US Premium Cruiser "Alaska" Revisited - World of Warships Blitz

The Alaska has received a major dispersion buff in update 6.2, so let's take a look and see if this ship now is actually somewhat playable.
00:00 Intro
01:37 Stats
04:28 Build
09:26 Battle 1 - Normal
16:40 Battle 2 - Whale
23:18 Conclusion

[@BobLyn]

It only took 3 years for Alaska to finally get the respect she desvered

[@dustinbaxter4521]

It truly is an amazing ship 🤩

[@TheAnonymousEconomist]

No kidding. So weak compared to PC

[@Evilship994]

Gg great video as always

[@Redgamingdino4005]

Can you review the Puerto Rico again? That ship has been buffed multiple times since release so it would be interesting to see you new opinion on it

[@hattrick8684]

I never had any issue with Alaska’s guns, even before APCS with my bow maxed Vermont captain. I would manual aim and ripple fire to try and compensate for dispersion

[@Musik2Huhn]

Alaska ist vielleicht kein gutes Schiff, aber auf jeden Fall ein schönes. Übrigens wer hat sich das ausgedacht mit dem Warhammer 40k Krempel für jeden? T8 ist/war wieder mit limitierten 8ern überrannt. Gruselig

[@firemedic105ns]

I wosh that ypu would have shown the intro for the original Alaska review lol. I absolutely love it

[@FunandGameswithTerry]

Yeah, her concealment isn't quite as bad anymore 😂

[@matthiaswcz]

on the Puerto Rico at least, i saw the singularly most impactful improvement of APCS. It really takes the pen over the threshold into being effective at ranges

[@matthewgiancola2316]

Hey Terry, what’s your opinion on the Prinz Eugen? Is there actually a difference between it and the Admiral Hipper class? (Besides consumables)

[@gleamingcolt]

So it seems like the ship that is quote “the ship that can get spotted by orbit” is no longer spotted by orbit Anyways, I want this ship, since i just want it because of history, and it looks cool

[@mdtransmissionspecialties]

Alaska is practically a Azuma

[@xelagunnr4339]

To be fair with that Yugumo....Bots are more scary than players when you are playing a DD :P

[@FunandGameswithTerry]

Fair enough, but they can't outspot you 😂 Well, turned out in the end that he was right, there was indeed someone who sailed straight through the middle.

[@explorationandhistorywithethan]

I was disappointed when I missed Alaska in the shipyard. After I heard how bad she was, I was glad I didn't get her. I even managed to get the Japanese variant of a "Large Cruiser" Azuma for the same price. It's okay, good at long ranges. Needs Torpedoes, but then there is Yoshino, which is Azuma with torps.

[@FunandGameswithTerry]

I'll have to take a look at Puerto Rico again, but not now. I'm actually playing on going through the USN CA line, since I've only done that as part of the "road to" series, but not as regular reviews.

[@nikedgerated]

Terry mate, please try to hit the superstructures of those bbs, and deckline at the cruisers, your aim at that wooster was really bad, sometimes below sea level, and the Prince Rup, you were just hitting her belt at first.

[@COMMANDER-wm9vr]

If Alaska got it's guns from a Wyoming, then the dispersion buff while good, means that Alaska needs not only a dispersion buff, but a penetration buff on it's AP shells, because otherwise, it has Jean Bart problems, where the guns struggle to penetrate the armor of Tier X ships. But perhaps maybe even dropping it down a tier might be good? The Strasbourg has the same issue at Tier VII where the 330mm guns will just tickle a Tier VIII battleship.

[@FunandGameswithTerry]

In reality, the Mk 8 on Alaska were definitely better than Wyoming's Mk 7. They fired superheavy shells, which means plunging fire should actually be dangerous. In retrospect, I would actually have preferred a penetration buff over the dispersion as well, would also have been more historically accurate.

[@COMMANDER-wm9vr]

@@FunandGameswithTerry Yea it would be far more accurate if the guns got a penetration buff since small caliber guns mounted on ships (like I'm sure Graf Spee got on it's own 283mm guns as well as the Scharnhorst) had small caliber guns, but those had improved penetration capabilities.

[@naughty1656]

Alaska is very good now. Just in a tier that is tough

[@matthewwilliams7913]

This ship is an anomaly for me. I have 20 games in it, and i always feel very weak. It feels like the 305s are bouncing more than my buffalos 203s. But i look at my win rate and its 80 percent. I cant explain it, I never feel very impactful, but dont seem to lose.

[@StingyTrigger]

The guns should be way punchier. At least they are in the PC version.

[@FunandGameswithTerry]

And probably in reality as well.

[@m.d2623]

Son gelen güncellemeden beri Oyunum güncelleniyor kısmında kalıyor ve giriş yapamıyorum sorunu çözebili misiniz?

[@FunandGameswithTerry]

It's a known issue with the Turkish locale, you can work around it by switching your phone to English

[@AnitreaSadi]

Your original video on the Alaska is actually what made me not buy this ship. You do a great job explaining these ships and really showing the good and bad. Now to go and disappoint you, im going to go and play my smolensk, lol.... but i will look at the ship again for sure.

[@FunandGameswithTerry]

You do you 😁 I've actually tried Smolensk a while back, and had most of the enemy team immediately focus on me

[@arsonist2298]

So a T8 CV can basically dumpster a T9 american heavy cruiser .. Yea seems legit .. CVs arent broken at all ..smh

[@FunandGameswithTerry]

Alaska isn't a CA, she's a CC - a battlecruiser, basically. For a late-war US ship, her AA is actually not that good, and she doesn't have the manoeuvrability to deal with airstrikes. In a Seattle or a Baltimore, I'd actively chase the incoming air attacks, and make the CV regret it.