Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
crazyferret23777

Tips on playing the Kronstadt?

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
251 posts
5,181 battles

Just got her a few days ago and am looking for tips on how best to play her. Should it be played as a kiting Cruiser? Since the Ap is so strong is it ever a good idea to use HE? Is she mainly  cruiser killer? I've seen video's were even at max range she can cit a Montana. Please give me some opinions it would be greatly appreciated! TIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,204
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,699 posts
10,076 battles

Sounds like you have an idea. 

Angle in then Angle out. Longish range. 

Angle in keeping the guns hot. Bait shots on your belt.

Before you get to close so just outside of your detection range hold fire go undetected then turn.

Angle out keeping the guns hot. Soon as it feels to far Rinse and repeat the above. 

Ship is really good. Don't ever think you are in a BB you are not. 

It is also a brutal ship on the flanks if you get the chance.

As far as ammo all the normal rules apply. AP to broadside targets, HE to angled targets. Exceptions will be lightly armored cruisers us AP regardless of angle. For heavy cruiser if they angle switch to HE

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
76
[DRI-S]
Members
580 posts
17,315 battles
14 minutes ago, paradat said:

Sounds like you have an idea. 

Angle in then Angle out. Longish range. 

Angle in keeping the guns hot. Bait shots on your belt.

Before you get to close so just outside of your detection range hold fire go undetected then turn.

Angle out keeping the guns hot. Soon as it feels to far Rinse and repeat the above. 

Ship is really good. Don't ever think you are in a BB you are not. 

It is also a brutal ship on the flanks if you get the chance.

As far as ammo all the normal rules apply. AP to broadside targets, HE to angled targets. Exceptions will be lightly armored cruisers us AP regardless of angle. For heavy cruiser if they angle switch to HE

Cheers.

That. 

I got mine yesterday, and I love her. :crab:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27
Beta Testers
176 posts
6,033 battles

I like the ship but you have to work to get that damage in. Sort of like the Graf Spee. This ship is feast or famine. Agreed in all of the above about getting on the flank. AP is awesome but you have to have good angles on it and a little bit of luck because the dispersion can also troll you hard sometimes. It can be super tanky but requires smart and agile play.

 

Edit: Still figuring it out but it seems that the key is finding that spot where you are close enough to deal reliable damage without getting nuked. If you try and sit back and snipe all game your damage is going to suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
383
[ARP3]
Members
456 posts
10,949 battles

Don't be at the front.

Flank to find broadsides.

Nuke battleships showing broadsides.

You can citadel a battleship even 17km away, so you can do heavy damage to even distant broadside battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
253
[-S-R-]
[-S-R-]
Beta Testers
412 posts
2,516 battles

It's a pocket battleship when needed but still a cruiser at heart.  The trick to it is that you cannot preform some cruiser maneuvers in her and she tricks you sometimes into thinking you can, namely you can't dive on DDs at close range like you can in other radar cruisers because your guns just aren't good for that.

The problem with calling her a "kiting" cruiser is that it's not actually using it for the strength.  It's strength is it can murder broadsides, including things like literally detonating BCs like Alaska and BBs like the Yamato sisters or Montana.  It also straight up takes cruiser lunch money if you position it right.  The guns are just that nuts when they hit.  So flanking is good but I prefer putting her in places to support with BB guns where normally cruisers only go.  People take risks crossing areas om maps when they expect 203 tickling, then get obliterated by you instead.

I find people complaining about dispersion a lot but my guess is they are trying to kite and are forced into shots on oblique angled ships with good rudder at range and things like that.  The reality is the 305s firing nearly twice as often as normal BBs, and it has the velocity and pen to reward citadel snipes where other cruisers get at best a full pen or two.  If you don't use that advantage, it's a garbage Henri or Moskva because your dpm is nothing special.

I find 12-15K the advantageous range if you control positioning and can force bow in tanking retaliatory fire but position to set up crossfires to get broadsides with hard cover to protect your own flank.  Otherwise you better be kiting and baiting belt shots, but at that point you have to get lucky.

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,010
[SALVO]
Members
17,707 posts
18,486 battles
7 minutes ago, FlakKnight said:

It's a battlecruiser.  The trick to it is that you cannot preform some cruiser maneuvers in her and she tricks you sometimes into thinking you can, namely you can't dive on DDs at close range like you can in other radar cruisers because your guns just aren't good for that.

The problem with calling her a "kiting" cruiser is that it's not actually using it for the strength.  It's strength is it can murder broadsides, including things like literally detonating BCs like Alaska and BBs like the Yamato sisters or Montana.  It also straight up takes cruiser lunch money if you position it right.  The guns are just that nuts when they hit.  So flanking is good but I prefer putting her in places to support with BB guns where normally cruisers only go.  People take risks crossing areas om maps when they expect 203 tickling, then get obliterated by you instead.

I find people complaining about dispersion a lot but my guess is they are trying to kite and are forced into shots on oblique angled ships with good rudder at range and things like that.  The reality is the 305s firing nearly twice as often as normal BBs, and it has the velocity and pen to reward citadel snipes where other cruisers get at best a full pen or two.  If you don't use that advantage, it's a garbage Henri or Moskva because your dpm is nothing special.

I find 12-15K the advantageous range if you control positioning and can force bow in tanking retaliatory fire but position to set up crossfires to get broadsides with hard cover to protect your own flank.  Otherwise you better be kiting and baiting belt shots, but at that point you have to get lucky.

FTFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,496 posts
3,874 battles
18 minutes ago, Crucis said:

FTFY

Not really? Kstadt lacks the weight of fire and protection to call itself a battlecruiser. She's acceptably but not particlularly well-protected against cruiser fire, and she can't 1-shot shave off the level of HP that a battlecruiser can. Iowa is the best example of what a T9 battlecruiser looks like. Cruiser AP is basically worthless against Iowa armor, and Iowa can easily ruin cruisers with a single salvo while chasing them down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,010
[SALVO]
Members
17,707 posts
18,486 battles
5 minutes ago, Aetreus said:

Not really? Kstadt lacks the weight of fire and protection to call itself a battlecruiser. She's acceptably but not particlularly well-protected against cruiser fire, and she can't 1-shot shave off the level of HP that a battlecruiser can. Iowa is the best example of what a T9 battlecruiser looks like. Cruiser AP is basically worthless against Iowa armor, and Iowa can easily ruin cruisers with a single salvo while chasing them down.

Well, it's nonsense to call her by a British propaganda term.  Besides, the definition of "battlecruiser" post WW1 becomes rather amorphous.  I actually agree that one could consider the Iowas to be battlecruisers compared to the Montana class.  At the same time, many people have historically adjusted the definition of battlecruiser for ships in the 1930's and 40's to include ships like the Alaska "large cruiser" and the B-65 IJN "super cruiser".  The Kronstadt as she appears in WoWS never existed, though if she had, I think that she'd have been considered to be a battlecruiser along with the Alaskas and the unbuilt B-65s. 

Historically speaking, there really was a Kronstadt design, but it was much more like the 15" gunned Gneisenau that we see in WoWS than the tier 9 Kronstadt that actually is in the game.  That is, the historical Kronstadt design called for 3x2 15" gun turrets in an ABX layout.

Kronstadt class Battlecruiser

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,496 posts
3,874 battles
36 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Well, it's nonsense to call her by a British propaganda term.  Besides, the definition of "battlecruiser" post WW1 becomes rather amorphous.  I actually agree that one could consider the Iowas to be battlecruisers compared to the Montana class.  At the same time, many people have historically adjusted the definition of battlecruiser for ships in the 1930's and 40's to include ships like the Alaska "large cruiser" and the B-65 IJN "super cruiser".  The Kronstadt as she appears in WoWS never existed, though if she had, I think that she'd have been considered to be a battlecruiser along with the Alaskas and the unbuilt B-65s. 

Historically speaking, there really was a Kronstadt design, but it was much more like the 15" gunned Gneisenau that we see in WoWS than the tier 9 Kronstadt that actually is in the game.  That is, the historical Kronstadt design called for 3x2 15" gun turrets in an ABX layout.

Kronstadt class Battlecruiser

I like that your wiki page actually talks quite a bit about the 305mm gunned Kronstadt design, which almost certainly would have been the one to see service IRL given that Germany was going to go to war before the 15" turrets were shipped. Anyways, the Alaska, B-65, and Kronstadt are only battlecruisers if you accept arbitrary redefinitions of the term. When you compare them to ships of a similar technical generation, they are in no way like the 1910-1920's battlecruisers were relative to 1910-1920 battleships, fast or otherwise. They don't carry capital guns or capital firepower, and are not at the same scale as a true capital ship. If any of them ran against a mid 40's battleship or battlecruiser, they would be annihilated, though they could escape most battleships. Again, what a 1940's battlecruiser looks like is pretty obvious- Iowa. The ship was built to suppress other battlecruisers, to act as a heavy flagship for scouting forces(CV's were scouting forces at the time), and carried capital guns at cruiser speeds with somewhat subpar protection for her size(USN really wanted 14-16" armor and 12 guns on a 45k ton battleship, if it weren't for the need to hunt 30knot Kongos the Iowa as designed would never have existed).

None of the large cruisers would have any chance in a fight against Iowa, being considerably outmatched in every area. This suggests that as all the large cruisers are of similar or later design as her, they are not in fact battlecruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,010
[SALVO]
Members
17,707 posts
18,486 battles
2 minutes ago, Aetreus said:

I like that your wiki page actually talks quite a bit about the 305mm gunned Kronstadt design, which almost certainly would have been the one to see service IRL given that Germany was going to go to war before the 15" turrets were shipped. Anyways, the Alaska, B-65, and Kronstadt are only battlecruisers if you accept arbitrary redefinitions of the term. When you compare them to ships of a similar technical generation, they are in no way like the 1910-1920's battlecruisers were relative to 1910-1920 battleships, fast or otherwise. They don't carry capital guns or capital firepower, and are not at the same scale as a true capital ship. If any of them ran against a mid 40's battleship or battlecruiser, they would be annihilated, though they could escape most battleships. Again, what a 1940's battlecruiser looks like is pretty obvious- Iowa. The ship was built to suppress other battlecruisers, to act as a heavy flagship for scouting forces(CV's were scouting forces at the time), and carried capital guns at cruiser speeds with somewhat subpar protection for her size(USN really wanted 14-16" armor and 12 guns on a 45k ton battleship, if it weren't for the need to hunt 30knot Kongos the Iowa as designed would never have existed).

None of the large cruisers would have any chance in a fight against Iowa, being considerably outmatched in every area. This suggests that as all the large cruisers are of similar or later design as her, they are not in fact battlecruisers.

Interesting.  I have to plead guilty to not really reading the article beyond the stats box.  However, it does appear that the Russians actually did intend to produce a ship very similar to the one in game.  Very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×