World of Warships- Battlecruisers Please

9,221 views
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (456 votes, average: 4.88 out of 5)
Loading...

Hey guys, today we discuss adding battlecruisers to the game, let me know what you guys think!

Music: Stranger Think- C418

Support the stream: https://streamlabs.com/sealordmountbatten

Have a replay?

Join the Discord here!: https://discordapp.com/invite/QA7G9pr

39 Comments:

  1. No view, no likes, 1 comment. Gotta be early.

  2. Ps love the vids mate keep them coming 🙂

  3. Keyboard is back!!! ⌨️ (I know I’m late but yay!)

  4. Alaska is NOT a battle cruiser. It was built and laid out like a cruiser. It shared more in common with a Baltimore-class than it did a battleship Its guns, for the time, were not battleship caliber. It was not meant to slug it out in the line of battle. It was a cruiser hunter. B-65 (Yoshino and Azuma) also are large cruisers.

    Battlecruisers were essentially battleships that gave up armor for speed. They were meant to partake in the line of battle. Hood is a prime example. The Kongos, before their refits into fast BBs fit this (and arguably after their refits they still fit this).

    • While I agree with you the term ‘Battlecruiser’ is literally the same definition as ‘Large Cruiser’ the USN created the class type to primarily work around not being called a Battlecruiser to funnel cash into something wasteful. Hood was a weird example because it has battleship armor

    • The term battlecruiser is actually very vague and used differently across navies and so either one uniform classification needs to be used in game as historical use (ie how each navy differentiated the types) is very, very messy. It gets even more complex on deciding where a Battlecruiser stops and the Fast Battleship starts.

      And actually the original concept of the Battle Cruiser, ie the Admiral Fisher HMS Invincible design is exactly the role the USN describe for the Alaska class; ie to hunt down smaller cruisers (Originally armoured cruisers, in Alaska’s case, 8in heavy cruisers), comfortably outgun (And so out-range and out-damage opponents) with enough armour to resist said cruiser guns and enough speed to be able to chase them down. The battle of the Falkland Islands in 1914 is an example of the original Battlecruiser concept in practice. But the USN were adamant that the Alaska were NOT BCs, just big heavy cruisers.

      In WWI, German battlecruisers gave up some speed and gun calibre compared to British BC’s for much better armour, generally using 28cm (11in) guns (vs 12 and 13.5in) and were a knot or two slower. So they were worse at cruiser-hunting, but better as supplementary line-of-battle vessels, which makes them as you describe a BC.

      Hood, while the RN referred to her as a Battlecruiser, she was actually the fastest, most heavily armed (matching the Queen Elizabeth class) and (Relatively; her angled armour wasn’t purely the thickest) armoured ship in the world when she commissioned and was to all intents an early Fast-Battleship; it’s just at the time the Royal Navy classed anything faster than 24 knots as a battlecruiser, regardless of guns and armour.

      Technically the Kongo’s were still battlecruisers when compared to other ships of the type; HMS Renown was better armed and armoured but still a BC. But the IJN called them Fast Battleships. The Dunkirk class, in their original purpose (Countering the Deutschland class) should be considered a battlecruiser, but the French doctrine saw them utilised as full battleships.

      In my personal view I consider the Scharnhorst’s in their 28cm gun form as battlecruisers but the Kreigsmarine was adamant they were full BBs and so books and resources always call them battleships. The endless argument about the Deutschland’s is another one; were they heavy cruiser or BCs, or something halfway between… And so on and so on.

      My point is the role you describe is only one of many interpretations of the term ‘Battlecruiser’, and for me that makes it almost impossible to define in game.

    • The USN originally called the Alaska’s Battlecruisers then changed the name to large cruisers to avoid money being moved from the battleship programs. You can make the argument either way – her job was almost exactly that of the original british battlecruiser – large guns intended to defeat all existing crusiers. Then you can make the argument that she was an organic continuation of the the baltimores etc. and therefore one of a next generation of cruisers (that just never got built). Personally I think because history played out as it did she was the large gunned ship designed to take on cruisers that they can most honestly be called battlecruisers.

    • The interesting aspect is that Alaska’s armor scheme and weaponry is extremely close to the Invincible and Indefatigable class battlecruisers.

      Both were intended for the same role, a big gun cruiser, not a battleship-light (which is what battlecruiser designs quickly morphed into because Admirals just could not get over having Battleship-class weaponry dedicated to the Line of Battle)

      Interestingly, what was arguably the very first true Heavy Cruiser, SMS Blucher, was operated (and lost) as a Battlecruiser by the HSF.

  5. david and martine albon

    I only want BCs so I can get my hands on Derfflinger, that ship was awesome, and sexy af

    • @Joel Montgomery Yes, and HMS Tiger. It’s like a better-looking Iron Duke

    • I also want Derfflinger…

    • @Joel Montgomery +1 would totally go for the Repulse even if it was a one-off premium. As long as the tag’s not too pricey.

      It was fast and a fantastic-looking ship, I’d argue it was a more handsome ship than the Hood, although it was known to be a very “wet” ship.

      Renown was a more heavily upgraded ship with the gas-proofed “Queen Anne’s Tower” superstructure, more capable and allegedly the fastest capital ship in the fleet, but the rebuild seriously ruined her lines 🙁

    • @Mike Reger tbh i dont mind if repulse is pricey. Just as long as shes at least a good ship in game. I feel making her similsr to kongo. Tier 5. Accurate guns but weak armour and standard consumables. Shed still be fun. But we need the 1941 camo. That black and light grey camo. Especialy that back black turret was awesome looking.

    • i want my seydlitz or vdt

  6. Hood was orignally a battlecruiser but her armour scheme was very much that of a battleship by the time she entered service. It is more accurate to call Hood a fast battleship.
    The royal navy tended to callanything that could go faster than 28 knots as a battlecruiser. Hence why Scharnhorsts were called battlecruisers despite all evidence to the contrary.

    • Yes, Hood was very much the first Fast Battleship that, per Royal Navy conventions, was called a battlecruiser simply because she exceeded a certain speed. Hood’s belt is just as thick as Iowa’s and she carried the same armament as her contemporary Queen Elizabeth class battleships.

      That said, I’d be fine with an Admiral class ship with the refit Hood never got at Tier VII or VIII in a British battlecruiser line. For matchmaking purposes battlecruisers should count as battleships.

      The problem is that all of these high tier large cruisers mentioned in the video are NOT battlecruisers and are not suitable to take a battleship slot.

    • Scharnhorst is definitely a battleship only with smaller guns. Which I guess doesn’t make her fit into any category but yeah like you said, definitely not a battlecruiser

  7. 1. You note that some “battlecruisers” are battleships ingame, like Hood, others are cruisers ingame, like basically all the “supercruisers” or “large cruisers” of the late 30s early 40s, and ridiculed the term “large cruiser” of the USN. Later you point out that the supercruisers do not have the guns to be BBs. Maybe that’s exactly why a ship like the Alaska, which was an escalation of a heavy cruiser design and of heavy cruiser design philosophy is not classed as a BB, while a ship like the Hood, which was based on the original concepts by Fisher and has very much a battleship caliber gun armament and size? There’s a reason for the seperation and even the Siegfried which is the sole true BB-caliber supercruiser is part of the cruisers, because it is an escalation of the Panzerschiff concept represented in the T6 Graf Spee.
    2. Asking how Stalingrad vs Zao is supposed to be balanced is like asking how Daring vs Khabarovsk is supposed to be balanced. Should there be a destroyer leader class? Zao is a powercrept ship, Stalingrad is competitive meta and arguably the most BB-like supercruiser. Are we going to argue that the Yoshino/Azuma, Ägir and Alaska are also not comparable to cruisers? Because at what point is a cruiser ingame a supercruiser and not a normal cruiser? What makes a Yoshino for example a supercruiser, but Goliath not? Citadel protection? Goliath is better in protection all around. Overmatch? For ingame purposes pretty much the same. HP pool? Goliath has barely less and way more if you count its heal. And it’s not really viable to say that 21 km gun range and a 20 km torp range is what makes a supercruiser, the two outstanding qualities of the Yoshino in this comparison, as that would disqualify most supercruisers from the grouping. On the other extreme, Petropavlovsk is a cruiser, but plays much more like a Stalingrad than any supercruiser. What to make of that? Is it going to be fair to match Zao vs Petropavlovsk? Will it be fair to match a Zao vs a Goliath? Will it be fair to match a Stalingrad vs a Yoshino? I mean, some matchups just are not “fair”, e.g. Smolensk vs radar Mino or Petropavlovsk vs Hindenburg in a vacuum would be very one-sided matchups. But that is not how the game works (and when it does, it’s the kind of BS 1v1 ranked was where a handful ships are meta and dumpster the rest).
    3. Justifying a battlecruiser class ingame based on the skill rework is basically applying a solution that is only necessary because of the problems WG itself created. One can very much continue with the current classification philosophy and keep at it. British battlecruisers, Lexington in its as-planned configuration (or with inevitable fantasy rework to AA) and German battlecruisers like the Ersatz-Yorck class very much fit into mid-tiers as BBs (Lexington might fit T8), but supercruisers are very much just T9-10 cruisers that are closer to the big punch/good tankiness role than the high dpm/reduced tankiness one.
    4. Whatever literature refers to the Graf Spee as a “pocket battleship” without the context that this was a term coined by the British propaganda and has little to no value in classifying the capabilities of the ship is not worth using for any such debate. It’s about as much use to bring to a debate on battlecruisers as the Star Wars movies is to bring to a scientific conference on Space Exploration. You can make good-natured memes with it, but nothing serious.

    • @mrpickles15 It’s something that only becomes a problem because of the way WG sets it up with the skill rework. Not because it is currently a problem balance-wise. And I fully expect that some ships might just go the way of the Atlanta, which will just get the third global nerf affecting it more than most other ships in the game.

      Also, given Siegfried’s secondaries are cool, but not gamechangingly powerful, it’d be better to consider 6 15 inch guns on cruiser accuracy its main gimmick.

    • @Evangeline Atlanta is sort of the perfect “other end of the spectrum” from Siegfried. Where the DD skills it required to function are being taken away. Even after the massive nerf from the IFHE rework. Currently, whether I’m just playing it wrong or whatever, about 1/3-1/4 of my overall damage in Siegfried comes via the secondaries and most of my damage against DDs are from secondaries due to almost always having AP loaded. So taking away the option to build for them really hurts. It’s true we don’t know exactly what the rework will look like but as of now we’re looking at only the most traditional heavy cruisers and trop focused cruisers being viable in the future. Honestly I’m ok with the changes being made to DDs except where the Hybrid builds aren’t given much room to breathe. And for standard BBs the changes seem to not have any real effect. But secondaries across the board are getting nerfed which removes a fun play style from the meta. WG seems to be going the Gaijin route of Monkey’s Paw wish fulfillment. “you want HE spammers with tiny guns out? Ok we’re also taking away your secondaries.”

    • This gave me brain cancer. Go type up your essays on the forums

    • @21_Gun_N’_Done huh? He just made a perfectly good and reazonable comment? Not his problem if your brain is uncapable to process it..

    • In the end of it all, what I’d think its going to eventually boil down to, if Battlecruisers are going to come to the game at all, is what WG wants to define as “Battlecruiser”

  8. Can’t see the point in creating new lines just to give a ship a new title.

  9. Ken Elissy Orcejola

    10:33 well lex was a supposed to be a battlecruiser but usn be like: nope she’ll be a cv

  10. Had games 3 Smolensk vs 3 Stalindgrad. Unless Stalingrad player made a mistake when he was focused by 2 Smolensk it was not a fair MM.

  11. Actual Ship Classes in game: Carriers, Battleships, Heavy Cruisers/Battle Cruisers, Light Cruisers/Destroyer Leaders, Destroyer (Torp Boats,) Destroyer (Gun Boats), Hybrid Ships

  12. I would love to see an HMS Tiger or an SMS Derfflinger

  13. That would mean they have to replace Gneisenau with a proper bb.

  14. The fast battleship superseeded the battlecruiser concept after WWI, because the new technologies granted to reach the high speeds of battlecruisers without sacrificing protection or firepower.
    Fast battleship = dreadnought battleship + battlecruiser
    This is why a BC branch is flawed, at higher tiers they would be virtually identical to battleships. Or artificially undergunned/unarmored battleships.
    Just make another BB line/split, if you want more heavy ships. You can call them battlecruisers (like the difference between CA and CL), but let them being in the BB line.

    For more lines, there are more sensible options than battlecruisers:
    – a light ships line, for corvettes and torpedo ships (not PT boats)
    – a “frigate” line that have different names based on the various nations, like: gunships, destroyer leaders, avisos (france), scout cruisers…
    This line would be excellent to have for the pan-european, pan-asian, and pan-american tech trees because there are tons of ships from those nations that are difficult to classify as DD or cruisers, and could be introduced to give them some breath instead.

  15. “if submarines can be done right” *looks at CVs* yeah that’s not happening

  16. You could probably easily classify “battle cruisers” as “cruiser” in game but just make sure that MM divides them equally on each team.

  17. WG needs to add the N3/G3
    My inner british wants those ships soooo bad

  18. How is Alaska a Battlecruiser? No torp belt, single rudder, it’s literally just an overgrown Baltimore, but it sure is pretty =)

  19. Mech Franka T. Lieu

    Battle Cruiser is not needed right now , what’s needed is splitting the Cruiser line for real into CA, CL, and CB proper … that class of ship is the one really messed all up. And for Battle Cruiser, go check real history … by the time of late 1930’s there’s really no distinction between Battle Cruiser vs Fast Battle ship , real Battle Cruiser exist for only a very short period and doing a very specific thing and was overtaken by technology ( Fast BB , CV, Subs and others )

  20. It’d be hilarious to have them to add in the British “I” class battlecruisers (Invincible, Indefatigable, etc) with their paper-thin army but nice loadout of big (for their time) guns.
    That said, I’d really like to see Repulse/Renown added as well.

Leave a Reply

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