Battle of Leyte Gulf TF 34

[clifford13]

-------McCain's group:
3 carriers, 2 light carriers, 6 cruisers 3 light cruisers and 20 + destroyers...the largest of the 4 task groups in the task force.

[LWD]

True, but those 12 inch Guns would have had me re thinking that classification. ....

Why? Typically Battlecruisers have guns of at or near the same size as contemporary battleships. They usually weigh in near the same as well (sometimes even more). The contemporary US battleships carried 16" guns and were quite a bit heavier than the Alaskas. They were simply the logical next step in cruiser evolution and the USN recognized that.

[mescal]

Had the cvl's been formed in 2 groups with the bigger cv's in theother 2, Halsey could have covered the beaches with them , while the Cv's went hunting.

The composition of the task groups, and more precisely the ratio of CV to CVL in each group was not determined at random.
It stemmed from the USN doctrine of that time, which emerged from the battles of 1942.
Basically, the role of the small carriers was more centered on the defensive tasks, while the bigger CVs concentrated more on distant strikes.

That is, without its CVLs, a task group would lose relatively more of its defensive power than the total number of aircraft lost.
And a CVL-only task group would not have much power projection capability.

Anyway, it was neither the intention nor the orders of Halsey to "cover the beaches".

[black96lt4c4]

Halsey could have detached his flag ship from tf 34.Monday morning quarterbacking here

[Delta Tank]

Myself, I'd like to know where the Guam And Alaska, a pair of 12 inch battle-cruisers we had about then, got off to..

Just looking at wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Alaska ... ce_history
Alaska didn't even get to Pearl until 13 January of 45 and Guam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Guam_(CB-2)
didn't get there until 8 Febuary.
By the way they were rated large cruisers not battle cruisers in part because they lacked features typical of such ships (a TDS for example).

LWD,

What is a TDS?

Mike

[LWD]

Torpedo Defence System.

[clifford13]

Clifford Deal Interesting excript from CNO's report: [Adm. E.J.King, Chief of Naval Operations]: The Third Fleet, operating under Admiral Halsey, was to cover and support the operation by air strikes over Formosa, Luzon and the Visayas, to provide protection for the landing against heavy units of the Japanese fleet, and to destroy enemy vessels when opportunity offered.

[steverodgers801]

Also the Guam and Alaska wre quite outclassed by even a Kongo class BB as far as gun and armor

[Takao]

I don't know if I would go that far Steve. The 12-inch Mark 18 looks like a pretty hot load, with armor penetration roughly equal to the American 14-inch/50s of the New Mexico & Tennessee class battleships. Neither has particularly good armor against the other's shells, although the Kongo will probably fare better against plunging fire. Given the better fire control of the Alaska, she will probably get the first hit in, plus she has a slightly better rate of fire.

Barring a "Hood hit", the Alaska is probably the odds on favorite. But without her radar FCS, I would probably favor the Kongo at long ranges & the Alaska at shorter ranges.

[steverodgers801]

I meant the G and A were not capable of standing up to the Kongo's. I was not aware the penetration factor.

[ChristopherPerrien]

Also the Guam and Alaska were quite outclassed by even a Kongo class BB as far as gun and armor

Outclassed??? BB??

A pre-WWI British Battle cruiser design(Modified Tiger to Lion), which is all the Kongo's were, could barely stand up to a Washington Treaty era US Heavy Cruiser.

Witness- the IJNS Hiei vs USS San Francisco, which one sunk?

And you propose that they could best, a post -treaty/WWII US Super Heavy Cruiser design. With the sheer advantages of far better radar fire control of USN ships over IJN ships and 25 years in naval design advancement between the two classes , I don't think so.

Any battle cruiser based on Jacky Fisher's ideas was a bankrupt design from start. Their overall performance in surface actions prove this.

An Alaska Class S-Hvy CA would have shot a Kongo Class BC, out of the water.

[LWD]

...Any battle cruiser based on Jacky Fisher's ideas was a bankrupt design from start. Their overall performance in surface actions prove this. ...

Well if you compare them to the previous classes and to the Montanna's a case can be made for the Iowa's being BC based at least in part on Fisher's design and they showed up pretty well. In gneral I'm not sure the faults can be layed at the over all design of those battle cruisers but more at some of the subsystem designs or implimentations.

As for the Japanese 14" vs the Alaska's 12" here are the pages at navweapons:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_14-45_t41.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.htm
Looks to me like Alaska can penetrate Kongo's deck at anything over 20,000 yards and belt or turret faces at anything under 30,000 yards. With 9 guns to 8 and a rate of fire potentially double that of Kongo I'd give an edge to Alaska. At longer ranges her fire control would be supperior although her rate of fire might not come into play while at closer ranges the rate of fire could be a huge factor. Both sides doctrine favored long range engagmements though.

[clifford13]

Any ship, mounting destroyer class [127 mm. roughly 5 inch] guns, beaching them selves in the landing area, aka 10,000 yards, about 5 Knotical miles, is going to make a serious bunker untill reduced. even Zuikaku, without aircraft, carried 16 of these guns, making her a threat to Army and Marines ashore, even without aircraft. Way too many variables to accuratly second guess these, my choice would be to sink 'em ALL. That means using the CVL's to block North, CVE's to block south, and CV's to end run north and west to trap..Aircraft from China flying to Zuikaku via the beaches would have greatly extended flight range, somthing Adm. Halsey didn't forget.

[LWD]

?