One ship class never mentioned is the ALASKA-class. These two vessels, ALASKA and GUAM, were designated battlecruisers and carried 12-inch guns. They were well-armored, fast, and maneuverable. In fact, they garnered nothing but praise from those who either served on them or saw them in action. I pick them as the best battlecruiser.
They were fast, yes. The 12in gun was a pretty good one, though the mounts caused some complaints. Maneuverability was actually bad, really bad. Armor was okay. I do dislike the Alaskas, though, because they were horribly vulnerable to torpedoes. And no increase in DP weaponry compared to a Cleveland less than half their size.
Speed aside, I take it that the Alaska is outmatched by the Hood and Kongo, and probably fairy equal to the Dunkerque and Scharnhorst.
I think Alaska and Kongo make a very close match-up, depending on Alaska's opportunity to capitalize on her radar. Radar would be the only thing that would keep Alaska from getting steam-rolled by Dunkerque.
Great point, without radar you are sailing and firing blindly. No matter how big your guns are or how fast you can fire them, you still need to hit your targets.
I have read some books and articles that have stated that radar aiming is no more accurate than doing so visually.
Radar ranging is very accurate. Radar deflection, however, is not on a par with optical readings. In addition, there are cases in which radar spotting will be impossible even when targets are clearly detected. At Empress Augusta Bay, only 10% of the American CL salvoes were spotted. It made for some very low hit percentages.
Yep. Technology is not the "genie in a bottle" that some people think it is; not all problems are best solved by some high tech item fresh from the R&D people. But a lot of folks still believe that you can bring any dificulty under control if you just throw technology at it. Read Arthur C. Clarke's short story "Superiority" to see what can come of that attitude.