KMS_Tirpitz

I am talking about the fire control upgrade module.

Just had a look at the Bismarck's stats from GC, and apparently it features a 274m max dispersion. That is just insane WG, I really hope you change that. So a Fuso with way worse fire control & weaker guns outranges and out shoots one of the most powerful & accurate battleship classes of WW2...

Yeah its surprising how many people think brawling is a good idea in a BB, esp. considering that is one of the easiest ways to get killed ingame - DDs will quite simply rip you a new one.

Thing is even at close ranges the BBs are achieving a worse accuracy ingame, which is just bonkers. esp. as BB's are SUPPOSED to be the counter to cruisers, yet ingame it's the other way round. End result is that BBs are stuck with engaging other BBs, because effectively engaging cruisers is a not going to happen due to their much higher speed, agility AND accuracy. All of this is completely ridiculous when you consider that BBs were more accurate than cruisers at all ranges in reality, and that was basically considered suicide for a cruiser to engage a battleship.

and this hit ratio was even worse for cruisers in reality, which is the exact opposite ingame... so what's your point?

I hope not, that is a ridiculous dispersion for what was one of the most accurate BBs of the period. And no BBs are not supposed to brawl at all in this game, if they try to get close to brawl they will get completely destroyed by DDs.

Yes I know (29.5 km to be more exact), I am saying that since they use a 25 deg elevation limit they should also use the guns' max range at this elevation as well.

I know it's a game, but why not at least keep some historical accuracy - esp. in this area as its not going to do anything but improve balance. The torpedos are going to be close to useless for a BB, esp. with such a short range. Furthermore presumably the British BBs will recieve torpedoes too. Also what dispersion? No info has been given on dispersion yet. Also hopefully BBs will recieve a reduced disperion in general at some point as they are suffering unduly against cruisers atm.

They ought to balance after historical specs within their own preset elevation limits really, I've read that WG sets the elevation limit at 25 deg. Also I am requesting this knowing how important the max range is to BBs ingame, hence why I've been requesting a max range upgrade for the Colorado, New Mexico, Nagato & Amagi as well, and in the case of the Nagato & Amagi to about 22 km as it makes zero sense that they are outranged by the older and 356mm gunned Fuso, which btw will also outrange the Bismarck if no FC upgrade is available for this class. And THAT to me is what you can call silly

and your reasoning is?

The Bismarck & Tirpitz ought to have longer range than the North Carolina, anything else would be extremely ridiculous. Thus I hope the 21.2 & 21.4 km ranges are before a FC upgrade module that I ALSO hope will be available. By 1944 the Tirpitz was equipped with the FuMO 26 fire control radar with a 3x6m mattress which boasted identical bearing accuracy (0.1 deg) & slightly better range accuracy (25 m) than the Iowa's Mk.13 fire control radar, whilst detection range was markedly better at 70 km. German, British & US fire control radars by year: 1940-41...........German...............British..........USNRange accuracy:..40 meters...........240 yards.........N/ABearing Accuracy..0.10*................0.75*..............N/A1942-43.............German................British.................USNRange Accuracy:...40 meters............120 yards............0.1% of range + 40 yardsBearing axxuracy...0.10*.................0.08-0.10*...........0.12-0.20*1944-45................German ................British...........................USNRange accuracy:....10-25 meters.........120 or 40 yards..........0.1% of range + 15 yards.Bearing Accuracy:.....0.10*.................0.08*-0.10*....................0.10-0.12* In addition to this the Bismarck & Tirpitz' 380mm SK C/34 main armament was much further reaching than the North Carolina's 406mm Mk.6 main armament, and infact even that of the Iowa at the same gun elevation. 380mm L/52 SK C/34 (Bismarck Class) Shell weight:............................800 kg (AP + HE) Muzzle velocity:.......................820 m/s (AP + HE) Range @ 25 deg:....................32,750 m (AP + HE) Train rate:................................5 deg sec Elevation rate:..........................6 deg sec Max reload rate:.......................3.0 rpm Average reload rate (25 deg):..2.5 rpm 406mm L/50 Mk.7 (Iowa Class) Shell weight:............................1,225 kg (AP), 862 kg (HC) Muzzle velocity:.......................762 m/s (AP), 823 m/s (HC) Range @ 25 deg:....................30,450 m (AP), 29,901 m (HC) Train rate:................................4 deg sec Elevation rate:..........................12 deg sec Max reload rate:.......................2.0 rpm Average reload rate (25 deg):..1.8 rpm 406mm L/45 Mark 6 (North Carolina class) Shell weight:............................1,225 kg (AP), 862 kg (HE) Muzzle velocity:.......................701 m/s (AP), 803 m/s (HE) Range @ 25 deg:....................26,975 m (AP), 28,986 m (HE) Train rate:................................4 deg sec Elevation rate:..........................12 deg sec Max reload rate:.......................2.0 rpm Average reload rate (25 deg):..1.8 rpm Thus a 23.5 to 24+ km max range for the Tirpitz would be in order, also balance wise as she featured 1 less gun than the North Carolina and whilst the SK C/34s have higher penetration power than the 406mm Mk.6's. they nonetheless will do less damage pr. successful penetration ingame. HE damage is also going to be slightly less, but the difference should be very small as the Germans used a heavy 800 kg HE shell with a 64.2 kg explosive charge, compared to the 862 kg HE shell of the 406mm Mk.6 & 7 guns with a 69.7 kg explosive charge - i.e. only a 8% difference.

BB's are ridiculously underpowered ingame atm, everything counters BBs basically whilst they counter nothing really, and there's really only one way of reversing that and that is to reduce big gun dispersion and balance their firing range according to their real life max range at a 25 deg gun elevation. Doing this and BBs such as the Colorado, Wyoming & New Mexico won't all be completely helpless against Cruisers and DDs.

No luck, just the inevitable. The Hood was straddled on the first salvo and this was kept up with several hits until she was struck in her magazine. When fire was then switched to the PoW she was also straddled on the first salvo, and this was kept up even as she retreated behind a smokescreen. The only luck the British had that day was the fact that the PoW wasn't sunk as well, as Lutjens ordered not to chase her. As for the article it is very antiquadated and filled with misinformation. There are much better ones out there. Finally an often overlooked fact: During the Bismarck's final engagement, despite being under fire from over 15 guns, firing only 4 on her own & sailing just 7 knots in a very predictable constant shallow turn, Bismarck was the first to start straddling her target the HMS Rodney. It wasn't until 5 min later that the British found their mark and started straddling the Bismarck. This says something about the Bismarck's excellent optical FC, as her FC radar had been out of action since the Denmark strait battle.

First of all there was nothing sub par about the 2cm C/38, its practical rate of fire was pretty much on par with the Oerlikon whilst it was lighter pr. barrel, it also featured a longer effective range, and the quadruble mount you accuse of being heavy (bonkers statement considering it was mounted on a 50,000+ ton warship) was capable of a sustained 880 rpm in 1800 rpm salvos. Secondly you'd also do yourself a favor by backing up your theory that the much improved 10.5cm SK C/38's were lackluster with more than just your words. Fact is the 10.5cm SK C/37 had several advantages over the US 5" Mark 12 DP guns including: 1) Advanced triaxial mount providing better accuracy (the Mark 12 was effective during radar guided mass fire, it wasn't particularly accurate. Plus the Tirpitz's C/38's recieved radar guidance as well) 2) Higher muzzle velocity [900 m/s with AA HEI] (important when shooting after fast moving targets) 3) Higher RoF, up to 18 rpm 4) Lighter weight (something you seemed so concerned about regarding the much lighter 2cm AA guns) It should also be noted that the Tirpitz's secondary armament could and was used as AAA as well.

Magni56, on 06 August 2015 - 03:49 AM, said: Or more likely they didn't because the 20mms were weak and short-ranged (Also, their practical rate of fire was quite lower than the theoretical cyclical rate and lower than the practical rate of fire on the 20mm Oerlikon - the C/38 used 20-round box magazines while the Oerlikon had 60-round drums or a belt-feed), the 37mms weren't nearly as good as a Bofors (40rpm per barrel compared to 120 for the Bofors! They were functionally semi-automatic guns!) and the 10.5cms were lackluster at best copared to the 5in DP guns used by almost anyone else. Upgraded Amagi has the same number of DP guns, but of higher caliber and 84*25mm instead of the couple low-RoF 40mms and gaggle of inferior 20mm guns. The 2cm C/38s practical rate of fire was 220 rpm pr. barrel, compared to the 250 rpm of the Oerlikon (drum mags are slow to reload) so the quad mounts would average 880 rpm. Their range was 4.7 km with a 3.7 km ceiling. That's better the 20mm Oerlikon. The 10.5 cm SK C/37's were by no means lack luster compared to the 5in DP guns, where are you getting that from? Infact the C/37's were triaxially mounted to provide better accuracy & tracking than what was possible with the 5in DP guns. You're no doubt confusing the improved C/37's with the older C/33's, which were found to be problematic. kotkiller, on 05 August 2015 - 11:21 PM, said: it has 21.4 km range Yeah, hopefully it is the std. range before a FCS upgrade module. Otherwise it's quite ridiculous.

Would be possible to get a 1944 hull or Fire Control upgrade for the Nagato class ingame? Really would be nice to have a WW2 standard Nagato class.

Tirpitz featured a very competent AA armament in 1944 including: 78 x 2 cm C/38 AA guns in 72 quadruble mounts + 6 in single mounts (450 rpm pr. barrel) [Combined 1800 rpm pr. quadruble mount] 12 x 2 cm C/30 AA guns (280 rpm pr. barrel) 16 x 3.7 cm SK C/30 AA guns in 8 twin mounts (40 rpm pr. barrel) 16 x 10.5 cm SK C/37 AA guns in 8 twin mounts (15 rpm pr. barrel) That's a serious AA compliment.

How would it affect gamplay in your opinion if: Every gun ingame was given its real life range at 25 deg elevation, coupled with its real life penetration performance at every range? Would it make gameplay worse? Or would it make it more interesting in your opinion? Note: Shell travel times would remain the same for each gun at the same ranges they currently can fire ingamr and thus increase the further you go out, so shooting and hitting someone at 30 km would take a lot of skill and luck, but on the other hand also feel a lot more rewarding. Personally I like the idea as I like long range shooting, but also because I feel it would better balance the BBs, esp. in a historical sense - plus make them more dangerous to carriers who currently seem to dominate the game. What are your thoughts? EDIT: Remember the time of flight of the shells pr. range ingame atm is NOT touched, it stays the same as it is currently balanced with how fast ships can sail and maneuver. Neither is therefore the speed or maneuverability of the ships touched. So it would still take on average 14 sec for an AP shell to reach 20 km. just as it is ingame atm.

Either way, if this cannot be realised, how about we at least base max range of the ships ingame on their real life max range at a 25 deg elevation angle? i.e. so that ships with a longer range in reality also have it ingame? I'm sure A LOT of BB drivers, USN & IJN alike, would really love that - I know I would in a Nagato, Amagi or Colorado In other words the max range & performance characteristics of a battleships main armament would be based on and balanced in accordance with their real life performance and max range at a 25 deg elevation angle: 460mm L/45 Type 94 (Yamato class) Shell weight:............................ 1,460 kg (AP) Muzzle velocity:.......................780 m/s (AP) Range @ 25 deg:....................31,425 m (AP) Train rate:................................2 deg sec Elevation rate:..........................10 deg sec Max reload rate:.......................2.0 rpm Average reload rate (25 deg):..1.7 rpm 406mm L/50 Mk.7 (Iowa Class) Shell weight:............................1,225 kg (AP), 862 kg (HC) Muzzle velocity:.......................762 m/s (AP), 823 m/s (HC) Range @ 25 deg:....................30,450 m (AP), 29,901 m (HC) Train rate:................................4 deg sec Elevation rate:..........................12 deg sec Max reload rate:.......................2.0 rpm Average reload rate (25 deg):..1.8 rpm 380mm L/52 SK C/34 (Bismarck Class) Shell weight:............................800 kg (AP + HE) Muzzle velocity:.......................820 m/s (AP + HE) Range @ 25 deg:....................32,750 m (AP + HE) Train rate:................................5 deg sec Elevation rate:..........................6 deg sec Max reload rate:.......................3.0 rpm Average reload rate (25 deg):..2.5 rpm 410mm L/45 3rd year type (Nagato & Amagi class) Shell weight:............................1,020 kg (AP) Muzzle velocity:.......................806 m/s (AP) Range @ 25 deg:....................29,700 m (AP) Train rate:................................3 deg sec Elevation rate:..........................5 deg sec Max reload rate:.......................2.5 rpm Average reload rate (25 deg):..2.0 rpm 406mm L/45 Mark 6 (North Carolina class) Shell weight:............................1,225 kg (AP), 862 kg (HE) Muzzle velocity:.......................701 m/s (AP), 803 m/s (HE) Range @ 25 deg:....................26,975 m (AP), 28,986 m (HE) Train rate:................................4 deg sec Elevation rate:..........................12 deg sec Max reload rate:.......................2.0 rpm Average reload rate (25 deg):..1.8 rpm 406mm L/45 Mark I (Nelson class) Shell weight:............................929 kg (AP + HE) Muzzle velocity:.......................788 m/s Range @ 25 deg:....................28,500 m (AP + HE) Train rate:................................4 deg sec Elevation rate:..........................10 deg sec Max reload rate:.......................1.5 rpm Average reload rate (25 deg):..1.2 rpm 356mm L/45 Mark VII (King George V class) Shell weight:............................721 kg (AP + HE) Muzzle velocity:.......................757 m/s (AP + HE) Range @ 25 deg:....................26,800 m (AP + HE) Train rate:................................2 deg sec Elevation rate:..........................8 deg sec Max reload rate:.......................2.0 rpm Average reload rate (25 deg):..1.6 rpm 356mm L/45 41st year type (Kongo & Fuso class) Shell weight:............................673 kg (AP) Muzzle velocity:.......................775 m/s (AP) Range @ 25 deg:....................27,750 m (AP) Train rate:................................3 deg sec Elevation rate:..........................5 deg sec Max reload rate:.......................2.0 rpm Average reload rate (25 deg):..1.5 rpm

Guys guys guys: 1) I am NOT saying we should change the speed of ships at all! 2) Shell times are NOT to be touched as they are currently balanced with ship speed For example in real life the time to travel 20 km for a 380mm AP shell as fired from the Bismarck would be 32 seconds, which I am NOT saying we should have We should keep the current ~14 sec ToT to 20 km for AP shells as its balanced with the ingame ship speed and maneuvering. All I am suggesting is that we give each BB a max range based on the actual max range of its guns at a 25 deg elevation angle. Why 25 deg you then say, because that's apparently a limit WG wants to stick to, which is ok considering that beyond 25 deg many guns would fire beyond the visual horizon anyway.

Dispersion ingame is an odd one indeed, I really can't get my head around what kind of odd method they are using there, but realistic it is not.

I just hope the Tirpitz gets more than a 21.5 km range, cause that is ridiculously low for her, esp. considering the 23.3 km ingame range of the North Carolina which she easily outranged in reality.

Lol "fun range" I'll leave that typo in there just because it looks hilarious :-P J_Fuller, on 05 August 2015 - 12:21 PM, said: Then you havn't thought it though... Quit a few BB players are doing just that in their IJN BB's... We don't need to give the US BB's a reason to do that! Also WarGaming has made it clear that the range the ships can fire is the effectiv range, not max range... if they did as you surgest, then why not make sure you cant see more than 7-8 km out (because of the slope of the earth)? You honestly believe that you can't look further than 8 km due to the curvature of the earth? My friend, BBs could spot each other visually beyond 25 km. Also I really am not seeing much cap camping ingame at all, even by Yamato players with their 26.6 km range. Heck the tier 8 North Carolina can shoot 23.3 km ingame as it is, which is the same as the Iowa & Montana, which is abit silly when you think about it considering the much lower perfomance of the Carolinas older Mk6 guns. In short I believe you are making this into more of a problem than it should be.

Please do NOT add a aim marker!! That would just kill the skill factor. Instead decrease the dispersion for the big guns abit, say by 15-20%, and add more realistic gun ranges - doesn't need to be 30 km, but a min 22.5-25 km range for the tier 7-10 BBs would help a lot.

Thanks for your thoughts gents, keep em coming Adding realistic max gun ranges for a 25 deg max elevation would do the following: 1) Max range of BB main armaments will vary from between 24-32 km 2) The time of travel for AP shells would vary from 17-20 sec ingame at such maximum ranges, depending on the muzzle velocity of the particular gun type. Now it could be argued that a 30 km fun range would make people camp at their caps, but I don't believe that will be the case considering how hard it would be to hit at these ranges. In other words people will prefer to get closer, simply because hitting will become much easier that way.