Alaska-class cruiser

Template:Short description Template:Featured article Template:Use dmy dates

Template:Infobox ship image Template:Infobox ship class overview Template:Infobox ship characteristics

The Alaska-class were six large cruisers ordered before World War II for the United States Navy (USN), of which only two were completed and saw service late in the war. The USN designation for the ships of this class was 'large cruiser' (CB), a designation unique to the Alaska-class, and the majority of leading reference works consider them as such. However, various other works have alternately described these ships as battlecruisers despite the USN having never classified them as such, and having actively discouraged the use of the term in describing the class. The Alaskas were all named after territories or insular areas of the United States, signifying their intermediate status between larger battleships (which were mostly named after states) and smaller heavy and light cruisers (which were named after cities).Template:Efn-ua

The idea for a large cruiser class originated in the early 1930s when the USN sought to counter the Template:Sclass "pocket battleships" being launched by Germany. Planning for ships that eventually evolved into the Alaska-class began in the late 1930s after the deployment of Germany's Template:Sclasss and rumors that Japan was constructing a new large cruiser class, the B-65 "super cruiser."<ref name=Worth305>Worth, 305.</ref>Template:Efn-ua To serve as "cruiser-killers" capable of seeking out and destroying these post-treaty heavy cruisers, the class was given large guns of a new and expensive design, limited armor protection against 12-inch shells, and machinery capable of speeds of about Template:Convert.

Of the six planned, Template:USS and Template:USS were the only two to be commissioned; a third, Hawaii, was close to completion at the war's end and had its construction suspended on 16 April 1947, while the remaining three were cancelled. Alaska and Guam served with the USN for the last year of World War II as bombardment ships and fast carrier escorts. They were decommissioned in 1947 after spending only 32 and 29 months in service, respectively.

BackgroundEdit

Heavy cruiser development formalized between World War I and World War II due to the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty and successor treaties and conferences, where the United States, Britain, Japan, France, and Italy agreed to limit heavy cruisers to 10,000 tons displacement with 8-inch main armament. Up until the Alaska class, US cruisers designed between the wars followed this pattern.<ref>Bauer and Roberts, 139.</ref>

The initial impetus for the Alaska design came from the deployments of Germany's so-called pocket battleships in the early 1930s.<ref name="warhistoryonline.com">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Though no actions were immediately taken, these thoughts were revived in the late 1930s when intelligence reports indicated Japan was planning or building "super cruisers" of the B-65 class that would be much more powerful than the current US heavy cruisers.<ref name="Hawaii DANFS">Template:Cite DANFS</ref><ref name="Conway's"/><ref name="Global Security"/><ref name=Scarpaci17>Scarpaci, 17.</ref>Template:Efn-ua The navy responded in 1938 when the General Board asked the Bureau of Construction and Repair to conduct a "comprehensive study of all types of naval vessels for consideration for a new and expanded building program".<ref name=Dulin189>Dulin and Garzke, 189.</ref> The US president at the time, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, may have taken a lead role in the development of the class with his desire to have a counter to raiding abilities of Japanese cruisers and German pocket battleships.<ref>Dulin and Garzke, 24 and 179.</ref> While these claims are difficult to verify,<ref name="Conway's"/><ref name=Morison85>Morison and Polmar, 85.</ref> others have speculated that their design was "politically motivated"<ref>Dulin and Garzke 267.</ref> rather than strategic.

DesignEdit

One historian described the design process of the Alaska class as "torturous" due to the numerous changes and modifications made to the ship's layouts by numerous departments and individuals.<ref name=Worth305/> Indeed, there were at least nine different layouts,<ref>Dulin and Garzke, 179–183.</ref> ranging from 6,000-ton Template:Sclass anti-aircraft cruisers<ref name=Dulin179/> to "overgrown" heavy cruisers<ref name=Worth305/> and a 38,000-ton mini-battleship that would have been armed with twelve 12-inch and sixteen 5-inch guns.<ref name=Dulin179>Dulin and Garzke, 179.</ref> The General Board, in an attempt to keep the displacement under 25,000 tons, allowed the designs to offer only limited underwater protection such that they were vulnerable, by comparison with a battleship, to torpedoes and to shells that fell short of the ship.<ref name=Dulin183>Dulin and Garzke, 183.</ref> The final design was a scaled-up Template:Sclass that had the same machinery as the Template:Sclasss. This ship combined a main armament of nine 12-inch guns with protection against 10-inch gunfire into a hull that was capable of Template:Convert.<ref name=Scarpaci17/>

The Alaskas were officially funded in September 1940 along with a plethora of other ships as a part of the Two-Ocean Navy Act.<ref name="Global Security"/><ref name=Rohwer40>Rohwer, 40.</ref>Template:Efn-ua Their role had been altered slightly: in addition to their surface-to-surface role, they were planned to protect carrier groups. This carrier escort capability was favored by Admiral King. Because of their bigger guns, greater size and increased speed, they would be more valuable in this role than heavy cruisers, and would provide insurance against reports that Japan was building super cruisers more powerful than the American heavy cruisers.<ref name="Global Security"/> The escort concept would also free the few existing heavy cruisers for scouting (their original purpose).

Possible conversion to aircraft carriersEdit

File:USS Alaska (CB-1) launching.jpg

Template:USS being launched on 15 August 1943

Yet another drastic change was considered during the "carrier panic" in late 1941, when the US Navy realized that they needed more aircraft carriers as quickly as possible. Many hulls currently under construction were considered for conversion into carriers. At different times, they considered some or all of the Template:Sclass light cruisers, the Template:Sclass heavy cruisers, the Alaska class, and even one of the Template:Sclasss; in the end, they chose the Clevelands,<ref name=Friedman190>Friedman, 190.</ref> resulting in the conversion of nine ships under construction at the New York Shipbuilding Corporation shipyard as the light aircraft carriers comprising the Template:Sclass.

A conversion of the Alaska cruisers to carriers was "particularly attractive"<ref name=Friedman190/> because of the many similarities between the design of the Template:Sclasss and the Alaska class, including the same machinery.<ref name = "Fitzsimons 1 58">Fitzsimons, Volume 1, 58.</ref> However, when Alaska cruisers were compared to the Essex carriers, converted cruisers would have had a shorter flight deck (so they could carry only 90% of the aircraft),<ref name=Friedman190/> would have been Template:Convert lower in the water, and could travel Template:Convert less at Template:Convert. In addition, the large cruiser design did not include the extensive underwater protections found in normal carriers due to the armor weight devoted to counter shell fire.Template:Clarify Lastly, an Alaska conversion could not satisfy the navy's goal of having new aircraft carriers quickly, as the work needed to modify the ships into carriers would entail long delays. With this in mind, all planning to convert the Alaskas was abandoned on 7 January 1942.<ref name=Friedman191>Friedman, 191.</ref>

ConstructionEdit

Of the six Alaska-class cruisers that were planned, only three were laid down. The first two, Template:USS and Template:USS, were completed by the New York Shipbuilding Corporation. Construction of Template:USS, the third, was suspended on 16 April 1947 when she was 84% complete.<ref name="Hawaii DANFS"/><ref name=Dulin189/> The last three, Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Samoa, were delayed since all available materials and slipways were allocated to higher priority ships, such as aircraft carriers, destroyers, and submarines. Construction had still not begun when steel shortages<ref>Fitzsimons, Volume 1, 59.</ref> and a realization that these "cruiser-killers" had no more cruisers to hunt—as the fleets of Japanese cruisers had already been defeated by aircraft and submarines—made the ships "white elephants".<ref name="Conway's"/> As a result, construction of the last three members of the class never began, and they were officially cancelled on 24 June 1943.<ref name="Philippines DANFS">Template:Cite DANFS</ref><ref name="Puerto Rico DANFS">Template:Cite DANFS</ref><ref name="Samoa DANFS">Template:Cite DANFS</ref>

Service historyEdit

File:Aerial view of USS Guam (CB-2) off Trinidad, 13 November 1944 (NH 97132).jpg

Template:USS during her shakedown cruise on 13 November 1944

Template:USS and Template:USS served with the U.S. Navy during the last year of World War II, forming Cruiser Division 16 commanded by Rear Admiral Francis S. Low, USN.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Similar to the Template:Sclass fast battleships, their firepower was useful in shore bombardment, and their speed made them excellent fast carrier escorts, a role for which the two had become celebrated within the fleet by the war's end.<ref name=Miller200/> Both Alaska and Guam protected Template:USS when she was on her way to be repaired in Guam after being hit by two Japanese bombs. Afterward, Alaska supported the landings on Okinawa, while Guam went to San Pedro Bay to become the leader of a new task force, Cruiser Task Force 95, under the overall command of Vice Admiral Jesse B. Oldendorf. Guam, joined by Alaska, four light cruisers, and nine destroyers, led the task force into the East China and Yellow Seas to conduct raids upon shipping; however, they encountered only Chinese junks.<ref name="Alaska DANFS"/><ref name="Guam DANFS"/>

After the war, both ships served as part of Task Force 71, the designation for the U.S. Seventh Fleet's North China Naval Force. Its mission was to support the American occupation of southern Korea.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref> This included executing various show-the-flag operations along the western coast of Korea as well as in the Bohai Sea. These naval demonstrations preceded Operation Chromite, the amphibious landing of U.S. Army ground forces at Incheon, Korea, on 10 September 1950.<ref>Bartow. From Hot War to Cold, pp. 129–130.</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Subsequently, both ships returned to the United States in mid-December 1945, and they were decommissioned and "mothballed" in 1947,<ref name="Alaska DANFS"/><ref name="Guam DANFS"/> after having spent 32 months (Alaska) and 29 months (Guam) in service.<ref name=Dulin179/>

In 1958, the Bureau of Ships prepared two feasibility studies to explore whether Alaska and Guam could be suitably converted into guided-missile cruisers. The first study involved removing all of the guns in favor of four different missile systems. At $160 million, the cost of this proposed removal was seen as prohibitive, so a second study was initiated. The study left the forward batteries (the two 12-inch triple turrets and three of the 5-inch dual turrets) unchanged, and added a reduced version of the first plan on the stern of the ship. Even though the proposals would have cost approximately half as much as the first study's plan ($82 million), it was still seen as too expensive.<ref name=Dulin187>Dulin and Garzke 187.</ref> As a result, both ships were stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on 1 June 1960. Alaska was sold for scrap on 30 June 1960, and Guam on 24 May 1961.<ref name="Alaska DANFS"/><ref name="Guam DANFS"/> The still-incomplete Template:USS was considered for a conversion to be the Navy's first guided-missile cruiser;Template:Efn-ua this thought lasted until 26 February 1952, when a different conversion to a "large command ship" was contemplated. In anticipation of the conversion, her classification was changed to CBC-1. This would have made her a "larger sister" to Template:USS,<ref name="Conway's"/> but a year and a half later (9 October 1954) she was re-designated CB-3. Hawaii was stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on 9 June 1958 and was sold for scrap in 1959.<ref name="Hawaii DANFS"/>

"Large cruisers" or "battlecruisers"Edit

File:USS Missouri (BB-63) and USS Alaska (CB-1) at Norfolk, Virginia, 1944.jpg

An Iowa-class battleship (Template:USS), Template:Cvt and Template:Cvt, the largest U.S. Navy battleship class (top), and Template:USS, Template:Cvt and Template:Cvt, moored at the same pier

The Alaska class, along with the Dutch Design 1047 battlecruiser and the Japanese Design B-65 cruiser, were specifically to counter the heavy cruisers being built by their naval rivals. All three have been described as "super cruisers", "large cruisers" or even "unrestricted cruisers", with some (up to Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II itself) advocating that they even be considered as battlecruisers. However, they were never officially classified as capital ships, as that designation was reserved for true battlecruisers and battleships.<ref>Chesneau, p. 388; Garzke & Dulin, p. 86; Friedman 1984, p. 288; McLaughlin 2006, p. 104</ref> Early in its development, the class used the US battlecruiser designation CC, which had been planned for the Template:Sclass. However, the designation was changed to CB to reflect their new status, "large cruiser", and the practice of referring to them as battlecruisers was officially discouraged.<ref name=Morison85/> The U.S. Navy then named the individual vessels after U.S. territories, rather than states (as was the tradition with battleships) or cities (for which cruisers were traditionally named), to symbolize the belief that these ships were supposed to play an intermediate role between heavy cruisers and fully-fledged battleships.<ref name=Worth305/>

The Alaska class certainly resembled contemporary US battleships (particularly the Template:Sclass, Template:Sclass, and Template:Sclass) in appearance, including the familiar 2-A-1 main battery and massive columnar mast. Their displacement was twice that of the newest heavy cruisers (the Template:Sclass),<ref name=Morison84>Morison, Morison and Polmar, 84.</ref> being only 5,000 tons less than the Washington Treaty's battleship standard displacement limit of 35,000 long tons (36,000 t) (unchanged through the final naval treaty, the London Treaty of 1936). They were also longer than several treaty battleships such as the Template:Convert Template:Sclass and Template:Convert North Carolina class.

In overall terms, the design of the Alaska class was scaled up from that of the Template:Sclass (themselves the first cruisers in the US Navy to be designed without the limitations of the London Naval Treaty, and exceeding 10,000 tons standard displacement).<ref name="Conway's"/> The armor scheme of the Alaskas was deemed sufficient to provide protection against not only 8″ heavy cruiser shells but even the larger 11″ shells used by Germany's Template:Sclass "pocket battleships" and Template:Sclass-class battleships. However, they lacked the comprehensive underwater protection systems found on the larger US battleships or even on smaller, earlier battleships like the French Template:Sclass and German Scharnhorst classes. Thus, the Alaskas were potentially as vulnerable to torpedoes as a heavy cruiser was, as well as to effects from near-misses and 'shorts' (where enemy gunnery misses the ship proper, instead impacting the sea; this could still damage the target ship, as the shell may have enough energy to impact beneath the waterline, or if a shell detonated underwater, the shockwave could damage the target ship).<ref name=Worth305/><ref name="warhistoryonline.com"/>

In addition, despite being much larger than the Baltimore class, the secondary battery of the Alaskas was identical, albeit with an improvement in light anti-aircraft battery size. Whereas the Alaska class carried twelve 5"/38 caliber in six twin turrets, fifty-six 40 mm, and thirty-four 20 mm guns, the Baltimore class carried the same number of 5"/38s, eight fewer 40 mm, and ten fewer 20 mm,<ref name="Conway's"/> considerably fewer than new U.S. battleships that had ten (save for Template:USS) 5"/38 twin mounts while older refitted U.S. battleships had eight. The lack of anti-aircraft weaponry for a ship of its size was attributed to the amidships aircraft catapult like older US cruisers; while other modern U.S. cruisers and battleships opted for stern-mounted aircraft catapults to free up space along the central superstructure for more secondaries and anti-aircraft guns. In common with U.S. heavy cruisers, they had aircraft hangars and a single large rudder; the single rudder combined with the hull's long length gave the Alaskas a turning radius of Template:Convert, which exceeded the turning circles of larger battleships and carriers in the U.S. Navy.<ref name="warhistoryonline.com"/> Author Richard Worth remarked that when they were finally completed, launched, and commissioned, they had the "size of a battleship but the capabilities of a cruiser". The Alaska class was similarly expensive to build and maintain as contemporary battleships, yet far less capable due to armor deficiencies, while able to put up an anti-aircraft defense comparable only to the much cheaper Baltimore cruisers.<ref name=Worth305/>

Despite these cruiser-like characteristics, and the U.S. Navy's insistence on their status as cruisers, the Alaska class has been frequently described as battlecruisers.<ref name=Morison84/> The official navy magazine All Hands said "The Guam and her sister ship Alaska are the first American battle cruisers ever to be completed as such."<ref>All Hands, December 1945, "Sleek, Fast, Deadly- Our New CB's"</ref>

Armament-wise, the AlaskasTemplate:' had much larger guns than contemporary heavy cruisers; while the Baltimore class only carried nine 8"/55 caliber Marks 12 and 15 guns,<ref name="8/55 12 and 15">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> the Alaska class carried nine 12"/50 caliber guns that were as good as, if not superior to, the old 14"/50 caliber gun used on the U.S. Navy's pre-treaty battleships.<ref name="12/50">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> The AlaskasTemplate:' percentage of armor tonnage, 28.4%, was slightly less than that of fast battleships; the British King George V class, the American Iowa class, and the battlecruiser/fast battleship Template:HMS all had armor percentages between 32 and 33%, whereas the Lexington-class battlecruiser design had a nearly identical armor percentage of 28.5%. In fact, older battlecruisers, such as Template:Sclass (19.9%), had a significantly lower percentage.<ref>Friedman, Battleship Design and Development, 166–173</ref>

Contributions to the debate over the classification & type of the Alaska class can be misleading or poorly considered and/or informed. For example, author Chris Knupp noted that while "other nations fulfilled the battlecruiser role by designing vessels like battleships, but stripped of armor and other features to gain speed", the United States "fulfilled the battlecruiser role by creating a larger, more powerful heavy cruiser...[whose] design already offered less armor and higher speed, but by enlarging the ship they gained the heavier firepower".<ref name="warhistoryonline.com"/> The contribution notably fails to correctly assess or acknowledge the battlecruiser's origins in cruiser development, inaccurately presenting the earlier concept as 'pared-down' battleships.

ArmamentEdit

Main batteryEdit

File:USS Guam (CB-2) firing main battery, 1944-45.jpg

Guam firing her main battery during a training session sometime in 1944–1945

As built, the Alaska class had nine 12"/50 caliber Mark 8 guns mounted in three triple (3-gun) turrets,<ref name="12/50"/> with two turrets forward and one aft, a configuration known as "2-A-1". The previous 12" gun manufactured for the U.S. Navy was the Mark 7 version, which had been designed for and installed in the 1912 Template:Sclasss. The Mark 8 was of considerably higher quality; in fact, it "was by far the most powerful weapon of its caliber ever placed in service".<ref>Dulin and Garzke, 190.</ref> Designed in 1939, it weighed Template:Convert including the breech, and could sustain an average rate of fire of 2.4–3 rounds a minute. It could throw a Template:Convert Mark 18 armor-piercing shell Template:Convert at an elevation of 45°, and had a 344-shot barrel life<ref name="12/50"/> (about 54 more than the much larger but similar 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun found on the Iowa battleships.).<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> The AlaskasTemplate:' Mark 8 guns were the heaviest main battery of any cruiser of World War II, and as capable as the old 14"/45 caliber gun used on the U.S. Navy's pre-treaty battleships.<ref name="12/50"/>

The turrets were very similar to those of the Iowa-class battleships, but differed in several ways; for example, the Alaska class had a two-stage powder hoist instead of the Iowa class's one-stage hoist. These differences made operating the guns safer and increased the rate of fire. In addition, a "projectile rammer" was added to Alaska and Guam. This machine transferred shells from storage on the ship to the rotating ring that fed the guns. However, this feature proved unsatisfactory, and it was not planned for Hawaii or any subsequent ships.<ref name="12/50"/>

Because Alaska and Guam were the only two ships to mount these guns, only ten turrets were made during the war (three for each ship including Hawaii and one spare). They cost $1,550,000 each and were the most expensive heavy guns purchased by the U.S. Navy in World War II.<ref name=Morison85/>

Secondary batteryEdit

The secondary battery of the Alaska class was composed of twelve dual-purpose (anti-air and anti-ship) 5"/38 caliber guns in twin mounts, with four offset on each side of the superstructure (two on each beam) and two centerline turrets fore and aft. The 5"/38 was originally intended for use on only destroyers built in the 1930s, but by 1934 and into World War II it was being installed on almost all of the U.S.'s major warships, including aircraft carriers, battleships, and heavy and light cruisers.<ref name="5/38">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

Anti-aircraft batteryEdit

File:40mm gun practice on USS Alaska (CB-1), 1945.jpg

Crew of a 40 mm Bofors gun on Alaska mount ammunition clips into the loaders of a pair of guns on 6 March 1945 during the Battle of Iwo Jima

Medium anti-aircraft armament (a key component of area air defence within a Task Group) on the Alaska-class ships was 56 x 40mm Bofors guns and for close-in air defence they carried 34 × 20 mm guns. These numbers may be compared with; 48 × 40 mm and 24 × 20 mm on the smaller Baltimore-class heavy cruisers, 60 x 40 mm and 36 x 20 mm on the larger battleship North Carolina at the end of the war, and 80 × 40 mm and 49 × 20 mm on the even larger Iowa-class battleships.<ref name="Alaska DANFS"/><ref>Template:Cite DANFS</ref><ref>Template:Cite DANFS</ref>

Ships in classEdit

List of *Alaska*-class cruisers
Name	Namesake	Pennant	Builder	Ordered	Laid down	Launched	Commissioned	Decommissioned	Fate
Template:USS	Territory of Alaska	CB-1	New York Shipbuilding Corporation, Camden	9 September 1940	17 December 1941	15 August 1943	17 June 1944	17 February 1947	Broken up at Newark, 1961
Template:USS	Territory of Guam	CB-2			2 February 1942	12 November 1943	17 September 1944	17 February 1947	Broken up at Baltimore, 1961
Template:USS	Territory of Hawaii	CB-3 CBC-1			20 December 1943	3 November 1945	colspan=2Template:N/a	Broken up when 84% complete at Baltimore, 1960
Philippines	Commonwealth of the Philippines	CB-4	rowspan=3 Template:N/a		colspan=4 rowspan=3 Template:N/a	Cancelled June 1943
Puerto Rico	Territory of Puerto Rico	CB-5
Samoa	Territory of American Samoa	CB-6

Template:USS was commissioned on 17 June 1944. She served in the Pacific, screening aircraft carriers, providing shore bombardment at Okinawa, and going on raiding missions in the East China Sea. She was decommissioned on 17 February 1947 after less than three years of service and was scrapped in 1960.<ref name="Alaska DANFS"/>
Template:USS was commissioned on 17 September 1944. She served in the Pacific with Alaska on almost all of the same operations. Along with Alaska, she was decommissioned on 17 February 1947 and was scrapped in 1961.<ref name="Guam DANFS"/>
Template:USS was intended as a third ship of the class, but she was never completed. Numerous plans to utilize her as a guided-missile cruiser or a large command ship in the years after the war were fruitless, and she was scrapped.<ref name="Hawaii DANFS"/>
USS Philippines (CB-4), Puerto Rico (CB-5), and Samoa (CB-6) were planned as the fourth, fifth, and sixth ships of the class, respectively. All three ships were to be built at Camden, New Jersey, but they were cancelled before construction could begin.<ref name="Philippines DANFS"/><ref name="Puerto Rico DANFS"/><ref name="Samoa DANFS"/>