Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "USS Alaska - Guide 105 (Extended)" video.

  1. The original idea of the Battlecruiser, as the fast scouting wing to a battlefleet, and as a ship capable of hunting down enemy armoured cruisers, made sense. The three British & two French battlecruisers around in 1939 are unlikely to have had much of an issue dealing with a Deutschland, just as Invincible & Inflexible made short work of the WW1 Scharnhorst & Gneisenau at the Falklands. The problem was, because they looked like battleships, the temptation to use them against 'real' battleships, always existed.
    3
  2. The Alaskas had a marginal edge in speed, but were much more lightly armoured, with 9 inch belt & 3 inch deck, compared to Scharnhorst's 13.8 inch belt and 4.1 inch deck. The Alaskas had a broadside of 10260 lbs, compared to the Scharnhorst's rather feeble 6552 lbs.
    1
  3.  @stevequerin2504  The Scharnhorsts had 13.8 inch belts, 4.1 inch decks, and were capable of 32 knots. They compare well in these respects with, for example, the North Carolinas (12 inch belts, 3.6 inch decks, and 28 knots). Where they do not compare, of course, is in weight of broadside, 6552 lbs compared to 24300 lbs.
    1