Phoenix_jz

A Look at South Dakota's Battle Damage in World of Warships

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

44 posts in this topic

Let us not forget, SoDak was the best of all the Treaty Battleships. There is no denying that she and her sisters were incredibly well built. And I doubt any nation could've come close to extremely well balanced design she represented. Many ships after her sacrificed defense for better firepower,(Yamato, her armor scheme was good, her armor... not so much.) or defense for speed (Iowa), or firepower for defense (Bismarck). 

But the SoDak class was literally, the best blend of all these things. Incredibly good guns, put onto a VERY good armor scheme, adequate speed (She counts as a fast battleship by British standards because she hits 27kts.), and good mobility.

Let us not forget that she holds the record for the most planes shot down in the war and is one of America's most highly decorated Warships.

 

In all honesty, I am really looking forward to when she is added to the game. Alabama might not be much to go on since SoDak was unique compared to her sisters.

 

~Hunter


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, excellent write-up!  Really appreciate the effort you put into this!


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wonder how much of a beating the Bismarck took lol.

 

 

That'd be an interesting one... soon many 33% pens, I bet!

 

Don't forget the torpedo he took! :P

 

Actually 6, maybe 7, torpedoes.

 

- 3 Aerial (only the famous one is generally known)

- 3 from Dorsetshire

- 1 claimed from Rodney


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us not forget, SoDak was the best of all the Treaty Battleships. There is no denying that she and her sisters were incredibly well built. And I doubt any nation could've come close to extremely well balanced design she represented. Many ships after her sacrificed defense for better firepower,(Yamato, her armor scheme was good, her armor... not so much.) or defense for speed (Iowa), or firepower for defense (Bismarck). 

But the SoDak class was literally, the best blend of all these things. Incredibly good guns, put onto a VERY good armor scheme, adequate speed (She counts as a fast battleship by British standards because she hits 27kts.), and good mobility.

Let us not forget that she holds the record for the most planes shot down in the war and is one of America's most highly decorated Warships.

 

In all honesty, I am really looking forward to when she is added to the game. Alabama might not be much to go on since SoDak was unique compared to her sisters.

 

~Hunter

 

I wouldn't get too excited - I'm quite sure WG is just going to plop in the South Dakota as a literal copy of the Alabama minus the TDS and maybe some better AA.

 

Don't expect it to be very different.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Actually 6, maybe 7, torpedoes.

 

- 3 Aerial (only the famous one is generally known)

- 3 from Dorsetshire

- 1 claimed from Rodney

I was thinking about the Rodney's. :P


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I am limited by the weapons that exist in game.

 

For example, because we know the damage Washington's 16" AP would do depending on the hit, one could figure out the damage done to Kirishima. However, since we don't have the damage of, say, a British aerial torpedo, it's hard to say how much damage they'd do to a Bismark or Littorio.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post, but I have to know, Why did you choose HE for some shells when they would have more then likely be AP in the game, and vice versa? Is it just to add damage or what? Realistically it would of been one type (most likely AP as far as our game goes) but in game would show most of the 14"s being AP and the 8"s and probably anything smaller would be mostly HE on a BB. Not trying to discredit this, just trying to understand the reasoning.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post, but I have to know, Why did you choose HE for some shells when they would have more then likely be AP in the game, and vice versa? Is it just to add damage or what? Realistically it would of been one type (most likely AP as far as our game goes) but in game would show most of the 14"s being AP and the 8"s and probably anything smaller would be mostly HE on a BB. Not trying to discredit this, just trying to understand the reasoning.

 

I didn't choose the shells that hit. The types used were what type were fired, and where they hit, in the battle. The 14" HE hit on South Dakota's belt isn't HE because I decided it should be HE and not AP, it's HE because that's the type of shell that hit her belt in the battle. :)

 

What I've done is basically translate the damage South Dakota received into the game's method of damage. None of the impacts or shell types used were my choice/decision, but rather they shell types that actually hit her in the battle.

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us not forget, SoDak was the best of all the Treaty Battleships. There is no denying that she and her sisters were incredibly well built. And I doubt any nation could've come close to extremely well balanced design she represented. Many ships after her sacrificed defense for better firepower,(Yamato, her armor scheme was good, her armor... not so much.) or defense for speed (Iowa), or firepower for defense (Bismarck). 

But the SoDak class was literally, the best blend of all these things. Incredibly good guns, put onto a VERY good armor scheme, adequate speed (She counts as a fast battleship by British standards because she hits 27kts.), and good mobility.

Let us not forget that she holds the record for the most planes shot down in the war and is one of America's most highly decorated Warships.

 

In all honesty, I am really looking forward to when she is added to the game. Alabama might not be much to go on since SoDak was unique compared to her sisters.

 

~Hunter

 

Bismarck was not a treaty battleship as the Germans did not attempt to fit her within the 35,000t weight limit. And she did not sacrifice firepower, the 15" rifles she used were literally the best naval rifles available to them. It's not like the German designers were sitting in a room saying "Right then, 15" guns or 16" guns? Well, we've used too much armor so I guess we'll have to settle for 15" guns" In fact, as designed Bismarck was originally meant to have 13" guns, so if anything her firepower was increased to the best available. The Germans sacrificed nothing, at least not intentionally.

 

I dont know how SODAKs armor scheme is "VERY good" when her belt was thinner than all other 1930s battleships and is also the only 1930s battleship with no internal longitudinal armor. Having said as much, her turret and deck armor is superb. You say Iowa sacrifices defense for Speed, dont SODAK and Iowa share the same armor scheme? Granted Iowa's belt is a whopping 3mm thinner and her main deck is 2mm thinner but Iowa's turret faces are 51mm thicker than SD's and Iowa's barbettes are 135mm thicker and Iowa's transverse bulkheads are 81mm thicker. In the end Iowa's armor advantages are pretty significant (51-135mm difference) where her disadvantages are hardly noticeable (2-4mm difference). Unless there's something I'm missing?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wouldn't get too excited - I'm quite sure WG is just going to plop in the South Dakota as a literal copy of the Alabama minus the TDS and maybe some better AA.

 

Don't expect it to be very different.

 

Not that most people would find it very exciting but I would like to see the middle hull have the unusual AA mix she had for a time with 20mm, 1.1" (28mm), and 40mm guns.

 

Of course AA would be much cooler to begin with if there were better visual effects.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want an eye opener, look at USS San Francisco, a New Orleans-class heavy cruiser, after the Battle of Guadalcanal, 13Nov42. Here's a teaser...22 fires.

 

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/war-damage-reports/uss-sanfrancisco-ca38-war-damage-report-no26.html

 

 

 

Poor Quincy got the living crap beat out of her at Savo

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you can do this with the Yamato and Mushashi and Tirp/Bismark. (They probably need more HP or you could bring the heal factor back in mind!)

This was really well done! More Please!!!


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bismarck was not a treaty battleship as the Germans did not attempt to fit her within the 35,000t weight limit. And she did not sacrifice firepower, the 15" rifles she used were literally the best naval rifles available to them. It's not like the German designers were sitting in a room saying "Right then, 15" guns or 16" guns? Well, we've used too much armor so I guess we'll have to settle for 15" guns" In fact, as designed Bismarck was originally meant to have 13" guns, so if anything her firepower was increased to the best available. The Germans sacrificed nothing, at least not intentionally.

 

I dont know how SODAKs armor scheme is "VERY good" when her belt was thinner than all other 1930s battleships and is also the only 1930s battleship with no internal longitudinal armor. Having said as much, her turret and deck armor is superb. You say Iowa sacrifices defense for Speed, dont SODAK and Iowa share the same armor scheme? Granted Iowa's belt is a whopping 3mm thinner and her main deck is 2mm thinner but Iowa's turret faces are 51mm thicker than SD's and Iowa's barbettes are 135mm thicker and Iowa's transverse bulkheads are 81mm thicker. In the end Iowa's armor advantages are pretty significant (51-135mm difference) where her disadvantages are hardly noticeable (2-4mm difference). Unless there's something I'm missing?

 

Iowa is hugely underarmored for her size. Infact, her armor scheme is quite poor for a ship that's 270m long. Although I understand her size and length was to allow her to break 33kts.

She also cannot defend herself from her own guns, but she's capable of defending herself from the 16/45 Mark 6. Just guns with the same capacity to damage things as her 16/50 Mark 7s will absolutely destroy her.

 

On the terms of Bismarck, her guns are too small for her size. This is due to Germany's inefficient loading mechanisms. She had the capacity for 16inch guns, but Germany hadn't made those yet intime for Bismarck's construction, but they had 15inch guns ready. (Since the Scharnhorst class was supposed to get an upgrade to the 15s, but looming wartime and the Z plan stopped that from happening.)

 

And what else are you missing? An totally inadequate armor scheme on Bismarck. Good upclose and capable of withstanding ANYTHING the British can since Britain lost the plot on Naval power after WWI.

 

~Hunter

 

 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic post! Have a +1. Fascinating to look at the damage comparison and see that when you die in WOWS you really deserve it. ;) Granted, the game doesn't account for the kind of system damage that SoDak had (electrical failure for example), but still I love the research. Nice work.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Actually 6, maybe 7, torpedoes.

 

- 3 Aerial (only the famous one is generally known)

- 3 from Dorsetshire

- 1 claimed from Rodney

 

And really the only one of those torpedo hits that really mattered was the rudder shot.

 

Still took scuttling charges to sink the ship after all that. Of course the Brits would have sunk her eventually, but the damage Bismarck sustained while remaining afloat was absurd. Granted most of the armament was put out of action extremely early, but still, it's a testament to the armor scheme for sure.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.