SHIPS RATED !!!!

[Avenger0007]

I'm not sure this link is pretty much perfect.But many experts around here should have a look at it . And let me know if the content in the link is right !! Thanks for your patience (in advance) http://www.combinedf...com/baddest.htm

P.S let me know if the link is working !!

[Super_Dreadnought]

That website is already pretty well known on this forum.

 

It is a good read and should be useful to newer members. I would take what that site says with a pinch of salt though, and remember that it's one guy's opinion. And also remember some things won't apply to their WoWs versions.

[Battleship_Unknown2]

Deadnought, on 13 March 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

That website is already pretty well known on this forum, but thanks for trying.It is a good read nontheless and should be useful to newer members. I would take what that site says with a pinch of salt though, and remember that it's one guy's opinion. And also remember some things won't apply to their WoWs versions.

This.

I tend to think the guy highly overrates American BBs and tends to massively underrate his European candidates. To make a long story short, Bismarck probabably didn't need as heavy an AA armament (even if it was an air-dropped torpedo that did her in, I stand by this) as contemporary American designs simply because the theater she was operating in wasn't a Pacific ocean thick with aircraft carriers. On a clear day, I'd Give a Bismarck, a Richelieu, and even possibly a Littorio (if her crew wasn't holding her back) a fighting chance against an Iowa. All three would probably be very, very close fights.

[LtCheese945]

Tagging along to what PrincessRoyal was saying, Bismarck and Tirpitz were designed to fight other surface combatants and to act as massive commerce raiders. They were never expected to venture too far out to sea. If they stayed close to shore, they would always be within the operational range of Luftwaffe aircraft. That being the case, a massive AA battery would only hurt her overall performance.

[Azumazi]

Yeah I've at least twice on these forums spoken out against that "comparison" that he did. My biggest gripes were how he blatantly admitted he didn't have the data on those ships and just made up a number that he felt fit the ship. He did it at least 4 times. Also as already stated, he seems to have this amazing hard-on for US ships and that they were the biggest baddest things ever made on the planet. My favorite was how he classed the Littorio's guns at 7.5...HAH..ha..HAHA; His reasoning "had decidedly inferior shells". Okay, no they didn't. From Maurizio Di Sciullo himself stated it was because a few manufactures weren't following PROPER PRODUCTION PROCEDURES. The ones that did gave excellent performance. So to base his testing which he states is on the "best they had at the time" and to toss that into the equation means he was double standardizing his tests against the Iowa and North Dakota which he did time and time again.

 

To be fair, the 381mm/50s the Roma/Littorio used out performed the Mark 6 16inch guns the US used at all distances against belt armor including against the super heavy shell. The Mark 6 did however out perform it in deck strikes. At 18km, Roma could effectively punch Iowa's belt including its outer decapping (The italian shell was designed to have 2 break away noses so it would only lose the windshield on that decapping plate) and it would impact Iowa's primary belt with 510mm to 440mm of penetration power depending on how much kinetic power it losses tossing its windshield off. I mean to give you an idea of how well this gun performed. at 18km, her and Iowa had the same penetration against belt, that's a 15/50 vs a 16/50 having the same punching power. This wasn't some crappy weapon system they designed. In all honesty he should have given it a 9 just like Bismarck and Rich.

 

His only 2 ratings I stand by saying makes sense, was his armor rating and underwater ratings. He used a system most developers would use and it actually makes sense. I know people would cry about Bismarck getting a lower rating, but it mostly got it due to the deck design layout making it easy in long range plunging fights to knock out the ships combat ability pretty easy. I love my Roma and Littorio class, but it also had the same problem so its down on the rating for that same reason. The underwater rating actually took into account a lot of data and systems that were spot on the mark. Now remember, that system was for shell vs shell. Not bombs. If he used an aircraft system as well, Bismarck having a fusing deck would fair better on the scale, but he went for pure gun on gun fights.

[Wunderwaffen1945]

that all means nothing without good captain...

[xS_DEADLY_Sx]

Addressing the complaints about the Bismarck not needing AA, this isn't a comparison about that the ship was built for and how it fits that role. It's a comparison about which is best overall, in any situation. But yes, he did have an American bias

[Azumazi]

I mean don't get me wrong, like many people on these forums I served in the US armed forces as a Marine, mm2ss as a sailor, and quite a few others served; however, I don't play the favorite because of that background. Every nation had its strong suit and others might not have been up to par, but I give credit where it is due.

[Battleship_Unknown2]

My biggest complaint about his conclusions was that a single Iowa would have a strong advantage over a single Yamato. Honestly, I think that's a crock. All things considered, the Yamatos took an ungodly amount of punishment before they both went down. Not only were they huge, they were designed with the itent of taking on entire squadrons of enemy BBs and outclassing them. It was very much a quality over quantity kind of thing.

 

I am by NO MEANS a Japanese pusher -- I'm a bigtime British, German and Italian fan, and always will be. And you can line up stats, talk on about radar, etc. all you want... but to crown the Iowa the king of all BBs over the Yamato? No. Just no.

[Wunderwaffen1945]

Strength for one, weakness for an other

[brian333]

After the fact, knowing what we know now, I agree that Iowa had a good chance against Yamato. Knowing what was known then, no.

 

A lot of bias may be nationalistic in origin, but a lot of it is wargaming systems which, themselves incorporating bias even when they attempt to be as reaslistic as possible, have had Iowas repeatedly pummeling Yamatos. Well, I wargamed a perfect defense of Poland, and even in the latter stages of the period when I was routinely frustrating German players I made an offensive on Berlin which was almost successful. Could this have occurred in the real event? Well, no.

 

But, to take an abstract look at the ships with full hindsight and without prejudice: the only smart way for an Iowa to attack a Yamato with what was known in 1943 is with a fleet of aircraft. Any other approach results in severe damage or sinking of the Iowa. With what we know now, I think I may be able to beat one, if my entire supply of shells was APC and I was not under observation by a Japanese spotter.

[tankdestroyer551]

I read the comparisons and ratings on the website, and I ahve to say that the information seems solid, but not too solid! See, depending on what info you use and how you use it in a comparison against other ships is difficult. Yes, the Iowa was a powerful ship, but he also is not using a broad enough spectrum. This website is only comparing few ships! You must use diversity, and I will say this alot! In order to create a successful ranking and comparison of some of the world's most famous battleships for people to see, don't look like a dumba**. That is all...

 

Conquer the seas, saliors! Joshua :honoring:

[MM2ss]

Oh yes, the dreaded Yamato/Iowa debate.  Really I think it would likely be a toss-up.  If the Iowa can land hits at extreme range and keep the range, it has a reasonable chance.  Change the engagement distances to something shorter where the optical firecontrol comes into its' own, then the Yamato has to be favored.  On the other hand, the Iowa should not be forced to engage by the Yamato by virtue of greater speed, so she can run, drawing in the Yamato until reinforcements are on hand.  However, my real beef with that site is the hypothetical BB duel that it seems to be leaning on, BB's were not designed for solo operations, and when they did do solo ops things tended to go pear shaped, like with Bismarck, Yamato, etc...  Why?  Because the folks on the other side didn't play fair, and really, that is how warfare is designed to work, so make it unfair in your favor.

 

Person X orders Yamato to attack.  I counter by ordering the Pacific fleet to engage,  You bring a BB, I send a division.  You send a division, I send a task force.  You send a task force, I send a fleet.

[Azumazi]

Personally, if I did the system, it would be more like this.

 

 

See, in the tactical side, I completely removed the Damage control stat since he didn't have enough data for that, and different nations put different priority on certain aspects of it, so lets just drop that off and go for the SHIP aspect and not the crew.

 

For the guns, I knocked Iowa down to a 9 due to Yamato's shells having better dispersion at long range and still having a higher pen over the super heavies. The Bismarck gets 8,5 for its good accuracy, good dispersion and good pen with great RoF. Roma gets 8.5 for its great pen, average reload, and good dispersion. Rich only gets an 8 due to its RoF issues compared to the other 2 and KGV's pen is a bit lack luster compared to her 15 inch sisters. Sodak gets dropped to an 8.5 based on its RoF coupled with its pen and dispersion.

 

Armor is a bit self explanatory, Not much change in his findings, but I fine adjusted based on quality of armor and certain abilities of the armor.

Underwater protection didn't need much changing except for KGV, he was heavily bias on that part and I had to correct him on some issues. It was actually pretty effective on the test dives that showed PoW back in 2006-7 that the 3 torpedo's that hit the area with the SPS did not go past the liquid barrier portion of the 3 of 4 hits. The one hit that sunk her hit the ship in the stern near prop 4 and causing the bulkhead to collapse. It could have been saved if not for Poor damage control and bad management and calls made on the officers part. Overall, for 3 hits into her side and showing the system held up without even causing a list, is a pretty effective cheap system, and looking over the data would have been capable of repair in a dry dock pretty fast. It would be a 10 if they had a filler system like the French's absorbent foam material that expands since the French used that system excluding the water barrier.

 

FCS factors I raised Yamato based on how heavily bias he was against optics systems without giving credit where it is due along with the fact its radar wasn't that bad, but I did leave Iowa at 10 for it's much better gyro system to allow it to engage and stay on target while in turns with its better FCS directors including its radar. Sodak got a 9 out of that due to it having a less advanced version of that same system. Bismarck's 6 is due to the fact her own guns rendered her Radar offline after firing so she is literally pure optics after her first salvo. KGV and Rich both had decent optics and good radar, but lacked the gyro system for engaging and turning and Roma's radar was pretty lack luster and had issues through out the war and her sister ships had them as well.

 

After all that removing the bias and giving a much better balanced equation....

Yamato is on top with only 2 points. Meaning for how much she cost and the material required to make her you could get two Iowa's pretty much. Bismarck came dead last, but to be fair Germany lost 20 years of Naval development and got to play the catch up game which left them in a bad spot, not to mention its going up against ships that were upgraded with better technology as the war progressed while it didn't. Tirpitz really didn't see much changes either except a few minor ones. Roma and KGV were pretty much even, Rich slightly higher in due part to some of its innovative designs and help from the US and Sodak is in its proper slot based on its technologies. Now just because of their ratings doesn't mean that one or the other couldn't be sunk based on that ship. To be fair, it looks pretty good when you look at those numbers. The tier 8's for the game are about around the same numbers. If you were to drop the FCS part since they have already stated that radar vs optics isn't going to have much difference, I see some good balance between the tier 8s, the tier 9s, and the tier 10.

[Battleship_Unknown2]

I can't believe all these lists still rank Bismarck so low. IMO, the Germans built as good of battleships as anyone else. I tend to look at things more broadly than with regards to individual stats -- IE, how well their ships performed at Jutland; how long Bismarck and Scharnhorst stayed afloat when under sustained shelling, etc. It's hard for me to ever pick against the Germans in a stand-up, drag-out fight.

[Azumazi]

The only reason why Bismarck's number stay's low is due to the deck armor, the belt would be averaged at around a 9 overall, the deck drops the ball on the average. So in a mid range fight Bismarck would actually be rated as a 132, which is above Roma, KGV, and puts it near to Rich, just against plunging fire that deck system makes it easy to mission cripple the ship, against bombers it would probably still sit at around a 129 with the fusing deck allowing it to keep the machinery spaces safe.

[TheFishlord]

Azumazi, on 14 March 2013 - 02:24 AM, said:

The only reason why Bismarck's number stay's low is due to the deck armor, the belt would be averaged at around a 9 overall, the deck drops the ball on the average. So in a mid range fight Bismarck would actually be rated as a 132, which is above Roma, KGV, and puts it near to Rich, just against plunging fire that deck system makes it easy to mission cripple the ship, against bombers it would probably still sit at around a 129 with the fusing deck allowing it to keep the machinery spaces safe.

That's the main reason. I'm always amazed at Bismarck's short range performance. In such a fight, if it ever came to that, Bismarck was one of the best out there. Rodney threw a whole broadside at her, at only 3000 meters away - point blank - to no effect. It was previously thought torpedoes or Rodney sank Bismarck, until Ballard found the wreck and saw that there were only large dents where she hit, and the torpedoes hadn't been able to punch through the torpedo bulkheads.

Testimony from the survivors said even after the massive punishment she took, she was still probably solid enough to float for a while, maybe even salvaged by the British if the scuttling charges hadn't been set off. Which I think raises some interesting questions, but I'm doubtful they could have kept her afloat long enough to beach her or tow her to a friendly port.

Italian battleships are too often underrated. Like a lot of the Italian forces, they've fallen out of popular consciousness. Today, probably the big three Italy-related points people know in WWII are the rejection of Mussolini and their switching sides, the air attack at Taranto, and getting the Roma sunk by guided bombs. None of which paint a pretty picture, particularly in the naval department, which isn't really fair.

[NGTM_1R]

PrincessRoyal, on 13 March 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

Honestly, I think that's a crock.

If you actually bother to read the detailed notes, you'll see that he says it probably comes down to fighting orders and whether Iowa decides to close the range. (In which case it'll be shot up pretty bad.) This system represents a "perfect" performance by both ships; and if Iowa does everything right, Yamato's actions don't matter.

[Azumazi]

NGTM_1R, on 14 March 2013 - 03:51 AM, said:

If you actually bother to read the detailed notes, you'll see that he says it probably comes down to fighting orders and whether Iowa decides to close the range. (In which case it'll be shot up pretty bad.) This system represents a "perfect" performance by both ships; and if Iowa does everything right, Yamato's actions don't matter.

Which is why I believe my numbers better represent how they really would stand to each other during a "perfect" performance, he was far too slanted with his bias, all I did was even it out and made it a far less bias opinion. All ships got weighted by their strong points, their weak points, and the points we can truly measure. His armor calculation ratings were quite good along with others, but some factors we sat way too hard with the bias.

[NGTM_1R]

Honestly, as I said, if Iowa does everything right it doesn't matter what Yamato does or how well it does it. By those standards neither system reflects reality because that's a crushingly powerful advantage. The contest is deeply unfair when your opponent has to screw up for you to even survive it, never mind winning.

[Battleship_Unknown2]

NGTM_1R, on 14 March 2013 - 03:51 AM, said:

If you actually bother to read the detailed notes, you'll see that he says it probably comes down to fighting orders and whether Iowa decides to close the range. (In which case it'll be shot up pretty bad.) This system represents a "perfect" performance by both ships; and if Iowa does everything right, Yamato's actions don't matter.

Hey, **** tone? Try ratcheting it down a few degrees.

[xS_DEADLY_Sx]

Are you really tell him to calm down like that? Remember this?:

 

PrincessRoyal, on 13 March 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

 

"Hai maw! Look der at that funny ship wit' tha big guns'n'stuff. That there looks like ah battleship, so it mus' be a battleship! Get Diabetty off that der cake so she can sees this! Hyuck!"

And, just to clarify, that's a really hard analogy to arrive at considering these people are Russian. Yet, here I am.

[Battleship_Unknown2]

xS_DEADLY_Sx, on 14 March 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Are you really tell him to calm down like that? Remember this?:

What are you, my nanny? Are you really that butthurt? That I insulted the devs -- who don't deign to step down from on-high to explain an absolutely stupid design choice -- with a cartoon? And now you're going to follow me around like some little toadie, whining every time I say something? You are a sad, sorry little gremlin. I suggest you try to labor on those personal issues a little harder. Maybe go stand in front of a mirror for an hour a day and repeat 'I will attempt not to be such a tool, I will attempt not to be such a tool.' I doubt it will work, but at least make the effort.

Go on. Get to it.

[xS_DEADLY_Sx]

I don't follow you around, I look at threads and express my opinion. And just because I express my opinion in a little less rude ways than you, it doesn't mean I'm some kid that can't take some yelling. But we're trying to keep these forums respectable, and calling everyone that doesn't agree with you a [edited] doesn't help that. I don't have personal problems, I'm just trying to keep it nice.