Conceived during the tumultuous 1930s, the U.S. Navy’s Alaska-class has long sparked debate among naval historians and enthusiasts. Initially designed as a counter to foreign naval developments, notably the German “pocket battleships” and rumored Japanese “super cruisers,” the Alaska-class battlecruisers—or “large cruisers,” depending on one’s perspective—represented a significant investment in U.S. naval power.

These formidable ships boasted a modern armament of 12-inch guns capable of challenging enemy cruisers, yet their role in warfare was quickly overshadowed by the dominance of aircraft carriers and submarines.

The two completed ships, Alaska and Guam, along with the incomplete Hawaii, were built at a staggering cost, with each carrying a price tag of $74 million in 1941 dollars. Despite this investment, the vessels were, to a degree, victims of their times, entering service too late to meaningfully alter the course of World War II.

The strategic dilemma these ships posed was encapsulated by their varied descriptions. Officially designated as “large cruisers” and named after U.S. territories rather than states or cities, their classification has long been a subject of contention. Were they battlecruisers in the traditional sense, or something entirely distinct?

The National World War II museum once highlighted, “The modern 12” guns carried by the Alaska’s were also an improvement over the 14-inch guns carried by the older battleships in the U.S. fleet. Moving at a top speed of 33 knots, these ships were designed to be cruiser-killers, and would be able to get in and get out of trouble as quickly as possible and throw a hell of a punch.”

Naval planning in rapidly evolving warfare environments proved to be a challenge for the Navy, which should have gleaned lessons from the Alaska-class experience. The ships were indeed an impressive sight, fast and sleek, and had they been introduced in an era like World War I, they would have likely dominated the seas.

After the war, discussions about converting the remaining ships into guided-missile cruisers surfaced but were ultimately deemed too expensive. The vessels were decommissioned after less than two years in service and sold for scrap in the early 1960s. The Alaska-class battlecruisers’ legacy, while marred by their misalignment with wartime needs, nonetheless remains a significant chapter in naval history, representing a bridge between traditional surface combatants and the era of carrier and submarine warfare.

Their story is not just a technical analysis of military hardware but also a reflection of the complexities and shifting doctrines of mid-20th century naval warfare. The debate over their classification, whether as large cruisers or battlecruisers, continues to engage military tech and politics enthusiasts, who ponder over the intricacies of these majestic ships and their place in the annals of naval history.

Relevant articles:
– The U.S. Navy’s Alaska-Class Battlecruiser Nightmare, The National Interest
– Alaska-Class Battlecruiser: The U.S. Navy’s Biggest Warship Mistake?, The National Interest
– Alaska class large cruisers (1943), naval encyclopedia
– The Alaska class – Was it a battlecruiser or an unusually large cruiser?, SpaceBattles