Shipbucket

By navigating around from the link in your last post, and comparing drawings from that site, it would appear that the funnel, cranes, mast, ect. are correct. Also, no offense to the great ALVAMA, this drawing is from over a year ago, when most of the IJN parts were not standard and since then they have been updated. There is also that at this scale some things may appear slightly larger of smaller, for example, it is SB standard to exagerate gun barrels for stylisitic purposes, otherwise small caliber guns would not appear or would be a small wad of black pixels.
*Edit*
Some of the things in your corrections have been addressed in the previous post.
In this comparison you have probided, both drawings are the same length, going against your previous comment that ALVAMA's drawing is incorrectly sized.
5. The drawing you show has no portholes at all, so this argument is moot.
6. It appears that they are the same size on both drawings. As stated earlier, sometimes SB standards call for slight exaggeration of thin parts.
9. If you look at the Skulski drawing, you will see small boxes there too. Again, in ALVAMA's drawing, the size is exaggerated for detailing purposes.
10. As for color, when it is hard to find the exact shade, which is the case of the Yamato as most photos are destroyed or low quality, a standard haze grey is used.

_________________
Worklist

"If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done." ~Ludwig Wittgenstein

of gunbarrels, use the following logic (in drawing and when critizising SB style)

1 pixel: everything bellow 57mm.
2 Pixells: 57-105mm. also watercooled 40mm range barrels. NOTE that this is the only case when the style allows two black pixels to be used.
3 Pixells: 105-152mm
4 Pixels 152-234mm
5 Pixels 234mm - And above these ranges, the style actually starts allowing correct pixel length to be used.

gun barrels should always face either bow or stern, unless its physically impossible to them to be trained those directions. Same goes for their angle, they should allways presented in 0 angle.

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

Interesting site you link, many orginal pictures ...

But this is of course some big japs photoshop trick, damn them they show us magic portholes !

_________________

Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!

Don't hack old topics, and go away, thanks.

From the link you have provided, a side elevation of the Yamato


It clearly shows portholes in the Armour belt

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"

Okay, it looks like I need to step in here and clear up a misconception.

Rhade, the area that you have circled in the photo of your last post isn't the ship's armor belt (I believe that this also applies to you Novice as well). Those portholes are above the armor belt and deck. In this modified version of Alvama's drawing, the area I shaded in green is the top edge of the armor belt and the level of the armor deck. The area that I circled in yellow are the portholes that appear to be on the armor belt.



The area in green corresponds to the location of the arrows in this drawing.



The levels above the armor belt and deck consist of no more than two layers of steel (about 47-mm total) that provides limited protection from shell & bomb fragments and the light (approx. 100-lb) light anti-personnel bombs that were used when the ships were designed.

I've also posted two drawings of the Yamato's armor protection. In the overhead view of the first one, the Skulski drawing, the upper edge of the armor belt and the coverage of the armor deck is the solid black line. The dashed line depicts the lower edge of the armor belt. The second drawing, the Lipiecki drawing, shows the armor belt at its lower edge only, at about the location of the lower arrows in the hull.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y291/B ... ection.gif

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y291/B ... ection.jpg

Based on these drawings, I believe that our brusque poster does have a point about the location of the portholes. Someday, when someone updates Alvama's drawing with newer standard parts they should probably remove the two questionable portholes.

Indeed there is some differences, but if that person ( with I'm ashamed thats he is my countryman ) presents his concerns in more civil and polite maner like you, this will have better ending. For now he only annoy members of this society with his attitude.

_________________

Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!

Also note that the main anchors should be farther up and forward as seen in the pictures. The Bow mounted 25mm singles I believe were removed by the end of may 1945 in favor of triple mounts near the bases of the forward turrets.

Our fellow seems to have disappeared...

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

First - I'm not arrogant - this The One battleship I interested in more than 30 years - my first book was the most famous of the series Anatomy of The Ship, which I have to today and I have already in my sets of a large collection of books and documents about Yamato, Musashi and Shinano.
Secondly - to draw attention to that, my English is not good, I know, but using only the resources of my mind and normal (written) dictionaries as translation, because electronic translators through many times showed their imperfections.
Third - I never said that the work of Alvama is bad, because I appreciate his contributions and time spent on drawing, but this figure is far from the historical facts
----------------------
127mm guns - two types - just look at the photo from 1944, where they can see exactly

No one ever would put any guns or machine guns on chain of anchor - this is logical, isn't ?? The position of removed single guns 25 mm were nearly by the main artillery, amidships and aft, never on the bow and are not documented anywhere, or they do not see any picture
characteristic mast - is higher than the tower of command, in every documentations, drawings, photos - but not here
does not existe the battleship, which would have holes in the belt of armor, in addition, a thickness of 410 mm - on drawings they exist and this is a pure science-fiction


I was spit on and ridiculed, only because I allowed myself to draw attention to errors. This means that the work of Dickinson, Skulski, and other authors very reliable records are in error and this so they spent hundreds of hours studying the images and the available documentation is nothing compared to a figure in many respects inconsistent with the historical facts.

Colosseum - no, I did not disappear, I have my work very hard for a mere money like it's normal in my country, I have a family with whom I spend a lot of time and I have my hobby, which is the Yamato
You are here administrator, so how can you not like it, that someone turns out to be more knowledgeable than Alvama quoted here, is that you remove the - show the same in how you treat enthusiasts and hobbyists.

in 1996, and later in 2003 during the reconstruction of several buildings at the shipyard in Kure found a lot of documentation and drawings Yamato, which are now exhibited in the Museum Yamato - I know about this, many people too. Most people know this, who are interested in Yamato, its history and construction, who have an idea of ​​the construction of any battleship, , not only Yamato

If my criticism of ONE drawing in some detail here is frowned upon, remove Administrator my account with my posts
because only one person responded constructively and in detail, and even author of drawing by what he wrote, showed that it is more over the top than what is described here.

Rhade - it's so personal to you I say / write - as you will have my knowledge of this one ship, then we will talk, because I can see you have no knowledge of any, Radku.

Colosseum - no, I did not disappear, I have my work very hard for a mere money like it's normal in my country, I have a family with whom I spend a lot of time and I have my hobby, which is the Yamato
You are here administrator, so how can you not like it, that someone turns out to be more knowledgeable than Alvama quoted here, is that you remove the - show the same in how you treat enthusiasts and hobbyists.

_________________
Nobody's perfect, even I - said God