IJN Yamato Class Battleships

[temujin77]

Well, I saw the commercial for PBS's Nova yesterday about the sinking of the Yamato (which I did see tonight, excellent program), and inspired me to update my Yamato entries in the WW2DB last night. Thought I'd share the links here as usual. Hope you guys enjoy!

Yamato: http://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=1

Ten-Go Operation: http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=15

[Firefly]

Thanks for that, yet another excellent little piece. I read that the main guns could be used against aircraft with a type of shotgun shell (sanski-dan?). Do you know if this is true and also if they were ever used in action?

[temujin77]

That's right, possibly due to the lack of defense against aircraft Japan developed an anti-aircraft shell for the massive 18" guns of the Yamato-class. The shells are called "Sanshiki" (someone correct me on the spelling and it meant something like "bees" or "beehive" or something to the effect of "swarming". It's a huge shell filled with incendiary devices and it set to explode on a timed fused. When it explodes, burning steel shrapnel filled the path of the oncoming aircraft, I suppose doing the same thing of what flak guns do.

During the Ten-Go Operation (see link above), when Yamato was attacked by hundreds of American aircrafts, she used these anti-aircraft shells but to little effect. I got this tidbit from the PBS Nova show the other night :)

[IronFist]

All i know the Yamato is that it had massive 18' guns, some of hte biggest of its day with a huge range. It was sunk by fighters in 1945 caught in the open trying to escape.

[temujin77]

All i know the Yamato is that it had massive 18' guns, some of hte biggest of its day with a huge range. It was sunk by fighters in 1945 caught in the open trying to escape.

You're off just slightly -- she was on a suicide charge when she was caught in the open ocean without adequate air support. She was not trying to escape by any means.

Oh and 18" (inch) guns, not 18' (feet) guns. The Japanese probably WISHED they had 18-ft guns :)

[student-scaley]

Am i right in thinking that the Yamato was only given enough fuel to get to the enemy fleet for the Ten-go operation, one assume's in order to drive home the sacrificial aspect of the mission.

[temujin77]

Am i right in thinking that the Yamato was only given enough fuel to get to the enemy fleet for the Ten-go operation, one assume's in order to drive home the sacrificial aspect of the mission.

Yes, it is generally believed that the Yamato was given only enough fuel to sail to Okinawa vacinity. She was to do one of the following when she reaches the location:

1. Sail directly into the American fleet formation and open fire on carriers and landing crafts with her guns.

2. Run aground at Okinawa and become an instant coastal fortress to defend against American landings.

3. In worse case scenario, pick a big American ship (BB or CV) and ram the selected target.

Of course, we know that she did not make it near the American formation near Okinawa.

[IronFist]

Suicide Run?, please explain more i'd like to learn. And yes 18" Guns.

[temujin77]

Please excuse my laziness in not explaining the "suicide run" fully, but I've written a article on that particular operation here:

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=15

It should answer your question about that suicidal operation -- if not, let me know!

[1000ydstare]

The 18" guns of the Yamato, and her sister ship (do the Japanese refer to their ships as she?) the musashi, were the largest guns ever to be fitted to a ship. They were also the largest and heavist battle ships ever built.

It is believed that the loss of these two huge and powerful ships to aircraft is what turned the tide fully to the ships we have to day.

In total 5 ships were supposed to be built. The third hull, Shinano, was changed in to an aircraft carrier. The fourth hull was abandoned when only half complete and the fifth keel was never laid.

There were plans for bigger ships to be built with 20" guns but they were never built.

The whole point of the Yamato was to outclass every battle ship the Americans had. Most of the American ships came through the Panama canal their size was limited, this is why the Americans only ever had 16" guns, they simply couldn't fit more armour or bigger weapons to the ships as it would make them to big to go through the canal thus they would have to go around South America to reach the Pacific.

But as I said above, they didn't count on air power, in a straight forward battle, such as Hood and Bismark, it highly likely that a Yamato class ship would tear apart any American ship or maybe even a pair. But the Japanese air defence capabilities on board were sorly lacking.

The idea of using the ships main armourment was flawed from the begining.

In trials it was shown as effective and quite devestating to aircraft, where the aircrafts flight path could be predicted and the guns positioned. In practice the guns had to be traversed to engage the aircraft which were manouvring to avoid fire, they were too slow moving for this. The speed of reloading was also slow, as each gun had to return to almost horizontal (as many did at this time in all Navies) for the next round to be loaded.

[Twitch1]

I met the Hellcat pilot about 20 years ago that was the singluar witness, the last American in the vicinity to watch the Yamato slip beneath the waves. His feeling was "what a waste of good fighting men."

[IronFist]

What was the purpose of this Suicide attack?.

[Twitch1]

Simply to defend Okinawa and inflict as much destruction upon the enemy as possible knowing it was a hopeless cause and death was iminent.

[1000ydstare]

The Japanese descision to opt for "sucide" tactics is often not understood by westerners. Basically they were getting such a beating that the chances of returning from missions were almost zero anyway. By some volunteers killing themselves in pressing home their attack the chances of inflicting heavy damage on the target was increased.

That is a very simple and brutish description, other factors affecting their descision were things like their religious beliefs and their affection for their Emporer.

Although the best known suicide attacks are aircraft there were also suicide boats, manned torpedoes and submarines. On land there were also suicide teams who would give up their lives to allow them to inflict the greatest damage to the enemy.

By the time Okinawa was invaded, the Japanese knew they were in a bad way. Yamato was dispatched with simple orders. It was to be one last hurrah for the ship. Basically the captain was freed from the requirement to return, thus he could alter his tactics to increase the damage done.

Yamato and her fleet was to sail in to the midst of the attacking american fleet and spread havoc. When she was no longer effective at this task she was to be beached on Okinawa, where her guns would provide an instant increase of fire power. Her crew that were not needed would go ashore to fight (to the death) on land with the existing Japanese garrison.

In the event of this not being possible it is highly likely that she would have been used to ram an american ship, preferably a carrier but another battleship would probably have been seen as an adequate substitute.

[Twitch1]

The just plain stubborness of the japaneze was apparent with the very 1st engagements on Wake and Guadalcanal and everywhere before Okinawa. They were pulling off "banzai charges" as they were called then for no apparent reason but to simply do it. In most situations there they weren't cornered or in immenent danger of death. They just did it. Senseless waste of lives.

[HG]

The Japenese made a movie of the Yamoto and it looks graet. The Yamoto was a great battleship design and I have studied it many times because I myself design battleships as a hobby by hand (allthough the 3D part is still dufficult for me ) and the thing that cought my eye was;

1. The space on the ship was not used to its full potensial and the AA guns were not in the numbers it should be.

2. The Cunning tower or bridge was just to high up in the air and the rest of the upper structure was also to high and was thus easyer to aim at if you battle from another battleship.

3. The hull was just to wide and the aircraft hangers and aircraft launchers was a waste to the hull.

4. It did not have the right amount of lifeboats.

5. The hull was not protected like a battleship of its size should be protected.

6. Range finders was poor for a ship of its size.

Now it was a great design, but I think the Japenese could have done better for their two largest battleships.

They could have used the wasted space to fit more AA or more secondary guns.

Henk

[student-scaley]

The just plain stubborness of the japaneze was apparent with the very 1st engagements on Wake and Guadalcanal and everywhere before Okinawa. They were pulling off "banzai charges" as they were called then for no apparent reason but to simply do it. In most situations there they weren't cornered or in immenent danger of death. They just did it. Senseless waste of lives.

I definitely agree on the waste of lives being senseless, it amost always is, but the kamikaze/suicide/banzai aspect is not that disimliar to some of the stunts western knights used to pull off, i'm thinking specifically of the ballad of rollo, where some frankish knights in spain knew they were walking into an ambush by the moors but went ahead anyway in order to give thier king the best chance later on (they thought if they inflicted max damage on the moors then the king would have better odds). Or what about the spartans at thermopylae? And i think some people would agree that the banzai charges you described above were not far off to the advances made by British troops in the first world war. Japanese banzai/kamikaze attacks crazy and senseless? yes defintely, unique? definitely not.

[HG]

It is very sad that the Japenese send there largest battleship to a mission wich was actualy a failure from the start. Never would this plan have worked and they knew the US ruled the skies so why be so stupid?

Why build sush a large ship and then just send it on such a useless thing.

Henk

[FW-190 Pilot]

how can you call it sad when the japanese has kill a lot of innocent man and rape a lot of innocent womean back in china?

i think their target is to attack american fleet near by, but the ship is of course discovered by the american scott and you know what happen later on. I think it would be smarter if the japanese would use that ship as a fort to defend, rather to use it as offense though

[HG]

No, Fw-190 Pilot I do not just look it from the loss of human live lost but alos the technolagy lost although I did not want it to survive longer because it could have gotten nasty or the US could just have done the same and use their airforce.

Yes, they did kill a lot of people, but still their was young men on that ship that did not know what they was in something that was not clear to them. It is even more sadder that the Japenese did all those things.

Henk

[pdf27]

The Japenese made a movie of the Yamoto and it looks graet. The Yamoto was a great battleship design and I have studied it many times because I myself design battleships as a hobby by hand (allthough the 3D part is still dufficult for me )
Have you seen the Springsharp software ( http://www.springsharp.com/ )? It looks like it would be rather a useful tool for what you're trying to do, as well as bring in more things like the effectiveness of the armour scheme.

Also, if you're properly interested I would suggest the Battleship .vs. Battleship on the Warships1/Navweaps bulletin board ( http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm1 ) - there are a hell of a lot of people on there who really know their stuff, and there is a lot you could potentially learn from them.

Of course I could be stating the blindingly obvious in which case apologies, but they both seemed like things you might find useful.

[pdf27]

Or what about the spartans at thermopylae?
Without Thermopylae there would most likely never have been a Salamis. Without Salamis the western world as we know it today would have been strangled at birth, and we would most likely live in a repressive theocracy or primitive tribe.
Sometimes the sacrifice is worth it...

[HG]

Thank you very much pdf27 and it looks great and as I am wrichting this message it is beign downloaded and the forum looks great and I just want to say thank you very much.

It will help me very much.

Thanx again.

Henk

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

Think the japanese didn't want to use the Yamato for this mission because they believe it is sacred because Yamato means something sacred. And as for several other ships aswell.

[1000ydstare]

Yamato wasn't built with the suicide attack in mind, but her sister the Mushashi was already sunk. She could wait to be sunk, or go out all guns blazing.

AA was never good on pre-war ships on both sides. It took Pearl Harbour to show the full potential of aircraft against ships. The wasted space you refer to where was it on deck? If so remember that all guns need space to rotate and also substantial machinary and magazines under the deck as well, there may not have been space for extra guns. Even AA need chutes for the ammo to come up.

The conning tower on most ships is high, that is its purpose. The aircraft may have been a waste during ww2, but they were her scouts. A job taken over by the carrier aircraft.

I thought the yamato was very well armoured, not necesarily against air attack but again a pre-war design. It is worth noting that american carriers had no armour under their flight decks which caused several ships to suffer damage. Apparently British flat tops were armoured, so often the Kamikaze were simply pushed off the deck!!!

Don't know about the range finders and life boats, how manydid she carry then?

[student-scaley]

Or what about the spartans at thermopylae?
Without Thermopylae there would most likely never have been a Salamis. Without Salamis the western world as we know it today would have been strangled at birth, and we would most likely live in a repressive theocracy or primitive tribe.
Sometimes the sacrifice is worth it...

Of course chap, you are spot on there. However, it is equally pheasible to say that the Japanese feared the collapse of their culture and so were prepared to make the sacrifice. Not forgetting that it was widely believed in Japan that when the Americans landed in Japan that they would enslave the entire nation, although completely unfounded it is enough IMHO to motivate men to make the ultimate sacrifice.

[pdf27]

It is worth noting that american carriers had no armour under their flight decks which caused several ships to suffer damage. Apparently British flat tops were armoured, so often the Kamikaze were simply pushed off the deck!!!
It's a little more complicated than that - in the US carriers the strength (and therefore armoured) deck was the hangar deck, with the flight deck being a light superstructure on top. In the British armoured carriers it was the flight deck.
While this does make it more likely that a carrier with an armoured deck can shrug off an attack completely, if the attack penetrates the armoured deck then the carrier is royally screwed. From memory at least one of the British armoured carriers was a constructive total loss after a hanger deck fire - the whole ship was actually bent due to the intense heat and difficulty fighting the fire. In the US carriers damage control was much easier.
Secondly, the armoured carriers can carry a much smaller air group. This didn't matter very much when the RN carriers were operating in their original design role around Western Europe, but put them in the Pacific and the fact that they could only carry half the aircraft that the US carriers could for the same size of ship becomes important. Not only that, but the RN carriers had a lower sortie rate as they couldn't shuffle as many aircraft down to the hangar deck (an armoured deck forces you to use much smaller aircraft lifts) and couldn't warm up aircraft below decks (the US carriers had open sections at the rear).
This all means that while the UK carriers were more likely to survive a bomb strike, the US carriers were much more likely not to get hit in the first place due to their massively stronger air wing which has far more chance of shooting down an incoming attack. It is notable that all the late war/postwar British carriers dropped the armoured carrier design, and nobody else picked it up. However, on all modern carriers the flight deck is the strength deck for structural reasons, so the British may well have been barking up the right tree for completely the wrong reasons.

Of course chap, you are spot on there. However, it is equally pheasible to say that the Japanese feared the collapse of their culture and so were prepared to make the sacrifice. Not forgetting that it was widely believed in Japan that when the Americans landed in Japan that they would enslave the entire nation, although completely unfounded it is enough IMHO to motivate men to make the ultimate sacrifice.
That's rather arguable - remember that this isn't some new attitude in Japan, but one that has been a fairly consistent thread throughout their history. Arguably they weren't all that unique either - some of the stuff I've been reading recently suggests that this sort of attitude (taken to a slightly less extreme level than in Japan) was actually rather prevalent in Europe shortly before the outbreak of WW1.
I think the point I'm really groping for here is that the Japanese willingness to attack against suicidal odds, sacrifice themselves, etc. predates the point at which they realised their culture might be in danger. As such I think you're barking up the wrong tree here, but I can't really think of any good examples to prove it.

[1000ydstare]

Cheers for that pdf. Didn't know some of the detail in that. I was more trying to show that there were various ideas at the time on where the armour should be to counter the perceived threats. I think most pre-war battleships had most of their armour to protect against other battleships as opposed to torpedos (aerial or water launched) or bombs.

[HG]

If you look at the design of the Bismarck and Tirpitz you can see that they knew that a air attack on a battleship is not good and thus made precotions to be able to try and stop a air attack so it is not completely right to say that theydid not have that in mind when they designed battleships.

Take a look at the deck of Yamoto early in the war and then have a look at the ship again later in the war, they emproved the AA capabalaty of the ship, but still they did not do all they could. Look how the Germans emproved the AA on the Tirpitz.

Henk

[1000ydstare]

Henk.

I have already covered this in either this thread or another one. All through the war Yamato had her AA defences augmented, sometimes by removing her secondary gun batteries. Her air defence at the start was pretty poor when compared to her defence capabilities at the end.

Why Bismarck and Tirpitz would have better air defence is open to discussion. Perhaps because the waters they would be operating in were closed in, in comparison to the Pacific, or perhaps the Germans saw the possiblity in air attacks. The primary job of the battleship was to smash other battleships, this didn't really change until later in the war.

[pdf27]

If you look at the design of the Bismarck and Tirpitz you can see that they knew that a air attack on a battleship is not good and thus made precotions to be able to try and stop a air attack so it is not completely right to say that they did not have that in mind when they designed battleships.
Well, they understood the principle but didn't really get it in practice. Tirpitz was effectively a floating wreck by the time it was actually sunk due to the activities of the Fleet Air Arm and RAF Bomber Command. Bismarck was crippled by a pretty light air attack.
Incidentally, Bismarck wasn't nearly as well armoured as popular history would make out. While it proved pretty difficult to sink (largely due to the fact that the RN was so angry with it for sinking Hood that they closed in too far - hence the shells destroyed everything above water but let little water into the hull) it was a mission kill very rapidly and was completely unable to fire back within a very short time of starting the final engagement. Essentially it was an upgraded 1918 design of Dreadnough (the Baden class with slight improvements) and even a 1920s treaty battleship like Rodney was able to smash it with little difficulty. They got very lucky at Denmark Strait (Hood was poorly handled and still got hit by the archetypal "Golden BB", while PoW still had a lot of dockyard workers on board trying to get it finished) and this seems to have created the mythos around Bismarck.

Increasingly off-topic I know, but this sort of thing interests me.

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

off topic aswell, the germans got lucky with sinking the Hood because one of the Bismarks salvos fired and the bullet hit the Hoods rear ammunition storage which of course would kill any ship considering the amount of ammo in the storage. And sparking a fire then exploding.

[HG]

Well firstly the Yamoto was more armoured yes, but her AA was not effective and the Bismarck had the problem of the aircraft flying to low adn thus not able to shoot them. The Tirpitz was sunk by a 3 six ton bombs and the earlyer air raids on the ship was not effective and thus used the six ton bomb.

The Rodney was bull. It is the worst battleship design I have ever seen in my whole live. In the battle with the Bismarck it got hit and the wter came pouring in everywhere and the superstructure was permanently damaged and was falling appart. The guns bounced out of their barberets adn made the ship thus a bad gun platform. AA guns on the Rodney and the Nelson was poor. It never saw combat against other navel dhips during the war.

Actualy calling it a battleship is not a bood thing the Yamoto and the US battleships was better, but it did out gun the Bismarck. The Baden was one of the best battleships of its time.

Sorry for being off topic.

Henk

[1000ydstare]

Henk, attacking aircraft seldom fly in ways to make it easier for the ships to shoot them down.

I think the bismarck was hit by aerial torpedos rather than bombs.

[pdf27]

The Tirpitz was sunk by a 3 six ton bombs and the earlyer air raids on the ship was not effective and thus used the six ton bomb.
Not exactly - Op Tungsten killed 122 and wounded 346 including the captain. It also undid the 6 months of repair work done since the X-craft attacks. This was a carrier based raid using either 500, 600, or 1600lb bombs.
In another carrier strike (Op Goodwood - actually a series of strikes) the ship was hit again repeatedly and one bomb came to rest in No.4 switch room. Unfortunately it was a dud, but had it gone off it would have wrecked the fire control and switchboard systems, and possibly sunk the ship. Neither of these raids would I in any way describe as "not effective" - they left the Tirpitz as a mission kill for quite some time. The series of attacks left the Tirpitz able to perform no operational deployments from when it was first hit by the X-craft in September 1943 until it was sunk by bomber command in November 1944. I would suggest that this series of raids was actually rather effective and did exactly what they had to.

The Rodney was bull. It is the worst battleship design I have ever seen in my whole live. In the battle with the Bismarck it got hit and the wter came pouring in everywhere and the superstructure was permanently damaged and was falling appart. The guns bounced out of their barberets adn made the ship thus a bad gun platform. AA guns on the Rodney and the Nelson was poor. It never saw combat against other navel dhips during the war.
If the Rodney was so bad, why did it sink the Bismarck with so little difficulty? KGV was there too, but had major problems with it's triple turrets which weren't fixed until later in the war and which left Rodney to do most of the damage. Bismarck by contrast did no damage to any of the British heavy ships, with the only damage I'm aware of being what reads like splinter damage to the destroyers Cossack and Zulu.
Not quite sure what you're on about with "never saw combat against other naval ships during the war" - Rodney was the ship which did most damage to the Bismarck. She also drove the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in March 1941 (largely because they realised how badly they were outgunned).

Actualy calling it a battleship is not a bood thing the Yamoto and the US battleships was better, but it did out gun the Bismarck. The Baden was one of the best battleships of its time.
It's clearly a battleship, and the Nelson class (of which Rodney is the other member) were arguably among the better treaty battleships. Remember what this means - they had to conform to the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. Hence the requirement to weigh only 35,000 tonnes (Bismarck was 10,000 tonnes heavier). And the Baden class may well have been among the better battleships of it's time, but it's time was WW1. The Allied navies learnt a lot by the gunnery trials they conducted post-WW1, and this led to a radical revision of armour schemes for new build ships. Bismarck still had a WW1 style armour scheme, and it showed in how easily it was mission killed when KGV and Rodney finally caught up with it. Essentially the armour scheme worked very well at keeping the ship floating, but was awful at keeping it in fighting condition. Even at Denmark Strait the relatively minor damage it recieved was sufficient to prevent it from continuing it's mission agains the North Atlantic convoys.

[HG]

Yes, I did not say it was hit by a bomb it was hit by a torpedo by Sworfish carrier aircraft. I must agree with you it is not easy to hit aircaft on the open seas on a battleship.

Henk

[Firefly]

In John Tolands book, he states that the Yamamoto had the best armour of any Battleship in WW2, particularly the Torpedo belt was thicker than any other Batleship alfoat. The Mushasi took about 30 Torpedo hits before it sank , please correct me here if you know better as another book I have says 17. 30 may be combined torpedo and bomb.

How anyone can say they were inferior battleships is beyond me. On a one one one engagement I'm sure they would have done OK.

Remember the Slot etc...............

[1000ydstare]

I think it was combined. Hold on.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Musashi

During this battle on 24 October 1944, she was attacked by American carrier-based aircraft armed with bombs and torpedoes. After taking 17 bomb and 20 torpedo hits and 18 near misses, the ship capsized to port, and sank at 1935hrs. on October 24, taking more than 1023 of her 2399 crew with her; 1376 of the crew were rescued by the destroyers Kiyoshimo and Shimakaze.

[HG]

Yes,it was combined. Ok, I will correct myself. The Yamoto and Mushasi had the best armour. :oops:

Firefly anilise the Rodney and dig up a book called THE DISCOVERY OF THE BISMARCK by Robert D Ballard who also discoverd the Titanic and in there you will read what a american who was on the Rodney because she was deu for a refit in the US and was on her way there when she was called into battle to sink the Bismarck. He said how poor the ship was and how bad the damage was.

Then you will realise you do get shitty battleships.

Henk

[pdf27]

you will read what a american who was on the Rodney because she was deu for a refit in the US and was on her way there when she was called into battle to sink the Bismarck. He said how poor the ship was and how bad the damage was.
Well, according to the various accounts I've read Rodney didn't get hit once in the battle. However, it's hardly surprising it was in dire condition - IIRC it was on the way to New York for a major refit (something I don't think it had had since being launched in the mid 1920s) so general wear and tear are likely to cause significant damage all by themselves. They're unlikely to have that big an effect on battleworthiness however.

[HG]

I quote out of the book THE DISCOVERY OF THE BISMARCK by Robert D. Ballard.

"The venerable Rodney had fared much worse. The force of the explosion from a shel that landed in the water close by had jammed her port torpedo tube doors. But this was minor compared to the side-effects of the continuous firing of her big guns, several of which actualy jumped their cradles. There was damage throughout the ship. Another U.S. passenger on board, a Chief Petty Officer Miller, described the devastation in his report: "Tile decking in washrooms, water closets and heads were ruptured throughout the ship. . . . Longitudinal beams were broken and cracked in many parts of the ship having to be shored. The overhead decking ruprured and many had leaks were caused by bolts and rivets coming loose. All compartments on the main deck had water flooding the decks. . . . Cast iron water mains were ruptured and in many instances broke, flooding compartments. . . . Bulkheads, furniture, lockers and fittings were blown loose causing undue damage to permanent structures when the ship rolled." Given the evidence, the damage from even one wel-place 15-inch shell would likely have been enormous."

So there it is.

Henk

[pdf27]

IIRC Rodney had underwater torpedo tubes, so the damage due to the near miss isn't as surprising as it might sound.

The rest of the damage (due to recoil) sounds somewhat hyped up to me. Remember that Rodney had been in commission for nearly 20 years and I would be shocked if it hadn't fired all of it's main calibre guns as broadsides in that time. Were the damage such as to imperil the structural integrity of the ship (as that account suggests) it would have been fixed very fast indeed - probably before the ship had finished contractor's trials. I've seen that account elsewhere (Warships1 IIRC) and it was disputed there - it just isn't consistent with the ship being even vaguely seaworthy.
Incidentally, the bit about "damage from even one well placed 15 inch shell would have been enormous" is also somewhat disingenuous - the same is true for any ship. See Hood or even Bismarck for examples.

[1000ydstare]

Robert D. Ballard is, as far as I know, a very good scientist for submarine life and other things such as wrecks. He found the Titanic aswell as the Bismarck.

However I would say his knowledge of the damage caused in battle by such ships would be limited, and probably all from 2nd party sources.

[HG]

Yes, but he worked with historians and people who realy knows a lot about battleships.

The thing is the Hood was a battlecruiser and the Bismarck a Battleship and the Hoods deck armour could never have stood up to the Bismarck but it did have the guns to do so.

The Rodney had permanent structural damage. I still stick wiht my first coment that the Rodney and the Nelson was the woste excuse for a battleship, no battleship should have that amount of dammage from just shooting, look how old was the Qeen Elizabeth and she still did quite good in the war.

The age of the ship does not have a lot to do with the fact that it was in a good condition when it fought against the Bismarck and never actualy whent for that refit.

Henk

[1000ydstare]

Another problem with the Hood, I think Ballard brought this to light also, was that the metal used in her construction was faulty. It became very brittle in cold temperatures.

A fault that has also been laid on the Titanics massive amount of damage from an ice strike.

from http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/5810.html

Although classified as a battlecruiser, Hood was a fast battleship, an improved version of the Queen Elizabeths. With the same main armament of eight 381mm guns, a higher position for the secondary armament, sloped armour belt and improved torpedo protection, she included the latest ideas of naval construction in 1915. The speed requirement meant an extremely long hull was essential.

[HG]

Yes, it is true.

Henk

[pdf27]

Another problem with the Hood, I think Ballard brought this to light also, was that the metal used in her construction was faulty. It became very brittle in cold temperatures.

A fault that has also been laid on the Titanics massive amount of damage from an ice strike.
To be fair, this is something that wasn't understood until shortly after the Hood was finally sunk. They had major problems with Liberty ships breaking up in the North Atlantic in winter, and it was only solved by some work done at Cambridge University Engineering Department in IIRC 1941 or 1942. Given the age of some of the lab equipment I sometimes wonder if I used some of the same equipment they worked out what the problem was on...

[FW-190 Pilot]

btw, i find it odd that Yamato's main gun is used for anti aircraft for the japanese. well, at least thats what they show me in the movie yamato, is that true?

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

btw, i find it odd that Yamato's main gun is used for anti aircraft for the japanese. well, at least thats what they show me in the movie yamato, is that true?

I think I saw it on wikipedia that said the Yamato used its main guns for AA, I just don't see how its possible.

[temujin77]

I think I saw it on wikipedia that said the Yamato used its main guns for AA, I just don't see how its possible.

Yamato uses an unique AA shell for her primary guns. Named sanshiki, these shells weighed just under 3,000 pounds, and they were filled with incendiary tubes. When fired toward incoming aircraft, the shells explode after a set time (via usage of a timed fuse) and spread fiery steel shrapnel across the sky. It used the same principle as flak, except it's on a much grander scale.

Of course, Yamato was also equipped with traditional AA guns all around her superstructure.

For more information on Yamato, try the following two links:
http://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=1
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/supership/

The PBS link "Sinking the Supership" is particularly good. Quite a few interviews with Yamato survivors.

[tom!]

Hi.

For the aa-weapons try

this (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=51264).

The mian problem regarding the air defence was the lack of siutable medium aa-guns. The type 93 13,2 mm MG were simply outdated by 1940 but still used on warships in 1945.

http://www.ww2technik.de/Bilderchen/japinfwaffen/maschinenwaffen/jap%20typ%2093%2013,2%20cm%20hmg%20twin.jpg

The type 96 25 mm aa-guns had a weak ammunition and also a low rof. Even with massed 25 mm aa-guns no siutable air cover could be provided.

http://www.ww2technik.de/Bilderchen/japflak/leicht/jap%20typ%2096%2025%20mm%20twin%20flak%202.jpg

http://www.ww2technik.de/Bilderchen/japflak/leicht/jap%20typ%2096%2025mm%20AT-AA%203ling.jpg

The main problem was the lack of a medium caliber aa-gun like the 40 mm Bofors or an upgraded Vickers-type 40 mm pompom.

The heavy type 89 12,7 cm aa-guns on single and dual mounts were quite effective but with 10-12 rpm too slow against low-level torpedo bombers or dive bombers.

http://www.ww2technik.de/Bilderchen/japmarine/waffen/jap%2012,7%20cm%20aa%20twin%20Schild%20typ%20b.jpg

Yours

tom!

[bt3au]

Hi.

For the aa-weapons try

this (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=51264).

The mian problem regarding the air defence was the lack of siutable medium aa-guns. The type 93 13,2 mm MG were simply outdated by 1940 but still used on warships in 1945.

http://www.ww2technik.de/Bilderchen/japinfwaffen/maschinenwaffen/jap%20typ%2093%2013,2%20cm%20hmg%20twin.jpg

The type 96 25 mm aa-guns had a weak ammunition and also a low rof. Even with massed 25 mm aa-guns no siutable air cover could be provided.

http://www.ww2technik.de/Bilderchen/japflak/leicht/jap%20typ%2096%2025%20mm%20twin%20flak%202.jpg

http://www.ww2technik.de/Bilderchen/japflak/leicht/jap%20typ%2096%2025mm%20AT-AA%203ling.jpg

The main problem was the lack of a medium caliber aa-gun like the 40 mm Bofors or an upgraded Vickers-type 40 mm pompom.

The heavy type 89 12,7 cm aa-guns on single and dual mounts were quite effective but with 10-12 rpm too slow against low-level torpedo bombers or dive bombers.

http://www.ww2technik.de/Bilderchen/japmarine/waffen/jap%2012,7%20cm%20aa%20twin%20Schild%20typ%20b.jpg

Yours

tom!

I agree the main problem with the Japanese was the lack of medium AA like the 40mm Bofors, by late war the allies were removing the 20mm from their ships because they were not effective enough, and putting 40mm in their place, which caused a lot of problems for small ships adding to their topweight and making them unstable
the movie on the Yamato was very good and well worth watching

[Rising Sun*]

Quiz: Who's the soldier with the walking stick on the left of the top picture?

[32Bravo]

Quiz: Who's the soldier with the walking stick on the left of the top picture?

I thought we all assumed that it was you, RS? :mrgreen:

[Rising Sun*]

I thought we all assumed that it was you, RS? :mrgreen:

Not even warm.

Although, like me, he is a legendary Australian pantsman. :D

[Nickdfresh]

I agree the main problem with the Japanese was the lack of medium AA like the 40mm Bofors, by late war the allies were removing the 20mm from their ships because they were not effective enough, and putting 40mm in their place, which caused a lot of problems for small ships adding to their topweight and making them unstable
the movie on the Yamato was very good and well worth watching

Well, true to an extent. They were replacing their 20mm batteries with 40mm ones. But the US Navy was replacing it's close range AAA 12.7mm/.50 cal. MGs with 20mm Oerlikon cannons...

http://bcoy1cpb.pacdat.net/images/20mm_Oerlikon_AA_USN.jpg

[Carl Schwamberger]

Well, true to an extent. They were replacing their 20mm batteries with 40mm ones. But the US Navy was replacing it's close range AAA 12.7mm/.50 cal. MGs with 20mm Oerlikon cannons...

http://bcoy1cpb.pacdat.net/images/20mm_Oerlikon_AA_USN.jpg

Check on the differences in performance of the Japanese 20mm ammo & the US weapon. I've not confirmed it, but have been told the Japanese ammo/gun were much underpowered compared to the US/European versions.

[kelvin]

I thought the yamato was very well armoured, not necesarily against air attack but again a pre-war design. It is worth noting that american carriers had no armour under their flight decks which caused several ships to suffer damage. Apparently British flat tops were armoured, so often the Kamikaze were simply pushed off the deck!!!

Don't know about the range finders and life boats, how manydid she carry then?[/QUOTE]

The Yamato was refit with a few state of the art range finders, the rest being lower class units installed just before the european war broke out, and the Yamato was in fact lacking in lifeboats, but it didn't matter, the Japanese figured that if something was able to take down the Yamato it would have already killed most of the crew, the lifeboats were meant to be used the naval officers.

[cimot_cool]

http://i17.tinypic.com/7ynx3qw.jpg


i think the yamato is probably the most beautiful battleship, was the largest battleship in WWII. and built in total secrecy, the Yamato boasted nine 18.1-inch main battery guns, carrying the most firepower of any ship ever seen.

[pdf27]

One point about the British armoured deck carriers - they were designed for a particular set of political circumstances in Europe (the RAF not letting them have very many aircraft and so they designed in armour to try and absorb the inevitable hits). The US carriers could carry something like 3 times the number of aircraft and use them better, with the result that they were much, much less likely to be hit.
It's also worth noting that the British carriers that were hit by Kamikazes were all scrapped very soon postwar - the damage they had suffered while not enough to keep them from operating was not economically repairable (IIRC the entire structure was warped). Those US carriers which were hit could simply fit new wooden decking and they were as good as new.

[gumalangi]

Spruance was originally intend to use his BBs to engage the incoming Yamato fleet,. that would be the last battleships battles supposed it was happening.

[gumalangi]

Spruance was originally intend to use his BBs to engage the incoming Yamato fleet,. that would be the last battleships battles supposed it was happening.

[Major Walter Schmidt]

About Firefly's first comment... Sanshiki(三式）means Type3.

[temujin77]

This article is reproduced, in part and with permission, from the World War II Database; further reproduction prohibited without permission. The URL to the original full article is:

http://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=B393

As big naval guns are concerned, none were as fearsome as the Type 94 naval guns built by WW2-era Japan. In fact, these 46-centimeter caliber (18.1-inch) guns were the largest guns mounted on surface ships in naval history. To hide their true size, they were designated "Special Type 40 cm" guns; this attempt was successful in fooling American intelligence.

These guns were mounted on the battleships Yamato and Musashi in 3-gun turrets. Each one of the turrets weighed 2,500 tons, which was actually heavier than many destroyers in the WW2 time period. The range of these guns were also stunning, being able to reach a target as far as 40 kilometers (25 miles) away. When they roared, a 15-meter semi-circle perimeter were considered dangerous for crew members, as the muzzle blasts generated intense heat. These Yamato-class battleships were typically stocked with:

* Explosive shells
* Armor piercing shells (Type 94)
* Sanshiki anti-aircraft shells (Type 3)

The explosive and armor piercing shells were heavier than their contemporaries, weighing in at 1,460 kilograms each (3,218 pounds). The armor-penetration capabilities of the armor piercing shells were so great that when they were mis-used, as seen with Yamato during the Battle off Samar, they went right through target ships without exploding. With a capable crew, they could fire at the rate of once about every 40 seconds.

While explosive and armor piercing shells were common among battleship ammunitions, the sanshiki shells were unique. They were 1360-kilogram (2,998-pound) shells filled with 900 incendiary tubes. They were fired toward toward the general direction of incoming hostile aircraft, and timed fuses triggered them to explode. After the fuses triggered, the cone-shaped space before each exploded shell were filled with steel splinters from the destroyed shell, shrapnel, and 0.5 second later fireballs from the incendiary tubes; the fireballs lasted for 5 seconds and burned at 3,000 degrees Celsius. Sanshiki shells were used by the battleship Yamato during her run at Okinawa, when she was overwhelmed by American carrier aircraft.

Battleship Musashi used her explosive shells in an interesting manner when she was attacked by American aircraft during the Battle of Sibuyan Sea. She fired explosive shells from her 46-centimeter primary guns into the water, making huge geysers aimed at knocking down torpedo bombers attacking her. "Running into one of these geysers would be like running into a mountain", recalled TBF Avenger pilot Jack Lawton, "I felt the muzzle blast each time they fired. I could swear the wings were ready to fold every tie these huge shockwaves hit us."

For more information and photographs from the World War II Database:

http://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=1
http://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=3
http://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=B393

This article is reproduced, in part and with permission, from the World War II Database; further reproduction prohibited without permission.

[George Eller]

This article is reproduced, in part and with permission, from the World War II Database; further reproduction prohibited without permission. The URL to the original full article is:

http://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=B393

As big naval guns are concerned, none were as fearsome as the Type 94 naval guns built by WW2-era Japan. In fact, these 46-centimeter caliber (18.1-inch) guns were the largest guns mounted on surface ships in naval history. To hide their true size, they were designated "Special Type 40 cm" guns; this attempt was successful in fooling American intelligence.

These guns were mounted on the battleships Yamato and Musashi in 3-gun turrets. Each one of the turrets weighed 2,500 tons, which was actually heavier than many destroyers in the WW2 time period. The range of these guns were also stunning, being able to reach a target as far as 40 kilometers (25 miles) away. When they roared, a 15-meter semi-circle perimeter were considered dangerous for crew members, as the muzzle blasts generated intense heat. These Yamato-class battleships were typically stocked with:

* Explosive shells
* Armor piercing shells (Type 94)
* Sanshiki anti-aircraft shells (Type 3)

The explosive and armor piercing shells were heavier than their contemporaries, weighing in at 1,460 kilograms each (3,218 pounds). The armor-penetration capabilities of the armor piercing shells were so great that when they were mis-used, as seen with Yamato during the Battle off Samar, they went right through target ships without exploding. With a capable crew, they could fire at the rate of once about every 40 seconds.

While explosive and armor piercing shells were common among battleship ammunitions, the sanshiki shells were unique. They were 1360-kilogram (2,998-pound) shells filled with 900 incendiary tubes. They were fired toward toward the general direction of incoming hostile aircraft, and timed fuses triggered them to explode. After the fuses triggered, the cone-shaped space before each exploded shell were filled with steel splinters from the destroyed shell, shrapnel, and 0.5 second later fireballs from the incendiary tubes; the fireballs lasted for 5 seconds and burned at 3,000 degrees Celsius. Sanshiki shells were used by the battleship Yamato during her run at Okinawa, when she was overwhelmed by American carrier aircraft.

Battleship Musashi used her explosive shells in an interesting manner when she was attacked by American aircraft during the Battle of Sibuyan Sea. She fired explosive shells from her 46-centimeter primary guns into the water, making huge geysers aimed at knocking down torpedo bombers attacking her. "Running into one of these geysers would be like running into a mountain", recalled TBF Avenger pilot Jack Lawton, "I felt the muzzle blast each time they fired. I could swear the wings were ready to fold every tie these huge shockwaves hit us."

For more information and photographs from the World War II Database:

http://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=1
http://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=3
http://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=B393

This article is reproduced, in part and with permission, from the World War II Database; further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-

Yamato class Battleships

http://www.combinedfleet.com/yamato_c.htm

The BIGGEST, the BADDEST, the most ... PONDEROUS BBs ever to roam the earth. Yes, I know that the U.S. Iowa-class had superior radar fire control, and better damage control, and that in terms of actual armor penetration the 16"/50 cal. mounted on the Iowas was almost identical to the much heavier 18"/45 cal. the Yamatos sported. So I suppose the Iowa probably would have triumphed over Yamato in a one-on-one engagement. If you really want to debate the point ad nauseum, I refer you first to my page on this very subject http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm , and then to the sci.military.naval newsgroup. On the other hand (and this is crucial) the Yamato looked cooler. And she was just so damn big. And which is really more important, I ask you: looks and size, or mere functionality?

If you're really into these ships, the book you've got to have is Janusz Skulski's "Battleship Yamato," published by the Naval Institute Press. Fantastic line drawings, very rare and cool photographs, and a ridiculous level of detail on every aspect of these brutes. Buy it. You won't be sorry.

Year Completed: Yamato: 1941, Musashi: 1942
Displacement 71,659 tons
Dimensions 862'10" x 121'1" x 32'11"
Speed 27 knots
Armament 9 x 18.1"/45
12 (later 6) x 6.1"/60
12 (later 24) x 5"/40 DP
up to 150 x 25mm AA
4 x 13mm AA
Armor 16.1" belt (inclined)
11.8" bulkheads
9.1" deck
25.6" turret face
19.7" conning tower
Crew 2800

More Yamato Stuff:

Good elevation view of Yamato
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/6999/yamato00hl2.jpg

Good plan view of Yamato
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/9750/yamplan1ke5.jpg

Yamato running her builder's trials in October 1941
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/6519/yampic01vl5.jpg

-

The World's Best Battleship: The Sequel!

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

By popular demand, a new, more complete look at the most powerful battleships of World War II. However, in this rendition of the 'Best BB Page' I compare and contrast not three, but seven battleships, and in much greater detail.

-

The Guns n' Armor Page!

http://www.combinedfleet.com/gunarmor.htm

Articles concerning ballistics, armor penetration, and battleship protective schemes, including a downloadable face-hardened armor penetration calculator! All of this material was contributed by Mr. Nathan Okun. Most of it is previously unpublished.

-

SEE ALSO:

Imperial Japanese Navy Page
http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm

The Pacific War: The U.S. Navy
http://www.microworks.net/PACIFIC/

http://www.microworks.net/PACIFIC/armament/406mml50.htm

-

[gumalangi]

Man!,.. Yamato is definetely majestic looking ship!. If it's look not imposing, I don't know what is..

[Major Walter Schmidt]

An interesting about the ammo is that it could float around when it was a miss, hopefuly hitting an enemy.

[tom!]

Hi.

An article especially on the guns:

http://www.navweaps.com (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.htm)

Yours

tom! ;)

[gumalangi]

The Main drawback of that mighty ship(yamato) was the speed. It could not pursue it's enemy in a descent pace. (battle of midway)

[Tony Williams]

An interesting about the ammo is that it could float around when it was a miss, hopefuly hitting an enemy.

Eh? :shock:

[Schwerpunkt]

The Yamato class had a major liability in a design flaw in their underwater protection system. The joint holding the lower belt and the torpedo bulkhead was weak and torpedo hits could cause major flooding. To revise this design would have been too costly although Japanese naval authorities were aware of this defect.
The floating 46cm shell is a myth, possibly being confused with the diving shell which was designed to penetrate the water short of the target, follow a trajectory to the underwater hull of the target and penetrate under the armored belt. This design was a feature of all AP shells above 20.3 cm in caliber.
A follow on design to YAMATO, A-150 was to have weighted 70,000 tons and carried six 51cm guns (3x2) and 20+ 10.0 cm flak. An 18inch belt would have been featured constructed in two strakes. This feature would have been less effective than one belt of the same thickness but Japanese industry was incapable of making Class A face hardened armor of that depth.
Yamato' other fault was her lack of endurance. She could make 7,200 miles at 16 knots which was not sufficient for Pacific warfare. The original design, A140a was to have had diesels as well as turbines for a radius of 9,000 miles. This design was rejected as too large (69,100 tons standard). This design also was to have carried all nine 46cm guns forward and all twelve 15.5cm guns aft.

[Major Walter Schmidt]

no, wait its 撒式　to disperse

[namvet]

is it true the Yamato stayed in japan for most of the war??? I heard after midway she ran for home and stayed there till the okinawa invasion.

[Major Walter Schmidt]

yeah. they were scared to use the yamato in the same way the US is scared of using the B-2 Spirits too muh.

[namvet]

I heard they found her grave site. a massive wreck. I hope some day we can find the wreck of the USS Indianapolis. she's a part of history to

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/USS_Indianapolis_CA-35.jpg

the search continues here (here)

the story: here (here)

[Major Walter Schmidt]

I heard the Emperor said " dont we have any battleships?" and so the Yamato and its crew's fate had been sealed.

[namvet]

the Yamato today

http://www.designcowboys.net/Yamato/Images/Yamato_wreck_03.jpg
The impressive bow crest was put only into the most important ships of the Imperial Navy.

link (link)

[Ashes]

How would the Yamato go in a one on one with the Iowa class?

[gumalangi]

Yamato probably would be down,..

[namvet]

good question. the Iowa class were built to take the punishment. armed to the teeth. double hulled. built for speed to get from one battle to another. and radar controlled guns. also 2 catapults for Kingfisher aircraft. The Kingfisher's high operating ceiling made it well-suited for its primary mission: to observe the fall of shot from the battleship's guns and radio corrections back to the ship. The floatplanes also performed search and rescue for naval aviators who were shot down or forced to ditch in the ocean. it would have been something to see these 2 giants go head to head.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Missouri_Recovers.jpg/471px-Missouri_Recovers.jpg

[Ashes]

Iowas advantages would be superior Radar and fire control, and speed, while Yamato would have the advantage with armour protection and weight and range of broadside.
Would be an epic confrontation.

[Cpt Pugwash]

Hello Everybody!

I'm expecting a lot of different replies to this but that is why I'm posting this.
I'm trying to do some research into the colour scheme of this Battle ship in different periods of its life. I have read in some places that when it was launched the ship was a uniform shade of grey and had a cypress covered deck. I then read that in the latter part of its life its deck was painted a darker shade of grey than the hull. I've tried looking for photos but black and white images don't help me determine what shade the ship was. Can anyone enlighten me?

[George Eller]

-

Merged related threads on IJN Yamato and Yamato Class Battleship Guns.

-

[George Eller]

Iowas advantages would be superior Radar and fire control, and speed, while Yamato would have the advantage with armour protection and weight and range of broadside.
Would be an epic confrontation.
-

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=120606&postcount=65

-

[Major Walter Schmidt]

Hi! Im on vacation and I might go to the Yamato museum and there is a 1/10thb scale model of the Yamato among other IJN stuff. I might even go to the dock in wich the big thing was built. Might get some nice pics.

[namvet]

Japan YAMATO VS USA Missouri
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=i6RgNYJn0I0