World of Warships - Well That Escalated Slowly 

CV should have been going for the DD rather than the BB at the end!

Spoiler alert

Next time watch the video before you read comments @@DerkaGames

Had the Cherbourg not shot at the Scharnhorst on his way to the cap, which delayed him, it may have been enough too.

Holy shit! You're right! I hadn't even thought of that!

What I thought immediately. Though I doubt Jingles would change his mind

honestly considering admiral King love for Royal Navy Jingles reasoning might be valid....

You can follow Drach's argument - i.e. that the Alaskas are a development of cruisers. But as history didn't play out that way and the job of the Alaksa's was exactly that of a Battlecruiser - they're battlecruisers. I've in the past argued that the Iowas are actually battlecruisers in many ways (sacrafice armour for speed, not armoured against their own guns. Had the Montanas, H Class, Lions, Soyuz etc all be built they I think that's how they'd have been looked at - but they weren't so they're battleships....

Its an interesting discussion actually as for what defines a Battlecruiser is the country fielding it.

He's going to summon the Dark Lord of Naval History if he's not careful.

What are you going on about? It is CLEARLY the Bolivian Navy on maneuvers in the South Pacific!

@@janhgh3400 What a smee hee.

@@janhgh3400 No it's not, it's a female aardvark!

Can’t believe y’all don’t know it’s a duck

Well spin my nipple nuts and send me to Alaska, Jingles on the Red Dwarf quotes again. Been a while. 😁

Just about to comment on that! 😅

Pretty sure this saying has been around for ages

@@Foxtrott_4 But it is the first time I hear Jingles say it.

@@Raz0rking might be but i don't think that's a fat electrician quote

@@Foxtrott_4 Well, he is the dude as of recent who's using it a lot. At least the small sample size of youtubers I follow

Came here to say this. Was my very first set of purchases and I got 3 of the 4 ships in 5 containers. Never had any luck sense 🤣🤣

epic advert! [el'sda2].

I had to scroll way to far to see the correct, but still absurd, explanation. The "large cruiser" designation was to be sure the funding and resources for the Alaskas was considered to be under a cruiser program, not a battleship one. But they were very much "pocket battleships". The 12 inch mk8s were very impressive naval artillery.

It was frustration to watch all those not fired shots.

He has no idea how to play that ship. I'd even go as far as saying he is a noob. Just looking at his gameplay it's evident. Constantly showing broadside, trying to kite away in the middle of the map even tho all his guns are in the front, poor targeting, poor positioning, shooting at an enemy BB on 2.5k HP. It's a miracle he wasn't deleted at some point in the game. He is trying to play that ship as if it was a standard long range HE spammer heavy cruiser instead of sailing up to an island and locking down a part of the map for the enemy.

Going into the 3rd cap also probably cost them the game. Getting spotted and then hit, reset the progress that the Akatsuki had on the cap. If he had stayed out of the cap circle, it was likely that the cap would have happened sooner and so a few extra points and enough to win the game. Edit: I was wrong. The Akatsuki enters the cap at 1:25 and the cap is flipped at 0:27. The Cherbourg saved 2 seconds despite having their cap contribution (not the Akatsuki's to clarify) reset, but it was obviously at great risk. In retrospect, it was a gamble either way and the Yudachi played it really well. If the Yudachi had been more aggressive in trying to defend the cap, the Cherbourg may have been the difference in sinking it. If the Yudachi played it safely, like they did, then going in put themselves at a lot of risk. Either way, I don't blame the Cherbourg in their decision making at this point, I would not have gone in myself but the points ended up such that a gamble was necessary.

He doesn't even have expert loader, for whatever reason. Can see it at 9:33 when he is switching from HE to AP and then uses a reload booster to finish the shell type switch.

I'd also like to point at 11:30 in the video, where he pressed almost all the buttons in a panic, thus wasting his last reload booster.

Orphaned rhymes... do with that what you will lol

I‘m more with Bob Marley: No Women - No cry.

Happy spouse, happy house.

Happy hand, Happy husb... No, It doesn't work as planned

Did Major Lennox panic after you crossed the bridge?

They are slower then their contemporary BBs too, something BCs aren't, and if Iowa makes the shift to BC thanks to Monty, that doesn't help the Alaska's case

In my opinion, the whole "does it have the same size guns as a battleship" issue doesn't really matter. If a ship has significantly bigger guns than standard cruisers, and is designed to easily kill those cruisers while running from battleships, it's a battlecruiser. To me "large cruiser" is just another name for a battlecruiser. The guns being exactly battleship size or a bit smaller doesn't change the ship's real capabilities or role. I would argue (and I've rambled on about these topics at length on the relevant Drach videos😁) that the Iowas are still battleships because they were designed to be able to fight other battleships. I mean, they would have been the best available choice to take on a Yamato in surface combat if that need had arisen, and an Iowa would have been a credible opponent against a Yamato despite being only about 70% the tonnage. I think it's more accurate to consider the Iowas as a fast (faster, anyway) battleship equivalent of the South Dakotas (more tonnage to get more speed without sacrificing any of the guns or armor) than a battlecruiser counterpart to the Montanas.

Bolivia used to have a navy.

It's clearly a red and blue striped golfing umbrella. Check your eyes smeg head!

In my opinion, the whole "does it have the same size guns as a battleship" issue doesn't really matter. If a ship has significantly bigger guns than standard cruisers, and is designed to easily kill those cruisers while running from battleships, it's a battlecruiser. To me "large cruiser" is just another name for a battlecruiser.

@@Wolfeson28 I understand your point, but you must understand that the original concept of the battlecruiser called for similar armament as contemporary battleships - this is not the case if you compare Alaskas 9x12inch guns vs Iowas 9x16inch guns. Also, the point about running from battleships - yeah, that doesn't stand either. Contemporary battleships were pretty much as fast as the Alaska class. But to reiterate my argument - the original battlecruiser concept was outdated by the time Alaska class cruisers were built. And I do think it is very possible that this kind of ship, if more had been built (and other nations were planning to do so), might have very well became the new form of battlecruiser. But since only the Alaska class ships were built and the US designated them as "large cruisers" I guess nobody at the time bothered to argue that they should be designated as BCs.

@@Wolfeson28 What's a standard armed cruiser? in WW1 it depends on nation since treaty cruisers aren't a thing the RN had 9.2 inch as their standard for big cruisers while the Germans liked 210mm (8.3 inch) as their standard. In the 1922 Washington naval treaty a cruiser had guns up to 8 inch (203mm). In the first London naval treaty of 1930 cruisers were split into light (guns with a maximum size of 6.1 inch (155mm) and heavy maximum of 8 inch (203mm) so a ship with 156 mm guns is a heavy cruiser. In 1939 with the UK and France declaring war on Germany all treaties ceased. So you can build 12 inch armed cruisers if you want. The Alaska class were not worth it they couldn't compete against anything bigger than a treaty cruiser except maybe the Japanese Kongo class. They had no more anti-air capability than a Baltimore class while costing several times more and taking far longer to build.

@@Ushio01 Good point, we only really argue whether or not the Alaska class ships are battlecruisers because they fit right between treaty heavy cruisers and battleships by size and armament. Had it not been for the treaty, we might very well have had most ship classes grow in size. This is proven, at the very least, by the fact that most major navies were either in the process of designing or building battleships considerably bigger than anything which was built before them, and only the treaty prohibited these ships being built. And it would not be until the treaty was abandoned that battleships of such size would start getting built again. Major ships gradually "grew" in size, displacement, armament, etc. in the period before WW1, there is no reason not to think this would have continued after the war, had it not been for the treaty.

@@MaxCroat I think we're actually mostly in agreement on your last point. I just consider the "original" (i.e. pre-WWI) and later battlecruiser concepts to be essentially the same thing based on being the same role, whereas you see a distinction between them while acknowledging the similar roles. On the speed front, the only true battleships the Alaskas couldn't outrun were the Iowas and possibly the Richelieus, and those two were exceptions in terms of their speed. Even if we restrict the list to 1930s and later battleships, all of the others (NC, SD, KGV, Yamato, Littorio, and Bismarck) had speeds in the 27-30 knot range, which the Alaskas (33 knots) could outrun. That difference of 3-6 knots matches very closely to the speed differences between Invincible and Dreadnought (4 knots), Kongo and Fuso (4.5 knots), and Moltke and Kaiser (4.5 knots). Regarding the guns, to be honest I really don't understand why people tend to get so hung up on the idea that battlecruisers *must* have the same guns as equivalent battleships. That just isn't a requirement. A battlecruiser simply needs to have larger guns than contemporary standard cruisers in order to decisively outmatch them; battleship-size guns are *one* commonly-used solution for that, but not the *only* one. Otherwise, you can't include ships like the Dunkerques, Scharnhorsts, and the unfinished Stalingrads, which are all clearly capital ship size and have the battlecruiser mission, but with guns smaller than battleships. On that same point, Drachinifel once said that the Alaskas would be battlecruisers if they'd carried dual 16-inch turrets instead of their actual triple 12s. But my counter is that the armament swap alone does nothing to change the ships' real capabilities or role, so why would that change their classification?

yeah, but what really miss is the old 'Kraken Unleashed' meme.

Ask a window lic-ker!