m →Chinese math: {{done}} mostly. |
GAN |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talkheader}} |
||
{{GA nominee|03:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)|page=1| subtopic=World history|status=}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Ships|class=Start|importance=High}} |
{{WikiProject Ships|class=Start|importance=High}} |
||
{{WPMILHIST|class=Start|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=no|B-Class-3=no|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes|Maritime=yes|US=yes|WWII=yes}} |
{{WPMILHIST|class=Start|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=no|B-Class-3=no|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes|Maritime=yes|US=yes|WWII=yes}} |
||
==Heavy Cruiser or Battlecruiser?== |
==Heavy Cruiser or Battlecruiser?== |
Revision as of 03:05, 20 October 2008
Ships Start‑class | |||||||
|
Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / World War II Start‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Heavy Cruiser or Battlecruiser?
- The Alaska class ships are often referred to as large cruisers; in terms of gunnery and displacement they were midway between a heavy cruiser and a battleship, although closer to the former in terms of design and, particularly, armour coverage. Most authorities, including the United States Navy itself, therefore consider the Alaska-class vessels to have been unusually large cruisers rather than fully-fledged battlecruisers.
The US Navy may choose to classify their ships how they wish, but the the Alaskas were Battlecruisers in everything but name and "most" authorities recognise them as such. The US Navy only called them heavy cruisers because HMS Hood had just blown up and asking for permission to build battlecruisers was career suicide. Further, some of the justifications chosen for the "heavy cruiser" appilation are clearly fallacious. For example, the "heavy cruiser type secondary battery" consisted of 5" DP guns - exactly the same as the North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa class battleships. Similarly, the number of rudders is no way to classify a warship, whereas the intended role is. The description quoted above is one of the neatest descriptions of a battlecruiser I have ever read - the Alaskas were designed as fleet scouts and "cruiser-killers," exactly the role Admiral Fisher envisaged for the very first Battlecruisers in 1908. I intend to rewrite the article accordingly. Getztashida 16:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- It does seem odd, and "unbalanced" that roughly 2/3 of the article is written in order to prove these ships are not battlecruisers, rather than dealing with the design and construction of these ships. Chris
- Given that the Navy classified them as CB, as opposed to CC, as it did for the Lexington class battlecruisers, we should not delve into our own interpretation of their roles, capabilities, etc. to state otherwise. If there are reliable sources stating that the ships were battlecruisers in all but name, go ahead and include their positions. If not, then we can't do so. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I read a book that classifies this class, as battleships.The classification of ships can be dificult.To example, what ton has the difference between a patrol boat and a corvete?What ton has the difference between a corvete and a frigate?A "light frigate" can be a corvete to another person.Books aren't unanimous about this classification.Its obvious that a ship with 5,000 tons can't be a corvete, but a corvete hasn't just one class and size.Agre22 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)agre22
Which flag?
After discussions, the advice is to use naval ensigns, not jacks - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tables. The correct US flag has been selected by a template - see the US entry in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns. Folks at 137 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Add this tommorrow, Ed.
"The last capital ships ordered by the US Navy were the six 27000-ton Alaska class large cruisers. They carried nine 12 in guns in triple turrets, ..." (Pg. 29)
The Eclipse of the Big Gun: The Warship 1906-45 By Robert Gardiner, David K. Brown Published by Conway Maritime, 2004 ISBN 0851779530, 9780851779539 223 pages
—Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 05:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Some unsourced content...
I was forced to remove this lovely paragraph because it lacked a source....:
However, the Alaska class was built to cruiser standards, with a cruiser-like secondary battery and lacked the armored belt and torpedo defense system of capital ships. Their percentage of armor tonnage at 16% was similar to that of contemporary cruisers and far less than that of true battlecruisers and battleships (HMS Hood had 33%, while the German Bismarck and USS North Carolina had 40% weight in armor). As with the never-completed Lexington-class battlecruisers, the Alaska class ships were an outgrowth of contemporary American cruiser design, rather than being a new battlecruiser class to occupy the middle ground between heavy cruisers and fast battleships.
If anyone has a source for all or part of it please add it back in. —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 23:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, Fitzsimons supports Alaskas having a CC-type armor scheme. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 02:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Chinese math
I deleted
- "classes; these new carriers became the Independence-class light aircraft carriers. The first CVL was commissioned on 14 January 1943,[1] about eleven months before the first of the Essex class was commissioned.[2]"
because the page is on the Alaskas, & this seems better for Essex or Independence. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 02:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Mostly Done —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 03:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- ^ "Independence". Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Department, Naval History and Heritage Command.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|accessdaymonth=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter|accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (help) - ^ "Hornet". Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Department, Naval History and Heritage Command.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|accessdaymonth=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter|accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (help)