1. To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

IJN Yamato.....greatest battleship ever

Discussion in 'OFF TOPIC' started by Anonymous, Aug 29, 2011.

  1. Anonymous Guest

    Sent on suicide mission was no match for 400 aircraft. Greatest naval loss of life....ever. Was nearly twice the size of US battleships and it's guns were unmatched then or since. Born of secrecy this film clip has excellent photos.
    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48XuUHVXFLk[/youtube]
     
    #1
  2. RamsFan4Life New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yet with all that firepower and all those tons of displacement she still sits at the bottom of the East China Sea.
     
    #2
  3. Anonymous Guest

    Which would be true for any ship of any size to this day.
     
    #3
  4. RamFan503 Grill and Brew Master

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    2,941
    So what gives on the Battleship vids there Squeak? I mean they are cool and all but is there something deeper as to why you are posting them here?
     
    #4
  5. Anonymous Guest

    Just thought they might be of interest to others. I always try to tour battleships when I can and was thinking how cool a tour of the Yamato would have been if not for the suicide mission to thwart being taken as a war prize. A truly singular ship. Had 9 of these capable of throwing it's 3000 lbs shell a distance of 26 miles:

    "The Japanese "40 cm/45 Type 94 naval gun" was the largest bore gun ever mounted on any warship. They were actually 46 cm (18.1 in) guns, but were designated 40 cm in an effort to hide their true size.

    The built-up guns were mounted as the main armament of the Yamato class battleships that were in service with the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. The turrets the guns were mounted in weighed 2,510 tons each, which is about the same tonnage as an average sized destroyer of the era."
     
    #5
  6. RamFan503 Grill and Brew Master

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    2,941
    Yeah - don't get me wrong. I dig this sort of stuff and am a big history nerd as well. I was just wondering if there was something else behind you posting these now.

    My dad was (is?) the head of the Navy League for the central coast of California. He and my Mom have gone out on civilian maneuvers in subs, done take offs and landings on air craft carriers, host Navy League events, etc. They were friends with Bug Roach and my Mom (Vel Miller) was actually commissioned to do a sculpture that is awarded to the "Hooker of the Year" (tailhooker).

    So yeah - I kinda like watching these things. Just want you to know where I'm coming from.

    Stu
     
    #6
  7. Selassie I H. I. M.

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    1,900
    I lived in Pearl City Hawaii when I was a kid. I saw Pearl Harbor almost daily... stared down at the oil rising up from below the Memorial many times. I've got some strong feelings towards Navy / Japanese History too.

    Why you into this crap Squeak ?
     
    #7
  8. RamFan503 Grill and Brew Master

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    2,941
    That's where my dad was stationed. He had a real rough gig though. He was part of the crew on the Dwyn Wen. Much of his job was to take officers on sailing junkets around the islands. He talks about that sickening feeling when looking out at those same oil seeps.
     
    #8
  9. Selassie I H. I. M.

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    1,900

    Even as a kid, it had a huge effect on me.
     
    #9
  10. Anonymous Guest

    No just appreciate technology. Singular technology. Technology that can't be duplicated or improved upon for various reasons. Battleship Yamato qualifies by far and to a lesser extent the others as well although our Iowa Class still has a sliver of skin in the game with the USS Iowa.

    I'm also interested in dirigibles as I see their role far greater in the future compared to their past.

    According to my wife both battleships and dirigibles qualify as toys I would have at the house if there was enough space. :sly:
     
    #10
  11. Anonymous Guest

    Like I wrote to 503 mostly historic technology. Singular technology. As a kid grew up listening to the relatives WW2 stories which torpedos/Yamato/kamikazes/tiger tank/Messerschmidts/flak made a lasting impression upon them and listening intently while making beer runs.....me.
     
    #11
  12. Selassie I H. I. M.

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    1,900
    That's cool Squeak. I bet the stories were amazing.

    I'm an Army Brat. My Dad is a pilot. He's still training pilots for Delta, and he'll still tell fascinating war stories if he's in the mood. Good stuff when he talks about it.

    I have to admit, I used to have a serious grudge against Japanese anything. I'm 98% cured of that these days though.
     
    #12
  13. Anonymous Guest

    The future.
    [YouTube]http://www.reuters.com/video/2011/08/18/lockheed-martin-presents-airship-of-the?videoId=218861271&videoChannel=2602&refresh=true[/YouTube]
     
    #13
  14. Yamahopper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,397
    Likes Received:
    939
    Hey these are cool vids.

    I've toured a couple battleships and they are impressive.

    But IMO the Iowa class Battleships would have dropped that Jap. and German tincans like a bad habit. Iowa's had much better targeting system and the armor piercing shells that they used would have ventilated the Yamoto up fast.

    Would have payed cash money to see it. I'd pay NFL ticket cash to see it on pay per view.

    Keep rolling Squeak
     
    #14
  15. Anonymous Guest

    I agree the Iowa Class battleships outclassed the KMS Admiral Graf Spee, KMS Tirpitz and even the KMS Bismarck......but not the IJN Yamato. IJN Yamato 18 inch guns fired high explosive armor piercing shells a distance of 26 miles. That's a clear advantage over the 23 mile range for the Iowa Class. IJN Yamato was also far more heavily armored than the Iowa Class as it was designed to engage multiple US battleships at the same time. In the absence of air power the IJN Yamato was the superior battleship. Against superior air power it's few weaknesses became terminal. No different than any other battleship at that time or since.

    For service in WW2 the Iowa Class was designed principally for defending aircraft carriers which ended up being the major role of both American and Japanese battleships in the Pacific. For such a role IJN Yamato was costly overkill in the extreme.
     
    #15
  16. Yamahopper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,397
    Likes Received:
    939
    I'm going on a bunch of Naval WWII experts on a show on the Military channel. The targeting system on the Jap. battle wagons were horrible at hitting fast moving targets which is the tactic that would have been used by the Iowa. Shoot and scoot. The shells of the 16" guns would penetrate more armor than the Jap. shells after mid 1944.

    While the Iowa's would try to use Jutland bracketing if possible they most likely if one on one just keep crossing the tee to even the fire power disadvantage.
    The 18 shells I don't believe had more velocity than the 16's so they had to have more arc for their extra yardage which also decreased accuracy. And the Iowa's had a higher rate of fire.

    During a daylight fight it would be too close to call but at night no contest due to the vastly superior Iowa radar.
     
    #16
  17. Anonymous Guest

    If one on one the IJN Yamato would have been able to fire a minimum of 50-60 shells before the Iowa Class battleships could open fire. While I agree the targeting ability of the Iowa Class at the end of the war was far superior, if that ability was disabled.....it was no match for the IJN Yamato which employed spotting planes as well. Would have been something to be able to tour the IJN Yamato today to compare it to the Iowa Class. There's a pic from the bow viewing astern of the IJN Yamato that is mentally difficult to rectify with the Iowa Class. It's simply that huge.
     
    #17
  18. Yamahopper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,397
    Likes Received:
    939
    The BBs would have been maneuvering so it all comes down to naval gunnery, who has the most accurate guns. This goes to Iowa class hands down. Take for example on March 20, 1942 In the Inland Sea, Admiral Yamamato conducted armament trails and they were judged a failure. Both captain Takayanagi and his gunnery officer were called fools because the Yamatos gun aimers manning the rangefinder misread the horizontal settings. Now compare this to the Iowa who had the first ever TDC and could easily hit targets at 24 miles. The Iowas MVII AP rounds could easily penetrate the Kongos belt armor b/c it was faulty. The Yamatos belt armor proved to be a failure. On December 25, 1943 one torpedeo hit showed a total failure of the main armor belt due to a flaw in the lower side protection belts. She took on 3,000 tons of water and the 3rd magazine was flooded.

    Speaking to the accuarcy of Iowas guns one must remember her fire control radar. The radar was amazing. Officers testing the equipment aboard USS Iowa wrote:

    "Spotting both 5-inch and 16-inch splashes, HC or AP, with the radar is comparable to deliberately drawing a picture of the splashes on paper and looking at it. At all ranges fired during this period, the most inexperienced officer, given a brief explanation of what to expect, can spot splashes accurately to within 100 yards, and to within 50 yards with some experience."

    The Kongo class BBS had no radar range finders and did not have the complex TDC that the Iowas had. The Yamato in a night engagement was toast, even fighting in broad daylight it is obvious from the example that her gunners were incompetent. Yamamato couldn't determine range and keep a plot of a moving target to save her life. Iowa was automatically updated by the best TDC computer and radar on any BB ever put to sea. Yamatos armor was proven faulty when hit in action showing that the Iowa would have made short work of her in day or night gun duels.



    Yamato vs. Iowa

    Staring with the obvious, Iowa was faster (27 kts. vs. 33+ kts.), and by battleship standards, quite a bit more limber. The speed advantage here gives Iowa a very important tactical advantage in which she easily chooses the range of the engagement. An important consideration when she (as Yamato) can shoot over the horizon.

    Which, of course brings me to fire control, Iowa (as every other US Navy Ship larger then a Destroyer at the time) used the Mk. 13 Fire Control suite. The system was insanely ahead of it’s time it had a 3cm wavelength to Yamatos 10cm, and almost 25 times the power output. For Iowa this means it not only can shoot over the horizon, but can find a perfect firing solution over the horizon, and adjust it with pin point accuracy (by Battleship standards), while maneuvering. To read about this system in action read up on the 3rd Battle of Savo Island. Yamato had the same range-finding set up as Kirishima (Bracketing a target with colored smoke to saddle a slavo... etc)... And Iowas was certainly superior to the set that was fitted to the Washington. Having the best range finding optics was about as useful here as the Mk I eyeball used at Jutland.

    As far as Iowas 16"/50 main battery, I consider it to be the equal to Yamatos in all practical terms mostly because of the projectiles it fired. It would have been able to pierce Yamtos hull eventually and wreak havoc on her decks right from the start. The plunging fire on her decks would have been a real concern, and even though Yamato had the thickest armored decks around, you would simply be asking to much of that armor when Iowa was dropping her shells in at 20,000+ yds with deadly accuracy.

    Iowa was also no slouch in the Armor dept. and even though she had an “all-or-nothing” approach, her actual armor layout was superb with all of her important machinery and armament well protected. This does not even begin to discuss the qualative difference in steels that both ships were using, US steel being far less brittle then the Japanese steel of WWII. Meaning even if Yamato got very lucky, and hit a ship that it could not see, Iowa would certainly survive the hit and continue lobbing shells at Yamato.

    Simply put, Iowa had a far better effective range, and she chooses the range of the fight. She wins in almost any conceivable scenario.

    As stated earlier, Bismark was built for Jutland style knife fights of the North Atlantic, he could make it a tough fight for almost anyone if he could close the gap. But, he also had a fatal design flaw where her primary hydraulics sat above significant armor protection, tisk, tisk.... I don’t think that realistically he would fare well against either, as he would have to get in close to effectively engage either one; a situation Iowa would never give her, and Yamato would welcome.

    A more interesting fight, in my mind, would have to be KM Bismark vs. Richelieu as they were on each others minds when they were being developed, and both were launched in ‘39. I think these two were natural advisaries myself.

    And of course the pound for pound armor king H.M.S. Prince of Whales vs.the fast, deadly and ever so useful IJN Kongo.

    If I had a trillion bucks I would build both ships, automate them, give the remote control to some naval experts and sit back and watch the death match.
     
    #18
  19. RamFan503 Grill and Brew Master

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    2,941
    I smell pay-per-view. :sly:
     
    #19