IJN Amagi VS. USS Alaska
- Thread starter USS_Ward
- Start date
Amagi would indeed have had AoN. Her designer, Yuzuru Hiraga, tended to favour long, fine ships with as short a citadel as possible, with the heaviest guns that could be obtained, in 4-5 twin turrets.
SsgtC
Banned
Alaska's only chance is a long range engagement where she can maximize the advantage of her superior fire control. Conversely, if she takes a hit at long range from a 16" shell, she's screwed because that shell will punch right though her armor. But it's at least low odds of her taking that hit.
Last edited:
Please stop My Parts can only become so Rampant!And I want to pick the modernized G3.......
McPherson
Banned
The opposing Rikkos (AirSols TF 63 Aubrey Fitch and the 4th Fleet base force IJNAS) sink these rejects as part of a fiasco like the Battle of Santa Cruz Islands.
No With hindsight I want all the guns forward like N&R but with C super firing so at high angle or at say 30deg off the bow all of them can fire during the chase, then swap out all the secondary guns for DP 4.5" (or 4.7" with separate ammo) and lots of 40mm.......Aside from the questionable propulsion arrangements I LIKE the G3.
So if they are both slicing through armour which has the larger explosive charge?
APC Type 91: 32.8 lbs. (14.89 kg) v AP Mark 18 - 17.4 lbs. (7.9 kg) Explosive D
McPherson
Banned
American fuses were better. Proof? Second Guadalcanal. Several Japanese Shells 8" and 14" (duds) hit and BOUNCED off USS South Dakota or failed to explode at impact. By sharp contrast USS San Francisco in the previous battle of First Guadalcanal, put many 8" shells into HIJMS Hei, some which punched into her main belt and did good work. I point out that both ships in that slugfest were reduced to floating wrecks. BUT... USS San Francisco survived and limped home to be rebuilt and sent back to rejoin the fleet. What happened to Hei? Crippled and sinking and unable to get home. AirSols finished killing her.
There is NO GUARANTEE that HIJMS Amagi would survive in a major fleet battle with USS Alaska. The evidence would in fact suggest that in a close ranged gun melee, it all depends on the men aboard, the damage control training they have and who rules the air in the aftermath of a surface gun action.
Hence:
First and Second Guadalcanal were rounds 2 and 3 of the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands... remember?
If we take the B-65 Class, it's a much closer run thing:
Size:
B-65: 808' × 89' ×~29', ~31 500 tons standard ~35 000 t full
Alaska: 808' × 91'×~29' ~30 000 t standard, ~34 000 t full
Speed:
B-65: Projected at 33-34 kn
Alaska: 33 kn
Main Armament:
B-65: 3×3 12.2" guns
Alaska: 3×3 12" guns
Main Belt:
B-65: 7.5"
Alaska : 9"
Endurance at Cruise:
B-65: 8000 nmi @ 18kn
Alaska: 14 000 nmi @ 15kn
It really comes down to who hits first, but with better radar, advantage Alaska
I agree and I think the biggest "depends" is when and what state the ships are in?
Ie obviously Amagi is ready first so does it get to fight Alaska in a POW at Denmark straight like state not fully worked up and acting like its still peacetime or at the other end is Alaska finishing off Amagi off Japan in 45 when its crew have not sailed or fired the main guns for lack of oil for a year, have been kept awake by air attack for days and know its a suicide mission?
I think the only way is to go with the best each ship could be and then simply accept that we are talking about something that could easily be decided by many small changes on the day and that any fight is still only really 25%-40% v 60-75% chance to win?
McPherson
Banned
Sidebar. Then back to lessons learned and applied to Alaska.
That is an interesting comparison. The South Dakota was not worked up when she fought at Second Guadalcanal in a meeting engagement. The comparison to Denmark Strait has occurred to me on occasion, but I never thought about a South Dakota/Washington switch to that scenario to a logical conclusion in the absence of the decisive air component. Lee and his crews were better than Holland and his crews in gunnery and maneuver, but that still does not mean SoDak gets out alive. Abe was decently competent and Kondo was "average" as admirals in their surface gun actions; so there is a major quality upgrade on the enemy leadership side. Lutjens and Lindemann, it could be argued, were at loggerheads and not too good at Denmark Strait; either in their merge tactics or in the aftermath in letting PoW escape. Ship-handling for such small actions counts for so much. Like Constitution and Guerriere, ya know? Lee would have murdered Lutjens in the midst of the German confusion.
Lessons learned applied.
a. the Japanese can shoot extremely well. So could the Germans.
b. their guns while powerful, threw defective shells (as did the German naval artillery.).
c. admirals do matter. Japanese admirals seemed to have been more trained than German ones though William Marschall was no slouch.
d. men matter more than ships; if the ships survive long enough to get their shots in. Trained men especially for Hei was a tough kill. Her crew fought to the death in the aftermath. Kirishima, with her dud crew of rejects, by contrast, sort of threw in the towel after being hit less hard than the SoDak. Note how hard Bismarck fought and yet how quickly her morale factors caused her to die when cornered?
e. based on d. DESIGN actually matters, but not in the way one thinks. SoDak and Washington wore thinner armor than PoW, and were kind of like Hood that way; but were more survivable than PoW and Hood once hit. That kind of goes to a FRENCH philosophy of beam (side to side in a ship) compartmentation as opposed to Anglo-Japanese length (bow to stern transverse) compartmentation. When Japanese ships flooded they LEANED OVER instead of settled evenly. Americans took advantage of that known defect. Oddly the Japanese did, too, against the British. How that applies to Bismarck is that she wore lots of armor and had an excellent float bubble, too, but was quick and easy to kill because her internal layout was "defective" in that her protection scheme did not protect the float bubble or her internal control systems.
f. chance matters. One shot kills did in Hood and PoW. Hei and Kirishima had to be bludgeoned. Bismarck was bludgeoned; but a one shot mission-killed her before Rodney ever did. SoDak was swiss-cheesed and took an electrical own goal in addition; because of an incompetent damage control mistake. "Luck" is a Bismarck attribute that many people claim looks out for Americans, it seems; but maybe training, a bit of forethought and the factors a to e. explain these outcomes better?
So, in any fight between Amagi and Alaska, one has to determine who leads, how well are the crews trained, who did due diligence on the ammunition and ship design, who else is invited to the party and where and when is that party held?
Based on the above? (^^^)
I think
That is an interesting comparison. The South Dakota was not worked up when she fought at Second Guadalcanal in a meeting engagement. The comparison to Denmark Strait has occurred to me on occasion, but I never thought about a South Dakota/Washington switch to that scenario to a logical conclusion in the absence of the decisive air component. Lee and his crews were better than Holland and his crews in gunnery and maneuver, but that still does not mean SoDak gets out alive. Abe was decently competent and Kondo was "average" as admirals in their surface gun actions; so there is a major quality upgrade on the enemy leadership side. Lutjens and Lindemann, it could be argued, were at loggerheads and not too good at Denmark Strait; either in their merge tactics or in the aftermath in letting PoW escape. Ship-handling for such small actions counts for so much. Like Constitution and Guerriere, ya know? Lee would have murdered Lutjens in the midst of the German confusion.
Lessons learned applied.
a. the Japanese can shoot extremely well. So could the Germans.
b. their guns while powerful, threw defective shells (as did the German naval artillery.).
c. admirals do matter. Japanese admirals seemed to have been more trained than German ones though William Marschall was no slouch.
d. men matter more than ships; if the ships survive long enough to get their shots in. Trained men especially for Hei was a tough kill. Her crew fought to the death in the aftermath. Kirishima, with her dud crew of rejects, by contrast, sort of threw in the towel after being hit less hard than the SoDak. Note how hard Bismarck fought and yet how quickly her morale factors caused her to die when cornered?
e. based on d. DESIGN actually matters, but not in the way one thinks. SoDak and Washington wore thinner armor than PoW, and were kind of like Hood that way; but were more survivable than PoW and Hood once hit. That kind of goes to a FRENCH philosophy of beam (side to side in a ship) compartmentation as opposed to Anglo-Japanese length (bow to stern transverse) compartmentation. When Japanese ships flooded they LEANED OVER instead of settled evenly. Americans took advantage of that known defect. Oddly the Japanese did, too, against the British. How that applies to Bismarck is that she wore lots of armor and had an excellent float bubble, too, but was quick and easy to kill because her internal layout was "defective" in that her protection scheme did not protect the float bubble or her internal control systems.
f. chance matters. One shot kills did in Hood and PoW. Hei and Kirishima had to be bludgeoned. Bismarck was bludgeoned; but a one shot mission-killed her before Rodney ever did. SoDak was swiss-cheesed and took an electrical own goal in addition; because of an incompetent damage control mistake. "Luck" is a Bismarck attribute that many people claim looks out for Americans, it seems; but maybe training, a bit of forethought and the factors a to e. explain these outcomes better?
So, in any fight between Amagi and Alaska, one has to determine who leads, how well are the crews trained, who did due diligence on the ammunition and ship design, who else is invited to the party and where and when is that party held?
Based on the above? (^^^)
I think
I put my money on the Japanese before April 1943 and on the Americans AFTER April 1943. Once the Japanese have the Souvenir of Guadalcanal, they are no damned good aside from Tanaka and Ozawa and THEY KNOW IT.
Last edited:
Per OP though, this is a 1-on-1 ship match on open water, with ships fully worked up and with seasoned crews, clean bottoms and full magazines, and, for the purposes of the discussion, are too far from a carrier or friendly naval air station to call in aircraft.
McPherson
Banned
I am not a fan of unrealistic ATL setups. Systems of systems is the way things usually work in peace and war. That is the way these things, the Amagi and the Alaska, are supposed to be used and that is how they were designed. The situations, as to where and when, and how they meet, ought to meet the norms of their use intended.