SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

which ship was better??

6533 views
86 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: 29° 58' N 95° 21' W
Posted by seasick on Thursday, April 7, 2005 1:30 PM
Speaking of Yamato:

http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm1.showMessage?topicID=6741.topic

Chasing the ultimate build.

  • Member since
    April 2004
Posted by boscotdg on Thursday, April 7, 2005 1:44 PM
My 2cents on "what ifs" Hood - PoW vs Schnhorst - Gneisenenau they trade punches for a short while and S&G realize they are in big trouble and use their slight sped advantage to run (they use to avoid convoys with only 1 capital ship as an escort) Hood and Rodney vs Bismark (if Rodney could have gotten into position with a23 knot top speed) Hood meets her fate for same reason Rodney hurts Bismark more but she gets away until the Home Fleet traps her and sinks her KGV and PoW vs Bismark would be interesting but with 8 rifles vs 20 one has to speculate Bismark is sunk takes one of the Brits with her and we have the Hood as a museum ship today presuming they didn't scrsp her to make toaster ovens after the war
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 7, 2005 4:48 PM
Speed as armor may have been the concept, but Speed is NEVER armor. I don't care how fast it could close. Hood could not close faster than Bismark of PE could depress their Naval Rifles, and that is a helluva huge gamble against 15" rifles and even 8" rifles, especially with the proven accuracy of Bismarks and Prinze Eugen's fire control. Hood's action against Bismark and Prinze Eugen was a prime example of the wrong tactical solution for a serious design flaw in English warships (pre KGV class).
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 7, 2005 8:14 PM
It really made no difference if they had no CAP air cover. Look at Force Z, the two British Battle Wagons that were terminated in the Indian Ocean by one IJN air strike.
If you really want to get into it, you need to discuss the imune zones of each ship, rate of fire, radar, air cover and so on. Also, by the time the IJN capital ships got into action they were using unrefined crude oil which was very flammable. I guess it was the IJN brute strenght against Kregsmarine technology, take your pick.
  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: 29° 58' N 95° 21' W
Posted by seasick on Friday, April 8, 2005 12:35 AM
The Two British battlewagons (The Prince of Wales and Repulse?) were sunk IIRC by Japanese land based torpedo bombers. When they left Singapore they were gonors. They had no air cover and Repulse's AAW capability was poor, POWales' was better but the power to the 5.25 inch turrets was nocked out by a single bomb (this defect was fixed in the rest of the class and not repeated in Vanguard).

Yamato had a very large number of AAW guns and still was sunk by aircraft.

Chasing the ultimate build.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 8, 2005 7:46 AM
Hey I thought we wern't going to mention those cursed winged contraptions!!! Leave them out of this one! This is a thread of two classic heavy weights mano e mano. You wanna talk about "naaaavvvval" airpower go to airplanes!!!!! lol JK
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: 37deg 40.13' N 95deg 29.10'W
Posted by scottrc on Friday, April 8, 2005 9:25 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by JFPuishys

It all has to do with the torpedo that hit the rudder disableing her

THe History Chanel did a whole episode on the Bismack a few months ago! Only three people survived when the Bismarck sank, and they had one f the guys on there crying! very emotional. My Grandpa's Ship capsized in the Pacific. He described it in such great detail to me too.


Now I know why I cancelled my cable subscription and went back to spending time at the libraryBig Smile [:D]

So, can anyone explain about the "beehive" shell that the Yamato shot. They were an anit-aircraft shell shot from the 18" guns? Were they to shoot down multiple aircraft?

  • Member since
    January 2003
Posted by Jeff Herne on Friday, April 8, 2005 9:26 AM
Yawn....

Force Z was supposed to have air support, but the carrier, HMS Indomitable, had run aground and sustained damage in the West Indies. On the same day as Force departed Lingga Roads, HMS Hermes was putting into Simonstown a few miles away. Had Hermes sailed with Force Z, and had she operated a CAP, then Force Z may have survived.

Seasick, while it's true that Yamato had a large number of AA guns, their effectiveness is still compromised by several factors, including lack of proximity fusing, and no fire control radar. After her refit, she carried 24 5"/40 barrels, with a rate of fire of 8 rounds per minute. The Iowas, coupled with Mk 37 Fire Control Radar and proximity fusing, carried 20 barrels with a rate of fire of 16 rounds per minute. When you calculate the rate of throw (how much lead you can put into the air in a minute), Iowas and SoDaks could put 17,600lbs. of lead into the air in a single minute, while Yamato could only muster 9,700lbs.

Proximity fuses meant you didn't need to actually hit the target, it would explode if it got close...in 1943 that made the lethality of a 5"/38 6 times more deadly than it had been a year earlier, and by 1945 that figure had increased to 12.

Yamato did have additional weaponry in the form of her DP 6.1 inch guns, and their performance was similar technically to Iowas, but again, lack of fire control radar and proximity fusing decreases their effectiveness.

Jack, if you read back to the first page, we've already covered all the technical aspects of the two, rate of fire, armor protection, design doctrines. The fuel types are really insignificant, because Japan wasn't using bunker crude until mid-late 1944. Although there's documented proof that many of the cruisers used bunker crude, Abe's Musashi book clearly states that were forced to used refined fuel and not bunker crude because of the design of the boilers. This is why Yamato only carried enough fuel for a one-way trip to Okinawa.

Jeff
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 8, 2005 11:42 PM
Only you Jeff-san can show such impatience for us amature historians. Again Grand Master of the 7 seas, we are not worthy to be on your web site...lol
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Connecticut
Posted by DBFSS385 on Monday, April 11, 2005 6:27 AM
Jeff, Thanks for the clearity you always bring on these boards. I, like you search for the facts even if they reveal information that will burst my bubble on how I always percieved the events before finding out the truth. You brought up a very important fact about the HMS Hood. Speed was her armor. I read a book ages ago called the HMS Hood. It was written from several interviews with past crew members and a surviver. If anyone on this tread could find it .. it's worth the time to read. Brings up many facts about the Hood that explain that although she was big and beautiful, she had many design flaws that affected her ability to operate in heavy seas and armor flaws that would be her doom. There was a good reason why she was the first and only of her Class.
Be Well/DBF Walt
  • Member since
    April 2005
Posted by ddp59 on Monday, April 11, 2005 8:50 AM
thing is you don't put a battle cruiser up against a battleship as the battle cruiser always loses for example the hood & sharnhorst
  • Member since
    January 2003
Posted by Jeff Herne on Monday, April 11, 2005 10:18 AM
Amtrakpaladin,

I was yawning because I had just woken up...that's all. Don't read into it any other way... Wink [;)]

Hood's design philosophy was based on WW1 experiences. Sadly, the advantages she once had over WW1 era battleships (the ability to run away and use her speed advantage in combat) were gone by 1941, resulting in her tragic loss.

Battlecruisers came about in a unique way...they were designed to out-gun everything except battleships, and when encountering a battleship, she had the speed to engage and disengage at will. Again, by 1941, the speed of battleships had increased to the point that this was no longer a valid doctrine.

Battlecruisers were also cheaper to produce than battleships, and were often built in direct response to another country's (and potential enemy's) ship building program.

The Alaska Class was originally envisioned to be counters to the German pocket-battleships, and were joking referred to as Roosevelt's White Elephants. They ended up providing fire support for amphibous landings and AA support for the fast carriers.

They were beautiful ships, but they simply didn't have a function in the grand scheme of things by 1944-45.

Jeff
  • Member since
    December 2014
Posted by bigjimslade on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:09 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Armour_freek

the battleship tirpitz or the ijn battleship yamato? I know that its probably a hard question but tell me your thoughts. Did tirpitz ever become involved in battles where it was successful?


This question cannot be answered without giving the conditions of battle.

How close are the ships? If they stumble across each other at close quarters the more rapid fire of the Tirpitz would be of great advantage. If they are in broad open water, the Tirpitz's greater speed would allow it to run. In other situations, the Yamato's heavier armament and armor comes into play.

Unfortunately, we have not good historical measure of the Yamato's gun accuracy as we do for the Tirpitz/Bismark.
  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted by T_Terrific on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 5:47 PM
I think the Bismark was better for an Atlantic sinking, the Yamoto for a Pacific sinking :)

Oh by the way, Jeff if it is so:

"The notion that the Yamato was designed to better the Iowa, or vice versa, is wrong. Both ships were being designed concurrently, and the tight security around both insured that no one was playing catch up to the other."

Then you are denying the presence of both German and Japanese spies here in the U.S.at that time, and it appears you are ignoring the obvious, i.e., except for size, their basic hull/turret layout, etc, design were practically identical. And even when you consider their size the Yamoto was basically of the same proportions as that of the Iowa class ships.

Prior to this the conventional wisdom was normally two main turets fore and aft, etc, etc ,etc.

The fact that they were being built concurrently can even lend proof to this.

Tom TCowboy

“Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently.”-Henry Ford

"Except in the fundamentals, think and let think"- J. Wesley

"I am impatient with stupidity, my people have learned to live without it"-Klaatu: "The Day the Earth Stood Still"

"All my men believe in God, they are ordered to"-Adolph Hitler

  • Member since
    April 2005
Posted by ddp59 on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:44 PM
than explain how than that the north carolina class predates the iowas as does the british king george V class & i think 1 of the italian bb classes all have 2 turrets front & 1 back
  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted by T_Terrific on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 8:51 AM
"than explain how than that the north carolina class predates the iowas as does the british king george V class & i think 1 of the italian bb classes all have 2 turrets front & 1 back"

Easy:

I used the phrase "normally", which does ot mean "always in all cases no matter what".

Also, when I use the phrase "normally" I am speaking as an American as to what is normal to me and my culture.

As to the standard configuration for the U.S. Navy dreadnaught prior to the Iowa class, I refer you to the U.S.S. Arizona, whose dual fore and aft main turrets were not unique.

I do understand that the single turret after, and dual main turret fore was of 19th century British origin, as designated by the First Sea Lord Jackie Fisher, when he first laid out the plans for the "Dreadnaught".

As far as the design of the North Carolina, I would say its configuration was adapted from the British, and helped set the precident for the "new standard", i.e., the Iowa class super-dreadnaughts.

I also realize that the aircraft carier of WWI British origin, although the U.S. and Japanese navy's exploited this "new weapon" much farther then did the Brit's.

I am not saying my above summery is all encompassing nor possibly without some acciental error of ommission, and I would more then welcome additional input for futher study into this topic in this forum, as in no way do I pretend to be "the expert" in this matter.

OK?

Tom TCowboy

“Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently.”-Henry Ford

"Except in the fundamentals, think and let think"- J. Wesley

"I am impatient with stupidity, my people have learned to live without it"-Klaatu: "The Day the Earth Stood Still"

"All my men believe in God, they are ordered to"-Adolph Hitler

  • Member since
    January 2003
Posted by Jeff Herne on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:46 AM
I find it highly unlikely that the US knew about the Yamatos and built the Iowas to counter. If you've ever read Abe's book on the Musashi, here's a first-hand account from someone who was involved in the design and construction of the ship, and went into extreme detail regarding the security measures the Japanese went to in order to protect the secrecy of these vessels, even from the workers who were actually working on them.

I can tell you that in all the conversations I've had with naval historians, no one has ever claimed the Iowas were built to counter the Yamatos, or vice versa. Parallel development, obviously. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at a design like the North Carolina Class, Bismarck, KGV, or Venetto, and figure out how to improve them. Trouble is, your enemy is probably doing the exact same thing, and incorporating those changes in doctrine.

I strongly suggest reading Freidman's US Battleships, Illustrated Design History, as well as Dulin and Garsky's US Battleships. Both make mention to the Yamato Class and the parallel development.

Jeff
  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted by T_Terrific on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:05 AM
Makes for good debate, though, doesn't itSmile [:)]

Tom TCowboy

“Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently.”-Henry Ford

"Except in the fundamentals, think and let think"- J. Wesley

"I am impatient with stupidity, my people have learned to live without it"-Klaatu: "The Day the Earth Stood Still"

"All my men believe in God, they are ordered to"-Adolph Hitler

  • Member since
    January 2003
Posted by Jeff Herne on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:25 AM
Sure does...we have the same type of debate going on over in the Armor forum about the design doctrines of the Sherman.... :-)

Jeff
  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted by T_Terrific on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:25 AM
Jeff:

You and I are both entitled to our own opinions, and personally I don't buy a "coincidental parallel development" theory regarding the Yamoto's and Iowa's any more then I do regarding the German and American atomic bomb developments.

To document the extent the U.S. was infiltrated with spies (Japanese, German, and British!) prior to the official outbreak of WWII here I would think should be another forum.

SoapBox [soapbox]
Without doing more than suggesting that the historians are being paid by somebody to write their stuff, I will say no more about post-modern revisionist history.

As for suggested reading, I recommend the following website:

http://www.definition-info.com/Japanese_battleship_Yamato.html

From which comes the following quote:

"The [Yamato] class was designed to be superior to Missouri class battleships in all respects. 18.1-inch (460 mm) main guns were selected over 16-inch (400 mm) main guns because the width of the Panama Canal would make it impossible for the U.S. Navy to construct a battleship with same caliber guns without severe design restrictions or an inadequate defensive arrangement. To further confuse enemies, her main guns were officially named as 16-inch and civilians were never notified of their completion. Their budgets were also scattered among various projects so that huge total costs would not be immediately noticeable."

So to say their development was done in "invididual vacuums" is highly questionable to me.

Tom TCowboy

“Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently.”-Henry Ford

"Except in the fundamentals, think and let think"- J. Wesley

"I am impatient with stupidity, my people have learned to live without it"-Klaatu: "The Day the Earth Stood Still"

"All my men believe in God, they are ordered to"-Adolph Hitler

  • Member since
    January 2003
Posted by Jeff Herne on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:05 AM
If that's the case, then why have the most respected naval historians of our generation not concluded the same thing?

Freidman, Stilwell, Raven, Sumerall....all have written about these vessels, and none have clearly stated that the US and Japan were in a race to counter the other's battleship.

Jeff
  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted by T_Terrific on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:11 AM
Just guessing, I could suggest laziness, collusion or a conspiracy.

I mean, Jeff, Historians are only human like any of us.

Which one would you like?

Tom Cowboy [C):-)]

Tom TCowboy

“Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently.”-Henry Ford

"Except in the fundamentals, think and let think"- J. Wesley

"I am impatient with stupidity, my people have learned to live without it"-Klaatu: "The Day the Earth Stood Still"

"All my men believe in God, they are ordered to"-Adolph Hitler

  • Member since
    January 2003
Posted by Jeff Herne on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:35 AM
I dunno...I know these guys personally...and Alan Raven published my Fletcher book. These are the best of the best when it comes to naval historians...so it must be a conspiracy...maybe it has something to do with Roswell...

Jeff

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted by T_Terrific on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:50 AM
I'll buy that and lunch today if you like Jeff Smile [:)]

What's your favorite drink?

TomCowboy [C):-)]

Tom TCowboy

“Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently.”-Henry Ford

"Except in the fundamentals, think and let think"- J. Wesley

"I am impatient with stupidity, my people have learned to live without it"-Klaatu: "The Day the Earth Stood Still"

"All my men believe in God, they are ordered to"-Adolph Hitler

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted by T_Terrific on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 12:01 PM
Hey Jeff, I am not trying to "rile" you, but look here, I just noticed something:

"I find it highly unlikely that the US knew about the Yamatos and built the Iowas to counter. If you've ever read Abe's book on the Musashi, here's a first-hand account from someone who was involved in the design and construction of the ship, and went into extreme detail regarding the security measures the Japanese went to in order to protect the secrecy of these vessels, even from the workers who were actually working on them."

This statement in no way obviates the possibility of the Japanese collecting and incorporating intellegence or details regarding the U.S. develpoment of the Iowa class dradnaught. Big Smile [:D]

Many thanks Smile [:)]

Tom Cowboy [C):-)]

Tom TCowboy

“Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently.”-Henry Ford

"Except in the fundamentals, think and let think"- J. Wesley

"I am impatient with stupidity, my people have learned to live without it"-Klaatu: "The Day the Earth Stood Still"

"All my men believe in God, they are ordered to"-Adolph Hitler

  • Member since
    January 2003
Posted by Jeff Herne on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 1:43 PM
I disagree here. Secrecy of these designs was of the utmost importance to the Japanese, in order for them to have the advantage when war with the US started. In addition, even though Japan withdrew from the Washington Treaty on it's own, it was still bound by the agreement in 1934 when the Yamatos were designed. Japan had to withdraw from the Treaty before it could officially start construction on the Yamato. This was the political aspect of the situation.

Even though Japan was still bound to the 5-5-3 guidelines of the 1923 Washington Treaty in 1934, it had no intentions of adhering to the Treaty, which it withdrew from in 1936. While Japan knew that it could not compete with the US and England in terms of number of hulls that it could build (once the treaty limitations were removed) they set out to build ships that were bigger and more powerful than what was in the US fleet at the time. The result was the Yamato, on which, design work had begun in 1934, 2 full years before Japan withdrew from the Treaty.

The US on the other hand, was still adhering (strictly) to the Treaty in 1936 when Japan (now viewed as the most likely threat) withdrew. The North Carolinas and SoDaks were post-treaty construction battleships, but were developed and designed about the same time as Yamato, in anticipation of the Treaty falling apart. So how could the Japanese have known about the Iowas, and built the Yamatos to counter them, if Yamato came before Iowa, and for that matter, North Carolina and SoDak? Until Japan withdrew from the treaty, the US had no way of mounting 9 16" guns on a 35,000 ton hull.

Iowas were not built as counters to the Yamatos in the specific sense. When Japan withdrew from the Washington Treaty in 1936, the US knew they (Japan) would immediately start construction on ships which were superior to the current treaty battleships. They didn't know to what level Japan would take their designs. Since the compromises made on the North Carolinas and SoDaks by the Washington Treaty were no longer required, the Navy developed the Iowas as an improved SoDak. Better armor protection, a longer hull for higher speeds and better sea-keeping, and better internal compartmentalization.

The guns, fire control radar, AA suites, and CIC set ups are virtually identical to ships already on the line (the SoDaks and North Carolinas). Yamato and Musashi were built with 18.1in. guns because Japan knew the US could not produce an effective 18-inch gun ship that could fit through the Panama Canal. If you want to consider the Montana Class into the equation, there's a ship that was clearly built to counter a specific threat, in this case, the Yamatos.

So design work commenced on the Iowas in 1936, with the first hull laid in 1940. Yamato was launched in 1940.

While in a general broad statement you can argue that Yamato was built to outclass Iowa or vice versa, there's room for argument if you only look at specific aspects of their construction and histories. When you start to add in things like when design work started, proposed changes by BuC&R and the Navy, and then look at the FY appropriations, it becomes quite apparent that neither side knew about the specifics of either class, but both knew that ships superior to the current treaty vessels were inevitable.

Jeff
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: 37deg 40.13' N 95deg 29.10'W
Posted by scottrc on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:03 PM
Darn British spies, I thought the KGV looked a lot like a North Carolina.Mischief [:-,]

Anyway, so the Japanes built the Yamato and we built the Iowa. However, it was an Essex class carrier that sunk the Yamato and Musashi, and a torpedo plane that made a determining factor in the fate of the Bismarck. The US battleships did become vital weapons to use as both anti-aircraft gun platforms to protect carriers and to provide cover for amphibious landings, but, in my opinion, were never intended after 1940 to be used as the prime weapon in major fleet engagements.

Both the US and Japan were banking on the use of aircraft carriers to become the strategic wepons of choice. Somewhere I read, and I got the notion that Japanese politics played into building the Yamato class in protest against the Navy, who wanted carriers.

The US, Japan, and GB all knew these battleships were becoming obsolete while still on the drafting board. However, these countries were also still using horses in military operations because generals still thought that the horse was a major assault weapon. The battleship pojected political power, which was why Hitler put them above Germany's submarine and carrier projects.

And it was the political clout the battleships projected that would lead to the failure of the Washington Treaty. The Axis wanted to build superships, GB wanted to still build Dreadnaughts and rule the world them, and the US wanted to mind their own business but still stay ahead of the worlds military technology by building a modern, defensive, navy that could muster against Axis designs if needed.

Scott

  • Member since
    January 2003
Posted by Jeff Herne on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:51 PM
Absolutely...now...I have a serious question for the group to debate...Ginger or Marianne?

Whistling [:-^]

Just kidding...

Jeff
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:54 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Jeff Herne

Absolutely...now...I have a serious question for the group to debate...Ginger or Marianne?

Whistling [:-^]

Just kidding...

Jeff


1/350 Shokaku! oh wait, that isnt an optionTongue [:P]
how about a 1/72 Minnow?Approve [^]
  • Member since
    January 2003
Posted by Jeff Herne on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 4:03 PM
The Minnow would be lost...the Minnow would be lost... :-)

Jeff
JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.