PDA

View Full Version : The Yamato



DavisC12
02-13-2009, 05:44 PM
The Yamato was one of the most fearsome battleships in all of WWII.The Yamato belonged to the Japanese.Though it fought in only major engagment it still proved to be a very powerful warship.This vessel was equipped with with several large cannons and was easily capable of destroying an American destroyer.

Churchill
02-13-2009, 06:39 PM
Yes, but the Japanese lost the war, so it mustn't have been that great.

Nickdfresh
02-13-2009, 07:05 PM
It was a useless, hulking white elephant that flubbed its one chance to have an impact on the War at the (David vs. Goliath) Battle off Samar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar).

Major Walter Schmidt
02-13-2009, 09:17 PM
If only we had seen past the Kyokannkyohoushigi (big ships with big guns) Doctrine.....

Speaking of useless hulk, it was one of the few Japanese vessels to be equipped with a Soda machine ;) and was also called the "Yamato Hotel"...

pdf27
02-14-2009, 04:22 AM
Now the original poster has been banned for stupidity, this comment is kind of pointless. But does anyone else think a battleship NOT able to deal with an American destroyer is kind of useless?

Rising Sun*
02-14-2009, 04:34 AM
But does anyone else think a battleship NOT able to deal with an American destroyer is kind of useless?

That does suggest a certain deficiency in its capacity. :D

I can't recall sources off the top of my head, but I've read of disparaging comments by IJN personnel at various, and often senior, levels about the Yamato being, in essence, a floating hotel for senior staff, as Major Walter Schmidt has indicated. It spent most of its time in WWII at anchor in Japan at the IJN main base or at anchor after non-combat trips to Truk and so on.

Yamato illustrates the problem about building an asset that is too valuable to risk on its intended task, so it would have been better not to build it at all and to divert the resources to vessels which could have been used against the enemy, such as subs and destroyers.

pdf27
02-14-2009, 04:40 AM
There's more to it than that. Japan was critically short of fuel for the entire war - so could never afford to fill it up. On the mission when it was finally sunk, it was never intended to return - the fuel bunkers didn't have enough in them for it to get back to Japan, largely because they didn't have enough to spare.

Rising Sun*
02-14-2009, 04:51 AM
There's more to it than that. Japan was critically short of fuel for the entire war - so could never afford to fill it up. On the mission when it was finally sunk, it was never intended to return - the fuel bunkers didn't have enough in them for it to get back to Japan, largely because they didn't have enough to spare.

Which says something about Japan's failure to exploit its gains, in this case the oil production in the NEI.

Can't recall the exact proportion, but the NEI contributed a significant part of the world's oil before the war (a third??).

Some, maybe all, NEI oil also had the unusual virtue of being able to fuel a ship without being refined.

Japan's oil problem related, as do so many of Japan's problems in losing its war, to its lack of merchant shipping and the steady reduction of the merchant fleet, largely by the Americans, as the war progressed.

There is a great irony in Japan being impelled to war in part because its oil reserves would not survive the embargoes by the soon-to-be-Allies so that it would be unable to fight after a year or so of embargoes, and then ending the war unable to fight because it could not exploit the great oil reserves it had gained in the NEI, and to a lesser extent in Burma.

Major Walter Schmidt
02-14-2009, 08:25 AM
Yamato illustrates the problem about building an asset that is too valuable to risk on its intended task, so it would have been better not to build it at all and to divert the resources to vessels which could have been used against the enemy, such as subs and destroyers.

Sounds a bit like the B-2....

namvet
02-15-2009, 04:49 PM
The Yamato was one of the most fearsome battleships in all of WWII.The Yamato belonged to the Japanese.Though it fought in only major engagment it still proved to be a very powerful warship.This vessel was equipped with with several large cannons and was easily capable of destroying an American destroyer.

thank you for telling us something we already knew...............

herman2
02-16-2009, 01:01 PM
The sinking of the Yamato was the largest single loss involving a warship in history.
3665 died.

pdf27
02-16-2009, 03:28 PM
The sinking of the Yamato was the largest single loss involving a warship in history.
3665 died.
That depends on how you define "warship". More than 4,000 (nobody really knows how many) died on the RMS Lancastria off St Nazaire while it was being used as a troopship, and at least 7,000 (most estimates are at around 9,000) died when the MV Wilhelm Gustloff was torpedoed in the Baltic in January 1945. The Gustloff was being operated by the Kriegsmarine but mainly transporting civilian refugees at the time.

herman2
02-17-2009, 07:31 AM
That depends on how you define "warship". More than 4,000 (nobody really knows how many) died on the RMS Lancastria off St Nazaire while it was being used as a troopship, and at least 7,000 (most estimates are at around 9,000) died when the MV Wilhelm Gustloff was torpedoed in the Baltic in January 1945. The Gustloff was being operated by the Kriegsmarine but mainly transporting civilian refugees at the time.

Shit, I didn't know that; thanks PDF. I was researching the Yamamoto and nobody told me what you told me. Thanks for that input. Thats why your the Man!

Major Walter Schmidt
02-17-2009, 09:39 AM
...Yamato dammit, it literally means "Japan"...

Major Walter Schmidt
02-17-2009, 09:40 AM
Yamamoto happens to be a common Japanese name.....

herman2
02-17-2009, 09:53 AM
I didn't hear you the first time. What was it about the Yammamotto you were trying to explain to me?

Major Walter Schmidt
02-17-2009, 10:04 AM
Not Yammamotto, YAMATO 大和! YA-MA-TO!

herman2
02-17-2009, 10:08 AM
Ok Ok I get it Ya-Ma-TO
Thanks Walter Shcmidt! Won't happen again!;)

Uyraell
02-18-2009, 11:15 PM
...Yamato dammit, it literally means "Japan"...

Yamato was conceived as THE most powerful battleship ever to take the seas.
Period.

The vessel was badly employed, and as has been mentioned, was effectively fueled by the last remaining stocks of marine boiler oil available to Japan.
From memory her main batteries were three 19 inch naval rifles in each of three turrets, two forward, one aft.
Displacement in battle trim was, as far as I recall, 96,000 tons. That's as near as damnit Bismarck AND Hipper in one ship.

Regards, Uyraell

Major Walter Schmidt
02-19-2009, 08:13 AM
I dont know about displacement, but in metric, its 46cm guns, and yes, three turrets.

herman2
02-19-2009, 09:06 AM
I was just wondering if Japan had considered buying or asking for German ships at the end of the war to promote their war and give Germany some capital. With all the hundreds of German ships I wonder if some of the ships found their way under Japanese control, since the war was over with Germany and some Germans that wanted the war to continue could have just handed their ships over to Japan. Interesting thought no?

Rising Sun*
02-19-2009, 09:20 AM
...Yamato dammit, it literally means "Japan"...

My understanding is that Yamato means Japan in one fairly ancient but long-standing version of the nation's name, associated with the Yamato People who became the dominant ethnic group in Japan many centuries before WWII, but that during the WWII period Japan presented itself as Nihon or the more nationalistic Nippon rather than Yamato.

So, naming the ship Yamato seems to be a reference to a long past era of classical Japanese civilisation rather than naming it for the Japan which existed in WWII.

A bit like Americans now naming a warship Independence, referring to a long past but still significant event.

Dixie Devil
02-19-2009, 09:28 AM
Yamato had a full load displacement of 71,600 tonnes (metric) which comes out to about 79,000 tons (Imperial).

The comparison is correct with the Bismarck displacing 50,900 tonnes (full) and the Hipper displacing 16,700 (full) tonnes you could still add a German destroyer (about 3,000 tonnes) and still not quite have the displacement of the Yamato.

Mighty impressive but a colossal waste of resources.

Rising Sun*
02-19-2009, 09:54 AM
Is there an element with the Yamato of building something so supposedly vastly more powerful than anything anyone else has that it would render the owner vastly more powerful and virtually immune from enemy response?

After all, up to WWII the arms race consisted largely of building hugely impressive capital ships to impress potential enemies.

Yet the real power was often in numbers rather than mass, such as the Americans building lots of submarines from the same materials and much more quickly than if the same materials were devoted to a huge capital ship, which subs then went on to do huge damage to Japan's merchant navy and largely bring Japan to its knees.

Major Walter Schmidt
02-19-2009, 10:50 AM
Thats because of the limits the US and UK set on the number of battleships.
Japan was unfairly made to have less ships, so Japan tried to make up with quality and sheer bigness.
Also, the original Emperor, who's descendant, is the current Emperor, comes from the Yamato Dynasty.

pdf27
02-19-2009, 12:20 PM
Thats because of the limits the US and UK set on the number of battleships.
Japan was unfairly made to have less ships, so Japan tried to make up with quality and sheer bigness.
Hardly "unfair" - Japan voluntarily signed the treaty, because the US and UK made it quite clear that if they didn't they would build more ships than the Japanese would anyway. Just because they didn't like the result is nothing to do with fairness.
In any case, the results of the treaty favoured the Japanese over others - they only had the Pacific to cover, while the US had the Atlantic as well and the UK had both of those plus the Indian Ocean.


I was just wondering if Japan had considered buying or asking for German ships at the end of the war to promote their war and give Germany some capital.
Ummm... if they had done so after surrender, that would count as Perfidy and is a very serious war crime. They had no reason to do so before surrendering - they needed the ships themselves, and in any case the Japanese Navy was significantly larger and more competent.


With all the hundreds of German ships I wonder if some of the ships found their way under Japanese control, since the war was over with Germany and some Germans that wanted the war to continue could have just handed their ships over to Japan. Interesting thought no?
Were they to do so they would not be lawful combatants, so if they were captured by the USN or RN it would be entirely legal to execute them as Pirates.

herman2
02-19-2009, 12:27 PM
In regards to Admiral Yamamoto, I was reading that he was adopted and can only wonder if his real parents knew of him and what he had become.

I also read that he was the onll foreigner awarded by Germany, the Knights Cross with oak leaves and swords, one of its highest medals, awarded to Germany's most outstanding aces and military leaders.

Uyraell
02-19-2009, 06:17 PM
I was just wondering if Japan had considered buying or asking for German ships at the end of the war to promote their war and give Germany some capital. With all the hundreds of German ships I wonder if some of the ships found their way under Japanese control, since the war was over with Germany and some Germans that wanted the war to continue could have just handed their ships over to Japan. Interesting thought no?

The other issue in addition to the matter of perfidy would be that whatever available Naval vessels Germany had at VE day were effectively seized by the Allied Nations, not least of which the Soviets, who grabbed up the two most useful large hulls, towed them home and completed them as carriers.

There would have been no opportunity for Japan to acquire those vessels, any more than there was for either the UK or Germany to acquire the French Fleet, which was considerable.

Bear in mind, the nation with most wish to gain at VE day in naval terms was at the time the USSR, by virtue of not having begun WW2 with anything akin to a modern, standing Fleet.

Regards, Uyraell.

Major Walter Schmidt
02-20-2009, 07:55 AM
Some U boats tried to go to Japan, laden with technology which Japan was in need of.
And also the Uranium they got caught... but then, any good a bomb would do to japan.....

SS Ouche-Vittes
02-24-2009, 08:46 PM
i think japan should of just had produced a bunch of destroyers instead of one expensive floating hotel. I can imagine dive bombers struggling to hit small dodging ships.

Major Walter Schmidt
02-25-2009, 09:11 AM
Remember there was a limit on numbers.

Firefly
02-25-2009, 05:13 PM
What you have to understand here is that the japanese navy (IJN) had a doctrine, just like every other force did. Yamato and her sister ships werent built on a whim. At the time the Battleship was still the Queen of the navy for all nations. Japan withdrew from the Washington naval treaty and then followed the IJN doctrine for fighting its most likely enemy, the USA. The plan was to fight a decisive Naval engagement somewhere between Pearl and the Philippines.

The Yamato and Musashi fit right into this doctrine, they were designed to engage the US battleships in this decisive battle and win. They werent designed to fight alone, they would be part of a consolidated battlegroup. So the fact that they may not be able to take on a destroyer is insignificant as their escort cruisers and destroyers would be there to do that job. Thus, you have to realise that they were built for a purpose.

The fact that carriers overtook this doctrine is plain now, but wasnt in the 1930's and it should be remembered.

Now onto the weird proposition that the Germans could have sold their navy to Japan. I have to ask this. How the heck would they get there? How would they get from Germany or Norway to Japan. This is just an idiotic proposition and I cant believe that anyone with common sense would even propose it.

Churchill
02-25-2009, 06:08 PM
Now onto the weird proposition that the Germans could have sold their navy to Japan. I have to ask this. How the heck would they get there? How would they get from Germany or Norway to Japan. This is just an idiotic proposition and I cant believe that anyone with common sense would even propose it.

Uh, duh, dig a tunnel under Germany through the Earth to Japan. Its so obvious FF, how couldn't you see that? :shock::lol:

Major Walter Schmidt
02-25-2009, 06:17 PM
Uh, duh, dig a tunnel under Germany through the Earth to Japan. Its so obvious FF, how couldn't you see that? :shock::lol:

No, silly, Germany would put panzer tracks on the ships and send them to Japan via the north pole!

Churchill
02-25-2009, 06:17 PM
D'oh!

Rising Sun*
02-25-2009, 07:29 PM
Remember there was a limit on numbers.

Not after 1936, when the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty limiting ship construction expired. Yamato and Musashi weren't ordered until early 1937, after the treaty had expried, although design work began earlier following Japan's 1934 decision not to continue the ship construction limitation treaties.

After 1936 Japan's ship construction proceeded under great secrecy. The future Allies had no reliable intelligence giving accurate details of the IJN fleet.

Major Walter Schmidt
02-25-2009, 08:48 PM
Yup. I went to the Yamato Museum, where they had a 1/10 scale model.
Freaking huge. They actually got a shipbuilding company to make the hull!
The flooding system was pretty advanced too. So were the Soda machines on board.

Uyraell
02-26-2009, 07:50 AM
Yup. I went to the Yamato Museum, where they had a 1/10 scale model.
Freaking huge. They actually got a shipbuilding company to make the hull!
The flooding system was pretty advanced too. So were the Soda machines on board.

Could you post a pic of the model please? I'd be right keen to see it.

Regards, Uyraell.

Rising Sun*
02-26-2009, 07:55 AM
Could you post a pic of the model please? I'd be right keen to see it.

Regards, Uyraell.

I'm not sure that a 1/10th model could fit on your screen. ;)

It must be about the biggest model, on any scale, ever made.

windrider
02-26-2009, 02:43 PM
here's the site I found
http://apike.ca/japan_kure_yamato-gallery-yamato-museum1.html

Rising Sun*
02-26-2009, 04:17 PM
here's the site I found
http://apike.ca/japan_kure_yamato-gallery-yamato-museum1.html

I'd hate to be in A turret when B turret fired forward.

I suppose that was the same in most battleships, but you'd think A turret crew would be bleeding from the ears if B fired over them.

Uyraell
02-27-2009, 04:47 AM
I'd hate to be in A turret when B turret fired forward.

I suppose that was the same in most battleships, but you'd think A turret crew would be bleeding from the ears if B fired over them.

Not only battleships. A former teacher was ex Royal Navy. Though nominally a Navigation Officer He was once in the A turret of either Hood or Barham when B turret let loose overtop..... according to this man it was a couple days before ears regained some sense of what hearing was supposed to be, despite ear protectors and heavy flash-over gear.

Going by his report, I'd nae wish to be in a turret when the thing let loose, let alone when the next turret fired it's weapons.

Seeing that magnificent scale model, I can only think that that ship was truly the last of it's Kind. Yes, others went on and exist today, though they barely match the Yamato, despite their awesome magnificence. Those remaining Battleships are surely the last such ships to exist. I have to say I'm impressed.

Regards, Uyraell.

Rising Sun*
02-27-2009, 04:57 AM
Not only battleships. A former teacher was ex Royal Navy. Though nominally a Navigation Officer He was once in the A turret of either Hood or Barham when B turret let loose overtop..... according to this man it was a couple days before ears regained some sense of what hearing was supposed to be, despite ear protectors and heavy flash-over gear.

Going by his report, I'd nae wish to be in a turret when the thing let loose, let alone when the next turret fired it's weapons.

Regards, Uyraell.

Off topic, but that's the joy of this forum.

First time I realised the difference between being at the butt and somewhere forward of the breech was sitting in a car as a kid when someone fired a .243 or .270 over the roof. Gave me a whole new appreciation of acoustics, and there was a car roof between me and the muzzle, even if the car windows were open.

I've often wondered what it was like for the hearing of troops in battle when, for example, riflemen's weapon pits are forward of machine guns, or in contacts and ambushes where you're a few feet forward of the muzzle of the bloke beside you. It must destroy hearing for a while afterwards, which in some circumstances must leave you prey to approaching enemy you can't hear.

Major Walter Schmidt
02-27-2009, 06:23 AM
http://ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7077&highlight=Yamato+kure
I already have a thread for Kure :D

Uyraell
03-01-2009, 10:26 AM
http://ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7077&highlight=Yamato+kure
I already have a thread for Kure :D
Domo Arigato, Schmidt :)
Most enjoyable.

Regards, Uyraell.

Major Walter Schmidt
03-01-2009, 10:37 AM
Domo Arigato, Schmidt :)
Most enjoyable.

Regards, Uyraell.

Welcome!

pdf27
03-01-2009, 06:04 PM
I've often wondered what it was like for the hearing of troops in battle when, for example, riflemen's weapon pits are forward of machine guns, or in contacts and ambushes where you're a few feet forward of the muzzle of the bloke beside you. It must destroy hearing for a while afterwards, which in some circumstances must leave you prey to approaching enemy you can't hear.
Gunfire overhead isn't actually that loud - you get the whole crack-bang thing, but it isn't too bad. Lots of guys together firing live when you have no ear defence on, however, is LOUD. I've done that on a Section in Defence range at night, where half the section lost their ear defence on the way in. One guy had a slight ringing in his ears for a few days, and we were all a bit fuzzy for a few hours. That was about it - after firing off as much 7.62 and 5.56 as we could physically carry in.

Rising Sun*
03-02-2009, 04:52 AM
Gunfire overhead isn't actually that loud - you get the whole crack-bang thing, but it isn't too bad. Lots of guys together firing live when you have no ear defence on, however, is LOUD. I've done that on a Section in Defence range at night, where half the section lost their ear defence on the way in. One guy had a slight ringing in his ears for a few days, and we were all a bit fuzzy for a few hours. That was about it - after firing off as much 7.62 and 5.56 as we could physically carry in.

Ear defence? What's that? Ear muffs or something? In my day, in a cruel and brutal era before occupational health and safety had been invented, we were lucky to be issued with ears. :D

My recollection is that being forward of fire from 7.62 muzzles, not to mention .50 cal, was not an aid to hearing when the noise stopped, and that the longer and closer the exposure to fire the longer the time for recovery.

However, the speculation in my earlier post was based on the reality of combat rather than the much more regulated and carefully arranged positions in exercises. For example, in a contact or ambush you might find yourself with someone else's muzzle a couple of feet behind and beside your head and firing furiously.

It seems that hearing damage is a serious problem in modern warfare, and that hearing protection doesn't help too much in the field. As a tinnitus sufferer myself, I wouldn't wish it on others.


Protect Your Ears, Not Just Mom AdviceStars and Stripes | March 11, 2008

Roadside bomb blasts seen as chief culprit in audio disabilities

SAN DIEGO -- Many soldiers and Marines caught in roadside bombings and firefights in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming home with permanent hearing loss and ringing in their ears, prompting the military to redouble its efforts to protect the troops from noise.

Hearing damage is the No. 1 disability in the war on terror, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and some experts say the true toll could take decades to become clear. Nearly 70,000 of the more than 1.3 million troops who have served in the two war zones are collecting disability for tinnitus, a potentially debilitating ringing in the ears, and more than 58,000 are on disability for hearing loss, the VA said.

“The numbers are staggering,” said Theresa Schulz, a former audiologist with the Air Force, past president of the National Hearing Conservation Association and author of a 2004 report titled “Troops Return With Alarming Rates of Hearing Loss.”

One major explanation given is the insurgency’s use of a fearsome weapon the Pentagon did not fully anticipate: powerful roadside bombs. Their blasts cause violent changes in air pressure that can rupture the eardrum and break bones inside the ear.

Also, much of the fighting consists of ambushes, bombings and firefights, which come suddenly and unexpectedly, giving soldiers no time to use their military-issued hearing protection.

“They can’t say, ‘Wait a minute, let me put my earplugs in,’” said Dr. Michael E. Hoffer, a Navy captain and one of the country’s leading inner-ear specialists. “They are in the fight of their lives.”

In addition, some servicemen on patrol refuse to wear earplugs for fear of dulling their senses and missing sounds that can make the difference between life and death, Hoffer and others said.

Others were not given earplugs or did not take them along when they were sent into the war zone. And some Marines weren’t told how to use their specialized earplugs and inserted them incorrectly.

Hearing damage has been a battlefield risk ever since the introduction of explosives and artillery, and the U.S. military recognized it in Iraq and Afghanistan and issued earplugs early on.

But the sheer number of injuries and their nature -- particularly the high incidence of tinnitus -- came as a surprise to military medical specialists and outside experts.

The military has responded over the past three years with better and easier-to-use earplugs, greater efforts to educate troops about protecting their hearing, and more testing in the war zone to detect ear injuries.

..... http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,163732,00.html


I once heard a WWII Australian artilleryman, who served 25 pdrs in New Guinea, say that everyone he served with had tinnitus or other hearing problems, and they were all well behind the muzzle.

Deaf Smith
03-13-2009, 09:02 PM
First, as some Japanese military said before the war, the Yamato was a waste of resources.

Instead they could have built a few more carriers before the war.

Now about noise. in 'Pacific War Diary" Fahey, a seaman on the U.S.S. Montpelier, a light Cleveland class cruiser, talked about the quad 40s above the 5 inch DP turrets. I bet most of the lost alot of their hearing.

Deaf

ColesAircraft
02-02-2010, 06:52 PM
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4003/4221105158_e9d0b347c3_b.jpg

Yamato was an amazing enough machine of war for me to paint. Stunning lines - not even Darth Vader possessed a more sinister, yet beautiful, flagship.

- Ron Cole

http://www.ColesAircraft.com

burp
09-07-2010, 10:47 AM
In real the Japanese plain is to engage US fleets with light forces (torpedo boat, submarine and airplane from aircraft carrier) and then, when light forces decimate US fleet resolve the war with a decisive battle with surface fleets. They know that US can put in war a greater number of ships than Japan and a direct battle is a suicide so they put a lot of efforts in creation of technologic superior light forces (for example Type 93 torpedo, the most avdanced torpedo of world) to use against only military ships. The US Navy Orange War Plan also at the start thinks only about a series of battle in main islands and then a major battle with giant battleships, like Yamato class, and aircraft carriers. After Pearl Harbor, where Japanese demonstrate that battleships are useless against airplanes, the Orange Plan was changed, focusing on using submarine, airplane and torpedo boat for hunting down commercial transport and with aircraft as main ships in surface battle and battleship mainly used as mobile battery against coastal defense. Japanese fail to understand that commercial routes are vital for war economy and don't create a defence net of their transport because they are still focused on the "great battle" that never happened. The effect on Japanese industry of this choice is well-know, for example battleships from Yamato class don't have the gas to fight. Battleship born already outclassed by aircraft carrier in WWII, they are neeeded only as mobile battery against coastal defense in amphibious assault.
Yamato anyway is not soo good: his giant guns at the end has the same range of smaller guns of Iowa battleship, but Iowa guns were more accurate.

In any case, before start of WWII some theorist already said that the era of gun-fighting between battleship is ceased. The first ship sunked by air torpedo is a Turkish ship in 1915. Dive-bomber and torpedo bomber can easily sink a ship without cover from airplanes, and it was demonstrate for example by Billy Mitchell in 1921 with Project-B.

Wizard
09-08-2010, 01:52 AM
I've seldom seen so much misinformation in a single thread.

The Yamato's main battery was 18.1 inch rifles, not 19 inch. Unlike most battleship guns of the day, it was not practical to reline the Yamato's guns, and after firing the equivalent of about 150 full power rounds, new barrels had to be installed. Unfortunately for the Japanese, they never manufactured any spare 18.1 inch barrels. The Yamato had nine barrels, the Musashi had nine, and the Shinano was supposed to get nine barrels, but was converted to a aircraft depot ship instead. So there were only the nine barrels that belonged to the Shinano for spares, and two of these were used in ballistics experiments by the Japanese. The seven remaining 18.1 inch barrels were destroyed or captured at the end of the war, neither the Yamato or Musashi ever had any replacement barrels.

Yamato's guns still out ranged the 16 inch guns of the Iowa class battleships, but the super heavy 16 inch shell fired by the Iowa class had nearly the same penetration performance of the larger 18.1 inch guns. And the Iowa class had far better fire control systems than the Yamato. Tests showed that the Iowa class could maneuver radically while still retaining a valid firing solution for her own guns; in any contest between an Iowa class ship and Yamato, this alone would have doomed the Yamato. At Samar, the Yamato demonstrated a rather mediocre performance and proved her fire control arrangement to be deficient.

The issue of Yamato's fuel state on her last mission is in doubt. Many sources claim she had only enough fuel to reach Okinawa, but Russell Spurr, a British historian who knew several of the Japanese involved, said in his book, "A Glorious Way to Die", that the officers commanding the fuel depot where Yamato fueled before her last mission, decided to give her substantially more fuel than their orders authorized. They did this by tapping the fuel in the bottom of empty storage fuel storage tanks that was (technically) not on their books. It was necessary to have men climb down into the tanks with portable pumps to reach the fuel which was a very dangerous exercise, but that's what they did.

As for the proportion the world's oil produced by the NEI in 1940, as I've posted in another thread, it was roughly 2.8 %. Mexico produced significantly more oil in 1940 than the NEI.

War Plan Orange was not changed, it was abandoned in 1939, and replaced by the Rainbow One through Five series of war plans. Rainbow Five, the war plan ultimately adopted called for the USN to stand on the defensive in the Pacific until the threat of Germany was decisively defeated. As pointed out by Edward S. Miller in his book, "War Plan Orange", many of the provisions which had appeared in the old War Plan Orange series over the years, were eventually resurrected in the US Navy's Pacific War strategy. But the "Decisive Battle" doctrine that was, oddly enough, a feature of both the IJN's and USN's early war plans was, at least for the USN , transmuted into a series of attritional battles that progressively bled the Japanese Navy to the point that it was so anemic that when the decisive battle did occur in the Philippine Sea in 1944, the IJN had no chance of prevailing.

Rising Sun*
11-12-2010, 06:21 AM
yamato is a common japanese name which means strong spirit.

Yamato is also synonomous with 'Japan' or 'Japanese', being derived from the the Yamato people who became the dominant ethnic group in ancient Japan.

The battleship, however, appears to have been named after (ancient) Yamato Province in Japan to celebrate the emergence of the Yamato people and the Yamato Court as the 'true' essence of Japan.


the yamato was responsible for conquering the philippines.

I don't think so.

The Yamato was engaged in training during the Philippines campaign, which ended with surrender on 8 May 1942.

The Yamato didn't go anywhere near the Philippines during that campaign. It wasn't declared operational until 27 May 1942. http://www.combinedfleet.com/yamato.htm

Deaf Smith
11-15-2010, 06:44 PM
Then maybe the Musashi was in the Philippines? But responsible for conquering? I don't think any one ship could say that.

Deaf

Wizard
11-15-2010, 08:00 PM
Then maybe the Musashi was in the Philippines? But responsible for conquering? I don't think any one ship could say that.

Deaf

The Musashi did not become fully operational until December, 1942. Until that time she was engaged in trials, training, and final fitting out in Japan's Inland Sea. Musashi's first operational assignment was in February, 1943, when she relieved the Yamato as Yamamoto's Combined Fleet flagship at Truk. Neither Yamato nor Musashi had anything to do with the conquest of the Philippines.

Rising Sun*
11-16-2010, 05:19 AM
Neither Yamato nor Musashi had anything to do with the conquest of the Philippines.

Although both, primarily Musashi, had something to do with Japan's loss of the Philippines.

Rising Sun*
11-16-2010, 05:21 AM
Then maybe the Musashi was in the Philippines?

Deaf

It was sunk there in October 1944, by American carrier planes.

Wizard
11-16-2010, 10:44 AM
Although both, primarily Musashi, had something to do with Japan's loss of the Philippines.

Well, yes, in a rather round about way.

The inability of either ship to effectively counter the American offensive at Leyte Gulf, especially given the effort, resources, and hope the Japanese had invested in the class, could be considered a factor in the loss of the Philippines. But in reality, it's difficult to see how any force available to the Japanese in late 1944, could have stemmed the wave of destruction that was beginning to fall on the pathetic remnants of the Japanese Empire.

Rising Sun*
12-10-2010, 05:02 AM
That depends on how you define "warship".

I'd define it as a ship designed for combat against other naval vessels, as distinct from armed merchantmen etc with modest armament for (usually futile) self-defence purposes.


More than 4,000 (nobody really knows how many) died on the RMS Lancastria off St Nazaire while it was being used as a troopship, and at least 7,000 (most estimates are at around 9,000) died when the MV Wilhelm Gustloff was torpedoed in the Baltic in January 1945. The Gustloff was being operated by the Kriegsmarine but mainly transporting civilian refugees at the time.

I'd class them as ships lost in war.

In many respects, the latter class is more tragic as the crew and passengers were completely, or if armed with a modest gun or two, effectively defenceless against a warship.

The most tragic were the POWs inadvertently killed when US subs sank unmarked Japanese transports taking survivors of the Burma Railway to Japan to work them to death in the coalmines and other war industries.

Wizard
12-10-2010, 04:51 PM
The sinking of the Yamato was the largest single loss involving a warship in history.
3665 died.

As with most data concerning the Yamato, these numbers are disputed. I have seen sources listing the death toll among Yamato's crew as being from 2,032 to 3,063. The total of 3,665 is almost certainly too high. The Yamato's crew, as of April 6, 1945, was cited as exactly 3,332 in Russell Spurr's book, "A Glorious Way to Die" (page 80), according to Japanese pay records. Two hundred seventy-nine crewmen from Yamato were rescued by her escorts. Before her final mission, numbers of men were sent ashore; her aircraft pilots and aircraft maintenance crews, for example, and about 50 officer cadets assigned to the ship, but the numbers in these records are imprecise at best.

Most informed estimates put Yamato's death toll somewhere between 2,800 and 3,000, Almost 1,200 additional Japanese crewmen and officers died aboard Yamato's escorts; the light cruiser Yahagi and four destroyers that were sunk, as well as casualties aboard four other destroyers that were damaged but survived to return to Japan.

royal744
12-18-2010, 02:08 PM
Really! Since the Japs only needed aircraft carriers to sink a fleet of already obsolete (exc, for shore bombardment) American battleships riding at anchor - ie., sitting ducks on a Sunday morning - the Japanese might have asked themselves what the useful result of the attack on Pearl Harbor was, and what this attack said about the relevance of the Yamato, not to mention the Prince of Wales and the Repulse and the Bismark. Battleships could no longer survive on their own.

fredl109
07-25-2011, 05:35 PM
For more details go here : http://battleshipyamato.info/wreck.html

Friendly Fred

Nathan wilson
09-08-2013, 09:56 PM
the Yamato never battled aganst a destroyer, she was sent on a kamakase mission to the british but was sunk by british bombers.

fredl109
09-09-2013, 05:21 AM
Sorry Nathan Wilson, but the Yammato sunk the AC "Gambier Bay" and was sunk not by the british but by the US Navy in the north of Okinawa.

Nickdfresh
09-09-2013, 08:12 AM
I think the Yamato did in fact battle destroyers, though I could be mistaken about that.

Yes, she did. It was in the Battle of Samar, where a group of U.S. destroyers and escort carriers fended off a vastly superior force. The Yamato's guns were never quite brought to bear and as the Imperial Navy was spooked by the ferocity of the U.S. Navy destroyer's torpedo charges and planes dropping high explosive bombs (they were armed for close air support for ground troops and marines, not with ship killing armor piercing bombs)...

tankgeezer
09-09-2013, 08:43 AM
"Taffy 3" was the name of the Destroyer/Escort Carrier task force that engaged the Japanese force of which the Yamato was part. It was an Historic Battle for the U.S.N. The ferocity with which Taffy 3 prosecuted the attack impressed even the Japanese.

fredl109
09-09-2013, 10:16 AM
Yamato had a great weakness was his DCA , indeed that it had neither enough firepower and especially low rate of fire. In addition you must know that when the American attack against the Yamato, more than 150 torpedoes were fired against this one, only a dozen touched him and made ​​him no significant dmg , Americans think now that is were the bombs that were at the origin of the loss of Yamato .

royal744
09-10-2013, 03:33 PM
the Yamato never battled aganst a destroyer, she was sent on a kamakase mission to the british but was sunk by british bombers.

Wonders where such mis-information comes from.