I have a question being I heard that there is an Alaska in Irwcc as to how it does in battleing? I have also seen that it has finally be bumped up to a 5 unit ship. I have played around with building one, but when it was a 4.5 unit ship I thought it was just to big of a target.But given 5 units you could run twin sterns and a side mount on each side or even go twin side mounts on the sides and no stern gun.It is not a ship that you would want to trade side mounts with BBs but should hold itys own against Scharnhost BCs and the like. Buddy
Its still a big target that cant out run or out turn opponents. Go triple sterns and run it like a huge cruiser, throw in a sidemount so you aren't totally defenseless up front. But any 24 sec axis boat would want to come and play and probably smack it around. Even if you ran dual sidemounts on each side the lack of turning would make it very hard to get them on target and youd still have a ton of target area that a better turning ship (ie most of them) could stay out of the way of your guns while keeping you under theirs. Even if you gave it 10 units its going to be a massive target and turn like a dog. If you like it and want to build one im sure you can have fun with it but you'll probably get sunk fairly often.
I think the Alaska would work somewhat well in Treaty. Although it is still a massive ship for it's units, in Treaty that size hull is actually useful with it's huge reserve bouancy. It'll be a hard ship to sink.
I agree. I'd think about running one in Treaty with a true speed advantage, but in IRCWCC or MWC, she's going to get her clock cleaned.
I understand in IRWCC ship was moved to 5 units and then with the extra rudder got a little bigger rudder. My question is did this help? I like the ship have a 1/16 scale and it looks sharp on the water. Buddy
Hey, Is the AK still treated like a dog by the rules? the ircwcc ship list has her still pegged at 4.5 units. it seems pretty absurd considering that her weight of fire is about 40% heavier than the scharnhorst, and that ship is rated at 5.5 I get that she turns like a pig and is a huge target, but it doesn't seem to make sense to list something that was designed to outrun, outshoot, outfight and kill ships like the scharnhorst is rated so low.
IRC ship ratings are based on ship type, length, and displacement. The Alaska is rated as a BC as compared to the Scharnhorst rating as a BB. The Alaska is longer but displaces less than the Scharnhorst. This is indicative of the heaver armor scheme of a BB over a BC. The two ships had roughly the same firepower (nine 12" verses nine 11" guns) so the lower rating for the Alaska takes into account her less effective armor (9" belt compared to the Scharnhorst's 14" belt).
huh, good to know. too bad there's no account for weight of fire or fire control. the AK's Mark 8 was slinging 1140 pound projectiles to 34,000 yards compared to the Scharnhorst's 730 pound shell out to.... at least 26,000 yards (the shot she took on HMS Glorious). Still, mondo sad face about the Alaska being such a lightweight in the format. Oh well, She's going to be next winter's project regardless. Still a 4.5 though, right?
In real life Alaska would fair well against any other nations best BBs because of it's radar controlled fire and speed. The battling in our hobby has almost nothing to do with real life. Tom P battle an Alaska. He used two sidemounts up front and a rotate in the stern. The ship functioned well, as in his wiring didn't fail and his guns fired. It turns like a turd and has poor acceleration. His damage control was excellent and he needed with how many people wanted to shoot him. Don't battle an Alaska.
It is a good ship in Washington Treaty. It is faster then the heavy cruisers and all the BBs, & BCs Good luck trying to find a Treaty battling group
yeah, I figured that was the story. The Texas I'm building is going to be my primary boat for a long time, building the AK next year is more of a pride thing. Felt like treason building the TX without having at least a plan to do the Alaska next. Yeah who knows, I took a gander at the Treaty rules, and I could always just build to that standard on both of my boats, since there's no club up here and the only people interested are all my friends and can be easily convinced to run treaty rules.
I think it got missed when the convo progressed, but the IRC website still has the AK listed as a 4.5 Did this/has this ever changed? The original posts on this thread mentioned she was a 5. still building her this fall, once I get my house in order. don't care if she's not fantastic on the water or not--that's why I built a Texas first.
They battle treaty in Xenia Ohio. They are a great bunch of guys, RCengr(Mark Jenks) is battling there (and has built an Alaska). they have several battles each summer. The pond is down for renovation rite now I believe, however they have other sites they battle at as well. best bet would be to talk with Mark(Rcengr) and he can let you know what they are up to. Here is their proposed schedule: 2018 MNCC Battle Schedule 5-6 May – Opener – Denmark Straights at Xenia 9-10 June – Xenia 14 July – Site TBA 18 August – Site TBA 28-30 September – Task Force 7 Site TBA Kas and I would like to make a battle with them this summer if we can swing it. Hope to see you on the water. Craig
Yup. The Ohio club is a great group. I need to pay my dues lol. Not sure how many battles I will make but still need to support the club.
Thanks Kevin, I thought something was screwy with that. Glad I'm not going nuts. On a similar thread, I think the new 1/2 unit gun rule will give her a bit of a hand. But with regard to hardware I was wondering if I could install a gun and be able to underload the magazine and use it as a lower battle unit? For example, if I have a 1.5 unit mag on a gun, and load it with only fifty, with an opposing team member/other battle official verifying the load, would that be kosher as a 1 unit cannon? Similarly, a 1 unit cannon loaded with only 25? The reason I'm asking is that since she is so marginal, I'd like to have a flexible battery, at least until I got it dialled in. Preferably so I could alternate between running a triple stern with a 1/2 unit bow sidemount, and a second configuration of dual stern with a 1 unit bow sidemount and a 1/2 unit bow sidemount (unused guns pinned, of course). If not, I'm sure I can devise a way to make the mounts a quick release so I can just move that 1/2 unit gun where I want it, or whatever. Thanks Craig, I hope to make it down there at some point to say hello. If you know anybody familiar with Treaty near northern WI, I'd like to get with them at some point so I can build a Treaty and Fastgun compliant boat. I'll have to use one of Mark's turret ring designs on the stern so I can switch out the Fastgun mount with something more appropriate at a later time (duplicate Mark's AK gun layout or get a rotating turret or something)
Just use the appropriate speed loader for the correct round count. I seriously doubt anyone will ever stop to count them except possibly at Nats.
Magazines can be whatever size you like, it is very common to have a couple magazines that are larger for flexibility like you mentioned. It's up to the individual captain to make sure they load the correct number of BB's for their configuration during a particular battle, so its the honor code (like most things on the ship). The number of BB's you load at the start of a battle could be challenged by another captain, but I have never seen that happen. The Alaska I have seen (Tom P's) has 3 sidemounts, 50rd in each of the front turrets, 75rd rotate aft. Your triple stern option also sounds good, I'd recommend deciding after you get a few battles in so you know your own gun preference (stern guns vs sidemounts)
