Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby alecsandros » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:43 pm

lwd wrote:The TDS of the Scharnhorsts may have been an outgrowth of this but at least my impression of that design is that it was a true TDS.

The Deutchlands also had TDS, and that's it. That you don't consider it to be "true" is not that usefull as an argument. I for example don't think much about the Pugliese system, at least not in the way it was put into practice.But that doesn't mean it wasn't a TDS. It was, just not a good one.
And Paul gave some nice info about the system used on pocket battleships, and that's what matters. You shouldn't continue arguing on this line, it's not productive, and not fair play either.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby lwd » Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:35 pm

alecsandros wrote:
lwd wrote:The TDS of the Scharnhorsts may have been an outgrowth of this but at least my impression of that design is that it was a true TDS.

The Deutchlands also had TDS, and that's it. That you don't consider it to be "true" is not that usefull as an argument.

Argument by Fita doesn't work. Paul's was the first information that hinted that it might indeed be a real "TDS". Adhock torpedo bulkheads don't fit the defintions from all that I've read. To be able to state that the Deutchlands had on we'd need information on why it was designed the way it was and said information would have to indicate that they thought it would defeat the threat.
I for example don't think much about the Pugliese system, at least not in the way it was put into practice.But that doesn't mean it wasn't a TDS. It was, just not a good one.

I agree. It was designed as a system to defeat torpedoes however it was flawed. The fact that it was flawed doesn't mean that it wasn't a TDS. The fact that it was designed as a system to acomplish the goals of a TDS does make it one.
And Paul gave some nice info about the system used on pocket battleships, and that's what matters. You shouldn't continue arguing on this line, it's not productive, and not fair play either.

I see no reason not to continue argueing it. From what I can see to date it hasn't been proven. If someone produces evidence that clearly indicates that it is indeed the case then it will have been quite productive. Similarly the lack of clear evidence given the vehemence that is being displayed can be considered significant in and of itself. IMO it is indeed "fair play".

On the otherhand it was always rather periphial to the topic of this thread and is becoming increasingly more so. Even if there are indeed exceptions to the general rule that curisers don't have TDS and battleships do it lends little wait to the argument that the Alaska's were battleships.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby alecsandros » Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:04 pm

lwd wrote: ... lends little wait to the argument that the Alaska's were battleships.

Let's take another view then:

What if, hypotheticaly, we would have all major powers adhere to a unified warship taxonomy. No more "armored ships", no more "large cruisers", no more "fast battleships".

Just:

Light cruisers
Heavy cruisers
Battlecruisers
Battleships


===

Of course, the problem would be to establish the criteria by which various ships would be put in various "places".

But with hindsight, I would imagine the Alaska's to be put in the battlecruiser category, simply because it could engage and destroy ANY heavy cruiser of the war, and could stand up nicely to ANY foreign battlecruiser.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby lwd » Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:37 pm

But that's just an arbitary list.

I also wouldn't want to be Alaska in a close in engagment with IJN DD's and cruisers. The lack of the TDS could prove disasterous there.

Indeed as I've said before if you want to go with that sort of system then I'd rate the Alaska a heavy cruiser, the Iowa as a battlecruiser, and the Montanas as battleships for the USN.

MVictorP
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Montréal, Québec

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby MVictorP » Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:57 pm

lwd wrote:On the otherhand it was always rather periphial to the topic of this thread and is becoming increasingly more so. Even if there are indeed exceptions to the general rule that curisers don't have TDS and battleships do it lends little wait to the argument that the Alaska's were battleships.


TDSs are no indication of the category of the ship, but rather of its era and intended role. A late WWII ship built without TDS, furthermore when it's a big, costly ship, is an anomaly, not a sign that the ship being build is a cruiser - I find no explanation why the Alaskas didn't have one. The Hippers, Algerie, Tromps etc all had a genuine TDS - as did a majority of carriers.

For telltale signs about the category of the ship, try weight and gun bore size. I'll be even more restraining that Alecsandros and limit these to three gun-based categories:
Destroyers (including flottila leaders, torpedo boats, escorts and other cheap unarmoured, light, fast combattants)
Treaty Cruisers (Light, heavy, AA, scout categories, ships imposed by economics, can do everything other warships can do at a fraction of a battleship cost)
Battleships (including battlecruisers, light/2nd class/refit battleships, pre-dreadnaughts, armored cruisers, and even coastal battleships and monitors, main battle line units)
Last edited by MVictorP on Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"That was all I had to say"
- Me

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby lwd » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:06 pm

MVictorP wrote:
lwd wrote:On the otherhand it was always rather periphial to the topic of this thread and is becoming increasingly more so. Even if there are indeed exceptions to the general rule that curisers don't have TDS and battleships do it lends little wait to the argument that the Alaska's were battleships.


TDSs are no indication of the category of the ship, but rather of its era and intended role. A late WWII ship built without TDS, furthermore when it's a big, costly ship, is an anomaly, not a sign that the ship being build is a cruiser -

YOu note the TDS is a function of era and intended role then say it's not evidence that the Alaskas were cruisers? US cruisers didn't have TDS US battlesips and battlecruisers did. That may not be a definitive sign but it's certainly a sign.
I find no explanation why the Alaskas didn't have one.

Perhaps because you don't want to?
The Hippers, Algerie, Tromps etc all had a genuine TDS - ....

Did they? That's certainly debateable. If one looks at what TDS were suppose to do there simply wasn't room in a cruiser especially one built based on post WWI torpedo threats. Since we don't have a definative defintion I can't conclusivly reject your position but you are even further from invalidating mine.

It's pretty clear from their intedned roles and their designation that the Alaska's were viewed by the USN as the next step in cruiser evolution. I'll take the word and opinion of the professionals over yours especially when so much of the data supports it.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby lwd » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:20 pm

Looking back through this thread I found this which may illustrate the essence of our disagreement:
MVictorP wrote: Classification is important in a few ways: First, it is a way to establish much-needed limits. Then, the new classifications being defined, and an allocation of these new types given, one has to design naval forces that will likely oppose other naval forces that beased themselves on the same classifications.

So far so good. But then you go on to say:
Of course, that leaves a lot of outsiders; ships made before the definitions (armored cruisers, coastal battleships)

These aren't really outside the definitoins as you've pointed out they have defintions. They simply aren't the ones used in the treaties.
as well as ships built to elude them (Panzerschiffen, Alaskas) have to be boxed in the "nearest" new category, for comparison's sake.

NO and NO. Neither of these two classes was built to elude definitions. The Panzershiffe were built to "officially" conform to the TV wording down to their very name. The Alaskas were built when the treaty defintions were no longer relevant. Saying the Alaska has to be boxed in to the nearest Washington or London treaty defintion is like saying you have to do the same for post war ships. It simply doesn't make any sense. In the case of the Alaskas a big enough gap had opened up between battleships and heavy cruisers that it made sense to create a new type which the US did "large cruiser" as did the Japanese by the way.
In the end, what matters about a ship is 1) the era it was done 2) its weight 3) its designed role and 4) its armement and fittings. ....

If those are taken into account there is little to do other than accept the Alaska as a "large cruiser". It certainly wasn't a battle cruiser as those were usually as heavy or heavier than contemporary battleships. Nor was it a battleship because it wasn't going to hold up in a battle line vs contemporary battleships nor was it intended to.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby alecsandros » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:20 pm

But were USN modern capital ships supposed to fight in a battleline and under torpedo threat ?
Their speed and super-heavy AA, along with the task-force concept, which was almost always employed in the Pacific operations (and sometimes in the Atlantic to), show that they were meant for another kind of surface war. Capital gunships were NOT designed to absorb torpedo damage, but part of a battlefleet capable of keeping torpedoes away. Of course it's nice to have a TDS, but that does not guarantee anything (see sinking of Bismarck, PoW; crippling of Vittorio Venetto, etc). The best bet is to have enough DDs around to block/destroy subs and counter enemy torpedo-launching ships (examples: 2nd battle of Guadalcanal, Surigao Strait) AND enough AA to blast enemy torpedo planes out of the sky.

Naval design was usualy evolutive, with ship classes being born from the need to counter possible enemy classes. A 9 x 12" gunship, with 32kts speed, 35.000tons displacement and 6" armored decks can only be used for
- the destruction of CLs, CAs, DDs [which was a battlecruiser role in other navies], AND
- engagement of comparable enemy ships. And what comparable ships were they on the seas of the war ? Well let's see...

BC Dukerque = 26500 t, 8x330mm (560kg shell), 225mm belt and 155mm armored decks (115 + 40mm), 31kts
BC Repulse = 27000 t, 6 x 381mm (879kg shell), 150mm belt, 70mm decks, 30kts
BC Kongo = 35000 t, 8 x 356mm (670kg shell), 200mm belt, 105mm decks, 30kts
BC Scharnhorst = 32000t, 9x280mm (330kg shell), 350mm belt, 150mm decks (50 + 100), 32kts

For comparison:
Large cruiser Alaska = 30000t, 9x305mm (520kg shell), 225mm belt, 150mm decks, 32kts


======

Finaly, in case you haven't seen this text in Wiki yet:

"Despite these cruiser-like characteristics, and the U.S. Navy's insistence on their status as cruisers, the Alaska class were frequently described as battlecruisers at the time.[34] The official navy magazine All Hands said "The Guam and her sister ship Alaska are the first American battle cruisers ever to be completed as such."[35] Some modern historians take the view that this is a more accurate designation because they believe that the ships were "in all sense of the word, battlecruisers", with all the vulnerabilities of the type.[9] The traditional Anglo-American battlecruiser concept had always sacrificed protection for the sake of speed and armament, meaning they were not intended to stand up against the guns they themselves carried.[33][36] The Alaska's percentage of armor tonnage, 28.4%, was slightly less than that of battlecruisers and fast battleships; the British King George V class, the battlecruiser HMS Hood, and the American Iowa class all had armor percentages between 32 and 33%. In fact, older battlecruisers, such as the Invincible (19.9%), had a significantly lower percentage.[37] In terms of displacement, the Alaska class was about twice as heavy as the newest heavy cruisers (the Baltimore class).[34] In addition, they had much larger guns; while the Alaska class carried nine 12"/50 caliber guns that were as good as, if not superior to, the old 14"/50 caliber gun used on the U.S. Navy's pre-treaty battleships,[38] the Baltimore class had an equal number of 8"/55 caliber Marks 12 and 15 guns.[39]"
Last edited by alecsandros on Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MVictorP
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Montréal, Québec

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby MVictorP » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:22 pm

lwd wrote:YOu note the TDS is a function of era and intended role then say it's not evidence that the Alaskas were cruisers? US cruisers didn't have TDS US battlesips and battlecruisers did. That may not be a definitive sign but it's certainly a sign.

(...) It's pretty clear from their intedned roles and their designation that the Alaska's were viewed by the USN as the next step in cruiser evolution. I'll take the word and opinion of the professionals over yours especially when so much of the data supports it.


I still can see why such a late, big ship had no TDS in an era where submarines, torpedo crafts as well as torpedo bombers were such the rage. Honestly, I think a well-made heavy cruiser, if not expendable, should have some TDS furthermore if it's being laid down after 1935. The US battlecruisers didn't set no trend, as neither did the Alaskas. Both were dead-ended project, with no descendance nor antecedant in the USN's history - maybe it's time to stop looking to the USN as the standard in these type of ships? Just sayin'. Anyway, international classification trumps regional ones, in any case, even the RN's.

I find no explanation why the Alaskas didn't have one.

Perhaps because you don't want to?


To the contrary; Please enligthen me.

Did they? That's certainly debateable. If one looks at what TDS were suppose to do there simply wasn't room in a cruiser especially one built based on post WWI torpedo threats. Since we don't have a definative defintion I can't conclusivly reject your position but you are even further from invalidating mine.


No, it's not debateable. These cruisers all had a genuine TDS, period. Their efficiency may be debateable, but not their existance.
"That was all I had to say"

- Me

MVictorP
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Montréal, Québec

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby MVictorP » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:48 pm

lwd wrote:These aren't really outside the definitoins as you've pointed out they have defintions. They simply aren't the ones used in the treaties.


Don't mix up treaty definitions and any given ship's definition: The Panzerschiff were extremely well defined ship in terms of their goals, but were made to elude WT definitions (and the ships that resulted from them).

NO and NO. Neither of these two classes was built to elude definitions. The Panzershiffe were built to "officially" conform to the TV wording down to their very name. The Alaskas were built when the treaty defintions were no longer relevant. Saying the Alaska has to be boxed in to the nearest Washington or London treaty defintion is like saying you have to do the same for post war ships. It simply doesn't make any sense.


Well, the Panzerschiffen being built a solid 6 years after the WT, I say it is quite obvious they were made along the VT lines, sure, but also along the lines of what a WT ship would look like - they were designed to be more muscular than treaty cruisers, while being faster than battleships. Existing battleships, that is, since there was a battleship holiday (with a few exceptions) for treaty signataries, which were the colonial powers Germany had the most chances to get in war with.

Also, the WT definitions (as well as the definitions from the treaties up to the war) were still relevant; It's was the tonnage allocation that changed. The USN could have built Alaskas as soon as 1936, but they wanted to keep their tonnage allocation to get bona fide battle-line units.

In the case of the Alaskas a big enough gap had opened up between battleships and heavy cruisers that it made sense to create a new type which the US did "large cruiser" as did the Japanese by the way.


The Nippon ships would have been battleships too. In fact, cruisers are, in a way, battleships too. The main point of a cruiser being a cheaper cost of operation than a full-fledged battleship, I can't see how the Alaskas can be rated as such. Maybe a 18000t ship could still be labelled as a post-treaty cruiser, but building a 30000t point pretty much eludes the economic point.

If those are taken into account there is little to do other than accept the Alaska as a "large cruiser".


Obviously, I come to a different conclusion, using the very same parameters.

It certainly wasn't a battle cruiser as those were usually as heavy or heavier than contemporary battleships.


True.

Nor was it a battleship because it wasn't going to hold up in a battle line vs contemporary battleships nor was it intended to.


You mean like the Ganguts, Scharnhorts, Dunkerques, Dorias or Kongos? Were these "large cruisers" as well?
"That was all I had to say"

- Me

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby lwd » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:07 pm

alecsandros wrote:But were USN modern capital ships supposed to fight in a battleline and under torpedo threat ?

Yes. Look when they were designed. The Alaska for instance was ordered in 1940 so for the US the design was prewar. The Iowa was ordered even earlier June of 39 and the Montana design was approved in April of 42 and ordered in May of 42. At that time the battle line was still doctrine and the US faced a serious torpedo threat as the campaigns in 1942 showed rather graphically.
Their speed and super-heavy AA, along with the task-force concept, which was almost always employed in the Pacific operations (and sometimes in the Atlantic to), show that they were meant for another kind of surface war.

No it shows they adopted to that style of war but I think you will find that even pre war most countries used a task force concept. It doesn't mean that subs or destroyers or even cruisers can't get in torpedo range though, even without factoring in the range of the type 93s.
Naval design was usualy evolutive, with ship classes being born from the need to counter possible enemy classes. A 9 x 12" gunship, with 32kts speed, 35.000tons displacement and 6" armored decks can only be used for
- the destruction of CLs, CAs, DDs [which was a battlecruiser role in other navies], AND

Well I'm not sure battlecruisers were by doctrine suppose to have to deal with DDs and while fighting smaller cruisers was one of their roles it was also a role of said smaller cruisers was it not?
- engagement of comparable enemy ships. And what comparable ships were they on the seas of the war ? Well let's see...

But the USN didn't view those as comparable and indeed the Alaskas would have been at a disadvantage them. It was built to counter a never built Japanese "super cruiser" as noted previously in this thread and eslewhere.
Finaly, in case you haven't seen this text in Wiki yet:

Indeed I have seen the text in wiki and note that the paragraph above it gives a very good case for them being cruisers while neglecting some of the relevant points for not considering them battleships or battlecruisers.
MVictorP wrote:... I still can see why such a late, big ship had no TDS in an era where submarines, torpedo crafts as well as torpedo bombers were such the rage.

I agree that it is one of their weakest points. Wiki does give one reason that seems possible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_class_cruiser
The General Board, in an attempt to keep the displacement under 25,000 tons, allowed the designs to offer only limited underwater protection. As a result, the Alaska class, when built, were vulnerable to torpedoes and shells that fell short of the ship.[20] The final design chosen was a scaled-up Baltimore class ...

Honestly, I think a well-made heavy cruiser, if not expendable, should have some TDS furthermore if it's being laid down after 1935.

Certainly some torpedo protection would have made sense for heavy cruisers after that date although given the way the threat progressed one simply couldn't put an effective TDS on a heavy cruiser and as noted putting one on Alaska would have increased her displacement considerably.
The US battlecruisers didn't set no trend,

Hard for nonexistant ships to set trends although one can argue the Japanese super cruisers started one.
as neither did the Alaskas.

That was because the era of the big gun warship ended in the mid to late 40s.
Both were dead-ended project, with no descendance nor antecedant in the USN's history -

Well the Balitmores can be considered antecedants in many ways.
maybe it's time to stop looking to the USN as the standard in these type of ships?

Why? They were the only ones who built them.
Anyway, international classification trumps regional ones, in any case, even the RN's.

There is no "international classification" and there was none at the time the Alaskas were built. Even if there was it would only do so within the

I find no explanation why the Alaskas didn't have one.

Perhaps because you don't want to?

To the contrary; Please enligthen me.

That's what I've been trying to do.
[qutoe]
Did they? That's certainly debateable. If one looks at what TDS were suppose to do there simply wasn't room in a cruiser especially one built based on post WWI torpedo threats. Since we don't have a definative defintion I can't conclusivly reject your position but you are even further from invalidating mine.

No, it's not debateable. These cruisers all had a genuine TDS, period. Their efficiency may be debateable, but not their existance.[/quote]
Then show me a widely accepted defintion for what a TDS is. They may have torpedo defences that doesn't mean it's a TDS. Again look at the article I posted on TDSs and show me how the torpedo defences of these ships were designed to meet the goals of a TDS specifically a post WWI TDS.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby lwd » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:26 pm

MVictorP wrote:
lwd wrote:These aren't really outside the definitoins as you've pointed out they have defintions. They simply aren't the ones used in the treaties.

Don't mix up treaty definitions and any given ship's definition:

I'm not.
The Panzerschiff were extremely well defined ship in terms of their goals, but were made to elude WT definitions (and the ships that resulted from them).

They certainly weren't designed to elude the WT defitions as Germany wasn't bound by the WT. They do however coform officially to the deffintion of Panzershiff in the Treaty of Versails. Although as pointed out by another poster that term predated the treaty as well.

... Well, the Panzerschiffen being built a solid 6 years after the WT, I say it is quite obvious they were made along the VT lines, sure, but also along the lines of what a WT ship would look like - they were designed to be more muscular than treaty cruisers, while being faster than battleships. Existing battleships, that is, ...

Well they were faster than some existing battleships but not the contemporary battlecruisers. Not sure how relevant this is in any case except for making a decent case that they were good cruisers.
. The USN could have built Alaskas as soon as 1936, but they wanted to keep their tonnage allocation to get bona fide battle-line units.

You seem to be making my arguements for me today. That's a good case for the Alaskas being cruisers.

In the case of the Alaskas a big enough gap had opened up between battleships and heavy cruisers that it made sense to create a new type which the US did "large cruiser" as did the Japanese by the way.

The Nippon ships would have been battleships too. In fact, cruisers are, in a way, battleships too.

No they would not have been battleships too. They would have been cruisers just like the Japanese called them. As for battleships being cruisers you are showing signs of desperation now.
The main point of a cruiser being a cheaper cost of operation than a full-fledged battleship, I can't see how the Alaskas can be rated as such.

NO. The main point was to full fill the roles of a cruiser. Surely cost was one factor but only when it was a limiting one.
Nor was it a battleship because it wasn't going to hold up in a battle line vs contemporary battleships nor was it intended to.

You mean like the Ganguts, Scharnhorts, Dunkerques, Dorias or Kongos? Were these "large cruisers" as well?

??? When they were built the Scharnhorsts and Dunkerques were capable of holding thier own vs most of the existant battleships. They would have had problems with the 16" gunned ones but that's another matter. The Ganguts and Dorias were pre WWI battleships and were comparable to their contemporaries. As for the Kongos they were pre WWI battlecruisers rerated battleships when they were updated. They all retained their role as battle line units. Except for the Kongos thier speed didn't really allow for much else.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby alecsandros » Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:51 am

lwd wrote:
Yes. Look when they were designed. The Alaska for instance was ordered in 1940 so for the US the design was prewar. The Iowa was ordered even earlier June of 39 and the Montana design was approved in April of 42 and ordered in May of 42. At that time the battle line was still doctrine and the US faced a serious torpedo threat as the campaigns in 1942 showed rather graphically.

No. The Alaskas were to fast to be bogged down in a battle line.

Indeed I have seen the text in wiki and note that the paragraph above it gives a very good case for them being cruisers while neglecting some of the relevant points for not considering them battleships or battlecruisers.

There may be arguments to name them cruisers, but most factors point towards a battlecruiser configuration.

ALso, please READ AGAIN my comparison with contemporary battlecruisers. I think you missed most similarities !

The only modern and "pure" BC of that list is DUNKERQUE class. I don't think you actualy thought about this, but simply wrote various things just to keep yourself busy.

Battlecruiser DUNKERQUE / Large Cruiser ALASKA

26500t / 30000t
8 x 330mm, 560kg (4,48 t broadside) / 9 x 305mm, 520 kg (4,68 t broadside)
225mm belt / 228mm belt
155mm decks / 153mm decks
31kts / 32 kts

========

Now, if you can say with a strait face that Alaska wasn't at least on par with Dunkerque, you're nose will start growing.. and growing..

I'm going to asume you're not Pinocchio...

So we have 2 very similar ships, in terms of protection and firepower. If we start looking deeper in detail, we would find that:
- The US 12"/L50 had a higher rate of fire, and much better accuracy than the French 330mm/L45
- The vertical protection of the 2 ships was comparable
- The deck system of Alaska was a space-array comprised of 3 decks - 35,6mm + 101,6mm + 15.9mm. The steel was US-built STS.
The deck system of Dunkerque was a dubious 115mm + 40mm arrangement, similar to that of Richelieu class (150+40mm).

[The weather deck on Alaska could decap at least some shells and induce yaw. The impact with the main deck would thus be nicely reduced, and the possible splinters after this second impact would be held by the 3rd deck. On the other side, the 115mm main deck of Dunkerque would decap any shell, but it would not stop it. The proximity of the 40mm splinter deck meant yaw effects couldn't have time to mainfest, so a perforation of this secondary, thin surface, would be probable]

- Alaska was faster than Dunkerque, despite the fact that it was 4000t heavier.
- US fire control for main battery guns was exceptional, whereas the French counterpart was not that evolved.
Last edited by alecsandros on Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:33 am, edited 3 times in total.

phil gollin
Member
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:33 am

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby phil gollin » Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:13 am

lwd wrote:
phil gollin wrote:.

LWD,

You are using the USN's idea of an "ideal" TDS (only "ideal" up to a certain charge weight) and ignoring different side protection system details and terminology.

Am I? Seems I've read here that both the RN and the KM designed their TDS to deal with certain weight charges.
NOT everyone thought the same way as the USN and the USN's was NOT the only "right" (or wrong) way of doing things. Just because one navy does something, or defines something, one way does NOT invalidate other navies' ways of doing things.

For the RN, external torpedo bulges were "side protection systems" and they were adjudged successful WHERE OF A SUITABLE THICKNESS (they tended to taper at their ends) but were not an efficient measure either structurally or hydrodynamically and prone to damage. The Nelson and KGV class side protection systems were referred to as "bulges" even though part of the ships' structures and internal/flush with the outer hull.

I think I stated that "bulges" could constitute at least a rudimentary TDS when combined with torpedo bulkheads and other measures it would go beyond rudimentary.



Rubbish. Your first answer is merely ignoring what you wrote and the second is your weird interpretation of where a side protection system/torpedo defence scheme starts or finishes - you have no idea of how a ship is designed.

.

mike1880
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:00 pm
Location: UK

Re: Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

Postby mike1880 » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:09 am

You are all obviously fervent Christians, Buddhists, etc. who believe in either a second life or an afterlife or you wouldn't be wasting so much of this one on such a pointless argument. Every time I see this thread, a little part of me dies.

Mike


Return to “Naval History (1922-1945)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron