Forum: Yamato

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.

BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Forum: Yamato

by Werner » Wed May 24, 2006 12:34 am

On another note, does anybody have the accurate western spelling for the new Yamato movie? I'd like to see if I can find it on one of the Bittorrent directories and download it, so better yet if anyone has a pointer to it, that would be much appreciated.

by Werner » Wed May 24, 2006 12:30 am

Again, my memory is inaccurate. Maybe I need a PET scan.

The 18-inch/48 was lined down to 16-inch/56 at the same time the 16-inch/50 Mk.II was being manufactured in quantity for the 1919 ships.

In 1938 Admiral Thomas C. Hart requested Preliminary Design consider this weapon for the pending 45,000 ton battleship because the barrel life at any fixed muzzle velocity was much longer than the Mk.II's. That was probably the last time the gun was considered for anything, and it's only connection to Iowa.

One has to wonder why (other than economy) BuOrd would consider these old guns when the new generation of weapons implied a new 16-inch gun could be (and was) designed which would be more effective and lighter at the same time.

Certainly in the face of the new "superheavy" shell designs and effective long-range fire proven in the late 1930s, BuOrd had a new resume of gun designs fit to allow them the choice of how to proceed. Maybe the turret design error was our good luck.

by chuck » Tue May 23, 2006 11:01 pm

Werner wrote:About the guns, you're both right. The 16-inch/50s (lined down from 18-inches) were probably the best guns ever designed up to 1940. The "failure to communicate" between BuOrd and C&R which led up to the debacle under discussion here was a "panic moment" for both agencies. The 16-inch/50s of the Iowa was a "cut to fit" design to allow BuOrd to tell the General Board that they had the characteristics of the 1920s gun in a mount roughly the size of the 1940 /45 caliber gun. If they had started with a blank sheet of paper, who knows what would have happened. As it was, the new 50 calibre gun was horrible for it's first year.

This mistake caused the reorganization of BuOrd and C&R into one bureau. This combined with the engineering weight errors in the Sims class destroyers to create the new BuShips out of the three separate bureaus of Steam Engineering, Ordinance and Construction & Repair (which was responsible for hull design and the very many areas which are obviously not engines or guns).
I don't think the original 16"/50 MKII guns were lined down from 18"/45, they were designed from scratch as 16"/50. They were thinner and weighted considerably less than the 18" guns designed in 1919. A very limited numbers of 18" experimental barrels were made. A very large number of these MKII barrels, 100+ if I recall, had been made for the 6 Lexingtons and 6 South Dakotas cancelled under Washington.
Unfortunately, they were not really outstandingly good even for 1920s. They were about competitive with the 16"/50 barrels planned for the Tosa and other Japanese 8-8 ships.

Besides being readily available and hanging around in storage doing nothing, the MKIIs offered no performancem durability and accuracy advantages when compared to the new MKVIII. But being quite behind the times, the MKIIs weighed almost 30% more than the new MKVIIs.

This fact is highlighted by the fact that no consideration was ever given to using them in the Montanas, although there were enough of them to outfit each of the Montanas.

The MKVIIs were probably the best 16" ballistic barrels ever made. They certainly outperforms British 16" planned for the Lions. They probably would also have outperformed the Soviet 16" guns designed for the Sovietski class. The only possible contender would have been the German H-39 guns.

by Werner » Tue May 23, 2006 6:54 pm

About the guns, you're both right. The 16-inch/50s (lined down from 18-inches) were probably the best guns ever designed up to 1940. The "failure to communicate" between BuOrd and C&R which led up to the debacle under discussion here was a "panic moment" for both agencies. The 16-inch/50s of the Iowa was a "cut to fit" design to allow BuOrd to tell the General Board that they had the characteristics of the 1920s gun in a mount roughly the size of the 1940 /45 caliber gun. If they had started with a blank sheet of paper, who knows what would have happened. As it was, the new 50 calibre gun was horrible for it's first year.

This mistake caused the reorganization of BuOrd and C&R into one bureau. This combined with the engineering weight errors in the Sims class destroyers to create the new BuShips out of the three separate bureaus of Steam Engineering, Ordinance and Construction & Repair (which was responsible for hull design and the very many areas which are obviously not engines or guns).

by RNfanDan » Tue May 23, 2006 6:05 pm

Werner wrote:Are we making soda bread or Bisquick muffins?
If you add butter, nuts and morsels to this, you can make chocolate chip cookies---that is, unless Chuck claims they're not real chocolate!


:lol_4:

by RNfanDan » Tue May 23, 2006 5:58 pm

chuck wrote: Iowas did not carry 1920 vintage 16"/50guns. They carried throughly modern 16"/50 guns.
I never said they carried them. I said they were DESIGNED for them, at least as far as that being initial plan. You confirmed this EXACTLY in your post, so why the argument? What's "not true"?

Only after they found out the barbettes were too small to work with those weapons---the 1920's vintage, that is---were they forced to select other alternatives. Again, your own words confirm this, so why the argument? What's "not true"?

If what I said wasn't right, then why did the designers and builders have a proverbial cow over what to do to fix the problem? They couldn't change the barbettes, nor the hull at that point, to fit them (confirmed by your own words)---what's "not true"? They discussed down-grading to the SoDak/NC-type 16"/45cal, but this was rejected.

They were really bogged-up at this juncture. Again, you confirmed this in your post! What's "not true" (I see NOTHING, so far, so I am puzzled even more about what you found "not true")?

Just to make MY post crystal-clear, the idea that the Iowas were uncompromised advances upon the previous two classes, their main armament fiasco puts this notion immediately to rest. As an answer to a design flaw---a very serious one, at that---the new turrets and mountings were a spectacular success. But so severely screwing-up their design in the first place, created a totally new and unforeseen challenge.

Hardly a great advancement, and certainly not something that qualifies as a utilization of previous experience! Finally, it doesn't change what I originally stated. Had these screw-ups not been made, those 1920's 50-cal weapons would be there, to this day.

Note: If I am wrong or proven wrong, I'll be the first to admit to/correct/apologize for it. But I'm having a hard time finding what you've called "not true", especially after you've CONFIRMED my words!

Now, back to the recipe.... :big_grin:

by chuck » Tue May 23, 2006 12:01 am

RNfanDan wrote:

Anyway, thanks for the correction there, chuck. Makes things so much clearer !
You're welcome.

:big_grin: :big_grin:

But allow me to make it even clearer. Iowas did not carry 1920 vintage 16"/50guns. They carried throughly modern 16"/50 guns.

With the possible exception of the 16"/47 (rifle length of german guns are measured differently) guns designed for the H-39 class, Iowa 16" guns were the most modern heavy naval guns anywhere on earth in 1940.

by Werner » Mon May 22, 2006 11:43 pm

RNfanDan wrote:All right, revised: Add the oil and the beaten eggs to the mix. Add soda, flour and salt. Blend.

Hmmm....same $%^&* ingredients, but now tastes better???
Are we making soda bread or Bisquick muffins?

by Werner » Mon May 22, 2006 11:40 pm

The 16-inch/50s are cousins to the 12-inch/50s of Alaska and share some details of chamber, breech and barrel liner.

One thing they don't share is the ram which pushes 12-inch shells from the outer ring to the working chamber. The operators were afraid that if the turret and ram were in motion at the same instant, the turret could be jammed in train.

by RNfanDan » Mon May 22, 2006 10:04 pm

chuck wrote:
RNfanDan wrote: In fact, even Iowa's 16"/50cal guns were based on a 1920's design and...the Iowas required a significant turret and mounting re-design, just to fit their barbettes into the ships! .
Not true. Iowas were initially designed to take the 1920 vintage 16"/50 MKII guns that were originally manufactured for the cancelled Lexington and South Dakota classes of the Washinton treaty era. In a staggering, truly unbelieveable screw up, the ordinance department gave the ship building department a wrong set of figures about the necessary diameter of any barbette that would support any triple turrets equipped with MKII barrels.

But eventually it was discovered that the wrong barbette diameter could actually take a new turret being designed for the new, more compact 16"/50 MKVII gun. So a decision was taken to give Iowas the new 16"/50 MkVII guns in a new, smaller turret based on the turrets designed for the South Dakotas, instead of the MKII barrels in the new larger turret as had been originally intended.

Add the beaten eggs and oil to the mix. Blend. Add flour, salt, and soda.
chuck wrote::argue: Not true.


All right, revised: Add the oil and the beaten eggs to the mix. Add soda, flour and salt. Blend.

Hmmm....same $%^&* ingredients, but now tastes better??? :thinking:


Anyway, thanks for the correction there, chuck. Makes things so much clearer !

Agendas

by Lesforan » Mon May 22, 2006 8:27 pm

Hi, Chuck, Largeallen :big_grin: !

Yes, everybody had their own agenda, in addition to the agreements they jointly held.

There was no shortage of ulterior motives: Britian and France wanted their empires restored. The US wanted to re-establish its interests in the Phillippines, and to set up MacArthur as poobah of Japan. There was a political fiction involved with the Japanese surrender known as the "Unconditional Surrender". Unconditional, that is, except that Japan was able to keep its wartime leader.

The Soviet Union was supposed to follow up their occupation with free elections in occupied states. This they had, free, one-party elections. :mad_1:

I guess if you want to compare the western nations' private agendas with the Soviet's, you can. How helpful these agendas were to the cause of reconstruction can be seen by comparing West Berlin in the 60's and 70's with its East Berlin twin. judge for yourself :lol_1: .

by largeallan » Mon May 22, 2006 6:50 pm

:big_grin: now ain't that a fact!!

by chuck » Mon May 22, 2006 6:48 pm

"We" have no "agenda". We are true champions of goodness, godliness, democracy, humanity, progress, capitalism and christianity. It is everyone else who presumes to argue with our holy cause that must be motivated by some devil inspired "agenda".

:big_grin: :big_grin: :big_grin: :big_grin:

Re: Japan and USSR

by largeallan » Mon May 22, 2006 6:44 pm

Churchill made a deal with the devil when he took on Stalin as an ally. That Stalin had his own agenda should have been apparent by the time of the Halsey-Doolittle raid.[/quote]

Are you suggesting that the British and Americans didn't have their own agenda?

sorry I can't get this 'highlighted' quotes thing to work

by chuck » Mon May 22, 2006 6:22 pm

RNfanDan wrote: In fact, even Iowa's 16"/50cal guns were based on a 1920's design and, although a superior weapon to the 16"/45cal of the NC and SoDak classes, the Iowas required a significant turret and mounting re-design, just to fit their barbettes into the ships! .
Not true. Iowas were initially designed to take the 1920 vintage 16"/50 MKII guns that were originally manufactured for the cancelled Lexington and South Dakota classes of the Washinton treaty era. In a staggering, truly unbelieveable screw up, the ordinance department gave the ship building department a wrong set of figures about the necessary diameter of any barbette that would support any triple turrets equipped with MKII barrels.

The error stayed undiscovered for many month while the ordinance and ship building people progressed far into their respective designs. When the error is at last caught, it was found that no reasonable minor modification could conceivably allow the turret being designed to fit into the hull. It was said the reconcilling the difference would set back the design effort by 6 month. The roller races of the Iowas must have been filled with the heads the came off at that moment.

But eventually it was discovered that the wrong barbette diameter could actually take a new turret being designed for the new, more compact 16"/50 MKVII gun. So a decision was taken to give Iowas the new 16"/50 MkVII guns in a new, smaller turret based on the turrets designed for the South Dakotas, instead of the MKII barrels in the new larger turret as had been originally intended.

by RNfanDan » Mon May 22, 2006 5:52 pm

Zach P. wrote:
Werner wrote: Apart from some tiny details, Iowa is modelled after the protection of South Dakota, and all incorporate the same hull design with twin skegs, twin rudders and so on. South Dakota was, after all, an attempt to accomodate 16-inch protection on the 35,000 ton North Carolina design (which was protected against the 14-inch originally planned).

W
Not true. Iowas are another generation in ship design, their w/t compartments scheme is different, armor thickness, hull design, and immunity zones are quite different. Her design played off the errors learned on the NC and the SoDak. As far as a first generation post Washington treaty ship goes, NC is a very conservative approach, especially when compared to her true contemperies, like Bismark and Yamato. I am only talking of the hull form, from where I stand Yamatos hull form is ahead of even Iowa.

zach b
They weren't so much errors to be played off, but rather points to expand upon, after treaty limitations were lifted. Remember that the US had no real interwar design experiences before the NC (except for the converted Saratoga and Lexington battlecruisers), unlike the British, who had begun their next generation with Nelson and Rodney, more than a decade earlier.

As to their armor protection, only the area involved was significantly different between SoDak and Iowa, not the thickness, and the truth is closer to Werner's version, than to any notion that Iowa was a "new generation". In fact, even Iowa's 16"/50cal guns were based on a 1920's design and, although a superior weapon to the 16"/45cal of the NC and SoDak classes, the Iowas required a significant turret and mounting re-design, just to fit their barbettes into the ships!

Being laid down less than 1 year after SoDak's hull, Iowa could not have benefited too greatly from her, either---the design plans were too far along for major changes by then, at any rate. SoDak and Iowa were siblings somewhat apart, but definitely the same generation.

by Filipe Ramires » Mon May 15, 2006 7:58 am

Exactly...to the eyes of the Japanese the Allies were the least of the Evil!

by Werner » Mon May 15, 2006 7:28 am

It is my opinion that in the last days of Imperial General Headquarters there was a quiet hysteria that the Soviet horde would storm down on them, raping and killing, and destroying the cultural heritage of the Empire, leaving the Japanese a slave race in their wake -- just like Eastern Germany.

A victorious Stalin could quite easily deport every Japanese national and disperse them into the Moslem or Siberian provinces, or worse, hand them over to Comrade Mao.

Better to surrender promptly to the Anglophones, whose sense of fair play and forgiveness was well-known.

by Filipe Ramires » Mon May 15, 2006 7:11 am

James and Werner,

Very good points indeed. We must take into account that they already had conquered Sakalina so they can easily get from there to Hokkaido and not from Vladivostok or any main port from the continent. Sakalina was most likely to be the starting point from a Hokkaido invasion. Also they got to the Kurilles.
Don't under-rate the soviet landing capabilities...at least in terms of troops. Their Marines were quite good and fought all over the russian front against the germans (small landing actions true). Still, like you said James, shipping might have been a problem but then Werner shows some 600 ships there...and there isn't much of IJN left to fight the invasion force. Either way or coastal defences are truelly effective....which I doubt in the Hokkaido case or you move Kamikaze Corps up North when they are being most needed back south.

by Werner » Mon May 15, 2006 6:53 am

GlobalSecurity.Org wrote:In April 1945, the Soviets abrogated the Neutrality
Pact and commenced a massive redeployment effort which
doubled the Soviet forces in the Far East to 80 divisions.
During the months of May-July 1945, more than 40 infantry,
tank and mechanized divisions plus artillery and combat
support units were transferred from the European theater to
the Far East. [12-37] This monumental effort required
maximum utilization of the Trans-Siberian railroad and
136,000 railroad car loads to move these assault units to
the Far Eastern border areas. [12-37] During the peak troop
redeployments in June and July, an average of 22-30 trains
per day moved Russian units under strict secrecy. [15-159]
Surprise was the essential element in the Soviet
offensive plan. [12-37] The Russians successfully deployed
30 divisions to western Manchuria without Japanese
awareness. [10-1] Deception and surprise was achieved by
heavy reliance upon night movement, utilization of assembly
areas far removed from the border and simple but strict
measures such as instructing senior Soviet officers to not
wear rank insignia and to use assumed names.[10-1] The 6th
Guards Tank Army left all tanks, self-propelled artillery
and vehicles behind in Czechoslovakia and picked up new
equipment manufactured in Soviet Ural factories. [7-52]
This extraordinary effort resulted in the Soviet Union's
ability to field a force in the Far East comprised of 11
combined-arms armies, one tank army and three air armies.
Thus, without discovery by the Japanese at the start of war
with Japan, the Russian Army fielded 1,577,725 men, 26,137
guns and mortars, and 5,556 tanks and self-propelled
artillery pieces. [9-62] The Air Force possessed 3,800
aircraft while the Soviet Navy (Pacific Fleet and Amur River
flotilla) had distinct superiority on the seas (600 fighting
ships as touted by Gorelov) and an additional 1500 A/C. [l2-
38] This vast array of men and arms gave the Russians a
2.2:1 ratio advantage in men, 4.8:1 in artillery and tanks
and a 2:1 advantage in aircraft. [10-29]
I think they solved their logistics issue....

Top