Is this an unfortunate reality of IRL design? Meaning that because of WT engagement ranges, Yamato can’t use its armor properly.
Or is it just modelled incorrectly? lol
Armor scheme is mostly correct. Some argue is on thickness of underwater part, but cheek is present at real life.
1 Like
They finally lowered the Yamato’s ammo loadout
And replaced the floatplanes with proper ones + added a couple of 25mm AA
7 Likes
Yamato is missing a section of her armor belt on the left side, starting from the section beside the fore 155mm.
3 Likes
But why…? What reason could they possibly have come up with for that one?
Maybe so Yamato grind can be a tiny bit quicker?
maybe because Ikoma goes up and something needs to fill the tree? I’m rather surprised they still don’t folder Suzuya/Mogami
Hopefully Amagi and Mutsu get switched, so we finally have a battlecruiser/fast battleship line.
Hyuga and Ise make sense to be in a line.
Unsure if the other IJN battleships should be moved around. But I definitely want to see a late-war refit Nagato after Mutsu.
1 Like
Let’s see Gaijin put Tosa between Fuso and Yamato and saying “Tosa and Amagi is similar to Fuso and Ise as they have more than four turret, and Mutsu is similar to Kongo because it has same layout of four turret!”
2 Likes
Truly the 1 step forward, 2 steps back mindset
2 Likes
With Settsu there for no possible reason there’s no point switching them anymore.
Incomprehensible to me why they’d separate Ikoma and Kongo into their own line just to then add ships that are nothing like them.
My report
I’d like to hear your opinions. I’m currently writing a report on the 230mm armor slope near the Yamato’s No. 2 turret. However, as the manager pointed out, the current blueprints don’t explain why the top of the 410mm vertical armor is a straight line.
So I thought to myself, “Maybe there was a serious mistake in the armor near the No. 2 turret in the drawing that we and Gaijin have been using as a reference.”
The photo above is the design drawing that I used as a reference. You can see that the horizontal armor near the No. 2 turret is raised. However, this was a mistake.With this armor layout, the angle of the slope armor connecting the 200mm and 410mm exceeds 7 degrees, just like the current dev Yamato. This means that Yamato cannot withstand 46cm shells from long distances. However, if the 410mm vertical armor is extended upwards, it will not match the straight 410mm armor of Yamato as shown in the photo.These issues are addressed by the following armor layout:
If the height of the horizontal armor near the No. 2 turret was the same as the height of the horizontal armor near the No. 1 turret, everything would make sense. The slope armor would be sufficient with a 7° inclination. This is the same as the armor of the No. 1 turret, which is why many sources did not make any special mention of the armor placement near the No. 2 turret.
The problem is that I don’t have this new material, and I don’t know if Gaijin will admit that there was an error in that excellent material. But I’m sure that this new blueprint explains a lot of the questions and is correct. Finally, Lord_Vader, please forgive me for using a number of images without permission.
5 Likes
Except for 7°.
@steelhaze
Yes, this could potentially be a big hidden question left unanswered for decades, that the drawings seized by USNTMJ might be seriously wrong:
The sectional drawings and inboard profile indicates the belt and horizontal deck raised near turret no.2, meanwhile historical photos directly contradicts with this. There are several drawings from Japanese sources showing the arrangement of the horizontal deck and they also somewhat contradicts with each other at some points.
2 Likes
This is still problematic, as some Japanese sources indicates the horizontal deck was reinforced to 230mm between the flat area and near the no.2 turret:
That implies the armour was inclined here so the hump does exist if this is true
2 Likes
Guys we have a problem so they fixed the frontal ammo rack position but they did not fix the rear turret ammo position. I made a bug report but it got shafted because the guy just didn’t care.
I provided sources and everything the guy who looked at it just didn’t care enough and labeled it as not a bug.
How do we get this issue fixed if the guy labeled it as not a bug even though in his statement he acknowledged it is a bug but the yamato internal model does not have to be perfect.
3 Likes
Thank you for the info. So it’s been unclear for a while. I’ve seen claims before that Yamato’s horizontal armor was 230mm at its thickest. I thought they just mistook the sloped 230mm for horizontal armor, but I think it’s possible that some of the horizontal armor was reinforced to 230mm. Maybe they saw this 230mm and misunderstood that this part was sloped? No, I really don’t know. However, if they made this part into a raised shape, I think it would be reasonable to increase the slope armor or extend it to make the angle 7°. Otherwise, it wouldn’t fit Yamato’s safety range.
I drew a terrible picture.
Use AssetViewer to inspect the hitboxes.
Hitboxes extend from deck to deck. Keep that in mind.