Sanshikis would be worthless anyway.
Ammo also sits a bit higher in the model than it should but I can’t give an exact measurement of how inaccurate it is.
1 Like
I wonder if the sanshiki can be used as a sort of close-range incendiary shotgun shell for smaller vessels such as destroyers or fast moving coastal vessels.
Sure but so are “Shrapnel” shells… could be for funsies
You would think they would have build Yamato classes irl like 1-2 or even 3 laid and all… if only they existed so real measurements could be possible
Unlike Soyuz with superior ammo placement 10 meters behind the elevators with extra compartments above
You would think secondaries on BB would do that… instead of stupid timed fuzes all the time, but fr if they implement it like a MG penning 5-10mm could be possible to sink DD’s due the hull damage but get like 500+ non pens
That’s simply the visual model, actually hitbox os what you’d expect fur 40.6cms.
Four were laid down, a fifth planned but four was scrapped and the steel used for another ship.
I have a similar question regarding the Scharnhorst’s turtleback. If the shells come in at an angle, wouldn’t the gradual downward slope make it worse than just a flat horizontal plate of the same thickness?
I recall the turtleback isn’t sloped that much, such the enemy needs to be quite far away to have the shell hitting it the armour perpendicularly. Only if the enemy is even further away would the turtleback layout be better than a flat deck.
I would think this is analogous to Tiger’s flat armour and King Tiger’s sloped armour, but instead the shell is coming in at an angle downwards, so the incident angle is actually less for the sloped armour? This is unless the shell is coming in much steeper than the slope.
Call me crazy, but I would think an inverted turtleback, one that slopes gradually upwards from the centerline, would be much better.
The issue with this is if the shell doesn’t penetrate (let alone fuse), you now have a hole that is filling with water (dependant where it hits) and potentially undetonated ordinance in the center of the ship over the citadel.
Alternatively, it skids inward along the plate and through the other inverse plate, making the entire point of such a scheme worthless.
Turtleback plates improve survivability at close range but come with the detriment of worse survivability at longer range. Doesn’t help that the Scharnhorsts were barely above neutral buoyancy (to my knowledge) and any shells that penetrated the belt (but not the turtleback) meant water is now in a space above the citadel.
3 Likes
As a change of pace, I used Chappy to visualize Yamato’s 3D model together with its Collision / Damage Model. You can also see the relative positions of the armor and ammunition storage. Not sure what it’ll be useful for, though. :D
7 Likes
Ok big man, how to survive poking Iowa class at close range (JK) is that why Steve Jobs wore those funny sweaters?
Now draw same for Soyuz class so its ammo starts sitting atleast somewhat closer to the turrets and won’t be requiring team effort to sink
(One match we had to mobilize our entire team to get rid of a Soyuz player in order to win…, you don’t want a sentient player in that thing)
Comprasion to how u are supposed to build bb’s, 13 are the “shells” and 14 are the “charges”
Notice how they aren’t touching…
Firstly, putting aside you uploaded Pr.23 bis, which is not on the game, those blueprint shows ship in LWL while ingame it is DWL. So it is actually not ‘wrong’(Iowa also got DWL), while it is arbitrary as Yamato got LWL
Second, it is well known that Soyuz’s VM does not follow DM as developers just copypaste VM of Kronshtadt(IDK why, maybe because they share same engine and transmission?)
Shell room is much bigger than what you can see, extended to direct beneath of crew compartment.
So it follows the dimension of blueprint
1 Like
Yeah i just thought it was the ‘improved’ variant, hence if it is worse than described then Pr.23 without the bis is much more
Sounds interesting, so… theoritically switching Yamato to “DWL” could make it more survivable or is the “lwl” the version with full load?
Yeah bro here is the new “VM” just accept the pull request type of bs with 3-4 “TODO” commented
Depends; angled or unangled?
If it’s broadside, hope your shells get through the internal armor belt.
If it’s angled, pray you can nuke the shellrooms before it kills you
Or it’s angled enough that the turret 1 magazine is exposed and you get the magic pixel between the bow and the armor belt.
45 degree… never seen Iowa unangled
Actually bis was worse than Pr.23 in terms of survivabiliity and armor, that’s why they cancelled and passed to Pr.23NU and Pr.24
Yeah, No.2 turrets magazine are going to be under waterliine even if fully loaded if waterline is changed from LWL to DWL
1 Like
So this is the Soyuz. I also replaced the Yamato with a version regenerated using the new script.
I really wish Gaijin would at least make the X-rays for each country’s top-tier battleships match their actual hitboxes.
3 Likes
Today i sprinkled myself with water, not salted, and then a thought occurred in my head, not the neighbor whispers.
Yamato has a “Deck” of 50mm Rolled steel, and under that it would have 300-200mm of smth-smith and between all that is like 10meters of air…
Is that not the “spaced” armor ? Have the voluemtric ‘gods’ forsaken us? Shan’t it have the ultimate trolly armor of the Kpz 70s ?
Air has “armor” koefficent of 0.05% for KE or (source: - i made it up, and in wt in may or may not be the same)
So… this shot / trajectory instead of having 555mm → it would have 755-855 mm ofarmor (assuming there is 4-6m of emptiness)
Translator!!! (There may be translation errors)
If air isn’t listed as an armor layer, it’s not counted in the armor.
Yes, armor on bb’s needs to be reworked
I consider current ‘volumetric’ armor to be ‘shittily’ implemented (for ex: foil at 90degrees resulting in ricochet or shell ‘despawn’) but the ‘volumetric’ of today would still be better…
Dev’s must have considered it, but all the invisible ‘structural’ steel modules must have ‘despawned’ shells too often so they omitted this feature… like structural steel eating rounds, they must have never heard of ‘max’ function smh
(I also haven’t noticed any shell fuze mechanics, but i may have missed them)
Spaced armor needs some support structure for outer plate, in land it is pole between two plate, and in naval it is crushing tube or foam.
So Gaijin only treats multiple with crushing tube or foam as spaced armor(ex: Iowa, South Dakota, Italia&Roma)
Actually in naval little dfferent. Gaijn wrotes before that Iowa and Roma gets spaced armor, though those two doesn’t have ‘air’ in armor xray in hangar
I still wonder why Yamato was released in such an awful state. The modeled inclination of her side belt armor still has not been corrected, and there still appears to be a configuration error in the fire-damage parameters for her auxiliary magazines. Since Iowa and Sovetsky Soyuz do not have the same configuration errors found on Yamato, the situation is so extreme that it makes me suspect Yamato may have been deliberately given worse settings.
It is frankly ridiculous that it took almost a year after release to complete the ammunition-magazine configuration fixes.
3 Likes