Yep, our gnomish overlord has given the world a nickname for a vehicle once again. Another fine idea from the man who gave us the name 'Jageru' for the Jagdpanzer E-100. Apparently the WoT devs got more than a little triggered by that one :)
•Its for killing cruisers •Its a its got 12” guns (bigger than a cruiser, but lower in calibre/numbers than BBs) •Its faster and less armoured than a battleship This is what looking, smelling and tasting like a battlecruiser is like. I know he’s crap but he’s right on this one
Yeeeeeaaaah no. If you take yout knowledge from world of warships maybe. But naval history is a bit different. The Role of the Battlecruiser is not a cruiser killer and isbnot defined by guns larger then 8" A Battlecruiser is a fast battleline unit made for Recon and flanking. It has Battleship armament but higher speed. The Germans achieved that speed by loosing a gun turret the Brits by loosing armor. Battlecruisers are not cruiser killers they are ships of the line. The Alaskas at the time of their Construction were not Battlecruisers and never planned as such. They were designed to hunt treaty cruisers. For the Alaskas to be considdered Battlecruisers at the time of their Launch they would have needed to be 45.000 ton ships with 6 or more 16 inch guns. At that time though Battlecruisers were pointless because the Iowas were essentially Battlecruisers. They had very limited armor. Highspeed and Battleline guns.
TheNecromancer6666 The Royal Navy invented the idea of a “dreadnought armoured cruiser” specifically to very effectively kill armoured cruisers to protect the empire’s trade, the idea made the armoured cruiser obsolete overnight similar to how HMS Dreadnought made all previous battleships obsolete. A dreadnought armoured cruiser could out run, utterly outrange and out shoot any armoured cruiser, UK designs were never really built specifically for line duties hence the virtually nonexistent armour belt on the invincible class with the focus being on speed to catch commerce raiders, relocate fast and be good on patrol and guns, to kill any commerce raider from outside its effective range. When used in Jutland the UK battlecruisers died horribly due to focus on guns and speed making them very vulnerable when hit (the practices Beatty put in place to increase rate of fire worsened the problem further). As for the Germans they attempted to pre empt what Britain was planning without knowing what it was from hearing about this “dreadnought armoured cruiser”. At first they thought it was just a big armoured cruiser but were wrong and so made SMS Von Der Tann, the German take on the dreadnought armoured cruiser concept was a fast, reasonably armoured dreadnought with lighter guns that could both be useful in a slugging match with the RN AND could kill armoured cruisers. Sorry for the long post but it is true, cruiser killing was the entire idea behind the very genesis of the concept of the battlecruiser. Even if the British did use them differently to hideous results.
"If the enemies where paying attention they would know his damage control is on cooldown." Jingles you are vastly overestimating an average players ability even at T 10.
No one can see every thing that's going on in the game all the time, The player that causes/sees this info needs to communicate this in chat! Comm,s is the key to victory in modern warfare.
@@lairdcummings9092 1. Your-self, for getting into that pos. 2. We do as we think is right for ourselves/team at the time! 3.Same as #2. Hope this helps you.
16:08 Yamato killed the Republique. On an related note: I found out yesterday that the Alaska can pen the weak-spot of an angled Yamato (Musashi). I thought i was gonna die but triple citadelled him.
Yeah, a lot of stuff can do that! I've seen anything from Des Moines, Scharnhorsts and Moskva's (Ok that last one's a little ovbious) punch through it at close range
@@jl2225 But you have to get really close in a Des Moines. You have to catch them completely off guard around an island. Then you can sink them before they swing their turrets around.
Simon's channels are the kind that are binge-worthy, one moment you thought 'just one video' the next moment you're wondering why's the sun waving good morning at you so soon
The Gneisenau, Tirpitz and Scharnhorst were actually classed in the Kreigsmarine as torpedo boats that just happen to have been also given battleship armour and guns.
Thank you for clarifying the Alaska's status. My Dad's WW2 naval seaman's handbook listed it as a battle cruiser, so I always wondered at WOWs designation.
"However, there is something very wrong with Admiral Beatty. He keeps raising the wrong signal flags, fires to miss the target and causes our battlecruisers to explode violently!"
The Alaska, one of the most consistent ships I ever used, never disappoints to give any ibuki captain ptsd after losing 2/3s of their hit points in a Salvo ;)
Try the Agir if you get the chance. Lose radar for hydro and some 6k torps. I’ve ambushed BBs late game and it’s great. 21.5k main guns with upgrades she’s fun. AK will be my next free xp ship
@@millerbob918 I already have a derptiz, a tier 9 version of that with guns that are unreliable (unless buffed for all ik). No thanks, but thanks for the suggestion :)
Yes... and Tolstoi mercifully killed him off, watching a French grenade, wondering about the purpose of life... What is he doing here in 2020 still annoying people ))) Me off course in my German ships, I am more akin to Mr. Pierre, with his funny glasses, wandering around the field of Borodino "heh?"..."what"???? ...."Where??"
If you look at the ship's lines, her inboard arrangements (e.g., aircraft hangar and catapults), the scale and distribution of armor, and the absence of underwater protection, it is clear that the Alaskas were large cruisers, not "battle cruisers", which were designed like battleships with lighter armor to compensate for the greater length needed to achieve high speeds. To see how the U.S. Navy viewed battle cruiser design, look at the interwar proposals for the battlecruisers Lexington and Saratoga (later completed as aircraft carriers). The Alaskas were really just enlarged Baltimores, intended to run down a class of large cruiser the Japanese were suspected of building (but actually weren't). Unlike battlecruisers, the Alaskas were never meant to form part of the battle line, but to operate with the scouting forces. The designation "CB" does not stand for "battlecruiser" but for "large cruiser". The letter B, in U.S. Navy designations of the time, simply meant "large", as with the Midway class carriers, which were designated "CVB"--large aircraft carriers. There is a reason why the Lexington class was included in Norman Friedman's "U.S. Battleship Design and Development", while the Alaskas were placed in "U.S. Cruiser Design and Development". Those who wish to argue with Friedman do so at their own peril.
I have to agree with Jingles on this. At the end of the day, "Large Cruiser" is simply a rebrand for Battlecruiser, because the US Navy standard caliber for battleship guns was at this point no longer twelve inches. But as the gnome overlord has stated so eloquently: "If it looks like a battlecruiser, smells like a battlecruiser and tastes like a battlecruiser, it's a battlecruiser."
Not even 5 minutes in and I'm gonna have to rewatch for the history cause I got too distracted by Jingles sniffing and tasting ships You know... I have a Jet-ski in the garage...
You keep right on calling the Alaska a battlecruiser - it is one! Exactly like you said, it's a cruiser-killer that can't stand up to a battleship. That's the exact definition of what a battlecruiser IS, regardless of what its navy officially called it. As you described, the exact label a navy or a country chooses to refer to a ship is often chosen for political reasons that have nothing to do with accurately describing the ship's mission or capabilities. Just ask the Soviets about their "heavy aviation cruisers" or the USN about their 1975 fleet redesignation.
There's really only one time that the concept of a ship fast enough to outrun anything that could kill it and with guns enough to kill anything it could catch was clear back in the 1790s with the American 44gun frigates.
eh. Around midday for me. I live in the UK, you see, so I find it easy to watch Jingles' videos when he uploads them. For once, my being in the UK allows me to actually watch a RU-vidr's videos when they upload them, rather than hindering me.
Grandfather served on the USS Guam (CB-2) for it's entire journey...….and was very proud of his ship (Still have his Ship Book; Picture of Vessel with it's end of service rewards, etc al.). He was part of the Gunnery department, and was assigned to the 12" guns mostly, but there was a rotation on which guns they would man..... The reason for the disagreement over their classification has to do in large part to it's funding. Newspapers of the time called it a battlecruiser when they were finished, however the Navy was pushing for the term large cruiser the whole time, why?? Because it was easier to pass it off as a cruiser to get funding to pay for it. Why build a battlecruiser, if you could just build another Iowa class BB, or another top of the line carrier, in it's stead. But cruisers...…..a large cruiser......that's easier sounding to the legislative branch..... In addition, it was rumored that Franklin Roosevelt, himself also pushed for their construction....despite not really needing them.
I never really did figure out the 'WHY' behind building the Alaska class, except perhaps they had the building ways available, sufficient steel either on hand or already under contract and a warehouse full of 12" gun barrels from the old (decommissioned / demilitarized) 12" armed battleships. Probably not as simple as that but they were good ships, fast enough and long enough cruising range to stay with and cover the carrier force. Alaska and Guam only served about 2 1/2 years each before they were decommissioned. The third, Hawaii CB-3 launched but then construction suspended when about 85% complete. Personally I could see them being rearmed with guided missiles in the 1960s or just kept in reserve like the Iowa class were and then converted to pure cruise missile platforms (Tomahawk and Harpoon) with 'Standard' SAMs in place of the broadside 5" mounts. Of course I could see doing the same with the two (not beat to crap) Des Moines class cruisers, stealing parts for them where possible from the beat to crap Newport News.
@@robertf3479 They used a different 12" gun than the old battleships, so that wasn't it. The issue is that at the time, the US Navy thought that Japan was building a large cruiser with 6x 12" guns. Plus, Germany had just built the Scharnhorsts, and at the time how heavily armored they were was widely underestimated. So the Alaskas were meant to overpower such ships, along with trouncing Japan's rather strong 8" gun CAs. The problem was, by the time Alaska and Guam were completed, those threats has pretty well been dealt with and the Alaskas' remaining task was AA protection for the CVs. A job they were were good at, since they had a stronger AA suite than a Baltimore-class CA. The problem is, one Alaska didn't have a stronger AA suite than *two* Baltimore-class CAs, but that's about what cost to build her and about how many men it took to crew her. Ironically, while Japan actually wasn't building a 12" gun cruiser, the laying down of the Alaskas made them decide they really *should* be. So they started working on the B-65 design with 9x 310mm guns. They also considered upgrading that design with enough armor to protect against bigger guns and replacing the 9x 310mm with 6x 356mm.
@@robertf3479 Actually the 12"/50 gun was a brand new design...and at the time was the most expensive gun in the Navy arsenal. Because their were only 21+ of them... (9 on Alaska, 9 on Guam and 9 starting to be built for USS Hawaii. Despite being only 12" guns, their ballistic characteristics were equal to 14" guns a generation behind, because of the super heavy shells.....aka guns on USS Wyoming.
Supercruiser is acceptable in the sense that she's a scaled-up cruiser. But she's not merely a "large cruiser" as certain people would like to call her. Maybe a little low on the scale for a battlecruiser, but she's still on the scale. I mean, she's technically more powerful than the Derrflinger-Class, and they were considered the penultimate battlecruisers of their era.
@@dylanwight5764 Irrelevant, the defining part of a battlecruiser is having battleship guns equal of a battleship of the equivalent era. RN battleships go 12inch guns, 13.5inch guns, 15inch guns and the battlecruisers follow exactly.
@@Ushio01 Can you quote your source? Those 12" guns are equitable to the 11" guns mounted on the Scharnhorst. Next thing you're going to tell me the 150mm German destroyers were really just very small light cruisers. Moreover, by your definition, the Iowa-Class would be battlecruisers since they used battleship guns but in practice were designed to operate in the manner of battlecruisers, primarilly being out on the flanks of a fleet guarding against cruisers, with enough speed to pursue them, while having barely enough armour to withstand fire from equal calibre ships. The Alaska-Class are battlecruisers. They mounted equitable battleship armament and they were intended to hunt cruisers. Unless you want to call the Iowas battlecruisers, there is no way of avoiding calling the Alaskas battlecruisers. Hell, that's what the _USN_ called them at first!
The Iowas were designed with armor to defeat 16" shells, but they were then given SHS which were able to pen their armor. Alaskas are battlecruisers, Iowas are fast battleships
Battlecruisers were equivalents to battleships of their time; the Alaska class fills a gap between the heavy cruiser and the fast battleship. There's a better argument for the Iowa being a battlecruiser than the Alaska.
@@zepuppet._.master They named it a "large cruiser" specifically to avoid the connotations to a battlecruiser. The Alaska's filled a gap; the battlecruiser was a battleship equivalent with the "armor speed firepower" triangle shifted towards "speed." Let's do some comparisons with ships that were actually called battlecruisers to their contemporary battleships. And I can mathematically prove it! I made a graph including every "true" battlecruiser from the WWI period (not including Hood or Courageous, the latter of which is also debatable as a BC) and compared it to it's closest contemporary battleship (which was why I didn't include Hood). So Invincible through Tiger, compared to some battleships between Bellerophon and Revenge, then Von Der Tann through Derfflinger compared to Nassau through Konig, and then Kongo to Kawachi and Fuso (picking which one is hard). So, with these comparisons I looked at the overall tonnage, speed, firepower, and armor comparisons between each battlecruiser and its contemporary battleship. The one area where the Alaskas are "traditional battlecruiser-like" is in armor, having roughly 74% to 75% of the main belt armor of the fast US BBs, whereas classic battlecruisers fell anywhere from 46% (Renown) to 93% (Moltke), with most around 60% to 86%. The average for the other 11 is 73%. However for no other comparison does she resemble a battlecruiser. In terms of speed gain over contemporary battleships if you're comparing an Alaska to an Iowa or North Carolina it's the worst of all 12 ships on the list, with a 0% gain (Iowa) or a 18% gain (NorCal). If you're comparing them to a South Carolina then you're looking at a 20% gain, which is more than the 19% gain of Invincible over Bellerophon as well as the 19.6% gain of Kongo over Fuso, although Fuso was 2 years later than Kongo whereas all the other comparisons had 0 to 1 years of separation, and Alaska were 2 years later than the SoDaks. So for the Alaskas to not be in last place in terms of speed gain percentage we have to compare them to a ship completed 2 years prior and not their most direct contemporary or even a class of ship commissioned 3 years prior. In order for the Alaska's to be 10th instead of 11th after doing that we have to compare one of the BCs to a ship 2 years newer rather than one 1 year older. The more typical speed percentage gain for battlecruisers is from 25% to 35%, with the average around 31% to 32%. We're looking at 0% to 20% here. And also I used the higher value for the Alaska's top speed which may be at a lighter load, and I didn't use the light load top speed for the Iowas. The comparison is already biased towards the Alaska and it's barely able to look comparable to a traditional battlecruiser in terms of speed even with that. It only gets worse from here. Tonnage-wise the lightest traditional battlecruiser compared to it's contemporary was Renown at 92% the tonnage of a Revenge class. The heaviest was either Tiger at 114% of an Iron Duke or Kongo at 128% the mass of Kawachi. The average BC class weighed 102% - 105% (depending on which BB you compared Kongo to) the mass of their contemporary battleship. Alaska comes in at 62% (of an Iowa), 81% (of a NoCal), or 85% (of a SoDak). Last place by a significant margin. And then we look at firepower. In terms of difference in barrel width, the worst a historical battlecruiser had was guns 92% as wide as the ones the contemporary battleship class carried (Moltke and Seydlitz). Although more accurate assessments as to the actual shell size could be made by area (84%) and by volume (77%). Most of the time the BC was equipped with the same size guns as the contemporary BB as well. The Alaskas had 75% the width of contemporary battleships, translating to 56% of the area and 42% of the volume. But you might be thinking "that's a bit biased, regular battleships had more guns then contemporary BCs," which is true. I have to adjust for that. I'll use shell volume for this comparison, although I'm assuming the same shell shape is used just scaled up or down; which isn't technically true and ignores gun length but I'm just going to ignore that. The Alaskas stay the same at 42% that of a US fast BB, since each has 9 guns and that cancels out. The worst a traditional BC does is 64%, with Moltke to Helgoland, with most sitting around 75% to 80%, and the average being right around there (75%-79%) too. However, things get interesting when you realize Helgoland, despite having 12 main guns, can only get 8 to a broadside. If we assess from broadside mass rather than from total main gun firepower, by removing half of the wing turrets from ships which lack cross-deck-firing capabilities, then the worst is now Kongo next to Fuso, and if we don't count that since Fuso was 2 years later and Kongo has 2 good comparisons then the lowest is Renown at 75% of the firepower of a Revenge. The average is now 83% to 92%, again depending on whether Kongo is compared to Kawachi or Fuso. And all of that compared to the 42% of Alaska. So, in conclusion no, Alaska is not statistically a battlecruiser in the traditional sense. An average battlecruiser (using the average between the Kongo and Kawachi and Fuso comparisons) weighs about 103.4% as much as a contemporary battleship, goes 132% as fast, has 73% of the armor, the same gun size, and 87% of the broadside firepower by volume. Alaska, averaged between Iowa, NorCal, and SoDak, is 76% of the mass, 113% as fast, has 74% of the armor, 75% of the gun width, and 42% of the broadside firepower of a contemporary battleship. It falls well below a typical battlecruiser in multiple categories of comparison, only having 1 where it's even average, and calling it a "large cruiser" instead of a battlecruiser is perfectly justified and what the US should've done. To the other claim about the Iowa, compared to the average between the NorCal and SoDak it's 134% the size, 119% as fast, and has the same armor and firepower. It's definitely justified to call it a battleship, but factoring in that it's 2-3 years older than the ships we're comparing it to and that only the tonnage difference and total main gun firepower difference isn't within the results obtained in the 11 traditional battlecruiser comparisons (note: the speed difference technically isn't there either, since Iowa's rounds up to 119% while Invincible's rounds down to 119%), it's in fact easier to argue that the Iowa class were battlecruisers than the Alaska class.
@@zepuppet._.master I should just quickly add onto this that the history of the Alaska class is pretty similar to how the battlecruiser came out, that they were both intended to counter the cruisers of their time, but that the battlecruiser wound up comparatively larger to the battleship since pre-dread era cruisers did get to similar sizes to battleships of the time, and then battlecruisers grew in an arms race to counter each other, which never happened with the Alaskas. The battlecruiser was designed to counter all older armored and protected cruisers, needing to be larger than first class armored cruisers, and was effectively an evolution of the largest of them, like the Minotaur, Duke of Edinburgh, and Drake classes. The Alaskas were built to counter what were the interwar period equivalents of the second and third class protected cruisers, and as such represented more of a reinvention of the smaller versions of the first class armored cruiser, more along the lines of the Devonshire and Monmouth classes. Or an evolution of the heavy cruiser, which both it and the light cruiser were the interwar equivalent of the second class protected cruiser. So I wouldn't say they're exactly the same thing in that regard, although role-wise they are pretty similar and the size and firepower difference for their time periods is down to the circumstances of cruisers from said time periods With that all being said, if there had been no Washington Naval treaty the argument that the Alaska class were battlecruisers wouldn't even exist despite a high probability of similar ships being built in the 30s and 40s. The battlecruiser would've either stayed in production or gradually merged into the fast battleship whilst continually growing in size alongside their contemporary battleships, and ships filling the gap between 8000-12000 ton cruisers and battleship-sized battlecruisers and fast battleships would've probably been classified as either large cruisers or super cruisers or something of the sort. That is exactly the mold Alaska fits into, and not the battlecruiser mold.
The best play for the enemy Azuma at 19:09 would of been a ram. He should have closed the distance and won the game for the team rather than feeding rubber grunt the win.
One of my favorite WoWS content creators referring to one of my favorite informative RU-vidrs, what a good morning. P.S. I started getting interdicted in the middle of typing this comment.
This video is a year old, but I haven't seen anybody comment on it yet. Actually, Jingles, the Baltimore was not designed to treaty limitations. The treaty limited cruiser tonnage to 10,000 tons, while the Baltimores displaced around 20,000 tons. They were built after the Washington Naval Treaty was basically thrown out right before WW2. The Alaskas were expressly designed to counter the Japanese B-65 ships (Azuma in the game) which were ultimately never completed.
Fun fact: I was about to go ballistic in the comments when somebody called that large cruiser a battlecruiser. I am from Germany. Our Battlecruisers were heavily armored and made to go up against the battle line. Btw the Baltimores were not Treaty Cruisers. They had double the tonnage of treaty heavy cruisers.
What do you classify the 2 Scharnhorst Class of warships? I say Battlecrusiers because I believe they weren't fitted with the 15' guns; but were fitted with the 11.1' guns irl.
The Baltimores displaced 13,600 tons whilst Treaty Cruisers displaced 10,000 tons. Although the Baltimores and Clevelands were built after the end of the Treaties they still had the limitations of their Treaty predecessors. The truly unlimited generation (The Midways, Montanas, Alaskas, CA-A, CA-B, CA-C, Scheme 1 and Scheme 2) were considerably larger. Schemes 1 and 2 (improved Clevelands) displaced over 13,000 tons. CA-A, B and C (improved Baltimores) displaced 15,400, 17,000 and 20,000 tons respectively. One of the Alaska preliminary designs (CA2D) displaced 38,700 tons and had heavier protection than the Iowa.
@@DanielWW2 They were never built. But the O class are even worse since they even had Battleship caliber guns. While the 12" of the Alaskas at the time were not Battleline Armament. Thing is: those cruiser killers were not Battlecruisers by role. A Battlecruiser was a fast fleet wing or recon unit. Neither the Os nor the Alaska fit the role of a Battlecruiser. Also at the time when those ship were planned a proper BC woulf have been around 45.000 tons not 30.000 to 35.000 tons.
@@philipbossy4834 well, Latin actually pronounced that T with a TS, like BATS in English, whereas French pronounces it as a sorta-double-S, but yeah, the pattern is still pretty clear, if you consider that at least 60% (give or take) of English lexicon is either French-derived or Latin-imported.
A battle cruiser was a battleship with less armour allowing it to be faster and adding a large armament early in an engagement. This intern allowed enemy cruisers to be destroyed quickly before then being able to deal with heavier units buying time for the bulk of the fleet to arrive.
The Navy was nice to give my old man a ride home after the cease of hostility in '45 on the Alaska. He never referred to her as anything but a battlecruiser.
I used to call the Alaskas battlecruisers, but as I came to realize that actual battlecruisers historically had the same guns as their own nations' contemporary battleships, not guns four inches smaller in diameter, I have since changed my mind to agree with the large cruiser designation. [Edit] Drachinifel takes the same view.
Hey Jingles, when you explain the history and purpose... I'm reminded of the 1914 Battle of the Falklands. When the German East Asia Squadron wanted to drop by for a visit at Stanly, Falklands Islands during WW1. After they had shot up a British Squadron of Cruisers just a short time earlier. But there to meet them were two brand new, state of the art British Battlecruisers which completely and totally outgunned them. Of course, it helped their consorts and escorts were all very modern Armored Cruisers (3) and Light Cruisers (2). So it wasn't a very fair fight. More like a seal clubbing. No pun intended. And ironically... One outdated British Pre-Dreadnought reduced to a grounded Battery because she was so old, she hadn't been able to keep up with that very same ill-fated Squadron of Cruisers because her engines were worn out and she was springing more leaks than any ship had any right to have.
Pyotr Bagration was a Russian General during the Napoleonic Wars (that one I remembered). He died of wounds received at the Battle of Borodino in 1812.
Pjotr Bagration was a Russian General of the Napoleonic Wars (the Georgians be eventually offended by this, though), who was quite renown for his daring and bravery. He fought against the french armies right from Austerlitz, Preußisch-Eylau, Friedland to Borodino, where he was mortally wounded. The russian Summer Offensive which crushed german army group center was called "Operation Bagration" and the east prussian city Eylau got renamed to Bagrationowsk after WW2. The guy definatly made some impressian if even the communists used his name for a few times.
Royal Navy documents of the period often described any battleship with a speed of over about 24 knots (44 km/h; 28 mph) as a battlecruiser, regardless of the amount of protective armour,
My father was a Marine trained on Paris Island. He was on the Alaska, a gunner, for the war life of the ship. He called it a Battle Cruiser, so if he says it was, I think I'll take his word.
Hahaahahaha.... .., though I miss very much the growling Kraken at 'Kraken' unleashed !!! And there were more kinds of Warships in the past beside WoW-kinds and Battlecruisers !!! Great Jingles !!!
To be fair, Jingles, in 1915, the Chancellor of the Exchequer forbade the construction of any ship bigger than a light cruiser, so Fisher called the Courageous-class battlecruisers "large light cruisers."
A lot of us fire torpedos at targets that are out of range because they are closing on us, and may close into range before the fish get there...even if not, it forces a particular set of courses of action that are desirable.
I love my Scharnhorst for the exact same reason. Poor cruisers think they can handle it, find out that life is more difficult than they hoped it would be.
The swap between "Battlecruiser" to "Large Cruiser" for Alaska's label was mostly to get the funding bill, that included Alaska, past the penny pinchers in Congress, who would've had sticker shock on seeing many "Battle" type ships, translating in their heads into big and expensive. By labeling them as "just" large cruisers instead of battlecruisers, the congressmen would not think much of adding more "regular" cruisers into the navy.
