Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Gneisenau013

Friday Night Fights - Battleship or Battlecruser?

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,238
[WGA]
Administrator, Developers
1,049 posts
6,593 battles

File:Cañones del Gneisenau y al fondo el Scharnhorst.jpg

*pictured - German battlecruiser Gneisenau sailing with sister ship Scharnhorst (top left) in the North Atlantic Ocean in 1938*

Are you more successful in battleships or battlecruisers?

Currently, battleships and battlecruisers are placed together in the same class both in the matchmaker and on the tech tree.

Battlecruisers are faster and more agile while battleships have improved armor protection and firepower.

Battleships or battlecruisers, which warship let's you sink 'em all?

"A fleet of British ships at war are the best negotiators."  - Horatio Nelson, Royal Navy

#fridaynightfights

#anchorsaweigh

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,611 posts
2,463 battles

I prefer battlecruisers/fast battleships because they are more flexible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,520
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,237 posts
11,044 battles

I like speed.

Any ship can be at least moderately survivable. It doesn't matter if you have 203mm of belt like Kongo, or 343mm like Colorado - once you're angled autobounce is autobounce. Even the lightest armored ships can do that, or shatter big HE on the belt/turret faces etc. etc.

I can make my lightly armored, but fast capital ship more survivable due to angling and positioning relatively easily. What no player can ever do is make a 21kt battleship do 30kt and get somewhere useful fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,253
[SALVO]
Members
18,309 posts
18,897 battles
Just now, RagingxMarmoset said:

I have a problem with this thread. Everyone knows that Saturday night's all right for fighting. 

Yes, Elton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,962
[PVE]
Members
12,447 posts
8,478 battles

I like both, but I am eagerly awaiting the Alaska class Battlecruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56
[SAVAG]
[SAVAG]
Members
323 posts
4 hours ago, Gneisenau013 said:

File:Cañones del Gneisenau y al fondo el Scharnhorst.jpg

*pictured - German battlecruiser Gneisenau sailing with sister ship Scharnhorst (top left) in the North Atlantic Ocean in 1938*

Are you more successful in battleships or battlecruisers?

Currently, battleships and battlecruisers are placed together in the same class both in the matchmaker and on the tech tree.

Battlecruisers are faster and more agile while battleships have improved armor protection and firepower.

Battleships or battlecruisers, which warship let's you sink 'em all?

"A fleet of British ships at war are the best negotiators."  - Horatio Nelson, Royal Navy

#fridaynightfights

#anchorsaweigh

 

 

I'll probably get canned from the thread for this but you just said she's a battlecrusier and not a battleship, may we please have the option to change the 380mm guns on her to the 283mm of the Scharnhorst. From the looks of it those are 283mm gun on her in the picture above . Please think about it WG.

BTW.  I love the battlecrusier playstyle.

Cheers   <o,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
212
[INR]
Members
670 posts
3,745 battles

I hate the battleship playstyle and do moderately well with battlecruisers. I have unfortunately not played either in a long time as I prefer even smaller, more agile ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,908
[KNMSU]
Members
4,704 posts
5,100 battles

The lines are so blurred at this point that is hardly matters. Guilio Cesare is, for all intents and purposes, a battlecruiser in game terms, but she was 100% a battleship IRL. Kongo is a battlecruiser that - by VERY optimistic Japanese standards - became a battleship. But in WoWs, not only is she still clad in tinfoil, but she's Hiei (which makes me sad). Hood was a battlecruiser that many Americans (and even some British) thought was a battleship (until she blew up just like a BC should under those circumstances). 

I could go on, but you get the point.

IRL, there definitely were distinguishing factors between BCs and BBs - particularly in WWI, but even thereafter (one would never mistake even upgraded Renown as a battleship, for example). In WoWs? So much of the ships' overall qualities are determined in the testing and balancing phase that what they were has little bearing on what they become.

---

And Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were battleships. That's what the Germans considered them to be; that's what the majority of contemporary naval historians rate them as. It was an instance of mistaken identity by the Brits. Case closed.

Edited by Battleship_ContediCavour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,611 posts
2,463 battles
9 minutes ago, Battleship_ContediCavour said:

The lines are so blurred at this point that is hardly matters. Guilio Cesare is, for all intents and purposes, a battlecruiser in game terms, but she was 100% a battleship IRL. Kongo is a battlecruiser that - by VERY optimistic Japanese standards - became a battleship. But in WoWs, not only is she still clad in tinfoil, but she's Hiei (which makes me sad). Hood was a battlecruiser that many Americans (and even some British) thought was a battleship (until she blew up just like a BC should under those circumstances). 

I could go on, but you get the point.

IRL, there definitely were distinguishing factors between BCs and BBs - particularly in WWI, but even thereafter (one would never mistake even upgraded Renown as a battleship, for example). In WoWs? So much of the ships' overall qualities are determined in the testing and balancing phase that what they were has little bearing on what they become.

---

And Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were battleships. That's what the Germans considered them to be; that's what the majority of contemporary naval historians rate them as. It was an instance of mistaken identity by the Brits. Case closed.

Make up your mind.  Hood was just as well armored as those two.  Hood had a 305mm belt, as thick as Iowa's.  Bismarck got very lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,908
[KNMSU]
Members
4,704 posts
5,100 battles
1 minute ago, Helstrem said:

Make up your mind.  Hood was just as well armored as those two.  Hood had a 305mm belt, as thick as Iowa's.  Bismarck got very lucky.

I don't believe that shell would have destroyed either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau. The German deck armor in of itself wasn't substantial (roughly the same as Hood's), but the Scharnhorsts featured multiple armored decks that were fairly good at repelling heavy shellfire at medium ranges (and probably not so hot - bordering on terrible - against very long range/aerial bombing). By contrast, Hood had just the 3" armored deck and that was it - if a shell got through, it was party time.

Labels matter. The British believed Hood was a battlecruiser, and she was never reclassified or seriously questioned in that role by the Royal Navy. The Germans believed the Scharnhorsts were battleships. I'm inclined to default to the makers on most of these debates (except in the case of the Kongos, which really were never upgraded enough to be battleships. But whatever). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
192
[-GDP-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,581 posts
1,064 battles

RN has plenty of BB while the KM only has 2 only so to feel good they are considered as BB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,662
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,073 posts

As for playstyle... not sure what the difference is supposed to be, especially given the blurry and unshared definitions of the types.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,611 posts
2,463 battles
15 minutes ago, Battleship_ContediCavour said:

I don't believe that shell would have destroyed either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau. The German deck armor in of itself wasn't substantial (roughly the same as Hood's), but the Scharnhorsts featured multiple armored decks that were fairly good at repelling heavy shellfire at medium ranges (and probably not so hot - bordering on terrible - against very long range/aerial bombing). By contrast, Hood had just the 3" armored deck and that was it - if a shell got through, it was party time.

Labels matter. The British believed Hood was a battlecruiser, and she was never reclassified or seriously questioned in that role by the Royal Navy. The Germans believed the Scharnhorsts were battleships. I'm inclined to default to the makers on most of these debates (except in the case of the Kongos, which really were never upgraded enough to be battleships. But whatever). 

Hood's deck armor wasn't hit or penetrated.  Her belt armor was.  At the range she was hit (16,000 yards per PoW's ranging on Bismarck at the time) the 380mm shells of Bismarck had negligible vertical penetration and would have skipped off of Hood's 51mm deck armor.  On the other hand Bismarck's 380mm AP had more than enough horizontal penetration to punch through Hood's, PoW's or Bismarck's belt at that range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
357
[4HIM]
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
1,361 posts
9,988 battles
17 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Make up your mind.  Hood was just as well armored as those two.  Hood had a 305mm belt, as thick as Iowa's.  Bismarck got very lucky.

The Hood was not armored all around, had different thickness her deck armor, or not at all.  This was to give her the speed...she was built to be a Battlecruiser, and in no way was classified as anyone as a Battleship.  Bismark didn't need the luck though she got it.  Her angled armor was to deflect straight on broadside shots (which caused several WWI BC's to detonate), and this made her MORE vulnerable to plunging fire...and right as she was angling to bring all four turrets to bear she was hit at about a 30 degree angle...which of course would be a BOUNCE in WoWS LOL...but in RL it was a plunging shell that hit her 4 inch gun magazine (not torpedoes, they had been removed) that caused a flash fire and explosion...the fire flashed again and probably detonated the powder magazine.  This lifted her stern out of the water and caused the bow third of the ship to actually break from the stress, which probably caused what seemed to be Hood's final salvo, but in reality was flash fires breaching through the broken deck.  When they found the Hood the bow section area damage was not caused by explosion, but stress (also this was the reconstructed torpedo magazine...so some internal original bracing was removed).  So yes some luck, but Hood would have need lots of luck to beat the Bismark, much better armored, newer design etc.  POW would have been more of a help, but she was brand new and literally could not fire one of her 4 gun turrets due to maintenance issues etc.  The Tier system has it right...Hood T7 Bismark T8  One v One in WoWS and Bismark beats Hood most of the time...but with some luck and skill Hood may come out on top.

BTW I love BCs!!!  Hood, Dunkerque, Amagi, Kongo class etc.,  and those fast BBs...yeah baby!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
357
[4HIM]
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
1,361 posts
9,988 battles
6 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Hood's deck armor wasn't hit or penetrated.  Her belt armor was.  At the range she was hit (16,000 yards per PoW's ranging on Bismarck at the time) the 380mm shells of Bismarck had negligible vertical penetration and would have skipped off of Hood's 51mm deck armor.  On the other hand Bismarck's 380mm AP had more than enough horizontal penetration to punch through Hood's, PoW's or Bismarck's belt at that range.

Incorrect.  This was plunging hit. Don't give any credence to how you think shells operate based on WoWS...its a flawed meta game.  380mm shells don't skip off of deck armor....maybe 8' shells or light bombs.   Hood's belt armor was designed to deflect horizontal shells, that is why she was vulnerable to a 18k plunging shot that also get her as she was turning...so her BROADSIDE armor was not fully utilized...would have bounced in WoWS lol lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
357
[4HIM]
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
1,361 posts
9,988 battles
16 minutes ago, alex08060 said:

RN has plenty of BB while the KM only has 2 only so to feel good they are considered as BB. 

I do like to say Shiny Horse and Nice Canoe are BCs...its the speed and light guns that make me always want to say this...but as stated German sources and Jane's Fighting Ships 1940 edition list them as Battleships....they had the armor of a BB, but guns and speed of a BC.  I have decided with much kicking and screaming to bow to Janes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,611 posts
2,463 battles
1 hour ago, Morpheous said:

Incorrect.  This was plunging hit. Don't give any credence to how you think shells operate based on WoWS...its a flawed meta game.  380mm shells don't skip off of deck armor....maybe 8' shells or light bombs.   Hood's belt armor was designed to deflect horizontal shells, that is why she was vulnerable to a 18k plunging shot that also get her as she was turning...so her BROADSIDE armor was not fully utilized...would have bounced in WoWS lol lol

I am not basing anything on WoWS.  I am basing it on the German penetration tables that say Bismarck could not have penetrated Hood's deck at that range.  She could easily have penetrated the upper belts and almost certainly the main belt as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,662
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,073 posts
53 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Give me armor and big guns over speed any day.

Speed is overrated. 

I prefer a good balance. 

 

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.

×