battleship Yamato-class battleship, Yamato (1945): King of the Monsters

[arczer25 5,202]

Specially for you using m79apclc (projectiles are equal)

18.1inch on left and 16inch super heavy on right

 

and behold that 16inch actually have lower ballistic limit (better penetration) by having better energy density..

both projectiles were set to how they would behave at 20km

 

also tested with FACEHD75 to test actual projectiles (Type 91 and Mark 8 both 1-4 and 5-8 lot's)  against FHA armor, and still they are pretty similar.

Edited February 8, 2020 by arczer25

[Hronomant 181]

1 hour ago, arczer25 said:

Inferior in weight, but smaller in diameter (more energy in smaller area) kinetic energy dosen't directly transfer into penetration, velocity differience also weren't severe (18m/s).

If we take the armor plate for a perfectly solid body - maybe with reservations about loss, but in real life this is not entirely true.

1 hour ago, arczer25 said:

interestingly enough 16inch was able to archive very similar velocities to IJN 18.1inch despite having lower muzzle velocity and being lighter (lower diameter and differient ballistic cap)

He possessed greater density, including due to the fact that he did not possess a system of underwater attack. This, incidentally, is a separate topic of conversation. A 409 mm armor strip protects the very thin surface of the citadel. Almost the entire huge part of the citadel is de facto not protected from Yamato shells - hoping that the water column would protect the citadel, they would hide it under water, equipping them with relatively thin 180-110 mm armor plates, while the underwater projection of the citadel was huge and surpassed the entire surface projection. “Diving” Yamato shells were created just for such purposes, and only Yamato was protected from such type a hit.

Spoiler

1 hour ago, arczer25 said:

when British test's last time they concluded that Light shells are superor wia wrong conclusions, by WW2 not only US used super heavy shell, but Japanese also starting making their own (8inch are most known one).

They came to the sound conclusion that everything should be in balance, neither lightweight as Soviet, nor heavy as American shells. No one except Americans built heavy shells. A heavy American shells, of course, has its advantages - it is effective as part of its idea of breaking through armored decks, only in addition to the fact that it would be problematic for them to break through a multi-layer armored deck Yamato, such a hit required a very narrow and accurate distance to the target, while the classic shell had no such problems. Plus, getting in exactly the same way would be very difficult. It is unlikely that someone would give them time to reach the optimal distance and fire, especially considering that the Type 94 has a longer range and can even penetrate armored decks due to mass, even better.

 

1 hour ago, arczer25 said:

while there were issues against incined armor it was again's armor at moderate angle (~40 degree) and they managed to fix that issue.

2 hours ago, Hronomant said:

 

They managed to fix the defect directly of their shells, and not the concept. The minuses of the very concept of a heavy "somersault" projectile failed to fix.

 

1 hour ago, arczer25 said:

i arleady sad about belt and deck armor performance (practically the same immune zone....) so if somehow it is resistant against USN 16inch but not obstacle for IJN 18.1inch then whatever...

If you had a better understanding of the topic, you would know that Yamato was created to keep his own caliber. In tests of the Yamato armor, even a 480-mm gun was used.

1 hour ago, arczer25 said:

it need's to take note that with ~8% chance of hitting target at ~18km more barrel's = more hits.

It should be borne in mind that the Yamato optical artillery fire control system was superior to the American one, after studying the similar system with the battleship Nagato, although they were more primitive than with Yamato, they were recommended by the commission for adoption. Plus a record grouping of volleys, while American heavy shells were not capable of this. Yamato would have no problem hitting targets.

1 hour ago, arczer25 said:

still funny how you say, yes at full head-on Yamato traverse bulkhead is pretty resistant (albiet there's place of weakness where shell can deflect after penetration of 50mm upper deck and hit sloped plate of traverse bulkhead)

Nevertheless, according to the estimates cited in the literature, they point to American studies, which recognized her as impenetrable in the frontal projection for American 406. Apparently they understood less than you in their work.

 

1 hour ago, arczer25 said:

Montana can more than favorably keep angle leaving both belt and traverse bulkhead (with is also thicker at 457mm) at effective range with is more traditional desing.

 

It is rather an endless dilemma. By making the traverse invulnerable, they make the side vulnerable, and vice versa. This was discussed.
 

Edited February 8, 2020 by Hronomant

[Hronomant 181]

1 hour ago, arczer25 said:

also there's only for so long you can maintain enemy head on... especially at closer ranges were armor becomes susceptible to penetration while at long ranges it hardly matters..

 

At close range, Yamato can be penetrate in traverse... by only another Yamato

1 hour ago, arczer25 said:

it's also funny how you say that Yamato with has 3 towers of 2x510 mm guns and Montana 4 towers of 2x457 mm guns would be balanced while it is exacly the same time it's very similar to how current Yamato and Montana...

Not really. This would mean that the Yamato invulnerability factor due to armor will cease to be a fatal factor.

1 hour ago, arczer25 said:

btw US 457mm weighted 1,746kg vs Yamato 460mm 1460kg

while supposed 510mm was 1900-2000kg

Where does pride come from? This is just the concept of a heavy projectile. Just someone made balanced shells, and someone did not. Not to mention the fact that the tower is two-gun, and not three-gun as on Yamato, and the level of armor protection of the American tower is much worse. By the weight class of the tower, 2x457 will be an analogue of the Japanese 2x510, although the latter is better in everything except for non-critical differences in rate of fire.

Edited February 8, 2020 by Hronomant

[arczer25 5,202]

10 hours ago, Hronomant said:

 

If we take the armor plate for a perfectly solid body - maybe with reservations about loss, but in real life this is not entirely true.

arleady posted above both calculation programs are based on real data.

primarly advantage or regular and light shell's are close ranges with are unlikley to be fought on unless you are on small seas (Mediterranean sea, Baltic sea, North sea, etc..)

10 hours ago, Hronomant said:

 

He possessed greater density, including due to the fact that he did not possess a system of underwater attack. This, incidentally, is a separate topic of conversation. A 409 mm armor strip protects the very thin surface of the citadel. Almost the entire huge part of the citadel is de facto not protected from Yamato shells - hoping that the water column would protect the citadel, they would hide it under water, equipping them with relatively thin 180-110 mm armor plates, while the underwater projection of the citadel was huge and surpassed the entire surface projection. “Diving” Yamato shells were created just for such purposes, and only Yamato was protected from such type a hit.

both ships are protected from underwater hits, you need to remeber that the more water shell passes through the less energy it have and is less capabe of penetrating plate that's why it's tampering on BOTH Yamato (if you haven't seen arleady) and Montana...

Underwater protection against diving shells in US navy happend when North Carolina had added additonal underwater armor, later South Dakota, Iowa along with Montana had built in underwater protection... hell even Standard's still had heavy holding bulkheads

 

if you want ships with little/no protection against underwater hit's look at Germans, French, Italian and British Battleships.

 

also even with "diving" shells it's quite unlikely to happen, requring very specific circumstances  in entire war it happend only few time's and from what i remeber only single time with Type 91 (penetration of 8inch Type 91 on New Orleans class cruiser)

 

10 hours ago, Hronomant said:

 

They came to the sound conclusion that everything should be in balance, neither lightweight as Soviet, nor heavy as American shells. No one except Americans built heavy shells. A heavy American shells, of course, has its advantages - it is effective as part of its idea of breaking through armored decks, only in addition to the fact that it would be problematic for them to break through a multi-layer armored deck Yamato, such a hit required a very narrow and accurate distance to the target, while the classic shell had no such problems. Plus, getting in exactly the same way would be very difficult. It is unlikely that someone would give them time to reach the optimal distance and fire, especially considering that the Type 94 has a longer range and can even penetrate armored decks due to mass, even better.

1. Britain used Heavy and Super heavy shells to (like on KGV)

2. Soviet used Heavy and Super heavy shells.

3. Japanse also had their Super heavy shells in development Type 91 Mod 1's , also 155mm Type 91 was Heavy round

 

Only point were Heavy/Super heavy shells had lower penetration capacity was at closer distances (due to superior ballistics), Multi-layer armored deck was problem for any shell and lighter shell will have bigger probability of losing it's armor piercing Cap (due to it being smaller).

 

4 i arleady sad that 16inch penetrates armored deck better, Type 94 have longer range, but probability getting hit's at such ranges is almost very low (in perfect conditions at ranges of 30km you arleady have around ~2,5% chance to hit)

 

5. were the you got that Yamato have multi-layered armored deck? Yamato have single deck, Montana have multi layered...

on Yamato only extended deck you have in front of 1 and 3 turret, only covering magazines from frontal/rear shots, not directly from top.

while there are some areas reinforeced by 50mm plate, most of the center area had just splinter protection.

 

10 hours ago, Hronomant said:

If you had a better understanding of the topic, you would know that Yamato was created to keep his own caliber. In tests of the Yamato armor, even a 480-mm gun was used.

and Montana was Desinged to protect against USN 16inch SH round's with in return had similar performance to Yamato 18.1inch that it was desingned to keep with...

also Yamato was desinged to protect against his own caliber (460mm) at Velocity of 500m/s (1640f/s) that's range of about 22-24km

even in this suggestion topic there's written :

Quote

46 cm AP shell, fired from more distant than 20,000 m - 30,000 m

10 hours ago, Hronomant said:

It should be borne in mind that the Yamato optical artillery fire control system was superior to the American one, after studying the similar system with the battleship Nagato, although they were more primitive than with Yamato, they were recommended by the commission for adoption. Plus a record grouping of volleys, while American heavy shells were not capable of this. Yamato would have no problem hitting targets.

In Optical Yes, but Optical have their drawback's caused by weather and night conditions.

USN (like Britain and Germany) used combined Radar and Optical, with migitated that issue.

at the same time Yamato Fire control required more men and work, than USN Fire control with affect crew Fatuge.

along with fact that USN Shells didn't had any abnomal grupings, pretty standard ones (were sufficient for them) and you need to keep in mind that accuracy isn't related to grouping of volleys (actually to small grouping's volleys can hurt it), but to targetting errors caused by quality of Fire control (caused by FCS itself and crew fatuge)

10 hours ago, Hronomant said:

Nevertheless, according to the estimates cited in the literature, they point to American studies, which recognized her as impenetrable in the frontal projection for American 406. Apparently they understood less than you in their work.

"there's no such thing as impenetrable", it just have immune zone.

i only say that's there's point of weakness

Spoiler

it's pretty simplified image but get's job done, how shell after penetrating 50mm extended deck deflect and hit's citadel slope at reduced angle, but that's requres very specific hit were shell still have enough penetration to get through 340mm deck.

form testing i found that at exacly 30km it can get's close to penetrating that part and futher range there's possiblity of penetration

to be sad at 30km 16inch shell impact that plate at just 29.9 degree, still probability of such hit is low

 

in additon 300mm bulkhead was suspedtable to penetration at mid/close ranges (~20km), if shell bypassed 50mm deck wia penetrating nose under deck

11 hours ago, Hronomant said:

It is rather an endless dilemma. By making the traverse invulnerable, they make the side vulnerable, and vice versa. This was discussed.

yes's it's endless, but in tactical situation most often you will be in a "battle line"  with would be boardside to the target

11 hours ago, Hronomant said:

At close range, Yamato can be penetrate in traverse... by only another Yamato

not exacly, if found it pretty suspectable at close range (angle is to small), intention of that desing are more mid/long ranges where lower thickness stop's being issue and increased angle impact start's severly reducing shell penetraion. 

 

11 hours ago, Hronomant said:

 

Not really. This would mean that the Yamato invulnerability factor due to armor will cease to be a fatal factor.

Yamato is far from invulnerable.

11 hours ago, Hronomant said:

Where does pride come from? This is just the concept of a heavy projectile. Just someone made balanced shells, and someone did not. Not to mention the fact that the tower is two-gun, and not three-gun as on Yamato, and the level of armor protection of the American tower is much worse. By the weight class of the tower, 2x457 will be an analogue of the Japanese 2x510, although the latter is better in everything except for non-critical differences in rate of fire.

practically everyone shifted toward's heavy shell's if that says anything.

in term of Tower protection both were complete overkill resistant to anything not hitting sides or gun houses.

 

somehow i think this debate will be endless

 

[[email protected] 44]

This is the loading mechanism

 

[Admiral_Aruon 2,260]

hell. yes. +1 for the underrated waifu ultimate warship!

 

surprised it took this long to be suggested XD

[Warbirdpeter 97]

Personally, since I'm one of those who have a big scale-model replica of the 'Yamato', I'd like to see how she would fare against 'anyone' who brings their battleships to bear down on her...& it wouldn't matter what battleship goes head-to-head with that behemoth...those '18.1-in' naval guns will make all opponents get ripped apart like cans of sardines.

 

But what if one 'Yamato' goes up against another 'Yamato'...like, say its sister 'Musashi'? Then everyone would be witnesses to a naval version of a sumo wrestling match!!! 

64,000 tons vs. 64,000 tons...Bears a lot of thinking, doesn't it?

 

And while we're on the subject of the Imperial Japanese Navy's battleships, if 'Yamato-class' shows up in the 'passed for consideration' list at the end of March, I would also like to see three other battleship classes in-game as well:

1. 'Fuso-class', with its six twin '14-in.' guns, 14 single '6-in.',8 '5-in.',16 '25-mm' AAs,...& a towering bridge structure that made 'Fuso' & 'Yamashiro' among the ugliest in the Imperial Japanese Navy's fleet.

2. 'Nagato-class',with four twin '16-in.',18 '5.5-in', 4 twin '5-in.', 20 '25-mm'...'Nagato' & 'Mutsu' could go up against those who have the 'triple-16s'...like the U.S.Navy's 'Iowas', 'North Carolinas', or even the British Royal Navy's 'Nelson-class'.

3. 'Hyuga-class',a pair of battleship/carrier hybrids...with four twin '14-in.', 8 twin '5-in.', 57 '25-mm' AAs...& an after flight deck loaded with at least 22 seaplanes. (After all, the Aichi E16A 'Pauls' got on the 'considered' list...so, why not?)

 

Simply put, the writing's on the wall...Everyone playing naval fights wants the big battle-wagons in-game, & that includes the Japanese Navy's. We already know that the 'Kongo-class' has been made 'considered' for going into War Thunder in the near-future, & the time is coming for all the battleships that saw action in WWII to make their presence felt again here...& it's going to be most likely permanent. So, I'd say...Let's get these big brawlers from Japan into the virtual waters as soon as able...& see the naval fights that every player wants.

 

And who knows? Maybe...just maybe...the aircraft carriers will also get their call to join up, & we'll all be seeing renditions of WWII naval fights like we've never seen before!!!

[Kasukaru 2,159]

Like the real one, it would still die horribly from plane attacks.

[Vianochka 368]

On 07/02/2020 at 20:42, aizenns said:

 

• Machine gun
  • 52x 25 mm Type 96 machine gun, triple mount
  • 6x 25 mm Type 96 machine gun, single mount
  • 2?x 13 mm Type 93 machine gun, twin mount

Cons

• Hundreds of machine guns will crash weak PCs

 

RIP everyones GPU when someone will try to dive bomb this. 

Edited March 11, 2020 by GunFetish

[arczer25 5,202]

On 11/03/2020 at 15:20, GunFetish said:

 

RIP everyones GPU when someone will try to dive bomb this. 

more RIP Gaijingles servers even more, Client's are far more than capable of handling so much (literally stress tested unit caps on I5-2700 and GT-750ti)

[_Lord_Vader_ 177]

10000% +1

[aizenns 3,587]

On 2/9/2020 at 8:22 PM, arczer25 said:

also Yamato was desinged to protect against his own caliber (460mm) at Velocity of 500m/s (1640f/s) that's range of about 22-24km

Yes, this is important pointing out. Player controlling the battleship always need to considerit.

 

If battleships are implemented in game, I guess developers will set distance of spawn points closer than there designed fighting range. (Around 15 km?)

[arczer25 5,202]

3 hours ago, aizenns said:

Yes, this is important pointing out. Player controlling the battleship always need to considerit.

 

If battleships are implemented in game, I guess developers will set distance of spawn points closer than there designed fighting range. (Around 15 km?)

assuming they do similar thing to cruisers/dd and make earliest implemented BB fight latest ones 15km or even bit less woudn't be understatement

[Sawimi 7]

America have got too good boats and destroyers, so let japan have although good Yamato!

[ThedepthPunisher 194]

The Yamato obviously has its place in the game! I hope one day to see this magnificent ship in the game! + 1 

[Milocat 4,829]

Battleships are probably inevitable, and by extension the Yamato is as well.  Eventual +1 from me.

[Fireraid233 4,242]

On 01/03/2020 at 05:01, Kasukaru said:

Like the real one, it would still die horribly from plane attacks.

Hmm depends imo. In game the 25mms do a decent job at killing planes tbh their biggest downside is there lack of range. But once they get in that range the AI wreck havoc.

[Z3r0_ 4,126]

On 18/06/2020 at 07:10, Milocat said:

Battleships are probably inevitable, and by extension the Yamato is as well.  Eventual +1 from me.

 

I agree, though balancing this monster would be an utter nightmare.  Most of its weaknesses irl are functionally irrelevant in the context of War Thunder (especially its logistical issues).  No need to worry about air attack because with an AA battery that heavy and the way the gunners in-game work it'd be all but immune to any air attack except for either very long-ranged torpedo drops, Fritz Xs, or anti-ship missiles, none of which are a guaranteed kill on something that big.  Now, in THEORY something like an Iowa-class can beat a Yamato-class under the right circumstances, but those circumstances would be rare in the context of the game.  On the other hand, if you tier it high enough it'll go up against ASM-equipped adversaries capable of completely negating both its armor and firepower entirely (THIS is the reason battleships became almost completely obsolete - even late in World War II they still had a use, but the advent of anti-ship missiles finally did them in).  This ship is in a league of its own, the Tu-4 of ships.

Edited June 27, 2020 by Z3r0_

[WayOfTheWolk 1,570]

I would encourage you Aizenns to create a suggestion or option for the Yamato (1941). Given the relatively poor AA capabilities of the Japanese it would be ideal to make up for this with increased secondary batteries. The 1941 version of the vessel may be more preferable for some players.

[Fireraid233 4,242]

4 hours ago, WayOfTheWolk said:

I would encourage you Aizenns to create a suggestion or option for the Yamato (1941). Given the relatively poor AA capabilities of the Japanese it would be ideal to make up for this with increased secondary batteries. The 1941 version of the vessel may be more preferable for some players.

As i mentioned before the 25mms are actually pretty good in WT. And if you have enough of them they will get the job done at taking down aircraft. So a Yamato 1945 with all those 25mm would be scary for planes the only downside would be lack of long range.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Fireraid233

[_Lord_Vader_ 177]

I think this video will fit this post! 

 

[OKAZAQI 165]

+1

[Udzumaki_Naruto 2]

+1 ☺️

[Turra 1,439]

So all in all. 

Yamato will not really have counter if implemented in the game. 

There are no battleships capable of brawling it out with it really. Not even the Pe-8 meme can balance this thing 

 

Essentially it will be like having maus in 5.7, 100% top tier, and remove all apds and heat-fs. 

 

Gaijin needs to bring paper shells and paper ships, or modern ships into the game to balance it. And in the end, Yamato will end up like the maus... Overtired and against 2012 era ships with anti ship ballistic missiles 

Edited November 30, 2020 by Turra

[SPANISH_AVENGER 11,713]

1 hour ago, Turra said:

So all in all. 

Yamato will not really have counter if implemented in the game. 

There are no battleships capable of brawling it out with it really. Not even the Pe-8 meme can balance this thing 

 

Essentially it will be like having maus in 5.7, 100% top tier, and remove all apds and heat-fs. 

 

Gaijin needs to bring paper shells and paper ships, or modern ships into the game to balance it.

 

Any Iowa Class with the historical super heavy shells would be a good match for Yamato. I would even say it the other way around: Yamato would be a good match for Iowa.

 

Also Gaijin confirmed that, due to the nature of ship design and building, laid down ships count as real when it comes to introducing them, so we will be getting things like H-39 (2 ships laid down) and Sovietsky Soyuz (4 ships laid down).

Edited November 30, 2020 by SPANISH_AVENGER