graduate

Alaska Class, U.S. Large Cruisers


Photograph of Alaska-class large cruiser

Naval Historical Center #97127

Schematic diagram of Alaska class large cruiser

ONI 222


Specifications:


Tonnage

29,799 tons standard displacement

Dimensions

808'6" by 91'1" by 32'4"
246.43m by 27.76m by 9.86m

Maximum speed      

33 knots

Complement

1517

Aircraft

2 catapults
4 seaplanes

Armament

3x3 12"/50 guns
6x2 5"/38 dual purpose guns
14x4 40mm Bofors AA guns
34x1 20mm Oerlikon AA guns

Protection

4720 tons
9" (229mm) belt sloped to 10 degrees (equivalent to 12" or 305mm) and tapered to 5" (127mm) at the bottom edge
10.2" (260mm) bulkheads closing the citadel
3.75" (95mm) main deck, tapered to 2.8" (71mm) inboard
10.6" (270mm) steering sides and bulkheads
1.5" (38mm) steering roof
0.75" (19mm) splinter deck
1.4" (36mm) upper deck
13" (330mm) barbette
12.8"/6"/5.2"/5" (325mm/152mm/133mm/127mm) turret face/side/rear/roof
10.6"/5" (269mm/127mm) conning tower side/roof
9'10" underwater protection
Immune zone 21,600-28,800 yards against 12" (305mm) shells
Machinery
4-shaft General Electric geared turbine (150,000 shp)
8 Babcock & Wilson boilers

Bunkerage

3619 tons fuel oil

Range

12,000 miles (19,300 km) at 15 knots
Sensors
SK air search radar
2 SG-1 surface search radar
2 Mark 8 fire control radar
2 Mark 12/22 fire control radar
Modifications No significant modifications during their short period of Pacific War service.

The Alaskas were completed in 1944 as "large cruisers", which has sometimes been characterized as a euphemism for battle cruisers. They were not true battle cruisers. Their role was not to scout for the fleet, but to provide carrier escort, and they lacked the underwater protection of true battle cruisers. Their armor protection of 4720 tons constituted 16.4% of their displacement, on the high side for a heavy cruiser but much less than the 30% of a true battle cruiser like the British Hood.

The Alaskas formed the heavyweight tier of a three-tiered cruiser family conceived in 1939 (the other two tiers eventually becoming the Baltimores and the Clevelands.) They were an utterly unnecessary design, doing nothing that an Iowa did not do better, and doing most things much worse; and, at $75 million apiece, they were not that much cheaper than the Iowas. They were originally a response to rumors that the Japanese had something similar in the works, which the Japanese did not. But they became a pet project of King, then serving on the General Board.

The Alaskas must be counted as one of the few design failures by the U.S. Navy during this period. Among their specific flaws was atrocious maneuverability, poor subdivision, the aforementioned inadequate torpedo protection, and poor antiaircraft direction that made the effective antiaircraft firepower little better than that of a heavy cruiser. About their only strengths were a decent main armament and beautiful lines. They might have been much better: Though the basic concept was flawed, some of the preliminary designs would at least have led to a decent mini-battleship like the French Dunkerques or a more balanced large cruiser. The grotesque final product was probably a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth, as the design process seems to have attracted an unusual amount of attention.

Units in the Pacific:

Alaska     

arrived 1945-1

Guam

arrived 1945-1-24

Photo Gallery

Side view of Alaska-class cruiser

U.S. Navy

Overhead view of Alaska-class cruiser

U.S. Navy

Bow view of Alaska-class cruiser

U.S. Navy

Miships view of Alaska-class cruiser

U.S. Navy

Aft superstructure of Alaska-class cruiser

U.S. Navy

40mm magazines in magazine room

U.S. Navy


References

DANFS

Friedman (1984)

Gogin (2010; accessed 2012-12-1)

Jane's

Whitley (1995)

Worth (2001)


Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional