AHC: A Different USS Alaska

Driftless

Donor
I'm going to go ahead and stick my face into the whirling fan......

Here's the challenge: create a different (and hopefully more useful) alternative to the historic USS Alaska's. The POD, is that post-Munich 1938, the US decides as part of an earlier naval build-up, (screw the London Naval Treaty) they too are going to build a panzerschiffe/cruiser killer, that can also run with the US Carriers. So, there's an opportunity for a somewhat different purpose and two years earlier start.

One thought I had was US naval architects and admirals getting a good look at the Dunkerque's and using the armament and armor layout concepts as a starting point. The marvelous 12'/50 Mk8's of the Alaska's would not be available yet for several years, so what alternative armament might be selected? If they're also going to be used as scouts/consorts for the Carriers, a hefty AA suite would be required (hefty by pre-war standards)

Of course, "They're all white elephants!!!!", you say. But the US ordered six Alaskas in late 1940 and actually commissioned two late in the war, so something along those lines was going to be built.....,

Just come up with something better and earlier. ;)
 
Last edited:
The 16”/45 Mk 6 was designed in 1936, so it’s an option... I’m going for 35000 tons full and 30000 standard max... I mean, a 6x16” ship with 12-20 5”/38’s is tempting, could probably get a 10” belt if I accept losing a knot or two, but that’s more small BB and less pocket BB so it doesn’t work. So, to me there are two things I could build: a freaking massive 8” thing or a 12” Cruiser killer. The first option would be more big Cruiser, with 12x8” Mk 12 and 12x5”, 7”. belt armor and 3” deck, 32ish knots. I don’t have spring sharp, but I’d ballpark it at 20,000 tons standard before it gets AA bolted to every possible surface. That’s pretty much a super Cruiser, and the 8” makes sure nobody sticks her in a BB fight, but she can take 8” shells and has a heavy broadside (just wait until super heavy shells come out). The other option to me is less fun, and is essentially making Alaska a sized down Iowa, instead of a sized up Baltimore, so capital ship level underwater protection, probably 16 5” and more room for light AA, definitely a better turning circle, and of course the 9 12” guns, nothing wrong with them. This ship is probably a few thousand tons heavier, at which point people ask why it isn’t a 16” BB.

So, in summary:
1. A 6x16” 30kt Dunkerque thing that is overkill for Cruisers and will be annihilated in a BB fight
2. A big Cruiser, will dominate a Cruiser fight, can run from BBs but might as well build more smaller Cruisers.
3. A better Alaska, my personal choice.
 

Driftless

Donor
I have zero SpringSharp skills, so no clue on how feasible this combo is:
  • Main battery forward, armored box skewed forward
  • 2turrets x 3guns 12"/50 mk7's (ala Wyoming class - too soon for the Mk 8's)
  • 16ea (8x2) 5"/38 DP secondaries
  • 42ea 1.1" AA (as designed - soon to be replaced by 40mm Bofors)
  • 32ea .5" Browing AA Machine guns (as designed - soon to be replaced by 20mm Oerlikons)
  • Can you squeeze 32knots from a 27,000 ton hull with an 8" belt?
 
My simplest idea, build the Alaskas as scaled-down Iowas. That makes them of small battleships, with the aviation arrangements on the stern instead of amidships. A scaled-up Baltimore is another idea. Or, take the original Des Moines-class plans scaled up to take the 12" turrets, and the corresponding belt armor. The original Des Moines plans already had heavy deck armor and bulkheads. Try to get two additional 5"/38 turrets into the design.
 
Have then built as CVs.......
This. They used the same size steam plant and are roughly the same displacement. One for one swap with an Essex.

Or, if you're that desperate for more big fast ships, use the materials to complete the Illinois and Kentucky instead.
 
Honestly for the Alaska class no matter which form it took to be useful it would need to have been ordered alongside the North Carolinas so that it would be available in the time period where having a cruiser killer would be useful both in its designed role and as a part the USN's carrier task forces AA screens
 
To use a golf analogy, they are too much club for the task at hand. A Baltimore could do most jobs that an Alaska could and be significantly cheaper and use less manpower.
 
To use a golf analogy, they are too much club for the task at hand. A Baltimore could do most jobs that an Alaska could and be significantly cheaper and use less manpower.
Alas it wasn't legal to build them until WWII broke out while the Alaskas were legal to build before the war.
 
Alas it wasn't legal to build them until WWII broke out while the Alaskas were legal to build before the war.
Really? I am not an expert but under the Lindon Naval Treaty where would the U.S. tonnage come from? As you said, they certainly are not "treaty cruisers", but did the USN use capital ship tonnage to build them?
 
No, the decision to arm the North Carolina's with 16in guns was made by executive order on the 10th of July 1937 after the Japanese pulled out of the 2nd London Treaty, effectively killing the treaty long before the Iowa and New Jersey were ordered in July 1939.
 
Really? I am not an expert but under the Lindon Naval Treaty where would the U.S. tonnage come from? As you said, they certainly are not "treaty cruisers", but did the USN use capital ship tonnage to build them?
Congress limited the size of the navy at the 1st LNT limits. Even with the 2nd LNT abolishing tonnage quotas, the navy had to wait for Congress to approve increases in tonnage. Alaska would have been under battleship tonnage, reducing the amount of actual BB’s the USN could build.
 
No, the decision to arm the North Carolina's with 16in guns was made by executive order on the 10th of July 1937 after the Japanese pulled out of the 2nd London Treaty, effectively killing the treaty long before the Iowa and New Jersey were ordered in July 1939.
Did it not just relax the rules to 16" and later 35-45,000t of the escalator size, why would this kill the treaty if others abided to this?
 
Because the only party still abiding by the treaty by then was the UK, and the only reason for that was the KGV's main guns were too far along to change.
 
So what, exactly, is this class of ship supposed to do?

The British and French actually had a use for cruiser-killers - they expected Germany to use fast cruisers for globally wide-flung commerce warfare. The U.S. didn't expect that from the Japanese, which is why the Alaskas didn't actually make sense from a strategic perspective (or, reallym any other perspective). And US planning definitely revolved around countering Japanese plans, while only modestly taking Germany into account.
 
Top