World of Warships – Russian Battleship PTS Preview

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2,989 votes, average: 4.90 out of 5)

Close Ad ×

All music licensed from and


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


  1. Time for russian Stalinium to make its case in wows.

  2. Hopefully the secondaries won’t bypass the Germans’ or I will feel slightly ripped off having gone down the German BB line with full secondaries.

  3. Big lumbering indestructible superbias blyatmobiles

    • russian bias confirmed the sky is falling run like hell

    • Not at all. They all have easy to pen citadels and the massive turning circle will make them very easy to paddle in turns and if one over extends and tries to go back.

    • Also, dont forget the special radar, which makes them very likely to get overconfident when using it and the get torped by a destroyer or cruiser lurking around the corner of the island

    • Stronk ships

    • +Wessel van Daele That right there. How many will tunnel vision in radar mode and not only miss a gearing or des moines hiding around the corner but also a Kronstadt or eventual Alaska or Izuma…….

  4. Wow the land of make believe ?

    • Don’t we call these games World of were just making this shit up as we go along?

    • world of tanks has leaked into wows

    • This is why I play War Thunder more often than any WG title now….. every vehicle (with two necicarry exceptions) was real. Some were only 1 driving prototype, but they were at least real. That, combined with the teams being made up of nations versus other nations, means that it is actually quite realistic.

    • It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood…

  5. Stronk stalinium battlewagons make everyone else look like heavy cruisers…….

  6. The JU-87 in the Strike Aircraft is a C model, which was a version designed to be operated from carriers.

    • +Owen Stockwood ah ok i thought it was just for british carriers

    • +_Sero_ The Ju 87C is apparently part of the “Non-British Strike Aircraft” collection, along with the B5N Kate, the SBD Dauntless and the TBF Avenger.

    • Seems to be the “and friends!” Tab

    • El Bee, to be fair the Fleet Air Arm did use the Dauntless and Avenger, though as far as I’ve been able to tell, only off of borrowed US escort carriers. They simply kept the carrier’s aircraft and changed their insignia to match the British insignia.

    • KermitTheGamer
      FAA No.832 Squadron, HMS Victorious, began flying Avengers on 1 January 1943 while their ship was undergoing a refit in the US.

  7. I like that you have citadels on these ships.

  8. Their Destroyers are actually Cruisers, their Cruisers are actually Battleships and now their Battleships are actually Star Destroyers.

  9. Euh Jingles….. The Henri IV with IFHE isnt the only tier X cruiser who can penetrate 50mm of armor with its HE.

    The Hindenburg with its 203mm and 1/4 german HE pen can penetrate 50mm.

    And the Stalingrad with its 305mm and regular 1/6 HE pen can penetrate 50mm.

    Now if you excuse me, I am gonna run away as fast as my legs will carry me before Jingles gets his rifle out.

    • Ships that get 1/4 penetration for HE, instead of 1/6, cannot take advantage of the IFHE skill any more (but the Nelson still gets to citadel many cruisers with its HE round, so I refuse to sulk [and it was GLORIOUS! While it lasted). I am pretty sure that another part of that rebalance may have tweaked exact answers of how 4 and 6 divide into bore sizes, so each ship has to be checked individually.

      Jingles will not use a rifle, although the KV-2 does have a rifled barrel. As Jingles is a pious individual within the confines of Wargaming’s “World of . . .”, Saint Klimenty Voroshilov (apologies if mis-spelled) will reach down from Heaven and nudge the shells fired by his namesake to their intended targets for for Jingles, as he does for all pious players attempting to strike the wicked.

    • Knodsil all of the German 203mm Cruisers should be able to penetrate 50mm, unless I missed a change in game mechanics.

    • +Tristan Greenwood Ah so it’s basically like Australia’s gun laws then fair enough and considering Jingles is an ex service member he’ll probably have an easier time anyways.

    • graf spee

    • Yeah Jingles made quite a few blunders this time around lol

      German CA from tier 7 to 10 can pen 50+ mm. They’re the big counter to Moskva and stuff.

  10. So 30 sec turret rotation, they must have a gulag under each of them

  11. Isn’t the Russian navy just a glorious fleet of cold war era blueprints at this point

    • +BoFoenss
      Armor has two important traits that are in conflict with each other. Armor must be hard to prevent penetration and armor it must be soft to limit the energy of any penetrators that overmatch the armor.

      Armor must be hard to shatter incoming projectiles. Armor that is hard, all of the way through, will be shattered by any impact by an object harder than the armor. Armor that shatters offers next to no resistance to penetration and much of the energy lost by the penetrator is carried by shards of armor that will follow the penetrator on its inward journey. Armor that is tough will slow down the penetrator, because of the energy needed to displace the armor away from the penetrator’s path. This is why the uranium wire mesh embedded in composite armor is as effective as it is at reducing the severity of a penetration, while it does nothing to prevent penetration. Tough armor is soft.

      All steel armor plates in warships were heat treated to have as hard a face* as possible, with the hardness decreasing with increasing distance from the face to a very soft backing. Mounting face hardened armor inside out offered less protection than rolled homogenous armor, often referred to as RHA (same hardness from back to front) of the same thickness, because when the penetrator got the the hardened region, shattering it would not offer a full hemisphere of open space for fragments to bounce to and there was nothing backing the hard armor to help prevent its being shattered by the impact, too, with the shards driven inwards by conservation of linear momentum. Inside out face hardened armor basically ensures that all armor piercing shells striking the armor are capped armor piercing shells and provides even more normalization effects to armor piercing shells that are already capped.

      Krupp armor was produced by partially submerging plates of RHA into beds of powdered charcoal in controlled atmosphere furnaces (to keep the powdered charcoal from burning), at a controlled temperature, for weeks(?) to allow carbon from the charcoal to migrate to the desired depth into the steel to create the desired hardness profile, while the RHA not in contact with the charcoal bed became very soft. After this heat treatment, the edges which were partially hardened and partially softened, if not convenient where they ended up on the ship, were milled off.

      Brittle armor is better than no armor, but it is less effective than Krupp armor mounted inside out.

      * Face hardened armor exhibits odd behavior when struck at very oblique angles, as discovered by the French when the face hardened armor of the turret roofs of the Jean Bart and Richelieu took hits during that port raid, so the RHA turret roof was a thing.

    • +BoFoenss The Sovetsky Soyuz was about equal to Yamato in all respects except having smaller guns, so obviously in-game there needed to be something better for the top tier Soviet ship as a ten year launch date advantage is not enough!

    • It’s a good laugh on wiki, if the fact that so many people died didn’t ruin the fun.

    • +BoFoenss The Iowas were designed to withstand fire from their own guns using the 2350lb shell at 18,000 to 40,000 yards. But by 1943 American BBs actually used the “super” heavy 2750lb shell which shrank the immune zone to 21,500 to 35,000yards. Remember, that 12 1/2in belt was angled at 23 degrees to equal 16in. The Montanas would have gone back to the 13 1/2in belt angled at 5 degrees to equal 16in, because the US Navy considered it a waste of weight to try and protect against the super heavy shells as most hits at long range would be on the decks and not the hull. The hull design of the Montana was also conventional and thus slower then the Iowa, as the Navy did not consider having the fastest BB in the world worth losing sea worthiness.

  12. The tier 7 is pronounced Dave. The turrets are rocket powered.

  13. None Ofyourbusiness

    I had no idea that socialism could get a block of iron to float!

  14. Yes, 50 mm HE penetration on heavy cruisers is available only to the Henri the IV. And the Hindenburg, Roon, Hipper, and just about every German heavy cruiser. And if we want to be technical about it also the Stalingrad, Kronstat, Alaska, and Azuma.

  15. Prediction Russian server will whine the citadel will be lowered and radar will be changed to spot cruisers and DD’s.

    • Only in Jingles imagination. Yes, most do fire spam, but good players generally play 11 to 17k out (a lot depends on what cruisers they are facing) and will vary their ammunition according to the ship type they are facing.

    • +Michael Laing most of them do lol.

    • Lol the entire community will pitch an absolute fit at the thought of a BB getting citadeled

    • As it is the radar is totally fuckin useless; so yes they need proper radar.

    • +Flava Flave Only the bad ones. What holds a lot of Conq players back is they can’t take fire from ships such as Winchesters, De Moines and Minotaurs (god help me if I suddenly find myself facing a Kitakaze or Harugumo), they just wreck Conqs and as soon as the Conq gets in range, they are more often than not focused upon and because of the mythical status of the Conqs HE (Whilst her HE chance is high, the reality is the most fires I have ever got in a game is 12 and that was with over 70+ hits on the enemy, which pales in comparison to a lot of ships Cruisers such as the Demoines).

      Also when I find I go forward, normally I find pretty much every battleship hangs behind me and more often than not I find myself face to face with a wall of death from a Shimakaze.

      I find ships like Yamatos and Musashi players are far more likely to be at the back of the map than Conqs.

      And the reality is I find that most of the time I am at the back of the map, is because I am being chased by a BB’s, 2 cruisers and a focused DD’s because my team, all decide to play follow the leader and lemming train to 1 cap (which often they don’t take because a Shimakaze or Gearing holds them up) whilst the enemy gets the 2 other caps and I and normally 1 or 2 other player
      try to plug the holes (normally dying quite quickly faced by at least half the enemy) and I have to make a fighting retreat (normally this is where the Conq comes into its own, facing off against 2 BB’s and a Cruiser more often than not presents broadside (which if I am very lucky will get a AP, penetration and even luckier a citadel).

      So the reality is Conq’s are not great attacking ships but they do make great defending ships and slowing the enemy down ships.

  16. Well to be fair Jingles unlike the British, Americans, Japanese, Germans and Italians I can’t remember ever hearing of a Russian battleship ever sunk by aircraft maybe wargaming is on to something.

    • +Petra Meyer

      Due to accepting that the Soviets would refuse to fight a two front war, the US and UK insisted that the USSR must declare war on Japan within ninety days after an allied victory in Europe. Victory in Europe was declared in May, so the USSR would declare war on Japan in August. Victory over Japan could only be declared after the articles of peace were signed on board the USS Missouri, after the bombings. so there was a brief window for the Soviets to advance as the Japanese withdrew and gain territory without fighting.

      Truman and Churchill were displeased by the Soviet land grab, but Stalin was fulfilling a treaty obligation, so they had no grounds for complaint. The blame for giving Stalin the opportunity to grab land rests squarely on FDR for not relinquishing the US Presidency, despite his obviously failing health. Basically, FDR’s failing health forced him to keep giving in to Stalin at the Yalta conference. Churchill had the grisly choice of accepting Stalin’s victories or possibly causing FDR’s death, by badgering him into not giving away the store.

      In hindsight, Churchill probably regretted that FDR lived long enough to get to Yalta, but if FDR had died earlier, the unholy mess facing the Truman administration (because no one had thought to bring the Truman into the loop, despite FDR clearly living on borrowed time) from Truman not being cleared to know anything important before FDR’s death would have been ameliorated by Truman being at Yalta.

    • +Arkhaan They weren’t at war with Japan until late 1945. The war was over by the time the Soviet fleet in the far east even had any targets.

    • +Arkhaan The skirmishes happened before the NAP, and were the reason it was signed in the first place.

    • +Wolfe1138 Well you can’t hear one because Russian Navy was almost non-existent during WW2.

    • +Petra Meyer Perhaps their backsides were still sore from that pounding they received during the Russo-Japanese War.

  17. Lol. Russia only had 3 battleships in 1941. Paper ships with Russian bias. WHERES the Italian navy that actually exsisted?

    • And got trashed at Taranto being mostly useless.

    • +Omega Alpha At least they actually existed. Besides, the yamato was also completely useless and did nothing besides get sunk, as did other iconic ships. But they all existed, and the Soviet ships existed only in fantasy.

    • +Providencenl yes and ships like tashkent were made in italy

    • They’re at the bottom of the Mediterranean where they’ve always been.

      ba-dun tsst!

    • +Omega Alpha Not really true. The Italian Navy largely completed such missions as it had successfully. Their main issue past mid-’42 was lack of fuel. Up until the oil ran out their primary mission was convoy escort which they did quite well. Intercepting British convoys was a bit more problematic, but they did try while the oil lasted. However, their doctrine called for long range fire (which they weren’t too good at) and numerical superiority, which they rarely had. Throw in a few timid commanders and lack of air cooperation and you had the Italian Navy in WW2.

  18. I smell Russian bias not unlike in WOT comming soon

  19. Wargaming: I wonder which navy’s battleships we should do next? Maybe the Italians? They had battleships…nah, let’s just make up some stuff for the Soviets.

    • Yeah it’s not like the Italian navy fought against the British navy in WW2 or anything…

    • Italian battleships, British battlecruisers, German battlecruisers, second line of American battleships, second line of Japanese battleships, I could go on…

    • +TheUnknownOne Don’t forget the Italian Auxiliary Pasta support ships. They buff other players with da spicy meatballs and spaghat. They debuff the enemy with rude hand gestures. They restock your clan’s hair gel arsenal.

  20. Don’t worry about “Russian Bias” people, these are just “work on progress”. There will be plenty of time to buff them up to proper Russian standards. ;p

Leave a Reply

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