Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Daigensui

Real Life Problems of a Hotel

36 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,924
[CMFRT]
Alpha Tester
9,364 posts
26 battles

In this thread I will discuss various problems of Hotel, which some people call "Yamato". This is strictly limited to the actual vessel, and does not reflect the game version.

 

 

1. 46 cm guns: They're nice and heavy and all that, along with one of the most sophisticated large-caliber loading system that managed to match USN's 16" loading cycle, but ultimately it was a major hindrance in terms of construction. Disregarding the 11 steps needed, a great disadvantage of this type of construction was that the gun could only be relined by completely boring out the inner A tube.  This was so expensive a process that it was considered to be more practical to simply replace a worn out gun with a new one, although it does not appear that either battleship was ever regunned during the war. Never mind having to use new guns, Japan was only able to make 27 barrels in all, and since one was consumed for testing and 16 were used for the two ships that were finished, Japan had only 8 barrels left. When you consider that the barrel life was a mere 200, this basically means Hotel was to be a one-battle ship, for the "decisive battle" that IJN chased all its life after victory in 1905.

 

2. Armor "Quality": Japan could make armor on par with the United States and the British Empire...... except it did not have the economic backing or the industrial capacity to do so. Having the knowledge and ability is not the same as actually making such armor in the quantities needed. That is why Japan chose an "inferior" but more economic armor, Vickers Hardened.

 

hJmoGiy.jpg

 

Depending on the test, VH was about 85% as good as the American Class A, meaning in theoretical terms, Hotel's 410 mm side belt was worth only about 350 mm. Of course, given the complexities of armor this wouldn't necessarily be a fact, but all in all it does show the Achille's Heel of Japan: it never had the capacity to fulfill its goals.

 

3. Torpedo Defense System: This is the same with South Dakota and Iowa, but extending the main side armor way down into the TDS means having a very rigid wall, that, if breached, can break down and act as a nail punching deeper into the hull, thus compounding the damage. Even if welding was good, this was a fundamental weakness that could not be prevented.

 

4. Powerplant: Simply, it was one of the worst in terms of efficiency. You had twelve boilers producing only 150,000 shp due to the lower pressure and temperature. With Iowa? It reached 212,000 shp on eight boilers, and let's not forget that South Dakota (which is the basic comtemprorary design) was 130,000 shp (135,000 shp was overload) with eight boilers. All this added weight without the necessary power to push the ship.

 

5. Deliberately shortened range: This isn't really about Hotel herself, but about the 3rd (Shinano) and 4th (No. 111). When it was found that Hotel could have a range of 10,000 nm at 16 knots with full fuel, the IJN General Staff dictated that there be modifications done to the construction plans so that the range would be limited to 7,200 nm at 16 knots by reducing the fuel tanks. This led to a stop in construction for more than four months, which hindered rationalization of construction from Hotel/Ryokan. It has been estimated that if this move was not made, Shinano would have been ready for commissioning by the time Pearl Harbor happened, and No. 111 would have been around 45% completed. 

 

6. Radar: This is more of a problem with IJN as a whole. In the interwar period, Japan was as advanced as the US or UK in the realm of radar development. However, the reliance on "human spirit" on part of IJN (and IJA) delayed weaponization, and thus we have Hotel receiving its radars much later than it might have been able to. 

 

 

This is what I wrote for now (feeling somewhat under the weather), but I'll stick around for a bit to answer questions and whatnot.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Members-
6,960 posts
10,623 battles

The Axis would have slaughtered the allies if they hadn't made a million stupid mistakes. Anyway, yeah. Many leaders throughout history have had visions and dreams for their countries. But some, Axis powers especially, didn't have the capability to fufill these goals. This was their downfall. Japan also tried to match the United States in power, but you really can't keep things stable when you have 35% of the state budget just for the navy alone. That leaves 65% for everything else, including social programs, the other branches of the military, and everything else government related. 

 

They could have just accepted it was most likely a horrible idea to start a war if Pearl Harbor wouldn't have been a garunteed victory and when they couldn't even make full steel plates that were decently strong. 


EDIT: And cutting corners doesn't help you either.

 

 

Edited by ShermanMedium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,466
[KTKM]
Beta Testers
4,633 posts
4,076 battles

Interesting read, didn't know the VH/VC bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
611
[SYN]
Members
2,861 posts
10,456 battles

That and its worth mentioning that the super battleship program was an unwise investment from the getgo, even if the battleships had never been eclipsed by the aircraft carrier, the sheer expense of the vessels led them to be extremely economically demanding. At best i think Yamato's overall combat capability was maybe 30% better than a south dakota, but more than twice as expensive. In a world where the aircraft carrier wouldn't have taken prominence, Japan would have had at best, 4 yamato's in commision throughout the war, where as the us would have had 17 modern battleships, 2 North Carolina's, 4 South Dakota's, 6 Iowa's, and 5 Montana's, and possibly a Montana successor on the way. And all those battleships would have been no where near as demanding on the US as a mere 4 battleships was on Japan. Yamato would have been able to take down any one ship by herself, except for the Montana's, but 2 on one odd's was highly unlikely, let alone the 4 on one odds that would have happened.

 

Of course the only way Japan was going to win this fight was by just not provoking the US into the war at all, and even then, WW2 would have likely ended in stalemate. Germany had no way of invading the UK, as they couldn't in any way shape or form beat the royal navy. and both the soviet union and china turned out to be manpower wasting bloodbaths for Garmany and Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Members-
6,960 posts
10,623 battles

That and its worth mentioning that the super battleship program was an unwise investment from the getgo, even if the battleships had never been eclipsed by the aircraft carrier, the sheer expense of the vessels led them to be extremely economically demanding. At best i think Yamato's overall combat capability was maybe 30% better than a south dakota, but more than twice as expensive. In a world where the aircraft carrier wouldn't have taken prominence, Japan would have had at best, 4 yamato's in commision throughout the war, where as the us would have had 17 modern battleships, 2 North Carolina's, 4 South Dakota's, 6 Iowa's, and 5 Montana's, and possibly a Montana successor on the way. And all those battleships would have been no where near as demanding on the US as a mere 4 battleships was on Japan. Yamato would have been able to take down any one ship by herself, except for the Montana's, but 2 on one odd's was highly unlikely, let alone the 4 on one odds that would have happened.

 

Of course the only way Japan was going to win this fight was by just not provoking the US into the war at all, and even then, WW2 would have likely ended in stalemate. Germany had no way of invading the UK, as they couldn't in any way shape or form beat the royal navy. and both the soviet union and china turned out to be manpower wasting bloodbaths for Garmany and Japan.

 

I wouldn't be so certain that WWII and Yamato vs. Montana would have been an automatic loss for the Axis. There's numerous factors and possible alternate history scenarios, actions, and events that could have happened that could have changed the course of any of these events. And luck would be prominent in such an engagement, just like any. Luck as in hitting the vital parts of an enemy first and doing sufficient damage or destroying the target outright completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,361
Alpha Tester
7,898 posts
27 battles

Japan could make armor on par with the United States and the British Empire......

I wonder, VH was actually found to be superior to Japanese VC in thickness between 330mm and 430mm, while being occasionally inferior only in low thickness plates (152mm is mentioned as an example).

 

I'll reply to the other points tomorrow because it's 4:00 AM over here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Members-
6,960 posts
10,623 battles

I wonder, VH was actually found to be superior to Japanese VC in thickness between 330mm and 430mm, while being occasionally inferior only in plates of lower thickness plates.

 

I'll reply to the other points tomorrow because it's 4:00 AM over here.

 

I have a major problem with that... forums can easily keep me up way longer than I would otherwise have been. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
611
[SYN]
Members
2,861 posts
10,456 battles

 

I wouldn't be so certain that WWII and Yamato vs. Montana would have been an automatic loss for the Axis. There's numerous factors and possible alternate history scenarios, actions, and events that could have happened that could have changed the course of any of these events. And luck would be prominent in such an engagement, just like any. Luck as in hitting the vital parts of an enemy first and doing sufficient damage or destroying the target outright completely.

 

Well yeah obviously luck could swing the fight either way, but that is an unpredictable factor, what i really meant though, is Yamato has a very high chance of beating a lone South dakota, Iowa or North Carolina, barring some incredibly bad luck on hotels side, But not so with Montana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Members-
6,960 posts
10,623 battles

 

Well yeah obviously luck could swing the fight either way, but that is an unpredictable factor, what i really meant though, is Yamato has a very high chance of beating a lone South dakota, Iowa or North Carolina, barring some incredibly bad luck on hotels side, But not so with Montana

 

If we take a brawl, then don't even send the Montana in. It's suicide. If we take a long range engagement, then it's based more on luck because of Yamato's not so great fire control. Good optics does not translate into good fire control overall. But then we also have to contend with non penetrating hits from both sides.

 

There's many ways something like this could go down. RNGesus in the real world. 

Edited by ShermanMedium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
611
[SYN]
Members
2,861 posts
10,456 battles

 

If we take a brawl, then don't even send the Montana in. It's suicide. If we take a long range engagement, then it's based more on luck because of Yamato's not so great fire control. Good optics does not translate into good fire control overall. But then we also have to contend with non penetrating hits from both sides.

 

There's many ways something like this could go down. RNGesus in the real world. 

 

Well at long range Yamato at best has a 10-15% pen advantage, but as Dai pointed about in the post above, 15% poorer armor quality. It would lead to both ships having about the same penetration distance on eachothers armor, but the higher number of guns plus the better US fire control and better US damage control would put the balance squarely in Montana's favor. At close ranges yes Yamato's guns have much better penetration, but at those ranges, both ships would be able to penetrate the crap out of each other, and it would basically come down to which ship hit something vital first, which given Montana's greater number of guns, she has a higher chance of hitting something important first. But the fight could still go either way.

 

Obviously ingame this is a different story, as armor quality is not calculated, and both montana and Yamato's armored belts are equal strength. Though I suspect that something is wrong with Montana's transverse bulkheads. When i tested in training room, montana's belt armor when angled at about 45 degrees, can completely no sell any of Yamato's shots, even at near point blank range. So Yamato's mythical penetrate any ship at any angle is definitively false. But at that same range, the transverse bulkheads, despite the fact that they are supposed to be 18 inches thick are incapable of deflecting Yamato's shots. Iowa's transverse bulkheads are also incapable of deflecting those shots, but for some reason, North carolina's can. How is that for weird. No obviously at a 45 degree angle, Yamato and Izumo are completely unable to deflect any battleship gun at close ranges, because the hexagonal armor layout leaves a relatively flat surface to the target even when angled. Using this knowledge I was able to sink a Yamato in a close range duel using Montana, landed a good 2 or three citadel shots through that spot. I would have survived that encounter if i hadn't accidentally over-steered and exposed too much of my own citadel too him. We both managed to just fire our last shots before the others connected and sunk each other at the same time. But both of us started the duel at near full health and there was little interference from our teams. So Montana isn't as weak as people make her out to be. In game what montana needs though is Yamato's super hull heal, and those forward transverse bulkheads need to be looked at.

Edited by ryuukei8569
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,361
Alpha Tester
7,898 posts
27 battles

I have a major problem with that... forums can easily keep me up way longer than I would otherwise have been. 

Yeah, let's not even get there.

 

Continuing from yesterday

4. Powerplant: Simply, it was one of the worst in terms of efficiency. You had twelve boilers producing only 150,000 shp due to the lower pressure and temperature. With Iowa? It reached 212,000 shp on eight boilers, and let's not forget that South Dakota (which is the basic comtemprorary design) was 130,000 shp (135,000 shp was overload) with eight boilers. All this added weight without the necessary power to push the ship.

Efficiency was not a major consideration, reliability was the priority. The Japanese were already using higher temperature and pressure (30kg/cm² and 350°C) for the carriers, cruisers and destroyers, Yamato stuck with the 1931-vintage boilers of the Hatsuharu class (25kg/cm² and 325°C) derated from 21,000 shp to 18,750 shp per set.

5. Deliberately shortened range: This isn't really about Hotel herself, but about the 3rd (Shinano) and 4th (No. 111). When it was found that Hotel could have a range of 10,000 nm at 16 knots with full fuel, the IJN General Staff dictated that there be modifications done to the construction plans so that the range would be limited to 7,200 nm at 16 knots by reducing the fuel tanks. This led to a stop in construction for more than four months, which hindered rationalization of construction from Hotel/Ryokan. It has been estimated that if this move was not made, Shinano would have been ready for commissioning by the time Pearl Harbor happened, and No. 111 would have been around 45% completed.

Estimated by who? Building a battleship in one year and a half sounds like a very bad joke and Shinano's construction was rather slow to begin with, the dock being expanded while construction was underway.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,369
[WPS]
Members
4,181 posts
9,619 battles

 

Well at long range Yamato at best has a 10-15% pen advantage, but as Dai pointed about in the post above, 15% poorer armor quality. It would lead to both ships having about the same penetration distance on eachothers armor, but the higher number of guns plus the better US fire control and better US damage control would put the balance squarely in Montana's favor. At close ranges yes Yamato's guns have much better penetration, but at those ranges, both ships would be able to penetrate the crap out of each other, and it would basically come down to which ship hit something vital first, which given Montana's greater number of guns, she has a higher chance of hitting something important first. But the fight could still go either way.

 

Well it's also likely that USN would rock the Yamato at range given their far superior fire control.

 

Don't forget that in real life, you can't just point and click and shoot all your guns at something. Seeing/visualizing/leading was a lot more difficult IRL than in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[KNTAI]
Beta Testers
1,293 posts
12,457 battles

I hear this hotel's room service was very subpar in comparison to other multi hundred million yen vacation spots. I left a rather unfavorable review on the hotel's website.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Members-
6,960 posts
10,623 battles

 

Well at long range Yamato at best has a 10-15% pen advantage, but as Dai pointed about in the post above, 15% poorer armor quality. It would lead to both ships having about the same penetration distance on eachothers armor, but the higher number of guns plus the better US fire control and better US damage control would put the balance squarely in Montana's favor. At close ranges yes Yamato's guns have much better penetration, but at those ranges, both ships would be able to penetrate the crap out of each other, and it would basically come down to which ship hit something vital first, which given Montana's greater number of guns, she has a higher chance of hitting something important first. But the fight could still go either way.

 

Obviously ingame this is a different story, as armor quality is not calculated, and both montana and Yamato's armored belts are equal strength. Though I suspect that something is wrong with Montana's transverse bulkheads. When i tested in training room, montana's belt armor when angled at about 45 degrees, can completely no sell any of Yamato's shots, even at near point blank range. So Yamato's mythical penetrate any ship at any angle is definitively false. But at that same range, the transverse bulkheads, despite the fact that they are supposed to be 18 inches thick are incapable of deflecting Yamato's shots. Iowa's transverse bulkheads are also incapable of deflecting those shots, but for some reason, North carolina's can. How is that for weird. No obviously at a 45 degree angle, Yamato and Izumo are completely unable to deflect any battleship gun at close ranges, because the hexagonal armor layout leaves a relatively flat surface to the target even when angled. Using this knowledge I was able to sink a Yamato in a close range duel using Montana, landed a good 2 or three citadel shots through that spot. I would have survived that encounter if i hadn't accidentally over-steered and exposed too much of my own citadel too him. We both managed to just fire our last shots before the others connected and sunk each other at the same time. But both of us started the duel at near full health and there was little interference from our teams. So Montana isn't as weak as people make her out to be. In game what montana needs though is Yamato's super hull heal, and those forward transverse bulkheads need to be looked at.

 

Yamato's armor arrangement was far superior to Montana's as Higgle has pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,067 posts
2,554 battles

 

Yamato's armor arrangement was far superior to Montana's as Higgle has pointed out.

 

Then quote it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Members-
6,960 posts
10,623 battles

 

Then quote it here.

 

Let me find it. I'll edit this post with a link when I do.

 

LINK: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/53550-montana/page__p__1317135#entry1317135

Edited by ShermanMedium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
611
[SYN]
Members
2,861 posts
10,456 battles

 

Yamato's armor arrangement was far superior to Montana's as Higgle has pointed out.

 

I highly disagree. Yamato's armor arrangement is is only superior gameplay meta wise, and even then, it can still be a liability to a yamato if the other guy knows where to aim. Deck protection only works better because of WG damage models, and even then, an AP hit in that area can still do 33% damage instead of an overpen. Real life, no i would not say Yamatos arrangement is superior, especially when armor plate quality is considered. That main deck protection of 8 inches, when plate quality is accounted for, is probably only worth about 7-6.5 inches of equivalent thickness US armor plate. When you account for the 5.8 inch main deck being backed by 1.5 inch STS, Main deck protection is now at about 7 inches. Add in the bomb deck and the spliter deck, in a real life scenario, motnana's deck protection is considerably better. its only WG damage model that puts Montana at a disadvantage. But Yamato also gets screwed by meta too, because the hexagonal arrangement leaves a spot where yamato can always be citadeled even when angled, So yamato's only defense against that is to go bow straight on to their enemy to keep that from happening. Plus the protected AA mounts do a wonderful jom of catching and detonating AP, instead of letting it overpen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
611
[SYN]
Members
2,861 posts
10,456 battles

 

Yamato's armor arrangement was far superior to Montana's as Higgle has pointed out.

 

On a side note regarding HE resistance, since the latest changes to how deck resistance to HE works, Montana no longer takes substantially more damage than Yamato does against HE, so that part has been changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
77
[HOTH]
Beta Testers
337 posts
6,812 battles

Problem is you guys are talking BB vs. BB. U.S. naval airpower is the real muscle in history, or your alternate histories. IJN can have their four Yamatos but as long as the U.S. gets their dozens of Essex and Midways the Yamatos are nothing more than meatshields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Members-
6,960 posts
10,623 battles

Problem is you guys are talking BB vs. BB. U.S. naval airpower is the real muscle in history, or your alternate histories. IJN can have their four Yamatos but as long as the U.S. gets their dozens of Essex and Midways the Yamatos are nothing more than meatshields.

 

That is not the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,924
[CMFRT]
Alpha Tester
9,364 posts
26 battles

Problem is you guys are talking BB vs. BB. U.S. naval airpower is the real muscle in history, or your alternate histories. IJN can have their four Yamatos but as long as the U.S. gets their dozens of Essex and Midways the Yamatos are nothing more than meatshields.

 

Thank you for completely ignoring the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[KNTAI]
Beta Testers
1,293 posts
12,457 battles

 

That is not the point.

 

Yes, the point is to continue to tell the Montana class (aka me) that I am pretty.

 

 

The Yamato class fuel reduction part of this topic I was unaware of, but, from the strategy of the IJN at the time, does make sense. I do wonder what the fuel storage was removed in favor of specifically, however, or if it was simply to lessen the weight and provide slightly better fuel economy, given at the time the shortage of oil.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,644
[O7]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
12,147 posts
9,111 battles

In this thread I will discuss various problems of Hotel, which some people call "Yamato". This is strictly limited to the actual vessel, and does not reflect the game version.

 

 

1. 46 cm guns: They're nice and heavy and all that, along with one of the most sophisticated large-caliber loading system that managed to match USN's 16" loading cycle, but ultimately it was a major hindrance in terms of construction. Disregarding the 11 steps needed, a great disadvantage of this type of construction was that the gun could only be relined by completely boring out the inner A tube.  This was so expensive a process that it was considered to be more practical to simply replace a worn out gun with a new one, although it does not appear that either battleship was ever regunned during the war. Never mind having to use new guns, Japan was only able to make 27 barrels in all, and since one was consumed for testing and 16 were used for the two ships that were finished, Japan had only 8 barrels left. When you consider that the barrel life was a mere 200, this basically means Hotel was to be a one-battle ship, for the "decisive battle" that IJN chased all its life after victory in 1905.

 

2. Armor "Quality": Japan could make armor on par with the United States and the British Empire...... except it did not have the economic backing or the industrial capacity to do so. Having the knowledge and ability is not the same as actually making such armor in the quantities needed. That is why Japan chose an "inferior" but more economic armor, Vickers Hardened.

 

hJmoGiy.jpg

 

Depending on the test, VH was about 85% as good as the American Class A, meaning in theoretical terms, Hotel's 410 mm side belt was worth only about 350 mm. Of course, given the complexities of armor this wouldn't necessarily be a fact, but all in all it does show the Achille's Heel of Japan: it never had the capacity to fulfill its goals.

 

3. Torpedo Defense System: This is the same with South Dakota and Iowa, but extending the main side armor way down into the TDS means having a very rigid wall, that, if breached, can break down and act as a nail punching deeper into the hull, thus compounding the damage. Even if welding was good, this was a fundamental weakness that could not be prevented.

 

4. Powerplant: Simply, it was one of the worst in terms of efficiency. You had twelve boilers producing only 150,000 shp due to the lower pressure and temperature. With Iowa? It reached 212,000 shp on eight boilers, and let's not forget that South Dakota (which is the basic comtemprorary design) was 130,000 shp (135,000 shp was overload) with eight boilers. All this added weight without the necessary power to push the ship.

 

5. Deliberately shortened range: This isn't really about Hotel herself, but about the 3rd (Shinano) and 4th (No. 111). When it was found that Hotel could have a range of 10,000 nm at 16 knots with full fuel, the IJN General Staff dictated that there be modifications done to the construction plans so that the range would be limited to 7,200 nm at 16 knots by reducing the fuel tanks. This led to a stop in construction for more than four months, which hindered rationalization of construction from Hotel/Ryokan. It has been estimated that if this move was not made, Shinano would have been ready for commissioning by the time Pearl Harbor happened, and No. 111 would have been around 45% completed. 

 

6. Radar: This is more of a problem with IJN as a whole. In the interwar period, Japan was as advanced as the US or UK in the realm of radar development. However, the reliance on "human spirit" on part of IJN (and IJA) delayed weaponization, and thus we have Hotel receiving its radars much later than it might have been able to. 

 

 

This is what I wrote for now (feeling somewhat under the weather), but I'll stick around for a bit to answer questions and whatnot.

Well it's nice that none of there issues translate through the game mechanics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,127 posts
5,891 battles

That and its worth mentioning that the super battleship program was an unwise investment from the getgo, even if the battleships had never been eclipsed by the aircraft carrier, the sheer expense of the vessels led them to be extremely economically demanding. At best i think Yamato's overall combat capability was maybe 30% better than a south dakota, but more than twice as expensive. In a world where the aircraft carrier wouldn't have taken prominence, Japan would have had at best, 4 yamato's in commision throughout the war, where as the us would have had 17 modern battleships, 2 North Carolina's, 4 South Dakota's, 6 Iowa's, and 5 Montana's, and possibly a Montana successor on the way. And all those battleships would have been no where near as demanding on the US as a mere 4 battleships was on Japan. Yamato would have been able to take down any one ship by herself, except for the Montana's, but 2 on one odd's was highly unlikely, let alone the 4 on one odds that would have happened.

 

Of course the only way Japan was going to win this fight was by just not provoking the US into the war at all, and even then, WW2 would have likely ended in stalemate. Germany had no way of invading the UK, as they couldn't in any way shape or form beat the royal navy. and both the soviet union and china turned out to be manpower wasting bloodbaths for Garmany and Japan.

 

IOW, the IJN is boned. 

 

The "Super Battleship" was intended to deal with the very real problem that the US could be assumed to have both a big quantitative edge and at least similar quality. Japan has 2 Fuso, 2 Ise, 2 Nagato and 4 Kongo. The US has 12 Standards alone, four additional passable BBs and plans and ability to build much more (6 Lexington and 6 1920 SoDak). And everything besides Nagato is somewhat inferior in a battleship role. Kongo v. New Mexico...well, you can try that one in-game...

 

That's a problem. The Yamato is the solution, able to salvo-kill the USN stuff and take minimal damage doing it. It is not being built with the US' fast battleships in mind, ad Yamato's design decisions are being made at best contemporaneous with those. 

 

Problem: By discarding the Treaty to make Yamato, that allowed - and spurred - the US to make its new generation of all 9x16" ships with that superheavy ammo in lieu of an 18" gun. So now as noted, Japan is planning four BB killers against...12 new BBs not counting Montana.

 

Yeah, about that fleet action...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,067 posts
2,554 battles

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-076.htm  Check out Case 2 and Case 5 scenario. While it is a simplified math, it show that the advantages of having fewer but bigger and superior ships aren't that great vs a larger but economically minded fleet.

 

What effects did the Yamato construction program had on the infrastructures and resources Japan had at hand? We know one example of that was that it wasn't possible for them to make the armor plates in bigger pieces and these had to be made in smaller pieces.

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.

×