Comments by "Katy" (@KatyushaLauncher) on "The Drydock - Episode 143" video.

  1. The Alaska-class isn't really worth it's price because for the cost of one Alaska you could have a full fledged battleship that can do everything better, or two heavy cruisers that are cheaper and just as capable.
    1
  2.  @mahbriggs  The Alaska actually still cost almost as much as a full on capital ship, displacement wise, the Alaska weighted as much a WW1 Battleship and almost weighted as normal WW2 Treaty Battleship as the Alaska's full displacement is almost 35,000 tons, the Alaska's armor may be thinner but due to her sheer size that armor is going multiple and there's also the fact that the Alaska's armor layout is of modern design and still as expensive or even more, you do realize that those smaller guns are much more expensive? Because Alaska and Guam were the only two ships to mount those guns, only ten turrets were made during the war (three for each ship including Hawaii and one spare). They cost $1,550,000 each and were the most expensive heavy guns purchased by the U.S. Navy in World War II. See they're not cheaper, they're also not faster since other Heavy cruisers and even the Iowa-class of Fast Battleships are faster than the Alaska-class, An Battleship or 2 Heavy cruisers have double the amount fire power and anti-aircraft capabilities than a single Alaska. And My point is there's no use building them early on because they're not better than a single battleship or two heavy cruisers
    1
  3.  @mahbriggs  The Iowa-class was the second largest battleships in the world so of course the Alaska-class as well as any other WW2 Battleship (except for the Yamato-class) would be smaller. I'm sorry but your reading comprehension is very wrong, that $1,550,000 is the cost OF ONLY one main gun turret of the Alaska-class, that's not even the cost of the whole ship, now if you connect the two dots together, if the Alaska-class's guns cost that much, what would the rest of the ship cost? And what part of expensive do you not understand? The expense of steel of that time is high and the demand for it as well, so even if the amount of steel used to build the Alaska-class was less than a Battleship, the cost of that steel will be as much as the Battleships, I never said they were battleships. I don't also get that you're trying to argue on a Class of ship that's useless than a Battleship, A Cruisers, and Carrier, it certainly is not nice to have them early on in the war knowing the fact of it's uselessness
    1
  4.  @mahbriggs  Says the person that can't refute or even understand simple words. Sure same to you
    1