@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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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
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.
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.
How about we go out on a limb and put the Assetviewer image on the bug report as well?
If it’s not just the visual, but even the hitbox is in the wrong position, then it’s a problem.
I didn’t know there was such wonderful documentation… Indeed, based on this description, it seems that 320 mm armor was installed in the areas between the secondary guns and the large lateral inclination angles, while 230 mm armor was installed on the gentle slope between the first and second turrets.
How do I open the AssetViewer for war thunder? Another problem is the guy closed the report and I cannot edit it.
Nice shouldnt there be two different ones tho?
Yesterday finally after a very long grind unlocked Haruna. Now I finally got a battleship to complement Yamashiro, should make the grind a bit easier.
Top tier naval grind is abysmal. Its fun but its very slow without premium ship/time. Finished rank 6 just in time for the update yesterday though.
I found a primary source related to the construction of Yamato, so I would like to share it.
This document describes the installation work of the sloped deck armor near the No. 2 main turret.
“一号艦工事記録 Construction Record of Ship No. 1 (Code Name for Battleship Yamato): Armor Installation Work” Issued by the Hull Factory, Shipbuilding Department, Kure Naval Arsenal. September 1941. Captured Japanese Ships’ Plans and Design Data, 1932-1945 R06. Frame Number 184, 327
https://dl.ndl.go.jp/en/pid/14054473/1/327
Based on measurements taken from the drawings, the angle of the armor slope is approximately 15 degrees.
When estimating the thickness of the sloped armor using the standard 200 mm thickness of the flat deck as a reference, it measures approximately 300 mm. This is close to the 320 mm thickness that I have been asserting.
