NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/military/12255

Text File | 1992-12-28 | 3.4 KB | 66 lines

Newsgroups: sci.military
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrhub2!ciss!law7!military
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Harker)
Subject: Re: Alaska Class Cruisers
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Sci.Military Login)
Organization: Physics Department
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:36:39 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 53


From [e-mail] (Stephen Harker)

In article <[e-mail]>, "david.r.wells" <[e-mail]> writes:
>
> From "david.r.wells" <[e-mail]>
>
> In article <[e-mail]> Don Mcgregor <[e-mail]> writes:
>>
>>It certainly would have been interesting to see how the _Alaska_
>>changed the dynamics of the night battles.  My guess is it would have
>>been torpedoed, since that was the killing weapon after dark, and its
>>guns wouldn't have come into full effect.  But _Alaska_ vs. _Hiei_ at
>>2,000 yards, now that would be interesting. Or the effect it would
>>have on some of the Japanese heavy cruisers during a night gun
>>battle. Or _Alaska_ replacing one of the US BBs in the other night
>>action with the Japanese BB and cruisers.
>>
>     They might well have been torpedoed, especially if they were employed
> as cruisers, as I suggested. Alas, the Alaskas would not have fared too
> well against the Long Lance. Dulin & Garzke report that their anti-torpedo
> protection was poor. (and their diagrams back this up) But keep in mind,
> that the Alaskas DID have radar, which would have improved their performance
> at night, perhaps even beyond the performance of the Long Lance.
>     As for Alaska vs Hiei, I'd still put my money on the Alaska, for the
> same reasons as I mentioned in the Alaska vs. Renown debate. Even after
> reconstruction, the Hiei was still basically a glorified Lion, (read
> "very little armor", exact stats unavailable) and probably had especially
> poor deck armor. Also, I doubt if the Hiei's guns could elevate more than
> 30 degrees. Add to this mix the Alaska's radar, and the Alaska would be
> the clear winner at long range. At 2000 yards, it might be a different story,
> but I doubt the battle would last that long. (Of course, the Kirishima DID
> get lucky with the South Dakota, so anything's possible!)

    Peter Hodges in "The Big Gun" (full details given earlier) says
that the all the Japanese 14" class ships including the Kongo class were
modified progressively from the original 25 degree maximum elevation to 33
degrees, and finally to 43 degrees.  One class of ships did not have higher
elevation on X and Y turrets, but this was not the Kongo class.  In general
the Japanese made extensive modernisation of their earlier ships, this did
include some improved armour but I don't have the details to hand.

    The figures that are given by Peter Hodges for range show that the
Japanese 14" ships at 43 degrees would outrange all US main armament, bar
the Iowa class 16" guns.  They would also outrange all British main
armament (unless you want to include the 18" gun on coastal defence monitor
which is stretching things a bit).  However penetration is another matter,
again I don't have details for this to hand.

--
Stephen Harker            [e-mail]
Monash University        Baloney baffles brains: Eric Frank Russell