Yamato VS. Missouri Mano A Mano-Who Wins

Well here's some good ones (though why I bother to go through this nonsense, is beyond me!).  First off, consult with the references 'British Battleships of World War Two,' by Alan Raven and John Roberts, for information regarding the blast effects of HMS Rodney.  You might also peruse 'Janes Battleships of the 20th Century,' for more on the same.  References for the blast effects of Yamato, please check 'Japanese High Seas Fleet' by Richard Humble, especially the effects of firing 'San-Shiki' 18" AA shells.  For the problems associated with having too many fire control and gun assets packed too closely together on Yamato, please check 'The Imperial Japanese Navy' by A.J Watts and B.G. Gordon.  It is obvious you have never seen the blast effects of a 16" shell, but I have.  In the Gulf War, they left craters approximately 100' wide, by 15-25' deep, and while an AP shell's blast is a bit smaller, it is also delivered much deeper into the vulnerable interior of the target.  You have a touching faith in the power of armor to resist shell, but my point all along has been that many of the systems of a battleship, even Yamato are quite vulnerable to even common HE shell (perhaps more so).   Please find below, a few photos for you to examine.  First, below is a photo of Yamato, having had her 'B' main gun turret plainly destroyed by a bomb (so much for 'armor invulnerable to bombs'), with the guns blown out, and if you look closely, you will see the 6" turret out of action as well.  Next, although the 'Armored deck' may have been 'designed' to resist bombs, at the end of the day it was only 9" thick, and not sufficient to do so, as is evidenced from the next photo, with a bomb hit forward of 'A' turret (also carefully note the large amount of smoke from a previous hit aft on the superstructure, which is likely to make the aft main firing director ineffective, as well as the aft turret and the 6" forward turret is plainly out of action as well.).  And finally, a diagram from Japanese source demonstrating the levels and angles of blast effect associated with the Kongo class, and it is well known in the literature that these were increased by a factor of four for the 18.1" guns of Yamato.  You obviously have never stuck your head inside an operational military aircaft hangar of any kind, or you would know what I say about them is true.  And certainly boats and their accoutrements are also highly flammable, and fire has a way of spreading quite quickly if not contained.  Just how 'armored' are your 'armored' communication tubes?  Armored enough to resist the blast or impact of a 16" shell?  Hardly likely! And they all have a source, and junctions and termini, and many of these are necessarily outside the citadel (and US battleship designers practically invented the citadel concept decades previously).  Smoke, and fire, are increased by windspeed, and wherever the fire is located, the forward motion of the vessel will rapidly increase the intensity of the flames and smoke, driving it upward at a slant into the bridge, and/or aerodynamically sweeping it down aft, into the ventilation systems and choking to death everyone in the engine rooms (see photo below).   As far as your 'reputable sources' about what did, or did not penetrate Yamato or Mushashi, it is important to remember that these ships are on the bottom of the sea, along with most of their crews, so just which 'sources' do you use?  In other words, spare me your ennui, and either contribute something concrete, or let it pass.......

searat12 wrote:

though why I bother to go through this nonsense, is beyond me!

There is no need to be coy.  You love to spew nonsense:

"I am making an effort to be inflammatory here! "- searat12

searat12 wrote:

First off, consult with the references 'British Battleships of World War Two,' by Alan Raven and John Roberts, for information regarding the blast effects of HMS Rodney.  You might also peruse 'Janes Battleships of the 20th Century,' for more on the same.

 No one is arguing Rodney's susceptibilitty to the blast effects of 16" gun.   Your point is?  

searat12 wrote:

References for the blast effects of Yamato, please check 'Japanese High Seas Fleet' by Richard Humble, especially the effects of firing 'San-Shiki' 18" AA shells.  For the problems associated with having too many fire control and gun assets packed too closely together on Yamato, please check 'The Imperial Japanese Navy' by A.J Watts and B.G. Gordon.

 Care to quote the relevent passages so we might dissect it for its source, instead of throwing names?  I don't happen to have these on hand.

searat12 wrote:

It is obvious you have never seen the blast effects of a 16" shell,

 You would be wrong.   I've in fact seen the blast effect if an 18" shell, albeit a British one fired out of a monitor in WWI.

searat12 wrote:

First, below is a photo of Yamato, having had her 'B' main gun turret plainly destroyed by a bomb (so much for 'armor invulnerable to bombs'), with the guns blown out,

As seen in the case above, something might appear obvious to you, yet is not so in reality.  There is not a single reference that says Yamato had her "B" main turret destroyed, much less guns blown out.   

BTW your pictures do no display on my monitor.  If your photo is the famous one showing Yamato under the air attack of April 7 1945 from James Fahay collection, then the center gun on the B turret is not blown out, but elevated where the two other barrels were at their loading angle of 12 degrees.  The roof of the B turret is intact, the two blurry objects seen on either side of B turret roof are 25mm triple AA mounts in their gun tubs.  

searat12 wrote:

and if you look closely, you will see the 6" turret out of action as well.

Again assuming this is the April 7 1945 photo I am familiar with, then the aft 6" turret was destroyed by abomb hit on its roof, which led to a large fire in the 6" turret.

You said in an earlier post the mount was dislodged, where is the source? 

searat12 wrote:

Next, although the 'Armored deck' may have been 'designed' to resist bombs, at the end of the day it was only 9" thick, and not sufficient to do so,

It was never penetrated.  Is that not sufficient?

searat12 wrote:

as is evidenced from the next photo, with a bomb hit forward of 'A' turret

Evidenced by what?  The 200 mm armored deck is 2 decks below the upper deck, and its state is invisible to the outside on any battleship.     The most you can see from the outside of the ship is the upper or weather deck, which is only 35mm thick on the Yamato.   The only way to know if the armored deck is penetrated is by survivor testamony, or a catastrphic detonation of magazine immediately after a bomb hit near the magazine.   In both Yamato and Musashi, the surviors testified to the integrity of the citadel and their non-penetration from above, and neither ship suffered magazine explosions that can be linked to bomb hits.   Ballistic evidence shows 500 or 1000 lb bombs actually used had far too little penetrative power to pierce 200 mm homogenous armor used in Yamato's armored deck.   The only bombs actually used against ships in WWII that would have penetrated Yamato's armored deck would be the British super bomb used against the Tirpitz, and possibly the German rocket assisted glide bomb that was used against the Roma.

Furthermore, the armored deck covers only the main citadel, which terminates just ahead of the A turret.   If the photo is the one I think it is, ie the one taken in the lead up to Leyte gulf, then the bomb hit forward of A turret shows three things:

1.  It missed the citadel and landed too far forward to effect critical ship components

2.  The 35mm upper deck did its job and detonated the bomb on the weather deck and prevented it from penetrating into the hull

3.  Has it penetrated into the hull it would have missed the citadel all together and therefore missed the armored deck

searat12 wrote:

(also carefully note the large amount of smoke from a previous hit aft on the superstructure, which is likely to make the aft main firing director ineffective, as well as the aft turret and the 6" forward turret is plainly out of action as well.).

Again your picture does not display.   But if you refer to the rather famous photo of Yamao on her last sortie, let me explain to you what is happening.   The aft 18" turret is plainly or non-plainly not out of action.   The aft 6" is destroyed by a bomb that penetrated the turret roof but is not blown off of its mount.   There is an uncontrolled ammunition fire in the aft 6" turret which leaves a prominent flame and smoke trial covering the quarter deck.   The smoke from superstructure could either be from some fire further forward, or more likely from the AA gins firing.     During the entire action no indication of 18" turret being knocked out is found in any reference, although they did not fire after a few initial rounds to give clearance to the unshielded light AA guns on deck to fire.    All three turret were out of action near the very end, but that's because the ship's list prior to sinking had become too severe for the powered ammunition train to operate.    A comprehensive list of damages each ship received and an engineering analysis of the ship's losses is available in Garzke and Dublin, Axis and Neutral Battleships in WWII, Naval Institute, 1985, ISBN 0-87021-101-3, pages 58 - 74.    A naval architect's description of where the ship's protection is likely to have succeeded  and where they have failed can be found on pages 94 - 104.

searat12 wrote:

And finally, a diagram from Japanese source demonstrating the levels and angles of blast effect associated with the Kongo class, and it is well known in the literature that these were increased by a factor of four for the 18.1" guns of Yamato.

We are not talking about Kongo, which did not have the blast effect mitigation measures worked into the Yamato.

searat12 wrote:

Just how 'armored' are your 'armored' communication tubes?  Armored enough to resist the blast or impact of a 16" shell?

You really need to learn to read other people's posts more carefully before going off on a tangent.

searat12 wrote:

As far as your 'reputable sources' about what did, or did not penetrate Yamato or Mushashi, it is important to remember that these ships are on the bottom of the sea, along with most of their crews, so just which 'sources' do you use?

That did not seem to impede you in making your claims......

searat12 wrote:

In other words, spare me your ennui, and either contribute something concrete, or let it pass.......

I am making an effort to be inflammatory here! "- searat12    

Can't deal with what you started?  

As you have not produced any passages from any sources to support your arguments, limited as they are, it seems to me that YOU need to go to the library and check out a few of mine (they are the standard texts on the subject, and I am surprised that someone purporting to know something about Yamato, or any other battleship doesn't have at least ONE of them in your library).  I suggest you read them in all detail.  And when I say you have never seen the effects of a 16" shell, I also include the effects of an 18" shell, by which I mean you were not anywhere in the vicinity or time when that shell impacted and exploded, whereas, I HAVE been, nor have you ever been in the vicinity of one of these big guns when fired either.  I suggest you learn something about concussive damage caused by both impact AND explosion, as well as concussive blast effects caused by main gun firing.  Finally, you haven't addressed any of my comments regarding fire and its impacts on the combat effectiveness of the ship.  If the main armor deck is two decks down, that means a shell is going to penetrate those two decks, and then explode.  And if the armored deck is so impervious, that means the blast effects are going to go sideways and up, which kills every one on that deck, and a high possiblity of fire.  And as fire goes up, and is fed by air, that fine wooden deck of Yamato is going to ignite and burn like a forest.  And since no crewmen can be anywhere on deck when the main guns are firing, that means there is no way to put the fire out, and if that fire is on the foredeck, the heat and smoke is going to obscure ALL of the firing directors, and the bridge as well, leaving Yamato blind and burning, and her citadel will simply act like a Dutch oven for its inhabitants, and the engine room crew choked to death by smoke and fumes sucked down the ventilators.......

As you apparently have not been able to open any of these photographs (and they are large scale, for detail), then I fail to see how you are able to comment on any of them, least of all the Kongo diagram.  So until you CAN open them (and they are simple jpgs), really you have nothing to discuss here (no doubt your terminal ennui has prevented you from bothering to try).  And again, you fail to explain how your 'sources' have any idea of what hit where, and did what damage on Yamato, as the ship sank with most of her crew (and as far as I know, though I might be wrong, the ship has not been dived on to confirm or deny anything).  However, if you ever bother to open the photos I have provided, you will see with your own eyes what what I am talking about, which is why I provided them in the first place...... Trollin' trollin' trollin'.........

Gents,

As this thread is clearly a source of antipathy amongst users it is hereby locked. We encourage intelligent and spirited discourse, BUT discourage the kind of venom and personal attacks seen here.

Regards,