@ABWorsham:
The Battle-Cruiser Scharnhorst wins over heavy cruiser Alaska.
Calling the Alaska a heavy cruiser is like calling the Admiral Scheer a battleship… or thinking the Scharnhorst is just the same as any other battleship… it was undergunned for its size and tonnage. There’s a a lot of silly names floated about for ships that stretch, exceed or fail to live up to what more traditional ships of that class are known as… to just simply go “hands down, the Scharnhorst Battleship beats the Alaska Heavy Cruiser” really tells me you’re not looking at anything remotely close to what either of these ships were capable of or not but rather going by half-hazard ship classifications.
When a question like an out of date treaty ship such as the Scheer is put up against a far more modern and capable Baltimore and that draws more debate then two ships that are almost complete equals, you guys aren’t putting any thought into answers.
Let me clear the air, because some people clearly don’t know the differences (or lack thereof) with these ships.
DKM Scharnhorst (undergunned battleship or overweight battlecruiser, you choose)
Displacement: 32,600 t
Length: 234.9 m (771 ft)
Speed: 31 knots (57 km/h; 36 mph)
Crew: 1,669
Main Armament: 9 × 280 mm/54.5 (11 inch) SK C/34
Armor (Belt/Deck/Turrets): 13.8 in (350 mm) / 2 in (50 mm) / 7.9 to 14.2 in (200 to 360 mm)
USS Alaska (biggest heavy cruiser ever built in world history or battlecruiser by any other name)
Displacement: 30,257 t
Length: 246.4 m (808 ft)
Speed: 33 knots (61 km/h; 38 mph)
Crew: 1,517
Main Armament: 9 × 12-inch/50 caliber (305 mm)
Armor (Belt/Deck/Turrets): 9 in (229 mm) / 4 in (102 mm) / 12.8 in (325 mm)
I never stated which ship is superior, but obviously, these ships are very closely matched in pretty much every category, and yet people toss out “oh the Alaska doesn’t stand a chance at all” in seconds of decision making without even realizing just how closely matched these ships are. Another really long-standing problem with German shipbuilding that went across the board from their smaller ships to the biggest ships was too much armor on the waterline and not enough on the upper decks to prevent plunging fire damage and/or turrets getting knocked out (something that happened often and quickly in surface duels with German ships). Always nice that your ship can float, but bad when it can’t fight back.
Slap naming conventions around all you want… the numbers tell a different story… Hell, the Alaska was longer, faster and carried a bigger main armament than the Scharnhorst, yet people just think its not even a contest.
I would think it would require a little more thought… go ahead, raise your hand if you had no clue how closely these ships were to each other in every category.