing up to battleship caliber fire.


Dave,
As ever I bow to your much greater knowledge on guns and armour, but with the greatest respect, to say that Scharnhorst's armour was capable of standing up to battleship caliber fire is possibly open to debate. I realise that neither the twins had a chance to prove themselves against real opposition on a one to one basis (at North Cape Sharnhorst was trapped and surrounded) but I would always be prepared to back a full grown 14/15/16" 'battleship against her in a fight to the finish no matter how good her armour was supposed to be.

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Alaska Class: Battlecruise or Large Cruiser Semi-debate

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:53 am

Image
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!


Return to “Naval Technology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest