Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

[Bgile]

...

The Alaska class should really be classed as a battlecruiser not a 'large cruiser'.

It has been my understanding that the Alaska was, in fact, a battlecruiser. So your statement is clearly correct.

Nope. She was a "large cruiser". Basically a scaled up Baltimore. Lack of a TDS is one pointer to her being a cruiser rather than a battlecruiser. Probably where most of the heavy cruisers would have been during WWII if there hadn't been a Washington treaty.

No, because noone could afford to build that many "large cruisers" when they needed ships to cover sea lanes all over the world. The Alaskas cost 2/3 as much as an Iowa class battleship IIRC.

[lwd]

No, because noone could afford to build that many "large cruisers" when they needed ships to cover sea lanes all over the world. The Alaskas cost 2/3 as much as an Iowa class battleship IIRC.

The British were alrady planning on a class of heavy cruisers with 9.2" guns in the 20s. Given the German panzershiffe with 11" guns in the early 30's I think the trend is clear. Of course the financial impact would have been severe as there might also have been a battleship race as well or perhaps closer cooperation between the US and UK navies.

[Bgile]

I agree that the 12" ships might very well have appeared in absence of the treaty.

[Karl Heidenreich]

USS San Francisco was a beautiful ship, I just finish the model and is cool. Now comes Mogami with a stern flight deck: also beautiful cruiser. A shame the light weapondry.

[19kilo]

The first two US "treaty cruisers" were the only US heavy cruisers with two aft turrets (actualy, more properly "gun houses") but the ord was oddly arranged in that it had a triple superfiring over a double. Why was this done? I would think that it would be done the other way if only to lower the topweight somewhat.

[Bgile]

The first two US "treaty cruisers" were the only US heavy cruisers with two aft turrets (actualy, more properly "gun houses") but the ord was oddly arranged in that it had a triple superfiring over a double. Why was this done? I would think that it would be done the other way if only to lower the topweight somewhat.

The end turrets were close to the ends of the ship. I believe the two gun turrets were placed there because the barbettes were narrower.

Why aren't they turrets? As far as I know, they meet the definition of a turret.

[larryhowel]

What was the name of the US naval commander who initiated running his battleship parallel close to shore and hitting the German bunkers head on at Normandy? I saw a piece on the History Channel some time ago but can't remember his name.

[lwd]

Is that relevant to this thread in some way? If so PLS explain it.

[MVictorP]

For me, a Cruiser is something under 10 000t, having 8" guns or smaller. Anything bigger is "something else". It's not fair to compare a County to an Alaska. Alaskas were, like the Dunquerques and the Dorias, second-class battleships, bordering on the battlecruiser (which weights the same thing as a bona fide BB), these ships that are either evolved Armored Cruisers, or refit, older battleships.

I see three plausible categories: WT treaty cruisers, WT-looking but cheating cruisers, and other cruiser cousins, like Panzerschiffen and Coastal battleships. This last category interest me less here.

From the get-go, "light cruisers" are, IMO and in general, more balanced and effective. Their barrage of quick fire treathens cruiser armor just like 8" would, and they are better ships. Too bad they came in late, being confined to 6-7000t designs while 8-inchers were all the rage in the 20s, and as a result there were relatively few big ones. And for best use of cruisers, I would say the RN had it most galantly. Its cruiser force bore the brunt of the work with legit, workingman-like designs, althought the Japanese and Yanks had their moments too.

Best treaty cruiser: Algerie. Great speed, solid armor, and the heaviest 8" shell (yeah I know I just wrote that CL were best). Coming close are the Gloucesters, perfectly balanced, and the Brooklyns, more powerful but top-heavy ships.

Best WT-cheating cruiser: The Hippers are discarded because of their bad boilers: The Japanese, because of their 1" turret armor, that can be treathened by four-inchers. What are left are the Zaras and the Baltimores (that came in much later), the later being IMO the best all-category cruiser of the war.

[lwd]

For me, a Cruiser is something under 10 000t, having 8" guns or smaller.

That seems to me to be more the artificial limit imposed by the Washington treaty not necessarily a "good" defintion of cruiser.

Anything bigger is "something else". It's not fair to compare a County to an Alaska. Alaskas were, like the Dunquerques and the Dorias, second-class battleships, bordering on the battlecruiser (which weights the same thing as a bona fide BB), these ships that are either evolved Armored Cruisers, or refit, older battleships.

I'm not sure this makes much sense. The Alaskas were pretty clearly not battleships of any sort lacking some rather key components of them. Cruisers were evolving in both directions post WWI you were getting bigger ones with bigger guns and smaller ones with destroyer caliber armor. The Alaskas are the ultimate world war to expression of the former.

I see three plausible categories: WT treaty cruisers, WT-looking but cheating cruisers, and other cruiser cousins, like Panzerschiffen and Coastal battleships.

I see no reason to consider coastal battleships as cruisers. The Panzerschiffen on the otherhand were pretty clearly cruisers both in function and form and indeed were later rerated heavy cruisers. Furthermore I see little reason to restrict oneself to the above catagories.

From the get-go, "light cruisers" are, IMO and in general, more balanced and effective. Their barrage of quick fire treathens cruiser armor just like 8" would, and they are better ships.

Why do you say they are better ships? And whether or not they are more effective depends a lot on what they are doing.

Too bad they came in late, being confined to 6-7000t designs while 8-inchers were all the rage in the 20s, and as a result there were relatively few big ones.

????

And for best use of cruisers, I would say the RN had it most galantly. Its cruiser force bore the brunt of the work with legit, workingman-like designs, althought the Japanese and Yanks had their moments too.

Why do you use use desing quality to support use? I certainly would be reluctant to push a best use for any nationality when the parameters they were operating were so different.

Best treaty cruiser: Algerie. Great speed, solid armor, and the heaviest 8" shell

Why would the heaviest shell make for the best cruiser? In any case she didn't have the heaviest 8" shells.

Best WT-cheating cruiser: The Hippers are discarded because of their bad boilers: The Japanese, because of their 1" turret armor, that can be treathened by four-inchers. What are left are the Zaras and the Baltimores (that came in much later), the later being IMO the best all-category cruiser of the war.

The Baltimores were hardly WT cheating designs as the WT was no longer in effect when they were built. Another reason for not using WT centric definitions.

[MVictorP]

I'm not sure this makes much sense. The Alaskas were pretty clearly not battleships of any sort lacking some rather key components of them. Cruisers were evolving in both directions post WWI you were getting bigger ones with bigger guns and smaller ones with destroyer caliber armor. The Alaskas are the ultimate world war to expression of the former.

If there has been a trend towards 30 000t cruisers, you'd have a point. But the armored cruiser and the battle cruiser existed well before the WT. The Alaskas are second-grade BBs - I don't buy the lack of TDS makes them cruisers. Many BBs do not have TDS, while many cruisers had. Saying that they are the ultimate cruiser development is like saying the Hippers are the ultimate development of the destroyer.

Besides, you are writing about the Alaskas as if they were good ships; they were not. They largely failed at their role when cheaper/most effective ships could have sufficed. They were failures, one of the few the US navy launched.

I see no reason to consider coastal battleships as cruisers.

But the Alaskas are?

The Panzerschiffen on the otherhand were pretty clearly cruisers both in function and form and indeed were later rerated heavy cruisers. Furthermore I see little reason to restrict oneself to the above catagories.

Germany, who wasn't tied up by the WT, but rather by the Versailles one, took the "Panzerschiff" name from the "Panzerkepp" Batlic battleships. The Deutschlands are close cousins with the Sveriges, trading speed for armor as much as a battecruiser does for a battleship. Both are comparable, in weight, and sometimes armement, to a WT cruiser. It has been renamed as a 'cruiser" because at the time Germany was trying to fit itself into the AGNT, where it had to adapt to the WT, at least in appearance. It's not because the Anglo-saxon nations decided to ignore that type of ship that it necessarly disappear; Many nations who didn't signed up the WT still contibued to launch ships that eluded classifications per the treaties.

Why do you say they are better ships? And whether or not they are more effective depends a lot on what they are doing.

With the typical cruiser speed requirement and weight limit, 6-inchers allow a more balanced design, as they put less stress on the hull for about the same effectiveness.

????

Well, yeah. First, Heavy cruisers were the rage, the typical Light cruiser being 4500-7500t affairs. Then appeared the Mogamis, and the Brooklyns, and the Towns, muscular Light cruisers, up to the maximum displacement allowed, and IMO overall the best all-purpose cruisers of the war. What's so weird?

Why would the heaviest shell make for the best cruiser? In any case she didn't have the heaviest 8" shells.

Well, heavier shells have a quality of their own. The French 8" had the heaviest shell of WWII, apart from the later super-heavy US 8", which wasn't as fast. Barring Des Moines', it was the most powerful 8-incher of the war. After that, the Germans one.

The Baltimores were hardly WT cheating designs as the WT was no longer in effect when they were built. Another reason for not using WT centric definitions.

Even if the treaty itself wasn't in effect anymore, its definitions (and that of the following treaties) still were in effect.

[19kilo]

You can call them whatever suits you, but the fact remains that the people that built them and operated them considered them to be cruisers. And for "dismal failers" they were quite well thought of in the US Navy, especialy in the carrier escort role. I understand their biggest fault was a lack of underwater protection and fortunatly they were never torpedoed. I would also assume that post war, they were just too manpower intesive to keep in service.

[MVictorP]

You can call them whatever suits you, but the fact remains that the people that built them and operated them considered them to be cruisers.

And the USN can also call them 'josephine" if the fancy strikes them - they're nor fooling anyone but themselves. Because the prime criterion for ship classification is weight, then armement, these ships change weight class with such a built. It's astonishingly simple. The Alaskas' direct competition are Scharnhorsts and Dunquerques, not Aobas and Kents. The Alaskas invented nothing. These ships existed before.

Official ship classification is often a political affair. Case in point: the Deutschlands. They were not cruisers because 1)they exeeded 10000t and 2) they had guns larger than 8". Yet, if the DKM rated them as Capital Ships over 10000t, it would have eaten part of their battleship allocation by the AGNT. Other exemples are the Tromp class scout cruisers, introduced as "big Destroyers" and more. Politics, rethorics.

And for "dismal failers" they were quite well thought of in the US Navy, especialy in the carrier escort role. I understand their biggest fault was a lack of underwater protection and fortunatly they were never torpedoed. I would also assume that post war, they were just too manpower intesive to keep in service.

They were all but un-manoeuvrable ships, lacking in TDS, too costly to do a cruiser's job (escort, sealane patrol) and too fragile to be a ship-of-the-line. A conception failure. Handsome ships, thought.

[Ken Thompson]

I thought that the Alaska class were built to counter similar "large" cruisers the Japanese were planning. The Alaska's should have been cancelled along with the Montana class battleships. President Roosevelt was behind this as well as the escort carrier program and the conversion of 9 light cruisers into CVLs. Two out of three isn't bad.

[lwd]

... If there has been a trend towards 30 000t cruisers, you'd have a point.

There was a clear trend toward bigger cruisers when the Washington Treaty limited them to 10,000 tons. Look at the rapid expansion beyond that weight when the treaty limits went away. As I've stated the British were looking seriously at building a 9.2" gunned cruiser when the treaty established an 8" limit. I strongly suspect it would have weighed in at well over 10,000 tons. Perhaps someoen has the spec for it.

... The Alaskas are second-grade BBs

You seem to be the only one who considers them such.

I don't buy the lack of TDS makes them cruisers.

It wasn't simply the lack of TDS that's just one example.

Many BBs do not have TDS, while many cruisers had.

What post WW1 or even battleships built during WWI lacked a TDS? Which cruisers had them?

Saying that they are the ultimate cruiser development is like saying the Hippers are the ultimate development of the destroyer.

Not at all. Now you might make a case that the Atlanta or the Dido's were but that would be stretching it. I guess you could say they shared that place with the Des Moines class though.

Besides, you are writing about the Alaskas as if they were good ships; they were not. They largely failed at their role when cheaper/most effective ships could have sufficed. They were failures, one of the few the US navy launched.

??? They were hardly failures. I don't see how "cheaper/most" effecitve ships could have sufficed for their intende role either. They were no more failures than the Iowa's, or the Des Moines, or many other post war ships.

I see no reason to consider coastal battleships as cruisers.

But the Alaskas are?

??? Yes but what bearing do coastal battleships have on that?

The Panzerschiffen on the otherhand were pretty clearly cruisers both in function and form and indeed were later rerated heavy cruisers. Furthermore I see little reason to restrict oneself to the above catagories.

Germany, who wasn't tied up by the WT, but rather by the Versailles one, took the "Panzerschiff" name from the "Panzerkepp" Batlic battleships. The Deutschlands are close cousins with the Sveriges, trading speed for armor as much as a battecruiser does for a battleship. Both are comparable, in weight, and sometimes armement, to a WT cruiser. It has been renamed as a 'cruiser" because at the time Germany was trying to fit itself into the AGNT, where it had to adapt to the WT, at least in appearance. It's not because the Anglo-saxon nations decided to ignore that type of ship that it necessarly disappear; Many nations who didn't signed up the WT still contibued to launch ships that eluded classifications per the treaties.[/quote]
Theh performance parameters and size of the Panzershiffe are well within the cruiser range. Given the planned gun size increase pre treaty their guns aren't out of line for that either. As for reclassifing them cruisers because Germany was "trying to fit istelf into the AGNT" (not sure what the AGNT is by the way) a quote from wiki:

The Deutschland class was a series of three panzerschiffe ("armored ships"), a form of heavily armed cruiser, ... The Deutschland class ships were initially classified as panzerschiffe or "armored ships", but the Kriegsmarine reclassified them as heavy cruisers in February 1940.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_class_cruiser
Note the date. I don't see Germany having that much pressure to fit into any treateis in Feb of 1940.

Why do you say they are better ships? And whether or not they are more effective depends a lot on what they are doing.

With the typical cruiser speed requirement and weight limit, 6-inchers allow a more balanced design, as they put less stress on the hull for about the same effectiveness.

But the weight limits came off the cruiser class when the Washington treaty fell apart. So they may have been better ships for a 10,000 ton hull but again I'm not sure I heard of much problems caused by the stress of 8" guns on cruiser hulls. You may come closer to a "balanced design" in terms of guns vs armor but that's not necessarily a good thing and by late war the extra range of the 8" guns could be quite useful.

????

Well, yeah. First, Heavy cruisers were the rage, the typical Light cruiser being 4500-7500t affairs. Then appeared the Mogamis, and the Brooklyns, and the Towns, muscular Light cruisers, up to the maximum displacement allowed, and IMO overall the best all-purpose cruisers of the war. What's so weird?

The whole bit about light cruisers coming in "late". Indeed the term light cruiser dates from the WT period does it not? That doesn't mean that 6" gunned cruisers didn't exist however. In any case I would take a Town over a Baltimore and the Japanese upgunned the Mogamis did they not? Looks like your position is pretty lonely to me.

Why would the heaviest shell make for the best cruiser? In any case she didn't have the heaviest 8" shells.

Well, heavier shells have a quality of their own. The French 8" had the heaviest shell of WWII, apart from the later super-heavy US 8", which wasn't as fast. Barring Des Moines', it was the most powerful 8-incher of the war. After that, the Germans one.[/quote]
How are you determining power? From the page at Navweapons: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_8-55_m1931.htm it doesn't even look like they had an AP round and their APC looks fairly comparable to the US SP round. And as you pointed out their shell was lighter than the 8" AP shells used by the Baltimores.

Even if the treaty itself wasn't in effect anymore, its definitions (and that of the following treaties) still were in effect.

Not really, those defintions only made sense within the context of the treaty.

You can call them whatever suits you, but the fact remains that the people that built them and operated them considered them to be cruisers.

And the USN can also call them 'josephine" if the fancy strikes them - they're nor fooling anyone but themselves. Because the prime criterion for ship classification is weight, then armement, these ships change weight class with such a built.

Is it? Even if it is those defintions change over time. Comparing the Alaska's to contemporary battleship designs such as the Iowa's or the Montana's and then compare say the Pensecola's to the Colorado's.

It's astonishingly simple.

Or not.

The Alaskas' direct competition are Scharnhorsts and Dunquerques, not Aobas and Kents.

Not really. Again refering to wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Alaska_(CB-1)

The initial impetus for the design of the Alaskas came from reports that Japan was planning and/or building "super cruisers" that were much more powerful than U.S. heavy cruisers.

I.e. they were designed to counter similar Japanese ships thought to be under construction.

The Alaskas invented nothing. These ships existed before.

????? Not sure how this is relevant or what your point is.

Official ship classification is often a political affair.

Is it?

Case in point: the Deutschlands. They were not cruisers because 1)they exeeded 10000t and 2) they had guns larger than 8".

No. They didn't fit the WT treaty limits on cruisers. That doesn't mean they weren't cruisers. Indeed by that definiton several of the Japanese heavy cruisers wouldn't be considered cruisers nor would the Baltimores or the British 9.2" cruiser designs.

Yet, if the DKM rated them as Capital Ships over 10000t, it would have eaten part of their battleship allocation by the AGNT.

Not really as they were reported to weigh in at 10,000 tons.

And for "dismal failers" they were quite well thought of in the US Navy, especialy in the carrier escort role. I understand their biggest fault was a lack of underwater protection and fortunatly they were never torpedoed. I would also assume that post war, they were just too manpower intesive to keep in service.

They were all but un-manoeuvrable ships, lacking in TDS, too costly to do a cruiser's job (escort, sealane patrol) and too fragile to be a ship-of-the-line. A conception failure. Handsome ships, thought.

"All but un-manoeuvrable"? Care to support that? Sure they lacked a TDS most if not all cruisers did. They were hardly too costly to do a cruisers job either as they did for some years. As for too fragile to be a "ship-of-the-line" they weren't intended to be that's why they weren't considered battleships all though they would have stood some chance vs some of the older ones.