Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
_Dracarys

regarding the kronschdadt...

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

228
[TNG]
Members
813 posts
6,173 battles

it says its a tier 9 cruiser (BC in reality), but there is no new line of Soviet CA announced. will this be a premium ship that costs 750k exp? personally having both the MO and the Musashi, my enthusiasm for Tier 9 premiums is really limited right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,462
[HINON]
Supertester
18,921 posts
12,454 battles

Nobody knows, no announcement has been made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,291 posts
3,583 battles
32 minutes ago, _Dracarys said:

it says its a tier 9 cruiser (BC in reality), but there is no new line of Soviet CA announced. will this be a premium ship that costs 750k exp? personally having both the MO and the Musashi, my enthusiasm for Tier 9 premiums is really limited right now.

While it could be a free xp ship as let said we don't know . but it is precedent for two free xp ships in one year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,690 posts
7,230 battles

If they do make it another free XP T9, it better have some perk to it.  Missouri is best silver farmer, Musashi is best captain trainer, this new ship could have 100% bonus to free XP along with the usual 100% to xp.

Without some special perk to highlight it, T9 Moskva does not sound appealing enough.  Perhaps it’s a good thing, it’s about time I skip a ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,618 posts
4,887 battles
46 minutes ago, _Dracarys said:

it says its a tier 9 cruiser (BC in reality), but there is no new line of Soviet CA announced. will this be a premium ship that costs 750k exp? personally having both the MO and the Musashi, my enthusiasm for Tier 9 premiums is really limited right now.

Well no, it's not a Battlecruiser.  Like the Stalingrad and the Alaska, the Krondstadt is not a capital ship and is pretty much where "Heavy Cruisers" would have ended up had not the Washington and London Naval Treaties stunted their growth. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,282 posts
4,358 battles
11 minutes ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

Well no, it's not a Battlecruiser.  Like the Stalingrad and the Alaska, the Krondstadt is not a capital ship and is pretty much where "Heavy Cruisers" would have ended up had not the Washington and London Naval Treaties stunted their growth. 

ermmm  according to the Russian Documentation as highlighted and translated in McLaughlins book called "Project 69: The Kronshtadt Class Battlecruisers"   The Russians listed them as Battlecruisers and assigned them to their Capital Fleet Lists.

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,618 posts
4,887 battles
4 minutes ago, Cruiser_Fiume said:

Source? Oh, wait...

Well ... 

A capital ship is one designed to lie in the line of battle and taking everything the enemy ship can throw at them and respond in kind.  Just from their stated missions and their design, it's brutally obvious that these ships don't fit into this definition for the age in which they were built. 

The construction patterns are all wrong as well.  In addition to their weight in armor, the interior design elements of a battleship differ significantly from that of a cruiser.  Scantlings are much closer together and heavier because all that armor needs to be braced and supported to a different standard than is the case with a cruiser.  The Alaska in particular features the design elements and internal structure of an enlarged US heavy cruiser not that of a battleship, and from what I know of the Kronstad and Stalingrad, the same can be said of them. 

The only thing which makes these ships "Battleship like" is that they carry 12 inch guns like many of the Pre-dreadnoughts of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries and the earliest Dreadnoughts of that time did, but the combat environment was a little different in the late 1940's and early 50's when these large cruisers would have hit the waves as opposed to around 1910 when battleships began to phase out the 12 inch gun as being too small for that time. 

Yes I know, the next comment will be "what about the Scharnorst?"  The 11 inch guns of the Scharnhorst were an expedient because, at the time of their construction, the Germans didn't have any other modern guns to equip them with (the treaty of Versailles prohibited Germany from building guns larger than 11 inches).  It was always planned to refit them with the 15 inch guns then under development when they became available.   Other than the interim main guns however, the Scharnhorst and her sister had all the other design elements of a battleship which the Alaska, Kronstadt and Stalingrad did not. 

Want to look it up, go ahead.  There's a lot of information out there about the Alaska in particular and her design and a couple of good books about US cruisers which talk about her in depth.  "US Cruisers, an Illustrated Design History" might be a good place for you to start. 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,360 posts
3,915 battles
39 minutes ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

Well ... 

A capital ship is one designed to lie in the line of battle and taking everything the enemy ship can throw at them and respond in kind.  Just from their stated missions and their design, it's brutally obvious that these ships don't fit into this definition for the age in which they were built. 

The construction patterns are all wrong as well.  In addition to their weight in armor, the interior design elements of a battleship differ significantly from that of a cruiser.  Scantlings are much closer together and heavier because all that armor needs to be braced and supported to a different standard than is the case with a cruiser.  The Alaska in particular features the design elements and internal structure of an enlarged US heavy cruiser not that of a battleship, and from what I know of the Kronstad and Stalingrad, the same can be said of them. 

The only thing which makes these ships "Battleship like" is that they carry 12 inch guns like many of the Pre-dreadnoughts of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries and the earliest Dreadnoughts of that time did, but the combat environment was a little different in the late 1940's and early 50's when these large cruisers would have hit the waves as opposed to around 1910 when battleships began to phase out the 12 inch gun as being too small for that time. 

Yes I know, the next comment will be "what about the Scharnorst?"  The 11 inch guns of the Scharnhorst were an expedient because, at the time of their construction, the Germans didn't have any other modern guns to equip them with (the treaty of Versailles prohibited Germany from building guns larger than 11 inches).  It was always planned to refit them with the 15 inch guns then under development when they became available.   Other than the interim main guns however, the Scharnhorst and her sister had all the other design elements of a battleship which the Alaska, Kronstadt and Stalingrad did not. 

Want to look it up, go ahead.  There's a lot of information out there about the Alaska in particular and her design and a couple of good books about US cruisers which talk about her in depth.  "US Cruisers, an Illustrated Design History" might be a good place for you to start. 

 

 

 

No thank you. You are not a professor, I have nothing to learn from you, and the Alaskas' status as 'large cruisers' is hardly as settled as you would portray it. Just from Wikipedia alone (and not going to the bookshelf):

"Despite these cruiser-like characteristics, and the U.S. Navy's insistence on their status as cruisers, the Alaska class has been frequently described as battlecruisers.[37] The official navy magazine All Hands said "The Guam and her sister ship Alaska are the first American battle cruisers ever to be completed as such."[38] The Alaskas' percentage of armor tonnage, 28.4%, was slightly less than that of fast battleships; the British King George Vclass, the American Iowa class, and the battlecruiser/fast battleship HMS Hood all had armor percentages between 32 and 33%, whereas the Lexington-class battlecruiser design had a nearly identical armor percentage of 28.5%. In fact, older battlecruisers, such as Invincible (19.9%), had a significantly lower percentage.[39]Armament-wise, they had much larger guns than contemporary heavy cruisers; while the Baltimore class only carried nine 8"/55 caliberMarks 12 and 15 guns,[40] the Alaska class carried nine 12"/50 caliber guns that were as good as, if not superior to, the old 14"/50 caliber gun used on the U.S. Navy's pre-treaty battleships.[41]"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[TF-64]
Members
364 posts
12,590 battles

What if this thing is really just part of this year's April fool's day event. I mean it's getting close. Maybe this is just to get us worked up and excited for this year's event. If there is more info than I've seen to prove it isn't then disregard me. I'm not really deep in the loop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,618 posts
4,887 battles
1 hour ago, Cruiser_Fiume said:

No thank you. You are not a professor, I have nothing to learn from you, and the Alaskas' status as 'large cruisers' is hardly as settled as you would portray it. Just from Wikipedia alone (and not going to the bookshelf):

"Despite these cruiser-like characteristics, and the U.S. Navy's insistence on their status as cruisers, the Alaska class has been frequently described as battlecruisers.[37] The official navy magazine All Hands said "The Guam and her sister ship Alaska are the first American battle cruisers ever to be completed as such."[38] The Alaskas' percentage of armor tonnage, 28.4%, was slightly less than that of fast battleships; the British King George Vclass, the American Iowa class, and the battlecruiser/fast battleship HMS Hood all had armor percentages between 32 and 33%, whereas the Lexington-class battlecruiser design had a nearly identical armor percentage of 28.5%. In fact, older battlecruisers, such as Invincible (19.9%), had a significantly lower percentage.[39]Armament-wise, they had much larger guns than contemporary heavy cruisers; while the Baltimore class only carried nine 8"/55 caliberMarks 12 and 15 guns,[40] the Alaska class carried nine 12"/50 caliber guns that were as good as, if not superior to, the old 14"/50 caliber gun used on the U.S. Navy's pre-treaty battleships.[41]"

 

Yes the infallible source of wikipedia. 

Well, actually there's some good stuff in this article so let's take a look at what this article says before the paragraph you snipped out of it.  

"The final design was a scaled-up Baltimore class that had the same machinery as the Essex-class aircraft carriers." 

Ergo the basis for the design was that of an enlarged cruiser, not that of a scaled down battleship. 

"However, the designation was changed to CB to reflect their new status, "large cruiser", and the practice of referring to them as battlecruisers was officially discouraged.[16] The U.S. Navy then named the individual vessels after U.S. territories, rather than states (as was the tradition with battleships) or cities (for which cruisers were named), to symbolize the belief that these ships were supposed to play an intermediate role between heavy cruisers and fully-fledged battleships."

Obviously the US Navy did not think of the Alaska's as a Battlecruiser or Capital Ship and since they were the ones who built her, they probably had a much better idea of what she really was intended to be than most of us. 

"In design and armor the Alaska class are regarded as "large cruisers" rather than battlecruisers. Their design was scaled up from the treaty cruisers limited by the Washington, London and Second London naval treaties.[6] In common with U.S. heavy cruisers, they had aircraft hangars and a single large rudder. Their armor lacked the underwater protection systems found on full-fledged battleships and even intermediate capital ships like the French Dunkerque and German Scharnhorst classes. This left the Alaskas virtually defenseless against torpedoes, as well as vulnerable to shells falling slightly short and continuing underwater to hit the hull."

"In addition, despite being much larger than the Baltimore class, the numbers of secondary and anti-aircraft batteries of the Alaskas were similar. Whereas the Alaskaclass carried twelve 5"/38 caliber in six twin turrets, fifty-six 40 mm, and thirty-four 20 mm guns, the Baltimore class carried the same number of 5"/38s, eight fewer 40 mm, and ten fewer 20 mm.,[6] considerably fewer than new U.S. battleships that had ten (save for South Dakota) 5"/38 twin mounts while older refitted U.S. battleships had eight. Author Richard Worth remarked that when they were finally completed, launched, and commissioned, they had the "size of a battleship but the capabilities of a cruiser". The Alaska class was similarly expensive to build and maintain as contemporary battleships yet far less capable due to armor deficiencies, while able to put up an anti-aircraft defense comparable only to the much cheaper Baltimore cruisers."

This echos the information I presented above, that in form and design, the Alaska's were very large cruisers and were not built to the same standards, or for the same missions, as a contemporary Battleship.  They were designed to and built to have cruiser like capabilities not those of a capital ship.

So granted, maybe I'm not a professor, but one could argue that reading the entire article might serve you better than only focusing on the information you like. 

Just saying. :Smile_great:

Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel
  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,360 posts
3,915 battles
4 hours ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

Yes the infallible source of wikipedia. 

Well, actually there's some good stuff in this article so let's take a look at what this article says before the paragraph you snipped out of it.  

"The final design was a scaled-up Baltimore class that had the same machinery as the Essex-class aircraft carriers." 

Ergo the basis for the design was that of an enlarged cruiser, not that of a scaled down battleship. 

"However, the designation was changed to CB to reflect their new status, "large cruiser", and the practice of referring to them as battlecruisers was officially discouraged.[16] The U.S. Navy then named the individual vessels after U.S. territories, rather than states (as was the tradition with battleships) or cities (for which cruisers were named), to symbolize the belief that these ships were supposed to play an intermediate role between heavy cruisers and fully-fledged battleships."

Obviously the US Navy did not think of the Alaska's as a Battlecruiser or Capital Ship and since they were the ones who built her, they probably had a much better idea of what she really was intended to be than most of us. 

"In design and armor the Alaska class are regarded as "large cruisers" rather than battlecruisers. Their design was scaled up from the treaty cruisers limited by the Washington, London and Second London naval treaties.[6] In common with U.S. heavy cruisers, they had aircraft hangars and a single large rudder. Their armor lacked the underwater protection systems found on full-fledged battleships and even intermediate capital ships like the French Dunkerque and German Scharnhorst classes. This left the Alaskas virtually defenseless against torpedoes, as well as vulnerable to shells falling slightly short and continuing underwater to hit the hull."

"In addition, despite being much larger than the Baltimore class, the numbers of secondary and anti-aircraft batteries of the Alaskas were similar. Whereas the Alaskaclass carried twelve 5"/38 caliber in six twin turrets, fifty-six 40 mm, and thirty-four 20 mm guns, the Baltimore class carried the same number of 5"/38s, eight fewer 40 mm, and ten fewer 20 mm.,[6] considerably fewer than new U.S. battleships that had ten (save for South Dakota) 5"/38 twin mounts while older refitted U.S. battleships had eight. Author Richard Worth remarked that when they were finally completed, launched, and commissioned, they had the "size of a battleship but the capabilities of a cruiser". The Alaska class was similarly expensive to build and maintain as contemporary battleships yet far less capable due to armor deficiencies, while able to put up an anti-aircraft defense comparable only to the much cheaper Baltimore cruisers."

This echos the information I presented above, that in form and design, the Alaska's were very large cruisers and were not built to the same standards, or for the same missions, as a contemporary Battleship.  They were designed to and built to have cruiser like capabilities not those of a capital ship.

So granted, maybe I'm not a professor, but one could argue that reading the entire article might serve you better than only focusing on the information you like. 

Just saying. :Smile_great:

And I'm 'just saying,' chap, that I can dissect an article and pluck the bits that suit me, as can anyone else (oh, but I must be a fool whose incapable or unwilling to READ! THAT'S it! You've figured me out!). It should be clear as day to you - given how highly you think of yourself - that there are two camps regarding these vessels, and neither side accepts the other's assertions. But, hey, those other people? All idiots. Just write them off with those broad, condescending strokes, too.

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
340 posts
2,096 battles

Since it Tier IX it'll be either 1 of 3 things:

1. Ranked battles reward.

2. First "non-BB" Free XP ship.

3. A reward ship for some kind of event or campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
102
[PNG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
574 posts
3,911 battles
9 hours ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

Yes the infallible source of wikipedia. 

Well, actually there's some good stuff in this article so let's take a look at what this article says before the paragraph you snipped out of it.  

"The final design was a scaled-up Baltimore class that had the same machinery as the Essex-class aircraft carriers." 

Ergo the basis for the design was that of an enlarged cruiser, not that of a scaled down battleship. 

"However, the designation was changed to CB to reflect their new status, "large cruiser", and the practice of referring to them as battlecruisers was officially discouraged.[16] The U.S. Navy then named the individual vessels after U.S. territories, rather than states (as was the tradition with battleships) or cities (for which cruisers were named), to symbolize the belief that these ships were supposed to play an intermediate role between heavy cruisers and fully-fledged battleships."

Obviously the US Navy did not think of the Alaska's as a Battlecruiser or Capital Ship and since they were the ones who built her, they probably had a much better idea of what she really was intended to be than most of us. 

"In design and armor the Alaska class are regarded as "large cruisers" rather than battlecruisers. Their design was scaled up from the treaty cruisers limited by the Washington, London and Second London naval treaties.[6] In common with U.S. heavy cruisers, they had aircraft hangars and a single large rudder. Their armor lacked the underwater protection systems found on full-fledged battleships and even intermediate capital ships like the French Dunkerque and German Scharnhorst classes. This left the Alaskas virtually defenseless against torpedoes, as well as vulnerable to shells falling slightly short and continuing underwater to hit the hull."

"In addition, despite being much larger than the Baltimore class, the numbers of secondary and anti-aircraft batteries of the Alaskas were similar. Whereas the Alaskaclass carried twelve 5"/38 caliber in six twin turrets, fifty-six 40 mm, and thirty-four 20 mm guns, the Baltimore class carried the same number of 5"/38s, eight fewer 40 mm, and ten fewer 20 mm.,[6] considerably fewer than new U.S. battleships that had ten (save for South Dakota) 5"/38 twin mounts while older refitted U.S. battleships had eight. Author Richard Worth remarked that when they were finally completed, launched, and commissioned, they had the "size of a battleship but the capabilities of a cruiser". The Alaska class was similarly expensive to build and maintain as contemporary battleships yet far less capable due to armor deficiencies, while able to put up an anti-aircraft defense comparable only to the much cheaper Baltimore cruisers."

This echos the information I presented above, that in form and design, the Alaska's were very large cruisers and were not built to the same standards, or for the same missions, as a contemporary Battleship.  They were designed to and built to have cruiser like capabilities not those of a capital ship.

So granted, maybe I'm not a professor, but one could argue that reading the entire article might serve you better than only focusing on the information you like. 

Just saying. :Smile_great:

"They were designed to and built to have cruiser like capabilities not those of a capital ship" but it was designed to have battleship like armament (12" was capital ship let alone that these new 12in performed like 14in/50) and had limited protection against 12" which was slightly more than other cruisers. That is essentially the definition of a battle cruiser.

Really it comes down to what is more or less "politics" of calling it a battle cruiser. by the time the Alaska was designed, let alone finished, battle cruisers were considered obsolete as a FBB was considered superior, similar speed and armament but with better armor.

Alaska could keep up with FBBs making the main difference between them armor/protection which would be the primary distinction between a BC, read CB designation, and FBB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,618 posts
4,887 battles
13 hours ago, Cruiser_Fiume said:

And I'm 'just saying,' chap, that I can dissect an article and pluck the bits that suit me, as can anyone else (oh, but I must be a fool whose incapable or unwilling to READ! THAT'S it! You've figured me out!). It should be clear as day to you - given how highly you think of yourself - that there are two camps regarding these vessels, and neither side accepts the other's assertions. But, hey, those other people? All idiots. Just write them off with those broad, condescending strokes, too.

Glad you know me so well and after only two posts.  Guess your crystal ball is working overtime. 

I mean, if you want to use personal insults to back up your argument and if you want to cherry pick information as you did, be my guest.  

Sure there are two camps, those who think anything running around with 12 inch guns is a capital ship and those, including the US Navy and a number of other authoritative sources, who do not.  To me, it's fairly clear where the weight of the evidence lies. 

I'm not going to call those who support an opposite view idiots, though based on the quality for your responses it's possible you might fit into that category.  What I did do was present a solid argument explaining why the Alaska, Krondstadt and Stalingrad are not capital ships and I presented data that you purposefully left out of your "source" which supported that view.  I made a suggestion as to where you could find other authoritative material as well.  However, I suppose presenting data contrary to your opinion and using the data you excluded from the article you cherry picked from is condescending.  Best of luck with that.   

What is very clear at this point is that WG has reviewed the data and capabilities of these vessels and has deemed them to be cruisers so that really should end the debate about how the Alaska is going to be treated.  After the release of Stalingrad, it should have been clear which way WG was going to go in releasing similar ships like the Krondstadt and Alaska. 

However, feel free to flail about and hurl insults at those who disagree with you as much as you like.

Good Luck and Fair Seas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,360 posts
3,915 battles
44 minutes ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

I'm not going to call those who support an opposite view idiots, though based on the quality for your responses it's possible you might fit into that category.

FPpXQlo.gif

Right. Welcome to ignore.

 

Edited by Cruiser_Fiume
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,618 posts
4,887 battles
10 hours ago, aradragoon said:

"They were designed to and built to have cruiser like capabilities not those of a capital ship" but it was designed to have battleship like armament (12" was capital ship let alone that these new 12in performed like 14in/50) and had limited protection against 12" which was slightly more than other cruisers. That is essentially the definition of a battle cruiser.

Really it comes down to what is more or less "politics" of calling it a battle cruiser. by the time the Alaska was designed, let alone finished, battle cruisers were considered obsolete as a FBB was considered superior, similar speed and armament but with better armor.

Alaska could keep up with FBBs making the main difference between them armor/protection which would be the primary distinction between a BC, read CB designation, and FBB.

Definition of a Battlecruiser is a ship which sacrificed armor to obtain a speed advantage over any more powerful and which carried the firepower of a contemporary battleship.  So, how many battleships were being built in the late 1940's and early 1950's that carried 12 inch guns?  Did the Alaska, Krondstadt and Stalingrad have the speed advantage that would have allowed them to easily outpace the more powerful and better protected contemporary battleships?  If the answer to these questions is yes, then you have a ship that could reasonably meet the definition of a battlecruiser. 

Unfortunately, the answer to both of these questions, for the most part, is no. 

Nobody was building a battleship with 12 inch guns in 1944 because the day of the 12 inch gun being considered sufficiently powerful to use as the main battery of a capital ship had ended around the years 1910-1915.   In 1944, battleships entering service at that time were generally carrying  somewhere between 15 inch to 18 inch guns.  To have the firepower of a contemporary battleship, these vessels would have had to mount a similar main battery in order to effectively engage them in battle.  None of these vessels mounted such weapons and as such, they fail this basic definition of what makes a ship a battle cruiser.   

One of the other defining definitions of a battle-cruiser is speed, the ability not to keep pace with contemporary battleships but to have a significant speed advantage over them so that they could run away from anything more powerful than they were, and be more powerful than anything which could catch them.  Once again, Alaska and Krondstadt fail this test as their 32 knot top speed was being equaled by the battleships being built at that time. Stalingrad would, if the design has worked out, have had a couple knot advantage over the fastest battleships but not all that much.  As such, at least two of these three vessels fail this defining definition of at battlecruiser.  

The fact is, by the time these ships were built, the "battlecruiser" concept had been abandoned because you could gain all of the speed advantages that caused battlecruisers to exist in the first place, in an actual battleship.  As such there was no need to sacrifice protection to gain speed and the entire "battlecruiser" concept became obsolete.

I certainly understand why people would disagree, just like the reference you quoted as "battleship like armament (12" was capital ship let alone that these new 12in performed like 14in/50)".  The problem here is that the 12 inch gun in 1944 was not a contemporary battleship like armament.  What it is would be what you'd expect a heavy cruiser to be armed with had the Washington and London Naval Treaties not limited inter-war cruisers to 8 inch guns.  These ships were designed and constructed after the end of these treaty restrictions so the Americans and Soviets simply took the next evolutionary step in cruiser design.  

Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,618 posts
4,887 battles
40 minutes ago, Cruiser_Fiume said:

FPpXQlo.gif

Right. Welcome to ignore.

 

Thank you, I consider it to be an honor to be ignored by you. :Smile_medal:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[BTH]
Beta Testers
198 posts
4,661 battles
22 hours ago, Ramsalot said:

If they do make it another free XP T9, it better have some perk to it.  Missouri is best silver farmer, Musashi is best captain trainer, this new ship could have 100% bonus to free XP along with the usual 100% to xp.

Without some special perk to highlight it, T9 Moskva does not sound appealing enough.  Perhaps it’s a good thing, it’s about time I skip a ship.

Can you elaborate on why the Musashi is a better captain trainer? I do not have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,023
[OPG]
Members
3,892 posts
5,479 battles
2 minutes ago, LukeV said:

Can you elaborate on why the Musashi is a better captain trainer? I do not have one.

It has the option to mount a special camo with pretty impressive bonuses to captain XP earnings 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,690 posts
7,230 battles
44 minutes ago, LukeV said:

Can you elaborate on why the Musashi is a better captain trainer? I do not have one.

The optional 5,000 doubloon camouflage has the usual 100% to all XP bonus plus an additional 50% to commander XP on top.  Which makes it the best commander trainer in game, provided you have such camouflage plus 19 point captain.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[BTH]
Beta Testers
198 posts
4,661 battles
2 hours ago, yashma said:

It has the option to mount a special camo with pretty impressive bonuses to captain XP earnings 

 

2 hours ago, Ramsalot said:

The optional 5,000 doubloon camouflage has the usual 100% to all XP bonus plus an additional 50% to commander XP on top.  Which makes it the best commander trainer in game, provided you have such camouflage plus 19 point captain.

Thank you for the quick answers.

I outfitted my Atlanta with full flags and Festive Fir (whatever the camo name we got at Christmas), and Operation Narai was netting me 43k commander XP a run. I have a single 19 point captain now.....no real point for others when I can divvy out his hard work to other captains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
421
[MIA-A]
[MIA-A]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,991 posts
7,652 battles
On 2/6/2018 at 7:25 PM, Lert said:

Nobody knows, no announcement has been made.

We know that there is a Kronstadt collector's edition flag, so it should be a cash shop premium. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
102
[PNG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
574 posts
3,911 battles
6 hours ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

Definition of a Battlecruiser is a ship which sacrificed armor to obtain a speed advantage over any more powerful and which carried the firepower of a contemporary battleship.  So, how many battleships were being built in the late 1940's and early 1950's that carried 12 inch guns?  Did the Alaska, Krondstadt and Stalingrad have the speed advantage that would have allowed them to easily outpace the more powerful and better protected contemporary battleships?  If the answer to these questions is yes, then you have a ship that could reasonably meet the definition of a battlecruiser. 

Unfortunately, the answer to both of these questions, for the most part, is no. 

Nobody was building a battleship with 12 inch guns in 1944 because the day of the 12 inch gun being considered sufficiently powerful to use as the main battery of a capital ship had ended around the years 1910-1915.   In 1944, battleships entering service at that time were generally carrying  somewhere between 15 inch to 18 inch guns.  To have the firepower of a contemporary battleship, these vessels would have had to mount a similar main battery in order to effectively engage them in battle.  None of these vessels mounted such weapons and as such, they fail this basic definition of what makes a ship a battle cruiser.   

One of the other defining definitions of a battle-cruiser is speed, the ability not to keep pace with contemporary battleships but to have a significant speed advantage over them so that they could run away from anything more powerful than they were, and be more powerful than anything which could catch them.  Once again, Alaska and Krondstadt fail this test as their 32 knot top speed was being equaled by the battleships being built at that time. Stalingrad would, if the design has worked out, have had a couple knot advantage over the fastest battleships but not all that much.  As such, at least two of these three vessels fail this defining definition of at battlecruiser.  

The fact is, by the time these ships were built, the "battlecruiser" concept had been abandoned because you could gain all of the speed advantages that caused battlecruisers to exist in the first place, in an actual battleship.  As such there was no need to sacrifice protection to gain speed and the entire "battlecruiser" concept became obsolete.

I certainly understand why people would disagree, just like the reference you quoted as "battleship like armament (12" was capital ship let alone that these new 12in performed like 14in/50)".  The problem here is that the 12 inch gun in 1944 was not a contemporary battleship like armament.  What it is would be what you'd expect a heavy cruiser to be armed with had the Washington and London Naval Treaties not limited inter-war cruisers to 8 inch guns.  These ships were designed and constructed after the end of these treaty restrictions so the Americans and Soviets simply took the next evolutionary step in cruiser design.  

First I apologize for the slow reply as I didn't get a notice of new replies on this thread. I am bolding parts of your post that I quote inside my reply for ease of reading. Also sorry for the length of my post and also have a +1 for a well reasoned and engaging debate.

I think you missed the point and some historical understanding. "Did the Alaska, Krondstadt and Stalingrad have the speed advantage that would have allowed them to easily outpace the more powerful and better protected contemporary battleships?  If the answer to these questions is yes, then you have a ship that could reasonably meet the definition of a battlecruiser. " Advances in engines and such allowed for the creation of "Fast Battleships" which were essentially more heavily armored battle cruisers. Now reasonably as I said if you could make either a battle cruiser which sacrificed some armor for speed or a fast battleship which had similar armaments, or better, of a battle cruiser, similar speeds and better armor while the cost is still relatively close it would be an easy choice.

I wish we had a table for battleship/fast battleship/battle cruiser speeds. I would make it here but I just don't have the time today. If we did I think the only ones capable of compete with Alaska would be the Iowa class and the final Kronshtadt. Which I also see as heavily supporting the fact that it could outrun contemporary, those serving at the same time not just commissioned at the same time, battleships.

As for armor " it should be noted that the Alaska class devoted only 28.4% of their tonnage to armor compared to the 32% or more that battleships typically did. Battlecruisers traditionally devoted anywhere from 19.5% (HMS Invincible),29% (Lexington class Battlecruiser), and even up to 32% (HMS Hood) of their tonnage to armor, a category the Alaska class squarely falls into "

The blur, and I think some confusion on your part, and perhaps everyone, and I mean including myself here, is what defined a fast battleship. Would the Iowa, for example be a fast battleship? One of the emphasis during design was speed so I think it would be reasonable to consider this a fast battleship. If the Iowa was a fast battleship then the answer to your question about speed and easily outpacing a better protected contemporary battleship is actually yes. Look at Yamato which could make 27 knots and Bismarck that could make 30 knots. It did outpace both of these ships. (Granted, again, the Bismarck could also be argued to be a fast battleship)

A little out of order but "The fact is, by the time these ships were built, the "battlecruiser" concept had been abandoned because you could gain all of the speed advantages that caused battlecruisers to exist in the first place, in an actual battleship.  As such there was no need to sacrifice protection to gain speed and the entire "battlecruiser" concept became obsolete."

I completely agree with you on this and this was actually one of my main points. The battlecruiser was obsolete by the time that the Alaska class was made. However I think you are missing the fact that the impetus for the Alaska class came in the early 1930's from the German "Pocket Battleships." In 1938 the navy ordered the Bureau of Construction and Repair to conduct a "comprehensive study of all types of naval vessels for consideration for a new and expanded building program" During this time the Alaska and a "mini-BB" design with 12" guns was also considered (Dulin and Garzke, 179.) Designs weren't officially given until 1940, however.
 
"Nobody was building a battleship with 12 inch guns in 1944 because the day of the 12 inch gun being considered sufficiently powerful to use as the main battery of a capital ship had ended around the years 1910-1915.   In 1944, battleships entering service at that time were generally carrying  somewhere between 15 inch to 18 inch guns.  To have the firepower of a contemporary battleship, these vessels would have had to mount a similar main battery in order to effectively engage them in battle.  None of these vessels mounted such weapons and as such, they fail this basic definition of what makes a ship a battle cruiser. "

True but it also ignores that the capability of the new 12" gun was that of the more contemporary 14"/50 and was actually considered to be slightly superior, add in that just 2 years prior the Royal Navy had just launched their HMS Howe with 14" guns.

"What it is would be what you'd expect a heavy cruiser to be armed with had the Washington and London Naval Treaties not limited inter-war cruisers to 8 inch guns.  These ships were designed and constructed after the end of these treaty restrictions so the Americans and Soviets simply took the next evolutionary step in cruiser design. "

We don't really know if it would have been different so speculating on a what if is kind of pointless as either one of us could make assertions on what we believe may have happened. Sorry if this comes off condescending as I don't mean it as such rather I just don't think it will be productive.

"These ships were designed and constructed after the end of these treaty restrictions so the Americans and Soviets simply took the next evolutionary step in cruiser design."
I disagree as we still see many normal cruiser designs after the treaty.

Again I see that the facts point to the Alaska class being a Battlecruiser, it had capital ship sized armament that could compete with serving battleships and was even considered to be superior to many serving 14"/50 rifles. It served the role to outrun contemporary battleships it would face while being able to run down regular cruisers and outgun them. The only argument against that is that newer battleships, mostly of the allies, were being made as fast battleships with similar speed of the Alaska class. Ultimately it was a political design and the designation of "Heavy Cruiser" seems to have also been political as opposed to Battlecruiser. Ultimately, though, the navy seems to have preferred other cruisers like Baltimore or Des Moines have been built in the Alaska's place. Either way new battleships really didn't come after the Iowa class as carriers were deemed more important.

Ultimately this is a debate that has been going on since the ship was launched, even by those with better credentials than either of us on both sides. I don't think there will ever be a definitive answer to this debate either.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×