In addition, despite being much larger than the "Baltimore" class, the numbers of secondary and anti-aircraft batteries of the "Alaska"s were similar. Whereas the "Alaska" class carried twelve 5"/38 caliber in six twin turrets, fifty-six 40 mm, and thirty-four 20 mm guns, the "Baltimore" class carried the same number of 5"/38s, eight fewer 40 mm, and ten fewer 20 mm., considerably fewer than new U.S. battleships that had ten (save for ) 5"/38 twin mounts while older refitted U.S. battleships had eight. The dearth of anti-aircraft weaponry for a ship of its size was attributed to the amidships aircraft catapult like older US cruisers; while other modern U.S. cruisers and battleships opted for stern-mounted aircraft catapults to free up space along the central superstructure for more secondaries and anti-aircraft guns. In common with U.S. heavy cruisers, they had aircraft hangars and a single large rudder; the single rudder combined with the hull's long length gave the "Alaska"s a turning radius of 800 yards which exceeded the turning circles of larger battleships and carriers in the U.S. Navy. Author Richard Worth remarked that when they were finally completed, launched, and commissioned, they had the "size of a battleship but the capabilities of a cruiser". The "Alaska" class was similarly expensive to build and maintain as contemporary battleships yet far less capable due to armor deficiencies, while able to put up an anti-aircraft defense comparable only to the much cheaper "Baltimore" cruisers.