Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
dseehafer

Fix the Tirpitz! A final charge (Bonus Lewds included)

94 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,717
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

Greetings all,

 

    I am making one last big attempt at bringing these issues to the attention of the devs. I have a superb track record of getting WG to fix things (or at least being a major factor)... I complained about Hipper only having an open bridge and early war hull and WG added an enclosed bridge and funnel cap.... I brought to light the fact that Nurnberg sat much too high in the water compared to her historical self and soon enough WG lowered the Nurnberg... I pointed out that two of the AA guns on the Scharnhorst were in the wrong locations and soon enough WG moved them to their correct locations.... I have been pointing out these inaccuracies in Tirpitz for almost a year now and very little progress has been made. Now, of course, none of these were accomplished on my own. You folks rallied behind myself and others and pushed to get these issues fixed, and that is exactly what has to happen here. So without any more jabber....

 

"Who cares? Why does this matter?"

 

It matters because I intend to hold WG to their word and so should you! I am of course referring to this Wargaming statement on the matter....

 

  1. Premium ships are meant to be historically accurate regarding the ship’s looks in a certain period of time; tech tree ships can be a mishmash of different sisterships and it’s ok.

 

There is not a period in Tirpitz's existence that matches the model we have in-game!

 

Now, before I point out what needs to be changed/fixed, I must give credit where it is due..

 

Up until very recently, the forward and rear twin 15cm turrets on Tirpitz lacked their roof telescopes...

Spoiler

jKBjbEE.png

 

 

Now, they are finally rendered in-game...

Spoiler

WX9KgwU.png

 

 

Baby steps are still steps in the right direction. Thank you WG.

 

Now, on to what still needs doing...

 

Perhaps the best place to start is by comparing her to her sister Bismarck...

Spoiler

kKgdqni.png?1

 

^ In the image above (Tirpitz bottom, Bismarck top) you will notice that both ships are exactly the same length! This is inaccurate! In real life, Tirpitz was slightly longer than Bismarck. Tirpitz was 253.6m long overall while Bismarck was 250.5m long overall, Tirpitz was 241.72m long at the waterline while Bismarck was 241.55m long at the waterline.

 

Because Tirpitz is modeled as the same length as Bismarck in-game, it completely screws up her proportions! Look at this image below, I have placed a side-scan of our in-game Tirpitz over a proportionally correct side drawing of the Tirpitz. Notice that our Tirpitz is not only shorter but doesn't quite match up in other areas as well.

Spoiler

pu8GWV2.png

 

^ In the image above, also notice that the funnel cap we have on our Tirpitz in-game is much smaller than the one Tirpitz had in real life, this is because our Tirpitz's funnel cap is simply a copy-paste of the one that is on our Bismarck. Bismarck's in-game is accurate, but Tirpitz's funnel cap was slightly larger in real life so it does not work to simply copy-paste Bismarck's funnel cap onto Tirpitz.

 

Take a good look at Bismarck's funnel cap in this image...

Spoiler

Image result for battleship bismarck photograph

 

 

Now, look at how much steeper Tirpitz's funnel cap inclines...

Spoiler

Image may contain: sky and outdoor

 

 

Now here, below, is an inaccuracy in-game that does not make any sense! Notice that the waterline bootstrap on Tirpitz (left) is lower than the one on Bismarck (right)

Spoiler

az891CZ.png?1

 

This means that Tirpitz sits higher in the water in-game than Bismarck does! This is entirely inaccurate! Tirpitz's design drought was .6m deeper than Bismarck's (9.9m as compared to 9.3m) and at full load Tirpitz sat 10.6m deep in the water. If my measurements are correct, Tirpitz's drought in-game is 9.5m, much too high for an operational displacement. At the very least Tirpitz should be made the same height as Bismarck (or Bismarck should be made the same height as Tirpitz). Either way, there is no reason that Tirpitz should be sitting higher in the water than Bismarck!

 

"But dseehafer, Bismarck in-game has a what-if late-war loadout, she could very well be deeper than Tirpitz at this point."

 

Unlikely, in-game Bismarck (49,406t) still displaces less than Tirpitz (49,429t) regardless.

 

"But dseehafer, lowering Tirpitz will be a buff and Tirpitz is already very strong!"

 

No, not at all. Tirpitz's citadel is already at the waterline and nearly impossible to penetrate anyways. In fact, by lowering Tirpitz you are burying the main belt under-water and decreasing the chance for a bounce. The other option is, of course, to raise Bismarck to Tirpitz's level. 

 

 

In the image below notice that the gun platform for the 20mm quad on B turret has a wood base.

Spoiler

WPqzlmo.jpg

 

 

In-game it rests on cold hard steel...

Spoiler

HASA2pJ.png

 

This despite the fact that other German ships with AA guns on their turrets such as Prinz Eugen and Nurnberg have their correct wooden bases!

 

Notice also in the image above the single 20mm AA gun just behind the breakwater. When Tirpitz was moved to Norway these (there is one on the other side as well) were moved up to the bridge level. I have circled it (left) below...

Spoiler

2DHeiPO.jpg

 

The other objects I have circled above are the torpedo target giver and a compass repeater. Between the two circles you can notice the other 2cm gun in this area. This gun we already have in-game. You can see it in the image below (notice also the missing torpedo target giver and compass repeater)...

Spoiler

bKG2GD8.jpg

 

It should be noted that this is simply moving two guns from one location to another. This will in no way affect the ship's in-game performance.

 

 

Notice in this image below that a chain/wire fence is outboard of the 105mm heavy AA turrets..

Spoiler

Tdt9T3Z.png

 

 

In real life, there were solid metallic shields/walls in certain areas outboard of the 10.5s...

Spoiler

Jk4CPRq.png

 

 

Now, WG's model is supposed to represent Tirpitz as she appeared in 1942. As to what specific time in 1942, we can't be sure. However, her permoflague would put her at least at Operation Rosselsprung. In this case, she is also missing the side-skirts on the side of her bridge which were added shortly after Tirpitz arrived in Norway. I have circled them below...

Spoiler

AFvVdFG.png

 

Here is a historical photograph in which the side-skirt is easily distinguishable...

Spoiler

j0DRdxz.jpg

 

As you can see below, they are not present on our Tirpitz in-game...

Spoiler

GgJjAvR.png

 

 

Now, WG could ignore these and claim that their Tirpitz model is from early 1942 when she didn't have the side skirts. But I'd lobby that these should be added as they would further distinguish Tirpitz from her sister (who never had these skirts) and make her appearance more unique in-game.

 

Along with these changes, her bridge windows should also be made transparent as well to match WG's current modeling style.

 

"Bah! Why should WG waste their time fixing the Tirpitz when they should be focused on further expanding the game with new ships and missions!"

 

Well, for one, because WG told us that premium ships should represent the ships as they appeared at a certain time in their careers and our Tirpitz doesn't match any one configuration she had during her career. Also, WG is already going back and updating old models such as Tenryu, Kuma, Mikasa, and Ryujo, so it would not take away from the development of the game since there is already a team going around and updating old models.

 

 

Now then, I promised some lewds in exchange for your patience... here you go!

Spoiler

Tirpitz in dry dock! Bearing all!  :fish_happy:

kIzljkc.jpg?1

6HqHM32.jpg?1

 
 

 

@Radar_X  @Pigeon_of_War @SuperNikoPower @WolfofWarship @Super_Splash_Bro @Sub_Octavian

  • Cool 47
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,370
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
4,938 posts
6,440 battles
5 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

Premium ships are meant to be historically accurate regarding the ship’s looks in a certain period of time; tech tree ships can be a mishmash of different sisterships and it’s ok.

This is the most important part to remember

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
284
[POP]
Members
840 posts
9,479 battles

This!  This is how to complain and learn us noobs at the same time.

Well done sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
133
[UDEAD]
[UDEAD]
Beta Testers
914 posts
6,115 battles

Ok, now let's talk about Kurfurst....

 

:D 

 

Edit: And well done on your research!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487
[-1]
Beta Testers
1,799 posts
18,709 battles

Your right its high time that WG correct and fix the dam inaccuracies on the Tirpitz  ! ! ! ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,212 posts
6,433 battles

Indeed, inaccuracies like that shouldn‘t be ignored for that long. I hope that WG will notice your efforts and get Tirpitz right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
6 minutes ago, The_GoDDfather said:

First Tirpitz in-game SS, taken by KmsH44 on 7/29/15; piloted by Riatt:

LcuvwaH_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&f

 

 

That old camo is just as inaccurate as the current one we have! :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
373
[HINON]
Members
1,487 posts
14,548 battles
1 minute ago, Nuk_ said:

giphy.webp

ctXhFbR.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
373
[HINON]
Members
1,487 posts
14,548 battles

Welp 

Spoiler

KvLrpWb.png?1

 

@tcbaker777 Lol 

ZiZ5TSm.jpg

Edited by Jnobsir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,708
[HINON]
WoWS Wiki Editor, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles

An excellent write up to be sure. Thanks! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
121
[FDK]
Members
1,070 posts
6,034 battles
51 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

Greetings all,

 

    I am making one last big attempt at bringing these issues to the attention of the devs. I have a superb track record of getting WG to fix things (or at least being a major factor)... I complained about Hipper only having an open bridge and early war hull and WG added an enclosed bridge and funnel cap.... I brought to light the fact that Nurnberg sat much too high in the water compared to her historical self and soon enough WG lowered the Nurnberg... I pointed out that two of the AA guns on the Scharnhorst were in the wrong locations and soon enough WG moved them to their correct locations.... I have been pointing out these inaccuracies in Tirpitz for almost a year now and very little progress has been made. Now, of course, none of these were accomplished on my own. You folks rallied behind myself and others and pushed to get these issues fixed, and that is exactly what has to happen here. So without any more jabber....

 

"Who cares? Why does this matter?"

 

It matters because I intend to hold WG to their word and so should you! I am of course referring to this Wargaming statement on the matter....

 

  1. Premium ships are meant to be historically accurate regarding the ship’s looks in a certain period of time; tech tree ships can be a mishmash of different sisterships and it’s ok.

 

There is not a period in Tirpitz's existence that matches the model we have in-game!

 

Now, before I point out what needs to be changed/fixed, I must give credit where it is due..

 

Up until very recently, the forward and rear twin 15cm turrets on Tirpitz lacked their roof telescopes...

jKBjbEE.png

 

 

Now, they are finally rendered in-game...

WX9KgwU.png

 

 

Baby steps are still steps in the right direction. Thank you WG.

 

Now, on to what still needs doing...

 

Perhaps the best place to start is by comparing her to her sister Bismarck...

kKgdqni.png?1

 

^ In the image above (Tirpitz bottom, Bismarck top) you will notice that both ships are exactly the same length! This is inaccurate! In real life, Tirpitz was slightly longer than Bismarck. Tirpitz was 253.6m long overall while Bismarck was 250.5m long overall, Tirpitz was 241.72m long at the waterline while Bismarck was 241.55m long at the waterline.

 

Because Tirpitz is modeled as the same length as Bismarck in-game, it completely screws up her proportions! Look at this image below, I have placed a side-scan of our in-game Tirpitz over a proportionally correct side drawing of the Tirpitz. Notice that our Tirpitz is not only shorter but doesn't quite match up in other areas as well.

pu8GWV2.png

 

^ In the image above, also notice that the funnel cap we have on our Tirpitz in-game is much smaller than the one Tirpitz had in real life, this is because our Tirpitz's funnel cap is simply a copy-paste of the one that is on our Bismarck. Bismarck's in-game is accurate, but Tirpitz's funnel cap was slightly larger in real life so it does not work to simply copy-paste Bismarck's funnel cap onto Tirpitz.

 

Take a good look at Bismarck's funnel cap in this image...

Image result for battleship bismarck photograph

 

 

Now, look at how much steeper Tirpitz's funnel cap inclines...

Image may contain: sky and outdoor

 

 

Now here, below, is an inaccuracy in-game that does not make any sense! Notice that the waterline bootsrap on Tirpitz (left) is lower than the one on Bismarck (right)

az891CZ.png?1

 

This means that Tirpitz sits higher in the water in-game than Bismarck does! This is entirely inaccurate! Tirpitz's design drought was .6m deeper than Bismarck's (9.9m as compared to 9.3m) and at full load Tirpitz sat 10.6m deep in the water. If my measurements are correct, Tirpitz's drought in-game is 9.5m, much too high for an operational displacement. At the very least Tirpitz should be made the same height as Bismarck (or Bismarck should be made the same height as Tirpitz). Either way, there is no reason that Tirpitz should be sitting higher in the water than Bismarck!

 

"But dseehafer, Bismarck in-game has a what-if late-war loadout, she could very well be deeper than Tirpitz at this point."

 

Unlikely, in-game Bismarck (49,406t) still displaces less than Tirpitz (49,429t) regardless.

 

"But dseehafer, lowering Tirpitz will be a buff and Tirpitz is already very strong!"

 

No, not at all. Tirpitz's citadel is already at the waterline and nearly impossible to penetrate anyways. In fact, by lowering Tirpitz you are burying the main belt under-water and decreasing the chance for a bounce. The other option is, of course, to raise Bismarck to Tirpitz's level. 

 

 

In the image below notice that the gun platform for the 20mm quad on B turret has a wood base.

WPqzlmo.jpg

 

 

In-game it rests on cold hard steel...

HASA2pJ.png

 

This despite the fact that other German ships with AA guns on their turrets such as Prinz Eugen and Nurnberg have their correct wooden bases!

 

Notice also in the image above the single 20mm AA gun just behind the breakwater. When Tirpitz was moved to Norway these (there is one on the other side as well) were moved up to the bridge level. I have circled it (left) below...

2DHeiPO.jpg

 

The other objects I have circled above are the torpedo target giver and a compass repeater. Between the two circles you can notice the other 2cm gun in this area. This gun we already have in-game. You can see it in the image below (notice also the missing torpedo target giver and compass repeater)...

bKG2GD8.jpg

 

It should be noted that this is simply moving two guns from one location to another. This will in no way affect the ship's in-game performance.

 

 

Notice in this image below that a chain/wire fence is outboard of the 105mm heavy AA turrets..

Tdt9T3Z.png

 

 

In real life, there were solid metallic shields/walls in certain areas outboard of the 10.5s...

Jk4CPRq.png

 

 

Now, WG's model is supposed to represent Tirpitz as she appeared in 1942. As to what specific time in 1942, we can't be sure. However, her permoflague would put her at least at Operation Rosselsprung. In this case, she is also missing the side-skirts on the side of her bridge which were added shortly after Tirpitz arrived in Norway. I have circled them below...

AFvVdFG.png

 

Here is a historical photograph in which the side-skirt is easily distinguishable...

j0DRdxz.jpg

 

As you can see below, they are not present on our Tirpitz in-game...

GgJjAvR.png

 

 

Now, WG could ignore these and claim that their Tirpitz model is from early 1942 when she didn't have the side skirts. But I'd lobby that these should be added as they would further distinguish Tirpitz from her sister (who never had these skirts) and make her appearance more unique in-game.

 

Along with these changes, her bridge windows should also be made transparent as well to match WG's current modeling style.

 

"Bah! Why should WG waste their time fixing the Tirpitz when they should be focused on further expanding the game with new ships and missions!"

 

Well, for one, because WG told us that premium ships should represent the ships as they appeared at a certain time in their careers and our Tirpitz doesn't match any one configuration she had during her career. Also, WG is already going back and updating old models such as Tenryu, Kuma, Mikasa, and Ryujo, so it would not take away from the development of the game since there is already a team going around and updating old models.

 

 

Now then, I promised some lewds in exchange for your patience... here you go!

  Hide contents

Tirpitz in dry dock! Bearing all!  :fish_happy:

kIzljkc.jpg?1

6HqHM32.jpg?1

 
 

 

 

I support this 120%  

 

Tirptiz need it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
12 minutes ago, HMCS_Devilfish said:

I’ll take a smaller target than a Historicaly correct larger nerf one ... but that’s just me

 

We're talking about an extra 8' of lenth , just over the size of a male human. I'm pretty sure it wont break the ship. ;)

 

Edit: You can see the slight size increase in the overlap image of in-game Tirpitz and drawing Tirpitz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
141
[VVV]
[VVV]
Members
681 posts
10,342 battles

Hopefully whenever Wargaming gets around to updating the older models they'll take a good look a Tirpitz and fix her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,212 posts
6,433 battles
1 minute ago, yamato6945 said:

Hopefully whenever Wargaming gets around to updating the older models they'll take a good look a Tirpitz and fix her. 

Tirpitz, and hopefully reworking several older ships *glances at Kagero*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
440
[BLKHS]
Beta Testers
1,612 posts
8,112 battles

Dude you need to get a life - you need to get out of the house and away from your laptop and naval references???      ahahahahahah

Actually very nice research....really good stuff.....just downright cool. 

I really think the comparison to real world photos is really cool.    I appreciate your efforts to keep WG straight on history.  It's an every day battle!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
585
[ARRGG]
Members
4,674 posts
7,503 battles
5 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

We're talking about an extra 8' of lenth , just over the size of a male human. I'm pretty sure it wont break the ship. ;)

That torpedo that just missed me by a few feet ..just hit me:Smile_amazed:add .2 range to my Torped:cap_rambo:oes 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
1 minute ago, HMCS_Devilfish said:

That torpedo that just missed me by a few feet ..just hit me:Smile_amazed:add .2 range to my Torped:cap_rambo:oes 

 

Well, torpedoes would hit the ship at its waterline length, not overall... so we're talking about 0.17m difference, or just under 7 inches. I'd be darned if you start taking a motherload of extra torpedo hits due to an extra 7". :cap_hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,483
[HINON]
Supertester
18,929 posts
12,454 battles
1 hour ago, dseehafer said:

"Bah! Why should WG waste their time fixing the Tirpitz when they should be focused on further expanding the game with new ships and missions!"

 

Well, for one, because WG told us that premium ships should represent the ships as they appeared at a certain time in their careers and our Tirpitz doesn't match any one configuration she had during her career. Also, WG is already going back and updating old models such as Tenryu, Kuma, Mikasa, and Ryujo, so it would not take away from the development of the game since there is already a team going around and updating old models.

Not only that, but something like this would 100% be the graphical team's work, and doesn't affect things like research, balancing, animating, etc.

@dseehaferNow comment in my thread pls!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×