Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Myrmidon19

Tankiest.. Meatiest.. Most BB-like... Cruiser?

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[NORKS]
Players
91 posts

I'm basically wondering peoples opinions/advice on the toughest/tankiest Cruiser? I.e. is there a cruiser that could be considered a battlecruiser, like the closest thing to a battleship whilst still being a cruiser? Another way to look at it could possibly to be not as concerned about size, health and armour but batteries. Any cruisers with huge small numbers of main batteries more akin to battleships than typical multi-gun destroyers and cruisers? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles

Gunnery-wise, Graf Spee, Kronshtadt and Stalingrad. Survivability-wise, Alaska and Stalingrad, as long as you don't give broadside.

 

Overall, tankiest cruiser is likely the Alaska, while the tankiest cruiser while angled bow-on is Moskva.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,222 posts
11,997 battles
34 minutes ago, Myrmidon19 said:

I'm basically wondering peoples opinions/advice on the toughest/tankiest Cruiser? I.e. is there a cruiser that could be considered a battlecruiser, like the closest thing to a battleship whilst still being a cruiser? Another way to look at it could possibly to be not as concerned about size, health and armour but batteries. Any cruisers with huge small numbers of main batteries more akin to battleships than typical multi-gun destroyers and cruisers? 

Are we talking about regular cruisers (light or heavy variety) or Large Cruisers WG is pumping recently into game?

 

From tankiest "regular" cruisers hightier Germans come to mind with their turtleback and on tier 9 and 10, additional extra heal. That and eternal Camrade Moskva (though she is stretching definition of a heavy cruiser), when angled she can be tough cookie. But any sort of broadside and you die faster than Minotaur. From Large Cruisers, Alaska and Stalingrad lead the way in terms of durability. Though only Moskva and Stalingrad can actually hope to shrug off AP shells larger than 429mm, as number of ships with that kind of boomstick keep increasing.

 

Gunnery, or to be specific, AP shell penetration wise, then Stalingrad, Kronshtadt take the cake, with Azuma/Yoshino following and Alaska closing the group. Only first two you can reliably expect to punch through BB main belt though.

 

Accuracy wise, Azuma twins have superior dispersion, Stalingrad have standard Large Cruiser dispersion IIRC but compensated by overinflated Sigma value

 

And then there is Siegfried, German CB in pipeline, armed with 6x 380mm guns:cap_tea:

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
4 hours ago, Panocek said:

Gunnery, or to be specific, AP shell penetration wise, then Stalingrad, Kronshtadt take the cake, with Azuma/Yoshino following and Alaska closing the group. Only first two you can reliably expect to punch through BB main belt though.

Azuma/Yoshino have nowhere near enough of a pen advantage to make up for Alaska improved pen angles in my experience. Even with the lauded accuracy. Together with Alaska surviving at mid tiers, it allows the ship to play around AP as standard ammo, while Azuma/Yoshino maybe load AP when a cruiser or carrier goes full broadside or you spot a RN CL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BGNAV]
Players
203 posts
9,305 battles

For tankiest CA I would go with Moskva. Great guns but still cruiser caliber and fire rate, really tough to kill with both AP (when angled) and HE. Shells travel extremely fast and hit quite hard for a cruiser.

 

For tankiest BC I would go for Stalingrad (of course), seconded by Alaska and Kronshtadt. Stalingrad is effectively Moskva with a negligible improvement armor-wise and bigger guns. Slower fire-rate makes it behave closer to a BB but armor and high citadel makes it vulnerable when showing broadside (for the latter - again, same as Moskva).

Alaska and Kronshtadt are less-tanky but still hit very hard. Out of those two I would go for Alaska every time though. Its shells are slower but hit really hard (improved pen angles) and accuracy is many times better than the Krony. Also the american radar is a lot longer lasting than the russian one (shorter range, yes) and at T9 this matters - Kronshtadt can fire twice during its radar and only if the target is spotted near the position its guns are pointed at. 

 

I saw that Graf Spee was mentioned - it hits almost like a BB at that tier but has very few guns with horrible dispersion. Also the armor is not anything special and when you get close to be able to hit something, you will also suffer. Torpedo angles and range are good though. It was interesting when it was released but isn't anything special overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HALON]
Players
635 posts
10,481 battles
On 6/28/2019 at 9:51 PM, Cagliostro_chan said:

Azuma/Yoshino have nowhere near enough of a pen advantage to make up for Alaska improved pen angles in my experience. Even with the lauded accuracy. Together with Alaska surviving at mid tiers, it allows the ship to play around AP as standard ammo, while Azuma/Yoshino maybe load AP when a cruiser or carrier goes full broadside or you spot a RN CL.

 

Only problem is that Alaska's AP lose a lot of efficiency with range. I suck at Alaska because of that. You feel obliged to close the range to become effective. And this behaviour causes the enemy focusing you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
1 hour ago, Amon_ITA said:

 

Only problem is that Alaska's AP lose a lot of efficiency with range. I suck at Alaska because of that. You feel obliged to close the range to become effective. And this behaviour causes the enemy focusing you.

Depends what you shoot at. Cruisers, you can still wreck at 15 km range. BBs? Apart from the freak citadel out of nowhere, HE is often a better choice. Typically though, Alaska is one of the few cruisers that can survive at mid range vs BBs, as long as they aren't up against multiple from different directions (which no cruiser takes well, nor do most BBs). Azuma/Yoshino pretty much are 50/50 whether their armour scheme holds up or they eat multiple citadels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[INTRO]
[INTRO]
Players
1,444 posts
18,211 battles

Historically, a battlecruiser was a cruiser with battleship-size guns so a battlecruiser wouldn't be "tanky" at all. They were all about speed and firepower. HMS Courageos had a 76 mm belt. (A Des Moines has twice that.) During her sea trials she had her forecastle buckled just by going at full speed in head sea. That's how "flimsy" they were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HALON]
Players
635 posts
10,481 battles
On 7/11/2019 at 11:56 AM, Hanse77SWE said:

Historically, a battlecruiser was a cruiser with battleship-size guns so a battlecruiser wouldn't be "tanky" at all. They were all about speed and firepower. HMS Courageos had a 76 mm belt. (A Des Moines has twice that.) During her sea trials she had her forecastle buckled just by going at full speed in head sea. That's how "flimsy" they were.

 

English battlecruisers were what you describe. German ones sacrificed firepower ro obtain greater speed but protection was at battleship quality.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
11 minutes ago, Amon_ITA said:

 

English battlecruisers were what you describe. German ones sacrificed firepower ro obtain greater speed but protection was at battleship quality.

Tbf, German battleships for the most part emphasised armour over firepower too. The Moltke -class and Seydlitz had 28 cm guns, but so did the Nassau-class, Derfflinger has 30.5 cm guns, just like the BBs constructed around the same time, Mackensen and Ersatz Yorck were designed with 35 cm and 38 cm guns as the Germans started to up the caliber with the Bayern-class. The battlecruisers (early on) had fewer gun turrets, but if you compare Derfflinger to Kaiser or König, it's not really a greater sacrifice than you see by comparing Lion to Orion or Iron Duke. And compared to the BBs, the battlecruisers of Germany also saved some armour, just the amount left still was competitive with what other countries slapped onto their battleships to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[INTRO]
[INTRO]
Players
1,444 posts
18,211 battles
2 hours ago, Amon_ITA said:

 

English battlecruisers were what you describe. German ones sacrificed firepower ro obtain greater speed but protection was at battleship quality.

Tru dat. I just didn't want to write a novell about it. :-)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LAFIE]
Beta Tester
5,133 posts
5,512 battles
10 hours ago, Amon_ITA said:

 

English battlecruisers were what you describe. German ones sacrificed firepower ro obtain greater speed but protection was at battleship quality.

And the Russians tried to have it both ways with the Izmail class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
1 hour ago, lafeel said:

And the Russians tried to have it both ways with the Izmail class.

237.5 mm of waterline belt? Only is comparable to Russian BBs because the maximum thickness on most Russian BBs of the time was underwhelming and wouldn't stand up to "modern" AP shells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LAFIE]
Beta Tester
5,133 posts
5,512 battles
54 minutes ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

237.5 mm of waterline belt? Only is comparable to Russian BBs because the maximum thickness on most Russian BBs of the time was underwhelming and wouldn't stand up to "modern" AP shells.

Compares very favourably with the RN battlecruisers at the time to be fair..Also, you will note I said tried to have it both ways, not that they succeeded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
3 minutes ago, lafeel said:

Compares very favourably with the RN battlecruisers at the time to be fair..Also, you will note I said tried to have it both ways, not that they succeeded.

Still less than Russian BBs. And that's basically what it should be compared to. Otherwise, anything looks well-armoured compared to something like HMS Couragious and its 76 mm of belt (Furutaka had 76 mm of belt...), including other British battlecruisers, like the early battlecruisers with 152 mm belt, later battlecruisers like HMS Lion and HMS Queen Mary with 229 mm belt (a mere 8.5 mm less than Izmail) and absolutely not comparable to the last British battlecruiser, HMS Hood, with the lessons learned from Jutland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LAFIE]
Beta Tester
5,133 posts
5,512 battles
27 minutes ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

Still less than Russian BBs. And that's basically what it should be compared to. Otherwise, anything looks well-armoured compared to something like HMS Couragious and its 76 mm of belt (Furutaka had 76 mm of belt...), including other British battlecruisers, like the early battlecruisers with 152 mm belt, later battlecruisers like HMS Lion and HMS Queen Mary with 229 mm belt (a mere 8.5 mm less than Izmail) and absolutely not comparable to the last British battlecruiser, HMS Hood, with the lessons learned from Jutland.

Hood was, in my opinion, a battlecruiser in name only though. More of a very early fast battleship (same goes for Amagi, Lexington with its 127mm belt lands squarely in bc terretory), but thats a whole another discussion.

 

Also, part of it is that they had to do some design compromises to (try and <.<) get them under budget, as they'd originally been budgetted as 9 gun ships, not 12 according to my sources. Still a very ambitios design for 1913 (which is when it was  designed) it must be said.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
13 minutes ago, lafeel said:

Hood was, in my opinion, a battlecruiser in name only though. More of a very early fast battleship (same goes for Amagi, Lexington with its 127mm belt lands squarely in bc terretory), but thats a whole another discussion.

Lexingtons max armour belt thickness was 178 mm, not 127 mm.

Amagi is 250 mm belt at its thickest. For comparison, Tosa is 280, Kii is 292 mm and Nagato is 305 mm. Arguing about Kii being a fast BB design I'd accept, but Amagi by all means is very much a very large battlecruiser. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OMPG]
Beta Tester
378 posts
6,685 battles

Sometimes the tankiest and meatiest cruiser is the one that avoids arming very large caliber shells.. :fish_happy:

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BGNAV]
Players
203 posts
9,305 battles
32 minutes ago, TohtoriP said:

Sometimes the tankiest and meatiest cruiser is the one that avoids arming very large caliber shells.. :fish_happy:

 

Lol. Reminds me of what Phly Daily (youtuber, mainly plays War Thunder) likes to say:

"No armor is best armor, comrade!"

 

In WoWs however, this is good to a point - it doesn't look good when a DD and Neptune for example start exchanging broadside AP salvos from up close. Percentage-wise they take similar values from one another. If the DD tries that with any CA for example, the result would be very different.

Share this post


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

×