World of Warships – Battlecruiser

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (8,024 votes, average: 4.88 out of 5)

There are many things to admire about the large Cruiser USS Alaska, but the thing I like most is how triggered people get when you call it a Battlecruiser.

music licensed from and


System Specs: Core i7 4.3Ghz CPU, 32GB DDR4 RAM, nVidia GTX1080 8GB GDDR5 GPU, running at 1920×1080 resolution

If you have a World of Warships replay, consider using a hosting service like

Just be aware that I get hundreds of emails every week and I can’t promise that I’ll show what you send in.


  1. such a huge huge fan of you jingles keep doing what you’re doing your content is amazing and superb bloody well done sir 🙂

  2. •Its for killing cruisers
    •Its a its got 12” guns (bigger than a cruiser, but lower in calibre/numbers than BBs)
    •Its faster and less armoured than a battleship

    This is what looking, smelling and tasting like a battlecruiser is like. I know he’s crap but he’s right on this one

    • @TheNecromancer6666 The whole “flanking element of the battleline” idea was really a peripheral role for battlecruisers, just an opportunistic way to use their firepower with (hopefully) minimal risk. The essence of the battlecruiser mission has always been killing cruisers, which is why their capabilities have always been different than those of a battleship (which is designed to fight other battleships). Yes, most major naval actions are fleet actions, but the measuring stick for a battleship intended to take full part in those fights is still whether it can stand up to an opposite number in the enemy fleet. It’s the same rationale that saw 50-gun 4th rates being downgraded from the status of “ship of the line” around the end of the 1700s – it was clear that they were not powerful enough to match up with a 74 or 80-gunned ship of the enemy. Incidentally, those 50-gun ships were in turn often diverted to roles such as flagships of convoy escorts or roving frigate squadrons where they would only be expected to encounter enemy frigates (which they could easily beat) – an early incarnation of the battlecruiser mission profile.

      It’s true that the German battlecruisers survived their charge into the Grand Fleet, but that was not something they were ever intended to do (it was called the “Death Ride” for a reason), and they certainly would have suffered losses if not for the issues with the British shells. I would also strongly disagree with your claim about Derfflingers. Their armor was possibly comparable to some British battleships, but their firepower of only 8 x 12in guns was markedly inferior, and any of the British super-dreadnoughts would have had enough armor to resist 12-inch shells. I know the stereotype for battlecruisers is “weak armor”, but I define battlecruisers as being unable to match up to battleships due to inferiority in armor *and/or* firepower, a distinction which is especially important when looking at the German ships.

      Here’s my checklist. To be a battlecruiser, a ship must meet the following criteria (and whether the Alaskas meet them):

      Cruiser killer (must have all of the following)
      – Much heavier firepower than a contemporary standard cruiser ✅
      – Comparable speed to a cruiser ✅
      – Armor strong enough to resist typical cruiser guns ✅

      Unable to match a battleship (must be inferior to contemporary battleships in *at least one* of the following areas)
      – Gun caliber ✅
      – Number of guns ❌
      – Armor protection ✅

    • ​@Wolfeson28 “Cruiser killer” is entirely subjective because by that standard, the 8″ cruisers that became Heavy Cruisers also fit that requirement. Remember that when the Invincibles were built there was no such thing as “light cruisers” or “heavy cruisers”. Just armored, unarmored and protected cruisers. The original “battlecruiser” concept in the form of the Invincibles was literally a cruiser with an all-big-gun armament, or as they were originally classified “dreadnought armored cruiser”. Also, the Invincibles were not protected against the cruisers they were designed to fight. So the original battlecruisers don’t even stand up to the arbitrary requirements you just set for them.

      The Battlecruiser’s lineage stems from the Armored Cruiser, who’s lineage stems from the battleship.

      The Heavy Cruiser’s lineage stems from the protected cruiser, who’s lineage stems from ships like HMS Warrior.

      The Alaska is literally an enlarged Heavy Cruiser. She is not armored like a battlecruiser. And I’m not talking about thicknesses, I’m talking about armor schemes. She’s got a Baltimore’s armor scheme with thicker plates. You compare that armor scheme to her contemporary battleships and it’s not even similar in any respect. Her armor is distributed like a cruiser’s. A battlecruiser traditionally had it’s armor distributed like a battleship with less of it. Which is why you see things like turtlebacks, multiple armored decks and armored bulkheads on battlecruisers but not so much on cruisers, with the exception of the first and last bulkhead in the citadel.

      The real requirements to fit the role of a traditional battlecruiser – something ALL British-patterned battlecruisers had – would be:
      1) Primary battery that was the same as their contemporary battleships. Alaska’s contemporary battleship would be Iowa, and Alaska does not share a primary battery with Iowa.

      2) Armor scheme. All of the battlecruisers the British ever built had scaled up Armored Cruiser or scaled down Battleship armor schemes, except the Invincibles who used a scheme taken from a Protected Cruiser, just scaled up. Likewise, the Alaska uses the Baltimore’s armor scheme, which is far more similar to the armor scheme of a Protected Cruiser than the scheme of an Armored Cruiser or Battleship.

      3) Position in the fleet. Battlecruisers are traditionally capital ships. Alaska was not a capital ship.

      Alaskas are not battlecruisers. They are scaled up heavy cruisers. They are the next step in the cruiser lineage without naval treaties limiting their displacement and armament. Again, look at how fast cruisers started to grow the moment the naval treaties fell apart. You went from the 10,000 ton New Orleans and Wichita to the 15,000 ton Baltimore IMMEDIATELY AFTER the Wichita. That’s a 50% increase from Wichita to Baltimore. That’s how fast things grew when the naval treaties stopped limiting how big cruisers could be.

    • No he isn’t, a battlecruiser has battleship guns equivalent of battleships from the same period. It’s why HMS Invincible surprised everyone because it had the same guns as HMS Dreadnought just like how Hood, Renown and Repulse had 15inch guns the same as the Queen Elizabeth and Revenge class battleships.

      Refit Alaska with six 16inch guns in three twin turrets and you would have a battlecruiser variant of the Alaska class.

    • @Ushio01 Exactly. It goes even deeper than that. The Lion-class, Tiger and Queen Mary also had the 13.5″ guns of their contemporary battleships, the Orion, King George V and Iron Duke-classes.
      The ONLY Battlecruiser that had guns that weren’t shared with a contemporary battleship was Furious, and it was realized how dumb this was before she was even launched. She never put to sea with that armament, having the forward turret removed while under construction and replaced with a flight deck.

    • @wun1gee Fixating on a couple of arbitrarily-chosen design components or design lineages doesn’t really get you closer to a universal definition of a ship type. The central essence of a ship type, the first thing a designer has to consider, is what that ship is meant to *do,* its basic mission profile; for a battlecruiser, this is “kill cruisers, run from battleships”. That is the basis of the definition, and everything else derives from that. That basic mission profile will determine the core capabilities the ship type must have in order to carry out its mission (which is what I put in my checklist), and from there you get to the specific design lineages and tools (like guns) that can provide those capabilities. The criteria you’re trying to use are superficial and don’t really look at the deeper essence of the ship type. Battlecruisers do not have to have the same guns as contemporary battleships; because their job is to fight cruisers rather than battleships, they simply need guns powerful enough to decisively overmatch the defenses of cruisers. Battleship guns will certainly do that job, but smaller guns in between battleship and cruiser size also fit the bill. Likewise with armor, a thinned-down battleship-style armor scheme will certainly work against cruisers, but it’s not the only armor scheme that meets the requirement. If the ship has the capability to decisively crush cruisers but to run away from battleships rather than fight them on equal terms, then that ship meets the essential definition of a battlecruiser, regardless of what specific tools or design elements it has to provide those capabilities.

      When I say “kill cruisers”, I mean killing whatever the “standard” cruisers were at that time, which does of course change based on the time period. For the Invincibles, this would mean the latest generations of armored cruisers. The Invincibles were armored sufficiently to fight those armored cruisers, as they emphatically demonstrated at the Falklands when a combined 25 hits from the German armored cruisers produced no major damage and only one sailor dead on the British battlecruisers. That battle also demonstrates the level of superiority over standard cruisers that I mean when I’m talking about criteria for battlecruisers; the Alaskas would have crushed Japanese treaty-era heavy cruisers in just the same way. Along those lines, you absolutely cannot claim the Alaskas were just “the next step” in the cruiser lineage. Yes, the Baltimores were almost 50% larger than the Wichita, but the Alaskas were more than *double* the size of the Baltimores and nearly *three* times the size of the Wichita. That is not an incremental increase, especially when you consider that the design and lead-ship-build processes for the Baltimores and Alaskas were barely a year apart (initial studies leading to the Alaska design actually predated the earliest studies for the Baltimores). The Alaskas are clearly on another level of capability, and would easily have destroyed a Baltimore 1v1, or even 1v2 if you wanted to give both sides equal tonnage.

  3. *Looks at the title*

    Oh hang on, just got a message from the Royal Navy!
    It says: “There’s nothing wrong with our bloody ships!”

    • “However, there is something very wrong with Admiral Beatty. He keeps raising the wrong signal flags, fires to miss the target and causes our battlecruisers to explode violently!”

    • david and martine albon

      @Internet Entity and that is on a good day!

  4. That Russian cruiser is pronounced: Bah-grah-tee-ohn. A general in the Napoleonic wars and later the name of a major Soviet offensive in WW2.

    • I always think ‘sack lunch’. Operation: Sack Lunch, the Cruiser Paper Sack Lunch, General Sack Lunch. I don’t know why my brain goes there every time.

    • Doesn’t matter…everyone is gonna call it a P.Bag now.

    • Thanks for the info.
      Unfortunately i think PeeBag is more likely to stick…

    • ECA Program Group Plc

      Yes… and Tolstoi mercifully killed him off, watching a French grenade, wondering about the purpose of life… What is he doing here in 2020 still annoying people )))
      Me off course in my German ships, I am more akin to Mr. Pierre, with his funny glasses, wandering around the field of Borodino “heh?”…”what”???? ….”Where??”

    • Isn’t he in “War and Peace” as well?

  5. I am a simple man:
    I see Jingles, I klick

  6. “Go ahead, SMASH that dislike button!”
    Ohhh no Jingles you are tempting the fates!

    • Arduino Guy Projects and More!


    • @Sgt Hawk I see your edutainment channels and I raise you all of Brady Haran’s channels.

    • @Sgt Hawk Well they’re also based around education “Allegedly”. But there’s a lot he presents in I’d say appropriate fashion per subject. I think everyone should at least take a gander at one of the various choices of the Simon Youtube Channel Universe (SYCU). It rivals DCU and MCU currently. 😄

    • Phillippa Tryndal

      Maybe the fates like a good duel?

  7. The Alaska, one of the most consistent ships I ever used, never disappoints to give any ibuki captain ptsd after losing 2/3s of their hit points in a Salvo 😉

  8. 5:53 “We’ll call it the P. Bag“

    Does jingles realise what he said?!

  9. Jingles: “something something Battlecrusier”
    Youtube: demonetize for hate speech

  10. “P bag” that made me laugh way more than it should’ve.

  11. “Smash that dislike button”
    – Some Jingles watched a lot of Business Blaze lately?

    • Simon’s channels are the kind that are binge-worthy, one moment you thought ‘just one video’ the next moment you’re wondering why’s the sun waving good morning at you so soon

    • Hopefully_Realistic


    • I’m waiting for a Fact Fiend reference. Lol

    • @Graham Strouse 8. And a podcast. Busy man . . .

    • @Thomas Chow That’s no joke fam. For the longest time I was wondering why I was getting rec’d Business Blaze; I thought it was something entirely else so I avoided it. So when I finally got around to checking out why I was getting the recs….. I had lost several hours of my life afterward.

  12. Nobody:
    Jingles: *Pee bag*

  13. SizzleChest McMurphy

    Have only met a few people in my life who possess a laugh that can, all by itself, cause laughter in others. Jingles has one of the better ones.

  14. “Go ahead, SMASH that dislike button!”

    Liked the video, for the number of times he said that!

  15. High Priest of Keebler

    Smash that dislike button? Ah, a fellow man of culture i see.

  16. josh thomas-moore

    Take a shot everytime jingles say “Smash that Dislike button.”

  17. Demon of the Crows

    My cat: starts meowing uncontrollably in the background
    Akizuki: also starts meowing
    Me: What form of black sorcery is this bullshit?

  18. “If the enemies where paying attention they would know his damage control is on cooldown.”

    Jingles you are vastly overestimating an average players ability even at T 10.

  19. Crunchy on the outside
    Chewy on the inside:
    Des Moines-adillos!

  20. “tastes like a battlecruiser”. Anyone else get a mental image of Jingles licking his screen and going “hmmm, yep, that’s a battlecruiser all right.”

    • I wonder if how his taste skills compare to his eyesight….

    • Actually, I imagine Jingles actually going to the ship yard and licking a ship. LOL.

    • Maverick Arkguard

      “What is this metallic tang? …This is the taste of a battlecruiser, isn’t it, Jingles?”

    • it would explain why he is so often mistaken when identifying ships or tanks…

    • Actually, I got an image of him holding up Akizuki up to the ship. She noms it, thinks for a few seconds, and gives her professional opinion, usually some variation of “mew”.
      Jingles then takes careful note of what kind of vessel the ship in question is, then completely forgets his notes every time he goes to make a video. I suspect Akizuki and Rita hide them because it’s funny.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *