Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
DeliciousFart

Tier 10 (battle)cruiser Stalingrad?

191 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,248 posts
737 battles

I saw this.

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/yes-we-clan/

 

I...really don't know what to make of this. The Stalingrad is massive, as indicated by the stats below.

 

41,600 long ton full load displacement

821.9 ft length

103.7 ft beam

 

She is dimensionally nearly the same as an Iowa. If people were having misgivings about Alaska as a tier 10 cruiser, then I think having a ship with 7k tons more displacement as a cruiser sort of answers it. But then again, the Moskva itself at 30,750 tons was already it, since she weight almost as much as Alaska's 34,253 tons in the first place.

stalingrad.PNG

 

To give you an idea of how large the Stalingrad is, here's a picture comparison between it and the 57,500 ton, 887 ft long, 108.25 ft beam Iowa.

 

8rCyK2R.png

And here is Stalingrad compared to Alaska and Project 66 (Moskva).

7c4SGBP.png

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,066
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,180 posts
11,693 battles

I can't disagree with your statement.  I'll say it's another boneheaded, stupid move on the part of WG but who's surprised with that anymore?

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,375
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,447 posts
3,875 battles
Just now, Rommelsbook said:

About like a Moskva.?

About twice as heavy as Moskva. It's almost as heavy as Iowa, and physically about the same size as one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
5 minutes ago, Rommelsbook said:

About like a Moskva.?

Moskva herself is almost as large as the Alaska. While her large size and health pool is great in game terms, she was viewed very negatively by the Soviet naval academy since she carried rather small guns for something her size. Another case where the game rewards paper designs that were derided even by naval leaders.

 

To quote myself:

 

On 9/21/2017 at 5:19 PM, DeliciousFart said:

Alaska is only 11% bigger in terms of displacement at 34,253 tons, and actually shorter than Project 66 (Moskva) at 30,750 tons. Dimensions are below.

 

Moskva (Project 66)

Length: 252.5 m

Beam: 25.7 m

 

Alaska

Length: 246.6 m

Beam: 27.7 m

 

Like I said, the Soviet naval academy was very negative about the Moskva because of how large it was for the weapons it carried. This and other factors lead to the ship being canceled.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,066
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,180 posts
11,693 battles
6 minutes ago, Rommelsbook said:

About like a Moskva.?

As long as an Iowa, displaces about the same as an NC, with high-velocity 12-inch guns.  It was designed to kill Alaskas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[HINON]
Supertester
7,523 posts
7,580 battles
7 minutes ago, Rommelsbook said:

About like a Moskva.?

Think of a Moskva that has bigger guns, more armor and is faster. That’s the Stalingrad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[HINON]
Supertester
7,523 posts
7,580 battles
1 minute ago, Ace_04 said:

" Stalingrad was a Soviet battlecruiser design from 1941. It was a smaller and less-expensive counterpart to the Kronshtadt-class battlecruisers of 1939."

 

Smaller?  :Smile_amazed:

 

That's a frightening thought....

Just a tad lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
3 minutes ago, Ace_04 said:

" Stalingrad was a Soviet battlecruiser design from 1941. It was a smaller and less-expensive counterpart to the Kronshtadt-class battlecruisers of 1939."

 

Smaller?  :Smile_amazed:

 

That's a frightening thought....

The fact that these ships are so damn large is not due to some magical ingenuity on Soviet naval architects' part. Quite the opposite, in fact.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,375
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,447 posts
3,875 battles
2 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

The fact that these ships are so damn large is not due to some magical ingenuity on Soviet naval architects' part. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Yup. They build big because they don't know how to build efficiently.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,119
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,967 posts
7,530 battles
2 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

Yup. They build big because they don't know how to build efficiently.

They still don't. "They" meaning the Russians, today.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
248 posts
2,507 battles

Its a heavier Moskva with 12 inch guns of Soviet doom guided by the hand of Stalin himself. Its going to be OP like most Russian paper ships.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,375
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,447 posts
3,875 battles
2 minutes ago, TheKrimzonDemon said:

They still don't. "They" meaning the Russians, today.

And when they do, they don't maintain it properly and a mishandled, poorly maintained torpedo blows up during a loading procedure and takes off the bow of their submarine.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,516
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,995 posts
5,965 battles

950 meters per second 12" guns, on a ship that gets weighed by matchmaking like a cruiser.

 

:thinking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,601
[TASH]
Members
5,016 posts
8,125 battles

As someone who did a very extensive Stalingrad writeup a year or so ago, this is [edited].  I didn't even need thread responses to start realizing this thing would be very tough to balance as a T10 CA, and impossible without it becoming so nerfed it's barely even the same ship.

 

She could easily be a T8 BB.  Railgun 12" rifles with penetration exceeding that of basically every gun < 16", the same trollish armor layout as Moskva, and more speed than anything except a DD or French CA with engine boost active is a dangerous combination.  Make her a T10 CA, and you slap on 25-second, 11.7km radar and DF to a ship with literally twice of Moskva's AA.  This is about as sensible as making North Carolina a T10 CA because of her stealth.

Edited by ValkyrWarframe
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
780
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
1,630 posts
5,963 battles

It's not that the Soviets designed bad ships.  The Moskva wasn't a bad design.  It would have worked splendidly as a heavy cruiser.  It just would have been damn expensive for a cruiser.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,909
[HINON]
Supertester
19,236 posts
12,772 battles
14 minutes ago, ValkyrWarframe said:

She could easily be a T8 BB.  Railgun 12" rifles with penetration exceeding that of basically every gun < 16"

The problem isn't the penetration. Every battleship caliber gun basically has more than enough penetration at the ranges in the game. The problem is with the artificial extremity armor thickness and overmatch rules WG has invented. 12" AP at T8 wouldn't even overmatch cruiser bow armor. It's the main reason KGV is T7 instead of T8.

You want HE spam? This is how you get HE spam.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,375
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,447 posts
3,875 battles
5 minutes ago, _V12 said:

It's not that the Soviets designed bad ships.  The Moskva wasn't a bad design.  It would have worked splendidly as a heavy cruiser.  It just would have been damn expensive for a cruiser.  

No, it was a bad design.

 

Anything that costs as much as a battleship per day just to keep the engine running, without carrying battleship artillery, is a bad design.

 

it was a horrifically inefficient design and had multiple flaws. Which is why they never built the damn thing.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,119
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,967 posts
7,530 battles
16 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

And when they do, they don't maintain it properly and a mishandled, poorly maintained torpedo blows up during a loading procedure and takes off the bow of their submarine.

Also, propellers break off during high speed turns, and engines literally fall off aircraft during flight. Their real life mirrors some of their ships in this game, who knew? :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,119
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,967 posts
7,530 battles
4 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

No, it was a bad design.

 

Anything that costs as much as a battleship per day just to keep the engine running, without carrying battleship artillery, is a bad design.

 

it was a horrifically inefficient design and had multiple flaws. Which is why they never built the damn thing.

I mean, it was so bad a design that even the Soviets didn't build it. That's like, the benchmark for bad design.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,375
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,447 posts
3,875 battles
2 minutes ago, TheKrimzonDemon said:

Also, propellers break off during high speed turns, and engines literally fall off aircraft during flight. Their real life mirrors some of their ships in this game, who knew? :Smile_trollface:

Don't forget how they ran Tashkent's engine until it melted because nobody on board knew that you can't run a ship's boilers at full temperature for weeks at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
16 minutes ago, _V12 said:

It's not that the Soviets designed bad ships.  The Moskva wasn't a bad design.  It would have worked splendidly as a heavy cruiser.  It just would have been damn expensive for a cruiser.  

It depends on your definition of bad. It may not be bad in the sense that it doesn't have glaring technical or engineering shortcomings, but given that the ship was never built you can never know. However, from an operational standpoint, if your heavy cruiser costs about as much as a battleship, then your design is unsuccessful. It's the exact same argument leveled at the Alaska, and to put it in perspective, the Moskva is nearly as large yet carries much smaller guns.

 

I'm personally a bit miffed that the Stalingrad is likely coming before Alaska, given that the Alaska saw actual service, even if it was not particularly exciting.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,727
[TBW]
Members
6,409 posts
12,057 battles

I thought that they were never going to have tier 10 premiums or maybe they just said sell. That doesn't really matter to me though because I always thought why wouldn't they make tier 10 Premiums. What I don't like about it is the fact that you can't obtain the ship unless you participate in Clan Battles. Just like the ranked prize ships. Ranked is really stupid to me and not very fun really, with the yo yo up and down with no rhyme or reason. I think it's bad form to make a ship that is only obtainable thru Clan battles and then to make it a tier 10 premium on top of that. That's just my opinion of course and I am sure a lot of you won't agree with it.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,601
[TASH]
Members
5,016 posts
8,125 battles
12 minutes ago, Lert said:

The problem isn't the penetration. Every battleship caliber gun basically has more than enough penetration at the ranges in the game. The problem is with the artificial extremity armor thickness and overmatch rules WG has invented. 12" AP at T8 wouldn't even overmatch cruiser bow armor. It's the main reason KGV is T7 instead of T8.

You are still looking at a substantial rate of fire advantage compared to other T8 battleships.  KGV had only HE alpha going for her until WG caved to teaboos and buffed her reload.  As for HE, WG has two options: use the SAP shell and retain the 950m/s velocity while sacrificing alpha and fire chance for penetration, or using the proper HE shell with British 13.5" HE-sized bursting charges and a 700m/s velocity.  They could also pull out the sekrit dokuments and just give the actual HE 950m/s velocity; though, in their defense, it wouldn't be much of a stretch since the HE shell weighed the same as the others (which implies the difference comes only from propellant charge sizes).

Edited by ValkyrWarframe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×