Talk:Alaska-class cruiser

Line drawing

Hi,

I am the artist of the Alaska drawing used in the infobox. This is the incorrect original version I submitted in 2009. A redrawn version of Alaska is available on each individual ship's page (see CB-1 Alaska and CB-2 Guam articles). I would very much prefer it if my redrawn versions were used for the infobox on this page and the outdated drawing deleted.

Thanks Ian Roberts / Colosseum (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note, and good to see you around again. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Have had a renewed interest in this class and am probably going to revise the drawings based on the new information I've come across. Thanks for replacing the drawing. 15.219.153.83 (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Anytime. I'd love to see the revised drawings when you're done, whether you upload them here or not. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've found several instances of my drawing being reproduced without the Shipbucket template around the web, and was reminded that no link to it exists on Wikipedia. I think it's for the best that all the Shipbucket work I've added to WP gets removed. I hate to do this but am tired of having to police the various naval forums for my work being used without credit. Colosseum (talk) 05:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Limited armor protection?

"limited armor protection against 12-inch shells"

Does this mean the ships had additional armor offering partial protection against heavier shells, or reduced armor offering less protection against standard shells? To a person not expert about the relative capabilities and historical prevalence of 12-inch guns, this wording is very ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.20.170 (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a ridiculous statement; every gun warship in the fleet had 'limited' protection against its own main guns, never complete protection; that was the entire philosophy throughout all major navies of the period. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:79FD:BF21:DB76:D93F (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alaska-class cruiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140726131522/http://www.history.navy.mil/bios/low_franciss.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/bios/low_franciss.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140521235217/http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/uspacificfleetorg.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/uspacificfleetorg.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905181826/http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm to http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alaska-class cruiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120208080208/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/cru/cb1cl.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/cru/cb1cl.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Line drawing, 4 years on

Please remove the line drawing SVG available in the infobox on this page. This drawing is inaccurate in scale and coloration. I am the original author. Ianroberts0415 (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

what do the sources say about torpedoes

If the hull armour was 'virtually defenseless' against torpedoes, what was the strategy for these ships when Japanese submarines were about? Relying on destroyer escorts? For the size of these vessels and the huge resources put into them, I don't think the Navy simply "winged it." 50.111.25.210 (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Consider what happened to the battleship North Carolina when hit at Torpedo Junction in 1942:

"At 1452 on 15 September 1942, while operating as a unit of Task Force 17, NORTH CAROLINA was hit by a submarine torpedo. The torpedo detonated abreast Turret I at about frame 46, port, two feet below the lower edge of the armor belt."

"Only one explosion was noted. It produced a quick sharp detonation and a sharp cracking noise. A flash of flame was reported in Turret I handling room, the access trunk leading from the handling room to the third deck and A-317T."

"There was no fire. Flash from the torpedo was reported in the lower handling room of Turret I and in other spaces. It produced no damage. Whether the flash could have produced a smokeless powder fire or explosion, had there been exposed powder charges, is problematical."

This was with a torpedo defence which was considered to be extensive. It appears that its performance was adequate at this time to save the ship, but there remains some doubt as to whether the ship's state of readiness may have contributed inadvertently to this - ie; at action station, with powder being moved to the turret, might the flash have caused the damage to have been more severe? This is the USN's consideration, not mine.

Also consider what happened to the cruiser Savannah off Salerno in 1943, when struck by a Fritz-X:

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/WDR/U.S.S.%20SAVANNAH%20(CL-42),%20BOMB%20DAMAGE%20-%20Gulf%20of%20Salerno,%20Italy,%20September%2011,%201943.pdf

As is well-known, she was struck at a very high angle through a main battery turret, in which a 6-inch round later cooked off after about twenty to twenty-five minutes exposure to fire. A key excerpt:

"The case of SAVANNAH is unique even when it is considered that practically every case of war damage has its unusual aspects. The bomb which struck SAVANNAH was the largest, both as to total weight and size of charge, to have scored a hit on a U.S. naval vessel. Further, the bomb also detonated in the midst of main and secondary battery magazines - a location usually regarded as certain to cause the immediate and violent destruction of the vessel. Finally, the hit was the first made on a U.S. naval vessel with a German radio-controlled bomb. 2. Heavy punishment was absorbed by SAVANNAH in such a manner that her survival was never in jeopardy. That this was so is attributable both to the ruggedness of the hull and to the general excellence of measures taken by SAVANNAH's personnel to control damage."

And, perhaps the key to the ship's survival was in the opening of the hull underwater:

"Blast and flash passed up through No. III barbette and turret, killing the entire crew. A fire was ignited in the turret which burned stubbornly before being extinguished. In the magazines a powder fire of very brief duration occurred prior to the inrush of water through the openings in the shell."

So, while flooding in a battleship struck by single heavyweight torpedo was insufficient to cause problems in the powder room, yet a flash still occurred there (and fortunately no powder charges were present at that moment), a London Treaty-limited cruiser survived a near-ignition of the powder magazine by 'virtue' of having less protection in the underwater areas?

Whilst debatable, it seems clear that there was much in the way of chance that dictated the survival of a large warship struck by a torpedo and that built-in torpedo defence systems as seen on late-1930s battleship designs were not the only factor to consider.

Notably, this article has next to no discussion of the class' underwater arrangements or magazine arrangements, but instead includes a weasel-worded handwave, seemingly dismissive & from the perspective of battleship/capital ship design? Which is strange, given that the article discusses, explicitly, a cruiser class. But, this is why I have been forced to discuss a battleship's experience with a torpedo hit in relation to this class. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:B893:FD64:DF43:C833 (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Baltimore a treaty cruiser?

"Their design was scaled up from Baltimore class, the latter being a treaty cruiser limited by the Washington, 1930 London and Second London naval treaties." This seem wrong because the London Treaties capped the total tonnage of each powers Heavy and Light cruiser categories by the start of 2nd London the US had fulfilled it's CA tonnage, the Baltimores start when Britain and France declare war and Japan and Italy had exited the treaty system leaving the US the only signatory power not at war at that point the treaty system fell apart, the design was 30% over the treaty limit for a heavy cruiser. 81.128.201.66 (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

100% the Baltimore class were not Treaty cruisers at all, but rather an enlarged and improved derivative of the last true Treaty heavy cruiser. We should not be describing them as treaty cruisers. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:B893:FD64:DF43:C833 (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Not classed as battlecruisers

This is very correct; I have, however, deleted a short extension of this topic from the intro section, which was purely argumentative in nature and lacking in clarity or encyclopedic value. Assertions of 'lacking the attributes of battlecruisers' is not something which belongs in this article as it does not stand up to scrutiny once any metrics are applied to the argument and the facts are measured against them.

So, angry point-to-make is gone; just the facts, ma'am. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:F829:88FE:A35F:9B9A (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"Large Cruisers or Battlecruisers?"

Having just edited this section to try and improve its overall tone and message, I have to concede that there's only so much can be done with modest edits.

Bluntly, this section is a mess. The article is about a class of ship which is acknowledged - in the article, at the start - as having been a cruiser design of large size. Surely that's all we need to say?

If we must address the matter of certain (okay, admittedly numerous) authors and commentators calling these ships 'battlecruisers', then perhaps we should just do so openly and write that "a bunch of people have viewed these ships as battlecruisers, in spite of the official designation, as a result of the overall impression that these ships' scale and perceived power make upon the viewer", something like that.

What we currently have is a long and rambling argument about what does or does not make these now long-gone ships battlecruisers or big heavy cruisers, one way or the other and on and on. It's clear from experience on various forums online in recent years that there is a strong element who refute, with grrreat vehemence and furrrious anger, any suggestion whatsoever that the Alaska class were WW2 battlecruiser analogues. By and large, I have found the greater bulk of their arguments to be flawed and incoherent; a lot of reaching to try and prove their pet point.

(There actually are some useful metrics by which to judge battlecruiser resemblance, design ancestry or design intent, as well as strategic and tactical considerations to consider alongside the 1900s/1910s battlecruiser mission, which make for valid discussion, but I never ever see these raised or addressed.)

The point is, we simply need a dry mention of the fact that some people hold an alternative view to the official one, and reinforce the point that the article adheres to the official view. If one considers that we need to refer to the points made by the 'battlecruiser' lobby, that's fine - it's referring to something without judgement. What we don't need is to then try, desperately & clumsily, to refute those points. We can just reiterate that we use the official USN classification and leave it there.

I honestly think this section just needs scrapping and starting over. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:B893:FD64:DF43:C833 (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Armament - anti-aircraft section

I have deleted the two paragraphs describing the technical aspects and service histories of the Bofors and Oerlikon cannons.

The full service history & technical details of each weapon can be found very easily in the appropriate article for each weapon and links are already included for both in this section.

Therefore, devoting large paragraphs to discussing items of universal equipment with which these two warships were fitted - in common with every single USN surface ship in WW2 - seems completely superfluous and practically off-topic. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:79FD:BF21:DB76:D93F (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)