Battleship Comparison

[nikon56]

 

Shell travel time has no effect on things being superior or not, because shell travel travel time is a skill u need to develop for that particular ship. Yes u might suck at a certain ship with long travel time, but somebody else might suck at a ship with short travel time. All traveltime will tell u in this comparison thread is that u need to lead more then with other caliber guns, nothing more. 

 

 

Basing your own experience of a single game on a comparison thread is pointless. These are averages, meaning u have games u will hit everything, and games where u will hit nothing. crap happens. Even the most accurate ship in the game will on occasion miss (this is even more true for BB's as your alpha dmg should balance out for your lack of accuracy) 

 

 

 

i already unlocked the tier IV BB so no "one" game, after that many games, the trend is rather clear.

 

kawashi is a piece of crap, on paper you are +- equivalent, in practice you just cant' do a thing in pvp.

 

with south carolina, you can still deal damage, with kawashi, you are dead before you even get at range 90% of the time, and even when at range you won't hit anything, even hitting a BB showing his side is pure luck, at least south carolina you can hit somewhat reliably your opponents BB even from front or back, and even cruisers should they show their side.

 

coupled with the fact you face tier IV and V ship wich are faster and have better range (you face ships with up to 14KM range), wich are faster than you so they can keep range, this ship is, litteraly, hopeless in any pvp match it get thrown in.

 

the stats are rather telling tbh, kawashi deals an average of 2k less damage compared to south carolina according to this link:

 

edit: also seems it's not just me, check:

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/21011-ijn-kawachi-whats-wrong-with-it/

 

 

 

[Exustio]

 

i already unlocked the tier IV BB so no "one" game, after that many games, the trend is rather clear.

 

kawashi is a piece of crap, on paper you are +- equivalent, in practice you just cant' do a thing in pvp.

 

with south carolina, you can still deal damage, with kawashi, you are dead before you even get at range 90% of the time, and even when at range you won't hit anything, even hitting a BB showing his side is pure luck, at least south carolina you can hit somewhat reliably your opponents BB even from front or back, and even cruisers should they show their side.

 

coupled with the fact you face tier IV and V ship wich are faster and have better range (you face ships with up to 14KM range), wich are faster than you so they can keep range, this ship is, litteraly, hopeless in any pvp match it get thrown in.

 

the stats are rather telling tbh, kawashi deals an average of 2k less damage compared to south carolina according to this link:

 

edit: also seems it's not just me, check:

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/21011-ijn-kawachi-whats-wrong-with-it/

 

 

 

 

All i can say is that statisticly (which this thread in reality is) the kawachi is better then the South caroline in terms of accuracy. 

 

P.S. 

 

I agree with u a 100% in terms of the kawachi, which is the reason i free xp'd that piece of crap. Was crap in beta, is crap now, so......no reason to cry over something we knew months ago Except when ur new, and in that case.........MUHAHAHAHAHA

[deorum]

Quick question, sorry if it is already answered.

 

How is dispersion defined?
 

 

Tier 6	Fuso	New Mexico	Warspite
HP	57.100	53.200	53.800
Main armament/#turrets/rotatespeed	356mm/6/56.3sec	356mm/4/60sec	381mm/4/72sec
#guns/reload/range	12/28.6sec/21.8km	12/33.3sec/14.9km	8/30sec/16.3km
DPM HE/ DPM AP	143.640/257.040	108.000/226.800	84.800/182.400
Max Dispersion/% Fire	241m/27%	196m/30%	219m/34%

 

For example here, the have a huge range difference.

 

Is this the dispertion at maximum range? Because if this is true, it means that FUSO, for the same range (lets say 15k) it might actually be more accurate

[Unintentional_submarine]

Yes, dispersion is for max range. And yes that means Fuso has a better dispersion/km.

[Ra97oR]

Yes, dispersion is for max range. And yes that means Fuso has a better dispersion/km.

 

That is clearly not the case. It's far more complex and stupid than that. My Warspite is far more accurate than my Fuso at any range.

[Takeda92]

I could be very wrong here, but from a google translated RU post, I could understand that accuracy depends on 3 circles around your ship, sort of like: short range, mid range and long range accuracy, and being more accurate in short range doesn't mean you are more accurate at long range.

 

There was this on RU dev blog regarding shell dispersion. Again I couldn't get much from the google translation.. you know, this is why I wish we had an EU English team that would update us on such things!

http://blog.worldofwarships.ru/shells/

[Ra97oR]

I could be very wrong here, but from a google translated RU post, I could understand that accuracy depends on 3 circles around your ship, sort of like: short range, mid range and long range accuracy, and being more accurate in short range doesn't mean you are more accurate at long range.

 

There was this on RU dev blog regarding shell dispersion. Again I couldn't get much from the google translation.. you know, this is why I wish we had an EU English team that would update us on such things!

http://blog.worldofwarships.ru/shells/

 

That explains why my Nagato can't hit anything when the target is close enough for secondary. I guess the minimal spread at close range is terrible on it. I tried on the Training Rooms that the Nagato perform far better at 10k+ range.

[Takeda92]

 

That explains why my Nagato can't hit anything when the target is close enough for secondary. I guess the minimal spread at close range is terrible on it. I tried on the Training Rooms that the Nagato perform far better at 10k+ range.

 

I could be dead wrong though, I can't even find where I read that in the first place.

[Unintentional_submarine]

They also use a weighted accuracy. They dispersion isn't completely random within the envelope of the dispersion ellipse. It is weighted towards the center, thus you get more hits there than the edge. I have long speculated that this weighting is actually variable. For ships like Fuso, it might be lower, while for Warspite it might be higher. This does however mean that when Warspite derps completely her shots will go crazy. And my observance of streamed Warspites tend to confirm that. Warspite does at time derp and hit on another map, but mostly it's shells fly in more true path than Fuso. Similarly New Mexico has a terrible dispersion/km ratio, but she is actually a quite accurate ship.

 

The most clear case of this has to be Aoba vs Cleveland. They have the same dispersion and about the same range (leaving out skills that impact Cleveland more). But Aoba is significantly more accurate, and I don't mean just because of the faster shells (which naturally help), but the spread pattern is generally much better.

And of course Nagato. Supposedly good dispersion, but tends to scatter her shells at longer ranges.

 

Now couple that with the minimum dispersion, and you can see why some ships have terrible close range dispersion, while others seem rather fine there.

[mmmbeer]

Great info.

 

It would be nice if you could make a column for dispersion per km in the gun accuracy field. This way we can compare accuracy between the ships easily.

[KMS_Tirpitz]

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.

[JasioF]

Hi Exustio!

Great to have such database! But I think that you should correct some of your notes regarding the ships and maybe add information about armor of the ships and penetration values. It's very important factor of BBs.

See below my remarks:

 

Tier 4 Battleship comments: 

• The Arkansas Beta is basicly a worse Wyoming, everything is the same apart from AA, 3m accuracy spread, range and rudder shift time.

I think that for BB the most important is the AP DPM, penetration, armor and speed. In Tier 4 IJN BB Myogi has very, very low AP DPM (slightly above half of Wyoming or Arkansas Beta), while being faster and having better range of main guns which have higher caliber, so probably better penetration. This means that in direct fight against each other, Myogi is worst, but in higher tier battles it has more chances to hit and penetrate higher tier BBs.

 

Tier 5 Battleship comments: 

• At this stage we see a difference in playstyles between the 2 nations, where the IJN are more Snipers and the USN are brawlers. 

...because Kongo has worse armor (missing in your statistics) but better speed and range of main guns.

 

Tier 6 Battleship comments: 

• The first real comparison with the First Royal Navy ship ingame (wohoo!)

I see that Warspite has bad AP DPM, but hopefully better penetration of AP (higher caliber of main guns). I don't know anything about the armor :-(

 

Tier 8 Battleship comments: 

• Seems like the North Carolina is the first USN at high tier to be able to outrange a IJN BB at the major cost of accuracy and a little bit of DPM.

 and I think also at the cost of an armor - North Carolina has worse armor than tier VII Colorado, but I don't know the details.

 

Tier 9 Battleship comments: 

• Looks like these 2 are rather well balanced, one being HE heavy and the other AP. 

 HE have no use on BBs (except defending from DD or attacking CVs). Otherwise you shall always use AP to get 'citadel' penetrations which damage a lot enemy ships. I am wondering what is the armor on both ships. Iowa has only slightly better armor (historically) than North Carolina.

 

Tier 10 Battleship comments: 

• The Yamato, eventhough impressive at the start, it is funny to see it has less DPM then a Fuso at Tier 6, like the Nagato, yes, if it hits u, u will be in a world of hurt, but still.....its the YAMATO!
• The Montana seems to be bruiser of the 2, time will tell. 

 No: AP DPM of Yamato is very impressive with probably the best penetration of all ships in WoWS. I don't know what is the penetration of Montana, but probably it is only slightly better or even the same as Iowa (the same caliber of main guns). I don't know the armor values, but they shall be much better than lower tier BBs (hitorically Montana "had" (on paper) much better armor than Iowa). Yamato was supposed to be immune from fire on long ranges from US BBs like Colorado (406mm guns).

 

Regards!

Jasio

[Captain_Riley]

Hardly a problem for my Texas, when I fully upgrade her I can effectively bombard enemies at 18.05km.

[Exustio]

Hi Exustio!

Great to have such database! But I think that you should correct some of your notes regarding the ships and maybe add information about armor of the ships and penetration values. It's very important factor of BBs.

See below my remarks:

 

I think that for BB the most important is the AP DPM, penetration, armor and speed. In Tier 4 IJN BB Myogi has very, very low AP DPM (slightly above half of Wyoming or Arkansas Beta), while being faster and having better range of main guns which have higher caliber, so probably better penetration. This means that in direct fight against each other, Myogi is worst, but in higher tier battles it has more chances to hit and penetrate higher tier BBs.

 

...because Kongo has worse armor (missing in your statistics) but better speed and range of main guns.

 

I see that Warspite has bad AP DPM, but hopefully better penetration of AP (higher caliber of main guns). I don't know anything about the armor :-(

 

 and I think also at the cost of an armor - North Carolina has worse armor than tier VII Colorado, but I don't know the details.

 

 HE have no use on BBs (except defending from DD or attacking CVs). Otherwise you shall always use AP to get 'citadel' penetrations which damage a lot enemy ships. I am wondering what is the armor on both ships. Iowa has only slightly better armor (historically) than North Carolina.

 

 No: AP DPM of Yamato is very impressive with probably the best penetration of all ships in WoWS. I don't know what is the penetration of Montana, but probably it is only slightly better or even the same as Iowa (the same caliber of main guns). I don't know the armor values, but they shall be much better than lower tier BBs (hitorically Montana "had" (on paper) much better armor than Iowa). Yamato was supposed to be immune from fire on long ranges from US BBs like Colorado (406mm guns).

 

Regards!

Jasio

 

Hey Jasio, 

 

Thanks for the feedback, i agree that some are out of date which was me slacking. Nevertheless, the statistics are and i will update the comments once im back from vacation, which is ... tomorrow

 

 

[Midhgardhsorm]

Am I wrong or they nerfed the ranges massively? Same tier CAs have same range, double rof and more speed and agility... and I usually go against higher Tier CAs ... thanks WarGaming... now BBs are unplayable.

[JasioF]

Am I wrong or they nerfed the ranges massively? Same tier CAs have same range, double rof and more speed and agility... and I usually go against higher Tier CAs ... thanks WarGaming... now BBs are unplayable.

 

I also think that BB are very bad, especially low tier (didn't play higher tier BBs). My last battle in Wyoming was a disaster due to RNG - I shot few times enemy CA/CL but while some salvos had correct range and direction, some shells landed too far while at the same time the others to close. :-( They shall correct the shot accuracy (dispersion) on BB - and they will but only on short ranges - I am wondering how big the buff will be.

And yes - the low tier BB have too low gun range and too high MM (they have MM up to +4 tiers: http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Battle_Mechanics_%28WoWS%29). It's not good.

[Exustio]

Added the Tirpitz to the list, seems like a mediocre ship, but it is a premium ship.... and we dont want a pay to win ship in the game now do we?

 

P.S. if any1 got any suggestions on how to better format these comparisons, do message me.

[dumbo11]

Added the Tirpitz to the list, seems like a mediocre ship, but it is a premium ship.... and we dont want a pay to win ship in the game now do we?

 

The major quirk of the Tirpitz is that a BB can't reliably hit the citadel as you can other BBs. 

- plunging fire *can* penetrate, but BBs aren't accurate at those ranges (and this ship moves like grease lightning). 

- shots penetrating side armour need to penetrate a clever angled layer of armour which is basically immune to anything short of a Yamato.

- apparently shots through the rear *can* penetrate, but that's a very small target for a BB to hit.

- similarly, shots quite a way below the waterline may be able to hit the citadel, but I'm not sure that anyone has reported doing it.

 

The result is that the Tirpitz drives very differently to other battleships - it will happily show full broadside, and you can't really punish them for doing it.

[ewokgoeth]

new premium Russian BB Nikolay I incoming, in tier 4 with 12x305mm

 

[Exustio]

new premium Russian BB Nikolay I incoming, in tier 4 with 12x305mm

 

 

Yea, skipped over that.....literally went 

 

Update on BB's will come soon, finishing up the new excel sheet on cruiser. Will start on Destroyers next and then Battleships and at some point Carriers. 

[Exustio]

Update!

 

Added the Battleships to the Excel Sheet in its own little Battleship tab!

 

Added the new Russian Nikolay and the underwhelming Bismarck!

 

Hope u guys like it in Excel and as always, if u like the comparison, thumbs up!

 

Happy sinking!

 

Exustio

[WolfGewehr]

There's a small typo: Tier 9 comments, should be tier 10 (battleship section).

[Exustio]

There's a small typo: Tier 9 comments, should be tier 10 (battleship section).

 

 

Fixed

[Comrad_StaIin]

You messed something up with the discription of Bismarck it's a Battleships not a Battlecruiser (btw. there were no Battlecruisers in the Kriegsmarine )

[CountOfTuscany]

You messed something up with the discription of Bismarck it's a Battleships not a Battlecruiser (btw. there were no Battlecruisers in the Kriegsmarine )

 

Wasn't the concept of BC not already archaic by the time the Kriegsmarine started building here fleet? I think the only BCs taking part (of any fleet) in WW2 were from the 20s or even from before that era. The fast BB more or less replaced the BC from the 30s on into WW2.