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

Stalingrad and Iowa size comparison in-game

70 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,287 posts
856 battles

To give an idea of the size of the Stalingrad, here's a top-down view comparing her model with the Iowa.

db1huqJ.png

Note that it appears that WG has modeled the Stalingrad to be about 273.6 m, which is longer than Iowa. Caveat here is that the dimensions of the Stalingrad tends to vary depending on source, with the length variously cited as either 250.2 m or 273.6 m; this may reflect the fact that the Stalingrad's design wasn't quite finished even when construction had started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
779
[WOLF8]
Members
5,039 posts
4,741 battles

So... it's a cruiser that is big as a battleship? Why don't WG just call it a battleship and be done with it? LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
562
[HELLS]
Members
2,229 posts
20,971 battles

Seen her twice in game and I cannot say that I am a fan of Russian ships at the best of times. While she is a WIP, she will be overpowered beast once she comes out in the final version. The two times I saw her the drivers were completely fearless about approaching T10 ships of any type, including DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,954
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,830 posts
12,043 battles

Length isn't everything though this is quite funny.

A 150m long, 5m tall, 305mm thick strip of armor weighs a heck of a lot. I think Cleveland is longer than Guilio Cesare for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
595
[TOG]
Members
3,566 posts
19,018 battles
25 minutes ago, Blorgh2017 said:

So... it's a cruiser that is big as a battleship? Why don't WG just call it a battleship and be done with it? LOL.

WG could had done so, using the Hood as a precedent. Kronstadt would had fine as a TVII BB with a balancing of the HP. It has been stated that WG would like to cut down the BB overpopulation. So rather than call a battle cruiser a battleship, you call it a "LARGE" cruiser. I looks at the wiki and the rifles are same as the Kron. With is strenghts and weaknesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,287 posts
856 battles
On 6/10/2018 at 8:05 PM, mofton said:

Length isn't everything though this is quite funny.

A 150m long, 5m tall, 305mm thick strip of armor weighs a heck of a lot. I think Cleveland is longer than Guilio Cesare for instance.

307 mm actually. Not only that, the Iowa's belt also extends underwater and tapers all the way to the keel. So despite the rather similar dimensions, we're looking at a standard displacement of ~46,000 tons versus ~36,000 tons.

 

I do have to say that the Stalingrad's endurance is questionable. 5,000 tons of fuel oil for 5,000 nmi at 18 knots, compared to 8,841 tons of fuel oil for 15,900 nmi at 17 knots for Iowa. Given that the Stalingrad's boilers run at higher temperature and pressure, this abysmal efficiency is rather bizarre and not at all suitable for blue water operations.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,990
[RKLES]
Members
9,313 posts
11,185 battles
23 minutes ago, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

Seen her twice in game and I cannot say that I am a fan of Russian ships at the best of times. While she is a WIP, she will be overpowered beast once she comes out in the final version. The two times I saw her the drivers were completely fearless about approaching T10 ships of any type, including DDs.

To be fair I fearlessly will approach lone X ships with Bismarck to get my Secondaries nice close range to work them over and my Gneisenau has moved into point blank range of Iowa and Missouri many times to brawl then and of course feed my fish to them.

But yeah a Russian CA of that size is over doing it I must say. Must be the Russian Dev team having Delusions of Grandeur again... :Smile_teethhappy:

Edited by Admiral_Thrawn_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,783 posts
53 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

To give an idea of the size of the Stalingrad, here's a top-down view comparing her model with the Iowa.

db1huqJ.png

Note that it appears that WG has modeled the Stalingrad to be about 273.6 m, which is longer than Iowa. Caveat here is that the dimensions of the Stalingrad tends to vary depending on source, with the length variously cited as either 250.2 m or 273.6 m; this may reflect the fact that the Stalingrad's design wasn't quite finished even when construction had started.

If I'm not mistaken Stalengrad was a Battle Cruiser.  But I've seen it in matches already and yea the thing is ginormous literally.  I don't even know what kind of hit point pool it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
595
[TOG]
Members
3,566 posts
19,018 battles
17 minutes ago, SuperSpud1 said:

If I'm not mistaken Stalengrad was a Battle Cruiser.  But I've seen it in matches already and yea the thing is ginormous literally.  I don't even know what kind of hit point pool it has.

About 1k more than the Kron- 72450

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
928 posts
7,888 battles

Alaska class CRUISER

Spoiler

sqNzYQgpRpDwNl5cb04_e_SqVw0M83d-L-D44fSY

Project B-65 CRUISER

Spoiler

2l2HyJK.jpg

I am having way too much fun knowing that Alaska and B-65, if/when they're brought in, will be classified as cruisers instead of battleships.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,837
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

Guys Guys It is a Russian Ship.

It is a Russian Game.

I like the Development Team.

I don't want them sent to the Gulag for making their ships inferior.

Freedom is a "Western Ideology"

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
759
[PVE]
[PVE]
Beta Testers
2,461 posts
6,758 battles
8 minutes ago, dbs1701 said:

Alaska vs Stalingrad would be an interesting size comparison 

How? Alaska is clearly smaller than the Iowa and so would be easily smaller than Stalingrad

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,483 posts
1,556 battles
On 6/10/2018 at 9:57 PM, sulghunter331 said:

Alaska class CRUISER

  Reveal hidden contents

sqNzYQgpRpDwNl5cb04_e_SqVw0M83d-L-D44fSY

Project B-65 CRUISER

  Reveal hidden contents

2l2HyJK.jpg

I am having way too much fun knowing that Alaska and B-65, if/when they're brought in, will be classified as cruisers instead of battleships.

Then what is the excuse for the Scharnhorst.  Seriously, the Stalingrad, Alaska and Japan's Super Cruiser Type A which hasn't made an appearance yet are all pretty much similar ships.  Only different is Stally, Alaska and SC Type A mount bigger guns while the Sharn has more armor but overall they are the same type of ship, great against enemy cruisers while still being able to assist somewhat effectively in a capitol ship engagement when required.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[WAG]
Members
804 posts
10,349 battles
On 6/10/2018 at 8:45 PM, Blorgh2017 said:

So... it's a cruiser that is big as a battleship? Why don't WG just call it a battleship and be done with it? LOL.

The USS Baltimore was 99% of the length (only 7 feet shorter at 673' vs. 680') of the USS Alabama, so does that make it a battleship as well? While there are arguments to be made, simple length isn't it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
611
[CVA16]
Members
3,547 posts
11,716 battles

The question I would have is how does this thing stack up against existing 'cruisers" for the tier? If MM is going to count it as a cruiser, can any of the existing T10s take it on? Would they have to use tactics that are typically used to engage BBs? Would a Henri (current leader for biggest T10 cruiser guns) have a chance in a gunfight?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,609
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,067 posts
629 battles
On 6/10/2018 at 6:57 PM, sulghunter331 said:

I am having way too much fun knowing that Alaska and B-65, if/when they're brought in, will be classified as cruisers instead of battleships.

 

I mean, they basically turned Kronshtadt into an Alaska clone and put it ingame as a cruiser. So there's absolutely no reason why Alaska shouldn't be ingame as a cruiser.

 

1 hour ago, Midnitewolf said:

Then what is the excuse for the Scharnhorst.

 

Alaska was an enlarged cruiser designed to fight other cruisers. It was literally a big Baltimore. 

 

Scharnhorst was a very well-armored battleship with little guns.

 

Not the same thing at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
234
[SFOR]
Members
974 posts
6,970 battles
On 10/06/2018 at 9:45 PM, Blorgh2017 said:

So... it's a cruiser that is big as a battleship? Why don't WG just call it a battleship and be done with it? LOL.

In the WWI many heavy cruisers were bigger than the BBs.  Maybe we should call the BBs from that time period cruisers? 

Edited by _no_one_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82
[SF-13]
Beta Testers
389 posts
9,937 battles

Can't wait to see how big the Russian BBs will be...

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
599
[SYN]
Members
2,808 posts
9,775 battles

So what, this isn't as unusual as you think fro a cruiser to be near the length of a battleship. Take for example South Dakota and Baltimore. The south Dakota class BB is 210 m overall, the baltimore, 205 meters. The length difference between New Orleans and Colorado is only ten meters, and the length difference between Pensacola and Arizona is less than 5 meters. And it is highly unlikely these are the only examples of this. This is why length by itself is a meaningless stat, and tonnage is what matters more.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
672 posts
2,346 battles
On 6/10/2018 at 7:21 PM, DeliciousFart said:

not at all suitable for blue water operations.

The Russian/Soviet navy in one snippet.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,039
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
6,031 posts
9,363 battles
On 6/10/2018 at 8:43 PM, DeliciousFart said:

To give an idea of the size of the Stalingrad, here's a top-down view comparing her model with the Iowa.

db1huqJ.png

Note that it appears that WG has modeled the Stalingrad to be about 273.6 m, which is longer than Iowa. Caveat here is that the dimensions of the Stalingrad tends to vary depending on source, with the length variously cited as either 250.2 m or 273.6 m; this may reflect the fact that the Stalingrad's design wasn't quite finished even when construction had started.

that is Missouri, because 63 is her hull number, sorry, i just couldnt let that go un-noticed

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,609
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,067 posts
629 battles
On 6/10/2018 at 6:20 PM, Bill_Halsey said:

So rather than call a battle cruiser a battleship, you call it a "LARGE" cruiser.

 

Alaska was called a large cruiser because that's what she was. She was a Baltimore that was upscaled to carry a 12" main armament. She's not a battlecruiser for a few reasons.

 

1) She is literally an enlarged cruiser. Her armor scheme is almost identical to a Baltimore's, though thicker because of her increase in size. She was not armored like a battleship or a battlecruiser (which were generally armored like battleships, just less of it) and she had a near-complete lack of underwater protection because of this.

2) Her armament of 12"/50 rifles was not battleship-scale armament in the terms of the era she was built. 

3) She was designed to do the same job as a heavy cruiser, just do it better. 

 

Large Cruiser fits her way better than Battlecruiser. She wasn't a battlecruiser in any way, shape or form. She was an upscaled Baltimore. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
599
[SYN]
Members
2,808 posts
9,775 battles
2 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

The question I would have is how does this thing stack up against existing 'cruisers" for the tier? If MM is going to count it as a cruiser, can any of the existing T10s take it on? Would they have to use tactics that are typically used to engage BBs? Would a Henri (current leader for biggest T10 cruiser guns) have a chance in a gunfight?

 

If a Henri doesnt show broadside to the Stalingrad, she wouldn't just stand a chance against Stalingrad, she would crush stalingrad. The problem with both Stalingrad and Khronstat, is their guns are only 12 inch. This makes them unable to overmatch the bows of other cruisers, unlike high their battleship guns which can lolpen cruisers at any angle. So all a T8,9 and 10 cruiser has to do to counter stalingrad, go bow on. Stalingrad has poor HE, and BB like dispersion, so she wont win in an HE slugfest. Compare this to Henri, which has god tier HE, Stalingrad would be crushed by Henri as long as Henri doesn't give broadside. The only cruisers that Stalingrad can truly bully around is the British cruisers, and she does this well. Her guns can overmatch brit CL's she has long range radar to beat their smoke, high velocity guns to catch them quickly. But against other cruisers, without that ability to overmatch and the poor HE, stalingrad isn't so great at trying to 1v1 another cruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,609
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,067 posts
629 battles
10 minutes ago, ryuukei8569 said:

Stalingrad has poor HE, and BB like dispersion

 

Or no HE and god-like dispersion. Depending on which one they end up putting in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×