Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
flounder2760

alaska class tier 6...

212 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

61
[AWP]
Beta Testers
542 posts
3,512 battles

is anyone else saddened by the fact that the Alaska class (according to the what we know about ships post) is listed as a tier6 battle cruiser?

Class and type: Large cruiser
Displacement: 29,771 tons (standard)
34,253 tons (full load)[4]
Length: 808 ft 6 in (246.43 m) overall[4]
791 ft 6 in (241.25 m) waterline
Beam: 91 ft 9.375 in (28.0 m)[4]
Draft: 27 ft 1 in (8.26 m) (mean)[1] 31 ft 9.25 in (9.68 m) (maximum)[4]
Propulsion: 4-shaft General Electric steam turbines, double-reduction gearing,[5] 8 Babcock & Wilcox boilers[6]
150,000 shp (112 MW)[4]
Speed: 31.4 knots (58.2 km/h; 36.1 mph)[2] to 33 knots (61 km/h; 38 mph)[6][7][8]
Range: 12,000 nautical miles (22,000 km; 13,670 miles) at 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph)[4]
Complement: 1,517[6][8]–1,799[9]–2,251[1][2][A]
Armament: 9 × 12"/50 caliber Mark 8 guns (304.8 mm)[4] (3 × 3)

12 × 5-inch (127 mm)/38 caliber dual-purpose[5] guns[4] (6 × 2)[5]
56 × 40 mm (1.57 in)[4] Bofors (14 × 4)[5]

34 × 20mm Oerlikon (34 × 1)[4][5]
Armor: Main side belt: 9" gradually thinning to 5"[6]

Armor deck: 3.8–4.0"[6]
Weather (main) deck: 1.40"[4][6]
Splinter (third) deck: 0.625"[6]
Barbettes: 11–13"[6]
Turrets: 12.8" face, 5" roof, 5.25–6" side and 5.25" rear.[6]

Conning tower:10.6" with 5" roof[6][8]
Aircraft carried: 4 × OS2U Kingfisher or SC Seahawk[10][B]
Aviation facilities: Enclosed hangar located amidships[6][11]

these are not the stats of a tier6 to me the AA alone as well as the 12 inch guns on a cruiser platform going 30+kts   seems to be of at least the tier8  variety  and if it retains the AAA ability...... man.

 

Rate of fire 2.4–3.0 rounds per minute[1]
Maximum firing range 38,573 yards (35,271 m)[1]

hell her guns are gonna have decent rate of fire for 12 inchers.

 

 

but tier 6? they would have to nerf the crap out of her to make her fit that tiering.

 

 

what are your thoughts guys?  if the what we know about ships sticky is correct... how do you think they will mangle one of the coolest of the usn ships to come?

 

 

 

 

edit: i realize the topic is old but if its so inaccurate why is it still stickied.  just discuss what tiering you think the ship should be.

Edited by flounder2760

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
342
Supertester
1,054 posts
3,253 battles

It better damn well be the top of the CA line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
615
[POW1]
Members
5,078 posts

is anyone else saddened by the fact that the Alaska class (according to the what we know about ships post) is listed as a tier6 battle cruiser?

Class and type: Large cruiser
Displacement: 29,771 tons (standard)
34,253 tons (full load)[4]
Length: 808 ft 6 in (246.43 m) overall[4]
791 ft 6 in (241.25 m) waterline
Beam: 91 ft 9.375 in (28.0 m)[4]
Draft: 27 ft 1 in (8.26 m) (mean)[1] 31 ft 9.25 in (9.68 m) (maximum)[4]
Propulsion: 4-shaft General Electric steam turbines, double-reduction gearing,[5] 8 Babcock & Wilcox boilers[6]
150,000 shp (112 MW)[4]
Speed: 31.4 knots (58.2 km/h; 36.1 mph)[2] to 33 knots (61 km/h; 38 mph)[6][7][8]
Range: 12,000 nautical miles (22,000 km; 13,670 miles) at 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph)[4]
Complement: 1,517[6][8]–1,799[9]–2,251[1][2][A]
Armament: 9 × 12"/50 caliber Mark 8 guns (304.8 mm)[4] (3 × 3)

12 × 5-inch (127 mm)/38 caliber dual-purpose[5] guns[4] (6 × 2)[5]
56 × 40 mm (1.57 in)[4] Bofors (14 × 4)[5]

34 × 20mm Oerlikon (34 × 1)[4][5]
Armor: Main side belt: 9" gradually thinning to 5"[6]

Armor deck: 3.8–4.0"[6]
Weather (main) deck: 1.40"[4][6]
Splinter (third) deck: 0.625"[6]
Barbettes: 11–13"[6]
Turrets: 12.8" face, 5" roof, 5.25–6" side and 5.25" rear.[6]

Conning tower:10.6" with 5" roof[6][8]
Aircraft carried: 4 × OS2U Kingfisher or SC Seahawk[10][B]
Aviation facilities: Enclosed hangar located amidships[6][11]

these are not the stats of a tier6 to me the AA alone as well as the 12 inch guns on a cruiser platform going 30+kts   seems to be of at least the tier8  variety  and if it retains the AAA ability...... man.

 

Rate of fire 2.4–3.0 rounds per minute[1]
Maximum firing range 38,573 yards (35,271 m)[1]

hell her guns are gonna have decent rate of fire for 12 inchers.

 

 

but tier 6? they would have to nerf the crap out of her to make her fit that tiering.

 

 

what are your thoughts guys?  if the what we know about ships sticky is correct... how do you think they will mangle one of the coolest of the usn ships to come?

 

 

 

 

edit: i realize the topic is old but if its so inaccurate why is it still stickied.  just discuss what tiering you think the ship should be.

Tier X heavy Cruiser when they redo the lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,879 posts
21 battles

It better damn well be the top of the CA line.

 

Tier X heavy Cruiser when they redo the lines.

 

As far as i recall Tuccy, an EU dev, said it won't be the case. I may be wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,904
Supertester, Members, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
11,416 posts
1,963 battles

edit: i realize the topic is old but if its so inaccurate why is it still stickied.  just discuss what tiering you think the ship should be.

It only got stickied within the last two months.

 

Personally I think its fine as a mid-upper tier battlecruiser. Where is more debatable, either 6-7 is probably best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
615
[POW1]
Members
5,078 posts

 

 

As far as i recall Tuccy, an EU dev, said it won't be the case. I may be wrong though.

 

Agree they do put a lot of double talk out. I do know they are redoing cruiser lines in the future. Their will be a heavy and light lines. Now for the Alaska I did it might be tier X heavy cruiser. That is what the US Navy classified her as. Not a Battlecruiser. If they introduce the Battlecruiser line. She could be in their if WoWs decide that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
401
Beta Testers
1,520 posts
187 battles

 

Agree they do put a lot of double talk out. I do know they are redoing cruiser lines in the future. Their will be a heavy and light lines. Now for the Alaska I did it might be tier X heavy cruiser. That is what the US Navy classified her as. Not a Battlecruiser. If they introduce the Battlecruiser line. She could be in their if WoWs decide that.

 

They classified her as a Large Cruiser, not heavy cruiser. She was basically a Battle Cruiser and thus be treated as one. The Heavy cruiser line already has a T10 in the Des Moines
Edited by Noth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,315
[KSF]
-Members-
6,959 posts
10,277 battles

 

They classified her as a Large Cruiser, not heavy cruiser. She was basically a Battle Cruiser and thus be treated as one. The Heavy cruiser line already has a T10 in the Des Moines

 

Not a normal thought, but how about researching it from the Des Moines? 

 

I think her RoF as a t6 should be 3.7-4.3. or as a t10 4-5.

Edited by ShermanMedium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
61
[AWP]
Beta Testers
542 posts
3,512 battles

I thought the Alaska class had 10", maybe I am wrong.

 

nope she and her sister had 12 inch guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,795
[SYN]
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
5,654 battles

I thought the Alaska class had 10", maybe I am wrong.

 

Nope 12 inchers.  But in regards to the OP god a tier 6? Gonna have to gimp the crap out to her to make her fit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
401
Beta Testers
1,520 posts
187 battles

 

Not a normal thought, but how about researching it from the Des Moines? 

 

I think her RoF as a t6 should be 3.7-4.3. or as a t10 4-5.

 

I see no reason why she would need to be nerfed at T6 in the second BB line. She'd be a Battlecruiser, thus getting the BB treatment like other battle cruisers already. She'd have less armor than pretty much any other BB in the game, smaller guns than most similar tiered BBs and battle cruisers, yet be faster. Her rate of fire was only ever 2.4 -3.0 rpm. SHe fits surprisingly well at T6 in a BB line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25
[-TAB-]
Beta Testers
133 posts
7,786 battles

Do not forget those 12"  guns had the armor piercing power of a 14-15" guns. Equaling the best armor piercing of all cruisers. It should also have the highest velocity  of  its caliber, which should make it have a amazing shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
401
Beta Testers
1,520 posts
187 battles

Do not forget those 12"  guns had the armor piercing power of a 14-15" guns. Equaling the best armor piercing of all cruisers. It should also have the highest velocity  of  its caliber, which should make it have a amazing shot.

 

There was anywhere between 4 inch to 1 inch (depending on range) disadvantage in the 12in gun side. They also had a lower velocity than the US 14 inch guns or the 12inch guns on the SoCar. What made the guns so good was the fact that they used heavy shells, thus carried more energy. 
Edited by Noth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,059 posts
2,528 battles

 

They classified her as a Large Cruiser, not heavy cruiser. She was basically a Battle Cruiser and thus be treated as one. The Heavy cruiser line already has a T10 in the Des Moines

 

Alaska developed from the upscaling of the Heavy Cruiser principles, not downscaling of a 'battleship' like the Battlecruisers were. She was designed to counter rumored 'super' IJN cruisers. There was no thought of using her to dispatched wounded battleships like one of the mission principles of battlecruisers called for.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
401
Beta Testers
1,520 posts
187 battles

 

Alaska developed from the upscaling of the Heavy Cruiser principles, not downscaling of a 'battleship' like the Battlecruisers were. She was designed to counter rumored 'super' IJN cruisers. There was no thought of using her to dispatched wounded battleships like one of the mission principles of battlecruisers called for.

 

Not disputing what she was developed from. Simply stating that she is a Battle Cruiser (pretty much the same design ideas) in all but classification name, and so far is being treated as one by the devs. She fits exactly in line with other battle cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
162
[COMIC]
Members
695 posts
8,226 battles

Here's the problem with the whole idea of a US battlecruiser line.  Aside from the Lexington class that was going to be built along with the 1919 South Dakota BB class, the US Navy was not big on battlecruisers and was only planning on the Lexingtons.  Especially after looking at the results from Jutland, the US Navy was committed to slow heavily armored capital ships.  I can see the Saratoga appear as a premium and I can see that when they remove Cleveland to the light cruiser line the heavy cruisers all slide down one slot and Alaska go in as tier 10.  Remember Alaska's armor is upsized from a Baltimore it can stop a 203mm shell, but anything bigger is gonna punch through.

 

The only trees with battlecruisers as actual lines will be the Royal Navy and the Germans, and with some more paper designs perhaps the IJN.  The Russian tree will need the Borodino class to fill in the battleship line or be a premium since that was their only battlecruiser class.  Italy and France didn't have battlecruisers either.  the French Dunkerques were "swift battleships" meant to not violate treaty conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,410 posts
2,887 battles

The Alaska is light though... its a bit of a glass cannon... and designed originally to face off against a 25k ton Scharnhorst, not realizing those ships were actually 38k tons fully loaded...because of that her armor is very light... her guns are fantastic though... 

T6 BC sounds about right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
615
[POW1]
Members
5,078 posts

 

Not disputing what she was developed from. Simply stating that she is a Battle Cruiser (pretty much the same design ideas) in all but classification name, and so far is being treated as one by the devs. She fits exactly in line with other battle cruisers.

 

NO Battlecruiser design. She was a cruiser. the US Navy only had a few designs for battlecruisers. They were canceled with the Washington treaty. USS Lexington and Saratoga came from them hulls that were started. She was consider a heavy/large cruiser to deal with other cruisers that did not get built by the IJN. The US Navy consider the Alaska a failure. Her and the Gaum did not last long.  
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,675 posts

 

 

The Alaska will be treated like a battlecruiser.  With a tonnage over 30 to 34,000 tons which are battleship sized tonnages, she is not going to be matched to a 10 to 15,000 ton heavy cruisers.  

 

As a battlecruiser if she appears in one side, the other side will matched with a battleship or another battlecruiser.   Her rate of fire will be higher than most battleships, but way below that of heavy cruisers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
615
[POW1]
Members
5,078 posts

The Alaska is light though... its a bit of a glass cannon... and designed originally to face off against a 25k ton Scharnhorst, not realizing those ships were actually 38k tons fully loaded...because of that her armor is very light... her guns are fantastic though... 

T6 BC sounds about right.

 

Yea I think they might make a premium out of her. But could be in cruiser line up when WoWs redo them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,675 posts

 

Yea I think they might make a premium out of her. But could be in cruiser line up when WoWs redo them.

 

 

WG has plans to make a battlecruiser line.   With the Alaska set as a T6 battlecruiser, there will be a paper T7 battlecruiser, then leading to a T8 battlecruiser, which is likely the Lexington class.

 

The T7 battlecruiser is a proposed design that has 12 x 12" guns called the CA-2D.  

 

The Japanese likely gets proposed "Super Heavy A" cruisers that are in effect, battlecruisers with 12" guns.  They might have their BB line redone for BB and BC or fast battleship lines.

 

Redoing the cruiser lines likely means adding the missing classes: Brooklyn, Fargo, Worcester, Portland, Northampton, Oregon City, and in doing so, might split the CA and CL lines.  

 

Also its the USS Guam, not Gaum.  These ships will be named after US territories, circa in the 40s.  Alaska and Hawaii were not states then, so the names can include like Guam and Puerto Rico.  Or even the Philippines, or parts of it (Luzon, Leyte, Bataan) for the paper T7 battlecruiser.

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
615
[POW1]
Members
5,078 posts

 

 

WG has plans to make a battlecruiser line.   With the Alaska set as a T6 battlecruiser, there will be a paper T7 battlecruiser, then leading to a T8 battlecruiser, which is likely the Lexington class.

 

The T7 battlecruiser is a proposed design that has 12 x 12" guns called the CA-2D.  

 

The Japanese likely gets proposed "Super Heavy A" cruisers that are in effect, battlecruisers with 12" guns.  They might have their BB line redone for BB and BC or fast battleship lines.

 

Redoing the cruiser lines likely means adding the missing classes: Brooklyn, Fargo, Worcester, Portland, Northampton, Oregon City, and in doing so, might split the CA and CL lines.  

 

Also its the USS Guam, not Gaum.  These ships will be named after US territories, circa in the 40s.  Alaska and Hawaii were not states then, so the names can include like Guam and Puerto Rico.  Or even the Philippines, or parts of it (Luzon, Leyte, Bataan) for the paper T7 battlecruiser.

If I remember right they said they might think about a battlecruiser line. Not to many nations used them. The main nation that use the battlecruiser line was the British. Which it was proven they did not work that great.  HMS Hood was the last of that line of ships to be built by any nation. If I remember right they said the the Alaska would be part of the cruiser line. This was discussed in Alpha a few times. But nothing will be done some time after release. Which WoWs can change their mind. Which they have done in the past. As the cruiser you list which ones are light and which ones are heavy I know. Because that is how they will be put in the future. The US Navy is rich in cruiser designs and they produce more cruisers than any navy in the world combined by the end of WWII going into the 1950's. By WWII the Philippines was not a US territory. Their is good book called Battleships 1906 to 1990's check it out. It list a lot of Battleships and Battlecruiser with plans of some that was never built. You will see all battlecruiser designs stop in the 1920's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×