>34,000 tons
>12" guns
>battlecruiser armor
>"guys, it's just a really heavy cruiser, it totally isn't a battlecruiser"
How did they get away with this?
>34,000 tons. >12" guns. >battlecruiser armor
>34,000 tons
>12" guns
>battlecruiser armor
>"guys, it's just a really heavy cruiser, it totally isn't a battlecruiser"
How did they get away with this?
they didn't. in fact, japanese outrage at the united states' blatant violation of the washington naval treaty was one of, if not the, most important cause of the japanese attack on pearl harbor (where japanese bombers overwhelmingly sought to attack ships of the alaska class)
Retard
You have fucking autism.
Cryboy
>Attack Hawaii to strike at the Alaska class.
>Hawaii
>Alaska
Dude why did they not attack anchorage?
Pearl harbor was not about the Alaska class.
Alaska class was laid down in 17 Dec 1941, after Japan attacked Pearl and 2 years after the final naval treaty was effectively annulled.
And it worked. The USS Hawaii was never completed.
>WWII has been fought for years already
>muh treaty limitations
Alaska is just a big ass heavy cruiser, if you want American battlecruisers you should instead look at Iowas which fit the Hood-style battlecruiser description to a t.
I think the problem is that Hood itself didn’t fit the battlecruiser description to a T.
In my mind Repulse and Renown are much closer to the quintessential idea of a battlecruiser. Similar displacement to a line battleship, trades capital-resistant armor for near cruiser speed, maintains same massive gun caliber (but has fewer barrels).
The Atlantas are not "battlecruisers" because they weren't meant to fight in concert with battleships, which is where the "battle" part of "battlecruiser" comes in
Iowas are fast battleships
Hood blurs the line between battlecruiser and battleship in the same way that Alaska blurs the line between cruiser and battlecruiser, ie the most advanced class of the previous designation grows to become nearly as capable as the next. However it is still a battlecruiser especially by post-WW1 standards.
this
>Hood
see above
Correct though with regards to what Hood was then
is on the money. If you cut open an Alaska what you would have in front of you is a dissected heavy cruiser taken to and beyond the absolute extreme. One of these is not like the others.
No twitter bro, information only spreads via gossip speed. Like with the Krauts and the japs with their own violations, it’s hard to keep track of shit across the world at the time
>"guise its main guns were the same as a battleship therefore its a "large cruiser", a designation that literally no other ship has ever been given"
i mean the imperial germans referred to cruisers over 5.5k tons as large cruisers. then again they still called battleships "ships of the line"
would've been kino, aircraft (carriers), nukes and missiles should have never been invented.
Aircraft are kino, they should have just limited engine performance so we never had more than short range striking power that makes mixed air/surface battles the norm
Aircraft development should've stopped in 1935. Nukes can stay though, but only simple atmic bombs.
because they were heavy cruisers. the only ones who could even come close to america’s advancements in naval tech during ww2 were the british and they couldnt manage because they were broke as shit. if america said it was a heavy cruiser then it was a heavy cruiser and anyone who says otherwise would just be coping.
Right, and the Atlanta class were just 7000 ton destroyers with a 16 gun main battery.
The Alaska class was simply the inevitible outcome of the cruiser arms race. The US simply decided to skip to the finish line. It's the reason there was so much treaty autism regarding cruisers in the decades prior.
Today, anon learned that ship rates are just assigned so the numbers of "ours vs theirs" can be presented to congress in a manner that supports more funding for one ship type or another.
Armor is too weak for a battlecruiser of it's size and modernity. Also lacks proper TDS which a battlecruiser should have.
It's a comically huge cruiser but none the less it is a cruiser by design.
Cruisers were a mistake. Just build more carriers.
Maybe Germans would consider 12" guns suitable for a battlecruiser, but to the rest of the civilized world that's definitely heavy cruiser caliber.
If Germans had one of those, they'd call it a fast battleship and it would be the pride of their navy.
Alaska was a sized up cruiser instead of a sped up battleship. That's why it got the large cruiser bs.
Also, real Battlecruisers were obsolete by the time of Alaska due to Battleships becoming fast.
I mean functionally it's still a Battlecruiser so it's a bit of a moot point, the US didn't give a fuck about capital ships anymore, clearly winning against Japan, Italy and Germany in that regard, so they made the ultimate cruiser killer. If you can afford it - sure - anyone else wants something of this size to have battleship grade guns.