HMS Casey

Fox2! wrote:Even Alaska and Hawaii (and Guam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Samoa) had battlecruisers named for them (Philippines, Puerto Rico and Samoa were cancelled before their keels were laid, and Hawaii never completed).

An interesting side note is that the Alaska class was assigned the hull symbol "CB" allegedly for "Large Cruiser." not "Battlecruiser." The Lexington class battlecruisers would have used the symbol "CC".

The Alaska class is a very large or super heavy cruiser. She was originally designed and built to counter a suspected IJN heavy cruiser that was never built. The class has several design features that are found in heavy cruisers but are not found in battleships. Like the fact that they have only a single rudder and the secondary gun layout is that of a cruiser instead of a battleship

Fox2! wrote:Simple question: Is HMS Casey on the List of Honor?

While David and I haven't discussed this... my answer is: "probably not."

Saganami's actions basically created (or at least formalized) the List of Honor, and while Casey did some good things, they weren't quite up to that standard. But Franklin Casey (the ship's namesake) did get a cafeteria named after him on Saganami Island.

The Alaska class is a very large or super heavy cruiser. She was originally designed and built to counter a suspected IJN heavy cruiser that was never built. The class has several design features that are found in heavy cruisers but are not found in battleships. Like the fact that they have only a single rudder and the secondary gun layout is that of a cruiser instead of a battleship

Agreed. The Navy insisted that the Alaska class ships were just very heavy cruisers. With main batteries half again (12 vs. 8 in) the size of the Treaty limited heavy cruiser. The Lexington class CCs were to have been equipped with 16 in guns The Alaska class' construction was definitely that of a cruiser; Lexington appears to have followed Dreadnaught design concepts.

To further the murk, there are those (most, apparently, of the RN type) who insist that the Iowa class battleships were actually battlecruisers in design,

tpope wrote:[t Franklin Casey (the ship's namesake) did get a cafeteria named after him on Saganami Island.

One of the student cafeterias at the University Of Colorado in Boulder is named for Alferd Packer.

Fox2! wrote:Agreed. The Navy insisted that the Alaska class ships were just very heavy cruisers. With main batteries half again (12 vs. 8 in) the size of the Treaty limited heavy cruiser. The Lexington class CCs were to have been equipped with 16 in guns The Alaska class' construction was definitely that of a cruiser; Lexington appears to have followed Dreadnaught design concepts.

To further the murk, there are those (most, apparently, of the RN type) who insist that the Iowa class battleships were actually battlecruisers in design,

Well, there are always some who want to be contrary. I can't say if there was an official Royal Navy policy on what to call the Iowa-class, but anyone who did call them battlecruisers would have been doing so based purely on their speed - in terms of armament and protection, they were clearly battleships.

It's a bit like the logic of some in the RN during the First World War who argued that the Queen Elizabeth-class should be considered battlecruisers, because they had eight guns (like RN battlecruisers), compared to ten guns on previous RN dreadnaught and superdreadnaught classes, and were three knots faster than the battle fleet. Never mind that they were still slower than even the oldest RN battlecruisers and had heavier armour and a heavier broadside than anything else in the fleet.

Dafmeister wrote:Well, there are always some who want to be contrary. I can't say if there was an official Royal Navy policy on what to call the Iowa-class, but anyone who did call them battlecruisers would have been doing so based purely on their speed - in terms of armament and protection, they were clearly battleships.

Actually the "Iowas as battlecruisers" argument is nothing much to do with their speed, and everything to do with their protection. I forget the exact argument, but it's to do with the size of Iowa's "immunity zone" against it's own main armament.

The problem IMHO is that "battlecruiser" is one of those terms that wanders around the map!

* There are plenty of ships which where called battlecruisers by their respective navies which everyone would agree where battlecruisers.
* There are ships (Alaska class, Scharnhorst class) which where not called battlecruisers by their navies, but which some people do call battlecruisers.
* There are ships (HMS Hood) which where called battlecruisers by their navies, but which where arguably not battlecruisers.
* Then there are ships (Iowa class) which where not called battlecruisers by their navies, but if HMS Hood is then they probably are too!

PalmerSperry wrote:

Dafmeister wrote:Well, there are always some who want to be contrary. I can't say if there was an official Royal Navy policy on what to call the Iowa-class, but anyone who did call them battlecruisers would have been doing so based purely on their speed - in terms of armament and protection, they were clearly battleships.

Actually the "Iowas as battlecruisers" argument is nothing much to do with their speed, and everything to do with their protection. I forget the exact argument, but it's to do with the size of Iowa's "immunity zone" against it's own main armament.

The problem IMHO is that "battlecruiser" is one of those terms that wanders around the map!

* There are plenty of ships which where called battlecruisers by their respective navies which everyone would agree where battlecruisers.
* There are ships (Alaska class, Scharnhorst class) which where not called battlecruisers by their navies, but which some people do call battlecruisers.
* There are ships (HMS Hood) which where called battlecruisers by their navies, but which where arguably not battlecruisers.
* Then there are ships (Iowa class) which where not called battlecruisers by their navies, but if HMS Hood is then they probably are too!

As far as I remember, it was 2 fold:

1) the Iowa and the Montana designs were design mates, with the Iowa being the "fast" battleship, and the Montana being a return to the "Standard" battleship. This is similar to how battlecruisers were usually built, with a slower contemporarious Battleship mounting more armor and the same (but more) main weapons.

2) The design of the Iowa was upgraded to a new "superheavy" 16" gun partway through the construction phase. The new gun and it's new armor piercing shells were beyond the ability of Iowa's original armor scheme to withstand them. Since US battleships were defined to be armored to withstand their own fire power (to some degree), and, such a capital ship without that ability was defined as a BattleCruiser, many felt it had to be a Battlecruiser instead of a "fast' Battleship.

Theemile wrote:who quoted others
2) The design of the Iowa was upgraded to a new "superheavy" 16" gun partway through the construction phase. The new gun and it's new armor piercing shells were beyond the ability of Iowa's original armor scheme to withstand them. Since US battleships were defined to be armored to withstand their own fire power (to some degree), and, such a capital ship without that ability was defined as a BattleCruiser, many felt it had to be a Battlecruiser instead of a "fast' Battleship.

The Iowa's armament went through several iterations, from the 16/45s of the North Carolina/South Dakota battleships, to the 16/50s left over from the Lexington battlecruisers/South Dakota battleships (cancelled by the Washington Naval Treaty), to two different new turret/barbette designs for the 16/50s.

Of course, the Ordnance and Construction and Repair bureaus didn't talk to each other about how big of a hole was needed for the turret/barbette, and the size of the hole being designed (and built) into the ship. This was only solved by the design of a new 16/50 rifle, which could fit into a smaller turret/barbette which could fit into the hull.

An engagement between multiple fast battleships (North Carolina/South Dakota/Iowa)and IJN Yamato or Musashi would have been interesting (to an observer far, far away). Four US battleships would have been able to concentrate on the Japanese battleship, which would have had to distribute the fire of three turrets against four targets, all moving at over 25 kts. Plus the effects of land or carrier based air.

Not to mention the design decision by the RN to put 14 inch guns on the King George V battleships, when Bismark, Tirpitz, Hood, and Repulse carried 15s, Rodney, Ramillies, California and her sisters, the "fast" battleship classes (North Carolina/South Dakota/Iowa), the cancelled Lexington battlecruisers/South Dakota battleships, and Japanese Amagi battlecruisers and Nagato battleships would have or actually did carry 16s. (Recognizing that Reichskreigsmarine and IJN guns were sized in that silly French measurement system).

The KG5s were armed with 14" guns because they were built to the limits of the Second London Naval Treaty between the US, UK and France, which imposed a 14" maximum. There was an escalator clause which allowed an increase to 16" Japan or Italy (who had signed the Washington treaties but not the new London treaty) didn't sign the London treaty by April 1937, but the RN felt they needed to get the ships as early as possible. By the time the escalator clause deadline expired, the first three KG5s had already been ordered, and KG5 had actually been laid down. The USN, by contrast, waited until the deadline had expired and built 16" ships.