IJN Amagi VS. USS Alaska
- Thread starter USS_Ward
- Start date
An Essex powerplant and a single rudder, giving a turning circle wider than anything else in the fleet, at 800 yd minimum!
As I've said MANY times, the idiots responsible for the class' design should have been cashiered.
Ah, that is much better.
All this previous semi positivity about the Alaska class was causing a severe allergic reaction.
SsgtC
Banned
The Alaska class gives everyone indigestion. Mainly because the concept, when they were first proposed, was sound. There basic design was also pretty solid. But when you start digging down into the details, you start finding more and more problems. Like trying to figure out what genius thought a 35k ton ship with 4 shafts only needed a single rudder. Or the utter lack of a Torpedo Defense System. Then there's the fact that the entire concept was OBE and rendered obsolete before they even launched. It's a confusing mess of the excellent (her main battery) and the awful (her maneuverability).
The gun deserved a better ship.
The 12"/50 Mark 8 was one of the best naval rifles every designed. Very impressive range, extremely good armor penetration (spectacular when you look at deck penetration, which was the most critical element once radar came along) and a mount with an impressive train and elevation rate.
The gun 12" cost more than the 16"....... it deserved to be objected to by the accounts department and never leave the drawing board....
By 1939 the designers should have realized that 12" guns are not a good use of design staff as well, thankfully USA was sufficiently rich to get away with building useless stuff but think what else you could have got for the same and what it would have achieved in WWII (and how many lives it would have saved).
Navweps
Just to add,
Alaska Laid down 17 December 1941 ie she would have been 4-6th Essex........
Guam Laid down 2 February 1942 ie she would have been 6-7th Essex..........
Last edited:
How about a scenario where both Alaska class BC are ISOTed to the ACW or ARW. The Alaska's become the most valuable warships (if not items in general) in the world and single handendly win the war for the US. The Alaska's end up becoming a iconic and pivotal bit of Americana and every every household in America reveres their names.
And all this time I counted you as a friend.
He is trying to find a universe in which an Alaska class BC is a good design; he deserves some credit for that. 
He is trying to find a universe in which an Alaska class BC is a good design; he deserves some credit for that.
Well if you're 80 to 140 years more advanced then you're opponents it makes things easier. In the ARW if you include a couple logistical ships to support the Guam and Alaska then the war could theoretically be ended fairly quickly. Just sail across the Atlantic and shell British ports and sink British shipping until they see the error of their ways.
Theoretically could the two vessels sail up the Thames and directly threaten London with obliteration? Not saying that's a good idea. Just love the theatrics of it.
I don't know whether to say I'm genuinely touched. Or to have MacArthur somehow get his fat head involved in the "Alaska's conquer the world" ISOT.
McPherson
Banned
With all the dumping on the poor old USS Alaska,
North Carolina type weak forward framing, vulnerable bows., no TDS worthy of the name, poor rudder steer, exposed screws. But the one that gets me is that silly hanger amidships. You would think after the Northamptons, they'd learn? Nope.
How about a closer look at the HIJMS Amagi?
She's no prize. Her steer control is terrible, weight piled along the keel is a stress event. Highly vulnerable framing along her turbine flats. Armor belt is miscalculated and she has a prototype Yamato torpedo defense. Her deck armor screams for 25.5cm shell equivalent or better plunging fire.
The Kongo's may have been better designs. Gunfire or torpedoes, she's a sinker.
North Carolina type weak forward framing, vulnerable bows., no TDS worthy of the name, poor rudder steer, exposed screws. But the one that gets me is that silly hanger amidships. You would think after the Northamptons, they'd learn? Nope.
How about a closer look at the HIJMS Amagi?
She's no prize. Her steer control is terrible, weight piled along the keel is a stress event. Highly vulnerable framing along her turbine flats. Armor belt is miscalculated and she has a prototype Yamato torpedo defense. Her deck armor screams for 25.5cm shell equivalent or better plunging fire.
The Kongo's may have been better designs. Gunfire or torpedoes, she's a sinker.
Attachments
Last edited:
A big part of it is that Amagi is a 1920 design and Alaska is a 1941 design, so there are 21 more years in which some of the mistakes of Alaska should have been realized. That said, there are some big issues with Amagi. Those casemated secondaries on a big fast ship have poor arcs and elevation, and the forward ones will be awash. The fact that she had mixed-firing and all-oil boilers on the ship is not great as she'll need coal bunkers and more stokers, and the forward funnel will foul the mast with smoke. A higher bow would be welcome, and likely added with bulges, replacement of the coal fired boilers, stern extension as part of the Pagoda Upgrade Package, but to be fair we are comparing vanilla to vanilla.
Thing is, the Alaskas are not awful ships. They are very fast, have very sharp teeth, are well armoured topside, and had good accommodations and radar suites. Their biggest problems stemmed from two things- the fact that they were cruisers, and the fact that they were cruisers that cost as much as battleships.
The single rudder, midships hangar (and consequently compromised AA suite) , no TDS and such were all cruiser features, and the Alaskas are quite like Baltimores that ate too much.
However, if the Alaskas had been built as true small battleships with a tail crane, proper albeit narrow TDS, and battlewagon AA suite, the Battlecruiser/Light Battleship (CC/BL?) USS Alaska would still be a waste, because it would cost as much as an Iowa if not more. Their 12" guns are better than most 14"s, but that don't mean a thing when the 16" Mark 7 is better still and cheaper.
Build all 6 Iowas, and/or cancel both Alaskas and the 12" Mk. 8 gun, and re-order as 2 more Iowas.
SsgtC
Banned
The Iowa class. 6 were programmed IOTL. Build all of them. The Alaskas cost like 75% of an Iowa, so cancel the 6 of them and reorder 4 of them as additional Iowa class.