USN ALASKA Battlecruiser aka Cruiserkiller aka Supercruiser || World of Warships

10,146 views
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (203 votes, average: 4.56 out of 5)
Loading...

🚩 Play : https://wgaffiliate.com/?a=1290&c=4692&s1=
🚩 Play : https://wgaffiliate.com/?a=1290&c=4705&s1=
🚩 Play Total War Arena: https://wgaffiliate.com/?a=1290&c=4780&s1=

🚩Want to Support me ? :

Danke !

Related Ship Rage!

40 Comments:

  1. Scheint sehr homogen in die Reihe der amerikanischen schweren Kreuzer zu passen, oder?

  2. First comment.
    It seems nice to me that Alaska debuts in the game, but Wargaming …. WHY IT HAS TO BE A PREMIUN ???? !!!! Why, instead of a premiun, do not a whole branch of battlecruisers enter the US Navy?
    How much does it cost to build a “technological tree” of battlecruisers for the US Navy?
    I think I speak for the entire base of Word of Warships players that this nation (United States) is already just oversaturated with premium ships of all kinds, and I am sure that this is the nation that needs the least premiuns right now. If WG is hungry for money, why not introduce and sell the famous destroyer USS Laffey as a premium vessel ??? Why not offer us a Austro-Hungarian or Turkish-Ottoman premiun ship?
    Hopefully they do not make a similar nonsense with the British battle cruisers (that nation had more than enough to fill a technological tree from TIV to TX) and Germans (who can fill a technological tree from TV to TIX).

    • Capt Turnip
      The Americans realized that too late too.
      Of all the navies in the world they were the only one that didn’t need a Cruiser Killer type since the
      Iowas were the only battleships ever created that could run down and hunt cruisers of its own generation.
      But then again I’m doing 20-20 hindsight talk.
      Alaska was conceived as a Cruiser Killer and a “cheaper” alternative than an Iowa.
      Iowa was conceived more as a Front Line fighter and deemed too expensive to commit it to cruiser hunting.
      What the navy didn’t realize is that the Alaska 305 mm gun and turret had to be made from the ground up and ended costing more than an Iowa turret.
      Second the Alaska’s were only marginally cheaper to operate than a far more capable Iowa making the Alaska’s reason of being moot.
      So at this stage it didn’t matter if Iowa ended up doing Alaska’s job in hunting cruisers and destroyers because its only a tad more expensive.
      When the Alaska and Guam were put in reserve they stayed like that till they were scrapped.
      In contrast all the 4 Iowas served during Korea, one served in Vietnam and all four were reactivated and modernized in the 80s.

      Kinda of a blunder really and hadn’t the USN not wasted resources on the Alaska we might have had USS Kentucky and USS Illinois with us today.

    • There are a lot more just look on the internet about ships of ww1 and ww2

    • João Pedro Couto Cruz

      I guess there is no more use in trying to convince WG. They will always put profit potential over the variety we always wanted, which is understandeable to be honest. Judging by what we have seen in the past year, BCs will not have a class of its own. And now speaking from self experience, every single good proposal (be it a new line, class, rework or whatever) is overshadowed by the mass ignorance of WoWs community, who possess nearly to 0 knowledge regarding naval history (just take a look of 9/10 of the comments of this video) and game balance. Even the smallest part that actually knows something doenst do a good job. Often they put their expertise above everything and ignore core aspects of arcade gameplay. In short, people either slaughter history or put it above all. Thats mainly why I started to play more MMORPGs lately.

    • well, consider this, currently stalingrad and alaska are SO OVERPOWERED that if they made a whole line of these everyone would get easy access to them and would create an unstable and unbalanced match. So by making them premium, they limit the access and get money in the process. I have to say i’m very impressed with these super cruisers but you got to admit these bastards would rek everything in their sights (ie. stalingrad’s release)

    • João Afonso
      I really hope it one day but I really wish to see Alaska’s bigger cousin the CA2-D design in WoW.
      Which would have been slightly shorter than Iowa but packed 12 x 305 mm guns.
      Perfect for T10 but then again everybody will Bitch about how overpowered that one is.
      Oh and there is a Japanese T10 counterpart with 9 x 360 mm guns.
      Both ships would have given Stalingrad a run for its money.

  3. This is cool. They should add battlecruisers as a new tier in WOW’s. I’d like to have a fast battleship for once. They should also add submarines and depth charges, but that’s just my opinion. Also can their be a way to convert free xp into dubloons so I can earn a premium ship?

  4. *take my money*

  5. USS Alaska is a LARGE CRUISER, not a Battlecruiser..

    • Not exactly just semantics. Distinction between battlecruisers and Alaska type ships definitely make sense. You have to compare her with contemporary designs and from that point shes more closer to cruisers. Shes rather overgrown heavy cruiser – she was based on Baltimore after all. Battlecruisers (Ishizuchi, Myogi, Kongo, Prinz Eitel, Hood, Ashitaka, Amagi) were much closer to battleships with armor scheme and gun caliber + they were much longer than their BB counterparts. Alaska is far behind any contemporary BB in both cathegories.

    • Just_Some_Random_Tryhard_Gamer

      JafuetTheSame
      You confuse between first gen ww1 Battlecruisers – having armour closer to that of Battleships.

      And Second Gen ww2 Battlecruisers with armour closer to that of a cruiser.

      First Gen ww1 includes, Myogi, Ishizuchi, Kongou, Amagi, Eitel, Scharnhorst, Dunkerque and Hood.
      Most of these Battlecruisers had battleship lvl belt armour and artillery – deck armour was thinner however to opt for fast speeds. – some if not most of these Battlecruisers did not have the armour to resist their own shells.

      Second Gen WW2 Battlecruisers include Stalingrad, Kronstadt, CA2D Super Alaska, Alaska, B-65, B-64, O-Class and 1047 Battlecruiser. Armour and artillery intermediate to that of battleship and cruiser – an actual battlecruiser -and can resist their own guns and Battlecruisers of the same type at long range.

    • +Just_Some_Random_Tryhard_Gamer scharnhorst and dunkerque ww1 battlecruiser? Not really. They are actually fast battleships from 1930s. The thing is there were no battlecruisers after 1920s because the trade between speed and protection was no longer needed. When you look on the list of BC i wrote they were all designed before 1920. Alaska share with these just the same goal – hunt cruisers, but their background is completelly different

    • Just_Some_Random_Tryhard_Gamer

      Well Scharnhorst was based of the Mackensen Class Battlecruisers. Difference is heavier 350mm belt along with a 105mm turtleback – HOWEVER she retained the same thin deck armour only worth 130mm-145mm – compared to Colorado with 152-183mm. Even worst she did not feature the typical upper belt of 100mm+ that German battleships had. The combination of thin upper belt armour was a bad idea – considering the close engagement ranges of the pacific.

      The result – a single shell from PoW (a battleship built to tank 16inch shells – god knows why wg calls that thing a battlecruiser) penetrated the thin upper belt – and exploded just above the thin 80mm deck. Destroying 1 boiler and incapacitating 2.
      This pretty much was the salvo that ended Scharnhorst’s escape – only to take torps from cruisers turning her into a sitting duck and take further shelling from pow, till she sank with more torpedo hits.

      As for Dunkerque – don’t you think 225mm belt armour is lack lustre? Compared to Normandy with 240-280mm belt armour?
      Along with a pitifully thin 65-90mm deck armour unlike Normandy with 80mm-110mm. Either way Dunkerque can hit 30knot speeds while Normandy at 22-25 at the same tier.

    • History Gaming Verified

      Just_Some_Random_Tryhard_Gamer  If I may, classifying the the Scharnhorst as battlecruiser would be wrong, she was designed as a a raider battleship, able to fight down any convoy escorts and quick enough to evade the pursuing enemy…pretty much a bigger version of the Deutschland-class Panzerschiffe/heavy cruisers/superheavy cruisers/pocket battleships (whatever designation you would like). The Scharnhorst-class was designated a battleship class by the Kriegsmarine, and seen as such…though with pretty light armament, which is actually the main reason why the battlecruiser designation would not fit at all.

      For the Alaska-class the superheavy cruiser designation would be fitting I think. Her armament is too light for a battlecruiser.

  6. It’s not quite a Stalingrad, so Ill stick to my big OP Russian battlecruiser

  7. Notser and Flamu both feel the AP is a little lackluster. I know you’re showing the good stuff in the highlight, but what’s your overall sense of the AP?

  8. Why is it that in my Kronstadt literally every single shell that has ever landed on any Roon overpens? I swear to god its hardcoded or something its absolutely insane

  9. Does this thing have the super heavy American piercing with the improved auto bounce angles?

  10. Ich brauche es!!!

  11. Well… we dont need this ship, but they will Add anyway… RIP World of Warships.

  12. アドミラルヒッパー

    What a beautiful ship! Fck off Stalingrad…

  13. Lightning トリアージX

    Wird die Alaska ein Freemium werden der ins Arsenal wandern?

  14. So much sexyer than Kronshtadt and Stalingrad…. give it to me!!!!!

  15. Crazy dispersion but power Shells 😍

  16. I don`t like the gun sound, It should like the gun sound of battleship

  17. want one! 750k freexp? ok 🙂

  18. This game needs more radar ships, true. And more premium amerika cruiser too…….

  19. Very bad dispersion, bad shell arc, slow turning guns, cruiser level armour… No thank you WG

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *