This was the video in question. I’m not sure if it was filmed before or after the patch that fixed the 155mm ammo being fatal (which weirdly enough, they’re fixing again this update?). Regardless, you can see at the timestamp 5:55 that they only hit on and right under the barbette of turret no.2. You can also see the single fire pillar that’s characteristic of a shell room explosion. And you can see at the very end of the video that Yamato died to some mysterious “explosion” even with 0 shells in the main guns. But those should hopefully be fixed by the next update.
I have a replay of me detonating a Yamato using Mutsu with what seemed to be a non-pen, but I think it might be a bit late now to report it since we’re so close to the next update. We’ll have to see if that’s still an issue.
As for Soyuz’s SAP… Let’s just say that the Iowa’s 16in HE have a charge mass ratio of 8% and Soyuz’s SAPCBC is 7.9%. A 0.1% difference. Now of course the SAPCBC shell is heavier, and has a cap and base fuse (though the shell is also very long and gets very thin walls), but you’re telling me that that’s enough to give it 87% the performance of a true APCBC shell?
I’m not telling you that, unless you meant that as a rhetorical question. My whole point is that with all this tnt (equivalent) filler which is much higher than on all other ships and the propellant needed for all those shells (considering the max amount is more or less the same on the ships i checked in game: Bismarck, Yamato and Soyuz, all have ±600 main gun shells per turret/magazine in the front) why do most ships instantly blow up when their magazines go poof, but ive never seen a sojuz sink because of that WHILE holding shells with much higher tnt equivalent and in case of bismarck-sojuz comparison ~300 kg heavier shells with about the same muzzle velocity so also much more propellant? Are magazine explosions on russian ships just declared as “they dont happen” and “sojuz is not allowed to sink because of measly mag explosion” or what? If damage of ammo explosions is somewhat linked to explosive mass as they claim how does that make any sense?
Although the ammunition-magazine bug fix has improved Yamato’s survivability, under the current damage model it still needs to be handled with care.
In a project video intended to observe Yamato’s model in War Thunder together with a person who worked on CG models such as Yamato for Japanese films, we confirmed that DMM’s project to improve Yamato’s fidelity is still ongoing.
At present, bug reports based on generally available documents are being mercilessly rejected, so we hope that fundamental fixes—such as to the armor and the modeling—will be realized through feedback via DMM.
The Yamato’s current ammo position in the assetviewer hitbox is completely botched in relation to the ammo elevator level as compared to my historical documents I have provided in my bug report, Gaijin literally just does not care and I am losing hope in Naval at this point. I want to have hope but at this point I spent hours making a comprehensive bug report just for it to get rejected because it does not need to be perfect. What’s the point of making a bug report to improve the historical accuracy of vehicles in game if gaijin literally does not care and is fine with inconsistencies between the assetviewer damage model and historical documents. Community Bug Reporting System
Because bug report need to be compact and preferable based on something, your “report” doesn’t have any schemes and contains water and your reflections, not the strict problem - like: - model is wrong here - because module IRL ends here + pictures and manual attached .
This report is not talking about the historical documents it is talking about the difference of the xray ammo model compared to the ammo hitbox in the assetviewer. Whats the point of making a report if this is the type of answer you get.
This is on the bottom of the report we are referring too.
Here is another report about the float planes. The funny thing is the USS Fargo gets 2 float planes stored internally as well as the 2 mounted on the catapults so 4 planes in total for a cruiser but the Yamato cannot have planes modeled internally like irl according to these documents.Community Bug Reporting System
The issue is when I make these bug reports using assetviewer I find more bugs in the hitbox model of the Yamato so I include those as well to let them know.
Common issue. Scharnhorst sisters and Bismarck/British capital ships with hydroplane(except Rodney)/USS Alaska/Kronshtadt sisters and Sovetsky Soyuz(these two are severe as they even has wrong hydroplane) are sharing same issue.
Actually, Fargo is very few exception that got historical number of hydroplane.
It is still possible to detonate Yamato using the 60kg bombs of the F1M2s she is carrying, at least in the test sail.
I’ve found it pretty reliable to drop the bombs onto the turret roof, this will destroy the turret, its barbette, and cause a fire. In one of my tests, the fire cause a detonation in 2-3 seconds, even though the fire should’ve started in the turret and not low in the barbette near the magazines.
I think I’ve also been able to start a fatal fire with bombs dropped on the decks near the turret, or maybe near the waterline, but it’s not reliable and I haven’t been able to recreate them.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/6weRlWG3NTE1
Someone had made a bug report months ago, but the author closed it as he was pointed to one of BLUE-EYES’ report which was closed.
I still don’t understand why the developers would rather test and see if module clipping into armor is an issue, rather than directly solving it by slightly resizing the module/moving the armor. They know full well that Yamato was plagued with so many issues causing detonations, fixing it would make it 100% sure it is not an issue.
Actually biggest part of problem of Yamato ingame is it’s modelling which is based on Kure museum’s 1/10 model, which is based on theory of more than two decades ago. Even museum’s model is now on debate of making again as it is full of flaw.
There should be more 25 mm on flight deck at stern, Superstructure and first enclosed triple 25 mm mount should be connected, Armour distributuion on rear flight deck is wrong, etc, etc.
It also doesn’t help that this new hull sections mechanic sinks her within a few minutes, I was shooting a Yamato with Amagi the other day and it was only taking 3 or so salvos to black out a hull section.
Ise is far more survivable at a full BR lower.
While hull section mechanism is existing for years, yes those mechanisms are not good for extreme AoN battleship like Yamato. When Rodney(Nelson is a typo) implemented, those were mentioned as problem, but it’s British so not many people got interest in.
I’m still cannot understand Gaijin while they have more realistic hull section mechanism, where hull DM is existing only under and near waterline, in some ships(such as USS Nevada, Marat, Kommuna) but don’t apply it to all ships.
Welp, according to the leaks Nagato is going to be a premium…
What might be the best Japanese battleship, with a 21.5s reload, magazine protection that reaches more than 500mm (sometimes more than 600mm depending on angle of fall), without shells in the barbettes to blow up, and most likely a lower BR of 8.3, will be locked behind an $80 paywall…
They could have gone for Tosa/Kaga/Akagi/Atago/Takao/Kii/Owari (recent information confirms the Kii class ships were laid down), but no.
They’re also adding Musashi to the tree, so you can have the honor of blowing up some more after grinding 400,000 RP.
When has this ever been stated? We already have unfinished ships as rank VI premiums like the Sevastopol and unfinished rank VI event ships like Mackensen.
