Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
DeliciousFart

Interesting article on Yamato's torpedo defense flaws

167 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

7,592
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,775 posts
3,895 battles
Just now, DeliciousFart said:

I recall reading articles saying that Musashi had extra displacement because it was built with additional spaces to be a fleet flagship. It's sort of like how the South Dakota had to trade 2 secondary turrets for the additional spaces for fleet flagship purposes.

Eh... Reducing armament for more officer living/working spaces seems like it'd make the ship lighter, not heavier.

 

It may be due to Musashi still having the 4x3 15.5cm secondary layout when sunk vs Yamato trading two of those for lots of smaller 12.7cm DP secondaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
503
[MAHAN]
Beta Testers
1,445 posts
5,257 battles

There were lots of little tweaks between the two. Musashi was also slightly faster for example. Just the kind of stuff you would typically see between sisters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,254 posts
737 battles
2 minutes ago, AdmiralPiett said:

There were lots of little tweaks between the two. Musashi was also slightly faster for example. Just the kind of stuff you would typically see between sisters.

I have the very book you mentioned, and I made a thread about the speed here.

There's some debate about whether it was 28.05 knots or 28.5 knots, since some sources say one and some say the other, and they both seem to reference the same trials since the given SHP was identical. There might have been a typo on one of the author's part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,641
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,090 posts
6,902 battles
9 minutes ago, bsbr said:

Some people here seems to have nothing better to do than constant belittling anything Japanese.

 

And some people here seem to have nothing better to do than be bsbr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,592
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,775 posts
3,895 battles
9 minutes ago, bsbr said:

Some people here seems to have nothing better to do than constant belittling anything Japanese.

 

Just now, Big_Spud said:

And some people here have nothing better to do than be bsbr.

 

What do these posts constructively add to the thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,641
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,090 posts
6,902 battles
3 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

 

 

What do these posts constructively add to the thread?

 

bsbr is a fairly well known troll when it comes to this sort of discussion about a very particular topic. Actual discussion with him is already a write-off, may as well poke fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,398
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,012 posts
9,970 battles
2 hours ago, Goodwood_Alpha said:

Kind of stupid of them, though, to go such lengths to build "the ultimate battleship" but then skimp on such elementary principles.

Doesn't seem like Yamato deserves her highest-in-game TDS, then.

Even more problematic is the choice for less efficient boilers. For a country with oil shortages, that seems like a glaring oversight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
Members
171 posts
4 minutes ago, Big_Spud said:

 

bsbr is a fairly well known troll when it comes to this sort of discussion about a very particular topic. Actual discussion with him is already a write-off, may as well poke fun.

so you decide to go around insulting people you don't like or disagree with.

 

Whatever problem with Yamato still let her take 11 torpedos and Musashi take 21 torps. Battleships don't fight each other with torps anyways. Yamato is design to dominate any american battleship that goes through the panama canal in the design is clearly able to do that if not swarmed by airstrikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,254 posts
737 battles
31 minutes ago, HazardDrake said:

Even more problematic is the choice for less efficient boilers. For a country with oil shortages, that seems like a glaring oversight.

It's more about the state of steam turbine technology, and in that area the US is just so far ahead of everyone else (barring possibly the Germans). The US pumped huge amounts of R&D money and resources into developing more efficient machinery, and introduced things like reliable double reduction gearing, more compact and reliable steam turbines, and higher temperature and pressure boilers. The fruit of that is very powerful and efficient machinery on warships.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
995
[LEGIO]
Members
3,144 posts
5,818 battles
Just now, bsbr said:

Whatever problem with Yamato still let her take 11 torpedos and Musashi take 21 torps. Battleships don't fight each other with torps anyways. Yamato is design to dominate any american battleship that goes through the panama canal in the design is clearly able to do that if not swarmed by airstrikes.

That's all well and good if the opposition plays along and doesn't use massed airpower and doesn't commit superior numbers of those "treaty" battleships.

 

War is unfair like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,398
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,012 posts
9,970 battles
1 minute ago, DeliciousFart said:

It's more about the state of steam turbine technology, and in that area the US is just so far ahead of everyone else (barring possibly the Germans). The US pumped huge amounts of money and resources into developing more efficient machinery, and introduced things like reliable double reduction gearing, more compact and reliable steam turbines, and higher temperature and pressure steam. The fruit of that is very powerful and efficient machinery.

Good point. 

 

On the subject of early battleships, people look at the use of turbines as some massive leap over reciprocating engines, when in fact they were extremely problematic. Direct drive turbines were extremely inefficient vs a VTE. Single reduction gearing helped, but you still usually had to put several turbines in series. It wasn't until double reduction gearing that turbine tech was finally mature.

 

Some ships, like Titanic, used a hybrid system. VTE for primary and a LP direct drive turbine to get extra power using the exaust steam from the VTEs.

 

Would have been neat to see turbo-electric get more development, but the treaties stopped that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
995
[LEGIO]
Members
3,144 posts
5,818 battles

I've been quite interested in the thought of what battleships the other naval powers would have built had they known the real specs of the Yamato class at an earlier date. In reality the closest comparable design was the Montana class but even that was designed without much information on Yamato. 

 

It's possible one of the other Montana designs with greater speed (30 knots for example) would have been built. This may be followed by a class armed with 9x new 18"/48 caliber "Mark 2" guns which would take some time to build.


Maybe the first of that class could be in service by 1944 although chances are the Yamatos will still be sunk by airpower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,398
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,012 posts
9,970 battles

Except the USN had rejected the idea of 18" guns, opting instead to improve amunition for existing guns.

 

I would forsee improved superheavy shells being developed and put into production. Knowing the Japanese limitations in fire control would have meant radar fire control development, to allow shooting and manuvering, would have been accelerated.

 

Just some ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
286
[NUWES]
Members
1,831 posts
6,029 battles
1 hour ago, DeliciousFart said:

It's more about the state of steam turbine technology, and in that area the US is just so far ahead of everyone else (barring possibly the Germans). The US pumped huge amounts of R&D money and resources into developing more efficient machinery, and introduced things like reliable double reduction gearing, more compact and reliable steam turbines, and higher temperature and pressure boilers. The fruit of that is very powerful and efficient machinery on warships.

The US was way ahead of the Germans on steam turbines. Germany had enormous problems with the engines on the Hippers and a number of their ships. They were so horrible the US had to use Prinz Eugen's former crew to help get the ship (a war prize after the war) to the US for analysis. US engineers couldn't keep the balky engines working. (The German crews had a lot of problems too but they had more practice at it.) German diesels on the other hand (like the Deutschlands had) were amazing. That's why the original plans for the Deutschland follow-ons (which became the Scharnhorsts) to use even better versions of the diesels until they got BB envy. I believe they were even working on diesels for the post-Bismarck BBs (which would be GK and FdG in the game).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,254 posts
737 battles
2 hours ago, HazardDrake said:

Good point. 

 

On the subject of early battleships, people look at the use of turbines as some massive leap over reciprocating engines, when in fact they were extremely problematic. Direct drive turbines were extremely inefficient vs a VTE. Single reduction gearing helped, but you still usually had to put several turbines in series. It wasn't until double reduction gearing that turbine tech was finally mature.

 

Some ships, like Titanic, used a hybrid system. VTE for primary and a LP direct drive turbine to get extra power using the exaust steam from the VTEs.

 

Would have been neat to see turbo-electric get more development, but the treaties stopped that.

In fact, turboelectric propulsion is coming back, now called Integrated Electric Propulsion, like you see on the new Zumwalt-class DDGs and the upcoming Columbia-class SSBN, only that instead of fuel oil and steam turbines, it's gas turbines and nuclear reactor + steam respectively.

 

36 minutes ago, Tzarevitch said:

The US was way ahead of the Germans on steam turbines. Germany had enormous problems with the engines on the Hippers and a number of their ships. They were so horrible the US had to use Prinz Eugen's former crew to help get the ship (a war prize after the war) to the US for analysis. US engineers couldn't keep the balky engines working. (The German crews had a lot of problems too but they had more practice at it.) German diesels on the other hand (like the Deutschlands had) were amazing. That's why the original plans for the Deutschland follow-ons (which became the Scharnhorsts) to use even better versions of the diesels until they got BB envy. I believe they were even working on diesels for the post-Bismarck BBs (which would be GK and FdG in the game).  

In fact, the H-39, which is the FDG in this game, uses diesel propulsion, which is why the funnels of that ship looks so unique compared to all the other BBs in game. The H-39/FDG is powered by 12 diesel engines (4 per shaft), which is why each of the 2 funnels have a cluster of 6 exhaust pipes. Diesels are taller and bulkier compared to steam but they have serious fuel efficiency advantages when cruising, which explains why the H-39 has such long range as designed. I'd imagine that diesels also start up and get up to power much quicker than steam, which requires the boilers to warm up first.

 

Imagine if that's in the game. While the FDG just steps on the gas and sails away, you in your Iowa are stuck in port waiting for the boilers to heat up.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,197
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,913 posts
15,583 battles
1 hour ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

I've been quite interested in the thought of what battleships the other naval powers would have built had they known the real specs of the Yamato class at an earlier date. In reality the closest comparable design was the Montana class but even that was designed without much information on Yamato. 

 

It's possible one of the other Montana designs with greater speed (30 knots for example) would have been built. This may be followed by a class armed with 9x new 18"/48 caliber "Mark 2" guns which would take some time to build.


Maybe the first of that class could be in service by 1944 although chances are the Yamatos will still be sunk by airpower.

 

If Yamato's nature had been known before the war, it would have only ignited another Battleship Arms Race.  Whatever treaties the other nations were abiding by would likely have been tossed out.

 

Of the major naval powers, the United States would have been the one to come up with something ridiculous soon.  The US had the money, it had the extensive shipyards.  The United States had already been designing North Carolina-class at the time of Japan's departure from the League of Nations and axing of any treaty participation, and Yamato's start of design.  South Dakota-class was not far behind, even Iowa-class was a pre-war US design.  Montana-class was also a pre-war design.

 

Would the Montana have been put forward?  Maybe.  Or Maybe the USN would elect to go with matching guns, who knows.  All we know is there'd be an arms race and the US Navy has the shipyards, the technology, and the money bags to win that race.

 

Japan depended on Yamato-class to be the surprise, qualitative edge vs US numbers.  If that surprise, qualitative edge of Yamato is known to everyone, then the Yamato program completely failed.  Their rivals would match accordingly.  Those same rivals would also outproduce the Japanese.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
Members
171 posts

Its funny how people constantly bashing Japanese ship don't even play them, like the person making this thread. You only ever play American ships and your blatant bias is so obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,197
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,913 posts
15,583 battles
11 minutes ago, bsbr said:

Its funny how people constantly bashing Japanese ship don't even play them, like the person making this thread. You only ever play American ships and your blatant bias is so obvious.

 

Facts are facts, did you read the article?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,254 posts
737 battles
22 minutes ago, bsbr said:

Its funny how people constantly bashing Japanese ship don't even play them, like the person making this thread. You only ever play American ships and your blatant bias is so obvious.

Yeah, because it's completely necessary for me to play a digital arcade representation of the ship in order for me to give historical and factual critiques for that ship.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
59 minutes ago, bsbr said:

Its funny how people constantly bashing Japanese ship don't even play them, like the person making this thread. You only ever play American ships and your blatant bias is so obvious.

Aaaaand another aidspig steps into the proverbial ring.

Are you sure you're correctly interpreting the intent of this thread so far, matey, and not simply diving into "the pit" so that everyone knows you were there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
488 posts
8,222 battles
5 hours ago, HazardDrake said:

Except the USN had rejected the idea of 18" guns, opting instead to improve amunition for existing guns.

 

I would forsee improved superheavy shells being developed and put into production. Knowing the Japanese limitations in fire control would have meant radar fire control development, to allow shooting and manuvering, would have been accelerated.

 

Just some ideas.

The USN rejected 18" guns on the basis that they were not needed. 16" with new SHS would do 'well enough'. They made that judgement without knowledge of Yamato, which wsas the point of the conjecture; what decision would have been made then.

 

The USN had the 18"/47 (45.7 cm) Mark A gun with super heavy shells. They built and tested it. Had it been fielded, it would have been the most powerful naval gun ever. If the Yamato had been leaked I can easily see a drive to fit the Montana class with these weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,398
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,012 posts
9,970 battles
1 hour ago, Xechran said:

The USN rejected 18" guns on the basis that they were not needed. 16" with new SHS would do 'well enough'. They made that judgement without knowledge of Yamato, which wsas the point of the conjecture; what decision would have been made then.

 

The USN had the 18"/47 (45.7 cm) Mark A gun with super heavy shells. They built and tested it. Had it been fielded, it would have been the most powerful naval gun ever. If the Yamato had been leaked I can easily see a drive to fit the Montana class with these weapons.

It is much more complex than that. I again doubt that the Navy would have gone to 18" guns.

 

18" guns were too heavy vs 16" guns. The number of guns carried on ships designs the navy was considering would have been unacceptably low. Six for an Iowa class, eight for a Montana. Shells per gun would also have been low.

 

Liner life was insufficient.

 

Shell handling became even more problematic due to the increased weight.

 

Lower rate of fire.

 

The Navy thought outside the box with the SHS. I feel they would have continued that trend in other areas as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,197
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,913 posts
15,583 battles
14 hours ago, HazardDrake said:

It is much more complex than that. I again doubt that the Navy would have gone to 18" guns.

 

18" guns were too heavy vs 16" guns. The number of guns carried on ships designs the navy was considering would have been unacceptably low. Six for an Iowa class, eight for a Montana. Shells per gun would also have been low.

 

Liner life was insufficient.

 

Shell handling became even more problematic due to the increased weight.

 

Lower rate of fire.

 

The Navy thought outside the box with the SHS. I feel they would have continued that trend in other areas as well.

 

There's also the fact that the US fielded more 16" guns than the IJN ever fielded of that caliber or larger.

 

3 Colorado-class with the 1920s era 16" guns:  18 24 total 16" guns. (math is hardz)

2 North Carolina-class with the newer, late 1930s era 16"/45 guns:  18 total 16"/45 guns.

4 South Dakota-class with the same 16"/45 guns:  36 total 16"/45 guns

4 Iowa-class with the new 16"/50 guns:  36 total 16"/50 guns

Keep in mind that 2 Iowa-class were cancelled because they were deemed no longer necessary.  In contrast, what did Japan field in 16" or larger armed Battleships?

 

2 Nagato-class with 1920s era 16" / 410mm guns:  16 total 16" guns

2 Yamato-class with 1930s era 18" / 460mm guns:  18 total 18" guns.  Edit:  I'll be generous and I will alter this to say Shinano being completed as a BB instead of a CVL.  So make it 27 total 18" guns.

That's it.

 

Historically, the USN fielded 114 16" rifles on Battleships vs the 34 43 16"+ of the IJN.  If Yamato didn't get rekt by those planes for Operation Ten-Go, she would have faced 3 Iowa-class, 3 South Dakota-class, and all their escorts.

 

Even with historically built ships, the USN buried the Japanese with firepower.  Again, all these US BBs were pre-war technology and not something the US had to whip up in the middle of the war for a quick answer.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
488 posts
8,222 battles
6 hours ago, HazardDrake said:

It is much more complex than that. I again doubt that the Navy would have gone to 18" guns.

 

18" guns were too heavy vs 16" guns. The number of guns carried on ships designs the navy was considering would have been unacceptably low. Six for an Iowa class, eight for a Montana. Shells per gun would also have been low.

...

The Navy thought outside the box with the SHS. I feel they would have continued that trend in other areas as well.

 

 

Not disputing the reason it was not done. But the USN stuck with 16" guns because they were good enough, fully a match for any contemporary they were known to face. If the Yamato specs had been leaked, with 18" guns and armor to match, the Montana would have been completely redesigned to support 18" guns as well - for two reasons. The obvious would have been to match the enemy in combat, Montana would have been reworked as a ship sporting and immune to 18" shellfire. The other aspect forcing it would have been political. Congress would not have stayed quiet about it, to say nothing of the international gamesmanship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×