>Fast>Battleship sized guns>Able to tackle anything up to a battleship >able to run from a battleship Alaska was a battle cruiser.
>>62083914Also the big one>Meant to kill enemy cruisers
>>62083914But she's great
>>62083914>designed as cruiser>treated as cruiser>designated as a cruiserUnrestricted [from Washington Naval Treaty] Cruiser is a much better definition. By the time the Alaskas were launched the Iowas were already in service. Fast battleships had replaced the concept of battlecruisers in the US navy. If the Alaskas had been built 20 years earlier than sure they would have been battlecruisers.also heavy cruisers are also meant to sink other cruisers
>>62083914>Battleship sized gunsAside from the G-wagon and Scharhorst battleships stopped using 12-inch guns 30 years before the Alaska was built. It was the logical result of a post treaty cruiser.
>>62084038Battlecruisers pre-date the Washington Naval Treaty and come from the pre-Great War era of unrestricted naval expansion
>>62083914Battle cruisers have the same or very similar main battery to contemporary battleships and higher speed.Alaska's main battery was a set of exceptionally good 12 inch guns, but to be Battle Cruisers they should have shared the 16" L/50 or L/45 guns of contemporary BBs like the NCs, Iowas and South Dakotas. Also their speed was Identical to the Iowas, which pre-dated them. n Order to be a Battlecruiser a ship must be equivalent or superior to contemporary battleships in some respect. The Alaska class was inferior to the Iowas Class BBs, their direct contemporary, In every respect. Thus they are Cruisers, Large, powerful Cruisers, not battleships.The Argument could much more convincingly be made that the Iowas themselves were in fact battle cruisers, given that their original design was intended as a fleet carrier escort and cruiser hunter, which is the role of a battle cruiser, and that the USN by the time WW2 had broken out had largely abandoned the idea of building true battleships. If the Montana's had been built they would have been starkly contrasted the Iowas in balance of speed, protection and firepower, clearly placing the Iowas as BCs to the Montana's BB.
>>62084038But the original Invincibles were conceptualized the same way as the Alaskas were; not as a battleship-only-lighter but as a cruiser-with-overmatch.
>>62084122They were also built at the same size as contemporary dreadnaughts, with similar armament, and were faster than said dreadnoughts. The Alaskas had none of that.
>>62084082yes, and?
>>62083914>12 inch guns>battleship sized gunsMaybe WW1 battleships.
Hey retards, ship designations don't matter.
Hey frens, ship designations matter.
hey ukrainians, buttsex in my butt matter
>>62083914>There's a timeline where the Alaskas got finished quicker and were able to fulfill their divine purpose of seal-clubbing Japanese cruisers in the Solomons. >We're in a different timeline. Pain.
>>62083914Get fucked, troll.
>>62084108No. Fast battleships are battleships.
>>62085170They would be sunk by Japanese torpedoes like every other US/ Allied cruiser because they had cruiser torpedo protection, not the deep multiple bulkheads battleships had.
>>62083914>>Battleship sized gunsLolno.
>>62085615>the deep multiple bulkheads battleships h...ACK!http://web.archive.org/web/20190116045339/http://www.ghe101library.com/non-fiction-articles/iron-ladies-with-glass-skirts-final
>who caresbest looking all-gun capital ship class ever conceived or constructed ftw
>>62088768
>>62085960This doesn't make Alaska's already-anemic-by-cruiser-standards protection any better.
What even was the point of the Alaska class?>guns that would kill cruisers but ping battleships or battlecruisers>pathetic armor>capable of doing the job of 1.5 Omaha class cruisers at 5 times the displacement and cost
How would they have matched up against the Kongos? Assuming it’s not night time. And man, I wish one was still around,they’re so nice looking. Come to think of it, not that many “armored cruiser” type ships are left, we’ve got Olympia, Georgios Averof, and I think that’s it? I’m considering the ww2 heavy cruisers more of an evolution of the protected cruise concept.
>>62089473>How would they have matched up against the Kongos? Burning Love!
>>62083914Alaska wasn't a battle cruiser.Iowa was
>>62084539that was the last time the battle cruiser doctrine was updated so yes.
>>62089634alaska was huge, if it's not a battle cruiser iowa most certainly is.
>>62084108>BCs*CCsftfy ignorant kid
>>62089459Clean sweeping the Japanese cruiser force.
>>62090963>CA - Heavy Cruiser>CB - Large Cruiser>CC - Battlecruiser>CD - ?
>>62091161CV - Cruiser Voler
>>62084082I miss Pre-Great War era unrestricted naval expansion.
Cruiser/battlecruiser/battleship designations are more than just gun & armor measurements, they are based on the doctrine and role the ship will perform. Depending on who you ask, the Bismarck is a both a battlecruiser and a battleship, or some donut steel nomenclature like pocket-battleship.
>>62091161>Double Cruiser
>>62089459Didnt they cost as much as a full sized Iowa?
>>62083914All fast battleships were battlecruisers. The only difference is the dates they were laid down before the title change.
>>62091948Is this even superfiring? Won't the 2nd gun shoot off the antenna/tower structure on the 1st gun?
>>62091161Technically CA stands for "Armored Cruiser".
>>62091783>cost as muchprobably not but, after Dec 1941 everything became very resource intensive, both Alaska and Iowa class gunboats were large hulls requiring lots of steel that could be going into fleet carriers. It's why these classes were cut short (and the Montanas never built either) especially after the key naval battles of 1942
>>62092310I don't remember the fire arcs for Kongo's main battery but not all ships fired directly over their bows/ sterns. The turret FCS likely had some sort of interrupter to prevent it from firing in that part of the arc.
>>62089473> I’m considering the ww2 heavy cruisers more of an evolution of the protected cruise concept.Literally the exact opposite.
>>62089459> What even was the point of the Alaska class?Diddle the super cruisers the USN thought Japan was building.
>>62084122Original Invincibles were super cruisers with battleship guns. And it was very important to have battleship guns in their concept. Because besides overmatch against enemy cruisers these guns allowed battlecrusiers to participate in battleship combat with great effect.This dual role was very important from the beginning, because these ships ended been as expensive as battleships, able to replace (at least partially) battleships in combat was important to get your money worth.12" guns in 1939, sorry, don't cut into battleships.
