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.
That’s strange. If the thicker reason is the ridge, then the armour on the side of the ship should also be thicker.
If the logic is that the current model is correct, then the 230mm due to the ridge doesn’t exist, so it should simply be 200mm, right?
Does this source seem useful?
According to an engineer who assisted in the design of Yamato, the thickness of the sloped deck armor between Turret No.2 (46 cm) and No.1 secondary turret (15.5 cm) was 320 mm.
“戦艦大和 : その生涯の技術報告 Battleship Yamato: A Technical Report on Its Lifespan”, by former IJN Technical Captain Kitarō Matsumoto, 1952, pp. 66–67.
3 Likes
Splinterdeck / Anti Splintering armour of Yamato is missing
It appears that a bug report has been filed regarding splinterdeck and anti splintering armour on the Yamato. Like the Iowa’s 6mm armor, the Yamato should have its detailed armor replicated to bring it as close as possible to the performance appropriate for BR 8.7.
3 Likes
Its not that I need to inspect the Hitboxes these are literally screenshots from the dev server before it was closed. Even if I use Assetviewer to inspect the hitboxes it will show exactly the same ammo layout as the dev server. You can clearly see that the Frontal ammo shell rooms are at the correct height and line up with the 2nd level of the ammo elevator but on the 3rd turret in the rear the shells are between the ammo elevators in a dead space that realistically the shells would not be able to be loaded into the turret.
I really hope this gets fixed someday but I am losing hope because a lot of people just do not care.
3 Likes
Thank you very much. However, this document adopts the theory that the second turret was raised, so it may not be suitable for my report…
1 Like
This diagram doesn’t even make sense. If the slope section is shaped as in the deck view in this diagram, the inclination angle would have been much steeper than 7deg due to the raised flat deck. If the slopes remain as 230mm while inclinations changed, it will become one of the biggest scandals in naval ship design history that Yamato’s magazine deck protection was severely compromised.
We can only have three possibilities:
-
The flat deck raises near turret no.2, and the slope deck becomes steeper while remaining 230mm. This means Yamato’s protection is much weaker than widely believed - the no.2 turret presents a big shooting trap for plunging shells to easily penetrate the steeper slope
-
The flat deck doesn’t raise near turret no.2. This means every single blueprints and technical drawings we have up to this day are completely wrong, and this still cannot explain why there’re 230mm sections between the turret no.1 and no.2 and between turret no.2 and the 155mm turret.
-
Like in assumptions 1), but the slope thickness increases near turret no.2 to compensate the loss of some inclination advantage. No sources ever mentioned this so this is highly unlikely.
For me assumption 1) is most likely true, as it gives least hypothesis. Although this would be a pretty bad news for IJN fans
1 Like
However, I still cannot accept this. If the angle of inclination was increased, I think there should be at least one document mentioning it. But there isn’t. All the documents say that 230 mm armor was installed. It is inconceivable that the Yamato class, which was supposed to be the mainstay of the fleet’s decisive battle, would have such a foolish weakness without any countermeasures.
I will continue my investigation little by little. I believe in the Yamato. Anyway, thank you very much for your advice.Even if I may seem ridiculous, it is all out of love for the Yamato.
6 Likes
I see. In my opinion, there is a possibility that the sloped armor in assumption 3 was actually reinforced.
According to the blueprints of the aircraft carrier Shinano, the area where the No.2 turret used to be is elevated and was repurposed as a magazine for aircraft torpedoes and bombs.
A book explaining Shinano’s design states that, since the armor for the area around the turret had already been manufactured, 320 mm armor identical to that used on battleships was installed along the sloped sections and toward both sides of the hull.
I think it is possible that the sloped armor around the front, rear, and sides of Yamato’s elevated No.2 turret position was reinforced.
日本海軍艦艇図面集 Collection of Drawings of Imperial Japanese Navy Vessels (Showa Shipbuilding History, Supplement). Edited by the Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers. 1975, pp. 40–41.
昭和造船史 Showa Shipbuilding History Volume 1 (Prewar and Wartime Edition) (Meiji Centennial History Series). Edited by the Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers. 1977, p. 544.
7 Likes