Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

33 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

6
[BALOR]
Members
31 posts
4,723 battles

I have been playing for 2 years and love this game. The famous ships, the battles but there is one ship missing - Battlecruiser Alaska. This was the only battlecruiser built by the U.S. in WWII and it should be featured in the game. I would also lie to add that there should be re-enactments of famous sea battles where players have a chance to alter the outcome. Just a thought.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,708
[HINON]
WoWS Wiki Editor, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles

Soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,026
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,139 posts
8,762 battles
1 minute ago, Doomlock said:

Soontm

FTFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,276 battles
25 minutes ago, FierceNemesis said:

I have been playing for 2 years and love this game. The famous ships, the battles but there is one ship missing - Battlecruiser Alaska. This was the only battlecruiser built by the U.S. in WWII and it should be featured in the game. I would also lie to add that there should be re-enactments of famous sea battles where players have a chance to alter the outcome. Just a thought.

A. The Alaska class were classified at "Large Cruisers", not battlecruisers.

B. The topic of the Alaska is a very old one and constantly rehashed.  Try looking through the old threads or using search.  There's really no need to rehash old discussions over and over and over again, ad infinitum.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
251 posts
1,395 battles

Not going to lie, this would be a pretty cool ship to have in the game, to! Though, I have no idea as to where it would fall as a premium. I did a little research and it seems like people would expect to see this as a T7, possibly T8. Though, I highly doubt this thing would be called a Cruiser of any sorts, especially with that gun caliber, and not to even mention the size of this boat. I mean, look at the size difference... apparently the ship above is a certain, scary, Iowa Class Battleship, the Missouri. That thing next to it? No, that's not another battleship. That's the ship you're calling a Battlecruiser. :Smile_glasses:

 

ZnnUY5G.png

And yes, if you asked me what I thought of the 'two cool BBs' in this photo, I'd have no idea that the thing below was in fact a cruiser of any sorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,276 battles
3 hours ago, AllysaRockz said:

Not going to lie, this would be a pretty cool ship to have in the game, to! Though, I have no idea as to where it would fall as a premium. I did a little research and it seems like people would expect to see this as a T7, possibly T8. Though, I highly doubt this thing would be called a Cruiser of any sorts, especially with that gun caliber, and not to even mention the size of this boat. I mean, look at the size difference... apparently the ship above is a certain, scary, Iowa Class Battleship, the Missouri. That thing next to it? No, that's not another battleship. That's the ship you're calling a Battlecruiser. :Smile_glasses:

 

ZnnUY5G.png

And yes, if you asked me what I thought of the 'two cool BBs' in this photo, I'd have no idea that the thing below was in fact a cruiser of any sorts.

Say whatever you like, the USN called it a "Large Cruiser".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
347
[H-W-C]
Members
1,258 posts
3,306 battles
3 hours ago, Crucis said:
6 hours ago, AllysaRockz said:

ZnnUY5G.png

And yes, if you asked me what I thought of the 'two cool BBs' in this photo, I'd have no idea that the thing below was in fact a cruiser of any sorts.

Say whatever you like, the USN called it a "Large Cruiser".

True, but the thing is longer than King George V, North Carolina, and Scharnhorst! So I think you can get why some of us call it a battlecruiser and not a "Large Cruiser"

 

Also, I'd say the best way to tell that Alaska isn't a battleship would be from the placement of the aircraft catapults and secondary battery.

Edited by warpath_33
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,227 posts
6,722 battles
7 hours ago, Crucis said:

Say whatever you like, the USN called it a "Large Cruiser".

Does it meet the definition of a battlecruiser? Yes? Then it’s a battlecruiser.

 

thats like saying the jap helicopter destroyers aren’t aircraft carriers because they’re called destroyers...their primary purpose is to carry combat aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,276 battles
55 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

Does it meet the definition of a battlecruiser? Yes? Then it’s a battlecruiser.

 

thats like saying the jap helicopter destroyers aren’t aircraft carriers because they’re called destroyers...their primary purpose is to carry combat aircraft.

But what IS the definition of battlecruiser?  IMO, there were no actual battlecruisers built after, perhaps, the Amagi (though they got cancelled and some converted to CV's).  Real battlecruisers are about the same size, if not larger and longer, than legit battleships.  They usually mounted the same guns as contemporaneous battleships in their navy.  And they traded some armor for additional boilers and engines, because in the era where true battlecruisers were built, it wasn't really possible to build a so-called "fast battleship" because boiler/engine technology wasn't up to the task.  The so-called fast battleships of the 1930's only became possible due to technological advancements in those areas.  The fact is that the Alaska does NOT fit the mold of battlecruisers as seen in the era of true battlecruisers in the 1900's and 1910's.  It is smaller than contemporaneous BBs of her time and carried smaller guns than USN BB's of her time. Furthermore, it doesn't even have the proper torpedo protection that was seen on BBs of her time.  What the Alaska was, was an upscaled version of the Baltimore.

As for the second paragraph, I disagree, because I don't think that you know what the proper definition of "battlecruiser" really is.  As for the Japanese helo DD's not being called CV's, well, that just an example of how people can call an apple an orange, but that doesn't make it so.  In the 1970's, IIRC, the USN ended up reclassifying a number of ships to "cruisers" because there was a public relations problem (with Congress, I think) that the USN was lacking cruisers.  So they redesignated a number of ships from DD's or frigates to cruisers, and viola!  no more "cruiser gap".  But it really didn't make them "cruisers".

Regardless, the Alaskas don't really fit the proper definition of battlecruiser, at least in proper historical terms.  For them to be battlecruisers, you'd have to redefine what a BC is.  And then where are you?  Back to those Japanese helo "carriers" being called DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
251 posts
1,395 battles
1 hour ago, JohnPJones said:

thats like saying the jap helicopter destroyers aren’t aircraft carriers because they’re called destroyers...their primary purpose is to carry combat aircraft.

 

Not on topic with the idea of the USS Alaska nor Battlecruisers, but I'm afraid you've been misinformed. Erm... well, first off, they're not Aircraft Carriers. That's just what the Chinese seemed to think when the Japanese launched them. :Smile_teethhappy: Second off, I think you're referring to ASW Carriers, not helicopter destroyers, as this is their actual designation. ASW stands for Anti Submarine Warfare. And their purpose isn't to carry combat aircraft, either. Their purpose is to patrol coastlines with ASW helicopters equipped with sonar systems used to detect, triangulate, and locate submarines.

 

dITfHku.jpg

 

And in this photo, to the left is a Nimitz class, an actual aircraft carrier, and to the right is a Hyuuga class, an ASW Carrier. As you can tell from the photo, that ASW vessel does not carry fighter aircraft, nor is it really designed to carry them either. All I'm saying is that definitely isn't an Aircraft Carrier.

Edited by AllysaRockz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,227 posts
6,722 battles
7 hours ago, AllysaRockz said:

 

Not on topic with the idea of the USS Alaska nor Battlecruisers, but I'm afraid you've been misinformed. Erm... well, first off, they're not Aircraft Carriers. That's just what the Chinese seemed to think when the Japanese launched them. :Smile_teethhappy: Second off, I think you're referring to ASW Carriers, not helicopter destroyers, as this is their actual designation. ASW stands for Anti Submarine Warfare. And their purpose isn't to carry combat aircraft, either. Their purpose is to patrol coastlines with ASW helicopters equipped with sonar systems used to detect, triangulate, and locate submarines.

 

dITfHku.jpg

 

And in this photo, to the left is a Nimitz class, an actual aircraft carrier, and to the right is a Hyuuga class, an ASW Carrier. As you can tell from the photo, that ASW vessel does not carry fighter aircraft, nor is it really designed to carry them either. All I'm saying is that definitely isn't an Aircraft Carrier.

Thank you for explaining what ASW means to a sailor, but yes those helicopters are combat aircraft.

they are aircraft design to engage in combat, and yes hunting subs is a form of combat, but since they use SH60s those helicopters can be used to attack surface vessels.

 

the whole point of the ships is to carry aircraft for use in combat operations.

even though the Russians don’t technically have a carrier we still classify their ‘heavy aviation cruiser’ as a carrier because it’s purpose is to carry combat aircraft.

 

the capability to carry fighters or fixed wing aircraft in general is irrelevant, as is size.

the Izumo class helicopter destroyer (DDH) is fairly close to thesize of the UK’s queen Elizabeth class carriers.

 

but comparing to a US super carrier is a terrible way to make that comparison

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,227 posts
6,722 battles
8 hours ago, Crucis said:

But what IS the definition of battlecruiser?  IMO, there were no actual battlecruisers built after, perhaps, the Amagi (though they got cancelled and some converted to CV's).  Real battlecruisers are about the same size, if not larger and longer, than legit battleships.  They usually mounted the same guns as contemporaneous battleships in their navy.  And they traded some armor for additional boilers and engines, because in the era where true battlecruisers were built, it wasn't really possible to build a so-called "fast battleship" because boiler/engine technology wasn't up to the task.  The so-called fast battleships of the 1930's only became possible due to technological advancements in those areas.  The fact is that the Alaska does NOT fit the mold of battlecruisers as seen in the era of true battlecruisers in the 1900's and 1910's.  It is smaller than contemporaneous BBs of her time and carried smaller guns than USN BB's of her time. Furthermore, it doesn't even have the proper torpedo protection that was seen on BBs of her time.  What the Alaska was, was an upscaled version of the Baltimore.

As for the second paragraph, I disagree, because I don't think that you know what the proper definition of "battlecruiser" really is.  As for the Japanese helo DD's not being called CV's, well, that just an example of how people can call an apple an orange, but that doesn't make it so.  In the 1970's, IIRC, the USN ended up reclassifying a number of ships to "cruisers" because there was a public relations problem (with Congress, I think) that the USN was lacking cruisers.  So they redesignated a number of ships from DD's or frigates to cruisers, and viola!  no more "cruiser gap".  But it really didn't make them "cruisers".

Regardless, the Alaskas don't really fit the proper definition of battlecruiser, at least in proper historical terms.  For them to be battlecruisers, you'd have to redefine what a BC is.  And then where are you?  Back to those Japanese helo "carriers" being called DDs.

The ideal was to get guns the same caliber as contemporary BBs, but battleship caliber is pretty much anything that’s 10”+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[JFSOC]
Members
909 posts
2,593 battles

The reason the Alaska's are classified as "large cruisers" is because their machinery, general layout, and protection scheme follows US Navy cruiser practice rather than battleship practice.

The Alaska's have no torpedo defense system built into them other than a double hull, like cruisers.  The machinery layout and compartmentation follow cruiser design practice.  The catapults are amidships as in pre- and early war cruisers rather than at the stern.  There is a single rudder rather than the twin layout of battleships.  The secondary armament follows cruiser design practice rather than battleship.

Hence why the USN called them large cruisers.

There were some alternatives presented in the design phase for the Alaska's where they got battleship-like torpedo defenses and such that were labeled "battlecruiser" but these were not acted on.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,227 posts
6,722 battles
5 hours ago, Murotsu said:

The reason the Alaska's are classified as "large cruisers" is because their machinery, general layout, and protection scheme follows US Navy cruiser practice rather than battleship practice.

The Alaska's have no torpedo defense system built into them other than a double hull, like cruisers.  The machinery layout and compartmentation follow cruiser design practice.  The catapults are amidships as in pre- and early war cruisers rather than at the stern.  There is a single rudder rather than the twin layout of battleships.  The secondary armament follows cruiser design practice rather than battleship.

Hence why the USN called them large cruisers.

There were some alternatives presented in the design phase for the Alaska's where they got battleship-like torpedo defenses and such that were labeled "battlecruiser" but these were not acted on.

I don’t know what the protection and machinery layouts of the ships labeled battlecruisers is, but I guess I’ve never seen anything that said there was specified way to design the cruiser level protection, or the machinery spaces.

 

the definition as I’ve seen has only been large cruisers with cruiser protection, and 10”+ guns to hunt down and destroy CAs and CLs while being able to outrun BBs.

 

the Alaskas fit that definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[JFSOC]
Members
909 posts
2,593 battles

5uHe5dh.png

As you can see, the torpedo protection is much thinner than on a battleship, or even a carrier.  Armor is mostly equivalent to cruiser levels  and relatively close to say a New Orleans or Wichita.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,026
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,139 posts
8,762 battles
6 hours ago, Murotsu said:

The reason the Alaska's are classified as "large cruisers" is because their machinery, general layout, and protection scheme follows US Navy cruiser practice rather than battleship practice.

The Alaska's have no torpedo defense system built into them other than a double hull, like cruisers.  The machinery layout and compartmentation follow cruiser design practice.  The catapults are amidships as in pre- and early war cruisers rather than at the stern.  There is a single rudder rather than the twin layout of battleships.  The secondary armament follows cruiser design practice rather than battleship.

Hence why the USN called them large cruisers.

There were some alternatives presented in the design phase for the Alaska's where they got battleship-like torpedo defenses and such that were labeled "battlecruiser" but these were not acted on.

True but the Alaska's mission was pure Battlecruiser, hunt cruisers.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,227 posts
6,722 battles
5 hours ago, Murotsu said:

5uHe5dh.png

As you can see, the torpedo protection is much thinner than on a battleship, or even a carrier.  Armor is mostly equivalent to cruiser levels  and relatively close to say a New Orleans or Wichita.

which makes sense as a battlecruiser, since battlecruisers were supposed to have cruiser level protection...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,288 posts
3,583 battles

Whenever I see these threads I keep thinking why would people want such a unique ship as an easy to buy premium ship ? In my opinion a tier 9 free xp cruiser makes the most sense as it is by itself besides the Guam. Making the USS Alaska a tier 7 or 8 premium or a ranked rewards ship just cuts out the possibility of people actually taking pride in the ship itself. Having to earn your way to it makes you feel like you've done something and allows you to enjoy the ship more. It would be a waste to put this in as a buyable premium or a ranked rewards ship. This ship should be an earned ship not a giveaway for money ship.Before you quote me think on what I have said and you'll realize that it makes the most sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6
[BALOR]
Members
31 posts
4,723 battles

I understand that the U.S. did classify it as a "Large Cruiser" but under that designation so is the Hood a large cruiser instead of a Battlecruiser.  After all, if you want to split hairs the Salem and DesMoines are very heavy cruisers that with little upgrade could be classified as a battlecruiser, so to call Alaska a "large cruiser" is a best anti-climactic.  That debate aside, I agree  Alaska is a one of a kind, literally, and should be considered a special ship that should be earned, Level 10, rather than just listed as a "cruiser". With its considerable upgrades above even the Des Moines, it can't be classified in the same category as them.  Some may disagree but they can not disagree that Alaska would be a great addition to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[BERYL]
Members
5 posts

The Alaska class (originally 6 ordered with only 2 built mid 1940's, Alaska and Guam) was considered a battlecruiser. The Alaska's first designation was CB-1 by the US Navy. CB stands for Battlecruiser. It was later classified as a large cruiser due to politics and funding issues with Congress. The main armament, 9 - 12 inch guns, was very similar to Scharnhorst. 

Unlike a lot of the paper ships created in WOW, the USS Alaska had a brief late action WWII career and was awarded 3 battle stars. 

World of Warships could offer it as a tiny US premium battleship at Tier VII (to mirror the Germans, Scharnhorst and Genny), or to keep the non-history balance buffs of digital war gaming happy offer it as an incredibly large US heavy cruiser at Tier VIII in the new cruiser split coming soon. It is much much larger than USS Baltimore.

Love to drive it with its super duper AA wherever it ends up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[70]
Members
961 posts
3,691 battles

Let's see if it passes the duck test:

Does it look like a duck something between a battleship and heavy cruiser? CHECK!

Does it walk like a duck act like something between a BB and CA? CHECK!

Does it quack like a duck have a bark/bite somthing between a BB and CA? CHECK!

...

...Let's call it a supercruiser just because of American Exceptionalism, and so that Bungie/343 Studios can make a Covenant Supercruiser ship class label.

Scharnhorst class could validly be called Fast Battleships, Alaskas were legit Battlecruisers with their inferior protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×