Interesting dialogue; Shinano was lost, basically, as a result of being moved with a scratch crew, unfamiliar with the vessel and her operation. These vessels were not deficient with regards damage control capabilities. I would go so far as to say, at the time of their design and for the period of their existence, they had no equal. It is quite right to say: the Japanese Naval Architects and Engineers, who designed and built these vessels, were the world leaders in the design of surface combatants of the time.

I must ask, has it never occurred to you guys, to simply go ask the Japanese about the Yamato Class ships? Much is still known about these vessels and there is that magnificent model of Yamato; look it up on the web. I'm astounded you don't seem to know about it. I also know of at least one very good book on the Yamato Class in a library here in Brisbane, which includes a lot of the history of their original design and includes numerous drawings. If you like, I'll chase it up some time and send you the title, publisher, author, etc.
In the matter of detail, did you know, the design was at one stage intended to be diesel powered, if I remember rightly, diesel electric was considered, but don't hold me to that. Diesel powering could not be pursued as there were no diesel engines of adequate power available at the time and please keep in mind, the design of the Yamato Class goes back to at least the early thirties. from the view point of both Naval Architecture and Engineering considerations, they were a magnificent achievement.

I always find the comparisons of a theoretical shoot out between the Iowa and Yamato highly amusing; if I was going to be sitting in one of these boats, in such an event, it wouldn't be the Iowa. I suppose you're aware, it wasn't until the U.S. built the first of the America Class Carriers, that an Aircraft Carrier first equaled Shinano in size?

The Iowa and her sisters were much later designs and although beautiful and capable boats, they didn't even come close to the Yamato Class for technical novelty and sheer capability. When it really could have made a difference to the war in the Pacific, the Japanese officers commanding these magnificent vessels, were simply unable to risk them and declined to use them in the manner for which they were designed.
nero1234.

Originally Posted by nero1234

Interesting dialogue; Shinano was lost, basically, as a result of being moved with a scratch crew, unfamiliar with the vessel and her operation. These vessels were not deficient with regards damage control capabilities. I would go so far as to say, at the time of their design and for the period of their existence, they had no equal. It is quite right to say: the Japanese Naval Architects and Engineers, who designed and built these vessels, were the world leaders in the design of surface combatants of the time.

I must ask, has it never occurred to you guys, to simply go ask the Japanese about the Yamato Class ships? Much is still known about these vessels and there is that magnificent model of Yamato; look it up on the web. I'm astounded you don't seem to know about it. I also know of at least one very good book on the Yamato Class in a library here in Brisbane, which includes a lot of the history of their original design and includes numerous drawings. If you like, I'll chase it up some time and send you the title, publisher, author, etc.
In the matter of detail, did you know, the design was at one stage intended to be diesel powered, if I remember rightly, diesel electric was considered, but don't hold me to that. Diesel powering could not be pursued as there were no diesel engines of adequate power available at the time and please keep in mind, the design of the Yamato Class goes back to at least the early thirties. from the view point of both Naval Architecture and Engineering considerations, they were a magnificent achievement.

I always find the comparisons of a theoretical shoot out between the Iowa and Yamato highly amusing; if I was going to be sitting in one of these boats, in such an event, it wouldn't be the Iowa. I suppose you're aware, it wasn't until the U.S. built the first of the America Class Carriers, that an Aircraft Carrier first equaled Shinano in size?

The Iowa and her sisters were much later designs and although beautiful and capable boats, they didn't even come close to the Yamato Class for technical novelty and sheer capability. When it really could have made a difference to the war in the Pacific, the Japanese officers commanding these magnificent vessels, were simply unable to risk them and declined to use them in the manner for which they were designed.
nero1234.

Interesting viewpoint. It is often rare to find someone hold admiration for the Yamato Class.

Im aware of the enormous model of the Yamato at Kure. As well as the Shell and plating pierced by a later design of U.S. 16 inch shell after the war displayed in Virginia. Or the 18.1 inch shell preserved at Aberdeen U.S. Army Ordnance museum.Trust me, if you show interest in these ships you have visited at least one of the three sites.

There is a reason the U.S. furthered developing the 16 inch 50 cal gun and abandoned upping to 18.1 inches. Velocity over mass, penetration over size. At least this was what was concluded from tests in the Chesapeake using Japanese armor plating captured from Kure.


But despite their capability, both Yamato and Musashi were indeed the white elephants of their time. As the U.S. proved in it's FLEET PROBLEM exercises in the inter war period, and shown to the world on December 7th 1941 by the IJN. The days of the battleship were numbered. And it is often said the sinking of Task Force Z put the final nail in the coffin for ships like Yamato and Musashi being the supreme queen of naval fleets around the world.

As for their size and numbers. You cannot discount U.S. steel quality, and fire control radar. America could build higher quality steel to use to protect critical inner spaces on their battleships. Although these innovations did not make up for sheer amount of steel. The all or nothing priciple gave the newer American Battleships a fighting chance. Along with increased accuracy over the course of the war as radar guidance was placed on newer classes of battlships. Guns are destructive but as the Battle Of Jutland proved in the first WWI are almost useless when guided by the MK. 1 Eyeball.

Now in my humble opinion, the one of the most if not the best battlships ever built in terms of damage control are Nazi Germany's Tirptiz and Bismarck. Both had complex damage control layouts whose effectiveness was displayed in the Bismarck's final bloody hours. As well as her condition today.

Which case in point, returning to Musashi. Makes me wonder how well this design held up on her journey to the sea floor.

Originally Posted by nero1234

Interesting dialogue; Shinano was lost, basically, as a result of being moved with a scratch crew, unfamiliar with the vessel and her operation. These vessels were not deficient with regards damage control capabilities. I would go so far as to say, at the time of their design and for the period of their existence, they had no equal. It is quite right to say: the Japanese Naval Architects and Engineers, who designed and built these vessels, were the world leaders in the design of surface combatants of the time.

I am going to question this view as everything I have read, seen and been told tells me that the Yamato class ships were pigs regarding there damage control capabilities, this extends to accounts from crewmen about having to go down 3 decks and then back up to get to the room next door to where they started.

I also question the capability of its crew given its reputation as being the "party" ship of the IJN, it is clear from reading accounts of the ship during the years preceding its demise that they spent more time throwing tea parties for visiting dignitaries than preparing for war.

I conclude this in terms of Yamato's internal layouts and damage control versus comparable battleships of the day.

Visit a surviving Iowa Class battleship or research the Bismarck and Tirpitiz to see how other navies approached this issue.

Especially the later, compare Bismark's wreckage to Yamato to see which design practice held up better.

From the wreck pictures displayed on the following page, I'd say Yamato's damage control system didn't do her any favours.
http://battleshipyamato.info/wreck.html

My, but we don't sound like happy little campers, do we?

Ok, something to think about, Yamato was sunk by aircraft so let's just consider this for a moment and get the matter of damage control into some sort of perspective here. Two other big gun boats, not Japanese but British, were sunk in nearby waters, Repulse and Prince of Wales; the former a battle-cruiser and contemporary of HMS Hood.and the latter, one of the newest British battleships in the fleet.

Please consider the relative effort it took to sink the Yamato, in comparison with the Prince of Wales, more or less ignoring the case of the Repulse for the moment, being from a much earlier design era, I doubt you'd want to argue Prince of Wales was deficient in it's damage control aspects; she was, none the less, dispatched with ease,
by aircraft.

For a ship, reputedly so much of a party boat, she seems to have taken part in quite a few major fleet actions. It took at least 11 torpedoes and six bombs to sink Yamato; that doesn't sound to me like poor damage control. The following URL is not the best article available but it does address most of the items you raise, including the "party ship" description. Any major combatant that doesn't go to sea, for what ever reason, will gain a similar title form crews of those which do. That it is simply cost effective to not sally forth with high consumption fleet units, without real cause, when fuel is at a premium, is often overlooked by the uninformed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato
nero1234


nero1234

Originally Posted by nero1234

My, but we don't sound like happy little campers, do we?

Ok, something to think about, Yamato was sunk by aircraft so let's just consider this for a moment and get the matter of damage control into some sort of perspective here. Two other big gun boats, not Japanese but British, were sunk in nearby waters, Repulse and Prince of Wales; the former a battle-cruiser and contemporary of HMS Hood.and the latter, one of the newest British battleships in the fleet.

Please consider the relative effort it took to sink the Yamato, in comparison with the Prince of Wales, more or less ignoring the case of the Repulse for the moment, being from a much earlier design era, I doubt you'd want to argue Prince of Wales was deficient in it's damage control aspects; she was, none the less, dispatched with ease,
by aircraft.

For a ship, reputedly so much of a party boat, she seems to have taken part in quite a few major fleet actions. It took at least 11 torpedoes and six bombs to sink Yamato; that doesn't sound to me like poor damage control. The following URL is not the best article available but it does address most of the items you raise, including the "party ship" description. Any major combatant that doesn't go to sea, for what ever reason, will gain a similar title form crews of those which do. That it is simply cost effective to not sally forth with high consumption fleet units, without real cause, when fuel is at a premium, is often overlooked by the uninformed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato
nero1234


nero1234

Arguably you neglected my information provided on the armor samples tested from Kure after the War, nor the true development of high velocity 16 inch 50 Cal guns.

As for the Wales, yes, Planes Sink Battleships. As for risking capital ships in combat.
This problem has been raised since the days of sail, and will undoubtedly be raised with the coming CVN 21 class.

But that all went out the window from the operational loss of the Musashi. Which was attacked by submarines and aircraft.

Also less we not forget Yamato's final mission. White Elephant or not she was sacrificed on a suicide mission plain and simple.

Originally Posted by nero1234

For a ship, reputedly so much of a party boat, she seems to have taken part in quite a few major fleet actions. It took at least 11 torpedoes and six bombs to sink Yamato; that doesn't sound to me like poor damage control. The following URL is not the best article available but it does address most of the items you raise, including the "party ship" description. Any major combatant that doesn't go to sea, for what ever reason, will gain a similar title form crews of those which do. That it is simply cost effective to not sally forth with high consumption fleet units, without real cause, when fuel is at a premium, is often overlooked by the uninformed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato
nero1234

To be honest reading that pretty much confirms that its damage control systems were at best poorly designed as critical systems were put out of action in the first attack in fact that write up leads me to believe that the ship as a whole was poorly designed or at least a very outdated design.

Now I will be honest I am not a fan of the WW2 IJN I think it was poorly led and for the most part threw away its assets needlessly and even when it did have the upper hand it still managed to screw things up (failing to launch further strikes in the attack on Pearl Harbor and essentially running away from Taffy 3 to name two such instances) so that may cloud my judgement however I have still seen nothing that says the Yamato class ships were well designed they were just big.

To clarify things from my perspective, I really like the Yamato. It is simply awesome (in the proper sense of the word) in scale and another good example of how massive we humans can build things.
But...

Everything I've read about her final hours and having seen the images from the seabed and the diorama showing her final resting place firmly cements in my mind that she did not have good enough damage control.
To quote the article linked to "Normal practice would have been to flood the magazines, preventing any explosion, but the pumping stations that should have performed this task had been rendered unusable by previous flooding."
That's an unfortunate oversight at best and just bad design judgement at worst.

Hi fellas,

I thought it was supposed to be a matter of poor damage control, now we have the aspect of the matter of the armour of the Yamato Class as well. It was usual practice to design the armour of a vessel with the intent it should withstand incoming rounds of an equivalent force to the vessel's own guns. I distinctly remember there was considerable concern that the Iowa Class, the vessels most often compared to the Yamato Class, could not achieve this level of citadel protection.

Returning to the matter of damage control and the inability to flood a particular magazine due to an earlier counter-flooding action; the imperative is always to prevent the vessel foundering in the here and now, not the address of some future "possible" event; damage control is essentially a reactive process, usually carried out under extremely trying conditions and with limited resources. Had the zone containing the particular pump room servicing that magazine, not been flooded, there is every likelihood Yamato would have continued to list and in the short term roll over; at the very least, further listing would have further reduced the fighting ability of the vessel at the particular point in time. Its a no contest decision; you fix the immediate problem.

Ship design is a compromise, if you were to try and address every aspect of a surface combatant to the nth degree of survive ability, the vessel would be so complex it could not be built and it would be so weighty it would be a half tide rock and unfightable. You cover the threats as best you can without compromising the overall requirement and in the case of a battleship, this has always been, to bring the guns to bare and engage the enemy. By the way, following is a simple table of what it took to sink four big gun capital ships, under similar circumstances, by aviators; this clearly shows the Yamato Class vessels were not deficient in aspects of damage control, by direct comparison; unless of course, you wish to acknowledge that the two British capital ships were even more deficient in this aspect of ship design?
“Prince Of Wales”- 1941 Britain’s Newest Battleship, 11 torpedoes & 2 bombs
“Repulse” – 1916 (modernised) Battlecruiser, 5 torpedoes & 1 bomb
“Musashi” – 1942 Japan’s newest Battleship, 20 torpedoes & 17 bombs
“Yamato” – 1941 Japan’s largest Battleship, 6 torpedoes & 11 bombs

It is not always the weight of incoming ordnance that is important, so much as the criticality of the detonation zone; why else do you think America's current surface fleet is so limited to "over the horizon" combat scenarious. The US Navy recognizes the vulnerabilities of it's current vessels.
nero1234