World of Warships – C R U I S E R

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (619 votes, average: 4.76 out of 5)



  1. xXAngel_With_A_Shotgun Xx

    Figures that every other nations battle cruisers are BBs but russias are cruisers…. here comes the bias again……*sigh*

  2. Can’t wait for its Tier 10 battleship cousin with high velocity 457 mm guns.

    Interesting fact. Project 24 Battleship and Stalingrad would have had the same powerplant.
    But this powerplant that could propel the 36,000 ton Stalingrad over 35 knots, the Project 24 can only make due with 31 knots.
    To get an idea how ridiculously gigantic Project 24 was gonna be.

    • Just_Some_Random_Tryhard_Gamer

      Aye let me further add with Moskva level shell speed. And Montana/Yamato level dispersion thanks to carrying fuckton super fucking heavy USSR 1720kg shells (like seriously wtf), meaning at least 1000mm penetration at point blank and 600mm at max distances.
      *R U S S I A N B I A S*

  3. Wargaming is getting the jump on April Fools… this is a joke right? Right? Someone?

    • Well… Reward ship for top of clan battles
      This needs to be OP

    • Bringing memes back from the dead,, deeply unfortunate.

    • mynameiswritinwater actually her hull was finished and was laid down but in 1953 they canceled her construction because Stalin died . But at least they started building her not like other ships in game ( tier 9 and 10 British battleships and tier 9 and 10 German battleships and tier 9 Japanese battleship and many more

    • +OffRezWolf Why? it’s a large heavy cruiser it has heavy cruiser side armour with 12 inch guns to do the job of killing regular 8 inch gun cruisers.  Once the Alaska and Japanese 12 inch gun large heavy cruisers are put in the game all 3 primary nations will have them that actually planned them.  France and Italy where out of the war by the time these started hitting the drawing boards and the UK treated cruisers as obsolete with light carriers and the big late war destroyers replacing the cruisers purpose.

    • There is no russian bias. Why are people so damn focused on the class designation ingame (cruiser) and seemingly ignore the stats? Who cares if it is placed in the battleship or cruiser category, it has worse concealment and armour than Yamato and has guns with battleship dispersion. It’s just like a larger Scharnhorst.

  4. Of course it has Battleship armor and HP… and will have OP 12inch Guns that I bet will Perform better then 16Inch Guns…

    Just ask Moskva”s 9.5inch Guns that do better then 14 inch Guns

    Edit: AT LEAST She won’t have HE

    • It does not have battleship belt armor.. not even close

    • Brendyn Bartos

      Belt armor dosint really matter unless you go Broad side, but Bow Surn and Deck Armor Dose, A lot,

      If it’s over 150MM then it’s More then enough to bounce every shell in the game,

    • Your also forgetting it has a worst detection and turning radius that the god damn kurfurst and will EAT HE DAMAGE for days, oh also it doesnt have hydro or radar…. so yeah quit your damn bitching.

    • Only if you have 203mm+ guns and can consistently hit the relatively tiny superstructure or the bow consistently. The 50mm center deck makes Stalingrad impervious to almost all cruiser HE.

    • mynameiswritinwater

      yeah wait – because the Scharnhorst with a similar armament is such a weak ship^^, add 25K, HP, supercharge the guns, blow up the AA, give it autobounce and higher speed… what’s the worst that could happen ? Stalin reaching up from the grave ?

  5. Wargaming, your bias is showing again.

  6. Top Kek
    -iChase 2018

  7. Just A Random Person On The Internet

    So what will russian battleships be like?

    • Just A Random Person On The Internet it will have 1000mm armour everywhere with ICBMs and 800mm funs

    • * “4 sec reload” is a little bit too much. I think it will be an autoloader with 20+ Shells and continous reloading.
      you also missed the 35km Radar with “Launch and Forget!-ability and the laser guided weapons…. and did I overread the fog? No! How could you forget the fog?!
      And instead of planes it they will have nuclear submarines just in case

    • I think it will we the new russian DD line….
      For a russian cruiser it looks kind of weak -.-

    • +Just A Random Person On The Internet  With 2 premium BB’s and now these upcoming tier 9 and 10 premium/reward cruisers it’s clear that apart from the Sovetsky Soyuz which will be the Russian tier 8 BB at some point in the future Russia isn’t getting a full Battleship line.  Do you really think if Russia was going to they wouldn’t have been introduced before the French BB line?

    • im sure they will be OP and can fly for a short distance. but NO russian bias, none!!!!

  8. Nanchisan Nanchisan

    You see Ivan If we call it cruiser we can add defensive aa without worrying for balans We can have better armor than some battleship and even bounce Yamato shells No problem or bias here Komrades

    • Drossel Von Flugel

      Nanchisan Nanchisan Grigory if it is cruiser it needs a lot of hp as well, i am thirsty i need some vodka

  9. Sooo … the First Russian Premium T10 in WoWs is totally OP compared to pretty much anything in her Competition …. WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Probably has below water Citadel and Turtleback too lol

    • MatJan86
      Japan and USN had paper cruisers that would have curb stomped Stalingrad except for top speed.
      The question is if Wargaming is willing to put these ships in the game LOL.

      America’s CA2-D cruiser aka Mini Montana

      Japan had an enlarged B-64 Super Type-A cruiser with 9 x 356 mm guns (no paper design is known to exists but the spec requirements are there)

    • Just_Some_Random_Tryhard_Gamer

      tamenga88 I don’t think so.
      Ishikari was intended with 3×3 310mm 50 cal guns, but could be rearmed with 2×3 356 45cal guns, which are the same guns on the Kongou Class Battlecruisers and Fuso Class Dreadnoughts.

    • Just_Some_Random_Tryhard_Gamer

      Russian’s don’t use Turtlebacks – they prefer British All or Nothing armour. But they might have low underwater citadels like the British.

    • MatJan86 nope, because Scharhorst has Superior stealth

    • S**** Schuster well every heavy cruiser can angle abgainst your shells and just HE spam you to death, I dont see her OP- ness

  10. T10 cruiser Alaska confirmed?

    • Stalingrad is a new hull design, Alaska is not, there is some things that cannot be changed for the sake of balance. This isn’t an issue with historical accuracy, but rather consistency with existing ships with the same hull designs and Alaska shares that same hull design with the Baltimore.

      Alaska is hardly an equal to Stalingrad let alone better. Stalingrad is larger, faster, and has far better gun performances than the Alaska, hell even the Kronshtadt has the Alaska beat on its gun performances and other stats.

    • Ok, then Monarch is based on KGV design, yet gets 32 mm bow armor instead of 25 mm simply because it’s T8 , why? Same for Ashikata? T7 premium IJN BB based on Amagi hull that also gets 25 bow for T7. So your argument regarding same hull design is not valid, at least not universally followed by WG. As for gun performance, I am no expert, but remember reading that the 12” guns of the Alaska class is a new design in the late 30’s that had similar or even better penetration characteristics than 14” guns on old US BBs. Granted that the design philosophy of the US is different than Russia, with less muzzle velocity and heavier shells. Look at US 16” AP shells on NC, Iowa, Monty, or 8” AP shells on Baltimore and Des Moises. I feel US 12” super heavy AP shells will be at least a match for anything the Russian designs could come up with, at least in terms of penetration and alpha.

    • T7 and T8 are the threshold that became a hard separator of how WG handles bow armor thickness for battleships. It has nothing to do with bow armor thickness for high tier cruisers. If Alaska is gonna share the same bow armor thickness as the Baltimore for being the same hull design and class designation as well as being in the same tier range. If Alaska is designated as T7 BB, then it’s most likely going to receive the 25mm bow armor to maintain the tier difference threshold that WG has placed.

      Penetration and alpha would be similar to the Stalingrad, but the difference in shell velocity is drastic from 950m/s compared to 762m/s. The high velocity allows the Stalingrad to be able to hit its targets much quicker with less lead time needed.

      Stalingrad receiving 32mm of bow armor would be just like how the Yamato and Musashi gets their 460mm gun overmatch capabilities, in that it will be strictly unique to those ships only and not an indicator of making it more available for other ships. Even the Conqueror’s 457mm lacks the overmatch capabilities because of how WG is very adamant on what ships should get special gimmicks/mechanics. The Kronshtadt gets the 25mm bow armor because it’s a high tier cruiser, Stalingrad is just a very unique ship with certain characteristics limited to that ship, no other tier 10 cruisers gets the 32mm bow armor

      Alaska simply doesn’t have enough to make it a proper tier 10 ship with its given parameters.

    • I understand the logic of your argument, but I disagree with your conclusion. Ok, say Alaska don’t get 32 mm bow. Is that the only qualification that make her unfit for T10 cruiser? Sure her gun performance will be different than Russian laser guns, but Des Moines also have far inferior gun velocity and weaker armor than Moskava, yet no one questions her place at T10. If you compare the main attributes of Alaska and Stalingrad, they’re comparable. Alaska has slower shells, but can make up for it with better horizontal and vertical dispersion and/or sigma, for example. She will also get better belt armor. She is slower, but can be made to be more responsive and turn a bit tighter. She will have advantage at AA and stealth. In fact, if you don’t compare Alaska to Stalingrad, but to other current T10 cruisers, she is superior. Another balancing factor could be she gets radar/ hydro where Stalingrad doesn’t, so more team utility. My point is the basic ship characteristics of the Alaska is similar enough to Stalingrad such that if the latter can be made into T10 cruiser, so can the former.

    • The Des Moines gets monstrous rate of fire that makes up for the slow shell velocities and weaker armor

      Alaska displaces quite a bit less tonnage than the Stalingrad and so it looses quite a bit of health in comparison. So far WG seems intent on giving BB like dispersion on ships like Kronshtadt and Stalingrad, so Alaska won’t be an exception and would have similar dispersion and sigma values. Turning a bit tighter than 1k + turning radius is still really bad.

      If a 229mm belt armor is considered bad for a tier 7 BB, it’s even worse in tier 10 where the guns at those tiers won’t sweat at penetrating 229mm of belt armor and would in fact be a liability in allowing large caliber shells to not overpen and deal great amounts of damage.

      Alaska may boast greater health, firepower, and armor than other tier 10 cruisers, but it still faces issues that the Kronshtadt and even the Stalingrad may have. 12in guns are not as strong as what many people believe, it simply has more raw alpha damage and penetration, but its caliber size is not large enough to overmatch any of the cruisers it faces except for RN CLs. This greatly hinders the damage dealing ability of these ships and even more so for the Alaska.

      You may say that the Alaska and Stalingrad are similar, but all the superior traits of the Stalingrad further puts it ahead of the Alaska, the health pool (this is a big one), 32mm plating, speed, shell velocity.

  11. I want that bote

  12. Why are the Russian ships always so goddamn strong, even though they weren’t even known for their navy during ww2? Basically their whole lines are paper ships

    • Hierachy 1871
      I don’t think Secrecy is an issue.
      To a company like Wargaming it’s the looks that’s important and not much the internal workings and there are plenty of photos out there to accurately reverse engineer a 3D model of an Alaska.
      Plus her internal armor defense layout are open to the public.

    • highly unlikely a 70 year old design would still be classified, and its blueprints should be public domain by now.

    • Because this is a Russian developer game …same goes to War Thunder (Ganjin) as well

    • +Dam d00d Both the Kronshtadt started construction before the German invasion and Stalingrad started construction before Stalin’s death both are no more paper ships than the Montana class and are more real than the tier 10 Japanese and tier 9 and 10 German, Russian, French and UK line cruisers.

    • MotorsportsMania21

      Ushio01 I think you’re missing the point. Nobody has inherent issues with paper ships. The problem is that WG is pulling obscure designs out of the wood work, many of which didn’t even get passed “is this design practical?” before being shelved for various reasons. The Khaba is particulary guilty of this as the ship as it is in game is physically impossible to realize and still have something that practically functions as the destroyer leader it was meant to be.

      Also, why is this classified as a cruiser? All other battlecruisers are classified as battleships in game. Why is this the exception? Don’t tell me it’s because of gun caliber, the Scarnhorst has 11 inch guns and is classified as a battleship. There is absolutely no reason why this shouldn’t be classified as a battleship.

  13. I’m so glad WG are making a really powerful ship for the top players, we need some love

    • A Normal VidEditor

      Sam Mills We don’t need anymore… The Flint, Salem, Black, etc.

    • You dont need to be a good player to get the ranked ships, you just need to commit time… any potato can blunder their way to rank 1 if they play enough games

    • A Normal VidEditor

      Sam Mills That wasn’t the point I was trying to make. I’m not talking about getting to rank 1. Yes any potato that lucks his way through ranked can get to rank. And yes, the ships are nice rewards for getting to rank 1. The point is, it drives players away from the game when they encounter one of these reward ships and have no real counter to them other than hoping their team is competent enough to prioritze the reward ships as a huge threat.

  14. Bring more BBs into CW free card


  16. Y O U C R U I S E D I N T H E W R O N G N E I G H B O R H O O D

    • Jimmy Seaver now bow tank to the mother fucking mountain top ? Heard shimakaze drop Smoke and dodge , if I ain’t a Yamato I bounce and get fucked ….

  17. And I would take this over any other T10 cruiser, why? No HE, poor rate of fire, no radar, manoevers like a battleship?
    I’ll take a Moskva, Dm or Hinden over this any day of the week. I really do think it is just people crying wolf just by seeing the stats.
    See what happens when we actually see some gameplay of her before making any conclusions.
    (It’s in Supertest for crying out loud)

    • Darnath Lysander yeah, but it has 84k hp, and large caliber guns with quick reload. She pretty much will burn you faster than you can. And with 305mm ap she will be wrecking other cruiser and even battleships. It would be all nice if it would be a BB. But cruiser? Tbh with this kind of characteristics (manouveribility, guns, range, amor profile) she should be automatically considered a BB

    • 20 seconds is a quick reload? Also, did you not notice that it apparently has no HE?
      All I see from this ship is a massive exp pinata for DD’s, Cruisers and BB’s. I would like to see the armour scheme though, because if it is anything like the Khronstadt, not only will the turrets have toss for armour (allowing them to be knocked out by BB AP with ease) but the citadel will be the size of Jupiter, very similar to the T9 variant of this ship.

      Now, that does not mean to say I don’t think it isn’t strong because it is. However, I do not believe it is gamebreakingly strong like the other comments would want you to believe.

    • Even if she gets the same HE as the Kronshtadt, DM, Moskwa, Hindenburg, even Zao I think, will just outdpm her and angle against her AP because 305mm can’t overmatch them. If she doesn’t get HE, she will be finde in my opinion.
      Moskwa and bowtanking, she has 25mm bow, she is even less capable of doing this than the DM (27mm bow), 25mm is overmatched by all guns with a caliber of 357.5mm or higher, while 27mm is overmatched by 386.1mm or higher, so Moskwa fears every battleship she (normally) faces and the DM just 2/3 of them. Bowtanking is NOT Moskwa strenght, her strenght is to bounce their shells of her angled belt armor.

    • Darnath Lysander finally, somebody who doesnt go crazy because she has bigger guns than Moskva, which is a small if any improvemant against X heavy cruiser and BBs, they are giving shit about 305mm railguns if angled.

    • Darnath Lysander tbh every BB is a massive pinata for dds with that logic. Doesn’t mean it is wrong logic, because it isn’t. I too think this is not gamebrakeing ship, but surely it gives us a little teaser of what we should expect from soviet bbs, and THAT will be gamebrakeing at this rate. I mean, wg trying hard to make it something it isn’t. It opens the doors for further ridicoulness and with this logic Amagi and Kongo (i heavily suspect scharnchorst too) should be in cruisers line, since those were battlecruisers too

  18. Gareth Fairclough

    If that’s a cruiser, then I’m Frank Sinatra and you, Chase, are Chase Masterson.

  19. Just to clarify, this is a Clan Wars reward tank for people to manage to acquire 3 Stalingrad flags, you need a bunch of wins at the Typhoon league level in order to acquire the flag

  20. If this thing gets released on NA servers, I’m guessing more Russian diplomats are going to get expelled.

Leave a Reply

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