My dad served on the Alaska during WWII, on the gun crew of first 40 mm quad after 12" turret number two. I just finished a 1/196 RC scale model of Alaska. She was a beautiful ship.
I'm only guessing but National Archives maybe. Or try to get in contact with Navy Records during WW2. Ànd/ or if your Dad was a Marine then USMC Records.
@keith moore The jar head. He was sending it. And there is a legit story of a tailgunner on an avenger(I think) using a 1911 in air to air combat. Successfully
@@hackerjohnt USS Worchester could be viewed a development of the layout of the Atlanta class light cruisers. The final variant of the Atlanta class the USS Juneau (2) commissioned in 1946 and modernised in 1950-1 with a comprehensive new fire control and radar and the main armament of 12 5/38 supplemented with 14 of the new 3/50. This rebuilt Juneau proved ironically significantly superior in AA performance to the Worchester probably because the Worcester and Roanoke were only completed as prototypes for the 8 inch Des Moines and the 6 inch twin automatic guns in the Worchester used too many parts from Cleveland's turrets in particular they retained bag charges hardly compatible with fast AA automatic fire and jammed repeatedly.
I first saw the USS Alaska in a magazine a few years before this came out, I was actually confused on why these Iowa lookalikes were being called cruisers because to me they looked like The Iowa with a super heavy cruiser hull. When I did some research, I realized they were actually America's last Battlecruisers (Large Cruisers whatever your preference is :) ) and they really intrigued me. Then this video came out, I really enjoyed learning more about these fascinating warships, thank you!
The Germans never built "Battlecruisers". Ever. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were Battleships, and the WWI vessels were classified as Large Cruisers. Same as the Alaskas.
Depends upon how you use the term. Technically, a battle cruiser, as initially conceived by Jackie Fischer, was a ship with battleship armament with cruiser speed and armor. I think of the pocket battleship Graf Spee, which had 11 inch guns. The classification of the guns is tricky. A 12 inch gun would have been considered a battleship gun a generation or two previous, but by this time, a new battleship had fifteen or sixteen guns, with even the older units have fourteen inch guns. I think large cruiser - but that's me.
Buuuut it doesn't look, smell, or taste like a battlecruiser. It smells like a cruiser, grown up right to the very limits of what the US military industry could mass-produce. And it is exactly what Alaska is.
Under normal circumstances I would never take something like "the mighty jingles" at all seriously but seeing as I know who jingles is via other sources I have to take your comment seriously even though I really don't want to
@@nealpritchett2462 the Alaska definitely had the speed of a battlecruiser, it had armament suitable for the purpose of a battlecruiser with 12 inch guns and it did taste like a battlecruiser
«Is there an empty space on the ship? Why is there an empty space on the ship, put a gun there you idiot!» still your greatest comment! The one with allowing americans to practise their second ammendment rights has to be the runner up!
"Most of the Japanese Cruiser fleet was already forming a series of interesting artificial reefs" " Curtsy of the attentions of US Aviators and Submarines" rotflmao
I was literally just scrolling down to make that same comment 😂 Let's not overlook his comment about the US Navy's tradition of allowing nearly every member of the crew to exercise their second amendment rights in the face of the enemy...Drake's humor is truly epic 😆
Absolutely gorgeous ships. It would be nice to have one now…rebarreled with a smoothbore it could fling 500-750 pound glide bombs over 100-150 km, regardless of weather. I’m sure a MEU would appreciate a friend like that!
That was definitely the idea ; an ace-in-the-hole that could chase down and destroy any raiders/gunships except for battleships . The enemy battlewagons would be a focus of Allied battle-groups , carrier-groups , and submarine-forces . This strategy paid off for the Allies very well , and in all theatres of conflict . Addendum : The video delves into the subject of enlarged-cruiser versus battlecruiser . Convention aside , a battle-cruiser is normally a shrunken-down battleship with battleship-class guns. An Enlarged-Cruiser , though , is normally a heavy-cruiser , writ large . These ships are designed to be as fast or faster than heavy-cruisers , and bear heavier weaponry than them , as well . They are often longer , but leaner , than many actual battleships . This stands in opposition to battle-cruisers , which tend to be heavier by length than E.Cruisers , and have heavier armament . The exceptional example of this is the WW2 Scharnhorst-class . They were clearly reduced battle-ships , yet had lesser guns than even the Alaska-class . This was not by design ; these were originally designed to bear 15" main-guns . Material limitations prevented that from happening , so 11" guns were mounted instead . Later it was decided that the higher rate-of-fire guns were better for the ships' roles as "great-raiders" , so the Kriegsmarine stuck with them for good . Examples of German Enlarged-Heavy-Cruisers would be the Prinz Eugen-class , Deutschland-class were more armored heavy-cruiser . *Well , there it is . Kirov-class is the only one standing , thanks to missiles . D.H.
If you're not sure what to call the Alaska class, you can always call them "Large Cruisers" with an emphasis on the quotation marks since thats what the USN called them.
I see your logic on that and I raise you this the United States government for many years has classified minivans and SUVs as light truck's because of wait for it Hauling capacity yeah and the car companies well they just get by with a legal loophole on mpg and emissions
How about 2nd rate. It has armour protection proportional to it's guns, speed to for a battle line and guns to eliminate other ships of similar displacement and type.
They originally called them battlecruisers and it's believed the reason why they lobbied so hard for everyone to stop calling them that after the redesignation was simply to fool the Japanese as to their purpose.
Have always wondered how a one on one engagement between an Alaska class real-big cruiser and a German Scharnhorst class battle-cruiser would have gone. The Alaska had better guns and radar - the Scharnhorst having better armor and torpedo protection (on paper).
Considering the thinner deck armor of the Scharnhorst Alaska could stay just out of range of Scharnhorst guns and do some damage to her deck armor and if Alaska managed to destroy all of Scharnhorst’ turrets which would be surprisingly easy since scharnhorst top turret armor was only 7 inches thick. Alaska could win.
This would be hilariously in favor of the USN Alaska-class. The Germans like to sortie ships almost by themselves, even Bismarck was sent to her doom with next to no escort. Meanwhile the American Navy rolled around in large gangs. Even more comedic, since we're now talking WWII-era with the Allies vs Axis, in all likeliness, a supposed Alaska-class in the Atlantic serving against the Germans would not only be rolling around with other American ships, but the Royal Navy would be there also. These waters are, Royal Navy stomping grounds. It would have been a hilarious gangbang of USN / RN ships against 1 Scharnhorst-class. Hell, the crazy Kriegsmarine actually sent out Scharnhorst to go attack a British convoy bound for Murmansk with supplies, but instead ran into Duke of York and many of her friends. Scharnhorst was slaughtered, the Germans were too fond of sending big expensive ships with little to no escort.
@@Warmaker01 Well, I did mention a one on one engagement between the 2 ships..... Granted, an actual scenario would have involved mobs of Allied units, and possibly an argument amongst them as to who got to torpedo the hulk. Have always considered Kriegsmarine destroyers to be ridiculously useless. Looked good on paper, pathetic in action. Heavy armament but leisure rate of fire and little reserve ammunition. High speed and limited fuel let them race out of harbor so they turn about and race back in. - but I digress.
@@agwhitaker If Scharnhorst actually was equipped with the x6 15in SK C/34 mounts she was orginally supposed to have. Scharnhorst would gain a considerable edge over an Alaska. However, one could argue the 11 inch guns were adequate enough.
@@Warmaker01 it definitely wasnt completely the germans fault, they didnt have the escorts to send with normally. Its not like the interwar period gave them much time to build up a reasonable sized fleet like they had in ww1.
Best Drachinifel comment ever about American ships (ROFLMAO): "And of course in keeping with the American policy of allowing almost every member of the crew a chance to exercise their Second Amendment rights..." Brilliant and made my day.
I have an official USN print, the same type the Navy uses as standard wall hangers at Navy buildings of CB-2 hanging in my office. I also had the USS Caloosahatchee and the USS Ainsworth. I sent the Ainsworth to their ships reunion to be used as a door prize, gift, or whatever, I don’t remember what I did with the Caloosahatchee. I bought them in a thrift shop for $1 each, still in their government frames. If you are in a military town and bored, check out the second hand and charity shops! Amazing things sometimes appear!
@@Zephyrmec After his passing, I received from my grandmother his US Burial Flag, Ship Book (Great condition) and a framed picture of Guam with his name, rank, and ship battle decorations.
Ben Miz For me it is a lucky dip between Alaska, Iowa class, and the scharnhorst. All have super sleek lines and look like bad mofo’s. I guess the scharnhorst was a real bad mofo given it was on the axis side.
An aspect of this period of time I am fascinated by is some of the ways the various nations worked with, around and occasionally through the naval treaties of the time. As a ground pounder I'm well aware of the holy trinity of tank design (mobility, armor and firepower) and I see the design of warships follows a similar thought process.
Well to be fair, the first tanks were essentially seen as akin to "land warships"; the British even designated a lot of their tanks as "cruiser" tanks.
This video is about to spike alot in popularity from 2/27/19 on with Alaska releasing on World of Warships. This is a Very helpful video getting to know the real ship before sailing her ingame. o7
Hell, I got her based on this video a while back. Fun part is you can actually cheek citpen Yamatos under 7km. Just to show you how overpowered her guns are. Plus, the best part of the play is, as designed, blowing up cruisers. Especially ones who are not avare of your presence. She is such a sexy beast. Makes me wonder why she still only had a cruiser amount of 5'/38s.
As many lame suggestions TH-cam has made for videos I might like, Drachinfel isn't one of them. Between the humor and the great information, I heartily second your compliment for Drachfel's talents.
Nice video! I have been working as a volunteer at the battleship USS Alabama. We are re-equipping the ship's photographic darkroom. The current curator and staff are doing a great job at restoring the ship! Best, Mike F.
I've been waiting for this one. Probably the most interesting class of warships the United States Navy ever put to sea. It's definitely so for me- I've always been fascinated with the Alaskas.
Great video, as always. I can't tell you how much angst I have suffered over the decades, over the proper designation for battlecruiser! "Is it a breath mint? Is it a candy mint? STOP! You're BOTH right!". Sorry. I'll go take my meds. 😜
@@Future-Preps35 The Alaska's had the same problem that every battlecruiser-type of vessel ever built had - it was a stupid idea from the word go. The battlecruiser was Jackie Fisher's idea - ships with a main battery only slightly smaller than a battleship and lighter armor, ships which counted on speed to outmaneuver an enemy, ships that could beat any cruiser known and run away from any battleship. The problem with this idea is that it simply didn't work, and I can prove it with six words: Hood, Indefatigable, Queen Mary, Invincible, Lützow. HMS Hood was the pride of the Royal Navy - and was sunk within eight minutes of opening fire at the Battle of the Denmark Strait when one or more shells from Bismarck penetrated her too-light armor, reached her magazines, and blew her in two. The remaining four ships - three of the Royal Navy and the latter of the German High Seas Fleet - were lost at Jutland. In all cases, they were unable to outmaneuver the incoming rounds from their opponents and were sunk. And at Jutland, a fourth British battlecruiser - HMS Lion, David Beatty's flagship - was nearly lost when one of her (lightly armored) turrets was blown open by a German shell, and only the heroism of the turret commander who, with his legs having been blown off, dragged himself to the speaking tube and ordered the magazines flooded, saved her (he got the VC for that - posthumously). All of the heavy modern units that were lost at Jutland on both sides were battlecruisers.
@@DuckyGoose74 After the expenditures were made on battlecruisers, the push was on to find a use for them - and both the Royal Navy and the Kaiserliche Marine decided, "Hey, we've got these fast ships - we'll use 'em as a scouting force for the battleships! Woo!". Yeah. First problem - in the 19-teens all search was visual. There was no radar yet. You had to send ships out, put guys with Mark I Mod 0 eyeballs up in the spotting tops (hopefully assisted by telescopes, binoculars, and etc) and get them to eyeball their opponents. Second problem - in anything but perfect weather, by the time you can *see* your opponent A) they can see you, and B) they can hit you with their main battery. The thinking was that at long range - well, no worries, they can *shoot* at you but surely they won't *hit* you. Right? Wrong. Gunnery had gotten better - because both navy's knew the weak points of each other's ships. They knew that *if* they could put a long-range round on target it could easily slice through the thinnest armor on their opponents battlecruisers - and the thinnest armor on these misbegotten beasts was their deck armor. The assumptions about how poorly long-range gunnery would perform was baked into these designs. But the tactics and equipment kept improving. Worse - a battlecruiser did not represent a significant cost savings over a full-on dreadnought battleship, so even that wasn't a reason to build these things. Feh.
I find your channel interesting, and understand your reason for not covering cold war era ship. I would like to suggest coverage of auxilaries, like USS Vestal AR4.
Charles Ward I had a good friend, now deceased, who was at Pearl Harbor, and through the war was crew on two ships that were sunk. He retired as a chief machinists mate in 1958. I used to have a great time asking him about being sunk, but not at Pearl, and then ask him as if I could not remember what ship he was on at the time... “hey chief! What ship was it you were stationed on at Pearl? The Vestal wasn’t it?? He would almost explode. During his whole career, he served aboard destroyers and cruisers, and volunteered to remain on sea duty at every opportunity.... in 21 years he only served 42 months of shore duty, and hated it. A true sailor, “Haze Gray and Underway” he always said: “if you’re a sailor, you belong aboard a warship, at sea. If you want shore duty, join the damned Army” He was the proverbial old salt!
My dad was on it too, he was a Marine. Any info would be appreciated. Since he didn't talk much. I did get to go see it as a kid before it was scrapped, I believe anchored in the Hudson.
One comparison that puts the Alaska class into perspective for me is that they are actually close to the Scharnhorst class (a small gun battle-cruiser in my book) in displacement and speed, and the Alaska outguns them. The Scharnhorsts are often referred to as small battleships because of the armor and protection, and were often considered to be similar in capability to Repulse and Renown despite the latter's obvious huge advantage in main armament. I think that in a gun duel between the Alaskas and Scharnhorsts, it would have come down to gunnery skills and luck. I can't think of any cruiser that would have had a prayer against either of these classes of ships other than running away....so battle cruiser it is.....
Norman Friedman, author of a series of design histories of US warship types, included the Alaska class in his book on US cruiser design. The fact that they were scaled-up from the Baltimore class heavy cruisers, had cruiser armor and length-to-beam ratio, were armored on a cruiser scale, and did not carry Battleship caliber guns, all place them in the large cruiser category. I have observed that British authors tend to refer to them as battlecruisers, while American writers usually call them large cruisers. Nice profile of this class, Drach, and thank you for respecting the US Navy's own designation for these ships. It appears that the US Navy never built any battlecruisers, and the only ones it designed were the Lexington class, two of which were completed as carriers, with the remainder being scrapped. I know these ships are usually considered expensive failures and white elephants, but if they had been available in 1942 they might have been very useful in the night battles off Guadalcanal. If they could have avoided catastrophic shell hits and Long Lance torpedoes, they might have been able to make mincemeat of Hiei and Kirishima with their high speed and heavy caliber, radar directed gunfire.
They key to me is that battle cruisers have battleship guns, cruiser speed and armor. The Alaska class did not have battleship guns of the time, which were 16 inch. Therefore they were either light battle cruisers or super heavy cruisers. Since light battle cruiser is almost an oxymoron, they were super heavy cruisers.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005 I agree completely. Some people, primarily British, insist on calling them battlecruisers, but I think the US Navy designation of Large Cruiser is the best way to describe them. I wish they had been completed a few years earlier, they might have been able to shorten the US battle for Guadalcanal and save a lot of casualties among our Marines.
@LOAN NGUYEN you are still stupid I am a ship correct? The Alaska is a ship correct? It was in the US navy correct? The USS Missouri served beside the Alaska stupid.
Referring to your second amendment right comment I will paraphrase what an American comic said to a British crowd " Americans aren't happy unless they can have the guns they want. Why do you have to keep Americans happy because of the guns they have ". I thought what you said was funny but I'm from philly,,some Americans........ well you know. Your channel is unparalleled in facts in your subject matter and you being British gives it that authentic feel. Say whatever you want I will still watch periodically. And thank you for the time and effort you put into your videos.
From a historical context I think you're right, the Alaska's are large cruisers (Using Renown/Repulse as the true 'modern' battlecruiser example). For the layman I'd describe the Alaska's as battlecruiser because "Large Cruiser" would need to be explained in detail, along with Light Cruiser & Heavy Cruiser.
Great series - thank you for putting it together. I have been studying military history, in particular WWII history, for a very long time now, but had not heard of this class of vessel prior to seeing your video. That's one of the coolest things about this field of history; there are always new and interesting things to be learned, even for an old sea dog such as myself. Thanks again...
"They were designed to kill anything that can't run from it and run from anything it couldn't kill,and pray that Renown,Repulse,and Hood don't get involved," They were that scared of the British Battlecruisers? XD
These videos represent to me, some of the most comprehensible and interesting appreciations on the internet - even a moron like me can generally see what's being driven at...and they're far from humourless either! Thank you so much for the time and trouble of preparing, producing and posting these...
Fisher was sort of correct. They were a scaled up cruiser hull design, and the government had banned the construction of new capital ships during the likely duration of the war, so larger cruisers fitted with any guns were allowed. The idea made sense to get the guns to sea, and if the ships had radar would have been viable. Sadly 4 guns was too few for ranging in WWI so they were only of marginal use as gun ships, though they did offer good service as minelayers and torpedo platforms in theory...
My hat is off to you sir, for a very droll take on the situation: '..most of the Imperial Japanese Navy's Cruiser fleet was already forming a series of interesting artificial reefs..'
But Drach addressed the armament, and said that their guns were smaller than their contemporary battleships. So did you miss that, do you disagree, or did I misinterpret him? :)
@keith moore American on at least two occasions asked Britain to supply soldiers to fight in Vietnam. This was because US generals wanted British troops fighting there. Johnson even came to the UK to ask. So whether it was you personally who was asked is irrelevant. America did ask Britain to send troops.
keith moore Damn Keith.. I don’t think he meant offense.. Hell I probably have more guns than any 5 people on this list.. lol. Now as far as Vietnam is concerned well I keep that to myself since it killed my father and ruined my stepdad. 😞
Drach: How did a cruiser or battleship store and supply ammunition to the large number of 40mm & 20mm AA gun positions? Was there a main AA magazine behind armor, or were there multiple distributed ammunition lockers? Was ammunition transported across weather decks on carts or was there a protected internal distribution system?
As a Navy brat, I grew up in that Post WWII period when many of those ship types were still in service. We generally just used the term Heavy Cruiser and Light Cruiser. Thanks. Narragansett Bay
Great review ! I've researched the Alaska class cruisers in the past and came across the same debate in regards to pinning down a definitive designation for this class but I think there is enough uncertainty within historian circles to not call this class a 'battle cruiser'. They just did not fully measure up to that definition.
Here in Alaska we love this Class of Warship and even today it's hard to tell what Classification a Ship Class is like how USS Ticonderoga was first DDG-47 a Destroyer and later on CG-47 a Cruiser
@@steamedcream7671 not as sure about the idea that there just as leathal have never managed (probably for good reason) to find real data on moder ships abilty to control missiles how big can they make there missile waves and ehat is the saturation point of the defenses given the ppwer amd number of radars you would need to handle more missiles argues in the favor of larger vesseles increased offensive and defensive capabilities bit like i said not a lot of information on this that i have found
@@steamedcream7671 fair enough and i agree on the grey area for modern ship classification VLS finished off the already eroding differnces in classification
@@springtime1838 i am aware ☺ realy not much differnce between the later ticondarogas and the arligh burkes (to lasy to look up proper spelling so you get best guess) was more focussed on the differnces in the larger modern frigets and the modern destroyers witch are usaly larger and specificly that larger vessels have room for either more similar and or larger/more powerful radar and fire control systems. Missile cappacity is not an unimportent statistic but was not relevent to the discussion at hand.
@@psikogeek Let's see: four-round capacity, all-steel, not cheaply made, not concealable, no pistol grip, no folding stock, no detachable magazine, no bayonet...if you convert it to semi-auto, who could complain?
"...no bayonet..." except for those Bofors manned by the ship's Marine complement. I'm sure those fuckers managed to weld a bayonet lug onto a Bofors, somewhere.
Count me in the "Large Cruisier" camp, but with some planning and work, these could been instead CBAA class ships. The concept of the Atlanta class enlarged to twenty-two 5"/38 twin mounts for a total of 44 barrels, eighteen 40mm quad mounts for a total of 72 barrels , and somewhere between thirty-six and forty 20mm twin mounts for a total of 72 to 80 barrels would have made these ships a nightmare for Japanese aviators. Deleting the 12" guns and their magazines would have freed up space for installing all the PPI radar screens and plotting tables to enable the Alaska class to be the USN's first true fighter control ships. They could have also been more easily converted to antiaircraft missile ships postwar. [Edited to correct some mistakes between mounts and barrels]
@@bigblue6917 Thanks. I fixed it so I wasn't mixing mounts and barrels. The Alaskas could have been really formidable antiaircraft ships if if was recognized early on that a large cruiser platform could have been more effective than the enlarged destroyer types of the Atlanta class.
@@sarjim4381 Problem is that large AA ships with no other role are in most ways worse than two smaller ships that total that amount of AA. A single unit is a large expensive target, and lacks the abilty to be in more than one place at a time. Two smaller ships can cover a wider arc around the capital ship, or if there is enough to cover all angles like there should be... then they can go for more depth of coverage forcing the enemy to run a much larger gauntlet of fire or switch to attacking the light ships first.
@@xt6wagon That's true except the only role for the AA version of the Alaska wouldn't be just gunfire. It would be as a fighter control ship to vector in fighters to destroy the enemy before they can break through the CAP. A ships needs size and volume to fulfill that role while still being able to keep up with the carriers. Two smaller ships can't do that. The USN kind of used this concept with their "Sea Control" ship of the 60's that never got built.
They had a blind and deaf person man it, he was given a helmet and the fire controller had a button to whack him in the head on either side to tell him which direction to turn.
Just a terminology correction: The 5"/38 twin is a MOUNT, not a TURRET. In US Navy parlance a gun TURRET is an armored gun enclosure. A gun MOUNT is an unarmored gun enclosure. 5"/38 twin and singles were mounted in unarmored enclosures, and are thus gun MOUNTS. Now, for a real test, what's the difference between line and rope? :-)
My uncle was on the Alaska. He was in the after turret in charge of fire control for the guns. He did nothing until there was a problem, then it was “oh hell” as he said. They were hit by suicide attacks many times. He was on it when they shot down one of there own. He often talked about some of the fighter pilots pursuing the Japanese plane even after they were in range of AA fire. My favorite line was “those crazy bastards would not pull out and we could not stop firing at the enemy. It’s a wonder we didn’t shoot half of them down.”
Cruiser guns top out at 8", with the heaviest cruisers displacing in the high teens to low twenties at most. That makes the Alaska and Guam battle cruisers. The decision is made, no further debate is necessary.
So "Large Cruiser" it is then, which literaly translates to the german "Großer Kreuzer"... which was the designation that WW1 Era High Seas Fleet used for Derfflinger, Seydlitz, Von der Tann, Hindenburg and the others which were laid down and planned. ;)
I love my English kin’s affinity for history and the ability to tell the tale with a pleasing dose of their dry wit i.e.: allowing almost every crew member the ability to excercise their 2nd amendment rights. Awesome!
The actual designation of the "Lexington" class was "large scout cruiser", not battlecruiser. Their primary purpose was strategic, operational and tactical reconnaissance, not the running down and destruction of enemy cruisers. The rise of long range submarines and of aviation replaced them as strategic and operational scouts. But they would still have been tactical scouts in pushing through the enemy screen to confirm the size, bearing and speed of the enemy main force. However, it is probable that in an unrestricted (ie. impossible) alternate history, they would have become surface escorts for carriers or been converted, aviation taking over the tactical scouting. This would have been possible because the US program following the "South Dakotas (BB-49)" was the BB1918, a combination of "South Dakota" armament and protection with "Lexington" machinery, giving a ~50,000 ton standard displacement fast battleship with 12x16" guns, 13.5" belt armor and 30 knots speed.
On the flip side, the designation of "large scout cruiser" is about as believable as Fishers "large light cruiser" or the current Japanese "helicopter destroyers" :)
Great video about an often forgotten/overlooked vessel of U.S. WWII navy. Knew about the USS Alaska - knew very little to nothing about USS Guam, or how many of this class of ships were actually planned. Everything that I have ever read about USS Alaska was that the navy wanted the ship badly but really did not know what to do with it once they received it. Since it had all those AA guns, carrier escort was the main mission during the war. USS Hawaii - after almost completion it was straight to the scrap yard. Seems that USN was "embarrassed" to have even had these ships in the inventory.
O.K... no sooner do I ask if carrier conversion had ever been considered than you answer that question! Next time I will see the whole video out before putting my hand up!
I love the standardized symmetry of the USS Newport News, USS Alaska, and USS Iowa. They were the best gun ships and the prettiest ships the US Navy ever built.
Just caught up with this episode, a great presentation & discussion. Keep up the good work! I have always thought of a “wotif” scenario where the Alaska’s has been commissioned in time for the Solomons Campaign how they could have reversed some of the earlier results and shredded the Japanese cruisers...
@ 3:53: 'Drachinifel': "I'm not entirely sure what that (the USS Atlanta) was suppose to do." The Purpose of, or, the design requirements of The USS Atlanta. or, "...what that was suppose to do?": The USS Atlanta (CL-51) classed as a 'Light Cruiser' was *mainly designed to provide anti-aircraft protection for U.S. Naval tasks groups.* In fact, in some works The USS Atlanta is classified as 'CLAA-51' because of her primary armament being that of an 'Anti-Aircraft Cruiser'; Her entire battery of 8-twin (16) 5-inch 38-Cal. (125-mm) gun mounts, 3-forward and 3-aft., were designated as 'dual-purpose' (DP) (but, were actually triple-purpose) and were capable of being utilized for 'Air-Targets', 'Ground-Targets' as-well-as 'Ship vs Ship Engagements'; although She was not specifically designed for those other purposes. Her gun's were able to fire both high-explosive and armor-piercing rounds. Therefore, the purpose of The USS Atlanta was, in reality, threefold; Mainly, to provide anti-aircraft protection for U.S. Naval tasks groups, and secondarily for shore-bombardment and ship to ship engagements.
The "Alaska" class have often been called "battlecruisers", but they were designed and built to cruiser standards, not capital ship standards. Take a look at the "Baltimore" class interior and exterior design plans and what "Alaska" looks like is an expanded "Baltimore". The USN's own description of the "Alaska" is a "large cruiser unconstrained by Treaty" limits". Just as it is better to consider the French "Dunkerque" and "Strabourg" as "small" "fast" battleships rather than battlecruisers given their design characteristics and as prototypes for the "Richelieu" class fast battleships. And just where the "Scharnhorst" class lies in international standards with battleship protection and battlecruiser armament is worth a discussion though they did follow the German format of fast capital ships with battleship standard protection and lighter main armament.
Same for me as well. There's no reason to invent a new term when, really, the battle cruiser class just evolved to use smaller guns in the main battery after the naval treaties started falling apart. If people had still built the older type of battle cruiser, with battleship tier armament, that'd be one thing, but nope, that pretty much stopped due to the various treaties. And so, what do you call something that's between a heavy cruiser and a battleship? A battle cruiser. Done.
I think they vilified calling them "battlecruisers" because admirals and captains kept putting them in battle lines and getting completely annihilated. They made sure everyone though they were cruisers and never sent them to fight battleships, so it worked.
@@onewhosaysgoose4831 Alternatively you can build you battlecruisers bigger and faster and keep similar armament and armor to your battleships. This becomes the ridiculously expensive "fast battleship" concept, and kinda made lighter armed and armored battlecruisers obsolete. Would you rather have one Iowa, or one and a half Alaskas?
"In an effort to give every member of the crew the opportunity to exercise their second amendment", just about soiled myself I laughed so hard.
Planes spotted!
~Second Amendment intensifies~
A beautiful turn of phrase.
Soooo Funny,...Only Drac with his crisp received-English accent could deliver that line!
hell yeah Merica !!!
Well that is ultimately the reason we aren't British subjects any longer.
My dad served on the Alaska during WWII, on the gun crew of first 40 mm quad after 12" turret number two. I just finished a 1/196 RC scale model of Alaska. She was a beautiful ship.
In my opinion she’s like a mini Iowa in how based she is
My dad was on the Alaska also. He was a Marine. Was your dad Navy or Marine? Where do I find information on who was on it and what they did? Thanks
I'm only guessing but National Archives maybe. Or try to get in contact with Navy Records during WW2. Ànd/ or if your Dad was a Marine then USMC Records.
As to AA, I imagined a dude runs out on deck, finds all the AA guns manned, so he dual weilds 2 Thompson sub machine guns instead.
@@b19rando Ever see the old film of the dude hip firing a belt fed Browning? I think it was on one of the island campaigns of WW2.
@keith moore The jar head. He was sending it. And there is a legit story of a tailgunner on an avenger(I think) using a 1911 in air to air combat. Successfully
@keith moore tacairnet.com/2014/11/17/a-zero-and-a-45/. Got some details wrong, bit still.
@@CSSVirginia You mean John Basilone at Guadalcanal?
@@b19rando the real film isn't that far off!
"An even more overgunned version of the Atlanta".
How do you do that? Replace the hull with guns?
Maybe they were going to design a 6 inch version of the dual purpose battery.
Nicholas you mean USS Worcester?
Were approaching levels of AA that shouldn't even be possible.
@@hackerjohnt USS Worchester could be viewed a development of the layout of the Atlanta class light cruisers. The final variant of the Atlanta class the USS Juneau (2) commissioned in 1946 and modernised in 1950-1 with a comprehensive new fire control and radar and the main armament of 12 5/38 supplemented with 14 of the new 3/50. This rebuilt Juneau proved ironically significantly superior in AA performance to the Worchester probably because the Worcester and Roanoke were only completed as prototypes for the 8 inch Des Moines and the 6 inch twin automatic guns in the Worchester used too many parts from Cleveland's turrets in particular they retained bag charges hardly compatible with fast AA automatic fire and jammed repeatedly.
@Jonathan Stiles American Sailors: *WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!*
I first saw the USS Alaska in a magazine a few years before this came out, I was actually confused on why these Iowa lookalikes were being called cruisers because to me they looked like The Iowa with a super heavy cruiser hull. When I did some research, I realized they were actually America's last Battlecruisers (Large Cruisers whatever your preference is :) ) and they really intrigued me. Then this video came out, I really enjoyed learning more about these fascinating warships, thank you!
Good to know I am not the only one who thought they looked like "mini-Iowas."
@@SeraphoftheRoundTable miniowa
The Germans never built "Battlecruisers". Ever. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were Battleships, and the WWI vessels were classified as Large Cruisers. Same as the Alaskas.
@@SeraphoftheRoundTable It's the superstructure and 3x3 main gun layout.
"if it looks like a battlecruiser, smells like a battlecruiser and tastes like a battlecruiser, it's a battlecruiser"
- The Mighty Jingles
Depends upon how you use the term. Technically, a battle cruiser, as initially conceived by Jackie Fischer, was a ship with battleship armament with cruiser speed and armor. I think of the pocket battleship Graf Spee, which had 11 inch guns. The classification of the guns is tricky. A 12 inch gun would have been considered a battleship gun a generation or two previous, but by this time, a new battleship had fifteen or sixteen guns, with even the older units have fourteen inch guns. I think large cruiser - but that's me.
Buuuut it doesn't look, smell, or taste like a battlecruiser.
It smells like a cruiser, grown up right to the very limits of what the US military industry could mass-produce. And it is exactly what Alaska is.
Under normal circumstances I would never take something like "the mighty jingles" at all seriously but seeing as I know who jingles is via other sources I have to take your comment seriously even though I really don't want to
@@nealpritchett2462 so what the hell is the Gneisenau, then? it had 11 inch guns! surely it can't be a battleship or a battlecruiser then
@@nealpritchett2462 the Alaska definitely had the speed of a battlecruiser, it had armament suitable for the purpose of a battlecruiser with 12 inch guns and it did taste like a battlecruiser
«Is there an empty space on the ship? Why is there an empty space on the ship, put a gun there you idiot!» still your greatest comment! The one with allowing americans to practise their second ammendment rights has to be the runner up!
I agree with this statement :D
America was feeling a bit Orky at the time.
DAKA DAKA DAKA DAKA DAKA DAKA
Freddy Aamodt “exercise its 2nd Amendment rights” ... 😆😆😆 it’s funny because it’s true!
Facing kamikazes it only makes sense.
If Alaska isn't a battle cruiser because of 12" guns, how would you define Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with 11" guns?
"Most of the Japanese Cruiser fleet was already forming a series of interesting artificial reefs" " Curtsy of the attentions of US Aviators and Submarines" rotflmao
again....your sarcasm causes me to laugh until i pee my pants
Donald Hill dddB
I was literally just scrolling down to make that same comment 😂
Let's not overlook his comment about the US Navy's tradition of allowing nearly every member of the crew to exercise their second amendment rights in the face of the enemy...Drake's humor is truly epic 😆
I actually had to think about that for a few seconds before it hit me.
@@micfail2 It is very enjoyable.
An American.
These two ships were stunning.Powerful and beautiful all at once.
Absolutely gorgeous ships. It would be nice to have one now…rebarreled with a smoothbore it could fling 500-750 pound glide bombs over 100-150 km, regardless of weather. I’m sure a MEU would appreciate a friend like that!
Aha, the Alaska class _-cannot-have-the-Axis-outgun-us_ cruiser?
That was definitely the idea ; an ace-in-the-hole that could chase down and destroy any raiders/gunships except for battleships . The enemy battlewagons would be a focus of Allied battle-groups , carrier-groups , and submarine-forces . This strategy paid off for the Allies very well , and in all theatres of conflict .
Addendum : The video delves into the subject of enlarged-cruiser versus battlecruiser . Convention aside , a battle-cruiser is normally a shrunken-down battleship with battleship-class guns. An Enlarged-Cruiser , though , is normally a heavy-cruiser , writ large . These ships are designed to be as fast or faster than heavy-cruisers , and bear heavier weaponry than them , as well . They are often longer , but leaner , than many actual battleships .
This stands in opposition to battle-cruisers , which tend to be heavier by length than E.Cruisers , and have heavier armament . The exceptional example of this is the WW2 Scharnhorst-class . They were clearly reduced battle-ships , yet had lesser guns than even the Alaska-class . This was not by design ; these were originally designed to bear 15" main-guns . Material limitations prevented that from happening , so 11" guns were mounted instead . Later it was decided that the higher rate-of-fire guns were better for the ships' roles as "great-raiders" , so the Kriegsmarine stuck with them for good .
Examples of German Enlarged-Heavy-Cruisers would be the Prinz Eugen-class , Deutschland-class were more armored heavy-cruiser .
*Well , there it is . Kirov-class is the only one standing , thanks to missiles .
D.H.
There were USN ships classified as destroyer leaders at one time. The USS Alaska could be considered a cruiser leader.
I was on the USS Belknap, DLG 26. I was a member of the crew of the USS Belknap, DLG 26.
Designer: So how many guns do you want
US: Yes
Rest of USN: So how many DP Guns do you want exactly?
Atlanta Class: Yes.
More dakka!!!
Had a good laugh with ARTIFICIAL REEFS and SANITIZED THE SEA jokes.
And a few new artillery training targets for the Americans to enjoy the Fourth of July
If you're not sure what to call the Alaska class, you can always call them "Large Cruisers" with an emphasis on the quotation marks since thats what the USN called them.
If you are Japanese I think you call them something to be avoided.
I see your logic on that and I raise you this the United States government for many years has classified minivans and SUVs as light truck's because of wait for it
Hauling capacity yeah and the car companies well they just get by with a legal loophole on mpg and emissions
It's a fucking battlecruiser. I don't give a shit what our navy says.
How about 2nd rate. It has armour protection proportional to it's guns, speed to for a battle line and guns to eliminate other ships of similar displacement and type.
They originally called them battlecruisers and it's believed the reason why they lobbied so hard for everyone to stop calling them that after the redesignation was simply to fool the Japanese as to their purpose.
The “Two Ocean” strategy evolved into the “Win, Hold, Win” strategy.
"Baltimore class could be in two places at once." LOL! I see what you did there.
I kinda missed the joke, can anyone explain? What, was the ship split in half by enemy fire or what?
Aleš Doležal it’s because you could afford almost 2 Balti’s for the price of 1 Alaska, thus the two places at once jab.
You guys are total morons....and you don't even know it....
IIISentorIII care to enlighten us you self-righteous little man?
Iirc the bow of a Baltimore class was blown off so that might be what he meant
6:42 - a gun behind every fleck of paint
Have always wondered how a one on one engagement between an Alaska class real-big cruiser and a German Scharnhorst class battle-cruiser would have gone.
The Alaska had better guns and radar - the Scharnhorst having better armor and torpedo protection (on paper).
Considering the thinner deck armor of the Scharnhorst Alaska could stay just out of range of Scharnhorst guns and do some damage to her deck armor and if Alaska managed to destroy all of Scharnhorst’ turrets which would be surprisingly easy since scharnhorst top turret armor was only 7 inches thick. Alaska could win.
This would be hilariously in favor of the USN Alaska-class.
The Germans like to sortie ships almost by themselves, even Bismarck was sent to her doom with next to no escort.
Meanwhile the American Navy rolled around in large gangs.
Even more comedic, since we're now talking WWII-era with the Allies vs Axis, in all likeliness, a supposed Alaska-class in the Atlantic serving against the Germans would not only be rolling around with other American ships, but the Royal Navy would be there also. These waters are, Royal Navy stomping grounds. It would have been a hilarious gangbang of USN / RN ships against 1 Scharnhorst-class.
Hell, the crazy Kriegsmarine actually sent out Scharnhorst to go attack a British convoy bound for Murmansk with supplies, but instead ran into Duke of York and many of her friends. Scharnhorst was slaughtered, the Germans were too fond of sending big expensive ships with little to no escort.
@@Warmaker01 Well, I did mention a one on one engagement between the 2 ships.....
Granted, an actual scenario would have involved mobs of Allied units, and possibly an argument amongst them as to who got to torpedo the hulk.
Have always considered Kriegsmarine destroyers to be ridiculously useless.
Looked good on paper, pathetic in action.
Heavy armament but leisure rate of fire and little reserve ammunition.
High speed and limited fuel let them race out of harbor so they turn about and race back in.
- but I digress.
@@agwhitaker If Scharnhorst actually was equipped with the x6 15in SK C/34 mounts she was orginally supposed to have. Scharnhorst would gain a considerable edge over an Alaska. However, one could argue the 11 inch guns were adequate enough.
@@Warmaker01 it definitely wasnt completely the germans fault, they didnt have the escorts to send with normally. Its not like the interwar period gave them much time to build up a reasonable sized fleet like they had in ww1.
Best Drachinifel comment ever about American ships (ROFLMAO): "And of course in keeping with the American policy of allowing almost every member of the crew a chance to exercise their Second Amendment rights..." Brilliant and made my day.
Thanks for posting this one. I've always thought the Alaskas were interesting ships, and it was great to learn about them in more detail.
Such a stinkin' beautiful ship!
Pete Sheppard I agree. They are my favorite for good looking ships.
A terrible waste of money, but yes, they really were splendid looking ships.
PS - Agreed. Simply, beautiful ships.
agreed
A vessel barely broken in, destined for scrap. Sign of the times I suppose.
Grandfather was on the USS Guam (Alaska class), in the Gunnery Department.
Judging by the armament, I think the entire Ships Company were in the Gunnery Department.
I have an official USN print, the same type the Navy uses as standard wall hangers at Navy buildings of CB-2 hanging in my office. I also had the USS Caloosahatchee and the USS Ainsworth. I sent the Ainsworth to their ships reunion to be used as a door prize, gift, or whatever, I don’t remember what I did with the Caloosahatchee. I bought them in a thrift shop for $1 each, still in their government frames. If you are in a military town and bored, check out the second hand and charity shops! Amazing things sometimes appear!
@@Zephyrmec After his passing, I received from my grandmother his US Burial Flag, Ship Book (Great condition) and a framed picture of Guam with his name, rank, and ship battle decorations.
O7
I have always considered the Alaska's as the best looking ship ever built.
They are fine looking ships, but I think I favor HMS Hood.
Same!!
nah! The Texas, now that's one sexy ship!
I would put them in third. Iowa class, Atlanta class, then Alaska class.
Ben Miz
For me it is a lucky dip between Alaska, Iowa class, and the scharnhorst. All have super sleek lines and look like bad mofo’s. I guess the scharnhorst was a real bad mofo given it was on the axis side.
An aspect of this period of time I am fascinated by is some of the ways the various nations worked with, around and occasionally through the naval treaties of the time. As a ground pounder I'm well aware of the holy trinity of tank design (mobility, armor and firepower) and I see the design of warships follows a similar thought process.
Well to be fair, the first tanks were essentially seen as akin to "land warships"; the British even designated a lot of their tanks as "cruiser" tanks.
This video is about to spike alot in popularity from 2/27/19 on with Alaska releasing on World of Warships. This is a Very helpful video getting to know the real ship before sailing her ingame. o7
And the Alaska in WoWs didn't fail to please. T9 Heavy Cruiser with Great HE and AP.
And we'll probably see them in Warthunder around 2023, maybe.
Hell, I got her based on this video a while back. Fun part is you can actually cheek citpen Yamatos under 7km. Just to show you how overpowered her guns are. Plus, the best part of the play is, as designed, blowing up cruisers. Especially ones who are not avare of your presence. She is such a sexy beast. Makes me wonder why she still only had a cruiser amount of 5'/38s.
Did i miss it on Blitz?? Or was it not available? Id love to have it on there!!!
i love this ship in game one of 3 ships I have brought in world of warships. though she could use a few torpedo mounts for fun
This video gave me the first 2nd amendment joke I actually laughed at in a very long time, thank you for that. XD
man i just love your style and your humor also the format its lovely
As many lame suggestions TH-cam has made for videos I might like, Drachinfel isn't one of them. Between the humor and the great information, I heartily second your compliment for Drachfel's talents.
Nice video! I have been working as a volunteer at the battleship USS Alabama. We are re-equipping the ship's photographic darkroom. The current curator and staff are doing a great job at restoring the ship!
Best,
Mike F.
I've been waiting for this one. Probably the most interesting class of warships the United States Navy ever put to sea. It's definitely so for me- I've always been fascinated with the Alaskas.
Cruiser weight with "intermediate caliber" guns?
You mean "assault cruisers"? 😛
(It's a joke based on the definition of "assault rifle")
Sturmschiffe!
Dear Lord,Drach I'm following up your excellent review and apart from techniques am still rolling with your comic genius!
Fantastic commentary! And some excellent wit as well. Loved the "... interesting underwater reefs" line. Rule Drachinifel!
Great video, as always. I can't tell you how much angst I have suffered over the decades, over the proper designation for battlecruiser! "Is it a breath mint? Is it a candy mint? STOP! You're BOTH right!". Sorry. I'll go take my meds. 😜
The alaska is ONE SEXY SHIP. shame they scrapped it :(
@@Future-Preps35
The Alaska's had the same problem that every battlecruiser-type of vessel ever built had - it was a stupid idea from the word go. The battlecruiser was Jackie Fisher's idea - ships with a main battery only slightly smaller than a battleship and lighter armor, ships which counted on speed to outmaneuver an enemy, ships that could beat any cruiser known and run away from any battleship. The problem with this idea is that it simply didn't work, and I can prove it with six words: Hood, Indefatigable, Queen Mary, Invincible, Lützow. HMS Hood was the pride of the Royal Navy - and was sunk within eight minutes of opening fire at the Battle of the Denmark Strait when one or more shells from Bismarck penetrated her too-light armor, reached her magazines, and blew her in two. The remaining four ships - three of the Royal Navy and the latter of the German High Seas Fleet - were lost at Jutland. In all cases, they were unable to outmaneuver the incoming rounds from their opponents and were sunk. And at Jutland, a fourth British battlecruiser - HMS Lion, David Beatty's flagship - was nearly lost when one of her (lightly armored) turrets was blown open by a German shell, and only the heroism of the turret commander who, with his legs having been blown off, dragged himself to the speaking tube and ordered the magazines flooded, saved her (he got the VC for that - posthumously). All of the heavy modern units that were lost at Jutland on both sides were battlecruisers.
she's my second favourite ship, after des moines
@@jarvisfamily3837 they weren't fighting enemies they were supposed to fight against ( cruisers ) i guess ?
@@DuckyGoose74
After the expenditures were made on battlecruisers, the push was on to find a use for them - and both the Royal Navy and the Kaiserliche Marine decided, "Hey, we've got these fast ships - we'll use 'em as a scouting force for the battleships! Woo!". Yeah. First problem - in the 19-teens all search was visual. There was no radar yet. You had to send ships out, put guys with Mark I Mod 0 eyeballs up in the spotting tops (hopefully assisted by telescopes, binoculars, and etc) and get them to eyeball their opponents. Second problem - in anything but perfect weather, by the time you can *see* your opponent A) they can see you, and B) they can hit you with their main battery. The thinking was that at long range - well, no worries, they can *shoot* at you but surely they won't *hit* you. Right? Wrong. Gunnery had gotten better - because both navy's knew the weak points of each other's ships. They knew that *if* they could put a long-range round on target it could easily slice through the thinnest armor on their opponents battlecruisers - and the thinnest armor on these misbegotten beasts was their deck armor. The assumptions about how poorly long-range gunnery would perform was baked into these designs. But the tactics and equipment kept improving. Worse - a battlecruiser did not represent a significant cost savings over a full-on dreadnought battleship, so even that wasn't a reason to build these things. Feh.
@@jarvisfamily3837 so battlecruisers are useless , am i right ?
Thank you for making me forget the current, with tales of the past. 🇨🇦
As viewed from the air, one can see the obvious lines of a cruiser, especially when it's next to a battleship.
I love the commentary in here. Several good lines already, and only halfway through. Well done sir.
I find your channel interesting, and understand your reason for not covering cold war era ship.
I would like to suggest coverage of auxilaries, like USS Vestal AR4.
Charles Ward I had a good friend, now deceased, who was at Pearl Harbor, and through the war was crew on two ships that were sunk. He retired as a chief machinists mate in 1958. I used to have a great time asking him about being sunk, but not at Pearl, and then ask him as if I could not remember what ship he was on at the time... “hey chief! What ship was it you were stationed on at Pearl? The Vestal wasn’t it?? He would almost explode. During his whole career, he served aboard destroyers and cruisers, and volunteered to remain on sea duty at every opportunity.... in 21 years he only served 42 months of shore duty, and hated it. A true sailor, “Haze Gray and Underway” he always said: “if you’re a sailor, you belong aboard a warship, at sea. If you want shore duty, join the damned Army”
He was the proverbial old salt!
My father was a gunner on USS Alaska CB1. I have the ships book.
My dad was on it too, he was a Marine. Any info would be appreciated. Since he didn't talk much. I did get to go see it as a kid before it was scrapped, I believe anchored in the Hudson.
One comparison that puts the Alaska class into perspective for me is that they are actually close to the Scharnhorst class (a small gun battle-cruiser in my book) in displacement and speed, and the Alaska outguns them. The Scharnhorsts are often referred to as small battleships because of the armor and protection, and were often considered to be similar in capability to Repulse and Renown despite the latter's obvious huge advantage in main armament. I think that in a gun duel between the Alaskas and Scharnhorsts, it would have come down to gunnery skills and luck. I can't think of any cruiser that would have had a prayer against either of these classes of ships other than running away....so battle cruiser it is.....
@scottb8175 Gneisenau & Scharnhorst were originally designed to be mounted with 3 x 2 15" guns
Can you do a review of the scrap iron flotila (Ie the V&W class destroyers of the Royal Australian Navy during WW2)
Norman Friedman, author of a series of design histories of US warship types, included the Alaska class in his book on US cruiser design. The fact that they were scaled-up from the Baltimore class heavy cruisers, had cruiser armor and length-to-beam ratio, were armored on a cruiser scale, and did not carry Battleship caliber guns, all place them in the large cruiser category. I have observed that British authors tend to refer to them as battlecruisers, while American writers usually call them large cruisers.
Nice profile of this class, Drach, and thank you for respecting the US Navy's own designation for these ships. It appears that the US Navy never built any battlecruisers, and the only ones it designed were the Lexington class, two of which were completed as carriers, with the remainder being scrapped.
I know these ships are usually considered expensive failures and white elephants, but if they had been available in 1942 they might have been very useful in the night battles off Guadalcanal. If they could have avoided catastrophic shell hits and Long Lance torpedoes, they might have been able to make mincemeat of Hiei and Kirishima with their high speed and heavy caliber, radar directed gunfire.
They key to me is that battle cruisers have battleship guns, cruiser speed and armor. The Alaska class did not have battleship guns of the time, which were 16 inch. Therefore they were either light battle cruisers or super heavy cruisers. Since light battle cruiser is almost an oxymoron, they were super heavy cruisers.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005 I agree completely. Some people, primarily British, insist on calling them battlecruisers, but I think the US Navy designation of Large Cruiser is the best way to describe them. I wish they had been completed a few years earlier, they might have been able to shorten the US battle for Guadalcanal and save a lot of casualties among our Marines.
The Alaska class where the most beautiful of any BC's built.
“Large cruiser”
Large Cruiser*
@LOAN NGUYEN you stupid. I served with it in WWII I know what it is and it is a Large Cruiser
@LOAN NGUYEN you are still stupid I am a ship correct? The Alaska is a ship correct? It was in the US navy correct? The USS Missouri served beside the Alaska stupid.
@LOAN NGUYEN never in my life have I met someone so dumb lol
Referring to your second amendment right comment I will paraphrase what an American comic said to a British crowd " Americans aren't happy unless they can have the guns they want. Why do you have to keep Americans happy because of the guns they have ". I thought what you said was funny but I'm from philly,,some Americans........ well you know. Your channel is unparalleled in facts in your subject matter and you being British gives it that authentic feel. Say whatever you want I will still watch periodically. And thank you for the time and effort you put into your videos.
From a historical context I think you're right, the Alaska's are large cruisers (Using Renown/Repulse as the true 'modern' battlecruiser example). For the layman I'd describe the Alaska's as battlecruiser because "Large Cruiser" would need to be explained in detail, along with Light Cruiser & Heavy Cruiser.
BFC. That should have been their hull designations: BFC-1
Officially Big Fast Cruiser, but we know that the crews would call them 😁
Great series - thank you for putting it together. I have been studying military history, in particular WWII history, for a very long time now, but had not heard of this class of vessel prior to seeing your video. That's one of the coolest things about this field of history; there are always new and interesting things to be learned, even for an old sea dog such as myself. Thanks again...
"They were designed to kill anything that can't run from it and run from anything it couldn't kill,and pray that Renown,Repulse,and Hood don't get involved,"
They were that scared of the British Battlecruisers? XD
Though battlecruisers were technically no longer viable in WW2 they were a huge threat to any existing cruisers
@@KatyushaLauncher technically they still pose a threat
@@whateverthisis389 yeah
Wait...Hood did what?
@@mitchellsmith4690 be *MENACING*
These videos represent to me, some of the most comprehensible and interesting appreciations on the internet - even a moron like me can generally see what's being driven at...and they're far from humourless either! Thank you so much for the time and trouble of preparing, producing and posting these...
Best large cruiser boondoggle ever!!
Your amusement at our AAA never gets old.
Large Light Cruiser. Good ebnough for Jackie Fisher so easily good enough for everyone else:-)
Fisher was sort of correct. They were a scaled up cruiser hull design, and the government had banned the construction of new capital ships during the likely duration of the war, so larger cruisers fitted with any guns were allowed. The idea made sense to get the guns to sea, and if the ships had radar would have been viable. Sadly 4 guns was too few for ranging in WWI so they were only of marginal use as gun ships, though they did offer good service as minelayers and torpedo platforms in theory...
Small Fast Battleship.
My hat is off to you sir, for a very droll take on the situation: '..most of the Imperial Japanese Navy's Cruiser fleet was already forming a series of interesting artificial reefs..'
I can't say exactly why but I just love this ship! Such a beast.
"Japan was developing super-cruisers"
that's, that's a battleship
"That's not a moon cruiser, it's a battle station." to fully mangle the quote.
Well a "Super Cruiser" can be synonymous with a "Fast Heavy Drednaught Cruiser" or "Large Cruiser"
Battlecruiser
As far as I'm concerned, their size, speed and armament make them battlecruisers.
But Drach addressed the armament, and said that their guns were smaller than their contemporary battleships.
So did you miss that, do you disagree, or did I misinterpret him? :)
Perhaps the most beautiful ship of WWII.
Love the 2nd amendment rights joke! 😁
I think the US tendency to put AA everywhere it was fit was influenced by the experience at Pearl Harbor.
@keith moore You have begged for British help on more then one occasion. Vietnam for example.
@keith moore American on at least two occasions asked Britain to supply soldiers to fight in Vietnam. This was because US generals wanted British troops fighting there. Johnson even came to the UK to ask.
So whether it was you personally who was asked is irrelevant. America did ask Britain to send troops.
keith moore Damn Keith.. I don’t think he meant offense.. Hell I probably have more guns than any 5 people on this list.. lol. Now as far as Vietnam is concerned well I keep that to myself since it killed my father and ruined my stepdad. 😞
@@bigblue6917 What was the reason? Just man power, or did they think the British had experience in that kind of war? (Honest question, not trolling.)
Honestly, these are some of if not my absolute favorite ships despite the fact they never saw surface action.
Drach: How did a cruiser or battleship store and supply ammunition to the large number of 40mm & 20mm AA gun positions? Was there a main AA magazine behind armor, or were there multiple distributed ammunition lockers? Was ammunition transported across weather decks on carts or was there a protected internal distribution system?
train style carts usually. Until elevators, a chain tow was used to pull the ammo up.
As a Navy brat, I grew up in that Post WWII period when many of those ship types were still in service. We generally just used the term Heavy Cruiser and Light Cruiser. Thanks. Narragansett Bay
Great review ! I've researched the Alaska class cruisers in the past and came across the same debate in regards to pinning down a definitive designation for this class but I think there is enough uncertainty within historian circles to not call this class a 'battle cruiser'. They just did not fully measure up to that definition.
My absolute favorite US ship of all time. Ty!
Here in Alaska we love this Class of Warship and even today it's hard to tell what Classification a Ship Class is like how USS Ticonderoga was first DDG-47 a Destroyer and later on CG-47 a Cruiser
@@steamedcream7671 not as sure about the idea that there just as leathal have never managed (probably for good reason) to find real data on moder ships abilty to control missiles how big can they make there missile waves and ehat is the saturation point of the defenses given the ppwer amd number of radars you would need to handle more missiles argues in the favor of larger vesseles increased offensive and defensive capabilities bit like i said not a lot of information on this that i have found
@@steamedcream7671 fair enough and i agree on the grey area for modern ship classification VLS finished off the already eroding differnces in classification
@@xerty5502
If it helps the First 5 Ticongorga Class were really upgraded Kidd Class DDGs that were Upgraded ASW Spurance Class DD
And the Sejong the Great Class Destroyer has more missiles128 than a VLS Ticongorga Class Cruiser 122
@@springtime1838 i am aware ☺ realy not much differnce between the later ticondarogas and the arligh burkes (to lasy to look up proper spelling so you get best guess) was more focussed on the differnces in the larger modern frigets and the modern destroyers witch are usaly larger and specificly that larger vessels have room for either more similar and or larger/more powerful radar and fire control systems. Missile cappacity is not an unimportent statistic but was not relevent to the discussion at hand.
Was happy to hear the arguments regarding the ship designation controversary: Battle Cruisers vs Large Cruisers. I vote 60%CB vs 40%CC!
"...a chance to exercise their second amendment rights in the face of the enemy..."
*This offer not valid in the state of California
The 40mm bofors was invented for the 2nd amendment.
@@psikogeek Let's see: four-round capacity, all-steel, not cheaply made, not concealable, no pistol grip, no folding stock, no detachable magazine, no bayonet...if you convert it to semi-auto, who could complain?
@@americanmade6996 Mount to truck bed and hit the sporting clays range.
"...no bayonet..." except for those Bofors manned by the ship's Marine complement. I'm sure those fuckers managed to weld a bayonet lug onto a Bofors, somewhere.
I live in California. Can I put the state government in front of a firing squad of bofors? I’m sure that would fix many problems.
The third watch was completed. I can't resist this beautiful hunk of steel. 😊❤😊
Count me in the "Large Cruisier" camp, but with some planning and work, these could been instead CBAA class ships. The concept of the Atlanta class enlarged to twenty-two 5"/38 twin mounts for a total of 44 barrels, eighteen 40mm quad mounts for a total of 72 barrels , and somewhere between thirty-six and forty 20mm twin mounts for a total of 72 to 80 barrels would have made these ships a nightmare for Japanese aviators. Deleting the 12" guns and their magazines would have freed up space for installing all the PPI radar screens and plotting tables to enable the Alaska class to be the USN's first true fighter control ships. They could have also been more easily converted to antiaircraft missile ships postwar.
[Edited to correct some mistakes between mounts and barrels]
Some interesting thoughts there, Sar Jim
@@bigblue6917 Thanks. I fixed it so I wasn't mixing mounts and barrels. The Alaskas could have been really formidable antiaircraft ships if if was recognized early on that a large cruiser platform could have been more effective than the enlarged destroyer types of the Atlanta class.
@@sarjim4381 Problem is that large AA ships with no other role are in most ways worse than two smaller ships that total that amount of AA. A single unit is a large expensive target, and lacks the abilty to be in more than one place at a time. Two smaller ships can cover a wider arc around the capital ship, or if there is enough to cover all angles like there should be... then they can go for more depth of coverage forcing the enemy to run a much larger gauntlet of fire or switch to attacking the light ships first.
@@xt6wagon That's true except the only role for the AA version of the Alaska wouldn't be just gunfire. It would be as a fighter control ship to vector in fighters to destroy the enemy before they can break through the CAP. A ships needs size and volume to fulfill that role while still being able to keep up with the carriers. Two smaller ships can't do that. The USN kind of used this concept with their "Sea Control" ship of the 60's that never got built.
Why not be like the German's Deutschland class cruisers and call them pocket battleships?
Your wit, sir, is superb.
Question: who's the hapless soul who manned the nose turret when the ship fired its 12-inch battery forward? 😅
The most desperate to exercise their 2nd Amendment right...🤣🤣🤣
They had a blind and deaf person man it, he was given a helmet and the fire controller had a button to whack him in the head on either side to tell him which direction to turn.
Thank you for not putting that issue to rest...
Just a terminology correction:
The 5"/38 twin is a MOUNT, not a TURRET. In US Navy parlance a gun TURRET is an armored gun enclosure. A gun MOUNT is an unarmored gun enclosure. 5"/38 twin and singles were mounted in unarmored enclosures, and are thus gun MOUNTS.
Now, for a real test, what's the difference between line and rope? :-)
Also, a turret structure extends down well into the lower decks, forming part of the ship's internal structure.
My uncle was on the Alaska. He was in the after turret in charge of fire control for the guns. He did nothing until there was a problem, then it was “oh hell” as he said.
They were hit by suicide attacks many times. He was on it when they shot down one of there own. He often talked about some of the fighter pilots pursuing the Japanese plane even after they were in range of AA fire. My favorite line was “those crazy bastards would not pull out and we could not stop firing at the enemy. It’s a wonder we didn’t shoot half of them down.”
I would love to see a review of:
HMS E-11
USS Abbot DD 629
USS Memphis ACR 10 (former USS Tennessee)
USS Castine
U.S. SC and PC class sub-chasers
Credit where credit is due. The Americans really made damn good looking cruisers and battleships. Nice lines.
Cruiser guns top out at 8", with the heaviest cruisers displacing in the high teens to low twenties at most. That makes the Alaska and Guam battle cruisers. The decision is made, no further debate is necessary.
Simply because of those wonderful, tongue in cheek quotes; this video is now saved as a ‘Favorite’
So "Large Cruiser" it is then, which literaly translates to the german "Großer Kreuzer"... which was the designation that WW1 Era High Seas Fleet used for Derfflinger, Seydlitz, Von der Tann, Hindenburg and the others which were laid down and planned. ;)
@Findlay Robertson the right term for it is Schlachtkreuzer :P
finaly a video, where I can agree with you - enlarged Baltimor is nothink else than Large Cruiser ! Thank you.
Another account says that these ships were largely built at the insistence of FDR. Do you have any info about this?
I love my English kin’s affinity for history and the ability to tell the tale with a pleasing dose of their dry wit i.e.: allowing almost every crew member the ability to excercise their 2nd amendment rights. Awesome!
I would love to see an in depth review of the USS West Virginia.
The best commentary starts at 6:43! Lol 2A! Followed by 8:55... great story telling!
I request you do a video on USS Samuel B. Roberts DE 413
Also called the uss hold my steel balls were going in hard
Yes!
Whatever, but, these videos are always the best part of Saturday morning for me. Thanks!
The actual designation of the "Lexington" class was "large scout cruiser", not battlecruiser. Their primary purpose was strategic, operational and tactical reconnaissance, not the running down and destruction of enemy cruisers. The rise of long range submarines and of aviation replaced them as strategic and operational scouts. But they would still have been tactical scouts in pushing through the enemy screen to confirm the size, bearing and speed of the enemy main force. However, it is probable that in an unrestricted (ie. impossible) alternate history, they would have become surface escorts for carriers or been converted, aviation taking over the tactical scouting. This would have been possible because the US program following the "South Dakotas (BB-49)" was the BB1918, a combination of "South Dakota" armament and protection with "Lexington" machinery, giving a ~50,000 ton standard displacement fast battleship with 12x16" guns, 13.5" belt armor and 30 knots speed.
On the flip side, the designation of "large scout cruiser" is about as believable as Fishers "large light cruiser" or the current Japanese "helicopter destroyers" :)
Great video about an often forgotten/overlooked vessel of U.S. WWII navy. Knew about the USS Alaska - knew very little to nothing about USS Guam, or how many of this class of ships were actually planned. Everything that I have ever read about USS Alaska was that the navy wanted the ship badly but really did not know what to do with it once they received it. Since it had all those AA guns, carrier escort was the main mission during the war. USS Hawaii - after almost completion it was straight to the scrap yard. Seems that USN was "embarrassed" to have even had these ships in the inventory.
"Duck season!" "Rabbit season!" "Duck season!" "Rabbit season!"
@Da Big Kahuna Catfish I stand corrected!
@Da Big Kahuna Catfish Oh, I know! Sorry, it's hard to convey tone, but I took no offense.
it was a battlecruiser as they used leftover cannon from an older series of battleships
loving these vids. How about some on the German WW2 merchant raiders, Atlantis, Thor etc?
O.K... no sooner do I ask if carrier conversion had ever been considered than you answer that question! Next time I will see the whole video out before putting my hand up!
I have been waiting for this one!
same here .
I love the standardized symmetry of the USS Newport News, USS Alaska, and USS Iowa. They were the best gun ships and the prettiest ships the US Navy ever built.
Exercise their 2nd ammendment rights in the face of the enemy! LMFAO 😂
Guns blazing
Just caught up with this episode, a great presentation & discussion. Keep up the good work! I have always thought of a “wotif” scenario where the Alaska’s has been commissioned in time for the Solomons Campaign how they could have reversed some of the earlier results and shredded the Japanese cruisers...
I love the "2nd Amendment Rights" level of Armaments available for all!
Dry humor, wet eyes here..
Carry on
@ 3:53: 'Drachinifel': "I'm not entirely sure what that (the USS Atlanta) was suppose to do." The Purpose of, or, the design requirements of The USS Atlanta. or, "...what that was suppose to do?": The USS Atlanta (CL-51) classed as a 'Light Cruiser' was *mainly designed to provide anti-aircraft protection for U.S. Naval tasks groups.* In fact, in some works The USS Atlanta is classified as 'CLAA-51' because of her primary armament being that of an 'Anti-Aircraft Cruiser'; Her entire battery of 8-twin (16) 5-inch 38-Cal. (125-mm) gun mounts, 3-forward and 3-aft., were designated as 'dual-purpose' (DP) (but, were actually triple-purpose) and were capable of being utilized for 'Air-Targets', 'Ground-Targets' as-well-as 'Ship vs Ship Engagements'; although She was not specifically designed for those other purposes. Her gun's were able to fire both high-explosive and armor-piercing rounds. Therefore, the purpose of The USS Atlanta was, in reality, threefold; Mainly, to provide anti-aircraft protection for U.S. Naval tasks groups, and secondarily for shore-bombardment and ship to ship engagements.
The "Alaska" class have often been called "battlecruisers", but they were designed and built to cruiser standards, not capital ship standards. Take a look at the "Baltimore" class interior and exterior design plans and what "Alaska" looks like is an expanded "Baltimore". The USN's own description of the "Alaska" is a "large cruiser unconstrained by Treaty" limits". Just as it is better to consider the French "Dunkerque" and "Strabourg" as "small" "fast" battleships rather than battlecruisers given their design characteristics and as prototypes for the "Richelieu" class fast battleships. And just where the "Scharnhorst" class lies in international standards with battleship protection and battlecruiser armament is worth a discussion though they did follow the German format of fast capital ships with battleship standard protection and lighter main armament.
Cruiser standards, battleship armament, cruiser speed: Battlecruiser.
A "cruiser killer killer"... I like that description of warship class!
*sob* ITS STILL BATTLE CRUISER TO ME DAMN IT!!!! T_T
Same for me as well. There's no reason to invent a new term when, really, the battle cruiser class just evolved to use smaller guns in the main battery after the naval treaties started falling apart. If people had still built the older type of battle cruiser, with battleship tier armament, that'd be one thing, but nope, that pretty much stopped due to the various treaties. And so, what do you call something that's between a heavy cruiser and a battleship? A battle cruiser. Done.
I think they vilified calling them "battlecruisers" because admirals and captains kept putting them in battle lines and getting completely annihilated. They made sure everyone though they were cruisers and never sent them to fight battleships, so it worked.
@@onewhosaysgoose4831 Alternatively you can build you battlecruisers bigger and faster and keep similar armament and armor to your battleships. This becomes the ridiculously expensive "fast battleship" concept, and kinda made lighter armed and armored battlecruisers obsolete. Would you rather have one Iowa, or one and a half Alaskas?
It had the designation CB as in Cruiser Big. It was, a big cruiser. Bug guns and light armor.
To Admiral Fisher the Alaska class would have been the very definition of a battlecruiser.