the 1140lb shells would be quite a threat? yes or no?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
FreeloaderUK |
alaska's 12" guns vs battleships |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 54 ( 6-Feb-2008 00:26:28) |
ok so how would the alaska class 12" guns fair against an enemy battleship?
the 1140lb shells would be quite a threat? yes or no? |
||
Getz |
|||
|
Posts: 360 ( 6-Feb-2008 00:48:54) |
Personally I doubt it. The British 14" shells were significantly larger, but we always hear on this board how "underpowered" they were...
|
||
P3D |
|||
|
Posts: 736 ( 6-Feb-2008 01:01:15) |
If Alaska had kept the distance (with 5"+ deck penetration over 30,000 yards) and score hits, she could have a chance to take out any WWI BBs.
|
||
FreeloaderUK |
|||
|
Posts: 55 ( 6-Feb-2008 01:01:57) |
well the 14" 1590lb shell is quite powerful & will do a lot of damage.
but the RN 15" shell weighed 1938lb & was more powerful the 16" 2040lb shell even more so. & dont even talking about the 2700lb super-heavy USN 16" shells. at the end of the day if 450lb bombs can cause upperworks damage to the Tirpitz- then im sure even lowly 12" 1140lb shells would do something. |
||
tassilo27 |
|||
|
Posts: 79 ( 6-Feb-2008 01:49:53) |
You're still getting hit by an object weighing 1140lbs at speeds approaching Mach 2. They might not be able to punch through even World War One armor at
anything apporaching a realistic battle range (at 26000 yards, the longest recorded gunfire hit in history, the shells will penetrate roughly 10.5" of
side armor and 4.25" of belt armor according to NavWeaps), but it's still going to hurt.
I personally would be very sad to be the commander of an Alaska if I couldn't maintain the range outside of a battleship's guns. 9" of belt armor does not make me want to fight even a surviving WWI BB of any of the powers, including the Italian reconstructions. |
||
FreeloaderUK |
|||
|
Posts: 56 ( 6-Feb-2008 12:14:46) |
well the alaska obviously cant withstand enemy hits- 14", 15" & 16" guns are just too strong- but no doubt the 12" guns can deal out
damage- they fire a much heavier shell than the 11" scharhorst guns
|
||
pppet |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 1 ( 6-Feb-2008 14:42:43) |
No chance of the Alaskas surviving for long in a battle line.
Remember the fate of HMS Invincible,Indefatigable and Queen Mary at Jutland ? They had comparable belt and turret armour and were still done in by 11 inch (660 lbs) and 12 inch shells (902 lbs). The best use of her guns would be to keep a battleship at a distance while she escaped. peter. |
||
Dave Bender |
Alaska class 12" guns fair against an enemy battleship | ||
|
Posts: 6075 ( 6-Feb-2008 15:58:29) |
My understanding is that the Alaska class were designed to be cruiser killers. I would not want to fight a real battleship with one. Not even a WWI era BB like
the British QE or Japanese Fuso class.
|
||
ickysdad |
Alaska had... | ||
|
Posts: 3023 ( 6-Feb-2008 18:31:47) |
pppet wrote: a 9" belt sloped much better then Queen Mary's 9" belt and 3" thicker then Invivncible's or Indefatigable's. She had much better deck armor & no upper belt armor whereas a shell could bypass the main belt. Alaska also had much better turrett/barbette armor . I would also venture her propellant and ammo handling was better. Of course she was a 30 year newer design . However she would be going up against much more powerfull guns/shells. But alas we must remember they were designed as cruiser killers. |
||
Plamen1974 |
|||
|
Posts: 2008 ( 6-Feb-2008 22:18:49) |
I think that Alaska could be fair mtach for 12" dreadnoughts from WWI era - Gangut, modernized Italian dreadnought Cavourclass with 12.6" guns,
French Courbet, Turkish Goeben, Brzilian Minas Gerias. O'm not very sure in a duel v. Moreno
|
||
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3445 ( 7-Feb-2008 03:06:48) |
pppet wrote: I remember from poking through Friedman's US Cruisers that the USN, of the 20's felt that the main causes of the loss of the Invincible, Indefatigable, and Queen Mary were poor charge handling practice and cordite. The USN felt their charge handling practices were superior to those of the RN's battle cruisers at Jutland and that their propellant was much safer than cordite. I suspect that the Alaskas could do quite well against older battleships, such as the French, Italian, or Soviet 12in-12.6in gun battleships and they would
have a reasonable chance of success against the Scharnhorst or Gneisenau (of course, by 1944, the preferred anti-battleship weapon had a radial engine and
wings).
|
||
seasick |
Warships don't fight in a vacume | ||
|
Posts: 4379 ( 7-Feb-2008 03:16:05) |
I think the most likely meeting of Alaska an axis battleship:
Tirpitz is caught out at sea as a RN/USN task force cuts it off from the Norwegan coast. Tirpitz sights the HMS Duke of York and USS Alaska. In the comming battle the DOY fires on the Tirpitz's turrets as the Alaska fires HE into the super structure. Bye Bye Tirpitz. |
||
jhack |
Re. Warships don't fight in a vacuum | ||
|
Posts: 83 ( 7-Feb-2008 03:55:18) |
In the Pacific, the Kongos would have been the best ships for the Japanese to use to counter Alaska. How about a scenario where Alaska is available in Nov.
1942 and replaces Portland in Admiral Callahan's cruiser force. So you have Alaska San Francisco, Helena, Atlanta, Juneau and destroyers against Hiei,
Kirishima, Atago, Takao, light cruisers and destroyers. If Callahan's eight-inch shells disabled Hiei, what would Alaska's 12-inchers do. On the other
hand, Portland was badly chewed up in this fight and also disabled. Does Alaska fare any better? She does make a bigger target for torpedoes.
|
||
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4382 ( 7-Feb-2008 05:36:02) |
At the range the fighting at Savo and such I'd use the Alaska's 12 inch guns to fire HE and AP shells into the Kongos in alternating salvos. The Kongos
would be caught with their pants down again having only the 14 inch shore bombardment shells ready at the time. Despite being rebuilt the Kongos were pre-WW1
vessels with a little more protection added and a little more power added. Hiei would be blasted to pieces.
|
||
Tiornu |
|||
|
Posts: 6926 ( 7-Feb-2008 08:11:36) Corn Boss |
The presence of Alaska in that scenario completely changes the American approach. Callaghan felt he had to sneak into spitball range to have a chance (and he
was probably right). With Alaska, he can engage at long range and perhaps dissuade the Japanese from closing; this is sufficient to complete his mission.
|
||
E F Draaijers |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 100 ( 7-Feb-2008 12:16:55) |
Technically the caliber of the gun is only secondary to the objective to cause damage and more precisely where on a target. 12 inch is considered a heavy
caliber and should be treated as such, making it very much capable of inflicting damage to all sorts of targets. (the German 11 inch/54 cal was treated
simmilarly for obvious reasons.) Even smaller calibers can still cause damage to a ship, but are propably insufficient to cause critical hits.
the USN 12 inch shell for the Alaska's was smaller and weighted less than a battleship caliber gun, but was large enough to cause damage on any sort of ship, although propably not capable of penetrating heavy armored decks or belts. All other structures could be damaged, so it was in a way as good as any other gun. For example a 6 inch guncruiser at close range can completely cripple any BB with her fast firering guns, but not sink it outright (unless it can use torpedoes.) The 6 inch shell is powerfull enough to damage unarmored and lightly armored structures and the shell even has potential in armorpiercing, altthough not the most heavy ones. By knocking out all un- or lightly armored structures on a battleship, including its capability to fight back, it is neutralized, although not sunk. Alaska could do a simmilar jobe as well, although with less higher rate of fire. |
||
pppet |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 6 ( 7-Feb-2008 16:07:26) |
True that the main belt was angled and there was also an upper belt,but basically the armour disposition was more of a heavy cruiser rather than a heavy
unit.In addition how much was the angling and so the effective thickness ?
peter |
||
Dave Bender |
Kongos would have been the best ships | ||
|
Posts: 6082 ( 7-Feb-2008 16:14:02) |
The Kongo class were BCs just as the Alaska class were BCs, regardless of official designation. This is not a miss match like tackling an actual battleship
would be.
|
||
Tiornu |
|||
|
Posts: 6928 ( 7-Feb-2008 16:48:55) Corn Boss |
Alaska had no upper belt.
The inclined 9in belt was rated as equal to an upright 11in belt. In reality, no single figure would apply over the spectrum of possible impacts. |
||
SeaTurtle Prince |
Another potential Alaska scenario | ||
|
Posts: 262 ( 8-Feb-2008 04:25:20) |
After Leyte Gulf, the bulk of the Japanese fleet went back to Japan with damage. Haruna stuck around Brunei for a while as the only undamaged battleship.
Then on 22 November she hit a reef at Lingga Roads, and had to return to Japan herself. A variety of submarines tried to get her on the way, but without
success.
So, shall we say that Alaska arrives at Ulithi just 2 months ahead of schedule, and in early December 1944 was ordered to intercept Haruna after the submarines failure? Somewhere off Formosa, Alaska speeds into position at midnight, and opens radar-directed fire at the approaching Japanese. What happens next? |
||
Creeping Death1929 |
|||
|
Posts: 963 ( 8-Feb-2008 06:53:39) |
In the open water, Haruna, Hatsushimo, and Kasumi would likely not be surprised by Alaska and her escorts, as she has a full radar outfit by that time, Surface
search, air search, and FC Radar by that time. The Type 22 surface search radar was capable of detecting a BB sized ship at 35k yards, and 25k if it was
modified into the FC radar.
|
||