“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.
With all these inconsistencies it’s hard for me to trust these drawings by measuring their dimensions because they all contradict with each other, sometimes even with themselves.
You’re absolutely right, and I appreciate your point. Rather than roughly measuring values from drawings, it is certainly best to reference specific figures from published sources whenever possible.
Based on two books I consulted, I believe the thickness of the sloped armor near the No. 2 turret is 320 mm. Would this be considered an acceptable claim and source from the perspective of the Technical Moderator Team?
I also have a question. I reported that the angle of the 230 mm armor on the side of the Yamato is 77°, meaning it is mounted at an angle of 13°, but the manager said that the developers had previously rejected a report with the same content. (The manager responded to me politely, which I appreciated.) I think it is beyond doubt that the angle should be 83°, or 7°.
I believe the angle of the side of the second turret is 82° or 81°, but even so, the overall slope is too steep. Could it be that the 7° slope is only in one section, which I am unaware of? Or is it because the developers are expecting to receive official drawings from DMM, so the report is unnecessary? I would like to hear your opinions.
I also found a distribution diagram of horizontal armor that I had never seen before in Mr. Janus’s drawings. I seem to have poor spatial awareness, as I cannot imagine what shape it would take.
This diagram is either wrong, or it proves Gaijin’s implementation is actually correct. You don’t need good sense of space, but only elementary trigonometry:
We already know flat Q is higher than flat P, if X1 = X2, the inclination angle of the slope over X2 must be greater than the one over X1
If you want the slope angle over X2 to be the same as the one over X1, in this case 7°, X2 must be much greater than X1， i.e. the flat Q must be narrower than flat P
I’m sorry. I realized my serious oversight. The sloping armor on the side part of the No. 2 turret of the Yamato was modeled with a large area! My apologies… However, it still has a larger angle than the rest of the body, and this is made more serious by the excessive tilt angle of 13°.
The distance between the second turret and the 155mm turret has been strengthened from 200mm to 230mm, meaning that the front and back measures have been taken against undulations, so why not deal with the left and right sides? This is a consideration without a point.
The truth without speculation is that “the slope is 7° and the vital part is a common defensive standard.”
Yup… And even worse, Yamato is extremely easy to kill. I’ve got Gneisenau and killed numerous Yamatos already, in one battle, 3 in short succession of eachother, all because of a weakspot discussed here earlier, just seems unrealistic and unfair
It appears that this auxiliary ammo storage midship and above the waterline results in a OHK in the few battles I’ve had. There’s also no way of reducing the amount you take.
Really only reason to get Yamato is for historical reasons/ fan of IJN naval ships/ or simply to finish the tree other wise its the worst of the new BBs and not really sure what gaijin could do to make it a bit more playable besides just dying in one shot every time.
Because the slope between no.2 turret and the 155mm turret is about 15deg inclined according to one of the official drawings. Geometrically it is impossible for the side slopes to have 7deg angle in this scenario. According to my calculations earlier, the slope behind no.2 turret must be 7deg or less to allow side slopes to stay as 7deg, but this contradicts the official drawings.
This is pure math problem, unless you can prove official drawings being wrong for the slope behind turret no.2, or you have to admit that the slope at sides can’t be 7deg.
