Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
IronMike11B4O

Alaska HP question?

125 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

569
[KP]
Members
2,066 posts
18,799 battles

It's a simple question. 

Is the HP pool for the Alaska about 12K HP too low?

I was looking at Kronstadt HP and the low number on the real ship Alaska. It really sticks out versus a ship that never even made it out of Drydock.

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,262
[PVE]
Members
9,769 posts
7,478 battles

Paper ships always have the advantage of not having to exist in the real world, so they can go by "oh wouldn't this be cool stats". :Smile_sceptic:

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,864 posts
19,068 battles
1 minute ago, Kizarvexis said:

Paper ships always have the advantage of not having to exist in the real world, so they can go by "oh wouldn't this be cool stats". :Smile_sceptic:

Agreed 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
569
[KP]
Members
2,066 posts
18,799 battles
Just now, Kizarvexis said:

Paper ships always have the advantage of not having to exist in the real world, so they can go by "oh wouldn't this be cool stats". :Smile_sceptic:

They need a funny and sad emoji. That's what your response elicited from me. 

:)

I'll just +1 you instead.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
951
[BBICT]
Members
3,372 posts
3,561 battles

Well, she is brand new to the game, so I would be shocked if her stats didn't change here and there... Wait and see I guess.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,902
[HINON]
Supertester
19,235 posts
12,772 battles

Hit points are based on tonnage. Alaska was 34k ton full load. Kronshtadt would've been around 42k ton full load. Just because ships are on the same tier doesn't mean they should have the same stats everywhere.

  • Cool 9
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,591 posts
12,470 battles

What is the fascination with this ship? I see posts for it all over the place....Didn't the US have enough ships that fought in WWII that we single out the Alaska so much?

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles
11 minutes ago, Sweetsie said:

What is the fascination with this ship? I see posts for it all over the place....Didn't the US have enough ships that fought in WWII that we single out the Alaska so much?

It's because of how unique the ship is. She's the only battlecruiser the US ever really built, and has an impressive main battery. 

 

In a sense, she's an American Scharnhorst, but faster, with bigger guns, and more AA. In return she has less armor, worse secondaries, etc. The ship has massive potential, it's up to the testing to determine how well it goes.

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[YARRR]
Members
401 posts
4,759 battles

The Alaska is the only "battle cruiser" class that was actually fielded by the USN, that is a big part of it, and she was a very good looking ship.

 

m8gP3e.jpg

She will also provide, perhaps, a slightly different play style than current CAs or BBs do.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
951
[BBICT]
Members
3,372 posts
3,561 battles

It really is the "what if?" with her...she was made to fight the IJN CAs even if she was outnumbered, and maybe even take on the Sharn if if came to it. I for one like heavy CAs with their mobility, good firepower, and at times high risk playstyle. Will she work for that? I really think so. Now I just have to have the XP to get her...I wish I had more time to grind it out, but I may just have to beg for gold, or sell some stuff, LOL... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
248
[NUWES]
Members
1,661 posts
5,587 battles
1 hour ago, Lert said:

Hit points are based on tonnage. Alaska was 34k ton full load. Kronshtadt would've been around 42k ton full load. Just because ships are on the same tier doesn't mean they should have the same stats everywhere.

^This. 

Kronshtadt was also a rather beamy ship compared to Alaska. Alaska had cruiser lines and was longer and thinner. It was at its core just a scaled up cruiser (Baltimore) able to kill regular CAs and commerce raiders with no damage to itself and to provide AA cover. It was never really indented to be more than that or to slug with BBs.  Kronshtadt's design history was a little closer to a true battlecruiser (or mini-battleship) and part of the design plans expected it to be able to engage small BBs like Dunkerques, and BCs as well as to kill cruisers. They both had similar roles in mind but they arrived at it through different design intents. 

Edited by Tzarevitch
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,123 posts
3,620 battles
3 hours ago, ElAurens said:

The Alaska is the only "battle cruiser" class that was actually fielded by the USN, that is a big part of it, and she was a very good looking ship.

 

m8gP3e.jpg

She will also provide, perhaps, a slightly different play style than current CAs or BBs do.

Alaska is not a battle cruiser. no CC designation, no 16" guns, no TDS, not considerably faster than BBs of the same era, and the armor schemes are completely different than any of Americas planned CC.

even the lexington was planned with 16" guns (which were actually larger than the 12-14" guns battleships of that time period were carrying).

2 hours ago, Tzarevitch said:

^This. 

Kronshtadt was also a rather beamy ship compared to Alaska. Alaska had cruiser lines and was longer and thinner. It was at its core just a scaled up cruiser (Baltimore) able to kill regular CAs and commerce raiders with no damage to itself and to provide AA cover. It was never really indented to be more than that or to slug with BBs.  Kronshtadt's design history was a little closer to a true battlecruiser (or mini-battleship) and part of the design plans expected it to be able to engage small BBs like Dunkerques, and BCs as well as to kill cruisers. They both had similar roles in mind but they arrived at it through different design intents. 

kron was also designed with german 15" guns, which would certainly allow it to punch the ticket of most things it could encounter. especially the dunk and apparently Hood.

I would actually like to see kron prem BB at t6-7 with the 15" guns...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
475 posts
5,729 battles
15 minutes ago, Hanger_18 said:

Alaska is not a battle cruiser. no CC designation, no 16" guns, no TDS, not considerably faster than BBs of the same era, and the armor schemes are completely different than any of Americas planned CC.

even the lexington was planned with 16" guns (which were actually larger than the 12-14" guns battleships of that time period were carrying).

kron was also designed with german 15" guns, which would certainly allow it to punch the ticket of most things it could encounter. especially the dunk and apparently Hood.

I would actually like to see kron prem BB at t6-7 with the 15" guns...

It had CC designation in the beginning, but doesn't matter. It was designed to hunt cruisers and survive. In other words a battlecruiser.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
5 hours ago, Doomlock said:

It's because of how unique the ship is. She's the only battlecruiser the US ever really built, and has an impressive main battery. 

 

She's not a battlecruiser.

 

33 minutes ago, _no_one_ said:

It was designed to hunt cruisers and survive. In other words a battlecruiser.

 

She's literally an enlarged Baltimore. Structurally, she's a cruiser. She's built like a cruiser, she's armored like a cruiser, she would've operated like a cruiser.

 

She's a cruiser.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles
3 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

 

She's not a battlecruiser.

 

 

She's literally an enlarged Baltimore. Structurally, she's a cruiser. She's built like a cruiser, she's armored like a cruiser, she would've operated like a cruiser.

 

She's a cruiser.

Official classification was large cruiser, however this term was used in lieu of battlecruiser by congress. However, for all intents and purposes, Alaska is a battlecruiser.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
Just now, Doomlock said:

Official classification was large cruiser, however this term was used in lieu of battlecruiser by congress. However, for all intents and purposes, Alaska is a battlecruiser.

 

No, she isn't. Battlecruisers tended to have lighter versions of battleship armor schemes. TDS, turtleback plates, etc. They were armored like battleships, just less tonnage dedicated to armor. They were also much closer to (and sometimes exceeding) their contemporary battleships in displacement. Alaska is +-20,000 tons "lighter" than her contemporary battleship (Iowa) and is structurally an enlarged Baltimore. She's also armored like a Baltimore, meaning she has a belt and some armored bulkheads, but no armor beyond that. No turtleback plating, no TDS. 

 

She's not a battlecruiser. She was a big cruiser designed as an answer to perceived Japanese cruiser superiority (including the B-65) that, at the start of the war, was a very real threat, but quickly evaporated well before Alaska herself was launched. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles
15 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

She's not a battlecruiser. She was a big cruiser designed as an answer to perceived Japanese cruiser superiority (including the B-65) that, at the start of the war, was a very real threat, but quickly evaporated well before Alaska herself was launched. 

I have seen a document, official mind you, of Alaska being called a battlecruiser. Beyond that, Alaska has more armor than some battlecruisers of old, with some having 6" of belt armor or less. 

 

Along with that, Kronshtadt, and Stalingrad, some of her contemporaries, were classed as battlecruisers during construction. 

 

Battlecruisers as a whole were wildly different, and the ones classed as such were wildly different designs, armor schemes, armament, tonnage, etc. There are many on this forum, and among historians that feel that Alaska was a battlecruiser in everything but name only.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
14 minutes ago, Doomlock said:

I have seen a document, official mind you, of Alaska being called a battlecruiser. Beyond that, Alaska has more armor than some battlecruisers of old, with some having 6" of belt armor or less. 

 

Produce said document, please.

 

She may have a thicker belt than some old battlecruisers, but I guarantee she has less armor overall. Especially when it comes to protection of vitals and TDS. Kronshtadt was designed as a battlecruiser. Which is why she was actually supposed to get German-built 14.96" guns, because the Soviets figured her 12"/55 battery was insufficient for her role as a battlecruiser. Stalingrad was also designed as a battlecruiser.

 

Alaska is not a battlecruiser. 

 

Here's the cover page for her 93-page mold loft offset plan.

 

51atT9c.png

 

No mention of 'battlecruiser'. But instead, we see CB-1, CB-2. Large Cruisers. 

 

Large cruiser is not synonymous with "battlecruiser". 

 

There are some historians that believe that Alaska was a battlecruiser. There doesn't make it correct. There are also many who do not. The fact that she was never officially referred to as a battlecruiser, and actually had an entirely new designation created specifically for her despite the CC designation for battlecruiser already existing, and the fact that she was designed to face a similar ship that was also not a battlecruiser (B-65) tells me that she was not a battlecruiser. She was an enlarged heavy cruiser. That in no way, shape or form makes a battlecruiser. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,065
[OPG]
Members
3,974 posts
5,688 battles
20 minutes ago, Doomlock said:

I have seen a document, official mind you, of Alaska being called a battlecruiser. Beyond that, Alaska has more armor than some battlecruisers of old, with some having 6" of belt armor or less. 

I just don't see the point of not referring to the Alaska by her official designation.  You can argue CBs and CCs are fundamentally the same thing....but why insist on calling her a CC when her official hull designation is a CB?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
440
[MIA-A]
[MIA-A]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,052 posts
7,783 battles

It is the Kronshtadt's HP pool that is too low. Kronshtadt should have 23% higher HP based on its displacement, but it's only 16% more. Of course this is the NA forums, so people will naturally complain that every USN ship is not better than every other across the board, and even then people would still point at the low winrates and complain about that, not realizing that their own quality of play is adding to the problem.

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
1 minute ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

2e0q6c.jpg

:Smile_popcorn:

 

I mean, if we're honest with ourselves, 305mm hadn't been a battleship-caliber gun in the USN since 1912. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
411
[2CUTE]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,259 posts
3,852 battles
6 hours ago, IronMike11B4O said:

It's a simple question. 

Is the HP pool for the Alaska about 12K HP too low?

I was looking at Kronstadt HP and the low number on the real ship Alaska. It really sticks out versus a ship that never even made it out of Drydock.

simple answer, Alaska gets 27mm of bow plating allowing her to bounce 380mm shells when Kronshtadt cannot. HP is a balancing factor that can be adjusted to increase survivability. since Kron can eat any BB caliber shells she sees through the nose, she gets a little more HP to make sure she doesn't get eaten alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
440
[MIA-A]
[MIA-A]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,052 posts
7,783 battles
Just now, ramp4ge said:

 

I mean, if we're honest with ourselves, 305mm hadn't been a battleship-caliber gun in the USN since 1912. 

So we agree that this is a destroyer then.

USS_Wyoming,_gunnery_training_ship,_1944

 

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
Just now, NeoRussia said:

So we agree that this is a destroyer then.

 

No, that is an AA training ship. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×