Cye Fischer ,AKA James1976, sent an e-mail to Mark recently askign some questions. After a discussion between Mark, myself, Cye and Shane I've been asked to post some of the questions here and our replies for more comments.
Cye's Question :
III. Alaska Class
The discussion I read gives me the impression that most of you guys are just going with the FDR forced them on the navy line. Your comments seemed to indicate that you have a copy of Friedmans US Cruisers. While the information is spread out, Friedman shows that the history of the Alaska is
a bit more complex. There was certainly a legitimate role for them when they were conceived, though it is certainly open to debate if they would have been approved as part of the FFO Vinson-Walsh Act. If the USN really wants a big cruiser, there was a 12x8 design concept for a follow-on to the
Baltimores that Ive always liked. There are plenty of reasons to kill the Alaska in FFO, but the FDR one seems pretty flimsy in my book.
Mark's Reply :
COMMENT: Yes, this is so and yes, mostly it comes from Friedman. I even asked Norman that question and he noted what he says in the book, that the Alaska was, in effect, the Washington Treaty second-class capital ship (which is what the WT CA was in the de facto sense), freed of its Treaty restrictions. He made the point that the Alaska was the 1940s version of the Invincibles, a type meant to be superior to all existing 8 gunned CA (same as Invincible and armoured cruisers of her era), but whose rationale vanished when that type did.
Russ's Reply :
Comment: I have stated this before and I'll state it again. I do not see the Alaska's being made. There justification and mission is not as strong in FFO as it was in OTL. This weaker stance and the costs of her Guns will , imho, torpedo the program when it goes to Congress in 1941. They were built to attack German, Italian and possibly Vichy French Large cruisers that might be used as Raiders. The Japanese cruisers up till Dec 1941 were not very large past the treaty cruisers that the US had ( though they did have ships on paper ). Even the July 1940 hearings where the Alaska class was first formally brought up to Congress never mentioned the Japanese. With the French as allies, the Italian fleet all but wiped out and the German fleet bottled up in the Baltic there is no need. Also in Conway's they state I believe that some say that the President forced the design on the Navy. They also say that there is absolutely no way to verify this. It is possible that he may have mentioned something about a ship like the Alaska in 1938 based on a notion of foreign battlecruiser development but that is it. If the Montana's are laid down and the Iowa's are 4 strong there is no reason to lay them down. To me then the follow on to the Baltimores makes more sense and does not require any new or more expensive machinery or equipment like the Alaska's. Also with a possible deminished Two-Ocean Navy act the need for Heavy cruisers like the 12x8", quick and in quantity may also be a great selling point.
Cye's Reply :
IV. Large Cruisers
Whether the USN goes with 12" guns or 8" guns, Friedman seems to indicate that a super carrier escort is what the USN was looking for. With North Carolina gone, Washington a big question mark, and Alabama (??) siting in the mud, I don't think we can assume that the fast battleships will be tied
to the carriers in the near term. Speaking for myself, I think that if the USN doesn't go for the 12" Alaska, then the 12x8" CA-B design (17k tons, 33 knots) is something that could be had in less time and in greater numbers. Off course, that could raise questions about building the Baltimores. Does
anyone have any idea what kind of resources could be freed up by dropping the Mk.8 12"?
Russ's Reply :
IV. Remember if the Alaska's are changed that will happen in 1941. If they become practical like a 12X8" could be they could be even laid down before December 7th 1941 as there are more slips in her tonnage range. The 12" guns that the Alaska's used is and was the most expensive gun ever designed and built by the USN, even the Turrets were twice the price of a turret made for the Iowa's. That's the kind of resources were talking about. Poring that kind of money in a rapid tripple turret 8" gun sooner like what was developed for the Des Moines (mk 16's ) would be better money spent
,imho.
Even going with the Mk 15's to start would be better. As for the Baltimore's, they would be built as well unless the new ship went with the Mk 15's. Then it would be hard to justify the two heavy cruisers, imo.
That's it....
Suggestions? Comments? Questions?
Russ / Roller007
Cye's Question :
III. Alaska Class
The discussion I read gives me the impression that most of you guys are just going with the FDR forced them on the navy line. Your comments seemed to indicate that you have a copy of Friedmans US Cruisers. While the information is spread out, Friedman shows that the history of the Alaska is
a bit more complex. There was certainly a legitimate role for them when they were conceived, though it is certainly open to debate if they would have been approved as part of the FFO Vinson-Walsh Act. If the USN really wants a big cruiser, there was a 12x8 design concept for a follow-on to the
Baltimores that Ive always liked. There are plenty of reasons to kill the Alaska in FFO, but the FDR one seems pretty flimsy in my book.
Mark's Reply :
COMMENT: Yes, this is so and yes, mostly it comes from Friedman. I even asked Norman that question and he noted what he says in the book, that the Alaska was, in effect, the Washington Treaty second-class capital ship (which is what the WT CA was in the de facto sense), freed of its Treaty restrictions. He made the point that the Alaska was the 1940s version of the Invincibles, a type meant to be superior to all existing 8 gunned CA (same as Invincible and armoured cruisers of her era), but whose rationale vanished when that type did.
Russ's Reply :
Comment: I have stated this before and I'll state it again. I do not see the Alaska's being made. There justification and mission is not as strong in FFO as it was in OTL. This weaker stance and the costs of her Guns will , imho, torpedo the program when it goes to Congress in 1941. They were built to attack German, Italian and possibly Vichy French Large cruisers that might be used as Raiders. The Japanese cruisers up till Dec 1941 were not very large past the treaty cruisers that the US had ( though they did have ships on paper ). Even the July 1940 hearings where the Alaska class was first formally brought up to Congress never mentioned the Japanese. With the French as allies, the Italian fleet all but wiped out and the German fleet bottled up in the Baltic there is no need. Also in Conway's they state I believe that some say that the President forced the design on the Navy. They also say that there is absolutely no way to verify this. It is possible that he may have mentioned something about a ship like the Alaska in 1938 based on a notion of foreign battlecruiser development but that is it. If the Montana's are laid down and the Iowa's are 4 strong there is no reason to lay them down. To me then the follow on to the Baltimores makes more sense and does not require any new or more expensive machinery or equipment like the Alaska's. Also with a possible deminished Two-Ocean Navy act the need for Heavy cruisers like the 12x8", quick and in quantity may also be a great selling point.
Cye's Reply :
IV. Large Cruisers
Whether the USN goes with 12" guns or 8" guns, Friedman seems to indicate that a super carrier escort is what the USN was looking for. With North Carolina gone, Washington a big question mark, and Alabama (??) siting in the mud, I don't think we can assume that the fast battleships will be tied
to the carriers in the near term. Speaking for myself, I think that if the USN doesn't go for the 12" Alaska, then the 12x8" CA-B design (17k tons, 33 knots) is something that could be had in less time and in greater numbers. Off course, that could raise questions about building the Baltimores. Does
anyone have any idea what kind of resources could be freed up by dropping the Mk.8 12"?
Russ's Reply :
IV. Remember if the Alaska's are changed that will happen in 1941. If they become practical like a 12X8" could be they could be even laid down before December 7th 1941 as there are more slips in her tonnage range. The 12" guns that the Alaska's used is and was the most expensive gun ever designed and built by the USN, even the Turrets were twice the price of a turret made for the Iowa's. That's the kind of resources were talking about. Poring that kind of money in a rapid tripple turret 8" gun sooner like what was developed for the Des Moines (mk 16's ) would be better money spent
,imho.
Even going with the Mk 15's to start would be better. As for the Baltimore's, they would be built as well unless the new ship went with the Mk 15's. Then it would be hard to justify the two heavy cruisers, imo.
That's it....
Suggestions? Comments? Questions?
Russ / Roller007
