>Alaska-class >firepower in-between heavy cruisers and

Well British battlecruisers had battleship-tier firepower with inferior armor.
German battlecruisers had battleship-tier protection but smaller guns.
Kirovs were called battlecruisers.
Call it whatever the hell you want.

>>27789000
When you say German battlecruisers, are you including the planned ones they had in WWII that they never built or are you just considering their WWI ones?

Additionally w/ the Brits is that only the case w/ their WWI ones, I was under the impression the HMS Hood was originally classified as a battlecruiser but was later just considered a fast-battleship like the Kongo-class was after their modernizations.

America is autistics. Its like everybody knows of chinese superiority only America cannot accept.

File: croiseur-de-bataille-dunkerque-1938.jpg (606KB, 2020x1047px) Image search: [Google]

606KB, 2020x1047px

Dunkerque says hi.

>>27788926
Alaskas are not battlecruisers because of their armor scheme, not armament.

>>27790337
What's unique about the Alaskas armor scheme?

>>27790348
It uses 100% pure Freedomium.

>>27790348
It's armored like a cruiser, not battlecruiser.

>>27790384
I don't suppose you could go into more detail about what that entails?

>>27790391
No underwater protection, less side protection, basically less of existing protection and some areas not protected that would've been on a battlecruiser.

File: USS_Guam_deck_view.jpg (2MB, 2117x1503px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2117x1503px

It was built with the same purpose in mind as the original battlecruisers; to hunt down and sink the cruisers of the previous generation. In my mind that makes it as close to a battlecruiser as the US has ever built.

Out of curiosity, how would people here classify the B-65 supercruisers?

It's hard to fanboy over the Alaska class. They might be fun in a game later on, but that's about it.

>>27790075
Ching chong plx go