World of Warships - Destroyer Hayashimo 

Also see Large cruiser and panzerschiff for more information.

Also see: TOG II

And the STI or ST1 >.

@@ngzipenglloyd2021 he already mentioned slow heavy cruisers

POI

POI

I had to watch that a couple times when I first saw it XD

Only one of the turrets was even close for hitting the budyonny so maybe that's what he meant

Although ... only one round of one turret of the three that fired hit and got a citadel. So in Jingles math, he is correct?

Classic Jingles.

He meant just one gun turret with the proper lead to even consider hitting the ship

Damn, beat me to it!

Actually, when I'm remembering my experience as an Hatsuharu, I feel like a won a surprising amount of gunfights. I don't know if it's just dumb luck or it's because the ennemy destroyers were not expecting an Hatsuharu agressively charge them while firing her guns.

mattguellec both are likely

you forgot - paddling of epic proportion

@@fpensel XD That's right! I'm including it now. Where was my mind. XD

Suprising paddling delivered to rear quarter

@@fubar9629 Aka: Surprise butsex XD

@@MrStarTraveler indeed

Saw ichase playing that one, looked incredibly boring. You build the ship and then the game plays for you.......

Jingles should wait on that one until the Campaign mode is playable.

@@Ctuchik If you are playing the game straight, then yes, that's how it is right now. it's still in Alpha-testing, and they are working out a lot of mechanics. There is more coming. If you are playing to be totally silly, then you can get.... this. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LwZAV0I5zXY.html

@@TheMouseMasterYT I mean, a 40 knot battleship with nothing but 57 and 128mm guns is fun

@@DrRussian or the Dreadnought, with maximum length, and nothing but lined edges with torpedo lanuchers

Best comment here.

is = was almost :-)

Four "Borodino"-class battlecruisers were laid in 1912: "Borodino", "Izmail", "Kinburn" and "Navarin". Construction was halted in 1917 - the main reason was the collapse of Russian industry and the state itself. In 1918-1922 new goverment planned to finish BC construction (with original 14" guns or even with 16" guns), but due to poor state of industry all these plans were left on paper. In addition, some parts for cruisers were originally ordered abroad (even in Germany - on the eve of WWI !), and it was impossible to get it. In 1923 three BC hulls were sold to a German company for scrap. Fourth half-built BC ("Izmail") was left in Petrograd - RKKF planned to complete it as aircraft carrier. But the project was considered too expensive, and after several years of budget wars "Izmail" hull was scrapped in USSR (in 1931).

@@alexeyrodiontsev4978 a ship that's never built, launched, completed and sailing is not an irl battlecruiser.

Yeah, and you know it from... I guess you know it from mass media, folk history, anticommie propaganda and other 'objective' historical sources, lol.

@@asylalim you mean official soviet documentation of his orders to commit literal mass murder?

@@schiefer1103 do you blindly believe official soviet/us/chinese/someone else's propaganda? Bad for you.

@@asylalim umm no. I read it/ watch it and use it to form my own opinion. And I am not referring to propaganda, but to beurocratic documents. Those tend to be somewhat realistic and unbiased.

@@schiefer1103 a lot of the bureaucratic documents were corrupted and forged in 50's - thanks to Khrushchev and his coup (by that he was trying to legalize his government in the eyes of soviet people). It's a lot of work for historians and archivists to separate fake and true docs now. And it's not an easy work because Russia is capitalist's country now and government's anticommunist agenda is not interested in this kind of research. Though, some fake docs are already found - pre-war docs, Gulag documents and others. To be clear, I don't doubt the existence of repressions in Stalinist USSR - they obviously existed, due to radical changes of the way the society lives. But the scale of these repressions is highly exaggerated - actually they are a bit lower than repressions in modern US and Russia.

It's Russian. Each barrel fires 3 shells.

this assumes politics and logic go hand in hand. It also assumes identity politics follows any logic. I would offer examples of this being blatantly wrong in current years clusterfuck, but I'll leave it up to you to turn on the news any given day. I am sure media would be happy to funnel countless examples of this not being the case for ya.

I believe, that if there is something that is truly wrong, be it mass insanity, or any kind of actions that strip people of their rights, or put them in danger of death, you should be able to criticize that person no matter their race, culture or identity. It’s not racist, and it’s not wrong to do so, I have and will continue to condemn people who continue these actions, even though my own voice and opinion carries little weight I believe it to be at least something I can do.

POI

Wait a fucking second, dear sir, did you just confuse "mass insanity" cliche with "insane individual" ploy Jingles was trying to pull off there? Ouch, that's a paddling.

Racism is a red herring. It doesnt exist, only in-group preference exists. Preferring your own tribe to an outside tribe is not racist. Especially in your own tribes homeland.

There needs to be a "TRIPLE STRUCK" to add to the already rare "DOUBLE STRIKE".

BPK Phoenix I have a friend who got a so called triple strike. Though not all 3 in 10 seconds. More like 3 kills in 20 seconds.

It would only count the first two ships. After they would be voided out. Had he got a 4th kill within 10 seconds of the 3rd ship then that would be a second double strike

T Iannone I know but still it was very impressive.

Also probably the ship in the line that got closest to actually being built

@@Arthion except Gangut

@@Arthion yeah that too

Wasnt four ships of the Sojus still in built when german invades and they scraped them for metal?

@@karlchenkarolinger5799 Gangut class were bulit before Izmail & the tech tree version of Gangut is the WW1 version & the premium ship October Revolution is the WW2 version

I just got home and a lot of times he uploads, its when I want to sleep.... but fuck it, sleep is for the weak if Jingles is up!

You can sleep when you're dead. Watching Jingles is far more important! Man Up!!! (BTW, just kidding. He does the same shit to me all the time.)

I understood that reference! :D

"What do you mean we should close the anti-flash doors? Our rate of fire will go down if we do that!"

Yeah his comments are pretty fun in game. I love when my jingles captains start the game with « Good luck everyone, try not to suck » when someone else push the GL keyboard function , it makes me laugh 😂 Jingles commander voice acting is definitely the best of all in wows

And all of them were friendly!

@@Kilen_BE even though his voice doesn't sound at all like him? Lul

The Don yeah, jingles was a bit stressed when he recorded them I guess 😂

@@thedon9670 I think he has his more serious navy rear admiral voice in the voicelines, instead of the more familiar "rear admiral" voice we hear in the commentaries.

Still get that in the higher teirs not just the lower ships

you don't have to outrun the lion, you just have to outrun your mates

@@chipzz86 very true

One of the most annoying stupid crap people get away with in my opinion is a strategic choice of "all to the same side" in standard battle. Somehow people manage do this collectively (pretty much the only thing they can), but they don't often realize it's a bad strategy because the enemy team is doing it as well, and in the end the win chance is 50/50.

@@wombat4191 Also the guy telling everyone to go A/B and A/C etc. at the start of the match. I started looking up those people's stats a while ago and found that almost all of them are below average and most of them are bad.

*cries in forgotten Hood*

There are only two kinds of ships: submarines and *targets*. 😈

Ooh, that would be great fun! (Former real-world ship driver here)

I would buy one shirt in each color made.

Historically battlecruisers were battleships with the firepower and armor decreased and speed increased. That's why the Alaskas are not battlecruisers. They more filled a size gap between the battlecruiser and the heavy cruiser, which had occurred primarily during WWI and the Washington Naval Treaty. The Scharnhorsts really shouldn't be considered that either due to their massive amounts of armor. And by your own definition, the Iowas would be considered battlecruisers. Which is probably something where the case can be made for better than the Alaskas.

@@noname117spore No, no, and...no. Like I said, the defining feature of a battlecruiser, above all else, is its mission: hunt/kill cruisers while evading battleships. Taking a battleship design and trading some armor and/or firepower for speed is only one way to design a ship for that mission, but it is absolutely not the only way. Likewise, lack of armor, while common in battlecruisers, is *not* the defining feature of the type or a prerequisite to be considered a battlecruiser. The Alaskas and Scharnhorsts are both battlecruisers because they both fit the "kill cruisers, run from battleships" mission profile. The Alaskas were designed specifically to hunt the Japanese heavy cruisers, and the Scharnhorsts were intended to break through the cruisers and destroyers of convoy escorts, but avoided action against any convoy that a battleship was guarding (even 2v1). The Iowas are definitely not battlecruisers under my definition because they were designed to fight contemporary battleships, and were entirely capable of doing so (while their armor is a little light compared to other battleships, they were still a reasonable match for a Yamato, and more than a match for anything else).

@@Wolfeson28 Looking at Wikipedia, the battlecruiser had 4 roles: Heavy Recon: Basically pushing through cruisers to observe battleships Battleline support: Stop cruisers from harassing battleships, and harass and maybe outmaneuver battleships themselves Pursuit: chasing retreating enemy fleets and slowing down ships. Commerce Protection: protect convoys and hunt down raiders. So on the surface they are designed to counter cruisers, but to a lesser extent they should be able to support battleships with attacking other battleships. By this argument the Alaskas are unsatisfactory as battlecruisers. The Scharnhorsts are more interesting, since they have really heavy armor but small guns (which seems to have been a thing done to not piss other nations off and due to a lack of 15" gun production; they were intended for 6 15" guns). The argument with the Scharnhorsts and the Dunkerques is that they're proper battleships. I definitely don't think you could make the case for the Dunkerques, since they were too slow. They couldn't hunt down cruisers effectively. Scharnhorst might also be slightly too slow to chase cruisers. From my understanding, they were built more as commerce raiders, which makes trying to classify them harder. Designed not to hunt down cruisers, but to keep them away. Now, I do feel like the design of the Alaska had kind of arisen from the same requirements of the battlecruiser; to counter the largest cruisers of that time. The main difference was that the largest cruisers of the battleship's time were like smaller battleships while the largest cruisers of the Alaska's time were much smaller than battleships, which made the battlecruiser a contemporary to the battleship while the Alaskas were more an in-between step between the heavy cruiser and the battleship.

@@noname117spore Well, looking at those roles, the common thread is still the idea I've discussed: that the fundamental role of battlecruisers is to kill cruisers. Three of the four roles you list specifically mention fighting enemy cruisers, and the only mention of engaging battleships specifically says that would only happen if those battleships were already occupied fighting friendly battleships. Secondly, those were just the theoretical concepts behind the first battlecruisers, and don't really reflect what the ships of that type actually *did* over the roughly four-decade span of time they existed. The heavy recon, battleline support, and pursuit roles only applied to large fleet actions which were completely implausible after the naval treaties, and the latter two never came into play even in the one large fleet engagement that battlecruisers did participate in. And the final role, commerce protection, never happened at all, except very indirectly in cases like the Battle of the Falklands, where the two battlecruisers were present simply because of their ability to kill cruisers. Killing cruisers is still the common thread of those tactical concepts, and that common thread is what carries forward with the battlecruiser long after those specific tactical concepts had become outmoded. You're right that the Scharnhorsts were intended to eventually receive 15-inch guns, and had they actually gotten those guns, they would have gained the capability to fight battleships and that (in my eyes) would have changed their designation to that of true battleships. However, they never got those guns, and the 11-inch guns they carried never really gave them the ability to fight enemy battleships. This can be seen both with the action on Feb. 8, 1941 (where the two Scharnhorsts together broke off from attacking a convoy guarded by HMS Ramillies), and of course with the Battle of North Cape (where Scharnhorst was thoroughly outmatched and sunk by HMS Duke of York). So, since the Scharnhorsts as they were actually built and fought were not capable of fighting a battleship, I consider then to still fall within my "kill cruisers, run from battleships" definition for a battlecruiser. As for speed, I didn't say a battlecruiser needed to be faster than contemporary cruisers (in fact, most weren't); they just need to have speeds roughly comparable to cruisers and faster than contemporary battleships, which the Scharnhorsts definitely did. The Dunkerques were certainly on the slower end of the battlecruiser spectrum, but remember that the typical battleship speed at the time was 21-23 knots compared to their 29.5. The fact that their design was intended specifically to counter the Italian Trento-class and the German Deutchland-class cruisers clearly puts them in the "kill cruisers" category. While some up-armoring gave them marginal capabilities against the old Italian 12-inch-gunned battleships, the Dunkerques were never remotely capable of fighting any battleship that could have been considered modern at the time of their construction. As for the Alaskas, what you're saying is the reason why I think a mission profile like "kill cruisers, run from battleships" describes battlecruisers far better than trying to figure out exact design lineages. You're right that something like an Invincible was far more of a scaled-down battleship than the Alaskas were, but ultimately the capabilities of the two ships (relative to their time periods) were essentially the same. They were both intended to destroy the "standard" cruisers of their era, whether early 1900s armored cruisers or 1930s heavy cruisers, which they could easily do. However, even if you think of Invincible as a scaled down battleship, it was still no more capable of fighting Dreadnought 1v1 than Alaska would have been capable of fighting Iowa or Yamato 1v1. So, since the two ships had effectively the same capabilities for their time periods, I think it's appropriate to give them the same classification.

Then the USS Arizona was a bc?

@@ScottKenny1978 ANYTHING

They must've borrowed it from the French.

@@elgar7252 they dont need smoke, they dont waste the time running away, they just surrender to save the energy

But it was! Honest! It even had a Cruiser hull designation!

@@Mr-Trox what "cruiser" has 12" guns?

@@ScottKenny1978 A large one!