USS Guam - The Less Famous 'Large Cruiser'
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- Ah, the Alaska-class. One of the biggest arguments in naval history circles. Are they battlecruisers? Are they Large Cruisers? Super Cruisers? It's a quick and easy way to set off anyone interested in naval history.
(Incidentally, I fall on the 'the navy calls them Large Cruisers, so that's what they are. Besides, the only 'battlecruiser' thing is the guns and maybe the main belt'. But that's for another video.)
However, this video will focus on the service history of the second such ship, USS Guam. A ship that most certainly suffers from being the middle child. She isn't the origin of the design, like Alaska. And doesn't have the wacky conversion plans, like Hawaii. Guam is...the average one.
But, that doesn't mean she's boring. I find her story interesting, myself.
Hawaii Video: • USS Hawaii - "Are You ...
Further Reading:
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...
www.history.na...
No matter what one calls them I just think they are among the most beautiful ships ever!
I agree. It is a shame that ALASKA and GUAM were completed too late to fight.
They are cool but they do have that big ugly gap in the middle of the superstructure
Yes, they were great looking ships.
A I served on 4 different ships in the US Navy & as a former cruiser sailor I could not agree with you more!
I loved the USS Macon CA 132!
Amerigo Vespucci entered the chat
Drachinifel did an excellent video on whether the Alaska class were battle cruisers or large cruisers about a year ago.
The United States doesn't and has never really used "battle cruisers" they were all scrapped or converted. . It's a heavy cruiser. Period.
My Father was the Chief Signalman of the pre-/commissioning crews (Plank Owners) of the later USS Guam (LPH-9.) When this USS Guam was decommissioned in August 1998, he attended the ceremony as a retired SMCS. He was given the honor of lowering her commission pennant, just as he had raised the first commission pennant in January of 1965.
Awesome!
I love the design of the Alaska class ship. I totally agree with other commenters saying they are the most beautiful ships ever. To my untrained eye these girls look like badass battle ships & their posture definitely says "come at me bro!" to the enemy.
Surprised another country didn't snap that beauty up for pennies on the dollar.
You would think a country like Brazil, Turkey, India or even Taiwan would have loved one as a "prestige ship".
Such an injustice to this fine class. Such elegance and beautiful lines.
I find the War Years , especially the Pacific War, very interesting…Navy and Marine Corps are both my favorites from that period.
The Alaska and Guam were both such beautiful Cruiser’s. Too bad they just weren’t going to be meaningful in a Post War world .
Btw, Sir, I love your content! Keep up the amazing work!!
The Guam was basically a battlecruiser. She would have been more than a match for the Japanese Kongo class battlecruisers.
Maybe it's just me, but I kinda like the Large Cruiser concept. Bigger than heavy cruisers, but not as big as battleships, and they aren't quite the battlecruisers either. They occupy this wonky middle ground where many people are confused, while some just arguing with no end, lol.
I personally just consider them to be bigger and badder heavy cruisers, except they can't be heavy cruisers because of their gun caliber being over 203mm, or 8 inches.
I kinda wish that at least one of them remained as a museum ship, or something... lol.
@venn2001ad I concur the term wonky is appropriate in terms of strictly Battleship and Cruiser the Lexington's were more Battleship than Cruiser and these are certainly more Cruiser than Battleship but it's like anything else
The Alaska and the Guam and their siblings had a specific purpose in my but the key character is the United States Navy did not call them or classify them as battle Cruisers
That is an historical fact that must be observed and if the Navy didn't think they were battle Cruisers we shouldn't either regardless of similarities otherwise the Alaska's prefix would have been CC 7 and not CB1 in the Guam would have been CC8 not CB2
They had the same armor ratio (9 inches belt) to the BB Iowa (12.1 inches) as the BC HMS Lion (9 inches) had to the BB HMS Iron Duke (12 inches). They were battle cruisers. The reason they weren't called that is because the US Navy didn't want to associate them with the battle cruisers blown up at Jutland and the BC Hood blown up by the Bismark.
@@bill5982 they were not battle Cruisers case in point the United States Navy did not call them battle Cruisers regardless of architecture ratios or mathematical formulae they are not I would love for you to cite an actual United States Navy document that would have said because of Hood's destruction we can't label the Alaska's battle Cruisers, I say that because I know there isn't because the United States Navy never conceptualized or documented hoods destruction as a case for relabeling the Alaska's they were intended to be large Cruisers from the beginning from multiple occasions spent at the Library of Congress.
Hoods destruction was a separate event buy sequence in Time battle Cruisers had already gotten a bad rap from the first world war Hood was a relic that should have been scrapped and the Alaska's we're not intended to be battle Cruisers end of story Captain AJ Chantry who had helped design the Iowa class principally and assisted with the Alaska class despised the battle cruiser concept why would he devised a battle cruiser when he felt a battle cruiser was insufficient for Naval Warfare?
All we have to do is cite the United States Navy and the historical record repository in the Library of Congress the Bureau of construction and repair Bureau of ordinance and the department of the Navy never intended or classified the Alaska class large Cruisers as battle Cruisers so they were not
@bill5982 I'm not sure if just looking at the armor ratio, and then claiming that they're battlecruisers, is a proper thing to do. There are many facets to ships being what they are, so we should consider all variables before passing any judgment.
For example, I say that the intention of the USN for acquiring such ships in the first place is also worth looking into. What purpose did Alaska and her sisters meant to fulfill? Couldn't USN just use other ship types for the job, especially the existing ones? Was it something that only Alaskas specifically can do, while other ships couldn't? Building ships isn't a cheap affair, so I doubt anyone would just build some, especially ships like Alaskas with an identity crisis, without a good reason. And if they are really meant to be battlecruisers, I wager that USN would've just called them battlecruisers, instead of beating around the bush with some wonky ship classification.
That's just me though. TBH, I don't expect people to reach any consensus about this whole issue. This debate will most likely go on, one way or another... lol.
@venn2001ad there is a consensus that is historical and accurate my dear friend they were large Cruisers built and operated by the United States Navy people can have their opinions about their status and design.
But call them battle Cruisers as you Illustrated in your post and mine previous United States Navy did not classify them as battle Cruisers so they're not battle Cruisers and part of History means we have to present information that's verifiable and can be backed up by surviving historical documents.
VERY unique ships. Only the American economy could invest in such warships. 👍🏻🏴
Keep in mind by the time Guam was commissioned, the American wartime economy was slowing down.
I love these ships. They are my favorite ships ever made. I hate the fact that they were the navys red headed step child. I don't believe they were used to their fullest potential. To just lump them as cruiser killers was a mistake. I believe they could've gone toe to toe with most battleships of foreign countries pretty easily. They were smaller quicker and more maneuverable with about the same fire power. Unfortunately the advent of misses made them obsolete quickly
Ahh yes, the pocket battleship Guam.
Apart from displacing 30,000 tons and being faster than most cruisers.
Hence the name ?
These are close to Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in size and armaments. S & G were considered by Germany to be battleships.
I have never been in an argument about the Alaska class....maybe it's about time
They were battleships.
@@F-Man No ! They were batllecruisers. Then no ! They were large cruisers ! Then again they were pocket battleships ! Then again....... and so on, and so on..... 😜
@@MrKawaltd750The most beautiful plus sized Destroy Escorts ever built. Haha! I’m looking forward to the flame wars if Skynea does a dedicated video on the subject.
@@F-Man 4 aircrafts, its obvious that they were carriers.
I can sense Drach having a seizure
Gorgeous, well proportioned ships..
Warships have never looked as good since then.
It's a shame that these expensive ships have such short lives.
There are a lot of WW2 ships and planes that fit that description!
Well the problem was, the enemy they were designed to fight had largely ceased to exist by the time they commisioned.
@@glenchapman3899
Worse than that, the entire doctrine of surface capital ship combat was obsolete.
I always thought of them as Battlecruisers. Stricken in 1961
I agree, in light of the fact that their 12" guns were just as effective as the 14" guns on the standards.
Speaking as an Alaskan, the Alaska class were obviously battlecruisers. 🤣
There is no such thing as a battle cruiser in the United States Navy.
"Large cruisers"? I'll say :about 150ft longer than a Baltimore class and almost twice the displacement!
Arguably the most beautiful class of warship ever built. I hate that they never got the chance to truly shine.
Great work Skynea, I love the Alaska class design. A shame their post-war conversions never played out, although I can see why.
I love the idea of one them becoming an aircraft carrier modeled after the Essexes.
Finally our Ai hoshino like idol ship makes her debut in skynea history.
I never seen the Battle Cruiser USS Guam (CB-2), I was 6 years old when it was scrapped.
However I was on the USS Guam (LPH-9), Med Cruse 76-77. I was onboard on 17 January 1977, in Barcelona, Spain when 49 sailors and marines were killed.
Thanks for drinking all the bug juice!!!! Sail on, sail on sailor!!! How awesome it was to be in the Navy back then. Smoking lights, man overboard drills, sliders, cussing, and no woke ness. No "feelings" to be hurt. Men, doing man things at 18, without much complaint. Pussies complained. Hated them like a cancer.
It was not a battle cruiser the Guam and her siblings were large Cruisers the United States Navy never conferred to them the title battle cruiser that is a World War One convention that was not resuscitated for World War II
@@TheDogGeneral Another "tomato, tomahto" discussion. Battle Cruiser, large Cruiser there is no difference.
It was 30,000 tons had 305mm guns and more armor then a Kongo class. Guam was as much a heavy cruiser as HMS Glorious was a "large light cruiser"
@thomasgarrison3949 Yes, there is because the United States Navy held that there was Alaska's prefix was CB1, not cc7. Guam's was not CC8 it was CB2, and for you to say that is academic misconduct proof you are no historian.
2 scharnhorst class,3 dutch large cruiser like scharnhorst class ,6 b64/ b65 ijn ,3 kronshdat class,7 stalingrad class and the 6 alaska class kinda shows where the big gun big ship ideas where heading...big powerful guns,anti aircraft and some armor where it was most effective lighter than a true battleship but all these navys arrived at the same conclusion that these ships would have probably have been just as effective as a slow or heavy battleship..... notice the 11 and 12 inch gun turrents layouts on the above mentioned ship class 2 foward 1 back triples.....
I salute the USN for the Pacific war investments. Fine looking vessels abound there, which I cannot say about my (our) RCN whale catchers, who did more than you know in the Atlantic convoy war.
Yes, but your "whale catchers" did a great job securing the Atlantic. The Canadian Navy played a huge role in the Battle of the Atlantic.
I think if two of the Lexington class Battlecruisers of 1920’s vintage had been built then the Large cruisers would not have happened.
Imagine the fleet we could have sent to the Persian Gulf if the Navy had had some foresight. Twelve fast battleships (including Kentucky and Illinois) with a vanguard of three battle cruisers (including Hawaii). Saddam would have tossed in the towel right there!
I doubt it; that would have been the rational thing to do, but Saddam was nuts.
24 Silkworm missiles disagree.
@@markwilliams2620 Those ships could have shrugged off Silkworms like a handful of Cocos Puffs!
It's the best cruiser ever made
I served on the LPH 9 USS Guam. It had a long and productive service.
I think they were trying to make a budget fast battleship. The navy may have found that for real heavy hitting you used aviation.
For carrier escort and shore bombardment maybe super heavy cruiser is all you need.
Early in the war there were rumors that Japan was planning to build a class of cruiser killers having 10" rifles. The Alaskas were the answer to this class that never materialized.
I consider the Alaska class to be battlecruisers, comparable to the Scharnhorsts and the Dunkerques in many ways. Just my opinion, which I will not alter.
I agree that Battle cruiser fits better. Wish they could have saved one.
Don't forget that America dropped two Atomic bombs on Japan to force them to surrender. America thought one Atomic bomb would force Japan to surrender...but it took two Atomic bombs to force them to surrender. Both Atomic bombs were dropped in the upper north west corner of Japan. America thought that one Atomic bomb would force the surrender...but it took a second Atomic bomb to force Japan to surrender...sad but true.
The thing about tha Alaska class cruisers was some ww2 navy s did consider ships of this weight, speed, and fire power fast battle ships.
Considerations aside it's what their operators call them in intended them to be that has Merit the United States considered Hood to be a fast Battleship but the HMS Hood was always referred to by the Royal Navy as a battle cruiser and the same thing is the case with the Alaska is the United States Navy intended them to be large Cruisers not battle Cruisers Alaska and Guam's prefixes are CB1 and CB2 not cc7 and CC8
The saddest part of the story may well be that the U.S. could not build a ship like this, including 21st century technology, if we tried. Or even a North Carolina Class "Fast Battleship" for that matter, again including 21st century technology. The will and the skills are long gone to accomplish such goals.
I always loved the look of these "battle cruisers". Their lack of torpedo bulges gave them a sleek appearance, while their size and layout could fool anyone into thinking they were modern battleships. It's too bad they could not have been available at the start of the war, for they would have outclassed any raider, cruiser, pocket battleship, or even some older battleships.
2 year old ship with minimal service. Why did they not sell it to another country at least! Such a waste of a gorgeous ship.
No one, except maybe the Soviets would have wanted her! And we certainly wasn't going to sell it to them after the war!
She was simply to big and needed too much manpower to be practical!
That was why so many of our large battleships were decommissioned!
@@mahbriggs perhaps Argentina, Brazil, or one of the other non-imperial regional powers that had more manpower and aspirational ambitions than practical military needs.
@@tmorganriley
I think we sold them quite a few old ships!
@@mahbriggs and much to the UKs chagrin in the 1980s...
@@tmorganriley
All the more reason not to have sold them even more!
Beautiful cruisers. They were the result of no treaty limitations on heavy cruisers. The Navy Department was not comfy calling them heavy cruisers so they were large cruisers.
Sorry folks. They were never battlecruisers. You see, fast battleships made battlecruisers obsolete. The argument for them being battlecruisers also fits the _Iowa_ class battleships. lol
It is sad to see that these two ships with their fire power could not have stayed in the fleet after the war. What a terrible waste of money.
A very attractive looking “battllecruiser”. Built along similar lines of the German “battleship” Scharnhorst.
Doesn't look like Scharnhost at all.
Guam is about as far from a scharnhorst as a ship of her class possibly could be. Especially the hull design
no its not
Similar tonnage (Scharnhorst about 5000 tons more), similar main battery - Guam 12”/Scharnhorst 11”, similar top speed. Schrnhorst was definitely the more attractive ship - classic German lines along with Bismarck class
Giulio Cesare?
Baby Iowa's.
Why did they move away from the naming convention for these cruisers? Cruisers are usually maned for cities.
Probably because they were bigger than average cruisers, but not a big as BBs so they named them after teritories.
@@beverlychmelik5504That make sense.
9 12 inchers is a lot of whoopass.
This was obviously a battlecruiser. It's bigger and better armed than Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.
Slap an auto loader on it with both radar and hydro and make it a tier 10 in wows.
Thanks
Video Recommendation USCGC Ingham!
If you ever noticed most of the most famous ship's are laying at the bottom of the oceans
Too bad the modern-day VLS launch system was 40 years too late to have these ships converted into something more useful
Such a beautiful Battlecruiser
You get it wrong
Battlecruisers of WW1 to WW2 had the speed and armour of heavy cruisers, with the size and main gun calibre of battleships.
Large cruisers such as the Alaskas had the speed and armour of battleships, with 1.3-1.5x size and main gun calibre (up to 11") of heavy cruisers
@@royasturias1784 This isn’t making sense if you looking at the design principle of German Battlecruisers. They were all 1 inch smaller than their capital ships. Battlecruiser for Gun size based isn’t very consistent. If you’re saying Battlecruiser of WWII are Heavy Cruiser armor with Battleship Guns. Then HMS Hood shouldn’t considered to be Battlecruiser at all. She was heavily armored as much as Queen Elizabeth class Battleships. Yes, her belt is thinner but also angled. Which is funny enough, Iowa Class are also follow that principle. But Hood still considered Battlecruiser. Alaska Class were also can be considered Battlecruiser considering that their design purpose were supposed to hunt Larger Cruiser like Takao Class Heavy Cruiser. Which is something early generation of Battlecruisers do. Including Armored Cruiser. Alaska class can be called either of the two considering that if you apply Gun caliber rule to considered Battlecruisers. Then Scharnhorst can considered to be the “Large Cruisers” by the definition that their guns are smaller than Battleship standards.
Well with 14 inch guns they were more likely closer to the older battleships like Pennsylvania and Nevada. So the term Battlecruiser may apply. Besides what was the biggest barrels on the heavy cruisers, 12 inches? Any rate I hope to see the story of the other sister ships Alaska and Hawaii in the future
The Alaskas did have 12-, not 14-inch guns. Heavy cruisers were limited to 8 inches by the naval treaties; this limitation was retained in WW2.
Twelve inch guns are what the Alaska and Guam carried.
They were of a new design that made them equal, more or less, of 14 inch guns.
They were designed to defeat the rumored Japanese large carriers!
which more or less, did not exist.
@@UchihaPercy
True. The Japanese were rather secretive about what they were building, and the war planners guessed wrong!
They would have been very effective against the German "pocket battleships" but that was not who they were designed to fight!
Unfortunately by the time they were built, surface commerce raiding was no longer a threat! The German commerce raiders were all sunk or surrendered, and the Japanese fleet would soon follow!
Guam escorted dads ship USS Shangri La from the east coast to San Diego
Too bad these obvious battlecruisers were not launched soon enough to participate in the intense surface battles near Guadalcanal (i.e. Savo Island and 'Iron Bottom Sound').
Their aircraft were pointless when they entered service, the deck space could have been better used.
I don't get all the Fanboy love for this class? This is strictly a World of Warships Love fest.
All that scrapping only to have Reagan needing to rebuild the fleet.
WW2 happened nearly 40 years before Reagan took office..
Certainly a battle cruiser lol anything over 8" main guns is a battle cruiser. And over 21k tons too probably
Nah! Large heavy cruiser!😁
Sure didn't get our money's worth out of her. To bad
😮
Would you rather have an Alaska or a Des Moines in your command?
It would depend on the Mission/Task at hand. In a surface action, both ships would be very dangerous.
Alaska! I do admire the Des Moines though!
The Alaska and the Guam and their siblings were large Cruisers the United States Navy is and was the ultimate Authority on their status they didn't refer to them as battlecruisers and didn't intend them to be battle Cruisers.
The the instances of people trying to refer to them as battlecruisers is to try vainly to elevate their stature and status in their historical integrity and place in American Naval History it is academically incorrect they were not battle Cruisers the only battle Cruisers the United States ever laid down were the Lexington's and even those were converted into aircraft carriers.
The battle cruiser was a failed concept by the time you start seeing battlecruisers just before and during the first world war they're already Obsolete and outdated HMS Hood was the last battle cruiser completed and it was a waste of resources and steel she should have been converted into an aircraft carrier.
Favorite american WW2 ship 'other the. The Gato subs .. fletcher DDs are cool 2 ... I don't care for American vessels over all in comparison to other navies at the time, altho you caint say they weren't effective
The Alaska class Battle-Cruisers were NOT heavy cruisers at all.. Though you make a few points contrary, most of the 'Specs" were off... The Hull Designation for these ships is "CB" which strictly means Battle Cruiser. Just as CB means Battle-Cruiser, CG is Cruiser Guided Missle etc. I recommend reading "BattleShips" by Dulan & Garzke for the Naval Institute Press. This Book not only covers the Battle Ships, as well as the Battle Cruisers as designated by The US Navy. The book also covers the designs from conception to final approved for build. covers extensive service and final disposition.
Sooo. why isn't BC, not CB?
@@stanstenson8168 Because if it started with a B, that would mean it is a Battle ship.
Its just what the NAVY/ BUSHIPS classifies them.
What a waste of resources why bother building them if they were going to have very short service lives
Because no one knew the A-Bomb would quickly end the war before end of '45. Most estimates, based on Japanese battle history so far in the war, indicated a hideously expensive, on both sides, invasion of the home islands that might last thru '46-'47.
Still more useful than the current LCS, and the zumwalts, such a waste of money and logistics.
It was thought the war in the Pacific would last until 1948. See the Golden Gateb in 48....
Yet another ship that shouldn’t have existed to start with.
Honestly I think they would have served quite well in the early Cold War, the de Moines were pretty much used in the same role that the alaskas where envisioned to fill on paper and they where plenty of Soviet cruisers around so better keep around, i don’t know, a freaking cruiser killer.
@@d.olivergutierrez8690 you got good point. Then again, surface engagement was already in the grave and the soviets knew better than attacking an allied fleet on the ocean.
@@d.olivergutierrez8690
Surface actions were largely a thing of the past, so even then that’s sketchy.
@@bkjeong4302 i mean, missile based ships didn’t actually surpassed gun based ones until the mid 70s, so saying that a surface engagement was impossible specially in the Cold War was seen as highly optimistic 🤷🏻, the iowas where brought back in the 80s in part because of the kirovs, I can see the Alaskas under certain circumstances being brought back to counter the chapayevs and Sverdlovs.
@@d.olivergutierrez8690
The Iowas being brought back was a terrible idea (and the Iowas were frankly obsolete and a bad idea from the start), so they are not a good support for your argument.