Forum: Yamato

[Werner]

This section is now open to views about the importance of Yamato as a warship design, as a functioning warship, as an instrument of Japanese policy and as a model ship.

W

[zach b]

I voted end of the road, but I do feel she is a viable, even a forward step in naval architecture. You can not deny that her hull form was succesful. As far as armor layout, armament, and firecontrol, I can not say. Her hull was an efficient design, with great sea keeping, loads of reserve bouyancy, and speed.

[Zach P.]

Yamato while flawed holds an important place in history as the only one of the large 18 in. gun BB's to actually be built by any of the nations who designed them. she is a relic to a naval race that was quashed before it bagan.

Had things remained as they were when the 18 inchers were concieved she have proved a more effective ship but as it turned out she was eclipsed by numerous advances in naval technology and probably should have been left by the wayside as were the cherry trees.

I have to believe that even after having been laid down the hulls would have served better as large CV's but then this too is only speculation since the only hull of the class to be so converted was sunk before she ever launched an aircraft at the enemy. But one has to believe that three large CV's coming off the ways would have been innumerably more important to the Japanese war effort than two out moded BB's and one large CV.

[Werner]

Yamato while flawed holds an important place in history as the only one of the large 18 in. gun BB's to actually be built by any of the nations who designed them. she is a relic to a naval race that was quashed before it bagan.

Furious was the first ocean-going post-Dreadnought ship to mount 18-inch rifles. Several monitors of WW.I also mounted the same gun.

In addition to the UK, the USN also proof-fired an 18-inch caliber gun which was later lined down to 16-inches.

Of the last generation guns, the USN 16-inch/50 calibre of the Iowa with "superheavy" shells was far and away the best heavy gun ever built, and representative of the immense advances USN BuOrd made in the 1940 timeframe. In my opinion it's cousin the Alaska's 12-inch/50 has the best ballistics for any calibre.

W

[zach b]

Werner, why do you hate Yamato? You know in the end you will conform, restistance is futile.

[GWB]

I think Yamato as designed was a quantum leap for the 1934 world. I voted for "significant advance" . The world changed between 1934 and 1944 for the world's navies, the definition of seapower and power projection changed dramatically. As an expression of "I'm gonna sail my battleship into your harbor and pound the crap out of your capital" gunboat diplomacy Yamato would have been superlative. As a battle line unit she would have been dominant against the pre-war US battle line she was designed to fight.

As it was she was overtaken by events and technology. With aircraft carriers and effective aircraft fleets were now able to stand off beyond visual range from ranges of 200 miles or better rendering the big guns and heavy armor useless.

Marty

[Vlad]

Is there an option for "Vulgar piece of national pride that achieved through shere weight what Iowa managed with less."

I mean, just look at it.

-Iowa's guns are better, and much lighter.
-Iowa's belt is only 12" thick, but her overall protective scheme is just as good.
-Iowa is much faster.

There is no "quantum leap" in just chucking on as much armour as possible on as big a hull as you can possibly manage, just because you can, because you pulled out of the treaties. In the end she was a waste, overtaken by air power. The Japanese of all people should have seen that one coming!!!!!!!

[richter111]

Ahhhh Jorit and his Yamoto affliction.

The Yamoto was a major jump in size and PERCEIVED naval power. Perception can cause governments to do strange things which equates out to spend massive amounts of money. Think back to the late 60's and early 70's perception of the MiG 25 Foxbat. US thought the Russians had developed the superplane, out of it we got the F 15, F 16 combo. It later (thanks to Lt Belinko of the former Soviet Union defecting) turned out to be a massively powered brick. BUT WE STILL SPENT THE R+D DOLLARS.

So in that aspect, above all else it was impressive.

My $1.380's worth

Ric

[JWintjes]

Ahhhh Jorit and his Yamoto affliction.

The Yamoto was a major jump in size and PERCEIVED naval power. Perception can cause governments to do strange things which equates out to spend massive amounts of money. Think back to the late 60's and early 70's perception of the MiG 25 Foxbat. US thought the Russians had developed the superplane, out of it we got the F 15, F 16 combo. It later (thanks to Lt Belinko of the former Soviet Union defecting) turned out to be a massively powered brick. BUT WE STILL SPENT THE R+D DOLLARS.

So in that aspect, above all else it was impressive.

My $1.380's worth

Ric

Hey, Ric, that's unfair, addressing me here - this is the one Yamato thread I haven't flooded with hate posts recently...

Of course, now the gates are wide open...



Jorit

[coberg1]

comparing the technological advances of the iowa class and yamato class doesn't quite jive, the yamato class was a whole earlier generation. built in secrecy in violation of the treaty. the iowas were built in response to this violation.

[Werner]

I don't see how a ship whose details were unknown until well after the war could have influenced any design details of the USN or Britain.

The only certain knowledge The USA had after 1937 was that the Japanese had probably resumed building, and were probably building a 16-inch gun ship. BuOrd was convinced that to go beyond 16-inch caliber did not offer a significant advantage at battle ranges. (It certainly offers an advantage at point blank range). Instead of wasting time with new heavy gun designs (the 16-inch/50 calibre was an accident, forced on BuOrd by a detail design mistake), they turned to working out the "superheavy" shells which offered fantastic penetration and were more able to defeat an enemy's weaker deck armor by plunging more steeply at battle ranges.

BuOrd was convinced the next generation of weapons would be rapid firing autoloaded medium caliber weapons. While they may not be able to defeat the thickest armor, they could destroy an enemy's ability to fight by ripping up all the light structures above the armored deck and deranging equipment or communications. This is, after all, the damage that really happened to Bismarck If I recall, not a single British shell entered her citadel.

W

[Werner]

Ahhhh Jorit and his Yamoto affliction.

The Yamoto was a major jump in size and PERCEIVED naval power. Perception can cause governments to do strange things which equates out to spend massive amounts of money. Think back to the late 60's and early 70's perception of the MiG 25 Foxbat. US thought the Russians had developed the superplane, out of it we got the F 15, F 16 combo. It later (thanks to Lt Belinko of the former Soviet Union defecting) turned out to be a massively powered brick. BUT WE STILL SPENT THE R+D DOLLARS.

So in that aspect, above all else it was impressive.

My $1.380's worth

Ric

Like Dr. Strangelove said, this tactic doesn't work if you keep it a secret. The details and existance of Yamato and her kin were not known until it made no difference.

The Iowas were designed specifically to counter the Hieis which were discovered to have a top speed of 30 knots in 1940 as these ships were being designed. While the idea that they would form a "fast wing" is quaint, the truth is more along the lines of the task they actually performed: carrier escort and protection of the scouting force from fast enemy units.

W

[Zach P.]

I am going to have to agree more or less with Coberg here. The Yamato and the Iowa are a gerneration apart in Thinking. If you wanted to compare the North Carolinas to the Yamato then I believe you would be making a fair comparison. The other is more like comparing the F-4 and the F-16. They may have served in the same time period but the comparison would be unfair.

As far as my statement about Yamato being the only 18 in. BB, I will clarify as I should have before. Of the designs and thinking on the next generation of Bb's done between the wars Yamato and Musashi were the only ships concieved in this time period to actually be launched. The line of designs I am speaking of involved, St. Andrew, S. Dakota, Invincible,a nd a handful of other earlier IJN designs that emerged between 1920 and the beginning of WW2. As such I find Yamato interesting.

[Werner]

I am going to have to agree more or less with Coberg here. The Yamato and the Iowa are a gerneration apart in Thinking. If you wanted to compare the North Carolinas to the Yamato then I believe you would be making a fair comparison.

Apart from steam conditions, what great leap puts Iowa in the next generation from North Carolina?

I might agree that there is a new generation after Nelson, but I can see no logic to splitting the 1938 and 1940 capital ships, King George V and Roma included.

Maybe if Iowa were equipped with guided projectiles or gas turbines, but a 1944 Iowa and 1944 North Carolina would have been playing off the same deck in a surface engagement.

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

[Guest]

I am going to have to agree more or less with Coberg here. The Yamato and the Iowa are a gerneration apart in Thinking. If you wanted to compare the North Carolinas to the Yamato then I believe you would be making a fair comparison.

Apart from steam conditions, what great leap puts Iowa in the next generation from North Carolina?

I might agree that there is a new generation after Nelson, but I can see no logic to splitting the 1938 and 1940 capital ships, King George V and Roma included.

Maybe if Iowa were equipped with guided projectiles or gas turbines, but a 1944 Iowa and 1944 North Carolina would have been playing off the same deck in a surface engagement.

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

[Werner]

Than why isn't the generational line drawn at South Dakota, with nearly the same armor scheme and unit machinery? You're being overly sentimental. There are trivial differences among all the modern USN warships.

W

[coberg1]

Than why isn't the generational line drawn at South Dakota, with nearly the same armor scheme and unit machinery? You're being overly sentimental. There are trivial differences among all the modern USN warships.

W

the biggest improvements were in the electronics, the most deciding advantage the american ships enjoyed, BIG difference in the technology employed there from when yamato was built and when the iowas were built. if yamato had access to the advanced radar and fire control systems at the time she was built we would be singing a different tune about her effectiveness, mabe in another language.

[Guest]

Werner, with your logic why not compare Dreadnaught to Augmemnon? They were launched with in months of eachother.

zach b

[GWB]

"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). "

Werner, where do you come to this conclusion????? South dakota was a response to Congressional screams of agony over the cost of the North Carolinas, a more compact engineering plant with a smaller citadel, they sacrificed some speed and range to do it.

Marty

[Werner]

According to Friedman, the South Dakotas are nothing more than a mature look at the 27 knot battleship with balanced protection. There is absolutely no mention of budget. Indeed, in the era of the Vinson Trammel Act there would be little time or motivation to look at the costs. Congress expressed it's authorization in terms of tonnage and not costs as was the case in the 20s.

South Dakota is in any event the brain child of Captain Chantry and the next battleship would have been built to these plans irrespective of any quarrels with Congress. Indeed, the Iowas were almost put off indefinately because of the disruption their detail design caused the Essex and Fletcher designs. The limiting factor was not money, biut draughtsmen.

In fact, I find no references to complaint about North Carolina's price in reference to South Dakota's authorization in 1938. In fact, Congress offered four ships instead of the two requested and they were built to repeat designs for BB 57.

W