Yamato plans given to USA

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:48 pm

lwd:
But if the US has the plans they know that the Yamato's are armed with 18.1" guns and weigh in around 68,000 tons.
Correct! That is what happens when you see the tree and forget about the forest: context!
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:58 pm

The intelligence assessment for these ships as of the time of Yamato’s “Final Sortie” may be judged by the following paragraph taken from Morison’s “History of U.S. Naval Operations in World War II,” Volume XIV:

“An eagerly anxious evening followed for TF 54. Staff officers familiar with range tables took care to remind others that Yamato’s 18.1-inch guns should have a maximum range of 45,000 yards, as against 42,000 for the 16-inch gunned battleships in Deyo’s force and 37,000 for [the 14-inch gunned] Tennessee; and that her speed should enable her to make an ‘end run’ and thrust at the transports.”
This statement effectively shows that at some point between the October 1944 battles around Leyte Gulf and Yamato’s final sortie in April 1945, the USN had come to a more complete and accurate appreciation of the Yamato’s true size and armament and was actively using that assessment for battle planning.
[/b]
This is,indeed, very important Lee! It appears, according to the article that before Leyte the USN official labeling of the Yamatos was that of a 45,000 ton 16" armed ship (which put her side by side with the Iowas). But after Leyte these guys were well aware of the potential of these ships.

If that`s so then it is clear that, when Operation Ten Go was underway, the decision to avoid a surface action in favour of an airborne attack was not only deisred but also logical. And obviosuly this changes the evaluations that we must do when considering that action.

:ok:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by Bgile » Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:11 pm

RF wrote:
At forty knots plus they would leave destroyers wallowing in their wake in anything other than a flat calm?
So you are saying a destroyer in calm water is impossible to hit? History says otherwise. Target speed really has very little to do with how difficult a target is to hit, assuming it isn't so close that your guns can't traverse fast enough. If you know how fast a target is going, you can aim at where it will be. Things like accurate range determination, correct determination of MPI, and so on are much more important than target speed.

User avatar
Gary
Senior Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Northumberland

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by Gary » Fri Feb 05, 2010 7:14 pm

If you look at the photo series of the "Glowworm/Hipper encounter" you can see she got close enough to ram H , mostly by being small , and a dodging target

Hipper was trying to engage Glowworm with her forward 8 inch turrets at almost point blank range.
It was like trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer.
Hipper was lucky not to blast her own bow cap :whistle:
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst

User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by hammy » Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:01 am

Destroyers in British service were trained to dodge and swerve about on the way in to launch torpedoes , while keeping a sharp eye on your neighbours to see they didn't start to Zig just as you Zagged , the opposing Battle-line being their putative target .
The 8 inch was definitely oversize for the job , the 5 to 6 inch was about the worldwide contemporary optimum , in a long barrelled , high M V , and flat-trajectory shooting mount .

I thought when high sheerline bows came in , meaning no zero elevation shots could be fired dead ahead from mount A , that some safety interlocking had been devised to stop you from shooting holes through your own deck , or am I wrong ?
Didn't Air gunners have to have the same thing to stop them shooting their own aeroplane's tails off ?
There is a "Target Hypnosis" human prediliction that means even trained guys can do this in action unintentionally , they are so focussed on the target , I think ?
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7603
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by RF » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:23 pm

Gary wrote:If you look at the photo series of the "Glowworm/Hipper encounter" you can see she got close enough to ram H , mostly by being small , and a dodging target

Hipper was trying to engage Glowworm with her forward 8 inch turrets at almost point blank range.
It was like trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer.
Hipper was lucky not to blast her own bow cap :whistle:
That suggests to me that the Hipper would in fact have been better engaged by ramming Glowworm at right angles. I saying this I am mindful of the later incident of Prinz Eugen ramming Leipzig, whereas Glowworm being a smaller vessel would present less difficulty in Hipper separating from its quarry.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Post Reply