Well, I had hoped I wouldn't need to do this, but good lord this is just too massive of an error to pass up talking about.
First let me say something: This thread is not in regards to the height of Alabama's citadel. WG has stated that its necessary in order to balance its incredible maneuverability and TDS value. Okay, I'm fine with that.
What I'm NOT fine with however, is this.
Oh lordy, what the hell have you done WG?
Firstly, I understand that WG is incapable of modeling armor faces of tapering thickness. That's okay, calculating the exact thickness at any given point on a tapering plate would be ridiculous. WG normally solves this with "bands" of thickness averaged from the section of plate they sample along its face. Usually this works semi-acceptably for things like barbettes that decrease in thickness beneath protective decks or behind belt armor. Bayern is a good showcase of this working properly. The varying armor "bands" are clear to see.
Where this system begins to become a problem is with the belts of high tier USN battleships. WG has also now under-modeled massive sections of armor on Alabama.
The issue exists because of the tapering thickness on the belts/bulkheads of these ships. On Alabama, the main belt is 12.2" of class A armor plate resting above a lower plate of class B armor plate, which tapers from 12" down to 1.5" or so at the bottom of the side, far below the waterline. The upper belt was 3.2 meters tall, and the 12" section of the lower belt was roughly 1.2 meters tall before tapering to 6", then 4" and finally 1.5". The Iowa class also essentially mimics this armor scheme. Here's a visual aid, with a blue line showing the waterline at around standard displacement.
Now unfortunately, WG has decided on the Alabama, that the upper section of 12" class B plate shouldn't be its own band, and has tossed in the average of the taper in that area below it. Whats this means is that Alabama's armor model essentially "skips" over a huge chunk of the primary belt armor, and instantly transitions from 310mm (12.2") to 184mm (7.2"), just below the waterline.
Since this is bad resolution and blown up horribly from youtube, ENHANCE:
That right there is how WG has the belt armor modeled currently...
WHY DID THEY DO THIS!?
Frankly, this armor model looks unfinished, but this is from right after the NDA was lifted, and no other changes to the ship have been posted as of yet. There are no multiple bands of thickness on the entire belt, just an instant transition from 310mm to 184mm where it should transition to 310mm and begin tapering down in thickness not above or at the waterline, but a nearly 2 meters BELOW it. That section there should look more like this:
THAT'S what the belt armor section on Alabama SHOULD look like.
The overall thickness of the plate is decreased underwater, but the 12.2" section of the belt actually extends below the waterline down to where it should be before tapering. This is a fairly glaring issue and should be fixed as soon as possible, otherwise Alabama is going to make the citadel issues that plagued Warspite look small-time, and be open to citpens through her belt from 8" cruiser guns as far away as 14km. It also makes angling the ship a ridiculously fine line between utter failure and success versus enemy battleships, even more so than the notoriously difficult to handle Iowa. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the issues here, especially when WG has been actively implementing changes to encourage aggressive battleship play as of late.
WG, pls fix.