Best cruisers of WWII and the best use of cruisers

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

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

Post by boredatwork »

lwd wrote:
boredatwork wrote: ... I would have argued, given that the Alaskas had only marginal immunity against 12" gunfire, another pair of Essexes would have accomplished their intended role as large cruiser killer much more effectively at marginal increase in cost (assuming already existing air resources were diverted to provide an airwing.)
Well they would have had problems at night and in regions/times of poor weather. ...
I'm not sure why you restrict this to day actions. I would think an Alaska would be better than a Baltimore at night as well. Particularly if the enemy force was identified as such in conditions that would permit the Alaska to use it's range advantage. Also consider that when the Alaska's were laid down surface engagments were definitly expected.
Given that warship design consists of defining a requirement then designing a ship to meet that requirement I will fully concede that the Alaskas somewhat successfully fullfilled an unsuccessfully designed requirement.

How many times did any carrier force get ambushed at night or in poor weather?

As for the Alaska's effectiveness in night actions it's specualtion on my part but the driving force behind the Des Moines class was the 8" gun was too slow firing to be effective against cruiser (and smaller) size targets at long range. If the larger gun couldn't use it range advantage then a compelling argument could be made that larger numbers of smaller guns would be more effective as they would generate greater numbers of hits. The 12" gun was even worse than the 8" in that reguard and even before the war a % of officers a 12x8" supercruiser for the same reason some had preffered 12x6" over 9x8". (Friedman US Cruisers Chapter 10) Also note that the Alaska's FC tower was considerably shorter than a BB's so she would not have been able to make effective use of the longer range of her guns without air spotting.
I suspect operating the air wings would also make their operating costs considerably more but you would gain a lot of flexability.
Note I did suggest the airwings be re-allocated from other purposes - sitting around uselessely waiting for the next island to be captured for example. The net increase cost in American worldwide air effort would have been negligible (even allowing for a higher accident rate etc.)
As for all of the all of the roles the Alaskas actually did perform either Baltimores could have performed them nearly as well for much cheaper
On the otherhand the Iowa's also performed that role and the Alaska's were cheaper than the Iowa's both to buy and to operate.
You could have pulled the 8" guns off a Baltimore, replaced them with and extra pair of 5" turrets, another pair of Mk37 directors, and some more Bofors, and used the Iowa's engines to build the Sacramento class 15 years earlier and have 2 ships able to accomplish most of what either class did more effectively yet cost less to build and operate - hence the reason the cruisers stayed on post war and the big gun ships dissapeared.
If you go by WWI standards then the Iowa's might well be considered Battlecruisers and the SoDak's, and Montana's the true battleships.
You probably could. Going by British QE standards they might rate the title fast battleships. Going by G3, KGV, and Vanguard studies you could call them "fully armored battlecruisers." All of which only goes to show how pointless arguing the semantics of warship designations is.
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

Post by MVictorP »

lwd wrote:Note however that I specified post WWI battleships and the Ganguts were preWWI battleships. Ships designes evolve over time and you persist in using a defintion that not only is treaty provision specific but frozen in time.
You are aware that the Ganguts have been refitted (and renamed) quite a few times between the World Wars?
"That was all I had to say"
- Me
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

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

Post by lwd »

MVictorP wrote: ... "Ignorance" was the right expression - his subsequent post show as much ignorance for either the Versailles Treaty or the Washington one. Being ignorant isn't pejorative; it doesn't mean "idiot": It just means a lack of knowledge in one very defined field. Well, not only lwd is being ignorant in treaty matters, but he also think that they don't matter much, even in the context of WWII where the vast majority of ships were the result of these treaties.
I'll agree ingorant isn't a necessarilly a perjorative but then I don't think you've made a very strong case for my ignorance either. It looks to me like you are saying I'm ignorant because I question or reject your opinions. Certainly if you think that I said that the treaties don't matter much in the development of warships in the 20's and 30's you are wrong. Indeed that looks to me to be a strawman unless you can show where I said something that can reasonably be inferred as such.
But all American Battleships since at least the Nevada class had TDS. The only ships the Americans rated as "Battlecruisers", the Lexingtons also had TDS. The Alaska class had none. Hence lwd's point is valid - the lack of a TDS in an American context is a cruiser feature.
It isn't a cruiser/battleship feature; It is a necessity for those big ship not manoeuvrable enough to avoid torpedoes. The more you advance in time, the more a TDS is vital for big ships.
Then you should be able to give more examples of cruisers that have them shouldn't you?
You want features that separates cruisers and BBs? Try weight and gun bore size.
Indeed and the Alaska's were half to a third the weight of their contemporary battleship designs. Essentially the same ration of the Pensecola's to their contemporary battleship designs. Furthermore there was a considerable if somewhat smaller seperation in gun bore size.
The Alaska cruisers were second-grade battleships, and bad ones at that.
You seem to be the only one who considers them such in regards to both opinions stated.
They tried something new, it didn't worked.
Restating your opinion doesn't make it any more valid. The Alaska design was a pretty good one for the role invisioned. That role never came to pass and by 44 it was pretty clear it wouldn't. Not the same thing as not working at all.
The original Japanese equivalents to the Alaskas were rated as 'super A-type cruisers'... so it's not just lwd's part of the world that calls ambiguous ships by definitions other than your own. Once the treaty ended any standardization in Warship classifcation ended with it.

I would call the Alaska Battlecruisers if only because Battlecruiser sounds more epic than "large cruiser" or "Super Cruiser". But conceptionally it's hard to draw the conclusion that they were anything else but scaled up cruisers designed to fill a cruiser's role instead of scaled down capital ships.
It was definitely not a cruiser.
That again is your opinion. We've not only called it to question we've supplied evidence that at least two of the major navies considered them cruisers. The official position of the IJN and USN outweighs your opinion by several ordrs of magnitude.
And besides, what do you define as a '"cruiser's role"? My take is that there is no role especially for cruisers. One defines the roles for cruisers (and all other ships) depending on a country's given tasks and present units. Germany used its cruiser like battleships, and its battleships like cruisers.
The roles of various ships are stated in the doctrine of their respective navies. I'd very much like to see an example if Germany using a cruiser like a battleship by the way. They did I'll agree tend to use their battleships in cruiser like roles but that seems to have been more expediancy than anything else.
... Also, there was a pejorative meaning attached to the word "battlecruiser" in WWII, relative to the Jutland disaster. Naval officers were quick to pick any word close to "battlecruiser" but the word itself.
I would think that would have started soon after Jutland but in the early 20's there were numerous battlecruiser designs from several nations.
True, but it's my turn to push this guy's back against the wall, after he was being so condescending. You mess with the bull you get the horns.
:D :D :D
Some imagination you've got. Now if you could actually produce some references you might have a chance but given your performance to date I don't expect it.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

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

Post by lwd »

boredatwork wrote: Given that warship design consists of defining a requirement then designing a ship to meet that requirement I will fully concede that the Alaskas somewhat successfully fullfilled an unsuccessfully designed requirement.
Well it's hard to tell exactly how successful they would have been but they seemed to have had a very good gun for that role. I'm not sure how well armored they were for it. I would argue that it wasn't the design requirement that was unsuccessful it was just that the forseen challenge didn't show up and in deed by the time she was in service there wasn't much left of any of the opposing surface fleets.
How many times did any carrier force get ambushed at night or in poor weather?
I wasn't restricting it to carrier forces but if a carrier force was trying to force a battle with a raider it might have been more likely. As for how many times did it happen, certianly Glorious would count and arguably the battle of Samar would count. Now it's also arguable that neither of these would have happened to a force with a pair of Essex class carriers.
As for the Alaska's effectiveness in night actions it's specualtion on my part but the driving force behind the Des Moines class was the 8" gun was too slow firing to be effective against cruiser (and smaller) size targets at long range. If the larger gun couldn't use it range advantage then a compelling argument could be made that larger numbers of smaller guns would be more effective as they would generate greater numbers of hits. The 12" gun was even worse than the 8" in that reguard and even before the war a % of officers a 12x8" supercruiser for the same reason some had preffered 12x6" over 9x8". (Friedman US Cruisers Chapter 10) Also note that the Alaska's FC tower was considerably shorter than a BB's so she would not have been able to make effective use of the longer range of her guns without air spotting.
I'm not so sure that the *' was to slow to be effective but if you've got a good solution faster is better. Given that Iowa class battleships could spott destroyers at 37,000 yards I suspect that Alaska wouldn't have had much trouble spotting a cruiser at similar ranges which is pretty close to her max range. Note also that http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Main.htm gives her rate of fire as 2.5-3 rounds a minute compared to 3-4 for the Baltimores which isn't too far off.
As for all of the all of the roles the Alaskas actually did perform either Baltimores could have performed them nearly as well for much cheaper
On the otherhand the Iowa's also performed that role and the Alaska's were cheaper than the Iowa's both to buy and to operate.
You could have pulled the 8" guns off a Baltimore, replaced them with and extra pair of 5" turrets, another pair of Mk37 directors, and some more Bofors, and used the Iowa's engines to build the Sacramento class 15 years earlier and have 2 ships able to accomplish most of what either class did more effectively yet cost less to build and operate - hence the reason the cruisers stayed on post war and the big gun ships dissapeared.
If one were presient one could even build more Atlanta's in place of Baltimores, Alaskas, and Iowas or at least some of them end up with a substantially heavier AA screen at some considerable savings I suspect. Of course a good mix means you are prepared for just about anything.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

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

Post by lwd »

MVictorP wrote:
lwd wrote:Note however that I specified post WWI battleships and the Ganguts were preWWI battleships. Ships designes evolve over time and you persist in using a defintion that not only is treaty provision specific but frozen in time.
You are aware that the Ganguts have been refitted (and renamed) quite a few times between the World Wars?
I wasn't all that familiar with them and didn't consider it all that important but reading up on it I noted that by the time the war started they did have at least a rudimentary TDS. Not that that would be all that expected or required in a refit or relevant to my position although it does tend to weaken yours a bit more if that's possible.
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

Post by MVictorP »

lwd wrote:I'll agree ingorant isn't a necessarilly a perjorative but then I don't think you've made a very strong case for my ignorance either. It looks to me like you are saying I'm ignorant because I question or reject your opinions. Certainly if you think that I said that the treaties don't matter much in the development of warships in the 20's and 30's you are wrong. Indeed that looks to me to be a strawman unless you can show where I said something that can reasonably be inferred as such.
If you knew about the restrictions the Versailles treaty imposed on Germany, you wouldn't have that question about the Deutschlands being cruisers. They were Germany's battleships, pure and simple, just like the Sveriges (laid down in 1912 IIRC) were Sweden's battleships. In fact, that's what the Versailles treaty had in mind for Germany - a coastal defense force. That was before the WT (which Germany didn't sign), that limited battleships between 10 000 and 35 000t. But Germany, to the international surprise, didn't built neither what was just defined as a heavy cruiser, nor a coastal battleship.

More than being cruisers, or battleships, the Deutschland are (relatively) fast and long-range (at the expoense of armor) "coastal" battleships like the ones that were here and there in various Baltic nations, such as Netherlands, Finland and Sweden. When the WT was imposed in some sort on Germany by the 1935 AGNT (grr..), Germany should have classed them as "Battleships" (over 10000t and 8-inchers) and that's what they did until Tirpitz was launched. Then, with some cheating and who-cares-now, as heavy cruisers.
Then you should be able to give more examples of cruisers that have them shouldn't you?
I believe some Dutch cruisers had them too. Once again, if we both agree that TDS does not make the ship (heck, carriers have TDS), what's the point? That this systematic confrontative attitude that bothered me more than anything else.
Indeed and the Alaska's were half to a third the weight of their contemporary battleship designs. Essentially the same ration of the Pensecola's to their contemporary battleship designs. Furthermore there was a considerable if somewhat smaller seperation in gun bore size.

(...) The Alaska design was a pretty good one for the role invisioned. That role never came to pass and by 44 it was pretty clear it wouldn't. Not the same thing as not working at all.
Once again, as "cruisers" the Alaska didn't set no trend in cruiser design, nor was it the continuation of an existing cruiser trend. Later US heavy cruiser had a more cruiser-like weight. After all, the point of buiding cruisers, when you have the means to have BBs, is to have numerous, cheap, expendable vessels that are economic to operate all year round, and do everything a ship-of-the-line can do, to a lesser scale.
You seem to be the only one who considers them such in regards to both opinions stated.
You don't get out much do you?
The original Japanese equivalents to the Alaskas were rated as 'super A-type cruisers'... so it's not just lwd's part of the world that calls ambiguous ships by definitions other than your own. Once the treaty ended any standardization in Warship classifcation ended with it.
So the Alaska's equivalent are ships that never existed? The Alaska's tonnage, speed, weight and guns made them direct competitors with the Scharnhorsts or even more spot-on yet, the Dunkerques. Besides, if those Nippon ships existed, I (as well as any naval expert) would have called them either battlecruisers or light battleships myself (depending on their builts), but not cruisers - or destroyers, BTW.
That again is your opinion. We've not only called it to question we've supplied evidence that at least two of the major navies considered them cruisers. The official position of the IJN and USN outweighs your opinion by several ordrs of magnitude.
That's nothing new. Weird ship nomenclatures and classifications have always existed, for political/prestige reasons. But the real ship specialists can see throught that smokescreen, furthermore with retrospect. Me, I have no interests in classificating this or that as a cruiser or not, but the nations you cited clearly had.
The roles of various ships are stated in the doctrine of their respective navies. I'd very much like to see an example if Germany using a cruiser like a battleship by the way.


Prinz Eugen, in the battle line with Bismarck against Hood and PoW (that's "Prince of Wales"). I thought you would knew that, on this site, of all things. Why can't you relate to anything I wrote by yourself?
They did I'll agree tend to use their battleships in cruiser like roles but that seems to have been more expediancy than anything else.
It was damn time!
I would think that would have started soon after Jutland but in the early 20's there were numerous battlecruiser designs from several nations.
Well, that didn't help the "battlecruiser brand" neither, as the Lexington were terrible warships, that got re-classified as CV as soon as the WT was in effect. I know of no real battlecruiser (althought many light battleships were built or refited) that was built between the WT and WWII.
I wasn't all that familiar with them and didn't consider it all that important but reading up on it I noted that by the time the war started they did have at least a rudimentary TDS. Not that that would be all that expected or required in a refit or relevant to my position although it does tend to weaken yours a bit more if that's possible.
"Rudimentary", like a torpedo net?
Maybe one of these ships had added bulges, but I am pretty positive no TDS were standard on these ships. They were easy torpedo meat.
:D :D :D
Some imagination you've got. Now if you could actually produce some references you might have a chance but given your performance to date I don't expect it.
I told you what irritated me in your posts. I am ready to give you the benefit of the doubt for now, but once again if you mess with the bull...

... the horns!
"That was all I had to say"
- Me
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

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

Post by boredatwork »

That was pre-WT (Washington Treaty, 1922). "Cruisers" before the WT were another thing altogheter.

...

That's why those elusive treaties are so important.
Weak argument from someone criticising others for lack of treaty knowledge.

Before the treaty somehow allows for exceptions to the rule but after the treaty does not?

The arbitrary definitions established at Washington ceased to have any relavence once war was declared and the (remnants of the) various treaties were abrogated. The Alaskas were a post Washington design when 8"/10,000 limit ceased to have ***ANY** meaning for cruisers. (And for that matter modern cruisers, destroyers and frigates are so designated with little regard for their tonnage or weight of armament and none for the parameters established in 1921.)
So the Alaska's equivalent are ships that never existed? The Alaska's tonnage, speed, weight and guns made them direct competitors with the Scharnhorsts or even more spot-on yet, the Dunkerques. Besides, if those Nippon ships existed, I (as well as any naval expert) would have called them either battlecruisers or light battleships myself (depending on their builts), but not cruisers - or destroyers, BTW
The Yamato's US equivalent are the Montanas. That circumstances prevented them from being started does not mean the intent to build them wasn't there. The Japanese ships weren't flights of fancy like the H44 class - the plans were more or less completed - Sensibly Japan chose to cancel them and additional Yamatos in favour of other ships. The US wasn't quite as sensible but then the US has an order of magnitude more capacity than Japan and could afford to waste it on a few superfluous projects.
MVictorP wrote:The Alaska cruisers were second-grade battleships, and bad ones at that. They tried something new, it didn't worked.
...
And besides, what do you define as a '"cruiser's role"? My take is that there is no role especially for cruisers. One defines the roles for cruisers (and all other ships) depending on a country's given tasks and present units. Germany used its cruiser like battleships, and its battleships like cruisers.
The role is what the ships were designed to do, not what they actually did. Reading through Friedman's US _______ Design History series makes it pretty clear, via General Board notes that ships were designed in the expectation of accomplishing set roles:

The Americans defined battleships as ships intended to fight in a battleline, against other battleships.

The Americans defined heavy cruisers as ships to escort carriers and protect them from the Japanese Heavy cruisers (early destroyers assumed not being capable of matching a carrier's endurance at high speed) as well as operate independently to hunt down raiders preying on merchant ships.

The Americans defined light cruisers as ships to provide reconnassance and screening function to the battleline.

More over both cruiser roles required independent operation, which differentiates, in American terms, cruisers from large destroyers which are only ever intended to work as part of the fleet.

The Alaskas were designed with cruiser features to fullfill the American Heavy Cruisers role of screening Carriers and hunting down enemy raiders like the Panzerschiffe, hence the reason the studies were begun as "CA". Many of the design studies that lead to the Alaskas featured alternative 12x8" armament. (Friedman, US Cruisers Chapter 10). Can you provide me with any counter sources that remotely suggested the Alaskas would be intended to fight in a battleline role that would justify your title as "second-grade battleships." All of the excerpts that Friedman provide talk in context of defending carriers (the Iowas would be off engaging their opposite number and not available for that task) and defeating treaty cruisers or Deutschland style ships raiding American supply lines as the US fleet crossed the pacific to face retake the Philipines. Hence also the reason a TDS was left out as an expensive luxury: chained to a battleline, regardless of maneuverability, a Battleship would potentially face mass torpedo attacks from flotillas of Destroyers and odds are at least some ships would be hit. Against independent cruiser raiders the odds of a 3-5 torpedo salvo hitting (based on the hit rate of torpedoes in WW1 and largely vindicated by WW2 experience) was considered to be minimal.
Also, there was a pejorative meaning attached to the word "battlecruiser" in WWII, relative to the Jutland disaster. Naval officers were quick to pick any word close to "battlecruiser" but the word itself.
The Royal Navy continued to designate many of it's designs "Battlecruisers" long after Jutland - Hood, G3, KGV, Vanguard were all designated Battlecruisers at some point, in the case of the latter 2 "fully armored Battlecruisers" - showing the perceived interchangeability of Battlecruisers and Battleships. Again such interchangeability, even the illusion as in the case of Hood, did not exist with the Alaskas. The Iowas might perform in place of the Alaskas but there was never any possibility of an Alaska performing the Iowa's designed role, even against second rate Battleship like the Kongos.
There was also what were called "armored cruisers" before the WT ("Washington Treaty"), and these were often stronger than older battleships - case in point, the Goergio Averoff.
The key word being "cruiser". It wasn't a Battleship. It wasn't a destroyer. It was something in between. Like the broad classifications HMV tries to slot all music into, warship designations cover a vast range of capabilities. Even during the 18 years the treaty held sway the term "cruiser" covered a wide range of ship sizes and capabilities (With the British and Japanese flotilla leaders on one end and the cheating 8" cruisers on the other). For that matter so did the terms Capital Ship (Pre-Dreadnaughts/South Dakoda), Aircraft Carrier (Hermes/Lexington), Destroyer (S-Class/Fubuki).

Had the Alaska class been designed in the early to mid 30s then yes they by Washington definition would have merited the capital ship designation. However once the treaty was abrogated battleships ballooned in size. Carriers ballooned in size. Destroyers ballooned in size till they overlaped the low end of the cruiser category. It's only natural that Cruisers Ballooned till they overlapped the former lower end of the battleship category. While undoubtably in the context of ships actually completed they were freakishly large, and a waste of resources, given the role the General Board designed them for, and the fact they were 20-30,000 tons less than contemporary battleships (H-Class, Soyuz, Montana, Lion, Lion II, Alsace, Iowa, Yamato) IMO puts them squarely in the cruiser category, regardless of which flavour of cruiser they're called.
User avatar
19kilo
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:46 am

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

Post by 19kilo »

Please can you give the name of this "Ship Classification Bible" that everyone and every country MUST adhere too so I can run out and buy a copy!
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

Post by MVictorP »

boredatwork wrote:Weak argument from someone criticising others for lack of treaty knowledge.
Look, I'm sorry if the acronym retoque bothered you, but frankly, on a WWII naval board of some importance, not being able to recognize the acronym even thought it is in context... is not guarantee that you are discussing with someone that informed. Once again, I don't know what to say, and feel pathetism.
Before the treaty somehow allows for exceptions to the rule but after the treaty does not?
Since the treaty set the rules, I'd say yes. It was the jungle before the treaty.
The arbitrary definitions established at Washington ceased to have any relavence once war was declared and the (remnants of the) various treaties were abrogated. The Alaskas were a post Washington design when 8"/10,000 limit ceased to have ***ANY** meaning for cruisers. (And for that matter modern cruisers, destroyers and frigates are so designated with little regard for their tonnage or weight of armament and none for the parameters established in 1921.)
There's two part in such a treaty, generally speaking. The first one is a definition, and the second one, allocation. In the WT treaty, new ship classification was adopted (and further specified in subsequent treaties), a "battleship holiday" was enforced, and ship tonnage allocations per type were attributed to the signataries.

By the time of war, allocation takes the back seat. but the definitions are still there, as in fact, it was those definnitions that shaped the existing fleets, and in turn these definitions were shaped by the economic necessities of the time. Even nations that didn't sign the WT were forced to deal with a maritiume environment that was shaped by it.
The role is what the ships were designed to do, not what they actually did. Reading through Friedman's US _______ Design History series makes it pretty clear, via General Board notes that ships were designed in the expectation of accomplishing set roles:

The Americans defined battleships as ships intended to fight in a battleline, against other battleships.

The Americans defined heavy cruisers as ships to escort carriers and protect them from the Japanese Heavy cruisers (early destroyers assumed not being capable of matching a carrier's endurance at high speed) as well as operate independently to hunt down raiders preying on merchant ships.

The Americans defined light cruisers as ships to provide reconnassance and screening function to the battleline.

More over both cruiser roles required independent operation, which differentiates, in American terms, cruisers from large destroyers which are only ever intended to work as part of the fleet.

The Alaskas were designed with cruiser features to fullfill the American Heavy Cruisers role of screening Carriers and hunting down enemy raiders like the Panzerschiffe.
I tought that was clear at the time of the Alaskas' contruction that a pair of Brooklyns could take on a Panzerschiff. In any case, this is US doctrine. The Dutch may have another doctrine for their cruisers, as do the Germans. You build your ships according to your needs, and in the Alaskas' case, missed. Now maybe the Alaskas were going to be all of what the ABDA needed at the battle of Java Sea, but for the US they were superfluous, costly ships that accomplished little, and which design was dropped in subsequent classes.
Many of the design studies that lead to the Alaskas featured alternative 12x8" armament. (Friedman, US Cruisers Chapter 10). Can you provide me with any counter sources that remotely suggested the Alaskas would be intended to fight in a battleline role that would justify your title as "second-grade battleships."
Second-grade battleships are not supposed to get on a battle line against bona fide battleships. Dorias, Kongos, Ganguts... Their main use is as escort or fleet-in-being. So, I can hardly bring you anything that say Alaskas were supposed to be ships-of-the-line. They clearly were not.
All of the excerpts that Friedman provide talk in context of defending carriers (the Iowas would be off engaging their opposite number and not available for that task) and defeating treaty cruisers or Deutschland style ships raiding American supply lines as the US fleet crossed the pacific to face retake the Philipines. Hence also the reason a TDS was left out as an expensive luxury: chained to a battleline, regardless of maneuverability, a Battleship would potentially face mass torpedo attacks from flotillas of Destroyers and odds are at least some ships would be hit. Against independent cruiser raiders the odds of a 3-5 torpedo salvo hitting (based on the hit rate of torpedoes in WW1 and largely vindicated by WW2 experience) was considered to be minimal.
Friedman is fine, but he's got too much of an anglo-saxon mindset about fleets. It's easy to have that mindset since the two AS nation both have a huge fleet that can afford such pleasantries as a rigid deployment dogma. War proved a lot more improvisation.
The Royal Navy continued to designate many of it's designs "Battlecruisers" long after Jutland - Hood, G3, KGV, Vanguard were all designated Battlecruisers at some point, in the case of the latter 2 "fully armored Battlecruisers" - showing the perceived interchangeability of Battlecruisers and Battleships. Again such interchangeability, even the illusion as in the case of Hood, did not exist with the Alaskas. The Iowas might perform in place of the Alaskas but there was never any possibility of an Alaska performing the Iowa's designed role, even against second rate Battleship like the Kongos.
G3 was a thing of the past as soon as the WT came to be. I never heard the KGV being referred as battlecruisers, ever. As for Hood and Vanguard, they were Fast Battleships, part battleships and battlecruiser, being big enough (in Hood's case) or modern enough (in Vanguard's) to afford it. Same thing for Iowa.
Had the Alaska class been designed in the early to mid 30s then yes they by Washington definition would have merited the capital ship designation. However once the treaty was abrogated battleships ballooned in size. Carriers ballooned in size. Destroyers ballooned in size till they overlaped the low end of the cruiser category. It's only natural that Cruisers Ballooned till they overlapped the former lower end of the battleship category. While undoubtably in the context of ships actually completed they were freakishly large, and a waste of resources, given the role the General Board designed them for, and the fact they were 20-30,000 tons less than contemporary battleships (H-Class, Soyuz, Montana, Lion, Lion II, Alsace, Iowa, Yamato) IMO puts them squarely in the cruiser category, regardless of which flavour of cruiser they're called.
Once again, the Alaskas are orphans - they have no parentage, and no descendancy. If they set up, or following up a trend, you'd have a point. But even liberated from any treaties, fleets that have genuine battle units prefer their cruiser force to be economic, which places the post WWII cruiser still under 20000t. There is growth, and then there's getting obese.
"That was all I had to say"
- Me
Pandora
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:40 pm

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

Post by Pandora »

lwd wrote:4) TDS for the twins not for the Panzershiffe
source please. otherwise strawman! :D
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

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

Post by boredatwork »

MVictorP wrote:There's two part in such a treaty, generally speaking. The first one is a definition, and the second one, allocation. In the WT treaty, new ship classification was adopted (and further specified in subsequent treaties), a "battleship holiday" was enforced, and ship tonnage allocations per type were attributed to the signataries.

By the time of war, allocation takes the back seat. but the definitions are still there, as in fact, it was those definnitions that shaped the existing fleets, and in turn these definitions were shaped by the economic necessities of the time. Even nations that didn't sign the WT were forced to deal with a maritiume environment that was shaped by it.
Are you sure about that? AFAIK the allocations were dispensed with in 1936 (37?) when the 3 remaining signatories (France, US, Great Britain) began to rearm in earnest. Qualitative definitions (with escalator clauses to allow for increases to match non-signatories (Lion/Iowa)) remained in force until Sept 1939 when the last vestiges of the treaty were abrogatted by France and Britain as being no longer relavent. (arms control is counter productive once war begins) At this point the US, not being at war, put two sets of designs into production - the immediate post treaty generation (Baltimores, Clevelands, Essexes) - ships no longer limited by treaty rules but directly based upon treaty ships (Wichita, Brooklyn, Yorktown) to speed production while begining designs for a new series of much larger "unlimited ships" to retify the perceived faults inherent in the treaty restricted ships (Final Montana Design, New CA, New CL, New CLAA, Alaska Class, Midway Class, Fletcher Class).
Once again, the Alaskas are orphans - they have no parentage, and no descendancy. If they set up, or following up a trend, you'd have a point. But even liberated from any treaties, fleets that have genuine battle units prefer their cruiser force to be economic, which places the post WWII cruiser still under 20000t. There is growth, and then there's getting obese.
Let me ask you a question: Do you consider the Yamatos to be Battleships? They owed little (aside from gun calibre to the unbuilt pre-treaty designs) and given the secrecy with which they were built had virtually no influence on future ship design. And by washington treaty qualitive definitions, still in force though Japan was no longer a signatory, they exceed the 16"(technically 14" for new construction)/35,000 ton limit for Battleships. There's growth and there's getting obese.

I don't think an expert such as yourself would NOT consider them battleships because you recognise that regardless of whether or not they fit the precise Washington definition of what a battleship is, they were still designed to fullfill the Battleship function as envisioned by the Japanese.




Don't missunderstand me, I'm not arguing that the Alaskas weren't a waste of resources for the war they actually fought. I'm just arguing without the benefit of hindsight they were designed to fill the role of a US heavy cruiser as it was envisioned pre-war - that their role turned out to be not as envisioned doesn't make make them less "cruisers" though in the absence of their contemporaries in other navies and the apparent jump in size do merit something to differentiate them from regular heavy cruisers. Whether you call them Super Cruisers, Large Cruisers, Armored Cruisers, B type Heavy Cruisers, or Battlecruisers the point is, despite their size they were still designed to fullfill perceived crusier functions.
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

Post by MVictorP »

boredatwork wrote:
MVictorP wrote:There's two part in such a treaty, generally speaking. The first one is a definition, and the second one, allocation. In the WT treaty, new ship classification was adopted (and further specified in subsequent treaties), a "battleship holiday" was enforced, and ship tonnage allocations per type were attributed to the signataries.

By the time of war, allocation takes the back seat. but the definitions are still there, as in fact, it was those definnitions that shaped the existing fleets, and in turn these definitions were shaped by the economic necessities of the time. Even nations that didn't sign the WT were forced to deal with a maritiume environment that was shaped by it.
Are you sure about that? AFAIK the allocations were dispensed with in 1936 (37?) when the 3 remaining signatories (France, US, Great Britain) began to rearm in earnest. Qualitative definitions (with escalator clauses to allow for increases to match non-signatories (Lion/Iowa)) remained in force until Sept 1939 when the last vestiges of the treaty were abrogatted by France and Britain as being no longer relavent. (arms control is counter productive once war begins) At this point the US, not being at war, put two sets of designs into production - the immediate post treaty generation (Baltimores, Clevelands, Essexes) - ships no longer limited by treaty rules but directly based upon treaty ships (Wichita, Brooklyn, Yorktown) to speed production while begining designs for a new series of much larger "unlimited ships" to retify the perceived faults inherent in the treaty restricted ships (Final Montana Design, New CA, New CL, New CLAA, Alaska Class, Midway Class, Fletcher Class).
I agree pretty much. I don't get the question, thought. But I would risk saying; yes, the definitions were still there, if simply because all that flaoted at the time came from them.
Let me ask you a question: Do you consider the Yamatos to be Battleships? They owed little (aside from gun calibre to the unbuilt pre-treaty designs) and given the secrecy with which they were built had virtually no influence on future ship design. And by washington treaty qualitive definitions, still in force though Japan was no longer a signatory, they exceed the 16"(technically 14" for new construction)/35,000 ton limit for Battleships. There's growth and there's getting obese.
Yeah, Yamatos were battleships even thought they busted throught the treaties' limits, simply owing to the fact that there wasn't a class of ships over battleships.
I don't think an expert such as yourself would NOT consider them battleships because you recognise that regardless of whether or not they fit the precise Washington definition of what a battleship is, they were still designed to fullfill the Battleship function as envisioned by the Japanese.
I am no expert, but a "dirty unwashed" amateur who also happens to like history. You want to talk to experts, get Tiornu, Peter Leinau or Nathan Okun, all readily available at this fine site, I believe.
Don't missunderstand me, I'm not arguing that the Alaskas weren't a waste of resources for the war they actually fought. I'm just arguing without the benefit of hindsight they were designed to fill the role of a US heavy cruiser as it was envisioned pre-war - that their role turned out to be not as envisioned doesn't make make them less "cruisers" though in the absence of their contemporaries in other navies and the apparent jump in size do merit something to differentiate them from regular heavy cruisers. Whether you call them Super Cruisers, Large Cruisers, Armored Cruisers, B type Heavy Cruisers, or Battlecruisers the point is, despite their size they were still designed to fullfill perceived crusier functions.
[/quote]

I still think that "cruiser functions" are a blurry thing. You can more easily talk about a particular ship's function, but as an exemple: The first USN heavy cruisers sucked, because they tried to cover too many "cruiser functions". The Didos certainly do not have the same functions as a Mogami.

The only function I see for an Alaska-class ship, is that of a cruiser-hunter, but as you said, that role was already effectively taken up by carriers and cruisers. Maybe the Alaskas would have been more at home in the Netherlands, a navy without carriers nor battleships, where they would have very much ressembled project 1047.

But IMO, both the Dunkerques and 1047s were much, much better ships ton for ton.
"That was all I had to say"
- Me
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

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

Post by lwd »

Pandora wrote:
lwd wrote:4) TDS for the twins not for the Panzershiffe
source please. otherwise strawman! :D
Are you questioning whether or not the twins had a TDS?
Or are you questioning whether or not the Panzershiffe had a TDS?
In either case hardly a strawman. If I'm wrong and the Panzershiffe did have a TDS then that's a simple error of fact. As for the twins their TDS has been discussed on this board a number of times.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

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

Post by lwd »

MVictorP wrote:If you knew about the restrictions the Versailles treaty imposed on Germany, you wouldn't have that question about the Deutschlands being cruisers. They were Germany's battleships, pure and simple,
That is your interpretation/opinion. I've seen nothing to indicate that the Germans had any intention of using them in the role of battleships and indeed doing so would have been rediculous as they would have stood no chance against anything but a coastal defence battleship and even that would be risky.
just like the Sveriges (laid down in 1912 IIRC) were Sweden's battleships.
And that's relevant how?
In fact, that's what the Versailles treaty had in mind for Germany - a coastal defense force.
And allowed them a couple of coastal defence battleships which they indeed possessed.
That was before the WT (which Germany didn't sign), that limited battleships between 10 000 and 35 000t. But Germany, to the international surprise, didn't built neither what was just defined as a heavy cruiser, nor a coastal battleship.
And you accuse me of not knowing what's in the treaties. There was no minimum limit for battleships. Furthermore Germany did build heavy cruisers i.e. the Panzershiffe. Which can be seen by how they were used as well as how they were lableled.
More than being cruisers, or battleships, the Deutschland are (relatively) fast and long-range (at the expoense of armor) "coastal" battleships
Long range coastal battleships? With cruiser level armor? You have a realy wierd ship classification scheme.
When the WT was imposed in some sort on Germany by the 1935 AGNT (grr..), Germany should have classed them as "Battleships" (over 10000t and 8-inchers) and that's what they did until Tirpitz was launched. Then, with some cheating and who-cares-now, as heavy cruisers.
They never classified them as battleships and never should have as they were incapable of fullfilling that role.
...I believe some Dutch cruisers had them too. Once again, if we both agree that TDS does not make the ship (heck, carriers have TDS), what's the point? That this systematic confrontative attitude that bothered me more than anything else.
It's one of the characteristics that help differentiate the ship classes. Again give me a source on any cruiser with a TDS.
Indeed and the Alaska's were half to a third the weight of their contemporary battleship designs. Essentially the same ration of the Pensecola's to their contemporary battleship designs. Furthermore there was a considerable if somewhat smaller seperation in gun bore size.

(...) The Alaska design was a pretty good one for the role invisioned. That role never came to pass and by 44 it was pretty clear it wouldn't. Not the same thing as not working at all.
Once again, as "cruisers" the Alaska didn't set no trend in cruiser design, nor was it the continuation of an existing cruiser trend.[/quote]
But it clearly was a continuation of the existing trend.
Later US heavy cruiser had a more cruiser-like weight.
Considering that the only all gun heavy cruisers built after the Alaskas were the Des Moines indead they were the last heavy cruisers built by the US, and they were simply an improved Baltimore and that the Alaska's were rated as large cruisers rather than heavy cruisers that's of very limited import.
Indeed After all, the point of buiding cruisers, when you have the means to have BBs, is to have numerous, cheap, expendable vessels that are economic to operate all year round, and do everything a ship-of-the-line can do, to a lesser scale.
If the point is to have cheap, expendable, economic vessels the US would have built a lot more Atlantas. Cruisers can't do everything a "ship-of-the-line" or battleship can do. They can't expect to win a gun battle with an opposing battleship. A heavy cruiser can't expect to win a battle with a large cruiser either.
You seem to be the only one who considers them such in regards to both opinions stated.
You don't get out much do you?
You continue to make this sort of comment but seam unable to support it. The implication is you can't and that it's simply your opinion.
... The Alaska's tonnage, speed, weight and guns made them direct competitors with the Scharnhorsts or even more spot-on yet, the Dunkerques.
Not really. Look at the armor schemes. The twins and the Dunkerques were battleships and intended to operate as such. Indeed when built the twins were capable of taking on the majority of battleships then in existance (the Nelsons, Nagatos, and standards would have had an advantage over them but they would have had a decent chance vs the rest)
Besides, if those Nippon ships existed, I (as well as any naval expert) would have called them either battlecruisers or light battleships myself (depending on their builts), but not cruisers - or destroyers, BTW.
Haveing reading comprehension problems today? Or don't you think the Japanese and US admiralties were naval experts. They both rated such ships as cruisers. Which again points to the weakness of your position.
The roles of various ships are stated in the doctrine of their respective navies. I'd very much like to see an example if Germany using a cruiser like a battleship by the way.

Prinz Eugen, in the battle line with Bismarck against Hood and PoW (that's "Prince of Wales"). I thought you would knew that, on this site, of all things. Why can't you relate to anything I wrote by yourself?
That was a bit of extremis though wasn't it? It certainly wasn't German doctrine to have heavy cruisers engage battleships in gun battles any more than it was US doctrine for them to do so by themselves. On the other hand cruisers often engaged battleships when acompanied by or perhaps better said when acompanying battleships of their own.
I would think that would have started soon after Jutland but in the early 20's there were numerous battlecruiser designs from several nations.
Well, that didn't help the "battlecruiser brand" neither, as the Lexington were terrible warships, that got re-classified as CV as soon as the WT was in effect.
That's not quite right either. The Lexingtons were not terrible warships. As battlecruisers they probably would have been but they made pretty good CV's and they weren't reclassified as carriers they were rebuilt as carriers and classified as such.
I know of no real battlecruiser (althought many light battleships were built or refited) that was built between the WT and WWII.
That's hardly a surprise though is it? Given that the treaty limited the number of battleships and battle cruisers combined.
I wasn't all that familiar with them and didn't consider it all that important but reading up on it I noted that by the time the war started they did have at least a rudimentary TDS. Not that that would be all that expected or required in a refit or relevant to my position although it does tend to weaken yours a bit more if that's possible.
"Rudimentary", like a torpedo net?
Maybe one of these ships had added bulges, but I am pretty positive no TDS were standard on these ships. They were easy torpedo meat.[/quote]
And you accuse me of ignorance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangut_class_battleship
... Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya was the next ship to rebuilt and profited from the experiences of her sister's modernization between 1931 and 1934. .... The space saved was used to add another inboard longitudinal watertight bulkhead that greatly improved her underwater protection.
...
Parizhskaya Kommuna ... was returned to the dockyard from December 1939 through July 1940 to receive a new armored deck and anti-torpedo bulges which cured her stability problems and greatly increased her underwater protection at a modest cost in speed
I told you what irritated me in your posts. I am ready to give you the benefit of the doubt for now, but once again if you mess with the bull...
... the horns!
Again with the threats. You should realize that it does more damage to your credibility than it does any good. If you can't site specifics then it's not clear whether you misinterpreted something or I did indeed step over the line or perhaps you just have too thin a skin.
Pandora
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:40 pm

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

Post by Pandora »

lwd wrote:
Pandora wrote:
lwd wrote:4) TDS for the twins not for the Panzershiffe
source please. otherwise strawman! :D
Are you questioning whether or not the twins had a TDS?
Or are you questioning whether or not the Panzershiffe had a TDS?
In either case hardly a strawman. If I'm wrong and the Panzershiffe did have a TDS then that's a simple error of fact. As for the twins their TDS has been discussed on this board a number of times.
if you knew the panzerschiffe had a TDS it is a strawman.
if you didnt know then if shows a lack of knowledge.
either way you used a wrong fact to refute others arguments and it is not the only one.
Post Reply