Editing Alaska-class cruiser (section)

== Background ==
Heavy cruiser development formalized between World War I and World War II due to the terms of the [[Washington Naval Treaty]] and successor [[Second London Naval Treaty|treaties and conferences]], where the United States, Britain, Japan, France, and Italy agreed to limit [[heavy cruiser]]s to 10,000&nbsp;tons [[Displacement (ship)|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">{{Cite web|last=Knupp|first=Chris|date=17 April 2017|title=The Awesome Alaska Class: America's (Not Quite) Battlecruisers|url=https://www.navygeneralboard.com/the-alaska-class-americas-not-quite-battlecruisers/|access-date=20 July 2021|website=Navy General Board|archive-date=20 July 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210720213158/https://www.navygeneralboard.com/the-alaska-class-americas-not-quite-battlecruisers/|url-status=live}}</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 [[Design B-65 cruiser|B-65 class]] that would be much more powerful than the current US heavy cruisers.<ref name="Hawaii DANFS">{{cite DANFS | title = Hawaii | url = http://hazegray.org/danfs/cruisers/cb3.txt | access-date=14 October 2008|short=yes|link=no| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080928005847/http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/cruisers/cb3.txt| archive-date= 28 September 2008 | url-status= live}}</ref><ref name="Conway's"/><ref name="Global Security"/><ref name=Scarpaci17>Scarpaci, 17.</ref>{{efn-ua|Japan actually developed plans for two super cruisers in 1941, though it was mostly in response to the new ''Alaska'' ships. However, the ships were not ordered due to the greater need for carriers. See [[Design B-65 cruiser]].}} The navy responded in 1938 when the [[General Board of the United States Navy|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.

=== Design ===
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 {{sclass|Atlanta|cruiser|0}} 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&nbsp;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 {{sclass|Baltimore|cruiser|4}} that had the same machinery as the {{sclass|Essex|aircraft carrier}}s. This ship combined a main armament of nine 12-inch guns with protection against 10-inch gunfire into a hull that was capable of {{convert|33|kn}}.<ref name=Scarpaci17/>

The ''Alaska''s 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>{{efn-ua|Over two hundred other ships were ordered at the same time: two {{sclass|Iowa|battleship}}s, five {{sclass|Montana|battleship|2}}s, twelve {{sclass|Essex|aircraft carrier}}s, four {{sclass|Baltimore|heavy cruiser}}s, 19 {{sclass|Cleveland|light cruiser}}s, four {{sclass|Atlanta|light cruiser|2}}s, 52 {{sclass|Fletcher|destroyer}}s, twelve {{sclass|Benson|destroyer|2}}s and 73 {{sclass|Gato|submarine}}s.}} Their role had been altered slightly: in addition to their surface-to-surface role, they were planned to protect [[Carrier battle group|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 carriers ===
[[Image:USS Alaska (CB-1) launching.jpg|thumb|right|upright|{{USS|Alaska|CB-1|2}} being [[ceremonial ship launching|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 carrier]]s 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 {{sclass|Cleveland|cruiser|0}} [[light cruiser]]s, the {{sclass|Baltimore|cruiser|0}} [[heavy cruiser]]s, the ''Alaska'' class, and even one of the {{sclass|Iowa|battleship|3}}s; in the end, they chose the ''Cleveland''s,<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 carrier]]s comprising the {{sclass|Independence|aircraft carrier|0}}.

A conversion of the ''Alaska'' cruisers to carriers was "particularly attractive"<ref name=Friedman190/> because of the many similarities between the design of the {{sclass|Essex|aircraft carrier|2}}s 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 {{convert|11|ft|m}} lower in the water, and could travel {{convert|8000|nmi|km}} less at {{convert|15|kn}}. 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.{{Clarify|What does this bulky sentence mean to convey? Its meaning is unclear as written.|date=April 2021}} 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 ''Alaska''s was abandoned on 7 January 1942.<ref name=Friedman191>Friedman, 191.</ref>