Originally posted by jrb1537
View Post
Was the design of Des Moines mature enough for significantly earlier construction?
Alaska and Guam were commissioned in June and Sept of 1944, and may not have deeply storied histories, but were in use in the Pacific theater of WW2 in 1945. Like many things built for that war, those ships were determined to be not very useful after the war, and were eliminated.
Des Moines wasn't laid down until May 1945, commissioned in 1948. And because of that timing, I doubt the design and construction of the Des Moines was ever seriously part of the war effort during WW2. It may be that the design development of that class may have taken resources that may have been better employed at advancing US capabilities that could been employed in time for use in fighting WW2, and so may have hindered the war effort. Likewise the Montana class.
Alaska and Guam were both built at Camden, with keels laid in December 41, and February 42, launched in August and November 1943. Could they have avoided much of the design development of the Alaska class, and built two more capable ships of the Iowa class at Camden in the same time interval, and employed them during the war? The Alaska class was ordered in September 1940, within a couple of weeks of when the second ship of the Iowa class was laid down. Iowa was laid down in Brooklyn in June 1940, New Jersey in Philadelphia in September 1940, Missouri in Brooklyn in January 1941, and Wisconsin in Philadelphia in January 1942. And the two of the Iowa class that were not completed, Illinois was laid down in Philadelphia in January 1945, and Kentucky was laid down in Norfolk in June 1944. If the Alaska class had not been ordered, what if Illinois and Kentucky could have been laid down in Camden in early 1942, and been operating in the Pacific theater of WW2 by late 1944?
Comment