Jump to content
Flandre Bug Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Flugel_Der_Freiheit

Yamato Cheek

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
207 posts
2,856 battles

Why is Yamato the only tier 10 BB with a glaring weakspot, much less one that didn't actually exist? Conqueror has a lowered citadel, Grosser Kurfurst has turtleback, Montana has a lowered citadel, Republique has a lowered citadel, meanwhile Yamato has her 41cm citadel belt exposed, while also having a huge weakspot underneath the fore turrets. Republique actually has more belt armor protecting it's underwater citadel than Yamato does. This is pretty ridiculous, considering Yamato is the only Tier 10 BB that actually existed. Having 46cm guns is not an excuse to give it a huge glaring weakspot that allows every other BB to one shot it for no real reason when it's already a huge floating target that is constantly on fire or under attack by Aircraft. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,112 posts
11,989 battles
1 minute ago, The_Dunk_Squad said:

hy is Yamato the only tier 10 BB with a glaring weakspot, much less one that didn't actually exist? Conqueror has a lowered citadel, Grosser Kurfurst has turtleback, Montana has a lowered citadel, Republique has a lowered citadel, meanwhile Yamato has her 41cm citadel belt exposed, while also having a huge weakspot underneath the fore turrets. Republique actually has more belt armor protecting it's underwater citadel than Yamato does. This is pretty ridiculous, considering Yamato is the only Tier 10 BB that actually existed. Having 18.1 inch guns is not an excuse to give it a huge glaring weakspot that allows every other BB to one shot it for no real reason when it's already a huge floating target that is constantly on fire or under attack by Aircraft. 

Yamatos citadel is not too high, other BB citadels are just too low.

 

Actually Montana citadel is only somewhat lower, it is still easy do citadel. But as far as others go, Welcom to the World of Dumbing down

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
67 posts

To the Yamato player, a lot of other BBs have 'glaring weakspots' as well, since you can overmatch the bows of almost everything. And those bows are bigger than that Yamato cheek. I therefore never had real probems with its existence.

 

In fact, I would be very careful with asking for buffs here. The number one ship I abuse the cheek on Yamatos with is the Yamato - so a buff to the cheek would be a buff to its survivability, while also being a nerf to its damage output. Pretty much same story as with the BB citadel nerf, which didn't really buff BBs, just changed the interaction between them. Other classes couldnt touch their citadels anyway (except for some cruisers ofc).

 

If you want to play ships which are almost untouchable through the bow, go to german BBs or, for whatever reason this is a thing, Zao and Stalingrad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
207 posts
2,856 battles
37 minutes ago, Duke_of_Lauenburg said:

To the Yamato player, a lot of other BBs have 'glaring weakspots' as well, since you can overmatch the bows of almost everything. And those bows are bigger than that Yamato cheek. I therefore never had real probems with its existence.

 

In fact, I would be very careful with asking for buffs here. The number one ship I abuse the cheek on Yamatos with is the Yamato - so a buff to the cheek would be a buff to its survivability, while also being a nerf to its damage output. Pretty much same story as with the BB citadel nerf, which didn't really buff BBs, just changed the interaction between them. Other classes couldnt touch their citadels anyway (except for some cruisers ofc).

 

If you want to play ships which are almost untouchable through the bow, go to german BBs or, for whatever reason this is a thing, Zao and Stalingrad.

 

I'm aware of that, it's more just a weird ahistorical thing that's always irked me about the Yamato. Yamato overmatching the bows of every BB is relevant of course but I can't help but think that Yamato is almost always under fire from a Cruiser or under attack by Aircraft and adding the weak spot doesn't really help Yamato's case. Maybe it's my bias speaking but I feel Yamato has an almost rightful place to be one of, if not the strongest Tier 10 Battleship, being the only one to exist and historically being the Battleship to end all Battleships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COMFY]
Players
793 posts
2,079 battles

As far as I’m concerned, Yamato is still somewhat able to hit the citadel from the front of other 32mm bow bbs, I think it’s citadel shape is supposed to prevent that from happening to itself as long it points its bow directly at another Yamato.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
930 posts
9,329 battles
24 minutes ago, The_Dunk_Squad said:

 

I'm aware of that, it's more just a weird ahistorical thing that's always irked me about the Yamato. Yamato overmatching the bows of every BB is relevant of course but I can't help but think that Yamato is almost always under fire from a Cruiser or under attack by Aircraft and adding the weak spot doesn't really help Yamato's case. Maybe it's my bias speaking but I feel Yamato has an almost rightful place to be one of, if not the strongest Tier 10 Battleship, being the only one to exist and historically being the Battleship to end all Battleships. 

The fact that Iowa and Montana have bad penetration at long range is also ahishorical because they actually had almost as much pen as Yamato. In fact Yamatos performace in the game is grossly exaggerated... Yes, Yamato did exist but it was hardly a battleship to end all battleships... It was a white elephant that cost way too much resources for its limited utility. In fact it might have been a match for the Iowas given favourable conditions but its probable a single Iowa could have taken out a Yamato out of commission if not destroy it. The Iowa could have been heavily damaged in the process but USN had twice as many of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[H_FAN]
Players
2,725 posts
45,841 battles
10 hours ago, DJ_Die said:

The fact that Iowa and Montana have bad penetration at long range is also ahishorical because they actually had almost as much pen as Yamato. In fact Yamatos performace in the game is grossly exaggerated... Yes, Yamato did exist but it was hardly a battleship to end all battleships... It was a white elephant that cost way too much resources for its limited utility. In fact it might have been a match for the Iowas given favourable conditions but its probable a single Iowa could have taken out a Yamato out of commission if not destroy it. The Iowa could have been heavily damaged in the process but USN had twice as many of them...

But when you compare like that, it is rather meaningless to discuss performance.  Fletcher a better DD than Yugumo because of numbers built etc? Iowa better than Yamato because numbers built?

First of all Iowa was the third built design Post WNT. That means you have some service/design development. Second  naturally lots of Iowas qualities depends on radar and Anti-Air which is more a part of the USNs growing supremacy here, both resourcewise and technological superiority.

 

If the IJN had developed Yamato in 3 iterations the designs would have improved.

You must also be aware of that most comparisons are done with a US bias = Victors bias.

 

Japan was not unaware of radar - just did not have the resources to compete with US in terms of radar development -made them lagged behind - but it was nothing in Yamatos basic design that precluded her from taking advantages of that given that the technology advances later would have been taken place in Japan.

What I mean is that these features are naturally included when you see what ship is best but when the design of Yamato was finalized in 1937 and they started to build none of these features existed at any ship anywhere around the world so  it is a little unfair. Also name her white elephant - that you can not do beforehand - especially when she was built mostly in peacetime and all nations built battleships.

It more illustrates the strategic problem that faced IJN = They can not win against USN - so all ships are white elephants - what should they build?

 

The major issues with Yamato (not AA/radar related), were the joints between upper/lower armour belts and lots of large compartments in the unprotected areas, and that the torp protection could have been made better. They were not unknown and could partly at least been rectified in later iterations. Later ships would have had the 3,9 inch AA gun f.e.. 

 

If you face a superior navy in numbers - individual top quality has often been used as a mean to deal with that situation, likewise assymetric warfare f.e. U-boats, Jeune Ecole etc. Therefor blaming IJN for choosing this path is wrong for me.

 

Iowa vs Yamato 1vs 1 - You realize that Iowas immune zone against Yamato vs the other way around is very narrow if at all existing. If anything Yamatos armour scheme is excellent vs other Battleships (and not so much vs torps. thanks to defective joints and not so much compartements relative speaking). But do not forget that her size is very huge, Yamatos reserve buyoancy is greater than Iowas. So size and weight does matter.  

 

Some of these defects were known to the Japanese designers but if you are in wartime , the downtime and resources for reconstruction is a major prize and in the end it does not matter if Yamato with improvements would have sustained 20 torps instead of 15, just another wave of USN aircrafts. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,930 posts
7,510 battles
14 hours ago, The_Dunk_Squad said:

This is pretty ridiculous, considering Yamato is the only Tier 10 BB that actually existed.

That's pretty much it, though. Not existing is a great excuse for WG to buff the ships beyond what any real ship would've been like.

 

Yamato shouldn't be buffed. The other BBs should be nerfed, if anything.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COMFY]
Players
793 posts
2,079 battles
2 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

That's pretty much it, though. Not existing is a great excuse for WG to buff the ships beyond what any real ship would've been like.

 

Yamato shouldn't be buffed. The other BBs should be nerfed, if anything.

Montana can be a pretty close contender, since the design was 100% finalised along with plans for a 3rd lock at Panama Canal, so if they wanted to, they could have built it, but since cvs rendered bbs ineffective, it was cancelled for more Iowa bbs and essex cvs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,585 posts
19,834 battles
2 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

 

Yamato shouldn't be buffed. The other BBs should be nerfed, if anything.

wow. i actually agree with this.

 

yamato citadel is fine. other BBs should get also exposed citadels so they can be punished hard.  

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
508 posts
8,055 battles

I can`t even image what would have happened if Yamato was ever allowed to brawl. Nothing shows balance better than a quad citadel straight through the nose :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
393 posts
11,628 battles
2 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

wow. i actually agree with this.

 

yamato citadel is fine. other BBs should get also exposed citadels so they can be punished hard.  

 

4 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

That's pretty much it, though. Not existing is a great excuse for WG to buff the ships beyond what any real ship would've been like.

 

Yamato shouldn't be buffed. The other BBs should be nerfed, if anything.

Oh how i agree with this statement! BBs are way too strong in the current game situation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[H_FAN]
Players
2,725 posts
45,841 battles
37 minutes ago, Infiriel said:

I can`t even image what would have happened if Yamato was ever allowed to brawl. Nothing shows balance better than a quad citadel straight through the nose :cap_like:

She was designed to fight between 20-30000 m roughly (IZ). So she would not close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
930 posts
9,329 battles
6 hours ago, Gnirf said:

But when you compare like that, it is rather meaningless to discuss performance.  Fletcher a better DD than Yugumo because of numbers built etc? Iowa better than Yamato because numbers built?

First of all Iowa was the third built design Post WNT. That means you have some service/design development. Second  naturally lots of Iowas qualities depends on radar and Anti-Air which is more a part of the USNs growing supremacy here, both resourcewise and technological superiority.

 

If the IJN had developed Yamato in 3 iterations the designs would have improved.

You must also be aware of that most comparisons are done with a US bias = Victors bias.

 

Japan was not unaware of radar - just did not have the resources to compete with US in terms of radar development -made them lagged behind - but it was nothing in Yamatos basic design that precluded her from taking advantages of that given that the technology advances later would have been taken place in Japan.

What I mean is that these features are naturally included when you see what ship is best but when the design of Yamato was finalized in 1937 and they started to build none of these features existed at any ship anywhere around the world so  it is a little unfair. Also name her white elephant - that you can not do beforehand - especially when she was built mostly in peacetime and all nations built battleships.

It more illustrates the strategic problem that faced IJN = They can not win against USN - so all ships are white elephants - what should they build?

 

The major issues with Yamato (not AA/radar related), were the joints between upper/lower armour belts and lots of large compartments in the unprotected areas, and that the torp protection could have been made better. They were not unknown and could partly at least been rectified in later iterations. Later ships would have had the 3,9 inch AA gun f.e.. 

 

If you face a superior navy in numbers - individual top quality has often been used as a mean to deal with that situation, likewise assymetric warfare f.e. U-boats, Jeune Ecole etc. Therefor blaming IJN for choosing this path is wrong for me.

 

Iowa vs Yamato 1vs 1 - You realize that Iowas immune zone against Yamato vs the other way around is very narrow if at all existing. If anything Yamatos armour scheme is excellent vs other Battleships (and not so much vs torps. thanks to defective joints and not so much compartements relative speaking). But do not forget that her size is very huge, Yamatos reserve buyoancy is greater than Iowas. So size and weight does matter.  

 

Some of these defects were known to the Japanese designers but if you are in wartime , the downtime and resources for reconstruction is a major prize and in the end it does not matter if Yamato with improvements would have sustained 20 torps instead of 15, just another wave of USN aircrafts. 

Not necessarily, because Iowas cost much less than Yamatos. At the same time their combat power was at best comparable. Fletchers were simply better than Yugumos because they were probably the best allround DDs of the war. Yes, Yamato was designed before WNT because Japs cheated. And despited cheating they still didnt build a ship that was miles ahead of everyone else due to their flawed AP shells and terrible damage control. Yamatos was laid down some 3 years before the first Iowa, but USS Iowa was commissioned only 1.5 years after Yamato. Other qualities you fail to mention are better AP shells and much better damage control. At any meaningful combat range Iowa and Yamato were able to penetrate each others armour. 

 

Why didnt the IJN design them in 3 iterations of thats what they needed? Thats why US ship designs were generally sound and good performing. They took what worked and improved it.

 

I find it funny when you claim Yamato was built for peacetime... So you build a fleet that should be overwhelmingly better than any other fleet it can meet but you build it for peacetime? Sorry but it was a WARship, you dont build those for peace but for war. Even in times of peace. Yes, i can call her a white elephant. Do you know what that designation mean? Because thats what they were. Overly expensive for very little actual gain. Thats why they called her the Hotel Yamato.

And yes, Japan couldnt have won the war against the USA. They pretty much betrayed their allies by not attacking the USSR. Which we all should be glad for.

 

Another issue with Yama were its horrible AP shells. The 100mm guns were a nice improvement but still short of the effectiveness of the USN 5" with their VT shells and better fire control. But that still wouldnt have solved its lack of proper mid and low calibre AA guns. The 25mms were just horrible. And while DP guns are nice for their long range fire to support the whole fleet, individual ships still needed good intermediate guns.

 

Individual quality is nice and all but theres only so much you can offset with it. Yamato didnt over much over the much smaller and cheaper Iowa. All of this in an era where battleships quickly became obsolete.

 

If there ever was a 1vs1, which i highly doubt, It was all be pretty much down to luck because, as i said already, both should could easily penetrate each other at any meaningful combat range with Iowa having better fire and damage control. Yes, Yamato could still win but it cost so much more than its opponent...

 

And thats exactly what i mean, every war just proves that "superweapons" often fail to deliver. Yes, it does not matter, because it was a white elephant and the resources could have been better spent elsewhere. Self-sealing aircraft tanks come to mind. Or pilot academies.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

×