Now that the dust has settled, were they battlecruisers or not?
>>61976118no, they were large cruisers, like Graf Spee.Battlecruisers share a main battery with their contemporary battleship, the contemporary battleships for the Alaskas were South Dakota/North Carolina/Iowa classes and those all had 16 inch/L45 or 50 guns. Alaskas had 12 inch guns.They were super heavy cruisers. Drachinifel has a fairly exhaustive video going into more detail. The Alaskas basically do not fulfill any of the "Battlecruiser" type requirements. They were not faster than the Iowa BBs, They were not armored much more than a cruiser with only a 9 inch belt that a real BB shell would have punched through easily. Theres no reality in which they fought in the Battleship part of a battle line. They would have lead cruiser formations in gun fights.
>>61976118No. Contemporary battleships were being built with 14 to 18 inch guns, and battlecruisers are usually designed match battleships in firepower at the expense of armor. They are just a logical evolution of cruisers that weren't limited by the naval treaties o 6 inch and 8 inch guns.
>>61977065>>61977261>Battlecruisers share a main battery with their contemporary battleshipThat's literally just a rule Drachinifel made up because he doesn't like the Alaskas. Besides, the Scharnhorsts are contemporary battleships and had smaller guns. Yes they are Battlecruisers in the purest sense. 12inch guns have always been considered capital ship class weapons and they were developed with a similar intent and purpose as the original Battlecruisers. They weren't called Battlecruisers for optics reasons. The navy didn't want to be seen commissioning ships of an "obsolete" type. So they invented a new name for them.
>>61976118>>61977065>no, they were large cruisers, like Graf Spee/thread>>61977335>That's literally just a rule Drachinifel made uphe's a boring twat but he's rightthe definition of a battleship must change with the eraotherwise you might as well go ahead and call Alaska a battleship outright, since it roughly matches Dreadnought in calibre and belt armour
>>61977335>That's literally just a rule Drachinifel made upThat's not a rule he made up though. Other Naval Historians have noted the same thing because it's what actually happened.
>>61976118Yes, they were battlecruisers and while "Alaska class" is a reasonably cool name, the U.S. Navy really shouldn't be allowed to name classes of ships or individual ships, they're generally just bad at it. Let the Brits name our ships.
>>61977335>That's literally just a rule Drachinifel made upFuckin' strange how I've managed to hear that years before he made videos.
>>61977065But also, from a design standpoint, they were embittered cruisers. Their machinery spaces were laid out like heavy cruisers, and they only had one rudder just like cruisers
>>61976118it's a battledestroyer
>>61977913>Let the Brits name our ships.>Gay Viking>Gay Archeretc
>>61976118No. Merely being bigger than other cruisers isn't the definition of a battlecruiser.
>>61978108>embittered cruisersYou will never be a real battlecruiser. You have no battleship-calibre guns, you have no battleship armor belt, you have no torpedo bulge. You are an overgrown cruiser twisted by admirals and Congressmen into a crude mockery of Hood’s perfection. All the “naval analysis” you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back WOWS gamers mock you. Your US Navy is disgusted and ashamed of you, your “friends” Seydlitz and Derfflinger laugh at your ghoulish appearance behind dogged hatches. Sailors are utterly repulsed by you. Thousands of years of evolution have allowed sailors to sniff out frauds with incredible efficiency. Even large cruisers who “pass” look uncanny and unnatural to a sailor. Your centerline secondary 5" is a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to get a drunk admiral home with you, he’ll turn tail and bolt the second he gets a whiff of your lonely, pathetic single rudder.
>>61977913>t. Gay Bruiser
>>61979046>WOWS gamers mock youalaska is super busted in WoWS, being one of the ships that they removed from purchase because of that
>>61977913>>61978490>>61979190>> be America> build cool ships> give them lame boring namesUSS Random TownUSS Literal WhoUSS Gabriel fucking GiffordsHMS VengeanceHMS AudaciousHMS DragonHMS Iron DukeHMS DaggerHMS RaiderHMS Puncher
>>61977913Capital ships ie: carriers and LHD's should be named after states. This is based and trad and you can't dispute it.
>>61980496>Not wanting USS Houston, Tallahassee etc. Why? Name them after cities and crew them with people from roughly that area (as much as possible) and you'll get ships with an espirit de corps.
>>61980546What if the crew isn't from Houston?
>>61980579They get to think about how lucky they are.
>>61978108>Their machinery spaces were laid out like heavy cruisersThis is the most under-looked aspect of determining ship class.
>>61979666They still haven't removed the stalingrad which is waaay more op than the alaska
>>61980610Of course they didn't. It's Russian after all.
>>61977335>ScharnhorstsThese were supposed to have 15" guns though originally.
>>61980496Overall I agree. But the Brits also had HMS Pansy for example as well.
>>61980496Honoring places and people is cooler than edgy teenager names.
>>61980496HMS royal sovereignHMS IndefatigableHMS ColossusHMS ThundererHMS Centurion HMS WarspiteHMS LionThe boys across the pond were cooking
> USS Mike Mulaney “Mikey Mo” “Rusty Mikey” (Pinkassquassett Class)Vs>HMS Antidisestablishmentarianist “Auntie Dissy” (Warcreep Class)
Anyone have that quote about how Japanese ships would be named "Imperial Dawn" and be one of three ships built, whereas Americans ships would be named like USS Built Last Week and were apart of a class of dozens of ships.
>>61980533Our biggest hitters (based on their own weaponry) have traditionally been named after states. At first it was battleships. Now it is our nuke subs. A battleship could level a city in a few hours. A boomer sub can level multiple cities in one salvo.Carriers should be named after famous battles or historical ships.
>>61981613Found it.
>>6197855311" + make it BC
>>61982505got it
>>61980533>carriersyou have a point there>LHDsI like the battles theme we got going>>61981668Carriers are even more exclusive and expensive than SSBNs, there's no reason why they shouldn't be named after states either theoretically
>>61982505Behold! A battlecruiser!
>>61981376HMS Gay Bruiser
>This thread was brought to you by>World of Warships!>Join now and receive 3 days Premium Access for free!
>>61981376I am 12 years old and agree these names are very badass!(note to Jannies I am not 12 years old)
>>61984218A ship built around a single fuckhuge gun will always be sexy.
>>61981307>supposed toThat means nothing though.
