Editing Alaska-class cruiser (section)

== "Large cruisers" or "battlecruisers" ==
[[Image:USS Missouri (BB-63) and USS Alaska (CB-1) at Norfolk, Virginia, 1944.jpg|thumb|left|An ''Iowa''-class battleship ({{USS|Missouri|BB-63|2}}), {{cvt|887|ft|m|abbr=on}} and {{cvt|57,540|LT|t}}, the largest U.S. Navy battleship class (top), and {{USS|Alaska|CB-1|2}}, {{cvt|808|ft|m|abbr=on}} and {{cvt|29,771|LT|t}}, 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 [[battlecruiser]]s. 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 [[Hull classification symbol|designation]] CC, which had been planned for the {{sclass|Lexington|battlecruiser|4}}. 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 [[Territories of the United States|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 {{sclass|North Carolina|battleship|4}}, {{sclass|South Dakota|battleship (1939)|4}}, and {{sclass|Iowa|battleship|4}}) 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 {{sclass|Baltimore|cruiser|4}}),<ref name=Morison84>Morison, Morison and Polmar, 84.</ref> being only 5,000&nbsp;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 [[Second London Naval Treaty|London Treaty of 1936]]). They were also longer than several treaty battleships such as the {{convert|745|ft|1|in|m|1|abbr=on}} {{sclass|King George V|battleship (1939)|4}} and {{convert|724|ft|abbr=on}} ''North Carolina'' class.

In overall terms, the design of the ''Alaska'' class was scaled up from that of the {{sclass|Baltimore|cruiser|4}} (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 ''Alaska''s was deemed sufficient to provide protection against not only 8″ heavy cruiser shells but even the larger 11″ shells used by Germany's {{sclass|Deutschland|cruiser|0}} "pocket battleships" and {{sclass|Scharnhorst|battleship|5}}-class battleships. However, they lacked the comprehensive [[Torpedo belt|underwater protection systems]] found on the larger US battleships or even on smaller, earlier battleships like the French {{sclass|Dunkerque|battleship|5}} and German ''Scharnhorst'' classes. Thus, the ''Alaska''s 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 ''Alaska''s was identical, albeit with an improvement in light anti-aircraft battery size. Whereas the ''Alaska'' class carried twelve [[5"/38 caliber gun|5"/38 caliber]] in six twin turrets, fifty-six 40&nbsp;mm, and thirty-four 20&nbsp;mm guns, the ''Baltimore'' class carried the same number of 5"/38s, eight fewer 40&nbsp;mm, and ten fewer 20&nbsp;mm,<ref name="Conway's"/> considerably fewer than new U.S. battleships that had ten (save for {{USS|South Dakota|BB-57|2}}) 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 ''Alaska''s a turning radius of {{Convert|800|yard|m|abbr=on}}, 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><!--Some modern historians take the view that this is a more accurate designation. The traditional Anglo-American battlecruiser concept had always sacrificed protection for the sake of speed and armament—they were not intended to stand up against the guns they themselves carried.<ref>Dulin and Garzke, p. 279; see also Jon Tetsuro Sumida, ''In Defence of Naval Supremacy'' (London: Routledge, 1993).</ref>-->

Armament-wise, the ''Alaska''s{{'}} had much larger guns than contemporary heavy cruisers; while the ''Baltimore'' class only carried nine [[8"/55 caliber gun|8"/55 caliber]] Marks 12 and 15 guns,<ref name="8/55 12 and 15">{{cite web | last = DiGiulian | first = Tony | title = 8"/55 (20.3&nbsp;cm) Marks 12 and 15 | url = http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk12-15.htm | publisher = Navweaps.com | date = 7 February 2008 | access-date =15 October 2008 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20081002055750/http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk12-15.htm| archive-date= 2 October 2008 | url-status= live}}</ref> the ''Alaska'' class carried nine [[12"/50 caliber Mark 8 gun|12"/50 caliber gun]]s 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">{{cite web | last = DiGiulian | first = Tony | title = 12"/50 (30.5&nbsp;cm) Mark 8 | url = http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.htm | publisher = Navweaps.com | date = 7 February 2008 | access-date =15 October 2008 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080921170348/http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.htm| archive-date= 21 September 2008 | url-status= live}}</ref> The ''Alaska''s{{'}} percentage of armor tonnage, 28.4%, was slightly less than that of [[fast battleship]]s; the British ''King George V'' class, the American ''Iowa'' class, and the battlecruiser/fast battleship {{HMS|Hood}} 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 {{sclass|Invincible|battlecruiser|5}} (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 [[Invincible-class battlecruiser#General characteristics|origins in cruiser development]], inaccurately presenting the earlier concept as 'pared-down' battleships.