PDA

View Full Version : The biggest baddest strongest BB during ww2



elitecomando
07-19-2006, 03:15 PM
the yamato class battleship with her giant 18.1 inch guns

http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~hiroshin/pictures/japan/hiroshima/hiroshima2.jpg

http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~hiroshin/pictures/japan/hiroshima/hiroshima1.jpg

http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~hiroshin/pictures/japan/hiroshima/hiroshima5.jpg

http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~hiroshin/pictures/japan/hiroshima/hiroshima6.jpg

beautiful ship in all ways very sad that it was sunk hopefully some country wil have the money and guts to make a new 21st century yamato class BB , RIP yamato

Kaleun1961
07-19-2006, 04:29 PM
The battleship has had its day in the sun. Carrier aviation and other airborne systems have made them outmoded and too expensive to build or operate.

That's quite the model of Yamato. What is the scale?

Bucketlung
07-19-2006, 05:44 PM
And do you know where the model is located? That is impressive.

rodan54
07-19-2006, 06:02 PM
It's a 1/10th scale model located at the Kure Maritime Museum.

Here's some more photos that really give you a true idea of the models immense size. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://www.oshipee.com/omami/e-photo-yamatomuseum.htm

Boy, would I love to go there, too bad I live all the way across the Pacific. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

elitecomando
07-19-2006, 08:06 PM
heres the website

http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~hiroshin/pictures/japan/hiroshima/hiroshima.html (http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/%7Ehiroshin/pictures/japan/hiroshima/hiroshima.html)

museum for ww2 including hiroshima nuke etc...

46 cm shell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:46_cm_Shell_as_fired...attleship_Yamato.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:46_cm_Shell_as_fired_by_the_battleship_Yamat o.jpg)

FDNYFAN
07-20-2006, 10:19 AM
It was the biggest indead only they stranded it on a sandbench to use it as artillery. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Pretty expensive artillery if you ask me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

The_Silent_O
07-20-2006, 10:24 AM
Heh, it might have been the biggest...but that don't necessarily mean it's the baddest.

In a One to One with an Iowa Class, it would have lost.

See the following astute analysis:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

Fire controls systems, baby, fire control systems and radar...big don't mean anything if it can't hit anything.

Kaleun1961
07-20-2006, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Rafe1:
It was the biggest indead only they stranded it on a sandbench to use it as artillery. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Pretty expensive artillery if you ask me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Yamato met her end when she was sent on a one way suicide sortie [not enough fuel to return to Japan] to Okinawa, April 7, 1945. The plan was for Yamato to beach herself if she could get through the cordon of ships and support the fighting on Okinawa.

Yamato was escorted by one light cruiser and eight destroyers. The Japanese task force was attacked by 386 American aircraft. Losses to the Japanese were Yamato, the light cruiser Yahagi; four destroyers sunk and four destroyers damaged. American losses were about twelve planes lost, the equivalent of one squadron.

As demonstrated, the battleship era was drawing to a close. Aircraft carriers and aircraft are relatively less expensive than battleships and much more versatile. The destruction of the British Force Z demonstrated beyond doubt that battleships operating without air cover were sitting ducks.

For those interested, here is a site concerning naval battles in the Pacific in WW2:

Pacific Naval Battles (http://www.combinedfleet.com/map.htm)

With SH4 to be a Pacific theater game, we may find this information handy when it comes time for us to sail our subs into battle against Japan.

cpt_Alex2006
07-20-2006, 11:19 AM
1 comment, can I get that many flak on a type VII?

TheRealWulfmann
07-20-2006, 11:22 AM
Not only that the 18.1 inch guns on Yamato and Musashi were mediocre guns while the 16inch on Iowa was likely the best large gun ever made, ballistically superior in every way. The Yamato fired a 3200 pound shell while the Iowa a 2700LB AP. With superior gunnery control luck of hit placement would decide the fight.
The Iowa was the only battleship built that could have fought Yamato on equal terms and only the H-39 begun but cancelled with 16.65 inch guns was in the same class.
A straight fight between H-39 and Iowa would also have been interesting in 1944 as the Arctic convoys with its bad weather might have made that a possibility but, alas, we shall only dream of such events.
The Japs rarely used Yamato at all because of huge fuel consumption rates. Only the 4 Kongo class saw much action, good ships they were.
The time of battleships slugging it out was long over in 44 and even the last major event in 41 was decided by an airborne torpedo into Bismarck‚‚ā¨ôs rudder.
If deeds decide who was the baddist Bismarck has no equal
Wulfmann

Kaleun1961
07-20-2006, 11:30 AM
If you explore within the link provided by Rodan 54, you will see that a film company in Japan has built a life size model of part of Yamato for filming purposes. A three disc DVD set is to be released in Japan in August. Sadly, it seems only to be available in Japanese. Let's hope it will be made available in English as well.

Yamato Movie at Amazon Japan (http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/switch-language/product/B000C5PNSW/503-2460001-1200721?%5Fencoding=UTF8&language=en%5FJP)

Full Scale Movie Model of Yamato (http://www.oshipee.com/omami/e-frame-photo-yamatomovieset.htm)

TheRealWulfmann
07-20-2006, 11:33 AM
As for building a battleship it would actually be impossible today. The equipment to build armored ships evolved to the point it had in WWII.
Its dismantling and loss of personal capable of even knowing how to do it is gone. Making heavy armor is a huge industry and it would cost trillions to make anew and easily defeated for pennies by comparison.
Heavy armor is like building something that can withstand the force of a train if stopped on the railroad tracks. Better to just move off the tracks and not be hit by the train. An armored goliath would only attract say 386 aircraft.
Battleships were iconic representatives of nations or perhaps their egos. Many typify the personalities or desired projection of personalities of each people it represents.

Wulfmann

bunkerratt
07-20-2006, 11:33 AM
if you really want to know more...it's also a fact that the rifles in the turrets of the yamato were not correctly installed/alinged...and also..it's really hard to miss dropping a few bombs on a floating/moving island.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Kaleun1961
07-20-2006, 11:54 AM
I recently recorded a two part documentary on the Canadian History Channel, called "The Battleships." Very good doc. It made some of the same points Wulfmann made in his post. By the 1920's the thought of another battleship arms race horrified the world. With the mindset then prevailing, the battleship was still the most horrifying weapon. After just having gone through the slaughter of WW1, the idea of having to spend many millions on battleships so appalled the main combatants that they ratified the Washington Treaty, which limited certain nations to so many BB's of so much tonnage. For a while that put a limit on naval building. Some countries actually had to scrap ships, which helped with their budgets.

Meanwhile, Billy Mitchell was trying to convince his superiors of the effectiveness of air power. He was able to finally demonstrate that aircraft could bomb a battleship. The naval observers weren't convinced; the demonstration was against an immobile target ship that wasn't firing flak. Still, Mitchell believed that aircraft and bombing technology would improve. His reward for his visionary thinking was to be court martialled. Japan and Germany eventually cheated on the Treaty and set off another naval spending war.

Japan invested heavily into carrier aviation as well as battleships. Pearl Harbor forced the US Navy to rely on the carrier. Bismarck was brought to heel by air power; Force Z was destroyed by land-based bombers; Yamato sunk by carrier planes. Airpower has triumphed and vindicated Mitchell. The battleship is now an obsolete weapon and has been retired, having earned its place in history.

Baldricks_Mate
07-21-2006, 07:01 AM
Dreadnoughts, then later Heavy Battleships were the way nations projected power to places far away.

Most nations foresaw the end of the BB and knew the Carrier was the future but none really had the paradigm for carrier usage and power projection.

The Bismark was foretaste and while a dramatic story, was not the the change either, the strategic and tactical paradigm for the new projection of power was changed at...

Pearl Harbour.

The ironic, Catch 22 outcome of PH was that while the US Pacific Fleet was decimated and the impotence of the BB was finally shown, Pearl was a failure according to the new paradign of naval warfare that was ushered in on that day because the planes failed to catch and sink...

The US Carriers!

Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Prophetic, eh?

TheRealWulfmann
07-21-2006, 09:53 AM
Germany did not cheat on the treaties, that is a well believed falsehood and like so many issued as propaganda it was not corrected by ignorant historians later.
Bismarck was designed within all limits. Originally a 35,000 ton design she, like all navies battleships crept past it in design but long before that was a problem the limits were increased to 40,000 tons for which Bismarck was then designed around. If you look at the 2 German BBs and the amount over the limit they were for that design and look at the other BBs and their increase over the limit it is actually slightly less in percentage. By the time Bismarck was launched the limits had been bumped to 45,000 tons.
At no point was Bismarck a cheat and in fact the 380MM guns were more than an inch under the limit of 406MM; 16 inch.
The Panzerchiffe were never part of the Washington and London treaties but Hitler agreed to lump those cruisers into battleship tonnage when he made a naval deal with GB as they had larger guns than the cruiser in the treaty. That was never a cheat. If anything Scharnhorst was a cheat to the Germans as they should have had 6 380MM guns but Hitler did it to appease the British by saying they were counters to the Dunkerque and Strassland class BBs of France.
The Japs, on the other hand, completely cheated. Ironically as they were so expensive to operate they would have been much better off building four 35,000 ton ships, modern Kongo types that would have actually seen extensive use (of course we know more carriers would have been even wiser now). IMO, Yamato showed a Japanese national inferiority complex. They wanted to have size 12 shoes for their size 6 feet, LOL
As for the ‚‚ā¨Ňďdecimated‚‚ā¨¬Ě US battleships the fleet had 14 BBs (The 15th Wyoming was a TS) and 4 were sunk at Pearl with 3 damaged. 2 of the damaged were back in service by March 1942 (Not counting the ten modern ones commissioned in the war) The other 7 were never used because the time of the old dreadnaught was over. We could have put 9 BBs in the line after Pearl (and 11 after march 42) but knew they were nothing but shore bombardment craft at that point and simply did not consider them front line. We had them, just knew not to use them in the old fashion outdated way. The Japs sank mostly useless combat ships at Pearl. Had they got three carriers instead it would have been a disaster for the US but alas!
Some US BBs were a second line of defense between Midway and Hawaii in the Midway battle notably Mississippi and Maryland and perhaps Colorado.
The fact the most modern weapon in the world in May 1941 was disabled by an obsolete biplane at sea and then the sinking of the Price of Wales and Repulse forever clarified the secondary role of the battleship in war.
The sinking of 3 British armored cruisers in WWI had already shown the surface vessels was inferior and 1941 moved it another notch down with over and under the master of what sailed "on" the sea.
Wulfmann

Baldricks_Mate
07-22-2006, 01:36 AM
Wulfman, I accept the points in your post, esp regarding the remaining USN units http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif but in the BB business and its ability to project power I would like to clarify some things.

The damage done to the USN at PH was amplified to naval strategists and tacticians of many navies, finalising their thinking about the usefulness of large BB'S, individually and as a fleet core for projecting power, since that was the BB's original purpose.

I would simplify the change as a matter of actual and perceived bang for your buck, and at what range. This projection, real or implied, can be done in two ways; actual, effective firepower in an actual battle and/or by the impression of firepower by appearance because one does not have to actually fire a gun on a warship to project the power it possess. Its existence in your seaways is enough. Witness to the Graff Spee, Bismark and so on. Or the Tirpitz, almost permanantly stuck in a fiord in Norway but an ever present, often plotted against and carefully watched threat to the Murmansk convoys.

The thing I find interesting was that the AC's were huge and about to get a lot bigger too but their weaponry, based around aircraft, provided the flexibility that the BB could not give anymore. War often bring clarity of understanding regarding weapons platforms and systems. So size was not the real issue but the platform ability to acheive its intended role.

However, even AC's were in danger of being dinosaurs in the power projection stakes because not too many years away was the nuc powered submarine with the nuc missile or cruise missile. But subs are by their nature, unseen, so in the visible projection of power business, they are of lesser value than an AC but probably of a far more destructive power.

I would bet a pretty penny, were there a WW3 that was not fully nuclear, the AC's would not have been let too far afield, like the BB of WW2, because they would have been too vunerable to the sub and modern torpedo or missile technology.

TheRealWulfmann
07-22-2006, 08:47 AM
It is certainly true that people react to perception not reality as reality is perceived. A catch 22.
The ghost of the Bismarck created the need to counter Tirpitz, its primary purpose, in perceived reality.
And, a battleship off the coast with its gun barrels raised creates an image of power an aircraft carrier or submarine can not duplicate. Perception, yes, but s perception believed to be reality to those the ship is trying to influence..
I do not believe the AC is in any danger and certainly not the future pilot less ones. Nuke Subs are great missile bases but are venerable to quiet tactical boats like the U-31.
A well protected carrier still rules the area it operates in but how well protected form the U-31 types are they? At this point they are better off staying clear of such boats and at this point only a few nations will have the AIP Boats outside of Germany and Italy (Greece 3 and South Korea 3 type 214) So there are no real threats to the US carriers. Not yet.
Any potential enemy sub had can heard easily, as of now!
Wulfmann