IJN Yamato Class Battleships

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#41

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

#42

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.

#43

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.

#44

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

#45

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.

#46

Yes, it is true.

Henk

#47

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…

#48

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?

#49

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.

#50

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.

#51

Hi.

For the aa-weapons try

this.

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.

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.

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.

Yours

tom!

#52

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

#53

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

#54

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

#55

Not even warm.

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

#56

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…

#57

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.

#58

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.

#59

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.

#60

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.