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

So with Stalingrad and Kronstadt coming soon...

47 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

177
[DAKI]
Members
187 posts
7,409 battles

With these two 'cruisers' coming to the game soon, I feel a few other ships have received the wrong class type designation. So I purpose that, Kongo, Amagi, Ashitaka, Ishizuichi, and Hood also be labeled as 'cruisers' because if Stalingrad and Kronstadt are 'cruisers' then so are these ships of course...

  • Cool 11
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
265
[DAKI]
Supertester, In AlfaTesters
730 posts
4,153 battles

You're a baka.

Just a reminder because I know it's coming... Scarnhorst is a Battleship not a Battle Cruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,642
[KNMSU]
Members
3,370 posts
4,003 battles
3 minutes ago, MutsuKaiNi said:

With these two 'cruisers' coming to the game soon, I feel a few other ships have received the wrong class type designation. So I purpose that, Kongo, Amagi, Ashitaka, Ishizuichi, and Hood also be labeled as 'cruisers' because if Stalingrad and Kronstadt are 'cruisers' then so are these ships of course...

Is Russia, comrade! Rejoice in our uncruiserly abominations!

Edited by Battlecruiser_NewZealand
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
449
[-AA-]
Members
1,729 posts
6,657 battles

Do you want me to print a label for you? Perhaps you can mod the game that they get a cruiser icon for you.

Or lets wait how this plays out and see more similar ships like the Alaska come into the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,642
[KNMSU]
Members
3,370 posts
4,003 battles
8 minutes ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

Or lets wait how this plays out and see more similar ships like the Alaska come into the game.

Which was also a battlecruiser. I care less about labels than results; less about ideas than tangible products. "A rose by any other name..."

A thing is a thing. It doesn't matter what the government building it chose to brand it for political reasons - it matters what it was. And the Alaskas, along with the Russian "SQWEEEE I'MMA CRUISER FOR REELZ" boats, were battlecruisers, if not in name, than in form and function.

Edited by Battlecruiser_NewZealand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
177
[DAKI]
Members
187 posts
7,409 battles
14 minutes ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

Do you want me to print a label for you? Perhaps you can mod the game that they get a cruiser icon for you.

Or lets wait how this plays out and see more similar ships like the Alaska come into the game.

 

I'll just say this, Kronstadt would have weighed the same as Nagato class battleships. So why are they being called cruisers?

Edited by MutsuKaiNi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
734
[HYDRO]
Members
1,582 posts
3,751 battles
1 minute ago, MutsuKaiNi said:

I'll just say this, Kronstadt would have weighed the same as Nagato class battleships. So why are they being called cruisers.

Is simpel comrad, if Cruzer, Deep Vodka Torps of Asashio can't hit. :cap_book: Also mm weight of a cruiser in a BB. After Kron and Stalin hit the servers, people won't be able to complain about BBs, since those are cruisers.

  • Cool 6
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,201
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,814 posts
10,343 battles

Stalingrad, all of the weaknesses of a BB - except vulnerability to Asashio torpedoes, fire duration, accuracy, 33 v 10% citadel repair and has radar or DFAA.

But! all the weaknesses of a CA - except that it has 32mm extremity plating and good HP...

 

Oh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
805 posts
2,358 battles

You know; if those two are classed as "cruisers", just think what the Russian BB's can do. I foresee players getting snipped by Russian BB's that are on another map. :cap_haloween:   

Edited by PcolaTy_1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,093
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,327 posts
6,609 battles

HMS Hood, a Battlecruiser from 1920, has a 305mm belt and a 51mm turtleback. Now look at Stalingrad and Kronstadt, two much more modern ships, and see what their armor looks like. I see differences, very noticable ones.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,264
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,803 posts
15,265 battles
5 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

I see differences, very noticable ones.

Please do elaborate; not busting your chops, really would like to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,065
[OPG]
Members
3,978 posts
5,688 battles
3 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Please do elaborate; not busting your chops, really would like to know.

Let's put it this way....the Stalingrad would have the  2nd thickest belt armor of any Tier II BB....if it were in fact a Tier II BB.

Edited by yashma
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,201
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,814 posts
10,343 battles
1 minute ago, SireneRacker said:

HMS Hood, a Battlecruiser from 1920, has a 305mm belt and a 51mm turtleback. Now look at Stalingrad and Kronstadt, two much more modern ships, and see what their armor looks like. I see differences, very noticable ones.

Harder to spot the difference between the 230mm belt, 35,000t Krondstadt and the circa 1937, 225mm belt, 27,000t Dunkerque.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,093
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,327 posts
6,609 battles
22 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Please do elaborate; not busting your chops, really would like to know.

Since I can‘t go into detail about the Russian ships (NDA stuff) I will only link to Wikipedia, and you can look at stuff like belt thickness and stuff yourself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad-class_battlecruiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,124
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,429 posts
9,557 battles
1 hour ago, MutsuKaiNi said:

With these two 'cruisers' coming to the game soon, I feel a few other ships have received the wrong class type designation. So I purpose that, Kongo, Amagi, Ashitaka, Ishizuichi, and Hood also be labeled as 'cruisers' because if Stalingrad and Kronstadt are 'cruisers' then so are these ships of course...

Part of the problem is that the definitions of some classes are moving targets. Todays BB is tomorrows BC or CA. Plus class designations are not consistent from country to country. What you end up with a is arbitrary but workable class definitions that work for the game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,657 posts
4,930 battles
2 hours ago, MutsuKaiNi said:

With these two 'cruisers' coming to the game soon, I feel a few other ships have received the wrong class type designation. So I purpose that, Kongo, Amagi, Ashitaka, Ishizuichi, and Hood also be labeled as 'cruisers' because if Stalingrad and Kronstadt are 'cruisers' then so are these ships of course...

Big Big Big Big argument coming here and it breaks down like this. 

Position #1: Stalingrad and Kronstadt are battlecruisers generally designed to fulfill the same role as WW I battlecruisers but at a later time and age. Hence they are capital ships and should be classified as battleships in WOWS

Positiion #2: Stalingrad and Kronstadt are large heavy cruisers, essentially what heavy cruisers would have looked like had the Washington and London treaties not existed and therefore Stalingrand and Kronstadt are not battlecruisers but are instead large heavy cruisers.  As such they are really big heavy cruisers and should be treated as such. 

WG has come down on the side of Position #2 rather than position #1 so they are viewing these vessels as not being battlecruisers which makes your argument without a compelling point. To do this, you'd need to convince them that battlecruisers are in fact large heavy cruisers.  Best of luck with that one.

For Battlecruisers, we have a lot more data because we have historical actions that tell us how these ships were perceived and used. They were considered capital ships and used as such which makes classifying them with battleships a no brainer. 

The more interesting question revolves around the "large heavy cruisers" that were built or under construction during WWII and, in some cases, the years directly following it.  Only examples of this type that were actually completed and launched,  were the American Alaska's and they came into service in a time when carriers had taken over naval warfare so these ships were naturally assigned to fast carrier task groups due to their speed and heavy AA outfits. They also came into service just before the end of the war so even this data is limited.  As such we have no real evidence as to how these ships would have been used in a real surface engagement.  Would the USN and the Soviets have used these ships like big heavy cruisers, or would they have been fighting in the line of battle with the battleships of the fleet.

All we can do is look for clues and those clues are mixed and do not give us a really clear answer.  Hence the argument. 

I believe option #2 is the more strongly supported of the two, however people advocating from option #1 have some interesting evidence of their own.

Let the fun begin!!! (at least this is not yet another Alaska thread :Smile_teethhappy:)

:Smile_popcorn:

Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
135
[VIP-2]
Members
804 posts
2,832 battles
4 minutes ago, paradat said:

Part of the problem is that the definitions of some classes are moving targets. Todays BB is tomorrows BC or CA. Plus class designations are not consistent from country to country. What you end up with a is arbitrary but workable class definitions that work for the game.

I totally agree with this.

Although the game has a responsibility  (for lack of a better term) to place to place things in certain categories. Many tools of war dont fit neatly into categories, no matter how anyone ( treaty or otherwise) chooses to. No different than defining terrorism, in modern times.

These 2 ships are not finished yet, no matter what the stats say now, their will likely be buffs, or nerfs, given out so that in game they fit as intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
974 posts
1,871 battles

the tier IX is much more of a cruiser then the stalingrad. you know, with less armor usable than some of the tier VIII cruisers. 12in guns are nice and all but they suck once a ship angles against you and your HE sucks the room has more HE DPM and very similar fire chande per minute the the tier IX and the stalingrad doesn't even get HE. as for your request the Kongo was designed as a battlecruiser but thanks to the refits the japanese did to her she was considered a fast battleship by WWII. the Amagi and her sister ship are battleships through and through. the it's a sushi is a battleship at her tier. and the hood is fine. the stalingrad is not anywhere near being a tier X battleship I think if they nerf his bow, casmate and deck armor down to 30mm he would be fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[HCH]
[HCH]
Beta Testers
877 posts
7,242 battles

If these two hit the live servers as cruisers, then Alaska and B-65 should come in as cruisers as well.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
974 posts
1,871 battles
42 minutes ago, paradat said:

Part of the problem is that the definitions of some classes are moving targets. Todays BB is tomorrows BC or CA. Plus class designations are not consistent from country to country. What you end up with a is arbitrary but workable class definitions that work for the game.

A good example of this is with Italian tanks the P-26/40 was considered a heavy by the italians but when compared to other tanks it was about as good as a sherman which is a medium. the tier IX though it does have a good belt he is a giant ship and his bow casmate and deck armor will not hold up well against Tier VII battleships let alone tier IX and X battleship with their high damage shells and great accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
974 posts
1,871 battles
6 minutes ago, sulghunter331 said:

If these two hit the live servers as cruisers, then Alaska and B-65 should come in as cruisers as well.

she will fill her roll best as a cruiser anyways(and be a CV nightmare)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,264
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,803 posts
15,265 battles
3 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

Since I can‘t go into detail about the Russian ships (NDA stuff) I will only link to Wikipedia, and you can look at stuff like belt thickness and stuff yourself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad-class_battlecruiser

That's fair, no reason to violate your NDA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
409
[WOLFB]
Members
1,732 posts
8,284 battles

* Wait for Alaska to be released as a huge sized DD *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
400
Members
2,405 posts
7,721 battles

The USN has probably the best designation for ships like Alasaka, Kronshtadt and Stalingrad. Large cruisers. 

 

These ships have a large gun calliber compared to a cruiser, but small if compared to a BB. The armor was thicker than normal cruisers, but too thin for a BB. 

 

These ships were oversized cruisers, designed to lead cruiser divisions. The same way DLs were oversized DDs designed to lead DD divisions. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×