Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: borner

yes, no BC's were finished after HMS Hood, until the eve of WWII, but can you imagine how beautiful the LExington cless woudl have been?

Those ships were far more useful as CV's than they ever would have been as BC's. IIRC their armor was too thin to allow them to engage battleships, and while they were fast they were also enormous targets.

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

ORIGINAL: borner

yes, no BC's were finished after HMS Hood, until the eve of WWII, but can you imagine how beautiful the LExington cless woudl have been?

Those ships were far more useful as CV's than they ever would have been as BC's. IIRC their armor was too thin to allow them to engage battleships, and while they were fast they were also enormous targets.

They also took over much of the battlecruiser mission.

ORIGINAL: borner

yes, no BC's were finished after HMS Hood, until the eve of WWII, but can you imagine how beautiful the LExington cless woudl have been?

Especially if the original design had been built, with its seven stacks and half the boilers in an armored box on the upper deck [:D].

Seriously, hadn't they achieved significant improvement in the way of boiler construction, those ships would have better remained stillborn.

I still go with the Alaska's..  ok, money on the table.. you have a TF of 3 CA's attacking your transports, and you have one BC to protect what do you take????  And i think my earlier point is still valid, of all the ships, which one could sail with TF 58/38?  Just one...  You think the Kongos could have contribuited?  2  Fletchers have a better aa set then them..  the germans couldn't sail for 3 days with them without breaking down.. I personally like the Renown, and with her refit, she could have hung in there the best - but on her side she was built in 1916...  really the test is which ship could have hung in there with the best naval force in the war- which is tf 58/38...  Answer- Alaska

Best in Class....    I would say the   'Panzer V Panther'    [:D]

Didn't the Alaskas have a persistent problem with a 12" gun wide sheath? Inability to fire tight salvos would work against radar advantages, etc.

Nevermind that it was a logistical problem as it would be the only ship in the fast CVTF using the 12" round.

If a ship in a fast CV TF is using their large caliber ammunition, something has gone seriously wrong.

Bill

Aye, but if things have gone THAT wrong then one would most assuredly want the ship to be able to acquit itself well. I think the Alaska weren't the most efficient way to get AAA power into a fast CV TF BUT they were designed at a time when surface/night attack by enemy BBs, CAs, CLs and DDs was very much feared and so for their designed role they were excellent. For the realities which prevailed they were most assuredly less well suited but that's the way of things.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Aye, but if things have gone THAT wrong then one would most assuredly want the ship to be able to acquit itself well. I think the Alaska weren't the most efficient way to get AAA power into a fast CV TF BUT they were designed at a time when surface/night attack by enemy BBs, CAs, CLs and DDs was very much feared and so for their designed role they were excellent. For the realities which prevailed they were most assuredly less well suited but that's the way of things.

I'm not sure a SAG attack wasn't a threat in 1944-45. The Battle of Leyte Gulf comes to mind. The key number was 200 nautical miles, the distance a SAG could attack from at night and return back. See either edition of Hughes. In 1944, the American fast battleships were task organised for offensive night battle if the Japanese CVTFs were that close at nightfall.

No there is a what if.....   As in the US Fast BB's, or at least some of them, had been left behind to guard the straights instead of charging north with the carriers.

ORIGINAL: borner

No there is a what if.....   As in the US Fast BB's, or at least some of them, had been left behind to guard the straights instead of charging north with the carriers.

Agreed