Alaska would have rocked the casbah in 1942.
In 1944 it's about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
So let's look at what it's rivals are.
Hood? Not in 1944. Scharnhorst? Not in 1944. Kongos? 2 were still about I guess. Renown?
At my learned colleague Thumpacalumpus said, it ain't going up against any battleship and coming out intact. It can run away but running ain't winning wars.
True enough, the Kongos have the heavier shot. But the Alaskas have more vessel speed, better fire-control, and the 12" guns, while nominally smaller, had similar range to the Kongos' 14"/45, could fire faster, and was roughly equivalent to the US 14"/50 in penetration, so takes your chances and throws your dice, 'cause it's still a crapshoot.In 1944 or 45 even if the Alaska could fight the Kongo then there is no guarantee that it's going to come through.
However since they didn't have any better heavy AA than a Baltimore (or a Cleveland) and not much better medium AA (40 mm) they were an expensive way to get twelve 5in/38s into action. I don't know if they carried more ammo.The Alaska came about due to reactive reporting. In other words it was a reaction to a report that Japan was going to build
ships similar to Deutschland / Scharnhorst. Thus the bit bigger guns and high speed. It turned out Japan never had any plan
to build similar ships at all so Alaska and Guam were rebels without a cause.
Thanks to their large AA armament and speed they were given the job of carrier protection instead.
That's right but since the opposition never appeared I suppose there had to be a use found.However since they didn't have any better heavy AA than a Baltimore (or a Cleveland) and not much better medium AA (40 mm) they were an expensive way to get twelve 5in/38s into action. I don't know if they carried more ammo.
Yorktown (CV-6) and Essex (CV-9): 450 roundsHowever since they didn't have any better heavy AA than a Baltimore (or a Cleveland) and not much better medium AA (40 mm) they were an expensive way to get twelve 5in/38s into action. I don't know if they carried more ammo.
In the video you are referring toYes indeed.
That where got info from.
Shame couldn't be kept as a museum ship.
Indefatigable was inferior in amour protection to the Invincible it was based on with no redeeming features to counterbalance that. To build an inferior version of a 3 year old design cannot be justified. In particular the French style "lozenge" turret layout badly comprised protection of the magazines. There was no excuse for perpetuating this design when the RN had already dropped their objections to super firing turrets.Drachinifel slags off HMS Indefatigable in his latest video like it's on sale for 1999. He don't pull no punches and he riding that pony until the wheels fall off.
Now....is he saying history stuff or has he been told to be entertaining and building up the boil to get the extra clicks Coz it plenty funny.
I am not sure. Of course I have my doubts but a ranting bitch slap video bad? Again maybe not.
The battle of Kirishima vs Washington and South Dakoata was a foregone conclusion. It is hard to visualize an outcome other than Kirishima laying at the bottom.The Battle between Kirishima and Washington and South Dakota proved that anything and everything can happen. So it's like a train wreck with extra monkeys.
HMS Acasta got a mission kill against Scharnhorst so it's a box of frogs and take your best shot.
From Naval weapons websiteI just know someone is going to comment on the "anti-aircraft " shells.