lwd wrote:Well the Balitmores can be considered antecedants in many ways.
The Baltimores being the base for the Alaskas is actually your best argument when claiming the Alaskas are cruisers - much better than official USN classification. However, some second-class battleships are indeed a further development of a previous cruiserlike design, such as the Scharnhorts. Weight and gun bore size still are the two primarly measures used to determine contemporary definitions.
Why? They [the USN] were the only ones who built them.
The USN didn't invent nothing new with the Alaskas; They even were the last of their kind, and as such, it wasn't enough to make them the best design of that type. And what I meant, is that the US can't be considered successful in its battlecruiser/light battleship design.
Wikipedia wrote: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. The final design chosen was a scaled-up Baltimore class ...
IMO, the argument that there isn't enough tonnage on a 30000t ship for a TDS is a ridiculous one. The Dutch managed to put a TDS on a 4500t vessel.
alecsandros wrote: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.
For their weight advantage and more recent construction, the Alaskas compare badly to the Dunkerques (althought I agree that they belong in the same exact class), and especially to the Strassbourg. The French gun was excellent, with a heavy shell, and its all-forward arrangement provides chase-firing broadsides the Alaska can't match unless it present a bigger target. I agree that US fire control is better at long range, but as soon as optics are utilised, the French battery has proved its lethality. The armor scheme was also better, and Strassbourg has a better chance against Alaska's shells than vice-versa. The only real advantage I see for the Alaska is a strategical one - its long range.
mike1880 wrote: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.
Isn't that a bit harsh? For my part I learned a thing or two, such as the 306mm german rifle. I am pretty sure other posters also learned a lot of stuff.