Posted on Jul 12, 2021
These cruisers were really a pair of mini-battleships - We Are The Mighty
76.5K
7
12
3
3
0
The Alaska-class cruisers are often seen as a waste of resources. At first glance, it is easy to see why. The United States only completed two out of the six planned vessels. One more was launched, but never finished. All three that managed to reach the water were quickly in reserve and then scrapped. But these ships were quite an achievement – a mini-battleship that gave good service during their brief careers...
These cruisers were really a pair of mini-battleships - We Are The Mighty
Posted from wearethemighty.comPosted in these groups: 
We Are The Mighty
We Are The Mighty
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
..."Much of the issue was timing. According to data in Volume Fifteen of Samuel Eliot Morison’s History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, “Supplement and General Index,” the lead ship, USS Alaska (CB 1) was not commissioned until June 17, 1944, 11 days after the D-Day landings. The second ship, USS Guam (CB 2), was commissioned on Sept. 17, 1944. These ships didn’t have much left to fight by the time they got to the front lines.
Their primary purpose was to kill Japan’s heavy cruisers in a surface action. The Japanese had three classes of heavy cruiser intended for front-line service: The Myoko, Takao, and Mogami classes each packed ten eight-inch guns, and at least 12 610mm torpedo tubes for the Type 93 Long Lance torpedo."
..."Much of the issue was timing. According to data in Volume Fifteen of Samuel Eliot Morison’s History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, “Supplement and General Index,” the lead ship, USS Alaska (CB 1) was not commissioned until June 17, 1944, 11 days after the D-Day landings. The second ship, USS Guam (CB 2), was commissioned on Sept. 17, 1944. These ships didn’t have much left to fight by the time they got to the front lines.
Their primary purpose was to kill Japan’s heavy cruisers in a surface action. The Japanese had three classes of heavy cruiser intended for front-line service: The Myoko, Takao, and Mogami classes each packed ten eight-inch guns, and at least 12 610mm torpedo tubes for the Type 93 Long Lance torpedo."
(2)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
SGT (Join to see) The were Cool while they Lasted but Like the Nuclear Cruisers I Served on they were Never "Cost Effective"
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
LT Mike McLeish Sr
Not really. Battle Cruisers like the HMS Hood had battleship-caliber main battery (15"), but sacrificed some of the armor of a battleship to give it the speed of a cruiser. The Alaska Class did not have a battleship-caliber main battery, but a unique 12" intermediate size half-way between a heavy cruiser's 8" and a battleship's 16". The Alaska class would be more closely compared to the German Admiral Graf Spee, armed with 11" main battery that the British coined a "pocket battleship", as compared to the Bismarck's 15" main battery.
(0)
(0)
LTC Gene Moser
IIRC the Arizona had a main battery of 12 inch. I think the North Carolina had 14 inch.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Arthur Sevigny
LTC Gene Moser - North Carolinas: BB-26 (1910) had 12 Inch main armament, BB-47 was to have 16 inch but was scrapped in 1923 before completion and BB-55 (1941) had 16 inch main armament. Although, BB-55 I beleive was originally designed to have twelve 14 inch but the 1926 naval treaty allowed it to be changed to nine 16 inch.
(0)
(0)
Jeff Morfit
Odd that 12" guns were chosen for this class of warship when by this time the only US Dreadnought that still had 12-inchers was USS Arkansas. Would 14" have been better since there were still a number of battleships already in service with this caliber?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google