Comments by "" (@johnshepherd8687) on "British Cruiser Development Between WW1 & WW2 - Honestly not raiders 'guv!" video.

I think the principle difference between US and British cruiser doctrine and design is that the US Navy thought "Well, we can't build battleships so we will build mini-BBs and fight them like a battle fleet." Seen in this light it makes sense to eliminate torpedoes. Up to a few years ago I accepted the conventional wisdom that it was a mistake but after delving more into the South Pacific surface battles it was clear that the mishandling of the destroyer force was the cause of the cruiser losses. Had the destroyers been concentrated in the van to deliver a mass torpedo attack at the beginning of the engagement the cruiser force would have suffered fewer losses and been able to exploit their radar advantage.
5
Had the UK built the Drakes the US would probably have retained the Alaskas in commission if only for the bragging rights of having the baddest @$$ cruiser around.
3
@stevefaiello3321 The problem wasn't the cruisers it was the misuse of the supporting destroyers that caused the losses. The destroyer captains want to mass their forces in the van and begin the engagement with a torpedo attack but the task force commanders refused to do this. Unless the destroyer employment changed it is doubtful that the new cruisers would have done any better.
1
@AtomicBabel The US destroyers were still held on a short leash as far as launching a torpedo attack. A torpedo attack would have broken up the Japanese formation even if no hits were scored and reduced the effectiveness of the Japanese counterattack.
1
ASMs are the modern equivalent of torpedoes and they make it virtually impossible to get within conventional torpedo range.
1
@hughfisher9820 None of those ships merited a torpedo. There are other ways of dealing with ships at close range than a torpedo -- 5"/54 or helo launched hellfire or penguin.
1
@Drachinifel I think that title would go to the 5"/54 introduced on the CV 43 class CVs.
1