USS Alaska - why?

[Russ2146]

It just so happens....

Photographed on 15 April 1953 with ships in reserve.
The two large ships at right on the near side of the peninsula are Alaska (CB-1) and Guam (CB-2).
The next two ships astern are North Carolina (BB-55) and Washington (BB-56). Further astern are (from outboard to inboard) Fargo (CL-106), Albemarle (AV-5) and Wakefield (AP-21). The carriers Enterprise (CV-6) and Franklin (CV-13) are at the far left.
Also present are the escort carriers Card (CVE-11), Croatan (CVE-25), Mission Bay (CVE-59), and Guadalcanal (CVE-60) along with the cruisers Providence (CL-82), Little Rock (CL-92), Spokane (CLAA-120) and Fresno (CLAA-121). One of the two CLAAs is tied up outboard of the Alaskas.

g480262.jpg

[Filipe Ramires]

If Alaska is not to be considered a battlecruiser then there's no place for her in Battleship/Battlecruiser books. Also, if she's a bit overkill compared to an 8'' cruiser then I think we shouldn't put her either in a cruisers book. That leaves us with!?!?!?! A completely new ball game of unique type of ships that saw no other "rivals" or competition. Perhaps somewhere in-between the naval classification hierarchy we should do like this: light cruisers; heavy cruisers; Alaskas; battlecruisers; battleships....!!! Seems a bit odd hey!?!?!?!

[Chuck not logged in]

I understand Alaska was conceived of as:

1. Specific counter to a completely imaginary Japanese ship that was suppose to be somewhat like the German pocket battleship. It turns out that while the original Japanese threat was imaginary, Japanese reaction to the Alaska was almost real, thus making the Japanese ship Alaska was meant to counter a self-fulfilling prophecy. Interestingly the Japanese did manage to work in thicker armor and a full underwater protection system into their Alaska counter on essentially the same other general characterics.

2. Something that would resemble what USN thought cruisers would naturally have developed to by 1940 had there been no WNT. Keep in mind that prior to WWI, there had always tended to be a much smaller gap between the size and gun caliber of bigger cruisers and those of battleships than there was under WNT. I think USN might well have regarded the smaller separation between battleship and cruiser that existed before WWI as more natural than the large separation that existed under WNT.


So there is no need to call it battlecruiser. It was more like a "natural heavy cruiser" as oppose to a "washington" heavy cruiser. USN probably imagined that once naval treaty regime expire, other country (in addition to Japan) would also build something like the Alaska.

[JWintjes]

2. Something that would resemble what USN thought cruisers would naturally have developed to by 1940 had there been no WNT. Keep in mind that prior to WWI, there had always tended to be a much smaller gap between the size and gun caliber of bigger cruisers and those of battleships than there was under WNT. I think USN might well have regarded the smaller separation between battleship and cruiser that existed before WWI as more natural than the large separation that existed under WNT.

I hate to say this - and fear for the universe's equilibrum - but I really like the comparison to the armoured cruiser vs. battlecruiser situation. Perhaps we should call the Alaskas the ultimate armoured cruiser?

Jorit

[Filipe Ramires]

This is a recorded message.....Filipe went to the supermarket to buy food for 5 years and stock it in the basement due to the inevitable approach of worlds end...!!!!

WNT did simplify in most ways the classification of warships and caliber guns that could be carry by them therefore making the significant gap between the 8'' and the 14'' with some odd calibers in the middle like the German 11'' and surviving guns from WWI. Battlecruisers were classified as capital ships as similar to battleship status and cruisers were limited to the "auxiliary" status with the well known limit of 10.000 tons and 8'' guns. Nothing in the middle could prevail at the light of WNT. Several ships like the armoured-cruisers, many war battered and obsolete, went for scrapyards. Construction of odd-ships of the middle ground were resumed for instance with the Deutschlands which were neither "treaty" cruisers nor battleships...in fact, from my point of view, they are an improved German pre-dreadnought with better guns but still with 3 different calibers of guns and an arrangement of guns similar to pre-dreads, slow speed and weak armour. The Deutschlands mere existence provoked the appearance of classes to match or take care of them (Dunkerque and Strasbourg me thinks) which led to the appearance of other counter-responses and so on...! Every time a "new" or "non-legal-WNT-ship" appeared someone rival would have to do something about it and build a ship in response.
Now, back to the Alaskas which were built already out of the WNT limits and following the line of thought were meant to deal with IJN "powerful" heavy-cruisers like the Chokai class (apparently the Baltimores were not good enough) or some more threatening ship then a Chokai but less powerful then a modernised Kongo which in fact never materialised. All this at a time that the battleship and the gun were passing the torch to the carrier and also at the time that a couple of new class of cruisers were being built and new battleships started. Ok, now I'm getting confused with my own writing because I find no purpose for this class of undefined ships....!!!!

[chuck]

The purpose of this class of vessels was to follow a line of development in cruisers expected to become the default position of all other major naval powers, but which was truncated by the advant of WWII.

I think without WWII, one might expect the typical major navy of 1945 will converge on the following types of new builds:

60,000 ton battleships

45,000 ton fleet carriers

30,000 ton heavy cruisers capable of independent operation

10,000+ ton fleet and AA cruisers

4-5000 ton destroyers.

[Lesforan]

The Alaska-class (supercruisers, light battleships, armored cruisers, whatever) ships would have made suitable substitutes for battleships in a world without battleships. This could have been a good role for them in the fifties. What was needed was good anti-aircraft platforms for carrier battle groups and good shore bombardment vessels with guns in excess of 8". With their increased size over Baltimores, they would have been good candidates for CG conversions. The guided missiles of the day were much larger than current ones, and required a large ship to carry them.

What we choose to call them matters only to us as hobbyists, and amateur naval historians.

[chuck]

There were little need for battleship substitutes in 1950s. As CG conversion they would be needlessly large. Although missiles of 1950s were large, the ability to guide multiple missiles in the air was also much more limited because most missiles required continuous illumination of the target and there were serious interference issues with having too many illuminators, to say nothing of the limited multi-target battle management capabilities available in 1950s. So it is silly to build giant missile cruisers with vast missile magazines that could only keep 4 missiles in the air at the same time and is likely to be overwhelmed in any real air attack just as easily as a much smaller cruiser like a full baltimore conversion.

[Lesforan]

Yes, and the guidance radars themselves were quite large. The answer came much later, in the Spruance-class destroyers and the Ticonderoga-class cruisers. But these ships, and the Albany-class cruisers that preceded them, were severely limited in gun capability. The Alaskas would have addressed that shortcoming. There may still have been a place for them.

[Seasick]

Four Alaska class completed would have had a lot of value as a fire support asset. The 12 inch guns would not produce the over pressure that the Iowa's 16 inch guns did. Which means they could have been upgraded with a wider variety of electronic equipment.

[JWintjes]

One aspect to take into consideration with regard to post-war use is that for their size - given that they were quite smaller than the Iowas - they had a fairly large complement. Now, I don't know how much of that was due to the light AA fit, but assuming that a basic crew (machinery, heavy artillery, 5in guns) was not significantly smaller than that of an Iowa, then the Iowas made much more sense economy-wise, being larger (better command facilities) and having more hitting power.

I find that the crew is a factor often overlooked in discussions of post-war navys; in fact, quite a number of WW2 ships went into reserve or were decommissioned because the manpower requirements were too high.

Jorit

[Moonboy242]

As for comparisons with the Scharnhorsts, the German ships had full BB armor. In fact, their side belt was slightly thicker than that on the Bismarcks. The Germans considered them to be BB's. The Alaskas make no pretense about having BB armor. Their immunity zone was calculated on the 60 degree target angle used for calculating the immunity zones of the US heavy and light cruisers, not the 90 degree target angle used for the US BB's.

As an added wrinkle, weren't the Scharnhorst's designed and built with the 11 inch gun, but specifically intended to be "up-gunned" to the 15 inch turrets later used by the Bismarck Class?

Another factor that probably came into play after the end of WWII was "we just don't want to spend any more money". When the war ended the US Navy had a lot of "traditional" cruiser hulls laying around, plus two Alaskas. The US Navy also had the largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world (in history?), and there were more than enough to go around looking for and sinking a Soviet surface raider... plus there was the added bonus of the acceptability (at that time) of using atomic weapons on anything, including surface fleets. The two Alaska probably found themselves out of a job because there were only two, and because there was a lot of other stuff that could do their job without the need for their large crews (the other currency the US did not want to spend money on at the time) at a time when "bring the boys home" was the loudest voice we heard as a nation.

I've thought about something else while reading the posts in this thread: The range of the Type 93 Torpedo. The Japanese navy doctrine prior to world war two called for the exploitation of this weapon to negate the range and numbers of the US battlefleet (and its cruiser / destroyer screen). Could this weapon have had an influence on the armament of the US Navy large 12 inch cruiser design?

[chuck]

1. Scharnhorst class was not designed to be up gunned to 15". They were designed to make use of the 6 11" triple turrets already ordered for 3 additional pocket battleships Germany had been allowed to build under versatile.

2. The USN had no idea about the range and hitting power of Japanese torpedoes until 1943, so that could not have had an effect on the decision regarding the basic characteristics of Alaska. If anything, alaska's lack of real torpedo defense architecture in her construction suggest torpedoes were taken lightly by her designers. Instead, her guns were dictated by a fantasy Japanese supercruiser she was meant to oppose.

[navydavesof]

Four Alaska class completed would have had a lot of value as a fire support asset. The 12 inch guns would not produce the over pressure that the Iowa's 16 inch guns did. Which means they could have been upgraded with a wider variety of electronic equipment.

Seasick has a point. While protecting electronics and equipment other than Aegis against the 5 psi of overpressure from the 16" guns was never a real problem, only a perceived problem, the 12" guns of the Alaskas would not have impacted unhardened electronics in such a way and would have provided a remarkable capability. The overpressure of 12" guns was impressive but nothing like that of 16" guns. Like the Iowa-class, NATO Sea Sparrow could have been adapted as well for 12" gun blast as almost any other electronic system available.

Dahlgren has reported to the US Navy and Congress that in order for the US Navy to accomplish the missions it has set forth for naval gunfire it needs a gun firing rounds 10" or greater. The 12" guns of the Alaskas would be a minimum sized gun to do everything the USN needs.

IF the 12" guns of the Alaskas had been preserved, the 11" extended ranged GPS or laser-guided rounds designed for the 16" guns of the battleships could be adapted for modern 12" use.

11inchER.jpg

This would provide the US Navy with the BEST naval gunnery capability. It would accomplish naval gunfire support and naval gunfire strike capability, helping to preserve the limited supply of $1.5 million tomahawk cruise missiles. Projectiles would also keep nearly $100 million dollar fighters from being exposed to being shot down and destroyed. The $200 million of two F/A-18 E/Fs would finish the R&D into the 11" ERGM sabot round and provide the US Navy with a reliable naval gunfire strike capability for the foreseeable future (30+ years).

[piorun]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Soviet Kronshtadt or Stalingrad class large cruisers. The Kronshtadts were contemporaries of the Alaskas, and were cancelled during the War, but the Stalingrad was launched after the war, and had the classes been completed, they might have given the US a reason to complete the unfinished Alaskas or Iowas.

[Dick J]

As an added wrinkle, weren't the Scharnhorst's designed and built with the 11 inch gun, but specifically intended to be "up-gunned" to the 15 inch turrets later used by the Bismarck Class?

This idea has been floated before, and has even made its way into some publications. However, the best that can be said is that the idea was explored before the construction. When Gneiseneau was damaged and was being reconstructed for 15" guns, the amount of work needed to strengthen the foundations for the heavier mountings and the work needed to re-balance the trim both point to this change being "after-the-fact" rather than "designed in". It was considered a bonus when measurements showed that a twin 15" would actually have rotational clearance with the bridge and other structures without requiring major redesign. As it was, special turrets were being constructed to match the existing roller paths for the 11" guns to the roller locations on the new 15" mounts. So you can see that, while the idea had been discussed when the ships were being built, no design changes for it had actually been worked in.

[Guest from another forum]

In regard to the Soviet Kronshtadt or Stalingrad class large cruisers the USN already had a superior counter to the projected ships - the Essex and Midway class aircraft carriers. Without supporting carriers all the projected Soviet battleships and large cruisers would have been restricted to coastal areas were land based fighters could protect them but the USN could concentrate their carrier forces to achieve local air superiority to deal with the soviet ships. But you say - "what if the Soviets had aircraft carriers" - then why build the battleships and large cruisers - better to use the resources on more carriers and AA escorts.

The fact is that other than for fire support missions, big gun ships were obsolete by the end of WW2, this is why the Iowa class were classified as Fire Support Ships rather than battleships in their latter days, (though the term battleship lingered on in the media for any ship with a gun bigger than rifle calibre)

The Soviet Kronshtadt or Stalingrad class large cruisers were the product of Stalin�s deranged mind, he could not understand naval airpower and wanted big gun ships. It should be noted that all the large gun armed ships under construction, including the last of the Sverdlovs cruisers, were cancelled virtually as soon as Stalin was dead and the Soviet navy moved to more effective missile armed ships.

[Moonboy242]

The fact is that other than for fire support missions, big gun ships were obsolete by the end of WW2, this is why the Iowa class were classified as Fire Support Ships rather than battleships in their latter days, (though the term battleship lingered on in the media for any ship with a gun bigger than rifle calibre)

The Iowas were never classified as "Fire Support Ships". They are, and always have been classified as "BB" or battleship. Doctrinally they have been utilized as multi-role vessels, and it was by virtue of the flexibility of their modernization that they were able to continue in their role as sea control vessels and gunfire support ships. The US Navy "surface action group" was centered on an Iowa and two Ticonderoga class cruisers, and while a SAG was not a substitute for a proper carrier battlegroup it did possess a significant anti-ship and gunfire support capability.

I do not believe that large well armored big gun warships became obsolete, I think their role changed and evolved from the preferred method of sea control to the preferred method of protecting and supporting carrier task forces.

[EJFoeth]

I do not believe that large well armored big gun warships became obsolete, I think their role changed and evolved from the preferred method of sea control to the preferred method of protecting and supporting carrier task forces.

In other words: totally obsolete? Just as the trireme changed from the dominant warship for ramming into a floating platform for boarding and troop transport, and now a movie prop.

Anyway, the big gun warship isn't (at all) the preferred method of protecting a carrier task force. Because their combat range is point-blank only and they are too noisy and inefficient to do anything else, they excel at coastal bombardment. It has been argued before that the battleship could do about 70% of the Vietnam bombardments. However, these aerial bombardments were totally ineffective at stopping the enemy ground troops, leading to the conclusion that the battleship would be totally ineffective at it too. She did manage to be a nice news subject and a diversion during the Iraq war, next to being a Tomahawk mule. Perhaps she should be reclassified as a fast monitor...

the ultimate armoured cruiser?

Hmm, large pocket battleship? (And it's a Yank vessel, so ultimate armored cruiser please)

[Russ2146]

However, these aerial bombardments were totally ineffective at stopping the enemy ground troops, leading to the conclusion that the battleship would be totally ineffective at it too.

This has always left me asking, if the BB were totally ineffective, why did North Viet Nam demand that they be pulled out of the war as a condition for peace talks? Was it because they had figured out warning systems for aircraft but not for 16" projectiles? Or did they just want their opponents to give up something of no consequence?