There were no political reasons for any subterfuge about what sort of ship the Alaska Class were, as all treaty limitations had lapse by the time they were designed and built, if the USN thought they were battlecruiser there was nothing stopping them using the term, but the USN new they were cruisers and not ships of capital rank.
When comparing the Dunkerque, which was classed ad a battleship not a battlecruiser, to the Alaska you have to take into account that the Dunkerque was designed and built when it was expect that Treaty limitation would be substantially reduced from the 35,000 tons/16” guns, the Royal Navy was pushing for 25,000tons/12’ guns. The Dunkerque speed came not from being a battlecruiser but from improvements in ship propulsion. All capital units built from the mid 1930’s were much faster than most battleships in existence at that time. The same with the Schnarnhorst which was further restricted to look like it was only 26,000 tons when it was around 32,000 tons with much stronger armour again it was classed as a battleship by the Germans and its speed was to do with better engines etc.
The roles you quote for the Alaska class “to be a part of he battle line or operate independent of the battle line, disrupt enemy cruiser concentrations and hunt down raiders” was basically the role of all cruiser especially the 8” gun ships in most large navy’s (the USN, IJN and RN all had similar roles for their cruisers. So in fact you are confirming that the Alaska class were actually cruisers.
The uniqueness of these ships lead to them to be names after US territories rather than cities (Alaska and Hawaii did not become states until aWW2. Capital ship manes were state names for battleships and battles names for battlecruisers (latter aircraft carriers).
By 1940 the 12” guns had be far superseded as a battleship gun, the fact that a few ancient relics were still around courtesy of the interwar treaties does not change this at all. The weapons being considered for capital ships were 15’ to 20” – compared to these weapons a 12” guns, no matter how good it is will still not be a weapon for a capital ship built after 1940.
The USN did not deny the battlecruiser description, it was never really considered. All contemporary documents of the time describe the Alaska design studies* and latter design as heavy cruisers (CA) only at the end of the design process did the term large cruiser (CB) come to be used, there was no use of the term battlecruiser (CC). If the USN wanted to call these ship battlecruisers they could have but had designed them to be cruisers, large ones yes, but still just cruisers.
When trying to understand these ships you need to forget all capital ship built before 1940 as they were built to different requirements and treaty limitations. With the start of WW2 the options for warship design was unrestricted other than cost and building resources which meant cruisers to grow to the size of the Alaska while capital unit design became huge 60,000 tons to over 100,000 tons. Compared to these capital ship designs the size of the Alaska was relative to pre-war cruiser to prewar battleships.
* Please see http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/albums/s511-cr.htm . You will note the drawings are all labeled with the prefix CA which is to say it is a heavy cruiser design study. Despite a lot of research there does not appear to be any official naval documents relating to these ships as battlecruisers, though some naval newspapers used this term incorrectly.
If you have not already got it I suggest you get a copy of Norman Friedman’s US Cruisers a Design History as it includes good coverage of the Alaska class cruisers.
There’s a lot of people on the web you wish or want the Alaska class to be battlecruisers but when you look at the facts they were not battlecruisers and you can not go back and change history because its not the way you wish it to be. Also a huge percentage of naval enthusiasts recognize that the Alaska’s were not battlecruisers as does the US Navy.
The Alaska class large cruisers were never considered to be battlecruisers by the USN, there is no historic records other than “popular press” that refers to the Alaska class ships as battlecruisers, even the fact that some sailors on these ships refer to them as battlecruisers, it doesn’t change the fact that they were designed, built, used, and scrapped as large cruisers. No matter how often people say they were battlecruisers they never were and never will be.
Insights, advice, suggestions, feedback and comments from experts
As an expert in naval history, I can provide you with comprehensive information about the concepts mentioned in the article. Let's break down the key points:
-
Treaty Limitations: The article states that there were no political reasons for any subterfuge about the Alaska Class ships. By the time they were designed and built, all treaty limitations had lapsed. This means that the United States Navy (USN) had the freedom to classify these ships as they saw fit.
-
Alaska Class: The USN classified the Alaska Class ships as cruisers, not ships of capital rank. Despite some debate and confusion, the USN considered them to be large cruisers (designated as CA) or later as large cruisers (CB), but not as battlecruisers (CC).
-
Dunkerque: A comparison is made between the Alaska Class and the French battleship Dunkerque. The Dunkerque was designed and built based on the expectation that treaty limitations would be reduced. Its speed was achieved through advancements in ship propulsion, not because it was considered a battlecruiser.
-
Capital Ship Design: The article emphasizes that the Alaska Class ships should be understood within the context of post-1940 warship design. The weapons being considered for capital ships at that time were 15" to 20", rendering the 12" guns on the Alaska Class obsolete for a capital ship.
-
Role of Cruisers: The article clarifies that the roles mentioned for the Alaska Class ships, such as being a part of the battle line or operating independently, disrupting enemy cruiser concentrations, and hunting down raiders, were typical roles for cruisers in most large navies.
-
Naming Convention: The uniqueness of the Alaska Class ships led them to be named after US territories rather than cities. State names were traditionally used for battleships, while battle names were used for battlecruisers and later for aircraft carriers.
-
Historical Records: The article states that there are no official naval documents referring to the Alaska Class ships as battlecruisers, although some naval newspapers may have used this term incorrectly. The official designation for these ships was as large cruisers.
-
Expert Opinion: The article suggests referring to Norman Friedman's book, "US Cruisers: A Design History," for a thorough understanding of the Alaska Class cruisers. It is noted that a significant percentage of naval enthusiasts recognize that the Alaska Class ships were not battlecruisers.
In conclusion, the Alaska Class ships were designed, built, used, and scrapped as large cruisers, not battlecruisers. The USN, official records, and a majority of naval enthusiasts recognize them as such.
