Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Yamato Class Battleships

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Yamato's were also the sole battleships of their generation to use a completely dry system of torpedo protection. There was no liquid loading like other systems used. This made them very vulnerable to flooding and counter flooding with the resultant destabilization of metacentric height.

    Comment


    • #77
      18 tubes versus 9? Gunfire rate of the two British ships about 30 to 50% fastser? Availability of ranging gunfire radar?

      Yamato gets pummelled in short order at 20 to 25,000 yards and the British then close and finish her off completely.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        8" shells versus battleships have very little, if any effect on them. Not just here but every time be it Bismarck's final battle, Scharnhorst's final fight, or elsewhere. They just lack the weight to be effective.


        See attachment from page 239 of:

        http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...orfolk&f=false

        As a result of an early 8" shell from HMS Norfolk, main forward fire control was put out of action, seriously degrading Bismarck's gunnery.
        Attached Files
        Last edited by At ease; 01 Jan 13, 10:48.
        "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
        "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

        "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
        Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by At ease View Post
          See attachment from page 239 of:

          http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...orfolk&f=false

          As a result of an early 8" shell from HMS Norfolk, main forward fire control was put out of action, seriously degrading Bismarck's gunnery.
          They worked pretty well against the Hiei off Guadalcanal.
          "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by At ease View Post
            See attachment from page 239 of:

            http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...orfolk&f=false

            As a result of an early 8" shell from HMS Norfolk, main forward fire control was put out of action, seriously degrading Bismarck's gunnery.
            I did note an exception for the lucky hit on something like a fire control director, radar, or such in that commentary too. But, those are exceptions not the rule. Generally, 8" shells have little effect on a battleship.

            Comment


            • #81
              8" shells from HMS Exeter also spoiled Kapitan Langsdorff's day.
              "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
              "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

              "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
              Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                I did note an exception for the lucky hit on something like a fire control director, radar, or such in that commentary too. But, those are exceptions not the rule. Generally, 8" shells have little effect on a battleship.
                My point was that Japanese battleship armor was of poorer strength and wasn't up to the quality of their Allied counterparts, in terms of warding off even 8-inch, heavy cruiser gunfire at close range. USN Heavy Cruisers, at close range, shot the IJN Hiei to pieces during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. During that engagement, US destroyers also closed to point blank range to pepper the Hiei's upper works with 5-inch gunfire that started numerous fires and secondary explosions. While 5-inch gunfire couldn't penetrate Hiei's armor belt, I see numerous examples where the US Heavy Cruiser's probably did so at close range.
                "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by johnbryan View Post
                  My point was that Japanese battleship armor was of poorer strength and wasn't up to the quality of their Allied counterparts, in terms of warding off even 8-inch, heavy cruiser gunfire at close range. USN Heavy Cruisers, at close range, shot the IJN Hiei to pieces during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. During that engagement, US destroyers also closed to point blank range to pepper the Hiei's upper works with 5-inch gunfire that started numerous fires and secondary explosions. While 5-inch gunfire couldn't penetrate Hiei's armor belt, I see numerous examples where the US Heavy Cruiser's probably did so at close range.
                  and how old was the Hei. and she was not a battleship

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Correct craven. While it is notable that under extremely favorable circumstances 'modern' warships could 'hit above their weight', it is also notable that the Hiei was not a BB. Hiei was a 'modernized BC', of the Kongo class. Japanese naming conventions changed the entire class to a 'BB' rating, not on capability, but rather that BCs were a thing of the past and Fast Battleships were equal in speed to the Kongos. The only increase in protection against shellfire that Hiei received after her launching in 1912 was a doubling of deck armor, to 100mm. Otherwise she was in all essence a 'superdreadnought' with a turn of speed compared to her WWI contemporaries.
                    Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by At ease View Post
                      8" shells from HMS Exeter also spoiled Kapitan Langsdorff's day.
                      The Graf Spee wasn't anywhere close to a battleship.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                        The Graf Spee wasn't anywhere close to a battleship.
                        I'm well aware of what class of ship Graf Spee was.

                        My point of my 2 previous posts in this thread, in rebuttal to TAG's earlier post, is that 8" shells are more than capable of inflicting grave damage to much heavier opponents.

                        These shells might not sink a much better protected opponent, but armour cannot be everywhere and therefore much damage can be inflicted to the extent that, as was seen at the River Plate action and in Bismark's last, they can be fundamental in rendering an opponent helpless.
                        Last edited by At ease; 02 Jan 13, 00:25.
                        "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
                        "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

                        "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
                        Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by At ease View Post
                          See attachment from page 239 of:

                          http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...orfolk&f=false

                          As a result of an early 8" shell from HMS Norfolk, main forward fire control was put out of action, seriously degrading Bismarck's gunnery.

                          Actually, Norfolk made something of a habit of this. She did much the same to Scharnhorst at the Battle of North Cape.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Thank you DS for jogging my failing memory, and it goes to show the first time was not just a "lucky" shot.
                            "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
                            "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

                            "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
                            Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              There is also a popular theory that it was an 8" shell from Prinz Eugen that sank the Hood, not a hit from Bismarck.
                              "Why is the Rum gone?"

                              -Captain Jack

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                                There is also a popular theory that it was an 8" shell from Prinz Eugen that sank the Hood, not a hit from Bismarck.
                                That assertion has been looked at in great detail here:

                                http://www.warship.org/loss_of_hms_hood__part_3.htm

                                and has been summarised in the negative:

                                Although a hit from Prinz Eugen could possibly have caused the fire in Hood's after superstructure, it would have been almost impossible for such a hit to have penetrated to the after magazines.79 Prinz Eugen may have been able to hurt the Hood, but she would almost certainly be unable to kill her.
                                "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
                                "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

                                "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
                                Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X