Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Alaska class - Large/Super/Battle/Mega/Hyper/Ultra Cruisers" video.
-
@AWPtical800 I did some comparison last night. According to the tables on Navweaps, the 14"/50, as modified in the mid 30s had a slight advantage over the 12" in range and penetration. Additionally, the USN had a surplus of 14"/50s in inventory. There were enough of the 14" guns to provide two sets of 12 each as spares for the 5 BBs that used them, with 35 left over, enough to arm 4 battlecruisers with 6 or 7 each, with a full set if spares. On the other hand, the 12" was lighter, so, for the same weight, more 12", of nearly the same performance as the 14", could be mounted. More guns means a greater probability of a hit with each salvo.
1
-
@podmonkey2501 the Brits had "large light cruisers" with 4-15" guns, in WWI. The Washington treaty seems to have respected the classification of the Courageouses as "cruisers", as they are not listed among the capital ship retention or disposal lists. HMS Furious was initially intended to be armed with 2-18", but still a "large light cruiser". We could establish a rule that, to be a battleship, a ship had to be armored against it's own guns at "typical combat range", but "typical combat range" proved to be a moving target as guns and fire control systems improved. By that measure, the Alaskas are not battleships, because their guns could punch through their own 9" belt at anything under 30,000 yards, but then the North Carolinas would also not be battleships as their guns could penetrate their 12" belt at anything under 30,000 too. And no one would want to publicly call their ship a "battleship" or "cruiser" as it would tip off potential adversaries about how well protected they are.
1
-
1