Calling all Yamato (大和) and Musashi (武蔵) fans

[bucketfoot-al]

Doug - check out this photo from the photo sequence of the March 1945 inland sea attack on Yamato. (I just added it to the site after taking a closer look at it while moving my Yamato books - if only I could read Japanese! @#$!!)

The port side front three deck triple-mounted .25 cal batteries appear to be in precisely the positions illustrated by the latest Japanese research that I have illustrated both on my model and on the diagram towards the end of my website album:

http://ultimatebattleshipyamatosite.tri ... 090674.JPG

As an aside, I get great enjoyment studying some of these photos and periodically having a 'Eureka!' moment. At least its becoming clear that there is photographic evidence to support the latest Japanese diagrams. Of course, I am sure that the books I have discuss all that in great detail (one of them is a CGI book that is chock full of notations and diagrams of the Ten-Go Yamato deck configuration), but again, they're in Japanese. Now if only a Japanese speaker needed a Serbian or Croatian translation of something, we could 'trade'

[Doug Hallet]

Hi Al, It's a reasonable analysis. Nothing definitive at that resolution, of course.

[bucketfoot-al]

Doug - Yes, of course, but as the evidence adds on top of one photo on top of another, it becomes difficult to doubt the inevitable;

Look at this photo taken by a B-29 at 1200 Noon on April 6, 1945 - 4 hours before Yamato left on her suicide mission;

Look closely - this time on the front forward starboard side the 3 triple AA deck-mounted batteries are clearly visible (as faint shadows) - then - look at the rear deck and again, both the outer AND the INNER flight deck AA batteries (4 total, not 2) are also visible (as faint shadows) exactly where the similar shadows appear in the March 1945 shots.

Each photo appears to support the others - taken under different circumstances, from different angles and on different days - the 2 AA mounts on top of Main Turrets 2 and 3 are also visible (as shadows) on both photos - and are indistinguishable from the 'controversial' deck mounts.

I'd say this little exercise of ours has definitely pushed things towards the latest interpretation (granted that without a better photo there will never be 100% certainty), has it not?

Here is the photo of April 6 1945. Examine it closely, then compare with the March 1945 photos:

http://ultimatebattleshipyamatosite.tri ... 5?i=81&s=1

Make sure you click on the 'view full size photo' link

[able]

[Sauragnmon]

That Mega Nelson layout is very interesting. Also intriguing that there's Takao 8" mounts instead of the Mogami 155mm DP mountings. The AA battery seems a little thin by comparison, but it's overall quite an impressive looking design. Not sure what I think of that straight stack though.

[Doug Hallet]

The problem with fantasy builds like this are that they are not structurally logical - the "super Nelson" has much too narrow a width to support the massive machinery needed below decks to operate such huge turrets. It probably would have capsized immediately after launch, just like the Wasa. The super Yamato we saw earlier wouldn't have been able to carry enough fuel to support all the additional weight being added to it, not to mention that the Japanese government would have gone bankrupt trying to build it. However, as eye candy they certainly are entertaining. Here's an interesting build from a modeler in Taiwan:

http://blog.roodo.com/santos/archives/76400.html

Although I think he would have been better served using the Lionroar set rather than WEM, considering the amount of detail he's added, the use of sandbags and bed rolls is certainly well thought out and logical. You'll also notice he's added the "Otokotachi" inclined ladder, which purists will have conniptions about. There no documentation of course for placing it there other than artistic movie license, but it does seem logical to me, considering the need to service these gun tubs with ammo reloads. It would have been pretty hard doing it through that one access door in the superstructure.

[chuck]

Also, the width of the barbette and the narrowness of the hull around A turret would mean A magazine have practically no torpedo protection.

[J. Soca]

Still a pretty imaginative model to look at thanks for those shots!


Jose

[bucketfoot-al]

It is a nice build up. Of course, we only have to look at Yamato and Musashi to see how much the ships had to be widened in order to go from 16" to 18" guns (compare with Iowa-class).

I imagine that going to 20" guns as the Japanese were planning on doing would have made for a wider ship still ... the blast force of the guns (as I understand it) increases exponentially as you widen the barrel (ie by a greater order magnitude than the simple mathematical ratio between, say 16" and 18" guns ...)

[chuck]

It is a nice build up. Of course, we only have to look at Yamato and Musashi to see how much the ships had to be widened in order to go from 16" to 18" guns (compare with Iowa-class).

I imagine that going to 20" guns as the Japanese were planning on doing would have made for a wider ship still ... the blast force of the guns (as I understand it) increases exponentially as you widen the barrel (ie by a greater order magnitude than the simple mathematical ratio between, say 16" and 18" guns ...)

Iowa is constrained by Panama Canal to be less than 110 feet wide. Next group of US 16" battleships would have beams similar to those of Yamato. Conversely, it is possible to build a 18" battleship on 108 feet of beam. The British N-3 battleship, cancelled under washington treaty, had 18" guns and 108 foot beam. Finally, the Japanese 20" battleship will probably have beams similar to Yamato, In fact Yamato is designed to be upgunned to 20" at a later date.

[Doug Hallet]

Looks like a trip to Poland is in order....

http://www.modelhobby.pl/angielska/wyda ... ecej&id=57

It will be interesting to see how long before this is available for import....

Al, stop drooling.....

[bucketfoot-al]

Holy Crap Doug, Skulski is one of the authors of this book! Thanks for the link. I'll be getting one eventually (but hope that it comes out in English so will hold off for now.)

I like the CGI pics and the colorization (Irootoko Jr. still does THAT the best, though), but this thing looks like its gonna be a big step up from "Anatomy of a Ship".

Bet that Skulski fixes his earlier Ten'ichigo Yamato AA gun configuration - then about 99% of all existing 1945-config Yamato models will OFFICIALLY become obsolete!!!

MUAHAHAHAHAHA!

*Excuse me*

Stops drooling.

Well, if Skulski comes on board based on the new Japanese analysis, I guess that will be the 'clincher', won't it?

Thanks again Doug!!!

[Thomas E. Johnson]

It is a nice build up. Of course, we only have to look at Yamato and Musashi to see how much the ships had to be widened in order to go from 16" to 18" guns (compare with Iowa-class).

I imagine that going to 20" guns as the Japanese were planning on doing would have made for a wider ship still ... the blast force of the guns (as I understand it) increases exponentially as you widen the barrel (ie by a greater order magnitude than the simple mathematical ratio between, say 16" and 18" guns ...)

Iowa is constrained by Panama Canal to be less than 110 feet wide. Next group of US 16" battleships would have beams similar to those of Yamato. Conversely, it is possible to build a 18" battleship on 108 feet of beam. The British N-3 battleship, cancelled under washington treaty, had 18" guns and 108 foot beam. Finally, the Japanese 20" battleship will probably have beams similar to Yamato, In fact Yamato is designed to be upgunned to 20" at a later date.

I was unaware that Yamato was designed to be refitted with 20" guns! I don't think that fact is mentioned in the AOTS Volume on the Yamato.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Looks like a trip to Poland is in order....

http://www.modelhobby.pl/angielska/wyda ... ecej&id=57

It will be interesting to see how long before this is available for import....

Al, stop drooling.....

Has it even been published yet?

[cplchanb]

Bet that Skulski fixes his earlier Ten'ichigo Yamato AA gun configuration - then about 99% of all existing 1945-config Yamato models will OFFICIALLY become obsolete!!!

MUAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm glad I slowed down and got all the most recent books on Yamato b4 i started the build...now Im part of the 1% tat is up to date!

[chuck]

I was unaware that Yamato was designed to be refitted with 20" guns! I don't think that fact is mentioned in the AOTS Volume on the Yamato.

No, it's not. It was mentioned in Hans Lengerer's article in Warship. The idea was to build 5 18" battleships while the Americans were unaware. Once the US to begin to respond by committing to build 18" ships the Japanese would not only build new 20" ships, but also re-gun the 5 existing 18" ship to 20". The Japanese believed this trick will give them 10 years of qualitative superiority starting from 1941.

[Cliffy B]

I was unaware that Yamato was designed to be refitted with 20" guns! I don't think that fact is mentioned in the AOTS Volume on the Yamato.

No, it's not. It was mentioned in Hans Lengerer's article in Warship. The idea was to build 5 18" battleships while the Americans were unaware. Once the US to begin to respond by committing to build 18" ships the Japanese would not only build new 20" ships, but also re-gun the 5 existing 18" ship to 20". The Japanese believed this trick will give them 10 years of qualitative superiority starting from 1941.

I recall reading that the IJN built 2 of the 20" naval rifles and tested them during the war. The first one survived 3 test shots before exploding, thus ending the project.

It'd be interesting to know how well their 18" and our own 18" fared during the testing phase. Anyone know?

[bucketfoot-al]

I don't know about the testing phase, but to my knowledge both Yamato and Musashi fired hundreds of 18" shells during the war (mostly using the 'San-shikidan' anti-aircraft shells) without any problems. Yamato was also able to sink the USS Gambier Bay with her 18" rifles at Leyte Gulf. So it seems that they got the design of that one right.

Not surprised that 20" rifles might have been a tougher morsel to design due to the exponential increase in blast force that comes with the widening of the barrel.

[chuck]

The designs for the 20" guns for the Yamato follow on classes were completed, but I don't believe any were actually built. But the Japanese had previously already designed and built 19.7" guns during the early 1920s. So given 20 years of technological and industrial progress there is little doubt they could have built the 20" guns for Yamato follow on.

The design of Yamato's 18" gun had some practical design problems. The gun had a liner but not a replaceable liner, so when the rifling is worn the entire barrel must be returned to the factory, bored out, and relined. The Japanese only ever produced one set of barrels for each ship, this means if the barrel is worn no replacement barrel would immediately be available, nor can the barrel liner be quickly changed. So the ship would have to be out for many weeks without her barrels to wait for the factory to refurbish her barrels.

[Doug Hallet]

From the info on the web page, it appears the book is really available in Poland. You can always send an email direct to the shop to find out since they do write in English. Based on size, color photos and pull outs, I'm sure its pretty pricey. I'd have to imagine its +$100 not counting overseas shipping. Let us know if anyone wants to pursue. I'll be back in Europe in a couple of years, so it may very well be on the list of things to come back with me.