Aquila2407

IMHO, if you had aimed a little bit higher, vertical dispersion would have spread shells between the lower superstructure and the armored bridge. Therefore, there would have been less bouncings and more penetrations. The waterline is a good target if the battleship you fire at shows its broadside, but only at short distance.

At which distance were you from the Bismarck when you fired? And which part of the Bismarck did you aim at? Always remember that the more acute is the angle between the shells' terminal trajectory and the armor, the more your shells will bounce. If you fire at long range, your shells fall almost vertically. If they meet an almost vertical armor, the angle is acute and many shells bounce. When you fire APs at long range against a battleship, aim at superstructures. Many shells will penetrate their weak vertical armor. And some will also penetrate the decks' horizontal armor, which is way thinner than the vertical one.

And the obsolete pre dreadnought HMS Goliath sunk by an Ottoman destroyer on May 12 1915 during the Dardanelles campaign. Which does not rejuvenate us. :)

The low distance at which a DD often can be spotted in game kind of simulates sub ambushes - as well as DD night actions before radar was widespread. Islands also contribute to this. WW2 subs were slow as hell when submerged and sluggish when surfaced. Playing them in 20 min games would IMHO be a PITAS.

Sorry to answer a question with another question but what issue would such a measure solve? IMHO, changing something about gameplay without solving a problem usually means creating a brand new problem.