Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Shankeyyy

USN Battlecruiser (CB)

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
148 posts
555 battles

Would really like to see this in action >>> USS Alaska (CB-1)

.

.

.

.

Maybe a Tier 8 Battlecruiser. What do you think peeps? Check out the stats :Smile_medal:

USS_Alaska_(CB-1)_underway.jpg

uss_alaska_by_sentinel28a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MEGA]
Member
4,561 posts
17,548 battles

well, this thing has DM's armor, literally 0 torpedo protection, a 800-meter turning circle and enough AA to make a DM cry, not to mention the guns packs about the same punch as some 15 inch rifles, it's going to be VERY hard to balance at T8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
148 posts
555 battles
3 minutes ago, drakon233 said:

well, this thing has DM's armor, literally 0 torpedo protection, a 800-meter turning circle and enough AA to make a DM cry, not to mention the guns packs about the same punch as some 15 inch rifles, it's going to be VERY hard to balance at T8

Maybe somewhat like a Graf Spee in a cruiser line but the guns are too strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
6,604 posts
2,477 battles

9 × 12-inch (305 mm)/50 caliber Mark 8guns (3 × 3)

12 × 5-inch (127 mm)/38 caliber dual-purpose guns (6 × 2)

56 × 40 mm (1.57 in) Bofors (14 × 4)

34 × 20mm Oerlikon (34 × 1)

 

that's a lot of AA firepower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MEGA]
Member
4,561 posts
17,548 battles
1 hour ago, Harpoon01 said:

9 × 12-inch (305 mm)/50 caliber Mark 8guns (3 × 3)

12 × 5-inch (127 mm)/38 caliber dual-purpose guns (6 × 2)

56 × 40 mm (1.57 in) Bofors (14 × 4)

34 × 20mm Oerlikon (34 × 1)

 

that's a lot of AA firepower

she's about the size of alabama, with worse rudder and USN CA armor, amd 0 torp belt, or in other words, easy food for BBs and DDs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
372 posts
10,085 battles
41 minutes ago, drakon233 said:

she's about the size of alabama, with worse rudder and USN CA armor, amd 0 torp belt, or in other words, easy food for BBs and DDs

Hydro + 30mm hull plating :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MEGA]
Member
4,561 posts
17,548 battles
11 minutes ago, WongSongMing said:

Hydro + 30mm hull plating :cap_haloween:

still, this thing will either shit on everything at T8 or be.extreamly underwhelming at T10, when i heard of this game back in OBT i honestly thought that the alaskas would be the T10 CAs in the game

 

(or a 2nd USN techtree line?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
420 posts

This has been suggested before.

Big issues with balancing it below T10.  

While the Navy called it a Large Cruiser, it's really a battle cruiser.  The navy was practicing lawfare with the naming of it (get around post war naval treaties, both with BC and BB cap limits and the limits on Heavy/Light Cruisers.  It's not a BC or CA! It's a LC/CL? Not part of old treaty limitations.)

I think the best place for it, would be T10 as part of the regular tech tree. USN Battleship line split.  The USN has enough designs to support a split up the tiers to 10 I think.  

I could be wrong and have it be a line split and the split stops at 9 and meets at Montana.  Another way to go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
434 posts
3,179 battles
10 minutes ago, BunnyDragon said:

This has been suggested before.

Big issues with balancing it below T10.  

While the Navy called it a Large Cruiser, it's really a battle cruiser.  The navy was practicing lawfare with the naming of it (get around post war naval treaties, both with BC and BB cap limits and the limits on Heavy/Light Cruisers.  It's not a BC or CA! It's a LC/CL? Not part of old treaty limitations.)

I think the best place for it, would be T10 as part of the regular tech tree. USN Battleship line split.  The USN has enough designs to support a split up the tiers to 10 I think.  

I could be wrong and have it be a line split and the split stops at 9 and meets at Montana.  Another way to go. 

This old chestnut. She's not a Battlecruiser. The Alaska is the end result of enlarging cruiser design, that began post WW1 and markedly from the 30's onwards.

 

Additionally the term Battlecruiser was practically meaningless from about the mid-20's onwards.

Capital ship characteristics were often divided into 3 categories - speed, armour and gun size. Often it's argued that a Battlecruiser features low armour, high speed and large caliber guns yet the Germans threw this rather loose definition out the window where they focused less on gun size and more on armour.

Additionally, thanks to the advancements in propulsion that introduced "fast battleships" into the world, BB's were no longer "high armour, large gun size, low speed" and became "high armour, large gun size and high speed".

 

Alaska also has poor compartmentalisation and practically no torpedo defence, something that is a feature of all capital ships from WW1, of which BC were firmly a part of.

 

Tee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
3 posts
8,708 battles

This has also been discussed to a fair bit on reddit. 

 

Alaska best fits as a tier 7 BB. She is the American Scharnhorst with better guns and AA but worse armour and no torpedoes. Alaska has guns comparable to the KGV but the size of a North Carolina. Her AA is somewhere between Baltimore and Iowa in effectiveness. 

 

Her AA will make her formidable but her lack of armour will make her vulnerable. 

 

Also another thing that makes Alaska specifically a cruiser and not a Battlecruiser or Fast Battleship is the actual armour and hull layout. Alaska uses an enlarged cruiser design and not a battleships. There are specific differences in the way the bulkheads, armour plating and tds design between battleships and cruisers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
7,522 posts
7,978 battles

Battlecruisers are taking places in Battleships tech tree right now. So this one should be good as a premium T8 battleship may be. However, the AA spec is just too strong.

 

Also, look at how many premium US battleships are already in game. A bit too many if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
671 posts
1,508 battles
On 11/8/2017 at 2:31 PM, Shankeyyy said:

Well it could be like a Graf Spee with very strong AA defenses at T7. Guns are powerful enough to take down T9 BBs.

The Graf Spee has bigger guns for less of them. The Alaska not only has 9 but they are 305 in that matter. Not to mention good armour and monster AA. Personally I would put it at Tier 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
434 posts
3,179 battles
11 hours ago, ShadoPulse said:

The Graf Spee has bigger guns for less of them. The Alaska not only has 9 but they are 305 in that matter. Not to mention good armour and monster AA. Personally I would put it at Tier 9.

Graf Spee has less guns and smaller. 6 11" guns vs 9 12" guns of Alaska (that hit like 14" guns).

 

Tee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
459 posts
8,261 battles

I don't think it would do well at anything over T7, poor protection would leave it extremely vulnerable both to torpedoes and BB AP. Poor maneuvering would mean it can't dodge the way many cruisers can/do. It's essentially a BB sized ship without the protection or big guns. About the only aspect in which she'd be strong is AA.

She'd be much like Scharnhorst with-out the decent armour and torpedoes, and less maneuverable. She has a slight gun advantage over the german, but many T6 and lower BBs have equal or better guns. Might make a good cruiser hunter where her deficiencies would be less of a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
434 posts
3,179 battles
3 hours ago, Sparcie said:

I don't think it would do well at anything over T7, poor protection would leave it extremely vulnerable both to torpedoes and BB AP. Poor maneuvering would mean it can't dodge the way many cruisers can/do. It's essentially a BB sized ship without the protection or big guns. About the only aspect in which she'd be strong is AA.

She'd be much like Scharnhorst with-out the decent armour and torpedoes, and less maneuverable. She has a slight gun advantage over the german, but many T6 and lower BBs have equal or better guns. Might make a good cruiser hunter where her deficiencies would be less of a problem.

 

I agree that Alaska is a poor high tier ship in the battleship tier but to correct and clarify some of your statements.

"about the only aspect in which she'd be strong is AA" - add speed. She could do 31.4-33 kn. That puts her amongst the fastest BB's in the game.

"She has a slight gun advantage over the german <Scharnhorst>" - her 12" guns are way superior to the 11" guns. In the real world they hit harder (equivalent to a 14" gun) and they fire about the same rate. Range in the real world is irrelevant thanks to the different formula that WG use to morph/squeeze that data into game data.

"many T6 and lower BBs have equal or better guns" - this is likely wrong, in the real world but depends what spin and magic WG would to in putting the 12" Mark 8's into the game. As said before, these 12" guns had better deck penetration and equal belt penetration to US 14" guns. At worst her modern 12" guns would place her middle of the pack at tier 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,105 posts
7,834 battles

Alaska is more comparable to Stalingrad-class.

which the *rumored T10 clan war reward ship - that was a cruiser - yet no one made direct comparasion to her which very much closer competitor

yet compared to scharnhorst. an official battleship (yeah british press might call her battlecruiser, and what not. not just she have : Battleship Armor to displacement ratio. the Mission placed on Her was of regular ship of the line which makes her trait and her job description a genuine Battleship duty)

 

I quess, lots of people just love Battleship more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
459 posts
8,261 battles

I don't think how her guns performed in real life would have much relevance to how they'd perform in game. KGV for example had exceptionally good 14" guns, better than the 15" ones found on Hood and the Queen Elizabeth class, yet in game it plays the other way round as far as AP is concerned. I wouldn't expect Alaska to be different.

It will be interesting to see what happens as far as the performance of Stalingrad when she comes out, I suspect that she'll be similarly vulnerable to DDs and BBs, but be very good at hunting cruisers. She's only marginally faster than Alaska to the cost of slightly thinner armour. If she can maneuver better that may help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
671 posts
1,508 battles
21 hours ago, admiral_tee said:

Graf Spee has less guns and smaller. 6 11" guns vs 9 12" guns of Alaska (that hit like 14" guns).

 

Tee

I meant cruiser-wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×