German Ships Statistics

[Swatsy07]

I feel that there is a bias toward German ships in this game compared to those of the Allies.

The ships of the Kriegsmarine have more armour than they historically did, for example:

Bismarck-class (in game)
Belt - 17"
Turret - 14"
Deck - 7"

Bismarck-class (IRL)
Belt - 12.6"
Turret - 14"
Deck - 4.7"

Sharnhorst-class (in game)
Belt - 18"
Turret - 14"
Deck - 5"

Sharnhorst-class (IRL)
Belt - 14"
Turret - 7.9"
Deck - 3.7"

Deutschland-class (in game)
Belt - 5.5"
Turret - 5.5"
Deck - 2.5"

Deutschland-class (IRL)
Belt - 3.1"
Turret - 5.5"
Deck - 1.8"

Is there an explanation for this? I just feel that it is unfair that these ships have stats that do not reflect the historical vessels they are based off. For me, it takes away from the experience of this otherwise great game just knowing that the enemy have an unfair and unwarranted advantage.

[Rittersporn]

Disclaimer I will not start a Bias War here. My personal thinking is like that: German ship stats got buffed to reflect more properly the design qualitys of this ships. The Bismark for example had additionaly to the upper deck armor a stronger and also sloped lower deck armor of special elastic steel (Wotan Weich) which was sloped at that point enemy grenades would most likely enter the ship hull. A variant of this design (multiple armor decks and the lowest of it deeper then the belt armor) was later also used in the US Iowa BBs. So with the belt armor they added the 4 inch of that sloped lower deck armor to the belt armors 13 inch and voila you get 17 inch. For the Hood a grenade had to penetrate about 9, 5 inches of armor and ship building steel to reach the center of the ship compared to 21 inches of armor in the Bismark (additional well inward laying 2 inch torpedo bulkhead from Wotan Weich steel (50% more elastic then normal armor steel and not simulated in the game like a good deal of other things and 2 inch steel backing of the superstructure the belt armor is attached to)). So the stats somewhat reflect the building philosophies of the ships.
P.S.: If you add the low lying deck armor and the belt armor together you get exactly the same 18 inches of armor the game states for the Scharnhorst Class and 16, 5 inches for the Bismark. So the game omitts things like steel quality, the backing of the armor plates and torpedo bulkheads.

[Swatsy07]

Thank you for the rather detailed and insightful response. It is good to know that the armour is there for a reason, and not just slapped on to make the game more difficult.

[Swatsy07]

I have came to realise something while looking at the statistics in-game again.

The Nelson-class in game has belt of 14", a turret of 16" and a deck of 6.25" as it did in real life. However, why isnt the belt armour increased on the Nelsons in-game as it was slowped 72 degrees which would better reflect its design?

[Rittersporn]

I fear the actual angle of belt armor is not moddelt or reconed for in the game. It´s a game developed from a handheld version (Pacific Fleet) and such fine points are lost. I concure with you that the real worth of the Nelson´s Belt Armour would be near the 20 inch mark.
In comparison the Belt Armor value of the Bismark would go up to about 27 inches RHA (because the armor deck was slope to and of Wotan hart Steel allegedly 80 % harder than normal RHA). Both ships were build with be being unsinkable through ships artillery in mind. And non of it was sunk by ships artillery also the Bismark was struck a quite a few times by ship artillerie.

[emperorvalse]

Bismarck was ruined by the RN guns and was sinking anyway before the torpedoes and scuttling charges hastened it.
HMS Rodney's 16" guns were penetrating the Bismark's armour from not only the RN accounts, but Bismarck survivors' testimony of how much water was in the ship, but also the expedition led by David Mearns which took images of the side hull of the Bismark clearly showing the hull damage.

[acur1231]

Originally posted by emperorvalse:

Bismarck was ruined by the RN guns and was sinking anyway before the torpedoes and scuttling charges hastened it.
HMS Rodney's 16" guns were penetrating the Bismark's armour from not only the RN accounts, but Bismarck survivors' testimony of how much water was in the ship, but also the expedition led by David Mearns which took images of the side hull of the Bismark clearly showing the hull damage.

The 16 Inch and 15 Inch guns of the RN do sink the Bismarck in game, I always get all 6 German capital ships in my BOTA campaigns(the German one is a turkey shoot, allied AI is bad at ASW).

[CheveezJeeves]

I noticed as well that the Renown class BC has much thicker armor then they had in RL. The belt I believe is rated is 9-10 inches thick. Yet in RL it was around 6 inches at it's thickest point. I don't know about other parts, as well as other Allied ships if this is true, but clearly it's not just german ships getting non-historical armor.

[bewest169]

Yes I found that out the hard way I had a U.K heavy curiser up against a German light version and it was no contest the German won again and again after I lande direct hit after direct hit

[user]

You obviously don't have any clue about real life history at all.

Bismarck (like all other battleships) had multiple armored decks with different values each.
All decks together had about 7 inch armor (over the vital parts like magazine and machinery) .

The same logic goes for the side armor. Since the Bismarck and Scharnhorst had a turtle back armor design, it means they actually had 2 armored belts sandwiched together (one belt behind the other) to protect the vital parts and both armored belts together equal about 18 inch.

So the in-game stats are actually very accurate to history.

It only shows that many peoplle (like you) are very badly informed about historical facts.
Please go buy a book and start a little bit more researching before ranting on this forum.

[Swatsy07]

Originally posted by user:

You obviously don't have any clue about real life history at all.

Bismarck (like all other battleships) had multiple armored decks with different values each.
All decks together had about 7 inch armor (over the vital parts like magazine and machinery) .

The same logic goes for the side armor. Since the Bismarck and Scharnhorst had a turtle back armor design, it means they actually had 2 armored belts sandwiched together (one belt behind the other) to protect the vital parts and both armored belts together equal about 18 inch.

So the in-game stats are actually very accurate to history.

It only shows that many peoplle (like you) are very badly informed about historical facts.
Please go buy a book and start a little bit more researching before ranting on this forum.

I don't know where you get this idea of "ranting". I was simply inquring as to why these vessels didnt have, what i viewed at the time, accurate armour. I now know this to be false, due to the previous posts on this discussion. I highly doubt that everyone playing this game are naval architects in thier free time and I don't see the need for such a toxic attitude especially given the fact that everyone else in this discuss so far has been able to make a decent contribution without being an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

[Rittersporn]

My last contribution to this post (I hope). The whole Bismark vs. RN discussion is and will be highly toxic. So I don´t see any use of beeing it here too.
But two or three thinks:
1. All distances in the game are compresed about 3:1 as you can compress the range in their other game Cold Waters too. Which means it is not in any way a simulation. All angles of incoming shoot are way to high. In reallity the shot would come in at 30° (Hood) to 35° (Bismark) angles just at maximum range because that is the max elevation of the guns. What the games makes out of it, is a total other matter. If the targets would be three times away you would not land a hit at this game.
2. The claim that Bismark was wrecked by shell by the royal navy. See http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/2001expedition/index.htm there are very few hits in the armor plating as statet after the photos made by Mearns.
3. Finally a word to the Mearns book. I had it one time but took it into paper reclying. He states as a preamble that all that Robert Ballard, the original finder of the Hood and the Bismark wreck (Titanic too), says in his book (1989) is wrong and then just reclycles 90 % of Ballard´s book (in 2001). He is in my eyes a plagiator which was in need of bringing the money he spend for diving back in.
4. You can shell any BB to pieces above there belt armour, that is a no brainer.
5. Sam if you want to read about these era buy the original Ballard book or books buy Conway Maritime (as British as it gets)! Usally other british books on the subject are laughable propaganda in the art of the new Dunkirk film, in which a Spitfire with it´s engine out shot´s (somehow, not in the frame) a diving Ju- 87.

[Swatsy07]

I've just looked them up, and they're at a great price. Thank you for the recommendation.

[wmiller]

germany used a steel with a higher nickel content for bismark if used on other ships would account for. also consider that near misses under water line can cause highly amplified dammage to ship without nessicarily damaging armor dd703

[Mikey]

Originally posted by emperorvalse:

Bismarck was ruined by the RN guns and was sinking anyway before the torpedoes and scuttling charges hastened it.
HMS Rodney's 16" guns were penetrating the Bismark's armour from not only the RN accounts, but Bismarck survivors' testimony of how much water was in the ship, but also the expedition led by David Mearns which took images of the side hull of the Bismark clearly showing the hull damage.

I may be mistaken as I am taking this from memory but I do believe the hull of the Bismarck was largely intact before it was torpedoed.
All the RN ships had come to close quarters to finish it off and fired at the waterline but the shells angle meant they ricocheted off the water and hit the superstructure of the Bismarck instead. As such anything above the waterline was shredded by the guns while the hull below the waterline was kept largely intact.

[jfblake90]

Ballards work is good but his work was done in 89' and much of his resources were spent simply trying to find the wreck. Mearns work is a joke. Cameron's work was the best in terms of damage analysis. Bismarcks armor worked rather well, although it caused increased suffering for her crew.