I am simple man. I see IJN Yamato so I perform victory dance !
Tho if its 1945 before operation Ten-Go it is missing some AA, has wrong scout plane and should have like 3332 crew.
Too bad there are no aircraft carriers in warthunder yet. So nobody gonna be sending those 400 planes (which would sink any battleship in matter of minutes). Yet Musashi for example survived like 20 torpedos 17 bombs and it sunk after 4 hours from minor damages none of which penetrated its main armour.
4 Likes
brittle ahhh armor
1 Like
axis boats where built different
“Still, the fifty-thousand-ton battleship refused to sink. King George V blasted away at a range of 1.5 miles with all ten guns, point-blank range for battleships. The heavy cruisers Norfolk and Dorsetshire joined in the battle. The ship’s superstructure was turned into scrap, and the ship was burning from many fires. Hundreds of crew lay dead or dying, and a pillar of black smoke followed it.”
1 Like
The conveniently 8.7 nighthawk and co;
1 Like
Who’s ready for Yamoto number 3?
2 Likes
what BR?
1 Like
A sort of nice thing to give japan after about 2-3 years of just ignoring them. Ignoring the calls for better spaa the calls of getting the f-2 the mpms the oh-1 oh-2. Giving japan ground anything but sure thanks for the yamato I guess. Still not spending a dime on this game till you fix japan ground.
so do we know what quality armor they modeling for yamato she should have a armor with similar quality to cemented armor of WW1 british dreadnoughts
her armor was very brittle
1 Like
yamato hull strength is too low? it turn into yellow easily in match start.
2 Likes
her armor was good on paper but they used brittle steel so it was weaker then it should be
1 Like
No lol? Yamato armour wasnt cemented it was face hardened. “brittle ahh armour” because “dumb ass test” which would never happend irl and this isnt even Yamatos armour. This piece of armour took from turret intedned for shinano ( shinanos armour was metalurgically a lot worse quality unlike Yamato and Musashi) was tested at 90° point blank and poorly supported without the rest of the turret basically. Which realistically in combat shells would never be hitting turret armour at this angle only at extreme ranges at which it could not penetrate. At this point blank 90° it would penetrate any style of steel does not matter if face hardened or cemented diference would be with hole (face hardened- cracks and chips).
Armour of Yamato and Musashi was very well made and it did not fail what it was designed for. Like said earlyer “Musashi took 20 torpedos 17 bombs and it sunk after 4 hours from minor damages none of the bombs or torpedos penetrated its main armour.” Which no other battleship would take that much nor were they even designed to take such damage Iowa deck wasnt even designed to take +1000 kg bombs to the deck yet Musashi took dozen and none of which penetrated. Yamatos turret face would be impenetrable at any range to Iowas guns.
Soviet battleship armour on other hand. They would not be able to heat threat the thickness that of Soyuz at the time. Its amour would perform worse. And it has untested guns and wtf is that ammo layout and size. Ammo also pretty bs.
2 Likes
It’ll take a lot more than 2x 2000 lb paveways to sink this beast
Then we get more nighthawks spawned
It has tested with about 173 rounds before war and additionally firing 81 rounds during wartime,
Steel had many tiny pieces of dirt and so forth, being about the same as pre-WWI British Vickers Cemented (VC) KC-type armor steel in quality (VC was used for the first time in the Japanese battleship IJN KONGO, built in Britain, and manufactured in Japan under license thereafter), from which the unique Japanese armors New Vickers Non-Cemented (NVNC), the homogeneous, ductile form of VH used in a number of Japanese post-WWI warships, and VH itself was derived (this steel was not up to U.S., British, or German post-1930 steel quality). Carbon content was raised above VC steel level to increase ease of hardening, some copper added to allow some nickel (in short supply in Japan) to be removed (but not much), slight amount of molybdenum added to increase hardenability still more, and the cemented (carburized) thin surface layer used in VC (and in most other, foreign face-hardened armors) was eliminated with no loss of resistance from VC quality (a good design point). Surface of plate face was very smooth, unlike rough, pebbly surface of cemented plates, such as U.S. Navy Class “A” armor.
only reason musashi took so many blows is cause they attacked both sides instead of one
1 Like
Yea, and it existed. Unless like the Russian paper ship that likely would’ve never worked the way it was planned unless major alterations were made. One of the many reasons it was scrapped right after the keel and sub structure was laid. So if the Yamato gets WW1 armor, then the russian boat should get literal paper armor. Because that’s the extent of it.
If Japan makes a claim, and Russia makes a claim they must be treated equally. Either both suck or neither do.
2 Likes
paper yamato would be op so yeah i say both suffer