Jump to content
Erika_1939

Bluepill me about the Bismarck

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[KURO]
Players
2 posts
1,172 battles

 So here's the deal: I just researched Bismarck and I'm now saving up for it to then put my secondary captain on it who's currently on the Scharnhorst... because of course he is.
But here's the thing, looking at Bismarck i honestly don't know if it's really better than Scharnhorst for close range brawling, i mean Tirpitz sure but Bismarck?
Yeah it has one 105 per side more but Scharnhorst has one that rotates 180 C° in the rear making up for that and yeah Bismarck has one twin 150 turret more but Scharnhorst has two single 150 to make up for that and all of that doesn't take into consideration that Scharnhorst has torpedoes.
So what does Bismarck bring to the table other than secondary range and is it worth giving up on torps?

 

tl;dr: why Bismarck over Scharnhorst for close range fights?

 

Thanks in advance
-t. someone who has no idea what he's doing

 

(the accompanying picture is completely unrelated to the topic above and exists purely to represent the author's confusion)

1543775751584.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
18,838 posts
12,049 battles

It IS the secondary range.

Apart from having more HP and much bigger main guns.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KURLA]
Players
998 posts
18,182 battles

For ultra close-range brawls you still want the Scharnhorst or Tirpitz.

Basically nothing beats that huge extra torpedo-alpha since all BBs can do massive dmg to each others broadside at those ranges.

Bismarck has more HP, better secondaries (11.3km with full spec), AA, Guns (arguably, but certainly for a brawl), Hydro for self-protection and is massively more tanky.

You retain the increased armour on the belt and main deck in the front and back but upgrade to 32mm bow-plating on the squishier parts,

which allows you to bounce non-ifhe HE <180mm and any AP except for the Yamato/Musashi when angled (that is when they don't hit your 50 or 60mm plating)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,435 posts
6,709 battles
20 minutes ago, Erika_1939 said:

tl;dr: why Bismarck over Scharnhorst for close range fights?

Within 6 km, Scharnhorst is better. Beyond 6 km, Bismarck has more hp, better armour, better secondaries, way better guns. Bismarck also gets hydro. The question now is, are most of your fights within 6 km or not? And that basically should help you get the point of why Bismarck is a step-up. Bismarck can zone out ships with secondaries up to 11.3 km, can reliably bow-tank BBs, has guns that are more useful at range and hydro can help a lot to avoid surprise torps (or even allows pushing DDs).

 

If you want the more linear upgrade, get Tirpitz. It's Bismarck with torps.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KURO]
Players
2 posts
1,172 battles

First of all thanks for the quick replies guys.
So the trick is to stay within secondary range but don't go knocking on the enemy's door anymore, got it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,435 posts
6,709 battles
4 minutes ago, Erika_1939 said:

First of all thanks for the quick replies guys.
So the trick is to stay within secondary range but don't go knocking on the enemy's door anymore, got it.

 

Pretty much. View it as not having to rush enemies as aggressively anymore. You can do your best damage at like 8-11 km already, whereas Scharnhorst had to get within 8 km to get itse secondaries off and 6 km to use its torps (though effective range is often less than 6 km).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,868 posts
8,719 battles
4 hours ago, rnat said:

For ultra close-range brawls you still want the Scharnhorst or Tirpitz.

Basically nothing beats that huge extra torpedo-alpha since all BBs can do massive dmg to each others broadside at those ranges.

Bismarck has more HP, better secondaries (11.3km with full spec), AA, Guns (arguably, but certainly for a brawl), Hydro for self-protection and is massively more tanky.

You retain the increased armour on the belt and main deck in the front and back but upgrade to 32mm bow-plating on the squishier parts,

which allows you to bounce non-ifhe HE <180mm and any AP except for the Yamato/Musashi when angled (that is when they don't hit your 50 or 60mm plating)

Main belt is thinner on Bismarck, though she gets 32mm plating on bow/stern, enabling her to shrug off all but Yamato class AP. Upper main belt is considerably reinforced though, so random DD with AP loaded isn't an legitimate threat. Heavy cruiser still can make dent in 160mm plating though.

 

Biggest drawback of Bismarck is matchmaking - tier 8 notoriously sees tier 10, which besides spike on boomstick department, also have much more campy gameplay, so getting within secondary range is somewhat rare, not including yolo rushes.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
457 posts
7,925 battles

I play Scharnhorst as a big agressive cruiser with secondaries but I go for a tanky build over a secondary build.

Bismarck is a  battleship with hydro and even better secondaries to make up for a lack of main battery power. I go all out on a scondary build here.

Scharnhorst/Tirpitz are better for the really close range brawling where they can make use of their torps.

 

As long as you aren't in a T10 game Bismarck is pretty nice. For the past two years I would have recommended Bismarck over Tirpitz because I like the hydro, these days I regret not buying a Tirpitz B.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
110 posts
10,641 battles

Scharnhorst>>Bismarck, especially in current meta where Bismarck/Tirpitz are obsolete.

Much better matchmaking for Schanrhorst( tier 8 MM is notoriously broken) and torps are always fun for brawling.

The days when Bismarck used to rule the tier8s with 6km hydro and no flame spitting light cruisers or Alabama around, are long gone.

Plus the armour is very overrated on Bismack; if anything having a thicker upper belt is a handicap in this game. Theyre quite easy to score 20-25k salvos on even when u shoot at them with tier 6 BBs, u wont get that big hits on a Scharnhorst/Gneisenau, not nearly as often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
3,606 posts
14,508 battles
4 hours ago, LeeQuid said:

Bismarck, especially in current meta where Bismarck/Tirpitz are obsolete.

The whole German BB line is obsolete. T8+ its one garbage ship after another, compared to the other BBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
817 posts

I actually rate the Gen in a way better than Bismark with secondary guns once you get that Hull B. That hull upgrade replaces some smaller calibre secondary guns and makes them all the same matching having 30mm pen playing at T7. Some of Bismark's smaller secondary guns only do 16mm pen (I think) playing at T8 and dumped in T10 matches. Of course the Bismark has better secondary range, but overall the Gen for me has more going for it with it's secondary guns all having 30mm pen playing at lower T7.

 

The difference between the Gen and Shorn on secondary. I think the Shorn keeps some of those smaller calibre secondary like Gen first starts out with on Hull A, but get removed on the Gen when you do the Hull B upgrade so all secondary have same bigger pen. The Gen also has torps (like Shorn and Tirpz) that the Bismark lacks for close in brawling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[N3XUS]
Players
993 posts
23,102 battles

...can tell ya this true happenings: my Massachusetts (VIII) facing 1x enemy Tirpitz + 1x Bismarck...all...all on full health....no other ships around ....battle....Massy took both out, easily!!!!...secondaries + 406 mm shells AP....get it now??? ...and my Massachusetts always does so, easily...so...get it now????....do i feel "proud"??? nahhh not realy, cuz Massachusetts(VIII) = BEAST of a ship!!!!!...it fears none!!!! Fully secondary build it just sinks otheres, all.

 

So, as to Bismarck (VIII)----> better aim for GK (X)!!!...that is a complete different story...go for GK!!!!!

 

(...and GK (X) vs Massachusetss(VIII)....when those battle...depends...can go either way, both are sooooo strong...oh yes!!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
3,606 posts
14,508 battles
3 hours ago, Yaskaraxx said:

So, as to Bismarck (VIII)----> better aim for GK (X)!!!...that is a complete different story...go for GK!!!!! 

Yeah, go for the worst T10 battleship, the one that has the lowest winrate, lowest damage, lowest K/D ratio. The one that doesn't get citadeled, but instead constantly eats HE and full pens.:Smile_sceptic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[N3XUS]
Players
993 posts
23,102 battles
46 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

Yeah, go for the worst T10 battleship, the one that has the lowest winrate, lowest damage, lowest K/D ratio. The one that doesn't get citadeled, but instead constantly eats HE and full pens.:Smile_sceptic:

nahhh.. that is not it...GK is very strong ship!!!!...when I play me Asashio facing diificulties ta hit it (allway hydro on),,,,GK is strong ship!!!...for sure....but other question: can GK VS Massachusetts win???....i put me money on Massachusetts (VIII), so incredibly strong, full secondary build....oh yeah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
3,606 posts
14,508 battles
1 minute ago, Yaskaraxx said:

nahhh.. that is not it...GK is very strong ship!!!!...when I play me Asashio facing diificulties ta hit it (allway hydro on),,,,GK is strong ship!!!...for sure....but other question: can GK VS Massachusetts win???....i put me money on Massachusetts (VIII), so incredibly strong, full secondary build....oh yeah

The stats say otherwise - http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20190316/eu_week/average_ship.html.

I understand that perception bias colors how people see ships, but cold hard numbers say that GK is the worst T10 BB.

 

Massachusetts is too strong, it made all other T8 secondary premiums obsolete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[N3XUS]
Players
993 posts
23,102 battles
5 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

The stats say otherwise - http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20190316/eu_week/average_ship.html.

I understand that perception bias colors how people see ships, but cold hard numbers say that GK is the worst T10 BB.

 

Massachusetts is too strong, it made all other T8 secondary premiums obsolete.

i like you! (you supported me Henri X perma camo  request, so, I always will like ya!!!...ya supported me for new perma camo---> deeper blue one (same as Alabama has), you supported me, i willl never ever forget), i value ya!

 

...as to Massy((VIII)......yeah,  ship is very strong...but not op!....nahhhh, just a very strong ship in the right hands! Fully secondary build.

 

GK......?...i opine is real tough + strong ship!!!....I know for sure...so only thing i can do is advising me fellow player: Bismarck (VIII) = OK...----> but go for the GK!!!!!...thats imwanna say here....go for GK!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
853 posts
852 battles
32 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

Massachusetts is too strong

& we all know WG is immune to 'powercreep virus' now don't we?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[N3XUS]
Players
993 posts
23,102 battles

nahhh, dont think so, i so much like WG!!! ...and Massy?...no...not OP!,,,it is just "who plays it".....skills, i maean...all ok!

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,728 posts
4,549 battles
On 2/6/2019 at 9:56 AM, rnat said:

For ultra close-range brawls you still want the Scharnhorst or Tirpitz.

Basically nothing beats that huge extra torpedo-alpha since all BBs can do massive dmg to each others broadside at those ranges.

Bismarck has more HP, better secondaries (11.3km with full spec), AA, Guns (arguably, but certainly for a brawl), Hydro for self-protection and is massively more tanky.

You retain the increased armour on the belt and main deck in the front and back but upgrade to 32mm bow-plating on the squishier parts,

which allows you to bounce non-ifhe HE <180mm and any AP except for the Yamato/Musashi when angled (that is when they don't hit your 50 or 60mm plating)

Thats great to hear then as she is the next BB I am grinding up to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ED_O7]
Players
62 posts
4,222 battles

I can only compare the Bismarck to Gneisenau, but I feel it is much-much stronger ship. It feels comfortable even at close ranges - even though there are no torps, the main guns are so powerful it makes up for it.

 

As mentioned above, Bismarck's performance depends on the matchmaking, and the maps. If you are on the open ocean map and up against T10 ships, well, you can't do much. If you are top tier, the Bismarck shreds through everything, I am usually sailing straight into the cap and destroy whatever moves.

The only occasion it can be very useful against T10 ships is hunting down large cruisers on rugged maps - apart of the hydro and still respectable armament against cruisers, the biggest strength against T10 cruisers that they underestimate the Bismarck too, which is a mistake. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
438 posts
1,838 battles

I considered Gneisenau stronger too.

 

Yes, secondary range is way better on Bismarck, but who really cares about those? Even with 11 Captain skills spent on Advanced firing training 1&2 and manual secondaries those weapons will never make more then 1/4 of my total damage output.

 

Furtheron, Gneisenaus rear Turret has a better firing angle than those of Bismarck, giving her more firepower at a lower angle.

 

Her belt armor is also stronger. Her bow is split, the upper part being weaker and the lower part stronger then bismarck.

 

My impression of Gneisenau being at least not weaker than Bismarck is now underlined while playing cruiser:

 

Bismarck is a huge target to hit with armor everywhere, just enough to make sure every hit is a pen.

 

Besides, Gneisenau is just way harder to hit. It has a very low silhouette with small superstructure and a hull that is extremely narrow.  

In head on approaches, Gneisenau is ridiculusly hard to hit for the one being attacked. 

In addition to that she handles better with a shorter rudder shift.

 

Last but not least, Bismarck looses to matchmaking. Tier VIII is uptiered very often.

 

And when uptiered, she looses to meta. Sniping Yamatos at 20 km with four 38 cm rifles and Zaos giving you 8 k salvos every 12 seconds just doesn't get you anywhere.

 

I played IJN BB and british BB and german DD up to Tier VI, german CA Up to Tier VII and German BB up to Tier IX and I considered Bismarck the most frustrating experience of all.

 

FDG was better but I will not buy a premium account, that is necessary to Not constantly lose huge amounts of credits even after good games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
817 posts

Once you install Hull B on the Gneisenaus, the secondary guns are all the same, it loses the smaller calbre ones present on Hull A. Look at the pen rates for the secondary guns (31mm pen "on all secondary guns") when using Hull B playing at T7.  IFHE isn't needed on it, while the Bismark keeps 8 x 105mm smaller secondary with only 17mm pen on Hull B upgrade playing at T8 ( and T10) matches that really requires IFHE for them to be of any real use (other than starting fires). As their pen rates at top tier isn't good enough at 17mm for the smaller secondary

 

The Gneisenaus with Hull B has a distinct advantage over Bismark playing at lower T7, with all secondary having 31mm pen on Hull B playing against weaker ships than Bismark. It can pen just about most ships it meets with 31mm pen rate on all its secondary. While Bismark has to try and pen ships at T10 using some 8 x 105mm secondary with only 17mm pen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
817 posts
On 4/22/2019 at 7:55 AM, Grossadmiral_H_invader said:

FDG was better but I will not buy a premium account, that is necessary to Not constantly lose huge amounts of credits even after good games.

The pen rates are okay on FDG (much better than Bismark on the same 105mm smaller calibre secondary guns, they are 25mm pen rate on FDG ( and not 17mm pen like on the Bismark), so a big step up on secondary pen power, even on the same 105mm smaller secondary guns).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,435 posts
6,709 battles
5 hours ago, TheScarletPimpernel said:

While Bismark has to try and pen ships at T10 using some 8 x 105mm secondary with only 17mm pen.

+ 6x2 15 cm guns that can pen most BBs. Doesn't have the Gneisenau's dpm, but it has more range. Bismarck is just less close-range focused, which is just for the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7 posts
3,749 battles
Le 15/03/2019 à 21:59, Aragathor a dit :

The whole German BB line is obsolete. T8+ its one garbage ship after another, compared to the other BBs.

 

Got the same feeling, just for playing against them in my T8 to T10 CA/DD or my premium BBs (up to T8). I barely fear them but that's also because many German BB players yolo early and just eat all opponent's shells in minutes.
Talking about meta, AP bombs make fantastic holes on Bismarck decks. Besides that I am not satisfied about the AA on my Scharnie who is constantly targeted and lighted by everything that flies.

 

Then, it would be nice having German BB line revisited for balance, even just to have something more interesting to fear on the battlefield than hit and running HE spammers or mosquito trainers.

 

 

edit : I have the Massachusetts as well and it's a pleasure to play it and shoot at erverything with main and secondaries with success while repelling air attacks while German ones can't do any of the those things correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×