File talk:Yamato-armorsheme-DE - magazines cut.svg

if somebody can deal with *.svg-s, could s/he apply the relevant improvements mady by Alexpl in the original file? for example the continuation at the top. all these small details were only applied to the other cut as it was overwriting this one. (or just tell him, maybe if he feels any wish to do it himself then all the same)

done some upgrades, but if someone is knowledgeable in the depicted topic please fill the omissions and correct the still remaining mistakes.

already identified 1 error (cnc)i was foolish, but will wait until i got a todo list before uploading correction so as to not to spam files that often.--Aaa3-other (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

pls del intermediate (dec13 03:27)

if this is possible, and any admin comes here to see this, please delete the 03:27 revision (of 2011-12-13), it is a bad file upload; immediately 10 mins later i uploaded the corrected 99,99% same version! thx -- Aaa3-other

Yamato drawing

this is a copy of the discussion from the talkpage i use on enwiki. (please do not create here a talkpage for me, unless really need to)

Nice work, but:

1. I did almost the same drawing back in 2010 as you did now, to find out which one works best in the article. But I was unable to provide the correct data for the strength of the armor under the magazine (not given by the USNTMJ document) so I decided to forget about it.

2. When working with inkscape you should, in the last step before uploading an image, break up all paths * for letters and symbols to allow a more decent diplay for other users. Compare [1] and [2] for the difference. *(I was working with the german lang-version, so I am not sure if its called "path" in the english one) Alexpl (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

hi and thanks for your comments (though i would feel this 'd more belong to the picture's commonspage).

• a, i now understand that why you dont want this in the article and its ok. sorry for the many reverts.
• b, i tremendously prefer the texts in editable form - this is proper i think, not only for anytime editing but for not giving sixfold file size increase. and, if one just thinks abstractly about the format and the rationale behind it... damn, if its so awesome to be able to store texts as texts and then display it, then why ultra-hardly code mathematically the curves belonging to each letter, in the tiny detail to even replicate the font face! also, in inkscape (so, i guess, in a proper implementation of the format's display), as opposed to firefox which i also use (to be fair, it at least always stood behind of it unlike damn ie, just to not to appear anti-ff, not intended) and picture viewer programs, and to even mediawiki's svg-to-png parser as i see, there is close to zero visual difference between the two approach. in the two kurskmaps you link, its because of missing fonts i guess, which happened with me only with the undercaptions, which i will correct. (+in the maps, general lack of care and choosing of size)
• c, okay, so that red which i noticed too is actually unknown. could you answer to the following questions however? [i am totally new to both svg (my 1st drawing lol), and unknowledgeable about yamato as well; just took up the pic because of those big grey metal girders (plus the thicker, so while not to scale, much more informative orange internal lining) inside make the picture look very beautiful and technical-like in fullsize, and i also found surprising the armor layout on that pic is almost identical to my own (prior!) private hobby warshipdesigns, and anyway having the two pictures both in existence (not meaning actual use in article anymore) is more than a good idea.]

• do you know the thicknesses of the other two elements of the „triple bottom”? so whether the red 22mm is not only under midships. i didnt have the courage to just copy it there. (but i guess the 14mm is universal)
• same for the two longitudional heads, (is the one there 9mm too, i suppose most likely yes), and what is the thickness for the thicker black to the outside it, and also should i call that thick one torpedoschott as well, since it stood exactly in place for that, though if too thin to be red, then cant be effective?.
• also do you know, the above-belt splinter protection of the hullside is extending all the way fore and aft to the turrets too, or its only midships? also was scared to just copy it there, the thin red line, despite it looks much more btfl that way

• b+c: in the „text way” other experts who will find the picture years later can fill in the relevant info and do the needed changes much more easy with less hassle & efficiently.

i will wait for the upload with these i think, tho offline i already start the newest version, already yesterday noticed many things i wanted to correct. but ty really for writing--Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 18:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

new questions: schott 9mm, schott 16mm and boden 22mm are cnc? and my extension of the 15mm innenseite to the whole panzerdeck, as found amidships, wasnt a mistake, was it? also, is inneneite cnc? and, is the 9mm schott's bottom really more outward at the turret than amidships? now the two images are the same larger size and the t-cut is aligned to the ms cut so they can b compared--Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 23:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

a)The „triple bottom” at the magazines had 80 mm for the angled plate (wee see in your drawing as "Panzer unter dem Magazin"), 50 mm CNC for the horizontal plate directly in the center, under the ammo (we can not see in the drawing). The outer plate is most likely to have had 22 mm strength again, because it seems somewhat difficult to modify its strength while building the ship. But I dont know the strength of the inner hull plate.

b)The longitudional protection is the main proplem for anybody who attemps to make that drawing. Text says 270 mm strength for the reinforced torpedobulkhead near the magazines, directly below the beltarmor, and its strength decreases to only 175 mm when reaching ("surprise") the ships bottom. So the text does not match the drawing since your torpedobulkhead ends long before reaching the bottom. The work of the american researchteam in 1946 was somewhat inconsistent in that point, but I guess your drawing is closer to reality.

c)The inner longitudional protection has 9 mm, supported by standard-steel-beams. The black lines in my drawing are those supportive beams, which do not aid the protection, since they are only placed every few meters.

d)Above-belt splinter protection is the same, but, of course, there is only one deck above the armored-deck at turrets "A" and "B" - other than the two decks above the boilers and below turret "C". Since turret "C" has 2 decks between magazines and bottom, your drawing is located near turret "A". So you have to draw the top-protection which is somewhere between 34 and 50 mm CNC at that point.

I was able to answer most of your questions I think and I share your hope that others will continue our work someday.

edit: NVNC was the standard-armor - sometimes replaced by CNC, unfortunately we dont know for the inner-splinter-protection-

wbr, Alexpl (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

wow, big surprises. so unknown red is actually known as well as most nvnc-s & cncs, ok. 14mm i will erase, and 22mm outer bottom i will add, ok. one 9mm ILP is ok too. (btw if the black lines are the beams they are (ca.) also the walls, because its a cross-section). BUT, what i understand, is, that 1) the TPBH is much thicker @t mags, 270-175 vs 205-75, and 2) it is exactly the same layout as amidships (all t way 2 bttm), and 3) that 1)+2) - or 2) only as 1) makes sense - is most likely incorrect info so better leave the drawing as it is. Also, the drawing (its 90% still your drawing and your bulkhead etc btw, i only modded/updated it, i feel you misunderstood it but i only took your 2010 one in the history of the now-midships file, and reuploaded it separately ;)) is really supposed to be under Tr. 'C', because it was captioned that back in 2010, so i will just draw in randomly halfheight a deck between the inner bottom and the angled red. (or i could recaption it Tr 'A' and add a red line with 34-50mm at the top of the deawing, but i prefer leaving it as 'C'). Also all the other above are drawable in, even the incosistencies will pose no problem. The only thing i cant place is the missing 50mm horizontal cnc. did you mean, is it above the angled 80? (most likely not). is it between the left and right (port&starboard) angleds near the symmetry line (\_|_/), instead of only 2 angleds reaching all the way to the center (\|/)? (likely not as its not sensible to (consequence) limit the depth of the ammo, as the deeper the better for balance). is it somewhere below of the angled red 80? (then how? extending from side-to-side and then its a quadruple bottom?!) i cannot see any use for yet another horizontal plate tho its the designers trouble not the reconstructers so whatever. but as i felt from your writing, it is not actually unknown and you know how is it, it is simply missing from the drawing. i hope all the above is correct. wbrAaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 11:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC) -edit, but you do know that the inner hull plate is 14mm amidships, dont you? as it is present in the midships drawing. because this way i wont remove it, only would mark it with '?', as probably unchanging lenghtwise along the ship; but not even that, as it seems to me just a common structural thickness for such a place on such a ship so let's assume.

The inner ends of both angled 80 mm plates are connected directly to a 50 mm horizontal plate \_/ - so the 50 mm plate is irrelevant for the drawing, because it´s located outside the frame. BTW, you can also do both drawings in english if you like. I added the "DE" extension in the filename of "Yamato-armorsheme-DE.svg" to allow other lng. versions with EN/JP etc. extensions. It looks somewhat ridiculous when english and even japanese wikipedias use images with german text in them. Alexpl (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

ok for the plate, (it will fit btw); and i let someone else to do an english one if he feels having too much spare time because i dont feel the need, the ger version is already very understandable even for non-speakers of german :)--Aaa3-other

For the 14mm plate you mentioned in your edit - do you mean the standard steelplate backing the torpedobulkhead on the inside ? Alexpl (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

no, the inner hull plate of the bottom ('boden 14mm'), the only 14mm in the drawing:) i just let that there, as reasoned above. btw, now uploaded the more-or-less finished one, take a look at it --Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 14:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont know the strength of that inner hull plate under the magazines - as mentioned in my first answer. The drawing looks good, altough you used a font which is displayed somewhat strange, esp. the new text in gray "...34-50 CNC" can barely be seen. Alexpl (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

yeah, i shouldn't've used that small font (smallest in t whole dwg), but i think i can leave the thing as it is, dont want2 spam just for such a little error. the font used throughout is the same as you did, and in fact (as mentioned) looks and arranges 100% accuratly the same as your drawing in inkscape, and ffox and mediawiki either doesnt follow the standard that good, or just fails in an unknown way. (well, ff ['view fullsize'] displays letters ugly as you have rightfully mentioned, and mediawiki is ok about this [check for example the [3] 1000px and you will see], and the only diff to inkscape is that mw somewhy shifts the bottom 'legend' text right all the way until the edge, while in i.s. i left a nice margin; and maybe extremely minor issues about spacing between letters and newlines. but (all sort of) viewers will evolve.) ^{i now place a copy of the whole section to File:Yamato-armorsheme-DE - magazines cut.svg's commonstalk to make all the history explained for new viewers} -- Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 15:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)