Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
DeliciousFart

About Yamato's 57 mm weather deck

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,248 posts
737 battles

I've been reading some books and articles about the Yamato class battleships, and something that always struck me as odd in game is the 57 mm weather deck. I've read some of the USN Technical Mission to Japan (USNTMTJ) articles that were archived at fischer-torpsch before the website went down, as well as Hans Lengerer's book as well as Januz Skulski's book. Both books give the Yamato's weather deck as 35-50 mm CNC. They both appear to reference the USNTMTJ as the primary source. Lengerer's book has scans of the original USNTMTJ drawing, as well as a cleaned up version given below. However, nowhere can I find a source that actually states the Yamato class having a 57 mm weather deck, so I'm very curious how WG actually came up with this value.

 

Now, I know that official Japanese design documents were destroyed towards the end of WW2, and much of the Yamato's design specifications came from interviews by USNTMTJ with some of the designers. However, a German attache Paul Wenneker was given a tour of the Yamato, and his report was allegedly given to historian Eric Groner to make some drawings, which were later given to publishers by his wife later. Does anyone know where we can find Groner's drawings or Wenneker's reports? If so, do they give the weather deck as 57 mm?

 

So does anyone know what WG's source on the 57 mm weather deck is? @Sub_Octavian @ArdRaeiss @defklo

 

4Qw8072.jpg

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
[ANTK]
Members
1,719 posts
3,130 battles

Honestly can't help you, would love to know more about this ship but as mentioned most of her documentation was destroyed at the end of the war. Its quite a shame really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,708 posts
3,444 battles

Well,  didn't they just uncover the Musashi's builders yard plans? If some has access to that,  we'd have a definite answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,295
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
5,748 posts
9,466 battles
5 minutes ago, byronicasian said:

Well,  didn't they just uncover the Musashi's builders yard plans? If some has access to that,  we'd have a definite answer.

Naval historians everywhere would get wood at that news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
14 hours ago, ValkyrWarframe said:

I think IRL Yamato's weather deck was 25mm.  They added 25+32 and got 57mm.

That...doesn't make sense though. At least, the primary source, the USNTMTJ documents, point to the weather deck being 35-50 mm CNC. Even if you argue that they just took the weather deck thickness and added that to the standard bow armor thickness of tier 8+ BBs, why was this not done to other BBs then? For example, why does the Montana still only have 38 mm weather deck when it had 57 mm in real life (1.5+0.75 STS laminate).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[RUST]
Beta Testers
932 posts
10,345 battles

Armor model is a model and can be tweaked and adjusted for game balance purposes. Ship design drawing is a starting point of the armor model. The model is not meant to reflect the actual armor layout of actual ships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
12 minutes ago, NCC81701 said:

Armor model is a model and can be tweaked and adjusted for game balance purposes. Ship design drawing is a starting point of the armor model. The model is not meant to reflect the actual armor layout of actual ships. 

Well, Sub_Octavian's response to the Yamato's weather deck thickness was, and I paraphrase, Skulski is not a reliable source because he had to fill in the gaps from missing information. But here's the issue: Skulski's armor values were obtained from the USNTMTJ documents about the Yamato, which as far as I can tell was written and drawn based on interviews from actual Yamato designers after the war. So does WG now think that the 35-50 mm weather deck given by USNTMTJ is now unreliable? What evidence or documents do they have to suggest that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[RUST]
Beta Testers
932 posts
10,345 battles

Flipping the question back, how do you know USNTMTJ documents were reliable in the first place? Did they have access to the original plans? Even if they did, did they ever actually get a chance to measure the plans to what was actually built? Working in engineering, I know for a fact that plans doesn't automatically equal reality. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with this thread? Are you just curious about WG's source or are you trying to make some justifications for a change in the armor model? 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,334 posts
3,779 battles
5 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

Well, Sub_Octavian's response to the Yamato's weather deck thickness was, and I paraphrase, Skulski is not a reliable source because he had to fill in the gaps from missing information. But here's the issue: Skulski's armor values were obtained from the USNTMTJ documents about the Yamato, which as far as I can tell was written and drawn based on interviews from actual Yamato designers after the war. So does WG now think that the 35-50 mm weather deck given by USNTMTJ is now unreliable? What evidence or documents do they have to suggest that?

I'd imagine that WG's pull was enough to get private archives or the industrial archives of the yards to open up for them. The claim that all documents were destroyed is a false one- we would not know nearly as much about Yamato or any IJN ships if it were actually true. It was certainly official government policy that all documents were to be destroyed, but many individuals and organizations did not actually do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
On 9/20/2017 at 12:34 PM, NCC81701 said:

Flipping the question back, how do you know USNTMTJ documents were reliable in the first place? Did they have access to the original plans? Even if they did, did they ever actually get a chance to measure the plans to what was actually built? Working in engineering, I know for a fact that plans doesn't automatically equal reality. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with this thread? Are you just curious about WG's source or are you trying to make some justifications for a change in the armor model? 

Given that USNTMTJ documents were written with interviews from former Japanese officers and actual designers of the ship, I am rather confident in the veracity of those documents, especially when nothing has been presented to contradict that.

Mainly, I'm curious about WG's source on Yamato's armor values. Personally I'm a bit annoyed that the 57 mm weather deck makes it immune to German 203 mm HE, unlike the Bismarck, FDG, and GK, so that may have motivated me to wonder where WG got the 57 mm value from in the first place.

Edited by DeliciousFart
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[RUST]
Beta Testers
932 posts
10,345 battles
1 hour ago, DeliciousFart said:

 the 57 mm weather deck makes it immune to German 203 mm HE,

 

I would be willing to bet that shattering German 203mm HE and regular 305mm HE shells is at least partially why the weather deck on the Yammato are 57mm in the armor model; if not the whole reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
20 minutes ago, NCC81701 said:

 

I would be willing to bet that shattering German 203mm HE and regular 305mm HE shells is at least partially why the weather deck on the Yammato are 57mm in the armor model; if not the whole reason.

Possibly, but Yamato's weather deck has been 57 mm since she was first modeled, long before the 1/4 HE penetration buff to the German cruisers that allowed them to penetrate 50 mm of armor with HE, and no ships in Yamato's matchmaking spread has 305 mm guns (unless they really were planning for Alaska at tier 10, but I'm skeptical that WG was thinking that far ahead).

 

On the other hand, their refusal to give the Montana her actual weather deck thickness, which was actually 50-57 mm, is something that's both curious and irritating. It's a similar deal to how the Montana turret face is missing its 114 mm STS backing, or the Iowa missing its 64 mm STS backing.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×