>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?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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)

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      moron

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You have fricking autism.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Cryboy

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Alaska class was laid down in 17 Dec 1941, after Japan attacked Pearl and 2 years after the final naval treaty was effectively annulled.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

      And it worked. The USS Hawaii was never completed.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >WWII has been fought for years already
    >muh treaty limitations

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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).

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      this

      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).

      >Hood
      see above

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      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.

      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.

      Correct though with regards to what Hood was then

      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).

      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.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >"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"

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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"

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    would've been kino, aircraft (carriers), nukes and missiles should have never been invented.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Aircraft development should've stopped in 1935. Nukes can stay though, but only simple atmic bombs.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Right, and the Atlanta class were just 7000 ton destroyers with a 16 gun main battery.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Cruisers were a mistake. Just build more carriers.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe Germans would consider 12" guns suitable for a battlecruiser, but to the rest of the civilized world that's definitely heavy cruiser caliber.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      If Germans had one of those, they'd call it a fast battleship and it would be the pride of their navy.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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 frick 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.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *