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.
the Yamato never battled aganst a destroyer, she was sent on a kamakase mission to the british but was sunk by british bombers.
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.
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)…
“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.
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 .
Wonders where such mis-information comes from.