The Alaska class - Large/Super/Battle/Mega/Hyper/Ultra Cruisers

Today we take a look at the long and convoluted design history of the Alaska class, which continued even after the ships had been built! And of course the debate as to what exactly they were.
Sources:
www.amazon.co.uk/U-S-Cruisers...
www.amazon.co.uk/United-State...
www.usni.org/press/books/us-c...
www.amazon.com/American-Battl...
Free naval photos and more - www.drachinifel.co.uk
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want a shirt/mug/hoodie - shop.spreadshirt.com/drachini...
Want a poster? - www.etsy.com/uk/shop/Drachinifel
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifelDrydock
Episodes in podcast format - / user-21912004
Music - / ncmepicmusic

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@nunyabusiness1846]

Q: why do you do so many collaborations? Love your vids but the collabs are so painful 😢 terrible mic quality, un-charasmatic guests..... just why?

[@vincentrees4970]

Alaska Vs Scharnhorst- who would win? For the sake of argument, let's put them in the North Atlantic

[@vincentrees4970]

@@nunyabusiness1846 bit rude

[@Knight6831]

What lessons did the US Navy and Japanese Navy take away from the catastrophic destruction of HMS Hood?

[@strmdominatr5887]

Would the Alaska Class hold its weight against Kirov class battlecruisers if they weren't broken up before the 80s

[@wrayday7149]

When the Battleship era ended, it ended with some of the most beautiful looking ships that ever graced the seas.

[@0waverunner0]

I know they are useless today, but man... That BDE feeling they had would be amazing to see out there today!

[@ostiariusalpha]

​@@0waverunner0 Their guns are not really useful anymore, but remove the turrets and fill the barbette space with long range cruise missiles, and you would have a weapons platform that would be potent and effective even in modern warfare.

[@argokarrus2731]

@@ostiariusalpha Arsenal ships?

[@ostiariusalpha]

@@argokarrus2731 Right, not quite as stealthy as the 90's concept, but you wouldn't need to build entirely new ships. And certainly better armored than the Russian Kirov-class and Slava-class missile cruisers were. No sinking from a few anti-ship missiles like the hapless _Moskva_ did.

[@grafarco3717]

@@0waverunner0 USS Missouri still saw action in the late 1980s and I am sure, that the "freedom bringing capabilities" of its main guns would make a very good long range artillery support still today. The problem I see is the financial part, as maintaining and operating such a large ship is very expensive in money and manpower.

[@Kanikalion]

The Judges would have also accepted 'The Appropriately sized for Alaska Cruisers' as a video title.

[@williamluster9394]

English county vs Alaska territory size comparison…

[@korbetthein3072]

@@williamluster9394 try English country size compared to Alaska. Alaska composes roughly one fifth of the USA's landmass.

[@wierdalien1]

@@korbetthein3072 try US state compared to Alaska, it is truely massive

[@korbetthein3072]

@@wierdalien1 oh I know. I live here.

[@cannasablin7533]

@@korbetthein3072 Alaskans Represent!

[@FMJIRISH]

It's good to know that US ship designers had the same problems in reality that I have designing ships in Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts haha

[@Jacen436987]

but does UAD simulate congress saying "fuck you. you don't need any new ships" lol

[@Lazarus7000]

@@Jacen436987 Campaign mode absolutely can do this to you!

[@bri-manhunter2654]

@@Jacen436987. Lol, facts!

[@Skreezilla]

whne the US get added to Campaign: "you must also battle congress to build any ship" you start your 1890 campaign with 4 torpedo boats and 1 light cruiser - this has upset congress they feel you have too many ships your budget is reduced by 90%

[@jadeorbigoso5212]

Sadly the Hood got oneshotted

[@Looscannon94]

In my opinion, Alaska Class Large/Super/Battle/Mega/Hyper/Ultra Cruisers are arguably the best looking warships that have ever existed.

[@mancubwwa]

Add "post age of sail" to this statement, and I would fully agree.

[@Augment_Failure]

They look better than the Iowas!

[@rembrandt972ify]

The North Carolina class looks best before, during and after a major surface action. -"Ching" Lee.

[@Augment_Failure]

@@rembrandt972ify The NCs proved per ton more efficient than any other US battleship class during ww2, imo.

[@rembrandt972ify]

@@Augment_Failure I would go so far as to say the most efficient of any battleship of any nation, but I am biased.

[@michaelmclaren7373]

The Alaska class design story/evolution/arc reminds me EXACTLY of standing behind that one guy in the line at the sandwich shop who orders a 6” sub and then keeps changing it - ultimately ending-up roughly with something that he could’ve ordered straight away off the menu without the dithering.

[@davidelliott5843]

Of following your Mrs around the dress shops. She finds one she likes and looks great in it. But, no it’s too expensive. So you drag around endless crap shops looking at endless lines of horrible dresses. Eventually go back to the original and it’s been sold. Obviously it’s your fault that she didn’t buy it hours ago.

[@marcusfranconium3392]

Yeah , the dutch had an idea lets buy the design of the scharnhorst 11" Battle ship . make a few adjustments and improvements and turn it in to a battle cruiser. With a 34 knot speed. And done,

[@craigfazekas3923]

You mean a hoagie. As we're on a naval discussion page ? You should say a naval term for a sandwich..... See, "hoagie" comes from Hog Island in the Delaware River (as linguists can best guess where that term came from in the Delaware Valley, versus other places....) where naval construction took place- hence the relation to naval speak....The Hoagie. Whereas a "sub" is a....uh, ummm. Damn.... More dithering !!! 🚬😎

[@augustosolari7721]

Super Star destroyer sounds better.

[@jimtalbott9535]

This raises the question: Am I the Senator Tillman of sandwiches? I’m always ordering the biggest thing, then adding to it.

[@Anlushac11]

Drachinfel: "Large/Super/Battle/Megs/Hyper/Ultra Cruiser." US Navy: "Just dont call it a Battlecruiser"

[@nk_3332]

Looks at the Montana class, then at the Iowas, I think I have a better recipient for that name. US Navy: REEEEEEEE!

[@Anlushac11]

@@nk_3332 Iowa is not a Battlecruiser. Drachinel covered that in a recent video.

[@user-ni6ej2jl2h]

@@Anlushac11 Judging by it's belt armor thickness, definetly a battlecruiser, compare to other battleships - 307 mm. HMS Hood has 305 mm belt and it was battlecruiser 100%, KMS Scharnhorst/Gneisenau has up to 350 mm belt armor. Too thin armor compare to it's own main gun caliber.

[@justinebautista1383]

Iowa had a 12 in belt inclined putting her effective armor thickness at 13 inches. Her armor alone is pretty immune to the 16"/45 caliber Mark 6 guns of the South Dakota

[@NashmanNash]

The 350mm belt of the Scharnhorsts appears to be a myth though....Builders documents state the belt to have been 320mm@@user-ni6ej2jl2h

[@samuel5916]

I think the Alaska represented a better path for Battlecruisers to begin with. The main issue that plagued BC’s throughout their existence is that they had battleship-grade guns and therefore incompetent military planners constantly tried to shoehorn them into the battle-line. Going with an intermediate gun calibre between contemporary cruisers and battleships could’ve prevented most of the misuses that cost hulls and lives. Probably saved a decent amount of money as well. The Alaska’s weren’t cheap by any means but they were still cheaper then a Battleship while Battlecruisers typically cost more to build and operate.

[@JoramTriesGaming]

I'd argue the reason they were called CBs was specifically to *prevent* them being used as capital ships, i.e. how the Invincibles were used.

[@Debbiebabe69]

'and therefore incompetent military planners constantly tried to shoehorn them into the battle-line.' This carries on to the current day, and its less incompetent military planners and more incompetent politicians, moneymen and media. Where it shows now for a really good example is interceptor aircraft. Dedicated air to air platforms. Designed to be the best they can be. Yet the politicians and media create a furore that 'we are spending x million dollars/pounds on this new jet and is *CANT EVEN DROP A BOMB* therefore it is a useless plane'. Hence Tomcats, Eurofighters, F22s, and other dedicated anti-air fighters suddenly have to be able to *bomb* to earn their keep....

[@Philistine47]

Unfortunately the _Alaskas_ *weren't* much cheaper than a fast battleship, and at the same time weren't much more capable than a late-war heavy cruiser. Choosing between one _Iowa_ and 2-3 _Baltimores_ might be a stumper, but choosing between one _Alaska_ and 2-3 _Baltimores..._ well, one of those things is just better than the other in almost every circumstance. To be clear here, the problem was that _Alaska's_ specification was impossible. The designers did an heroic job of creating a ship to meet the stated need, it's just that the specified combination of armament, protection, and speed couldn't be accomplished with the technology of the day on anything much smaller (or cheaper) than a full-on capital ship. So the _Alaskas_ are an example of fantastic execution of a deeply questionable concept.

[@samuel5916]

@@Philistine47 Yeah they unfortunately came into service right when gun-based warfare became obsolete and naval strategy flipped on its head overnight. However, up until that point cruiser killers were a valid concept and I think they could’ve been quite successful if they’d been built a couple years sooner.

[@mbryson2899]

Von Spee might have a different opinion.

[@redenginner]

I honestly love how the Alaska’s look even if they where practically useless right off the slip. Wish they saw more use then as a floating AA gun battery but not much could be done there.

[@bluemarlin8138]

Well, they weren’t useless. They were just overkill for the cruiser role (especially since the Des Moines were being built and were cheaper to build and man) but would struggle against a true fast battleship and were much more vulnerable to torpedos and AP bombs. For a third more money, you could get a much more capable and survivable Iowa, which would have also had more room for upgrades, or two Baltimores, or 1.5 Des Moines. And if you just wanted shore bombardment, you could use the SoDaks, NCs, or even WV.

[@HighlanderNorth1]

They would've made interesting museum ships, if not much else.....

[@MrCoolguy425]

Honestly, anything in its role if it came out even a year earlier and it would have done great work killing smaller vessels, at that point the Japanese heavy fleet was mostly collecting barnacles on the sea floor and it was only enemy raiders and escorts floating around with a few heavier ships providing supplemental task forces to landing ships and what was left of the carrier fleets. The alaska escorting carriers in these engagements would have done quite well, especially considering they wouldn’t be the focus of enemy bombers (as they were escorting carriers) but would be able to be detached easily to chase enemy cruisers Really interesting and cool design and probably one of my favorites. Shame it didn’t get finished just a bit sooner though

[@HighlanderNorth1]

​​@@bluemarlin8138 The question we should be asking, is how many PT boats could we get for the price of an Alaska class ship.... Maybe a thousand?? Well, you could certainly overwhelm just about any large enemy warship with swarms of hundreds of PT boats! 😁

[@danhaas9730]

@@HighlanderNorth1 *Laughs in jeune ecole*

[@robertalaverdov8147]

The Alaska class is a culmination of the US navy's desire to build every ship type known to man. With the exception being the Super Heavy Battleship Montana Class. Though rest assured if the war had gone on for a little longer they would have had one or two of those. Even if both the Yamato and Mushashi had been sunk. You never know when you might need a 70k-80k ton battleship with 16-18 inch guns. Just a safety precaution that's all.

[@tommihommi1]

the supercarriers fulfilled the role of being the chonkiest chonkers on the ocean

[@robertalaverdov8147]

@@tommihommi1 But what if we like, put really big guns on them? Maybe rail guns, some lasers and nuclear missiles. Make it capable of going underwater, fly into space. We need a modular full spectrum dominance platform with high lethality cross platform networked integration. I even have a name picked out. We can call it the USS Enterprise or the Battlestar Galactica. Just trust me on this. All I'll need is about $300-500 billion a year for the next 20-30 years.

[@germanvahatov4314]

@@robertalaverdov8147 and it would still be cheaper than F-35 programme

[@wierdalien1]

@@germanvahatov4314 F-35 produced 3 different airframes. Get swivled.

[@patchouliknowledge4455]

So you're saying, the Tillman-class battleships should've been built after the Montanas? It's only for an extra layer of security in case the Montana mutinies, that's all

[@zachcd390119]

Absolutely gorgeous ships aesthetically. They just look right, despite lacking any meaningful function at the time of launch.

[@mtumeumrani376]

They had huge meaningful functions the the time of launch. The Truman administration however was suffering from an identity crisis rivaling some groups this day snd age.

[@mtumeumrani376]

@@dukeford8893 Truman and the Dules Brothers were so missed the entire CIA/NASA and three presidencies were modeled after his: Reagan, and Both Bush 1 and 2. If your talking about the surface fleet? Your welcomed to find all the surface warfare officers who lost their jobs because of that debacle: theres that m8.

[@RedXlV]

@@mtumeumrani376 The reason they lacked meaningful function is that by the time they were launched, there was a serious shortage of cruisers for them to kill. There were plenty of other things they were capable of doing, but other ships could do those same roles more efficiently.

[@thomasconley3429]

I agree. I think these are handsome ships.

[@babelhuber3449]

@@mtumeumrani376 Actually not: Like all ships with comparable costs, they weren't numerous but - in theory - quite capable. Hence such ships immediately turn into actual _strategic targets_ Like a real battleship, any adversary will try to sink an Alaska as soon as they know its location - if feasible. This means that they aren't really suited as cruisers, which you can send to dangerous missions because if worst comes to worst you can stomach their loss. Just look at the WW1 battle of Jutland: Both the UK and Germany used their battlecruisers like ships of the line, with own cruiser and destroyer escorts. Basically as fast battleships. So instead of acting like cruisers, battlecruisers acted like battleships in real life. The only exception is the battle of the Falklands, and even there a bunch of old armored cruisers could have achieved the same at lower costs.

[@paramounttechnicalconsulti5219]

Oddly enough, my father was an enlisted man on the fast carriers (plankowner on Yorktown CV-10) and he had a very firm opinion on these ships. I say "odd", becasue he was all over the place, only 2 Alaska's were built, but he seemed to be quite familiar with them. The opiion was (paraphrased) beautiful ships, decent escorts, pretty pointless. added no unique capabilities and were largely either repetitive of smaller ships or worse than larger ones. As an aside, battleships were good escorts but otherwise good for nothing else than churning up beaches. In retrospect, quite a detailed analysis for an electrician's mate!

[@IrishCarney]

_"good for nothing else than churning up beaches"_ - clearly your father was not an enlisted man in the Marine Corps. The Marines have always loved battleships for their unique ability to provide truly awesome levels of shore bombardment

[@SwiftJustice]

​@@IrishCarneyaka churning up beaches

[@richardbennett1856]

That's good. The opinion of your father was spot on. As an electrician, I get it. The demand for them was in 1942. By 1944, the mission was unclear for them. An in between er. It depends a lot when they were commissioned.

[@markblix6880]

I just learned today what plankowner means. Now I see you use the word.

[@leftyo9589]

they would have made great escorts to the amphib fleet. plenty of AA, and big guns for shore bombardment.

[@DamianMaisano]

My personal favorite thing to call them is “Dreadnought armoured cruiser”, putting them in the same category as SMS Blucher. There kinda capital ship status but also approximate weakness compared to a proper battleship or battlecruiser fits. And it’s just a cool name

[@dclark142002]

Basically, the Alaskas represent the final culmination of the cruiser design prior to missiles. So many of the 'battlecruisers' so called are really just fast battleships...i.e Hood, for example. It is the whole London and Washington Naval Treaty era that creates such problems of definitions...

[@andrewreynolds4949]

Under Professor Alex Clarke’s thinking the Alaska class are what the armored cruiser would have grown into had the treaty era not halted their development. I prefer to call the Des Moines the ultimate heavy cruiser

[@Tuning3434]

@@andrewreynolds4949 I would agree. Heavy cruiser are a direct result of the Treaty definitions, what would make Des Moines the final result of that artificial offshoot. Not what the Armoured cruisers would have evolved into based on needs and usage.

[@Debbiebabe69]

The Americans insisted that the Alaska class were NOT capital ships. This meant any resources allocated to capital ship construction would NOT be diverted to these ships, since if they were then the proponents of both the carrier AND battleship programmes would campaign against their construction. This is the reason they refused to call them 'battlecruisers', since battlecruisers were internationally considered capital ships.

[@jjayyoung7335]

@@Debbiebabe69 those two cruisers were still badass cruisers for escort duty for the Essex class carriers weren't they. A whole lot of anti-aircraft protection, great shore bombardment also and gun battle for all but full fledged battleships weren't they. plus they were beautiful ships IMHO

[@331Grabber]

I had a toy set of several WWII ships when I was a kid in the 70s and I swear this answers my little kid question of why I had 2 battleships in the set but one was a little shorter and skinnier than the big one but it's gun lay out was almost the same in arrangement. I think the Alaska was in this toy set. They were kinda big plastic ships with flat bottoms and little hidden wheels on the bottom to turn any floor into water. The big turrets were movable. Oh. They also were fully capable of floating in the pool too :) Guessing the battleship was 10 or so inches. Difficult guess since I was small back then

[@ianwilkinson5069]

Now all these years later I bet you wish you still had them huh lol, I would

[@331Grabber]

@@ianwilkinson5069 Yeah. The last memory of them is in my parent's swimming pool circa 1980-81 I remember the battleship with a few rocks placed in the back would sink in a very satisfying movie type way :) The cruiser was my favorite because it was faster on the water than the battleship. I guess I'll never know if that cruiser was based on Alaska.

[@enricomandragona163]

Google it!! If the Bow was a little broader as it met the beam it was the Alaska as in the side by side pier overhead in the video which was the Missouri BTW in the mothball storage in CA.

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

It's a Cruiser Destroyer or simply a Destroyer, if you will.

[@williamgandarillas2185]

No, it’s a Cruiser Patrol Boat Destroyer, or simply a PT boat

[@atpyro7920]

"No, you're playing [the Alaskas] wrong!" -some US admiral, possibly

[@jonrolfson1686]

So, were they fully armored fast yard patrol boats (YP)?

[@ReptilianLepton]

Ah yes the JMSDF classification convention.

[@nolanmonke4330]

no it’s a submarine duh! Or we should just call it a battlecruiser

[@thevictoryoverhimself7298]

I can’t help but read SMS Derflinger as “The Flinger” which somehow makes sense for a large gun armed capital ship :)

[@Debbiebabe69]

Apt for the only capital ship ever to sink TWO enemy capital ships in battle.

[@sugarnads]

Glad im not the only one. I giggle a bit whenevr drac says the name too lol

[@scottgiles7546]

Being at THAT stage of adolescence when I first heard the name "Der Finger" was what it was called. (And lets just avoid Focke-Wulf.....)

[@mbryson2899]

My better half and my son thought one of the heroes in the animated "The Tick" was "Deflator Mouse." Also, when my gaming group played Battlewagon one of them always wanted Derfflinger on his side and called it "Poo Flinger." The Dice Gods definitely blessed that ship on our board, which made him insufferable.

[@paulbrogger655]

I actually caught the YT closed-caption feature happily casting Drach's pronunciation of Derflinger as "death flinger" -- a nickname of which I imagine her whole crew would have approved.

[@FedralBI]

The Iowa's hold a special place in my heart, and you can feel the history standing on the deck of the Missouri. That being said, the Alaska Class were absolutely gorgeous ships. I wish they had kept one around as a museum.

[@thehandoftheking3314]

Ah, the "more descriptions than a Kriegsmarine destroyer" ship.

[@einarsharpe7637]

I’m saddened they were scrapped. I would have loved to have this be a museum ship mored in Juneau Alaska

[@korbetthein3072]

Meh, it would need armed guards to prevent it from becoming a homeless camp.

[@urviechalex9963]

@@korbetthein3072 Wouldn´t that been a cool usage of such a vessel? Look at how the Finns approach to fighting homelessness....

[@solicitr666]

Part of the problem of course is that there has never been a settled definition of what a "battlecruiser" is. The argument could be made that the Iowas were battlecruisers, having almost exactly the same relationship to the South Dakotas as Hood did to the Queen Elizabeths.

[@ostlandr]

"Battleship guns, heavy cruiser armor" is a pretty good definition.

[@solicitr666]

@@ostlandr then what about the German WWI battlecruisers?

[@ariancontreras4358]

@@solicitr666 Technically 28cm was battleship grade back then during ww1.

[@goldenreaperjtx]

Actually, you're not far wrong. The Iowa's - SIX of them - were to be the fast wing that would scout and engage the enemy while waiting for the slower heavyweight's - the Montana's to blast the opposing battleline to bits from a closer range, which their heavier armor would permit. This was an update to the 1920's plan for six Lexington class battlecruisers and six "South Dakota" class 45,000 ton battleships with 16" / 50 caliber guns. When the Iowa's were drawn up critics asked what they were getting for 10,000 more tons of displacement from the "new" South Dakota's - the four "treaty" 35,000 ton "standard displacement" ships that were actually built. Well, they got 50 caliber guns - 80 inches longer than the SoDak's for longer range. The plan was to use the guns already made for the OLD South Dakota class ships but somehow they forked up on the turret design and had to make an entirely new, but lighter weight 16"/50.

[@solicitr666]

@@ariancontreras4358 Yes, but the Grosskreuzer carried much heavier armor than cruisers (or British BCs prior to Hood)

[@GlorfindelofGondolin]

I still think that the USN missed a neat trick by not naming them Alaska-class super heavy cruisers. Sounds powerful and deadly.

[@jedz5151]

how about cruiser destroyer... later shortened as destroyers (wait a min)

[@zerodecimal3236]

THIS Large cruiser doesn't sound as powerfull, super heavy cruiser? Anybody would think twice before engaging them

[@cnlbenmc]

How about Heavy Battlecruiser?

[@SportyMabamba]

@@cnlbenmc that would be a Battleship

[@Augment_Failure]

I should of kept scrolling, I just put up a comment suggesting that designation. 👍

[@lowspeedhighdrag566]

These videos help my autism and make me feel less alone. I often fall asleep listening thank you

[@matchesburn]

"It's a crui" "[Ahem]" "Heavy crui" "[Ahem]" "...Fine. Large/Super/Battle/Mega/Hyper/Ultra Cruiser." [Nods approvingly]

[@karlmoles6530]

A Task Group made up of the USS Alaska, USS Guam, USS Iowa, USS Missouri, USS Des Moines, and USS Newport News would have been the ultimate expression of US Navy Gun Power

[@Cobra-King3]

Ah yes, here we have 2 Big stick Battleships Mahan would dream of. 2 Cruisers with a degree in Machine Guns And 2.... what did we call 'em again? Battlecruisers? No? What? Pocket Battleships? No that's stupid, try again. Ultra Cruisers? Stupid, strike 2! Cruiser Hunters? Ehh sounds fine I guess

[@johnstudd4245]

How about all 4 Iowa class? There is a photo of all 4 of them in formation, the only time it ever happened. And you could add some of the slightly older battleships to that task force, they were no slouches.

[@IrishCarney]

No love for the Atlantas? OK these are light cruisers with 5 inch guns, but so MANY, so SO MANY of those guns. EIGHT twin turrets, SIXTEEN guns. And they're dual purpose, so they can shoot down airplanes and then take out light cruisers and below.

[@Alexdlegend]

@@IrishCarney Shame that the Name Ship got sunk by a literal destroyer... Oh wait that's literally what happened Note: I'm aware that it took a torpedo, but that's all it took. One torpedo from either Ikazuchi or Inazuma to sink the many gunned glorified destroyer leader. Light Cruisers are not capital ships for a very good reason.

[@IrishCarney]

@@Alexdlegend Any surface ship is vulnerable to torpedoes. If you're going to take on destroyers escorting convoys, you take that risk. But the Japanese had super long rage torpedoes, which the Allies in the North Atlantic didn't. And the Atlanta was pressed into service into the battle line in a slugfest involving capital ships.

[@Philistine47]

Listening to the design history of the _Alaskas,_ it really sounds like they were at an unhappy medium in terms of their intended role(s) vs. the technology of the day. The "sweet spots" seem to have been for considerably smaller cruisers and considerably larger battleships, where many factors came together to produce well-balanced ships with, respectively, 6-8 inch guns on 15-20 thousand tons or 15-16 inch guns on 40-45 thousand tons; in between those two was a vast desert of bad options, where costs very quickly escalated toward battleship levels while capability increased very slowly from cruiser levels.

[@marcusfranconium3392]

The dutch had Project 1047 building a cruiser killer . based on the scharnhorst battleship. same guns , less armour better AA . No cruiser that could touch them and fast enough to outrun any battleship. The Alaskas could just have been copies of the original sharnhorts an upgun it by 1 '

[@BestAnswer12549]

@@marcusfranconium3392 can out run a Iowa through.

[@marcusfranconium3392]

@@BestAnswer12549 34 knot Iowa dont think so Project 1047 would have been the fastest capital ship ever build . And the 34 knots was based on tropical waters Meaning it would go even faster in colder waters and eras where steam comes more efficient.

[@BestAnswer12549]

@@marcusfranconium3392 I mean the ship was never made so it's just paper specs. And the design it's based off of only does 31 knots. Even if it is faster than an Iowa what's the difference between 33 and 34 knots.

[@marcusfranconium3392]

@@BestAnswer12549 Well they looked simular but had but where totaly different. Different powerplants and propulsion , armour secondarys , bulbous bows. better armour distribution torpedo protection .etc etc. 34 knots based on tropical conditions it would have functioned in .

[@AdamosDad]

Having sailed aboard a Clevland-class and a Des Moines-class cruiser I found this history very interesting, concise, with a dry British bit of humor. Right good show Drach.

[@martinbachmann6283]

Brother-Vet AdamosDad, oh my! The Des Moines-class.... THE most beautiful all-gun HEAVY CRUISERS of all time! We should STILL have these magnificent CAs in our Navy today!

[@AdamosDad]

@@martinbachmann6283 I vote for that too brother. It would be great for long range fire support and there was plenty of room say in the hanger bay for missiles, if you wanted to go that way. Thanks for your service brother and "Fair Winds and Following Seas" USS Newport News (CA-148) The last all gun Heavy Cruiser. My time aboard 1968-69-70 Call sign THUNDER flag hoist; November - India - Quebec - Quebec Then onboard the USS Springfield (CLG-7) 71-72 Flag Hoist/Radio Call Sign: November - Whiskey - Delta - Mike

[@josephpicogna6348]

Fantastic, I love the Alaska. I had a chance to survey the ship in Newark New Jersey before it was scrapped. I thought they were beautiful and would’ve made fantastic missile shooters. Removing the AA batteries could create an awful lot of space for modern technology and ordinance. Only the scrapping of Kentucky hit me harder. I’m sorry I did not get to do my OD or CDO job for Alaska

[@bobkonradi1027]

They would have worked very well at being flagships. Big enough to hold an Admiral's entire battle staff, yet small enough to not be put in the forefront of a battle formation. Instead of using 8" gun cruisers for flagships, the Alaska's would have been perfect in that role.

[@enricomandragona163]

Interesting!! I was a new born when it was scrapped in Kearney!! I don't however agree about it being a missile ship! She could of been useful in Vietnam as it was with a Helo deck on the Fantail!!

[@Idahoguy10157]

The Talos missile conversion proposal would have been interesting. Huge long range very fast anti-aircraft missile which could have nuclear warships

[@marckyle5895]

An Alaska Museum would have looked pretty nice near Eathquake Park in Anchorage. Or park it in Juneau as a memorial for her.

[@niclasjohansson4333]

One of the best looking warships ever, and i do think they would have done just fine if they ever saw proper action....

[@nnoddy8161]

Action against who??? That was their problem.

[@Joshcodes808]

@@nnoddy8161 At iron bottom sound if it had been ready.

[@termitreter6545]

Its much more likely that they would've been hit by a torpedo and found a miserable end. Or destroyed by aircraft. Heck, their thin armor ment cruiser guns were effective enough in some situations. I guess most likel the US Navy woulda kept them far behind the lines, desperately trying to find something those ships are actually good at...

[@jwenting]

@@nnoddy8161 Had the war against Japan lasted a bit longer, the Soviet Red Banner Pacific Fleet, defending the Japanese home islands from a Soviet invasion...

[@spirz4557]

@@jwenting And from what navy ? A bunch of destroyers or cruisers ? Maybe a couple of outdated BBs ? Nah. Soviet Navy during WW2 was a joke.

[@13lbaseball]

Really glad that you covered these again, my grandfather served on Guam as an engineer and told me some of his stories about his time on her. Unfortunately, he passed in 2015 before I could really get to hear too many of his stories. I did inherit his copy of the ship's book and it is a fascinating look into what he did in his time aboard in WWII.

[@Noble713]

Be awesome if you could get that scanned and shared with a naval museum's website so the rest of us can pour over the details too.

[@13lbaseball]

@@Noble713 I am looking into getting it done, I just haven't had the time to really reach out to anyone yet

[@enricomandragona163]

Kudos to your Grandfather!!

[@enricomandragona163]

Intrepid museum actually has the stern Flag from the Alaska

[@reggieflanders6079]

My dad was on the Guam as well. He was a boatswain's mate.

[@anthonybrown6413]

I always loved the Alaska class! I wish they would have gotten more love and use post war.

[@eriktrimble8784]

Never going to happen. The 12" guns were much less effective than the BB's 16" guns for shore bombardment, and, in practice, even substantially inferior to the semi-automatic 8" of the Des Moines. The crewing requirements of the Alaskas were so extreme (20% more than the Des Moines, and almost 80% of the Iowas) made them horridly expensive to use. Worse, the Alaskas weren't really possible to upgrade to missile cruisers - the studies looking at them concluded that they were MORE expensive than the BBs to convert, and radically more expensive than the Clevelands and such. They were a White Elephant that never really could find a place - their original mission (anti-surface warfare) was gone, they weren't good at NGS, and they were too expensive to run and too expensive to upgrade. And their AA firepower was soon pointless as gunnery was supplanted by missiles for AA.

[@rjlarose5271]

I really wish we kept one of these as a museum ship. Its such an interesting concept.

[@JamesSavik]

She was a beauty and had the speed, legs, and sensors necessary to screen the big carrier groups that were swarming around at the end of the war. I doubt the big Japanese treaty-buster cruisers would have liked meeting her at all.

[@timclaus8313]

Especially as the IJN cruisers tended to be a bit fragile to start with. The Alaska and Guam would have torn them apart.

[@bkjeong4302]

You need more AA and ASW specialists to screen fast carrier task forces, not surface combatants. Building something like this (or the Iowas) to use as a gigantic and needlessly expensive CLAA isn’t a wise investment.

[@kenneth9874]

@@bkjeong4302 your opinion, which is worth.....

[@info_fox]

Amazing ship. Absolutely beautiful.

[@jermainerace4156]

In terms of speed, specifically; I think perhaps it is more relevant to look at how the Alaska's compare to the cruisers they are expected to hunt, and battleships they are expected to run away from, than the contemporary ships of the US fleet, especially since the Iowa class was sort of a unique battleship design in that it only really improved slightly over the previous design and most of that by being faster.

[@egyeneskifli7808]

I don't care what people call them. The Alaskas are among the most beautiful warships ever built. Fast battleships made battlecruisers obsolete in my opinion. Battlecruisers became unsustainable after Hood.

[@kyleheins]

I would argue battlecruisers were just the development process of battleships, due to almost everything about them being centered on the idea of battleship firepower with cruiser capabilities, and the armor issue was the part that took awhile to hash out. Heavy cruisers and armored cruisers should have been the same but the treaties screwed that up nicely.

[@gokbay3057]

Fast Battleship is just a false name for Battlecruisers.

[@kyleheins]

@@gokbay3057 in a way you could be on to something, but traditional battlecruisers tend to lack protection and subdivision, so maybe one would be a subclass on the other, or both the subclasses of dreadnought style cruisers?

[@Kieselmeister]

@@kyleheinsWW1 German battlecruisers had less armament for their size while retaining enough armor for the battle line. The "stretched limo" style of fast battleships, which take the standard armor and armaments of the previous battleship class and make it huge for speed, all end up looking suspiciously like an overgrown WW1 German style battlecruiser. (Hood had the guns and armor thickness of a stretched Queen Elizabeth, Iowa = stretched South Dakota, Bismarck = stretched Baden) The Alaska class were ironically designed to do the original battlecruiser mission, instead of battleline duty, and and up being a pretty good 1v1 match for the Kongo class, which were some of the most useful ships in the IJN during the solomons campaign. (Launched in 1912 as "his imperial Japanese majesty's ARMORED CRUISER Kongo" ) Similar penetration main guns, similar armor thickness, broadly similar size. The Kongo's got improved deck armor in their 2nd refit, but their horizontal protection was essentially unchanged and their "fast battleship" desgination was actually the product of a face saving excercise. Their 1st refit with Japanese built boilers and torpedo bulges had been so botched, that it had reduced their speed to slower than the Nagato class, and the IJN reclassified them as "battleships" to pretend and imply to the public that their reduced speed was due to improving their protection. When the subsequent refits restored their speed, they couldn't reclassify them as battlecruisers again without losing face and admitting they had made a mistake, so they just kept doubling down, and called them "fast battleships" despite the main actual improvement over the original 1912 design being more resistance to bomb attacks and improved AA guns.

[@termitreter6545]

Funny thing is, the Hood was 47k tons heavy and had actually quite solid armor. Ive seen people argue that the brits made the first fast battleship, they just didnt know it yet.

[@Oberkaptain]

One of my favorite naval ships of all time, this and the Gearing/Somners.

[@jaybee9269]

The Alaskas were really lovely ships!😍

[@jayvee8502]

And USS Guam would have been beside USS Missouri as museums.

[@JmbFountain]

Interestingly, Germany also called their Battlecruisers "Large cruisers" (Große Kreuzer)

[@nitehawk86]

Google translate says that in French Große means "Fat". "Fat Cruiser", haha

[@JmbFountain]

@@nitehawk86 it can also mean that, but it usually just means large/big, as in this case

[@General_Cartman_Lee]

They also called their battleships Linienschiffe (ships of the line) up to the Bayern.

[@piney4562]

Kind of like how the English word gross, can both mean big, and disgusting.

[@williamzk9083]

@@piney4562 "Gross" is probably just a very recent distortion of the English Language. I think we loose more than we gain from such slangs.

[@anantr99]

When it comes to the argument of where Hood and Iowa fall within the spectrum of battlecruisers and battleships, my opinion is that Hood is, for almost all intents and purposes, a fast battleship. The fact that she had about 6,000 tons added on in her post-Jutland redesign (most of which was armour), and when considering that she carried almost as much armour as a Queen Elizabeth-class battleship (albeit the angling provided better protection at a wide spectrum of ranges) does show that Hood was a fast battleship. However, the Royal Navy classified her as a battlecruiser, and she did have some aspects of her design that were very similar to battlecruisers. Most notably, the extent of her internal subdivision seems to be closer to what earlier battlecruisers did as opposed to contemporary (or slightly older) battleships. Taking this into account, I would call Hood the first proper fast battleship, although she had a few minor compromises / design decisions that were the result of the technology of the time. When it comes to the Iowa-class, I would say that the divide between battlecruiser and fast battleship had blurred out of existence by the time the Iowas were built. Yes, it can be shown quite well that one could get the same armament and armour on a South Dakota-class battleship. However, I would posit the Iowas to be an evolution on fast battleships by trying to create a new bunch of fast battleships, when considering that any modern battleship could do 27-30 knots. The Iowas seem to have at least the line of thinking of having a fast squadron of battleships that could act in a similar way as the Queen Elizabeth-class had been planned for originally. That is, the Iowas would be used to force an engagement against an enemy fleet while the 28 knot battle line sailed in to assist. That being said, this also depends on what her contemporary battleships were. When comparing the South Dakota-class with the Iowa-class, it does seem that the Iowa-class were planned to act as battlecruisers. Had the Montana-class actually been built, a far more compelling case could be made to consider the Iowa-class as battlecruisers (one turret less, and 4-5 knots faster). However, the march of technology also meant that any design decisions that were made in Hood's design when it came to battlecruiser characteristics (for instance, the extent of internal subdivision) were simply rendered redundant. You could get the figurative best of all worlds in a single ship now. A justifiable-ish point would be to say that the Iowas were to the South Dakotas what Hood was to the Queen Elizabeths and Revenges. Very similar armour, same-ish armament, and considerably faster, with the trade-off being that the faster ship is also far heavier (47,800 tons vs 35,000 tons and 41,200 tons vs 27,500 tons).

[@michaelpielorz9283]

Even in some newsreels Hood was called a fast battleship. that didn`t help a lot. As one of Jackie fishers battlecruisers she too had this nasty habit of greeting german ships in a unique way.

[@nhancao4790]

@@michaelpielorz9283 Hood was a great ship. Even though she was not one of the Royal Navy BCs she still celebrated BC's traditions of impressove display of pyrotechnics.

[@sse_weston4138]

This is a great summation

[@Wolfeson28]

I agree almost completely with your explanation. In my opinion, the dividing line between a battlecruiser and a fast battleship is that while they are both faster than typical battleships of the period, a fast battleship is designed to fight other battleships (both "fast" and "normal speed") while a battlecruiser is definitely not. So a fast battleship retains roughly the same armor and firepower of other contemporary battleships, while adding on extra tonnage to gain the higher speed without sacrificing anything else. As you correctly pointed out, that's exactly what we see comparing the Iowas to the South Dakotas as well as comparing Hood to the QEs: roughly a 40% jump in displacement to gain 6-8 knots of speed while keeping essentially the same firepower and protection.

[@forcea1454]

@@michaelpielorz9283 Hood was a well protected as any of the Queen Elizabeth or R class Battleships. They had the same vulnerabilities as Hood, and were much slower.

[@issacfoster1113]

I think Iowa fills the Battlecruiser category of the Hood Era : Same Characteristics as the Contemporary battleship the South Dakota same with Hood + QE. Shits on Cruisers but can also sht on Capital ships. Faster than their contemporary, Fills the same role as a Battlecruiser. But then again, I personally think a Refitted Hood is a full pledge Fast Battleship & the term Battlecruiser and Fast Battleship just merges as time progresses. Either way, I'll just wait for Drach on the judgment.

[@soupordave]

I agree. The whole Battlecruiser vs Fast Battleship vs Battleship debate really reminds me of the the light vs medium vs heavy tank development. Eventually technology surpassed the speed vs protection vs firepower triangle and the Main Battle Tank replaced the previous types. And similarly to the old Battleships, the MBT is starting to fall behind modern missile technologies...

[@genericpersonx333]

Mind, design still matters. HMS Hood, though powerful and tough for a battlecruiser, was still not quite as durable for the tonnage as a battleship of her time and you could only rebuild her so much to compensate for the structural and internal layout differences that meant she couldn't control damage from penetrating hits as well. Iowa, while with armor on the thin side for a battleship, was still built to control the consequences of penetrating hits very well and intended to fight in a Line of Battle against other battleships. The fact that it could meet or beat many cruisers for speed was a bonus, not fundamental to its role as a battleship.

[@alexdunphy3716]

@@soupordave that's not what happened with tanks. Doctrine simply evolved to confirm to logistical benefits and everyone compromised their designs

[@thatguyfrommars3732]

"The most heavily armored warship ever built next to Yamato was a battlecruiser." I've seen this argument before and it makes no sense. By that logic South Dakota was a battlecruiser as well!

[@onebigchaz]

But when you add the Montana class to the mix, there's a strong case under Drach's definition for the Iowas being the battlecruiser to the Montanas' battleship. It's just that the battleship era ended before it came to fruition.

[@garychisholm2174]

This might be my favorite video yet. Good GOLLY I love the deep dives on engineering decisions.

[@calvingreene90]

I like Supercruiser, an ill defined classification for a ship that is neither cruiser or battlecruiser.

[@TheSchultinator]

I too think supercruiser is a better term than "large cruiser"

[@ZaHandle]

uber cruiser

[@hanzzel6086]

I am partial to 'Grand Cruiser'

[@calvingreene90]

@@ZaHandle Not with a WWII American ship.

[@Deltarious]

Regarding classification I've always been a fan and in the 'camp' of the following: A ship's 'class' is defined by whatever the intended, and then the *actual* purpose of the ship is. A ship that is designed to be able to destroy anything it can't out run and run from anything it can't destroy with the protection and guns to back that up is a battlecrusier in my books. Obviously for a 'technical definition' I'd be a bit more stringent on criteria but you get the point. To me this makes the Alaska firmly a battlecrusier, but perhaps not fully refined.

[@lancethompson6839]

Fascinating and well-researched, as ever. Thanks for posting!

[@collinczech1263]

Been waiting a long time for this from you. Thanks for the content Drach!

[@nerva-]

Thanks so much for this -- I've considered the Alaska class a bit of an oddity for a while and I appreciate your evaluation of whether it was a battlecruiser or a superheavy cruiser, and I definitely agree with it being the latter. I'll also add that it simply reflected where heavy cruisers would have been evolving towards were it not for the temporary hindrance of the naval conventions.

[@rjlarose5271]

I really wish we had kept one of these as a museum ship.

[@GrumpyGrobbyGamer]

Really very interesting history and conversation. Thank you Drach for being so thorough and entertaining.

[@straswa]

Great work Drach, I enjoy your content. Thanks for giving such great detail on the concepts that led up to the Alaskas as well.

[@dcjway]

The Alaska class “American’s pocket battleship”.

[@jonrolfson1686]

To be pulled out of one of Paul Harrell’s magically capacious pockets.

[@jamesbuds4803]

Super on the weekends, just large during the week.

[@Isolder74]

So they wear glasses most of the week.

[@frankgulla2335]

Nicely done. You do such a great job explaining the design theory and influences. Thank you.

[@connorjohnson7834]

The Alaska Class Super Duper Cruisers. Can't wait for the Hood v Iowa video, that will be fun

[@AsbestosMuffins]

King "I'll have a Number 2 Cruiser" Shipyards "Would you like to supersize that sir?"

[@andrewjorgensen6404]

Would love to see the IJN Takao class of cruiser covered

[@martinbachmann6283]

A most EXCELLENT instructional-video for sure - very well done! Thank you for sharing with us.

[@Senor0Droolcup]

Love the Alaska class! Thank you for making this video.

[@francisbusa1074]

I've always considered the Alaskas among the most handsome ships ever designed, with those 12"/50's looking so menacing compared to the CA's. Such a fascinating study in design tradeoffs. A great tribute to the flexibility of the American shipbuilding industry during the war.

[@gunnergoz]

They are beautiful ships in any light, footnotes in history reminding us how fast technology and events overcame doctrine and tradition in the 1930-1950 time frame.

[@dimitriosvelessiotis6808]

When Drachinifel lifts the glove and answers to Jingles... I REALLY enjoyed the last part of the video!!! Nice work as always!

[@CornballLyric]

Absolutely brilliant series of history videos. Love them.

[@WildBillCox13]

It occurs to me that the Polaris armed Alaska variant closely mimics the '90s era Kirovs. Big missiles with lots of defensive weaponry.

[@SaturnCanuck]

Aw yes the Alaska Class. Too small to be a Battleship and too big to be a cruiser. My Dad always called them Battlecruisers and he said that these were always a bad compromise between the two.

[@davidbirt8486]

Well Drac, you sure got them talking on this subject.

[@johnshepherd8687]

There is no doubt that Alaskas are not Battlecruisers. We think of 12" as capital ship armament because it was at the beginning of the Dreadnought era. However, 12" guns as capital armament became obsolete when the Queen Elizabeth and the first Standards hit the water. At that point a 12" gun could not penetrate the armor of the latest superdreadnoughts at anything close to practical battle ranges. So I think you can say that 12" guns ceased being capital ship armament before WWI was over and such ships were rapidly decommissioned before the Washington Naval was signed. By the time the Alaskas were designed 12" guns were cruiser grade weapons as both capital ship armament and armor exceeded the penetration capability of even the new US 12" gun.

[@Debbiebabe69]

The Americans insisted that the Alaska class were NOT capital ships. This meant any resources allocated to capital ship construction would NOT be diverted to these ships, since if they were then the proponents of both the carrier AND battleship programmes would campaign against their construction. This is the reason they refused to call them 'battlecruisers', since battlecruisers were internationally considered capital ships. As for speed, why did they initially go for 36 knots? If they were supposed to be sailing with the carrier fleet, 30 knots is quite sufficient as that is the reserve speed of American carrier battlegroups from WW2 right up to the current day and the Ford/Nimitz carriers.

[@peterson7082]

I guess they wanted the cruisers to be able to zoom along with the destroyers

[@Kim-the-Dane-1952]

Thank you for another Large/Super/Battle/Mega/Hyper/Ultra good video!

[@SirLoinTheBeefy]

I'm not saying Drach made this as a response to Jingles' Alaska replay but.... Ultra Mega Cruiser "shh... is only legend"

[@ph89787]

You know your design is bad/useless when Ching Lee thinks it's a bad idea.

[@derrickstorm6976]

yea he had all the bad ideas

[@calvingreene90]

Not bad. Just late and not as valuable as carriers.

[@GregEScott]

How would the Alaska fair against a modernized WWI battle ship such as the Queen Elizabeth’s or a Standard. It really seems that if this came out in WW1 it would have been seen as a super duper dreadnaught

[@ph89787]

@@derrickstorm6976 Context: Not disparraging Lee. It's in reference to the fact that he saw the writing on the wall that a Large/Battlecruiser wasn't suited to the the US Navy's needs prior to World War 2.

[@bendampft2647]

Thanks a lot, Drach. 🙂 I have to admit, I really love the Alaska class. Yeah, they ended up in a weird spot and at the wrong time, and so they never had the opportunity to show their capabilities. But I think they were the pinnacle of (heavy) cruisers and would have given the Japanese something to be really concerned about. And I think they were beautiful ships. I personally like to think of them as Supercruisers. Anyway, they were great ships, but sadly at the wrong time. Very very sad they got scrapped.

[@dougtaylor7724]

My uncle served on the Alaska. Fire control number 2 turret was his assignment.

[@nomoss9600]

This was very enjoyable. Thank you sir.

[@KevekGaming]

I have been waiting for this!

[@ronaldknauss2866]

Me too

[@hurnn1543]

I would put forth that If you include the Montana's along with the Iowa's the Alaska' are heavy cruisers and the Iowa's are Battle cruisers. The Montana's were going to be 73k tons with a speed planed for 28 knots 12 16"/50's 16.1 inch armor. Which when taken of context of how Drach described battle cruisers gives you an Iowa.

[@battleship6177]

The thing is is that that'd be the new Contemporary Battleship, and the Iowa's are the Contemporary Battleships before it. A contemporary battlecruiser design for the Montana's would be designed after or with it and would weigh much more.

[@ericcrichardson]

Drach- really good video. I always appreciate them but the Alaska Class has always been a bit of an engima and it's always interesting to her perspectives on them.

[@hkomlr9905]

19:17 One of the Design shows the 'Puerto Rico' called Heavy CA and you can see it in World of Warships.

[@oldtimer427]

Served on the USS CHICAGO (CG-11) starting in 1976, a guided missed cruiser converted in 1958. All I ever heard it called in its previous format was a " heavy cruiser ". ( Baltimore Class )

[@KillerofWestoids]

1976 ? Even my mother wasn't born yet in 1976.

[@oldtimer427]

@@KillerofWestoids what can I say other than I'm really old.....😂

[@enricomandragona163]

Heard wrong

[@chadthundercock5641]

The issue with the Alaskas and similar ships is that they were being built brand new right as they were becoming obsolete

[@JonathanSchattke]

I think they should have done Vertical launch missiles in the barbettes and kept them into the 80s.

[@chadthundercock5641]

@@JonathanSchattke An issue with that is that long-range missiles were being continually shrank and being fitted into much smaller vessels. Come the last 40 years or so, navies figured out that the only viable answer for a long-range nuke-carrying vessel was the submarine. So a ship as big and slow and obvious as the Alaska would just be too unwieldy for long-range missile purposes

[@bkjeong4302]

Not even as they were becoming obsolete, but AFTER.

[@alexdunphy3716]

@@chadthundercock5641 most anti-ship missiles have the same hitting power as an 8in shell, not the most difficult to protect against.

[@alexdunphy3716]

They weren't obsolete. It took a LONG time for decent anti-ship missiles to be fielded enough to "replace" main guns

[@inyobill]

I finally remembered that Alaska and Hawai'i would not be states for over a decade after this period.

[@jona.scholt4362]

White rum, dark rum, who cares?! It's Wednesday Rum Ration, let's go!

[@Rammstein0963.]

Spiced!

[@theswampangel3635]

Great presentation! I’ve been waiting a long time for the Alaska’s to be covered. I still prefer to call them battle cruisers as it has more panache.

[@IrishCarney]

Definitely the coolest ship classification type name

[@PilotTed]

I think the craziest thing about the rapid development in naval tech and tactics was the fact we went from the era where 12" guns was the max size for the majority of Pre dreadnaughts, to the Dreadnaught era where we had up to 14" guns, to the battleship era where it was 16" (with a few exceptions where it went up to 18" all within 40 years. Not just that, but the fact that Heavy cruisers went from having 4-6" guns to 8" to up to 12", with armor better than the early Pre Dreadnaughts and early Dreadnaughts. That's not even mention the advanced Battlecruisers which blow early dreadnaughts out of the water in armor and armament.

[@agesflow6815]

Thank you, Drachinifel.

[@johngregory4801]

I like the appellation Super Cruiser, a fully found ship somewhere between a heavy cruiser and a battleship. She's in her own class. But I also consider the Iowa class as battlecruisers because their armor, although proofed against 16"/45's, isn't a battle-range match to their own 16"/50's. As you said, Drach, they're the battlecruiser version of the South Dakota class.

[@battleship6177]

Except they were made to withstand their own armour with the additional 12 degrees of angle.

[@johngregory4801]

@@battleship6177 If you're talking about the Iowa class, they mimicked the SoDaks both in armor thickness (12.2") and inclination (19°). That armor scheme was proofed against the 16"/45 guns of the SoDaks, not the 16"/50 guns of the Iowa.

[@member5488]

If the Montanas had been finished, it really would've made Iowas look like battlecruisers.

[@DAOzz83]

It’s kind of crazy how if you just picture yourself looking at the drawing boards in 1939, suddenly it’s stunningly obvious that _Iowa_ is to _Montana_ as _Kongo_ is to _Fuso._

[@Archie2c]

I have a soft spot for the Alaska the hanger swapped for a CIC after the Canal battles is my preferred. Ah what she could have been if only started 2 years earlier Thanks Drach.

[@whigparty6180]

superb analysis and discussion.

[@rring44]

It seems like the perfect ship for the Guadalcanal campaign. It would have been able to kill all the heavy cruisers of the IJN and maybe even hold its own vs the old battleships like the Hiei.

[@ph89787]

But then the trade off is South Dakota taking hits like a champ. While Ching Lee turns Washington into a giant sniper rifle

[@issacfoster1113]

Bad Torpedo Defense is also a negative

[@rring44]

@@ph89787 would it have been better to have battleships in the battles or have an Alaska class as the flagship of the cruiser battles of the campaign? I really don't know.

[@CSSVirginia]

If it had good radar, and commanders/crew trained in it's use.

[@bluemarlin8138]

@@rring44 Probably a battleship due to the Alaska class’s cruiser-level torpedo defense system.

[@MarkJoseph81]

I have a love/hate with my Alaska in World of Warships: Legends (PS4). It is maxed out, both the upgrades and the perfect legendary commander for it plus permanent custom camo, but is a glass cannon. I get killed all too quickly in 90% of battles with her.

[@warrenbelford6508]

Excellent research

[@warpdriveby]

Thanks for this and so many phenomenal videos, I have a far better grasp of the naval side of WW1, the build up to WW2, and more after binge-watching your content. Only because you are so thorough, and detail oriented, I wanted to tell you that it is common and frequent for people to say the s on the name Des Moines but it isn't the way we say it. And when I get it wrong I'm sure you tell me how to pronounce Chicegloucestercire 🤣

[@sylentlight6771]

I believe that if the war had gone on and the Montanas had been built, the question of "are the Alaskas battlecruisers or large cruisers?" wouldn't even exist. To put it simply, the Montanas would be the battleships, which by comparison would make the Iowas battlecruisers, and the Alaskas would simply be large cruisers. I believe this to be the safest way of thinking about it. BUT since the Montanas were never built, that kinda throws everything off

[@SirLoinTheBeefy]

beat me to it.

[@manythingslefttobuild]

33:23 As I recall the V-2 was fueled with about 4 tons of 75% ethanol/25% water. The men would likely be fine 'storing' vast amounts of it.

[@IrishCarney]

Yeah, race cars in America can only get E98 ethanol racing fuel, not E100. The other 2% has to be poison like methanol or gasoline, to prevent the fuel from being drinkable, which would require the fuel vendor to get a liquor license and the fuel would then have huge liquor taxes on it.

[@MultiZirkon]

"...third tranche..." -- I just love that expressions. Sounds classy. -- I bet the author and presenter hangs around with someone who is really into modern fighter planes!...

[@headmonkeyboy]

Nothing better than wakin up to a new Drach vid... and perhaps a gallon of truck stop coffee :P

[@toepopper]

I tend to think that all weapon systems need to be classified according to their use and not their physical design characteristics. This means that both their doctrinal use and their actual use need to be taken into account. The classic example is Chieftain talking about the M10 in US use vs UK use; the exact same vehicle is a tank destroyer in US use but an SP AT gun in UK use. One is meant for mass use against breakthrough, the other for supporting infantry against tanks and so they should be classified according to that use, not just because of the weapon systems. On that basis, the Alaskas pretty clearly seem to be, well, large cruisers given that there doesn't seem to have been a USN doctrine for battle cruisers :)

[@sedevri864]

always wish the Alaska class could have seen action. it's a shame we never got to see what they could actually accomplish.

[@IrishCarney]

In action against what though? Two of the Atlantas were sunk in part because they were pressed into service as surface combatants against enemy gunships when they were better suited as anti-aircraft batteries or commerce raiders.

[@sedevri864]

@@IrishCarney I understand that they may not have met an ideal engagement, I'm just saying it would be nice to know how well their design would have actually worked out in conflict. All the effort put into designing and building them to end up with just theory-craft their actual capabilities, I don't know just seems kinda sad.

[@GeographyCzar]

Nailed the title on this one!

[@rickytating6063]

I really love the title here.

[@derrickstorm6976]

Super duper destroyer

[@Boneworm852]

IJN: then I will create a Super DEE Duper destroyer!!!

[@ph89787]

@@Boneworm852 USN: So what? Like a Mega Destroyer? Ultra Destroyer? IJN: You're mocking me. USN: Maximum Over Destroyer.