Battlecruiser Alaska

[Master Chief]

I know its not a "Battleship", but just want to get some views on this class of ship. I know the Alaska joined the fleet in january of 1945, so played little part in the war.
So how do you think this class would have done in major combat? And what are your views on this ship?

SPECIFICATIONS
Displacement: 29,779 tons (standard), 34,253 tons (full load)
Dimensions: 808 ft 06 in length x 91 ft 01 in beam x 31 ft 10 in draft (full load)
Armament: 9x12in 45cal (3x3); 12x5in 38cal (6x2); 56x40mm (14x4); 34x20mm (34x1); 3 aircraft
Armor: Main belt 9-5in

Turrets 12.8in
Conning tower 10.6in
Machinery: 4-shaft General Electric turbines, 8 Babcock & Wilcox boilers, 150,000 shp=33.0kts
Oil Capacity: 3619 tons
Endurance: 12,000 nautical miles at l5 knots
Complement: 1,517

[gunnut]

Well, from what I read, she wasn't exactly a battlecruiser. She was too lightly armed and armored compared to the big battlecruisers like the Hood.

Battlecruisers should have battleship caliber guns of the same era. The Alaska only had 12" guns rather than 15" or 16".

Speed was comparable to cruiser.

Armor was comparable to a heavy cruiser, maybe better.

She was almost like something between a battlecruiser and a heavy cruiser, and classified as a "large cruiser."

I suppose she might have had a role in WW1 as a "cruiser killer" or "commerce raider." But she was way behind the times and really had no role in late WW2.

If I were to design her, I would have replaced the 9 12" guns with 6 16" guns in 3 turrets. That's just to simplify the logistics as there were basically 2 types of 16" guns used by the navy back then and no other 12" guns in existance.

[TopHatter]

My $0.02

The Alaska's were large cruisers rather than battlecruisers or small battleships.
Their protection and layout was clearly of cruiser origin.

They were very well suited to the fast carrier escort role, but it would have been far more valuable - particularly in hindsight - to have completed the last 2 Iowa-class battleships.

They were also incredibly expensive, a brand new 12-inch gun being developed for them, not to mention the turret to house them.

Ten gun turrets including one intended as a spare were built during the war. These turrets cost about $1,550,000 each [about $22,000,000 in 2007 dollars -TH], not including the cost of the guns themselves, making them the USN's most expensive gun mounting of World War II. USA 12"/50 (30.5cm) Mark 8

Originally Posted by gunnut

That's just to simplify the logistics as there were basically 2 types of 16" guns used by the navy back then and no other 12" guns in existance.

USS Arkansas still had 12-inch guns, but from what I've read, they used different ammunition and powder bags, so the logistics were even more burdened.

At the same time, the Alaska's 12-inch guns were extraordinarily powerful:

Designed to fire the new "super-heavy" AP projectiles, their side belt armor penetration at 20,000 to 30,000 yards (18,290 to 27,430 m) was almost identical to and the deck plate penetration better than the larger 14"/50 guns used on U.S. pre-treaty battleships. USA 12"/50 (30.5cm) Mark 8

Handsome ships but ultimately not worth the time and expense needed to build them.

[ArmchairGeneral]

I've always wondered how they compared to the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Seem comparable in lot of ways- displacement, speed, unusually small caliber armament. I have a feeling the German ships had a stronger armor scheme, though, from what you guys have said and what I've read elsewhere. I've heard that the German ships were really more like small battleships than battlecruisers because of their heavy armor. Any thoughts?

[RustyBattleship]

Rather interesting as to how you folks are trying to define a "Battle" cruiser, "Large" cruiser, etc. Though it's identification letters - "CB" - tend toward the word "Battle" and thus the actual potential is confusing.

What really confused me was back in 1953 there was an open house at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. My step-father worked there so he took the whole family down for the tour. The very first Naval Warship I ever boarded was the USS Wisconsin (BB-64). I wished I had saved the pamphlet they handed out as we boarded the ship. I read it with interest as it started out describing the ship as really a "Super Cruiser".

The hull was basically Cruiser proportions rather than "fat" Battleship proportions of pre-war BBs.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

I read it with interest as it started out describing the ship as really a "Super Cruiser".

The hull was basically Cruiser proportions rather than "fat" Battleship proportions of pre-war BBs.

Wasn't the narrow beam due to making it able to use the Panama Canal?

[RustyBattleship]

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Wasn't the narrow beam due to making it able to use the Panama Canal?

Partially. But the Iowa class was designed from day one for Canal transit. But it was the lengthening of the ship overall that gave it more of a Cruiser hull than a bulky Battleship hull.

But it was the designs of the later Montana class that led to cuss and discuss about the ship's overall breadth. They finally settled on the 108 foot beam.

Interesting as two of our pre-war Battleships were modified with extra torpedo blisters that made them too wide for the Canal. The extra time it would take to go from the Atlantic to the Pacific influenced the hull width of major warships dramatically.

Also of interest, before the war there were plans to widen the canal so larger ships (then on the drawing boards) could pass. But WW II interrupted any closing or slowing down of canal traffic.

[gunnut]

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

Rather interesting as to how you folks are trying to define a "Battle" cruiser, "Large" cruiser, etc. Though it's identification letters - "CB" - tend toward the word "Battle" and thus the actual potential is confusing.

Wasn't there something else that made the Alaska class a cruiser rather than a battleship/battlecruiser type? Something about the lack of compartmentalization, bulkheads, and torpedo defense. As I understand it, battleships had them, cruisers did not.

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

What really confused me was back in 1953 there was an open house at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. My step-father worked there so he took the whole family down for the tour. The very first Naval Warship I ever boarded was the USS Wisconsin (BB-64). I wished I had saved the pamphlet they handed out as we boarded the ship. I read it with interest as it started out describing the ship as really a "Super Cruiser".

The hull was basically Cruiser proportions rather than "fat" Battleship proportions of pre-war BBs.

The Iowa class was more like a super battlecruiser the way they were built and used. No battleship before had that kind of speed. They were heavily armed. The only thing that can slug it out with them were the Yamato class, and that's a big "if" according to some naval historians. They could outrun anything in the water they couldn't outfight.

I was floored when I read that they were really battlecruisers than traditional BBs like the old battle wagons.

The Alaska class was like an answer to a question no one asked.

[sparten]

Alsaka's were designed to take on Japanese versions of the German Pocket Battleship (which were never built). And they can be called Battlecruisers certainly, IMO the design philosophy was similar to the German Derfflinger's (the best capital ships ever) reducing calibre for speed rather than armor as the BRits did. The Germans took upwards of 30 heavy hits at Jutland and still went back.

[Tasman]

Originally Posted by sparten

Alsaka's were designed to take on Japanese versions of the German Pocket Battleship (which were never built). And they can be called Battlecruisers certainly, IMO the design philosophy was similar to the German Derfflinger's (the best capital ships ever) reducing calibre for speed rather than armor as the BRits did. The Germans took upwards of 30 heavy hits at Jutland and still went back.

From what I have read I agree that the Alaska's were conceived to deal with the proposed Japanese battlecruisers that were, in fact, never built. But it seems clear that they were scaled up heavy cruisers rather than true battlecruisers. The USN classified them as 'large cruisers' rather than battlecruisers.

The early battlecruisers that appeared just prior to WW1 were ships with guns comparable with the battleships built at the same time but with armour sacrificed for speed. As a result of poor protection, three RN units blew up at Jutland when German shells penetrated their magazines. The 'mighty' Hood was an attempt to build a battlecruiser that combined battleship armour and firepower with high speed. She was better armoured than the RN's Queen Elizabeth class battleships but even she had weak deck protection and was vulnerable to long range plunging fire. Like her WW1 counterparts she was blown up in action (with Bismark).

In my opinion Alaska's armour would have been sufficient for the vessel to engage a German battlecruiser like Scharnhorst but I suspect it would have been very vulnerable in action with any battleship armed with 14" or larger guns. With her high speed and powerful AA battery she proved to be an excellent escort for fast carriers and she could easily have dealt with any Japanese heavy cruiser.

At the end of WW2 the high cost of maintaining the two ships that were completed resulted in them being quickly placed in reserve. The third ship was never completed and three other proposed sisters were cancelled as early as 1943.

Cheers

[JBG]

I suppose that the Alaskas can be seen as counters to proposed or suspected IJN A65 class ships. However you class the A65s, you are talking cruisers. So, to cut a verrry long story short, the CB designation or "Large Cruiser" definition was probably apt.

IMHO the Alaskas have no part in the convergent evolution of the battlecruiser and the fast battleship. THey are an outgrowth, as it were, of the cruiser. Hence the lines of the ship, the armour, the deficient TDS, the rudders and screws...

They would totally smack any heavy cruiser and were designed to take on other navies' large cruisers. I do not fancy their chances against the twins, however.

Personally, I really like the lines of the Alaskas and would be most interested in any confrontations between the IJN heavy cruisers and Alaskas/Baltimores.

Jonathan

[Tasman]

Originally Posted by JBG

I suppose that the Alaskas can be seen as counters to proposed or suspected IJN A65 class ships. However you class the A65s, you are talking cruisers. So, to cut a verrry long story short, the CB designation or "Large Cruiser" definition was probably apt.

IMHO the Alaskas have no part in the convergent evolution of the battlecruiser and the fast battleship. THey are an outgrowth, as it were, of the cruiser. Hence the lines of the ship, the armour, the deficient TDS, the rudders and screws...

They would totally smack any heavy cruiser and were designed to take on other navies' large cruisers. I do not fancy their chances against the twins, however.

Personally, I really like the lines of the Alaskas and would be most interested in any confrontations between the IJN heavy cruisers and Alaskas/Baltimores.

Jonathan

I agree with your comments Jonathon.

Like you I really like the lines of this class. In many ways I think that the silhouettes of these ships, together with the Iowa and South Dakota class BBs and the Baltimore, and Des Moines class CAs are my favourite big ship silhouettes of all time (along with the British battleship Vanguard).

Cheers

[The Chap]

A very pretty ship. Her lines remind me of the Yamato and the more modern Peter the Great.

[temujin77]

Originally Posted by The Chap

A very pretty ship. Her lines remind me of the Yamato and the more modern Peter the Great.

When I first read your comment, I went "what? Alaska doesn't look like Yamato!"

But then I thought about it again, then took a few look at the photos...

Then I realized that from a certain angles, yes, I do see some of that "swooped back" look that was characteristic of Yamato in Alaska. Only from certain angles, though.

Pretty cool!

Here's a color photo of her 40mm gun at work off Iwo Jima during WW2:

WW2DB: [Photo] Crew of a 40mm quad anti-aircraft machine gun mount of Alaska loaded clips into the loaders of the left pair of guns, off Iwo Jima, 6 Mar 1945

One of those rare color photos from the era...

[Tarek Morgen]

Originally Posted by temujin77

When I first read your comment, I went "what? Alaska doesn't look like Yamato!"

But then I thought about it again, then took a few look at the photos...

Then I realized that from a certain angles, yes, I do see some of that "swooped back" look that was characteristic of Yamato in Alaska. Only from certain angles, though.

Pretty cool!

Here's a color photo of her 40mm gun at work off Iwo Jima during WW2:

WW2DB: [Photo] Crew of a 40mm quad anti-aircraft machine gun mount of Alaska loaded clips into the loaders of the left pair of guns, off Iwo Jima, 6 Mar 1945

One of those rare color photos from the era...

There are far more colour photos (and films) than one might think. I once had a link to a huge database...mh..gotta try to refind it