Comments on: USS Alaska – WoWs article http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/uss-alaska-wows-article/ Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:08:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: Captian Nemo http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/uss-alaska-wows-article/#comment-20433 Tue, 13 Aug 2013 01:33:50 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1632#comment-20433 Don’t we all…

NEMO.

]]> By: Captian Nemo http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/uss-alaska-wows-article/#comment-20432 Tue, 13 Aug 2013 01:33:18 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1632#comment-20432 Should be interesting to see.

]]> By: Captian Nemo http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/uss-alaska-wows-article/#comment-20430 Tue, 13 Aug 2013 01:31:52 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1632#comment-20430 This is partly true. Both used different types of explosives and different types of propellent.

On top of this the British had different handling procedures that (inexcusably) allowed extra propellent and shells to be stored “at the ready” in the handling area in order to be able to fire off the guns as fast as possible. (a British trait. It something they had always prided themselves on)

To top of the problems Battlecruisers had less armor and protection of these crucial spaces.

BOOM

End of BC production and pursuit of said design. Thats the short version.
Thats the reality. Its not pretty. War was never meant to be pretty.

NEMO.

]]> By: mr3awsome http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/uss-alaska-wows-article/#comment-20176 Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:23:29 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1632#comment-20176 Hulls 111 and 167 i believe.

Hull 111 with be in the game as the tier 10 2nd Japanese carrier

Shinano is the tier 9 of that branch.

]]> By: mr3awsome http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/uss-alaska-wows-article/#comment-20175 Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:22:34 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1632#comment-20175 The loss of British BCs at Jutland was mostly due to the ammo handling arrangements and the fact that British ammo had a tendency to explode (whereas the German ammo was more likely to burn)

]]> By: Anonymous http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/uss-alaska-wows-article/#comment-20174 Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:19:55 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1632#comment-20174 Back in the beta of WoT me and my friends were saying how cool a battleship version would be, so to say I’m excited about WoWs is an understatement. I just wish they had developed WoWs first before the garbage WoWP.

]]> By: mr3awsome http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/uss-alaska-wows-article/#comment-20173 Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:19:40 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1632#comment-20173 Its currently a tier 6 BB, where it is decently balanced.

The 8″ version might work at tier 10 though.

]]> By: Kellomies http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/uss-alaska-wows-article/#comment-20140 Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:27:40 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1632#comment-20140 If WoWs turning radii and speeds are *anything* like IRL that’s utopistic at best.

]]> By: Anonymous http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/uss-alaska-wows-article/#comment-20106 Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:28:01 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1632#comment-20106 WoT classes =/= WoWs classes

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/3579-ships-tanks/page__p__101963#entry101963

]]> By: Anonymous http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/uss-alaska-wows-article/#comment-20105 Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:27:06 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1632#comment-20105 WoT classes =/= WoWs classes

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/3579-ships-tanks/page__p__101963#entry101963

]]>