Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Major_Damage225

Big Gunned Heavy Cruisers Discussion Thread.

48 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
1,909 posts
6,248 battles

So since we are getting the big gunned heavy cruiser Stalingrad, the question is where are the USN and IJN ones, the USS Alaska and IJN Ishikari? 

 

WG it's time to say something. 

 

Please discuss the heavy hitter's of the cruiser world, one is coming so the other Navy's versions should aswell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
15,957 posts
11,194 battles

They are where the Stalingrad is. At least 6 months away.

Will probably used in a similar manner, therefore you might to want add a year.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
607 posts
7,343 battles

Ideally they should be T-6 BBs anything else will turn out to be a bad idea. They have T-6 calibre guns without anything special in their ROF or turret traverse., and they lack the armour of the T-7 Sharnhorst and were not meant as a match for it. 

 

Edit, well Kronstadt was but was still less capable on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOME]
Beta Tester
1,900 posts
7,365 battles
41 minutes ago, Major_Damage225 said:

So since we are getting the big gunned heavy cruiser Stalingrad, the question is where are the USN and IJN ones, the USS Alaska and IJN Ishikari? 

 

WG it's time to say something. 

 

Please discuss the heavy three, one is coming so the other two should aswell. 

Heavy three? Yes sure but dont forget Netherlands Project 1047, Kronstadt and the many French Battlecruiser and graf spee clones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,130 posts
2,359 battles
2 minutes ago, Affeks said:

Heavy three? Yes sure but dont forget Netherlands Project 1047, Kronstadt and the many French Battlecruiser and graf spee clones.

 

Also don't forget all the numerous Alaska design preliminaries, the heavy WWI USN scout cruisers and the RN "large light cruisers". The idea of a ship intermediate between true capital ships and regular cruisers is something most nations have dabbled in, even if only a few nations have enough designs to even make a reasonable branch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,081 posts
2,939 battles

So, where do we draw the line between battlecruiser and large cruisers ? Do we just straight mix them up ? In which case the ships discussed in this thread are already represented IG by the Scharnhorst, which shares similarities to the Project 1047 in terms of role and raw specs.
And then, can we really compare something like Alaska, the British 9.2'' 9/39 design, Graf Spee Clones and Dunkerque ? They're all critically different after all.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,130 posts
2,359 battles
3 minutes ago, LastButterfly said:

So, where do we draw the line between battlecruiser and large cruisers ? Do we just straight mix them up ? In which case the ships discussed in this thread are already represented IG by the Scharnhorst, which shares similarities to the Project 1047 in terms of role and raw specs.
And then, can we really compare something like Alaska, the British 9.2'' 9/39 design, Graf Spee Clones and Dunkerque ? They're all critically different after all.

 

The easiest way is to compare them to their peers from the same period and nation. Historically, battlecruisers were similar in size to their battleship cousins and indeed all current battlecruisers in the game (Myogi, Ishizuchi, Kongo and Amagi classes) are already implemented as "battleships". Meanwhile, the Stalingrad class "battlecruiser" that is coming for T10 is dwarfed by other capital ships of the late 1940s/1950s, being a ship intermediate between true capital ships and the regular cruisers similar to the Alaskas.

 

The Scharnhorsts were somewhat undergunned, but they were actually almost as large as the treaty battleships of the time (32,000 tonnes vs 35,000).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DMAS]
Beta Tester
305 posts
2,228 battles

I'm not in a hurry to see battlecruiser coming to the game.

A lot of heavy cruiser will be obsolete the moment those battlecruiser are released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,081 posts
2,939 battles
12 minutes ago, RamirezKurita said:

 

The easiest way is to compare them to their peers from the same period and nation. Historically, battlecruisers were similar in size to their battleship cousins and indeed all current battlecruisers in the game (Myogi, Ishizuchi, Kongo and Amagi classes) are already implemented as "battleships". Meanwhile, the Stalingrad class "battlecruiser" that is coming for T10 is dwarfed by other capital ships of the late 1940s/1950s, being a ship intermediate between true capital ships and the regular cruisers similar to the Alaskas.

 

The Scharnhorsts were somewhat undergunned, but they were actually almost as large as the treaty battleships of the time (32,000 tonnes vs 35,000).

 

P1047 displaces just a couple less thousand tons than Schanrhorst (28kt if I remember correction), she's the same length and beam or almost, and has the same amount and caliber main guns. Sure, she's a bit lighter, but then it means that if our limit is at 30kt the japanese B-65 counts as a battlecruiser and not large cruiser because she also displaces 32kt.

 

Comparing with ships of the same era is one thing but that's kinda hard in a world where the very notion of battlecruiser varies depending on the nation you're in. Heck, can we even comparae Alaska to the US's standards for CCs ? Did they even plan other CCs than Lexington anyway ?

So to compare there's a critical need to set the rules and stick to them. What makes Schanrhorst a battlecruisers, but not Stalingrad, Alaska, P1047 or B-65 ? It can't be the displacement, or main guns caliber or number. So what are we left with, armor ? I'm not familiar with the customs of CBs but I'm pretty sure some gotta be heavily armored. In the current situation we have no objective criteria to differenciate CCs and CBs from one another.

Hence my question about where the members of this thread decided to draw the line. And if different lines should be drawn at different time periods then where all of these lines stand and what prompts them to change at which dates ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOME]
Beta Tester
1,900 posts
7,365 battles
15 minutes ago, LastButterfly said:

 

P1047 displaces just a couple less thousand tons than Schanrhorst (28kt if I remember correction), she's the same length and beam or almost, and has the same amount and caliber main guns. Sure, she's a bit lighter, but then it means that if our limit is at 30kt the japanese B-65 counts as a battlecruiser and not large cruiser because she also displaces 32kt.

 

Comparing with ships of the same ear is one thing but that's kinda hard in a world where the very notion of battlecruiser varies depending on the nation you're in. Heck, can we even comparae Alaska to the US's standards for CCs ? Did they even plan other CCs than Lexington anyway ?

So to compare there's a critical need to set the rules and stick to them. What makes Schanrhorst a battlecruisers, but not Stalingrad, Alaska, P1047 or B-65 ? It can't be the displacement, or main guns caliber or number. So what are we left with, armor ? I'm not familiar with the customs of CBs but I'm pretty sure some gotta be heavily armored. In the current situation we have no objective criteria to differciente CCs and CBs from one another.

Hence my question about where the members of this thread decided to draw the line. And if different lines should be drawn at different time periods then where all of these lines stand and what prompts them to change and what dates ?

Things were much easier when we all thought these would all be treated like BBs (see Scharnhorst as you say), but then WG hits us with the curveball...

 

 

so idk. I myself will draw the line with what era they're from... or easier how strong their AA would historically have been.

 

In other words P1047 has pretty shitty AA so its compared to Scharnhorst and treated like a BB.

P1047 being in many ways weaker to Scharnhorst -> P1047 = tier 6

 

B65 and Alaska both very good AA and was afaik designed during or right before the war eg. compared to Stalingrad and treated like cruisers.

Both B65 and Alaska are both in many ways just weaker than Stalingrad -> B65/Alaska = Tier 9/tier 8

 

This is a very crude way to do it, but with the limited info we have and as you say we just need to draw a line then this is the way I'd do it.

 

It'd be weird to put Alaska's many 40mm bofors or B65s 100mm/65s on tier 6 or 7 tbh.

 

Edit: ofc "what if" modernizations might happen, but I want to believe that WG wont deviate too far from their historical layouts. (WHY DID THEY MESS UP KII SO MUCH!!!)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,647 posts
6,701 battles
9 minutes ago, LastButterfly said:

 

P1047 displaces just a couple less thousand tons than Schanrhorst (28kt if I remember correction), she's the same length and beam or almost, and has the same amount and caliber main guns. Sure, she's a bit lighter, but then it means that if our limit is at 30kt the japanese B-65 counts as a battlecruiser and not large cruiser because she also displaces 32kt.

 

Comparing with ships of the same era is one thing but that's kinda hard in a world where the very notion of battlecruiser varies depending on the nation you're in. Heck, can we even comparae Alaska to the US's standards for CCs ? Did they even plan other CCs than Lexington anyway ?

So to compare there's a critical need to set the rules and stick to them. What makes Schanrhorst a battlecruisers, but not Stalingrad, Alaska, P1047 or B-65 ? It can't be the displacement, or main guns caliber or number. So what are we left with, armor ? I'm not familiar with the customs of CBs but I'm pretty sure some gotta be heavily armored. In the current situation we have no objective criteria to differenciate CCs and CBs from one another.

Hence my question about where the members of this thread decided to draw the line. And if different lines should be drawn at different time periods then where all of these lines stand and what prompts them to change at which dates ?

 

iRL the definition is: "Large combat ships with the armament of Battleships and a Cruiser-like speed." Armor was planned to be usually better than Cruiser but weeker than Battleships, because speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,909 posts
6,248 battles

Keep the debates coming, to the OP the threshold of a heavy cruiser and battlecruiser/light BB to me in this game should be 12  inch guns and heavy cruiser level of armor but not BB armor, armor between a heavy cruiser and a battlecruiser, with light (early age calibre) BB calibre guns, from 11 to 12 inch, no more!

 

Edit (im not talking about how the RL concepts would work, all i'm saying is how to implement them in the game here, a new class has been born with Stalingrad, soo, other nations should have theyr version)

 

 

Edit ll: and since here we have experts with far more knowledge on the matter that i, i would love too have theyr thought's shared. :Smile_glasses:

Edited by Major_Damage225

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,130 posts
2,359 battles
5 minutes ago, LastButterfly said:

 

P1047 displaces just a couple less thousand tons than Schanrhorst (28kt if I remember correction), she's the same length and beam or almost, and has the same amount and caliber main guns. Sure, she's a bit lighter, but then it means that if our limit is at 30kt the japanese B-65 counts as a battlecruiser and not large cruiser because she also displaces 32kt.

 

Comparing with ships of the same era is one thing but that's kinda hard in a world where the very notion of battlecruiser varies depending on the nation you're in. Heck, can we even comparae Alaska to the US's standards for CCs ? Did they even plan other CCs than Lexington anyway ?

So to compare there's a critical need to set the rules and stick to them. What makes Schanrhorst a battlecruisers, but not Stalingrad, Alaska, P1047 or B-65 ? It can't be the displacement, or main guns caliber or number. So what are we left with, armor ? I'm not familiar with the customs of CBs but I'm pretty sure some gotta be heavily armored. In the current situation we have no objective criteria to differciente CCs and CBs from one another.

Hence my question about where the members of this thread decided to draw the line. And if different lines should be drawn at different time periods then where all of these lines stand and what prompts them to change and what dates ?

 

I agree that the 1047 battlecruiser is a tricky one because the design predates most of the CBs by a decade or so, but the Dunkerque is already in the game as a T6 which shows that a 28,000 design from the mid 1930s is indeed T6 capital ship material by WG's standards. It's also quite easy to see how the 4,000 extra tonnes of the Scharnhorst puts it up to T7.

 

I suppose the simplest way of thinking about it from my point of view would to ask the questions "could this ship be placed in the same tier as rough contemporaries as a battleship without being a waste of space?" and "could this ship be placed alongside rough contemporaries as a cruiser without completely breaking the game?". Obviously, there is some degree of flexibility as the relative sizes of ship need to be factored in, but nobody wants to have a ship tiered alongside ships that are several generations apart. For example, the Alaska class were basically part of the same generation of ships as the Iowas, in order to fit them into the in-game battleships they would have to be downtiered to at least 8, if not T7, in order to remain competitive, placing them alongside 1920s ship classes like the Colorados; alternatively, we just put them as a T9 cruiser, using the various cruiser consumables, dispersion and soft stat increases to bring them up to standard. Comparatively, the Kongos would have to be massively uptiered to remain balanced if they were to be given cruiser consumables, dispersion and soft stats, as their age puts them at T3-4 cruiser material yet balance would require them to be a T7 cruiser at least, so it makes sense just to lump them in with the battleships.

 

The USN didn't have any other CCs planned, it was just the Lexingtons. Granted, the Lexington's design process was drawn out enough that they could probably still fill out a line from T4-7/8, but it was still just the Lexingtons. Even then, comparing the Lexingtons to the 1920s SoDaks shows that USN nomenclature still puts CCs as being as large as BBs; after all, why would they bother creating an entirely new designation if they considered the Alaskas to be part of the same category of ship? (I know CC ended up being reused for Cruiser - Command, but that was much later) It also doesn't help the way the Iowas were basically battlecruisers in all but name anyway, being a ship that's as big as a battleship yet as fast as a cruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,702 posts
7,352 battles
46 minutes ago, rigawe said:

I'm not in a hurry to see battlecruiser coming to the game.

A lot of heavy cruiser will be obsolete the moment those battlecruiser are released.

 

It's difficult to see how you would include this type of ship in the game without completely reworking matchmaking and balancing generally.

 

Include them as cruisers and, as you say, all other cruisers become obsolete, include them as BB and they'll struggle to get anywhere near same tier BB.

 

Possibly workable as one-offs at T7 (Scharnhorst), but a whole line of them, I don't know.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,081 posts
2,939 battles
4 minutes ago, RamirezKurita said:

 

I agree that the 1047 battlecruiser is a tricky one because the design predates most of the CBs by a decade or so, but the Dunkerque is already in the game as a T6 which shows that a 28,000 design from the mid 1930s is indeed T6 capital ship material by WG's standards. It's also quite easy to see how the 4,000 extra tonnes of the Scharnhorst puts it up to T7.

 

I suppose the simplest way of thinking about it from my point of view would to ask the questions "could this ship be placed in the same tier as rough contemporaries as a battleship without being a waste of space?" and "could this ship be placed alongside rough contemporaries as a cruiser without completely breaking the game?". Obviously, there is some degree of flexibility as the relative sizes of ship need to be factored in, but nobody wants to have a ship tiered alongside ships that are several generations apart. For example, the Alaska class were basically part of the same generation of ships as the Iowas, in order to fit them into the in-game battleships they would have to be downtiered to at least 8, if not T7, in order to remain competitive, placing them alongside 1920s ship classes like the Colorados; alternatively, we just put them as a T9 cruiser, using the various cruiser consumables, dispersion and soft stat increases to bring them up to standard. Comparatively, the Kongos would have to be massively uptiered to remain balanced if they were to be given cruiser consumables, dispersion and soft stats, as their age puts them at T3-4 cruiser material yet balance would require them to be a T7 cruiser at least, so it makes sense just to lump them in with the battleships.

 

The USN didn't have any other CCs planned, it was just the Lexingtons. Granted, the Lexington's design process was drawn out enough that they could probably still fill out a line from T4-7/8, but it was still just the Lexingtons. Even then, comparing the Lexingtons to the 1920s SoDaks shows that USN nomenclature still puts CCs as being as large as BBs; after all, why would they bother creating an entirely new designation if they considered the Alaskas to be part of the same category of ship? (I know CC ended up being reused for Cruiser - Command, but that was much later) It also doesn't help the way the Iowas were basically battlecruisers in all but name anyway, being a ship that's as big as a battleship yet as fast as a cruiser.

 

I think the very notion of Battlecruiser was obsolete by WWII so I don't think we can call Iowa battlecruisers. Speed isn't the only factor by far. As far as I remember (my speciality are destroyers so I can't promise my knowledge about these larger ships is flawless at all), the two great schools of battlecruisers during the interwar were as follows
-British types tended to sacrifice all or a very large part of the armor to achieve great speed whilst keeping the same firepower as a battleship. The old concept behind this was that speed could serve as a subsitute for armor.
-German types tended to view battlecruisers as reduced battleships with more firepower than a cruiser. Hence, their draws CCs possessed armor only slightly below or that sometimes rivaled that of contemporary battleships, but had either reduced dimensions or firepower.

Basically, the two possibilities are either "high speed unarmored battleship" and "intermediates between heavy cruisers and battleships". But since Germany hardly had any heavy cruiser at this time to compare this drawings to, it can't be entirely sure.
Italy and America only draw trials CCs, and Russia and France are still a mystery to me, so I always assumed that all battlecruisers could fall in one the two aformentionned category - and if it did not then it was NOT a battlecruiser. And what spurred me to think that way - and also to think that CCs couldn't be mentionned for post mid-30s ships - were the japanese warships of the 8-8 plans and further.

 

Japan, early/middle in the interwar, had their capital ships separated in thwo types : actual battlecruisers, such as the early Kongos, and actual battleships, such as the Nagatos. But whilst sketching the ships of the 8-8 plan, which clearly aimed at producing 8 battleships and 8 battlecruisers, they realized that the advance of technology made a third type appear. After drawing the Tos and Amagi - battleship and battlecruiser, respectively -, and after some political stuff, they went on to draw the Kii class, which is where thgey realized that they were technically capable of building a battleships with a thicker armore than Amagi, and yet almost quite as fast. This is the point where they decided to abandon the notion of battlecruiser and speak of fast battleships instead. because indeed, there was no reason to classify Kii as a CC like Amagai was, regardless of how minute the difference between the two were (and that shos how minute the difference between CCs and BBs can actually be).

As far as I know only Japan "officially" (sorta) dropped the notion of CC since CCs and BBs had basically melted together to make only one type. But it's not because others didn't mention it that it didn't happen. The birth of Richelieu and Vittorio Veneto in Europe shows the exact same development : ships, with the firepower and armor of battleships, could now exceed 30kn. Therefore, the whole reason of the British notion of CCs "to drop armor so as to gain speed" went obsolete, because dropping armor was no longer needed to gain the necessary speed.

 

Remains the German point of building a "smaller battleship". And to differenciate those fast battleships which are battleships in reduced, from large cruisers, I think there is no technical way to do it, but rather, we have to question where the idea came from.

 

Taking Alaska. She originated from american cruisers, as the point of her was to be a next generation heavy cruiser. On the other hand, the very point of Project 1047 was to serve as a powerful, capable capital ship for its nation. The latter is smaller, displaces less, and is - arguably but undeniably - underarmed compared to the former. And yet I think 1047 belongs the to Capital Ship category whilst Alaska should remain what's called a Large Cruiser.
Stalingrad ? Originates from a 203mm heavy cruiser replacement design. Large Cruiser.
Schanhorst ? Built as a capital ship, evolution of older ones. Capital Ship.

Kronshtadt ? Now that's a tricky one. She was born as a cruiser but heavily redisigned when the russians learnt about the Scharhorst. She was even planned for 380mm guns. But it doesn't change the fact that at first, she had a thin armor and low caliber guns, and many things had been sacrificed for her to stay below a displacement. I'd say that the pre-war Kronshtadt design falls in the Large Cruiser category but the redesigned, war-time actuall Kronshtadt is a Capital Ship.

B-65 ? That's a very good question. I haven't given much thought and she appears as a large cruiser to me but maybe I should research her origins. I know for a fact she was meant to be a combat vessel and not counter anyone in particular since the proposal to change her when the Japanese heard of Alaska were rejected.

 

 

tl;dr : I don't think Iowa is a battlecruiser because I think the notion didn't exist anymore and became a type of battleship. Therefore the question I wonder is what makes a very big cruiser with very big guns a Capital Ship, and what does not. And the answer I have is : the point they were supposed to have when their mother country built them.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOME]
Beta Tester
1,900 posts
7,365 battles
38 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

It's difficult to see how you would include this type of ship in the game without completely reworking matchmaking and balancing generally.

 

Include them as cruisers and, as you say, all other cruisers become obsolete, include them as BB and they'll struggle to get anywhere near same tier BB.

 

Possibly workable as one-offs at T7 (Scharnhorst), but a whole line of them, I don't know.

While I agree that we wont see a whole line of them, but I disagree on the MM balance thing.

 

CBs will not have the utilities that normal cruisers have (consumables, agility, stealth, high rof) and on the other hand will never have the armor layout or overmatching capabilities of BBs. So in other words they wont take any quirkiness form BBs or CAs. What they will have is BB levels of health pools and BB levels of range, higher rof than normal BBs while keeping penetration close to what BBs. 

 

They are a balanced mix of strength and weaknesses from both BBs and CAs. Im sure with some fine tuning they are not difficult to fit into the current meta or MM spreads at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MIRAI]
Players
161 posts
8,047 battles

I hope this doesn't become a thing

otherwise we will be seeing 10BBs and 2DDs in TX MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,130 posts
2,359 battles
15 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

 

I think the very notion of Battlecruiser was obsolete by WWII so I don't think we can call Iowa battlecruisers. Speed isn't the only factor by far. As far as I remember (my speciality are destroyers so I can't promise my knowledge about these larger ships is flawless at all), the two great schools of battlecruisers during the interwar were as follows
-British types tended to sacrifice all or a very large part of the armor to achieve great speed whilst keeping the same firepower as a battleship. The old concept behind this was that speed could serve as a subsitute for armor.
-German types tended to view battlecruisers as reduced battleships with more firepower than a cruiser. Hence, their draws CCs possessed armor only slightly below or that sometimes rivaled that of contemporary battleships, but had either reduced dimensions or firepower.

Basically, the two possibilities are either "high speed unarmored battleship" and "intermediates between heavy cruisers and battleships". But since Germany hardly had any heavy cruiser at this time to compare this drawings to, it can't be entirely sure.
Italy and America only draw trials CCs, and Russia and France are still a mystery to me, so I always assumed that all battlecruisers could fall in one the two aformentionned category - and if it did not then it was NOT a battlecruiser. And what spurred me to think that way - and also to think that CCs couldn't be mentionned for post mid-30s ships - were the japanese warships of the 8-8 plans and further.

 

Japan, early/middle in the interwar, had their capital ships separated in thwo types : actual battlecruisers, such as the early Kongos, and actual battleships, such as the Nagatos. But whilst sketching the ships of the 8-8 plan, which clearly aimed at producing 8 battleships and 8 battlecruisers, they realized that the advance of technology made a third type appear. After drawing the Tos and Amagi - battleship and battlecruiser, respectively -, and after some political stuff, they went on to draw the Kii class, which is where thgey realized that they were technically capable of building a battleships with a thicker armore than Amagi, and yet almost quite as fast. This is the point where they decided to abandon the notion of battlecruiser and speak of fast battleships instead. because indeed, there was no reason to classify Kii as a CC like Amagai was, regardless of how minute the difference between the two were (and that shos how minute the difference between CCs and BBs can actually be).

As far as I know only Japan "officially" (sorta) dropped the notion of CC since CCs and BBs had basically melted together to make only one type. But it's not because others didn't mention it that it didn't happen. The birth of Richelieu and Vittorio Veneto in Europe shows the exact same development : ships, with the firepower and armor of battleships, could now exceed 30kn. Therefore, the whole reason of the British notion of CCs "to drop armor so as to gain speed" went obsolete, because dropping armor was no longer needed to gain the necessary speed.

 

Remains the German point of building a "smaller battleship". And to differenciate those fast battleships which are battleships in reduced, from large cruisers, I think there is no technical way to do it, but rather, we have to question where the idea came from.

 

Yeah, the concept of the battlecruiser vs the fast battleship did get increasingly blurred during the 1920s to the point of being indistinguishable as engine technology advanced. Some historians argue that the first on the true fast battleships that combine the strengths of both the battlecruisers and the battleships wasn't any of the 1920s leviathans but was instead the Royal Navy's Admiral-Class battlecruisers which had comparable armour and arms to battleships of the time but on a 30 knot capable hull.

 

The early royal navy battlecruisers generally did have relatively thin skins, but after Jutland they did a complete 180 and every subsequent RN battlecruiser design had battleship grade armour on them. The G3s were actually to have thicker armour than the 1940s Iowas, despite being listed as battlecruisers. The German battlecruisers weren't some intermediate between battleships and cruisers like you suggest though, in terms of scale they rivaled their battleship cousins as they ranged from 20,000 tonnes up to about 30,000 tonnes by the end of the war with the unfinished designs going up to 40,000 tonnes just like the RN designs; the difference was that the German battlecruisers simply sacrificed a combination of armour and weaponry to achieve their speeds rather than just armour like the RN CCs. Either way, the main thing they had in common was size and speed, being as fast as cruisers of the time and as large as battleships of the time.

 

Speaking of the Germans, things get doubly confusing when you look at their terminology. Their WWI battlecruisers were always referred to as grossekreuzer (which explains why their development names were usually GK-something), or "large cruiser" if translated; meanwhile, the only ship they ever referred to as schlachtkreuzer, the 29,000 tonne O-class, is far more in line with the large cruisers of other navies of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
5,836 posts
5,251 battles
12 minutes ago, RamirezKurita said:

 

Yeah, the concept of the battlecruiser vs the fast battleship did get increasingly blurred during the 1920s to the point of being indistinguishable as engine technology advanced. Some historians argue that the first on the true fast battleships that combine the strengths of both the battlecruisers and the battleships wasn't any of the 1920s leviathans but was instead the Royal Navy's Admiral-Class battlecruisers which had comparable armour and arms to battleships of the time but on a 30 knot capable hull.

 

The early royal navy battlecruisers generally did have relatively thin skins, but after Jutland they did a complete 180 and every subsequent RN battlecruiser design had battleship grade armour on them. The G3s were actually to have thicker armour than the 1940s Iowas, despite being listed as battlecruisers. The German battlecruisers weren't some intermediate between battleships and cruisers like you suggest though, in terms of scale they rivaled their battleship cousins as they ranged from 20,000 tonnes up to about 30,000 tonnes by the end of the war with the unfinished designs going up to 40,000 tonnes just like the RN designs; the difference was that the German battlecruisers simply sacrificed a combination of armour and weaponry to achieve their speeds rather than just armour like the RN CCs. Either way, the main thing they had in common was size and speed, being as fast as cruisers of the time and as large as battleships of the time.

 

Speaking of the Germans, things get doubly confusing when you look at their terminology. Their WWI battlecruisers were always referred to as grossekreuzer (which explains why their development names were usually GK-something), or "large cruiser" if translated; meanwhile, the only ship they ever referred to as schlachtkreuzer, the 29,000 tonne O-class, is far more in line with the large cruisers of other navies of the time.

 

Well the Brits pretty much liked their thin armour. The Renowns and the Courageous are impressive examples. The Admials are special in a way they became obsolete with the events at Jutland. So the RN squeezed in every bit of protection into Hood possible and scrapped the rest. Scrapping Hood wouldn’t have been favourable as she was nearing completion already. Obsolete nevertheless. 

 

The German term of „Großer Kreuzer“ meaning large cruiser was traditionally used to distinguish between the larger and more powerful ones and the fast and lightly armed scouts. Every cruiser above a certain tonnage was called Large Cruiser. In parallel the old term „Panzerkreuzer“ or Armoured Cruiser was used for the new Battlecruisers and sometimes even the translation from English (Schlachtkreuzer). The only real importance of the term was for budget reasons though. Building a cruiser was less controversial than building a battleship - a weapon comparable to today’s nuclear weapons in terms of politics.

 

You are right though about the design differences. Given the harsh numerical inferiority compared to the RN the German Battlecruisers were designed to fill the battleline if needed meaning a similar protection as the battleships. A German naval architect famously summarized the different approaches by stating “The British are building Battleship-Cruisers, we are building Cruiser-Battleships”.

 

After Jutland though the light armament became a big topic as the fleet felt that a lot more could have been achieved with a higher first-hit-kill-probability. A lot of consideration went into the “Typenfrage” meaning,wether it is possible to build a ship that unifies both types. While technology in the 1910s wasn’t quiete ready for this the last design Sketches (the SK and GK studies) were indeed fast battleships in all but name. The same can be said for the G3 design for the RN. However, with the war ending and the WNT stopping battleship production it took almost two more decades to finally produce proper fast battleships (and I would still consider Kongo and Hood to be a BC).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
1,660 posts
3,542 battles

no way alaska can be anything else than t10 cruiser. she would be crap mid tier battleship. dont compare her to scharnhorst. she doesnt have armor, nor torpedos, nor secondaries. the only thing she has are the guns and you cant make them very accurate in mid tier, because she would be too powerful against cruisers. pretty much reason of scharnorst crappy accuracy. scharnhorst needs to get close. go close with alaska means death. you wold be able to go close to the cruisers, but what would you do against battleships?

 

but if you put her at t10, you can give her cruiser accuracy and just make the trade-off between alpha damage and rate of fire. that will put her in the role which suits her the best - long range sniper. spam HE at battleships and punish broadsides with AP. alternative des moines with bigger hp and better protection but worse concealment, deadlier single salvo but worse rate of fire

 

i just dont think she will ever work as a battleship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
5,836 posts
5,251 battles

Agree with @puxflacet the Alaska Type large cruisers are a good T10 cruiser. Pretty much an even heavier slower firing CA. So eventually we will have rapid firing light machine gun CLs, classic heavy cruisers like DesMoines and slower firing large cruisers, like Alaska, O-Class, Stalingrad, etc.

 

Making them T6 battleships isn’t a good idea. They are lacking any protection to be tanky and have a lot of AA. They are clearly late War / 1950s vessels and don’t belong into low and mid tier.

 

The story is different for the real Battlecruisers though. These will be battleships from a matchmaking perspective.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
607 posts
7,343 battles
25 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Making them T6 battleships isn’t a good idea. They are lacking any protection to be tanky and have a lot of AA. They are clearly late War / 1950s vessels and don’t belong into low and mid tier.

 

 

Building them as their 1940 incarnations should resolve the AA. Protection will be comparible with some of the IJN BBs. Dunkerque is already in the game as a T-6 BB, that is where the rest of them belong. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,717 posts
9,234 battles
33 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Agree with @puxflacet the Alaska Type large cruisers are a good T10 cruiser. Pretty much an even heavier slower firing CA. So eventually we will have rapid firing light machine gun CLs, classic heavy cruisers like DesMoines and slower firing large cruisers, like Alaska, O-Class, Stalingrad, etc.

 

Making them T6 battleships isn’t a good idea. They are lacking any protection to be tanky and have a lot of AA. They are clearly late War / 1950s vessels and don’t belong into low and mid tier.

 

The story is different for the real Battlecruisers though. These will be battleships from a matchmaking perspective.

 

The problem with ships like the Alaska at T10 cruiser tier is you then have to ask yourself why in god's name you would play anything else.

Putting aside the Minotaur, the only ship that would still be capable because of the tankiness and dakka is the Hindenburg. The only reason to pick a Des Moines would be for the utility of a radar, not the ship itself.
Let's not even mention the Zao in this scenario, that would turn completely useless.
 

 

Large cruisers/battlecruiser are inherently inadapted to the game unless they can fit either enough armor, big enough guns and low enough AA to fit low tier, or thin enough armor and small enough guns with reasonable AA to fit higher tier.
The Moskva barely qualifies, despite having ultimately very poor armor on everything but the deck, small but ridiculously powerful guns, and good but not overwhelming AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,130 posts
2,359 battles
16 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

The problem with ships like the Alaska at T10 cruiser tier is you then have to ask yourself why in god's name you would play anything else.

Putting aside the Minotaur, the only ship that would still be capable because of the tankiness and dakka is the Hindenburg. The only reason to pick a Des Moines would be for the utility of a radar, not the ship itself.
Let's not even mention the Zao in this scenario, that would turn completely useless.
 

 

Large cruisers/battlecruiser are inherently inadapted to the game unless they can fit either enough armor, big enough guns and low enough AA to fit low tier, or thin enough armor and small enough guns with reasonable AA to fit higher tier.
The Moskva barely qualifies, despite having ultimately very poor armor on everything but the deck, small but ridiculously powerful guns, and good but not overwhelming AA.

 

The Alaska as a high tier cruiser would bring with it its own complete set of drawbacks though. Any argument to use the Des Moines over the Moskva would be increased tenfold as the Alaskas wouldn't have good turning circles, they would have relatively poor DPM and firestarting capability and they would still remain vulnerable to BB AP shells.

 

Depending on what kind of rudder speeds, hull plating and consumables they give the CBs, it's quite possible to fit them into the upper tiers. If anything, I'd be worried about them becoming the worst of both worlds, as they will be extremely vulnerable to BBs if they have the turning capabilities of a BB but the 25mm plating of a cruiser.

 

That being said, the other point is that WG is already putting the Stalingrad at T10 as a cruiser, which is a ship much larger and more modern than the Alaska. If anything, the Alaska would belong in T9 by comparison with the 4x3 preliminary of the Alaska following into T10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×