Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau
Message-ID: <1991Mar27.051532.23159@amd.com>
Date: 27 Mar 91 05:15:32 GMT
References: <1991Mar25.064930.29465@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Lines: 29
Approved: military@amd.com



From: plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley)

In article <1991Mar25.064930.29465@amd.com> JEWELLLW@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU (Larry W. Jewell) writes:
>   Once again, the battlecruiser is outmoded before it is really ready
>for service.  The United States tried to correct this with the "Alaska"s
>(rated at 33 knots)  but that speed was obtained by having TWO INCH !!
>(sorry but, Lordy, what some people will do in wartime) deck armour!

The Alaska class was not intended as a battle unit, but rather as a
cruiser killer and super cruiser (i.e., a ship that can easily defend
shipping against enemy cruisers by eliminating them, and one that can
raid enemy shipping regardless of enemy cruiser defense).  Remember
that, when designed, it was not at all obvious that aircraft would
take these traditional cruiser roles.  When the ships were finally 
completed, they therefore had no real function.

The deck armor was more like 3-3.7" armored deck, with a 1.5" upper
deck.  This was not designed to face battleship fire, or its own fire
for that matter; the ship was designed to face enemy heavy cruisers,
and that's what the deck armor was for.

The Alaska class was not comparable in intention to the Scharnhorst
class, but rather to the "pocket battleships" (which the Germans
simply called "armored ships").  Consider the Alaska as the Graf
Spee done right, and think what it would have done off Montevideo!

DHT