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

Photographic proof that our Tirpitz sits too high in-game.

43 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

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

Greetings all,

 

For some time now I have wondered out loud why our Tirpitz sits so much higher than Bismarck in-game. Some have wondered if its a case of Bismarck being too low rather than Tirpitz being too high.

 

In either event, Wargaming has never provided an answer.

 

Perhaps I have not provided enough evidence to support my case?

 

That all changes today! 

 

Tirpitz sits too high in-game, and I can PROVE it!

 

Wargaming will have no excuse now!

 

"Dseehafer, how can you tell that Tirpitz sits too high?" You ask?

 

Below is our In-game Tirpitz as seen in GM3D (so the ship isn't bobbing up and down). The two dots I have circled are the ship's smoke-generator vents.

M5m3Xyv.png

 

 

Now, let us look at an image of Bismarck's smoke-generator vents while the ship was fitting out...

Image result for bismarck smoke generators

 

 

Comparing the two images they both look to be at about the same height above the waterline. So what's the big deal? Well, first, the historical photograph shows Bismarck, not Tirpitz, and Tirpitz had a deeper drought than Bismarck anyways. Second, and most importantly, this is while Bismarck is fitting out. She is nowhere near combat load in this picture and is, therefore, riding quite high in the water.

 

Now, here comes the part where I blow your mind, where your jaw hits the floor... here is a picture of Tirpitz during trials in 1941

KvINfSY.png

 

The vents are barely above the waterline! And mind you this was taken during Tirpitz's early trials! This is before she received torpedo tubes, before she received an AA nest on B turret, before she got anywhere near the 53,500t displacement she boasted in late 1943!

 

Our Tirpitz should be AT LEAST this deep, but no, our Tirpitz is sitting so high in the water she might as well be empty with no fuel, food, or ammunition!

 

Here's another photograph, this time in 1942 while the ship was in Norway...

Ddk86rA.png

 

*Every reader's reaction right about now*

Image result for angery meme

 

 

And if photographic proof isn't enough to convince the devs that action needs to be taken I'll throw their own words at 'em...

 

  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.

 

 

  • Cool 8
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
92
[BNKR]
Members
674 posts
1,254 battles

Can't deny the second picture from Norway, but isn't the first picture a "stern" picture when you are comparing bows earlier?  I know nothing, so I have no idea if the smoke vents would be leveled differently bow/stern. 

Share this post


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

Can't deny the second picture from Norway, but isn't the first picture a "stern" picture when you are comparing bows earlier?  I know nothing, so I have no idea if the smoke vents would be leveled differently bow/stern. 

 

No sir, all pictures presented are of the stern (except for the Angery pic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
92
[BNKR]
Members
674 posts
1,254 battles
1 minute ago, dseehafer said:

 

No sir, all pictures presented are of the stern (except for the Angery pic)

Upon closer inspection...I am an idiot. Move along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[TBOW]
Members
261 posts
3,849 battles
10 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

And if photographic proof isn't enough to convince the devs that action needs to be taken I'll throw their own words at 'em...

 

  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.

its-time-to-riot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
Just now, RipNuN2 said:

You should tag some of the devs to get attention.

 

They never respond anyways.

 

I have never gotten a single dev to respond to one of my "fix muh Tirpitz" threads. :(

Share this post


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

Welcome to Warspite's world. :Smile-_tongue::Smile_playing:

 

Warspite is fine. I've proven as much using both schematics and late-war photographs.

 

Edit:

 

Our Warspite (Left), historical Warspite Schematic (right)

unknown.png

 

unknown.png

 

Related image

 

^ Notice that the little vertical dashes on the torpedo bulge end just above the waterline both in-game and in the 1944 photograph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,889
[HINON]
Supertester
19,223 posts
12,740 battles

And then! She sits even lower in the water now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
378
[INTEL]
Members
796 posts
8,279 battles

 Im not saying you're wrong but it appears the Tirps smoke gen ports are lower on the hull than the Bis.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
Just now, Ares1967 said:

 Im not saying you're wrong but it appears the Tirps smoke gen ports are lower on the hull than the Bis.

 

 

I double checked against that too. The joint in the weld in the hull just below the smoke generators is the same on both ships. On the first historical pic I posted of Tirpitz's stern you can see that this weld/joint is being used as the top of the ship's bootstrap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
378
[INTEL]
Members
796 posts
8,279 battles
6 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

I double checked against that too. The joint in the weld in the hull just below the smoke generators is the same on both ships. On the first historical pic I posted of Tirpitz's stern you can see that this weld/joint is being used as the top of the ship's bootstrap.

I just did a quick n dirty check based on the ratio between the row of ports on both hulls vs the smoke port distance below the stern padeye. it comes out to 2.2 on the bis and 2.3 on the Tirp. Thats pretty close considering the diff angles and view distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,460
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,804 posts
7,061 battles

Interesting photos, but camera lens distortion and perspective do need to be taken into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,176 battles

Not to rain on your parade @dseehafer you are correct that Tirpitz is too high bur Wargaming has said the will no longer do historical fixes to ships after the Iowa, Missouri and Montana citadel lowering. @LittleWhiteMouse has stated that she was told this by @Sub_Octavian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38
[FAITH]
Members
196 posts
3,951 battles

But... but... much (unneeded) Derpitz buffs :(

Edited by Q___________Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
Just now, Q___________Q said:

But... but... much (unneeded) Derpitz buffs :(

 

It wouldn't be a buff. Tirpitz's citadel is just as hard to pen as Bismarck's despite the fact that Tirpitz sits higher in the water. If anything it'd be a nerf to Tirpitz because you're burying your belt armor lower in the water, meaning most shells will pass through the upper 145mm belt (which is where most people aim anyway) instead of having a chance to ricochet against the belt which is more than twice as thick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
764
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,250 posts
1,836 battles

The ports are in a different spot on the two ships.  Look at the weld line, look at the lower port holes.  Yes, it is too high in the water, but not as much as the OP is painting it as.

Bismarck's ports are roughly where I marked in blue.

 

KvINfSY.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
14 minutes ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

Not to rain on your parade @dseehafer you are correct that Tirpitz is too high bur Wargaming has said the will no longer do historical fixes to ships after the Iowa, Missouri and Montana citadel lowering. @LittleWhiteMouse has stated that she was told this by @Sub_Octavian.

If that's the case, then it's quite frustrating for certain ships, such as Montana missing 29 mm of deck armor and 19 mm of weather deck (this is backed by multiple primary and secondary sources). Given that there may be more AP bombs coming into the game, this missing deck armor can be the difference between life and death.

 

A slight draft increase probably wouldn't be an overwhelming change for Tirpitz. More concerning though is the fact that the Tirpitz model is off proportionally; she seems to be modeled the same length as Bismarck but in reality she was slightly longer due to her bow stem. That being said, I hope WG would periodically revisit ship models and update them, but fixing Tirpitz's length may not be trivial.

 

In a similar vein, the Gearing also might be proportionally off (being possibly too beamy) and is also sitting quite high in the water; simply compare her to the Sumner (Yueyang).

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
16 minutes ago, Ares1967 said:

I just did a quick n dirty check based on the ratio between the row of ports on both hulls vs the smoke port distance below the stern padeye. it comes out to 2.2 on the bis and 2.3 on the Tirp. Thats pretty close considering the diff angles and view distance.

 

Maybe this will clear things up

 

tPX0oSc.png

Share this post


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

The ports are in a different spot on the two ships.  Look at the weld line, look at the lower port holes.  Yes, it is too high in the water, but not as much as the OP is painting it as.

Bismarck's ports are roughly where I marked in blue.

 

-snip-

1

 

See comment #21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
764
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,250 posts
1,836 battles
4 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

See comment #21

Here:

 

tPX0oSc.png

Share this post


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

Here:

 

tPX0oSc.png

 

But the weld line under Bismarck's smoke generators does not connect to the upper edge of the main belt as it does in the schematic. That is what is confusing me.

 

In either event, if what you are saying is true, then WG gave our Tirpitz the Bismarck's smoke generator locations and weld line!

 

So not only is Tirpitz sitting to high (if only slightly less so that was previously thought) but her gen ports are also placed incorrectly!

 

*Lights another torch*

 

:Smile_izmena:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×