I have been looking around the site lately and found this ship that i found very Neat looking ship.http://www.rcnavalcombat.com/RCNavalCombat/warshipregistry/ViewShip.aspx?ship=Alaska And acording to my calculater... 1 inch on the model is twelve feet on the real ship. So... The ship is 67.41 inches long and 7.5 inches long... But i think i did something wrong A battle cruiser cant be that long... right?
Well i wouldnt know the answer to you question but i did find somthing wrong. the ship is 67.41 in long and 7.5 inches long. You mean the ship is 7.5 inches wide right?
"battlecruiser" refers to the design purpose of the ship. A battleship is designed to fight enemy battleships. A cruiser is designed to hunt enemy merchant vessels, as well as scout for the battleships. A battlecruiser is designed to hunt enemy cruisers. The Alaska was the American design response to Japanese heavy cruisers like the Mogami and Takao. It was bigger, had really big guns, and was well-armored against cruiser-size guns. Unfortunately most of its intended targets were sunk by the time it was completed, but it still meets the design definition of a battle-cruiser. By the way, does anybody know the fastest speed the Alaska class was ever recorded going, in trials or in action? Navsource lists it as 33 knots, but that's fleet speed. It most likely could go faster than that, and if it could that'd make it a great ship for Big Gun combat.
everything i fount on all the web sites i use said 33 knots with one saying in bracktes (exceeded in service) too bad nothing says that would be a scary ship
Someone made one for a school design project. He modeled the whole thing in CAD, made a fiberglass hull, and used a CNC machine to make the superstructure. I don't know if he finished it or battled it. Some photos are available on the Big Gun discussion group on Yahoo. You may need to be a member to view them. If you can't see them, I'll copy a few over. http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/BigGunsModelWarship/photos/browse/bde2 Looking at the pictures, it follows more cruiser design conventions than battleship conventions. Instead of two skegs that contain two of the four prop-shafts like the modern battleships have, there is a single skeg along the centerline. This suggests that there was probably a single rudder, like cruisers, though I don't know for sure (battleships had two). I just checked the MWCI shiplist, which confirms that it has a single rudder. The shape of the stern seems to be a mix between a battleship stern and a cruiser stern, though looks more square like a cruiser to me. Wikipedia offers more analysis about how it is closer to a cruiser than a battleship. Depending on its speed, it may be a decent ship in big gun combat. It has a decent battleship-sized armament, with medium weight armor, 4 shafts and 1 rudder. If it is 34+ knots it would be faster than most battleships, and it may be able to hunt other heavy cruisers. It won't be able to make very tight turns, but will rely on long, relatively straight runs up to, then past the target before turning around and coming back. With medium weight armor, it shouldn't stand up against other battleships for long, instead focusing on the smaller vessels or pulling hit-and-run attacks on the bigger ships. It would really fill the role of a battlecruiser: bringing heavy firepower to any area of the pond quickly, but lighter armor prevents it from standing up to battleships for long. It all comes down to its maximum speed. It must be faster than the Iowa (33kts) in order to be able to fulfil the role I have described. I don't know how well it would work in fast gun, but heres my best guess. It is rated 4.5 units and 24 seconds. This should be compared to the North Carolina (6 units, 24 sec) and Iowa (8 units, 24 sec). With only one rudder, it will not turn very well. It has the same speed as several larger ships. It can carry sidemounts. I would think that a NC would fight just as well, but have a much better armament with its extra 1.5 units. It would cost slightly less to arm the Alaska, but no fiberglass hulls are commonly available (that I know of), so you would have to make one yourself. The biggest advantage it has over NC is that it is almost 10 lbs lighter, though Alaska is actually longer. If you really want a ship that is easier to handle, look for a smaller 3.5 unit cruiser. If you want something with proper battleship power, the NC is a good choice.
NC is a very nice ship. But what you're saying is that an Alaska Is just not a very good ship overall?
If you wanted to generate a system for rating ships the results for battleships/battlecruisers might look like this: Ship Factor Bismarck 150 Tirpitz 143 Nagato (B) 140 North Carolina 121 Yamato 120 Vanguard 118 Iowa 117 Richelieu(b) 112 Richelieu 98 King George V 86 Littorio 85 Kongo (B) 77 Scharnhorst 68 Scharnhorst (L) 63 Kongo 63 Tiger 62 Derfflinger 55 Lion 51 Dunkerque 46 Hood 44 Renown (B) 33 Renown 28 Alaska 27 Furious 22 Courageous 20 South Dakota 126 Nelson 123 Q. E (B) 113 Q. Elizabeth 99 Revenge (B) 95 Fuso (B) 91 Fuso 91 Iron Duke 89 Hyuga (B) 89 Hyuga 87 Revenge 83 Von Der Tann 80 Nagato 79 Gangut (B) 76 Pennsylvania(B) 71 Invincible 71 West V. (B) 71 Tennessee (B) 71 Colorado (B) 66 New Mexico (B) 66 Gangut 66 Pennsylvania 65 C. Di Cavour(L) 65 Andrea Doria(L) 64 Indefatigable 64 Tennessee 61 Colorado 61 New Mexico 60 Moltke 56 Yavuz 56 Al. Latorre (B) 54 Seydlitz 53 Al. Latorre 48 Agincourt 44 Baden 154 Westfalen 150 Konig 135 Helgoland 128 Kaiser 127 Viribus Unitis 108 Erin 96 Bellerophon 85 Neptune 84 Hercules 84 Dreadnought 84 Orion 83 Saint Vincent 82 Rivadavia 81 Texas(B) 78 Imp. Maria 76 King George V 76 Nevada (B) 75 C. Di Cavour 70 Andrea Doria 70 Texas 70 Arkansas (B) 70 South Carolina 69 Nevada 66 Espana 65 Dante Alighieri 62 Arkansas 61 Florida (B) 59 Bretagne 54 Florida 49 Delaware 48 Kawachi 44 Courbet 43 Minas Gerias 41
Given that some ships are beter than others, it should be possible to generate a number to go with that concept. Sort of like a stock index or something of the sort. Basicly take all good number put them on top of a fraction, then put all the bad number on bottom. "good" numbers would be firepower and some factor for speed. "bad" numbers would be manuverabilty (larger # is worse, due to big turning circle) The above is result for battleships and battlecruisers. Larger numbers for the "factor" are beter. So a Bismark, should be about twice as effective as a Kongo. It is not exact in the real world, but provides a quick and easy method to evulate what would be the effects of different set-ups, or changes to rules. If you look for Alaska- you will note that it is amonst the lowest of the capital ships. Also note the list is sorted by speed. (24, 26 and 28)
If you figure that it's a list based on fast gun characteristics, it actually does make sense. Despite the 2 extra guns, I haven't seen a Yammer defeat a North Carolina in single combat. Seen an NC beat a Yammer several times. I love the Yamato (have considered building one multiple times), but them's the facts. Not saying I agree with everything on the list, but I think overall, it's a reasonable approximation of fast gun combat capability.
