Washington and WWI

[Guest]

Indeed, the last 4 ships planned in the Japanese 8-8 program were 30 knot ships with 8X18" guns in twin turrets, and protected with 13 inch belts. In other words, a ship protected roughly to the same degree as Queen Elizabeth, with armament disposed in roughly Queen Elizabeth style, but with 18" guns and increased speed.

[Laurence Batchelor]

I was hoping you of all people Chuck would remember cus I can't!

But I think you confirmed my suspicions Hood's inclined belt was guess what, yep you guessed it Jutland experience again!

Nelson & Rodney had this also and as they are scaled down G3's then its likely those new designs also incorporated that design feature brought about from WWI battle experience.

So have we settled then? like I've been saying from the beginning, the answer is NO, because they might have 18-20" guns but they would be slower and less well protected than Jutland & WWI influenced 1920/22 ships?
27knts as you say and not 32knts and would only be as well protected or marginably better than a QE/R-class.

[Werner]

If the rounds weigh in at 2 1/2 tons and can't fire more often than once every minute to 90 seconds, what's the point? The USA found automatic loading machinery a menace in Alaska. The very reason the US CAs were withdrawn from the South Pacific was their awful rate of fire.

You don't go deer hunting with a pirate's carronade.

[Guest]

Yamato's main battery firing cycle is 25 seconds at 5 degree elevation and 38 seconds at 45 degrees.

[Werner]

Yamato's main battery firing cycle is 25 seconds at 5 degree elevation and 38 seconds at 45 degrees.

Except when the guns refused to return to battery. Evidently the pneumatic system was defective and the guns often only returned to battery at 0 degrees and/or with block and tackle. According to LaCroix, all the later Japanese guns were overrated and their apparatus failed often.

Even the hopeless optimist Skulski notes 28 seconds at 5 degrees and 40 seconds at 45 degrees in his Anatomy of the Ship: Yamato.

Consider the contradiction that the Japanese 46cm gun relied nearly as much on manpower for loading as a US or British turret, yet the Japanese chose the 5.5 inch gun over the 6 incher because they felt the smaller round would allow the Japanese sailors to fight longer before fatigue set in.
Hmmm.

Yamato's cyclic rate may as well have been 500 rounds/minute... She never hit a thing of value to Japan's enemies with those guns: Not a sausage. Quite a comparison to Scharnhorst's 28cm.

In fact, I think the chaste assertions that the superior Yamato class were being shepherded for the "Decisive Battle" when they would obviously have made the difference off the Solomons are baloney. I think they were in fact defective, and the Japanese Admiralty have hid this from history.

Why would they vibrate less than North Carolina? Why would they have fewer stability problems than Mogami? Why would their guns be better than the British 15/42 or the US 16/50? We only have their word for it... and they destroyed the papers... an Admiralty with an ingrained inferiority complex.

Another detail: A damaged Yamato could only be docked at Singapore (within reach of B-24s) or the Home Islands.

In sum, the Japanese 46cm gun and the ship that carried it is a pig in a poke.

[Guest]

Neither US, nor British, nor Japanese, nor any WWII battleship era I know of relied on manpower for any portion of loading major caliber guns. You are confusing full power loading with automatic loading. WWII main guns relied on man power to move the levers to operate the powered ammunition transfer equipment, thus they are not automatic. But they are fully powered. 6" gun is just about the biggest anyone would attempt to rely on real man powered loading drill during WWI, and hence the Japanese decision to reduce that to 5.5" in older battleships to suite smaller loaders. By WWII, all new turreted 6" guns are mostly power loaded as well, with few, if any, portion remaining to man powered. During WWII only guns of 5" or below does there still exist a more or less complete manual loading drill.

The issue with gun run out was confined to the model of 8" turret fitted to Myoko class CA. It may have had some symptoms of what you describe, but it is not as severe there as you imply, Myoko class cruisers successfully engaged targets out to 30,000 yards in 1942. Certainly it is not a disease enough to seriously hamper the efficiency of that class. There is no evidence, other than extrapolation, that this problem might exist in other Japanese naval guns.

During workup after their 1944 refits, both Yamato and Musashi, operating with Nagato, successfully engaged towed targets 22.5 miles away. That's 39,000 yards. Normally that doesn't carry as much weight with me, but I thought it should carry a great deal of weight with you since you like to troop out fact that pre-war USN and German navies exercised (results unknown) at 30,000 yard ranges as evidence of their superior long range gunnery skills compared to the Japanese.

[Guest]

Why would they vibrate less than North Carolina?

...

Why would they have fewer stability problems than Mogami?

...

Why would their guns be better than the British 15/42 or the US 16/50?

Perhaps unthinking flippancies like this deserves equally contemptuous flippancies in response:

- Because any average battleship vibrated much less than North Carolina.

- Because the Yamatos had 38 meter beam.

- Because their shells weighed 3200 lbs.

[Filipe Ramires]

That made me laught a lot, Chuck!!!!

[ar]

Re, North Carolina class vibration.
About fifteen years ago I had a long conversation in Manhatten with Richely Nevitt, a naval constructor (now deceased).
He was intimately familar with the techical details of the class, recounting some of the difficulties. So bad was the problem that the gunners of the twin five inch mounts could NOT keep their eyes to the gun sights when the ship reached a speed of about 22knots. After trying warious remedies including bracing and stiffing, none of which worked, a radical proposal was offered; that of moving the gearing several feet further aft.* This was done almost out of desperation and appeared to have worked to the degree that the two ships could be sent on further trials.
Vibration was still present over 22 knots but not TOO excessive. The USN was still not happy, and the problem came to the attention of sea going officers of the RN in 1942 when the ships served in the artic.
Anybody who is interested in the above may wish to keep these notes as they were related from FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

* Those familar with this type of solution will appreciate the enormity of what was done, and there was a terrible fear that this problem would be present in many of the other battleships and cruisers under construction.

Why would they vibrate less than North Carolina?

...

Why would they have fewer stability problems than Mogami?

...

Why would their guns be better than the British 15/42 or the US 16/50?

Perhaps unthinking flippancies like this deserves equally contemptuous flippancies in response:

- Because any average battleship vibrated much less than North Carolina.

- Because the Yamatos had 38 meter beam.

- Because their shells weighed 3200 lbs.

[Werner]

Neither US, nor British, nor Japanese, nor any WWII battleship era I know of relied on manpower for any portion of loading major caliber guns.

If you're going to resort to mean spiritedness, I hope you stop failing to log in.

As I am sure you know, the movement of heavy ammunition inside a ship was almost exclusively hand power with the aid of rope slings (called "parbuckling"). The shell was moved by rotating it's nose through a nutating circle, causing the base to progress in the desired direction. Admiral King ordered one of the Idaho class to fire to exhaustion in 1942 in order to determine the effects of fatigue on the crew which must manhandle the shells one at a time.

Referring to Skulski, it appears both shell and cordite were subject to similar degrees of manhandling, whether the battleship was Japanese or American. Only the late US and British cruisers (1948) featured the "Coke Bottle" assembly techniques which allowed them to combine the selected round and charge at the gun and load at any angle with very limited human intervention.

Alaska had a rammer to move shells between the inner and outer rings, which caused jamming and catastrophic damage on at least one occasion.

It would be more interesting to discuss this if you weren't such a wuss as to hide behind "Guest" and would bother to read the principle articles on the subject. God help our electrical grid if this is the way you do your job.

I am frankly tired of the snotty-nosed shooting from the hip "Japanese designed battleships must have been best because they said so" junk. Hereafter, I expect substantial and meaningful information to be posted here. People like Chuck who post anonymously simply to gainsay my researched position can expect to have their posts deleted.

[Werner]

Re, North Carolina class vibration.
About fifteen years ago I had a long conversation in Manhatten with Richely Nevitt, a naval constructor (now deceased).
He was intimately familar with the techical details of the class, recounting some of the difficulties. So bad was the problem that the gunners of the twin five inch mounts could NOT keep their eyes to the gun sights when the ship reached a speed of about 22knots. After trying warious remedies including bracing and stiffing, none of which worked, a radical proposal was offered; that of moving the gearing several feet further aft.* This was done almost out of desperation and appeared to have worked to the degree that the two ships could be sent on further trials.
Vibration was still present over 22 knots but not TOO excessive. The USN was still not happy, and the problem came to the attention of sea going officers of the RN in 1942 when the ships served in the artic.
Anybody who is interested in the above may wish to keep these notes as they were related from FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

* Those familar with this type of solution will appreciate the enormity of what was done, and there was a terrible fear that this problem would be present in many of the other battleships and cruisers under construction.

... ... Perhaps unthinking flippancies like this deserves equally contemptuous flippancies in response:

- Because any average battleship vibrated much less than North Carolina.

- Because the Yamatos had 38 meter beam.

- Because their shells weighed 3200 lbs.

I never said North Carolina didn't vibrate. In fact, I chose it because of it's well known, near-worst-case status. Atlanta was probably the worse case. I am sick and tired of taking the idea that Japanese designs were better than the rest of the world's simply because we have their word on it. The Allies were frank with their problems. The Japanese were not. Because of Fujita, for example, we have been laboring under misconceptions regarding their naval air power for sixty years. I have no reason to believe their other leaders would have conducted themselves in a manner different to Fujita (in this case).

Unless you have solid evidence (accelerometer measurements for example) which show the glass-like properties of Yamato, I would say we are on equal ground and there is substantial reason to believe Yamato was as buzzy a beast as any fast battleship. There are, after all, anecdotal references from common seamen complaining that paint cans were destroyed on a 24 hour power run aboard Yamato.

Besides, the fact that she or her sister (and Nagato and Mutsu for that matter) never hit anything is pretty much of a giveaway.

Most USN DE crewmen found no difficulty with their ships; most RN DE Captain class crewmen were hoping for a draught note taking them to other duty. The difference is the USN personnel did not know what a bad seaboat the DE was and bore their sufferings in silence. Should that elevate the position of the DE in the military world? I say no more then the above arguments justify the reported superiority of IJN Designs.

[Filipe Ramires]

I am frankly tired of the snotty-nosed shooting from the hip "Japanese designed battleships must have been best because they said so" junk.

No one is saying that Japan had the best designed battleships here. Everyone knows how useless they were during the war for the various reasons spoken here for countless times.
It appears is that what it is happening here is that some people just don't want to give the Japanese warships any credit at all of what they were capable of disregarding ship types now.

Hereafter, I expect substantial and meaningful information to be posted here.

Well, when you post that an hypothetical battle between Des Moines and Yamato is a substantial information then you get pretty much anything else of what goes in the imagination of people here for the simple fact that such battle never took place, therefore it was never proved what could have really happen and last but not least hardly considered by all of us except you a substantial information.

[ar]

Yamato's main battery firing cycle is 25 seconds at 5 degree elevation and 38 seconds at 45 degrees.

Do you mean per gun?

[Werner]

Perhaps I have been too harsh, but in my defense, I have to rebuild a half-terabyte scientific database from the backup performed 12/27/06. I didn't sign on to be the only bit-fiddler. The lack of a more recent backup is malfeasance.

In this forum we have a tendency to compare the worst reported characteristics of British or American ships to the best inferred characteristics of German or Japanese ships. This is especially unfair in comparisons of Japanese ships. Their naval constructors were deeply mistrustful xenophobic and paranoid.

Why were all documents related to these ships ordered destroyed? There are the conventional excuses, but nobody besides me seems willing to put 2 and 2 together and make the plausible assertion that they were in fact defective ships. Combined with their employment, I think the conclusion is defensible.

I have hammered for several years with challenges regarding Japanese gunfire performance. No one has risen to the bait, but no one can refute my premise at all.

It's a rotten shame that people here are so closed minded to the possibilities.

[Werner]

No one is saying that Japan had the best designed battleships here. Everyone knows how useless they were during the war for the various reasons spoken here for countless times.

What do you mean? Practically everyone says Yamato was the best battleship. The countless models from many vendors are a testament to this belief.

Well, when you post that an hypothetical battle between Des Moines and Yamato is a substantial information then you get pretty much anything else of what goes in the imagination of people here for the simple fact that such battle never took place, therefore it was never proved what could have really happen and last but not least hardly considered by all of us except you a substantial information.

Of course this battle never happened. But the point was not that the American Cruiser was a superior fighting ship in any way on even odds, but the US radar and gunnery had reached the point of development by the late 1940s where accuracy and rate of fire at long range were equalizers. The US ship would fight the battle beyond visual range, where Yamato was powerless. The putative battle was meant to provoke thought. Instead, we had dozens of authors rushing to put forward the conventional wisdom as an emotional argument.

Based on the ideas I've seen here in the past, I am shocked to learn the Allies won the Pacific War.

[Filipe Ramires]

Werner, don't take all of this as a personel attack please. We are not here for that at all...at least I speak for myself.
We are not closed minds here...we just stick with the information which is available. Yamato was an unproven ship in many ways and the same goes to other ships of the IJN and other navies. If we don't have any more information available either having it been destroyed when the war ended etc etc we stick with what we have. Taking theories and hypothetical scenarios can be a shot on the feet sometimes...we will never know what could have happened. Des Moines could have eventually taken Yamato and went victorious after the engament but same goes if the Japanese BB scores a couple of lucky hits on the USN cruiser. I know the odds are more favourable to the USN ship but it could have happened the other way. Like I said we will never know.
Regarding the destruction of documents I see that as a common procedure in any war loosers in History. There is always something to hide from your victorious enemy.

[Werner]

Re, North Carolina class vibration.
About fifteen years ago I had a long conversation in Manhatten with Richely Nevitt, a naval constructor (now deceased).
He was intimately familar with the techical details of the class, recounting some of the difficulties. So bad was the problem that the gunners of the twin five inch mounts could NOT keep their eyes to the gun sights when the ship reached a speed of about 22knots. After trying warious remedies including bracing and stiffing, none of which worked, a radical proposal was offered; that of moving the gearing several feet further aft.* This was done almost out of desperation and appeared to have worked to the degree that the two ships could be sent on further trials.
Vibration was still present over 22 knots but not TOO excessive. The USN was still not happy, and the problem came to the attention of sea going officers of the RN in 1942 when the ships served in the artic.
Anybody who is interested in the above may wish to keep these notes as they were related from FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

* Those familar with this type of solution will appreciate the enormity of what was done, and there was a terrible fear that this problem would be present in many of the other battleships and cruisers under construction.

This is all well and true, but the author has not explained why BB55 & BB56 were the only US treaty battleships refit for training and cruising post war. I don't think it was simply so they could go to Southampton and Portsmouth to bake bread and supply food to the British civil population.

[Filipe Ramires]

What do you mean? Practically everyone says Yamato was the best battleship. The countless models from many vendors are a testament to this belief.

I don't recall ever saying that Yamato was the best battleship ever. The facts are that she was the most heaviest one in terms of displacement and the one with more armour and sizeable main guns. On the other hand I don't point her out as being the most useless battleship in History. The fact that there are dozens of models of Yamato in the market is no sign of her efficiency at all. She was famous for the features I said above and that's it. There are also dozens of models of Bismarck and that doesn't make him the best BB in History at all. Companies produce famous ships because modelers like famous ships...it's as simple as that.

Based on the ideas I've seen here in the past, I am shocked to learn the Allies won the Pacific War.

Allies won the Pacific war because of 4 main reasons basically: Numbers, technology, intelligence, doctrine. Japan had very little to get to the levels of the Allies in any of these terms...that's why they lost the war. But that's another matter which I could spend a full afternoon here writing about it.

[Pedro Brand�o]

Hello to you all

I have a few things to say that have not yet been said!

I do not belive that the RN would construct ships contesting the IJN.
Why?

First, if there is not a Washington Treaty: The2 navies will continue to be strong allies. Both countries have problems with the Germans. Let us not forget that in this case study WWI never happened and that Germany still have good Empire in the pacific, a empire that japans really would like to have.
What made the 2 navies fell apart was the Washington Treaty.

More likely, it would be the japanese navy constructing their ships to opose the german navy and the USN.

Second, I do not think that in 20 years, whith the advance in guns from the 15/16' to maybe 20/22', the problem of an understreng deck would not be decouvered. This could only make sense if the navies didn't tested their guns!!!!

As a side not....

Let us be honest with each other!!!
In the case Des Moines versus Yamato, what would hapens would be a Des Moines geting the hell out of there.

Pedro Brand�o

[ar]

Dear Warner,
No need to get upset, it's not life or death.

All you need to know is that the Vanguard was the best battleship ever built.

The Yamatos had the greatest margin of deadweight per ton.

The Iowas had an inefficient hull form, (parallel hull for some length below the waterline).

The Bismarcks were passable but not brillant.

Jean Bart, nothing special, and one should never have quadruple turrets, even if they were paired twins. Triples are bad eough.

The Italians, not a clue.

Why Vanguard? The Royal Navy had the greatest amount of design and construction knowledge, and by far, the most COMBAT EXPERIENCE. The RN was the ONLY navy to suffer the loss of a modern battleship and then able to incorporate those lessons in follow-on construction. ie Anson, Howe and Vanguard. Nobody else did this or was able to.
There, that should do it.