Yamato's Deck Armour Viewer

[GoldPile]

So this has been bugging me for awhile now but before the armour viewer released it was stated a Yamato has a maximum deck thickness of 200mm. It also felt like it was nicely armored since most shells bounce off & sometimes other Yamato shells did too.

 

But the ingame armour viewer lists the deck as barely armored at all. However armored deck carriers have theirs listed correctly so now I'm wondering what is going on? Am I missing something or is the armor viewer buggy?

[HazeGrayUnderway]

Yamato needs buffs!

[SinqueScheiDeMona]

You have to use the filters.

 

[GoldPile]

You have to use the filters.

 

Ah there it is, thanks!

[csp0811]

Viewer shows the thickness of the first armored deck layer, or the bomb layer. There are additional armored and splinter decks, depending on the ship, but this is generally incorporated into citadel roof armor on the viewer. However, for the purposes of penetration vs. ricochet, the first layer the shell or bomb hits is the one that matters. Yamato bomb deck is around 35 millimeters.

 

Generally shells 60 degrees or greater from the normal (perpendicular) will ricochet despite the shell having more than enough penetration to enter the armor if the overmatch mechanic was not applied. Overmatch mechanics have it that very large shells ignore thin armor at high angles and go to penetration vs armor, which will always penetrate. Overmatch applies when the shell diameter is 14.3 times the thickness of the highly angled armor. This is important, because the Montana has 32mm of bow armor and the Yamato's 460mm diameter shells can overmatch 32.1mm of armor (can you see how the overmatch value was chosen specifically to give Yamato the advantage and for no other reason?). This allows Yamato shells to automatically penetrate the bow rather than ricocheting, while the Montana's 406mm shells cannot do the same to the Yamato.

 

With 35mm of bomb deck armor, no guns on the game can overmatch Yamato deck armor, and at the furthest ranges in the game, you cannot penetrate Yamato bomb deck with any AP shells. However, the 1000 pound USN bombs at tier 9 and 10 can just barely penetrate Yamato bomb deck armor and do 1/3 dmg. You cannot citadel Yamato through the deck, as the bomb deck plus the other decks and citadel roof armor thickness is in the hundreds of millimeters. In the future there may eventually be 1000 pound AP bombs introduced that can do this.

[Lampshade_M1A2]

Viewer shows the thickness of the first armored deck layer, or the bomb layer. There are additional armored and splinter decks, depending on the ship, but this is generally incorporated into citadel roof armor on the viewer. However, for the purposes of penetration vs. ricochet, the first layer the shell or bomb hits is the one that matters. Yamato bomb deck is around 35 millimeters.

 

Generally shells 60 degrees or greater from the normal (perpendicular) will ricochet despite the shell having more than enough penetration to enter the armor if the overmatch mechanic was not applied. Overmatch mechanics have it that very large shells ignore thin armor at high angles and go to penetration vs armor, which will always penetrate. Overmatch applies when the shell diameter is 14.3 times the thickness of the highly angled armor. This is important, because the Montana has 32mm of bow armor and the Yamato's 460mm diameter shells can overmatch 32.1mm of armor (can you see how the overmatch value was chosen specifically to give Yamato the advantage and for no other reason?). This allows Yamato shells to automatically penetrate the bow rather than ricocheting, while the Montana's 406mm shells cannot do the same to the Yamato.

 

With 35mm of bomb deck armor, no guns on the game can overmatch Yamato deck armor, and at the furthest ranges in the game, you cannot penetrate Yamato bomb deck with any AP shells. However, the 5000 pound USN bombs at tier 9 and 10 can just barely penetrate Yamato bomb deck armor and do 1/3 dmg. You cannot citadel Yamato through the deck, as the bomb deck plus the other decks and citadel roof armor thickness is in the hundreds of millimeters. In the future there may eventually be 5000 pound AP bombs introduced that can do this.

 

Whatever Yamato fanboy came up with these mechanics should be fired.

[Sub_Octavian]

Whatever Yamato fanboy came up with these mechanics should be fired.

Hey, the same mechanics gives NC and other high-tier BBs the same advantage. But Yamato is ultimate tank in this sense, it is true.
This may not be the best situation, so changes are possible. For example, adjusting mechanics so that T8-10 BBs would always penetrate bow armor (not necessarily penetrating citadel traverse, but at least dealing some 1/3 or 1/10 damage. This way, battleships will stay tanky against light and medium artillery, but won't be able to ignore each other in battle (as they often do now, slowly going in and tanking with bow).

But this hypothetic change should be carefully tested first.

[atPrick__]

Glad WG released the armor viewer, it will only make the game better. Proof above

 

[csp0811]

Hey, the same mechanics gives NC and other high-tier BBs the same advantage. But Yamato is ultimate tank in this sense, it is true.
This may not be the best situation, so changes are possible. For example, adjusting mechanics so that T8-10 BBs would always penetrate bow armor (not necessarily penetrating citadel traverse, but at least dealing some 1/3 or 1/10 damage. This way, battleships will stay tanky against light and medium artillery, but won't be able to ignore each other in battle (as they often do now, slowly going in and tanking with bow).

But this hypothetic change should be carefully tested first.

 

I recall in early closed beta that AP overpenetrations under the waterline caused flooding. If you want penetrations of the bow but not extremely high damage, you could perhaps reimplement floods caused by holing the ship underwater. This would happen more often at the stern and bow as the belt armor extends below waterline in the middle of the ship but not at the stern and bow. So instead of citadel hits or 1/3 damage, you could encourage 1/10 damage hits that cause flooding. Such a system could allow for damage over time to be applied to ships that go slowly in tanking with the bow, and give reason for battleships to alternate HE and AP against these ships, thus increasing complexity of play. Then you can adjust overmatch mechanics so that 406mm shells can penetrate bows and cause minimal direct damage and some flooding.

[Sub_Octavian]

I recall in early closed beta that AP overpenetrations under the waterline caused flooding. If you want penetrations of the bow but not extremely high damage, you could perhaps reimplement floods caused by holing the ship underwater. This would happen more often at the stern and bow as the belt armor extends below waterline in the middle of the ship but not at the stern and bow. So instead of citadel hits or 1/3 damage, you could encourage 1/10 damage hits that cause flooding. Such a system could allow for damage over time to be applied to ships that go slowly in tanking with the bow, and give reason for battleships to alternate HE and AP against these ships, thus increasing complexity of play. Then you can adjust overmatch mechanics so that 406mm shells can penetrate bows and cause minimal direct damage and some flooding.

We would like to stay with current damage archetypes:

• Immediate high damage, skill required: AP
• Low damage, fire, module damage, reliable: HE
• Immediate high damage, flood (damage and speed debuff), skill required, can be dodged with skill, too: torps.

Mixing this with each other is not something we're willing to do now.

[MeetTheBadger]

A lot of the problems with USN armor schemes can be seen pretty clearly with the armor viewer.  They have a a tier 10 battleship that may as well be armored in wet tissue paper and lies for all the good its armor does.  The Montana actually has worse top deck armor (not citadel deck armor, but the actual deck itself) than the Iowa and the Moskva (a cruiser, for heaven's sake), which is one of the reasons it eats so many penetrating hits from other high-tier battleships -- since the very top deck armor is only considered 19mm thick, even the Scharnhorst's 280mm guns will overmatch it.  So in the game, all an AP shell fired nearly horizontally from another battleship has to do to get a penetrating hit (not a citadel hit, but a standard penetration), is basically skip along the Montana's deck.  Counts as armor overmatch, angling is therefore irrelevant where bouncing is concerned... and the Montana eats a damaging hit.  Doesn't matter how you maneuver or position the ship.  And that's not even mentioning that terrible bow armor that allows for penetrations straight through by the Yamato (indeed, the armor overmatch mechanic appears specifically designed for it).

 

The armor viewer really does show how the game just crushes the Montana's armor through its mechanics.

[RadDisconnect]

A lot of the problems with USN armor schemes can be seen pretty clearly with the armor viewer.  They have a a tier 10 battleship that may as well be armored in wet tissue paper and lies for all the good its armor does.  The Montana actually has worse top deck armor (not citadel deck armor, but the actual deck itself) than the Iowa and the Moskva (a cruiser, for heaven's sake), which is one of the reasons it eats so many penetrating hits from other high-tier battleships -- since the very top deck armor is only considered 19mm thick, even the Scharnhorst's 280mm guns will overmatch it.  So in the game, all an AP shell fired nearly horizontally from another battleship has to do to get a penetrating hit (not a citadel hit, but a standard penetration), is basically skip along the Montana's deck.  Counts as armor overmatch, angling is therefore irrelevant where bouncing is concerned... and the Montana eats a damaging hit.  Doesn't matter how you maneuver or position the ship.  And that's not even mentioning that terrible bow armor that allows for penetrations straight through by the Yamato (indeed, the armor overmatch mechanic appears specifically designed for it).

 

The armor viewer really does show how the game just crushes the Montana's armor through its mechanics.

 

The Montana's armor is also inaccurate. The second (main) armored deck is a total of 7" in the center, and about 7.5" in the outer 12' of the beam, but in game it's only listed as 150 mm, or about 5.9", which means that the STS backing plate is not being accounted for (unlike the case with the Iowa). Also, I'm fairly sure the weather (top) deck of the Montana is 38 mm (about 1.5", same as Iowa) or more, and not less as shown by the game. Basically, the Montana's armor in game is weaker than in real life.

 

Then you add in the problem where armored freeboard (which gives more protected volume in real life and advantageous for survivablility) is currently a large disadvantage since it makes the citadel a larger target. I wish there's some way to address this (might make a separate post about this).

 

The overmatch mechanic being a simple on/off affair is just blatantly favoring certain attributes, like 18.1 inch guns for Yamato.

[icyplanetnhc]

To be fair, overmatch mechanics also gave the Warspite and Bayern some unique advantages to make up for their lower number of rifles compared to Fuso and New Mexico.

 

Also, I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice the issue with how protected volume and armored freeboard is depicted in game.

[MeetTheBadger]

 

The Montana's armor is also inaccurate. The second (main) armored deck is a total of 7" in the center, and about 7.5" in the outer 12' of the beam, but in game it's only listed as 150 mm, or about 5.9", which means that the STS backing plate is not being accounted for (unlike the case with the Iowa). Also, I'm fairly sure the weather (top) deck of the Montana is 38 mm (about 1.5", same as Iowa) or more, and not less as shown by the game. Basically, the Montana's armor in game is weaker than in real life.

 

Then you add in the problem where armored freeboard (which gives more protected volume in real life and advantageous for survivablility) is currently a large disadvantage since it makes the citadel a larger target. I wish there's some way to address this (might make a separate post about this).

 

So not only is STS steel not accounted for in the Montana's armor (though you say it is on the Iowa?  I wonder how many other USN ships with it have it accurately represented), but you say WG got the Montana's armor wrong even apart from that?

 

Apparently they also made some mistake concerning the New Orleans as well.  Not sure what, but the Chieftain said he'd look into it.

 

The armor viewer's been out a day and already mistakes are being uncovered in USN armor schemes.  Amazing.

[icyplanetnhc]

 

So not only is STS steel not accounted for in the Montana's armor (though you say it is on the Iowa?  I wonder how many other USN ships with it have it accurately represented), but you say WG got the Montana's armor wrong even apart from that?

 

Apparently they also made some mistake concerning the New Orleans as well.  Not sure what, but the Chieftain said he'd look into it.

 

The armor viewer's been out a day and already mistakes are being uncovered in USN armor schemes.  Amazing.

 

To build off what he said, the main armored deck on Iowa over machinery is 4.75" Class B on top of 1.25" STS, which gives a combined thickness of 6" or 152 mm, and this is represented in the game using armor viewer. Based on Friedman's battleship book, the Montana's main armored deck is 5.75" Class B on top of 1.25" STS for a total of 7", but the game only gives it 150 mm, or 5.9". This is on top of the fact that for some reason the game shows the Montana to have a thinner weather deck than the Iowa and North Carolina, where in real life I believe they're the same, or even thicker in the case of Montana.

 

That's not the only issue. The band of outer hull plating on the Iowa is reversed. The game currently shows the top band to be 38 mm, while the band below it over the main armored belt is 25 mm. In real life the reverse is true.

 

EDIT: The Iowa and NC are also completely missing the belt and deck armor in the stern around their steering gear and propeller shafts. The entire stern belt and armored deck is complete neglected, which makes these ships extremely easy to citadel from the rear. See image below.

 

[MeetTheBadger]

To build off what he said, the main armored deck on Iowa over machinery is 4.75" Class B on top of 1.25" STS, which gives a combined thickness of 6" or 152 mm, and this is represented in the game using armor viewer. Based on Friedman's battleship book, the Montana's main armored deck is 5.75" Class B on top of 1.25" STS for a total of 7", but the game only gives it 150 mm, or 5.9". This is on top of the fact that for some reason the game shows the Montana to have a thinner weather deck than the Iowa and North Carolina, where in real life I believe they're the same, or even thicker in the case of Montana.

 

That's not the only issue. The band of outer hull plating on the Iowa is reversed. The game currently shows the top band to be 38 mm, while the band below it over the main armored belt is 25 mm. In real life the reverse is true.

 

EDIT: The Iowa and NC are also completely missing the belt and deck armor in the stern around their steering gear and propeller shafts. The entire stern belt and armored deck is complete neglected, which makes these ships extremely easy to citadel from the rear. See image below.

 

 

So, between the issues listed here on the Montana, Iowa, and North Carolina, and the issue with the New Orleans' armor (which I'm not sure about, but apparently the Chieftain is looking into it), that's four USN ships with errors -- some serious errors -- where their armor is concerned, including all three of the highest tier USN battleships.  And the armor viewer hasn't even been available to the wider portion of the player base for so much as a full twenty-four hours yet.

 

WarGaming, you've got some explaining to do.

[saagri]

If I remember correctly, people have been complaining about the lack of STS for US ships way before Armor Viewer. 

[byronicasian]

 

So not only is STS steel not accounted for in the Montana's armor (though you say it is on the Iowa?  I wonder how many other USN ships with it have it accurately represented), but you say WG got the Montana's armor wrong even apart from that?

 

Apparently they also made some mistake concerning the New Orleans as well.  Not sure what, but the Chieftain said he'd look into it.

 

The armor viewer's been out a day and already mistakes are being uncovered in USN armor schemes.  Amazing.

 

I first found the whole issue on reddit. Apparently, it is a fairly easy mistake to make if you only do a cursory read/translation of Friedman and then use the damage control drawings to fill in the holes.

 

[icyplanetnhc]

 

So, between the issues listed here on the Montana, Iowa, and North Carolina, and the issue with the New Orleans' armor (which I'm not sure about, but apparently the Chieftain is looking into it), that's four USN ships with errors -- some serious errors -- where their armor is concerned, including all three of the highest tier USN battleships.  And the armor viewer hasn't even been available to the wider portion of the player base for so much as a full twenty-four hours yet.

 

WarGaming, you've got some explaining to do.

 

Actually, I would maybe hold off on being too scathing, because it's possible that armor viewer currently doesn't show all of the armor in game. Quick Googling led me to Menz Gaming's WOWS armor guide of the Iowa, where it appears to show the stern having its armor. Perhaps a developer can clarify the matter. Of course, Menz Gaming's WOWS armor guide still shows the wrong value for the Montana's main armored deck.

[byronicasian]

I'll laugh if gamemodel3ds armored model is still more accurate than our in game one.

[scruffycavetroll]

Glad WG released the armor viewer, it will only make the game better. Proof above

 

indeed. 

 

really like the armor model. 

[Sampsonite]

Hey, the same mechanics gives NC and other high-tier BBs the same advantage. But Yamato is ultimate tank in this sense, it is true.
This may not be the best situation, so changes are possible. For example, adjusting mechanics so that T8-10 BBs would always penetrate bow armor (not necessarily penetrating citadel traverse, but at least dealing some 1/3 or 1/10 damage. This way, battleships will stay tanky against light and medium artillery, but won't be able to ignore each other in battle (as they often do now, slowly going in and tanking with bow).

But this hypothetic change should be carefully tested first.

 

   Now everyone, please take note! A valid issue was pointed out and Sub_Octavian addressed it by the 7th post! I'm sure the armor viewer will need a few changes. Thank you Sub_Octavian for explaining....

[Tedster_]

EDIT: The Iowa and NC are also completely missing the belt and deck armor in the stern around their steering gear and propeller shafts. The entire stern belt and armored deck is complete neglected, which makes these ships extremely easy to citadel from the rear. See image below.

 

I believe it is modeled, just the "bow/stern" armor filter removes it as it is not counted as Citadel spaces (and that this was mentioned in some notes somewhere too).

[SinqueScheiDeMona]

 

   Now everyone, please take note! A valid issue was pointed out and Sub_Octavian addressed it by the 7th post! I'm sure the armor viewer will need a few changes. Thank you Sub_Octavian for explaining....

 

that little tidbit about bow tanking was good to hear. 

[icyplanetnhc]

 

I believe it is modeled, just the "bow/stern" armor filter removes it as it is not counted as Citadel spaces (and that this was mentioned in some notes somewhere too).

 

Yes, checking Menz Gaming, which I think has the original data-mined armor model, shows that the stern has its armor. Perhaps the Iowa rear citadel issue was a matter of perception, I'll have to play more to know if it was a one time thing or not.

 

That still leaves the Montana's deck armor thinner by 1.25" (32 mm), and its inexplicably thinner weather deck.