Fr05ty's ADLA attempt: Stalingrad class Battlecruisers

[Fr05ty]

 

Hello and welcome again! As you know, I'll be posting an article on a different battlecruiser every Wednesday (for the aptly named Battlecruiser Wednesdays) over at ShipComrade. I'll always post a small blurb on each article here and you can comment the articles here as well (just make sure to read them in full). 

 

Battlecruiser Wednesdays: Stalingrad class Battlecruisers

Welcome to the fifth article from our Battlecruiser Wednesdays cycle! We'll be taking a look at a different battlecruiser design each wednesday and analysing how it could be implemented in-game by using our familiar "A Detailed Look At" format.

 

 

This week: I'll be taking a look at the Stalingrad class, the last class of classic battlecruisers designed in the world. The Stalingrad class was Stalin's favoured son and he heavily pushed for their construction as part of his obsession with having a big-gun navy. Designed to operate close to the Soviet naval bases, they sacrified cruising range for pure speed and firepower to ensure they were optimal cruiser killers. Stalin's death put the nail in the coffin for the Stalingrad class, but they can finally find their glory in World of Warships.

 

 

Step inside, read the article to see just how the Stalingrad class would stack up in-game and let us know what you think of this class making its way into the game!

 

Read Full Article...

 

Everybody's welcome to comment, critique and provide their opinions but please just keep it civil and enjoy!!

 

 

 

- Fr05ty

 

[mofton]

Good read, pretty unique designs. When you say battlecruiser you really mean it on the armor, a 7in belt is pretty crazy on a ship that big. Even the later British WWI BC's did better than that. A real glass hammer.

 

If implemented I believe they would create the biggest jump in age between ships of the same tier, Amagi laid down in 1920 and a Stalingrad in 1951. 31 Years.

 

I think the current gap is the T5 Omaha to Kirov jump of 1918-1938.

 

 

Seems pretty fun, I think it's tricky to balance as it's so far outside the norms, fastest BB in the game, lowest caliber but fastest reload at T8, weakest belt but strongest bow. Contrasts. Easier to balance a 16in gun dreadnought which trades a knot of speed for an inch of armor or similar.

[Lampshade_M1A2]

Russian paper-ships are quite impressive. I doubt it would have lived up to its performance specifications in reality.

[Taichunger]

That's interesting, but if armor covers it to the extent you say, wouldn't it be particularly vulnerable to 33% pens in the way German BBs are?

[Pope_Shizzle]

Don't we already have this in-game as the Moskva?

[YamatoA150]

That was a fun read.  So basically, rather than play it like Scharnhorst, it's better played like Molotov or Dunk, at range and making good use of the rather high velocity guns.  Though with the benefit of some tanky bow armor, allows her to weather return fire better than Dunk or Molotov.

[Eisennagel]

 

High velocity guns is a euphemism to describe those guns.

 

There are very few cruiser guns that reach 950 mps.  This is a battleship shell that is moving at the same speed.  

 

If you want my opinion I would bar this ship from the game.

[Fr05ty]

Good read, pretty unique designs. When you say battlecruiser you really mean it on the armor, a 7in belt is pretty crazy on a ship that big. Even the later British WWI BC's did better than that. A real glass hammer.

 

If implemented I believe they would create the biggest jump in age between ships of the same tier, Amagi laid down in 1920 and a Stalingrad in 1951. 31 Years.

 

I think the current gap is the T5 Omaha to Kirov jump of 1918-1938.

 

 

Seems pretty fun, I think it's tricky to balance as it's so far outside the norms, fastest BB in the game, lowest caliber but fastest reload at T8, weakest belt but strongest bow. Contrasts. Easier to balance a 16in gun dreadnought which trades a knot of speed for an inch of armor or similar.

 

Well... It's going to be a hell of a ride, but in terms of armour it's not that bad. The Renowns had a 6" belt when built... Sure, they were then rebuilt with better armour

 

 

High velocity guns is a euphemism to describe those guns.

 

There are very few cruiser guns that reach 950 mps.  This is a battleship shell that is moving at the same speed.  

 

If you want my opinion I would bar this ship from the game.

 

The guns are the reason why it sits at T8, in most other respects it's at T7 or lower standard. It has HP fit for tier 7, armour that beyond the 50mm to the front is thinner than the Ishizuchi's, a very large turning radius, gets easily spotted, has a barely useful radar and will see enemies that are T7-10 which means you'll get wrecked so easily if you're not bow-on. Plus, everything will deal at least 33% penetrations instead of overpenetrations due to the 50mm everywhere.

 

Your guns will hurt others pretty easily, but you'll be just as brittle, especially at long ranges as the deck armour isn't very thick. Think it might work at T8, but I know it's a polarizing ship due to its extremes.

[Eisennagel]

 

It penetrates 432 mm of armor at 20,000 yards, while doing it at 3 rounds per minute, which is the likely round off for its rate of fire.  At the same time, the shell flights are going to be ++faster++ and ++flatter++ than the Moskva's.  

[Fr05ty]

 

It penetrates 432 mm of armor at 20,000 yards, while doing it at 3 rounds per minute, which is the likely round off for its rate of fire.  At the same time, the shell flights are going to be ++faster++ and ++flatter++ than the Moskva's.  

 

Yes, actually this feeds back to one of my doubts about game mechanics. Do the penetration values at range match those of the guns in reality? Or does the distance in-game gets computed differently, so a 20km distance in-game is like 30km game IRL?

 

A ROF of 2.75 and weakening the soft stats for the guns could help make it balanced, but not much will handle a shot from this.

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

The AA is too good for tier 7, the Gneisenau already has more long range dps than the Bismarck and almost as much as the NC while this would have longer ranged AA than the Iowa with more long range DPS as well. 

 

There is already way to much AA power creep, we dont need tier 7 ships with better long range AA than tier 9 AA based ships. 

[Fr05ty]

The AA is too good for tier 7, the Gneisenau already has more long range dps than the Bismarck and almost as much as the NC while this would have longer ranged AA than the Iowa with more long range DPS as well. 

 

There is already way to much AA power creep, we dont need tier 7 ships with better long range AA than tier 9 AA based ships. 

 

What are you on about? This is not a Tier 7 ship! Read the article and it clearly says it's a tier 8 ship. The long range AA for it is powerful, but the mid and short range AA can't even hold a candle to the NorCal's, much less to the Iowa's AA!

[SinqueScheiDeMona]

305mm/62 (12”) SM-33 Pattern 1948 guns

 

As on EU and reddit are the numbers arrived at via conventional or RAP? Might WG use the "older" figures?

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_12-55_B-50.htm

[Eisennagel]

 

Yes, actually this feeds back to one of my doubts about game mechanics. Do the penetration values at range match those of the guns in reality? Or does the distance in-game gets computed differently, so a 20km distance in-game is like 30km game IRL?

 

A ROF of 2.75 and weakening the soft stats for the guns could help make it balanced, but not much will handle a shot from this.

 

 

Game is pretty close and consistent to USN Empirical Formula for armor penetration, and those figures are derived from that.

 

Why weaken the gun and modifying the soft stats?  That won't be the Stalingrad anymore.

 

For purposes of discussion, lets take it for what it is.  The Moskva's RoF wasn't nerfed from what's listed in Navweaps, and for that matter, the Soviet 152mm guns also have the same RoF as listed in Navweaps.

 

Also the darn thing is spec'ed to run at 35.5 knots.  For a fully loaded 42,000 ton monster.  And it can potentially do it because it has a 280,000 bhp powerplant which is way way more powerful than many battleship powerplants.  The Iowa's engines only generates 212,000 bhp.

 

 

[Fr05ty]

 

 

Game is pretty close and consistent to USN Empirical Formula for armor penetration, and those figures are derived from that.

 

Why weaken the gun and modifying the soft stats?  That won't be the Stalingrad anymore.

 

For purposes of discussion, lets take it for what it is.  The Moskva's RoF wasn't nerfed from what's listed in Navweaps, and for that matter, the Soviet 152mm guns also have the same RoF as listed in Navweaps.

 

The RoF nerf comes from WG's decision to not give battleship grade guns a bigger ROF than 3. They set this precedent when the Scharnhorst's 283mm guns were nerfed from 3.5 to 3 rounds/minute. I am just advocating for a nerf of a significant magnitude to keep somewhat consistent. I'm not arguing for weakening the gun's power, I'm arguing about modifying the soft stats that we know are subject to change such as shell drag, sigma and dispersion.

 

For reference, the guns for the Stalingrad's were actually built and tested from 1949 to 1951 so I'd expect the shell weight and muzzle velocity are from actual firing trials.

[Eisennagel]

 

 

The shells are close to 3x the weight of the Moskva's and has nearly the same muzzle velocity (950 mps vs. 965 mps).  The greater weight means it loses far less velocity at range which makes the arcs even flatter than the Moskva's.  Its almost point and shoot, like lasers and railguns in comparison to the competition.  Even with less armor, which it can angle, the ship moves at 35.5 knots, which is faster than many cruisers.  Its faster than the Alaska and Scharnhorst, has nearly 200 mps over the Alaska's shell and 60 mps over the Scharnhorst.  In terms of MV, that would be by far the fastest of any battleship shell in the game.  Compared to the Alaska, the Stalingrad achieves over 100mm worth of penetration at 20,000 yards, and the Alaska has better penetration than the Scharnhorst at that distance.  

 

It can simply kite at long ranges against any ship in the game and pepper it with shots that penetrate better than the German 15" guns.  The ship's speed it can easily avoid battleships at will, while cruisers cannot escape it from it.  Putting it at Tier 8 obliterates Tier 6 and 7 ships.   The game's simulation of ballistics and physics means muzzle velocity is a stronger "win" factor because it strengthens two winning factors --- it makes it easier to hit things and second, when it hits, its more likely to penetrate.  Yet MV tends to get downplayed into the statistics that determine tiering.  Because of this dichotomy, this results in some ships that consistently outperform others, eclipsing other "balancing" factors.

 

This is a ship, that in my blunt opinion, should never be in the game.

 

 

[Lord_Magus]

Don't we already have this in-game as the Moskva?

 

I think Moskva represents one of the designs that Stalin rejected and said "no make it bigger."

[Vinidoanker]

 is this consider battle cruiser or battleship?

 

[Lord_Magus]

 is this consider battle cruiser or battleship?

 

 

With its low speed (0.0 knots) and thick armor, obviously a battleship.