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.
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
The montana was never started so will never come to the game unfortunately
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
As far as I know they are all 307mm.
Draft, barbette shell storage and the sheer chaos behind the belt when it gets penetrated. Do not fill me with confidence I must agree. Also the horrendous dispersion stat from irl firings.
I think a NoCal about now would be very balanced and top of the line. If not then a SoDak. But no need to go further than that right now.
Naval is different both historically and in-game. The US specialised in destroyers and cruisers. But in terms of battleships they were in many ways both far away from and at the forefront of naval design. This is the European/Japanese area of expertise. The comparison is most similar to modern aircraft carriers, you spend so much on them that almost all of the designs have their own innovative methods of being effective and some simply turn out superior even if we wouldn’t expect them to be.
The Big 3 of Naval does include the US but its not as clear cut and more is to do with how much they built than what they built being particularly incredible. US designs have some pretty big flaws and some pretty big wins.
1 Like
You’re absolutely right to point out the Bismarck’s rate-of-fire advantage, but there are several nuances that make this comparison more complex than it seems at first glance.
While the Bismarck could indeed fire faster, that doesn’t automatically mean it would overwhelm the Yamato especially in a head-to-head confrontation between these two naval giants.
First, the firepower of Yamato’s main guns can’t be ignored. Even with a slower rate of fire (around 1.5 to 2 rounds per minute), its 460 mm shells had far greater penetration and destructive capability compared to Bismarck’s 380 mm shells. A single well-placed hit from the Yamato could severely damage or outright disable critical systems on the Bismarck, such as its main gun turrets something the Bismarck would have a much harder time doing in return.
At long range, the Yamato also had superior reach and accuracy. The Bismarck, despite having an impressive 3 rounds per minute, didn’t have the same ability to hit accurately at extreme ranges or inflict comparable damage. Yamato’s guns had longer reach and packed far more destructive potential.
Also, the idea that Bismarck could “overwhelm” Yamato through sheer volume of fire overlooks just how resilient Yamato was. It was built to withstand much heavier hits than what the Bismarck could deliver. So even if the Bismarck managed more shots, those shells would likely do less damage per hit compared to the few but brutal blows from Yamato.
And finally, comparing Bismarck vs. Yamato to cases like Mutsu vs. Mississippi isn’t really fair the ships involved have completely different levels of armor, firepower, and design philosophy. Yamato wasn’t just a ship with bigger guns it was a ship built to take punishment and still remain a serious threat.
In short, while Bismarck’s higher rate of fire could be a tactical advantage in other scenarios, against a ship like Yamato, that edge would be mostly neutralized by Yamato’s sheer firepower, range, and armor. Even with fewer shots, Yamato would likely control the pace and outcome of the battle.
Look, here’s the thing I wanted to point out:
Even if the Bismarck manages to land a few solid hits that technically cause damage maybe even force part of Yamato’s crew to split up or deal with fires it still wouldn’t stand a real chance in a prolonged fight against the Yamato.
The Yamato could literally be on fire in one, two, or even three compartments and still be fully operational. It was just that massive and well designed.
Now, talking about War Thunder specifically, we all know Gaijin loves “balance,” but let’s be honest: that forced balance often turns amazing vehicles, jets, ships, and AA systems into underperformers or completely strips them of the role they were originally built for.
We’ve seen this happen repeatedly, especially with jets and tanks from the two main nations. So let’s not kid ourselves the Yamato will get nerfed just so it can have a “fair” fight with the Bismarck. That’s just how the game works, like it or not.
And no disrespect, but when people try to argue that Bismarck’s faster reload, older 1930s-era armor, and overall design are enough to go toe-to-toe with the Yamato which had all the latest 1940s tech and was literally built to dominate the Pacific. I just can’t let that slide without saying something.
of course the yamato has the advantage in terms of volume of fire, firepower etc etc as you said and its salvoes can end any ship should they be well-aimed. and also i just wanted to lay the mutsu vs mississippi comparison down as a baseline for the bismarck v. yamato comparison despite all their differences
gg well-played, it’s 11:25 pm as i’m writing this and i gotta sleep, that quite an interesting back-and-forth however
1 Like
@light165neptune I swear this is an AI response, the ‘you’re absolutely right to point out’ part is literally something Google Gemini spits out at me every time I notice an inaccuracy in a response.
I don’t see it as an issue but I don’t think its as relevant to gameplay if AI generated.
1 Like
yeah tbf it does seem like that to me as well, it’s like a prompt was sent over.
(i also asked for sources and he delivered not)
1 Like
You have a very good point, but I have heard of US and China both pursuing nuclear options for new missiles. And you must also understand that existing warheads can be put in new missiles. It’s happened before with the Nuclear Tomohawk which were rumored to be equipped on Iowa class at some point funny enough
Also, the Iowa’s got both Harpoon and Tomohawk (source: Wikipedia and Ive been on one)
Flaws: only 10 mk23 shells iirc
Wins: mk23 shells
Sorry if I ask ChatGPT to fix some writing mistakes my English still isn’t that good.
He corrected a part I said:
“I said ‘you’re right,’” and he changed it to “you’re absolutely right.”
I think that even if I used it to correct mistakes and it made the text sound more “AI-like,” I wouldn’t have any problems since the facts mentioned are true.
gain, I apologize for using a tool that allows, to some extent, communication in other languages in a correct and clear way.
2 Likes
fair enough, no worries
1 Like
Thats fair enough, don’t apologise.
1 Like