Going back to the "stem extension" topic:
Photos of ALASKA as commissioned (and during the first shakedown cruise) show the original stem (without extension) -- the profile of this stem is what I would argue is the "classic" profile we all
associate with these ships.
Attachment:
NH57214)crop.png [ 168.79 KiB | Viewed 4691 times ]
Original:
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/hi ... 57214.htmlHowever, the photos taken after the October/November refit at the Philadelphia Navy Yard clearly show alterations to the ship's stem that line up with the plans previously found. Photo NH 97126 (a fantastic and sharp overhead view) shows the stem extension very clearly with the seams between the shell plating visible because of the unique lighting angle of the shot:
Attachment:
NH97126_crop_1.png [ 170.12 KiB | Viewed 4691 times ]
Original:
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/hi ... 97126.html---
Similar photos of GUAM show the same stem extension:
Attachment:
NH97132_crop_1.png [ 194.35 KiB | Viewed 4691 times ]
Original here:
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/hi ... 97132.html---
It seems to me like GUAM launched with the stem extension and ALASKA received the stem extension at the Philadelphia Navy Yard during the fall 1944 refit. Unfortunately I have not been able to locate any drydock photos of either of these ships to confirm firsthand.
Obviously, none of this answers the rather perplexing question of "why" a stem extension was required, but hopefully this sheds some light on the questions earlier in the thread.
Cheers