The famous WWII-era Alaska-Class Battlecruisers were developed as far back as the 1930s to counter large German ships emerging during the lead-up to WWII. Of a planned class of six ships, only three were actually built and two were commissioned into service during WWII.
Floating the Alaska-Class
The two WWII Alaska-class ships, the USS Alaska and USS Guam, performed critical duties during the war in the Pacific. The USS Alaska and USS Guam were both used to screen and protect aircraft carriers in the Pacific and provided “shore bombardment” at Okinawa.
A third Alaska-class cruiser called the USS Hawaii was built but never commissioned.
The ships were designed and built as major WWII-era maritime warfare platforms with Mk 8 guns mounted in three-gun turrets, according to NavWeapons.com. Such shore-bombardment weapons were of critical importance during the WWII era.
It was prior to the advent of precision-fired weaponry able to track and pinpoint targets from greater stand-off ranges. The Alaska-class Battlcruisers proved critical in supporting amphibious assaults by blanketing attacked area defenses with suppressive fire as forces moved onto the land and delivered weapons and equipment.
The Time of Bombardment
These large bombardment warships might arguably be much more vulnerable today as they bombarded key target areas prior to the advent of longer-range, precision-guided anti-ship missiles. While the Alaska-class cruisers certainly faced threats and incoming attacks from enemy ground or sea weapons, ultra-long-range, precise anti-ship missiles did not yet exist, so the battlecruiser could fire guns and bombard at closer-in ranges with less risk.
The principal technological breakthroughs that impacted the existence and mission scope of the Alaska-class battlecruisers likely resolve around range and precision.
Unguided bombardments proved effective as area weapons able to support maneuvering amphibious attacking forces, yet advanced enemy defenses such as ground-fired anti-ship missiles improved in range and guidance capacity. This made large bombarding battlecruisers more vulnerable and less able to perform their intended missions.
Aerial view of warships at the base piers of Norfolk Naval Base, Virginia (USA), circa August 1944. Among them are: the battleship USS Missouri (BB-63), the largest ship; the battlecruiser USS Alaska (CB-1), on the other side of the pier; the escort carrier USS Croatan (CVE-25), and two destroyers, a Fletcher-class destroyer at the pier and a Clemson/Wilkes-class-destroyer moored outboard.
Alaska-Class. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
The U.S. Navy large cruiser USS Guam (CB-2) underway off Trinidad on 13 November 1944 during shakedown training.
Long-range, precision-guided attack weapons also enabled warships to attack from much safer stand-off distances, making closer-in bombardments less necessary to a certain extent.
Should a modern warship be able to blanket an area with large numbers of precision-guided cruise missiles able to destroy land defenses and targets at sea from hundreds of miles away, there would be less need for closer-in suppressive fire.
Therefore, while critical for their time as indispensable to amphibious attack and maritime warfare in the Pacific, it would make sense if the rapid arrival of improved enemy weapons rendered the Alaska-class ships less impactful.
This might help explain why only three were built, and two served in the war when the original vision was to build a class of six ships.
Kris Osborn is the Military Affairs Editor of 19FortyFive and President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University
George H Avery, PhD
June 2, 2023 at 8:23 pm
The Alaska class were NOT battlecruisers, and the US Navy never characterized them as such. For one, battlecruisers were armed with the same guns as battleships and displaced as much. The only difference was that battle cruisers were equipped with much lighter armor to give them increased speed. They were primarily intended to scout ahead of the line of battle, clearing away a screen of enemy cruisers while being fast enough to evade the enemy line of battle when they encountered it, with commerce raiding as a secondary mission.
The Alaska class did NOT have battleship-class guns, at least not by the standards of any battleship laid down after around 1910. From the Orion-class (laid down in 1909) onward, British battleships had 14″ or larger guns. The US moved to 14″+ guns with the New York class laid down in 1911. The German Kriegsmarine moved to 15″ guns in 1913 with the Deutschland class – the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau being intermediary platforms as the Germans rebuilt construction capability lost due to the Treaty of Versailles. The French moved to bigger guns with the 1913 Bretagne-class.Japan moved to 14″ guns in 1912 with the Fuso class, and Italy went to 15″ guns with the 1914 Francesco Caracciolo class.
The Alaskas were ordered as the next generation of heavy cruisers in response to the Kriegsmarine’s launching of the Deutschland-class heavy cruisers, which were overarmed with 11″ guns – as well as the propsed B-65 class cruisers of the Imperial Japanese Navy. They were always intended to serve in the cruiser role -scouts, escorts, anti-commerce raiders – rather than in a position with a line of battle. They were basically an evolution of the Baltimore-class of heavy cruisers, with the hull scaled up to handle 12″ guns and the machinery of an Essex-class aircraft carrier. By the time they were laid down, the mission-role had changed to that of escort for the fast carrier force – fast enough to keep up with the Essex and Yorktown classes, packing a LOT of anti-aircraft capability, and possessing longer range guns than existing Japanese cruisers. They were never armored to the level of even a battlecruiser – (9″ of belt armor compared to 12″ on HMS Hood,11″ on Kirishima). The difference between their guns and those of the contemporary fast battleships was similar to the difference between the guns on the Baltimore-class and their light cruiser Cleveland-class counterparts – not the true battleship guns of a battlecruiser. Aside from service as escorts for TF38/58, they also served as flagships for cruiser squadrons, and never served in a battlecruiser role.
The only battlecruiser design considered by the US Navy was the Lexington class, which were designed around a battery of four dual 16″ gun turrets. Construction was paused under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty, and the ships were redesigned as fleet carriers – the USS Lexington (CV-2) and Saratoga (CV-3). The design was MUCH larger than the 29,000 ton gross displacement Alaskas -the Lexingtons were to have a standard displacement of around 36,000 tons, with a gross displacement at full load of over 40,000 tons – comparable to the later Iowa class battleships or Midway class aircraft carriers.
Robert Greenwood
September 19, 2023 at 5:59 pm
I was in training for Talos missile system elements in 1966 – 67 at Mare Island Naval Training Command. While looking around at the Shipyard part of the base, I came across two (2) strange looking ships on opposite sides of a pier. There were the usual signs to keep out and the like and each ship had an insignia with their name and designation. Alaska CB 1 and Guam CB 2. I’ve always regretted not taking prohibited pictures. To me they were huge especially when compared to my first ship USS Little Rock CLG 4.