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

Stalingrad vs kron ? whats the main difference ?

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

136
[BBC]
Members
908 posts
12,225 battles

hey guys anyone give me the quick and dirty on these ships ?

are they not basically the same ?  305mm guns ? decent armor ?

stalin   t10 

kron    t9 

Edited by Rilak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
73
[DRI-S]
[DRI-S]
Members
570 posts
16,398 battles

I saw both on YT by CC and in my opinion are monsters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
8 minutes ago, Rilak said:

hey guys anyone give me the quick and dirty on these ships ?

are they not basically the same ?  305mm guns ? decent armor ?

stalin   t10 

kron    t9 

Stalingrad has Stalin's name in it.  That gives it a +5 to Stalinium.

C2E7E2DC8D94FF8B446B413CFD5231F7D9B345D9

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,464
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,623 posts
521 battles

Stalingrad gets cruiser dispersion with battleship-esque guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,061 posts
6,143 battles
15 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

As I understand, Kronshtadt is balanced, Stalingrad is broken a.f.

Where is the Stalingrad. Is this a ship in testing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[JEDI-]
Members
17 posts
4,797 battles
11 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

As I understand, Kronshtadt is balanced, Stalingrad is broken a.f.

There is nothing balanced about the Kron. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
73
[DRI-S]
[DRI-S]
Members
570 posts
16,398 battles
1 minute ago, Cuesta_Rey said:

Where is the Stalingrad. Is this a ship in testing? 

Yup as we speak Supertesters and CC they are doing so, you can find plenty of videos on YT.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
383
[WOLF2]
Alpha Tester
2,208 posts
7,240 battles
18 minutes ago, SovereignNF said:

There is nothing balanced about the Kron. 

If by not balanced, you mean rather weak then you would be correct.

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,565
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,551 posts
13,996 battles
29 minutes ago, SovereignNF said:

There is nothing balanced about the Kron. 

LOL maybe if it truly were a "Battleship in a Cruiser Slot" but she isn't :Smile_teethhappy:

 

1.  "Oooh!  She's got 305mm BB guns!"  Irrelevant.  We have Tier VIII+ USN & German CAs that can bounce 381mm AP off of Bismarck, Tirpitz, Richelieu, Alsace, etc.

2.  She does not have Cruiser Accuracy.  She has a tendency to remind the player that, "Hey, these aren't Cruiser guns BTW" and will give you the BB Dispersion.

3.  The armor, considering her size, isn't all that good.  25mm bow will get her rekt as even 381mm AP will rip right through for penetrations, etc.

4.  Her HE is very mediocre as she's game designed to spam AP.  That's fine, but it makes her handicapped against an aware opponent that isn't conveniently showing broadsides.  You got to look for something else.

 

Not saying she's a bad ship, but she is very well balanced.  She has definite strengths and definite weaknesses.  She will even lose out in a shootout with a number of Cruisers she runs across.  There are Cruisers that will bounce Kronshtadt's shells, trade shots with her with faster firing guns, and reliably hit her with true Cruiser accuracy.  In short, there are Cruisers that can defend themselves against Kronshtadt's firepower will still DPM the sh*t out of her.

 

Then let's not forget what a BB can do to a "Cruiser" as large as Kronshtadt, but doesn't really have the armor of a "Battleship."

 

 

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
6 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

LOL maybe if it truly were a "Battleship in a Cruiser Slot" but she isn't :Smile_teethhappy:

 

1.  "Oooh!  She's got 305mm BB guns!"  Irrelevant.  We have Tier VIII+ USN & German CAs that can bounce 381mm AP off of Bismarck, Tirpitz, Richelieu, Alsace, etc.

2.  She does not have Cruiser Accuracy.  She has a tendency to remind the player that, "Hey, these aren't Cruiser guns BTW" and will give you the BB Dispersion.

3.  The armor, considering her size, isn't all that good.  25mm bow will get her rekt as even 381mm AP will rip right through for penetrations, etc.

4.  Her HE is very mediocre as she's game designed to spam AP.  That's fine, but it makes her handicapped against an aware opponent that isn't conveniently showing broadsides.  You got to look for something else.

 

Not saying she's a bad ship, but she is very well balanced.  She has definite strengths and definite weaknesses.  She will even lose out in a shootout with a number of Cruisers she runs across.  There are Cruisers that will bounce Kronshtadt's shells, trade shots with her with faster firing guns, and reliably hit her with true Cruiser accuracy.  In short, there are Cruisers that can defend themselves against Kronshtadt's firepower will still DPM the sh*t out of her.

 

Then let's not forget what a BB can do to a "Cruiser" as large as Kronshtadt, but doesn't really have the armor of a "Battleship."

 

 

Nevertheless, the idea that the Stalingrad is a cruiser never stops being silly.

8rCyK2R.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,565
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,551 posts
13,996 battles
5 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Nevertheless, the idea that the Stalingrad is a cruiser never stops being silly.

8rCyK2R.png

It's hilarious workarounds, that's what it is.  WG has been on a long streak of displaying no RU Bias, but they're about to counter years of that with Stalingrad :Smile_teethhappy:

uQIMYBY.jpg

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,267
[HINON]
Members
8,794 posts
58 minutes ago, Rilak said:

Stalingrad vs kron ? whats the main difference ?

In two words . . . unlimited power!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
1 minute ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

It's hilarious workarounds, that's what it is.  WG has been on a long streak of displaying no RU Bias, but they're about to counter years of that with Stalingrad :Smile_teethhappy:

uQIMYBY.jpg

I mean, why not just call it for what it is?  A Battlecruiser?  They tend to have smaller guns or less armor anyway, so why even bother with the deception?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,464
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,623 posts
521 battles
1 minute ago, Sventex said:

I mean, why not just call it for what it is?  A Battlecruiser?  They tend to have smaller guns or less armor anyway, so why even bother with the deception?

 
Kronshtadt and Stalingrad were battlecruisers.

 

But if them being ingame as cruisers means we get Alaska as a cruiser, it's whatever. 

Share this post


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

Historically? Kronstadt uses the 305mm /55 B-50 gun in a Mk-15 triple turret and uses mixed 152mm and 100mm secondary battery.

Stalingrad uses the 305mm /62 SM-33 gun in a CM-31 triple turret. The SM-33 is a more advanced gun with higher muzzle velocity, range, and armor penetration. Stalingrad also uses more advanced 130mm secondaries, the same seen on Moskva. She also has significantly better AA defense than the Kronstadt. The ship is also 20 meters longer, and has more powerful engines that let it go 3kts faster.

 

27 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Nevertheless, the idea that the Stalingrad is a cruiser never stops being silly.

8rCyK2R.png

 

Khaba is longer than Nassau does that make her a battleship? Baltimore is 20 meters longer than the USN standard battleships does that make Baltimore a battleship?

Edited by Phaere
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
8 minutes ago, Phaere said:

Khaba is longer than Nassau does that make her a battleship? Baltimore is 20 meters longer than the USN standard battleship does that make Baltimore a battleship?

What does length have to do with it?  The Battleship caliber guns and capital ship tonnage make the Stalingrad a capital ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
340 posts
2,096 battles
1 minute ago, Sventex said:

What does length have to do with it?  The Battleship caliber guns and capital ship tonnage make the Stalingrad a capital ship.

Classifications and terminology change with times.

For example in WWII destroyers were ships generally around 2000 tons in displacement. Today Destroyers are ships are around 7000-10000 tons in displacement, should they reclassified as cruisers to fit old interwar 1920s terminology?

 

12" guns are also hardly "Battleship class guns" by the 1940's when most real battleships of the time used guns between 15"-18". 12" might of been battleship class in WW1 but again, times change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
595
[RKLES]
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,310 posts
11,408 battles

Stalingrad version 1 is AP only cruiser dispersion and sigma 2.0.

Stalingrad version 2 he, ap battleship dispersion sigma 1.8.

Bows are 25, 30.

.....

They are slightly tanker than Krondstadt, and have better penning AP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
1 minute ago, Phaere said:

Classifications and terminology change with times.

For example in WWII destroyers were ships generally around 2000 tons in displacement. Today Destroyers are ships are around 7000-10000 tons in displacement, should they reclassified as cruisers to fit old interwar 1920s terminology?

 

12" guns are also hardly "Battleship class guns" by the 1940's when most real battleships of the time used guns between 15"-18". 12" might of been battleship class in WW1 but again, times change.

At a planned completion of 1954 and with their technology stunted by the war, it was very much a WWII style ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,464
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,623 posts
521 battles
6 minutes ago, Phaere said:

12" guns are also hardly "Battleship class guns" by the 1940's when most real battleships of the time used guns between 15"-18". 12" might of been battleship class in WW1 but again, times change.

 

Those 12" guns were penetrating as much as 15" guns.

 

The Alaska's 12"50s firing superheavies could penetrate significantly more than the US 14"/50s from the New Mexico and Tennessee at 30,000 yards. They were no joke. 2,500 feet/second with a 1,150 pound shell.

 

While Kronshtadt's 12"/55s were never built, Navweaps claims (from source material) that the Soviets expected them to penetrate 11" at 30,000 yards. Wishful thinking, I'd bet, but still. The soviets wanted 2,900 feet/sec with a 1,000 pound shell.

 

There's been a really interesting battlecruiser vs cruiser debate going in the Alaska thread. You should check it out. It's been surprisingly civil and very informative. 

 

In summery, though, by that time, it didn't have much to do with the main armament and more to do with how the armor was distributed. Alaska had her armor distributed like a Baltimore. A decent belt, no vertical protection on the machinery spaces, mild vertical protection on the magazines. She was a cruiser. Just a very big cruiser. She was essentially a scaled-up Baltimore.

 

I can't really speak for Kronshtadt and Stalingrad, except that the Soviets considered them battlecruisers. I can't find armor profiles on them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,037
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
5,332 posts
10,121 battles
21 minutes ago, dEsTurbed1 said:

Stalingrad version 1 is AP only cruiser dispersion and sigma 2.0.

Stalingrad version 2 he, ap battleship dispersion sigma 1.8.

Bows are 25, 30.

.....

They are slightly tanker than Krondstadt, and have better penning AP.

2.05 sigma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
340 posts
2,096 battles
10 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

 

Those 12" guns were penetrating as much as 15" guns.

 

The Alaska's 12"50s firing superheavies could penetrate significantly more than the US 14"/50s from the New Mexico and Tennessee at 30,000 yards. They were no joke. 2,500 feet/second with a 1,150 pound shell.

 

While Kronshtadt's 12"/55s were never built, Navweaps claims (from source material) that the Soviets expected them to penetrate 11" at 30,000 yards. Wishful thinking, I'd bet, but still. The soviets wanted 2,900 feet/sec with a 1,000 pound shell.

 

There's been a really interesting battlecruiser vs cruiser debate going in the Alaska thread. You should check it out. It's been surprisingly civil and very informative. 

 

In summery, though, by that time, it didn't have much to do with the main armament and more to do with how the armor was distributed. Alaska had her armor distributed like a Baltimore. A decent belt, no vertical protection on the machinery spaces, mild vertical protection on the magazines. She was a cruiser. Just a very big cruiser. She was essentially a scaled-up Baltimore.

 

I can't really speak for Kronshtadt and Stalingrad, except that the Soviets considered them battlecruisers. I can't find armor profiles on them. 

Well technology does advance over time. Dunkerque's 330's are better in every way to the 340s used on the Tiers 6 and 7 french BB's. Same can be said for cruiser level guns, WW2 6" and 8" guns were miles better than similar size guns of WW1. So it's only natural that modern 12" guns would be better than WW1 era 14" guns.

 

As for the Kronstadt the soviets did indeed classify her a capital ship. Its different for Stalingrad though, the Soviets for some reason classified her as a Heavy Cruiser with Moskva being considered a "medium" cruiser. In terms of armor layout it should be exactly the same as Moskva since Moskva was designed to look and be armored in a similar way to Stalingrad. Its only really Wikipedia and other western sources that say Stalingrad was a battlecruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
6 minutes ago, Phaere said:

Well technology does advance over time. Dunkerque's 330's are better in every way to the 340s used on the Tiers 6 and 7 french BB's. Same can be said for cruiser level guns, WW2 6" and 8" guns were miles better than similar size guns of WW1. So it's only natural that modern 12" guns would be better than WW1 era 14" guns.

 

As for the Kronstadt the soviets did indeed classify her a capital ship. Its different for Stalingrad though, the Soviets for some reason classified her as a Heavy Cruiser with Moskva being considered a "medium" cruiser. In terms of armor layout it should be exactly the same as Moskva since Moskva was designed to look and be armored in a similar way to Stalingrad. Its only really Wikipedia and other western sources that say Stalingrad was a battlecruiser.

Then again, the first capital ship the Soviet Union built and commissioned happened all the way in 1975, so knows how messed up their classifications are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
229
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
1,482 posts
8,034 battles
2 hours ago, Rilak said:

hey guys anyone give me the quick and dirty on these ships ?

are they not basically the same ?  305mm guns ? decent armor ?

stalin   t10 

kron    t9 

From what ive seen from youtube. Stalingrad is competitive in a unique way. And Kronstadt is over priced and under powered.

The primary reasons for the above are 1: Stalingrad gets 32mm plating.  (2:) Kronstadt gets 25mm plating and t6 bb dispersion at the same cost as a Musashi BB.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×