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

[bucketfoot-al]

During Leyte operation, IJN Yamato had not hits in the era of number 1# or 2# turret. I agree with the theory of the dark grey number 1# turret.

While transiting the Sibyan Sea, Yamato was hit by TWO bombs right in front of/to the side of the #1 turret. See here:

http://www.battleshipyamato.com/index.a ... 4?i=68&s=1

http://www.battleshipyamato.com/index.a ... 4?i=75&s=1

This may well have nothing to do with the shading in the B & W photo, of course. I think the most likely explanation is Chuck's explanation of the surface turret top angles relative to the sun.

What also may be relevant is the fact that the ship in the photo is in fact a TINY section of a much, much larger aerial photo taken from over 10000ft above. I have seen enough versions of these photos to suspect that many were airbrushed in years past to try to bring out the features of the ships better.

[Atma]

The point is that both ships took enough punishemnt from many bombs, near misses and torpedoes.

[Senkan]

Thanks Vlad for pointing out the obvious.

[bucketfoot-al]

Thanks Vlad for pointing out the obvious.

Anytime.

[chuck]

I dispute the number of torpedo hits on the Yamato suggested above for the following reasons:

1. The torpedoes used during the attack carried torpex explosive warheads whose powers were twice that of equivalent weight of TNT, and considerably exceeds the designed resistance of Yamato's TDS, which was 800 lbs TNT. So it is reasonable to expect widespread failure of the torpedo bulkhead and major inboard flooding during the attack even if her TDS performed flawless according to design, as in fact were reported by the survivors.

2. Yamato's TDS in fact could not quite perform up to its designed resistance, as shown conclusively by the submarine torpedo hit she experienced in 1943, when her TDS failed after being hit by less than 800 lbs of TNT equivalent, and flooded her number 3 turret magazine.

3. Unlike the attack on MUsashi, the attack on Yamato was coordinated to hit her preferentially on one side so as to capsize her. It takes fewer torpedo hits concentrated on one side to capsize a ship that it takes torpedo hits distributed on both sides to sink a ship. So even if the power of the warheads were the same, we would expect Yamato to survive substantially fewer hits before rolling over than MUsashi would take to sink.

4. Design calculations on most nearly comparable foreign battleship in size and general design and depth of TDS - the Iowa class - suggest 5-6 torpedo hits on 1 side over a short period of time, even without defeating TDS, is sufficient to capsize the battleship.

So I think the generally quoted figure, that Yamato was fatally damaged and would inevitably capsize after approximately 10-12 torpedoes mostly to one side, is credible. It is possible that in the act of dying, she was struck by more torpedoes. But that is no tribute to her damage resistance. There was a Japanese heavy cruiser that took 7 aerial torpedoes in quick succession before sinking. But that doesn't mean she would have survived if only she took 1 less hit. Experience shows no CA could survive more than 2 torpedo hits.

The attack on MUsashi was conducted with weaker torpedo warheads whose powers were below 800 lbs TNT designed resistance of Yamato class's TDS. Consequently we expect each hit to largely be spent by the TDS and do much less damage than those that hit the Yamato. Indeed survivor accounts suggest her torpedo bulkhead, unlike those of Yamato's, generally held. . Unlike in the case of Yamato, whose citadel was extensive flooded by torpedo hits, musashi's citadel was largely undamaged to the end. Furthermore, her hits were distributed uniformly on both sides, thus reducing her tendency to lose stability before losing buoyancy.

This is why it is credible that MUsashi took many more torpedo hits before sinking than did Yamato.

[bucketfoot-al]

Chuck - Thank you very much for that enlightening post. I didn't know about the difference in torpedo types used. Quite right, Musashi survived for 9 hours no doubt because she was holed pretty evenly on both sides, whereas the hits on Yamato were mainly to port and designed to capsize her. the design flaw weakness in the seam between the upper and lower halves of her torpedo belt didn't help matters any. (As an aside, I recall reading some credible speculation that USS Skate hit Yamato with 2 torpedoes rather than 1 in 1943, which would have been more consistent with the amount of flooding caused. In any event that attack indeed exposed the flaw in the design of the armor belt that could not be fixed before the end of the war.)

Based on what I've read, I still think that the number of bomb hits on Yamato was in the same range as on Musashi, if not even more; your torpedo analysis is quite logical, but I still lean towards believing that the number was closer to 20 than to 10, as indicated by the debriefing of survivors. (How many of the 6 final torpedoes from Yorktown's flight actually detonated can never be known exactly, but based on Yoshida's report that it was a much more significant detonation than previously experienced - knocking him off his feet and sending geysers up on both sides of the ship - we can be pretty certain it was several.)

In any event, you are right in pointing out that it would not have taken more than 5-6 well-placed torpedoes to sink her - the only effect of the additional fish was to speed up the inevitable.

As an aside, I wonder how many torpedo planes were involved on April 7 1945 versus how many attacked Center Force in October 1944 when Musashi was sunk? Because if the number was similar, it would stand to reason that the damage inflicted would have been similar as well - particularly as Yamato was the only big target on 4/7/45....

In any event, Morrison's account of the operation would also indicate that the reported number of bombs and torpedoes that hit Yamato in the last attack, when she was basically a sitting duck, was well-over the oft quoted numbers...

[Guest]

Unfortunately, the angle of the sun argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny, as a quick look at the shadows cast by the tower bridge and an 18.1-in gun reveal:



There is no object at all which could be darkening that turret with shadow. The other curiosity easily seen in this large phot (courtesy of bucketfoot, many thanks!) is that the superimposed 18.1-in turret clearly has a very dark area visible on its starboard side like the drawing shows. Again, this area is in direct sunlight, and could not be shadowed. The reason why the aft turret top is so light is because it is receiving full sunlight across its roof.

What is here does not look like anything to do with nature, but more to do with deliberation. I wonder if this was some kind of means of distinguishing YAMATO from the task force flagship, MUSASHI?

[bucketfoot-al]

The rear part of the photo to me looks like it has been 'washed out' in processing the film, or in trying to enhance the image. I think that accounts for much of the effect. I don't think the front turret was painted a different color. In this photo, it does not appear to be:

http://www.battleshipyamato.com/index.a ... 4?i=68&s=1

However, in this photo, the turret also appears darker:

http://www.battleshipyamato.com/index.a ... 4?i=67&s=1

Perhaps the 2 bomb hits (see the one shown in first photo above) may have had something to do with it in terms of soot.

Its an interesting question, isn't it? This is the first time I've seen it raised. Actually the second photo I have listed in this post was taken seconds after the photo you are debating about, (same bombing sequence) and seems to show a darker first turret as well. I have more photos of this bombing sequence as it was simultaneously recorded by a plane directly overhead and a plane off Yamato's starboard. I am planning to upload them when I get a chance.

[Timmy C]

Unfortunately, the angle of the sun argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny, as a quick look at the shadows cast by the tower bridge and an 18.1-in gun reveal:


There is no object at all which could be darkening that turret with shadow. The other curiosity easily seen in this large phot (courtesy of bucketfoot, many thanks!) is that the superimposed 18.1-in turret clearly has a very dark area visible on its starboard side like the drawing shows. Again, this area is in direct sunlight, and could not be shadowed. The reason why the aft turret top is so light is because it is receiving full sunlight across its roof.

What is here does not look like anything to do with nature, but more to do with deliberation. I wonder if this was some kind of means of distinguishing YAMATO from the task force flagship, MUSASHI?

I think you're missing Chuck's key argument - he's not talking about shadows, but rather the amount of light reflected to the camera as a result of the angle of the turret surfaces. The shadow was mentioned only to reference the angle of the sun.

[Atma]

Shadow or not, the darkened number 1# turret looks nice on a model of IJN Yamato

[chuck]

During the attack on MUsashi, the American pilots were told to ignore other ships and concentrate on one target. So MUsashi took the brunt of it.

[ZALADIS]

I picked my ship modelling hobby up from my father whom in his youth was in America and got to chat with a couple of American pilots who had been involved in attacks on the Musashi and Yamato. He never told me personally this information but one day in my teens I can remember a conversation going on between him and a couple of other ship modellers at the time and I recall them mentioning Yamato and can distinctly remember him telling them that he was told that at least one of the two sisters' fore turrets was a markedly darker shade of grey,(almost a charcoal colour) than the other turrets ,something he went on to say a number of pilots noticed at the time.
I am not trying to start off a conspiracy theory here but I know he would not have said this unless someone had taken the trouble to tell him and hand on heart i am repeating what I clearly remember hearing myself.

[bucketfoot-al]

Interesting. Quite possible looking at those 1944 photos. But in 1945 the color was the same shade of gray ...

http://www.battleshipyamato.com/index.a ... 5?i=77&s=1

http://www.battleshipyamato.com/index.a ... 5?i=81&s=1

http://www.battleshipyamato.com/index.a ... 5?i=94&s=1

[Guest]

I think you're missing Chuck's key argument - he's not talking about shadows, but rather the amount of light reflected to the camera as a result of the angle of the turret surfaces. The shadow was mentioned only to reference the angle of the sun.

There is no reason for the fore turret to not reflect as much as the aft turret because they are both equally exposed to direct sunlight. And, demolishing this argument, there is the matter of the dark area on the starboard side of the superimposed turret, the side exposed to direct sunlight.

Bucketfoot, I'd like to take credit for this, but, actually, it is the work of a Wiki illustrator, who has, apparently, been researching MUSASHI's colors for several years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Musashi1944.png

I was doing a MUSASHI image search, and I discovered the drawing. I thought nothing of it until I saw that large image of YAMATO on your site. Ironically, he seems to have the right idea, but the wrong ship. The Sibuyan Sea images of MUSASHI on your site do not seem to indicate she had a dark fore turret. I suspect he mistook YAMATO for MUSASHI because the photo is captioned to be of MUSASHI on several websites.

I am very curious to know if this is something he found from Japanese sources. We are always the last to find out about what the real Japanese researchers have known for years. I don't have a great deal of faith in the mainstream Japanese modeling picture books; they tend to run in a pack and follow trends.

[Guest]

I picked my ship modelling hobby up from my father whom in his youth was in America and got to chat with a couple of American pilots who had been involved in attacks on the Musashi and Yamato. He never told me personally this information but one day in my teens I can remember a conversation going on between him and a couple of other ship modellers at the time and I recall them mentioning Yamato and can distinctly remember him telling them that he was told that at least one of the two sisters' fore turrets was a markedly darker shade of grey,(almost a charcoal colour) than the other turrets ,something he went on to say a number of pilots noticed at the time.
I am not trying to start off a conspiracy theory here but I know he would not have said this unless someone had taken the trouble to tell him and hand on heart i am repeating what I clearly remember hearing myself.

This is interesting. A way to get more info on this would be to plow through the after mission reports of the 300 or so pilots on the mission because they were urged to report any unusual markings or camouflage on Japanese ships or aircraft.

[Timmy C]

There is no reason for the fore turret to not reflect as much as the aft turret because they are both equally exposed to direct sunlight.

Except that they are turned in opposite directions and that the top of the turrets are sloped - in essence, one is angled "towards" the sun and the other is angled "away".

And, demolishing this argument, there is the matter of the dark area on the starboard side of the superimposed turret, the side exposed to direct sunlight.

Again, it's about how much light is reflected upwards to the camera - note that the only point of comparison you can use is the side of the Turret 2, which is again sloped and will reflect a great deal more light to the observer than the near vertical slope of its barbette.


Going back to an earlier point, we should keep in mind how much lighter the right half of the picture is compared to the left. You can clearly see the demarcation line in the water and on the deck just in front of the first covered 25mm triple mount on the deck.

[bucketfoot-al]

Very interesting discussion. But not worth a trip to the National Archives in Washington, DC, I suspect.

I also suspect that if the myriad books about Yamato were translated from Japanese, it might answer the question. Every day I see loads of them on Yahoo Japan, and its awfully frustrating......

[JHS]

I am "Guest"---I didn't realize I wasn't logged-in!

There is nothing as dark as the fore turret in the whole photo except the shadow cast by the tower bridge, the shadow of the 18.1-in gun, the drenched areas of the deck from near misses (which accounts for the tonal differences on the deck), and (I suspect) some fire hoses running at full tilt on the starboard side aft by the 18.1-in turret. I don't have any idea what the reflectivity of the standard gray turrets have to do with the matter. If one looks carefully at the fore turret, you can see (1) that the rangefinder arms are topside gray for the most part, and (2) that the dark paint appears to have been applied unevenly.

Another interesting thing struck me while looking at this phot. The blast bags are missing from the fore 18.1-in turret and the aft 18.1-in turret! I wonder if the concussion of the firing of the guns tore them off?

And, what are those stripes running along the edge of the deck on the port side amidships?!

[bucketfoot-al]

Well, the blast bags might have been blown off by the bomb hits illustrated earlier - or just not fully visible due to shadows .... There also appears to be damage to the foredeck just in front of turret #1 (part of the sea barrier to starboard appears to be missing and a swath of dark is visible - about the same spot where the bomb hit pictured earlier was)

[Timmy C]

To attempt to clarify the argument that Chuck put forth (and with which I agree):

We are not talking about the paint reflectivity of the turrets. We are talking simply about the angle of the turret tops and how that affects the amount of sunlight that gets reflected up and into the camera. A surface that faces the sun will reflect more light into the camera - thus, that surface will appear brighter/lighter. A surface that faces away from the sun will reflect less light, and thus the surface will appear darker in the photograph. Is that clear? And which of the turret tops is facing towards and which is facing away from the sun, keeping in mind that the turret top slopes downwards toward the barrels?

As for why the tops of the rangefinder hoods are different, it can be explained by the fact the tops of the hoods were horizontal and not sloped - thus, for turret 1, they reflect more light from the sun than the top of the turret.


So the question should really be "Can the difference in lightness/darkness on the turrets be sufficiently accounted for by the surface angles and the amount of reflected light, or is it necessary to consider other factors, such as paint or explosion effects?"