Jump to content

Talleyrand

WoWS Community Contributors
  • Content Сount

    1,689
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5583
  • Clan

    [FUR1A]

Community Reputation

792 Excellent

About Talleyrand

  • Rank
    Lieutenant
  • Birthday 12/09/1980
  • Insignia
    [FUR1A]

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Junín, Argentina.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,982 profile views
  1. Que elegantes los sovieticos!
  2. Stefap's great blog have these.
  3. Talleyrand

    Comparando: Kronshtadt vs Azuma vs Alaska

    Un articulo viejo mío. Uno de mis diseños más queridos.
  4. I agree completly. I used the Azuma and the only way i get to the front line is if all the red BBs are dead.
  5. I think her rol is sniper. The Hidro is to make her a bit more flexible, specially in the late game. The torpedoes are been saved for the tier X version I think. But yes, I think she need a little love: (more sigma, lower the citadel or / and more concealment)
  6. Well i guess i should tone down the phrase... ...or you are the famous 1%!
  7. Thank you very much. Most of my work is in spanish. But I will translate the most important or intresting articles.
  8. Something's not right here. The language barrier, or more clearly my limitation to form the sentence correctly It was In comparison to the Alaska wich i was talking before. A more correct way to put it will be "In comparison to the Alaska the Azuma resist the torpedoes much better, but not the canon shots" Azuma is good at hiding because she usually fight at longer range than her concealment Again, another inconsistent conclusion These is just a plane mistake. I will change these accodingly. Azuma: 13.9 Kronshtadt: 14.9 Alaska: 13 Thanks for your imput!
  9. I will check that later. It was carnival night here in my town and I work the nightshift. I'm really tired now
  10. As far I know is based on design B-65 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_B-65_cruiser
  11. Supercruisers Comparison: Alaska, Kronshtadt or Asuma? (Edited a vew mistakes) Similar and very different. Difficult to classify and very desired. The three tier 9 supercruisers are coveted by 99% of the players. But many find it difficult to find the right gameplay for each of them. And even more difficult to see the differences between them before buying them. This article seeks to show the strengths and weaknesses of each one. Originally posted in reportedebatalla.wordpress.com. I translated to english because a few players wanted to see it . The super cruisers Let's start by pointing out what I mean with this category. Super cruisers would be ships designed to hunt down and destroy enemy cruisers, resist their projectiles, and enjoy enough speed to escape from any enemy battleship. We talk about Alaska, Azuma and Kronshtadt. The classification is somewhat arbitrary. I know that mission definition corresponds to battle cruisers. But for political reasons that it would be too tedious to clarify, in several of these boats that word was not used. All three have a large amount of HP. The three equip 3 turrets with 9 guns in total of just over 300mm (305 Kronshtadt and Alaska, 310 Azuma). The 3 have an armored belt to withstand 200mm shots. But despite these similarities their gameplay is different. The Azuma is still "work in progress", so her stats are not final and may change. Kronshtadt Designed in the 30's as a murderer of the 10,000-ton cruisers that equiped the main world navys. The project increase displacement to a designed 42,000 full tons. The Nazi invasion of the USSR halted its construction. After the war they were canceled. Azuma: Old picture when she was tier X Designed as a replacement for the Kongos. Her job was to sweep the curtain of cruisers and destroyers of the American fleet in the hypothetical great decisive battle. Thought to resist shots of 200mm, the planning of the Alaska modified them. They were never built. Alaska The design of these "cruiserkiller" began in the early 30s with the emergence of pocket battleships. Then it evolved to counter the Japanese heavy cruisers built, designed or rumored. She served at the end as a fast carrier escort. Some say the design was similar to a "Baltimore" on steroids. But the concern for speed left them with very little anti-torpedo armor. They were commissioned in mid-44 and scrapped in early 47. Comparison Fire Power * Kronshtadt Alaska Azuma * 305 mm/54 mk15 305 mm/50 Mk8 310 mm/50 Type0 Reload 18,5 s 20 s 20 s Rotación 5,1 º/seg 6 º/seg 5 º/seg Range 18,19 km 18,97 km 19,09 km Dispercion H 241 m 207 m 196 m Sigma 2,05 2,05 2,05 HE , , , Damage 4.200 hp 4.300 hp 5.100 hp Fire Chance 24 % 27 % 27 % Speed 920 m/s 808 m/s 836 m/s Weight 374,7 kg 462,3 kg 448,8 kg AP , , , Damage 9.000 hp 8.900 hp 8.650 hp Speed 900 m/s 762 m/s 836 m/s Weight 471 kg 517 kg 448,8 kg The main guns seem quite similar to each other. But some notable differences arise. First the Kronshtadt recharges faster. Not much but enough to point it out to. The Azuma has a bit more range but nothing relevant. 900 meters is almost not worth mentioning. The dispersion, however, is remarkable. The Kronshtadt has a not so good horizontal dispersion and also a poor high vertical dispersion (the bad thing of having a projectile so fast I think). Compared to the other two, it's a shotgun. This is more noticeable at a long distance. At close range, the initial velocity of the Kronshtadt projectiles makes them easy to aim, but when the distance increases the dispersion is more appreciable . In the HE, the Azuma stands out. Her full broadside can be really harmfull . Even more, she has the precision to use his reach. You can put 5 or 8 k broadsides with constancy and precision. A nightmare. In AP, the Kronshtadt penetrates much more. The Alaska however with its low speed and high weight penetrates much the decks of the cruisers. And it has the curve to shoot above the islands (it's not an Atlanta, but the curve is there). Survavility This is one of the topics where the difference is most noticeable: HP: Kronshtadt: 71.050 Alaska: 60.800 Azuma: 58.350 Blindaje: Kronshtadt: The citadel is under water, protected by 230 mm + 90 mm. Alaska: The citadel is under water, protected by 229 mm + 26 mm. Azuma: The citadel stands out from the water, protected by 25 mm + 178 mm. Platting Alaska: 37 mm (mediun) y 27 mm (ends) Azuma y Kronshtadt: 25 mm Fire duration: All 60 seconds Torpedo Reduction Kronshtadt: 34 % Alaska: 22 % Azuma: 13 % We can deduce that the Kronshtadt is the most protected of the three, with much more HP and better protection of the citadel (but only to cruisers gun). However, the armour layout does not seem to be efficient. There are areas of the citadel much wider than others and therefore more vulnerable to a devastating shot. Alaska is also well protected against enemy artillery. Especially its plating is very good. In fact, although the thickness is lower, the arrangement of its shield compensates this somehow. Her weak point (very weak) are the torpedoes. The protection against these is a paper that says "good wishes". I've eaten several detonations testing it. The Azuma resists the torpedoes much better (than Alaska), but not the cannon shots. The piece of citadel that looks out over the water is particularly vulnerable. It is not uncommon that a a well-placed salvo from a battleship blow me a quarter of my hp. Maneubravility Speed: Azuma: 34 kn Kronshtadt: 33,5 kn Alaska: 33 kn Turning Radius: Azuma: 920 Kronshtadt: 840 Alaska: 850 Rudder Shif Time: Azuma: 13.9 Kronshtadt: 14.9 Alaska: 13 Very even in this item. It is hardly to notice some details. The Azuma has the widest turn but the rudder is fast. The Alaska is the best in these category. Concealment Azuma: 15.1 Kronshtadt: 16.2 Alaska: 15.5 Perhaps the best thing about Azuma is how easy it is to hide her. As You are usually shooting from a distance, with just stop shooting you are invisible. Given its inherent fragility, this ability is vital. Antiaircraft Azuma 25 mm 36 (12*3) with 39.6 damage per second y 2.49 km fire range 25 mm 18 (6*3) with 19.8 damage per second y 2.49 km fire range 40 mm 24 (12*2) with 132 damage per second y 3.51 km fire range 100 mm 16 (8*2) with 166.4 damage per second y 5.01 km fire range Alaska 20 mm 34 (34*1) with 122.4 damage per second y 2.01 km fire range 40 mm 56 (14*4) with 222.6 ddamage per second y 3.51 km fire range 127 mm 12 (8*2) with 90.6 damage per second y 5.01 km fire range Kronshtadt 12.7 mm 12 (6*2) with 30.6 de damage per second y 1.2 km fire range 37 mm 28 (7*4) with 85.4 de damage per second y 3.51 km fire range 100 mm 4 (2*2) with 29.6 de damage per second y 5.01 km fire range 100 mm 4 (2*2) with 29.6 de damage per second y 5.01 km fire range Here Kronshtadt clearly lose . She was a pre-war design. Her AA is dangerously scarce. In fact for an aircraft carrier it would be a priority target if it were not because it can mount the AA Defense consumable. Alaska and Azuma have similar values of AA and both can mount the AA consumable, although Alaska players may prefer to use hydroacoustic search. Azuma however has better heavy AA which benefits the team. Consumables Kronshtadt Azuma Alaska The amount of consumables and possible combinations that Alaska has stands out. It allows you to make powerful combinations such as combining antiaircraft + fighter or hydro + radar. The Kronshtadt also has radar, which is very efficient for the team, even with the modifications that come to this mechanics. Alaska 305mm gun CONCLUSIÓN Kronshtadt The good Better armour penetration Best Reload Good armour Good resistance to torpedoes More HP The bad More Dispersion More overpenetrations Worse concealment Insufficient Antiaircraft Alaska The good Beautiful assortment of consumables Very accurate Good armor for a cruiser Better Plating She can shoot over the islands in certain occasions The bad Very weak against torpedoes Variety of consumables but few slots implies to specialize Slowest projectile of the three Azuma The good Best HE of the three Best range of the three Very accurate Best concealment of the three Good Antiaircraft The bad Citadel exposed Worst armour of the three Less HP of the three Based on the above, we could say that: The Kronshtadt specializes in medium and short distances. Where your AP penetrates almost everything and its dispersion is less noticiable. The Azuma stands out on the contrary, at long distances. Where it takes advantage of her range and precision while avoiding the big guns concentrated fire. The Alaska is more flexible. She is comfortable in both distances. Their only real problem are torpedoes. And of course the big battleships that are the absolute "counter" for the 3. I want to thank @LittleWhiteMouse @COLDOWN y @Cap_Brujo for help to test the ship and make the statistics. And Wargaming for giving me the boats to test them. Finally I want to apology for any mistake in the english grammar.
  12. Talleyrand

    Comparando: Kronshtadt vs Azuma vs Alaska

    Pensaba el Croisseur de Bataille 37000 El tema del renown es que los cruceros de batalla de esa generación suelen ser clasificados como acorazados. Tipo Kongo, Amagi, Hood,. En ese pensaba.
  13. Talleyrand

    Comparando: Kronshtadt vs Azuma vs Alaska

    Jajajaja. A ver que puedo ofrecerte. Aceptarías frances?
×