Naval After Next Update

Game Discussion General Discussion
,
38
Feature Bismarck Yamato
Caliber 380 mm (15-inch) 460 mm (18.1-inch)
Gun Type 38 cm SK C/34 46 cm/45 Type 94
Shell Weight ~800 kg ~1,460 kg
Muzzle Velocity ~820 m/s ~780 m/s
Penetration (at 20 km) ~360–380 mm of armor ~460–500 mm of armor

Sorry, Bismarck doon’t have quivalent pen

Bismarck’s armor was great against 14–15" guns, but it probably wouldn’t hold up to direct hits from Yamato’s massive 18.1" shells.

On the other hand, the Bismarck was more advanced in terms of fire control systems and radar which could give it a bit of a tactical edge. That’s unique Advantage.

39

My guess is Tirpitz is ending up as Reward ship and Bismarck as Tech tree

1 Like
40

that’s at 20 km though, maps as of right now are roughly 12-15 km at best

bismarck’s pen is 20.08" (510 mm) at 10,936 yards (10,000 m) per navweaps, most engagements begin at the 11-8 km bracket. i also said at closer ranges not from way afar

when i said equivalent i did not compare it to the yamato’s 460mm but to the mutsu/amagi’s 410mm (544mm pen at 10 km using the best shell)

and about the armour that is true as highlighted in my post, stating yamato alongside iowa and a few others would be the few capable counters to the bismarck

41
Distance Bismarck (380 mm) Yamato (460 mm)
10 km ~510–540 mm ~650–700 mm
15 km ~440–470 mm ~600–650 mm

Since both ships could penetrate each other at distances between 10 and 15 km, the Yamato would still have the upper hand due to the sheer destructive power of its shells especially if it managed to hit Bismarck’s main turrets with focused salvos aimed at two targets (two turrets) per barrage.

Bismarck doesn’t really stand much of a chance against Yamato. Its only real shot would be to get a two-salvo lead and land solid hits before Yamato starts firing back. But even then, the Japanese ship could still respond effectively as long as its turrets aren’t disabled and could pull off aggressive evasive maneuvers, which it was capable of, to close the gap and go on the offensive against the German ship.

Just a reminder that ships from that era had armor that ranged from about 300 to 450 mm thick.

42

first paragraph fair enough but considering the state of naval it’d be hard to get these shots in to disable all four turrets in two goes. the bismarck has the advantage in fire rate and as we saw with the scharnhorst against almost every opponent it saw it could simply overwhelm the yamato with its fire rate. it’s like putting a mutsu against a mississippi

(for ref bismarck could reach fire rates of up to 3 rounds per minute whereas yamato has a fire rate of 1.5-2)

but because of the sheer popularity of both we’d have to see with 7 bismarcks against 7 yamatos, which would be a fun little experiment

that’s somewhat obvious but it really depended from ship to ship

43

The Iowa will be much less armored, though, and will likely be hit by another classic “we don’t believe historical documents” nerf for the reload rate. Montana should be what comes with it, the Yamato, and the potential H-classes.

44

  1. Firefighting Systems:

    2.Yamato:
    The Yamato was designed with very sophisticated firefighting systems, including automatic sprinklers that covered almost the entire ship. It also had containment areas to limit the spread of fire. Additionally, the Yamato featured fully isolated internal compartments, which allowed fires in one area of the ship to be contained and prevented from quickly spreading to other sections.

Bismarck:
The Bismarck also had well-developed firefighting systems for its time, but they were not as sophisticated as those on the Yamato. While it had internal compartments and pressurized water systems, its fire control capabilities were somewhat more limited compared to the Yamato’s design. During the Battle of the Denmark Strait, after being hit, the Bismarck suffered significant fires, which contributed to its inability to maintain control and its eventual destruction. This showed that its firefighting system was insufficient to contain the damage.

  1. Impact of Fires on Ship Performance:

3.Yamato:
The Yamato was designed to be an almost unbeatable ship, with systems to handle damage and fires. During its only battle, the Battle of Cape Engaño, it was not severely affected by fires, as the ship’s resilience helped prevent a quick collapse.

Bismarck:
In the case of the Bismarck, fire was one of the causes of its loss, alongside the damage from air attacks. The fire on the command deck and the difficulty in controlling the flames made it hard to operate the ship and reduced its combat effectiveness.

Other Factors:
Construction Technology: The Yamato was built with more resources and the technology of the 1940s, whereas the Bismarck was launched earlier (1939), using methods and materials from the 1930s.

Size and Compartments: The Yamato, being larger, had more resources and space for firefighting compartments. This gave it a significant advantage in terms of damage resistance.

Finally, in a confrontation between the two, the Yamato would have enough time to neutralize the Bismarck before the fires became a significant threat, due to its superior firepower and the ability to cause devastating damage in just a few salvos. This would make any effort to overwhelm the Yamato with fires relatively ineffective.

Indeed, the Yamato had the best firefighting systems, with wide hulls designed to contain fires due to the ship’s size, not to mention the large crew that could be mobilized to contain or close off areas of the ship to prevent the fire from spreading.

I don’t see any moment where the Yamato would be “overwhelmed” by fires or its rate of fire. Its design and resources would allow it to handle such challenges far more effectively than most other ships of its time.

45

Not enough to be suggested, theoretically enough to come to game as a completed design but would be pretty OP and would call for similarly egregious ships from other nations.

46

Which are the Yamato, Soyuz, and the H-classes?

47

Probably but I gotta say I do think that would be a silly idea, Germany’s future ships only come in pairs, and its 3 ships for a lineup, 2 respawns plus a backup is a full lineup and helps balance out their inevitable ahistorically OP performance.

48

These ones you list all were laid down. Montana equivs in terms of established additions rules and ranked in best to worse order are things like Lion 16e-38, A-150, Littorio UP.61, Alsace and H-41.

49

The issue with established additions rules means that the US is basically screwed, which has already been the case for at least two years now? I mean it is Gaijin we’re talking about, but still they can’t just leave the US with just the Iowa when the Yamato and Soyuz are added.

50

That would require breaking the treaty on the proliferation of nuclear arms and would lead to a much bigger issue than simply making an air launched torpedo. Though, most battleships also had pretty incredible anti-torpedo defence, so would become much of a carrier-style consideration.

You also assume battleships nowadays would not utilise ABM missiles and general air defence. Which is a mistake as the last 2 Iowa hulls were almost converted to heavy anti-aircraft battleships and as you are well aware the re-activated ones received Harpoon or Tomahawk, I CBA to google which.

1 Like
51

The montana was never started so will never come to the game unfortunately

52

Iowa will have the best penetration or second best iirc. Montana is pretty much take everything good about Yamato, everything good about Iowa, shove another turret on and call it a day.

Also you forget that Iowa’s belt is heavily inclined. But yes on a pure 1 for 1 level Iowa is not the best vessel I must admit. But a TM did a comparison in one of the naval threads and Iowa places quite high still in armour.

If it makes you feel better Soyuz has a literal wall of nerfs coming her way from what you see on Wikipedia and Yamato has a poor layout and fire control.

53

mmmyes entire block of text refuting my claims, yet i have many questions

since your block of text was about firefighting systems, if certain ships have better systems than others, how come the times to put out said fires are always the same (20 seconds without FPE, 15 seconds with) across EVERY boat or ship, from the g-5 to the rodney, only being affected by crew skill? i never mentioned anything about fires lest you interpreted my claim as the bismarck HE spamming the yamato (but that would only occur if it were stock). also, sauce?

the yamato would not always be able to take down a bismarck in every situation, but that would of course depend on the skill of the players using them. sometimes the yamato wins (long range) sometimes the bismarck wins (close range). otherwise we’ll see once they both get added

54

I do not think Richelieu will be better than Littorio if modelled correctly but we will see. From what i can see it seems Littorio might do what Richelieu does but better depending on if the decapping system works or not. However given that if it does not work Sovetsky Soyuz will have some of the worse armour in the battleship tree (armour thickness cannot exceed 9.8" and also cannot be cemented but surface hardened) I suspect Gaijin may want it to work… Iowa in turn does what Littorio does but better.

55

Which is very relative. The Scharnhorst’s 11" have been more than enough during its long reign of dominance.

I’d like to see this, because from what I can tell it’s worse in most aspects than pretty much everything that will be added (outside of maybe the Conning Tower).

It’s just that this sort of thing (the US basically only having firepower, or just penetration) is seen both in ARB and NRB and usually that just results in the US vehicles being subpar. I would much rather they just add something equivalent (or better!) for the US for once.

56

This is closer to when you face an Amagi though in that it lol-pens everything. Only issue is damage as the superheavy’s explosive filler is crap but the SAP pens a lot more than most other purebred AP shells with higher filler.

The slope of the armour is very important as well as what’s behind it. Hood for example is heavily sloped and has some of the best armour current in-game (though Hood is also helped by incredible module layout as all post-Orion British ships are, Iowa and all American battleships do not have this privilege).

This is the trend US ships follow partially due to real life design not being as good in some areas, partially due to the matchups and partially just due to game mechanics. If they add Montana fair enough it fits their completed design rule, but I expect foreign alternatives. Some of which may be better and that’s something we’d have to accept.

57

He’s got this wrong, the Iowa and Wisconsin (I think) only had 287mm of belt armor. The rest of the Iowa class had 307mm.

I’m also worried about the draft line, too…

Technically yes, but they could just put the US in an advantageous position rather than a disadvantageous position. Every addition they seem to make is behind everyone else (usually massively). Although I do capitulate that most minor nations suffer this way and more, but the US should be a big three nation.

1 Like