Forum: Yamato

[MartinJQuinn]

Both Yamato and Musashi capsized. The RN concluded centerline or other inboard watertight longitudinal bulkheads were more of a menace to life and limb than justified on the basis of protecting the ship's life.

Design data for Yamato's turrets imply that a list of slightly more than 5 degrees was about the maximum under which the battery could train. Japanese arrangements were also notorious for inability to return to battery at high angles. I am sure Yamato would have been no exception.

W

Mushashi didn't sink bacause she capsized. She capsized because she was already plunging. When a ship is in Mushashi's way, whole bow submerged and rest of the ship very low, the righting moment becomes almost non-existent and even a slight amount of list moment can turn her over.

The fact that Yamato capsized in extremis does not change the fact that what took her to extremis would have sank most other battleships twice over. That fact really is the measure of her resistence, not how she finally succumbed after taking more than her share of damage.

I have to (ack!) agree with Chuck. Yes, both Musashi and Yamato capsized - but look at the punishment they took beforehand. Being used as target practice for the US Navy doesn't mean the design had a tendency to capsize.

Let's see what other Battleships capsized after suffering major torpedo damage:

Oklahoma
(West Virigina would have, if not for lightning quick damage control)
Repulse
Prince of Wales
Kongo

Repulse, PoW and Kongo (especially) suffered far less than Musashi and Yamato, yet they capsized. Was that a deficincy in their design?

The only exceptions of BB's not capsizing after suffering major torpedo damage I can think of, off the top of my head, are the Italian BB's at Taranto...and that may be the result of damage control more than the design.

[Werner]

From an operator's standpoint, the South Dakota class was not well liked. Their staff areas were cramped and these ships tended to pitch uncomfortably in Pacific swells. North Carolina was more accomodating and comfortable for the most part and was at first planned to be the Annapolis training ship until the budget axe caught her.

W

[Gone Asiatic]

Let's see what other Battleships capsized after suffering major torpedo damage:

Oklahoma
(West Virigina would have, if not for lightning quick damage control)
Repulse
Prince of Wales
Kongo

Add to this list HMS BARHAM (spectacular explosion as she rolls over to port) and that WWI Austro-Hungarian battleship that is caught on film turning turtle (attacked by a torpedo boat).

[Werner]

According to LaCroix and Friedman, something like 80% of Japanese cruisers turned turtle. Add to that Kirishima (certainly) and Hiei (possibly) in 1942 and Nagato in 1945. Fuso or Yamashiro capsized. Kongo evidently capsized. I am not condemning Japanese ships as some inferior lot; I am restating the findings of The RN DNC who concluded when designing Majestic and Collosus that centerline longitudinal bulkheads were a menace. If Ark Royal's compartments had been arranged differently without centerline bulkheads, she almost certainly would not have ended by flooding through uptakes on the starboard (low) side while under tow.

The CA Houston evidently sank with a 20 degree list but did not capsize. Vincennes, Astoria and Quincy did not capsize at Savo. Indianapolis did not capsize in 1945.

The CL Houston survived flooding amounting to over 80% of her buoyancy. It is hard to imagine how the ship could have remained afloat if that buoyancy was largely on one side of a centerline longitudinal bulkhead.

One final point. I reiterate the values by which we should measure a ship are not in what it takes to sink her, but what it takes to make it an ineffective fighting unit. Bismarck was put away by a single lucky torpedo to her stern which may as well have sent her to the bottom at that moment. She was finished. Musashi was ruined by the first torpedo which knocked out her fire control. After 4 hits in distant waters, she was doomed even if the USN did not follow up the attacks. To call her sinking by 16 torpedos is a testament to flight crews and deck handlers who could get off strikes before the ocean could fill her up.

You could not say that if she sank after an H-bomb was dropped on her it would be a testament to her construction. It would merely represent some level of violence well in excess of the actual force needed to sink her. Similarly, the score of the aircraft attacks on Yamato and Musashi represents an excess investment which did no more than advance their loss by a few hours.

Another point is the Japanese operators did not take measures to withdraw either ship from combat after the first hits. Had they behaved like US or British commanders they would not have plodded on, but done all possible to rescue their ships to fight another day. Musashi's damage control officer commiting suicide is not a helpful act.

W

[Werner]

Let's see what other Battleships capsized after suffering major torpedo damage:

Oklahoma
(West Virigina would have, if not for lightning quick damage control)
Repulse
Prince of Wales
Kongo

Add to this list HMS BARHAM (spectacular explosion as she rolls over to port) and that WWI Austro-Hungarian battleship that is caught on film turning turtle (attacked by a torpedo boat).

Of all these ships, only the two Americans do not have centerline bulkheads.

Oklahoma, based on the evidence did not capsize as such. Torpedo hits on the listing ship bodily pushed her over beyond the point at which her bilge was resting on the bottom and caused her to tumble. A 1991 US Naval Institute Proceedings engineering study of the damage to Oklahoma and West Virginia established this fact. If allowed to settle, Oklahoma would have returned to an even keel. The force of later explosions caused her to tumble in a way she could not have while in deeper water.

I imagine the same is true of West Virginia, which took torpedo strikes high on the main deck and even between the main and forecastle, implying she righted after sinking bodily between the first and second waves of torpedo bombers. The forecastle deck would mark the waterline if the ship was on the bottom. She could not have been far from completely sunk when the last wave of torpedos arrived.

W

[Gone Asiatic]

Bismarck was put away by a single lucky torpedo to her stern which may as well have sent her to the bottom at that moment.

HMS PRINCE OF WALES received a similar "lucky" (from a Japanese viewpoint) hit aft port which dislodged a propeller and warped the propeller shaft. The shaft was of course rotating at high speed. This compromised the stern tube and bulkhead shaft seals watertight integrity and allowed major flooding through shaft alley and into a dynamo that was providing power to PoW`s main AAA batteries, many of which were subsequently silenced early in the fight.

Had this not occured, Royal Navy might have brought down a few more torpedo planes, which, according to Admiral Phillips, were not supposed to be flying abouts that day.

[Filipe Ramires]

Interesting points here. First, Kirishima, she probably turned turtle indeed but that was not because of the hits that she suffered from Washington. Besides, she was scuttled by 4 Long-lance torpedoes from her destroyers screen...that sunk her not the hits on the superstructures!! Second, there was a very lucky ship, besides Washington, in that one battle...and this one is South Dakota. She got badly hit by shells and the japanese ships even fired around 30 torpedoes against her which none found the proper marks (they hit the US destroyers in fact). The thing is what would have happened to South Dakota if she got hit by 2 or 3 torpedoes that night??? Probably another 35.000 tons of metal resting on the bottom of Iron Bottom Sound!

[tony t]

Bismarck was put away by a single lucky torpedo to her stern which may as well have sent her to the bottom at that moment.

HMS PRINCE OF WALES received a similar "lucky" (from a Japanese viewpoint) hit aft port which dislodged a propeller and warped the propeller shaft. The shaft was of course rotating at high speed. This compromised the stern tube and bulkhead shaft seals watertight integrity and allowed major flooding through shaft alley and into a dynamo that was providing power to PoW`s main AAA batteries, many of which were subsequently silenced early in the fight.

Had this not occured, Royal Navy might have brought down a few more torpedo planes, which, according to Admiral Phillips, were not supposed to be flying abouts that day.

Interesting is an account I read that said the Japanese bombers had mistakenly attacked one of their own ships the day before, so they were a lot more tentative in identifying and attacking POW and Repulse..

[Guest]

Yamato and Iowas are entirely different generations. Yamato is also Japans first attempt at a modern BB while the US and GB had several (NC, Rodney,KGV), I would say for their first attempt, they knocked the ball out of the field. Also, Werner if you could tell me one US capital ship that suffered as much damage as the 2 sisters while maintaining a speed of 21kts or over, and still returning fire, you win!

zach b

[Guest]

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.

Just to set the record straight on this, I have attached two sections. The left one is South Dakota, the right is Iowa. Please show me the revolution in design represented in Iowa....

W

Nice BTW, but too bad it does not take into account top speed, overall length, length of water line, the subtle differences in how each ship responds to flooding, the division of engineering spaces, CIC differences, different caliber main rifles, different skeg designs, lets not forget the characteristics that go along with that. It's almost like they are two entirely different ships!

zach b

[Werner]

Yes, Zach. But your prior list also included armor as a difference between them and an advance by Iowa. Now you retract that.

Iowa's skeg and stern are a retreat to North Carolina. Look at the basin model pictures. The fine 16-inch/50 calibre guns are not a generational advance. The 6-inch and 8-inch automatics are. The steam conditions are about the same, only more equipment in Iowa. These and the arrangements you mention most certainly do not place Iowa into a new generation apart from South Dakota any more than West Virginia is a separate generation from Nevada (all 12 called the "Standard Type").

W

[Guest]

Yes, Zach. But your prior list also included armor as a difference between them and an advance by Iowa. Now you retract that.

Iowa's skeg and stern are a retreat to North Carolina. Look at the basin model pictures. The fine 16-inch/50 calibre guns are not a generational advance. The 6-inch and 8-inch automatics are. The steam conditions are about the same, only more equipment in Iowa. These and the arrangements you mention most certainly do not place Iowa into a new generation apart from South Dakota any more than West Virginia is a separate generation from Nevada (all 12 called the "Standard Type").

W

is the armor exactly the same? My whole point is Iowa is a generation ahead of Yamato. Iowa is the culmination, the ultimate expression of naval architecture for the US on BB design (realised that is, as Montana neverhit the slipways). Each subsequent design from a former is an advance, that is how it works. You claim the skeg design in Iowa is a retreat to a former design, but does it take into account that maybe the SoDak skegs were less than optimal when compared to NC, or when used on Iowa test models.

The whole point is Iowas were designed after Yamato, thus they are a generation ahead.

zach b

[chuck]

Yamato and Iowas are entirely different generations. Yamato is also Japans first attempt at a modern BB while the US and GB had several (NC, Rodney,KGV), I would say for their first attempt, they knocked the ball out of the field. Also, Werner if you could tell me one US capital ship that suffered as much damage as the 2 sisters while maintaining a speed of 21kts or over, and still returning fire, you win!

zach b

I assume by "modern", you meant post Jutland, all or nothing, plunging firing, tonnage constrained design. For Japan has been building battleships competitive by their contempoary standards since about 1905.

Whether US had several prior attempts at "modern" battleships is not all that relevent. The critical point is none of those prior attempts had yet seen service when Iowas were being designed, so prior NC and SD offered no real practical experience for Iowa designers to draw upon. For all practical purposes, NC and SD were no more than mere skill-refreshing, theoretical design exercises for the Iowa designers.

Japan too had conducted full designs of "modern", 35,000 ton battleships prior to Yamato, and those designs were fully intended for production just as SD and NC designs were. 2 of those were intended to replace the Kongo and Fuso classes at the expiration of Washington treaty, but which was aborted because of later London treaty. The Japanese designers of Yamato must have learned just as much from these designs as US designers had from SD and NC.

As to the Nelsons, yes, British undoubtedly learned from the Nelsons. The Japanese did too. If you were to trace the design history of Yamato class, you would find that the final, classical, 2 triple turret forward, 1 triple turret aft design layout of Yamato was in fact a late breaking development in the course of Yamato's design evolution. Yamato's design went through some 25 separate stages during the each of which a complete, ready to build design was prepared, examined, models built, test rigs made, and ultimately rejected for one reason or another. During the first 23 or so, the Japanese designers favored a general layout (both internal, and external), which clearly based on that of the Nelsons. It was only at the 11th hour that the Japanese decided they really could not do with a battleship that has no major caliber astern fire at all (Plus the fact they finally gave up as hopeless the task of building a 65,000 ton ship with 8-9 18" guns, full immunity zone against the same weapon, and capable of 32 knots. They accepted that a major reduction in speed to 27-28 knots was unavoidable if the ship was not to be critically compromised in other ways. Thus they were able to liberate some tonnage originally tied up in machinery weight, giving them the room to lengthen the citadel and move 1 turret aft).

[Guest]

I still do not believe Iowas was Yamatos contemporary. Iowas were the answer to a perceived BB that Japan was building. How does Yamato compare with NC,KGV,Bismark? No comparison.

zach b

[chuck]

I still do not believe Iowas was Yamatos contemporary. Iowas were the answer to a perceived BB that Japan was building. How does Yamato compare with NC,KGV,Bismark? No comparison.

zach b

They are damned close to being contempories, they mainly differ in the role they intended to play. Iowas are not the answer to Yamato. US Navy didn't know about Yamato. Montana was US ideal of a battleship that can handle any heavy slugger the Japanese are thought to be likely to build, without specifically knowing what the Japanese aactually were building. Yamatos were the Japanese ideal of a battleship that can handle any heavy slugger the US are thought to be likely to build after the South Dakotas and North Caorlinas, which the Japanese already know about. Iowas were not that heavy slugger.

Iowas themselves were, if anything, meant mainly as a counter to Kongos, but with enough cushion in strength and protection built in so that they won't become hopeless as soon as the Japanese themselves replace the Kongos with a more modern design. It turns out the Japanese never specifically planned to replace the Kongos. Rather, they imagined the role of the Kongos would just gradually fade away.

[Guest]

I am sure you have sources that I am not privy to, but I am not ready to believe that the Iowas are an answer to a dreadnought era BC. Why not the NC she was to be armed with 14 weapons and armored against the same.

So if I understand what you and Werner are saying, there is no improvement in US BB designs post Washington treaty? The designs are all the same, if that is true, why not make all US BB of the NC class, why make 2 new classes after? As a designer you seek to make improvements on every design, otherwise why bother? Yamato was designed before the Iowas and Sodak. Yamato was patrolling before Iowa was on the slip. US intel had to have known Japan was building BB again and would have incorporated this into its designs. Since Iowa was still being designed at this point, some of these suspicions would have been accounted for in her design. Does this mean she is the perfect answer to a speculated super BB? No, but she was designed to answer that call. Once the US was able to observe Yamato, then design work started on a more appropriate reply, Montana.

As far as Yamato being the ultimate culmination of Japans BB design, yes she was, but I would have to say she was still a generation behind Iowa, there fore the two cannot be be looked at with the same colored lenses. Despite the former, Yamato's hull design was ahead of it's time especially in its ability efficiently get to where it needed to with surprising speed. Yamato's hull was much better suited for it's job than was Iowas, or any other BB for that matter.

Of course this is all my opinion.

zach b

[chuck]

I am sure you have sources that I am not privy to, but I am not ready to believe that the Iowas are an answer to a dreadnought era BC. Why not the NC she was to be armed with 14 weapons and armored against the same.

So if I understand what you and Werner are saying, there is no improvement in US BB designs post Washington treaty? The designs are all the same, if that is true, why not make all US BB of the NC class, why make 2 new classes after? As a designer you seek to make improvements on every design, otherwise why bother? Yamato was designed before the Iowas and Sodak. Yamato was patrolling before Iowa was on the slip. US intel had to have known Japan was building BB again and would have incorporated this into its designs. Since Iowa was still being designed at this point, some of these suspicions would have been accounted for in her design. Does this mean she is the perfect answer to a speculated super BB? No, but she was designed to answer that call. Once the US was able to observe Yamato, then design work started on a more appropriate reply, Montana.

As far as Yamato being the ultimate culmination of Japans BB design, yes she was, but I would have to say she was still a generation behind Iowa, there fore the two cannot be be looked at with the same colored lenses. Despite the former, Yamato's hull design was ahead of it's time especially in its ability efficiently get to where it needed to with surprising speed. Yamato's hull was much better suited for it's job than was Iowas, or any other BB for that matter.

Of course this is all my opinion.

zach b

Iowa was the result of a debate within the USN over what to do with the extra 10,000 tons made available as result of London treaty escalation provision. The two school of thoughts all proceeded off the South Dakota design:

1. Add an extra turret to the South Dakota design to get a slow, 23-24 knot, very heavily armed battleship with moderately adaquate protection.

2. Double the installed engine power and get a very fast, 33-34 knot, moderately heavily armed battleship with moderately adaquate protection.

The debate was settled when a series of wargames indicated that if the Japanese were to unleash 3 (the forth was still assumed to be a crippled training ship) 29-30 knot Kongos either together or separately in long range raids, it could cause serious havoc with the overall situation in the Pacific, and the NC and SD were in fact not fast enough to counter them, and in any cases can not be counted on to be spared from other duties.

This tipped the balance in favor of the fast version.

So while Iowas capabilities are certainly not limited to countering the Dreadnought era Kongos, it is still true that were it not for the Kongos, Iowas as we knew them would not likely exist. A slow, lumbering, miniature Montana would likely be built in their place, and it is not clear what would follow them.

[Guest]

OK what about the rest? Agree, or are you wrong?

zach b

[Guest]

OK what about the rest? Agree, or are you wrong?

zach b

of coarse I am only kidding.

[Werner]

Until the last moment a competitive design for BB 55 was an updated West Virginia with similar speed and more armor.

North Carolina represents a deliberate step away from the preceding 12 balanced ships and to a line of faster ships designed mostly to counter threats of the 8-inch gun cruiser and the light battleships of France(Strassbourg), Germany (Scharnhorst) and Japan (the very updated Kongos).

This discussion of the natural history of the battleship is very similar to the ones we have about the phylogeny of extinct creatures. While Zach wants to make separate genera for nearly each battleship, I prefer to distinguish pre- and post- "standard" types as two generic groups.

W