WoWS: Regular USS Alabama in 0.6.2 Supertest

Thanks to Urakaze for translating.

The regular premium version of the Alabama ST has appeared in the 0.6.2 ST, all the stats are the same as the ST version except for the lack of Octopus camo and STer flag.

Here’s the stats of the Alabama, just as a reminder.
Ship HP: 63300
Deck Armour: 16mm – 154mm
Citadel Armour: 184mm – 310mm
Torpedo Protection: 51%
Max. Speed:27.5 knots
Rudder Shift time: 15 seconds
Turning Circle Radius: 710m
Surface Detectability: 16.2 km
Air Detectability: 12.2 km

Main Battery
406mm/45 Mk.6 (3×3)
Range: 21.1 km
Reload time : 30 seconds
Turret rotation speed: 40 second per 180 degree
Sigma: 1.9

HE Ammo: 406mm HE/HC Mk.13
Damage: 5700
Velocity:803 m/s
Chance of fire: 36%

AP Ammo: 406mm AP Mk.8
Damage: 13100
Velocity:701 m/s
Penetration (at 5/10/15 km): 683mm/563mm/479mm

Secondary Battery
127mm/38 Mk.32 (10 x 2)
Range: 5 km
Reload time: 6 seconds
HE Shell: 1800 damage
Chance of fire: 5%

127mm/38 Mk.32 (10 x 2)
Damage: 151, Range: 5km

40mm Bofors Mk.2 (12 x 4)
Damage: 191, Range: 3.5km

20mm Oerlikon Mk.4 (52 x 1)
Damage: 187, Range: 2km

Consumables: Damage control party, Repair team and Catapult Spotter/Fighter


10 thoughts on “WoWS: Regular USS Alabama in 0.6.2 Supertest

  1. Is it just me, or is that AP velocity ridiculously low?

    On the other hand, 51 percent torpedo damage reduction is bae.


    1. If i recall correctly, they were going for the deck penetration the same way they did for their cruisers (floaty shells). So that explain the low velocity on the AP there.


      1. actually thx to heavier shells both belt and deck armor penetration were good and shells weren’t floaty (game thing) actually at range some were even faster than faster, lighter shells as they kept velocity for longer time, also they had much longer barrel life.

        *British 6″/50 MK XXIII with velocity of 841m/s and mass of 50.8kg
        10,000 yards (9,140 m): 15.9 seconds
        20,000 yards (18,290 m): 47.2 seconds

        Cleveland 6″/47 with velocity of 762m/s and mass of 59kg
        10,000 yards (9,140 m): 16.2 seconds
        20,000 yards (18,290 m): 44.7 seconds

        and British 6″/50 BL MK XII with velocity of 884m/s and mass 45.36kg:
        10,000 yards (9,140 m): 15.2 seconds
        20,000 yards (18,290 m): 46.1 seconds

        NC 406mm 1225kg 701m/s
        Time of flight for AP Shell with MV = 2,300 fps (701 mps)
        10,000 yards (9,140 m): 14.5 seconds
        20,000 yards (18,290 m): 32.6 seconds
        30,000 yards (27,430 m): 56.6 seconds

        Iowa 1225kg 762m/s
        Time of flight for AP Shell with MV = 2,500 fps (762 mps)
        10,000 yards (9,140 m): 13.2 seconds
        20,000 yards (18,290 m): 29.6 seconds
        30,000 yards (27,430 m): 50.3 seconds

        Bismarck 800kg 820m/s
        Time of flight for APC Shell with MV = 2,690 fps (820 mps)
        10,940 yards (10,000 m): 13.9 seconds
        21,870 yards (20,000 m): 32.0 seconds
        32,810 yards (30,000 m): 55.5 seconds

        Colorado 1016kg 768m/s
        Time of flight for AP Shell with MV = 2,520 fps (768 mps)
        10,000 yards (9,140 m): 13.4 seconds
        20,000 yards (18,290 m): 30.6 seconds
        30,000 yards (27,430 m): 53.1 seconds

        Yamato 1460kg 780m/s
        Time of flight for APC Shell with MV = 2,559 fps (780 mps)
        18,410 yards (16,830 m): 26.1 seconds
        30,530 yards (27,920 m): 49.2 seconds


  2. 51% TDS makes no sense at all. It’s slightly less than only Yamato, and South Dakotas had the exact same TDS system as Iowa, and iowa gets what, 20-ish percent?? NC has even less TDS damage reduction despite the system actually being more effective than Iowa’s or South Dakota’s in practice. WG has their logic the other way around as usual.


    1. Yeah, it’s a load of bullshit. The balancing of NC vs Alabama is completely backwards. Bama should have better protection than NC against shells but worse protection against torps. But with the ridiculously strong TDS (and NC’s comically weak one) plus Bama getting the artificially raised citadel, it’s the opposite.

      Also, seeing as word is they’re going to lower Iowa and Montana’s citadels to the correct height in a future patch, will Bama (both regular and ST) get that fix too? If so, why not just test them with the lowered citadel now?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s