World of Warships USS Alaska Tier 9 Premium Heavy Cruiser Preview

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (244 votes, average: 4.90 out of 5)

*Note… if I said Tier 8 anywhere at all like I did at 3:36, ignore me because I’m a moron and it was quite early when I put this together. She is Tier 9.

Today we have a special treat! We get a preview of the Tier 9 Heavy USS Alaska! This ship is beautiful, its big and it packs some mean guns. I cover everything from base stats to armor.


  1. Good work as always. I cant wait to get her in my port.

  2. “Confirmed as Tier 8” did you slip up? Or did they move it down?

  3. Zoup, I usually enjoy your videos, but this one seemed off. It felt dry and bland, like you really didn’t want to make a video, but were obligated to do so. Came away from it feeling disappointed, something I don’t think I’ve gotten before from your videos. Bummer, man.

    • These type of previews aren’t really my favorite. There isn’t a good way to make them more exciting. Sometimes you just got to get the news out when you can. So sorry about that.

    • charliedontsurf334

      I can’t wait to see her in action. I already want this ship!

  4. When does the ship release? Or has war gaming not said yet?

    • charliedontsurf334

      They haven’t said. The rumor is 3-4 months based on the typical time it takes from announcement to testing to release. Remember, the Stalingrad isn’t out yet.

  5. Shaking in anticipation

  6. She needs a 32mm bow

  7. ALASKA!!!!

  8. MajorMinor Gaming

    Well, I was too late to get the Missouri and have been holding on to 750,000 free xp waiting for her to come back… I might end up spending it on the Alaska.

  9. Colonel David Davenport

    YAY for the Alaska! I cannot wait! Great overview Zoup!

  10. You should have put the rudder shift on just to see what it would have gotten down to with it on and you should have put demo expert on the Capt. and the fire flags so we could have seen what the fire chance would be. I had to rewind & pause it to see the main guns firing range because you never told us. You never showed us the AA or the secondary ranges after adding AFT or how fast the gun turns after putting expert marksmen on it and the reload upgrade. I wouldn’t be pointing this stuff out but all these thing’s are super important to me. I’ve been waiting for this ship a right good while.

    • Yeah he might have rushed this video out a bit I think. There are a lot of factual errors and missed opportunities for module/stats comparison. He did say he did it early in the morning so there’s that.

  11. ashipnerd offical

    Technically, this ship is a battle cruiser. The Navy had insisted that it was a large cruiser so as to not take resources from the Iowa class Battleships.

    • Technically it’s a large cruiser…

      Alaska is essentially an up scaled Baltimore class and lacks all the key features of a capital ship.
      Also the reason the navy decided to call Alaska a large cruiser (CB) instead of a battlecruiser (CC) apart from the actual design of the ship is also because they had different intentions. The original Lexington class battlecruisers which where converted into carriers due to one of the naval treaties where intended to act as fast scouts and operate ahead of the standards (USN dreadnoughts). The Alaska’s where designed as cruiser killers and AA support ships, intended to act semi autonomously.

    • There’s no such thing as a Large Cruiser. She was a battlecruiser and that is that. She got decent armour and 12in guns which means she does not lack any capital ship key features. She’s got a bigger broadside than Dunkerque and Scharnhorst both of which were classified as battleships. Cruiser Killer is a Battlecruiser mission, wake up! Battle of the Falkland Islands 1914?

    • Golden Eagle, in the treaties there were no Large Cruisers, but also no Panzerschiffe (like the Deutschland/Lützow-class, which were later reclassified by the Kriegsmarine as heavy cruisers btw). Well, that’s what happens if you invent a new class.
      But the USNavy classified the Alaska as a Large Cruiser, not as a battlecruiser (they actually classified some ships as battlecruisers, but not this ship). By the time that ship was built, 305mm guns weren’t really capital ship caliber anymore, but also not heavy cruiser caliber, so they went with intermediate. Large Cruisers are in the middle of protection and armament between battleship and heavy cruiser. Battlecruisers have battleshiplike armament, but heavy cruiser like protection (most of the times, late ww1 and afterwards egines were good and small enough to make fast battleships possible (so basically battleships with cruisers speed or (you can say it also so) battlecruisers with battleship protection).

    • Alaska cruiser IS a large cruiser, this is a class of ships that the USN and VMF called their large cruiser based ships that neither fell into the traditional idea of a heavy cruiser or the design of a battleship.

      She has decent armour for fighting 8 inch and smaller cruisers but her belt is still vulnerable to contemporary BB shells of her era.

      Capital ship features she lacked:

      1. A torpedo defence system
      2. Alaska had a single rudder, this was because she was an upscaled Baltimore class and not a downsized Iowa. USN fast battleships from North Carolina onward had double rudders and due to fluid dynamics could out turn even Fletcher class destroyers because science is a troll.
      3. Battleship style sub divisions and bulkheads. Alaska used a simpler design found on the Baltimore and wasn’t nearly as protected as her bigger sisters.

      Dunkerque was laid down in 1932 and Alaska was laid down in 1941. That’s almost a decade between the ships and ship designs and requirements changed so drastically between 1901 and 1950 that 9 years may as well have been a lifetime.

      Now you have to remember that the French, Germans and Italians where locked into a naval arms race, whenever one nation would build a ship the other would respond with a counter.

      Germany launched the Deutschland class cruiser so in response the French launched the Dunkerque class to counter them.
      When Germany launched the Scharnhorst class of battleships with the same 11inch guns of the Deutschland class the French felt that the Dunkerque’s where still up to the task of fighting this new class of battleship since it sported the same size guns as the Deutschland.
      Italy however designed a counter to the Dunkerques in the form of the Littorio’s because they where now concerned with the possibility of a french threat.
      The French responded with the Richelieu class to counter the Littorio’s.
      Germany than responded with the Bismark class.
      WW2 than breaks out and France is quickly overwhelmed.

      TL:DR Dunkerque was a part of an evolving naval arms race designed to counter a specific ship class and was designed to stay within treaty limits whilst doing so. The armour scheme for her time was quite advanced and compared to the British Nelson class more heavily armoured per % of tonnage.

      Alaska was designed as an anti commerce raider and AA support ship designed to counter light cruisers, heavy cruisers, Germany’s Deutschland class armoured cruisers and the rumoured Japanese B65 large cruiser class.

      For your last point regarding the “cruiser killer mission” you are only partly correct but I will explain the difference.

      When Britain and Germany first created the concept of the battlecruiser they did so to fit a specific need. They needed a ship fast enough but still armoured enough to scout ahead of the main battle force, engage the enemy and than be able to rush back to the main fleet whilst being chased by the enemy. The enemies ships would than chase the battlecruisers and would than be punished by the slower dreadnoughts of the main fleet which had been waiting. Britain sacrificed armour for speed and Germany sacrificed gun size for speed.

      However breakthroughs in propulsion technology as well as metallurgical and design understanding in the 1920’s and 1930’s rendered battlecruisers redundant as now the battleship could be as fast or faster than cruiser cousins but still be incredibly well armoured and armed.

      Large cruisers where not designed as scouts for the main battle fleet but where intended for fleet support and to counter anti shipping raids and thus where designed to be superior to large and light cruisers in all aspects such as speed, armour and armament.

    • G3nesis Prime Agreed. Large cruiser. Battle cruisers were originally designed to be able to catch and kill cruisers and other smaller ships, but outrun any capital ships it came across that it’s armor couldn’t defeat. While Alaska could kill lesser cruisers, it really didn’t have the speed to catch other cruisers or escape fast battleships and would fall prey to anything like a Kongo, Iowa, or Bismarck. Fast battleships virtually eliminate the uses for battle cruisers.

  12. thats called a “BATTLECRUISER”

    • cobrazax no……….its not

    • its totally in the battlecruiser category, semi battleship guns with semi battleship armor.
      “They were officially classed as large cruisers (CB), but others have regarded them as battlecruisers”

    • cobrazax They are enlarged cruisers Battle cruisers are underarmored Battleships.

    • it has battleship size guns with light battleship armor. more armor than the Kongo class battleships which are actually more like battlecruisers.

    • well, Battlecruisers are like this:
      -thin armor
      -capital ship armament

      Large Cruisers are like this:
      -intermediate (between battleship and heavy cruiser) armor
      -intermediate armament (because 305mm guns aren’t capital ship guns by the time she was built)

      Battleships are like this:
      -Thick armor
      -capital ship armament

      Fast Battleships are like this: (and the beginning of ww1 and before you weren’t able to have both, good protection and good speed, but at the end of ww1 better engines were invented which made it possible to have both)
      -Thick armor
      -capital ship armament

  13. What, again an AA ship, when do they stop making it impossible for carriers to strike?

  14. well if this think is gonna be a tier 9 bc then the lexington bc will be tier X cause it was gonna be a 12 gunner

    • charliedontsurf334

      According to wikipedia (not the best source I know) the Lexi was supposed to have 8 18 in guns. If they ever bring the Lexi Battlecruiser in, it will be at tier 7. It fits historically, and could make an interesting american HMS Hood.

    • there wont be lexington battlecruiser. This is a premium ship.

  15. What ever happened to ‘Zoupy Sails?’

  16. The Alaska is kind of the American Kronschtadt. A part of me wonders if the Alaska is a bribe to get us to accept an overpowered Stalingrad into the game…Or finally quit complaining about the Missouri…

    • charliedontsurf334

      You make a good point about the Missouri. Though Wargaming needs no reason to bring in OP russian paper ships. I’m waiting for the Kirov or the Kuznetsov to be brought in and really screw up balance.

  17. Not another bloody tier 9 radar…

    • charliedontsurf334

      Maybe it is to shut up the people that hate how the Missouri messes with the rock-paper-scissors that this game is supposed to be. Though with the cruisers HE spamming battleships, I say it is already messed up.

  18. TruckinGoneWild Gaming

    Did anyone notice the 27% fire chance on the HE shell?

  19. Wonder which will be the king, kronshtadt or Alaska?
    Given the musashi vs Missouri
    I think it might repeat with the American bais. 16.2 for a battle cruiser while BBS have lower bas detection
    762 ap is bad.
    Wlong way off hopefully it’s fixed

  20. A full stealth build Iowa/Missouri has a 0.3 km less detection radius. What? lol

Leave a Reply

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