What do you think about today's episode? Do you have cruiser Alaska in collection?:) 📝 Leave us a comment right after subscribing to the channel 🔔 wo.ws/RUclips-subscription Today, we're focusing on American Tier IX Premium cruiser Alaska, classified by the U.S. Navy as a "large cruiser." The design solutions implemented on Alaska made her similar to the battle cruisers of old, but she’s not just any old cruiser. In the history of the U.S. Navy, she is the only ship-along with her sister ship USS Guam-to have the "large cruiser" classification. 00:00 - Intro. Dry Dock: Alaska - American cruiser 00:30 - History of Roma 03:20 - American Tier IX Premium cruiser Alaska In World Of Warships Recommended playlists: 👁🗨 Dry Dock - wo.ws/34bpBh1 World of Warships is the largest virtual shipyard in the world. The quality of the work performed by our artists improves each year, and the requirements for the accuracy of the models they create intensify respectively. 👁🗨 Naval Legends - wo.ws/2Kharxt Naval Legends is a series about the construction, service, and daring deeds of legendary 20th-century ships. Very few vessels survived World War I and II -- most were decommissioned and scrapped. The Naval Legends production crew travels all across the globe to visit almost every active museum ship and chronicle her story. 👁🗨 Naval Fortress - wo.ws/3wbRm8u Naval Fortress is a video series dedicated to the famous strategic forts and coastal defence fortresses. 👁🗨 In The Ports of World of Warships - wo.ws/3q8uy5w In this series, we'll be talking about the intricate details and exclusive features of our in-game Ports. 👁🗨 Armada - wo.ws/3vjlf3b Deep guides for in-game Warships: history, gameplay tips, unique features, advantages and disadvantages and many-many more! 👁🗨 Head Over Keels Is Back - wo.ws/3Jlgk92 👁🗨 Warships Size Comparison - wo.ws/35Wrsef This is a playlist where we compare ships by class, nation, tier, firepower, etc. 👁🗨 Armchair Admirals - wo.ws/3i9sgPp 👁🗨 Naval Traditions - wo.ws/36Cllbz 👁🗨 1:42 Scale Ships - wo.ws/3teWqqx 1:42 Scale is a video series about the history of ship building in the Russian Empire, which is based on the masterpieces of the ship scale modeling. 👁🗨 World of Warships Movies and Trailers - wo.ws/3ewuN4y ⚓⚓⚓ Keep an eye out on the official World of Warships website: wo.ws/website Quick start in WoWs for our subscribers: wo.ws/yt-gift If you're a console player, check out WoWs: Legends wo.ws/WoWSLegends Twitter: wo.ws/twitter Facebook: wo.ws/fb Instagram: wo.ws/inst #worldofwarships #warships #wows
I cant play the game due to my device my parents phone can have this game but they are busy so can't play the game but i played it on time and i have your other game world of tanks
After the Enterprise's drydock video was released, enterprise was banned from sale. After the Jean bart's drydock video was released, jean bart was banned form sale. And now Alaska's drydock video is released.
USN: no no she ain't a battlecruiser, she's just a thicc heavy cruiser buffs: a thicc heavy cruiser packing Essex internals, packing improved guns based on the old Wyoming's barrels and an AA suite that North Carolina would empty her bilge tanks for? USN: yes SEEMS LEGIT
The Alaska class had only slightly more medium and small caliber AA guns than a Baltimore class believe it or not, and engine layout has as far as I know never been a deciding factor in classification (except maybe battleship vs fast battleship, but thats down more to top speed).
It would have been AMAZING for one of these extremely rare ships preserved as a museum just as the Iowa’s were! I still believe with all my heart that the US Navy will have a use for a battleship or heavy cruiser once again someday for shore bombardment.
TheBlackob it’s primarily down to it’s design being more of a cruiser on steroids rather than a down-armored battleship. The designation doesn’t really mean to much at the end of the day, and it’s just whatever they decide to call it, as it would fit into the battlecruiser designation fine, along with just being a (very) heavy cruiser
battlecruises are a thing that japanese and germans would call them america would call them heavy cruisers and light cruisers but since people don’t really like saying heavy cruisers they just say battle cruisers
@@kayasky7712 As far as I know, a heavy cruiser is not a battlecruiser. There is a difference, otherwise the Hipper Class would've been battle cruiser. In reality, Scharnhorst was closer to a battlecruiser.
TheBlackob yeah it’s just kinda like the whole hms hood situation with people calling it a battleship but in reality it’s a battlecruiser which is kinda odd
My dad was a Marine on the Alaska. I remember going to a river with my dad, I think the Hudson to see her before she was cut up. I was 6. The river was loaded with war ships. I'm not sure if we found it but I remember the ships. I might have an 8mm film of it. My dad had a movie camera. I still have a pile of films in boxes.
Something that might increase the number of premium ships bought by making people less skeptical when buying them is if wg allows us to go into something that allows us to play the premium ship against stationary ships in open waters. This will allow us to try things before we buy making it so we are more willing to spend money on the ship if we like the feel of it and it forces wg to not make crappy premium ships just to get people to spend money on trying the ship out to tell other people not to buy the ship.
@Ian Macdonell If they didn't built the Iowa's these Alaska Class Cruisers would have been needed as escort to carriers or a convoy since the have the speed, it's just that the Iowa class BBs have overpowered engines that can keep up with carriers.
@@grimmshredsanguinus2915 Wrong, the Alaska is a bow tanking machine, sure its not a Stalingrad, but it can Bow tank anything out past 10 kms like nothing, even T10s.
If i am right the class "large cruiser" were classified as that instead of "battlecruiser" mostly because of the budget, the USA were already producing vast amount of ship however the thing they were very concerned is that the public/tax payer would be furious to spend a lot just for 1 bigger ship, so the goverment had to reclass the name just to hide there real identity saying that this ship is more of a beefy heavy cruiser when reality it was a mini battleship, i may be wrong on this but i do remember from ichase reviewing the history talking about this ship
Alaska needs to be brought back into the game!! I was so close to getting her had about 800k in Free experience and of course the 1 credit and was so close when you all up and removed her which saddened me as I wanted this ship so badly! Please being Alaska back!
USS Alaska, sehr schönes Schiff, eindrucksvoll, leistungsfähig gutes Design, so hätten die deutschen Schweren Kreutzer der Admiral Hipper Klasse aussehen sollen, jedoch mit 4 Drillings Türmen 12 Inch/Zoll, 30,5 cm. Hauptartellerie, und anstatt US 12,7 cm. die deutsche 12,8 cm. Mehrzweck Geschütze (Kanone, Haupitze,Flak)
My favorite ship class of all time. It’s a real shame that Alaska or Guam never got into a surface engagement with any Japanese navy imperial ships. Would’ve been really nice to see what they could’ve done in combat.
komrade, the ship was never built, it can have any range it wants! but we chose 53 for the amount of rubels we are paying our workers a month to build the ship XAXAXAXXA
@@grimmshredsanguinus2915 we can grind them easily, u can spam HE at them until they die, u can trop them easily, u can show broadside safely after he shot a salvo, its just free dmg for the ones against them, so I don't think its useless :)
It is really a beautiful ship with an identity crisis. People will be debating this forever if what really is the classification of the Alaska class cruisers.
I just thought of something! Why don't they add the N3 class battleships design as a tier 10 premium/freemium (I would pay for that)? You just have to change some things: 1. Increase the speed from 23 knots to 30 knots (29.5 works too for tier 10) 2. Increase the anti-aircraft armament to a point that works at tier 10. Why else thinks this is a good idea?
Could you guys please do a naval legends video on the aircraft carrier Nimitz. Of course it isn’t in the necessarily in the time period of ships you cover however I believe the admiral who the ship is named after as well as the many decades of service make the cvn-68 a clear choice for a future naval legends video. Attempt #1 I am going to post this until it happens
@@robr4662 I already have Wooster (used to be a good HE spammer before Smolensk and PanEU dds came along), Moskva & Siegfried. I now want a premium USN ship to add to my collection :)
@@Ghost-gc7dj Alaska is definitely worth it. Her AP shells are American super-heavy, and with a 305 mm size shell, they hurt when they pen, and speaking of pen she has the improved American cruiser penetration angles. She is very accurate, fast and agile. Her AA can shred CV aircraft of T8 and put the hurt on T10. She has decent armor. She has access to heal, hydro/def AA, and radar/fighter/spotter. I run with a hydro+radar load-out because her AA is sufficient enough without a fighter and her range is decent without a spotter. The only "downside" to her is the slow shells that are standard to the USN, but as a USN main I'm used to it. Flamu has called her OP and I'm a little inclined to agree with him, she is very good and I'd say the best choice of the T9 super cruisers. Alaska won't let you down, definitely worth the FXP and money.
@@admiralfrazier306 USN's slow shell flight time really takes some getting used to! Regrinding NC and Iowa after a year of IJN and German ships really messed up my aim and instincts. I'm sure Alaska is a good ship in good hands, it just takes a captain who understands her well. :)
Sol Berione Well, the guns of Odin were built and tested and her design was "built" when Scharnhorst was laid down. Thunderer is pretty much an upgraded Lion and her guns were tested too. The GK video is weird because there was no talking, but the 406 guns that were supposed in the Z-Plan were widely in use for coastal batteries. The Japanese "circle five" plan which included the Azuma were cancelled early on because Japan had to shift towards aircraft carriers. Of course all this is theorycrafting and I dont know the definitive answer.
@@tanktope5453 Yeah, I guess. I mean even the Dry Dock intros already tell "Others weren't completed" and "Some were laid up, and can only dream about battles", as well as "Re-create ships according to their historical blueprints". *Also flashes Stalingrad blueprints in the intro segment, a ship in the same state as Azuma, historical-wise*
@@tanktope5453 Point here is not the guns or any part of the ship, but instead the ship itself as a whole. So even if each of their supposed guns exist, it doesn't count if the ship's keel hadn't even been laid down.
Missouri is in the game as premium ship, however due to WG giving her a far too god credit income she is only available in certain containers with a very low chance (Christmas containers). North Carolina is the tech tree tier 8 BB. Oklahoma could only be a tier 5 BB as we already have the Arizona and West Virginia 1941 at tier 6. But mid tier premium ships are not very popular so I doubt WG will introduce a tier 5 one. Maybe if the California sells well we'll see a 1945 Nevada at tier 6.
wait, do you mean these ships would have the names of the territories of the united states? Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Samoa if that is so, I have one word. AWESOME !!!
yep, this is true as it was felt that the ships were too big to be named after cities like heavy and light cruisers, but not big enough to be named after states like battleships (Alaska and Hawaii were still only US territories at the time).
No it's not our fault. WG missed a key detail, US Congress didn't want to spend money on "useless" capitalships so the USN had to wiggle their way around the words and instead of the Alaska Class 'Battlecruisers' it was the Alaska Class 'Large Cruisers' just so the USN could evade the ever prying eyes known as congress. Overall WG fucked up by not including that bit of information so now we have to put up with non americans complaining about the designation terms.
@@timber_wulf5775 I don't understand this commonly said argument, I'm fairly certain that congress gets to see more than just the classification of the ship the navy is asking for, like congress still has to fork over the same amount of cash to build the ship regardless of if it's classed as a heavy cruiser, large cruiser, battlecruiser or super star destroyer. "so now we have to put up with non americans complaining about the designation terms" are you claiming on non-Americans Know that the Alaska is a Large cruiser? literally most of the people who I argue with that think it should be classed as a Battlecruiser are British (I guess they believe the british have the final say on warships even after no longer being the #1 navy on earth).
John McCarthy Remember this, congress designed the Tillman class, not directly as they had someone do it for them but that shouldn’t excuse them. They are generally dumb enough to just pass things and at the time of the war they were passing carriers left and right while noting that large surface capital ships were a dying breed. Naming the Alaska’s battlecruisers would have done nothing but get their funding denied due to the title and designation. Tweak small aspects of a ship design and you can get funding approved. While yes congress can see the designs and what it was going to be they still aren’t that smart. Remember congress has made plenty of dumb decisions and concepts throughout america’s existence and making it sound like an “improved baltimore class” is enough to get the funding approved
@@timber_wulf5775 Congress didn't design the tillmans, senator tillman asked the navy design bureau to give him the maximum specifications that they would design for a battleship since he got very annoyed that every time of the United States Navy came to the Congress with a battleship design, the battleship was bigger than the last class, and that they were a little bit larger and more expensive than had actually been asked of from Congress. and although I agree that congress is retarded, a big price tag for an all gun ship is still just the same big price tag of money not being spent on new carriers. personally I think asking for just "an improved baltimore class" for around double the cost might turn some heads.
@sullivansaunders6514 ..yup, but being Samoan, I'm proud of the fact that the Navy Dept even considered having Alaska class warships named after the territories.
@@John_McCarthy1 Its a battlecruiser. Sacrifices protection for armament and speed. The hull code is even CB, which can be interpreted as 'Cruiser, battle"
Gee a cruiser killer, killer, this idea sounds vaguley familiar, almost like a battlecruiser or pocket battleship. Funny how that is. Good thing it wasnt around about 5 years earlier, some admiral would have figured "Hey, its a battleship level armed ship, it can face off against something like a kongo". He could have ask Jelicoe about how well that works too but I promise would have still pulled the same stupid stunt, with the same result.
Don't throw Jellicoe under the bus for Beatty making mistakes he could have avoided. It's people like you who make the entire Jellicoe family suffer to this day by promulgating false information.
@@alphariusomegon6711 In no way was I meaning to disparage Jelicoe, nor his family. With that being said, he was witness, and in command, to the outcome when you place ships designed to fight cruisers into a fight with fully armoured battleships. Had the Alaska been available, I have no doubt that it would have at one time, been called upon to face a kongo, or even God forbid, a Yamato class ship. With the predictable outcome of her being blown apart, akin to what happened to the Hood.
Tbh I don’t know why I even still have WoWs installed anymore I don’t play it. To me it seems that armor doesn’t exist and no matter how much I angle the ship most shells penetrate.
Curious Entertainment Maybe yo know nothing about the game because 16 inch gun cna still overmatch your bow, stern and plating stupid , only tier 8 german bb like bismarck or tirpitz a, jean bart or bourgne a toer x ship or anything with with 15 inch or lower can bounce with 27 mm. When you in in a tier x match facing high caliber bb shells, you wont be protected that why I recommended full steering module in this ship.
*i just had a video in the back and suddenly i heard all this japanese (I think?) screaming and explosions... I opened up my tab and saw it was for this game...* 😆
@@timber_wulf5775 oi dude I mean there should be two separate cruiser kinds AKA lights and heavies. Caz it's not fair to have only lights in one team while opposite has multiple superheavies. And you know most of the mm does like that.
@@grimmshredsanguinus2915 Georgia is awesome. It has accurate guns, solid secondaries and its fast. It can even outrun some DDs with her speedboost. So if u get burned down in the Georgia and did no damage our to dumb for the game.
No, if you convert for the standard price you spend doubloons for over 130 Euro to get her (25 XP per doubloon), if you us discounted conversion (35 XP per doubloon) you still pay 94 Euro. You can buy the Alaska in the premium shop directly for 63.5 Euro.
@@shinnidan converting 250.000 XP to free XP costs 32.9 Euro at standard rate and 23.5 Euro with discount. A tier 8 premium cruiser costs around 38 Euro. So from that point the Alaska is worth it. It's up to you if you are willing to spend that many of your free XP and the money.
About "Large Cruisers" and "Battlecruisers" Battlecruisers originated from the line of battle. As Fisher imagined it, first, a battlecruiser should serve as the backbone of the vanguard fleet in the line of battles to secure victory against enemy Vanguards: In the case of the HMS Invincible, the enemy vanguard fleet would be comprised of armoured cruisers, thus Invincible is said to "make all (armoured ) cruisers obsolete". This is also the common misconception of Battlecruisers are "designed" to fight cruiser comes from, where the truth is, in fact, opposite, where battlecruisers are designed to fight the enemy vanguard fleet but those vanguard fleets in the time of 1905 happen to be comprised of cruisers. These ships are also tasks to form the fast wings of the battleline and to pursue the retreating enemy forces once the initial is won. Thus a battlecruiser would play an important role in major fleet engagement, although differences with battleships may apply however in Fisher's report to de design committee in 1905 one the design of the Invinsiables he blatantly calls the HMS Invincible a "fast battleship". It can be considered through the development of battlecruisers the British did eventually come up with a, arguably the first, fast battleship, the HMS Hood. With the high speed and relative high firepower brought by these requirements also bring about the battlecruiser's second task, it is thought that these ships would also be ideal in the role of anti-anti-commerce raiding. Thus these ships are also tasked to patrolling the seven seas and do raider hunting, where they can easily catch the fleets that the battleships cannot, and destroy those which the cruisers cannot. This concludes the two primary roles of a Battlecruiser, at least from where it is first envisioned. What about Alaska? Alaska is really an odd case, as Norman Friedman points out in his book about American CRUISERS, although having a superstructure of a battleship, Alaska uses a cruiser armour scheme. The design evaluations are also focused on anti cruiser engagements, with one really odd design resemblance of an even more over gunned Atlanta. Before anyone says that Alaska is a "battlecruiser" due to the fact that the design is anti-cruiser focused, one must understand Alaska is not designed in 1905. The first primary role of a battlecruiser, that is to be the backbone of a Vanguard fleet and a fast flank may only require them to engage cruisers in 1905, however, in 1940 the IJN's Vanguard fleet is likely comprised of the Kongos, and might also require the engagement of the assumed "50000 ton 16-inch battleship" that turned out to be the Yamatos. Alaska is not designed to fight these threats, in fact, Alaska is not even initially designed to fight the B65s, who has a better claim to the Battlecruiser name due to their position in the IJN vanguard fleet along the Kongos. Then what did USN do to fight these threats? Around 1935 a proposal for a battleship specifically aims to take on the Kongos arise demanded 32 knots of speed and 9 14-inch guns. After the rumoured Japanese 50000 ton 16-inch battleships are confirmed, the requirement is updated to 9 16 inch guns to face this new threat. As you might have guessed, this eventually turned out to be the Iowa class. So if Alaska is not a battlecruiser, that what is her? She is designed to do half of the battlecruiser job, to hunt down enemy cruisers on the seven seas however she cannot fulfil the other half of the duty, as USN chuck an Iowa out of that idea. Thus comes the name of a "Large Cruisers", therefore the designation CB. Hope this answers your question) We can all agree and disagree. *BTW, the Americans do have a destination for battlecruisers, it's CC, for the Lexington. However, later it was never be used.
This is partially correct. The primary reason why the Alaska's were called 'Large Cruisers' is because Congress was picky on what they wanted to spend money on. If the USN called them battlecruisers they would not have secured funding for such ships. So instead the USN have to figure out a new name they could use so that congress would not be all over their asses about building outright battlecruisers. The Alaska class in general is just a straight up modern era battlecruiser focused on High speed, Medium caliber guns, and hunting cruisers. One could always argue differently as such with your own assessment of why she was called a large cruiser. Yes she was easily everything you mentioned she was. No I must disagree that you assessment of why she was called a Large Cruiser over a simple battlecruiser. I do hope this also adds a little clarification as to why she wasn't named a battlecruiser.
@@timber_wulf5775 According to Norman Friedman's American Cruisers, he explicitly points out Alaska is the result of "A super cruiser designed explicitly to kill other cruisers", and is not obscure about it is the threat that the Japanese heavy cruisers that led to the Genesis of the Alaska design. The idea that it was not called a battlecruiser simply to get pass congress is a baseless assumption I often saw around, according to her designed role as a crusier hunter that can both hunt down cruisers and protect carriers from enemy cruisers points straight to the propose of this ship
@@timber_wulf5775 Also, the congress argument does not explain the need for the 8-inch designs in Alaska's early study period. Alaska is designed to be the perfect cruiser hunter, nothing more, nothing less About the 8-inch proposals: quote "As an alternative the board wanted a cruiser with four triple 8-in mounts and armour about 10-centimetres thinner...The board concluded in April that only the 12-in-gun version was worthwhile" This argument also does not explain the need of a torpedo tube in the initial design. quote: "The board want torpedo tubes as well as board sides of eight 5-inch guns "
@@onecertainordinarymagician You might say those 8-in gun designs but those same designs are almost akin to what we know in game as the buffalo. Or we even have the Super upscaled atlanta type designs. Also the Assumption that the congress just not passing it is false. Congress at this point in history was very keen on not authorizing anymore large scale surface combatant ships the size of an Iowa class. We were even lucky we got the Iowa class. Although yes in Robert O. Dulin's book 'Battleships: United States Battleships 1935-1992' he states Roosevelt as a key supporter behind what we have come to know as the Alaska class designs. But that still does not excuse the idea that the USN needed to figure a way around congress which was true. Probably not to the extent that I am really making it but nonetheless it is true. We also have to consider that the Alaska's are considered Oversized baltimores which is true. But in saying that there was no technical evolution to saying that besides calling something a 'Battlecruiser' or even 'Battleship'. At the end of the day Alaska is far more akin to what we traditionally see as a 1940s era Battlecruiser. Medium Caliber main battery between BB and CA, High top speed unlike much older BBs or even the NC/Dakota class BBs who were very much slower than her. As much as I'd like to say it was because of congress I have to admit to it *being because of congress* otherwise we would have just never had what alaska is today.
@@timber_wulf5775 Then how do you explain the need for a torpedo tube and the explicit requirement to "overwhelm' Japanese destroyers even in the 12-inch design? Yes, they did try to get Alaska a torpedo tube. Also, all Alaska's purposes are framed as CA2X How do you explain the CA?
Everyone knows it's a great ship. World of Warships instead of doing this fix your game!!!! When the people that balance game 🙊🙉🙈 🇩🇪🇮🇹🇬🇧🇺🇸🇨🇵when they do Russian or Japanese 🇯🇵🇷🇺🤤🤯🤫
The U.S. Navy officially classified them as "large cruisers" or CBs. The USN might have had an aversion to using the term "battlecruiser," or maybe the hull wasn't large enough as BCs are often "supposed" to have battleship level displacement? Lexington and Saratoga were originally designed as BCs so it's not like the USN would never have considered using that term at all. You do have a point though: she's got twelve inch guns, definitely battleship caliber, which is one of the things we think of when we refer to BC's.
@@GaryJones69420you do realize that the Alaskas’ 12in guns - firing super-heavy shells - have the same penetration performance as other nations’ 14-15in guns, right? Combine that with her accuracy, and she could very seriously take on capital ships, though I admit it would be dangerous for her.
What do you think about today's episode?
Do you have cruiser Alaska in collection?:)
📝 Leave us a comment right after subscribing to the channel
🔔 wo.ws/RUclips-subscription
Today, we're focusing on American Tier IX Premium cruiser Alaska, classified by the U.S. Navy as a "large cruiser." The design solutions implemented on Alaska made her similar to the battle cruisers of old, but she’s not just any old cruiser. In the history of the U.S. Navy, she is the only ship-along with her sister ship USS Guam-to have the "large cruiser" classification.
00:00 - Intro. Dry Dock: Alaska - American cruiser
00:30 - History of Roma
03:20 - American Tier IX Premium cruiser Alaska In World Of Warships
Recommended playlists:
👁🗨 Dry Dock - wo.ws/34bpBh1
World of Warships is the largest virtual shipyard in the world. The quality of the work performed by our artists improves each year, and the requirements for the accuracy of the models they create intensify respectively.
👁🗨 Naval Legends - wo.ws/2Kharxt
Naval Legends is a series about the construction, service, and daring deeds of legendary 20th-century ships. Very few vessels survived World War I and II -- most were decommissioned and scrapped. The Naval Legends production crew travels all across the globe to visit almost every active museum ship and chronicle her story.
👁🗨 Naval Fortress - wo.ws/3wbRm8u
Naval Fortress is a video series dedicated to the famous strategic forts and coastal defence fortresses.
👁🗨 In The Ports of World of Warships - wo.ws/3q8uy5w
In this series, we'll be talking about the intricate details and exclusive features of our in-game Ports.
👁🗨 Armada - wo.ws/3vjlf3b
Deep guides for in-game Warships: history, gameplay tips, unique features, advantages and disadvantages and many-many more!
👁🗨 Head Over Keels Is Back - wo.ws/3Jlgk92
👁🗨 Warships Size Comparison - wo.ws/35Wrsef
This is a playlist where we compare ships by class, nation, tier, firepower, etc.
👁🗨 Armchair Admirals - wo.ws/3i9sgPp
👁🗨 Naval Traditions - wo.ws/36Cllbz
👁🗨 1:42 Scale Ships - wo.ws/3teWqqx
1:42 Scale is a video series about the history of ship building in the Russian Empire, which is based on the masterpieces of the ship scale modeling.
👁🗨 World of Warships Movies and Trailers - wo.ws/3ewuN4y
⚓⚓⚓
Keep an eye out on the official World of Warships website: wo.ws/website
Quick start in WoWs for our subscribers: wo.ws/yt-gift
If you're a console player, check out WoWs: Legends wo.ws/WoWSLegends
Twitter: wo.ws/twitter
Facebook: wo.ws/fb
Instagram: wo.ws/inst
#worldofwarships #warships #wows
I don't play this game
Hello, could you maybe make a video, where you recreate a ship? I love the first 10 sec, where you show a little bit
I cant play the game due to my device my parents phone can have this game but they are busy so can't play the game but i played it on time and i have your other game world of tanks
My favourite ship in the entire game, beautiful to look at, fun to play.
Oh I wish :(
No matter what we think of the game I think we can all agree on one thing.
The art-department know their stuff.
It's the best in the world
The art devartment literally carries the game
After the Enterprise's drydock video was released, enterprise was banned from sale.
After the Jean bart's drydock video was released, jean bart was banned form sale.
And now Alaska's drydock video is released.
well good thing i'll get her next month
I wanted Jean fart really bad 😭😭
oh...f...then i need to be hurry...nice info, ty
indeed bro xD i ll be waiting for smolensk drydock LUL
Need to buy. Wanted to save for Hayate but who cares about DDs anymore...
USN: no no she ain't a battlecruiser, she's just a thicc heavy cruiser
buffs: a thicc heavy cruiser packing Essex internals, packing improved guns based on the old Wyoming's barrels and an AA suite that North Carolina would empty her bilge tanks for?
USN: yes
SEEMS LEGIT
The Alaska class had only slightly more medium and small caliber AA guns than a Baltimore class believe it or not, and engine layout has as far as I know never been a deciding factor in classification (except maybe battleship vs fast battleship, but thats down more to top speed).
Belt armor of 9 inches, 12.8 inch turret faces, and a 4in deck too. Thicker than that of cruisers but thinner than BB’s.
@@hmshood9212 basicly a American pocket battleship
"Only 2 ships are commisioned"
Player: oh no...
It would have been AMAZING for one of these extremely rare ships preserved as a museum just as the Iowa’s were!
I still believe with all my heart that the US Navy will have a use for a battleship or heavy cruiser once again someday for shore bombardment.
Someone with Naval knowledge: Tell me what is the difference between this "large" cruiser and a battlecruiser?
The name its called by
TheBlackob it’s primarily down to it’s design being more of a cruiser on steroids rather than a down-armored battleship. The designation doesn’t really mean to much at the end of the day, and it’s just whatever they decide to call it, as it would fit into the battlecruiser designation fine, along with just being a (very) heavy cruiser
battlecruises are a thing that japanese and germans would call them america would call them heavy cruisers and light cruisers but since people don’t really like saying heavy cruisers they just say battle cruisers
@@kayasky7712 As far as I know, a heavy cruiser is not a battlecruiser. There is a difference, otherwise the Hipper Class would've been battle cruiser. In reality, Scharnhorst was closer to a battlecruiser.
TheBlackob yeah it’s just kinda like the whole hms hood situation with people calling it a battleship but in reality it’s a battlecruiser which is kinda odd
AYY GOOD PREMIUM SHIP
My dad was a Marine on the Alaska. I remember going to a river with my dad, I think the Hudson to see her before she was cut up. I was 6. The river was loaded with war ships. I'm not sure if we found it but I remember the ships. I might have an 8mm film of it. My dad had a movie camera. I still have a pile of films in boxes.
Something that might increase the number of premium ships bought by making people less skeptical when buying them is if wg allows us to go into something that allows us to play the premium ship against stationary ships in open waters. This will allow us to try things before we buy making it so we are more willing to spend money on the ship if we like the feel of it and it forces wg to not make crappy premium ships just to get people to spend money on trying the ship out to tell other people not to buy the ship.
Fact of the day, a cruiser is just a smaller battleship that shoots faster and sails faster
Exactly
Midnight Wolf and a destroyer is just a cruiser that shoots faster and sails faster...
Alaska class cruiser: What am i really?
Super Heavy Cruiser?
Mini Battleship?
Large Cruiser?
Battlecruiser?
What really is it people?
@Ian Macdonell It is not trash. It is just unecessary.
@Ian Macdonell If they didn't built the Iowa's these Alaska Class Cruisers would have been needed as escort to carriers or a convoy since the have the speed, it's just that the Iowa class BBs have overpowered engines that can keep up with carriers.
Definitely my best ship. I just love playing Alaska.
Loving the historically accurate part... Nelson's torpedo ahemmmm...
Advice: never show ur broadside on front enemy like alaska, or stalingrad
USN Alaska is Super Cruiser, not just that she's a tier 10 or X probably. Speed, Firepower and Armor were all rounder.
I think Battlecruiser is probably more accurate
Be honest people the first thing that came to mind when you first saw the Alaska was “Battlecruiser!”
they have not add proper armor of the ship
in game lacks armor schemes
@@grimmshredsanguinus2915 Wrong, the Alaska is a bow tanking machine, sure its not a Stalingrad, but it can Bow tank anything out past 10 kms like nothing, even T10s.
@@MetaliCanuck surely no kremlin an yamato div have focus u down along with wooster or smolensk xD
@@grimmshredsanguinus2915 sure they have, its called NOT GEttting FOCUSED, its a skill!
You reproduce them accurately?
So I can expect a tillman battleship with 18 inchs of armor and 18, 18" guns?
Tillman IV-2 had 15 18" guns not 18
the closest thing to the Tillman battleships (for the Tillman IV-1) is the tier 10 battleship Vermont
If i am right the class "large cruiser" were classified as that instead of "battlecruiser" mostly because of the budget, the USA were already producing vast amount of ship however the thing they were very concerned is that the public/tax payer would be furious to spend a lot just for 1 bigger ship, so the goverment had to reclass the name just to hide there real identity saying that this ship is more of a beefy heavy cruiser when reality it was a mini battleship, i may be wrong on this but i do remember from ichase reviewing the history talking about this ship
Sooooo... When will we get Puerto Rico in the armory??? It's been more then a half year from this dockyard disaster...
I really want this ship
get ready ppl, every time they release drydock on premium ship, that premium ship disappears in a few days. Grab one while you can!
I can't wait for the Agir/ Siegfried Drydock where you try to explain why you didn't include a 40 mm icebreaker bow ...
Alaska needs to be brought back into the game!! I was so close to getting her had about 800k in Free experience and of course the 1 credit and was so close when you all up and removed her which saddened me as I wanted this ship so badly! Please being Alaska back!
A shame they dont make em with that asthetic anymore. Looks better than the missile boats we have today
That ship should’ve been preserved
My Grandfather was on the Alaska!!
USS Alaska, sehr schönes Schiff, eindrucksvoll, leistungsfähig gutes Design, so hätten die deutschen Schweren Kreutzer der Admiral Hipper Klasse aussehen sollen, jedoch mit 4 Drillings Türmen 12 Inch/Zoll, 30,5 cm. Hauptartellerie, und anstatt US 12,7 cm. die deutsche 12,8 cm. Mehrzweck Geschütze (Kanone, Haupitze,Flak)
Rob
WOW VERY NICE! We are doing a documentary on the Alaska Class CB-1.
this ship is totally worth it
What a good documentary
good work World of Warships!
I love history
wish i had this masterpiece!
I'm waiting for tier 9 German BB Ludendorff
Best purchase I made in wows for $97! Nothing comes close when I forked out that kind of money in wows but the Alaska
You sure you spent $97 or $79?
@@timber_wulf5775 $97
MetaliCanuck Did you buy the big commander’s pack for her…?
hey wg , can you tell which book you showed at the start of the video
Can’t wait for the Montana class
I wonder where to get the blueprint book at 0:12
My favorite ship class of all time. It’s a real shame that Alaska or Guam never got into a surface engagement with any Japanese navy imperial ships. Would’ve been really nice to see what they could’ve done in combat.
one of my favorite T9 ships, replaced all other T9 cruisers for me
Awesomeee
Dry Dock video pls! About Battleship Scharnhorst including Naval Legends ^-^ thx
My favorite state
kan get roket`s om bord?
0:15
Cruiser Stalingrad
Firing range: 53 km 😱
komrade, the ship was never built, it can have any range it wants! but we chose 53 for the amount of rubels we are paying our workers a month to build the ship XAXAXAXXA
you can a lot of things with radar
Isn't that 35km!!
yeah like a camper stalin in two brothers can shoot me while im on ocean map XD
Will commonwealth tech tree line be added in the future?
That’s the question I continue to ask mate
Unlikely, the commonwealth didn’t own very many major surface ships other than the ones which are already in the game
Soarin Skies yes they did, they had a ton of cruisers and even battleships imported from Britain.
all expected italian bbs meanwhile they are adding useless american castles
@@grimmshredsanguinus2915 we can grind them easily, u can spam HE at them until they die, u can trop them easily, u can show broadside safely after he shot a salvo, its just free dmg for the ones against them, so I don't think its useless :)
Hola soy argentino 🇦🇷 pero me encanta esta máquinas de guerra 😎❤️❤️
It is really a beautiful ship with an identity crisis. People will be debating this forever if what really is the classification of the Alaska class cruisers.
I just thought of something!
Why don't they add the N3 class battleships design as a tier 10 premium/freemium (I would pay for that)?
You just have to change some things:
1. Increase the speed from 23 knots to 30 knots (29.5 works too for tier 10)
2. Increase the anti-aircraft armament to a point that works at tier 10.
Why else thinks this is a good idea?
So they were just mini-iowas?
Yes
Ah yes one of my most favourite ships the Alaska Pocket Battleship
I think this is the hottest take i've ever seen on the ships classification.
:D
Greetings from the CNMI!
The islands of Saipan and Guam
Could you guys please do a naval legends video on the aircraft carrier Nimitz. Of course it isn’t in the necessarily in the time period of ships you cover however I believe the admiral who the ship is named after as well as the many decades of service make the cvn-68 a clear choice for a future naval legends video. Attempt #1 I am going to post this until it happens
Is it still relevant in the current meta? I'm not a big fan of USN's slow shells and high arcs.
Yes, It still works quite well today. However, if you don't like USN shell arcs I would suggest going with something from the soviet or german lines.
@@robr4662 I already have Wooster (used to be a good HE spammer before Smolensk and PanEU dds came along), Moskva & Siegfried. I now want a premium USN ship to add to my collection :)
@@Ghost-gc7dj Alaska is definitely worth it. Her AP shells are American super-heavy, and with a 305 mm size shell, they hurt when they pen, and speaking of pen she has the improved American cruiser penetration angles. She is very accurate, fast and agile. Her AA can shred CV aircraft of T8 and put the hurt on T10. She has decent armor. She has access to heal, hydro/def AA, and radar/fighter/spotter. I run with a hydro+radar load-out because her AA is sufficient enough without a fighter and her range is decent without a spotter. The only "downside" to her is the slow shells that are standard to the USN, but as a USN main I'm used to it. Flamu has called her OP and I'm a little inclined to agree with him, she is very good and I'd say the best choice of the T9 super cruisers. Alaska won't let you down, definitely worth the FXP and money.
@@admiralfrazier306 USN's slow shell flight time really takes some getting used to! Regrinding NC and Iowa after a year of IJN and German ships really messed up my aim and instincts. I'm sure Alaska is a good ship in good hands, it just takes a captain who understands her well. :)
According to the namesake this would be a battleships (which were made after US states), cruisers were after towns & cities.
Her classes namesake is that of US territory’s actually. Alaska was not yet a state and Guam is a territory.
Can you update battleship ordzhonikidze/irian
Yeah this is good and all but I haven't seen an Azuma Drydock/Armada vid yet
Well, the Drydock videos are for ships that existed and were built, the azuma never made it off the drawing board.
@@tanktope5453 Explain Thunderer, Großer Kurfurst and Odin, then.
Sol Berione Well, the guns of Odin were built and tested and her design was "built" when Scharnhorst was laid down. Thunderer is pretty much an upgraded Lion and her guns were tested too. The GK video is weird because there was no talking, but the 406 guns that were supposed in the Z-Plan were widely in use for coastal batteries. The Japanese "circle five" plan which included the Azuma were cancelled early on because Japan had to shift towards aircraft carriers. Of course all this is theorycrafting and I dont know the definitive answer.
@@tanktope5453 Yeah, I guess. I mean even the Dry Dock intros already tell "Others weren't completed" and "Some were laid up, and can only dream about battles", as well as "Re-create ships according to their historical blueprints". *Also flashes Stalingrad blueprints in the intro segment, a ship in the same state as Azuma, historical-wise*
@@tanktope5453 Point here is not the guns or any part of the ship, but instead the ship itself as a whole. So even if each of their supposed guns exist, it doesn't count if the ship's keel hadn't even been laid down.
When will the Missouri, North Carolina and Oklahoma going to be added? They are some beautiful ships.
Missouri is in the game as premium ship, however due to WG giving her a far too god credit income she is only available in certain containers with a very low chance (Christmas containers).
North Carolina is the tech tree tier 8 BB.
Oklahoma could only be a tier 5 BB as we already have the Arizona and West Virginia 1941 at tier 6. But mid tier premium ships are not very popular so I doubt WG will introduce a tier 5 one. Maybe if the California sells well we'll see a 1945 Nevada at tier 6.
Can you by any chance add he civil war Ironclads into the game?
Make us cruiser great again!
김범수 They are already good unless your talking abouT lower their tier 9
Do Salem next
Imagine it is the same ship, but a different name like Hawaii (Tier IX American Premium cruiser)
I would love to have Alaska or yamato
Do a dry dock video on USS Montana or USS Ohio
You guys removing Alaska in Jan. sad :(
Where is double rudder gang at
British aircraft Carrier for Next dry dock please 😀
wait, do you mean these ships would have the names of the territories of the united states? Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Samoa
if that is so, I have one word. AWESOME !!!
yep, this is true as it was felt that the ships were too big to be named after cities like heavy and light cruisers, but not big enough to be named after states like battleships (Alaska and Hawaii were still only US territories at the time).
hello @@John_McCarthy1 cool and thanks
1:33 THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A BATTLECRUISER. JESUS AMERICA
No it's not our fault. WG missed a key detail, US Congress didn't want to spend money on "useless" capitalships so the USN had to wiggle their way around the words and instead of the Alaska Class 'Battlecruisers' it was the Alaska Class 'Large Cruisers' just so the USN could evade the ever prying eyes known as congress. Overall WG fucked up by not including that bit of information so now we have to put up with non americans complaining about the designation terms.
@@timber_wulf5775 I don't understand this commonly said argument, I'm fairly certain that congress gets to see more than just the classification of the ship the navy is asking for, like congress still has to fork over the same amount of cash to build the ship regardless of if it's classed as a heavy cruiser, large cruiser, battlecruiser or super star destroyer.
"so now we have to put up with non americans complaining about the designation terms" are you claiming on non-Americans Know that the Alaska is a Large cruiser? literally most of the people who I argue with that think it should be classed as a Battlecruiser are British (I guess they believe the british have the final say on warships even after no longer being the #1 navy on earth).
John McCarthy Remember this, congress designed the Tillman class, not directly as they had someone do it for them but that shouldn’t excuse them. They are generally dumb enough to just pass things and at the time of the war they were passing carriers left and right while noting that large surface capital ships were a dying breed. Naming the Alaska’s battlecruisers would have done nothing but get their funding denied due to the title and designation. Tweak small aspects of a ship design and you can get funding approved. While yes congress can see the designs and what it was going to be they still aren’t that smart. Remember congress has made plenty of dumb decisions and concepts throughout america’s existence and making it sound like an “improved baltimore class” is enough to get the funding approved
@@timber_wulf5775 Congress didn't design the tillmans, senator tillman asked the navy design bureau to give him the maximum specifications that they would design for a battleship since he got very annoyed that every time of the United States Navy came to the Congress with a battleship design, the battleship was bigger than the last class, and that they
were a little bit larger and more expensive than had actually been asked of from Congress. and although I agree that congress is retarded, a big price tag for an all gun ship is still just the same big price tag of money not being spent on new carriers. personally I think asking for just "an improved baltimore class" for around double the cost might turn some heads.
Holy Hallelujah!
..USS Samoa CB6
Although laid down, the Samoa was never finished
@sullivansaunders6514 ..yup, but being Samoan, I'm proud of the fact that the Navy Dept even considered having Alaska class warships named after the territories.
Yup that’s a battlecruiser all right.
Incorrect
@@John_McCarthy1 Its a battlecruiser. Sacrifices protection for armament and speed. The hull code is even CB, which can be interpreted as 'Cruiser, battle"
What if uss Alaska was in movie uss Indianapolis
Gee a cruiser killer, killer, this idea sounds vaguley familiar, almost like a battlecruiser or pocket battleship. Funny how that is. Good thing it wasnt around about 5 years earlier, some admiral would have figured "Hey, its a battleship level armed ship, it can face off against something like a kongo". He could have ask Jelicoe about how well that works too but I promise would have still pulled the same stupid stunt, with the same result.
Battlecruisers were designed with more than just killing cruisers on their duty list.
Don't throw Jellicoe under the bus for Beatty making mistakes he could have avoided. It's people like you who make the entire Jellicoe family suffer to this day by promulgating false information.
@@alphariusomegon6711 In no way was I meaning to disparage Jelicoe, nor his family. With that being said, he was witness, and in command, to the outcome when you place ships designed to fight cruisers into a fight with fully armoured battleships. Had the Alaska been available, I have no doubt that it would have at one time, been called upon to face a kongo, or even God forbid, a Yamato class ship. With the predictable outcome of her being blown apart, akin to what happened to the Hood.
Tbh I don’t know why I even still have WoWs installed anymore I don’t play it. To me it seems that armor doesn’t exist and no matter how much I angle the ship most shells penetrate.
Curious Entertainment Maybe yo know nothing about the game because 16 inch gun cna still overmatch your bow, stern and plating stupid , only tier 8 german bb like bismarck or tirpitz a, jean bart or bourgne a toer x ship or anything with with 15 inch or lower can bounce with 27 mm. When you in in a tier x match facing high caliber bb shells, you wont be protected that why I recommended full steering module in this ship.
u angle your citadel so u can take minimum dmg u cant angle the superstructure or the deck
@@Hproawesome Alaska bow tanks quite well out past 10kms, fact!
*i just had a video in the back and suddenly i heard all this japanese (I think?) screaming and explosions... I opened up my tab and saw it was for this game...* 😆
可惜阿拉斯加听得梅因说您还是去9级玩吧
Alaska is the best of WoWS!!!!
shinano plz i want see in games
after ww2 she was sold for free exp
So when comes the next patch for World of Warplanes?
make an armada of the colorado
I want one 😭😭😭
So can you please make a new ship type instead of putting crispy ships like Neptune and this "super heavy cruiser" Alaska into the same type?
Ok then please be my guest and name a full tech tree line of super cruisers from T5-10
@@timber_wulf5775 oi dude I mean there should be two separate cruiser kinds AKA lights and heavies.
Caz it's not fair to have only lights in one team while opposite has multiple superheavies.
And you know most of the mm does like that.
@@timber_wulf5775 I honestly believe the US has enough designs to allow a full line of Large cruisers.
John McCarthy Let me check, wait they only have a Baltimore with guns too big to fit, the Puerto Rico CA2-D and Alaska/Guam
I want it.
Alaska is worth getting, altough azuma is slightly better.
lol i eat Azumas, thats why I have never gotten it lol
i need 25k more fxp and i'll probably get this
To me she look like battleship
Waste of a great ship
Can we ask to create a new ship? We the players.
Its a battle cruiser
This ship is so above average tier 9 cruisers, is annoyin facin her
Will I ever be able to get a meta prem ship for free?
I doubt it. Georgia is my only hope.
georgia is a baguette ship with american 457mm slow shells
u can do heavy dmg but they can torp and burn u easily
@@grimmshredsanguinus2915 Georgia is awesome. It has accurate guns, solid secondaries and its fast. It can even outrun some DDs with her speedboost. So if u get burned down in the Georgia and did no damage our to dumb for the game.
For 1 million free Exp...is it worth it to to convert exp to free exp to get her?🤔😏
No, if you convert for the standard price you spend doubloons for over 130 Euro to get her (25 XP per doubloon), if you us discounted conversion (35 XP per doubloon) you still pay 94 Euro.
You can buy the Alaska in the premium shop directly for 63.5 Euro.
@@General_Cartman_Lee even if I have 2/3 of free exp needed...still not worth it? Right?
@@shinnidan converting 250.000 XP to free XP costs 32.9 Euro at standard rate and 23.5 Euro with discount.
A tier 8 premium cruiser costs around 38 Euro. So from that point the Alaska is worth it.
It's up to you if you are willing to spend that many of your free XP and the money.
I think Alaska is a battleship
lol Alaska will be deleted in premium shop at 0.9.8 like Cheshire, Jean Bart, Enterprise
About "Large Cruisers" and "Battlecruisers"
Battlecruisers originated from the line of battle. As Fisher imagined it, first, a battlecruiser should serve as the backbone of the vanguard fleet in the line of battles to secure victory against enemy Vanguards: In the case of the HMS Invincible, the enemy vanguard fleet would be comprised of armoured cruisers, thus Invincible is said to "make all (armoured ) cruisers obsolete". This is also the common misconception of Battlecruisers are "designed" to fight cruiser comes from, where the truth is, in fact, opposite, where battlecruisers are designed to fight the enemy vanguard fleet but those vanguard fleets in the time of 1905 happen to be comprised of cruisers. These ships are also tasks to form the fast wings of the battleline and to pursue the retreating enemy forces once the initial is won. Thus a battlecruiser would play an important role in major fleet engagement, although differences with battleships may apply however in Fisher's report to de design committee in 1905 one the design of the Invinsiables he blatantly calls the HMS Invincible a "fast battleship". It can be considered through the development of battlecruisers the British did eventually come up with a, arguably the first, fast battleship, the HMS Hood.
With the high speed and relative high firepower brought by these requirements also bring about the battlecruiser's second task, it is thought that these ships would also be ideal in the role of anti-anti-commerce raiding. Thus these ships are also tasked to patrolling the seven seas and do raider hunting, where they can easily catch the fleets that the battleships cannot, and destroy those which the cruisers cannot. This concludes the two primary roles of a Battlecruiser, at least from where it is first envisioned.
What about Alaska? Alaska is really an odd case, as Norman Friedman points out in his book about American CRUISERS, although having a superstructure of a battleship, Alaska uses a cruiser armour scheme. The design evaluations are also focused on anti cruiser engagements, with one really odd design resemblance of an even more over gunned Atlanta. Before anyone says that Alaska is a "battlecruiser" due to the fact that the design is anti-cruiser focused, one must understand Alaska is not designed in 1905. The first primary role of a battlecruiser, that is to be the backbone of a Vanguard fleet and a fast flank may only require them to engage cruisers in 1905, however, in 1940 the IJN's Vanguard fleet is likely comprised of the Kongos, and might also require the engagement of the assumed "50000 ton 16-inch battleship" that turned out to be the Yamatos. Alaska is not designed to fight these threats, in fact, Alaska is not even initially designed to fight the B65s, who has a better claim to the Battlecruiser name due to their position in the IJN vanguard fleet along the Kongos. Then what did USN do to fight these threats? Around 1935 a proposal for a battleship specifically aims to take on the Kongos arise demanded 32 knots of speed and 9 14-inch guns. After the rumoured Japanese 50000 ton 16-inch battleships are confirmed, the requirement is updated to 9 16 inch guns to face this new threat. As you might have guessed, this eventually turned out to be the Iowa class. So if Alaska is not a battlecruiser, that what is her? She is designed to do half of the battlecruiser job, to hunt down enemy cruisers on the seven seas however she cannot fulfil the other half of the duty, as USN chuck an Iowa out of that idea. Thus comes the name of a "Large Cruisers", therefore the designation CB.
Hope this answers your question) We can all agree and disagree.
*BTW, the Americans do have a destination for battlecruisers, it's CC, for the Lexington. However, later it was never be used.
This is partially correct.
The primary reason why the Alaska's were called 'Large Cruisers' is because Congress was picky on what they wanted to spend money on. If the USN called them battlecruisers they would not have secured funding for such ships. So instead the USN have to figure out a new name they could use so that congress would not be all over their asses about building outright battlecruisers. The Alaska class in general is just a straight up modern era battlecruiser focused on High speed, Medium caliber guns, and hunting cruisers. One could always argue differently as such with your own assessment of why she was called a large cruiser. Yes she was easily everything you mentioned she was. No I must disagree that you assessment of why she was called a Large Cruiser over a simple battlecruiser. I do hope this also adds a little clarification as to why she wasn't named a battlecruiser.
@@timber_wulf5775 According to Norman Friedman's American Cruisers, he explicitly points out Alaska is the result of "A super cruiser designed explicitly to kill other cruisers", and is not obscure about it is the threat that the Japanese heavy cruisers that led to the Genesis of the Alaska design. The idea that it was not called a battlecruiser simply to get pass congress is a baseless assumption I often saw around, according to her designed role as a crusier hunter that can both hunt down cruisers and protect carriers from enemy cruisers points straight to the propose of this ship
@@timber_wulf5775 Also, the congress argument does not explain the need for the 8-inch designs in Alaska's early study period. Alaska is designed to be the perfect cruiser hunter, nothing more, nothing less
About the 8-inch proposals: quote
"As an alternative the board wanted a cruiser with four triple 8-in mounts and armour about 10-centimetres thinner...The board concluded in April that only the 12-in-gun version was worthwhile"
This argument also does not explain the need of a torpedo tube in the initial design. quote:
"The board want torpedo tubes as well as board sides of eight 5-inch guns "
@@onecertainordinarymagician You might say those 8-in gun designs but those same designs are almost akin to what we know in game as the buffalo. Or we even have the Super upscaled atlanta type designs. Also the Assumption that the congress just not passing it is false. Congress at this point in history was very keen on not authorizing anymore large scale surface combatant ships the size of an Iowa class. We were even lucky we got the Iowa class. Although yes in Robert O. Dulin's book 'Battleships: United States Battleships 1935-1992' he states Roosevelt as a key supporter behind what we have come to know as the Alaska class designs. But that still does not excuse the idea that the USN needed to figure a way around congress which was true. Probably not to the extent that I am really making it but nonetheless it is true.
We also have to consider that the Alaska's are considered Oversized baltimores which is true. But in saying that there was no technical evolution to saying that besides calling something a 'Battlecruiser' or even 'Battleship'. At the end of the day Alaska is far more akin to what we traditionally see as a 1940s era Battlecruiser. Medium Caliber main battery between BB and CA, High top speed unlike much older BBs or even the NC/Dakota class BBs who were very much slower than her.
As much as I'd like to say it was because of congress I have to admit to it *being because of congress* otherwise we would have just never had what alaska is today.
@@timber_wulf5775 Then how do you explain the need for a torpedo tube and the explicit requirement to "overwhelm' Japanese destroyers even in the 12-inch design?
Yes, they did try to get Alaska a torpedo tube.
Also, all Alaska's purposes are framed as CA2X
How do you explain the CA?
*Agir turtleback crying*
Everyone knows it's a great ship. World of Warships instead of doing this fix your game!!!! When the people that balance game 🙊🙉🙈 🇩🇪🇮🇹🇬🇧🇺🇸🇨🇵when they do Russian or Japanese 🇯🇵🇷🇺🤤🤯🤫
Its Battle Cruiser not large cruiser!!
Which one? Alaska? Well its Large cruiser for real
The U.S. Navy officially classified them as "large cruisers" or CBs.
The USN might have had an aversion to using the term "battlecruiser," or maybe the hull wasn't large enough as BCs are often "supposed" to have battleship level displacement? Lexington and Saratoga were originally designed as BCs so it's not like the USN would never have considered using that term at all.
You do have a point though: she's got twelve inch guns, definitely battleship caliber, which is one of the things we think of when we refer to BC's.
@@heavyarms01honly Point I disagree with is that 12inch guns were NOT a competitive gun calibre by 1944 thus is void of the BC name
@@GaryJones69420you do realize that the Alaskas’ 12in guns - firing super-heavy shells - have the same penetration performance as other nations’ 14-15in guns, right? Combine that with her accuracy, and she could very seriously take on capital ships, though I admit it would be dangerous for her.