draconins

I assume positioning of radar? If you have correctly scaled drawing of Yamato and Bismarck, and know the positions of the radars you can measure its position. The search radars actually prominent enough. You can use anatomy of the ship book for both of them (Anatomy of the ship : Janusz Skulski and Bismarck: Stefan Draminski and Anatomy of the ship: Battleship Bismarck by Stefan Draminski). The Yamato one has new edition with some additional (and some removed) called Battleships Yamato and Musashi (Anatomy of The Ship). Both are physical books, and not really lengthy as it is mostly drawings. For Yamato drawing though, I prefer "Super Illustration: Imperial Japanese Navy Battleship Yamato". The scale drawing for external look is larger and more detailed. However if your interest is on internal layout, the anatomy of the ship series would be much better. If you mean about blast pressure of Yamato guns, you can see http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.php.

The search radar specifically, not whole radar set. Other including FCS were intact until the tower being destroyed by direct fire in later action. IJN knew the blast effect early on, and many of its equipment placed, hardened, tested, or shielded for this problem. There was a 28 October 1942 Musashi test trial, which include the testing of newly equipped radar, (not september 1942 as some other source says). During the trials the radar display is damaged by gun blast. This was fixed by at least November for second trial on 28 November 1942. No further report of blast damage on radar in Yamato or Musashi after this. Source http://www.combinedfleet.com/musashi.htm Also most Yamato radar antenna and primary FCS set is very high compared to Bismarck. Bismarck's first and third radar sits relatively low about 3m above and 15m behind turret, while second is approximately 15m above turret. For comparison, Yamato the prominent search radar sits approximately 20 meter above top of turret and 20m behind the turret. Blast pressure measured during trials at Kamegakubi test range was 7.0 kg/cm2 (100 psi) at a point 15 m (50 feet) in front of the muzzle.

While I generally agree that ships does not have linear acceleration like you said, it can be difficult to actually fully emulate historical values in the game. This is as engine and hull actually have different performance on different speed. Some hull form may not have fully known information. For example IRL, Yamato, we don't know for example what is the bulbous bow design speed for Yamato, is it in intended for cruising speed or for top speed? This is as bulbous bow generally have specific handling characteristic which make the ship more efficient for specific speed but may be worse for another. Not counting even Musashi which is to my knowledge has even better reported sea keeping than Yamato. Furthermore various ships which had different characteristic before and after refit of Torpedo protection (which can actually become better or worse). Further, ship with different propeller count, position, and design can have drastically different performance (due to interaction between propeller). For this try to look http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-036.php and see section about triple shaft mainly on German battleship. I believe to some degree this is actually have been in the game in form of engine efficiency. Though I am don't know whether this have non-linear curve or not. I think UAD can offer various curve option in engine or simply add same curve for all engine, but I think it can complicate things.

Can you take screenshot how your ships launched your torpedoes? you will need to attack from multiple direction in this mission

Can I have your battle configuration, or is this naval academy mission? Do you know the armor thickness configuration? Your 98.6 is basically for at least 1 hit for all 9 guns, however more than half of your hit is Ricochet (104hit) based on stat on top right, hover on the icon to see the details. Also your enemy is super armored, it has like 10.3 to 50.1 inch armor (with quality), so it would be quite difficult to brought down even when angled correctly. Depending on their armor configuration, you may need to either fight at closer range (if belt is weaker) or longer range (if deck is weaker), in your case very likely you need to fight longer range.

Another check to my library, and the one I use did mentioned that the protection on aft steering is considered outside citadel. From Anatomy of The Ship Battleship Iowa, pg 12 I also scanned the armor arrangement scan from later page as part of configuration should be clearer than the one shared by @disc

This looks good! Thank you for the update, especially for the formation! Question in this formation control: would player be able to assign location for the subformation? For example assigning some group destroyer on say 45degree forward portside, or assigning it 30 degree portside? or it is more like automatic and fixed? whether player can still break ships into different formation in different direction? I mean splitting for example say some group of ships to east some group to west? as the formation changes sounds like you instead controlling big ship formation how you control "u-turn" for the formation and large group formation, can you do "one by one" and "simultaneous" turn? Will detaching ship from formation would also "unselect" other ship from formation? I mean currently after detaching you need to reselect the ship before assigning command otherwise you still includes original ships in the formation

Torpedoes still effective in certain condition, it is just there are tech to make it less useful or more useful. Even in prior WW1 "destroyer" originally created to counter torpedo boat, as torpedo attack is dangerous to capital ships. It was originally "torpedo boat destroyer". IJN invested and train heavily for torpedoes hence their torpedoes really powerful. In real life though some aspect is less useful due to technology, for example radar make ambushing using torpedoes difficult. Please do not judge all torpedoes just by WWII US torpedoes, if US torpedoes mishap in the game, you won't hit anything with those torps, or even when hit it would not explode, and this would just cause too much frustration to player akin what happen to US submariner in WW2. Also do not forget, even large guns are less effective in WW2 in many condition, it would better to just send planes and submarines. However radar did help to improve some aspect of gunnery. I do not know say if IJN press forward with Yagi radar early on, would that making ambush more likely? Or if they managed say to make guided torps? I have tried torpedoes in the game, honestly I find it is inaccurate and often time I really annoyed with the way of torp launch right now, it is actually very difficult to target general area correctly (ever try hitting circling ship?) and I really want a button to force launch. It does not mean you will not get hit, but simply just more difficult. Torpedo banzai specifically it is supposed to be ambush scenario, and not helped by the way the AI control the fleet, though arguably if the US fleet is controlled by human, this mission become extremely difficult as human know they will be attacked. My problem with current torps in UAD is basically the modelling, you can make a ship basically array of torps with high reload while real life torps has weight and size. There is discussion already on this. However on other side, right now in UAD destroyers is rather useless without these reloadable torps, due to availability role in UAD.

Owari is indeed second named Kii class, however third and fourth planned were Suruga and Omi, though not yet had formal "naming". Both are old provinces of Japan. In english wiki this is not present, but checking japanese wiki, it is there https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/紀伊型戦艦 . Also in https://www.navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_bb_kii.htm. The name itself indeed used in the future as Minesweeper and Supply ship. Suruga itself is another possible name for the improved Yamato. Other possible names are Harima and Iyo, both to my knowledge never used in Japanese military ship. On reusing the name IJN probably can, but likelihood is low given relatively "new" the naming standard at the time, and as I said there are too many names still not yet used, not to mention IJN has some names which is almost being used but cancelled. IJN may even actually planned use Owari for that, but yes this is speculation. However, I believe Shikishima is kind of bad speculation and mainly I do not want confusion in UAD with the old actual class Shikishima, if they somehow make premade library for it. Historical reuse for IJN I can remember were Azuma, Kongou, Fuso, Hiei, Ryujo, but those were ironclads. Those name were reused in completely different vessel and military era, Ryujo and Azuma not even following the convention. Shikishima is also basically still used as training though already stricken but not scrapped until after the war. From available previous name, it would rather make more sense to reuse Asahi (sunk since 1942) as it is another poetic name for Japan, the name itself is now reused twice already by after war Japan . On the topic of big gun I think while it is nice to have I would rather the main issues (especially formation) fixed and other main features added first. This large gun probably can be added relatively easy as minor update but likely mostly imply increasing cosmetic size and stat. And even prior this, the quad guns. Nonetheless bigger gun is nice once they begin working into tech higher than 1940, eg 1945. For the thread starter, sorry for being off-topic.

Sorry I don't understand what do you mean here? What I am saying is that Shikishima is lead class already existing ships. I had many referring to name of Kii or Omi as possible name either for 4th Yamato or new A-150, and the names were already planned to be used for cancelled ships. Both were old provinces of Japan and does fit into convention. Based on what Wakaza being suggested? I have heard Echigo but that was mainly fandom, but i read this was suggested as 5th Yamato (Kai Yamato), planned as improved shinano/Yamato, referred as hull 797, this was superseded by A-150 design. Battleship Settsu already used and actually active as "target ship" during world war II, so I doubt it would be using this name. If you use wiki, Kii is even listed as 4th Yamato in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato-class_battleship Also I am pretty sure that Izumo would not be used, she is active cruiser/training ship (from 1943) at world war II. For name, I think they can repeat but there are so many old provinces name has not yet been used. Even just old name of japan many has not yet been used, for example Oyashima/Yashima Akitsukuni Mizuho (this actually used even for a seaplane carrier) Hinomoto Also Fujimi made Kii as name for their model for A-150.

While I love to have this, I think this should be part of future minor update. However I have complaint if Shikishima name being used, as it is very fictional name for A150, and only used in WoW to my knowledge. This is especially more so for a ship which already lead for the class for pre dreadnought battleship which is covered in timeline of UAD. Most reference of probable actual name A-150 would be either Omi or Kii. Kii basically a planned lead ship name which is originally planned for other old ship though it was cancelled due to washington treaty. Omi is another name in that class which was cancelled. Kii is also probable name of cancelled fourth Yamato class.

Naval ops does not model the heavy armor extending the citadel for protecting underwater stern, it only uses the citadel proper only at waterline, similar how you don't usually use term citadel for the Barbette protection extending upward. For the percentage, I only remembered from the reference mentioning it before, I simply don't remember where, I may be wrong too though in this part I remembered when I read this, I was surprised that the number matched how naval ops model the VP. This is also why I said not to use hardcoded 53%, it is simply limiting and you may want make "monster" ship. And yes, in many definition citadel does include those transverse bulkhead. Just for fun to I checked diagram of side drawing Yamato, if you just based on side drawing, it would instead yield 47-48%ish, even with extended angled citadel. And probably the correct term what we refer as turtleback is incremental armor,as usually turtleback only protected top, not adding belt armor.

While I generally agree that the damage modelling can be more realistic, I disagree in your specific battle screenshot, as you basically over pen nearly everything, in close range where trajectory is almost flat. I don't believe this is simply issue of of damage modelling nor about bulkheads. You are shooting above waterline. If you are shooting from farther away, I think it is more believable. This is a good reason to use even smaller guns with low angle capability, especially in the larger warship you use. Of course in real life the warship supposed to hit the waterline with smaller gun as bigger gun does not have low enough depression usually, so some guns in real life do have minimum range. Even in smaller gun, elevation of 2 degrees can have 4 km range with near flat trajectory. This is also why small gun often put on "pedestal" or on outer edge of the ship. Otherwise also smaller gun is useless. Of course in real life there is of case of spalling, or dead crew, or electrical damage, or something important above waterline damaged, or even some flamable cargo/fuel, but I think this is too much to ask for current stage of game. And even in real world, over penetration is real issue. To be fair, in real life most transport ship would generally surrender, and even then warship would keep distance and instead send boarding party (as suicide bombing/ramming can be issue).

Battle of Savo Island and Battle of Tassafaronga Pay attention to your gun size "Mk xx" the higher the better your accuracy is, in that mission I would recommend boost tech, and try to use 13 and 14 inch guns (10+ guns recommended) with best accuracy possible, so you want best stereo rangefinder, but you do not need best bridge towers. Increasing shell weight can help. Make sure at least you prep your armor against 12-14 inch guns. Initially try to "kite away", try to maintain long range battle initially (15km-25 km) but keeping accuracy level above 5% (in fact set to save) and damage the BCs as much as possible. The BCs will slow down due to damage and basically fall behind formation (switch when needed), if you are lucky they would even sunk in this long range. Once the BCs fall behind then you would want to be a bit closer to CAs but not too close (10-15km, make sure your armor would protect you against the CA, but maintain relatively higher accuracy). Your guns should be able to finish off the CA due to higher accuracy and bigger guns. You do need to occasionally change direction if CA launched torpedoes. Then you can pick one by one of the enemy BC, sometimes they even do not have ammo for their big gun anymore by this point. In general, target whichever ship which your guns accuracy is higher and low richochet probability. In most engagement you want to be face away and ahead of enemy ships. Enemy ships in this mission mostly not that accurate, and sometimes can't even target you beyond 20 km. If you do it right you don't need anti torpedo. I can even afford not using secondary guns and use increased ammo count instead. You will be hit by BC's larger gun occasionally but maintaining long range should reduce damage as fighting long range force lower accuracy on their side. I prefer fewer superships (and mostly use only 1 ship) than many small ships due to how bad the formation in this game, however that can also work but likely you want fighting at closer range, less deck armor. In that case choose more funds and smaller ships. This can work especially if the enemy has no torps.

I think the changing difficult mode is not yet implemented, that is what it mean by "it does not change anything". I believe you can change difficulty in the future for individual mission hence button is there for each mission. At the moment, it does not matter.