|
|
Post by dizzy on May 23, 2019 3:32:55 GMT -6
I finally made it to 71500 ton docks and 18" guns. But even in 1952 tech, I am way over tonnage trying to build this beast as close to specs as possible. Historically, it was laid down with 1937 tech, so what's going on? I think 17in guns and up may be too heavy to even be playable.
|
|
|
|
Post by southkraut on May 23, 2019 3:43:35 GMT -6
I regularly run 17in gun BBs and 20in gun BCs; perfectly playable.
Can't help you with the Yammy, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by warlock on May 23, 2019 7:49:59 GMT -6
I was running an 18 inch gun BC and BB in my Italian campaign as early as 1944-45 if I recall and was using them on ships under 40,000 tons. My BCs were running two quad turrets of 18 inch guns and my BB was using the standard 3x3 configuration of the Yamato.
However, I think you might be right. The Yamato had the following armor config:
650 mm (26 in) on face of main turrets. 410 mm (16 in) side armor (400 mm (16 in) on Musashi), inclined 20 degrees. 200 mm (8 in) armored deck (75%) 230 mm (9 in) armored deck (25%).
That is alot of armor and even if I had docks to accommodate 70,000+ tons, I kind of doubt you could build a BB with that amount of armor and 18 inch guns.
However, there are alot of odd things in this game that I have decided I am better off not questioning, at least if I want to enjoy the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on May 23, 2019 7:56:54 GMT -6
I finally made it to 71500 ton docks and 18" guns. But even in 1952 tech, I am way over tonnage trying to build this beast as close to specs as possible. Historically, it was laid down with 1937 tech, so what's going on? I think 17in guns and up may be too heavy to even be playable. Try building her with less armour. Historically the Yamato's armour was thick but of hugely variable quality plates, when the USN tested it some plates were as bad as the tissue paper armour in a Game of Thrones episode while others were epic. The in game armour likely gives you better protection and more uniform protection for that matter at far lower thicknesses. |
|
|
|
Post by elouda on May 23, 2019 8:36:30 GMT -6
Probably the main issue is that armour is too heavy in game. Yamato's protection was around 23kton, or ~35% of her displacement, whereas ingame belt+deck at historical thicknesses is about 34-35kton (42-43% displacement). Interestingly, dropping them enough to bring the armour weight down to 23-24kton makes the design work at around 70kton displacement.
|
|
|
|
Post by buttons on May 23, 2019 8:39:22 GMT -6
I finally made it to 71500 ton docks and 18" guns. But even in 1952 tech, I am way over tonnage trying to build this beast as close to specs as possible. Historically, it was laid down with 1937 tech, so what's going on? I think 17in guns and up may be too heavy to even be playable. Trying to maximize super heavy ship building I was able to lay down a ship with 20" guns (granted only 5 guns in single turrets) in 1920, laid down in 1922 its successor had either 6 or 8 guns in double turrets. |
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on May 23, 2019 10:10:25 GMT -6
I just want to build a faithful Yamato and currently, it appears the armor is too heavy in game. Or the guns are too heavy. Math doesnt add up here.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobsenjr on May 23, 2019 10:42:16 GMT -6
That's too bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 23, 2019 10:49:24 GMT -6
Try building her with less armour. Historically the Yamato's armour was thick but of hugely variable quality plates, when the USN tested it some plates were as bad as the tissue paper armour in a Game of Thrones episode while others were epic. The in game armour likely gives you better protection and more uniform protection for that matter at far lower thicknesses. Bad quality armor doesn't make it lighter though does it? Rather the other way around.. Probably the main issue is that armour is too heavy in game. Yamato's protection was around 23kton, or ~35% of her displacement, whereas ingame belt+deck at historical thicknesses is about 34-35kton (42-43% displacement). Interestingly, dropping them enough to bring the armour weight down to 23-24kton makes the design work at around 70kton displacement. Yeah, I'm also getting 34.7k tons roughly to give Yamato proper historical armor. That is actually without Turret armor included even ( Since the turret armor is given under "Armament category". Having the 3x18 inch Turrets unarmored they cost only 5270 weight, but when adding 26 inch Front and 10.5 inch Turret Top that balloons to a mind-boggling 22321 weight ( +17051 ) This gives the Yamato designed ingame ( 16" belt, 8" deck + turrets as above ) a requirement of 51750 tons of armor! Totally unreasonable! Does the game formulas perhaps not take into account length-area-volume scale here? ( Meaning that if you want to armor something with 8 times as much displacement you only need 4 times as much armor/area to cover and it will only be 2 times as long in all directions ). |
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on May 23, 2019 11:07:11 GMT -6
Bad quality armor doesn't make it lighter though does it? Rather the other way around.. It means that a plate which is 16" thick is providing the protection of(say) 12" of actual armour in RTW2 terms. So you put a 12" belt on it and that belt will give you the protection that the 16" Yamato belt actually provided, for the mass it actually used. It's not 100% authentic, but it seems reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 23, 2019 11:09:48 GMT -6
It means that a plate which is 16" thick is providing the protection of(say) 12" of actual armour in RTW2 terms. So you put a 12" belt on it and that belt will give you the protection that the 16" Yamato belt actually provided, for the mass it actually used. It's not 100% authentic, but it seems reasonable. My point is that the Yamato actually had 16" thickness armor, and physics allowed it. It also means that if USA had made a similar ship they could have put 16" of good quality armor on it. This indicates to me that OP might be correct that there is actually a math problem in game for how armor tonnage of really large ships is calculated. |
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on May 23, 2019 11:45:16 GMT -6
It means that a plate which is 16" thick is providing the protection of(say) 12" of actual armour in RTW2 terms. So you put a 12" belt on it and that belt will give you the protection that the 16" Yamato belt actually provided, for the mass it actually used. It's not 100% authentic, but it seems reasonable. My point is that the Yamato actually had 16" thickness armor, and physics allowed it. It also means that if USA had made a similar ship they could have put 16" of good quality armor on it. This indicates to me that OP might be correct that there is actually a math problem in game for how armor tonnage of really large ships is calculated. Fair point. Is this a question of 16" max vs 16" average? Some other comments imply that RTW belt values are supposed to be averages. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 23, 2019 11:48:51 GMT -6
It means that a plate which is 16" thick is providing the protection of(say) 12" of actual armour in RTW2 terms. So you put a 12" belt on it and that belt will give you the protection that the 16" Yamato belt actually provided, for the mass it actually used. It's not 100% authentic, but it seems reasonable. My point is that the Yamato actually had 16" thickness armor, and physics allowed it. It also means that if USA had made a similar ship they could have put 16" of good quality armor on it. This indicates to me that OP might be correct that there is actually a math problem in game for how armor tonnage of really large ships is calculated. I think that there was told that thicker plates than 12" are somehow weaker to reperesent difficulties to create face hardened armour of larger thickness. However in game the weight is proportional so it seems more that it is by efficiency of armour. Another thing is turret armour as Yamato one extremely armoured turret faces. Game simplified it quite a lot as there is no turrets side armour etc. So it could be like that. I will suggest look at design of turrets (compare Bismarck, King George V, Yamato) and you can easily find that just by turret design you can have quite a different amount of needed armour for turrets. And it is still game which needs thing to simpify so I would not expect to be able do all designs up to Yamato.
Historically face hardened armour plates over 12" were difficult to do, USA have quite an issue do quality face hardened armour over 12". Other nations too, only UK has really good quality armour plates over 12".
|
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on May 23, 2019 20:16:26 GMT -6
There does seem to be a problem with the way the math works out using the Yamato's actual specifications but given that it was such an outlier of a ship it may have been difficult for Fredrik to make the equations work out well.
|
|
|
|
Post by abclark on May 23, 2019 21:33:26 GMT -6
I think that there was told that thicker plates than 12" are somehow weaker to reperesent difficulties to create face hardened armour of larger thickness. However in game the weight is proportional so it seems more that it is by efficiency of armour. Making a plate thicker than 12" gives diminishing returns. In other words, a 13" plate acts as more armor than 12", but slightly less than 13". Another thing is turret armour as Yamato one extremely armoured turret faces. Game simplified it quite a lot as there is no turrets side armour etc. So it could be like that. I will suggest look at design of turrets (compare Bismarck, King George V, Yamato) and you can easily find that just by turret design you can have quite a different amount of needed armour for turrets. And it is still game which needs thing to simpify so I would not expect to be able do all designs up to Yamato.
The difference in armor between those turrets is more a preference of that nation than any issue with the design of the turrets. Historically face hardened armour plates over 12" were difficult to do, USA have quite an issue do quality face hardened armour over 12". Other nations too, only UK has really good quality armour plates over 12".
US WWII era face hardened armor was designed as an attempt to break the (rather excellent by that time) US AP shells. This caused the designers to give up "toughness" in order to have an extremely thick hardened face, which gave it a horrible scaling effect. Against small caliber projectiles (especially any projectiles that it can damage) it is very good; actually some of the best armor made for that purpose. But against large projectiles (especially those it can't damage) it works relatively poorly. It's not anywhere near as bad as Japanese "Vickers Hardened" used on the Yamato class (basically British WWI era face hardened armor), but it's significantly worse than most. The UK did make the best face hardened armor for use against large projectiles, but against small caliber projectiles (8" and under) it's middle of the road at best. I would suggest this article for further reading. It's mostly about the Bismarck class, but it discusses some of the how and why different armors perform differently. |
|
