The Mighty 'G' - for Chris

[asnrobert]

This is a brief article in the 1st of December 1945 issue of Our Navy magazine about the combat debut of the USS Guam.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3023/2599708949_e99ed1b067_b.jpg

[thevanderploegs]

I like the advertisement and the cartoon on that page (riske for the time, no?)!

Interesting that the article calls them Battlecruisers. Since that time the USN kept insisting that they were "Large Cruisers" not battlecruisers. I can see the problem though, that forward tower looks alot like the North Carolina class BBs. Dimensionally they were larger than a lot of existing BBs (albiet older ones) but they were certainly not armored or internally arranged like one.

How much of an advantage were the 12" guns over the 8" on the contemporary USN CAs? The 5"/38 secondaries are identical in number and arrangment to the CAs. Had to carry more light AA then the Baltimore/Oregon City/Des Moines class though.

I always thought they would have made good ships for missle conversion (along with the Worcester class CL).

Regards,
Gary

[Ed Rotondaro]

I like the advertisement and the cartoon on that page (riske for the time, no?)!

Interesting that the article calls them Battlecruisers. Since that time the USN kept insisting that they were "Large Cruisers" not battlecruisers. I can see the problem though, that forward tower looks alot like the North Carolina class BBs. Dimensionally they were larger than a lot of existing BBs (albiet older ones) but they were certainly not armored or internally arranged like one.

How much of an advantage were the 12" guns over the 8" on the contemporary USN CAs? The 5"/38 secondaries are identical in number and arrangment to the CAs. Had to carry more light AA then the Baltimore/Oregon City/Des Moines class though.

I always thought they would have made good ships for missle conversion (along with the Worcester class CL).

Regards,
Gary

Gary:

Range and penetration wise, there is no comparision between the two weapons. The 12" gun was one of the best (and most expensive) weapons ever mounted on a US warship. I too noticed that the article referred to them as battlecruisers rather than large cruisers. You can't fool a sailor even if you change the name of a ship.

[Warship NWS]

Gary:

Range and penetration wise, there is no comparision between the two weapons. The 12" gun was one of the best (and most expensive) weapons ever mounted on a US warship. I too noticed that the article referred to them as battlecruisers rather than large cruisers. You can't fool a sailor even if you change the name of a ship.

Especially considering the fact that the sailors on the Alaska called them "battlecruisers". The USN had the "large" thing stuck in their brains at the time as the CVB Midway was classed as a "large" carrier and then changed two more times in her history - example of the USN transition stage on how or what to classify warships. Ever notice how the "large" thing went away after that? As one author noted "their size, speed, and armament ranked them as battlecruisers in any other navy". I would also note that their armor protection, speed, and total firepower were comparable to any purpose built battlecruiser ever completed with the exception of the single unit class HMS Hood - which was closer to a battleship in all regards then a battlecruiser. The USN was the only navy in the world in naval history that ever used the term "large" for an industrial aged warship, that I can recall. If anything should have been called "large" it was the Des Moines class, the worlds most lethal, and largest, of all-gun heavy cruisers ever built.

Those are my few cents anyways. ;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

Especially considering the fact that the sailors on the Alaska called them "battlecruisers". The USN had the "large" thing stuck in their brains at the time as the CVB Midway was classed as a "large" carrier and then changed two more times in her history - example of the USN transition stage on how or what to classify warships. Ever notice how the "large" thing went away after that? As one author noted "their size, speed, and armament ranked them as battlecruisers in any other navy". I would also note that their armor protection, speed, and total firepower were comparable to any purpose built battlecruiser ever completed with the exception of the single unit class HMS Hood - which was closer to a battleship in all regards then a battlecruiser. The USN was the only navy in the world in naval history that ever used the term "large" for an industrial aged warship, that I can recall. If anything should have been called "large" it was the Des Moines class, the worlds most lethal, and largest, of all-gun heavy cruisers ever built.

Those are my few cents anyways. ;)

Chris:

I think the use of the term large was an early example of that dreaded phrase "political correctness". After all everyone knew "battlecruisers were bad", so the USN didn't build them, no they built "large cruisers". Nobody was fooled by the name. If you look at the mission profile for the Alaska class, it fits the classic definition of a battlecruiser.

It is sad that these ships had not been built earlier and had a chance to either hunt down pocket battleships or the twins. They would have given a good account of themselves even against other battlecruisers like the Kongo class or the Renown class. About the only ships I would be hesitant to tackle would have been the Dunkerque class which were more like fast BBs than BCs anyway.

[Warship NWS]

About the only ships I would be hesitant to tackle would have been the Dunkerque class which were more like fast BBs than BCs anyway.

Alaska firepower = 13.7 tpm
Dunkerque firepower = 9.53 tpm

Alaska protection = 9.3 avg
Dunkerque protection = 9.4 avg

Alaska speed = 33 knots
Dunkerque speed = 29.5 knots

Alaska displacement = 30/34 kilotons
Dunkerque displacement = 27/31 kilotons

Alaska gun penetration = 20kyd 7.2 avg
Dunkerque penetration = 20kyd 9.3 avg

I don't think the Alaska would be a bad matchup for the Dunkerques. The counterbalance to the slight differences in AP vs protection would be the higher average ROF and gunnery accuracy of the Alaskas tearing up the Dunkerques superstructure along with the Alaska outrunning the Dunkerque by 3-4 knots thus dictating the combat range. Even though I consider the Dunkerques the 2nd best purpose built BCs of WW2 I think their odds vs the Alaskas would be against them in a 1 vs 1 fight.

Thanks.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Alaska firepower = 13.7 tpm
Dunkerque firepower = 9.53 tpm

Alaska protection = 9.3 avg
Dunkerque protection = 9.4 avg

Alaska speed = 33 knots
Dunkerque speed = 29.5 knots

Alaska displacement = 30/34 kilotons
Dunkerque displacement = 27/31 kilotons

Alaska gun penetration = 20kyd 7.2 avg
Dunkerque penetration = 20kyd 9.3 avg

I don't think the Alaska would be a bad matchup for the Dunkerques. The counterbalance to the slight differences in AP vs protection would be the higher average ROF and gunnery accuracy of the Alaskas tearing up the Dunkerques superstructure along with the Alaska outrunning the Dunkerque by 3-4 knots thus dictating the combat range. Even though I consider the Dunkerques the 2nd best purpose built BCs of WW2 I think their odds vs the Alaskas would be against them in a 1 vs 1 fight.

Thanks.

Chris:

Apparently the Alaska class never made their 33 knot designed speed, but they at least made 32 knots which is still faster than the Dunkerque. And I will admoit the FC for the Alaska class would be superior to the French system. I take it that tpm is tons per minute?

[Warship NWS]

Chris:

Apparently the Alaska class never made their 33 knot designed speed, but they at least made 32 knots which is still faster than the Dunkerque. And I will admoit the FC for the Alaska class would be superior to the French system. I take it that tpm is tons per minute?

As to her speed, depends on a lot of variables and sources... I have seen some as low as 31.4 and others 33.. take your pick. I would vote for around 33 knots however as that is the figure given by the more authoritative sources. TPM is tons per minute which is averaged based on highest to lowest cycle of sustained firing. The Dunkerques never reached their full rated ROF due to ammo handling complications which was cuased by the complexities of her loading arrangements. The Alaskas would have rated at 3 RPM but all of the protection systems to avoid magazine detonations reduced the ROF slightly.

Thanks.

[asnrobert]

I like the advertisement and the cartoon on that page (riske for the time, no?)!

Interesting that the article calls them Battlecruisers. Since that time the USN kept insisting that they were "Large Cruisers" not battlecruisers. I can see the problem though, that forward tower looks alot like the North Carolina class BBs. Dimensionally they were larger than a lot of existing BBs (albiet older ones) but they were certainly not armored or internally arranged like one.

How much of an advantage were the 12" guns over the 8" on the contemporary USN CAs? The 5"/38 secondaries are identical in number and arrangment to the CAs. Had to carry more light AA then the Baltimore/Oregon City/Des Moines class though.

I always thought they would have made good ships for missle conversion (along with the Worcester class CL).

Regards,
Gary

I believe there was talk of converting the incomplete Hawaii to a missile cruiser, but it came to nought.

I've always considered them battlecruisers. Like the original BCs, the Alaskas were designed to kill cruisers by outrunning and outgunning them.

Speaking of ads, check out this one for Phillip Morris cigarettes- it's almost obscene.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/2605783632_18547bdbb0_b.jpg

[asnrobert]

Oh, and speaking of risque cartoons, I love the one at the bottom of this page:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3232/2599693155_40e9a0d033_b.jpg

You know, if I have the time I might just scan the entire contents of all the magazines and upload them one of these days...

[Mike Malanaphy]

Alaska firepower = 13.7 tpm
Dunkerque firepower = 9.53 tpm

Alaska protection = 9.3 avg
Dunkerque protection = 9.4 avg

Alaska speed = 33 knots
Dunkerque speed = 29.5 knots

Alaska displacement = 30/34 kilotons
Dunkerque displacement = 27/31 kilotons

Alaska gun penetration = 20kyd 7.2 avg
Dunkerque penetration = 20kyd 9.3 avg

I don't think the Alaska would be a bad matchup for the Dunkerques. The counterbalance to the slight differences in AP vs protection would be the higher average ROF and gunnery accuracy of the Alaskas tearing up the Dunkerques superstructure along with the Alaska outrunning the Dunkerque by 3-4 knots thus dictating the combat range. Even though I consider the Dunkerques the 2nd best purpose built BCs of WW2 I think their odds vs the Alaskas would be against them in a 1 vs 1 fight.

Thanks.

Hi Guys,

Interesting ships the Dunkerques. Strasbourgs protection was modified during her contruction and was about 10% thicker than her sister. The 13" was a powerful weapon, but Alaska's fire control system probably would have her come out on top.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I believe there was talk of converting the incomplete Hawaii to a missile cruiser, but it came to nought.

I've always considered them battlecruisers. Like the original BCs, the Alaskas were designed to kill cruisers by outrunning and outgunning them.

Speaking of ads, check out this one for Phillip Morris cigarettes- it's almost obscene.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/2605783632_18547bdbb0_b.jpg

Robert:

Ahh the good old days when a smoke was a smoke. I was looking thru some old magazines that a friend showed me from the 1960s. The bulk of the ads were either cigarettes or liquor. Nowadays its financial planning and consumer electronics.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Oh, and speaking of risque cartoons, I love the one at the bottom of this page:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3232/2599693155_40e9a0d033_b.jpg

You know, if I have the time I might just scan the entire contents of all the magazines and upload them one of these days...

Robert:

Very funny and definitely a sailor! What type of scanner do you use and is it easy to work with? I'm thinking about getting one for my home PC.

[Warship NWS]

Hi Guys,

Interesting ships the Dunkerques. Strasbourgs protection was modified during her contruction and was about 10% thicker than her sister. The 13" was a powerful weapon, but Alaska's fire control system probably would have her come out on top.

I agree, much like the quads on the KGV the 14" was a good weapon, same for the French 13" .. it was the designs of the quad turrets themselves that reduced their overall effectiveness when trying to maintain sustained rates of fire.

[asnrobert]

Robert:

Ahh the good old days when a smoke was a smoke. I was looking thru some old magazines that a friend showed me from the 1960s. The bulk of the ads were either cigarettes or liquor. Nowadays its financial planning and consumer electronics.

I have some the old Abbott and Costello radio shows on tape, and Camel cigarettes were their sponsors frequently. One of their ads was a survey of doctors asking them "what brand of cigarette do you smoke, doctor?" and it was announced 3 out of 5 doctors preferred Camels. I'd like to see 3 out of 5 doctors recommend ANY brand of cigarette today. :rolleyes:

[asnrobert]

Robert:

Very funny and definitely a sailor! What type of scanner do you use and is it easy to work with? I'm thinking about getting one for my home PC.

I have a Hewlett-Packard C5180 Photosmart printer. It prints, scans, and copies. I have it plugged into my router so all of my computers can access it. It's pretty easy to use.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I have some the old Abbott and Costello radio shows on tape, and Camel cigarettes were their sponsors frequently. One of their ads was a survey of doctors asking them "what brand of cigarette do you smoke, doctor?" and it was announced 3 out of 5 doctors preferred Camels. I'd like to see 3 out of 5 doctors recommend ANY brand of cigarette today. :rolleyes:

Robert:

I do find it funny though that some doctors still smoke.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I have a Hewlett-Packard C5180 Photosmart printer. It prints, scans, and copies. I have it plugged into my router so all of my computers can access it. It's pretty easy to use.


Robert:

Thanks. I have had good luck with HP printers in the past. I'm still using a laserjet 6P from 1997.

[Warship NWS]

I personally wont use anything except HP printers. The last one I had lasted over 10 years through heavy abuse.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I personally wont use anything except HP printers. The last one I had lasted over 10 years through heavy abuse.

Chris:

I agree. Have you ever used any of their color laser jet printers? I'm getting tired of buying ink jet cartridges for my Epson Photo printer. I've spent twice as much on ink as I did on the printer, so I thinking about getting a color laser printer.

[Warship NWS]

Chris:

I agree. Have you ever used any of their color laser jet printers? I'm getting tired of buying ink jet cartridges for my Epson Photo printer. I've spent twice as much on ink as I did on the printer, so I thinking about getting a color laser printer.

Im sticking with ink printing deskjets. Laser printers are now in some cases cheaper then the laser toner cartridges you put in them - especially if you have to buy color and black. You can save on costs per printed page with lasers though.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Im sticking with ink printing deskjets. Laser printers are now in some cases cheaper then the laser toner cartridges you put in them - especially if you have to buy color and black. You can save on costs per printed page with lasers though.

Chris:

Yes, at least the toner cartridges last longer than the ink cartridges, but of course are correspondingly much more expensive. My kids mainly use the color printer, I usually just print out hitorical material in black and white.

[Warship NWS]

Chris:

Yes, at least the toner cartridges last longer than the ink cartridges, but of course are correspondingly much more expensive. My kids mainly use the color printer, I usually just print out hitorical material in black and white.

Set it for "fast" and "draft" mode.. save buckets of ink that way. Unless you need the printed results all fancy like.. keep it on draft. You can also get ink refilled at some places for as cheap as $10. You can do that about 2-3 times before the cartridge acts weird.

[asnrobert]

Robert:

Thanks. I have had good luck with HP printers in the past. I'm still using a laserjet 6P from 1997.


I personally wont use anything except HP printers. The last one I had lasted over 10 years through heavy abuse.


On one of the computers I use at work, the Lexmark printer that was hooked up to it crapped out. They replaced it with a HP5 laser printer. It was not a new one, but the tech guy says that particular model lasts forever.

[Ed Rotondaro]

On one of the computers I use at work, the Lexmark printer that was hooked up to it crapped out. They replaced it with a HP5 laser printer. It was not a new one, but the tech guy says that particular model lasts forever.

Robert:

HP laserjet 5 printers were like 57 Chevys. A true classic and built to last. We have Lexmark printers were I work, and I will say that the color laser jet is quite good, but the plain laser jet printers are somewhat flimsy compared to the HPs I used at other jobs.