What is the most interesting US Warship class in WW2?

I like Norman Friedman's characterization of the Alaskas in his design history of US Navy cruisers - he calls them heavy cruisers finally free of the Washingon Treaty restrictions. The 10,000 ton 8" cruiser was a totally artificial type. Smaller 6" ships could conduct any cruiser mission, but it seems likely that navies would seek to exploit the gap between them and battle cruisers and other capital ships which had already grown to 40,000 tons and greater (designs that is, cancelled by the treaty). Natural evolution might have produced more ships like the Alaskas.

I nominate for most interesting the 10,000 ton 6" cruisers, another artificial treaty type, but better balanced and arguably better fighting ships than the 8" treaty cruisers. The Cleveland class offered an excellent combination of surface and AA armament, but they soon became overloaded and topweight-critical. If they could have been a thousand tons larger, they would have been outstanding ships.

 

I also like the Alaska's, graceful, powerful looking ships. The Washington and North Carolina would be a close second.

vathra, I saw the Daisy Mae laid up in the Philidelphia Navy Yard three or four years ago, before she was scrapped. She was in sad shape but still an impressive ship.

The Newport News (Des Moines sister ship) did see action as a gunfire support ship for the Marines in I Corps during Vietnam. By all accounts she gave yeoman like service.

 

The unsung warships of the US Navy during WWII were the Liberty class cargo vessels. Always moving and supporting the forces, in harms way without much to defend themselves with.

Also, the Destroyer Escorts that helped to protect the larger combatants from underwater attackers. If you were a DE sailor, you always slept with your lifevest handy.

 

The major reason US PT boats did so poorly with torpedoes was that their crews and, in particular their commanders, were not very well trained in the "art" of torpedo attack. That is, most PT skippers were Reserve officers with very limited training. The crew and commander had little skill in laying out a torpedo attack. To make matters worse, there was really no computational equipment or other devices to aid in setting up the launch and pattern for a torpedo attack.
The result was PT boats did abyssimally at what was supposedly one of their primary jobs: Attacking larger ships with torpedoes.

Another, and I think more interesting, group of ships the US built are the "Mighty Midgets." These were the various classes of LC*(S). These included LCI(S) and LCM(S) ships. Variously armed with rockets, 20mm, 40mm and even 3" guns these craft performed close inshore support of landings and also acted as front line pickets. Off Okinawa it was common to put four of these on a picket station with a destroyer. This mini-flotilla would then act as the early warning and first line air defense of the fleet. Many of these landing craft had to endure kamikaze attack and also render assistance to their destroyer when it took the brunt of an attack.
Amazingly, the last couple of these are still in service in odd corners of the world like Thailand.

 

Speaking of Fletcher Class destroyers, you being from "Red Stick" have you visited the USS Kidd. I've been three or four times when I was down there visiting relatives. IMHO, she's one of the best restored of the "memorial ships".

 

Oh yes, many times. I think that she is probably the best of the smaller restored ships, having received several awards and commendations from the many veteran's groups having their reunions there. Of course of it's proximity to a casino and hotel doesn't hurt either. I've did a little pro-bono maintenance work, donated artifacts and money to them in the past as well.

 

These ship's and there German counterpart's

 

I'm also fond of the North Carolina class, the best of the nominal 35,000 ton battleships around the world. The South Dakota class addressed the supposed deficiencies of the armor belt at the cost of being less satisfactory in most other areas, and as it turned out belt armor was rarely decisive in combat.

I'm intrigued by the 6" counterparts of the Des Moines class, the Worcester class "light" cruisers of 14,700 tons, or more accurately by their twin automatic dual-purpose turrets. I wonder if they could have been accommodated in some of the Clevelands which were under construction or programmed. Eight of the new guns would still be an increase in firepower over the original twelve. They would also duplicate the 3"/50 secondary armament, starting with twin mounts in place of the 5", including two on the valuable centerline positions fore and aft. Worcester's fire control arrangements included two Mark 37 DP directors, which the Clevelands already had, and one vice two main battery/surface directors, located aft, so they would save the topweight of one director atop the bridge, somewhat relieving a critical problem of the class.

The Fletchers evolved into the Sumner and Gearing classes, but the most significant change, the concentration of most of the 5" armament forward vice aft, caused them to be wet forward, exacerbating the main shortcoming of a flush-decked design. Three twin mounts were not considered to be a significant improvement in firepower over five singles; the main reason was to free up space for additional 40mm weapons. Ironically one of the best potential AA positions, at the aft end of the superstructure, was given to a torpedo mount. They would have been better off with a Fletcher-like arrangement, putting #2 5" mount there and keeping the torpedos amidships. This would free up the superfiring position forward for one of the quad 40s. Although the 5" would still be on the 01 level, the sheer of the hull puts it almost a deck equivalent lower, allowing the second quad 40 to be elevated over the two 5" aft, again like a Fletcher. The two twin 40s could be in either the Fletcher or Sumner positions, fire forward already being provided by the centerline quad. Same armament, better arcs of fire, less weight forward or high up.

 

What do you consider the German counterpart to the Alaskas? I'm not sure I see one.

 

Closest KM ships would have been Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.

 

Or the Spee and her sisters depending on what you are looking at. The twins were battleships the panzershiffe were cruisers. The Alaskas were also cruisers.

 

I think the twins were closer to battle-cruisers based on their original armament. They never did upgrade to true battleship status.

 

The Twins were rated as Battleships by the Germans and their design is consistent with that although they were small ones for the time note that the same is true of Dunkirque and Strassberg. The Alaskas were clearly cruisers as were the Spees. In particular their armor and lack of a TDS points to their cruiser heritage.

 

S&G were rated Schlachtschiffen (battleships) and everything except their main armament was consistent with that. Their belt armor was actually an inch thicker than Bismarck's.

On the other hand, they evolved from the panzerschiffe concept. Earlier in the design process they might have been closer to the Alaska, Dunkerque, or battle cruiser idea. Supposedly the six 11" turrets were ordered for a second trio of panzerschiffen, to finish out the six allowed by the Versailles treaty. When Hitler abrogated those limits, the first thought was a larger panzerschiffe, about 19,000 tons, to remedy the shortcomings of the nominal 10,000-tonners, mainly speed and armor. However six 11" did not seem much of an armament for ships that size, and a larger, three-turret type appeared more balanced. Also the French built Dunkerque with eight 13" guns and 9" armor. This, along with the prestige of having "real" battleships, tipped the scales in favor of the nine 11" design which, with 13.8" armor, seemed a fair match for the French ships.

To add to the confusion, the panzerschiffen were legally battleships, replacements for the old Deutschland class which Germany was allowed to keep under Versailles. 11" guns were the same caliber as the old ships, consistent with coast-defense battleships in local navies like Sweden's, and well outside any definition of cruiser armament. The 5.9" secondary battery was also a distinctly capital ship feature, not found on any cruiser since the pre-dreadnought era. Speed was distinctly below cruiser standards, though range and armor were cruiserish.

 

My understanding is that the British had a post war curiser design using 9.2" guns. The various post war treaties are what restricted cruisers to 8" guns of less. I don't believe Germany was a signator to them although they did have a naval treaty with Britain. Were the panzershiffe that much slower than WWI cruisers?

 

Post WWI or II? They were working on a nine-gun 9.2" design during WWII, not aware of any such in the WWI era. They did build the Hawkins class, about 9000 tons with seven 7.5" guns. These were in response to a supposed German type which never materialized, and the RN reverted to a 6" design for their next class, the Es. Nor was anyone else in the world then building cruisers with guns larger than 6". To the extent that the otherwise unremarkable Hawkinses affected the 10,000 ton, 8" gun treaty limits, they were one of the most influential ship types in history. Most cruiser construction through WWII was based on the essentially artificial treaty limits.

Germany was not a signator to the Washington or London treaties, since she was already held to smaller standards for both size and numbers under Versailles. When Hitler decided to throw off the Versailles limits - I believe the first specific indication was the planned 26,000 ton Scharnhorst class - Britain obligingly negotiated a bilateral naval treaty, or to put it another way, she unilaterally (without consulting any of her former allies) terminated a significant arms control provision of Versailles. This pretty much sank any pretense of holding Germany to any other provisions.

28 knots was about the speed of most WWI cruisers, although a few postwar types like the Es and Omahas topped 30. New cruisers in the 1920s and later generally had speeds of 32 knots or better.

 

From what I recall reading it was an interwar design but just after WWI as the Washington & London treaties banned them. They did use some of the guns for coast defense I believe. Pretty sure none even reached the final plan stage though.

 

You probably know the 9.2" were used on armored cruisers in the pre-dreadnought era, subsequently for coast defense in places like Dover. They're often mentioned in speculation or alternate history about German invasions of Britain in WWII.

When the Germans first heard about the building of a dreadnought armored cruiser - the Invincible - they assumed it would feature a uniform battery of the then standard armored cruiser guns, say eight 9.2s, and designed their own Blucher with twelve 8.2", which left her outclassed by the 12" and better actually mounted on battle cruisers. One could argue that a 9.2"-gunned ship might have been a more balanced design.

 

You guys seem to really know your cruisers. Another of my favorite classes was the Baltimores, what are your opinions of them. IMO, they were the best class of cruiser to see action in WWII.

 

The Baltimore class is just an improved New Orleans class. Both classes were designed with protection against gunfire taking precidence over underwater protection. As US cruisers go, they had decent underwater protection with good compartmentation and the double bottom carried up to the damage control deck. The big advantage of the Baltimore class is the incorporation of the twin turret 5"/38 and the Mk 38 director system over the single 5'/38's of the New Orleans class.