Below is a except from my book (page 107) US Battleships an illustrated technical history 1941-1963, available from Amazon that will hopefully answer the original question posted.....Regards wayne
Alaska Class Large Cruisers: 6 ships of 1940:
USS Alaska CB 1 USS Guam CB 2
(USS Hawaii CB 3 USS Philippines CB 4 USS Puerto Rico CB 5 USS Samoa CB 6 canceled)
The only class of USN battlecruiser design to be completed. While the USN officially designated the Alaska class ships as 'Large Cruisers'. Presumably to avoid connecting them with the inadequately protected foreign (particularly UK CC) designs of WWI. It remains that the CB1 class ships were in fact battlecruisers by both definition and concept. Within the context of the term ‘Battlecruiser’ being defined as a vessel of battleship dimensions that sacrifices firepower, and/or armor protection in order to reduce weight. Permitting the installation of a more powerful engineering plant, thereby achieving higher speeds. Battlecruisers are designed to be primarily deployed to engage and defeat enemy heavy and light cruisers. Battlecruisers were also intended to provide a fast reconnaissance force to the battlefleet. From 1933 onwards the CB type was also intended to provide the ability to pursue, and destroy a new type of warship, the German Panzerschiffen ‘pocket battleship’ type (11,000 ton armored cruisers with 6 11”guns, 26kns speed, protected against 8”gunfire) intended to operate independently as surface commerce raiders. By 1938 France was constructing the 2 Dunkerque class CB's of 26,000 tons with 8 13" guns and a 29.5 kns speed as 'replies' to counter the German ships. At the time of the CB1's inception the USN did not have any types of ships that were capable of successfully pursuing, engaging, and defeating ‘pocket battleship' types. In addition, during 1940/1941 USN Intelligence Sources received indications that the Japanese Navy also had under construction a class of a similar type of commerce raiders. These were the non-existent, but repeatedly reported, ‘Chichibu class’ of pocket battleships/battlecruisers, 4-6 ships of 15-17,000 tons mounting 6-9 12” guns. The CB1 class were also envisaged to be deployed 'in kind' as independent commerce surface raiders themselves. The CB type was not envisaged, designed, nor intended to be deployed in the battleline and/or against battleship types. As the very characteristics which define them as battlecruisers effectively precluded such use. A simple definition of the 'Battlecruiser Concept' was the ability to outrun ships which they could not outfight. Against this background of fast heavily armed foreign pocket battleship/battlecruiser construction the decision was made by the office of the CNO and the Roosevelt administration to construct a class of ship designed expressedly to deal with these specific threats. A relatively high priority was assigned to the design and construction of these ships by the office of the CNO, by deprioritizing the construction of the 5th and 6th (BB65 BB66) battleships of the BB61 class. Which were the ships that the USN's senior staff wanted to construct in lieu of the CB1 class. The 2 CB1 class ships were the only capital units authorized by the Two Ocean Navy Act of 1940 to be completed. The CB1 class ships were a hybrid design of USN Battleship and Heavy Cruiser design concepts. The design was largely based upon the scaling up USN modern heavy cruiser designs (the CA68 class). Mounting a 12” main armament and adequately protected against 10” gunfire. The hull form and machinery were derived from the Essex CV9 class aircraft carriers. Main armament was a new mark of 12”/50 firing a 945 lb projectile disposed in 3 triple turrets, 2 forward and 1 aft. Secondary armament was the standard USN cruiser configuration of 12 5”/38’s in 6 twin mounts disposed in a cruiser style pattern of 4 shipped outboard on the 02 level. Two mounts were superimposed fore and aft on raised platforms over main gun turrets 2 and 3. A tall fire control tower was located forward with a Mk38/Mk8 main battery director. In the base of the fire control tower at maindeck level a 6 aircraft capacity hanger was fitted. Aft of the hanger was an aircraft handling 'welldeck' area with two aircraft catapults sited port and starboard on short towers. A single large tall stack topped with a raked cap was fitted, which had two short masts cantilevered fore and aft at the stack cap level. A relatively tall aft fire control tower was fitted with a Mk38/Mk8 director. As in a typical USN cruiser design 2 Mk37/Mk4 DP directors were mounted fore and aft on the superstructure. A large medium/light AA battery of 20mm and 40mm guns was provided. The CB1 class were the only USN capital ship design to incorporate a transom (squared off) stern. Which effectively increased the length to beam ratio, permitting improved speed performance. The CB1 class was designed with a single rudder which somewhat increased their tactical turning diameter. In January 1942 the CB1 class ships were briefly evaluated for conversions to aircraft carriers in an emergency war carrier war program similar to that performed on 9 Cleveland (CL55) class light cruisers which were rebuilt into the Independence class light carriers (CVL22 class). Upon completion both ships served together as carrier escorts in the Pacific Theater during the final months of WWII. CB1 and CB2 defended the stricken, dead in the water, carrier USS Franklin CV13 off Honshu 19 Mar 1945. The CB1 and CB2 also deployed twice in Aug 1945 with TF95 in one of their designed roles as surface raiders. At which they were unsuccessful due to a lack of contact with appropriate Japanese targets. The CB1 class ships were both removed from active service in 1946, stricken from the Naval Register in Jun 1960, and subsequently sold for scrap. The third CB1 class ship the Hawaii CB3 after launching in late 1945, was first suspended indefinitely, and then finally canceled in 1947. The ship was 82% complete and placed in storage at the PhNSY until sold in 1958 for scrap. CB3 was the subject of 2 design projects. The first a 1948 conversion to a Guided Missile Cruiser (CBG3) fitting modified vertically launched V2 ballistic rockets and the cancelled Triton SSM cruise missiles. The second was a 1953 Carrier TF Command Cruiser (CBC3) project armed with 12 5"/54 single mounts. Both projects were authorized, but both were cancelled prior to commencement. As with the BB61 class ships, in the mid 1950's the USN evaluated the CB1 class ships for conversion to 'MACK' equipped double and/or single ended Talos/Tartar/ASROC armed ships similar to the Albany CG10 class guided missile cruisers. As the CG10 class were expensive to convert and considered adequate, no conversions of the CB1 class were authorized. The senior staff of the USN with the exception of the CNO, were never supportive of the CB1 design due largely to the politics that had been involved in their construction. This unfortunately resulted in these fine powerful ships being viewed with a certain amount of distain by the USN's operations staff. The design's perceived and much criticized alleged deficiencies, and shortcomings, coupled with the large construction expenses served to taint the ship’s reputations for the length of their active service careers. It is, however, fair to say the bulk of the criticism leveled at the CB1 design was and is largely unfounded, as the design was excellent for their envisaged roles. And when reviewing the design, it should be kept in perspective that they were never intended as a battleship design. Nor were they intended to operate as battleship's. Also, like all USN 3rd generation Capital Ship designs, they were never tested in battle in their intended role of surface action against their own or lesser types of ships. Finally it should be noted, that the tasks that were assigned to them, primarily as carrier escorts, they performed well.
|