Alaska vs Kongo

[MineSweeper]

It would be close....but superior gun control and speed would most likely favor the US ship [;)]

but those 14" guns could hurt her

[tocaff]

The Alaska was considered a cruiser, hence the CB-1 nomenclature. The class was large cruisers, not BCs.

That being said modern fire control vs a WWI design, even though it was upgraded would make things rough on the Japanese IMHO.

[MineSweeper]

Yep...the Alaska's were consisidered Large Crusiers.....still would be an intresting fight.

Same old debate....[:D]Scharnhorst/Alaska/Kongo....Fast Battleships/Large Cruisers/Battlecrusiers

[btbw]

Alaska can kill a Kongo because Kongo it Battlecruiser class with very low deck armor.

[1EyedJacks]

Murphy rules. It could go either way with one ill-placed shell hit.

TTFN,

Mike

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Murphy rules. It could go either way with one ill-placed shell hit.

TTFN,

Mike

I agree, but I would still choose to ride in the Alaska .. I think the odds are with her getting the 'lucky' shot in first ...

[Biggus63]

Used to play 'Action Stations' a lot and never really liked the Alaska or Scharnhorst Vs stuff with really big guns. If the conditions favoured a close range engagement the smaller gunned ships seemed to have most success starting uncontrollable top side fires, and given their relatively high rate of fire could sometimes win without taking more than a couple of hits. At longer ranges the big guns almost always came out on top. Granted, Kongo is rather fragile but there's an awful lot of difference between an 11" and a 14" shell at the hurting end of things. Likely it would go either way on pure luck of the draw. The whole Battlecruiser idea doesn't really work once air power becomes a serious factor in war. True also of full blown battlewagons, but it's hard to find a valid role for a BC. Prior to air power's rise they were perfect for long distance commerce raiding but that job passed to subs with the advent of convoys and the carrier. As someone above noted, it's always been a vexed question of precisely what to do with a BC, and the US building two so late in the war has always struck me as akin to designing a screwdriver that fits no known design of screw. Pretty ships, but what to do with them?

[Fallschirmjager]

Prior to being finished the 12" turrets should have been stripped off both and they should have been given 18-24 5" guns and made into large AA cruisers.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Murphy rules. It could go either way with one ill-placed shell hit.

TTFN,

Mike

The Hood for instance, particularly with little deck armor or with only half deck armor as in her case.

[btbw]

ORIGINAL: Biggus63

If the conditions favoured a close range engagement the smaller gunned ships seemed to have most success starting uncontrollable top side fires, and given their relatively high rate of fire could sometimes win without taking more than a couple of hits. At longer ranges the big guns almost always came out on top.

Alaska should stay in a long range distance for use her equal armor on that range.
Closing distance make almost any shell from Kongo deadly but for Kongo will work then mostly belt armor.
P.S. Interesting if CB-1 had recommended solution for situation when meet Kongo.

[Biggus63]

ORIGINAL: btbw

ORIGINAL: Biggus63

If the conditions favoured a close range engagement the smaller gunned ships seemed to have most success starting uncontrollable top side fires, and given their relatively high rate of fire could sometimes win without taking more than a couple of hits. At longer ranges the big guns almost always came out on top.

Alaska should stay in a long range distance for use her equal armor on that range.
Closing distance make almost any shell from Kongo deadly but for Kongo will work then mostly belt armor.
P.S. Interesting if CB-1 had recommended solution for situation when meet Kongo.

As I said, all I can go by is what I experienced in 'Action Stations' and I set up numerous 'what if' scenarios with the Alaska expecting great things since from memory it's guns had a particularly high accuracy rating but at range I usually found it getting hurt faster than it handed it out. Sure, it beat the crap out of CAs but the main guns didn't seem to perform in scenarios as their raw data suggested they should.

[TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Biggus63

Used to play 'Action Stations' a lot and never really liked the Alaska or Scharnhorst Vs stuff with really big guns. If the conditions favoured a close range engagement the smaller gunned ships seemed to have most success starting uncontrollable top side fires, and given their relatively high rate of fire could sometimes win without taking more than a couple of hits. At longer ranges the big guns almost always came out on top. Granted, Kongo is rather fragile but there's an awful lot of difference between an 11" and a 14" shell at the hurting end of things. Likely it would go either way on pure luck of the draw. The whole Battlecruiser idea doesn't really work once air power becomes a serious factor in war. True also of full blown battlewagons, but it's hard to find a valid role for a BC. Prior to air power's rise they were perfect for long distance commerce raiding but that job passed to subs with the advent of convoys and the carrier. As someone above noted, it's always been a vexed question of precisely what to do with a BC, and the US building two so late in the war has always struck me as akin to designing a screwdriver that fits no known design of screw. Pretty ships, but what to do with them?

I could see BCs as being fast enough to stick with and escort the carriers, whereas many BBs would have been unable to. In this role though, they'd need to make sure they packed a considerable amount of AA firepower.

[LowCommand]

From Wikipedia

The idea for a large cruiser class originated in the early 1930s, when the U.S. Navy wanted a counter to the "pocket battleships" (Deutschland class) that were being launched and commissioned by Germany. Though nothing resulted immediately, planning for ships that eventually evolved into the Alaska class began in the later 1930s after the deployment of Germany's Scharnhorst class and rumors that Japan was constructing a new battlecruiser class.[7][A 7] The Alaska class were intended to serve as "cruiser-killers", capable of seeking out and destroying these post-Treaty heavy cruisers. To facilitate their purpose, the class was given large guns of a new and expensive design, limited armor protection against 12-inch shells, and machinery capable of speeds of about 31–33 knots (36–38 mph, 58–61 km/h).

The initial impetus for the design of the Alaska class came from the deployments of the so-called pocket battleships in the early 1930s. Though no actions were taken immediately, plans were revived in the late 1930s when intelligence reports indicated Japan was planning or building "super cruisers" which were much more powerful than U.S. heavy cruisers.[3][6][11][13][A 8] The navy responded in 1938, when a request from the General Board was sent to the Bureau of Construction and Repair for a "comprehensive study of all types of naval vessels for consideration for a new and expanded building program".[14] The U.S. President at the time, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, may have taken a lead role in the development of the class with his desire to have a counter to raiding abilities of Japanese cruisers and German pocket battleships,[15] which had led to them being called "politically motivated",[16] but these claims are difficult to verify.[6][17]

From me:

The Alaska class were intended as an answer for the Mogami class in something like the Battle of The River Plate. And I did try this in Action Stations and a few variations. It's been a many years, but I tried three Mogami's against Alaska and Alaska easily won. I also tried a few other possible situations. North Carolina vs Bismarck, NC wins (It could have happened, they were once in pretty much the same place and time). This one is hazy, but I think I tried the three Brit ships vs CA Wichita and Wichita won. And pretty much any two appropriate US CA’s or CL will beat a “Pocket Battleship.” It doesn’t help the German ships that they got the inferior 11” guns. The Scharnhorst class got a much better version.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

The Alaska was considered a cruiser, hence the CB-1 nomenclature. The class was large cruisers, not BCs.

That being said modern fire control vs a WWI design, even though it was upgraded would make things rough on the Japanese IMHO.

Alaska had all the qualifications to allow her to be labeled a BC. [:)]. However in the end its not the label that matters.....its the capabilities. By latewar, US FC had an edge however this edge's impact would be dependant on the conditions of the battle. A nighttime battle or one of very limited visibility would give Alaska a huge edge. A good visibility daylight battle would make the battle much closer. There was nothing wrong with Japanese optics and FC if they could spot the target and optical spotting remained the most accurate vs. say, Blindfire.

If one really wants a good laugh, one should read Richard Worth's little trist about the Battlecruiser. He made a amusing argument about the "record" of BC's vs BB's.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

This one Nik?


Thunder in Its Courses: Essays on the Battlecruiser
by Richard Worth

http://www.amazon.com/Thunder-its-Cours ... 1608881016


Leo "Apollo11"

[Nikademus]

That be it.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: MineSweeper
Same old debate....[:D]Scharnhorst/Alaska/Kongo....Fast Battleships/Large Cruisers/Battlecrusiers

Maybe we need a new type designation: BBL - light battleship [:D]

[Rising-Sun]

My opinion would be the Alaska, because of radar-fire control of that time when she was launched for sea. Now her crews maybe raw but, it would be close call if Kongo made few perfect shots to outgun Alaska. In bad weather or night, Alaska would own her no doubt.