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

7,595
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,775 posts
3,895 battles
27 minutes ago, AdmiralPiett said:

Yeah, there were many great design choices, but also some completely baffling ones. Particularly related to the TDS. I have seen similar trends with many IJN designs of warships and aircraft. Where the technical personnel that know things try to explain to the people demanding certain characteristics that their logic won't work so well in reality, only to be ignored. The design process behind G4M being another notable example.

 

Yeah you see this kind of behavior in the leadership with the A6M's design process as well, where they made demands for an aircraft that were extremely technically difficult, and could only be achieved by making sacrifices that we now know as major weaknesses of the plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
Members
171 posts

Of course if it was USS Yamato no one would be debating this crap. Large ships or not taking this many torpedos does not speak for Yamato or Musashi being weak at all.

Instead it's just USA USA USA here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
503
[MAHAN]
Beta Testers
1,445 posts
5,257 battles
23 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

 

Yeah you see this kind of behavior in the leadership with the A6M's design process as well, where they made demands for an aircraft that were extremely technically difficult, and could only be achieved by making sacrifices that we now know as major weaknesses of the plane.

 

The A6M lacking protection can be forgiven due to when it was designed, protection features were far from standard globally at that point. However, protection should have been among the first things added in variants beyond the A6M2.

 

The G4M was a different story. It would have been among the first designs in the world to incorporate the various protection features that would later become standard. This was because the IJNAS had gained tons of operational experience in China that should have drilled into their heads the need for protection features. The IJAAS actually got the memo, and their designs from the late 1930s on began to incorporate protection features until by late 1942 all their operational aircraft had the standard amount of armour and fuel tank protection found pretty much everywhere else. The Japanese Army was among the first to introduce partial fuel tank protection for their bombers in the late 1930s, along with radically improved defensive armament, in response to their wartime experience in China. The IJNAS lagged in this department. They improved defensive armament, but not protection features. The lead designer of the G4M wanted to add such features, but the IJN said "no." The Japanese Navy didn't go all-in with aircraft protection until late 1943 and into 1944 (with a couple exceptions earlier on). By that point they had bigger problems. The logic behind the G4M, from higher ups, was this:

 

G3M losses in China had been unacceptably high at the start of the war in China, in part due to a lack of protection (G3M gets a free pass, since nobody's bombers had protection at that time), BUT

 

Spoiler

 

after fighter escorts were used in conjunction with the bombers, the latter's losses dropped to acceptable levels. Therefore, we don't need to provide lots of protection for our bombers as long as they have fighter escort because they won't be getting shot at very much.

 

Of course the problem with that logic is the IJNAS was using experience from a period in the China war when they were operating with air superiority most of the time, leading to much lower losses. When that logic was tested in the heavily contested airspace of the south Pacific, it went up in flames along with the Rikko units. By the time the G4M started getting protection features, it didn't matter. The Japanese air services were operating in the face of enemy air superiority, and having protected fuel tanks and armour wasn't going to help stem losses in that environment.

Edited by AdmiralPiett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,595
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,775 posts
3,895 battles
17 minutes ago, bsbr said:

Of course if it was USS Yamato no one would be debating this crap. Large ships or not taking this many torpedos does not speak for Yamato or Musashi being weak at all.

Instead it's just USA USA USA here.

 

I don't see anyone arguing that Iowa or Missouri would be even remotely capable of withstanding Operation Ten-Go or Battle of Shibuyan Sea any better than Yamato or Musashi did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
488 posts
8,222 battles
14 minutes ago, bsbr said:

Of course if it was USS Yamato no one would be debating this crap. Large ships or not taking this many torpedos does not speak for Yamato or Musashi being weak at all.

Instead it's just USA USA USA here.

 

 

Being able to take a lot of torpedoes means two things: they were wide beamed (a result of poor boiler technology), and the attacks came in fantastically fast.

 

Rather than heralding the finishing attack, you need to account for the poor TDS performance when being hit by a single torpedo. The common comparison being made to the North Carolina, who was hit in the weakest area of her protection system abreast her forward magazine. Her narrow beam at the forward turret cut into the TDS area. When the IJN torpedoed her, she took on 970 tons of water. Again, at her weakest point. Compared to the 5,000 tons of the Yamato class. That requires examination and explanation. It should not have failed that catastrophically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,595
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,775 posts
3,895 battles
18 minutes ago, Xechran said:

Being able to take a lot of torpedoes means two things: they were wide beamed (a result of poor boiler technology), and the attacks came in fantastically fast.

 

Rather than heralding the finishing attack, you need to account for the poor TDS performance when being hit by a single torpedo. The common comparison being made to the North Carolina, who was hit in the weakest area of her protection system abreast her forward magazine. Her narrow beam at the forward turret cut into the TDS area. When the IJN torpedoed her, she took on 970 tons of water. Again, at her weakest point. Compared to the 5,000 tons of the Yamato class. That requires examination and explanation. It should not have failed that catastrophically.

EDIT: Nevermind, recalling the wrong event.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
488 posts
8,222 battles

Did it not? I was under the impression it did. Something to look into.

 

Ya I thought so, it was an area protected by TDS, it was abreast the aft turret. The link in the OP can provide details. I was wrong on the water shipped. Was 3,000 not 5,000.

Edited by Xechran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
Members
171 posts

And I bet if this was some USN ship like Iowa there wouldn't be so much endless debate saying how bad the design is and crap. Yamato and Musashi took tons of beating to finally go down, the design is fine.

hurr durr murica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,650
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,092 posts
6,917 battles
4 minutes ago, bsbr said:

And I bet if this was some USN ship like Iowa there wouldn't be so much endless debate saying how bad the design is and crap. Yamato and Musashi took tons of beating to finally go down, the design is fine.

hurr durr murica

 

People have been literally endlessly dogging on Iowa for spending 10,000 tons for 6 knots, with very little improvement elsewhere since before the ship was even laid down.

 

Hurr durr nippon

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,398
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,012 posts
9,978 battles
6 minutes ago, bsbr said:

And I bet if this was some USN ship like Iowa there wouldn't be so much endless debate saying how bad the design is and crap. Yamato and Musashi took tons of beating to finally go down, the design is fine.

hurr durr murica

US designs are ROUTINELY criticized when it actually is crap. 

 

Early war US torpedoes are just one example.

 

The S-boat submarines were severely lacking, but provided valuable practical lessons. 

 

Both ships were mission killed quickly. The USN wanted it dead ASAP and kept attacking it till it was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
Members
171 posts

if this liquid loading thing is truly better it makes no sense Yamato designers know about it but don't use it. There must be some other way to defend against torpedos. Yes they are large ships but taking 19+ torpedos does not imply many fatal flaws and has excellent protection.

 

The OP's agenda and endless bashing of anything not USN is disgustingly obvious. He plays nothing but USN ships, which is telling. He thinks have a stupid childish name like his makes him funny or cool. If he's got problems against Yamato he should learn how to play first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,650
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,092 posts
6,917 battles
19 minutes ago, bsbr said:

if this liquid loading thing is truly better it makes no sense Yamato designers know about it but don't use it. There must be some other way to defend against torpedos. Yes they are large ships but taking 19+ torpedos does not imply many fatal flaws and has excellent protection.

 

The OP's agenda and endless bashing of anything not USN is disgustingly obvious. He plays nothing but USN ships, which is telling. He thinks have a stupid childish name like his makes him funny or cool. If he's got problems against Yamato he should learn how to play first.

 

Sounds like you're the one with an agenda to push here.

 

You're trying awfully hard to debase a guy who has posted nothing but facts and fostered some interesting discussion.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,650
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,092 posts
6,917 battles
4 minutes ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

bsbr acts like somebody insulted his waifu.

 

It's just boat, why you heff to be mad?

 

 

Its better yet, he's been sending me rage/insult PM's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,254 posts
737 battles

LOL he challenged me in PM to list any bad US equipment during WW2. U mad bro?

 

I'll entertain him publicly then. How about the all around atrocious Brewster Buccaneer? Or the numerous controllability issues with the Curtiss SB2C? Or the notoriously terrible early Mk 13 torpedoes? Or how USN Class A cemented armor had an overly thick face-hardened layer that resulted in less resistance against battleship caliber shells compared to British NCA?

 

If we want to stretch beyond WW2, how about the A-12 Avenger debacle I mentioned earlier? Or the M60 machine gun?

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,595
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,775 posts
3,895 battles
30 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

LOL he challenged me in PM to list any bad US equipment during WW2. U mad bro?

 

I'll entertain him publicly then. How about the all around atrocious Brewster Buccaneer? Or the numerous controllability issues with the Curtiss SB2C? Or the notoriously terrible early Mk 13 torpedoes? Or how USN Class A cemented armor had an overly thick face-hardened layer that resulted in less resistance against battleship caliber shells compared to British NCA?

 

If we want to stretch beyond WW2, how about the A-12 Avenger debacle I mentioned earlier? Or the M60 machine gun?

Man someone went off on me on this forum for daring to bring up how garbage the Helldiver is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,507 posts
1,138 battles
1 hour ago, DeliciousFart said:

LOL he challenged me in PM to list any bad US equipment during WW2. U mad bro?

 

I'll entertain him publicly then. How about the all around atrocious Brewster Buccaneer? Or the numerous controllability issues with the Curtiss SB2C? Or the notoriously terrible early Mk 13 torpedoes? Or how USN Class A cemented armor had an overly thick face-hardened layer that resulted in less resistance against battleship caliber shells compared to British NCA?

 

If we want to stretch beyond WW2, how about the A-12 Avenger debacle I mentioned earlier? Or the M60 machine gun?

Or the F-35

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,507 posts
1,138 battles
2 hours ago, bsbr said:

if this liquid loading thing is truly better it makes no sense Yamato designers know about it but don't use it. There must be some other way to defend against torpedos. Yes they are large ships but taking 19+ torpedos does not imply many fatal flaws and has excellent protection.

 

The OP's agenda and endless bashing of anything not USN is disgustingly obvious. He plays nothing but USN ships, which is telling. He thinks have a stupid childish name like his makes him funny or cool. If he's got problems against Yamato he should learn how to play first.

jimmies.gif.b2cac7fdb5dc524f6d8432ae915cfd7b.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,507 posts
1,138 battles
2 minutes ago, xX_Critical_ClopOut69_Xx said:

 

"Hurr hurr F-35 is total garbage guise xdddd"

 

I wonder how many I'll get to check off today.....

 

4d0.thumb.jpg.c71f0ccb675cf115b0a431fd6ea8aa2f.jpg

I didn't think there were people on earth who actually willingly defend a ridiculously expensive runway ornament that's infinitely worse in a fighter role than the F-22 and infinitely worse in a ground attack role than either the A-10 or the AH-64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,595
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,775 posts
3,895 battles
10 minutes ago, xX_Critical_ClopOut69_Xx said:

"Hurr hurr F-35 is total garbage guise xdddd"

 

I wonder how many I'll get to check off today.....

 

Wow you actually think that thing is worth the investment that's been put into it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,338 posts
2,743 battles
3 minutes ago, More_Witches said:

I didn't think there were people on earth who actually willingly defend a ridiculously expensive runway ornament that's infinitely worse in a fighter role than the F-22 and infinitely worse in a ground attack role than either the A-10 or the AH-64

 

So I count five boxes ticked off with one sentence, not too bad.

 

Just now, AraAragami said:

 

Wow you actually think that thing is worth the investment that's been put into it?

 

Everybody loves to jump on the F-35 hate bandwagon however, almost everyone who does is very poorly informed on the subject. The individual price of the F-35A is roughly $94.6m right now, decreasing to $90m later this year, roughly $85m by the end of next year/early 2019 and about $77m by 2020, so long as the project stays on track, which it is. The F-22 is still the most expensive aircraft by sheer flyaway cost. 

 

Keep in mind the United States spent $1.5 trillion on the F-35. This includes developing the aircraft, buying 2,400 of them and the next 50 years operating costs, not too bad honestly. 

 

Every other relevant NATO nation is buying them, that must mean everybody wants a garbage aircraft and are Lockheed shills amirite boys? No, it's because the F-35 is a perfectly fine and priced aircraft. 

 

But I'm a complete aircraft layman, so keep circle jerking away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,507 posts
1,138 battles
2 minutes ago, xX_Critical_ClopOut69_Xx said:

 

So I count five boxes ticked off with one sentence, not too bad.

 

 

Everybody loves to jump on the F-35 hate bandwagon however, almost everyone who does is very poorly informed on the subject. The individual price of the F-35A is roughly $94.6m right now, decreasing to $90m later this year, roughly $85m by the end of next year/early 2019 and about $77m by 2020, so long as the project stays on track, which it is. The F-22 is still the most expensive aircraft by sheer flyaway cost. 

 

Keep in mind the United States spent $1.5 trillion on the F-35. This includes developing the aircraft, buying 2,400 of them and the next 50 years operating costs, not too bad honestly. 

 

Every other relevant NATO nation is buying them, that must mean everybody wants a garbage aircraft and are Lockheed shills amirite boys? No, it's because the F-35 is a perfectly fine and priced aircraft. 

 

But I'm a complete aircraft layman, so keep circle jerking away.

Cause other nations have never, ever purchased anything defective, right?

At least we can actually expect more than half of our F-22 fleet to be able to get off the ground and do its job at any given moment, and we can at least expect an A-10 to actually kill a tank, instead of moderately annoy its crew

Share this post


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

Or the F-35

To avoid dragging things way off topic, let's just say that it's true the F-35 program had some glaring management problems and ended up being much later and more expensive than originally planned, but then again these difficulties aren't unique to the F-35. The F-22 was delayed by some 2 years, and even now struggles with upgrades because of its integrated avionics still running on Ada. The Su-57 is also very delayed, and it won't even enter service with its final engines until well after 2020. It's the nature of the 5th generation aircraft program. Stealth aircraft is very difficult to develop. Let's not forget how long it took for the Typhoon to enter service, and so far it still lacks an in-service AESA. None of that excuses the huge management missteps of the F-35 though.

 

As for the aircraft, expensive and delayed as it may, it will be a very effective weapon. Paper stats don't seem all that impressive, but really, the aircraft will be a giant leap in terms of information gathering and countering air defense networks and performing strike missions in non-permissive environments. I mean, it's true that the raw aerodynamic performance isn't all that different from an air-to-air loaded F-16 or F-18, but that still makes it reasonably dangerous in air combat against even something like an F-22. When you factor in the stealth, the avionics and networking, and consider that it's a part of a larger "combat cloud", you have a weapon that may be ugly, but effective.

 

As for CAS, you do realize that the A-10 excels mainly in permissive environments right? In a counter-insurgency role or in an area without a robust air defense system, it shines. Once advanced MANPADS or networked SAMs enter the arena, you wouldn't want those flying anywhere close to the frontline.

Edited by DeliciousFart
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,398
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,012 posts
9,978 battles

Except we saw exactly what happens to stealth aircraft against a COMPETENT opponent in Kosovo. Two F117s destroyed, Serbian air defenses never neutralized to the point where NATO planes could dip their toes below 15,000', and Serbian ground forces only taking minimal damage.

 

Stealth isn't gonna go away, but purpose build aircraft with it at the top of the list likely will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×